Police Facility,
Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 4:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
The mayor led in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmember
PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND
POSSIBLE DIRECTION RE: “RENT A RING” PROGRAM FOR OVERNIGHT MOORING IN
Mr. Didion advised that the Lake
Havasu City Marine Association will be making the formal presentation at
tonight’s meeting to explain the details of how the “Rent-a-Ring” program will
operate.
Mr. Jim Salscheider, Director of
the Lake Havasu City Marine Association, advised that he distributed posters
that were used at the Los Angeles Boat Show to see what kind of interest the
program would stimulate, which he would report on during his presentation.
Mr. Salscheider explained that the
Lake Havasu City Marine Association is a membership of boaters dedicated to
enhancing the experience on
Mr. Salscheider believed that the
majority of the users of the “Rent-a-Ring” program will be
Mr. Salscheider showed a video that
gave an overview of how the program would work. He added that there were a lot
of questions and misinformation going around the city, and he hoped that by
showing the video, it would be the start of clearing them up.
Mr. Salscheider said they don’t
have all the answers, but they spent a lot of time trying to find the proper
balance between the visitors, the local citizens who would use the rings, and
those who would not use the rings, but use the Channel.
Mr. Salscheider gave the following
presentation:
Mr. Salscheider thought the
question council needed to ask was whether or not the economic revenue benefits
of the program outweigh the inconvenience that this program might cause for
few. Further, if council believes that boating on the lake is truly the heart
of the city’s economic engine, then the Marine Association believes this
program could be the solution.
Councilmember Nyberg asked if the
Convention and Visitors Bureau could handle the marketing since they were
already receiving funding for marketing in the city, to which Mr. Salscheider
stated all things were possible.
Mayor Nexsen wanted to know why only
200 of the 300 rings would be reserved, to which Mr. Salscheider replied
they chose a number that would leave a substantial number of rings unreserved
so that other people could use them for the day. He said there were concerns
that out-of-towners would tie up a ring, stay for the weekend, and never move.
He added that reserving the rings would make it convenient for those people who
would not have to launch their boat in the morning and take it out of the lake
at night. He stated that was the overwhelming reason people would like to
reserve a ring at night.
Mayor Nexsen said with regard to
grooming the beaches, he thought that a permit was needed even to disturb one
rock. Mr. Clark said it was his understanding that everything below the
450-foot mark was jurisdictional waters with the Corps of Engineers, so a
permitting process would have to be explored with the Corps of Engineers. Mayor
Nexsen then asked if a permit was obtained for the King’s View area, since
there was a lot of grooming going on in that location. Parks Operations Manager
Councilmember Barlow wanted to know
what arrangements have been made to utilize the parking lot. Mr. Salscheider
replied that Marine Association Board Member Tom Felke spoke with the owner of
the parking lot next to the Island Inn Hotel, Peter Patel, who verbally
indicated to Mr. Felke that for the purposes of this program, he would
allow the city to utilize it for this season at no charge. Mr. Salscheider
added that Mr. Patel also owns another lot next to the Javelina Cantina
that the Chemehuevi Indians use for parking for the Dreamcatcher Tour Boat,
which will hold quite a few trailers.
Councilmember McAtlin wanted to know if
the city’s liability would change if the city were to charge fees for mooring
in the Channel, to which City Attorney
Councilmember Wedemeyer advised that
the city had recreational and other types of fees that generate revenues, and
they are not necessarily earmarked for certain purposes. Given the current
budget situation, he wanted to know why the revenues generated from the
“Rent-a-Ring” Program should only be used for lake improvements and not the
After-School Program, public safety needs, etc. Mr. Salscheider replied
that a lot of people he spoke to at the Los Angeles Boat Show thought
improvements to the lake were important. He thought the boating community would
want to see the money earmarked for improvements, such as dredging the Channel
and improving the condition of the beaches and launch ramps.
Councilmember Wedemeyer wondered if
there was any way to offer discounts to local residents, to which Mr. Lenkowsky
believed it was possible for the city to offer a discount to local residents
based on the rationale that local residents have contributed to the cost of the
infrastructure that is being used by the program. Mayor Nexsen added that local
golf courses offer discounts to local residents.
Councilmember Nyberg thought the city
started the process to dredge the Channel. She wondered if they would have to
begin the process all over again in order to dredge the Channel. Mr. Clark
explained that staff did not get any further than applying for the SLIF funds,
and when those were swept, the city stopped spending any money, because there
was no General Fund money to perform the dredging. He thought it would cost
between $15,000 and $25,000 to do the environmental impact study immediately
prior to applying for the permit. Mr. Salscheider added that the
Chemehuevi Indians were more than willing to share some of the costs, because
the Channel will have to be dredged for the Dreamcatcher.
Councilmember Nyberg felt that the
revenues generated should be used to perform some of the improvements that
would have been done with SLIF funds.
Councilmember Barlow stated that one
major reason he felt the funds should be dedicated was because the docks at Windsor Launch Ramp were in need of
improvement, and any necessary work there will be adversely affected by
reductions in funding and personnel. He added that the Windsor Launch Ramp was
very important to the city’s economic health. He thought if the city does not
step forward with this type of a program, the city will be sorry for it later
on.
Mr. Tim Kristof, Park Manager of
Windsor State Park, stated that he currently had three vacant Law Enforcement
Officer positions. He believed that if he does not receive assistance from
volunteers, he may not be able to fill the park to capacity as he has done in
the past. He said his main goal was to get people on and off the park safely. He
stated that he was not going to comment in opposition to or in support of the
“Rent-a-Ring” Program.
