290 likes | 318 Views
Explore the recommendations made by the Grinder Pump Committee regarding low pressure sewage systems in NOTL. Find out how the funding for these recommendations will be secured.
E N D
Council Workshop:Grinder Pump Committee September 9, 2019
Table of Contents Grinder Pump Committee • Low Pressure Sewage Systems in NOTL • Recommendations to Council • Funding the Recommendations • Summary
Grinder Pump Committee Low Pressure Sewage Systems in NOTL
Definitions: Traditional Sewage System Grinder Pump Committee • Gravity sewage lateral – private • 4” sewer drain that carries sewage from the house to the gravity main • homeowner owned to the property line • Gravity sewer main – Town • large diameter pipe that carries sewage in a downward slope • owned and maintained by the Town • Sewage Pumping Station – Region • pumps sewage uphill to a higher gravity main or to a treatment plant • owned and maintained by the Region • Force Main – Region • pressurized sewage main carrying the outflow from a Sewage Pumping Station • owned and maintained by the Region William Street Regional S.P.S.
Committee Mandate Grinder Pump Committee Gravity Sewer: A Passive System RegionalPumping Station It may be supplementedwith a one-off “Ejector Pump” Low Pressure Sewer System (LPSS): An Active CommunalSystemwith a different cost and risk profile In scope for theGP Committee Communal system is pressurizedto flow uphill by a network of Grinder Pumps on private property(no Region or Town pump in system)
Definitions: Low Pressure Sewage System Grinder Pump Committee Private PressurizedForce Lateral Grinder Pump Container Public PressurizedForce Lateral GravityDrain fromhouse – 4” Public PressurizedForce Main(under road) Grinder Pump (in container)
For Clarity: 4 Scenarios, Only LPSS in Scope Grinder Pump Committee Sump Pump Individual Grinder Pump (1 House) Communal Grinder Pump(LPSS) Ejector Pump(or Lift Pump)
Why Use a Low Pressure Sewage System? Grinder Pump Committee “The network serving the community is normally constructed from small diameter pipes which can be installed in narrow, shallow trenches, or via the use of directional drilling techniques. “This increases the speed and safety of the installation process compared to a conventional alternative, as well as dramatically reducing overall construction costs.” Much lower construction cost May open up more land for development Ref: wateronline.com
Communal LPSS – The Big Picture Grinder Pump Committee Operate Build Developer Region Town Homeowner GravitySystemIncluding1-off ejectorpumps High construction costfor deep gravity maininstallation Cost of maintaining pumping stations, major force mains & treatment plant Sewer maintenance and long-term capital cost of passive main replacement Very low maintenance cost of passive gravity drain system to the town connection Communal LPSS Maintenance expense and capital cost of an active communal system plus management of active system input Similar to gravity for mains & treatment, but savings by eliminating new pumping stations Large reduction in construction cost (up to 50%) Share in Region savings, unknown long-term cost of pressurized municipal force mains Point of sale Current state
What exists today? Grinder Pump Committee 183 households are served by a communal LPSS One-off installations on record(plus many unrecorded ejector pumps) not part of a communal system
All Communal LPSSs are in St. David’s Grinder Pump Committee Queenston Rd Tanbark, Sandalwood,Queenston Rd, Stoneridge (112) York Rd Four Mile Creek Rd York Rd Bevan Heights (71) Hwy 405
In Hindsight… Grinder Pump Committee The decision by Council (with the provincial and Federal governments) in the early 2000’s to approve the use of an LPSS powered by grinder pumps in Bevan heights and Tanbark Road was a good one. • For example: • The installation cost for about 70 homes is estimated at $1.5M to $2M. ($800K for the pumps plus an allowance of about $1M for the low-pressure force main) • Staff has estimated that the cost of a traditional gravity sewer system in this location would have been “in the $10s of millions” because of the underlying structure of the escarpment
With the Benefit of Hindsight… Grinder Pump Committee • We believe that Council at that time were not fully aware of the significant differences in three important areas: • The importance of installation quality to the safety of the LPSS and the reliability of the grinder pump • There is no existing protocol for specific inspection of the pump installation • The effect on daily operation / Homeowner responsibilities • Standard of care for materials flushed is much higher • Impact of power outage handled by the homeowner vs the Region • On-going capital costs of an LPSS when compared to a traditional gravity system • Distributed pumping power vs Region Pumping Station • Published useful grinder pump life is 10 years • Replacement cost is $3,000 = $300 annually borne by the homeowner
