Water Pollution Control Plant Modifications BidsMasterpiece on the Mississippi
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Water Pollution Control Plant Modification Bids
DATE: June 16, 2010
1
Dubuque
klArg
AIl4Ametica City
1111!
2007
The direction of the City of Dubuque's Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) has been
established as a high priority by the City Council. A process of facility planning was
approved and Request for Proposals (RFP's) for the Water Pollution Control Facility
Plan were submitted to the City Council on February 5, 2007. Consultant selection to
prepare the Facility Plan was approved by City Council in May 2007 and Strand
Associates of Madison WI, was contracted to proceed with planning. The Facility Plan
was submitted to Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) in June 2008 for
approval. In October 2008 the team of Strand Associates /IIW Engineers was selected
by the City Council to proceed with the design of the WPCP upgrades based on the
concepts developed in the Facility Planning process. In January 2010, 90% design
documents were presented to city staff for review. March 1, 2010 the City Council
authorized city staff to submit the design to the IDNR for review and to apply for a
construction permit. The construction permit was approved and signed by IDNR on April
5, 2010. The City Council approved at their April 5, 2010 meeting the publication of a
Notice to Bidders to begin the bidding process and passed a resolution for preliminary
approval of plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the WPCP
Modifications.
Many portions of the WPCP are rapidly reaching the end of their useful life and must be
repaired or replaced.
The selection of Anaerobic Digestion as the choice for biosolids management in place
of incineration is the major driving factor for this project. This will result in lower energy
costs which will lead to greater rate stability and less vulnerability to increasing costs of
energy, a lower carbon footprint which will lessen Dubuque's impact on the global
climate, and a stable process which will be in operation for forty years or more. The
second key part of the project is the use of existing facilities for flow equalization in the
plant. High influent flows during heavy rain events have been the major contributing
factor in effluent violations that have occurred at the WPCP over several years. Utilizing
existing structures to help deal with rain events greatly reduces the risk for violations of
the City of Dubuque's discharge permit. A third component of the project is the use of
ultraviolet light rather than hazardous chlorine gas for effluent disinfection. In addition to
these major components all aspects of the plant will be impacted and repaired and /or
replaced.
Sustainability elements are included in many aspects of the design, most prominently in
the pursuit of energy star rating for the Administration Building, WPCP processes and in
the landscape design. The landscape design includes the use of rain gardens for
stormwater management and low mow /native prairie grasses.
Bids for the project were received on May 20, 2010 with the firm of Miron Construction
of Cedar Rapids Iowa the apparent low bidder at $49,750,000 for the base bid.
In addition to the base bid, there are several alternates being recommended for award
as part of the bid as follows:
Alternative 1 B: The plant improvements include $1.8 million dollars for excess flow
management. The Energy Dissipating Inlets (EDI) at a cost of $216,218 will be the final
weapon in the task of containing excess flow into the final clarifiers. The EDI are a
series of baffles which will help absorb some of the hydraulic energy into the clarifiers
during periods of high flow, this will lower the incoming velocity of the water which will
allow for better performance during high flow events.
Alternative 2: The City is currently using Krueger Technology with satisfaction and feel
comfortable reducing the bid for this alternative, using Krueger Technology for the
aeration equipment for the secondary system. The aeration system is approximately
$5.7 million of the total project and this alternate will save $250,000.
Alternative 6:
This alternate is for the septage /hauled waste receiving station at a cost of $791,200.
This item is important for the controlled input of wastestreams into the plant delivered by
truck or tanker. The users will be controlled by permit and electronic user cards and the
system will protect the plant from uncontrolled amounts of grit and debris. This station,
as planned, would provide for controlled discharge by approved haulers only, automatic
recording of discharge amounts, auto sampling of discharge, grit removal and screening
(protecting the operation of the WPCP) and pH screening prior to release to the WPCP.
The septage /hauled waste station also benefits in the protection of the environment.
The septage station will provide for a more controlled and easily documented discharge
of hauled septage to the WPCP. The disposal of septage waste has become more
problematic and it is important for the protection of the local environment that there is a
safe and controlled location for the discharge of septage for treatment.
There is a synergistic benefit derived from the combination of a septage receiving
station and a facility for the receiving and processing of high strength wastes to be
introduced to the anaerobic digesters to enhance the production of usable energy. Much
of the structure and piping layout will be usable for managing the introduction of high
2
strength organics and /or food residuals into the digesters to increase utilization of
digester space and maximize methane production for energy generation. The hauled
waste portion of this station provides access to the anaerobic digesters for the
introduction of high strength wastes and possibly other materials such as fats oil and
grease (FOG) and food residuals. The digesters which will be constructed in this project
will be less than 50% loaded based on design capacity and current projected loading.
This gives the opportunity to utilize the available space in the digesters for the
introduction of compatible high strength wastes into the digesters. This option provides
several environmental benefits; high strength material destined for the landfill or hauled
long distances for disposal which results in increased greenhouse gas production will
become food for energy production at the WPCP not only reducing GHG production at
the landfill but at the same time reducing the amount of energy purchased for the
operation of the WPCP. It will also be possible to more easily develop the option of
diverting food residuals from the landfill and instead of methane production being
released to the atmosphere methane can be captured in the digestion process and used
for energy production. The addition of food residuals into the digesters will require not
only the hauled waste portion of this alternative but also additional pumps and grinders
that are not included in this alternative.
