Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pasko noted that his presentation would essentially ask and provide information on <br /> the following items: <br /> • Why rehabilitate laterals? <br /> • Administratively, how do other communities do it? <br /> • What tools are they using? <br /> • How much do the tools cost to use? <br /> Mr. Pasko reviewed some points to consider, including those communities where I & I <br /> were drivers and the various options used in communities for rehabilitation of those <br /> laterals up to street reconstruction lines via assessment, including some of that work done <br /> by the City's contractor or a private owner's contractor, but still allowed to be applied as <br /> an assessment to property taxes. <br /> Mr. Pasko reviewed the variables in the upper and lower laterals and options and <br /> challenges in both. If I & I is the driver, and the attempt is to hit the upper lateral, Mr. <br /> Pasko advised that many East Coast communities in the United States insist they have a <br /> right to make sure those lines are in compliance with code and that private property <br /> owners meet that code. <br /> Mr. Pasko noted that care was needed to ensure clear ordinance language that protected a <br /> citizen's Fourth Amendment Rights as it relates to unjust or arbitrary inspections of <br /> private property, frequently debated by courts, but able to be sufficiently addressed with a <br /> comprehensive ordinance in place prior to inspections and to protect municipalities. Mr. <br /> Pasko noted that this involved access to private property and parameters for that access, <br /> since there was obviously a potential liability for the city accessing private property <br /> and/or laterals (considered private property) through main manholes, especially when <br /> dealing with mishaps in using robotics. Mr. Pasko noted that if an unanticipated problem <br /> occurred with the robotics, there was always the possibility that the lateral line would <br /> need to be dug up to rescue the equipment; and suggested that would not be a good first <br /> test of a city ordinance. <br /> Mr. Pasko also noted the need for an ordinance addressing expenditure of public money <br /> to rehabilitate private property and clearly defining those parameters or potential <br /> circumstances, such as the municipality subsidizing a portion of the rehabilitation of <br /> longer laterals. Mr. Pasko emphasized the need to make sure the ordinance was very <br /> clear about how, when and why public monies would be expended. Other than in several <br /> instances in the State of WI, Mr. Pasko advised that those Fourth Amendment questions <br /> were being sufficiently addressed from his perspective as long as the ordinances were <br /> enacted before rehabilitation was undertaken. <br /> Specific to options used by other communities, Mr. Pasko reported on one who applied a <br /> $50/month surcharge for private property owners choosing not to rehabilitate those <br /> private laterals as an incentive to encourage them to do so; while others used a subsidy <br /> for rehabilitation; and others chose not to provide any subsidy. Another community, for <br /> those property owners choosing not to rehabilitate their private laterals, chose to install an <br /> Page 3 of 20 <br />