Water & Sewer Committee

Sammy Rich, City Manager John Boyd, Director WATER AND SEWER DIVISION Customer Service Department Bryan Parris, Director Operations Department Brandon M. Cook, Director Water Reclamation Facilities Jeff Hill, Director Water Treatment Facilities Wayne Stanley, Director WATER AND SEWER COMMITTEE MEETING City Hall, 601 Broad Street, Sam King Room Thursday, September 5, 2024 9:00 AM PRESENT: Chairperson Mayor Pro Tem Jim Bojo Commissioner Bill Collins Commissioner Randy Quick Commissioner Harry Brock Commissioner Mark Cochran Commissioner Wayne Robinson Mr. Sammy Rich, City Manager Mr. John Boyd, Division Director Mr. Bryan Parris, Customer Service Director Mr. Wayne Stanely, Water Treatment Facilities Director Mrs. Jeff Pope, Assistant Water Treatment Facilities Director Mr. Doug Walker, Public Information Officer Mrs. Kelly Parker, Assistant to City Manager VISITORS: Bryan Pate, InSite Engineering (via Zoom) Shannon King, InSite Engineering Jason Ray, Archer Western David Crowder, WRGA News Jesse Demonbreun-Chapman CRBI Multiple citizens CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jim Bojo welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order. REVIEW OF THE MINUTES The meeting began with the approval of the minutes from the August 1st meeting. No corrections or additions were made, and the minutes were approved. FINANCIAL REPORT Mrs. Rhinehart presented the financial report for July, highlighting a decrease in water and sewer revenues due to rate reductions, but an increase in interest income. Overall, operating revenues were down by $2.6 million, but interest income was up by $4.6 million. Rhinehart discussed the cash balances, noting an increase from $181,000,000 last year to $195,000,000 this year, largely due to an extra $7 million received and higher interest income. Despite a decrease in operating revenues, the increase in interest income has kept the financials positive. Cash balances have increased by $14 million compared to last year. OLD BUSINESS PFAS and Water Treatment Facility Chairman Bojo began, I'm going to ask that we withhold all our questions until they finish. That way, we won't be interrupting them, and we won't be rehashing things. There will be a lot of time for questions, but let's give them an opportunity to say what they've got to say before we move along. Mr. Rich addressed the committee saying, we keep having similar conversations and meeting updates over and over, and I'm sure some of you probably get that same sense. But just to zoom out a little bit as a recap, and maybe as a reminder, we've had a relationship with Insite Engineering for several years now and have worked closely with InSite and so they've been a tremendous help to us. As a reminder to the Commission, back in March, March 13th of 2023, we engaged Archer Western. Jason Ray, who is here today, and Jason has been present quite often. Y'all have mostly heard from InSite in our discussions, but Archer Western, we engaged as our construction manager at risk and so they have been with us as we have endeavored to work on this reverse osmosis project and so our team is Insite and Archer Western. And so, there's been a lot of study, there's been a lot of due diligence. I think perhaps as we have tried to wrestle this project and we're all working on the same page of music and we're working on the same timeline. A lot of the decisions that were made early on were basically to the effect of we got to get this rolling because we all know we're under a mandate and an EPA deadline. And so my hope is for today's meeting that we're able to answer any of the outlying questions, about looking at the alternative sites that we've considered, because again, and y'all heard us say that, we looked at other sites initially and we keep coming back to Riverside, not because it's the easy choice, but because it's the most logical, best choice for what we're doing. Where we are as a community and where we need to be, for several reasons. But with that, I think it's probably at this point best to turn it over to Bryan, to kick us off from your most recent update. Mr. Bryan Pate with InSite Engineering and Jason Ray with Archer Western Construction again addressed the committee concerning a final decision for the location of the new reverse osmosis water treatment facility. In the presentation Pate and Ray provided additional information supporting their decision that Riverside Parkway was the best option for the project. Discussion on the sites for consideration for a water plant, including Riverside Parkway, Public Works site, and the existing Hamler site. The presentation included discussion on the cost estimates for removing landfill material at the Public Works site, including different scenarios based on landfill locations (Rome City, Gordon County, Chatsworth) the removed material could be disposed of and the associated costs ranging from $15 million to $55 million. Discussion on various unpriced