electronic packet february 27, 2017 commission meeting ... · an amount not to exceed $278,744....

ELECTRONIC PACKET

February 27, 2017 Commission Meeting

RELEASED: Monday, February 20, 2017

COMMISSION MEETING

February 27, 2017

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE REPORT FOR JANUARY 2017 – PAT OBENAUF & SCOTT ROYER

17-004-01

PowerPoint presentation from Patrick Obenauf, Manager of Contract Compliance,

and Scott Royer, General Manager, Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC

Item 1

COMMISSION FILE NO: 17-019-2 DATE INTRODUCED: February 13, 2017

INTRODUCED BY: Executive Director (Signature on File in the Office of the Commission)

REFERRED BY COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON TO: Operations Committee

RELATING TO:

Award of Contract P01005C02, Interplant Sludge System Improvements – Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Interplant Sludge Pump Stations Valves Replacement

SUMMARY: The Commission is requested to award and to direct the Executive Director to execute on behalf of the District Contract P01005C02, Interplant Sludge (IPS) System Improvements – Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Interplant Sludge Pump Stations Valves Replacement, to J.F. Ahern Co. in the amount of $189,500. J.F. Ahern Co. was the lowest responsible, responsive bidder among three bids received. The IPS system allows for the transfer of biosolids between the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility (JIWRF) and the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility (SSWRF). The IPS system is critical for processing biosolids and producing Milorganite®. An IPS system outage can potentially result in operational challenges, lost opportunities to produce digester gas, and significant increases in operating costs. The IPS System consists of:

• Pump stations located at JIWRF and SSWRF. • Two 14-inch diameter and two 12-inch diameter pipelines, located in parallel,

each approximately 12-miles long. • Multiple valves and interconnection piping at each pump station to allow an IPS pump

to feed any of the four parallel pipelines. • Twelve vaults along the length of the pipelines, located at the high and low points in

the system. • A cathodic protection system to help protect the pipeline from external corrosion.

ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND KEY ISSUES RESOLUTION

FISCAL NOTE S/W/MBE OTHER OP_AW_P01005_Improv_JI_SS_Valve_legislative_file.docx 01-26-17 COMMITTEE ACTION: DATE: COMMISSION ACTION: DATE:

2

SUMMARY (Cont’d)

Award of Contract P01005C02, Interplant Sludge System Improvements – Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Interplant Sludge Pump Stations Valves

Replacement

The IPS system has been in service approximately 25 years. Parts of the IPS system are in poor condition or inoperable and at or near the end of their useful service lives. The overall purpose of the project is to restore the reliability and operational capability to the IPS System. The contract scope includes:

• Removing and replacing 16 valves and installing two replacement valves (valves previously removed) at the JIWRF Thickening Building.

• Removing and replacing nine valves at the SSWRF IPS Pump Station.

• Removing and installing piping, fittings and appurtenances as required for the installation of the new valves.

• Removing and installing electrical and control wiring related to the valves.

As failure to meet contract milestones can negatively impact plant operations, the contract includes daily liquidated damages for failing to meet some project milestones and an incentive payment for meeting a valve delivery milestone. The duration for this contract is 260 days.

3

RESOLUTION

Award of Contract P01005C02, Interplant Sludge System Improvements – Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Interplant Sludge Pump Stations Valves

Replacement RESOLVED, by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, that Contract P01005C02, Interplant Sludge System Improvements – Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Interplant Sludge Pump Stations Valves Replacement, is awarded to J.F. Ahern Co. in the amount of $189,500, and that the Executive Director is directed to execute a contract on behalf of the District.

RELATING TO:

Capital Project Number(s) Impact of Requested Action on Total Project Cost:

Increase Decrease New Project X No Change

Total Project Cost Analysis Project CostsAdopted 2017 Total Project Cost $11,880,777Previously Approved Changes $0Approved Total Project Cost $11,880,777Requested Total Project Cost n/aRequested (Increase)/Decrease $0

Transfer from Allowance for Cost and Schedule Changes Transfer from another project (specify in comments)Delay Project(s) (specify in comments)Delete Project(s) (specify in comments)Other Transfer to Allowance for Cost and Schedule Changes

Comments

Budget Review by: Date:

Theresa Zwieg 1/19/2017

Capital Budget Fiscal NoteTotal Project Cost

Award of Contract P01005C02, Interplant Sludge System Improvements – Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Interplant Sludge Pump Stations Valves Replacement

Action to be taken to Long-Range Financing Plan to address Total Project Cost change

P01005-Interplant Pipeline Improvements - Phase II

01/30/17 P01005C02 - 1 -

Bid & S/W/MBE Information

Award of Contract No. P01005C02, Interplant Sludge Systems Improvements – Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Interplant Sludge Pump Stations Valves Replacement

Cost Center: 41 Bid Opening Date: January 25, 2017 Total S/W/MBE Local

No. of Bids 3 0 1

No. of Responsive Bids 3 0 1

Bids (listed low to high) (Name/City/State/Zip) Price

Responsive/ Non-Responsive/

Not Reviewed %

Subcontractor %

S/W/MBE

J.F. Ahern Co. Fond du Lac, WI 54935 $189,500.00 Responsive 8.8% 3.1%

Butters-Fetting Co. Milwaukee, WI 53204 $216,000.00 Responsive 7.7% 2.7%

Mechanical Inc. Waukesha, WI 53186 $312,500.00 Responsive 5.9% 1.9%

Low Bid Information Subcontractor MBE/WBE/SBE/VBE Firms

Type of Work

% Amount

MBE: Thomas A. Mason Co., Inc. Milwaukee, WI 53212

Painting 3.1% $5,902.00

WBE:

SBE:

VBE:

01/30/17 P01005C02 - 2 -

Non- MBE/WBE/SBE/VBE Subcontractors

Type of Work % Amount

Pieper Electric New Berlin, WI 53151

Electrical, I&C 5.7% $10,870.00

List reason(s) if no MBE/WBE/SBE Involvement:

Local Workforce Participation Requirement:

A. Sanitary Sewer Service Area Employment: 45%

B. Target Area Employment: 20%

Apprentice Utilization As Bid: 0

Bids Non-Responsive:

Comments:

S/W/MBE Planholders: Thomas S. Mason Co., Inc.

Media Ads: Yes No

Name of Publication: Daily Reporter

01/30/17 P01005C02 - 3 -

Information for Low Bid (Over $10,000)

Company Name: J.F. Ahern Co.

Contact Person: Kristine Reynolds Phone: 920-907-5599

EEO DATA: a) Total Number of Employees: 1,347

Total Percentage Total Percentage

b) Minorities 45 3.3% c) Female 184 13.7%

Hispanic 22 1.6% Hispanic 2 0.2%

African American 12 0.9% African American 1 0.1%

Native American 8 0.6% Native American 1 0.1% Asian 3 0.2% Asian 0 0.0% d) Labor Market Availability: Minorities: 16.2% Females: 48%

Item 2



REFERRED BY COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON TO: Operations Committee

RELATING TO:

Contract J06026D01, Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Lighting Upgrade Design

SUMMARY: The Commission is requested to authorize the Executive Director to execute on behalf of the District Contract J06026D01, Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Lighting Upgrade Design project, with Symbiont Science, Engineering and Construction, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $278,744. Symbiont Science, Engineering and Construction, Inc., was the highest scoring proposer, based on a qualifications-based selection method, among five proposals received. The Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility (JIWRF) and South Shore Water Reclamation Facility (SSWRF) sites and buildings are lighted by aging and outdated technology lighting fixtures. The District desires to replace existing fluorescent, high-pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting fixtures with light emitting diode (LED) technology fixtures to reduce energy consumption, increase lighting system reliability, and improve personnel safety. The Dewatering and Drying (D&D) building at JIWRF has undergone some preliminary engineering for the work, and this work is one of up to five projects that would be designed by Symbiont. (The remaining four projects do not have preliminary engineering work done for them.) During the preliminary engineering phase for the D&D building, many lighting alternatives were considered and discarded based on relatively higher costs. As a result of the analyses, approximately 2,500 fixtures in the D&D building can be updated to LED technology with an annual estimated energy savings of nearly $100,000. Savings will also be realized at other buildings at both JIWRF and SSWRF through additional design work.


