Thanks, Mr. Baker. I appreciate the information.
Thanks, Jim, for talking to the EPA.
EPA: Lakewood Must Spend $85 million
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
michael gill
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:28 am
- Location: lakewood
-
Richard Baker
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:06 am
Re: EPA: Lakewood Must Spend $85 million
Richard
Nice to have you back on earth again, missed you. Nice post.
I do not have the actual numbers but I have been writing a piece about the service departments in Lakewood. This was started by head of City Services Roman Duco getting an award nearly a year ago. He had asked the city to keep it on the down low as he feels his award is the work of others under him. A great attitude I understand.
What shocked me as I went through the departments is just how few city workers we actually have. Nearly half of what there was back in the Madeline Cain days. There are many reasons a major one is that garbage trucks now lift the canisters themselves. And the loss of our Health Department.
Lakewood both applied for grants, and made improvements. But not fast enough. Meanwhile they were watching the EPA and how they handled these issues. You can go back and do a search for the various cities the EPA has taken to court. Usually a ten year fight, with an understanding and a fine at the end.
I believe that this is where we are at. Unwilling to kick the can down the road any longer, we are getting ready to work with the EPA, and get the work done. Let's not forget this bill would have been under $5 million 5 mayors ago. Inflation has taken a toll.
The good news is there is a plan in place to get the work started, and there is money available from various funds to help pay the bill, not the entire bill but the bill. As you know being a former mayor then there are many ways to finance this work, like bonds. Lakewood bonds are looking OK right now, and now might be the time to move on that.
I'll have more after I talk with the EPA next week.
Hi Jim,
Good luck with the EPA, it should be interesting. I’ll forgo expressing my opinion of the official dealings I had with them. I’m astonished they hadn’t come down hard on Lakewood forty years ago about the discharge and bandage approach. I assume at the time the EPA was attention was on the smaller towns and cities.
That aside, I still can’t understand why the residents blame the former mayor’s when the city has a weak mayoral form of government. After observing the city council in their backroom decision process and their rubber stamp council meeting. I suggest the city residents vote for charter change to eliminate council members at large, retain the four wards that will be represented by two council members. The few people a council member represents the greater the accountability. Two council members from different wards would be assigned to each the various committees. Restrict council of the meetings of the whole to emergencies only. It's also evident the current representation is not working and too many decisions are being made outside of public oversite.
From my dated experience, there are three types of bonds, those backed by property tax with lowest interest rates, funded by other income, and a mix of the two. It the city council hasn’t a clue on the what the “sewer” rates increase will be to pay off EPA mandate to lower the city’s polluted discharge into Lake Erie. I’ll tell you that Lakewood has 14,400 water meters, $85 mil at 4% interest for twenty years, not counting fees, becomes $104.6 million resulting in the average cost per meter of $30.00 a month or $360.00 annually for twenty years. This will make Lakewood proud, along with having one of the highest property tax rates in the state, it will have one of the highest sever and water rates. Well done, Lakewood!
The most expensive storm water infiltration issue is that the city had previously allowed builders to combine rain runoff and sewage in one discharge pipe that was connected to the city’s sewer lines. Diverting roof and parking runoff to the surface is not viable solution since grading around homes would cause basement flooding, or diverting to neighbors’ yards, and dumping storm water on top of the street to freeze are not realistic. The cost for homeowner to divert their rain runoff to a separate storm lines around their home to the city’s storm lines could run into the tens of thousands of dollars not considering the cost to the city cost to connect the lines, repair the sidewalk and street.
Instead of offering incentives by paying offering to cover eighty percent of cost to the homeowner for the conversion while the street was torn up, sewer and storm lines being replaced, the City Council with is great wisdom and focus on the next election ignored it just like they did with the potable water lead service lines.
Nice to have you back on earth again, missed you. Nice post.
I do not have the actual numbers but I have been writing a piece about the service departments in Lakewood. This was started by head of City Services Roman Duco getting an award nearly a year ago. He had asked the city to keep it on the down low as he feels his award is the work of others under him. A great attitude I understand.
What shocked me as I went through the departments is just how few city workers we actually have. Nearly half of what there was back in the Madeline Cain days. There are many reasons a major one is that garbage trucks now lift the canisters themselves. And the loss of our Health Department.
Lakewood both applied for grants, and made improvements. But not fast enough. Meanwhile they were watching the EPA and how they handled these issues. You can go back and do a search for the various cities the EPA has taken to court. Usually a ten year fight, with an understanding and a fine at the end.
I believe that this is where we are at. Unwilling to kick the can down the road any longer, we are getting ready to work with the EPA, and get the work done. Let's not forget this bill would have been under $5 million 5 mayors ago. Inflation has taken a toll.
The good news is there is a plan in place to get the work started, and there is money available from various funds to help pay the bill, not the entire bill but the bill. As you know being a former mayor then there are many ways to finance this work, like bonds. Lakewood bonds are looking OK right now, and now might be the time to move on that.
I'll have more after I talk with the EPA next week.
Hi Jim,
Good luck with the EPA, it should be interesting. I’ll forgo expressing my opinion of the official dealings I had with them. I’m astonished they hadn’t come down hard on Lakewood forty years ago about the discharge and bandage approach. I assume at the time the EPA was attention was on the smaller towns and cities.
That aside, I still can’t understand why the residents blame the former mayor’s when the city has a weak mayoral form of government. After observing the city council in their backroom decision process and their rubber stamp council meeting. I suggest the city residents vote for charter change to eliminate council members at large, retain the four wards that will be represented by two council members. The few people a council member represents the greater the accountability. Two council members from different wards would be assigned to each the various committees. Restrict council of the meetings of the whole to emergencies only. It's also evident the current representation is not working and too many decisions are being made outside of public oversite.
From my dated experience, there are three types of bonds, those backed by property tax with lowest interest rates, funded by other income, and a mix of the two. It the city council hasn’t a clue on the what the “sewer” rates increase will be to pay off EPA mandate to lower the city’s polluted discharge into Lake Erie. I’ll tell you that Lakewood has 14,400 water meters, $85 mil at 4% interest for twenty years, not counting fees, becomes $104.6 million resulting in the average cost per meter of $30.00 a month or $360.00 annually for twenty years. This will make Lakewood proud, along with having one of the highest property tax rates in the state, it will have one of the highest sever and water rates. Well done, Lakewood!
The most expensive storm water infiltration issue is that the city had previously allowed builders to combine rain runoff and sewage in one discharge pipe that was connected to the city’s sewer lines. Diverting roof and parking runoff to the surface is not viable solution since grading around homes would cause basement flooding, or diverting to neighbors’ yards, and dumping storm water on top of the street to freeze are not realistic. The cost for homeowner to divert their rain runoff to a separate storm lines around their home to the city’s storm lines could run into the tens of thousands of dollars not considering the cost to the city cost to connect the lines, repair the sidewalk and street.
Instead of offering incentives by paying offering to cover eighty percent of cost to the homeowner for the conversion while the street was torn up, sewer and storm lines being replaced, the City Council with is great wisdom and focus on the next election ignored it just like they did with the potable water lead service lines.