The addition of the alternatives to the base bid results in a project cost as follows:
Base Bid $49,750,000
Alternative 1B 216,128
Alternative 2 (250,000)
Alternative 6 791.200
Total Construction Costs $50,507,328
The total projected cost for the project, including all design and construction services,
contingencies and alternatives is $64,114,693.
The inclusion of a microturbine system to produce energy, which will be designed and
bid at a later date, has an estimated cost of $2,420,000. Construction of a microturbine
system to produce energy is estimated to generate a minimum energy savings of
$236,000 annually, beginning in Fiscal Year 2014.
There is a one -time energy rebate for the plant upgrade to be received in Fiscal Year
2014 estimated at $350,000.
Strand Associates provided an initial estimate of the cost of the Water Pollution Control
Plant Upgrade of $56,704,071 which the five year CIP was originally based on. During
the Fiscal Year 2011 budget process, Strand Associates prepared a 90% cost estimate
of $62,973,000, which was an increase of $6,268,929 over what was originally
budgeted for the plant upgrade. This increase included construction phase engineering
services of $5,100,000.
3
Strand Associates hired a firm to perform a constructability review of the 90% cost
estimate. Story Construction prepared the constructability review and determined that
with a shortened project schedule of two years and the current bidding environment, the
90% cost estimate could be reduced by $7,700,000. The Fiscal Year 2011 adopted five
year CIP for the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade was budgeted for $55,273,000
based on this information.
We now know that the project costs are approximately $9 million more, including the bid
alternates, than this estimate used in the budget.
Switching the debt issuance from 20 years to 26 years, the increase in the sewer usage
fees over the next 6 years to implement this project are:
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
11% 15% 16% 18% 17% 3%
Over the next six years the sanitary sewer rates will increase an average of 13.3% per
year to pay for normal plant operating budget items and the debt required to build the
new Water Pollution Control Plant.
In the Fiscal Year 2010 budget process, the Mayor and City Council approved a 9%
increase in sewer rates for Fiscal Year 2011. Budget Director Jennifer Larson is
recommending that ordinance be rescinded and an ordinance establishing an 11%
Fiscal Year 2011 rate increase be adopted. The 11% increase in Fiscal Year 2011 will
increase the monthly sanitary sewer bill for the average homeowner by $2.08, from
$18.96 per month to $21.04 per month.
As discussed during facility planning the question is not whether we need to do
something but what is it we are going to do. Many portions of the Water Pollution
Control Plant are rapidly reaching the end of their useful life and must be repaired
and /or replaced. With the completion of this project the City will have a facility which will
operate using much less energy and therefore is less susceptible to rising energy costs.
There will be a dramatic reduction in the use of hazardous chemicals which improves
the safety of plant staff, emergency responders and all citizens. The inclusion of flow
equalization in the project will greatly improve the plants ability to withstand rapid
increases of flow into the plant during rain events thereby reducing one of the main
components of past violations of the City of Dubuque's discharge permit.
The plant modifications will also be consistent with the discussions being held with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
about environmental compliance issues. As stated in the May 24, 2010 issue of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors weekly newsletter, these compliance issues are expected to
be more challenging for communities that stay with incineration instead of moving to
anaerobic digestion:
4
"The other rule that may impact city operations and budgets deal with the
definition of non - hazardous solid waste. Some combustion units currently
considered boilers would be subject to the newly proposed
Commercial /Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Standards if they continue
to combust solid waste. For example, biosolids (products from
wastewater facilities) may now possibly be defined as non - hazardous solid
waste and therefore facilities would be classified as a solid waste
incineration unit, which would have to meet stricter Clean Air Act
Standards."
Water Pollution Control Plant Manager Jonathan Brown is recommending City Council
authorization to negotiate and execute a contract with the low bidder, Miron
Construction, Co, Inc., for the base bid amount of $49,750,000, and also authorize the
inclusion of bid alternatives 1 B, 2 and 6 for an additional amount of $757,418.
I concur with the recommendations and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Jonathan R. Brown, Water Pollution Control Plant Manager
5
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Jonathan R. Brown, WPCP Manager
SUBJECT: Water Pollution Control Plant Modification Bids
DATE: June 16, 2010
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Dubuque
kratgl
All- AmaicaCity
1
2007
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the results of the bids received for the
Water Pollution Control Plant Modifications, review bid alternatives and request council
authorization to proceed with the project.
The direction of the City of Dubuque's WPCP has been established as a high priority by
the City Council. A process of facility planning was approved and RFP's for the Water
Pollution Control Facility Plan were submitted to council on February 5, 2007.
Consultant selection to prepare the Facility Plan was approved by City Council in May
2007 and Strand Associates of Madison WI was contracted to proceed with planning.
The Facility Plan was submitted to IDNR in June 2008 for approval. In October 2008 the
team of Strand Associates /IIW Engineers was selected by council to proceed with the
design of the WPCP upgrades based on the concepts developed in the Facility Planning
process. In January 2010 90% design documents were presented to City Staff for
review. March 1, 2010 the City Council authorized City Staff to submit the design to the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for review and to apply for a construction
permit. The construction permit was approved and signed by IDNR on April 5, 2010.
The City Council approved at their April 5, 2010 meeting the publication of a Notice to
Bidders to begin the bidding process and passed a resolution for preliminary approval of
plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the WPCP Modifications.
