Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 01.27.2009MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 27, 2009 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at 6:30 p.m. on January 27, 2009. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: X_ Emelie Eaton _x Kate Hart _x Chuck Rodgers x Alex Wilkins _x Doug Poehls _x Mark Mace _x Chuck Dickerson _x Norm Stamper OTHERS PRESENT: Sam Painter Mary Embleton Bill Sheridan Kurt Markegard James Caniglia Rick Musson Jan Faught Scott Murphy, Morrison-Maierle Stephanie Seymanski, Morrison-Maierle Crystal Bennett, Great West Engineering Nicole Swindell, Great West Engineering Public Input (three-minute limit): Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business not on the agenda. The duration for an individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the Council will not take action on any item not on the agenda. Bill Kampfer, 119 East 50' Street, spoke regarding the trash at the baseball diamonds in Thomson Park. While in the park recently, he noticed high school students smoking in the park, as well as an accumulation of cigarette butts, bottles and garbage along the fence. Bill brought this to the school's attention, but did not think anything would be done. Chuck Dickerson suggested that Bill attend a school board meeting to address the situation. Planniniz: • Ordinance - Delete LMC 17.40.090(A) (3) - "No required parking space shall be located in a front or side yard." James Canigha explained that the ordinance would delete the "no required parking space shall be located in a front or side yard" from the LMC. Codes state that two parking places are needed for a single-family detached house. This code says that that the city cannot require those two places to be in the front of the yard. If there is no alley, then technically the city does not have a place to require the parking. James stated that this needs to be removed. • Ordinance - Change LMC 17.20.010 - "Breweries: only allowed in Light Industrial (LI) and Heavy Industrial (HI)" to add "are allowed also in Central Business District, Highway Commercial and Community Commercial." James explained the request to repeal a portion of Table 17.20.020 entitled "Breweries, alcoholic distillation," and to replace it with a new section entitled "Alcohol Beverages, Manufacturing and Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 Bottling." James has received inquiries regarding putting in a microbrewery downtown, which is not allowed in the current codes. It is only allowed in industrial zoned areas. James stated that the Planning Board discussed the issue and decided it should be reviewed and would be a good thing in the downtown. If someone were to go forward with this, the zoning would be in place. The Planning Board recommended the same zoning as used in the City of Billings. James spoke regarding one other related item that he would like to take to Planning Board. Billings' codes include an exception to a MCA law that prohibits having a casino or serving alcohol within 300 feet of a church. Laurel has some such bars in place right now, but they are non-conforming and legal. If the bars closed down for more than three months, they could not reopen. There are several churches in the downtown area, and if somebody wanted to open a brewery within 300 feet of a church, that would not be allowed. However, the ordinance can be changed, as Billings has done, to allow that. James would like to take the issue to the Planning Board, but he wanted to see if the council would want him to do so. Chuck Dickerson stated that it would be a good idea for James to pursue that issue with the Planning Board. Public Works Department: • Resolution - Small Services Contract with Rosebud Engineering Kurt Markegard explained the resolution for a small service contract with Rosebud Engineering. Exhibit A attached to the resolution explained the current situation at the Water Treatment Plant. The software package is no longer supported. The city needs to purchase the upgrade to run with XP, which is the office computer at the WTP. The cost for the upgrade, software, and computer memory upgrade would be $3,470, plus the $1,000 in labor for Rosebud Engineering to provide the services. Kurt asked the council to consider and approve that in order to get a current version of software to support the operating of the plant processes. Kurt explained that a pressure sensor needs to be installed on the main line coming uptown in order to have the computer recognize and record pressure spikes. That cannot be done with the current software program Exhibit A is for the software package, and Exhibit B is for the pressure sensor to tell the historical data displayed for the main line pressure, the reservoir level, the Refinery raw water flow rate, and the Refinery raw water pressure. This would make it possible to understand what happens to the system and provide historical data. • Review of 2008 swimming pool operations Kurt gave an update on the 2008 pool operations. Last year, Kurt recommended that the city operate the city pool. The alternative was to have the YMCA manage the pool. Kurt stated that Mary provided the labor costs to see the difference between the YMCA's proposal and the city's actual operating expenses. For the 2008 season, the city expended $31,948 in labor. The YMCA offered to manage the pool for $42,000, so the city spent $10,000 less by operating the pool. The costs were just for the pool operations and did not include Kurt's time or the city crew's time. There was a $3,000 increase in revenues over the previous year with the YMCA. Revenues in 2007 were $13,139 and 2008 revenues were $16,475. This was probably because the city offered and retained the revenues for swimming lessons. The city budgeted $10,900 for operational expenses, which will continue through June 30, 2009. Year-to-date, there have been operational expenses of $5,600 for supplies, chemicals, utility services, and telephone. Another 25 percent will probably be used by the end of the 2 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 fiscal year. Kurt