HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-1979
v
tr`ss
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
August 14, 1979
Special Called meeting of the City of Denton City Council Tuesday
August 140 1979 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building,
1. Consider an appearance by Paula Thetford speaking in behalf
of "Denton Cares" to support of using Seattle, Washington's
conservation plan as a blueprint for Denton.
2. Consider a report on the ambulance service.
i ~
36 Consider a report on the status of the EPA Grant for the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4. Consider a resolution amending the EPA grant Application for
the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
S. Conslder a resolution amending the engineering contract with
Freese and Nichols for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
6. Consider a source of funding for the FAA Grant Hatch.
7. Consider a policy on deadlines for agenda items and agenda
backup materials.
8. Executive Session
A. Legal
8. Real Estate
C. Personnel
0. Board Appointments
9. Consider Board Appointments
k
owl
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Angelo, Administrative Assistant
DATE: August 9, 1919
SUBJECT: Agenda Item N1 - Appearance by Pauie Thetford. I
i
This item was placed on the agenda by Ms. Thetford at her request. I
have included for the Council s consideration a copy of the City of {
Seattle's Energy 1990 Study which outlines the various aspects of
their conservation pldn.
BiUI ANG a.►-
E
BA:gd f
i
I
1:a
SEATTLE'S ENERGY 1990 STUDY
.
BACKGROUND
The study began when Seattle City Light approached the City
Council for authorization to reserve an option to participate in
the construction of three nuclear power plants. The plants were
a part of an overall plan for meeting the electric power require-
ments of the Northwest through the 1980's.
Washington Public Power Supply System was the agency respon-
sible for,the construction and operation of all public utility
energy resources. The system must blso obtain the capital for
' construction by selling bonds on the, national market.
Under the Option Agreement, Seattle reserved the right to
purchase approximately 10% of the output of the nuclear projects.
In return the City agreed to pay an equal share of th3 capital and
interest payments. City Light was to pay interim development bonds
of $100 million whether complete financing and development of the
projects took place or not. Total project capital costs were
1 , estimated between $2 and $2,5 billion.
1 At the public hearings held by the Council to discuss City
Light's recommendations, certain questions arose. The questions
raised concerned Seattle's electric energy load growth projection,
J social and economic impact of the plants and alternative ways for
meeting future demalds. Also, in question was the Council's
approval of City Light's rate increase in light of the Citizen's
Committee recowendaticn for possible studies before any further
increases. The Council approved City Light's request on the Option
Agreement, and before any final approval on participation in the
plants, they wanted the questions raised at the public hearing
answered,
s
i
Page Two
INTRODUC710N
In an effort to answer some of the questions raised by the
public and the Council, City Light decided to initiate a study.
They notified the citizens that had testified at the public hear-
ing in order to get some feedback on the scope of the study, and
the best method that could be used to obtain an objective study.
The citizen responses were as follows:
* We outside consultants.
* The consultants should do an independent
assessment of projected energy needs.
* Load forecasting methodologies.
* Rate policies.
i
* Social, economic, and environmental
impact of options.
* Citizens sholeld be involved in monitoring the
study,for •r, lidity and completion.
City Light then, in conjunction with the City Staff, drafted a study
proposal for recommendation to the City Council. The Council then
took action and approved and hudgeted the study proposal.
The Energy 1990 Study, which grew out of much debate, included
a forecast of the future energy demands of Seattle. It could have
been disastrous to over estimate, as well, as underestimate the amount
of generation that would be needed. The forecast also included:
1. A tabulation of estimated peak and 'average loads,
resources, and reserve margins for each year during
the forecast to 1990.
4 ~
2. A description of all facilities and purchases
expected to serve additional electric energy
requirements identified in the forecast, a {
discussion of the financing arrangements for
such facilities and purchases, and an explana-
tion of all inter-utility agreements anticipated
for financing, generating, and transmitting the
energy to be supplied;
3. A description of all loads identifies in the
forecast classified by residential, con,..~rcial,
industrial, and such other demand sectors in the
utility's service area as the Department of f
Lighting shall determine;
F-
I
Y
Page Three
4. A*destription L, all loads identified in the forecast
classified by residential, commercial, industrial,
and such other demand sectors in the utility's
service area as the Department of Lighting shall
determine;
5. A description of projected population growth, urban
develojinent, industrial expansion,'conversion from
fossil fuels to electric energy, and other growth
factors influencing increased demand.
i
Possible options for the City's future energy needs,w-re broken
down into generation and non-generation. Proven generation technolo-
gies which could provide any needed ^apacity were hydroelectric
facilities and coal-fired and nuclear thermal plants. However, due
to the environmental impacts of these and given their limited nature,
these were deemed not acceptable. Technologies more acceptable to
the public were solar and wind energy. These non-generation options
were divided into conservation and supplemental energy system.
However, solar and wi.d generation had not been demonstrated as
feasible options and cost data appeared uncertain.
i
CITIZEN'S OVERVIEW COMMITTEE
The Citizen's Overview Committee was composed of twenty-nine
members. All members had some knowledge or professional.expertise
in either energy or environmental affairs. Tha members ranged from
lawyers to economists to business people that were concerned about
the outcome and impact of the study. A few examples of the expertise
on the committee are listed below.
