Public Works Committee

Public Works & Utilities Committee January 16, 2017 4:00 P.M. The Public Works & Utilities Committee will meet on Monday, January 16, 2017 in the Village Hall, 123 N. River Street, Waterford, WI. Call to Order Public Appearances & Permits Approval of Minutes 1. Review and act on December 19, 2016 meeting minutes. Unfinished Business 2. Review and provide a recommendation on public walkway easement abandonment for 104 E. Main Street. a. The Village has a public walking thoroughfare easement along the east side of the Waterford Properties Building owned by Mary and John Theisen, 104 E. Main Street, see documents 1699347 and 1699348 attached. b. The Village installed the concrete pathway next to the Theisen building, along with the pathway next to Dubis’ building 208 E. Main Street, when it did the original parking lot work in 1999. The easement was provided voluntarily by the property owner in exchange for the Village maintaining the easement area, which has included wood chips along the pathway between the building and snow plowing the pathway between the buildings. The property owner also voluntarily agreed to allow business patrons to utilize the parking stalls in the middle of the parking lot on land owned by the Theisens if the Theisens could have their tenants utilize public parking spaces adjacent to the green space stalls in the middle with the plow truck. The Village is not obligated to plow snow on the Theisens property outside of maintaining the pathway easement. The plowing around the center parking stalls has been done to facilitate turning movements for the plow truck to maintain our public parking stalls and in efforts to collaborate in good faith with the property owner. c. The easement is no longer required as the pedestrian activity will be directed through the parcel owned by the Village closest to the north-south cross walk on E. Main Street, located between 202 and 208 E. Main Street. No cross walk will be provided on W. Main Street at the 1st/Main intersection after highway construction. d. The River East project has provided the first clear definition between public and private parking in the rear of East Main Street businesses. During preliminary design of the project the administrator corresponded and met with the five property owners who own private parking behind their East Main Street properties. The Village offered to include private parking paving work within the bid specifications for the River East project in hope to facilitate better pricing for improvements to their parking area. The property owners would pay for their respective improvements by square foot. In April 2016 the property owners agreed to they would only desire sealing and pavement markings to be included within the bid document. It was also decided that private parking would be regulated by each building owner moving forward. After the public parking lot area is reconstructed during the River East project, the Village would no longer be responsible for maintaining (plowing) any private parking areas and that the private building owners would regulate their private parking areas as they deem appropriate. e. Following these discussions the Village Attorney inquired as to whether the Village would be abandoning that pathway easement as well. The Public Works & Utilities Committee reviewed the matter at their 12/19/16 meeting and further inquired to the Village Attorney whether or not the Village could vacate the easement without property owner approval and receive confirmation of the location of the easement itself. The attorney responded with the following: i. The easement is on the east side of the Theisen building. Please see the ALTA survey, which shows a reference to “10’ Easement for Public Walk Doc. 1699348” crossing the northerly Theisen property to the East of the building. The Document number for the southerly portion of the easement is not 1  noted on the survey, but the easement is shown. I believe that there is pavement marking on the northerly portion as well. ii. I am advising that the Village should communicate with the property owners to let them know it is being vacated, and take the property owner’s concerns regarding what to do with the sidewalk the Village placed on the easement into consideration. The easement was given to the Village voluntarily and there was no real advantage to the property owner in allowing the public to use its property, other than that the Village is maintaining it. iii. The property owners do not have to agree to vacate the easement - the Village can vacate the easement if it is no longer needed. f. Chairperson Koeller will not be in attendance at the meeting in January; however, she has reviewed the additional information provided by the Village Attorney and wanted to express her strong desire to wait on any easement abandonment until after the STH 83-20 project. The DOT has changed their minds in the past and it would allow the Village the opportunity to clearly view the exact improvements with respect to our property from the River East improvements. It is challenging for people to envision what the design will look like when it occurs. It makes most sense to wait. We need to use the River East improvements prior to making permanent changes.  