FISCAL NOTE S/W/MBE OTHER OP_Award_J06026D01_JI_and_SS_Lighting_Upgrade_legislative_file.docx 01-30-17 COMMITTEE ACTION: DATE: COMMISSION ACTION: DATE:

2

SUMMARY (Cont’d)


The areas with existing fixtures to be evaluated and replaced with LED fixtures include:

1. Outdoor site lighting and “dusk to dawn” controls. 2. Indoor building process area lighting. 3. Indoor building office/occupied space lighting. 4. Indoor garage/workspace lighting. 5. Underground tunnel exit lighting (replacement and relocation of fixtures). 6. All other occupied spaces at JIWRF and SSWRF not included in areas identified

above. This contract will consist of design, specifications, and preparation of up to five construction contracts to replace lighting at JIWRF and SSWRF. The contract duration is 152 weeks after the notice to proceed.

3

RESOLUTION


RESOLVED, by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, that the Executive Director is authorized to execute Contract J06026D01, Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities Lighting Upgrade Design, with Symbiont Science, Engineering and Construction, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $278,744.

O&M Budget Fiscal Note

RELATING TO:

Cost Center: Line Item:Planning, Research and Sustainability 645 - Professional Services

Line Item Impact2017 Original BudgetCarryovers or TransfersAdjusted BudgetEstimated Annual Expenditure including RequestAnticipated Year End BalanceActual Year to Date Expenditures Through 1/17

For unfavorable Year End Balance, identify funding source: X Absorbed within the Division

Other Division

Unallocated Reserve

Anticipated Expenditure TimingCurrent Year (2017)

Subsequent

Total Cost

Budget Review by: Date

Christine Durkin 1/17/2017

$92,915$185,829$278,744

$185,829$92,915

Comments: The contract duration is 152 weeks.


$278,744

$0$0$0

$220,000$262,914

Net Fiscal ImpactRequested

ExpendituresAnticipated

Savings/Revenues

$220,000$0

($42,914)$0

01/30/17 J06026D01 1

Proposal & S/W/MBE Summary Information


Cost Center: PRS Proposal Receipt Date: 11/23/2016 Total S/W/MBE Local

No. of Firms Solicited 267 136 120

No. of Proposals 5 3 4

No. of Acceptable Proposals 5 3 4

Proposals (listed by rank) (Name/City/State/Zip)

Negotiated Price [Submitted Price]

Acceptable/

Conditionally Acceptable/ Unacceptable

% Sub- Contractor

% S/W/MBE

Symbiont Milwaukee, WI 53214

$278,744.00 [$278,744.00]

Acceptable 36.8% 36.8%

OTIE Milwaukee, WI 53226

$280,177.00 Acceptable 45.6% 54.4%

Graef Milwaukee, WI 53214

- Conditionally Acceptable - -

International Automation Mukwonago, WI 53149


K. Singh Milwaukee, WI 53226


Compensation packages for proposals rated Conditionally Acceptable and Unacceptable are not opened.

01/30/17 J06026D01 2

Low Bid Information Subcontractor MBE/WBE/SBE/VBE Firms

Type of Work

% Amount

MBE: Kapur & Associates Milwaukee, WI 53217

Design Services 34.2% $95,360.00

WBE: Penne Wilson Consulting Milwaukee, WI 53224

Document Development 2.6% $7,220.00

List reason(s) if no MBE/WBE/SBE involvement: n/a

Local Office Preference: Yes

Proposal Comments: n/a

S/W/MBE Solicited: Complete Electronic Notification Listing is on file in Procurement.

Media Ads: Yes No

Name of Publication: Daily Reporter

01/30/17 J06026D01 3

Information for Recommended Proposal (Over $10,000)

Company Name: Symbiont

Contact Person: Al de Leon Phone: (800) 748-7423

EEO DATA: a) Total Number of Employees: 72

Total Percentage Total Percentage b) Minorities 2 2.8% c) Female 21 29.2%

Hispanic 1 1.4% Hispanic 1 1.4%

African American 0 0.0% African American 0 0.0%

Native American 0 0.0% Native American 0 0.0%

Asian 1 1.4% Asian 0 0.0% d) Labor Market Availability: Minorities: 20% Females: 48%

Item 3



REFERRED BY COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON TO: Policy, Finance, and Personnel Committee

RELATING TO:

Amendment of the Watercourse Policy (Commission Policy 1-01.15) to Clarify How the District Will Fund Bridge and Culvert Replacement, Remove the Existing Watercourse Project Prioritization System, and Upgrade Terminology

SUMMARY: The Commission is requested to amend the District’s Watercourse Policy as shown in the attached revised Commission Policy 1-01.15. The District adopted a watercourse policy in 1999, with the purpose of directing District work efforts at reducing flood risks. The Commission modifies this policy as circumstances change. Staff is proposing four policy amendments as follows:

1. Clarify District funding for bridge and culvert modification and replacement as a structural measure to reduce flood risk and remove policy requirements for historically significant bridges.

2. Remove Section IV, Project Prioritization, in its entirety.

3. Revise terminology to better reflect District’s objectives with regard to reducing flood risks.

4. Incorporate and define the phrase “Watercourse Management Plans”.


FISCAL NOTE S/W/MBE OTHER Revised Commission Policy 1-01.15 PFP_Watercourse_Policy_Amendment_legislative_file.docx 01-26-17 COMMITTEE ACTION: DATE: COMMISSION ACTION: DATE:

2

SUMMARY (Cont’d)

Amendment of the Watercourse Policy (Commission Policy 1-01.15) to Clarify How the District Will Fund Bridge and Culvert Replacement, Remove the Existing Watercourse

Project Prioritization System, and Upgrade Terminology 1. District funding for bridges and culverts to reduce flood risk In the current policy, Section II.B. identifies structural measures that the District may fund for flood risk reduction purposes. The structural measures include:

• Storage facilities. • Modifications to the channel to increase channel capacity. • Modifications to restore or maintain natural vegetation and habitat. • Containment structures (e.g., levees, floodwalls). • Removal of existing bridges and culverts.

