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