Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 01.31.2012 MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 31, 2012 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 31, 2012. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: _x Emelie Eaton _x_ Doug Poehls _x Bruce McGee _x_ Mark Mace _x Scot Stokes x_ Chuck Dickerson _x Tom Nelson _ Norm Stamper OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Jensen Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering Kurt Markegard Brent Peters 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. Tamara Frank, 2455 Ranch Trail Road, spoke regarding the speed limits on East Railroad Street. When traveling from the east to the west, the speed limit is 35 mph to a certain point and 25 mph on the other side. Tamara thinks it would be better if the speed limit was consistent. She understands that certain guidelines have to be followed and asked for the council's consideration regarding the speed limits. Mayor Olson thanked Tamara for her comments and stated that the city is currently reviewing the stated statute on this issue. He asked Tamara for her contact information in order to provide her with the current information regarding the speed limits and to notify her of future council discussion on the issue. General items: • Appointments: o Laurel Fire Department: Matt Wheeler, Tim Simmers, Heston Schessler and Tyler Anderson Fire Chief Peters introduced Heston Schessler, Tim Simmers, Matt Wheeler and Tyler Anderson. This will make 43 members on the fire department and 45 would be a full roster. Brent stated that all four appointees will be daytime responders. Mayor Olson thanked them for their service to the City of Laurel. Executive Review: Council Workshop Minutes of January 31, 2012 • Resolution — Accepting Great West's recommendation in the Preliminary Design Report for the Wastewater Treatment Plant improvements Heidi Jensen stated that the resolution is to accept Great West's recommendation for the Preliminary Design Report and Wastewater Treatment Plant improvements. Chad stated that the Preliminary Design Report looked at five proprietary systems, one of which did not meet the Montana DEQ standards and chose not to submit a bid. Great West's recommendation is the site - specific MLE. Bruce commented that the cost weighs heavily in the favor of the engineering firm for the site - specific MLE, but he thinks it is a necessity. Chad stated that the site - specific is more work for Great West versus paying a proprietary system and their engineers to do it. There is a similar amount of engineering, so the question is if the city pays Great West or other engineers. The advantage for the city, in addition to the lower capital cost because they can specify specific components and get competitive bids, is that the RBC basins can be reused. The site - specific MLE is more expandable for future nutrient requirements than a lot of the proprietary systems. The use of the high speed turbo blowers can be as much as 70 percent more efficient than traditional blowers and the blowers can be 70 percent of the power bill. That means 45 percent of the total power for the next 20 years can maybe be cut in half. O &M was a big consideration. Chad stated that this does favor his engineering firm, but there is going to be a similar amount of engineering. The question is if the city wants to pay Great West or a proprietary system where they design the system around them. Chad understands the comment that it is in Great West's favor, but he thinks that it is definitely in the city's long -term favor. Chad stated that the project will be designed to meet the city's current discharge permit, as well as anticipation of future discharge permits for nutrient removal. He spoke regarding current and future technology and the DEQ's requirements. The MLE process is a five -stage process, and they are proposing to build the first three stages. If more extreme requirements are mandated in the future, stages four and five could be easily added. The project will meet the current discharge permit and the best projection of the future discharge permits for the next couple permit cycles, and hopefully for twenty years. There was discussion regarding 20 -year projects of population and flows, possible precipitation events, and future mandates by state and federal agencies. • Resolution — Amendment No. 5 to Task Order No. 16 with Great West Engineering for final design and construction Heidi stated that the resolution is for Amendment No. 5 to Task Order No. 16 for Great West Engineering to complete the wastewater project. Chad stated that, based on moving forward with the site - specific design, Great West has been preparing a detailed cost estimate and their in -house summary list of 200 tasks for the project. The team worked hard to get the cost estimate as low as possible, and it ended up at $1,464,000, which exceeds the estimate in the PDR by quite a bit. He distributed copies of some information to the council, and a copy is attached to the council workshop minutes. 2 Council Workshop Minutes of January 31, 2012 Chad stated that the engineers tried to refine the cost estimates in the Preliminary Design Report by focusing on the capital costs. The original estimates in the PER, which they did not write, included 20 percent engineering and 20 percent construction. That is a common number that is applicable when doing sewer lines, water lines, and simpler projects. On a complicated project that requires civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, and architectural engineering, it is more like 23 to 25 percent. They were focused on reviewing the construction costs and failed to analyze the engineering line item adequately. The engineers recently reevaluated the detailed estimate, and the handout was an updated table out of the PDR. The first page is the detailed cost estimate for the project, which started in 2007 and has increased 3 percent every year. It is now up to $6,454,000. The second page took the average cost of the proprietary systems, which was $6,760,000. Great West's estimate is $300,000 less, which gave him more confidence that the site - specific MLE is the right track and will provide a lot of advantages. The problem with the site - specific is that it favors the engineering firm because they reduce the