Loading...
10/25/2011 - City Council Public Works Committee { -j-Q AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOMS 1A &B I. AGENDA ADOPTION II. INFLOW & INFILTRATION SURCHARGE APPEALS A. Brian Nickell, 3991 Mica Trail B. Barbra Adrian Morrell, 1723 Hickory Hill C. Byrle Eckley, 1938 Timber Wolf Trail N. D. Boyang Hong, 1929 Timber Wolf Ct. III. OTHER BUSINESS A. Flexible Pipe on Sump Pump Discharges IV. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE October 25, 2011 II. INFLOW & INFILTRATION SURCHARGE APPEALS BACKGROUND City Code & Policy On December 15, 2009 the City Council implemented a Sump Pump and Sewer Lateral Inspection Program /Policy to eliminate Clearwater flow from the sanitary sewer system (copy enclosed on pages 1 / and .5 ). City Ordinance 3.40 was previously amended on Sept. 9, 2009 to require compliance with this mandatory inspection program and any related corrective work orders. Subdivision 10E of this ordinance established a surcharge for those properties that either would not respond to the mailed request to schedule an inspection within 30 days of mailed notice, or failed to follow through with the required corrective work within 60 days of receiving a Corrective Work Order as a result of the inspection. The surcharges were set at $150 per month for low density residential properties and $500 per month for all others. These surcharges would continue to accumulate each month that the property remained out of compliance. Surcharge Appeals In November of 2010, the Council was informed of several situations where multiple monthly surcharges were starting to accumulate on certain properties due to continue unresponsiveness. In anticipation of potential appeals, the Council authorized the Public Works Director to administratively adjudicate appeals and dismiss only surcharges that exceeded the first month's levy. Any further appeals of remaining amounts would have to be addressed by the City Council. II. A. BRIAN & DEBBIE NICKELL — 3991 MICA TRAIL ISSUE: Sump Pump properly discharged to exterior via flexible pipe but did not meet Plumbing Code Requirement. Property owner did not complete corrective work within the I &I 60 day requirement and a surcharge was levied. HISTORY: 4 -20 -11 Inspection completed. No I &I but Flexible discharge pipe noted. 5 -05 -11 Corrective Work Order issued with a July 5 completion deadline. 5 -20 -11 to 9 -23 -11 Series of einails regarding request for variance to rigid pipe and completion date extension (enclosed on pages ,, through 9 ) 10 -02 -11 Surcharge levied ($150) 10 -17 -11 Final Inspection completed. Found to be compliant. 10 -20 -11 Property owner's summary of appeal (enclosed on pages / O through / 2 ) PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION II. B. BARBRA ADRIAN MORRELL — 1723 HICKORY HILL ISSUE: Did not open Inspection Requirement Notices from City. Finally contacted City upon receipt of Surcharge Notice. Subsequent inspection found no Sump Pump, hence no violations. HISTORY: 7 -01 -11 1 Inspection notification mailed 8 -01 -11 2 Inspection notification mailed 8 -25 -11 Surcharge Levied ($150) 9 -08 -11 Surcharge notice mailed 9 -09 -11 Contracted City and scheduled inspection. 9 -13 -11 Inspection completed. No Sump Pump. No I &I violations identified. 9 -21 -11 Certificate of Compliance issued. 9 -08 -11 to 9 -21 -11 Series of emails regarding request to waive Surcharge (enclosed on pages /3 thfeu ) �/ 10 -16 -11 Property owner's summary of appeal (enclosed on pages / 7 through / 0 ) PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION II. C. BYRLE ECKLEY — 1938 TIMBER WOLF TRAIL N. ISSUE: Did not open Inspection Requirement Notices from City. Finally contacted City upon learning of Surcharge. Subsequent inspection found no Sump Pump, hence no violations. Will not open any mail from City. No answering machine. Phone recently disconnected. No summary or written request received. Appeared before Council Listening Session on Oct. 18. HISTORY: 5 -23 -11 1 Inspection notification mailed 6 -23 -11 2 Inspection notification mailed 7 -27 -11 1 Surcharge levied ($150) 7 -28 -11 1 Surcharge notice mailed 8 -24 -11 2nd Surcharge levied ($150) 9 -08 -11 2 "d Surcharge notice mailed. Also called City on this date. 9 -08 -11 Inspection completed. No Sump Pump. No I &I violations identified. 9 -20 -11 Surcharge reduced to $150 by Public Works Director 9 -21 -11 Certificate of Compliance issued. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION II. D. BOYANG HONG — 1929 TIMBER WOLF CT ISSUE: Claims no notices received due to change in mailing address. No letters returned as undeliverable. No notice of change in address filed with Utility Billing account. HISTORY: 5 -23 -11 1st Inspection notification mailed 6 -23 -11 2 Inspection notification mailed 7 -27 -11 l Surcharge levied ($150) 7 -28 -11 lst Surcharge notice mailed 8 -24 -11 2 Surcharge levied ($150) 8 -25 -11 2 Surcharge notice mailed. 9 -07 -11 Contracted City and scheduled inspection. 9 -08 -11 Surcharge reduced to $150 by Public Works Director 9 -09 -11 Inspection completed. No Sump Pump. No I &I violations identified. 9 -27 -11 Certificate of Compliance issued. 