Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORDINANCE 1360-1990w • Suggested by: Administration City of Kenai ORDII0INCB N0. 1360-90 • .i '.. AN dRDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA INCREASING ESTIMATEA REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS HY $64,800 TN A NEW CAPITAL PROJECT FUND ENTITLED "SEWER TREATMENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS - 1990". WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required under the terms of a recently issued N.P.D.E.S. permit that the City of Kenai disinfect our waste water effluent, and WHEREAS, the City received a grant in 1988 from the State of Alaska in the amount of $562,100 for water and sewer improvements, and WHEREAS, the City desires to proceed with the study and design phase of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED HY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA that estimated revenues-and appropriations be increased as follows: ' STP Modifications, 1990 Increase Estimated Revenues: State Grant.- ~ 988 Water & Sewer $64,800 Increase Appropriations: Engineering Design $64,800 PASSED BY THE COUNCl'L OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 21st day of March, 1990. ATTEST: Q~~ J Ruotsala, City Clerk J. WILLIAMS, MAYOR First Reading: Second Reading: Effective Date: Approved by Finance: ~ (3/2/90) has March 7, 1990 March 21, 1990 March 21, 1990 ,- S :. .. ~ ~: __. :_- .. • Ertg-rrtaer's Pion»~rs ~oonc~rnrs#.~ 5oi~ntrs#s March 1, 1990 ANCZOO.A2 1VIr. Keith Kornelas Pub-itc Works Director pity Qf Kenai 220 l~idalgo Kenai, Alaska 9911 Dear Keith: Subject: Kenai W'W'1"F Improvemenu ~ ~ rv~ ~c~; •~.,, /fir, ~p/I~~~ v,~ +c C't~ ~ cr t ~~a~~ ~-o We have received and reviewed the backup information you sent regarding the decd for disinfecrian Facilities at your wastewater treatment facili .q,s wed cussed during our phone cortversntion we are provfding you with fee estimates For the required study and d~si~n df these f$cllities. DISIN~'~~~'IaN STUD''~t' Before a praCess of disinfe~tiott is selected, a comprehensive study addressing the advantages and disadvantages of each process should be performed. ,~4s a minin~urri, the report should address project background, descraptiau of disinfec- tion alternatives including chlorinatfan/dechlc~rinatiun, o~onation, and U'V dlsin- fectian, capital cost, ar~nnal operation aid rnaintenanee cost, present worth analysis, artd reliability. Other factors such as the need to Install scrubbing equlpmcnt fbr chlorine, building rodeo, fire codes, and safety Issues should also be addressed. pa~~ ~os~r~ s~rtra~ Another issue of concern t+~ the pity Is the high monthly elecrr;city costs. The costs Dave increased from approx~matety ~ $~,5l1p at plant startup tU o~rer CH?a~ hlt.~, NYC. ~r~tchcn•,rg8 Ufffcc~ L~pfi tnv~+~ar~:IV~Jft~ ?K~~C~nOt, Stte~rr. ~~k~ ~'1c~st, ~t Ni~ka 995t+~3 . ,. _ t ~~ ,, r:~ ~ ,~ t,-: ,. Q~ •Fr ~vt-x r ~ ~~,' Tim i f;a'.tl, ~4.~;7~1G~t1 . .. . •;t _~ '~ t.. l.....~~.r`~,.~ v~1.~~~hnunth rec~'ntly. I h~tvr c9iscussCCi this issue at lenbth with our electrical staff artd avr oprrationa experts. 'They both 3~rCeci that p: oblems sixttilaz :a this ate usually better addressed through a chan~~. in opCrationa: uhaclctrxistics than they are by addition of electrical eq'aiprtzent. lr2 other words, them are acme elCCtriCal equipment charbes tI~at can be made, tiu~-l1 as addition or' c•~paCiiprs to reduce the power factor or a load ntc~na~;~irt~itt device to limit the allowable peak demand, but the equipment reiate~~ cost savings are usually sit~nificHntly louver than savings front changes to the plant vperution. (fur re::©mmendation is to have one of nor c~peratians people and orie c~! c'cuc electrical staff visit the pla:~t site an;~ andlyxe the power usagt records and plac~t ope:ati°n~ ~Ve v+~•ill subr*tit ~s written report to the City autiinirig ch;~sn~cs that could b~ made bclth Clectrieally end in dayto-dray opet•atiUtls. 