►
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting February 24, 2015
10d. Modify Private Sewer Lateral Policy
A
B
Evening,
mr.
mayor
members
of
the
City
Council,
we're
here
tonight
to
address
the
issue
of
maintenance
responsibilities
for
private
sewer
laterals
by
looking
at
two
things,
first
of
all
by
reviewing
an
existing
resolution
and
then
also
by
reviewing
the
city's
current
ordinance.
As
you
know,
the
Municipal
Code
already
establishes
that
private
sewer
laterals
are
owned
by
the
private
property
owners,
but
in
1976
the
city
adopted
a
resolution.
B
That's
included
in
your
packet
to
provide
some
maintenance
based
on
the
conforming
existence
of
a
conforming
clean
out
and
that
maintenance
was
limited
to
rotting
and
beyond
that,
the
owner
was
responsible
to
repair
or
replace
their
own
lateral.
So
in
other
words,
the
city
would
show
up
would
rod
the
the
lateral.
But
then,
if
there
was
a
problem,
the
the
property
owner
would
have
to
replace
a
repair
at
themselves.
B
Ten
years
later,
the
city
adopted
a
resolution
in
1986.
That's
also
attached
to
your
packet,
which
expanded
the
scope
of
city
services
for
private
laterals
with
approved
clean
house.
So
if
somebody
installed
and
approved
clean
out,
the
city
would
wouldn't
just
rod
the
sewer
lateral
if
there
was
a
problem,
but
they
would
either
repair
or
replace
it
if
necessary.
And
then,
under
that
program,
the
property
owners
were
charged
60
cents
per
month
that
program
and
that
charge
was
in
place
for
over
28
years.
B
But
since
that
time
the
costs
of
the
program
have
far
outstripped
and
the
amounts
collected,
as
indicated
in
the
staff
report
and
just
for
comparison,
the
amounts
that
have
been
spent
since
2009,
just
in
the
last
five
or
six
years,
have
actually
exceeded
our
close
to
exceeded
the
total
amount
collected
over
the
entire
28
years
and
then
going
forward.
The
amounts
that
the
city
plans
to
spend
are
going
to
be
over
about
1.1
million
dollars
per
year
going
forward.
B
Not
only
that,
but
as
the
staff
report
indicates,
that
amount
is
likely
to
increase
over
time,
and
there
are
a
couple
of
reasons
for
that.
The
first
reason
is
that
we
expect
that
more
property
owners
will
install
clean
outs
after
implementation
of
the
lateral
inspection
program
that
the
City
Council
approved
last
year.
That
goes
into
effect
in
May
and
when
property
owners
are
required
to
repair
replace
their
private
laterals
after
they
or
before
they
sell
their
property.
B
We
anticipate
in
anticipation
of
that
the
property
owners
are
going
to
install
a
clean
out
for
a
couple
of
hundred
dollars
and
then
make
the
city
repair
or
replace
their
lateral.
So
we
think
those
costs
are
going
to
go
up.
The
second
reason
why
the
costs
are
likely
to
increase
is
because,
once
that
happens,
the
city
will
actually
have
more
private
laterals
to
maintain
going
forward.
B
So
the
conclusion
and
the
staff
report
is
essentially
that
the
program
adopted
in
1986,
while
while
good
at
the
time
charges
about
11,000
residents
an
insufficient
amount
for
a
service
that
only
a
relatively
few
people
will
use.
But
unfortunately,
those
individuals,
by
taking
advantage
of
that
service,
will
impose
an
unsustainable
burden
on
the
on
the
system.
B
So
the
City
Council
has
discussed
this
this
difficult
issue
at
four
public
meetings,
starting
in
June
of
last
year,
and
if
the
city
does
decide
to
return
some
of
the
responsibilities
of
maintenance
and
repair
to
the
property
owners,
as
other
cities
have
done,
you
will
need
to
consider
taking
two
actions
and
both
of
those
actions
are
presented
for
you
tonight
in
the
forum
of
discussion
and
direction.
The
first
action
would
be
to
repeal
the
1986
resolution
and
then
the
second
action
would
be
to
amend
your
existing
ordinance
to
make
the
policy
clear.