The selection of Anaerobic Digestion as the choice for biosolids management in place
of incineration is the major driving factor for this project. This will result in lower energy
costs which will lead to greater rate stability and less vulnerability to increasing costs of
energy, a lower carbon footprint which will lessen Dubuque's impact on the global
climate, and a stable process which will be in operation for forty years or more. The
1
second key part of the project is the use of existing facilities for flow equalization in the
plant. High influent flows during heavy rain events have been the major contributing
factor in effluent violations that have occurred at the WPCP over several years. Utilizing
existing structures to help deal with rain events greatly reduces the risk for violations of
the City of Dubuque's discharge permit. A third component of the project is the use of
ultraviolet Tight rather than hazardous chlorine gas for effluent disinfection. In addition to
these major components all aspects of the plant will be impacted and repaired and /or
replaced.
The following is a brief summary of the improvements included in the base bid;
Influent Screening
• Replace the existing screens with fine screens
• Install screenings washer /compactor
Grit Removal
• Replace the existing grit classifiers
• Eliminate the need for dewatered grit conveying by reorienting the grit classifiers
• Reconfigure grit pump discharge piping
• Reduced plugging potential of grit removal system
Primary Treatment
• Remove domed covers and replace with weir covers only
• Construct 4 primary clarifier
• Refurbish existing clarifiers
Biological Treatment
• Continue with High Purity Oxygen (HPO) activated sludge, including hauling
liquid oxygen to the plant
• Replace aeration mixers (27)
• Replace HPO controls for all three trains
• Repair basin tanks
• Seal concrete deck
Final Clarification
• Install new energy dissipating inlets
Effluent Disinfection
• Replace chlorination and dechlorination with ultraviolet light disinfection
• Reuse contact tank for UV installation
.Dissolved Oxygen and pH
• Install a cascade aeration system downstream of the UV basin. This will serve to
release CO2 to raise the effluent pH and dissolved oxygen.
Peak Flow Management
• Convert trickling filter structures to off -line flow equalization downstream of
primary clarification.
• Modify HPO basins to operate in contact stabilization mode of activated sludge
as needed.
Sampling and Flow Metering
• Provide two new influent samplers
2
• Provide new effluent sampler and sampling enclosure near the UV tank area.
Residuals Management
• Decommission the fluid bed incinerators.
• Construct new anaerobic digestion facilities (TPAD)
• Install new solids handling equipment in the existing incinerator building.
• Rehabilitate the WAS storage tanks and provide new WAS storage aeration
equipment.
• Provide two new dewatering centrifuges
• Convert existing incinerator building to biosolids cake storage and load -out
facilities.
Emergency Backup Power and Electrical Service
• Install new emergency power generation equipment.
• Replace electrical switchgear and distribution equipment from the 1970's and
before.
Administration Building, Laboratory, and Locker Rooms
• Laboratory Addition
• Refurbish the existing administration building
• Refurbish locker rooms in the administration building and the incinerator building.
• Energy Star rating for the Administration /Laboratory Building
Maintenance Building Addition
• Add two bays to existing Maintenance Building
Other Equipment Replacement
• Influent magnetic flow meters (2), effluent flow meter, and excess flow meter.
• Primary clarifiers drives
• Primary scum pumps
• Primary sludge transfer pumps
• RAS pump VFD replacement
• WAS pumps
• In -plant waste /recycle pumps
• Plant effluent/process water pump
• HVAC systems
Miscellaneous Piping, Valves, Mechanical and Other Components
• Influent channel gates
• Primary clarifier splitter gates
• MLSS splitter gates
• Final clarifier influent splitter gates
• Reroute in -plant waste /recycle pump discharge upstream of the influent screens.
• New roofs on existing buildings
Sustainability elements are included in many aspects of the design, most prominently in
the pursuit of energy star rating for the Administration Building, WPCP processes and in
3
Miron
$49,750,000
Findorf
$51,949,000
William Brothers
$52,830,000
Rice Lake
$53,348,000
Conlon Construction
$53,749,000
IHC Construction
$54,661,000
FH Paschen
$55,961,000
the landscape design. The landscape design includes the use of rain gardens for
stormwater management and low mow /native prairie grasses.
DISCUSSION
Bids for the project were received on May 20, 2010 with the firm of Miron Construction
of Cedar Rapids Iowa the apparent low bidder at $49,750,000 for the base bid. This bid
was higher than the estimate provided during the constructability analysis but very close
to the engineer's estimate of $49,380,000. The base construction bids are as follows:
It is important to note that there were seven bidders, the spread between the high and
low bidder is about six million dollars and that three of the bidders are within $600,000
of the average bid.
In addition to the base bid there were several alternates included in the bid forms. The
alternatives in bold are those that I am recommending for approval, (the costs given are
from the low bidder Miron Construction):
Bid Alternative 1A & 1B: This alternative is to allow for the addition of Energy
Dissipating Inlets (EDI) to the Final Clarifiers.
1A: $253,027; 1B: $216,128
Bid Alternative 2: This is for aeration equipment for the secondary system. The base bid
is for a company called M2T Mixing and Technology and the alternate is for Krueger.
($250,000)
Bid Alternative 3: This item is for the expansion of the planned
Administration /Laboratory Building to include a larger conference room and restrooms.
$521,000
4
Bid Alternative 4: This allowed for the replacement of T8 fluorescent lamps and ballasts
with Cold Cathode lamps and ballasts.
$157,400
Bid Alternative 5: Provides for the addition of an additional boiler for providing heat for
the digesters. (This alternative will be needed if we do not co- generate)
$251,600
Bid Alternative 6: Provides for the addition of a Septage /Hauled Waste Receiving
Station.