9 -07 -11 to 9 -09 -11 Series of einails regarding request to waive remaining Surcharge (enclosed on pages / through ,2/ ) PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION III. FLEXIBLE VS. RIGID PIPE REQUIREMENTS Sump Pump Discharge Pipe Requirements — I &I vs. Plumbing Code The I &I code requires that any Sump Pump found discharging to the sanitary sewer system must be disconnected and rerouted to the outside of the structure using rigid pipe per the City's Plumbing Code. Rigid pipe would also insure that the discharge line could not easily be rerouted back to the floor drain or laundry tub. However, certain inspections found that, while the Sump Pump was properly discharging to the outside (meets I &I code), it was not made of rigid pipe (violation of Plumbing Code). Subsequently, Corrective Work Orders were issued. The I &I Program requires corrective work to be completed within 60 days, but a Plumbing Pen allows up to 6 months. The Protective Inspections Division of the Community Development Department has recently stated that they do not enforce flexible pipe discharge violations when discovered as part of other cursory inspections (i.e. water heaters, softeners, etc). In the future, the Public Works Department would also like to ignore flexible pipe plumbing code violations when performing I &I inspections (if it is already discharging to the outside of the structure). Newly installed or rerouted discharge lines required by a disconnection Corrective Work Order would still be required to meet current Plumbing Code requirements of rigid pipe. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION J CITY OF EAGAN Inflow and Infiltration (I &I) Mitigation Program /Policy Adopted December 15, 2009 Background The Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services (MCES) implemented an Infiltration & Inflow (I &I) Mitigation and Surcharge Program on February 8, 2006. I &I relates to extraneous clean water entering the sanitary sewer system through either ground water (Infiltration) or direct flow (Inflow) such as sump pumps. This excess volume of clean water adds considerable cost to the overall Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) for both conveyance and treatment. As a result of a significant 5" rainfall event that occurred on Oct. 5, 2005, the City of Eagan was determined to have had an excessive rate of flow to the Seneca Waste Water Treatment Plant exceeding its peak flow allocation. As a result of this exceedance, the MCES determined that the City of Eagan was required to spend $1,718,500 over 5 years (—$343,700/yr) to either mitigate its excessive I &I, or pay that amount to the MCES for its equivalent expansion of the MDS. MCES enforced this financial obligation through an annual surcharge program beginning in 2007 and scheduled to end in 2012. If excessive flows continue to occur after that date, the annual surcharge will likely become a permanent Demand Charge (in an amount yet to be determined). The City continuously evaluates the public sanitary sewer system (275 miles of pipe, 7,800 manholes and 18 pumping stations) and performs corrective measures as needed. However, to adequately address the excessive I &I, there is also a need to inspect and mandate corrective work in the private sanitary sewer system within the community (over 18,800 connections). Program The private property inspection program has been commonly referred to as a "Sump Pump and Service Lateral Inspection Program" (SP &SLIP). Many communities have already implemented this type of inspection with a related corrective enforcement program which can take up to multiple years and millions of dollars to complete on a citywide basis. It requires the personal inspection of a private property's internal sewer plumbing system and service lateral connection to the City's sewer main (typically in the street or a backyard easement). On September 1, 2009, the Eagan City Council adopted an amendment to City Code Section 3.40 to add Subdivision 10, "Clear Water Discharge Prevention and Prohibition" (attached). This amendment prohibits any type of clear water connections or faulty services that allow ground water to enter the system. It also requires all notified property owners to schedule an inspection with the city, or its designated agent(s). This inspection typically takes up to 2 hours to perform and requires that an adult resident be present at all times. A copy of the inspection report identifying any non - compliant issues will be left with the resident upon completion of the inspection. Corrective Work Orders will be sent to the property owner /occupant infonning them 7 of the required corrective work that must be completed within 60 days. Upon satisfactory completion of the Corrective Work, a Certificate of Compliance will be issued by the City. If either an inspection is not scheduled, or required corrective work is not completed, within the required time frames, a monthly surcharge will be added to the property owner's utility bill until such time as an inspection is performed and /or all corrective work is completed. (See attached Work Flow Process diagrammatic) Non - compliant Enforcement Surcharges City Code 3.40 (Rules and regulations relating to sewer service), Subdivision 10 (Clear Water Discharge Prevention and Prohibition), Paragraph E (Surcharges) provides for monthly surcharges to be added to the property's utility bill resulting from any cause that results in a lack of a Compliance Certification being issued. The amount of the I &I Surcharge for non- compliance will be established by formal Council action and incorporated