HomeMy WebLinkAboutMT Department of Commerce (9) M49NTANA
Department of Commerce DP+V
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
P.O.Box 200523 * Helena,Montana 59620-0523
Phone:406-841-2770 * Fax:406-641-2771
DECE W
December 24, 2008
DEC 2 6 2008
Kenneth Olson, Mayor
City of Laurel PO Box 10 CITY OF LAUREL
Laurel, MT 59044
Dear Mayor Olson:
Attached is the completed report describing how your application and project was
scored by the Department of Commerce in the Treasure State Endowment Program
(TSEP) grant competition. It is included in the report that the Department will be
providing to the 2009 Legislature. Also attached is the final technical review report
completed by our staff engineers. It provides greater detail concerning the scoring of
Statutory Priorities #1 and #3. The complete report that will be submitted to the
Legislature can be viewed on the TSEP web site by going to:
hftp://comdev.mt.gov/CDD—TSEP_Prj.asp.
The Legislature's Long-Range Planning Subcommittee (LRP) is a joint House/Senate
committee that initially reviews House Bill 11 (the bill that appropriates funds for the
TSEP projects). Because of the large number of projects seeking funding, the LRP is
doing something different this year. Instead of scheduling a hearing for each project,
the LRP decided to hold a public hearing for only those projects that are below the
funding line and for the few immediately above the line. This will give those applicants
an opportunity to state their case for why they believe their application was not scored
properly, or simply to state why their project should be funded.
The majority of the projects above the funding line were not scheduled for a hearing.
The committee will be briefed on each of these projects during the committee's initial
orientation that I will provide. However, those applicants or any other person wanting to
comment on the project will be given the opportunity to address the committee, if they
so desire, at the end of Tuesday's and Thursday's scheduled hearings. Only 30
minutes will be available each of these two days, so any testimony regarding projects
recommended for funding should be kept brief.
Attached is the hearing schedule, which has also been coordinated with the
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation's Renewable Resource Grant and
Loan Program (RRGL). If your project was below the funding line for bath TSEP and
RRGL, this will be a combined hearing. The hearings will begin on Tuesday, January
13th, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 350 of the Capitol, and are also scheduled for Thursday
and Friday. Please note the date and the time of your project's hearing on the
schedule. If you do not want to incur the cost of travel to attend the hearing or driving
conditions may not be safe, you are welcome to send.us written testimony that we will
provide to the committee. However, if you are scheduled for a hearing and do not plan
to attend, please let us know as soon as possible so we can advise the committee and
not have them delaying the hearings unnecessarily.
With the exception of the projects at the very beginning in the morning, you should plan
to arrive 30 minutes before the scheduled time of the hearing, since the hearing for your
project could be moved up if other projects do not take as long as planned. As with any
legislative hearing, the schedule is subject to unpredictable change.
Only ten minutes is allocated per project/hearing. The allotted time includes a very brief
introduction by TSEP and RRGL staff, testimony from applicants, and questions from
the LRP members. You need to keep your testimony brief, to the point, and not
repetitious. If you plan to have more than one or two people testifying, please limit the
amount of testimony from each person, and again, do not be repetitive.
The LRP will not make a decision until they take executive action, which will take place
after all of the TSEP and RRGL project hearings have been completed. After the LRP
takes executive action on HB 11, the bill will go to the Rouse Appropriations Committee
for a hearing. Testimony at that hearing is typically for the bill as a whole, rather than
for individual projects. While you are not prohibited from testifying at that hearing, we
encourage you to limit your testimony to the individual project hearings.
If you are interested in following HB 11, you can track the bill yourself on the Internet by
going to: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/lawsO9/law0203w$.startup. If you have any questions,
please call me at 841-2785, or you can email me at jedgcomb agmt.g.ov.
Sincerely,
Jim Edgcomb, Manager
Treasure State Endowment Program
Attachments:Two Project Reports
Hearings Schedule
C: Patrick Murtagh, Project Engineer, Great West Engineering
Crystal Bennett, Administrator, Great West Engineering
TREASURE STATE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM
2009 LEGISLATIVE HEARING SCHEDULE
Hearing ApplicanHProJect Type TSEP Page Funding Recommended
Time Rank Number Request Funding
"9 R �' i&n •.0 w, ,...ti,; .4 a+; �4�P„,'''"',r;:I''✓sp�.d«iw b:,1;� syb;;y;t ;iu.; wtn: ,..
lip'
mm
8:00 , Jim Edgcomb
Treasure State Endowment Program Overview
BREAK.
