►
From YouTube: San Bruno City Council Meeting February 11, 2014 8a. Regulate Sewer Lateral Conditions
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting February 11, 2014
8a. Regulate the Inspection, Repair and Replacement of Private Orangeburg Pipe
Sewer Laterals
A
A
B
Honourable
vice
mayor
councilmembers
good
evening
at
the
last
council
meeting
staff
presented
to
you
the
critical
nature
of
maintaining
the
structural
integrity
of
our
sewer
system
in
order
for
us
to
protect
public
health
at
that
time.
At
the
last
council
meeting
also
staff
seeked
policy
direction
and
feedback
from
you
for
the
development
of
a
ordinance,
regular,
regulating
warrensburg,
private
lateral
at
the
time
of
sale.
What
you
have
before
you
use
the
result
of
your
feedback
and
policy.
This
direction,
given
at
the
last
council
meeting.
B
This
ordinance
would
require
for
any
property
owner
who
won
at
the
time
of
any
transfer
of
properties,
weird
between
1940
and
60,
to
have
a
visual
inspection
and
F.
The
private
letter
is
a
orangeburg
pipe
then
to
have
a
VW
inspection
and
have
the
pipe
is
in
is
defective.
Then
we'll
have
to
be
repaired
or
replaced
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
city.
B
C
B
Pipe
that
will
be
the
lower
dollar
amount,
but
the
pipe
will
need
to
be
replaced
and
have
a
final
inspection
that
will
go
up
to
200
$90.
Also,
in
addition,
will
be
the
cost
of
repeating
or
replacement
of
the
private
lateral,
which
can
be
based
on
our
best
estimate
between
three
thousand
or
two
in
some
instances.
Up
to
ten
ten
thousand
dollar.
B
Was
indicated
in
the
staff
report,
that
staff
is
still
in
discussion
with
the
bay
keepers
to
discuss
the
possible
credit
for
the
program
implemented
already
in
the
Glen
View
neighborhood
for
the
replacement
of
the
lateral,
and
they
indicated
yesterday
that
they
would
be
supportive
of
F.
That
is
your
desire
to
postpone
the
implementation
of
the
ordinance
for
one
more
year
that,
basically,
you
could
consider
alternative
to
establish
the
time
of
implementation
or
starting
time
of
the
implementation
of
this
ordinance,
this
April
or
next
year.
B
This
April
or
next
April
or
even
the
whole
ordinance
consideration,
could
be
postponed.
That's
what
your
desire
is
until
next
year
and
between
now
and
the
implementation
time
staff
will
have
a
aggressive
education
process
and
outreach
to
the
real
estate
community
and
also
to
the
property
owner
to
make
sure
that
the
requirement
of
the
ordinance
will
be
known
by
everybody.
This
is
my
short
presentation.
If
you
have
any
question
before.
D
Can
you
again
reiterate
this
is
a
this
has
been
an
issue
with
real
estate
industry
and
as
far
as
point
of
sale
issues,
whether
it's
sewer
laterals,
whether
it's
other
items,
you
know,
improvements
in
the
home
and
they've
been
against
it?
My
understanding
is
because
it
holds
up.
You
know
the
process
of
transacting,
a
house
or
purchasing
or
selling
a
house.
D
You
have
changed.
You've
altered
this
ordinance
to
allow
a
six-month
turn
around
with
you
know,
with
a
bond
you
know
to
cover,
you
know,
to
cover
cover
the
costs.
So
is
this
satisfactory
to
in
your
understanding,
sis
satisfactory
to
that
industry?
As
far
as
the
problems
with
point
of
sale,
ordinances.
B
E
I
could
just
add
staff
did
as
part
of
the
staff
level
work
to
prepare
the
ordinance
for
the
council's
consideration.
We
did
contact
and
review
other
cities
to
understand
in
our
region.
What
is
that?
What
is
what
is
the
norm
and
many
other
cities,
as
the
directory
indicated,
have
such
a
program?
