Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1994 City Council0U5440 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 1994 The Regular Session of the City Council of the City of The Colony, Texas was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on the 7th day of November, 1994, at City Hall with the following Council roll call: William W. Manning, Mayor Present Mike Lynch, Mayor Pro-Tern Present Toby Pollard, Councilman Present Kay Hardin, Councilman Present Rob Burchard, Councilman Present John Dillard, Councilman Present Lynda Tate, Councilman Present and with seven present, a quorum was established and the following items were addressed: 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT Larry Bryant, 4304 N. Colon_v, asked Mayor Manning to recognize the following Boy Scouts from Troop 226 who are working on their merit badges by attending this council meeting: Jackie Cushing, Bonner Bryant, Chris Heydricks, Anthony Dagenais and Justin Miears. Phillip Alger. 4416 Nervin. representing The Colony Youth Football League asked permission to use the City logo. Mayor Manning said that is handled by the City Manager and to contact him tomorrow. Mr. Smith indicated it would not be a problem. Mark Wen'y, 4520 Hale, also representing The Colony Youth Football League addressed the council regarding the fields, stating that parking in the area needs to be expanded and roped off. He said sandy loam on the sidelines would help grass grow and that lights are needed on at least one of the fields because there is no place for the teams to practice at night. 3. MAYORAL PROCI.AMATION RECOGNIZING FIRST COLONY BANK FOR 15 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE COLONY Mayor Manning read the proclamation in it's entirety as follows: WHEREAS, The Colony Bank was established and opened for business in November 1979; and 4 WHEREAS, the name of The Colony Bank was changed in June 1985 to First Colony Bank; and WHEREAS, First Colony Bank is an independent and home owned bank managed and staffed by 25 employees, all of whom are members of our community; and WHEREAS, First Colony Bank has a Business Development Committee consisting of community leaders who give invaluable input concerning our community: NOW, THEREFORE, I, William W. Manning, Mayor of the City of The Colony, do hereby recognize the celebration of the fifteenth anniversary of First Colony Bank during the month of November, 1994, and encourage all residents to continue to support the first financial institution to be located in the City of The Colony. SIGNED AND SEALED this 7th day of November, 1994. William W. Manning, Mayor Don Flatt, President, said the bank is one of only a handful of businesses that has lasted 15 years in The Colony and invited everyone to attend a reception in the lobby of the bank on Friday. He said he hopes that in the year 2004, he will be invited back to celebrate 25 years for the bank. 4. MAYORAL PROCLAMATION DECLARING NOVEMBER 20-27, 1994 AS NATIONAL BIBLE WEEK Mayor Manning stated that the following proclamation is not an endorsement of any one religion and that other groups are welcome to request similar proclamations. Mayor Manning read the proclamation in it's entirety as follows: WHEREAS, the Bible is the foundational document of the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our nation was conceived; and WHEREAS, the Bible has been a constant source of moral and spiritual guidance for Americans throughout our history' and WHEREAS, the Bible has profoundly influenced our nation's are, literature, music, laws and sense of charity; and WHEREAS, the Bible continues to provide inspiration, hope and comfort for millions of Americans today; and WHEREAS, for fifty-four years women and men of all faiths have banded together in the Laymen's National Bible Association to sponsor National Bible Week as a time to 5 00545i remind their fellow Americans of the Bible's unique place in American life; and WHEREAS, this annual emphasis has helped to strengthen spiritual understanding throughout America by encouraging personal reading and study of the Bible; NOW, THEREFORE, I, William W. Manning, Mayor of the City of The Colony, do hereby proclaim November 20 to 27, 1994 as NATIONAL BIBLE WEEK in the City of The Colony. I urge all my fellow citizens to participate in the observance of National Bible Week by reading the Bible and discovering for themselves its values for personal and community life. William W. Manning, Mayor Patti A. Hicks, TRMC, City Secretary 5. MAYORAL PROCLAMATION DECLARING NOVEMBER 14 - 20, 1994 AS NATIONAL CHILDREN'S BOOK WEEK Mayor Manning read the proclamation in it's entirety as follows: WHEREAS, books are one of the best ways to bring the world of information and ideas to the child; and WHEREAS, books can expand the child's world, exciting his or her imagination, directing goals, and inspiring dreams; and WHEREAS, books are vital to a child's educational growth and should be available to all children to buy, to borrow and to own; and WHEREAS, when we provide "Books for Everyone, ...", we remind children and ourselves how worthwhile and important reading books truly is; and WHEREAS, National Children's Book Week is celebrating seventy-five years of dedication to broadening children's horizons through the promotion of children's literature and encouraging them to become lifelong readers; NOW, THEREFORE, I, William W. Manning, Mayor of The Colony, Texas, do hereby proclaim November 14 through November 20, 1994 to be NATIONAL CHILDREN'S BOOK WEEK 6 in the City of The Colony, and encourage the year-round reading and enjoyment of children's books. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of The Colony, Texas to be affixed this 7th day of November, 1994. William W. Manning, Mayor Youth Services Librarian, Carole Blossom accepted the resolution and invited citizens to attend the special programs to be held at the Library during the next week. 6. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Manning summarized the items on the Consent Agenda. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD SEPTEMBER 26, OCTOBER 3, 10, 17 AND 24, 1994 Motion to approve the minutes as written - Lynch, second - Burchard; carried with a unanimous roll call vote. B. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE BELOW DESCRIBED ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY INTO THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS APPROXIMATELY 1185 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE SHORELINE OF LAKE LEWISVII.I ~1~.; WEST AND SOUTH OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT LINES OF THE COLONY Motion to approve the ordinance as written - Lynch, second - Burehard; carried with a unanimous roll call vote. C. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE AND AWARD OF BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT, AND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR SAME Motion to accept the bids, award the contracts as recommended and approve the ordinance as written. Lynch, second - Burchard; carried with a unanimous roll call vote. Councilman Pollard asked if we had considered a floating license agreement and Mr. Ray Grimes, computer consultant said it will be looked at, noting that one of the first things 7 005450 he will do as a consultant for the city is review all licenses. D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION FOR THE COLONY MUNICIPAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND APPROVAL OF THE BY-LAWS OF THE COLONY MUNICIPAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS Councilman Burchard asked if the registered agent should be a name or an office, noting that this currently shows Patti Hicks, City Secretary as registered agent. Mr. Smith said it doesn't really matter, the person in the Office of the City Secretary would be the registered agent. Councilman Burchard also questioned Article 5, ppg. 12 regarding board members being reimbursed for reasonable amounts for services rendered. He said there is no checks and balance system and asked who says what is reasonable. Councilman Burchard suggested inserting "as approved by the council". Mr. Smith said the expenditures are approved in the budget and the board operates under the same guidelines as the Council. Mr. Smith continued, stating once the budget is approved, the council should not have to approve line item by line item expenditures. Mr. Smith said the board will have to post an agenda and all the meetings and records will open to review. He said he has never seen an Economic Development Corporation overseen by a City Council. Mayor Manning agreed that "services rendered" may not be appropriate. Mr. Smith said the wording can amended to make the Council comfortable but again reiterated that he has never seen Economic Development Corporation expenses overseen by the Council. Mr. Smith said there will be a checks and balances system, noting the board is established by State law and the Council should not be approving all expenditures. Councilman Dillard said Article 8 lists names of the directors and on page 4 it says they may be removed by the council at will. He continued, stating that if there is a problem, the council can remove them immediately. Councilman Dillard said we will tie their hands if we start to restrict them. He said we have to believe the people we appoint and who follow us (as councilmembers) have the same standards we do. Mr. Smith suggested requiring a monthly report and Councilman Burchard agreed as long as "services rendered" is changed. Councilman Lynch noted that the phrase "services rendered" is really meant for services performed by an outside firm. Also discussed was Article 7 relating to indemnification, with Councilman Burchard noting that we cannot indemnify acts outside the law. Mr. Smith said the wording will be amended. Motion to approve the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws for the Economic Development Corporation with the changes noted - Burehard, second - Lynch; carried with a unanimous roll call vote. E. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAFTER 19 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, ALTERING THE PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ESTABLISHED FOR VEHICI.RS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 169(B) OF ARTICI.E 6701 D, VERNON'S 8 00545,- TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES, UPON STATE HIGHWAY 121 OR PARTS THEREOF, WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY Councilman Lynch asked if we are limiting ourselves by setting a maximum fine of $200.00. Patti Hicks, City Secretary advised that the city can only charge up to a $200.00 maximum fine for speeding. Motion to approve the ordinance as written - Lynch, second - Tate; carried with a unanimous roll call vote. F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR STEWART CREEK PARK AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Motion to approve as presented with the deletion of the early bird special - Burchard; second Dillard. Councilman Hardin said there is no reason stated in the back-up information for rasing the rates. Ms. Pam Nelson said the board has ideas for development of the park and noted that there is maintenance needed at the park that the increased fees wiil allow. Councilman Hardin asked if this is over and above the $10,000 which will be received from the Par 3 golf course and Ms. Pam Nelson advised that it is. Councilman Hardin asked if the motion is to approve Option 1 or Option 2. Councilman Burchard said his intent was to approve Option One and Councilman Dillard (second) agreed and Councilman Burchard re-stated his motion as follows. Motion to approve Option One as presented with the deletion of the early bird special - Burchard; second Dillard, carried with the following roll call vote: Lynch - Aye; Pollard - Aye; Hardin - No; Burchard - Aye; Dillard. Aye; Tate - Aye; Manning - Aye. G. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH DWIGHT C. GIFFORD AND JANIE DUKE GIFFORD ESTABLISHING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH PARTIES RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CERTAIN TRACt OF LAND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY Councilman Lynch suggested waiting to approve the agreement since the soil tests were not completed at this time. Councilman Lynch noted that not all changes had been made to the agreement as had been discussed and that the bond was only for one year and not one and one-half years. Mr. Smith said the preliminary soil tests indicate the roadway is in very good condition but said he had asked for $25,000 since they were not complete. 0(35455 He noted the bond would have been 10% of any estimated expenditures which had been tentatively set at $100,000 and the $25,000 is more than that would have been. He said this covers the road and drainage. Councilman Lynch said he thought something would be put in the contract stating that in the event the lane cut is requested and granted on FM 423 and this road would then have to be widened, that the city would not have to pay for the widening of the street. Mr. Smith said the lane cut was pulled out and Councilman Lynch said agreed, but said that will not prevent keeping anyone in the future from requesting one and if we accept the road as is, we will have to pay for widening of the road if it's deemed that it will not handle the traffic. Mr. Smith said he has learned that the reason there is no median opening on 423 has to do with the width of this road, and that the highway department will not allow it. Mr. Smith clarified, the highway department will not allow a median cut unless that (widening of Murchison Rd.) takes place and if we (city) say we are not going to pay for it then we will not pay for it. Councilman Lynch said that would be fine, as long as it is understood, because it is not in the agreement. Mr. Smith said the minutes of this meeting) will be very clear and that a certified copy of the minutes will be attached to the agreement. Councilman Burchard suggested adding in ppg 1 that the city will not be obligated to pay for improvements as a condition of this development. Councilman Pollard asked about the access to utilities being the city's responsibility and Mr. Burke said the utilities are in place on both sides of the road. Mr. Smith agreed stating the city will provide access to utilities where they exist now and there will be no expense to bore under the road. Motion to approve the agreement with changes - Lynch, second - Burchard; carried with unanimous roll call vote. H. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH NORTH STREET DEVELOPMENT, INC. ESTABLISHING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH PARTIES RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY Mr. Smith explained this is property along FM 423 in front of Club Fore Driving Range, running from the Sutton Drainage channel to the Denton County Annex building. Councilman Lynch noted the names and the exhibits are reversed in the agreements. These items will be corrected before final filing. Councilman Lynch said the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan shows Strickland running across FM 423 and through this development, which may cause us to hold off on this agreement. Mr. Smith said with the Council's permission, staff and the developer can work this out, noting the thoroughfare plan is flexible. Councilman Lynch said he thinks the last half of the sentence (relating to mini- warehouse) in item 6 should be deleted. Mr. Burke said it would be acceptable to delete that portion of the sentence, but did say that preliminary plans were presented to P & Z two weeks ago at a work session. Councilman Burchard said his view is that the current zoning of Office is best for the citizens and if another use comes before the council, he will vote 00545t, against it. Mr. Smith said in negotiations today, the 50' r.o.w, was clarified as a minimum 27' curb to curb with 10' easements on each side, which makes development more flexible. Councilman Pollard suggested changing item 4 to read the city will make a "good faith effort" in regard to working with the State for a median cut on FM 423 and Mr. Burke said that was acceptable. Mr. Smith said the use of the easement should include Club Fore, the City and invitees. Coundlman Burchard said this states the resolutions are effective immediately and asked how soon the easement will have to be vacated. Mr. Burke said there is no pressure to vacate the easement, but no one is in a position to say exactly when that would have to occur. Mr. Burke said the resolution sets the stage for further action and noted that everyone is making a commitment to help the development of this property. Continuing, Mr. Burke said the decision for the road is market driven but we need to be ready to act. Mr. Smith said this will guarantee a 47' access to our lift station. Motion to approve with changes in items 6, 4 and Exhibit corrections - Lynch, second - Tare; carried with a unanimous roll call vote. 7. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR COTTONWOOD SPRINGS, PHASE II OF THE STEWART PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT Sam Chavez, City Planner advised council the application for approval of preliminary plat on Cottonwood Springs, Phase II of the Stewart Peninsula Development, had been received and reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 25, 1994. Mr. Chavez stated the P & Z has recommended approval with some changes. Those changes are reflected in the preliminary plat as presented tonight. Mr. Chavez introduced representatives of Stewart Peninsula Development to answer questions. Mr. Truman Edminster with Carter and Burgess, 7950 Elmbrook, Dallas, addressed the council pointing out that the subdivision is named for a large cottonwood tree in the area, which will be saved during construction. He said LISD has requested an additional school site and one has been designated at the northwest comer of Newton and Ethridge Drives, which resulted in the loss of 41 lots, effecting the Cottonwood Springs development. Mr. Edminster said the amenities center has been moved down next to Ethridge elementary and Section B-1 has been increased from 76 to 82 lots, while B-2 has been reduced from 111 to 77 lots. Mr. Edminster showed a conceptual plan of the lay out of the amenities center. He noted the pool is to be funded by the Homeowner's Association and will be used by the members, but the large green area will be open to the general public. Councilman Burchard asked why street D had been decreased to 50" and Mr. Edminster stated a 60" street will not fit, noting that 50' is adequate per the traffic analysis. Councilman Lynch asked about access and stub outs to the park, noting there should be no free access to Stewart Creek Park. Councilman Pollard asked about the width of Ethridge Drive and Mr. Edminster stated it is a 70' r.o.w. 4 lane undivided to Fryer Drive and then it becomes a 27' wide, 2 lane undivided street. Mr. Edminster said the width in front of the proposed school will be up to LISD and they will have to come to the Council 1! for approval. He did say Newton will be a 60' r.o.w, street and that the developer wants to put in a walking trail connecting the two schools. Councilman Hardin asked about the 6' fence around the pool, how far it will be from the school property and what type of fence it will be. Mr. Edminster said the fence will be 10'6" from school property and Rusty Nichols advised the type of fencing is being discussed with Dr. Downing from LISD but no decision has been made at this time. Councilman Burchard asked about the sidewalk on the west side of Etheridge and Mr. Edminster said it will be built with development, which could be 9 - 12 months or longer. Mr. Nichols agreed, stating that the school will be built as the property develops and that the sidewalk will not be built until the school is built. Councilman Dillard asked about the amenities center noting there is really nowhere for kids to play. Mr. Edminster advised there will be Southshore Park, North Shore Park and the open area of the amenities center will be open to the public, not just homeowner's association members. Councilman Dillard said they may want to consider a playing field in their future park areas. Mr. Edminster agreed and went on to say the developers want to assist the city in getting a grant for improvements to Stewart Creek Park. Councilman Tate said the pocket parks are free to children, but Stewart Creek park is a paid and that she thinks all the council is concerned that the kids will have adequate places to play without having to pay. Councilman Tate expressed concern about managing traffic in the park and asked Pam Nelson, Parks and Recreation Director if she felt the fees are sufficient. Ms. Nelson said she understands there will be no free access to the park (Stewart Creek) except to riders or walkers, noting they are not currently charged an entry fee. She said she cannot say how much impact the north access may have on the park. Councilman Tate encouraged her to incorporate a way to monitor access. Mr. Nichols stated that access to the park can be restricted if the city requests it and reminded council there will be two playgrounds in the area including the school areas. Councilman Burchard questioned the sand lot volleyball court proposed in the open area of the amenities center and stated he would prefer to see tennis courts there and that he would like to see more walking access to Stewart Creek Park. Mr. Edminster said they can do that if the City wants. Mr. Nichols said he has talked to builders in the area who say that tennis is in disfavor and that sand lot volleyball is more popular. Councilman Dillard said the council needs to give them some guidance regarding access to the park and Mr. Edminster suggested two more access easements. Mr. Smith said he wants the P & R Board to get involved. Mr. Edminster said he needs some guidance tonight so he can draw the plats and if the Board wants the accesses dosed, then a fence can be put in or a lot can be placed over the access. Mr. Chavez asked if an alley has been considered as an access and Mr. Edminster said yes, but it would require destroying trees. Mr. Smith noted that sometimes there is a problem when the public has an access between two homes. Mr. Edminster agreed and stated that this would be made dear to the buyers and could be addressed with deed restrictions. After brief discussion, it was decided there would be 3 access easements. Motion to approve the preliminary plat with noted changes - Lynch, second - Dillard; carried with a unanimous roll call vote. 12 00 5.4 0 8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT - WITH STEWART PENINSULA GOLF ASSOCIATES FOR USE OF SIXTY (60) ACRES OF PROPERTY IN STEWART CREEK PARK FOR GOLF AND RECREATIONAL USE Mr. Smith advised that a "red-lined" copy of the agreement had been provided which he believes includes all the council's concerns and which has been reviewed and commented on by the City Attorney. He said he would like to turn the agreement over to both party's attorneys and the Corps of Engineers for review. Mr. Nichols agreed and said he would like to negotiate the terms of the lease, noting the current city lease with the Corps is for Stewart Creek and Wyrmewood Parks. He said it may be prudent to separate them since they are so diverse in nature. Councilman Lynch stated several concerns all of which were addressed at this meeting and then given to the City Manager to make available to Mr. Nichols for review. Some of these concerns included the rent and lease commencement dates, deletion of wells, maintenance of roads, gambling, etc. Councilman Pollard asked if the net earnings include a partnership and Mr. Nichols said they did not. No action was taken on this item. It will be brought back to council at the November 21 or December 5, 1994 Council meeting. 9. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMITTING A NOMINATION FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD Mayor Manning asked if anyone had a nomination for membership. There were none. No action taken. 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE COLONY MUNICIPAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mr. Smith said the council needs to name 3 incorporators and 7 board members. He said the incorporators can be staff members. Mr. Smith advised that Steve Wolfard had been contacted and has withdrawn his name for membership at this time. He reminded the council that only two of the directors can be elected officials and advised that all members of the current Economic Development Board under Section 4A are willing to serve on this board as well. Mayor Manning clarified that the incorporators can be members of the board. He advised that Councilmen Dillard and Pollard have offered to serve. Motion to name John Dillard and Toby Pollard as the council representatives to the Board - Burchard, second - Hardin, carried with all members voting Aye. Mayor Manning asked the City Secretary to name the current members of the 4A board and opened the floor for nominations to fill the other five places. Nominations were made as follows: Lynch - Stanwick, McClure, Kindy and Thompson. Pollard - same. Hardin - Sebastian. Burchard - same. Dillard - Cunningham and Fujauski. Tate - none 13 further. The vote for members was as follows: Lynch - Stanwick, McClure, Sebastian, Thompson Pollard - McClure, Stanwick Fujauski, Cunningham, Kindy Hardin - McClure, Sebastian, Kindy, Thompson, Fujauski Burchard - McClure, Sebastian, Kindy, Fujauski, Cunningham Dillard - McClure, Sebastian, Kindy, Thompson, Cunningham Tate - McClure, Sebastian, Thompson, Fujauski, Cunningham Manning - Stanwick, McClure, Kindy, Sebastian, Cunningham Mayor Manning restated the votes as follows: McClure - 7, Kindy - 6, Sebastian - 5, Cunningham - 5, Thompson - 4, Fujauski - 4. Mayor Manning declared the following as four of the five by virtue of receiving the most votes. Gary McClure, Dean Kindy, Jerry Sebastian and Jeffrey Cunningham. Mayor Manning then asked the council to vote to break the tie between Thompson and Fujauski which was as follows: Lynch, Pollard, Hardin, and Tate - Thompson. Burchard, Dillard and Manning - Fujauski. Mayor Manning declared that Tommy Thompson had received 4 votes and that he will be the fifth board member. Councilman Dillard suggested naming the City Manager, the City Secretary and the Deputy City Secretary as the incorporators and Mr. Smith advised that the City Secretary cannot serve as an incorporator. Mr. Smith then suggested that those persons not appointed be named incorporators. Mayor Manning named those persons; David Stanwick, Donald Parker and Martha Fujauski. Councilman Pollard asked if the incorporators would be indemnified and Mr. Smith said he is sure they are. Mr. Smith then suggested that the three persons receiving the most votes be named as the incorporators. Motion to name Gary McClure, Dean Kindy and Jerry Sebastian as the incorporators - Bm'chard, second - Tate; carried with all voting Aye. 11. RECEIVE REPORT FROM WASTELINE ENGINEERING REGARDING THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT STUDY OF THE COLONY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. Mr. Glenn Briesch with Wasteline Engineering opened the floor for questions concerning the report he had prepared. Mayor Manning asked Mr. Briesch to go through the entire report. ( See attachment "A"). Mr. Briesch covered some specific items in the report. He stated the table of page 4 of the NTMWD report is a summary of the treatment plant expansion options and their costs does not compare "apples to apples" and it cannot be considered as providing a true cost comparison. He said NTMWD recommended adding a dissolved air flotation (DAF) thickener for sludge thickening and his firm agrees with that recommendation. He noted, however, that the cost for adding this DAF was not presented by NTMWD so he has 14 included it in his report. - Mr. Briesch questioned the recommendation from NTMWD regarding lime stabilization as well as the suggestion made by the NTMWD report that after the sludge and lime have been mixed, the mixture will remain odor-free at a PH of twelve for an extended period of time. He said he spoke to Mr. Dennis Mitchell from Professional Services Group (PSG) who told him that this is incorrect information. Mr. Briesch said he also spoke to an employee of the Mesquite plant, which is operated by NTMWD who said the sludge does have an odor when treated in this manner and that odor control is needed. Mr. Briesch continued quoting from the report (pg 5) "It appears that NTMWD has suggested that about one-third of the probable construction cost of an all new, current technology plant to treat 5.0 MGD can be spent to gain 0.89 MGD using their proposed scheme." He said his company questions this suggestion and said it would be more logical to construct at least a new 2.5 MGD facility to parallel the existing 2.5 MGD facility. Mr. Briesch said then the city could independently empty each train of the old facility and examine its ability to be renovated prior to committing funds for a complete renovation. He went on to say the rehabilitation of the existing facilities will be difficult, and stated 5 reasons for his opinion: 1. Unknown condition of the existing structures 2. Unknown condition of the existing equipment 3. Unknown location of buried items such as pipes, valves, etc. 4. Trying to keep the facility "on-line" while paralleling/replacing piping and/or valves for increased flows. 5. The dreaded "Murphy Factor" - whatever can go wrong probably will. Mr. Breisch continued to explain his concerns with rehabilitation of the existing plant in detail. He then discussed the NTMWD recommendation not to add grit removal equipment, noting that Hunter & Associates and Lichliter/Jameson & Associates as well as his firm have all recommended the inclusion of this equipment. He discussed TABLE II on page 8 which compares the costs of lime stabilization, aerobic digestion and the oxidation ditch methods. He noted the oxidation ditch alternative has a lower capital cost and lower annual operation cost for sludge treatment and disposal. He discussed in detail the condition of the darifiers, filters and other estimated costs. Mr. Briesch concluded by discussing the Comparison of Probable Construction costs which is attached to the report. He said the cost comparative is the most important information in the report. It was noted that the chart has a one million dollar error in the figures under NTMWD Option BI. Mr. Briesch stated that the most cost effective option per gallon is the 5 million gallon expansion, which council decided on in June or July of 1994. He said that would best serve the needs of the city in the foreseeable future. Mr. Briesch did say that all of the plant does not have to be built at one time. Mr. Briesch noted there was $1,000,000 (one million) error in the Option B1 presented by NTMWD, which will make a considerable difference in the bottom line of that option. He said he will check the figures and have the new numbers in just a few minutes. After Mr. Briesch gave his report, he responded to questions from the council. 