The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-11-06 PACKET 08.E.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 11 /6/13 • ' PREPARED BY Public Works Les Burshten ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR **************************�*******�************* COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: Consider approval of the proposed Water Tank Professional Service contract from SEH and Classic Protective Coatings for the 1.0 MG Fluted Column in 2014 in the amount of $793,500. Consider approval of the proposed Water Tank Professional Service contract from SEH and Classic Protective Coatings for the 3.0 MG Standpipe in 2015 in the amount of $936,000. � � :_ •►l►l_l�� •► Approve the Water Tank Professional Service contract from SEH and Classic Protective Coatings for the 1.0 MG Fluted Column in 2014 in the amount of $793,500. Defer action on the Water Tank Professional Service contract from SEH and Classic Protective Coatings for the 3.0 MG Standpipe in 2015 in the amount of $936,000. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $ $ BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE �� •C •1lll �\ � •\ ❑ PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ DATE REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMEN � MEMO/LETTER: Adam Moshier, Public Works Special Projects Intern, October 31, 2013 � RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ❑ OTHER: ��11 ► C� •C •►111 __► //�/ ' � Cottage J Grove � Pride and PrOSPerity Meet To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor and City Council Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator November 1, 2013 Water Tank Professional Services Contract The agenda memorandum presented herein requests approval to enter two service contracts for water tank painting in 2014 and 2015. That may be the correct recommendation, however, it should be noted that there are other options available. Among these would be to authorize a contract as recommended on the 1.0 million gallon tank while deferring action on the 3.0 million tank. A deferral of the 3.0 million tank decision may be a responsible approach if one believes that one or more of the following may be relevant for consideration: 1. There is very little actual history with the service contract approach in this state; to date SEH (the firm with whom this contract would be written) has entered recent contracts with four cities, three of which are very small communities 2. If this approach is becoming more popular as stated in the staff memorandum there may be more entries into the field with other engineering firms, which may have a pricing impact in the future 3. In that we have no actual experience with service contracts for this type of endeavor, entering the first contract first may allow for additional edification which could be useful for any subsequent tanks in 2015 or beyond It should be noted that, as presented in the staff memorandum, pricing within the service contract for both the 1.0 and 3.0 million gallon tanks are suggested to be very competitive. Hence, while if #2 above occurs there could be a downward pricing impact there could as easily be an upward pricing impact driven by outside economic factors in the interim. The service contract approach is presented as a paint warranty approach and in fact, in accordance with the specifications summary presented herein, there are warranty features that come with the contract. In essence we are paying $605,000 for the tank painting and another $188,500 in inspections and spot repair over the subsequent nine years to ensure that the tank remains in good condition for the entire ten year period (of note here is that traditionally a 15 year tank service life in between major maintenance has been the expectation so it isn't a stretch to imagine the tank surfaces would remain in good condition throughout the entire warranty period regardless of inspections or spot repair ability). Another way to view the proposal is that we are paying $793,500 for a tank paint job with a ten year warranty with $605,000 paid in cash and the remaining $188,500 paid over a nine year period at 0% interest. If one assumes a cost of money at 3% over the nine years the interest savings from a single cash payment is about $27,000. Options: 1. Reject the recommendation to pursue a standard design/bid approach on the 1.0 million gallon tank 2. Approve the recommendation to enter contracts with SEH for both the 1.0 million gallon tank in 2014 and the 3.0 million gallon tank in 2015 3. Approve an alternative to the recommendation to enter a service contract for only the 1.0 million gallon tank Any of the above appear to be reasonable approaches. The first is the traditional no risk approach (due to the tried and true low cost bid model). The second addresses the needs for surface and tank repair of two water tanks without further action or review by Council. The third allows a foray into the recommended direction without jumping in with both feet (or two tanks as the case may be). In talking with the Public Works Director he would be comfortable with either service contract approach. Exuberance for both tanks at this time is not universal, however, and thus my suggestion is as follows. Council Action: 1. By motion adopt resolution 13-xx approving a contract with SEH for the 1,0 million gallon tank 2. By motion defer action on the service contract for the 3.0 million gallon tank RESOLUTION NO. 13- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED 1.0 MG WEST DRAW WATER TOWER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BY SEH DESIGN BUILD WHEREAS, the 1 Million Gallon West Draw Fluted Column Water Tower in the City of Cottage Grove is aging and increased maintenance is required and, WHEREAS, a long term maintenance contract allows the City of Cottage Grove to benefit from an experienced contractor familiar with the City, and WHEREAS, this type of contract also affords the City a long term warranty on all work completed under this contract, and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the contract be awarded to SEH Design Build. