Public Works Committee Agenda - August 6, 2026

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE – 8/06/26 Meeting Page 1 of 1 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Thursday, August 6, 2026 – 5:00 p.m. Government Center, Room 204 Virtual Meeting Link Meeting ID: 272 725 475 206 33 Passcode: E38DV2ig Call in Option: +1 (872) 242-8028 Phone Conference ID: 203 049 9# MISSION STATEMENT:“To serve as an advisory to the Superior Common Council, Departments of the City of Superior and the citizens of the City of Superior in matters of public concern under Wisconsin State Statute 62.14 and City Code 2-311.” COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Nick Ledin, Garner Moffat, Tylor Elm, Joe Radtke (alt.) 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1. Public Works Committee (Meeting held July 8, 2026) 3. OLD BUSINESS 3.1. Discussion and recommendation of a report submitted by Raftelis Financial Consultants evaluating the acquisition of utilities operated by Superior, Water, Light & Power. 3.1.1. Recommendation of referendum and public meeting schedules. 3.2. Discussion on City of Superior Ordinance 114-62(e) Hauled Waste Charges. 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1. Recommendation to waive the bidding requirements for the repair of the SS Meteor’s cracked hull and awarding the work to Fraser Shipyards at a quoted cost of $29,900.00. 4.2. Recommendation to approve the 2026 Hot Mix Asphalt Proposals. 4.3. Recommendation to award the Engineering Design Contract for the North 28th Street Grade Separation Project to SRF Consulting Group. 4.4. Notice of Fleet Vehicle Auction Removals. 5. RECURRING BUSINESS 5.1 ESD Director’s Update 5.2 Director’s Update 5.3 Future Agenda Items 5.4 Confirm the next meeting date as September 3, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 204 of the Government Center. 6 ADJOURNMENT Notice is hereby given that a majority of the members of the Common Council may be present at the meeting, and although this may constitute a quorum of the Common Council, the Council will not take any action at this meeting. ********************************************************************************************* Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you are in need of an accommodation to participate in the public meeting process, please call (715) 395-7200 by 4:30 p.m. on the day prior to the scheduled meeting date (OR dial 711 for Telecommun ications Relay Service). The City will attempt to accommodate any request depending on the amount of notice received. ********************************************************************************************* In compliance with Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, this agenda was posted on 8/03/2026 at the following locations: Superior Government Center, Superior Public Library, and online at https://www.superior.wi.us/agendacenter. It was also emailed the Superior Telegram. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE – 7/08/2026 Meeting (Meets monthly on 1st Thursday at 5 p.m.) Page 1 of 4 *Attended virtually PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES July 8 2026 Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order by Councilor Ledin at 5:00 p.m. on July 8, 2026, in Government Center Room 204. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Nick Ledin, Garner Moffat, Tylor Elm, Joe Radtke (alt.) 1. ROLL CALL Members Present: Nick Ledin, Garner Moffat, Tylor Elm, Joe Radtke City Staff Present: Chris Carlson, Kara Czapinski, Jim Paine, Steve Roberts, Rob Hering, Patrick Rhode, Frog Prell Others Present: Shelley Nelson, Bill Fennesssey, Justin Bernacki, TS*, SBS* Jenny Van Sickle* 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1. Public Works Committee (Meeting held June 4, 2026) MOTION by Elm, second by Moffat and carried to approve the minutes from June 4, 2026. 3. OLD BUSINESS 3.1. Discussion and recommendation of a report submitted by Raftelis Financial Consultants evaluating the acquisition of utilities operated by Superior, Water, Light & Power. Mayor Paine indicated that the city is currently waiting for the final reports from Rafaelis Financial Consultants regarding electric and gas utilities, whereas the report on the water utility is prepared for presentation. 3.1.1 Recommendation of referendum and public meeting schedules. Mayor Paine indicated that the scheduling of public meetings and potential referendums is being organized to ensure readiness for a possible fall election. The committee examined statutory deadlines, identifying August 20th as the last date for the Council to establish a referendum for the fall ballot. Various options were considered, including fall, spring, or special elections, with a general agreement against special elections due to logistical difficulties. Legal counsel noted that while the city cannot promote a specific referendum outcome, it is permitted to offer informational resources to the public. The committee emphasized the necessity for clear and direct referendum questions, ensuring legal defensibility, with attorneys tasked to prepare sample questions for evaluation. Mayor Paine announced forthcoming public meetings, including a debate at the Superior Public Library on July 30th at 6:00 p.m., moderated by County Board Chairman Mark Liebert. The potential engagement of consultants and expert witnesses to address technical inquiries from the public and Council was also discussed. The committee decided to retain the matter until the August meeting, awaiting the final electric and gas reports, after which a special meeting PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE – 7/08/2026 Meeting (Meets monthly on 1st Thursday at 5 p.m.) Page 2 of 4 *Attended virtually may be convened to review all information and finalize recommendations for the referendum. MOTION by Ledin, second by Elm and carried to hold item 3.1.1 until the August 6, 2026, Public Works Committee Meeting. SBS left the meeting virtually at 5:27 p.m. 4. NEW BUSINESS It was decided to speak on item 4.4 first. 4.4 Discussion on City of Superior Ordinance 114-62(e) Hauled Waste Charges. Councilor Hering expressed concerns regarding the ramp fee associated with hauled waste charges, highlighting the lower costs of Duluth's facilities. Director Carlson clarified that the fee structure for hauled waste is determined by a multiplier of the residential rate, incorporating both fixed and variable components to accurately reflect service costs without yielding profit or imposing a burden on other residents. Director Roberts noted that the ramp fee contributes approximately $15,000 annually to the total revenue of $110,000–$130,000 for the hauler station, which was designed to break even following a 2017 adjustment. To facilitate informed decision-making in the future, the committee requested a comprehensive analysis and comparisons with other municipalities. Director Roberts was assigned the task of preparing a detailed memo for the upcoming August meeting, which will include financial data, potential options, and recommendations concerning the ramp fee and overall rate structure. TS left the meeting virtually at 5: 28 p.m. Frog Prell left the meeting at 5:29 p.m. MOTION by Elm, second by Moffat and carried to hold item 4.4 until the August 6, 2026, Public Works Committee Meeting. Bill Fennessey left the meeting at 5:53 p.m. 4.1. Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the city’s Electrical Services Contract with Benson Electric Company. Director Carlson emphasized the enduring partnership with Benson Electric, highlighting their extensive knowledge, quick responsiveness, and the intricate nature of emergency repairs. Mayor Paine and committee members deliberated on the financial implications and potential risks associated with pursuing competitive bids, pointing out that new contractors would be unfamiliar with the system, which could result in increased costs and inefficiencies. The committee raised concerns about the implications of switching vendors during a significant bridge project, underscoring the importance of maintaining continuity and expertise in critical infrastructure endeavors. The contract features rates deemed standard within the industry, and the committee also addressed recent union negotiations and safety requirements that could influence the terms of the contract. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE – 7/08/2026 Meeting (Meets monthly on 1st Thursday at 5 p.m.) Page 3 of 4 *Attended virtually MOTION by Moffat, second by Elm and carried to approve the Amendment to the city’s Electrical Services Contract with Benson Electric Company. Rob Hering and Jim Paine left the meeting at 5:55 p.m. 4.2. Recommendation to modify City of Superior Ordinance 34-73 to expand the City’s Delegated Authority for Commercial Plan Review. Chief Building Inspector Rhode stated that the city is currently evaluating small commercial projects but plans to broaden its scope to include all project sizes by partnering with a local and experienced third-party agent, Redline Plan Review. This initiative aims to significantly decrease review times from the current six to eight weeks with the state to a maximum of 15 days with Redline, thereby retaining more revenue within the city and offering developers the flexibility to choose between city or state plan reviews. During the committee meeting, members addressed the limited revenue potential, which does not warrant the hiring of additional full-time staff, and highlighted the benefits of collaborating with a local provider that possesses state-level expertise. MOTION by Elm, second by Moffat and carried to approve the changes to City of Superior Ordinance 34-73 to expand the City’s Delegated Authority for Commercial Plan Review. Jenny Van Sickle left the meeting virtually at 6:11 p.m. 4.3. Recommendation to award a contract with Redline Plan Review for performance of Commercial Plan Review. MOTION by Elm, second by Moffat and carried to award a contract with Redline Plan Review for performance of Commercial Plan Review. 5. RECURRING BUSINESS 5.1 ESD Director’s Update – Received and Filed Director Roberts provided an update on the operations for May, highlighting the volumes of effluent discharge and the maintenance activities that are currently underway, while noting that there were no significant operational issues encountered. 5.2 Director Update – 5.1.1 Patrick Rhode has taken on the role of Chief Building Inspector, and it is important to acknowledge the contributions of Brian Bustrak, the former chief, who has recently retired after his dedicated service to the city. His will be greatly missed. 5.1.2 Scott Lavoie is the new Plumbing Inspector for the city. 5.1.3 The city is in the process of replacing lead service lines, which is resulting in temporary traffic disruptions on Tower Avenue. This current phase is anticipated to PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE – 7/08/2026 Meeting (Meets monthly on 1st Thursday at 5 p.m.) Page 4 of 4 *Attended virtually continue for approximately two weeks before moving on to road overlay work. 5.3 Future Agenda Items 5.1.1 Discussion and recommendation of a report submitted by Raftelis Financial Consultants evaluating the acquisition of utilities operated by Superior, Water, Light & Power. 