* A mana er of a group of economists at Boeing,
g I
specializing in economic forecasting, energy
economics and related energy studies
* A member of the National Energy Task Force for
the League of Women Voters. E
* A professor with the Physics Department of the
University of Washington.
* An attorney that previously was a member of the
Environmental Law Section of the Washington State
Bar.
r
* A processor of nuclear engineering at the Univer-
sity of Washington.
l
f
Page Four
.RATE STRUCTURE
Most of the alternative rate structure options were based on
marginal cost pricing. The exceptions were Conservation and Life-
line Rates. The rate structure options were based on the following;
1. Long Run Incremental Cost Pricing - Reflects an
early trend toward application of the marginal
cost to kilowatt-hour purchased,
,
2, Seasonal Pricing - Applies the marginal cost
concept to the winter peak season,
3. Two Tiered Pricing - Applies marginal cost to new
customers and to new uses by all customers,
4. New Construction - Applies marginal cost to new
hook-ups for electricity.
6. Conservation Rates - Offers a positive rate in-
centive to consumers who meet standards of use
through low use.
6. Lifeline Rates -'Fixed below cost charge for some
minimum amount of electricity.
7. Inverted'Rate3 - Approaches-marginal cost for those
whose electric energy usage is in the range needed
for space heat.
ALTERRATIYE ENERGY POLICIES
i '
E The alternative rolieies which were developed and evaluated
by the study were historical, modified historical, all electric,
demand management, steady rate, delay decision, and no action. All
of the alternative policies were evaluated in terms of their varied
impact on the service area and areas outside the service area,
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The Energy 1990 Study analyzed the consequences of various
energy policy alternatives for the City of Seattle for the period
up to the year 1990. It was used to set the energy policy for the
City by the Seattle City Council,
based upon the information developed in the 'study,,the Council
made a decision to adopt a comprehensive tong-term energy conservation ,
Page Five
proiram Instead of participation in nuclear plants,
The six categories covered by the Conservation Program were
as fellows:
A. Commercial/Industrial Conservation
1. Energy Management Seminars
2, Utility Training Workshops
3. Energy Audits
4, Fire Power
5. Efficiency Standards
B. Residential Sector
1. Heat Loss Standards
2, Residential Audits
3. Uow Income Elderly Insulation Program
4. Community'Conservation Workshops
6. .Connunity Conservation Meetings
6. Thermographic Flyover
7. Special Exhibits
S, Residential Workshops
9. - Computerized Audit Services
10. Insulation Training
C. Consumer Education
14 School Programs
2, Energy Information Outreach
D. Research, Development and Demonstration
1. Wa0 a Heat Recovery
2, Residential Use of Solar and Wind.
3, Sun Day
4. Odessa Brown Clinic
J.
i
Page Six
5, Demonstration Audits
6, Hot Water Savings
7, Rates Analysis
8. Neighborhood Conservation Demonstration Program
E. In-House Example Setting
! 1, Operation Sweep-Up
2. Retrofit of Facilities
3, Training & Information
4. Hourly Load Prediction System
F. Grants-In-Aid
1. Department of Energy Grant
2. Washington State Energy Office Contract
36 Department of Energy Grant
The estimated savings from the Conservation Program in 1977 was as
follows:
Commercial Sector 40 Megawatts Average `
Industrial Sector 12 Megawatts Average
Residential Sector 20 Megawatts Average
Total Saving 71 Megawatts Average or
8% of Normal energy
requirements,
Other milestones achieved by the Conservation Program have been:
I
L A 7.7% overall reduction in electricity consumed by City
Light customers.
2. A 76% reduction in electricity consumed in the 9-story
City Light main office building in downtown Seattle.
3. A 38% reduction in residential conversions to electric
space heating caused by the new, stringent requirements
for insulation.'
4. A 24.9% overall savings in electricity used in the Lighting
Department's facilities and distribution system,
51 Through a private contractor and with the assistance of the
Department of Human Resources, City Light lust completed
I
I
• Page Seven
weatherization (including retrofitting insulation) of
391 homes of the low-income elderly.
I
1
{
I
I
I
l ,
i •
1
j
i ~
I
i
}
M+
I
f
1
CITY OF DENTON
i1 MEMORANDUM
C TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Angelo, Administrative Assistant
DATE: August 9, 1919
Sl19JECT: Agenda Item #2 - Report on Ambulance Service ~
i
This item was placed on the agenda by Assistant City Manager King Cole,
and will consist of an oral report on the status of the Ambulance
Service for informational purposes only, Therefore, no backup
material will be included.
;
j
i
BA:gd
i
j
i
I
1
s
E
1
`~1M~~~+Lelr~.bf
,I
1
City Council Agenda Item
SUBJECTt Review Waste Water Treatment EPA Grant Progress
SUMMARY#
1
j
The following pages contain a progress report outlining stage j
! taken to obtain Federal Funds to expand the City's Wastewater
Treatment facilities. The report will briefly erpicin the grant
' process as well is provide some historical backgrocnd information.
