01-09-89 Council as WholeCOUNCIL WURKSHOP - EVERGREEN SEWER
5:00 PM JANUARY 9, 1989
The meeting was attended by Mayor Kennedy, CouncihTombers Nystul, Furlong,
. Hopkins, Saverud, Gunnersen and (later) Hafferman. Also attending were Scott
Anderson of Water Quality, Dave Stably of Stahly and Associates, Bill Leonard of
Midwest Assistance Program, Two Evergreen Water District Board Members and several
City Public Works Department Employees.
Scott Anderson presented a short video tape explaining the small diameter
innovative system.
He then reviewed with the council his written answers to the questions that were
submitted. (attached)
He said E.P.A. likes the small diameter systems because they cost less. Anderson
said they are convinced it is a viable alternative for Evergreen.
Anderson said they preferred the septic tank sludge be land applied rather than
run through a treatment plant.
Dave Stably reviewed his answers to questions #7, 8 & 9.
Scott Anderson reviewed the status of the Grant Money. If Evergreen doesn't do
something this year, there will be no more federal grant coney and they will have
to use loans to fund the project.
They need to complete these negotiations with Kalispell to get their grant.
Scott Anderson thought the Evergreen Water & Sewer District should am and operate
the project. The city wouldn't have to administer the grant.
Anderson asked the Mayor and Council if they had evidence it would cost the City
more and would the city be able to justify a 25% surcharge if imposed. Under
terms of the grant they would be reviewing the city's charges to Evergreen.
Councilman Nystul reviewed the issues to be resolved. They include the 25%
surcharge and the hook-up fees. Anderson suggested. Evergreen present a proposal
to the City.
Mayor Kennedy asked if the Water & Sewer Camd.ttee could continue the work on
these issues and Committee Chairman Nystul agreed.
Sewer Treatment Plant Foreman Olsen didn't have any concerns about the plant
handling the product from Evergreen.
City Surveyor Zavodny suggested the City be sure no part of the collection system
be overtaxed by the addition of Evergreen. Stahly said this is being considered
and Evergreen would pay for any improvements needed.
The meeting ended at 7:23 pm.
10 - 1 -
4 hUPrropi
Kalispell -Evergreen Questions
4 1. Will substantially everyone in the sewer district be required
to hook up within one year, like Woodland Park?
if collectors are built, the one-year hookup requirement applies.
Grant eligible capacity for interceptors will be based on
existing population within the service area but a one-year hookup
requirement will not be required when determining eligible
capacity (reserve cost capacity ratio). It is assumed that the
district will develop in phases therefore connection will be
linked to the construction of the respective phases.
2. Are 2' service lines going to be used?
Service lines for a conventional gravity sewer are typically 4".
Service lines where the sewage has been settled (i.e. following a
septic tank) can be less than 4" although we would anticipate
that a 4' service would be used unless a septic tank effluent
pump is needed. The small forcemain following an effluent pump
would probably be less that 4" to maintain adequate velocities.
3. Will new homes or business have to install septic tanks to
hook up to the system if a small diameter system is being used?
Yes in most cases. The collector lines and interceptors can be
• designed with less slope if they carry only settled sewage. This
reduction in slope is one of the main advantages of a small
diameter system as significant savings in excavation costs can be
realized. If some of the major interceptors (is closest to the
Kalispell connection point) are designed with more conventional
slopes then a connection could be made without a septic tank.
Often a combination of conventional and small diameter sewers
provides the best and least expensive means of servicing an area.
4. Are service lines grant eligible?
With a conventional sewer they are not. We only fund the "Tee"
installed in the sewer collector line. With a small diameter
sewer we fund the septic tank and the service lateral between the
tank and the street main. This difference can represent a major
cost savings to the individual homeowner 'as often the service
line is a major cost for a home not designed to be served by a
centralized sewer.
S. Will the septage from pumping the septic tanks be hauled to
the Kalispell WWTP? If so, how are these costs being paid and who
will be doing the pumping and hauling?
Septage can be treated at the WWTP or it is allowable to dispose
the material directly to the land at an approved disposal site.
If we participate in the costs of an septic system, the grantee
L
must form a maintenance management system and become responsible
u
for maintaining the tanks. It is not a homeowner responsibility.
The pumping and hauling can be a responsibility of the district,
the city, or contracted out to a private hauler. Costs are borne
by the users requiring the service.
6. Who will own and run the system and set the policies?
This depends on the arrangements made between the city and the
district. If annexation is not an issue, we would assume that
the district would own the system and contract with the city for
accepting a certain quantity of flow with certain
characteristics. The means of collecting the effluent should be
none of the cities concern under this arrangement.
Policies for sewer use will be established by the requirements of
our program, the district, and any contract arrangements agreed
to between the city and the district. Their user charge system
and sewer use ordinance would be very similar to the cities as
both entities have been required to meet the conditions of the
EPA grants program.
7,8,&9. To be answered by Stahly engineering.
Other questions
1. Will existing septic tanks be used and will they be a
• continued source of contamination to the area aquifers?
