The URL can be used to link to this page

2017_08.03 UIB Packet - Cancelled No Quorum )c KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www_c i Yyof k enn ed a 1 e-n o m UTILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD AGENDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS - REGULAR MEETING August 3, 2017 KENNEDALE COMMUNITY CENTER — 316 W. THIRD STREET 6:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES APPROVAL A. Consider approval of the minutes from the April 6, 2017 regular meeting IV. VISITORS/CITIZENS FORUM V. REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Announcements from the Board VI. REGULAR ITEMS A. Receive update and discuss recommended capital projects for the FY 2017-18 water/sewer budget B. Discuss and consider approving purposed criteria for a capital projects rating system VII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Kennedale will provide for reasonable accommodations for persons attending City Council meetings. This building is wheelchair accessible, and parking spaces for disabled citizens are available. Requests for sign interpreter services must be made forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meetings. Please contact the City Secretary at 817.985.2104 or(TDD) 1.800.735.2989 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the August 3,2017, Utility and Infrastructure Board agenda was posted on the City Hall bulletin board next to the main entrance of the City Hall building, 405 Municipal Drive, of the City of Kennedale, Texas, in a place convenient and readily accessible to the general public at all times and said agenda was posted at least 72 hours preceding the schedule time of said meeting,in accordance with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. City Secretary ic KENNEDALE Kennedale Economic Development Corporation www.cityofkennedale.com STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Date: August 3, 2017 Agenda Item No: MINUTES APPROVAL - A. I. Subject: Consider approval of the minutes from the April 6, 2017 regular meeting II. Originated by: III. Summary: Minutes are prepared by the Deputy City Secretary and ready for approval. IV. Recommendation: Approve V. Alternative Actions: VI. Attachments: 1. JUtility and Infrastructure Board Meeting Minutes - April 6, 2017 -6-17.pdf )c KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www_c i Yyof k enn ed a 1 e.n o m UTILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD BOARD OF DIRECTORS - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 6, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Board Chairman Robb Lecuyer called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Robb Lecuyer, Steven Higginbotham, Harry Browne, Stephen Mora, Tayyab Yunus, and Tom Newsom Absent: Chris Fuller Staff Present: Larry Ledbetter, Larry Hoover, George Campbell, Dennis Brown, and Kathy Moore III. MINUTES APPROVAL A. Consider approval of the minutes from the February 2, 2017 regular meeting Motion To approve the February 2, 2017 regular meeting minutes of the Utility and Infrastructure Board. Action Approve, Moved By Steven Higginbotham, Seconded By Tayyab Yunus. Motion passed Unanimously IV. VISITORS/CITIZENS FORUM There was no one present requesting to speak. V. REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Introductions were made for board member Tayyab Yunus, who also provide a short bio on himself. VI. REGULAR ITEMS A. Discuss and consider approving a recommendation to City Council regarding a capital projects rating system The Utility and Infrastructure Board discussed the formula they used to create the matrix brought forward for approval. City Manager George Campbell stated that it needed to be a tool that can work for any project; yet simple enough for the public to understand. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the criteria to be use. It was determined that staff would bring projects to the board and provide information regarding the needs of the city. George Campbell agreed to draft a proposal for the criteria ranking and present it for approval at the June meeting. B. Discuss the future role of the Utility and Infrastructure Board (UIB) City Manager George Campbell stated that he would like to maximize the Board as a recommending body to staff and City Council for utility related issues and project recommendations. His plan is to bring utility and infrastructure projects to the board first, before they move forward to Council. Additionally, he would like the board to review the upcoming utility budget. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion To adjourn. Action Adjourn, Moved By Steven Higginbotham, Seconded By Tom Newsom. Motion passed Unanimously The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robb Lecuyer, Board Chair Kathy E. Moore, Deputy City Secretary 405 Municipal Drive, Kennedale, TX 76060 1 Telephone: 8]7.985.2102 1 Fax: 817-478-7169 ic KENNEDALE Kennedale Economic Development Corporation www.cityofkennedale.com STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Date: August 3, 2017 Agenda Item No: REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS - A. I. Subject: Announcements from the Board II. Originated by: III. Summary: At this time Board members will provide an updates and/or announcement to the group. IV. Recommendation: V. Alternative Actions: VI. Attachments: ic KENNEDALE Kennedale Economic Development Corporation www.cityofkennedale.com STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Date: August 3, 2017 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS - A. I. Subject: Receive update and discuss recommended capital projects for the FY 2017-18 water/sewer budget II. Originated by: III. Summary: Public Works Director Larry Ledbetter will provide an update on proposed capital improvement project recommendations and estimated cost,as submitted by Freese and Nichols. IV. Recommendation: V. Alternative Actions: VI. Attachments: 1. Water CIP Map Water CIP Map.pdf 2. Sanitary Sewer Map SSWR CIP Map.pdf 3. CIP Cost Estimates Water and Sewer CIP Estimates FY2018. df e _ ---------------- P tlge POirrte as t. y � lg. to• 12 ;,�.-,; az• � �z J tzl'• �. ��4 T 2 120 e m IS a _ Arlington Emergency i l e a ' Con v nechon 6 �;` Proposed 0.5 MG L� ` Elevated Storage Tank I11 a a� 78 I Oertlow Bev=800' Y ` 6/ � t2•• 12a I Trim We11IK Peluxy Well 42 90 GPM Decommission Well Not m Service a• " b a' \ d __ j0 yo T 1 Ground Storage Tank \4 Decommission Well a, 05 MG C.r..ty y(T Booster Pump Station (2)750 GPM PU,p, mps e�\ m Ground Storage Tank 075 MG C.P.City 1.6,\ .A Boos ter Pump Station TnnrtWall #, P 7\ Palux We#1 2- 2310 GlM Well 4 ? omi - - --, -=16" os e 12m - m _ e a. amaa From Fort Worth A proposed 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank m a� �'F Ground Storage Tank to Mc capacity o ovartrow eav_=soo' `y 9 16" 16•' 16 6•• 76•• a e. m Ground Storage Tankb. , 0 35 MG Carly AA D. e 16" Boos 2)800 QpO Wem�310n 16--. T� Tri330 GPM Ar ytonl �. s.. e.. s..GPM Decommission Well = \ Dec ommission Well � a' Supply Point I � / Standpipe <a 16'• fV 072 MG Cepacity fV 6 \ Over/bw Elev_=808' \T\ V Water Quality Improvements 5 Proposed Ground Storage Tank Y,SV 3 Decommission Standpipe rsMGCep—ry �. Proposed Pump Station N \ 65 MGD Finn Cep—ty 6 $ Tz.. 18 18 (11 0 $„ a 12" 12" $•• g .0 N T—re Verde IV Elevatetl Stow a Tank 12.. 