MEETING MINUTES

Subject:                 Deerfield Regional Storm Water District

                              Storm Water Advisory Committee (SWAC)

                              Meeting No. 4

Meeting Date:        October 27, 2005

 Location:               Deerfield Administrative Offices          

The fourth meeting for the Deerfield SWAC was held on October 27, 2005.  The items discussed and relevant points are detailed below.  Action items are indicated in bold.

1.      Dr. Coleman commenced the meeting by introducing the agenda and goals of the meeting which was to address remaining issues and questions from the prior SWAC meeting and to develop recommendations for the storm water program level of service and financing.

2.      In response to questions/issues from the prior meeting, CDM verified that the District has authority to require customers to maintain their storm water facilities in accordance with the District’s standards.  If these minimum standards are not maintained then the District has the authority under Ohio Revised Code 6119 to do the work and bill the customer accordingly.

3.      Mr. Brausch provided a recap of the previously considered funding options and confirmed that the SWAC was indeed supportive of the equivalent residential unit (ERU) based user fee concept as the primary funding alternative for the District’s storm water service fee.  The SWAC indicated general consensus support for the user fee and ERU basis.

4.      Mr. Brausch presented a range of user fee options ranging from $3.75 to $7.00 per month per ERU.  Mr. Elliot asked for some information regarding bonding of projects.  The group discussed the options, benefits and disadvantages of bonding with general consensus against bonding of the entire list of capital projects because of the negative ramifications of long-term debt service.  Dr. Smulian suggested the option of blended financing where portions of the capital improvements would be bonded and others would be performed on a pay-as-you-go basis. 

5.      The group then discussed the magnitude of the storm water service fee and what they considered appropriate for Deerfield.  Mr. Elliott stated his recommendation for a service fee under six dollars.  Mr. Brausch presented the table of user fees from other local communities for comparison purposes.

6.      Dr. Smulian asked if CDM’s ERU evaluation included anticipated township growth, and Mr. Brausch clarified that the ERUs are based on current conditions.  The group then discussed the benefit to the future service fee revenue that could come from growth and development in the Township.

7.      Mr. Elliot asked the remainder of the group to state their preference for a level of service/service fee magnitude.  Dr. Smulian again reiterated support for a partial bonding of CIP projects.  The group provided their individual responses, the arithmetic average of which came to $5.14 per month per ERU.  Mr. Brown was absent due to out-of-town business travel, but called ahead to express support for a 6-yr CIP at the longest recommended time frame, which adds approximately $.50 to the charge.  This leads to a $5.25 to $5.75 fee range when rounded to the nearest $0.25.  Mr. Elliot and Ms. Doan also expressed support for a fairly aggressive CIP program. 

8.      The group reiterated support for the District contracting with the Township to staff the District’s operation and maintenance workload due to the apparent economies of using an existing administration to oversee such operations. 

9.      The group then discussed the issues of billing, and CDM presented the issues surrounding the use of the County Water and Sewer bill, including required approval by the Warren County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) before such a fee could be included on the bill.

10.  Mr. Wright asked about the potential for CIP implementation seed money from the Township, and Dr. Coleman clarified that the Township is not planning to provide seed money for capital projects administered by the District.

11.  Leaf collection was revisited, and the group consensus was that it should continue to be covered by existing Township funds.

12.  Mr. Elliot suggested a CIP program option to allow the Landen Community Services Association (CSA) to pay up-front for the entire Landen Lake dredge project and allow the District to pay the approximately $1 million contribution back to the CSA over a 10-year period.  Mr. Brausch stated that the moderate 10-year program estimate presented in the slides might be a good representation of a 10-yr bond of the CIPs at an approximate magnitude of $4.50 per month per ERU.  Dr. Smulian encouraged reconsideration of the partial bonded, partial pay-as –you-go scenario.  Mr. Elliot suggested consideration for bonding some of the other CIPs but to explore the possibility of his prior recommendation for a 10-year payback of CSA’s $1 million for the Landen Lake dredge project where the District would pay back the CSA with hopefully a rate of interest that would be mutually beneficial to the District and the CSA.  This option creates a rate of approximately $5.00 per ERU per month.

13.  Mr. Brausch transitioned to recommendation slides, going through the recommended program components, including an adjustment and credit policy. The consensus of the group was support for a fee less than $5.00 per month per ERU.  This service fee would represent a moderate O&M program, and would also allow the District to complete $3.95M in capital projects within a period of 5 years, with 50% funded as 5-year pay-as-you-go and 50% funded through a 10-year payment schedule through alternative financing.

14.  Mr. Reichert made a brief appearance prior to the beginning of the meeting and indicated a schedule conflict that would prevent his attendance.  Mr. Elliott later reiterated Mr. Reichert’s concern, stated prior to the meeting, that commercial properties that already have a significant investment in storm water management facilities will have difficulty in accepting additional service fees for storm water management.  Mr. Elliot provided a counterpoint to this position, indicating that the residential properties have indirectly borne similar costs when homeowners buy lots at prices that include a pass through cost from developers for financing dedicated storm water management facilities for a subdivision. 

15.  The SWAC was asked whether they would recommend that the District develop a credit policy.  They by consensus do recommend, but expressed that they did not feel qualified to develop the policy.  Dr. Smulian suggested that the Director identified in the District’s administrative budget should be qualified to draft the policy and get approval from the District Trustees.  Mr. Thomas indicated that the District Trustees would open up any credit and adjustment policy for public comment before approving such a policy.  Mr. Brausch presented the option for public comment input to come from the SWAC, rather than the general public, to which the SWAC agreed if the Trustees request their continued feedback on this issue.

16.  Mr. Wright suggested that if the District has to do independent billing, they should do a quarterly billing so people aren’t annoyed by having to write a check for a small dollar amount.

17.  CDM will follow up with each of the members not present at the meeting regarding the consensus based recommendations made at the meeting.  CDM will issue the meeting minutes and slide presentation to the absent members.  Phone conversations will be conducted with each absent member.  The group will present the recommendation to the District as the “consensus of the group that was present at the last meeting”.  Mr. Elliott will present the recommendations to the District.

18.  Meeting adjourned approximately 8:20 PM.