Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-18-15 City Administration Committee Meeting Agenda
CA Meeting City Administration Committee DATE: March 18, 2015 TIME: 6:00 pm LOCATION: 3rd Floor, City Hall, Council Chambers AGENDA ITEMS Item Voting Item? Presenter(s) Time Allotted Acting Chair, Donna Fleming 1. Call To Order * Note: We will review the number of 15 Min* 1.1 Agenda Review No cards received at the beginning of each 1.2 Review and Approval of Minutes Yes meeting and adjust time if needed. Approval of February 2015 Minutes 1.3 Statements from the Public No 1.4 Statements from Employees No 1.5 Council Response No 2. City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy Nothing Submitted 3. Finance, Budget, and Appropriations 3.1 DPW – Recommendation to Fund Cemetery Yes Tom West, Director of Engineering 5 Min Wall Repair 3.2 DPW – Authorization for Additional Funding Yes Tom West, Director of Engineering 5 Min for Stewart Park Large Pavilion Bathroom Restoration, Capital Project #817 3.3 DPW – Reallocation of Chief WWTP Operator Yes Erik Whitney, Asst. Supt for W&S 5Min Position 3.4 DPW – Establishment of Capital Project for Yes Erik Whitney, Asst. Supt for W&S 5 Min “Dam Safety Project” 60-Ft. Dam 4. Performance Measures No Kevin Sutherland, Chief of Staff 5 Min Nothing Submitted 5. Common Council 5.1 Rules of Procedure No All 20 Min 6. Budget Process 6.1 Summary of Budget Survey No Kevin Sutherland, Chief of Staff 5 Min 6.2 Budget Process No All 15 Min 7. Meeting Wrap-up All 5 Min 7.1 Announcements No 7.2 Next Meeting Date: April 15th 7.3 Review Agenda Items for Next Meeting No 7.4 Adjourn Yes (7:45 p.m.) Committee Charge: The CA committee will: Review financial and administrative issues pertaining to the City, along with items relating to the City of Ithaca workforce environment, intergovernmental relations and human resources. If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Controller’s Office at 607-274-6576 at least 48 hours before the meeting. 3. Finance, Budget, and Appropriations .1 DPW - Recommendation to Fund Cemetery Wall Repair WHEREAS, the Ithaca City Cemetery was first established circa 1790 on land owned by New York Surveyor General Simeon DeWitt, includes over 7700 graves, evolved from an informal burial ground into a planned, landscaped municipal cemetery, and WHEREAS, the cemetery was named Silvan Hill in 1872, became the City Cemetery when Ithaca was incorporated in 1888, and is a significant historic resource worthy of – and in need of – preservation, and WHEREAS, a recent vehicular collision with the perimeter wall near the University Avenue entrance along with the passage of time have resulted in a need for repairs to the wall at two locations, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca General Fund has $32,000 encumbered for the work, which includes $31,000 from the driver’s automobile insurance company, and WHEREAS, The City Engineer’s Office received two price quotes for the required specialized repairs, and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed and recommended the low quote submitted by Buzz Dolph of Ithaca Stone Setting of $35,250 for the primary work location and $3,750 for the secondary work location, and WHEREAS, the $7,000 additional funds needed for the wall project can be derived from Unrestricted Contingency, which currently has a $131,000 balance, and WHEREAS, staff has provided project information to the Historic Preservation Planner, City Forester, Parks Commission, and other interested parties and has received positive interest and no objections to the work; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby authorizes an allocation of an amount not to exceed $39,000 from the General Fund for the Cemetery Wall Repair, and be it further RESOLVED, That sources of funds for the wall repair shall be derived from $32,000 in encumbered funds and $7,000 from the transfer of funds to A7111-5475 Parks and Forestry Property Maintenance from A1990 Unrestricted Contingency. J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\3-18 - Agenda.docx 3/18/15 3. Finance, Budget, and Appropriations 2. DPW - Authorization for Additional Funding for Stewart Park Large Pavilion Bathroom Restoration, Capital Project #817 WHEREAS, Common Council established Capital Project #817 for the purpose of restoring the bathrooms in the large pavilion at Stewart Park at its January 7, 2015, regular meeting, and WHEREAS, the project was established at $78,000 based on the engineering cost estimates at the time with sources of funds to include Friends of Stewart Park of $20,000; Town of Ithaca Recreation Facility Funding of $28,000, and Capital Reserve #11 Parks of $30,000, and WHEREAS, the public bathrooms located in the large pavilion are integrally part of public rentals of the pavilion as well as indispensible facilities for Youth Bureau activities scheduled in the large pavilion, and WHEREAS, the condition of the building structure and the bathroom plumbing is severely deteriorated to the point of failure, and WHEREAS, bids were received for the purpose of restoring the bathrooms in the large pavilion at Stewart Park on March 3, 2015, and WHEREAS, award of contract to the lowest qualified bidder will require an additional $48,000, and WHEREAS, the additional funds needed shall be derived from Capital Reserve # 11 Parks, which currently has a balance of $148,000; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project #817 by an amount not to exceed $48,000 for a total project authorization of $126,000, and be it further RESOLVED, That the $48,000 in funds necessary for said project amendment shall be derived from Capital Reserve #11 Parks. J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\3-18 - Park Reso.docx 3/18/15 To: City Administration Committee From: Tom West, Director