AGENDA Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage Board …...8. FKE Presentation on the Northeast Sewage Pump Station and North Interceptor-East Arm and the Necessity for the Rehabilitation

Page 1 of 3

AGENDA

Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage Board Macomb and Oakland Counties

May 15, 2019 – 11:30 a.m.

Office of the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner One Public Works, Building 95 West

Waterford, Michigan

1. Call meeting to order Board Members: Michael Gregg, Chair, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Candice Miller, Macomb County Public Works Commissioner Jim Nash, Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner

2. Approval of the Meeting Agenda for May 15, 2019

3. Approval of the following minutes:

a) Drainage District Second Augmented Board Meeting Minutes from April 16,

2019 b) Drainage District Board Meeting Minutes from April 16, 2019

4. Public Comment

5. Report/Update – Status of OMI Project, Segments 1 through 4, NESPS:

Segment 1 Segment 2, Contract 3 NESPS Gatehouse Rehabilitation Status Segment 3, Contract 4 Segment 4, Contract 5A/B Segment 4, Contract 6 NIEA Downstream Repair GLWA/OMID Coordination AMP and GIS Program

6. Supplemental Engineering Work Order for NTH Design Services related to the NI-EA Rehabilitation Project

7. Engineering Work Order for ASI Design Services related to OMID Proposed Flow Control Improvements Memorandum Recommendations

8. Engineering Work Order for MCET services related to OMID Proposed Flow Control Improvements Memorandum Recommendations

Page 2 of 3

9. Regular Construction Estimate Number 19, Contract 3, Change Order 2E for Inland

Waters Pollution Control, Inc. for NESPS Emergency Gatehouse Repair

10. Financial Reports – General Financial Report and Status of State Revolving Fund Financing and Other Financing: a) Segment 1 (1272)

Segment 1 (2892) – OMID Odor-Corrosion Study b) Segment 3 (1557) c) Segment 4 (1913)

Segment 4 (2098) – EPA Project Segment 4 (2041) – NESPS Pump Install Segment 4 (2232) – NESPS Gatehouse Segment 4 (2708) – NESPS Odor-Corrosion Study

11. Motion: Approval of the following Invoices:

a) Reimbursement of Oakland County WRC-Incurred Expenses and Costs 1) Labor/Fringes/Non-Direct Labor Factor

• Segment 4 $ 10,176.02 • Segment 4 Odor Corrosion Study $ 2,256.71 • Segment 4 Mileage $ 261.00

2) Equipment Charges • Segment 4 $ 937.44 • Segment 4 Odor Corrosion Study $ 69.87

b) Ch2m Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District Bio-Trickling Filter Design and Construction Oversight Invoice No. 705773CH009 Seg. 4 $ 12,450.61

c) Clark Hill 1) OMID Phase 2 Project – Acquisition Pump Station

Invoice No. 866905 O&M $ 5,863.34 2) OMID Contract Amendment

Invoice No. 866907 Seg. 4 $ 349.00 d) Dickinson Wright

Gate Operation – MID Invoice No. 1361793 O&M $ 22,877.20

e) Jacobs OMIDDD System-wide Odor/Corrosion Study Invoice no. 697317CH008 Seg. 1 $ 21,792.04

f) METCO NESPS Operation and Maintenance – Transition Plan Invoice No. 1811-04 O&M $ 14,689.03

g) NTH Consultants, Ltd 1) OMID Immediate System Repairs

Invoice No. 02 Seg. 4 $ 13,661.28

Page 3 of 3

2) NESPS CCA Invoice No. 41 Seg. 4 $ 18,270.51

3) NI-EA Invoice No. 08 Seg. 4 $ 6,189.27

12. Request to Approve Contract with CSM Mechanical, LLC. for the NESPS Odor

Corrosion Control Project

13. OMID Immediate Repair Drawings and Specifications Review and Request to Solicit Bidders

14. Presentation from Meadowbrook Insurance regarding insurance policies and premiums

for NESPS and NI-EA

15. Present letter dated May 13, 2019 from Macomb County Chief Deputy Public Works Commissioner Brian Baker regarding concerns as to OMIDDD litigation positions and NESPS

16. Other Business 17. Adjourn

Next Regular Meeting: June 19, 2019 at the office of the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, One Public Works, Building 95 West, One Public Works Drive, Waterford, Michigan at 11:30 a.m., Eastern Standard Time.

Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District Regular Meeting – Wednesday May 15, 2019

______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 3

Regular and Second Augmented Drainage Board Meeting Minutes from April 16, 2019

Page 1 of 7

MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING OF THE AUGMENTED DRAINAGE BOARD OAKLAND-MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT

April 16, 2019

Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board of the Oakland-

Macomb Interceptor Drainage District held at the Office of the Macomb County Public Works Commissioner, Public Works Building, 21777 Dunham Road, Clinton Township, MI 48036 on the 16th day of April, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

PRESENT: Michael R. Gregg (Deputy Director, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development, MDARD, and Chairperson of the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage Board); Candice Miller (Macomb County Public Work Commissioner, MCPWO); Jim Nash (Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, OCWRC); Bob Smith (Chairperson, Macomb County Board of Commissioners); Veronica Klinefelt (Chairperson Finance Committee, Macomb County Board of Commissioners); David Woodward (Chairperson, Oakland County Board of Commissioners); Helaine Zack (Chairperson Finance Committee, Oakland County Board of Commissioners).

ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Baker (Chief Deputy), Stephen Dowaing and Karen Czernel of the Macomb County Public Works Office; Anne Vaara (Chief Deputy), Steven Korth, Sid Lockhart, Joel Brown, Kelsey Cooke, Jacklyn Thomas and Megan Koss of the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner’s Office; Shawn Phelps, Oakland County Fiscal Services; Saju Sachi and Larry Gilbert of NTH Consultants; Fritz Klingler, FK Engineering; Chuck Bellmore, Clinton Township; Erik Skurda, Sterling Heights; Mike Moore, Sterling Heights and Joe Colaianne, Clark Hill.

1. Call meeting to order. Chairperson Gregg called the meeting to order at approximately

11:35 AM with introductions of the members of the Augmented Drainage Board.

2. Roll Call. Quorum present.

3. Motion by Member Miller, supported by Member Smith to approve the April 16, 2019 agenda.

AYES: Gregg, Miller, Nash, Smith, Klinefelt, Woodward and Zack. NAYS: None.

4. Motion by Board Member Woodward, and supported by Board Member Nash, to

approve the February 20, 2019 Minutes of the First Meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board.

Page 2 of 7

AYES: Gregg, Miller, Nash, Smith, Klinefelt, Woodward and Zack.

NAYS: None.

5. Proofs of Publication and Mailing of Notices of Second Meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board and Hearing presented. Motion by Board Member Miller, and supported by Board Member Zack, to receive and file Proofs of Publication and Mailing of Notices of Second Meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board and Hearing.


6. Purpose and role of Augmented Drainage Board and Second Meeting. Mr. Colaianne (Clark Hill), Drainage District Attorney, described the purpose of the Second Meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board, noting that, pursuant to Chapter 21 of the Michigan Drain Code, the Augmented Drainage Board met on February 20, 2019 and adopted a resolution tentatively determining the sufficiency of the Petitions filed pursuant to Chapter 21 of the Michigan Drain Code; the practicability of the project; and the public corporations to be assessed for Project. The Augmented Drainage Board then scheduled for today a meeting to hear any objections to the tentative determinations. The Second Meeting of the Board should open the meeting to hear any objections, and if there are none or there are no changes, consider approving a resolution entering the Final Order of Determination regarding the sufficiency of the petitions, the practicability of the Project, and the public corporations to be assessed for the Project.

7. Public Comment. There was no public comment.

8. FKE Presentation on the Northeast Sewage Pump Station and North Interceptor-East

Arm and the Necessity for the Rehabilitation of these facilities. Fritz Klingler, P.E., FK Engineering briefly described the background of the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor, and the extreme poor condition and the necessity for the rehabilitation of the Northeast Pump Station and North Interceptor – East Arm. Mr. Klingler gave a PowerPoint presentation of project to the Board Members and answered questions concerning the necessity of the project.

9. Overview of the Proposed Project. Joel Brown (OCWRC) provided a project summary

as to the pump station upgrades and repairs. Mr. Brown specifically spoke to the following: dry well elevator, odor and corrosion control, mechanical and electrical upgrades and North Interceptor – East Arm sewer rehabilitation. Furthermore, he provided an overview of anticipated future sewer projects, including immediate repairs, structure access and an odor and corrosion study.

Page 3 of 7

Member Zack expressed concern as to the environmental impact of the biotrickling process. Mr. Brown noted that any such impact would be positive and that while biotrickling is new in Michigan, it is a tried and true methodology employed nationally. Member Woodward asked how to accurately portray the seriousness of the repairs to the community at large. Mr. Klingler noted that the pump station is almost 60 years old and at times, the station has been down to one pump out of five servicing 850,000 people. As a result, the project is critical. Member Zack inquired as to a timetable for the project. It was noted that the study itself is almost done, but that the design will take approximately seven months, followed by a year of manufacturing the pumps and other equipment. Member Woodward raised questions about the maintenance and operations agreement between OMID and GLWA. Mr. Colaianne indicated that the agreement was complete and included protections as to each party’s role. Member Woodward also inquired as to the bid process. Mr. Colaianne detailed that the bid process was handled according to the drain code. Mr. Colaianne noted that the Counties’ procedures provide a higher standard than those required by the federal government. Mr. Korth furthered that they anticipate a fair amount of competition for the project as it is expected to garner national attention.

10. Public Hearing.

Motion by Board Member Nash, and supported by Board Member Klinefelt, to open the hearing to receive objections or comments regarding the sufficiency of the petitions, the practicability of the project, and the public corporations to be assessed for the Project. AYES: Gregg, Miller, Nash, Smith, Klinefelt, Woodward and Zack. NAYS: None.

11. Chairperson inquired as to the receipt of any written objections or statements. Jacqueline Thomas, OCWRC, indicated that as of April 15, Oakland County had not received any objections related to the Project. Brian Baker, Chief Deputy MCPWO, concurred that Macomb County had not received any objections related to the Project.

12. Chairperson requested comments or objections from those present. There were no comments presented.

13. Close Public Hearing. Motion by Board Member Smith, and supported by Board Member Miller, to close the hearing.

Page 4 of 7


14. Final Order of Determination.

Motion by Board Member Klinefelt, and supported by Board Member Zack, to approve the Final Order of Determination.

FINAL ORDER OF DETERMINATION

WHEREAS, on December 20, 2018, the Director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development received petitions pursuant to Chapter 21 of Act 40, Public Acts of Michigan, 1956, as amended (the Michigan Drain Code of 1956), MCL 280.511 et seq., from the City of Sterling Heights (Macomb County) and the Charter Township of Waterford (Oakland County) requesting the clean out, relocation, widening, deepening, straightening, extending, tiling, interconnecting, or otherwise improving the intercounty drain known as the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain (“OMID” or Drain) or any portion thereof (hereinafter referred to as “Maintenance, Extension and Improvement”) pursuant to Section 535 of the Michigan Drain Code of 1956; and,

WHEREAS, the Maintenance, Extension and Improvement of the Drain involves certain wastewater facilities, commonly known as the Northeast Sewage Pumping Station and North Interceptor - East Arm, (as described in the petitions and identified as “wastewater facilities”) that serve communities located within Macomb and Oakland counties; and,

WHEREAS, the wastewater facilities serve as the outlet of the Drain, and are owned by and located within the City of Detroit, and currently leased to the Great Lakes Water Authority; and,

WHEREAS, the OMID’s wastewater service agreement with the City of Detroit, which has been assumed by the Great Lakes Water Authority, authorizes OMID to finance, construct and maintain these wastewater facilities; and,

WHEREAS, the petitions show that the purpose of the Maintenance, Extension and Improvement of the Drain is necessary in order to ensure the continued and uninterrupted transportation of wastewater from public corporations located in Oakland and Macomb counties, to address the public health concerns associated therewith, to ensure the disposal of wastewater in compliance with federal and state law and regulations related thereto, and will entail construction and repairs of wastewater facilities; and,

WHEREAS, on February 20, 2019 at the first meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board, the Augmented Drainage Board made tentative determinations in accordance with Section 519 of the Michigan Drain Code of 1956, MCL 280.519, that: (1) The petitions filed by the City of Sterling Heights and the Charter Township of Waterford pursuant to Chapter 21 of the Michigan

Page 5 of 7

Drain Code of 1956 were sufficient; (2) the proposed Maintenance, Extension and Improvement of the Drain, or Project, was practicable; and (3) the following public corporations shall be assessed under Chapter 21 for the cost of the Project: Macomb County: Oakland County: Chesterfield Charter Township City of Auburn Hills City of Fraser Charter Township of Independence (which City of Sterling Heights Includes the City of Clarkston) City of Utica City of Lake Angelus Clinton Charter Township City of Rochester Harrison Charter Township City of Rochester Hills Lenox Township Charter Township of Oakland Macomb Township Orion Charter Township Shelby Charter Township Charter Township of Oxford Village of New Haven Village of Lake Orion Washington Charter Township Village of Oxford

Charter Township of Waterford Charter Township of West Bloomfield

WHEREAS, on February 20, 2019 at the first meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board, the Augmented Drainage Board further resolved that the drain shall be known and designated as the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain; the drainage district shall be known and designated as the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District; and scheduled the Second Meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board to be held on April 16, 2019 at 10:30 A.M., at the Offices of the Macomb County Public Works Commissioner, 21777 Dunham Road, Clinton Township, MI 48036 in order to meet to hear objections to the proposed drain (Project), the petitions for the Drain (Project), and the matter of assessing cost of the drain (Project) to the designated public corporations. WHEREAS, Notice of the Second Meeting was published in the Oakland Press and Macomb Daily on March 19 and 26, 2019, and served in accordance with Section 519 (MCL 280.519) of the Michigan Drain Code of 1956. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Augmented Drainage Board for the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District hereby makes the following final determinations in accordance with Section 519 of the Michigan Drain Code of 1956, MCL 280.519: 1. The petitions filed by the City of Sterling Heights and the Charter Township of Waterford pursuant to Chapter 21 of the Michigan Drain Code of 1956 are sufficient. 2. That the proposed Maintenance, Extension and Improvement of the Drain, or Project, is practicable and should be constructed.

Page 6 of 7

3. That the following public corporations shall be assessed pursuant to Chapter 21 for the cost of the Project: Macomb County: Oakland County: Chesterfield Charter Township City of Auburn Hills City of Fraser Charter Township of Independence (which City of Sterling Heights Includes the City of Clarkston) City of Utica City of Lake Angelus Clinton Charter Township City of Rochester Harrison Charter Township City of Rochester Hills Lenox Township Charter Township of Oakland Macomb Township Orion Charter Township Shelby Charter Township Charter Township of Oxford Village of New Haven Village of Lake Orion Washington Charter Township Village of Oxford

Charter Township of Waterford Charter Township of West Bloomfield


NAYS: None.

FINAL ORDER OF DETERMINATION DECLARED ADOPTED.

15. Invoice. Present invoice from Digital First Media dated March 31, 2019 in the amount of $3,300.25. Motion by Board Member Miller, and supported by Board Member Smith, to approve for payment the invoice in the amount of $3,300.25 from Digital First Media dated March 31, 2019.


NAYS: None.

16. Other Business. There was no further business.

17. Adjourn. It was Moved by Board Member Nash, supported by Board Member Miller to adjourn the April 16, 2019 Second Meeting of the Augmented Drainage Board at approximately 11:45 am.


NAYS: None.

Page 7 of 7

I hereby certify that the foregoing constitutes the minutes of the Augmented Drainage Board for the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District, at a meeting held on April 16, 2019 and that the meeting was conducted and public notice was given in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, being Act 267, Public Acts of Michigan, 1976, and that the minutes were kept and will be or have been made available as required by the Act. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this _____ day of May, 2019. ___________________________________________ Jim Nash, Secretary Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage Board

Page 1 of 6

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DRAINAGE BOARD FOR THE OAKLAND-MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT

April 16, 2019

Minutes of the regular meeting of the Drainage Board of the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District held at the Office of the Macomb County Public Works Commissioner, 21777 Dunham Road, Clinton Township, Michigan on the 16th day of April at 11:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. PRESENT: Mike Gregg, Deputy for Mr. Gary McDowell, Director of the Michigan

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD); Candice Miller, Macomb County Public Works Commissioner’s Office (MCPWO); Jim Nash, Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner (OCWRC).

OTHERS PRESENT: Saju Sachi and Larry Gilbert of NTH; Fritz Klingler, FKE; Kyle McKee,

Brian Baker, Karen Czernel and Stephen Downing of the Macomb County Public Works Office; Shawn Phelps, Oakland County Fiscal Services; Steve Korth, Kelsey Cooke, Jaclyn Thomas, Brian Coburn, Joel Brown, Anne Vaara and Megan Koss of the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner’s Office.

1. Call meeting to order.

Chairperson Gregg called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m.

2. Agenda. Motion by Member Miller, supported by Member Nash, to approve the April 16, 2019 agenda. AYES: Gregg, Miller and Nash NAYS: None

3. Minutes.

Motion by Member Nash, supported by Member Miller, to approve the minutes of the March 4, 2019 special meeting and March 20, 2019 meeting. AYES: Gregg, Miller and Nash NAYS: None

4. Minutes.

Motion by Member Nash, supported by Chairperson Gregg to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2019 special meeting. AYES: Gregg and Nash NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Miller

Page 2 of 6

5. Public Comment. None.

6. Report/Update – Status of OMI Project, Segments 1 through 4, NESPS. Mr. Klingler updated the Board on the status of the various projects. Segment 1 – Mr. Klingler indicated the administrative closeout is pending. Segment 2, Contract 3 – Mr. Klingler stated closeout is pending and will be combined with the closeout for the NESPS Discharge Chamber Emergency Repairs. NESPS Gatehouse Rehabilitation Status – Mr. Klingler said east side Tnemec repairs are complete, while west side repairs are dependent upon Pump 1 being returned to service in 9-12 months. Mr. Klingler also stated that Inland Waters has completed work on the cementitious chamber lining of the Gatehouse Central Discharge Chambers. Chairperson Gregg indicated that he would like a schematic of the pump station. Mr. Klingler noted that ASI was putting an operation and maintenance manual together that would include such schematics but that he would have a handout available for the next meeting. Segment 3, Contract 4 – Mr. Klingler reported that closeout is pending. Segment 4, Contract 5A/B – Mr. Klingler said that administrative closeout is pending. It was noted that use agreements with the City of Utica and Shelby Township are pending and need community authorization before they can be presented to the board for execution. Ms. Cooke indicated that she has not heard from the communities since January but that she will follow-up with them as to the status of said agreements. Segment 4, Contract 6 – Mr. Klingler indicated contract administrative closeout is pending. NIEA Emergency Rehabilitation – Mr. Klingler reported that administrative closeout is complete. OMIDDD Assumption of NESPS & NIEA Maintenance and Repairs – Mr. Klingler indicated that an agreement is in process and that elevator repairs, security issues, a wet well crane inspection and long-term maintenance plans are being coordinated. He further stated that there is an effort to look at contingency plans in the event of catastrophic failure. Member Miller noted her concern that any such contingency plan be sent to the DEQ for approval. Mr. Korth indicated that, while it would be important to notify the DEQ of any such contingency plan, the DEQ’s approval is not necessary as public health, especially in these types of emergent of situations, is paramount. OMID Control Structure Upgrades – Mr. Klingler noted that formal authorization is pending regarding control structure cover modifications and PLC changes. Joel Brown indicated he will have Engineering Work Orders regarding this work for the next meeting.

Page 3 of 6

OMID System Maintenance/Repairs – Mr. Klingler stated that design for major maintenance repairs is almost complete. NIEA Repairs – Mr. Klingler noted that the lining study is near completion and that the basis of the design and coordination for design repairs for the NIEA are underway. NESPS Electrical and Mechanical Rehab – Mr. Klingler reported that the basis of the design and coordination for design of complete rehabilitation for the NESPS are underway.

Motion by Member Miller, supported by Member Nash, to receive and file the report and summary. AYES: Gregg, Miller and Nash NAYS: None

7. Present Change Order 2-I as to Contract 3, Segment 2 for Inland Waters Pollution

Control, Inc. for NESPS Gatehouse central chamber cementitious lining. Motion by Member Miller, supported by Member Nash, to approve Change Order 2-I as presented. AYES: Gregg, Miller and Nash NAYS: None

8. Financial Reports – General Financial Report and Status of State Revolving Fund Financing and Other Financing: a) Segment 1 (1272) – Ms. Phelps stated that the Net Cash Balance is $254,815.49

after invoices and reimbursement on the current agenda impacting the cash balance have been considered. The Life-to-Date Expenses are $49,583,109.83. Segment 1 (2892) – OMID Odor-Corrosion Study – The Life-to-Date Expenses are $132,064.99.

b) Segment 3 (1557) – Ms. Phelps reported that the Net Cash Balance is $26,519.06 after invoices and reimbursement on the current agenda impacting the cash balance have been considered. The Life-to-Date Expenses are $68,537,037.38.

c) Segment 4 (1913) – Ms. Phelps indicated that the Net Cash Balance is $6,887,143.93 after invoices and reimbursement on the current agenda impacting the cash balance have been considered. The Life-to-Date Expenses are $19,093,481.01.

Segment 4 (2098) – EPA Project – The Life-to-Date Expenses are $980,000.00. Segment 4 (2041) – NESPS Pump Install – The Life-to-Date Expenses are $192,021.33

Page 4 of 6

Segment 4 (2232) – NESPS Gatehouse – The Life-to-Date Expenses are $4,253,055.49. Segment 4 (2708) – NESPS Odor-Corrosion Study – The Life-to-Date Expenses are $587,876.20.

