Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Facilities Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineer briefs commission on outdated facilities plan and $60,000 predevelopment grant option
Summary
The city’s engineer told the commission the town’s facilities plan, written in the 1990s, does not meet current state requirements and recommended pursuing a USD RD water and waste predevelopment planning grant (up to $60,000) that would require a 25% local match and the city to bankroll the report until federal approval.
Zach, the city engineer, told the City Commission on Dec. 2 that the town’s existing facilities plan — originally prepared in the 1990s — “does not meet minimum requirements” after a 2024 review and needs a major update to qualify for state and federal infrastructure funding.
Zach said an applicable funding option is the Water and Waste Disposal predevelopment planning grant through USD RD, which the meeting record described as “up to $60,000” and requiring a 25% local cash match. “Part of this grant is that the city has to fund the report until it’s completed, meaning it’s, like, approved by the federal government,” Zach said, describing the upfront cost responsibilities for the city.
He outlined the scope of a facilities plan (also described as a PER, plumbing engineering report): an evaluation of the water system, sanitary and storm sewer systems, televising and inspecting sewer lines to identify inflow and infiltration, motorized and GIS updates, hydraulic modeling to determine pressures and capacity, and a prioritized list of recommended maintenance and capital work with construction cost estimates. Zach said those elements are necessary for the city to be eligible for larger state and federal construction grants.
City staff and Zach discussed procurement steps. Zach said the grant program requires a fair, competitive solicitation process (an RF(R)P) so the city would put the study out to engineering firms and could either contract the full scope or combine consultant work with city staff contributions. He estimated costs for a facilities plan can vary widely “from, you know, $20,000 to, like, a hundred and $30,000,” depending on scale and how much work the city does in-house.
On timing, Zach said being on the state water plan is part of the path for state funding and that some state programs accept applications on a quarterly basis, while USD RD can accept applications year-round; to be competitive with the state funding cycle, he recommended aiming to submit material in October of the funding year so the project appears in an early funding round. He also advised the commission that the study will take time to complete and may be done in phases (for example, televising portions of sewer in successive years) rather than all at once.
Robin (city staff) and other commissioners noted the city needs to decide what work it can complete internally so that the RFP can be scoped properly. The commission did not take formal action on the grant at the Dec. 2 meeting; Zach and staff said they will return with a recommended procurement approach, scoped costs and a timetable for the RFP and grant application process.
What’s next: staff will prepare a draft RFP/procurement plan, clarify the local match and upfront funding requirements, and return to the commission with cost estimates and a suggested timeline for applying to USD RD and the state water program.
