state of delaware water infrastructure advisory council 5 ...recommendation was made to the...

1

State of Delaware

Water Infrastructure Advisory Council 5 E. Reed Street, Suite 200 Dover, Delaware 19901

Telephone: (302) 739-9941 FAX: (302) 739-2137

Minutes of the Public Hearing

October 19, 2016

The Water Infrastructure Advisory Council held a public hearing on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at

9:00 a.m., at the Kent County Administrative Complex in Conference Room 220, 555 Bay Road, Dover,

Delaware.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Hans Medlarz, Vice-Chair

Richard Duncan

Charles Anderson

Bruce W. Jones

Eugene Dvornick

Andy Burger

Michael Harmer

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Jeffrey Bross, Chairman

Ralph Cetrulo

Jeffrey Flynn

David Baker

Jen Adkins

Lt.Col Douglas D. Riley

OTHERS PRESENT WERE:

Terry Deputy, Environmental Finance

Greg Pope, Environmental Finance

Laura Rafferty, Environmental Finance

Davison Mwale, Environmental Finance

Robert C. Burns, Environmental Finance

Frank Paquette, Environmental Finance

Jan Jenkins, Environmental Finance

Keith Kooker, Environmental Finance

Reza Moqtaderi, Environmental Finance

Robert Zimmerman, DNREC

Michael Bott, DNREC

Debbie Rouse, DNREC

Bob Palmer, DNREC

Andrew Bell, DNREC

Public Hearing Minutes – October 19, 2016

of 9

Alan Pongratz, DNREC

John Barndt, DNREC

Keith Mensch, DPH ODW

Thom May, DHSS/DPH

Doug Lodge, DHSS/DPH

Heather Warren, DHSS/DPH

Andrew Jakubowitch, Kent County

Judy Schwartz, GMB

Dan String, KCI

Donna Mitchell, City of Dover

Kate Mills, City of Dover

Jason A. Lyon, City of Dover

Teresa Tieman, City of Harrington

Jason Loar, DBF

Tawanda Priester, Tidewater Utilities

Jeremy Kalmbacher, Tidewater Utilities

Chris Walker, AECOM

Chris Brendza, JMT

Steve Lewandowski, Duffield

CALL TO ORDER-PUBLIC HEARING

Public Hearing came to order at 10:13am.

Greg Pope presented the following:

DRAFT REVISED FY 2016 CWSRF PROJECT PRIORITY LIST

2016 PROJECT PRIORITY LIST PROCESS AND RANKING

2016 Project Priority List Process and Ranking

Project Notice-of-Intent Solicitation:

• CWSRF and DWSRF County Workshop – June 22, 2016

• Due Date for NOIs – July 29, 2016

CWSRF

• 2nd

Solicitation: 11 – Project NOIs Received for $ 37.3 million

• 1st Solicitation: 18 - Project NOIs Received for $ 77.3 million

• FY 2016 Total: 29 – Project NOIs Received for $114.6 million

CWSRF Set Asides:

• $1.5 million – Non Point Source Projects (Septic Systems, Poultry & Dairy BMPs)

• $5.0 million – Land Conservation Loan Program

• No Limit – Water Quality Improvement Loan Program

Total Priority Points available:

• I. Water Quality Protection: 0-45 points (0-10 bonus)

• II. Targeted Water Bodies: 0-20 points

• III. Clean Water Priorities: 0-20 points

• IV. Strategies for State Policies and Spending:0-10 points

• V. Green Project Reserve: 0-10 points

• VI. Sustainability: 0-30 points


of 9

• VII. Land Conservation Sponsorship: 0 points (10 bonus)

• VIII. Borrower Type: 0-10 points

• Total Priority Score: 0-145 points (0-20 bonus)

• Water Quality Protection (45) – Points given based on pounds of Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus

(P) removed from environment. Also, points given to NPS BMPs based on published efficiencies

to include N, P, and sediments and points for removal of toxics

• Targeted Waterbodies (20) – Points given for projects which implement TMDL or watershed

management plan

• Clean Water Facilities Priorities (20)

All septic elimination projects receive 15 points

I&I projects receive 15 points

Surface water management projects receive 15-20 points

Toxics removal project receive 15-20 points

All other water quality projects receive 10 points

• State Strategies for Policies and Spending – Up to 10 points based on location of project.

