Loading...
05-04-2010 City Council Study Session PacketCity of Grand Island Tuesday, May 04, 2010 Study Session Packet City Council:Mayor: Margaret Hornady City Administrator: Jeff Pederson City Clerk: RaNae Edwards T u 7:00:00 PM Council Chambers - City Hall 100 East First Street Larry Carney Scott Dugan John Gericke Peg Gilbert Chuck Haase Robert Meyer Mitchell Nickerson Bob Niemann Kirk Ramsey Jose Zapata Call to OrderCity of Grand Island City Council A - SUBMITTAL OF REQUESTS FOR FUTURE ITEMS Individuals who have appropriate items for City Council consideration should complete the Request for Future Agenda Items form located at the Information Booth. If the issue can be handled administratively without Council action, notification will be provided. If the item is scheduled for a meeting or study session, notification of the date will be given. B - RESERVE TIME TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS This is an opportunity for individuals wishing to provide input on any of tonight's agenda items to reserve time to speak. Please come forward, state your name and address, and the Agenda topic on which you will be speaking. MAYOR COMMUNICATION This is an opportunity for the Mayor to comment on current events, activities, and issues of interest to the community. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call This is an open meeting of the Grand Island City Council. The City of Grand Island abides by the Open Meetings Act in conducting business. A copy of the Open Meetings Act is displayed in the back of this room as required by state law. The City Council may vote to go into Closed Session on any agenda item as allowed by state law. City of Grand Island City Council Item -1 Discussion Regarding Odor Ordinance Tuesday, May 04, 2010 Study Session City of Grand Island Staff Contact: Jeff Pederson City of Grand Island City Council Council Agenda Memo From: Jeff Pederson, City Administrator Meeting: May 4, 2010 Subject: Discussion of Odor Ordinance Item #’s: 1 Presenter(s): Shannon Oster, Assistant to the City Administrator Background The Public Works Department has been the source on odor monitoring for several years. They administer an Odor Hotline, which has existed since September of 2000. In 2006 the Nasal Ranger Field Olfactometer® was purchased for monitoring odors at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Nasal Ranger is a field olfactometer device which measures odor concentration or odor strength. Over the past decade more cities and states have begun using field olfactometers to quantify odor because it is more objective and the relatively low cost and portability. Discussion Administration will present the framework of how an odor ordinance would be shaped. This is based on researching other municipalities, studies on odor issues, and speaking with odor experts. What was found is there are few places which have an odor ordinance, because it is a subjective issue, and the difficult y measuring odor in an affordable and timely manner. Of the cities that have an odor ordinance, a complaint response system in combination with an odor investigation is common. Because the complex nature of odor and the multiple steps necessary to determine an odor is offensive, an ordinance would be a new program. Included in the packet is a framework of an odor ordinance, an overview of the Nasal Ranger and field olfactometry, and a summary of data from Nasal Ranger samples and Odor Hotline calls. Conclusion This item is presented to the City Council in a Study Session to allow for any questions to be answered and to create a greater understanding of the issue at hand. It is the intent of City Administration to bring this issue to a future council meeting. Framework of an Odor Ordinance An odor ordinance would likely be treated as a nuisance, so the determination that an odor is a nuisance would go through a process. The following is what the framework of an odor program would look like. 1. Complaint System. A complaint system is based on measuring multiple, individual public reactions to an odor that residents believe is unacceptable. Using complaints to initiate the odor process is important to the determination that an odor is offensive versus tolerable. The City would set a complaint criterion that would need to be reached in order for it to be considered an odor episode. Complaint criteria: receiving 8 official odor complaints in 12 hour period through an Odor Hotline. Calls must be similar in nature. An Official Complaint includes: one complaint per household; provide the necessary information to hotline responder; and must call at the time of the odor. Multiple Episodes of Odor: requiring two odor episodes reaching the complaint criteria in 30 days to trigger a response (e.g. 8 complaints in two separate 12 hour periods). This demonstrates that the odor is a recurring problem for the community. Once that happens an odor investigation follows. 