Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-29 - MinutesCity Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page l of 13 Member Aldermen Mayor Dan Coady Ward 1 Position 1 — Adella Gray V10 Ward 2 Position l - Kyle rt Cook CityAttorney Kit Williams � 1 Ward 3 Position 2—Robert Ferrell Ward 4 Position 2 - Lioneld Jordan City Clerk Sondra Smith ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Water & Sewer Committee Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council Water & Sewer Committee was held on July 29, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alderman Kyle Cook, Chair; Alderman Lioneld Jordan; Alderman Robert Ferrell; Alderwoman Adella Gray OTHER ALDERMEN PRESENT: Alderwoman Shirley Lucas STAFF PRESENT: David Jurgens; Ron Petrie; Gary Dumas, Mayor Dan Coolly; City Attorney Kit Williams OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Davis, Davis Business Planning (representing Greenland); Billy Ammons, OMI Chairman Kyle Cook called the meeting to order. 1. Approve Minutes Alderman Jordan moved that the minutes of the Water & Sewer Committee meeting held on June 10, 2008 be approved as distributed. Alderman Ferrell seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. WSIP Update a. West Side WWTP Change Order Number 5 David Jurgens reviewed the list of WSIP projects and said everything is pretty much done. Some change orders and items for bid will be discussed later in the meeting. He said we are now buttoning up details on the West Side plant. The odor control is still not completely up to speed. It is a biological process and you have to produce enough odor -causative agents to grow the bacteria to eliminate the odors. That process is still underway. b. Noland WWTP EP -3 Contract David Jurgens said the bids received were a little higher than expected. Crossland Heavy (the low bidder) has done a number of other jobs for the City and has done a very good job. Staff 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 2 of 13 feels it is a fair and reasonable price and they and the engineer recommend awarding the contract. Staff requests that this be forwarded to the City Council for approval and be placed on the Consent Agenda. Alderman Ferrell asked how much is left in the project total for the EP -3 Crossland contract. David Jurgens said in the Fayetteville -only portion of the WSIP our contingency is at $8.8 million (after this bid). Some of this will be spent because we will have some other items that come in higher than expected. Alderman Ferrell asked what the budget was for EP -3. David Jurgens said the engineer's estimate was $2 million. He explained that the EP -3 project is to fix some cracks in the aeration basins built in the 1960's, upgrade a lot of the electrical components, get rid of the effluent pumping station (because we no longer pump the water over the hill) and other work that could not be done until after the West Plant came on line. It also takes down and repairs two clarifiers which have not been rebuilt since the 1960's. Alderman Cook said this item is on the City Council agenda but cannot be placed on the Consent Agenda because the agenda for that meeting has already been set. Alderman Ferrell moved that the EP -3 Contract be forwarded to the City Council for approval. Alderman Jordan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. EL -2 Change Order 2 David Jurgens said this is a $32,000 change order to a $12 million contract with Rosetta Construction. Construction is almost complete and this change order is based on what was found underground that wasn't as expected. d. EL -3 Discussion David Jurgens said he wants to talk about this later in the meeting. e. WL -12 Change Order 1 David Jurgens said this $5300 change order is to put conduits across Double Springs Road. It is a cost share between Fayetteville and Farmington with Fayetteville paying the smaller portion ($1500). The entire amount is covered by the contingency. f. WL -6 Change Order Number 6 David Jurgens said this is a reconciliation change order. Changes had to be made to meet the manufacturer's warranty requirements for electrical protection (stronger wiring and breakers) on the channel monster. This will close out this contract. We still came in under what was anticipated on this contract. g. Broyles Road Change Order 1 David Jurgens said Broyles Road is about done. This is the final reconciliation change order 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 3 of 13 Alderman Ferrell asked for an explanation of what is covered by this change order. David Jurgens said the biggest portion was due to a change that had to be made due to a conflict between an Ozarks Electric pole and the wing wall from a culvert. We had to go back to get Corps of Engineers approval because it was within the floodway. Also some material (dirt) was stockpiled nearby to be used in case we decide to do a wetlands bank. We also had to add in a couple of curb cuts that were not included in the original plans. h. Mally Wagnon Lift Station Change Order 2 David