The Observation Deck

Brian Essi wrote:For those who like tedium and want to know the nitty gritty of the sewer debate, below is my "A WAY FORWARD" response to Kevin Butler's response.

Essentially, the city administration is saying sewer lines that have been connected to functioning city sewers for 89 years are somehow "incorrectly connected". That means they could essentially come to any homeowner on any street in Lakewood that had been connected for decades and say change your connections and pay. Read your water bill.


Brian Essi <bjessi@sbcglobal.net> Jun 16 at 9:55 AM
To
Butler, Kevin
CC 65 others

Re: A Way Forward

Dear Neighbors, Mr. Butler, and Council Members,

I want to thank Mr. Butler for setting forth the "city administration's position." Neighbors are discussing another "neighbors only" meeting, but I wanted to give you my initial response to Mr. Butler's comments since many have asked that I do so and there is ongoing confusion.

While I disagree with the city administration's position, I was glad to hear that no decision has been made by the city administration as to payment for the project. I assume that city council still has no collective formal position on the issue as well.

There appears to be a disagreement over both facts and law. This usually presents the best opportunity for a compromise and resolution. I will continues to work toward that end.

Here are what I believe are some important points that might clarify misunderstandings:

1. Clarification on Refusal to Act. I believe that I was the first homeowner to cooperate with AECOM and the city to help resolve this problem. I would generally encourage the remaining 9 homeowners to have AECOM do their studies so that the city has all the information the city needs to complete its project--I understand that some are refusing to even take that first step until all issues are resolved--I respect those decisions. I think we all care about clean water and want to help our city solve what is essentially a city problem.

At the same time, I encourage all neighbors to stay united in the refusal to implement the connections until payment and other legal issues are resolved amicably. I appreciate that the city has not made a determination to disconnect the existing sanitary sewer while we are all working on a solution.


2. A fact in Dispute--We Don't have "Incorrect Connections." A threshold issue is whether the city's current position relies on the proper facts. The first area of disagreement I have has to do with the characterization that our existing laterals are "incorrectly connected." This term had been used by Mayor Summers is earlier communications and now by Mr. Butler. As far as I can tell, my separate lateral lines have been connected to the city sewer since about 1927. So if my lines are now somehow "incorrectly connected", then the city position goes against 89 years of the city considering my lines correctly connected. I suspect the same is true of my neighbors' lines.

3. The Cost to the City to Complete the Project is Relatively Nominal. Mr. Papke recently wrote one neighbor: "If it were a city project, we would estimate $95 a foot for the line plus mobilization and site restoration work." I am sure Mr. Papke could quickly provide a rough estimate of the total project cost to the city by using the 24 completed AECOM reports and applying the $95 per foot and other estimates. Without having access to all reports, I estimate that the city's total costs to pay for completion of the entire project could be far less than $200K. For example, while Mr. Papke said my connection was among the more simple connections--the estimated 8 feet X $95 would be only $760---likely far cheaper than I could do on my own. If I my understanding is correct, this could be significantly lower than what the city is paying in the pilot program ($9,000 per home?).

4. Despite Mr. Butler's assertion concerning replacement of water lines, I find it difficult to believe that if the city replaces a water main on a street with 100 homes, that the 100 homeowners would each be required to hire separate contractors to reconnect to the new line.

5. I am unclear on whether Mr. Butler's stated "position" on behalf of the "city administration" is a formal legal opinion or not? If city council moves forward to have the city bear the relatively nominal costs this may be a moot point.

6. We can continue to debate about the Gold Coast projects, the facts that most Lakewoodites will never have to do what the city is asking us to do, the pilot project, fairness etc.--we just don't know what the future holds as to future projects. However, there is no debate that the city's sewers are defective in some neighborhoods and adequate in many other neighborhoods. There is also no debate that entire city will benefit from completion of the project in our neighborhood---the benefit to me and my neighbors is no greater than the benefit to our neighbors on Leedale, Sylvan, Delaware or elsewhere in Lakewood etc. We are a community that should be able to solve problems collectively.

