02-02-93 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0- F12 ,_+- 12 -lr, 7i'1 L'=- HTL- PEE, LHB 201- 1-1-17 001 -L TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Todd R. Williams RE: Septic System Ordinance DATE. February 2, 1993 I regret that. I will not be able to attend the discussion on this ordinance, but I have another commitment. I also regret that this topic is yet again on the Council agenda. I urge you, as I have urged before, to reject the proposed change in the ordinance, which change would avoid the need for manhole covers to be brought to the surface. I would very much appreciate Someone's reading into the record my reasons, which are as follows: 1. The monetary cost involved is not very much: $65-120, excluding the labor to dig down to the currcntly submerged manhole. 2. My current system was put in under the 201 Project. Yes, if the City had known then all it knows now, the manholes would have been put at ground level. But we are (hopefully) smarter now, If the current ordinance had been in effect during the 201 Project, would people have refused to participate just because the manhole covers would have been at ground level? 3. The electrical box for the sump pump, which many (but not all) new systems use, is much more visually obtrusive than a ground level manhole cover, This box is also much more dangerous as far as people tripping over it or falling into it and being injured. Finally, this box is an obstacle to lawn maintenance, whereas a manhole cover can be driven over with a power lawn mower without difficulty. 4. The manhole covers used in the 201 Project are so heavy that a single grown man has great difficulty moving them without special tools. Therefore, there is virtually no danger of small children moving such lids and falling into the uncovered tanks. 5. The main reason for having manhole covers at the surface is to maximize the chance that, when the pumper comes to call, that pumper can pump the tank through the manhole and not just through an inspection pipe. I hope that by this time, after all the publicity, the visit by Dave Gustayson of the University, the discussions with pumpers, there is no one in Lake Elmo who would still argue that pumping through the manhole is not needed. There simply is no question about it. I wonder whether those people who are putting so much energy into complaining about this ordinance would put as much energy into digging up their submerged lids every two years for pumping, especially in rainy or snowy weather. 6. There are many instances in our society when rules are made retroactive. The well-known vehicle inspection law is an excellent example. When it is reasonable to require such retroactivity, other governmental agencies show little reluctance to do so. It is reasonable to require every manhole cover to be brought to the surface, as a matter of public health, so that the septic tanks can be cleaned properly. The Council felt it was not reasonable to require older tanks to be retrofit with manholes, although it could have done so. The objection of some people to the retroactivity provision is really a red herring. If those people bought a new house in Lake