Laserfiche WebLink
Chair DeBenedet opined that this is one project needing recondition of all pipes in <br /> the system that are clay or reinforced concrete sewer mains; and with more than <br /> 100 miles of pipe, it would take a minimum of twenty (20) years to accomplish <br /> the task. <br /> Mr. Schwartz estimated closer to thirty (30) years; but the City was only taking <br /> the first twenty (20) years into consideration at this time. <br /> Member Felice questioned the life expectancy of new materials and whether they <br /> had been used long enough to know an accurate history on their lives. <br /> Chair DeBenedet advised that his research of the USGPA provided a listing for all <br /> different types of materials and their life expectancies; with sewer lining material <br /> providing a vast difference in predicted life expectancies; however, not <br /> historically proven at this time. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the oldest of the Cities pipes would have reached the 80- <br /> year range before completion of the twenty to thirty (20-30), long-term CIP <br /> program. <br /> Chair DeBenedet opined that there may be more leakages and infiltration or sewer <br /> backups that would increase maintenance costs, but no major failures anticipated. <br /> Chair DeBenedet noted that there may not be much agreement on life expectancy <br /> of material types, but customer dissatisfaction with reliability of the service would <br /> be a significant factor. Chair DeBenedet opined that the capital replacement <br /> should not be put off so long that it becomes a political issue with no public <br /> support or faith in replacement of the City's infrastructure. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted another cost impact for the Metropolitan Council was the <br /> downturn in the building trade, since collection of Sewer Availability Charges <br /> (SAC'S) were used by them for their CIP program; however, their revenues had <br /> diminished significantly with the downturn in the economy and new buildings. <br /> Therefore, Mr. Schwartz advised that they were shifting their CIP costs onto their <br /> treatment rates. <br /> Chair DeBenedet noted that, as sewer systems continue to age and leak more, that <br /> overflow passed into wastewater treatment plants; and as they couldn't treat it, <br /> they were only able to partially treat that flow before it got to the river, creating <br /> violations of environmental permitting requirements. Chair DeBenedet noted the <br /> need to address that, as a society and from an environmental standpoint, before <br /> that happened, and that could be accomplished by planning ahead. Chair <br /> DeBenedet opined that the SAC charges were the best planning tool available, <br /> allowing wastewater treatment plans to be installed to accommodate additional <br /> capacity for new construction. However, if that new construction wasn't <br /> happening, Chair DeBenedet noted that the treatment plan may have more useful <br /> years, but lacked revenue to support its operations. <br /> Page 6 of 18 <br />