Board of Mayor & Aldermen

MINUTES BOARD OF MAYOR AND ALDERMEN SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 5, 2013 Board present Staff present Mayor Billy Paul Carneal City Manager Paul John Nutting Vice Mayor Jerome Ellis City Recorder Jane Shugart Murphy Alderman James Hubbard Alderman Ann Schneider Alderman Bruce Head Alderman Clay Sneed Board absent Alderman Willie Mason 1.0 Call to order Mayor Billy P. Carneal called to order the special meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen at 7:00 p.m. 2.0 Administrative 2.1 Paul Nutting, City Manager presented for the Board’s review and possible action an amended FEMA grant contract for recovery for the 2010 flood disaster. The amended contract increases the award to the City in the amount of $36,448.61 for increased costs for the City’s one (1) large project, the repair of three (3) water mains at stream crossings, for a total reimbursement of $314,274.60. The total eligible costs for the City amount to $330,815.35 with the Federal share of 90% ($297,733.84), State share of 5% ($16,540.76), and the City matching share of 5% ($16,540.76). The current contract is for total eligible costs for the City of $292,448.40 with Federal and State reimbursement amounting to $277,825.99. Upon receiving the amendment, Mr. Nutting notified TEMA that the total eligible costs for the City amount to $339,777 due to increased costs for some of the small projects. TEMA staff advised him that it would be possible to have another amendment for the full amount; however, due to the costs being related to small projects, a special audit of all the small projects would have to be conducted. He was advised by TEMA that FEMA now has very limited staffing dedicated to this  disaster, as a result of the need to focus on other disasters that have occurred in other parts of the nation, and it would take many additional months to complete the audit and to receive final reimbursement. The amended contract under consideration would make the City eligible to receive a final reimbursement check in the amount of $86,819.37. Mr. Nutting stated that due to the fact that it has been nearly three (3) years since the disaster occurred, and the amount of additional reimbursement the City may be eligible for is relatively small, in his opinion, it is not worth the time and effort to request an additional amount. He recommended that the Board authorize him to execute the amended contract as presented in order to close out the contract. Mr. Nutting also stated that the City has also received the amount of $397,546.37 in insurance payments to help meet the costs of storm damage recovery. Mr. Hubbard made a motion to approve the amendment to the FEMA contract for the 2010 flood disaster in the amount of $36,448.61, as presented. The motion was seconded and passed by 6-0 roll call vote. 2.2 The representatives from Jacobs Engineering made a presentation to finalize the Planning Study for Long-Term Water and Wastewater Solutions. The goals of the Long-Term Plan are to define water and wastewater needs for the next twenty (20) to fifty (50) years, develop alternative solutions, compare and evaluate alternatives, select preferred solutions, identify financial impacts, and establish implementation steps and a timeline. Jacobs identified six (6) water supply/treatment options. Four (4) of the options were to purchase finished water from one of the following water systems: Nashville Metro, White House Utility District, City of Clarksville, or the Logan Todd Regional Water Commission in Kentucky. The other two (2) options included either purchasing raw water from Logan Todd and adding treatment capacity or building a new raw water intake on the Cumberland and adding treatment capacity. The two (2) top-ranked options were the purchase of finished water from Nashville Metro or the purchase of raw water from Logan Todd that includes the expansion of the Springfield water treatment plant. The top-ranked options were based on lowest estimated life-cycle costs including capital/construction, operation and maintenance, and water purchase. The option of purchasing finished water from Nashville would involve transmission main improvements within Nashville’s system to Joelton, paid by Springfield; the construction of a new 24-inch Nashville main from Joelton to a meter at the Robertson County line, paid by Springfield; a booster pump station installed by Springfield at the county line; and the construction of a new 20-inch Springfield main on US Highway 431 to the new elevated storage tank located on Highway 431 near Betts Road. The estimated fifty (50) year life cycle cost of this option, which includes capital costs of twenty-nine million dollars ($29,000,000), is one hundred ten million dollars ($110,000,000). The option of purchasing raw water from Logan Todd would involve transmitting Cumberland River water at Clarksville through the Logan Todd intake/pump station on the river, having Springfield connect to the Logan Todd raw water main near the Tennessee/Kentucky border; installing a new 24-inch raw water main to the Springfield water treatment plant; expanding the water treatment plant to fifteen million (15,000,000) gallons per day; and installing a new 24-inch finished water main from the water treatment plant to Springfield’s distribution system for a reliable and redundant supply. The raw water pricing assumes elimination of Tennessee property tax on Logan Todd assets in Tennessee which would involve the potential title transfer of Tennessee based assets to Springfield, alternative arrangements for tax elimination under consideration, and clear contract terms for continued operation and maintenance by Logan Todd. The estimated fifty (50) year life cycle of this option, which includes capital costs of sixty-one million dollars ($61,000,000), is one hundred nine million dollars ($109,000,000). Jacobs compared the features of both