Jurgens said this is the final reconciliation for this contract and the new lift station is in service. i. Ozarks Electric Line Relocation David Jurgens said Ozarks Electric has completed the relocation work on the Broyles Road project. They have sent the City a check for $35,000 which is the balance remaining after work was completed. j. EL -3 Condemnation Packets David Jurgens said there were eight easements remaining when this agenda was created. We have since acquired three so there are only five remaining. He explained the project and said all except one of these are temporary construction easements. He talked about the status of each easement on the list. Mr. Jurgens asked for authorization to send to the full Council for condemnation those easements that cannot be resolved within the next couple of weeks. He said this is not an end of negotiations with the property owners but we need to get the process started. Alderman Ferrell suggested that the condemnation packets be forwarded to the City Council, contingent upon removal of any easement from the list for condemnation if it is resolved before litigation is started. Other Committee members agreed. 3. Mt. Sequoyah Pressure Plane Water Storage Update (moved from #8 on Agenda) David Jurgens said at the last meeting Committee members requested input from City Attorney Kit Williams as to whether or not the City owns the land on Hyland Park. He said staff has met with several members of the POA regarding technical issues and alternate locations. Kit Williams said the memo sent to him by Connie Clark regarding this issue was well researched and well argued. He reviewed the history of this item quoting from Plat Review Committee and Fayetteville Planning Commission meetings held between March and July of 1974. He said the Plat Review Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat for Phase 2 of Hyland Park subdivision on March 28, 1974. Mr. Jim Lindsey presented the plat, substantially revised from an earlier submission. Mr. Williams quoted from the minutes that City employee Bobby Jones said, "the site for the water facility should be shown some way. I would suggest giving it a lot number with a note on the plat that the lot has been approved by the Planning Commission for a site for a water storage tank or however it is to be used". On May 16, 1974 the Plat Committee met again and considered Hyland Park Phase 2. City engineer Paul Matke said "Lot 22 will be a water storage site and will be deeded to the City. It will not be a utility easement. It will be public property. The note referenced to it should 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 4 of 13 be changed to say that it is to become the property of the City of Fayetteville then sketch in whatever easements utility companies need. Make the note similar to one used on Rosewood Estates. That plat had a note which read `Lot _ has been approved by the Planning Commission for construction of the water pump station. "' Quoting from May 28, 1974 minutes, Mr. Williams read that the Planning Commission "reviewed the proposed final plat of Hyland Park Phase 2, Block S with the president ofHyland Park, Inc., Mr. Lindsey present and representing the developers. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the final plat bypassing Resolution PC23-74. Section 2 of that resolution states that the City of Fayetteville accept the final plat along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in Hyland Park Subdivision... " On June 4, 1974 the Fayetteville Board of Directors approved the Hyland Park Subdivision, Phase 2, Block 5 and passed Ordinance 20-15 which stated "the City of Fayetteville hereby accepts and confirms the f nal plat of Hyland Park Subdivision Phase 2 Block S; hereby accepts and confirms the dedication of the streets and utility easements shown therein and thereby declares the street and utility easements to be public streets and utility easements and the Fayetteville Board of Directors hereby assumes the care, control and jurisdiction of same. " On July 19, 1974 Nita Lindsey, as secretary for Hyland Park, Inc. signed a corporate resolution stating that as secretary of Hyland Park, Inc. she was authorized to execute the certificate of ownership and dedication as shown on this final plat. Both Jim and Nita Lindsey signed the Certificate of Ownership and Dedication on July 19, 1974. Mr. Williams stated that Note 3 is key to this issue. It says, "Lot 22 has been approved by the Planning Commission for construction of a water tower and is to become the property of the City of Fayetteville. " The final plat also shows "certificate of acceptance and dedications " which state that "The dedications as shown on this subdivision are hereby accepted by the Fayetteville City Board of Directors on June 4, 1974 ". This was signed by Mayor Russell Purdy and attested to by City Clerk Darlene Westbrook on July 25, 1974. Thereafter this final plat was filed for record at the Washington County Courthouse. Mr. Williams said that the Property Owners Association