_____________________________________________________
UTILITIES COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 24, 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, M. Rossini, J. Gabriel, Gwen Fisher, Mayor Anderson, D. Squires, C. Schmidt, C. Howard. Absent: D. Roth
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: Storm Water Management Plan
D. Squires stated that this legislation involves the culvert replacement, ditch cleaning, and potential ditch enclosures. He said the last time they spoke Mr. Holovacs asked if he could look at machine time to replace culvert pipes and labor costs for the city if they were to provide the service. He referred to a spreadsheet he distributed on “Estimated Driveway Culvert Replacement Costs”. He asked if council had a moment to review this and asked how they wanted to proceed. He reported that he has 25 culvert pipes on his radar screen that he wants addressed immediately.
M. Rossini stated that he had tons of calls last week. He said he previously voiced his opinion about having the residents pay for a culvert replacement. He feels as a homeowner you need to take care of what you own or you shouldn’t own it. However, after receiving calls he has to change his plans and start thinking that they as a city need to go along with this idea. He said he doesn’t like wasting money on somebody else because he feels they should pay their own, but he wants to see the culverts taken care of. His only question is that if they replace the culverts, what do they do about the grade because they can replace the culverts, but what happens to make the water flow. He noted that 99 percent of the people on Hazelwood tell him that the city keeps saying that the water flows to the south, but yet their water flows to the north. When it flows to the north it flows under the street at that culvert going down into German’s pond and then leaches out to the lake. He said they have so many problems on these streets with these culverts that something needs to be done and prioritized. Therefore, he told council that he is in favor of getting these culverts done this spring.
H. Strickler said that her question is that when the administration identifies these culverts what happens if the resident’s say, “I don’t want you to fix mine”. D. Squires said this is the legislation they need to put in place so that they can enforce this program. He said they will be in violation of city code if it is under 12” diameter. H. Strickler said her opinion is that they have been at a stalemate because this would come out of storm water management. She remembered what Skip Griffith said last week that they would be condoning things that are not up to code. She said if they were just to say they have 25 culvert pipes and all 25 can’t be done in one year, then maybe they could just allot so much money so it doesn’t bleed the storm water fund. She said maybe they should do a little bit every year and allot so much money.
J. Gabriel said his feeling on this is that they have ordinance which is fairly cut and dry. “It says homeowners are responsible for their own ditches whether they’re in the right-of-way or not, they’re not to obstruct or hamper the flow of water through these various ditches”. He says he looks at this and has several issues with it because it is taking people from the street department and they will have their work cut out for them this spring. He asked what incentive they are giving the people to clean their leaves out of their ditches. He thought it was the responsibility of the homeowner as the way the law reads and he doesn’t know if the city has the funds to do this. He is looking at an Elberta Beach project that is a huge project. He said they are asking for at least $50,000 of it.
B. Brady understands the maintenance of the ditch and that people should be cleaning their ditches out. However, as far as replacing culvert pipe or digging the ditch, do they want people renting backhoes and digging on the right of way? She asked what will be their options. J. Gabriel said their option is to hire somebody. B. Brady asked how they will force someone to hire somebody. A lot of people are going to do it themselves and the problem is that they are intertwined. It is a system, not just a ditch that doesn’t affect anybody else. It affects the people up hill and downhill. She said they are creating a system and the system worked for years when it was maintained. She said that system in VOL carried water until they let it deteriorate. She said she has a problem with putting the cost of the equipment so high, as built into the plan. She said they don’t bill for equipment every time it goes out of the garage.
S. Holovacs felt this was a catch 22. If they allow residents to do their own culverts then they don’t know where the grade is at and then there is a cost in getting the city engineer and building inspector out there. He said if they have the city doing it then they should be setting grade. He said there is a cost to equipment because say you hire out a dump truck; there is cost per lineal foot. He said that Heidi brought up a good point to go out and do possibly 10 culverts and then the administration can come back with costs and ask for another 10. He said this isn’t saying they won’t do all 25 this year but it would be nice to do it in chunks and see what they are doing. He said he has a problem with letting the residents do it because if the grade is wrong then basically the water won’t flow through the one that is not set at the proper grade.
M. Rossini assumed that they were going to have teeth built into the ordinance that once this is completed then nobody better let those ditches get filled up by not taking care of them, or the city has the option to clean that ditch and charge the property owner. He said he would like something incorporated in the ordinance for charging the property owner. D. Squires stated that in the packet addressing Section 1066 it enforces a penalty for any violations. He said if they are going to do culvert replacements in a legislative form then he would like to see the homeowners paying for the material and the city putting it in. He said what can be amended in that legislation is ditch enclosures which are another component along with ditch cleaning. He said he would like to move forward with culvert replacement and would like council’s approval first.
