_____________________________________________________
Utilities Committee Minutes
JANUARY 28, 2008
Municipal Council of the City of Vermilion
Municipal Complex, 685 Decatur Street, Vermilion, Ohio 44089
In Attendance: S. Holovacs, F. Ostrander, B. Brady, H. Strickler, D. Roth, J. Gabriel, Gwen Fisher, Mayor Anderson, D. Squires, C. Schmidt, C. Howard. Absent: M. Rossini
Call to Order: H. Strickler, Chairperson, RESOLVED THAT this Utilities Committee consisting of B. Brady, Vice; and Member S. Holovacs does now come to order.
TOPIC ONE: Executive Session
B. Brady MOVED; S. Holovacs seconded to adjourn into executive session to discuss contract negotiations. Roll Call Vote 3 YEAS. MOTION CARRIED.
TOPIC TWO: Overview of City Projects
H. Strickler distributed to council a list of pending projects of the city. The description and status of the pending projects are listed below:
1. Downtown Waterline – (Streetscape) ($545,000) – Council approved this project. The scope of this project includes replacing the waterlines from Decatur Street to West River.
2. VOL Sanitary Sewer Overflow – Summer of 2008 must be done. Underground Utilities is currently working on this project to deal with private laterals.
3. East Liberty Waterline – Extending it to the eastern border (engineering - $17,740) – D. Squires stated that the plans are completed and the engineer’s estimate is $72,000. The project will go out to bid over the next couple of weeks. B. Brady asked if this project would be covered by tap in fees and D. Squires said it would eventually and the project will not be assessed.
4. Morton Road
. The intersection is in progress of being fixed – Sanitary Storm Crossing Conflict -project awarded to N&N Construction.
. Discussing storm sewer project – H. Strickler thought that the city needs to rethink this project. She said that the city has estimates of up to $1 million to fix the area.
. Sanitary problems have to be corrected by 2010 – J. Gabriel said there was an outfall issue where it was actually closed. He wondered if any arrangements were made to fix this since it is a big factor in the drainage problems. He thought the city could address some of the small items instead of not encompassing all the expensive portions of these repairs. C. Howard said there is an 18” line near the pump station that needs to be upsized and rerouted accordingly. S. Holovacs said there are some other options the storm water committee addressed this evening, so it may be too premature to get into this at this point. Referred to Feb. Utilities
5. 16” Pipe Underneath the River Needs Repaired – D. Squires reported that he received approval from the Lorain County Metroparks to enter the property to make the repairs. He reported that the repairs will cost approximately $16,800. He said he is working with a resident to obtain a temporary right-of-entry to cross his property to get to the pipe. He said as soon as they enter into an agreement they will move forward with the project.
6. Water Tower – Needs to be refurbished and re-inspected this year. Bladder and water connection has been discussed. Regardless, there is an expense the city will have to incur because this project is a priority.
7. Waterline Distribution Study – In progress. C. Howard said he would hope within the next month this study will be concluded. He said they are working to get all the existing systems into the records.
8. Edson Street – Storm water portion of the project will come from the storm water fund. Discussion is ongoing.
9. Water/Sewer Rate Analysis – Projected water plant improvements - $400,000 worth of work from last year and $200,000 slated in the sewer plant. D. Squires assumed the $400,000 covered the last water treatment plant improvement which was a little over $300,000. This project is near completion. B. Sasala said there was a $350,000 plan over four years to replace waterlines once the distribution study was done. This was for the 47,000 feet of 4” lines around the city. He noted the $200,000 in sewer is for miscellaneous repairs. He said they have a list from Don Whitt of things that need to be done in the sewer plant. He said they may also have to purchase a sludge press which is around $400,000 which has to be done by 2010 if the EPA won’t accept the city’s sludge hauling to North Ridgeville.
10. Failed Septic Systems – East Liberty Avenue – This is a pending item on the agenda for further discussion.
11. $600,000 Grant – H. Strickler stated that in 2005 the city received a grant from Marcy Kaptur in the amount of $600,000. She asked the Mayor what the city was planning to use this on. Mayor Anderson said this grant was slated for the VOL Sanitary Sewer Upgrade which is ongoing.
