Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20.10.14 - Minutes, Environmental Management Adv. Cmt.ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Sub-Committee MINUTES DATE: 10/14/2020 ATTENDING: Brock Shriver Becky Beecroft Lisa Reigh Aline Novak E. Duane Arch Russ Weaver Austin Abraham Dennis Cumbie Dave Mason Mark Bradshaw Sara Greaves Lacey Capshaw I. CALL TO ORDER: Brock opened the meeting at 1705 hours. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Becky made a motion to approve the agenda. Lisa Reigh seconded the motion. Agenda passed unanimously. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 30, 2020 Meeting Minutes: Dennis made a motion to approve the minutes. Becky seconded the motion. Minutes passed unanimously. September 23, 2020 Meeting Minutes: Becky made a motion to approve the minutes. Aline seconded the motion. Minutes passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS: a. Introduction – Mark Bradshaw – Interim Director, Division of Environmental Management David Scriever – Appointed by Commissioner Meinelschmidt – skipped, not present. b. Commissioner’s Request to Review Budget Shortfall for Water and Sewer: Sewer i. Objectives Recap. 1. Team to study solutions that will not require the County to increase water and sewer rates. a. Take a look at the current rate model and see if any adjustments can be made. b. Take a look at the current operations and see if anything cost savings can be found. Austin inquired as to any additional details in Jeremy’s departure as he seemed to be a great resource for the County and for the Sub-Committee. Brock advised that he had been offered a better position elsewhere. Austin also confirmed that when Brock asks for a vote, he’s asking for a vote from the EMAC members, not the sub-committee. Brock confirmed this, and explained their input is necessary, but they are not voting members as per the Bylaws. ii. Sewer Operations 1. Per gallon cost breakdown per plant (document sent out) Russ asked about 2-4 components that are necessary for treatment, and are they the same at each plant? Advised that each plant isn’t charged for pump stations, as the pump stations each have their own line item. The numbers sent out are reflecting a true cost per plant. Russ asked about sludge being treated at Conococheague, how does that get calculated and is that a big item or not a big item? Russ pointed out that the cost difference between Conococheague WwTP and everywhere else is quite significant and asked if that was strictly the volume that causes this difference in cost? Mark advised it has to do with economy of scale. Conococheague WwTP running at approximately 2.2M-2.3M gallons (prior to the wet year), running at less than 50% capacity. Russ asked if we did the ENR upgrades based on actual usage or if it was based on capacity? Mark advised that we use the extra capacity to use for our NPDES MS4 permit. Russ brought up the debt service being based on 4.5M gallons for Conococheague even though we did get so much grant funding from the State. Russ advised he didn’t see any way to improve these prices without putting more volume through it. The biggest costs are the smaller operations. Brock asked if any of these plants could be combined, Mark explained why this isn’t possible. Lisa Reigh asked about the plant at Conococheague, any way to accept what Septic Haulers bring in. Mark explained the high BOD and the issues we’d have with the plant if we accepted a large amount of septic. Russ was inquiring about the municipalities and how they can charge so much less to their customers (referenced Williamsport). Russ further asked if they can charge so much less because they get such a good wholesale rate. Mark advised that they can charge less because of the density. Russ asked about the wholesale rates, Sara advised these rates are included in the rate model and have increased in accordance with other rates. Russ asked about how the assumptions for The Model were reached. Russ advised that The Model was very aggressive on our assumptions and these assumptions never came to fruition. Becky asked if there were any adjustments to the model that was developed by this company. Sara advised that the county has not made any changes to the Model other than the fact that the Model was created in Access and was converted to excel in the early 2000’s. Sara advised that the way The Model was created to work is still the same. The Model output is based on input. It’s a budgetary tool that helps us determine necessary increases in rates. Becky reiterated that her question is the fact that it is 23-24 years old, is that something that needs to be done again, to assess the model we’re using, in order to assure that its assumptions are correct? The purpose of having someone