HomeMy Public PortalAboutPKT-CC-2015-07-14Moab City Council
July 14, 2015
Pre -Council Workshop/Presentation
***6:00 PM***
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY CENTER
(217 East Center Street)
Page 1 of 31
Agenda
Page 2 of 31
Agenda
City of Moab
217 East Center Street
Moab, Utah 84532
Main Number (435) 259-5121
Fax Number (435) 259-4135
www.moabcity.org
Moab City Council
Regular Council Meeting
City Council Chambers
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
SECTION 1:
SECTION 2:
SECTION 3:
SECTION 4:
SECTION 5:
SECTION 6:
SECTION 7:
SECTION 8:
SECTION 9:
SECTION 10:
PRE COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Discussion Regarding Code Enforcement
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
PRESENTATIONS
3-1 Introduction of Grand County Solid Waste District Manager
3-2 Presentation Regarding Proposed Boulder Park
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING (Approximately 7:15 PM)
5-1 Solicitation of Public Input on Proposed Ordinance #2015-05 — An Ordinance
Amending the City of Moab Municipal Code, Chapter 17.33, FC-1 Flood Channel
Zone, Specifically Referencing Fencing, Structures for Public Transportation,
Vegetation and Penalties
SPECIAL EVENTS/VENDORS/BEER LICENSES
6-1 Approval of a Request by Tammy Snow for an Amplified Music Event at Old City Park
on August 15, 2015
NEW BUSINESS
7-1 Approval of a Task Order with Bowen, Collins and Associates for a Sewer Rate and
Fee Study
7-2 Approval of the Proposed Water Tank Project Site Location
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
READING OF CORRESPONDENCE
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Page 3 of 31
Agenda
SECTION 11: REPORT ON CITY/COUNTY COOPERATION
SECTION 12: APPROVAL OF BILLS AGAINST THE CITY OF MOAB
SECTION 13: EXECUTIVE SESSION
13-1 An Executive Session to Discuss the Character, Professional Competence, or Physical
or Mental Health of an Individual
13-2 A Discussion Regarding the Deployment of Security Personnel, Devices, or Systems
SECTION 14: ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting should
notify the Recorder's Office at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259-5121 at least three (3) working days
prior to the meeting. Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org
Page 4 of 31
Agenda
f
AGENDA SUMMARY
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MEETING
_1IIIV 1Z_ 2n1c
#: 5-1
Title: Approval of Ordinance #2015-05 to Amend Chapter 17.33, FC-1, Flood Channel Zone, Removing
Uses that do not Comply with the National Floodplain Insurance Program Regulations Specifically
Relating to the Protection of the Regulatory Floodway, as Referred to Council by the Planning
Commission
Staff Presenter(s): Jeff Reinhart
Department: Planning and Zoning
Background/Summary:
Floodplain management is the operation of a community program of preventive and corrective
measures to reduce the risk of current and future flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). These measures are carried out by multiple stakeholders with a vested interest in responsible
floodplain management and generally include requirements for zoning, subdivisions, building codes and
special-purpose floodplain ordinances. While FEMA has minimum floodplain management standards for
communities participating in the NFIP, being in compliance with those standards and adopting higher
standards leads to safer and stronger communities. Under the NFIP, development oversight is local and
how well a local jurisdiction manages its flood prone areas is of great benefit to the residents of the
community.
The FC-1 Zone is a mapped regulatory floodway under the NFIP and because of this status certain
requirements and restrictions are imposed to reduce losses caused by flooding. The restrictions include:
1. An engineered show of "no rise" in flood elevations is required for any development
activity or structures including permanent fences.
2. Requiring permits for activity within the floodplain and the records must be available to
be shown on demand.
3. Prohibition of cumulative impacts on the floodplain that may lead to barriers and water
course changes.
4. Required Inspection of projects.
5. Review of permits for proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have
been obtained from those Federal, State or local governmental agencies (including
Section 405 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C.
1334) from which prior approval is required.
6. Control of filling, grading, dredging and other "development" that may increase flood
Damage.
As noted in previous memos, this ordinance is a housekeeping document and approval will remove
specific items and structures from the FC-1 Zone to reduce the chances of these items becoming
downstream blockages. These changes will bring us into a higher level of compliance with the minimum
requirements of the NFIP and with our own Flood Damage Prevention regulations in MMC 15.40.
The reference to Chapter 17.09, Supplementary Requirements and Procedures within Zones has been
removed because the only reference to the FC-1 Zone in 17.09.700 is the prohibition of nighty rentals in
Page 5 of 31
Agenda
City Council
July 14, 2015
Ordinance #2015-05
FC-1 Amendments
Page 2 of 3
the zone. The ordinance also removes the keeping of animals as a redundant provision because
underlying agricultural zones allow livestock as a use by right. Corrals, however, are not an allowed in
the FC-1.
Issues:
At a previous council meeting, several concerns were raised about riparian habitat. The issue warrants
more discussion and needs to be addressed in additional meetings with effort given to protecting these
important areas. Staff has researched the issue and recommends that a consultant be used to prepare a
report for how best to preserve the Mill Creek and Pack Creek riparian areas. There are many good
examples of riparian protection ordinances in Utah (Jordan River Best Management Practices, Virgin
River Master Plan, Salt Lake City Riparian Corridor Ordinance) as well as in other states (Town of Oro
Valley, AZ; Fulton County, GA; Teton County, Idaho, etc.) that have been generated just for this type of
issue. These preservation efforts by other jurisdictions are separate from their FEMA approved flood
damage prevention regulations.