10:15 Choteau,City of -
Wastewater Improvements 32 137 $500,000 $50D 000
10:25 Carter Choteau Co.W&S District
Water Improvements 34 197 $750.000 $750,000
1.0:35 Upper&Lower River Rd W&S District
Water and Wastewater Improvements 36 208 $500,000 $500,000
Missoula County(for Seeley Lake)
10:45 Wastewater Improvements 29 tie 1 168 $750.000 $0
Seeley Lake Sewer District
Wastewater Improvements 29 tie 175 $750 000 $0
10:55 Hardin,City of
Wastewater Improvements 35 202 $500,000 $500 D00
11:05' Gildford Co.W&S District
Wastewater Improvements 37 213 $538,0001 $538,000
11:15 Big Sandy,Town of
Wastewater Improvements 38 tie 218 $500,000 $500.000
11:25 Open time for testimony
..2'' @' m�°a t .`�;�".d:kf.,d, '� .'ta' ,:.�.�`;ct:'aa:1M'fixnti��",�.�.i�J..+R'„1P3'�S`.'." 7•° .�` �:h�"a ,�'`'�Si„�
8c00 Dutton,Town of -
Wastewater Improvements 40 229 $500,000 $500,000
8:10 Blaine County
Bride Improvements 41 234 $384.160 $384160
8:20 Loma County W&S District
Water Improvements 42 239 $750 DOD $750.000
8:30 Kevin,Town of
Water Improvements 44 249 $500,000 $500.000
6:40 Flathead County for Bigfork
Storm Water 45 255 $625.000 $625.000
8:50 Woods Bay Homesites W&S District
Wastewater Im rovements 46 260 $730 000 $730 000
9:00 Whitefish,City of
Wastewater Improvements 48 271 $500,0001 $500,000
9:10 Sheaver's Crook W&S District
Wastewater Improvements 52 292 $600 000 $600 000
9:20 Yellowstone County
Bride Im rovements 53 298 $228 753 $228 753
9:30 Flathead Co.Water District#8(Happy Valley)
Water Improvements 57 318 $500 000 $500,000
9:40 Bynum/Teton Co.W&S District
Water Im rovements 58 322 $567,000 $$67,000
9:50 Bozeman,City of
Wastewater Improvements 59 327 $750,000 $750,000
BREAK
10:15 Pam Smith
Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program-Introductions
10:25 Greater Woods Bay Sewer District
Wastewater Improvements 62 342 $732,000 $488,000
10:35 Em-Kayan Co.W&S District
Water Improvements 63 348 $290,619 $0
10:45 Granite County
Solid Waste and Wastewater Improvements 28 164 $197,000 so
10.55 Valier,Town of
Water Improvements 33 192 $625,000 $625.000
11:05 Ronan,City of
Water Improvements 38 tie 224 $750.000 $750 000
11:15 Harlowton,Town of
Water Improvements 1 43 245 1 $500 000 $500.000
11:25 Open time for testimony
#c`':R:a;�'•' �.p' :.,$k„ ... - •' rc. .; ,'ti��' .aar:�ra..,,',,:.r .,eiiD�? �',:'z. r�H
8:00 Pam Smith
Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program-Overview
9:00 Shelby,City of
Wastewater Improvements 1 47 1 266 1 $750 000 $625,000
t
TREASURE STATE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM
2009 LEGISLATIVE HEARING SCHEDULE
Hearing TSEP Page Funding Recommended
Time
Applicant/Project Type Rank Number Request Funding.
9:10 Eureka,Town of
Water Improvements 49 tie 276 $625 000 $625.000 _
9:2D Troy,City of
Water Improvements 49 tie 1 282 $750.000 $715 000
s:3D Fallon Co.North Baker W&S District .
Wastewater Improvements 51 287 $509,000 $120,000
9:40 Gore Hill Co.Water District
Water Improvements 54 303 $250.300 $250,300
9:5D South Chester County Water District
Water Improvements 55- 308 1 $131.000 $0
BREAK
10:15 Livingston,City of
Solid Waste Im rovements 56 313 $500 000 $500 000
10:25 Fort Smith W&S District
Water.Improvements 60 332 $500 000 $500.000
70:35 Jette Meadows W&S District
Water lm rovements 61 337 $750,000 $750,000
1D:a5 Stevensville,Town of
Water Improvements 64 353 $750,000 $0
10:55 Bridger Pines Co.W&S District
Wastewater Improvements 65 359 $750,000 0
2
This application received 3,620 points out of a possible 4,900 points and ranked 16t"out of 65
applications in the recommendations to the 2009 Legislature. MDOC recommends the requested TSEP
grant of$625,000 if there are sufficient funds.
Funding Type of Amount Status of Funds
Source Funds
TSEP Grant $ 625,000 Awaitinq decision of the Legislature
RRGL Grant $ 100,000 Awaitinq decision of the Legislature
SRF Loan $1,942,710 On the priority list, but has not applied
City Cash $ 500,000 Committed by resolution
Project Total $3,167,710
Median Household Income: $32,679 Total Population: 6;806
Percent Non-TSEP Matching Funds: 80% LNumberof Households: 3,020
Monthly Percent of Monthly Percent of
Rate Target Rate Rate Target Rate
Existing Water Rate: $36.97 _ Target Rate: $62.63
Rate with Proposed
Existing Wastewater Rate: $42.05 - TSEP Assistance: $83.25 133%
Rate without TSEP
Existing Combined Rate: 1 $79.02 1 126% 1 Assistance: $84.27 135%
Project Summary
History--Laurel receives its water from the Yellowstone River, which is treated through a conventional
surface water treatment plant that is approximately 50 years old. The water is disinfected using chlorine
gas and stored in a four million-gallon tank.
