Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Utilities Committee Minutes 01.13.1997MINUTES PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE JANUARY 13, 1997 5:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Jim Flisrand Phil Curry Andy Loebe Jeanette Koch Norman Orr Miles Walton Kristine Kerr Mr. Johnson sent a letter requesting relief on a water and sewer bill at 2621 Topeka Drive, due to a water leak. The check valve after the water meter froze and ruptured. Motion by Walton, seconded by Orr, to recommend to the council that the sewer bill be reduced to the average sewer bill. Motion carried. Discussion regarding Cenex's request to tie into the East water line north of the Water Plant with a 14 inch connection. Committee recommends that the council be made aware of the concerns in allowing the connection and also recommends a consultant review of the low service pumping operation, prior to any approval of tie-in. Fact sheets will be placed in council mailboxes prior to the council meeting. The Goodwill Program for sewer claims was discussed with the following motions: a. Walton made a motion that all data collected be submitted to council for review and consideration. Orr seconded motion. Motion carried. b. Curry made a motion to recommend to the Council not to approve the Goodwill Program. Koch seconded and motion carried. Letter from MMIA indicates no city of Laurel's size or smaller has initiated this program. Curry requested committee consider the possibility of not turning water off during the month of December, due to Christmas. Discussion led to the fact that when water is turned off in December it is due to someone not paying their October bill. Committee agreed to review the request and discuss it at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Flisrand General Guidelines: 1. Council passes a resolution that will establish a review committee including policy and guidelines for water/sewer claims. 2. Committee needs to consist of: Attorney Budget Chairman 'Utility Committee spokesman (chairman) Public Works Representative 3. only claims that have been denied by the City's adjustor will be considered. 4. A release form must be signed by each claimant. 5. All claims must be submitted with written estimates by a cleaning company. 6. All claims must be associated with the City main lines not service lines. 7. Each claim will be reviewed with a maximum dollar amount set. Claims will not be paid in cases of "Acts of god" or clear liability on a third party. Montana Municipal Insurance Authority August 7, 1996 Mr. Jim Flisrand Director of Public Works City of Laurel P.O. Box 10 Laurel, Mt. 59044 RE; Citizen Assistance Programs - Sewer Utility Departments Dear Jim: This letter is intended to memorialize the conversation you and I had regarding citizen assistance programs for sewer utilities. As you are aware, several of the larger municipalities, including Billings, Great Falls, Helena and Missoula, have adopted policies to assist citizens who incur damage from a sewer backup. Several medium sized municipalities, similar in operations to Laurel, are currently investigating the possibility of developing a program. To date I am not aware that any of these communities have actually instituted a program. To fully understand the matter I think a brief history of the. process is in order. The idea of developing a sewer backup assistance program was raised by Great Falls and Billings in the late 1980's. The need for a process came about principally because of the "political pressure" being applied to the government by citizens of these communities who suffered sewer backups. The loss experience of NIlVIIA members reveal the potential for "political" problems caused by sewer backup claims. In excess of 21 % of the Liability Program's claims are for damage resulting from sewer backups. A review of these sewer backup claims indicate less than 40% of them involve negligence by the municipality. Thus, a majority of these claims result in denial of payment to the claimant. The perception of many claimants is - the sewage in their basement came from a municipal sewer main, therefore it must be The municipalities fault! When it is determined not to be the fault of the city, and the claim is denied, claimants oftentimes turn to the employees and elected officials to vent their frustration and ask for assistance. Hence, the "political pressure". Communities raised the possibility of assisting citizens when they filed a claim and the claim was denied. When approached with this idea the MMIA expressed considerable concern. We did not want to have communities second guessing the claim denials, thus setting up possible legal . challenges. Nor did we want municipal employees placed in the position of "adjusting" losses. With considerable trepidation the NEVRA set to work with the communities to find some middle ground. P.O. Box 785, Helena, Montana, 59624 (406) 443-0907 In MT: 1-800-635-3089 As discussed above, there are several cities that have implemented programs. They are as varied as the communities they serve. The financial limits of the programs vary greatly Several of the programs have been in place for a number of years. A review of these program belies our initial concerns. The programs appear to be serving a useful purpose, as designed and have resulted in few, if any, additional claim problems. I believe the keys to a successful program are: * All claims must first go through the regular claim process; * the goodwill process does not begin until a claim is denied by Alexsis; * citizens must make application to the assistance program; * each program specifies a financial limit; * payment is made only for clean up costs and only for the actual bills submitted; * there is not admission of liability - this is only a "goodwill program"; * a committee, made up of administrators and department representatives, should be formed to administer the program; * the program should be publicized and offered to everyone; and, * the program must be fair and equitable. In discussing the programs with the cities that have them, I find that the sewer departments, administrators and politicians strongly support the process. It appears they have gone a long way towards relieving a large amount of the "political pressure" caused by sewer backups. Any additional benefit is that they have resulted in limited cost to the municipalities. Also, abuse seems to be negligible. Because actual clean up costs are generally not very large and most cities require invoices before payment, the actual annual dollar cost to the cities has been small. I would suggest that, given the actual number of sewer backups for a city the size of Laurel, the financial exposure is limited. While I was strongly against these programs when they were initially proposed, I must admit I have come 180 degrees. The programs have caused the MMIA virtually no problems and, in fact, seem to have made the claim process more palatable for citizens when they realize that have another avenue for obtaining some redress. In many cases the image of the municipality has been enhanced through their show of concern for the citizens. I trust that this information will be of assistance to you in your deliberations on this matter. IfI can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact me. S ?1-gob Worthington Programs Administrator cc: Alan Hulse TO: Mayor/Council FROM: Jim Flisrand DATE: January 14, 1997 SUBJECT: Council Update of Public Utilities committee issue Staff's review, of Cenex's request for a 14 inch tie-in to the City water system, has identified the following issues: a. Cenex currently has a 10-inch, 6-inch, 2-inch and 2 or 3 6-inch hydrant taps. b. Cenex's request of a 14-inch tap with a 4000 gal/min pump exceeds what the Water Plant can regularly put out now. C. Currently the City can treat 3400 gal/min on a regular basis. (An additional low service pump is available, however doesn't work with consistency.) d. The City requires 3000 gal/min for domestic use and fire protection. e. 5 million gallon reservoir will supply the City with domestic needs for 1.16 days based on the 3000 gal.min need. f. The intake pier is in shallow water and during winter usage the City has a make shift suction line laid into the river due to the intake not being adequate. g. The volume during the winter month's is questionable. h. Does the City need a cushion on water supply for future development or commit it all to Cenex? i. Assistance in cost of consultant review of intake and low service pumps plus uptown usage may be required. j . Water rights may also be in question with the upsizing of water lines and possible increased pumping. k. OIS & AWANA standards indicate water systems need to be designed with fire protection needs in mind. 1. Growth of the City of Laurel will depend on the volume of water we have to offer. A consultant review of our low service operation and water demands is truly necessary before we commit to additional tie-ins outside the city limits.