This information will be discussed and expanded upon at the dity Council {
Meeting.
f !
j
wbert Fiorini,
Administrative Assistant
,3 IE
f
1
III
I
I
. _._,..na ,.~.,..............._..a+,.»~.....,......,...._. .e......,._,. _ _ _ _ ...............e nw.•,otiva+huw.tiw'M
w~
..~w
P.L. 92-500 Constr.e%tion Grant
The City of Denton's Wastewater Treatment Plant is an activated
sludge type plant. It has the capability of producing a satisfactory
secondary quality effluent when it is operated within it's design
capacity. However,the plant has reached it's design capacity and prio:
to 1977 did have difficulties in meeting it's effluent permit
conditions. Operational procedures have been put into effect and that
has kept the plant in compliance since early 1977.
In 1972, it became apparent that the present wastewater treatment
facilities would need to be expanded to take care of present and future
needs. The present design capacity is 6 million gallons per day. when
the plant is expanded, it will have a design capacity of 12 mil.ion
gallons per day semi-tertiary treatment facilities
In order to finance the planning, designing and construction of a
plant expansion of this type, federal assistance was sought under the
Fedara. Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. (Public Law
92-500) Public Law 92-500 provides for a 3 step federal grant that will
contribute up to 75% of the total capital necessary for wastewater
treatment fac'lity construction and improvements. Step I involves the
preparation of a facility plan. Step 11 involves the actual design work
while Step III provides for the construction of the facilities. t
i
In 1972, $5,250,000 of sewer boris were approved by Denton voters tc
provide for the City's share of 25% of the planning, design and
construction costs for the sewer plant and other sewer system
improvements. i
s
,
In 1974, an application was submitted to the Tnxas Water Quality
Board to begin work Gm the Facility Plan (Stepl). The consulting
engineer firm or Freese and Nichols, Inc. was retained by the City to
j conduct this work. The Facility Plan was completed in January of 1976 1
and submitted to the Texas 'Hater Quality Board for their approval. The
total cost of the facility plan was $1280736 of which $69,546 was
reimbursed to the City from the federal grant. A reimbursement to the
amoupit of $7,006 is still forthcoming for the remainder of the Step I
project. The City's share of the Step I portion was $32,184, {
f
Prior to the Step II application for plans and specifications to be
drawn, it was necessary to divide and separate out 85% of the proposed
line work from the facility plan for funding purposes. During this time, + -
the federal government would not fund collection system projects. As a !
result, the Hickory Creek interceotor line and lift station which is
designed to provide a loop along the southern perimeter of the City was
postponed to a later date when fundlra would be available. This enabled
the City to continue the grant process on the treatment facilities and
{
..,..vwr+.AV"wlavP'.a..u wmnea.sf..v,a.4-..v..x.'n.+MV'w..... .r.l..x...4.. •-.w......~ ...,....~„.,..4.,..u....as...r.n...4sn.....v..n.rwl~\i. wM WVN1Y~f.MAF1Y?V~WVYIfi'~M
`f
mow"
15% of the proposed collection system. The 15% of the collection system ~
was made up of the Pecan Creek interceptor line from South Elm Street to
the treatment plant and a sewage collection system for the Audra Lane
area. Thus, in February of 1977 a Step II application, prepared by
Freese and Nichols, Inc. was submitted to the TWQ8 to begin the design
work.
In September of 1976, Freese and Nacho's, Inc. completed the plan:
and specifications. After a review of the plans by the City they were
submitted to the Texas Department of Water Resources (formerly the Texas
water Quality Board). TM review of the plans and specifications was
temporarily held up due to amendments to the Facility Plan concerning
overload conditions and sludge disposal methods. These amendments were
finally approved in a letter received on December it 19781 from the
TO'wR. Further delays were encountered when TOWR staff engineers became
involved in Step II pre-application conferences which delayed the review
process for approximately 4 months. Finally in early April, 19799 TOWR
staff engineers began their review. On May 4, 1979, a meeting was set up
in Austin between TOWR staff engineers, the City's consulting engineers
and City Utilities Department staff members to discuss possible
modifications to the plans and specifications. On May 15, 1979, a letter
from the TOWR was received outlining the modifications discussed at the
May 4, 1979 meeting and requesting written responses to these concerns.
The responses were jointly prepared by the Utilities Department staff and
the consulting engineers. Another meeting was set up on June 8, 1979,
which resulted in mu:.*1 agreements on the major modifications which
included equipment requirements, building sizes, treatment process design
and other minor modifications. It appears now that the plans and
specifications are ready for State rertification and transmittal to the
E EPA. The total cost of the design work is $338,232.1 of which
reimbursement from the Federal grant will be requested in the amount of
$253,674. The City's share will be $89,558.
During to course of plan and specification review, a Step III
application for the construction phase of the project was prepared. On
{ January 10, 1979, the Step III application was delivered to the TOWR.
