Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 02.18.2003MINUTES OF THE CITY COUN( IL OF lAUREL February 18, 2003 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 Bud Johnson at 6:30 p.m. on February 18, 2003. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Lauren Van Roekel Ken Olson Gay Easton Dan Mears Doug Poehls Mark Mace Daniel Dart John Oakes COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None Mayor Johnson asked the council to observe a moment of silence. Mayor Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. Mayor Johnson welcomed the members of the audience to the council meeting. MINUTES: Motion by Alderman Easton to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 4, 2003, as presented, seconded by Alderman Van Roekel. Motion carried 8-0. CORRESPONDENCE: Montana Capitol Restoration Foundation: Letter of January 23, 2003 regarding restoration of the granite steps at the Montana State Capitol Building. Air Pollution Control Board: Minutes of January 14, 2003; Activity Report for January 2003; Agenda for February 11, 2003. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ordinance No. 002-32: City of Laurel Municipal Sign Code. (First reading 06/18/02; public hearing on 07/16/02; 08/06/02 - set additional public hearing for 08/20/02; public hearing on 08/20/02; public hearing on 09/03/02; public hearing continued to 11/19/02; public hearing continued to 01/21/03; public hearing continued to 02/18/03) Mayor Johnson opened the public hearing. Mayor Johnson asked if there were any comments from proponents or opponents. There were none. Alderman Dart announced that a task force would be formed and a council information session would be scheduled at a later date in order to allow an open forum for any interested persons in the public and the business community to provide input into this matter. Motion by Aldemaan Dart to continue the public heating of Ordinance No. 002-32, Laurel Municipal Sign Code, to August 5, 2003, seconded by Alderman Meats. Motion carded 8-0. · Resolution of intention of the City of Laurel, Montana, to increase the rates and charges for the users of the Municipal. Water System. Mayor Johnson opened the public heating. Mayor Johnson asked the audience to state their name and address at the podium if they wished to address the council. Lorin Peterson, 1014 West Maryland Lane, asked how a 22% increase in water bills over the next three years could be justified. The increase is greater than a cost of living increase. Lorin works in Billings, and the economy is really slow now and he does not get similar increases for his household income. He understands the justification for the river project, the need to divert the water, and the Council Minutes of February 18, 2003 expenses involved. He feels that a 22% increase is going to prevent a lot of people from moving to Laurel,' and he does not see that the population of Laurel is going to grow very much. The economy in Laurel will be hurt tremendously because people are not going to want to move here. He has never addressed the council before, and he asked if he could ask specific people questions. Mayor Johnson stated that this was really not an informational meeting, but it is a public hearing for citizens to provide comment~. Mayor Johnson stated that he would answer his primary question in a very guarded fashion. This rate increase is not based on anything other than the needs that are at the river. That is the basic need, and it has nothing to do with any cost increases or anything like that other than a 1% increase. The rate increase proposal is 10% the first year and 6% each subsequent year for two years, and the only cost increase that we are looking at in those is 1%. Lorin asked if the rest was to cover the bond and to pay for the diversion of the dam. Mayor Johnson stated that it was for the intake to provide water. Lorin asked if there would be any kind of a permanent solution to this, or if this is just a temporary solution. Mayor Johnson responded by telling Lorin to take a drive across the Yellowstone Bridge to see what is going on. The work that is being done is the solution, and that is what the rate increase is all about. Lorin asked if this would go away in three years after this is paid for. Mayor Johnson again stated that this really is not an informational scs§ion, but the Montana Code does not provide for an increase of a specific surcharge for a specific thing. The only avenue that we have been able to detemfine is that, if we need a certain amount of dollars, we need to increase rates to cover that. Lorin again questioned whether there is no guarantee that this is going to go away eventually. Mayor Johnson agreed. Dick Metzger, 315 West Avenue, served as a city employee for Several years. He asked how a million dollar bid above the engineer's estimates could be justified without even trying to get another bid. Mayor Johnson stated that he would be happy to share the process that the council went through if Dick would call him and visit with him. Dick asked why there were no meetings prior to this. He read in the newspaper that the council had passed the resolutions, but there was never a public hearing for it. Mayor Johnson stated that this is the public hearing. Dick suggested that it is already decided. Mayor Johnson stated that the council has not voted yet and the hearing this evening is to public input. Dick stated that he is strictly opposed to spending a million dollars over the engineer's estimates. He has several neighbors that agree, and he attended this meeting to find out what is going on. Mayor Johnson invited Dick to give him a call. Marvin Carter,' 307 6th Avenue, sometimes wishes the Public Service Commission were still in charge. Since they left, some cities have nm rampant. Marvin stated that the council has won some firsts: first for having the highest priced water in the State of Montana; first for having the highest priced sewer in the State of Montana; and first for having the most brown lawns in the State of Montana. He stated that the rate increase says a unit, but as you add up the totals, somewhere the unit has been obliterated and we are paying a base fee and there is no unit there. Every other city that has a unit has more in their unit that we have in ours, and yet Laurel is by far the highest rate. If Billings would come out to the west and provide a line, we could get water a lot cheaper from Billings than we get it from Laurel, Montana. Marvin agrees with Dick Metzger that a million dollars over the engineer's estimate is an awTu! lot. He would like to know where the grants went, or if our grant applications were not followed through for approval to get grants to help with this water project. There are always grants available for water projects, and he cannot understand why we have 2 Council Minutes of February 18, 2003 not been a part of it. When adding up the figures that were sent out, it starts with 10%, then 6%, and suddenly the 6% goes to a plus 6% because three or four pennies were added on to that 6%. Then you add a couple more figures and you do not carry the figure down, you throw another penny in. He cannot understand why it is not a straight 6% increase. Marvin asked about the previous bond issue. There was a big increase for a water project several years ago~ and he stated that it should be paid for by now. He also questioned where the excess money from that bond issue is and where it is going. If the people of Laurel .could be told that no further increases would be needed after the next three years, then you could win over some confidence. It does not make sense to him to keep adding 6%, 6%, and 6% increases. Marvin stated that our water unit is really down in comparison to other cities, and it is really sad that we have gotten so carried away that those are the choices that have to be made. Mayor Johnson asked if anYone else wished to speak. Louis Metzger, 601 West 8th, is strongly opposed to the water rate increase, not only for himself, but also for the retired citizens in the City of Laurel. He thinks that increasing water rates will run people and businesses out of Laurel, and there will be no income coming in for the citizens of Laurel. Louis stated that the citizens on a fixed income cannot afford their water bills now, and he asked how they would afford the bil!s with the increases. He wants to know where the money went or where it is going. If water rates keep rising, there will be no lawns in the City of Laurel. It will all be grovel and sand. He knows that he is not going to be able to water his lawn this year with the water rate increase, and he is strongly thinking about putting in gravel. He questioned what that would look like to people coming to Laurel to buy houses. He also questioned what is happening to