PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 2014/12/10 MinutesPUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014 – 4:30 P.M.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING – 800 N. FIELD DRIVE
MS TRAINING ROOM
MEETING MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Cathy Waldeck called the meeting to
order at 4:42 p.m. Aldermen Tack and Moreno were present.
City staff in attendance included Karl Walldorf, Deputy Chief of Police; Rob
Copeland, Police Commander; John Gulledge, Supervisor of Water & Sewer
Utilities; Charlie Douglas, Assistant Chief Water Plant Operator; Michael Thomas,
Director of Public Works; Dan Martin, Superintendent of Public Works; Robert
Kiely, City Manager; Dave DeMarco, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor; Elizabeth
Holleb, Director of Finance; Mary Van Arsdale, Director of Parks & Recreation;
and Donna Dunn, Assistant to the Director of Public Works.
Other attendees included Brian Hackman, Strand Associates; and members of
the public, Charlie Kohlmeyer and Walter Hamann.
II. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 19, 2014 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES: Alderman Moreno moved to approve the minutes of the November 19,
2014 meeting as written. Alderman Tack seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
III. WATER PLANT UPDATE: Brian Hackman of Strand Associates reviewed the requests
of the Public Works Committee at previous meetings, to include an
understanding of AquaSource’s April 2014 letter stating that there would be no
extra cost, an update on what other AquaSource treatment plants are doing,
and a membrane system replacement option to match the existing Plant.
Mr. Hackman explained that “no extra cost” in the letter from AquaSource
dated April 2014 meant that there would be no extra cost applied to the
replacement module cost. The cost of the next membrane replacement with
the new INGE modules will not increase compared to the cost the City would
pay to replace the existing INEA AC1125 modules. What is not included in
AquaSource’s number is control valve replacement, existing skid modifications,
air compressors, clean-in-place system replacement, installation, and shipping
costs.
Mr. Hackman then provided an update on what other AquaSource facilities are
doing. He noted that a facility in BexarMet, Texas stayed with AquasSource and
Public Works Committee
Meeting Minutes from December 10, 2014
Page 2 of 4
completed a $4 million retrofit. Zone 7 Water Agency in California purchased
additional AquaSource modules and anticipates a $5 – 7 million retrofit cost.
Oden Water Association reports a probable cost of $2 million to retrofit their
AquaSource plant. The facility in Del Rio, Texas retrofitted their plant to Koch
Membrane systems, but did not provide a cost for that project.
The Committee then reviewed Option No. 2 which provides the same
membrane area and comparable MGD to the current Plant. Based on historical
flow data, Option No. 2 would provide 93% reliability in terms of meeting the
water system demands. This means that there may be capacity issues 25 days
out of the year with Option No. 2.
In comparing historical usage with regulatory requirements, the City could be
placed on restricted status by the IEPA for not meeting IAC Treatment Capacity
Requirements under Option No. 2. However, Mr. Hackman provided alternatives
to supplement Option No. 2 which includes water conservation measures, and
distribution system improvements and interconnection with neighboring supply.
Mr. Hackman explained the average probable costs of the membrane system
replacement/retrofit options. The average probable cost for Option No. 1 for all
four manufacturers was $9.3 million for a 14 MGD facility. For an 8 MGD facility
(Option No. 2), the average probable cost from AquaSource was $7.02 million
compared to $6.97 million from the other three manufacturers. Upon reviewing
the detailed breakdown of costs, Manufacturer D has the lowest probable cost
for the 8 MGD facility.
Equipment for all of the individual components, with the exception of electrical
updates, would be new for all three manufacturers. AquaSource’s proposal, on
the other hand, would retrofit many of the components.
Additionally, Manufacturers A, C, and D represent the entire system and provide
support long-term. AquaSource utilizes multiple independent vendors for the
different pieces of equipment. Also a concern of the Committee in the past,
interchangeability is nonexistent with AquaSource, but is present with the other
three companies.
The Committee reviewed projected water rates and the rates of surrounding
communities that are members of CJCJAWA. The rate comparison was based
on consumption and did not include additional fixed rate fees.