Again, delays were encountered due to the fact that the plans and
specifications had not been approved at the time of the Step III
t application submission. However, the TOWR -lid agree to review the Step
III application and hold off on it's certification until approval of the
plans and specifications are obtained. The review of the Step III
application resulted in requests from the TOWA to amend certain portions
of the engineering contract and update construction cost estimates to
bring the project in line with current inflationary trends. These
amendments have been mace and were submitted to the TOWR on July 18,
1979. If no further delays are encountered, a grant award can be
expected by the end of August, 197?. Construction would then begin in
:ate October or early November, 1?79 with a completion date aoproximately
18 months thereafter. Current construction cost estimates show the total
i Costs to be 510,01261460 of which 37,5279X45 will ce furEded through the
Feceral grant and 3215090115 .vill be funded cy the City. The
const:uct_cn costs con be further broken dawn as follows;
i
III
E
I
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion $7,3199401
Pecan Creek Interceptor Line $1,181,347 '
Audre Lane Collection System $ 342,248 f
Miscellaneous Costs (Engineering, Inspectlon)311193,464 I
TOTAL 3109036,460
In early Oecater, 19780 a pre-application conference was held in
Austin, Texas, to brief grant applicants on Step II application
procedures. During this conference, the City of Denton was told that it
appeared fwdl g would be available to begin design work on the
previously postponed Hickory Creek interceptor line and lift station.
The Step II application was completed and submitted to the TOWR on March
11 1979. On June 26, 1979, a letter from the TOWR was received,
notifying the City that the application had been reviewed, approved and
transmitted to the EPA, A grant offer should be forthcoming in the next
month. Recent cost estimates for the Step It and Step III portions of
the Hickory Creek project h--!e been developed and are as follows:
Step II (Design Work)
Federal Share $116
City's Share 38,971
,612 Total 31539483
Step III (Construction) $5,654,618
Federal Share 1,888,206
City's Share
Total 37,5521824
~
Step II 8 III Totals $5,781,230
Federal Share
City's Share 1,9270077
Total 370708,077
:
v
City council Agenda Item
SUBJECT, Consider Grant Application Amendments
SUMMARY,
A recent review of the City's Step III EPA grant application for
construction of Wastewater Treatment Plant facility improvements was
completed by the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR). The
review necessitate changes or amendments to the application. These
amendments have been made and have been re-submitted to the TDWR. The
amendments deal basically with the Engineering Contract and Construc-
t::d Cost Estimates.
The Engineering Contract required amendments detailing methods
by which certain portions of the engineering work costs would be
determined. These amendments will be discussed in greater detail
under the following Agenda items.
1
Construction cost estimates required revisions to update the appli-
cation since the original submission of the Step III application
1 took place ovar 6 months ago. At that time Om cost estimates were
i based on the most current construction cost index as reported by the
angineering news record. The construction cost estimates are now
current as of July , 1979.
f it should be noted that the application amendments do not obligate
1
City funds obligation of funds will occur when a grant offer is
made and the city accepts the grant award.
FISCAL SUMMARY,
present Step III Costs Previous Step III Costs Difference
Federal Share $7,5270345 $6,929,168 548,177
City Share 2,509,115 2,309,722 199,343
TOTAL $10,036,460 $9,238,890 $ 797,570
Source of Funds for City Shaw - Bond Funds
(NOt,t Sea Exhbit I for Datailed Charges)
ACTION REQJIREDi
City Council acceptance of the Step III Application Amendments
RECOMMENDATICNS, None
Utilities Board recommendationt Recommend acceptance of application amendments
R. c. Nelson, ?.I.
D.r9ctor of Utilities
3xhibitli ; *8t Tahu Ation
Ii SUrr9nL 9L3 .
COST TABULATIONS
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRESENT ESTIMATE PREVIOUS ESTIMATE DIFFERENCE
Administrative Expenses S 2,500 $850000 -82,500
1150041 115,041 0
An Basic Fees
226,978 226,978 0
project inspection Feat
7,189 500000 -42,811
Operator Training and Start-Up
2,202 3x744 - 1x542
*Industrial Pre-Treatment Survey
26,990 26,990 0
O&M Manual
1,290 1,290 0
• Plan of Operation
i
Construction 6 Project 8,843,000 8,264,900 +578,100
Improvements
25,000 25,000 0
Materials Tasting
786,270 t50 439,947_ +346 313
contingencies
$9o238,890 +791,570 .
TOTAL $100036,460
*On the previous estimate $3,744 was allocated to the development of the .
User Charge/Industrial Cost Recovery Systems. To expedite. the grant process the
City decided to develop the UC/ICR systems with their own funds and substitute
an industrial Pre-Treatment Survey in its place.
E
I
EXHIBIT I
I
I
Fonn APP•oved
' 0.,lI A'a fld•ROllJ
i ,
PAIN I I I - SUCGET INFORNLATION - CONSTRUCTION
SECTION A -GENERAL
1,• F.^deret Ocivmtic Assistance Catalog No . . . 66.418
2 Functioncl or Other 8rwhout rl!A '
I SECTION 8 - CALCULATION OF FEOEIAL GRANT
i
1 We only tar rwislons
Total
Cott Claai6tation Laim Amoved Adjustment Amount
Aron um • or t-1 Requirtd
A;M,n„truloou,p!n:, S S S 2 SGO
• I PrPirynary Y,annw
i 3. Land ltructum. rijnhCfvrav
4. Areniticturai ungmeenni bwe !Its l
S. Otnrr imr.o-a.iml vepouenno fqv,
r 0, Prolod t 10"ftlon tell 226,978
E.