2. Investigation of Odor. This will verify the odor is offens ive by investigating through the use of a Nasal Ranger (or equivalent field olfactometer), or an odor inspector to confirm an odor is present. The investigation of odor would immediately follow the second odor episode. Using the Nasal Ranger to investigate the odor would set a D/T considered offensive as well as setting other measurement requirements. A 7 and greater D/T or greater than 7 D/T would be appropriate levels to consider a nuisance. D/T ratios are at 2, 4, 7, 15, 30, and 60. There should be at least two readings no less than fifteen minutes apart in a one hour period. The location of readings is taken at the odor source’s property line or nearest location of human habitation. The person inspecting the odor using the Nasal Ranger needs to be properly trained to take readings and tested for reasonable odor sensitivity (using a nasal chemosensory test). The other method to investigating odor complaints is having an odor inspector that simply verifies there is an odor present without quantifying the odor on the Nasal Ranger. This odor inspector should also be tested for reasonable odor sensitivity. Either of the two investigation methods will confirm the odor is a violation and the odor source is notified there is a violation. 3. Odor Violation: Remedial Plan, Review, and Implementation Process. An important part to the odor violation is improving the source of odor. Fines would be less important than compliance in an effort to eliminate odors that exceed the standard specified in the ordinance. First, the odor source in violation would develop an action plan to resolve the odor issue in a set number of days from violation (30 days). The plan must be submitted to a panel or community Odor Board for review and approval. The Odor Board will work with the odor source to make sure the plans are adequate and implemented. If consulting work is necessary for developing plans or reviewing plans, then the odor source will pay for those costs. If the plan is not implemented or the odor source fails to submit a plan then it would go to court. Fiscal Note Nasal Ranger: +$1,500 $150 Nose Piece per user one time purchase Maintenance of Nasal Ranger: $160 recalibrating biannually Training/Odor School: $375/person plus travel Odor Sensitivity Test: varies Administrative Costs: The most substantial cost to an odor ordinance is the staff time necessary for a new program. There would be a significant increase in the time spent monitoring an Odor Hotline and maintaining a log of the information. The Hotline would need to be monitored seven days a week and possibly 24 hours a day. Having staff work as Odor Inspectors would require time for training, as well as be available seven days a week for an investigation. Staff time managing and working with the Odor Board is the last substantial cost worth noting. An initial discussion has been held between the City and the Central District Health Department, including the role that the CDHD might play in administration of an odor ordinance. Should an Odor Board be established, representation from CDHD would be essential. Determination of any role that CDHD would play in administration of the complaint response process would be determined through further discussions with CDHD. Overview of the Nasal Ranger Field Olfactometer® The field olfactometer was developed in 1958, by the US Public Health Service. This is more commonly called a “scentometer” or box scentometer. A field olfactometer quantifies odor concentration based on the dilution to threshold (D/T) and measures by dynamic dilution of odor. This takes the ambient air and mixes it with filtered air, and then sniffed out. Dilution to threshold is read at ratios of 2, 7, 15, 31, 170, and 350. For example, at D/T 2 is two parts odor free air with one part ambient odorous air. Field olfactometers are one of the only quantifiable odor measurement tools. Other methods to measure odor exist, including the n-butanol scale (i.e. odor intensity referencing scale) and laboratory dynamic, triangular