B
Now
your
existing
ordinance
already
says
private
property
owners
owned
the
laterals,
but
it
would
be
amended
to
say
and
they're
responsible
for
repairing
or
replacing
them.
The
amended
ordinance,
as
you
see
in
your
packet
would
also
specify
the
services
that
the
staff
will
provide.
So
if
there's
a
call,
the
staff
will
go
out.
They'll
inspect
the
lateral.
B
If
that's
possible,
they'll
they'll
try
to
clear
the
blockage
as
well
as
much
as
possible
and
then
refer
back
to
the
to
the
property
owner
to
do
a
repair
replacement,
if
that's
necessary
in
the
course
of
those
four
meetings.
The
City
Council
recognized
that
it
might
be
a
burden
on
some
property
owners
who
might
know
they
have
failing
private
laterals,
who
were
anticipating
that
they
might
take
advantage
of
the
city's
program,
as
others
have
over
28
years,
so
the
City
Council
directed
staff
to
research,
the
availability
of
a
private
warranty
program.
B
So
it
turns
out
that
for
about
nine
dollars
a
month,
property
owners
can
have
the
peace
of
mind
that,
if
their
lateral
fails,
they
are
covered
actually
both
for
the
upper
and
the
lower
lateral
up
to
eight
thousand
dollars.
So
that's
actually
better
than
what
the
city
does.
What
the
city
would
do,
even
under
the
current
policy,
is
just
repair
replace
the
lower
lateral.
So
the
warranty
coverage
covers
both
both
pieces
of
that
lateral.
B
If
the
City
Council
does
direct
staff
to
proceed
with
the
actions
that
are
provided
in
your
staff
report,
then
a
upcoming
meeting
will
bring
back
the
resolution
to
repeal
resolution
1986
and
also
an
ordinance
amendment
as
reflected
in
the
staff
packet
or,
as
you
may
decide
to
modify.
That
concludes
my
staff
report.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Any.
C
The
staff
recommendation
has
many
mistakes
in
it
and
it
should
be
revised
before
any
action.
The
action
should
be
to
keep
the
present
lower
lateral
program.
It's
difficult
for
me
to
bring
you
such
challenging
news.
I
know
you
don't
expect
that
someone
believes
that
the
staff
report
is
simply
wrong
on
the
facts,
but
in
this
case
it
is
multiple
times.
C
So
I
challenge
you
to
review
the
current
staff
report
and
keep
the
current
sewer
repair
program
in
place
until
the
true
detail.
Facts
are
known,
for
example,
I
learned
just
this
week
that
the
city
is
misreported,
the
sewer,
lateral
spills
since
2009,
thus
making
the
Bay
keepers
agreement
and
finds
happen.
The
staff
report
this
week
staff
report,
not
the
last
one.
You
saw
claims
that
knew
this,
but
they
were
reporting
it
out
of
a
desire
to
be
accurate
or
earnest
or
something.
C
While
the
staff
report
claims
that
knew
this,
but
in
fact
every
city
in
the
state
in
2009
was
trying
to
report
only
the
true
minimum
number
of
spills
except
San,
Bruno
I,
don't
know
why
that
happened.
I'm
just
telling
you
I
know
it
happened,
and
the
state
water
board
knows
that
happened,
but
they
told
me
it's
just
their
job
to
get
the
reports
and
they
didn't.
C
They
didn't
realize
that
some
of
them,
weren't,
applicable
the
staff
report
overstates
the
projected
costs
and
costs
today,
for
example,
it
says
that
more
than
2.2
million
was
spent
since
2009,
but
doesn't
simple
inspection
of
the
staffs
own
graph
reveal
al
/,
lower
total.
Unless
you
add
in
future
estimates
twice,
I
requested
the
backup
calculation
for
the
cost
graph.
None
is
available
to
me
at
the
City
Council
study
session
on
this
ordinance
for
members,
the
public
spoke
out
against
the
ordinance.
Another
study
session
was
scheduled
but
cancelled.
C
C
Does
this
bring
up
an
FPPC
or
Essex
question
I
believe
the
sewer
staff
here
is
skilled,
but
the
city
is
farming
out
nearly
all
of
their
construction
to
private
contractors.
Even
simple
repairs
that
used
to
be
done
by
the
city?
