HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 04.15.2014 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAUREL
April 15, 2014
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the
Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at 6:30 p.m. on April 15, 2014.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Doug Poehls
Bruce McGee Richard Herr
Scot Stokes Chuck Dickerson
Tom Nelson Bill Mountsier
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Emelie Eaton
OTHER STAFF PRESENT: Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director
Crystal Bennett, Great West Engineering
Mayor Mace led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
Mayor Mace asked the council to observe a moment of silence.
MINUTES:
Motion by Council Member McGee to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 1,
2014, as presented, seconded by Council Member Dickerson. There was no public comment or
council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All seven council members present voted aye.
Motion carried 7 -0.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Montana Department of Transportation: Letter of March 26, 2014, regarding 2014 -2018 Draft
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
Laurel Chamber of Commerce: Minutes of March 27, 2014; Agenda for April 10, 2014.
COUNCIL DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
PUBLIC HEARING:
• Preliminary Engineering Report / Environmental Assessment
Mayor Mace asked staff to introduce the item to the council.
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated that this is the second public hearing to discuss the
results of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the water system. Crystal Bennett, with
Great West Engineering, attended to give a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is attached to
these council minutes.
Crystal's presentation included the following: the Water System Study, Growth/Capacity, Water
Supply, Water Treatment Plant Layout, Water Quality /Treatment, Distribution System — Layout,
Distribution System, Distribution System — Pressures, Distribution System — Proposed Pressure
Zones, Water Storage, Water Meters, Water Treatment Plant Alternatives, Water Treatment Plant
Additive Alternatives, Water Storage Alternatives, Pumping Station Alternatives, Decision Matrix &
Weighting Factors, Decision Matrix — Water Treatment Plant, Decision Matrix — Water Storage,
Decision Matrix — Pumping Station, Phased Improvements, Phase 3 WTP Improvements, Phase 3
Pump Station Improvements, Estimated Costs for Phase 3 Improvements; Potential Grant Funding &
Target Rates, Grant Eligibility, Projected Rates from Project Costs (Cost/User), and Actual Impacts
to User Rates.
Crystal passed around a sign -in sheet for anyone that attended the hearing.
Council Minutes of April 15, 2014
Crystal stated that the water system study, the Preliminary Engineering Report, was done to assess
all the critical components of the water system. The same information was discussed at the public
.__. hearing two weeks ago.
Crystal explained that the growth and capacity requirements started with the 2010 census
information and were projected through the city's growth policy. The first component reviewed was
the water supply. The source is the Yellowstone River and there have been changes in the river
since the 2011 flood. There are significant problems with the intake, but that is a completely
separate project that is referenced in the report, but is not part of the proposed improvements.
In the Water Treatment Plant, the main issues are the existing sludge ponds, the flocculation and
sedimentation basins, the backwash water storage tank, and security and access. The biggest
deficiencies are the flocculation/sedimentation basins, which are literally falling apart. Some of it is
contributed to being uncovered, as the freeze and thaw cycle speeds that up, but there are also
possible contamination sources because it is not a covered basin. A prime example is the oil sheen
that occurred just last year. Mixing capabilities are limited. There is insufficient flow to the filters,
which happens between the sedimentation basin and the filters. If the basins get replaced, that issue
will be fixed. The filters cannot meet the projected domestic and industrial flows. That is critical
because Cenex Refinery uses a lot of water. If the way things are done is not changed, new filters
would need to be built on top of the sedimentation and flocculation basins. A plan is in place for
Cenex to use the settled water instead of treated water, which means the filters can be left alone.
Crystal said this was a win -win situation for the refinery and the city.
Additional concerns include the sludge pond, which is unlined, has no redundancy, and needs to be
replaced. The tank has leaks in it and cannot be filled completely. There are multiple issues within
the building, including the actuators, valves, blowers, and the ventilation system. One of the most
important issues is the lack of security.
The distribution system has 3 -inch through 18 -inch pipelines. The major problems are undersized,
aging and non - connected lines, and that is part of the city's ongoing pipeline replacement program
and is not addressed in the final project. The other issue is the low pressures, as anything below 35
psi is less than state minimum standards. Crystal explained that pressures cannot be maintained
because of the big elevation difference. A pressure zone, which would be like one storage tank, can
serve up to 80 feet but one zone is trying to serve 132 feet, which is mathematically impossible. The
only way to alleviate that is to develop different pressure zones. She spoke regarding Zones 1, 2 and
3 in the presentation.
