2015-01-27_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Cihacek opined that he found the proposed ordinance revisions fine, but questioned long-term impacts, and suggested that as staff moved forward from initial inspections, they consider future impacts and schedule future discussion of those potential impacts moving forward. Ms. Giga noted that many cities, as part of their annual pavement management program (PMP), have televised sewer inspections as part of their process to determine if a significant amount of clear water is coming into the system, and at that point send written notice to property owners in that area that inspections would be performed. In Section 802.11, Ms. Giga noted additional language, modeled from ordinance in three other communities (St. Anthony, Arden Hills and Golden Valley), with language suggested not as stringent or aggressive as those communities, nor with the stiff fine for those found not in compliance. Ms. Giga advised that the Arden Hills model was found to be more general and less detailed, especially the portion addressing surcharges for those found not in compliance at the determination of the City Council, with that fee included in the annual fee schedule and periodically updated to avoid seeming arbitrary or capricious. Chair Stenlund concurred with the language; but opined it was unfair for the City Council to penalize property owners, preferring to set a fee to avoid being arbitrary and capricious. Ms. Giga referenced language of the St. Anthony model(Section G) regarding the City not issuing permits for any property found not in compliance and required inspections at the time any other permits are being pulled, noting that this language could be incorporated for future inspections. Regarding rates and charges, Ms. Giga provided a table showing other city fees for surcharges and non-compliance continuing after re-inspection, with that research based on a survey of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Fridley, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Minnetonka, Mounds View, New Hope, Plymouth, Shoreview, St. Anthony and West St. Paul. At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver noted the intent of a community was to provide the appropriate fee for non-compliance that would provide sufficient financial incentive to become compliant in a timely manner. Mr. Culver estimated the cost for sump pump connections could vary from several hundred to several thousand dollars depending on the amount of piping required to reroute discharges to the exterior of a home. Member Seigler expressed concern that elderly residents may not have money to pay the surcharge, nor to pay for work needing done to reroute connections. Mr. Schwartz noted that concern for future reference, while reiterating that the initial issue is gathering data, with proposed ordinance language to address that Page 6 of 14