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the proposed 1.0 MG West Draw Water Professional Service Agreement be awarded to SEH Design Build in an amount not to exceed $793,500. Passed this 6th day of November, 2013. __________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 13- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED 3.0 MG INNSDALE STANDPIPE WATER TOWER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BY SEH DESIGN BUILD WHEREAS, the 3 Million Gallon Innsdale Standpipe Water Tower in the City of Cottage Grove is aging and increased maintenance is required and, WHEREAS, a long term maintenance contract allows the City of Cottage Grove to benefit from an experienced contractor familiar with the City, and WHEREAS, this type of contract also affords the City a long term warranty on all work completed under this contract, and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the contract be awarded to SEH Design Build. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the proposed 3.0 MG Innsdale Standpipe Professional Service Agreement be awarded to SEH Design Build in an amount not to exceed $936,000. Passed this 6th day of November, 2013. __________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk C.� Cottage J Grove � Pride andP�pSPerity Meet To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Les W. Burshten, Director of Public Works Harry Taylor, Public Works Supervisor Date: October 30, 2013 RE: Water Tank Professional Service Proposals from SEH Introduction At the September 16, 2013 Public Works Commission meeting staff presented information on the water tower rehabilitation process. Staff recommended accepting both Water Tank Professional Service proposals from SEH and Classic Protective Coatings for the 1.0 million gallon Fluted Column water tank in 2014 and the 3.0 million gallon Standpipe water tank in 2015. The Public Works Commission voted 5-0 in favor of accepting and adopting staff's recommendation and encourage Council to support the recommendation. Backqround As stated in previous meetings, two water tanks need to be painted and repaired in the City, the 1.0 million gallon Fluted Column and the 3.0 million gallon Standpipe. As the water tanks age, it is important to increase the frequency and intensity of the preventative maintenance regimen on these facilities. Staff has worked hard with SEH over the past few months discussing the possible options for painting, repairing and maintaining these two water tanks. One option discussed was the traditional design bid method, where specs are created and the project is open for bid. Another option was design-build through SEH. This method, also called a professional service contract, pairs up an engineering firm (SEH) and the contractor (Classic Protective Coatings) in an agreement with the City to provide maintenance and rehabilitation for a 10 year warranty period. Chapter 358 of the Minnesota State Statute allows municipalities through direct negotiations or solicitations of proposals to select a multiyear professional service contract for engineering, repair and maintenance (See page 21). The City attorney has reviewed the statute and the contracts for each water tank and has given her approval to staff. Since this is a professional service contract, the City has the option of choosing the engineering firm and the contractor for the work. The City is able to select companies with a record of successful performance. Another benefit to this approach is SEH and Classic Protective Coatings are able to price the contract lower due to guaranteed work for the next 10 years. Those factors give the City an estimated lower total cost for the professional service contract. Staff is proposing to paint only one water tank per year because of the strain this such work would put on the water system. Staff is proposing the design-build method for both water tanks and is asking City Council to accept the Water Tank Professional Service proposals from SEH 1 and Classic Protective Coatings for the 1.0 MG Fluted Column in 2014 in the amount of $793,500 and the 3.0 MG Standpipe in 2015 in the amount of $936,000. Both of these professional service contracts are for a 10 year warranty period. Financinq A review of the water utility fund has identified sufficient funding to enter into a 10 year professional service agreement for each tower. Proposal for the 1.0 MG Fluted Column The 1.0 MG Fluted Column Water Tank Professional Service proposal came in at $793,500. This price includes the 10 year warranty, specs, engineering costs, painting, inspections, minor repairs and pressure washes. The only costs not covered are the City attorney fees related to the review of the contract. See page 7-10 for a breakdown of SEH's painting and maintenance schedule over the 10 year warranty as well as a recap of how the payments are allocated over that span. Year 1 SEH has proposed the new coating system, spot