My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-02-24_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-02-24_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2015 8:51:39 AM
Creation date
3/26/2015 8:51:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/24/2015
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
Member Cihacek suggested instead of adding it to taxes, it could be done <br /> property-wise and added to fees as applicable. <br /> Mr. Culver questioned if Member Cihacek intended that as pre- or post- <br /> replacement. <br /> Member Cihacek opined that it could be either; stating that he'd be fine with an <br /> additional $5 fee to make sure funds are available if and when needed, and if not <br /> used or the ownership of a property changes, it could be refunded. Member <br /> Cihacek opined that this way there would be a pot of money for repairs; but <br /> admitted he was not sure if that would be viable depending on surcharge rules <br /> under which the municipality and its utilities were governed. <br /> Chair Stenlund suggested a fee that went into a pool to take care of any situation <br /> in the City of Roseville. <br /> Member Seigler stated that he had no problem with an assessment for repair, but <br /> would like to see a cap, especially if there were unique situations; with the City <br /> being responsible for smaller liabilities and protecting some of the other unique <br /> situations. <br /> Mr. Schwartz stated they had run into unique situations in the past, especially <br /> with county and/or wider roadways, when repair or replacement would become an <br /> undue burden for those adjacent property owners. <br /> Mr. Schwartz summarized his understanding of tonight's discussion for staff to <br /> provide additional information as noted and hold more detailed discussions with <br /> the Finance Department. <br /> Additional information needs for future discussion included: point-of-sale <br /> options, financing and capping costs and how to address various situations, at <br /> what point ownership began, and how to examine and document clean-out valves <br /> as homes or new connections are construction going forward (Cihacek); who was <br /> the responsible party in situations of improper installation or past ownership and <br /> who becomes liable, the current or former property owner (Stenlund); if, how, and <br /> to what extent the City can require homeowners to maintain minimum insurance <br /> coverage to address these situations (Cihacek); and if a property owner is liable to <br /> the center of the street if something goes wrong while owning laterals but most of <br /> the contractors are long gone, and who becomes liable when the property owner <br /> didn't own the land under the street, but did own the laterals, at least under the <br /> current situation (Stenlund). <br /> Recess <br /> Chair Stenlund recessed the meeting at approximately 7:48 p.m. and reconvened at <br /> approximately 7:53 p.m. <br /> Page 12 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.