you, Mr. Chairman, this is the opportunity for members of the public who wish to address this committee to come forward. If they're participating virtually, they can do so by raising their hand on the Zoom application or pressing Star nine on their telephone at this time. Mr. Chairman, I see no hands up for public comment, so a second call would be in order
call for public comment. Anyone for public comment now will be the time to to raise your hand
and again, Mr. Chairman, no hands up. So a third and final call would be in order, Last
call for public comment. Anyone? All right, there's no one for public comment. Then we'll move on to the next item on the agenda,
Mr. Chairman, we did not hear the motion to approve the agenda. We just want to make sure that was made
Okay. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? I'll make the motion support. All in favor. Aye. That motion passes communications. Do we have any
No, Mr. Chairman, there are no communications for this committee. All
right, there's nothing for old business. It takes us into item eight. That's new business. We got a kind of a short agenda today. The Beat, I see a couple of these items are connected, but they're not running back to back, so because we'll deal with them when we get to them. The first item is a proposal, amendment number one. This is contract number 1903453, systems, control center, support services. Miss Porter.
Good afternoon directors. My name is Terry Daniel presenting, and he has order Deputy Chief Operating Officer for water and Field Services. This amendment number one is for additional time and funding with PCI LLC. The original scope of the contract is to assist GM W with emergency staffing support that is necessary to stay in compliance with the state and federal regulations. Similarly to a contract that was brought to this board last month for electrical staffing support, this is the operation equivalent of that type of services. The primary work consists of providing contractual support personnel for situations are wet weather, storm watch, monitoring the booster stations, pumping stations, and also the control room. This acts as systems control. Currently, 82% of this contract funding has been exhausted, and it will run out before the expiration date of February 27 2025 this proposed amendment is for additional time and money in the amount of $1,520,000 with an additional 365 days. The goal is to fund this contract as the team prepares to bring a new contract to the board, at this time, I would like to answer any questions that you may have.
All right, thank you, Terry. Mr. Baker, you had any corrections?
Yeah, so, Terry, we're spending a lot more. Why is that
one of the reasons we actually had a change in operating strategies. For example, Emily station is normally seasonal. Is normally operated in peak season, let's say from May to September. We actually install the smaller pumping unit, and technically, we are able to staff that station year round, opposed to just seasonal. This actually give us a better operating strategy and structure, since we have a smaller pump being able to support Flint. So that's one of the major things that's actually been added. The other is just staffing for different situations, as as we need to team members,
okay, and we're not, maybe more bills, Bill, but we're not able to bring any of this work in house. With tapping these things,
we have increased our internal staffing, but no, these are some of these are the supplemental and they're hard to attract. And then some of this is also seasonal work, like the inspectors, and so they would not be a position that we bring in full time. Okay, thank you.
Yeah, Bill, I get the seasonal that's the way I looked at this when I reviewed it last night. And it makes sense that we contract on seasonal workers, but Terry, you just indicated this small pump at inlay has required that we need to bring in people. Sounds like, on a year round, a full time basis, that group of folks. Bill Terry, seems like a. So they're fit for being full time equivalents, if we can find them. Bill you're saying that they're too hard to find. Are we just not paying enough, or what for that particular year round segment of workers that we need?
There are several challenges. Some of those go to labor strategy, and what I can do is just give you an update on some of our our labor negotiations, but that that is going to be a challenge for these positions, and I know it is a challenge for both our organization and Detroit water and sewer department.
So is it a money thing, or these people just aren't available? Bill
again, I'd be happy to give you a briefing in closed session, but, but anyway, in answer to your question, both of those are going to always be a factor. There's always going to be an availability, and some of this is temporary work. And so, okay,
Mr. Zack, welcome aboard. You got any more chemo? This is a the first item on the agenda. You got anything?
No,
I am sorry. I'm late. No questions on this matter. Okay, that's fine. Motion to approve item A is in order. Support. All in favor. Aye. That motion passes. Next item is item B. This is amendment four. This is for standby generation prevention maintenance. Terry, you got this one also? Yes, yes, I
do. Sir again. Good morning directors. My name is Terry Daniel, Deputy Chief Operating Officer for water Field Services. This amendment number four is needed to maintain emergency generated infrastructure that is located at the firewater treatment plants, 15 pumping stations at six support sites. The units are used to provide emergency power to the stations in the event that we have a power outage or need to use or either need to operate the units for strategic purposes or testing. Since the beginning of this contract in May of 2020, the vendor has identified various issues through what we have as an annual and semi annual preventive maintenance schedules. And some of the items that were identified are components related to the electronic controls, fueling systems, regulators, etc, items that are actually attached or need to operate the generator itself. This is the fourth change order for this contract with the request for time only an amount of 200 days. This amendment is a staff gap between this current contract and replacement contract that is currently in the request will be a process. The First Amendment that we had added seven additional locations from the water booster stations, 22 locations from the water resource recovery facility at no increase in cost. The second amendment to this contract added to human location, and again, at no increase in cost. And finally, the third amendment was an increase in cost for an additional 1,025,200 6000 6083 upset due to some critical repairs that were identified at various locations at this time, I would like to again answer any questions that you may have.
