Minutes: Public Works: February 2009

Public Works Committee
Regular Meeting
Tuesday February 24th, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.
Public Works Shop, 535 South Madison Street, Evansville, WI
MINUTES

1. Call meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Roll call- Braunschweig, Ringhand, Culbertson, Wietecha, Wartenweiller, Matthew Eberhardt (Foth), Phil Korth (Foth), Bill Hurtley, and others from the public.
3. Motion to approve the agenda as presented. Braunschweig Moved Culbertson 2nd – Passes Unanimously
4. Motion to approve the minutes from the January 27th regular meeting and the January 30th special meeting. Ringhand moved Culbertson 2nd – Passes Unanimously
5. Citizen Appearances - None
6. Construction Updates
a. Downtown- Signage updates
i. All signs are ordered and we should have them shortly plus we have to deal with the frost so estimated completion time is spring.
b. Capstone Ridge- nothing
c. Westfield Meadows- nothing
d. Celtic Ridge- nothing
e. Lake Leota-
i. Waiting for warm weather to finish dam repairs
ii. Park board is working with a volunteer (Carl Korfmacher with applied ecological services in Brodhead) to help with planting plan for a grant due May 1, 2009.
iii. Jim Turner aired a concern he has with Vierbecher.
iv. Jim Turner wants the city to take a bobcat to pick up loose chunks of dirt, however the city does not see this as an issue because the lake will be filled even more after the dam repairs are completed.
7. Site plan reviews-
a. WWTF site plan was provided to the city planner He is reviewing.
8. Communications from the City Engineer-
a. Waste water treatment facility – bids for equipment/mechanical system
i. Email from Dave Sauer-
“We received proposals six different equipment items for the proposed new WWTF on Feb 13, 2009. These proposals were for specific items which we wanted to select based on product quality/performance and cost rather than just cost when we bid the entire WWTF construction project. We have been sorting through the proposals to compare each as best we can since they all take some exceptions to the specifications we sent out to a select set of suppliers. The goal of this pre-selection of equipment is to get what is best for the City, to get competitive bid costs and to define upfront what equipment we will have on site so we can have our drawings be as detail as possible which will again help insure good bid costs.

“With that being said, I will summarize what I know to be the current state of the process. I would like to be at Tuesday's public works meeting to explain this more, however I will be on vacation next week. In my absence, Phil Korth, our lead process design engineer has agreed to attend the meeting. Matt Eberhardt, a younger staff engr may also attend to begin learning the process better, this will be on our cost. I offer the following summary to start the meeting with next week, Phil may have additional information when he attends:

Vertical Loop Process Wastewater Treatment Reactor
“We are recommending Siemens at a cost of $479,300 for equipment, cost with concrete is approx $756,300. We had an alternate bid cost from Eimco for $320,000 for equipment however when you add concrete costs, the cost becomes $1,042,000. The alternate is over twice as large plus the energy usage by the alternate is about 25% higher at a minimum. I also question the ability of the proposed alternate equipment to meet the 10 mg/l nitrogen limit on an everyday basis with little operator attention. The Siemens makes more sense for a number of reasons to include but not limited to energy consumption and oxygen introduction.

Clarifiers
“We have it limited to either Siemens or Westech units; Siemens is at $184,800 and Westech is at $176,302. Both are good units. We try to stay with the supplier that has the process treatment which here it is Siemens. However, Westech has a lower cost than Siemens and we believe that the Westech clarifier should work fine; Matt was checking up on a few items. We did get 3 other proposals for the clarifiers. HiTech and Envirodyne were lower cost however we have had bad experince with HiTech and we do not believe Envirodyne meets our spec. Dependent upon reference checks; it appears we would recommend Westech. Presenters informed us that they would probably be recommending Siemens because there will be less cost due to some sandblasting needs in site. They also indicated that there is an advantage to having the same manufacturer as the reactor, specifically with accountability. It has also been said that it is better having the sandblasting and painting done in the factory rather than on site. Therefore the Siemans is a better option.

