Loading...
Memo Discussion on St Repair Policies ,.. y CITY OF HOPKINS • MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 1994 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Lee Gustafson, Public Works Directo / GC. SUBJECT: Discussion on Street Repair Policies This item was first discussed with Council earlier this spring in response to some complaints the city received from a resident on ilth Avenue North. Council's response to this initial discussion was a directive to staff to determine if the city could amend their current policies to make street restoration (after plumbing repairs) less costly to the residents. The purpose of this discussion is to review certain information relative to this issue, and review various options for amending the policy. The city's current policy for street restoration after plumbing • repairs requires the plumbing contractor to repair the street. The current policy has worked very well in the past with little opposition from the residents. The city's current policy is also very similar to many other cities in the metro area. As Council is aware, staff conducted a survey of city sewer and water policies earlier this year, a copy of which is attached. The survey indicated that over half of the cities surveyed had sewer and water service maintenance responsibilities similar to those of the City of Hopkins. These similar maintenance responsibilities also included the property owner and/or plumbing contractor being responsible for street restoration after plumbing repairs. As with most policies, this street restoration policy can be changed by Council if they so desire. The policy cou].d be changed to make the city completely responsible for the street restoration, or something between that and the current policy. Listed below are two options Council could consider in amending this policy. Included with each option is an estimate on how much each one of these options would cost the city. 1. The city would reimburse the property owner for any street repair cost over $400 up to a maximum of $500. • o This option would address Council's concern of making , street repairs less costly for the property owner. Memo; June 8, 1994 Page 2 + o It would create additional work for our Engineering . division who would attempt to verify the reimbursement figures and for our Finance department in processing the reimbursements. o The estimated annual cost to the city for this option is $7,500. The estimate is based on 50 plumbing repairs each year requiring some sort of street restoration. 2. The city would have a$400 charge on every plumbing permit to pay for street repairs. This charge would not increase regardless of how expensive the street repair might be. The city would then either repair the street with city crews or contract out the work. o This option would also address Council's concern of making street repairs less costly for property owners. o It would create additional work for our Street division. o The estimated annual cost of this option is $10,000. This estimate is based on 50 plumbing repairs each year requiring some sort of street restoration. This option is somewhat higher in cost than option 1 since there is no cap on city participation. The above two options are just two scenarios on how this issue • could be handled by the city. There naturally are many other options the city could explore. One negative factor that results from both of these options as well as many others is that there is no incentive for the plumbing contractors to keep their holes small when the city begins paying for some of the repair costs. Staff is unsure how to handle this problem, and as such, has not proposed any options to address it. One other item that we must keep in mind when discussing these potential changes is that residential, multi-family and industrial/commercial properties must all be addressed in some form or another. Council only discussed residential scenarios at the last discussion. Staff therefore was unsure as to what degree to include these other properties in this discussion. Staff fells that our current policy should not change and that it should remain as written. The policy has served the city and residents well for many decades, and has been viewed as fair in most instances. Staff does not feel that one odd situation, where there were higher than normal repair costs, justifies changing the policy. Furthermore, if the policy is changed it would increase our operation costs due to the increased labor and/or contractual costs. • 1 1994 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SURVEY . I A. WATER AND SANITARY BEWER SERVICES wHAT PORTION ' � . IS OWNER , WOULD , RESPONSIBLE WHO PAYS FOR REPAIR AND IS THERE ANY LIRE TO , CI'PY FOR? RESTORATION? CITY FUNDING? CHANGE? ANOKA OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER PAYS ALL COSTS NO-PERMIT INCLUDES NO I 5.00 PR S FT � � � STREE`i' REPAIR COST BLAINE WATER TO CURB YES EACH PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR OW YES - THE CITY YES ** ' SEWER TO MAIN REPAIRS EPAIRS ANYTHING IN THE STREET � BLOOMINGTON POLICY-OWNER PROPERTY OWNER WATER-NO SEWER-50� NO � TO MAIN ACTUA EACH PAY TO PROP. � CITY TO CURB LINE BROOKLYN CENTER OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER NO NO BROOKLYN PARK TO CURB STOP EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO YES ** I COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ••OWNER TO MAIN FROPERTY OWNER INCLUDES CORP NO NO � CRYSTAL SEWER-OWNER T EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO NO � MAIN WATER TO CURB STOP EDEN PRAIRIE