Well, thank you for that presentation. Terry, my questions was around Amendment One and two, why there was no increase in money or time? But you answered those very succinctly. So I appreciate that other questions for Terry Daniels on this item, and Mr. Chair, Mr. Baker, Terry
um Redden, 200 days and no increase in cost, right? So I assume we're we're even with the additional 200 days, we have enough money. Proponent, why was there the might be a procurement question, or between the two, Why the delay in in procuring the next contract?
Why the delays? I mean, look at this.
Is our procurement partners might be able to expand on the timeline.
This is Tony Collins, procurement director, GWA. I would say that's due to the fact that we were implementing work a you're going to see a lot of contracts that we had to either delay because we were working on that implementation. We were working on the data migration. We're starting to feel that now in the procurement. Department. So we suspect that you're going to see some contracts coming in that we have either we're working on the bidding process while we were also transferring over to our new system.
Okay. Thanks. Sonia.
Other questions on Item b, no questions from me. Mr. Chairman. A motion to approve is in order. So moved or move the supported all in favor of D I. Thank you for that. Thank you for that. Mr. Daniels,
thank you.
Next item is proposed, amendment five. This is the Great Lakes Water Authority, conveyance system engineering services. Navid Moran, thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Navid Moran, chief operating officer for wastewater operations before we use a request to increase in time and dollars for Brown and Caldwell as our engineer of record for the for several conveyance projects that we had initiated. This project kind of goes back from 2019 it's really was an evolving project where we were conducting investigations. We had findings, and then, based on the findings, we made recommendations for improvements, developed drawings, put those out for bid, and got received contractors to implement those fixes. The two major projects that fall under this project are the Woodward sewer project and the Connor Creek sewer project, as you had highlighted item E before this, this honorable board will be the Connor Creek project, where we're extending the time because of weather delays and and, and you are well aware of the issues we have had on the Woodward Rehabilitation Project, which the team is working through, the performance bond requirements and and calling those bonds so the request before you is really to make sure that we have that continuity of service to continue the project forward. The Connor Creek sewer project is progressing well. The Woodward sewer project is in is complete, but there are items that are outstanding that we are working with the contractor and plan to work with the bond company in the future as well, and that assistance is necessary at this point. I'll take any questions.
This is item C, proposed amendment number five for conveyance system engineering services. Any questions for Naveed?
Hey, Navin, you have a rough breakout or percent between the Woodward and the Connor Creek of this 938
majority of the 938 is around the Connor Creek sewer project. I do not have the exact breakout, but we can provide that. Okay,
I guess I can get to my questions on the construction contract when we get to it.
Yeah, okay,
yeah, I'm good. Thank you. Chair.
Okay, so that's this is item C. If there are no more questions, is there a motion to approve item C? Hello, support. Move the support. All in faith, aye, That motion passes and moves us to Item D. Item D is proposed change order number three, the rehabilitation of Northwest interceptor, eight mile retirement. Navi, moral, thank
you. Miss Sharon. This project before you is a time extension only with no cost. This project, and it's in its final completion, the rehabilitation work is done. There was a minor cleaning that was identified that needs to be done on the main interceptor. This is our Northwest interceptor that runs along the Rouge River. The extension in time is really to allow for us to come back in a year as part of the sewer contracts. What we have is in our model is to do a warranty inspection after a year and make sure that if there are any deficiencies that are found, they will be corrected as part of that warranty prior to releasing the contractor. So this contract is really just to keep the contract open so that we can cycle back in a year and ensure that the repairs are, are, are withstanding the work. And at this point, I can take any questions.
So NaVi, just the work on this is pretty much done. It's been completed. They're mopping up, cleaning up right now, and there's a 12 month. Warranty that's holding them in place to make sure everything is good at the end of that warranty that is correct. Other questions on this for NaVi This is Item B
and Yeah, Mr. Chair, so, so Navid, in the original contract, we did not include that warranty period
in the original contract, the warranty period was included. However, because of the extension and times that occurred, we didn't capture the warranty period. We didn't update the warranty period onto the timeline. The team was we're still working through this strategy, because, as you can understand, there's other places where we have a warranty period, but we don't keep a contract open. So the team is looking at this model and further enhancing it and improving it, but it was originally a requirement within the contract, but just the mechanism of do we keep a contract open or not? Was the discussion that we have with our general counsel team, and the decision was to keep the contract open for this application.
Okay? So are they? What is the project like? A year behind? Is what you're saying.