• Green Project Reserve – 10 points for projects that meet the EPA criteria for Green Infrastructure,

Water Efficiency, Energy Efficiency, or Environmentally Innovative

• Sustainability – Up to 30 points for projects/system that has asset management plan , full cost

pricing and/or climate change adaption or resiliency

• Land Conservation Sponsorship – 10 point bonus for applications sponsoring conservation

easement, ecological or watershed restoration project

• Borrower type – Projects receive up to 10 points based on borrower type

DRAFT REVISED FY 2016 PROJECT PRIORITY LIST


of 9

DRAFT REVISED FY 2016 PROJECT PRIORITY LIST


of 9

Terry Deputy explained that Environmental Finance solicits projects twice a year: the Project Priority List

(PPL) contains projects from two solicitations. If no application is received, then the project is removed

from the IUP (Intended Use Plan). The IUP explains how the awarded Federal Capitalization Grant,

remaining repayments, and the monies from corpus of the revolving will be used for projects that are

ready to proceed.

Terry Deputy presented the following:

DRAFT REVISED FY 2016 INTENDED USE PLAN

WPCRF Program Goals

Short Term Goals

To enter into binding commitments for projects that will proceed to construction or award of

construction contracts within eight (8) quarters of the CWSRF FY 2016 Federal Capitalization

Grant award.

To maintain a CWSRF program "PACE" that exceeds 95 percent utilization of available funds for

project binding loan commitments.

To expand the loan portfolio of the WPCRF to include other innovative uses such as loans for

land conservation, stormwater, water conservation, energy efficiency, as well as green and

sustainable water infrastructure projects consistent with CWSRF program rules, requirements,

and regulations.

To enhance the collaboration between DNREC and DHSS relative to the operation of the

CWSRF and DWSRF programs. These enhancements will focus on adding increased program

value to applicants and borrowers, such as:

Combined CWSRF and DWSRF Semi-Annual Workshops

On-line CWSRF and DWSRF document submittal capability

Offering Planning and Design Loans for Projects that are not Ready to Proceed

Combined CWSRF and DWSRF Loan Closings (where applicable)

Eliminate need for Interim Construction Project Financing from other funding sources

Processing Loan Reimbursement Requests within 30 days or less

To analyze financial leveraging as a tool that may be needed to help meet the growing demand

for loans provided by the WPCRF.

To comply with all federal capitalization grant and project reporting requirements. Including

updating all WPCRF documents that reference 40 CFR Parts 30 & 31 with 2 CFR 200 for the

following administrative program requirements.

A-133 with 2 CFR 200 Subpart F (Audit Requirements)

A-87 with 2 CFR 300 Subpart E (Cost Principles)

Long Term Goals

To ensure the long-term viability of the WPCRF program, while providing necessary project

subsidization when needed.

To optimize the WPCRF program to address changing loan demand for Non-Point Source

concerns and other difficult to finance water quality improvement issues.

To identify and fund projects associated with the Water Resources Reform and Development Act

(WRRDA) – Expanded Project Eligibilities.

To periodically evaluate additional funding opportunities to meet emerging water quality and

public health needs.


of 9

Fund Sources, Uses, and Program Requirements: FY 2016 and FY 2012 Federal Capitalization

Grants

Project Selection Process

Draft Revised FY 2016 PPL – Project Rankings

Projects Ready to Proceed in FY 2016 (Loan Applications by January 31st)

Project Loan Applications Previously Submitted


of 9

DRAFT FY 2016 INTENDED USE PLAN


of 9

Green Project Reserve Projects

Terry Deputy explained that letters are sent to request applications after public process is closed. The

applicant has 120 days to submit the application to Environmental Finance. To stay on the list, an

application must be received. Environmental Finance will work with an applicant if there are any issues

or concerns.