has prepared a memorandum arguing that we do not own Lot 22 (the water tank site) or that we have abandoned any rights we might have had to Lot 22. They further assert that, "if the City of Fayetteville condemns Lot 22 it will subject itself to a claim for inverse condemnation. " In responding to these allegations Mr. Williams explained how the City complies with Ark. Code Annotated 14- 31-102 which is cited by the POA but said he doesn't believe this statute applies to any dedications other than streets and alleys. He believes the statute was enacted in order to protect cities from maintenance responsibilities for streets that could be unilaterally dedicated by a property owner. The POA admits that this statute refers only to streets and alleys but argues it should be a requirement for any property dedicated to public use. Mr. Williams quoted the Supreme Court regarding interpretation of statutes saying the basic rule of statutory construction is to give affect to the intent of the Legislature. He said the City construes a statute just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usual accepted meaning. In this case the statute refers to streets and alleys. Even if the statute did apply to other property, Ordinance 20-15 of June 4, 1974 and the Certificate of Acceptance of Dedication on the final plat dispel any issue concerning whether or not this dedication was accepted. A second argument of the POA is that the Certificate of Ownership and Dedication did not specifically name the water tank site, which is Lot 22. Instead it states, "We do hereby dedicate all streets, alleys, easements, parks and other open spaces to public or private use as noted". The POA would like to emphasize `for private use". However, Mr. Williams believes the "as noted" is important. The notes on the final plat say that Lot 22 has been approved by the Planning Commission for construction of a water tower and is to become the property of the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Williams argued that Lot 22 is clearly an open space and does not have the designation of "common property" as Lot 23 (right across the street) carries. He said that is important because common property is specifically "intended for use by the homeowners in the Hyland Parkfor recreation" and thus is private use 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 5 of 13 (as quoted from the final plat). Lot 22 has the words "the property of the City of Fayetteville", and "for construction of a water tower". Mr. Williams says this makes it very clearly an expressly public, not private, property. The POA challenges that interpretation of language in the final plat by citing a 1993 case entitled "City of Sherwood vs. Cook ". In that case the Supreme Court said the two essential elements of dedication are the owner's appropriation of the property to its intended use and its acceptance by the public. The POA contends that neither of these elements has been met in this particular case. Mr. Williams said he believes Note 3 clearly appropriates Lot 22 for a water tower and as property of the City of Fayetteville and he believes the Certificate of Acceptance of Dedication signed by Mayor Purdy as well as Ordinance 20-15 constitutes an acceptance. The Arkansas Supreme Court in the City of Sherwood case also held that "the dedication is sufficient if it appears from consideration of the plat as a whole, with reference to the surrounding circumstances that the spaces were intended to be devoted to a public use ". Mr. Williams identified all the meeting minutes where it was asserted time and again that we needed to have a note indicating that this will be a water tank site and the property of the City of Fayetteville as the "surrounding circumstances. He believes all these surrounding circumstances lend further strength to the City's argument that it does in fact own this land. The POA argues that Note 3 is not really a dedication to the public but the developers were "reserving unto themselves the right to sell Lot 22 to the City of Fayetteville for construction of a water tower". Mr. Williams noted that neither Note 3 nor the Certificate of Ownership and Dedication signed by Mr. & Mrs. Lindsey say anything like that. But even if the POA could argue that Note 3 and the Certificate of Dedication were unclear or ambiguous Mr. Williams quoted from the 2005 case of the City of Cabot vs. Bryans: "any doubt or ambiguity in the meaning of a dedication or dedication plat is construed most strongly against the dedicator (the owner) and to the reasonable advantage of the grantees of the dedicated use, i.e. so as to benefit the public rather than the donor. " The next issue presented by the POA is whether the City has abandoned its right to Lot 22 because it has been 34 years since all this was done and in those years we have not built the tank or put up a fence and have in fact allowed the neighbors to care for the lot. The POA contends that any interest the City might have had in Lot 22 has been abandoned and lost from non-use or lack