Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works Committee Minutes 02.11.2002MINUTES PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 11, 2002 5:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gay Easton Marvin Carter Mark Mace Bill Staudinger Ed Steffans Lorraine Craig Dan Mears John Oakes OTHERS PRESENT: Larry McCann Jaime Writesel Doug Poehls Mike Fasching Dale Fasching Rich Leuthold Cavin Noddings Flood plan recommendation Larry McCann explained that the floodplain study was done with a grant from the Department of Natural Resources. A Flood Hazazd Mitigation Plan must be approved prior to submitting any grant applications. The plan .delineates the flood problems for the City of Laurel, primarily with the ditches. In 1999, residents on Willow Drive applied for a grant to line the ditches. It would be impossible for them to apply for a grant now unless a flood plan was in place. Motion by Bill Staudinger to recommend that the City Council aQprove the Flood Hazazd Mitigation Plan. seconded by Marv Carter. Motion carried Name two Darks: Birch and East Main; Eighth and Fir (soccer f'ieldl The committee discussed the need to name the pazk located at Birch and East Main and the soccer field pazk at Eighth and Fir. There was a question regarding whether the pazk at Birch and East Main was dedicated by the Rotary Club about forty or fifty years ago. Reseazch will be done on that matter. The soccer field park at Eighth and Fir includes about 20 acres of land. Gay suggested that naming the pazk should include consideration of possible future expansion within the park. The pazk is a city park, but the school district and the city have a maintenance agreement regarding the soccer field at that location. Gay suggested that a community contest could be held to come up with names for the two pazks. The City of Laurel Newsletter could be used toward that effort. The committee agreed to let Larry decide how to obtain suggestions of names for the parks. Mountain View Acres Subdivision -share development cost The developers of the subdivision and several representatives from Engineering, Inc., attended the committee meeting to present items for consideration regazding shazed costs for municipal water and wastewater facilities serving the proposed Mountain View Acres Subdivision. Information provided by Engineering, Inc., was distributed to the committee members prior to the meeting. Copies of that information are attached to these minutes to explain the presentation. After the presentation by Rick Leuthold was complete, the committee, the developers, and the engineering representatives had a lengthy discussion regazding the proposal. Although the committee had positive comments regarding the proposal, Gay stated that the matter must go before the City-County Planning Boazd for their recommendation. Discussion followed regarding the present Capital Improvement Plan process and the priority items contained in that plan. It was explained again that the proposal would need to go to the Planning Board for consideration. Rick thanked the committee for their consideration of the proposal. Gay thanked Rick and the others for their presentation. The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy Allen Council Secretary A t~ ~~ , ENGINEERING, INC. ' - - Consulking Engineers and Land Surveyors ~ ' _ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION REGARDING SHARED COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES SERVING MOUNTAIN VIEW ACRES SUBDIVISION ` _ I:'EBRUARY 11, 2002 TO _ LAUREL PUBLIC WORKS COIvrnnTI'EE MEETING ~:- _ Suite 200 Creekside 1001 S. 24th Street Wesr P.O: Box 81345 Billings, MT 59108-1345 PHONE(406) 656-52$5 FAIT (406} 656-0961 The following information is-presented with regard to the request by the developers of Mountain View Acres Subdivision (Dale Fasching and Jamie Ritesel) for the City of Laurel to consider authorizing the extension of the municipal water and wastewater systems to service the proposed subdivision and sharing with the developers the costs associated with the extensions. It is j understood by the developers that annexation of the proposed subdivision by the City of Laurel ~, ~, would be a condition of receiving municipal water and wastewater service. Although .initial discussions with Larry McCann and Steve Klotz of Laurel Public Works indicated that a shared cost agreement might be a viable alternative, indications from subsequent discussions have been less positive in light of the urgency for Public: Works to address priority .items ineluded within the existing Laurel Capital Improvement Plan. Our focus is to highlight to