Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION October 3, 2016 <br />APPROVED <br />46 brought the city into the picture. He suggests that perhaps staff should be explaining <br />47 needs to be done to get the job done correctly. <br />48 <br />49 Community Development Director Grochala explained that staff cannot be in the <br />5o business of designing improvements and the role suggested is typically handled by the <br />51 contractor. Mr. Grochala suggested that the council could interpret the regulations to <br />52 include extended family and that would allow this project to continue with the current <br />53 workers. <br />54 <br />55 Mr. Kolstad addressed the council. This involves his father's home but he himself was a <br />56 resident for a very long time until lately. He agrees that it is the role of the city to work <br />57 with the citizens. He feels that the building inspector wasn't helpful but much more <br />58 regulatory than necessary. <br />59 <br />60 Mr. Karlson noted that the father applied for the permit so that wasn't actually accurate. <br />61 Mr. Kolstad explained that his father isn't able to do the work. <br />62 <br />63 Council Member Maher asked for clarification that the property owner must be on the <br />64 equipment and operating it. Staff said no — the owner must be on the property. <br />65 <br />66 Mr. Kolstad suggested that the building inspector had "his dander up" when he arrived <br />67 and that caused him to threaten certain actions. He feels that the inspector was overly <br />68 sensitive to the regulations. <br />69 <br />70 Representative Runbeck suggested that the city wouldn't be on the hook if the system <br />71 were to fail — it would be the homeowner. Mr. Kolstad noted that they (the owners) will <br />72 be required to enter a hoWharmless on the situation. At this point in the project, they are <br />73 offering to rectify what is wrong and have it corrected for the inspector's approval. <br />74 <br />75 Council Member Rafferty asked if the surveyor work is done correctly and that was <br />76 verified by Mr. Kolstad, who added that the issue was that the wrong type of vehicle was <br />77 used over the drain field area. The mayor confirmed that it is fixable. <br />78 <br />79 Community Development Director Grochala read aloud the statute related to the <br />80 situation. Council Member Kusterman said the law isn't ambiguous and it is clear. He <br />81 noted that there must be a way for the city to remediate the problem however he believes <br />82 that the staff is following the law. Mr. Kolstad said he spoke with a state enforcement <br />83 agency and a person at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and they stated that the <br />84 laws are written to be somewhat ambiguous and they feel that the city has room for <br />85 interpretation. The state official did say that he personally wouldn't enforce it in this <br />86 situation. Mr. Kolstad said the purpose of his request is to assist an elderly citizen who <br />87 doesn't have a lot of money. There was a mistake made along the way but they'd still <br />88 like to be allowed to proceed with the project. <br />89 <br />2 <br />