Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM1 - Resolution No. 2012-1120A Expressing Official Intent to Reimburse with Proceeds of Oblications Issued to Finance Improvements to the Wastewater Treatement PlantRESOLUTION NO. 2012-1120A TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE WITH PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS ISSUED TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DISTRICT'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROVIDE WASTEWATER SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS OF THE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Trophy Club Municipal Utility No. 1, (the "District") desires to finance the costs of improving, constructing, reconstruction and/or equipping of wastewater treatment facilities as provided in Exhibit A to Resolution 2012-1120A of the District and incorporated herein (the "Project"); WHEREAS, the District intends to finance the improving, construction, reconstruction and/or equipping of the Project or portions of the Project with the proceeds of the sale of general obligation bonds or other forms of debt, the interest upon which is excluded from t,lJ·oss income for federal income tax purposes (the "Obligations"); and WHEREAS, prior to the issuance of the Obligations the District desires to incur certain capital expenditures (the "Expenditures") with respect to the Project fl-om available moneys of the District; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the District for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations; WHEREAS, the District finds, considers, and declares that the reimbursement of the District for the payment of such expenditures will be appropriate and consistent with the lawful objectives of the District and, as such, chooses to declare its intention to reimburse itself for such payments at such time as it issues obligations to finance the Projects, as permitted by Section 1201.042(c) of the Texas Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER, AND DETERl'VIINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The District hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse Project costs incurred prior to the issuance of the Obligations with proceeds of the Obligations. Exhibit B to Resolution 2012-1120B describes the general character, type, purpose, and function ofthe Project.. SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Obligations is $4,000,000. SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted not later than 60 days a iter the payment of the miginal Expenditures (the "Expenditures Dates or Dates"). SECTION 4. As required by Section 1201.042(c) of the Texas Government Code, all costs to be reimbursed will be attributable to the Project, and the District will reimburse itself for such costs promptly following the issuance of obligations issued by the District to finance the Project. SECTION 5. This resolution is consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the District, as of the date hereof. No moneys from sources other than the Obligations are, or are reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-tenn basis, or otherwise set aside by the District (or any related party) pursuant to their budget or financial policies with respect to the Project costs. To the best of our knowledge, this Board is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by the District that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued. SECTION 6. This resolution is adopted as of1icial action of the District in order to comply with Section 1201.042(c) of the Texas Government Code and any other regulations relating to the qualification for reimbursement of District expenditures incurred prior to the date of issue of the Obligations. SECTION 7. All the recitals in this resolution are true and con·ect and this Board of Directors so finds, determines and represents. ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 20th day of November 2012. Attest: Kevin R. Carr, Board Secretary/Treasurer TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT N0.1 Nick Sanders, Board President EXIDBITA Engineering Report by The Wallace Group ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS WACO KILLEEN DAllAS ROUND ROCK Paul M. Boyer, PE, CFM Scott A. Cahak, PE Dan M. Flaherty, RPLS Sean M. Flaherty, RPLS lonny W. Gillespie, RPLS Kevin R. Glovier, P£ George C. Jezek, AlA David L. Marek, PE Darrell Vickers, AlA, lEED-AP R.E. "Bob" Wallace, PE, RPLS Charles R. Wirtanen, PE 1825 Market Center Blvd. Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75207 (214) 747-3733 Fax (214) 747-7331 www.wallace-group.com TBPE F-54 EXHIBIT A Engineering Report by the Wallace Group October 26, 2012 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District 100 Municipal Drive Roanoake, TX 76262 Attn: Jennifer McKnight, District Manager This report, its findings and its recommendations are the continuation of the work previously authorized by the Trophy Club Municipal Utility District (TCMUD). The work was initially authorized due to TCMUD's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) not meeting effluent parameters. The Wallace Group (TWG) was hired to evaluate the plant itself in determining possible problems and solutions to these problems. WORK COMPLETED .. FINDINGS Performed elevation survey of key components of the WWTP equipment in order to study the hydraulic profile of the plant. Performed calculations on the sizing of various units and pipe sizing per flow requirements and loading parameters. Conducted meetings with Jennifer McKnight and Karl Schlielig in order to assess how the plant is currently being operated and what problems they observe from operation and management spectrums. 1. The plant was designed with very little or no margin of error (i.e., excess capacity above average daily hydraulic and organic loadings). The plant was originally designed for a build-out population of 10,000. In discussions with the Carolyn Huggins with the Town of Trophy Club Community Development Department, this figure has been increased to 13,000-14,000 population inside the town limits. The TCMUD has service area outside the city limits which will also likely increase and contributes flow to the wastewater treatment facility. 2. The majority of individual unit processes appear to be adequately sized for a population of 10,000 for which it was originally designed but as stated above, the projected build out population has increased. 3. The original plant permit limit limits were reduced by TCEQ since the plant became operational following its last upgrade. Consequently, the limit for BOD and TSS was effectively reduced by almost half (i.e., BOD= 5 ppm vs. 10 ppm; TSS = 10 ppm vs. 15 ppm), thus reducing the capacity of the original plant design. This is reflected in the current TPDES permit. In effect, any excess capacity of the plant was removed by the limit reduction for these parameters. Trophy Club MUD October 26, 2012 Page 2 4. The treatment plant must be capable of adequately accommodating both the influent flow (approximately 0.90 MGD) and the recycle flow (1.0 MGD). The recycle fiow is pumped back to the head of the plant in order to maintain a sufficient concentration of activated sludge in the aeration tank so that the required degree of treatment can be obtained in the desired time interval. The plant currently recycles 700 gpm or approximately 1 MGD. This is in line with recommended values of 0.5 to 1.0 times the influent flow rate. The total combined flow of recycled plus raw wastewater meets or exceeds the capacity of the existing plant. 5. The existing plant was designed for an organic loading of 180 mg/1. The average loading since November of last year is 201.5 mg/1 for BOD, or approximately 12% higher than design capacity. The influent plant BOD was recorded to hit the high level of 238 mg/1 in the month of April of 2012, over 32% above the design capacity of the plant. 6. The existing splitter box was apparently constructed too high, relative to the aeration basins. The adjustable weirs must be operated at their lowest position to keep the aeration basins from overflowing. Even at their lowest positions, the result is that the aeration basins operate at a surcharged water surface elevation. This increased water surface elevation in the aeration basins results in "short circuiting" of the wastewater flow. Wastewater is allowed to flow over the top of the walls, thus resulting in reduced detention time and treatment within the aeration basins. The increased water surface elevation is also the reason the weir walls in the aeration basins are typically under water. 7. TCEQ requirements state the walls of the aeration basins should have a minimum of 18 inches of freeboard (i.e., the wall height above the normal water surface operating elevation). The existing basins' walls do not possess the necessary freeboard. Any major renovation of the plant would require that the walls of the aeration basins be raised to be in compliance with this requirement and reduce the continual short circuiting resulting in fiow passing over the internal basin walls 8. The existing treatment plant contains only two aeration basins. This results in two major limitations to the plant. First, there is presently no ability to take one aeration basin off-line for service and/or repair because the treatment capacity of the plant would be reduced by half, thus resulting in the plant being out of compliance. Second, the existing treatment capability of the plant is at or below capacity. This is compounded by the fact that the plant was designed to treat an organic loading of 180 mg/L. On days when flows and organic loading are well below design capacity, there generally is no compliance problem meeting permit requirements. However, on days when flows and/or organic loadings near or exceed the plant's design capacity, the plant exceeds its permit limits. Trophy Club MUD October 26, 2012 Page 3 9. The tertiary filters possess inadequate capacity to meet the hydraulic requirements when plant fiows are well below the plant's design limits. Consequently, the plant must continually bypass a portion of flow in order to not surcharge the filters. In addition, with only two tertiary filters there is presently no ability to take one filter off-line for service and/or repair without reducing the treatment capacity of the plant to remove TSS to the level required by the TPDES permit, thus further risking the plant being out of compliance for solids removal. 