Is
this
cost
effective
to
have
field
workers,
interests
and
lots
of
heavy
equipment
if
all
they
do
is
flush?
Sewers
staff
has
only
one
recommendation
on
this
report
today
provide
rec
direction
for
an
alternate
alternative
implementation
date.
Why
not
provide,
as
staff
does
in
most
staff
reports?
Why
not
provide
other
alternatives
instead
of
only
one?
C
Try
do
not
implement
this
ordinance
or
correct
the
statements
in
the
report
that
are
incorrect
or
think
about
what
is
best
for
the
citizens
and
businesses.
The
staff
recommendation
has
many
mistakes.
The
action
should
be
to
keep
the
present
lower
lateral
program.
As
I
said,
it's
difficult
to
present
such
challenging
news
at
the
time
you're.
Considering
a
vote
on
this
ordinance
I'm
recommending
that
you
not
vote
until
staff
tells
you
that
all
the
information
in
that
report
is
correct.
Thank
you
very
much.
If
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
have
strong.
D
Good
evening,
council
members
Jim
evangelist
1052
soda
way.
I
also
am
recommending
that
you
do
not
change
this
ordinance.
It
is
the
one
ordinance
in
san
bruno.
After
all,
the
sewer
rate
hikes
that
have
been
going
on
since
1997
that
the
residents
actually
see
in
concrete
terms
benefit
them
when
they
do
have
a
compliant
clean-out.
D
One
thing
I'd
like
to
address
is
Councilwoman
O'connell
was
concerned
about
the
upper
lateral
and
how
that
is
not
addressed
by
the
current
ordinance.
Well,
that's
primarily
because
upper
laterals
don't
often
have
problems
in
my
11
years
in
the
sewer
department,
it
probably
hovered
around
one
to
two
percent
of
upper
lateral
problems.
Why
is
that
there's
a
couple
of
reasons?
D
One
may
many
of
the
causes
of
lower
lateral
breakdowns
or
sewer
own
coming,
city-owned
trees,
other
utilities
out
in
the
street
that
have
done
work,
they're,
damaging
homeowners
pipes
that
aren't
noticed
until
after
the
situation
is
already,
the
utility
company
is
left
and
we
get
the
call
back
to
come
back
and
fix
it.
So
that's
the
reason
most
of
the
problems
happen
out
in
the
street,
not
in
the
lower
lateral
I
mean
the
upper
lateral,
also
the
other.
D
At
the
study
session,
I
rebuffed
the
the
club
of
two
one
of
the
cornerstones
of
the
argument
to
give
up
this
ordinance,
which
was
to
help
the
city
escape
reporting,
lower,
lateral
SSOs.
They
have
been
doing
that
since
2008
incorrectly
I
believe
knowingly,
because
we
challenged
him
as
a
crew
members.
My
colleagues
and
myself
challenged
management
the
that
it
shouldn't
be
done
that
way
and
in
2007
the
previous
management
group
did
not
report
lower
laterals.
D
In
fact,
and
from
2004
2007
there
were
18
SSOs
reported
in
san
bruno
from
2007
to
2009
or
130
and
by
the
estimates
of
the
department
itself.
Seventy
percent
of
those
were
lower
laterals,
so
you
can
see
the
bind
that
this
over
reporting
put
the
city
in
and
that's
why
you're
having
to
deal
with
this
crisis
right
now?
When
it
really
is
not
it's
a
manufactured
crisis,
the
the
repairs
being
done
right
now.
D
In
fact,
these
lower
laterals
are
usually
decades-old
in
terms
of
problems
that
these
homeowners
have
been
experiencing
and
they're
just
now
getting
around
fixing
them.
Why
weren't
we
doing
repairs
in
two
thousand
and
seven
eight,
nine,
ten
and
eleven
and
twelve
so,
and
also
they're,
using
the
most
expensive
techniques
to
repair
these
lower
laterals
or,
as
in
millbrae
I've,
seen
where
they'll
do
trenchless
repairs
and
it's
much
less
expensive
throughout
the
United
States.
There
are
many
small
communities
with
the
sewer
crews
that
are
in-house
sewer
crews
are
using
this
trenchless
technology.
D
Why
aren't
you
using
it
here?