12. Fairfax Outfall – C. Howard reported that he is working with the Army Corp of Engineers and EPA on the permit.
13. Sanitary Sewer Mapping – C. Howard reported that this is part of the CMOM Program and they are in the process of updating every manhole location. This is ongoing.
14. Vermilion Lagoons – Project pending.
15. Downtown Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation – C. Howard reported that the video inspection was done and they are itemizing the repairs that need to be done.
H. Strickler suggested scheduling a work session as part of the budget process with input from the administration, so they can get on task with a priority list. S. Holovacs stated that he is meeting with B. Sasala and Dan Squires on certain parts of the budget and maybe they can highlight the top priority projects using the monies that are available. D. Squires said he has a project spreadsheet on all pending projects within the city that he will provide to council.
TOPIC THREE: East Liberty Avenue Sanitary Tap In
D. Squires reported that the administration held a meeting with the property owners affiliated with this issue. They went over the project and gave the residents the two alternatives which included assessment by tapping into a new sanitary line which would come from Overlook, and the option for the residents to individually bore under Liberty Avenue and tie into an existing sanitary system. H. Strickler asked which option the residents favored. D. Squires said that two or three of the property owners may be able to consider a third option by tying into a sanitary sewer that runs on Electric Blvd. He said they may need to obtain an easement.
B. Brady asked if the city should make this decision. C. Howard felt the property owners would need to petition council if they want to be assessed. It could be a forced assessment but the property owners still have the right to contest the assessment to the Equalization Board.
S. Holovacs asked if this project would be on hold until the city hears back from the residents. C. Howard said the city can force an assessment if they wish. D. Squires said he would inform the residents that this is what they need to do to move forward.
F. Ostrander asked at what point some of these properties should be condemned and at what point is letting this situation go too long. C. Howard said that one property owner now has to pump out their septic system pretty routinely because there is no where to tie into. He said usually the EPA says you have 90 days once that sewer is installed and accepted, but obviously this sewer has been in place for years. F. Ostrander asked if the city is going to set a date on when they should be connected or establish a cut off date. C. Howard said they could. F. Ostrander felt they need to decide when this time is.
Howard Rossaen of 3516 Liberty Avenue said he would need to see some hard numbers and dates before he decides what to do. He stated that his neighbor directly to the west of him is for an assessment. He felt that an assessment is a better way to go because he doesn’t know how many of these people will have $10,000 to $15,000 out of pocket. He said he understands the city wants them to pay for this but he also looks at this in his point of view that the engineer who engineered this project screwed up somewhere along the way.
H. Strickler asked D. Squires if he could give the residents the estimated preliminary costs when he contacts them. C. Howard stated that they did provide the residents with an estimate at their meeting. He said the assessment would probably need to be based on actual parcels because there are only five to six parcels that can be assessed.
F. Ostrander asked if each property owner could share laterals or would they need to do it separately. C. Howard felt each property owner should have their own bore because they don’t want to common share laterals in case there is a problem with a neighbor.
Howard Rossaen said if some of the property owner’s decide to run to the north side of their property then the cost will be greatly increased for the others because there wouldn’t be as many people hooking up. He felt it would be cheaper if all of them hooked up.
B. Brady asked if the city had the right to decide which direction to go. C. Howard said if they assess the project and one of the owners can tie into Electric cheaper, then the Equalization Board could be in favor of that property owner because they have the ability to tie in. He said when you reduce how many people are involved than the city would have to pay the difference.
D. Squires stated that he would contact the property owners about their options and would inform them of the petition process.
TOPIC FOUR: Boil Alert Correction Actions
D. Squires provided council with a copy of a boil advisory report relative to the request made by F. Ostrander. F. Ostrander asked how long basin #1 was obsolete and decommissioned. D. Squires said he would need to get this information for him. F. Ostrander asked how long the project on the tanks were supposed to take. D. Squires said the previous superintendent started this work and he will not be able to follow up with him on this question.
