- The time is now 5.01. I'd like to call today's utility service board meeting to order. To begin, I'd
- like to remind us that the City of Bloomington Utility's mission is to enhance the quality of life in
- our community by providing safe, sustainable, and high-quality drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater
- services in a cost-effective manner promoting public health, economic vitality, and environmental stewardship.
- If any board member has any personal or financial conflict with any issues or individuals on the agenda,
- then please be sure to recuse yourself during those portions of the meeting. We will begin with petitions
- and communications. Are there any petitions and communications from the public? Hearing none, we will
- move along to the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.
- questions or comments on the minutes from the previous meeting. I move approval of our meeting minutes.
- Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Minutes
- are approved. Moving along to the approval of the claims, we'll begin with
- standard invoices with a pay date of October 24th for a total amount of $1,252,405.73. Are there any
- questions about the standard invoices with a pay date of October 24th? I move approval of the standard
- invoices. Second.
- All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Standard invoices with the pay date of October
- 24th are approved. Next we have a revision from the October 10th pay date standard invoices for a new
- total amount of $698,225.59. Are there any questions or comments on the standard invoices from October 10th?
- I move approval of the revised standard invoices. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed
- say nay. Standard invoices with pay date of October 10th, the revised version is approved. Next we have
- utility bills for a total amount of $238,080.52. Any questions or comments on the utility bills?
- we approve our utility bills for this invoice? Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed
- say nay. Utility bills are approved. Next we have wire transfers for a total amount of five hundred
- and forty two thousand fifty five dollars and nine cents. Are there any questions or comments on the
- wire transfers? I move approval of wire transfers for October of 25. Second.
- All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Wired transfers are approved. Lastly, we have
- a special check run for an amount of $1,131.95. Are there any questions on the special check run? I
- move approval of the special check run. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay.
- special check run, easy for me to say, is approved. Thank you. Moving along to the approval of the consent
- agenda, Katherine Zager. Good evening, I'm Katherine Zager, utilities director. I'm presenting tonight's
- consent agenda totaling $14,995. The first contract is with VET environmental
- Engineering LLC for $2,350 to perform a phase one environmental site assessment for the Broadview Sanitary
- Sewer Extension. The second is with Sunset Hill Fence Co for $7,780 for the installation of an automatic
- gate opener with sensors at Blucher Pool Wastewater Treatment Plant. Last is with Electric Plus Inc
- for $4,865 for extending conduit
- to the back gate at Blucher Pool. Is there any member who wishes to consider one or more of these items
- individually? Hearing none, if there is no opposition, these items will be approved as recommended by
- staff. Hearing no opposition, the consent agenda is approved. Thank you. Item number six is request
- approval of contract with South Central Community Action Program
- Good evening, Catherine Zager, utilities director. I'm presenting an updated contract with south central
- community action program. This is a one-year contract that can be renewed for up to two years for ongoing
- partnership with SCAP to provide financial assistance to our customers for their water utility bills.
- We've made a few updates to the contract that I'd like to highlight that I believe will reduce the barriers
- to providing assistance. These changes include first, and this was implemented last year, but it's now
- in this updated contract. We've increased the income eligibility from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty
- guidelines.
- uh, increasing the pool of folks who'd be eligible. Uh, we also increase our annual assistance amount
- to 100,000 per year. Uh, in this contract, applicants are no longer disqualified for having their service
- shut off. We will still provide assistance even if they've been shut off. This was not the case in the
- previous contract. And I believe this likely will be our most impactful change.
- In the previous contract, we only paid for up to two months. This contract says that we will pay up
- to four months. People are still shut off after two months of nonpayment.
- So what this is really doing is just paying for two months and the current bill to completely catch
- the customer up who's receiving financial assistance. And then the four-month limitation is just to
- catch any one-off situations where maybe they weren't shut off after two months. Maybe they had service
- for three months because there are outlying cases like that sometimes.