will provide a more detailed report in the future. He wanted the council to have the information in case anyone approaches them regarding the operation of the city pool. Clerk/Treasurer: • Resolution -- Intercap loan for new fire truck Mary Embleton stated that the resolution for the Intercap loan is not ready yet, but it will be ready by February 3rd or 1761. The application was submitted last week. She was informed today that the loan officer who reviews the application is recommending approval. State Intercap prepares the resolution and the loan documents. The loan is for $200,000, as was planned and budgeted. The truck costs about $273,000 and is due for delivery next week. The budget included $325,000 for the new truck, so there is money to equip the truck with hoses, etc. The documents will be presented as soon as they are ready. Executive Review: Appointments: o Laurel Urban Renewal Agency: Daniel Klein, Dean Rankin, Dirk Frickel, Shirley Girard McDermott, Bill Kampfer Mayor Olson stated that the appointment would be on the February 3rd council agenda. Chuck Dickerson suggested asking the individuals to attend next week's council meeting. Mayor Olson stated that they would be invited. o Public Works Committee: Bill Kampfer Mayor Olson stated that the appointment would be on the February 3'1 council agenda. o HOME Program Advisory Board: Chuck Rodgers Mayor Olson stated that Chuck Rodgers has agreed to the appointment, and he thanked Chuck for his time for this important position. The appointment will be on the February 3rd council agenda. • Council Issues: o Helena Chemical ¦ Truck parking in parking lot (Emelie Eaton) ¦ Landscaping in boulevard (Doug Poehls) Mayor Olson asked Kurt Markegard to present information. Discussion involving truck parking in the parking lot was brought about because semis have been parked on the corner and could be causing problems with vision. Kurt distributed information regarding obstructions and encroachments and the clear vision triangle. The information is from the Rules and Regulations, which were adopted in 2005. Section 7.12.5 says, "In the Central Business District, vehicles shall not be parked in the public right-of-way so as to obstruct the maximum symmetrical line of site resulting from the allowable zero building setback from the property line or as per Montana Department of Transportation standards where applicable." Kurt stated that the Central Business District (CBD) has zero setbacks and property owners can build a business building wall right to the property line. The parking lot is on Helena Chemical's property and it would be the same as if there was a building downtown. There is no clear vision triangle. The document also says that "the portion of the portion of the city zoned and commercially occupied as Central Business District is exempt from the requirements of sections 7.12.1, 7.12.2, 7.12.3, and 3 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 7.12.4." Kurt stated that, at this time, Laurel does not have legislation that deals with parking areas in the CBD for people parking tall vehicles in those corners, only if it is in the right-of-way. The parking lot was dedicated as parking, and city code enforcement officers have no way to remove the vehicles. Mark asked regarding requirements for landscaping on a parking lot. Kurt distributed the LMC code regarding landscaping. Section 17.40.130 Landscaping requirements: "In the neighborhood commercial limited (NCL), neighborhood commercial (NC), community commercial (CC), and highway commercial (HC) zoning districts, landscaping shall be provided according to the following schedules." Kurt stated that the CBD is excluded from landscaping requirements because property owners can build up to 100 percent of the lot. The three feet to eight feet clear vision obstruction does not apply if there are no landscaping requirements, and in the CBD, there are no landscaping requirements. If the council wants to change the zoning or the rules for certain businesses, it would have to adopt legislation to do so. Currently, there is no legislation in place so there is nothing for code enforcement to enforce. Kurt explained the past history regarding making Helena Chemical do landscaping. He read from 2002 Planning Board minutes regarding the planner's recommendation for a kiosk in the parking lot. At that time, Cal Cumin recommended that the kiosk not be given a business license until the city received a landscaping plan and implementation schedule from Helena Chemical. Kurt was not sure if a landscaping plan was ever presented to the city. Chuck Dickerson asked if Helena Chemical had been approached by the city to ask them, as a good neighbor and for safety concerns, if it would be possible to park the tractor trailer rigs away from the corner in an area toward the asphalt plant. Kurt stated that, in his four years with the city, he has never been requested to approach any property owner without legislation to back up the issue. If staff goes around making up their own rules, whether it is for the good of the community or the bad of the business, it starts compelling staff to make the rules. As staff, he recommends having legislation allowing the city to do that. Kurt stated that, if someone wants to be a good neighbor, anyone can approach Helena Chemical and ask them about the clear vision triangle. Otherwise, staff would have to be properly directed to do it. Chuck Dickerson proposed going forward with legislation regarding this issue. Mayor Olson asked if the council would consider having the City-County Planning Board review the issue and make recommendations. The item will be on a future Planning Board agenda. Other items There were no other items. Review of draft council agenda for Febru 3 2009 Mayor Olson stated that the resolution for the Intercap loan would be added to the agenda if it is received in time. Attendance at the February 3, 2009 council meeting All council members will attend the meeting. 