D001726CITY OF SAINT PAUL
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
ADNIIIVISTRATIVE ORDER
: � uu►I yr, • �u • : � �:
No .D oo � �a �
Date: ���
WHEREAS, the City, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, desires to reimburse property
owners for expenses of inspecting their sewer connection at the specitic request of the Department of
Public Works to ascertain the connections condition, and where the sewer connection is demonstrated
by the inspection to be in satisfactory condition,
THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED, that the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to
disburse funds from Sewer Fund 260-22207-0299, when approved by the Sewer Utility manager.
�
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_�� � - ��� 7 I9.9�
Assistant CiTy Attomey
Date `
•
.DDO17d�,
�
�t of Public Works
SON & PFIONE
26CYF)���
DUNq! AGENDA 8Y (DA]�
TOTALf OFSIGN0.TVRE PAGES
DATE INITIAiED
Mo�, GREEN SHEET
� DEPAfiTMENf OfflECTOft
GN �cinnnorwev . �.8.94
UMBERFOR
��NG �FlNANCIALSERVICESOIR
OpDER
O MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT)
❑
(C[1PAGL LOCATfOMS POti SIGNATURE}
ACTION REOUESiED
i
, n�-=-- _.:
❑CfTY IX7UNCIL
� arr c�aic
❑ FlN. SERVICE^.YACCT.
❑ DIVISION MMIAGER
Approval of Administrative Order authorizing reimbursement of property owners, by Public Works, for the cost of inspecting a private
sewer connection, when tt�at inspection was requested by Public Worlcs, and wben tbat inspections sbows the condition of the sewer
connection to be in satisfactory condition.
RECOMMENDA710NS: ApProve (A) w Pe�eet (iq
PLANNINGCOMMISSION CIVILSERVICECAMMI$$ION
_CIBCAMMITfEE
A $TAFF
_DISTRICTCOUNCIL
CONfRACfS MU5f pNSWEp TXE FOLLOYANG �UESTIONS:
1. HasitiispersoMirtnevervrorketluntleracomract(orAVSde�artmeM?
� ❑ NO ❑
2 HaslhispersoMi�m¢verbeenaciryemploy¢e?
YES � NO �
3 DceslhisparsoNfirmp�sessasldllnotnomialtypossessetlbya�rywrreMCriyemployae?
YFS ❑ NO ❑
4. Is �his presoMrtm a urget v¢ndM
YES � ryp �
Explain all yes answers on separate sM1eet antl attach to 9� shcet
INRiATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOiiNNITY (WNO, WXAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH`n:
In the past, when Public Works suspected a sewer service connection was bad, Public Works would ask the property
owner to repair it. In some cases, during the repair, it was demonstrated that the sewer connection was good. Public
Works generally was subject to a claim involving thousands of dollars.
ADVAMAGES IF APPHOVED:
Recent impovements in technology allows a video inspection of the connection to determine if it is a bad connection. There is no guess
work If the connection is bad, the property owner can save hundreds of doliars by having the problem isolated rather then investigating
by digging it up. If the connection is good, Public Works has spared itself the problem of reimbursing the property owner thousands,
genrally thru a complaint process that is paid for out of general funds, for an unneeded repair. Also there is increased reliability in the
integrity of the system. Yearly esGmate of cast is less ihen $2,000.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPpOVEU:
None
DISADVMf�AGE31F NOT pPPHOVED:
We continue to subject ourselves to threats of lawsuits.
�UC 1
199g
r �
OF TRANSACTION :
COST/flEVENUEBUDGEfED4 YES � NO �
SOURCE S ewer Fund ACINIIY NUMBEfi 26�-22 207-�299
FlNANCIAf.INFORMATION (IXPWN)