Problem—The city's water system has the following deficiencies:
❑ cannot meet maximum day demand if one of two low-lift pumps were to fail,
❑ cannot meet maximum day demand if one of two filters were to fail,
❑ unsafe chlorine cylinder handling conditions,
❑ lack of proper chemical mixing,
4 lack of storage,
❑ lack of back-up power at a booster station,
❑ surge events require extensive manual throttling of pump discharge valves,
❑ water mains leak, and
❑ insufficient fire flow.
Proposed Solution—The proposed project would:
❑ replace approximately 1,880 feet of distribution main as prioritized through current ongoing leak
detection survey,
❑ rehabilitate the dual media filters and underdrains,
❑ install a third low-lift pump with necessary piping,
❑ install permanent generator at the booster station,
❑ replace two of the older high service pumps with new 2,000 gpm pumps,
❑ provide variable frequency drives for the high service pumps(four drives total),
❑ install a flash mixer for chemical mixing,
❑ rehabilitate the pipe between the sedimentation basins and the filters, and
❑ install a dual-speed hoist and provide safety improvements in the chlorination room.
Note: Additional-improvements including further distribution main replacement, rebuilding sedimentation
basins, construction of new flocculators, and adding a storage tank are proposed to be addressed in a
future phase. Therefore, those related deficiencies were not taken into consideration in the scoring of
Statutory Priority#1.
q
eun P 44 i AnEn
p ,e,,4n�1',��'' E EE�E 3R,r,lt ry 1I!,in E i�+"EIi• ,�.�u'i.Iri'„E:iE•'.,il l or",r fi•-rr1,nu V;;I;:lf'�=�.;
E r Iw�
;l jb'N 4 a Conclusion: The applicant sufficiently demonstrated that the public health and safety problems
associated with the deficiencies in the water system are likely to occur in the near-term if the deficiencies
are not corrected.
Rationale: The MDOC review team noted that there are various deficiencies that could affect the
public's health and safety, but the most urgent and serious public health and safety problem is that of
inadequate surface-water treatment because of channeling of filter beds caused by collapse of the
underdrain system, inadequate mixing of coagulants and unsafe chlorine cylinder handling. These three
components of the project were scored at a level five because of the imminent public health risks
associated with public consumption of inadequately treated surface water; however, those components
comprise only 39% of the direct construction costs. The other six components of the project, which
represent 61% of the proposed project, were scored at a level three, since they were considered to be
deficiencies that generally affect the public's health and safety in the long-term. The scores for the
various components were pro-rated, resulting in a score of 3.84 that was rounded up to a level four.
Flo' ,}� 1 1, i 'l j'��:p',•"�,,yu i;n' Alt :t'iia:,'H 3 � EgM1 i`.. i
9.'>
1� I�h�i{a ���j,�. i�� itp
�i r�'! I i»„ pSsit)
The score for Statutory Priority#2 is based on a weighted analysis of two financial indicators with a total
of 900 points possible. The scores for each of the two indicators are added together, with a total number
of points possible for Statutory Priority#2 based on five levels. The fifth level is assigned to the group of
applicants that reflect the greatest financial need.
Indicator#1. Household Economic Condition Analysis: The applicant placed in the 3ro level
and received 216 points. (This analysis accounts for 40% of the score for Statutory Priority#2. Each of
the three sub-indicators are ranked and scored, with each accounting for 33% of the total score for
Indicator#1. Being ranked the lowest indicates the most severe household economic conditions and is
assigned the highest score. Being ranked 65th indicates that the applicant has the least severe household
economic conditions and is assigned the lowest score. The scores for each sub-indicator are added
together, with the total number of points possible for Indicator#1 based on five levels. The fifth highest
level is assigned to the group of applicants with the most severe household economic conditions.)
❑The applicant's Median Household Income(MHI)is the 46th lowest of the 65 applicants.
❑ The percent of persons living at or below the Low and Moderate-Income(LMI) level is 48.0%. The
applicant's relative concentration of persons living at or below the LMI level is the 19th
highest of the 65 applications.
❑ The percent of persons living at or below the Poverty level is 10.8%. The applicant's relative
concentration of persons living at or below the Poverty level is the 44t highest of 65
applications.
Indicator#2. Target Rate Analysis: The applicant placed in the 3'd level and received 324
points. (This analysis accounts for 60% of the score for Statutory Priority#2. Scores are assigned
based on how much difference there is between the applicant's user rate and the target rate. The
number of points possible for Indicator#2 is based on five levels. The fifth highest level is assigned to the
group of applicants furthest over the target rates.)