I,
just
think
that
this
has
been
a
manufactured
situation
by
management
in
the
sewer
department.
I
think
you
need
to
do
a
lot
more
questioning
to
why
things
got
to
the
state
and
what
to
do
about
keeping
this
for
a
great
program
in
place.
Sure
they
may
need
to
have
to
increase
the
cost
of
contribution
from
the
homeowners
a
little
bit
a
little
bit,
not
nine
dollars
a
month
that
was
recommended
in
here,
and
that
can
help
support
and
sustain
that
individual
program.
D
But
this
it's
not
that
this
program
in
and
of
itself
doesn't
need
to
be
supported
on
its
own
merit.
It's
part
of
the
sewer
department
that
that's
part
of
the
money
that
everybody
pays
to
have
good
services
here
in
san
berdo,
and
now
the
one
good
service
that
people
can
actually
see
the
benefits
of
is
being
you're
being
asked
to
abandon.
Ok,
take
a
bit
of
wrap
it
up.
Jim.
E
E
E
It
seems
like
we
were
paying
for
the
increase
and
now
we're
getting
a
reduction
in
the
actual
service
that
we
used
to
have
doesn't
seem
right
so
and
the
last
thing
would
be
if
the
meeting
was
canceled
and
there
was
no
additional
opportunity
for
the
public
to
to
comment
or
to
be
involved
in
this
study
session
and
it
now,
it
came
up
to
a
vote
that
just
doesn't
seem
right,
so
I
hope
you
really
think
over
what
you're
voting
on
tonight
and
just
cool
off.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very.
D
One
point
made
by
mark
here
was
that
this
point
of
sale
ordinance
is
going
to
impact
this
particular
program.
I,
don't
see
why
it
should
the
reason
that
point
of
sale
is
being
pushed
by
Bay
capers
all
over
the
country
is
so
it
doesn't
put
a
burden
on
the
on
the
sewer
departments.
These
problems
have
to
be
ten.
Can
care
of
at
the
point
of
sale.
D
You
can
even
have
an
amendment
put
into
this
ordinance
that
would
have
a
look-back
period,
whereas,
if
you
didn't
have,
if
you,
if
you
tried
to
get
a
clean
out
too
close
to
the
sale
time
so
that
you
could
have
the
city
pick
it
up,
they,
the
city,
could
go
back
and
and
get
those
costs
recovered.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
thanks.
F
F
Was
going
mayor
wayne
and
honorable
council
members
Andy
Mason
the
cherry
avenue?
I
echo
my
fellow
same
burner
residents
fears
about
this
thing.
I
think
that
myself,
my
wife
and
I
have
a
house
from
1929
I'll
spare
the
details,
but
I
do
actually
snake
my
own
lateral
about
every
six
months.
There's
a
lot
of
weeds
weed
growth
and
whatnot
it's
in
their
original
report.
In
the
study
session,
my
issue
is
with
use
of
public
money
and
asking
residents
to
take
on
a
nine
dollar
a
month.
F
Private
insurance
company,
a
policy
so
I
think
that
myself,
included
and
I
know.
A
lot
of
people
feel
this
way
is
that
the
city
of
San
Bruno
does
awesome
thing
and
we
should
keep
that
going.
They've
been
doing
great
work
since
1986
they've
been
collecting
money
from
residents,
people
that
have
lived
and
worked
in
this
society,
they've
paid
into
the
system
and
a
lot
of
them
are
retired
and
they're
on
a
fixed
income.
Excuse
me,
and
now
you're
gonna,
pull
this
back
and
say:
oh
here's,
a
here's.
F
A
You
anyone
else
all
right.
We
had
a
couple
of
questions
this
evening.
The
relationship
of
bakey
Bruce
esss,
how
they
were
reported,
how
they
weren't
reported
is
it
is
the
difference
significant.
Is
that
what
got
us
into
the
bay
keepers
situation
and
what
what
we're
mandated
to
do?
First
of
all
and
I,
think
it's
two
separate
issues
but
I'd,
like
an
answer
to
that,
we
could
sure.
G
I'm
happy
to
answer
that
question.
First
of
all,
the
staff
report,
I
believe
and
I
went
back
and
looked
at
it
just
a
moment
ago
does
not
indicate
that
the
city
knew
that
it
was
misreporting.