Bridge and culvert capacity modifications are routinely identified as part of watercourse management plans. Historically, the District has participated in funding bridge and culvert modifications; since 2000, the District has participated in about 10 bridge/culvert replacement or modification projects. In terms of future bridge and culvert work, staff has identified over 20 bridges or culverts that need to be modified or replaced. Existing Commission policy is silent in relation to District funding for bridge or culvert modifications or replacement. In the past, District staff would develop intergovernmental cooperation agreements (ICA) with the bridge/culvert owner, and those ICA’s would be brought to the Commission for approval. District funding levels of bridge and culvert replacements and modifications have varied, depending upon the type of improvement proposed (bridge or culvert), the bridge/culvert age, availability of both local and other external funding for the work, affiliated utility relocations, and other factors. There has not been a consistent approach to District bridge/culvert funding. Given that there is no clear guidance on District funding for bridges and culverts, staff now proposes policy that addresses this issue.

3

SUMMARY (Cont’d)


Project Prioritization System, and Upgrade Terminology The key elements of the policy follow.

• The District can assist in funding bridge and culvert modifications and replacements.

• Staff will evaluate bridge and culvert alternatives, including costs, to obtain desired capacity.

• The District can fund up to the lowest cost alternative that will achieve the required flow capacity.

• Actual District funding will depend upon: o remaining bridge/culvert service life. o additional bridge modifications needed to obtain desired capacity.

• In addition, the District will seek to maximize funding from the bridge owner and minimize the District’s contribution.

• The District will also take actions to maximize outside funding. Current policy also requires District staff to determine if alternatives to bridge removal are feasible and cost effective if a bridge is historic. Staff proposes removing this part of the policy because:

• Any proposed bridge removals or modifications that are already regulated by the State of Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office.

• The District completed a historically significant bridge inventory and has

determined that no bridges planned for removal are historic. 2. Remove Section IV, Project Prioritization This section includes a weighted benefit point system that originally was used to prioritize flood risk reduction projects. This policy was enacted in 1998, when the District’s modern day flood management efforts were just beginning and there were over 3,700 flood prone structures spread throughout all watercourses regionwide. To date, the District has implemented projects that reduced the flood risk for over 2,500 structures at a cost of over $400 million. The original system worked well at the time; however, this prioritization system is no longer useful for current conditions. Currently, Project prioritization depends upon input from District staff, Commissioners, and stakeholders. The 2050 Facility Plan will be developing a new prioritization system for future consideration.

4

SUMMARY (Cont’d)


Project Prioritization System, and Upgrade Terminology District staff propose to remove Section IV, Project Prioritization, in its entirety. 3. Revise flood risk terminology Throughout the policy, the terms “flood abatement” and “flood control” are used to describe the purpose and objectives of the watercourse work. A more accurate description of the objectives of the policy is reducing the risk of flooding. The District cannot construct projects or implement maintenance measures to control floods. There is always the risk of a flood event that exceeds design standards and leads to impacts to the community. The intent of the work described within the policy is to reduce the risk of flooding to an acceptable level; therefore, District staff propose to replace the terms “flood abatement” and “flood control” with “flood risk reduction” throughout the document. 4. Incorporate Watercourse Management Plans The policy includes references to Watercourse System Plans. Watercourse System Plans were watershed-based, planning level flood management studies prepared by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) about 15 to 20 years ago. District staff used these plans as the basis for further engineering and design work. Watercourse System Plans identified the number of flood prone structures within the watershed and the recommended watercourse projects. Through the early 2000’s, the District relied upon these SEWRPC plans as the foundation for further work. Currently, District staff requests Commission approval to implement the plans and any subsequent plan updates. The Commission approval is subject to annual budget approvals. District staff proposes to replace the term “Watercourse System Plan” with “Watercourse Management Plan” and to add a new Section II, “Watercourse Management Plans”. This section defines the purpose of those plans and directs staff to seek Commission adoption of those plans.

5

RESOLUTION


Project Prioritization System, and Upgrade Terminology RESOLVED, by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, that the Watercourse Policy is amended as shown in the attached revised Commission Policy 1-01.15.

Commission Policy

Subject:

Watercourse Policy Index: 1-01.15

Page: 1 of 6 Authority Statute:

Date Issued: 4/26/99 Date Revised: 1/22/07, 6/22/15, 2/27/17

Resolution: 99-048-4(02); 00-011-1; 02-136-7; 07-005-1; 15-072-6; 17-021-2

I. Jurisdiction A. Jurisdiction refers to the streams and watercourses for which the Commission has determined the

District should serve as the primary management agency with respect to the construction and maintenance of flood abatement risk reduction measures. The District may assume jurisdiction for the purposes of reducing flood abatement risk over perennial streams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. streams within the District whose flooding poses potential major flood damage;

2. streams within the District with tributary drainage in more than one community within the

District; or

3. streams within the District for which the District has completed channel improvements. B. The District may exercise jurisdiction for the purposes of reducing flood abatement risk over

intermittent streams that meet at least two of the following criteria:

1. streams within the District whose flooding poses potential major flood damage;

2. streams within the District with tributary drainage in more than one community within the District; or

3. streams within the District for which the District has completed channel improvements.

C. For the purpose of this policy, “stream” includes the estuary reaches of the Kinnickinnic,

Menomonee, and Milwaukee Rivers and those reaches shall be considered perennial.

II. Watercourse Management Plans For watercourses within its jurisdiction, the District will develop Watercourse Management Plans. These plans will identify the flood risks and the preferred alternatives for watercourse improvements. District staff will present Watercourse Management Plans to the Commission for adoption. A Watercourse Management Plan becomes effective after adoption by the Commission. If conditions significantly change, then District staff will propose amendments to Watercourse Management Plans.

Commission Policy

Subject:




Resolution: 99-048-4(02); 00-011-1; 02-136-7; 07-005-1; 15-072-6; 17-021-2

III. Purposes Eligible for District Funding

A. The District will limit its funding of watercourse improvements to those streams and stream reaches for which the Commission has chosen to assume jurisdiction for flood risk reductionabatement purposes.

B. The District may provide up to 100% of the capital costs, including, but not limited to, land

acquisition, purchase of right-of-way, and construction, for the following structural measures:

1. Storage facilities, such as detention and retention ponds, that receive the flows from two or more upstream communities, and/or control the flows moving toward two or more downstream communities.

2. Modifications to the existing stream channel designed to increase channel capacity.

• River lowering is the least preferred alternative for reducing flood control risk and would be used when other alternatives are not feasible.

• River lowering will be considered when the bottom elevation of a stream segment is not low enough to enable an outfall from a previously installed storm sewer.

3. Modifications designed to restore or maintain natural vegetation and habitat in a channel, and

that mitigate a potential increase to flood exposure that may result from restoration.

4. Containment structures such as earthen dikes, concrete floodwalls and levees that prevent lateral overland flow from a channel to adjacent land areas.

5. Removal of existing bridges and culverts when necessary to reduce flood risk and when the

owner finds that the bridge or culvert is no longer necessary. 6. Bridge and culvert modification or replacement when needed to obtain sufficient capacity

under and through the structure to reduce flood risk. For modifying or replacing a non-District bridge or culvert, the level of District funding will be no more than the lowest cost alternative for modifying or replacing the structure to obtain the required flow capacity. Also, actual District funding will depend upon the remaining useful life of the structure, modifications needed to obtain the required flow capacity, and other relevant factors.

