CITIZENS WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 3, 2015; 6:00 p.m. Lowry Room, 3 rd Floor, Aurora Municipal Center

Transcription

1 CITIZENS WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 3, 2015; 6:00 p.m. Lowry Room, 3 rd Floor, Aurora Municipal Center James Mitchell (Chair), Alicia Gilley (Vice-Chair), Don Kado (Vice-Chair) Members: Mark Lindstone, Micah Marmaro, Duane Martin, Kenneth Phillips and Tim Stanford I. Approval of Minutes January 6, 2015 Chairman 6:00 p.m. II CWAC Protocol and Procedures Chairman 6:05 p.m. III. Introductions Chairman 6:10 p.m. IV. Public Invited to be Heard (non-agenda related issues only) Chairman 6:15 p.m. V. New/Old Business Chairman 6:20 p.m. VI. Communications Update Greg Baker 6:25 p.m. - Highline Canal Cleanup Date (and Rain/Snow Date) - Possible Water Tour Dates VII. Sewer Backup Mitigation (continued) Dan Mikesell 6:30 p.m. VIII. Capital Recovery Fees and Related Policies for Marshall Brown 6:55 p.m. Qualified Developments Jo Ann Giddings IX. Median Improvement Proposal Marshall Brown 7:20 p.m. X. Review Follow-Up Questions Generated at this Meeting Chairman 7:50 p.m. XI. Confirm Next Meeting Date Tuesday, March 3, 2015 Chairman 7:55 p.m. XII. Adjourn Chairman 8:00 p.m. February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 1 of 26

2 This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 2 of 26

3 CITIZENS WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CWAC) January 6, 2015 Members Present: Staff Present: Visitors Present: James Mitchell (Chair), Alicia Gilley (Vice-Chair), Don Kado (Vice-Chair), and Mark Lindstone, Micah Marmaro, Duane Martin, Kenneth Phillips and Tim Stanford Nancy Freed, Marshall Brown, Dan Mikesell, Kelley Neumann, Jo Ann Giddings, Greg Baker, Lisa Darling, Rich Vidmar, Diana Denwood and Cathy Haddon Merrie Jones, John Flory and Richard Skeet Gifford II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by A. Gilley to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2014, meeting. Second by D. Kado. All voted aye. I. ELECTIONS 2015 CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR - D. Kado nominated J. Mitchell Chair. Second by M. Lindstone. All voted aye. - T. Stanford nominated A. Gilley First Vice-Chair. Second by J. Mitchell. All voted aye. - J. Mitchell nominated D. Kado Second Vice-Chair. Second by D. Martin. All voted aye. III. INTRODUCTIONS Introductions were made around the table. Committee applicants attending were Merrie Jones and John Flory. Richard Skeet Gifford, prior Committee Member was invited to attend. Kelley Neumann, newly hired Deputy Director of Aurora Water Planning/Engineering introduced herself and gave a brief background of her career. IV. PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD None. V. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS None. VI. NEW/OLD BUSINESS None. VII. COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE - Public Information staff has move to the Water Conservation area, from Suite 3600 to Suite M. Lindstone and Richard Skeet Gifford, a previous longtime Committee Member, were presented a plaque commemorating their years of service on the Citizens Water Advisory Committee. VIII. SUGGESTION BOX - J. Mitchell asked if the Committee could be updated on the Colorado State Water Plan. G. Baker stated that J. Stibrich will present on the Colorado State Water Plan in February. - D. Martin asked if the bond issues chart could be presented in a less confusing format. G. Baker noted that bond issues will be discussed during the Financial Services presentation at the new member orientations in March. February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 3 of 26