Motion by Member Miller, supported by Member Nash, to receive and file the financial report. AYES: Gregg, Miller and Nash NAYS: None

9. Invoices. The following invoices were submitted to the Board for approval: a) Reimbursement of Oakland County WRC-Incurred Expenses and Costs

1) Labor/Fringes/Non-Direct Labor Factor • Segment 4 $ 13,962.77 • Segment 4 Odor Corrosion Study $ 2,622.15 • Segment 4 Mileage $ 52.20

2) Equipment Charges • Segment 4 $ 1,767.93 • Segment 4 Odor Corrosion Study $ 81.28

3) Reimbursement of the Drain Revolving Fund $ 298.33 b) Reimbursement of Macomb County-Incurred Expenses and Costs

Macomb County Invoice No. ARP190075 O&M $ 9,082.59

c) ASI 1) NESPS Operation and Maintenance Transition

Invoice No. 7306 O&M $ 21,798.50 2) NESPS Operation and Maintenance Transition

Invoice No. 7326 O&M $ 15,722.25 d) Ch2m

1) Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District Bio-Trickling Filter Design and Construction Oversight Invoice No. 705773CH007 Seg. 4 $ 18,259.16

2) Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District Bio-Trickling Filter Design and Construction Oversight Invoice No. 705773CH008 Seg. 4 $ 28,270.72

e) Clark Hill 1) OMID Phase 2 Project – Acquisition Pump Station

Invoice No. 849479 O&M $ 17,659.16 2) OMID Phase 2 Project – Acquisition of Pump Station

Invoice No. 855561 O&M $ 12,200.00 f) Dickinson Wright

1) Gate Operation – MID Invoice No. 1346232 O&M $ 11,631.40

Page 5 of 6

2) Gate Operation – MID Invoice No. 1351609 O&M $ 1,542.40

g) METCO NESPS Operation and Maintenance – Transition Plan Invoice No. 1811-03 O&M $ 21,183.18

h) Motor City Electrical Technologies 1) NESPS Pump Station Cutover

Invoice No. 92401 O&M $ 231.00 2) NESPS Pump Station Cutover

Invoice No. 92402 O&M $ 308.00 i) NTH Consultants, Ltd

1) OMID Sewer Inspection CCA Invoice No. 09 Seg. 3 $ 730.41

2) OMID Immediate System Repairs Invoice No. 01 Seg. 4 $ 3,637.92

3) NESPS CCA Invoice No. 40 Seg. 4 $ 5,488.65

4) NI-EA Invoice No. 07 Seg. 4 $ 7,747.10

Motion by Member Miller, supported by Member Nash, to approve the invoices as presented. AYES: Gregg, Miller and Nash NAYS: None

10. Other Business. None. 11. Closed Session. None.

12. Adjourn.

Motion by Member Nash, supported by Member Miller, to adjourn the April 16, 2019 meeting at 12:35 p.m. AYES: Gregg, Miller and Nash NAYS: None

Next Regular Meeting: May 15, 2019 at the office of the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, One Public Works, Building 95 West, One Public Works Drive, Waterford, Michigan at 11:30 a.m., Eastern Standard Time. I hereby certify that the foregoing constitutes the minutes of the Drainage Board for the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District, at a meeting held on April 16, 2019 and that the meeting was conducted and public notice was given in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, being Act 267, Public Acts of Michigan, 1976, and that the minutes were kept and will be or have been made available as required by the Act.

Page 6 of 6

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this _____ day of May, 2019. ___________________________________________ Jim Nash, Secretary Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage Board


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 4

Public Comment


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 5

Report/Update – Status of OMI Project, Segments 1 through 4, NESPS

May 15, 2019 OMIDDD Board Meeting

Oakland Macomb Interceptor Drain (OMID) Repairs Project Progress Update

Prepared by: F. Klingler, P.E., FK Engineering Assoc. L. Gilbert, P.E., NTH Consultants, Ltd.

The following provides a status update as of the writing of this report (May 7, 2019) for the work completed for the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Repair Program (SRF Segments 1-4; Contract 7 PCI-4 repairs; Maintenance Repairs in PCI-5 through PCI-11A; Control Structure Modifications; NIEA Repairs; NESPS Upgrades; and other related work):

SRF Seg 1 Status: Contracts 1&2 – Complete .

SRF Segment 2 Status:

Contract 3 (Base Contract) – Complete, Closeout Pending

Construction Amt Invoiced: $18,089,266.41 (100.43% of Adjusted Contract Amount of $18,011,426.41) through 10/31/15 (does not consider final Adjustment for C.O.s 2E, F, G, H).

Schedule Status: Complete on July 31, 2014; Overall Contract closeout will be combined with closeout for the NESPS Discharge Chamber Emergency Repairs (CO 2-E, et al). Contract administrative closeout is proceeding, and Application for Final Payment has been received (processing on hold pending Gatehouse Repairs)

• Sterling Heights has recently alleged that the Contract 3 contractor grouted their 21” storm sewer at 15 Mile-Dodge and Park. The City engaged PipeTech to clear the grouted section; work is currently in progress. OMIDDD intends to forward any claim to the C3 insurance carrier.

Contract 3-2E (NESPS Gatehouse): Substantially Complete

Construction Amt Invoiced: $4,996,397.61 (97.0 % of Change Order 2E adjusted Contract Amount of $5,149,263.33, including deductive credit for Tnemec issue) thru 8/31/16.

Schedule Status: Substantially Complete on 11/25/17 • East side Tnemec repairs are complete; west side repairs are delayed awaiting Pump 1 being returned to

service, following completion of repairs related to an electrical fire on 3/9/2019, estimated at from 9 to 12 months. Alternatives for completion of the Tnemec warranty work are now being evaluated.


Page 2 of 6

SRF Seg 3 Status: Contract 4: Complete, Administrative Closeout Pending

Construction Amt Invoiced: $50,204,923.91 corresponding to 100% of the revised final contract amount, through 10/31/18.

Schedule Status: Achieved Substantial Completion on 5/7/16 to meet revised contract date, with Final Completion established as June 1, 2017.

SRF Segment 4 Status: Contract 5A/5B –Complete, Administrative Closeout Pending: Construction Amount Invoiced (C5A/B): $11,865,520.08 corresponding to 100% of the revised final contract

amount, through 6/30/17. Schedule Status: Completed 12/31/16, on time, based on revised completion, as

established by Change Order.

• City of Utica and Shelby Twp. Use Agreements for access paths are pending, awaiting final community authorizations and signature of the OMIDDD Board Secretary.

Contract 6 – Complete, Administrative Closeout Pending: Construction Amt Invoiced (C6): $3,172,793.60 corresponding to 100% of the revised final contract

amount, through 12/31/2016. Schedule Status: Completed on 12/31/16, on time, based on final negotiated

schedule, as established by Change Order.

Contract 7 (NIEA Emergency Rehab) – Complete


Page 3 of 6

Summary of OMID Construction Contract Status:

Seg. No Contract No. (Description) Const. Comp?

As-Builts Final?

Balancing Change Order?

Contractor Closed Out?

Easements Settled?

1 Contract 1 (CS-9, 5, 3) Y Y Y Y Y

1 Contract 2 (CS-6, 7, 8) Y Y Y Y Y

2 Contract 3 (Gatehouse) Y Y N* N* N/A

2 Contract 3 (Grouting PCI-5 thru 8) Y Y Y N* Y

3 Contract 4 (Lining PCI-5 thru 8) Y Y Y Y Y

4 Contract 5 (Lining PCI-9, 10A/B) Y Y Y Y N

4 Contract 6 (Lining PCI-11A) Y Y Y Y Y

N/A Contract 7 (Lining 110’ of NIEA) Y Y Y Y N/A

* On Hold, pending Coating Issues Resolution

Transfer of NESPS &NIEA Maintenance & Repairs Status: • GLWA/OMIDDD Agreement is in process; technical issues are mostly resolved and/or plan is in place. • The station personnel elevator has been recently repaired; needed refurbishment by Detroit Elevator is

scheduled for late 2019. GLWA will reimburse OMID for refurbishment of elevator. • Security and access issues with GLWA are being coordinated by OMIDDD. • 4-ton outside crane was inspected and replacement is recommended (official report is pending). • 25-ton wet well crane was inspected and replacement is recommended (official report is pending). • CIP and long term maintenance plan being developed on basis of the AMP Report effort. • Currently planning to add level sensor at NESPS under NESPS Refurbishment.

OMID Flow Control Improvements Project: Amt Invoiced: $0 out of currently projected ASI engineering budget of $20,000;

Total design and construction budget currently established as $500,000 (including contingencies and admin/legal).

Schedule Status: Engineering/Design efforts are underway following verbal authorization; approximately 25 percent complete.


Page 4 of 6

• ASI Design/engineering proposal submitted; pending OMIDDD Approval under Engineering Work Order • MCE has drafted PLC changes for gate operation; ASI reviewing and testing these changes. • MCE provided report for Comm Upgrades at CS-5, 6, and 8; awaiting approval. • Level sensors upgrades design in initial stages. • FKE has performed 30 percent design for Control Structure modifications at CS-5; further design for other

structures is ongoing. • The draft line item schedule and budget are summarized:

Work Item/ Milestone Estimated Budget Expenditure (Engineering)

Estimated Budget Expenditure (Contractors)

Estimated Delivery Date

1 Draft PLC Mods by Metco, MCE, ASI 5/8/19

2 Field Investigations (roof measurements, etc.) TBD 5/30/2019

3 CS level sensors design (Metco) TBD 7/1/2019

4 Comm System Improvements (Metco) TBD 8/1/2019

3 Test and implement 6/15/2019

4 50% Design Package 6/8/2019

5 95%, 100% Design Package 6/21/2019

6 Receive Bid(s) for cover mods 7/15/2019

7 Contract Award and NTP for cover mods 7/15/2019

8 Subtotal – Design $9,000 (ASI)

9 Final Completion of Construction $11,000 (ASI) $300,000 (est.) 11/1/2019

10 PCI-5 Gate Repairs and final install of level sensors

TBD TBD 11/15/19

11 Final Testing and Approval of PLC Mods TBD TBD 12/15/19

OMID System Immediate Repairs Status:

Amt Invoiced: $17,299 out of currently projected design budget of $21,418; Total design and construction budget currently established as $1,500,000 (including contingencies and admin/legal).

Schedule Status: Engineering/Design efforts are underway following verbal authorization; approximately 50 percent complete.

• Following completion of inspections last fall, design for maintenance-level repairs isalmost complete. • Repairs tentatively planned to be complete through existing service contracts. • The draft line item schedule and budget are summarized:


Page 5 of 6

NIEA Repairs (Study and Design/Construction) Amt Invoiced: $49,097 out of currently projected study/design budget of $2,331,800; Total design and

construction budget currently as $44,100,000 (including contingencies and admin/legal). Schedule Status: Engineering/Design efforts are underway; Study about 60 percent complete; design

approximately 2 percent complete. • Lining study nearing completion; 4-5 linings to be short-listed for further consideration for repair of the

corroded sections of the NIEA • Following authorization last meeting, initial efforts for the basis of design and coordination for design of

repairs for the NIEA are underway. • The draft line item schedule and budget are summarized:


Estimated Budget Expenditure (Contractor)


1 Lining Study Evaluations & Draft Report 6/15/2019

2 Lining Study Final Report 7/15/2019

Subtotal - Study $126,744

3 Field Investigations (MASW, SUE, Survey, Geotech, EnvCS)

7/30/19

4 Final Basis of Design 9/15/2019


6 95%, 100% Design Package 1/30/2020

7 MDEQ Submittal (Part 41) 2/21/2020

8 Issued for Bid 3/31/2020

9 Bid Opening 5/7/2020

10 Contract Award and NTP

5/15/2020

Subtotal - Design $2,205,063

11 Final Completion of Construction $3,200,000 $32,000,000 12/1/2022




1 Field Investigations (Conducted under Warranty Repairs budget)

Part of AMP Project 10/1/2018


3 95%, 100% Design Package 5/20/2019

4 Issued for Bid/Pricing 6/1/2019

5 Bid Opening 6/30/2019

6 Contract Award and NTP 7/25 /2019

Subtotal - Design $21,418

7 Final Completion of Construction $66,122 $1,200,000 (est.) 11/25/2019


Page 6 of 6

NESPS Electrical and Mechanical Rehab Amt Invoiced: $104,972 out of currently design budget of $1,319,275; Total

design and construction budget currently established as $39,300,000 (including contingencies and admin/legal).

Schedule Status: Engineering/Design efforts underway; approximately 8% complete. • Following authorization last meeting, the basis of design is being finalized and final coordination with

GLWW is planned for week of 5/13/19. Preparation of 30% design documents for complete rehabilitation for the NESPS has begun on the basis of the pre-final BOD.

• The draft line item schedule and budget are summarized:




1 Draft Basis of Design 5/3/2019

2 Final Basis of Design 5/31/2019

3 30% Design 7/1/2019

4 60% Design 9/16/2019

5 Equipment Procurement Package 10/1/2019

6 90% Design 12/15/2019

7 MDEQ Submittal (Part 41 Permit) 12/15/2019

8 Issued for Bid 2/1/2020

9 Notice to Proceed 6/1/2020

Subtotal - Design $1,319,275

10 Substantial Completion $2,500,000 (est.) $25,000,000 (est.) 3/1/2022

11 Final Completion $500,000 (est.) $5,000,000 (est.) 12/1/2022


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 6

Supplemental Engineering Work Order for NTH Design Services related to the NI-EA

Rehabilitation Project

Form DC–001

OAKLAND COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COMMISSIONER Page 1 of 2 Rev.: 02/12/2018

OAKLAND COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COMMISSIONER MEMORANDUM

TO: Michael Gregg, Chairperson of the Drainage Board for the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain

FROM: Joel Brown, P.E., OCWRC, Civil Engineer III Evans Bantios, P.E., MCPWO, Civil Engineer II

SUBJECT: NTH Engineering Design Services Proposal and Supplemental Engineering Work

Order for OMID North Interceptor-East Arm (NI-EA) Rehabilitation Project DATE: May 15, 2019

On March 20, 2019, the OMIDDD Board authorized NTH Consultants, Ltd. to provide project management and investigation services needed to design the required repairs to the North Interceptor-East Arm (NI-EA) system from the Northeast Sewage Pumping Station (NESPS) downstream to the Meldrum and Conant-Mt. Elliott drop structures. The recommended scope of repairs are as follows:

1. Install approximately 1,400 feet of liner between the NESPS Gate House structure and Manhole PCI-4-105 where there has been a loss of concrete cross section with a significant section of reinforcing steel being exposed and corroded (excluding the 110 feet that has recently been repaired).

2. Seal all of the running infiltration identified during the inspection (primarily 15 locations). 3. Remove the remaining significant settled deposits roughly between Manhole PCI-18-113 and

the PC-663 Gate Structure. 4. Repair of the Meldrum and Conant-Mt. Elliott connections and the reinstallation of a protective

liner in this reach. a. Removal of the accumulated concrete and other debris in the vicinity of the PC-662A&B

diversion structures concurrently with the repair of the failed protective coating. Now that the Augmented Drain Board for the OMIDDD approved the takeover of capital and maintenance projects of the NI-EA from the Great Lakes Water Authority on April 16, 2019, we recommend the following NTH engineering design and bidding services, as delineated in their March 15, 2019 proposal, be approved:

• Task 3: Engineering Design Perform the following engineering design services necessary to conduct the needed repairs:

a. Basis-of-Design Report b. Rehabilitation Design c. Contract Drawings and Specifications d. Engineer’s Estimation of Construction Costs and Schedule e. Provide Assistance in working with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great

Lakes and Energy (formerly the Department of Environmental Quality) f. Permits

Form DC–001


• Task 4: Bidding Assistance

Perform design engineering services necessary to assist the Board during the bidding and contract award process.

NTH has already begun preparing for the investigative work for this project. The initial investigations are expected by the end of July 2019 and 95 percent design documents are expected to be completed by the end of 2019. The completed design and bid documents are expected to be ready for bid by March 31, 2020. The associated costs for the above tasks are as follows:

Task 3: Engineering Design: $1,138,547 Task 4: Bidding Services: $ 198,403 Total: $1,336,950

An Engineering Work Order has been created to modify the existing contract to include these services and increase the existing contract by a not- to-exceed amount of $1,336,950. Requested Action: Approve the attached Engineering Work Order to increase contract #2603 by a not-to-exceed amount of $1,336,950.

Form DC–109 drain engineering work order

JIM NASH OAKLAND COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COMMISSIONER

Page 1 of 3 10/1/13

OAKLAND COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COMMISSIONER

One Public Works Drive Phone: (248) 858-0958 Waterford, Michigan 48328-1907

No. -

ENGINEERING WORK ORDER

FOR: OMID NI-EA Rehabilitation Project Amendment to Contract #2603 For Additional Engineering Design Services

TO: NTH Consultants, Ltd. DATE: 5/9/19

DESCRIPTION Section A-Engineering Services and Section C Compensation for Engineering Services, Item No. Additional Special Services and Exhibit D – Estimated Fees

This Engineering Work Order (EWO) is required to define specific additional tasks and compensation related to the OMID NI-EA Rehabilitation Project that falls under the aforementioned sections of contract #2603. This EWO serves as your approval for compensation of the following additional services as delineated in your revised March 15, 2019 proposal.

• Task 3: Engineering Design Perform the following engineering design services necessary to conduct the needed repairs:

a. Basis-of-Design Report: Development of a basis-of-design report to establish the basic design elements, site considerations, design criteria, magnitude of cost, and risk register for completion of the design and construction of rehabilitation measures within the NI-EA.

b. Rehabilitation Design: Provide engineering rehabilitation design services necessary to conduct the needed repairs including but not limited to the following:

i. Site civil ii. Liner design, including evaluation of alternatives

iii. Geotechnical design iv. Instrumentation design v. Permanent access structure design

vi. Leak sealing details and procedures vii. Concrete repair

viii. Maintenance of Traffic c. Contract Drawings and Specifications - Prepare Contract Documents for Bid Package, and

submit for Owner review at 50-percent and 95-percent design stages. Develop front-end and final technical specifications, including flow control specifications, to accomplish the above-identified repairs.

d. Engineer’s Estimation of Construction Costs and Schedule: Develop Engineers estimate of probable cost based on the design drawings and specifications.

e. MDEQ Assistance: Submit 100 percent design documents to the MDEQ, along with all other required permit applications and related documents. Obtain feedback, and incorporate any comments into the “issued for bid” contract document package.



Page 2 of 3 10/1/13

f. Permits: Prepare applications for MDEQ permits, and meet with MDEQ Land and Water Management and SRF divisions as required. Meet with and coordinate the work with the City of Detroit, Michigan Department of Transportation, Wayne County, and GLWA, as well as with the various property owners that will be impacted.

• Task 4: Bidding Assistance Perform design engineering services necessary to assist the OMIDDD during bidding and contract award.

The associated fees for the above tasks are as follows:

Task 3: Engineering Design: $1,138,547 Task 4: Bidding Services: $ 198,403 Total: $1,336,950

Fees for this Engineering Work Order shall be billed on a time and material basis according to the contract standard fee and rate schedule as modified by your proposal. The total amount of the Engineering Services Agreement is to be increased by a not to exceed amount of $1,336,950. This amount is not to be exceeded without written authorization from the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District (OMIDDD) Board.



Page 3 of 3 10/1/13

PREPARED DATE: _________________________________

RECOMMENDED

DATE:

Joel Brown, P.E. By: Project Engineer OCWRC

By: Evans Bantios, P.E. Civil Engineer II MCPWO

ACCEPTED DATE: APPROVED DATE:

By:

Keith Swaffar, P.E. Chairman NTH Consultants, Ltd.

By:

Sid Lockhart, P.E. Special Projects Manager OCWRC

Approved by Drainage Board on:

NTH Consultants, Ltd. 41780 Six Mile Road, Suite 200 Northville, MI 48168 Infrastructure Engineering 248.553.6300 and Environmental Services 248.324.5179 Fax

O:\Active PROJ\PROP 61-190078_OMID NIEA Design\102\001-0315-EDS-PRO.docx

Oakland Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District c/o: March 15, 2019

Mr. Sid Lockhart, P.E. NTH Proposal No. 61-190078

Special Projects Manager

Office of the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner

One Public Works Drive, Building 95 West

Waterford, MI 48328-1907

Mr. Evans Bantios, P.E.

Construction and Maintenance Manager

Office of Macomb County Public Works Commissioner

21777 Dunham Road

Clinton Township, MI 48036-1005

RE: Proposal to Provide Engineering Design Services for Rehabilitation of

NI-EA Sections PCI-4, PCI-18, and PCI-19

Wayne County, Michigan

Dear Messrs. Lockhart and Bantios:

In accordance with our recent discussions, NTH Consultants, Ltd. (NTH) is pleased to submit this

proposal to provide engineering services for design of repairs within the PCI-4, PCI-18 and PCI-

19 sections of the North Interceptor East Arm (NI-EA) downstream of the Northeast Sewage

Pumping Station (NESPS). This work is proposed to be conducted by the Oakland Macomb

Drain (OMID) Drainage District, who is the exclusive user of the PCI-4, PCI-18 and PCI-19

sections of the NI-EA, under cooperative agreement with the Great Lakes Water Authority, who is

the long-term lease-holder of the NI-EA.

In order to best support this project for the OMID Drainage District (OMIDDD), NTH has

assembled a team of consultants who are familiar with the upstream OMID system, Northeast

Sewage Pumping Station, and the NI-EA system; as well as their unique operations and flow

characteristics. NTH has teamed with FK Engineering Associates (FKE), Applied Science, Inc.

(ASI), and Anderson Eckstein and Westrick Inc. (AEW). The following sections detail the NI-EA

background and condition assessment summaries, our scope of services, professional fees, as well

as terms and conditions.

NORTH INTERCEPTOR-EAST ARM BACKGROUND

The NI-EA was constructed to convey flows from the NESPS, together with a limited number of

tributary flows to the Water Resources Recovery Facility (WRRF) in Southwest Detroit. The NI-

EA was constructed under DWSD Contracts PCI-4, PCI-18, PCI-19, PCI-20, PCI-21, and PCI-

22A. From the early 1970’s until Pump Station 2A was brought online in the early 1990’s, the

only portion of the NI-EA receiving flows from the NESPS was the portion of the interceptor

constructed under PCI-4. At the downstream end of PCI-4 a manifold connection to the Seven

Mile Relief Sewer allowed these flows to reach the WRRF through the Conner Creek System.

Once Pump Station 2A was available for service, the bulkhead that separated PCI-4 from the

downstream sections of the NI-EA was removed. As part of the bulkhead removal, a stop gate

Messrs. Lockhart and Bantios

March 15, 2019

O:\Active PROJ\PROP 61-190078_OMID NIEA Design\102\001-0315-EDS-PRO.docx - 2 -

structure was constructed in the northern part of PCI-18 under DWSD Contract PC-663. The

portion of the NI-EA between the NESPS Gate House and Conant - Mt. Elliott Avenue was

constructed under DWSD Contract Nos. PCI-4, PCI-18, and PCI-19. Contract Nos. PCI-18 and

19 were completed in the mid to late 1970’s.

PCI-4: The PCI-4 contract covers a portion of the NI-EA from the Gate House Structure to

approximately 100 feet south of the centerline of East Seven Mile Road at its intersection with

Van Dyke Avenue. The as-built drawings for this contract indicate that it was designed in 1969

and that it was completed in October 1971.

The inside diameter of the PCI-4 reach of the NI-EA is 17.5 feet. This contract included the

manifold connection to the Seven Mile Relief Sewer, as well as an 8-feet inside diameter tunnel

connecting the manifold to the NI-EA. The drawings indicate that plan wall thickness for the

portion of the interceptor built under this contract is 20 inches. There is a 12 feet long transition

from the 17.5 feet inside tunnel diameter to a 16 feet diameter opening into the Gate House

structure. There were a total of 6 manholes constructed under this contract which have been

designated as Manholes PCI-4-101 to PCI-4-106 inclusive. The contract drawings provide for the

primary liner to be either steel rib and wooden lagging or a combination of a rib and lagging to

support the crown and precast blocks below the springline of the pipe. Based on the original

construction being completed concurrently with OMID (and the tributary Macomb Interceptor

Drain, MID), the primary liner is likely steel rib and wood lagging. The secondary liner for the

majority of this contract is unreinforced concrete.

