Vice President: Mr. Kmetz called for nominations for Vice President. Ms. Krull made a motion to nominate Patti Sims-Smierciak as Vice President; Mr. Setlak seconded the nomination. Ms. Sims-Smierciak was elected Vice President by a unanimous roll-call vote of 5-0.
Mr. Setlak made a motion to approve the landscape credit of $79.02 for Dustin & Kristen Carson of Redbud Drive. Ms. Sims-Smierciak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Ms. Krull made a motion to approve the landscape credit for Cristina Flores of Sherwood Court in the amount of $99.73. Ms. Sims-Smierciak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to approve the landscape credit for Nicole & Daniel Kvachkoff of Juniper Lane in the amount of $329.72. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to approve the landscape credit for Ken & Brigitte McNeill of Dunegrass Way in the amount of $64.31. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Mr. Setlak made a motion to approve the landscape credit for Nancy Mikolajczak of Larkspur Terrace in the amount of $136.79. Ms. Krull seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Ms. Krull made a motion to approve the landscape credit for Darlene Rozycki of Brookhaven in the $68.67. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to defer the last three credits on the agenda pending usage data from the Clerk’s Office. Ms. Krull seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak pointed out that there was an agreement signed by our Town Manager for Cender Dalton on January 14, 2022. Furthermore, Ms. Sims-Smierciak stated that in the past, this board had the legal jurisdiction to choose its own financial advisor. The financial cost to bring Cender up to speed would be prohibitive and a waste of our taxpayers’ money.
Mr. Pondinas was asked if he knew about this. Mr. Pondinas said he was surprised at the Council meeting. The Council said they were going to do these contracts for the lawyer, engineering, Baker Tilly and Cender. Mr. Pondinas told the Council that there was a contract that he knew nothing about. The Town Council said they had a committee of two people who met and that’s all Mr. Pondinas knew.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to defer this to the February meeting to consider both Cender and Baker Tilly agreements for 2022 and to speak with our attorney relative to our legal authority to choose our own advisor. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to pay the Wastewater APVs in the amount of $744,260.63. Ms. Krull seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerri Kudzia, Recording Secretary
St. John Sanitary District
Ms. Krull made a motion to approve the landscape credit for Scott & Jodie Eggert of 9811 Rosewood Dr. in the amount of $117.17; Sheridan Lodico of 9810 Dunegrass Way, credit of $22.32; and Alena Tucci of 9800 Dunegrass Way, credit of $33.24. Ms. Sims-Smierciak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 3-0.
Mr. Pondinas reported the Sanitary Board has been paying for the wastewater side of the Scada System. It is payment number 8 or 9 of possibly 12 payments, then that part of the system will be paid for. Don’t know if there will be anything extra or anything they might have to tweak.
Mr. Dravet stated the Sanitary Board’s portion of the Scada System software from Wonderware will be $2406, which will be signed at the Town Council meeting next week.
Mr. Dravet also wanted to let the Board know that the wastewater bill from Schererville came in for $870,000 plus. This is because in July of 2021, the rate for treatment went from $1.79/1000 gallons to $1.99/1000 gallons. Our accountant did not get updated, so we are being billed the back amount from July thru December 2021. There will be no interest or penalties.
The Board questioned the Wastewater APVs for the Microsoft Agreement bill. Mr. Dravet explained that amount is the Sanitary Board’s portion of the total Microsoft bill for the Town. It’s one-third sewer, one-third water and one-third general fund. The price went up because we had to purchase the advance threat protection option as a part of our cyber security insurance. We’ve also added quite a number of computers over the last several years. This is the first year of a three year contract at a fixed price barring nothing changes. As technology is added, a true up agreement has to be done which will be a separate bill to add in the extra cost for extra computer.
The U. S. Bank 2012 Sewage Works Refunding bill was also questioned. Since no one seemed to know what this was for, the Board will not approve it until clarity from the Clerk’s Office is obtained.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to approve the Wastewater Docket with the exception of the U. S. Bank 2012 Sewage Works Refunding amount pending clarity on that. Ms. Krull seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 3-0.
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerri Kudzia, Recording Secretary
St. John Sanitary District
Mr. Kmetz wanted to know when this would be completed. Mr. Dravet replied possibly September. There is also the tie-in to the variable frequency drives for the water side. There’s probably going to be some VFD’s for the sanitary side as well. We’re still working through which lift stations need what. Installation will definitely be the fall, definitely this year.
Mr. Pondinas said that they have all the parts and don’t have to worry about chips and stuff. Everything should be in stock. It’s just a matter of them getting it together and seeing whether or not there’s any flaws.