They
also
have
this
six-month
timeline
opportunity
and
we're
not
aware
that
there
has
been
some
substantive
opposition
to
the
ordinance
with
its
implementation
in
other
communities.
E
We
are
similarly
not
aware
having
provided
the
public
notice,
that's
required
of
our
initial
efforts
two
weeks
ago
and
tonight
we
are
similarly
not
aware
of
a
significant
concern
among
the
real
estate
community.
We
think
with
it.
We
have
addressed
in
a
reasonable
manner
the
legitimate
concerns
that
real
estate
professionals
and
their
customers
may
have,
because.
D
C
D
F
D
Last
question
is
on
the
inspection
process.
How
does
one
visually
inspect
whether
it's
an
Orangeburg,
pipe
or
not?
I
mean
I,
understand
you're,
contacting
the
building
department
and
then
your
state
in
the
ordinance
that
the
building
official
will
come
out.
The
inspector
will
come
out
and
visually
inspect
on
whether
it's
orangeburg
or
not.
B
Was
my
understanding
discussing
this
issue
with
internally
with
the
building
department
and
us
that,
in
all
in
the
cases
of
the
homes
here
in
San
Bruno?
In
most
cases,
they
can
make
a
visual
determination
of
the
pipe
is
orangeburg
or
not
in
some
other
instances
they
have
to
have?
They
have
to
open
actually
to
open
to
to
have
a.
D
B
B
B
You
have
to
make
a
visual
determination
and
basically,
in
some
instances,
Pat
holding
that
basically
digging
down
to
the
pipe
itself
to
f
is
not
accessible
without
a
pothole
at
that
location
was
my
understanding
that
in
many
instances
when
the
pipes
coming
out
from
the
home,
you
can
without
any
pot
boiling,
you
can
see
visually.
What
kind
of
pipe
is
f
is
not,
then
they
have
to
Pat
hole
at
that
location
and
to
make
a
visual
determination.
F
is
orangeburg
or
not,
and
they
need
to
video
inspect
only
just
ab.
The
pipe
is
a
orangeburg.
G
G
If
the
bay
keepers
agree
to
have
a
delay
in
the
implementation
of
the
ordinance
for
a
year,
that
actually
allows
quite
a
bit
of
time
for
individuals
in
the
community
and
real
estate
agents
to
prepare
for
the
implementation
of
that
ordinance
and
I.
Think
that
allows
us
to
do
more
outreach
and
allows
those
individuals
to
check
into
their
status
and
determine
if
they
need
to
replace
the
pipe
well
in
advance
of
we've
been
putting
the
home
on
the
market,
for
example.
G
So
we're
very
optimistic
that
if
we
can
conclude
that
agreement
with
Bay
keeper,
it
really
addresses
the
concern
of
a
of
a
point
of
sale,
ordinance
and,
in
effect,
this
ordinance
would
become
an
ordinance
that
would
have
resulted
in
the
repair
and
replacement
of
these
pipes
even
before
the
home
is
sold
and
would
have
no
impact
on
the
on
the
escrow
or
the
sale
process.
So
we're
hopeful
that
that's
an
advantage
of
the
bay
keeper
agreement.
If
we
can
conclude
it
well.
D
B
The
reason
why,
in
our
agreement
with
the
bay
keepers
were
included
only
just
homes,
viewed
between
this
time
period
is
the
reason
that
the
construction
using
the
orangeburg
pipes
was
relevant
during
this
time
period.
Just
during
the
World
War
two,
when
the
material
any
wasn't
any
other
material
available,
this
was
the
most
readily
available
material
and
that's
why
this
basically
wood,
fiber,
pressed
together
wood,
fiber
type
of
pipe,
was
used
during
that
time
due
to
log
of
other
more
valuable
material.
At
that
time,
the
name
and
this
unfortunately
the
life
cycle.