PCI-18: The PCI-18 contract covers that portion of the NI-EA starting approximately 100 feet

downstream of the centerline of East 7 Mile Road at its intersection with Van Dyke Avenue to

approximately Van Dyke Avenue and Curt Street. The drawings for PCI-18 indicate that it was

designed in January 1974. While the as-built drawings do not indicate specifically when the

project was completed, notes on the drawings and appended shop drawings suggest it was started

in February 1975 and completed in August 1976.

The inside diameter of the PCI-18 portion of the NI-EA is 12.0 feet. The drawings indicate that

the thickness of the concrete liner is 16 inches. Under PCI-18, the transition structure from 12.0

feet inside diameter of PCI-18 to 17.5 feet inside diameter of PCI-4 was also completed. The

structure was constructed per a shop drawing submittal from Michigan Sewer Construction rather

than as originally designed. There are a total of 14 manholes constructed along PCI-18 instead of

the 13 shown on the as-built Drawings. The 13 manholes shown on the as-built Drawings were

designated as Manholes PCI-18-101 to PCI-18-113. The contract drawings provide for the

primary liner to be either steel rib and wooden lagging or a combination of a rib and lagging at the

crown supported on precast blocks below the springline of the pipe. Based on the original

construction being completed concurrently with OMID and MID, the primary liner is likely steel

rib and wood lagging. The secondary liner for the majority of this contract is unreinforced

concrete, however, the as-built Drawings for PCI-18 indicated the locations where reinforcing

steel was added to the concrete liner and where problems had been encountered and addressed

during construction.


March 15, 2019


PCI-19: The PCI-19 contract covers the portion of the NI-EA from Van Dyke Avenue and Curt

Street to approximately the alley that intersects Gratiot Avenue between Pulford Street and Mack

Avenue on the southeast side of Gratiot Avenue. The as-built Drawings indicate that PCI-19 was

also designed in January 1974. The as-built Drawings do not indicate when this portion of the NI-

EA was completed. Further, there are no dates on any of the drawings in the as-built Set.

The inside diameter of the PCI-19 portion of the NI-EA is also 12.0 feet and the drawings indicate

that it was to be constructed with a 16-inch thick concrete liner. There were a total of 10

manholes constructed under this contract which have been designated as Manholes PCI-19-101 to

PCI-19-110. The notes on the as-built Drawings indicate the tunnel bore encountered wet gray

silt and wet gray silty sand on the curve from Van Dyke Avenue to Gratiot Avenue. It appears

that the contractor installed dewatering wells with the reach from between Gratiot Avenue and

Seyburn Street to Van Dyke Avenue and Palmer Street, with the greatest concentration of wells

located in the vicinity of the curve. There were also borings and test holes drilled in conjunction

with the dewatering effort. The as-built Drawings indicate that the concrete between Stations

74+79 to 77+50 was reinforced using the same detail scheduled for the railroad crossing between

Beaufait Avenue and Bellevue Avenue under Gratiot Avenue. The contract drawings provide for

the primary liner to be either steel rib and wooden lagging or a combination of a rib and lagging at

the crown supported on precast blocks below the springline of the pipe. Based on the original

construction being completed concurrently with OMIS, the primary liner is likely steel rib and

wood lagging. The secondary liner for the majority of this contract is unreinforced concrete

except as noted above.

PCI-4, PCI-18, AND PCI-19 CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

The inspection of this portion of the NI-EA was performed by NTH in 2015. The distress noted

during the inspection of the sewer included loss of concrete liner thickness and scaling as well as

cracks and fractures in the concrete lining. In addition, water was observed to be infiltrating

through or near the cracks and fractures at varying rates. Within all of the contracts, there are

several identified reaches of sewer in which some form of liner repair is recommended as a result

of chemical attack and subsequent deterioration to the existing concrete surfaces. In addition,

there were a significant number of leaks noted that will require chemical grout to seal.

There is significant distress in the initial 1,500 lineal feet of the NI-EA immediately downstream

of the Northeast Sewage Pumping Station Gate House (the upper 110 feet was lined under OMID

Contract 7), running leaks along the entire alignment inspected, a large settled deposit located

near Manhole PCI-18-113 (part of this has been removed), and a failure of the protective coatings

placed concurrent with the construction of the drop structures for the Meldrum and the Conant -

Mt. Elliott Sewers. There is significant debris near Van Dyke Avenue and I-94, as well as

downstream of the Conant – Mt. Elliott Drop Structure. The debris near the Conant – Mt. Elliott

Drop Structure appears to be contributing to a backwater in this reach. In PCI-19, there are

significant debris deposits between Manhole PCI-19-110 and PCI-19-109; and from the Meldrum

Tap to the end of PCI-19. Based on the inspection, there are 5 specific priority repairs indicated

on the NTH inspection report which are described below.


March 15, 2019


1. Priority 1 is the repair of the reach of the NI-EA between the NESPS Gate House

Structure and Manhole PCI-4-105 where there has been a loss of concrete cross section

and significant reinforcing steel is exposed and corroded (excluding the 110 feet that has

recently been repaired). The net amount of proposed repair in this area is about 1,400

lineal feet.

2. Priority 2 is the sealing of all of the running infiltration noted during the inspection.

Running leaks are capable of piping soil fines into the interceptor and all portions of the

NI-EA have a high consequence of failure.

3. Priority 3 consists of removing the remaining significant settled deposit between roughly

Manhole PCI-18-113 and the PC-663 Gate Structure.

4. Priority 4 consists of repairs at the Meldrum and Conant - Mt. Elliott Connections and the

reinstallation of a protective liner in this reach.

a. Priority 4A would involve removal of the accumulation of concrete and other debris in

the vicinity of the PC-662A&B diversion structures. Due to its impact on flow levels

and as well as ongoing corrosion, these materials should be removed and the area

cleaned concurrently with the repair of the failed protective coating.

Based on the above recommendations, NTH team is proposing the following rehabilitation design

services:

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our proposed scope of services for this project is based on designing repairs for the Priority 1

through 4A areas identified as part of the 2015 NTH inspection. It should be noted that a table top

study is currently being conducted by NTH and FKE to assess a variety of sewer rehabilitation

systems and products. The rehabilitation liner study focused on three types of systems: Sliplining,

Grout-in-Place Liners, and Spray-on/Coating systems. A total of 15 different sewer rehabilitation

products are being researched and assessed for use as a rehabilitation method for the MIC affected

area within NI-EA. The scope of services presented in this proposal use the conclusions and

recommendations presented in the rehabilitation liner study as a basis of design for completing the

engineering design for the repair areas.

The following sections provide a summary of our proposed scope, and the attached detailed work

plan provides anticipated man-hours by task, by firm for investigation and design services.

Task 1: Project Management

During the course of the project, we will provide project management to enable the project to be

completed within the required schedule. This will include detailed work planning and

coordination among team members, conducting bi-weekly progress meetings with the Owner and

team members to review work plan and schedule progress, identifying and tracking issues that

require resolution during design, preparing monthly progress reports, and invoicing.


March 15, 2019


Task 2: Field Investigation

Field investigation/data collection services necessary to conduct to aid the rehabilitation design

phase consist of the following tasks:

1. Condition Assessment: The last condition assessment of PCI-4, PCI-18, and PCI-19 was

completed in the summer of 2015. Following that condition assessment, a list of prioritized

recommendations was provided to DWSD (now GLWA). Other than the geo-polymer lining

of the first 110 feet downstream of the NESPS Gate House that was completed by OMIDDD

under Contract 7 and removal of some of the large debris at 7-Mile by GLWA, we are

unaware of any repairs or cleaning that may have been completed by GLWA since that time.

It is recommended that a comparison manned-entry assessment of PCI-4, PCI-18, and PCI-19

be completed prior to starting preliminary site investigations or design of repairs. The

comparison manned-entry assessment would be beneficial for verifying the repair limits of

MIC distressed areas, identification of additional leak repair locations that may have

developed since the last inspection, estimation of limits and volumes of debris removal areas,

and verification of repair prioritization developed during the 2015 condition assessment.

Included in the manned-entry assessment, we recommend verifying the operations of the

Meldrum (PC-662B) and Conant-Mt. Elliot (PC-662A) gate structures. Use of the gates may

be required during the repair efforts to stop flows into NI-EA from Meldrum and Mt. Elliot

Sewers.

Assessment of the PC-663 gate structure near 7 Mile Road and Van Dyke Avenue as well as

the manifold connection and bulkhead within the adit sewer connection between NI-EA and

the 7 Mile Relief Sewer upstream of PC-663 is also recommended during manned-entry

assessment. Having an understanding of the gate structure and adit sewer connection

conditions may be helpful for consideration during future flow control scenarios or planning

for access during rehabilitation efforts.

The manned-entry comparison assessment will be completed through the use of two confined

space entry crews working concurrently. Each confined space entry crew will consist of two

sewer entrants to walk the sewer, a topside hole watch, and a topside support person at

upstream and downstream manhole locations. It is assumed that the manned-entry assessment

will take six days to complete. Due to the sewer’s alignment falling within the drive lanes of

Van Dyke Avenue, considerations for mobilization and demobilization of traffic control

equipment, ventilation fans, and standby emergency rescue crews have been included in the

work plan. It is also assumed that due to the volume of traffic on Van Dyke Avenue the

manned-entry assessment will likely need to be completed during off-peak hours and on the

weekends.

The deliverable for this task will be a report, providing documentation of existing defects in

general accordance with NASSCO standards, together with comparison to 2015 conditions.

2. Subsurface Utility Engineering: Completion of MASW surveys over top of the 15 leak repair

locations to assess the soil conditions for the potential development of voids. PCI-18 and

PCI-19 as-built drawings contain limited geotechnical data, however there are areas of known


March 15, 2019


gray silt and silty sand within PCI-19. Also, soil boring information included in PCI-4 as-

built drawings indicate sand and silty soils present near the sewer’s invert. Performing a

MASW survey at the identified leak repair locations would provide valuable information for

design of leak sealing and grouting procedures. For budgeting purposes, we assumed each of

the MASW surveys will consist of 50-foot long arrays at ground surface centered on the

approximate leak repair location. Three arrays will be utilized for each survey, one array over

centerline of the pipe and then arrays spaced 6 feet off of centerline on each side of the pipe.

The array spacing is largely dictated by the NI-EA alignment running down the drive lanes of

Van Dyke Avenue, and the need to temporarily close lanes during the survey. Due to the

sewer alignment being located within the road right-of-way, the MASW surveys will need to

be completed during off-peak driving hours to minimize road vibrations and disruption to the

sensor equipment. As a result, the MASW surveys will likely take place in the morning on

weekends, and will have limited hours due to traffic.

Based on the need to work during off-peak traffic hours and limited work windows, we

estimate that two survey locations will be completed in a day. It is estimated that seven to

eight days will be required for the data collection phase of the MASW survey.

The deliverable for this task will be a detailed report, providing a summary of the

investigation, documentation of the shear wave profiles produced from the MASW data, and

an analysis comparing the MASW data to other data (geotechnical, internal conditions, etc.).

3. Basemap and Utility Survey: Field survey data will be collected for creation of basemap and

sewer alignment drawings. An aerial survey along the sewer alignment from NESPS gate

house south to south of Pulford St. (end of PCI-19) will be used to identify current road

elevations, cross streets, railroad crossings, buildings, and other important features along the

sewer right-of-way. A survey at NI-EA PCI-4, 18, and 19 manhole inverts to verify as-built

invert data will also be completed and incorporated into basemap drawings for use during

design of repairs. Verification of crossing and adjacent utilities along the sewer alignment

will also be completed through the use of the Miss-Dig system and available historical

drawings. Field verification of utilities is not included as part of this scope. A topographic

survey will also be completed at the potential access shaft location near the intersection of

East Outer Drive and Conner Avenue, and a second potential shaft near the drop structure for

Meldrum Sewer.

4. Geotechnical Investigation: Available geotechnical data along the NI-EA alignment is

currently limited to eight soil boring logs included in the PCI-4 as-built drawings and data

associated with the construction of the PC-633 and PC-622A/B gate structures in PCI-18 and

PCI-19. It is anticipated that an access shaft will likely be required to complete the Priority 1

liner rehabilitation between manholes PCI-4-105 and PCI-4-106 in PCI-4.

A potential access shaft location near the intersection of East Outer Drive and Conner Avenue

will be evaluated during the design of repairs. It is anticipated that two soil borings will be

completed in this area to evaluate soil conditions and use for design of the temporary earth

retention system for the proposed access shaft. A second potential access shaft will be


March 15, 2019


evaluated during the design of repairs for heavy concrete debris removal associated with

Priority 4 & 4A near the drop connections with Meldrum Sewer and Conant-Mt. Elliot Sewer.

It is anticipated two soil borings will be completed in this area to evaluate soil conditions and

use for design of the temporary earth retention system for the proposed access shaft.

In addition, our scope includes another six borings for additional geotechnical investigation

along the NI-EA as it may be required during design development. The anticipated depth of

the soil borings are 15 feet below the invert of the interceptor. Soil testing will include an

array of tests necessary for the design, including hydrometer grain size analysis, moisture-

density testing, unconfined compression testing, Atterberg limits, and other tests if deemed

appropriate. A final geotechnical report will be developed for use during design, which will

provide documentation of the investigation data, summary of ground conditions, and

evaluation of conditions with respect to the proposed design and construction.

5. Environmental Study: Completion of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments

(ESA) to identify potential environmental concerns at potential access shaft locations for the

Priority 1 and Priority 4A recommended repairs as well as a preliminary environmental

corridor study (PECS) along the interceptor alignment.

Phase 1 ESAs are used to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with

the project site. We will conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance

with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice

E1527-13: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site

Assessment Process. We will prepare a written report documenting compiled information along

with any noted evidence of RECs, and the potential impacts on the project, together with

suggested approach for addressing such impacts.

Only if RECs are identified at the project site during the Phase I ESA, we will conduct a

Phase II ESA to evaluate those RECs. The Phase II ESA will comprise of drilling soil

borings, collecting soil and groundwater samples, chemical analysis of representative samples,

evaluation of field and analytical data and preparation of a report with our recommendations.

We will prepare a written report documenting compiled information along with

recommendations.

As part of environmental investigation, we will conduct a preliminary environmental corridor

study, including the following:

1. Perform a walk-through and drive-through reconnaissance to identify businesses and

surface features along the project corridor that are visually indicative of potential

environmental concern.

2. Obtain and review an environmental database search report from a private information

agency to identify Federal and State listed sites of potential environmental concerns that

may be located in the immediate vicinity of the project corridor.

3. Obtain and review readily available historical aerial photographs, Sanborn maps and

topographic maps to identify surface features indicative of potential environmental

concern along the project corridor.


March 15, 2019


4. We will prepare a written report documenting compiled information for the project

corridor with our evaluations and opinions pertinent to the items of potential

environmental concern, if any are identified.

Task 3: Engineering Design

Engineering design services necessary to conduct the needed repairs are included in our scope of

services, and consist of the following tasks:

1. Basis-of-Design Report: Development of a basis-of-design report to establish the basic design

elements, site considerations, design criteria, magnitude of cost, and risk register for

completion of the design and construction of rehabilitation measures within NI-EA sections

PCI-4, PCI-18, and PCI-19. Evaluation of liner rehabilitation alternatives for PCI-4 and PCI-

19 MCI affected areas will be included in the basis-of-design. Along with the liner

alternatives evaluation, a study of the hydraulic effects and flow control considerations

regarding impacts resulting from variation in diameter, length of relined areas, etc. will also

be included. Major considerations for the design and constructability of the repairs include site

constraints, access shaft location(s), disruption to the public, location of existing utilities, and

traffic control. Moreover, as part of this task, the design team will hold five basis-of-design

review workshops to review major design considerations and alternatives analysis with

GLWA and OMID representatives prior to finalizing the basis-of-design report.

2. Rehabilitation Design: Engineering rehabilitation design services necessary to conduct the

needed repairs consist of the following tasks:

o Site Civil and Utility Design – Design of soil erosion and sedimentation control,

temporary site security fencing, potential utility rerouting, final grade, and site restoration

for areas affected by potential access shafts for liner rehabilitation and heavy concrete

debris removal. Design and restoration for potential laydown and materials storage

area(s) near the access shaft will also be designed.

o Liner Design – Analysis and design of final PCI-4 lining from manhole PCI-4-106 to PCI-

4-105 and PCI-19 coating. See attached alignment map showing liner repair areas. This

will include final plan and profile drawings, cross sections and details, and specifications

for the various lining technologies that will be allowed. In addition, any other repairs,

connections, junctions, transitions, etc. that will be part of the final lining will be

designed.

o Geotechnical Design - Design temporary earth support system including dewatering

requirements, details of interior support, fluming, and construction procedures for the

interceptor penetrations.

o Instrumentation Design - Design geotechnical instrumentation to monitor movement of

existing infrastructure/utilities during construction of access structure. This will also

include development of instrumentation plan to monitor critical utilities/infrastructure

along interceptor alignment during void filling grouting operations outside of the

interceptor concrete liner.


March 15, 2019


o Permanent Access Structure Design - Design the final structure at access location. We

expect that the final structures will consist of a cast-in-place concrete lower structure, and

a precast concrete riser.

o Leak Sealing Details and Procedures - Leak sealing drawing details, approved materials,

and specification will be provided. Leak sealing details will include both sealing of

infiltration and considerations for potential void filling outside of the concrete secondary

liner.

o Concrete Repair Design - Drawing details, approved materials, and specifications will be

provided for shallow and deep concrete repairs for identified localized repairs and/or

substrate surface preparation prior to coating/lining repairs.

o Maintenance of Traffic - Design of traffic control plans for maintaining traffic in the

vicinity of potential access shaft location. Traffic control plans will also be developed for

maintaining traffic around manhole access points for completing debris removal, concrete

repairs, and leak sealing within PCI-4, PCI-18, and PCI-19.

3. Contract Drawings and Specifications: Prepare Contract Documents for Bid Package, and

submit for Owner review at 50-percent and 95-percent design stages.

Develop final technical specifications, including flow control specifications, to accomplish the

above-identified repairs. The flow control specifications will accommodate variations in

approved lining products and related installation procedures.

As part of this scope, we will meet with the OMIDDD to discuss design issues and

construction contract Division 0 and Division 1 items, and we will prepare these specification

sections on the basis of the OMID standard sections.

4. Engineer’s Estimation of Construction Costs and Schedule: Develop Engineers estimate of

probable cost based on the design drawings and specifications. Also develop Engineers

estimate of probable schedule based on the design documents. This task also include meeting

with at least two contractors familiar with the work and pre-approved lining technologies to

receive comments and obtain insights into the constructability of the design.

5. MDEQ Assistance: Submit 100 percent design documents to MDEQ, along with all other

required permit applications and related documents. Obtain feedback, and incorporate any

comments into the “issued for bid” contract document package. We have included one design

workshop meeting with DEQ as part of this task.

6. Permits: Prepare applications for MDEQ permits, and meet with MDEQ Land and Water

Management and SRF divisions as required. Meet with and coordinate the work with the City

of Detroit, Michigan Department of Transportation, Wayne County, and GLWA, as well as

with the various property owners that will be impacted. Moreover, as part of this task, we will

apply for construction and other permits insomuch as the various agencies and municipalities

allow during the design process.


March 15, 2019


Task 4: Bidding Assistance

Design engineering services necessary to assist the OMIDDD during bidding and contract award

for Bid Package are included in our scope of services, and consist of the following tasks:

Advertise for bid in at least two local and three regional/national bid solicitation

publications.

Produce 35 sets of construction bid documents for sale to contractors. Contractors will be

charged for copy-cost of the bid sets, and OMIDDD will be provided a credit for the

amount that NTH receives. Alternatively, construction documents will be provided

electronically.

Conduct pre-bid meetings. Our scope is based on one review meeting and one site visit

meeting being required for the current design effort.

Administrate and respond to Contractor questions and requests for information during the

bid period, and provide response to such questions in the form of addenda.

Issue addenda as necessary to answer questions, provide clarifications and additional

information, provide transcript of pre-bid meeting, and any other necessary information.

Attend bid opening (to be conducted by OMIDDD). Tabulate and evaluate bids. Provide

analysis to the owner relative to acceptability of each bid or any contained irregularities.

Conduct pre-award meeting and provide final recommendations for award.

Task 5: Construction Contract Administration and Related Engineering Support

These services are not included in this current proposal, but will be negotiated on the basis of the

final design, and the final estimated schedule for construction.

PROJECT TEAM AND KEY PROJECT STAFF

For this project, NTH will serve as the prime consultant for the required design development,

design and engineering tasks. To supplement our staff, we propose to include on the team several

other firms to assist in the required efforts. The role of each team member is summarized:

NTH Consultants, Ltd. - NTH will serve as the prime consultant, and will be responsible for

overall financial management of the project, as well as rehabilitation engineering and geotechnical

investigations. Saju Sachidanandan, P.E. will serve as Principal-In-Charge for the project and

will provide oversight for all aspects for the project and Charles Roarty, P.E. will serve as quality

control manager. Key staff will also include Harry Price, P.E. as lead rehabilitation and materials

engineer, Larry Gilbert, P.E. as lead constructability reviewer, Abdulnasser Almadhoun, P.E.,

who will serve as lead specification engineer, and Joel Schanne, P.E. as project engineer.


March 15, 2019


FK Engineering Associates - FKE will provide overall project management of the design team.

Fritz Klingler, P.E., will serve as program manager, with FKE staff providing geotechnical design

engineering for temporary earth retention systems, BOD assistance, and staffing of selected

drilling and other operations. Mr. Klingler’s responsibilities include overall planning of all

investigation, design activities to ensure that the project schedule is met and the design is

completed in accordance with this proposal.

Applied Science, Inc. - ASI will be engaged to provide all aspects of flow control design and

specification for the project, as they have provided since the inception of OMID project. John

Michalski, P.E. will be the project manager for ASI.

Anderson Eckstein and Westrick Inc. - AEW will be engaged to provide basemap survey

services, civil survey, site civil design, and staffing of selected field investigation operations.

Louis Urban, P.E. will serve as the project manager for AEW.

PROFESSIONAL FEES

Planning-level construction cost estimates for the repair and rehabilitation of the NI-EA work

have been developed as part of the inspection report dated January, 6, 2016. Engineering fees for

field investigation and design services can generally be determined as a percentage of the

estimated construction cost, which is expected to be approximately $31 million (2019 dollars),

according to estimates. Based on the developed work plan, the proposed field investigation will be

approximately 2.3 percent of construction, and the design is expected to be approximately 4.7

percent of construction. These numbers compare favorably with the historical cost of design for

OMID, and for typical costs on comparable projects. Our anticipated total professional fee for

design services for NI-EA is $2,205,063.

For the current effort, we have used the investigation and design engineering activities identified

in the scope of services presented herein to develop an estimate of the effort required for each task

and subtask. A copy of the proposed work plan is attached. Fees for our services will be charged

on a cost plus fixed fee basis with a not-to-exceed budget in accordance with the attached work

plan following 2009 contract with the Board. Other expenses will be charged as follows:

Subconsultant Mark-up 6% (reduced from base contract)

Expenses Mark-up 5% (reduced from base contract)

Mileage IRS optional standard mileage rate (+ 5% expense mark-up)

Lab Testing Same fee schedule as base contract

Equipment Same fee schedule as base contract

SCHEDULE

Based on our current workload and that of our team members, we are prepared to immediately

start work on the project once we receive your approval. At the present time, we have the staff

available to complete the required investigation and design efforts to ensure the investigation and

95% design documents complete by the end of 2019 and construction documents ready for

bidding by May 1, 2020.