4 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 Announcements Doug stated that the Emergency Services Committee discussed several issues during its long meeting on Monday. Mayor Olson spoke regarding the recent City-County Joint Meeting. The Bench Connector issue is a very complex issue, and he is glad the City of Billings and the County Commissioners have found neutral ground for discussion. The meeting also included discussion regarding the speed limit signs and the Veterans' Cemetery. Mayor Olson, Bill Sheridan, Josh Middleton, and Roger Heimbigner met recently to discuss the handicapped parking option for the expansion of the all-weather track, football field and stadium. The School Board will make decisions regarding cost for development. With the agreement comes a requirement for both entities to ensure an approved look for the landscaping at the field. The city may have some commitment for use of millings for the surface. Mayor Olson hopes that this will make good use of land that is otherwise known for its alkali. Morrison-Maierle: Wastewater Project Scott Murphy, Morrison-Maierle, stated that the city successfully received a grant through the TSEP Program for upgrades to the wastewater plant. That particular project consisted of four basic components: upgrading the lift stations in town; upgrading the water line between the water plant and the wastewater plant to provide fire protection; upgrading the head works because it is aging and falling apart; and a secondary treatment expansion in order to handle additional growth and deal with old age and redundancy. The project was kicked off in June 2008 and the scope of that work consisted primarily of three things. The first thing was to help the city get a handle on an evolving situation with the discharge permit associated with the treatment plant. Usually, it is best to go into a project knowing what the end looks like, but due to regulatory changes, that was not the case at the time and is still not entirely the case. Second, is the update of the planning study, sometimes referred to as a Facility Plan or a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). Finally, the scope of service included the pre-design itself, getting basically to about the thirty percent design stage. That would allow some great cost estimates and then move on into design from there. Scott stated that, within a month and a half of starting, the city asked Morrison-Maierle to look at the collection system and perhaps moving some things on the east end of town, so that scope item was added. Scott stated that Carl Anderson reported that information to the council in December. Also in December, Mayor Olson, Bill and Scott met with the DEQ regarding the discharge permit. As of today, DEQ promised a draft to the city by as early as March. Morrison-Maierle has initiated the design survey associated with that and are about four weeks away from having the revised PER to the council. Other issues have also been discussed, including the ultraviolet disinfection at the treatment plant and a collapsing sewer line underneath I-90. Scott stated that Bill's request last week was about fast-tracking a portion of the project and separating what was going to be a single project into two projects, and including the two additional elements of UV disinfection and the 1-90 crossing. Scott sent Bill a first cut of what he thought would be an accelerated schedule that still allowed for the proper review by DEQ and TSEP, the proper internal reviews by city staff and the folks at the wastewater plant. Under that scenario, the three elements of the project that would move forward fast would be the water line, the lift stations, and the head works. Those three components do not require the Facility Plan to be finalized because they were part of the last Facility Plan that was approved by DEQ. If the council said to move on to 5 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 design, Morrison-Maierle would separate those from the elements that are taking longer due to regulations and DEQ, etc., which is the activated sludge upgrade. The UV system and the sewer line would also be added. Doug asked if there would be detrimental effects to the other three items if the city disconnected Phase 2 with the activated sludge and the I-90 sewer main. He asked if it would cost thousands of dollars more if they were done differently. Scott did not think so. There are usually more administrative costs when two projects are bid. He stated that the water line and the pump stations are separate from the treatment plant anyway. He thinks that the head works, work that would be done right on the treatment plant, might be more efficiently done as part of the other project, but it is also the thing that is most critical. Doug asked how intertwined the head works is with the activated sludge and the UV system. Scott stated that, from a design or construction standpoint, they are really not intertwined much and there would be no detrimental effect from separating those, other than administering two contracts and having two different contractors. Mark stated that he thought UV disinfection was not included in Phase 2B. Scott stated that UV disinfection was not part of the original TSEP project that was conceived a few years ago and that was funded. With the city's next permit, there will be some disinfection changes that will lead towards UV, but the city will have the opportunity to negotiate with DEQ regarding the timing. The UV was identified in the last Facility Plan, but there was no timeline. Scott anticipates that the city will have a new permit by the end of the federal fiscal year, which is in October. The city should have, depending on how it wants to negotiate, somewhere between two and four years to get the UV system implemented. In some respects, it makes sense to put it in with this project, or it could be a separate project. Mark stated that he thought the UV was going to be held back from this discharge permit and with the following one because the city could use a different funding process for it. Scott stated that it would not move back in permit, but the city could possibly negotiate with DEQ to say that it wants to fund the project through the next TSEP cycle. The city could be prepared this time next year to submit an application that would get funded the year after that for a project in 2012. The council could choose to pursue that scenario. There was discussion regarding the proposed schedule, the completion dates, the items included, and the final design date. Bill Sheridan stated that he has communicated with Scott, and Bill actually proposed the splits. Bill met with the permit writer from DEQ, who seemed to be very interested in the UV system. The permit writer thinks that the UV system is necessary, appropriate, would save money eventually, and is the best system to have. Therefore, Bill included this in the second phase and brought it to Scott's attention. 