Options:
Council has several considerations to discuss. Council can:
1. Adopt Ordinance #2015-05 and approve the text amendment as submitted;
2. Adopt Ordinance #2015-05 and approve the text amendment with changes;
4. Vote to not adopt Ordinance #2015-05 and state the reasons;
5. Table the application until a later date and request additional information.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #2015-05 with the Council
suggestion to amend the name from FC-1 (Flood Channel) Zone to FW (Floodway) Zone.
Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance #2015-05 with the name change of the zone from
"FC-1, Flood Channel" Zone to "FW, Floodway" Zone.
Attachment(s):
Addendum:
Ordinance #2015-05
March 26, 2015 Planning Commission meeting minutes
➢ There are differences between the floodplain, the regulatory floodway, and flood zones:
Floodplain is an area of nearly flat low-lying ground along the course of a stream, river,
or coast that is naturally subject to flooding.
Regulatory Floodway is the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent
land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.
Flood zones are geographic areas that FEMA has defined according to varying levels of
flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Agenda
Page 6 of 31
City Council
July 14, 2015
Ordinance #2015-05
FC-1 Amendments
Page 3 of 3
or Flood Hazard Boundary Map and each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in
the specific area.
➢ Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) are defined as "the area that will be inundated by the flood event
having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year."
• The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.
• SFHAs within the city include Zones A, AE, and AO.
• The city also has areas of Moderate flood hazard labeled Zone X (shaded) which are areas
between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood.
• Minimal areas of flood hazard in the city are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the
elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. These are labeled Zone X (unshaded).
➢ Under the National Flood Insurance Program the term development is defined as "any man
made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or
other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or
storage of equipment or materials."
p:\planning department \2015\correspondence \p1-15-35 cc fw zone.docx
Page 7 of 31
Agenda
ORDINANCE #2015-05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MOAB MUNICIPAL CODE,
CHAPTER 17.33, FC-1 FLOOD CHANNEL ZONE, SPECIFICALLY
REFERENCING FENCING, STRUCTURES FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION,
VEGETATION AND PENALTIES
WHEREAS, the Moab, Utah (City) City Council ("Council") adopted the Moab Municipal
Code ("Code") Title 17.00, Zoning, and especially Chapter 17.30 Flood Channel Zone, in an
effort to facilitate the protection of life and property from damage because of floods; and,
WHEREAS, the FC-1 Flood Channel Zone is the designated Regulatory Floodway and
includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water
surface elevation more than a designated height; and
WHEREAS, the City, through involvement in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no
I increases in upstream flood elevations; and
WHEREAS, from time to time, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has
conducted hydrologic studies and presented the city with necessary changes to the boundaries of
the Floodway that may or may not alter the boundaries of the FC-1 Flood Channel Zone; and,
WHEREAS, over time, City staff has recognized that certain aspects of Code Chapter 17.30, FC-1,
Flood Channel Zone, are not conducive to providing adequate protection from flood damage; and,
WHEREAS, fencing in floodways, construction of public transportation structures,
construction of barriers, removal or planting of vegetation in floodways, and enforcement and
penalties are inadequately addressed in the existing text of the FC-1 Zone; and,
WHEREAS, Staff has recommended the attached amendments to the FC-1 Zone; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Moab Planning Commission ("Commission") in a public hearing
held on March 26, 2015, reviewed the changes to Code text that references the Flood
Channel; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission found that adoption of the proposed language for the continued
participation of the City in the NFIP was a great benefit to the residents of the City of Moab; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission favorably recommends the new language to Council for review
and approval; and,
WHEREAS, City Council reviewed Ordinance #2015-05 in a regularly scheduled meeting held on
April 28, 2015, to hear and decide the merits of the proposed changes to Chapter 15.30, Flood
Channel Zone, of the Code; and,
WHEREAS, Council found on May 12, 2015, that the changes will add to the welfare and safety of
the residents and provide greater benefits to the residents of Moab.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Moab City Council hereby ordains that Chapter 17.30, FC-1,
Flood Channel Zone shall be amended to read as follows:
Chapter 17.33
Page 8 of 31
Agenda
FC-1 FLOOD CHANNEL ZONE
Sections:
17.33.010 Objectives and characteristics.
17.33.020 Use requirements.
17.33.030 Area, width and location requirements.
17.33.040 Supplementary regulations
17.33.050 Enforcement and Penalties
17.33.010 Objectives and characteristics.
The primary purpose of the FC-1 flood channel zone is to facilitate the protection of life and
property from damage due to flood events by ensuring that the creek channel and adjacent overbank
areas necessary to convey flood flows will be permanently kept free of encroachments. Lands
within this zone are characterized by the primary creek channel and adjacent riparian fringes, which
are free of buildings, fences, and fill embankments that are likely to be damaged or which will
likely cause a restriction to the free flow of floodwaters during recurring floods. (Prior code § 27-
12-1)
17.33.020 Use requirements.
Only the following uses shall be permitted in the FC-1 flood channel zone:
A. Agricultural uses, farming, truck gardening and the growing of nursery
stock;
B. Revetments and other flood protection structures;
C. Public parks, trails, and open space;
D. Public transportation structures if "no rise" can be shown.
17.33.030 Area, width and location requirements.
There shall be no regulations pertaining to area, width or location of building requirements in
the FC-1 flood channel zone. (Prior code § 27-12-3)
17.33.040 Specific Regulations.
The following use regulations shall apply:
A. Fences. — Fences will be allowed only if it can be determined through an
engineering study that they can satisfy a No -rise (<0.00') in the FEMA and
Community BFE.