15 00546 Councilman Pollard said a 2.5 MGD and a 3.33 MGD facility is presented and one would assume there will be common wall construction on a portion of the plant, which should mean the cost per gallon would be less for the 3.33 than it would be for the 2.5. Mr. Briesch said the numbers for the 2.5 and the 5.0 MGD facilities are firm, but the numbers for the 3.33 are estimated numbers in many areas which are just slightly over the middle of the 2.5 and 5.0 costs. He said he understands that this looks funny, but that is the way the numbers fell out and he wasn't going to play games with the numbers just to make them come out. He said that is way the numbers fell out of the computer. Councilman Lynch noted that his report indicates ultraviolet for disinfection and asked what type of disinfection NTMWD had selected. Mr. Briesch said they had not made a selection at the time of their report. Mr. Smith asked Kenneth Huffman, Wastewater Superintendent for the City if he had any comments. Mr. Huffman advised the biggest problem is not capacity, but handling of sludge and the expense to do so. He said he is very impressed with the centrifuge and said we need some way to store the sludge in wet weather. Coundlman Burchard asked what the maximum expansion needed will be. Councilman Lynch said it will be 7.5 MGD. Councilman Burchard asked if that number takes into account everything. Mr. Smith said there is no way to give a correct answer without better projections and Councilman Burchard asked if the council could get more updated information regarding projections. Councilman Pollard said at the TML conference he heard that storm water may have to be treated in the future and Mr. Smith agreed, stating that is a possibility. Mr. Briesch said some cities are already requiring holding basins for storm water, but not treatment. Councilman Lynch said we need a revised projection of our build out and Mr. Smith said two extensive studies were done previously and they will be given to the Council. He noted they were by population, not by land use. Mayor Manning asked if there were more questions for Mr. Briesch and there being none, asked Mr. Dolan McKnight with NTMWD if he would like to address the council. Mr. McKnight thanked the council and said the Wasteline report was a negative attack on the NTMWD report, which had been requested by the council and which was done using the city's information. He also noted the one million dollar error in the Wasteline report. Mr. McKnight said he just received a copy of the Wasteline report on Friday so he has not had time to do a detailed review, but he has noticed some errors made by Mr. Briesch. He cited some of the areas of concern: page 9 & 10 regarding BOD/nitrification; page 10 regarding the need to add a filter, TABLE II regarding capital costs and cost for electricity on the oxidation ditch method. He said this cost comparison is an example of not comparing "apples to apples". He said bogus costs were added to the NTMWD report by Mr. Briesch and that Wasteline recommends costs that the City does not need to incur. Mr. McKnight continued stating that if a centrifuge is used, then grit will have to added. He said the Wasteline report does not show that the intercharmel darifier method will mean lower costs than using the existing facilities and said that NTMWD can show how to lower costs. Councilman Lynch said NTMWD is an operations firm, not a design firm. Mr. McKnight said NTMWD is not a firm, it is an agency and advised that they do value 16 engineering and have saved millions of dollars for other cities. Councilman Lynch said the council has already voted to go with the boat and if we go with one of the NTMWD options we will have to expand down the road anyway when the city is built out. Councilman Lynch then asked how long we are going to allow this point counterpoint to continue and suggested that this report closes this item. Councilman Burchard said he is not satisfied with that, noting that Wasteline obviously took the NTWMD report to task and that we need to give NTMWD an opportunity to respond. Councilman Lynch said we can't expend funds in this agenda item but that we can ask the City Manager to negotiate the costs to get NTMWD to respond. Mr. McKnight advised there would be no charge to the city for their response to the Wasteline report. Mayor Manning asked Sam Chavez, City Planner to provide more accurate projections, stating that he thinks we have been over-shooting and the need will not be near 7.5 MGD. Councilman Pollard said if our current projections are not correct then we need that information in writing, noting that several things are happening now that will impact this expansion. Mayor Manning asked Mr. McKnight to move ahead with his response. Mr. McKnight said NTMWD is here to serve cities and we owe The Colony a response to the Wasteline report. Councilman Lynch asked how much time would be needed and Mr. McKnight said about two weeks. This will tentatively be on the December 5 agenda. 12. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM WASTELINE ENGINEERING FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN INVOICES PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Mr. Smith said the request for payment is outlined in the packet and noted if approved we will be making reimbursement prior to SRF funding. He said this will have to come from the line item budget in Utilities. Mr. Smith said the original agreement was to pay for all costs with SRF funds, but noted these are new charges so they could be paid prior to funding if council approves. Councilman Burchard asked when the funding will be received and Mr. Smith said probably in February 1995. Motion to approve payment of fees in the amount of $81,808.70 and to authorize the City Manager to take the funds from the Utility Fund operating budget, to be reimbursed when funding is received from SRF, before the end of this year - Lynch; second - Hardin, Councilman Burchard objected, stating the expenses were to be paid from SRF funding per a verbal agreement. Mr. Briesch said the contract was approved in July 1994 and he was given notice to proceed in August. He said he did the work before the city decided to go for SRF funding and then the city worked with NTMWD which halted the SRF application process. Mr. Briesch said the funding could have been received sooner. Councilman Pollard asked when the city could use impact fees on this project and Mr. Smith said they can be used to retire the bonds. 17 005465 Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Lynch - Aye, Pollard - Aye, Hardin - Aye, Burchard - Aye, Dillard - Aye, Tate - Aye, ""~ Manning - No.]~ 13. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - None 14. CITY MANAGER AND STAFF REPORTS 1. Are working on the ordinance requiring sprinkler systems in multi-family. 2. Dept. of Justice "COPS" program. We are applying for financial assistance to hire more police officers. 3. Chamber of Commerce is holding a planning session on Wednesday. 4. The City Secretary has provided detailed analysis of all city annexations as requested by the Council. 5. Lake Lewisville State Park - all department heads have inspected and are preparing individual reports. We have learned the State is removing all furniture from the facilities. 