of Engineering Date: March 6, 2015 Re: Request for Additional Funding, CP 817, Stewart Park Bathroom Restoration On March 3, 2015, bids were opened for the Stewart Park Large Pavilion Bathroom Restoration, Capital Project #817. In order to award the contract for construction to the lowest qualified bidder the budget requires an additional $48,000. ________________________________________________________________ This project will restore the public bathrooms in the large pavilion. These bathrooms are important to the public and to those who rent the facilities for events. The bathrooms are essential to the safe and healthy functioning of the Youth Bureau summer programs which are centered on the large pavilion. Beyond the merits of the project, there are strong reasons the City should move forward with this project. • Although only two bids were received, staff had reached out directly to at least 11 local contractors to solicit interest in the project. • The project was bid at a good time of year to maximize the opportunities to have the work scheduled at the most competitive prices; I have no reason to believe that re- bidding the project will generate more interest or reduce bid prices. • There is not very much that can be eliminated from the project to reduce costs. The finishes and fixtures specified, although durable, are not “gold plated”. Attached is the bid tabulation showing the bidder and bid prices, a budget summary showing the current status of the budget and the shortfall and a resolution authorizing additional funding. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 327-0710 or tomw@cityofithaca.org. Thank you. BUDGET Stewart Park - Bathroom Restoration CP #817 tww 3/6/2015 Pre-Bid Post-Bid CommittmentsCommittments Budget Budget Expended Remaining PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Architect $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Reimbursibles $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Geotech / Survey $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Contingency 10.0%$0 $0 check $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS McPherson $78,000.00 $124,958 $0 $124,958 Contract 2 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 Contract 3 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 DPW - labor $0.00 $0 $0 $0 DPW - materials $0.00 $0 $0 $0 contingency 0.0%$0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%check $78,000 $124,958 $0 $124,958 $124,958.00 IN-HOUSE Inspection $0 $0 $0 $0 Owner's rep.$0 $0 $0 Finance 1.0%$780 $1,250 $0 $1,250 Attorney $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous reimbursibles $0 $0 $0 $0 check $780 $1,250 $0 $1,250 $1,249.58 TOTAL $78,780 $126,208 $0 $126,208 $126,208 SOURCES Total Funding......................................................................................................................... City Parks Reserve $30,000 Town of Ithaca $28,000 TC Tourism $20,000 Total Funding......................................................................................................$0 $78,000 Total Committments expended and remaining + Proposed...................................................$126,208 Remaining funds...............................................................................................................($48,207.58) BID TABULATION McPherson Builders, Inc. CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK 129 West Falls Street DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Ithaca, NY 14850 BID FOR: STEWART PARK LARGE PAVILION BATHROOM RESTORATION PH (607) 273-2373 FAX (607) 273-4908 OPENING: MARCH 3, 2015 2:00PM jerry.stevenson@mcphersonbuilders.com ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT COST EXTENSION UNIT COST EXTENSION 1 BASE BID - GENERAL CONSTRUCTION BATHROOM RESTORATION $124,958.00 $146,000.00 Addendum YES YES Bid Security BOND BOND Streeter Associates, Inc. 101 East Woodlawn Avenue P.O. Box 118 Elmira, NY 14902-0118 PH (607) 734-4151 streeter@streeterassociates.com 3. Finance, Budget, and Appropriations .3 DPW - Reallocation of Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Position WHEREAS, the Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator requested a review of his position pursuant to the terms of the City Executive Association labor contract, and WHEREAS, the review determined that a permanent and material growth in the position’s responsibilities has occurred, and WHEREAS, the Civil Service Commission revised the Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator job description at their January 21, 2015, meeting, to reflect the increase in responsibilities, and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department reviewed the point factor evaluation of the Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator position and determined that the growth in responsibilities merits an increased point factor rating, which results in the reallocation of the position to a higher salary grade; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the position of Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator be reallocated from Grade B to Grade A of the City Executive Association Compensation Plan, and be it further RESOLVED, That funding in the amount of not to exceed $4,739 to cover this salary increase retroactive to January 21, 2015, shall be derived with a transfer from J1990-5000 Unrestricted Contingency to Account J8150-5105 Admin Salary. J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\3-18 - Agenda.docx 3/18/15 Reallocation of Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Position Valerie Saul Sent:Friday, January 23, 2015 3:28 PM To:Michael Thorne; Erik Whitney Cc:Schelley Michell-Nunn; Dan Ramer; Steve Thayer; Jared Pittman; Kevin Sutherland; Svante Myrick Categories:Red Category Attachments:Reallocation