The water storage capacity is fine in the existing tank, but it is the only tank and it is absolutely
critical that it stays in operation. The other limitation is the height because of the pressure
differences. The existing tank that serves Zone 1, the lower elevation, is not going to be able to
serve Zone 2. Great West Engineering recommends a second 1 million gallon storage tank, and then
with pressure reducing vaults, it could be used as a backup for Zone 1.
Crystal stated that Great West went through each component and developed alternatives. The first
three alternatives are different types of conventional treatment and the last two are package
treatment. In general, the package treatment has a much smaller footprint, but very high O &M costs.
The additive alternatives are stand -alone options that would be done in addition to the water
treatment plant improvements. The water storage alternatives include a concrete buried storage tank,
a ground level steel tank, a ground level glass -fused tank, and an elevated steel tank.
For the pumping station alternatives, the Alternative P -1 option to relocate the Cherry Hills Booster
Station would only be done if a storage tank is not installed. P -2 and P -3 would be completed if a
storage tank is installed.
To decide between the alternatives, they were put into a decision matrix. The engineers use
weighting factors to score each alternative based on all of the components. The life cycle costs have
the highest weight and factor because the city is limited by funds. Ultimately, the preferred
alternative for the water treatment plant is the conventional treatment with tube settlers. For water
storage, the concrete buried storage tank is the preferred alternative. For the pumping station, if a
tank is not constructed, P -1 is preferred to relocate the Cherry Hills Booster Station. If a tank is
constructed, it would actually create a separate pressure zone, Zone 2, with relocation of the Cherry
Hills Booster Station.
2 Al.4'''►^-
Council Minutes of April 15, 2014
Public and council input was received two weeks ago to help determine how much of the project
— would be done. The base project for Phase 3, which is this proposed project, is the conventional
treatment with tube settlers and relocation of the Cherry Hills Booster Station. Any of the additive
alternatives can be done as funding allows. The future project, Phase 4, would be to actually
construct the storage tank and the separate pressures on it.
Crystal stated that the biggest question is what does it cost and how do we pay for it. Target rates
are considered with grant funding, and it is a rate that the Montana Department of Commerce
established. The target rate is what the Department of Commerce feels a community should pay for
their fair share. For Laurel, the . target rate is $78.40, but the actual average rate is around $90.42.
The city is at 115.3 percent of the target rate. The city does not qualify for the Community
Development Block Grant because the low to moderate income is less than 50 percent. The city
qualifies for the TSEP Grant for $500,000. The DNRC Grant is another good option for the city for
$125,000 grant funds.
The estimated total cost of the project is almost $5.3 million. With the grants and the city reserves
of $1.5 million, the total loan amount will be just over $3.3 million. Adding in the additional O &M
for the project, there is a cost increase of about $315,000 per year, which equates to approximately a
$7.49 rate increase per user per month, which puts it at 125 percent, if there is a rate increase.
Crystal and Shirley Ewan recently evaluated the city's financial situation. The city has two
outstanding debts that will be retired in 2017 and 2018. The project should go to construction in
2015 and 2016, so there is a good possibility the loans will be paid off at that time with additional
reserves and operating cash. Paying those loans off would give enough to offset the increases to the
project. The bottom line is that no rate increase should be necessary for this phase of the project.
Mayor Mace opened the public hearing and read the rules governing the public hearing.
Mayor Mace asked three times if there were any proponents. There were none.
Mayor Mace asked three times if there were any opponents. There were none.
Mayor Mace closed the public comment.
Crystal stated that, with this grant funded project, it helps with the ranking to get signatures of
support. She passed around a support sheet for anyone who wanted to sign it.
Mayor Mace asked for council discussion.
Council Member Poehls asked the Public Works Director to explain the project concerning the road
and security at the water treatment plant.