We
have
recently
determined
that,
frankly,
as
a
result
of
mr.
evangelists
commentary
at
a
previous
meeting,
we
have
confirmed
with
the
regional
board
the
information
that
mr.
evangelist
himself
had
discussed
with
the
regional
board
and
reported
to
you
at
your
study
session
a
few
weeks
ago.
The
short
answer
to
a
question,
however,
is
no
one.
G
Single
sso
violation
is
sufficient
to
attract
the
attention
of
the
regional
board
and
of
the
bay
keepers
who,
as
you
know,
have
periodically
made
the
rounds
of
ball
cities
in
a
given
area.
San
mateo
counties
turn
in
the
in
the
barrel
of
a
few
years
back,
and
we
were
one
of
many
cities
against
whom
Regional
Board
enforcement
was
made
and
beekeepers
lawsuits
were
initiated
and
then
settled
this
city
based
on
its
reporting,
had
one
of
the
highest
SSL
levels
during
a
couple
of
particular
years.
G
I'm
not
remembering
at
this
moment
the
in
our
region
and
and
I
believe
within
the
state
that
situation
may
have
been
exacerbated
was
exacerbated
by
the
reporting
of
private
sewer,
lateral
overflows
that
we
now
understand
are
not
a
mandated
reporting.
They
are
voluntary
reporting.
However,
the
enforcement
action
and
the
Bay
keepers
lawsuit.
G
G
Private
sewer,
lateral
numbers
out,
we
still
would
have
reported
a
significant
number
of
overflows
that
would
have
resulted
in
the
regional
board
enforcement
and
the
bay
keepers
lawsuit,
or
at
least,
would
very
likely,
given
that
level
of
activity
at
that
time
would
have
very
likely
resulted
in
exactly
the
same
result.
I
hope
that
answers
the
question.
Answers.
A
Good
enough
for
me,
I
know,
there's
a
question
or
comment
about
trenchless
I
had
to
do
my
own
sewer
lateral.
Last
year
they
couldn't
trench
it,
so
they
had
to
dig
it
all
up
and
and
so
I
don't
think
the
lack
of
effort
is
out
there
and
maybe
you
suggested
I
think
they
do
it.
They
can
do
to
keep
the
cost
down,
but
it
cost
me
twice
as
much
because
we
had
to
actually
dig
it
up.
So
if.
G
We've
also
have
used
if
you
may
call
fairly
recently
a
slip
lining
technique
in
a
particular
location
where
even
the
piper
Singh
trenchless
technology
would
have
been
disruptive
to
the
area
of
this
particular
pipe
actually
went
under
somebody's
house,
so
we
are
aware-
and
we
use
those
technologies
when
and
where
they
are
applicable
and
economical.
The.
A
Comment
was
also
made
about
the
increase.
I
think
the
figure
that
was
thrown,
that
was
ten
percent
per
year
for
increase
in
our
inner
sewer
rates
and
the
charges-
and
it
was
sort
of
alluded
to
this-
had
a
lot
to
do
with
our
cost
of
repairing
lower
laterals
I
want
staff
to
explain
to
everyone
here.
If
they
don't
know,
it's
a
lot
more
than
that,
we're
doing
some
major
major
sewer
repairs
and
major
pipeline
repairs
in
the
city
a
way
over
and
above
just
sewer,
laterals.
Yes,.
G
G
That
rate
covers
the
whole
range
of
sewer,
operation
and
capital
needs
in
the
community,
including
full
rebuild
of
the
aging
deteriorating
and
many
areas-
substandard
sewer
collection
system
in
this
community.
Over
a
20-year
period
of
time,
we
are
actively
in
the
process
of
replacing
main
lines
pump
stations
and
other
sewer
related
facilities
as
part
of
that
program
and
again
are
anticipating
a
work
program
that
will
extend
over
the
next
20
years.
That
program
costs
has
a
very
high
price
tag
in
that
price
tag
is
reflected
comprehensively
in
the
rates.
G
But
as
the
chart
in
your
staff
report
shows,
there
has
been
a
significant
upward
trend,
particularly
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
that
is
alarming
to
staff
and
indicative
of
a
future
trend
that
this
policy
change
attempts
to
get
ahead
of.