O

U

T

E

R

D

R

.

C

O

N

A

N

T

A

V

E

.

MO

UN

D R

D.

OUTER DR.

G

T

W

R

.

R

.

G

T

W

R

.

R

.

C

O

N

R

A

I

L

CONRAIL

VA

N D

YK

E A

VE

.

7 MILE RD.

6 MILE RD.

G

R

A

T

I

O

T

A

V

E

.

PCI-4 (17'-6" DIA.)

PC

I-18 (12'-0" D

IA

.)

P

C

I

-

1

9

(

1

2

'

-

0

"

D

I

A

.

)

106

105104

103

102

101

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

W

A

R

R

E

N

A

V

E

.

M

A

C

K

A

V

E

.

NORTHEAST SEWAGE

PUMPING STATION

CONTROL FACILITIES AT

N.I.-E.A. / MELDRUM

CONTROL FACILITIES AT

N.I.-E.A. / MT. ELLIOTT

8'-0" DIA. CONNECTION

TO 13'-0" DIA. SEWER

8 MILE RD.

LINER REPAIR AREA

LINER REPAIR AREA

NTH Consultants, Ltd.

Infrastructure Engineering

and Environmental Services

DRAWING SCALE:

PLOT DATE:

INCEP DATE:

CAD FILE NAME:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

NTH PROJECT No.:

DESIGNED BY:

PROP19NIEA1

15 Mar 2019

PROPOSED LINER REPAIR AREAS

PCI-4, PCI-18, & PCI-19

NORTH INTERCEPTOR - EAST ARM

DETROIT, MICHIGAN

1FIGURE No.

PROP19

JDS

DET

JRE

15 MAR 2019

1" = 3,000'

03000 3000

GRAPHIC SCALE

1" = 3,000'

N

PROPOSED LINER REPAIR AREAS

LEGEND

NTH Consultants, Ltd.

PROJECT FEE ESTIMATING SHEET - DESIGN PHASE

Client Name: Oakland/Macomb Authority Markup on Labor: 12.0%

Project Description: NI-EA Repairs (PCI-4, PCI-18, PCI-19) Markup on Subs 6.0%

J. Schanne / S. Sachidanandan Markup on Expenses 5.0%

Assumptions:

ESTIMATED LABOR HOURS

Detailed List of Steps or Tasks Required Initials of Team Members, Employee Classifications, and Approx Direct Labor Rates Estimated Estimated Subconsultant's Fee

NTH: Overhead = 1.88 AEW: Overhead = 1.60 FKE Overhead = 1.65 ASI: Overhead = 1.45

To Complete This Project Princ Proj Sr Proj Proj Sr Staff Staff Fld Eng Principal/ Sr. Proj/ Proj Sr Staff Staff Principal/ Sr. Proj/ Proj Sr Staff Staff Principal/ Sr. Proj/ Proj. Sr Staff Staff Expenses Subconsultant's Name Estimate

Egr/ Mgr Eng/S Eng/S Eng/S Eng/S Sr. Tech CADD S Staff PM Eng Eng Eng Eng CADD S Staff PM Eng Eng Eng Eng CADD S Staff PM Eng Eng Eng Eng CADD S Staff Expenses

$62 $58 $48 $43 $32 $26 $22 $28 $24 $58 $45 $43 $30 $26 $28 $22 $60 $45 $43 $30 $26 $28 $22 $58 $45 $43 $30 $26 $28 $22

NI-EA Rehabilitation Services $0

Bi-weekly owner status meetings (assume 26) 104 104 208 48 48 52 52 48 48 $1,872 $1,248 ASI & AEW $63,690

Monthly progress reporting (assume 12 Board Meetings) 48 48 0 48 48 36 36 $864 $864 ASI & AEW & FKE $25,937

0 0 0 0 $0

Condition Assessment (assume 7 days, 6 man crew, 2 crews per day) 0 0 0 0 $0

PCI-4, 18, 19, Walk (assume 6 days to complete) 66 8 288 216 578 144 144 8 144 152 0 $4,584 $864 AEW & FKE $118,619

Verify operations of Mt. Elliot Gate, Meldrum Gate, PC-663 (1 day) 12 4 12 28 0 12 12 12 12 $536 $72 FKE & ASI $8,646

Equipment Prep and traffic control coordination 24 10 34 0 0 0 $4,361

Ventilation equipment (1 blower), traffic control (2 arrow, 200 barrels) 8 8 0 0 0 $36,000 Traffic & Blower $39,399

Standby emergency rescue ($2,500 per day) 0 0 0 0 $17,500 CSE Rescue $18,550

Traffic control coordination and permitting (wayne, MDOT) 16 40 16 16 2 90 0 16 40 56 0 6000 $26,215

Daily field report (assume 7 nos.) 8 14 21 43 8 8 7 14 21 4 8 12 $11,304

Technical evaluation memo for including in BOD 4 4 40 42 8 2 100 0 16 16 0 $14,516

0 0 0 0 $0

Subsurface Utility Engineering 0 0 0 0 $0

MASW field data collection at 15 locations along alignment 80 80 160 0 0 0 $720 $18,561

Traffic control coordination 24 24 0 0 0 $16,200 Traffic $19,649

NTH equipment & mileage 0 0 0 0 $4,500 $4,725

Data analysis and draft report 24 60 24 16 8 132 0 0 0 $16,115

Finalize MASW report 4 8 16 16 4 4 52 0 0 0 $6,529

0 0 0 0 $0

Basemap Survey 0 0 0 0 $0

Aerial survey of alignment 0 10 48 48 60 166 0 0 $14,800 AEW & Traffic/Permits $33,507

Topo survey at potential shaft locations (2 shafts) 0 12 32 32 32 60 168 0 0 $17,139

Utilities on plan and profile drawings 0 12 40 100 80 232 0 0 $22,679

Civil site design (SESC, Shaft Area, Laydown, etc.) 0 12 40 60 40 152 0 0 $16,001

0 0 0 0 $0

Geotechnical Investigation and Report 0 0 0 0 $0

Permits and traffic control coordination 0 0 48 36 24 16 124 0 $16,000 Traffic Control/Permits $32,640

Soil Borings (2 shafts), assume 2 borings per shaft 0 0 22 20 48 24 114 0 $4,000 Drilling Sub-contractor $16,705

Misc. soil borings (assume 6, to be picked up along alignment) 0 0 8 30 24 80 142 0 $16,000 Drilling Sub-contractor $33,515

Laboratory testing (MC, DD, UC, Atterbergs, Sieve, Hydro) 0 0 24 24 0 $3,882 Lab testing $6,078

Geotechnical analyses and draft report 6 8 14 0 24 60 120 16 24 244 0 $29,740

Address review comments and finalize geotechnical report 10 8 18 0 24 16 48 8 10 106 0 $16,119

0 0 0 0 $0

Environmental Study 0 0 0 0 $0

Phase 1 Study and Report (2 shaft locations) 6 14 32 4 56 0 0 0 $380 $8,437

Phase 2 Study and Report 2 12 34 58 6 112 0 0 0 $500 $14,337

Corridor study and prepare a detailed report 24 40 100 88 72 32 10 366 0 0 0 $675 $37,868

0 0 0 0 $0

Project controls, coordination investigation phase, part-time doc. control (May, 2019 through Oct. 2019) 96 384 480 20 20 144 144 15 15 $80,182

0 0 0 0 $0

Basis of Design Report 0 0 0 0 $0

Hydraulic study and flow control 8 8 0 0 60 40 80 20 24 224 $26,069

Liner evaluation 40 48 98 80 24 290 0 40 20 22 82 0 $57,443

Alternatives evaluation 40 84 68 48 240 0 60 20 60 18 158 48 32 80 $76,933

Constructability evaluation 40 64 48 152 0 60 10 20 12 102 0 $43,059

Altneratives cost evaluation 40 40 60 140 0 40 20 20 20 100 0 $39,496

Risk register 60 24 84 0 60 16 24 100 40 40 $36,841

Workshop BOD review with Owner (assume 5 Nos.) 40 40 40 24 45 189 24 24 40 40 24 104 40 40 $540 $900 AEW, FKE, ASI $54,523

BOD report 24 32 80 24 10 170 0 24 40 8 72 24 40 64 $1,000 $45,421

0 0 0 0 $0

Rehabilitation Design 0 0 0 0 $0

Team coordination meetings (2 hrs weekly) 80 80 40 200 60 60 80 80 62 62 $2,400 $2,400 AEW & ASI $70,542

Leak sealing details and procedures 8 48 12 68 0 0 0 $9,238

Concrete repair design 8 32 8 48 0 0 0 $6,658

Liner design 16 114 120 120 32 402 0 0 0 $50,448

Temporary earth retention systems w/ dewatering (assume 2 shafts) 16 32 48 0 48 140 80 268 0 $42,698

Instrumentation design 12 12 0 24 48 32 104 0 $15,886

Permanent access structures (2#) 8 32 64 60 164 40 120 16 176 12 12 0 $47,980

Maintenance of traffic 8 8 24 32 80 16 152 0 0 $22,375

Site civil design 0 16 80 32 128 0 0 $16,273

0 0 0 0 $0

Contract Drawings 0 0 0 0 $0

50% design drawings (assumes draft and review comments) 4 4 56 60 92 216 8 60 52 120 8 48 40 96 6 8 16 30 $950 $47,732

95% design drawings (assumes draft and review comments) 12 12 32 48 80 184 12 56 60 128 16 40 48 104 8 12 16 36 $950 $48,594

100% Design Drawings - MDEQ submission (assumes addressing review comments) 12 24 48 56 120 260 12 60 100 172 24 48 60 132 12 24 16 52 $950 $67,304

Issued for Bid Drawings (assumes addressing review comments) 16 24 40 60 118 258 16 48 88 152 32 32 48 112 12 16 16 44 $8,000 $71,439

0 0 0 0 $0

Contract Specifications 0 0 0 0 $0

50% Submittal 8 24 80 80 24 216 18 40 58 12 12 48 72 12 24 36 $750 $46,003

95% design submittal 8 32 60 88 16 204 24 40 64 16 16 32 64 12 24 36 $750 $45,543

100% Design submittal 12 24 60 80 24 200 18 32 50 20 20 32 72 8 20 28 $750 $43,420

Issued for Bid submittal 12 32 60 80 24 208 24 32 56 20 20 40 80 8 20 28 $7,000 $53,210

0 0 0 0 $0

Engineer's Estimation of Construction Costs 0 0 0 0 $0

Cost Opinion 40 8 32 80 0 16 16 0 $17,471

Schedule Opinion 24 4 16 44 0 12 12 0 $10,290

0 0 0 0 $0

Permits & Local Authority Coordination 0 0 0 0 $0

MDOT 2 2 0 8 24 8 40 0 $1,000 $6,962

Wayne County 8 18 8 34 0 0 0 $500 $4,705

City of Detroit 8 16 8 32 0 0 0 $250 $4,236

GLWA 8 16 24 0 0 0 $4,593

MDEQ 4 20 8 32 0 0 0 $1,500 $5,162

0 0 0 0 $0

Bidding Assistance 0 0 0 0 $0

Advertise 6 32 8 46 0 4 4 0 $5,000 $12,314

Pre-bid/bid meetings (includes materials) 32 32 24 10 15 113 8 10 18 24 20 44 8 10 18 $4,500 $32,802

Addenda 12 40 80 12 62 24 230 12 8 20 24 24 20 68 8 10 18 $1,000 $45,595

Respond to RFI's 24 40 64 24 24 24 20 44 16 16 $22,857

Bid Evaluation and recommendations 12 4 40 56 16 16 42 42 16 16 $22,838

Issued for Construction (Specifications and Drawings) 16 16 56 64 94 56 302 16 16 40 72 16 32 20 68 8 16 8 32 $10,000 $61,997

0 0 0 0 $0

Project controls, coordination Design phase, part-time doc control (start Nov. 2019 through May 2020) 112 448 560 20 20 224 224 24 24 $504 $1,008 FKE, ASI, AEW $106,347

0 0 0 0 $0

608 1246 950 1688 426 1237 72 766 1146 466 272 426 304 336 644 0 1425 190 802 528 392 288 106 535 102 56 70 168 92 24

TOTALS 7243 2448 3731 921 $68,925 $131,738

TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE $2,205,063

TOTAL HOURS PER TEAM MEMBER

001-0315-WKP 3/15/2019


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 7

Engineering Work Order for ASI Design Services related to OMID Proposed Flow Control Improvements Memorandum Recommendations

Form DC–001



TO: Michael Gregg, Chairman of the Drainage Board for the Oakland-Macomb

Interceptor Drain

FROM: Joel Brown, P.E., Civil Engineer III, Evans Bantios, P.E. Civil Engineer II

SUBJECT: Engineering Work Order for ASI Design Services related to OMID Proposed Flow Control Improvements Memorandum Recommendations

DATE: May 15, 2019

On September 26, 2018, the Board was presented the attached memorandum from members of the OMID Flow Metering Work Group staff, titled Proposed Flow Control Improvements, and dated September 20, 2018 that detailed needed short-term flow control improvements on the OMID system. These improvements are needed to increase the reliability, improve fail-safe operations, maintain flow rates to less than the contractual capacity of 423-cfs at the NESPS, and minimize the occurrence of air blow-offs and surges in the OMID. While some of the preliminary work for these improvements have been performed by ASI under existing contract scope, an Engineering Work Order is needed to complete the following remaining tasks (number designation references correspond to recommendations in the attached memo):

1. New CS-5 Release Curves 4. Other SCADA Improvements

Provide evaluation/testing of the control program commissioning in order to verify the effectiveness of the new CS-5 programming procedures and other system programming implemented by MCET. The work specifically entails:

a. Review of programming logic b. Review of gate positioning after a storage event (either from wet weather or simulated

storage event for testing. c. Review of NESPS pumping conditions and wet well levels during the release period to

assess flow conditions. d. Coordinate with Motor City Electric Company if any issues are found during the

performance review. e. Conduct final review if changes are made. f. Document results in a memorandum for OMIDDD records.

2b. Level Sensor Improvements

Provide design services for the structural modification of the roof slabs at CS-5, CS-7, and CS-8 to provide new aluminum access hatches for new level sensor replacement and operation of the main gate in lieu of needing to remove the entire roof slab. This work will be

Form DC–001


predominantly done through FK Engineering Associates. The scope of work includes the following:

a. Provide drawing sheets for each structure modification to allow contractors to quote the Work.

b. Provide construction observation, complete with Daily Field Reports and photographs to accurately document the Work performed.

The associated costs for the above tasks are as follows:

Task 1/4: New CS-5 Release Curves

And Other SCADA Improvements: $14,895 1. Level Sensor Improvements: $ 4,793 2. Total: $19,688

Work has already begun on these tasks. The design of the control structures and testing of new programming is expected to be complete by mid-June 2019. Existing blanket contractors for the control structure modifications will then be asked to quote the Work. Construction is expected to be completed by November 1, 2019. An Engineering Work Order has been created to modify the existing contract to include the above services and increase the contract by a not- to-exceed amount of $19,688. Requested Action: Approve the attached Engineering Work Order to increase contract #5470 by a not-to-exceed amount of $19,688.



Page 1 of 3 10/1/13



No. -


FOR: OMID Flow Control Improvements Project Amendment to Contract #5470 For Additional Engineering Design Services

TO: Applied Science Inc. (ASI) DATE: 5/10/19

DESCRIPTION Section A-Engineering Services, Section C Compensation for Engineering Services, Item No. 1 - Additional Special Services and Exhibit C – Engineer’s Proposal

This Engineering Work Order (EWO) is required to define specific additional tasks and compensation related to the OMID Flow Control Improvements Project that falls under the aforementioned sections of contract #5470. This EWO serves as your approval for compensation of the following additional services needed for the project as delineated in your attached revised May 8, 2019 proposal and as referenced in the attached September 20, 2019 memorandum titled “Proposed Flow Control Improvements”:

1. New CS-5 Release Curves 4. Other SCADA Improvements

Provide evaluation/testing of the control program commissioning in order to verify the effectiveness of the new CS-5 programming procedures and other system programming implemented by MCET. The work specifically entails:

a. Review of programming logic b. Review of gate positioning after a storage event (either from wet weather or simulated storage

event for testing. c. Review of NESPS pumping conditions and wet well levels during the release period to assess

flow conditions. d. Coordinate with Motor City Electric Company if any issues are found during the performance

review. e. Conduct final review if changes are made. f. Document results in a memorandum for OMIDDD records.

2b. Level Sensor Improvements

Provide design services for the structural modification of the roof slabs at CS-5, CS-7, and CS-8 to provide new aluminum access hatches for new level sensor replacement and operation of the main gate in lieu of needing to remove the entire roof slab. This work will be predominantly done through FK Engineering Associates. The scope of work includes the following:



Page 2 of 3 10/1/13

a. Provide drawing sheets for each structure modification to allow a contractor to quote the Work. b. Provide construction observation, complete with Daily Field Reports and photographs to

accurately document the Work performed. The associated costs for the above tasks are as follows:

Task 1/4: New CS-5 Release Curves

And Other SCADA Improvements: $14,895 Task 2b: Level Sensor Improvements: $ 4,793 Total: $19,688

Fees for this Engineering Work Order shall be billed on a time and material basis according to the rate schedules included with the proposal. Subconsultants and expenses are allotted a markup of 5%. The total amount of the Engineering Services Agreement is to be increased by a not to exceed amount of $19,688. This amount is not to be exceeded without written authorization from the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District (OMIDDD) Board.



Page 3 of 3 10/1/13

PREPARED DATE: _________________________________

RECOMMENDED

DATE:




By:

John Michalski, P.E. Vice President Applied Science, Inc..

By:



Applied Science, Inc. consulting engineering

300 River Place, Suite 5400 Detroit, Michigan 48207

Phone: 313.567.3990 Fax: 313.567.3750

May 8, 2019 Mr. Sid Lockhart, P.E. Assistant Chief Engineer Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner One Public Works Drive Building 95 West Waterford, Michigan 48328 Re: Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District (OMIDDD)

Scope and Estimate for providing OMID Flow Control Improvements Project Dear Mr. Lockhart, Thank you for the opportunity for Applied Science, Inc. (ASI) to continue to provide you with engineering services for the above referenced project. It is our understanding that it is the OMIDDD’s request to carry out the short-term flow control recommendations identified in a September 20, 2018 Proposed Flow Control Improvement Technical Memorandum which was presented to the Board on September 26, 2018. Accordingly, we have been asked to provide a proposal for design and engineering services needed to carry out the applicable recommendations in the memorandum. The requested services are as follows: 1. New CS-5 Release Curves and 4. Other SCADA Improvements

A new gate release control program is anticipated at CS-5, which is to be performed by Motor City Electric Technologies, Inc. (MCET) under another work directive. In addition, MCET is to implement other SCADA logic improvements and changes across the system. ASI has been requested to provide evaluation/testing of the control program commissioning in order to verify the effectiveness of the programming parameters. It is our understanding that gate repairs are necessary to be completed prior to the evaluation of the gate positioning with the control program. We feel the verification of the programming can be accomplished within 30 days from the repair of the gate. Our tasks will include:

• Review of the programming logic • Review of gate positioning after a storage event (either from wet weather or simulated storage

event for testing

Mr. Sid Lockhart OMIDDD CS Improvements Page 2 of 2

Applied Science, Inc.

• Review of NESPS pumping conditions and wet well levels during the release period to assess flow conditions

• Coordinate with MCE any issues found during the performance review • Conduct final review if changes are made • Document results in a memorandum for OMIDDD records.

2b. Level Sensor Improvements Perform design and construction services to make improvements to the select features to three control structures (CS-5, CS-7, and CS-8) for easier maintenance access to level sensors and efficient operation of the primary gate. The design and construction oversight work will be accomplished by FK Engineering. Their proposal letter is attached for your reference. The estimated budget for this requested work is as follows: SCADA Improvement at CS-5 - $4,793 Control Structure Improvement Design and Construction - $14,895. Total Budget Requested: $19,688 We are ready to begin on the project upon your authorization to proceed. We look forward to working with you on making this a successful project for both Applied Science, Inc. and the OMID team. Sincerely, Applied Science, Inc. John R. Michalski, P.E. Vice President Attachment: FKE Proposal

OFFICE LOCATION: 21777 Dunham Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036 ● Phone: 586-469-5325 ● Fax: 586-469-5933

MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Box 806, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48046-0806

ENGINEERING ● Phone: 586-469-5910 ● Fax: 586-469-7693 ◊ SOIL EROSION ● Phone: 586-469-5327 ● Fax 586-307-8264

Candice S. Miller

Public Works Commissioner Macomb County

To: Drainage Board for the Oakland Macomb Interceptor Drain From: Vincent Astorino, Operations & Flow Manager Evans Bantios, P.E., Construction & Maintenance Manager Date: September 20, 2018 Subject: OMIDDD Proposed Flow Control Improvements Recommendation During the last Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain (OMIDDD) board meeting Macomb County submitted a memo titled “OMID-MID Operational Gates Review 07.24.18” documenting issues with the way the gates have been operated in the past. The first item that this memo recommended was a meeting between Oakland and Macomb to establish the steps going forward to ensure a safe and secure operational protocol for the Control Structures within the two districts. This meeting between Oakland and Macomb took place on August 15, 2018. From that meeting there were three major action items established.

1. A sub-group of Applied Science, Metco, Motor City Electric, Oakland, and Macomb County was established to discuss the events brought up in the aforementioned memo by Macomb. This group was to put together a memo with recommendations of improvements for the OMIDDD Flow Metering Work Group (FMWG) to review and approve.

2. The OMIDDD FMWG was to review and approve the recommendations brought forward from the flow control sub-group. Going forward the FMWG will provide oversight of flow control changes and activities.

3. The Control Structures need to be evaluated for long term use with any possible costs that might come with keeping them in place.

The sub-group met on August 28, 2018 and started development of the recommendation memo to the OMIDDD FMWG. A copy of the proposed flow control improvements memo put together by flow control sub-group is attached. The OMIDDD FMWG then met on September 11, 2018 and reviewed the proposed changes from the sub-group. Recommendation: The OMID FMWG concurs with the findings from the flow control sub-group and recommends moving forward with all of the proposed changes documented within the attached memo.

Page 1 of 14

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Phil Brink, P.E., CDM Smith

OMID Flow Metering Work Group From: Karen Ridgway, P.E., Applied Science, Inc. Terry Moore, METCO Darin Gilbert, MCET Steve Rozycki, P.E., MCPWO Brent Welser, MCPWO Brian Coburn, P.E., OCWRC Project: Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District Subject: Proposed Flow Control Improvements Date: September 20, 2018 Introduction The OMID flow control system includes five (5) control structures as shown on Figure 1. Four (4) of these structures are along of the OMID interceptors and are named CS-5, CS-6, CS-7, and CS-8. One (1) structure, CS-3, is on the Romeo Arm interceptor that is part of the MID. Each control structure has a divider wall or a bulkhead. Sluice gates exist on the divider wall or bulkhead that may be closed to store wastewater in the upstream interceptor and reduce downstream flow rates so that work in the interceptors can occur with zero or low flow rates for part of dry weather days. The sluice gates are actuated with hydraulic cylinders and operating systems.