Commission Policy

Subject:




Resolution: 99-048-4(02); 00-011-1; 02-136-7; 07-005-1; 15-072-6; 17-021-2

The District will seek to maximize funding from the bridge owner and minimize the District’s contribution. When circumstances allow, the District will schedule bridge replacement to maximize the bridge owner’s eligibility for state or federal funding and support the bridge owner’s efforts to obtain grant funding. Pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement, removal of existing bridges and culverts, if such removal is necessary for the construction of structural flood control measures. District staff shall determine whether alternatives to bridge removal are feasible and cost-effective prior to making a recommendation to the Commission that a historically significant bridge be removed. The Executive Director shall determine whether a bridge is historically significant according to an inventory based on the criteria of the State of Wisconsin’s model preservation ordinance.

C. The District may provide up to 100% of the costs for the following non-structural measures:

1. Acquisition of improved real property and the demolition or removal of associated structures from the floodplain, when such expenditures are essential to implementing a Watercourse System Management Plan alternative adopted by the Commission.

2. Expenditures associated with the relocation of the residents of properties acquired for the

purpose of implementing a Watercourse SystemManagement Plan alternative adopted by the Commission.

3. Expenditures associated with maintaining property in open land uses for the purposes of

preserving environmentally valuable features such as natural storage, infiltration and conveyance. Such expenditures may take the form of conservation easements, fee-simple acquisition, purchase of development rights or other methods the Commission deems to be advisable. The Executive Director shall ensure that the District is named on any deed related to a fee simple acquisition, or purchase of development rights or conservation easement, to which it has contributed.

4. Direct costs associated with flood proofing structures when such expenditures are essential to

implementing a Watercourse SystemManagement Plan alternative adopted by the Commission.

D. The District may fund up to 100% of the following operation and maintenance expenditures

associated with structural and non-structural flood control risk reduction measures:

Commission Policy

Subject:




Resolution: 99-048-4(02); 00-011-1; 02-136-7; 07-005-1; 15-072-6; 17-021-2

1. Operation and maintenance necessary to achieve the optimum results from a structural measure that the District has constructed. In the event a structural measure constructed by the District serves multiple objectives, MMSD will be responsible for the operations and maintenance pertaining to flood abatementrisk reduction, including that which is necessary to restore flood abatement risk reduction functionality after a storm.

In the event that the District has constructed a structural measure that serves multiple objectives, other parties who benefit from the secondary purpose, such as local governments, are responsible for the operations and maintenance pertaining to the secondary objective. This applies regardless of whether the land on which the measure is constructed is owned by the District or by another party. The Commission shall approve an appropriate agreement regarding operations and maintenance responsibilities and funding prior to initiating construction of a structural measure that serves multiple objectives.

2. Expenditures necessary for the enforcement of a conservation easement.

IIIIV . Maintenance A. The District will limit its performance of watercourse maintenance activities to those streams and

stream reaches over which the Commission has chosen to assume jurisdiction for flood abatement risk reduction purposes.

B. District watercourse maintenance will be performed as follows:

1. The District will establish a baseline condition for debris removal in specific streams based on the water surface elevation during the 1% annual probability flood. The District will limit its maintenance activities to the removal of natural debris or man-made items from watercourses in order to prevent or eliminate obstructions that would raise surface water elevations during the 1% annual probability flood in an amount that would cause an increased number of structures above the baseline condition being flooded.

2. The District will establish a baseline condition for sediment removal in specific streams based on the water surface elevation during the 1% annual probability flood . The District will limit its sediment removal activities to those segments of streams in which the District has constructed a structural flood control risk reduction measure, and where sediment is shown to increase water surface elevations during the 1% annual probability flood in an

Commission Policy

Subject:




Resolution: 99-048-4(02); 00-011-1; 02-136-7; 07-005-1; 15-072-6; 17-021-2

amount that would result in an increase number of structures above the baseline condition being flooded.

3. The District will perform sediment removal only after it receives any required permits or

approvals pursuant to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources regulations.

4. The District may initiate watercourse maintenance work or may perform watercourse maintenance consistent with Commission policy as a result of a request by a local government.

5. This policy is not intended to preclude local governments from undertaking watercourse maintenance or sediment removal that is environmentally responsible and in accordance with any state or federal law or rules.

6. The District will cooperate with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, University

of Wisconsin – Extension, and local governments in informing riparian owners of the impact of property maintenance practices on erosion control and flooding.

IV. Project Prioritization

A. The District shall utilize a weighted benefit point system as set forth below as guidance in determining how projects included in the Watercourse System Plan will be prioritized.

B. The District may also take into account the following factors in determining project prioritization:

Commission Policy

Subject:




Resolution: 99-048-4(02); 00-011-1; 02-136-7; 07-005-1; 15-072-6; 17-021-2

1. The status of a project relative to necessary permitting. 2. The status of a project relative to its technical readiness for implementation.

3. The availability of non-District funding for a project and the timeframe during which such

funding can be secured.

WEIGHTED BENEFIT POINT SYSTEM FOR FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS

Benefit Points Unit of Measurement Avoided Residential and Apartment First Floor Flooding

150 per structure or unit, times number of residents 1

Avoided Residential and Apartment Basement Flooding

50 per structure or unit, times number of residents

Avoided Manufacturing or Public Works Facility Flooding

45 per 1,000 square feet 2

Avoided Office or School Facility Flooding 100 per 1,000 square feet 3 Avoided Commercial Facility Flooding 37.5 per 1,000 square feet4

Avoided Roadway Flooding, 18” or more 50 25 15

per 300 feet of arterial per 300 feet of collector per 300 feet of residential

Avoided Diversion of Emergency Vehicles 50 Per 300 feet of roadway Notes:

1 MMSD occupancy factors may be used to determine the average number of residents per structure within the project area.

2 Based on an assumption of 1.8 employees per 1,000 square feet. 3 Based on an assumption of 4 employees per 1,000 square feet.

4 Based on an assumption of 1.5 employees per 1,000 square feet.

Item 4




RELATING TO:

Revision of Resolution 13-119-12, the 2010-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program Policy

SUMMARY: On February 28, 2011, the Commission approved the policy establishing the 2010-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration (PPI/I) Reduction Program. The policy describes the eligible work and provides the procedures by which participating municipalities may plan, complete, and fund work that reduces inflow and infiltration from private property sources. The Commission approved previous revisions to the policy on July 23, 2012, through Resolution 12-105-7, and on December 16, 2013, through Resolution 13-119-12. The recommended policy revisions include the following:

• Revise the title of the policy to 2011-2020 PPI/I Reduction Program to accurately align the representation of the program to District budget years 2011 through 2020 (10 years inclusive) with no material change to the program.

• Specify the parameters for the program funding as represented in the long-term financing plan.

• Revise the funding parameters for work related to illegal connections and stormwater conveyance-related work under the policy “may-be-eligible” category.

• Update minor details of the policy to accurately reflect the current status of the program.


FISCAL NOTE S/W/MBE OTHER Revised Program Policy PFP_Revision_3_PPII_Policy_legislative_file.docx 01-27-17 COMMITTEE ACTION: DATE: COMMISSION ACTION: DATE:

2

RESOLUTION

Revision of Resolution 13-119-12, the 2010-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program Policy

RESOLVED, by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, that the revised 2010-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program Policy as attached is adopted.

Statement of Policy Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s 2010-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program Revised: July 2012, December 2013, February 2017 page 1

Statement of Policy

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s 2011-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program

Introduction

Infiltration is the quantity of water entering a sewer system through such sources as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections or manhole walls. Inflow is the quantity of water entering the sewer system through connections such as area or foundation drains, connected downspouts, and catch basins. Many sources of inflow are illegal. During rain events, infiltration and inflow (“I/I”) dramatically increases the flows in the sanitary sewer system.

