Loading...
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 2016/11/07 PacketPUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 – 5:00 P.M. CITY HALL – UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM AGENDA I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER Cathy Waldeck, Chairman Stanford Tack Michelle Moreno Timothy Newman II. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 10, 2016 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES III. UPDATE ON WINWOOD SANITARY SEWER SSA – MICHAEL THOMAS & MIKE STRONG IV. UPDATE ON WATER PLANT DESIGN – BRIAN HACKMAN, P.E. STRAND ASSOCIATES & DAN MARTIN V. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT VI. NEXT MEETING – DECEMBER 5, 2016 5:00 P.M. @ CITY HALL VII. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016 – 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL – UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM AGENDA I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cathy Waldeck called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Aldermen Michelle Moreno, Timothy Newman, and Stanford Tack were present. Staff in attendance included Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Dan Martin, Superintendent of Public Works; Chuck Myers, Superintendent of Parks & Forestry; Cathy Czerniak, Director of Community Development; Jim Lockefeer, Management Intern; and Eileen Timken, Management Analyst. Also in attendance was Marcy Kerr, Executive Director – Lake Forest Preservation Foundation and Art Miller, President – Lake Forest Preservation Foundation. II. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Chairman Waldeck moved to approve the September 19, 2016 Public Works Committee meeting minutes. Alderman Newman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. III. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MCCORMICK RAVINE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Director Thomas explained that the condition of the McCormick Ravine is very poor; therefore, storm water management improvements are necessary. Bleck Engineering was selected by the City to assess the ravine. Director Thomas stated that the McCormick Ravine Stormwater Improvement Project is estimated to cost approximately $150,000. He continued explaining that a specific section of the McCormick Ravine is in especially poor condition. This specific section is located in the middle of the ravine. Director Thomas noted that stormwater from both the Villa Turicum and portions of the Whispering Oaks subdivision drain into this ravine. There are currently a few storm structures in the ravine to facilitate this stormwater drainage. Director Thomas explained that efforts have been made to maintain the McCormick Ravine for years; however, it now requires some significant capital investment. Staff recommended that the McCormick Ravine Stormwater Improvement Project begin shortly, as the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is currently restoring several ravines in this area. The ACOE has contracted John Keno and Company, Inc. to complete the ravine restoration. John Keno and Company, Inc. has worked in Lake Forest on similar projects, as well. The City recently went out to bid for the McCormick Ravine Stormwater Improvement Public Works Committee Meeting – October 10, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Project and John Keno and Company, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Staff will present all received bids to City Council and then request approval to proceed. Director Thomas explained that staff will also be requesting a 5% contingency to cover any unforeseen problems. Mr. Thomas explained that this is lower than the standard contingency, but by accepting a lower contingency, the project will remain under the initially projected total cost. Alderman Moreno then asked what the standard contingency is. Director Thomas responded explaining that a 10% contingency is standard. Alderman Moreno stated that it may be more prudent to maintain a 10% contingency, even if doing so exceeds initial estimates for the project cost. Chairman Waldeck stated that she agreed. Director Thomas then explained that John Keno and Company, Inc. submitted a significantly lower bid than the other contractors. Alderman Newman stated that it is imperative that standard policy regarding contingencies be maintained for consistency. Alderman Moreno inquired about other geographical markers near the McCormick Ravine. Mr. Myers responded that the aforementioned identified outflow is east of Sheridan Road. He also explained that there are many areas in the ravine where gullies have