MMSD’s 2011-2020 Infiltration and Inflow Private Property Program

1. MMSD’s 2011-2020 Infiltration and Inflow Private Property Program • Purpose of the program is to reduce infiltration and inflow from private property to reduce the risk of basement backups. • Comment: Effort should not be sold as a guaranteed solution. • Staff is still putting together the mechanics of the program. • Today we want to discuss various concepts and get your feedback.

2. What do we know today? • Proposal is to spend $157 million between 2011-2020. • Focus of program is to fund disconnections of foundation drains; repair or rehabilitation of private laterals; other actions to reduce known sources of infiltration and inflow. • Comment: Should not disconnect foundation drains without planning for where the water will go. • District can not fund work on locally owned public infrastructure, whether storm or sanitary. • Local storage may be a more cost effective option. • There will be a large public education component.

3. Initial Vision -- A Neighborhood by Neighborhood Approach • Municipalities will determine priority areas for I/I private property work. • Plan will be submitted to the District. • District will provide funding to the Municipalities. • Options on the table – may be possible for District to lead work to provide economies of scale. • Comment: There should be local control over all aspects of the program.

4. Equalized Value Allocation Funding • Over the ten years of the program, funding will be provided to municipalities on a proportional basis, based on equalized value. • Comment: Certain communities may not have enough I/I private property work to utilize all the funding. • Newer communities may have fewer I/I issues than older communities. At the outset, all municipalities have PP I/I work to be done.

5. Variety of Issues for Discussion • Prioritization of Areas for Work • Funding for Design and Planning • Eligible Work • Credits and Debits • Procurement • New Rules • Cost Share

6. 1. Prioritization of Work • Municipalities will be asked to provide a list of priority neighborhoods. • Identify priority neighborhoods based on all your available information: basement backup reports, sewer overflows, flow monitoring data, age of construction. • District will perform “common sense” review. Feedback?

7. 2. Funding for Design, Planning, Investigation • Want to focus resources on actual remediation work. • District has hired a consultant to do work across municipalities. • Program funding for design, investigation work per municipality to be capped at an amount equal to 2x a municipality’s 2011 equalized value allocation. • Comment: Cap investigation work at 20% of total. Does this approach make sense?

8. 3. Eligible Work • Foundation drain disconnection will be eligible. Repair or replacement of deteriorated laterals will be eligible. • No requirement for an inspection of laterals if known information (age, type of construction, location) indicates laterals likely to be a problem. • Other remedies will be considered and approved if effective (like foundation drain switches).

9. 3. Eligible Work continued • Overland flooding issues may be eligible on a case by case basis (cross reference BMP program). • Comment: Overland flooding should be eligible where it contributes inflow. • Correction of currently illegal connections would not be eligible. Backflow valves/hung plumbing would not be eligible. • Comment : Do not fund correction of illegal situations. • Plan for work would be submitted by Municipality to District for approval. Comments?

10. 4. Credits and Debits • Each year, each Municipality would get an allocation of the funding based on Equalized Value (a “credit”). • Municipalities would be authorized to spend money faster and be reimbursed (a “debit”) in later years. • Comment: This is a good idea. • District would not cover interest costs, but this could be a way to move work to earlier years. Questions or comments?

11. 5. Procurement • Municipalities could procure work in a number of ways: public bid packages, homeowner reimbursements, pre-approving contractors. The District will require a competitive process to ensure good pricing. • An option is for the District to assist with procurement. Some municipalities may prefer for the District to manage the procurement.

12. 5. Procurement • As a means of “jump starting” work, District could directly contract for work in priority neighborhoods in 2011. This would be foundation drain disconnection and lateral repair/replacement. • Comment: Municipalities should do work on private property, not MMSD. • Comment: MMSD should not try to push program too fast. • Comment: MMSD staff time should be equitably allocated to communities receiving service. • Could identify economies of scale, pricing, and other issues useful in planning future years. Comments on this approach? • Comment: Do a pilot program first to ensure effectiveness.

13. 6. New Rules • Are new MMSD Rules needed to ensure the program is effective? • Comment: MMSD should not issue new rules. • Comment: MMSD should have an incentive for Time of Sale ordinances. • Should rules require disconnection of foundation drains or repair or rehabilitation of laterals or both, but only if the owner is offered financial assistance? • If owner does not accept offer, should owner be required to make repairs at his sole expense by District rule?

14. 7. Cost Share • Should there be a cost share requirement from municipalities? • Is a cost share hard to do (or impossible) for 2011 funding, as municipal budgets require more planning? • Would a cost share be a disincentive or barrier to participation? • We have heard proposals ranging from zero cost share to a 50% cost share. • Comment: No required cost match will help gain public acceptance.

15. 8. Mandatory Participation • All municipalities should participate in this program. All municipalities have I/I from private properties. • Comment: All municipalities should participate. • Counter Comment: Some municipalities do not have excessive I/I. • If a municipality performs no work, and makes no plans to perform work, the District will utilize the municipality’s allocation to do private property work in that municipality. • Comment: Do not reallocate funding to other municipalities.

16. Next Steps • For full consideration District needs feedback by December 14, 2010 or as soon as possible. • Document with program details will be drafted in early December. • Goal of January Commission Consideration. • Written comments are preferred: Kevin Shafer, MMSD, 260 West Seeboth, Milwaukee WI 53204.