PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2007

ENGINEERING FIRM INTERVIEWS

FOR DESIGN OF

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION

1:00 P.M.

Mr. Sabatino requested the following comments be added to these minutes:

These minutes are different than those typically presented. Due to unintended circumstances this meeting was not recorded and although notification was given, it fell a few hours short of the required 24 hours  in advance.

These minutes were compiled 7 months after the conclusion of the meeting as a result of an information request. Because of these unintended circumstances there are no references to reflect the words spoken during the 3.5 hour meeting. What follows represents the presentations by the 3 Engineering firms compiled from notes taken of same presentations. This does not represent The City of Pickerington typical handling of meeting minutes but considering the circumstances is the best good faith effort that can be provided in view of the unintended circumstances.

Service Committee at their November 19, 2007, Regular Meeting requested the following comments by Ms Gilleland, City Manager, be included in these minutes:

Ms Gilleland stated she had received the requested language only this afternoon and she had forwarded it to the law director for review, and she was not sure if he had the opportunity to do that as yet. Ms Gilleland stated since she has not heard from the law director on the appropriateness of it, she was hesitant to add the comments. She further stated, in addition, the wording was not entirely correct in stating that there were no references to reflect the words spoken during the 3.5 hour meeting. Ms Gilleland stated she would suggest something more like, “The actual dialogue was not recorded, however, some questions and answers were included.” She stated she felt the statement that there was “…no reference to reflect any of the words spoken…” is not exactly accurate.

Ms Gilleland opened the meeting at approximately 1:00 P.M., with the following persons present: Judy Gilleland, Jeff Fix, Cristie Hammond, Ted Hackworth, Mike Sabatino, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, David Jackson, and Kent Sanderson. Ms Gilleland stated the three firms to be interviewed were Burgess & Niple, MS Consultants, and DLZ/Brown & Caldwell.

Notes taken by Brenda VanCleave from the interview of each firm are attached to these minutes as Attachment 1 along with a note sheet from Judy Gilleland. Each consultant was asked to provide a 30 minute presentation followed by a 15 minute question and answer period. The consultants were asked to present on the following points:

· Comment on the Malcolm Pirnie technical memorandum;

· Walk through the statements of qualifications they submitted;

· Provide any special values they can provide to the project; and,

· Provide us a tentative project schedule.

The team of DLZ and Brown and Caldwell presented first at 1 pm. Representing the team was David Day, David Hague, Shannon Markham, and Alex Grebelsky. The main points the team presented included:

· Concern over Columbus’s multimillion dollar sanitary upgrades going on at the same time and how that project may skew the costs of our project. Offered early involvement of contractors to offset this concern;

· Wanted to staff to be involved from start to finish. This includes the team listening to the needs of operators and administrators;

· Wanted to provide a project that would provide the proper balance between capital costs and long term operation and maintenance costs;

· Felt that dissolved oxygen meters in the aeration tanks was something our plant needed;

· The team focused on the City’s concerns that were mentioned at the plant walk through conducted earlier with City Staff;

· Stated our pump station required a minimum flow rate of 15 mgd, which was something not presented by Malcolm Pirnie;

· Suggested using a self-cleaning grit/screen system to reduce longterm maintenance costs. Malcolm Pirnie’s technical memorandum did not provide for any grit removal changes;

· Suggested that adding additional aeration tanks would be more cost effective than elongated tanks;

· Stated OEPA requires 2 tertiary filters; which they were going to provide as part of the design;

· The team felt that Malcolm Pirnie’s estimate of $8.8 million was possible;

· The team agreed with Malcolm Pirnie’s suggestions for the UV disinfection system and digesters; however, did not think that additional blowers would be necessary;

· Seeing how DLZ designed the 1996 wastewater plant, the team would use the original design personnel which would eliminate costs lost to becoming familiar with the facility;

· Plan to involve OEPA early on to make sure the upgrade meets all requirements and standards;

· They stated that they could meet the City’s tight schedule;

· Offered FTP access to design documents to City Staff;

· Promised they could provide a product within budget and on time that would be operator friendly.