coating, accessory modifications, repairs and quality assurance inspections will cost the City $605,000 in the first year of the professional service proposal. SEH and Classic Protective Coatings proposal of $605,000 is only for the repair, blast and painting of the water tank. This cost is comparable to the price of a traditional design bid number. If the City were to traditional design bid this water tank, thaYs the estimate for the total repair, blast and painting. Year 2-4 In years 2-4, SEH would be performing visual surveys of the coating system both exterior and interior, as well as accessory observations and a summary statement of their findings provided to the City. The cost to the City would be $7,500 each year for those three years. Year 5 In year 5 of the warranty, SEH and Classic Protective Coatings would perform pressure washing of the interior and exterior of the tank, spot coating repairs inside and outside the tank, minor repairs and quality insurance inspections. Also included in year 5 of the warranty are a coating test and analysis, 5 year AWWA inspection, tank accessories inspection and a report with recommendations provided to the City. The cost of year 5 to the City would be $68,000. Year 6-9 For years 6-9, SEH would be pertorming visual surveys of the coating system both exterior and interior, as well as accessory observations and a summary statement of their findings provided to the City. The cost to the City would be $7,500 each year for those four years. Year 10 In year 10, SEH and Classic Protective Coatings would perform the same work as done in year 5. They would perform pressure washing of the interior and exterior of the tank, spot coating repair inside and outside the tank, minor repairs and quality insurance inspections. Also included in year 10 of the warranty are a coating test and analysis, 5 year AVWVA inspection, 2 tank accessories inspection and a report with recommendations provided to the City. The cost of year 10 to the City would be $68,000. Proposal for the 3.0 MG Standpipe The 3.0 MG Standpipe Water Tank Professional Service proposal came in at $936,000. This price includes the 10 year warranty, specs, engineering costs, painting, inspections, minor repairs and pressure washes. The only costs not covered are the City attorney fees related to the review of the contract. See page 12-15 for a breakdown of SEH's painting and maintenance schedule over the 10 year warranty as well as a recap of how the payments are allocated over that span. The breakdown of services is the same as was for the 1.0 MG Fluted Column proposal with the only changes being the price difference from year to year due to the size of the tank. Examples of Water Tank Desiqn Bid Prolects St. Paul Park 750,000 Gallon Fluted Column Staff and SEH have researched other cities' water tank projects. St. Paul Park recently used the traditional design bid method in June 2013. Their water tank is only 750,000 gallons and bids ranged from $876,652 to $1,546,500. See page 17 for the comparison of the cities and page 18 for the separate bids for St. Paul Park. St. Paul Park's contract came with a 2 year warranty. Not included in their bid price were construction inspections, specs and engineering cost. Those costs alone add up to an estimated $100,000 and that doesn't include City fees. The estimated grand total for the painting and repair of St. Paul Park's water tower was $976,652. SEH's proposal for the 1.0 MG water tank is $183,152 less or a cost savings of 19°k compared to St. Paul Park's water tank project. St. Paul Park's water tank project is more expensive than SEH's proposed design build professional service contract for Cottage Grove's 1.0 MG and even bigger 3.0 MG water tanks. Also, SEH's proposal of $793,500 for the 1.0 MG water tank includes a 10 year warranty where St. Paul Park's water tank only has a 2 year warranty. Comparing St. Paul Park's cost and the proposed contract from SEH, Cottage Grove would be saving an estimated $18,315.20 per year over the 10 year contract. Along with the estimated savings that correspond with the design build approach, the City is protected by the 10 year warranty if any of the paint were to fail. Also included in the professional proposal from SEH are pressure washes, regular inspections, five year AVWVA inspections and spot coating repairs, which need to be done on the tanks every few years regardless of which method is used. The benefiYs the City would receive by using the design-build approach from SEH would include; record management and scheduling of spot coating repairs and inspections, 10 year warranty under the professional service contract, and the confidence that SEH, people who have a very strong background in water tank maintenance, are taking care of the tanks yearly. Another benefit is the price for inspections, repairs and wash downs is also already locked in when the contract is signed based upon the yearly breakdown. Arden Hills 1.0 Million Gallon Fluted Column Arden Hills recently used the traditional design bid approach in April of 2013. Their tank is the same as Cottage Grove's and the bids ranged $783,250 to $1,020,814. See page 17 for the comparison of the cities and page 19 for the separate bids. This contract came with a 2 year warranty. The estimated cost for specs, inspection and engineering included was $50,000 which doesn't include City fees. The estimated grand total for painting, repairs and a 2 year warranty was $833,250. Once again, SEH's proposal for the 1.0 MG has a 5°k cost savings or 