capital costs but have to increase engineering costs, which makes the percentage look terrible. Chad spoke about the advantages, including reducing power bills and possible rebates from NorthWestern Energy. There was discussion regarding the magnitude of the project, the timeline for the project, the life expectancy of the MLE system, the future maintenance costs, and grants and funding for the project. Chad stated that plans will be submitted to DEQ by the end of May and hope to be bidding the project by July or August. Based on their previous relationship with the city, Great West has already started working on the surveys, site data collection and scheduling the geotech requirements that have to be done. The construction schedule will specify that the UV unit needs to be completed first in order to meet the city's permit limits to be online by June 2013. Chad anticipates that construction will take a full year. Contractors will have to weigh issues regarding cold weather, groundwater, and peak capacity times into their bids and the project will need to be closely coordinated with city staff. From an engineering perspective, the life expectancy of the system is a 20 -year cycle and should take the city through the next two or three permit cycles. A well run, well cared for plant can last considerably longer, but maintenance will be needed. The existing plant was built in 1980, so it will have lasted 33 years before it is taken ofine. It cannot handle the flows and meet continually more stringent permit limits. The Preliminary Design Report looked at the O &M and focused on the electrical costs and electrical use. The total annual increase in O &M is $51,000 a year. The City of Laurel received a $750,000 Treasure State Endowment Program Grant for this project. Some funds were already spent on the Elm Lift Station and the head works. There is about $535,000 left for this project. The city is not eligible for CDBG or Rural Development funds but is on the priority list for the State Revolving Fund. The city received some forgiveness monies through the first phase of the ARRA program, and there will be more forgiveness funding in the future. The tentative policy is that future ARRA funds will be available to communities dealing with nutrient standards. NorthWestern Energy has been contacted regarding their reimbursement programs. Chad will continue to track down any available sources for grants and funding. • Resolution — Accept bid for garbage truck 3 Council Workshop Minutes of January 31, 2012 Heidi stated that Public Works Director Kurt Markegard submitted a memo regarding the garbage truck and the list of submitted bids was attached to the memo. The Public Works Department would like to purchase the 2012 Peterbilt with a Wayne Curbtender for $246,533. The bid for a 2012 Peterbilt with a Heil loader was $300 less. Staff recommends the Wayne Curbtender, as they feel it is the best choice. The city has a Curbtender and it has performed well for the last two years. The Heil does not come with a hopper cover. The city receives complaints about garbage blowing out of the Heil when going down the interstate but has never had that problem with the Wayne. Staff would like to stay with the Wayne Curbtender in order to keep out of trouble with the highway patrol and continue with its proven reliability over the last couple years. The old garbage truck would be traded in for $4,300. The truck would require $40,000 worth of work to get it running, and the city could not consciously sell it to another entity like that. The new garbage truck will be white and was in the current budget for $250,000. • Resolution — LURA Facade improvement over $5,000 Mayor Olson removed the resolution for the LURA Facade improvements as the improvements are under the $5,000 requirement for council approval. • Ordinance — Amend LMC Chapter 18.02, Laurel Urban Renewal Agency Heidi spoke regarding a letter from Shirley McDermott, the LURA chairman, asking the Mayor to direct staff to review LMC 18.02.020, which specifies residency requirements for members of the LURA board. Heidi explained that a number of people that faithfully attend LURA meetings own a business or property within the city but they do not live within the city. The residency requirements for LURA stated that commissioners must reside in Laurel. LURA wants to change the residency requirements to say that they either maintain a property, a business or permanent employment within the city limits. A couple members work at banks or are not necessarily members of LURA but they attend every month, but they do not live in Laurel. Changing the residency requirement would make it easier to fill the board and get a quorum at meetings. LURA is anxious to get their five -year plan done and to accomplish more visible projects. Emelie stated that the original wording was designed to get involvement from the people who would be affected by the District and it is sad that the wording needs to be changed so drastically. She asked if they are just trying to take their non - voting members and move them up to be voting members. Heidi stated that is true, but people cannot even be a non - voting member if they do not reside within the city. It would move the whole board around, and the people that would be promoted to be a non- voting member or a voting member all work within the District. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed change. Emelie suggested clarifying the verbiage to maintain employment within the "District" limits. The discussion continued regarding: LURA submits recommendations over $5,000 to the city council; the council approves the Mayor's appointments of voting and non - voting members to the LURA board; and the opportunity for civic minded people to serve on the LURA board. Heidi stated that the verbiage would not be changed for the first reading of the ordinance. 