2015-03-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

263 the contractor is set up with their equipment, and noted a hole would need to be 264 dug nearer the house. In staff's consultation with contractors doing this work, Mr. 265 Schwartz advised that they all agree that the only way to get the cost down is to 266 put together a larger scale project. 267 268 Member Lenz sought clarification on the location of the sewer line, with Mr. 269 Schwartz confirming that sanitary sewer mains run down the center of the street, 270 but the water mains are offset left or right of that, with the property owner 271 currently responsible for however long that lateral line is from the main to the 272 home depending on which side of the street they liv 273 274 At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Schwartz con armed that the City of 275 Roseville's Finance Department worked with residents on timed payments or 276 deferrals for hardship cases, with interested charged for the duration of the 277 deferment and until the home is sold. Even though assistance programs are in 278 place for residents in need, Mr. Schwartz noted that the Finance Department 279 advised few took advantage of these options, since the interest rat typically 280 charged is higher than the private sector 281 282 At the request of Member Felice, Mr. Sch rtz c arified how and wh n 283 economies of scale could be applied for replacing or lining laterals if it was part 284 of an organized effort, but questioned how to incent residents to get the necessary 285 100% participa ' n. 286 287 Member cek questioned if homeowners wouldn't be incentivized by the 288 obvious c t differential. 289 290 Mr. Culver responded that if the City had the responsibility for laterals within the 291 street, they would automatically make replacement or lining of those lines, as 292 applicable, part of their main line replacement or lining projects, since it would 293 behoove the City to be proactive in lining laterals up to property lines or replacing 294 them when trenches are already open, providing some economies of scale. 295 296 From his personal perspective, Chair Stenlund opined that his rights and 297 responsibilities should stop at his property line, since he can't shut off the water 298 beyond that if he didn't own the pipe or line. An example would be if tree roots 299 from a tree planted on the boulevard, which would be in the City's right-of-way, 300 filled a line, he couldn't remove the tree. Based on that scenario, Chair Stenlund 301 opined that the City should own the lines and/or laterals up to the private property 302 line, and the property owner should own from the street to the home. However, 303 Chair Stenlund recognized that life isn't fair, and if he chose to do nothing at his 304 property line, it became a quality control issue for the City and the property 305 owner's neighbors. If a cleanout valve was in place at the property line, and 306 videotaping done from that point, Chair Stenlund opined that it provided more 307 uniformity for all parties. 308 Page 7 of 19