Skip Griffith of Timberview Drive said the only thing he hasn’t heard mention in Dan’s plan which should be considered, is if they are replacing driveway tile they are digging up driveways. There are concrete, asphalt and gravel drives so who is putting them back and at whose expense. He felt this needs to be addressed. D. Squires stated that this has been discussed internally. The driveway apron would be the responsibility of the homeowner, whether it would be asphalt, stone, or concrete. H. Strickler said if the city doesn’t do the work for them then would they have to get done themselves. D. Squires said this was correct. H. Strickler asked the engineer how other cities do this. C. Howard said that some municipalities have the property owner pay for the material and then they provide the labor to install it, but every city is different. B. Brady stated that the City of Westlake charges for linear foot and they actually finish grade and plant the seed.
M. Rossini stated that recently Brownhelm Township has been discussing this and will be replacing the culvert but the homeowner has to cover all the costs.
S. Holovacs said that if the city replaces it; if they cut concrete or asphalt they should bring the gravel to the proper level.
D. Squires stated that they need to move forward with legislation that is more than a policy, in which the city will provide the labor and the homeowner will pay for all materials and will be responsible for the replacement of any apron that is asphalt or concrete, and then city will restore it to grade with stone. He said they can amend it later with ditch enclosures because that is a different component. He said that the engineer already put together the legislation for the type of pipe.
F. Ostrander asked the administration if they would be bringing to council sample legislation for the rest of the program.
D. Squires said they are going to do driveway culvert replacement first and a typical culvert 24’ wide will cost the homeowner approximately $300 to $350.
H. Strickler said years ago on Jackson Street the city went through and started enclosing ditches but then they stopped, so periodically she receives calls from the residents who didn’t get it done that would still like to have it done.
F. Ostrander said he was fine with doing the culverts but as far as enclosing ditches he was not in favor of that at all.
S. Holovacs MOVED; B. Brady seconded to recommend to council to have the administration prepare legislation for culvert replacement. This was referred to the next council agenda for a first reading and then referred to the next legislative committee. Vote 3 YEAS. MOTION CARRIED.
TOPIC TWO: Water Leak Survey
D. Squires reported that Underground Utilities has completed phase one of the leak detection survey. They will be taking their sounding information from when they listen to the lines and will correlate it to exact locations of potential leaks. He said they already repaired one significant leak.
Ken Cassell of 5425 Liberty addressed purchasing water versus continuing with the city’s water plant. He thought this discussion could open dialogue on some of these issues. He said he took reported information from the Photojournal from discussion at committee meetings. He said he is concerned with how long the city continues to spend on the existing plant versus doing a true evaluation. He said he would like council and the administration to do a fair evaluation of the water situation.
He said one of things he read about was the 37 percent of water leakage and this is where he came up with the $785,000 as the cost of leaking water. He said he heard they could only use the cost of producing that water. He took this number and according to the 2006 number the city had $615,391 as the cost of treating the water. He took the 37 percent of that number and still came up with $227,000. He read in the paper that the cost of leakage was $55,000. He said somebody needs to look at these numbers critically because if it is $227,000, they better hire somebody to get a handle on this.
He stated the other things they need to look at are the improvements at the water plant. If they are going to say that they will use only the cost in producing the water at the water plant then he thinks they need to add those improvement costs at the plant. He thought the city spent somewhere in the vicinity of $400,000 in the water plant. D. Squires said it was $314,000. K. Cassell said this would need to be prorated over a period of time because they can’t take the whole $314,000 and add it in one year, but they do have to add this as part of the added cost, including the interest cost.
He suggested that council look at how much the city really owes. He asked what were the bonds, the notes, the contracts, and other applications. He said he wasn’t able to do this, but was able to pull out a copy of Don Flak’s analysis and some of this comes up to where there is $8 million worth of projected improvements. If the city is going to continue to spend and have large expenditures coming up in the future, then they need to look at that and they should look at the debt service. With the current debt service for 2007, there was a principal payment of $245,000 with interest of $204,000, coming to a total of $449,000 for the year. However, when they got into 2008, the budget only reduced the principal $199,000 and the interest at $201,000. He didn’t know how government financing was working and suggested that they have an understanding of this.
He asked if the city was reducing the principle debt or just refinancing it. He asked if they really were reducing their debt structure or is it staying the same. He noted that the total budget for the water plant in 2007 was $1.7 million and is $1.5 for 2008. He asked what it would be in 2009.