factors that could increase the overall cost, such as dewatering, groundwater pumping, methane gas barrier construction, flood protection berm, on-site waste categorization, EPA requirements, and special trucking certifications. Discussion on the operational inefficiencies and design comparisons between the landfill site and Riverside Parkway. Issues include chemical deliveries, soil handling, and public works access. Discussion on the unknown costs and risks associated with both the landfill site and Riverside Parkway. Concerns include potential contamination, methane gas, and the impact on Burwell Creek. Impact of hauling landfill material on local infrastructure, including the potential damage to Vaughn Road and the need for police presence at intersections. Discussion on the potential contract for designing a water treatment plant on a landfill site, which would absolve InSite Engineering of future liability. Details about test holes dug on the landfill site, including the discovery of a metal drum lid and a strong sulfur smell. The presentation also included discussion of the original plan to build on the existing Hamler site, past discussions had removed this site as a possible location due to the complexity of building a new facility on top of the current facility while that facility was still operating and is the only source of water for the entire city. Pate concluded the presentation with our first recommendation is the Riverside Parkway site. We believe that's the best site for the plant. If we don't want to do Riverside Parkway, then our next recommendation will be to do the Minutes prepared by: Bryan Parris, Customer Service Director Water and Sewer Committee/ Commission Minutes, September 5, 2024 Page 2 of 7 Public Works site, relocating Public Works and do not disturb the landfill. The caveat for that one is the schedule we talked about before. It's going to be very tough to meet the EPA compliance deadline if we do it there. And then our third choice, short of that would be to go back up on top of the hill to the Hamler site. We talked about the risks associated with that before, those risks still exist. We did that preliminary design back in the very beginning and could revisit. Two recommendations that we're strong on. Do not build a water plant on the DFAC site, by the DFAC site, we mean the old Brownfield site behind the DFAC building. And do not build a water plant on the landfill site of Public Works. We're just not comfortable building a water plant where we are counting on a methane barrier to stop methane gas from releasing. In a nutshell, that's the very brief review of a few weeks of very detailed work from our team and Archer Western. That's where our recommendations lay at this point. We're glad to take questions at this point if that's good. Commission Brock, I wrote down here while you were talking was, go back to the cost excluded list that you don't know. Have you got a ballpark as to what those costs would be? Pate, no sir, we have not, in the time we had between the last commission meeting and today, we have not tried to price all those things. I would anticipate, and Jason you may be able to speak better than I can, but I would think they would be at least as high as the cost that we had estimated for excavation. Commission Collins, the design that you put on the landfill site that you just showed us, is it comparable to the same design that you put over on Riverside? Pate replied, it would produce the same quality of water. It has some, let's call them operational inefficiencies. It's going to make it difficult for chemical deliveries. It's going to make it difficult for solids handling. It's going to make it extremely difficult for the public works guys, because they won't be able to access public works from that side anymore. But it will produce the same water quality, Mr. Collins. Yes sir. We'll make sure that whatever we do, we protect that. Commissioner Robinson, I'm looking at it from a different standpoint. I'm asking you, the actual cost of the plant once we get the landfill remediated and the site built back up. So far, I've just heard the cons, I haven’t heard the pros. Is it necessary for remediation of the landfill site to do the entire site that you're showing, can we do just right under the facilities that you're going to build on, or did I miss or not see something on there? Pate, no, sir, we only had it remediated underneath the structures we are going to build. We did not do the entire landfill site. Well, that was my curiosity, and then the question that Jim, or that Bill asked just a minute ago, the difference in the cost. Again, I keep going back to some conversations that we had in here about the elevation enhancement of Riverside was going to be costly. We don't need that up at Vaughan Road. I mean, isn't there some cost that you said once we get the ground ready, the cost is going to be similar. Wouldn't that cost drop up there on Vaughan Road versus