the Committee how the costs associated with the extension of municipal water and wastewater service could be tangibly and intangibly offset by benefits provided to the community through annexation of Mountain View Acres and for the Committee to fully consider these associated assets as they evaluate any shared cost arrangement. '~ - I. Higher Density Development Discussion: Extension of municipal water and wastewater facilities to service \ Mountain View Acres would .require annexation, thus increasing - the local tax base, and would also ,allow far higher density development maximizing the tax base and system development and water and sewer rate fees. Higher density development would decrease lot sizes, reduce property costs, and correspondingly promote construction of more affordable housing. 2. Increased Tax Base Discussion: Annexation of the proposed. subdivision into the City of Laurel would represent an increase of approximately 1 percent in the property tax base for Laureh. Based on a subdivision consisting of 110 residential dots, property taxes from the mill levy for the City of Laurel alone would equal roughly $57, 548.00 per year2. 3. System Development Fees Discussion: System Development Fees at $1, 000.00 for athree-quarter-inch - diameter. water service and $850.00 for sanitary sewer service would total $203,500.00, or roughly 68 percent of the estimated Montana Department of Revenue, "Property Taxable Value-Cities and Towns", Biennial Report ofthe Montana Department of Revenue, July 1, 1998 to June 3Q 2000, 98. Z Based on an average home.cost of $150,000.00, a Homestead exemption of 27.5 percent, a taxable percentage of 3.543 percent, and City of Laurel mill levy of 135.78 mills. R37:Mowtain~View MWWF Z 01126(02.08-02) costs of a booster pump station providing water to 110 lots in Mountain View Acres. The capacity of the booster pump station would also be roughly egual to the capacity needed to additionally service future development in Zone Z, or the new Zone 3 pressure zone once a Zone 3 storage reservoir is constructed-that can satisfy fire flow demands for future Zone 2 and Zone 3 development 4. Water and Sewer Rate Fees Discussion: Based on the development of 110 single family residential lots in the proposed Mountain View Acres Subdivision, the average monthly water and sewer rates coming from the subdivision would be approximately $8,040.00°, or $96,479.OOper year, which could be used to offset new facilities-specifically for Mountain View Acres, to fund operation and maintenance costs of the existing water and sewer systems, to finance future infrastructure projects, or be applied against existing water and sewer facility debt. 5. Subdivision Infrastructure Compatible with Future Need and Development Discussion: By annexing a new development and extending City services, the City can dictate that infrastructure to be built with the capacity to service the new development, as well as future development, and be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with current Public Works Standards, rather than having to subsequently upgrade, mods, or reconstruct facilities as existing areas are brought into the City. A booster pump station built to pump water to Mountain View Acres Subdivision would also be sized with adequate, capacity to feed water to future development and a new Zone 3 pressure zone and storage reservoir. A water distribution system and a wastewater collection system built within Mountain View would extend the existing City system to Mountain View, as well as other nearby existing development, and would be designed and built with the capacity and configuration to be further extended beyond Mountain View as adjacent development continues. Paved roads within Mountain View would also provide access to existing and future development. Although it is difficult to quanta the savings represented by eliminating the need to subsequently modify or reconstruct substandard facilities that were ' Engineering, Inc., Mountain View Acres Preliminary Water and Wastewater Design Report; (January 2002). ° Hosed on an average water use of 12 units per month (8,976 gallons), a base residential water rate of $19.60 per month plus a consumption rate of $1.10 per 100 cubic feet, and a base rate of $9.57 per residential sanitary sewer connection and a consumption rate of $2.56 per 100 cubic feet. R37:MouMain View MW W F 01126 (02.08-02) not annexed during initial development, it is fair to say that the costs for construction of infrastructure facilities will never be cheaper than they presently are. 6. Control of Type, Quality, and Location of Development Discussion.