his property values. If water rates keep rising, he thinks that his property value will be nothing, and houses and property values in Laurel will be worth nothing, too. He is fired of it, and stated that it is time for somebody to sit down and take a strong stand against what is happening to this town. He strongly stated the need to get it cleaned up and get it straightened out, and to do something with our streets. He then stated that these increases are ridiculous, and some of the other things that are going on in town are completely ridiculous, especially with the nuisance vehicles. Mrl Metzger then asked for Mayor Johnson's resignation tonight. Mayor Johnson asked twice if there was any further comment. Tom Canape, 102 6th Avenue, stated that the sign ordinance is his big concern and said that the council would get to it later. The improvements for entryway zoning include so many parking spots for business, shrubbery, vegetation, and trees, but only so much peat moss and decorative rock is allowed. It does not make any sense to him why the water rate increases are so high, but the council expects these people to comply with the improvements of the property. As a citizen here, he has seen some big changes and it has not been good. personally, he does not like it. He stated that it is time to make a difference, and if it means going to the meetings to fred out what is going on and what can be done, that is what will have to be done. Things with which he does not agree are being done, but he will have to handle those at another time. Tom was here about the signs more than anything, but the water r~te increases just add to it. The city is placing restrictions on what is done for businesses, such as adding in shrubbery and not being able to put in rock. Shawn Derby, 2113 Atchison, moved in six or seven years ago. At that time, the water bill was $35 a month and now it is up to $70 per month. Now there will be a 10% increase this year and 6% for the next two or three years. Shawn is considering buying a home, but he does not think it is going to be in Laurel if the water prices keep rising. He questioned if the rates would be $100 in five or six years. He also questioned where all the money has gone from the previous increase that was needed, and then stated that they did not need it. Sue Carter, 307 6th Avenue, stated that the city needed to get the organizational programs in order. If you are going to have hearings, they should be done before the fact and before all the cranes get down in the river. Obvi. ously, this has been a problem for several years. If you want to have help from peOPle and have them working together, it is necessary to get the organizational part together right. Mayor Johnson asked twice if there were any other comments. Dick Metzg~r, 315 West Avenue, asked what all the money would be used for if the increase is approved. He questioned if the money would be used definitely for the pier at the water plant or if the city would buy five or six more new pickups. Dick also questioned why we have to furnish a pickup for employees that live in Billings, or halfway between Billings and Laurel, and halfway 3 Council Minutes of February 18, 2003 between Park City and Columbus. If a person is called out t~om the City of Billings, it is just like it was in the past. The individual gets paid from the time 0fthe call out, and if he is living in Billings, it is going to take him twenty-five to thirty minutes to get here. Dick questioned why we have to pay those kind of wages for them to travel up here when there are people that would take the job right here in Laurel. He again questioned how many new pickups would be purchased out of the money that is supposed to be used for the water plant. Mayor Johnson asked twice if there were any further comments. Lorin Peterson, 1014 West Maryland, asked if the City of Laurel considered putting a pipe all the way across the river and putting different entrances in instead of having to divert the whole river over. He questioned if that would be a cheaper and if other options were considered besides diverting the water flow. Mayor Johnson stated that the short answer is yes. Mayor Johnson asked twice if there was any further comment. There was none. Mayor Johnson closed the public hearing. CONSENT ITEMS: · Clerk/Treasurer Financial Statements for the month of January 2003. · ApProval of Payroll Register for PPE 02/02/03 totaling $115,348.71. · Receiving the Committee Reports into the Record. --Budget/Finance Committee minutes of January 21, 2003 were presented. --Emergency Services Committee minutes of January 27, 2003 were presented. --CitY-County Planning Board minutes of February 6, 2003 were presented. --Council Workshop minutes of February 11, 2003 were presented. · Resolutions. Resolution No. R03-17: Resolution accepting an agreement with Beartooth RC&D EcOnomic Development District. Resolution No. R03-18: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign Change Order No. 1 for the new water intake and pump station. Resolution No. R03-19: Accepting the low bid for a new garbage truck and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract to purchase from Tri-State Truck & Equipment, Inc. The Mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. There was none. Motion by Alderman Olson to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by Alderman Dart. Motion carried 8-0. Mayor Johnson stated that there could have been some input regarding the sign ordinance, and that the public hearing was held just before the water rate increase public heating. At that heating, the council announced that they are forming a task force, and a public information meeting will be scheduled. Notification will be made and input would be welcome. The public hearing on the sign code was continued to August 5, 2003. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (ONE-MINUTE LIMIT): None. SCHEDULED MATTERS: 4 Council Minutes of February 18, 2003 Confirmation Of Appointments: None Current Board/Committee vacancies: Board of Appeals - two positions Police Commission - one position · Wastewater Facilities Plan: Scott Murphy, Morrison-Maierle Scott Murphy distributed the Final City Council Presentation Summary of Recommendations of the 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan. A copy of the summary is attached to the original council minutes. This is the third time that Scott has addressed the council as part of the Wastewater Facilities Plan process, and he is here tonight to summarize their final recommendations. The facility plan process involves developing tools for effective decision making in order to set project priorities and to develop project cost estimates. It has been over twenty-five years since the City did a wastewater facilities plan, and the most recent major improvements, which included the treatment plant, are nearly twenty years old. With completion of this study, the City is in a position to be eligible for low-interest loans and state and federal grants for subsequent fixes, improvements, or upgrades at any of the wastewater facilities. The scope of the facility plan included assessing the current situation, assessing the future situation, developing and evaluating alternatives, developing a Draft Implementation Plan for public information and comment, submitting the plan and incorporating comments to MDEQ, and preparing the final facility plan for City adoption. Comments, which were minor in nature, were received from the MDEQ in January. The major issues addressed in the Wastewater Facility Plan include: the collection system; the pumping stations; the treatment plant; future regulations; and the service area growth to 2022. The recommended near-term improvements for the collection system include: 1) replace trunk mains in fields and open spaces prior to treatment plant to reduce peak flows; 2) replace "one- month" lines; 3) replace the aging Main/Elm Street lift station; 4) rehabilitate the aging Village Sub lift station; 5) begin a comprehensive program for replacing six-inch and eight-inch clay tile mains during the next thirty years. The recommended near-term improvements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant include: 1) replace plant drain pump station; 2) rehabilitate deteriorating headworks facility; 3) eliminate primary clarifier hydraulic bottleneck; 4) improve plant water systems; 5) miscellaneous major maintenance items; 6) disinfection upgrade. The total cost for the Phase 1 improvements would be $2,880,000, and the project is TSEP Grant eligible~ The Phase 2 Wastewater System recommendations for 2005 and beyond include: 1) disinfection upgrade to address regulatory change; 2) annual collection system replacement program; 3) collection system trunk main expansion; 4) treatment plant