This project was delayed. That is correct. Okay,
so And why was it delayed? Is it our issues, contractor issues?
It was a little bit of both. And this is something we have worked through with our vendor. Some of it was around access our sewer system every time there is an event, as a rain event or additional waters gets into the system, we can't access it. There was a lot more standby time that was required for accessibility because of some of the gate operations we had within the sewer system. And those were the will drivers of the delay, there was nothing significant, but small delays in time resulted in this overall
project delay. Okay, did we have increased costs as a result of anything that wasn't our fault that we're now giving up potential LDS because
we're No, no the majority, and that is really the driver, where we had balance the work, the change order to that we had on this project was really around a manhole access and some additional cleanup. So it was nothing that was both, both of the delays were managed appropriately so that there will be no additional cost incurred.
All right, thanks. Uh.
John Zach, you got anything on this one? No, no, I think this was a good idea. Motion to approves in order. Item moved. So moved support. Move to support it all in favor. Aye, That motion passes. All right. Navid, here's item E this is that this is proposed change order number one for rehab on Connor Creek sewer system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as you had highlighted. This is the construction project that's being supported by Brown and Caldwell. This is a large interceptor that runs down from basically around eight mile and Dequindre all the way down to the Connor Creek sewer system, or the Connor Creek CSO facility. The pipeline on this is very long. It has a huge watershed, and every time there is a rain event, it does cause disruptions. When this project was developed, there was rain days, which we refer to as standby days, when a contractor that's working in the sewer system can only access the sewer limited number of times where they are unable to get into the sewer because of high water levels in the sewer. Those those delays are baked into the contract. However, they're not accounted for in the timeline of the project, because at the time of award, we don't know exactly how many of those days will be utilized. So before you is a request in time recognizing the number of events that have occurred over the duration of this project. And that is the reason why we have a no cost. However, it is an extension of time for this, this project, and at this point, I'll take any questions.
All right. Questions for Navid on this item,
yeah, Mister, mister Baker, so Naveed, what? What are we assume, like two days a week. I. Would be wet weather days or maintenance days, or do we have a standard, or
we don't, so we monitored the source. So I will give you for this project, for the total duration, which is close to three years, was around 277 total days that we had anticipated, and 170 day. 17 days were used so far for this project.
Okay, so they're under number one. I it's just the eye that we don't include assumed wet weather days in the contract when we tell the contractor what we're assuming. But if, if they've only used 117 out of the 277 wet weather days, why was the county what's accounting for the additional 643 days? So
it's twofold. One is accounting for, if you recall, this was one of the projects where we had anticipated that there was going to be a significant amount of debris in this project. However, those quantities were reduced based on our findings in the pipe. So when that happened, we re reallocate portion of the project and incorporate a different task to be able to reduce the amount of impact that we would have experienced from the quantity changes from the contract, so that we were able to balance and minimize our losses associated with the reduced sediment that was found in the store. So this brought so some of that time is to complete that work, which is improvements to the upstream of the Connor Creek CSO facility, because of all the sediment debris that accumulates in the front of the basin, and we are reconfiguring that front end to improve our flushing so that we minimize the amount of boring usage in the CSO So that is one of the drivers for the time. The second driver for the time is, we're being a little bit more aggressive in the time extension request we're requesting for to make sure that we capture the warranty time period as well. So this is the this is the second component, similar to what we talked about in the prior item, and then thirdly, the reason we don't capture so the 277 great standby days that we include in the contract is we can't, we don't extend the time of the contract to account for them, because we don't know how many of those days we will actually utilize. So in the contract, both the designer, the contractor and the owner are aware that there's 277 days that the contractor should anticipate in their schedule that they are going to be delayed. However, right to stay competitive, to stay apprised of the project they are giving us the amount of time. And because of that, we don't capture all the 277 days, and we capture it as we go for the duration of the project, okay? And that is the reason why we you see 177 use days, but I'm asking for 643 days.
Okay, that's good explanation. I I remember now that you say it that the quantities of the sediment was lower and we're going to give them additional work. It just, I guess I It wasn't in the backup to remind me, but that work took longer than what the sediment cleaning would have taken. That is correct. Yeah, okay. All right, thanks. Navin,
other questions on this explanation that we appreciate. All right, Motion to approve item E so moved support. Move the supported. All in favor. Aye. That motion passes that takes us to Item F. Item F is a requisition for bio, solid process improvement. This is a study. This is Caldwell about as well, correct.