4 January 6, 2015 CWAC Minutes SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Page 2 of 2 IX. OVERVIEW OF WATER REORG M. Brown gave a detailed update on the reorganization of Aurora Water. X. MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL M. Brown gave a presentation on the Median Improvement Proposal. The Committee was asked to discuss amongst themselves and put together suggestions/concerns and the topic will be continued at the February meeting. XI. REVIEW/VERIFICATION OF 2014 ATTENDANCE RECORDS The Committee reviewed and accepted the 2014 Attendance Records as presented. XII. DISCUSS CWAC QUARTERLY REPORT TO IOPC IN JANUARY G. Baker stated that the next IOPC meeting will be in February. It was noted that the Committee did not need to make a verbal report to the IOPC but could submit a letter including what the CWAC s activities the previous quarter. XIII. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS GENERATED AT THIS MEETING Median Improvement Proposal will be continued in February. The Colorado State Water Plan will be presented in February, as well. XIV. REVIEW FOLLOW-UP ITEMS GENERATED AT THIS MEETING D. Martin asked for an update after the Governor s Colorado Ag Conference. XV. CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE February 3, 2015 The next regular meeting will be Tuesday, February 3, XVI. ADJOURN Motion by K. Phillips, second by D. Kado, to adjourn. All voted aye. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. James Mitchell, Chair Citizens Water Advisory Committee Submitted by: Cathy Haddon Administrative Technician, Aurora Water ADOPTED: February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 4 of 26

5 2015 CWAC Meeting Protocol GOALS Fulfill our duties as a Committee in the most efficient way possible. Keep on task and hold sidebars to a minimum. Complete our agenda items within the budgeted time as much as possible. 1. Agenda Items and Presentations will keep to the scheduled time. Understand that some items may take longer than expected, but ensure that we keep on the given topic. a) Greg Baker will inform any presenter of their agenda time allotment. b) Presenters will prepare their materials so that it fits the agenda, including time for Q&A. 2. Presenters will not be interrupted during their presentation. a) Keep the presenter from having to recreate their flow. b) Quite often, the question being asked is answered later in the presentation. c) Write your question down and ask it during the Q&A portion. d) Staff will remain after the meeting to answer questions if agenda time does not permit adequate response. 3. Any non-committee related information will be entertained after adjournment of the regular meeting. February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 5 of 26

7 February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 7 of 26

8 CWAC Sewer Back-ups Mitigation and Restoration Practices Page 2 of , can backup; and WHEREAS, without admitting liability, and with the intent to provide good customer service, the City Council desires to provide a service to the homeowner who has suffered property damage as a result of a public sewer backup; WHEREAS, City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the citizens to provide for a limited/partial waiver of governmental immunity in public sewer backup situations which result in damage to residential properties; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds and determines that it is a valid public purpose to use revenue from the Sewer Fund to create a reimbursement and clean-up program for damage to residential property caused by public sewer backups. In the resolution Section 2 provides that By and through the Utility Enterprise, using revenue from the Sewer Fund, the City will hire the services of an independent contractor who will be responsible for the repair of any sewer flow damage into a residential property that is the result of a public sewer backup. In no case shall the total cost of the repairs exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per property. Payment of monetary compensation in lieu of repair(s) shall not be permitted. In addition, the City will pay a sum not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000) to the homeowner to cover other expenses including replacement of personal property upon proof by receipt/invoice of estimate of damage. Payment of monetary compensation in lieu of repair(s) shall not be permitted. The City has utilized independent contractors since 1996 to perform mitigation (clean-up) and restoration (repair) services for residential properties only when it is determined that a municipal stoppage impacted a private residential property. Table 3 shows mitigation/restoration costs that the City paid to an independent contractor in support of the R96-13 resolution over the last six years. Mitigation/Restoration Costs 6 Years Table $11,157 $226,368 $15,130 $613 $9,030 $49,383 Table 4 shows the number of claims, average cost per claim, the number of claims that were capped by the $2,000 limit and total personal property costs, due to the loss, that were paid directly to the residential property owner. Personal Property Costs 6 Years Table # of claims Average $ claim $2,000 $1,775 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $1,121 # of claims > 2K Total Cost $2,000 $44,375 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $4,484 February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 8 of 26