Alderman Tack asked Mr. Hackman if it was fair to say that it would be a difficult
argument to stay with AquaSource. Mr. Hackman replied that is a fair statement.
Additionally, Alderman Tack mentioned that Option No. 2 puts the City at risk 25
days per year, which is concerning. If there is the potential for penalties, why is it
being considered? Mr. Hackman explained that at the October meeting,
Public Works Committee
Meeting Minutes from December 10, 2014
Page 3 of 4
Committee members asked for an “apples to apples” comparison after seeing
the $9 million price for 14 MGD. Option No. 2 is what it would take to retrofit the
Plant and get what we have today.
The Committee asked why Manufacturer D becomes the second highest when
the capacity is increased to 14 MGD. Mr. Hackman suggested that the
discrepancy occurred because Option No. 1 was the first request for prices and
the surface area they supplied was greater than the other manufacturers. When
a second pricing option was requested, the manufacturer may have tried to
come in lower because there is extremely high interest. When the bid is
released, it will provide specifications for all manufacturers to bid on.
The Committee commented that the 10-year average doesn’t reflect the
impact of the changes made recently, so they are unsure if it makes sense to
spend an extra $3 million without knowing if the changes will impact the usage
data. The Committee asked if the project can be bid for Option No. 2 with the
basic infrastructure changes to expand to Option No. 1 in the future. Mr.
Hackman stated that this is an option.
Staff asked the Committee if there was any information that they want Mr.
Hackman to provide before the January 2015 meeting. The Committee
requested a better explanation of the comparison usage charge and historical
usage for 10 individual years in order to determine the risk.
No motion was required.
IV. REVIEW OF PROPOSED FY2016 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT: Director of Public Works
Michael Thomas reviewed the Capital Equipment Plan for FY2016.
Director Thomas explained that there are four (4) vehicles to consider when
replacing the Police Department fleet. Chief of Police Jim Held wrote a
memorandum, which was included in the packet, recommending the Ford
Explorer. Chairman Waldeck asked if it is a problem for Fleet Maintenance when
most of the fleet is Chevrolet and now the City would be purchasing a Ford
product. Director Thomas explained the five year, 100,000 mile warranty that is
included with the Ford purchase would address the risk concern. In addition, the
Police Chief committed to running the Explorers 150,000 miles compared to the
100,000 miles of the Impalas.
The Committee asked what percentage of the Police Department fleet is SUV’s.
Director Thomas replied that approximately 40%. The Committee also discussed
the Chevrolet Tahoe vs. the Ford Explorer. The Explorer gets better mileage than
the Impala and Tahoe. The Committee is concerned about transitioning the
entire Police Department fleet to SUV’s. Instead, the Committee asked that at a
Public Works Committee
Meeting Minutes from December 10, 2014
Page 4 of 4
future meeting, staff provide information on each vehicle and how it is utilized in
order to determine if SUV’s, cars, or smaller options should be considered for
future replacements.
Director Thomas reviewed the replacement of recycling truck #186. The
proposed replacement unit has no transmission and uses 40 – 50% less fuel. Staff
has applied for a Drive Clean Chicago grant in the amount of $96,000 for the
purchase of this truck and expects to find out if it was successful in approximately
one week. The existing recycling truck could be sold for $60,000. Director
Thomas reviewed potential fuel and brake replacement savings by transitioning
to this new piece of equipment.
Director Thomas noted that the refuse scooters are costing more than expected
and will need to be replaced on a more frequent basis. Out of the entire City
fleet, Director Thomas stated that these pieces of equipment are the most
heavily utilized on a daily basis.
The Police vehicles, recycling truck, and groundsmaster (Parks field mower) will
be presented to City Council for approval in January and February, but will not
be received until after May 1. The remaining equipment will be presented to
Council for approval in April.
No motion was necessary.
V. OTHER ITEMS: None.
VI. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
VII. NEXT MEETING: Director Thomas will send out a confirmation for the January
meeting.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Waldeck moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Alderman Tack seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Dunn
Assistant to the Director of Public Works