Level sensors exist at each control structure and are connected to a SCADA system that is shared with OCWRC and MCPWO. Radio and cellular communications exist between the control structures and the SCADA.

The sluice gates may be operated remotely in a range of modes (manual, standby, storage or release). Automatic release sequences are programmed into the SCADA system for gradual and coordinated releases of the stored wastewater. The existing SCADA screens for each control structure are attached.

Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District Proposed Flow Control Improvements September 20, 2018

Page 2 of 14


Page 3 of 14

Short-term improvements to the OMID flow control system are proposed to increase the reliability, improve fail-safe operations, maintain flow rates to less than the contractual capacity of 423-cfs at the NESPS, and minimize the occurrence of air blow-offs and surges in the OMID and MID. These improvements may be accomplished in about a 6-month time frame and do not include the improvements needed to make the control structures permanent.

Improvements The proposed improvements are summarized on the table below and presented in more detail in the following paragraphs. Shaded items are not recommended to be implemented at this time due to high costs.

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Improvements

Item Description Vendor or Contractor

Estimated Cost

Time for Implementation

(months)

1 New CS-5 Release Curves

Implement faster SCADA system

automatic release curves

MCET $4,000

2 months

2a Level Sensor

Improvements at NESPS

Install additional high range radar

level sensor MCET $17,000

4 months

2b

Level Sensor Improvements at

Control Structures

Install radar level sensors MCET $132,000

4 months

3 Improve Communications

Switch CS-6 to cellular; switch CS-8 to stronger cellular

carrier

MCET $4,400

2 months

4 Other SCADA

System Improvements

See below MCET $4,000

2 months

5 Update O&M Manual See below ASI $5,000

1 month

16 Hydraulic Operator

Improvements

New PLCs and hydraulic cylinders

at control structures HESCO $800,000

6 months


Page 4 of 14

It is recommended that items 1, 2a, 3, 4, and 5 be implemented at a total estimated cost of $34,400.

1. New CS-5 Release Curves The automatic release curves at CS-5 have been observed to release wastewater too slowly. In response, the curves were recalculated, and revised curves are presented in Figure 2 and Table 2. In addition, the fast and slow release targets were increased from 150 and 320-cfs to 250 and 350-cfs, respectively. These updated curves provide for faster releases and are recommended to be implemented in SCADA system and tested further in the automatic release mode. The cost for this work is estimated to be $4,000 and includes SCADA system integration of the new look-up curve points and testing.

2. Level Sensors Improvements New radar level sensors are proposed to be installed at the NESPS and at CS-5, 6, 7 and 8 that have wider and higher ranges of operation. Higher range level sensors will allow OMID and GLWA to know the degree of storage and backwater being created by the NESPS in the OMID system. The higher range will provide better information of when submergence of community connections may be occurring when storage of wastewater is occurring. Radar level sensors will be tested, and if acceptable, implemented in the following locations.

a. NESPS One (1) new level sensor is proposed in the NESPS wet well. The five (5) existing ultrasonic level sensors in the wet well are influenced by fog and hit top-of-range frequently as they all are mounted from the screen floor in the wet well and become submerged with high wet well levels. The sensors also can be covered by debris after submergence. The cost for this level sensor is about $17,000 and includes the Vega radar sensor, installation in the wet well, power, communications and SCADA system integration.

b. Control Structures New and higher range radar level sensors are proposed to be installed at CS-5, 6, 7 and 8 on both the upstream and downstream sides of the divider walls. These level sensors will replace the existing level sensors that are 7 years old and approaching the end of their useful life. The existing upstream level sensors are frequently reaching the top-of-range when the divider wall is overtopped. The new level sensors will still be able to measure low wastewater depths and will be raised as high as possible to provide a wider range of measurement. CS-3 is not included because the level sensors were replaced and raised in 2017 as part of the repair project for the MID collapse.


Page 5 of 14

The cost for the replacement level sensors at the four (4) control structures is about $13,000 per control structure and includes new Vega radar sensors, sensor installation in the shafts, new power and and communication wiring and SCADA system integration. Removal and re-installation of the top slabs of the control structures is required for the installation of the new level sensors. The cost removal and re-installation of the top slabs, crane rental, barricades, cover plates, temporary fencing, traffic control and restoration at each control structure is estimated to be about $20,000 per control structure. Therefore, the total cost for new radar level sensors at four (4) control structures is about $132,000. New radar level sensors were considered in this memorandum but are not recommended due to the high cost especially for the removal and re-installation of the top slabs of the control structures. New radar level sensors are recommended to be incorporated into the study design of the work required to make the control structures permanent.

3. Improve Communications The radio communication system between the control structures and the SCADA system has always not been reliable. Consequently, most of the communications between to control structures and the SCADA system was switched from radio to cellular telephones. An exception is CS-6, which still uses radio communication and is recommended to be switched to cellular communication. Also, the cellular phone coverage at CS-8 is not strong and switching providers is recommended. The cost for this work is estimated to be about $4,400 and includes investigating cellular providers and signal strengths and integration of the new cellular signals into the SCADA system.

4. Other SCADA System Improvements The following SCADA system programming changes are proposed to be investigated and implemented.

• Eliminate controlled storage modes (not used or needed anymore) • Change the standby mode to be a pause mode • Manual setpoints for gate opening will default to automatic release setpoints

each time the user switches to manual mode • Boundaries will be programmed for automatic release setpoint user adjustments • A “simulated closed” will be programmed in case of limit switch failure/debris in

the gate • Fail-safe programming for releases from upstream control structures when no

storage occurred at the downstream structures or when the downstream structure is closed or restricted


Page 6 of 14

The cost for this work is estimated to be $4,000 and includes developing and testing the SCADA programming changes.

5. O&M Manual Updates The existing O&M manual prepared by FKE and dated July 2018 includes some operational information for the control structure sluice gates. The storage and release procedures will be reviewed and updated to be complete and current once the above referenced SCADA programming changes are implemented, tested and accepted. Also, a section will be added to the O&M manual to better define the criteria for dry weather flow conditions and the available storage times. The following items are recommended to be considered in determining if acceptable dry weather exist for storage and work in the interceptor system.

• Previous seven (7) days flow trends for a group of key flow meters • Estimation of expected storage times based on current OMID and MID system

flow rates • No storage or work in the interceptors when more than 0.5 inches of

rainfall/snowmelt is expected in the next of 8 hours • Incorporate rain gauge alerts into the SCADA system when more than 0.5 inches

of rainfall has occurred at key gauges

6. Hydraulic Operator Improvements

The hydraulic operating systems were installed in 2011 and frequent equipment failures are starting to occur as the equipment approaches the end of its useful life. The hydraulic operating systems for the CS-3 sluice gates and level sensors were rehabilitated in 2017 as part of the MID sewer collapse repair project and are newer, more reliable and may not require replacement at this time. The PLCs and existing cylinders at each control structure may be replaced with new cylinders including pistons, seals, rods and position transducers. The new cylinders will have new limit switches including fully open (100% open), fully closed (0% open) and a near closed (2% open) switches. Also, each hydraulic operating system will include a separate speed control circuit that will normally limit how fast the sluice may be open. This will be an additional fail-safe feature. The speed control for normal opening will be about 1/10th of the normal operating speed.


Page 7 of 14

New hoses, valves and fittings will be included in the rehabilitation work and hard piping may be used for the new hydraulic oil lines. The estimated cost for this work is summarized below. Removal and re-installation of the top slabs of the control structures is required for the installation of the new hydraulic operating systems. The costs include about $20,000 per control structure for removal and re-installation of the top slabs, crane rental, barricades, cover plates, temporary fencing, traffic control and restoration at each control structure.

Control Structure Estimated Cost CS-3 $170,000 CS-5 $195,000 CS-6 $145,000 CS-7 $145,000 CS-8 $145,000 Total $800,000

Hydraulic operating system improvements were considered in this memorandum but are not recommended due to the high cost. Hydraulic operating system improvements are recommended to be incorporated into the study design of the work required to make the control structures permanent.


Page 8 of 14

Figure 2. Updated Upstream Depth versus Gate Position for Release Mode


Page 9 of 14

Table 2. Updated Upstream Depth Versus Gate Position for Release Mode Values

Upstream Depth (ft)

Percent Open to Target 250 cfs


29.6 24% 33%

27.1 25% 35%

24.6 26% 36%

22.1 27% 39%

19.6 29% 41%

17.1 31% 44%

14.6 34% 48%

12.1 38% 54%

9.6 43% 63%

8.1 48% 70%

7 53% 100%

6 100% --


Page 10 of 14


Page 11 of 14


Page 12 of 14


Page 13 of 14


Page 14 of 14


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 8

Engineering Work Order for MCET services related to OMID Proposed Flow Control

Improvements Memorandum Recommendations

Form DC–001




Interceptor Drain


SUBJECT: Engineering Work Order for MCET Services related to OMID Proposed Flow Control Improvements Memorandum Recommendations

DATE: May 15, 2019

On September 26, 2018, the OMIDDD Board was presented the attached memorandum from members of the OMID Flow Metering Work Group staff, titled Proposed Flow Control Improvements, and dated September 20, 2018 that detailed needed short-term flow control improvements on the OMID system. These improvements are needed to increase the reliability, improve fail-safe operations, maintain flow rates to less than the contractual capacity of 423-cfs at the NESPS, and minimize the occurrence of air blow-offs and surges in the OMID. While some of the preliminary work for these improvements have been performed by Motor City Electric Technologies, Inc. (MCET) under existing contract scope, an Engineering Work Order is needed to complete the following remaining tasks per MCET’s attached May 8, 2019 proposal. (Please note that the number designation references the corresponding recommendation in the attached memo):

1. New CS-5 Release Curves Perform SCADA integration of the CS-5 release curves generated by ASI for more efficient flow release. The work includes the physical programming logic changes as well as testing and evaluation of the changes.

2a. Level Sensor Improvements at NESPS

Install one new radar level sensor in the NESPS wet well. The five (5) existing ultrasonic level sensors in the wet well are influenced by fog and hit top-of-range frequently as they all are mounted from the screen floor in the wet well and become submerged with high wet well levels. The sensors also can be covered by debris after submergence. Installation includes purchase of the Vega radar sensor, installation in the wet well, power, communications and SCADA system integration.

3. Improve SCADA Communications

Switch CS-6 from radio communication to cellular to improve reliability of the site. Research various cellular phone carriers to transfer cell service at CS-8 to a more reliable provider. Finally, research and implement communication options to improve communication reliability at the CS-5 site.

Form DC–001


4. Other SCADA System Improvements

Investigate and implement the following SCADA programming system changes to improve efficiency and flexibility of flow control operations:

a. Eliminate controlled storage modes (not used or needed anymore) b. Change the standby mode to be a pause mode c. Manual setpoints for gate opening will default to automatic release setpoints each time the

user switches to manual mode d. Boundaries will be programmed for automatic release setpoint user adjustments e. A "simulated closed" will be programmed in case of limit switch failure/debris in the gate f. Fail-safe programming for releases from upstream control structures when no storage

occurred at the downstream structures or when the downstream structure is closed or restricted

The associated costs for the above tasks are as follows: Task 1 - New CS-5 Release Curves: $4,000 Task 2a - Level Sensor Improvements at NESPS: $17,000 Task 3 - Improve SCADA Communications: $4,400 Task 4 – Other SCADA System Improvements: $4,000 Total: $29,400 Work has already begun on these tasks. The Work is anticipated to be completed by August 1, 2019. An Engineering Work Order has been created to modify the existing contract to include the above services and increase the contract by a not- to-exceed amount of $29,400. Requested Action: Approve the attached Engineering Work Order to increase contract #5469 by a not-to-exceed amount of $29,400.



Page 1 of 3 10/1/13



No. -


FOR: OMID Flow Control Improvements Project Amendment to Contract #5469 For Professional Services

TO: Motor City Electric Technologies, Inc. (MCET) DATE: 5/10/19

DESCRIPTION Section 3-Scope of Contractor’s Services, Section 4, Drainage District Payment Obligation for Contractor’s Services, Exhibit II - Scope of Contractor’s Services and Exhibit III – Contractor’s Proposal

This Engineering Work Order (EWO) is required to define specific additional tasks and compensation related to the OMID Flow Control Improvements Project that falls under the aforementioned sections of contract #5469. This EWO serves as your approval for compensation of the following additional services needed for the project as delineated in your attached revised May 8, 2019 proposal and as referenced in the attached September 20, 2019 memorandum titled “Proposed Flow Control Improvements”:

1. New CS-5 Release Curves Perform SCADA integration of the CS-5 release curves generated by ASI for more efficient flow release. The work includes the physical programming logic changes as well as testing and evaluation of the changes.

2a. Level Sensor Improvements at NESPS

Install one new radar level sensor in the NESPS wet well. The scope of work includes purchase of the Vega radar sensor, installation in the wet well, power, communications and SCADA system integration.

3. Improve SCADA Communications

Switch CS-6 from radio communication to cellular to improve reliability of the site. Research various cellular phone carriers to transfer cell service at CS-8 to a more reliable provider. Finally, research and implement communication options to improve communication reliability at the CS-5 site.

4. Other SCADA System Improvements

Investigate and implement the following SCADA programming system changes to improve efficiency and flexibility of flow control operations:

a. Eliminate controlled storage modes (not used or needed anymore)



Page 2 of 3 10/1/13

b. Change the standby mode to be a pause mode c. Manual setpoints for gate opening will default to automatic release setpoints each time the user

switches to manual mode d. Boundaries will be programmed for automatic release setpoint user adjustments e. A "simulated closed" will be programmed in case of limit switch failure/debris in the gate f. Fail-safe programming for releases from upstream control structures when no storage occurred at the

downstream structures or when the downstream structure is closed or restricted The associated costs for the above tasks are as follows: Task 1 - New CS-5 Release Curves: $4,000 Task 2a - Level Sensor Improvements at NESPS: $17,000 Task 3 - Improve SCADA Communications: $4,400 Task 4 – Other SCADA System Improvements: $4,000 Total: $29,400

Fees for this Engineering Work Order shall be billed on a time and material basis according to the rate schedules included with the proposal. The total amount of the Engineering Services Agreement #5469 is to be increased by a not to exceed amount of $29,400. This amount is not to be exceeded without written authorization from the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District (OMIDDD) Board.



Page 3 of 3 10/1/13

PREPARED DATE: _________________________________

RECOMMENDED

DATE:




By:

Dave Krausman General Manager Motor City Electric Technologies, Inc.

By:



Motor City Electric Technologies Inc.

Registered to ISO 9001:2008

9440 Grinnell St. Detroit, MI 48213-1151 (313) 921-5300 Phone (313) 921-5310 Fax www.mceco.com

May 8, 2019

Oakland Macomb Interceptor Drainage District One Public Works Drive Building 95 Waterford, MI 48328-1907 Attention: Mr. Joel Brown Subject: Oakland Macomb Interceptor Drainage District (OMIDD) OMIDD Northeast Sanitary Pump Station (NESPS) Flow Control Improvements Motor City Electric Technologies Job 919567 RFC 16082 Dear Mr. Brown, Motor City Electric Technologies Inc. is pleased to submit the following change order for the Flow Control Improvements to the OMIDD system. This change is for items #1, #2a, #3 and #4 on Table 1, Summary of Improvements of the Proposed Flow Control Improvements Letter dated September 20, 2018 from the OMID Flow Metering Work Group. Item #1 – Faster automatic release curves for CS-5 $4,000.00 Item #2a – High Range Radar Level Sensor at NESPS $17,000.00 Item #3 – Switch CS#6 to cellular and CS#8 to another cellular carrier $4,400.00 Item #4 – Other SCADA System Improvements $4,000.00

OMIDD Schedule of Service Rates - 2019

SCHEDULED Standard Overtime Premium • Engineer - Controls / PLC / SCADA / Automation 77.00 107.00 139.00 • Engineer - Wireless / RF / Network 89.00 125.00 160.00 • Project Manager (billed at 10% for all engineering hours

charged per invoice) 95.00

• Technician - Voice / Data / Security / Wireless 75.00 105.00 135.00 • Electrician 95.00 133.00 170.00

EQUIPMENT

• Service Truck / Van $9.50 Per Hour MATERIAL/SUB-CONTRACTORS

•Material Cost Plus 15% •Sub-Contractors Cost Plus 5%

Description of Rates

Standard Rate: Monday through Friday, 8 consecutive hours, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Overtime Rate: Monday through Friday, in excess of 8 hours per day, Saturdays, and Monday through Friday between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

http://www.mceco.com/

Motor City Electric Technologies Inc. Page 2

Premium Rate: Sundays and holidays Should you have any questions regarding this matter or request any additional information, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Maechtle Senior Project Manager

/re

OFFICE LOCATION: 21777 Dunham Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036 ● Phone: 586-469-5325 ● Fax: 586-469-5933

MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Box 806, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48046-0806

ENGINEERING ● Phone: 586-469-5910 ● Fax: 586-469-7693 ◊ SOIL EROSION ● Phone: 586-469-5327 ● Fax 586-307-8264

Candice S. Miller

Public Works Commissioner Macomb County

To: Drainage Board for the Oakland Macomb Interceptor Drain From: Vincent Astorino, Operations & Flow Manager Evans Bantios, P.E., Construction & Maintenance Manager Date: September 20, 2018 Subject: OMIDDD Proposed Flow Control Improvements Recommendation During the last Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain (OMIDDD) board meeting Macomb County submitted a memo titled “OMID-MID Operational Gates Review 07.24.18” documenting issues with the way the gates have been operated in the past. The first item that this memo recommended was a meeting between Oakland and Macomb to establish the steps going forward to ensure a safe and secure operational protocol for the Control Structures within the two districts. This meeting between Oakland and Macomb took place on August 15, 2018. From that meeting there were three major action items established.

1. A sub-group of Applied Science, Metco, Motor City Electric, Oakland, and Macomb County was established to discuss the events brought up in the aforementioned memo by Macomb. This group was to put together a memo with recommendations of improvements for the OMIDDD Flow Metering Work Group (FMWG) to review and approve.

2. The OMIDDD FMWG was to review and approve the recommendations brought forward from the flow control sub-group. Going forward the FMWG will provide oversight of flow control changes and activities.

3. The Control Structures need to be evaluated for long term use with any possible costs that might come with keeping them in place.

The sub-group met on August 28, 2018 and started development of the recommendation memo to the OMIDDD FMWG. A copy of the proposed flow control improvements memo put together by flow control sub-group is attached. The OMIDDD FMWG then met on September 11, 2018 and reviewed the proposed changes from the sub-group. Recommendation: The OMID FMWG concurs with the findings from the flow control sub-group and recommends moving forward with all of the proposed changes documented within the attached memo.

Page 1 of 14

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Phil Brink, P.E., CDM Smith

OMID Flow Metering Work Group From: Karen Ridgway, P.E., Applied Science, Inc. Terry Moore, METCO Darin Gilbert, MCET Steve Rozycki, P.E., MCPWO Brent Welser, MCPWO Brian Coburn, P.E., OCWRC Project: Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District Subject: Proposed Flow Control Improvements Date: September 20, 2018 Introduction The OMID flow control system includes five (5) control structures as shown on Figure 1. Four (4) of these structures are along of the OMID interceptors and are named CS-5, CS-6, CS-7, and CS-8. One (1) structure, CS-3, is on the Romeo Arm interceptor that is part of the MID. Each control structure has a divider wall or a bulkhead. Sluice gates exist on the divider wall or bulkhead that may be closed to store wastewater in the upstream interceptor and reduce downstream flow rates so that work in the interceptors can occur with zero or low flow rates for part of dry weather days. The sluice gates are actuated with hydraulic cylinders and operating systems.

Level sensors exist at each control structure and are connected to a SCADA system that is shared with OCWRC and MCPWO. Radio and cellular communications exist between the control structures and the SCADA.

The sluice gates may be operated remotely in a range of modes (manual, standby, storage or release). Automatic release sequences are programmed into the SCADA system for gradual and coordinated releases of the stored wastewater. The existing SCADA screens for each control structure are attached.


Page 2 of 14


Page 3 of 14

Short-term improvements to the OMID flow control system are proposed to increase the reliability, improve fail-safe operations, maintain flow rates to less than the contractual capacity of 423-cfs at the NESPS, and minimize the occurrence of air blow-offs and surges in the OMID and MID. These improvements may be accomplished in about a 6-month time frame and do not include the improvements needed to make the control structures permanent.

Improvements The proposed improvements are summarized on the table below and presented in more detail in the following paragraphs. Shaded items are not recommended to be implemented at this time due to high costs.

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Improvements

Item Description Vendor or Contractor

Estimated Cost

Time for Implementation

(months)

1 New CS-5 Release Curves

Implement faster SCADA system

automatic release curves

MCET $4,000

2 months

2a Level Sensor

Improvements at NESPS

Install additional high range radar

level sensor MCET $17,000

4 months

2b

Level Sensor Improvements at

Control Structures

Install radar level sensors MCET $132,000

4 months

3 Improve Communications

Switch CS-6 to cellular; switch CS-8 to stronger cellular

carrier

MCET $4,400

2 months

4 Other SCADA

System Improvements

See below MCET $4,000

2 months

5 Update O&M Manual See below ASI $5,000

1 month

16 Hydraulic Operator

Improvements

New PLCs and hydraulic cylinders

at control structures HESCO $800,000

6 months


Page 4 of 14

It is recommended that items 1, 2a, 3, 4, and 5 be implemented at a total estimated cost of $34,400.

1. New CS-5 Release Curves The automatic release curves at CS-5 have been observed to release wastewater too slowly. In response, the curves were recalculated, and revised curves are presented in Figure 2 and Table 2. In addition, the fast and slow release targets were increased from 150 and 320-cfs to 250 and 350-cfs, respectively. These updated curves provide for faster releases and are recommended to be implemented in SCADA system and tested further in the automatic release mode. The cost for this work is estimated to be $4,000 and includes SCADA system integration of the new look-up curve points and testing.

2. Level Sensors Improvements New radar level sensors are proposed to be installed at the NESPS and at CS-5, 6, 7 and 8 that have wider and higher ranges of operation. Higher range level sensors will allow OMID and GLWA to know the degree of storage and backwater being created by the NESPS in the OMID system. The higher range will provide better information of when submergence of community connections may be occurring when storage of wastewater is occurring. Radar level sensors will be tested, and if acceptable, implemented in the following locations.

a. NESPS One (1) new level sensor is proposed in the NESPS wet well. The five (5) existing ultrasonic level sensors in the wet well are influenced by fog and hit top-of-range frequently as they all are mounted from the screen floor in the wet well and become submerged with high wet well levels. The sensors also can be covered by debris after submergence. The cost for this level sensor is about $17,000 and includes the Vega radar sensor, installation in the wet well, power, communications and SCADA system integration.

b. Control Structures New and higher range radar level sensors are proposed to be installed at CS-5, 6, 7 and 8 on both the upstream and downstream sides of the divider walls. These level sensors will replace the existing level sensors that are 7 years old and approaching the end of their useful life. The existing upstream level sensors are frequently reaching the top-of-range when the divider wall is overtopped. The new level sensors will still be able to measure low wastewater depths and will be raised as high as possible to provide a wider range of measurement. CS-3 is not included because the level sensors were replaced and raised in 2017 as part of the repair project for the MID collapse.


