NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING

Transcription

1 NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that there will be a regular meeting of the Commission of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, January 15, 2015 in the Commission Room of the Operations Building at 1610 Moorland Road, Madison, Wisconsin The Commission will consider and may take action on the matters set forth on the attached Agenda. If any matter on the Agenda is to be considered in closed session of the Commission, please be advised that following the closed session the Commission will reconvene into open session for purposes of taking any action based on the closed session and concluding its Agenda. Date: January 12, 2015 D. Michael Mucha, P.E. Chief Engineer and Director Any person who has a qualifying disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires the meeting or materials at the meeting to be in an accessible location or format must contact the Director at , 1610 Moorland Road, Madison, Wisconsin, at least twenty-four hours prior to the commencement of the meeting so that any necessary arrangements can be made to accommodate each request. 1. Opening A. Announcements B. Call to Order C. Welcome guests and visitors 2. Appearances by the Public 3. Consent Calendar A. Approval of Commission Meeting Minutes from B. Approval of Cash Statement-Operating Fund C. Approval of Cash Statement-Capital Projects Fund D. Expedited Boundary Annexation Click Here: Commission Agenda Report Click Here: Expedited Annexation Request and MMSD Map E. Sanitary Sewer Plan Approval-Reconstruction Click Here: Commission Agenda Report Click Here: Resolution-John Street and Emil Street Utilities F. Voiding of Expired Sanitary Sewer Extensions Click Here: Commission Agenda Report Click Here: Resolution-Voiding of Brown Business Park Click Here: Resolution-Voiding of First Addition to Carriage Ridge 1

2 4. Approval of 4 th Quarter 2014 Sewer Service Bills Gebert Click Here: Commission Agenda Report **Attachments provided the day of the meeting** 5. Review and Approval of Design Engineering Services: PS15 Rehabilitation Rehr Click Here: Commission Agenda Report Click Here: Attachment 1: Summary of Pricing from Consultant Proposals 6. Review of Proposals and Award of Contracts for Strategic Asset Management Haack Framework and Condition Assessment Click Here: Commission Agenda Report Click Here: Attachment 1: Summary of Pricing from Consultant Proposals 7. Budget After Action Review Mucha Click Here: Commission Agenda Report Click Here: 2015 Budget Process 8. Oral Reports and Updates A. CARPC Update-Commission and Staff B. Capital Projects Update-Simon Click Here: Capital Projects Dashboard C. Air Permit Update-Nehm D. Regulatory Review-Kent Click Here: Regulatory Review E. Chief Engineer & Directors Report-Mucha Click Here: Meeting Schedule as of 1/9/15 9. Convene in Closed Session in Accordance with 19.85(1)c of the Commission/Mucha Wisconsin Statutes to Consider Employment, Promotion, Compensation Or Performance Evaluation Data of any Public Employee Over Which the Governmental Body has Jurisdiction or Exercise Responsibility. Click Here: Commission Agenda Report Click Here: Policy on the Evaluation of the Chief Engineer and Director s Performance 10. Reconvene in Open Session 11. Discussion or Actions, if any, Relative to Items Discussed in Closed Session 12. Future Agenda Topics 13. Other Business by Law 14. Adjournment 2

3 Meeting of the Commissioners of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Thursday, December 11, :00 a.m. MMSD Commission Board Room, 1610 Moorland Road, Madison, WI Present: Commissioner Tom Hovel Commissioner Caryl Terrell (8:05 a.m. via teleconference phone call) Commissioner John Hendrick Commissioner Topf Wells Commissioner Ezra Meyer Commission Meeting Call to order: Commissioner Hovel called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. Opening A. Welcome Guests 1. Jim Kleinschmidt, Senior Project Manager, Baxter and Woodman 2. Neal Rainford, Staff Representative, AFSCME, AFLCIO B. Announcements Staff introduced new employees to the District. 2. Appearances by the Public None. 3. Consent Calendar Discussion: The Commission Meeting Minutes of November 26, 2014, the Operating Fund Cash Statement, and the Capital Projects Fund Cash Statement as of December 4, 2014 were reviewed and placed on file. The Operating Fund Account shows an available cash balance through Operating Fund Check No in the amount of $227, plus adjustments of $751.97; subsequent receipts totaling $6,835,444.63; less disbursements of $7,046, with a resulting cash balance of $17, The Capital Projects Fund Cash Statement shows an available cash balance through Capital Projects Fund Account Check No in the amount of $88,995.83; subsequent receipts totaling $2,748,068.25; less disbursements of $2,831, with a resulting cash balance of $5,

4 Action: Commissioner Wells moved, seconded by Commissioner Hendrick that the Commission approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Update on Sewer Use Ordinance Presenter: Dave Taylor, Director of Ecosystems Services Description: Update on required changes to Sewer Use Ordinance Discussion: Mr. Taylor presented to the Commission the status of recent work to the Sewer Use Ordinance. Action: No action necessary. This presentation was for information and discussion only. 5. Review and Approval of PS 15 Design Services Presenter: Erik Rehr, Project Engineer Description: Requested approval and award of design engineering services for the rehabilitation of Pumping Station 15 to Baxter and Woodman, and authorization for the Chief Engineer and Director to execute an agreement with the firm. Discussion: Mr. Rehr presented to the Commission the background of the project, the process used for bidding the project, and the criteria used to make his recommendation. After Commission discussion, the following action was moved: Action: Commissioner Wells moved, seconded by Commissioner Meyer to table the approval and award of the project until the first meeting in January 2015 in order to give staff time to address questions regarding the justification of an above ground structure and criteria used to select Baxter and Woodman. Motion carried unanimously. 6. First Year Review of Legal Services Contract with Stafford Rosenbaum Presenter: Michael Mucha, Chief Engineer and Director Description: Review of 2014 legal services with Stafford Rosenbaum. Discussion: Mr. Mucha presented to the Commission background information on the transition to the new legal firm, an overview of legal activities from the 2014 year, and anticipated future activities. Action: No action necessary. This presentation was for information and discussion only.

