Laserfiche WebLink
398 though water continued to come in through cracks in the older sanitary sewer <br />399 system. <br />400 <br />401 Mr. Culver noted that the city was currently working with the Metropolitan Council <br />402 who will be lining their trunk lines and other rehabilitation work, some going on in <br />403 Roseville; which should also prove helpful with Roseville's inflow issues. For <br />404 clarification purposes addressing Member Seigler's concerns, Mr. Culver clarified <br />405 that inflow involved businesses or residents illegally connected to the city's sanitary <br />406 sewer system or other areas causing infiltration. Mr. Culver advised that the city <br />407 had some data to address some inflow issues, but at some point the city would be <br />408 penalized financially from the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Culver advised that this <br />409 was a significant issue for the Metropolitan Council and ongoing treatment of water <br />410 not needing treatment. Mr. Culver advised that the city was addressing "low <br />411 hanging fruit" first as a less expensive means to address I & I, including <br />412 disconnecting known illegal connections. ,However, as those less costly issues are <br />413 addressed, Mr. Culver noted the city would then be left with determining the other <br />414 I & I causes, including service laterals. Mr. Culver advised that either the city <br />415 would need to address issues, or the Met politan Council would force it to do so <br />416 and apply a surcharge the city to incentivize them to make corrections <br />417 accordingly. Mr. Culve n the City of Golden Valley had chosen to be very <br />418 aggressive in addressing their I & I issues, since they had gotten to the point they <br />419 were paying higher bills if they didn't ress it. Mr. Culver stated he credited that <br />420 municipality with taking those steps; oted not a to of communities had the <br />421 stomach to be that ag essive. <br />422 <br />423 Member Seigler aske this meant he would be required to foot an additional <br />424 $7,000 bill for h an i ection before he could sell his house. <br />425 <br />426 air i acek clarified that t e PWETC seemed to be in agreement that the city <br />427 wasn't interested in being overly -aggressive, and that this should remain an issue <br />428 between the buyer and seller as part of their disclosure agreements versus the city <br />429 mandating repairs, but noted this would at least make the buyer aware of such an <br />430 inspection. If there was no immediate concern, Chair Cihacek noted there would <br />431 be no actual cost to the city, but if the inspection showed something of concern, <br />432 current and future best practices could address those situations. Chair Cihacek <br />433 admitted the City of Golden Valley was a good model in concept, but stated he <br />434 didn't think it was necessarily appropriate for the City of Roseville. <br />435 <br />436 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Sandstrom confirmed that the City of St. <br />437 Paul also had surcharges too. <br />438 <br />439 Mr. Culver concurred, noting that the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul had a much <br />440 different situation than most suburbs, with many of their sanitary and storm sewer <br />441 lines running in the same pipes, requiring them to spend considerable resources <br />442 over the last few years just separating those lines. Since this was considered the <br />443 "low hanging fruit" for those cities, Mr. Culver noted they hadn't gotten into the <br />Page 10 of 17 <br />