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
Discussion ensued regarding roadway conditions and replacement of the materials <br /> after a dig by to avoid sink holes, with staff advising that the street department <br /> managed the paving, or hired a qualified contractor to do so at City standards for <br /> replacing it as it was before and for quality control. <br /> Member Cihacek asked how much costs for installation of cleanout valves would <br /> be and what the City's current policy was for making sure those were installed as <br /> part of any new construction. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would need to research that cost, as it was not <br /> current policy to require them. <br /> Mr. Culver noted that costs would also vary depending on how deep the sanitary <br /> line was. <br /> Member Cihacek opined that it would be reasonable to review and consider <br /> exploring ownership up to the mains and cost of valves to determine the cost per <br /> connection. Member Cihacek advised that he would be interested in receiving a <br /> cost estimate to that extent up to a hypothetical property line, and a uniform <br /> demarcation for new construction ownership at the property line. <br /> Chair Stenlund expressed his preference for the City owning up to the property <br /> line, whether those additional costs and maintenance fees were covered as <br /> additional utility fees or through taxes. <br /> Member Seigler suggested a cap (e.g. $4,000)if a lateral has to be replaced, with <br /> the City typically picking up the cost at that average cap, or a percentage of that, <br /> or if needing to be replaced for dereliction of maintenance by a property owner, <br /> they would be responsible for 100% of the cost. Under this scenario, Member <br /> Seigler opined ownership would not change while not being overburdening for <br /> homeowners. <br /> At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz clarified the potential costs <br /> for laterals with new construction projects: additional trenching under OSHA <br /> safety requirements, testing of the main. Mr. Schwartz further clarified that, <br /> during a major reconstruction project there may be various economies of scale, a <br /> contractor typically installs services after the main is filled and pressure tested, <br /> with the lateral trenches then dug and placed, noting that it wasn't just a simple <br /> one-time installation process for water lines. Mr. Schwartz noted that sanitary <br /> sewer mains and laterals were not as complicated, and can usually be done at the <br /> same time the main is installed even though laterals are typically dug by <br /> contractors after the fact. It is less expensive to perform this work at that point <br /> versus after the road is paved with curb & gutter installed, and sod and trees <br /> planted. <br /> Page 8 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.