Exception. An engineering study may not be required for fences such as a farm barbed wire
fence that are constructed in a way that the fence will be pushed over or ripped out early in the flood
or will swing in the direction of the flood flow. If "water gap" or "flood gate" styles of livestock
control are utilized, an engineer shall be consulted for appropriateness of their use. .
B. Planting or removal of trees and shrubs. — Deep-rooted vegetation within the flood
channel provides critical protection against large scale erosion. However, dense stands of
sturdy trees and woody shrubs can also obstruct the free flow of floodwaters. The best
situation is scattered native trees with a dense groundcover of native shrubs and grasses that
offer minimal resistance to the passage of floodwaters. No existing native vegetation shall be
removed and no new trees shall be planted within the floodway without the written approval
of the City Floodplain Administrator. For any clearing or revegetation activity, a stabilization
plan is required to be submitted to thepcj y9fgrpvaluation and approval by City Staff.
Agenda
C. Floodway to be kept clear. — The presence of debris such as fallen trees and tree limbs,
construction materials, vehicles, or similar uses, within the floodway represents a significant
hazard to the community as the debris can be transported by the floodwaters and become
lodged against one of the several bridge structures. The accumulation of debris or storage of
materials is prohibited within the floodway. It shall be the property owner's responsibility to
keep the floodway portion of their property free of any such materials.
17.33.050 Enforcement and Penalties
No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, altered, converted, or extended without full
compliance with the provisions of this chapter and all other applicable regulations. Violations of this
chapter by failing to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any
person who violates this ordinance through non-compliance with any of its requirements shall upon
conviction thereof be fined not more than $ 1,000.00 or imprisoned for not more than ninety (90)
days, or both, for each violation, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the
case. Such associated costs may include attorney fees, all court fees, staff time, and shall include
costs associated with the abatement of the violation. Such costs may include,
but are not limited to, removal of all prohibited barriers, structures, or fill. Nothing herein
contained shall prevent the City of Moab from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to
prevent or remedy any violation.
AND, FURTHERMORE, the Moab City Council hereby ordains that Chapter 17.06,
Definitions, shall be amended to include the following term:
Revetment. A wall or facing of stone, concrete, masonry, wood or other stabilizing material
placed on the banks of rivers, streams or levees to protect them from erosion
Effective Immediately Upon Passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED in open Council by a majority vote of the Governing Body of Moab
City Council on , 2015.
SIGNED:
David L. Sakrison, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rachel Stenta, City Recorder
p:\planning department \2015\ordinances \#2015-05 fc-I amendments3.docz
Agenda
Page 10 of 31
CITY OF MOAB
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2015-05
The City of Moab will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at
approximately 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Moab City Offices at 217
East Center Street, Moab, Utah.
The purpose of this hearing is to solicit public input on Proposed Ordinance
#2015-05 — An Ordinance Amending the City of Moab Municipal Code,
Chapter 17.33, FC-1 Flood Channel Zone, Specifically Referencing
Fencing, Structures for Public Transportation, Vegetation and Penalties.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special
accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder's Office at 217
East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259-5121 at least three (3)
working days prior to the meeting.
/s/ Rachel E. Stenta
City Recorder/Assistant City Manager
Published in the Times Independent, July 2 and 9, 2015.
R:\Notices\2015\ph ord 2015-05 flood Channel.docx
Page 11 of 31
Agenda
AGENDA SUMMARY
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 14, 2015
Agenda item
#: 6-1
Title: Approval of a Request by Tammy Snow for an Amplified Music Event at
Old City Park on August 15, 2015
Fiscal Impact: None
Staff Presenter(s): Rachel Stenta, City Recorder/Assistant City Manager
Department: Recorder (for Parks)
Applicant: Tammy Snow
Background/Summary: Use of amplified sound equipment at Old City Park is
not permitted without special permission of the City Council.
1
Options: Approve, Approve with conditions, Deny or postpone.
Staff Recommendation: City staff recommend approval of the request.
Approval is subject to compliance with all Parks Policies, which provides that
approved sound amplification shall not extend beyond 9 pm.
Recommended Motion: "I move to approve (insert agenda item title here). "
Attachment(s): Please see attached park reservation from Tammy Snow.
Page 12 of 31
Agenda
From: "support@civicplus.com" <support@civicplus.com>
Subject: Thanks for your payment
Date: June 29, 2015 7:25:38 PM MDT
To:
Hi Tammy,
Here are the details for your recent purchase.
Transaction ID 0013264102
Order Summary
Date/Time 6/29/2015 7:25 PM
Item Name Use of more than 3 hours
Quantity 1
Item Name Amplified Music (requires City
Council Approval)
Quantity 1
Status Successful
Billing Information
Tammy. Snow
Additional Information
Event Name Open House/Wedding Reception
Event Details
Open House to be held at the Old
City Park from 5:30-9:30 pm.
Music will be played as back-
ground music.
This is a Field not completed.
recurring event
Event Date
8/15/2015 7:00 AM - 8/15/2015
10:00 PM
All Day Yes
First Name Tammy
Last Name Snow
Email Address
Phone Number
Pricing Details
Price $105.00
Order Total $105.00
We appreciate your business.
Regards,
Moab, UT.
C
a)
Page 13 of 31
AGENDA SUMMARY
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 14, 2015
Agenda item
#: 7-1
Title: Approval of a Task Order with Bowen, Collins and Associates for a Sewer
Rate and Fee Study
Fiscal Impact: $38,190 (impact fee funds)
Staff Presenter(s): Rebecca Davidson, City Manager
Department: Administration/Engineering
Applicant: N/A
Background/Summary: Attached is the Task Order with Bowen Collins for the
development of the sewer rate study. This study has significance because it will
determine the rates for sewer, both for the City and Grand Water and
Sewer. This study will determine the Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) for
commercial, residential, hotels, etc. We anticipate evaluating a flat fee plus flow
times a multiplier. The multiplier would incorporate the intensity levels for the
loading coming into the plant. This study will also evaluate septic hauler rates.