Riverside? Pate replied, it would drop a little bit, and again I'll defer to Jason on this, but the things that we're talking about that would drop in cost would be the front treatment of the building and the type of fence we use. We're required to fence it either way, it would be the difference in the cost of the frontage of a metal fence versus a canopy fence. So, there's that cost. If we do a roof facade on Riverside Parkway, we could potentially do something else. But either way, this is not a 20-year metal building. This is most likely, regardless of where we build it, going to be columns with infills. Concrete columns with infill panels. Either way, it's not a significant cost, and Jason, you may be able to talk better about that. Ray commented, if we pulled the brick off the facade and simply used the precast panels, maybe a million dollars savings in the whole facade, in the whole architectural improvements, maybe we have some nicer fencing and stuff of that nature. I heard like 12 to 15 million at one point when we were talking about percentages of what we could cut back. Again, I must have misheard that. Pate, I was there thinking a million too. I mean, you're just talking about what we're trying to do to make it look better. Regardless of where we want to put it, we want to be something to be proud of, people to be comfortable with it. Pate continued, we do a pros and cons list, too, and honestly, we're just struggling to find pros about this site other than it's not Riverside Parkway. Minutes prepared by: Bryan Parris, Customer Service Director Water and Sewer Committee/ Commission Minutes, September 5, 2024 Page 3 of 7 And we talked about that a few weeks ago. That's a big thing that you guys must consider. That's our side. I think that needs to be the end of the equation. One question in just simple terms, how do you rate the number of unknowns with each site, percentage wise? Pate commented, I think we've limited the number of unknowns now at Riverside Parkway because of the geotechnical work that's been done, because of the design considerations that have been taken there to support the structural piles and accommodate any future settling of that site. I think we've minimized those unknowns there. With any construction project, and Jason can speak to this too, with any construction project there are obviously unknowns. Once you turn the first dirt, you never know what you're going to find buried out there. Particularly in an area with this much rich history. Here it is. Here's all of it. I don't think Mr. Davis would ever allow the commission to sign the contract that we would submit for design of a water treatment plant structure on that landfill site because it would absolutely absolve InSite Engineering of any future liability. You would have to indemnify and hold harmless, all those words that Mr. Davis hates. If you ask us to design the site on that landfill site, it would be a very unfriendly contract to the city that I'm not sure Mr. Davis would ever allow you to sign and I'm not sure we would back from that because of the methane gas issues, the potential contamination issues, those sorts of things. I think the unknowns there on that site are significant and potentially very, very costly. Commissioner Collins asked why the Hamler site had not been talked about? Mr. Rich commented, That's the one we ruled out because of risk. So, we ruled out the Hamler site because of all the risk involved with that site and I liken it to an open-heart surgery. You got to keep running. They got to keep doing what they do while you're building on top of it. So, there's a ton of risk with that alone that gave these guys a lot of concern. So, is it ideal? No. Is it doable? Sure. Anything we do, anything, it's just time and money and how much risk we're willing to associate. Capacity was one of the big issues, but I hear what you're saying because I also heard a report recently talking about the growth model. I don't think we subscribe to a 3% growth model based on what we have been doing and the conversations that we've been having and trying to get the city positioned, trying to do these housing retreats that we've done, a community that's open for business. I feel like, we've all been of one accord trying to push for growth. We're building a new middle school because we've seen our own city school’s growth. So, we've all been on the same page that we're not planning for today, we're planning for now and future. We've not had conversations should we build a smaller treatment facility. I mean that's not been part of what we've discussed, regardless of location. What we know is we've got to have reverse osmosis to meet the deadline based on what's in our way. It doesn't matter if you build a bigger plant, a smaller plant, you've still got to have a place to build it. Pate, your current plant is permitted for 18 million gallons a day. That's what you're allowed to produce today. This past December you made