Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-01 - MinutesMayor Dan Coody City Attomey Kit Williams City Clerk Sondra Smith City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes September I, 2005 Page 1 of 6 Member Aldermen aye evi le AR KA N SA 5 City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Water & Sewer Committee Meeting Minutes September 1, 2005 Ward 1 Position 1 - Robert Reynolds Ward 2 Position 1 - Kyle B. Cook Ward 3 Position 2 — Robert Ferrell Ward 4 Position 2 - Lioneld Jordan A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council Water & Sewer Committee was held on September 1, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kyle Cook, Alderman Robert Reynolds, Alderman Robert Ferrell, Alderman Lioneld Jordan Staff Present: Steve Davis, Gary Dumas, David Jurgens, Kit Williams, and Ron Petrie Chairman Kyle Cook called the meeting to order. 1. Approval of the Minutes of August 25 Water/Sewer Committee Meeting Minutes of the previous meeting were approved. 2. WSIP Update a. West Side Treatment Plant Action Plan Mayor Dan Coody commended the selection committee, comprised of staff and Alderman Reynolds, for doing such a fine job of working a parallel track of negotiated procurement & sealed bid. He felt that they had put together a good program and had come up with an effective solution to the situation. He felt the selection committee was to be thanked on behalf of the City. Alderman Reynolds stated that the committee (which consisted of himself, Gary Dumas, Ron Petrie, Tim Conklin, Peggy Vice, Dave Jurgens and Jeff Richards, a representative from McGoodwin, Williams & Yates) had worked up until 4:30 this date. He stated that he could promise the Committee that the project will not be a design -build project. He said that the selection committee had gone through several proposals and Power Point presentations to get to the point of selection. He stated that it had been a pleasure working with the selection committee and that they had worked hard, gone through a lot of paperwork and felt that a good selection has been made. Alderman Jordan asked if there was a reason it was decided not to go with a design -build project. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes September I, 2005 Page 2 of 6 Steve Davis stated that the law that the City is using does not allow it. Gary Dumas stated that there had been a total of eight submittals, all from good firms. They narrowed the field to five extraordinarily good firms and interviewed each of these. Mr. Dumas stated that it was a very difficult decision because each of the firms was exceptional. He said that the selection committee chose the firm they thought would be able to bring the most to the City and do the job in the quickest timeframe with the best price. Mr. Dumas made the recommendation to the Committee that the City begin negotiations the following day with Brassfield & Gorrie out of Birmingham, Alabama. Chairman Cook asked what would happen if negotiations with Brassfield & Gorrie did not work out and was told that the committee would then move to the second choice, which was CDM Cajun Contractors. If that fails, the committee would move to Archer Western. It was pointed out that nationally prominent firms submitted for the project. Gary Dumas stated that the City would begin negotiations the following day at 9:00 a.m. Alderman Ferrell asked how long negotiations were expected to take. Steve Davis stated that he expected to have a firm number in 21 days on the plans as drawn and another seven days to look at an alternate membrane solution. Gary Dumas stated that this would probably move the action before the City Council from October 4th to October 18th. However, he felt that they would have very firm pricing and have the information to make a reasonable decision on whether the alternative treatment process is viable. He pointed out that the MWY benefit cost analysis stated, in essence, that the benefit cost was a 5%-8% difference in the pricing and at this level of detail he felt that it is essentially too close to call. A motion was made that the Committee accept the recommendation to go forward with negotiations with Brassfield Goree, and being seconded the motion passed. Jeff Richards, Director of Engineering with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates (MWY) presented the Committee with a handout of the Fayetteville West Side WWTP Estimate of Probable Cost and the Estimate of Probable Cost Utilizing Flux Enhancer. He stated that he had helped develop the cost estimates and he went over the handout with the Committee. Alderman Jordan asked about odor control, stating that he wanted to be sure that the City was not scrimping on any of the odor control systems and was assured by Mr. Richards that no scrimping was being done. Alderman Jordan stressed that he does not want the odor abatement system to be lessened in any manner Mr. Richards stated that they have used this system in other cities with no problems. Alderman Shirley Lucas, who was in attendance, was asked for her input. She stated that she agrees that no cuts should be made with odor abatement. Some discussion followed concerning the importance of odor abatement and it was agreed that it was a top priority and the City wishes to go with a system that will best minimize odor. Steve Davis stated that this information is important while dealing with the contractor. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes September I, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Alderman Ferrell asked if the Committee could have a chart that showed the comparison of one treatment versus the other in cost per million gallons of treatment, capital cost per million gallons of treatment, and maintenance and operation cost per million gallons of treatment. Steve Davis stated that Brassfield & Gorie has committed to have both sets of costs for the Committee within thirty days and that these would be the construction costs that the City would have to pay. Gary Dumas stated that this would be the cost of the plant as designed versus the MBR technology, including both capital and operating & maintenance costs. Alderman Ferrell asked if the selection committee had been able to glean from the contractors interviewed whether any of the five had a preference one way or the other about which process they liked the best. He was told that there was a difference in the comfort level in building one system versus the other, but that this was from builders who are not involved in the treatment process itself. Dave Jurgens stated that there had been discussions about the MBR taking less concrete and being an easier box to build, and that Brassfield & Gorrie, the selected contractor had stated that as long as they had the layout it was not hard to build and they were very familiar with both. Alderman Jordan stated that in working with the selection committee, it was his hope that the cost would come back to enable the City to build the MBR because it is modern technology and has less of a footprint. Chairman Cook asked for a breakdown of exactly what the MBR technology is and what the difference in water quality is between the two systems. Jeff Richards gave a detailed answer describing the MBR process and the fact that the MBR technology gives a much better quality effluent. Alderman Ferrell asked how often the membranes would have to be replaced and what the cost is and was informed that they have a yearly replacement cost of $308,000.00. Alderman Don Marr, who was in attendance, stated that he had understood the MBR technology would be less costly but in looking at the handout it appeared that it was a more expensive system. He asked what the advantage was to the MBR technology since the cost appeared to be higher. Jeff Richards stated that the handout was an engineer's estimate and that the Committee would be given the exact cost by the contractor. The Committee could then try to negotiate down as low as possible. He stated that MBR is an improved technology. Dave Jurgens stated that the reason parallel paths were pursued was that the cost factors of the designed plant were more than expected. He also stated that those cost factors were not going to get any better, considering the impact of the hurricane. Since the cost of steel, concrete, etc., will only be going up, these costs change the balance of where the monies go. He stated that because of the increase in demand for those materials, this process may prove itself even more viable than before. The other thing is that in the future the MBR has a capability of producing the best effluent in the business. This technology is being used more often in places where they reuse the water. It has better future capabilities as the City grows. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes September I, 2005 Page 4 of 6 Alderman Ferrell asked if Staff had a preference at this point for one process over the other and was told by Steve Davis that he did not believe so. Mr. Davis stated that they were waiting on the financial feasibility and operational needs before making any decision about a recommendation. Repackaging of Bid Jeff Richards stated that the repackaging of the bid is now complete and this will go with them to the negotiations which will begin tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Alderman Marr asked if the $1.7 million redesign fee is a cost that will be spent regardless of which option is chosen. Gary Dumas stated that all of the contractors indicated that, from the information that MWY has already generated, they will be able to come up with a firm price on both options. Dave Jurgens stated that the redesign fee will not be spent if it turns out that the already designed plant is the best alternative. He stated that the chosen contractor will submit firm costs on both designs. Gary Dumas stated that the City is no longer involved in a bid process and that the City would be negotiating a fee on either the plant as designed or the MBR plant. Alderman Marr asked for the original design cost of the designed plant and was told it was close to $4 million. Chairman Cook asked if permitting with ADEQ would be affected if the City goes with the MBR technology. Dave Jurgens stated that Staff plans to meet face to face with ADEQ in the next few weeks to resolve this issue. Chairman Cook asked if more time would be needed if a new permit is required or if things would stay on schedule. Steve Davis stated that there should be a construction contract for the Committee to review and forward for full Council approval by the second meeting in October. He stated that in meeting with ADEQ, if something different is required, Staff would need to come back to the Committee to discuss the issues. Gary Dumas pointed out that all of this will be factored into deciding which technology to go with and that these are things that will be known as they move forward in the next thirty days. Sewer Line Rerouting Dave Jurgens stated that he had spoken with the City's environmental consultant and the proposed rerouting which had been approved at the last meeting will not require any changes to the permit. Therefore, notice was given to the engineer to identify easement requirements. Mr. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes September I, 2005 Page 5 of 6 Jurgens felt that those easements could be defined within a week and property owners could be contacted with an alternate proposal. Easement Update Dave Jurgens presented the Committee with numbers on the progress being made with easements. He stated that 163 easements were required for the total project, and 99 of those have been obtained to date. There are 64 remaining, which is 39%. Mr. Jurgens stated that on the west side, 91 easements are required, 66 of which have been obtained and 25 are remaining. He stated that, in total, they have obtained 61% of the easements and he felt that excellent progress was being made on the remainder. Chairman Cook asked when the Committee would get to see a schedule of the easement costs. Dave Jurgens stated that because the City's computer server had been down for four days, he had been hampered in his efforts to have the full schedule for the Committee. He stated that on the east side a total of approximately $88,000.00 has been spent for easements and damages, but he was unable at the present time to give numbers for the west side. Alderman Ferrell asked that the Committee members be given a copy of that as soon as it is prepared instead of waiting for the next committee meeting and Mr. Jurgens assured him that he would get that to the members as soon as possible. Hamstring Update Gary Dumas stated that the City is still waiting on the RJN information and once that is obtained they will be in contact with the developers on the west side. He felt that it has been a positive discussion so far. Mr. Dumas pointed out to the Committee that until the issue is finally resolved there would be a Bill of Assurance on all issues going before the Planning Commission. North College Waterline Replacement Ron Petrie described exactly what the North College Waterline Replacement project entailed. He stated that the low bid was $1.4 million and that there were two alternate deducts. He stated that Staff is recommending the use of alternate deduct No. 1, of approximately $90,000.00, which would mean a cost of $1.3 million with a 10% contingency. Mr. Petrie stated that the plan is to bring that forward at the September 20th City Council meeting. Dave Jurgens gave the rationale behind requesting the contingency, stating that some of the pipes in that area of the City were put in the ground prior to 1907 and there is no real knowledge, in some cases, of what is there. He stated that with a large number of unknown factors in the project, it was felt to be better to have the contingency in order to avoid putting the project on hold by several weeks if they were faced with a change order. A motion was made to accept the use of alternate deduct No. 1 with the contingency, and being seconded, the motion passed. Elkins Contract 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water & Sewer Meeting Minutes September I, 2005 Page 6 of 6 Steve Davis stated that the City is nearing the completion of contract talks with Elkins. He said that the method of measuring the volume for wastewater billing needs to be settled with Elkins. He stated that Elkins prefers the use of a formula based on water purchases and the City of Fayetteville prefers the use of a meter. Basically it has now been negotiated that a formula based on water purchases will be used, but a meter will be used as well. If there is a deviation off the meter by an agreed upon percentage (10% is presently in the contract), and if that deviation continues for three consecutive months, it would default to the meter method. Mr. Davis also stated that Elkins has requested rate relief. He said that because the 2003 Rate Study stated that the City should be collecting about $80,000.00 from Elkins on an annual basis beginning in 2006, it was felt that the City could provide Elkins with a rate of $2.81 per thousand in 2005 and a 9% increase in 2006 and the Fayetteville rate payers would not see any negative impact. This would reduce Elkins' billing substantially and would also provide the City of Fayetteville with more money than the rate study called for in 2003. Mr. Davis stated that Elkins has requested that the new rate be in effect beginning March 1, 2005, and that if the Committee is agreeable to these general terms, the negotiations with Elkins could be completed. He pointed out that another element of this is that the contract calls for new connections in Elkins to pay the Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant impact fee. A motion was made to continue with the Elkins negotiations, and being seconded, the motion passed. Farmington Steve Davis stated that a couple of meetings had been held with Farmington and it was now necessary to go to the respective Councils with several decision points. Farmington is requesting rate parity and Fayetteville does not want to see any negative impact to the Fayetteville rate payers. He pointed out that rate parity on operations, maintenance and replacement is an aspect that is partially governed by the EPA since the City accepted EPA direct grant money for the Noland Plant, therefore the City must make sure that OM&R is the same for each customer group. Mr. Davis reviewed several rate structure options with the Committee. A motion was made to continue to work with Farmington to see what could be agreed upon, and being seconded, the motion passed. The next meeting of the Water & Sewer Committee was tentatively set for September 29th at 5:30 in Room 326 of City Hall. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org