upgrade and expansion for growth. An example of the project cost for service area customers was included in the information. The steps needed to finish the process are: 1) council approval of the Final Wastewater Facilities Plan via resolt~tion; 2) Morrison-Maiefle incorporates the council resolution into the document and submits it to MDEQ; 3) MDEQ sends a final approval letter to the City of Laurel; 4) Morrison- Maiefle binds the final document and submits the proper number of copies to the City of Laurel. Mayor Johnson asked if the council had any questions. Alderman Dart stated that a noteworthy Point of interest is that folks in the audience have questioned some of the challenges that this council faces with the infrastructure of this city. The numbers that were shown in the Wastewater Facilities Plan did not happen overnight and neither did the problems with the water system, the streets, or anything else with this infrastructure. We have to remember prior administrations and what was done or what was not done and where we are now. It is a difficult pill to swallow sometimes, but this council has been left with it. Alderman Poehls furthered Alderman Dart's comments, and stated that the council has gone through the necessary process. Some citizens questioned why the public hearing for the water rate increase was held at the end of the process. The council has been going through this process with the engineers and everything else on almost a weekly basis throughout the past year. Alderman Poehls Council Minutes of February 18, 2003 stated that the council has gone through the process to try to make the best decisions possible for the City of Laurel. Mayor Johnson thanked Scott for the information. · Jan Faught: Laurel Volunteer Ambulance Year-End Report Jan Faught, Director of the Laurel Volunteer Ambulance, distributed information regarding the currem LVA crew, the total responses from 1996 - 2002, the hours not covered from 1996 - 2002, and the 2002 yearly stats. Jan stated that several crewmembers live outside the Laurel area. One of those crewmembers has been an attendant for three years and has had a place to stay while he was in town on call. Other than the ambulance office, the crewmembers do not have a place to stay, and that makes it difficult for them to put in hours and cover scheduled times. Many EMT's would like to come to Laurel to volunteer their time. If there were a place for people to stay, it would help keep people on the roster and keep hours covered. That is a big concem every year. There will be some crew changes soon. One attendant from Billings will be resigning, and some other crewmembers will be leaving. Jan stated that it is important to have trained reserves that are ready to step forward. She said that we need to think outside of the city limits, especially when there are qualified and trained people available, and we need to find a solution to have a place for the attendants to spend time. Daytime coverage is still the weakest area, and weekends are the second weakest area to cover. Total ambulance responses from 1996 to 2002 were shown on a graph, Jan started on the ambulance crew in 1996 and became the director in 1999. There were 250 calls in 1996, and 611 calls were received in 2002. The ambulance is working hard to answer every call that is received. In 1996, 4,901 hours were not covered because either one attendant or no attendant was on 'call, and, therefore, the ambulance could not leave the bay. In 2002, only 168 hours were not covered. As of September 12, 2002, there were only thirty-one hours with no coverage or one-person coverage. The rest of the no coverage hours happened after September when school started and some people were on vacation, which changed the daytime and weekend coverage to single person coverage. In order to cover one week, the ambulance service needs 336 volunteer hours - that means two people on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Even though 168 hours is not very many, Jan would like to see that number at zero. The ambulance receives many diverse calls. The highest number of calls was received for motor vehicle collisions in March 2002, and July was the second highest month. December is the biggest month for falls. Because attendants never know what kind of call will be received, it is important to keep training levels peaked. An attendant cannot let their training or skills slide. Since all skills are not used consistently, it is important for the ambulance to have a dedicated training area. Jan stated that it should be obvious how badly a training area is needed. The Laurel Volunteer Ambulance transpOrted 346 patients in 2001 and 370 patients in 2002. So far this year, there were 75 ambulance responses in January and 46 responses in February. In 2002, there were 169 no transports, which means that the ambulance responded, treated the patients at the scene, and a decision was made not to transport the patient. The ambulance is available and is very busy. Jan has been mazed by the increase in call volume. There have only been eight times when both rigs were out on calls at the same time. A third call was received during two of those times, but there was no way to respond to the third call, and Billings did take the third call. It is exciting to know that enough crewmembers are available and ready to man the second rig, as the s~cond rig is not scheduled. The ambulance crew is very dedicated, and Jan is happy with the statistics. Jan stated that the ambulance service keeps improving every year. Matt Erekson stated that federal regulations would be coming soon regarding personal health information. Cathy and Jan have been working hard to get the proposals together. The proposals will be presented to the council for review within the next month in order to be in place in April. The policies will prevent pemonal patient information from being published in the newspaper. Alderman Dart spoke with some Laurel senior citizens today. An elderly gentleman mentioned that he had utilized the ambulance service recently, and he had nothing but praise for our ambulance service. Alderman Dart echoed that sentiment by saying that Laurel is very blessed to have dedicated volunteers in the fire department and the ambulance service. He stated that we owe a great deal of thanks to Jan. 6 Council Minutes of February 18, 2003 Alderman Oakes asked regarding paid employees in the ambulance serVice. Jan is the only full-time employee, and the volunteer attendants receive a stipend for their service. Alderman Oakes said that it says a great deal for the humanity end of it. If it were not for all of the Volunteers, both of the ambulances would not be worth much. Mayor Johnson stated that there was a strong feeling within the council a few years ago that an ambulance service was a very needed and desired service in the community. At that time, the council provided a paid position for Jan, and that has proven to be part of the mason that the graphs and statistics have changed so much. Mayor Johnson has the impression that the community values the ambulance service, and Jan has made efforts to make it of value to the community. He said that there have been several presentations over the last few years to show the critical issue of shortage of space for the ambulance service. The city is in the process of coming forth with a couple of alternatives and proposals for review. Jan and the department heads in the FAP are working together to address the critical need for space. One cannot expect people to volunteer without some facilities. Alderman Olson reminded the council of a previous ambulance presentation regarding the lack of space. To maintain the morale of volunteers with a limitation of space is difficult. He cannot believe the dedication of the crewmembers. Alderman Olson applauds the administration for the opportunity to have a feasibility study with Myhre-Atwood come forth so that consideration can be made as to the priority of space for the ambulance. He stressed the iraportance of making this a priority. Even though an individual is being paid, you do not pay for morale over there; you have to put out to get it. Alderman Olson stated that he appreciates all the efforts. It is just amazing to be able to keep the morale up to where you can put nineteen people in twelve square feet of space and still have those people answer the call every time. He applauded Jan's efforts. Mayor Johnson thanked Jan. Steve Klotz: Public Works Department Year-End Report Steve Klotz gave a Power Point presentation of the Public Works Department 2002 Annual Report. Steve showed a chart of the operational flow of the department. The Public Works Director supervises and directs the Public Works Divisions and functions and is responsible for the following: a combined