'r� '}S,3i. '3•' il,e nN.' P' A"' 41 it .Pc'.f. •i.y'� L'r.:.'. „;iq;
Conclusion: The Applicant strongly demonstrated that it has proposed an appropriate, cost-effective
technical design that will provide a thorough, long-term solution to its public facility needs. The
preliminary engineering report(PER) is generally complete and there were no issues, or only minor
issues, that were not adequately addressed. It does not appear that the issues would raise serious
questions regarding the appropriateness of the solution selected by the Applicant.
Rationale: The MDOC review team thought that the PER was reasonably complete. The applicant
adequately assessed the potential environmental impacts. Any environmental concerns that were
identified by the applicant were adequately addressed and no long-term adverse effects were noted.
f
Conclusion: The applicant strongly demonstrated that it has made substantial past efforts to ensure
sound, effective long-term planning and management of public facilities, and attempted to resolve its
infrastructure problems with local resources. The MDOC review team did not score this priority higher
primarily because the applicant did not meet the requirements related to having a comprehensive capital
improvements plan (CI P)for at least four years that is updated annually.
Rationale: The applicant stated that water user rates were increased in 2003, 2004, and 2005 for a
total increase of 22%. The city is able to contribute cash for the proposed project due to strong reserves;
it is also maintaining another reserve for improvements on 8t"Avenue to be conducted in conjunction with
Montana Department of Transportation.
The applicant stated that recent planning efforts have included a stormwater mitigation plan and an
update to the wastewater facilities plan in 2006, a stormwater PER in 2007, and a water PER in 2007 that
was updated in 2008. The city recently replaced its water intake system at a cost of over$2 million. The
city is currently upgrading its wastewater treatment facility and two lift stations.
The applicant stated that the problems are a result of components that have outlived their normal life
and continued demand growth. As an example of the type of operation and maintenance (O&M)
practices demonstrated by the applicant, the city undertook a$1 million city-wide efficiency program in
2006. The city completed 18 specific efficiency-related projects, including a complete replacement of all
water meters with radio-read meters. The new meters not only save O&M time, but are more accurate,
which results in increase revenues; as meters fail, they slow down rather than speed up, thereby
indicating lower than actual flows. The city also created a set of atlas maps and placed them on a GIS
system that includes all water, wastewater, and stormwater lines. The GIS system, completed in
February 2008, allows the operators to easily find all valves, etc., immediately and provides an excellent
means of maintaining records whenever an operator retires or original plans are lost. The MDOC review
team concluded that the city's O&M practices.related to the water system appear to be reasonably
adequate.
The applicant stated that a needs survey was performed in 2000; both water quality and capacity was
a major issue, and overall, were the second highest priority when combined. A resource team
assessment was completed in 2007, which noted the need for infrastructure such as water and sewer to
accommodate the growing industrial needs as demonstrated by the new Walmart and accelerated growth
in that area. The city prepared a comprehensive, five-year CIP in 2002, updated in 2003, and it is
currently being revised. The 2002 CIP listed 41 items that are a priority, and the top two priorities(both
were water system related) have been completed; the only other item related to the water system is listed
as a new pressure zone and pipeline replacement. The proposed project includes all the highest priority
items identified in the PER and adds some of the lower priority items that have become more immediate
needs such as the deteriorating low-lift pumps. The city prepared a growth management plan in 2004. In
2008, the city created a transportation plan and a tax increment financing district(TIFD). The TIFD is
expected to generate over$250,000 per year for public facilities improvements.
�,,,.,,,,, ,E, "� '.�",E+' !f, ia', , .. .i:.•s; A�;;' e '�'i,�"+'3e�'p��l' Yy !"`'3'a4"�"S;EI�;+ 9u
E , + !, 3
Conclusion: The applicant strongly demonstrated that the project would enable the local
government to obtain funds from sources other than TSEP. The applicant demonstrated serious efforts to
thoroughly seek out, analyze, and secure the firm commitment of alternative-or additional funds from all
appropriate sources to assist in financing the proposed project. The funding package for the proposed
project is reasonable and appears to be viable. There are no major obstacles known at this time that
would hinder the applicant from obtaining the funds from the proposed funding sources. The MDOC
review team did not score this priority higher primarily because the TSEP funds were not considered to be
critical to the project.
Rationale: The applicant has proposed a funding package consisting of TSEP and RRGL grants in
combination with an SRF loan and local funds. The project is ranked 68t"on the SRF priority list;
therefore, the city is eligible to apply for the loan. The applicant stated that RD was not considered since
its user rates are too low, and that the city is not eligible for CDBG funding. The applicant also discussed
State and Tribal Assistance Grant(STAG)and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 595 Water
Resource Development Act(WRDA)grants, and concluded that these grants are extremely competitive
and difficult to obtain.
The applicant stated that the TSEP grant is essential for community acceptance of the proposed
project and support for the rate increase that would follow. Without the TSEP grant, the combined water
and wastewater rate would be less than 150%of the applicant's combined target rate; therefore, the
MDOC review team does not consider the TSEP grant to be a critical component of the.funding package
since additional loan dollars could be obtained without causing a severe financial hardship on the
system's users.
The proposed funding.package appears viable to the MDOC review team.