of Position -~1.doc (24 KB) Hi Mike and Erik, We have completed our point factor analysis of the Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator position, and have determined that the current responsibilities of the position merit its placement in Grade A (the top grade) of the City Executive Association Compensation Plan. Pursuant to the labor contract, this reallocation would provide an 8% increase to Dan, and would increase his current salary of $62,582 to $67,589. Please keep in mind that these are 2011 salaries, as the City Executive Association contract has not yet been renegotiated. We expect that these salaries will increase upon settlement of the contract. Additionally, this reallocation is based on the existing point factor plan, as the Executive Association has not moved forward with negotiating the implementation of the Executive Association Compensation Study. In the even t that the proposed compensation study does eventually move forward, we will re-evaluate the Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator position using the new point factor system at that time. I have attached a resolution that will implement th e reallocation of the Chief Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator position. You will need to add the information about the funding source, then submit the resolution to the City Administration Committee. Please also feel free to add additional information about your operation if you feel it's useful and appropriate. Thanks, Val 1 of 1 2/25/2015 9:21 AM 3. Finance, Budget, and Appropriations .4 DPW – Establishment of Capital Project for “Dam Safety Project” for the Potter’s Falls (60-Ft.) Dam WHEREAS, the first of the engineering contracts to replace our existing Water Treatment Plant was signed on September 24, 1996, and the second was signed on December 9, 2005, and the new Dam Safety Regulations (6NYS CRR Part 673) went into effect August 19, 2009 causing the existing Water Supply Projects to coincide in time with the newly mandated Dam Safety Projects, and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2009, the Board of Public Works (BPW) authorized the Water & Sewer Division of the Department of Public Works (DPW) to solicit proposals for preparing Engineering Assessments, updating Emergency Action Plans, and updating Operations and Maintenance manuals for both the 30-Foot & 60-Foot Dams to ensure the City’s compliance with the new Dam Safety Regulations, and WHEREAS, the City received proposals from 9 Professional Engineering Firms on April 9, 2009, and the BPW with supporting documentation from Staff awarded the work to C.T. Male Associates for an amount not to exceed $118,217, to be funded from existing Capital Project 510, the Water Supply Project funds, and WHEREAS, as part of the permitting process for our Water Supply Project the City received a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that identified several remaining gaps in the Engineering Assessment for the 60-foot dam, and WHEREAS, the DPW staff requested O’Brien & Gere review the DEC’s letter and submit a proposal to the City to address the DEC’s concerns with the 60-foot Dam, and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2013, O’Brien & Gere submitted a proposal for Sixty Foot Dam- Outstanding EA Tasks, and on July 22, 2013, the BPW resolved unanimously to accept the proposal in an amount not to exceed $27,000.00 with funds to be obtained from contingencies in the existing Capital Project #510, and WHEREAS, O’Brien & Gere provided the Supplemental Engineering Assessment Sixty Foot Dam on February 24, 2014, to both the City and the DEC, and in follow up meeting with NYSDEC on September 10, 2014, DEC requested a schedule for completion of the Dam Safety upgrades, and WHEREAS, the DPW staff requested O’Brien & Gere prepare and submit a proposal for the Sixty Foot Dam Safety Upgrades – Design and Construction Phase Services along with a overview presentation of the Sixty Foot Dam Engineering Assessment for the BPW, O’Brien & Gere made the presentation to the BPW on February 9, 2015, and WHEREAS, preliminary estimates for the complete Dam Safety Project Costs for the Sixty Foot Dam are projected to be approximately $4 million. More detailed structural inspection, J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\3-18 - Agenda.docx 3/18/15 geotechnical investigation, and final design are needed to refine construction estimates for project, and WHEREAS, the February 3, 2015, proposal for Sixty Foot Dam Safety Upgrades – Design and Construction Phase Services from O’Brien & Gere include estimates for Detailed Structural Inspection = $7,000.00, Geotechnical Investigation = $35,000.00, Design Development = $18,000.00, and Final Design = $68,000.00, totaling $128,000.00, and WHEREAS, the budget for Capital Project #510, the City’s Water Treatment Plant improvements did not include funds for the NYSDEC mandated Dam Safety Improvements, and WHEREAS, a new Capital Project will need to be established for the Dam Safety Design to allow for the continued progress of work within schedule for compliance with the understanding additional funds will be needed in 2016 once we have a solid cost estimate for the Dam Safety Improvements; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project #527 Dam Safety Improvements in an amount not to exceed $128,000 for the purposes of engineering for Dam Safety Upgrades to the 60-foot Dam, and be it further RESOLVED, That funds necessary for the NYSDEC mandated Dam Safety Improvements will be derived from a Capital Reserve #16 Water Sources Development transfer to Capital Project #527 Dam Safety Improvements. J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\3-18 - Agenda.docx 3/18/15 © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e Si x t y F o o t D a m En g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e n t Ri c k G e l l , P E , B o b B o w e r s , P E & S t e v e S n i d e r , P E Mo n d a y , F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 1 5 © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e Wh y ? 