budget of approximately $2,000,000; floodplain administration; building, plumbing, and zoning plan review; City civil plan review and inspection; design and implement street remediation plan; human resource management and training; City/union contract negotiations; and serves as emergency contact in an on-call stand-by status approximately thirteen weeks per year. The Public Works Secretary is the primary contact for public interaction. The secretary maintains records and files Public Works documents; maintains and records committee minutes; implemented and maintains city address file system; records, posts, and proofs payroll; implemented the current phone protocol; serves as the Public Works dispatch; and processes and prepares planning functions. The Code Enforcement Inspector enforces the building codes, the fire code, and the Laurel Municipal Code. The inspector completes approximately 300 annual fire code inspections, 200 annual LMC inspections, and numerous building code inspections. The Code Enforcement Inspector also serves as an emergency contact in an on-call stand-by status approximately thirteen weeks per year. The Maintenance Superintendent supervises the operati°n of the Solid Waste, Parks/Cemetery, Streets, and City Shop Divisions of Public Works. He directs and schedules the day-to-day operations of the divisions, and he serves as the safety officer for the public works crews. The Maintenance Superintendent also serves as an emergency contact in an on-call standby status for approximately thirteen weeks per year. The Solid Waste Division provides weekly pick-up and disposal services to 2,335 residential customers, and approximately 100 gallons of waste per week per customer are collected. Daily pick- up and disposal service is provided to 222 commercial customers, and approximately 40,000 gallons of waste are collected per day. The transfer site provides waste drop off and disposal serVice to city and non-city residents. Roll off services to set, pick up, and haul waste are provided for construction sites, special events, and community serVices. Recycling services for metal scrap, paper scrap, and Christmas trees are also provided by the Solid Waste Division: Revenues for 2002 totaled $523,500, Council Minutes of February lg, 2003 and expenditures totaled $488,100. replacement trucks and containers. The $35,400 in reserves Will be used for a tree chipper and The Parks/Cemetery Division is responsible for cemetery operations, maintenance of the seventeen parks within the city, and the municipal swimming pool. Park maintenance includes snow removal, watering, mowing, weed control, equipment maintenance and safety, tree maintenance, and development of Ponderosa Park and the Lions Family Park. Cemetery operations include watering, mowing, weed control, leveling, and burials and cremations. Because of major maintenance costs at the swimming pool in recent years, the expenses have been much greater than the revenues. The filter system, the chlorinator, and the automated pH system have been replaced. Street Division responsibilities include street maintenance, street sweeping, winter road maintenance, signage and markings, minor construction, and major contracted construction. Street maintenance includes patching, crack sealing, gravel street blading~ alley blading, the storm water system, service cut repairs, debris removal, and alley cleanup of the 37 miles of pavement and 16 miles of gravel roads within the city. Street sweeping includes the state contract, the sweeping district, residential services, and the winter sanding cleanup. The street division is on call twenty- four hours a day for winter road maintenance. The division maintains approximately 2,000 signs, replaces or repairs approximately 100 signs annually, and maintains the crosswalk and parking markings. Recycled asphalt material was used on a minor construction project on the 500 block of Hazel Avenue last year, and more gravel streets will be paved this coming summer. A major contracted construction project was completed with the chip seal project in the Cherry Hills Subdivision, an area that qualified for preventative maintenance. Preventative maintenance costs about $1/per unit and street reconstruction costs about $7/per unit. In order to save money, the crews did some of the work on this project.. The City Shop Division is responsible for routine maintenance, major mechanical repairs, and the parts and equipment inventory. A fire restoration project is near completion in the city shop. About $56,000 worth of electrical, smoke, and fire damage was suffered from the fire at the shop several months ago. We served as the general contractor on the project in order to keep down the costs of the restoration. A different type of insulation was used to provide more light in the shop, the light fixture types were changed in order to provide more candles per square foot and better distribution of the light, and an improved overhead door system was installed. Alderman Olson asked regarding clear vision marking. Steve explained that clear vision marking addresses the areas that need to be clear in order to provide safety at intersections. Landscaping issues are involved, but it generally addresses where parking starts at intersections. Once the striping of the curbs is done, there should not be much more impact. Landscaping violations can be addressed as a nuisance through the Laurel Municipal Code. Mayor Johnson asked if there were any further questions. Mayor Johnson thanked Steve. · Request for annexation from Teresa and Tige Ekle for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Mathis Subdivision: Set public bearing date for March'lS, 2003. Motion by Alderman Poehls to set the Public hearing date for March 18, 2003, for the annexation request from Teresa and Tige Ekle for Lots 1-5, Block 1 of Mathis Subdivision, seconded by Alderman Meats. Motion carried 8-0. · Request for annexation from Kathy Simanton for Lot 1, Block 6, High Point Subdivision: Set public hearing date for March 18, 2003. Motion by Alderman Mace to set the public hearing date for March 18, 2003, for the annexation request from Kathy Simanton for Lot 1, Block 6 of High Point Subdivision, seconded by Alderman Dart. Motion carried 8-0. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: None. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (THREE-MINUTE LIMIT): None. 8 Council Minutes of February 18, 2003 COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Alderman Poehls mentioned that the YMCA Auction is scheduled for April 6th at 4:30 p.m. at St. Anthony's. Any donations can be made at the YMCA office. Alderman Poehls asked if the council wanted to consider buying a table at a cost 0f $250. Peterson Typewriter loaned several chairs for the council to try for a month. The current chairs in use in the council chambers were purchased in the 1970's. Matt Erekson mentioned that information on parliamentary procedure was distributed tO the council in January. He offered to review some of the procedures with the council during council meetings or workshops, and the council agreed to do so during council workshops. UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: There being no further business to ~ome before the council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Cindy Allen~ecretary Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 4th day of March, 2003. Attest: Mary K. F4~ble~0n, Clerk-Treasurer 9 Why do a Facility Plan? · Develop tools for effective decision making - Project priorities - Project cost estimates · Make possible city eligibility for Iow interest loans (-4%) and state/federal grants Scope of Facility Plan? · Assess Current Situation · Assess Future Situation · Develop and Evaluate Alternatives · Develop Draft Implementation Plan for Public Information and Comment · Submit to MDEQ and Incorporate Comments ... Comments received were minor. · Prepare Final Facility Plan for City Adoption... This is where we are today. Major Issues Addressed in Facility Plan · Collection System · Critical short-term replacement needs · Long-term rehabilitation program · Pumping Stations · One needs replacement · One needs refurbishment · Treatment Plant · Nearing 20 years old · Flowrates greatly exceed design values · Some mechanical systems need replacement · Most systems need major maintenance Major Issues Addressed in Facility Plan · Future Regulations · Improved Disinfection · TMDL Process · Service Area Growth to 2022 · Growth Areas Projected · Lower Bounds Est. - 8,062 people · Upper Bounds Est. - 14,299 people (Includes partial development within 6 growth areas) Wastewater Collection System - Recommended Near-Term Improvements 1. Replace Trunk Mains in Fields and Open Spaces prior to Treatment Plant To Reduce Peak Flows. 