of 9

WIAC Member Comments

Individuals Requesting to Speak

Public Record will remain open until November 21st to receive additional public comments

Written Public Comments should be directed to:

Terry L. Deputy, Environmental Finance Administrator

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Office of the Secretary

Environmental Finance

5 East Reed Street, Suite 200

Dover, Delaware 19901-7334

[email protected]

Public Hearing Adjournment: Motion made by Mr. Duncan, and seconded by Mr. Dvornick to adjourn

the Public Hearing at 10:15am. Motion carried unanimously.

mailto:[email protected]

1

State of Delaware

Water Infrastructure Advisory Council 5 E. Reed Street, Suite 200 Dover, Delaware 19901

Telephone: (302) 739-9941 FAX: (302) 739-2137

Minutes of the 134th Meeting

October 19, 2016

The Water Infrastructure Advisory Council held a public meeting on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at

9:00 a.m., at Kent County Administrative Complex, 555 S. Bay Road, Conference Room 220, Dover,

Delaware.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Hans Medlarz, Vice-Chair

Richard Duncan

Charles Anderson-left at 11:04am

Bruce W. Jones

Eugene Dvornick

Andy Burger

Michael Harmer

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Jeffrey Bross, Chairman

Ralph Cetrulo

Jeffrey Flynn

David Baker

Jen Adkins

Lt.Col Douglas D. Riley

OTHERS PRESENT WERE:

Terry Deputy, Environmental Finance

Greg Pope, Environmental Finance

Laura Rafferty, Environmental Finance

Davison Mwale, Environmental Finance

Robert C. Burns, Environmental Finance

Frank Paquette, Environmental Finance

Jan Jenkins, Environmental Finance

Keith Kooker, Environmental Finance

Reza Moqtaderi, Environmental Finance

Robert Zimmerman, DNREC

Michael Bott, DNREC

Debbie Rouse, DNREC

Bob Palmer, DNREC

Andrew Bell, DNREC

Public Meeting Minutes – October 19, 2016

Page 2 of 17

Alan Pongratz, DNREC

John Barndt, DNREC

Keith Mensch, DPH ODW

Thom May, DHSS/DPH

Doug Lodge, DHSS/DPH

Heather Warren, DHSS/DPH

Andrew Jakubowitch, Kent County

Judy Schwartz, GMB

Dan String, KCI

Donna Mitchell, City of Dover

Kate Mills, City of Dover

Jason A. Lyon, City of Dover

Teresa Tieman, City of Harrington

Jason Loar, DBF

Tawanda Priester, Tidewater Utilities

Jeremy Kalmbacher, Tidewater Utilities

Chris Walker, AECOM

Chris Brendza, JMT

Steve Lewandowski, Duffield

CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC MEETING:

Meeting came to order at 10:15am.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Motion made by Mr. Dvornick, seconded by Mr. Duncan to approve the agenda. Motion carried

unanimously.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES –Public Meeting September 21, 2016:

Motion made by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Duncan to approve the September 21, 2016 public

meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously.

WIAC-INFORMATIONAL:

Town of Frankford – Restructured DWSRF Binding Loan Commitment

Mountaire Farms drilled their own non-potable well due to a change in state law and regulations. As a

result of this, the Town of Frankford will have a substantial reduction in revenues (≈$84,000) per year.

To assist the Town of Frankford with this situation so that they do not default on two DWSRF loans, a

recommendation was made to the Secretary of DHSS to allow the interest rates for both loans to be

reduced from 3.0% and 2.80% respectively to 0.0%, and the term of both loans extended by 10 years,

from 20 years to 30 years. At the request of the Council to the Secretary, a stipulation was added to the

binding commitment letter that after one year, the Town’s financial situation will be reviewed; if the

financial situation has improved then there will be a reset of the original terms of the loan.

