Sanitation District No. 1

The customer's billing issue due to the leak has been resolved and the customer has been personally contacted via phone

Hi [redacted],Sanitation SD1 finally contacted me and answered my question. The problem has solved. Thank you for your help![redacted]

The complaint was handled by contacting the person [redacted] directly.

We have contacted Mr. [redacted] with a phone call regarding his account and currently in the process of working on a resolution.Thank you,

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]Please find a copy of the response from SD1 with my evidence and responses included. I have also attached a copy of the bacterial testing done at the property. We have estimates for damages, repairs and losses that are nearing or exceeding $10,000 in total at this time. If we follow SD1's proposed procedure we will have to incur several losses before action is taken.
Regards,
[redacted]

Please be advised, that we have made contact with Mr. [redacted] via email and addressed the issue providing a resolution. Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.

The customer's billing issue due to the leak has been resolved and the customer has been personally contacted via phone.

A representative from SD1 spoke with this customer regarding the issue and came to a resolution on 02/24/17.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may...

update it before sending it.  If you and the business have reached an agreement and compliance is set for a future date, we trust the business will comply.  Please contact us after that time if the matter is not resolved as agreed and we will review the complaint and proceed accordingly.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  Thank you for your assistance and thank you to the Sanitation District for reviewing and correcting the charge.
Regards,
[redacted]

The following summary was provided to the SD1 Board of Directors after Mr. [redacted] presented his concerns at the October board meeting. Mr. [redacted] is claiming building back-ups he has experienced since July of this year at [redacted]. The dates of occurrence are as follows July...

28, August 15, August 16, August 28 and unknown.A summary is provided below:The first time Mr. [redacted] contacted SD1 was on August 15, 2016. SD1’s records indicate this was the first trouble call received from this property since documentation began in 1995. In later conversations, Mr. [redacted] also indicated that he had recently purchased the property at 801 [redacted] in July 2016 and could not provide evidence or documentation of the history of backups at this property.Mr. [redacted] contacted SD1 on August 15, 2016 to place a trouble call reporting a building back-up at his property at 801 [redacted] In response to his trouble call, an SD1 crew member was dispatched to investigate. A dye test was performed and the results indicated the main sewer line servicing his property was functioning properly. It was noted during SD1’s field investigation that the manhole walls indicated evidence of surcharging up to the lid, meaning the Trouble Call Technician observed watermarks that may have been caused by the system but actual surcharging was not visually confirmed. The manholes on [redacted] are old brick construction which allows water in from around the manhole lid and the walls.[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] 801 [redacted] In response to his trouble call, an SD1 crew member was dispatched to investigate. The Trouble Call Technician’s comments confirmed SD1’s mainline was open and flowing at the time of the investigation. The Trouble Call Technician attempted to make contact with the property owner by phone and personally at his property to document and take pictures of the basement backup evidence but was unsuccessful in making contact.Both the August 15 and August 28, 2016 rain events were thunderstorms with a highly varied distribution of rainfall. The table below includes the 3 nearest rain gauges to [redacted] The table includes minimum and maximum rainfall volumes and return periods for each date provided by the owner. The August 15, 2016 was a 2-year event at one site and a 1-year event at another site.  The August 28, 2016 storm ranged from a 25-year event to a 1-year event. .On September 6, 2016 SD1 crews performed a Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Service (SSES) test on the property. This test identifies all inflow sources for the property. Test results revealed the downspouts on his property have been disconnected.It was also determined that an area yard drain is connected to his private lateral, along with an unidentified tap that was found in the private lateral. In addition, SD1 also performed a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection on a portion of the private lateral. The inspection results indicated the private lateral is structurally sound in the area inspected.The basement is a dirt floor with no floor drain. According to Mr. [redacted], the water rises up through the soil below the foundation walls. Mr. [redacted] is seeking reimbursement for expenses related to soil remediation in the basement and incurred costs to disconnect inflow sources. In addition, he has submitted a broad open records request and has threatened litigation against the District. His primary request is for the District to install a backflow preventer at his property on [redacted]The request has not been granted at this point for the following reasons:There are no records of building back-ups at 801 [redacted] prior to August 15, 2016.SD1 is uncertain if the back-ups are caused by an issue with his private lateral, inflow sources overwhelming his private lateral, or the potential for insufficient elevation relative to the public sewer.The two events that were reported, August 15 and 28, were at least a 2 year event at a nearby rain gauge. Based on available modeling data, a review of the sewer network, and the very small tributary area upstream of [redacted], the main sewer line that serves this property appears to have sufficient capacity.Three actions have been initiated that may change the current determination:A potential board review of a proposed backflow preventer program. Current criteria considers at least two backups that occur for events less than a 2-year, 6 hour event and caused by capacity in the public sewer. A continuous simulation of historical rainfall in the collection system model to examine a range of events. This may identify collection system surcharging from high intensity rainfall over a short duration. Two manhole floats have been installed in the vicinity of [redacted] which will be checked after significant rain events to directly verify surcharged conditions. [redacted]