Kurt explained that, in 2001, the federal government said that a community's critical infrastructure
should be evaluated for security. At that time, Congress passed funding for Homeland Security
Funds and the grants expired in 2006. The city did not ask for any grants at that time, as the city was
teaming up with the Yellowstone County Sheriff's Department to apply for a grant for funding to
close Sewer Plant Road and put in security fencing. The grant application was not successful. Since
2008 when he started as public works director, Kurt has been requesting security and it has been
budgeted every year. A fence was installed around the reservoir. Because of the flooding in 2011
and the projects at the plant, security fencing has been delayed. Kurt spoke regarding the proposal to
move the road using funding out of the O &M budget and capital improvement funds. He recently
received information from Montana Rural Water regarding available Homeland Security funds of
$3.2 million for the State of Montana. Applications are due May 2n With the completed PER, he
will apply for grant funds to move the road and complete the security fencing.
Mayor Mace asked if there were any other questions from the council. There were none.
Kurt thanked Crystal Bennett and Shirley Ewan for their efforts yesterday regarding the funding for
the project and for realizing that, if the city council partakes in paying off the loans, there will not be
a rate increase to the public.
Mayor Mace closed the public hearing.
CONSENT ITEMS:
3 { 401—
Council Minutes of April 15, 2014
• Clerk/Treasurer Financial Statements for the month of March 2014.
• Approval of Payroll Register for PPE 03/30/2014 totaling $185,645.14.
• Receiving the Committee Reports into the Record.
-- Budget /Finance Committee minutes of April 1, 2014 were presented.
-- Public Works Committee minutes of April 7, 2014 were presented.
-- Council Workshop minutes of April 8, 2014 were presented.
-- Insurance Committee minutes of March 31, 2014 were presented.
-- Cemetery Commission minutes of March 20, 2014 were presented.
-- Laurel Urban Renewal Agency minutes of March 17, 2014 were presented.
The mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. There was none.
Motion by Council Member McGee to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by
Council Member Poehls. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on
the motion. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
CEREMONIAL CALENDAR: None.
REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (THREE- MINUTE LIMIT):
Heather Mitchell, P.O. Box 1114, expressed her concerns regarding the recent amendments to the
animal ordinance. She has been involved with animal rescue and rehoming for over 23 years. She
was not aware that the ordinance had changed until a number of people contacted her recently. She
stated that breed bans and number limits on animals does not work and that limiting pets does not
take care of nuisance animals. She is part of a non - profit, so right now she thinks she is legally
covered, but it should not have to be that way for someone to have their pets. She continued to
speak regarding reptiles and showed two that she brought to the council meeting.
JJ Anderson, 511 Pennsylvania Avenue, spoke specifically about reptiles. Before she moved to
Laurel last fall, she researched the animal ordinance and everything was fine. Approximately two
weeks ago, the police showed up her doorstep and told her that she had 30 days to get rid of her
reptiles. She planned to buy a home and start a business in Laurel, but she will not do so unless
some of the points in the ordinance are changed. She spoke regarding her snakes and stated that they
cannot survive in the State of Montana if it gets below 50 degrees for one night. If it gets below 32
degrees, it will eradicate any and all of them in one shot. She continued to speak regarding the
animal ordinance and stated her willingness to pay a registration fee for her animals. She asked that
the city council let those that have done the research participate. She stated that FWP does not have
several reptiles on a restriction list for the State of Montana. She would like to see the animal
ordinance done in a more compromising manner without such a blanket ban that forces people like
her, who want to contribute to the economy here and make this their home, to move away.
Heather Mitchell spoke again, stating that FWP did research in 2005 on what exotic species could
harm the indigenous species and the environment and they banned some things. Those things were
put on a restricted list for Montana. She thinks that group of animals being banned is appropriate for
the city as well.
Rodney Tanner, 1303 East 6 Street, is interested in the laws against the exotic animals. They are
reptiles and they are restrictors, but he has caught bull snakes that get longer than any recorded ball
python in the state. He would like to work together regarding registering them, having Fish and
Game monitor how they are kept and what they are kept in, and the maintenance on the particular
animals.
4 0/10A.
Council Minutes of April 15, 2014
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
• Confirmation of Appointments.
Laurel Volunteer Ambulance Service:
Mayor Mace appointed Jordan White to the Laurel Volunteer Ambulance Service.