Mr. Kristof updated council on the
docks, advising that State Parks was basically waiting for the documentation
from the Corps of Engineers to review the plans. He added they were hoping for
March or April, but it all depended on when things fall into place. He said
with all the special events and bass tournaments he has in March, he may have
to turn people away to use another launch ramp.
Mayor Nexsen opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dan Schaller thought the
“Rent-a-Ring” proposal was very admirable, but he felt it was completely out of
line and that it will not work. He said his solution was to allow overnight
mooring in the Channel free of charge all the time. He thought that would keep
the ramps open and people will stay here knowing they don’t have to take their
boats out every evening. He felt the city was becoming too restrictive. He
further thought the city would have more tourism, which would result in a lot
more revenue.
Mr. Chuck Vaughn thought the State
Parks Department should notify the people who want to rent the rings that they will
have to take their boat trailer offsite to allow daytime boaters to use the
parking area. He thought the “Rent-a-Ring” idea was great. Also, he didn't hear
any provisions for the people who want to leave their boat in the Channel
during the week, such as a weekly pass. He felt that should be looked into. He
also wanted to know whether or not the people who are parked overnight have to
leave at 8 a.m. in the morning. Mayor Nexsen replied that the long-and-short of
it is that they don’t have to leave, because at 8 a.m., everything is open again.
Mr. Vaughn thought if all of the rings were rented out, they would all be
full, and there would never be any open spaces for those who want to park in
the Channel for the day.
Mr. Dan Roth said mention was made
of setting aside a certain number of rings for hotels and motels, but he
wondered about those people who have management companies, condominium
projects, etc., who have 50‑plus units. He thought overnight mooring
would have to be free of charge, the number of rings to rent would have to be
increased, and/or there needed to be a charge for other open areas; otherwise,
he did not think it would work. He also believed there would be an enforcement
problem with a lot of the beaches. He added that one of the major problems was
the traffic issue, because it is not safe to be on the streets unless there is
some sort of added or alternative program that allows longer stays. He thought
the idea was admirable, but he also felt that opening it up free of charge was
the only way to get people back on the lake and to stay. He thought people will
come back this year, but he didn't think 200 rings will work. He also thought the
cost of dredging the Channel might get expensive, but it needs to be done.
Mr. Ron Borgeson stated that his
family moved to
Mr. Mike Bonnie explained that
there were a couple of corrections to Mr. Salscheider’s presentation with
respect to the Bridgewater Channel Merchants Association that he would like to
note. First, the last meeting was not the inaugural meeting; there were about
25 businesses that attended the inaugural meeting in January. He said the
meeting Mr. Salscheider attended was the second meeting. He stated that
there were benefits to the retail establishments along the Bridgewater Channel.
He added that the 25 business owners who attended the inaugural meeting
consisted of the resorts, motels, restaurants, and retail establishments. He
said anything the city can do to improve the conditions along the Bridgewater
Channel would be an economic benefit to the city in itself, and any increased
revenue as a result of people mooring overnight and spending their money in the
city is increased revenue for the city that is not earmarked for any specific
fund. There are economic benefits well beyond the Bridgewater Channel. He believed
the decisions must be made in the best benefit for those who live in the city
that use the lake, pay the taxes, and enjoy the other benefits. He encouraged the council to give serious
consideration to this. He said the proposal that the Bridgewater Channel
Merchants Association reviewed at the last meeting that was presented by Mr. Salscheider
was unanimously endorsed by all of the merchants along the Channel.
Mr. Pete Freestone thought one of
the issues the council needed to consider is that all the big cigarette boats
that are attracted to the lake have to be fueled somewhere during the day, and
there are only two fueling operations close to the Channel that he was aware of.
He thought it would create havoc in the marinas for those wanting to fuel their
boats. Some even have to be taken off the water so that they can be fueled at
the various gas stations in town. He wanted to know if the fuel tax for marine
use goes to parks or if it goes into road tax, which ends up being spent all
over the state of Arizona. Mayor Nexsen explained that a percentage of the fuel
tax goes into the SLIF funds; however, the Arizona Legislature has swept those
funds to help balance their budget. He thought if it was council’s intent to
start the program, it should start small with about 50 rings and see how it
goes.
Mr. Chuck Fein wondered if there
could be some consolidation between the Marine Association and the Convention &
Visitors Bureau to get the word out to the public, etc., and to cut costs. He
thought that at night, there would also be a policing problem with theft on boats
that are left unattended. He wondered who would foot the bill if someone gets
ripped off. He thought that was something that has to be addressed.
Mr. Gene Schutt said he listened
intently to the presentation and thought it was the most deceptive presentation
he has ever witnessed. He thought the real purpose of the “Rent-a-Ring” Program
was about business. He believed the rings will most likely be sold, and people
will leave their boat in the Channel all weekend with a “For Sale” sign on it.
He believed this will have the opposite effect of what it is intended for. When
this is made to be “pay for play,” the people will leave. He said people were leaving
now. He thought the citizens are looking for fair treatment, and they don't
want to be tied up with a lot of drama and rigmarole about who is parking
where, who is paying what, etc. He saw this as more trouble people have to
think about. He felt the city would be losing business. This is big businesses
promoting their business at the expense of the masses. He said it was their
dream to retire in Lake Havasu City to boat and enjoy the lake for the rest of
their lives, but he thought the city has changed, and currently, their house is
for sale and they are going to Texas to live on a lake for half the cost of
what their house costs in Lake Havasu City. He added they are tired of the
drama and not being able to boat. He said he was tired of businesses trying to
get one up on the masses.