- We now will either pay or waive fees as appropriate so that the customer does not have to pay their
- fees in order to receive assistance. And then previously if someone used the program, they were not
- eligible to use the program for another three months. Now customers can use this program anytime up
- to three times in a calendar year.
- This increases the flexibility of the program because it's hard to predict people's financial situations.
- And so we've created with the new guidelines for the program, we've created a situation where essentially
- if we have a customer who is reliant on financial assistance, which does happen, this program
- will essentially pay for three fourths of the year
- with three months being that customer's responsibility. There is a line in the contract that allows
- for director discretion for extreme circumstances where we would extend the financial assistance, but
- standard and the expectation would be three times a year. I'm happy to take any questions. Thanks.
- Yeah, Kat, we were increasing the amount to 100,000 a year. That what you said? Yes. How much have we
- been using? We've been how much we've been using the last few years. So we were budgeting, I believe
- 50,000 a year for this. And we were not meeting that. However, we wanted to make sure that with all
- of these barriers were removing that we would be
- you know ideally we will draw in more folks who are able to use the assistance so we want to make sure
- that we have enough to accommodate that. And would you say in general that this this helps the bigger
- picture of us not only helping folks that that need a temporary lift and some assistance but in the
- big picture
- and encouraging a way for folks to get on a regular schedule with us and so we don't have as
- many delinquencies? Absolutely. I think the way that this is set up will reduce shutoffs because we're
- able to work with these customers who need financial assistance who may be reliant on it to work out
- a schedule with the payments
- with those three months of payments that they would be responsible for. Thank you. I appreciate the
- efforts to help our customers when in their time of need and be able to provide their service because
- we know that water is essential. I know that we are increasing the income limits so that more people
- are eligible. My one concern with
- extending the opportunities to get for essentially nine months paid is that with our wider pool of being
- eligible that we'll have more customers coming to us and then we'll have people that have had it for
- nine months and somebody coming in won't
- We won't have the funds available. And I know if we've never come close to using all of our funds, then
- that's like a stretch, I guess, that maybe we still won't. And I guess that's the unknown. So I guess
- my concern would be that if we set the precedent that you can get it for nine months, then people are
- going to expect for nine months. And then how do you work your way back from that? That are we are we
- changing too many things in one swoop? So
- I don't know if this is something we could or should walk or work our way back from. If there are customers
- who, so you have to qualify for the financial assistance. So 300% of the federal poverty guidelines
- is 96K a year for a family of four around there. Last time I checked the table, it may be updated, but
- it's around that. And so if we have customers who are in a situation where they
- Regularly need to have nine months paid through our financial assistance program I more than welcome
- that because If they qualify that's you know, maybe that they're spending that money on something else
- that they need And so, you know, I don't I don't want their water bill to be a question mark I guess
- my point is that
- if we're budgeting $100,000, I don't want to go through that. And again, this is the unknown, right?
- But potentially go through that quite quickly and then does it become $200,000 next year or $500,000?
- And so I guess that's my concern is that it could escalate quickly and then
- we've set an expectation that this is something, I mean, obviously we'd love, we don't want people to
- be without water, so I certainly understand that and appreciate these efforts, but I don't want it to
- get out of control, I guess, and I know that we would have it controlled, but with the expectation that
- you can get this and then if our funds are depleted, then we're not able to help you, and I guess you
- would come back to us at that point, but I guess that's just,
- That's my comment is that I think the nine months with the increase of the income, the requirement.