This study is important to be completed before we sit in front of Water Quality
Division for our grant and loan request.
Staff is recommending approval of this task order in the amount of $ 38,190.
1
Options: Approve, Deny or Postpone
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Recommended Motion: I move to approve (insert agenda item).
Attachment(s): Moab Rate Study Scope
Page 14 of 31
Agenda
Bowen Collins
sow, & Associates, Inc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
154 East 14000 South
Draper, Utah 84020
801.495.2224 (phone)
801.495.2225 (fax)
June 4, 2015
Rebecca Davidson
City Manager
Moab, Utah
Subject: Proposed Scope and Fee for a Sewer Rate Study
Dear Rebecca:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit a proposed scope and fee for a Sewer Rate Study. After
meeting with you and discussing your needs, the purpose of this document is to outline our
understanding of what you are looking for and propose a work plan to assemble a comprehensive
rate study for Moab City sewer rates.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Moab City provides sanitary sewer service to residents within its corporate boundaries. It also
receives wastewater from the Grand Water & Sewer Service Agency (GWSSA). Wastewater from
GWSSA is conveyed across the City through City owned sewer trunklines and is then treated at a
City owned wastewater treatment plant along with the City's own flows. Moab City currently
charges GWSSA a fixed fee for this service based on the number of estimated connections in
GWSSA. GWSSA has not historically contributed to Moab City through impact fees.
In recent years, Moab City has identified a need to replace its existing wastewater treatment plant.
Before embarking on this endeavor, the City wants to identify how this project will be financed and
how this will affect sewer rates and impact fees for both Moab and GWSSA customers. Horrocks
Engineers has been hired by the City to evaluate impact fees. The purpose of this study will be to
examine sewer rates.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The overarching goal of this project will be to develop a comprehensive sewer rate study that
considers the future construction of a new wastewater treatment plant. Specific project objectives
will include:
1. Identify an overall approach for financing construction of the treatment plant.
2. In conjunction with personnel from Moab City and GWSSA, establish policies for use of
capacity in the new treatment plant and identify how each entity will pay for their use of
capacity.
Bowen Collins & Associates
1 Moab City
Agenda
Page 15 of 31
Sewer Rate Study
3. Coordinate with Horrocks Engineers so that calculation of the impact fees can be consistent
with the overall finance strategy for the plant.
4. Calculate projected monthly sewer rates for Moab City residents. This will include overall
rates for the next 20 years, with more detailed cost -of -service rates for the next 5 years.
5. Calculate projected monthly sewer charges to GWSSA for sewer services provided by the
City.
6. Complete a residential equivalency study to identify fair billing categories for sewer system
customers.
WORK PLAN
To accomplish the objectives of this Project, BC&A proposes the following detailed work plan:
There are four major tasks to be accomplished as part of this scope:
■ Task 1— Develop Funding Strategy and Coordinate with Impact Fee Study
■ Task 2 — Residential Equivalent Study
■ Task 3 — Rate Study
■ Task 4 — Document Results
Detailed activities for each of these tasks are outlined in the following sections:
Task 1: Develop Funding Strategy and Coordinate with Impact Fee Study
Objective: To develop an overall funding strategy for construction of the new wastewater treatment
plant and coordinate with the impact fee facilities plan so that it can be prepared in association with
the overall strategy.
Subtask 1A: Collect and Review Existing Data
Objective: To collect the information that will be required to develop a funding strategy.
Activities:
• Collect and review past studies identifying required improvements to the City's sewer
system. This will include any master plans or other studies associated with the new
treatment plant or collection system needs.
• Collect and review any available development plans for Moab City and areas served by
GWSSA.
• Included in this task is required trips to Moab for coordination. Included in this scope is
a maximum of four trips for meetings, presentations, etc. This includes a kickoff
meeting, two coordination meetings with City staff or others, and a presentation to City
Council.
Bowen Collins & Associates
2 Moab City
Agenda
Page 16 of 31
Sewer Rate Study
Products:
• Information needed to begin the development of an overall financial strategy.
Subtask 1B: Develop Funding Strategy
Objective: Identify an overall approach for financing construction of the treatment plant and other
sewer fund needs.
Activities:
• Develop population projections for the City and GWSSA service areas based on available
data. Convert population projections to projected growth in domestic sewer flow
production. It has been assumed that the City can provide adequate flow records to perform
all tasks identified here and that no additional flow monitoring will be required by BC&A.
• Identify future treatment capacity needs. Establish budgetary costs for future treatment
improvements.
• Meet with personnel from Moab City and GWSSA to establish policies for use of capacity
in the new treatment plant and identify how each entity will pay for their use of capacity.
• Coordinate with City personnel to establish funding needs for collection system
improvements. This will include specific collection system capital improvements and
desired funds to be budgeted for system rehabilitation and replacement.
• Collect data on historic O&M expenditures. Project future O&M expenditures based on
projected flows and treatment plans.
• Develop a funding model for the future Moab sewer system. Include identification of all
projected costs, sources of funding, and responsibility for costs between Moab and
GWSSA.
Products:
• Funding model in Excel format
• Technical Memorandum #1 — Proposed Moab Sewer System Funding Strategy
Subtask 1C: Coordinate with Impact Fee Study
Objective: To coordinate overall funding plan with calculation of impact fees.
