The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 04.12.2016 MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 12,2016 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at 6:30 p.m. on April 12, 2016. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: _X_Emelie Eaton _X_Doug Poehls _X_Bruce McGee _X_ Richard Herr Chuck Dickerson Scot Stokes X Tom Nelson X Bill Mountsier—6:30 p.m. OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Jensen, CAO Shirley Ewan, Clerk/Treasurer Blake Christenson, Local Government Center Noel Eaton, City Planner Sam Painter, City Attorney Chad Hansen, Great West Engineering Crystal Bennett, Great West Engineering Public Input There was none at this time. Board Consolidation Discussion-Blake Christenson, Local Government Center in Bozeman The Consolidation Discussion began at 5:30 p.m. and broke at 6:35 to open the public hearing for the proposed upgrades and lowering of the 2003 intake and the financing of the project. Availability of Environmental Assessment and public hearing on proposed upgrades at the Water Treatment Plant and the current raw water intake Mayor Mace opened the workshop public hearing by requesting Great West Engineering present the public hearing topic. Crystal Bennett handed out PowerPoint presentation explaining the reason for the public hearing. Due to the fact that the City requested an amendment to the PER(Preliminary Engineering Report)to include the 2003 intake. She stated that the Army Corps of Engineers, 404 permit,has required the City to remove at least one of the Intake Systems after the new intake is in place and either remove or lower the second intake. The City currently has 2 intakes in the Yellowstone River. One was placed in 1955 and is no longer being used and the current intake was placed in 2003. If the City desires to keep the 2003 intake it will need new screens and lowered at least 2 feet in the river. The 1955 intake is not viable and will need to be removed, which is a reimbursable cost by FEMA. The cost of lowering the current intake will cost$1,018,000 (estimated) and has the possibility of being funded with TSEP Grant funds, DNRC Grant and the balance being paid by the City. The requested funding is as follows: TSEP Grant $500,000 DNRC Funds $125,000 Council Workshop Minutes of April 12,2016 r Shirley Ewan Clerk/Treasurer NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. 3 City of Laurel 2016 Water System PER Amendment Presentation April 12, 2016 Gr/ciacilrest engineering Water System Study ❑ 2016 Amendment is an update to the 2014 Water System Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) ❑ A PER examines comprehensive needs for: • Growth/Capacity • Water Supply • Water Quality/Treatment • Water Storage • Distribution System • Water Meters U Required to Apply for Grant Funding /�� Gr/ eatwest 1 Growth/Capacity ❑ Populations: • 2010: 6,718 persons • 2035: 8,098 persons (Design Year) ❑ Water Demands: Gallons per Average Day peaking MDD MDD Year Population Capita per Day Demand Residential Residential+ (gpcd) (MGD) Factor (MGD) Industrial(MGD) 2010 6,718 165 1.11 3 3.33 5.83 2015 6,974 165 1.15 3 3.45 5.95 2025 7,515 165 1.24 3 3.72 6.22 2035 8,098 165 1.34 3 4.01 6.51 UIea 'a SI Water Supply ❑ Source =Yellowstone River ❑ Newest intake built in 2003 ,, . ,�i s ; • Sufficient capacity available (up to 20 MGD) • Change in river during 2011 flood: — Causes exposure during low flows — Leaves intake near bank — Causes icing during winter ❑ Water supply needs: • New reliable intake(separate FEMA project to start construction - in 2016) • Removing 1955 intake(will be separate FEMA project ) • Removing or lowering 2003 intake as required by the ACE 404 permit (FEMA cannot fund) /// �/� GREEN=PROPOSED PROJECT BLUE=PROJECTS UNDERWAY RED=FUTURE PROJECTS Gre' dt/1est 2 Water Quality/Treatment ❑ Thase 3 Improvements scheduled for 201612017 construction: :; • New Rapid Mix • New Floc/Sed Basins #° • New Backwash Storage Tank • New Sludge Ponds :`< ,.