Laserfiche WebLink
581 <br />582 <br />583 <br />584 <br />585 <br />586 <br />587 <br />588 <br />589 <br />590 <br />591 <br />592 <br />593 <br />594 <br />595 <br />596 <br />597 <br />598 <br />599 <br />600 <br />601 <br />602 <br />603 <br />604 <br />605 <br />606 <br />607 <br />608 <br />609 <br />610 <br />611 <br />612 <br />613 <br />and issues that could arise if the City assumed liability of laterals, creating more <br />potential for liability and costs. <br />In response to Member Seigler, Mr. Schwartz advised that this additional <br />unknown liability would also need to be built into the fee increases to cover those <br />potential costs. <br />In response to Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the approximate <br />cost to install a clean-out for a residential property was $1,000 up to the property <br />line. Member Cihacek calculated that, with 9,000 residents in Roseville, this <br />would result in $90 million just for that portion alone. Member Cihacek opined <br />that he saw a series of steps, including first the installation of clean -outs to help <br />solve liability problems and maintenance concerns, and asked staff to determine a <br />potential fee per household for clean -outs as step one, followed by mandated <br />correlating steps in the future to impr ve capacity flow for both homeowners and <br />the city. <br />Member Seigler questioned if the clediWt woul ect the failure ratio. <br />Ar i <br />Chair Stenlund questioned what the PWE wo d recommend for tving <br />forward: to continue status quo since the city did not have a lot of new road <br />construction slated for some time, or penalizing those paying one house at a time <br />versus installing a whole new infrastructure, or moving toward a completely new <br />model. <br />% <br />Chair St"sugges continui status quo. <br />Member Cihacek disagreed with Chair Stenlund, opining that clean -outs should <br />be installed first, since the Cit ould then know the status of its infrastructure <br />and current records or liability database may or may not be accurate at this point. <br />After that, Member Cihacek pined a better infrastructure database would be <br />developed and could be disclosed with home ownership and any changes, with <br />liability concerns being upfront k1lowing a homeowner to remedy the situation <br />614 <br />versus an unexpected expense. Member Cihacek opined that this also allowed the <br />615 <br />City in the future to target infrastructure development to move form a just in time <br />616 <br />solution to a shared ownership. Member Cihacek stated that steps could be taken <br />617 <br />now to move away from the status quo without the city assuming ownership and <br />618 <br />full liability at this time. <br />619 <br />620 <br />Mr. Schwartz responded that this was still a monumental task, and if ownership of <br />621 <br />a property changed during clean-out installation, it would need to be addressed <br />622 <br />within the confines of State Statute, and could be a significant task. <br />623 <br />624 <br />Member Wozniak asked if the City could consider a pilot approach for different <br />625 <br />segments of the city to draw conclusions about how and when the lines were <br />626 <br />constructed, and their current condition to use as a basis to model expectations, <br />Page 14 of 17 <br />