Instead
of
trailing
to
the
point
where,
when
we
come
back
to
you
with
the
need
to
revise
rates,
we
don't
have
to
suggest
that
this
particular
activity
has
increasing
costs
so
much
that
the
rates
need
to
go
up
by
an
additional
amount
to
cover
the
cost
of
this
program.
G
I
hope
that
part's,
clear
and
I
wanted
to
also
address
the
allegation
that
the
staff
report
miss
states,
repair
costs.
What
was
identified
in
the
staff
report
was
an
approximate
2.1,
2.2
million
dollar
cost
since
2009,
and
the
attempt
in
the
staff
report
was
simply
to
represent
comparison
to
the
amount
at
sixty
cents
per
month.
That
has
been
collected
historically
over
the
last
28
years
by
based
on
the
1986
resolution
compared
to
the
costs
that
have
been
incurred
just
in
the
last
few
years
since
2009
those
those
costs
are
comparable.
G
A
Just
for
clarification
that
there
is
a
recommendation
of
a
firm
potential
firm
to
use,
if,
in
fact,
you
want
voluntarily
to
pay
nine
dollars
a
month,
that's
not
mandated
at
all
I
believe
another
city
I,
think
its
south
city
around
here
uses
them
and
they're
nationally
known.
So
it's
just
a
pure
suggestion
on
the
part
of
the
city.
It's
not
mandated
by
any
way
shape
or
form.
So
it's
just
a
just
an
offer
out
there
and
a
suggestion.
A
G
I
may
make
one
more
comment,
mr.
mayor,
and
that
is
that
this
item
is
not
presented
for
you
vote
this
evening.
If
your
direction
or
guidance
is
that
this
item
come
back,
it
would
be
presented
for
a
first
reading
and
then
a
second
reading
at
two
subsequent
meetings.
That's
the
process
for
implementation
of
a
new
ordinance
and,
as
is
our
practice
with
new
ordinances
or
changes
to
ordinances.
G
We
are
bringing
this
to
you
tonight
for
your
understanding,
your
review
and
any
discussion
that
you
might
wish
to
have,
and
that
is
the
reason
that
the
staff
report
indicates
that
this
item
is
being
brought
forward
with
no
action
intended
and
it.
It
is
our
practice
that,
when
we're
not
asking
you
to
take
any
action,
we're
not
asking
you
to
actively
consider
alternatives,
so
it
was.
It
was
not
a
deliberate
omission.
It
was
a
part
of
our
normal
practice
would
be
happy
to
provide
thoughtful
alternatives
with
our
next
presentation
should
we
should
we
move
forward.
G
H
I'm
I
have
a
real
problem
with
taking
a
program,
that's
been
going
on
for
many
years
many
decades
and
then
just
pulling
the
plug
and
putting
the
responsibility
on
the
homeowner,
and
so
until
there
is
a
in
and
a
staff
report
and
I
highly
respect
our
staff
and
can,
as
far
as
giving
us
the
you
know,
the
true
picture,
but
because
we
feel
that
it's
going
to
be
alarmingly
or
it's
going
to
increase
over
the
next
few
years.
Or
it's
not
enough
reason
for
me
to
to
dump
the
dump
the
program.
D
H
And
I
voted
to
such
so
until
I
can't
another
option
as
to
how
we
share
in
the
cost-
and
I
even
had
listening
to
the
residents
say
that
maybe
we
ought
to
bring
that
60
sent
assessment
to
today's
standards
or
at
least
increase
it.
I
I
can't
I
can't
approve
of
something
like
this,
so
I
can't
give
a
direction
all
right.
Rico.
I
I
You
know.
I
have
things
in
here
about
if
this
were
to
go
forward,
is
a
sixty
cents
going
to
be
taken
off
the
bill,
the
staff
time
I
know
so.
There's
one
of
my
questions.
It's
not
not
a
suggestion
here,
but
it's
my
question
the
staff
time
it
mentions
in
here
that
that
time
needs
to
be
spent
for
other
activities
and
things
that
aren't
getting
done.
Well,
what
are
those
things
and
why
aren't
they
getting
done
and
how
long
has
that
been
going
on?