10. Return activated sludge (RAS) pumping and waste activated sludge (WAS) pumping require some modifications to the pump stations in order to provide more capacity and flexibility in operations, thus allowing the operating staff the ability to vary the amount of sludge wasting and the amount of sludge returned to the aeration treatment basins with the strength of wastewater entering the plant. Primarily this will be comprised of replacing some pumps and reconfiguring valves and piping. Based on cursory information, it appears the existing wet well structures are salvageable. 11. The effluent pump station and valving requires modification to prevent surcharging in the UV disinfection chamber. Currently, when flows are near capacity the UV channel surcharges due to inadequate pumping capacity of the pump station and limitations of the existing slide/sluice gates. 12. Provisions for routine and/or emergency maintenance do not appear to have been addressed in the original design. For example, if one of the aeration basins is taken out of service for repair, the second basin is already operating at its maximum flow and in some cases is already short circuiting, thus resulting in failure of the plant to meet its effluent permit parameters. This problem also occurs with the tertiary filters. POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE MEASURES: 1. Based on field survey elevations taken at the plant, it appears the best method to solve the splitter box elevation problem is to raise the walls of the aeration basins. Elevations show the water surface elevations (WSE) of the aeration basins could be raised by raising the walls of the basins and still allow the bioselector and other upstream units to work as they were designed. 2. A third aeration basin should be constructed to increase the capacity of the plant to better meet the hydraulic and organic treatment requirements stipulated in the plant's TPDES permit. 3. A third tertiary filter and basin should be constructed to increase the capacity of the plant for meeting TSS removal, and provide more redundancy to allow the staff to remove one filter from service for short periods of time. Trophy Club MUD October26, 2012 Page4 4. Modify the RAS and WAS pump stations to increase capacity and improve operations by replacing select pumps, piping and valves. 5. Modify the effluent pump station to increase capacity and improve operations by replacing select pumps, piping, valves, gates and meters. 6. The belt filter press appears to be sized correctly but is not operating efficiently due to apparent insufficient water pressure in the filter press operations. A different polymer could possibly be used to increase the efficiency and/or replace the booster pump in the water supply system to increase the water pressure. Trophy Club MUD October 26, 2012 Page 5 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The above list findings and solutions are necessary for the plant to operate more efficiently and to reduce the occurrence of violations to TPDES permit requirements. The treatment plant has been operating more efficiently lately with fewer permit violations due primarily to two factors: One, the diligence and knowledge of the operational staff has resulted in vastly improved plant operations and efficiencies. Second, the plant has been operating for the past numerous months in a moderate drought. This means very little inflow and infiltration (1/1) has occurred that would normally add additional flow to the plant and tax it even further. Consequently, as the population continues to exceed the 10,000 level for which the plant was designed and the rains return to the area, the plant is likely to experience more frequent permit violations. Therefore, we recommend long-term fixes to the plant in lieu of short-term measures which will result in intermittent violations and only delay implementing the necessary full corrective action required for the plant to operate consistently within permit limits. 2. This investigation is a cursory review of the plant to identify apparent issues and possible corrective actions required to improve the plant operations. We recommend that prior to the above listed possible corrective measures being taken, that the TCMUD perform a detailed needs assessment of each unit process on the plant. This information would be described in detail in a Preliminary Engineering Report outlining the findings and necessary plant improvements required for the plant to adequately address both the short term and long term demands and requirements of the plant. This would include assessing such parameters as population forecasts, wastewater strength and organic loadings, and capacities of each unit process at the plant. 