The Committee is requested to provide a recommendation. New Business 3. Update on Cross Connection Inspection Program and Billing. a. In accordance with the requirements set forth by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources the Village of Waterford officially adopted on May 11, 2015, the State of Wisconsin cross-connection control rules to protect the Village of Waterford’s public water supply system to be implemented by January 1, 2016. The ultimate goal of implementing this program is to ensure the protection of the public water supply by minimizing the potential for contamination of the water system via cross-connections. b. A cross-connection is defined as any physical connection or arrangement between two otherwise separate systems, one of which contains potable water from a public water system and the other of which contains water from a private source, water of unknown or questionable safety or steam, gases or chemicals, whereby there may be a flow from one system to the other with the direction of flow depending on the pressure differential between the two systems. c. Village staff will be conducting DNR required residential inspections every two years at no charge. The Village Board approved using an outside vendor to complete the DNR required inspections for Commercial, Industrial and Public Authority customers. The Village Board approved the cost for the inspections to be billed back to the property owner as a special charge on the tax bill. The 2-year contract was awarded to HydroCorp for $39,000. d. Because it is a DNR requirement intended to keep the public water system free of contamination, it was determined that the customer information would come from the utility billing system. The DNR regulation and ordinance, however, are based on the DNR and building code provisions of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, so all buildings classified as places of employment and public buildings (including any building with 3 or more tenants or residences) are classified as commercial. At that time, staff did not realize that the administrative code provisions and PSC definitions, which are based on the meters, differ. e. Staff provided a listing of 264 accounts (by meter) from the water utility billing system that were categorized as Commercial, Industrial and Public Authority. f. As staff started the billing process, staff noticed inconsistencies in how businesses were going to be charged. For example: • If a building had multiple tenants but only one meter it would have received one inspection fee. However, if a business had one tenant but two meters it would have received two inspection fees. • Some condominium units were listed as commercial customers and would have received an inspection fee and some condominium units weren’t on the list and wouldn’t receive an inspection fee. • Some businesses that are in residential buildings were on the list and would have received an inspection fee and some weren’t on the list and wouldn’t receive an inspection fee. • The ordinance states that each non-residential property that is inspected will be billed. This became challenging when trying to determine what the definition of “property” is. Is it a single 2  parcel or individual buildings and/or businesses on a parcel? In some cases there are numerous buildings and/or businesses located on one parcel. In other cases there is the same business located on more than one parcel. g. After numerous conversations for clarity with the Village Attorney, it has been determined that the customer listing should not have been strictly based on utility customer information. Since the ordinance references the Administrative Code, input was also needed from someone trained in interpreting the Administrative Code, such as the Building Inspector. In order to do this, it would require a thorough review of all properties and businesses located within the village to determine who should have been inspected. h. The list provided for the inspections had a total of 264 accounts (meters). The Finance Committee recommended using this number of customers to establish a charge of $148 per inspection. i. HydroCorp’s contracted number of inspections is calculated using 264 accounts plus an additional 34% for compliance reviews for a total of 354 inspections. Some properties are complaint on the first visit while others have required HydroCorp to follow up an additional 4 times and are still not compliant. Each time HydroCorp goes to a business it is counted toward the total 354 allotment. As of November 29th a total of 262 inspections have been completed, this includes initial inspections and compliance reviews. There are 92 initial inspections that will be scheduled for 2017 and 19 compliance reviews required for 2016. This is a total of 373 inspections, 19 over the contracted amount. j. Staff met with the Administrator and Director of Public Works regarding these concerns and confirmed with the attorney that the billing can be delayed a year so that the issues can be resolved. k. This matter will be going to Public Works & Utilities for a recommendation on how to move forward with the program.  This is informational only. No action required. Director’s Report Correspondence 4. Engineers January 2017 monthly report. Adjournment Karen Koeller, Chairperson Please note that, upon reasonable notice, accommodations can be made for the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and service. For additional information or to request this service contact the Clerk’s Office at 534-3980. Agenda posted 1/13/17, 4:00 P.M. 3  Village of Waterford Public Works & Utilities Committee Meeting UNOFFICIAL Minutes December 19, 2016 – 4:00PM Members Present: Baker, Goldammer, Houston, Chairperson Koeller and Nash. Also Present: Jeff Dolezal and Rebecca Ewald Chairperson Koeller called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. Motion made by Houston, seconded by Nash to approve the meeting minutes from November 21, 2016. Motion carried 4-0. Baker arrived at 4:04 p.m. Motion made by Baker, seconded by Houston to move up item #3 on the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. The Committee reviewed how to bid for the private paving improvements. A letter was provided to all five property owners with associated agreements on 12/5/16 via US Postal mail. To date signed agreements have been received by 2 (208 Mike Dubis & 212 Colleen Weber-Rutherford) property owners. Mary Theisen has requested that the item be included in the bid document as an alternative bid which would allow the Village to request a bid from the contractor, but not obligate the Village to perform the work. She has communicated that she is not willing to sign the agreement at this time and would like to see how the bids come in for the private work proposed for her property. The Village Engineer has reviewed