2. Replace "One Month" Lines (-4,200 LF). 3. Replace Aging Main/Elm Street Lift Station. 4. Rehabilitate Aging Village Sub Lift Station 5. Begin Comprehensive Program for Replacing 6-inch and 8-inch Clay Tile Mains Dudng Next 30 Years. Wastewater Collection System - Replace Trunk Mains in Fields & Open Spaces ALTERNATIVE T2- SINGLE PIPE SYSTEM Wastewater Collection System - Recommended Near-Term Improvements 1. Replace Trunk Mains in Fields and Open Spaces prior to Treatment Plant To Reduce Peak Flows. 2. Replace "One Month" Lines (-4,200 LF). 3. Replace Aging Main/Elm Street Lift Station. 4. Rehabilitate Aging Village Sub Lift Station 5. Begin Comprehensive Program for Replacing 6-inch and 8-inch Clay Tile Mains Dudng Next 30 Years. Wastewater Treatment Plant - Recommended Near-Term Improvements 1. Replace Plant Drain Pump Station 2. Rehabilitate Deteriorating Headworks Facility 3. Eliminate Primary Clarifier Hydraulic Bottleneck 4. Improve Plant Water Systems 5. Miscellaneous Major Maintenance Items 6. Disinfection Upgrade (may be possible to defer) 4 Wastewater System Recommendations Phase t Improvements - 2003-05 Project Component Cost Replacement of "One Month" Lines $690,100 Replacement o~'the Existing Trunk Mains $793,200 Replacement of the Main/Elm St. Lift Sra. $352,700 Grit Removst and Headworks Facility $240,000 Pdmar~ Cladfiers Hydraulic Improvements $20,000 Plant Drain Pump Station Replacement $85,000 Plant Water Systems Improvements $150,000 Sub-Total $2,331,000 ENR Cost Projection Factor 1.03 Total Construction Cost $2,400,000 Engineering / Construction Administzation 480,000 Total Project Cost $2,880,000 This project is TSEP Grant Eligible Wastewater System Recommendations Phase 2 - 2005 and Beyond 1. Disinfection Upgrade to Address Regulatory Change $ 3O0,0O0 2. Annual Collection System Replacement Program Variable - depending on length of program $150,000-600,000/year 3. Collection System Trunk Main Expansion Variable - depending on location and extent $ 5,000,000+ for all areas - Connection Fees 4. Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion for Growth $ 2,900,000 for Lower Bounds Growth $ 5,500,000 (additional) for Upper Bounds Growth 5 Example Project Cost For Service Area Customers Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Project Cost $2,680,000 $2,935,000 Total Grants $500,000 $0 Total Cost to be Financed $2.380,000 $2.935.000 Loan Conditions Annual Interest Rate 4.0% 4.0% Current debt Term (Years) 20 20 nnwmo~ 1~. 1~% service is Total Annual Cost reduced by Annualized Capital Cost $218,900 $270,000 Total Annual O&M Increase ($25,0007 Se,SOO Approx. Tntnl $I~:~ ~nn .~a~ nnn $3.65/month Total Cost Per User Per Month No. of Usem (@ start of project)~ 2500 2600 in 2003-2005 Estimated Average Cost Per User $6.46/mo. $10.45/mo. Steps to Finish Process · Council Approves Final Facility Plan (Draft Plan with MDEQ Comments Addressed) via Resolution · Morrison-Maierle incorporates Council Resolution into document and submits to MDEQ · MDEQ Sends Final ApprOval letter to City · Morrison-Maierle binds final Document and Submits Copies to City CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Laurel has an aging wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure. This document evaluates the current situation and establishes a recommended course of action and design basis for wastewater improvements to meet the needs of the City, and the requirements of State and Federal regulations, for a 20-year planning period. A synopsis of project background and the alternatives and recommended improvements are presented in this Executive Summary. This summary is organized by major headers to be consistent with the remaining eight chapters of this report. 1.1 INTRODUCTION The objective of a Facilities Plan report is to provide the City of Laurel with the necessary information for making decisions about future improvements to its wastewater facilities. The need to complete this report is summarized as follows: Changing effluent discharge regulations necessitates the need for the review of the existing treatment process's ability to meet future requirements. Population changes and future population growth requires that the capacity of the collection system and treatment facility be reviewed. Most of the equipment at the treatment facility is nearly 20 years of age and may require near- or long-term replacement to prevent failure of a treatment process. It has been nearly 25 years since the last facilities plan was prepared. The collection system is plagued with problems associated with undersized mains, root intrusion and other problems. The City currently cleans approximately 4,300 LF of sewer main monthly to keep the sewer mains clear of obstructions. The City experiences a sudden increase or decrease of approximately 1.0 MGD in wastewater flow rates over a 24 to 48-hour period during the irrigation season, indicating the likelihood of major infiltration/inflow in the City's trunk main system. The City's two sewage lift stations are approaching the end of their useful life and will require upgrade or replacement. Completion of the formal facilities planning process makes the City eligible for grants and Iow interest loans from various State and Federal programs. 1.2 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Wastewater collection and treatment system facilities, wastewater biosolids, and effluent disposal are regulated by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 1-1 DRAFT City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary (MDEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Discharge of effluent from the Laurel Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Yellowstone River is currently authorized by Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) Permit No. MT-0020311. This permit is effective through March 31,2005. Based on recent discussions with MDEQ staff, it can be speculated that the parameters in the existing discharge permit will remain largely unchanged, with the exception of disinfection requirements that will become more stringent during the next permit cycle. An additional issue of concern is the State of Montana's on-going effort to to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies in the State. This process could result in more stringent treatment standards, although specific information is not available at this time. Ammonia toxicity requirements and non-degradation standards are issues that any expanded facility must address. Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this report. 1.3 CURRENT AND FUTURE SITUATION The planning area utilized for this study includes the current city limits and a designated area surrounding the City, as directed by City staff and endorsed by elected officials. The planning area boundary is presented on the vicinity map illustrated in Figure 2-1 (Following page 2-3). Between 1920 and 2000 both Yellowstone County and the City of Laurel have experienced an increase in population, in contrast to many counties and towns in Montana. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the County population grew 24 percent, 5 percent and 14 percent, respectively. Since 1960, the City population has been approximatley 5 percent of the County's population. To project future population from 2000 to 2022, data on, Yellowstone County was obtained from the Montana Department of Commerce Census and Economic Information. With one approach, the City's population projection from 2000 to 2022 was estimated by assuming Laurel's population would continue to comprise approximately 5 percent of the total County population. Based on this approach, the total estimated sewered population in the year 2022 is 8,062 people. This is an increase of 1,807 people over the 2000 sewered population. This approach assumes only small extensions of the current City limits and sewer service boundary and infill of available areas within the current boundary. The City is experiencing pressure from developers to expand the wastewater service boundary. Six (6) specific service boundary growth areas were identified for further evaluation. These areas are located to the east, north, and west of the current service boundary and are shown in Figure 4-2 (following page 4-22). The Facility Plan investigated the impact to the wastewater collection and treatment systems with the addition of these areas to the City's service area. Using growth patterns within the areas developed jointly with City Staff, the estimated 2022 population is 14,299. This scenario represents an increase of 8,044 persons over the 2000 population. 