formed. These gullies are eroding into the landfill. This is a high concern of the City. The McCormick Ravine Stormwater Improvement Project directly addresses the formation of gullies, as well as, grading and seeding. The work to be completed will also provide a water control structure, which will slow the flow of stormwater, similar to a check dam. The City will use rock and stone similar to the rock and stone used by the ACOE in the surrounding ravines. Alderman Moreno asked why other ravine areas are not being addressed. Mr. Myers responded explaining that the permit process involved in ravine restoration is extensive. Permits for the restoration of the McCormick Ravine are currently valid; therefore, it is most efficient to address this ravine at this time. Furthermore, traffic flows have adapted to the increased traffic in the area, caused by the ravine restoration efforts of the ACOE. Mr. Myers then explained that after completing the McCormick Ravine Stormwater Improvement Project, the area will be transferred to Lake Forest Open Lands. The City will retain the area near the former landfill, though. Alderman Moreno inquired about a landfill cap being present at the landfill. Mr. Myers responded that there is a landfill cap present. He also stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) closely monitors this area. Chairman Waldeck asked if there were any questions. There were not any questions. Chairman Waldeck moved to approve the proposal and recommend its approval to the City Council. Alderman Moreno seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. UPDATE ON LEAD SERVICE LINE LETTERS AND CITY BUILDING LEAD WATER TEST RESULTS Mr. Martin explained that at the September 19, 2016 Public Works Committee meeting, a second lead service line notification mailing was discussed. While it was initially suggested to send the mailing immediately after that meeting, staff Public Works Committee Meeting – October 10, 2016 Page 3 of 6 decided to delay the mailing. A Resolution was presented at the City Council meeting on October 3, 2016 regarding waiving permit fees for lead service line replacements for the next two years. Staff determined that it was important to include information regarding the approved Resolution in the notification; therefore, the mailing could not be completed until after October 3, 2016. Mr. Martin stated that notifications are going to be mailed to both residents that responded to the initial mailing and residents that have not yet responded to the initial mailing. These notifications will also include information regarding the approved Resolution. Chairman Waldeck asked if residents have indicated an interest in lead service line replacement. Mr. Martin responded that residents have expressed an interest in replacement. He also explained that the language in the notifications referencing the approved Resolution will be very similar to the language of the Resolution, itself. Chairman Waldeck stated that it is important to keep language consistent. Alderman Moreno asked if the Public Works Committee previously discussed an approved plumbing contractor list or the collaboration of replacement services. Chairman Waldeck stated that it may be in the best interest of neighboring homeowners to bid their lead service line replacement projects together, to receive the most competitive pricing. Mr. Martin explained that staff has drafted a qualified plumbing contractor list. Also, staff will encourage residents to do their due diligence by requesting estimates from multiple plumbing contractors. Chairman Waldeck explained that the City has taken this approach with other matters in the past. On a separate but related note, Mr. Martin explained that the City received water sample results from consumable fixtures at City buildings. He explained that of the 103 completed water samples, two water samples indicated that the lead levels in the water exceeded the EPA threshold of 15 parts per billion. One water sample was from a drinking fountain at the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society building. The organization has been in the process of vacating the building; therefore, public have not had access to the drinking fountain for some time. The other water sample was at Vollweiler Hall at the Grove Campus. This water sample indicated especially high lead levels; however, the water sample came from an abandoned sink in an art closet, which has not been functioning for some time. Both consumable fixtures were taken out of service immediately after the water sample results were received. Staff has decided to entirely remove the sink at Vollweiler