5 7. Convene in Closed Session Pursuant to Wis. Stats. 1985(1)(g) to Confer with Legal Counsel Who is Rendering Oral or Written Advice Concerning Strategy to be Adopted by the Body with Respect to Litigation in Which It is Likely to Become Involved (2015 Local 60 AFSCME Contract Extension) Action: Commissioner Wells moved, seconded by Commissioner Hendrick to convene into closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 1985(1)(g) to Confer with Legal Counsel Who is Rendering Oral or Written Advice Concerning Strategy to be Adopted by the Body with Respect to Litigation in Which It is Likely to Become Involved (2015 Local 60 AFSCME Contract Extension) Commissioner Wells, Aye Commissioner Meyer, Aye Commissioner Hovel, Aye Commissioner Hendrick, Aye Commissioner Terrell, Aye Nays: None. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Reconvene in Open Session to Take Action Regarding 2015 Local 60 AFSCME Contract Extension Action: Commissioner Wells moved, seconded by Commissioner Meyer to reconvene in open session. Commissioner Wells, Aye Commissioner Meyer, Aye Commissioner Hovel, Aye Commissioner Hendrick, Aye Commissioner Terrell, Aye Nays: None. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Discussion or Action, if any, Relative to Items Discussed in Closed Session Action: Commissioner Wells moved, seconded by Commissioner Hendrick that the Chief Engineer and Director and management staff continue to work with employees in a respectful transition to a personnel related handbook.

6 Commissioner Wells, Aye Commissioner Meyer, Aye Commissioner Hovel, Aye Commissioner Hendrick, Aye Commissioner Terrell, Aye Nays: None. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Oral Reports & Updates A. CARPC Update Presenter: Commission Report/Update: No report given at this time. Action: No action required. B. Capital Projects Update Presenter: Mike Simon, Assistant Chief Engineer & Director. Report/Update: Mr. Simon provided an update on current Capital Projects at the District. Action: No action required. C. Air Permit Update Presenter: Paul Nehm, Director of Operations and Maintenance Report/Update: Mr. Nehm provided an update on the air permit. Action: No action required. D. Regulatory Review Presenter: Paul Kent, Attorney Report/Update: Mr. Kent provided a brief update on regulatory topics of interest. Action: No action required. E. Chief Engineer & Directors Report Presenter: Michael Mucha, Chief Engineer & Director Report/Update: Mr. Mucha presented a year in review to the Commission. Action: No action required. 11. Future Agendas Action: None. 12. Other Business Allowed by Law Action: None.

7 13. Adjournment Action: Commissioner Wells moved, seconded by Commissioner Hendrick that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried (4-0 Commissioner Terrell not present for vote). Regular Meeting of the Commissioners December 11, 2014 Ezra J. Meyer, Secretary Future Meetings: Thursday, January 15, :00 a.m. Regular Commission Meeting Thursday, January 29, :00 a.m. Regular Commission Meeting and Study Session Thursday, February 12, :00 a.m. Regular Commission Meeting

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 WELLS FARGO CREDIT CARD CHARGES Billing dates 11/03/ /02/2014 DATE PO # VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 10/30/ LinkedIn.com October business subscription for recruiting multiple Vincenzo BP Ice for WET tests /3/ Groth Corporation Parts /4/ US Dept of Commerce Domestic sludge /5/ Sears Filters /12/ The Filter Factory Filters /3/ Priority Management.com 2015 calendar /5/ Drager Safety Supplies /5/ Star Inc. Antenna parts /11/ Sustain Dane Badger Bioneers conference registration fees /12/ Amazon.com Computer equipment and supplies /12/ Online Countdown.com Computer software /12/ JobMatch LLC Programmer position recruiting on JobMatch LLC /13/ Amazon.com Cell repeater /13/ The Camera Company District camera and supplies 1, /15/ Amazon.com Camera equipment /17/ Panera Bread Consensus-based training session /18/ Amazon.com External hard drive /18/ New Egg.com Computer equipment and supplies 1, /26/ Amazon.com Computer equipment and supplies 1, /27/ Amazon.com Computer equipment and supplies /30/ Indeed.com November HR recruiting postings multiple City of Madison Parking fees /6/ Dane County Clean Sweep Disposal of solvent-based paint /13/ Amazon.com Master lock with 3 ft. retractable cable /13/ Farm and Fleet Supplies /14/ Staples Desk chair /20/ Amazon.com Tools and computer supplies /25/ Office Depot Desk chair /20/ Farm and Fleet Clothing and misc. supplies /27/ Amazon.com Mpower supplies /1/ Quest International WAM User Group membership renewal /18/ Alpha Standard Method Lab supplies Kupferle Foundary Refund for returned parts (100.00) WMC Foundation Refund partial registration fee (75.00) $ 10, ,

