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.
No comments:
Post a Comment