$791,200
Bid Alternative 7: This is for the construction of a Cold Storage Building.
$417,400
The following is a description of the recommended alternatives;
Alternative 1 B: The plant improvements include $1.8 million dollars for excess flow
management. The Energy Dissipating Inlets at a cost of $216,218 will be the final
weapon in the task of containing excess flow into the final clarifiers. The EDI are a
series of baffles which will help absorb some of the hydraulic energy into the clarifiers
during periods of high flow, this will lower the incoming velocity of the water which will
allow for better performance during high flow events.
Alternative 2: The City is currently using Krueger Technology with satisfaction and feel
comfortable reducing the bid for this alternative using Krueger Technology for the
aeration equipment for the secondary system. The aeration system is approximately
$5.7 million of the total project and the alternative will save $250,000.
Alternative 6:
This alternate is for the septage /hauled waste receiving station at a cost of $791,200.
This item is important for the controlled input of wastestreams into the plant delivered by
truck or tanker. The users will be controlled by permit and electronic user cards and the
system will protect the plant from uncontrolled amounts of grit and debris. This station,
as planned, would provide for controlled discharge by approved haulers only, automatic
recording of discharge amounts, auto sampling of discharge, grit removal and screening
(protecting the operation of the WPCP) and pH screening prior to release to the
WPCP. The septage /hauled waste station also benefits in the protection of the
environment. The septage station will provide for a more controlled and easily
documented discharge of hauled septage to the WPCP. The disposal of septage waste
has become more problematic and it is important for the protection of the local
environment that there is a safe and controlled location for the discharge of septage for
treatment.
5
There is a synergistic benefit derived from the combination of a septage receiving
station and a facility for the receiving and processing of high strength wastes to be
introduced to the anaerobic digesters to enhance the production of usable energy. Much
of the structure and piping layout will be usable for managing the introduction of high
strength organics and /or food residuals into the digesters to increase utilization of
digester space and maximize methane production for energy generation. The hauled
waste portion of this station provides access to the anaerobic digesters for the
introduction of high strength wastes and possibly other materials such as fats oil and
grease (FOG) and food residuals. The digesters which will be constructed in this project
will be less than 50% loaded based on design capacity and current projected loading.
This gives the opportunity to utilize the available space in the digesters for the
introduction of compatible high strength wastes into the digesters. This option provides
several environmental benefits; high strength material destined for the landfill or hauled
long distances for disposal which results in increased greenhouse gas production will
become food for energy production at the WPCP not only reducing GHG production at
the landfill but at the same time reducing the amount of energy purchased for the
operation of the WPCP. It will also be possible to more easily develop the option of
diverting food residuals from the landfill and instead of methane production being
released to the atmosphere methane can be captured in the digestion process and used
for energy production. The addition of food residuals into the digesters will require not
only the hauled waste portion of this alternative but also additional pumps and grinders
that are not included in this alternative.
• The ability to accept all of the food residuals collected is possible but in real
terms may not be a practical solution, however for the sake of putting digester
capacity in perspective we would have the capability of receiving into the
digesters 18.7 dry tons per day (approximately 67 wet tons) of food residuals in
addition to the bio- solids generated in the treatment process. A more likely
scenario would be the introduction of industrial /commercial high strength
organics along with some food residuals from commercial and institutional
sources. The current design would allow for the introduction of high strength
organics in a liquid or slurry form but additional investment would need to be
made in order to receive food residuals. The additional expense would be for
grinders, pumps and screening devices not currently in the design. In addition to
the projected $2.2 million for the cogen project, which is included in the project
budget but not yet designed or bid, the addition of these items would add
approximately $1.3 to $1.5 million dollars. Electrical generation from a fully
loaded digester with bio- solids and food residuals is in the order of 800 to 900kw.
The estimated electrical use for the new plant is in the order of 600 to 650kw
depending on the season.
The addition of the alternatives to the base bid results in a project cost as follows:
Base Bid $49,750,000
6
Impact of Plant Upgrade Alternates
on Sanitary Sewer Rates
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
Alternate 1B — Final Clarifiers
0%
0%
0%
0%
+1 %
0%
Alternate 2 — HPO System
0%
0%
0%
0%
-1 %
0%
Alternate 6 — Septage Receiving
0%
0%
0%
+1%
+1%
0%
Total Project (including alternates)
11%
15%
15%
16%
16%
3%
Impact of Plant Upgrade and
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Operating Budget on Sanitary
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Sewer Rates
0%
0%
+1%
+2%
+1%
0%
Base Bid
11%
15%
15%
15%
15%
3%
Alternate 1B — Final Clarifiers
0%
0%
0%
0%
+1%
0%
Impact of Microturbine System on
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Sanitary Sewer Rates
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Microturbine System
0%
0%
+1%
+2%
+1%
0%
Alt. 1B $216,128
Alt. 2 ($250,000)
Alt. 6 $791,200
Total Construction Cost $50,507,328
The following information on the projects impact on the sewer use rate structure is from
a separate memo from Budget Director Jenny Larson. The total projected cost for the
project including all design /construction services, contingencies, and alternatives is
$64,114,693. The impact on the sewer use rates for these improvements, including
alternatives is as follows:
*Operating increase in each year is estimated to be 3%
If authorization is given to proceed with converting the digester gas to energy, the initial
capital cost to install the energy conversion equipment is estimated at $2,200,000 with a
10% contingency of $220,000. Construction of a microturbine system to produce
energy is estimated to generate an energy savings in the amount of $236,000 annually,
beginning in Fiscal Year 2014. The system would pay for itself in ten years.