Al
� i7 C ,'[V''1� K a i r,i'' '��; 'i�,!i! fI►`+�" I yG� U t '4; fk
Conclusion: The applicant sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed project represents a general
infrastructure improvement that would indirectly increase business and job opportunities. The applicant
did not reasonably demonstrate how any specific businesses were dependent upon the proposed
improvements or how businesses would directly benefit by them. The applicant did not reasonably
demonstrate that the proposed project would directly result in the creation or retention of any long-term,
full-time jobs other than those related to the construction or operation of the water system. The proposed
improvements should maintain and possibly increase the taxable valuation of the project area.
Rationale: The applicant discussed how the proposed project is needed to allow for further growth,
especially in the areas of the new Walmart store and in the area of a proposed new interchange.
However, the applicant did not discuss any specific job creation or business expansion that would directly
result from the proposed project.
;'•t � ,E y�jliifi 6 € ry j;t ' ',';!;'1'a'.�r� � 3'd ''"''� `1' L'u i � I .I.f�p�+li,
Conclusion: The applicant sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed project is a high priority and
has community support. The applicant documented that it held at least one public hearing or meeting,
and has sufficiently informed the public about the proposed project in a timely manner, its cost and the
impact per household. The MDOC review team did not score this priority higher primarily because of
inadequate documentation, and the applicant did not adequately demonstrate that the proposed project is
a high local priority or has strong community support.
Rationale: The applicant held a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on July 17, 2007 in the council
chambers. The hearing was advertised in the Laurel Outlook; an affidavit of publication was included.
Other than local officials, staff, and consultants, the minutes do not reflect any residents attending. The
various phases of the overall project were described, along with the costs of each phase. More recently,
a public hearing was held at 6:3.0 p.m. on April 1, 2008 in the council chambers. The hearing was
advertised in the Laurel Outlook, an affidavit of publication was included. Other than local officials, staff,
and consultants, the minutes do not reflect any residents attending. The minutes show that the proposed
project was generally discussed, but most of the discussion related to the cost per user; a copy of the
presentation was also included in the application. A final hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. on April 29, 2008
in the council chambers. The application included a copy of the notice supplied to the Laurel Outlook, but
not the advertisement itself. The agenda did not indicate that the PER was discussed as stated in the
notice and no minutes were included in the application. The applicant stated that the cost per user was
clearly placed on the sign-in sheet; however, no sign-in sheets were included in the application. The July
17 hearing minutes show that other than local officials and staff, there was only one resident in
attendance; neither of the two minutes included in the application state the number of residents, if any, in
attendance at the hearing.
The applicant stated that a city the size of Laurel often has people who take utilities for granted, but in
Laurel there is full support; the April 1 hearing minutes show that no one responded when asked if there
was any proponents or opponents, and the July 17 minutes do not reflect any public comment other than
one person that had questions about the pumps and supplying water to Cenex. The application included
letters in support of the proposed project from the fire department and four from city employees.
The CIP listed 41 items that are a priority, and the top two priorities (both were water system related)
have been completed; the only other item related to the water system is listed as a new pressure zone
and pipeline replacement. The proposed project includes all the highest priority items identified in the
PER and adds some of the lower priority items that have become more immediate needs such as the
deteriorating low-lift pumps.
FINAL ENGINEERING REVIEW REPORT FORM
APPLICANT NAME: Laurel
TYPE OF PROJECT: Water
COMMENTS BY: Kate Miller, P.E., Montana Dept of Commerce
DATE: ,December 2008
TSEP Statutory Priority#1 —Health and Safety
1. Does a serious deficiency exist in a basic or necessary community public facility or service,
such as the provision of a safe domestic water supply or does the community lack the facility or
service entirely, and will the deficiencies be corrected by the proposed project?
The City of Laurel, population 6,806, is located approximately 16 miles west of Billings
and receives its water from the Yellowstone River. The river water is treated through a
conventional surface water treatment plant that is about 50 years old, disinfected using
chlorine gas, and delivered through a distribution system to its customers. A storage
tank for distribution storage and pressure is located on the north edge of town and has a
capacity of 4 million gallons.
Problem—The City's water system has the following deficiencies:
❑ Inadequate surface water treatment is being provided because of channeling of filter
beds and inadequate coagulant mixing.
❑ Maximum day demand cannot be met if one of two low-lift pumps (pump water from
filters to the clearwell)fails;failure may be accelerated by impeller wear because of
fugitive sand from filter media; bearings can be heard "grinding" to a halt—probably
failing because of increasing impeller imbalance because of uneven wear from sand.
It should be noted that even without considering decreased pump capacity due to.,
wear, the original new design pump capacities at 3,500 gpm (5 MGD)were still slightly
less than the current maximum day demand (5.14 MGD)with the largest pump out of
service, calling into question the propriety of using the "unable to meet max day"
argument with respect to impeller and bearing wear and tear. A more compelling
argument can be made for TSEP Priority#1 because of the potential public health
implications arising from inadequate filtration.