4 Council Workshop Minutes of January 31, 2012 Mayor Olson stated that this is the staff's recommendation for the process. If further changes are needed to the ordinance, they can be presented at the time of adoption. • Discussion — Donation of six lots from the Richmond Family Trust Heidi stated that the donation of property will come from the Richmond Family Trust. Hazel Klein at A Haus of Realty is preparing a market analysis on the property and the process will continue to move forward. The Richmonds have designated the park as Lois and John Bernhardt Park or Bernhardt Park. • Discussion — HOME Grant Program Mayor Olson removed the HOME Grant discussion from the agenda, as per stars recommendation. • Discussion — Board/Commission/Committee appointments A list of the proposed appointments was distributed and there was discussion regarding the proposed changes. The appointments will be on the February 7 council agenda. • Resolution of support for the Riverside Park Bank Stabilization Heidi stated that the city hired Great West Engineering to work on the bank stabilization project. Great West filed all of the city's permits in anticipation of the FEMA funding. The permit from Army Corps of Engineers has come up for the 21 -day comment period, and these 404 permits are usually pretty contentious. The city is doing everything possible to solicit positive comments. There are sign -up sheets at the water office and in the public works for the public to sign in support of restoring the levee. The congressmen have been contacted and Great West has written letters. Mayor Olson will send letters to the congressmen asking for their support and the Governor's office is supporting the city. The city has asked the clubs and committees that meet in Riverside Park to write a letter of support for this project. The resolution of support from the council will be sent with the other letters of support. Review of draft council agenda for February 7, 2012 The appointments will be added to the council agenda. Attendance at the February 7, 2012 council meeting All council members present will attend. Announcements The Laurel School District is hosting a public forum regarding protested taxes on Thursday, February 1 from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. in the high school auditorium. Chuck asked regarding the status of the diversion wall on the north side of the river by the water plant. Heidi explained that the city received the $21,000 allocated by FEMA for removal of the sand. The city still has $100,000 that CHS donated for the water treatment side. A lot of the sandbags have been removed. Kurt has a conceptual plan for the area and the project should be done before spring runoff. Kurt has been working with the county regarding permits. Heidi will keep the council informed and have pictures taken as the project progresses. 5 Council Workshop Minutes of January 31, 2012 The City /County Joint Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 9` at 5:30 p.m. at MetraPark. The council secretary will RSVP that Mayor Olson, Doug, Mark, Bruce, Emelie, Tom and Chuck will attend the meeting. Agenda items need to be submitted by tomorrow. Emelie asked regarding the December 13, 2011, Library Board minutes that mentioned a meeting that the Library Director had with Heidi about proposing that the city have a mill levy. The minutes said that the board declined the council's suggestion to run a mill levy for 29 mills. As Emelie did not remember when the council recommended that, she asked for minutes that support it and further discussion. Heidi questioned where the 29 mills came from. She remembered discussion regarding three alternatives for mill levies at a previous council retreat, including a safety mill levy, a park maintenance district and the library. Heidi will clarify this with the Library Director. The council workshop adjourned at 7:49 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 City of Laurel, Montana WWTP Upgrades Cost Estimates Table 1.8 -4 (from PDR) Modified to Reflect Detailed Engineering Estimate Item Section Estimated Cost Custom MLE 1.7 $1,260,000 Secondary Clarifier Modifications 1.9 $360,000 RAS/WAS Pumping 1.1 $240,000 Filament Control 1.11 $20,000 Solids Thickening and Chemical Storage 1.12 $730,000 UV Disinfection 1.13 $510,000 General SCADA Improvements $160,000 Civil Site Improvements $160,000 Subtotal $3,440,000 Contractor's Overhead and Profit' $520,000 General Conditions 2 $350,000 Contingency 3 $680,000 Construction Total $4,990,000 Detailed Engineering Estimate 5 $1,464,000 Project Total $6,454,000 15% of subtotal to account for office overhead and contractors profit. 2 10% of subtotal to account for project specific requirements such as mobilization, demobilization, bonds, insurance, field offices, security, supervision, etc. 3 20% of subtotal to account for unforeseen construction conditions, change orders, and items not incorporated into the estimate. 4 The projected amount that would be paid to the contractor for performing the work. 5 From detailed estimate for construction total for design, construction assistance, materials testing, permitting, and other costs associated with the project that are not paid to the contractor. 6 Total cost of project for the owner, not including monies spent to date. Great West Project No. 2- 07128, Task Order 16 01/31/12 City of Laurel, Montana WWTP Upgrades Cost Estimates Table 1.8 -4 (from PDR) Modified to Reflect Proprietary System(s) Item Section Estimated Cost Proprietary System (Average Cost Estimate) 1.7 $1,690,000 Secondary Clarifier Modifications 1.9 $360,000 RAS/WAS Pumping 1.1 $240,000 Filament Control 1.11 $20,000 Solids Thickening and Chemical Storage 1.12 $730,000 UV Disinfection 1.13 $510,000 General SCADA Improvements $160,000 Civil Site Improvements $160,000 Subtotal $3,870,000 Contractor's Overhead and Profit' $590,000 General Conditions 2 $390,000 Contingency 3 $780,000 Construction Total $5,630,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration $1,130,000 Project Total $6,760,000 1 15% of subtotal to account for office overhead and contractor's profit. 2 1 0% of subtotal to account for project specific requirements such as mobilization, demobilization, bonds, insurance, field offices, security, supervision, etc. 3 20% of subtotal to account for unforeseen construction conditions, change orders, and items not incorporated into the estimate. 4 The projected amount that would be paid to the contractor for performing the work. 5 20% of construction total for design, construction assistance, materials testing, permitting, and other costs associated with the project that are not paid to the contractor. 6 Total cost of project for the owner, not including monies spent to date. Great West Project No. 2- 07128, Task Order 16 01/31/12