Most tanks will be replaced. Only those tanks proven to be in
good condition and not leaking would be left in the ground with
the new system. We typically estimate that 2/3 of the tanks
will require replacement.
2. Will septic tank effluent be detrimental to the wastewater
treatment plant?
No. Septic tanks remove settleable solids in a manner similar to
primary clarifiers which are an integral component to any
treatment facility. The BOD and suspended solids component will
be reduced by about 25%. Other than the increase in hydraulic
flow as a result of a more dilute waste, the affect to the
treatment plant will be minor to none in comparison to normal raw
sewage. An increased odor potential is possible with this type
of system but proper design should minimize the problem. All
sewage has an odor potential. The septic tank effluent (not grey
water) will be thoroughly mixed with the raw sewage by the time
it reaches the wastewater treatment plant.
3. As a regulatory and funding agency, how does the WQB feel
about small diameter sewers?
•We believe that these sewers are a proven type of technology that
,1 can save a significant amount of money under the right
circumstances. we have one system
. utilizes this technology and others
nationwide has been very favorable.
ongoing maintenance of the septic t
operation of the system.
•
0
built in the state which
in design. Experience
Good installation and
anks is important to the
4. Given the requirements of the construction grants program,
what sewage collection alternative should be built in Evergreen?
We must build the least expensive, environmentally acceptable
alternative. in this case the options are essentially equal in
costs as the difference is less that 5% Under these
circumstances, the grantee can select either option. The
increased grant participation level (75% in lieu of 55%) and the
eligibility of service lines to the septic tank often results in
the small diameter sewer option being significantly less
expensive on a user cost basis. A study just completed in
Missoula shows total costs of conventional and small diameter
sewers to be very close yet user costs for the small diameter
option are less than half of what the conventional system would
cost. in the case of Missoula as well as Evergreen, user costs
for the conventional system might be so expensive that this
option may simply be unaffordable and therefore not viable.
sTaHLJ
enaneerm
�Yvk Y�Ltl Ny�
assoaaTes
January 3, 1989 901 N. BENTON • HELENA, MONTANA 59601
PHONE 406/442-8594
John "Ed" Kennedy, Jr.
Mayor of Kalispell
Drawer 1997
Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997
RE: Evergreen Facility Plan
Dear Mayor Kennedy, Jr.,
Thank you for sending the minutes of the Public Works Committee/
City Council Workshop meeting of December 12, 1988. This type
of information is very helpful, since it gives us an idea of
everyone's concerns.
I have enclosed answers to the questions of the Council Members.
Some are not completley answered, since there are still some
gray areas. These are also my thoughts without the Evergreen
• District Directors input, so I would appreciate the opportunity
to modify some of the answers, should the Directors not agree.
I look forward to meeting with you and the Council on January
9, 1989 at 5:00 PM.
Sincerely,
STAHLY ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATES
. David Stahly
President
JDS:mje
Enclosure
OFFICES: 322 SECOND AVE. WEST • SUITE B • KALISPELL, MT 59901 • 406/755-8707
600 E. BASELINE • SUITE B2 • TEMPE, AZ 85283
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS:
• 1. QUESTION: WILL SUBSTANTIALLY EVERYONE IN THE SEWER DISTRICT
BE REQUIRED TO HOOK UP WITHIN ONE YEAR, LIKE WOODLAND SEWER
SID 337?
ANSWER: The total Evergreen area had a bond election a
couple of years ago, which was defeated. The election was
for incurring indebtedness to sewer the entire area.
During the past year, there has been renewed interest in
an Evergreen Sewer System, but the interest has been mainly
from the business strip, and the more populated areas.
With this in mind, it is believed the Sewer System will
need to be developed in phases, with Phase I probably being
the business strips, and some of the more populated areas
adjacent .to the strip. In all probability, an R.I.D./or
R.I.D.'s will be formed for the Phase I area. The requirement
would be for everyone in the R.I.D. area to hook onto the
system.
2. QUESTION: ARE THERE GOING TO BE ANY 2" SERVICE LINES?
ANSWER: The current plan has 4" service lines. The exception
would be if a residence required an individual lift station
because the house was lower than the collection line in
• the street. The size of the force line from the house,
in this case, is sometimes less than 4".
3. QUESTION: WILL NEW HOMES OR BUSINESSES HAVE TO INSTALL
SEPTIC TANKS TO HOOK UP TO THE SYSTEM? (IF THE SMALL DIAMETER
SYSTEM DESIGN IS CHOSEN.)
ANSWER: If the system were completely small diameter, then
yes, the new connectors would be required to install a septic
tank.
There. is a possibility that some of the businesses which
are adjacent to an interceptor sewer could proceed with
the conventional system.
4. QUESTION: ARE THE SERVICE LINES GRANT ELIGIBLE?
ANSWER: With the small diamter system, the service lines
are grant eligible up through and including the cost of
replacing old septic tanks.
0
5. QUESTION: WILL THE SEPTAGE FROM PUMPING THE SEPTIC TANKS
BE HAULED TO THE KALISPELL WWTP? IF SO, HOW ARE THESE COSTS
• BEING PAID AND WHO WILL BE DOING THE PUMPING AND HAULING?