- That's my pause. One thing to note is that the way we had it set up before it was we would pay two and
- then you could come back in three. It was a very similar outcome. This is just a more flexible way to
- get there. Previously it was we would pay for two, but then when you
- use the financial assistance, you had to wait three months before you could apply again. And so this
- just increases the flexibility of that. It hasn't really much changed the amount of months that customers
- would be responsible for. And also, I just want to say that when I say under 50K, that was what we had
- budgeted before. We were, I think, for the year around
- 20K for the year. So I'm optimistic that 100 will cover any new customers who may use this. And our
- goal is to use it. So we'll see how this goes. So if someone called in tomorrow, and this is voted on
- tonight, they call tomorrow, or is this on a calendar year, or what's
- What's the implementation here? Yeah. So the direction to staff has been, once this passes, we can start
- utilizing this more flexible system. But really, what we're going to do is do a big PR push come January
- 1 to advertise the program. We want to give, we need to update our brochures and update our website
- and really get the right materials out to folks. Thank you. Yeah.
- First, I assume this doesn't cover 100% of their bill, it's just assistance to help them pay a bill?
- This would cover their bill, yeah. Entirely? Yeah. Potentially, up to, yeah. Okay, the next question is,
- How do you deal with students whose income would fall in the poverty line, but who aren't in poverty?
- Because they have parents. And the people who live there are the people to whom you look at their income.
- So that's one of the great parts about our partnership with SCCAP is that they deal with the application process.
- And so those students, if it was a student who needed to apply, they would apply through SCAP and then
- qualify that way. So I try not to, I try to just stick with, do you qualify? Have you met the requirements
- for this assistance? Great, that's all I need to know. Yeah. Real quick, do we know
- South Central Community Action Program has any other resources for residents that may be in this situation
- or utilities strictly through this program, this bill of assistance program? So there are other agencies
- in the trustee's office that customers are directed to and when
- Under our previous financial assistance program, when a customer was shut off and we were not able to
- assist them, they would be directed to the trustees or to St. Vincent de Paul, other agencies like that.
- Yeah. That'll be the same way going forward or will part of this assistance program, the changes, will
- that go into
- Reconnection fees if they get that far behind and stuff like that or will that still go through the
- trustees? No The the goal of this is that our financial assistance program will do more of that lifting
- our our financial assistance program will do the lifting of your water utility bill you know the trustees
- and other programs they provide assistance and
- for a lot of things. And so this is our contribution, our lift for that. Yeah. Thank you. Would they
- still get their trash bill? So the way the program worked in the past with that was that it would cover
- their trash bill as well, so their cart. We are going to continue doing that. I think it would
- complicate things for customers to say, okay, well, we paid this, but sorry, we can't do anything about
- sanitation. We are tracking that and make sure it's paid through the interdepartmental. That comes out
- of the city though. Yes. Whatever our financial assistance program covers will be paid back to us from
- the city. Yes. I assume sanitation is comfortable with their
- part of this? Yes, so we confirmed with the controller before getting the contract approved. Thank you.
- Yeah. Any other questions or comments for Kat? Do we have a motion for approval? All right, I move approval
- of our contract with South Central Community Action Program. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.
- All opposed say nay. Request is approved. Item seven is request approval of MOU between Bloomington
- Parks and Rec, CBU, and Bloomington Department of Public Works for operational responsibilities at Hopewell
- Commons. Kathryn Zager. Good evening, Kathryn Zager, utilities director. I'm presenting this
- interdepartmental MOU between CBU, Parks and Rec, and DPW.
- For the operational responsibilities at Hopewell Commons, this specifies that we are responsible for
- the maintenance and upkeep of stormwater infrastructure in the Hopewell East development specifically.
- The detention facilities that are highlighted in your exhibit serve the public right of way. Happy to
- take questions.
- development within the city that was completed and then turned over to CBU to maintain. What's the I
- guess I don't remember serving on the board and having a contract and an MOU like this before and so
- I guess this would be standard operating procedure to do things like this. So a couple things.
- So one, the purpose of this MOU, and we've had MOUs like this with parks, for example, Miller Showers,
- we say, you're going to take care of this part and we'll take care of that part. This is very similar
- to that. So it says, you know, it just so that, you know, years from now, when there are other people
- sitting in these chairs, they can point back to this and say, no, CBU agreed to
- only take care of this versus Parks who is going to take care of that, and then DPW who will take care
- of this third thing. That is maybe MOUs that are similar that you've seen. What is a shift in this one
- and likely future development at Hopewell is taking responsibility for detention.
