Loading...
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 2015/01/21 MinutesPUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2015 – 6:00 P.M. MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING – 800 N. FIELD DRIVE AGENDA I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Cathy Waldeck called the meeting of the Public Works Committee to order at 6:10 p.m. Aldermen Stanford Tack and Michelle Moreno were present. Staff in attendance included Robert Ells, Superintendent of Engineering; Dan Martin, Superintendent of Public Works; Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Charlie Douglas, Assistant Chief Water Plant Operator; John Gulledge, Supervisor of Water & Sewer Utilities; Donna Dunn, Assistant to the Director of Public Works; Chuck Myers, Superintendent of Parks and Forestry; and Robert Kiely, City Manager. Also in attendance were Douglas Crampton, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates; Brian Hackman, Strand Associates; and members of the public Charlie Kohlmeyer and Walter Hamann. II. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 10, 2014 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES: Alderman Moreno moved to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2014 Public Works Committee meeting as written. Alderman Tack seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. III. WESTLEIGH ROAD BRIDGE OPTIONS: Director of Public Works Michael Thomas introduced Doug Crampton of Wiss Janney Elstner Associates. Mr. Crampton explained that a Westleigh Road Bridge Condition Study was performed in the fall of 2014 and reviewed the report which included safety concerns, aesthetic improvements, and maintenance items. According to Mr. Crampton, the safety concerns for the Westleigh Road Bridge were minor. There is concrete deterioration from the freeze/thaw cycles on the bridge abutments and the debris on the stairway is a trip hazard. Mr. Crampton then reviewed the potential aesthetic improvements, which involved improving the appearance of the paint coatings, moisture staining, and corrosion staining. Finally, Mr. Crampton discussed the maintenance items under consideration for this bridge, which included the freeze/thaw damage, the missing paint on the Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes from January 21, 2015 Page 2 of 6 steel structure system, moisture staining, concrete deterioration, and the membrane protection for the bridge deck that has significantly deteriorated. Additionally, the pedestrian railing is losing support at the base and this may create a safety concern at some point in the future. Following the overview of the report, Mr. Crampton reviewed several different options with the Committee. In Option 1, 7,500 square feet of the outside faces of the bridge would undergo aesthetic improvements. This would not include the fascia girder facing each other in between the two bridges. Option 2 would expand the aesthetic improvements to 15,000 square feet of the bridge face. A separate option involved the conversion of the northwest stairwell to a planter/vegetation. Improvements to the Westleigh Road Bridge could be completed in phases: the first phase being aesthetic improvements, the second phase being interim maintenance such as the railing and concrete repairs, and the third being the full rehab or superstructure replacement. Mr. Crampton added that the aesthetic improvements would begin with abrasive blasting and then coating of the concrete surface. There are a number of options available for coating the concrete surface to include silane sealer, anti-graffiti coatings, silane-based anti-graffiti coatings, concrete stain, and breathable paint. Alderman Moreno questioned the possibility of allowing an artist to showcase their artwork on the bridge in the form of a mural. Chairman Waldeck added that the Committee and City Council would need to decide if they want the bridge to blend in or stand out. If they decided that they would want it to stand out, they would have to go “all in”. Cost estimates for the different options were also presented to the Committee. Option 1 (7,500 sq. ft.) $45,000 - $55,000 Option 2 (15,000 sq. ft.) $80,000 - $95,000 Stairwell Planter Conversion $10,000 - $30,000 Plans, Specs, and Coordination $15,000 Director Thomas explained that the expenditures presented to the Committee are not currently included in the FY2016 Capital Plan. The study was done because residents in the Whispering Oaks area have complained about the appearance of this bridge. Option 1 addresses the issues raised by Aldermen Pandaleon and Moore; however, maintenance items in the other phases presented will need to be added into the future Capital Plan. Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes from January 21, 2015 Page 3 of 6 In reviewing the different options, Mr. Crampton explained that the proposal for aesthetic improvements to 7,500 square feet of the bridge is the minimum the City would want to do in order to be cost effective. However, until the membrane roof is repaired, water will continue to drip down and continue staining the concrete that was just cleaned and/or repaired. The Committee asked about the expected life of Option 1. Mr. Crampton replied that they would expect to get 7 – 10 years out of Option 1, and further explained that this work would not have to be redone in other phases of the bridge improvements. Director Thomas added that Aldermen Pandaleon and Moore will receive Mr. Crampton’s report to review. The Westleigh Road Bridge will be an item for Council to consider through this and next year’s budget process. Additionally, staff will investigate if grant funding is available to replace the bridge. The Committee noted that the bridge could potentially have historical significance, which would need to be considered if replacement is pursued. No action was required. IV. WATER PLANT UPDATE: Brian Hackman of Strand Associates provided the Committee with an update on information requested at the December meeting, to include annual historical flows, probable costs for a third option based on historical flows, and anticipated project time and probable expenditures. The Committee was presented Option 3, which considers the cost to expand based on demand. Mr. Hackman reviewed the historical flow data and described how each option impacts the level of confidence in meeting future demands. He explained that Option 3B would meet the demand on approximately 96% of the days, while Option 3C meets the demand 100% of the time. Mr. Hackman then presented a breakdown of probable costs for Options 1 through 3C and provided a detailed breakdown for Manufacturer A, B, C, and D. The Committee discussed the possibility of installing the infrastructure, while not purchasing all the modules. This would allow future City Council members to gradually increase the capacity of the Plant and budget for those expenditures as needed. The Committee acknowledged the impact of irrigation systems on the water system, but agreed that they are more comfortable recommending an 11.4 MGD system with the option to expand than recommending a 14 MGD system when that demand has not yet occurred. At minimum, the Committee would like to see Option 3B because it meets the current demands and provides future expansion possibilities. Mr. Hackman reviewed how minimally the water rates were impacted between Option 3B and Option 3C. Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes from January 21, 2015 Page 4 of 6 The Committee further discussed the impact of water rates based on a $7.1 million bond issue versus a $9.5 million bond issue. The Committee asked what the average rate increase is each year. In a chart provided by Finance Director Elizabeth Holleb, City Manager Robert Kiely replied that water rates typically increase 2.5% – 3% each year. However, several years ago when the new Water Plant went online, there were years with 7% increases. Alderman Tack suggested that the fixed rate be increased to compensate for Option 3A and the per gallon rate be increased to compensate for the additional capacity. He believed that the infrastructure within the plant is for all residents, but the extra capacity is necessary for those residents who choose to irrigate and use more gallons of water per month. Mr. Hackman reviewed the project timeline and probable budget. City Council approvals would be required on May 18, 2015; January 16, 2016; and April 17, 2017. Staff’s recommendation was to select Option 3B at 11.4 MGD with a bid alternative for Option 3A. The proposal and recommendation would be presented to the City Council at their March 9, 2015 Budget Meeting. Design would start in May 2015. Non-membrane system items would be budgeted for and addressed beginning in FY2019. The Committee supported staff’s recommendation as presented and added that public relations regarding this decision for the Plant will be important. V. MAILBOX REIMBURSEMENT POLICY: Assistant to the Director of Public Works Donna Dunn reviewed the current policy for mailbox replacement/reimbursement due to snow plow damage and historical data from previous winters. The current policy is that the City will repair or replace mailboxes with a standard post and standard black mailbox if damaged by a City snow plow. Residents can also purchase their own mailbox and be reimbursed up to $50. Staff has received complaints regarding the low reimbursement amount and asked the Committee if they felt the policy should be changed. The Committee asked staff how many of the damaged mailboxes are recurring. Director Thomas replied that several have been damaged more than once. Due to this, Public Works’ crews will evaluate damaged mailboxes in the spring to determine if the post should be moved back from the curb. In some locations, the mailboxes are placed too close to the road; in other cases, it’s simply the weight of the snow that damages the mailbox as it comes off the plow. After group discussion, the Committee did not recommend a change in the current policy. However, the Committee recommended that staff post Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes from January 21, 2015 Page 5 of 6 information and a diagram on the City’s website regarding proper mailbox placement. VI. EAB FUNDING REQUEST: Superintendent of Parks and Forestry Chuck Myers provided a brief update on the status of Emerald Ash Borer tree removals. Of the 7,227 ash trees, half have been removed. There are 650 trees being treated. The 1,263 trees that have been tagged are those with heavy infestation and are a safety concern. Mr. Myers explained that they have expended all the budgeted funds for FY2015 and no further funds are available to continue removals until May 2015. Due to the nature of the disease and the safety concern these trees pose, staff is requesting funding now. The City received favorable bids to aid in removals, which was scheduled for FY2016. Staff requests that $160,000 from FY2016 be made available in FY2015 in order to keep up with EAB removals. Mr. Myers explained that this accelerated plan has been discussed with and approved by City Manager Kiely and Finance Director Holleb. The proposed plan will provide a $100,000 savings overall, even though additional money is being requested up front. If the accelerated plan is approved, most of the trees will be removed by this time next year. With the requested funding, the remaining 1,263 tagged trees in Wards 1, 2, and 3 would be removed by Kinnucan and Trees-R-Us. Ward 4 trees would be removed by in-house staff. All removals would occur by May 2015. Mr. Myers added that the same proposal will be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Board next week. The request for approval for the Kinnucan and Trees-R-Us contract will be on the City Council agenda for February 2, 2015. Finally, additional funding will be requested at the March 9, 2015 budget meeting. The Committee discussed public education about tree replacement efforts. Mr. Myers explained that there will be a delay in tree replacement. Staff will need to shift from removal efforts to reforestation and replanting, which will be communicated to residents at some point in the future. The Public Works Committee supported staff’s recommendation to utilize FY2016 funds in FY2015 to continue EAB tree removal efforts. VII. OTHER ITEMS: None. VIII. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT • Mr. Paul Hamann asked for clarification regarding the non-membrane expenses discussed for FY2019. Mr. Hackman explained that these non- Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes from January 21, 2015 Page 6 of 6 membrane expenses included chemical feeds, storage facilities, etc. These are expenses not related to the retrofit that would need to be done at the Plant regardless of the change in modules/membranes. • Mr. Paul Hamann also asked about pushing the membrane system harder versus slower and questioned a higher flux rate. Mr. Hackman explained that pushing at a higher flux rate, there is a greater potential for fouling and a lesser life of each module. Proposals include more modules and lower flux so that the exposure to material is less and therefore lengthens the life. The same flux was assigned to Options 3A – 3C. IX. NEXT MEETING – FEBRUARY 18, 2015: Not all Committee members were available for the proposed meeting on February 18, 2015. Therefore, the Committee will instead meet on February 11 at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. X. ADJOURNMENT: Alderman Moreno moved to adjourn the meeting of the Public Works Committee at 7:50 p.m. Chairman Waldeck seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Donna Dunn Assistant to the Director of Public Works