❑ Maximum day demand cannot be met if one of two filters fails. Channeling is
occurring in the underdrain system and sand is escaping through the channels.
❑ One-ton chlorine cylinders are improperly "dropped" onto holding cells, leading to
unsafe chlorine handling conditions.
❑ There is a lack of proper water-treatment chemical mixing.
❑ There is a lack of storage and back-up power at a booster station; power outages can
cause potential backflow backsiphonage as water moves from higher areas to lower
areas, creating a vacuum.
❑ There is a lack of automatic pressure-surge dampening; operator must manually
throttle isolation valves on pump discharges.
City of Laurel final 1
❑ There are water main leaks (in a letter, operator Rolison mentions about 20 leaks per
year, PER notes a major burst of a 12-inch C.I. main in 2007 that almost drained the
tank).
❑ PER notes insufficient fire flow.
Proposed Solution—The proposed project would:
❑ replace about 1,800 feet of eight-inch PVC and 80 feet of six-inch PVC distribution
main as prioritized through current ongoing leak detection survey (PER estimates
that this would alleviate at least one to two pipeline repairs per year),
❑ rehabilitate existing dual media filters,
❑ provide a third low-lift pump with necessary piping,
❑ install permanent generator at the booster station,
❑ replace two older high service pumps with new, 2,000 gpm pumps,
❑ provide variable frequency drives(VFDs)for the high service pumps (four drives
total),
❑ install a flash mixer for chemical mixing,
❑ rehabilitate the pipe between the sedimentation basins and the filters, and
❑ install a dual-speed hoist and provide safety improvements in the chlorination room.
The 2008 PER is an update to the 2007 PER. Changes made to the priority list since the
2007 PER include,
❑ permanent generator at the booster station,
❑ adding a flash mixer at the treatment plant,
❑ cleaning the 24-inch connector between the sedimentation basins and the filters,
and
❑ provide VFDs on the high service pumps.
According to the PER, the firm capacity of the treatment system is only about one-half of
the maximum day demand because of shortcomings in the low-lift pumps and the filters.
Channeling apparently occurs in the gravel underdrain.
The PER update determined that additional storage, in the form of a concrete buried tank
(1 MG)with a 12-inch pipeline to the existing distribution system in a second pressure
zone, is a significant need. But this work was not included in the proposed project as
part of either the primary or secondary improvements because it is hoped that most of
the funding may be achieved by working through developers.
2. Have serious public health or safety problems that are clearly attributable to a deficiency
occurred, or are they likely to occur, such as illness, disease outbreak, safety problems or
hazards?
Serious public health problems are likely to occur because of the reported channeling in
the filter beds. Because of the apparent lack of structural integrity of the underdrain
system, the entire filter bed is not available for particle removal during the filtration
process - only the portions that are subjected to channeling as a result of higher-than-
optimal flow velocities. Other parts of the filters are "dead," that is, there is little- or no-
apparent vertical flow through the filter, probably as the result of an inoperable
underdrain at that filter location. The public health ramification of such problematic
hydraulics is that because the entire filter bed is not in use, there are a limited number of
attachment sites for floc particle removal and an increased probability that pathogens
City of Laurel final 2
such as bacteria or protozoa such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia can escape the
filtration process and be delivered to the customer with disinfection as the only
treatment barrier.
The PER does not specify how well the coagulant is mixed (if at all) using the existing
system, but it does not appear to be a feature that is not being used as it was designed
since the opening for a flash mixer already exists. Without adequate coagulant (either
polymer or inorganics) mixing, it is unlikely that proper flocculation and subsequent
turbidity removal is occurring, a significant public health threat. A two-speed or
adjustable speed mixer is proposed.
The lack of back up power at the booster station can allow the establishment of
negative pressures in the areas of higher elevations as water drains to areas of lower
elevations. This can induce backflow/backsiphonage and the introduction of
contaminants into the drinking water system—also a significant public health threat.
The PER describes a potentially unsafe condition when changing out the one-ton
chlorine gas cylinders. The current hoist lacks sensitivity, so when delivering a full
cylinder onto the holding rack the last few inches is a straight "drop" rather than a soft
"settling" onto the holding rack. This along with the design of the.gas exhaust system in
the chlorine room constitute a potential safety hazard for the operators and for members
of the community if a faulty cylinder were to be shipped and ruptured during transfer to
its holding rack or if other accidents were to occur in the chlorine storage room.
3. Is the problem existing, continual, and long-term, as opposed to occasional, sporadic,
probable or potential?
The problems are existing, continual and long-term.
4. Is the entire community, or a substantial percentage of the residents of the community,
seriously affected by the deficiency, as opposed to a small percentage of the residents?
The entire community is affected by the deficiencies.
5. Is there clear documentation that the current condition of the public facility (or lack of a
facility) violates a state or federal health or safety standard?
The current condition violates various sections of DEQ 1, the Montana design
standard for new construction, but does not violate state or federal health or
safety standards.
6. Does the standard that is being violated represent a significant threat to public health or
safety?