Mr. Karl Eckert was concerned that
this was commercialization of the Channel, and the fact that seasonal
commercial passes were being offered. He thought this can amount to turning the
entire program into commercial seasonal passes, and basically end up with a line
of stores floating in the Channel. The other issue he was concerned with was
crime. He thought by allowing overnight mooring, it would provide temptation
and the perfect opportunity for people to steal. He felt this will create a
high crime area and bring a reputation of high crime to
Mr. Rick Surkin thought the plan
was flawed and destined to fail, because too many outside influences come into
play, such as wind action, wake action, fluctuating water levels, etc. He said
it was inevitable that the rear of the boats, if left unattended, will sway. He
wanted to know whose responsibility it would be if the boat comes loose and the
back of a boat swings toward another boat. He asked if the Lake Havasu City
Police Department or a private security company representing the city would
take the liability into their hands, and if they would be liable if they touch
someone’s boat. He said there was no mention of what would happen if a
thunderstorm rolls through and wreaks havoc on those boats parked in the
Channel overnight. He wondered where that liability would lie. It seemed to him
that it was a program that was destined to fail, just by outside influences. He
said the program also includes a commercial component; commercial passes will
be sold to commercial businesses that will have an unlimited amount of boats
registered to those sites. He had a feeling that businesses will monopolize all
the spots and commercialize them. Furthermore, it is city park land and land
that is maintained and paid for with taxes paid by all of the residents, yet
business interests will be able to take over the spots and commercialize them.
He didn’t think it was right to take city park land and basically sell the land
to commercial interests. He thought it was going to turn into an offsite
showroom for boats in the Channel, because the commercial interests will buy
the spots and put their demo boats in them for sale. He pictured them putting
the boats in the spots on Friday night and not removing them until the end of
the weekend. He also wondered if rings will be pre-sold and pre-promised. He requested
that prior to any vote being taken by council, he would personally like to see
the final draft on the issue with all concerns addressed for parking, how many
commercial rings there are, how it will be treated, and a final plan allowed to
be viewed by the citizens so that people can come to the meeting and address
their concerns.
Mr. Cameron Spicer stated that he
enjoys and cares about the lake. He thought this was a good idea from the
Marine Association, and he felt they were trying to make good on something that
nobody else has tried to do. He thought their efforts were valid and could
possibly work, but he was concerned about the security. He wondered if the Police
Department was going to take on the responsibility of providing security, and
if they do, his concern would then be from where in the community will those
officers be pulled and how many will it take to babysit the boats. He thought the
city would be asking our visitors to pay a lot of money in a difficult economy.
He was also concerned with making an already congested area even more congested
with people hauling their trailers. He urged the council to consider the
proposal and make the right decision for the citizens.
Mr. Dan Remy advised that he spent
three days at the LA Boat Show talking with people who are boaters and use
Mr. Bill Draper, Manager of Boat
Brokers, advised it was not his intent to put boats in the Channel and to
commercialize the Channel. He wants his customers to use and enjoy the Channel;
the same people who spend their money on hotels, groceries, gasoline, etc. This
was a brainstorming concept that the Marine Association came up with. They
wanted to hear ideas and ways to put money back into the Channel and get
improvements made that need to be done that they know the city and the state
cannot afford. He was not speaking for every businessman, but he will say he
does not want to see commercial use in the Channel.
Ms. Danette Clayton advised that she owns
a business in the city. She hoped that the council doesn't become nearsighted
on what the Marine Association is trying to do. She added that there are not
enough boat slips in the city for the visitors. She said a lot of people come
from
Mr. Dean Messmer, owner of the
Boat Brokers, stated that the Marine Association is not a self-serving
organization. The “Rent-a-Ring” Program is one of many projects they are
working on. The goal is to provide better services and a better environment for
the boating community. He stated that making it an opportunity for the boat
manufacturers to sell their boats was the furthest thing from their minds. He
thought that a private security company would need to be hired, and they would
have to be paid through the rental of the rings. He felt all of the issues can
be addressed. He thought it was a great concept, and it was a good way to get improvements
made to the Channel. He said the Marine Association will try to continue to
make things better for the visitors and the citizens.
Mayor Nexsen closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Wedemeyer asked if there
were other resort communities doing this type of thing. Mr. Salscheider
said he didn’t know, but usually, other resort communities have more than one
marina and more launch ramps and, typically, more facilities for parking boats.
Councilmember Wedemeyer asked Mr. Salscheider
if he had any thoughts on doing a trial run before the Desert Storm event. Mr. Salscheider
said that the Desert Storm event was a sellout, and it seemed like a great time
to kick it off. He explained that they deliberately didn’t use all the rings,
because they felt some should be left. He said the fee of $50 on the weekends
and $100 on holiday weekends was simply not an issue for those he spoke to at
the Los Angeles Boat Show. He said those businesses who attended the Los
Angeles Boat Show don’t have any doubt that they can sell 200 rings just about
every weekend. Councilmember Wedemeyer wondered if they could do a trial run
for a smaller amount of rings before that big event to work out logistics,
security, etc. Mr. Salscheider said he would love to start earlier.
Mr. Salscheider asked Mr. Clark
if he could comment on the $385,000 amount to dredge the Channel. Mr. Clark
explained that would cover the limited dredging that would be accomplished at
Pima Wash at the middle of
Councilmember Barlow asked Police Chief
Dan Doyle to comment on some of the security issues that have been discussed.
Mayor Nexsen also wanted to know the reason the city stopped overnight mooring
in the first place. Chief Doyle thought the ordinance has been in effect for
quite some time; however, it has not been enforced.