Infiltration and inflow increases the amount of flow in the sewer system that ultimately must be conveyed, stored or treated by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“District”) at a cost to the District’s tax and rate payers. Infiltration and inflow, during significant rain events, can lead to overflows from the sewer system into area waterways and can cause property damage like basement backups. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, severe storms caused thousands of basement backups in the District’s service area causing a loss of possessions, destroyed appliances, and ruined living spaces at a significant cost to area residents that, in many cases, cannot be recovered through insurance claims, and significant personal distress to thousands of people.

Infiltration and inflow can occur from sources on both public and private properties. Under Wisconsin law1, the District is not authorized to “operate, maintain, rehabilitate or preserve local sewers or appurtenant local facilities” (see Wis. Stat. § 200.33) and therefore this 2011-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program (“Program”) is not providing funding for work on local sanitary sewers that are owned and operated by the District’s member and customer communities. The District has determined that it may perform or fund work on private property to reduce I/I and thereby reduce operating costs, capital program expenditures, and reduce the risks of overflows and basement backups. (See Wis. Stat. § 200.35, storm sewers within general powers of the Commission).

1 Wis. Stat. § 200.33(1)(b) states “[e]xcept as provided in sub. (2), ss. 200.21 to 200.65 do not authorize the commission to operate, maintain, rehabilitate or preserve local sewers or appurtenant local facilities constructed by a Municipality….”


There are a variety of ways to remedy I/I on private property. These include downspout disconnection, foundation drain disconnection, lateral repair, lateral rehabilitation, and improved surface water drainage.

This Program, as described by this Policy Document, is focused on funding remedies for I/I to reduce the amount of flow that must be conveyed, stored, and treated by the District, thereby reducing the risk of basement backups and over flows. This Policy Document sets forth a framework for the Program – as the Program matures and additional information is gathered, the District anticipates that it will be necessary or desirable to modify this Policy Document, including the potential for a financial contribution by the private property owner served.

The District makes the following Legislative Findings as the rational basis for this Program.

1. Basement backups are a significant public health and safety issue. 2. Under many circumstances, removing I/I from private property is the most direct

means to reduce the risk of basement backups because it removes excess flow at the source.

3. In most circumstances, basement backups are caused by sewer surcharging that is

very close to the affected property. Therefore, a) I/I reduction work in the combined sewer area will help reduce the risk of basement backups in the combined sewer area, and b) separating combined sewers is likely to have a minimal effect, if any, on basement backups in the separated sewer area. Most basement backups in 2008-2010 occurred in separated sewer areas.

4. Private property I/I work can result in lower capital and operating costs to the

District and the 28 municipalities it serves, along with benefits including the availability of sewer backup insurance, lower disaster recovery costs, and preventing the devaluation of properties.

5. Disconnecting foundation drains is a very effective strategy for reducing inflow. 6. Rehabilitation or replacement of laterals (including flood grouting) is also one of

the most effective strategies for reducing infiltration, especially in older communities where deteriorated laterals can contribute very large quantities of clear water to the sanitary sewer system.

7. Private property I/I work reduces the risks of combined and sanitary sewer

overflows to surface water during wet weather by increasing the percentage of total flow that can be conveyed, stored and treated.


8. Deteriorated laterals are also a source of pollution to area surface and ground waters and pose public health issues other than basement backups.

9. Privately owned, lateral sewers are a necessary part of the collection system, and

lateral replacement or rehabilitation may be a benefit to the private property owner. Any benefit to the private property owner is incidental to the public benefits and public purpose described above.

Definitions

Account: The District will maintain a record of the funding allocated annually to each Municipality (the Funding Allocation) and the Cumulative Funding Allocation (see below) for each Municipality net of any disbursements or transfers.

CIR: Construction, Implementation, and Rehabilitation.

Cumulative Funding Allocation (CFA): Means the amount of money allocated to a Municipality accumulated over a period of years up to the current District fiscal year, net of any disbursements or transfers.

Design, Planning and Investigation Work: Professional services to plan an I/I reduction program, to assemble bid packages, or to design rehabilitations or replacements. This includes investigation work such as house inspection, televising, dye testing and smoke testing, as well as flow monitoring work.

Design, Planning and Investigation Cap: The District has calculated the Design, Planning and Investigation Cap for each Municipality. The Cap has been calculated by taking 20% of the projected total allocation over ten years (2011-2020), assuming total allocation of $62 million2, based on the equalized value percentages for budget year 2011. For example, a Municipality with 4.5% of the equalized property value would be projected to receive a total of $2,790,000 during the ten years of the Program (based on $62 million in total allocation) and would have a calculated Design, Planning, and Investigation Cap of $558,000. The actual amount allocated and eligible for disbursement to the Municipality will depend on the District’s annual budget process, but to provide some level of certainty at the beginning of the Program, the Design, Planning and Investigation Cap will be based on the spending projection as outlined in this paragraph.

2 $62 million represents the total project cost of $60 million for this Program, plus $2 million for the total project cost of the former Stormwater Best Management Practices Program. The District allowed Municipalities to transfer allocation from the Stormwater Best Management Practices Program to the Program.


The design cap will remain based on the $62 million through 2020. In the event that the total program allocation increases during the ten-year period through 2020, the Design, Planning, and Investigation Cap will increase proportionally for subsequent eligible work. No reimbursement will be provided retroactively for Design, Planning, and Investigative work that was not approved through the Work Plan process prior to an increase in total program allocation.

In the event that the total program allocation decreases during the ten-year period, the Design, Planning, and Investigation Cap will not decrease.

Municipalities will be eligible for an additional $1 of Design, Planning, and Investigation funding for every $4 of non-District cost match (may include Municipal funds, property owner contribution, grant proceeds, or similar) Program Construction Implementation Rehabilitation (CIR) work approved and verified through the Work Plan process.

Funding Agreement: The document that is drafted upon approval of a Municipality submitted Work Plan. The Funding Agreement defines the administrative, technical, legal, financial responsibilities, and deliverables of the municipal and District project partners in completing the scope of work proposed in the subject Work Plan. The Funding Agreement is in force and the scope of work within the Work Plan may be executed upon endorsement of the Funding Agreement by the municipal and District authorities.

Funding Allocation: Means the amount of money from the Program annually allocated to a Municipality in any given year of the Program. The Funding Allocation will be based on a proportional basis to the amount of equalized value of property in the Municipality that is serviced by the District as a percentage of total equalized value in the District’s total service area. The actual amount allocated and eligible for disbursement to the Municipality will depend on the District’s annual budget process. The actual percentage allocated may vary annually for each Municipality based on the equalized value for the individual Municipality in relation to the whole.

Infiltration: Has the meaning established by sec. NR 110.03(16), Wis. Admin. Code.

Inflow: Has the meaning established by sec. NR 110.03(17), Wis. Admin. Code.

Lateral: For the purpose of this Program, the entire pipe that carries wastewater flow from a privately owned building to a publicly owned sewer, also known as a “building sewer.” For the purpose of this Program, the “upper” (generally the portion on private property) and “lower” (generally the portion in the public right-of-way) lateral, the building drain and any portion of the pipe located beneath the building.