1-2 H:~MUNICiPAL~0703 LaurelS011 WE/Fadli[y Pla n~Dr~ft Repc~r[\LaureL1 FacilitiesPlan,doc D RAFT City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary The Facilities Plan used the two population growth scenarios described above as "lower" and "upper" bounds on future needs. Future estimates of wastewater flows, organic loads, and sludge production were estimated based on historical values, projected into the future for population. This data can be found in Table 4-17 (On Page 4-25) 1.4 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM The original wastewater collection system for the City of Laurel dates back to 1910 and was constructed of vitrified clay sewer pipe. The current system is comprised of approximately 29 miles of sewer main, the majority of which is 6-inch and 8-inch in size. Like most older clay collection systems, the City of Laurel experiences problems with Iow areas, protruding services, cracked pipe, broken pipe, root intrusion and offset joints. These problems are much more prevalent in the older vitrified clay pipe. Through on-going monitoring program and customer complaints, the City has identified approximately 4,300 LF of sewer main that requires monthly cleaning to prevent backups. The City estimates that maintenance of these "one-month" lines costs at least $16,000 in labor and equipment annually. The City did complete an entire cleaning of the wastewater collection system in the summer of 2002. It is the intention of City staff to budget and complete this system wide cleaning every 3 years. The City does not have a sewer main replacement/rehabilitation program. Figure 5-1 (following page 5-1) presents an overview of the existing collection system. The 'area surrounding Laurel is still primarily irrigated agricultural land. Furthermore, there are several irrigation ditches that run through town. As a result, the groundwater table in town rises significantly during the late spring and summer months, contributing to system-wide infiltration increases. Flow observations were conducted to identify the location of infiltration and quantify the amounts. Multi-night flow observation work conducted during February 2002 and June 2002 did not identify any specific areas of extreme infiltration. Rather, the observation work confirmed that infiltration was occurring on a fairly consistent basis throughout a large portion of the City's collection system, due to elevated ground water caused by irrigation. Infiltration/inflow is also a major concern for the existing trunk mains that convey collected wastewater thru open fields just before the treatment facility. When these fields are flood irrigated, flows to the treatment plant can increase by 1 mgd or more in a matter of hours, and remain elevated until irrigation stops. Several locations have been identified where the irrigation water is likely entering the system. The irrigation water is conveyed to the WWTP and, at times, hydraulically overwhelms the unit processes at the WVVTP. A hydraulic computer model was developed for the sewer mains. The modeling work concluded that, with the exception of two or three locations, the sewer mains have adequate capacity for current conditions. The capacity of the system will not allow major expansion of the service area without upgrades, however. Aside from capacity, 1-3 City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary the physical condition of the collection system, including cracked pipe, broken pipe, bottomless manholes, protruding services, root intrusion, results in a serious potential threat to the public's health, safety and welfare due to backup of sewage into basements, particularly in the vicinity of the "one-month" lines. The list of "one-month" lines grows on a yearly basis as additional dilapidated lines are identified. The Main/Elm Street and Village Sub lift stations are in poor and fair conditions, respectively. Their conditions can be attributed to lack of historical maintenance and cleaning, and some sub-standard design features. Current staff maintains items as is practical. The lift station's pumps, controls, valves are in need of replacement. The Main/Elm Street lift station does not have emergency power so the potential for exposure to untreated wastewater is high for residents in the area if the lift station would lose power. The Village Sub lift station is approaching its design life of 20 years. Therefore, the pumps, controls, and valves are in need of rehabilitation. 1.5 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) The original Laurel WWTP, constructed on the existing site in 1941, consisted of primary treatment and anaerobic sludge digestion. This plant was upgraded with the addition of chlorine disinfection and other improvements in 1961. 1 n 1985 the plant was upgraded to secondary treatment standards utilizing the rotating biological contactor (RBC) secondary treatment process. Neady the entire plant was replaced at that time. The plant has had minimal updating since 1985, with the exceptions of five additional sludge drying beds in the late 1980s, digester rehabilitation work in 1998-99, and an updating of the plant's process control equipment with improved programmable logic controllers (PLCs). Figure 6-1 (following page 6-1) presents an overall plant process schematic showing major liquid and solids process flows and Figure 6-2 (following page 6-1) is a plan view of the site. In general, the Laurel WWTP is in good condition, although it is showing its age of 18 years. The WWTP is currently operating above its average yearly hydraulic design capacity, and regularly exceeds other hydraulic design criteria as well, due to the infiltration/Inflow described above. Despite this, the plant is operating faidy well in terms of effluent quality and MPDES discharge limitations due to the fact that organic loading is significantly below design values. Average and peak flows continue to increase to the plant due to deteriorating sewer interceptor lines. Without action, it is anticipated that the plant will not be able to consistently meet its effluent permit limit in the near term. A plant upgrade and expansion would be necessary to meet the population growth scenarios described above. In addition, there are current problem areas that need to be addressed to ensure no major permit or health and safety violations occur in the near- term: The existing plant drain pump station is nearing the point of failure and is integral to pumping liquid return streams to the main process units. This system must be replaced. 1-4 DRAFT City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary The plant water and potable water systems are both inoperable. The former leaves the plant operators without a reliable source of non-potable process water and the latter leaves the plant without adequate fire protection. Both of these deficiencies should be corrected. The existing bar screen is inefficient and a safety hazard during maintenance activities. A new mechanically cleaned bar screen system should replace the existing unit, resulting in better collection of solids and resulting improvements in downstream solids handling processes. Combined with a screenings washer/compactor, the atmosphere within the building will improve. Several roofs on plant buildings must be replaced to protect the City's building investment. The near-term viability of the secondary treatment process is predicated on the removal of excess groundwater as described above. The long-term viability of the RBC process is also predicated on an expansion and increased level of process redundancy, as this unit process ages. 1.6 DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives have been developed to address the City's need to address deteriorated sewer mein lines, infiltration into trunk mains, and replacing and rehabilitating existing lift stations. The "no-action" alternative was developed but is not recommended at this time for the City's wastewater collection system. Alternatives developed include 'traditional" dig and replace approaches for the sewer mains and manholes, and "in-situ" rehabilitation alternatives which involve much less digging and surface disruption. An approach to replace existing trunk mains to meet near-term wastewater flows and future flows have also been developed. Alternatives for replacement or rehabilitation of the City's lift stations are included. These can be summarized as follows: Collection System Alternatives Alternative C1: Replace Sewer Mains Using Traditional Excavation or Pipe Bursting Alternative C2: Rehabilitate Sewer Mains using Siiplining Technology Trunk Main Improvement Alternatives Alternative T1: Replacement of the Trunk Mains with Parallel Lines Alternative T2: Replacement of the Trunk Mains with Single Lines 1-5 H:IMUN IClPAL~OT03 Laurel\011 WW Fadlity Plan~Dralt Repo~Laurel.1 .FacilihesPlan .doc D RAFT City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary Lift Station Improvement Alternatives Alternative LS 1: Rehabilitation of the Main/Elm Street Lift Station Alternative LS2: Replacement of the Main/Elm Street Lift Station Alternative LS3: Rehabilitation of the Village Sub Lift Station Alternative LS4: Replacement of the Village Sub Lift Station Further description of these alternatives and development of costs are presented in Chapter 7, and are summarized in Table 7-1 (On page 7-15). 