Hall. Chairman Waldeck complemented staff on their efforts regarding this matter. V. ON-SITE REVIEW (TRIANGLE PARK ON DEERPATH ROAD) OF GAS LIGHT OPTIONS Mr. Martin explained that at the Public Works Committee meeting on February 16, 2016, it was requested that staff determine additional maintenance cost information for gas street lights. City policies regarding gas street light fixture maintenance have changed substantially over time, which subsequently changes costs. Following the direction provided by the Public Works Committee, the Public Works Department has been working on restoring damaged gas street light fixtures in the non-historical areas of the City. Public Works Committee Meeting – October 10, 2016 Page 4 of 6 The globes of the gas street lights have been in exceptionally poor condition recently. At the Public Works Committee meeting on February 16, 2016, Alderman Tack suggested that staff work on an exhibition that displays gas street light fixtures with different globes and lights. Staff has completed the exhibition in Triangle Park. The street light fixtures on display are as follows: a street light fixture which has been converted from gas to electric utilizing a L.E.D. bulb with a stained glass globe; a gas street light fixture with a new glass globe; a gas street light fixture with a new plastic globe; and a gas street light fixture with a stained plastic globe. The plastic globes are less expensive than the glass globes. Mr. Martin noted that new globes, glass or plastic, for all of the street light fixtures in the City, would be an expensive project; however, new globes can be phased in over time. Budget requests for globe replacements can be spread over years through the Operating Budget process. Installing new globes will be labor intensive, as well. Chairman Waldeck asked how long plastic globes last. Mr. Martin responded that plastic globes become dirty from the constant gas burn and are easier to simply replace. Glass globes however can be polished and brought back to a new like condition, however this takes a good amount of labor to do so. Mr. Martin explained that staff has not been able to determine when the City converted from glass globes to plastic globes. Alderman Newman asked why it was decided to convert from glass globes to plastic globes. Mr. Martin responded that the decision was based on overall costs. Alderman Moreno asked if there is a plastic globe product that does not yellow. Mr. Martin responded that no there are not and that not every type of plastic globe can be used, due to the heat from the light. He also explained that if City Council decided to pursue the polycarbonate plastic globes, there could be a rotation schedule for replacement. Alderman Newman inquired about the terms of the rotation schedule. Mr. Martin responded that he would need to consult the Streets Section personnel for that information. He then explained that the Streets Section has been working on matching the L.E.D. illumination to the gas light illumination. Matching the illumination is possible by frosting the lens of the L.E.D. light. Mr. Martin explained that the most significant challenge will be installing electrical infrastructure for the L.E.D. street lights. At Triangle Park, the necessary electrical infrastructure is present. Alderman Newman if the current gas infrastructure would be capped and left in place. Mr. Martin responded that the gas connections lead to a gas main. The gas main would be capped; therefore, there is not a gas copper line left containing gas. Following this protocol would be best practices. Mr. Martin also explained that the L.E.D. street light fixtures have a dimming feature. Wattage could be customized to specific areas in the City. Chairman Waldeck stated that her concern is that the L.E.D. bulbs will be too bright. Mr. Martin stated that brightness can be controlled with the dimming feature. The L.E.D. bulbs would be dusk to dawn. Currently, the cost of gas for each gas street light is $143 per year. If the City transitioned to 2 to 3 watt electric bulbs, the cost of electricity for each L.E.D. street light would be $10 per Public Works Committee Meeting – October 10, 2016 Page 5 of 6 year. This cost does not include infrastructure costs, though. Mr. Martin explained that if electrical infrastructure costs are a significant barrier to entry, then the City should consider an ‘Adopt-a- Light Program’, where a cable is installed from a household to a street light and a homeowner assists with costs. Chairman Waldeck asked if the ‘Adopt-a-Light Program’ is inherited by homebuyers, when a property is sold. Mr. Martin explained that