The following table shows the impact of the microturbine system on sewer usage fees:
There is a one -time energy rebate for the plant upgrade estimated to be received in
Fiscal Year 2014 for $350,000 net of cost.
If the base construction bid of $49,750,000 is approved, alternate 1 B, 2, 6, and the
microturbine system is included in the overall project, the total increase of sewer usage
fees is as follows:
7
Alternate 2 — HPO System
0%
0%
0%
0%
-1%
0%
Alternate 6 — Septage Receiving
0%
0%
0%
+1%
+1%
0%
Microturbine System
0%
0%
+1%
+2%
+1%
0%
Total Rate Increase of Plant
Upgrade
11%
15%
16%
18%
17%
3%
SUMMARY
Bids for the Water Pollution Control Plant Modifications were received and opened on
May 20, 2010. Seven bids were received with the firm of Miron Construction the
apparent low bidder at $49,750,000. The bid included the required bid bond for 5
percent and acknowledgement the bid addenda. Our design engineers of Strand
Associates has worked with Miron Construction on several projects and based on their
review of the bids and previous experience with Miron has recommend approval of the
contract. In addition to the base bid the following alternatives are also recommend for
inclusion in this project; Add alternate 1B for the addition of EDI equipment on the final
clarifiers for $216,128; deductive alternate 2 for the selection of Krueger for the
secondary treatment system process improvements at - $250,000; and add alternate 6
for the inclusion of the septage /hauled wastes receiving station at $791,200. The total
for construction of the project with alternatives is $50,507,328.
As discussed during facility planning the question is not whether we need to do
something but what is it we are going to do. Many portions of the Water Pollution
Control Plant are rapidly reaching the end of their useful life and must be repaired
and /or replaced. With the completion of this project we will have a facility which will
operate using much less energy and therefore is less susceptible to rising energy costs.
There will be a dramatic reduction in the use of hazardous chemicals which improves
the safety of plant staff, emergency responders and all citizens. The inclusion of flow
equalization in the project will greatly improve the plants ability to withstand rapid
increases of flow into the plant during rain events thereby reducing one of the main
components of past violations of the City of Dubuque's discharge permit.
The Water Pollution Control Plant upgrades support the following sustainability goals;
• Green Buildings
• Healthy Air
• Smart Energy Use
• Smart Resource Use
The time to move forward on the construction of the Water Pollution Control Plant
modifications and upgrades has come and I recommend that we begin the actual work
on improving this portion of the City of Dubuque's essential infrastructure.
8
ACTION REQUESTED
respectfully request that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute the contract with Miron Construction Co., Inc. of Cedar Rapids Iowa for the
base bid amount of $49,750,000 and also authorize the inclusion of bid alternatives 1 B,
2 and 6 for an additional amount of $757,418.
Attachments:
cc: Steve Brown, Project Manager
Jenny Larson, Budget Director
9
RESOLUTION NO. 218 -10
AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL PLANT MODIFICATIONS PROJECT
Whereas, sealed proposals have been submitted by contractors for the
Water Pollution Control Plant Modifications Project pursuant to Resolution No.
98 -10 and notice to bidders published in a newspaper published in the City of
Dubuque, Iowa on the 9 day of April, 2010.
Whereas, said sealed proposals were opened and read on the 20 day of
May, 2010, and it has been determined that the bid of Miron Construction
Company, Inc., of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in the amount of $49,750,000.00 was the
lowest bid for the furnishings of all labor and materials and performing the work
as provided for the plans and specification. In addition to the base bid alternates
1 B, 2, and 6 are also included for an additional amount of $757,328.00.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA:
That the contract for the above improvements be awarded to Miron
Construction Company, Inc. and the Manager be and is hereby directed to
execute a contract on behalf of the City of Dubuque for the complete
performance of the work.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That upon the signing of said contract and the approval of the contractor's
bond, the City Treasurer is authorized and instructed to return the bid deposits of
the unsuccessful bidders.
Attest:
Passed, approved and adopted this 21st flay of June , 2010.
Jeanne F. Schneider, CMC, City Clerk
/Li
Roy D. uol, Mayor
STRAND
ASSOCIATES. INC
E N G I N E E R S
910 West Wingra Drive
Madison, WI 53715
Phone: 608 - 251 -4843
Fax: 608 - 251 -8655
Office Locations
Madison, WI
Joliet, IL
Louisville, KY
Lexington, KY
Mobile, AL
Columbus, IN
Columbus, OH
Indianapolis, IN
Milwaukee, WI
Cincinnati, OH
Phoenix, AZ
www.strand.com
c :
June 9, 2010
Mr. Steve Sampson Brown
City of Dubuque
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Re: Water Pollution Control Plant Modifications
Contract 1 -2010
City of Dubuque, Iowa
Dear Steve,
Bids for the above - referenced project were opened on May 20, 2010. Seven bids were
received with the resulting bid tabulation enclosed. The low bid of $49,750,000 was less
than ENGINEER's opinion of probable construction cost.
Miron Construction Co., Inc. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa was the apparent low bidder at
$49,750,000. The bid included a bid bond for 5 percent and Addenda Nos. 1 through 3 were
acknowledged.
We have reviewed the supplemental unit prices; they appear reasonable and we recommend
approval.