John Barndt from the DNREC’s Water Supply Section explained that letters went out to all the mayors of

the municipalities regarding the change in the law for non-potable wells. The change in the law is that the

department has no recourse as long as environmental issues have been addressed, but to issue permits for

non-potable wells within a water utility boundary, including municipalities. Requests are mainly for

irrigation wells, except for the Town of Frankford’s request for an industrial well. The water well

construction grants have been updated. The regulations will be reviewed again.


Page 3 of 17

Once a non-potable well permit application is received, the municipality is then contacted about the

request for a new non-potable well. Some stipulations are that they cannot be hooked up to a public water

system; the owner and the well driller must also comply with any other ordinances.

Mr. Duncan expressed concern with MTB’s getting into the potable water supply because of Mountaire’s

request to drill a new larger well. Mr. Barndt suggested that Mr. Duncan contact him regarding his issues

with Mountaire’s well drilling.

Mr. Anderson stated he had concerns about an industrial client that does not do the level of treatment that

the Town does, and the hardness of the water could have unintended consequences regarding the copper

discharge in the wastewater treatment plant for the NPDES permit. Mr. Anderson wanted to know how

this would be addressed also for stormwater. Mr. Barndt stated there would have to be some coordination

with the Surface Water Discharge Section to address discharge issues.

Prior to the new State Law, the Water Supply Section would contact the municipality when they received

a request for a new non-potable well drilling, and if the municipality objected, then DNREC would deny

the permit: State Law no longer allows this.

Mr. Anderson stated that geothermal wells are allowed because they are closed circuit wells in the City of

Seaford.

It was suggested that WIAC work with John Barndt to clarify language regarding the new well permitting

process. Vice-Chair Medlarz would like to see a supporting motion to Secretary how Council feels about

the new law at the next meeting (December 7, 2016).

Mr. Duncan reported that the Drinking Water Subcommittee met and discussed the Town of Frankford to

try to come up with some alternatives to present to WIAC. He agreed with restructuring the loan

agreement for the Town of Frankford (0% interest and an extended loan term of 10 years). There are

concerns about how the Town will deal with other infrastructure needs such as a meter project and a water

storage project, and how to make sure they are setting aside money for future infrastructure needs. Mr.

Duncan would like to see how the Town will move forward to repay the loan. Will they change rates and

impact fees? Mr. Duncan is concerned that the Town of Frankford has not attended any WIAC meetings

or Drinking Water Subcommittee meetings.

Vice-Chair Medlarz would like to see it back on the agenda to have Council make a decision whether it

should even be involved in restructuring decisions. He also felt restructuring loans should be presented

under Administrator’s Reports.

Mr. Deputy replied that the Town of Frankford is only an informational item, and not an action item. The

action that was made from the September 21, 2016, meeting was a consideration to the Secretary to

include in the binding commitment the ability of Environmental Finance to conduct a review of the Town

of Frankford’s finances in a year, and return the loan to its original terms. The Town of Frankford has

signed and returned the binding commitment. Environmental Finance is obligated to present restructuring

before WIAC, because it has oversight over CWSRF/DWSRF Revolving Funds.

There was discussion that the Town of Frankford should make plans to submit an application to address

the infrastructure needs. It was suggested they could apply for Asset Management Assistance and work

with a consultant.

Thom May (Division of Public Health) stated that TMF reviews will be performed on the water systems

to identify system issues that may be technical, managerial or financial in order to determine where and

how a Town or municipality may need help.


Page 4 of 17

Mr. Duncan mentioned the Drinking Water Subcommittee agreed that the Town of Frankford should

provide a Notice of Intent to state where they are going in the future after all the restructuring.

Mr. Burger stated that he had been attending meetings since 2000 and this is the first time business had

not been conducted. Greg Pope researched Robert’s Rules of Order and that there is in fact a quorum

with seven members and that the President can vote. Vice-Chair Medlarz announced that business can be

conducted.