I have a lot of additional ideas that I will share with my neighbors when we meet. However, may I suggest that city council seriously consider an agenda item to be placed on an upcoming COW meeting or other appropriate committee to: (1) propose legislation to fund the cost of this project and (2) if needed obtain formal estimates from the contractors the city has already identified using the reports currently in the city's possession. This may encourage the remaining 9 neighbors to schedule AECOM which would be a way forward.

Sincerely,

Brian J. Essi



From: "Butler, Kevin" <Kevin.Butler@lakewoodoh.net>
To: 'Brian Essi'
CC 65 others

Subject: Re: Clarification Needed Before Any Action---No Legal Basis Provided Yet

Good afternoon, Mr. Essi and Edgewater residents. I hope my responses below (in blue, if you’re reading this in HTML format) help to shed light on the city administration’s position on the Edgewater separation question.

As we’ve done and have pledged to do, we’ll continue to be in communication on this project and we continue to encourage you to contact AECOM to have your current lateral connections examined, so we can better evaluate our options on remediating the problem of incorrectly connected laterals. You’ll see I’ve provided AECOM’s contact information below.

Best wishes,
Kevin

Kevin M. Butler, Director of Law
City of Lakewood | Law Department
(216) 529-6034
kevin.butler@lakewoodoh.net

From: Brian Essi [mailto:bjessi@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Clarification Needed Before Any Action---No Legal Basis Provided Yet

Dear Neighbors, Mayor Summers, Council Members, and Mr. Butler,

Given the ongoing uncertainty of our legal obligations, I think it is premature for the Mayor and the city to presume that any homeowner will bear all the costs of fulfilling the city's obligations to the US EPA.

Some time ago, I asked for a legal opinion or legal basis that would require individual homeowners to bare the costs of the city's compliance with an agreement it reached with the US EPA. Law Director Butler provided some ordinances that do not address the issue at hand. Is my understanding correct?

Response: In his letter to Edgewater residents of December 1, 2015, Mayor Summers listed a number of ordinances that are applicable to the separation of stormwater from sanitary sewers and vice versa. Of particular note is L.C.O. 901.17, reading: “PROPER SEWER CONNECTIONS; MATERIALS, BARRIERS AND LIGHTS. All basement, roof and other similar drainage for water outlets shall be connected with the storm sewer, and all sewerage drainage outlets shall be connected with the sanitary sewer. All materials used in such connections and in the repair and replacement of openings or excavations shall be satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. Barriers and, during the night season, lights shall be placed at and around any opening or excavation sufficient to notify and protect the public with respect thereto.” This ordinance addresses the issue at hand. Separate storm and sanitary lines now exists to carry sanitary sewage to the wastewater treatment plant and storm water directly to Lake Erie. Sanitary water on your street must be connected to the new sanitary sewer.

This is augmented by the provisions of L.C.O. 913.03, reading in relevant part: “USE OF MUNICIPAL SEWERS REQUIRED. … (b) No person shall discharge to any natural outlet within the City, or in any area under the jurisdiction of the City, any wastewater, industrial wastes or other polluted waters except where suitable treatment has been provided in accordance with subsequent provisions of this chapter. … (d) The owner of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purpose, situated within the City and abutting on any street, alley or right-of-way in which there is now located or may in the future be located a public sanitary sewer of the City, is hereby required at his expense to install suitable toilet facilities therein, and to connect such facilities directly with the proper Municipal sewer in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, within ninety days after the date of official notice to do so, provided that such Municipal sewer is within a reasonable distance as determined by Council.

You and your neighbors are not being asked to bear the costs of the city’s compliance with an agreement it reached with U.S. EPA, as you’ve suggested above. You’re being asked to comply with our code provisions. There is no municipal policy in place that has the city bearing the cost of running lateral lines to new sanitary sewers under a street; in fact, the residents of the Gold Coast neighborhood in 2000 were forced to do the same thing the residents on Edgewater are obligated to do now, and those Gold Coast residents indeed bore the expense. I don’t make light of your circumstances; I merely point out what the code says and what our precedent has been. Our code provisions, of course, support and are supported by regulations enforced by U.S. and Ohio EPA, as I discuss below.

