HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 01.25.2011 MINUTES
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
JANUARY 25, 2011 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at
6:30 p.m. on January 25, 2011.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
_ Emelie Eaton _ Doug Poehls
_x Kate Hart x Mark Mace
_x Chuck Rodgers _x_ Chuck Dickerson
_x Tom Nelson _x Norm Stamper
OTHERS PRESENT:
Sam Painter Rick Musson
Kurt Markegard Jan Faught
Tim Reiter Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering
Public Input (three - minute limit):
Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business not on the agenda. The duration for an individual
speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the Council will not take action
on any item not on the agenda.
Larry Tanglen, Laurel Outlook, introduced Daniel Baney, who was hired last fall as a sports writer.
Daniel will be given some other reporting opportunities soon and will have contact with city hall and
the council.
Mayor Olson welcomed Daniel to the council chambers.
General items:
• Appointment:
o Laurel Police Reserves
Chief Musson stated that Dan Sciuchetti is the eighth appointment to the Police Reserves and he will
be introduced at the council meeting next Tuesday.
o Laurel Fire Department: Duane Rehling
Mayor Olson stated that the appointment of Duane Rehling would be on the next council agenda.
Public Works Department:
• Great West Engineering — Wastewater project presentation
Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering, gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Wastewater
System Improvements Project Update. A copy of the presentation is attached to these council
workshop minutes. The presentation included: Problem Definition of the existing wastewater
system, interim effluent limits, final effluent limits (effective June 1, 2013), and effluent limit
violations; Previous Work regarding the facility plan and updates, Phase 1, Phase 2A1, Phase 2A2,
and Phases 2B & 2C; Recent Work by Great West, including "White Paper ", proposed revisions to
Council Workshop Minutes of January 25, 2011
Phase 2A2, the cost estimate for proposed Phases 2A2 and 2B, and the potential impact to the sewer
rates; and the Next Steps include the evaluation of the wastewater rates and to begin the preliminary
design.
There was discussion regarding the proposed sewer rate increase, the need to raise the rates in order to
save funds for the project and lower the loan and interest payments, the need to educate the public,
and the city's goal to review the cost for the project. Information will be included in the next Laurel
City Voice.
Kurt stated that a task order for preliminary design would be presented to the council soon.
• Resolution — Task Order No. 21 with Great West Engineering/Canal Crossing for WWTP
Effluent Pipeline
Kurt stated that the task order is to hire Great West Engineering to prepare plans and specifications
for the placement of the effluent pipe that goes across the BBWA Canal. The council received copies
of the 1928 and 1941 BBWA agreements that stipulated that, when the BBWA had to move the head
gate that used to be down closer to Straugh Road, they had to move it down further to catch part of the
deeper river channel because of the sedimentation in the river. At that point in 1928, the city entered
into negotiations with BBWA for the expansion of that BBWA Canal and the pipe. The document
states that the BBWA would take care of the maintenance, operation and replacement costs of the
pipe. The agreement states that the city would provide the plans and specifications for the pipe. Kurt
researched and found the documents that said the BBWA is responsible. The PER identified the
replacement cost of the pipe to be $150,000, but the city does not have to incur that cost. The city
will provide the plans and specifications and then direct the BBWA to replace the pipe as per city
specifications, as detailed in the 1928 and 1941 agreements. The pipe is in a state of disrepair and is
starting to leak. After city personnel made them aware of the problem, the BBWA has been patching
the pipe. Kurt talked to the BBWA over a year ago, but the issue was not as critical at that time. He
informed the BBWA the night before their annual stockholders' meeting, and they found the same
documents in their vault. After the shareholders' meeting, they immediately took responsibility for
the leaks. Kurt gives credit to the city's forefathers in 1928 that had the foresight to enter into this
agreement. The city will have plans and specifications drawn up for the pipe so the city is directing
how to get the sewer from the sewer plant to the river, not at the direction of the BBWA, but at the
direction of the city. If the pipe fails, the BBWA will not be fined for illegally discharging. The City
of Laurel would be fined, so plans and specifications warrant the cost because the city would be held
responsible. Kurt filed a report and notified the DEQ about the leaks. The city received a violation
letter that was notification that the DEQ understood there was a leak, that the city addressed the issue,
and there is no more action.