The Result is… Grinder Pump Committee Regional Pumping Station Cannery Park (235) Queenston Rd Tanbark, Sandalwood,Queenston Rd, Stoneridge (112) $472/yr* $772/yr* York Rd Four Mile Creek Rd York Rd Bevan Heights (71) $772/yr* Hwy 405 * Based on the average 2019 Wastewater fee for 7524 households
The financial impact Grinder Pump Committee Average Annual 2019 Household Wastewater Cost • Assumptions • 2019 approved budget • 7,524 households $300 Annual pump replacement allowance $371(5X) Capital $71 • 10-year pump life • $3,000 pump replacement cost $401 $401 Operating Average Household LPSS Household
Grinder Pump Committee Recommendations to Council
Alternatives Considered by the Committee Grinder Pump Committee #1. Full turnkey solution provided by the Town #2. Assume specific responsibility in critical areas #3. Status Quo • Full turnkey solution for all LPSS users • Implement “high-end” system solution with centralmonitoring and response • Address safety and reliability factors at installation • Create a structure that sharesthe financial benefits • No change with current users • Limit future use of LPSS
Our Recommendations – effective Jan 1, 2020 Grinder Pump Committee • For daily operations / Homeowner responsibilities • Specify respective responsibilities in homeowner maintenance documentation • Provide homeowner education materials & user handbook • 2. On-going capital costs of an LPSS when compared to a traditional gravity system • Assume responsibility for pump system maintenance and replacement • Homeowner remains responsible for everything else on private property • 3. The importance of installation quality to the safety of the LPSS and reliability of the grinder pump • Establish a rigorous inspection and sign-off protocol for the developer and town inspectors
Grinder Pump System: Who Will Do What Grinder Pump Committee • Installation of future systems • Quality of the work • Rigorous inspection, testing and signoff Who Clear developer accountability – new Developer, Manufacturer, Town – new Homeowner – no change Homeowner – no change Homeowner – no change Town assumes maintenance – new Homeowner insurance – no change Town and Homeowner – no change • System in Use • Ownership of physical assets on property • Daily operation according to mfg spec • Service calls & cost – misuse of the system • Service calls & cost – pump failure • Liability – property damage • Liability – environment
Benefits of Recommended Changes Grinder Pump Committee • 1. Financial equity for LPSS users • Cost of maintaining the pump system is shared by all households as isthe case with the gravity system • 2. Alignment of Motivation • Quality of installation is the key success factor • Updating of the inspection and sign-off protocol is just the first step • Accountability for maintenance ensures motivation for quality installation • 3. Creates a structure for sharing the benefits of lower construction costs • Establish a Maintenance Reserve funded with a new “Special LPSS Fee” to be paid by the Developer • Mechanism to balance the current transfer of costs from Developer to the system users • Opportunity for better pricing through central buying power • 4. Supports system-wide learning and continuous system improvement • Experience-based feedback collected at a central point of administration • Allows identification of emerging patterns – both problems and best practices • More effective vendor quality management supporting system integrity
Grinder Pump Committee Funding the Recommendations
Wastewater Operating Budget Summary Grinder Pump Committee
Financing for Maintenance & Replacement Grinder Pump Committee Recommended Funding Sources Apply an incremental increase in Wastewater fees across all NOTL residential properties Potential to use the residual balance of $180K in the St. Davids Area Specific Development Charge Reserve with an offset of Capital Reserve funds For new LPSS installations, establish an LPSS Maintenance Reserve funded by a “Special LPSS Fee” paid by the developer 1. 2. 3.
Financial Scenario #1 – Existing LPSS Grinder Pump Committee Use $180,000 St Davids DC Reserve plus a $10.00/year increase in annual Wastewater fee
Financial Scenario #1a – Existing LPSS Grinder Pump Committee St Davids DC Reserve not applied, use a $12.50/year increase in annual Wastewater fee
Financial Scenario #2 – Growth Grinder Pump Committee Assume that 50 new LPSS homes are added in five years* – builds reserves for the future * This represents approximately 5% of the anticipated 10-year growth
Liability and Insurance Grinder Pump Committee • Insurance Coverage for the Town • Existing policy is an all risks policy • No additional premium required
In Addition: Grinder Pump Committee • The Committee created three initial draft documents: • An inspection and sign-off protocol • A Homeowners’ Guide to Grinder Pumps • Draft terms for the maintenance arrangementspecifying homeowner and Town responsibilities
Grinder Pump Committee Our Recommendations in Summary • Assume responsibility for pump system maintenance and replacement • Provide homeowner education materials & user handbook • Establish a rigorous inspection and sign-off protocol for any new systems