3 $39,750 less than the Arden Hill's total project cost. This price again is more expensive than SEH's proposal of $793,500 for the same type and size of water tank and SEH is offering 8 additional years of warranty. Cottage Grove's water tanks are estimated to be in better condition and last longer than those cities only using a 2 year warranty. Additional 10 Year Warrantv Option SEH can also provide an additional 10 year warranty on both tanks if agreed upon by both parties after the first 10 year warranty is up. See page 11 for a 20 year total cost of ownership comparison sheet for a 1.0 MG Fluted Column water tank. See page 16 for a 20 year total cost of ownership comparison sheet for a 3.0 MG Standpipe water tank. The numbers in the chart are for comparison purposes between the two different methods. The numbers are based on 2013 numbers and are expected to change as the years go by. This chart demonstrates the cost of a traditional approach to water tank maintenance vs. the professional services contract proposed by SEH. The City currently uses the traditional approach. SEH uses a condition coating index number to reflect the condition of the paint on the water tank over a 20 year cycle. The condition rating, also used in this example, is a similar system that the City uses for pavement management in rating the roads. The 1.0 MG water tank will be used for comparison in the following paragraphs. Under the traditional approach, the condition coating index drops significantly after year 10. The condition rating is estimated to fail from year 15 forward until a blast and recoat occurs in year 21. The total estimated cost of ownership for the 1.0 MG water tank is $1,721,820 compared to that of the professional or warranty contract approach which is what SEH is proposing of $1,334,000. Both of the amounts are based on 2013 numbers and are estimated to increase regardless of which approach is used. Under the professional approach, the condition coating index stays consistently around 93. The water tank is estimated to not fail and either be in an estimated good or satisfactory condition. The biggest difference between the two approaches is the maintenance. In the traditional approach, maintenance that needs to be performed including inspections, power washes or any repairs are usually contracted out by the City. Whereas under the professional approach, SEH is already under contract and is pertorming yearly inspections, spot repairs and power washes. With this method, SEH is able to treat any deterioration as soon as it is detected, therefore leading to a possible extended life for the water tank. Whether iYs being inspected, power washed or spot repaired, the tower is always being maintained just as if it were a road in the City. In year 21 of the professional services approach is when significant money can be saved. If the City were to stay under the traditional approach, based on 2013 numbers, the 1.0 MG tank would require a blast and recoat of $783,250. That number is estimated to be significantly higher in 21 years. If the City were to move to the professional services approach, an overcoat is anticipated and the 1.0 MG water tank would not need a total blasting and recoat. Similar to something the City would perform in pavement management, a mill and overlay, the City preserves the road rather than reconstructing the entire thing. Based on 2013 numbers, the cost for an overcoat on the 1.0 MG water tank would only be $405,000. This number is also expected to grow in 21 years. That is a savings of 48°k or $378,250 compared to a total blast and recoat in the traditional approach on the 1.0 MG water tank. The cost to paint and repair water towers has increased significantly over the past 10 years due to the rise in labor, material and most significantly diesel prices. The price to blast and recoat water towers is 0 estimated to be more expensive as the years go by. With an estimated savings of 23°k or $387,820 over the total 20 year cost of ownership comparing the traditional approach and the professional services approach on the 1.0 MG water tank, staff recommends City Council consider a second 10 year warranty contract on both tanks, subject to how the first 10 year contract progresses with SEH and Classic Protective Coatings at the end of the initial 10 year contract. Other Cities Usinq the Professional Services Approach (Desiqn-Build) SEH has the following cities under contract in Minnesota: Barnum, MN: one legged tank Hopkins, MN: one two-stage standpipe, one legged tank Lakeland, MN: one standpipe tank Rush City, MN: two spheroid pedestal tanks In addition, SEH is also awaiting council/staff action in a number of other communities: Little Canada, MN Roseville, MN Sauk Rapids, MN This approach is becoming more popular as the price to paint a water tank continues to grow. Conclusion After researching the different approaches, traditional design bid and design build, staff believes in regard to the long term maintenance of the water tanks, it would be in the City's best interest to accept the professional service contracts for both water towers with SEH and Classic Protective Coatings. With the design build method, the City picks a reputable and successful contractor they prefer to do the work. The City would also feel confident that SEH, people who have a very strong background in water tank maintenance, are taking care of the tanks yearly. Therefore, the tanks are estimated to have a longer life. The City is also covered under a 10 year warranty if any of