6 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 Chuck Dickerson asked regarding the timeframe for a decision about the alternatives for the I-90 sewer main. Scott asked Stephanie Seyrnanski, who is also with Morrison-Maierle, to address the question. Stephanie spoke regarding the three alternatives for the I-90 crossing and presented an exhibit for the council to view. The 2006 sanitary sewer improvements project replaced the 18-inch pipe with 30- inch RCB pipe on Lindy Lane. At the connection point by Laurel South Road, the contractor discovered during construction that it was connecting to egg shaped clay tile pipe that was supposed to be round and was starting to collapse. They could have TV'd the pipe, but the decision was made not to do that. The pipe was full of sediment and silt, and to clean it out could have caused a problem and assisted with any collapsing that might take place. A decision was made not to jet the line from that point. At Larry McCann's request, Morrison-Maierle prepared a couple cost estimates, which they have since updated. At that time, it was decided not to go forward with replacing the sewer pipe underneath the interstate. Later on, the city tried to TV the same pipe on the north side of the interstate and the camera went a few feet and then fell. The assumption is that the pipe, which is encased underneath the interstate, is probably collapsed in the encasement pipe. That effort was abandoned and it was decided not to go any further forward lest they lose the TV camera permanently. When Morrison-Maierle was tasked with looking at alternatives for the lift stations, they were also tasked with looking at the interstate crossing. The draft alternatives analysis that was submitted in October covered the interstate crossing and the costs for all the alternatives for the Elm and Village Lift Stations. It also included costs to replace the crossing underneath the interstate, along with the railroad, because we knew that this was a bottleneck. Without replacing this line or putting in a line further down, upgrading the lift stations did not serve a lot of purpose. The council decided in December not to move forward with any of those alternatives. The crossing was the last item to consider with their contract. Since the council decided not to look at the lift station alternatives, Stephanie put together a separate memo. She stated that she wanted Carl to review the memo before it was given to everyone to review. The memo details the background history, what they know about the crossing, the discussions Stephanie has had with the owner of a storm drain right next to the sewer that might affect the replacement of the sewer main underneath the interstate. Carl presented three different alternatives at the last workshop. The first alternative was just to replace the sewer main underneath the interstate and the cost is around $570,000 for engineering and construction. It would replace the sewer line and would tie in on Lindy Lane and go up to the manhole on the north side of the interstate and connect in there. The second alternative was to replace it. This came about as a request from Larry McCann at the time, who asked Morrison-Maierle to look at an additional 500 feet of pipe from the north side of the interstate up to East Railroad Street. In the 2003 CDBG Sewer Project that Morrison-Maierle did with the City of Laurel, it replaced a short piece of pipe in East Railroad Street. That would connect the 2003 project with the 2006 sewer project and the cost would be around $780,000. The third alternative came about when they did both of the projects and encountered a storm drain down by the substation. COP Construction hit it and had a big gush of water into their trench. Then it was paralleled the whole way up Lindy Lane. It is a little bit deeper and it lies to the west of the sewer main. It was accidentally hit in East Railroad Street. At the time, Larry McCann talked with the railroad folks and asked them about replacing it, but they did not want to do so at the time. There is not much detail available about the sewer main crossing underneath the interstate, except for old 7 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 MDT plans from the 60's when the interstate went through. From those plans, they know that the sewer main is encased in a 60-inch pipe and, according to the plans, the storm drain is a 21-inch pipe. According to those plans, it does not say that the storm drain is encased. In looking at those, they concluded that they might be in the same casing. Stephanie has tried to verify that, because that is going to impact replacement of the sewer main. That is how the third alternative came about. That alternative is to do all of the sewer main replacement from Lindy Lane up to East Railroad and then also replace the storm drain underneath the interstate, assuming they are in the same casement pipe. They do not know for a fact that they are both in the encasement pipe. Stephanie checked the elevations based on what she has for measure downs from construction observation and design survey work. It is feasible elevation wise that they could be in the same casing pipe, but they have always noted that the storm drain is eight feet, center to center, from the sewer main over to the storm drain and there is an eight-foot separation. They saw that on Lindy Lane and on East Railroad Street. It