HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 10.28.2014 MINUTES
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 28, 2014 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at
6:30 p.m. on October 28, 2014.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
x Emelie Eaton _x Doug Poehls
Bruce McGee Richard Herr
x Chuck Dickerson Scot Stokes
x Tom Nelson x Bill Mountsier
OTHERS PRESENT:
Heidi Jensen, CAO
Monica Plecker, Planning Director
Sgt. Mark Guy
Public Input (three - minute limit):
There was no public input.
General items:
• Appointments
o Laurel Police Department: Justin Bickford
Sgt. Mark Guy stated that Justin Bickford is scheduled to start on November 5 if the council
approves the appointment on November 4 Justin was appointed to the Laurel Police Reserves in
2009 and served for a year until employment took him elsewhere. In January 2014, he graduated
from the Reserve Academy again and has been serving as a Police Reserve since. He completed the
physical and written testing through the State Consortium. Sgt. Guy stated that Justin will be a
positive influence for Laurel citizens.
o Laurel Ambulance Service: Darci Waldo
The appointment will be on the November 4 council agenda.
Executive Review:
• Resolution — City- County Planning Interlocal Agreement
Monica stated that the resolution is related to the Interlocal Agreement with Yellowstone County.
The Laurel City - County Planning Department includes jurisdiction 4.5 miles outside of the city limits.
The current agreement with the County dates back to 1976 when the City - County Planning Board was
created. The Planning Board recently updated and adopted new bylaws. The proposed agreement,
which has been reviewed by the County Attorneys and the City Attorney, basically mirrors the
requirements of the City - County Planning Board in State statute. The agreement does not obligate
any sort of monetary contribution. The County gives the Planning Department a certain number of
mills every year to help with the functionality of the department, but this agreement does not include
that level of specifics. The agreement says that the current structure of the City - County Planning
Council Workshop Minutes of October 28, 2014
Board will continue. State statute will be referenced, but nothing changes as far as the functionality
of the Board or the Planning Department.
Heidi explained that the need for an updated agreement has been one of the findings in the last four
audits. This agreement will automatically renew every year and will finally get that item removed
from the audit findings.
There was discussion regarding the newly - adopted bylaws, the change from an 11- member Planning
Board to a 9- member Planning Board, the proposed agreement, and the finding on the audit report.
Monica explained that, with the structure of the bylaws, four members must come from the County,
four members must come from the City, and the ninth member can come from a Conservation
District. If no one from a Conservation District can fill the seat, it will be determined jointly by the
City and the County. As far as the functionality of how the Board operates, there are no changes.
Monica stated that the same agreement will be on the County Commissioner's agenda on Monday,
November 3r and then on the Council's agenda on Tuesday, November 4
• Resolution — Agreement with JGA Architects
Monica stated that the resolution is related to LURA, which offers technical assistance and facade
improvement grants. When the programs were developed, proposals were sent out for architects to
provide services to LURA through an agreement at a lower rate to assist applicants that apply for
funds through the programs. High Plains Architects is currently in that role. Since Heidi and Monica
have become involved in LURA, they have seen the need to provide more flexibility for applicants to
choose an architect. Katie Walsh, who works for JGA Architects, has become very active in LURA
and attends meetings regularly and provides good input. JGA Architects prepared an agreement with
the same hourly rate. With this agreement, applicants could choose to work with High Plains or JGA
Architects, which would be an added service to those who are applying for technical assistance and
facade improvement grants. The contract does not obligate LURA to any specific money or project,
but is just another option for the applicants.
• Council Issues:
o LURA — Requirement for two reports annually (Tom Nelson)
Heidi reviewed the LURA report, which included a summary of activities that LURA has been doing
in fiscal year 2013 -2014 and some of the potential activities for 2014 -2015. A copy of the report is
attached to these minutes. The report included: Budget Revenues and Expenditures, FY 13 -14 Grant
Awards, Consulting Projects, Debt Service and Upcoming Projects.
