MMSD Response to the July 2010 Storms

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?

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

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

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

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

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

Project Schedule-Budget

• Each project budgeted at $8M• Both pump stations scheduled to

be operating in spring 2012

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

Sewer Lateral Inspection Contracts

  Contract

  1 2 3 4 5

Estimated Number of Laterals to be Televised

1,093 1,092 1,361 1,291 1,163

Estimated Total Length of Lateral Televising (LF)

109,300 109,200 136,100 129,100 116,300

• Five geographic-based contracts• National Power Rodding• Total number of laterals: ~6000• No cost share required

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

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

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

Public Information/Education• Recognize need for PI/PE both at

“macro” level and “micro” level• Propose contract to Commission in

January

Funding for PPII

• 2010 Budget included $1M, plus $5.5M

• 2011 Budget proposed significant increase in funding

• To be allocated based on equalized value

Proposed PPII BudgetYear $ (millions) Year $ (millions)2010 $1 2016 $202011 $8 2017 $102012 $22 2018 $102013 $22 2019 $102014 $22 2020 $52015 $21 Total $151

• 2010 and 2011 Budgets have been approved.• In addition, there is $6.3M for PPII work-

lateral inspection, engineering, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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