6. Phase H annexation will begin soon. 7. Chamber of Commerce Youth Leadership will be at City Hall on Friday at 1:00 p.m. APPROVED: William W. M 'rig, Mayor <.~ Patti A. Hicks, CMC/AAE, City Secretary 00 464 WASTELINE ENGINEERING, INC. November 3, 1994 The City of The Colony 5151 North Colony Boulevard The Colony, Texas 75056 Attn: Mr. Johnny P. Smith City Manager RE: NTMWD Report for Stewart Creek WWTP The City of The Colony, Texas Gentlemen' As requested, we have reviewed the document which was prepared by North Texas Municipal Water District entitled "Expansion Alternative Review" dated August 1994. During our review, we have found several areas which need to be brought to your attention and the attention of your council. The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 2 of the NTMWD report indicates that this firm has recommended the abandonment of the existing plant. This is not the case. In our letter to the City dated February 9, 1994, we have recommended that the existing facilities be maintained in a state of "operational readiness" after construction of the new facility has been completed. In the first paragraph on page 3, NTMWD states that Wasteline considered "mothballing the existing plant". Again, that is not what this firm has recommended. We note that each option listed in the NTMWD "Conclusions" section POST OFFICE BOX 3441 ONE SUMMIT AVENUE SUITE 109~ FORT WORTH, T[XAS 76113 817,'877-4242 FAX 817~817-4251 005465 The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 2 (page 3) is based on the options which were previously presented to the City of The Colony by Hunter Associates. NTMWD's report does not indicate that they were aware that the Council had previously reviewed Hunter Associates' report, among others, and had selected to utilize the technology of extended aeration (oxidation ditch) with an interchannel clarifier. NTMWD did not consider this option as an expansion alternative although they should have been aware that Wasteline Engineering, Inc., was under contract with The Colony to prepare a design for this option. The oxidation ditch with intrachannel clarifier should have been on their list of options to evaluate. During a personal communication on September 28, 1994, with Mr. Dolan McKnight, P.E., the author of the NTMWD report, he shared with us that he probably should have considered an oxidation ditch as one of the alternatives. In our review and evaluation of the NTMWD report, we have included the alternative of the oxidation ditch technology. The table on page 4 of the NTMWD report which is a summary of the treatment plant expansion options and their associated costs does not compare "apples" to "apples". The presented table compares some options with contingency costs and some without; some options with engineering costs and some without; some with influent lift station upgrade and some without; some with grit removal and some without. Basically, the table is a fruit salad, and the conclusions derived therefrom can not be considered as providing a true cost comparison. Appended to this document is a Comparison of Probable Construction Costs which we have prepared. This comparison is an attempt to liken "apples" to "apples". The first paragraph following the table on page 4 of the NTMWD report states that "Under all options, there are certain common elements". There are, indeed, certain common elements. However, the NTMWD report did not present the same cost figures for the common elements throughout. Again, the NTMWD report did not compare "apples" to "apples". In the final paragraph on page 4 of their report, NTMWD has 00 46 The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 3 recommended that for sludge thickening the option of adding a dissolved air flotation (DAF) thickener to achieve thickening should be delayed until such time as it is needed. This recommendation has been based on the assumption that the DAF unit can produce a higher solids concentration (sludge thickness) than that which a gravity sludge thickener can produce. Documentation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not agree with this assumption. The EPA estimates that the solids concentration of primary, undigested sludge from a DAF unit is approximately 50% of that from a gravity sludge thickener. The EPA also provides construction cost and annual operation and maintenance costs. The DAF unit can cost nearly two times the cost of a gravity thickener to process the same amount of flow. And, the annual cost for operation and maintenance of the DAF unit can be slightly more than two and one-half times that for the gravity sludge thickener. The cost of adding this unit has not been presented in the NTMWD construction cost calculations. It has - been included in our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. While NTMWD may view the advantages of belt presses versus centrifuges and chlorination/dechlorination versus ultraviolet disinfection to not be crucial in selecting an alternative (page 5 of their report), we ask what is the difference in annual operation and maintenance costs for the alternative sludge dewatering and disinfection methods? Apparently, NTMWD has not considered the operation and maintenance costs to be important in the selection of an alternative. In the first paragraph following the introduction of the topic "Lime Stabilization" on page 5, NTMWD simply states that aerobic digestion will reduce the volume of sludge produced. In Table II on page 17, the sludge volume using lime stabilization is shown to be approximately 50% greater than the volume of sludge produced using aerobic digestion. Does The Colony really want to increase the amount of sludge produced and disposed of daily by 50%? Does the City desire to increase its cost for sludge hauling/disposal by this same percentage? That is what NTMWD has suggested by utilizing lime stabilization without prior aerobic digestion. The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 , - page 4 In the second paragraph on page 5, NTMWD simply states that after the sludge and lime have been mixed, the mixture will remain, odor-free, at a pH of twelve for an extended period of time. That extended period of time is at least eleven hours. Where will this mixture be stored? There is not a cost figure presented for a storage/holding facility. There likewise is not a cost figure presented for a building to house the mixing equipment. These costs have been included in our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. NTMWD also has failed in their report to identify the transport of sludge from the clarifiers to the lime/sludge mixing facility as a probable cost of construction. It is reasonable to expect the cost of pumps and the associated appurtenances as a probable construction cost. This cost has been included in our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. The NTMWD report suggests that all alternatives include lime stabilization of sludge without benefit of prior digestion. We are compelled to make -- you aware that undigested sludge stinks] We suggest that it will be necessary to include odor control equipment in the sludge dewatering/handling/storage area. No cost for odor control equipment has been presented in the NTMWD construction cost figures. This cost has been included in our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. The final paragraph on page 5 of the NTMWD report would lead the reader to believe that the City of Fort Worth's Village Creek Plant uses the process described in earlier paragraphs of lime stabilizing undigested sludge. This is not what has been described .to us by plant operations employees at Village Creek. The City of Fort Worth personnel have advised that sludge is lime stabilized after digestion