2013 Sewer Initiative - Reality or Fiction?

As I agree the City has certain obligations to the current residences on septic systems, I do not however agree the proposed 2013 Sewer Initiative is the best remedy for the problem at hand. The possible outlay of money by the City is astronomical and doesn’t take into consideration the unintended consequences of depleting its proposed source of revenue (the sewer reserve fund), which should be used for its original intent, Arnold’s overall needed sewer repairs.

Some of my fellow council members will say not all 251 eligible residents will take advantage of this grant, but just in case they’ve built in some loopholes to save the City from funding the entire four and a half million dollars of upfront costs.

First, this proposed resolution has a shelf life of two years, ending September 1, 2015, but what part of the process needs to be started by the end of that time? Beginning the NID procedure? Engineering? Construction? The proposal doesn’t state, which leaves that aspect to the discretion of the City.

The ambiguity of that language is contrary to the other larger loophole designed by the resolution.

“Nothing in this policy shall be construed to obligate the city to pay such costs unless the City, in its sole discretion, deems such construction fundable by the City in advance of the construction of the sanitary sewers and manholes.”

Basically, if the City ends up not having the money to give, you’re out of luck.

Considering the NID portion of the proposal, forming the NID would require full cooperation of all affected residents, whether or not they want to hook up to city sewers. Extending the time of payback and increasing the amount allowed to be assessed is good for the individuals affected, but at what cost to Arnold as a whole? If a friend wants to borrow $100 saying they will pay you back ten dollars a week for ten weeks with a dollar interest, in the end you may be ten dollars richer, but you’re still out a hundred dollars for ten weeks that could have been spent on something you really needed. Multiply that by millions and imagine the sewer projects could be completed.

Since the NID would be funded by a government entity, prevailing wage would have to be paid for all construction, raising the overall cost of the project. Considering each resident is paying the cost, they should have a say in who provides the services. Another point to the individuals covering the cost of the entire sewer project is that, in theory, those residents, not the City, would then “own” the sewer lines, both main and laterals, and therefore be responsible for the maintenance of those lines.

If the City were to take over “ownership” or maintenance of the low pressure mains, they would be changing the rules for these NIDs from those previously implemented. Only if the City would cover some of the costs of the construction would the City then be able to claim “ownership” of the mains.

In my opinion, the 2013 Sewer Initiative is not a viable solution for the problem at hand. So what is it? By allowing people a short term to take advantage of this plan and with the language allowing the City to basically back out of its promises if funds aren’t available, it’s a “feel good” solution to a real problem, not to mention political pandering.

What would be a solid solution? First, emotion needs to be taken out of the equation and common sense inserted. Questions need to be asked and answers need to be examined. What are the City’s obligations to its residents? Do the residents have any responsibilities? To determine a solution, let’s take a look how other services are provided to the people.

The City has built an infrastructure of roads that service the residents, allowing them to travel throughout town and access the interstates and highways. But when an individual or developer builds a home, they construct a driveway to get from the residence to the street.

The City provides for trash pick-up and a truck drives along the roads provided, but it is the responsibility of the resident to take their trash bins to the curb.

As for our sewer system, in the past it has been the same process. The City provides the sewer mains and each residence is responsible for connecting their home to the main provided. The City bears the expense of the main. The resident bears the cost of the connection.

Why are we changing that process?

I understand the type of main has to be different and the distance to some residences is extended, but there is a better solution.

What if …

The City changed its ordinance regarding lateral lengths and grinder pumps?

As it stands, if lateral lines longer than 150’ were allowed, 17 residences could be added to gravity sewer lines. There do tend to be issues with the longer lines, but since the resident would be covering the cost, any problems with those lines would be the responsibility of the resident. It would be prudent for those with longer laterals to have clean outs at regular intervals. But since any costs associated to blockages would be the responsibility of the resident, I don’t believe the City should be dictating what the resident should do regarding their lines.

By the data presented, it appears 2 residents would be able to connect to gravity sewers if allowed to use grinder pumps without extending their laterals. And another 54 residents could be connected to gravity lines if allowed to use both grinder pumps and extend their laterals. That leaves 178 residences without the ability to connect to the gravity lines and would need an alternative solution.

Again, what if …

The City held to their obligation and provided the needed mains?

Those mains would be different from the current gravity mains being low-pressure mains. They can be smaller and placed shallower in the ground, reducing costs. Since the City would construct the mains, they then would be responsible for the maintenance of these sewer lines, unlike resident responsibility under the NID.

To implement this portion of the plan, again ordinances would need to be changed so that residences 150’ or less from the new sewer lines would not be “required” to tap on to city sewer lines. This would give those who either don’t have the money or have properly working septic systems the option to tap on now or later, but the lines would already be in place.

Remember, the precedent has been set regarding streets and trash, why not implement the same model to sewers? By applying this solution to the problem, the city is holding to its obligation to provide access to sanitary sewers and being cost effective in its approach. Unlike the Sewer Initiative with its unknown variables in projected costs and short time line, this plan would have known amounts that could be budgeted every year and continued yearly until completion. A course of action would be set in place with a timeline of all projects, taking into account funds available and the difficulty of projects, allowing residents to know when their project was scheduled in order to save the needed funds.

As of now, the city has existing sub-district designs for residences located off Telegraph and Upper Tenbrook. The Telegraph Sub-district has recently been reviewed and renovated to implement a low-pressure main and grinder pumps. Why not make sanitary sewers a reachable reality for the people wanting this service?

I propose the City allocates funds in the 2014 budget to construct the main for the Telegraph Sub-district and allow for the re-engineering of the Upper Tenbrook Sub-district. If it appears feasible, funds could also be budgeted in 2014 for the construction of the Upper Tenbrook main and possibly engineering costs for the next project, to be constructed during the 2015 budget cycle.

As I’ve stated, the city has a duty to provide certain services to the people of Arnold, but the people have responsibilities in exchange. I believe this plan would allow both parties to fulfill their obligations.