Motion by Council Member Dickerson to approve the Mayor's appointment of Jordan White
to the Laurel Volunteer Ambulance Service, seconded by Council Member Poehls. There was no
public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All seven council members
present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
• Resolution No. R14 -16: Resolution to adopt the Water System Preliminary Engineering
Report for the City of Laurel, Montana, as prepared and presented by Great Wet
Engineering Inc.
Motion by Council Member Nelson to approve Resolution No. R14 -16, seconded by Council
Member Dickerson. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
• Resolution No. R14 -17: A resolution accepting the findings of the Environmental
Assessment and determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary
for the Phase 3 Water System Improvements Project.
Motion by Council Member Mountsier to approve Resolution No. R14 -17, seconded by
Council Member Poehls. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on
the motion. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
• Resolution No. R14 -18: Resolution to adopt the funding strategy for Water System
Improvements for the City of Laurel, Montana, as presented by Great West
Engineering, Inc.
Motion by Council Member Stokes to approve Resolution No. R14 -18, seconded by Council
Member Mountsier. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
• Resolution No. R14 -19: Resolution to authorize submission of TSEP Grant application.
Motion by Council Member Herr to approve Resolution No. R14 -19, seconded by Council
Member Mountsier. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
• Resolution No. R14 -20: Resolution to authorize submission of DNRC -RRGL grant
application.
Motion by Council Member Poehls to approve Resolution No. R14 -20, seconded by Council
Member Mountsier. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
• Resolution No. R14 -21: Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement
with Beartooth RC &D Economic Development District.
Motion by Council Member McGee to approve Resolution No. R14 -21, seconded by Council
Member Mountsier. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: None.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (ONE- MINUTE LIMIT): None.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
5 WC �`'
Council Minutes of April 15, 2014
Council Member Poehls stated that the Emergency Services Committee will meet on Monday, April
21S at 5:30 p.m.
Council Member Nelson asked for discussion regarding the structure of the Insurance Committee at
the next council workshop.
UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Council Member McGee to adjourn the council meeting, seconded by Council
Member Dickerson. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0.
There being no further business to come before the council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at
7:25 p.m.
4
Cindy Allen, ouncil Secretary
Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 6 day
of May, 2014.
--
Mark A. Mace, Mayor
Attest: {q p
/
I
Shirley Ewan, Clerk/Treasurer
6 V14,44-
City of Laurel
Water System PER
Presentation
April 15, 2014
4 eaSt
engineering
a_er ysem u y
❑ Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) Examines
Comprehensive Needs for:
• Growth /Capacity
• Water Supply
• Water Quality /Treatment
• Water Storage
• Distribution System
• Water Meters
❑ Required to Apply for Grant Funding
1
Growth /Capacity
❑ Populations:
• 2010: 6,718 persons
• 2035: 8,098 persons (Design Year)
❑ Water Demands:
Gallons per Average Day peaking MDD MDD
Year Population Capita per Day Demand Residential Residential +
(gpcd) (MGD) Factor (MGD) Industrial (MGD)
2010 6,718 165 1.11 3 3.33 5.83
2015 6,974 165 1.15 3 3.45 5.95
2025 7,515 165 1.24 3 3.72 6.22
2035 8,098 165 1.34 3 4.01 6.51
Water Supply
❑ Source = Yellowstone River
❑ River changes during 2011
flood:
• Intake exposed during low flow
• Intake not in main channel
• Causes icing during winter��
❑ Separate intake study /project
being completed through
FEMA, Montana DES, and
other agencies
2
Water Treatment Plant Layout
' •i M
No FIL IN BUI BUILDING
RAW WATER .. - '.e
PUMP BUILDING
, CLEARWELL
4' •
° / ?.
• R s ' 250,000 GALLON /
BACKWASH WATER / �� FLOCCULATION
STORAGE TANK / BASIN
SEDIMENTATION / �`
BASIN _ .