The inefficient and effective filtration of surface water, the lack of a rapid mixer for
coagulant mixing, the lack of back up power at the booster station, and the current
chlorine storage room conditions represent significant and potentially emergent threats
to public, health and safety. The other deficiencies, if failure were to occur could
constitute emergent public health threats.
City of Laurel final 3
7. Is the proposed project necessary to comply with a court order or a state or federal agency
directive?
No.
8. Are there any reliable and long-term management practices that would reduce the public
health or safety problems?
It appears as if the operators are already practicing reliable and long-term management
techniques, such as manual throttling of high service pump discharges, frequent filter
backwashing, and dexterous operation of the chlorine cylinder hoist, in an attempt to
operate this facility. These management practices do not overcome the inherent need for
replacement and rehabilitation of the aging and missing components.
9. Is there any other pertinent information that might influence the scoring of this statutory
priority?
No.
SUMMARY—TSEP Statutory Priority#1
There are various deficiencies that could affect the public's health and safety, including:
❑ Inadequate surface water treatment is being provided because of channeling of filter
beds and inadequate coagulant mixing.
❑ Maximum day demand cannot be met if one of two low-lift pumps (pump water from
filters to the clearwell)fails; failure may be accelerated by impeller wear because of
fugitive sand from filter media; bearings can be heard "grinding" to a halt—probably
failing because of increasing impeller imbalance because of uneven wear from sand.
It should be noted that even without considering decreased pump capacity due to
wear, the.original new design pump capacities at 3,500 gpm (5 MGD)were still slightly
less than the current maximum day demand (5.14 MGD)with the largest pump out of
service, calling into question the propriety,of using the "unable to meet max day"
argument with respect to impeller and bearing wear and tear. A more compelling
argument can be made for TSEP Priority#1 because of the potential public health
implications arising from inadequate filtration.
❑ Maximum day demand cannot be met if one of two filters fails. Channeling is
occurring in the underdrain system and sand is escaping through the channels.
❑ One-ton chlorine cylinders are improperly "dropped" onto holding cells, leading to
unsafe chlorine handling conditions.
❑ There is a lack of proper water-treatment chemical mixing.
❑ There is a lack of storage and back-up power at a booster station; power outages can
cause potential backflow backsiphonage as water moves from higher areas to lower
areas, creating a vacuum.
❑ There is a lack of automatic pressure-surge dampening; operator must manually _
throttle isolation valves on pump discharges.
❑ There are water main leaks (in a letter, operator Rolison mentions about 20 leaks per
year, PER notes a major burst of a 12-inch C.I. main in 2007 that almost drained the
tank)..
❑ PER notes insufficient fire flow.
City of Laurel final 4
Proposed Solution—The proposed project would:
❑ replace distribution main as prioritized through current ongoing leak detection
survey, construction costs = $318,000 = 18% direct construction costs
a rehabilitate existing dual media filters, construction costs =$620,000 = 35% direct
construction costs .
❑ provide a third low-lift pump with necessary piping, construction costs =$204,000 =
11% direct construction costs
❑ install permanent generator at the booster station, construction costs =$60,000 =3%
direct construction costs
Q replace two older high service pumps with new, 2,000 gpm pumps, construction costs
_ $272,000 = 15% direct construction costs
❑ provide variable frequency drives(VFDs)for the high service pumps (four drives
total), construction costs =$235,000 = 13% direct construction costs
❑ install a flash mixer for chemical mixing, construction costs = $45,000 = 3% direct
construction costs
❑ rehabilitate the pipe between the sedimentation basins and the filters, construction
costs =$15,000= 1% direct construction costs
Total direct construction costs =$1,791,000
The MDOC review team noted that there are various deficiencies that could affect the
public's health and safety, but the most urgent and serious public health and safety
problem is that of inadequate surface-water treatment because of channeling of filter
beds caused by collapse of the underdrain system, inadequate mixing of coagulants and
unsafe chlorine cylinder handling. These three components of the project were scored at
a Level 5 because of the emergent public health, risks associated with public
consumption of inadequately treated surface water, but they comprise only thirty-nine
percent of the direct construction costs. The other six components comprising the sixty-
one percent of the balance of the proposed project were scored at a Level 3. The overall
score was pro-rated at a level 3.84 and rounded up to a Level 4. The MDOC review team
determined that a level 4 score was appropriate for this priority.
TSEP Statutory Priori #3—Technical Design
1. Does the PER provide all of the information as required by the Uniform PER outline, and did
the analysis address the entire system in order to identify all potential deficiencies?
The 2007 PER and the 2008 PER update generally followed the Uniform Application
Outline.
Items that were not found, or were not adequately discussed, in the PER included the
following.
❑ A copy of a sanitary survey cannot be found in the PER or in the PER update.