He said another part of this is that as they keep adding to the amount of money that they’re putting into plant, they have to get the income in to pay for this somewhere. He said there are not a lot of extra houses now and they are losing other income. Starting in 2009 or later in 2008, the city will be losing $200,000 from the Erie County purchase. This money has to be made up somewhere and they as water users now will get a hefty hike in the cost of the water. He asked what would happen if the water users west of Vermilion want to buy water from Erie County too. He said this would be another hefty hike in the city’s water. He stated that the city doesn’t have another source to sell their water. He asked council to think about this and wondered where the income was going to be derived from for water service. He suggested looking back over the last five years to what improvements have been made and to look seriously at the next five years to see what the costs will be to get a handle on this. He said, “Do we continue to pay more, or do we buy?” He said if they are going to buy water they’re not going to shut off the valve today. But this gives the city the time to start doing those things and phasing in. He said if the city is going to have a smaller operation and plant, the costs will continue to increase each year.
He stated that he did get minutes of one of the committee meetings and council did talk about the location of the intake pipe and the silting which is a problem. He thought S. Holovacs had mentioned that the city is putting probably 500 pounds into the sewer plant every day. He asked what this is doing to the sewer plant and where is the charge to that. Is it getting charged back to the water plant or is it taken care of under the sewer plant. The silting probably isn’t any better unless they extend a pipe into Lake Erie but what is the cost of that. He heard this may be in the millions.
He said all of these things need to be taken into a long time consideration as to what those costs are to make a fair evaluation. He said regardless of whether the city is buying water or whether they are producing water, the servicing of the water still has to have the exact method. He said they need to look at a cost comparison of the water plant and what has to be done in the future versus buying the water from a source they can tie into. He said he did talk with the City of Lorain and they are willing to open negotiations with Vermilion.
H. Strickler said they are trying to find the leakage problems which is priority one. She said they also have been talking about getting the water plant evaluated and are moving into that direction to get more information. She said it may end up being cheaper to produce our own water but they really want to investigate it. She thanked K. Cassell for his input.
D. Squires reported that it was not the City of Vermilion breaking off discussions with the City of Lorain. There were some changes to the contract proposal from the City of Vermilion as they presented it to the City of Lorain. He said he is still having discussions with the City of Lorain.
B. Brady asked if there was any chance they could get a citizens committee to spearhead a study. K. Cassell said some of this will need professional input from engineers. B. Brady thought that maybe they should get some input from the residents as to what direction they think the city should go.
J. Gabriel asked Mr. Cassell if he served on a committee similar to this. K. Cassell said he and Mr. Rossini served on the Community Improvement Corporation. This was to issue bonds to bring industry into the community at that time. He said when they did the original study they met with the City of Lorain and the City of Elyria, and used the Poggemeyer report as their basis. They said either build a new plant or buy water. When they did the studies they brought the report in and gave it to former Mayor Hobart Johnson and he said he handled the water in the city, and the issue died right there. He didn’t know where these minutes are now.
S. Holovacs said that at any point the city starts buying from another community would this need to go to the residents for a vote. H. Strickler thought she had heard this to be true. K. Cassell said his suggestion would be if they were going to do it they buy all, except if they are going to keep it he still thinks they need to tie in to have an emergency supply. He said if the city buys then they shouldn’t continue spending dollars on the plant. He said there are all kinds of communities that do this.
B. Sasala agreed with K. Cassell that they do need to look at purchasing water versus keeping the plant going. He disagreed however on the cost of leakage. The cost of treatment in the plant is $600,000 and if they have 37 percent leakage it doesn’t mean that they are going to reduce their costs of their treatment operation by 37 percent. He said what the city does lose with their leakage is the cost of chemicals to treat the extra water and any power needed to transmit some of this around the city. This is the good part of selling more water because once you have that plant; if they produce 3 million gallons or 1 million gallons a day the costs are still same. He said if the city had other sources to sell water then yes they would be making money. He said the offer from Lorain wasn’t $1.07 as originally offered. At the last moment it went to $1.28. This would have cost the city $400,000 more per year. K. Cassell asked if the administration and council would go for it if Lorain would still sell the water at $1.07. He said this was the number Lorain was still working with when speaking with Mr. Timko.
TOPIC THREE: Private Sewer Lateral Maintenance Program Legislation
D. Squires reported that council was given a packet of information which outlines the areas of concerns they feel should be addressed with private laterals in the city. He said he is looking for direction from council on where they want to go from here. H. Strickler said she would like to move forward and get the legislation prepared. S. Holovacs said this may not be the perfect legislation but it is the first thing they put on the table. He said he was aware that there is a mandate with the EPA so he has no problem with what was presented and is willing to move forward. J. Gabriel said they can always amend this legislation because they will make changes to it eventually. As it stands he would be willing to go with what has been presented.