Mr. Setlak made a motion to approve the Sewage Works Bond APV for $9,758.75. Ms. Sims-Smierciak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Mr. Dravet wanted to remind the Board that one of the two dockets will be considerably larger because of the water rate adjustment from Schererville.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to approve the Sanitary District APVs in the amount of $20,007.88. Ms. Krull seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Mr. Dravet explained the increase from Schererville. They did not charge us the corrected rate which went into effect in July of last year. So they went back and rebilled us for the difference in the rate which was like 33 cents/thousand gallons. If memory serves me without the documentation in front of me, it was a little less than a million dollars. It looks like this bill missed the docket again. I will have a talk with our accounts payable person.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak pointed out that this month is high also because we have January and February’s bills and a transfer of funds into the general operating fund. Going forward, we will probably have an increase in fuel costs too.
Mr. Kmetz confirmed with Mr. Dravet that the Schererville bill will be on next month’s docket.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to approve the Wastewater Docket in the amount of $1,052,605.93. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerri Kudzia, Recording Secretary
St. John Sanitary District
Mrs. Fagan stated that it started with our septic; we were having problems with it. We live in Carlisle Acres. We’re one lot #14 out of about 20 homes there. They have attempted to annex us probably 20 years ago and sort of gave up on it. Some of us have water, some of us have sewers. What we’re trying to do is we are agreeing to sign an agreement that we will not go against annexation if it is brought upon us.
Mr. Fagan said that the top of their septic tank had collapsed and fell in. We just noticed it on March 6th. So there’s a sanitary sewer that runs in front of our house. There’s a manhole approximately 30 feet from our driveway. When they installed it, the contractor left the stub in there, an 8 x 6 “T” for us in case we ever wanted to tie in. So we are looking to disconnect our septic and run new pipe and tie in to the sanitary.
Mrs. Fagan said they are aware of the permit and the tap-in fee. We agree with all that. We have given you a waiver of right of remonstrance against annexation so the Sanitary Board would allow them to hook up to sanitary.
Mr. Kmetz stated that it would be if the Town decided to annex. The Fagan’s have waived the remonstrance for the right to dispute it. It looks like they have contractors and everything lined up ready to go. Mr. Kmetz is familiar with the area, that little finger that sticks out, that’s unincorporated right off of 85th. So given the remonstration agreement that was signed, I don’t have a problem with it.
Mr. Gembala made a motion to approve the sanitary agreement for the right to install the sewer line connected to the sanitary sewer collection system in the Town of St. John, Indiana with a waiver right to remonstrate against its annexation agreement. The approval of that would be to authorize the President of the Board to sign that agreement. The address is 8501 Jacobson Drive, St. John, Indiana. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 3-0.
As soon as the Board gets a copy of this signed and completed, The Fagan’s can get the permitting set up through Sergio.
Mr. Setlak made a motion to approve the Wastewater Docket in the amount of $447,616.52. Mr. Gembala seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 3-0.
Mr. Setlak wanted to thank the Clerk-Treasurer’s Office for the descriptions on the bills. They are more helpful than in the past.
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerri Kudzia, Recording Secretary
St. John Sanitary District
Ms. Krull made a motion to approve the Rozycki sewer credit for $68.67. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Staak 13320 James Drive $303.56
Mr. Gembala made a motion to approve the Staak sewer credit for $303.56. Ms. Krull seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak stated to Mr. Wiszowaty that she spoke to Jennifer today and they are going to be moving forward on the ordinance. It’s pretty much done. The Town Council just has to approve it so your office can sign off on sewer credits.
Mr. Wiszowaty said we would want to include that as part of the record for the Sanitary Board. Ms. Sims-Smierciak agreed.
The Town also has a deep gravity sewer that’s draining south down to Lift Station 1, south of the Monix WTP, further south on 41 near the Shrine. That is not affected by this, it’s quite deep and a little bit to the west. The gravity sewer is not an issue.
Through the process of the Town Public Works potholing with state representatives, confirmed that the force main and the water main sit side by side running across the top of that box culvert. INDOT is removing the existing box culvert and replacing it with virtually the same size box culvert. I think it’s either a foot wider or maybe a foot taller, one of the two but not both. As I mentioned at the Water Board meeting, the actual facilities for the Town are not in conflict. They can go back to the same place they are in now. But INDOT is telling us that in order to access that box culvert, to remove it and slide the new one in place, the Town facilities have to go. Either be removed and set back in place or temporarily supported. The temporary support measure would involve special engineering that would have to be approved by the State. That is a little bit of a nebulous process. There will be more research we need to do into engineering and temporary support. Additionally they have noticed that their desired clearance area is 150 feet centered on the culvert, 75 feet to the south and 75 feet to the north. We don’t have all the information yet in terms of the existing locations for the facilities, the depths, the extents, things like that. Over the next month we will be working with the Public Works Department to generate more information about exactly where those facilities are.
For the Sanitary District’s perspective, it appears that the sanitary force main is more or less in the same area that it is in other parts of U.S.41. We don’t expect a sanitary force main to change very much from where it is crossing the culvert.
The Town’s water main is a different story. That appears to jog to the west in this culvert area and come back to the east more along the edge of the roadway than where it actually crosses the culvert. We have some unknowns here. Still is very much an in-process project. I just want to update you and make you aware of the project on the potential of coming of a new project, the next iteration of a relocation or some sort of maneuvering for the State widening project on U.S. 41.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak asked if this was in the initial scope of work. I’m taking that this is a new revelation that the State has come across or were they aware that this would potentially come up before us.