B
This
is
a
more
less
durable
type
of
material
and
the
expected
the
life.
The
expected
life
for
this
pipe
is
up
to
50
years
and
what
any
other
pipe
like
the
plastic,
PVC
type
of
pipe
they
life
expectancies
longer
and
right
now,
all
of
those
pipes
or
orangeburg
pipes
build
between
up
to
the
sixties
is
over
that
50
year
of
life
expectancy,
and
the
assumption
is
that
most
of
them
they
are
and
need
replacement.
Okay,.
F
B
Think
everybody
should
be
worried
about
that
dead,
private
letter
or
that
how
was
discussed
at
the
last
meeting
to
the
integrity
of
the
whole
sewer
system,
the
system
works
as
a
whole
system.
The
in
physical
integrity
is
very
important,
but
based
on
our
agreement
with
the
bay
keeper,
this
was
the
highest
risk
of
problem
area
and
that's.
Why
was
included
in
our
agreement
and
based
on
your
policy
direction?
This
ordinance
is
crafted
to
target
exactly
that
high-risk
area
and
how
was
the
what
was
included
in
our
agreement
with
the
bay
keepers?
Okay,.
C
You
so
regarding
the
age
I
had
the
same
question
about
why
stop
at
that
age
and
so
I
understand
that
the
orangeburg
is
probably
the
most
are
the
weakest
of
all
the
materials
that
could
possibly
be
in
the
ground.
But
I
could
see
a
lot
of
other
reasons
why
we
wouldn't
want
to
limit
this
to
just
orangeburg
Pike,
because
the
older
pipes
I
mean
there
could
be
other
there
could
be
settling
in
the
ground
that
cost
shifts
in
the
pipes.
C
The
old
cast-iron
could
be
corroded,
I
know,
there's
clay,
pipes
and
places
I,
don't
know
if
they'll,
if
the
laterals
or
clay
or
not
but
I,
know
that
we've
had
an
sso
at
least
one
that
I
know
of
that
was
caused
by
a
hunk
of
clay,
pipe
running
down
and
lodging
itself
somewhere
downstream
and
there's
also
the
the
fats,
oils
and
greases
that
go
down
the
grain
that
could
accumulate
certainly
over
a
period
of
many
many
years.
That
could
be
an
issue
within
those
that
could
possibly
be
caught.
C
B
Consumed
member
just
to
summarize
the
follow-up
comment-
yes
always
SSO
cannot
be
entirely
prevented,
always
is
possible
to
because
they
SSO,
even
if
a
lateral
will
be
replaced.
That
is
no
one
hundred
percent
guarantee
based
on
general
experience,
use
the
agency's
experience
that,
after
a
inspection
and
repair
of
a
lateral,
you
can
expect
that
for
the
next
five
years
you
will
have
no
problem.
B
All
this
can
happen
something
but
based
on
the
industry
experience
and
the
agency's
experience,
a
repealed,
lateral
will
still
function
properly
for
the
next
five
years,
and
also
that
is
the
expectation
that
one
will
be
replaced
entirely
then,
for
the
next
20
years,
a
reasonable
guarantee
that
they
will
function
properly.
Fe
meantime
any
movement
of
soil.
B
Those
are
high
risk
possibilities
that
will
damage
the
pipe
or
surface
tone.
Water
will
undermined
and
will
be
damaged.
Those,
hopefully
will
be
money
told
by
all
of
the
property
owners,
and
those
changes
can
be
seen
many
times
even
visually,
and
then
you
can
act
to
prevent
any
further
damage
or
any
further
SSO
I
will
just
say
that
this
five
year
and
ten
years
is
included
in
most
of
the
agencies
ordinance
around
us
and
is
a
consistency
between
how
was
it
is
included
in
this
draft
were
in
this
ordinance
with
other
agencies.
Okay,
I
mean.
