Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes STORM WATER UTILITY COMMITTEE Minutes June 1, 2017 Present: John Kiefer, Paul Janty, Maureen Muldoon, Sean Butler (arrived 7:32), and Kyle Clark Absent: Also Present: John Ferris, Civil Engineering Supervisor - Storm Water Utility; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Stormwater Utility; Mike Wegner, Brown and Caldwell I.Call to Order. A. Mr. Kiefer called the meeting to order at 7:30 am. II. Discussion of Future Meeting Dates and Times. A. Future meeting dates are scheduled for July 13, August 17, and September 21, 2017 at 7:30 am in room 404 of City Hall. III. Approval of May 3, 2017 Meeting Minutes. A. Mr. Clark stated that the last sentence of item IV. A. should include the word burn end of the sentence. B. Motion by Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Butler, for approval as amended of the May 3, 2017 meeting minutes. Approved (4-0). IV. Program Updates. A. Mr. Ferris stated that the City sent out RFPs for the maintenance of detention basins to 5 firms and received two proposals. NES was the selected firm and awarded a 3-year contract for $116,000. Both firms were similar in credentials, skill, and accreditations. 1. Mr. Butler asked about the cost difference between the firms. Mr. Ferris stated that the monetary difference was a few thousand dollars. 2. Mr. Janty asked about whether the firm was Wisconsin based. Mr. Ferris stated they were. 3. Mr. Ferris commented about the experience of NES prairie burn at Winnebago County Fairground. NES will start with burning the James Road Basin and will likely expand to include other basins closer to the City in the years to come. B. Mr. Ferris provided an update about the status of the Upper Fox River TMDL. The City and the Consultant (CHMM) for the wastewater plant met with the DNR and an update on the status was given. 1. Mr. Janty asked about who stakeholders for the TMDL were. Mr. Ferris indicated it would include all municipalities, private industries, agricultural, and tribes in the watershed. 2. Mr. Ferris displayed a presentation showing information about modeling, assumptions, and next steps. 3. The City submitted questions in October regarding modeling assumptions and data used to make the assumptions. To date, no response has been provided from either EPA or DNR. FINAL Storm Water Utility Committee Minutes 06-01-2017.docx Page 1 of 4 4. The next step in the process is to provide waste-load allocations to each reach of the system. 5. Mr. Ferris expressed that City staff is concerned regarding inputs in the initial process and that the questions that were raised are being ignored as they move into the allocation process. City staff are concerned that it will be too late in the process for earlier questions to be addressed. 6. The City staff expects the TMDL to give the WWTP a limit of 0.1 0.04 mg/L of TP. The current limit is 0.8 mg/l of TP. 7. Water treatment currently adds 0.7 mg/L of TP to the load because a phosphorus based chemical is used to prevent corrosion. 8. Stormwater currently achieves a 20-30% reduction of TSS. The TMDL is expected to require a 50-60% reduction of TSS. 9. Ms. Muldoon asked about the possibility of changing chemicals at the water treatment plant. Mr. Ferris stated it may be possible but his understanding is that this is the most common chemical used in the industry. Mr. Gohde stated that this chemical has been used for a long time and there is concern about changing the chemical and upsetting the balance of the system. 10. Mr. Butler asked if the letter with comments sent to the DNR, s, were raised to the EPA level. Mr. Ferris said they were following the protocol of the system and contacting the DNR staff responsible for the creation of the TMDL. Mr. Ferris added that the consultant has stated one possibility is to contact Senators representing Wisconsin to further push the issues. 11. Mr. Janty and Mr. Butler asked about the possibility of the letter being lost or not received by EPA. Mr. Ferris said he expects the letter was received but could not confirm. 12. Ms. Muldoon said that Senator Baldwin has a staff member in the Green Bay office focused on water issues. She will provide the contact information for this person. 13. Mr. Janty stated that it will be important to educate rate-payers about the impacts of the TMDL. He stated that discussing this with City staff and determining a communication strategy is important. 14. Ms. Muldoon asked about the impact to the Green Bay WWTP from the TMDL limits in that area. Mr. Ferris did not know the limits they were given from the TMDL. 15. Mr. Clark asked if the technology is available for the WWTP to meet the limits. Mr. Gohde explained that they believe they can meet the requirements, but the cost is substantial. They have reviewed the potential for adaptive management and that it appears this may be cost-effective. 