is not normal construction practice to put the same pipe in the casing, but she does not know if that was done in the 60's. Stephanie wants to meet with MDT folks. She has spoken to Ron Cebuhar, who is supposed to have a permit for the sewer main or is at least going to look for one. The railroad folks in Missoula do not know of a storm drain. Based on Stephanie's conversations with county folks and Kurt, they think it is a railroad storm drain. She recently asked Larry McCann how he knows it is the railroad's storm drain. He said that the railroad had a discharge permit for that storm drain outfall, because it outfalls right by the city sewer outfall. Apparently, the railroad had a diesel release when an engine was overfilled, it migrated into the storm drain, and they had to report that to DEQ. Larry was fairly confident that it was the railroad's storm drain, even though the engineers do not want to claim it. Stephanie stated that she would submit the technical memo soon. Mayor Olson thanked Stephanie for the informative presentation. Emelie asked regarding the possibility of working with the state and/or the railroad and their financial cooperation. Stephanie would like to ask that question when she meets with MDT. She has spoken with MRL, which has money to do these types of projects. She talked to a gentleman last year who informed her that their 2009 budget was set and their 2009 projects were identified. With MRL, Stephanie thinks it is a matter of submitting a written request, providing some drawings, and pursuing and verifying that it is their storm drain. Initial discussions were not very positive, as far as cost-sharing, but she thinks there should be more discussion with MRL. If MRL would participate, it would affect alternative three because that one in particular would replace the storm drain underneath the interstate. If those two pipes are not in the same casing pipe, there would be no reason to replace the storm drain. They could reroute the sewer main around it and do a totally new casing. The hope was that they could reuse the casing pipe and shove another casing pipe to use the existing casing pipe. They would have to bypass pump sewage around. That was done in the trunk main project where the bypass system was set up and bypassed through a culvert underneath the interstate and discharged in a downstream manhole. Chuck Dickerson spoke regarding the councils decision to separate the crossing from the three items in Phase 2A because time is of the essence for Phase 2A as far funding. There is still a lot to be done on the crossing, and that was the feeling as to why to separate it from Phase 2A because this definitely could have had an impact on that and hold up the program. 8 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 Mayor Olson stated that, as the city approaches the deadline for the grant administration and for securing SRF funds, he needed to emphasize that the grant application included the head works, the water line, and the lift stations, as had been discussed. The grant application also included addressing the RBC's, which the council recently changed to activated sludge. He stated the importance to recognize that addressing the RBC's/activated sludge is incumbent to satisfy the grant requirements. With that in mind, he asked if Scott could assure the city that the Preliminary Engineering Report would be successfully completed and submitted to DEQ in time for the thirty-day comment period and in time for the funding to be secured. Scott stated that the short answer is yes. He said that the Facility Plan, or the PER, would be submitted to DEQ by February 27th. DEQ usually takes thirty days to review the PER, and then it would take a few weeks to respond to their comments. At that point, the council would take action to formally accept the Facility Plan. Scott thinks that would be the only thing preventing any of the startup conditions. The SRF commitment would then follow. Mayor Olson stated that Great West Engineering is the grant administrator. Crystal Bennett spoke regarding the grant. Crystal stated that, on the funding side, the commitment agreement from SRF is the only thing the city needs to do to meet the conditions for TSEP. She explained the process. Once the Facility Plan has been submitted to DEQ or SRF for review, the official application can be submitted to SRF with the updated costs. SRF will then work with Mary to get the finances squared away. In the past, SRF has been pretty quick. During the recent conference call and in Crystal's last two projects, SRF indicated that an environmental review would be done, and a thirty-day comment period follows. After the comment period ends, they can get that commitment done. Based on that schedule, Crystal does not see any problem with the June 30th deadline. Mayor Olson stated that would be the completion of the PER to the DEQ by February 27th. He thanked Crystal for the report. Mayor Olson stated that the council needs to determine where it would like to see the funding allocation go. He is certain that the three projects Scott mentioned in Phase 1 have to be included. He is also certain that the RBC's/activated sludge needs to be included in order to satisfy the TSEP grant. He asked for the council's comments regarding pursuing activated sludge at this time. Doug stated that something other than activated sludge, oxidation ditches, had been discussed. He asked if the activated sludge/oxidation ditches could be removed from the first phase and completed in a separate project. Scott stated that the applicant runs the risk of losing the entire grant if any part of the project that garnered the successful grant is removed from the project. Doug stated that his question was answered. He stated that UV and the I-90 crossing were not part of the requirement and did not need further discussion now. He asked if a decision needed to be made regarding activated sludge or oxidation ditches to proceed. Scott stated that the completed PER will provide all the information needed to make a decision. Scott explained the distinction that oxidation ditch is to