into the Annual Fee Schedule. Per the Code, the I &I Surcharge becomes effective for the entire month when the final notice of Non - Compliance was sent to the property owner /resident and every month thereafter until such time that a Compliance Certificate has been issued. Nonpayment of delinquent fees and /or surcharges will be certified to the property's taxes for collection. City Cost Participation Other communities' experiences have indicated that the majority of corrective work requirements relate to a simple disconnection and rerouting of a sump pump discharge. However, there have been situations where foundation drain disconnections and /or service lateral repairs become more costly. In respect to the cost savings expected to the City's future sewer billings from the Metropolitan Council, the City Council deemed it justifiable to offer financial participation for corrective repairs to low and medium density residential properties (R -1,2 & 3). The City will assume responsibility for 50% of costs incurred by the homeowner for required corrective work (Permit Fees not included). If the corrective work is not performed under a City issued contract, the property owner may perform the work personally. While all material costs will be eligible for reimbursement, only work performed by a licensed plumber and /or pipe -layer contractor pre - approved by the City will be eligible for City participation. If the property owner elects to perform the work through a private contractor, the City will issue payment upon receipt of proper documentation for the City's share, made payable to both the private contractor and property owner. City Financing of Property Owner costs The Property Owner may elect to have all, or any part, of their actual costs incurred levied as a special assessment against the benefitted property spread over 5 years and financed at 4% simple interest. This will require the execution of the appropriate Waiver of Hearing and Special Assessment agreement. APPROVED BY COUNCIL ACTION: December 15, 2009 REVISED: January 19, 2010 Tom Colbert From: Tom Colbert Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 12:10 PM To: 'Brian Nickell' Cc: James Hauth; Dale Schoeppner Subject: Sump Pump - Flex Pipe repair, 3991 Mica Trail (Nickel) Mr. Nickell, In checking on the status of your Corrective Work Order, I see that a permit was pulled for this required work on July 29. In your email ofJune 15, you committed to completing the work by August 31. However, I find that a Final Inspection has not yet been performed certifying that the work was completed according to City Codes. It is now 3 weeks after your stipulated completion date. I am asking that you have the final inspection completed by the end of next week. If it is not, we will have no alternative but to levy the required surcharge of $150 per month without further notice until the work has been inspected and certified to be compliant with all City Codes. We look forward to your anticipated cooperation in meeting this schedule. Thank you. Tom Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55123 -1481 (651- 675 -5635 (ph) (651) 675 -5694 (fax) From: Tom Colbert Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:23 PM To: 'Brian Nickell' Cc: James Hauth Subject: RE: I&I Mitigation Program - Flex Pipe variance, 3991 Mica Trail - Nickel Mr. Nickell, I apologize for the delay in responding to your email ofJune 15. As you noted by my out or office reply, I was on vacation until June 23 and have been focusing on the impacts on the City and our projects resulting from the State government shut down since then. On April 20, 2011, your property was inspected for compliance with the City's Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Ordinance. As a result of that inspection, you were informed by a letter dated May 5, 2011 that certain corrective work needed to be performed in order for your property to be compliant with this Ordinance. You were noticed to obtain the appropriate City Permits and complete the corrective repair work within 60 days (i.e. July 5, 2011). Your email of June 15 requested an extension to August 31 due to conflicting family plans for the summer. The City's I & I Ordinance 3.40, Subd. 10, Section F (Temporary Waiver) allows the Director of Public Works to grant a temporary waiver to the required completion date "due to weather related conditions" only. I realize the inconvenience associated with accommodating our inspection requirements, and now the subsequent required corrective work. There never seems to be a good time. However, now that your family vacation is over and your son's graduation party is just next week, it is hoped that you would be able to arrange to have this work completed very soon. As noted by the referenced ordinance, I do not have the authority to grant an extension of time for the reasons stated. The best 1 can do is wait till the end of this month before requesting a status update for your property regarding its compliance with the previously issued Corrective Work Order before any surcharge for non compliance gets implemented per City Code. I hope that this time frame can provide some assistance to your schedule. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in complying with this mandated program and our City Codes. Tom Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55123 -1481 (651- 675 -5635 (ph) (651) 675 -5694 (fax) Forwarded message From: Brian Nickell <brian.d.nickell@ginail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:03 PM Subject: Re: I &I Mitigation Program - Flex Pipe variance, 3991 Mica Trail - Nickel To: Tom Colbert <TColbert@cityofeagan.com> Cc: James Hauth <JHauth @cityofeagan.com >, Scott Peterson <SPeterson @cityofeagan.com >, DSchoeppner @cityofeagan.com Hi Tom. Thanks for your earlier response. I spoke with Jim Hauth and Dale Schoeppner earlier today. I would like an extension on the due date for our correction work order. As it stands now our due date is July 5th. Our work order involves changing the flexible tubing to PVC or ABS. Our sump pump runs very seldom if ever and it was suggested that I could just remove the pump along with the flexible tube in order to be compliant. Unfortunately I'm reluctant to do that because it's possible that the pump does run occasionally and I'm just not aware of it. I plan to do the work myself. I'm asking for an extension because we're having a High School graduation party for our son Tom on July 16th. We're going on vacation next week and with a large family our schedule always seems full. I'm confident that I could have the correction done by August 31st. Thanks again. Brian. On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Dale Schoeppner <DSchoeppner @cityofeagan.com> wrote: Brian and Tom, I'm glad that your current sump discharge installation was directed outside the structure rather than to an interior floor drain or the laundry tub. It doesn't appear that your current installation was contributing to our problem of storm water being piped and treated with the sanitary sewer system. The challenge with the flexible pipe is that they are not as durable as the ABS or PVC hard pipe and are therefore subject to premature failure. The plumbing code doesn't reflect that the flexible products have been tested successfully to the hard pipe standard. The quick and easy solution mentioned by Tom below would certainly be considered compliant. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at 651- 675 -5699. 2 Sincerely Dale Dale Schoeppner Chief Building Official City of Eagan City Hall 13830 Pilot Knob Road 1 Eagan, MN 55122 1 651 -675 -5699 1 651- 675 -5694 (Fax) 1 dschoeppner(5 cityofeaean.com THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND /OR O FIIERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e -mail and its attachments from all computers. From: Tom Colbert Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:49 PM To: 'Brian Nickell' Cc: James Hauth; Dale Schoeppner Subject: RE: I &I Mitigation Program - Flex Pipe variance, 3991 Mica Trail - Nickell Hi Brian, Thank you for your email sharing your concerns with the corrective work order issued under the I & I inspection program. From your detailed explanation, I believe I have a fairly good understanding of your situation and subsequent request. As you were informed, flexible pipe is not an acceptable type of material for sump pump discharges. From an I & I perspective, the concern relates to the potential to readily redirect the discharge to a laundry tub or floor drain, thereby allowing clear water flows into the sewer system. I understand that, based on where your sump pump is located, this opportunity doesn't exist for all practical matters. Subsequently, it becomes more of a plumbing code compliance issue than an I &I concern. I'm forwarding this request on to our Chief Building Official, Dale Schoeppner, to address the corrective work order requirement from a Building and Plumbing code compliance perspective as I am not familiar with any type of variance process to those standards. You mention that this sump pump has been virtually useless based on your past experiences over the last 15 — 20 years. One quick and easy solution would be to just remove the pump and as much flexible piping as can be accessed without having to remove any portion of your finished basement. In any event, if costs are ultimately incurred as necessary to bring it into code compliance, the City will still honor its offer to finance 50% of the costs since the corrective work order was issued under the I &I inspection program. Thank you for your cooperation in this inspection program to date and your patience as we continue to address your request. Sincerely, Tom Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55123 -1481 (651- 675 -5635 (ph) 3 (651) 675 -5694 (fax) From: Brian Nickell [ mailto :brian.d.nickell@Qmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 3:58 PM To: Tom Colbert Subject: I &I Mitigation Program - Flex Pipe variance, 3991 Mica Trail - Nickell Hi Tom. I just spoke on the phone with Jim Hauth and he directed me to you. We are Brian and Debbie Nickell and we live at 3991 Mica Trail in Eagan. Our inspection was done on 4 -20- 2011 and our work correction work order is dated May 5, 2011. The correction in our case has to do with flexible sump pump piping in the interior of the home. Our understanding of the reasoning behind the" flexible pipe portion" of the ordinance is that the city is concerned that people could reroute the flexible piping to an indoor drain. In our case rerouting the piping would never happen. Our house has an addition on it and the sump pump is located in the addition. The addition has no floor drains and the closest floor drain is a considerable distance away in the original portion of the basement. The sump is located in a bedroom closet and the flexible piping runs up the wall and through the finished ceiling then through the wall to the outside. Once outside it connects to PVC and runs along the outside of the house under our deck and to the backyard. The deck is approx. 