and prior to disposal. The NTMWD report has suggested that The Colony spend approximately $3.1 million (not including 10% contingency costs) in order to expand the existing wastewater treatment facilities by 0.89 million gallons per day (our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs shows that the expenditure will be more likely $3.4 million with a cost per gallon treated of $5.09). _... The Wasteline Engineering report dated January 1994 presented a cost 008460 The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 5 figure of $4.87 million (including contingencies) to expand the existing facilities by 2.50 million gallons per day (a cost per gallon treated of $2.14). Wasteline Engineering also presented to the Council, in June 1994, that a 5.0 million gallons per day treatment facility could be constructed for a cost of $9,286,550 (including contingencies). Please refer to the attached Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. It appears that NTMWD has suggested that about one-third of the probable construction cost of an all new, current technology plant to treat 5.0 MGD can be spent to gain 0.89 MGD using their proposed scheme. We question the wisdom of this suggestion. Rather, from the alternatives investigated to date, it would seem more logical to construct at least a new 2.5 MGD facility to parallel the existing 2.5 MGD facility. Then, in a timely manner, the City could independently empty each train of the old facility and examine its ability to be renovated prior to committing funds for a complete renovation. Rehabilitation of the existing facilities will be difficult, at best, if it is attempted during operation as suggested by NTMWD. Each of the following may contribute to increased and/or unforeseen costs: 1. Unknown condition of the existing structures; 2. Unknown condition of the existing equipment; 3. Unknown location of buried items such as pipes, valves, etc.; 4. Trying to keep the facility "on-line" while paralleling/replacing piping and/or valves for increased flows; and 5. The dreaded "Murphy Factor" - whatever can go wrong probably will. The existing facility was designed to process 2.5 million gallons per day. The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 6 Flow through the existing facility is achieved by use of gravity hydraulics - not by pumping. Therefore, the facility may not be able to flow 3.39 or 5.77 million gallons per day without making piping alterations internal to or possibly under the existing tankage. Any alternative that considers rehabilitation of the existing facility needs to take into consideration the existing piping in and between various components. Apparently, when reviewing the Hunter Associates report, NTMWD did not take into acount that the existing piping (air lines, influent piping, recirculation piping, etc.) was originally designed to move air and water for a 2.5 MGD treatment plant - not 3.39 MGD or 5.77 MGD. NTMWD has not fully considered this in their presentation of alternative cost estimates. Our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs considers this piping. The NTMWD report has recommended not adding grit removal equipment because NTMWD does not think that grit removal is necessary and does little to reduce operation and maintenance costs. Hunter Associates, Lichliter/Jameson & Associates, and this firm have all recommended the inclusion of this equipment. Grit removal at the head of the treatment train removes fine, granular debris which otherwise would have to be pumped, allowed to settle in the clarifier basins, and, finally, pumped again to the sludge processing units. Selection of the NTMWD proposal of not including grit removal will cause premature wear of pump components on all pumps with which it comes in contact, and, when grit is allowed to settle in the clarifier with the sludge, grit will become more volume to be pumped with the sludge, lime stabilized, thickened, and hauled for disposal. The cost for grit removal has not been added to the NTMWD options but has been included in the Wasteline options in our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. The alternative of an oxidation ditch with intra-channel clarifier to treat 2.50 MGD operated in parallel to the existing facilities was not considered by NTMWD because "Hunter could not supply definite cost information for this option." Perhaps NTMWD should have contacted United Industries, a leading manufacturer of this type of equipment, or this firm The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 7 for cost information. The technology of an oxidation ditch with intra-channel clarification was selected for use by The City of The Colony councilmembers. The oxidation ditch technology combines sludge digestion in the same basin where biological treatment takes place. On the following page is Table II as it has been modified from how it appeared in the NTMWD report to now include an oxidation ditch process. The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 8 TABLE Il (Modified) Cost of Lime Stabilization vs. Aerobic Digestion 5.0 MGD Flow (Modified to include Oxidation Ditch) Lime Stabilization Aerobic Digestion Oxidation Ditch Capital Cost $ 354,000~ $ 1,055,0002 $ -0-s Operating Costs Electricity $ 2,8503 $ 87,6004 $ -0-s Chemicals 16,8003 none required none required Sludge 74,3003 51,6003 51,600 Disposal ($14/Ton) Total Annualoperating Costs $93,950 [$139,200 $ 51,600 ][ 1. NTMWD capital cost estimate for Rowlett Creek Plant. 2. Hunter Report, Option C. 3. Sludge Quantity estimate from 4.75 MGD FIo. yd Branch Plant. 4. Hunter personal communication. 5. Included in costs of oxidation ditch. NOTE: According to personal communication with Mr. Kenneth Huffman, Plant Superintendent, The Colony is currently spending about $760 per week to dispose of sludge (not including any costs for polymer which would be common to all) for sludge produced by the existing 2.5 MGD treatment plant with an average daily flow of approximately 1.7 MGD. 0U847 The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 9 The modified Table II indicates that the oxidation ditch alternative of treatment and sludge digestion has a lower capital cost and a lower annual operation cost for sludge treatment and disposal than the other processes presented. We concur with the NTMWD statement on page 7 of their report that "although the current permit does not require nitrification, it is practically a certainty that the next permit will." The Texas Water Development Board staff also concurs with this statement. The NTMWD report goes on to state that each of the alternatives presented in their report can achieve nitrification of the wastewater. Nitrification is the biological/chemical process by which unoxidized nitrogenous matter (ammonia and organic nitrogen (bad stuff)) are converted to oxidized nitrogen (usually nitrate (good stuff)). However, in the NTMWD report (Table IV -VIII), it is suggested to either use only the existing aeration blowers or to reduce the quantity of blowers proposed in the Hunter report to provide air to the treatment basins. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission design criteria requires 1800 cubic feet of air be provided per pound of BOD5 (waste load) applied per day for the contact stabilization process (the current process), the complete mix process, or the conventional treatment process. The same design criteria requires that to achieve nitrification, 3200 cubic feet of air be provided per pound of BOD5 applied per day. We have reviewed the design criteria for the time period when the existing facilities were designed and constructed. That criteria required 1500 cubic feet of air be provided per pound of BOD5 applied per day. The existing facilities designed air flow per pound of BOD~ is less than fifty percent (50%) of the amount of air that will be required to achieve nitrification for any amount of incoming sewage flow. In addition, the existing blower units were sized for a wastewater treatment facility which had been designed to process 2.5 MGD of wastewater containing 4,380 pounds of BOD5. The NTMWD expansion to 3.39 MGD proposes to process a sewage flow containing 6,810 pounds The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 10 of BOD$. The BOD5 loading has increased by just over fifty percent (50%). This increased BOD5 loading will necessitate 21,792,000 cubic feet of air per day to achieve nitrification. The existing blowers were sized at design to provide 6,570,000 cubic feet of air per day. Even with this information that shows that additional aeration blowers are needed, NTMWD has not proposed more blowers to provide the required air to treat this waste flow in their tables. We have included additional blowers in our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. It does not appear that NTMWD has given any consideration to the condition of the existing clarifiers or their internal components when their cost comparisons of alternatives were prepared. For example, the weir trough in each clarifier was originally designed to easily contain that clarifier's design flow rate. However, the increased flows as recommended by NTMWD will not be contained in the existing weir troughs. The troughs will need to be replaced by larger units if more flow is to be processed through the clarifiers. Other components may likewise need to be enlarged to accomodate increased flow rates. Clarifier rehabilitation must be presented as a probable construction cost and has been included in our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. NTMWD Option B1 discusses increasing the Stewart Creek wastewater treatment facility's capacity to 5.77 MGD. In their Table V, which is the cost estimate for Option B1, Item 9, New Filters, shows a cost of $0. However, when applying the current TNRCC design criteria to the existing filters, it is calculated that the existing filters only have a capacity of 5.14 MGD. Therefore, it will be necessary to include the construction of an additional filter cell in order to process 5.77 MGD as proposed. Our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs considers the cost of this new filter cell. During our review of the NTMWD cost comparisons (Tables IV - VIII), we have noted that an amount of $125,000 has been included in each of the estimates as the contractor's profit and overhead. This amount is in no ... case as great as five percent (5%) of the construction cost sub-total The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 11 (exclusive of contingencies, engineering, etc.). This value seems to be a little on the light side. We have contacted three general contractors familiar with the construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Each has advised that a typical percentage range for profit and overhead on a project of this magnitude is ten to fifteen percent (10% - 15%). We have revised the Profit/Overhead amount in each of the NTMWD alternatives to be twelve percent (12%) of the sub-total construction cost in our Comparison of Probable Construction Costs. In conclusion, by studying the costs presented in the attached Comparison of Probable Construction Costs, it appears that the most favorable cost per gallon treated option is $2.04. This is the probable cost when the alternative of a 5.0 MGD expansion using the oxidation ditch with intrachannel clarifier technology is selected to be installed parallel to the existing 2.5 MGD facility. This selection would best serve the needs of the City of The Colony in the foreseeable future. This is also consistent with the decision of the City Council back in June and July of this year. The second most favorable cost per gallon treated option is $2.14. This is the probable cost when the alternative of a 2.5 MGD expansion using this same technology is selected to again parallel the existing facility. The alternatives of constructing a 3.27 MGD expansion using the technology presented by NTMWD and constructing a 3.33 MGD expansion using the oxidation ditch with intrachannel clarifier technology are, for all intents and purposes, a toss-up where cost per gallon treated is concerned. In their report, NTMWD has stated no less than five times that further engineering studies would have to be performed in order to optimize the expansion of the wastewater treatment facilities. Please be advised that this firm stands ready to perform these or any other studies which you may feel are warranted at your direction. However, we are also prepared to continue forward with the design of the expansion to the Stewart Creek The City of The Colony November 3, 1994 page 12 Wastewater Treatment Plant as described in our General Agreement for Engineering Services. Hopefully, the above will aid you, staff, and the City Council in making a determination of the direction in which The Colony will proceed with their wastewater treatment plant expansion. Should you have questions concerning any of the data presented, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We look forward to discussing this document and its findings with you and the City Council on Monday, November 7, 1994. Very truly yours, WASTELINE ENGINEERING, INC. Glenn Breisch, ~.:~...... ..,~ . - '~?-~7: .... :'(~? ~-~""ment ,~¥ ,o~_~ 9412ntmw.wpwin$ .2 .cd. COMPARISON OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS COMPARISON OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS (A review of the NTMWD and Westaline Engineering reports) NTMWD (Al) NTMWD (B1) IWE, Inc. WE, Inc. WE, Ir~. 0.89 MGD Exp. 3.27 MGD Exp. 2.5 MGD Exp. 3.33 MGD Exp. 5.0 MGD Exp. Component Descripton 3.39 MGD Total 5.77 MGD Total 5.0 MGD Total 5.83 MGD Total 7.5 MGD Total Mobilizaton/Site Wok 335,000 335,000 303,000 455,000 579,000 Lift Station 484,000 509,000 170,000 256,000 324,750 I Yard Piping 187,500 225,000 237,000 266,500 338,800 Aeraton Trea~nent Structure 1 50,000 920,300 2,076,000 3,201,000 4,069,100 2 Blowers/Aerators 165,000 200,000 370,000 554,000 705,000 Belt Press/~ge 410,000 410,000 209,000 314,000 400,000 3 DAF Thickener 0 262,000 0 0 0 Ume Stabilizaton 354,000 354,000 0 0 0 4 Odor Control 370,000 370,000 0 0 0 5 Sludge Mixer Building 125,000 1,225,000 0 0 0 6 Sludge Storage/Holding 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 7 Clarifier Rehab 140,000 140,000 0 0 0 Disinfec~on 296,000 346,000 324,500 486,700 618,900 Filter Rehab 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 8 New Filters 0 200,000 0 0 0 Girt Removal 0 0 354,500 532,000 675,900 Administraton Building 0 0 0 0 0 Electrical/Instrumentation 263,000 263,000 394,400 591,500 752,000 9 In-plant pumping 56,000 65,000 93,000 139,600 177,500 Sludge Age Controllers 0 0 338,600 507,800 645,600 Sub-total 3,430,500 5,909,300 4,870,000 7,304,100 9,286,550 10 Profit/Overhead (12%) 411,660 709,116 (incl. in line items) (incl. in line items) (incl. in line items) ~--~ Contingencies (10%) 343,050 590,930 (incl. in line ~tems) (incl. in line items) (incl. in line items) Engrg, Legal, Admin (10%) 343,050 590,930 487,000 730,410 928,655 GRAND TOTAL $4,528,260 $7,800,276 $5,357,000 $8,034,510 $10,215,205 Cost per gallon $5.09 $2.39 $2.14 $2.41 $2.04 NOTES (where item is discussed): 1. This report, page 5. 2. This report, page 9. 3. This report, page 3; NTMWD report, page 4. 4. This report, page 4; NTMWD report, page 10. 5. This report, I~ge 4. 6. This report, page 4. 7. This report, page 10. 8. This report, page 10. 9. This report, page 4. 10. This report, page 10.