a little over 14 million gallons a day for a couple of different days. The first thing to know is we must make sure we have capacity for your very worst day. If we would have needed 14 million gallons a day and we could have only made 12 this past December, who would not have gotten that 2 million gallons of water? Who's the first one to not get water? We don't really get to decide that, obviously, but if we're 2 million gallons short, we're out of water. So, we must have capacity for your very worst day, and that worst day was 14 million gallons a day last year. You can make 18, and we don't ever like to back up off the permitted capacity. We never want to give up permitted capacity to a drinking water facility. We want to protect that permitted capacity. So, our design, when this new plant starts up, this new plant will be designed to produce 18 million gallons a day of water. That's how much our capacity is. It will be hydraulically designed with some oversized piping stubbed out so that we can add additional RO skid and additional membrane filters to take it to 24 million gallons a day easy. And then the ultimate capacity of 30 million gallons a day that we can fit on the site would take a little bit more work to do that. So, there will be an easy expansion from 18 to 24, but we'll only be able to make 18 when we start up, which is the same capacity you can produce today. So, we're not over-sizing it, we're just making sure we don't give anything up anything and then making sure you could expand. We would never be able to get past 24 million at the Hamler site. Commissioner Brock, First, I'd like to thank Bryan for the information that you've provided. I want to apologize to Sammy for it being like Groundhog Day. Nothing like Groundhog Day to me, because when we were down to a couple of sites and we asked about the public works site, specifically the mulch yard, we got information about the public works site, the relocation, not what we asked for. We're two months in, and it seems like we're just getting information that we asked for. So, we went from the information you provided today to the first time when we asked Minutes prepared by: Bryan Parris, Customer Service Director Water and Sewer Committee/ Commission Minutes, September 5, 2024 Page 4 of 7 about the site, somebody at the water department said that was a landfill. So, I feel like you've filled in some information that we didn't have. I mean, it's all we asked for. We were down to two sites. We just wanted all the information on both sites. Commissioner Cochran, Can the building be multiple story? Pate, we can talk to the RO Equipment Manufacturer and see about that. We've looked at multi-story RO buildings before. The structural costs get expensive of supporting those water-bearing structures. Commissioner Cochran, Can the tanks be remote of the plant? In other words, can we pump the water uphill? Pate, Economically, this tank must be on-site. These waste tanks need to be on-site. Primarily, this tank needs to be on-site. As to how we would have to staff that if we had remote tanks. We must staff these plants 24 hours a day and if some of that was remote, I'm not sure if you have enough staff to staff the remote areas as well. Commissioner Cochran, economy at this point is a matter of opinion because we must spend 55 million dollars to put it there but then we have to hire one employee for the next 20 years. You know, we can talk about two different kinds of economy right there, but what I'm trying to get at is, what prevents us from making it a multi-story building, remoting the tanks which ones we can, and then pushing it to the north into the parking lot for public works. Not into the buildings but into the parking lot because we have two parking lots. We have one in front of the fuel island and we have one in front of the public works offices. What prevents us from moving it north, getting out of the landfill, making it a multi-story building, shrinking the footprint, and then remoting the tanks. Even if we must maintain it. I mean, you know, worst case scenario we're talking about $55 million, but my guess is it would be significantly cheaper to shrink the footprint and push them off the landfill site. That takes care of a whole lot of problems, doesn't seem to get into the public works buildings. I don't see why we can't shrink the footprint, and maybe we can’t, maybe there's a technical reason why that's not possible. It seems like the layout is just about the worst possible application, dead middle in the center of the landfill, and it seems as though the opportunity exists to shrink all that and come up with some creative ways to move things around to get out of the landfill. Pate replied, if you go back to this slide, you see that the landfill boundary was delineated, you can come all the way right to the fuel shed across the road. This is the public works building now, the water treatment operation building, and this is the fuel