activated sludge like Ford is to cars. It is a "subset 9 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 of', not an "instead of." A Ford, a Chevy and a Dodge are all cars. Activated sludge is like the car, and the city could choose an SBR, an oxidation ditch, or a traditional activated sludge plant. The PER will answer which one of those would be best. Mayor Olson asked Bill to speak regarding his recent conversation with Mr. Wadhams regarding the DEQ permit and the UV treatment. Bill Sheridan stated that Mr. Wadhams is very knowledgeable. He made it clear that he would provide a permit with some substantial direction to the city as soon as possible. Mr. Wadhams told Bill that the water line, the lift stations on Main Street and the head works needed to be addressed. In his general inspection of the plant, he was very direct and stated that the city needs to start working on a UV system. He said it is critical in the long run, and the city would actually save money if it pursued the UV system in the early stage of major improvements. He did not say a UV system was required, but he said the city should think seriously about the UV system. He mentioned that the RBC's needed to be addressed, or changed to an activated sludge system. Regarding the 1-90 crossing, Mr. Wadhams said the city should pursue it if it has knowledge of the condition of the line. However, he stated that the city should work on the first five items before taking action to replace the line under the interstate. Bill stated that the permit should be done in the near future, perhaps within two months. Scott spoke to Mr. Wadhams last week and plans to keep in touch with him every two weeks. Mr. Wadhams would appreciate a letter proposing a timeframe for the city to address the UV system. Mayor Olson asked Scott if the task of putting all five items in the PER, the Facility Plan, by February 27'h would be within Morrison-Maierle's scope. Scott stated that is already being done. The UV is being addressed and was in the previous Facility Plan. It is just a matter of setting up the timing for it. Mayor Olson stated that, upon receipt of the PER, the council could determine the rates needed for the options. The council's decision regarding any of the alternatives is not needed until the Preliminary Engineering Report is completed. Scott asked if the city did not need them to move forward quickly on the Phase 2A projects. Mayor Olson stated that, at this time, the city wants assurance that the required document will be submitted to DEQ to satisfy the requirements for the SRF application. He again stated the five items: the water line, the lift stations, the head works, activated sludge system, and the UV system. Upon receipt of the PER, the council will review it and make a final decision, which will be tied to the rates necessary to satisfy the funding requirements. He asked Scott if that was correct. Scott stated that it was correct. Mayor Olson asked if there was an understanding of the direction the city is taking. Bill stated that the first three items are items that can be dealt with quite quickly. The two additional items, activated sludge and the UV system, are probable and easy to deal with, too. But he stated that the city should focus on the first three items. The engineers could also work on the activated sludge 10 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 and the UV system, but Bill would like to go out to bid, start the project, and deal with the three items as quickly as possible to meet the needs of the city and to satisfy DEQ and the funding possibilities. Mayor Olson stated that it should be recognized that, if all of the obligations of the grant application are not fulfilled, the city may risk losing part of the $750,000 grant. The four items that need to be addressed are the water line, the lift stations, the head works, and the RBC's/activated sludge. Scott stated that, in order to get the TSEP grant, the city needs to show that it is going to do all of the components, whether it is in one project or two projects. The council must accept the Facility Plan and commit to the financial obligations to further those projects. Doug suggested adding activated sludge in Phase 2A and proceeding on that schedule to fulfill the TSEP Grant and the DEQ permit. Then the city could proceed with Phase 2B with the UV and the I- 90 crossing. Doug asked Scott if that would meet all the requirements. Scott answered yes and no. The city has an approved Facility Plan that includes an RBC project. The city could go to SRF today with the approved Facility Plan and the TSEP Grant and request a loan commitment agreement. But the city does not want to build an RBC plant and wants to change to activated sludge. Scott stated that the startup conditions could be satisfied today, knowing that the city would have to amend the loan application in the future. The only problem is that, in order to have the activated sludge, the Facility Plan needs to be completed. The city cannot just add the activated sludge to the project and keep to the same schedule because DEQ approval is needed. Doug asked if the city needed to come up with a plan to improve the RBC's within the first plan or if the requirements would be met. Mayor Olson stated that the council approved an amendment to the design regarding activated sludge via council action two weeks ago. Morrison-Maierle needs to address that task. He asked the council to consider, upon confirmation from Scott, that Morrison-Maierle could complete the Preliminary Engineering Report for the five items by February 27`l'. At that time, the council will review the PER and the cost estimates and determine the direction of the project. The PER will also be submitted to DEQ and to SRF, and that process will begin. Mayor Olson stated that the project does not come without consequence, and the rate study will be reviewed and rate increases will be needed in order to receive the SRF loan. He stated that Scott or Carl would return in about a month for further discussion. Chuck Dickerson asked if the city would be able to proceed with the first three items like Bill suggested as soon as possible. Mayor Olson stated that doing the first three items was an idea. He believes the idea has merit, from the fact that they are things that can be done quickly. But he believes all five items are needed in the PER going to the DEQ in order to satisfy the grant application. Chuck Dickerson agreed and asked if the city would be able to proceed with the first three items, even though the recommendation is for all five items to the DEQ. Mayor Olson stated that the time and forum to make that decision would be after February 27`}' when the PER is completed and the council has reviewed the document. 