1 and a half ft. off of the ground and I would have to pound up several of the deck boards in order to access the outside pipe. I definitely would never reroute the piping to a drain and I can't imagine why any future owner would ever consider doing so either especially since rerouting would be a considerable project. Another point that should be made is that our sump pump virtually never runs. When our streets were being replaced, about 20 years ago, the contractors gave us a couple of buckets of class 5 and I used that to bank up the yard going all around the house. We have rain gutters all around the house and the yard, driveway, patio, steps and sidewalk all run the water away from the house. Honestly the last time that I know of the pump running was about 15 to 20 years ago. It was interesting because there hadn't been any recent significant rainfall. My assumption is that occasionally the ground water table must get high. The next day the basket was dry. In the summer of 2000 we had a 14 inch rainfall that brought so much flooding. Neighbors a half block away from us had water on their main levels that was waist deep. I almost felt kind of guilty because our sump basket was dry. My Father before retirement was the superintendant of water and sewer for the city of North St. Paul so I've kind of been on to this sort of thing for a while. From a common sense perspective we see changing out the flexible piping as completely unnecessary. To sum this up what we're looking for is a variance to the city ordinance. Thanks very much for your time and consideration concerning this matter. Brian. 4 1 '6' en 000 ONG ���� R�N G o. 1, u cep, -At Q-ktc-k coLA. .co-tAittN i i 0 'gt,ttkA. C4. CZIA;(4:t4 5 11 u htk, ( eicy\'‘ r L tour\, t .,t; -e- 5 -a TaYr1 5 - a1 - 1 \ .-m L • �, $ - 3 1- I & y'n, 41, (t. jyY -tom- 1 • ( /e) 14.64,,04' -.i , ,,,t j ` 2 E 1 . `. C -i to . N Y0't — • ' ' QCi \ 'fi , v-, Az ci?„,: 5 I i\ , : (4taka.. - 7 chittp,",-.\ Jtyyyl 6-1 43-1 . 4 ..e ., moo ( -:. / o cry - 0 et_„t-t ce- 1- d‘sludj-c-v---L L T Y14.(Lily., ‘4,4 , ` c:,',„ tdOCLia ..(j45- '8 , 1,4.4* . , tN` 4 -,/1r' w SrnCA i vhC duv'i n ±h' -1-;me. ' . oie + eN a©k ex -+h►5 ,.pb -II r1 - a.4 6H o " = cart\r ck .4-k_ cdai Ckak c V ) (Dr 7` a +0 7 -1' l im-1 0T ?)1,1,.rh4) i , n. - Pei-► Lo6,60 was. *d\ 6, to 111 C 1 Says 3 ro C, v t e vi ck-e ^ NA'N ‘ k VOA I .f` %r 9 -5 -- 9 -1S 33,1 hA. n r h;. V)aw An Lt, I,utx.4,r .:. t``r.1,4- LC, -ne C..-6�� i.�.,"� 1 - • � .1 � -(,.1 c-� ^ ! V t L i , r 4 � t "k,. C 1 , . c) � - eft j k41 A, iL W � , 1 t c,!-- , ° Cl Tom Colbert From: Tom Colbert Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:41 PM To: 'Barbra Adrian' Subject: Surcharge Appeal -City response, 1723 Hickory Hill(Adrian), 9 -20 -11 Barbra Adrian, Thank you for your patience while we researched your account records and inspection schedules. Our records indicate that the following notices were sent to your attention: • July 1, 2011 — 1 notice requesting an inspection (30 days to respond) • August 1, 2011— 2 notice requesting an inspection (15 days to respond) • Aug 25, 2011 - $150 Surcharge levied for no response • Sept. 8, 2011 — 1 notice of Surcharge • Sept 13, 2011— Inspection performed It is unfortunate that you did not open the previous notices from the City attempting to inform you about this mandatory inspection program and the need to respond by scheduling an inspection within the required time frame. The 2 notice that we send out even has a very large neon yellow sticker applied to the outside. Based on these attempts by the City and your lack of timely response, I regret that I do not have the authority to waive the surcharge due to these circumstances. Thank you for your subsequent cooperation in scheduling this inspection and I'm glad that your property was found to be in compliance. I'm sorry that I was not able to accommodate your request to remove this fee. Tom Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55123 -1481 (651- 675 -5635 (ph) (651) 675 -5694 (fax) From: Barbra Adrian [mailto:bwa0512@ msn.coml Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:24 AM To: Tom Colbert; Barbra Adrian Subject: Surcharge Appeal, 1723 Hickory Hill(Adrian), 9 -8 -11 Good Morning Tom, I received your e -mail from Jim Hoff. I do apologize for not having the inspection set up sooner, most of our bills come through e -mail and every quarter I look for the City of Eagan in the mail. Since it was not end of quarter I set aside mail from the City which, as I found last night, were the letters of inspection. In the last 5 years I have not received anything the required immediate attention as did this inspection letter. I opened the inspection letter last night along with the bill and am writing to ask if I could please have the inspection fee removed. We have always been very prompt on our payments to the City and ask that it please be removed, I will certainly pay attention to all mail the comes from the city going forward. I did set up the inspection this morning and it is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept 13th between 