of fencing and maintenance. Mr. Williams believes there is very little statutory case law support for this assertion. He read again from the City of Sherwood vs. Cook case: "When an owner of land files a plat and thereafter lots are sold with reference to it, such action constitutes an irrevocable dedication of any street or passageway for public use shown or indicated on the plat. Furthermore, whenever a dedication becomes irrevocable, a public authority can accept the dedication for public use whenever the necessity occurs. Thus the City need not begin any active use of the dedication at any particular time. " Mr. Williams said that there is no time limit on when the City has to accept the dedication but it is as "necessity occurs". In the City of Cabot vs. Bryans case, the Bryans' tried to acquire title to an access easement designated as "reserved" for a future right of way on a final plat. They asserted that they had used the parcel as their own and were entitled to it through adverse possession. Code 22-1-204 prohibits the adverse possession of realty against the city. Normally a city cannot have any land taken from it through adverse possession. In that case the Court said, "an owner of land who sells lots by reference to a plat makes an irrevocable dedication of ,the streets, alleys, squares, parks and other public places marked as such on the plat to the public use and that dedication becomes irrevocable the moment these acts occur. " Where the lots have been sold by reference to a plat, no formal acceptance by the city is necessary because by that act the dedication becomes irrevocable. "Once the dedication has occurred, the city may accept it at any time or when the necessity shall arise. " The Fayetteville Water & Sewer Division and the Fire Department say that the necessity to construct a water tower is now. In quoting further from the Supreme Court case, Mr. Williams read: "the city need not have formally accepted or confirmed the dedication of the parcel under the circumstances of this case or made immediate 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 6 of 13 use of the parcel once acquired. The irrevocable dedication occurred when lots were sold by reference to the plat and the city at that point could accept the dedication at any time. Such dedication and right to accept it invested the city with, at the very least, the right to possession of the parcel, which under the Arkansas Code Annotated 22-1-204 would bar appellee's adverse possession claim. " The Court ruled in favor of the city in that particular case. The final argument made by the POA was that the City would be liable for inverse condemnation if we condemned the lot and built a water tower on it. Mr. Williams addressed this issue even though he believes the City owns the lot and would not have to condemn it. He mentioned a 1990 Supreme Court case, Minton vs. Craighead County. In that case the owners claimed the residential properties had been devalued because Craighead County had built a jail in their neighborhood. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of their claims as follows: "It must often happen that the value of a city lot is diminished as the result of the condemnation of adjoining property for some distasteful purpose, such as construction of a city jail. But as a court convincingly demonstrated in the City of Gary vs. Moore (an Oklahoma case) this is an injury for which the law does not and never has afforded any relief". Mr. Williams said it is his opinion that the City does in fact legally own Lot 22. That doesn't mean that is where the water tank must be built but it means the City almost certainly has the right to construct a water tank on that site. The cases cited say if there is ambiguity it is going to construed and interpreted in the City's favor so he believes we are on fairly firm ground in asserting that we do own the water tank site. Alderman Cook opened the floor for public discussion. Bill Clark said he lives fairly close to the site. He disagreed with Mr. Williams' argument and said he believes there is no question that Lot 22 is owned by the Property Owners Association. He said the deed to the property is in the name of the POA and the property has never been dedicated to the City. He referred to the dedication language of "is to become". He believes a storage tank can be placed elsewhere with a bigger pump to protect the property owners in this area. He urged the City to consider other sites for this water tank. Alderman Cook asked staff to respond to Mr. Clark's comments regarding the availability of other sites. David Jurgens said in the study done by McClelland four sites were identified. He said the Hyland Park Hill sites are optimum and explained physical reasons for this. He talked about another site on Hyland Park behind the tennis courts of the POA lot that would also work for the tower. The tank would be a few feet shorter and very close in price. He said he prefers this site but the City doesn't own the land. He said either of these sites would be