FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

 

OCTOBER 11, 2005

 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Fogt at 5:35 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Nevin Taylor, Dan Fogt, Ed Pleasant

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Dick Noland

 

AGENDA:

 

1)     Sewer Rate Increase

2)      

A summary of Mr. Noland’s presentation was given to all of Council.

 

Mr. Noland addressed the Committee.  He talked to OEPA and made arrangements to go down and look at the application, which was put together by Malcolm Pirnie and City of Marysville Administration.  In doing so, he learned more about the Antidegradation Rules and Regulations.  He understood the non-degradation system is where they build the plant as if discharging to the stream, then take all the effluent and land-apply it so there is no discharge back to the stream.  This is the ultimate.  Feels the system being proposed is too expensive for Marysville. 

 

Mr. Noland reviewed all alternatives looked at by Marysville.  

 

He is here as a rate payer.  Currently on the county water system, but after the first of the year, will be on the City system.  He is also in the pathway of Marysville for annexation. 

 

Mr. Noland noted while talking to OEPA, he learned there were three non-degradation systems for smaller flows in Delaware County.  He thought if non-degradation systems are good on a smaller scale, possibly this is a solution for Marysville.  The OEPA representative spoke very highly of these systems.   He noted the County system is not up to capacity by about 400,000 gallons per day remaining capacity.  For a new area of about 300/400/500 homes, a non-degradation system may be practical. 

 

He made the following points:  1) Water quality of Millcreek can best be protected by non-degradation and minimal degradation systems. 2) Feels it would be too expensive to do that for all of Marysville, but okay for a new area somewhat isolated, and he considers Rt. 42 and Rt. 33 somewhat isolated.  3)  Non-degradation systems are being used successfully in Delaware County and southern Morrow County. 

 

This existing plant, most of it is since 1984, is about half the capacity or since 1990, and the headworks, a major part, is only five years old.  He noted in the report that the existing facility was old and needed a lot of repair.  Mr. Noland feels this is not old.

 

Would like to have seen more specifics of just what is wrong with the plant and what it would take to put it back into good working order.  Would like to see what it would take to make it last another 10-15 years. 

 

The plant certainly has some value in it.  The County and the City do need additional capacity. 

 

Seems simple to separate part of the system and take it to another plant. 

 

Learned from Marysville records, inflow and infiltration is a big problem.  Removing rainfall inflow and in some cases infiltration, is the most economic means of getting more plant capacity.

 

The full cost of required sewer systems and treatment facilities in new undeveloped areas some distance from municipal sewers should be a part of the total cost of serving these newly developed areas.  Costs and risks associated with these developments should be totally upon the developers and not on the Marysville existing sewer customers.  Mr. Pleasant said this committee agreed with Mr. Noland on this issue. 

 

Improvements to the existing Marysville sewer system, by eliminating pump stations, can best be absorbed by the existing and future rate payers if they are phased over the longest possible period of time. 

 

It appears that the existing force main from the Scotts pump station and bowling alley pump station to the existing wastewater treatment plant could possibly be used by reversing the flow to take the flow from these areas to the new treatment plant located on Beecher Gamble Road.

 

Some modifications to the pump stations and additional force main would be required to facilitate this alternative. 

 

Alternative “C” for minimizing the lowering of the Millcreek  water __________. 

 

Main points:

q       Construct a new 2 MGPD at the new site south of the City.

q       Take the existing and future ______ flows up to their capacity from the bowling alley pump station back to the new plant.

q       Continue to remove I & I from existing system and the County system.

q       Continue to use the existing 4 MPGD plant for 10-15 years and use the existing County facility to its capacity, and then require new development in Millcreek and Jerome Township south of the City to use the non-degradation alternative, golf course, parkland and agricultural use for irrigation. They would pay the total cost of development of these disposal systems for the foreseesable when flows exceed 6.0 MGPD.   As part of this plan, agrees for long term, building interceptors to eliminate pump stations where economically feasible.

 

If you take the existing flows back to those pump stations and pump it into the plant, this permits the longer time of phasing out the existing plant and constructing major interceptors.  Permits more time to continue removing I & I from existing City and County collection systems.  Permits spreading major costs of a larger new plant and major interceptors to eliminate pump stations over a longer period of time, thus reducing rate increases right now.  Provides for an incentive to use non-degradation system in open, undeveloped areas like between Marysville and Dublin.  Less pressure to degrade the quality of Milcreek. 

 

Disadvantage is requiring the operation of two plants.  Economics are in favor of this alternative.  Would need two Class 4 operators.  Requires an additional force main between Scotts pump station and the new plant.  Requires some modifications at the bowling alley pump station and the Scott pump station.  Requires the continued operation of the existing pump station.  To do it properly would require some time and funding for a detailed evaluation of this alternative and a comparison of capital and operating cost. 

 

Estimated cost of the new force main to be about about $1M.

Modified at the force main at bowling alley pump station estimated $500,000.

Modifications of the pump station at Scotts estimated at $500,000.

Construction of new 2 MGPD, using Malcolm Pirnie’s way of estimating the treatment plant, estimates $15M.  With a 2.0 MGPD plant, would not need a new administration building.  Don’t need a new equipment and maintenance building at the new plant.  Don’t need a major new headworks.

 

Cost to rehab existing plant to last 10-15 years could be done for 1/3 the cost of building a new one. 

 

Mr. Fogt noted the anaerobic digester was replaced to help eliminate the odor. There is no good way to clean out the old system without stopping the flow, and we don’t have the capacity to stop the flow.  The headworks project was designed wrong, according to Malcolm Pirnie. 

 

Mr. Pleasant encouraged any and all input, but not sure what would be done with it.  All this information will be attached to the minutes for public information. 

 

Mr. Noland said estimated cost for this Alternative C is $31,000,000.  He would need to talk to various individuals and visit the plant again to firm up numbers.  This is workable in theory.  Need to work out the details to confirm or show it doesn’t.  The City has not wasted any money thus far.  It will not affect or impact the City or City residents.  The area south of City in Jerome and Millcreek Townships can be served by the existing system and non-degradation system and serve up to 4800 homes over the next 20 years.

 

Mr. Noland will give this alternative at the EPA Hearing.

 

Regarding annexation, Mr. Pleasant encouraged Millcreek Township to take appropriate steps to protect themselves from annexation.  Council wants to continue to be good neighbors. 

 

3)     Stormwater Fees

 

Need to create legislation to continue stormwater fees for 2006 and possibly 3 years out.  Mr. Fogt recommended continuing with the fees currently in place.  Mr. Pleasant agreed.  Fees will continue through 2008.

 

Meeting adjourned.