THE CITY OF FREDERICK
101 NORTH COURT STREET
FREDERICK, MARYLAND 21701
UTILITY COMMITTEE
Minutes
9:00 a.m.
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, City Hall - Room 214
Aldermen Present: Alderman Bill Hall (Chairman), Alderwoman Donna Kuzemchak-Ramsburg, Alderwoman Marcia Hall (filling in for Alderman Lenhart).
City Staff Present: Saundra Nickols, City Attorney; John Leisenring, Chief Financial Officer; Paul Lee, Director of Engineering; Fred Eisenhart, Director of Public Works; Thomas Davis, Manager – Utilities Planning-Engineering Department; Chuck Boyd, Planning Director; Randy Connatser, Deputy Director of Public Works; Keith Brown, Superintendent of Water Services; Sarah Stamper, Engineering Department Secretary.
Citizens/Representatives Present: Roy Whitehouse, Kenneth Parker, and Robin Thompson of First Baptist Church of Frederick; Steven Metzler, SAIC; Dr. Mary Miller, Fredericktowne Labs; and Anne-Herbert Rollins of Miles & Stockbridge for the First Baptist Church Project; Tom Summers of VFW.
Alderwoman Ramsburg moved to approve the minutes as written. Alderman Bill Hall seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Item 2: Continued discussion regarding First Baptist Church and Municipal Water Source in Exchange for Access to City Sewer System.
Mr. Whitehouse stated that they have provided an economic analysis for this project. The church is offering to provide water to the City at no cost to the City in exchange for hookup to the City sewer system. He also introduced Mr. Parker, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Metzler, and Dr. Miller who were present to answer questions regarding this project.
Mr. Metzler, SAIC, indicated that a copy of the information he would be presenting was included in the agenda packet. He utilized the tripod and highlighted the study. He noted that from an engineering standpoint, the City would invest over $2,000 and in 24 years they would receive a return of $240,000.
Mr. Metzler responded to a question posed by Mr. Eisenhart by stating that the figures included the total of all expenditures (wellhouse, distributions, operations, etc.) and not just the wellhouse. A 3% inflation factor was included in the figure.
Alderwoman Ramsburg felt there was an error in the mathematical computations due to the fact that the houses will not be constructed for 5 years. She would like to review figures which show the exact amount of NEW allocatable water.
Mr. Eisenhart and Mr. Boyd noted that the City allocates water based on a maximum daily basis. However, the computations being presented today are based on average daily use.
Alderwoman Ramsburg expressed her desire to have the computations based on the actual amount of allocatable water the project will provide to the City. She noted that the City makes money on this project when the homes come on line and begin paying City taxes.
Mr. Eisenhart stated his belief that the only revenue the City will make from single family homes is from the 50 units that will be built from the allocation of water from the proposed well; the proposed 117 units is not realistic.
Mr. Metzler noted that the MDE manual indicates a figure of 3 gallons per person per day be used for design purposes. However, the billing numbers provided to the applicant by Mr. Eisenhart which showed comparable church facilities’ actual usage, showed that only 1gallon per person per day was actually being billed.
Alderwoman Ramsburg noted that MDE will not allow the City to allocate water based on average daily demand.
Ms. Rollins indicated that if the City provides the figures upon which the calculations should be based, that the applicant will run the computations.
Mr. Metzler stated that he had initially computed the numbers based on the maximum day figures. However, he was later provided information from the City based on the actual usage from comparable church facilities.
Mr. Eisenhart stated that the purpose of providing the actual usage of comparable church facilities was to allow the applicant to get an accurate reflection of billing amounts for 50 units and the church for purposes of revenue estimates, not for the applicant to change the City’s allocation standards.
Ms. Rollins noted that the goal of the applicant is to maximize the usage of the land.
Alderman Hall expressed his feeling that allocatable water is available, and this is a positive project for all involved.
Alderwoman Ramsburg stated that she needs accurate numbers in order to form an opinion about whether this is a positive situation for the City. The figures she desires must be based on the maximum daily use, and must show the amount of NEW allocatable water to be provided to the City.
Mr. Thompson and Mr. Whitehouse both felt that they had complied with the desires of the City based on their understanding that last time the City had requested figures based on comparable facilities.
Mr. Whitehouse stated that he feels the church is proposing a win/win situation for all parties involved, regardless of the actual mathematical computations. He noted that the church has excellent quality water. The proposal is to use a standard gravity flow septic system for Phase 1 of the project (10 Years). Therefore, the church is giving free water to the City for 10 years before tapping into the City sewer system.
Ms. Rollins indicated that she feels her clients have gone above and beyond normal expectations regarding cooperation with the City. She suggested setting a specific timetable for reviewing/computing new numbers, so that the item can be reviewed at next month’s meeting and approved.
Ms. Rollins proposed: City staff is to give her clients all the numbers and factors to be used for the computation of allocatable water by close of business tomorrow. Church representatives will provide revised figures/studies within 5-7 days. The City will then respond within 10-15 days from the date of delivery of the numbers. The Client will respond back within 5 days. Therefore, at the next Utility Committee meeting all data will be provided and reviewed.