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting of January 15, 2015 Expedited Boundary Annexation Lead Staff: Curt Sauser, Engineering Technician Requested Action: Approval of Annexation of a Acre Parcel in the City of Madison, to the MMSD Service Area Attachments: Expedited Annexation Request and MMSD Map Financial Impact: The 2015 fee for approval of an expedited annexation is $1,150. Interceptor and treatment plant connection charges will be due at a future date, prior to development and connection to the public sewerage system. Background: The City of Madison has requested that a acre parcel, known as the Boehm Attachment, be added to the MMSD service area. An ordinance was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Madison to attach the subject lands to the City on December 2, MMSD has received a letter from the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission confirming that the subject parcel is within the Central Urban Service Area. Analysis and Options: MMSD Annexation Matrix Annexation Name: Boehm Attachment Annexation No.: YES GENERALLY Contiguous to MMSD Boundaries Prevents gaps (islands) in MMSD Boundaries X X NO Comments All nearby lands within City included Includes nearby lands within USA X Regular boundaries (follows section lines) X Adjacent parklands included (if possible) N/A Not applicable 18

19 Option 1: Approve proposed expedited annexation. Key Considerations: This option is recommended by staff. The proposed annexation includes all lands which were attached to the City of Madison on December 2, Approval of the annexation would re-establish contiguity of the City of Madison and MMSD boundaries in this area. Option 2: Deny proposed expedited annexation, and require that the annexation request be formally petitioned and go through the public hearing process. Key Considerations: This option is not recommended by staff. The proposed annexation is not remarkable. Additional time and money would be spent for little or no benefit to the District. Next Steps: If approved by the Commission, the parcel will be eligible to receive sanitary sewer service from the District. A sewer extension must be submitted and appropriate connection fees paid prior to the lands being connected to the public sewerage system. 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 Interstate Boehm Attachment Acres Portage Rd U.S.H. 151 Legend Boehm Attachment City of Madison MMSD Boundary ScaleBar Feet Boehm Attachment City of Madison MMSD Annexation No Prepared by: CAS Date: 12/29/

30 COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting of January 15, 2014 Sanitary Sewer Extensions Lead Staff: Curt Sauser, Engineering Technician Requested Action: Approval of Sanitary Sewer Plans Attachments: Resolution - Johns Street and Emil Street Utilities Financial Impact: None. There is no fee related to approval of plans for reconstruction projects. Background: The sewer has been determined to be in poor condition and is being replaced in conjunction with the street reconstruction project. The City is requesting variances from WDNR for less than 8 of horizontal separation from existing water main and greater than 400 spacing between manholes. WDNR has given a preliminary indication that variance requests would be acceptable. Analysis and Options: Option 1: Approval of plans submitted. Key Considerations: This option is recommended by staff. Plans have been reviewed by the engineering department and are acceptable. Option 2: Deny approval of current plans and request the City resubmit plans with changes. Key Considerations: This option is not recommended by staff. Denying the approval will cause delay to the construction. Next Steps: Upon Commission approval, plans will be forwarded to DNR for approval. 30

31 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, plans for sanitary sewer extensions were submitted to the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) for Johns Street and Emil Street Utilities with Resurfacing, City of Madison, on December 29, 2014, by Mark Moder, City Engineering Division, and WHEREAS, the project consists of installing 1,115 feet of 8 inch sanitary sewer on Emil Street and 1,121 feet of 15 inch sanitary sewer on Johns Street. The existing sewers are in poor condition, and being replaced in conjunction with the street reconstruction project, and WHEREAS, a variance is being requested from DNR Chapter NR (2) by the City of Madison for some of the proposed sewers which will have less than the minimum 8 feet of horizontal separation from existing water main. The project proposes to install AWWA C900 DR18 sanitary sewer main where the required minimum horizontal separation from existing water main is not attained, and, and WHEREAS, a variance is being requested from DNR Chapter NR (3) by the City of Madison for some of the proposed sewers where manhole spacing exceeds 400 feet. The Madison Sewer Utility is capable of cleaning sewers up to 700 feet in length, and believes their maintenance program can satisfactorily accommodate the these new sewer mains at the length proposed, and WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary sewer extensions will connect to the City of Madison s sewerage facilities and MMSD s East Interceptor and South Interceptor, and WHEREAS, no new areas are being served and no additional flows are anticipated, and WHEREAS, interceptor connection charges for the areas being served have been paid, and WHEREAS, the MMSD has received a sewer extension review letter # from the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC) dated January 7, 2015, stating the CARPC staff has reviewed the proposed extension and determined that it is consistent with the urban service area provisions of the Dane County Water Quality Plan and the Dane County Land Use and Transportation Plan, and WHEREAS, the Chief Engineer and Director of MMSD has recommended the approval of said plans, 31

