Laserfiche WebLink
were seen as a form of disease transmission. As Lakewood transitions away from this "system," <br /> the consent decree allows for the city to implement combined sewer overflows (CSOs). <br /> Mr. McMahon reviewed the map of CSOs citywide, showed a diagram of pollutant <br /> concentrations, and shared success stories of various improvements that have already been <br /> completed. <br /> He then reviewed small differences between the consent decree and IWWIP schedule, which are <br /> almost identical. The difference focused on the inclusion of a sampling pilot project because the <br /> EPA was unsure what to tell the city of what to do with CSO dots that have yet to be found in the <br /> city's system. <br /> Mr. McMahon noted that there is risk and uncertainty moving forward. There are nutrient issues <br /> and appropriate ways to address harmful algae blooms that need to be determined. There's also <br /> some uncertainty on compliance points on disposal of human waste. A compliance point was set <br /> as no discharge into the lake unless under a 2-year storm. There are a multitude of inflation, <br /> supply chain, and scarcity issues that are throwing work schedules off. It remains important for <br /> the city to communicate with the EPA, as these issues are affecting the entire industry. Mr. <br /> McMahon then outlined the resolution before Council and the administrative process to occur <br /> after passage. <br /> President Litten thanked Mr. McMahon for his thorough summary. He noted that while the <br /> proposition of a consent decree was alarming at first, it gives the city more protection and <br /> depoliticizes aspects of the issue. It also stops future Councils and Mayors from deferring <br /> investment in the sewer system. <br /> Councilmember Bullock inquired how material scarcity and inflation of construction costs could <br /> affect the project timeline. Mr. McMahon indicated that the IWWIP charts out progress over 25 <br /> years, but the timeline is still negotiable. Mr. Bullock then asked whether the timeline remains <br /> the same or whether it starts over with the consent decree. Mr. McMahon stated that the project <br /> remains on the same timeline. Mr. Bullock expressed his support for the resolution, noting that <br /> the contents of the consent decree are important and positive. <br /> Vice President Kepple asked why the civil penalties assessed to the city by the federal and state <br /> entities of the EPA were each set at$50,000. Mr. McMahon stated that those were the lowest <br /> amounts the organizations will take under their policies. He noted that the city of Euclid had a <br /> $150,000 penalty and another city had a $300,000 one. Ms. Kepple asked whether there has ever <br /> been a time where a federal court has chosen not to act on a consent decree and what other action <br /> they could take on it. Mr. McMahon, noting how mercurial some judges can be, stated that <br /> federal judges typically are happy to sign them, and allow further progress. <br /> Councilmember Baker asked whether it's within the judge's discretion to hold a fairness hearing, <br /> to which Mr. McMahon answered yes. Mr. Baker then inquired whether Council action would be <br /> necessary for future rate increases, after the city already borrowed against future revenue to pay <br /> for the High Rate Treatment Plant. Mr. McMahon confirmed Council action would be needed. <br /> Further discussion took place between the two regarding the future nutrient issues in the lake. <br /> 2 <br />