essentially optimal and roughly equivalent as far as accomplishing what the water system needs. The other two sites mentioned in the study aren't nearly as desirable either from a cost standpoint or from a hydraulic standpoint. He said a major issue is the volume of water that the system can provide. Putting in a larger pump doesn't provide enough volume. He said pumps can push water a certain distance but it is against pipe friction and it takes force to push water further. Therefore there is a significant amount of piping work that would have to be done and the pipes in this pressure plane are as much as 80 years old. He said we would have to do several million dollars more worth of piping work in order to provide a minimal requirement. Although the other sites would physically work, he repeated that the sites on this hilltop are the most desirable. Alderman Ferrell asked who owns the land behind the POA tennis courts. Bill Clark said he believes it is owned by Bob Gaddy's Lover's Lane LLC. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 7 of 13 Alderman Cook asked how Mr. Clark and the other neighbors feel about using this property. Bill Clark said he is fine with it but doesn't know how Mr. Gaddy will feel. He mentioned replacing a water tower that is already in place and other possible options. Alderman Cook asked what was discussed at the neighborhood meeting. Mayor Coody said he saw the site for the first time when he was invited to the neighborhood meeting. When he saw it he clearly understood the concern. However the issue is bigger than just the neighborhood. He said this water tower is a factor in reducing the City's ISO rating which would lower everyone's insurance rates. He said there are apparently real pressure and volume problems in the area. He suggested that he and some of the neighbors might approach Mr. Gaddy about the possible use of his property for the tower. He said if we could find a way to move the site to this alternative location, the City could achieve its goals of providing fire protection and the water pressure that is lacking and also lowering everyone's fire insurance rates. He said this was essentially what was discussed at the meeting he attended. Alderman Ferrell asked Mr. Clark if the City selects the second option (lot behind the tennis courts) and then decides to sell Lot 22 whether, hypothetically, the City could expect that sale to be challenged. Bill Clark said he personally would see no problem with that. He believes the POA owns the lot but feels they would be willing to work with the City in that situation. David Jurgens said at the end of his meeting with the neighborhood he believes everyone agreed that the site behind the tennis court was desirable. In response to a question from Alderman Cook, David Jurgens said the State has not given the City any deadlines in this and he doesn't know that they will. However, we have an identified deficiency and he isn't sure about the repercussions if there is a fire and our water system failed to provide enough water to fight it. Alderman Cook said he would like to set a deadline on trying to figure this. Chip Wright focused on the part of the note that says "is to become". He stated his opinion that the City didn't take the next step in getting Lot 22 dedicated as a future site of a water tower. David Jurgens said he would like to have a broader meeting with the Committee, possibly dedicated only to this subject. Once a meeting is scheduled he feels it would be proper to notify neighborhoods surrounding the other potential sites and residents who are affected by the insufficient fire protection. He said he feels we have to do something to solve a known problem. Kit Williams said he doesn't think we would have liability to a homeowner whose house burned down. But we do have is a responsibility to all our citizens to lower their insurance rates if possible and to provide the kind of fire protection that we endeavor to provide citywide. He said he feels fairly strongly that the facts in this situation support the City much more than the property owners association. However, there are arguments to be made on both sides. It could have been cleaner and clearer but it is his opinion that the plat and the circumstances surrounding it indicate that the land was dedicated to the City for use as a water tank site. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 8 of 13 Alderman Ferrell said he supported a meeting with the owners of the property behind the tennis courts to see if that land is a possibility for the tank site. He asked the POA members present how many would support the City selling Lot 22 to help defray the cost of purchasing the lot behind the tennis courts. Bill Clark said without admitting that ownership, he would support that. Many others in the audience agreed. Kit Williams said he believes the only people we could sell the lot to would be the POA. He said the lot was dedicated to the City for a water tower site and not for any other use. He said we would need consent from the POA to sell it. Alderwoman Gray asked the difference in the price of the other possible locations. She said from the standpoint of taxpayers' money that would be one of her biggest questions. David Jurgens referred back to the memo quoting the prices from McClelland Engineering. He said he can only give a dollar amount for the engineering/construction portion but not for the land purchase. There have been no appraisals done. A member of the audience said she had heard that this water tower would not help the water pressure of the residents on Mt. Sequoyah. David Jurgens said that is incorrect. He said the residents on the top of this hill would be the ones to benefit most. He said the water tower would provide very consistent pressure whatever the demand. It also provides enough volume that there would be ample flow in case of a fire. He repeated his concerns about whether the flow there now would be adequate to fight a fire. Alderman Cook closed the discussion and said there would be more opportunities to speak about this. He agreed that we should discuss what the options are with Mr. Gaddy. He also agreed with Mr. Jurgens that a larger meeting should be scheduled but he said he does want to set a deadline to try to get this done. Alderwoman Gray suggested a meeting in August. David Jurgens said that can be done, possibly the week before the next scheduled Water & Sewer Committee meeting. He said he will look at the schedule. 2. c. EL -3 Discussion (the Committee returned to this discussion from earlier in the agenda) David Jurgens said we received a proposal from the contractor for EL -2 (the line from Happy Hollow to the Noland Plant). The contractor was $4 million below the engineer's estimate on that project and about $4 million below the average of bids for that job. The contractor has done excellent work and is on schedule. They have brought forward a proposal to the City to do the EL -3 and EL -5 job as a change order to the existing contract for EL -2. The price is a little over $6.9 million. This price is actually less than Mr. Jurgens' 2005 estimate for that construction contract. The contractor benefits by getting the job and continuing with crews he already has mobilized. This project is continuing the same type and size of pipe as on EL -2. Mr. Jurgens said the City would save a significant amount of money by taking this offer. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 9 of 13 Alderman Cook asked about the legality of this. Peggy Vice, Purchasing Manager said the State has told her on numerous occasions that they often do change orders and add projects onto a contract they have bid, based on a previous bid of the same type of work. She said she has tried to verify this again in the past couple of days with the State but has not been able to reach anyone who could verify it. David Jurgens said he is just throwing this out as an offer. He said he believes we can save money by doing this but understands why there would be discomfort with a change order this large. He said we could get work started two months earlier with this proposal. In response to a question from Alderman Jordan, David Jurgens said this would be a change order to an existing bid — a competitive bid for which this contractor was awarded the EL -2 project. Peggy Vice said she feels comfortable with this but she does want to verify it with the State. She said the City Attorney wants to do it as a bid waiver instead of a change order. Gary Dumas said if this was just a change in scope of the contractor's existing contract on El -2 it would be a change order. It is very seldom that the City has a change order of this magnitude but though it is not normal it makes a lot of sense. If you look at it as a bid waiver it would be a no -bid contract. Either way it accomplishes the same thing if the Committee believes the values the contractor has put on the various items in the proposal are good. David Jurgens said he believes the values on these items, based on the original competitive bid, are very good. Gary Dumas said there is a gamble. With this we know what we are getting. If we go through the bid process the number can go up or it could go down. Alderman Cook agreed. He said we broke down these bid packages for a reason originally. There was logic behind that break down. He said in private industry this happens all the time but this is not private industry and that changes the perspective. Alderman Ferrell said this has been such a big project and we haven't had a stumble. Everything is going pretty good. He said he understands the concerns about getting a better deal and getting it done faster but he would rather do this "according to Hoyle". Alderwoman Gray said it sounds good to her. Alderman Jordan said he doesn't like no -bid contracts. David Jurgens said we will go with the traditional bid process. 