There was discussion regarding the LMC requirement for LURA to give two reports annually, the
need for and development of the large grant request program, and a recent large grant request that
LURA received from the School Superintendent, and the suggestion that the city staff was
instrumental in putting the report together.
o Lease Task Force update
There was no discussion.
o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event
2
Council Workshop Minutes of October 28, 2014
Heidi spoke regarding a letter from FEMA that states that FEMA is going to obligate funds for a new
water intake for the City of Laurel. The city had also asked for a boiler, which the current intake does
not have, and some extra things, but those items were not approved. Attachment A is a starting point
for the cost of $6.7 million. Great West Engineering reviewed the numbers and they are comfortable
with them. There is some contingency included as the city applies for permits and moves forward. At
this time, FEMA is unwilling to pay for the lowering of the current intake and the replacement of the
screens on top with some rounded screens. Staff has asked if FEMA would help monetarily if any of
the permitting agencies do not allow the city to keep three intakes in the river. If an agency requires
the lowering of the intake or removal of one of the intakes in the river, FEMA would help.
Construction could begin in October or November 2015. During the week of November 10 Great
West will begin surveying of the river three miles upstream to determine the best location for the new
intake.
Other items
Mayor Mace and Heidi have tried to contact the Local Government Center about scheduling a training
session for the council.
Review of draft council agenda for November 4, 2014
The agenda includes two appointments and two resolutions.
Attendance at the November 4, 2014 council meeting
All council members present will attend.
Announcements
There was no discussion.
The council workshop adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
0
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.
3
T U LAUREL URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
Annual Report
RA
_
Below is a summary of activities that have taken place in the Tax
Increment Finance District in the Fiscal Years of 13-14 and potential
projects for FY 14-15. With staff support, LURA has become increasingly
ctive and educated on the appropriate functions of the use of TIF funds.
Below you will find a high-level explanation of LURA activities.
Revenues:
Tax Revenue Collected 13-14 $ 443,351.00
State Grants $ 2,370.00
Entitlement Share $ 67,707.00
Misc Rev 586.00
Penalty and Interest Taxes 821.00
Investment Earnings 335.00
total Revenue Collected 13-14 $ 515,170.00
Expenditures:
Operating Supplies 1,419.00
Advertising 215.00
Professional Services $ 38,313.00
Facade & Technical Asst. Grants $ 31,754.00
Transfer to Planning 6,000.00
Debt Service $ 88,639.00
Total Expenditures 13-14 $ 166,340.00
Cash Balance 7-1-13 $ 293,353.00
Revenues over Expenditures $ 348,830.00
Lash Balance 6-30-14 $ 642,183.00
• Approved budget for Fiscal 14-15 is attached.
FY 13-14 Grant Awards
1. Laurel Revitalization League, Town Square Lighting - $985.00
2. Alpha Omega Facade Restoration - $6,000.00
3. Aqua Systems of Montana Facade Restoration - $6,000.00
4. Bling N Video Sign- $2,161.79
5. Beartooth Grill Sign - $3,000.00
6. Covert Cleaning Technical Assistance - $1268.00
,
0 0 i
, LAUREL URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
R 4
/. Laurel Outlook F agade - $4,269.78'
----- 8. Covert Cleaning Facade - $1 ,999.00
9. Beartooth Grill Facade - $2,000.00
Consulting Projects
1. Zeier Consulting, LLC
In November 2013, the City of Laurel approved a contract for
1,040 hours for professional economic development assistance to
focus specifically on business recruitment and public outreach to
educate the district.
2. Laurel Gateway Plan, Sanderson Stewart
In February, City Staff issued an RFP soliciting proposal for the
development of an implementation strategy to identify projects that
could be completed in the district, while also extending the life of
the district. The plan is scheduled for a vote at the LURA meeting
on November 17, 2014,
3. City Staff is currently working on the development of a large grant
request program.
4. City Staff worked with JGA Architects to acquire services for
technical assistance and facade grants through the existing
programs.
Debt Service
The storm water project that is included in the debt service will be paid in
full on January 31, 2019 and currently has a balance of $466,487.51.
The total amount that was borrowed from the water & sewer funds was
$1,330,770,70. The principle payment per year is $93,297.52 with a 2%
interest rate. The loan's life is 10 years.
Upcoming Projects
Due to the recent planning efforts City Staff and LURA will work diligently
to implement the recommendations of the Gateway Plan. Projects will
include infrastructure improvements, the development of a Revolving
Loan Fund and more.