11 Council Workshop Minutes of January 27, 2009 Bill thanked Mayor Olson and stated that his ideas were much better. He stated that everyone wants to get going with this project. The council workshop adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, l ai&A-. Cindy Allen Council Secretary NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. 12 Division 2 - Streets 7 OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS 7.12 Clear Vision Triangle 7.12.1 Alleys: A clear vision triangle shall measure ten (10) feet into the lot and twenty (20) feet parallel to the street as measured from the property line corner. Any fence, wall, signs, plant material or other material shall provide an unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between 3 feet and 8 feet above street surface elevation. Trees having over eight (8) feet of clear trunk as measured from the surface elevation with limbs and foliage trimmed in such a manner as not to extend into the-cross-visibility area and complying with section 7.2.3 are. permitted in the clear vision triangle. 7.12.2 Commercial Zoned Driveway Approaches: A clear vision triangle shall measure ten (10) feet into the lot and twenty (20) feet parallel to the street as measured from the property line corner. Any fence, wall, signs, plant material or other material shall provide an unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between 3 feet and 8 feet above street surface elevation. Trees having over eight (8) feet of clear trunk as measured from the surface elevation with limbs and foliage trimmed in such a manner as not to extend into the cross-visibility area and complying with section 7.2.3 are permitted in the clear vision triangle. 7.12.3 Controlled Intersections (stop sign or traffic signal): A clear vision triangle shall measure twenty-five (25) feet in both directions as measured from the property line comer. Any fence, wall, signs, plant material or other material shall provide an unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between 3 feet and 8 feet above street surface elevation. Trees having over eight (8) feet of clear trunk as measured from the surface elevation with limbs and foliage trimmed in such a manner as not to extend into the cross-visibility area and complying with section 7.2.3 are permitted in the clear vision triangle. 7.12.4 Uncontrolled Intersections: A clear vision triangle shall measure one hundred ten (110) feet in both directions as measured from the intersection of the centerlines in the adjoining street intersection. Any fence, wall, signs, plant material or other material shall provide an unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between 3 feet and 8 feet above street surface elevation. Trees having over eight (8) feet of clear trunk as measured from the surface elevation with limbs and foliage trimmed in such a manner as not to extend into the cross-visibility area and complying with section 7.2-3 are permitted in the clear vision triangle. 7.12.5 Vehicles shall not be parked in the public right-of way so as to obstruct the line of site created by the clear vision triangle. In the Central Business District vehicles shall not be parked in the public right-of-way so as to obstruct the maximum symmetrical line of site resulting from the allowable zero building setback from the property line or as per Montana Department of Transportation standards where applicable- 7.12.6 The portion Of the city zoned and conmercially occupied as Central Business District is exempt from the requirements of sections 7.12.1, 7.12.2; 7.12.3, and 7.12.4. 17.40.090 tomers, patrons and visitors, plus space to provide one off-street parking space for each two regular employees, plus space to provide off-street parking for all owned, leased or op- erated commercial vehicles, buses and similar motor vehicles; N. Schools. Schools, including colleges, elementary schools, junior and senior high schools, including public, private and paro- chial schools - One space for each two staff members or employees, plus one space for each classroom, plus additional space for any place of public assembly in accordance with the requirements set forth in this section for such use; 0. Miscellaneous Institutions. Sanitari- ums, asylums, orphanages, convalescent homes, homes for the aged and infirm, and similar institutions - One space for each four patient beds, plus one additional space for each staff doctor, plus one additional space for each two regular employees including nurses. (Ord. 06-12 (part), 2006; Ord. 06-06 (part), 2006; Ord. 97-2 § 4 (part), 1997; Ord. 96-5 (part), 1996; Ord. 918, 1987; prior code § 17.76.010(H)) 17.40.100 Retail and commercial off- street loading. In any district, any building or part thereof having a gross floor area of ten thousand square feet or more which is to be occupied by a use requiring the receipt or distribution by vehicles of material or merchandise, there shall be provided and maintained on the same lot with such building at least one off-street loading space, plus one additional loading space for each twenty thousand feet or major fraction thereof of gross floor area. Each loading space shall be not less than twenty feet in width, twenty-five feet in length., and fourteen feet in height. The loading space shall be located so as to preclude backing maneuvers on the public right-of-way. (Prior code § 17.76.010(1)) 17.40.110 Warehouse and wholesale off-street loading. Off-street loading space for