Mr. Kuchta stated the box culvert replacement is in their INDOT plans from 2020. The notification that it is a conflict is within the last couple of months.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak said going forward we will be relying on our engineers for the best plan. If we do the support system and has to get approved by the State that would be a delay in time because we know they move slowly. I know that people want this all to go away very quickly.
Mr. Setlak questioned that if this was in their plan, it took the State two years to notify the Town that something had to be done. Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Kuchta responded that we were notified a couple of months ago. From what I’ve seen of their plans for 2020, it called for that culvert to go in.
Some discussion ensued between Mr. Setlak and Ms. Sims-Smierciak regarding the way the State doesn’t communicate very well and expects results quickly. There is a lot of disappointment with the State as far as coordination and communication. There is much frustration with the State and this process. We try to be good stewards of the Town’s money, the tax money and we’re always put between a rock and a hard place. But we have to move forward with the projects.
Mr. Kuchta added to the discussion that we have talked with the Water Board, Public Works and the previous town managers that the only true solution is to get out of the INDOT right-of-way wherever possible. Either acquire new easements or free simple properties for your own right-of-way. Outside of that, we are trying to do that as much as we can but of course, it’s congested and being built up now. Our review of the law states one thing, that although the State has many powers, they can’t make you move the same utility twice for the same project. If the second move happens, they do have to pay for that move. Please check with your attorney. Similar to that, if they acquire new right-of-way where you were there first for instance in your own easement, they would have to pay for you to move as well. They could still take it through eminent domain, but in terms of the cost, you do have a leg up. You’re a property owner that they have to compensate.
Mr. Gembala made a motion to approve the Wastewater Docket in the amount of $475,185.50. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Mr. Setlak wanted to know if Baker Tilly ever got back with any update after including the ten percent increase in the Schererville wastewater rate on their financial stuff.
Mr. Wiszowaty said he has not heard anything from them. I can check to see if we got anything back.
Mr. Setlak also pointed out the drinking water and the sewage water treated in April is that we treated 17.5 million gallons more than we pumped. Ms. Sims-Smierciak said we had a very rainy April. Mr. Setlak said that means the rain water is getting into the sewers and that costs about $33,000/month.
Mr. Kuchta didn’t have the percentage based on the flow versus water pumped with him. We have recommendations for I & I ready to be sent to Public Works and this Board about the process for going about identifying that. There was more discussion between the Board and Mr. Kuchta regarding infiltration.
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerri Kudzia, Recording Secretary
St. John Sanitary District
The Board would like the minutes on Friday, prior to the meeting date.
The primary problem is that there is a box culvert that contains the St. John Ditch as it moves from east to west side of the highway in a diagonal coming across U.S. 41. That’s a state owned facility as part of the U.S. 41 widening project. The State is replacing that box culvert in place in approximately the same size, just new materials. To facilitate that work, they need to demolish or remove the existing box culvert. To understand the primary construction problem for them is that the box culvert that’s in place is a monolithic, poured in place structure. Don’t quote me on that, but the demolition is actually the biggest problem they have. The new box culvert will come in sections and it’s fairly easy to maneuver. That’s part of the reason that this is a conflict for them. They can’t just work around out pipes, there’s quite a bit of intensive work to remove the existing box culvert that’s in place.
This is limited to the west side of the road. I am seeking clarification from the State about their plans to be removing 50 LF of the guardrail in that area basically over the center of that box culvert that’s in place. That will facilitate them replacing it and adding a new head wall and some stone rip-rap revetment within the creek to the west. The total conflict area defined by INDOT for the Town’s utility facilities is 150 ft. Rough numbers of 50 ft. is an actual deemed at the last meeting. A hard conflict is the actual pipe that’s going to be in the way of them digging. The balance of that 150 ft. is 100ft. but split on each side. So 50 ft., 50 ft., 50 ft., the middle 50 ft. is the hard conflict. The two outside 50 ft. are mobilization areas that the State is going to be assembling heavy equipment on and their concern is damaging the facilities underground.
When they define it as a 150 ft. conflict, it’s really a 150 foot not wanting any liability zone. As I explained to the Waterworks Board, this is particularly relevant for the Sanitary Board because if the Town’s locates as we have them to date are accurate, the sanitary force main is entirely west of the guardrail. Our hope is that we will not have to actually remove 150 ft. of sanitary force main but only the more limited hard conflict area which I’m defining as 50 ft. lacking any more definite knowledge from the State because that’s their cut in the guardrail. Presumably that’s approximately what they’re going to be actually excavating in that area. They’re obviously not going to be excavating if they can keep the guardrail in place. It may be about 70 ft. is probably maybe realistic, maybe 10 ft. on each side of that that the Town may have to replace.