10/28/14 CITY OF LAUREL Page: 1 of 1
15:39:17 Revenue Budget Report -- MultiYear Actuals Report ID: B250B
For the Year: 2014 - 2015
Current % Prelim. Budget Final % Old
Actuals Budget Rec. Budget Change Budget Budget
Account 10 -11 11 -12 12 -13 13 -14 13 -14 13 -14 14 -15 14 -15 14 -15 14 -15
2310 TAX INCREMENT - Business Dist.
310000 TAXES
311010 Real Property Taxes 149,579 290,105 366,362 381,261 260,000 1476 265,200 265,200 102%
This is a 26 increase in mill value.
311020 Personal Property Taxes 109,536 97,073 38,042 23,498 82,000 29% 83,640 83,640 102%
Group: 259,115 387,178 404,404 404,759 342,000 1186 348,840 0 348,840 1026
330000 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
334000 State Grants 2,370 2,370 0 * * *% 26,000 26,000 * * * * *%
Grant for Economic Development Plan
335220 Tax Relief Reimbursement 17,146 9,299 0 * * *% 10,000 10,000 * * * * *%
335230 HB124 Entitlement 58,408 0 * * *% 10,000 10,000 * * * * *%
Group: 19,516 70,077 0 * * *% 46,000 0 46,000 * * * * *%
360000 Miscellaneous Revenue
360000 Miscellaneous Revenue 586 0 * * *% 1,000 1,000 * * * * *%
363040 Penalty & Interest 739 718 1,409 821 2,000 41% 2,000 2,000 100%
Group: 739 718 1,409 1,407 2,000 706 3,000 0 3,000 1506
370000 Investment and Royalty Earnings
371010 Investment Earnings 411 279 335 600 566 600 600 100%
Group: 411 279 335 600 566 600 0 600 1006
Fund: 259,854 388,307 425,608 476,578 344,600 1386 398,440 0 398,440 1156
Grand Total: 259,854 388,307 425,608 476,578 344,600 398,440 0 398,440
10/28/14 CITY OF LAUREL Page: 1 of 1
15:39:41 Expenditure Budget Report -- MultiYear Actuals Report ID: B240C
For the Year: 2014 - 2015
Current % Prelim. Budget Final % Old
Actuals Budget Exp. Budget Changes Budget Budget
Account Object 10 -11 11 -12 12 -13 13 -14 13 -14 13 -14 14 -15 14 -15 14 -15 14 -15
Fund: 2310 TAX INCREMENT - Business Dist.
Org:
411850 Special Projects
220 Operating Supplies 71 1,419 0 * * *% 1,000 1,000 * * * * *%
223 Meals /Food 0 0% 2,000 2,000 * * * * *%
Meals for Meetings
337 Advertising 48 469 215 0 * * *% 600 600 * * * * *%
350 Professional Services 26,013 16,293 42,374 5,000 847% 250,000 250,000 5000%
Zeier Consulting
Economic Plan
370 Travel 183 75 0 0% 200 200 * * * * *%
380 Training Services 350 17 92 0 * * *% 200 200 * * * * *%
700 Grants, Contributions & I 28,526 31,754 0 * * *% 50,000 50,000 * * * * *%
901 MISC CAPITAL PROJECTS 40,000 500,672 0% 463,012 463,012 92%
Available for Capital Projects
Account: 66,665 45,380 75,854 505,672 15% 767,012 0 767,012 151%
430235 Storm Drainage
350 Professional Services 4,128 0 0% 0 0%
Account: 4,128 0 * * *% 0 0 0 0%
521000 Interfund Operating Transfers Out
820 Transfers to Other Funds 33,035 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 100% 6,000 6,000 100%
Account: 33,035 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 100% 6,000 0 6,000 100%
Org: 37,163 72,665 51,380 81,854 511,672 16% 773,012 0 773,012 151%
Org: 320 STORM WATER
490000 Debt Service
610 Principal 79,497 0% 93,298 93,298 117%
Storm Water Debt to Water and Sewer Funds.
