Laserfiche WebLink
215 <br />Member Cihacek opined that he found the proposed ordinance revisions fine, but <br />216 <br />questioned long-term impacts, and suggested that as staff moved forward from <br />217 <br />initial inspections, they consider future impacts and schedule future discussion of <br />218 <br />those potential impacts moving forward. <br />219 <br />220 <br />Ms. Giga noted that many cities, as part of their annual pavement management <br />221 <br />program (PMP), have televised sewer inspections as part of their process to <br />222 <br />determine if a significant amount of clear water is coming into the system, and at <br />223 <br />that point send written notice to property owners in that area that inspections <br />224 <br />would be performed. <br />225 <br />226 <br />In Section 802.11, Ms. Giga noted additional la ge, modeled from ordinance <br />227 <br />in three other communities (St. Anthony, Arden Hills and Golden Valley), with <br />228 <br />language suggested not as stringent or aggressive ascommunities, nor with <br />229 <br />the stiff fine for those found not in compliance. Ms. G dvised that the Arden <br />230 <br />Hills model was found to be more general and less detailed, especially the portion <br />231 <br />addressing surcharges for those found not in compliance at the determination of <br />232 <br />the City Council, with that fee included in the schedule and <br />233 <br />234 <br />Pfee <br />periodically updated to a 'dseeming arbitrarricious. <br />235 <br />Chair Stenlund concurred with the language; but opined it was unfair for the City <br />236 <br />Council to penalize property owners, preferring to set a fee to avoid being <br />237 <br />arbitrary and capricious. -3mkhh, NIL <br />238 <br />239 Ms. Giga referenced language of the St. Anthony model (Section G) regarding the <br />240 City not issuing permits for any property found not in compliance and required <br />241 inspections at the time any other permits are being pulled, noting that this <br />242 language could be incorporated for future inspections. Regarding rates and <br />243 charges, Ms. Giga provided a table showing other city fees for surcharges and <br />244 non-compliance continuing after re-iiqpection, with that research based on a <br />245 survey of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Fridley, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, <br />246 Minnetonka, Mounds View, New Hope, Plymouth, Shoreview, St. Anthony and <br />247 West St. Paul. <br />248 <br />249 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver noted the intent of a community <br />250 was to provide the appropriate fee for non-compliance that would provide <br />251 sufficient financial incentive to become compliant in a timely manner. Mr. <br />252 Culver estimated the cost for sump pump connections could vary from several <br />253 hundred to several thousand dollars depending on the amount of piping required <br />254 to reroute discharges to the exterior of a home. <br />255 <br />256 Member Seigler expressed concern that elderly residents may not have money to <br />257 pay the surcharge, nor to pay for work needing done to reroute connections. <br />258 <br />259 Mr. Schwartz noted that concern for future reference, while reiterating that the <br />260 initial issue is gathering data, with proposed ordinance language to address that <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />