MEETING MINUTES

Subject:                 Deerfield Regional Storm Water District

                              Storm Water Advisory Committee (SWAC)

                              Meeting No. 2

Meeting Date:        August 31, 2005

Location:               Deerfield Administrative Offices          

The second meeting for the Deerfield SWAC was held on August 31, 2005.  The items discussed and relevant points are detailed below.  Action items are indicated in bold.

1.      Mr. Calpin began the meeting with an introduction of the issues related to the convening of the SWAC, including level of service and program cost, and the introduction of various funding options. 

2.      Mr. Calpin reminded the attendees of the upcoming field trip on September 13^th at 2:00 p.m., as well as Deerfield Days event on September 17^th.  The DRSWD will have a booth set up at Deerfield Days and Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District (WCSWCD) and CDM will both be present at the booth at different times throughout the day.  ACTION ITEM:  CDM will bring a big poster sized map of Deerfield streams to Deerfield Days.

3.      Mr. Calpin began a presentation on the concept of “level of service” and asked the members for feedback on their concept of level of service.  Mr. Calpin discussed the various labor, staffing, equipment, and materials components of level of service.  Mr. Calpin also discussed the example of storm water quantity level of service, where a storm drainage system may be designed to convey various levels of storm water quantity, with increasing conveyance associated with increasing capital costs.

4.      Mr. Calpin then discussed the four primary components of a storm water management program, including capital improvement projects (CIPs), regulatory compliance, operation and maintenance (O&M), and planning and management.

5.      Mr. Calpin then presented a series of slides illustrating a “recommended”, “moderate”, and “no action” level of service for various O&M elements including the storm sewer system inspection and maintenance, detention basin inspection, stream channel inspection and debris removal, and miscellaneous O&M (including street sweeping, leaf/brush collection, as needed storm sewer O&M, and emergency maintenance).  The recommended level of service was based on a level of service either provided or used as a service goal by peer communities. 

6.      Mr. Elliot asked for clarification on what catch basin inspection involves.  Mr. Brausch explained that targeted inspection areas would include those exhibiting frequent problems with collection of trash, debris, and sediment build-up in catch basins.  He also made the point that the need for inspection is somewhat related to the age of the infrastructure.  There was further discussion as to whether the SWAC could recommend periodicities for specific areas of the Township and Mr. Calpin responded that the SWAC has the ability to make the recommendation and he and Mr. Brausch clarified that the implementation at the Township public works level would take their recommendation into advisement.

7.      Mr. Calpin discussed detention basin inspections.  Mr. Brausch indicated that the highest level of service would be to go beyond inspection and include maintenance easements for all detention basins.  This would likely be a very expensive option.  Mr. Calpin also discussed stream channel inspections, involving the annual inspection of a portion of Township streams to ensure that debris dams are minimized to ensure adequate flow conveyance.  

8.      Miscellaneous O&M was also discussed, including street sweeping, leaf and brush collection, and unscheduled maintenance activities.  Regarding some of the miscellaneous O&M activities, Mr. Calpin conveyed that some communities feel that the street sweeping and leaf collection activities should not reside in whole or in part within the storm water program due to their association with other aspects of municipal/township operation and maintenance (e.g., non-storm water aesthetic benefit of street sweeping).  Mr. Calpin also presented the vehicle/equipment concerns regarding a vactor truck, street sweeper, and crew truck.  ACTION ITEM:  At the recommendation of the committee CDM will follow up with the City of Mason and the City of Lebanon on how often they each use their vactor truck equipment.  This is intended to provide guidance regarding whether the Township should buy or lease equipment, or seek an equipment sharing agreement with one or more adjacent communities. 

9.      Mr. Calpin then presented the planning level Capital Improvement Projects identified to date with the help of Mr. Larry Weis at the Township.  Mr. Calpin referenced the $1.2M estimate for the dredging of Landen Lake and Mr. Brown and Mr. Elliot indicated this estimate is somewhat dated (5-years old).  ACTION ITEM:  Include inflation costs in the $1.2M.  Mr. Calpin then asked the group to consider how much if at all that the DRSWD should share in the cost.  Ms. Berger asked the group to consider who should pay.  Mr. Elliott indicated that Landen Lake is not the only issue, but that other basins in the township will need to be treated in a similar manner.  Mr. Calpin introduced a “special assessment district” concept that could be used to assess specific service fees to particular drainage areas such as the Landen Lake drainage.

10.  Ms. Berger introduced the complexity that only Simpson Creek watershed is completely contained in Deerfield Township.  All other watersheds in the township extend beyond Deerfield boundaries.  The group discussed the potential of intergovernmental cooperation, and Mr. Calpin discussed the utility of memoranda of understanding to facilitate this for resolution of storm water management issues. 

11.  Dr. Smulian asked about the funding of enforcement of storm water regulations.  Mr. Calpin indicated the DRSWD should be able to levy a fine and contribute it back to the DRSWD fee.  Ms. Berger indicated that there has not been much if any enforcement of County zoning code.  Mr. Brausch indicated that the typical mechanism for getting the money for enforcement is the levying of fines and penalties to violators.

12.  Discussion then focused on the Simpson Creek pond project and Ms. Berger provided clarification on the status of the project gained from a recent meeting with the Township, Henderson & Bodwell, and the Township’s attorneys.  Ms. Berger conveyed that the projects are awaiting Ohio EPA approval (401 water quality certification).  The Township’s attorneys recommended initiating discussions with the private property owners as soon as possible regarding property acquisition.  Mr. Weis was supposed to initiate discussions with the property owners again as well.  Mr. Calpin directed discussion back to whether the DRSWD should fund all or part of the Simpson Creek project.  Mr. Calpin underscored that this was up to the SWAC’s recommendation.  Mr. Elliott indicated hesitancy to take it away from the Township and only indicated willingness to recommend that the DRSWD take it on if the Township fails to fund the project.  Mr. Calpin stated that the project could be included in the budgetary discussions to see whether it is affordable to the program.

13.  Mr. Brausch then presented the Loveland Park CIP projects, explaining that a subset of the northern Loveland Park area north of Davis Road is a candidate for curb and gutter improvements, whereas the rest of the area would involve reshaping drainage swales.  The total estimate was $5M.  Mr. Natorp and Dr. Smulian suggested that the curb and gutter portion might be better qualified as a special assessment.  Dr. Smulian asked if there was consideration of sanitary sewer installation costs at the same time that storm sewers would be constructed.  Mr. Brausch said that this would involve negotiations with Warren County and they indicated that the climate was not good, but getting better, for the success of this type of negotiation.

14.  Mr. Calpin then presented the level of service summary table showing the recommended and moderate levels of service, for program items that have some latitude for service frequency/periodicity.  Mr. Calpin then presented the 5-year budgets for the recommended (~$1.7M) and moderate (~$1M) programs.

15.  Mr. Brausch presented the planning and management assumptions for the 5-year budgets.  These included a number of operational expenses, including professional services such as engineering, legal, insurance, etc.  Costs were also included for potential future full-time DRSWD staff such as an administrative assistant and a director, as well as costs for office space and annual office related operational expenses. 

16.  Mr. Calpin then presented the various storm water financing mechanisms, with primary mechanisms being those that have the ability to completely fund a storm water program, and secondary mechanisms that general serve to supplement a primary funding mechanism.  The group passed over the “status quo” and “general fund reallocation” options as being inapplicable.  More attention was paid to a tax levy, with the pros and cons discussed.  The group ultimately expressed no interest in pursuing a storm water levy.  The “special assessment district” concept was discussed along with its pros and cons.  Mr. Calpin stated that a limitation to this approach is that there might be insufficient revenue available from an intended special district area to implement the identified project.  Someone posed the question as to whether a vote from the public was required for establishing a special assessment district, to which Mr. Brausch responded that a vote is not required.

17.  Mr. Calpin presented the storm water utility/user fee concept and compared storm water to other utilities such as waste water, drinking water, and refuse disposal.  A storm water utility is not a tax.  It is a user fee that is typically based on impervious area as a surrogate for storm water quality and quantity.    Mr. Calpin discussed the concept of the equivalent residential unit (ERU).  Mr. Brown expressed doubts from his personal perspective that the ERU impervious area value for the average home in the denominator is adequate to characterize the negative impact of non-residential development upstream of Landen Lake.  Mr. Calpin cautioned that this was a valid concern, but that it should not hold up the study/program implementation and that perhaps there would be the possibility that the future DRSWD storm water master plan could address this issue. 

18.  Mr. Calpin showed some ERU calculation examples from the City of Lebanon’s utility formation process.  He then prefaced the next meeting’s topic as a greater degree of facilitation with the group regarding what is appropriate for a budget/program.  Mr. Brausch asked the group to clarify whether we needed to follow up on estimated storm water tax levy millage and the group responded that they were not interested in this option.

19.  The meeting ended at approximately 8:30 p.m.