NEW BUSINESS:

WIAC Vote to Approve the Draft Revised FY 2016 CWSRF PPL and IUP, subject to no adverse

public comments received by November 21, 2016

Motion made by Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Dvornick to approve the Draft Revised FY 2016 CWSRF

PPL and IUP. Motion carried unanimously.

Doug Lodge presented the following:

DWSRF Loan Requests

DEFERRED UNTIL DECEMBER 7, 2016

Town of Georgetown-Supplemental Funding Request

King Street Water Treatment Plant Upgrade

Purpose and Need

This supplemental funding request is due to unanticipated increases in construction costs As identified in

the original funding application, significant upgrades are needed at the treatment facility in order for the

Town to remain in compliance with drinking water standards.

Environmental Review Office of Engineering

A categorical exclusion was issued for the original project this simply supplements the funding to

complete project no additional review was required.

Capacity Development Review

Based on the review of the technical, managerial, and financial capacities, the Capacity Development

Program recommends approval of the loan.

Project Description

Critical upgrades to the components of the Georgetown King St. water treatment plant

Public Health Benefits

Ensure reliable production of potable water

Fewer service disruptions

Water conservation is promoted

Project Costs/Budget

Original Loan amount $ 3,300,000

Supplemental funding request: $ 500,000

Total Cost of Project $ 3,800,000


Page 5 of 17

Construction Dates

Start Date: May 2016

End Date: March 2017

Jan Jenkins presented the following:

Affordability Analysis

King Street Water Treatment Facility Upgrade--Supplemental Georgetown

Estimated Project Cost & Funding Request $500,000

Drinking Water Utility

Existing Debt Service $560,987

Existing OM&R $681,046

Existing Utility Costs $1,242,033

Proposed New Debt Service

(Proposed Project Costs @ 2%, 20 years) $30,456

Proposed New OM&R $0

Proposed Utility Costs $30,456

Existing and Proposed Utility Costs $1,272,489

Number of EDUs 1,727

Residential Share of Utility Costs @ 55% $699,869

Existing and Proposed Utility Costs Per Residential EDU $405

Wastewater Utility


Existing OM&R $989,955

Existing Utility Costs $1,904,759

Proposed New Debt Service N/A

(Proposed Project Costs @ 2%, 30 years)

Proposed New OM&R N/A

Proposed Utility Costs N/A

Existing and Proposed Utility Costs $1,904,759

Number of EDUs 1,831

Residential Share of Utility Costs @ 49% $933,332

Existing and Proposed Utility Costs Per Residential EDU $510


Median Household Income (MHI) $47,525

% of MHI Drinking Water Utility Costs 0.85%

% of MHI Wastewater Utility Costs 1.07%

% of MHI Combined Utility Costs 1.93%


Page 6 of 17

Loan Terms

It should be noted that this financing does meet the current affordability guidelines. However, the terms

of this financing will be the same as the original loan which are as follows:

The Loan is to be secured by a General Obligation Bond

The interest rate for the loan will be 0%

Upon successful completion of the project, the loan principal will be 100% forgiven.

In addition, it is a requirement of the Drinking Water 2017 Grant that 20% of the grant amount be used

for principal forgiveness. This principal forgiveness will help satisfy that requirement.

Recommendation

Based on information presented in the Town of Georgetown’s DWSRF application and the financial

review conducted by DNREC, Environmental Finance; the DHSS, Division of Public Health recommends

Council’s approval of a DWSRF Binding Loan Commitment in the amount of $500,000 with the terms

presented today.

Deferred until December 7, 2016 meeting –Not enough Council members to participate in the vote.


City of Dover

Water Treatment Facility Improvements Purpose and Need

City of Dover Water Treatment Facility

This project proposes to upgrade the critical components of the water treatment plant The plant was

designed to produce 5 MGD however, is currently only able to produce 3 MGD. Once the engineering

contractor determines the necessary upgrades, utilizing a planning grant the process improvements will

allow the plant to produce water at design capacity.


Review of the Environmental Information Document and the environmental checklist, found that there

would be no adverse impact due to this project. After the required public notice, a Categorical Exclusion

was issued per the State Environmental Review Procedures.