I
Because
that
to
me
is
a
savings,
we're
not
doing
a
part
of
a
program
than
we're
saving
in
a
department
and
those,
and
that
is
an
enterprise
funds
that
to
me
should
then
go
back
to
the
ratepayers
I.
Do
know
that
having
a
suggested
implementation
of
May
of
2015
I'm
concerned
with
that,
it's
right
around
the
corner
with
rolling
out
something
else.
I
think
there
are
enough
questions
that
have
been
raised
here.
I
J
A
lot
of
things,
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
make
sure
I'm
getting
this
information
correctly
and
that
everyone
else
is
when
we
say
that
there's
been
this
program
benefits
people,
let's
be
really
clear:
it
only
benefits
people
who
have
and
pls
staph
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
who
have
the
proper
clean
outs
and
it
only
benefits
them
from
the
clean-out
to
the
lower
lateral
part.
So
if
they
have
a
problem,
if
you
have
your
sewer
lateral
and
you
have
a
problem
in
it,
it's
your
responsibility.
J
If
you
have
no
clean
out
the
whole
thing
correct,
so
it
doesn't
matter
if
you
pay
60
cents
for
the
last
30
years
or
or
not
it's
your
responsibility,
it
doesn't
matter
if
you
go
forward
and
spend
nine
dollars
additional
a
month
to
the
city
and
not
an
insurance
program.
It's
your
responsibility!
So
all
those
people
out
there
now
have
been
paying
all
those
years
and
I've
owned.
My
houses,
1960
1976
and
my
mother's
been
owned.
J
Her
since
nineteen
fifty
six
they've
been
paying
all
that
money
all
those
times
and
none
of
us
have
benefited
from
it
and
I
had
to
replace
my
sewer,
lateral
and
could
not
be
a
trenchless
because
of
the
configuration.
So
when
people
say
it's
the
only
thing
that
that
people
can
see
that
they
benefit
from
from
their
sewer
rates.
I
think
that's
a
total
misconception.
So
that's
one
thing.
Second,
it's
not
a
dumping
of
a
program
per
se.
J
J
Your
insurance,
if
you
pay
you
pay,
we
pay
hundreds
of
dollars
every
month
for
house
insurance,
car
insurance,
health
insurance,
dental
insurance
vision
insurance
and
how
many
of
us
use
it
any
mud.
This
is
like
the
bargain
of
the
year
nine
bucks
I
mean
you
pay
that
much
for
three
lattes
now
two
and
a
half,
but
anyway
it
and-
and
you
don't
have
to
do
it.
J
If
you
don't
want
to
cuz,
if
you
feel
like
ambling
that
you're
not
going
to
lose
your
sewer
lateral,
then
don't
do
it,
but
if
the
city
may
takes
up
couldn't
continues
to
keep
that
responsibility
and
we
have
to
increase
your
rates,
everybody
has
to
pay
it.
If
you
benefit
or
not
so
I
staffs
time,
I
understand
everyone.
J
It
does
a
very
best
to
give
us
accurate
information.
I
personally
realize
I
want
to
know
how
many
sewer
overflows
we've
had
I,
don't
care
where
they
are.
That's
a
health
hazard
people,
your
dog
walks,
through
that
your
kids
walk
through
that
you
bicycle
through
that
it's
not
a
priest
picture
I
want
to
know
where
they
are
I
want
us
to
take
care
of
them.
So
obviously,
I'm
for
going
forward,
hey.
K
Michael,
thank
you.
It
seems
like
every
time
this
comes
up.
I
I
feel
less
certain
when
we
first
discussed
this
in
subcommittee,
I
was
like
that's
a
no-brainer.
It's
not
working,
let's
get
rid
of
it,
but
a
lot
of
good
points
have
been
made
and
I
have
to
say
I'm
not
really
sure
that
I'm
not
really
sure
about
the
savings
anymore.
K
I
mean
we're
going
to
continue
to
do
a
lot
of
maintenance
on
these
laterals
we're
not
going
to
replace
them
and
I,
don't
understand
what
percentage
of
our
overall
cost
right
now
has
been
for
replacement
versus
repair.
Now,
if
we're
doing
a
lot
of
repairs,
that's
not
really
going
to
change
just
because
we
change
this
program.