6 N Y S C R R P a r t 6 7 3 , D a m S a f e t y R e g u l a t i o n s – E f f e c t i ve D a t e : A u g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 . “6 7 3 . 1 3 E n g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e n t s . (a ) T h e o w n e r o f a d a m t h a t h a s b e e n a s s i g n e d a H a z ar d C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Cl a s s " B " o r " C " s h a l l p e r f o r m E n g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e nt s o n a r e g u l a r b a s i s , a s is s e t f o r t h i n t h i s s u b s e c t i o n . (c ) A l l E n g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e n t s s h a l l b e p e r f o r m e d on b e h a l f o f t h e o w n e r by a p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r , w h o s h a l l d o c u m e n t t h e re s u l t s o f t h e i n s p e c t i o n in a n E n g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e n t R e p o r t , w h i c h s h a l l b e s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d b y th e p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r . 2 © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e Wh y ? (e ) U n l e s s a s h o r t e r t i m e f r a m e i s i m p o s e d b y t h e d ep a r t m e n t i n t h e in t e r e s t o f p u b l i c s a f e t y b a s e d o n t h e a s s i g n m e n t o f a C o n d i t i o n R a t i n g o f "u n s a f e " o r " u n s o u n d " i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 6 7 3. 1 6 o f t h i s P a r t , the sc h e d u l e f o r s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e f i r s t E n g i n e e r i n g A s se s s m e n t R e p o r t is a s f o l l o w s . (1 ) L a r g e C l a s s " C " D a m s . F o r d a m s t h a t h a v e b e e n a ss i g n e d a H a z a r d Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n o f C l a s s " C " a s o f t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s P a r t , t h e f i r s t En g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e n t R e p o r t sh a l l b e s u b m i t t e d w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s of t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s P a r t i f t h e d a m i s a La r g e C l a s s " C " d a m , w h i c h sh a l l m e a n t h e d a m e i t h e r h a s a h e i g h t g r e a t e r t h a n o r e q u a l t o 4 0 f e e t or i m p o u n d s 1 0 0 0 a c r e - f e e t o r m o r e a t n o r m a l w a t e r su r f a c e . 3 Si x t y F o o t D a m i s a C l a s s “ C ” , H i g h h a z a r d d a m w h e r e t h e r e i s pr o b a b l e l o s s o f l i f e s h o u l d i t f a i l . (d ) A n E n g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e n t s h a l l b e p e r f o r m e d , a nd a n E n g i n e e r i n g As s e s s m e n t R e p o r t s u b m i t t e d t o t h e D a m S a f e t y S e c t i on , a t a m i n i m u m fr e q u e n c y o f e v e r y 1 0 y e a r s f o r d a m s t h a t h a v e b e e n a s s i g n e d a H a z a r d Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n o f C l a s s " B " o r " C " . © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e 4 HI S T O R Y Th e C i t y C o u n c i l d e c i d e d t o a d d r e s s t h e d a m s a f e t y ef f o r t s a s a s e p a r a t e pr o j e c t . En g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e n t , C T M a l e , 8 / 2 2 / 1 2 . Th e C T M a l e r e p o r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a l l o f t h e p r e v i o us s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s e s ha v e “ s h o r t c o m i n g s t h a t c a l l i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i di t y o f t h e r e s u l t s ” . CT M a l e r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t “ t h e s t a b i l i t y o f t h e d a m sh o u l d b e r e - an a l y z e d ” . OB G r e - a n a l y z e d t h e d a m a n d r e p o r t e d o n t h o s e r e s u l ts i n a Su p p l e m e n t a r y E n g i n e e r i n g A s s e s s m e n t d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 . OB G f o u n d t h a t t h e d a m d o e s n o t m e e t s t a b i l i t y c r i t e ri a . OB G r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e d a m s h o u l d b e s t r e n g t h e n e d to m e e t st a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a v i a p o s t - t e n s i o n e d r o c k a n c h o r s . Th e r e p o r t w a s s u b m i t t e d t o N Y S D E C D a m S a f e t y a n d m in o r c o m m e n t s ha v e b e e n r e c e i v e d f r o m D a m S a f e t y . OB G h a s s u b m i t t e d a p r o p o s a l t o t h e C i t y f o r d e s i g n , b i d , a n d co n s t r u c t i o n s e r v i c e s f o r d a m s t r e n g t h e n i n g . © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e Ta i l w a t e r Re s e r v o i r St a b i l i t y A n a l y s e s Si l t LO A D C A S E RE Q ’ D . S A F E T Y FA C T O R No r m a l P o o l 1 . 5 Ic e 1 . 5 Ea r t h q u a k e 1 . 0 Sp i l l w a y D e s i g n F l o o d 1 . 2 5 Cr i t i c a l H y d r a u l i c Lo a d i n g ≈ 1 0 y r . F l o o d 1. 