Municipality: Municipality refers to the 28 municipalities serviced by the District, either as members or customers. Milwaukee County is not considered a Municipality for this Program.

Private Property: Property that is not owned by a governmental entity. Governmental entities include cities, villages, towns, counties, school districts, sewerage districts, park districts, federal agencies and the State of Wisconsin.

Program: The District’s 2011-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program.

Program Funding: The money provided by the District to Municipalities under this 2011-2020 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program. Additional funding proposed through District long-term financing plans beyond 2020 does not constitute an increase in Program funding until committed by the District through the annual District budget approval process or through specific Commission action.

Work Plan: The document submitted to the District by the Municipality outlining the proposed work for a specific project that the Municipality would like to seek reimbursement for through the Program. The Work Plan provides the information on geographical location, historical background, technical characteristics, project objectives, scope of work, cost estimate, schedule, and other pertinent project elements in sufficient detail for the District to determine the eligibility of the costs that are anticipated to be incurred within the context of the program.

Eligible Work

This Program provides funding for work that reduces I/I from private property sources. In order to receive funding, a Municipality must submit a Work Plan to the District and obtain approval from the District through a fully executed Funding Agreement prior to beginning work. Work Plans for Design, Planning and Investigation Work may be submitted separately from, or together with, Work Plans for physical remediation work. The District expects Municipalities to prioritize work areas, where feasible, to focus on areas with sewersheds within identified metersheds that do not comply with the District’s rules on Peak Flow Rate Reduction (MMSD Rules §3.201 et seq.) on areas with basement back-up issues, on areas with a history of municipal or District overflow activity, and other areas identified as sources of high I/I because of age and type of infrastructure. Municipalities that demonstrate they have no contiguous or discrete I/I problem areas may utilize funding for I/I work across the Municipality.

The following activities on private property will be eligible for funding upon approval of a Work Plan:


1. Disconnection of a foundation drain from draining to the sanitary sewer system and installation of a sump pump and piping to discharge the drainage to a yard, rain garden, or storm sewer system.

2. Replacement of deteriorated lateral sewers.

3. Rehabilitation of deteriorated lateral sewers (for example, using cured-in-place lining, flood grouting or other methodologies).

4. Complete disconnection or proper abandonment of existing laterals.

5. Installation of privately owned storm sewer laterals and/or privately owned and located storm sewers where necessary to convey stormwater that is no longer going to the sanitary sewer system.

6. Inspection/investigation costs, such as dye testing, smoke testing, televising and flow monitoring (subject to the Cap).

7. Professional services including planning, design work, preparation of bid documents, and home inspections (subject to the Cap).

8. Construction inspection costs (different from item 6 above) to inspect and verify the performance of contractors.

9. Public education and outreach work.

In addition, when unknown, illegal connections to the sanitary sewer system are uncovered during rehabilitation work being done pursuant to an approved Work Plan, funding may be used for the actual, reasonable costs of remedying the illegal connection.

The following activities may be eligible for funding as determined by the District on a case-by-case basis. These activities must be pre-approved by the District through the Work Plan and Funding Agreement process. No reimbursement will occur for activities that are not pre-approved.

1. Facilities or practices for management of surface flooding in circumstances where surface flooding is a source of inflow. Preference will be given to solutions that employ stormwater best management practices.

2. Public building laterals that are part of a larger private property-based project in a high priority I/I reduction area.


3. Circumstances where disconnection of illegal connections to the sanitary sewer system, such as downspouts, yard drains, foundation drains3, and sump pumps, makes sense because the illegal connections were installed on an area-wide basis without the current homeowner knowledge. Before approving remedies for such illegal connections, the District will require that a Municipality demonstrate to the satisfaction of the District that remedy of the illegal connection(s) through this program is the most efficient and effective pathway to permanent removal of the clear water source to the sanitary system. When the project includes multiple property owners to achieve the maximum benefit of the remediation, the Municipality will be required to provide a cost share proportional to the percentage of non-participating property owners in the project area, or equivalent thereof through in-kind services (such as work done by municipal staff).

4. Construction of new or larger storm sewer infrastructure under the following circumstances:

a. The infrastructure must be for the primary purpose of conveying flows removed from the sanitary sewer system through private property I/I reduction efforts such as foundation drain disconnection and lateral repair; and

b. The Municipality has investigated the potential to manage this additional flow using pervious areas and green infrastructure and has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the District that it is not feasible for the flows removed from the sanitary sewer system to be managed without additional storm sewer infrastructure

5. Any other strategies for I/I reduction where demonstrated to be effective.

The District is more likely to approve work described within this “may be eligible” category when there is a significant municipal contribution through cost-share or in-kind services.

The following activities are not eligible for funding:

1. Backflow preventers, hung plumbing, and other basement backup prevention measures that do not result in a reduction in I/I.

2. Municipal staff time except as described in an approved Work Plan for activities the Municipality elects to self-perform rather than contract out (see Option 3, below).

3. Costs to develop, promulgate or enforce ordinances relating to I/I.

3 Certain foundation drains may be legally connected to a sanitary sewer system.


Work Plans should include the following information:

1. A map of the location of the work.

2. A description of the work to be performed, including public information/outreach and, for construction/remediation work, a plan for provision of construction inspection.

3. A project schedule, including approximate start and end dates.

4. A project budget, including a proposed procurement strategy, detailing how the Municipality anticipates obtaining necessary services (public bid, three quotes, self-perform, etc.).

5. Expected results of the work, including a strategy for quantifying the reduction in I/I.

Work Plan Execution

Upon District approval of a Work Plan, the District and the Municipality will enter into a Funding Agreement that sets forth the specific terms and conditions of funding. A fully executed Funding Agreement can be implemented through a variety of procurement options:

Option 1: The Municipality can hire contractors (including consultants) to perform the work and receive reimbursement from the District. The District will reimburse costs as incurred by the Municipality and verified by the District. The District will strive to reimburse all costs within 30 days of submission of an invoice and adequate back-up documentation to the District.

Under Option 1, the selection of professional service providers must be performed in accordance with the Municipality’s ordinances and policies. All non-professional service work (i.e. construction, sewer inspection, post-construction restoration) must be procured in accordance with State of Wisconsin statutes and regulations and in accordance with the Municipality’s ordinances and policies. Whenever work valued over $25,000 is procured without the use of a public sealed bidding process, the District may request and the Municipality must provide an opinion from a licensed attorney representing the Municipality stating that the procurement is in compliance with State of Wisconsin law and Municipal ordinances.

Option 2: The District can hire contractors (including consultants) to perform the work, and the District will make direct payments to the contractors. The use of this Option 2 is at the discretion of the Municipality but may be attractive for Municipalities who do not have the internal staff to manage bidding, contracting and oversight of the work. Municipalities may be able to combine


Work Plans under District-let contracts for additional cost savings. The cost of District management and oversight will be deducted from the Municipality’s funding allocation.

Option 3: A Municipality can elect to have its own staff perform planning and design work and/or remediation work. The District will reimburse actual labor (hourly rate plus a benefits multiplier), material and equipment costs for self-executed work. The District will reimburse costs for training work crews on I/I reduction strategies. The District will not reimburse administrative or indirect management costs.

Option 4: The Municipality can require private property owners to directly contract for the work and then provide reimbursement to the property owners from funds it receives from the District. Reasonable management costs would also be eligible for reimbursement under this option.