620 Interest 24,795 22,175 17,889 9,142 9,143 100% 8,864 8,864 96%
Account: 24,795 22,175 17,889 9,142 88,640 10% 102,162 0 102,162 115%
Org: 24,795 22,175 17,889 9,142 88,640 10% 102,162 0 102,162 115%
Fund: 61,958 94,840 69,269 90,996 600,312 15% 875,174 0 875,174 145%
Grand Total: 61,958 94,840 69,269 90,996 600,312 875,174 0 875,174
C.S. Department of Homeland Securit ■
Region VIII
Denver Federal Center. Building 7I0
P.O. Hox 25267
I)en.er. CO X0225.0267
FEMA
u 4 D 5t
R8- Recovery October 21, 2014
Tim Thennis, Alt GAR
Department of Military Affairs
Disaster and Emergency Services Division
1956 Mt. Majo Street; PO Box 4789
Fort Harrison, MT 59636 -4789
Re: Review of Water System Restoration Proposal for the City of Laurel. 1996 -DR -MT — PW
01679 — (Log # 14 -581 -1996)
Dear Mr. Thennis: .
This letter is in response to your letter dated September 15. 2014 forwarding the September 12. 2014
request from the City of Laurel (Applicant) requesting review of the proposed Alternate 2 as a
solution for the Applicant's damaged raw water intake system.
Background:
The applicant's current water intake facility is operating at a diminished capacity and is located in a
vulnerable area. The capacity and function was significantly reduced as a result of the Yellowstone
River flooding event in 2010. During the event, the river channel experienced lateral movement as
the south bank was eroded and significant scour occurred to the riverbed effectively shifting
available flows away from the facility. Historical records have revealed that the current location of
the existing intake has been problematic since the original construction with sedimentation
deposition, shifts in the water course, and heavy scouring. A study performed by the applicant's
engineer determined the existing intake was incapable of being restored or repaired to pre- disaster
form. function. and capacity.
Based on the results of the study and requirements within Executive Order (E.0.) 11988, codified in
FEMA regulation 44 CFR Part 9. FEMA agreed the existing intake facility had lost its function and
was eligible for replacement. The applicant subsequently commissioned a second engineering
analysis to determine an array of options to restore the applicant's water supply system. This study
was completed and published for comments to assure compliance with necessary environmental
considerations.
Nccvw.I cilia .go%
Mr. Tim "Tennis
October 21. 2014
Page 2 of 4
Analysis:
The study identified and recommends Alternative 2. the construction of a new intake structure
approximately three miles upstream of the current location. This section of the Yellowstone River is
more stable. will not be subject to significant shifting of sediment or riverbed profiles. provides a
long term solution. and subscribes to sound environmental practices.
To assure compliance with E.O. 11988, Protection of Floodplains, FEMA implements an Eight -Step
Decision- Making Process that requires the evaluation of alternatives to construction in a floodplain.
The intent of E.O. 11988 is to minimize occupancy of and modification to floodplains. Because the
existing location would continue to be vulnerable to future damages, 44 CFR Part 9 requires
relocation of the facility. While the proposed new location will have impacts to the floodplain,
FEMA has determined that these impacts are less severe. will minimize future damages. and
therefore is the best alternative.
As with all FEMA grants, 44 CFR 206.226 allows costs associated with restoration of the new
facilitates based on the pre- disaster capacity and function that existed at the damage site. FEMA has
reviewed the proposal and approves the construction of the new intake within the limits of the pre -
disaster form, function. and capacity of the existing intake. Because the new water intake effectively
replaces the original damaged intake, any costs associated with the original site are not eligible for
improvements. Any costs associated with decommissioning the previous site may be eligible for
funding. Should the applicant desire to retain or improve the old facility, decommissioning costs
would not be eligible. In addition, as a result of implementing 44 CFR Part 9 and concluding that
original intake was damaged beyond repair. 44 CFR 206.226(g) stipulates that the original facility is
no longer eligible for future disaster funding.
Approved Scope of Work: (see Attachment -A for the itemized determination)
The approved scope of work is based on the Itemized Cast Estimate far Chosen Alternative which
was attached to the Alternative 2 request dated September 12, 2014. The items listed under Section
1 (Construct new intake 3 miles upstream) and Section 6 (soft costs) are eligible for funding as they
fully restore the pre- disaster form, function and capacity of the structure, and subscribe to 44 CFR
206.226(d) and (g).