4 -5pm. If you would like to reach me regarding this my number is 612- 961 -3875. Thank you so much, Barb /3 To whom it may concern: Below are the details of communication that took place from September 8th through October 14th of 2011. In summary I do understand that communication was sent out via mail, however all of our bills except the utility bill from the City of Eagan come via e -mail. Since all of our other mail is junk I do not go through it very often and only make it a point to make sure I do close to quarter end so that the City of Eagan bill is paid on time. In the last 5 years that I have been living in Eagan I have never received anything other than the utility bill therefore it did not provoke me to open anything prior to quarter end regardless of a neon sticker (which I do not recall). There are plenty of junk mail items that come or credit card applications with neon stickers that have possibly numbed me to pay attention to any of these items or cause me to have a sense of urgency regarding them. Action was taken immediately the next day to set up the inspection and we have always paid our utility bill on time and prior to the inspection I was hoping that this would play a factor in the decision to reverse the fee. After taking time off of work to have the inspection and finding that we didn't even have a sum pump I was then frustrated that the fee was even placed on a dwelling that does not have a sum pump. The inspector indicated that places that are not fully underground do not have them so I was surprised that building records or something would have prompted the city to not have these dwellings inspected. In conclusion I don't understand how it is fair to place a fee, a large fee, upon someone who does not even have the item to inspect. I hope that you take this into consideration. Sincerely, Barb and Jeff Morrell September 7th, 2011 Went through mail and came across a letter indicating the mandatory inspection and note that the surcharge would be added to the utility bill. I then opened the utility bill and noticed the surcharge had been added. September 8th, 2011 Called the City of Eagan utility customer service number and was informed they did not handle the inspection appointments or questions regarding the surcharge. Spoke to the person who sets up the appointments and set the inspection up for September 13th at 4:OOpm (soonest end of day that was available). I also spoke with Jim Hoff who provided me Tom Colbert's e -mail address as a contact regarding the surcharge. E- mailed Tom Colbert the following: Good Morning Tom, I received your e -mail from Jim Hoff. I do apologize for not having the inspection set up sooner, most of our bills come through e -mail and every quarter I look for the City of Eagan in the mail. Since it was not end of quarter I set aside mail from the City which, as I found last night, were the letters of inspection. In the last 5 years I have not received anything the / G7/ required immediate attention as did this inspection letter. I opened the inspection letter last night along with the bill and am writing to ask if I could please have the inspection fee removed. We have always been very prompt on our payments to the City and ask that it please be removed, I will certainly pay attention to all mail the comes from the city going forward. I did set up the inspection this morning and it is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept 13th between 4 -5pm. If you would like to reach me regarding this my number is 612- 961 -3875. Thank you so much, Barb September 9th, 2011 Received the following e -mail from Tom Colbert: Barbra Adrian, I am in receipt of your email request regarding the surcharge recently placed on your Utility Billing account and will have to review your account's records before I can reply to your request, most likely later next week. Sincerely, Tom Colbert, P.E September 13th, 2011 My husband and I left work early to arrive home for the 4:OOpm mandatory inspection. My husband was not certain he would be able to make it which is why I also left work. Neil arrived promptly for the sum pump inspection. He was there less than five minute to take a very quick look to then inform me that we do not have a sum pump. I mentioned that I then didn't understand the surcharge for something we don't even have. Neil mentioned that the city is pretty good about removing the fee. At this point I was frustrated but thought I would wait until I heard back from Tom regarding the removal of the fee. September 21St, 2011 Received the following e -mail from Tom Colbert: Barbra Adrian, Thank you for your patience while we researched your account records and inspection schedules. Our records indicate that the following notices were sent to your attention: July 1, 2011 - 1St notice requesting an inspection (30 days to respond) • August 1, 2011 - 2nd notice requesting an inspection (15 days to respond) • Aug 25, 2011 - $150 Surcharge levied for no response • Sept. 8, 2011 -1St notice of Surcharge • Sept 13, 2011 - Inspection performed It is unfortunate that you did not open the previous notices from the City attempting to inform you about this mandatory inspection program and the need to respond by scheduling an inspection within the required time frame. The 2nd notice that we send out even has a very large neon yellow sticker applied to the outside. Based on these attempts by the