this information and recommends: “Let’s accomplish the same thing a different way: We can use unit prices and estimated quantities for this work. We will just pay the contractor for the work that is actually done. She can make a decision based on the unit price bid by the contractor and her own quantity. The alternate way would be to list her separately on the bid form as a lump sum—I am willing to bet that this method would scare the contractor into a higher price, or simply give him a chance to inflate the price so that he does not have to deal with the issue.” Motion made by Baker, seconded by Nash to recommend Village Board approval to proceed with including the private parking within the bid documents only if all 5 property owners agree to have the work done based on square footage estimates and return signed agreements. If all 5 property owners do not agree to move forward, no private parking improvements will be included in the bid document. Motion carried 5-0. The Committee reviewed the possible easement abandonment for 104 E. Main Street. The Village has a public walking thoroughfare easement along the east side of the Waterford Properties Building owned by Mary and John Theisen, 104 E. Main Street. The Village installed the concrete pathway next to the Theisen building, along with the pathway next to Dubis’ building, when it did the original parking lot work in 1999. The easement is no longer required as the pedestrian activity will be directed through the parcel owned by the Village closest to the north-south cross walk on E. Main Street. No cross walk will be provided on W. Main Street at the 1st/Main intersection after highway construction. After a lengthy discussion the Committee needed more clarification from the Village Attorney regarding whether or not the Village could vacate the easement without the property owner’s approval and receive confirmation of the location of the easement itself. Motion made by Houston, seconded by Nash to table this item to the January 2017 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The Committee reviewed the amendment to design work order to STH 83-20 and E. Main Street Utilities. Baxter & Woodman was hired to design the sanitary and storm sewer utilities for the project. In reviewing the design they are recommending the old 6” water line currently running just north of the Main Street bridge be relocated and cross on South River Street in the same location as the sanitary sewer. Originally the Village had desired to install a new water line in the location of the new bridge, but after the bridge design was completed, the new infrastructure would be placed under retaining wall and the bridge structure which was not advised. Crossing the river in the proposed location requires the upgrade on the existing South River Street water main to an 8” main. Design for this section of water main is an additional $6,000 for a total contract amount of $191,000. Estimated construction of the new main is approximately $92,000. Motion made by Nash, seconded by Baker to recommend Village Board approval of the design amendment to the design work order. Motion carried 5-0. 4 The Committee reviewed the comments on Racine Street project. All projects allow us to learn and improve. The Committee reviewed a list of items regarding the project for process improvement and offered no further suggestions. They felt the list was very good. Goldammer was excused at 5:57pm. Director’s Report: Dolezal reported that they have already used the budgeted amount of salt for December. Koeller reminded the Committee of the correspondences: Baxter & Woodman’s monthly engineering report for December 2016; Plan Commission minutes for 11-16-16. Motion made by Houston, seconded by Nash to adjourn the meeting at 6:05PM. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie Charapata, Deputy Treasurer/DPW Utility Clerk 5  VILLAGE OF WATERFORD Engineer’s Report January 13, 2017 Water Treatment Plant Planning Study- Project No. 140052.30 • The Village needs to change the operations of the water plant that serves Wells 4 and 5. This plant is difficult to operate when Well 5 is removed from service for maintenance. • A draft copy of the report is ready for staff review. STH 20/83 Utility Relocations -- Project No. 120491.40 • We submitted the proposed improvements to RA Smith and the WDOT. The WDOT will include our design in an upcoming submittal to the remaining utility companies. The current opinion of probable cost remains at approximately $3.6 M, including the water main on S. River Street between Main Street and the river crossing. • The Village still needs a utility easement for the river crossing. River East Utility Repairs - Project No. 160823.40 • This project will be bid with the roadway and parking lot reconstruction that is planned for 2017 and will include new water main on N. Second Street and sanitary mainline and lateral repairs on both N. Second Street and Division Street. • We are currently preparing a work order for construction engineering and field observation services. • The schedule for this is as follows: Newspaper - Advertise Bids January 13, 2017 Newspaper – Advertise Bids January 20, 2017 Open Bids January 30, 2017 Adopt Preliminary Resolution February 13, 2017 Engineer’s Report to Clerk February 13, 2017 Assessment Notice to Newspaper February 13, 2017 Installment Notice to Residents February 13, 2017 Newspaper Publish Class 1 Notice February 17, 2017 Public Hearing February 27, 2017 Adopt Final Resolution / Award Bids February 27, 2017 Possible Industrial Park Expansion - Project No. 140211.30 • The Village President and Village Engineer met with a potential developer at Reesmans on 1/10/17. Information was shared about the areas being considered and the existing Village utilities in the area. • The next step is for the potential developers is to determine the limit of development and present their concept plan, phasing plan, and cost estimates to the Village for consideration. I:\Burlington\WATRF\GENERAL\Monthly Reports\2017\January\01-13-17.docx Page 1 of 1 6