Executive Review:
• Ordinance — Business licensing/medical marijuana
• Ordinance — Zoning/medical marijuana
Mayor Olson asked if there was any input from the audience regarding the medical marijuana issue.
Lance Scheveck, 8307 Danford Avenue, asked questions regarding the 1,000 foot requirement in the
zoning ordinance, the annual license fee per application, and the signage requirements. He suggested
that the city impose a tax to create some revenue for the city. There was discussion regarding the
items.
2
Council Workshop Minutes of January 25, 2011
Jean Kerr, Laurel City Court Judge, spoke regarding the ordinances and the effects of allowing
medical marijuana businesses allowed in Laurel. She considers Billings to be the medical corridor, so
people should be able to go to Billings to get medical marijuana. The law allows a person with a card
to grown their own marijuana, so a storefront is not needed here. She spoke regarding the negative
impacts this would have on Laurel. Laurel has an officer who is a drug agent with the DEA, and
allowing medical marijuana businesses would send a contradictive message to the police department.
The crimes her court sees that go along with addiction include theft, destruction of property, assault,
partner /family member assault, and narcotic DUI's. There is a high rate of chemical dependency in
Laurel. She gave examples of court cases involving marijuana. Deb Perrigo, a local licensed
addiction counselor, recently spoke with Judge Kerr about the characteristics of the people that are
sent to her from the court. Second offense minors in possession often have marijuana concerns, and
her goal is to get the kids to experience what it is like to be clean. Judge Kerr gave information
regarding schizo- affective disorders which develop into full -blown schizophrenia, studies that back up
statistics, a case where one party had a medical marijuana card and five people in the household were
smoking off the same card, the negative effects on families, and the increase in aggression for people
trying to get off marijuana. Laurel City Court is trying to get a DUI court started in Laurel, and she
feels it would undermine the startup of that court to try to get people headed in a positive direction to
get clean and sober. Regarding fear of a lawsuit, she suggested verbiage in the ordinances not to
allow any businesses that do not comply with Federal laws, which states that marijuana is illegal. She
stated that the costs involved would be much higher than any benefit received from having the
businesses in town. Judge Kerr strongly encouraged the council not to change the ordinance and not
to allow this business in Laurel.
David Scheveck, 8307 Danford, stated that he is the father of the earlier petitioner. He stated that the
voters voted the law in with a majority of 63 percent of the vote. He suggested that medical
marijuana caregivers should not be cast as second class citizens like strippers and gambling casinos,
which is a high revenue industry in Montana. The caregivers should be conducted with the notion
that they are of a prescription, right alongside with the CVS's, Wal -Mart's and other places that have
legitimate pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Lee Richardson, 115 East 13 Laurel, stated that, because of the problems in Billings and the
people that are dealing with this narcotic problem, he hoped that the licensing could be delayed until
after the legislature met because major changes are possible. There is much abuse, and it is estimated
that probably 3 percent or less of those that have medical marijuana cards really have a medical
indication for doing this. He hopes that the physician, the D.O. or the M.D. that authorizes the
medical marijuana card will also be responsible for the care of those patients. As far as the growers,
each individual is allowed six plants or one ounce per week as per regulations. There are abuses with
that and the plants can grow more than what is needed. He questioned what happens to the excess
marijuana that is grown. There are proposals to have the State control all of the growth centers and
the distribution so there will not be the abuse. Dr. Richardson suggested that the city wait to see what
the legislature does before making a decision.
Mayor Olson opened the council discussion on the issue.