2 5 MEETSCRITERIA NO NO NO NO NO Up l i f t © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e 6 Se m i n a r s \ 2 0 1 1 \ V A D a m s S e m i n a r _ 1 1 1 1 \ P r e s e n t a t i o n s Po s t - t e n s i o n e d R o c k A n c h o r s Re s e r v o i r Si l t 54 4 T o n s 32 S t r a n d s ! © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e OB G D A M S T R E N G T H E N I N G P R O J E C T S 7 DA M O W N E R S I Z E # A N C H O R S Bo o n t o n D a m J e r s e y C i t y N J H = 1 1 0 ‘ L = 2 2 0 0 ’ 1 6 5 Fa r r i n g t o n D a m N e w B r u n s w i c k N J H = 5 0 ‘ L = 5 0 0 ’ 2 5 Gl e n m o r e D a m O n e i d a N Y H = 5 5 L = 6 0 0 ’ 1 3 Pa l m e r D a m C T - A m e r i c a n W a t e r C o m p a n y H = 2 0 ‘ L = 1 0 0’ 2 2 Mi a n u s F i l t e r P l a n t D a m C T - A m e r i c a n W a t e r C o m p a n y H = 3 5 ‘ L = 6 5 ’ 2 2 Mt . B e a c o n D a m B e a c o n N Y H = 3 2 L = 3 0 0 ’ 1 5 Me l z i n g a h D a m B e a c o n N Y H = 5 0 ‘ L = 1 2 0 0 ’ 9 Po m p t o n L a k e D a m N . J e r s e y D i s t . W a t e r S u p p l y C o m m . H =3 5 ‘ L = 3 0 0 ’ 2 8 Gr e e n S w a m p # 2 N . J e r s e y D i s t . W a t e r S u p p l y C o m m H = 5 0 ‘ L = 1 2 0 0 ’ 2 5 Gr e e n S w a m p # 4 N . J e r s e y D i s t . W a t e r S u p p l y C o m m H = 5 5 ‘ L = 4 0 0 ’ 7 Ov e r f l o w W e i r N . J e r s e y D i s t . W a t e r S u p p l y C o m m H = 4 0 ‘ L = 5 5 0 ’ 4 2 Ho o p e s D a m W i l m i n g t o n D E H = 1 3 0 ‘ L = 2 2 0 0 ’ 2 4 Wi l l i a m s B r i d g e D a m P A G a s & W a t e r H = 6 0 ‘ L = 2 0 0 ’ 9 Se e l e y ’ s P o n d D a m U n i o n C o u n t y N J H = 2 5 L = 1 0 0 ’ 1 1 Ra v i n e L a k e D a m S o m e r s e t L a k e & C o u n t r y C l u b H = 4 8 ‘ L = 2 3 5 ’ 1 4 © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e DA M S A F E T Y P R O J E C T C O S T S 8 CO M P O N E N T E S T I M A T E D C O S T Lo w - l e v e l O u t l e t R e p a i r , C - 1 $ 1 . 5 M * Da m S t r e n g t h e n i n g ( P T ) Co n s t r u c t i o n C o s t $ 1 . 5 M PT D e s i g n & C o n s t r u c t i o n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s $0 . 4 5 M Da m S a f e t y S u b - T o t a l $ 3 . 4 5 M Co n t i n g e n c y $ 0 . 5 5 M TO T A L : $ 4 . 0 M *5 0 % o f t o t a l c o s t , r e m a i n d e r w i t h i n t h e W a t e r S u p p ly P r o j e c t © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e PR O J E C T S C H E D U L E 9 CO M P O N E N T D A T E Co n s t r u c t i o n S t a r t – P h a s e 1 W a t e r Su p p l y I m p r o v e m e n t s , C - 1 JU N E 2 0 1 5 PT D e s i g n C o m p l e t e M A R C H 2 0 1 6 DE C P T D e s i g n A p p r o v a l J U N E 2 0 1 6 Ad v e r t i s e f o r B i d s N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 6 Ph a s e 1 C o m p l e t e D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 6 PT C o n s t r u c t i o n S t a r t M A Y 2 0 1 7 PT C o n s t r u c t i o n C o m p l e t e D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 7 © 2 0 1 1 O ’ B r i e n & G e r e TH A N K Y O U ! 10 333 West Washington Street, PO 4873, Syracuse, NY 13221-4873 | p 315-956-6100 | f 315-463-7554 | www.obg.com 360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions February 3, 2015 Mr. Erik Whitney City of Ithaca - Water & Sewer Office 510 First Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Proposal for Sixty Foot Dam Safety Upgrades – Design and Construction Phase Services FILE: 1598/42988 Dear Mr. Whitney: As discussed in our September 10, 2014 meeting, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has requested a schedule for completion of recommended dam safety related upgrades to Sixty-Foot Dam (a.k.a. Potters Falls Dam). At the time of the original design of the Sixty-Foot Dam there were no universal design standards in place and many dams were designed based on loading conditions associated with either a 100 year frequency storm event or the flood of record. Current dam safety regulations have established significantly more conservative design criteria resulting in design loading conditions as much as five times higher than would have reasonably been applied during the original design. Consequently the initial Engineering Assessment (EA) Report dated December 14, 2012 and the Supplemental Engineering Assessment dated February 24, 2014 identified improvements required to achieve the current requirements for dam stability. The estimated construction cost for the identified dam stability improvements is $1,500,000. These costs are in addition to the estimated $1,500,000 dam safety related share of the construction cost for re- establishing the low level outlet through the dam. As requested by the City of Ithaca (City), O’Brien & Gere is pleased to submit this proposal for providing design and construction phase services addressing the dam stability upgrades. Based on the endorsement of the NYSDEC Dam Safety Group, work at the Sixty-Foot Dam is proposed to be completed in two phases. The work originally anticipated under the water supply project which includes dredging, a new water supply intake and reconstruction of the gate house, will be completed in the first phase. The second phase will start after substantial completion of the phase one work and will include the dam safety upgrades to the dam itself. Coordination of the dam safety related dam upgrades with the water supply project will be efficient and result in less disruption to the operation of the reservoir. SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK 1: DETAILED STRUCTURAL INSPECTION Perform a detailed inspection of the dam, downstream apron, spillway chute, and downstream channel to assess the structural features, concrete conditions, geological/foundation conditions, and site features relative to the structural evaluation/design and general constructability of the proposed dam improvements. Mr. Erik Whitney February 3, 2015 Page 2 333 West Washington Street, PO 4873, Syracuse, NY 13221-4873 | p 315-956-6100 | f 315-463-7554 | www.obg.com © 2013 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved. 360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions TASK 2: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION The 1985 Thomsen Associates Phase II report included data and boring logs from three exploratory holes that were drilled though the cyclopean concrete spillway