Strand Associates, Inc. has previously worked with Miron Construction Co., Inc. on
projects for Rib Mountain Metropolitan Sewerage District, the City of Lake Mills, and the
Madison Water Utility, among other projects. Based on our previous experience with this
contractor, we have found Miron Construction Company, Inc. to be responsible.
We suggest that you consider evaluating Miron Construction Company, Inc.'s financial
status prior to award and other information submitted to you as required by Article 19.05.2
found in the Instructions to Bidders of the Contract Documents.
Sincerely,
STRAND ASSOCIATE ,INC.
Randall A. Wirtz, Ph.D
Senior Associate
Enclosure
Jonathan Brown, City of Dubuque
(-7 7/ 1 -6--y-trt-A-4t-;
Glenn W. Tranowski, P.E.
GW'raal\RAMADlDocuments\ Specifications\ Archive \201o\Dubuque, IA \1 -2010 1154.008.gwt\(17) Specification Letters\(a) Resulting Bid Tabulation Leller\060910.docx
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Jennifer Larson, Budget DirectorL
SUBJECT: Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade
INTRODUCTION
June 4, 2010
Dubuque
AI- America rtty
11111 !
2007
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with information on the impact on sewer
user fees due to the increased cost of the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade now that
construction bids have been received.
DISCUSSION
Strand Associates provided an initial estimate of the cost of the Water Pollution Control Plant
Upgrade of $56,704,071 which the five year CIP was originally based on. During the Fiscal
Year 2011 budget process, Strand Associates prepared a 90% cost estimate of $62,973,000,
which was an increase of $6,268,929 over what was originally budgeted for the plant
upgrade. This increase included construction phase engineering services of $5,100,000.
Strand Associates hired a firm to perform a constructability review of the 90% cost estimate.
Story Construction prepared the constructability review and determined that with a shortened
project schedule of two years and the current bidding environment, the 90% cost estimate
could be reduced by $7,700,000. The Fiscal Year 2011 adopted five year CIP for the Water
Pollution Control Plant Upgrade was budgeted for $55,273,000 based on this information.
On May 20, 2010 bids were opened for the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade. The
request for proposals required that the project be substantially complete by March 31, 2013,
which condensed the construction schedule from the budgeted three year schedule to two
years. The lowest bidder was $7,000,000 over the bid initiation estimated cost. The base
construction bids are as follows:
Miron
Bid Award
Actual -
To -Date
Base Construction
$49,750,000
$0
HAZMAT Removal*
$50,000
$0
Information Technology*
$21,537
$0
10% Contingency
$4,982,154
$0
Builders Risk Insurance*
$60,000
$0
Strand Engineering Fees
$3,006,300
$2,935,360
Construction Engineering Services
$5,100,000
$0
Eco Smart Engineering Fees*
$170,000
$189,959
Terracon Environmental Fees*
$5,000
$2,150
Story Construction Review Fees*
$54,000
$22,926.71
Allender Butzke Engineering Fees*
$50,067
$30,390.75
Tremco Engineering Fees*
$3,600
$3,600
Kandiyohi*
$13,584
$13,584.38
Parkson Corporation*
$12,640
$12,639.55
ROW Purchase /Appraisals*
$91,150
$11,788.00
City Engineering Fees*
$122,000
$60,810.40
Centrifuge Sale*
($20,000)
$0
Equipment Alternate Savings*
($130,000)
$0
Quantities Allowance Savings (10 %)*
($60,400)
$0
WPC Plant Upgrade Total Cost
$63,281,632
3,283,208.79
Miron
$49,750,000
Findorf
$51,949,000
William Brothers
$52,830,000
Rice Lake
$53,348,000
Conlon Construction
$53,749,000
IHC Construction
$54,661,000
FH Paschen
$55,961,000
The total cost of the Water Pollution Control Plant upgrade based on the bid award of the
lowest bidder is as follows:
* Costs not included in scope of original Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade CIP
($443,178)
• The low bid amount of $49,750,000 for base construction was submitted by Miron
Construction.
• The HAZMAT removal cost of $50,000 is related to the removal of asbestos and
mercury during construction.
• The information technology cost of $21,537 is for the purchase and installation of
audio visual equipment and fiber cabling in offices.
• The 10% contingency of $4,982,154 is recommended due to this being a renovation
project and the potential to discover unforeseen conditions during construction.
Discovery of unforeseen conditions in critical treatment processes could potentially
lead to more costly repairs. Similar wastewater treatment plant renovation projects
typically have a 2 % -3% actual contingency utilization.
• The cost of the standard insurance policy purchased for all city building construction
projects is $60,000.
• Strand is the primary engineer on this project that designed the plant at a cost of
$3,006,300 and also will perform construction administration services for the City at a
cost of $5,100,000.
• Eco Smart was hired at a cost of $170,000 to perform plant energy efficiency review,
assessment of renewable energy options, utility rebate processing and process the
ENERGY STAR rating for the plant.
• Terracon performed a limited phase I environmental review on the site to determine
the potential presence of hazardous materials for a cost of $5,000.
• Story Construction was hired to conduct a constructability review and provide an
estimate for the cost of the plant for a cost of $54,000.
• Allender Butzke is the geotechnical engineer for the project. They have provided
design services and will also provide geotechnical inspection services during
construction for a total cost of $50,067.
• Tremco took core samples of the existing building roof systems to determine the
remaining service life and provided design assistance for specifying the replacement
roofs for a total cost of $3,600.
