2015-03-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

445 Mr. Schwartz concurred that he could support the ownership to the property line 446 for water lines scenario in most cases, but in situations when a plumber was hired 447 by the homeowner to switch a home from a private well to City water, or in cases 448 where a contractor installed a line improperly, it would be difficult to justify 449 accepting those lines on an "as is" basis. 450 451 Member Wozniak noted that, in his personal case, the main shut-off valve was 452 actually located in his neighbor's property across the street at least that was where 453 the contractor went to thaw the water line during his first winter owning the 454 home. 455 A& 456 Mr. Culver asked for those addresses to further investigate that situation. 457 458 Mr. Schwartz sought clarification as to whether that was the first time the line 459 froze shortly after a road project was ompleted and the grade changed. 460 461 Member Wozniak responded negatively, advising that they were already on the 462 notification list for potential freeze -ups. 463 464 Regarding lateral sewer lines, Member Wo is agreed with Chair S enlund's 465 comments, opining that he had more influence in what went into the lateral and 466 therefore bore some respons' 'lity for affecting its op ration or landscaping 467 installed over the line. 468 469 Member Gjerdingen opined that he was hesitant for the City to take on that total 470 cost, noting that the money had to come from somewhere; and questioned where 471 that was and if it was always allotted only to this purpose. In cases for high 472 density housing (HDR), Member Gjerdingen suggested a more efficient water 473 main cost for repair and/or maintenance was available to that property owner over 474 time, but would be unfairly hit witlny property tax increase to cover these costs. 475 Member Gjerdingen opined that the same applied to some commercial properties, 476 as well as some county roads in which the City owned the mains. Member 477 Gjerdingen opined that, from his perspective, it made more sense to add a higher 478 construction replacement cost, as it could be that one property owner could decide 479 to push off repairs but during the middle of winter, the line broke. Member 480 Gjerdingen opined that during large reconstruction projects, it provided the 481 perfect time to replace lines. Member Gjerdingen stated that he could consider 482 the City taking ownership of the laterals on some roads, but was not sure if he 483 could support that city-wide. 484 485 Member Cihacek questioned if this was going to be considered as an additional 486 cost or fee applied to utility bills to address future maintenance costs or would it 487 be an additional surcharge added to pay for this amortized cost over time. 488 489 Mr. Schwartz questioned if he was suggesting it would be like a property owner 490 having an insurance policy for its own water and/or sewer lines. Page 11 of 19