There was discussion regarding the city's six -month moratorium and subsequent six -month extension
to the moratorium, the suggestion to wait until the legislature has made a decision, the ramifications if
the council chose not to adopt the ordinances, the probability of lawsuits if the city does not allow
3
Council Workshop Minutes of January 25, 2011
medical marijuana businesses, a zoning map to show the possible locations for such businesses, the
Planning Board's intent to include regulations and restrictions in the ordinances to control the
businesses, the likelihood that changes to the ordinances will be required after the legislative session,
and the need for the council to hear comments and evidence at the public hearing. The minutes of the
Planning Board will be redistributed to the council for review.
Sam explained that the zoning ordinance was a recommendation from the planner to the Planning
Board. In the business licensing ordinance, two of the preliminary sections are in the current
ordinances and contain the reference to the Federal laws of the United States. If the council adopts
the business licensing ordinance to license medical marijuana facilities, those two sections need to be
taken out so the city does not operate in contradiction of its ordinances. The remainder of the
proposed ordinance will be a new chapter in the business licensing section. There are references to
Montana Code in the ordinance as the city can only regulate to the extent Montana does, and the
ordinance recognizes the caregiver cards issued by the State of Montana. Sam stated that he will
review the draft ordinances further to cite "pursuant to Montana law" in several more places. The
ordinances will be redistributed to the council later this week.
• Resolution — Memorandum of Understanding with Beartooth RC &D
Mayor Olson stated that the Memorandum of Understanding is an annual agreement with Beartooth
RC &D for economic development for Carbon, Yellowstone, Stillwater, Big Horn and Sweet Grass
Counties. Marvin Carter is the City of Laurel's representative on the Beartooth RC &D Board. The
resolution will be on the February 1S council agenda.
• Resolution — Adopt official Schedule of Fees and Charges
The resolution approving the 2011 Schedule of Fees and Charges will be on the council agenda on
February 1
• FAP contractor selection process
Mayor Olson stated that High Plains Architects have proposed that the ambulance construction
project go forward under MCA 18 -2 -501 requirements.
Sam explained that the architect recommended that the city consider a different method of
construction since this is an addition to an existing FAP building. With typical projects, the architect
or engineer designs them, the plans and specs are prepared, the city prepares a request for proposals,
the RFP is published in the paper, bids are received, and the best bid is selected. This alternative
method is allowed under Montana law and would allow the city to work closely with the architect.
The council must make some findings, which are stated in MCA 18 -2 -502. The architect has pointed
out that this method would save the city a significant amount of money. The other two findings are
that the construction time would speed up considerably and there would be less disruption to the
public facility. If the council makes that determination based upon the architect's recommendation, a
request for qualifications will be published for qualified contractors to submit bids on the project.
The architect will assist city staff to determine the best contractor to hire for the project, based on
expertise and experience with this energy efficient building. The architect will present information as
to why this process would be in the city's best interest. After that presentation, if the council chooses,
Sam will prepare a resolution with the requisite findings in it to start the process.
4
Council Workshop Minutes of January 25, 2011
Mayor Olson stated that this was an initial education on the proposed process, which is different from
the normal construction process. The architect's presentation is scheduled for the council workshop
on February 8
Norm and Tom spoke regarding the construction management process and agreed that it would work
well for this project.
• Council Retreat
There was discussion regarding the proposed dates for the council retreat. Since Saturday, February
26 appeared to be the best date, Mayor Olson will contact the Local Government Center to schedule
the retreat. Agenda items should be submitted to the mayor or council secretary.
• Council e-mail
Mayor Olson will contact Technical Edge regarding setting up the council e-mail addresses, which
will be identified by ward, and ask a representative to attend a council meeting to explain how to
access the e-mail accounts.
• Council Issues:
o Plans for sheds by FAP building (Chuck Dickerson)
Mayor Olson stated that the department heads have discussed the plans for the sheds. Since no
legislation is needed, staff will determine exactly how to best use the sheds.