Page 5 of 14

The cost for the replacement level sensors at the four (4) control structures is about $13,000 per control structure and includes new Vega radar sensors, sensor installation in the shafts, new power and and communication wiring and SCADA system integration. Removal and re-installation of the top slabs of the control structures is required for the installation of the new level sensors. The cost removal and re-installation of the top slabs, crane rental, barricades, cover plates, temporary fencing, traffic control and restoration at each control structure is estimated to be about $20,000 per control structure. Therefore, the total cost for new radar level sensors at four (4) control structures is about $132,000. New radar level sensors were considered in this memorandum but are not recommended due to the high cost especially for the removal and re-installation of the top slabs of the control structures. New radar level sensors are recommended to be incorporated into the study design of the work required to make the control structures permanent.

3. Improve Communications The radio communication system between the control structures and the SCADA system has always not been reliable. Consequently, most of the communications between to control structures and the SCADA system was switched from radio to cellular telephones. An exception is CS-6, which still uses radio communication and is recommended to be switched to cellular communication. Also, the cellular phone coverage at CS-8 is not strong and switching providers is recommended. The cost for this work is estimated to be about $4,400 and includes investigating cellular providers and signal strengths and integration of the new cellular signals into the SCADA system.

4. Other SCADA System Improvements The following SCADA system programming changes are proposed to be investigated and implemented.

• Eliminate controlled storage modes (not used or needed anymore) • Change the standby mode to be a pause mode • Manual setpoints for gate opening will default to automatic release setpoints

each time the user switches to manual mode • Boundaries will be programmed for automatic release setpoint user adjustments • A “simulated closed” will be programmed in case of limit switch failure/debris in

the gate • Fail-safe programming for releases from upstream control structures when no

storage occurred at the downstream structures or when the downstream structure is closed or restricted


Page 6 of 14

The cost for this work is estimated to be $4,000 and includes developing and testing the SCADA programming changes.

5. O&M Manual Updates The existing O&M manual prepared by FKE and dated July 2018 includes some operational information for the control structure sluice gates. The storage and release procedures will be reviewed and updated to be complete and current once the above referenced SCADA programming changes are implemented, tested and accepted. Also, a section will be added to the O&M manual to better define the criteria for dry weather flow conditions and the available storage times. The following items are recommended to be considered in determining if acceptable dry weather exist for storage and work in the interceptor system.

• Previous seven (7) days flow trends for a group of key flow meters • Estimation of expected storage times based on current OMID and MID system

flow rates • No storage or work in the interceptors when more than 0.5 inches of

rainfall/snowmelt is expected in the next of 8 hours • Incorporate rain gauge alerts into the SCADA system when more than 0.5 inches

of rainfall has occurred at key gauges

6. Hydraulic Operator Improvements

The hydraulic operating systems were installed in 2011 and frequent equipment failures are starting to occur as the equipment approaches the end of its useful life. The hydraulic operating systems for the CS-3 sluice gates and level sensors were rehabilitated in 2017 as part of the MID sewer collapse repair project and are newer, more reliable and may not require replacement at this time. The PLCs and existing cylinders at each control structure may be replaced with new cylinders including pistons, seals, rods and position transducers. The new cylinders will have new limit switches including fully open (100% open), fully closed (0% open) and a near closed (2% open) switches. Also, each hydraulic operating system will include a separate speed control circuit that will normally limit how fast the sluice may be open. This will be an additional fail-safe feature. The speed control for normal opening will be about 1/10th of the normal operating speed.


Page 7 of 14

New hoses, valves and fittings will be included in the rehabilitation work and hard piping may be used for the new hydraulic oil lines. The estimated cost for this work is summarized below. Removal and re-installation of the top slabs of the control structures is required for the installation of the new hydraulic operating systems. The costs include about $20,000 per control structure for removal and re-installation of the top slabs, crane rental, barricades, cover plates, temporary fencing, traffic control and restoration at each control structure.

Control Structure Estimated Cost CS-3 $170,000 CS-5 $195,000 CS-6 $145,000 CS-7 $145,000 CS-8 $145,000 Total $800,000

Hydraulic operating system improvements were considered in this memorandum but are not recommended due to the high cost. Hydraulic operating system improvements are recommended to be incorporated into the study design of the work required to make the control structures permanent.


Page 8 of 14

Figure 2. Updated Upstream Depth versus Gate Position for Release Mode


Page 9 of 14

Table 2. Updated Upstream Depth Versus Gate Position for Release Mode Values

Upstream Depth (ft)



29.6 24% 33%

27.1 25% 35%

24.6 26% 36%

22.1 27% 39%

19.6 29% 41%

17.1 31% 44%

14.6 34% 48%

12.1 38% 54%

9.6 43% 63%

8.1 48% 70%

7 53% 100%

6 100% --


Page 10 of 14


Page 11 of 14


Page 12 of 14


Page 13 of 14


Page 14 of 14


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 9

Regular Construction Estimate Number 19, Contract 3, Change Order 2E for Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. for NESPS Emergency Gatehouse

Repair


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 10

Financial Reports – General Financial Report and Status of State Revolving Fund Financing and Other Financing

YTD Trial BalanceFund: 84912 Oakland Macomb InterceptorSeg1As of Fiscal Period: Month 8, 2019

YTD Balance YTD Balance

OMID Odor-Corrosion Study

Seg1 YTD BalanceTotal Fund No Project 100000002892 All Grants

100100 Cash - Operating 255,485.81 0.00 255,485.81 255,485.81104100 Accrued Interest on Investment 505.04 0.00 505.04 505.04

Revenues (4,266.84) 0.00 (4,266.84) (4,266.84)Expenditures 82,064.99 0.00 82,064.99 82,064.99Special Items- Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

382100 FB Committed for Capital Proj (333,789.00) 0.00 (333,789.00) (333,789.00)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SRF final draw request received September 2013.

Cash as of 05/06/2019 255,485.81$

Invoices/Reimbursements on Current Agenda impacting Cash Balance (21,792.04)

Total Net Cash Balance 233,693.77$

ACCOUNT

Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 11:04 AM1 of 2

Water Resources CommissionerPROJECT WORK IN PROGRESS

Oakland Macomb InterceptorSeg1100000001272

(as of May 6, 2019)

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance

ADM - Administration 702000 - Salaries 0.00 134,074.05 719999 - Salaries NPF 0.00 19,433.83 730373 - Contracted Services 0.00 19.50 730653 - Equipment Rental 0.00 2,899.55 730772 - Freight and Express 0.00 828.08 730926 - Indirect Costs 0.00 76,196.89 731388 - Printing 0.00 499.16 731521 - Public Services 0.00 154,372.03 732018 - Travel and Conference 0.00 6.00 750294 - Material and Supplies 0.00 378.28 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 50,968.61 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 16,510.28

Administration TOTALS186,317.00 0.00 456,186.26 ($269,869.26)

CONT - Contingency Contingency TOTALS

2,882,540.00 0.00 0.00 $2,882,540.00

ENG - Engineering 702000 - Salaries 0.00 262,858.77 719999 - Salaries NPF 0.00 47,216.56 722000 - Fringe Benefits 0.00 -16.72 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 6.47 730653 - Equipment Rental 0.00 8,055.17 730772 - Freight and Express 0.00 14.98 731346 - Personal Mileage 0.00 449.86 731521 - Public Services 0.00 154,869.54 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 193,329.34 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 19,021.75

Engineering TOTALS488,319.00 0.00 685,805.72 ($197,486.72)

ENGCON - Engineering Consultant 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 10,305,406.47 731073 - Legal Services 0.00 2,646.00

Engineering Consultant TOTALS11,486,517.00 0.00 10,308,052.47 $1,178,464.53

FAC - Facility Acquisition 730373 - Contracted Services 0.00 992.00 731472 - Project Construction and Impr 0.00 30,592,233.94 731521 - Public Services 0.00 376.85 750294 - Material and Supplies 0.00 98.03

Facility Acquisition TOTALS28,825,480.00 0.00 30,593,700.82 ($1,768,220.82)

FRINGE_BENEFITS - Fringe Benefits

Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 11:04 AM2 of 2



(as of May 6, 2019)

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance 702000 - Salaries 0.00 57,335.88 722000 - Fringe Benefits 0.00 198,945.45

Fringe Benefits TOTALS0.00 0.00 256,281.33 ($256,281.33)

INS - Inspection 702000 - Salaries 0.00 85,512.64 719999 - Salaries NPF 0.00 24,196.87 731521 - Public Services 0.00 83,298.50 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 5,761.25 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 39,225.18

Inspection TOTALS415,074.00 0.00 237,994.44 $177,079.56

LEGAL - Legal and Financial 730373 - Contracted Services 0.00 23,205.70 730940 - Insurance 0.00 1,922,703.89 731073 - Legal Services 0.00 4,853,705.94 731507 - Public Notices 0.00 1,253.40 793938 - Discount on Bonds 0.00 50,250.00

Legal and Financial TOTALS4,438,086.00 0.00 6,851,118.93 ($2,413,032.93)

ROW - Right of Way 702000 - Salaries 0.00 12,494.04 719999 - Salaries NPF 0.00 13.80 730373 - Contracted Services 0.00 22,817.50 730394 - Copy Charges 0.00 891.50 730653 - Equipment Rental 0.00 945.34 731038 - Land and Easement 0.00 156,804.00 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 3.68

Right of Way TOTALS37,667.00 0.00 193,969.86 ($156,302.86)

Project 100000001272 - Oakland Macomb InterceptorSeg1Total Project Expenses

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance$48,760,000.00 $0.00 $49,583,109.83 ($823,109.83)

Total Project RevenueAccount Month-to-Date Revenue Life-to-Date Revenue605572-Special Assessments $0.00 $31,484.20610314-Federal Capital Grants $0.00 $15,984,000.00631827-Reimb General $0.00 $815,078.48655385-Income from Investments $0.00 $93,544.03697551-Issuance of Bonds $0.00 $6,583,003.12697753-State Revolving Fund Loans $0.00 $26,076,000.00TOTAL REVENUE $0.00 $49,583,109.83

REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENSES $0.00

Print Date: Page:

5/8/2019 18:08 PM1 of 1


OMID Odor-Corrosion Study Seg1100000002892

(as of May 6, 2019)


STD - Standard Operation 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 132,064.99

Standard Operation TOTALS383,789.00 0.00 132,064.99 $251,724.01

Project 100000002892 - OMID Odor-Corrosion Study Seg1Total Project Expenses

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance$383,789.00 $0.00 $132,064.99 $251,724.01

Total Project RevenueAccount Month-to-Date Revenue Life-to-Date Revenue655077-Accrued Interest Adjustments ($137.52) $505.04655385-Income from Investments $670.32 $3,761.80695500-Transfers In $0.00 $266,792.12697551-Issuance of Bonds $0.00 $116,996.88TOTAL REVENUE $532.80 $388,055.84

REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENSES $255,990.85


YTD Balance YTD BalanceOakland Macomb InterceptorSeg3 YTD Balance

Total Fund No Project 100000001557 All Grants100100 Cash - Operating 25,859.81 0.00 25,859.81 25,859.81104100 Accrued Interest on Investment (351.73) 0.00 (351.73) (351.73)

Revenues (2,644.84) 0.00 (2,644.84) (2,644.84)Expenditures 334,820.08 0.00 334,820.08 334,820.08Special Items- Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

382100 FB Committed for Capital Proj (357,683.32) 0.00 (357,683.32) (357,683.32)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Final SRF Draw received March 2017.

Cash as of 05/06/2019 25,859.81$

Invoices/Reimbursements on Current Agenda impacting Cash Balance 0.00

Total Net Cash Balance 25,859.81$

ACCOUNT

Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 10:56 AM1 of 2



(as of May 6, 2019)


ADM - Administration 730772 - Freight and Express 0.00 237.38 730926 - Indirect Costs 0.00 87,947.36 730940 - Insurance 0.00 374,816.24 731521 - Public Services 0.00 72,238.27 732018 - Travel and Conference 0.00 160.44 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 216,953.03 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 19,268.57



4,581,277.00 0.00 0.00 $4,581,277.00

ENG - Engineering 702000 - Salaries 0.00 37.74 722000 - Fringe Benefits 0.00 -25.90 730772 - Freight and Express 0.00 85.13 731346 - Personal Mileage 0.00 528.54 731521 - Public Services 0.00 41,759.18 732018 - Travel and Conference 0.00 5,546.06 750140 - Employee Footwear 0.00 75.00 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 615,850.24 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 62,137.35

Engineering TOTALS1,063,145.00 0.00 725,993.34 $337,151.66

ENGCON - Engineering Consultant 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 12,857,279.47 730940 - Insurance 0.00 2,435.63 731458 - Professional Services 0.00 62,241.27

Engineering Consultant TOTALS12,471,892.00 0.00 12,921,956.37 ($450,064.37)

FAC - Facility Acquisition 731472 - Project Construction and Impr 0.00 50,234,735.34 731521 - Public Services 0.00 2,240.68

Facility Acquisition TOTALS45,738,545.00 0.00 50,236,976.02 ($4,498,431.02)

FRINGE_BENEFITS - Fringe Benefits 722000 - Fringe Benefits 0.00 25.90

Fringe Benefits TOTALS0.00 0.00 25.90 ($25.90)

INS - Inspection 731521 - Public Services 0.00 37,329.11


LEGAL - Legal and Financial

Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 10:56 AM2 of 2



(as of May 6, 2019)

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 209,748.13 730772 - Freight and Express 0.00 127.71 730940 - Insurance 0.00 2,894,717.09 731073 - Legal Services 0.00 449,564.79 731451 - Prof Svc-Financial Consultant 0.00 62,305.00

Legal and Financial TOTALS3,737,066.00 0.00 3,616,462.72 $120,603.28

ROW - Right of Way 731038 - Land and Easement 0.00 226,383.45 731661 - RW Negotiation and Expense 0.00 1,750.00

Right of Way TOTALS11,440.00 0.00 228,133.45 ($216,693.45)


Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance$68,393,724.00 $0.00 $68,538,498.20 ($144,774.20)

Total Project RevenueAccount Month-to-Date Revenue Life-to-Date Revenue605572-Special Assessments $0.00 $3,253,724.00631827-Reimb General $0.00 $43,882.94655077-Accrued Interest Adjustments ($14.60) ($351.73)655385-Income from Investments $71.16 $126,751.07697753-State Revolving Fund Loans $0.00 $65,140,000.00TOTAL REVENUE $56.56 $68,564,006.28



YTD Balance YTD BalanceOakland Macomb InterceptorSeg4

NESPS Pump Install Seg4

OMI NESPS GATEHOUSE SEG4

NESPS Odor Corrosion Stdy

Seg4 YTD BalanceTotal Fund No Project 100000001913 100000002041 100000002232 100000002708 All Grants

100100 Cash - Operating 6,891,677.16 0.00 6,689,621.31 7,978.67 180,070.84 14,267.34 6,891,677.16104100 Accrued Interest on Investment 45,437.39 0.00 45,437.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 45,437.39

Revenues (131,274.73) 0.00 (36,274.73) 0.00 0.00 (95,000.00) (131,274.73)697551 Issuance of Bonds 0.00 0.00 105,000.00 0.00 0.00 (105,000.00) 0.00

Expenditures 351,585.86 0.00 138,107.62 0.00 19,758.21 193,720.03 351,585.86Special Items- Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

382100 FB Committed for Capital Proj (7,157,425.68) 0.00 (6,941,630.59) (7,978.67) (199,829.05) (7,987.37) (7,157,425.68)0.00 0.00 261.00 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 0.00

SRF (SAW Loan) final draw request received January 2017.

Cash as of 05/06/2019 6,891,677.16$

Invoices/Reimbursements for Seg 4 on Current Agenda impacting Cash Balance 0.00

Invoices/Reimbursements for NESPS Gatehouse on Current Agenda impacting Cash Balance (186,571.46)

Invoices/Reimbursements for NESPS NIEA-East Arm on Current Agenda impacting Cash Balance (6,189.27)

Invoices/Reimbursements for NESPS Odor Corrosion Study on Current Agenda impacting Cash Balance (12,450.61)

Total Net Cash Balance 6,686,465.82$

ACCOUNT

Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 10:44 AM1 of 2



(as of May 6, 2019)


ADM - Administration 730926 - Indirect Costs 0.00 46,601.43 730940 - Insurance 0.00 67,871.13 731115 - Licenses and Permits 0.00 320,000.00 731521 - Public Services 0.00 14,235.58 732165 - Workshops and Meeting 0.00 29.66 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 4,607.71 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 269.47


ENG - Engineering 731346 - Personal Mileage 0.00 3,009.42 731521 - Public Services 0.00 40,605.00 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 656,975.55 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 78,887.04

Engineering TOTALS484,153.00 0.00 779,477.01 ($295,324.01)

ENGCON - Engineering Consultant 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 3,594,242.60 731073 - Legal Services 0.00 108.00

Engineering Consultant TOTALS3,275,248.00 0.00 3,594,350.60 ($319,102.60)

FAC - Facility Acquisition 731472 - Project Construction and Impr 0.00 14,058,313.68 731521 - Public Services 0.00 6,798.84 750294 - Material and Supplies 0.00 228.00

Facility Acquisition TOTALS15,225,614.00 0.00 14,065,340.52 $1,160,273.48

INS - Inspection 730373 - Contracted Services 0.00 473.03 731521 - Public Services 0.00 16,935.91

Inspection TOTALS17,408.00 0.00 17,408.94 ($0.94)

LEGAL - Legal and Financial 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 8,398.96 730940 - Insurance 0.00 54,526.58 731073 - Legal Services 0.00 124,753.11 793938 - Discount on Bonds 0.00 6,964.10

Legal and Financial TOTALS191,321.00 0.00 194,642.75 ($3,321.75)

ROW - Right of Way 731563 - Recording Fees 0.00 20.67

Right of Way TOTALS0.00 0.00 20.67 ($20.67)

Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 10:44 AM2 of 2



(as of May 6, 2019)



Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance$19,583,909.00 $0.00 $19,104,855.47 $479,053.53

Total Project RevenueAccount Month-to-Date Revenue Life-to-Date Revenue605572-Special Assessments $0.00 $11,485,729.40615572-State Capital Grants $0.00 $1,105,350.77655077-Accrued Interest Adjustments ($3,741.01) $45,437.39655385-Income from Investments $18,234.27 $519,889.01697551-Issuance of Bonds $0.00 $4,193,246.60697753-State Revolving Fund Loans $0.00 $8,490,000.00TOTAL REVENUE $14,493.26 $25,839,653.17

REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENSES $6,734,797.70

Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 9:49 AM1 of 1


OMI Segment 4 EPA Project100000002098

(as of May 6, 2019)


FAC - Facility Acquisition 731472 - Project Construction and Impr 0.00 980,000.00

Facility Acquisition TOTALS980,000.00 0.00 980,000.00 $0.00

Project 100000002098 - OMI Segment 4 EPA ProjectTotal Project Expenses

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance$980,000.00 $0.00 $980,000.00 $0.00

Total Project RevenueAccount Month-to-Date Revenue Life-to-Date Revenue610314-Federal Capital Grants $0.00 $485,000.00697551-Issuance of Bonds $0.00 $495,000.00TOTAL REVENUE $0.00 $980,000.00

REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENSES $0.00

Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 10:41 AM1 of 1


NESPS Pump Install Seg4100000002041

(as of May 6, 2019)


ADM - Administration 730926 - Indirect Costs 0.00 535.47

Administration TOTALS5,000.00 0.00 535.47 $4,464.53

ENG - Engineering 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 9,128.98 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 387.33

Engineering TOTALS15,000.00 0.00 9,516.31 $5,483.69

ENGCON - Engineering Consultant 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 181,969.55

Engineering Consultant TOTALS200,000.00 0.00 181,969.55 $18,030.45

FAC - Facility Acquisition Facility Acquisition TOTALS

3,268,155.00 0.00 0.00 $3,268,155.00

Project 100000002041 - NESPS Pump Install Seg4Total Project Expenses

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance$3,488,155.00 $0.00 $192,021.33 $3,296,133.67

Total Project RevenueAccount Month-to-Date Revenue Life-to-Date Revenue605572-Special Assessments $0.00 $200,000.00TOTAL REVENUE $0.00 $200,000.00


Print Date: Page:

5/8/2019 16:09 PM1 of 1


OMI NESPS GATEHOUSE SEG4100000002232

(as of May 6, 2019)


ADM - Administration 730926 - Indirect Costs 0.00 852.60 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 53.43

Administration TOTALS9,472.00 0.00 906.03 $8,565.97


93,209.00 0.00 0.00 $93,209.00

ENG - Engineering 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 7,984.27 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 393.60

Engineering TOTALS59,699.00 0.00 8,377.87 $51,321.13

ENGCON - Engineering Consultant 730639 - Engineering Services-Other 0.00 951,470.09

Engineering Consultant TOTALS496,981.00 0.00 951,470.09 ($454,489.09)

FAC - Facility Acquisition 731472 - Project Construction and Impr 0.00 3,307,837.31

Facility Acquisition TOTALS3,748,637.00 0.00 3,307,837.31 $440,799.69

INS - Inspection 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 1,277.93 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 59.93


LEGAL - Legal and Financial Legal and Financial TOTALS

6,000.00 0.00 0.00 $6,000.00

Project 100000002232 - OMI NESPS GATEHOUSE SEG4Total Project Expenses

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance$4,418,998.00 $0.00 $4,269,929.16 $149,068.84

Total Project RevenueAccount Month-to-Date Revenue Life-to-Date Revenue605572-Special Assessments $0.00 $2,292,488.28697551-Issuance of Bonds $0.00 $2,157,511.72TOTAL REVENUE $0.00 $4,450,000.00


Print Date: Page:

5/6/2019 10:46 AM1 of 1


NESPS Odor Corrosion Stdy Seg4100000002708

(as of May 6, 2019)


STD - Standard Operation 730373 - Contracted Services 0.00 587,944.90 730926 - Indirect Costs 0.00 1,864.90 731073 - Legal Services 0.00 960.00 771638 - Drain Equip Labor 0.00 43,824.90 771639 - Drain Equipment 0.00 2,137.96

Standard Operation TOTALS151,570.00 0.00 636,732.66 ($485,162.66)

Project 100000002708 - NESPS Odor Corrosion Stdy Seg4Total Project Expenses

Budget Amount Month-to-Date Expenses Life-to-Date Expenses LTD Variance$151,570.00 $0.00 $636,732.66 ($485,162.66)

Total Project RevenueAccount Month-to-Date Revenue Life-to-Date Revenue605572-Special Assessments $0.00 $261,758.32697551-Issuance of Bonds $0.00 $389,241.68TOTAL REVENUE $0.00 $651,000.00