force choice olfactometry; however, field olfactometers have been more frequently used because their relatively low cost and portability. St. Croix Sensory developed the Nasal Ranger Field Olfactometer in 2002. The Nasal Ranger is a type of field olfactometer, but more adva nced than the traditional scentometer because of the calibrated inhalation rate, orifice dial, and nasal mask. It has D/Ts of 2, 4, 7, 15, 30, and 60. A D/T of 2 is considered “just noticeable” and a 4 D/T is common in a city according to odor experts at St. Croix Sensory (2006, McGinley & McGinley). Field olfactometers are relatively simple to administer but there are human factors involved. For example, people who are desensitized to a certain smell or seasonal congestion can impact a D/T reading. To improve the credibility of the readings there is training available to become a “certified odor inspector” and sensitivity testing. Sensitivity testing is a nasal chemosensory testing method used by ear, nose and throat clinics. The City purchased a Nasal Ranger in 2006, and began taking samples through the Public Works Department. Operators at Wastewater Treatment Plant have used the Nasal Ranger in twelve locations in the WWTP and JBS vicinity. Those locations were selected by CH2M Hill as a part of an odor study and chosen for modeling, not an ordinance. A summary sheet with the reading’s data is included. St. Croix Sensory, 2006 Overview of Nasal Ranger Readings and Odor Hotline Complaints Odor Hotline: Information available since 2006. Nasal Ranger: WWTP Operators have taken readings since 2007. Typically these are recorded as the number of instances greater than 7 D/T by the odor descriptor/odor source. Based on the information below the Hotline calls and amount of readings over 7 D/T has declined each year. Rendering has always been the most frequent odor source. Although the information is interesting, the report below is not a reliable resource to track odors or shape an odor ordinance due to inconsistent sampling, user variability, and lack of detailed data. The readings are more useful to self-monitoring at the WWTP and tracking odor sources. 2007 2008 2009 2010 Odor Type/Odor Source 1st Quarter (Jan-Mar) 2nd Quarter (Apr-June) 3rd Quarter (Jul-Sep) 4th Quarter (Oct-Dec) 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter Total Readings 1,194 1,186 1,195 1,030 1,193 1,037 1,095 771 797 656 488 524 177 Number of Readings = to 7 D/T 1,162 1,113 1,078 940 1,163 984 1,024 736 775 627 480 509 166 Rendering 22 47 91 65 30 50 52 29 19 29 8 15 7 Burning-JBS 1 5 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - Lagoon/Sewer-JBS 2 - - - - - 1 2 - - - - - Lagoon Gas-JBS 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Manure-JBS 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - - - JBS Odors 0 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - Chemicals 0 - - - - 1 17 2 - - - - 3 Straw-WW 3 14 4 5 - - - - - - - - - Septic 0 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - Compost/Sludge 0 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - Aeration Basin 2 4 9 14 - - - - - - - - - Lagoon-WW 0 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - Sewer-WW 1 3 10 5 - - - - - - - - - Total > 7 32 73 117 90 30 53 71 35 22 29 8 15 11 % of Readings >7 2.68% 6.16% 9.79% 8.74% 2.51% 5.11% 6.48% 4.54% 2.76% 4.42% 1.64% 2.86% 6.21% Hotline Calls 3 1 3 14 4 2 0 0 1 43 2 3 1 Item -2 Review of Capital Improvement Plan Tuesday, May 04, 2010 Study Session City of Grand Island Staff Contact: Jeff Pederson City of Grand Island City Council Council Agenda Memo From: Mary Lou Brown, Finance Director Meeting: May 4, 2010 Subject: Capital Program and Related Financing Item #’s: 2 Presenter(s): Steve Riehle, Public Works Director Steve Paustian, Parks and Rec Director Mary Lou Brown, Finance Director Background Five Year Capital Fund (400 Fund) programs have been identified and prioritized through a process very similar to Program Prioritization. The programs have also been assigned to the appropriate fiscal year according to the ability to fund the program from the appropriate source and also according to the scheduling guidelines provided by other governmental agencies. Discussion The Study Session will focus on a discussion of the programs included in the multi-year plan, the assumed financing sources and the potential impact of bond financing on the City’s overall debt position. Based on comments from the Study Session, a final proposal for the Capital Program for the 