EXISTING
' SLUDGE POND
0%, Al K
9
Water Quality /Treatment
Major WTP Deficiencies
❑ Flocculation /sedimentation basins falling apart / a
(over 60 years old!) f'
• Uncovered portions subject to freeze /thaw cycles and 1
possible contamination sources 4- „i , \ ',
• Basins must be manually cleaned multiple times /year ■.._
EXPOSED
❑ Mixing capabilities limited : ,REBAR
❑ Insufficient flow to the filters — unknown cause [ ---7
❑ Filters cannot meet projected domestic & industrial
flows i ”" - y
P .:.,
er
OIL SHEEN '` .,- .,-. CRAC ING
3
Water Quality /Treatment
Additional WTP Concerns
❑ Sludge pond — unlined, no redundancy
❑ 250,000 gallon water storage tank — holes,
cannot fill completely
❑ Miscellaneous deficiencies — actuators,
valves, blowers, ventilation, etc.
❑ Lack of security
-' --
GrP/ rf 1s
Distribution System - Layout
LEOEMD ..
•�
• -
4
Distribution System
❑ Major Problems:
• Undersized, aging, & non - connected lines - -- to be
replaced as part of City's Pipeline Replacement
Program
• Low pressures (particularly in north and west)
❑ Pressure Zone considerations:
• One pressure zone can typically serve elevation span
of 80 feet
• City currently serving approximately 132 feet with one
pressure zone
• Only way to alleviate low pressures is to provide two
pressure zones /�_
Gr/ eatWesr
Distribution System - Pressures
.."7
w.........a j6 4o- psi 6 �
LEGEND
5
Distribution System — Proposed Pressure Zones
.F
a a ,.
s � , f `
t
-
,. ,w. -] :.' , _:ir_i_____, i ,
a >a
.__, --r -' - ---V° —
lit
y
r . t -" Ll6ENO
Water Storage
❑ Only 1 storage tank (4
MG) — Critical to
remain in operation
❑ Height sufficient for' rv-
"Zone
nto 1" if City rate divide , ` V - ''
i sepa pressure
zones a`
❑ Additional 1 MG
storage tank
recommended to serve
"Zone
back-up wellasa
back -up for "Zone 1" /'\-`
6
Water Meters
❑ All services metered
❑ Replacements done as part of maintenance
❑ Benefits of meters:
• Water conservation
• More equitable billing
How do we FIX it?
3 , '
7
Water Treatment Plant Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE
T -1 T -2A T -2B T -3 0-4
Packaged Treatment - Packaged Treatment -
Comentional Treatment - Conventional Treatment Conventional Treatment High Rate Thickening
DESCRIPTION Traditional Gravity Settling with Tube Settlers with Plate Settlers High Rate Clarification, Clarifier, WesTech
WesTech HSC CONTRAFAST
CAPITAL COST $6,420,000 $3,927,000 04,581,000 $117,000 $58,000
ANNUAL O &M COST $7,046 $29,423 $6,242 $80,051 $50,379
LIFE CYCLE COST $6,540,000 $4,427,000 $4,687,000 $8,696,000 $4,501,000
Essentially the same as Essentially the same as
existing treatment with the existing treatment with the
addition of the date
Same as existing addition of the tube Packaged plant, could be Has the lowest capital
treatment system. very settlers to increase the settlers to increase the retrofitted in the future to cost and is designed to
ADVANTAGES low maintenance and is effective settling area effective settling area
which reduces the overall include expanded filler produce a thicker sad.
known to be successful for which reduces the overall capacity, relatively small basin sludge waste. Very
source water quality basin size. Less basin size. Plate settlers footprint small footprint.
experts. than date
constructed life as they are
settlers. coWcted of stainless
steel.