Activities:
• Meet with Horrocks Engineers to discuss overall funding strategy and provide information
required to calculate impact fees. Information to be provided will include:
Bowen Collins & Associates
3 Moab City
Agenda
Page 17 of 31
Sewer Rate Study
• Treatment plant costs
• Projected bonding activities
• Projected growth in residential equivalents and corresponding flow
• Recommended implementation schedule for impact fee related facilities.
• Collect information from Horrocks Engineers required for preparation of this rate study.
Information expected includes:
• Final impact fees, divided between collection and treatment related fees. This will
also need to include consideration of Moab City customer fees along with GWSSA's
portion of fees in City infrastructure.
• Collection system improvement needs.
Products:
• Meeting notes from coordination meetings.
Task 2: Residential Equivalent Study
Objective: To establish a definition of a residential equivalent value such that residential equivalent
values can be assigned to customer types within the City.
Subtask 2A: Collect and Review Data
Objective: To collect necessary data to calculate residential equivalent values for flow and
concentration.
Activities:
• Coordinate with the City to identify the different customer types to be evaluated. BC&A
will review and evaluate the potential customer types and methods of assessing these
customer types and make recommendations with respect thereto.
• Collect and review flow records of the customer types to be evaluated. It is anticipated
records can be obtained from the City or GWSSA.
• Tabulate the flow per the unit of measurement (number of rooms (hotels), square footage,
number of seats, etc.) of the customer type being evaluated.
• If it is determined some customers will be billed based on strength, the City will obtain BOD
& TSS samples from significant BOD and TSS producing customers. The City will provide
the traffic control, tools and materials for obtaining the samples. It is anticipated that the lab
work will be performed by a lab contracted independently by the City. Based on the lab
results, BC&A will tabulate the BOD & TSS levels with the associated customer type.
Bowen Collins & Associates
4 Moab City
Agenda
Page 18 of 31
Sewer Rate Study
• Develop a residential equivalent definition list based on flow (and strength if needed).
• BC&A will also identify alternate methods of evaluating customer types that are unique or
are otherwise not defined by customer type.
Subtask 2B: Document Residential Equivalent Study
Objective: To summarize the results of the Residential Equivalent Study
Activities:
Prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the results of the residential equivalent values based
on flow and based on concentration where necessary.
Products:
• Technical Memorandum #2 — Residential Equivalent Study
Task 3: Service Charge Study
Objective: To prepare a sewer service charge analysis in accordance with accepted industry
standards.
Activities:
• Document growth in sewer flow based on master plan projections.
• Project future revenue requirements for the City based on O&M cost projections
(provided by the City), debt service schedules, impact fee revenues, and capital improvement
plans.
• Project sewer service charge revenue for the next five years based on the current rate
structure.
• Calculate the projected revenue deficiency (or surplus) for the next 5 years based on the
current rate structure.
• Distribute system costs to various user classes in accordance with their requirements
for service. This distribution will be based on the design cost -causative procedure
recommended by the Water Pollution Control Federation, American Society of Engineers, and
American Public Works Association.
• Determine the service charges required to recover from each class of customer the approximate
cost of serving that class of customer. If needed, a phase -in of the results over a limited time
period will be calculated.
Bowen Collins & Associates
5 Moab City
Agenda
Page 19 of 31
Products:
• Service charge model in Microsoft Excel Format.
Task 4: Document Rate Study Results
Sewer Rate Study
Objective: The objective of this task is to prepare a report that provides the necessary support
services to adopt and implement new service charges.
Activities:
• Prepare a draft Rate Study Report, including figures, tables, and text, that documents the
analytical procedures and recommendations of the study.
• Distribute five copies of draft report for review.
• Prepare for and attend a draft report review workshop to receive and address comments on the
draft report.
• Incorporate review comments from the City into a final Rate Study Report.
• Present the results of the final report and recommendations at a City Council meeting.
• Assist the City in the modification of its existing sewer rate ordinance to reflect the changes
resulting from the study.
Products:
• Five copies of draft Rate Study Report.
• Twelve copies of final Rate Study Report.
• Exhibits and displays as required for a presentation to the City Council.
SCHEDULE
Projected schedule for major project milestones is as follows:
Receive signed contract and authorization to proceed
All initial data needs turned over to BC&A
June 15
July 1
Develop Funding Strategy
TM #1, Proposed Funding Strategy Aug 1
RE Analysis
Review preliminary results with City Aug 1
Bowen Collins & Associates
6 Moab City
Agenda
Page 20 of 31
TM #2, RE Analysis Aug 15
Service Charge Study
Development of Service Charge Model
Draft Service Charge Report
Final Service Charge Report
Public Hearing and Adoption
FEE
Sewer Rate Study
Sept 1
Sept 15
Oct 1
Oct City Council Meeting
A detailed estimate of man hours and proposed engineering fee is attached. The estimated level
of effort is based on our best understanding of your needs and past experience with this type of
project. However, we are certainly open to discussing changes if there are any scope items you
would like to modify.
The commitment of our firm is to provide quality projects, superior service, and value to our
clients. We hope to have the opportunity to work with the staff at Moab City on this project.
Sincerely,
Bowen, Collins & Associates
Keith Larson, P. E.