the paint were to fail. Under this approach, maintenance is always being done to the tank whether iYs a power wash, inspection or spot repair; the tank is being monitored and/or maintained every year. SEH's proposal for the 1.0 MG water tank is $183,152 less or a cost savings of 19°k compared to St. Paul Park's smaller water tank project. Also, when comparing SEH's proposal to St. Paul Park and Arden Hills's' water tower projects, the proposal offered by SEH includes a 10 year warranty compared to a 2 year warranty. Cottage Grove wouldn't be the only City under this approach as Hopkins, Lakeland and Rush City are already under contract for the professional service contracts. With the ever growing cost to paint a water tank increasing, this is an opportunity for the City to save money in the long run as well as preserve our water tanks for the future. The CIP value for the 3.0 MG Standpipe water tank for 2014 is $710,000. The CIP value for the 1.0 MG Fluted Column in 2015 is $605,000. Both of these water tanks have been budgeted for, however, after further inspection of the 1.0 MG Fluted Column water tank, SEH and staff have proposed that tank be painted and repaired first in 2014. 5 Recommendation Staff is recommending City Council accept the Water Tank Professional Service proposal from SEH and Classic Protective Coatings for the 1.0 MG Fluted Column in 2014 in the amount of $793,500. Staff is recommending City Council accept the Water Tank Professional Service proposal from SEH and Classic Protective Coatings for the 3.0 MG Standpipe in 2015 in the amount of $936,000. The City's water utility fund has sufficient funds to cover the expenditure of entering into a 10 year water tower professional service agreement for each tower. 0 �o �� 1.0 MG WEST�RAW HYDROPILLAR COTSAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA NewCOatlnc�5ystem (Exterior) (Wet Interior) Spof Coatiny Repairs (Ory Infedor) Accessory Modifcalions and Reoairs Quaiity Assurance Inspeclions ISUAL Sl1RVEY Coatiny Observallon (Exlcrior) (Wet Inleriar) (�ry Inlefior) Accessory Observalion Summary Statemenl ENERAL MAINTENANCE Pressure Wash (Exterior) (wet Interior) Spot Coaling Repairs (EXteriorj (VJetlnterior) (Dry In(erlor) MinorACC=ssory Ropairs Quali(y Assurance Inspeclions VGINEERING EVAIUATION CoallnyTestinc� (Ex�e��) and Analysis (Wet Interior) (Ory INerlor) Five-year AW'NA Inspecllon Tank Accessaries Inspedion Repori Wilh Recommendalions " INClUOES PLANS, SPECS, ANf] I�SPECTIO N .. - - PLAN YEAR - - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 201A 2015 2016 2017 2018 I 2019 I 2020 I 2021 I 2022 2023 )� )t � �� )C )t )C )b X Jt ){ X �( X X � �° `� }� � 0 � � � � � � )t � )� ){ )� U O � 0 O � !17 �S7 0 � �11 � � � x x X X � X X X X X x X X X X � X X X X x X x X X X X X X X � � � � � � N N I N N � � � �N 7 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVIC�S Tanlc lA MG West Draw Hydropillar Tank Name: Cottage Grove, MN Year:2014 1. The concrete fouodations and grout will be coated Co help prevent deterioration. 2. Install a new screeued flap gate at the discharge end of tUe overflow pipe. 3. Replace Uumed out IigUt bulbs in the dry interior. 4. Install new L�D aviation lights on the roof. ExYerim : • Construct a fiill containment system including a roof boimet to enclose all rehabilitation activities and protect the surrounding area Ti�om blasting media. • Brush-Ulast all sw faces to a SSPGSY7 condition to remove surface contaminants, loose and/or flaking coatings, and provide a suitable substrate for coating adhesion. 5. • Spot-Ulast all areas of corrosion to a SSPGSP6 co�mnercial blast conditiou/SSPGSP3 power tool cleaning condition and spot prime with ivst-inhiUitive epoxy primer. • Apply one full coat of eposy coating. . Apply one full coat of uretizane with UV proCection Co the entue tank. • Finish top coat color to be selected by Owner. • Reapply the lettering/logo on the exterior to uiatcli fLie existing tank lettering/logo. Wet Interior: • Complete removal of existing coating system on the wet interior surfaces to equivalent of SSPGSP 10 Near White Blast Cleaning Condition. • Provide special hazardous waste consideratious ifrequu�ed. 6 ' . A 1 two coats of e ox coatin that is a roved for use in >otaUle drndcui water tai�s AW WA Inside 1�P Y P Y g PP 1 g � Paiut System No. I). • Caulk Che roof beams and seams. • Disinfect the tank iutei�ior per AW WA C652. City of ColRnge Grove, Minnesota � SEHDesign�Build, Inc. (Wea�t Drcnv Tanh) 5�7 Tanlc I.OMG WestDrawHydropillarTanlc Name: Cottage Grove, MN Year: 2014 D�y L�terior: • Spot abrasive Ulast clean to an SSPGSP6 comiuercial blast cleaving condiYion Ylie underside of the bowl. . Full aUrasive blast clean to an SSPGSP6 commercial blast cleaning condition tlie topside of the catwa➢c, and the bottoui'/a of the access hibe. • Power Cool clean all other rusted areas on d�y u�terior surfaces to equivalent of SSPGSP3 Power Tool Cleaning Condi[ion. • Apply two coats of epoxy coating (AW WA Illside Paint SysYem No. 1) to prepared areas. Years: 2015 to 2017 Yearly Visual Sm•veys: 1 � . Full tanlc uispection (wet interior does not have to be drained). . Summa�y Repoit. Year: Z018 Exterior: . Pressin'c wash surfaces to remove contamu�ants and mildew. 1 . Powex Yool clean rusted areas on exterior surfaces to eguivalent of SSPGSP 3 Yower Tool Cleaning Coudition. . Apply two coats of epoxy and one coaY of urethane with U V p�ntection (AW WA Outside Paint System No. 5) to prepared areas. Wet L�terim•: • Pressw'e wash surfaces to remove containinants aud stainiug. 