5.1.2 Recommendation of referendum and public meeting schedules. 5.1.3 Discussion on City of Superior Ordinance 114-62(e) Hauled Waste Charges. 5.4 Confirm the next meeting date as August 6, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 204 of the Government Center. 6 ADJOURNMENT Councilor Ledin announced the meeting adjourned at 6:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Kara Czapinski Memorandum DATE: August 6th, 2026 TO: Members of the Public Works Committee FROM: Steve Roberts RE: Hauled Waste Rate and Fee Review 1. Introduction: The July 8 th Meeting of the PWC included “Discussion on City of Superior Ordinance 114-62(e) Hauled Waste Charges” as Agenda Item 4.4. included a request to refresh and review recent costs and fees last reviewed in depth in 2017. The objective of this memorandum is to provide information on recent hauled waste costs and revenue and to provide conceptual alternatives for potential changes to the Hauled Waste Charges. 2. Background/Analysis/Discussion: The current text of 114-62 (e) is as follows: (e) Hauled waste charges (1) A hauled waste user charge shall be imposed on all truckloads of hauled waste in an amount sufficient to pay the costs of operation and maintenance of the hauled waste station and the cost of treatment of the hauled waste. The user charge for hauled waste shall be composed of a fixed charge and a variable charge similar to connected users. (2) Each truckload of hauled waste shall be charged a fixed fee equal to 2.5 times the monthly residential fixed fee. (3) The variable hauled waste charge shall be based on the volume and load characteristics of the hauled waste. a. Holding tank waste shall be charged 1.4 times the residential volume rate per equivalent unit of volume. b. Septage tank waste shall be charged 3.5 times the holding tank rate. c. Other liquid hauled waste shall be evaluated based on loading characteristics of the waste as determined by sample analysis and the rates in section 114-62(c). d. Under no circumstances shall a variable user charge to an industrial connection or for other hauled waste be less than the variable user charge imposed herein for residential and commercial connections. Environmental Services Division Public Works Department Phone: (715) 394-0392 Fax: (715) 394-0406 E-mail: robertss@superiorwi.gov Website: www.superiorwi.gov ES Director Steve Roberts 51 E 1st Street Superior, WI 54880 When the current rate structure was established in 2017 , section 114-62 (e) (1) was applied based on recent costs of operation and maintenance including recurring expenses and impacts on capital costs attributable to characteristics of hauled waste. A residence with a 2,000 gallon holding tank pumped once per month was considered “similar” and was used as the basis for comparison to an average single-family home connected to the sanitary and combined sewer system. The comparison of a 2,000 -gallon holding tank pumped once per month with current rate structure remains comparable to a typical connected residential user. For example, the cost for the average single family connected user in 2024 was $33.6 8 per month which is essentially identical to the calculated charge applicable for each of 2 hauled waste customers (4,000 gallon truckload) of $33.71 each, as follows: ($11.25 Fixed Fee + 4,000 gallons @ $14.04 per thousand gallons) / 2 Tanks per Truck = ($11.25 + $56.16) / 2 = $33.71 Recent annual operation and maintenance costs exclusively for the hauled waste receiving station have ranged from $10,000 to $25,000 per year, with a median cost of $18,000. This appears to be equivalent to the portion of annual revenue resulting from the Fixed Fee under the current rate structure. One of two raw wastewater screens suffered a breakdown in 2024 and required an overhaul after 7-8 years of operation which would not have been expected until after the 10-year mark. The impacted screen is the unit which most directly receives flow from the hauled waste station in addition to sewage conveyed by the collection system. The overhaul was completed for both screens at a cost of $120,000. The screen which was not impacted by the hauler station was found to have experienced less wear (occurring at the expected rate). The additional wear may be justification to increase the Fixed Fee ratio to cover the cost. It is also reasonable to associate the added wear as indicative of the applicability of 1.4 ratio of the volumetric portion of the current fee structure – essentially the added wear is associated with the higher strength of hauled waste as compared to typical domestic wastewater and is already factored into the current fee structure. An unintended consequence of the Fixed Fee is that it creates a higher cost in a scenario with a truckload of hauled waste discharge d with a low volume (such as a single 2,000 -gallon holding tank pumped by a hauler and discharged at the Hauled Waste Station ). For that scenario, the Fixed Fee fraction of the cost would be double the amount calculated in the comparison. One potential remedy would be to revise the calculation to incorporate both fixed fee and variable rate elements of connected user fees into a variable fee only charged for hauled wastes. 3. Budget Source/Fiscal Impact: In accordance with the calculation specified in code, the reduction in rates for connected users resulted in a corresponding reduction to hauled waste charges. Effective 1/1/2024 the Fixed Fee was reduced from $13.75 to $11.25 per truckload, the Holding Tank Variable charge was reduced from $14.43 to $14.04 to per thousand gallons, and the Septic Tank Variable charge was reduced from $50.50 to $49.14 per thousand gallons. Hauled waste billing for the last three years is summarized in the table below: 4. Alternatives for Consideration: a. Retain Current Hauled Waste Charges : The current rate structure was developed to provide hauled waste charges to be revenue neutral and to provide a cost for a 2,000 gallon tank 1x per month with a cost that is equivalent to the monthly charge for a typical connected user. The current rate s tructure appears to remain in balance with cost and provide a similar charge following the reduction in overall wastewater rates. b. Increase Hauled Waste Charges : An increase to the hauled waste charges to cover the additional cost attributable to the hauled waste station for the recent rehabilitation may be accomplished with an increase to the fixed fee. Using 25% of the project cost and a 5 -year return could be ac complished by raising the fixed fee multiplier from 2.5X to 3.3X. Limiting the increase to 25% of the cost to the affected screen would halve the increase and result in a 2.9X multiplier. c. Decrease Hauled Waste Charges : If the preference for “similar” cost is attributed solely on a volumetric basis in lieu of the 2,000 gallon tank 1x per month comparable, the 1.4X volumetric multiplier could be eliminated. d. Restructure Hauled Waste Fee Structure to Combine Monthly Fixed Fee and the Residential Variable Rate into the Hauled Waste Volume Charges and Eliminate the Per-Truckload Hauled Waste Fixed Fee : This alternative is recommended it can be applied to any of the three preceding alternatives and would eliminate the unintended application of the full 2.5X multiplier to a small load / half load scenario. 5. Conclusion: Revisions to code, if deemed applicable by the PWC, will be drafted based on the preferred alternative(s) and presented to the PWC at an upcoming meeting. SR/sr C: Chris Carlson, ESD Managers, 2025 2024 2023 Hauler Waste Fixed Fee 18,753.75$ 24,901.25$ 24,488.75 Holding Tank Loads 68,224.89$ 84,182.05$ 69,911.01 Industrial/Grease 28,124.70$ 1,614.00$ 1,650.00 Septic Tank Loads 13,879.96$ 14,149.54$ 10,946.29 Annual Total 128,983.30$ 124,846.84$ 106,996.05 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 6, 2026 COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: August 18, 2026 TO: Mayor Jim Paine Superior Common Council FROM: Jess McCullough, Museum Director RE: Request to Waive Bid Requirement & Secure Fraser Shipyards for SS Meteor Hull Repair Introduction: I am recommending waiving the project bidding requirements for the repair of the SS Meteor’s cracked hull and awarding the work to Fraser Shipyards at a quoted cost of $29,900. This request is made due to the time-sensitive nature of the repairs and the proximity of qualified marine welders at Fraser Shipyards Background: In February 2025 a crack was discovered in the deck of the SS Meteor which was caused by shifting of the ship in the freeze-thaw cycle of the soil on Barker’s Island. On February 6, 2026 Fraser Shipyards submitted a fixed price bid to repair the SS Meteo r as part of a grant application that was submitted March 1, 2026 . The amount quoted was $29,900.00 which included all labor, materials, and equipment costs. Fraser has confirmed that this quote remains in place. (The grant was not selected by the Favrot Fund for Historic Preservation.) Delay of repair will eventually lead to increased damage to the ship, as well as the continued closure of usable space inside the ship which is blocked off by bracing . The affected room inside the ship is adjacent to the Meteor bar and is intended to be a rentable event space and venue. The sooner the crack is repaired the sooner the interior space can generate revenue. Fraser Shipyards in Superior is not only the place where the SS Meteor was originally constructed, but is the only available vendor for this project within 200 miles. Budget Source: The full cost of this repair would be borne by the Buildings and Construction budget. Efforts are currently underway to secure the $26,210.47 in restricted funds for the restoration of the Meteor currently held by Superior Public Museums. These restricted funds would be used to reimburse the Buildings and Construction budget when obtained. Conclusion: I recommend waiving bidding requirements for the repair of the SS Meteor’s cracked hull and awarding the work to Fraser Shipyards so the repair can be made in a timely manner and for $29,000. Recommendation Approved: _______________________________ Date: ____________ Division of Historic Properties Phone: (715) 394-5712 E-mail: museums@superiorwi.gov Website: www.superiorhistoricproperties.org Museum Director Jess McCullough 906 E 2nd Street Superior, WI 54880 FRASER SHIF'YAROS.LLC I Clough Ave. Superior, WI 54880 (715) 394-77787 To: Chase Dewhirst Date: July 22, 2026 Re: S.S. Meteor Fraser Shipyards is pleased to present the following fixed price bid on the SS Meteor for your consideration. The price below includes all labor, materials, equipment, staging, and management to complete the job. It also includes all items specified in your request. Any additional items identified upon commencement of the work will be completed on a time and material basis or at an agreed price. SS Meteor Crack Repair - $29,900.00 Quoting crack repair as per the plan set provided by AMI Consulting Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to quote this work. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me so we can discuss. Derek Tanula Yard Superintendent Fraser Shipyards, LLC Public Works Department Phone: (715) 395-7334 Public Works Director Fax: (715) 395-7346 Chris Carlson E-mail: publicworks@superiorwi.gov 1316 N 14th Street, Suite 200 Website: www.superiorwi.gov Superior, WI 54880 MEMORANDUM Date: July 29, 2026 Council Agenda Date: August 18, 2026 TO: Mayor Paine and the Common Council FROM: Chris Carlson, Public Works Director RE: 2026 Hot Mix Asphalt Proposals 1. Introduction - Proposals for hot mix asphalt materials for the annual street maintenance program were opened by the Public Works Department. 2. Background - Each spring the Public Works Department request proposals from local suppliers for hot mix asphalt materials to be used on city projects. Specifications require submission of rates per ton for base course materials, wear course materials, and filler materials. The location of the supplier’s plant is also requested as travel distance is considered along with the cost of the materials. Suppliers must provide materials that meet either the WisDOT OR MnDOT Standard Specifications for Highway and Structure Construction. Our general use of these proposals allows the city to purchase from any suppliers based on the submitted unit prices. Choice of the supplier is based on availability of materials, location of the project relative to the supplier’s facility, and the ability of the supplier to meet the required specifications. 3. Budget Source - Funds for road maintenance are budgeted annually within the CIP . 4. Conclusion - The bids received were as follows: 1) Northland Constructors, - Duluth, MN (plant location – Garfield Ave) Wisc. Design Spec MN DOT Spec Base Course No bid No bid Wear Course No bid $81.80 Fine Mix No bid $81.80 2) Monarch Paving-Superior, WI (plant location-Albany Ave.) Wisc. Design Spec MN DOT Spec Base Course $69.19 No bid Wear Course $69.64 No bid Fine Mix $76.44 No bid The Public Works Department may use products from the vendor based on their submitted price and plant location. Recommend _____________________ Mayor Jim Paine MEMORANDUM DATE: August 06, 2026 Council Agenda Date: August 18, 2026 TO: Mayor Jim Paine and the Common Council FROM: Chris Carlson, Public Works Director RE: N28th Street Grade Separation: Preliminary Engineering It is my recommendation to award the N28th Street Grade Separation preliminary engineering design contract to SRF Consulting Group at an estimated cost of $2,464,037. This project is funded by a grant through the Federal Railroad Administration. The local city share is 10% of the final actual cost or approximately $246,404. 1. Background Access to Billings Park at Belknap or N21st Streets is by viaducts that pass over the BNSF railyard. Those viaducts eliminate at-grade railroad crossings and the safety risks and delays they pose. The viaducts also provide dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities that safely separate users from vehicle traffic. Access to Billings Park at N28th Street is significantly different. The N28th Street access is at-grade and crosses multiple railroad tracks. At-grade crossings increase the risk of accidents between street users and trains. Pedestrian traffic does have a dedicated sidewalk. However, that sidewalk crosses multiple railroad tracks. It also comes to the roadway, directly adjacent to vehicle traffic at the three-track crossing. These at-grade crossings also result in delays for everyday travelers and concerningly for emergency services when the roadway is blocked by a train. Recognizing the safety concerns these multiple crossings represent, the city, in partnership with BNSF, applied for a Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant through the Federal Railroad Administration. The grant’s goal is to eliminate at-grade railroad crossings and the conflicts they inherently create. The city was successful and awarded a grant to perform preliminary engineering work on a new viaduct. The scope of the work is to study the corridor and produce a 30% design for a viaduct. Once this preliminary engineering work is complete, the hope is to apply for future funding through the program to complete the final design and then construct a new viaduct. This project will involve a thorough evaluation of alternatives for grade separation, considering various alignments, lengths, and methods. Input from residents will be important and solicited through multiple public engagement efforts. The anticipated benefits of the project include improved safety for vehicles and pedestrians, enhanced mobility, and better access for emergency services. Public Works Department 1316 North 14th Street, 2nd Floor Superior, WI 54880 Web site: www.superiorwi.gov Phone: 715-395-7334 Fax: 715-395-7346 TTY: 715-395-7521 2. Proposals A request for qualifications (RFQ) was advertised soliciting responses from interested engineering design firms. SRF Consulting Group, Ayres Associates, and Short Elliott Hendrickson each submitted a response. In accordance with the standard RFQ process, an internal selection committee reviewed the submittals and evaluated them based on criteria including: 1. Consultant and project team qualifications and relevant experience with similar projects 2. Project understanding and approach 3. Completeness of proposal and adherence to RFQ requirements 4. Responses to Qualification Evaluation Checklist The selection committee ranked the three firms and conducted interviews of the two highest ranked. The results of the process determined that SRF Consulting Group was the most qualified respondent. A meeting was held between SRF and the city to formalize the project scope and to discuss the project fee. A scope was developed and a project fee negotiated. The parties worked together to arrive at a fee that will accomplish the scope while minimizing project cost. 3. Budget Source This project is primarily funded by a $2,486,000 grant from the Federal Railroad Administration through their Railroad Crossing Elimination program. The grant includes a required 20% local share. Recognizing the benefit to both parties of at-grade crossing elimination, BNSF and the city agreed to split the local share equally. BNSF has delivered to the city their 10% share of the grant award. The remaining $246,404 will require funding through the Public Works CIP. 4. Recommendation It is my recommendation to award the N28th Street Grade Separation preliminary engineering design contract to SRF Consulting Group at an estimated cost of $2,464,037. Recommended: _________________________________ Jim Paine, Mayor Agreement Professional Engineering Services Agreement for the N28th Street Grade Separation Project This agreement made this 19th day of August 2026, by and between, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., located at 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota (herein known as ‘Consultant’), and the City of Superior, a municipal corporation, through its Public Works Department (herein known as ‘City’). The parties to this Agreement shall be bound by the following terms and conditions. Scope Consultant services include, but are not limited to, all of the tasks, activities and requirements included in Exhibit A, “Scope of Services” and other tasks and responsibilities as identified by the Public Works Department. By reference, Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Agreement but shall not in any way restrict the services provided by Consultant, nor prohibit the Public Works Director from requesting other tasks or procedures germane to the Agreement. If there are other tasks identified by the Public Works Director that are beyond the scope identified in Exhibit A, these will be considered extra services and can be added to this agreement by an amendment. Term The term of this agreement shall be from the date of the agreement through October 21, 2028, or completion of the scope of work. Services and Fees Costs shall be full compensation for services performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, incidentals, applicable taxes, fees and applicable expenses, necessary to complete the services for a not to exceed amount of two million, four hundred sixty- four thousand, thirty-seven dollars ($2,464,037.00), attached scope of work and cost proposal and incorporated herein by reference. All other expenditures shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. Changes to services and/or fees that are agreed to by both parties shall be acknowledged in an amendment signed by both parties. Payments Consultant may invoice the City of Superior on a monthly basis during the progress of the work for partial payment on account for work completed and accepted to date and shall not impose any penalties or interest for amounts invoiced. The invoice shall be itemized and, in a form satisfactory to the City, of expenses incurred in the previous period. The City shall pay agreed upon amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt. Insurance Consultant shall provide up-to-date, accurate professional liability information on Consultant’s Data Record, including amount of insurance, deductible, carrier and expiration date of coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with an endorsement for earlier notice of cancellation and/or non-renewal and the Certificate of Insurance showing the type, amount, deductible, effective date and date of expiration of such policy. Consultant shall not cancel or materially alter this coverage without prior written approval by the City. Consultant shall be responsible for consultants maintaining professional liability insurance during the life of their Agreement and for 2 years after final acceptance for the service. Consultant and its subconsultants retained under the terms of this Agreement shall procure and maintain professional liability insurance providing for payment of the insured's liability for errors, omissions or negligent acts arising out of the performance of the professional services required under this Contract. It is hereby agreed and understood that the insurance required by the City is primary coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, council members, agents, employees or authorized volunteers will not contribute to a loss. All insurance shall be in full force prior to commencing work and remain in force until the entire job is completed and the length of time that is specified, if any, in the agreement or listed below whichever is longer. 1. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY A. Limits (1) $1,000,000 each claim (2) $1,000,000 annual aggregate B. Must continue coverage for 2 years after final acceptance for service/job 2. GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE A. Commercial General Liability (1) $1,000,000 each occurrence limit (2) $1,000,000 personal liability and advertising injury (3) $2,000,000 general aggregate (4) $2,000,000 products - completed operations aggregate B. Claims made form of coverage is not acceptable. C. Insurance must include: (1) Premises and Operations Liability (2) Contractual Liability (3) Personal Injury (4) Products/Completed Operations must be carried for 2 years after acceptance of completed work. (5) The general aggregate must apply separately to this project/location 3. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE COVERAGE A. $1,000,000 combined single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage each accident B. Must cover liability for Symbol #1 - "Any Auto" - including Owned, Non- Owned and Hired Automobile Liability. 4. WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY A. Must carry coverage for Statutory Workers Compensation and an Employers Liability limit of: (1) $100,000 Each Accident (2) $500,000 Disease Policy Limit (3) $100,000 Disease - Each Employee 5. UMBRELLA LIABILITY - Provide coverage at least as broad as the underlying Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability and Employers Liability, with a minimum limit of $2,000,000 each occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, and a maximum self-insured retention of $10,000. 6. ADDITIONAL INSURANCE PROVISIONS A. Primary and Non -contributory requirement - all insurance must be primary and non - contributory to any insurance or self-insurance carried by City B. Acceptability of Insurers - Insurance is to be placed with insurers who have an A.M. Best rating of no less than A- and a Financial Size Category of no less than Class VII, and who are authorized as an admitted insurance company in the state of Wisconsin. C. Additional Insured Requirements - The following must be named as additional insureds on the General Liability and Business Automobile liability coverage arising out of project work - City, and its officers, council members, agents, employees and authorized volunteers. On the Commercial General Liability Policy, the additional insured coverage must be ISO form CG 20 10 07 04 and also include Products - Completed Operations additional insured coverage per ISO form CG 20 37 07 04 or their equivalents for a minimum of 2 years after acceptance of work. This does not apply to Workers Compensation Policies. D. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions - Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. E. Evidences of Insurance - Prior to execution of the agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City a certificate of insurance (Accord Form 25-S or equivalent) signed by the insurer's representative evidencing the coverage required by this agreement. In addition form CG 20 10 07 04 for ongoing work exposure and form CG 20 37 07 04 for products -completed operations exposure must also be provided or its equivalent. F. Provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for the workers’ compensation and liability insurances. Agreement General Terms and Conditions 1. No Relationship. Consultant understands and agrees that the relationship of Consultant and the City arising out of this agreement is that of a contracted service provider, not an employee or contracted employee of the City or any other entity within the municipality, and therefore, is not entitled to any benefits provided to employees of the City. 2. Taxes. Consultant will act as an independent contractor and will be responsible for all federal, state and local taxes arising in accordance with this contract, as well as any other taxes, fees or licensing expenses pertaining to these services. 3. Confidentiality. Consultant shall diligently protect the confidentiality of any information, documentation or communication received from the City that contains personal, financial or other information of a confidential nature, and shall not disclose said information to any other persons, organizations or entities without the expressed written approval of the City, except that Consultant may disclose confidential information that is reasonably necessary to defend itself in the event of a dispute. Nothing herein shall be construed to conflict with the obligations under Wisconsin Public Records Law, Wis. Stat. §19.31, et. Seq. 4. Qualifications. By accepting this agreement, Consultant represents that they possess the necessary skills and qualifications to perform work under this agreement. Consultant will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal licensure requirements and will provide proof upon request. 5. Legal Relations. Recommendations, policies, procedures and other communications provided by the Consultant under this agreement will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations promulgated and enforced by the City and any other proper authority having jurisdiction over the conduct of the operations of the City. The Consultant shall use professional care to comply with and observe federal, state and local laws that may be applicable to the project. In carrying out provisions of this Agreement or exercising power or authority granted to the Consultant thereby, there shall be no personal liability to the City, it being understood that in such matters the City acts as representatives of the State. The Consultant is not an agent of the State. 6. Assignment of Agreement. The Consultant shall not subcontract, assign or transfer any part of this work to any other parties without the express written agreement of the City. 7. Claims. Claims, disputes and other matters in question arising from the performance of this contract shall be brought to the Director of Public Works for review and mutual resolution. If the parties cannot mutually resolve the matters in question, the parties shall endeavor to settle disputes by mediation. A demand for mediation shall be filed, in writing, within a reasonable period of time after a claim, dispute, or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall a demand for mediation be made after the date when the institution of legal or equitable proceedings, based upon such a claim, dispute, or other matter in question would have been barred by an applicable statute of limitations. 8. Ownership of Documents. All drawings, specifications, renderings, models, approved copies, manuals and other such documents prepared by the Consultant or any party pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City of Superior on completion, acceptance of, and payment for any of the Consultant’s work, or upon termination of the Agreement and upon payment with the terms of this Agreement, and shall be delivered to the City of Superior upon request. 9. Indemnifications. Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and volunteers, and each of them, from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrativ e proceedings, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of whatsoever kind or nature in any manner directly or indirectly to the extent caused, occasioned, or contributed to by reason of any negligent act, error or omission, whether active or passive, of Consultant or of anyone acting under its direction or control or on its behalf, even if liability is also sought to be imposed on the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and volunteers. The obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and volunteers, and each of them, shall be applicable unless liability results from the sole negligence of the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and volunteers. Consultant shall reimburse the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agent or authorized representatives or volunteers for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. In the event that Consultant employs other persons, firms, corporations or entities (subcontractor) or volunteers as part of the work covered by this Agreement, it shall be the consultant’s responsibility to require and confirm that each sub-contractor enters into an Indemnity Agreement in favor of the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and volunteers, which is identical to this Indemnity Agreement. This indemnity provision shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 10. Final Payment. Prior to final payment, the Public Works Department shall review project documents, recommendations, tasks and procedures, etc., and all other recommendations submitted by Consultant to determine the satisfaction thereof; it will be at the Public Works Department’s sole discretion when the final payment is made. Final payment will be made to Consultant within thirty (30) days of the City’s acceptance of services as complete. 11. Deficiencies. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for work found to not meet the standard of care or failing to conform to the requirements set forth in this agreement and is not entitled to further payments until corrected to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The City will inform the Consultant of any failure to meet the standard of care and/or items that do not conform to this agreement within thirty (30) days of receipt. 12. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for services performed to termination date. The results of the work by Consultant shall immediately be turned over to the City of Superior and is a condition of final payment. 13. Warranty of Documents. The City, its representatives, employees, and agents make no representations of the accuracy of documents, drawings, procedures, etc., provided to Consultant under this Agreement, and shall not be held liable for the inadequacy thereof. To the greatest extent possible, any document, drawing, procedure, etc., provided by the City for the purposes of the project that cannot be utilized as reliable information by the Consultant shall be noted as such by the City in the transmittal of the material. 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the maters contained herein and supersedes all other written and oral agreements between the parties with respect to such matters. 15. Modification. This Agreement is binding only when signed by both parties. Any modifications or amendments must be in writing and signed by both parties. 16. Force Majeure. Each party shall be excused from any breach of this Agreement which is caused by war, strike, act of Nature or other similar circumstances normally deemed outside the control of well-managed businesses. 17. Governing Law. The Agreement will be interpreted, and the rights and liabilities of the Parties determined, in accordance with the laws of the State of Wisconsin. 18. Headings and Captions. Headings and Captions appear solely for convenience of reference. Such headings and captions are not part of this agreement and shall not be used to construe it. 19. Validity. If any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 20. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding among the Parties regarding the matters set forth herein and supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions, and understandings regarding such matters. The Parties acknowledge and represent that they have not relied on any promise, inducement, representation, or other statement made in connection with this Agreement that is not expressly contained herein. The terms of this Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital. 21. Safety And Security. The Consultant shall at all times perform in a safe and workmanlike manner to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. The Consultant shall comply with applicable requirements and specifications relating to the safety, health and sanitation measures applicable to the project. The Consultant shall exercise the applicable necessary precautions for the safety of its employees, and be in compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations. Including, but not limited to, the Wisconsin Labor Code, The U.S. Department of Transportation Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act, and OSHA standards. The Consultant shall provide its employees with all necessary safeguards, devices and protective equipment, including but not limited to adequate life protection and lifesaving equipment, and shall ensure the proper inspection and maintenance of safety measures are current and in compliance. The City may halt progress on any project where appropriate safety measures and equipment are not being used or any safety regulations are not being followed. Services will not be permitted to resume until required safety provisions have been made and delays caused by Consultants failure to comply withhis provision will not be considered a basis for an increase in the Agreement price or an extension of the completion deadline. 22. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that it will perform the Services in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. To the extent Consultant’s services do not meet this standard of care; Consultant shall re-perform its work at no cost to the City. 23. Appropriation. State and/or Federal funds may be used to fund all or part of this Agreement. Allowances detailed in the Project scope shall be awarded at the City’s discretion, and is subject to available funding, project progress and other terms and conditions as identified by the City. The City will not be held liable for any damages incurred due to changes in State or Federal funding, including (but not limited to) a reduction, delay, or cancellation of the project. 24. Non-Discrimination. Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor agrees as follows: Contractor and all Subcontractors do not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, independent contractor, or any other persons because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. 25. Authority. The Consultant represents that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement. If the Consultant is not an individual, the person(s) signing on behalf of the Consultant represents and warrants that they have been duly authorized to bind the Consultant and sign this Agreement on the Consultant’s behalf. The parties intending to be legally bound have executed this agreement on the day and year set forth above. Signatures Company: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Address: 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55416 _____________________________ __________________________________ Name/Title Name/Title ATTEST: CITY OF SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN ___________________________________ Jim Paine, Mayor Heidi Blunt, City Clerk ___________________________________ Nicholas Rhinehart, Finance Director Frog Prell, City Attorney Provision has been made to pay the liability that will accrue under this contract. *Approved by Superior Common Council on SRF Project No.: 19203.00 Project Name: 28th Street Viaduct Project Prime Consultant: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Subconsultant 1: Subconsultant 2: Subconsultant 3: Subconsultant 4: NWBE Terracon TRAINFO AET Subconsultant 5: HDR SCOPE OF SERVICES This Scope of Services below describes the services required. SRF will provide professional planning, engineering, and coordination services to support a federally funded Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant (RCE) planning effort in coordination with the F ederal Railroad Administration (FRA), BNSF Railway, and the City of Superior. Services will be completed in accordance with FRA requirements and will be sufficient to support future project development. The following tasks will be provided: Task 1. Project Administration and Management Task 1.1 Project Administration and Coordination SRF will demonstrate to FRA that the Project is carried out in the most cost -efficient manner. SRF will support overall project administration and coordination, working closely with the City and project partners, including FRA, railroad owners/operators, and local and regional agencies. Services will include: • Participation in a project kickoff meeting with FRA and project partners • Ongoing coordination and meetings with FRA, BNSF Railway and their subsidiaries, local governments, and the regional planning agency • Support for regularly scheduled project meetings, including preparation of agendas, meeting materials, and summaries • Coordination with subconsultants and technical specialists • Quality control and progress tracking to ensure work is completed consistently with the approved scope, schedule, and budget Task 1.2 Project Management Plan (PMP) SRF will prepare a Project Management Plan (PMP), that describes how the Project will be implemented and monitored to ensure effective, efficient, and safe delivery of the Project on time and within budget. The PMP will describe, in detail, the activities and steps necessary to complete the tasks outlined in this Scope of Services. SRF will prepare a Project Management Plan for FRA review and approval. The PMP will describe the approach to project delivery, management, coordination, quality assurance/quality control, and risk management. The PMP will include: • A detailed project schedule aligned with FRA requirements • A detailed project budget consistent with the approved grant budget • Expected data needs, sources of data, and expectations from project partners for procuring the data • Roles and responsibilities of the core project team and partners (if applicable), including an organization chart with named key staff and back-ups • QA/QC plan with independent technical review steps • Risk log with monthly updates • Change-management protocol (scope/budget/schedule) • Document control standards (versioning, file naming) • Agreed-upon meeting cadence (bi-weekly core-team check-ins monthly partner meetings; quarterly public-facing updates) • Communication and coordination protocols SRF will update the PMP, as required by FRA project management team, throughout the project. Task 1.3 Project Closeout Support SRF will assist the city with project closeout activities, including preparation of materials needed for the Final Performance Report documenting project activities, milestones, and outcomes. Task 2. Project Planning SRF will conduct technical analysis, stakeholder outreach, and other project planning activities, and prepare a Project Planning Package as detailed in the PMP. The Project Planning Package will be consistent with the objectives of the Project Planning Lif ecycle Stage identified in the FRA Guidance on Development and Implementation of Railroad Capital Projects (January 11, 2023). The Project Planning Package will include all information described in the PMP. FRA will review the Planning Package for acceptan ce. Information and activities necessary to perform and complete the required Project Planning Package will be included in the approved PMP. Task 2.1 Preliminary Purpose and Need Statement SRF will prepare a preliminary Purpose and Need Statement to support the alternatives analysis. The statement will be suitable for planning purposes and future agency and public review. SRF will submit the draft Purpose and Need Statement to the City for review prior to submission to FRA. Task 2.2 Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan SRF will develop and implement a comprehensive Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan . The Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan will identify and describe coordination strategies for key stakeholders, including: • Federal, state, regional, and local agencies • Railroad owners and operators • Elected and appointed officials • Emergency service providers, school districts, freight interests, and transit providers • Business, civic, and neighborhood organizations • Residents, property owners, travelers, and other members of the public The Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan will clearly outline how public input will be solicited, documented, and incorporated into the development and evaluation of alternatives. The Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan will: • Identify key stakeholder groups and points of contact • Describe engagement methods tailored to different audiences, such as public meetings, small-group briefings, workshops, online engagement, surveys, and project web content • Identify strategies to reach traditionally underserved or hard-to-reach populations • Align engagement activities with key project milestones and decision points • Describe how feedback will be summarized and used to inform the Purpose and Need Statement and Alternatives Analysis • Identify staffing levels, roles, and resources dedicated to stakeholder coordination and public engagement SRF will prepare the Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan for review and approval by the City. Task 2.3 Public/Stakeholder Coordination SRF will leverage a mix of in -person and digital engagement strategies throughout the study, with focused engagement at key study milestones at the beginning, middle, and end of the project. Our approach includes both traditional in-person public and stakeholder meetings, along with pop-up engagement events that will allow us to reach a broader cross -section of the community. Pop -up activities will be scheduled to align with major events to maximize visibility and participation. Engagement Strategies Include: • Two virtual community surveys (online and mobile-friendly) • An online comment map • Up to three in-person public meetings (assume 1 during Project Planning and the other 2 during the Environmental Review process) • Up to four pop-up engagement events (assume these could be during Project Planning or Environmental Review) • Project website serving as the central engagement hub to share information, host surveys, post meeting materials, and collect public feedback Task 2.4 Existing Conditions Assessment SRF will document existing conditions related to rail operations, roadway characteristics, safety, and surrounding land uses. This task will include: • Roadway and crossing characteristics (lanes, speeds, traffic volumes, control devices, multimodal facilities, and proximity to adjacent crossings) • Train operations (number of tracks, speeds, and train volumes) • Safety conditions, including crash history, incidents, and known deficiencies • Crossing safety condition analysis utilizing TRAINFO data • Topographic survey, including existing utilities, track location and elevation, road and trail facilities, environmental and drainage features, and existing right-of-way/properties. Task 2.5 Alternative Analysis SRF will develop planning-level alternatives (focused