B. Sasala stated that according to the Poggemeyer survey it states that the 18” intake is in good condition and its capability is three million gallons per day. He said it could be possible that the line has a build up in it now. He said another thought they had was putting another pump in the beach well. He believed that D. Squires had requested to have an engineering firm take a look at this.
J. Gabriel stated that he took tours of the water plant and everybody that he has talked to that hasn’t been a part of the water plant is amazed that the intake pipe is where it is. He said it is too close to the river where there is a lot of silting. He showed council a water level chart. He said with the water levels down it creates more sediment. He said the intake is picking up this sediment and it is in too shallow of an area. This creates more treatment which creates more difficultly for both the water and sewer plants. He said they should consider the pros and cons of extending this line. B. Sasala believed the city received a grant to do a study on extending this but thought the cost may have been in the millions. J. Gabriel said if they were to extend this pipe another $1,500 feet then they would be beyond the break wall. He said he would like to consider something like this instead of putting out a million dollar number to scare them away from this idea. He said he would like them to consider a lesser distance.
S. Holovacs said there is 500 pounds of material going from the water to the sewer plant and this material is hard to get rid of from the sanitary plant itself. B. Sasala said this grit wears on the equipment and the line. He thought there may be another alternative in removing this at the water plant.
D. Squires stated that he has spoken with three consulting engineers and has asked them to provide him with a proposal to evaluate both plants and to do both a water and sewer rate analysis. He said they will also evaluate and provide a recommendation on the intake as well.
H. Strickler asked if they could add a piece to the current intake. C. Howard said this is beyond his expertise so he wouldn’t want to guess.
S. Holovacs asked if the city has talked with Bramhall on performing these evaluations and rate studies. C. Howard said his firm has never done this before and he wouldn’t feel comfortable with it.
H. Strickler asked for an update on the auto dialer in reference to the new phone system. D. Squires reported that he is getting a proposal even though the $1,500 was appropriated to go with the CenturyTel dialing system. However, he just learned of a product from Sprint that could provide this service since they already have all the phone numbers. He said he is waiting for a proposal to see how this system works.
S. Holovacs asked if the administration checked with the schools to see what system they have in place since the notices are put out to the public in such a phenomenal fast time. D. Squires said he would speak with Mr. Keller on this.
TOPIC FIVE: Vermilion’s Water Supply
H. Strickler stated that this topic has been discussed greatly within the community and the newspaper about the pros and cons on getting rid of Vermilion’s water system and purchasing water from someplace else. She said it sounds easy but there are a lot of things they would need to do. She said that she would like to know what council feels about this. She said a lot of this issue was brought on by Ken Cassell who has been a big proponent of buying water from someplace else for a long time.
J. Gabriel said the idea has merit and he is for wherever they can get the city’s water the cheapest and have a secure water system. He said there are inherent problems from purchasing water from Lorain because the line going to Lorain has issues so there is an expense. He said there are plus and minuses and they would have to lock into some guarantees because once you stop producing water in your town, then you can’t just turn around and fire it back up again after a number of years because the plant will fall out of date. He said these are things they will have to take into consideration. He said the city should wait for the water study to be finalized.
S. Holovacs stated that if the city purchases water from somewhere else they will still have to maintain the lines. He feels this issue is still premature and they also need to put the water fund in the positive.
F. Ostrander didn’t feel council had enough information at this point to make any decision. He said they don’t know at this point what the savings will be. He said on the surface it sounds like a good idea. He said they also need to figure out how much water they are losing.
D. Roth said that they will have to fix the lines and the leaks regardless of whether the city produces water or buys it. He said he is aware this issue has been discussed for many years but has never been really studied to the degree it needs to be. He said they need to look at all avenues before making a decision.