Project Description

Critical upgrades to the components of the Dover water treatment plant



Fewer service disruptions

Water conservation is promoted

Plant able to function at design level


Page 7 of 17


Construction:

Improvements $ 2,400,000


Construction Dates:

Start Date: December 2016

End Date: June 2018




Page 8 of 17

Loan Terms

The loan is to be secured by a General Obligation Bond

The interest rate for the loan will be 2% annually

During construction, the loan will require semi-annual interest only payments

Upon completion of the project, the loan will require equal semi-annual principal and interest

payments to amortize the outstanding balance over the remaining term not to exceed 20 years

Recommendation

Based on information presented in the City of Dover’s DWSRF application and the financial review

conducted by DNREC, Environmental Finance; the DHSS, Division of Public Health recommends

Council’s approval of a DWSRF Binding Loan Commitment in the amount of $2,400,000 to provide

water treatment facility improvements with the terms presented today.

Motion made by Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Dvornick to approve the City of Dover’s DWSRF

Binding Loan Commitment ($2,4000,000). Motion carried unanimously.


DEFERRED UNTIL DECEMBER 7, 2016

Vice-Chair Medlarz stated that the delay in vote until December will not affect the material project.

Town of Selbyville-Supplemental Funding Request

Water Treatment Plant Upgrade

Purpose and Need

This supplemental funding request is due to unanticipated increases in construction costs as identified in

the original funding application, significant upgrades are needed at the treatment facility in order for the

Town to remain in compliance with drinking water standards.


A categorical exclusion was issued for the original project this simply supplements the funding to

complete project no additional review was required.




Project Description

Critical upgrades to the components of the water treatment plant in order to deal with PCE

contamination




Original Loan amount $ 2,750,300

Supplemental funding request: $ 500,000



Page 9 of 17

Construction Dates

Start Date: May 2016

End Date: April 2017



Water Treatment Plan Upgrade

Supplemental Selbyville

Estimated Project Cost & Funding Request $500,000

Drinking Water Utility


Existing OM&R $493,820 Existing Utility Costs $653,991

Proposed New Debt Service

(Proposed Project Costs @ 2%, 20 years) $30,456 Proposed New OM&R $26,000 Proposed Utility Costs $56,456

Existing and Proposed Utility Costs $710,447 Number of EDUs 1,204

Residential Share of Utility Costs @ 90% $639,402 Existing and Proposed Utility Costs Per Residential EDU $531

Wastewater Utility


Existing OM&R $1,234,162 Existing Utility Costs $1,538,147

Proposed New Debt Service N/A (Proposed Project Costs @ 2%, 30 years)

Proposed New OM&R N/A Proposed Utility Costs N/A

Existing and Proposed Utility Costs $1,538,147 Number of EDUs 1,204

Residential Share of Utility Costs @ 25% $384,537 Existing and Proposed Utility Costs Per Residential EDU $319


Median Household Income (MHI) $40,195 % of MHI Drinking Water Utility Costs 1.32%

% of MHI Wastewater Utility Costs 0.79% % of MHI Combined Utility Costs 2.12%

Proposed Loan Subsidy % of MHI Combined Utility Costs > 2% MHI Standard 100% Principal Forgiveness

Loan Terms

The terms of this financing will be the same as the original loan which are as follows:

The Loan is to be secured by a General Obligation Bond

The interest rate for the loan will be 0%

Upon successful completion of the project, the loan principal will be 100% forgiven.


Page 10 of 17

Recommendation

Based on information presented in the Town of Selbyville’s application and the financial review

conducted by DNREC, Environmental Finance; the DHSS, Division of Public Health recommends

Council’s approval of a DWSRF Binding Loan Commitment in the amount of $500,000 with the terms

presented today.