1.7 DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND UPGRADE/EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES Near-term project needs at the WWTP were developed, and alternatives to address the long-term needs necessitated by changing effluent discharge regulations and anticipated growth were identified and developed. The "no-action" alternative was developed but is not recommended at this time for the City's WWTP. The near-term improvements are those that should be implemented within the next 1-3 years (as soon as possible). These improvements are primarily aimed at maintaining the City's investment in this $14 million facility (estimate of current replacement cost), providing additional flexibility to more reliably and efficiently deliver wastewater treatment services, and to address issues related to health and safety. These recommendations can be summarized as follows: Modernize Grit Removal and Headworks Facility , Replace Grit Removal System and add Classifier * Replace Mechanically Cleaned Bar Screen ~ Improved Ventilation and Gas Detection Equipment Eliminate Hydraulic Restrictions at the Primary Clarifiers Replace Plant Drain Pump Station Improve Plant Water Systems ~ Improve Potable Water System for Fire Protection , Improve Utility Water System for Plant Uses Long-Term alternatives are those that outline improvements needed at the plant to address long-term equipment replacement needs, major maintenance issues, to 1-6 City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary improve operational and safety conditions, and to address long-term growth requirements. "Lower bounds" and "upper bounds" growth scenarios were described above and in Chapter 4. Alternatives were developed to address both of these scenarios. Lower Bounds Growth Scenario Alternatives The lower bounds growth scenario predicts a 2022 population of 8062. For this scenario, and for scenarios of population up to approximately 8500, many essential treatment components of the existing facility are anticipated to be of adequate size, with the exception of the RBC units and air blowers. Additional areas of the plant will require upgrade and/or equipment replacement, but are of generally adequate size. The alternatives considered and developed in detail for this lower bounds growth scenario are: Alternative LB1: No Action Alternative LB2: Expand the Existing RBC System Alternative LB3: Add Activated Sludge System to the Existing RBCs Upper Bounds Growth Scenario Alternatives The upper bounds growth scenario predicts a 2022 population of 14,299. For this scenario the entire treatment facility would have to be expanded, essentially doubling in capacity. The alternatives considered and developed in detail for this upper bounds growth scenario are: Alternative UB1: No Action Alternative UB2: Expand RBC System And Add a Wetland Polishing System Alternative UB3: Add Activated Sludge to the Existing RBCs Alternative UB4: Replace RBCs with Activated Sludge The alternatives identified above are focused on making the most out of the existing facility investment (UB2 and UB3), and utilizing proven, advanced treatment technology to achieve higher levels of treatment (UB4). 1-7 DRAFT City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary Additional Elements Common to All Alternatives The following elements are common to all long-term alternatives, as they relate to other facilities that do not require process expansion. Replace the existing 24-inch outfall pipe with a 36-in outfall pipe Miscellaneous digestion system improvements Miscellaneous pump and pipe replacement Coating system replacement of lift pumps, primary clarifiers and secondary clarifiers Further description of these alternatives and development of costs are presented in Chapter 8. 1.8 IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES Taking into consideration capital costs, annual O&M costs, availability of grants and other non-economic factors discussed in Chapters 7 and 8, the preferred collection system and treatment plant improvement alternatives are summarized below. Table 1-1 lists the recommended collection and treatment plant improvements in order of priority. The priority order (1 highest, 3 lowest) was determined based on several criteria including: The immediate threat to the public's health safety and welfare as a direct result of the deficiency to be corrected; The immediate threat to the health, safety and welfare of the City staff as a direct result of the deficiency to be corrected; The potential cost savings that the City could realize by making the recommended improvements; and The impact that the improvement alternative will have on the operation of the collection system and/or treatment plant. It is advisable to phase the implementation of capital needs according to the assigned priority. A two-phased approach is recommended as a minimum. It is possible that the second phase may be broken into sub-phases, but this decision is best made in the future depending on the actual increase in service area boundary and population growth. Table 1-2 presents a more detailed implementation cost estimate for Phase 1. An implementation schedule for Phase 1 is presented in Table 1-3. This schedule assumes that no action is taken until a TSEP grant is obtained. It would be possible to break Phase 1 into two sub-phases, funding the earliest sub-phase with an SRF loan exclusively, followed by a second project with TSEP and SRF funding. Following completion of these projects, it is strongly recommended that the City implement a 1-8 H:~MUNICIPAL/0703 Laurel~ 1 WW Facility Plan',Draft ReporilLaurel,1 ,Factli[iesPlan.doc DRAFT City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary program of regular sewer line replacement, budgeting to accomplish complete system renewal on a planned basis. The affect on sewer utility customers for implementation of Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects is presented in Table 1-4, for a scenario in which Phase 1 is assisted by a Treasure State Endowment Program grant and supplemented by an SRF loan, while Phase 2 is financed by an SRF loan only. The user costs do not necessarily result in directly proportional rate increases, as current debt service will be paid off prior to initiating the Phase 1 project. Alternate financing arrangements are possible, including additional TSEP grants for multiple projects, and direct EPA grants through congressional appropriation. TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PRIORITIZED WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS Priority Recommended Improvement Estimated Construction Cost Collection System Improvements Prioritized 1 Replacement of the "One Month" Lines in a $690,100 Single Project; Alternative Cl(A) I Replace Trunk Mains with Single Pipe Sized for Future Growth; Alternative T2 $793,200 1 Replacement of the Main/Elm Street Lift Station; Alternative LS2 $352,700 2 Rehabilitate the Village Sub Lift Station; $70,200 Alternative LS4 3 Development and Implementation of Annual Rehab Program $636,000 Treatment Plant Improvements Prioritized 1 Grit Removal and Headworks Facility $240,000 1 Primary Cladfiers Hydraulic Improvements $20,000 1 Plant Drain Pump Station Replacement $85,000 1 Plant Water Systems Improvements $150,000 2 Phased Implementation of Alterative UB3 and $1,775,000-2,935,000 UB4 1-9 DRAFT City ef Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary TABLE 1-2 PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Project Component I Cost Replacement of "One Month" Lines $690,100 Replacement of the Existing Trunk Mains $793,200 Replacement of the Main/Elm Street Lift Station $352,700 Gdt Removal and Headworks Facility Improvements $240,000 Primary Clarifiers Hydraulic Improvements $20,000 Plant Drain Pump Station Replacement $85,000 Plant Water Systems Improvements $150,000 Sub-Total $2,33'1,000 ENR Cost Projection Factor 1 1.03 Total Construction Cost (Projected to September 2003) $2,400,000 Engineering / Construction Administration (-20%) 2 480,000 Total Proiect Cost $2,880,000 1'. The estimated factor for projecting construction cost to September 2003 is calculated based on historical Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost factor data. These numbers should be adjusted to match the actual construction time frame. 