Screening Equipment
“We are recommended Lakeside at $53,000. We know Lakeside and they have numerous units in Wis currently woking. It has a bottom bearing unit which reduces screen wear and tear. We had two proposals at lower cost, Parkson at $42,818 and Westech at $42,939. We had some bad experience with Parkson and Westech has few of their units operating in Wisconsin. Huber and JWC were higher cost but both are good units.

Grit Removal Equipment
“We are recommending Smith & Loveless at a cost of $47,700; we have installed many of these and have had very good treatment. We had two other proposals, Lakeside at $39,000 and Eutek (Grit King) at $43,970. Matt was going to check into these two to see if they have operating units but my gut feeling that we stick with the one which we know is the best. Apparently the lakeside does not have a very successful track record.

Grit Washer Equipment
“We are recommending Lakeside at $63,000. We had Huber at $74,800 and Westech at $68,402. Our experience is the Lakeside equipment and Huber equipment are comparable while the Westech equipment needed to be checked yet however Lakeside had the inside track because it is lowest cost. This equipment cleans the grit removed from the wastewater, the grit then is taken to the landfill. This company does have a track record with the screening equipment.

Clarifier Covers
“These are 40' diameter dome that go over the clarifier units. We have two clarifiers. We allowed both fiberglass and aluminum suppliers to bid. The recommended proposal is either Conservatek at $110,300 or Ultra-flote at $93,000, both are aluminum. We have many Conservatek domes and are very comfortable with using these. Ultra-flote is less cost however we have not gotten information from them to verify that they are taking any exceptions to the spec. Until we get this, I can't recommend going with Ultra-flote even though they are less cost. Maybe we leave this one open until we get more information. For the covers, they don't impact other processes much so we can wait.” We are still waiting on some references with Ultra-flote, if those are good we will move from Conservatek to them.
ii. Motion to approve the purchase of the above referenced equipment based upon the recommendations from the city engineer with the conditions that the purchases remain in our budget and that if the engineer receives new information that the information be brought back to the committee as soon as possible. Moved by Braunschweig, seconded by Ringhand– passes unanimously.
9. Communications from the Public Works Director-
a. Tree planting in the terrace.
i. Discussion of changing the terrace tree-planting program. The economy has been poor and the donations have slowed because of that. The proposal is having people pay for the cost of the tree while the city does the digging, planting, watering (once), and staking of trees in the terrace. This also would include a 1 year guarantee. Citizens would request it and pick the tree, city would assess if the request is possible, payment would be made and then they city would plant.
ii. Motion to conditionally approve the above referenced program on a one year basis. Moved by Ringhand, Culbertson seconded - passes unanimously.
10. New Business- none.
11. Old Business-
a. West side water issue-
i. Discussion and possible actions on eminent domain action. No action taken. The council agenda in March should have a relocation order, the first step in this process. We briefly discussed other statutory requirements. This process could potentially take some time. The city administrator wants to discuss other possibilities with the engineer. He is directed to do that in an expedient manner.
b. CRS (Community Rating System) - city received an authorization to apply for this program. It will be 8-12 months to get in the program after application.
c. Discussion and possible action on Cemetery rules and fee schedules.
i. Bill Hurtley dispersed a packet that the committee went through. Tim Fischer worked on the information provided as well. Last time we changed prices before last years was in 2000. The goal is to eliminate potential and realized overuse of city services by non-resident. The committee is going to digest the information provided and the goal is to work on the fee schedule for next meeting and then work on the policy issues in following meetings.
d. Cemetery truck-
i. Two bids were received and the director is recommending the lower of the two bids. This purchase is within the budget
ii. Motion to approve the purchase of a truck from Evansville Ford for use in the cemetery with a trade in and outfitting for a cost not to exceed $27,425.00. Ringhand moved, Culbertson seconded - passes unanimously.
12. Parks and Recreation Report- went over the actions of the last Park board.
a. Lake re-opening on 4th of July.
13. Motion to adjourn meeting at 7:41 p.m. Ringhand moves and Culbertson seconds – passes unanimously.
Submitted by:
Mason Braunschweig, Chair Public Works Committee