Project Manager
Bowen Collins & Associates
7 Moab City
Agenda
Page 21 of 31
Moab City
Residential Equivalency and Rate Study
ENGINEERING FEE ESTIMATE
6/5/2015
OFFICE STAFF
TECH
CONSULTING STAFF
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
TASK
LABOR
M. Hilbert
S. Riggs
R. Garcia
N. Wright
K. Larson
K. Spiers
J. Beckman
HOURS
COST
Office
CAD Tech III
CAD Tech V
Staff Engineer
Project Engineer
Quality
Control/Review
Project Manager
Hourly Rate
$62.00
$90.00
$107.00
$93.00
$135.00
$135.00
$135.00
Phase 1 - CFP and Funding Alternatives
1a
Collect and Review Existing Data
Collect and review past studies
2
4
2
9
$1,058
Review development plans
2
2
4
$456
Coordination meetings
32
16
48
$6,480
1d
Develop Funding Strategy
Develop population and flow projections
2
2
4
$456
Identify future treatment needs
2
2
4
$540
Establish policy for use of capacity
8
4
12
$1,620
Collection system budget needs
2
2
4
$456
O&M budget needs
2
2
4
$456
Funding Model and TM
2
8
4
4
19
$2,083
1e
Coordinate with Impact Fee Study
Coordination with Horrocks Engineers
4
4
$540
Collect data
4
4
$540
2a
RE Analysis - Collect and Review Data
Identify customer types
2
6
2
10
$1,266
Collect & Review flow records
12
12
$1,116
Tablulate flows per the unit of measurement
8
$744
Tabulate BOD & TSS levels with associated customer type
12
12
$1,116
Develop RE definition list
6
2
2
10
$1,098
Identify alternate method
6
2
$828
2b
RE Analysis - Document Residential Equivalent Study
Write Technical Memorandum #3 - Residential Equivalent Study
12
4
2
18
$1,926
3
Service Charge Analysis
Document projected growth in sewer flow
4
2
$642
Project future revenue requirements
4
2
$642
Project future service charge revenue
2
2
$186
Calculate projected revenue deficiency
4
4
$372
Distribute system costs to customer classes based on cost of service
6
8
14
$1,638
Calculate appropriate service charges
10
6
2
19
$2,072
4
Document Final Results
Prepare draft report
2
2
12
8
2
4
30
$3,310
Incorporate City comments into final report
2
8
4
14
$1,408
Present results to City Council
2
2
4
4
2
14
$1,486
Assist with modification of impact fee ordinace
2
2
$270
Total Labor Hours
10
4
0
130
116
3
42
305
$34,805
Labor Cost By Labor Category
S620
$360
SO
$12,090
$15,660
$405
S5, 670
$34,805
EXPENSES
Item
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
COMMUNICATION/COMPUTER
305
$7.00
$2,135
PRINTING /GRAPHICS
$50
AUTO MILEAGE
1600
$0.75
$1,200
POSTAGE/SUPPLIES
$0
MISCELLANEOUS
$0
TOTAL EXPENSES*
$3,385
* All outside expenses include a 10 percent markup
TOTAL LABOR COST $34,805
TOTAL EXPENSES $3,385
TOTAL COST - ALL PHASE $38,190
Page 22 of 31
Bowen, Collins Associates
Engineering Fee - Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Rate Study
AGENDA SUMMARY
MOAB CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 14, 2015
Agenda item
#: ]-2
Title: Approval of the Proposed Water Tank Project Site Location
Fiscal Impact: Enterprise Fund Capital Project
Staff Presenter(s): Rebecca Davidson, City Manager
Department: Administration/Engineering
Applicant: N/A
Background/Summary: The city staff and our engineering consultant have been evaluating
locations for the 2.5M water tank. Our consultant, Steven Jones with HAL, has developed a detailed
report of findings and has reviewed at least four different sites for the tank. Site A, current Mountain
View Tank site; Site B - SH 191/Mill creek; Site C - Spanish Trail Road and Spanish Valley Drive; and
the Powerhouse site - existing tank site.
The staff and consultant have concluded that the site at Site C is our recommendation for the tank
location. This site is in the County and would require us to go through a conditional use process for
the tank. I have presented the general overview to the County Council on July 7, 2015 for their
information.
After contacting 8 adjacent homeowner, four of which the Mayor or I or both have met with. We have
continued to hear from Mr. Dean and his wife about their concerns with the location. I have attached
our most recent responses to their questions in regards to the tank. I believe that their most discussed
concern is that there will be a catastrophic failure of the tank which would flood them. I would suggest
that our responses address their concerns with this issue. From speaking with them today, I am aware
that they remain concerned about the location.
As mentioned earlier the consultant did review the fourth site and because of its distance from the
water distribution mainline being far away, it is not as functional as other sites that made it to the final
sites presented to Council.
In addition, I received two other comments from other people in the neighborhood; one positive and
one negative.
I have also spoken with the Cemetery District. They do not have concerns about the site and would
like for us to finalize the ownership of the remaining portion for the future of the cemetery. They are
agreeable to the easement for the outlet pipe.
The staff and consultant will present a landscape plan in 3-D at the meeting. We will be well prepared
to answer any other questions you may have.
The staff is recommending approval of Site C for the location of the tank..
J
Page 23 of 31
Agenda
Options: Approve, Deny or Postpone
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Recommended Motion: I move to approve (insert agenda item).
Attachment(s): Answers to Citizen Questions
Page 24 of 31
Agenda
Notification of Community
11-74swits
�dcliF /22
y� De0)-te-w
1) The community has not been adequately notified regarding this major utilities use
project. This impacts more than just the eight adjoining properties that the City tried to
contact. A notice or press release has not been printed in either local newspaper. The
notice for the City Council Workshop on the agenda for June 9, 2015 did not disclose the
location (which is outside the City limits) of the proposed water tank, therefore no one
reading the notice knew of the location unless they attended the meeting or contacted the
City. It is our opinion that the City of Moab has not been transparent in its intention for
this project.
