August 11, 2022 |

Meeting in a special session Tuesday evening, Rawlins City Council approved a new version of a grant application seeking $7.4 million in federal money to rehabilitate the town’s water service delivery system.

Last night was the third time council has considered the application. Questions about the source of the city’s match derailed the first vote on July 19th. City council delayed the vote to seek clarification. City Manager Sean Metcalf explained what hung up the first vote.

Metcalf said the impact assistance fund from the Chokecherry wind energy project had the necessary three-quarters of a million dollars to fund the match. At a special meeting on July 26th, the motion to approve the application passed unanimously. Then new information about the formula needed to determine the city’s match required council to reassemble and set the numbers right. Last night’s meeting began with a resolution to rescind the motion approved on July 26th.

Councilman Debari Martinez made the motion with Linda Smith offering the second.

No public hearing was required for the resolution, said City Attorney Gwendolyn Wade in response to a question from Ward 3 Councilman Chris Weisenburg. The motion passed with five “yeas.” Mayor Terry Weickum and Councilman Aaron Durst were absent.

Next came the motion to approve the grant application with the new numbers, including a city funding match of $1.314 million. Councilwoman Smith made the motion.

In the new resolution, the city’s match is slightly higher. Councilman Debari Martinez noted the change.

Finance Director Tom Sarvey provided the answer. In the original July 26th motion, the city’s 15 percent match was $1,117,826. That increased to a new figure of $1,314,000 in the motion before council last night. City Engineer Austin Gilbert explained the reason for the $196,000 difference. For starters, Gilbert said, a former state employee gave the incorrect guidance. Rather than 15 percent of the grant, the city’s 15 percent match is against the total project cost.

A section of 99-year-old creosoted wood stave pipeline removed from the system in the 1990’s when 32 miles between the springs and the treatment plant were replaced with steel pipeline. Much of the system still consists of wood stave today. Photo by Cali O’Hare/Bigfoot 99.

Using the new formula, the $7.4 million ARPA grant combined with the $1.3 million match puts the total project cost at $8.7 million dollars.

The city will use $717,292 from the general fund and $675 million from another SLIB grant to put meet the $1.3 million match.

The $8.7 project includes replacing the wood stave pipeline and spring boxes in the Sage Creek basin, as well as to repair sections of the 32 miles of pipeline delivering source water to the treatment plant south of the city. Some of the money will also be used to bring the pre-treatment plant back online.

Austin, responding to a question from Councilman Martinez about the balance in the impact assistance fund, assured council that there is enough available money to fund the city’s portion of the match.

Pictured above: File photo of city officials standing around one of the wells that provides water to the city. Photo by Cali O’Hare/Bigfoot 99.

A question came up about using the SLIB grant for $675,000 of the city’s portion of the match rather than all of the Chokecherry Impact Assistance fund. The finance director said it frees up the impact assistance fund for other uses. Councilwoman Smith explained the three buckets of money in play.

With everyone comfortable with the sources of the money involved a motion was made to approve the new motion to apply for the $7.4 million ARPA grant using $1.3 million in state money for the city’s match. The motion passed unanimously 5-0.

The grant application itself will now go to the State Loan and Investment Board, which oversees awarding the federal ARPA grants.

The grant application is three inches thick. Getting everything correct and in order was critical to the goal of securing the grant to repair the city’s ailing water system.

Previous articleStevens v Town of Saratoga continued in court
Next articlePower outage scheduled for Saratoga on Aug. 21

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here