My understanding is that we homeowners are all currently in compliance with the ordinances that Mr. Butler sent and that we would only become non-compliant if and when the city disconnects the current combination storm/sanitary from flowing to the treatment center. In other words, individual homeowners will only become non-compliant due to a plan and agreement the city made with US EPA. Is my understanding correct?

Response: No. Now that the sanitary sewer exists under Edgewater, owners must connect to it pursuant to the provisions of L.C.O. Sections 901.17 and 913.03, which I discuss above.

It is true that the city maintains an increasing interest in achieving compliance with these code provisions now because of several years’ worth of interactions with the U.S. and Ohio EPAs. In Lakewood’s May 2006 proposed Long Term Control Plan, submitted to Ohio EPA and later reviewed closely by U.S. EPA, CSO 056 (at the northern end of your street) was identified as the most frequently activating overflow and third highest in combined sewage volume discharged of all Lakewood overflows. For over a decade, CSO 056 has been identified by the state and federal regulatory agencies as among the highest priorities for Lakewood to address and it remains a priority for them. Because of our proactive, creative behavior in response to the federal Clean Water Act’s mandates (for example, an exploration of source control as a way to keep sewage out of the lake; the western Lakewood pilot project; the empaneling of our Clean Water Lakewood Task Force; and our exploration of a high-rate treatment facility), we have thus far been successful in staying out of court and ensuring we continue to identify ways to figure out our system and at the same time treat our lake responsibly.

The Edgewater separation project is another example of this: it is expected of us by the regulators, it is pragmatic because it keeps stormwater out of the sanitary system, and will eliminate most if not all of the sewage overflow coming from CSO 056 into the lake immediately in front the Edgewater properties. It is exactly the kind of project we must complete in order to continue our uniquely progressive relationship with Ohio and U.S. EPA, and it would be at the top of their list if and when we should become subject to enforcement orders.

It is my understanding that city will not disconnect the current combination sewer flow to the treatment plant until all homes have completed separation. Is my understanding correct?

Response: This determination has not been made.

It is my understanding that when the city changes the water main on a street, the city reconnects individual homeowners' waterlines to the new main at the city's expense. Is my understanding is correct? If so then it would follow that in this case, since the city installed a new sanitary sewer, it should reconnect our sanitary sewers just as it would if it was upgrading a water main.

Response: This is incorrect. The city will replace the “public” portion of a lateral water line, extending from the main to the beginning of an owner’s private property (usually where the sidewalk and front lawn meet), but that’s the extent of our involvement. Similarly, we have provided new sewer connections to a cleanout at the property line.

If my understandings are correct, it seems logical and reasonable for the city to take the lead and bear the costs of connecting homeowners' sanitary sewers to the new sanitary.

Response: Your understanding is not correct with respect to the city paying for new sewer laterals to new sanitary sewers. See my reference to the Gold Coast project as a pertinent example of owners paying for new laterals connected to new sanitary sewer mains. As I discuss below, the city continues to discuss payment options for the actual work of running lateral lines.

It is my understanding that most homeowners still do not know the costs that the city expects them to bear and many don't even have their reports yet.

Response: The first part of this is correct; the second part is not. While any change to our position that owners are required to fund a new lateral connection would require legislative action, there have been no such changes to date. This is not to suggest the city administration is not actively considering all options regarding payment for this work. As you may recall from the Mayor’s and city’s various letters since 2013, which I link to here, we have discussed funding options extensively, including grants and loans, and we continue to discuss them. No decisions regarding payment have been made thus far. Our efforts to identify the scope of the work by hiring AECOM will help us evaluate those options moving forward — which is why we so strongly encourage the remaining residents who haven’t yet done so to reach out to AECOM. (Find the contact information below.)

Of the 33 Edgewater and Webb homes improperly connected, 24 have contacted AECOM to complete the inspections at the city’s expense and all but a small few have had reports prepared by the City Engineer.

Unless there is clarification of all issues, I am respectfully refusing to proceed withand I would encourage my neighbors to do likewise until all issues are clarified.