2. WSIP Update David Jurgens passed out the "rainbow sheet" and reviewed it for the Committee. He said $134.6 million has been awarded for construction or purchases for the Fayetteville portion of the WSIP. We have about $10 million left to go and our contingency is about $8.6 million. Of that 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 10 of 13 contingency about $4.8 million is not linked to any specific contract. He reviewed the Farmington piece of the WSIP and said there is only one major piece left to contract on that. He talked about the EL -3 and EL -5 and said that combined they are estimated at $6.6 million (a 2005 estimate). In addition to that he said we have a cost share proposal coming forward soon from Southpass to increase the size of some of the pipes (necessary because the Southpass development extends the City limits). In response to a question from Alderman Ferrell, David Jurgens said it doesn't hurt the City to have the larger diameter pipe no matter how long it takes Southpass to develop or whoever might end up developing this area. At some point the pipes will be necessary and this cost share prevents us from having to build the line later without the cost share. David Jurgens said if the Committee prefers he can bid this with both size pipes. If we get the agreement we can build it with the larger size pipe. If we don't get the agreement we can build it with the smaller size pipe. In response to a question from Alderman Ferrell, David Jurgens said it would cost around $1,000 to $2,000 to have the engineer draw up two sets of plans and specs. One of the advantages is that it gives us a firm number on which to base the dollar value of the cost share. 3. Impact Fee Discussion David Jurgens said we haven't made much progress since the last meeting on this. 4. Sloan West Side WWTP Property Purchase Discussion David Jurgens said this item can be moved to the next meeting. 5. Mount Seguoyah Water and Sewer Upgrades David Jurgens said this project will be bid soon. 6. Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Update David Jurgens said this is all happening the way it is supposed to and staff is happy. 7. Sludge Projected 2009 Costs and Alternative Discussion David Jurgens said when Billy Ammons gave the OMI report he mentioned that the cost of sludge processing is going up a lot next year. There are also major areas of risk with hauling sludge to a landfill. We now haul it to a landfill in Oklahoma driving roughly 900 miles per day with a tractor/trailer filled with sludge. Alderman Jordan asked how many truckloads a day we are hauling to the landfill. Billy Ammons said based on a 7 day week and 365 day year, we haul 2.7 truckloads a day. He said they don't haul 7 days a week so he would estimate about 18 loads a week. David Jurgens explained that another area of risk is if the landfill says they won't take municipal sludge any longer. That has happened with every landfill in Kansas and has happened 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 11 of 13 for a brief period at the one we haul to due to an odor complaint. We have no backup. He said Billy Ammons, OMI has been working on an analysis of possible alternatives to consider Billy Ammons said a number of studies have been done regarding sludge disposal. One was done by Black & Veatch at the beginning of the WSIP to determine whether the City should include sludge disposal as a part of the WSIP. Another study was done three or four years later by Carter Burgess and CDM for the cities to the north of us. Many of the potential or currently available technologies don't really apply in our area. One of the major ones, land application, won't work for the same reason we don't use it now — we are a nutrient surplus area and applying to the land here is very complicated and not cost affective. Most of the other possibilities involve making the sludge into a product that can be used by another industry or in another manner. One possibility is making it available for use by homeowners. He said they have talked to a number people and recommend that the Committee look very strongly at a combination of three technologies. 1) Thermal drying uses natural gas to dry the sludge to 90% plus, Class A solids with which you can do whatever you want (including use it in home gardens). It's very inexpensive to transport so it could be given away. 2) Solar drying is where you basically have a big greenhouse on a concrete slab and you put the solids in there to dry. The energy is free but it takes a lot of solar greenhouses to get by during the winter and spring months which involves a huge amount of capital. 