2 . Power tool clean rusted areas on wet interior surfaces to equivaleut of SSPGSP 11 Power Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal Condition. • Apply two coaYs of epoxy coating (AW WA Inside Pau�Y System No. 1) to prepared areas. . Disinfecf the tarilc interior pei AW WA C652. Dry Intcrior: 3 . Power tool clean rusted areas on dry interior surfaces to eqttivalen[ of SSPGSP3 Power Tool Cleaning Condition. . Apply two coats of epoxy coatnig (AW WA Hiside Paint System No. I) to prepared areas. J City ojCotkage Grove, Mn�nesatn / SEHDesign�Build, Inc. (West Drnw Tan1r) l� ■ Year: 2018 Engineering �valuatim�: . I�ispection ofthe exterior, wet interior, d�y iilYerior and �itpiping coatings. 4, . Wet n�terior will be dran�ed and couicide with tlie wet u�Cerior pressu�e wash a�d coat'vig repairs. . Taiilc accessories inspection. • Report witli recomiuendations. Years: 2079 to 2022 Yearly Visual Sw'veys: . �ll tanlc inspection (wet interior does not have to be cL'ained). • Suuimary Report. Year: 2023 Gxterim•: . Pressure wash surfaces to remove contaminanYs and mildew. 1 . Power tool cleai� rustcd areas on exterior surfaces to cquivalent of SSPGSP 3 Power Too] Cleaning Condition. • Apply two coats of epoxy and one coat of tu'ethane witli UV protection (AW WA Outside Paint System No. 5) to prepared areas. Wet Interior: . Pressure wash surfaces to reuiove contamuiants and staining. Z . Power tool clean rusted areas on weY interior surfaces to equivalent of SSPGSP 11 Power Tool Cleanuig to Bare Metal Condition. . Apply rivo coats of epoxy coating (AWWA Inside Paint System No. 1) to prepared areas. • Disinfect tl�e taiil< interior per AW WA C652. D�y L�terior: 3 . Power tool cleau rusted areas on dry intarior surFaces to equivalent of SSPGSP3 Power Tool Cleaning CoudiCion. • Apply two coats of epoxy coating (AW WA Iuside PTint SysteinNo. 1) to prepared areas. Engineering Evah�atimi: . Inspection of the ea�terior, wet interior, diy interior ai�d pit pipu�g coatiugs. q, . Wet interior will be drauied and coincide with the wet interior pressure wash aud coating repaus. • Taiilc accessories iuspectiou. • Report with reconunendatioi�s. J Cit�� ofColtage Grove, Mim�esofia /� EHDesign�Build, Inc. (GVest Drmv Tank) / � o 1,000,000 Gallon Hydropillar Tanl< 20-YearTotal Cost of Ownership Comparison Model Assumptians: Blastand Re-coatcost: Construction Documentr(vio�:asae�): Inspe[tions: Bidding Administration: 5-yearinspec[ion cosT. WORK DESCRIPTION Bla a Re-wat (Specs and Inspec 5-yearinspec[ion Blast and Re-coat TOTALCOSTOF OWNERSHIP 5.0/ io.oi 1.0/ $783,250 $39,163 578,325 $7.833 $10,000 SEH DI B Reha6ilitation msT. Future Overcoat cost (ongmmrenoen�m�m��o:oies:nie:v.,yo.,e�o�m;,,me�e�: Annual Inspection mst: Washdown and Tou�h-up mst: Maintenance Contrect term (years): TR/aDITIONAL APPROACH (D-B-B) MAINTENANCE CONTRACT APPROACH (D- z �ONDITION CONDITION � REHABIIITATION a CONDITION CONDITION ¢ COST Q RATING COpTING INDEX COATING INDE% RATING � WORK DESCftIPTION 3 �ccp (ccp 3 5783,250 ��es Good 100 1 100 Gaed � Ves 61ast and Re-mat $1ll,48S Yes Ge�rl 99 2 ?9 Gaod Ve. Annuallnspection $7,833 Nu Gooc B3� 3 9S GoeA �Ves Annuallnspection Nq Gaod S7 4 97 Good I Yes Annual Inspection n� Gooc 95 5 55 GooA �Yes Wash/TOUCh-up/Repair $10,000 Nti 600d 93 6 4g v��d iVCS Annuallnspection Nc Satisfactory 37 7 37 Gaod � ve; Annual Inspection i�¢! Satisfactory 83 8 95 Good Ves Annual Inspection �, �I, Satisfactory 75 9 93 Satls`actory 1'es IAnnual Inspection '�I Fair 67 10 SS uoo�i Yeslwash/Touch-up/Repair $10,000 Pl� Puor 9 11 9S GooA Ves Annuallnspection N�� Poor 45 12 95 �3ncd Yzs Annuallnspection Nu �/ey Focr 33�. 13 �.:93 Good Yes Annuallnspection Nti Se�!icus 17 14 88 Sa[isfa��.ory Yes Annuallnspection fvo Pailed 0 IS 83 Satisfacrory Yes Wash/Touch-uo/Reoair 510,000 nio Falled 0 16 Guod No Failed 0 17 G�ed iJO failed 0 18 89 .atistac[ory mo I Failed 0 19 83 Sa2isfattory No Falled 0 20 75 Satisfac[ory 5783,250 Yes u`mtl 100 21 C�o�od� $1,721,820 All rosts are identified in present-day (Z013) dallors Inspection Inspection Overmat TOTALCOSTOF OWNERSHIP $605,000 $405,000 $7,500 $68,000 10 REHABILITATION msT 3 $ � n 0 � Totalcostfor first 30 year service contract $793,500 Future ronsideration $405,000 $1,334,000 'NUmbers will change in semnd 10 year option 3.0 MG INNSDALE STANDPIPE COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA ABILITATION New Coating System (Exterior) (Wet In[erior) (Pit Piping) Accessory Modifcations and Repairs Quality Assurance Inspections JALSURVEY Coating Observation (Exterior) (Wet Interior) (Pit Piping) Accessory Observation Summary Statement IERAL MAINTENANCE Pressure Wash (Exterior) (Wet Interior) Spot Coating Repairs (Exterior) (Wel Interior) (Pit Piping) Minor Accessory Repairs Quality Assurance Inspections ENGINEERING EVALUATION Coating Testing (Exterior) and Anarysis (Wet Interior) (Pil Piping) Five-year AW WA Inspection Tank Accessories Inspection Report with Recommendations " WCWDES PLANS, SPECS, AND INSPECTION PLANYEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2015 2016 2017 2078 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 � � � � � �� O O M fA n � x � ■� ■� ■� ■� �� X X X X X X O O O O EA V3 VT � I � EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Tanlc 3A MG Innsdale Standpipe Taolc Name: Cottage Grove, MN Year: 2015 1. lustall a new concreCe splash pad at the dischaige end of the overflow pipe. 2. The concrete foundations and ginut will be coatecl to lielp prevent deterioration. 