2011 Budget will be developed and presented to Council for approval on May 18. Conclusion A recommended Capital Plan will be presented at the May 18, 2010 Council meeting. Multi Year Capital Program 2009/2010 Current Fiscal Year Project Amount in 2009/2010 Budget Special Assessments Keno Gas Tax GO Bond GO Bond with Election Requirement General Fund Total Expected Cash Flow Funding amount available 659,804.00 368,438.00 700,000.00 Stolley Park Rd widening - Locust to Events Center - Construction 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 So Locust - I80 to city limits 126,000.00 126,000.00 126,000.00 Capital Ave; drainway to Webb Road 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 Realign Walnut entr. & Custer/15th signal 100,540.00 10,000.00 10,000.00New traffic signal installations 106,000.00 106,000.00 106,000.00 Wasmer detention cell 220,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 Moores Creek, Faidley, Edna construction 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 Northwest drainage project - feasibility & design 725,000.00 725,000.00 725,000.00 Platte Valley industrial site, cells to Wood River 127,000.00 0.00Construct drainway - CCC to Wood River 382,500.00 0.00 Misc safety enhancements - RR study 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 Integrated/comprehensive drainage plan 115,000.00 115,000.00 115,000.00 Annual sidewalk projects 25,000.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 Hiker/biker trails 200,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00Infrastructure emergency funds 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 Fiber optic connections 90,000.00 90,000.00 90,000.00 Miscellaneous park projects 150,000.00 270,000.00 270,000.00 Athletic complex development 1,300,000.00 1,300,000.00 1,300,000.00 Total 4,477,040.00 3,595,000.00 Funding amount remaining 466,804.00 8,438.00 108,000.00 Total 1,150,000.00 1,300,000.00 2010/2011 Funding amount available 766,804.00 308,438.00 808,000.00 Platte Valley industrial site, cells to Wood River 127,000.00 Construct drainway - CCC to Wood River 382,500.00 Wasmer detention cell 195,000.00 Realign Walnut entr. & Custer/15th signal 90,540.00 Infrastructure contingency funds (emergency)60,000.00Construction of NW GI flood control project 400,000.00 Lincoln Park pool 1,100,000.00Misc. parks projects (annual)150,000.00 Concrete lining of drainage ditches 50,000.00 Annual sidewalk projects 25,000.00Quiet zone - UPRR corridor - Lincoln, Broadwell and Blaine/Custer 150,000.00 Broadwell Ave/UPRR - Environmental study/preliminary engineering 128,000.00Independence Ave Ditch - Design 80,000.00 Blaine bridges over Wood River - Design and ROW 45,000.00 Hiker/biker trails 60,000.00So. Locust trail bridge engineering 10,000.00 Round-a-bout @Capital Ave & North Road 360,000.00 Funding amount remaining 249,304.00 88,438.00 184,460.00 Total 952,000.00 1,100,000.00 2011/2012 Funding amount available 549,304.00 388,438.00 684,460.00 Infrastructure contingency funds (emergency)60,000.00Construction of NW GI flood control project 600,000.00 So. Locust trail bridge construction 120,000.00 Misc. parks projects (annual)150,000.00 Faidley Ave - North Road east to Irongate Ave (approx 2,000 feet)112,500.00 Update Moores Creek drainage plan 39,000.00Blaine bridge replacement with culverts 50,000.00 Broadwell Ave/UPRR - Final design & ROW appraisal 128,000.00 Signal @ US Hwy 30 (2nd Street) and Lincoln Ave 55,000.00 Niedfeldt Park 20,000.00 Concrete lining of drainage ditches 50,000.00Stolley Park upgrade 100,000.00 PVIP drainage project -phase 2 99,750.00 Independence - Construct culverts and fill in west ditch 70,000.00 Lighting on US Hwy 281 from Stolley Park Road to Old Potash 250,000.00 Husker Hwy west of US Hwy 34/281 intersection 250,000.00Heartland Public Shooting Park development 150,000.00 Signal @ US Hwy 34/281 and Wildwood Road 85,000.00 Signal @ US Hwy 34/281 and Rae Road 67,000.00 Stolley Park Rd & North Rd intersection 146,000.00 State/Diers intersection improvements 390,000.00Left turn lane on 13th @ Redwood/Mansfield 62,000.00 Annual sidewalk projects 25,000.00 Funding amount remaining 474,304.00 38,438.00 28,960.00 Total 1,998,750.00 0.00 2012/2013 Funding amount available 774,304.00 338,438.00 528,960.00 Infrastructure contingency funds 60,000.00 Construction of NW GI flood control project 400,000.00 Misc. parks projects (annual)150,000.00 Trail along Locust from I-80 to Wood River floodway 120,000.00Broadwell Ave/UPRR - ROW 200,000.00 