section. The results of direct shear testing of core samples taken from the dam concrete /bedrock interface were listed in the report. Apparently, the main purpose of these borings was to investigate the condition of the dam concrete/ bedrock interface and the presence of concrete keys in the bedrock. The core borings were not advanced more than 10 feet below the dam/ bedrock interface and were confined to a small area located on the right side of the spillway section. It appears that no other subsurface investigations were performed since this report, based on the available records reviewed by O’Brien & Gere. The fortification measures currently under consideration include post-tensioned and pre-stressed rock anchors. The Post –Tensioning Institute’s ( PTI) “Recommendations for Pre-stressed Rock and Soil Anchors” (Section 6.5 - Site Evaluation) states that borings should be performed to evaluate site geology for the purpose of providing an understanding of the bedrock conditions and interpretation of the rock properties for design and installation of the rock anchors. Notably, coring depths are recommended to extend a minimum of 5 feet below the anticipated depth of the base of the bonded zone. Typical anchor bond zones within the foundation rock are approximately 20 feet. The Thomsen-era borings only extended 10 feet below the dam. Therefore, O’Brien and Gere proposes a small scale subsurface investigation program to supplement the 1985 investigation. Two NX- sized rock core borings will be advanced at the downstream toe: one located through the downstream apron and one in the discharge channel, where a concrete shear block with pre-stressed anchors may be installed. Two additional borings will be drilled from the dam crest; one through the right non-overflow cyclopean concrete section and one through the ground/rock formation adjacent to the right abutment. All of the borings will be advanced a minimum of 25 feet into competent rock. Water pressure testing of the boreholes will be specified to assist in estimating anchor hole consolidation grouting requirements. Selected rock and concrete cores will be sent to a laboratory for compressive strength and unit weight testing. TASK 3: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT There are several factors which impact the most economical combination of anchor sizing and location for strengthening a dam, including: • The magnitude of required sliding and overturning resistance • The compressive and shear strength of the dam concrete and foundation rock • Physical access to the anchor locations • Maximum anchor capacity Moreover, based upon the low safety factors calculated for sliding stability, it may be that inclined crest and face anchors through the dam will not offer sufficient sliding resistance. Consequently, it is probable that either mass concrete or a toe shear block will be necessary to supplement the post-tensioned anchors. Therefore, O’Brien & Gere will evaluate the feasibility and relative costs for anchoring alternatives to identify the most cost-effective approach. The alternatives to be considered are as follows: • Inclined post -tensioned anchors installed through a fortified dam crest • Inclined post-tensioned face anchors w/ toe shear block • Downstream mass concrete addition w/ pre-stressed rock anchors The evaluation will include preliminary stability analyses (for critical load cases), development of conceptual sketches of the principal features and typical cross sections, and order of magnitude cost estimates. The findings of the evaluation and recommendations will be summarized in a letter report and submitted for review. Mr. Erik Whitney February 3, 2015 Page 3 333 West Washington Street, PO 4873, Syracuse, NY 13221-4873 | p 315-956-6100 | f 315-463-7554 | www.obg.com © 2013 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved. 360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions TASK 4: FINAL DESIGN OF DAM REMEDIATION /FORTIFICATION MEASURES Engineering analyses will be conducted for the alternative selected in Task 3 and design drawings/specifications will be developed to 60% completion and submitted to the City for review and comment. The design will include the following: • Stability analysis for proposed remediation demonstrating compliance with NYSDEC dam safety requirements • Civil design consisting of hydraulic evaluation of downstream apron and channel, site plan, E&S plan /specifications, review of general environmental permitting requirements, and NYSDEC DSS pre- application conference • Structural design for concrete fortifications and rock anchors • Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications • Preliminary construction cost estimate Following the City’s review of the 60% Design package and consideration of NYSDEC DSS preliminary comments regarding dam safety and environmental permitting, the drawings and specifications will be advanced to 100% completion. This will include the following: • Consideration of review comments and design modifications that may be required • Final stability and design calculations • Permitting assistance that includes submittal of the final design package and review and response to one round of NYSDEC comments • Final Construction Cost Estimate • Final bid package including Contract Drawings and Project Manual for one General Contract TASK 5: BID PHASE SERVICES Upon completion and City approval of the final design packages, O’Brien & Gere will provide the following engineering services associated with the bid phase of the project. 1. Issue Contract Documents for Bid - Under this task, O’Brien & Gere will assist the City in advertising the project for competitive bids. For purposes of this proposal, we have assumed that O’Brien & Gere will use its electronic plan room and produce no more than twenty five sets of full-size plans and Project Manuals for the purposes of distribution to the City and successful contractor after award. 