C
I
think
if
you
agree
that
you
know
the
the
clogging
of
these
laterals
could
be
significant
within
a
number
of
years,
I
would
still
think
that
maybe
we're
allowing
too
much
I
was
kind
of
thinking
this
sort
of
akin
to
what
what
the
the
DMV
does
with
with
the
split
smog
checks.
So
your
car
has
to
get
smog
checked
every
four
years
and
if
you
sell
the
car,
you
have
to
do
a
smog
check.
C
Even
if
you
just
had
a
smog
check
done
within
a
few
months,
you
still
have
to
get
it
done
and
it's
still
a
good
idea
and
it
definitely
helps
keep
the
air
clean,
and
this
is
something
that
could
prevent
SSO,
so
I'm
wondering
if
maybe
more
frequent
I
mean
because
we
really
are
talking
about
it,
that
time
of
transfer.
So
if
something
was
replaced
five
years
ago,
but
the
house
is
being
sold,
I
think
it
might
make
it
easier
to
implement
something.
C
I
also
had
a
question
about
how
the
mechanics
of
implementing
this
weather
we're
going
to
rely
on
sellers
to
sort
of
self-report
that
the
fact
that
they
they're
putting
their
home
on
the
market
and
is
there
going
to
be
any
proactive
effort
on
the
city's
part
to
go
out
and
make
sure
that
everybody
who
has
a
listing
or
has
a
sign
on
your
lawn,
is
actually
going
through
the
process.
And
are
we
staffed
for
that?
And
it
is
that
really
part
of
the
program
that
we're
suggesting.
B
Certainly
is
this
is
the
minimum
requirement
of
the
five
years
included
in
this
ordinance
is,
as
you
desire
is
to
further
restrict
that
time
frame.
Certain
is
up
to
you.
The
decision
to
make
was
our
intent
to
reach
out
to
the
real
estate
community
and
the
intent
was
for
this
ordinance
to
be
implemented
on
one
on
based
on
communication
with
the
real
estate
community
and
the
property
owners
to
make
sure
that
everybody
must
follow
the
rule
existing
rules
and
requirement
at
the
sale
of
the
property.
Okay,.
C
E
I
could
jump
in
and
answer
that
question
all
right
man.
Thank
you.
The
the
answer
to
the
specific
question
is
no.
It
is
not
staffs
intent
to
initiate
some
sort
of
a
new
program
for
checking
real
estate
listings.
A
legal
requirement
by
implemented
by
ordinance
in
the
local
jurisdiction
becomes
a
disclosure
requirement
for
the
real
estate
professional.
A
D
A
Second,
all
those
in
favor
hi,
so
back
to
Council,
two
real
quick
on
the
visual
inspection.
It
was
brought
up
about
my
understanding
that
doesn't
and
I'm
just
going
off.
Some
memory
is
for
the
visuals
inspection.
If
you
do
a
video
of
the
line
I
think
not
only
can
you
tell
its
condition,
but
you
should
be
able
to
tell
if
it's
orangeburg
or
not
and
I
think.
Is
that
not
always
the
case
or
obviously
it
will
give
you
the
condition
of
it,
but
not
the
other
you're
saying
well.
B
A
B
A
Were
a
few
things
brought
up
by
council
here
as
far
as
more
frequency
or
consistency
weather
delay?
How
do
we
do
the
trust
verify
per
se?
Then
I
believe,
like
the
city
manager
indicated
at
the
time
of
escrow,
it
becomes
behold
of
the
realtor
to
make
sure
that
this
gets
done.
It
gets
a
video
inspection
or
some
type
of
inspection
and
a
report
that
quantifies
that.
So
it
goes
through
with
the
documents
I
know.
A
In
other
cities
the
escrow
was
held
up
and
all
of
a
sudden
it
becomes
a
panic,
because
the
time
window
has
become
very
short
and
they
need
to
have
the
sale
go
forward.
So
there
are
mechanisms
that
are
already
established
in
other
communities
that
ensure
that
this
process
gets
done,
but
I
want
to
bring
it
back
to
my
colleagues
to
see
what
they
would
like
to
do
with.