Mayor Nexsen then wanted to know how
difficult it would be to keep the area secure. Chief Doyle explained that it
probably would not be that difficult; however, he didn’t think it would be cost
effective to utilize police officers as security guards for boats. The primary
reason was that there were no overtime funds in the budget to pay officers to
work overtime on their days off. That would leave the choice of taking officers
off their beats and reducing the number of beat officers working the city to
place them in the Channel. He said that was not a prime use of police officers.
He said his recommendation would be to pay private security personnel for a lot
less cost. He said those security officers can call the police if a problem
exists, but it is not something that requires a great deal of training and
experience. He said another option would be for the city to look at hiring
part-time security officers as it would be seasonal work, and it would be more
cost effective than utilizing police officers.
Councilmember Barnes asked Chief Doyle
if a police officer could be in the area in the event security personnel would
need a police officer to respond. Chief Doyle replied there is already a
downtown beat officer, and there are typically officers that are reasonably
close to that area anyway. He said he would not want to commit an officer to
that specific area. Also, a little more indirect lighting could be added to the
area.
Councilmember Barlow said there was some
information that the security firm would be making $50,000 a weekend. Mayor
Nexsen thought that was for the entire boating season. Councilmember Barnes
then wanted to know how many security personnel they were talking about, to
which Mr. Salscheider replied it would be four a night. Mr. Kaffenberger
then asked Mr. Salscheider if he received any quotes, to which Mr. Salscheider
replied they contacted two companies for quotes to include two security
personnel on each side of the area in golf carts for about ten hours. Both
companies were within a few thousand dollars of each other.
Councilmember Nyberg agreed that to
commercialize the Channel area was not a good idea. She suggested that the
reference to hotels and boat manufacturers should be taken out of their detail
sheet. Mr. Salscheider said that was not their intent, and they would take
a look at that.
Mayor Nexsen said at the current time,
there was no overnight mooring along the entire Channel, and he saw a conflict
with allowing mooring in the ring areas and not in other areas. It seemed to
him that overnight mooring would have to be allowed everywhere along the Channel.
It didn’t seem right to him that no overnight mooring would be allowed except
in those areas where there is a ring. Mr. Lenkowsky didn't see any legal
impediment to the city directing by ordinance, regulation, or otherwise, how its
property is used. It is no different than the city asserting control over
public property by regulating the hours of when the public may enter it or what
type of activities occur there. He said the Channel was much in the same
category. He believed that if the council wanted to change the policy for its
use, it is free to do so. Mayor Nexsen still believed that people will start
mooring overnight in other areas and feel like they are being treated unfairly.
He thought from the council’s standpoint, they will have to think about opening
the entire Channel for overnight mooring.
Councilmember Barlow wanted to know
what kind of Code changes will need to be made if council decides to proceed
with this program. Mr. Didion explained that there is a procedural
requirement that staff would need to go through, but he didn’t think a lot of
changes to the Code would be needed.
Councilmember Nyberg said there was mention
made to the size of the boats, and she wondered if there was a limit on the size
of boats that could enter the Channel. Chief Doyle explained that at one point,
there was a limit of 36 feet; however, the Code reads that the police chief has
the authority to determine when the 36-foot limit will be enforced. He added that they are not currently limiting
the size of the boats.
Mayor Nexsen stated that even though
the city attorney said there would be no increased liability, his gut tells him
that when a fee is charged, the city would have an increased liability if
someone’s property is stolen or their boat comes untied and hits another boat. Mr. Lenkowsky
explained that the perception of the users of the facility would be that the
city is providing some level of security, and the city should address that issue
in the policy by disclaiming liability in the event of any loss, theft, or
other criminal activity. He added that he didn’t believe that, objectively, the
city was taking on more liability by permitting the use subject to a fee. He
indicated that the level of liability that the city experiences is about the
same whether people are charged or not charged for entry when they go on city
property. The city still owes a duty of reasonable care to people it invites
onto its property.
Mayor Nexsen agreed that the city wants
to make sure the visitors are taken care of and want to come back, but he
believed that needed to be weighed against the rights of the people who live
here and have been paying taxes for a long time and use the Channel at no cost.
He understood that during the day, there would no charge, but he also
understood the concern that ring renters will expect to use the spot for the
entire weekend when they pay for rental. He thought it would be interesting to
know on a large weekend, of the 300 rings, how many rings are taken up by
locals versus how many are taken up by visitors. Mr. Salscheider thought
if a poll was taken, most local citizens would say they don’t go out on the
lake on the big weekends. He added that 20
percent of the locals was one estimation.
Mayor Nexsen understood the concept of
week-long mooring, but he thought there would be negative returns, because it
would cost more in security than what it would make.
It was the consensus of council to
proceed with drafting an ordinance.
Mayor Nexsen thought there were good
ideas; however, he also had some concerns. He said they could knowingly try it
for a period of time, and if it doesn’t work, council could repeal the
ordinance. Mr. Salscheider added that they learned some things from the
discussions tonight, and they would certainly work with city staff to
incorporate some of the changes that were recommended.
Mayor Nexsen thought if the program
becomes very popular, a lottery system could be used so that there isn’t any
preferential treatment. Mr. Salscheider commented that happens in some
places where it has become very popular.
Mr. Kaffenberger asked again about
the parking area, to which Mr. Salscheider explained that Mr. Patel
will allow use of his property for the first year; however, if the market turns
around, he may want to do something with his property. If the market does not
turn around, he might consider a second year.
Mr. Didion asked for
clarification, to which the council decided the following:
·
No commercial
activity.
·
Private security firm.
Mr. Salscheider
said one caveat they would like implemented is that if a private security firm
is hired, their officers would go through the Police Department’s customer service
training.
·
Fees as proposed.