shed. So, if we go back, the landfill boundary crosses the road and comes up to about this point. This is the parking lot you're talking about, and we can certainly play with change. What we did was take the change from the Riverside Parkway, obviously in the last two weeks we haven't had the time to redesign the entire water plant, so we took the change from the Riverside Parkway and tried to make them fit the best we could, and still be able to get trucks and deliveries and things around to make it where it could be operational and functional. Can we pull that back some? Yes, this is the existing water operation building. The scale of that parking lot compared to the scale of this building, so about half of this is RO, half of this is membrane filtration. If we constrict it down, if we just have half of this building, you can see it's still going to be within the landfill boundaries. Commissioner Cochran, second question is, are you mitigating the soil underneath the parking? Or just the structures? Pate replied, just the structures. Well, everything that's in this brown area, because it's all going to be piping and everything else. Commissioner Cochran, what would cause methane to leach from the landfill? Pate responded I'm not a methane gas expert, but just methane gas against permeable concrete would be a concern for me. Commissioner Cochran, I mean, the concrete is not permeable. I'm assuming that because it holds water. You made it where it's not permeable. Well, it's watertight. At least on one side. I'm presuming you would do that on the other as well. Pate, it's watertight but I don't know, we would have to get our landfill guys involved in that. Commissioner Cochran, it just seems as though every time we've looked at this, and maybe it's just true but I would like to see something where we have solutions instead of just negatives. Like what Commissioner Robinson said, you know, there's always just cons. I'd like to see some positives and maybe some options where we remove one building, we don't remove one building, we scoot it up, we make it three stories, we make it two stories, we remove the tanks. Just some options. I know that takes time. I'm very familiar with that. But I appreciate your time. Minutes prepared by: Bryan Parris, Customer Service Director Water and Sewer Committee/ Commission Minutes, September 5, 2024 Page 5 of 7 Pate, we're working with you guys. We're glad to do that. We started this off with just a very common-sense approach. Hey, there's a landfill there, stay off it. Chairman Bojo, Bryan, Jason, I got this question. I don't know whether it goes to you or to Bryan. One of the things that was up there was you did not know if EPD would allow us to build. Let's find out, I mean, we may be just sitting here talking about putting it there or putting it somewhere else. And there may not be an opportunity for us to even talk about this site. Because if he says no, and how do you get that? Is that you, Bryan, or is that you, Jason, and how long would it take? Commissioner Collins, I think that should be the city of Rome asking that question. Chairman Bojo, that's why I'm asking, who's responsible for that? And let's get it done. How long will it take? Commissioner Collins commented, I think what, I mean, I hear Commissioner Cochran saying that this was the first time getting some of this information, and it's not been rosy. How can we come back with a picture of, I think along those lines, to show us on each side how you can make it work and what you can do with it. And I think that's the question that the citizens are going to be asking. We were told that it's going to cost $40 million to move that site and to put it somewhere else. And then today saying, if you take it to your landfill, it might be between $15 million and $55 million. That's a big jump and a big difference. But if you intended to put it over there, to put it to work, to show us what it would look like. Come in here with the same rules and picture that you tell us about the Riverside site or the other two sites. We have not seen that. You guys got to make it work, what's it going to look like? Pate replied, I will say to get to the level of detailing I would want to see on that site. Y'all have paid us $2 million to get the 60% set on the Riverside Parkway and that's geotechnical evaluation, that's Jason and Archer Western going through the 30% and 60% cost models, value engineering to keep it back in budget. To get to that detail we would have to start that whole process over on that site just to give you that picture, this complete detail is where we are on the Riverside Parkway. Mr. Collins, that is the site we were told to design on. We were told to design on Riverside Parkway and then we were told to tap the brakes back in February. Mr. Rich, the reality is, until y'all five commissioners tell us where to go, we know it's going to cost money, but that's okay, because that's how it works. But until we get the direction