County of OaklandOMIDD Maintenance FundStatement of Net Position

April 30, 2019

ASSETSCurrent assets: Cash 20,447,780.85$ Accrued interest receivable 75,379.24 Due from municipalities 4,570,860.97 Total current assets 25,094,021.06

Total assets 25,094,021.06$

LIABILITIESCurrent liabilities:

Accounts payable - Vouchers payable - Due to municipalities 12,922,200.00 Due to primary government - Total current liabilities 12,922,200.00

Total liabilities 12,922,200.00$

NET POSITIONFB Major Maint Reserve 2,975,399.45 FB Capital Improvement Reserve 2,997,208.35 FB Restricted Programs 6,199,213.26 Total net position 12,171,821.06$

Total Liabilities and Net Position 25,094,021.06$

Run by: 15349

Percent ofActual Revenue

Operating revenuesSewage Disposal Services 47,312,900.81 100.00%

Total operating revenue: 47,312,900.81 100.00%

Operating expenses0.00 0.00%

0.00 0.00%

Contracted Services 79,699.93 0.17%Electrical Service 2,722.94 0.01%Engineering Services-Other 4,973.26 0.01%Equipment Maintenance 10,243.97 0.02%Insurance 572,843.00 1.21%Legal Services 124,748.35 0.26%Personal Mileage 37.84 0.00%Prof Svc-Consultant 75,238.36 0.16%Public Services 15,938.65 0.03%Sewage Disposal Services 45,227,700.00 95.59%Water and Sewage Charges (108.74) 0.00%Workshops and Meeting 877.41 0.00%

Total contractual services 46,114,914.97 97.47%

Material and Supplies 450.69 0.00%Total commodities 450.69 0.00%

Total depreciation 0.00%

Drain Equip Labor 30,058.32 0.06%Drain Equipment 1,127.71 0.00%

Total internal services 31,186.03 0.07%Total operating expense 46,146,551.69 97.53%

Operating income (loss) 1,166,349.12 2.47%

0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%

192,876.79 0.41%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%

192,876.79 0.41%Income (loss) before transfer 1,359,225.91 2.87%

0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%

1,359,225.91 2.87%10,812,595.1512,171,821.06

County of OaklandOakland Macomb InterceptorCh21 Fund

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net PositionFor the Seven Months Ended April 30, 2019

Net Position - beginningNet Position - ending

Year to Date

Salaries

Fringe benefits

Issuance of debt

Change in net positionTransfers out

Gain on Exchange of Assets

Special Assessments

Income from investmentsInterest expense

State Grants

Capital Improvement Program

Capital Contributions

Property TaxesIntergov General Reimbursement

Transfers in

Contractual services

Commodities

Depreciation

Internal services

Nonoperating revenues (expenses)

Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)

ContributionsPaying agent fees

Federal Grants

MAJOR MAINTENANCE RESERVE

EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE

RESERVE

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

RESERVEUNDESIGNATED

RETAINED EARNINGS TOTALTotal Net Assets Beginning 2,848,992.42 0.00 2,413,875.04 5,549,727.69 10,812,595.15

Increases 233,333.31 0.00 583,333.31 46,689,110.98 47,505,777.60Decreases 106,926.28 0.00 0.00 46,039,625.41 46,146,551.69Adjustments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Net Assets Ending 2,975,399.45 0.00 2,997,208.35 6,199,213.26 12,171,821.06

#REF! 0.00 0.00Current year adjustments 0.00 0.00ESTIMATED Undesignated Retained Earnings 6,199,213.26 12,171,821.06

NOTE: This report presents pre-closing figures and as such are subject to change

Oakland County - Water Resources Commissioner's Office

Fund: 82912 Oakland Macomb InterceptorCh21

Statement of Net AssetsAs of Date: Apr 30, 2019

84912 84912 84914 84915 84915 84915 84915 829121-1272 1-2892 1-1557 1-1913 1-2232 1-2232 1-2708

Payable To Invoice # Segment 1

Segment 1 - OMID Odor Corrosion

Study Segment 3 Segment 4Seg 4 - NESPS

GateSeg 4 - NIEA - East

Arm Seg 4 - NESPS Odor

Corrosion Study O & M TotalInland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. Contract #3 , CO 2-E - Est # 19 148,427.33 $148,427.33

Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. Contract #3, CO # 2-E - Est # 19 Retainage Payment** 0.00 $0.00

Oakland County * WRC/Labor/Fringes/Non-direct Labor 10,176.02 2,256.71 $12,432.73

Oakland County * WRC Equipment 937.44 69.87 $1,007.31

Oakland County * WRC Mileage/Parking 261.00 $261.00

CH2M Payable to LG Design Invoice # 705773CH009 - Professional Services ending 03/29/19 12,450.61 $12,450.61

Clark Hill Invoice # 866905 - Professional Services ending 03/31/19 5,863.34 $5,863.34

Clark Hill Invoice # 866907 - Professional Services ending 03/31/19 349.00 $349.00

Dickinson Wright Invoice # 1361793 - Professional Services ending 03/31/19 22,877.20 $22,877.20

Jacobs Payable to CH2M Invoice # 697317CH008 - Professional Services 03/29/19 21,792.04 $21,792.04

METCO Invoice # 1811-04 - Professional Services ending 04/28/19 14,689.03 $14,689.03

NTH Consultants, Ltd Inv # 02 - OMIDD System Immediate Repairs - 03/23/19-04/19/19 13,661.28 $13,661.28

NTH Consultants, Ltd Inv #08 NIEA Lining Options and Study - 03/23/19 - 04/19/19 6,189.27 $6,189.27

NTH Consultants, Ltd Inv # 41 NESPS Discharge Chamber - 03/23/19 - 04/19/19 18,270.51 $18,270.51

$0.00 $21,792.04 $0.00 $11,374.46 $186,571.46 $6,189.27 $14,777.19 $37,566.23 $278,270.65

* Less WRC Charges already paid from OMI Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 (11,374.46) 0.00 0.00 (2,326.58) 0.00 (13,701.04)

** Less amount being paid from Retainage Account 0.00 0.00

$0.00 $21,792.04 $0.00 $0.00 $186,571.46 $6,189.27 $12,450.61 $37,566.23 $264,569.61

Total Invoices/Reimbursements for Approval

Total Invoices/Reimbursements that will impact Cash Balance listed on Current Trial Balance submitted to OMI Drain Board

OAKLAND MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAINAGE BOARD - APPROVAL OF INVOICES/REIMBURSEMENTSOMI DD Meeting Date 05/15/2019

Amount

Revised 5/13/2019 3:40 PM


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 11

Invoices


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 12

Request to Approve Contract with CSM Mechanical, LLC. for the NESPS

Odor Corrosion Control Project

Form DC–001




Interceptor Drain


SUBJECT: Request to Approve Contract with CSM Mechanical, LLC. for the NESPS Odor Corrosion Control Project

DATE: May 15, 2019

On March 18, 2019, Issued for Bid plans and specifications for the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Northeast Sewage Pumping Station (NESPS) Odor/Corrosion Control Project were posted on the Michigan Inter-Governmental Trade Network. On May 2, 2019, bids from two contractors, Weiss Construction Co. (Weiss) and CSM Mechanical, LLC (CSM) were opened. The bid amounts are as shown in Table 1: Table 1. Bid Summary for the OMID NESPS Odor/Corrosion Control Project

Bid Item WEISS * CSM Item 1: LS Division 03 $235,350.00 $198,700.00

Item 2: LS Division 23 $1,543,500.00 $1,728,900.00 Item 3: LS Division 26 $692,200.00 $841,750.00 Item 4: LS Divisions 31/32 $277,700.00 $229,880.00

Item 5: LS Division 40 $314,500.00 $491,030.00 Item 6: LS Division 44 $996,600.00 $39,210.00

Item 7: LS All Other Divisions $738,300.00 $142,800.00 Item 8: Cash Allowance for I&C Integration $71,120.00 $71,120.00

Item 9: Cash Allowance for Permits/Inspection Fees $40,000.00 $40,000.00

TOTAL BID PRICE (ITEMS 1 THROUGH 9) $4,909,270.00 $3,783,390.00

* NOTE: Weiss' Bid Price for Item 6 included $816,570.00 for the Biotrickling Filter Pre-purchase Price.

The bids were reviewed and evaluated by LG Design Inc., (Jacobs) for completeness and conformance with the bidding requirements. Jacobs found that CSM was the lowest responsible

Form DC–001


bidder in the amount of $3,783,390. For comparison, the Engineer’s opinion of construction costs was $4,571,000.00. Please see Jacob’s attached letter titled “Northeast Sewage Pumping Station (NESPS) Odor/Corrosion Control System Biotrickling Filter and Station HVAC Improvements Evaluation of Construction Bids” dated May 10, 2019 for further details. Jacobs has recommended that the contract be awarded to CSM in the amount of $3,783,390. Requested Action: Approve the attached Agreement to enter into a contract with CSM Mechanical, LLC in the amount of $3,783,390 for construction of the NESPS Odor/Corrosion Control Project.

A‐1

30800 Telegraph Rd #4900

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

586-453-8666

May 10, 2019 Oakland‐Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District (OMIDDD) c/o: Mr. Joel Brown, P.E. Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner’s Office (OCWRC) One Public Works Drive, Building 95 West Waterford, MI 48328 Mr. Evans Bantios, P.E. Macomb County Public Works Commissioner’s Office (MCPWO) 21777 Dunham Road Clinton Township, MI 48036 Subject: Northeast Sewage Pumping Station (NESPS) Odor/Corrosion Control System

Biotrickling Filter and Station HVAC Improvements Evaluation of Construction Bids

Dear Messrs. Brown and Bantios: As you know, on March 18, 2019, an Advertisement for Bids was posted online on the Michigan Inter‐Governmental Trade Network (MITN) site by the OCWRC on behalf of the OMIDDD for the construction of a Biotrickling Filter and heating & ventilation improvements at the NESPS. The biotrickling filter was previously purchased by the OMIDDD from BioAir Solutions, LLC (BioAir) and the biotrickling filter is currently in production. The contract with BioAir will be assumed by the general construction contractor. On May 2, 2019, bids were received and publicly opened at 2:00 p.m. local time at the OCWRC offices from two (2) construction contractors:

Weiss Construction Co. (Weiss)

CSM Mechanical, LLC (CSM) In accordance with Jacobs’ bidding documents, the following items were also provided by both bidders.

Acknowledgement of Addendum No. 1, Addendum No. 2, and Addendum No. 3;

Signed Bid Bond;

Evidence of Authority to Sign the Bid;

Completed Experience and Qualifications Statement;

List of Major Subcontractors; and

Preliminary Project Schedule. In addition, both bidders submitted the required Escrow Bid Documents within two (2) business days of the bids. Both sets of Escrow Bid Documents were reviewed by the Engineer/Owner only and are being kept in

OMIDDD NESPS ODOR/CORROSION CONTROL SYSTEM – CONSTRUCTION BID EVALUATION LETTER

A‐2

separate sealed envelopes. The Escrow Bid Documents from the selected contractor will be held for the duration of the project, and the Escrow Bid Documents from the other bidder will be returned upon bidder selection. The submitted bids were evaluated by Jacobs. Allowances for I&C Integration and Permits/Inspection Fees of $71,120.00 and $40,000.00, respectively, were requested and included with each bid. It was also noted that Weiss’ bid included the biotrickling filter purchase price of $816,570.00 (in Bid Item 6) and CSM’s bid price did not.

Bid Item WEISS * CSM

Item 1: LS Division 03 $235,350.00 $198,700.00

Item 2: LS Division 23 $1,543,500.00 $1,728,900.00

Item 3: LS Division 26 $692,200.00 $841,750.00

Item 4: LS Divisions 31/32 $277,700.00 $229,880.00

Item 5: LS Division 40 $314,500.00 $491,030.00

Item 6: LS Division 44 $996,600.00 $39,210.00

Item 7: LS All Other Divisions $738,300.00 $142,800.00

Item 8: Cash Allowance for I&C Integration $71,120.00 $71,120.00

Item 9: Cash Allowance for Permits/Inspection Fees

$40,000.00 $40,000.00

TOTAL BID PRICE (ITEMS 1 THROUGH 9) $4,909,270.00 $3,783,390.00

* NOTE: Weiss' Bid Price for Item 6 included $816,570.00 for the Biotrickling Filter Pre‐purchase Price.

For comparison, the Engineer’s opinion of construction costs per Jacobs’ Basis of Estimate report dated February 27, 2019 was $4,571,000.00. This opinion of cost was based on the 100% Design plans dated February 2019. It should be noted that an estimate contingency of 10% was included in Jacobs’ opinion of construction cost. Alternate bid items were not requested in the bidding documents, but a voluntary alternative was submitted by CSM to provide two (2) Mammoth air handling units in lieu of the proposed Xetex air handling units, which would result in a net deduct of $94,000.00. If CSM is selected for this project, then CSM can submit this alternate as a substitute early in construction and Jacobs/OMIDDD will review the submittal. The bidding documents stipulated a 50% (minimum) self‐perform requirement for the construction trade work, as quantified by dollar amount of the combined value of materials, equipment, and labor. The intent of this requirement was to avoid a “pass‐through” situation, in which a general contractor subcontracts the majority or all of the work to other contractors. After a review of the bidders’ pricing breakdowns, it was apparent that neither bidder met the 50% minimum self‐perform requirement (after excluding the pre‐purchase price of the biotrickling filter from Weiss’ bid price). However, both bidders are qualified

OMIDDD NESPS ODOR/CORROSION CONTROL SYSTEM – CONSTRUCTION BID EVALUATION LETTER

A‐3

mechanical contractors that proposed to self‐perform at least one‐third of the construction trade work. Therefore, it was determined that both bidders met the intent of the self‐perform requirement, and the 50% minimum self‐perform requirement was waived. The completed experience and qualifications statement provided by the low bidder (CSM) indicated that CSM has performed similar heating and ventilation projects that successfully met the objectives of the respective projects. CSM did not take exceptions to any of the technical requirements in the bidding documents. Considering the above, CSM Mechanical, LLC was determined to be the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Therefore, we recommend CSM Mechanical, LLC as the construction contractor for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact Jason Matteo at 586‐453‐8666 if you have any questions or require additional information related to our evaluation of the construction bids. Sincerely, Jacobs Engineering

Jason A. Matteo, P.E. Bill Desing, P.E. Senior Project Manager Senior Technical Consultant copy: Jacobs Project Files Mr. Sid Lockhart, P.E., OCWRC

SECTION 00 52 00 THE AGREEMENT

OAKLAND-MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAIN (OMID) NESPS ODOR/CORROSION CONTROL SYSTEM

Page A-1 of A-16 March 11, 2019

This AGREEMENT (hereafter, referenced as “Agreement” or "Contract") is made and entered into this day of , 20 by and between the OAKLAND MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT (hereinafter, called the “Owner”), by and through its Drainage Board, pursuant to Chapter 21 of the Public Act 40 of the Public Acts of 1956, as amended, and , (a Michigan Corporation/Limited Liability Company/Partnership) whose address is (hereafter, referred to as “Contractor"). In this Contract, either the Owner and/or the Contractor may also be referred to individually as a "Party" or jointly as "Parties.”

WITNESSETH WHEREAS, that the Owner and the Contractor, for the considerations hereinafter named,

agree as follows: ARTICLE I - THE WORK It is agreed that the Contractor shall perform and complete each and every one of the obligations required by the Contract Documents, including by example furnishing all labor, materials, goods, services and equipment necessary to complete the Project in strict accordance with the Contract Documents. The Contractor shall perform all Work shown and called for on the Contract Drawings and described in the Specifications entitled NORTHEAST SEWAGE PUMPING STATION ODOR/CORROSION CONTROL SYSTEM prepared by Jacobs who is the Engineer. The Contractor acknowledges that there may be items of Work for which the Contractor is responsible to provide under the Contract Documents that are not shown or specified in the Contract Documents but are necessary for the proper execution, operation, and completion of the Work and which are reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and/or which are required to achieve a fully functional Project. All such items of Work shall be provided as part of the Work without delay in its progress and without any increase in the Contract Times or Contract Price. The Contract Documents are defined in the General Conditions, but include, without limitation, this Agreement, Bonds, Drawings, Advertisement, Information For Bidders including Escrow Bid Document specification, Proposal, Specifications, General Conditions, Supplemental Conditions, and any attachments, or addenda thereto agreed to by both parties. Terms used in this Agreement have the same meaning as those terms defined and used in the General Conditions, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully restated herein. The priority of Contract Documents is set out in Article 1 of the General Conditions. This Contract is intended as a stand-alone Agreement between the parties. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Contract, in the event of termination of this Contract as set out above, Contractor shall be entitled to payment for the actual cost of Work performed and materials supplied plus a reasonable markup for overhead and profit on performed Work only. Nothing shall be owed for anticipated costs or overhead for Work that is not performed. Owner shall not be liable for any claims or damages of any nature in relation to this Contract beyond the payments set out herein.




In order to induce the Owner to enter in to this Agreement, the Contractor makes the following material representations: (1) Contractor has carefully considered all material aspects of the Contract Documents, Work, the Contract Drawings, locality, access routes, availability of materials, and all local conditions and federal, state and local laws, and regulations that may affect cost, progress, performance, or furnishing of the Work;

(2) Contractor has carefully studied the Project, all real property encompassing and surrounding the Project, all reports of investigations and tests of subsurface and latent physical conditions at the Project or otherwise affecting cost, progress, or performance of the Work; (3) Contractor has made or caused to be made all examinations, analysis, schedules, investigations and tests, borings and studies as he deems necessary for the performance of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Times and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents; and no additional examinations, investigations, tests, borings, reports, or similar data are required by Contractor for such purposes; (4) Contractor acknowledges, and agrees that the Contract Times and Contract Sum are sufficient in all respects to allow for the Contractor to complete the Work in strict accordance with the Contract Documents, including work inferred therefrom; (5) Contractor has given Engineer written notice of all conflicts, errors omissions and/or discrepancies that it has discovered, or should have reasonably discovered, in the Contract Documents and the written resolution thereof by Engineer, is acceptable to Contractor; (6) Contractor acknowledges that Work, construction, reconstruction, and services will occur during all seasons of the year, including winter and wet weather months and during winter and wet weather conditions, but notwithstanding these conditions, Contractor acknowledges that it has informed itself of the weather history of the area of the Site, including without limitation, conditions documented by N.O.A.A. for a 100-year history. Contractor shall complete the Work and the Project within the Contract Times and without exceeding the Contract Price; and (7) Contractor’s Proposal is true and accurate in all respects, and the Contractor’s Proposal includes all Work necessary to complete the Project within the Contract Times and without exceeding the Contract Price. ARTICLE II - THE TIME The Work shall be substantially completed within 155 days for the Biotrickling Filter Installation and 363 days for the HVAC Improvements from the date when the Contract Times commence to run as provided in Article 3 – Notice to Proceed of the General Conditions, and completed and ready for final payment in accordance with Article 3 - Application for Final Payment of the General Conditions within 423 days after the date when the Contract Times commence to run.




It is agreed that the Contractor shall, upon execution of this Agreement, be prepared to begin the Work within ten (10) consecutive calendar days of the execution of the Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Contractor shall not begin the Work unless and until the Owner issues a written notice to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). The requirement to be prepared to begin work within ten days of the date of the execution of the Agreement shall not constitute a representation or guarantee of the date that a notice to proceed will be issued by the Owner. The Contractor agrees the Owner shall have thirty (30) calendar days following the execution of this Agreement to issue the Notice to Proceed, during which time the Contractor shall not be entitled to any increase or change to the Contract Times and/or Contract Sum. The Parties agree the Contract Times are considered essential elements of the Contract Documents. If the Contractor shall be delayed by a Force Majeure, as defined in the Contract Documents, and if such delay affects the Critical Path, then the approved Schedule and the Contract Times only shall be adjusted, subject to and in strict conformance with the requirements of the Contract Documents, and only to the extent necessary to compensate for such delay (but the total extension of all Critical Path Activities may not exceed the period of time required by the Contractor, using its best efforts, to mitigate the effect of the delay). The extension of time shall be the Contractor’s sole remedy for any Force Majeure delay. The Contractor shall use its best efforts to mitigate the effects of any delay, whether or not it is caused by a Force Majeure Event. The Contractors best efforts to mitigate a delay caused by a Force Majeure event shall not include the obligation to accelerate the work. Immediately upon (and not more than 24 hours following the commencement of) the occurrence of a Force Majeure delay, the Contractor shall notify the Owner and Engineer in writing, setting forth the cause of the delay, a description of the portions of the Work affected, and additional relevant details. Failure to submit the notice of Force Majeure delay required herein shall constitute a waiver of claim for an extension of time by the Contractor. In the case of a continuing cause of Force Majeure delay, only one notice is necessary. No adjustments shall be made to the Schedule for any suspension, delay or interruption (i) to the extent that performance would have been so suspended, delayed or interrupted by any other cause, including the fault or negligence of the Contractor, (ii) to the extent the delay could have been mitigated by the Contractor, or (iii) for which an equitable adjustment is provided or excluded under any other provision of the Contract Documents. The Owner's exercise of any of its rights under the Contract Documents or the Owner's requirement of correction or re-execution of any Defective Work shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as interference with the Contractor’s performance of the Work. The remedies provided in this Article II of this Agreement, respectively, shall be the sole and exclusive remedies (in lieu of all other remedies whatsoever) of the Contractor for any delay, interference, hindrances in the performance of the Work, loss of productivity, impact damages and similar claims and damages, whether or not contemplated by the parties. In no event shall the Contractor be entitled to any compensation or recovery of any damages in connection with any delay, including, without limitation, all direct costs, indirect costs, overhead costs (including field or home office overhead, using Eichleay formula or otherwise), taxes, interest, general and administrative expenses, profit and all effects (direct, indirect and consequential, such as




impacts, delay, acceleration [actual or constructive], hindrance, disruption, interference, diminished bonding capacity, loss of productivity, impairment, manpower inefficiencies, lost opportunity, and “ripple effects”), consequential damages, lost opportunity costs, impact damages or other similar remuneration. Except only for time extensions for Force Majeure delay and as specifically provided in the Contract Documents, or for specified recoverable costs for cases of an Owner Delay (as the term is defined in the Contract Documents), the Contractor hereby expressly waives, covenants and agrees not to assert any claims against the Owner for any damages, costs, losses or expenses of any nature whatsoever which it or any Subcontractor or Supplier may incur as a result of any delays, interferences, suspensions, rescheduling, changes in sequences, congestion, disruptions, or the like arising from, out of or in connection with any Force Majeure or act or omission of the Owner, its representatives or agents, it being understood and agreed that their sole and exclusive remedies shall be those set forth in the Contract Documents. ARTICLE III - LIQUIDATED DAMAGES The Contractor and the Owner agree all time limits stated in the Contract Documents are essential conditions of the Contract Documents, and the Contractor’s performance (strictly, not substantially) in accordance with the Schedule is of the essence to this Agreement and therefore are material terms. The Contractor acknowledges and recognizes that (i) the Owner is entitled to full and beneficial use of the completed Work following expiration of the Contract Times, and (ii) the Owner has scheduled the commencement of its activities based upon the Contractor achieving certain intermediate milestones and Substantial Completion of the Work within the Contract Times. The Contractor further acknowledges and agrees that if the Contractor fails to complete substantially certain milestones and/or the Work, or cause the Substantial Completion of any portion of the Work within the Contract Times, the Owner will sustain extensive damages and serious loss as a result of such failure. If the Contractor fails to achieve defined milestones by time specified or Substantial Completion of the entire Project by the Substantial Completion, the Owner will suffer substantial damages that may be difficult to calculate. Accordingly, Owner and Contractor agree the Owner shall be entitled to retain or recover from the Contractor, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, the following daily amounts: $3,000 per day for every day until such actual date of completion of defined milestones or Substantial Completion of the Work. Because of the impracticality and difficulty of ascertaining and calculating the Owner’s actual damages, such liquidated damages are hereby agreed to be a reasonable pre-estimate of and reasonable just compensation for the damages the Owner will incur as a result of the delayed completion of the Work. The Owner may deduct liquidated damages from any unpaid amounts then and thereafter due the Contractor under this Agreement. Any liquidated damages not so deducted from any unpaid amounts due the Contractor shall be payable to the Owner by the date specified by the Owner, but in no event less than fourteen (14) days from the date of the Owner’s demand. Interest shall begin to accrue on the date such liquidated damages are due until paid, and shall thereafter accrue at seven percent (7%) per annum. The Contractor and Owner agree that the foregoing liquidated damages are not intended to compensate Owner for other damages (other than damages due to late delivery of the Work) the Owner may suffer as a result of the Contractor’s defaults, and the Contractor’s payment (or deduction) of liquidated damages shall in




no way restrict or limit the Owner’s ability to recover (or the Contractor’s liability for) damages suffered or incurred by the Owner as a result of the Contractor’s other damages and/or defaults (other than those related to the late delivery of the Work) under the Contract Documents. ARTICLE IV - ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT It is agreed that the Contractor shall not assign or transfer this Contract except with the written consent of the Owner to do so. Contractor shall not assign either legally or equitably, any of the monies payable to him under this Agreement, or his claim thereto, except with the written consent of the Owner. The Owner may withhold such consent in the Owner’s sole and absolute discretion. ARTICLE V - THE CONTRACT SUM The Contract price shall be the total of all lump sum amounts in the Contractor’s Bid for the Work. Such an amount shall be modified by such sums for alterations as may have been determined under the provisions of the Contract Documents herein, and diminished by such sums as the Owner may lawfully deduct and retain, including without limitation, liquidated damages under the provisions of Article III of this Agreement. Progress payments shall be made in accordance with the following provisions. ARTICLE VI - PAYMENT PROCEDURES

