MMSD Response to the July 2010 Storms

1. MMSD Response to the July 2010 Storms

2. Summer 2010 Storms • Large # reports of water in basement • 10,000+ • Some repeated • July 15 and July 22 • Both surface and backups • Damage to District facilities • How can we reduce the risk of basement backups and SSO’s?

3. MMSD Response • Public meetings • Implementing two new pump stations • Repairs to MMSD facilities • Private Property I/I Contracts • Lateral inspection • Engineering • Increased funding and overall program development

4. Public Meetings • Many public meetings throughout region • Milwaukee • Shorewood • Whitefish Bay • Others • Homeowners looking to MMSD and municipalities for solutions • Recognition of difference between local systems and MMSD

5. 2 New Pump Stations • Once tunnel closed, increased risk for basement backups • Overflow point is a potential flow constraint • Reduce constraint, reduce risk of basement backups • Identified 2 higher risk locations • Diversion Chamber at 59th and Trenton • Northeast MIS network @ NS03 • Pump stations would function so no overflow constraint

6. 59th and Trenton Diversion Chamber • Reduce risk of basement backups when tunnel gates closed • Keeps Menomonee River from flowing back into MMSD system • Provides benefit primarily to Wauwatosa and Milwaukee, and West Allis

9. Overflow Relief for the Northeast MIS Network • Relocates and increases the capacity of a permitted overflow • The goal is to reduce the risk of basement backups • Provides relief primarily to Milwaukee and Glendale

11. Project Schedule-Budget • Each project budgeted at $8M • Both pump stations scheduled to be operating in spring 2012

12. PPII Contracts • Need to investigate and evaluate before taking remedial actions • 3 efforts/contracts available to MMSD and municipalities • Lateral Inspections • Engineering Services • Public Information/ Education

13. Sewer Lateral Inspection Contracts • Five geographic-based contracts • National Power Rodding • Total number of laterals: ~6000 • No cost share required

14. Engineering Services Contract • Service MMSD is making available to any TAT member • Contract with Brown and Caldwell • Use is voluntary, and scope is at direction of municipality • Tasks can change to fit your needs

15. Rationale • Allow for at least some degree of consistency across region • Allow all communities ability to tap into high level of expertise • Facilitate sharing best practices among municipalities • Provides some economies of scale

16. Available scope of services • Community specific private property I/I program • Investigate individual properties • Recommend property “fixes” • Implement PPII program • Other technical support • Flow monitoring • Modeling • As defined by municipality

17. Public Information/Education • Recognize need for PI/PE both at “macro” level and “micro” level • Propose contract to Commission in January

18. Funding for PPII • 2010 Budget included $1M, plus $5.5M • 2011 Budget proposed significant increase in funding • To be allocated based on equalized value

19. Proposed PPII Budget • 2010 and 2011 Budgets have been approved. • In addition, there is $6.3M for PPII work-lateral inspection, engineering, etc.

20. What should the PPII program look like-how can funding be spent? • Purpose of discussion today • Present how other communities deal w/ PPII so as to help forge ideas

21. Summary of Other Municipal or District Programs • 8 examples showing variety of programs • Most programs driven by need to reduce basement backups and SSO’s • Some programs included in consent orders • Mix of municipal and districts • Many other examples and variations

22. General Observations • All programs reported reduced: • Flows • SSOs • Basement backups • Service calls • Most programs do not include pay for basement backup prevention devices • Many programs geared towards reducing basement backups

23. Duluth, MN • Work performed: Initially FD disconnect. Now lateral rehab/replacement • Cost share: Initially full cost by City. Now City pays $2150 for FDD and 80% of lateral work up to $4000 • Work: Initial FDDs by HO (3 quotes). Later City bid out groups of FDDs • Extent of program: City-wide, but focused in priority areas • Incentive: Homeowner charged $50/month if inspection refused, $250/month if required work is refused

24. Location: Aberdeen, WA • Work performed: Initially focused on lateral, now focusing on inflow sources • Cost sharing details: HO pays for all work; city offers $300 incentive; failure to fix issue results in doubling sewer bill • Work performance: HO performs work and applies for credit • Extent of program: 380 properties • Other comments: Smoke testing used to identify inflow sources. Work included in consent decree

25. Location: Canton, OH • Work performed: downspout disconnection; backwater preventers • Cost sharing details: HO paid for DD; Utility paid 100% of BFP • Work performance: DD by HO; City pays cost of BFP work, HO has contract w/ City • Extent of program: HO request, must have had 3 BB • Other comments: As required by permit, Canton reports to State annually on SSOs and sewer backups (WIBs), including locations and causes

26. Location: Florissant, MO • Work performed: Lateral repairs • Cost sharing details: Lateral insurance program, HO pays $50 annual fee to participate, opts in through application • Work performance: Performed by City contractor • Extent of program: 11,640 participants • Other comments: Not an I/I reduction program, provides insurance for HO, in case lateral has a failure. Part of a regional initiative by St. Louis MSD.

27. Location: MWWSSB – Montgomery, AL • Work performed: Lateral repair and replacement • Cost sharing details: MWWSSB pays for work in public ROW, HO outside ROW • Extent of program: 6,543 laterals • Lateral definition: HO owns entire lateral, but MWWSB will pay for work on portion in ROW • Includes backup prevention: No • Other comments: MWWSSB actively pursuing problem laterals.Smoke test used to identify issues with lateral and inflow connections. HO shown CCTV evidence of problem. Water service will be shut off if compliance is not achieved.

28. Location: Stege SD, CA • Work performed: Lateral repair, BFP installation, private inflow removal • Cost sharing details: HO responsible for all costs • Work performance: HO contracts with Stege SD-approved contractor • Extent of program: 11,700 laterals, approx. • Lateral definition: HO owns lateral from building to main • Other comments: Satellite to EDMUD. Time of sale program. Modifying program to comply with EBMUD CD requiring system-wide private lateral ordinance

29. Location: Miami-Dade, FL • Program drivers: Consent Decree, public I/I work didn’t resolve wet weather issues • Work performed: Lateral rehabilitation or replacement • Cost sharing details: M-D WASD pays public lateral rehab; HO pays private lateral rehab • Work performance: Started w/TV inspection, then moved to air pressure test used to determine need to correct • Extent of program: 52 of 500 basins were selected for program. 1,200 laterals repaired as of 2007, with 4000 left to repair • Lateral definition: Property line defines ownership transition • Other comments: Initial program was developed as pilot. Results concluded the value in continuing as larger program. Cleanout installed at home to facilitate pressure test.

30. Location: Ann Arbor, MI • Work performed: FDD • Cost sharing details: City pays up to $4100 for core work • Work performance: HO works w/ prequalified contractor, contractor paid by City • Extent of program: 2000 completed • Other comments: Homeowner has 90 days to complete work once identified. 6-8 weeks for If not performed, pays $100/month surcharge. City also paid for installation of curb drain (for sump discharge). In consent order

31. Summary • Many ways to tackle PPII • Driven by individual community interests • Programs we looked at showed reduced SSOs, basement backups, flows • Contracting models vary • Variety of cost share models • Homeowner pays nothing • Homeowner fully responsible • Cost sharing • Rules often financially incentivize owner