Our recommendation is we have proposed the construction bid for this to replace all 150 ft., but our intention would be to only remove the hard conflict portion of the pipe at first to get out of INDOT’s way. That would relieve the State and the Town from this immediate conflict prohibiting the State from continuous construction. Then once the State is done putting in their box culvert, the Town could assess the balance of those pipes on each side of that to really see if they were damaged because there is no sense in replacing non-damaged pipes. There is a couple of ways to do that, pressure testing or camera assessment to actually see if that pipe needs to be replaced. Hopefully, it would not and we would be limited to something in the range of 50 – 75 ft. of total pipe replacement rather than 150 ft. The OPC is conservative figuring 100 ft., it’s the worst case scenario. It is also conservative in that it assumes that the contractor is providing their own pipe, but the Town is procuring that 150 ft. of pipe this week.
Mr. Setlak voiced his opinion on this whole culvert replacement by INDOT. He stated he is not a fan of the method and everything else.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak asked what the guesstimate was on a time frame on this project.
Mr. Kuchta replied that the State has said two weeks minimum for their actual box culvert work, assuming that the Town’s facilities are out of the way. Realistically that’s probably three weeks if there’s delays like weather or whatnot. The shutdown of the Town’s water main is fairly straightforward. Fortunately there are existing valves and no service lines in this area between the valves. The sanitary force main has to be drained. It goes all the way up to 93rd all the way down from Lift Station 1. They’ll drain that pipe for the area of the excavation for this 150 ft. area. Of course that involves some liquid fluids beyond that 150 ft. but whatever it takes to drain down to there. It should not take that long. That’s a few days of work excavation in pumping that out. We will coordinate with the State to see exactly how they want to do the removal of the pipe. It may benefit them to just yank the pipe out that’s in their way. Or if they want the Town’s contractor which we bidded as such to go in there and actually remove that 50 ft. of hard conflict, that would add a couple more days. I don’t want to speak for contractor’s availability, but all of that could be about a week’s worth of work. So you would have the Town in for a week, then two to three weeks of the State. Then we’d call the Town’s contractor back in when the State is done to put the pipes back in place, which is another week to two weeks. From the Sanitary District Board’s concern, that would be a little more accelerated. The more likely delay would be on the water side for chlorinating and pressure testing all that main that’s been shut down.
We saved quite a bit of cost on the water main by not doing insertion inline valves within the 150 ft. area. We kind of caught a break that there we three existing valves in place to isolate that water main. The only downside to that is we’re going to have to chlorinate that whole depressurized zone which is far beyond the 150 ft. but still cheaper than putting in the isolation valves. Sanitary is a different story. You don’t have to worry about chlorinating.
Mr. Kmetz asked that since it’s an emergency will they be able to procure the materials to start this right away.
Mr. Kuchta replied that the first step in the emergency is just getting out of the State’s way so there really aren’t any materials of significance for that process. There should be no delay from that side. Then in terms of putting it back, we don’t have valves we just have some basic fittings and pipe. If the Town proceeds with acquiring that pipe that takes that off. So we don’t foresee materials being a concern for this project.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak asked if INDOT has been more eager to communicate with us because when we started this project a while ago, the State was not returning calls and delaying and dragging their feet. I’m assuming now they are more available to us to get this project done.
Mr. Kuchta responded that they’ve set up a weekly call which has been nice for the last few weeks to address this particular issue. That coincides with their weekly project meetings so that’s been helpful. I am still waiting for a couple days now on the guardrail question and some other things.
Mr. Setlak voiced his concern about INDOT removing the pipe and possibly damaging it so it costs us more to replace it. He hopes every effort is done to try and mitigate that kind of circumstance. Other than talking together, I don’t know what there is.
Mr. Wiszowaty said I think that part of the problem was the lack of communication. We didn’t have weekly calls with INDOT, so I think that’s been very helpful. I think that communication has brought us to a much more aware situation.
Mr. Setlak said as long as it’s there and it’s true communication, it goes both ways. It’s not dictatorial in saying we’re starting tomorrow.
Mr. Wiszowaty stated that INDOT has been very accommodating.
Mr. Kuchta says they recommend having at least part-time inspection services for the State’s portion of the work to at least document where they are mobilized due to those issues about this 150 ft. area. I’m sure they will accommodate.
Mr. Wiszowaty said we will have eyes on site when they do make the cuts and connections and caps and all that.
Mr. Kmetz wanted to know the anticipated start date.
Mr. Kuchta answered frankly it’s going to depend on the feedback from the contractors. Assuming that the Board agrees with declaring the emergency that allows us to directly contact the contractors and gain that direct feedback. We are planning to bid this to Gough and Grimmer. Gough is the current subcontractor to Milestone which is the State contractor. Gough is putting in the box culvert so theoretically that should be a good price. They are already on site and you should have reduced mobilization costs and coordination would be infinitely better than having a separate contractor. That said, we’ve done multiple of these before and they have not always been the lowest despite being on site. Grimmer is also a contractor we’ve had a long history with Town multiple projects. They have expressed interest in this as well and seemingly have some availability. It’s not a huge job, particularly the first stage. Getting out of the way is not all that much work. Putting it back in place that’s a little bit more mobilization of a full crew. Obviously the purpose of all this is to do it as soon as possible so that will be communicated to the contractors.
