2016-10-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

490 worth the PWETC and staff exploring it further depending on those cost factors. 491 Chair Cihacek clarified that property owners would end up paying either way, 492 whether through taxes or utility fees. 493 494 As individual homeowners, Mr. Culver asked the PWETC how they would feel if 495 the city implemented a blanket program for lining laterals, at 3' or 10' and sanitary 496 sewer rates were increased from $10 to $50 per year. Mr. Culver asked if they 497 found $50 an extreme fee. 498 499 Member Seigler opined the price of lining would drop in the next few years; and 500 suggested waiting to see if prices were to plummet unless the city saw a drastic 501 increase in failures. Otherwise, Member Seigler suggested the city absorb that cost 502 unless a great amount of failures was realized. 503 504 In previous presentations, Mr. Culver noted staff had reported the city was 505 experiencing more lateral line sanitary sewer failures annually, actually dozens or 506 more throughout the city. Mr. Culver opined those numbers would go up as the 507 sanitary sewer infrastructure systemstimed to age creating one of the questions 508 as to timing. Mr. Culver oted a sanitary sewer system failure wasn't a problem 509 for residents until it hap o them personally, with those numbers of failures 510 continuing to rise. 511 512 Member Seigler xpressed his interest in a Service Warranty Program as previously 513 considered; especially if a current homeowner only intended to live in their current 514 home for a minimal amount of time. 515 516 Chair Cihacek noted, by creating a cost cap, the city would essentially be 517 implementing a self-insurance plan. Therefore, Chair Cihacek expressed his 518 interest in looking at a cost cap or cost share for the cost of lining laterals, opining 519 that $10 over 3-4 billing periods created some pain tolerance, especially if the 520 annual cost was less than projected. If higher than projected, Chair Cihacek stated 521 he was then not interested in such a plan. However, addressing Member Seigler's 522 point, Chair Cihacek opined the city was clearly moving toward a crisis point due 523 to the age of its infrastructure and majority of its housing stock. While most of the 524 city had sandy soils, Chair Cihacek considered the number of trees in the 525 community as well. While unsure whether the city needed to do the option that 526 costs the city money, Chair Cihacek suggested the point of sale inspection may not 527 necessarily mandate repair by the seller, but at a minimum would provide the buyer 528 with truth in disclosing a potential cost going forward, and adjusting selling prices 529 accordingly. 530 531 At the request of Member Heimerl, Mr. Culver stated he wasn't aware of any other 532 point of sale inspections or permitting requirements by the city at this time. 533 534 Member Heimerl questioned if this was the point the city wanted to jump into point 535 of sale versus lining initiatives. Page 12 of 17