32 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the plans for sanitary sewer extensions for Johns Street and Emil Street Utilities with Resurfacing, City of Madison, submitted on December 29, 2014, by Mark Moder, City Engineering Division, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the City of Madison shall require the presence of an engineer or an inspector on the construction of said sewer extensions who shall make a record showing in detail the construction as built and shall furnish the MMSD with as built plans in the case of any significant deviations from the original design. 2. That the construction, operation, maintenance and use of said sewer extensions shall be in accordance with the lawful rules and regulations of the MMSD and with the applicable State of Wisconsin plumbing and sewerage codes. 3. That if construction of the sewer extensions covered by said plans has not commenced within four years following the approval date of this resolution, this approval shall become void and new plans shall be submitted. If construction has commenced but has not been completed within the four year approval period, the unbuilt portion must be submitted for reapproval if it is a significant portion of the project and would require DNR approval. The above resolution was adopted by the Commissioners of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District at their meeting held in the District office on January 15,

33 33

34 COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting of January 15, 2015 Sewer Extensions Voiding of Expired Sewer Extension Plans Lead Staff: Curt Sauser, Engineering Technician Requested Action: Voiding of Expired Sewer Extension Plans for: Brown Business Park, City of Fitchburg First Addition to Carriage Ridge, Town of Westport Attachments: Resolution Brown Business Park VOID Resolution First Addition to Carriage Ridge VOID Financial Impact: Voiding the plans will remove $103, from the current connection charge accounting ledger. The subject lands will be required to resubmit sewer plans and pay appropriate connection charges at future rates in effect at the time of connection. Background: The approvals for the subject sewer extensions have expired. The voiding of the plans will formally clean up the unbuilt sewer systems and put the municipalities on notice that new sewers must be resubmitted to MMSD. Analysis and Options: Option 1: Void the expired plans as proposed by staff. Key Considerations: The approvals have expired and can no longer be constructed without additional MMSD and WDNR approval. Option 2: Do not void the plans. Key Considerations: This option is not recommended by staff. 34

35 Next Steps: Upon Commission approval of the resolutions, MMSD will provide formal notice to the municipalities and WDNR that the subject plans have been voided. 35

36 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, plans for sanitary sewer extensions in Brown Business Park, City of Fitchburg, submitted on February 5, 2009, were approved by the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District on March 23, 2009, approval no and by WDNR on March 30, 2009, approval no , and WHEREAS, the sewer extensions have not been constructed and MMSD s approval has expired, and WHEREAS, the interceptor and treatment plant connection charges for the lands to be served have not been paid, and WHEREAS, the Chief Engineer and Director of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District has recommended the voiding of said plans, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the sewer extension plans for Brown Business Park in the City of Fitchburg as approved by MMSD on March 23, 2009 are void, and new plans shall be submitted for any future construction of sanitary sewers for this area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that connection charges of $42,696.37, being the sum of $34, in Interceptor Connection Charges and $8, in Treatment Plant Connection Charges be removed from the City of Fitchburg s account, MMSD file no , and that the account be closed. The above resolution was adopted by the Commissioners of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District at their meeting held in the District office on January 15,

37 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, plans for sanitary sewer extensions in First Addition to Carriage Ridge, Town of Westport, submitted on March 18, 2009, were approved by the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District on May 27, 2009, approval no , and by WDNR on June 3, 2009, approval no , and WHEREAS, approved sewers have been constructed in Cobblestone Lane, to serve Lots and Outlot 5 of the plat of First Addition to Carriage Ridge, and WHEREAS, appropriate interceptor and treatment plant connection charges, for Lots and Outlot 5 of the plat of First Addition to Carriage Ridge, have been paid, and WHEREAS, approved sewers have not been constructed in Hunt Club Way, Alex Court, or Daily Drive, to serve Lots and Outlot 4 of the plat of First Addition to Carriage Ridge, and MMSD s approval has expired, and WHEREAS, the interceptor and treatment plant connection charges for the lands to be served by the unbuilt sewers have not been paid, and WHEREAS, the Chief Engineer and Director of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District has recommended the voiding of the unbuilt portion of said plans, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the unbuilt portion of the sewer extension plans for First Addition to Carriage Ridge, in the Town of Westport, as approved by MMSD on May 27, 2009 are void, and new plans shall be submitted for any future construction of sanitary sewers for this area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that connection charges of $60,437.42, being the sum of $44, in Interceptor Connection Charges and $15, in Treatment Plant Connection Charges be removed from the Town of Westport s account, MMSD file no , and that the account be closed. The above resolution was adopted by the Commissioners of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District at their meeting held in the District office on January 15,

38 COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting of January 15, 2015 Approval of 4th Quarter 2014 Sewer Service Charges Lead Staff: Todd Gebert, Collection System Engineer Requested Action: Approval of 4th Quarter 2014 Sewer Service Charges Attachments: To be provided at the Commission meeting A. Letter to Commissioners B. Service Charge Summary Quarter 4 C. Service Charge Summary Total 2014 Charges Financial Impact: District staff will make available the service charge amounts to the Commissioners at the meeting. Background: Service charges for each of the District s customers are calculated and invoiced on a quarterly basis to fund the District s costs for conveying and treating wastewater. Analysis and Options: District staff has calculated and reviewed the service charges for each community and recommend their approval by the Commission. Next Steps: The District will prepare and send invoices for service charges to each customer upon Commission approval. 38

