2016-10-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

444 deeper costs yet, but noted they would do so. Mr. Culver noted all metropolitan 445 communities were subject to similar rules and ordinances about not connecting 446 sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system, but many had not begun an aggressive 447 inspection program yet. 448 449 If the City of Roseville's I & I was going down due to city lining efforts, Member 450 Seigler asked if that didn't indicate the city was good for a while yet. 451 452 Mr. Culver stated that was one interpretation, but clarified that the City Council 453 continued to be concerned over the cost of maintaining those older services. On 454 the flip side and beyond the I & I issue, Mr. Culver noted some individual council 455 members felt the ownership of those lateral services should be different, with either 456 the sanitary sewer service from the main to the home or water main from the main 457 to the home (laterals) being addressed ve us current ownership. Mr. Culver noted 458 a vast majority of cities in Minnesota ha residents owning the laterals from the 459 main to the home; and a few do so from the rights-of-way to the main. While it 460 was difficult to define at this point, Mr. Culver opined there was some interest on 461 the City Council to have the city takeso e steps when doing other rehabilitation 462 on the system to also ma n effort to r ilitation a portion of the laterals in the 463 rights-of-way. As disc ed previously a d again tonight, Mr. Culver noted the 464 processes between lining aterals *Culver main lines were different and required two 465 different contractors. Therefore, noted staff had insisted to -date that 466 unless every service line was done at the same time, it didn't make sense to provide 467 any other options onof ects without majority agreement to do so. Again, on the 468 flip side, Mr. Culver ted other municipalities (e.g. City of Burnsville) have a 469 blanket program a part of their street reconstruction projects. Mr. Culver noted 470 there were several options, including sewer lining projects to bring in a separate 471 contractor to lie the first few feet (e.g.tns ) or other options for sanitary sewer 472 service. Mr. Culver noted any of those o provide multiple benefits including 473 reduced I & I, not having private contractors digging up city streets when a private 474 lateral fails, and peace of mind for residents. 475 476 At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver advised whether the laterals were bid 477 as an alternate or as one entire separate project would depend on the best sequence 478 for that particular project area, either lining laterals first and then the main line or 479 vice versa. Mr. Culver noted either process would entail costs that would need to 480 be passed on to the public whether or not they were interested, or if the city 481 absorbed the cost from the sanitary sewer utility fund, but increased sanitary sewer 482 rates citywide to do so. Mr. Culver noted the cost would depend on the option 483 chosen, but estimated a potentially annual cost per property at between $10 to $50 484 per year per property. 485 486 Chair Cihacek concluded that doing the lining during reconstruction made the most 487 sense; and suggested staff return to the City Council to determine their threshold 488 and how they preferred to pay for it. If the City Council chooses to proceed, Chair 489 Cihacek suggested they come up with a plan to do so, indicating whether it was Page 11 of 17