A. Schedule of Values

Within ten days of the Notice of Intent to Award the Contract, Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Engineer, a schedule of values for all of the Work which includes quantities and prices of items which when added together equal the Contract Price and subdivides the Work into component parts in sufficient detail to serve as the basis for progress payments during performance of the Work. Such prices will include an appropriate amount of overhead and profit applicable to each item of Work. The schedule of values shall conform to all requirements of the Contract Documents, including 01 29 00, Payment Procedures. The Engineer will return the schedule of values indicating any exceptions taken to the form or contents of the proposed schedule of values. Contractor shall promptly revise and resubmit the schedule of values to address any exceptions noted by the Engineer. As the work progresses, the Schedule of Values will be modified to include any credits or approved change orders, or as otherwise required or allowed by the Engineer. Contractor will modify the schedule of values to conform to any requirements set out by the Engineer regardless of whether Contractor agrees or disagrees with the modification. The Schedule of Values will serve as the basis for progress payments and will be incorporated into a form of Application for Payment acceptable to Engineer. Progress payments on account of Unit Price Work will be based on the quantities completed.




B. Applications for Payments

Pursuant to Act No. 524, Michigan Public Acts of 1980, the Owner hereby designates the Engineer as the person to whom Applications For Payment are to be submitted. The Contractor hereby designates as the person who will submit Applications For Payment to the Owner.

Upon written request from the Contractor, Owner will provide a schedule of the meetings of Owner’s Drain Board. This schedule is subject to change and may be updated either upon written request from Contractor, or by obtaining information available to the public online.

Contractor shall prepare and submit to Engineer for review a draft Application for Payment in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Application for Payment shall reflect all work completed since the prior application (if any) and shall meet all other requirements of the Contract Documents.

No payment will be made for materials furnished which are not incorporated in the finished Work, unless otherwise agreed by the Owner in writing. If payment is requested on the basis of materials and equipment not incorporated in the Work but delivered and suitably stored at the Site or at another location agreed to in writing, the Application for Payment shall also be accompanied by a bill of sale, invoice, or other documentation warranting that Owner has received the materials and equipment free and clear of all Liens and evidence that the materials and equipment are covered by appropriate property insurance or other arrangements to protect Owner’s interest therein, all of which must be satisfactory to Owner.

Materials that may be considered for payment as stored material shall meet the following criteria:

Must be located on Owner’s property and/or within the State of Michigan.

Perishable materials (example: cement, epoxy, etc.) are not eligible.

Electronic hardware and/or software are not eligible.

Raw materials (un-fabricated steel, piping, etc.) are not eligible.

Materials to be incorporated into the work in less than 30 days or beyond 180 days are not eligible.

Contractor must submit request to Owner at time SOV is submitted if stored material payments are to be requested.




As an aid to the Owner in evaluating estimates for progress payments, the Contractor may be required to submit to the Owner for approval, a breakdown of some or all Contract unit prices into their essential component parts. The sum of the component parts shall not exceed the total Contract Price on a per unit basis as established in the Proposal.

At least 17 days before a scheduled Drain Board meeting, the Contractor, Owner and Engineer shall meet to review and discuss Contractor’s draft Application For Payment. Contractor is responsible for submitting a draft Application for Payment and scheduling the meeting within this time frame. Following this meeting, the Contractor shall revise its draft Application For Payment in accordance with the comments of the Owner and Engineer, if any.

Within 14 days of the scheduled meeting of the Owner’s Drain Board, the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer an Application For Payment (in the form required by the Contract Documents), together with all other documents required to be submitted with an Application For Payment, covering all Work performed since the proceeding Application for Payment (if any). Contractor has an obligation to timely invoice for its Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.

Provided the Application For Payment is in the form required by the Contract Documents, and includes all accompanying documents and approvals required by the Contract Documents, and the Contractor is not known to be in default of any of its obligations under the Contract Documents, the Application for Payment will be certified and presented by the Engineer to the Drain Board with a recommendation for approval of the payment. If the Application is incomplete; incorrect; fails to include the required documentation, schedules, or certifications; or otherwise fails to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents, the Work required to support a progress payment shall be deemed incomplete, and the Application for Payment will not be submitted for approval by the Board at the scheduled meeting and will not be approved, or paid until the application is completed or corrected and submitted for approval at the following meeting of the Owner’s Drain Board.

C. Payment Dates

When approved by the Drain Board, payments will be in accordance with the provisions of Act 524 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1980 (MCLA 125.1561 et. seq.) and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. Payment on the application shall be made within fifteen days after approval of payment on the Application for Payment by Owner’s Drain Board. The failure to submit a completed and accurate Application for Payment acceptable to the Engineer within 14 days of the scheduled Board Meeting, will delay payment on the Application for Payment until at least 15 days after the following Board meeting.




D. Conditions of Payment

The Owner’s payment (partial or final) shall not be considered as approval or acceptance of the Work or any portion thereof, or of the completeness or accuracy of the Application for Payment. If an estimate in a pay application is found to be excessive, future estimates for pay applications shall be adjusted downward to reflect the actual status of completion of the work.

E. Withholding of Payment

The Owner may withhold payment or, because of subsequently discovered evidence or subsequent review of the Work or the Contractor’s Applications For Payment, invoice detail and/or submittals, it may nullify the whole or any part of any payment previously issued, to such extent as may be necessary in its opinion to protect the Owner from loss or expense due to any of the following:

(1) The Contractor fails to properly respond to notices issued by the Owner pursuant to the Contract Documents; (2) The Contractor is in default of any of its obligations under this Agreement, otherwise is in default under any of the Contract Documents, and/or is otherwise in default of any other agreement or contract with the Owner, whether or not related to this Contract; (3) Any part of such payment is attributable to Work which is Defective, as determined by the Engineer; provided, however, such payment shall be made as to the part thereof attributable to Work which is performed in accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and is not Defective, reserving, however, such amount as the Engineer shall determine necessary to protect the Owner with respect to Defective Work; (4) The Contractor has failed, within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of payment from Owner, to make payments not in dispute promptly to Contractor’s subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, laborers or suppliers or for material, labor or services used in the Work. The Contractor shall promptly notify Owner if any such dispute exists (Owner may also pay subcontractors directly or issue joint checks as specified in the General Conditions as an alternative to withholding payment from the Contractor – at Owner’s sole and unfettered discretion); (5) Any part of such payment is attributable to Work with respect to which the Owner has been notified of a claim or dispute or has received reasonable evidence indicating the existence of such a claim or dispute, unless the Contractor shall provide reasonable evidence of its ability to resolve the dispute and pay any amount owed.




(6) The Owner has a reasonable belief the Work will not be completed within the Contract Time established under the Contract Documents; (7) The Owner reasonably believes that the portion of the Contract Price then remaining unpaid will not be sufficient to pay for Work not completed to date or to complete the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (8) An Application For Payment is not in the exact form required by the Contract Documents; (9) The contractor has failed to submit and obtain approval for a Schedule, Schedule update, make up schedule or other documents required in the Contract Documents required for a complete and valid payment application; (10) The Contractor’s Payment and/or Performance Bond Surety provides Owner with a notice to withhold further funds according to the terms of the surety Bonds and/or indemnity agreement with the Contractor; (11) At the written direction of Contractor’s bond company; and (12) The Owner is otherwise entitled to a setoff against the Contractor.

If the Owner elects to withhold a portion of a payment otherwise due to the Contractor for reasons set out in the Contract Documents, the Owner shall submit a written statement to Contractor describing the disputed items and shall have the right to require the Contractor to prepare and submit to the Owner a revised Application For Payment, as directed by the Owner, to facilitate payment of the undisputed amount, if any, otherwise due to the Contractor. Alternatively, the Owner shall have the right (but not the obligation) to revise the Contractor’s Application For Payment to show the amount withheld by the Owner. Whenever the Owner reasonably determines, after notice to the Contractor, there is a basis for concern that payments properly owing to any subcontractor, supplier, surety, or laborer are not being made on a timely basis, the Owner may elect, but shall not be obligated, to make payments to the joint order of the Contractor and such subcontractor, supplier, or laborer, with any such payments satisfying any payment obligation otherwise owing by the Owner to the Contractor. Alternatively, the Owner may, but is under no obligation to, make direct payment to any subcontractor, supplier, or laborer of the Contractor, and such amounts directly paid shall otherwise satisfy any payment obligation owing by the Owner to the Contractor for the Work. The Owner’s option to withhold payment from the Contractor, or to make joint payments or direct payments shall not create an intended third beneficiary relationship with any other person or entity, it being agreed and understood the Owner has the right to withhold payment, or to make such joint and direct payments but is not otherwise obligated (nor may it be compelled) to make such joint and/or direct payments.




The Owner may also elect at any time to require payments be made through a construction escrow, in which event the Contractor shall supply all customary forms and indemnities as may be required to satisfy the conditions to disbursement established by the applicable escrow agent.

F. Retainage from Payments

Each payment from the Owner to Contractor shall cover the amount due to the Contractor for Work completed through the date of the Application For Payment; provided, however, “Retainage” shall be in the amount of ten percent (10%) of each payment made or due from the Owner to the Contractor. Retainage shall be withheld from each payment made by Owner and shall be held by Owner until the work on the Project is fifty percent (50%) complete as determined by the dollar amount of approved Applications for Payment. No further Retainage will be withheld unless the Owner determines that the Contractor is not making satisfactory progress, or for other specific cause relating to the contractor's performance under the contract. Retainage shall be withheld in compliance with MCL 125.1563 and the provisions of that statute shall govern over any provisions contained herein that are found to conflict with the provisions of the statute. Retained amounts will be withheld until final payment unless partially released in accordance with the provisions herein.

The Owner's right to withhold Retainage is in addition to the Owner's right to withhold payment under the Contract Documents to protect the Owner from specific identified problems and claims and other costs for which the Contractor is responsible. The Owner is not required to use Retainage amounts to protect the Owner from the costs and liability arising from claims and other problems caused by the Contractor or for which Owner may make deductions under the Contract Documents. The Owner shall have the right, but not the obligation, to release Retainage related to a subcontractor who achieves Final Completion of its subcontracted portion of the Work under the subcontract substantially earlier than Final Completion of the entire Work, but only upon the written recommendation of the Contractor that such Retainage should be released. This option is entirely discretionary and shall create no obligation to the Owner, nor is this option intended to create any benefit to third parties. At the time of Substantial Completion of the Work, the Contractor may make written application for a partial release of Retainage held by the Owner. The Owner shall have no obligation to approve such application, but may do so in its sole discretion. Should the Owner agree to such request, considering the Contractor’s performance, the performance of Contractor’s subcontractors, and other factors as determined by the Owner in its sole and absolute discretion, the amount retained to the date of the request may be reduced by the Owner to a lower lump sum amount. The Owner's agreement to such partial release of Retainage shall not change the percentage retained from future Applications For Payment for Progress Payments after the date of the partial release.




All retained amounts shall be held by the Owner and shall be released at the time of Final Payment. Contractor shall provide Owner with a consent from the Surety for any release of retention.

ARTICLE VII - FINAL PAYMENT Neither Final Payment nor any remaining Retainage shall become due until the Contractor submits to the Owner (1) an affidavit that payrolls, bills for materials and equipment, and other indebtedness connected with the Work have been paid or otherwise satisfied; (2) consent of all sureties to Final Payment; (3) final record Drawings, including record Drawings marked by the Contractor with record information set forth in the Contract Documents and the Contractor’s coordination drawings; (4) the final versions of all manufacturers' warranties, operations and maintenance manuals, and/or other information that may be required by the Contract Documents, embodying such corrections and modifications from initial versions as the Owner shall reasonably request; (5) successful completion of all training, and start up requirements in the Contract Documents; (6) a final contractor's sworn statement from the Contractor duly executed and notarized showing all of Contractor’s subcontractors, suppliers and laborers to be fully paid; (7) training; (8) completion of all permit obligations and release of permits; and (9) all other conditions set forth in the Contract Documents. The “affidavit” and, or “Sworn Statement” referred to herein shall be in the “Sworn Statement” form set forth in the current “Michigan Construction Lien Act.” The Contractor shall submit an Application for Final Payment when all Work is finally complete in accordance with the Contractor’s obligations under the Contract Documents. The Contractor’s Application for Final Payment shall include a request for payment of the Retainage held by the Owner. The acceptance of the Final Payment (in whole or in part) by the Contractor shall constitute a full and final release of Owner and waiver of all claims against the Owner arising out of or in connection with the Project and/or Contract Documents, except only those specific claims of the Contractor made in writing and expressly reserved by the Contractor in written notice to the Owner attached to the Contractor’s Final Application for Payment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Contractor’s written notice of reserved claims, presented to the Owner with the Contractor’s Application for Final Payment, may not revive claims which were required to have been otherwise filed in accordance with the Contract Documents. ARTICLE VIII – DISPUTE RESOLUTION Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, all unresolved claims by the Contractor against the Owner shall be resolved first through a meeting between the Contractor’s highest officer familiar with the project and the Owner’s highest level staff member, and such meeting shall occur no earlier than thirty (30) days after Final Completion. At the Owner’s option, this meeting may be conducted by a facilitator mutually acceptable to the parties, or, in the event the parties are unable to agree on a facilitator, the parties shall select a facilitator according to the American Arbitration Association Construction Industry Rules for Mediation. The meeting between the Contractor’s highest officer and the Owner’s highest official is a condition precedent to the Contractor initiating litigation or demanding arbitration (if elected by the Owner).




In the sole and absolute discretion of the Owner, the Owner may elect to arbitrate claims, and thereafter all claims, disputes and other matters in question arising out of or relating to Contract Documents and/or the Project, shall be decided by arbitration. If elected by the Owner, such arbitration shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding and shall be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof. The arbitration shall be conducted in Macomb County or Oakland County, Michigan. The Owner may, but is not required to, require the Contractor to join any of the Contractor’s subcontractors and/or suppliers to the arbitration, and the Contractor shall insure its contracts with each of its subcontractors and suppliers include the right to join other parties to arbitration. Contractor shall have no right to join subcontractors to the arbitration and Subcontractors shall not intervene in the arbitration unless joinder is requested by the Owner. In the event the Owner does not elect arbitration, any and all disputes shall be settled via litigation in Wayne County, Michigan, it being agreed the Contractor conducts business in Wayne County, Michigan and the Contractor waives any claim that venue is improper in Wayne County, Michigan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Owner’s total liability to the Contractor in any action, proceeding, arbitration or judgment shall not exceed the Contract Sum adjusted in accordance with the Contract Documents. Contractor waives any and all claims for damages in excess of the Contract Sum. Further, in no event shall Owner, or any respective director, officer, employee, agent, successor and assign of the Owner, be liable to Contractor, or anyone claiming through or related to Contractor, whether based on contract, tort, negligence, warranty, indemnity, strict liability, delay, error or omission, other otherwise, for any consequential, special, incidental, indirect, punitive, exemplary or multiple damage or damages arising from or in connection with loss of use or loss of revenue or profit, actual or anticipated, increased expense of manufacturing or operation, loss of use, loss of profit, loss of bonding capacity, or cost of capitals, and the Contractor hereby releases Owner, and any respective director, officer, employee, agent, successor and assign of the Owner, from all such liability. Any action resulting from any breach of the Owner must be commenced within one year of the date of Substantial Completion (as documented as required by the Contract Documents) or the Contractor will have deemed to irrevocably waived any such cause of action. The pendency or possibility of a dispute between the Owner and Contractor shall not interfere with the progress of the Work by Contractor, nor shall the Contractor be permitted to suspend the Work, slow the performance of the Work, and/or terminate the Work except as specifically provided for in the Contract Documents.




ARTICLE IX – MISCELLANEOUS The Contractor acknowledges that he has not received or relied upon any representations or warranties of any nature whatsoever from the Owner or Engineer, or their respective agents or employees, not set forth in the Contract Documents and that this Contract is entered into solely upon the Contractor’s own investigations, careful deliberations and independent business judgment. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of these Contract Documents shall be held invalid, the same shall not affect any other part of these Contract Documents. ARTICLE X – GOVERNING LAW This Contract is made and entered into in the State of Michigan and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of Michigan. The language of all parts of this Contract is intended to and, in all cases, shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not construed strictly for or against any party. As used in this Contract, the singular or plural number, possessive or non-possessive shall be deemed to include the other whenever the context so suggests or requires. ARTICLE XI – CAPTIONS The section headings or titles and/or all section numbers contained in this Contract are intended for the convenience of the reader and not intended to have any substantive meaning and are not to be interpreted as part of this Contract. ARTICLE XII – SEVERABILITY Each portion of this Agreement and the Contract Documents shall be deemed severable to the extent practical while maintaining the enforceability and intent of this Agreement. Any portion of this agreement held to be unenforceable shall be severed from the Agreement with the remaining provisions continuing in full force and effect. ARTICLE XIII – NOTICES All notices required or permitted to be given by one party to the other under the Contract Documents shall be in writing and shall be sent to a party at the address specified below and by certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested, or recognized overnight courier service, or shall be hand-delivered or transmitted by facsimile that retains a record of transmission. Notices shall be effective upon the earlier of actual receipt or two (2) business days after posting or delivery to a courier. Notices shall also be deemed to have been duly served if delivered personally in writing to the Contractor’s Project Executive or other on-site representative. Either party may change its address or designee for purposes of this Section by a written notice complying with the provisions of this Section.




If to the Contractor: If to the Owner: With a copy to:




WITNESSES: WITNESSES:

OAKLAND MACOMB INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT By: Jim Nash, Secretary Drainage Board for the Oakland Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District CONTRACTOR: By:




INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXECUTING AGREEMENT If the Contractor be a Corporation, the following certificate should be executed: I, , certify that I am the Secretary of the Corporation named as Contractor hereinabove; that , who signed the foregoing Agreement on behalf of the Contractor, was then of said Corporation; that said Agreement was duly signed for and in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its governing body, and is within the scope of its corporate powers.

(Corporate Seal) If the Agreement be signed by the Secretary of the Corporation, the above certificate should be executed by some other officer of the Corporation, under the Corporate Seal. In lieu of the foregoing certificate, there may be attached to the Agreement copies of so much of the records of the Corporation as will show the official character and authority of the officers signing, duly certified by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary under the Corporate Seal to be true copies. The full name and business address of the Contractor should be inserted and the Agreement should be signed with his official signature. Please have the name of the signing party or parties typewritten or printed under all signatures to the Agreement. If the Contractor should be operating as a partnership, each partner should sign the Agreement. If the Agreement be not signed by each partner, there shall be attached to the Agreement a duly authenticated Power of Attorney evidencing the signer’s (signers’) authority to sign such Agreement for and in behalf of the partnership. If the Contractor be an individual, the trade name (if the Contractor be operating under a trade name) should be indicated in the Agreement and the Agreement should be signed by such individual. If signed by one other than the Contractor, there should be attached to the Agreement a duly authenticated Power of Attorney evidencing the signer’s authority to execute such Agreement for and in behalf of the Contractor.

END OF SECTION


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 13

OMID Immediate Repair Drawings and Specifications Review and Request to

Solicit Bidders

Form DC–001




Interceptor Drain


SUBJECT: OMID Immediate Repairs Project 95% Plans and Specifications and Request to Solicit Bidders

DATE: May 15, 2019

On February 20, 2019, the OMIDDD Board approved a proposal for NTH Consultants Ltd. to design repairs of various distresses within the OMID system that were noted in a condition assessment performed last summer and fall of 2018. NTH has recently developed 95% plans and specifications for this effort and is ready to receive final comments and develop an Issued for Bid set. Rather than expend additional effort for an open-bid format, and due to the unique nature of the flow control operations required to perform the Work, we request that Oakland and Macomb County blanket contractors who have worked in the OMID/MID systems or are otherwise familiar with county operations be utilized to provide quotes for the project. These contractors include but are not necessarily limited to:

1. Doetsch Environmental Services, Inc. 2. Jay Dee Contractors, Inc. 3. Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. 4. Lanzo Construction Co. 5. DVM Utilities, Inc.

We believe this approach will allow for a competitive bid price with the added advantage of working with vendors who already have familiarity with OMID/MID System operations. Requested Action: Receive and file the 95% Plans and Specifications and approve soliciting Oakland and Macomb County blanket contractors to provide quotes for this project once Issued for Bid Documents are prepared.


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 14

Presentation from Meadowbrook Insurance regarding insurance policies and premiums

for NESPS and NI-EA


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 15

Present letter dated May 13, 2019 from Macomb County Chief Deputy Public Works Commissioner Brian Baker regarding concerns as to OMIDDD litigation positions

and NESPS


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 16

Other Business


______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda Item No. 17

Adjourn