9 CWAC Sewer Back-ups Mitigation and Restoration Practices Page 3 of 6 Table 5 shows the total cost to the City of mitigation/restoration and personal property loss. Total - Mitigation/Restoration/Personal Property Costs 6 years Table $13,157 $270,743 $17,130 $613 $11,030 $53,868 As stated above the resolution provides for maximum amounts of $10,000 for mitigation/restoration and $2,000 for personal property for a total of $12,000 per property. The number of properties impacted by each municipal stoppage can vary. In 2010 one of the four municipal stoppages impacted 23 properties with a majority of the properties being capped at the $12,000 limit for a total cost to the City of $270,743. In 2014 the total cost for stoppages to the City was $53,868. The municipal stoppages and subsequent residential properties damaged from the incidents that occurred in 2010 and 2014 brought to light some challenges with resolution R Challenges with Current Practices-2010 and 2014 Experiences Current practices for mitigation/restoration have come into question, by both City staff and the property owners, as a result of the damages that were incurred by the properties in 2010 and The resolution details that the City will hire the services of an independent contractor for the repair of any damage that is a result of a public sewer back-up. Such repair work shall include and mean necessary removal of debris, water, stains, and repainting, re-flooring, re-paneling and/or re-carpeting. Repair services shall not include replacement of personal property or fixtures including paintings or art work or electrical or HVAC repairs. One of the questions with the existing ordinance is whether $10,000 for mitigation/restoration is enough to provide good customer service? Current estimates from a contractor who has provided mitigation/restoration services for the City over the past six years states that approximately 60 percent, or $6,000, of the $10,000, is utilized for mitigation and the remainder, $4,000 is left for restoration. Another question that must be considered with the current practice is if the allocation for personal property is an appropriate amount. As demonstrated in Table 4; the majority of claims exceeded the $2,000 limit. The personal property evaluation process is subjective due to not having an industry standard certification program similar to that utilized in the mitigation/restoration cost determinations. The subjectivity often comes down to: what is a pair of worn out blue jeans worth or other used household personal items? When a municipal stoppage occurs that impacts a private residential property the property owner is made aware of the City resolution that provides financial assistance to them as long as they meet the requirements contained in resolution R While the intent of the resolution was to provide financial assistance it was not intended to necessarily make the property owner whole or restore February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 9 of 26

10 CWAC Sewer Back-ups Mitigation and Restoration Practices Page 4 of 6 their property to a pre-existing condition. This financial assistance has become an increasingly frustrating process for property owners because of rising costs of the mitigation which does not leave much for the restoration. In addition, the expectation or assumption of the property owner(s) that everything should be restored to a pre-existing condition compounds this frustration. Another situation that compounds the frustration is that in most cases homeowners do not have insurance that would cover sewer backups and often are unaware that this is a separate rider that must be purchased from their insurance carrier. The stoppages in 2010 and 2014 also revealed some challenges and customer frustrations with the restoration part of the financial assistance that is provided through R These were due to the customers wanting to use a contractor of their choice to restore their properties rather than a contractor determined and approved by the City as required. Mitigation Practices with other Divisions in Aurora Water Other divisions in the Aurora Water Department have mitigation processes and procedures; however, they are not required by resolution and mitigation is determined on a case by case basis. The Customer Service Section and the Water Operations and Maintenance Division will mitigate a private residential or commercial property and utilize restoration service companies to clean up flooding that is determined to be caused by a service line or water main break on a case by case basis. The maximum amount of mitigation services per customer is $2,500. Mitigation/Restoration Programs in Other Utilities The City of Aurora is not the only municipality/utility that has a mitigation/restoration program. The City and County of Denver (CCD), Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) Ft. Collins Utilities and the City of Greenwood Village, will generally exercise governmental immunity and only provide mitigation/restoration to their customers, both commercial and residential, on a case by case basis. For the above utilities if a stoppage within the collection system is determined to be the responsibility of the utility then a review of maintenance records and other factors that may have contributed to a stoppage is considered before making a decision to offer financial assistance, if any. One significant difference in the City of Aurora s program compared to others is that R96-13 provides financial assistance regardless of the cause of the stoppage of the City s system and only to residential customers. Alternatives for Consideration 1. Reconsideration of Appropriate Financial Assistance The intent of R96-13 was to provide financial assistance to customers. Current practice and financial appropriation does provide substantial financial relief and assistance to impacted private residential property owners. However, since the amounts have not increased since 1996, inflation has reduced the financial benefit in terms of purchasing power. Utilizing an industry standard inflation calculator it would take approximately $15,051 in 2015 to have the same customer impact as $10,000 was intended to do when R96-13 was implemented, a 50.5% increase since February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 10 of 26