'I`n;a a rnrt c~, imply th:ct the plant is not being operated propCrty by your eurreRC sraff. As you ar~A well aware, the benai plant consicterttly prc~;luces s~,rit• of the highest yuaiity ezfluent in the ,rate and a walk•tltruugh cif the plar2t vertti.:s thus it is end best maintained 8150 o1e ~( i~'lL Cte~iilest pa.nrs in t~» ,rate. l"iowever, the Site visis acrd analysis ~f process and ele~~trical app r;~tion3 will ae~dress the elCCtri- Cal Costs issues rind rile additional issue o: h.~~-in;; ~s icic~nti ~ catkter areas w e . the City eoulcl "'incret~sc Ct3'iticnty, lv«-.:r c~:ca. ~nci in~a'~35~ ihC uutit~ ~ t of r ent" as stated in yoelr letter. ~ q y L f ~u- VWe have not identified any caci~tru:tu,: ~~•;-c~.:~;,t~ciaLeti with these ~•hanges since nor sleett~ical staff believes it is premature zc~ c_,o this hefc~re renewing data ;acid visitlttg the ply{nt. 'They indicated Fh~~c the caf~tf:~i :posts should he tninitnal for any changes they can foresee, such as acldin~ ; :ipa~iiors or a demand lin~itLr. Therefore, these casts should be cUVered by the ~.otitingency inelucltd in the capital costs Uf the new disinfection facilitie,, B~S~~N OF ~?.~~~N~'.~C:'T~ON FAGYLI'TxI~S 'The design vt the sc-lected alternative will include :he ec,st to prep;lTe :Urctra4•t speCificIItions ahd c3raEVttc~,s SUlt~hlL fur pui~lic a;~vc~rti;etnent and ~~;~iclin~. ,~, shown in `Tabu 7 if sire LTV disirjrc~~"' ~ "n.~ttvL . is xclectres duriti~ fife study i~ti altz. phase, the strur~ly believe that a i~ili,t study shui11~;1 be perfc?rii~~d v,~i~c.~re the fin;,1 dr'sign in ~:ump~etec~. the r~li~thilicy of tits L~V ciisiilte,^ti:::n i:; ~Ic.•pendcnt on _. -~,. _ ____L_~__~__..~-__~___.~.~_._. r-rk . ~ . Mr. I{eith Kornelis .. Wage 3 .March 1, ~.9~0 ANC200.A2 the ptatzt effluent color. and quality, 'I`lte deterr:tinatiojt at` the UV dosages is complicated and calibrAtian techniclt~es vary. 't'his ti-ariabitity leads to lack. of consistency lti~ dose-respan~e data. TlierefUre, pilot studies are r~acammended for oach installation of U'V equipment to determine it, suitability fc~r a specific installation. The Cost of the pilaf studp is shnr~-~~ separately in Table 1. Table 1 ~'R4J~CT COSTS ~. h., Method of DYStafection T,. ~. UV CEO Disinfection Study $ b,500 $ 6,50p UV Picot Study . 14,500 0 Uisinfectintt Design 36,000 43,OOtl Poser Costs ~tndy ,~, 7 80U Tatat . En~tneering _ $64,804 S 57,3+0 Construction Costs 4~n ~p ~:ppp Tc~ta1 Project Costs 5~.~,ppp $~07~Op C43Y~fi~tUC'~'YC>N Ct~S'Y'S `based an information that we have prraduced nn recenr protects i~tvolvin~; chlori- nation, dechlq-rination and UV disinfection, eve have provided y~c~ witlt cfrdr~r of magnitude estimates fer the two s~tc~st probable pra~:esses fur disinfection. 7'he Costs include a ~Q percent enntingency, taut dc~ not include cortstructinn mdna e- ment ©r USt Cf~1lStruCiic~t3 S~NiC~S. Yf these seNtc~S arp e$ire , t ey could be new j~ 1e a ter Carn}~tetion of the c~esfgn, The L~onstrurtic~r~ casts are hi her for chiorinatianJdechlorination because for ttte largr:r 'vasin, building addition chemi• cal ycrubl;ing equipment, and chlczrine equipment.. Mr. Keith Korn~lis Fage 4 ~ ' March 1, 1~9Q ANC20~.A~2 '1~Ve loon forward to wc~rk3r~~ with .you on thix pro;~ec~. 1 Pl~as~ ~aYI us whin ou want to clis~uss this prgject nsgre. Wa are prepared t© write a~ tt~tas"!ed scc~~~ of ~: . work foz you when you decide td proceed with the work:. Sincerely, C`H2M ~II.L. ~ _ Maria 'eila, P.E. anc:cor:s142G.50 • [7 . _ -