Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-09 Sewer Committee Minutes Ad Hoc Committee on Sewer Systems �. : � , . � Ad Hoc Committee on Sewer Systems February 9 , 1993 Minutes Committee Members Present: William Cohen, Patricia Blanchette, Charles Sullivan (sitting in for Richard Stone} Staf� Members Present: Jim Ring, Ralph Mishou, Al Jellison, Bruc� N. �hibles {1} HampdenlHermon NeQotiations : Chairperson Cohen a�ked where the negotiations stood. Asst. City Solicitar in�ormed the Committee that Herman's response had not been received. Bangor does not believe that this indicates any change �f position an Hermon's part. The Committee was further inform�d that Bangorrs . respan�e to Hampden's count�rproposal should be sent out in the near future. There is same agreement with Hampden but majar issues remain autstanding, including the methad of calculating Hampden's - share o� the new Plant's cons�ruction cost� . � 2} Amendment ot the Sewer U�e Ordinance: The Carnmittee was ir_�armed b� staff that these revisions are necessary primarily due to user pretrea�ment requirements that Bangor must codi�y in order to satisfy the EPA in an upcoming audit. The audit i� � scheduled to take pZace an March 15, 16 and 17, 1993 . The revisians are also necessary ta ensure that �utuxe discharges of - wastewater that are treated at the P3ant do not adversely a��ect the treatment processes, especia�ly the s�czaarganisms which are . essential to the prapex operation of the biotower. The revisions � follow a model creat�d by the EPA. . Preliminarily, the C�mmittee requested clarification as t� whether this was an amendment of the existing ordinance or a � substitution, The Cor�nittee was informed that this would be an aznendment to the existing Ordinance by repeal and replacement with the new language. This method was chosen given the numerous praposed additians and ch�nges ta the ard,�nance. The Comanittee was told that the new brdinance incorporates - a n�mber of sections �f the exi.sting Ordinance. The Commit�es was al�o infarmed that the users most imgacted by the revisions are thase users who are required ta monitor the content af andlor pretreat their wastewater priar to its discharge for treatment at the Plant. Those users will be issued new wastewater discharge - __ permits af ane year duratian before the audit and the permi.ts will be cansistent with the language of the proposed ardinance. A detailed discussian of the pro�vsed Qrdinance was not . undertaken given the 45 pages (which represents approximatel� 3/4 � � of the final length) to review. The Comaiz.i.ttee also felt that the � � . � ' -2- � clari.ty of the Orda.nance may be apparent to thase di.rectly affected by i.t, but that a number af the pxovi.sions needed further study by the Committee members prior to a substantive di.scussion. : Rather, the Committee spent the bulk of its time di�cusszng � how best ta enact an �rdinan.ce of this �agni.-tude and complexi.ty�, �- gi.ven the time canstraints due to the need to pass the upcomi.ng EPA - audit. Staf� expressed the beli.ef that the most aptimal result ' wo�1d ocGur if the Ordin.ance was revised and enacted prior to the audit. However, staf f is also of the opa.ni.on that i.f the Ord.inance . proce�s has been commenced with a first readi.ng and referral., then � the EPA would give the Gity a short t.ime period tcs ef�ect a f ina1. enactment. The. Committee feit that the EPA should be i.nvolved as early as passible to �aci..Zitate the�r eventual approval. The Cornmittee felt -�hat i.t was imperatisre tha-t the . : pretreaters be invol.ved early on in the process and that staff al.one should meet with the pretreaters ta gauge their reactions and . identify problems and agreem.ents . Fu2'thGr� the Comm.ittee �elt that the whale Council shauZd be i.nvolved in revie�rri.n.g the revi.si.ans, . which the Committee recognized is a depart�re from the nor�nal grocedure �or arr3i.nance amerxdments, because a� the complexity of � the issues and volume o� the documen�, as well as the fact that provi.sion.s o£ the Ordi.nance impact functions of the C3.ty being oversesn by Einance, Communi.ty and Economic Devel.opment, Munici.pal � Opexati.ons and thi.s Committee. � � After cansidering its opt.ions, the Commi.ttee's consensus _ was to recommerzd ths �ollawing procedure: ' (1) First Reading and Referral for a PubJ.ic Workshop � Meeti.ng of the Cauncil. acting as a Committee af the Whole. '�he referral would also direct staff . to submit the proposed Ordinance ta �he EPA. {2) Pri.or tc� th.e Workshog, staff are ta meet with the �- pretreater� to identify and at-�empt to solve '• � ' prablem area� . An invitation. to this meeting - i should also be extended to E3aznpden and Hermon. ___ ' (3 ) The Council's T�larksh.op will be h�ld, possibS.y at � the same ts,me as the audit visit, to faeilitate _ the att�ndance af an EPA representative. _ � (4� Second Reading and Passage, passi.bZy o� an � .: amended versi.on by substitu-�ion, a�ter pubiic j:`:= com�nent and the Council's i�put. • _ , � � - The Coxamittee suade it ciear that they felt public � � education� esgecially with the pretreaters, was essential to thi� �,� grocess. They also asked staf� to send the proposed revisions to � the enti.re Council, the pr�treaters, Hernaon, 8ampderl and the EPA � , • `' .` ,, � • ' -3- � before the �irst readi.ng. Fuxther, it was sugqested that the med.ia � shauld be given the oppartiz�.i.ty ta participa-te i.z� thi� public education ef�ort. Final3.y�, the Committee felt that a brief pre�entation should be developed by staff whi.ch fully e�plains the pretreatment program for -�.he pretreaters, -the Counci.l and the public. � . t3 } Sewer Rate Studv: The Comrnzttee requested infarmation on the RFP �or the Sewer Ra.te Study. Some con.cern wa� expressed that the RFP, which was sent out on Eridayr February 5th, had not been reviewed by the Gommittee. Staff explained �hat the Sewer Rate Study had been requested at an earli.er meeting of the Mun.icipal Operations Cornmi.ttee or at the Couzici.l Workshap Executive Sessinn on the Hampden/Hermon negotiations . Staf� �.ndicated that the Commi.ttee would r�ceive a et�py of the RFP and that th.is � C�mznitte� would be i.nvc�lved in the process of selecting the contractor to conduct the study. , � :� :� ; ._ - a . . . . -::; . . _ - ,, . , � � - - .; _._ - � -- _� _.. . . -� ... �. � . . rI2'Y r�F SANG�"�R ,SEWER RATE �TC1LaY Ii I GI+ s�FF MEET I NG � SEPTEMBER 28 , 19�33 Attendance : City Councilors City Staff J. Saxl E. Barrett P-. Blanchette J. Ring a� - R. Mishou f�," CH2M HILL J. Murphy C. Bowers E. Stumpfel P. Von Zwick M. Perry D. Green The City of Bangor has retained the services of CH2M HILL for the Bangor Rate Study and Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study. The purpose of this meeting was to give direction to CH2M HILL and discuss the proposed ideas . The City has received numerous complaints from the public about the increase of the sewer bills and a primary concern of this study should _be to address those complaints. Sewer Rate Studv • The low-Income, Senior Citizen Rate Group are freguent callers. J. Saxl said age should not be a factor in the rates. Low income citizens should be given a high priority in the rate ad�ustment. There have been numerous complaints about the increased rates for water used outside, lawns, etc. �� C. Bowers suggested a second meter to register the water , used outside. E. Barrett stated that there is a high i, connection charge and plumbing charge to the consumer for an outside meter hookup. D. Green proposed placing a cap so that , residential customers water usage wouldn ' t be computed in I their sewer bill after a certain amount. The customer would be billed for average usage and usage over that average amount ', would not be billed. P. Blanchette remarked that it would not be in the City's best interest to encourage excess quantity of , water use. E. Barrett questioned whether our policy should I discourage water conservation by increasing the sewer rates . ' Also proposed is to discontinue the minimum usage rate. Base , the sewer bill on a certain percentage of the water � consumption. M. Perry stated he had received a lot of complaints from customers who water their lawns and water '�i remains in the ground and the customers still are made to pay sewer bills on this water, with this concept their is an automatic allowance for this type of water usage. Another idea ', proposed was Care-Share, which the customer along with their monthly water/sewer bills may donate an optional $1. 00 to fund a care-share program, this $1. 