Access

Access to private properties can be obtained through a voluntary Access Agreement. If the Municipality desires, the District will provide a template Access Agreement that can be customized by the Municipality. Obtaining access is the responsibility of the Municipality (except under the District-let procurement option (Option 2) and the cost of obtaining access is eligible for reimbursement.

If a Municipality or the District identifies property owners who will not allow voluntary access, either the Municipality or the District may apply to the appropriate Court for enforcement of the District’s or Municipality’s rules.

Work Plan Verification

Each Funding Agreement will set forth specific mechanisms for inspection and verification of the work by the Municipality or the District, depending on the size, scope and nature of the work to be performed. The District expects Work Plans to provide a strategy for performing adequate construction inspection.

In addition, the District may, at its sole cost and without debit to a Municipality’s Funding Allocation, perform periodic checks of construction projects to ensure that the work is proceeding according to the approved Work Plan and Funding Agreement.


In addition, each Municipality will be required to submit final documentation to the District detailing the work accomplished, barriers encountered, costs, and any available flow reduction information.

Design, Planning and Investigation

The focus of this Program is on actual remediation work to reduce I/I from private property sources. Therefore, the District will cap reimbursement of management, planning, design and inspection/investigation work. The Cap will be established as set forth in the definitions. A Municipality may select a professional service provider (engineering firm, planning firm, etc.) or it may self-perform this work.

In addition, the District will enter into contracts for regional engineering, field investigative services, construction services, and/or public outreach related to private property I/I reduction work as the need arises. As available, the regional services provided by these District contracts are available to all Municipalities for completion of private property I/I reduction projects. Each of the District’s Municipalities may obtain services from the contracts, subject to the District’s budget, pending Funding Agreement completion and the individual municipal Account balance. The cost of service obtained from the regional contracts will be debited against the Municipality’s Account and will count toward the Design, Planning and Investigation Cap as applicable.

As the Program develops over time and the District is able to better evaluate the need for design, planning and investigation services, the District may elect to raise the Design, Planning and Investigation Cap.

Public Education and Outreach

Public education and outreach will be critical to the success of this Program. Owners will need to understand the importance of having this work performed on their property, and will need to understand their new infrastructure – particularly where foundation drains are disconnected and sump pumps are installed.

Public education and outreach performed in a specific Municipality in conjunction with I/I reduction work is eligible for reimbursement under this Program. Public education and outreach is not subject to the Design, Planning and Investigation Cap.


Rule Changes

In support of this Private Property I/I Reduction Program, the District may make changes to its rules. Should this occur the District will follow the notice and comment procedures required by Wisconsin Statutes § 200.45 and involve the Technical Advisory Team.

Funding

A. 2011-2020 Funding Allocation (FA)

The Funding Allocation is the amount of money from the Program annually allocated to a Municipality in any given year of the Program based on the Equalized Value of the Municipality’s service area as a percentage of the Equalized Value of the District’s total service area.

Funding that is not provided to a Municipality (either by reimbursement or through District spending on behalf of the Municipality) during the year will be carried forward to the next year, referred to as the Cumulative Funding Allocation (CFA).

Any allocation of funding that remains in a Municipality’s CFA account (i.e., money that has not been disbursed to the Municipality or spent by the District on the Municipality’s behalf) as of January 1, 2021, may be reallocated by the District to other capital expenditures. However, if a Municipality has been making progress under an approved Work Plan, and unforeseen circumstances cause a delay in completion of the work, the District may extend the funding allocation to allow for completion of the work.

B. Municipality’s CFA Account

A Municipality’s CFA account can be debited in two ways. First, the Municipality can perform eligible work and receive a reimbursement. Second, the District may contract directly for work on behalf of the Municipality and the payments made by the District for that work are debited against the Municipality’s CFA account.

C. Spending Above the Annual Funding Allocation

Municipalities may wish to spend more dollars in a given year than the Funding Allocation for that year. Pursuant to an approved Work Plan, a Municipality may spend more than its Cumulative Funding Allocation, but the Municipality must wait for future years for reimbursement. For example, if a Municipality has an annual expected Funding Allocation of $500,000, and it elects to spend $2,000,000 on private property I/I reduction in 2011; it may


receive reimbursement of the $2,000,000 over four years – receiving the first $500,000 in 2011, and the remainder as three lump sum payments of $500,000 per year if funds are available through subsequent District budgets. Such lump-sum payments will not be made until May 1 of any given year and the District will not cover financing costs.

It is important to note that no Funding Allocation for any year is guaranteed until the District’s Commission passes the Budget for that year.

D. Cost Match

In general, the District is not requiring any matching funds from Municipalities in order to receive funding from the District under this Program. The District encourages Municipalities to put some of their own money toward private property I/I reduction to maximize the results that can be achieved through this Program. A cost match may be required where a Municipality is using funding for the remediation of illegal connections and where the Municipality is using funding to construct additional storm sewer infrastructure. A Municipality that contributes a cost match and/or supplemental funding to a project may receive credit towards increasing the Design, Planning, and Investigation Cap for the Municipality according to the definitions.

E. District Will Pursue Identified Remediation Work

The District is concerned about funding investigation activities where the investigation identifies needed remedial work but the Municipality fails to follow up with a Work Plan to actually perform the remediation. Therefore, where District-funded investigation activities identify the need for private property I/I reduction work, the District expects that the Municipality will follow up with the remediation work, at least to the extent that Program funding is available to pay for the work. If a Municipality does not proceed to use its allocated funding to perform identified remedial work, the District may decide to self-perform such work. In that case, the Municipality’s CFA will be debited by the cost of the work.

Alternatives for “Low I/I” Municipalities

Certain Municipalities serviced by the District may reach a point where identifiable private property sources of I/I have been remediated, and the Municipality is not able to use its CFA to remediate private property I/I. For example, Municipalities with primarily post-1970 construction may reach a point where there is no private property I/I work to be accomplished. These Municipalities will be allowed to use their CFA for alternative activities designed to reduce flows to the sanitary sewer system, improve water quality, and maintain I/I levels into the future.


A Municipality that wishes to use such alternatives must first demonstrate to the satisfaction of the District that:

1. I/I from all sewersheds in the Municipality is at or below the standards set forth in the District’s Chapter 3 rules on Peak Flow Rate Reduction (§3.201 et seq.); and

2. The Municipality has not experienced recurring sanitary sewer overflows or basement backups whose root cause is I/I; and

3. To the best of the Municipality’s knowledge, and making reasonable assumptions, private properties in the Municipality do not have foundation drains that discharge to the sanitary sewer system; and

4. To the best of the Municipality’s knowledge, and making reasonable assumptions, private properties in the Municipality do not have deteriorated laterals that discharge I/I to the sanitary sewer system; and

5. To the best of the Municipality’s knowledge, and making reasonable assumptions, illegal connections of clear water flow to the sanitary system have been identified and remediated.

Alternative expenditures of CFA under this Program will be approved on a case-by-case basis following a written application to the District by the Municipality. Alternative expenditures that may be approved by the District could include installation of Stormwater Best Management Practices such as pervious pavement, green roofs, rain gardens, constructed wetlands, bioswales and the like. The District will not approve any alternative expenditures that violate state law.

