Village of Oswego Committee of the Whole met April 17.
Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:
Call To Order:
President Gail E. Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
Physically Present: President Gail Johnson and Trustees Ryan Kauffman, Karin McCarthy-Lange, Pam Parr and Joe West.
Absent: Trustee Luis Perez and Judy Sollinger.
Staff Present: Dan Di Santo, Village Administrator; Christina Burns, AVA/HR Director; Tina Touchette, Village Clerk; Jennifer Hughes, Public Works Director; Jeff Burgner, Police Chief; Rod Zenner, Community Development Director; Mark Horton, Finance Director; Corinna Cole, Economic Development Director; Jenette Sturges, Community Engagement Coordinator- Marketing; Jay Hoover, Building & Zoning Manager; and James Murphy, Village Attorney.
Consideration Of And Possible Actions On Any Requests For Electronic Participation In Meeting:
There was no one who participated electronically.
Public Forum:
Public Forum was opened at 6:00 p.m. There was no one who requested to speak; the Public Forum was closed at 6:00 p.m.
Old Business:
E.1. Monroe's Gaming Presentation and Request for a Liquor and Video Gaming License.
Clerk Touchette addressed the Board regarding a request for a liquor and video gaming license. This item was previously discussed at the March 6th Committee of the Whole meeting. The Board requested that the applicant provide interior and exterior renderings and a revised logo and marketing plan. Mr. Wilbur Yu was present to discuss the changes and answer questions from the Board.
Board, staff and applicant discussion focused on the number of open units in the strip mall; a hair studio, massage parlor and liquor store are next to the unit the applicant is leasing; not comfortable with placing a video gaming café at the location; better use for the location; location is at one of the points of entrance into town; unit has been vacant over 18 months; applicant asked the landlord to attend the meeting, but he couldn’t make it; not liking the location; applicant stated that the Board could have told them they didn’t like the location the last time; Board members stated at the March 6th Committee of the Whole meeting they did not like the location; finding a new location; why they are being penalized; video gaming was originally adopted to help the small businesses stay in business; location is a draw for an exciting business; why they can’t get a vote on it tonight; voting takes place at Regular Village Board meetings, not a Committee of the Whole meeting. Item will not move forward for this location.
New Business:
F.1. Consideration and Discussion of the Feasibility Study to Receive Lake Michigan Water Via the DuPage Water Commission.
Director Hughes addressed the Board regarding the study done by AECOM. The Illinois State Water Survey projects that Oswego could run out of ground water in the next 20-40 years. The process of securing and implementing a new water source could take ten years, so the Village has begun to proactively plan for a new water source. The 2014 Water Study, prepared by HR Green, identified two viable sources: Fox River through a new water plant, or Lake Michigan via the DuPage Water Commission (DPWC). In 2016, Engineering Enterprises (EEI) performed a sub-regional water analysis finding that a joint Fox River water plant with Yorkville and Montgomery was the preferred alternative for Oswego. In February 2017, the Village received supplemental information from the DPWC which indicated that the Lake Michigan option might be more cost effective than envisioned in the original HR Green report. The Village of Oswego and the United City of Yorkville contracted with AECOM Technical Services Inc. to determine if it is technically feasible to connect to DPWC and if so, to estimate the costs.
Feasibility Study- Final Report, October 2017-
Presenters: Mike Winegard, Chad Laucamp and Dana Al-Qadi
Purpose of the Study:
• Deep sandstone aquifer will be depleted in the future
• Previous study recommended utilizing and treating Fox River Water
• What would be involved in purchasing treated Lake Michigan Water through the DuPage Water Commission?
• What would the approximate cost be?
Receiving Stations
Type A – Pressure Reducing Station Utilizing Ground Storage
Type B – Pressure Reducing Station
Type C – Rate Control Station
Type D – Pressure Increasing Station
AECOM concluded that connection to DPWC is feasible. As demands grow over time, future system improvements will need to be made to ensure adequate pressure at the points where the communities receive water. DPWC would construct a 42” transmission main from the connection point in Naperville to the Ogden Falls water tower. From there, a cross-town transmission main would deliver water to additional connection points in Oswego before continuing to Yorkville. AECOM estimated the costs to connect to DPWC to be $8.57/1,000 gallons. This rate is above the base rate necessary to support operations and maintenance of the existing infrastructure. They did not analyze any savings realized if the wells are decommissioned, but it is likely that some of the costs will be offset by the new pumping costs required for the DPWC option.
Estimated Capital Costs for Receiving DPWC Lake Michigan Water:
• Improvements to the Oswego and Yorkville water distribution systems not included
• Costs for pressure adjusting not included
• Costs for land acquisition for the connection points are not included
• Assumes one connection point per municipality
• The transmission line capital cost excludes costs of internal improvements to distribute water throughout the Village from the Ogden Falls water tower.
• The cost split between Oswego and Yorkville is preliminary and needs further review and calculation.
The DPWC has preliminarily offered to allow the Village to finance the buy-in cost at zero percent interest over thirty years per terms of their agreement with the Village of Bartlett.
