Cost climbs for construction engineering

SEELEY LAKE – The Seeley Lake Sewer District Board learned at their April 24 meeting that Missoula County’s inability to perform the construction engineering for the collection system is adding $759,400 to the project’s estimated cost. The board also discussed agency review of the collection system design, User Agreements, water test results and other business.

The District’s former manager, Missoula County Public Works Director Greg Robertson, committed the county to performing the construction engineering in order to cut costs of the project. At the time, the line item reduced the construction estimates by approximately $500,000.

The commitment to have the county perform the work was never put in writing and signed by the county commissioners, however, it was in the District’s applications to funding agencies.

County officials began questioning if the county could actually fulfill the commitment after Robertson announced he had taken a new job. Before he left in January, Robertson assured the county commissioners that there was money in the Public Works budget to hire a person that could do the work.

After Robertson’s departure, District Manager Jean Curtiss met with county officials and it was quickly discovered that the duties and responsibility of construction engineering was far beyond the capacity the county could provide.

Curtiss said it was not normal for counties to do this work and that was a big concern for the largest source of funding, the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. RD would be much happier to have the work done by the District’s engineering firm.

Great West Engineering was asked to amend the Owner-Engineer Agreement to include construction engineering. The amendment added $759,400 to the cost estimate of the project. Curtiss said RD reviewed the amended agreement and didn’t think it was out of line.

Curtiss said she would send a copy of the amendment to the county so they could discuss how the county might be able to help the District out. Curtiss said that could come in the form of a low interest loan. The board suggested it be a grant not a loan and there was no other discussion on how the extra expense would be funded.

The board voted to approve the amended agreement.

The District received a letter from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality asking questions that needed clarification on 39 items regarding the Phase 1 collection system design.

Curtiss said Great West Engineering would be drafting a response to the letter and concerns from other agencies that must review the design. There were some things in the letter the board would have to directly deal with such as approving an operations and management manual.

Director Beth Hutchinson pointed out that one of the concerns in the DEQ letter regarded burial depth of sewer lines and frost protection. She felt this needed extra scrutiny and if it was possible to bury pipes deeper they should do it. Several water and sewer districts around the state experienced frozen main lines this winter including the Seeley Lake Water District. Some of the water lines in Seeley were still frozen at the time of the board meeting.

The DEQ letter raised concerns that the eight-inch force main might not have the capacity to fully serve all the existing land in the District and asked if a dual force main had been considered. At the meeting it was asked if a dual force main would allow for one to be shut down while it was being worked on and keep the other running. This could build in redundancy that could help avert service interruptions. Curtiss added it to the list of questions for GW.

Another question raised in the letter was if odor needed to be addressed. Curtiss said GW was looking into adding charcoal filters to the treatment plant. There are also air release valves along the force main but Curtiss said GW told her these wouldn’t cause odor problems.

Attached to the letter was a required form the District must sign stating that the cost and effectiveness of the system had been studied and the best system “to the maximum extent practicable” had been selected.

At the meeting it was questioned if the alternatives listed in the 2012 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) should be reconsidered. The price of the sewer project has doubled and technology and alternatives have changed since the 2012 PER was completed.

Director Walt Hill felt that the alternatives to the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) that is planned had been researched properly and he hasn’t seen any other systems that would reduce the price.

Jim Erven, an Environmental Health Specialist with Missoula City-County Health Department, agreed saying as far as central sewer systems go the SBR was one of the most common for cost reasons.

Curtiss said the time to research alternatives was past; this system was going to bid. Hill agreed saying that the District would lose its funding if it changed course now.

Hutchinson felt that it should be researched because it is such a huge financial expenditure. She insisted that alternatives could be looked at and the District could continue preparing for bidding the planned system simultaneously.

Board President Pat Goodover suggested that Hutchinson look into it and report back to the board to which she agreed to do.

Curtiss recommended the board consider adapting Gallatin Gateway Water and Sewer’s User Agreement. The main change Curtiss said was needed would be to add a section explaining that the expense of connecting to the sewer is free when the system is built but would be the property owner’s responsibility if they declined to be connected and needed to hook up at a later date.

The board discussed different ways to get the draft out to the public for comment. While Curtiss said the User Agreement is available on the Gallatin Gateway’s website, the draft she handed out at the board meeting had significant changes to the “terms and conditions” beyond the added section she mentioned.

Vince Chappell reported the latest water testing results for the District test wells and locations. He observed that the test wells this spring had the lowest water level he has ever seen and a sharp contrast to last spring’s tests that showed the highest water level.

Test Well #1 located near the RV dump station on Highway 83 tested 10.1 mg/L nitrate/nitrite. The maximum allowed per the drinking water standard is 10 mg/L and this is the sixth quarterly test since 2014 that Well #1 has exceeded that limit.

Test Well #2 located between the Baptist Church and Highway 83 has developed an issue. Chappell said that over the years the ground has settled around the well and this time there was no water in it. He recommended the well be re-drilled or abandoned.

Test Well #3 is located near Kurt’s Polaris and measured 2.78 mg/L.

The three surface water test sites located in Seeley Lake’s south bay,Riverview Drive Bridge and the Lions Club Pond tested at .05, .03 and .17 mg/L of nitrates. Chappell said these were higher than normal because they usually come back as “no detect”. Chappell said surface water normally does not show nitrates because aquatic plants use it up really fast.

The test wells near the proposed treatment site all came back as normal and met the DEQ discharges permit parameters.

Other business:

• Curtiss suggested that the board start looking at adopting some District Rules and Regulations that will dictate how the District runs in the future. She provided the board with a copy of the policy from Gallatin Gateway Water and Sewer District to review and consider. Gallatin Gateway’s rules and regulations are available on their website: gatewaywsd.com

• Hiring a Project Manager was discussed at the March meeting but after consulting with RD Curtiss said she didn’t think it would be necessary to hire the position. RD has it’s own inspectors that do spot checks and the District does not have money in the budget to be duplicating this. The board voted to not fill the position.

• Curtis is working with RD to try and cut down the Operating & Maintenance budget and hopes to have it for the board to review at the next meeting. Curtiss has learned that O&M can’t be charged to vacant lots, however, some of the annual operating budget can be. She is working to sort out what can and can’t be charged.

• The board voted to instruct GW to fill out the RD grant application for Phase 2 of the collection system. Curtiss explained that Phase 2 could be constructed immediately following or even overlapping Phase 1. This could help lower O&M costs for Phase 1 if both Phases could come online together.

• The board voted to create a new website for the District. The District plans to use the domain name it currently owns: seeleysewer.org

The next regular board meeting is at 5:15 p.m. May 16 at the Missoula County Satellite Office located at 3360 Highway 83.