I think this needs to be done as quickly as possible. We’re moving at a good pace and doing the best that we can. I don’t think it’s a crisis. I think it’s urgent and we’re taking the right actions to address it.
Ms. Krull asked if the State gave us a reason why they have to replace this box culvert.
Mr. Kuchta said they took another look at it when realizing all the local utilities that are impacted by it. They reassessed it and came to the same conclusion that it had to be replaced. I have heard this anecdotally and I can’t say who I heard it from but basically the State does not anticipate doing a major road for several decades to come. It’s an older box culvert facility and so if they’re going to replace it, they got to replace it now.
Mr. Wiszowaty stated the State got a grant to replace it.
Mr. Kuchta said one thing we particularly asked them to look at because this is actually affecting the very last section of this box culvert beyond the roadway did they really need to replace that. I know they did look at that and concluded they had to. My guess would be because it’s the downstream most component that probably interrupts the flow if they left that current section in place versus the new one but I’m speculating.
Mr. Kmetz questioned if Haas was in agreement with the INDOT assessment that it needs to be replaced.
Mr. Kuchta said Haas did not look at that.
Ms. Krull stated so in essence we could be paying for something that doesn’t really need to be replaced just because the State has some money to spend.
Mr. Kuchta said yes and unfortunately understanding state laws, it’s a State facility and a State right of way.
Mr. Wiszowaty said there is a Part A and Part B to this process. The Part A is basically the Sanitary District declaring an emergency situation. This is listed under New Business A, paragraph one: Sanitary District declaration that the required, (skipping over water main), 12-inch diameter sanitary force main sewer temporary abandonment, removal and replacement at the U.S. 41/St. John Ditch crossing is a Public Works emergency per IC 36-1-12-9. This justifies the reasoning for the emergency declaration. A motion for the emergency declaration would be in order.
Some discussion was had regarding the Indiana Code and declaration of emergency between Mr. Setlak, Mr. Wiszowaty, Mr. Kmetz and Mr. Kuchta.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to approve Item A relative to this declaration. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Mr. Kmetz said we are looking for a motion to approve the invitation to quote on an emergency basis. Mr. Wisowaty agreed and said the motion would be to do the invitation for the quotes for the work in the specific zone pursuant to IC 36-1-12-9 and authorize Haas & Associates the Town Engineer to review the quotes and make a recommendation for the Town Manager to approve that subject to the review and approval of the Sanitary District Board.
Mr. Setlak stated he had no problem with that motion except us moving to remove the water main.
Mr. Wiszowaty agreed and said that’s how the motion should be stated.
Mr. Kuchta further clarified the Waterworks Board at the previous meeting took action to administer the contract on behalf of both boards pending Sanitary District’s agreement with that process. I don’t know if you have to modify what Joe just said, but essentially what you’re approving is the Waterworks Board would be doing the solicitation of the quotes and contracting with the contractor.
Mr. Wiszowaty confirmed that the Waterworks Board is going to take lead and then the Sanitary District would reimburse the Waterworks Board accordingly. In other words, the Waterworks Board is going to pay the full freight and then based on the actual cost that would be reimbursed by the Sanitary District.
Mr. Kuchta said the Sanitary Board would be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of the general Items 1 – 6 on that NPC. Then 100 percent of Items 7 – 14, and 0 percent of Items 15 -24.
Mr. Kmetz indicated the motion would then be restated to state the replacement, removal and replacement of 150 LF of 12-inch diameter sanitary force main sewer.
Mr. Setlak made the motion. Ms. Sims-Smierciak seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Ms. Krull wanted to know the status of the ordinance on sewer credits.
Mr. Wiszowaty wanted to know how we quantify a dollar amount, are we going to mandate they get irrigation systems on this stuff. I had a lot of questions on this so I think we probably should have a little bit more discussion on this maybe at the next meeting. I think it’s worthy of discussion.
Ms. Krull said that we were even discussing something like maybe there should be a minimum of at least $50 that they’re requesting.
Mr. Wiszowaty agreed. We’re probably putting in more work to calculate how much. I think we discuss this further. We’ll put this on the agenda.
Mr. Kmetz commented that he is all for sewers, brand new pool filling, but you know people in the spring want to fill their pool a week early to put nine inches of water in it.
Ms. Krull made a motion to approve the twelve stated sewer credits for a total of $1272.34. Ms. Sims-Smierciak seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 4-0.
Mr. Setlak wanted to know when they were going to deal with the dirty side of the SCADA.
Mr. Pondinas said it’s not the dirty side, but the brown side. That’s coming but they’re still tweaking this water side with what we’re using and stuff.
Mr. Setlak said he was looking at moving things along because he believes we pretty much paid our share of the system with periodic payments. I would like to see something for the money.