• Assumes financing using a 30-year bond at 4% interest for all project costs
• Assumes the DPWC will provide 0% financing for the recovery charges
• Debt service incorporates typical issuance and reserve costs, as determined by Municapital.com municipal bond payment calculator
Differences Between AECOM and EEI Reports:
Transmission Main Piping Costs-
• EEI claimed the unit prices used for the 30-inch and 42-inch diameter piping was too low, and increased the costs by $75/LF for 30-inch and $50/LF for 42-inch
• Per EEI cost comparison handout, their piping cost analysis resulted in an additional cost of $8.16M
• AECOM used a unit cost of $500/LF for the 30-inch diameter transmission main and $600/LF for the 42-inch diameter transmission main
• AECOM unit costs based on actual bid prices received for similar sized transmission mains installed
➢ A 10% contingency was included to account for unknown conditions and costs
➢ Units costs based on dense urban installations, which are conservative since piping for this project would largely be installed in open land with less utility conflicts and restoration costs
Receiving Stations-
• EEI indicated that Oswego or Yorkville distribution systems do not have existing reservoirs or pumping stations that can be used as receiving stations
• EEI had two new 2.0 MG ground storage tanks at each receiving station, which resulted in $11.5 - $12M cost estimated for each station
• AECOM indicated that most DPWC communities utilize existing reservoirs and pumping stations for their receiving stations
• AECOM used an estimated cost of $750,000 for each connection point, which is based on the most recent construction costs for DPWC connection points of similar size and type
• The above resulted in a discrepancy of approx. $44M if two connection points assumed for each community (EEI included future storage)
Other Considerations-
• In AECOM’s opinion, the $3.00 per 1,000 gallons that EEI used for the Fox River System appears to be too low to account for both O&M and capital costs
• EEI included $800k in land acquisition costs in their cost breakdown for DPWC option, which is prorated based on easement costs required by Bartlett project that was in a more congested area
• AECOM anticipates that easement costs will be minimal based on the preliminary route being along existing right-of-ways
Construction of Transmission Main
• AECOM considers any easement costs to be accounted for in the contingency for the transmission main installation
• Both AECOM and EEI agree that a detailed route study would refine the transmission main installation costs
Staff from Oswego, Yorkville, and Montgomery met in January with both AECOM and EEI. EEI made several assumptions about AECOM’s analysis and adjusted their costs. EEI concluded that the capital cost for the DuPage connection would be 32.7% higher than the Fox River plant and that operating costs would be 62.7% higher under the DuPage connection. One of the biggest discrepancies in the cost analysis relates to the number and cost of the receiving stations. EEI allocates an additional $24 million to the structures based upon their understanding of how the system would operate. AECOM believes that such improvements are not necessary today, and even if they are necessary, not to the extent as estimated by EEI. The only way to truly resolve this issue is to conduct further analysis to understand how water will flow in Oswego’s system.
A few issues remain before staff can present a complete assessment and recommendation regarding the choice between the Fox River and Lake Michigan Water. Staff proposes to enter into a contract with AECOM to study the issues. Oswego has not yet studied what improvements will be needed to the internal distribution system under either option. The wells are distributed throughout the Village so there is no need to have internal transmission pipes. Under the Fox River option, the Village will need to maintain its wells. The Village will transmit raw water from the wells to the treatment plant where the well water will be mixed with river water and processed. The finished water will then need to be distributed throughout the Village. Staff needs to understand what pipes are needed and how much they will cost. Similarly, if DPWC provides water at the Ogden Falls water tower, staff needs to understand if transmission mains are needed to bring water to the well sites for distribution. The required piping on these options could be significant and is not currently figured into the rate analysis. The analysis will also determine if EEI’s concept for the receiving stations is accurate.
In the previous analysis, AECOM conducted a high-level estimate of the cost to install the transmission main for the purposes of the feasibility study. Staff would like AECOM to refine this estimate based upon the selected route, identifying segments under pavement versus field, and determining if there are any additional costs such as placing the main beneath railroad tracks.
Board, staff and AECOM discussion focused on IDNR water allocation takes about a year; more detailed route study needed to determine crossings; fine tuning the numbers; refining the costs; how to distribute water; if using Fox River, will still need to maintain the wells and blend the water; treating the water; making sure there is enough pressure; how to get water to the west of town; connecting with Yorkville and building a back bone; needing to know full costs of both options; whether to keep maintaining the wells and towers; maintenance for existing system is not being studied now; will still use the towers if using Lake Michigan option to help keep the pressure up and assist with fire suppression; if demand increases, may need to add more pumps; needing to cover future needs; pumping stations; staffing needs for a water plant should be added to operating costs; staff doing research and looking at other water plants; population of 90,000 at year 2050; population number was provided by EEI; population number probably way more than needed; on-going maintenance; Lake Michigan option is more scalable; water plant option involves upfront costs and waiting for growth; whether the Village has more time since the growth is not here yet; water tables continue to decrease; Joliet is looking at other options; levels dropping faster than what was projected five years ago. The feasibility study contract with AECOM is included in the April 17, 2018 Regular Village Board agenda for vote. There was no further discussion.
Closed Session:
A motion was made by Trustee Kauffman and seconded by Trustee Parr to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of discussing the following:
a. Pending and Probable Litigation [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11)]
b. Appointment, Employment, Compensation, Discipline, Performance, or Dismissal of Personnel [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1)]
c. Collective Bargaining, Collective Negotiating Matters, Deliberations Concerning Salary Schedules [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(2)]
d. Sale, Lease, and/or Acquisition of Property [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5) & (6)]
Aye: Ryan Kauffman Karin McCarthy-Lange
Pam Parr Joe West
Nay: None
Absent: Luis Perez and Judy Sollinger
The motion was declared carried by a roll call vote with four (4) aye votes and zero (0) nay votes.
The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 6:42 p.m. The Board returned to open session at 7:00 p.m.; all remaining members still present.
Adjournment:
A motion was made by Trustee Kauffman and seconded by Trustee Parr to adjourn the meeting; upon a voice vote with all remaining members present voting aye, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
http://www.oswegoil.org/pdf/2018.04.17-cotw-minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up