1.Xx3UW- YAX: Operator Training b tart-LIP 7,189
$•X-NXX-X%XXX'XXXX industrial Pre-trey nt Survey 21202
j s.Xl~kXif%X1Ffb%XftXXX7l%XX X%%if~!'X?~3FXif 0 Manual 26,990
10,90OXXXXOXXX Plan of Operation j 1 290 I
11, Construction and ooroiYn rntaovemn+t 8,843,000
12. E4ulamrnt I
t1•'•+l~n+t~n+~~~ (Materials Testing)
r j +250+190
14. Total ILmn, 1 tnrowrn t;,i 9
~
I E. @,timatea !nLdnY hl »drao'd I
j 1
td. Net Palm Amount Rent 14 n.nut fSJ 9,250.190
17. Lrsf: InYI'~grble tMt,v, Onl
l It. Add: 786,210
19. Tut :l ?.O-,R AnN. fEreruJolq Rrnap.lirn~on GnnttJ 1101036j460
j i 7,527,345
~:Q. Pederot:nen •aauuteaa al Linn 1Q I +
1 21. Add FUMV1410.11 on Gnnn R' mr,tud 000 P.rnnrl I
:3. TalatPrutr.,,tiP4,,t ,r;w,,:rd Los JA:1) I k
' 11,527
0i 2
036 036 460
::3 4 GCtannetraan,.:nra ua L,.;:.. s I i ; ! I ; : I
.0. Tote oro!m M,
311 t,.T STaC•L' :,v.,•C1i r,ac i :e t4
3t41I8IT SI '
na.m~
Form ADDrowd
ome NA is" 01.14
PART III - BUDGET INFORMATION - CONSTRUCTION
SECTION A - G ENERAL
1. Federal OomoWc Asshunce Catelol No. 66.418
t Functional a Other Breakout NSA
SECTION B - CALCULATION OF FEDERAL GRANT
UN orlr for revieleno
Told
Coot C3eSiAanbm Lt A Approved Adler Arum" Aeaual
RevulrN
1. Adminl,aetionaeoorwe ' ! ! ! 851000
t Pnilmirtvy eaoeroe
a Land ttnroturo, rilm~lw«
t. A kteetunl 6"inewiM book Is" 147,065
L OtPwYshilmunlwlAWMrl!eN
& Pmjm Infoeetlor IS" 226,978
7.) lAW4WV4WKx Operator Training _ 5
A t>,imoo t laomm"
0. Relocation oowmms to Indivk als end swln"M '
10. Demeiklon and remevol
11. Comauetion ens oreieet irtoroYemem 8 4 0
-
It 0euierrrrI
25,000
I0- MIao+lw,eeua {Materials Testing)
11. Teal lunca I thrown ICI 8 798 943
It 11stimated Income Of edorla")
14 NO Meted Amount W09 Nmfrur 111 8,798,941
i
~ 17. Lscat 1nNlliph luluuaro I
10. Addy ConuAlwast - q47
It. Total Melts Amt.l6/eludln/ReA~GIJinfkn GrerM1 91238,89
20. Fed$nlShanreoueeteeofL1netll 69929,168
21. Add RMebliution Giants Rwuaad IW Arrarnl
-
21 TOW hderallentnow,tod!Lift.'dA271 6t929,168
23 Grantathen 22309,722 j
26. Ovw shone i
2!. Tout onleet /Liner 0-.:1 A :41 s : s9 238.390
i ~~YBYr LTZ l
Y ;
60I to
PACti
!PA tow 1700-32 lit. 1.761
M~
4
AT A SPECIAL YSETINO OF THE C17Y COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF OENTON,
TEXAS, HELD IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OF SAID CITY ON THE 14TE
DAY OF AUGUST, A.J. 1979.
A B S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1979, the City of Denton submitted
an application (Step 1111 to the Texas Department Of Water Re-
sources for an EPA Grant for financial assistance in constructing
a 6 million gallon per day addition to the city's wastewater
treatment plants and,
WHEREAS, the Tex+e Department of Water Resources has vs-
quested (11 certain modification in the plant design, (3) an
update of construction costs reflecting the most recent inflation
rata and estimated construction start date, (31 an increase in
estimated contingency, and, (I) Certain modifications in the
allowable and estimated administration, start up training and
engineering required for construction And start up of the plants
and,
WHEREAS, these scbject•modifications have resulted in a change
in the estimated cost of the subject plant additional 3
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RSDOLVCD BY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TAM
1. The application for financial assistancs•fron the EPA be
amended fr:- he pravio.isly estimated total construction cost of j
$9,258,8)0 t* the currently estimated toot of $10,036,460.
J PASSE? A::O APPROVED this the 14th day of August, A.O. 1979.