staff will consult with the City Attorney for clarification. Chairman Waldeck asked if gas street lights require more maintenance then electric street lights. Mr. Martin stated that gas street lights require more maintenance. The Public Works Committee proceeded to Triangle Park. Mr. Miller asked if the brightness of the street light fixture which has been converted from gas to L.E.D. could be adjusted. He stated that even with the stained glass globe, the illumination was rather bright. Director Thomas stated that the brightness could be adjusted. Mr. Martin stated that a 2 to 3 watt bulb was installed in the street light fixture. Chairman Waldeck stated that the brightness needed to adjusted, as the light was too bright. Mr. Miller asked what the purpose of the discussion was regarding the street lights. Director Thomas stated that the Public Works Committee is comparing the L.E.D. installation and the gas lights, as well as, glass globes and plastic globes. Chairman Waldeck stated that vandalism of the glass globes is a concern. The Public Works Committee proceeded to the gas street light fixture with the new glass globe. Mr. Martin stated that the glass globe was replaced a few days prior. He then stated that the mantles of the light fixtures on display were also replaced a few days prior. Mr. Miller stated that the glass globe makes the light more diffuse. Chairman Waldeck agreed. The Public Works Committee then proceeded to the gas street light fixture with the new plastic globe. Mr. Martin stated that the plastic globe will last longer with an L.E.D. bulb. The gas heat accelerated the discoloration of the plastic globe. Chairman Waldeck asked if the L.E.D. bulb brightness could be increased in areas of high traffic. Mr. Martin responded that L.E.D. bulb brightness could be increased and decreased. Director Czerniak stated that the most received compliant from residents is the brightness of street lights. Mr. Martin stated that the technology exists to modify the color of the light. This technology did not exist in prior years. Alderman Newman stated that there will be a conversion cost, if electric street lights were pursued. Chairman Waldeck asked how long L.E.D. bulbs last. Mr. Martin explained that L.E.D. bulbs are currently on a 10-year replacement schedule. Alderman Moreno asked how long plastic globes lasted. Mr. Martin explained that the plastic globes last approximately 5 to 8 years. The Public Works Committee proceeded to the gas street light fixture with the stained plastic globe. Director Czerniak asked if the plastic globe could be cleaned, rather than replaced. Mr. Martin responded stating that cleaning all globes would be very labor intensive. The cost of cleaning all globes would likely far exceed the cost of replacing the plastic globes. Mr. Miller asked if the City Public Works Committee Meeting – October 10, 2016 Page 6 of 6 could use a contractor for globe cleaning services. Mr. Martin explained that the City would still need to pay prevailing wage. Again, the cost of cleaning all globes would likely far exceed the cost of replacing the plastic globes. Chairman Waldeck explained that staff should proceed by determining all costs for the infrastructure, installation, and maintenance of LED lights with plastic globes for all 429 gas lights. She then stated that research regarding an ‘Adopt- a-Light’ program should be delayed until all cost data is prepared. Alderman Tack, Alderman Newman, and Alderman Newman agreed. Director Czerniak stated that light and globe replacements should be staggered, or phased in. Mr. Miller stated that solar powered lighting should be researched. Chairman Waldeck agreed. She then stated that respective cost estimates should be prepared, as well. Alderman Newman stated that the lights should be classified into two categories: lights with readily available access to electricity and other lights (e.g. lights without readily available access to electricity and the Historic District). Director Thomas agreed. VI. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Kerr of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation stated that gas street lights are very important in the Historical District of the City. Residents feel strongly about the gas street lights, which are a critical feature of the Historic District. Chairman Waldeck stated that she appreciated Ms. Kerr participating in the Public Works Committee meeting. Ms. Kerr responded stating that the objective of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation is to preserve the visual character of the community. VII. NEXT MEETING – PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING – MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 – 5:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL VIII. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Waldeck moved to adjourn the meeting of the Public Works Committee at 8:00 p.m. Alderman Newman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Eileen Timken Management Analyst P U B L I C WO R K S C O M M I T T E E N O V E M B E R 7 , 2 0 1 6 WINWOOD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT PURPOSE OF TONIGHT’S DISCUSSION •Provide an overview of the October Neighbor meeting •Review engineering design and cost estimates •Review updated timeline and schedule for project •Action Requested: Staff is seeking guidance from the Committee on 1) Direction from the Committee on how to proceed with the project if an SSA is objected, and 2) Review and concurrence on staff’s recommendation for how the project will be financed WINWOOD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Number of households: 28 SPECIAL SERVICE AREA ALTERNATIVE West Area (14 lots) East Area (14 lots) PROJECT FINANCING OPTIONS •Recapture – Property owner pays “fair share” amount of improvements at time of connection (No annual assessment) •Special Service Area Options: •Single Special Service Area (Minimum and/or Maximum) •Double Special Service Area (East and West Areas) Single Special Service Area Options Double Special Service Area Option Financing Option Recapture Option A - Minimum Option B - Maximum East Area West Area Project Costs $1,373,327 $1,378,327 $1,513,735 $535,549 $817,907 Cost per lot (prepaid) N/A $49,226 $54,062 $38,254 $58,422 20-year cost per lot $66,179 $66,420 $72,945 $51,615 $78,828 Annual Assessment per lot N/A $3,321 $3,647 $2,581 $3,941 Additional Private Costs for Connection $5,000 - $30,000 $5,000 - $30,000 $5,000 - $30,000 $5,000 - $30,000 $5,000 - $30,000 STAFF RECOMMENDATION •If the Committee is comfortable moving forward with a recapture, staff recommends that the following financing option be pursued (in order of priority): 1.Double Special Service Area (East/West) 2.Single Special Service Area (Option B – Maximum) 3.Single Special Service Area (Option A – Minimum) PROJECT TIMELINE BASED ON FUNDING OPTION Recapture SSA Proposing Ordinance (Final Reading, Waive First Reading) 11/21/16 Meet with Neighbors Schedule meeting the week of 11/28/16 Public Hearing - 12/5/16 Establishing Ordinance (First Reading) - 1/17/17 60 – Day Objection Period Ends - 2/4/17 Establishing Ordinance (Final Reading) - 2/6/17 Finalize Bid Documents and Distribute 2/2/17 2/9/17 Bid Opening 3/2/17 3/9/17 Review Bids with Public Works Committee 3/6/17 3/20/17 Review and Consideration of Bids by City Council 3/20/17 4/3/17 Tentative Start Date of Construction 5/1/17 5/1/17 Tentative Project Completion Date 8/1/17 8/1/17 QUESTIONS Assumptions: Payoff Term - in Years 20 Total Parcels in single SSA 28 Parcels Per SSA Area if split East/West 14 Cost distrubtion of East/West 42%/58% NSWRD Annexations Required 14 Assessment equal per parcel Special Tax Roll No Penalty for prepayment Interest Rate Assumed 3.04% Recapture Option A - Minimum Option B - Maximum East Area West Area Engineering and Construction Costs 1,236,070$ 1,236,070$ 1,236,070$ 519,149$ 716,921$ Construction Contingency 110,257$ 110,257$ 110,257$ 46,308$ 63,949$ Administration and Legal Expenses 7,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 8,000$ 11,000$ Bond Issuance Expenses 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 8,400$ 11,600$ North Shore Water Reclamation District Fees Annexation Fees ($1,526/lot)21,364$ 21,364$ Connection Fees ($3,248/lot)90,944$ 45,472$ City of Lake Forest Building Permit Fees Connection Fee ($825/lot)23,100$ 11,550$ Project Cost (excl. financing)1,373,327$ 1,378,327$ 1,513,735$ 535,549$ 817,907$ Assessment Calculations: (Subject to minor rounding adjustments for tax roll purposes)Recapture Option A - Minimum Option B - Maximum East Area West Area Project Costs $ 1,373,327 $ 1,378,327 $ 1,513,735 535,549$ 817,907$ Cost per lot (prepaid) N/A $ 49,226 $ 54,062 38,254$ 58,422$ 20-year cost per lot $ 66,179 $ 66,420 $ 72,945 51,615$ 78,828$ Annual Assessment per lot N/A $ 3,321 $ 3,647 2,581$ 3,941$ Additional Private Costs for Connection $ 5,000 - 30,000 $ 5,000 - 30,000 $ 5,000 - 30,000 $ 5,000 - 30,000 $ 5,000 - 30,000 0.741$ 0.741$ Total Estimated Fees to be paid at time of Sewer Connection (Estimated Costs for property with need for 75' sewer line, NSWRD annexation and disconnection of overlfow) Recapture Option A - Minimum Option B - Maximum East Area West Area Total Recapture Fees (if