- So we take responsibility for water, sewer, gray stormwater in the right of way, very common. We do
- that a lot. This includes stormwater detention, which we haven't typically done in the past, but this
- is kind of a special case because the city is essentially the developer.
- We helped create the Hopewell Commons. We created this infrastructure and the stormwater detention and
- the gray infrastructure associated with it was developed by the city. And as a department of the city,
- we will maintain it. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, I move approval of the
- MOU between the Bloomington Parks and Recreation and CBU for the operational responsibilities at Hopewell
- Commons. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Request is approved. Thank you.
- Moving along, next we have request approval of resolution 2025-21 to approve the forms of ordnance,
- how do I say that? Ordinances, adjusting rates and charges for septic haulers. Stephen Stanford.
- Good evening, Steve Stanford. I'm the pretreatment coordinator.
- The CBU pre-treatment group recommends that we make some changes to the hauled wastewater rates for
- the following reasons. The current rates that we charge were actually set in 2000, which was 25 years
- ago. And secondly, anybody who's been an adult since 2000 understands that everything has gotten much
- more expensive since then.
- And the main reason is that the rates that we charge today are not sufficient to cover the cost of treatment
- for these waste waters that we receive at the Dillman Road plant. We've historically accepted these
- waters as a service to the community, the local residents, and the businesses, consistent with our mission
- statement, which is very important. Environmental stewardship really being a major factor here.
- We want to accept this water as opposed to having it disposed in some less desirable manner. Our billing
- rates have remained unchanged since September 2000. Since that time, the consumer price index increased
- 86 percent. And more importantly, from our perspective, the construction cost index maintained by Engineering
- News Record has risen by 218 percent.
- So things that we need to build the capital equipment costs, everything we need to treat this stuff
- is far more expensive than it was when these rates were set. Last year, we commissioned Crow LLP to
- analyze our cost of treatment for these wastewaters. They broke it down into three pieces, the first
- being the strength charge. This is how much
- How many pounds of pollutant per gallon do we have in these waters that are delivered to the plant as
- compared with how many pounds of pollutant do we have in a gallon of the regular sewage? Their idea,
- their main premise is that a pound of suspended solids coming in through the sewer main costs the same
- to treat as a pound of suspended solids delivered by truck.
- The second piece, which is really a small part of the cost, is the bulk specific expense charge. This
- is plant staff, pre-treatment group staff, Carson and me, working through the contracting process and
- so forth with the hauler customers and those pieces. And finally billing, our billing department, it
- costs money for them to send out a bill. Based on the typical strength for septage reported by EPA,
- and the factors specific to CBU, it was determined by Crow that our billing rate of 17.5 cents per gallon
- would actually cover the cost of treatment and administration for receiving these wastewaters. Our current
- rate structure is such that domestic septage is charged at approximately 2.1 cents per gallon.
- Grease waste is charged at approximately 5.9 cents per gallon. The wastewater treatment plant waste
- and industrial waste, which we've been receiving very little of, of late, 4.4 cents per gallon. Another
- major finding that we had was all four of those categories of wastewater are of a similar strength.
- And when the rates were set in 2000, the domestic septage rate was far lower than the other categories
- despite the fact that the strength of these wastes and their cost for treatment is roughly the same,
- in the same magnitude at least. A billing rate of 17.5 cents per gallon would be very large to take
- all in one bite.
- would likely disrupt the hauled wastewater market in the area. And for that reason, the pretreatment
- group recommends a step-wise move toward the actual cost of pretreatment and that we recommend a uniform
- rate for these high-strength wastewaters of 8 cents per gallon going forward.