·
Location of rings
that are being proposed. Mr. Didion thought the choice ones would be the
ones located in front of the King's View condominiums.
·
Open up the
entire Channel to allow overnight mooring.
Mayor Nexsen
noted that there will be a public hearing at the Regular City Council Meeting
on Tuesday, February 24, 2009, for introduction of the ordinance, and another
public hearing will be held when the ordinance is adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION
AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION RE: BACKWATER VALVES
Mr.
Mr. Clark
noted that this issue was first discovered in March 2008 at former
Councilmember Schilling’s home, and as a member of the Wastewater System
Expansion Oversight Committee, he was an integral part of the discussions. He
explained that this backwater valve was a fairly simple valve in the lateral
that prevents the water that is flowing downhill from flowing back uphill.
Mr. Mike
Lywood, AMEC, said that when AMEC discovered that backwater valves were
required under the city’s Building Code, but they were not included in the
Wastewater System Expansion Program (WWSE), AMEC worked with city staff and the
Oversight Committee to conduct research on backwater valve issues in other
communities and to determine under which circumstances the backwater valves
could be considered for installation. He said a large number of scenarios were
discussed, and at the end of the day, two separate scenarios were looked at:
1. Going forward to include installation of backwater valves in the
Brown Area on all properties that meet the requirements of the IPC and the
International Building Code (IBC), and in the absence of a policy, that would
be an attempt to include them in the Tan Areas, which are currently under
design, and which would also include the remainder of the sewer area.
2. The issue of looking back, and what the city would do. He said
the city adopted the IBC fairly recently and the Code before that also had a
requirement for installation of backwater valves.
Mr. Albert
Garcia, AMEC technical consultant to the wastewater team for the WWSE and
technical advisor to the Oversight Committee, gave the following presentation:
History
§
Councilmember Schilling was informed of a discrepancy between the
Sanitary Sewer Design Standards for the WWSE Program and the IPC adopted by the
Development Services Department.
§
Councilmember Schilling brought the disconnect to the attention of the
Oversight Committee for investigation and alignment.
§
AMEC and city staff reviewed the issue and drafted a Technical Decision
Memorandum.
§
AMEC, city staff, and the Oversight Committee conducted a thorough
analysis of the risks and impacts as well as evaluation of possible courses of
action for the WWSE Program.
§
AMEC, city staff, and the Oversight Committee are updating and
informing city council about the backwater valve issue and recent decisions.
Terminology
§
A “lateral” is the sewer pipe that connects the home to the sewer main
in the street. It is on private property and is usually belongs to the
homeowner, and the homeowner is responsible for the lateral and backwater valve
inside the lateral. He noted that in the current WWSE program, the city is
providing the laterals because the city is disconnecting the septic tank and
connecting to the sewer system.
§
A “force main” is a sewer line with a pump on it, and not a gravity
line.
§
A “combined sewer system” conveys storm water in the same pipe as
wastewater, although that is not the case in
§
A “backwater valve” prevents wastewater from the sewer main side from
coming backwards into the lateral. It does not prevent flooding in the house
and does not prevent wastewater flooding from flow that originates in the home.
Mr. Garcia commented that a backwater valve would not have affected a blockage
in the lateral.
Code
Review
The IPC was
adopted by the city and this particular part of the IPC was not enforced either
in the WWSE or in the new building permit section. Mr. Garcia read the language
in the IPC relating to plumbing fixtures and backwater valves. He said that the
IPC states that there could be a comparison between the rim of the upstream
manhole and the lowest point of service in the house, which would either be a
shower floor, a bathtub floor, or a toilet. He added that there should be a
comparison of those elevations with the hope that if there is a public backflow
of water, it would come out of the manhole rather than out of the house.
Applications
and Uses of Backwater Valves
Backwater valves
are typically installed to prevent residential flooding in the following
conditions:
§
Sewer system experiences inflow and infiltration.
§
Rain water leads or gutters directly connected to the sewer main.
§
Sewer system installed below the water table.
§
Older sewer system, potentially constructed of clay pipe and brick
manholes.
§
Sewer system inspection and maintenance not conducted regularly.
§
Sewer systems that include a large number of lift stations.
§
Located on an alluvial fan with a general 4 percent slope down gradient
to the river.
§
Separated sewer system (storm water and wastewater conveyed in separate
conduit).
§
Pressure testing is conducted to verify proper installation and prevent
inflow and infiltration.
§
Rain water leads or gutters not connected directly to sewer main.
§
Sewers installed above water table.
§
Much of sewer system is new and in excellent condition; constructed of
PVC pipe.
§
Wastewater Division has developed a regularly scheduled maintenance
program for the sewer system.
§
Automated SCADA system in place to manage operations and address system
failures.
§
Sewer mains are designed for peak flow in Year 2060, and less than 75
percent pipe capacity.
Councilmember
Barlow asked if the city was subject to the IPC when the sewer project started.
Mr. Clark said that both codes required backwater valves, and it was missed by
our first sewer consultant and city staff. Councilmember Barlow asked how this
could be missed, and Mr. Clark replied that, typically, Public Works activities
occur on public rights-of-way, and Building Code issues are not mixed with
public designs and public processes. He added that this is a building code
issue that typically occurs from the builder’s standpoint of the home and not
from the public sewer system. He further explained that when most public sewer
systems are built, laterals are put in up to the property line, and then it is
the homeowner’s responsibility to take care of that remaining part.
Councilmember
Barnes said the city dropped the ball, and it amounts to about $4 million. He
said that if the backwater valves were put in when the sewer construction began
in 2001, the cost would have been about $975,000. He said to retrofit them now,
the cost will be $5.2 million.