2. Pre-Bid Meeting – O’Brien & Gere will attend a pre-bid meeting and site walk through during the bid period. 3. Prepare Contract Addenda - Questions received during the bid period, which require clarification of the Contract Documents, will be addressed by written addendum, which O’Brien & Gere will issue to all holders of contract documents. Up to three addenda are anticipated. 4. Attend Bid Opening, Prepare Bid Tabulations, Evaluate Bids and Recommend Award - Under this task, O’Brien & Gere will attend the bid opening to assist the City in receiving bids. We will review bids for accuracy and completeness, noting any “informalities.” We will also review the qualifications of the apparent low bidder, and confirm they are satisfied with their bid. O’Brien & Gere will summarize the results of our review in a letter to the City, which will include a recommendation regarding award. Mr. Erik Whitney February 3, 2015 Page 4 333 West Washington Street, PO 4873, Syracuse, NY 13221-4873 | p 315-956-6100 | f 315-463-7554 | www.obg.com © 2013 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved. 360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions TASK 6: CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES Construction Review Services Construction phase services will include a number of tasks, which collectively support the administration of the construction contract and implementation of the design intent. 1. Review Shop Drawings and Submittals - Under this task, O’Brien & Gere will review shop drawings, samples, and other submissions of the contractor for general conformance to the design concept of the project and for substantial compliance with the result required in the construction contract. O’Brien & Gere will provide the City with one copy of all reviewed shop drawings and other submissions of the contractor, for its records. 2. Issue Clarifications and Interpretations of the Contract Documents - O’Brien & Gere will issue technical instructions to the contractors, issue necessary interpretations and clarifications of the contract documents throughout the submittal/approval process. For the purpose of this proposal, it has been assumed that construction will be completed and closed out within one year after the notice to proceed is issued. 3. Issue Modifications and Change Orders - O’Brien & Gere will recommend to the City when a modification or change order to the construction contract is necessary, prepare an independent estimate of the cost of the change order, and prepare change orders along with required documentation. Change orders included in our base scope are limited to those necessary for completing the project in accordance with the design intent. Construction Administration and Inspection O’Brien & Gere will perform the following tasks under the Construction Administration and Inspection Phase: 1. Request Contractors’ Bonds and Insurance Certificates - Once bids have been received and evaluated, and the City has awarded contract, O’Brien & Gere will request appropriate bonds and insurance certificates from the successful contractor. Upon review of these documents for conformance with the requirements of the contract documents by the City’s Counsel, we will incorporate them into complete copies, for formal execution by both parties. 2. Conduct Pre-Construction Meeting - Under this task, O’Brien & Gere will conduct a pre-construction meeting with representatives of the contractor, as well as representatives of the City and other involved agencies as appropriate. 4. Review and Approve Contractor’s Requests for Payment - In cooperation with the City, O’Brien & Gere will review and approve contractor’s payment estimates/requests and will forward the necessary documents to the City for its processing of payments. 5. Provide Resident Project Representative - O’Brien & Gere will provide construction administration and onsite representation. Full time representation (40 hours/week) has been included for a period of 8 months. 6. Maintain Field Diary – O’Brien & Gere personnel will maintain a field diary, together with daily construction reports recording pertinent aspects of the construction activities. Mr. Erik Whitney February 3, 2015 Page 5 333 West Washington Street, PO 4873, Syracuse, NY 13221-4873 | p 315-956-6100 | f 315-463-7554 | www.obg.com © 2013 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved. 360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions 7. Conduct Job Meetings – O'Brien & Gere will conduct meetings with the contractors and representatives of the City, to review the status of construction, for the construction duration. 8. Obtain Photographs During Construction - O’Brien & Gere will obtain photographs throughout construction to provide visual history of construction activities. Copies of digital files will be provided to the City for their records. 