y'all say go and do, that's kind of how we've been trying to give enough information for everybody to make a decision. Back in earlier in the spring, I believe it was, I don't remember, this committee took a vote about Riverside Parkway. And between the three of us, it was unanimous that we look at Riverside Parkway, and get the numbers, and that's exactly what Jason and Bryan did. Commissioner Quick, I make a motion that before we do anything, we find out what the EPD recommends. And basically, that's really the stabilizing factor. EPD is going to have to put their stamp of approval on anything we do. So, let's find out what the EPD says about the additional sites, and then we'll move forward. Chairman Bojo, I'll second that. Sammy? Mr. Rich replied, sure, John and I'll work together and get an answer. Commissioner Robinson, can I ask one more question? Quick question. Just a worst-case scenario, if we locate back up on the hill, what construction issue that we could encounter would be what? Tearing, what could be torn up? Just curious on your part. Pate, we’re talking about a 90-year-old water plant, so obviously no one is there today who was there when it was built. So, if we start digging, we find a line that we didn't know was in the ground and we ruptured that line somehow with a track hoe. We interrupt water service for whatever reason. That's probably the biggest risk. Commissioner Robinson, but that would be like maybe a day shut down. Do we have capacity, without producing more water, to have the capacity to continue to supply water? Mr. Boyd and Mr Stanley both replied, No, sir. We don't. No, sir. Chairman Bojo, did we ever design anything up on top of the hill? Mr. Rich, no. Chairman Bojo, I thought that was $2 million. But how do we know how much it's going to cost? Mr. Rich, but guys, why we have is a growing number. So again, before they designed on Riverside, we didn't design it on Hamler. Minutes prepared by: Bryan Parris, Customer Service Director Water and Sewer Committee/ Commission Minutes, September 5, 2024 Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Cochran, Riverside doesn't have five votes. Do what you will with that. Riverside does not have five votes. Chairman Bojo, we did two years ago. Commissioner Cochran, which never made it to the full commission two years ago, it doesn't have five votes. Mr. Rich, what I'm hearing is basically the issue remains. We need a commission decision because we're talking about spending money and really, we're talking about starting over with design with our team. And that is something that we'll need to take to the full commission. These guys have been very gracious. I know. Again, I can't expect InSite and these guys to keep working, without us amending the contracts, because we've been, as stated, we've been under contract with this team on Riverside. And again, I keep coming back to, until we officially say, okay, no Riverside, we're going here, then we're releasing them, and that's where they're going to do the due diligence, and you're going to know where the pipe is. So, we can take and eliminate the questions that are going to be created, the expenses that we don't expect. Chairman Bojo, Jason, can you have something by Monday? Pate, what we can do, and I'm asking, I assume what we could have been the revised numbers of what it's going to cost to get started on the design on top of the Hill. That's not going to tell you how much it's going to cost to build it, but we can pretty sure come back and say, here's how much it's going to cost. The only other thing I'll add up on the hill is the schedule, the sequencing, does make it a little more challenging. Meeting the deadline and getting all the work done with redesign and the sequencing, there is that challenge to overcome. We worked together looking at how this would be constructed, that we would have to shut down part of the facility and build a phase and then get that one online and then you can remove something else that's got a stable service. Our best thought is we would end up spending an extra nine months to a year to phase what we had to out on top of the hill, which I don't know that we can make a 2029 deadline by phasing it out at this point. Keep in mind, some of these tanks you're seeing right there, they can't be built on top of the hill. So, they'll have to be built down to Lagoons. That'll be a separate process, that'll be separate personnel. To run that. So, you'll have two, you'll be running two locations. You'll be running a plant up here, and then you'll be running your, residual solids down at the lagoons. So, while we say we can make it work, the recommendation is still Riverside. NEW BUSINESS None OTHER None Adjourn There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted. John Boyd, Director Rome Water and Sewer Division Minutes prepared by: Bryan Parris, Customer Service Director Water and Sewer Committee/ Commission Minutes, September 5, 2024 Page 7 of 7