• Kandiyohi was hired at a cost of $13,584 to create a comprehensive cash flow
analysis to determine the viability of the considered biogas, solar and wind renewable
energy systems.
• Parkson Corporation was hired at a cost of $12,640 to test the new sludge drying
equipment to make sure that it worked with the injected chemical polymer used by the
Water Pollution Control Plant.
• A small portion of land along the west side of the plant was purchased from Inland
Protein for $91,150 to support the expanded footprint of the new plant.
• The Engineering Department recharges of $122,000 are for the design and
construction phases of the project.
• Surplus equipment salvage value for the sale of the centrifuge is estimated to be
$20,000.
• As part of the bidding process, the contractors were allowed to list alternate equipment
that if selected would provide a deduction to the submitted base construction bid. It is
estimated that there will be a cost reduction of $130,000 for alternative equipment
selected from the lowest bidder.
• There is a $604,000 allowance included in the base construction bid price budgeted to
address unknown quantities of work. Ten percent (10 %) of this allowance is estimated
to not be needed on this project.
The estimated total cost of the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade based on the lowest
bidder and including additional known cost and savings is $63,281,632. This includes costs of
$443,178 not included in the scope of the original CIP for various consultant engineering
Impact of Plant Upgrade and Operating
Budget on Sanitary Sewer Rates
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY10 Adopted CIP $56,704,071
11%
13%
14%
16%
13%
11%
FY11 Adopted CIP $55,273,000
9%
11%
13%
15%
12%
12%
Actual CIP Amount $63,281,632
11%
15%
15%
15%
15%
3%
fees. The total estimated cost of $63,281,632 is $8,008,632 over what was adopted in the
five year CIP for the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade in Fiscal Year 2011.
The City has previously budgeted for 20 year State Revolving Loan Fund debt for the Water
Pollution Control Plant Upgrade. The State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program allows a
weighted loan term to be used based on the average useful life of all the components of the
project. Strand has completed a draft of the weighted loan term for the plant upgrade and the
average useful life of the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade is estimated to be 26 years.
Tracy Scebold, Iowa Finance Authority State Revolving Fund Manager, has reviewed the
draft weighted loan term and has agreed that 26 years is an appropriate weighted loan term.
The debt service payments are now estimated over 26 years rather than 20 years, allowing
lower annual debt service cost and a more gradual sewer user rate increase structure. The
additional six years added to the debt issuance reduces the rate increase 4% in FY11; 4% in
FY12; 4% in FY13; 3% in FY14 and 1% in FY15.
For the remainder of calendar year 2010, the SRF program is allowing larger communities to
issue Build America Bonds (BABs) instead of tax - exempt bonds, which offers an interest
subsidy reducing the interest rate from 3.25% to 1.95 %. The Build America Bonds are limited
to $20 million with a loan term of 20 years. The City will not take advantage of the Build
America Bonds due to the limited 20 year term and the uncertainty if draw -downs on the loan
after December 31, 2010 will be eligible for the federal subsidy payments because each draw
might be considered a separate "bond" under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA). If the City issued $20 million in BABs, the sanitary sewer rate in FY12 would be 2%
higher than if all of the project cost was issued as a 26 year SRF loan.
The following table shows the impact of the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade and
operating budget on sewer usage fees from the initial cost estimate to the final cost estimate:
*Operating increase in each year is estimated to be 3°
In addition to the base construction cost, there are several alternates that are considered
critical to the plant upgrade project. These alternates are as follows:
Bid Award
Alternate 1B — Final Clarifiers
$216,128
Alternate 2 — HPO System
- $250,000
Alternate 6 — Septage Receiving
$791,200
10% Contingency on Alternates
$75,733
Total Alternate Cost
$833,061
fees. The total estimated cost of $63,281,632 is $8,008,632 over what was adopted in the
five year CIP for the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade in Fiscal Year 2011.
The City has previously budgeted for 20 year State Revolving Loan Fund debt for the Water
Pollution Control Plant Upgrade. The State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program allows a
weighted loan term to be used based on the average useful life of all the components of the
project. Strand has completed a draft of the weighted loan term for the plant upgrade and the
average useful life of the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade is estimated to be 26 years.
Tracy Scebold, Iowa Finance Authority State Revolving Fund Manager, has reviewed the
draft weighted loan term and has agreed that 26 years is an appropriate weighted loan term.
The debt service payments are now estimated over 26 years rather than 20 years, allowing
lower annual debt service cost and a more gradual sewer user rate increase structure. The
additional six years added to the debt issuance reduces the rate increase 4% in FY11; 4% in
FY12; 4% in FY13; 3% in FY14 and 1% in FY15.
For the remainder of calendar year 2010, the SRF program is allowing larger communities to
issue Build America Bonds (BABs) instead of tax - exempt bonds, which offers an interest
subsidy reducing the interest rate from 3.25% to 1.95 %. The Build America Bonds are limited
to $20 million with a loan term of 20 years. The City will not take advantage of the Build
America Bonds due to the limited 20 year term and the uncertainty if draw -downs on the loan
after December 31, 2010 will be eligible for the federal subsidy payments because each draw
might be considered a separate "bond" under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA). If the City issued $20 million in BABs, the sanitary sewer rate in FY12 would be 2%
higher than if all of the project cost was issued as a 26 year SRF loan.