Requires a significant Different treatment
Tube settlers have a life of Plate settlers are much Newer treatment
amount of space, for
technology, more operator
15 to 20 years as they are heaver than tube settlers, technology setup, high
expansion in current intensive for operation,
DISADVANTAGES made of plastic. They additional support O &M costs, more operator
location would need to creates more sludge
would require (reinforced concrete) is intensive than traditional
modify with tube or plate waste than current
settlers in the future replacement. necessary in the basins. lechnolgy tream �,_
Gr/ eatWes
Water Treatment Plant Additive Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE
WTP -1 WTP -2 WTP - WTP-4
DESCRIPTION Backwash/Sludge Ponds 250,000 gal. Backwash Water Miscellaneous Deficiencies Security
Storage Tank
CAPITAL COST $333,000 8664.000 $348,000 $528,000
_____
ANNUAL O &M COST No Change No Change $17,250 No Change
LIFE CYCLE COST $333,000 $664,000 $641,000 $528,000
Replacement of the existing Each of the identified Moving the mad would allow
New sludge ponds would the WTP to be secured and
allow for proper cleaning when storage tank would lower the deficiencies would in some would also allow for
ADVANTAGES current annual O &M costs way improve the overall
necessary and also provide safer
and provide a reliable tank for operations of the treatment construction of
more storage capacity entrance/exit (no steep ep slope,
the future plant better visibility)
Siting the ponds is Some of the deficiencies have An agreement with the CHS
DISADVANTAGES None refinery regarding the
challenging related O &M costs necessary space is required
Gr/ eatWesr
8
Water Storage Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE
R -1 R -2A R -2B R -3
DESCRIPTION Buried Concrete Tank Ground Steel Tank Ground Glass -Fused Tank Elevated Steel Tank
CAPITAL COST $3,147,000 $3,311,000 $3,950,000 $5,915,500
ANNUAL O &M COST $4,834 $21,881 $6,743 $28,513
LIFE CYCLE COST $3,229,000 $3,683,000 $4,065,000 $6,400,000
Can be placed anywhere;
Essentially maintenance Lowest capital cost; No coatings necessary; No need for long
ADVANTAGES free; Provides critical Provides critical backup Provides critical backup transmission main; No
backup storage for Zone 1 storage for Zone 1 storage for Zone 1 need for land acquisition;
Provides critical backup
storage for Zone 1
Requires periodic
Requires periodic
Requires longest Requires long coatings; Access difficult
DISADVANTAGES transmission main coatings; Requires long transmission main making construction and
transmission main
maintenance more costly
Gr e lest
Pumping Station Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE
P -1 P -2 P -3
DESCRIPTION Relocate Cherry Hills Booster Zone 2 with Murray Heights Zone 2 with Relocated Cherry
Station Booster Station Hills Booster Station
CAPITAL COST $289,000 $499,000 $461,000
ANNUAL O &M COST $0 ($500) ($1,200)
LIFE CYCLE COST $289,000 $490,000 $441,000
Improves overall system Improves overall system Provides best overall
ADVANTAGES
pressures w/ least costs; tank pressures; Completely pressures /flows; Completely
does not have to be
constructed eliminates a booster station eliminates a booster station
DISADVANTAGES Requires additional work to be Must be constructed in Must be constructed in
compatible with Zone 2 Tank conjunction with tank conjunction with tank
G r/ eatWest
9
Decision Matrix & Weighting Factors
Weighting Factors
❑ Life Cycle Costs = 10
❑ Operation and Maintenance = 7
❑ Permitting = 4
❑ Social Impacts = 5
❑ Environmental Impacts = 5
❑ Sustainability Consideration = 4
❑ Land Acquisition = 3
Decision Matrix — Water Treatment Plant
operation and Environmental Sustainability
Life Cycle Costs Mainenance Permitting Social Impacts Impacts Considerations
Land Acquisition
Altemetike TOTAL
Weight 10 Weight: 7 Weight: 4 Weight: 5 Weight: 5 Weight: 4 Weight: 5
Score I Wtd. Score I Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score 1 Wtd. Score 1 Wtd. Score Wtd.
Alt T1 -Con entional
Treatment with Gravity 4.4 1 44 10 70 5 20 5 1 25 5 1 25 5 20 2 10 214
Settling
1
Alt T2A - Conventional
Treatment with Tube 7.0 1 70 8 56 5 20 5 25 5 25 10 40 5 25 261
Settlers
Att T2B- Conventional
Treatment with Plate 6.6 66 8 56 5 20 5 1 25 5 25 10 40 5 25 257
Settlers l
Alt T3 - Packaged
Treatment - High Rate 2.5 25 4 28 4 16 5 i 25 4 20 10 40 5 25 179
Settling
f 1
Alt T4- Packaged j !! •
Treatment - High Rate 7.5 75 2 I 14 4 16 5 25 6 30 10 40 5 25 225
Thickening Clarifier 111
1
It is Important to note that the above scoring and weighting are subjective. Alternatives thatscore overall within 10 pts attach other may essentially hold the same
degree of preference.