3. Install a new screened flap gaYe at tl�e discharge end of the overflow pipe. Replace the boltecVstud welded roof handrail wiUi ai2 OSHA compliant roof handraiJ. The diameter of the 4. existing handrail is 56 ft. The new handr2il will be installed to match the existing size. The existing l�andrails around tlie two roof hatches are OSHA compliant and fltey woidd Ue built into tlie new handrail sysYem. 5. Remove the small painte�'s rail around the center venC. 6. Install a new fi ost-fiee roof vent The new vent will be bolted to tlie existing vent flange. � Install another roof hatch to the wet interior inside tl�e roof handtaiL This hatch will be 30 u�. diameter. Tliis hatch can Ue use for extra ventilation during blasting and coating operations. 8. Properly seal the tlireaded coupluzg on the roof that currently is causi�g issues. Exterim•: • Erect a fidl tlexible containment system with roof bonnet. • Complete removal of existing coating system on the exterior surfaces to equivalent of SSPGSP6 9. Commeiroial Blast Cleanin� Coudition. • Apply one coat of zuiq one coat of epoxy, and one coat of w'elf�ane with UV protecCion (AW WA Oufside PainY Syste�n No. 6). • Prep and finish paint the antem�a cable covers. Pit Piping: 10. ' Complete removal of existing coating system on piping aud valve surfaces Yo equivalent of SSPGSP6 Commercial Blast Cleaniug. . Apply two coats of epoxy coating (AW WA Inside Paiut System No. ]). J City of Cottage Grore, Nlinnesota � SEHDesign�Build, Inc. I J Taolc 3.0 MG Innsdale Standpipe Tanlc Name: Cottage Grove, MN Year: 2015 Wet Interioi: . Complete reinoval of existing coaYing sysfem on the wet interior surfaces to equivaleut of SSPGSPIO Near Wliite Blast Cleaning Condition. . Provide special hazardous waste considerations if required. � I ' . Apply two coats of epoxy coatiug Uiat is approved For use in potable druiknig water taidcs (AW WA Inside PainYSystemNa I). . Caulk the roof beams and seams. . Disinfect the tank interior per AW WA C652. Years: 2016 to 2018 Yearly Visual Smveys: . Full tanlc inspection (wet interior does noti have to be drained). . Su�runary Report. Year: 2019 ExYerior: . Pressure wash surfaces to remove contamivant's and mildew. 1 . Power tool clean rusted areas on exterior snrfaces to equivalent of SSPGSP 3 Power Tool Cleaniug Coodition. • App]y two coaYs of eposy and one wat of urethane with U V protection (AW WA Outside Paiut System No. 5) fo prepared areas. Wet Lrterior: . Pressure wash sm'Paces Co remove contamivanYs and staining. Z . Power tool clean rusted areas on wet interior sarf2ces Yo equivalent of SSPGSP 11 Power TooL Cleaning to Baie Metal Condition. . Apply two coats of epoxy coaLing (AW WA Inside Paiut Systein No. 1) to prepared 2reas. . Disinfect the ta�ilz interior per AW WA C652. Pit Piping: . Power tool clean all failed and rusted areas on pipuig and valve siufaces to equivalent of SSPGSP3 Power Tool Cleaning Condition. . Apply two coats of epoxy coafvig (AW WA Inside Paurt System No. 1) to all prepared axeas. J / SEHDesign�Build,lnc. City of Coltage Groi�e, Minnesotn iy Year: 2019 �ngineering Evaluation: • Inspectiou of the exterior, wet interior, aud pit piping coatings. a. • Wet urterior will be drained and coincide with tl�e wet iuterior pressiu'e wash and coatiug repau's. • Ta�d<accessoriesinspection. • Report with recoimnendations. Years: 2020 to 2023 Ycarly Visaal Sm•veys: l� . IItLL tanlc inspection (wet v�terior does �mt have Co be drained). • Summary Report. Year: 2024 Exterim^ . Pressure wash surfaces to remove contamuiants and mildew. I . Power tool clean rusted areas on exterior surfaces to equivalent of SSPGSP 3 Power Tool Cleauuig Condition. . Apply two coats of epoxy and one coat of urethane witlt UV protectiov (AW WA Outside P2int Sysfein No. 5) to prepared areas. Wet Intcrior: . Pressiu'e wash sw to remove crnitaminants and staining. Z . Power tool cle2u rusted areas on wet uiYerior surfaces W equivalent of SSYGSP 11 Power Tool Cleaning Yo Bare Metal Condition. . Apply two coats of eposy coatiug (AWWA Inside Paint System No. 1) to prepared areas. • Disivfect the tanlc interior per AVJWA C652. D�y L�terior: 3 • Power tool clean ivsted areas on diy interior surfaces to equivalent of SSPGSP3 Yower Tool Clea�iuig Condition. • Apply two coats of epoxy coating (A W WA Inside Paurt System No. 1) to prepared areas. Engineering Lvaluatimc . hispectimi of the exCerior, weC interior, d�y interior and pit l�ipuig coatings. 4, . Wet interior will Ue drained and coincide with the wet iuterior pressure wash and coating repairs. . Tanlc accessories i��specYion. . Report wilh reconvuendations. J Crt�� ofCotlage Grove, Ivliranesota � SEHDesign�Build, Inc. I5 � 3,000,000 Gallon Standpipe Tank 20-YearTotal Cost of Ownership Comparison Madel Assumptions: elast and Re-wat cost (e:ammeaey,��orn orea): Conrtruc[ion Documents (rio�: a sp��,): InspeRions: Bidding Administration: 5-year Inspection msT. WORKDESCRIVTION I REHABILITATION COST $1,869,000 5.0% 10.0% 1.0/ 5850,000 $42.500 $85,000 58,500 $11,000 CONDITION CONDITION RATING �OATINGINDE% (CCI) Fzii Poor 16 SEH D� B Rehabilltation cosT. $730,000 WtureOvercoatcOStp��mmnoemmrvo��o:�i.ssemam�onro��o��m.nr): $530,000 Annual Inspection cosT. 9 $8,000 washdown and Touch-up cast: $�S,a00 Maintenanre Contrac[ te�m (years): 10 MAINTENANCE CONTRACT APPROACH (D-B) CONDITION �ONDITION ¢ REHABILITNTION COATINGINDEX RATING c WORKDESCRIPTION COST (CCI� � Allcos[s areidentifiedin preseno-day(2013)dollars TOTpLCOSTOF I $1,613,000 3 g 0 3 3? n� g � Totalmstfor tirst 