come in and review the existing model would be to review it for accuracy. Becky stated that she doesn’t think that anyone pays as much as Water/Wastewater costs to treat. Becky voiced that her concern is that no one wants to raise rates and from what it seems, we’ve never broken even when it comes to what we charge customers verses what the actual cost is. Russ advised he thinks that the basic assumptions are correct, it’s just that this Model is very cumbersome. Furthermore, Russ explained that he thinks Black & Veach put in every single thing we may or may not need initially, but then after figuring out what we didn’t need, never took those items out, so it’s very difficult to navigate. Russ thought maybe someone coming in and revamping it, not even creating a new one, would be helpful. Brock wanted to know what the assumptions verses actual is. Sara stated that she finds the model to be a useful and relatively accurate budget tool.. Austin advised that he thinks it would be more beneficial to have engineers come in and assess if we’re operating well from a budgetary and engineering standpoint. An efficiency audit perhaps. 2. What has already been done to reduce operational costs (document sent out) It was brought up possibly utilizing COG member pricing as a non- COG member for chemicals. Checking into this with our Purchasing Department. Was checked into previously, just not sure of outcome at this time. We have streamlined our internal process to realize a cost savings, but unsure of what was found to be the case externally. Russ asked if once a pump station is built, it’s pretty much done. Mark advised that we put things for the pump stations through our CIP projects. For instance, I&I projects. Brock asked Mark if there are any Sewer operations that he can see that could be improved. Mark advised originally that when we did a project, we only looked at the capital cost associated with that project. Now, we’ve wised up and we’re actually looking at the operations and maintenance costs associated with that project as well. We’re starting to do a 20 year life cycle analysis on each project to find out what the true long-term cost of a project will be. We also will evaluate 2-3 alternatives to find out what has the lowest life cycle cost associated with it. Our ENR upgraded treatment plants, like Conococheague, we have set- up to be automated, so that saves money because we are operating more efficiently. Russ asked if the Utility Admin Fund was self- supporting. Sara advised it’s supported by Water and Sewer. It is 90% funded by the Sewer Fund & 10% funded by the Water Fund. Three potential solutions to explore for Sewer: 1 - Collective purchase of chemicals 2 - DO probes at other plants 3 - Efficiency Study for Operations iii. Sewer Rates – continue next meeting (information above within other discussions). Brock asked for a consensus to table the remaining items for now (iii, iv, v) so we could move further down the agenda. i. Water Operations - tabled ii. Water Rates - tabled c. Information Requests i. 08’ or 09’ minutes and ordinance committing Conococheague economic development activity funds – staff will continue researching. Sara was able to track down the legislation FY2001-FY2012 County was mandated under State Law to transfer funds from the General Fund to the water/wastewater funds in each year. That legislation was repealed effective October 1, 2011. Russ wanted to know what the rationale was to repealing the legislation. Russ advised we may have to consider cost being driven by ENR update on a plant that is only operating on 50% capacity. Brock advised maybe that would be a good idea to have the County Attorney come and speak to that legislation once these items are gathered, other sub-committee members agreed. County Attorney’s office has been looking into this. Brock advised he wants to wait until the materials are in, perhaps we will put that on the agenda and see if Kirk is willing to come and talk to us about this. ii. Overtime Paid – sent out as per Terry Schlotterbeck’s request. iii. Operational Breakdown water and sewer. Austin requested the design capacity of the plant. Previously had been given allocation and what the State advises. V. New Business a. New information/materials/speaker requests VI. Open Discussion VII. Agenda for Next Meeting Narrowing it down on Sewer Operations. May have some things that are worth looking into. Seems reasonable to look further into the Sewer Rates and Operational items and then maybe get to the Water Operations and Water Rates items. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Becky moved to adjourn; Aline seconded. Meeting adjourned at 1842 hours. The next meeting will be held October 28, 2020 at 5:00 pm. The location of this meeting will be via Zoom.