39 Lead Staff: Erik Rehr, Project Engineer COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting of January 15, 2015 Review and Approval of Design Engineering Services: PS15 Rehabilitation Requested Action: Approval and award of design engineering services for the rehabilitation of Pumping Station 15 to Baxter & Woodman, and that the Chief Engineer and Director be authorized to execute an engineering services agreement with Baxter & Woodman at a cost not to exceed $436,600. Attachments: Summary of pricing from consultant proposals. Financial Impact: The proposed design services cost of $436,600 is approximately 65% more than the $262,700 included in the 2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for design-phase services. The total project cost estimate is $4,204,000. Note that the project cost estimate included in the 2015 CIP is a planning level estimate and did not account for specific design features identified during a detailed scope evaluation. The 2016 Capital Improvements Plan and Budget will be adjusted as required and will be based upon the project s latest best estimate at budget time. Background: Staff originally came to the Commission on December 11, 2014 to present the Pump Station 15 rehabilitation project, and request approval and award of a design services contract. From the presentation, the Commission had two questions; the justification for an above ground structure and basis for the selection teams recommendation of Baxter and Woodman, and how higher costs factored into the decision. Staff prepared a response to these questions below.

40 Above Ground Structure: The District s Collection System Facilities Plan Update (2011) identified Pumping Station 15 as requiring a firm capacity upgrade, structural upgrades, and replacement of major electrical and control equipment to meet current codes and MMSD standards. Staff anticipated at the time that the upgrade to this facility would likely involve a building expansion with a superstructure that would safely shelter new electrical and HVAC equipment. Our thinking, although not confirmed with a study, was that a below ground structure would likely cost more and have more inherent risks with unknown soil conditions. And a below grade addition would still require an at-grade structure to house appropriate ventilation systems and some of the electrical system. As staff prepared the detailed scope of work for this project, we recognized that the expansion would require additional services to mitigate any potential impacts of the expanded station. Services that are above and beyond what we would define as typical. Those services include landscaping and architectural plans, a thorough review of potential impacts and solutions using a process called Envision, and additional modeling for the wet well. Staff acknowledges that accurate identification of costs is a weakness of the facility planning process, which is geared to being higher level for planning purposes. This experience reinforces the importance of robust project planning tools, such as Asset Management, which are currently in development. Consultant Selection Analysis and Options: The District s policy calls for selecting engineering/architectural services based on demonstrated competency and qualification for the services required and the negotiation of compensation that is fair and reasonable. Selecting professional services is therefore not based on a low bid because the proposed costs are directly related to the extent and quality of services the consultants propose to deliver. The Districts selection team must balance cost and quality in the evaluation process. Many times a lowest cost proposal does not fully demonstrate an understanding or ability to perform the work as specified. Likewise, a high cost proposal may propose a variety of nice to have services, but they may not be necessary to achieve the District s needs. For Pumping Station 15, the District requested qualification statements from 24 local and regional firms for design. Of the 24, three firms submitted qualifications statements. A team of five MMSD employees from various workgroups reviewed the qualifications statements and concluded all three firms were qualified to perform the project design. All three firms were invited to submit detailed proposals and to participate in interviews. The firms interviewed were Foth Infrastructure and Environment, Baxter & Woodman and Strand Associates. The MMSD selection committee evaluated each consultant s proposal on the following criteria: project approach, key technical issues, strength of the project team, pricing, schedule, and overall impression. Based on these evaluations, the committee recommends Baxter & Woodman for design of the Pumping Station 15 improvements.

41 Option 1: Award the PS 15 Rehabilitation design work to Baxter & Woodman with the direction to design an at-grade structural expansion of PS 15. Key Considerations: An at-grade expansion has fewer risks than building below ground, and can be designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Baxter and Woodman is the most technically qualified and experienced team of experts to address the full range of scope items on this project. Baxter and Woodman presented numerous innovative ideas in both public process and design that could reduce long term operation and maintenance costs and minimize the projects community impact. They could also show through past project success, their ability to deliver on such innovative concepts. Baxter and Woodman provided a competitive cost proposal based on the quality of the services provided. Baxter and Woodman has not worked with MMSD in the past but reference checks verified their abilities and client satisfaction. Although secondary, there is some advantage to occasionally spread the work around to see the quality of engineering services that are available and nuture a competitive atmosphere for future projects. Option 2: Award the PS 15 Rehabilitation design work to Baxter & Woodman and modify their scope of work to include a detailed alternative analysis for the PS 15 structural expansion. The alternative analysis will compare an at-grade facility addition and below grade facility expansion. Key Considerations: The alternative analysis would be holistic in nature and include impacts on the community, the environment and operation and maintenance of the facility along with overall cost. Baxter & Woodman s cost to perform the alternative analysis would be an additional $15,000. Soil borings would be necessary to complete the alternative analysis but they are already covered by an allowance in the proposed design cost provided by Baxter & Woodman. The alternative analysis will take 4 to 6 weeks to complete, therefore adding 4 to 6 weeks to the project timeline, which is not a concern to staff. Results of the alternative analysis will be presented to the Commission before proceeding forward with design.

