1 / 18

Metropolitan Council

Metropolitan Council. Environmental Services. Legislative Update: Inflow & Infiltration, Water Supply, SAC. Presented to the Environment Committee February 9, 2010. Jason Willett, MCES Finance Director. A Clean Water Agency. Legislative Update. Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Water Supply

lottie
Download Presentation

Metropolitan Council

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Legislative Update: Inflow & Infiltration, Water Supply, SAC Presented to the Environment Committee February 9, 2010 Jason Willett, MCES Finance Director A Clean Water Agency

  2. Legislative Update • Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) • Water Supply • SAC

  3. I. I&I Legislative Request • Appropriate $2 million for FY 2011 from Clean Water Fund to fund a metro area inflow and infiltration (I&I) grant program for private properties

  4. Downspout connected to house lateral Foundation drain or sump pump connected to house lateral Yard drain connected to house lateral House lateral . . . . . . Publicly owned sewer Cracked pipe or open sewer joint I&I Definitions • Inflow: • Surge water from rain storms that gets into wastewater system • Infiltration: • Clean water that seeps into sewer lines

  5. Why Legislation is Needed • Inflow & Infiltration: • Wastes drinking water resources • Creates risk of sewer overflows (into water bodies) or sewage backups (into homes) • One of biggest challenges facing wastewater system and metro area water resources • City customers asking for help

  6. Fiscal Impact • If I&I program is successful: • MCES can avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in increased sewage fees • About 30% increase to all cities served

  7. II. Water Supply Legislative Requests • Appropriate $500K funding in FY 2011 for plan implementation • Funds will be used to: • Improve water supply availability technical analysis • Update water supply planning tools, water supply development guidance, and online water supply mapping • Collect information that will improve future water availability • Eliminate sunset date of Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee

  8. Background • Minn. Statute Sec. 473.1565 directs the Metropolitan Council: • “carry out planning activities addressing water supply needs of the metropolitan area” including the development of a master water supply plan for the metro area • Minn. Statute Sec. 473.1565 directs the Advisory Committee: • “assist the Metropolitan Council in planning activities”; the committee is set to expire at the end of 2010

  9. Plan Development • The Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan: • was a collaboration between communities, counties, state agencies, other public and private entities • is a long-term view that recognizes the importance of basing decisions on the best available information and developing supply management strategies—adaptable as conditions change and information becomes available

  10. Fiscal Impact • Without funding to implement the master plan, cities and states will face greater supply uncertainty which could result in: • Permitting delays • Increased development costs for cities • Detrimental impacts to natural resources • Money may be wasted by pursuing non-optimal water supply

  11. III. SAC Legislative Request • Flexibility to fund wastewater reserve capacity through wastewater charges only when: • Service Availability Charge (SAC) rates and fund are not sufficient to fund reserve capacity • Triggers: • “Appropriate Study” • Public hearing • Council determination • Balanced by a minimum increase in SAC rates (6% or CPI + 3%, whichever is greater)

  12. SAC Units Collected (estimated)

  13. Reserve Capacity Reserve Balance (Year-end Balance in Millions)

  14. SAC Rates (Per residence or equivalent unit)

  15. Actions to Date • Increased Service Availability Charge rates • Refined Reserve Capacity definition (reduced portion of capital costs funded by SAC) • Tightened SAC credit rules • Appointed task force to develop long term policies for defining and funding reserve capacity • Deferred capital projects based on changes to forecasted service demands

  16. Why Wastewater Charges? • High increases to SAC rates may impede new development and might not produce revenue • Wastewater volume charge is the other wastewater fee mechanism available to the Council • Flexibility to use our wastewater charges further secures Aaa bond rating • MCES wastewater charges are among cheapest in the nation

  17. Indianapolis $205 Columbus $442 Cincinnati $441 Comparative Retail Rates* Rochester, NY$141 Seattle $335 Detroit $475 Twin Cities $186 Milwaukee $455 New York $385 Chicago $182 Sacramento $222 Kansas City $221 Cleveland $278 Denver $176 Philadelphia $369 Memphis $80 Louisville $337 Phoenix $278 San Diego $460 Miami $270 Honolulu $693 Austin $370 *2008 data

  18. Support and Opposition • Likely Support • Businesses support restraint in SAC rates • i.e., Builders, commercial developers, industries, and restaurants • Possible Opposition • Cities that aren’t growing might argue that developed areas and current users should not fund reserve capacity

More Related