Item 5




RELATING TO:

Approval of 2017 Pay Grade Structure for Management, Non-Represented, and Formerly Represented Employees

SUMMARY: The Commission is requested to approve the attached pay grade structure for pay grades 4 through 21 for management/non-represented and formerly represented employees effective January 1, 2017. In 2016, the District retained the services of Carlson Dettmann Consulting (CDC) to complete a market analysis of management/non-represented and formerly represented positions in an effort to ensure market competitiveness and to integrate the formerly represented positions into the District’s existing management/non-represented pay for performance pay structure so that all positions within MMSD are in one compensation system. As a result of that analysis, the Commission is requested to approve the attached pay grade structure for all MMSD positions effective January 1, 2017.


FISCAL NOTE S/W/MBE OTHER 2017 Pay Plan Structure; 2016/2017 Comp Ratio Graph PFP_2017PayGradeStructure_legislative_file.docx 01-25-17

COMMITTEE ACTION: DATE: COMMISSION ACTION: DATE:

2

BACKGROUND


In 2004, MMSD implemented its current pay for performance compensation program for management/non-represented staff, with a commitment to complete a comprehensive market analysis every four to five years. MMSD reviews its compensation system on a regular basis to ensure market competitiveness in the recruitment and retention of employees. The District’s one bargaining unit remained on a step system when the management/non-represented staff moved to a pay for performance system, as those salaries were still negotiated through the bargaining contract system. In 2011 and post Act 10, the District imposed a new step system for the bargaining unit. Since that time, AFCSME Local 366 decertified as the collective bargaining agent for the District’s represented employees positioning all District employees as non-represented effective May 1, 2016. In an effort to continue parity across the District and to consolidate all employees under one pay for performance structure, the District authorized CDC to complete a comprehensive market analysis and study for all District positions. The study consisted of the following:

• Job analysis and evaluation of all MMSD positions • Market analysis (external competitiveness) • Internal comparability of positions • Compensation plan design • Report and presentation on findings/recommendations

The job analysis and evaluation of all MMSD positions involved the internal job content evaluation of all positions to ensure that positions were appropriately placed and integrated into the pay grade structure. The market analysis phase of the study involved the identification of 21 job titles within MMSD for which duties and responsibilities are similar to those in organizations selected to participate in the survey. A total of 17 wastewater utilities were solicited to participate, with 88% actual participation. In addition to the custom survey, CDC used current Wisconsin pay data to supplement the survey data for the positions included in the custom survey and to measure current pay for all MMSD positions. As a result of the market analysis study, CDC and MMSD recommend the pay plan structure in Attachment 1 as the new pay structure for pay grades 4 through 21. The recommended structure is similar to the management/non-represented pay range structure as adopted in the 2017 budget, but has updated pay range minimums, maximums, and midpoint market rates. With the recommendation, the midpoint market rates in the lower pay grades up through pay grade 14 are lower than those in the 2017 budget and for pay grades 15 and above are higher than those in the 2017 budget.

3

BACKGROUND (Cont’d)


Attachment 2 exhibits the average compensation ratio (average 2016 salary compared to the midpoint market rate) of all MMSD employees within each pay grade of the proposed pay grade structure. With the exception of pay grade 5, the average comp ratio is consistently at the market rate which signals, on average, MMSD employees would be paid at the market rate. In the 2017 Budget, the Commission approved for management/non-represented employees a merit increase of 2.75% and an additional 1.9% structural if a position were under the midpoint market rate. The Commission was also informed that the CDC market study was underway and could be implemented for the formerly represented staff if the results were timely. Any 2017 salary adjustment is contingent upon receipt of a satisfactory or above performance evaluation. For the majority of positions, there will be no change in individual salary adjustments and no change to the impact of salary adjustments on the 2017 budget with the implementation of the recommendation; however, there would be impacts to 19 employees as described below. Two formerly represented employees will fall below the new minimum of the pay range. A one-time adjustment to bring their salaries to the new minimum would be a total cost of $4,925. One formerly represented employee will remain red-circled as it has been since the District imposed a revised step system in 2011, post Act 10. It is estimated that the salary of this individual will fall into range in 2018, and this employee has not received any salary adjustment since 2012. A one-time non-base building bonus of $500 is recommended. Sixteen employees in pay grades 7-12 will be impacted by the lowering of the midpoint market for pay grades 4-14 and would forego the structural adjustment that they would otherwise have received. The pay range midpoints that were approved in the 2017 budget before the market study was completed are based on the last market study from 2009 with annual structural adjustments as recommended by the District’s compensation consultant to generally keep them in line with overall market rates, and this practice is consistent with the District’s practice between market studies. Per the District’s compensation policy, employees whose salaries are below midpoint market are eligible to receive the merit and structural increases. This is so that employees who are hired between the minimum of the range and below midpoint market will be able to achieve a salary reflective of the market rate in a similar time that it would take for an employee to become proficient at the job, a best practice retention strategy. A one-time adjustment to allow the structural increase is recommended at a total cost of $22,900.

4

BACKGROUND (Cont’d)


With the recommended actions, the District’s compensation ratio is as presented in Attachment 2 (average 2017 salary compared to the midpoint market rate) of all MMSD employees within each pay grade of the proposed pay grade structure. The result is a compensation ratio that still signals the District’s compensation is reflective of current market. The proposed pay structure, if adopted, is consistent with salary structures recently adopted for salaried employees in Green Bay and Madison.

5

RESOLUTION


RESOLVED, by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, that the attached 2017 pay structure, pay grades 4 through 21, be approved and that the recommended salary adjustments be approved.

ATTACHMENT 1

MMSD Management/Non-Represented

2017 Pay Structure

Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum

21 $189,000 $222,400 $266,900

20 $156,300 $183,900 $220,700

19 $136,800 $160,900 $193,100

18 $125,200 $147,300 $176,800

17 $114,600 $134,800 $161,800

16 $105,000 $123,500 $148,200

15 $96,100 $113,100 $135,700

14 $88,100 $103,700 $124,400

13 $80,900 $95,200 $114,200

12 $74,400 $87,500 $105,000

11 $68,400 $80,500 $96,600

10 $63,000 $74,100 $88,900

9 $58,000 $68,200 $81,800

8 $53,500 $62,900 $75,500

7 $49,400 $58,100 $69,700

6 $39,700 $46,700 $56,000

5 $34,500 $40,600 $48,700

4 $30,000 $35,300 $42,400

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Perc

ent o

f mar

ket r

ate

Pay Grade

Average Compensation to Market Rate Ratio by Pay Grade

2017 Salaries 2016 Salaries

COMMISSION MEETING

February 27, 2017

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

17-003-01 A. Monthly Reports B. Staff Recognition (Kevin Shafer) C. National Green Infrastructure Certification Program (Lisa Sasso) D. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Removal from Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer

(Sharon Mertens & Mike Martin) E. Year in Review (Bill Graffin) F. 2017 Goals (Mickie Pearsall) G. Semiannual Economic Development Report (Charlotte Tisdale & Jeff

Spence) H. Review of the Bid/Proposal and Small, Women, and Minority-owned

Business Enterprise Information Summary (SWMBE) Form (Jeff Spence)

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 Operations Committee-9:00 a.m. PF&P Committee-9:05 a.m.

14 VALENTINE’S DAY

15 16 17 18

19 20 PRESIDENTS’ DAY

21 22 23 24 25

26 27 Commission-9:00 a.m.

28

February 2017

electronic packet february 27, 2017 commission meeting ... · an amount not to exceed $278,744....

Documents