12" 12• 12 12 12 112 12' 1A 10.. o 63 1"21 21 FIGURE 7-1 c CITY OF K EN N EDA L E OPTION 1- BUILDOUT WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN WITH 10" 12" SERVICE FROM A RL I N GTON A N D FORT WORTH LEGEND ►21 � 23 r Proposed Arlington Connection 2023 Water Line City Limit Improvement CJ 2023 Pump Station Buildout Water Line ——JI,ETJ Boundary a 2023 Ground Improvement Cdy ofArlinoton Water System T Storage Tank Existing 8"and Smaller - T Buildout Elevated Water Line ® Existing Transfer Valve € # Storage Tank Existing 10"and Larger T Water Line # Elevated Storage Tank Existing Elevated T# Storage Tank City of Fort Worth Water Line T Ground Storage Tank T Street Booster Pump Station e LI Existing Booster Pump Station Stream 10"and Larger Water Line C" Water Well Parcel 0 1,300 2,600 Note: Proposed alignments are FREESE SCALE IN FEET conceptual and subject to change. ■ KENNEDALE 2 N IC H 0 L S You're Here.YR MUme N 8 a' .nl �]19 678 Phase 1A .,� 7s•:>, � a' g ?�., Upsize 18' to 21 � T—viington �- I' 136" 61� JIL 6 6' 6" r. i X11 l „g�� r�o. - ro m� _ 6 6' g d Phase 1 B Upsize 6/8/12"to 18" �6 20 N P� 6 8 �J B W yi 9Id� � �Y I 6„� \ - J - N � 6„ 12" 6" a v �q Phase 3 w Upsize 12"to o N 21" 12" 12' s s N W w W Basin 6 Jpsize 8"/10"to 12"d 6° 6 6 6" 11 6 7? g Proposed r� � I Sewer Main , 13-1 M� e o r I� -- -'W—To Fort Woit � ' 0 � Basin E " 4 �'basin 6,-2, lL ` 1 a l I - n x. I e - a 0 I�• ° CITY OF KENNEDALE SEWER ROUTE STUDY 1 APPENDIX 3: EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM I UP-SIZING PLAN & t LEGEND z Sewer Main improve—s Fort Worth Existing Sewer Lines Proposed Sewer Man 8'and Smaller Upsize Phase i 10"and Larger sA As Surcharge Noticed Upsioe Phase 1 B Arlington Existing Line As Surcharge is Noticed Upsze Phase 2 Street of _ Before Urban Village or Ten-Foot Contour Neighborhood Corridor U size Phase 3- Stream Men 250 Long Term Lots FVe Developed Parcel Kennedaie Sewer Svstem J City Limit �J s, T Manhole ---J ETJ Boundary 8"and Smaller 10"and Larger �0 2 000'-' _ SC/aLE:IN FEES'r FREESE °N KENNEDALE v� �g I CHOLS Yag.e�er�,Yag,t.amr Innovative approaches FREE PracUcal results rm z 11 ICY I f Outstanding service OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Sewer Route Stud -Summar y 5/24/2017 City of Kennedale '• 1112 NEVA.156711RUNITNA119 Conceptual James Johnson ESTIMATOR QC CHECKED BY FNI PROJECT N• 1�t JKJ • DESCRIPTION ITEM PEI Project#1 1.0 MG EST-Rehab of EST 1 Construction Cost $ 443,010.00 2 Engineering &Survey $ 44,300.00 l�� 11111111111111111111111m— Proposed Project#1 Total $487,31 , Project#2 12-inch Water along Bolen 1 Construction Cost $ 667,810.00 2 En ineerin &Surve $ 100,170.00 Proposed Project#2 Total 1 Project#3 Village Creek Sewer Line 1 Construction Cost $ 344,060.00 2 Engineering &Survey $ 70 Proposed Project#3 Total $41 4,06 Project#4.1 Arlington Interconnect-Option 1 1 Construction Cost $ 346,350.00 2 En ineerin &Survey $ 51,950.00 E� Proposed Project#4.1 Total 0, Project#4.2 Arlington Interconnect-Option 2 1 Construction Cost $ 2,148,870.00 2 Engineering &Survey $ 322,330.00 Proposed Project#4.2 Total � 1 Proposed 2018 CIP Budget (w/Project#4.1) $2067 53 Proposed 2018 CIP Budget (w/Project#4.2) $414055 NOTES: IInnovative approaches FREESIE- Practical results won I Outstanding OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS • 1.0 MG EST-Rehab of EST 5/24/2017 City of Kennedale '• 1112 • Conceptual James Johnson QC CHECKED BY FNI PROJECT NO. JKJ OFF17041 DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL Blast clean interior(including dehumidification)to SSPC-SP-10 and apply 1 100° solids epoxy lining 12,000 SF $ 22.00 $264,000 2 Caulk Laps and Joints on Roof 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $2,000 3 Install new 12"Overflow Piping 130 LF $ 85.00 $11,050 4 Install new 12"Overflow Flap Valve 1 EA $ 2,500.00 $2,500 5 Replace Interior Ladder with Painted Steel Ladder and Safety Climb Cabl 35 VLF $ 100.00 $3,500 6 Replace Exterior Ladder with Painted Steel Ladder and Safety Climb Cabl 100 VLF $ 100.00 $10,000 7 Replace Exterior Ladder Safety Gate 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $2,000 8 Replace Primary Roof Hatch with 36"x42"Bilco Hatch 1 EA $ 7,500.00 $7,500 9 Remove and Replace Center Roof Vent with 36"AST Vent 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $5,000 10 Install Level Indicating Pressure Gauge 1 EA $ 750.00 $750 11 Install Sample Taps at Wet Riser 2 EA $ 750.00 $1,500 SUBTOTAL: $309,800 • •• SUBTOTAL: $325,290 MOBILIZATION 5% $15,490 SUBTOTAL: $340,780 CONTINGENCY • $102,230 CONSTRUCTION COST: $443,010 10% $44,300 SUBTOTAL: $487,310 INSPECTION • ••• PROJECT • ii NOTES: Quantities and unit prices taken from SWB16103.That tank was a 0.75 MG rehab. Im.zT-1 IM00d; - OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS • 12-inch Water along Bolen 5/24/2017 City of Kennedale '• 1112 • Conceptual James Johnson ESTIMATOR QC CHECKED BY FNI PROJECT NO. OFF17041 DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Connection to Existing Utilities 2 EA $ 5,000.00 $10,000 2 12"Water Pipe-PVC 2,000 LF $ 116.00 $232,000 3 Pavement Repair 200 LF $ 50.00 $10,000 4 24"Boring and Casing 400 LF $ 500.00 $200,000 5 Easement 7,500 1 SF $ 2.00 $15,000 SUBTOTAL: $467,000 • • SUBTOTAL: $490,350 MOBILIZATION 5% $23,350 SUBTOTAL: $513,700 CONTINGENCY • • CONSTRUCTION COST: $667,810 $100,170 PROJECTTOTAL $768,OC3 NOTES: Quantities taken from KEN 13264,CI Update Irrovative approaches WMIMPICNIC" - • OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Village Creek Sewer Line 5/24/2017 City of Kennedale '• 1112 • Conceptual James Johnson ESTIMATOR QC CHECKED BY FNI PROJECT NO. OFF17041 DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Connection to Existing Utilities 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $5,000 2 12"Sewer Pipe-PVC 2,560 LF $ 85.00 $217,600 3 60"Diameter Precast Manhole 12 EA $ 1,500.00 $18,000 SUBTOTAL: $240,600 • • • SUBTOTAL: $252,630 MOBILIZATION 5% $12,030 SUBTOTAL: $264,660 CONTINGENCY • •• CONSTRUCTION COST: $344,060 REMAINING ENGINEERING FEE • ••• '• • ii NOTES: 'New 12"Sewer Pipe=Average Depth 7.5' 'Manholes located at every change in alignment direction,&every 500',25'Deep Innovative approaches FREESE Practical results M 11 I 11 1 f Outstanding service OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Arlington Interconnect-Option 1 �' 5/24/2017 City of Kennedale '• 1112 • Conceptual James Johnson ESTIMATOR QC CHECKED BY FNI PROJECT NO. OFF17041 DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Connection to Existing Utilities 2 EA $ 5,000.00 $10,000 2 12"Water Pipe-PVC 1,300 LF $ 116.00 $150,800 3 12"Gate Valve 2 EA $ 2,700.00 $5,400 4 12"Flow Meter 1 EA $ 6,000.00 $6,000 5 12"Double Check Valve Backflow Preventer 1 EA $ 20,000.00 $20,000 6 24"Boring and Casing 100 LF $ 500.00 1 $50,000 SUBTOTAL: $242,200 • • SUBTOTAL: $254,310 MOBILIZATION 5% $12,110 SUBTOTAL: $266,420 CONTINGENCY • • CONSTRUCTION COST: $346,350 • '• • ii NOTES: Quantities taken from KEN 13264,CIP Update Innovative approaches FREESE Practical results M 11 I 11 1 f Outstanding service OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Arlington Interconnect-Option 2 �' 5/24/2017 City of Kennedale '• 1112 • Conceptual James Johnson ESTIMATOR QC CHECKED BY FNI PROJECT NO. OFF17041 DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Connection to Existing Utilities 4 EA $ 5,000.00 $20,000 2 16"Water Pipe-PVC 8,900 LF $ 128.00 $1,139,200 3 16"Gate Valve 4 LF $ 3,000.00 $12,000 4 16"Flow Meter 1 EA $ 6,500.00 $6,500 5 16"Double Check Valve Backflow Preventer 1 EA $ 25,000.00 $25,000 6 30"Boring and Casing 500 LF $ 600.00 1 $300,000 SUBTOTAL: $1,502,700 • • SUBTOTAL: $1,577,840 