Vice-Chair Medlarz wanted to know if there are two bond counsels looking at the bond documents

involved with 100% loan forgiveness. Mr. Deputy stated there are two bond counsels that look at the

bond document that will be forgiven. The CWSRF/DWSRF Revolving Loan Fund and the borrowers

each have their own counsel. Each community has a different charter; some do not have a ceiling for

borrowing while others do, and some charters may not allow borrowing. If the charter is up-to-date and

the community has the ability to borrow: the legal costs may be minimal. However, if a community has

not looked at their charter, needs to create a charter, needs to ascertain their borrowing capacity and their

ability to borrow; this will increase legal costs. Closing costs are usually around $3,000 to $5,000 as long

as a community has an up-to-date charter, knows their borrowing capacity, and has an ability to borrow.

Greg Pope presented the following:

Wastewater Asset Management Incentive Program

Received five applications for Wastewater Asset Management

The Scope of Work in all of the applications were reviewed by DNREC staff and met or

exceeded the minimum standards set by the WIAC:

1. Current State of Assets - What is the current state of my assets?

2. Level of Service - What is my required "sustainable" level of service?

3. Critical Assets - Which assets are critical to sustained performance?

4. Minimum Life Cycle Cost - What are my minimum life-cycle costs?

5. Long Term Funding Plan - What is my best long-term funding strategy?

Submittal of an asset management plan is required annually during the five year agreement

period. If the initial plan cannot be completed by end of year one, a status report must be

submitted and initial plan must be completed no later than two years from approval of the grant

agreement.


Page 11 of 17


Asset Management Incentive

Program Applicant #1: City of Seaford

Name: Wastewater Asset Management Plan

Total Project Cost: $119,500

Assistance Requested: $100,000

Start Date: 10/10/2016

End Date: 10/10/2021

Consultant: George, Miles, & Buhr

Deliverables: - Asset Database, condition assessment, critical asset ID - Asset Management Report - Recommendations/Implementation



Program Applicant #3: Town of Selbyville





Completion Date: 12/31/2021

Consultant: KCI Technologies



Program Applicant #4: Lewes Board of Public Works






Consultant: George, Miles, & Buhr


Page 12 of 17


Motion made by Mr. Dvornick, seconded by Mr. Duncan to approve the Wastewater Asset Management

Plan assistance ($100,000) for the Lewes Board of Public Works. Motion carried unanimously.



Program Applicant #5: Town of Georgetown









Program Applicant #6: City of Harrington








Motion made by Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Dvornick to approve the Wastewater Asset Management

Plan assistance ($100,000) for the City of Harrington. Motion carried unanimously.


Page 13 of 17

Summary of Requested Wastewater Asset Management Grants

Applicant Amount Requested

City of Seaford-Deferred $100,000

Town of Bridgeville $100,000

Town of Selbyville-Deferred $100,000

Lewes Board of Public Works $100,000

Town of Georgetown-Deferred $100,000

City of Harrington $100,000

Total amount Requested: $500,000

Amount allocated: $500,000

Recommendation: Due to underutilization of Asset Management funds in FY16, Environmental

Finance recommends approval of all 6 Wastewater Asset Management applications.

Greg Pope recommended that the Wastewater Asset Management funds be discussed at the December 7,

2016 meeting.

Heather Warren presented the following:

2016 DWSRF Asset Management Grant Applications

City of Harrington

$ 100,000



End Date: 12/31/2021

Deliverables:

Asset Database, condition assessment, critical asset ID

Asset Management Report

Recommendations/Implementation

Motion made by Mr. Dvornick, seconded by Mr. Duncan to approve the DWSRF Asset Management

Grant ($100,000) for the City of Harrington. Motion carried unanimously.


Town of Georgetown

$ 100,000



End Date: 12/31/2021

Deliverables:





Page 14 of 17

Town of Henlopen Acres

$ 100,000



End Date: 12/31/2021

Deliverables:




Motion made by Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Dvornick to approve the DWSRF Asset Management

Grant ($100,000) for the Town of Henlopen Acres. Hans Medlarz voted no. Motion carried.