Applicant's engineer responds: Similarly the sanitary survey was not included in the PER. The
update was only to note changes to the system's priorities and do an analysis on the distribution
system since that was not covered in detail(particularly in evaluating tank sites and materials
and cost). Again, not an excuse,just a history of what happened. It is the hope that the project
is considered for what it is and if these two items (the survey and the checklist) are seen as
City of Laurel final 5
minor in practical terms based on the above, we hope that they will not influence scoring and
hurt this important project.
o The project summary in the application Project Summary (application page 3) only
mentions installing the variable frequency drives on the existing high service pumps,
not replacement of two of the high service pumps. This discrepancy should be
rectified.
• There does not seem to be an Environmental Checklist for the proposed project
included in the PER. The Environmental Checklist that has been included is for a
wastewater treatment and collection project.
2. Does the proposed project completely resolve all of the deficiencies identified in the PER? If
not, does the proposed project represent a complete component of a long-term master plan for
the facility or system, and what deficiencies will remain upon completion of the proposed
project?
The proposed project does not resolve all of the deficiencies but it does represent a
complete component of a long-term master plan for the facility. Remaining deficiencies
to be addressed upon completion of the proposed project include additional distribution
main replacement, rebuilding sedimentation basins, constructing new flocculators, and a
new storage tank. These deficiencies will be addressed under subsequent phases of the
proposed project.
3. Are the deficiencies to be addressed through the proposed project the deficiencies identified
with the most serious public health or safety problems? If not, explain why the deficiencies to
be addressed through the proposed project were selected over those identified with greater
public health or safety problems.
The most serious apparent public health problem is that arising from inadequate
treatment of surface water due to channeling of the filter beds and improper mixing of
coagulants. These deficiencies are to be addressed by the replacement of the dual media
filters and underdrains and by the installation of the flash mixer.
With the largest low lift pump out of service the current low lift capacity is 4.3 MGD. As
noted previously,even without considering decreased pump capacity because of
impeller wear, the new-condition, original low lift pump capacities, at 3,500 gpm (5 MGD)
each, were still less than the current maximum day demand (5.14 MGD)with the largest
pump out of service.A compelling health and safety argument, as mentioned in the PER,
is based on the likelihood of having both low lift pumps go out of service at about the
same time.
4. Were all reasonable alternatives thoroughly considered, and does the technical design
proposed for the alternative chosen represent an efficient, appropriate, and cost-effective option
for resolving the local public facility need, considering the size and resources of the community,
the complexity of the problems addressed, and the cost of the project?
All reasonable alternatives were thoroughly considered in the 2007 PER and the
technical design and alternatives outlined in the 2008 update represent an efficient,
appropriate and cost-effective option.
City of Laurel final 6
5. Does the technical design proposed thoroughly address the deficiencies selected to be
resolved and provide a reasonably complete, cost-effective and long-term solution?
The technical design addresses the deficiencies selected to be resolved and provides a
reasonably complete cost-effective and long-term solution. It is not known whether the
flash mixer will still be in commission after the completion of the sedimentation basin
improvements and construction of new flocculators, but the other components of the
proposed project are expected to be part of a long-term solution.
6. Are all projected costs and the proposed implementation schedule reasonable and well
supported? Are there any apparent technical problems that were not adequately addressed that
could delay or prevent the proposed project from being carried out or which could add
significantly to project costs?
The projected costs and the proposed implementation schedule appear to be reasonable.
There are no apparent technical problems that could delay or prevent the proposed
project from being carried out or which could add significantly to project costs.
The cost estimate of$272,000 for replacement of two, 2,000 gpm high service pumps
includes two flow control valves at an estimated combined cost of$ 35,280. It is not clear
whether the flow control valves would still be necessary if the variable frequency drives
are installed on the high service pumps.
The PER notes that all cost tables include inflation adjustment using a multiplier of 1.16.
Contingencies are 20% of the construction costs. Justification for contingencies greater
or less than 10% must be justified as per the Uniform Application. Such justification
cannot be found in either the 2007 PER or in the 2008 update.
Applicant's engineer responds: Lastly, the 20% contingency is a carry-over from the original
PER, but considering the sharp increase in costs in recent years, it is good that there is an this
higher estimate.
7. Have the potential environmental problems been adequately assessed? Are there any
apparent environmental problems that could delay or prevent the proposed project from being
carried out or which could add significantly to project costs?
The potential environmental problems have been adequately assessed. An
Environmental Checklist has been included for the proposed project and signed by a P.E.
Letters requesting review and input were sent to all necessary agencies, except there
does not appear to be a copy of the letter or response from MDEQ.
8. For projects involving community drinking water system improvements, does the applicant
have a water metering system for individual services or has the applicant decided to install
meters? In those cases where individual service connection meters are not proposed, has the
applicant's PER thoroughly analyzed the conversion to a water metering system and
persuasively demonstrated that the use of meters is not feasible, appropriate, or cost effective?
The system is currently metered.
City of Laurel final 7
w
9. Is there any other pertinent information that might influence the scoring of this statutory
priority?
No.
SUMMARY—TSEP Statutory Priority#3
The MDOC review team determined that a level 4 score was appropriate for this priority.
City of Laurel final 8