This
is
a
this
item
or
any
further
discussion.
F
Okay,
my
understanding
is
the
staff
put
in
the
ability
for
this
seller
to
do
a
a
bond
so
that
they
have
six
months
so
that
they
do
not
have
to
worry
about
holding
up
the
sale.
So
I
think
that's
excellent
job
and
I
think
that
should
relieve
anybody's
anxiety
about
the
timing.
I
understand
what
Michaels
saying
about
the
five
years,
but
having
had
mine
replaced
it's
it's,
it's
it's
a
I,
don't
know
if
more
than
are
more
frequently
as
particularly
necessary.
It's
a
big
it's
a
big
commitment
to
to
do
that.
F
Not
even
selling
this
far
well,
no
I
don't
mean
that
but
I
mean
so.
If
you,
if
you
get
it
done
four
years
later,
you
sell
your
house
and
then
the
next
person
sells
it
in
a
year.
That
means
it
would
be
done
two
times
in
five
years
or
you
know,
however
thing
and
I,
don't
particularly
think
that's
necessary,
but
I
I'm
thinking.
We
might
look
at
this
a
different
way.
F
We've
never
had
this
kind
of
ordinance
before
I
think
it's
a
great
first
start,
I
think
it
it
does
what
they
keeper
wants
us
to
do.
I
think
it
works
toward
eliminating
as
many
SSS
owes
as
possible.
So
there's
nothing
saying
that
we
can't
implement
this.
We
can
do
what
car
was
saying
about,
having
a
strong
outreach
to
people
to
explain
to
them.
Why
fixing
their
laterals,
even
if
it's
not
orangeburg,
but
keeping
a
watch
on
your
lateral
is,
is
something
smart
to
do
and
we
you
know,
we
skirted
around
the
words.
F
We've
never
said
them,
but
if
your
lateral
is
broken,
what
happens?
Is
raw
sewage
goes
into
your
yard
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
prevent.
So
we
haven't
said
it
in
this
whole
conversation,
that's
half
an
hour
conversation,
but
that's
what
this
is
for,
so
that
your
dog
walking
through
the
yard,
your
kids,
walking
through
the
yard,
your
yard
itself-
doesn't
get
destroyed
because
of
raw
sewage
and
that's.
This
is
what
it's
supposed
to
prevent.
So
I
think
this
is
great.
I
think
we
should
wait.
F
Till
Bay
keepers
tells
us
if
they'll
use
the
glenview
houses
for
credit
or
not
and
use
that
time
period
to
do
an
outreach
for
people
and
then
implement
this.
If,
in
you
know,
six
months
or
a
year,
we
find
that
it's
not
enough,
then
I
think
we
can
change
it,
but
I
think
what
they
have
here
is
is
a
great
first
step
and
that's
my
opinion.
D
I
I
agree
with
Irina
I
mean
new
homeowner
or
or
someone
selling
their
house.
They
want
an
assurance
that
you
know
that
they're
you're
not
going
to
get
called
back
whether
it's
going
to
be
some
escrow
problem
with
the
with
the
problem,
the
lateral
we've
been
inspecting,
we've
been
requiring
inspections
of
roof,
roofs
and
certain
items
now
and
and
I
know.
There
are
other
cities.
D
For
example,
the
city
of
burlingame
has
been
requiring
sewer
inspections
for
at
least
20
years
on
a
trend
on
a
transfer
of
ownership,
and
you
can
clearly
see
when
you
drive
up
and
down
streets
in
burlingame.
You
see
the
big
four
by
four
patch
of
asphalt
and
in
the
street
of
where
they
and
it's
not
in
a
visual
inspection.
It's
actually.
