10-24-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION October 3, 2016 DRAFT 2 brought the city into the picture. He suggests that perhaps staff should be explaining 46 needs to be done to get the job done correctly. 47 48 Community Development Director Grochala explained that staff cannot be in the 49 business of designing improvements and the role suggested is typically handled by the 50 contractor. Mr. Grochala suggested that the council could interpret the regulations to 51 include extended family and that would allow this project to continue with the current 52 workers. 53 54 Mr. Kolstad addressed the council. This involves his father’s home but he himself was a 55 resident for a very long time until lately. He agrees that it is the role of the city to work 56 with the citizens. He feels that the building inspector wasn’t helpful but much more 57 regulatory than necessary. 58 59 Mr. Karlson noted that the father applied for the permit so that wasn’t actually accurate. 60 Mr. Kolstad explained that his father isn’t able to do the work. 61 62 Council Member Maher asked for clarification that the property owner must be on the 63 equipment and operating it. Staff said no – the owner must be on the property. 64 65 Mr. Kolstad suggested that the building inspector had “his dander up” when he arrived 66 and that caused him to threaten certain actions. He feels that the inspector was overly 67 sensitive to the regulations. 68 69 Representative Runbeck suggested that the city wouldn’t be on the hook if the system 70 were to fail – it would be the homeowner. Mr. Kolstad noted that they (the owners) will 71 be required to enter a hold-harmless on the situation. At this point in the project, they are 72 offering to rectify what is wrong and have it corrected for the inspector’s approval. 73 74 Council Member Rafferty asked if the surveyor work is done correctly and that was 75 verified by Mr. Kolstad, who added that the issue was that the wrong type of vehicle was 76 used over the drain field area. The mayor confirmed that it is fixable. 77 78 Community Development Director Grochala read aloud the statute related to the 79 situation. Council Member Kusterman said the law isn’t ambiguous and it is clear. He 80 noted that there must be a way for the city to remediate the problem however he believes 81 that the staff is following the law. Mr. Kolstad said he spoke with a state enforcement 82 agency and a person at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and they stated that the 83 laws are written to be somewhat ambiguous and they feel that the city has room for 84 interpretation. The state official did say that he personally wouldn’t enforce it in this 85 situation. Mr. Kolstad said the purpose of his request is to assist an elderly citizen who 86 doesn’t have a lot of money. There was a mistake made along the way but they’d still 87 like to be allowed to proceed with the project. 88 89