Laserfiche WebLink
At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer advised that the proposed <br /> language for I & I conformed to stormwater staying on the subject property and <br /> not flowing to adjacent properties, and probably wouldn't change what most <br /> people did as a common and typical practice, with few exceptions. <br /> At the request of Member Lenz, this included not being able to discharge <br /> stormwater runoff directly into a stormwater pond, but on public rights-or-way. <br /> Member Heimerl noted that the city pursued people more aggressively for <br /> violation of other city code, and questioned why not be more aggressive with <br /> sump pump discharges as well. <br /> Mr. Freihammer responded that while it depended on how aggressive the city <br /> wanted to be, it involved a general cost to the city for those doing so versus those <br /> not discharging, since the city and its utility users ended up paying for treatment <br /> of that water at a considerable expense. Mr. Freihammer suggested that be a <br /> discussion point going forward, noting there are two types of sump pumps, those <br /> dumping into a floor drain or sink, and also those with foundation drains installed <br /> when the home was build and plumbed for discharging directly into the sanitary <br /> sewer system. Therefore, Mr. Freihammer suggested two different kinds of <br /> violations that needed identified through inspection programs, during building or <br /> other permit inspections, and potential requirement that those former systems be <br /> disconnected with a related timeframe to do so. However, Mr. Freihammer noted <br /> that depending on their type of installation, some would be easier and less costly <br /> to do than others. <br /> Member Heimerl noted that some people now purchasing homes, or those living <br /> in homes built in the 1950's may not even be aware of the situation; and <br /> suggested a grace period for new owners with homes incorrectly plumbed to bring <br /> them into compliance. Member Heimerl opined that at a minimum this would at <br /> least bring to their attention that they were currently violating city code; and <br /> create a more friendly way to work with residents versus having them continue to <br /> violate code, especially when they may not know they're doing so. Member <br /> Heimerl spoke in support of that as a better approach to differentiate those <br /> knowingly violating city code and those not knowing they're doing so; and <br /> therefore make the program more voluntary in nature. <br /> Chair Cihacek noted the proof of sale concept that required anyone selling a home <br /> to fix the issue for new residents, with title transition triggering the home be <br /> brought up-to-date with city code. <br /> Mr. Freihammer noted this would be a point of discussion for the future as to <br /> what triggered or tied into municipal code, and a timeframe for actively enforcing <br /> it, with the ultimate goal for residents to get it corrected as soon as possible. <br /> Private Hydrants <br /> Page 15 of 17 <br />