water options. Purchasing finished water from Nashville has a low initial cost compared with the higher initial cost for the Logan Todd raw water option, but life-cycle costs are similar in the long-term. With regard to water age and quality, Logan Todd raw water treated at the Springfield water treatment plant would have lower water age, but the water quality for finished water from Nashville would have to be carefully monitored at Joelton over time. In comparing contract terms, the Logan Todd asset ownership transfer is challenging, but the wholesale water supply by Nashville is routine. The water supply actions Jacobs recommended to be taken in the near-term are to postpone the long-term decision and most capital costs for eight (8) to ten (10) years until additional capacity is needed; track system growth and demands and reassess needs and options in five (5) to eight (8) years; consider conservation to extend the life of existing supply and treatment facilities because the reduction of peak day demands is key; maintain open communication with neighboring systems to identify future water supply opportunities; implement near-term improvements at the water treatment plant to add variable speed pumping to the distribution system at an estimated cost of nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000); and continue to monitor the condition of the 24-inch transmission main to the distribution system and prepare for emergency repairs, if needed. Jacobs stated that the major factors for wastewater planning were the need for additional treatment/disposal capacity, and treatment options/costs tied to discharge choice. Discharge choices include the discharge to a stream, reuse, or land application. Five (5) long-term wastewater treatment options were identified that included expanding/upgrading the existing wastewater treatment plant and continue discharging all flow to Sulphur Fork Creek; discharging current wastewater treatment plant capacity to Sulphur Fork Creek and land applying additional flow; discharging all flow to Sulphur Fork Creek in winter and discharging to the Cumberland River in summer; treating all flow at the existing wastewater treatment plant site and discharging all flow to the Cumberland River; and keeping the existing wastewater treatment plant and building a new wastewater treatment plant for additional flow to discharge to the Cumberland River. The recommended long-term wastewater treatment option is to discharge the current wastewater treatment capacity to Sulphur Fork Creek and land apply additional flow. This option has the lowest life-cycle cost, uses less complex technology, protects the surface water quality of Sulphur Fork Creek; and TDEC requires land application to be used, if costs are reasonable. The estimated twenty (20) year life-cycle cost of this option, which includes capital costs of seventy- four million dollars ($74,000,000), is ninety-nine million dollars ($99,000,000). This option continues treatment at the existing wastewater treatment plant, discharging current flow to Sulphur Fork Creek, and upgrading treatment in the future as discharge limits tighten; adds treatment and land application for additional future flows (other systems in the region use land application); and treats with lagoons for inexpensive treatment. This option would require eight hundred (800) acres for the fifty (50) year planning period. This option can also be constructed in phases as needed. Jacobs recommended that the City should assess its capacity needs after sewer rehabilitation. Jacobs recommended the following actions within the next one (1) to two (2) years: retain a soil scientist to identify potential areas for land application; identify/evaluate potential sites; acquire property for treatment/land application; begin replacing worn out equipment at the existing wastewater treatment plant; continue the on-going program for sewer overflows; and have a discussion with TDEC before the discharge permit expires on December 31, 2014. Within the next three (3) to five (5) years, continue the on-going program for sewer overflows and assess results and impacts on wastewater flow. Within the next five (5) to eight (8) years, complete design and construction of new land application facilities. After the next eight (8) years, upgrade the existing wastewater treatment plant for nutrient removal and expand the land application system to stay ahead of wastewater flow. Estimated wastewater capital costs within the next one (1) to two (2) years should be as follows: $1,000,000 for improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant; $3,000,000 for the acquisition of land application property; and $400,000 for sewer system rehabilitation. Costs within the next three (3) to five (5) years should be $5,600,000 for sewer system rehabilitation. Costs within the next five (5) to eight (8) years should be $6,000,000 to construct a pipeline to the land application site; $11,000,000 for the land application treatment system; and $2,000,000 for the land application irrigation system.  In summarizing the water and wastewater improvements the City will have to make in the short-term, Jacobs stated that the City will need to expend a total of $11,000,000 within the next five (5) years to install variable speed drives for pumps at the water treatment plant, make improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant, acquire property for land application; and proceed with sewer system rehabilitation. Water and sewer rates need to be increased to obtain attractive financing terms. All Board members were given an opportunity to ask the Jacobs representatives questions about the study and the options available to the City. 3.0 Adjournment With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned. ______________________________ Billy P. Carneal, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Jane Shugart Murphy, City Recorder