Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Works And Utilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident raises code alignment and fee questions during public hearing on grease‑interceptor ordinance

3076186 · April 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At the public hearing for ordinance 11‑83 (amending Chapter 198: water and sewer regarding grease/oil interceptors), a resident urged code alignment with plumbing standards and clarity on remediation fee authority.

During the April 21 public hearing on ordinance 11‑83, which would amend Chapter 198 (water and sewer) to add a method for recouping city expenditures related to excess grease and food waste in sewer lines, resident Carrie Parsons spoke in support but asked the council to reconcile the new language with existing plumbing and fee codes.

Parsons (identified in the record as a Havre de Grace resident) told the council she appreciated the amendment’s goal — to recover costs associated with cleaning lines that result from excess grease and food waste — but noted apparent inconsistencies between Chapter 198 and Chapter 134 (Plumbing Standards). She said Harford County is used for inspections and follows the 2018 International Plumbing Code and suggested the city consider aligning its Chapter 134 with the county code or with the Maryland Board of Plumbing testing standards to reduce confusion for inspectors and plumbers.

Parsons also asked about the ordinance’s penalty or fee language, saying she could not find the remediation/intervention authority in Chapter 70 (fees). She recalled that an earlier ordinance (amending Chapter 70 fees) had been pulled or tabled in February 2025 and suggested the remedies in Chapter 198 might be inserted into a broader fee ordinance for continuity. Parsons noted limited warranty coverage on new capital projects and framed the amendment as a way to protect the city’s investment in new sewer lines and the wastewater treatment plant.

The public hearing was closed with no further public comments recorded and no immediate council action on ordinance 11‑83 shown in the April 21 transcript.