00 is allocated to a separate �� • fund which assists people who are having financial difficulties. E. Barrett discussed that property owners would � be subsidizing the utilities bill and it wouldn' t be that ' useful because it would fall back on the property tax which doesn' t directly relat.e to income. ' i - - __ _ _'� � . , Bangor Rate Study Page 2 ' . In the older sections of the City many of the roof drains are �' connecter� into sewer systems . E. Barrett discussed a rate surcharge on structures that have gutters qoing into the drain ' would act as an incentive to disconnect, but the City would need to be consistent and not discriminate in ,certain areas . I J . Saxl suggested a discount as opposed to a surcharqe so customers wouldn ' t feel discriminated against . Reroutinq I foundation drains are a greater problem. Again, a discount for customers who disconnect their foundation drains would act I as an incentive . Also , discussed if residents who are billed for water 'i consumption to fill swimming pools should be also billed for sewer even if their pools aren' t drained . E. Barrett , �1?s�c_(e?��:r=c� ttlr' ��C�� rU1_l�r W�}LIl�� ��t' Ott�r � discount. , Volume discounts could be focused on economic development , of the City and surcharges focused on conservation . E. Barrett responded that in our community we have few industrial water users that are high volume users . Criteria for '� potential industrial high volume users was discussed. There were several ideas discussed about the flat rates. Flat rate could be built into the numbers of bedrooms �� per residence . Discussion followed that this method would not reflect actual use . Discussion followed concerning a rate for , sewer availability even though the resident isn ' t connected to � � the system, there is a flat rate for septic systems which R. I Mishou recommends leavinq alone for now. A new connection as an impact fee to connect in to the system was proposed . New connections are required to have a water meter even if they '� are on a well . ' There is presently a 10% increase every six months for I sewer bills . At present a 10°% increase through fiscal year ' 96 at semi-annual intervals and a 5°% increase through ' 97- ' 98 I and eventually rates should decline . In a statewide , comparison Bangor was in the middle of the scale on their I sewer rates . D. Green explained that cost of service analysis will ! reveal the cost of service and provide and distribute the cost to those functions and then allocate the costs to the i different customer classes of residential , commercial and industrial . E. Barrett stated the cost doesn ' t justify the , need. Alternatives to Flat Rate Structures would include a �, discount at the top end of water or an increased charge at top end of water used outside . Strength Charges were discussed j and at this time are handled by the Pretreatment Program. � Impact Fees - Bangor presently charges a $30 . 00 i inspection fee for sewer connections, additionally the cost of ' pavement replacement in streets and sidewalks is charged to ',, the property owner , but no impact fee is assessed . Brewer ' • charges $1200 connection or impact fee . An impact fee would '� offset the sewer user fee . Also discussed was including a review of the Hampden , agreement, changing the billing cycle to monthly, rebates I given when deemed appropriate. A completed review of the sewer ordinance Fras also requested. «- � � �- ' B I angor Rate Study , � Page 3 Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study � A. Allocation of CSO program costs between Sanitary Sewer and , Stormwater Systems The City wants to generate funds through the stormwater , system. E. Barrett stated a significant portion of the Secondary Plant is necessary for treatment of stormwater and � discussed if the City should separate the costs and bill � separately. It would be a major cost shift from residential to commercial and industrial properties . Allocation of costs , �' who pays and who benefits also needs to be considered . A ' flat rate stormwater charge , stable sewer rates and increased stormwater fees were also discussed. Rates for malls and 'i department stores need to be looked at, should the City charge ' per lot size? What is the cost of sewer separation and how i much can be recovered in sewer bills are some questions that need to be answered. i It would be useful to identify typical billing or user type classifications on average residents , average small j businesses, averaqe large businesses . The City also needs to look at dealing with specific problems, such as residents who i do not have direct impact, combined system versus non-combined , system and can we recover costs through picking up the cost of I the drainage system as a separate charge . . I .