City and your lack of timely response, I regret that I do not have the authority to waive the surcharge due to these circumstances. Thank you for your subsequent cooperation in scheduling this inspection and I'm glad that your property was found to be in compliance. I'm sorry that I was not able to accommodate your request to remove this fee. Tom Colbert, P.E. I responded with the following: Tom, I am disheartened by your response especially after leaving work early, having the inspection and learning that we do not even have a sum pump for them to inspect. I would think that the builders records and records of other units that had been inspected would have proven that you are charging for inpection of something that we don't even have. I would ask that you would reconsider your decision. Thank you, Barb My husband also called Tom and asked who did have the authority to remove the fee. Tom told my husband he would have to call City Council. My husband indicated that we would not be paying the surcharge and will be sending in only what we owe the city for our quarterly utility bill. Tom told my husband that there would then be a possibility of acquiring finance charges. I also received the following response from Tom, I had sent the above e -mail and my husband called about the same time: Barb, I just finished speaking to a Mr. Jeff Morrell about your surcharge and explained to him that I do not have the authority to waive the surcharge, as explained in my previous reply. I'm sorry that I am not able to provide a more favorable response. Tom Colbert, P.E September 22nd, 2011 Utility bill is due and has not yet been sent. We did not want to send it until this was resolved. September 23rd, 2011 Call the City and asked to speak with someone in City Council, I was asked what this was in regards to and told them the surcharge. Was then told they would give me Tom Colbert's number. I / explained that I have had contact with Tom Colbert and that he did not have the authority to remove the fee. 1 was then given Tom Hedge's number. I left a voicemail for Tom Hedges. September 27th, 2011 Left 2nd voicemail for Tom Hedges. Tom Hedge's did call me back on the 27th. I explained the situation and mentioned that I thought the fee was unfair due to the fact that we did not have a sum pump. In speaking with him he said that there had not been many cases of disputing the fee so he would have to bring this to City Council, I mentioned to him that I was surprised since the inspector said that the city was pretty good about removing the fee. I told Tom that if he needed any documentation or for me to be there to let me know. I also told him that our bill was now late because we didn't want to send it in, he indicated to send in only the normal utility amount and that he would talk to financing to make sure that there would be no finance charges added. October 14th, 2011 Received the following e -mail from Tom Colbert: Barb, As you recall from our previous communications, I was not authorized to waive the $150 surcharge you incurred under the City's Inflow & Infiltration Program. I understand that either you or Mr. Morrell then contacted our City Administrator Tom Hedges expressing an interest in pursuing your appeal directly to the City Council. The City has also received several other similar requests for further Council consideration. Mr. Hedges has asked me to inform you that, as a result of these request, the City Council has directed the Public Works Committee to hear all concerns and appeals received from you and other property owners, and they have subsequently scheduled their Cmte meeting for 6 pm on Tuesday Oct. 25 in the Engineering Conference room (1 A /B) on the 1st floor of City Hall for this purpose. The Public Works Cmte consists of Council members Cindy Fields and Paul Bakken. Because the Councilmembers can appreciate the property owner's probable interest in privacy when discussing this issue, they are willing to meet with each of you individually on a first come basis starting at 6 pm that evening in the conference room rather than in the formal Council Chambers. It would be helpful if you could please submit an updated written summary and justification for your request to my attention no later than 4 pm on Thursday, October 20. This will allow us to include it in the background packet information that will be sent out to them the following day. /7 Hopefully, you will be able to fit this meeting into your schedule. If, for some reason, you are unable to attend, please feel free to send a designated representative on your behalf. Similarly, if you no longer wish to pursue your request further, please let me know as well so that we will not unnecessarily plan on your item. Thank you for your continued cooperation in this program and process. Tom Colbert, P.E. Responded to Tom with the following: Hi Tom, That time will work, thank you. I will have the written summary to you but the 20th. Thanks again, Barb Tom Colbert From: Tom Colbert Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:53 PM To: 'boyanghong @yahoo.com' Subject: RE: Surcharge adjstmt - 2nd appeal, 1929 Timber Wolf Ct(Hong), 9 -08 -11 Dr. Hong, I received your latest email indicating the you had your inspection completed this afternoon. Thank you for your cooperation in getting this done. In regards to your email from yesterday, notices were sent out to the most recent