Gre atWe,
10
Decision Matrix — Water Storage
Operation and Environmental Sustainability
Life Cycle Costs Permitting Social Impacts Land Ac
Mainanance Impacts Considerations quisttion
Alternative TOTAL
Weight: 10 Weigh: 7 Weight: 4 Weight: 5 Weight 5 Weight: 4 Weight: 3
Score I Wtd. Score I Wtd. Score I Wtd. Score I Wtd. Score I Wtd. Score '.! Wtd. Score i Wtd.
i
Alt R-1: Concrete 7.1 i 71 8 i 58 5 20 5 25 4 i 20 5 I 20 4 f 12 224
Buried Storage Tank III
I
Alt R -2A: Ground
Level Steel Tank 7.2 72 B 42 5 i 20 5 I 25 4 i 20 5 I 20 4 12 211
I
•
Alt R -28: Ground
Leval Glass -Fused 8.4 84 7 49 5 i 20 5 i 25 4 1 20 5 20 4 12 210
Tank
Alt R -3: Elevated 2 8 28 5 35 5 i 20 4 i 20 6 I 30 5 i 20 8 1 24 177
Steel Tank
iris important to note that the above scoring and weighting are subjective. Alternatives that score overall within 10 pts of each other may essentially hold the same
degree of preference.
GretWest
Decision Matrix — Pumping Station
Operation and EnNronmentel Sustainability
Life Cycle Costs Meinenence Permitting Social Impacts Impacts Considerations Land Acquisition
Altemati. TOTAL •
Weight: 10 Weight: 7 Weight: 4 Weight: 5 Weight: 5 Weigh: 4 Weight: 3
Score I Wtd. Score I Wtd. Score i Wtd. Score I Wtd. Score '. Wtd. Score j Wtd. Score ! Wtd.
Alternatives if tank not constructed
All P -1: Relocate i
I .
Cherry Hills Booster 7.1 I 71 7 I 49 5 1
20 5 25 4 i 20 5 I 20 4 12 217
Station
Altematioes if tank is constructed
Alt P -2: Zone 2 with
Murray •
Heights 2.9 I 29 4 28 5 • 20 5 i 25 5 25 5 I 20 6 18 169
Booster Station
Alt P-3: Zone 2 with
•
Relocated Cherry Hills 3.8 38 7 i 49 5 j 20 5 25 4 20 5 20 4 12 184
Booster Station I
It is important to note that the above scoring and weighting are subjective. Alternatives that score overall within 10 pts of each other may essentially hold the same
degree of preference.
11
Phased Improvements
Phase 3 — Base Project
❑ T -2A: Conventional Treatment with Tube Settlers
❑ P -1: Relocate Cherry Hills Booster Station
Phase 3 — Additive Alternatives
❑ WTP -1: Backwash /Sludge Ponds (included)
❑ WTP -2: 250,000 Gallon Backwash Storage Tank (included)
❑ WTP -3: Misc. Deficiencies (as funds allow or maintenance)
❑ WTP -4: Security (as funds allow or separate project)
Phase 4 — Future Project
❑ R -1: Buried Concrete Storage Tank
❑ P -3: Zone 2 with Relocated Cherry Hills Booster Station ,
Gr/ eatWest
Phase 3 WTP Improvements
t .ly a 1 `' , 0 A
";''"` , 1* ' YI
* , , '
PROPOSED FENCE
(ADDRE I ALTERNATIVE 14) \ PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
/OPTIONB S L O (ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE k4)
(ADDITIVE
ALTERNATIVE NMI
//: -6 O ., PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
FS 141* : ♦♦ ♦ . i (ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE PS Ti
9 \ . GALLON ST 'x . AD E ALTERNATIVE #1)
R EPLACE ORAGE TANK 250,000 /
- 1 /
(ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE P2) , � 1 f °��"
� r
CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT S I G
WITH TUBE SETTLERS F N //
PPOO�I`lD, q
f U L
I
12
Phase 3 Pump Station Improvements -
1 r
, ..•':
op
o-e
n —
{ I ?r t
8g 8 •
u e Bo r'
o88B
�....�. ,T. - w . LEGEND
fi A
What does it COST?