warehouse, wholesale shipping and similar facilities will be determined by the city engineer. The load- ing space shall be located so as to preclude backing maneuvers on the public right-of- way. (Prior code § 17.76.01 0(7)) 17.40.120 Screening around parking facility required when. Screening in the form of walls, architec- tural fences or dense coniferous hedges shall be required where any parking facility has a common boundary with any residentially zoned property. (Prior code § 17.76.010(K)) 17.40.130 Landscaping requirements, In the neighborhood commercial limited (NCL), neighborhood commercial (NC), community commercial (CC), and highway C commercial (HC) zoning districts, landscaping shall be provided according to the following schedules: A. New Site Development: Percentage of Landscaping Required: U to 22,000 s q. ft. 1.0% minimum 22,000 sq. ft. to 5 acres 8% minimum 5 acres to 10 acres 6% minimum over 10 acres 4% minimum B. Existing Site Development: Building additions in excess of fifty percent -- Per- centage of landscaping required one-half of new site development. Building additions less 419 (Laurel Supp. No. 5, 4-07) Pagel of 3 Bill Sheridan From: Scott Murphy [smurphy@m-m.net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:22 PM To: Bill Sheridan Cc: Carl Anderson; Stephanie Seymanski; Jeff Ashley; Kurt Markegard Subject: RE: MDEQ/John Wadhams Bill - • Here is what I would propose to the Council as a project schedule that meets MDEQ and funding requirements for review, and allows for adequate City input/review time + adequate contractor bid time. Laurel VVVVTF Design Schedules Phase 2A - Waterline Headworks and Lift Stations Task Completion Date Facility Plan for these components) Com /ete/A roved Basis of Design Report to Ci IMDEQ 3/6/2009 Final Design Review/MDEQ Submittal 5/512009 MDEQ Approval 6112/2009 Advertise for Bids 5122/2009 Open Bids 6/2612009 Phase 2B - Activated Sludge. UV Disinfection and 1-90 Sewer Main Task Completion Date Facili Plan Submittal to Ci IMDEQ 2127/2009 Facility Plan Public Hearin TBD MDEQ Review Comments 312912009 Final Facilit Plan Approval 4112/2009 Basis of Design Report to Ci /MDEQ 611/2009 Final Design Review/MDEQ Submittal 9/712009 MDEQ Approval 1011212009 Advertise for Bids 1011412009 Open Bids 11/19/2009 • The dates in bold are ones that MMI/City has some control over. Approximate dates are shown in italics. We cannot dictate the MDEQ review time, but we have allowed for a "typical" timeframe and based subsequent dates on that. 1/26/2009 Page 2 of 3 I'll call you to discuss further. Scott Murphy, P.E., BCEE Morrison-Maierle, Inc. smurphy@m-m.net 406,495.3437 From: Bill Sheridan [mailto:bsheridan@laurel.mt.gov] ..._,..,...... _._ ....................... ........ .. Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:27 AM To: Scott Murphy Subject: RE: MDEQ/John Wadhams Scott, I sent you a letter today regarding the desires of the Mayor and City Council. I will Email it to you. The jest is: They want to do the 1. water line, 2. improved lift stations and the 3. improved head works, asap, at the WWTP. They would like a "bid opening" for this work by March 15, 2009, They want to do the 1. activated sludge, 2. ultra-violet and the 3. large main under the 1-90, soon there after. They would like a "bid opening" for this work by August 15, 2009, or soon thereafter, IF THE ABOVE THREE ITEMS ARE COMPLETED. PLEASE attend the Laurel Council Workshop on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2009, at 6:30 pm. • Thank you. Bill S. From: Scott Murphy [mailto:smurphy@m-m.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:37 PM To: Bill Sheridan Cc: Kurt Markegard; Carl Anderson; Scott Murphy Subject: MDEQ/John Wadhams Bill - C. I called John Wadhams, MDEQ, today to see "how the visit went" to the WWTP last week. I used that opportunity to quiz him a bit on his initial thinking about the permit preparation and schedule for chlorine and ammonia limitations. He mentioned that he had met with you in addition to Bob Mann. I'll give you a call Thursday afternoon to discuss my conversation with John further, and offer some thoughts about some proactive steps that could be taken to "help" MDEQ with the permit drafting. Best regards, Scott Scott Murphy, P.E., BCEE Morrison-Maierle, Inc. smurphy@m-m.net 406.495.3437 This communication is the pil-party of Morrison-Maierle, Inc. and rnay contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this 1/26/2009 CITY HALT' PUS WORKS: 628.4796 City Of Laurel PWD FAX: 628-2241 WATER OFFICE: 628-7451 P.O. Box 10 WTR FAX: 628-2289 Laurel, Montana 59044 4IL ?, MAYOR: 628-"56 ? January 21, 2009 DEPARTMENT Mr. Scott Murphy Office Manager Lead Engineer Morrison-Maierle Engineering P.O. Box 6147 Helena, MT 59604 Dear Mr. Murphy: In the recent past, the City of Laurel has discussed improvements that are necessary at the Laurel Wastewater Treatment plant and related facilities. I believe the following "two phase program" of the improvement project is preferred by the Mayor and Council: First Phase of Improvements: 1. Construction and placement of an adequate potable water service from the City Water Treatment Plant to the City Wastewater Treatment plant. 2. Update of the head works of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and related necessary improvements. 3. Rebuild and improvement of the two sanitary sewer lift stations on Main Street, State Route 10, in Laurel. Second Phase of Improvements: 1. Construction of an Activated Sludge System to replace the existing Rotating Biological Contactors (RBCs) system. 2. Install an Ultra-Violet Treatment System to replace the Ammonia Treatment System, without a building enclosure. 3. Construction of a Sanitary Sewer Main to replace an existing main, under the I-90 interstate highway. The city desires to have the "First Phase" of improvements be completed within the next three months. Please attend the Laurel City Council Workshop on January 27, 2009 to discuss these matters. Sincerely, William Sheridan • Chief Administrative Officer City of Laurel City of Laurel is an EEO Employer Equal Housing Opportunity