BILL NXSH, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST,
1
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
I
IF T.R/
City Council Aganda, Item
SUHJECTs Cosusider Freese and Nichols Contract Amendment
SUMMAM I
.As discussed under the previous Agenda Item , EPA grant application
amendments made it necessary to amend engineering compensation for
stop III services under item 2.b of Amendment No.3 to the Freese and Niehols,Ine.
contract for Engineerinq Services. These amendments are necessary to conform
to the TM require.,ents for figuring engineerinq services compensation. The
methodologies used for determining angineerinq services ccmpenretion are
outlined in Exhibit.
k FISCAL S0M*L%n #
i
Tark Descri tion Present Estimate Previous Estimate Differ
*Basic Engineering Costs $115,041 $ll5,041 0
Protect Irapaction 226,978 226,978 0 _
•elndustrial Pre-Treatment Study 2,202 31744 -1,542
Place of Operation 102,10 •1,290 0 .
OLV Manual 260990 -'26#990 0 .
€ Start-up i Opar.Trng. 7j189 $0,000 -42.811 '
i
379,690 -424,043 44,353
TOTAL
!I
I Federal Share $284,768
City's Share 94,922
Total $379,690
i,
j Source of City Share Funds - Bond Funds
• on the previous estimate 1#290 for the plan of Operation was included In the
4 basic Engineering Costs
E as vas noted on Agenda Items the JC/IC% analysis was replaced •aith
the Industrial Pro-Treatment Study Costs
{
j
1
1
Page 2
ACTION REQUIRFDs
Approval af the amendments to the Engineering Contract.
ALTERNATIVESs
UTILITIES BOARD RECOMMENDATIONs
Recomrahd .pproval of the Engineering Contract Amendments.
4
R. E. Nelson, P.S.
Director of Utilities
EXHIBITSs j
I Previous Engineering costs i
1
j
r
I
i
i
I
c
i
i
i
~ l
{
i
yMOn w, nH{66
JAM96 X. NICMOIJ
' ■06[MT L NICNOy
FREESE AND NICHOL5 INC. L"a""OO
Joe PA" A""
Ross" A.
G 0 N% V L T I N S I N a I N 6 E R f Joe 0. NAPE111,
oeie e, ALL[N
June 28, 1979 MI. utm%ST CLC40"
^VIN C. CO►fLANO
pNN N. CO"
T. ANTN0117 P010
6AR. h, ASVM
Mr. Robert c. Nelson, P.E.
0 rector of Utilities
City of Denton
Municipal Wilding
f Denton, Texas 76201
Re: Cost or Price Summary
(Farm 5700-41) for
Step 3 Project
C-43-1188-03
j Dear Bob:
( Attached is EPA Form 5700-411 showing detailed engineering costs
for the Step 3 Construction Phase of your Wastewater Treatment Plant/
Interceptor Sewer Project. The total cost (line 12) is brokeA down
as follows:
Basic Engineering Costs $115,041.00
Project Inspection 226,978.00
Industrial Pretreatment Study Cost 29202:00
Plan of Operation 11290.00
Osv (Manual 263990.00
Start-Up d Operator Training 7,189,00
TOTAL $379,690,00
Conpenra lc n for each of the above items shall be as follows:
i. :aslc Era'neerino Casts: Compensation for 0as1c Engineering
Service, •1.T ce a icmp sum or 151041.00. Fees sh?11 be computed
EXHIBIT S
f
1
I
i
TLLCVNONC 6t7 334.7161 011 6 A M A 4 ,t TRt 9 T PONT 'NORTH, T[XAS I1101
ti
I
I
Robert E. Nelson
June 28, 1979
Page Two 1
- A
on the basis of the value of construction work performed by the Contractor
as reflected by the monthly estimates, Payment for Basic Engineering
shall be due and payable upon subnissior,•to the City of Denton.
2. Protect Inspection: Compensation for Project Insppection
plus (Field fixedsfeeaof.529,606,00. detemind forbasedProjecttInspection
shall not exceed the sum of $226,978.0. on a construction tire of 600 calendarOdaysThis maxim is ased
. S ouldutheeconstruction
time exceed 600 calendar days, the maximum fee for Project Inspection
f shall be renegotiated tared on the actual construction time. Pay-
E ments for Project Inspection shall be due and payable upon submission
of statements by Freese and Nichols. Statements shall not be sub-
mitted more frequently than monthly, ,
Industrial Pretreatment Stud : Compensation for the Industrial
Pretrea en to y s a e a ump sum of $2,202.00 which shall be
due and payable upon approval of the study by the Texas Department
of Water Resources and the EPA,
Plan of O eration: Compensation for the Plan of Operation shall
be a ump sum o 0.00, which shall be due and payable upon approval
by the Texas Department of Water Resources and the EPA,.
0,erationi and Maintenance Manua]: Compensation for the Operations
and Ma nt~i enanca Manual s a e etermined based on actual costs
plus a fixed fee of $3,521,00. Maximum fee for the Operations and
Maintenance Manual shall not exceed $26,990.00.