11 CWAC Sewer Back-ups Mitigation and Restoration Practices Page 5 of The $2,000 personal property allowance in 1996 would require approximately $3,010 in today s dollars. This alternative proposes to increase the maximum amount(s) that R96-13 currently provides to today s dollars and include inflation related considerations based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to maintain the level of customer service intended. 2. Mitigation Only Because of the issues and challenges of providing restoration services another alternative for consideration is to provide financial assistance in the form of mitigation only. Under this alternative a mitigation company would clean up and disinfect the property while the remaining responsibility for restoration and personal property loss would remain with the property owner. The amount for this service would be determined on a case by case basis depending on the extent of mitigation needed. 3. Consolidate Personal Property Appropriation with Mitigation/Restoration Another alternative is to consolidate the personal property and the mitigation/restoration allowance into one. The current conditions of R96-13, in regards to personal property being separate from the mitigation/restoration, are problematic. Industry standard certifications like the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration (IICRC), as well as industry standard estimating software like Xactimate provide good guidance on estimating for mitigation/restoration. However, the personal property value determination is subjective at best. And as noted above, of all personal property claims from 2009 to 2014, the majority exceeded the $2,000 limit set forth in R This alternative would also increase the allowance to the amount calculated in today s dollars and would be tied to the CPI for future increases as well. 4. Offer Assistance on a Case-by-Case Basis Based on the effectiveness and resource commitment of the sanitary sewer maintenance program the City could consider offering financial assistance on a case by case basis for public sewer backups that result in property damage to residential properties similar to what other cities along the Front Range are doing. This option would provide for mitigation and restoration only. Personal property would remain the responsibility of the homeowner. 5. Do Nothing-As Is The intent of R96-13 was to provide financial assistance to customers. Current practices and financial appropriation does provide substantial financial relief and assistance to impacted private residential property owners. However, the resolution was not intended to make the property owner whole or restore their property to a pre-existing condition. The significant difference in the City of Aurora s program compared to programs in other cities is that it provides financial assistance to the residential customer regardless of the cause of the stoppage of the City s system. February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 11 of 26

12 CWAC Sewer Back-ups Mitigation and Restoration Practices Page 6 of 6 Summary This informational memorandum was intended to provide some background as well as provide some alternatives for consideration based on past events. All alternatives listed above, except alternative 5, would require significant modification or rescission of Ordinance R96-13 by City Council. Staff is requesting the Committee s perspective and input on these issues. February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 12 of 26

16 CWAC Capital Recovery Fees and Related Policies for Qualified Developments Page 2 of 2 An example showing the impact of the capital recovery fee on a property is included in this packet. The property used in this example is an actual lot in the city with the last three years of water usage and charges. Questions for the Committee 1. Does the Committee recommend updating the current development fee with this additional provision to allow reduced development fees for qualified developments along with a capital recovery fee? Attachments 1. MWH Business Solutions Capital Recovery Fees Memo 2. Example of Capital Recovery Fee February 3, CWAC Agenda - Page 16 of 26