42 Option 3: Award the PS 15 Rehabilitation design work to another consultant, or revise the scope of work to incorporate new scope considerations and request new design proposals. Key Considerations: Award of the contract to another consultant could result in higher costs because of the need to renegotiate additional scope items due to the other consultant s less desirable approaches to address key aspects of the project. This may also result in contracting some work to additional sub consultants. Revising the project scope and re-issuing an RFP would delay the project schedule by two months, could result in more or less consultant proposals and could result in higher or lower cost proposals. Both alternatives in this option would have minimal impact on current operation of the pump station. Next Steps: Following completion of an engineering services agreement, Baxter & Woodman will begin the design work, with completion scheduled for late Staff will also incorporate more detailed discussion of scope during the CIP planning process.

43 Attachment 1 Summary of Pricing from Consultant Proposals Pumping Station 15 Rehabilitation Baxter & Woodman Foth Infrastructure and Environment Strand Associates Base Pump Station Design Cost* Wetwell Fluid Dynamics Modeling $307,900 $423,792 $286,266 $50,000 $38,748 $42,600 Landscape Architecture $29,000 $5,198 $30,900 ISI Envision Implementation $49,700 $40,704 $49,926 Total Design Cost $436,600 $508,442 $409,692 *The Base Pump Station Design Cost includes the cost necessary to design a building superstructure. 43

44 COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting of January 15, 2015 Review of Proposals and Award of Contract for Strategic Asset Management Framework and Implementation Plan Lead Staff: Claudia Haack, Sustainable Infrastructure Manager Requested Action: Authorize the Chief Engineer and Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with GHD at a cost not to exceed $65,176 for the Development of a Sustainable Asset Management Framework and Implementation Plan. Attachment: Summary of Pricing from Consultant Proposals Financial Impact: Funding for Parts 1a and 1b services is included in the Capital Budget. The estimated cost of these services was $80,000. Background: After conducting a high-level status assessment and identifying initial priorities for developing an Asset Management (AM) Program for MMSD, the Sustainable Infrastructure Management Team (SIM Team) initiated work on a number of projects that improve data driven decisionmaking, in particular for maintenance activities and on the collection system side of the operations (staff reported to the Commission in July). Based on feedback received from the Commission and further discussions with the Executive Team, the decision was made to seek professional services support in two key areas: condition assessment and the development of a comprehensive asset management framework that articulates a more detailed and specific vision as well as an implementation plan with milestones. A good professional services/consulting firm s broad and in-depth experience will help develop a framework that is in alignment with MMSD s vision, reflects best practices, and identifies those strategies with the greatest impact on fiscal sustainability and managing business risk. Such firms are also in a position to make unbiased assessments of current activities (or lack thereof) and the capacity of the organization (resources and knowledge) to implement changes/improvements, leading to a more achievable yet challenging implementation plan. In addition, the consulting firm will act as an advisor and facilitator, supporting structured and 44

45 timely decision-making to achieve consensus and buy-in a critical factor in change management when implementing a new program. Best practices for asset management programs establish that an agreed-upon asset management framework is an important foundation as it establishes the vision for the program. Among other areas, a typical framework addresses: - AM organizational structure, roles and responsibilities - AM program goals, objectives and outcomes - Development of AM Plans (type, level, frequency) - Risk Management Framework, including development of criteria and matrix (including sustainability) for consequence of failure ratings - AM Information Systems development/implementation approach Once a framework is in place and in conjunction with a gap analysis that assesses the current state of program activities, an implementation plan can be developed. The implementation plan provides direction and focus. The framework and implementation plan will identify which areas of focus are the most beneficial (fiscally and in terms of managing business risk) for the District and which level of achievement in each program area is appropriate for an organization such as MMSD. Analysis and Options: MMSD issued a request for proposals (RFP) that was posted on our website, as well as a portal called Quest CDN.com, that reaches a broad audience of potential service providers. We also sent the RFP to ten firms that had expressed interest or were known for their expertise in AM Program services. We received responses from three firms. All firms were invited for interviews even though there was a substantial qualitative difference in the proposals between the three firms. A team of MMSD employees from several workgroups, as well as a staff member from the Madison Water Utility, reviewed the proposals and participated in the interviews. The selection committee evaluated and then ranked each consultant s proposal on the following criteria: qualifications and experience of the firm and the team members, understanding of project and project approach, tasks, hours, budget, and schedule. Based on these evaluations, the committee recommends hiring GHD. Option 1: Award the contract to GHD. Key Considerations: This is the recommended option. 45

46 GHD has the necessary staff and experience to complete the scope of work. GHD s proposed project team includes industry leaders that have shaped key best practices in AM framework development and have many years of experience working with a range of organizations, including in the wastewater industry. Their approach is logical, practical, appropriately scaled, and reflects a thorough understanding of the RFP requirements. It introduces innovative approaches to integrate sustainability and provides opportunities for feedback to MMSD from some of their other clients. The not-to-exceed budget of $65,176 is reasonable and provides the best cost to value ratio among the proposals. It is also within the District s estimate of $80,000. Option 2: Award work to the next highest ranked firm. Key Considerations: The next highest ranked firm, AECOM, is generally qualified to perform the work. However, their approach was less responsive, the proposed project team didn t have the same level of credentials and relevant experience, and costs were significantly higher. Option 3: Delay award of the contract until staff can provide more information to the Commission. Key Considerations: In case the Commission has questions or concerns that staff cannot adequately address at the Commission meeting, this would provide time for staff to gather relevant information and present for consideration at a later date. Next Steps: MMSD staff recommends award of a Professional Services Agreement to GHD. Following completion of a Professional Services Agreement, GHD will begin the work with completion scheduled for August