• As a city grows, it will inevitably become necessary to incorporate development contiguous with the city to allow expansion of city infrastructure to desirable new development. Sharing in the costs of extending infrastructure as a part of annexation of an area conveys the city's positive attitude toward development and its spirit of cooperation to developers, which in turn promotes additional desirable development of the type, quality, and location most favorable to the city. The goal for any city should be to promote orderly growth where the most efficient expansion of city services can be realized. R37:Mountevi View MW WF 4 Ol l26 (02-OS-02) - ^ i /~ ' ' .. L~ ~~ ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Engineers and lppd Surveyors MOUNTAIN VIES ACRES REPORT SUMMARY . Proposed Subdivision Area (acres):- b4 Minimum No. of Lots l: 110 . Ave. Day WaterDemaud per Lot (gpd~:. ` ~ S86 ' Max. Day Water. Demand per Lot (gpd)3: ~ 1,588 Fire Flow Demand (gpm)4: °~ 750 (min. 2-hr. duration) Required Pump Station Capacity: Mountain View Acres (gpm)5: 871. , Future~Zone 3 (gpm)6: 873 Year 2010 Zone 2 + Zone.3 ~ ~ (lpm)7,: 1;430 Estimated Booster Pump Station Capital Costs: $ 300,000.00 r Based on 20,000 fh to half-acre lot sizes. 2 Based an water use records from South Hills Water and Sewer District (Briarwood) in south Billings from 1997 through October 2001. n Haled on a peaking factor oE2.71 between the ave. day water demand and the max. day detinand as measured and presented ih the 1494 HKM Associates report Wafer Treatrnerrt and Distribution System Master Plan prepared for Ute City of Laurel. Typical for single-family homes: s Capacity equalao fire flow demand plus max. day demand. e Based on HICM's 1994 report. Based on HKM's 1994 report. s Based on a capacity of 873 gpm. Suite 200 (reekside 1001 S. 24th Street West P.O. Bpz 81345 Billings, MT 59108-1345 PHONE (406) 656-5255 .FAX (4061656-0967 - ~ , A , ~~ - ~~ ENGINEERING, INC. . - (ansultingEngineers and Lond Surveyors` MOUNTAIN VIEW ACRES . PRELIMINARY WATER-AND WASTEWATER DESIGN REPORT BACKGROUND. 'Mountain ViewYAcres is an approximately 64-acre piece of property located just north of the. Laurel City limits within Northeast '74 of ,Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 24 East. This report examines the viability of developing this property utilizing municipalservices and also addresses the issue of determining an equitable means for sharing in.the costs of constructing a booster pump station. -The booster station would pump water from Zone 2 into the property and subsequently be used to also pump water to_a new upper pressure zone (Zone 3), once a new upper reservoir has been constructed. - .SEWAGE SYSTEM . The wastewater system at Mountain View is tentatively planned to consist of an on-site system {i,e.- septic tank and drainfields) although the viability. of connecting to the municipal sewage. system should also be 'considered. Montana Subdivision .Rules requires -that the nt;ni*num lot size for subdivisions utilizing on-ste'systems be 20,000 square feet i£water to the subdivision is provided by a. central system, or' 1-acre if water is provided by individual wells drilled in each lot.. Mountain View Acres would correspondingly consist of approximately 55-60 1-acre lots, or 1 k0=120 %-acre lots. Higher density development (less than''/z`acre lots) could be utilized if both municipal water and sewer service were provided, up to the allowed Laurel zoning density fQr this area.. Potential connection to-the Laurel sewer system, could be accomplished using a lift station to pump, wastewater collected from a standard gravity collection system in the subdivision. Alternatively, aloes-pressure sewage system could also be utilized. Low-pressure systems consist of individual grinder pump lift stations installed at each lot that pump into aloes-pressure main. The low-pressure main then either discharges directly to the municipal system, or could discharge to a central lift station for'subsequent pumping into the municipal system. Sharing of costs between the developers and Laurel for needed upgrades. to wastewater system facilities could be negotiated similazly to that for water facilities if connection to the ;:mxnicipal system. becomes a desirable alternative. Suite 200 freekside 100.1 S. 24th Street (Nest P.0.8o>t 61345 Billings,Mi 59108-1345 PHONE {406) 656-5255 FAX (4061 bSb-0961 WATER SYSTEM Alternatives for providing water to the subdivision would include hauling water to individual cisterns, drilling individual wells for each lot, drilling several wells to serve the entire subdivision as part of a.private/public (privately owned system serving enough users to satisfy the "public" criteria as defined by the Montana. Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ]) central water system, or connecting to the Laurel municipal system. This report addresses only the connection to the municipal system. The connection to the municipal system would likely occur near the existing storage tank located- adjacent to'Beartooth Drive north of Hi-Line Drive. Anew main serving Mountain View Acres would probably be routed north on B@artooth Drive for as. far as possible and then be iun easti to the property. An easement for the eastern run of the main would be required from the owner of the property between the City right-of--way on Beartooth Drive and Mountain View Acres. .Because the proposed subdivision is located above the highest municipal pressure zone (Zone 2), . a booster pump station would be needed to supply water to the subdivision. - „1 Larry McCann of Laurel Public Works Department has indicated that any subdivision located outside of the City limits must be annexed. by the City as a condition of receiving municipal. water service. As. such, the proposed pump station-and subdivision water system piping and appurtenances must be in compliance. with City of Laurel design and construction standards, as well as DEQ standards. This includes providing fire hydrants and reliable pumping capacity (auxiliary' power or connection to TWO independent power sources would be needed) to satisfy fire flow demands. Mr. McCann bas indicated that the City has tentative plans to construct a new storage reservoir in the .near term and create anew -upper pressure zone (Zone 3) to service existing and future development located at elevations that cannot be hydraulically served by Zone 2. This report examines the potential for the proposed booster pumping station serving Mountain View Acres to subsequently be used to supply water to the new reservoir following its construction. WATER.DEMAIVD From the 1994:HICM Associates Water Treatment and Dtstributfon.System Master Plan report written for .Laurel; "the' average day water demand in Laurel is documented as being approximately 740 gallons per day (gpd) per home..This is based on a per capita water use of 277 gpd (as determined from the water use measured during two `•`nomial" years - 1975 and . 1988), multiplied by the average number of people per occupied dwelling - 2.67. A 740- gpd/home water demand is greater than the water use seen in recently examined subdivisions in Billings]. Although this figure may be appropriate if thg proposed development ultimately consists of .1-acre lots, it is anticipated that the developers would utilize a .higher density development to off=set the expense of connecting to Laurel's water system. Given the smaller lot ~ Based on water use records from South Hills Water and Sewer District (Briarwood) in south Billings from 1997- . 2001 which indicated an average per Bomb water use of 586 ppd. R37: Mountain View PWDR 01126 (Ol•I6-02) sizes and lower irrigation demand, in combination with the installation of water meters, -and a new non-leaking distribution system, the water demand should be more consistent with the lower observed use. An average day water demand of 586 gpd/home is used in this report. A peaking factor of 2.71 is assumed between the average day demand and. the maximum day demand, and is consistent with the measured figure used in the HKM report. This peaking factor should be accurate since it is generally independent of water use. A peaking factor of 7.0 between the average day demand and the peak Hour demand is used and is consistent witH recently measured water demands in Billings' subdivisions. The peak hour demand peaking factor, like the peak instantaneous demand, will decrease as .the number of homes increases due to the decreased occurrence of simultaneous water use. As shown in Table 1 the peak hour demand should be considered roughly equal to the peak instantaneous demand when more than.110 typical 3-bedroom homes exist.in the system. The peak instantaneous demand is detemuned by snmm;ng the estimated total number of household fixtures and corresponding fixture units for all the homes in a subdivision (as outlined in the procedure presented in the American Water Works Association Technical Paper No. M22), and reading the corresponding peak instantaneous demand from a graph of-flow rate versus fixture units provided in AW WA No. M22. "fhe fire flow demand is assumed to be equal to 750 gpm (typical for single-family homes) plus the maximum day demand. A graph of the water demand versus the number of homes for Mountain View Acres is provided in Table 1. PUMP 5TATION DESIGN TO SERVICE MOUNTAIN VIEW Since the booster station would serve°the subdivision until a future storage reservoir is built, the needed capacity of the booster station would be governed by the required fire flow demand in Mountain View Acres. 