2008_0630_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

on our basement floor was basically a band-aid for the bigger problem that would ensue. As a homeowner and a real estate agent, I understand that maintaining a home can be expensive and things like replacing pipes just need to be done sometimes. That being said, there are unusual circumstances that complicate this situation and ultimately made it a much more expensive repair. First, as explained, the site of the problem was where the steel pipe coming from our house meet the clay the stub that connects us to the to the city sewer. Again, the source of the problem was what was used to connect the two pipes degrading over time, compromising the integrity of the connection and allowing tree roots to enter the line, not the line itself. Again, our pipe was in satisfactory condition. According to City Code, the homeowner is responsible for the line until it hits the "Y" of the city sewer. We understand that from the City's vantage point, it is the homeowner's responsibility to cover any and all expenses that occur before the "Y." We are, however, asking you to please look at this situation and consider sharing the expense with us. This was not a break somewhere in the line on the way to the connection, but rather AT the site of where our pipe ties on to City. Admittedly, neither my husband or I know anything about the city sewer's infrastructure. We presume that if this problem did not adversely effect us first, it would have eventually caused a problem for the City. This problem was a ticking time bomb and it was a matter of time before it was going to cause a problem for one of us. We had the misfortune of having it effect us first. To us, we feel since we share the connection, we should also share in the responsibility of getting this problem corrected. What complicates the situation further is the burden that the County has put on us as individual homeowners. Years ago, when the sewer system was installed, the stub was located on the south side of our property, somewhere in the front yard. For the greater good of Roseville and the general public, County Road B has been widened at least twice and a sidewalk has been added. Each time one of these projects happened, residential property was taken away from the homeowner. Consequently, the area where digging needed to be done was at the shoulder of the road, which is made of 7-inch thick concrete. We understand that the idea behind eminent domain is to take private property for public use and the greater good. The previous homeowners had no choice but to accept that the road was going to be widened. As the current homeowners, an undue burden was placed on us when we needed to gain access to the sewer connection which used to be in our front yard. What makes this situation even more frustrating is the "hands off' stance the County takes with regards to the City sewer -- that they have nothing to do with the City's sewer and it's up to the City and homeowner to maintain it. They seem to have forgotten that they laid 7 inches of concrete over our sewer connection, thereby inhibiting our ability to access the sewer. What originally magnified the situation is the amount of road that Ramsey County was saying we needed to replace. A 5x8' hole needed to be cut in the concrete to access the pipe by Roto Rooter. Ramsey County was saying that repairing the 5x8' section of concrete was not sufficient and that a 12'x2O' section of concrete needed to be replaced, even though the area effected was on the shoulder of the road. What