D
You
have
to
pay
to
dig,
dig
and
excavate
and
and
take
a
look
and
I
believe
they
have
a
period
of
if
you've
had
an
inspection,
probably
within
five
or
ten
years,
then
you
don't
have
to
have
another
inspection,
so
that's
probably
a
jurisdiction
to
look
into
as
far
as
how
they've
been
doing
it
and
I
believe
they
still
have
it
sits.
Still.
You
know
it's
still
in
force,
but
I
think
it's
very
important
that
like
Irene
says,
is
that
and
Michael
is
referring
to.
G
C
Regarding
Irene's
original
question
about
the
age
span,
you
guys
see
any
reason
to
want
to
go
older
than
nineteen
forty
or
scuttle.
Do
we
really
need
to
stop
in
nineteen
forty,
or
do
we
just
make
it
anything
prior
to
nineteen
sixty
or
remove
the
age
limits
completely
and
just
say
anything
older
than
20
years
has
to
be
inspected.
A
D
Not
sure
how
I'm
not
sure
how
the
industry
or
how
inspectors
or
how
property
owners
are
supposed
to
one
know
how
old
their
houses
and
if
it's
clearly
between
40
and
60,
is
it
Omar.
They
almost
guaranteed
that
it's
going
to
be
orangeburg,
and
is
there
a
definite
cut
up
point
as
far
as
when
orangeburg
was
not
being
used,
but
I
don't
want
to
I,
don't
want
a
bird
I
would
rather
recommend
to
the
community
to
the
residents
to
to
check
their
sewer
laterals
instead
of
making
them
inspect
their
sewer
laterals.
C
D
B
Councilman
Bert
O'connor
I,
don't
have
a
specific
data
and
showing
what
is
the
rate
of
failure
for
lateral,
build
between
different
time
period,
certainly
about
eighty
percent
of
our
whole
system
is
still
made,
is
used
of
clay
material
and
they
in
time
you
say,
logical,
tech,
degradation
and
theoretically
order
pipe
will
have.
A
higher
risk
is
logical.
Most
of
most
of
the
agencies.
B
They
are
not
specifying
year
of
construction
of
the
homes
for
private
lateral
regulation.
The
reason
that
is
this
proposal,
what
is
in
front
of
you
specifying
homes
wanted
a
compute
during
that
time
period
that
was
negotiated
with
by
keeper
in
the
most
narrowly
very
possible
that
was
negotiated
to
minimize
the
least
impact
to
our
residence,
but
that
this
is
the
least
impact
the
minimum,
but
the
city
should
or
could
do,
but
certain
is
up
to
you
to
make
the
decision
from
that
minimum.
How
far
you
want
to
go.
B
F
F
So
let
me
ask
you
another
question
as
well:
did
I
understand
it
correctly
that
you're
saying
we
can
do
all
the
talking
we
need
to
tonight
and
then
not
enact
this
resolution
until
a
year
later
or
in
six
months
until
they
till
we
hear
back
from
Bay
keeper
or
yeah
I
was
a
little
confused
on
that
part.
Yeah.
E
Let
me
just
clarify:
we
are
recommending
that
you
complete
the
first
reading
tonight
and
subsequently
the
second
reading
at
your
next
council
meeting,
but
that
you
do
take
action
to
approve
this
ordinance.
If
you
wish,
with
some
modifications
per
your
discussion,
we're
also
recommending
that
you
give
us
direction
about
the
issue
of
whether
of
the
effective
date
of
the
ordinance
gotcha
okay.
E
So
we
have
already
heard
back
from
the
bay
keepers
and
they
have
consented
agreed
with
the
idea
that
the
work
that
will
be
undertaken
in
the
crestmore
neighborhood
does
satisfy
a
equivalent
one
year
worth
of
Orangeburg
pipe
inspection
and
potential
replacement.
So
the
that
decision
now
rests
with
the
City
Council
you,
but
we
do
as
to
the
effective
date
of
the
ordinance.
We
do
recommend
that
you
take
action
as
scheduled
it
currently
to
complete
your
review
and
approval
of
the
ordinance
okay.