address of record with the City, which are provided by you. It is your responsibility to notify us of any changes and to keep your account information current. We have no other means to contact you about issues that affect your property and Utility Billing account other than through the United States Mail. As stated earlier, we have no reason to believe that the notices were not delivered or forwarded by the Post Office and none were returned to us as undeliverable. I'm sorry but I do not have the ability to provide any further adjustments. Tom Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55123 -1481 (651- 675 -5635 (ph) (651) 675 -5694 (fax) From: boyanghong @yahoo.com [mailto:boyanghong @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:22 PM To: Tom Colbert Cc: James Hauth; Holly Kimani Subject: Surcharge adjstmt - 2nd appeal, 1929 Timber Wolf Ct(Hong), 9 -08 -11 Mr. Colbert: Thank you very much for your help. I will inform you the inspection result, by sending you a e -mail tomorrow. However, I would like to request your office to waive the $150 fine, for the following reasons: (1) The auto payment system gave me a false sense of reliability. I keep paying my bill, without notice that there is a fine. Two days ago is the first time I notice that there is a fine. (I think it is the first time the fine was posted.) (2) If you look at the county property record, or the Dakota CDA record, I updated my mailing address already, a long time ago. However, I may fail to realize various government agency may not connect the record together, or somehow my address change message to Eagan was lost. (3) The Post office may not be reliable in forwarding mail. I have not receive receive water bill or any Eagan City mail from Eagan for a long time, even through my auto - payment keep paying the bill. Based on my payment history, you can see that I have no reason to ignore the inspection, if I received the inspection notice. In fact, I called the city right away, when I got the last water bill. /y I feel that I shoulder a lot of tax burden for our country already. I paid very high income tax, and I paid around $30,000 for property tax each year. The possible $150 fine for mailing/communication failure is too much to bear. Thanks again. Dr. Boyang (Bo) Hong From: Tom Colbert <TColbert @cityofeagan.com> To: "'boyanghong @yahoo.com "' <boyanghong @yahoo.com> Cc: James Hauth <JHauth @cityofeagan.com >; Holly Kimani <hkimani @cityofeagan.com> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 3:40 PM Subject: Surcharge adjustment, 1929 Timber Wolf Court (Hong), 9 -08 -11 Mr. Hong, I have received your email requesting consideration of the surcharge that has been placed on your Utility Billing Account due to lack of response to several letters requesting you to schedule an inspection under the City's mandatory Sump Pump Inspection Program. Our records show that the following notices were mailed to you: Initial Letter - 5/23/2011 Final Notice — 6/23/2011 1 Surcharge Levied — 7/27/2011 1 Surcharge Notice — 7/28/2011 2 Surcharge Levied — 8/24/2011 As you can see, the surcharge has been levied for two months at $150 per month = $300. We were only informed of your new mailing address when you recently contacted us regarding the surcharge posted on your most recent Utility Bill (which was mailed to your old address). It is apparent that you are getting your mail forwarded to your new address as the Post Office did not return any of the previous letters or your Utility Bill as being undeliverable. However, based on the cooperation you have shown in scheduling the necessary inspection once you finally contacted us, the City Council has authorized me to reduce your surcharge to $150. I have also researched your other property at 4115 Strawberry Lane. This property has not been scheduled for a sump pump inspection for this year, but will most likely be programmed for next year. Please watch for similar notices in your mail and respond accordingly. I appreciate your past and anticipated future cooperation with this ongoing mandatory inspection program. Sincerely, Torn Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55123 -1481 (651- 675 -5635 (ph) (651) 675 -5694 (fax) From: boyanghong @yahoo.com [mailto:boyanghong @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:29 PM 2 To: Tom Colbert Subject: Surcharge appeal, 1929 Timber Wolf Court (Hong), 9 -07 -11 Tom: I have two waterbill accounts with Eagan. (1929 Timber Wolf Court, Eagan, and 4115 Straberry Lane, Eagan) Because I use auto pay program, I always pay my bill on time. I changed mailing address recently. My old mailing adress was: 6349 Josephine Ave, Edina, MN 55439. My new mailing address is: 6616 GLEASON TERRACE, Edina, MN 55439. I informed the city of Eagan the address change, however, because the Edina city and zip code are unchanged, somehow the message is lost. I found out about the $300 (Non- Inspection) fee, for the first tune, at a delayed water bill yesterday. I call Terry at 651- 470 -2788 immediately, today. The inspection is scheduled on this Friday,September 9, at 1 to 2 -PM. Please refund the $300, or stop the auto withdrwaw of $300 on September 22. I will send you another e -mail, after the inspection is completed on September 9. Thank you very much for your help. Can you also check the inspection status of 4115 Strawberry Lane? Sincerely, Boyang Hong 651- 492 -1979 3 /