09-26-16 Utilities - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

What we are doing right now is less engineering on trying to solve the water quality issue but trying to come up with an aggressive plan to make sure this amount of money does not have to be spent. Mr. Fahey detailed what that $148 million spent did for the City. That money reduced our overflow by approximately eighty percent (80 %). In 2008 South Bend's annual combined sewage overflow was 2,054 million gallons. By 2015, that figure was down to 399 million gallons. We have had such huge success getting that number down, that is the motivation to think there is a smarter way to get it to the lowest dollar amount possible. , Phase Two (2) involves nine (9) pieces of major infrastructure. Those include seven (7) large storage tanks, an underground storage conduit, and a new storage and conveyance interceptor. We have achieved such great success at a fraction of the cost, so we don't believe that the current Phase Two (2) is the best option. Mr. Fahey provided a map of where the points the City overflows into the river are. The map is on file with the City Clerk's Office. When the agreement was first made it was estimated that it could be done for $500 million but since then things have changed for a number of reasons. First of all inflation, when the agreement was initially made they were using 2007 dollars. Second, at that time there was a less competitive construction industry and now there is a much more competitive environment. Mr. Fahey detailed the problems with the current plan. The plan is too expensive with high capital and operating costs. It is also inflexible and cannot be adapted to react to our successes. The big thing we would like to change in a new plan is to make it more adaptive. The current plan is also very disruptive to the public parks which is something we would of course like to avoid. These problems have given us the motivation to come up with this relook. The relook started in 2015 and will be completed at an interim level by December of this year. We have aggressively reengineered the solution and arrived at three (3) alternatives. Each of-the alternatives involves green infrastructure. We are proposing to do a different configuration of tanks. Obviously if you can do one (1) large tank instead of two (2) smaller tanks you can save a lot of money. One (1) of the alternatives plans is for a full deep rock tunnel while another calls for a half deep rock tunnel. These plans can save approximately $100 to $300 million depending on which one is chosen. Each plan includes a large contingency where we could possibly achieve greater savings. As of last week, the City made contact with IDEM and requested a meeting for later in 2016 to discuss findings. That's the kick -off of the regulatory renegotiation process. We are not just looking at three (3) alternatives to say how good they could be in terms of complying with the EPA wants us to do. We are also going to say what if we don't comply with exactly what they wanted to do and that could save money as well. Mr. Fahey presented a slide detailing the financial impact of the current Phase Two (2) plan. The South Bend's residential indicator is three point seven percent (3.7 %), meaning the cost of implementing this current plan is three point seven percent (3.7 %) of the median household income for everybody. Twenty percent (20 %) of South Bend households would pay ten percent (10 %) of their income on Clean Water Act compliance in the current plan. Greater than fifty 2