Items that have been determine ineligible for funding are (refer to attachment -A):
Section 1 — As the existing system did not contain a hot water system to prevent ice buildup, costs
associated with a commercial water heater, pumps, and required controls would not be eligible.
These items were not included in the original facility and are not eligible in accordance with 44 CFR
206.226(d). However. the existing system was constructed with plumbing for future expansion and
therefore, piping from the new outbuilding to the new intake facility would be considered eligible.
w�au. tema.gtr.
Mr. Tim Thennis
October 21. 2014
Page 3 of 4
Section 2 — Replace Existing Screens:
As stated previously, because the new intake fully restores the pre - disaster capacity and as result of
the requirement of 44 CFR 206.226(g). any costs associated with improvements to the damaged
facility are not eligible.
Section 3 — Install Hot Water Heater at Existing Intake:
As stated previously, because the new intake fully restores the pre - disaster capacity and as result of
the requirement of 44 CFR 206.226(g). any costs associated with improvements to the damaged
facility are not eligible.
Section 4 — Remove Emergency Rock Weir:
These items are not considered permanent work and will not be included in this PW. According to
documentation from the USACE, they find the emergency rock weir in violation and have not issued
an appropriate permit. Without proper permits FEMA is prohibited from funding any costs
associated with the emergency rock weir in accordance with Public Assistance Guide, Chapter 4:
Special Considerations — Clean Water Act.
If the Applicant is able to secure all required permits (Federal. State and Local) FEMA will review
the information and determine whether funding may be eligible for the installation and the removal
of the emergency weir.
Section 5 — Remove Sediment:
As stated in the environmental assessment as referenced in the request letter "removal of the
sediment is to help to restore the hydraulic capacity of the bridges" which are not related to the new
intake system. FEMA is unable to fund any costs associated with the original facility.
Section 6 — Soft Costs:
Contingency cost and the 2015 construction cost escalation factor are not typically included in a
FEMA scope of work. Actual cost will be determined through local, state, and federal procurement
processes. Please advise the applicant of all FEMA procurement requirements as contained within
44 CFR Part 13.
Mitigation:
As stated in the Alternatives Analysis and the Environmental Assessment, the low water surface at
the current intake is a direct result of the channel migration and scour that occurred during the
flooding in 2010. Mitigation will be achieved through the relocation of the intake facility to the new
location three miles upstream, on the outside bend of a meander that is constrained on the southeast
by a high bank comprised of Bell Fourche shale and has remained stable for 60 years. Because the
site is up- gradient, raw water would flow by gravity through a pipeline from the intake to the water
treatment plant. Water surface at the new Location is more stable, located up- gradient, and the intake
will be designed to be fully functional during low flows.
% W\ .
Mr. Tim Thennis
October 21, 2014
Page 4 of 4
Conclusion:
After thorough review of the applicant's proposal dated September 12, 2014, FEMA approves the
construction of a new raw water intake facility three miles upstream of the current location. FEMA
will prepare a version to PW 01679 that clearly outlines the approved scope of work and associated
construction and engineering costs. Although the PW will outline full costs for the project, only
costs associated with engineering and design services will be approved at this time. Once final plans
are completed, please submit these to FEMA for review and discussion with your office and the
applicant to assure clear understanding of the eligible scope of work. Once the applicant has
requested and received bids for the project, please submit t se documents to the Region to facilitate
the preparation of the PW to reflect those properly procu dd costs.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact av' R L cas of my staff at (303) 235-4335.