How do we PAY for it?
13
Estimated Costs for Phase 3 Improvements
Base Project Additive Alternatives
Description Tube Settlers + Sludge/ 250,000 Misc. N/TP
Relocate CH Backwash Gallon Security
Booster Ponds Storage Tank Deficiencies
2016 Construction Cost $ 3,081,000 $ 251,000 $ 491,000 $ 259,000 $ 389,000
Contingency $ 308,000 $ 25,000 $ 49,000 $ 26,000 $ 39,000
Total Construction Cost $ 3,389,000 $ 276,000 $ 540,000 $ 285,000 $ 428,000
Land Acquistion $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Cultural Resources Survey $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Geotechnical $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 5,000
Engineering $ 772,000 $ 47,000 $ 108,000 $ 57,000 $ 86,000
Legal and Administrative $ 68,000 $ 5,000 $ 11,000 $ 6,000 $ 9,000
Total Project Costs $ 4,279,000 $ 333,000 $ 664,000 $ 348,000 $ 528,000
Potential Grant Funding & Target Rates
Information On Target Rate Calculation
❑ Target rates based on median household
income (MHI) as determined from 2010
Census
• Target Rate = $78.40 per month
❑ Existing Rates (average resident) 1
• Water & Sewer Combined = $90.42 per
month
❑ Currently at 115.3% of target rate
G re
14
Grant Eligibility
❑ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - $450,000
• >50% Low to Moderate Income (LMI)
• User rate must meet or exceed target rate
• Requires 25% local match
Laurel = 48% LMI
❑ Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) - $500,000 to $750,000
• 50 -50 match (cannot exceed 50% of project costs)
• User rate must meet or exceed target rate
Laurel = 115.3% target rate (before project)
❑ Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Renewable
Resource Grant and Loan Program (DNRC -RRGL) - $125,000
• Conserve, manage, develop, or protect renewable resources
Project will be managing renewable resources
Grant Eligibility
❑ Montana Coal Board — No limit but generally smaller
amounts
• Community must show impact from coal development
• • Best chances if in designated Coal Impact area
May be difficult to show coal impacts
❑ Rural Development — No limit but is part of grant /loan
combination
• Priority given to communities with population < 5,500
• Amount based upon MHI:
— MHI < $47,757 up to 45% of project costs grant eligible
•
— MHI < $38,205 up to 75% of project costs grant eligible
Laurel population > 5,500 (not preferred)
Laurel MHI = $40,906 (could qualify for up to 45% grant),,
15
Projected Rates from Project Costs (Cost/User)
PROPOSED
ITEM PHASE 3
PROJECT
Total Project Cost $5,276,000
TSEP Grant $500,000
DNRC Grant $125,000
City Reserves $1,500,000
Base SRF Loan (20 Years @ 3 %) $3,151,000
SRF Bond Reserve (1 year payment) $211,747
Total Loan Amount $3,362,747
Annual Loan Payment $226,029
Annual Loan Coverage $56,507
TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL CAPITAL DEBT SERVICE COST $282,537
Additional O &M Due To Project $32,694
TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL O &M COST INCREASES $32,694
TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL COST INCREASES $315,231
USER INCREASE IN COST/MONTH FOR PROJECT 1 $7A9
Existing Average Water User Cost/Month/EDU $44.63
Total Proposed Water Cost/Month/EDU $52.12
Existing Sewer System Cost/Month/EDU $45.79
Total Proposed Water & Sewer Cost/Month/EDU $97.91
Combined Systems Target Rate $78.40
PERCENT OF COMBINED TARGET RATE 125% West
Actual Impacts to User Rates
❑ Funding strategy considers only impacts on rates
directly attributable to project cost increases
❑ City has outstanding debts scheduled to be retired
in 2017 and 2018
❑ If City pays off these two outstanding debts prior to
project in 2015/2016:
• Debt service savings should be enough to offset
increases of project costs
• No rate increase should be necessary
/
16
Questions?
Comments?
®s
Gr eOcsi
17