- Regarding the financial impact to the customers, the rates and charges recommended herein are
- non-discriminatory, reasonable, and just. The recommended rate is based on the actual cost of providing
- the service and will enable the city to meet its revenue requirements for the sewage works. Finally,
- CBU pre-treatment group notes that the eight cents per gallon is approximately one half of the state average
- for hauled wastewaters charged by pure POTWs. And so going halfway there in this step seems like a reasonable
- increment moving forward at this time. With that, I would like to ask CBU's approval for the resolution
- recommending the set adjustments to the Title X on the hauled wastewater rates.
- Is the intent to increase it more in the future so that we're charging the cost of service? This is,
- yeah, this is, I would say that would be in the cards. And before we would take the leap to try to take
- the whole thing, take this part now, see where we are, where that gets us.
- re-evaluate these costs of treatment, see what effect it has on the hauler market. Are we still gonna
- get seven million gallons of septage a year? It might be somewhat less going forward, which would be
- something we might consider at that time. My memory also was that because our costs were so low, we
- were getting haulers from other cities to bring it in here, which seems wrong.
- Yes, Commissioner Sherman, you're correct. Actually, our domestic septage constitutes 90 percent of
- the hauled wastewater we receive at Dillman, and 60 percent of that fraction is from out of county.
- My memory tells me that we compared our rates to Terre Haute. Is that correct? Am I correct in thinking that?
- and that they are considerably, like they are closer to the 17 cent rate. Is there going to be any,
- I mean, I know what Jim just asked, but I think the question was brought up that we have an expense
- for those out of county or those people that 60% to have them have an increased rate. Was there any
- more thought given to that?
- Well, the out-of-county, the current ordinance and the recommended revised ordinance includes a 50 percent
- surcharge on out-of-county customers. That would be 12 cents. Yes, sir. I know one of our Holler customers
- came and spoke with us here and provided at least me some education about this. I know that some of
- our out-of-town Hollers really service
- Monroe County as well. So their hall, even though their business is out of Monroe County, includes hall
- from Monroe County. So how do we, how do we know where this is coming from, I guess, and honor those
- people who are serving our Monroe County customers? We are required under a Neptune's permit to actually
- keep a record of where each load of septage comes from.
- The customer's name, address, and telephone number. That's tracked with what we call the single load
- manifest system. And that was new. That was sort of added to our permit in July last year. So all of
- this is kind of an outgrowth to the revisions of our NEPDES permit last year. Sure. So I guess my question,
- though, is if we have a holler coming from Greene County that serviced Western Monroe County, are they
- going to be charged the out of county rate for servicing Western Monroe County?
- No, they would not because the billing rate would be determined on the source of the wastewater. OK,
- so they I'm sorry. And I did you did say that, but I misunderstood. So they'll say I picked up this
- load in Murrow County or I picked up this load in Greene County. Yes, that's required information. And
- was there and again from my our learning from our wastewater who came and spoke to us.
- Was there any consideration given to our donut counties around us that are bordering Monroe County to
- receive the in-county rate? And I know that we're, again, undercharging, I guess, what we need to charge
- and what surrounding facilities charge, but knowing that it is and knowing that
- like say in Greene County, where maybe they're just over the border and servicing customers in Greene
- County and coming to our plant to dispose of this that we're their best option. It's not like they're
- coming to Monroe County because it's cheaper than going to Terre Haute. It's 100 miles round trip closer,
- probably. So I don't know. That's my thought. Currently, it's less expensive to come here and less miles. Sure. OK.
- So if the hall is done from Bloomington addresses, then it's at the Bloomington, Monroe County rate.
- And if it's hauled from addresses that are outside of Monroe County, then it's the out of county rate.
- Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Stephen, remind me when this goes into effect. This would have to be approved
- by the city common council. But then when?
- Please do. Well, I wish there's a way we could warn our customers. I mean, we need to they're going
- to have to make adjustments to their own business model on this. It'd be great if we could make this
- an effective like January 1st or something to give them a couple of months.