ANSWER: There are a couple of options for disposal of septic
tank pumpings. One would certainly be to haul to the
Kalispell WWTP. The other would be to dispose the pumpings
by spreading onto an approved land site. During the design
phases, this decision is generally made. If land disposal
is opted, then the District would be required to select
an adequate site and receive a state permit for the site
and disposal rates on the site.
It is envisioned that the costs of the septic tank pumping
will be built into the 0 & M charges.
The final decision on who will be doing the pumping has
not been made. It could be done by District maintenance
personnel (with the purchase of a pumper truck), by City
of Kalispell personnel if they elected to maintain the system,
or by contract with private pumpers.
Again, our experience in Lincoln was to contract with private
pumpers, since they had previously been in the business
of pumping septic tanks in the area.
6. QUESTION: WHO WILL OWN AND RUN THE SYSTEM AND SET THE
POLICIES?
ANSWER: Since the Evergreen people will be paying for the
system, the Evergreen District should probably retain
ownership. However, this could be further explored for
other possibilities.
With regard to operation, this could be either the Evergreen
District, or under an arrangement with the City of Kalispell.
Setting policies could be done with a joint committee between
Evergreen and Kalispell. Again, this decision could be
made when the operation question is resolved.
7. QUESTION: IS THE ANNUAL O & M COST, INCLUDING SEPTIC TANK
PUMPING AND INSPECTION, OF $93,500 REALISTIC?
ANSWER: At the time these costs were developed, they seemed
reasonable. The costs were developed using the following
figures:
Labor -----------------------
$31,200
Power -----------------------
12,100
Materials -------------------
8,800
Main Cleaning ---------------
4,100
Lift Stations ---------------
Septic Tank Cleaning ---------
6,700
30,6,00
TOTAL
$93,500
The Evergreen Facility Plan 0 & M projected costs are:
Collection System ----------------- $ 93,500
• Force Main Pumping ---------------- 46,300
and stabilization pump
Irrigation Disposal --------------- ...9,800
TOTAL $149,600
The 0 & M costs for the treatment pond and disposal are
listed, so that a percentage can be developed for only the
Collection System, $93,500 - 149,600 = 638 of 0 & M budget
for the Collection System.
A similiar system was installed in Lincoln several years
ago. This system currently has 343 Equivalent Residential
Units (EQR). The average annual O & M budget for the past
two years has been $34,218, for:
- Collection System
- Force Main, pumping, stabilization pond,
and irrigation disposal
638 x 34,218 = $21,557 for the collection system.
1908 Evergreen Users 343 Lincoln Users x $21,557 = $119,915
This analysis indicates if a strict proportion were used,
• then the collection O & M budget for Evergreen should be
$119,915. However, there should be some economic advantages
in the larger number of users in Evergreen.
After review of the preliminary draft of the Evergreen
Facilities Plan by the reviewing agencies, then all comments
will be considered, and some cost adjustments may occur.
8. QUESTION: DOES THE MONTHLY RATE PROPOSED FOR DEBT
INCLUDE PRINCIPAL?
ANSWER: The monthly rate for debt retirement includes
principal and interest.
9. QUESTION: WHAT YEAR, OR RATE, WAS USED BY STAHLY IN HIS
EVERGREEN RATES ESTIMATES?
ANSWER: The debt retirement rates were calculated using
EPA guidelines of 8 5/88 interest rate over a 20 year period.
The interest rates are adjusted periodically by EPA.
is
1. STAGE 1 COST ESTIMATE
15" Sewer Main -
- 4,130 L.F.
@
$36.00 =
$
148,680
.
_
12" Sewer Main
- 3,280 L.F.
@
$30.00 =
$
98,400
10" Sewer Main - -
- 2,240 L.F.
@
$25.50 =
$
57,120
8" Sewer Main - --
9,360 L.F.
@
$21.50 =
$
201,240
6" Sewer Main - -
- 4,080 L.F.
@
$20.00 =
$
81,600
4" Small Diameter -
- 7,760 L.F.
@
$15.50 =,
$
120,280
4" Service Line - -
24,350 L.F.
@
$ 8.00 =
$
194,800
Force Main Crossing
400 L.F.
@
$50.00
= $
20,000
Force Main - -
- 6,800 L.F.
@
$35.00
= $
238,000*
Pump Station - - - -
- 1 Each
@
100,000
= $
100,000*
Lift Stations - - -
- 4 Each
@
20,000
= $
80,000
City of Kalispell- -
- Lump Sum
= $
87,000
Main Improvements
Aeration Equipment -
- Lump Sum
= $
30,000*
•
22,400
Manholes - - - - - -
- 16 Each
@
$14.00
= $
Cleanouts - - - - -
- 93 Each
@
$175.00
= $
16,275
Septic Tanks - - - -
- 120 Each
@
1250.00
= $
150,000
SUBTOTAL $1,645,795
25% Administrative, Legal, Engineering, 411,449
and Contingency
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $2,057,244
Kalispell Hookup fee (395 EpR's X $500) $ 197,500
TOTAL COST $2,254,744
*55% Funding Level
0
13-4