Mr. Pondinas stated he would speak to Mr. Setlak after the meeting. It will all be done hopefully by Christmas or November.
Mr. Wiszowaty just wanted to point out that the minutes were sent to the whole Board on the 24th of May by Gerri so you might want to go back and check your emails. I was not aware of the Amendment so I will let her know to send out corrected copies.
The Board requested that the Agenda and Minutes be sent by Friday prior to the upcoming meeting date.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to approve the Wastewater Docket in the amount of $825,866.83.
Mr. Setlak wanted to know why we are paying for street sweeper parts. Is that somehow related to sanitary?
Ms. Sims-Smierciak amended the motion to approve the Wastewater Docket with the exception of Vendor 262 Standard Equipment, in the amount of $1722.95. That item will be up for further discussion next month for clarification. Mr. Setlak seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 4-0. For the record, the corrected amount is $824,143.88.
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerri Kudzia, Recording Secretary
St. John Sanitary District
Mr. Gembala: This meeting is for a special issue only for both boards. We’re going to have a presentation of quotes for U.S. 41 water and sanitary main conflicts due to the work being done on U.S. 41. We are going to consider a quote from only one bidder for sanitary and waterworks. The sanitary issue is U.S. 41 150 LF of sanitary force main temporary abandonment, removal and replacement as a declaration of emergency. The other reason is for U.S. 41 150 LF of potable water main temporary abandonment, removal and replacement as a declaration of emergency.
B. Sanitary District: Board Members present: Kim Krull, Richard Setlak, Patricia Sims-Smierciak, Robert Kmetz, Ken Gembala. Also present: Wayne Pondinas, Town Council Liaison; Joe Wiszowaty, Town Manager.
I’ve discovered in contacting numerous contractors these are fluid times for these small jobs. What it essentially comes down to is these small jobs are very problematic for contractors right now. There are so many projects and they’re such scale that all their crews are tied up. So what happens is a crew will shake loose on a Thursday that they didn’t expect, and they will look for work for them for the next week. But if you call them on Wednesday prior to that crew shaking up, they would have said not available for three months. I’m speculating that’s what happened with Grimmer in this case. Regardless, they did not put a bid in. They notified us several days in advance of the bidding deadline.
Gough did. You should all have their bid. They submitted a bid for $363,422. This is substantially more than our opinion of probable cost which we thought was mildly conservative at $193,620. Our costs were somewhat inflated for that. That said, it’s very difficult to price, particularly mobilization costs for small jobs. Due to being a small job, they can offset as much of those costs over larger quantities of materials. We expected some range in that but didn’t expect double. We had hoped that their mobilization costs would be significantly reduced due to the fact that they will already be mobilized on site to replace the box culvert for the State.
That being said with only receiving one bid, we really can’t compare that with other contractors. Still it was significantly higher than our estimate. That’s not totally surprising given it’s such a small job. However, I did provide a breakdown of all the other items. There are some significantly different costs than expected. When I say expected, I mean based on historical numbers for these same units. Those top line numbers, the mobilizations costs in particular, can vary a lot based on the scale of the project. That’s where they’re supposed to vary the actual unit costs of the pipe and the various other things should be within a reasonable range. Some of those were quite a bit out of range. It’s a unique project based on the drainage of the force main and things like that. There is so little pipe that those other costs end up making a big part of it. It is sort of the best we can do based on our historical knowledge of other similar projects. Again we are really handicapped by only having one bid come in.
Essentially the decision before you tonight is do we accept this cost from Gough and contra award it and they can proceed presumably as soon as possible. We had hoped Gough would be awarded the job because they’re also the sub for doing the actual box culvert. Theoretically there shouldn’t be a conflict between contactors because they’re the same contractor at the same site. That said, it’s significantly higher than our estimate. I did distribute this revised Appendix B. It is just an update of the information I have provided to you during the week.
In anticipation of this situation where we’re looking for additional bids if we decide to reject the Gough bid and rebid it to see if contractors were truly available. We obviously just went through this with Contract 1 for the Waterworks Board. We only received one bid from Dyer Construction for that job. That was a very large job. The Waterworks Board ended up tabling that project to rebid it in the fall hoping to get better prices. That came in also significantly higher than expected as part of the water bond work.
We contacted 13 firms in addition to the 3 firms that we previously contacted. That’s a total of 16 different Northwest Indiana underground plumbing contractors. This is quite unusual to literally have to call 16 different contractors to see about the availability. There is a potential of two or three that do have a strong interest in bidding it and appear to be available within the next month to achieve the first phase of the project which is the demolition half of the project. After the Town removes its facilities, the State will come in and put the box culvert in. Then the Town will put their facilities back.
Mr. Wiszowaty: What is the State’s timeline to put the new culvert in?
Mr. Kuchta: Three weeks. I think they actually said two without any delays, but we added the third week for our planning purposes. So three weeks from breaking ground to completing it. There was a mobilization time that was discussed. I believe it was three weeks for the culvert or something like that to actually get the culvert on site. I don’t know exactly if that overlaps with that period or not from the State’s perspective.