It is my understanding that many fellow homeowners are refusing to act.

Response: See my response immediately above. Twenty-four of the 33 affected owners have acted. The remaining owners should reach out to AECOM using the following contact information:

William Kasberg
Field Supervisor, Field Services, Water
AECOM
Direct: (216) 622-2391
Mobile: (216) 496-4083
william.kasberg@aecom.com

Brian Essi wrote:

Patrick Wadden wrote:

kate e parker wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:I understand and respect your jealously of what my neighbors and I have.

However, Summers is not Robin Hood, he won't give you what he is trying to take from us.

We are not the solution to your problems.

and there it is.

you may return to your ivory tower.

bitch.

Whatever. It's still my favorite Essi quote. Stay golden B.

Okay dude. Nothing about sewers.

The statement you cling to as your "favorite" was made to a poster who uses profanity and to Corey who has issues with me and my neighbors somehow not paying enough even though we comply with the law and are being asked to pay 10X of what our neighbors are paying. It was not about my dedication (or my neighbors') to causes of the underserved.

Hence, I am not the solution to the problems of a profane poster nor am I a "troll therapist".

I don't begrudge you siding with them and having your favorites though.

You're a St. Eds grad--try to be productive and make Mike Deneen proud.

Tim Liston wrote:Brian says: “Why avoid that issue that is the real subject of the post?”

Brian, nobody's gonna address that here. Don’t bother aksing….

When someone charges you and your neighbors 100% for something that others in the city get free or nearly so, that’s a wealth tax. The problem is, by law new taxes are supposed to be voted on like all the other income, wealth, consumption and other lawful taxes have been voted on. But sometimes they don’t bother with frivolities like voting especially when they are desperate for the money. The other problem, if Lakewood actually bothered to put a levy on the ballot proposing that (for example) everyone on or north of Lake pay 100% for proper tie-ins, and everyone else pay 10%, it would pass overwhelmingly. That “tyranny of the majority” thing. But at least it would be exposed for what it is, Democracy in action….

Two other huge “stealth” taxes are college tuition and health care. People with the ability to pay, pay twice or more. Once for themselves and once for others. The colleges even have a formal process for it, called the FAFSA (though some use the CSS Profile which is way worse). You have to provide the college with the financial data they need to determine how much tax they want to tack on to your tuition payment, based on your wealth and income. The health care tax is a straight income tax, paid mostly by people with full-time jobs. OK fine, it is what it is, even if it’s wrong and illegal. But it’s never enough, and no matter how much if you don’t pony up even more you’re classist. It’s never enough. No matter how much, it’s never enough and they curse at you and suggest that you leave….

cities become corrupt and dysfunctional like businesses become bankrupt; slowly then all at once.

Brian Essi wrote:

kate e parker wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

kate e parker wrote:so does summers hate the underserved or does he hate the overserved?

Rick,

The facts matter.

Summers took charitable money and gave it to a PAC that cheated, lied and tricked voters to give his friends the rest of the charitable money that belonged to others.

Is Summers' section of Edgewater affected?
Is Jay Foran's section of Edgewater affected?
Is Jay Carson's section of Lake affected?

He takes care of his friends--he gives you jobs you're not qualified for.

is your section of edgewater affected? apparently your section is affected. thank goodness it is not affected by the underserved. I love that word, underserved. don't you?

you have meandered. I was wondering, again, if you had a problem paying a teensy more so that the underserved, like myself, could keep getting groceries instead of paying a buttload for sewer repair. I mean, you can afford it, can't you? you and your rich neighbors, whom you are now representing, could really help the people in birdtown.

this thread should be called "battle of the rich guys and jeez doesn't our life suck. maybe lori could come and take pictures and/or video of how much our life sucks"...just kidding lori. or am I? lori, could you get pics of the plight on edgewater?

Corey,

You are sounding like Rick.

Rick,I understand and respect your jealously of what my neighbors and I have."

You are sounding like Corey.

I understand and respect your jealously of what my neighbors and I have.

However, Summers is not Robin Hood, he won't give you what he is trying to take from us.

We are not the solution to your problems.