Si er- ,
Tom Bush
Public Assistance Branch Chief
Enclosure: Attachment -A
1 ATTACHMENT "A"
I O L : Zl 2
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
ALTERNATIVE 2 - CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE
Construct new intake 3 miles upstream, adjacent to Canyon Creek Ditch; re -place
- existing - screens -wit-h half- r sereens;-instali- hot -water- heater - existing- intekel
- remove sediment-
- Item
Section 1 No Description Qty Units Unit Price Total
1 Earthwork for intake 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
2 Piping 24 -Inch D1 (parallel pipes in river) 900 LF $175 $157,500
3 Pipe Lean Concrete Encasement 1255 CY $250 $313,750
4 intake Screens 4 EA $15,000 $60,000
5 Cofferdam 650 LF $1,000 $650,000
6 Dewatering Pumps 45 DAYS $1,100 $49,500
7 Work Bridge 1 LS $175,000 $175,000
8 Cast -in -Place Concrete 105 CY $1,200 $126,000
9 Piling 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
10 Air Backwash System 1 LS $54,000 $54,000
-II -Commercial Hot- Water- Heater 1000 gallon 1 LS $125;000 -- ___ _ -- 5-125;809
J
-12 Pump- (160GPM-) 1 Ls 0
$&004- $5�O0
13 Piping for Hot Water 1 LS $3,000 $3,000
14 3 -Phase Power 1 LS $50,000 S50,000
15 Outbuilding 1 LS 5135,000 5135,000
16- Eieetronic- Gontrots -for -Hot- Water- Heater 1 LS 6651000- $b
Electronic Controls from WTP to New
17 Intake Site and Integrate Into SCADA 1 LS $90,000 590,000
System
18 30" PVC Transmission Main (2 parallel 32000 LF
lines) 5100 53,200,000
19 Jack and Bore Beneath Highway 200 LF $600 $120,000
Subtotal -- $5,36&7-b9 S5,233.750
Section 2 Replace existing screens with hall -round screens at existing intake
-1 Cofferdam --70 -- -LF $1 ;000- $7$;080 -
- 2 -Wetk -Bridge 1 LS $150,000 - $#59;009 -
-3- Pumps- for - Dewatering - 30---DAYS $1;100- $33,-8e@
-4- Conci ete Demolition- 1 LS $Fr,000 $6;000
-5-- oast -iri -Place Certerete -40 CY $4208- $487805
- 6 i-laif- Round-Screens -4--- f000 572,000-
7 Reconnect - plumbing 1 LS $5;000- $5,000 -
- Subtotal $384;089
Section 3 Install hot water heater at existing intake
1 Commercial !lot WaterHeater - t080 1 LS 5125,000- $1-25;088 -
-2 -Pump- (460 -GPM) 1 LS $5;000- $5;089-
3 Piping 1 13 53;088- 53,000
4 Outbulkiiiig 1 LS $50000- $50;800 -
- 5 - - Etectronic - eontrots 1 LS $5;000 35 88e
-Subtotal 5188,000
itz_
pc7 / 2
Section 4 Remove Emergency Rock Weir
- 4—Hydraulic E,,,avator -- 40 -- --HR $240 $9 807}
- 2 Dump TI Lick — 80 I IR— $60-- $4;800-
- Subt*te $147409
Section 5 Remove sediment
- River - Sediment &Debris-Excavation-and- 40880 G`f $15 , 31 50$0$ 1
t3ffsite-Disposai-
-2 irning-Gonstruetion- --200 CY $20 $4,000
Access to the- River-
- Steel -- Plates -to -Spew- Existing - Pipeline -for- - 1 E4 $2 $2;800-
- 6onstriictio n
4 Exploratory-Exeavation 4 _ --HR— $45$- $600-
6 Proteet Existing- Water- Maine -in -Retie- within 4 EA $2,000 $800
0 Pld..e Sd vdyed Riprap 80 8'f — SCO $4;8eG-
- Subtotal $1697480
Section 6 Direct Construction Subtotal - $6;124755 $5,233,750
"Soft Costs" Mobilization 10.0% 1612,455 S 523.375
Cut Ail 'yet t5.0% " -- $91$,663
Construction Subtotal $7,655,688 55,757,125
2015 Construction Cost 3.0% 2 37,885,358
Altematives Analysis & EA $160,000
Groundwater Altematives Analysis 333,110
Engineering Design - 9:096 8.9% - 3689;01 - S 512,384
Resident Project Representative $105,000
Project Management 1.0% $7G,557 S 57,571
Geotechnical Investigation $25,000
EnvironmentaltArcheologlcal $15,000
Easement/Right -of -Way Acquisition 350,000
MPDES Permit, Dewatering 3900
DEQ 410 Certification Fee (1% of related construction) 316,358
DEQ 318 Authorization Fee S250
CLOMR Application $20,000
LOMR Application $20,000
TO - $9;0944 S6,772,698
2/