B. Brady said it’s a monetary issue for the most part. She said the biggest problem is the economy of scale. She said the city’s plant is small and they still have to live up to EPA mandates, and it’s more expensive for the city to do the upgrades and to do the engineering studies. She said she would like to look at this as a regionalization kind of situation where they share resources. She said they should look at other plants in other areas.
H. Strickler agreed that they need more information and wondered if somebody could analyze this issue so they have concrete numbers. She said she is personally hesitant in giving away the city’s water as it being an asset, unless she knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s the best thing to do. She said that fresh water is the future and they are trucking water out to Colorado and the western states now because it’s so hard to get. She said if the City of Vermilion could get in the business of water then 50 years from now it could be a good cash thing. She said if they get a cost analysis then this would help them to make a better decision. She thought this issue would have to go to the vote of the residents before they can give this up. She said if they do buy water from someplace else the city is still responsible for all the water lines. She said the city is losing 37 percent of water and they would need to figure this out as well.
R. Griffith of Timberview said that buying water from the City of Lorain is just the tip of the iceberg. He said the city’s water distribution system is geared to start at the plant with the larger lines and as you reach your extremes you go down smaller. He said now they are discussing about having the water supply at the extreme eastern portion of the corporate limits coming back reverse through little lines to get to the big lines. He said this doesn’t work. He asked if they were going to change the whole system or were they going to run a 16” line to the existing plant and distribute it back through the system. He asked what the pressure Lorain was supplying the city. D. Squires believed it was 60 pounds. R. Griffith didn’t think the city’s lines could take 65 pounds. He said that the city has got a gold mine and it behooves the city to take care of it, maintain it, and keep our own water supply. He noted that the City of Lorain has many problems too. He said they lose water pressure and they can’t fight fires in certain sections of town so why would Vermilion want to be a part of that.
TOPIC SIX: Administration’s Response to Ken Cassell’s Letter
D. Squires reported that he provided council with a produce vs. buy report on water based on chemical costs to run the plant, as well as a water production graph showing the water levels and turbidity in the water.
B. Sasala stated that the water treatment fund is broken up into four different sections including water administration, water treatment, water distribution, and water debt. The portion that pertains to producing water is water treatment. In 2006, the cost was $615,391.95 which includes personnel, chemicals, and electricity. He said that buying water from Lorain would have cost the city $1.284 per hundred cubic feet at $980,646.01 or $365,254 more per year. He said the original contract with Lorain was $1.07 per hundred cubic feet or $817,205.01, a difference of $201,813.06. He said that assuming that the city has a 15 percent loss of water instead of 37 percent, production locally would still be cheaper by $22,028 at Lorain’s charge of $1.07.
B. Sasala said there would be an increase from Lorain after ten years up to the 75 percent in-city rate which would bring you back up to $340,000 more per year even at the 15 percent revenue. He said this isn’t a good deal to the residents at these costs. He said that other costs would include pressure booster stations or another water tower possibly by the Ford Plant. He said there are a lot of other costs involved in getting rid of the city water plant.
B. Sasala said that at the city’s current rate it is approximately $3,700 of added cost when you lose one million gallons of water. The added cost to the residents to cover approximately 37 percent loss of water in the system is $55,000 per year after taking into account the costs for chemicals and electricity. Using Lorain’s water, the cost would be over $300,000 per year. B. Sasala said at $55,000 a year it behooves the city to contract with Underground Utilities to run a leak survey to see what can be fixed.
B. Sasala reported that 613 million gallons of water were consumed in 2007. In 2006, it was 571 gallons of water. He said the six-inch line on Vermilion Road feeds the water tower because of the 16-inch river line is not working and needs to be repaired.
B. Brady stated that Johnson Controls was basing 65 percent of their savings on new water meters. She said that Council needs to decide on the performance contract because the savings is huge. B. Sasala said he hasn’t been involved in the proposed contract. Mayor Anderson said that Johnson Control’s performance contract is a guaranteed savings. She said if the city doesn’t see a savings then Johnson Control’s writes the city a check.
