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.