F
E
Yes,
so,
as
the
director
indicated
earlier
in
answer
to
a
previous
question,
we
were
highly
mindful
of
the
need
to
maintain
maximum
flexibility
for
the
City
Council
in
considering
any
mandatory
requirements.
In
other
words,
our
agreement
with
Bay
keepers
includes
a
requirement
for
presentation
and
consideration
of
this
ordinance,
but
compared
to
other
cities,
we
were
I
would
say
very
effective
in
our
negotiation
to
maintain
the
maximum
parameters.
That's
how
we
got
to
the
42
1942
1960.
E
In
the
similar
vein,
we
went
back
to
the
bay
keepers,
we
said.
Look.
We
have
this
other
program
going
on
we're
going
to
get
a
lot
of
sewer
laterals,
replace
we're
going
to
get
rid
of
a
lot
of
Orangeburg
pipe.
You
know
we
need
to.
We
need
to
be
able
to
present
that
additional
option
to
the
City
Council's.
So
that's
the
framework
within
which
we
r,
we
have
crafted
the
negotiations
as
well
as
the
opportunity
for
you
to
determine
how
you'd
like
to
implement
this
program.
E
A
What
I'm
hearing
minimally
from
staff
is
that
you'd
like
us
to
waive
the
first
read
and
introduced
the
the
ordinance,
and
we
also
have
that
option
which
sounds
like
the
council
may
want
to
have
it
delayed
for
up
to
a
year
from
its
implementation,
but
also
in
that
time,
having
more
information
brought
back
to
council.
That
gives
us
more
detailed
information
about
if
we
were
to
go
from
anything
prior
to
nineteen
sixty
or
now.
F
F
F
It's
been
sold
in
the
same
ownership
for
50
years
or
whatever
so
I
at
this
point
must
would
like
to
recommend
that
we
change
the
ordinance
to
say
any
house
that
was
built
before
1960
and
then
have
the
effective
date
in
April
2015,
with
understanding
that
we
do
outreach
to
the
communities
about
why
we
are
doing
this
and
how
it's
going
to
be
in
from
it.
That's
what
I'm
looking
at
gencon
yep.
A
B
Mr
O'connor,
if
I
can
ask
for
clarification
that
that
would
target
all
of
the
how
the
ordinance
is
crafted
now
and
the
reason
is
between
40
and
60.
That
specifically
includes
only
just
orangeburg
pie.
If
the
pipe
is
not
orangeburg,
does
this
ordinance
doesn't
require
any
inspection
of
that
fight
or
any
replacement
of
the
pipe?
Only
just
a
piss
orangeburg.
The
question
is
a
fury
intent
than
to
extend
the
requirement
of
this
ordinance
for
all
pipes
for
all
homes
built
before
the
60,
but
that
will
be
a
change
in
the
program.
F
A
F
So
how
do
we
okay,
I,
understand
what
you're,
saying
and
I
understand
to
change
it
with?
We
would
have
to
recraft
the
whole
thing
and
do
all
that
stuff.
Is
there
a
way
to
add
to
the
ordinance
so
that
we
include
pipes
that
are
them
include
houses
that
were
built
prior
to
nineteen?
Forty
without
I
mean?
Can
we
add
a
paragraph
that
says
in
addition
to
the
Greenberg
pipes,
any
homes
that
were
built
before
nineteen
forty,
regardless
of
what
kind
of
pipe
was
use,
need
to
have
their
laterals
inspected
at
point
of
sale?.
B
Everything
is
possible
and,
yes
would
be
possible
to
add,
was
a
additional
to
expand.
The
program.
I
would
defer
to
mark
suffer
a
note
to
say
this,
then,
would
be
a
substantial
change
to
the
draft
ordinance
and
would
probably
would
be
my
expectation
that
would
be
a
substantive
change
to
the
ordinance
it
would
require
to
be
reintroduce,
but
I
will
I
would
refer
to
mark,
because.
