Council Splits on Sewer Rate Increase and Admin Thumbs Nose at Voters

Monday night (Mar 26) Council approved 3 separate increases to the sewer rates. The vote was close – 5 FOR the increases (Lynch-4, M cLaughlin-5, OHare-6, VanHo-8, Holzheimer-Gail-P) and 4 AGAINST the increases (Gilliham-1, Scarniench-2, Jones-3, Langman-7). Total increase will be $12/mcf (approx. 7,500 gallons).

There is no question OM&R rates had to go up. The Waste Water Treatment Plant is broke. It cannot fund operations, maintenance and repairs. It for sure can’t fund the 60 day Reserves requirement. Rates will increase $5/mcf (from $19.60 to $24.60/mcf).

Capital funds are used to finance debt and fund improvements. That rate will go up $4/mcf (from $4.08 to $8.08/mcf). An additional increase of .50 will occur in 2014, ‘16, ‘18 and ’19. $2 of the increase is to fund a new membrane technology system for WWTP. Sometime down the road, the EPA will approve a plan to bring Euclid into compliance with the Clean Water Act. The City is counting on membrane tech approval, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Peterson funds finance sewer line repairs. That rate will increase $2/mcf (from $11.88 to $13.88/mcf). An additional increase of $2 will occur in 2013. In 2008, Council approved $2/mcf/year for 5 years increases to replace CSOs (Combined Sewer Overflows). The CSO improvements were never EPA authorized, so the Administration diverted those funds to sewer maintenance.

Waterline funds are used to re-pave the half street left behind when Cleveland Water replaces a waterline and paves the half side affected. That fund is going up $1/mcf (from $9 to $10/mcf).

It all looks reasonable. The City must come into compliance with the EPA. It will cost millions to implement. So why did 4 council members vote NO? The four dissenting Council members were not comfortable with the increases because the EPA has not signed off on any proposals put forward by the City. They wanted to increase rates for the immediate needs of the City – Operations, Debt Service, Cash Reserves and Sewer Line repair/replacement. But without a written okay from the EPA, they wanted to wait on funding a plan that might not be approved. You can link to Ward 7 Councilman Langman’s blog on this page for his take. Additionally, Ward 2 Councilwoman Scarniench offered an amendment lowering Capital charges by $2/mcf. It was defeated 5-4.

For my part, I would like to have seen Council go even further by eliminating the $2-$3/mcf increase that covers the cost of the 2 mill levy that Euclid voted down in 2010. When I asked Law Director Frey for the rationale in slipping it in to OM&R and Peterson, he responded, “Yes, the Two Mil Sewer Levy was defeated at the ballot. We nonetheless have the requirement that we maintain our sewer lines, our storm and our sanitary sewer lines. We’ve built into this rate the cost of maintaining those storm and sanitary sewer lines. That’s what the MOM [Maintenance, Operation, Management] program is. It requires us to maintain the local collection system, that’s being charged to Peterson. It requires us to maintain the trunk system and that’s being charged to the overall plant system so the outside communities pay their portion. That is a requirement of the Consent Decree, the MOM program is a requirement of the Consent Decree and we have to fund it. It is part of the overall rate structure.”

This kind of logic pains me. The premise for the Law Director’s logic is that the government entity takes precedence over the individual. Using that logic, the government has the right to use whatever means necessary to do whatever it wants any time it wants.  

But that premise is false. In America, the individual takes precedence over the government entity. The government is there to protect the individual. When the people vote, government must honor that vote. The City Administration with Council approval did not do that. Instead, in direct opposition to the will of the people, it will collect the lost funds and maybe more by burrying the funding in the OM&R and Peterson rate increases. This is the second time since 2003, a vote of the people was thrown out. The first instance was around 2005. The people of Euclid rejected a Council re-zoning of Hillandale for residential and church use. Their vote was thrown out and the land was re-zoned anyway.

It’s bad enough the City mandated and is still collecting Garbage & Lighting fees that were supposed to be temporary. Ignoring a vote though, is worse. It is in my mind anyway.

Last Chance to Slow Down the Sewer Rate Increases



On the increase in viable waste water
treatment, Membrane Technology
 incorporates controlled biomass retention



The Service Committee will meet tomorrow (Wed Mar 21) at 6:30 one last time before Council votes on the sewer rate increases. The Administration hopes to have Council approve the increases at a Special Council Meeting Mon Mar 26 – in time to collect them for the 2^nd quarter. Many questions raised still remain unanswered.   

The Administration has asked Council to approve a 32% increase effective April 1^st in large part to fund anticipated changes required by the EPA to bring the City into compliance with the Clean Water Act. If approved, residential users will see rates increase $12/mcf (approx 7,500 gallons). To get an idea what it would cost you, check your water bill usage. Multiply that by $12 and then again by 4 (quarters). The total is your annual increase. These rate increases also are not final. More increases are due come fall.

But questions remain. Included in the increases is enough to make up for the 2mill levy voters rejected in 2010. What part of “NO” does the Administration not understand and respect even less?