=-. . ❑ Water treatment needs: • ,N,„. I .. , „.,...-.“.'c: :JUMPS ,, ■ Additional intake pumpNFD ■ Clearwell building ventilation • Blower for filter air scour • Misc. valve and actuator replacements • Additional security ////��r, ..BEEN=PROPOSED PROJE r' BLUE=PROJECTS UNDERWAY RED=FUTURE PROJECTS I X11" alle,-- Water Treatment Plant Layout & Needs M Gc.Valves and Actuators 4 FILTER BBVII.OIG.._.\ Grp_ tMDNB10 .—' RAW WATER M N •\ 4 PUMP BUILDING ....CLEARWELL a;: ':. \ \ V 1 .''''''' 1 ,V I r M-P',o 250,000 GALLON * �� BACKWASH WATERenro[v veo.Am, STORAGE TANK FLOCCULATION BABIM�f. SEDIMENTATION �I•td1' �I %/ BASIN d EXISTING ` SLUDGE POND '91- -/ N. F 3 Water Storage ❑ Existing storage: r ;,;,.,;;;:4;-' • Tank critical (no redundancy) Fug • Cannot provide adequate pressure for higher elevations • Size adequate for a lower pressure zone ❑ Water storage needs: • New storage tank within higher pressure zone • Possible re-evaluation of abandoned 1.5 MG concrete storage tank to determine if salvageable with new technologies ,` GREEN=PROPOSED PROJECT BLUE=PROJECTS UNDERWAY RED=FUTURE PROJECTS I real\f-', Distribution System - Layout f+ r't(�{I ,.moi LEGEND - ,. _ 1 spa ten. 4 Distribution System — Phased Priorities LEGEND Distribution System - Pressures - edree I irt__ *Normal operating pressures should be between 35 and 80 psi LEGEND 5 Distribution System ❑ Phase 3 Improvements scheduled for 2016/2017: • Includes relocating Cherry Hills booster station (to be compatible with future pressure zones) ❑ Distribution system needs: • Multiple pressure zones (in conjunction with new storage tank) • Continued pipeline replacements per the City's Pipeline Replacement Program GREEN=PROPOSED PROJECT BLUE=PROJECTS UNDERWAY RED=FUTURE PROJECTS I 11/C Wa Me ers ❑ All services metered ❑ Replacements done as part of maintenance ❑ Benefits of meters: • Water conservation • More equitable billing Gre/ at\'est 6 How do we FIX it? 4111>le 1111:\ ..,,,,est Phased Improvements Phase 4 Improvements = Water Supply/Intake ALTERNATIVE S-1 S-2 Intake Portion of WTP-3 Remove 2003 Intake and Install New Screens and DESCRIPTION Intake Pumps/VFD's Associated Piping Lower 2003 Intake CAPITAL COST $668,000 $897,000 $124,000 ANNUAL O&M INCREASE $0 $0 $500 LIFE CYCLE COST $668,000 $897,000 $133,000 Provides City with backup Improve efficiency of the Removes structure water source;Reduces existing intake pumps;Will ADVANTAGES better sere both the new completely from the river health and safety concerns intake and the existing with height of intake intake DISADVANTAGES Leaves City with no backup Higher cost;Structure Associated costs water source remains in river Note: Other improvements from Additive Alternatives WTP-3 and WTP-4 not completed as part of Phase 3 may be added to Phase 4 if funds allow. Gieark 7 Decision Matrix & Weighing Factors Weighting Factors ❑ Life Cycle Costs = 10 ❑ Operation and Maintenance = 8 ❑ Public Health and Safety = 8 ❑ Social Impacts = 5 ❑ Environmental Impacts = 6 ❑ Sustainability Consideration = 6 ❑ Permitting = 8 Decision Matrix Life Cycle Operation and Public Health Environmental Sustainability Permitting Costs Mainenance and Safety Social Impacts Impacts Considerations Issues Alternative Total Weight 10 Weight: 8 Weight 8 Weight: 5 Weight: 6 Weight 6 Weight: 8 Score Wtd. Score Wid. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. S-1 6.0 60 10 80 2 16 4 20 6 36 2 12 5 40 264 S-2 4.0 40 8 64 9 72 6 30 5 30 8 48 5 40 324 Itis important to note that the above scoring and weighting are subjective.Alternatives that score overall within 5 points of each other may essentially hold the same degree of preference. Recommended Phase 4 Improvements: • Alternative S-2: Install New Screens and Lower 2003 Intake • Intake Portion of WTP-3: New Intake Pump and VFD's 8 What does it COST? How do we PAY for it? tooi /anCe Costs for Improvements Subtotal: 2018 Construction Cost $ 800,000 DEQ Review Fees $ 5,000 Permitting $ 25,000 Engineering $ 160,000 Legal &Administrative $ 28,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PHASE 4 COSTS $ 1,018,000 9 Potential Grant Funding & Target Rates Information On Target Rate Calculation ❑ Target rates based on median household income (MHI) as determined from 2010 Census • Target Rate = $78.40 per month ❑ Existing Rates (average resident) I ■ Water& Sewer Combined = $91.81 per month ❑ Currently at 117% of target rate nart'est Grant Eligibility ❑ Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) -$450,000 • >50% Low to Moderate Income (LMI) � • User rate must meet or exceed target rate • Requires 25% local match Laurel=48% LMI ❑ Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP)-$500,000 to $750,000 • 50-50 match (cannot exceed 50% of project costs) • User rate must meet or exceed target rate Laurel= 117% target rate(before project) ❑ Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program (DNRC-RRGL) - $125,000 • Conserve, manage, develop, or protect renewable resources Project will be managing renewable resources G*t/ ar Vest 10 Grant Eligibility ❑ Montana Coal Board — No limit but generally smaller amounts • Community must show impact from coal development • Best chances if in designated Coal Impact area • Already seeking Coal Board funds for new intake, unlikely to obtain funds for this project ❑ Rural Development— No limit but is part of grant/loan combination • Priority given to communities with population < 5,500 ,, e • Amount based upon MHI: A� 0 1 • - MHI<$47,757 up to 45%of proiect costs grant eligible "moi - MHI<$38,205 up to 75%of proiect costs grant eligible _�0 Laurel population > 5,500 (not preferred) Laurel MHI= $40,906 (could qualify for up to 45% grant) Gt eatWest cgea y Projected Rates (Cost/User) Scenario#1 Scenario#2 Scenario 83 Scenario#4 ITEMTSEP,DNRC, TSEP, DNRC, City Reserves, City Reserves City Reserves, City Reserves, DWSRF Loan DWSRF Loan DWSRF Loan Total Project Costs $1,018,000 $1,018,000 81,018,000 $1,018,000 TSEP Grant $500,000 $500.000 $0 $0 DNRC Grant $125.000 $0 $125.000 $0 City Reserves $393.000 $393.000 $393,000 $393000 Base SRF Loan(20 Years a 2.5%) $0 $125,000 $500,000 $625,000 SRF Bond Reserve(1 year payment) $0 $8,025 $32,100 $40,125 Total Loan Amount $0 $133,025 $532,100 $665,125 Annual Loan Payment $0 $8.533 $34,133 $42,666 Annual Loan Coverage $0 $853 $3,413 $4,267 TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL CAPITAL DEBT SERVICE $0 $9,386 $37,546 $46,932 Additional O&M Due To Project $500 $500 $500 $500 TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL O&M COST INCREASES $500 $500 $500 $500 TOTAL PROJECT ANNUAL COST INCREASES $500 $9,886 $38,046 $47,432 USER INCREASE IN COST/MONTH FOR PROJECT' $0.01 $0.23 $0.90 $1.13 Existing Average Water User Cost/Month/EDU $44.02 $44.02 $44.02 $44.02 Total Proposed Water Cost/Month/EDU $44.03 $44.25 $44.92 $45.15 Existing Sewer System Coot/Month/EDU 547.79 547.79 $47.79 $47.79 Total Proposed Water B Sewer Cost/Month/EDU $91.82 r $92.04 $92.71 r $92.94 Combined Systems Target Rate $78.40 $78.40 $78.40 $78.40 PERCENT OF COMBINED TARGET RATE 117% 117% 118% 119% I /�� Gre/ atWest 11 Questions? Comments? 12