Councilmember
McAtlin asked how the figure of 6,500 backwater valves was determined. Mr.
Clark said they were identified as a part of the Brown Sewer Area. He said part
of the problem is that there are no requirements for the homes to be built to
the street grade, so there are a lot of homes built at or below the street
grade, which creates the need for those homes to meet this issue right away.
Councilmember
Barlow asked if the backwater valve could be used as a cleanout if it is
properly installed, and if the backwater valve is installed by the city on
private property, would it be up to the homeowner to maintain it. Mr. Clark
replied that was staff’s recommendation. Councilmember Barlow commented that
the device is not going to last forever and must be maintained, because it will
break. Mr. Clark concurred.
Councilmember
Wedemeyer asked if the city has to build to this particular code, and Mr. Clark
acknowledged that is correct; however, the city could exempt itself from the
code or not exempt itself from the code, and move forward or backward depending
on the choice the city makes. He also pointed out that this decision would have
been easier to make six years ago because of the cost differences and based on
the information related to the unique characteristics of our community. He said
his concern is that the city has to make a decision based on the current
condition of the program and current condition of the maintenance program for
it as well as what it may be 20, 30, or 40 years from now.
Councilmember
Wedemeyer asked if the previous consultant and contractor understood that they were
supposed to follow the code. Mr. Clark explained that the error was made at
staff level and original city consultant level. Councilmember Wedemeyer asked
if the city had the option to recover costs from the previous consultant. City
Attorney
Councilmember
Barnes asked if the city does exempt itself from the IPC, then sometime in the
future, the main line could become plugged which could fill the home with
sewage, to which Mr. Clark replied that it could happen.
Analysis
and Process
Mr. Garcia
advised that the Technical Decision Memorandum (TDM 2008-001) used engineering
judgment for the following topics:
1) Consider unique features of
The physical wastewater system attributes of
§
Well-defined slope.
§
All new construction is pressure-tested PVC.
§
Acceptance inspection includes camera inspection on all lateral lines.
§
System is above-the-ground water table.
§
System is “new” and sized for Year 2060 peak flow and less than 75
percent of pipe flow.
2) Evaluate physical conditions
of the wastewater system.
The unique features of
§
Storm water has always been conveyed separately.
§
Public Works has an active asset management program that includes
regular inspection and maintenance.
§
100-year and 500-year rainfall storm events have little impact on system.
3) Benchmark from other cities
in the Southwest. He said different cities looked at their unique characteristics
and what was driving them.
§
Bullhead has installed very few backwater valves and utilizes backwater
valves per the IPC.
§
Kingman is following the IPC and has installed backwater valves.
§
Needles has installed one backwater valve city-wide on commercial
property.
§
§
§
§
Gilbert follows IPC regulations but uses cleanouts as a de-facto
backwater valve. With the cleanout exposed to air, if a hydraulic surge or
backup were to occur, the waste stream would overflow the cleanout instead of
the residence. Mr. Garcia has issues with that because the waste stream goes on
the ground, which is an uncontrolled release.
§
4) Review the system
performance history.
Based on city records, sewer main failures occur, on average, 1.5 to 2
times per year due to blockage, which was primarily due to construction debris
and contractor error.
§
No sewer property damage claims prior to 2006.
§
Four sewer claims were filed since 2006 due to new construction. He
said they looked at those claims and the events surrounding those claims, and
had a backwater valve been installed, one claim valued at $700 would have been
prevented. He noted that having a backwater valve would not have prevented the
other three claims.
§
WWSE Program sewer lateral failures totaled 103 out of 11,859 WWSE
connections to date, which is 0.9 percent. This resulted in a connection point
design modified as part of the Red Area projects (September 2007). He pointed
out that backwater valves would not have prevented sewer backups from any of
these failures, because they all occurred on the lateral. He explained that if
the problem occurs on the lateral, then the backwater valve will not make a
difference because the water is coming the other way. The backwater valve only
works if the water is coming from the main and up the lateral.
Councilmember
Nyberg asked if any of the prior problems were with properties that were lower
than the street level, and if so, could the backwater valve have prevented the
problems. Mr. Clark said that the frequency in
Councilmember
Barlow did not know that the city had a storm sewer system in the ground. He
thought the city had washes. Mr. Clark advised that there is a storm sewer on
Councilmember
Wedemeyer suggested that instead of one big blanket fix-all, could the city
offer to fix only the high-risk homes, and then those homeowners accept
responsibility. Mr. Clark said that one of the recommended proposals was not to
analyze the risk moving forward because it is only $200 per installation, but
by going backwards, at $800 per installation, the analysis would be made for
the cause of the problem, which could be related to a pump station failure or a
backup, and the necessary installation would be quickly performed. He noted
that one of the possible recommendations would be to not to exclude the city
from moving forward, but to prioritize, and then either exclude, or partially
exclude, the city from going backwards. He said this was actually a
recommendation from one of the Oversight Committee members.
Mr. Garcia said
the idea was to look at the entire system and identify all the points of
failure of the system, and then go through a Failure Mode Effects Analysis
(FMEA) that looks at the probability of that failure occurring, the severity of
the incidents from the standpoint of the homeowner, and what kind of
information would be available when it is known that a failure is about to
happen. He said that three factors of probability, severity, and how much is
known ahead of time, could be used in a rubric to rank order of all possible
modes of failure on the total system. He noted that this FMEA process resulted
in a series of meetings, which was a very productive exercise for both AMEC and
city staff. After this analysis, twenty possible modes of failure were
discovered, and were ranked in risk order, and an action plan for each possible
mode of failure was looked at. Mr. Garcia reviewed various situations that
could occur and the risk levels that would be assigned.