on alternative roadway alignments, with various bridge and wall variations) and conduct a transportation technical analysis for each alternative, which may include: • Existing and projected traffic volumes, including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, where applicable • Travel delay and queuing impacts associated with rail operations • Frequency and duration of roadway blockages • Directional travel impacts and effects on the surrounding roadway network • Consideration of access for emergency services, schools, and planned development. This includes emergency response time analysis. • Environmental impacts • Drainage conditions Traffic analysis methods and tools will be documented, and supporting data will be provided. SRF will prepare conceptual engineering sufficiently to support cost estimating at the planning level. Conceptual engineering will include: • Grade separation or closure concepts • Roadway crossing improvements and protective devices • Multimodal safety and mobility enhancements Conceptual designs will be developed in coordination with FRA and key stakeholders and will be consistent with applicable federal guidance. SRF will prepare planning-level capital cost estimates for each alternative, including: • Design, construction, and implementation costs • Major quantities and unit costs • Right-of-way and land acquisition considerations • Contingencies and allowances SRF will conduct a limited field geotechnical exploration and boring program to establish baseline data for initial foundation recommendations to be used in evaluating bridge and retaining wall alternatives and cost estimates. This program will collect a limited number of borings to establish soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of 28 th Street. A draft geotechnical report and foundation recommendations will be generated so that cost considerations (soil corrections, spread footings, pile -supported foundations) and constructability considerations ( long-term settlement, preload periods and surcharge areas) can be identified which will influence Task 3 and Task 4 deliverables. The limited field investiga tions in this task will not be sufficient to complete the geotechnical requirements needed for Task 4. Task for includes a supplemental geotechnical program that will provide for the development of the preliminary design. SRF will conduct a high -level qualitative and quantitative environmental review to identify potential environmental constraints and considerations. This task will include preliminary evaluation of socioeconomic, cultural, human, and natural environmental r esources to inform alternatives screening and future project development. Documentation will include vetting of alternative screening criteria. Task 2.6 Implementation Pathway SRF will prepare an Implementation Pathway to guide next steps following completion of the Planning study. This task will include: • Outline of required approvals, permits, and agency coordination steps • Development of a phased implementation strategy, including short- term and long-term actions • Identification of potential funding sources and grant opportunities (federal, state, local) to support design and construction • Preparation of a roadmap document summarizing key milestones, estimated timelines, and responsibilities for advancing the project Task 2.7 Assemble Project Planning Package SRF will compile the core documents and technical proof needed to define the capital rail project idea before moving into official environmental review and design. This package will help to illustrate that the project is viable, meets community and rail needs, and satisfies the requirements set in the analyses and documentation from other tasks in this Scope to assemble a Project Planning Package. SRF will prepare the Project Planning Package for review and approval by the City prior to submittal to FRA. Task 3. Environmental Review SRF will prepare required documentation to comply with applicable environmental laws, including but not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as well as applicable implementing regulations and guidance. SRF will provide FRA with sufficient information to determine the NEPA Class of Action and will prepare the environmental documentation as detailed in the PMP. The PMP will identify information and activities necessary to perform and complete the required environmental review. Task 3.1 Resource Review and Analysis 1. Land Use 2. Cultural Resources (assume no need for determinations of eligibility) 3. Parks and Recreational Facilities 4. Transportation 5. Hazardous Materials and Waste 6. Waters of the US (Wetlands) 7. Communities 8. Floodplains 9. Water Quality 10. Species Task 3.2 Public/Stakeholder Coordination SRF will prepare and lead three public involvement meetings (PIM), generally to coincide with the following primary milestones: 1. Purpose and Need (completed in Project Planning stage of the project) 2. Alternatives 3. Preferred Alternative SRF shall meet virtually or in person with the City prior to each PIM to coordinate the meetings. Popup meetings described previously in Task 2.3. Task 3.3 Agency Coordination SRF will coordinate with these agencies: 1. Federal Railroad Administration 2. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 3. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) 4. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 5. Tribal Historic Preservation Offices 6. US Army Corps of engineers (USACE) 7. Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) This scope of services does not include the following activities: 1. Section 4(f) evaluations (for specific impacted sites) 2. Air Quality Analysis 3. Noise Analysis 4. Scope assumes up to 2 Phase 2 and beyond hazardous material investigations Task 3.4 Alternative Analysis SRF will further develop the No-Build Alternative and the preferred alternative that was selected during Project Planning and Environmental Review. This analysis will provide a higher level of analysis for comparison. These alternatives will be compared based on potential criteria noted in Task 3.1. The alternatives will also consider constructability, permitting requirements, and required mitigation measures. The evaluation will identify opportunities to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts and support selection of a preferred alternative for advancement through NEPA and subsequent project development. SRF will prepare planning-level capital cost estimates for the No-Build and preferred alternative, including: • Design, construction, and implementation costs • Major quantities and unit costs • Right-of-way and land acquisition considerations • Contingencies and allowances SRF will conduct a qualitative and quantitative environmental review to identify potential environmental constraints and considerations. This task will include evaluation of socioeconomic, cultural, human, and natural environmental resources to inform alternatives screening and future project development. Documentation will include vetting of alternative screening criteria. Task 3.5 Environmental Documentation SRF will prepare documentation necessary to support a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Categorical Exclusion (CE) determination in accordance with NEPA and applicable federal environmental requirements. Services include: 1. Review available project information and confirm CE applicability. 2. Collect and review environmental resource information within the project area. 3. Evaluate potential project effects on natural, cultural, and community resources. 4. Conduct field reviews, as necessary, to document existing conditions. 5. Coordinate with the FRA, project team, and resource agencies, as needed. 6. Prepare the FRA Categorical Exclusion Worksheet, including supporting exhibits, mapping, and documentation. 7. Identify environmental commitments, permit considerations, and mitigation measures, if applicable. 8. Address review comments and provide final documentation supporting FRA environmental clearance. This scope of work assumes some level of analysis and documentation regarding the following resources: 1. Land Use 2. Cultural Resources 3. Parks and Recreational Facilities 4. Transportation 5. Hazardous Materials and Waste 6. Waters of the US (Wetlands) 7. Communities and Environmental Justice 8. Floodplains 9. Water Quality 10. Species Task 4. Preliminary Engineering SRF will complete and submit a preliminary engineering (PE) design set to FRA for approval, as specified in the PMP. The PE design set includes engineering from concept through the 30% design level, as detailed in the PMP, which includes but is not limited to necessary field surveys, operational analysis, legal due diligence, and preparation of drawings and cost estimates. The PE Design Set will include all design development and Project delivery documentation, along with eligible and allowable cost estimat es, with associated project milestone timelines necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness, feasibility, and readiness of the Project for final design and construction. DISCUSSION POINT: GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS Task 4.1 Roadway Engineering SRF will complete preliminary engineering for the preferred alternative. The following elements will be included in the analysis and engineering process as needed: 1. Ops/safety analysis 2. H&H analysis and BNSF design team coordination 3. Storm sewer, culvert design, and stormwater treatment design 4. Millenium Trail Extension/bike & ped design 5. Lighting analysis & design 6. Alignment/profile 7. Geometric refinement (roadway, bike/ped, intersection, and property access) 8. Corridor modeling 9. Preliminary drainage design 10. Planning level traffic control and staging analysis (vehicular, bicycle, & pedestrian) This task includes preparation of 30% design level plans including: 1. Title Sheet 2. Typical Sections 3. Project Overview 4. Plan & Profile Sheets 5. Preliminary Cross Sections Task 4.2 Structures Engineering SRF will perform preliminary engineering for proposed structural improvements (bridges, walls, culverts) , including review of existing conditions, field investigations, development of design criteria, preliminary structural analysis, conceptual structural layouts, constructability review, stakeholder coordination, and preparation of preliminary plans, quantities, and cost estimates. The work will advance the project to approximately 30 percent design and provide the technical basis for the Environmental Review and provide the baseline design for future project implementation activities (final design, permitting). This task includes preparation of 30% design level plans including: 1. Plan View 2. Elevation View 3. Typical Cross Section 4. SSR 5. General Layout SRF will conduct a supplemental geotechnical exploration and boring program to establish the minimum data for foundation recommendations to be used for the development of the preliminary structures design. The supplemental program will build upon the work conducted in the initial geotechnical program completed in Task 2 and will collect a sufficient level of additional borings to establish a more comprehensive definition of the soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the proposed substructures. A final geotechnical report and foundation recommendations will be generated allowing the design team to estimate spread footing sized or driven pile lengths required for detailing in the preliminary plan and cost estimating. Long bridges and retaining wall sections require a substantial geotechnical program. In Task 4, we intend to collect the minimum number of borings to provide sufficient foundation recommendations and confidence in the preliminary design. If a complete boring program cannot be completed in this contract, additional verification borings can be completed in final desig n which are useful in co nfirming the finding and recommendations of the final geotechnical report and ensuring confidence in the preliminary design and anticipated project costs. Task 4.3 ROW Acquisition Plan SRF will gather and review title reports for the Preferred Alternative boundary. The work will include verification of property rights and utility easements. The following deliverables will be included: 1. Existing ROW exhibit showing land ownership and easements 2. ROW acquisition needs exhibit 3. ROW cost estimate Deliverables The following deliverables will be provided as part of the Scope of Services: Task 1 Deliverables: 1. Project Management Plan 2. Summary of expected data needs for analysis 3. Meeting materials and summaries 4. Input to final performance report Task 2 Deliverables: 1. Preliminary Purpose and Need Statement 2. Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan 3. Existing Conditions Memo 4. PIM meeting minutes 5. LOM meeting minutes 6. Popup meeting minutes 7. Alternatives Analysis Memo 8. Implementation Pathway memo 9. Project Planning Package Task 3 Deliverables: 1. GIS-based mapping of environmental constraints 2. CE Worksheet and attachments 3. Capital Cost Estimates Task 4 Deliverables 1. 30% design plans 2. ROW Acquisition Plan SCHEDULE Milestone Completion Date PMP 12/31/2026 Project Planning Package 6/30/2027 Environmental Review 1/31/2028 Preliminary Engineering 1/31/2028 7/29/2026 Page 1 of 5 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Work Tasks and Person-Hour Estimate s Client: City of Superior Project: N28th Street Viaduct Subconsultants: NWBE, HDR, AET, Terracon, Trainfo 19203.PP TASK NO. TASK DESCRIPTION PROF. VIII-VII PROF. VI PROF. V PROF. IV PROF. III PROF. II PROF. I TECH. SUPPORT TOTALS EST. FEE 1.0 Project Administration and Management 1.1 Admin and Coordination - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 City Kickoff Meeting 16 8 - - - - - - - 24 $6,584.00 FRA Kickoff Meeting 8 8 - - - - - - - 16 $4,296.00 FRA Monthly Meetings (16) 16 16 - - - - - - - 32 $8,592.00 Biweekly PMT with Team/City 64 64 - - - - - - - 128 $34,368.00 Coordination with subconsultants and technical specialists 40 40 - - - - - - - 80 $21,480.00 Ongoing coordination with FRA, local governments, and region al planning agency 40 40 - - - - - - - 80 $21,480.00 City Status Reports 16 16 - - - - - - - 32 $8,592.00 FRA Quarterly Progress Reports 8 24 - - - - - - - 32 $8,312.00 Quarterly Financial Reports (SF-425 Fed Financial Report) - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Performance Measurement Requirements (deliverables tracking) 16 16 - - - - - - - 32 $8,592.00 BNSF Structure Coordination 40 34 120 194 $40,982.00 NPR Railroad Coordination 24 18 40 82 $18,198.00 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 1.2 Project Management Plan - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Draft 40 80 - - - - - - - 120 $31,520.00 Final 24 60 84 $21,924.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 1.3 Project Closeout 12 24 - - - - - - - 36 $9,456.00 final quarterly progress report - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 final SF-425 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 FRA Form 33 Final Performance Report - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Closeout documentation requested by FRA - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 SRF Deliverables: - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 1.      Project Management Plan - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.      Summary of expected data needs for analysis - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 3.      Meeting materials and summaries - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 4.      Input to final performance report - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL - TASK 1 364 396 52 160 0 0 0 0 0 972 $244,376.00 $251.42 2.0 Project Planning 2.1 Prepare a preliminary Purpose and Need Statement to supp ort the alternatives analysis 24 40 - 24 - - - - - 88 $21,296.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.2 Prepare a Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Draft SCP 12 24 - - - 30 - - - 66 $13,836.00 FInal SCP 12 20 - - - 20 - - - 52 $11,372.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.3 Public/Stakeholder Coordination - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Initial workshop 16 24 - - - 24 - - - 64 $14,104.00 Local Officials Meetings (in task 1) - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Public Involvement Meetings (1 in planning) 16 16 - - - 24 - - - 56 $12,096.00 Community Pop Up Events (1) 8 12 - - - 12 - - - 32 $7,052.00 BNSF Monthly Planning Coordination (captured in Task 1) - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.4 Existing Conditions Assessment - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Utility identification/coordination of existing facilities 8 8 - - - - - - - 16 $4,296.00 Roadway and crossing characteristics (lanes, speeds, traffic volumes, control devices, multimodal facilities, and proximity to adjacent crossings). (Sub) 8 8 - - - - - - - 16 $4,296.00 Train operations (number of tracks, speeds, and train volumes). (Sub) - - 8 - - - - - - 8 $1,784.00 Safety conditions, including crash history, incidents, and kno wn deficiencies. 8 - - - 16 - - - - 24 $4,960.00 Assess surrounding land uses - - - - 12 - - - - 12 $2,004.00 What problem are we solving, what alternatives were studied, which alternative is preferred, what environmental issues are likely, what will it roughly cost, and is there enough stakeho lder support to proceed into NEPA and preliminary engineering? Management, meetings, PMP, FRA/Grant Documentation SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 7/29/2026 Page 2 of 5 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Work Tasks and Person-Hour Estimate s Client: City of Superior Project: N28th Street Viaduct Subconsultants: NWBE, HDR, AET, Terracon, Trainfo 19203.PP TASK NO. TASK DESCRIPTION PROF. VIII-VII PROF. VI PROF. V PROF. IV PROF. III PROF. II PROF. I TECH. SUPPORT TOTALS EST. FEE Environmental Constraints and Opportunities - - - - - - - - - 0 $ 0.00 GIS Mapping - - - - - - - 24 - 24 $4,320.00 Literature Review - - 12 - 24 - - - - 36 $6,684.00 Existing Conditions Report 8 12 40 - 40 24 - - - 124 $24,404.00 Sub coordination for survey, hazmat, section 106, etc. 24 12 24 - - - - - - 60 $15,228.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.5 Alternative Analysis - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Traffic, bike/ped, blockages, Ods, etc - - - 40 24 - - - - 64 $11,328.00 Drainage - initial assessment 8 - 24 32 - - 56 - - 120 $21,112.00 Develop Screening Matrix - 16 24 - 24 - - - - 64 $13,376.00 Alternatives Analysis (drawings, locations, grades, typicals, phasing, staging, schedule, etc?) 40 - 24 24 40 - - - - 128 $27,864.00 Identify and Evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives 8 - 24 - 16 - - - - 48 $10,312.00 Planning Level Cost Estimates 12 - 24 - 12 - - - - 48 $10,788.00 Alternatives Analysis Memo 24 - 40 - 24 - - - - 88 $19,792.00 Geotechnical Engineering - Initial Borings & Draft Recommend ations - By subconsultant (AET), see Direct Subconsultant Expenses below - These hour are for SRF's coordination activities w/ sub. 3 - - 12 - - - - 15 $3,054.00 Survey (BNSF) - By subconsultant (TBD), see Direct Subconsultant Expenses below - These hour are for SRF's coordination activities w/ sub. 4 - - 20 - - - - 24 $4,804.00 Utility Coordination (BNSF) - By subconsultant (TBD), see Direct Subconsultant Expenses below - These hour are for SRF's coordination activities w/ sub. 6 - - 32 - - - - 38 $7,572.00 New or Modified Rail Lines - By subconsultant (HRD), see Direct Subconsultant Expenses b elow - These hour are for SRF's coordination activities w/ sub. 12 - 24 - - - - - 36 $8,784.00 Grade-Separation (Bridge) Concept Designs - Up to six (6) initial concept alternatives to be screened for evaluation - Up to three (3) final concept alternatives to be evaluated 12 - 60 80 - - - 180 332 $63,852.00 Bridge Aesthetics & Visualizations 10 - 24 10 24 - - - 68 $14,050.00 Bridge Lighting 8 - 16 - - - - - 24 $5,856.00 Bridge Drainage - 4 - 12 - - - - 16 $3,200.00 Constructability Review - 16 - 40 - - - - 56 $11,336.00 Construction Schedule - Phasing & Staging - 5 - 30 - - - - 35 $6,745.00 Bridge Type Study 8 - 20 80 - - - 160 268 $50,188.00 Draft Preliminary Design & Plans 4 - 24 80 - - - 160 268 $49,936.00 Draft Preliminary Cost Estimate - Design Quantities & Unit Costs by Structures staff 8 - 16 32 - - - - 56 $11,712.00 Draft Preliminary Cost Estimate Verification - Contractor-Style Costs by Project Controls Group - 10 - 40 - - - - 50 $9,830.00 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.6 Implementation Pathway - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Identification of recommended alternative(s) for advancement into FRA RCE Program Track – 2 Project Development, and/or NEPA and preliminary engineering. - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Outline of required approvals, permits, and agency coordination steps. - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Development of a phased implementation strategy, including short- term and long-term actions. - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Identification of potential funding sources and grant opportunities (federal, state, local) to support design and construction. - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Preparation of a roadmap document summarizing key milestones, estimated timelines, and responsibilities for advancing the project. 24 - - 60 - - - - - 84 $17,844.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.7 Project Planning Package - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Draft 12 12 24 80 - - - - - 128 $26,436.00 Final 12 12 24 40 - - - - - 88 $19,116.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 SRF Deliverables: - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 1.      Preliminary Purpose and Need Statement - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.      Public/Stakeholder Coordination Plan - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 7/29/2026 Page 3 of 5 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Work Tasks and Person-Hour Estimate s Client: City of Superior Project: N28th Street Viaduct Subconsultants: NWBE, HDR, AET, Terracon, Trainfo 19203.PP TASK NO. TASK DESCRIPTION PROF. VIII-VII PROF. VI PROF. V PROF. IV PROF. III PROF. II PROF. I TECH. SUPPORT TOTALS EST. FEE 3.      