That is correct. Cal Poly as well. Yeah,
this is item. L, go right ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so this is the starting of a journey that you plan to go on as glwa, for what's going to be the future of the biosolids for glwa, if you recall, almost a year ago, we pursued a EPA grant to to try to expedite this process, to be able to make investments if there was a grant opportunity into our biosolids process, which is necessary our infrastructure is is getting a. Aged. We have three methodologies where we dispose biosolids. And truly, biosolids is a byproduct of any wastewater treatment plant. So to treat wastewater, you generate this byproduct, and if you can't get rid of this byproduct is your base, your your system goes underwater. You have to be able to dispose your biosolids efficiently, effectively and quickly to make room for the new solids that come into the facility. GLW operates three methodologies. One is the BDF facility we refer to, which is operated by nefco. It is a dryer facility where we land, apply the byproduct as a fertilizer. The 25% of the product is handled by incineration. Incineration is these are multi hog incinerators, which have different levels, and we basically bake the product into an ash, and we dispose of that into a landfill. The incinerators are are last updated in 1990s and significant investment is necessary to bring those units to more reliable state and also ensure that they are compliant with the new regulatory requirements. And then finally, we have the central offload facility. And lot of discussions was around this facility, but it is a line stabilizing prior to landfill, type of methodology, and we utilize this for emergency purposes. This is a very expensive disposal cost. It is not very environmental friendly, because it does consume a lot of our landfill space in the state of Michigan when we do have to use this product or this facility. So truly, we have to figure out a sustainable future for glwa long term and how we're going to handle solids. This project is anticipated to be up to a billion dollars of investment that may be necessary, and with the with the evolving contaminants that are being presented, some as such as PFAs, fortunately, GLW doesn't have that issue, because our limits are significantly lower than What needs to actually be treated. It is still emerging contaminant that we have to be aware of and cognizant of as we develop the study. To to finalize the my my content on this is really this study will examine the existing system, our existing biosolids handling, they will look into what future regulatory requirements that they anticipate are coming, which is difficult, right? We don't know sometimes what regulations are coming, but we have some insight as it relates to the things that are top of mind, which is right now PFAs, this effort, this design study will have a very extensive engagement effort that will be with our member partners and different stakeholders that are part of this, our research and development team, our other partners, such as nefco that is processing many of our products, our member partners that are going to be Paying for this project in the long run, and rewarding the benefits of it, if there are opportunities to be able to offset future costs with this project, so there will be design shreds and everything else that's associated with this to develop an adaptive study, adaptive tool that allows us to build a roadmap For the next 40 years of what needs to happen with biosolids at the water resource recovery facility. It is pretty exciting to kick this study off. It is going to be a long time for it. I believe the timeline for this project is close to two years, and we hope to have a product that will be able to really build that roadmap for the future of glwa. And at this point, I'll take any questions.
So NaVi, when you talk about the the influence of stakeholders, both internal and external. Are you talking about them having input with Brown and Caldwell on the study? Are you talking about the longer range project that's going to go well into the next you said 2040, years? So
the study will be the feeder into what that project will look like. So they are going to have we will host design threats, which would allow us to get input of what is important to our member partners, what is important to GWA team members, and what is important to other entities such as um. Uh, you know, different activist groups within the within the region, or our neighboring communities within the water resource recovery facility, making sure we get those type of engagements, so that when we develop a strategy for Southeast Michigan, it is something that's comprehensive,
and you're tapping into academia too. Is that right? Absolutely,
absolutely. So U of M, University of Michigan. University of Michigan will be involved with this. We have engaged Michigan State in in many of our research studies, and there are research innovation group is currently doing a project with the Department of Energy, and there's several academia across the country that are involved in that, so they will likely have input within what their findings on the research pilot study that they're doing is, and the input associated with that. So
the 2.8 million is to fund the study that Brown and Caldwell is doing, but then you've got a list of dollars allocated to this that goes well into 2034 those are dollars that what presumed to be a part of the actual development of the project, not the number of dollars associated with the study. I would presume that
is correct. So we have a total budget for this project. I don't remember the exact number that we are up to right now, but I think it's north of $500 million in our CIP plan. This is just a small contributor of that project. So everything we do as it relates to that CIP plan will be, country will be associated with that CIP project. So this is just saying that in the next several years, we have close to $27 million in our CIP and and you have, you have identified it correctly in 2829 30 we anticipate to start design, and that's when those expenses are going to start increasing. And then when we get into 2030 2034 that's when we start actually incurring construction expenses. Other
questions for NaVi on Item F. Questions for me, I appreciate the explanation. Mr. Baker, no, not for me. Motion to approve item F, 10 or so moved or move to support it all in favor. Aye, that that approves item F. Navi, thank you very much for that explanation. It was thorough. No no reports bill.
There are no reports for this committee, Mr. Chairman. All right. Looking
ahead to the next on our meeting is November 13, at 11 o'clock. Put that on your calendar. No information. I have no other matters. Motion to adjourn is in order support. All right, we are adjourned. Thank you. Everyone appreciate it. See one o'clock. Sorry, it was Late three minutes. Recording stopped You.