9. Prepare Record Drawings - O’Brien & Gere will provide the City with record drawings of the completed project based upon red-line documents received from the contractors. Two sets of full-size prints, two sets of half-size prints, and digital copies of all drawing files, which will be provided. SCHEDULE O’Brien & Gere will commence design upon written authorization from the City. The following are the anticipated key deliverable/milestone dates assuming authorization in February 2015 and starting construction near the completion of the Phase 1 Dam and Reservoir Improvements: Subsurface Investigation & Detailed Structural Assessment May 2015 Construction Start – Phase 1 Water Supply Improvements June 2015 Design Development Report September 2015 60 % Design Documents December 2015 Final Design Deliverables March 2016 NYSDEC Plan Approval June 2016 Advertise for Bids November 2016 Construction Complete – Phase 1 Water Supply Improvements December 2016 Dam Safety Construction Start May 2017 Dam Safety Construction Complete December 2017 Mr. Erik Whitney February 3, 2015 Page 6 333 West Washington Street, PO 4873, Syracuse, NY 13221-4873 | p 315-956-6100 | f 315-463-7554 | www.obg.com © 2013 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved. 360° Engineering and Project Delivery Solutions FEE PROPOSAL O’Brien & Gere proposes to perform the services described above for a not-to-exceed fee of $443,000. A task breakdown of this proposed fee is presented below. Task Fee 1 – Detailed Structural Inspection 7,000 2 – Geotechnical Investigation 35,000 3 – Design Development 18,000 4 - Final Design 68,000 5 – Bid Phase Services 15,000 6 - Construction Phase Services Construction Review 50,000 Contract Administration and Inspection 175,000 Project Management 40,000 Direct Expenses 35,000 Total Not-to Exceed Fee $443,000 If you have any questions regarding our proposal or would like to discuss the dam stability situation further, please feel free to contact me directly at (315) 956-6471 (Rick.Gell@obg.com) or Bob Bowers at (484)804-7209 (Robert.Bowers@obg.com). Very truly yours, O’BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC. Richard E. Gell, PE Project Manager I:\Ithaca-C.1598\49288.Water-Supply-Pr\Corres\Ithaca\Sixty Foot Dam Safety Design and Construction Phase Proposal.docx cc: Robert Ganley – O’Brien & Gere Robert Bowers – O’Brien & Gere Steve Snider – O’Brien & Gere New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Bureau of Flood Protection and Dam Safety, 4th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-3504 Phone: (518) 402-8185 • FAX: (518) 402-9029 Website: www.dec.ny.gov M E M O R A N D U M TO: Joe Dluglenski, Region 7 - Permits FROM: Scott Braymer, Dam Safety SUBJECT: 60 Foot Dam (aka Potters Falls Dam) DEC Dam ID#: 075-0717 Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County Application ID#: 7-5030-00154/00003 DATE: September 18, 2014 I have completed my review of the dam permit application package for the Phase 1 work at the above referenced dam, which included the following materials: 1. Project Manual entitled Sixty-Foot Dam and Reservoir Improvements, Contract 1A, dated March 2014, by Robert C. Ganley, NY PE license # 57013. 2. Drawings entitled Sixty-Foot Dam and Reservoir Improvements, Contract 1A, dated March 2014, by Robert C. Ganley, NY PE license # 57013. The following comments must be addressed before I can recommend Permit Issuance for the Phase 1 work. I am forwarding an advance copy of these comments to O’Brien & Gere: 1. Please submit a completed Annual Certification form for calendar year 2013, and note that the form for 2014 is due no later than January 31, 2015. 2. Please confirm whether the City intends to retain responsibility for monitoring the dam, the weather, stream flows and the water surface elevation in the reservoir, and for activating the EAP, especially during Contractor shutdown periods, nights, weekends and holidays. 3. D-1 form from the original 10/5/2012 package lists Robert Bowers as the Design Engineer (block 19), and does not specify an individual PE as the Construction Engineer (block 20). The 2014 Project Manual and Plan cover sheet were stamped and signed by Robert Ganley, with individual sheets by Rob Ganley, Bob Bowers and Bob Brodowski. Please submit a revised D-1 form reflecting the individual PE that will be taking overall responsibility for the Design Phase (presumably Rob Ganley), and the individual PE who will be taking overall responsibility for the Construction Phase. Please note that the Construction Engineer will be required to certify that the work was completed in accordance with the approved plans, and to stamp and sign the as-built records. Joe Martens Commissioner 2. 4. Please provide a Schedule of Construction Inspection, see Guidelines for Design of Dams (Guidelines), Section 4.4. Please include whether the Resident Project Representative (RPR) will be on site full time or part time during the work, and at what milestones the Construction Engineer will be onsite to inspect the work. 5. Please provide a proposed overall schedule for bringing the dam into compliance with all applicable safety criteria. I anticipate that the Phase 1 work (i.e. lowering reservoir, dredging, demolish existing intake tower, construct new intake tower, rehab low level outlet) will commence in 2015, and be completed no later than October 1, 2017. I anticipate that Phase 2 will include all remaining work (e.g. spillway capacity and structural stability), with a complete Permit Application to be submitted no later than September 1, 2017 and completion of the Phase 2 work no later than December 31, 2018. 6. The following minor comments on the Phase 1 Plans are offered for OBG’s consideration: • S-002, Design Criteria, Design Base Shear: TBD? • M-302, Section 3. The elevations of the stainless steel pipes appear incorrect. • The section numbers on M-302 do not appear to correspond to the section numbers called out on M-101. Also, please note that I anticipate: • Including a condition in the Phase 1 Permit requiring that an EAP Promulgation and Concurrence (P&C) form be submitted no later than January 31, 2015, along with any revisions to the EAP as may be appropriate. • Including a condition in the Phase 1 Permit requiring the investigation of the reported mid-level outlet, with rehabilitation or decommissioning, as appropriate. • Including a condition in the Phase 1 Permit requiring the Project schedule, as generally described above. • Providing additional comments on the Engineering Assessment and the Supplemental Engineering Assessment (EA), to be addressed in the Phase 2 Engineering Design Report (EDR).