Concrete lining of drainage ditches 50,000.00 US 30 widening - west city limits to Hwy 281 500,000.00 1,390,000.00 Annual sidewalk projects 25,000.00 Wasmer detention cell - park improvements 40,000.00Miscellaneous safety projects - TBD 150,000.00 Funding amount remaining 59,304.00 8,438.00 28,960.00 Total 1,540,000.00 0.00 2013/2014 Funding amount available 359,304.00 308,438.00 528,960.00 Infrastructure contingency funds 60,000.00 Construction of NW GI flood control project 400,000.00Misc. parks projects (annual)150,000.00 Concrete lining of drainage ditches 50,000.00 Trail along I-80 from Mormon Island to Locust 120,000.00Annual sidewalk projects 25,000.00 Broadwell Ave/UPRR - Construction 500,000.00 1,660,000.00 Funding amount remaining 284,304.00 (21,562.00)28,960.00 Total 2,060,000.00 Funding Sources Wood River Flood Control Bonds Various Purpose Paving Bonds Various Purpose S Locust Street Public Safety Center Heartland Event Center Library Expansion State Fair Building CIP Bonding+40k fees TOTALS Pmt for 2010 270,408 54,148 354,227 861,063 569,493 829,690 753,112 40,000 3,732,140 Balance at 9/30/2010 1,230,000 55,000 2,680,000 5,735,000 6,270,000 4,470,000 4,518,829 2,000,000 26,958,829 Pmt for 2011 268,006 56,430 375,913 857,663 570,038 832,828 753,112 284,627 3,998,615 Balance at 9/30/2011 1,005,000 - 2,365,000 5,115,000 5,950,000 3,785,000 3,951,806 3,833,727 26,005,533 Pmt for 2012 274,745 376,385 858,173 569,715 829,540 753,112 535,195 4,196,864 Balance at 9/30/2012 765,000 2,045,000 4,470,000 5,620,000 3,080,000 3,360,429 5,498,362 24,838,791 Pmt for 2013 275,615 375,980 857,373 563,574 829,780 753,112 791,784 4,447,217 Balance at 9/30/2013 515,000 1,720,000 3,800,000 5,285,000 2,350,000 2,743,651 6,990,073 23,403,724 Pmt for 2014 265,865 374,508 860,573 566,495 828,415 753,112 1,054,471 4,703,437 Balance at 9/30/2014 265,000 1,390,000 3,100,000 4,935,000 1,595,000 2,100,382 8,303,974 21,689,356 Pmt for 2015 270,433 366,753 856,873 568,443 830,303 753,112 1,323,333 4,969,248 Balance at 9/30/2015 - 1,060,000 2,375,000 4,570,000 810,000 1,429,484 9,434,076 19,678,560 Pmt for 2016 372,629 856,785 569,470 825,390 753,112 1,598,449 4,975,834 Balance at 9/30/2016 715,000 1,620,000 4,190,000 - 729,769 10,373,215 17,627,984 Pmt for 2017 367,288 860,075 564,450 753,112 1,879,893 4,424,817 Balance at 9/30/2017 365,000 830,000 3,800,000 - 11,112,987 16,107,987 Pmt for 2018 376,863 866,105 567,938 2,167,742 3,978,647 Balance at 9/30/2018 - - 3,390,000 9,643,648 13,033,648 Pmt for 2019 565,194 2,127,742 2,692,935 Balance at 9/30/2019 2,965,000 8,091,029 11,056,029 Pmt for 2020 566,706 2,127,742 2,694,448 Balance at 9/30/2020 2,520,000 6,450,214 8,970,214 Pmt for 2021 562,475 1,883,115 2,445,590 Balance at 9/30/2021 2,060,000 4,963,054 7,023,054 Pmt for 2022 561,900 1,632,546 2,194,446 Balance at 9/30/2022 1,580,000 3,640,308 5,220,308 Pmt for 2023 564,738 1,375,958 1,940,696 Balance at 9/30/2023 1,075,000 2,494,436 3,569,436 Pmt for 2024 561,563 1,113,271 1,674,833 Balance at 9/30/2024 550,000 1,539,795 2,089,795 Pmt for 2025 562,375 844,408 1,406,783 Balance at 9/30/2025 - 792,852 792,852 DEBT SERVICE FUND - GENERAL FUND S:\Docs\13814.xls Item -3 Report on Program Prioritization Model Tuesday, May 04, 2010 Study Session City of Grand Island Staff Contact: Jeff Pederson City of Grand Island City Council Council Agenda Memo From: Jeff Pederson, City Administrator Meeting: May 4, 2010 Subject: Program Prioritization Update Item #’s: 3 Presenter(s): Jeff Pederson, City Administrator Mary Lou Brown, Finance Director Background The City Of Grand Island began the Program Prioritization process several months ago working with consultants from the International City/County Management Association. The last formal update was provided at the City Council Retreat in March. Since that time the entire City Of Grand Island model has been complete in preparation for the 2010/2011 budget process. Discussion The City Administrator and Finance Director will provide an update to the Program Prioritization process, as well as bring for the model that has been created for Grand Island. The Study Session will explain how the City will be budgeting with Program Prioritization for the upcoming fiscal year. Conclusion This item is presented to the City Council in a Study Session to allow for any questions to be answered and to create a greater understanding of the issue at hand. It is the intent of City Administration to bring more detail on the 2010/2011 Budget at a later date.