16. Mr. Clark asked about if neighbors have been contacted about participating in Adaptive Management. Mr. Gohde explained that conversations with specific stake-holders have not been conducted. But that various options have been explored. 17. Mr. Ferris explained CHMM is reviewing adaptive management approaches and also reviewing the plant to see what could be done better within the plant to further reduce TP concentrations. FINAL Storm Water Utility Committee Minutes 06-01-2017.docx Page 2 of 4 18. Mr. Ferris stated the City is approximately halfway to the expected stormwater goal (currently at around 30% removal of TSS with an expectation that final goal will be around 60% TSS removal once approved). 19. Mr. Clark emphasized the cost impacts on both a stormwater and wastewater side and that it is was important to educate rate-payers about these issues. C. Mr. Kiefer asked about costs for on-going projects. 1. Mr. Ferris stated there are no significant cost over-runs at this time. 2. Mr. Ferris said that there have been archaeological issues on Bay Shore Drive that have delayed the project. V. Review of Sawyer Creek Floodplain Mapping. A. The City and Stand Associates met with the DNR regarding the modeling for the Sawyer Creek floodplain mapping. They expect to submit the modeling to the DNR and FEMA in June-July 2017. The modeling approach and assumptions were discussed at the meeting and DNR concurred with the approach. The DNR explained what they would like to see from the modeling. They would like to see the modeling and results at the different stages of the floodplain mapping. Including the original modeling, updated modeling using new software, and updated modeling with the new projects included and flood storage districts. B. If this is treated as a LOMA the mapping could be approved in 6 months. C. If it is treated as a full re-mapping the process could take 3 years. In addition, this requires all municipalities and the County to amend the ordinances for the new maps. D. Mr. Janty asked about the process for adopting and why all municipalities need to update. There was discussion about how adoption by other municipalities could impact the City. It is unclear what impacts it would have. E. The discussion with the DNR revealed that the channel itself would not be a flood storage district and that the floodplain itself would not be a flood storage district. Flood storage districts would have special restrictions. F. Mr. Kiefer asked about the impacts of the mapping. Mr. Ferris said that the floodplain would be reduced. The largest areas of difference for mapped floodplains are the flood storage districts. VI. Collection A. Mr. Ferris provided an update on what is happening with funding for future leaf collection studies. The funding will be through the League of Municipalities and an initial request for $2,000 per year per MS4 for three years is estimated. The City currently expects to participate and is looking for feedback. B. Mr. Clark stated his support for this program. Others agreed with their support for the funding. C. Mr. Ferris asked about support for volunteering to use the City of Oshkosh as a research location. Committee members stated their support for volunteering. D. Mr. Ferris asked about if there could be support from UW-Oshkosh for field monitoring assistance. Ms. Muldoon said they would need further information about timing, location, FINAL Storm Water Utility Committee Minutes 06-01-2017.docx Page 3 of 4 level of effort, etc. She said that there is more focus on student research and this could be a possibility. She will further discuss with other UW-Oshkosh Staff. VII. Review Discussion of Future Meeting Agenda Items. A. Mr. Clark identified budget, legislative update, and rate comparison to other communities. B. Mr. Janty asked about the railroad detention basin and potential impacts of passenger rail in the future. Whether the railroad would need that area for a passenger rail station. C. Topic from previous meetings: 1. Overview of the storm water pollution modeling effort that has been used in the past for permit compliance and how it relates to the TMDL program. 2. Overview of updated mapping displaying of Stormwater program progress maps. 3. Report final 2015 and 2016 (if possible) budget status for capital and operating funds. Also best projections as of 1st quarter in 2017. 4. Federal and/or State Legislative update relative to stormwater. 5. Update comparison of SW Utility rates to other Wisconsin communities. VIII. Adjournment. There being no other business before the Committee, and upon being duly moved and seconded (Mr. Clark/Mr. Butler), the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 am. Respectfully Submitted John Ferris, PE, PH Civil Engineer Supervisor Storm Water Utility FINAL Storm Water Utility Committee Minutes 06-01-2017.docx Page 4 of 4