SEWER-OWNER T EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS- NO NO I � MAIN WATER TO EXCEPT FOR SVC. FREEZES-CITY THAW NO NO ' CURB STOP WITH HOT WATER TOOL GOLDEN VALLEY TO PROP. LINE EACH PAYS OWN - OWNER HIRES CONTR. NO YES ** CITY MUST BE THERE TO SEE WHOSE PORTION WAS IN IF CITYS-THEY PAY I, HASTINGS OWNER TO MAIN PROP.OWNER PAYS-EXCEPT FOR FREEZE NO NO CITY HAS WELDER-IF THEY CAN'T THA OWNER NEEDS TO GET & PAY CONTRACT. I LAKEVILLE OWNER TO CURB EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO YES ** , LITTLE CANADA OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER NO YES ** ' LONG LAKE POLICY-OWNER EACH PARTY PAYS OWN REPAIRS NO NO ' TO MAIN ACTUA CITY TO CURB MINNETONKA TO PROP. LINE EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO NO I EXC.OWNER RESPONS.FOR SEWER CLEAN . ', MINNETONKA BEACH OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER NO NO ' � CITY JURI5DIC ION-METER CORP AND STOP BOX MOUND TO CURB STOP EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO NO NEW HOPE OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER NO NO . • � � • I �Q _. _ _ ___ _ __ _. ___ _. _ . . . � � � ' Water/Sewer Service Survey Page 2 � � WHAT PORTION IS OWNER . WOULD RESPONSIBLE WHO PAYS FOR REPAIR AND I8 THERE ANY LIRE TO CITY FOR? RESTORATION? CITY FUNDING? CHANGE? ' OAKDALE OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER NO YES ** EXCEPT FOR - CURB BOX AND METER ORONO SEWER TO MAIN EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO NO : WATER TO CURB _ PLYMOUTH SEWER TO MAIN EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO NO WA. TO PROP L PRIOR LAKE TO PROP LINE EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO YES ** SPRING PARK TO CURB STOP EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS NO YES ** ST ANTHONY SEWER TO MAIN EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIR5 NO NO WATER TO CURB ST LOUIS PARK OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER EXCEPT FOR METER NO * SEE BELOW NO ST PAUL PARK OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER NO NO STILLWATER OWNER TO MAIN PROPERTY OWNER NO-ASSESS SEE BELO NO WAYZATA WATER TO CURB EACH PARTY PAYS FOR OWN REPAIRS_ NO NO SEWER TO MAIN WOODBURY OWNER TO MAIN EXCEPT FOR CORP PROPERTY OWNER NO NO * St Louis Park will fix any problems on a coincidental repair, such as there being a leak at same time as a street project happening, to avoid having street torn up again they will repair any problems when street is open. ** Of the Cities who would like to change their Policy five of them (Brooklyn Park, Golden Valley, Oakdale, Prior Lake, and Spring Park) would like to change it to read that the property owner is responsible for the service from the main to the home. Lakeville would also like theirs to change to the above except for on new construction, if the problem occurs before the curb box which the City installs. Blaine would like to have service line freezes clarified on their policy. Currently the City takes care of them even if they are not on the City owned portion. Little Canada would like to change theirs to the City being responsible for corporation to mair� . � *** Many Cities mentioned the fact of curb stop responsibility in regards to shutting water off for lack of payment. If the City does not own curb stop, they cannot legally shut off the owners water. . : Water/Sewer Service 5urvey Page 3 . B. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MA,IN REPLACEMENT �The following Cities gave responses to the question of assessing costs for the water and sanitary sewer main replacements: ANOKA For water main replacements - Change service to 5", change to galvanized to property line, move curb stop to in sidewalk which is 6" away from property line, City pays 80%, they also assess any street and sidewalk repairs. BLOOMINGTON Hasn't done any replacements yet, but would probably assess if it were a whole subdivision that ' needed replacing they probably would assess. BROOKLYN CENTER, BROOKLYN PARK, GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNETONKA, MOUND, PLYMOUTH, ST LOUIS PARK, WAYZATA '� �. � I � Hasn't��done any yet, but wouldn't assess, would use water/sewer funds from the utility billing. Mound said they would also probably sell bonds. CRYSTAL, MINNETONKA BEACH, OAKDALE � � Hasn't done any yet, but would probably assess. Oakdale will be going before Council with this I � soon. � EDEN PRAIRIE . Hasn't done any replacements yet, but they have trunk assessments of $3,100.00 for undeveloped property and a sewer access charge for buildings of $12.50 per month to cover these expenses. HASTINGS ! They do not assess for the main, for laterals they assess 50%. For the sanitary sewer, if there is more than one person on a sewer service, the city will give them each their own service and assess I them 50� of the costs to bring them up to code. � LONG LAKE � Long Lake has done several main replacements due to the corrosive nature of their soil, they do not � assess these costs because they feel it is their responsibility and it is just general upkeep of the � main. �� i � � . . �. _ .� , . � � � ' Water/Sewer Service Survey Page 4 + SPRING PARK Spring Park would assess the entire City for the• cost of main replacements siting fire protection benef its . ST ANTHONY The City does not assess these costs. They charge a$400.00 �lat reconnect charge, which covers the new box, new corp, and new copper if needed, the rest is paid for out of the water/sewer fund. They also have the gas company replace their mains at the same time to save on street reconstruction.