3. There are still several unknowns and variable items which preclude the determining of firm costs for the needed improvements. Based on our experience, "rough" budget costs would be in the range of $1.5 million to $3.0 million. These numbers are very preliminary and can change after the Preliminary Engineering Report is completed and after discussions with the TCEQ. The Preliminary Engineering Report will define the actual improvements, alternatives and associated costs with the proposed improvements and after reviewed by the TCMUD, will be submitted to the TCEQ for their review 4. The Preliminary Engineering Report is the next step in the process. As stated above, upon completion of the Report and after review by the TCMUD, the Report will be presented to the TCEQ for review. The TCEQ will review the various improvements and decide as to whether the improvements will require a major or minor permit amendment. Usually the major amendment is a result of revising the effluent parameters. Based on the current low permit effluent parameters, it is Trophy Club MUD October 26, 2012 Page 6 doubtful these limits will be revised. After review by TCEQ, final design of the project based on the Preliminary Engineering Report and TCEQ comments can proceed. After the final design documents are completed and again reviewed and approved by the TCEQ, bidding of the project and construction can begin. It is very likely, the TCEQ will require a time schedule to be included in its consent order with the TCMUD. We understand the funding limitations that the TCMUD currently faces. As a result, we recommend that at a minimum the above corrective measures be implemented by the Board. While it will be beneficial to implement some of these improvements now and schedule others for later to minimize the initial costs to the TCMUD, this approach will not fully address the needs facing the wastewater treatment plant, and will result in continued permit violations, especially as a more typical rainfall pattern returns to our area and the TCMUD treatment population continues to grow. We have the experience and ability to assist the TCMUD with pursuing optional financing mechanisms to fund the necessary improvements. Sincerely, Kevin R Glovier, P.E. Project Manager The Wallace Group CERTIFICATE FOR RESOLUTION 2012-1120A STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § COUNTY OFT ARRANT § I, the undersigned Secretary of TROPHY CLUB MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1, TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS (the "District"), hereby certify as follows: 1. The Board of Directors of Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 convened in a meeting on the 20th day ofNovember, 2012, at the designated meeting place, and the roll was called ofthe duly constituted directors of said Board, to-wit: Nick Sanders, President Jim Thomas, Vice President Kevin Carr, Secretary/Treasurer Bill Armstrong, Director Jim Moss, Director and all of said persons were present, except the following absentees: (/; , thus constituting a quorum. Whereupon, among other business, the following was transacted at said Meeting: a written RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE WITH PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS ISSUED TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DISTRICT'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROVIDE WASTEWATER SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS OF THE DISTRICT was duly read. It was then duly moved and seconded that said Resolution be adopted; and, after due discussion, said motion, carrying with it the adoption of said Resolution, prevailed and carried by the following vote: A YES: -5-NOES: _JZ2_ ABSTENTIONS: _0_ 2. A true, full, and correct copy of the aforesaid Resolution 20 12-1120A adopted at the Meeting described in the above and foregoing paragraph is attached to and follows this Certificate; said Resolution has been duly recorded in said District's minutes of said Meeting; the above and foregoing paragraph is a true, full, and correct excerpt from said Board of Director's minutes of said Meeting pertaining to the adoption of said Resolution; the persons named in the above and foregoing paragraph are the duly chosen, qualified, and acting officers and members of said District Board of Directors as indicated therein; each of the officers and members of said Board of Directors was duly and sufficiently notified officially and personally, in advance, of the time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid Meeting, and that said Resolution would be introduced and considered for adoption at said Meeting; and said Meeting was open to the public, and public notice of the time, place, and purpose of said Meeting was given, all as required by Chaf{,r\ HJ 1lexas Government Code. ,,, \..UB ,.!111 ,,, _, c ...... :vtt.JA!'" , .. ·""' •• Ro .. •• r~ ,. ~ ~~:·~ ~~ . "'~ttl;·.:o ~ ED A!'fD SEALED the 201 h day of November, 2012. ::: 0: ~ Q ·.:::().,. -a::·o o· ..... :::. -,_:,_ ~,.---· C•l-= :z .z: = -·~ "'"'i' ... ~·0 --·~· ::: """' . '.. ' ~ ~").:·... .,.~x II. s /, ~ .,,. •• I..;: I"' ··o , ,. () ......... ~ , .... "1 t 1 ~STR\C\ ,,, '''"n''''