Vice-Chair Medlarz stated the Town of Henlopen Acres water system is not the same size and not the

same complexity. They have a wastewater asset management which is already imbedded in the County’s.

Mr. Burger stated that the subcommittee recommended it, but did have concerns whether KCI has enough

staff to complete the work.

Dan String (KCI) explained with smaller systems can do more level of detail and financial analysis to

build their system in the first phase.

Mr. Jones would like to see the deliverables more detailed in the applications. What level is the Council

approving the Asset Management Plans? Mr. Pope stated the asset management model that has been

adopted follows the EPA model: current state of assets, level of service, critical assets, long term funding

plan, and minimum life cycle cost.

Mr. Anderson said that the City of Seaford used their Asset Management funding for getting maps in GIS

format, purchasing servers, and working with Salisbury University Interns to do system mapping.


Town of Selbyville

$ 100,000



End Date: 12/31/2021

Deliverables:





City of Seaford

$ 97,200

Consultant: George, Miles, and Buhr


End Date: 12/31/2021

Deliverables:


Page 15 of 17




Lewes Board of Public Works

$ 100,000

Consultant: George, Miles, and Buhr


End Date: 12/31/2021

Deliverables:





Grant ($100,000) for the Lewes Board of Public Works. Motion carried unanimously.

Town of Bridgeville

$ 100,000

Consultant: Davis, Bowen, and Friedel


End Date: 12/31/2021

Deliverables:





Grant ($100,000) for the Town of Bridgeville.

Summary

7 applications (due to under-utilization in previous rounds, WIAC DW Sub-Committee approved

this action)-Changed to 5 applications as 3 are deferred until December 7, 2016 WIAC

meeting. $697,200 total for Fall 2016

15 Grants approved (including this round) approximately 50% of DW municipals

Mr. Deputy stated that allocations are set for the CWSRF and DWSRF Non-Federal Admin Accounts.

The allocations go back into the Non-Federal Admin Accounts if they are unused. As a result, it must be

an action item on the agenda for the unused monies to then be put back into an Asset Management

Program.

Vice-Chair Medlarz requested that $197,200 as a transfer request into the DWSRF Asset Management

Program for FY2016 go on the December 7, 2016 WIAC meeting agenda.

Mr. Jones made a formal request from the Wastewater Subcommittee to see what the proposed cost for a

completed Asset Management Plan is versus a plan that is funded by a $100,000 grant (a percentage

completion), and also the ability of a Town to fund the rest of an Asset Management Plan.

Mr. Deputy explained that communities receiving assistance to complete an asset management plan have

as an incentive, an interest rebate (1.5%) on future projects that implement the asset management plan.


Page 16 of 17


ADMINISTRATORS’ REPORTS

Project Updates



Page 17 of 17

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:

Wastewater: Mr. Jones reported that they spoke with Greg Pope and Chairman Jeff Bross about

continuing the efforts to address underserved communities for water and wastewater services. There were

some recommendations about who should be on this committee, which will be led by the wastewater

subcommittee; Mr. Jones said they will talk with Ed Hallock and others about Drinking Water

representation on this new committee. There will be a meeting in December before the next WIAC

meeting. The data that has been gathered and the progress that has been made will be presented at the

next WIAC meeting on December 7, 2016.

Surface Water Management: No meeting.

Finance: Met on Monday, 17 October 2016. Mr. Burger reported that the financial reports were not

completed at the time of the meeting. There were extensive discussions about KCI and the ability to

handle all the projects; Greg Pope had a good report regarding KCI which assisted in the

recommendations going forward.

Drinking Water: Mr. Duncan reported that the Town of Frankford and alternatives methods were

discussed.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: None

GOOD OF THE COUNCIL:

MEETING ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Dvornick to adjourn the

meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:12am. Next WIAC meeting is

December 7, 2016 to be held at Kent County Administrative Complex, Conference Room 220, 555 Bay

Road, Dover, DE at 9:00am.

state of delaware water infrastructure advisory council 5 ...recommendation was made to the...

Documents