Laserfiche WebLink
674 expressed his interest in taking this recommendation from the PWETC to the City <br />675 Council to get their initial feedback. <br />676 <br />677 Chair Stenlund reiterated his agreement that this would take away any incentive for <br />678 residents to address their aging lateral infrastructure issues. <br />679 <br />680 Ms. Shiwarski offered to provide Mr. Culver a report with information from various <br />681 cities on I & I issues, showing residents are actually more proactive when having <br />682 this warranty coverage. While it may be a slow leak and fear a large bill for repairs, <br />683 Ms. Shiwarski noted the warranty program provided them with protection in place <br />684 without deductible or service fees in addition to that coverage. <br />685 <br />686 Ayes:7 <br />687 Nays:0 <br />688 Motion carried. <br />689 <br />690 Given this action, Mr. Culver asked WETC wis o continue their <br />691 discussion of lateral line ownership yet tonight. If this program is made available <br />692 for residents, Mr. Culver noted it removed the risk of where that ownership ends. <br />693 Mr. Culver noted Member Seigler's previous suggestion to cap costs to take care <br />694 of the far side and near side issues through setting a cap at a certain limit or slightly <br />695 above it and still provide some protection to residents. Mr. Culver noted this would <br />696 require a cost for the city and impact utility rates accordingly to offer such a cap. <br />697 While it wouldn't cover the total costs of such a program, Mr. Culver suggested <br />698 municipal revenue royalties from such an insurance program could serve to offset <br />699 those costs. <br />700 <br />701 Chair Stenlund stated he was not prepared to talk about an inspection cap at the <br />702property line any more at this time <br />703 <br />704 *Member Cihacek stated that this remained his pet project and that he remained <br />705 interested in pursuing potential bid alternatives in neighborhoods under <br />706 construction for those residents desiring such an option, and for new construction <br />707 moving forward but not old residences. With this program, Member Cihacek stated <br />708 he was less concerned, as clean-up could be taken care of over time; but agreed to <br />709 tabling further conversation on it until February or March of 2016 to review this <br />710 program first to determine how well it would perform. However, Member Cihacek <br />711 opined it provided a good solution for many of Roseville's residents and the aging <br />712 infrastructure throughout the community. <br />713 <br />714 7. Review January 2016 Agenda <br />715 <br />716 • Request for Proposals (RFP) for Recycling Services for 2017 and Beyond <br />717 (current contract ends year-end 2016) <br />Page 16 of 18 <br />