I ,
Start-U and O erator Trainin : Compensation for Start-Up and
Operator raining ssall e., lump sum of 7,648,00. This sum is
based on providing a representative of the Engineer at the plant
site for a period of twenty (20) working days. Should -dditional
time be required for Start-Up and Operator Training, th.• Engineer t
will be compensated on a dally rate based on the hour rate and fees
shown on the Form 57010;47 .1 Fee shall be due and payable upon com-
plettar:.e St'a, .-,In, Cparator Training period,
Paragrac. . of arem?Went No, 3 fo our Contract for Engineering Services
is dalete; e ; re:7a:k as follows.
1. ',•.a sail :,ntract shall be amended to include the provisions
establis4a b- :ns ;~virorrrental Protection Agency known as Appendix
C-1 co 40 CP.F Far:Subparagraph E. as published in the Federal
i
{
Robert E. 'nelson
June 28, 1979
Page Three
f
i
Register, dated September 27, 1978. Appendix C-1 is attached as
Exhibit E. It is mutually agreed that all references to other para-
graphs in Federal Regulations and Guidelines shall refere to those
in effect at the time of the execution of this Amendment.
If this meets with your apprrval, we would suggest that you execute
two copies in the space provided below, and a~so on the attached
EPA Forn 5700-41, Item 14 "Grantee Reviewer," This letter can then
serve to establish the engineering compensation for Step 3 services +
under Item 2,b of Amendment No. 3 to the Contract for Engineering
Services.
Respectfully yours,
I FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
James R. Nichols, P.E.
President
JRN:mq
ACCEPTED BY: F
CITY OF 301`011, TEXAS
By:
I
obert Na son
J Director of Uttl4ties
Dates _ ~~-]-?rf
1
i
1
1
i
SIMON W rdl rlV
JAMC1 M NN11NJ14
MCM91I11 L. NICHOIA '
LLl t. FIRCGC
FREESE AND NIC IIOLS, INC. 40LK►YL JOOC.ILS"
• I,OKI,T A. }.IO.bGON III
C O N{ V L T I N O i N 6 1 N( f IL I JOC W WA►C1
OCIC C. ALLCN
W. CRNCCT CLCMCNT
KVIN C. COKLANO
JOHN N. COOK
T. ANTNONT HIC
GAIIT V. ACWCC
November 30, 1978
Mr. Robert E. Nelson, P.E.
Director of Utilities
City of Denton
Municipal l Building
Denton, Texas 76201
Re: Cost or Price Summary 1
(Form 5700-41)
for Step 3 Project
C-48.1188.03
Dear Bob:
Attached is EPA Form 5700.41, showing detailed engineering costs for the
Step 3 Construction Phase of your Wastewater Treatment Plant/Interceptor
Sewer Project, The total cost (line 12) is broken down as follows: i
Basic Engineering Costs $1164331.00
Project Inspection 226,978.00
r
4 User Charge and Industrial Cost
Recovery Analysis 3,744.00
F a
06M Handal 26,990.00
N
Start-Up & Operator Training 50,000.00 6
TOTAL $424,043.00
The cost for start-upand operator training services are estimated and
will bR adjusted to reflect actual costs at the time the •work is per.
f
formed.
i
We propose that the lump sum compensation for basic engineeringg and
inspection services be periodically billed on a monthly basis in ac-
cordance with the percentane of construction activity completed at the
time of billing. Compensation for User Charge, Industrial Cost Recovery }
and O&M Manual work will be billed monthly as the work Is performed,
s;
s:o:ialT t
tRLt'NONt 111 11[.71[1 nil LAMS 0 1TA It 1f rO4T'NdAT4' TtKA$ }1lOt
. .ova M+ana9LAM w~ yyf-u.: ra r au -n w
t•
I
of
I .
Mr. Robert E. Nelson, P.E.
November 29, 1978
Page Two
If this meets with your approval, we would suggest that you execite two
copies in the space provided below, and also on the attached EPA Form
5700-41, Item 14 "Grantee Reviewer". This letter can then serve to
establish the engineering compensation for Step 3 services under Item
2.b of Amendment No. 3 to the Contract for Engineering Services.
I
Respectfully yours,
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
James R. Nichols, P.E.
• President
JRN:ms
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Denton !
BY
'Robert E. Nelson
Director of Utilities
DATE.,
t I
1 H 1 •
/
....r..w.ii M1Ng3. M34.1iL+.tl`YI\N.'M:rvt.Y+. . r:.~~ err.. .r..-.. w _
M1
AT A SPECIAL MEETING Or THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY or DENTON,
TEXAS, HELD IH THE "ICJ"AL BUILDING OF SAID CITY ON THE 14TH
DAY or AUGUST, A.D. 1979.
A B S O L U O
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has retained the consulting
engineering firm of treats and Nichols, Inc. to design, inspect
and administer the construction of a 6 million gallon per day
sdditlon to the city's wastewater treatment plants and,
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been requested by the Texas
Department of Water Resources to modify certain engineering ser-
vice requirt:ents for subject wastewater treatment plant additions
NOW, THIMORE, SE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, THATt
1. The enginsering contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc.,
be, and the same is, hereby amended in accordance with the taeee
and Nichols letter of June 241 1914, a copy of which is attached
I ,
herewith and made a part of, this resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 11th day of Auguat, A.D. 1979.