10 year 52NIC2 COOLIdCL $936,000 Future mnsitleration 'NUmbers will changelnsecond 10 year option Water Tower Comparisons TOWERPROJECTSW/BIDSRECEIVED(DESIGN/BID/BUILD) PROPOSEDTOWERPROJERS�DESIGN/BID/BUILD) PROPOSEDTOWERPROJECTS�SEHWTMS) City St. Paul Park 6/ZO/13 Vadnais Heights 2/1/12 Arden Hills 4/16/13 Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Cottage Grove 750,000 Gallon Fluted 1.0 MG Fluted Column 1.0 MG Fluted Column 1.0 MG Fluted Column 3.0 MG Standpipe 1.0 MG Fluted Column 3.0 MG Standpipe Type Column Everythingincludedinthe Every[hinginduded inihe 10 and 5 yearwarranty 10 and 5 yearwarranty Warranty 2yearwarranty 2yearwarranty 2yearwarranty 2yearwarranty 2yearwarranty bids,painting,inspections, bids,painting,inspections, specs, plans, engineering specs, plans, engineering Si,sas,soo Sasa,soo $l,o2o,sln Seos,000 S�so,000 $1,328,500 5807,152 $897,000 l0year5793,500 l0year5936,000 Bids $1,138,500 $746,900 $882.400 Si,oeo,000 S�lz,aso 57a3,2so $898,000 $712,200 5876,652 Not Included in eid- Need to add 6id, Need to add bid, inspec[ions, 5100,000, not including 580,000, not induding $50,000, not induding inspections, specs, & inspections, specs, & Induded in bid price above Induded in bid price above specsand Ciiyfees CityFees Cityfees engineeringcosts engineeringwsts engineering COS[ Grend7otal 5976,652 5792,200 5833,250 $605,000 5730,000 $793,500 5936,000 Estimated construction costs v 8 �"s��a � 1L'u�t Own�c_ �6tt9/ �4 5¢.. ��an➢ Parfic, @tV3�9 �r�gecfi Descrip?ian: 3raadway JSvelnn:e Water Fower Reha6ilid�a4uan ��rh� � " �; Dreajec8 Manager: Nazncy Zei�HeP, �� ue��aa�$ov ��¢naa�: � �id IDa@�: 6d2�IS3 SFd "V 3rtva: '�:OD,�.a'a. C��+�`�h�9^�ma'4�+LLocaf Se�IT.°mpomY/Infema: FlfeslCrnfe [irMlGZD13 Bid Tabuta4an- Schctlule ofPrices Swch 4Jatcr Tawo RchaSpi[a¢on Ardcn Flls, NN IIolma Fi Mc�c Pmjcct No. T21.1Ofi220 Apri11G, 2�13 C:\V's:�tvry.mau�n\AppOa[a\Lanl\Mlcle:oh\Wlndaw.\TCmpervry IntemetFll[.�CO�h�:.0u�eo1�01�1'�IfOL1�C:tlTa6l:em.¢etl $ WRIW� Peh�b A'ZS3CGll0.J: � �o ��g� ��e�ano.cavo�ua� �� Shart Elliatt Hendnd<san Inc. Page t or 7 Sl i� c Chapter 358 of the Minnesota State Statute allows municipalities to direct-select a contractor of their choice for VY@�E�B��B��➢C� �f(V� ee��[�ilig��iorn �� eo� vir�f�U stiora�� ci9i�i�s. "A municipality may, by direct negotiation or through the solicitation of request for proposals, enter into a IYIU�tI�'/��Y professional service CO�1'�P�C'� for the engineering, re.pair, and maintenance of a water storage tank..." The City is allowed to avert the h�aditional Uidding process in accordance witl� Chapter 358 of the Mimiesota State Stahites. An excerpt of the Miimesota legislation kas been included for your review: CHAPTER 358 — S.F. No. 3168 An aci relating to municipalities; providing for a bidding exception for ceiiain water tank service wntracts; aWhorizing an agreemeryt fof the ciiy of W alker to maintain and operate ihe state's wafer tower atAh-Gwah-Ching; amending Minnesota Statuies 2000, seciion 471.345, by adding a subdivision. . BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATUREOFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Sec[ion 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 471.345, is amended by adding a subdiJision to read: Subd. 6b. [WATER TANK SERVICE CONTRACTS] A municipality may, 6y direct negoiiation or through the solicitation oi requests ior proposals, enter into a multlyear professional service confract for the engineering, repair, and maintenance of a wa[er storage tank and appudenant facilities owned, controlled, or operated by ihe municipality, if the contract coNains: (1) a provision ihat the municipality Is not required to make rotal payments In a single yearthat exceed the water utility charges received by the municipality ior that year; (2) a provision requiring thac the work pertormed be done under the review of a professional engineer licensed In lhe state of Minnesoia attesting that iiie work will be performed In compliance with all applica6le codes and engineering standards; and (3) a provision that iP, at the commencement of the contraet, the water tanlc or appurtenant facilities requires engineering, repair, or service in order � to bring the watertank or facilities into compliance with federal, state, or local requiremen�s, the parly conlracting with the municipaliry is responsible for providing the englneeriny, repair, or service. The costs to brinc� the water tank or facilities into compliance must be itemized separately and charged to the municipality in payments spread over a period of not less ihan Ihree years from the commencement of the contract. � Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE] " Sections 1 and 2 are effective the day following final enaciment. Presented to the governor April 30, 2002 Signed 6y the governor May i, 2002, 2:40 p.m. tanlc riiaintenance alternatives � page 5 �l Water Towers Original Value per Fixed Assets Last Year 15 20 Assets ID Description Capacity Year Built System Painted Amount years years 100002 Thompson Grove WaterTower .15 MG 1958 $ 240,000.00 2007 $ 396,216.00 2022 2027 100003 Inwood WaterTower (Highlands) 1.5 MG 1971 $ 1,200,000.00 2003 $ 761,447.00 2018 2023 100004 81st Street Water Tower (3.0 MG) 3.0 MG 1979 $ 557,020.00 1997 $ 337,421.00 2012 2017 100005 Innsdale Tower (1.0 ground) 1.0 MG 1962 $ 267,020.00 2011 $ 496,963.00 2026 2031 100020 Pine Hill (.5 mg elevated tank) .5 MG 1984 $ 419,044.00 2000 $ 201,568.00 2015 2020 100704 West Draw Water Tower 1.0 MG 2001 $ 1,590,220.00 2016 2021 � �