B. Brady stated that this is so complex. For example with the extra lateral question she can’t see why they can’t say one lateral per lot. She asked what reason would there be for multiple laterals on a building lot. D. Squires stated that Mr. Rigby has worked on private lateral issues in other cities and this is the type of input that would be well received from council. He said he could put together a bulleted list in legislative form that this is the criteria and standard; keeping in mind that this is a work in progress. H. Strickler personally liked how detailed the legislation is because it is covering a lot of basis. She felt it should be pretty strict because the city has strict repercussions.
S. Holovacs asked the service director if this legislation needs to be passed by May 15. D. Squires said yes. S. Holovacs said that council has time to take this legislation back to a legislative committee if need be. Additionally, it can be amended after passage. D. Squires it would help him the sooner the better so it gives him time to address the VOL overflow issues.
B. Brady said she would like to see a point of sale because there is money being transferred at point of sale, and if they initiate the sanitary to be inspected at that point, at least they will cover some issues. D. Squires said one of the most important components of this program is establishing the line of demarcation; what is the city responsible for and what is the homeowner responsible for. Much like the storm water program they put together for culvert replacement; this is very similar. He said they should look at the proposal and language of putting a clean out in. He said this is city-wide not just VOL.
S. Holovacs MOVED; B. Brady seconded to recommend to council to have legislation prepared based on what Underground Utilities proposed. This legislation will be on the April 7 council meeting for a first reading and then will be referred to the April 14 Legislative meeting for further review and discussion. Vote 3 YEAS. MOTION CARRIED.
TOPIC FOUR: Elberta & Romps Flow Meters
D. Squires reported that last fall they purchased a flow meter that Underground Utilities installed in the overflow of the Showse Park sanitary sewer overflow at the lift station. He said there are two additional overflows in the city’s pump stations at Elberta and Romp’s that need to be addressed. In 2010, Elberta needs to be eliminated. He doesn’t want to see them with their back up against the wall in 2009. He said they need to purchase two flow meters for Elberta & Romps. He wanted to inform council and to get their blessing to more forward with the installation at a cost of $12,500. He said that Gene Rigby of Underground Utilities would do this. H. Strickler asked if the money was coming out of the sewer fund. Mayor Anderson believed they talked about getting a Resolution of Necessity from council for both of these projects. She said they each become a project unto themselves and will be assessed projects in time, so the costs could go into the total project costs which will factor into the assessments. She said what they are looking for is a Resolution of Necessity for each of these projects so they can begin to move forward with defining each of the costs for each project. She said they are not due for completion until 2010. H. Strickler asked if they could even do this without knowing the costs, assessment calculations, or scope of the project. She didn’t think they could move forward with a resolution until they have costs in place. C. Howard said they would need to know their costs before moving forward. Mayor Anderson said they have to be able to assess the costs for the projects. H. Strickler said it would kind of be like Edson Street where the $52,000 worth of engineering would be rolled into the assessment. She said they still can recoup the costs. S. Holovacs agreed and said they need to remember that they purchased $12,500 worth of flow meters for these areas, and that they will split it up equally among the two areas. He said once they get to this point they can add this cost into the resolution. He asked if the cost now would come out of the sewer fund since they have to pay for it now. D. Squires assumed this is where it would come from.
W. Hamilton said that last year they borrowed about $2.9 million which included Edgewater and thought they set aside $135,000 for VOL. The way legal counsel worded the ordinance is that the city is able to go back and recoup that. The immediate problem is that for Dan to buy the meters the city needs to have the money, so to have the money they have to do a borrowing. He thought that maybe they could do a similar language borrowing for the meters for Elberta and Romps. D. Squires said the meters will cost $9,000 and it will cost $12,500 for the installation. D. Squires said they need to collect data that will help them with their ultimate design of eliminating the overflow. S. Holovacs asked if they were looking at a total cost of $21,500. D. Squires concurred.
B. Sasala said the reason they need to put them in now is that VOL is not fixed yet. They need to see the difference as to what water is coming from Elberta, VOL, and Romps. He said with tying in all this data they can determine where all the flow is coming from.
H. Strickler said they could defer this issue to the budget discussions. She said they can always do a motion at the next council meeting on April 7 under new business.
F. Ostrander said he would like to know the whole scope of the project. C. Howard said they should look at this as a way of justifying to the EPA what the city is doing to eliminate the overflows. He thinks this goes along way to justify to the EPA what the city is doing.
C. Howard added that an ordinance is required for passage at the first meeting in April for the Route 6 and Rte. 60 resurfacing project. The state wants this ordinance passed showing what the city’s commitment is to this project.
S. Holovacs MOVED; B. Brady seconded to have legislation prepared to put this on for a first reading on April 7. Vote 3 YEAS. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment: No further business was presented and Chairperson H. Strickler adjourned the meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for April 28, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Note: Unofficial meeting minutes. Changes may be pending. Minutes are verbatim.
4/5/08
_____________________________________________________
