My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0611
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0611
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2012 12:34:10 PM
Creation date
6/20/2012 12:33:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/11/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,June 11,2012 <br /> Page 21 <br /> Council could still review those cases individually and separately from this pol- <br /> icy. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of such a case by case review. <br /> Councilmember Pust questioned how to handle situations when a homeowner <br /> contacted a neighbor or relative for assistance with a blockage and the City <br /> wasn't alerted immediately; and how those people would be covered and/or re- <br /> imbursed. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that, typically, a homeowner would have their private <br /> contractor clean a blockage in their line, but not the City line. Mr. Schwartz re- <br /> viewed various options to alert and educate the public about this policy; and re- <br /> minders to call the City first. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was typical that <br /> homeowners would incur costs after the City had been notified and verified <br /> where the blockage occurred. <br /> Ms. Davitt noted that most residents typically called their own plumber to look <br /> at the situation, and the plumber then called the City. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Schwartz concurred that this was a <br /> typical, industry-wide process. <br /> Councilmember McGehee observed that a blockage in a private line was less <br /> massive in volume that that in a City line. <br /> Mayor Roe questioned procedurally if it made more sense from staff's perspec- <br /> tive to have the policy adopted by motion as a policy, or as an ordinance and in- <br /> cluded as part of City Code supported by the City Council majority. Mayor Roe <br /> provided his rationale in considering it as an ordinance that may make it more <br /> public through publication and incorporated in City Code. <br /> City Manager Malinen advised that staff's recommendation was to have it re- <br /> main as a policy, not an ordinance or law, to allow more flexibility. City Man- <br /> ager Malinen noted that staff would administer the policy in whichever way the <br /> City Council chose to adopt it. Regarding educational aspects, City Manager <br /> Malinen opined that adoption as a policy and not an ordinance allowed for more <br /> flexibility for the City Council and the community as a whole. City Manager <br /> Malinen noted that, from staff's perspective, funding issues for the policy may <br /> come into play. Councilmember Pust stated that she thought policies and ordi- <br /> nances were equally enforceable. <br /> Pust moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of the Residential Sanitary Sewer <br /> Backup Cleanup Assistance Policy(Attachment A). <br /> Councilmember McGehee offered a friendly amendment stipulating that the <br /> policy be mailed out to all residential homeowners with the education sheets or <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.