Councilmember
Barlow asked if the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) alarms
have gone through the same risk analysis that the backwater valves have gone
through. Mr. Clark answered that the SCADA system has not been analyzed, but the
computerized SCADA system is checked daily and Mr. Garcia commented that when a
SCADA system does not work, it tells you it is not working. He noted that in
terms of reliability, there are other more likely failures to think about
first. Councilmember Barlow asked who has the responsibility for validation of
the computer system. Mr. Clark said when the system is installed and it is
checked as part of the contract and then the Wastewater Division takes over the
maintenance responsibility.
Decisions
and Action Plans
Future
Connections (Brown Area forward):
§
Install backwater valves on properties when the use of a backwater
valve is indicated per the IPC.
§
Cost Impact: $170 multiplied by 5,537 (60% of approximately 7,129
remaining connections) = $941,290.
§
Advantages: Risk abatement and compliance with IPC and
§
Disadvantages: Additional cost to the WWSE Program and impact to sewer
rates; valve operations and maintenance by residents; and a false sense of
security by residents.
The proposed action plans for the top four risks include:
§
2.8 – Install backwater valves per IPC (in progress).
§
2.1 – Voluntary installation of backwater valves by property owner. Possible
development of rebate program for installation of backwater valves. Increased
inspection based on asset management plan and historical defect rate (pending).
§
2.2 – Consumer education. Residents call before draining their pools. Enforce
existing sewer use codes (pending).
§
1.4 – Identify locations of all pumping stations without secondary
power. Integrate all stations into SCADA monitoring system, or alternatively
install backwater valves per IPC, or alternatively install secondary power (pending).
Councilmember
Wedemeyer said that regarding the high risk issue, at what point does that
threat on a new construction go away? Mr. Clark explained that once the
construction is done, the risk immediately begins to drop. Mr. Lywood explained
that the contractor televises the laterals as part of pressure testing the main
lines for acceptance, which are inspected as they are going in, although debris
could fall in afterwards. As the sewer is constructed, it is generally in good
condition. Councilmember Wedemeyer asked if there is something in the sewer
contract that requires the contractor to follow the IPC. Mr. Clark said the
design is based on the IPC requirements, and the contractor installs per the
plans. Councilmember Barnes commented that the backwater valve was omitted from
all of the other sewer areas. Mr. Clark confirmed that the first time the
backwater valves were included in the sewer design was as part of the Brown
Sewer Area, and they were omitted from all the other sewer areas.
Mr. Clark
clarified that in those instances where there was a failure in the lateral due
to construction debris, the contractor paid for that damage, so neither the
city nor the homeowner were involved in that process, but the homeowner
suffered the inconvenience and the problem with the home being flooded. Mr.
Lywood noted that the purpose of the FMEA was to look at the issue from the
homeowner’s perspective and not from the city’s, AMEC’s, or the contractor’s
perspective. Councilmember Wedemeyer asked why Mr. Lywood made that point. Mr.
Lywood explained that the FMEA discussed impacts on the homeowner as opposed to
the impacts on the city if a sewer lateral backed up, and a $700 claim is not a
huge inconvenience to the city, but it is a huge inconvenience to the homeowner
who has sewage running out on his floors, and that was the approach that city
staff, AMEC, and the Oversight Committee elected to take when they conducted
the analysis.
Mr. Garcia
said if construction debris is in the sewer main, then the backwater valve is relevant,
but irrelevant if it is in the lateral. Mr. Garcia said it does not matter
where the backwater valve is, because as long as the failure is in the lateral,
then it is the homeowner’s own water that is flooding his home. City staff,
council, and AMEC discussed the various types of lateral designs, reasons for
blockages in the lines, where the backwater valves might be located in the
lines, current design and inspection procedures, and the sewer areas with
recent problems or failures.
Councilmember
Barnes asked if the developer of Foothills Estates used the IPC when installing
the water and sewer lines. Mr. Clark said that was a very good question, and he
would need to look into that.
Councilmember
Wedemeyer asked if the sewer system budget would be impacted if the city had to
retrofit the backwater valves, and were backwater valves included on the list of
supplies needed for the sewer system. Mr. Clark replied that they were omitted
by the original consultant and city staff did not recognize backwater valves as
criteria. Mr. Clark stated that regardless of the possible decision of the city
to exempt itself from the IPC or move forward or backwards, there are and there
will be sewer laterals in the original sewer area that do not require backwater
valves, because they have been in place for 30 years, and have an increased
risk of failure as compared to areas not chosen to be retrofitted. He said if
the city recognizes the risk and chooses to mitigate or not to mitigate, then
how will the original sewer area be treated? He pointed out that some other
communities have a significant problem with infiltration, so they have a
program to subsidize the retrofitting or installation of backwater valves.
Councilmember
Nyberg felt that the city’s SCADA system monitors the pump stations, and the
minute there is a problem, it will be identified and taken care of. Mr. Clark said
that the SCADA system is only related to those pump stations in those immediate
areas, and there still could be a blockage upstream from a pump station between
two manholes.
Mayor Nexsen
opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dennis
Schilling clarified that to his knowledge, relative to the IPC, AMEC and Burns
& McDonnell never had the requirement float down to them, even though the
city was implementing that on an individual contractor basis within the city. Mr.