47 Attachment 1 Summary of Pricing from Consultant Proposals RFP Part Firm A GHD Firm B 1a Framework $37,540 $31,638 $22,040 1b Implementation Plan $31,872 $27,758 $16,940 Project Management $6,009 $5,780 $960 Total $75,421 $65,176 $39,940 Optional Task $7,672 Rankings Rater Firm A GHD Firm B

48 COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting of January 15, 2015 After Action Review on the 2015 Budget Process Lead Staff: D. Michael Mucha, Chief Engineer and Director Requested Action: Provide feedback to staff on ways to improve the budget process. Attachments: 2015 Budget Process Financial Impact: None. Background: Over the last two years, the Commission has made substantive improvements to the annual budget review process. The purpose for these improvements centered on earlier information on trends and strategies, more choices, and greater access and transparency to the public. Now that the 2015 budget process is complete, it is a good time to evaluate the changes to the process to see how they are working and how we can make it even better for Analysis and Options: Staff will facilitate an After Action Review process. This is a simple quality improvement tool staff adopted to reinforce what is going well and to focus on ways to improve. The process will proceed as follows: 1. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being unacceptable, 10 being perfect), evaluate the effectiveness of the 2015 budget process? 2. What went particularly well this year? 3. What could the District do differently to make the process a 10 for you? 4. Based on this input, what changes should be made? Next Steps: Staff to incorporate Commission suggested changes into the 2016 budget process. 48

49 Budget Calendar for Preparation of 2016 Budget June-July July-August August August 13 th September 9 th September 10 th September 11 th September 24 th October 12 th October 15 th October 29 th November 1 st Commission review and acceptance of the Draft Capital Improvements Plan The Executive Team discusses critical needs, expense and revenue trends and goals. The team is made up of the Chief Engineer and Director, Department Directors, HR Manager and Executive Coordinator Department staff develops and submits their budget requests to the Budget Review Team (Chief Engineer and Director, Director of Administration and Controller/Office Manager). The team balances revenue and expenditures and develops the Chief Engineer and Director s proposed budget Staff presents preliminary view of issues and drivers for the upcoming budget A summary of the proposed budget is published and notice given of the upcoming budget hearing as required by Wisconsin Statutes Section Chief Engineer and Director presents proposed budget Notification of MMSD 2013 Budget & Budget Hearing mailed to communities Public hearing and Commission discussion Deadline to receive written comments from the public on the proposed budget Commission discussion and direction to staff Commission adopts operating, capital, and debt service budgets and service charge rates Notify customers and septage haulers of new rates and estimated charges Start of 2016 Process Prep for 2016 Budget May Six Year CIP June/July 2016 Budget Preview August 13, 2015 Budget Proposal Presentation of Proposed Budget September 10, 2015 Adoption of Budget Commission gives Direction to Staff Deadline for Written Comments from the Public Public Hearing & Discussion October 29, 2015 October 15, 2015 October 12, 2015 September 24, 2015 Rates and Estimated Charges Notification Mailed to Customers Budget After Action Review November 1, 2015 January 49

50 Capital Projects Dashboard Scope Schedule Budget PS 18 Construction PS 18 Force Main New Maintenance Facility PS 11/12 Rehab PCS Upgrade NEI W of Airport Lining PS 15 Rehab $14.8 M $12.4 M $11.7 M $10.7 M $5.0 M $1.1 M $4.2 M 50

51 Capital Projects Dashboard Scope Schedule Budget Project A 50% Project B Ahead Project C Project D Bidding Legend Green Yellow Orange Red On target with Budget and CIP Closely monitoring not requiring action just yet Will require minor action or change Will require major action or a course correction 51

52 Madison Metropolitan Sewerage Commission Regulatory Review January 2015 Paul G. Kent Budget Bill. Provisions involving the Clean Water Fund subsidies may be included in the Budget Clean Water Fund Program (NR 162). The Natural Resources Board (NRB) approved the rule in November 2014 but the rule is subject to review by the Governor and JCRAR before it can be published. WPDES Permitting Process (NR 200, 201, 203 and 205; WT-13-12) The DNR held a public hearing on May 1, 2014 on its proposed revisions to the WPDES permit process. These are largely noncontroversial technical changes. It is now scheduled for adoption by the NRB at its January 2015 meeting. Ammonia, Chlorides and WET tests (NR 106, 205 and 212; WT-11-12). Comments on the economic impact of this rule package were due January 7, The next step would be public hearing authorization which is expected this spring. The rule addresses the following issues: Acute limit calculations The allowance for extended compliance schedules for Tier II value based limitations Ammonia water quality based effluent limitations Time periods for expression of certain water quality based effluent limitations Chloride water quality based effluent limitations Alternate limitations when test methods are not sufficiently sensitive Whole effluent toxicity testing (WET) Reasonable potential procedures TMDL procedures required under the Great Lakes Initiative federal regulations Rules in Scoping Stage. [No change] Waterbody Assessments and Impaired Waters Listing (NR 102; WY-23-13). Scope statement approved for the processes for water body assessments and impaired water listing, biological criteria for water quality standards and biological confirmation of phosphorus impairments. Surface Water Designated Uses (NR 102, 104 and 105; WY-25-13). Scope statement approved for rule revisions relating to surface water designated uses, associated water quality criteria, variance waters and qualifying factors for variances based on economic impacts. Site Specific Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Phosphorus (ch. NR 119; WT-17) Scope statement approved for rule to specify methodology and procedures to derive site-specific numeric phosphorus criteria. Mercury and other BCCs, Intake Credits and Additives (NR 106; WT-31-10). Scope statement approved for rule revisions to NR 106 contains the procedures for translating water quality criteria into water quality based effluent limits. Calculation of Technology Based Limits (NR 106, 200, 201, 203, 205, and 220; WT-12-12). Scope statement approved for rule revisions designed to address technology based limits, new source performance standards, expression of limits in permits, mass limits in permits, 52