In 2008 Mayor Cervenik came to Council requesting an increase of $2/mcf per year for the Peterson Fund for 5 years. The estimated $5million raised would replace the City’s 17 CSOs (Combined Sewer Overflows). Council approved the increases.

At the Mar 12 Executive Finance Committee Meeting on the new Membrane Technology, the Administration shocked some by admitting that 3 years later, no CSOs had been replaced because EPA had yet to authorize the plan. And that even if there had been authorization, there just wasn’t enough money. Consumption was down. The money raised to replace CSOs was spent on other sewer repairs.

Membrane Technology does seem a good way to go. But, while fairly confident of EPA approval, CT Consultants - the City's engineering firm - could not guarantee the EPA would approve the plan. Until it does, slow down. Find a way to offset the increases. Councilwoman Scarniench has suggested eliminating the Street Lighting Fee in exchange. Great idea except the Mayor told Council he needs that fee for cash reserves. Then get rid of the Garbage Tax. By the Mayor’s own admission, tax revenues are ahead of projections and the City is solvent thru 2013.

Lastly, the Administration has no plan for doing anything that can divert storm water out of the sewers - something the EPA highly encourages and that Councilman Langman’s research has shown will save money at the front and back ends.

Council is being asked to vote for an increase of $12/mcf to fund a plan the EPA has not authorized. Is that ethical? Council is being asked to approve a plan that does nothing to lessen the amount of storm water that goes into the system. Is that smart? Council is being asked to sidestep the voter’s NO to Issue 2. Is that good representation?

Now if you’re okay with all this, fine. But if you’ve got concerns, tomorrow may be your last opportunity to influence Council to wait until the City has something in writing from the EPA. How sad it would be if after the City invested $11 million in engineering fees, $1.5million into the Old Alexander’s property, and another $100 million or so into Membrane Technology, and $20 million or so into sewer line replacements, the EPA said, “Sorry, not good enough. There’s no green infrastructure here.”

Tomorrow night's meeting is at 6:30 in Council Chambers. The ball is in your court. 

Citizen Asks Council to Vote "No" on Increases

After the March 12 Executive Finance Committee meeting on Membrane Technology for the Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant, and further discussion on proposed sewer rate increases, Mr. Jeffrey Beck sent the following email to City Council:

Subject: Sewer rate Increase
After attending 2 meetings and asking questions at both I am against the sewer rate increase at this time for the following reasons
1) The city has not done their due diligence in investigating the MBR technology.
        -Have we spoken with multiple cities that use this technology? Especially those cities who discharge into a major lake such as Erie.
        -Have we spoken with cities that looked at this technology and decided on something else?
        -I understand that we had the opportunity to visit the wastewater site in Canton that utilizes MBR and passed. Why?
2) Too many questions were raised by Council and myself that were not answered.
        -Basic questions such as size of these membranes could not be answered by CT Consultants. This showed a lack of basic knowledge on this technology.
        -I asked about the membrane degradation. If these units have an 8 year life span what is the water flow after 3 years? 4 years? 5 years? An internet article states that this is an issue. If we get 66M gallons per day capacity on day one does this become 33M gallons per day after 4 years (50% life span)? The only answer I received was from
         Councilman McLaughlin who stated that these membranes have a tendency to rip causing more water flow. What? This would also allow sewage to enter the lake and doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. The CT person stated that they do degrade but never answered my question. Yes, I know he said they self clean but that will only take them so far.
        -The CT person stated that they have never worked with the US EPA and that it is much more difficult than the Ohio EPA. I asked why we weren't employing an engineering firm with US EPA experience. My question was deftly deflected by Chris Frey who spoke about a Columbus lawyer we have consulted.
3) Negotiations with the EPA seemed to be going nowhere. The city stated that they have presented 18 plans that were not approved. They also stated that there was a $200M plan that the EPA would approve. If we are looking to save the taxpayers money we seemed to be lost as to how to do it. Presenting 18 plans sounds to me like a muddled mess.
4) As Councilman Langman pointed out Council authorized a rate increase in 2008 to the Peterson fund work work on the CSO's. The money was taken from the taxpayers but the work was never done. The reason stated was that the EPA did not give approval for the work. So, once before Council approved a rate increase with only partial information from the administration.

It is for these reasons why I am against voting a rate increase at this time. We do not have approval from the EPA yet and it doesn't look as if we will anytime soon. If partial approval on correcting the SSO's does come down then the cost of just that should be approved. We cannot collect monies from the taxpayers in anticipation of anything. You can see what happened in 2008. We clearly have an administration that does not concern themselves with being forthcoming on providing information. We have an administration that only provides just enough information to gain council approval. It is only later that you find out the "rest of the story".  Please do not let  what happened in 2008 happen again. Do your due diligence on this issue, get straight answers to ALL the questions that have been raised, demand an engineering firm that has the experience to resolve the issue with the US EPA, get that EPA resolution and THEN vote to increase the sewer rates as needed. This is a $70M immediate issue and a $136M long term issue. If you rush this through you will be doing a big disservice to the residents of this city. We demand better.