Laserfiche WebLink
261 attempt, with the noncompliance penalty intended now for those not allowing <br />262 staff access to make the inspections. Once that data is compiled, Mr. Schwartz <br />263 noted that the next step in the future would address consequences after those <br />264 initial inspections. <br />265 <br />266 Mr. Culver noted the anticipated 5,000 meter replacements to be done in one year, <br />267 providing significant data regarding how much of an issue sump pump <br />268 noncompliance is to the overall I/I issue, and will provide the magnitude of the <br />269 problem and options to address those illegal connections based on that data. <br />270 Mr. Schwartz noted that, once that data is available, the City Council could then <br />271 determine whether or not to consider resources for residents, an incentive <br />272 program, or other options. <br />273 <br />274 Section 802.12 <br />275 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz clarified that ordinance <br />276 language regarding a grace period would not be included until completion of the <br />277 initial assessment. Mr. Schwartz suggested proposed language be modified to <br />278 address access issues at this point versus noncom ce of the system. <br />279 <br />280 Member Cihacek noted language in Sections 11 and 12 that would clarify <br />281 that. <br />282 <br />283 At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the City <br />284 would keep a record of what was found as part of the data gathering efforts. <br />285 <br />286 Discussion ensued regarding how language define enalties or fines; further <br />287 modification of the ordinance after initial data mining inspections; how to <br />288 determine whether or not sump pump connections were compliant in older homes <br />289 or for those not having pulled any permits; clarification by staff that the initial <br />290 inspection was simply a yes/no sump pump connection and how/where they're <br />291 discharged, with the draft inspection checklist consisting of only 5-6 questions. <br />292 <br />293 Further discussion included defining foundation drains, their typical location <br />294 and/or visibility; and clarification and/or frequency of non-compliance fees for <br />295 non -entry inspections versus connections. <br />296 <br />297 Mr. Culver clarified that the City owned water meters and determined when and if <br />298 they needed changed out, usually with a target area and notification provided to <br />299 homeowners during a certain time period and appointments scheduled <br />300 accordingly. Mr. Culver noted that it was seldom a problem to schedule those <br />301 appointments, with the City being flexible in meeting the needs of the <br />302 homeowner, including those out-of-town during winter months. Mr. Culver <br />303 opined that it would be only when resolution seemed unavailable, that a surcharge <br />304 would be applied, and then only until final resolution was accomplished. <br />305 <br />306 Member Cihacek asked that such language be memorialized in the ordinance. <br />Page 7 of 14 <br />