New Search
practices seem vague to me. We seem to be saying that we are going to do a lot of study <br /> and evaluation, but I'm unclear of where it is to go after that. Often study and evaluation <br /> leads to more study and evaluation. Sooner or later and preferably sooner, some definite <br /> quantifiable results need to be obtained. As a program this seems totally open ended. I <br /> don't understand how we will know when we succeeded or if we will ever succeed. <br /> However, this is a good formula for the continuance of requesting additional funding. <br /> —.� <br /> The example was given in our meeting that Police and Fire operate on the principle that <br /> they have no specific goal but instead need to do the best they can and let the politicians <br /> define the amount of funding they are given and that funding will control their results. I <br /> found that answer inadequate. I feel that Police and Fire often play on the publics fears in <br /> much of their undefined requests and would be uncomfortable in Public Works taking <br /> this approach. I believe staff has a higher responsibility for planning and developing <br /> reasonable programs and asking the public only for what is minimally needed to achieve <br /> a defined task. For instance, Fire has the specific goal of a four minute response which <br /> gives people a sense of what they are buying. What are we telling people here that they <br /> are buying? <br /> With all the above aside, below I'm first going to give my overall opinion summating the issue <br /> and then I'll give my opinions on each one of the categories in an essay fashion. <br /> RECOMMENDATION: <br /> ► In general, I favor requiring the developer being required install ON -SITE systems in <br /> all new developments above 1 acre (and any special case high volume or pollutant <br /> intensive development of any size) which will remove pollutants contributed by that site <br /> to the MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL. Maintenance would be the responsibility <br /> of the on -site occupants. <br /> A. The on -site occupant would be required to annually certify that their system <br /> was in proper maintenance and working satisfactorily to design specifications. <br /> 1. Depending on the level of compliance reliability desired the low end <br /> certification could be by the occupant themselves: or <br /> 2. If higher reliability is required Various levels of reliability could be <br /> obtained from requiring the certification by made by some level of <br /> professional (Engineer, plumber, sewer contractor, etc.). <br /> 3. The maintenance requirements would have to be stated and approved <br /> prior to construction of the facility. <br /> B. An enforcement program would be put into place that would track the <br /> 2 <br />