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