applicable)66,179$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Sewer Installation1 and Connection Costs 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ Overflow Disconnection Costs 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ North Shore Water Reclamation District Fees Annexation Fees ($1,526/lot)1,526$ 1,526$ -$ 1,526$ -$ Connection Fees ($3,248/lot)3,248$ 3,248$ -$ 3,248$ -$ City of Lake Forest Building Permit Fees Connection Fee ($825/lot)825$ 825$ -$ 825$ -$ Permit Fees ($1/linear foot)75$ 75$ 75$ 75$ 75$ Septic System Abandonment 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ Total Estimated Fees for Connection 81,853$ 15,674$ 10,075$ 15,674$ 10,075$ 1Costs do not include expenses related to replumbing, overhead sewer conversion, or other basement finishing work (if applicable) One Special Service Area Options Single Special Service Area Options Single Special Service Area Options Winwood Special Service Area (SSA) - Sanitary Sewer Financial Analysis - Preliminary Estimates and Cost Options Two Special Service Areas Double Special Service Area Option Double Special Service Area Option Water Treatment Plant Project – Design Update Brian L. Hackman, P.E., P.H., BCEE Project Manager, Strand Associates, Inc.® November 7, 2016 Public Works Committee Meeting Presented Timeline for FY2016-FY2017 FY2016 – FY2017 Phase II Decision Points -May 18, 2015 Public Works Committee: Accepts Recommendations -June 1, 2015 City Council Approval: Procurement Design Effort -August 3, 2015 City Council Workshop: Peak Shaving and Privatization Discussion -November 9, 2015 Budget Workshop: Water Rate Discussion -February 16, 2016 City Council Approval: Procurement Award, Final Design Effort, and Piloting -November 7, 2016 Public Works Committee Project Update -March 15, 2017 Public Works Committee Presentation of Bid Results and Recommendations -April 3, 2017 City Council Approval Award of Bid and Approval of Construction Engineering Services Anticipated Project Timeline Project On Track Project Schedule Details •Pilot Schedule – July, 2016 to June, 2017 •60 Percent Design Meeting – September 15 & 22, 2016 •90 Percent Design Meeting – December 8, 2016 •Advertise Project – January 26, 2017 •Bid Opening - February 28, 2017 •Public Works Committee Bid Review - March 15, 2017 •City Council Approval - April 3, 2017 Updated Probable Draw Schedule Fiscal Year Phase II Efforts Actual FY2016 Estimated FY2017 Proposed FY2018 Proposed FY2019 Totals Initial Budget – Membrane System Improvements (11/2015) $545,000 $445,000 $5,250,000 $3,510,000 $9,750,000 Current Budget - Membrane System Improvements Actual Membrane System Expense $1,200,000 $848,000 Original Construction and Equipment Expense $2,400,000 $1,603,000 Original Project Contingency $263,000 $503,000 Construction Administrative Management and On-site Field Representative Services $280,000 $290,000 Sub-Total $200,529 $779,280 $4,143,000 $3,224,000 $8,346,809 Current Budget - Non-Membrane System Improvements New Hypochlorite System $259,000 $259,000 Fluoride Storage and Feed System $103,000 $103,000 Ferric Storage Replace/Relocate $117,000 $117,000 Phosphate Chemical Feed Replace/Relocate $77,000 $77,000 Fourth Floor Air Conditioning $90,000 $90,000 Sub-Total $556,000 $90,000 $646,000 WTP Project Sub-Totals $200,529 $779,280 $4,699,000 $3,314,000 $8,992,809 Design Alternate Identified Items Clearwell Baffling – Maintain IEPA Permitted Conditions $570,000 $570,000 Other Minor Improvements (e.g., kitchen, shop, emer. eye wash and shower modifications) $115,000 $115,000 Sub-Total $570,000 $115,000 $685,000 WTP Project Totals $200,529 $779,280 $5,269,000 $3,429,000 $9,677,809 Project Costs Will Be Updated in December 2016 Clearwell Baffling Added As An Alternative To Improve Plant Disinfection Existing Basin Proposed Basin •Existing basins operating close to regulatory limits based on tracer study (2013) •2004 IEPA Permit based on higher baffling factor. •Opinion of Probable Construction Cost - $570,000 Project Components Meet Operational Needs Membrane System Replacement -14.0 mgd Production Facility -GE-Zenon Membrane Filtration Equipment -Additional Space Needed For Clean-In-Place Process Chemical Storage and Feed System Relocation -Existing Filter Area (Unused/Workshop) -Code Compliant Storage and Feed Facilities -Safety Showers and Eye Washers Control System Updates -Operator Control Computers and Workstations 4th Floor Space Repurposing and Relocation -Existing Space Contains Treatment Chemicals -Workshop/Kitchen/Shop Area -Operators Workstation Reorganization -Installing Air Conditioning Clearwell Baffling Discussion and Questions