06/23/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Background:, CASE g8 POLICY ON SEPTIC SYSTEM REPAIR By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer Septic systCr~s ¢~nsist basically of two major components; a tank, into which gross solids settle out and deeO~p0~,e and a soil absorption field through which smaller suspended particles attach to soil parti¢los ~nd We decomposed by bacteria. The tank is usually a water tight concrete structure and can have~ s~ice life of 30 to 40 years. However, the soil absorption field essentially acts as a filter whiehtmill!eventually plug. With careful use and proper maintenance, soil absorption fields can generally'~be!~xpected to have a service life of 15 to 20 years. It is inevitable that septic tank failures wilt ~e~ and the City will receive complaints regarding these fail,res. This has ~curred in the past, ia~d w~,ith the rapid growth Ramsey experienced in the mid-70 s and early 80 s, many systems will'~t~onlbe reaching the end of their useful lives. Naturally, the number of these failure complaints ¢~ be[expected to increase and it is important that the City have an effective policy for dealing with ~is i~;sue. The obvious ~rst ~tep in dealing with septic system complaints is to have a City employee under the direction bf th.~ Building Official, investigate. There has been a problem in some instances, in the past, at tl:~is S!ep in that it has been the City's policy to request permission of the property owner to enter or, to the property to investigate the complaint. If the property owner refuses permission, t~ie C!ty employee is directed to make an attempt to investigate from property lines, although thi~ :Is nm always satisfactory due to limited visibility caused by vegetation, topography and large lot t~imet~sions. In situations ~ he~ the Building Official has determined the septic system has failed, he wilI issue a repair order; I'hi~: is a similar action to that taken by the County'in handling this problem. My conversation riff the individual from the County revealed that this action usually resulted in compliance, at [ at if it did not, the case would then be referred to the County Attorney. (The individual I. ~ke ~,ith did indicate, however, that in the last six years there was no recollection of prosecuting st eh a!rCaSe.) The City Ordi anc~ Section 8.30.08 clearly addressed the course of action to be taken as follows: "In ca~e th~. owner shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with the notice to repair or rehabi~itat~ or abate as described in the section above, the City Council may order the ow~erlt~ the building prosecuted as a violator of the provisions of this section and m~j~. Or, der the plumbing inspector to proceed with the work specified in such notiCe.i A~tatement of the cost of such work shall be transmitted to the City CounC~ who shall cause the same to be paid and levied as a special assessment agains~'the ~roperty".i . Alternativesl, The major issu~[~ .tO~e addressed is what actions the City should take once a repair order is ignored. Below are seV~ ~ternatives: 1) iOrdbr the system to be replaced and assess all costs associated with icon!truction, administrative, and legal costs to be assessed against the ~.ro~erty. Consm~ction costs may range between $2,000 for a conventional ~syst~m and $5,000 for a mound system. Administrative costs could be ~sse~sed as a final percentage of the construction cost, say 25%~or a project r