MOBILIZATION 5% $75,140 SUBTOTAL: $1,652,980 CONTINGENCY • •• CONSTRUCTION COST: $2,148,870 • '• • ii NOTES: ic KENNEDALE Kennedale Economic Development Corporation www.cityofkennedale.com STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Date: August 3, 2017 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS - B. I. Subject: Discuss and consider approving purposed criteria for a capital projects rating system II. Originated by: III. Summary: Following years of delayed capital projects during the recession, the City Council and UIB have recognized that it is appropriate to consider reinvestment in capital assets for the City. Aged capital assets present the city with a myriad of financial and service risks. In order to prioritize available projects, a set of criteria should be established. The UIB has, since January 2017, been assessing the capital needs and priorities of the city and more specifically have been developing a process and criteria for evaluating and prioritizing the capital projects that need to be accomplished in the near future and the longer term. In April of 2015, the City, in conjunction with UTA developed a long-term asset management plan for Kennedale. It is recommended the City utilizes the prior established work to identify city needs, citizen desires and feasibility. To that end, the Board reviewed a report published by the Government Finance Review that clearly outlines considerations and criteria that warrant consideration when evaluating capital projects and investments. The board at its meeting in April asked the City Manager to propose evaluation criteria for capital projects giving consideration to the recommendations identified by the GFOA. Those criteria, with which the City Manager agrees, is shown on exhibit I. It is anticipated that key city staff will initially evaluate proposed projects, giving scores on a 1-5 scale for each matrix category. As the annual budget is developed, staff will review those projects and respective ratings with the U I B. It is recognized that no one methodology will be perfect. Each has their inherent strengths and weaknesses and involves a significant human factor in judging each criterion. The key to success is a consistent approach to the subject. In addition to grading each project along the matrix, it is helpful to consider the total cost of each project. It may be more beneficial to the City to complete several smaller projects as opposed to one large project. Unfortunately, most project costs will be based on estimates of varying reliability. Oftentimes, it costs significant upfront money to have a better gauge of a project's total cost. Less thorough estimates may lack reliability. When factoring in the cost, it is important to consider the cost of not completing the project. Poor infrastructure could cause greater physical risks, high maintenance costs, state and federal fines, and the loss of staff, all of which can be considered within the matrix shown on exhibit I. While we consider capital projects, we must also remember to emphasize ongoing maintenance. The full benefits of a project are often not achieved without active maintenance and preventative care. It is often an easy line item to overlook when looking for savings in an annual budget. IV. Recommendation: Approve V. Alternative Actions: VI. Attachments: 1. Ca ital Project Matrix- Exhibit I JCapital Project Matrix.docx B<hibit 1: Capital Consitency Mandates and with Other Legal Community Requirements Goals and Plans Maintains Public or Improves Health and Standard of Safety Service Extent of Related to Other Benefit Projects Public Efficiency Perception of Need of Service Support Environmental Economic Quality Development Feasibility Opportunity of Project COSt Operational Budget Impact