A
I'm
gonna
ask
that,
because
in
essence,
would
that
would
be
a
huge
change
to
what
we
have
here
presented
to
us.
In
addition,
I
know
staffs
concern
is
us
meeting
the
minimum
requirements
that
we've
obligated
ourselves
with
Bay
keepers,
which
this
does
that
it
meets
it
under
their
timeline,
and
if
we
delay
it
for
a
period
of
time
up
to
a
year,
it
doesn't
mean
that
it
can't
come
back,
revisit
it
and
modify
it
at
that
time,
with
any
additional
information
as
far
as
the
year
as
far
as
the
type
of
material
is
that
correct?
A
G
I
think
you're
correct
on
both
counts
on
the
last
one.
Certainly,
you
can
come
back
and
revisit
the
ordinance
at
any
time
during
the
during
the
year
and
then
you're
also
correct
that
I
think
if
we
were
to
make
that
type
of
change
in
the
ordinance
based
on
your
direction.
We
should
bring
it
back
for
re-introduction
because
it
does
affect
a
number
of
provisions
in
the
ordinance.
F
F
E
I
just
offer
you
another
suggestion
here:
I,
don't
think
the
city
attorney
meant
to
suggest
that
you
would
need
to
defer
your
consideration.
The
recommendation
from
staff
is
that
the
change
you're
talking
about
would
be
a
substantive
change.
That
would
simply
require
repeating
the
first
reading
public
hearing
and
then
a
subsequent
second
reading.
It
would
delay
your
action
essentially
by
two
weeks.
E
I
would
recommend
that
if
the
City
Council
is
interested
in
strengthening
in
the
ordinance
and
as
director
indicated
expanding
the
program
that
you
direct
us
to
do
that
now,
we
would
bring
the
ordinance
back
to
you
on
the
twenty-fifth.
It's
not
a
huge
change.
We
have
plenty
of
time
to
make
the
revisions
you're
discussing
tonight
and
that
you
would
then
consider
it
again
for
first
reading
subsequent
second
reading
and
then
with
an
effective
date
of
April
of
2015.
That
approach
would
be
consistent
with
what
I
hurt
your
suggestion
to
be.
C
D
Irony
here
is
that
if
the
bay
keepers
didn't
stick
their
nose
in
our
community,
we
would
be
discussing
this
I.
Don't
I.
I
am
not
in
favor
of
making
the
ordinance
stricter,
I'm
not
in
favor
having
the
ordinance
period,
but
I'd
realize
that
the
bay
capers
have
us,
and
so,
if
we
don't
follow
at
least
to
their
minimum
requirements,
they're
going
to
come
after
us
again
and
so
I'm
I'm
fine,
with
the
way
it's
laid
out.
D
A
A
F
A
A
C
C
D
A
D
F
G
F
C
A
A
D
A
F
G
A
D
In
addition,
nothing
against
staff,
but
I,
don't
think
we've
got
enough
information
on
this
orangeburg
and
and
what
to
its
extent.
Now,
if
you
can
clearly
tell
me
that
certain
subdivisions
in
this
community,
our
orangeburg,
like
glenview,
light
certain
quests,
more
neighborhoods
fine,
but
now,
if
you're
going
to
certain
areas
that
were
60
years
old,
what
are
we
at
and
I?
Don't
want
to
be
told
that
it's
what
other
jurisdictions
have
said
and
things
I'd
really
would
like
a
is
professional
of
an
opinion
or
report
from
someone
that
lives
orangeburg.
D
You
know
knows
it,
you
know,
and
so,
if
we
can
have
something
like
that,
because
all
I
know
now
is
that
it
was
built,
it
was
used
within
a
certain
timeframe
and
it
and
it
came
from
New
York.
So
and
it's
got
this
certain
certain
deterioration
rate,
so
I
just
think
that
there's
more
information
out
there
for
us
to
to
be
able
to
tell
our
homeowners.