The following table shows the impact of the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade and
operating budget on sewer usage fees from the initial cost estimate to the final cost estimate:
*Operating increase in each year is estimated to be 3°
In addition to the base construction cost, there are several alternates that are considered
critical to the plant upgrade project. These alternates are as follows:
Impact of Plant Upgrade Alternates on
Sanitary Sewer Rates
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
Alternate 1B — Final Clarifiers
0%
0%
0%
0%
+1%
0%
Alternate 2 — HPO System
0%
0%
0%
0%
-1%
0%
Alternate 6 — Septage Receiving
0%
0%
0%
+1%
+1 %
0%
Net Impact If All Three Alternates Selected
0%
0%
0%
+1%
+1%
0%
Impact of Microturbine System on
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Sanitary Sewer Rates
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Microturbine System
0%
0%
+1%
+2%
+1%
0%
• Construction Bid Alternate 1B —This for the energy dissipating inlets (EDI)
modifications for the final clarifiers. The plant improvements include over $1.8 million
dollars for excess flow management, the use of EDI is the final defense against solids
carryover from the final clarifiers which may lead to permit violations. The EDI are a
series of baffles which will help absorb some of the hydraulic energy into the clarifiers
during periods of high flow into the plant, this will lower the incoming velocity of the
water which will allow for better performance during high flow events.
• Construction Bid Alternate 2 - This is for aeration equipment for the secondary system.
The base bid was for M2T mixers and technologies and the alternate is for
Krueger. We currently use Krueger's technology with satisfaction and feel comfortable
reducing the base bid for this alternate. The aeration system is approximately $5.7
million in total.
• Construction Bid Alternate 6 — This alternate is for the septage receiving station. This
item is important for the controlled input of wastestreams into the plant delivered by
truck or tanker. The users will be controlled by permit and electronic user cards and
the system will protect the plant from uncontrolled amounts of grit and debris. Much of
the structure and piping layout will also be usable for managing the introduction of high
strength organics and /or food residuals into the digestors to increase utilization of
digestor space and maximize methane production for energy generation.
The following table shows the impact of the alternates on sewer usage fees:
If authorization is given to proceed with converting the digester gas to energy, the initial
capital cost to install the energy conversion equipment is estimated at $2,200,000 with a 10%
contingency of $220,000. Construction of a microturbine system to produce energy is
estimated to generate an energy savings in the amount of $236,000 annually, beginning in
Fiscal Year 2014. The system would pay for itself in ten years.
The following table shows the impact of the microturbine system on sewer usage fees:
There is a one -time energy rebate for the plant upgrade estimated to be received in Fiscal
Year 2014 for $350,000 net of cost.
Impact of Plant Upgrade and Operating
Budget on Sanitary Sewer Rates
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
Base Bid
11%
15%
15%
15%
15%
3%
Alternate 1B — Final Clarifiers
0%
0%
0%
0%
+1%
0%
Alternate 2 — HPO System
0%
0%
0%
0%
-1%
0%
Alternate 6 — Septage Receiving
0%
0%
0%
+1%
+1%
0%
Microturbine System
0%
0%
+1%
+2%
+1%
0%
Total Rate Increase of Plant Upgrade
11%
15%
16%
18%
17%
3%
If the base construction bid of $49,750,000 is approved, alternate 1 B, 2, 6, and the
microturbine system is included in the overall project, the total increase of sewer usage fees
is as follows:
Over the next 6 years, if all the alternates and the microturbine system are included in the
project, the sanitary sewer rates will increase an average of 13.33% a year to pay for normal
operating budget items and the debt required to build the new Water Pollution Control Plant.
The 11% increase in the sanitary sewer rate in FY 2011 will increase the monthly bill for the
average homeowner (800 cubic feet or 5,984 gallons per month) from $18.96 to $21.04
($2.08).
ACTION STEP
The additional cost of the Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade project, additional sewer
revenues due to the increased rate increase, and increased amount of the State Revolving
Loan Fund borrowing will be included in the first budget amendment in Fiscal Year 2011.
am recommending that resolution number 15 -10 amending the City of Dubuque code of
ordinances sections 13- 2C -3(B) and 13- 2C- 3(C)(7) establishing basic sewer rates for
residential and commercial users by increasing the sewer rates be rescinded and the
attached proposed ordinance to increase the sanitary sewer rates 11% be approved by City
Council for adoption with an effective date of July 1, 2010.
JML
CC: Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Jonathan Brown, Water Pollution Control Plant Manager
Ken TeKippe, Finance Director
Steve Sampson- Brown, Project Manager
Attachment
ORDINANCE NO. 32 -10
AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBUQUE CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTIONS 13 -2C-
3(B) AND 13- 2C- 3(C)(7) ESTABLISHING BASIC SEWER RATES FOR
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USERS BY INCREASING THE RATES
Attest:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA:
Section 1. Section 13- 2C -3(B) of the City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances is
amended to read as follows:
Section 13- 2C -3(B) Schedule of Rates:
Rates per each one hundred (100) cubic feet .....$2.63
Rate per each gallon $ .00352
Section 2. Section 13- 2C- 3(C)(7) of the City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances is
amended to read as follows:
Where the quantity of water consumed is such that the minimum of service is
charged, the minimum sewer service charge, according to the size of the meter,
shall be as follows:
Meter Size Minimum Allowance Allowance
(inches) Charge (cubic feet) (gallons)
5/8 $ 5.26 200 1,496
3/4 $ 13.15 500 3,740
1 or larger $ 21.04 800 5,984
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2010.
Passed, approved and adopted this 21 day of June, 2010.
eanne Schneider, City Clerk
Roy D/: uol, Mayor