The City reached out to the adjacent property owners early in the process to ensure
knowledge of the project. From press coverage and several radio spots, the City has
ensured information to the public for this project.
2) Information at the June 9, 2015 workshop was much different than that given by Mayor
and City Administrator during the meeting at our home four days earlier.
The Mayor and Manager provided only an accurate overview of the project and an
invitation to the council meeting to hear the engineer's presentations The engineer
presented a much more detailed presentation of the information
3) The property is zoned RR. According to our understanding of the Grand County Land
Use Code, this major utilities use requires a Conditional Use permit and must be
presented to the Planning Commission and approved by the Grand County Commission.
Is this true?
The engineer anticipated a conditional use permit would be necessary if the selected
tank site was outside of the City and the current permitted use of the zone did not
specifically mention municipal water structures This process is typical throughout
Utah and not a concern.
Project Design Issues
The engineer has designed and overseen the construction of numerous tanks (over 36). The
Project Manager for this tank has been involved in the design and construction of over 20
tanks Design of the tank will conform to the State of Utah Division of Drinking Water
(DDN9 Standards, American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards and American
Concrete Institute (ACI) standards Tank plans and specification are reviewed by the DDW
for conformance to the State's required standards before construction may begin.
1) What is the exterior diameter of the tank?
The preliminary design of the tank provides an inside diameter of 150 feet with 16 to
18-inch thick walls The interior of the tank will be 20 feet high.
1
Page 25 of 31
2) How thick will the berm be at the base?
The berm at the base of the tank is anticipated to be between 20 to 30 feet This will
depend on the final slope of the tank fill slope. Preliminary engineering and grading
provides that the tank will be 7-feet out of the ground.
3) How far up the exposed side of the tank will the top of the berm be?
It is anticipated that the tank will be buried with a foot of soil over the tank roof.
4) Will there be one tank or two? If one, might a second tank be added later?
A single tank is being designed presently. However there is room on the site for
another tank if needed. There is no plan or consideration of a second tank at this time.
5) What specifications will be used for the concrete mix?
The tank concrete will be a 4,000 psi mix. The specifications for the concrete have
been prepared and will be reviewed by a Structural Engineer with a current Utah State
License. The mix has been used on dozens of tanks throughout the state of Utah. The
actual concrete mix used in construction will be required to be submitted to the
Engineer for review.
6) What requirements are there for quality of construction?
a. Construction specifications specific to this tank along with Engineering
Drawings will be provided for the basis of the construction quality. It is
anticipated that a qualified inspector will review placement of the rebar,
concrete, and compacted subgrade material.
b. It is also anticipated that the City will pre -qualify contractors to ensure that the
tank contractor has sufficient experience.
7) What tests will be performed during construction to verify construction quality?
Typical tests during the construction of the tank are subgrade compaction to
determine in place density/compaction; concrete slump and air during
placement of concrete; concrete strength testing to determine actual strength of
concrete placed at the tank; pipe pressure testing; tank leak test at the
conclusion of construction.
Page 26 of 31
8) Who will perform these tests? Who will perform the tests to make sure the completed
structure has been built to specifications?
Typically a material testing firm will provide the compaction and concrete testing. The
Engineer and Public Works staff will be present for the leak testing and pipe testing.
9) How many gallons of the 2,500,000 gallon tank can be lost before a leak is detected?
a. Leak detection testing after construction will provide evidence that the tank does
not have leaks. The test is typically performed before the tank has been backfilled
to verify there are not leaks in the walls Measurements are taken to determine if
there are leaks in the floor. Should leaks be found they will be repaired.
b. Once a tank is in operation leak detection will be provided by Public Works staff
reviewing water use and tank levels Also leaks would be detected during tank
maintenance.
10) How will a catastrophic failure be handled?
It should be noted that reinforced concrete tanks do not fail catastrophically when
buried The tanks are designed for seismic events The design life of a concrete tank is
well over 50 years and is our experience that other than minor maintenance they are
not prone to failures A failure in the tank would likely lose very little water through
cracking with the width of the walls and the amount of rebar. Should a problem
happen with the tank it will be taken out of service by shutting water off to the tank.
11) What are the mechanism(s) to shut off water and where will they be located?
Shutting off water will happen through valves at the tank site.
12) When and how do they kick in? If this is done automatically and/or electronically, how
easily and how long would it take an individual to arrive and to physically turn valves off
manually if the automatic features fail?
The valves are manual and require public works personnel to turn a valve wheel. A
typical valve can be closed in a minute once staff is at the tank site.
13) How many gallons will be lost before the water is shut off?
This is not a quantifiable number. Leaks in concrete tanks are minimal.
Page 27 of 31
14) How and where will overflow or emptying the tank occur?
State rules require an overflow be built into the tank should there be more water
coming into the tank than leaving. The overflow pipe will likely come out of the side of
the tank and empty into the drainage to the north of the site. The drain line also will
be taken to the drainage.
15) How quickly can the tank be emptied if it needs to be quickly drained?
Drain lines are typically designed to drain an entire tank in 12-24 hours
16) What effect will this water have on the surrounding county landscape and Pack Creek?
How will the homeowners downstream near Pack Creek be notified of a major failure
causing the creek to rise dangerously? Sirens? No warnings?
It is not anticipated that the overflow or drain line from the tank will negatively impact
any surrounding landscaping or the Creek. The water will be limited to 5.5 cfs For
perspective a 12-inch pipe at 2% slope (similar to the creek) could easily convey the
overflow or drain water. Major Failure or flooding from the Tank is not conceivable.