Other items:
• Resolution — Arbor Day Grant
Mayor Olson stated that a resolution accepting the Arbor Day Grant would be on the February 1
council agenda.
• Resolution — Contract for digester cleaning
Kurt explained that, after Phase 2A1 was finished, one of the digesters was taken down and the sludge
was pumped into the drying beds. One digester is full and the other one needs to be back online.
Some paint inside the digester has come off and needs to be cleaned out so it does not plug up the
suction lines once it starts filling. The digester needs to be repainted, but the quote for $164,000 is
not in the budget. The proposal is to get the digester cleaned out, get it back online, and then schedule
the painting in the future. Kurt stated that the digester needs an access hatch, which would be done by
punching a hole through the side of the digester and installing a vessel manhole. The other digester
has a manhole that was installed by the city. The city is trying to retrofit these old digesters to new
standards and new ingress /egress requirements to make them accessible for cleaning. Two proposals
have been submitted, but more time is needed to finalize the cost and timeframe for the project. The
resolution and contract will be distributed to the council as soon as possible.
Review of draft council agenda for February 1, 2011
The resolution for the contract for digester cleaning will be added to the council agenda.
Attendance at the February 1, 2011 council meeting
All council members present will attend the meeting.
Ambulance Director Jan Faught introduced Heather Crockett, who was recently appointed as a
member of the Laurel Ambulance Service.
5
Council Workshop Minutes of January 25, 2011
Announcements
Chuck Dickerson thanked the staff for their snow removal efforts and for keeping the drains open, as
there could have been a lot of issues.
Norm asked for an update on the asphalt plant at the next council workshop since he recently noticed
that there was some activity there.
Tom stated that the interview committee for the city planner position has, by unanimous decision, sent
the name of a good applicant to the mayor for him to interview. He stated that the city could have a
city planner here soon.
Mayor Olson will interview the applicant on Monday. He thanked the interview committee for the
time they spent going through the complete interview process and stated that he was extremely
impressed with the process and the manner in which they conducted themselves.
The council workshop adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy Allen
Council Secretary
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of
the Council for the listed workshop agenda items.
6
4
1/27/2011
.
Wastewater System Improvements
Project Update Problem Definition
0
CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA
JANUARY 25, 2010
Yd(HI51 CACdNLit
Existing Wastewater System Interim Effluent Limits
C
0
• Gravity Collection System with 2 Lift Stations Average 1 Average Maximum
y Limit
o Areas of Deteriorated and/ or Aging Sewer Mains Parameter Units Monthly 1 Weekly ail
�� g omit ; Limit D
• Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs) nom` 30 45 -
IWday 220 330 -
o Treatment Provided by Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC's) mp/L 30 45
o Overloaded at Existing Wastewater Flows Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 220 330 -
o Not Well Suited for Pending Ammonia and Nutrient Removal Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) mg/L 0.5
E. coli Bacteria (April 110 October 31) cfu1100 mL 34,020 74,340
Requirements Total Nitrogen as N lb/day 233 363 -
• Discharge Permit Total Phosphorus as P lb/day 47 73 -
Oil and Grease mg/L - - 10
o Treated Effluent from WWTP Discharged to Yellowstone River pH BetNeen 60 and 60
Under MPDES Permit No. MToo2o3 Percent Removal 85% Removal for BODs and TSS
1
1 o Permit Contains Limitation on Several Effluent Paramete /a ap / .„.._
1
1/27/2011
Final Effluent Limits (Effective June 1, 2013) Effluent Limit Violations
Average Average Maximum • 20 Violations Since 2004
Parameter units Monthly weekly Daily Limit 0 B — Da Avera e 2
Limit Limit 5 7 Y g
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs) mg/L 30 45 - 0 BOD — 3o Day Average 2
lb/day
mg /L 30 3 4 5 - - 0 B 5 — % Removal 12
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mglL 30 45
lb/day 220 330 - 0 TSS — % Removal 4
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) mg/L 0.011 - 0.019
E. coli Bacteria (April 1 to October 31) cfu/100 mL 128 252 -
E. coli Bacteria (November 1 to March 31) cfu /100 mL 630 1.260 - '.. • Existing Facility Will Not Be Able to Meet Final E.
