2016-03-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

79 Mr. Pasko noted that his presentation would essentially ask and provide information on 80 the following items: 81 • Why rehabilitate laterals? 82 • Administratively, how do other communities do it? 83 • What tools are they using? 84 • How much do the tools cost to use? 85 86 Mr. Pasko reviewed some points to consider, including those communities where I & I 87 were drivers and the various options used in communities for rehabilitation of those 88 laterals up to street reconstruction lines via assessment, including some of that work done 89 by the City's contractor or a private owner's contractor, but still allowed to be applied as 90 an assessment to property taxes. 91 92 Mr. Pasko reviewed the variables in the upper and ^erlate s and options and 93 challenges in both. If I & I is the driver, and the attempt is to hit the upper lateral, Mr. 94 Pasko advised that many East Coast communities in the United States insist they have a 95 right to make sure those lines are in complianwith code and that private property 96 owners meet that code. 97 98 Mr. Pasko noted that care was needed to ensure clear ordinance language that protected a 99 citizen's Fourth Amendment Rights as it*Jes to unjust or arbitrary inspections of 100 private property, frequently debated by c#ut able to be sufficiently addressed with a 101 comprehensive ordinancei4 place prior to inspections and to protect municipalities. Mr. 102 Pasko noted that this involved access to private property and parameters for that access, 103 since there was obviously a potential liability for the city accessing private property 104 and/or laterals (considered private property) through main manholes, especially when 105 dealing with mishaps in using robotics. Mr. Pasko noted that if an unanticipated problem 106 occurred with the robotics, there was always the possibility that the lateral line would 107 need to be dug up to rescue the equipment; and suggested that would not be a good first 108 test of a city ordinance. & 1111P 109 110 Mr. Pasko also noted the need for an ordinance addressing expenditure of public money 111 to rehabilitate private property and clearly defining those parameters or potential 112 circumstances, such as the municipality subsidizing a portion of the rehabilitation of 113 longer laterals. Mr. Pasko emphasized the need to make sure the ordinance was very 114 clear about how, when and why public monies would be expended. Other than in several 115 instances in the State of WI, Mr. Pasko advised that those Fourth Amendment questions 116 were being sufficiently addressed from his perspective as long as the ordinances were 117 enacted before rehabilitation was undertaken. 118 119 Specific to options used by other communities, Mr. Pasko reported on one who applied a 120 $50/month surcharge for private property owners choosing not to rehabilitate those 121 private laterals as an incentive to encourage them to do so; while others used a subsidy 122 for rehabilitation; and others chose not to provide any subsidy. Another community, for 123 those property owners choosing not to rehabilitate their private laterals, chose to install an Page 3 of 20