Schilling said that his house was designed so that he would not have a
backwater valve; however, if he were to build his home today, a backwater valve
would be required by the city. He thought the cost of the backwater valve was
approximately $170, and if amortized over the 30-year bond, the cost was about $.70
or $.80 per month, which was fairly cheap insurance for him to pay. He also
said that from a sewer oversight standpoint, the lateral failures were
examined, and it was found that some laterals failed due to improper compaction
and/or debris left in the lines. He also said that part of that discovery
instituted the 100 percent boriscope inspection, which finally led to the
increase in the warranty from one year to two years. His belief, from a quality
assurance standpoint, is to be consistent relative to the IPC and adhere or not
adhere to it, whether it is an individual building, a home, or whether it is
the sewer program, there needs to be consistency. He also said that when homes
are required to be hooked up to the sewer, he preferred installation of
backwater valves, and from a quality assurance standpoint, homes that were
bypassed do not have to be treated the same as new construction. From a
personal standpoint, he will have one installed at his home regardless of the council's
decision. He said relative to that, when going backwards and determining that
“House X” needs a backwater valve, he thought there were a couple of options.
He thought $800 per home was a worst-case option, and there are some other
backwater valves that are available for use on the cleanout and virtually
surface mounted, so the front yard does not have to be dug up. He also thought
that the figure of $4 or $5 million was based on an assumption that the
installation of the backwater valves would require the front yards to be dug
up, but he advised that other options are available to reduce the risk of
sewage going into the homes.
Councilmember
Barnes asked if the Sewer Oversight Committee was still active, to which Mr.
Schilling answered that it is, and in fact, the city manager was contacted this
morning to set up the next meeting. He also noted that the committee was
reorganizing in order to create an agenda and to chair future meetings with
city staff and AMEC.
Councilmember
Barlow asked Mr. Schilling if he was satisfied with how this issue has played
out, and from the standpoint of the Sewer Oversight Committee, has this
presentation and discussion relative to backwater valves provided all the
information that the council needs, and Mr. Schilling felt that it had.
Mr. Mike
Johnson asked if a backwater valve is installed on the homeowner's property, and
the homeowner is required to provide the maintenance and related costs, then as
part of the sewer system, why is it not on the public right-of-way? Mr. Clark explained
that if backwater valves were located on the public right-of-way, city staff
would be responsible for the maintenance of the backwater valves. He said it
was city staff’s recommendation that this was a typical building requirement
for the homeowner, and it would be very cost prohibitive to locate the
backwater valves on the right-of-way. He added that by locating the backwater
valve on the homeowner’s property, it allows the homeowner the flexibility to
choose whether or not to keep or remove the backwater valve.
Mr. Johnson
said there are a few elderly people living on his street, and his friend who
has a plumbing business here said it would cost $100 to do the work for those
people on an inspection basis at least once a year, and a lot of those people
do not have that kind of money. He asked if it is the responsibility of the
city to maintain the infrastructure, and is it not part of the infrastructure
of the sewer system. Mr. Clark advised that once the lateral is installed, the
responsibility is currently passed over to the homeowner. Mr. Johnson asked if
other communities had the same procedure, and Mr. Clark stated that in most
communities, the homeowner constructs the lateral and the city never enters
onto the homeowner’s property. Mr. Johnson said he has always lived in
flat-surfaced communities and he understands that
Mayor Nexsen
closed the public hearing.
Mayor Nexsen
asked if the $3.5 million estimate was based on being selective as to which
homeowners would have the backwater valves installed. Mr. Clark advised that
this estimate was only based on replacing the high risk laterals, which he
assumed were 25 percent of the sewer installations.
Mr. Kaffenberger
asked Mr. Garcia to discuss how there could be a less expensive approach to the
backwater valve installations. Mr. Garcia explained that previous discussions
focused on how the relative risks of each decision would be approached. He said
there are some alternatives for the backwater valves on the market that should
be investigated. He also said that he was looking more for direction on how to
prioritize those decisions.
Councilmember
Barnes asked if most of the sewer system in
It was the
consensus of the council to implement the IPC and move forward. Mayor Nexsen
said that now a decision needs to be made whether or not to retrofit the homes
that needed the backwater valves but were bypassed. Mr. Clark said the council
did not need to decide on that component tonight. He said that if it is the
consensus of the council to implement the IPC moving forward, staff will
explore going backward and identify and prioritize those activities, and then
present the council with a program that has a timeframe for installations. He
commented that if council did not want staff to waste that time and have the
backwater valves installed completely, then an implementation program could be
developed. Councilmember McAtlin felt the time would be well spent if cost
savings and liability could be determined. He added that it would give the
council options to look at, which is what he would rather have.
Councilmember
Barnes commented that many people are gone at certain times of the year, and if
those people have a serious backup that causes major damage in their home, then
the liability could be for the entire property. He thought retrofitting was bad
medicine, but he felt it needed to be done.
Mr. Clark confirmed
that council wants staff to bring back a suggested program that would include retrofitting
all the properties, and also quantify the costs and the costs for
implementation. Councilmember Wedemeyer asked that staff also include something
that gives the homeowner the option to have the backwater valve. Mr. Clark said
that as part of the process, the city could develop an action plan and program
that extended over a five- or ten-year period, and then also institute a
reimbursement program. Councilmember Barlow asked that the suggested program
also include the other valves that Mr. Schilling talked about.
Mayor Nexsen
summarized that staff would bring back to council an analysis of the
retrofitting that would also include some risk analysis, as well as alternatives
to doing the $800 installation versus the cleanout option. He also noted that
moving forward sounded like the IPC code would be followed.
Councilmember
Wedemeyer asked if the council’s decision to move forward, which creates costs
for the city, would need to be decided at a regular council meeting. City
Attorney
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
There were no
requests to address the council.
ADJOURN
The meeting
adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
_____________________________________________
Carla
Simendich, City Clerk