Total Nitrogen as N lb/day 233 363 -
Total Phosphorus as P lb/day 47 73 - Coll Effluent Limits and Chlorine Residual
Oil and Grease mg/L - - 10 I Simultaneously
PH Balsam 6.0 and 9.0 i
Percent Removal 85% Removal far BODs and TSS g
• Elevated Levels of E . Coli in Discharge Considered
• _ 1
an Acute Health Risk! �..
Facility Plan and Updates
0
Previous Work • Laurel Wastewater Facilities Plan Developed in
2003 and Updated in 2009 by Morrison - Maierle
• Facility Plan:
o Evaluated Existing Wastewater System;
0 Identified Deficiencies with System; I
0 Analyzed Viable Alternatives to Address These Deficiencies;
0 Developed Capital and Life Cycle Cost Estimates for
Alternatives; and
0 Provided Recommendations for Preferred Alternative(s)
• Recommendations Further Broken Into Phases Due
s to Magnitude
ca/ m�Nkq , (i�t1
2
1/27/2011
Phase 1 Phase 2Ai
0
• Phase IA (Completed 2004) • Completed in 2010
o Replacement of Sewer Main in Alder Avenue and Portion of Main
Trunkline to WWTP Under Agricultural Fields • Phase Included:
o Reduced Infiltration by = 400,000 gallons /day in Summer o Replacing Elm Street Lift Station and Rehabilitating Village
o Phase Cost = $1,012,165 Lift Station;
. $500,000 CDBG Grant
o New Water Main to WWTP; and
• $512,165 from City Reserves
• Phase 1B (Completed 2006) o Grit Removal and Headworks Facility Improvements at
o Replaced Remainder of Main Trunkline to WWII) W W rP
o Reduced Infiltration by =600,000 gallons/day in Summer • Phase Cost = $1,813,500
o Phase Cost = $1,608,355 0 $217,500 TSEP Grant
• $500,000 TSEP Grant o $390,700 SRF Loan Forgiveness (ARRA)
• $1oo,000 DNRC Grant
• $1,008,355 SRF Loan $1,205,300 SRF Loan
Phase 2A2 Phases 2B & 2C
• Summary of Proposed Improvements • Phase 2B
o Add Activated Sludge System to Plant (Oxidation Ditch) o Addition of UV Disinfection for WWTP Effluent
o Continue to Operate RBC's o Estimated Phase Cost = $536,000
o Blend Effluent from RBC's and Ditch o Necessary to Meet Final Effluent Limits for E. Coli
o Construct New Clarifier for Activated Sludge Treatment Train • Phase 2C
• Estimated Phase Cost = $4,646,900 o Influent Lift Station Rehabilitation, Replace Piping for Sludge
• Proposed Funding: Digestion and Transfer System, and Effluent Outfall
o $532,500 TSEP Grant Replacement
o $1,000,000 from City Reserves o Estimated Phase Cost = $624,000
0 $3,114,400 SRF Loan
o Work is Truly Maintenance Items
o City Personnel Have Replaced Much of the Sludge Piping and
Are Working with the BBWA on the Effluent Outfall Pipe
3
1/27/2011
"White Paper"
0
Recent Work by Great West • In 2010, City Asked Great West Engineering to
Evaluate Work Completed to Date and to Provide
Engineering Services for Any Improvements to the
WWTP
• Great West Prepared a "White Paper" with Our
I Conclusions in June 2010
o Proposed a Revised Phase 2A2
o Recommended Including 2B in Any Construction Project to
Meet Pending Effluent Limits
o Evaluated Impacts to O &M Costs and User Rates