17EQ Design Standards requires that booster pump stations have a minimum of two pumps and that the total pumping capacity be equal to the peak demand with the largest pumping-unit out of operation. Therefore, at a minimum, the pump station would consist of two pumps each capable of supplying the required flow demand. However, since two large pumps would be very inefficient at satisfying the low flow demands during off-peak water use hours, the most efficient booster pump station is usually a combination of pumps that cari efficiently satisfy low flows as well as higher flows as water demand increases up to the fire flow demand. A dedicated fire flow pump could alternatively be used in the booster station. The larger pumps are usually sized equally to simplify maintenance and reduce the inventory of essential replacement parts. The jockey pump would either be equipped with a variable frequency drive, or be looped to the reservoir to allow the pump to run continuously to match the R37: Mountain Viaw PWDR 3 Ol I26 (01.16.02) low flow demand. The larger pumps would cycle on as the efficient capacity. of the jockey pump is exceeded. If the booster station is equipped with a dedicated fire flow pump, it would only operate during high flow conditions that would typically only occur when fire hydrants are flowed. From `Fable 1 the estimated required capacity of the booster pump station to satisfy peak demands in Mountain View Acres would be 871 gpm. 3: Based on a peaking factor of 7.0 better average day demand and peak hour demand._ ~ _ , 4. Based on information presented in AWWA No. M22; assuming 3-bedroom 1 house typical. 5. Read off Figure 4.4., AWWA No: M22. 6. -Based on a 750-gpm fire flow during maximum day demand conditions. * ~ The peak hour cannot exceed the peak instantaneous. PUMP STATION DESIGN TO FILL FUTURE RESERVOII2 Following completion of a new storage reservoir to serve a new upper pressure zone, the booster pump station would then be used to pump water. from Zone 2 to a new Zone 3. Assuming that water from the new storage reservoir would be used to equalize peak demands and satisfy fire flow demands in Zone 3, the capacity of the booster pump station would only need.to equal the R37:Mounfain Viaw PWDR ~ ~ 4 01126(01-16-02) 1. Based on 586 gpd/home. 2. Based on speaking factor of 2.71 better average day demand and m~Y~mum day demand. maximum day demand within the new -zone to assure that water in the reservoir could be replaced each day. ~ - From I-IK1VI's report, it was estimated that the maximum day demand from a future Zone 3 would be 873 gpm. Since this demand projection is essentially equivalent to the capacity needed fofthe proposed subdivision; very little, if any, modifications to the booster would be needed to satisfy the Second.Phase of the pump station's responsibilities (although it may be more efficient to replace the smaller pumps with one larger pump).. , If the booster pump station and new pressure zone were also going to be used to satisfy increased ,water demands from increased development in Zone 2, additional capacity would have to be provided.. HKM's report estimated that the yeaz 2010 demand in Zone 2 and Zone 3 would be roughly 1,430 gpm. The capacity of the booster station would have to be increased. approximately 61.percent to accomirlodate this increase, although provisions should be made in .the initial pump station design to easily accommodate future pump, station modifications. Note: The ~'evelopers of Mountain View Acres have first option on a 20=acre piece of ,property adjacent to Mountain View and may request that the booster station be sized to kddttionally serve this ground. Assuming that 10 percent of the area would be . dedicated road right-of-way, and assuming half-acre lots would be used, the maximum number of lots that could be developed in this area would be 36. Using demand estimates equivalent to Mountain View, the. maximum day demand in the adjacent property would be approximately 40 gpm. The fzrm pumping capacity of the . booster station to serve 110. lots in Mountain View plus the additiona1361ots "in the adjacent 20-acre area would then be 911 gpm. SHARED COSTS It is .uncertain what would be the most equitable way of distpbuting the costs of a booster primp statiom that would 'serve dual functions as the_ Laurel