Mr. Wiszowaty: I think what they said is you give us the go ahead on this and we’ll get it mobilized now. If we get pricing back that’s sane, then we can go ahead and get that started.
Mr. Manousopoulos: Who are the other companies that expressed some interest in it?
Mr. Kuchta: It’s Woodruff & Sons, B & D Sewer and then ironically, Grimmer today notified me that they have a crew that just became available. I won’t name firms, but there were firms I contacted on Friday with interest and today are not interested. There were firms on Wednesday that were not interested and on Thursday they were. It’s like changing by the hour. I do want to caution that there is a risk to rebidding any project that you will receive higher bids or no bids. So you do have sort of an offer on the table. These are crazy times.
Mr. Wiszowaty: So what’s your recommendation with respect to the current bids that are pending before the two boards tonight?
Mr. Kuchta: I don’t really know what to advise. This is sort of the executive decision time from the executive board. What I would say is it’s an extremely high bid. We have serious interest from two or three serious contractors that do a lot of this work. It’s not a high risk.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak: The Engineer’s opinion of probable cost is what it is. Then we have the second one, the Gough. I’m taking it that the Engineer’s opinion is a fair and reasonable just price. Are we in a price gouging thing or is it supply and demand on the market? What substantiates a $169,000 variance? You know ten percent or something you could see. Is the Engineer way off or is Gough way off? What are we dealing with here? Are we blaming the market and availability, inflation, supply chain and all of the above?
Mr. Kuchta: There’s no direct answer unfortunately. The reality is our opinions of probable cost are base generated from years of historical data including current bids just from Dyer Construction for real contracted work for a big project in this town. Very similar relocation work, the town just south of here lowered the same sanitary force main for the INDOT ditch that never got built. We have real costs from Grimmer Construction from that. That work was completed a year ago. We have price data from a year ago from the 101st – 101st water main relocation on the east side of U.S. 41/12-inch water main, the same thing we’re dealing with here. So the Gough numbers are substantially higher than real contracted prices and bid prices from competitive bidders at that time. All I can do is assess the numbers for Gough. I cannot assess the intention and I never would. I don’t know how they would justify those per unit. Just so you understand when we receive bids, if there’s one or two units that are way off, we call them and say are you misunderstanding or are we missing something. We go through a little process back and forth. Every one of these numbers is substantially higher.
Mr. Gembala: Haas & Associates has been our Engineer for many years going back into the nineties. I’ve always seen reasonable estimates. In the past, contactors usually came internally close. This is very unusual to see that almost fifty percent higher on some of these items. They don’t want the work?
Mr. Kuchta: All I can say is we are extremely limited by only having one bidder. This is America. A contractor can ask to be paid for whatever they want. We have competitive bidding to sort of cancel that out. With only one bid, we’re limited.
Mr. Wiszowaty: To that point, if you were getting any kind of substantial work done at your own home, you’re going to want to look at at least two people to give you some kind of price comparison. I don’t think it would be in the Town’s best interest to say okay we’re going to take Gough and go with that. I don’t think that’s anyone’s intention here tonight. I guess the bigger question is what’s our alternative and where do we go?
Mr. Kuchta: The primary actionable alternative tonight is to go basically through the same process and rebid it under the Emergency Authorization. I don’t know if you have to reactivate that tonight.
Mr. Wiszowaty: I talked to Westland about that. He said it would probably be best to restate the emergency situation.
Mr. Kuchta: Perfect. So we just start the process again. We would of course invite Gough to bid again or resubmit their current bid. Then we would invite these three contractors. I would encourage it to be worded not be limited to these three contractors.
Mr. Wiszowaty: That’s a good point. If there’s any other bidders that are specified from 1 through 16 on here.
Ms. Krull: I don’t see LGS Plumbing on here. I think they have done some kind of this work in Crown Point. Is there some reason why they weren’t contacted?
Mr. Kuchta: I don’t know specifically about LGS, I can inquire though.
Mr. Kmetz: I find the mobilization costs outrageous given that the equipment is already there. I think they think we’re in a desperate situation and taking advantage of it.
Mr. Gembala: The thing is I’m sure every member here wants us to be responsible for the Town money. We are very unhappy about spending that much more money than estimated. What is the gun that the State has over us right now?
Mr. Kuchta: At the last meeting, we addressed communication with INDOT. I don’t know if Joe had any inroads. I have specifically asked if the contractor for the State if they are charging the State delays on their contract and I never got a response from them. I don’t know Joe if you’ve heard.
Mr. Wiszowaty: I had not heard. I had spoken to Scott the engineer on the project and explained the situation to him. He was very disappointed in Gough as well. He was very understanding and very disappointed in the amount that was presented on this matter. He said to keep him updated on stuff. We have our weekly calls or he reaches out to me every week. We have been having really good communication now. I don’t know what happened in the past but we’ve definitely been talking.