H. Strickler asked if water consumption was up or down. B. Sasala reported that consumption went up in 2007 but it was not enough to cover the city’s cost. H. Strickler said this raises a red flag and asked why they are losing money in the water fund if they are taking in more money with the increases. B. Sasala said they have to look at the other numbers because they lost $25,000 in new service things and the consumption is probably down. H. Strickler said the graph shows that at the end of 2006 the city’s fund balance was in the negative. B. Sasala said they had open purchase orders. H. Strickler reiterated that the fund was running negative for two years and the city was able to creatively cover it because of the open purchase orders. B. Sasala said that when you have open purchase orders that haven’t been used then it’s really not in the negative because you haven’t spent that money. He said the purchase orders sat there for about three to four years. H. Strickler didn’t understand why the fund was running in the negative. B. Sasala said for three years the city had zero rate increases, but there were labor increases of three percent and inflation. In 2005, they transferred $300,000 to the general fund and another $65,000 in 2006. He said the projected water fund for 2007 will hopefully be stable. He said in the sewer fund they will have to deal with the sludge disposal costs. He said the rate analysis of 2005 and 2006 shows a projection of $1.6 million of revenue for 2007.
TOPIC SEVEN: Storm Water Ordinance – 2007-102
It was noted that the storm water committee reviewed this ordinance prior to the committee meetings. D. Squires stated that they will put together a recommendation on the storm water ordinance as it was last revised by Ken Cassell. Areas of contention pertained to the ownership of retention basins. B. Sasala stated that the city is under a general MPDES permit which expires in March. The Ohio EPA will review what the city has done in the last five years and make their recommendations for the requirements for the next MPDES permit. He said because the city didn’t pay attention to the sewer overflows for 15 years and it came time to renew it, the city got penalized. He said he would hate to see another penalty because the city doesn’t have a storm water ordinance in place. H. Strickler asked the engineer to be present at the next Legislative meeting to give any recommendations he may have on this ordinance.
TOPIC EIGHT: Grease Trap Ordinance – 2007-104
D. Squires reported that he spoke with the Ohio EPA regarding this issue and was told that the city should be monitoring our systems to evaluate the impact of implemented CMOM measures and updating the CMOM program as necessary. If grease is a bit of an unknown in the city, then the city should set up a monitoring program to characterize its impacts and address them as needed, such as ordinance adoption, increased inspections, and preventative maintenance. He stated that if there are obstacles to conducting this monitoring, such as inaccessibility of traps located indoors or a lack of adequate monitoring locations then this is the reason to adopt an ordinance accounting for all of these items. D. Squires said they are not adding another unneeded level but it is to help the city remain in compliance with the CMOM program. He agreed with prior comments made by Steve Holovacs to give business owners adequate time to have their grease traps inspected and updated.
H. Strickler asked who inspects these grease traps because the building department is already overworked. B. Sasala said that grease traps are already in all of the establishments. He said they would monitor the records and would periodically televise the sanitary sewers to see if there was grease buildup and then investigate it.
J. Gabriel asked for consideration to change the six months effective date to one year to install an adequately sized grease interceptor in accordance with the specifications of this Ordinance.
H. Strickler MOVED; B. Brady seconded to amend Ordinance 2007-104, Chapter 1043.04(4) (5) to make the effective date one year. Vote 3 YEAS. MOTION CARRIED.
H. Strickler MOVED; B. Brady seconded to put Ordinance 2007-104 back on the agenda for a third reading. Vote 3 YEAS. MOTION CARRIED.
TOPIC NINE: Downtown Watermain Replacement Project
The engineer submitted to council his professional services fee for construction inspection and administration services, and construction staking in the amount of $35,860 in relation to the Downtown Watermain Replacement Project.
H. Strickler MOVED; B. Brady seconded to have legislation prepared to authorize construction inspection and administration services, and construction staking to Bramhall Engineering in the amount of $35,860 for the Downtown Watermain Replacement Project. Vote 3 YEAS. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment: No further business was presented and Chairperson H. Strickler adjourned the meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for February 25, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
2/1/08
_____________________________________________________