2. Costs for technical services are based on a percent of total construction for budgeting purposes only. Final costs for technical services will be negotiated during the final design phase of the project and may vary depending on actual site conditions, availability of existing data, the final scope of services, etc. 1-10 H:'dVlUNIC~PAL~0703 Laurell011 WW Fadli[y Plan~Dmfl Repcct~Laurel.'l.facilitlesPlan.dDc DRAFT City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary TABLE 1-3 PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR PHASES 1 AND 2 Task Description Phase 14 Phase 2 1. Final Facilities Plan Approval and Adoption Feb. 2003 I Feb. 2003 2. Submit TSEP Grant Application May 2004 3. Submit SRF Loan Application May 2004 At any time 5. Preliminary Notice of Grant/Loan Award Oct. 2004 6. Completion of Final Plans and Specifications April 2005 5 months after authorization 6 months after 7. Advertise and Receive Bids for Construction May 2005 authorization 1 month after bid 8. Award Construction Contract June 2005 opening 2 months after 9. Begin Construction July 2005 bid opening 1 year after 10. Complete Construction April 2006 starting construction I year after 11. One Year Certification April 2007 completing construction 1. The schedule shown is based on a single project that is funded by a TSEP grant and a SRF Loan. This schedule is driven by the TSEP funding process which is not adaptable to an early start on the project. As discussed in the text, the Phase 1 work is possible to implement as multiple projects, some of which could begin immediately if completely funded by the City through an SRF loan. 1-11 DRAFT City of Laurel, Montana 2002 Wastewater Facilities Plan Chapter 1 - Executive Summary TABLE 1-4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COST CONTRIBUTION BY CUSTOMERS I Phase 1 I Phase 2 Total Project Cost $2,880,000 $2,935,0003 Total Grants $500,000 $0 Total Cost to be Financed $2.380.000 $2.935.000 Loan Conditions Annual Interest Rate 4.0% 4.0% Term (Years) 20 20 Coverage 125% 125% Total Annual Cost Annualized Capital Cost $218,900 $270,000 Total Annual O&M Increase ($25,000)2 $56,800 Total $193,900 $326,000 Total Cost Per Utility Customer Per Month No. of Customers (@ start of project)~ 2500 2600 Estimated Average Cost Per User $6.46/month $10.45/month 1. See Chapter 4 for further information. 2. Decrease in annual O&M costs comes from elimination of "one-month lines" + reduced treatment plant maintenance. 3. For purposes of illustration, Alternative LB3 is assumed for this phase. This represents the highest possible cost for a recommended lower bopnds population growth scenario project. 1-12 DRAFT MORRISON-M~,m~E.- I~c. February 2003 Issue No. 03-07 /v~ontana Communities Chlodne Contact Basin Does your community currently discharge treated wastewater to a body of water, such as a stream, lake, or wetland? If so, then your next discharge permit may require changes to your treatment process. Newly adopted changes to the Montana Water Quality Standards, as applied to disinfection of treated wastewater, have the potential to affect every Montana community. Why should you be concerned about effluent disinfection? Historically, fecal coliform bacteria limitations specified in wastewater treatment facility discharge permits have been based on the dilution capacity within a mixing zone of the receiving stream. The permit limit was set to ensure the State standard limit of 200/400 organisms per 100 milliliters (org/100ml) could be met downstream of the mixing zone after dilution of the effluent in the receiving water (see side box). Changes to Water Quality Standards have resulted in elimination of the mixing zone for setting fecal coliform limits. As a result, the mixing zone, and therefore dilution, can no longer be considered. Therefore, the 2001400 limit must be met at the point of discharge. In contrast, most existing permits have had limits between 450 and 55,000 org/100ml at the point of discharge, reflecting the range of dilution effects from small streams to large dvers. Who will be affected? Simply, every discharge permit could be affected. Treatment systems ranging from the smallest lagoon system to multi-million-gallon-a-day mechanical treatment plants could be affected by this change in regulation. It is the classification of the receiving water, not the size of the receiving stream or facility, that will dictate whether a treatment facility must meet a 200/400 limit. These limits apply to receiving waters classified as A, B, and C. The amended standards also establish new stream classifications for constructed ditches, seasonal and semi-permanent lakes, and ephemeral (intermittent) streams, classified as D, E, and F respectively. These new classes of state waters carry less stringent discharge limits of 1,000/2,000 org/100 mi. State law stipulates that a mixing zone may not be considered when setting fecal coliform limits. Standards must be met at the point of discharge. State discharge permits will be written to require disinfection compliance during the months when instream water temperatures normally exceed 60 degrees Fahrenheit, typically April through October. It may be possible to reduce this window if adequate temperature data is available with which to document a more definable period. Helena Billings Bozeman Missoula Great Falls Kalispell Phoenix 406-442-3050 406-656-6000 406-587-0721 406-542-8880 406-454-1513 406-752-2216 602-244-9662 When is it going to affect you? During the renewal period of your next discharge permit. Facilities currently in the renewal process may see new limits in the "draft" permit. A compliance schedule will be included as part of the final discharge permit. The time granted for compliance will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but will likely be the length of the permit cycle. What are your options to achieve compliance? Some communities will not require action. Certain facilities may already produce a l]'eatad effluent that is capable of meeting the 200/400 limit. For some lagoons, improving Mother Nature, by enhancing exposure of effluent in a lagoon to natural ultraviolet light from the sun, may be all that's needed to achieve the limits. This can be accomplished by adding wind/solar type mixers to the pond to enhance vertical circulation, a process that brings water from the bottom of the lagoon and distributes it evenly on the surface, increasing the exposure to the sun and achieving natural ultraviolet light disinfection. For other facilities, chemical/physical disinfection such as chlorination (gas, liquid, tablet, on-site generation), ultraviolet light, or other forms of disinfection may have to be evaluated and incorporated into the treatment process. Solar Mixer "Enhancing" Mother Nature's Natural Ultraviolet Light Disinfection What should you do now? Start colle~ng information to establish and document the condition of your receiving waters and the performance of your treatment facility. Collect temperature data on your receiving waters to determine the period when the water is above 60 degrees. This could require several years of data to establish a baseline. If you currently do not have a fecal coliform limit in your discharge permit, initiate effluent sampling, at least from April through October. If you currently disinfect, evaluate the performance of your system and its ability to achieve the 200/400 limit. Increase chemicel dosage, increase contact time, or otherwise experiment to see if your existing facility can meet the new limit. Starting today, establish the baseline conditions for your facility. In Conclusion: The new fecal coliform bacteria limitations for your facility's effluent are being implemented to protect public health and safety. This point of discharge requirement is consistent with most other states. The rule change may affect every facility that currently discharges. Some will have to do nothing to comply with the permit limit. Others will have to invest in chemical/physicel disinfection equipment in order to achieve the new limit. In the next six years, every facility will have to address this issue. Start planning now and gather as much data as you can to establish your specific situation and needs. Morrison-Maierle is working with communities today to help them comply with this new limit. Let us put our knowledge to work for you. Contact any of the engineers listed below to learn more about disinfection and how this limit will affect your facility. Bill Buxton, P.E.; Kalispell; (406) 752-2216 Jason Memer, P.E. or Scott Murphy, P.E.; Helena; (406)442-3050 Debi Meling, P.E.; Billings; (406) 656-6000 Ultraviolet Disinfection is Often the Best Approach for High-Quality Effluents. Publication of Morfison-Maiede, Inc. Consulting Engineers ~[l~MORRISON P.O, Box 6t47. Helena MT 59604 406-442-3050 · Fax 406442-4798 · rnmi~m-m.nel · www. m-m.net ~[] ..~ ~.~ MA[I~.]~f .~, ~c.