Laserfiche WebLink
though water continued to come in through cracks in the older sanitary sewer <br /> system. <br /> Mr. Culver noted that the city was currently working with the Metropolitan Council <br /> who will be lining their trunk lines and other rehabilitation work, some going on in <br /> Roseville; which should also prove helpful with Roseville's inflow issues. For <br /> clarification purposes addressing Member Seigler's concerns, Mr. Culver clarified <br /> that inflow involved businesses or residents illegally connected to the city's sanitary <br /> sewer system or other areas causing infiltration. Mr. Culver advised that the city <br /> had some data to address some inflow issues, but at some point the city would be <br /> penalized financially from the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Culver advised that this <br /> was a significant issue for the Metropolitan Council and ongoing treatment of water <br /> not needing treatment. Mr. Culver advised that the city was addressing "low <br /> hanging fruit" first as a less expensive means to address I & I, including <br /> disconnecting known illegal connections. However, as those less costly issues are <br /> addressed, Mr. Culver noted the city would then be left with determining the other <br /> I & I causes, including service laterals. Mr. Culver advised that either the city <br /> would need to address issues, or the Metropolitan Council would force it to do so <br /> and apply a surcharge to the city to incentivize them to make corrections <br /> accordingly. Mr. Culver noted the City of Golden Valley had chosen to be very <br /> aggressive in addressing their I & I issues, since they had gotten to the point they <br /> were paying higher bills if they didn't address it. Mr. Culver stated he credited that <br /> municipality with taking those steps; but noted not a lot of communities had the <br /> stomach to be that aggressive. <br /> Member Seigler asked if this meant he would be required to foot an additional <br /> $7,000 bill for such an inspection before he could sell his house. <br /> Chair Cihacek clarified that the PWETC seemed to be in agreement that the city <br /> wasn't interested in being overly-aggressive, and that this should remain an issue <br /> between the buyer and seller as part of their disclosure agreements versus the city <br /> mandating repairs, but noted this would at least make the buyer aware of such an <br /> inspection. If there was no immediate concern, Chair Cihacek noted there would <br /> be no actual cost to the city, but if the inspection showed something of concern, <br /> current and future best practices could address those situations. Chair Cihacek <br /> admitted the City of Golden Valley was a good model in concept, but stated he <br /> didn't think it was necessarily appropriate for the City of Roseville. <br /> At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Sandstrom confirmed that the City of St. <br /> Paul also had surcharges too. <br /> Mr. Culver concurred,noting that the Cities of Minneapolis and St.Paul had a much <br /> different situation than most suburbs, with many of their sanitary and storm sewer <br /> lines running in the same pipes, requiring them to spend considerable resources <br /> over the last few years just separating those lines. Since this was considered the <br /> "low hanging fruit" for those cities, Mr. Culver noted they hadn't gotten into the <br /> Page 10 of 17 <br />