53 general reasonable potential procedures, pollutants in the intake for technology based limits, best management practices in permits, general compliance schedules provisions, permit application requirements for industrial dischargers and intake requirements for new facilities under CWA 316(b). 53

54 Note: All dates are tentative and subject to change Upcoming Meetings (Note: routine business is shown in smaller font) 1/15/2015 Commission Meeting 1/29/2015 Commission Meeting & Study Session Cash Statements Sewer Plan Approval/Reconstruction-Sauser Voiding of Expired Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Expedited Boundary Annexation, City of Madison-Sauser Regulatory Review-Kent Capital Projects Update-Simon Approval of 4 th Quarter 2014 Sewer Service Bills-Gebert Review and Approval of Design Engineering Services: PS15 Rehabilitation-Rehr Review of Proposals and Award of Contracts for Strategic Asset Management Framework and Condition Assessment- Haack Budget After Action Review-Mucha Convene in Closed Session in Accordance with 19.85(1)c of the Wisconsin Statutes to Consider Employment, Promotion, Compensation or Performance Evaluation Data of any Public Employee Over Which the Governmental Body has Jurisdiction or Exercise Responsibility- Commission/Mucha Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Operations Report-Nehm Ecosystem Services Update-Taylor Authorizing Purchase of Chemicals-Nehm Update on the Sewer Use Ordinance-Taylor Review of Bids and Award of Contract: Maintenance Facility- Borelli 1/29/2015 STUDY SESSION Topic: Chloride Treatability Study Presentation-Lake 2/12/2015 Commission Meeting Cash Statements Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Regulatory Review-Kent Capital Projects Update-Simon Approval of the Purchase of a Budgeted Truck for Mechanics- Nehm Award of Contract for Pump Station 16 Ventilation Modifications Project-Richardson Connection Charge Rate Study: Review Alternatives- Rothstein/Borelli Authorizing Contracts for Metrogro Hauling and Application Contractors-Nehm Review and Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of, Up to $10,673,381 General Obligation Sewerage System Promissory Notes, Series 2015A and Providing for Other Details With Respect Thereto for the Pumping Stations 11 & 12 Rehabilitation Project-Brochtrup 54

55 2/26/2015 Commission Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Operations Report-Nehm Meeting & Ecosystem Services Update-Taylor Study Session Authorizing 2015 Televising and Cleaning-Borelli Adaptive Management Presentation-Taylor 2/26/2015 STUDY SESSION Topic: Connection Charge Rate Study: Recommend Approach- 3/12/2015 Commission Meeting 3/26/2015 Commission Meeting & Study Session Rothstein/Borelli 3/26/2015 STUDY SESSION Topic: TBD 4/16/2015 Commission Meeting 4/30/2015 Commission Meeting & Study Session Cash Statements Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Regulatory Review-Kent Capital Projects Update-Simon Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Operations Report-Nehm Ecosystem Services Update-Taylor Placeholder: Pollution Prevention/Source Reduction Presentation-Ecosystem Services Cash Statements Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Regulatory Review-Kent Capital Projects Update-Simon Approval of 1 st Quarter 2015 Sewer Service Bills-Gebert CliftonLarsonAllen LLP Discussion of 2014 Audited Financial Statements-Fox Review of Bids & Award of Contract for Annual Final Clarifier Work-Nehm Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Operations Report-Nehm Ecosystem Services Update-Taylor 4/30/2015 STUDY SESSION Topic: Connection Charge Rate Study: Review Feedback from Communities and Finalize Approach 5/14/2015 Commission Meeting 5/28/2015 Commission Meeting & Study Session 5/28/2015 STUDY SESSION Topic: TBD 6/11/2015 Commission Meeting Cash Statements including Debt Service Fund Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Regulatory Review-Kent Capital Projects Update-Simon Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Operations Report-Nehm Ecosystem Services Update-Taylor Preparation for Fiscal Year 2016 Budget-Mucha Adaptive Management Presentation-Taylor Cash Statements Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Regulatory Review-Kent Capital Projects Update-Simon 6/25/2015 Commission Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Operations Report-Nehm Meeting & Study Ecosystem Services Update-Taylor Session Review and Approval of CMAR-Allen 6/25/2015 STUDY SESSION Topic: Presentation on the Draft 2016 Capital 7/16/2015 Commission Meeting Improvements Plan-Simon Cash Statements Review and Approval of Sewer Extension Plans-Sauser Regulatory Review-Kent Capital Projects Update-Simon Approval of 2 nd Quarter 2015 Sewer Service Bills-Gebert 55