- to adjust. We were considering that topic this afternoon, specifically, and it was pre-treatment groups'
- intention to sort of share the notice of intent with the waste haulers if y'all approve this recommendation
- this evening. Well, that'd give them
- Basically, once the city council gets it, it's about a three weeks till they get it approved. So I would
- guess to make something more like 45 days, but you know, on an optimistic timeframe, but it would be
- close to the beginning of next year. Well, usually if it gets to the council, it's going to be a three
- week deal unless there's problems because of first reading and then second reading and approval.
- I just think it doesn't seem right to me to hit the haulers with this with a three week notice. I would
- point out that we've had open communications with the haulers regarding this matter and more than one
- of the haulers has told us that your rates are actually too low and we need to know what they're going
- to be and when the rates are going to change. That's good. If you can tell me that we've
- sent a letter to every one of our hauler customers letting them know this is coming, then I feel better
- about it. Otherwise, I think we ought to phase this in over three months or something. We can do that,
- I mean. I assume that the haulers are just going to pass the charge on to the customers. That would
- be my expectation, because the haulers are going to bear it. Right, but they're going to need to.
- They're going to need to tell their customers.
- It helps. I think it'll help the haulers and their customers because they're going to need to adjust
- their own budgets. Just show up the next day and then be charged a different rate. Right. Yeah. I mean,
- even if we told them all tomorrow that we passed this and as soon as the City Council passed that that's
- that can be pretty fast.
- depending upon the council's agendas, but I think January 1st would be reasonable because we could alert
- them that we've passed this and we expect that it will go into effect January 1st. We can do that this
- week. Send a letter to all our customers. Yeah. Well then, I don't know, any other discussion?
- Just a comment. I don't like it when one group of our ratepayers is subsidizing the cost to other ratepayers.
- I don't like it when the irrigation users are paying a lot less and it's subsidized by other people.
- The sooner we can get to true cost of service for everyone, the happier I think we'll be as a board.
- happening next year, which I would anticipate will include another look directly at the sludge hauling
- rates. I don't know why these weren't generally being considered in our previous wastewater rate cases,
- but for some reason, the sludge hauling was not being included in the rate. I don't know the answer
- to that. They just weren't. We started it.
- Brought to our attention and that we're moving in the right direction To our hauling customers can we
- and then saying that we anticipate this to be passed by City Council go into effect January 1 and
- I know that you've communicated with them, but can you also list again, like the recommended rate was
- 17 and a half cents, but we're going with eight cents, but do expect that the rate will be increased
- after the wastewater rate case. Oh, yes. Okay. Yes. It just continues to be communicated, so they know
- this is the first, but not the last. Thank you.
- Well, I move approval of resolution 25-21 to approve the forms of ordinances adjusting rates and charges
- for septic haulers with the amendment that the resolution would upon approval from the City Council
- would then be effective January 1st of 2026. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.
- say nay. Request is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Next, old business. Any old business from
- the board? Old business from staff. New business. Any new business from the board? New business from
- staff. Subcommittee report. Mr. White.
- Yeah, we the property and planning subcommittee met earlier this afternoon and received a report from
- Richard Martin about rural sanitary sewer service in Monroe County. He brought us up to date on current
- partnerships that the the district that CBU has with the the rural sewer district in Monroe County.
- and talked about possible ways that we can continue to work together in the future. And I think it was
- a good update for many of us, and we can follow up on some of these opportunities. I didn't realize
- we did as many things as we do with them now, but it sure furthers, I think, our mission of being good
- environmental stewards to help support them. That's a good thing. As long as we're, as Jim mentions,
- getting the right kind of revenue for the services we're providing. Great. Anything to add? Awesome.
- Thank you for that report. Item 12, staff reports. No staff reports. Item 13, petitions and communications.
- Any petitions and communication from the public?
- Carrying on, do we have a motion for adjournment? Move adjournment. So moved. Thank you.