· They would talk to the client to contain costs;

· They felt the schedule was do-able if they met early with Ohio EPA. There was some concern with the amount of construction going on with Columbus’s program with respect to getting a good contractor in a timely matter;

· Would like to eliminate bypass flow during construction;

· When asked what involvement they had with Columbus’s program, DLZ stated they were working on collection systems and Brown and Caldwell were designing the Southerly Plant’s clarifiers as a subcontractor to Burgess and Niple; and,

· Stated they would talk to contractors to determine constructability.

The ms consultants presented 2 pm and were represented by Tom Mosure, Ken Ricker, and Fred Smith. The main points the team presented included:

· Offering grant funding for innovation;

· Our plant would be similar to the Nine Mile Plant in Clermont County that they designed;

· They have personnel on staff with previous OEPA and USEPA experience;

· They focused on the need for easy construction;

· Wanted to use a different type of aeration system that would provide an energy savings and would produce less sludge;

· Wanted to focus on an expansion that would offer ease of use to the operators;

· Would reuse the existing wet well at the influent pump station and would replace the existing pumps with larger pumps that had variable frequency drives (VFDs);

· They would add a stainless steel rail to the wet well for ease of getting the pumps out;

· Would provide a new channel, screen and grit press, and cyclone grit classifier to the headworks;

· Offered the idea of using a Carrousel oxidation ditch for the aeration system that would reduce sludge production by 33%. It would also provide a reduction in the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus;

· Would use VFDs in the clarifiers;

· Would replace the tertiary filters with Parkson Dynasand continuous backwash sand filters;

· Was of the opinion that fuzzy filters were less reliable than the above suggested sand filters;

· Proposed no new digesters;

· Suggested relocating the sludge drying beds;

· Wanted to add a cannibal system;

· Felt that the important factors in their design would be operator expectations, vendors, field visits to other plants for Staff to see other technologies, and funding assistance;

· Suggested a construction schedule between July 2008 and November 2009 which could be accelerated;

· Stated that the total amount of bypass pumping at the influent pump station would amount to one week;

· Felt they could beat the budget, provide time and cost savings by involving OEPA early in the design; and,

· If they would change the process to extended aeration, they would reuse the existing tanks and remove the baffles.

The Burgess and Niple presented at 3 pm and were representing by Ron Dickerson, Vance Martin, Patrick Eiden, and Bernie Bouman. The main points the team presented included:

· 80 percent of all of the firms projects come from repeat clients;

· They have experience with design/build projects;

· Stated that Malcolm Pirnie’s technical memorandum lacked detail and did not address the plant’s permitting issues;

· Stated concern over OEPA’s recent Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study for the Big Walnut which may impact the loading the City’s wastewater plant could discharge;

· Felt that no antidegredation addendum to the City’s NPDES permit would be required;

· Stated that Malcolm Pirnie’s technical memorandum did not address constructability;

· Stated that the location proposed by Malcolm Pirnie for the clarifiers would require a 25 foot excavation which would add to the construction cost of the project;

· They did not like the proposed 110 ft extension to the aeration tanks;

· Other new suggestions by Burgess and Niple included an expanded grit removal channel, a post aeration tank expansion, miscellaneous equipment replacement, and new electronics, instrumentation, and controls;

· They would not use any subcontractors;

· Were “available to hit the ground running”;

· Pat was involved with the Zande expansion plan as a project engineer;

· Proposed site layout diagram showed final clarifiers in same location as what Malcolm Pirnie suggested;

· Offered a separate pump station for maintenance flexibility;

· Ran out of time for presentation;

· Did not address standby power, project cost/funding, stormwater, and project schedule;

· Stated they could add value to the project by energy management to reduce utility bills;

· Would use VFDs; and

· Stated that if the City had to go through the antidegredation process, it would add 11 months to design.

Staff and Council members rated each firm. The summary of these ratings is attached as Attachment 2 to these minutes, along with each individual’s rating sheet.

Attachment 3 is a spreadsheet provided by MS Consultants, and Attachment 4 is a copy of the presentation by Burgess and Niple.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:30 P.M., February 23, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________________

Brenda VanCleave, Staff Engineer