CITY Or DENTGN, TEXAS
'ILL N131 -Y
ATTtals
CI7Y Of D&1?-:.1t, T1V.AJ
APPROVED AS T~ LEOAL lORMI
OURT
ATTORNSx, ciTY' or DVIOr, TEXAS I
' wr4 416vIMIN.+~'.Jhe.ar.. .....n ...,..H.
.
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORAMUM
DATE OF MEETINGf June 26, 1979
AGENDA ITEMI Consider funding for Airport runway and taxiway overlay, and
authorize the City Manager to start the search for an engineering
firm.
SUVWY 1
We have received notice from the Federal Aviation Administration that th.t'
anticipate an allocation in the near, future fcr the overlay of the runway and
associated taxiways at Denton Municipal Airport. As you probably know from past
conversations the airport runway and taxiways were built by the military in
1944. After 35 years the concrete has settled in some areas causing water to
stand in spots and the top layer of concrete is beginning to break up causing
gravel to collect on the runway. This presents a dangerous situation, especially
to jet aircraft, and needs to be fixed. This improvement was requested from the
FAA in 1975, along with many other improvements, and they are just now in a
position to allocate some funds. j
FISCAL SUMMARYi {
Back in 1975 our consulting engineer, Carroll Finklea, prepared estimates
on this project. He has updated those estimates to 1979 dollars and the proposed
estimated budget for the overlay would be as follow,
$6900000 - Materials and Construction
30,000 - Engineering - plane and Specifications
and Admi-iist;at$on I
1,000 - Construction Layout Controls
7,500 - On Site Administration
88064 - Quality Control
34.500 - Contingencies
1771,064 - TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Under the Airport Development Aid Program of 1976 the local matching share
shall be 20% of the total project cost. This means that the cost to the City
of Denton would be $1:4,213.
We currently have no funds available for this project and if the city council
wishes to proceed with this project they will have to discuss sources of funding.
I have contacted the Texas Aeronautics Commission to see if they have any funds
available for this project. They encouraged me to submit a request for funds
but they explained that their allocations will not be made until after Septumber
let and they could make no cw-attmants at this time. They also told me they
could not participate in any pvojact on which construction had started prior to
September lat. This does not rule TAC participatica out but it has to be assumed
that tEa City will have to pay V..ae sntir9 6154,213.
k
I
ec~ ♦
2 .
It also needs to be pointed out that the letter from the FHA st•,.tea that they
"anticipate an allocation in the near future." This letter is not a guarantee
that there is a good probability that we will receive funding. They have asked
that we proceed with the preliminary engineering and the possibility exists that
we will incur the preliminary engineering costs and then not be funded.
ACTION REQUIRMS
Approval of a source of funding for the local, share of $154,213, and direction
from the Council to proceed with hiring an engineer to do the preliminary engineer-
ing.
HLTERNATIVESI
Be have discussed funding of this project and it appears that the only two
possible sources of funding would be i-,)m General Fund operating funds or from
Cei'Aficates of Obligation. we have been looking at,the 79-80 preliminary budget
figures and it does not appear there will be sufficient funds available for this
'project. That leaves only certificates of obligation as a source of funding for
this project.
STAFF RECCMNDNPIONi
The Airport Advisory Board will,discuss this item at their meeting on Tuesday
at noon. I will have their recommendation for you Tuesday night.
=1 BITS I
I. Latter from the rAA.
y
I ♦
1
I _
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION AD,.IINISTRATION
SOUTHWEST REGION Are
0. Box 1619 Q~•
fORT WORTK TEXAS 76101 i '
►~,C
Nlilt
IJUL 2 7 1979
Honorable Bill Nash
Mayor of Denton
215 E. WK{nney " f
Denton, Texas 76201
Dear Mayor Nasht
I am pleased to inform you, in response to your request for assistance I
under the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP), the A&dnittrator
has approved the following allocation for the Denton Municipal Airport.
j Federal F undsl $650,000
i; Develoxent% Overlay north-south runway (approxi-
mately 54006 x 1501) and associated
tauiwaysf marking.
Zhis allocation can be used only for the dcvelopaent described above.
You will tote that the allocation does not oontain all of the funds
and work items you requested. Our Airports Distriot Office will
m mw any gLmtions you may have and will provide any assistance
you may need.
toe look forward to working with you and your staff toward the orderly
00mletion of this project.
Sincerely,
-rector
it
JUL 3 01979
C11Y OF DENTON
MANACER'S OFFICE
~J
i
i
I '
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TO. Mayor and Members of t4 City Council
FROM: Bill Angelo, Administrative Assistant
DATE: August 9, 1979
SUBJECT: Agenda Item # 7 - Agenda Items and Backup Material
This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilman
Stephens and will involve discussion between the Council and the
Staff. Therefore, no backup material will be included for this
item.
BILrANGELO
BA:gd
I
i
I
i