Alderwoman Marcia Hall stated that she was attending the meeting in Alderman Lenhart’s absence. She asked if everyone was aware that wells in the adjacent housing development (Eastview) are failing.
Mr. Metzler stated that at the last Utility Committee he had a presentation by a hydrogeologist, and also that the Church had had pumping tests run.
Alderwoman Ramsburg stated that she needs accurate numbers reflecting NEW allocatable water before she can approve the project. She also suggested accepting Ms. Rollins’ timeline proposal even though it pushes City staff.
Alderman Bill Hall agreed that Ms. Rollins’ proposal should be accepted. He added that he STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that City staff comply.
Mr. Lee committed to meeting the timeline proposed. However, he pointed out that City staff have not been the obstructionists in moving this project forward. In fact, the City has bent over backwards to cooperate. Water is valuable, but the City is not pursuing allocatable water based on small yield wells such as these. The City does not want a proliferation of small wells in the City’s distribution system. Based on an operational and technical point of view, he advised that staff are already on record not supporting this proposal but are working with the applicant at the request of the Committee.
Mr. Whitehouse stated that when they submitted the permit for the well to MDE, MDE provided them with information which specified the requirement of a 72 hour test. However, due to the cost of the test, the applicant is requesting some assurance from the City that if the test results indicate that the rate of 30 gallons per minute can be sustained, that the applicant will receive approval for the project.
Mr. Lee noted that as water purveyors, MDE holds the City to different standards than private property owners and that all this is still based on speculation that MDE will permit this well for its full blown yield which is contrary to the City’s experience for all its community wells. MDE has been permitting the City at approximately 1/3 of each of its wells’ blown yields.
Mr. Lee asked the applicant what was stopping them from beginning Phase 1 of the project if they do not need sewer for 10 years, and they already have water.
Mr. Whitehouse explained that a prized portion of the property must be reserved for wastewater treatment until treatment of the water is otherwise obtained. If the applicants obtain wastewater treatment from the City, the property can be used for other purposes such as ballfields, etc. for outreach activities for the church.
Alderwoman Ramsburg made a motion: City Staff is to give all numerical data to be used by the client to the client by close of business on July 14, 2005. The church representatives are to revise the computations and return within 7 days by July 21, 2005. The City will then respond within 10-15 days, by August 6, 2005. The church will then respond by August 11th, or before. This item is to be discussed at the next Utility Committee meeting which will be held in August. Included in the numbers should be a simple comparison of the cost to the City and what the City will bring in to pay for it.
Alderman Bill Hall seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Metzler requested that the figure computed for allocatable water, be the same number used to compute income generated.
Mr. Boyd stated that the figures to be used are stated in the Water Allocation Ordinance: 250 gpd per dwelling unit with a peaking factor of 1.4.
***Please note. After the meeting, Ms. Rollins was contacted via email by Alderwoman Ramsburg, and it was agreed to modify the motion so that the City responds within10-13 days, and the final response from the church will be due August 9, 2005, the day prior to the August 10, 2005 Utility Committee meeting.
Item 3: Discussion of a request by VFW Post #3285 VFW County Club to allow them to continue filling their swimming pool with well water.
Mr. Summers was the representative present for the VFW. He referenced the letter he had submitted (which was in the agenda packet). He noted that the well is located above a stream of water.
Mr. Brown noted that the State may have mandates which require hooking up to sanitary sewer. If the present situation is allowed to continue, the well cannot be connected to any other piping at the pool as it would create a cross-connection. The well would have to be metered if it dumps into the City wastewater.
Mr. Summers noted that the water in the pool has been there for 9 months.
Mr. Brown stated that he would need a letter from State licensing indicating the State’s approval.
Mr. Summers stated that the pool is inspected twice a year by the State and that the pool has existed for 35 years.
Mr. Lee noted that when the pool was permitted before, it didn’t have environmental issues.
Alderwoman Ramsburg noted that if the applicant submits a letter from the State approving the use of nonpotable water , then she would vote to approve the application.
Mr. Boyd noted that if an additional connection to the water system is needed, that an allocation of water would be needed from the Water Service Committee.
Alderman Bill Hall asked the applicant to return to next month’s Utility Committee meeting.
Mr. Summers agreed to contact the committee, when he had any additional information.
Old Business:
Mr. Leisenring asked to discuss Birdseye View from last month.
Ms. Nickols stated that no public notice regarding this item had been given.
Mr. Leisenring stated that he had been asked to provide an analysis. He has done the analysis and his recommendation is that operating costs be part of the budget instead of via special assessments. He questioned how to put the item back on the Utility Committee agenda.
Alderwoman Ramsburg suggested that the item go straight to the Mayor and Board.
Mr. Leisenring noted that he would try to have the item placed on the next Mayor and Board workshop agenda.
Mr. Brown noted that the case now includes two projects – Birdseye and Bowers.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
Next meeting: August 10, 2005.
Minutes submitted by Sarah Stamper