water service area is expanded. One approach may, be to distribute the' capital costs proportionally based on the amount of time the pump station is used only for providing water to Mountain View Acres as a percentage of the ` - design life of the pump station. Another approach may be that the City simply pays for the entire -. .cost of the pump station and charges a connection fee for each new. service connection in " Mountain View, as well as subsequent Zone 3 development, like it would for any new development within the City linvts. - If it is assumed .that the design life of the booster station is 25 years, and assuming that development vvithin Mountain View Acres will begin following construction of the pump station this year and that the new Zone 3 reservoir will be built in 5 years, Mountain View Acres would be receiving the exclusive benefit of the pump station for 20 percent of its design life and would be responsible for 20 percent of the capital casts. An estimate of the capital cost of the booster station with the ,capacity needed to serve Mauntain .View and subsequently serve Zone 3 is $300;000.00. Therefore;' under this approach, the developers would be, responsible for $60,000.00. of the capital costs. The City may or may not further charge a Connection fee as each R37:Mountain View PWDR $ 01126 (0616-02) lot is developed. However,. it seems reasonable that the connection fees, if charged, would be based on a less costly schedule given the capital cost contribution for the pump station by the developers.- Any cost of providing increased capacity needed to service additional Zone 2, development or to subsequently modify the pump station for more. efficient operation to fill a new tank, would -be the City's responsibility. Since the booster station would be owned, operated, and maintained by the City, the operation and maintenance costs would also be the responsibility of the City as is typical, with Laurel off-setting these costs through normal monthly water use bills. Recognizing the need for additional housing in Laurel that would be provided by Mountain View Acres, in addition to Laurel's existing intention to build a booster station that would provide water to an upper pressure zone, the City may elect to simply construct the pump station at their expense. Connection fees would.be charged as each lot is developed as is normally done for new services within the City limits. At approximately $1,000.00 per connection fee and a minimum of 1101ots in Mountain View, the gross amount. of money collected firom the subdivision may be greater than the amount collected in the proportionate shared cost approach. However, the City would have to ,agree to construct the pump station within the time frame needed by the developers of Iv~ountain View Acres R37:Mowtain View PWDR () D1126 (O1.16-02) MOUNTAIN VIEW ACRES SUBDIVISION Preliminary Price Figures The developers of the Mountain View Acres Subdivision have established a preliminary total package (lot and home) in the price range of $150,000 to $175,000. These figures are based on several factors, as listed below: (1) Review of the last two years of MLS listings for Laurel and the immediate surrounding areas. Prices of homes sold ranged from 140K - 208K. (2) Active listings (3}, range from 139K - 150K. These homes, two of which are still under constrdction, sit on lots approx. 8,500 sq. ft. in dimension (third home was built in 2001). Estimated lot sizes in Mountain View Acres Subdivision will be approx. 20,000 sq. ft. We feel larger lots justify a slightly increased average package figure. (3) Price range of total package figures in the Alan Lees development east of Laurel is 180K - 275K. An age on this development is not known, but 20-25 homes are believed to have been constructed or are currently under construction. These lots are one-acre lots with unpaved roads and no city services. As a general rule, we have taken the average price per lot and multiplied that figure by 5 to establish our preliminary price figures. It is our intent to stay within a price range at which the market will seek our product. We feel that paved streets and city services such as water and possibly sewer, combined with reasonable pricing, will result in a faster moving development. The housing will be attractive (enforced through covenants to be established by Mountain View Acres Subdivision) and will include ample green space. The area will offer Laurel citizens an affordable and attractive housing opportunity, as well as, attract people working on the west end of Billings -comparable housing in that area is currently at a base price of $210,000.