SYCAMORE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 5, 2015

Transcription

1 SYCAMORE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 5, CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. AUDIENCE TO VISITORS CITY COMMITTEE MEETINGS No Meetings are Scheduled REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of December 15, B. Payment of the Bills for January 5, PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND BILLS. A. Swearing-In of Glenn Theriault as Police Chief of the City of Sycamore, Illinois. 8. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 9. REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. ORDINANCES None 1

2 12. RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 617 A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Designate 2015 Freedom of Information Act Officers Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act of the State of Illinois. Illinois law requires municipalities and other governmental agencies to designate at least one individual to handle Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA) requests. FOIA officers are required to complete electronic training on an annual basis through the Illinois Attorney General s office. The names of the FOIA officers must be displayed on the City s web site. The City Manager recommends the designation of the following officers for 2015: Candy Smith, City-wide FOIA Officer; Adam Orton, City-wide FOIA Officer; Megan Petit, Police Department FOIA Officer. Because of the daily and frequent requests for case information from the Police Department, a FOIA officer with special training has been designated to aid the public in such requests. City Council approval is recommended. 13. CONSIDERATIONS A. Consideration of a Public Works Committee Recommendation for Phase III of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project. In May 2005, the City began working with McMahon Associates to plan for future treatment plant expansion and collection system improvements. Tim Bronn has been the principal representative for McMahon Associates. The initial plan presented in 2005 included a two phase project that would ultimately result in an increase in the rated plant capacity from 2.97 MGD (million gallons per day) to 4.99 MGD. As the project has evolved an additional phase was added making the project three phases as outlined below: Phase One The first phase of the treatment plant project involved headworks and solid handling improvements. At the City s treatment plant, wastewater is separated into settled solids or sludge, and liquid. The current plant uses an activated sludge process consisting of physical means (screens, settling basins, and sand drying beds), biological means (microorganisms) and chemical treatment. Sodium hypochlorite is used in the chemical treatment phase to control the growth of algae in the tanks. As solids are stabilized and dried, they are applied to farm fields. This phase was completed in Phase Two The scope of phase two includes the installation of a disinfection system for the excess flow clarifier, replacement of a rotary fan press for sludge dewatering with a centrifuge and the 2

3 installation of a stilling well in the excess flow clarifier. Construction on this phase is on-going and should be completed in spring Phase Three The third and final phase of the treatment plant expansion project addresses the actual expansion from a plant rated to treat 2.97 MGD to 4.99 MGD. The majority of the infrastructure at the existing plant was constructed in the late 1970 s and is need of repair or replacement as it has exceeded its life expectancy. There are several methods that have been considered for the expansion portion of the project. The City needs to decide on a direction for this phase before making costly repairs on equipment that may or may not be part of the ultimate expansion plan. Tim Bronn briefly presented the advantages and disadvantages of the different options to the Council in November. Since that time Mr. Bronn has prepared life cycle costs for the three most logical options which were presented in detail to the Council s Public Works Committee on December 8th. The estimated cost and present worth are shown below along with a description of each option. The present worth analysis is designed to bring both present and future expenditures to a common basis for a point of comparison. Option #1: Sequencing Batch Reactor or SBR Estimated Cost: $25,303,000 Present Worth: $23,760,162 The sequencing batch reactor technology uses essentially the same process as the conventional activated sludge process, but the separation of solids from the liquid is accomplished in the same tank as the aeration process. This results in fewer tanks to be constructed, less site piping, and a smaller footprint. For this option all new tanks would need to be constructed. This cost estimate includes improvements that will be required upstream of the sequencing batch reactors, and disinfection equipment downstream from the sequencing batch reactors. The annual energy costs at $.10/kwh for this option are estimated at $151,780, making this option the least expensive to operate. Option #2: Expansion of the Existing Conventional Activated Sludge Facility Estimated Cost: $21,583,800 Present Worth: $22,877,150 The existing facility is a conventional activated sludge facility designed to provide treatment for 2.97 million gallons per day. In order to provide treatment for the expanded capacity of 4.99 million gallons per day, additional aeration tankage and clarifier capacity will need to be constructed. One of the cost estimates attached provides an estimate of probable construction costs for expansion of the existing facility. This cost estimate includes improvements that will 3

4 be required upstream of the aeration and clarifier equipment, and disinfection equipment downstream from the clarifiers. The annual energy costs at $.10/kwh for this option are estimated at $211,014. Option #3: IFAS System Estimated Cost: $22,282,000 Present Worth: $23,460,103 Integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) systems add fixed or free-floating media to an activated sludge basin to encourage the growth of attached biomass and enhance the treatment process. IFAS systems are being implemented in an increasing number of wastewater treatment facilities to expand the capacity of the activated sludge system in the same tank volume. It is possible to almost double the treatment capacity of existing tankage using an IFAS system. Under this option, while the aeration tank will have sufficient capacity, additional clarifier tanks will be required. As in the previous cost estimates, improvements required upstream of the aeration and clarifier equipment and disinfection equipment downstream from the clarifiers will be included in the cost estimate. The annual energy costs at $.10/kwh for this option are estimated at $273,423, making this option the most expensive to operate. Recommendation After careful review of the options, the Public Works Committee forwarded a recommendation to the full Council to proceed with the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) option. The advantages of the SBR option include new tanks and equipment which should result in less maintenance costs, lower operating costs and the option that is the most cost effective to expand if necessary at some point in the future. In addition, the SBR option is the least disruptive to plant operations during phase III construction. The Committee noted operational aspects, flexibility and expandability and lifecycle costs as a basis for the recommendation. Financial Consideration All of the options presented above require a significant, but necessary investment. Based on an estimated cost of $25,303,000, the project will require borrowing through a low interest loan from the Illinois EPA revolving loan program. Current IEPA revolving loan funds are available at 2.21% for 20 years. The IEPA intends to offer 30 year terms beginning in late 2015 and it is estimated the rate will be roughly 50 basis points higher for the extended term. Between the City s Sewer Fund reserve and the Sewer Impact Fee Fund, roughly $3.5 million in liquid funds are available to put toward this project. Given the project will take approximately three years to complete, an estimated $345,000 in connection fees will be generated and will be used toward the project. Based upon the current IEPA rate offering, annual debt service is estimated to be $1.328 million over 20 years and $1.046 million for 30 years. 4

5 The plan includes an allocation of $250,000 per year to maintain the collection system in addition to the investment in phase III construction. The collection system is the series of underground sewer mains and manholes that direct wastewater to the treatment plant. Collection system improvements will include replacing and lining underground infrastructure that in some cases is over 100 years old. In order to make up the gap between available funds and the estimated debt service costs, the City will look for opportunities to reduce costs when practical. Significant user fee adjustments will be required to finance the debt service for this project and demonstrate to the IEPA that funds are available for repayment. Options were discussed at the Public Works Committee meeting including one-time adjustments, a three year adjustment and a longer term phased in approach. The Committee was most receptive of a shorter term phased-in adjustment. Such an adjustment would still result in user fee increases of over 10% per year for three to four years depending on term of the loan. These increases would take effect in 2015 and any surplus could be used to reduce the amount that is borrowed resulting in lower annual debt service. Examples of adjustments over one, three and four years for both 20 and 30 year repayment terms are attached to illustrate possible adjustment options. The options are based on variables such as construction costs, available interest rates, a ½% annual growth rate and steady connection fee revenue, all of which may change over the coming years. Based on Council direction, the City Manager will prepare adjustments to the user fee structure that will be presented for action during the FY16 budget process this spring. City Council direction is requested. 14. OTHER NEW BUSINESS 15. APPOINTMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT 5