2016-09-27_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

deeper costs yet, but noted they would do so. Mr. Culver noted all metropolitan communities were subject to similar rules and ordinances about not connecting sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system, but many had not begun an aggressive inspection program yet. If the City of Roseville's I & I was going down due to city lining efforts, Member Seigler asked if that didn't indicate the city was good for a while yet. Mr. Culver stated that was one interpretation, but clarified that the City Council continued to be concerned over the cost of maintaining those older services. On the flip side and beyond the I & I issue, Mr. Culver noted some individual council members felt the ownership of those lateral services should be different,with either the sanitary sewer service from the main to the home or water main from the main to the home(laterals)being addressed versus current ownership. Mr. Culver noted a vast majority of cities in Minnesota have residents owning the laterals from the main to the home; and a few do so from the rights-of-way to the main. While it was difficult to define at this point, Mr. Culver opined there was some interest on the City Council to have the city take some steps when doing other rehabilitation on the system to also make an effort to rehabilitation a portion of the laterals in the rights-of-way. As discussed previously and again tonight, Mr. Culver noted the processes between lining laterals and main lines were different and required two different contractors. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted staff had insisted to-date that unless every service line was done at the same time, it didn't make sense to provide any other options on projects without majority agreement to do so. Again, on the flip side, Mr. Culver noted other municipalities (e.g. City of Burnsville) have a blanket program a part of their street reconstruction projects. Mr. Culver noted there were several options, including sewer lining projects to bring in a separate contractor to lie the first few feet (e.g. 10') or other options for sanitary sewer service. Mr. Culver noted any of those options provide multiple benefits including reduced I& I, not having private contractors digging up city streets when a private lateral fails, and peace of mind for residents. At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver advised whether the laterals were bid as an alternate or as one entire separate project would depend on the best sequence for that particular project area, either lining laterals first and then the main line or vice versa. Mr. Culver noted either process would entail costs that would need to be passed on to the public whether or not they were interested, or if the city absorbed the cost from the sanitary sewer utility fund, but increased sanitary sewer rates citywide to do so. Mr. Culver noted the cost would depend on the option chosen, but estimated a potentially annual cost per property at between $10 to $50 per year per property. Chair Cihacek concluded that doing the lining during reconstruction made the most sense; and suggested staff return to the City Council to determine their threshold and how they preferred to pay for it. If the City Council chooses to proceed, Chair Cihacek suggested they come up with a plan to do so, indicating whether it was Page 11 of 17