17) The age of the existing infrastructure is not fully addressed. The existing 21" pipe is 50+
years old and its condition as yet has not been verified. This pipe goes through at least
two properties and under three concrete walls adjacent to the proposed project location.
During design the pipe condition was anticipated to be accessed. It is currently a
gravity line. An upgrade to the line may be necessary. At this point of the preliminary
engineering, the engineer reviewed the existing alignment and where the pipe would go
from gravity to pressurized flow.
18) The City of Moab has not addressed how or where along the pipe the condition of this
older infrastructure will be verified or how these homeowners will be compensated if this
pipe has to be replaced. The previous owner of property has indicated that this pipe may
have been laid at a very shallow depth because of the high water table of the aquifer
instead of the required deeper depth. Who is responsible if homes, property, and/or
groundwater are damaged in either construction or from failure of the system?
Typically easement agreements provide that after construction activities private
property is reconstructed and replaced to preconditions. Contractors provide insurance
and bonds in the event they damage private property in an act of negligence.
19) How can we be assured that the high groundwater table will not deteriorate the concrete?
A geotechnical report was provided during January of 2015. Groundwater was
measured at the site 17.5 feet below the surface. It is anticipated that the tank
foundation will be outside of the groundwater. The concrete mix specified will not
deteriorate from groundwater.
4
Page 28 of 31
20) How can we be assured that the concrete will not deteriorate the groundwater?
Concrete structures have been approved by the EPA as safe drinking water structures
There will not be adverse effect on the groundwater through the concrete tank.
21) We would appreciate a second opinion, independently chosen by the Grand County
Commissioners, of the feasibility of this project and whether it could be accomplished at
another location.
The City has hired an independent engineering firm to complete the evaluation of sites
The County is not involved or charged with hiring a firm to evaluate the feasibility of
this City project
Potential Construction Issues
1) The need to lower the water table of the aquifer during construction was discussed at the
workshop presentation after Floyd asked how this project might impact our subdivision
communal well.
From the Geotechnical Report lowering of the groundwater for construction is not
anticipated. The design would be to have the tank footing above the groundwater. If
dewatering was necessary it would be in a small area and not influence the entire
aquifer.
2) This could negatively impact our subdivision permanently if water quantity and/or
quality are changed because of this project.
The engineer has reviewed a sampling of the private potable water well logs in the
vicinity. The majority of the water intake was below 50 feet with wells drilled between
60-120 feet deep. It appears from a more recent well log that the water level was 45-
feet below the ground surface. This may be attributed to a shallow groundwater and a
deeper aquifer that the public uses for potable use.
3) No guarantee was made by the Moab City officials that they would pay for the additional
cost of having to use culinary water either during the construction or after construction if
we are denied the use of our communal well. No studies have been done by City of Moab
to determine the direction, characteristics, permeability and transmissivity of the aquifer
in the project location.
The construction of the tank would not be a lot deeper than construction of a basement
in the area or other similar structures Degradation of an aquifer is not anticipated
with construction of a tank. He City is participating in groundwater studies, however
this tank location and depth is planned to not interfere with groundwater. We checked
levels of water and other soils info to know and understand our limitations.
Page 29 of 31
4) There are other county residences in the immediate area that have wells and they have not
been notified of this project. How will lowering the level of the aquifer affect these
individuals? This project appears to have more impact on the surrounding area than
initially indicated. How many private wells are in the immediate vicinity of the project?
How long will the lowering/pumping of the water table last? Will a pump be operating 24
hours a day? What is the noise level of such pumping?
Again detrimental lowering of the aquifer is not anticipated. If necessary to lower
the groundwater down a couple feet small well points around the perimeter of the
excavation would be placed. A generator would likely power the pumps Should
dewatering be necessary it would be during placement of a subgrade. However, the
most recent design places the tank above the groundwater so pumping would not be
necessary. Prior to construction groundwater levels would be measured.
5) How long will construction take? Will the City include a completion date penalty clause?
Construction of a tank this size typically is completed within six months The City has
not yet prepared the construction agreement but liquidated damages are often provided.
The City does include a liquidated damage requirement for our projects
6) What mitigation measures (e.g., dust, noise) will be used?
a. Dust suppression will be required to comply with State of Utah requirements
b. Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan will be required.
c. Noise and time of day restrictions will be provided to the Contractor.
Neighborhood Issues
1) How will the tank affect our property values?
The property is already owned by the City. It is our experience that a buried water
storage tank does not reduce property values differently than any other open space.
2) If they are negatively affected, do we get a tax reduction? If so, how much?
The City does not have control or responsibility for the collection of taxes or providing
tax reductions
3) Are other water tanks located in Rural Residential zones? If so, where are they located?
The engineer has placed buried concrete storage tanks in a number of residential areas
throughout the Wasatch Front.
6
Page 30 of 31
4) Is this the best use of this particular property? The Land Use Code of Grand County calls
for a Rural Center (a centralized, concentrated area of locally -oriented commercial,
public, and semipublic services and activities) in this area.
Yes, the introduction of utilities into a community and various neighborhoods is
reasonable and acceptable. The City has a responsibility to install projects at the lowest
reasonable costs Based on our evaluation, this site is the lowest reasonable cost
Maintenance Issues
1) What is the schedule for maintenance? What type of periodic checks and how often will
they be performed?
Maintenance on a concrete tank is minimal for the first 20 yrs of operation. At
approximately S yr interval a diver or robotic device will check the inside of the tank.
Depending on how much silt is present the tank is cleaned
Page 31 of 31