Mr. Kuchta: In terms of the gun, it’s hard to establish everyone’s benefits from this project being completed as soon as possible. They want to get paved and that road finished by the end of this year. Obviously the sooner the Town can move the facility, the better. I did reach out to the State to find out about delay costs or something like this to get some indication of any financial implication, but I haven’t gotten a response. I don’t know that it has to be done next week versus three weeks from now versus six weeks. All I know is they want to get it done. I will tell you the only reasonable way to get contractors is to give them about four weeks from today to get that demo work completed. So we’re looking at early August, mid-August.
Mr. Wiszowaty: They are looking at three weeks for them to get everything teed up and done on their end. What time frame are we looking at to reconnect test everything?
Mr. Kuchta: That would be a few weeks after that.
Mr. Wiszowaty: So we are looking at some time in August, end of August maybe?
Mr. Kuchta: The end of August I would expect the box culvert to be on its way to being completed. I don’t expect the Town’s facilities to be back in place until September or maybe even early October. That would be the goal. Again, the amount of work is actually not substantial, it’s having the crews available to get there. Just for your information some feedback from these 16 contractors. Over and over I heard the same things. We’re on large projects, we do not have time for repair projects (this is what this is considered). Others have stated that they’ve never been busier. Apparently, the union is out of workers, there’s no union laborers to send out to these firms so they can’t expand. It’s inflation and too much work. It is really a crazy situation. I don’t mean to dodge the question about Gough’s bid but that’s the sphere it’s operating in. It doesn’t mean we won’t get reasonable bids from others. We just need to get them.
Mr. Pondinas: On the bid price, we already got the pipe. They got $44,550 for pipe but it also includes a permanent backfill. So that bid price of $363,422 could probably be about $25,000 cheaper because we already have the pipe.
Mr. Kuchta: Their bid for the actual pipe item was actually quite good for that very reason.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak: We have a meeting next week. Do we have any realistic expectation that we may have some bids?
Mr. Kuchta: I have confirmed with at least two of these contractors that they would be able to provide a price by Friday.
Some discussion ensued between the board members regarding reviewing the bids, communication about State delays and saving the taxpayers thousands of dollars.
There also was discussion regarding the actual declaration that was in conflict which the State realized in March and advised us in May.
Ms. Sims-Smierciak: How confident are you that we’re going to get more than Gough’s bid if you had to personally guess?
Mr. Kuchta: To clarify, Gough may not bid again. So in order to go to bid, we would have to reject Gough’s current bid. Gough may not bid, or bid higher or adjust their bid to be more competitive. I genuinely hope Gough rebids. If they have questions or there’s some misunderstanding about the scope, this would be a perfect opportunity to get a more competitive bid back that the Town would consider. We are fairly confident that we’re going to get at least one other bidder, hopefully three besides Gough.
Mr. Wiszowaty: Not specifying who they are, just allowing those that have been approached to provide a quote. I think we should make sure that the motion states that we’re going to allow this to be an open process for those who want to quote because it might change from today.
Mr. Manousopoulos: So we’re not just specifying it to these 16 any longer. Once we reject that bid, we’re opening it up as an emergency quote for anybody.
Mr. Wiszowaty: It’s got to be presented to at least two of them by state law. It doesn’t say you can’t have more.
Mr. Manousopoulos made a motion to reject the bid from Gough presented to the Waterworks Board. Mr. Furtek seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote of 3-0.
Mr. Furtek Yes
Mr. Manousopoulos Yes
Mr. Gembala Yes
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion to reject the bid from Gough presented to the Sanitary District Board. Ms. Krull seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote of 4-0.
Ms. Krull Yes
Mr. Setlak Yes
Ms. Sims-Smierciak Yes
Mr. Ken Gembala Abstain
Mr. Kmetz Yes
Mr. Ken Gembala Abstain
Ms. Krull Yes
Mr. Setlak Yes
Ms. Sims-Smierciak Yes
Mr. Kmetz Yes
Mr. Ken Gembala Abstain
Ms. Krull Yes
Mr. Setlak Yes
Ms. Sims-Smierciak Yes
Mr. Kmetz Yes
Ms. Sims-Smierciak made a motion for the Sanitary Board to authorize the Waterworks Board to continue to take lead on the contract as the primary board and to reimburse all costs associated to the Sanitary District. Ms. Krull seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote of 4-0.
Mr. Ken Gembala Abstain
Ms. Krull Yes
Mr. Setlak Yes
Ms. Sims-Smierciak Yes
Mr. Kmetz Yes
Mr. Furtek Yes
Mr. Manousopoulos Yes
Mr. Gembala Yes
Mr. Furtek Yes
Mr. Manousopoulos Yes
Mr. Gembala Yes
Mr. Manousopoulos made a motion to authorize the Waterworks Board to take lead on the contract as the primary board and to accept reimbursement of all costs associated to the Sanitary District portion of this project. Mr. Furtek seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote of 3-0.
Mr. Furtek Yes
Mr. Manousopoulos Yes
Mr. Gembala Yes
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerri Kudzia, Recording Secretary
St. John Sanitary District