We're
still
going
to
respond
to
these
there's
going
to
be
and
I'm
thinking
over
time,
probably
more
responses
to
spills,
because
there
is
no
proactive
maintenance
anymore.
K
But
I
would
like
to
see
the
actual
numbers
that
that
triggered
our
our
predicament
out
so
that
for
that
specific
year,
I'd
like
to
see
what
that
breakdown
was
and
I
guess,
maybe
for
the
last
year.
I'd
also
like
to
see
a
breakdown
of
how
many,
how
many
laterals
replaced
as
part
of
this
program
versus
how
much
of
that
cost
was
incurred
just
to
responding
to
events
and
cleaning
up
and
possibly
clearing
those.
K
Unless
it's
all
about
about
the
replacement
costs,
I'm
wondering
too
for
the
pipes
where,
where
there
is
a
clean-out
I'm,
assuming
those
clean
outs
are
going
in
with
within
you
lateral
or
a
section
of
lateral,
so
those
are
probably
less
likely
to
get
clogged
versus
ones
that
are
completely
unaddressed.
So
if
this
program
incentivizes
people
to
do
some
work,
if
even
if
we're
taking
on
a
little
bit
of
proactive
cleaning
of
that
system,
that's
still
a
system.
K
That's
newer
in
a
lot
of
cases
going
to
causes
less
problems
in
the
future
versus
having
to
respond
to
the
ones
that
have
never
been
touched,
because
nobody
had
an
incentive
to
do
anything
with
them.
So
that
I
mean
there's
a
I
know.
The
cost
is
growing
and
I
know
it's
a
concern,
but
I'm
wondering
if
we
might
not
be
creating
a
bigger
problem.
So
I
really
do
think.
We
need
to
pick
this
apart,
a
little
more
and
really
get
an
understanding
of
the
mechanics
of
why?
A
Okay
sounds
like
the
majority
of
the
council
wants
a
little
more
information
for
me.
I
think
it's
a
good
program
going
forward.
I
know
Michael
said
something
about
how
much
maintenance
is
going
on
now
it
the
people
that
are
being
monitored
or
the
people
that
have
replaced
or
have
put
in
the
clean-out.
When
I
put
in
mind
they
maintain
my
lateral
from
the
clean
out
to
the
street
and
that
lateral
was
not
replaced.
So
it's
still
there
and
the
city
comes
by
I.
Think
it's
every
six
months
and
takes
a
look.
A
Does
a
little
camera
thing?
Does
a
little
you
know
twisting
inside
that
pipe.
If
that's
what
they
have
to
do
and
that's
times
I,
don't
know
how
many
people,
in
the
hundreds,
probably
that
have
done
that
that's
going
to
increase
just
simply
because
the
infrastructure
is
aging
and
we're
going
to
be
dealing
with
a
lot
more
of
that
and
that
in
fact,
will
take
will
take
crews
away
from
other
things.
A
Whatever
those
things
happen
to
be,
it
sounds
to
me,
like
the
majority,
the
council
wants
to
know
what
those
other
things
are
and
Michael
wants
some
more
specific
detail
about
about
some
costs.
So
if
it
were
up
to
me
this
evening,
I'd
say:
let's
get
it
done,
but
it's
not
because
there's
five
of
us
so
at
the
soonest
you
can
bring
back
that
information.
The
sooner
we
can
take
some
some
serious
action
on
this.
If.
G
I
might
make
a
suggestion
that
we
take
this
back
to
the
utility
subcommittee
that
we've
had
what
we
had
a
recent
study
session
on
this
topic.
Yeah,
we
can
do
it.
We
can
certainly
do
what
is
the
City
Council's
pleasure
if
you'd
like
it
back
to
the
full
city
councilors
the
next
step,
we're
happy
to
do
that
as
well.
I.
A
Think
the
subcommittee's
good
cuz
I
think
Michael
said
he
heard
certain
things
and
and
now
he's
getting
a
little
more
hesitant,
so
I
think
we
should
and
he's
on
the
committee
is
that
correct
yeah.
We
should
find
out
from
you
to
stop
what
you
want
and
let's
get
those
things
answered.
So
we
have
more
specific
information.
We've.