3) Composting has a lot of positives. The negatives are that it takes a huge amount of bulking agent (typically wood chips) which we really don't have readily available here. If we purchase that bulking agent, this process becomes very expensive. Also the market locally to get rid of the compost does not exist. His recommendation is to build a few of the solar dryers to partially dry the solids. (If that's all we did, it would pay for itself in ten to twelve years). Combining that with composting makes the composting operation more efficient because it takes less bulking agent due to starting with a dryer product. Starting on a small scale would allow us to develop the compost market over time. In answer to a question from Alderman Ferrell, David Jurgens said the existing sewer rates are not built for the increased prices we will see in sludge (bio solids) processing for next year. He said we could likely take any money remaining after everything is completed on the WSIP and address this issue. Alderman Cook said he believes this is a huge issue. David Jurgens said we have been researching grants to do a pilot program. We've also been looking at grants for construction. One of the challenges we face is that we are in a nutrient surplus area which means we can't put it on the land because there's more nutrient produced in the area than there is available land to put it on and more than the watersheds can receive. So the most common alternative is not available to us. He said staff is looking at a combination of several alternatives that would maximize the efficiency of each alternative. Alderman Ferrell asked if these processes would be mechanized or labor intensive. Billy Ammons said there is a fair amount of labor involved. He said you could make it mechanized but that would make it a lot more expensive up front. Alderman Cook said the bottom line is what kind of cost increases are we looking at if we keep doing what we're doing now. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 12 of 13 Billy Ammons said we will see about a 40% cost increase next year —just over double what we were paying in 2003 when we started this process. The cost will be about $1.1 million next year In response to a question from Alderman Ferrell, Gary Dumas talked a little about the the possibility of trucking sludge to the Cherokee Landfill at some point in the future. He said that even if that works out, we would still probably want to reduce the volume as much as possible with the solar drying just for trucking purposes. Billy Ammons emphasized that we have to take care of biosolids on a daily basis. It is an absolute necessity cannot be put off. He said the first landfill we hauled to was shut down by DEQ because they couldn't get enough trash to mix with the biosolids. If something were to happen to the landfill we are currently using, we would have no viable alternative. In response to a question from Alderman Jordan, David Jurgens said that John Coleman, the Sustainability Coordinator supports the solar drying concept. Billy Ammons said the process just doesn't pay right now and Mr. Coleman is trying to come up with things that pay. It's difficult to make the case that it is financially viable. Mr. Ammons said he would like to start a pilot project this fall on the composting piece. He said he would love to do the solar drying also but it would be hard to do that on a pilot scale. Alderman Cook said he would like to see a proposal on what we are talking about doing and what it will cost. In response to a question from Gary Dumas, Billy Ammons said the pilot would be on a very small scale — a couple of truckloads — and he would prefer to keep it at the Noland site so we wouldn't have to worry about permitting issues. But he said he would need to approach the State very soon if we are going to get approval to do it this fall. He said this would be similar to what Bentonville does but we have a lot more to deal with so we have to have a little bit more sophistication. He would like to evaluate some home-grown bulking agents in conjunction with the wood chips the City already produces to see if we can combine some of them. Alderman Cook said he would like to see some estimate of the capital costs to do any of the proposed options. Billy Ammons said we would need $4 million for the solar system; $3 million for the thermal system and about $1.5 million to start with on the composting. At that point, however, our operating costs would go down. Over a period of time we would recover the costs. David Jurgens said the report should be ready for the Committee very soon. Alderman Cook said he is not opposed to doing a pilot but wants to know the potential costs of the alternatives. 9. 36" Water Line Improvements installation work David Jurgens said we are making progress on the final punch list. 10. Greenland Contract Negotiation Letter 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 13 of 13 David Jurgens said we have received the formal notification letter from Greenland that they want to renegotiate their contract for wastewater services and/or move toward negotiation for the City of Fayetteville to take ownership of the Greenland wastewater system. Alderman Cook said this is an item where we need a deadline. David Jurgens said the current contract runs out in December 2008. He said he hopes to bring something before the Committee by the end of August. 11. Water/Sewer Committee Meeting The next meeting of the Water & Sewer Committee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 5:15 p.m.(following the Equipment Committee meeting) in Room 326. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org