410 Cd/u\ttst tit. 4k
Proposed Revisions to Phase 2A2 Cost Estimate for Proposed Phase 2A2 & 2B
)
• Construct 2 Ditches and Remove RBC's from PdmaryEfluemPlpdgImprov $50,000
Op eration Secondary Clarifier Renovations :' '�
Perimeter Bellies 590.000
o Aerobic Digestion of Sludge Can Be Achieved with Existing New sludge Collector Mechanism.Nm EDIV 5190,000
Sludge Digester UV Disinfection EgNpment $400.000
Standby Generator for UV Disinfection Equipment 325.000
o Allows Aerated Portion of Ditches to be Downsized by 006o % RAS PUmpi q Improvements 5350.050
WASIRDT Feed Pump Improvements $50,000
o Can Construct 2 Smaller Ditches with Common Walls for Solids Processing and Chemical Feed Building 5550,000
Slightly More than the Cost of 1 Larger Ditch InatrvmentatlonlSCADAtor New Facilities 5+5(1.000
Yard Piping and Structures 1160.000
• Retrofit Existing Clarifier vs. Constructing a New 3rd Electrical for o ..Facilities $541.005
Subtotal: Direct Construction Costs 54,195,IX0
Clarifier (Becomes an Option by Removing RBC's)
Contingenry 120%) $533,055
• Reduces Estimated Increase to O &M by Over Total: Construction Daa 94,999,000
Prelimirery Dospn (^ 2S %) 5125.000
100,000 Since Not Operating Two Distinct Plants Fin Design 5400050
/ Construction Admnelralen(•9.5 %) 5475,055 /��,,5��,,.
0 S 0 , Total: Capital Cost $5,959,000 spry_
4
41
1/27/2011
Potential Impact to Sewer Rates
Next Steps?
n a taa
..wcwY 536.750
56,999.900 58.523.500 7 a4 X 4
TaYl3repatCwb M SB.0110.110 116.6110.100
755p4nm 5530,03 5532500
C.oty Roams
S3.114.0 Sa.503.250 55.127.250
wn�.wrs,
TOY 7731.47F374s 14.346.1100 33.4X.753 14X,47114
4311 ai pavmentl 5224119 5324.439 5308.033
Total Lean Amount 14,338.513 34,127.313 33,4X,213
Anniuita.n am 5395.510
TO121.144112605 ServIc8..Project X53,533 $434,212 3494,3*
anal e o IM 5154,443 551,030 559.300
ummAnnaal
5 5 55000 00
u to avm.m nom E4544g DeY Semu 5130X4 51X000
corns 552574 5 362.553
nnwi 31,332843 31,717.712 *1.712.X4
Avenge ensurp
A.ea wew 45 ae 35714
E43' X sou
.tea..... : 53 - /
1. Evaluate Wastewater Rates 2. Begin Preliminary Design I
1_.
• Complete in Conjunction with Water Rate Study » Compare Two Proprietary Systems and Custom
Underway • Design •
o Evaluate Historical Revenues vs. Expenses, Usage, Etc. o Develop Life Cycle Costs Including Capital Costs,
o Convert to EDU System Similar to Water Rates Engineering Fees, and Estimated O &M Costs of Each
• Include Necessary Rate Increase for WWTP o Outline "Pros and Cons" of Each
Improvements • • Evaluate Ability to Rehabilitate /Reuse Existing
o Lengthy Design Schedule (z 1 year) Before Construction Facilities vs. Replacing
Even Possible 1 • Develop Design Parameters for Final Design
o May Be Possible to Pass Lower Rate Increase, Increase
Reserves for Construction During Design, and Lower Loan i • Refine Cost Estimates and Schedule
Amount Necessary for Construction
0 Gat /'
_ _
5
II, ,.
r0
cr N
� •
O
I �
I
N
N
V
N
0
F-1