My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004-10-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2004
>
2004-10-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 3:50:53 PM
Creation date
6/20/2005 10:50:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/26/2004
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Member Wilke asked if there are any areas that are so polluted they are <br />nnconectable. Welsch said there are no sites untreatable, it just depends <br />on how much money you want to spend. Member Wilke asked if they <br />could explain how cleanup was done. Mr. Samuel said there were several <br />approaches proposed. <br /> <br />Member Willenbring asked if they have considered recycling the concrete. <br />Mr. Noonan said it has been their practice to recycle building materials. <br /> <br />Member Willenbring asked if there was any wrench that would be thrown <br />into this thing to stop the process. Mr. Noonan said that there are some <br />very good discussions going on. <br /> <br />6. Utility Service Line Policy Discussion <br /> <br />Duane Schwartz said this topic came up because a conncilmember had a <br />neighbor with a sewer problem that made it necessary for him to install a <br />new connection to the main city line. The council has requested the Public <br />Works Commission to review cunent city policy and make <br />recommendations on whether or not it should be changed. City code <br />cunently states it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the service <br />pipe from the house or building to the city main. The code doesn't define <br />the actual connection to the main line, but it has always been interpreted as <br />being the homeowner's responsibility because if there wasn't a <br />connection, there wouldn't be a connection point. <br /> <br />Member Willenbring asked how many times a year there is an obstruction <br />at the joint. Schwartz said we don't know at this point. Research needs to <br />be done on how many permits have been requested from the Commnnity <br />Development Department. <br /> <br />Member Willenbring asked if the city televises the lines. Schwartz said <br />they do. <br /> <br />Member Rossini said that it might make sense to make the city responsible <br />up to the property line since some sewer lines were 20' deep or more, <br />which would be a hardship for the property owner to repair. <br /> <br />Member Willenbring asked if they were to differentiate betwecn <br />residential and business properties. Schwartz said no, it's just any <br />property owner. <br /> <br />Member Wilke said he didn't think the code should be changed since the <br />policy has been in place for so long and seems to be working. <br /> <br />Member Willenbring said that if the Y connection was installed by the <br />city, it should be the responsibility of the city. If it was installed by an <br />independent contractor, it should be the contractor's responsibility. <br /> <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.