Existing Conditions Memo - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 4.      PIM meeting minutes - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 5.      LOM meeting minutes - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 6.      Popup meeting minutes - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 7.      Alternatives Analysis Memo - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 8.      Implementation Pathway memo - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 9.      Project Planning Package - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 0 SUBTOTAL - TASK 2 359 251 476 768 256 134 56 524 0 2,824 $576,619.00 $204.19 3.0 Environmental Review 3.1 Resource Review and Analysis 12 12 24 - 16 - - 12 - 76 $16,628.00 Natural resources - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Cultural and historic resources - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Social and community resources - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Physical environmental features - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Sensitive environmental areas - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 3.2 PIM/LOM/Stakeholder Meetings - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 1 (P/N) (part of task 2) - - 0 $0.00 2 (alts/concepts) 24 24 - - 24 24 - - - 96 $20,400.00 3 (preferred Alt) 24 24 - - 24 24 - - - 96 $20,400.00 popups (#...assume 2-3 mobilizations) 48 48 - - 48 24 - - - 168 $37,29 6.00 Pre PIMs (3, City/FRA/BNSF) 36 36 - - 36 36 - - - 144 $30,600.00 Story Map - 24 - - - - - 40 - 64 $13,224.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 3.3 Agency/Tribal Coordination - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Section 106 8 - 16 - - - - - - 24 $5,856.00 Section 7 ESA 2 - 8 - - - - - - 10 $2,356.00 Permitting needs 2 - 12 - - - - - - 14 $3,248.00 Mitigation needs 2 - 8 - - - - - - 10 $2,356.00 FAA/BOA 2 - 4 - - - - - - 6 $1,464.00 WDNR 16 16 4 - - - - - - 36 $9,484.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 3.4 Alternative Analysis - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Planning-level design alternatives 12 12 40 80 - - - - - 144 $30,0 04.00 Impact assessments - - - - 40 - - - - 40 $6,680.00 Avoidance measures - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Contaminated soil analysis 4 4 - - - - - - - 8 $2,148.00 Drainage - Alternatives Assessment 8 - 40 56 - - 80 - - 184 $32,336 .00 Bridge Aesthetics & Visualizations 40 - 120 40 140 340 $68,900 .00 Bridge Drainage - 40 - 70 110 $22,850.00 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 3.5 Environmental Doc Draft (CE Worksheet + Attachments) - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Draft 24 24 100 - - 80 - - - 228 $46,868.00 Final 24 24 80 - - 60 - - - 188 $39,488.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 SRF Deliverables: - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 1.      GIS-based mapping of environmental constraints - - - - - - - - - 0 $ 0.00 2.      CE Worksheet and attachments - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 3.      Capital Cost Estimates - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL - TASK 3 288 288 456 246 328 248 80 52 0 1,986 $412,586.00 $207.75 In practical terms, FRA expects a project to emerge from environmental review with: a completed NEPA decision, completed Section 106 and ESA compliance, applicable permits in place or well advanced, defined mitigation commitments, and sufficient do cumentation to support advancement into Final Design SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 7/29/2026 Page 4 of 5 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Work Tasks and Person-Hour Estimate s Client: City of Superior Project: N28th Street Viaduct Subconsultants: NWBE, HDR, AET, Terracon, Trainfo 19203.PP TASK NO. TASK DESCRIPTION PROF. VIII-VII PROF. VI PROF. V PROF. IV PROF. III PROF. II PROF. I TECH. SUPPORT TOTALS EST. FEE 4.0 Preliminary Engineering Survey/Data Tasks (can we do all of this in planning stage?) - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Topographic survey - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Locate existing utilities - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Inventory existing storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and drainage structures/culverts - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Locate existing property corners - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 BNSF-UPRR Joint Guidelines for Railroad Grade Sep. Projects - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 4.1 Roadway Tasks - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Ops/safety analysis 8 - - - 24 - - - - 32 $6,296.00 Drainage coordination with BNSF design team 16 - 24 32 - - - - - 72 $15,784.00 Storm sewer and culvert analysis and design 8 - 32 40 - - 80 - - 16 0 $27,624.00 Water quality treatment analysis and design 8 - 32 40 - - 80 - - 160 $27,624.00 Millenium Trail Extension/bike & ped design 10 - 40 - - - 60 - - 1 10 $19,940.00 Lighting analysis & design 10 - - 50 - - - - - 60 $12,010.00 Alignment/profile 10 - 10 - 40 - - - - 60 $11,770.00 Geometric refinement 10 - 20 - 60 - - - - 90 $17,340.00 Corridor modeling - - 40 - 120 - - - - 160 $28,960.00 Preliminary drainage design - - 0 $0.00 Planning level traffic control and staging analysis (vehicular, bicycle, & pedestrian) 20 - 40 - - - - - - 60 $14,640.00 30% plans/estimate draft 40 80 180 - 160 - 160 - - 620 $120,140.00 30% plans/estimate final 40 80 100 - 100 - 100 - - 420 $84,120.00 4.2 Structure Tasks - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 Geotechnical Engineering - Supplemental Borings & Final Recommendations - By subconsultant (AET), see Direct Subconsultant Expenses below - These hour are for SRF's coordination activities w/ sub. 6 - - 24 - - - - 30 $6,108.00 Preliminary Bridge Plans 4 - 24 80 - - - 160 268 $49,936.00 Bridge Aethetic Details - 2 40 - - - - - 42 $9,422.00 Bridge Lighting Plans 20 - 120 - - - - - 140 $32,480.00 Bridge Drainage Plans - 2 32 - - - - - 34 $7,638.00 Preliminary Retaining Wall Plans 2 8 40 - 80 - - 120 250 $46,460.00 Constructability Review - 16 - 40 - - - - 56 $11,336.00 Construction Schedule - Phasing & Staging - 40 - 200 - - - - 240 $46,640.00 Preliminary Cost Estimate - Design Quantities & Unit Costs by Structures staff 6 - 12 24 - - - - 42 $8,784.00 Preliminary Cost Estimate Verification - Contractor-Style Costs by Project Controls Group - 8 - 32 - - - - 40 $7,864.00 0 $0.00 4.3 ROW Acquisition Plan, detailed schedule, and compensation plan 40 - 80 - - - 120 $26,080.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 SRF Deliverables: - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 1.      30% design plans - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 2.      ROW Acquisition Plan - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL - TASK 4 258 236 786 642 584 0 480 280 0 3,266 $638,996.00 $195.65 Duration (Months) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Duration (FTE) 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 2.3 TOTAL ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS 1,269 1,171 1,770 1,816 1,168 382 616 856 0 9,048 % of Hours 14% 13% 20% 20% 13% 4% 7% 9% 0% 100.0% AVERAGE HOURLY BILLING RATE $286.00 $251.00 $223.00 $183.00 $167.0 0 $146.00 $136.00 $180.00 $156.00 ESTIMATED LABOR AND OVERHEAD $362,934.00 $293,921.00 $394,710.00 $332,328.00 $195,056.00 $55,772.00 $83,776.00 $154,080.00 $0.00 $1,87 2,577.00 AVERAGE HOURLY PAYROLL RATE $286.00 $251.00 $223.00 $183.00 $16 7.00 $146.00 $136.00 $180.00 $156.00 ESTIMATED LABOR $362,934.00 $293,921.00 $394,710.00 $332,328.00 $1 95,056.00 $55,772.00 $83,776.00 $154,080.00 $0.00 $1,872,577.00 Refine design of preferred alternative to a 30% stage to better define impacts and estimate costs and construction time re quirements. Not needed - delete SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 7/29/2026 Page 5 of 5 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Work Tasks and Person-Hour Estimate s Client: City of Superior Project: N28th Street Viaduct Subconsultants: NWBE, HDR, AET, Terracon, Trainfo 19203.PP TASK NO. TASK DESCRIPTION PROF. VIII-VII PROF. VI PROF. V PROF. IV PROF. III PROF. II PROF. I TECH. SUPPORT TOTALS EST. FEE ESTIMATED OVERHEAD COST 0.00% $0.00 ESTIMATED LABOR AND OVERHEAD $1,872,577.00 FIXED FEE 0.00% $0.00 SRF ESTIMATED DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES $11,825.00 $1,884,402.00 $579,635.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE (SRF and Subconsultants combine d) $2,464,037.00 SRF ESTIMATE OF DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES: MILEAGE: Personal Vehicles 11400 Miles @ $0.725 $8,265.00 RENTAL VEHICLE: $0.00 M&IE (perdiem) 20 Per Diems @ $68.00 $1,360.00 LODGING: Hotel 20 Nights @ $110.00 $2,200.00 REPRODUCTION: Copy Duplication 0 Copies @ $0.10 $0.00 Color Copies 0 Copies @ $0.35 $0.00 Bond Prints 0 Prints @ $6.00 $0.00 Mylar Prints 0 Prints @ $12.00 $0.00 COURTHOUSE COPIES: 0 Copies @ $1.00 $0.00 PRINTING: $0.00 SUPPLIES: $0.00 COMMUNICATIONS: Mail, Express, Etc. $0.00 Postage $0.50 Cell Phone Charges 0 Minutes @ $0.30 $0.00 SRF EXPENSES: $11,825.00 SUBCONSULTANTS: NWBE $175,905.00 Tasks 2-4 Terracon $30,000.00 Task 2-3 HDR $55,000.00 Task 2-4 AET (Task 2) $71,296.00 Task 2 AET (Task 4) $192,434.00 Task 4 Trainfo $55,000.00 Task 2-3 SUBCONSULTANTS: $579,635.00 SUBTOTAL: (SRF Labor and Expenses) SUBCONSULTANTS: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. July 22, 2026 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Chris Carlson, Public Works Director RE: FYI – Fleet Vehicle Auction Removals 1. Introduction As per Council direction at the March 3,2026, meeting the following listed items recently sold via public auction service/sale: Dept/Div Unit # Description Sale Price Net Golf N/A C-AIRE Air Compressor $664.65 $560.00 Golf 1154 1996 Cushman Groom Master $249.24 $210.00 PW-ESD 432/P432 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD w/2005 Boss V-Plow $7,390.67 $6227.00 PW-Landfill 331 2002 GMC Sierra 2500HD $1,217.73 $1,026.00 PW-Parks 457 1994 Ford LTS9000 w/Loader $10,205.93 $8,599.00 PW-Parks 5527 2004 Stihl HT101 Pole Saw $47.48 $40.00 PW-Parks (Museum) N/A John Deere 826 Snowblower $11.87 $10.00 PW-Parks (Museum) N/A 2011 John Deere D140 Lawn Tractor $284.85 $240.00 PW Admin (Bldg Insp) 70 2008 Chevrolet Uplander $1,139.40 $960.00 PW Admin (Planning) 63 2008 Chevrolet Impala $2,136.38 $1,800.00 Police N/A Cargo Glide Truck Bed Slide-Out $85.46 $70.00 Police 7 2019 Ford Explorer $3,250.00 $2,925.00 Police 11 2014 Ford Explorer $3,500.00 $3,150.00 Police 22 2018 Ford Explorer $3,750.00 $3,375.00 Police 47 2008 Chevrolet Silverado $356.06 $300.00 Police 327 2010 Chevrolet Impala $2,600.00 $2,340.00 2. Background As per the Regular Council Meeting of March 3, 2026, the use of public auction and/or public sale to dispose of excess fleet vehicles and equipment was approved with the understanding that the Council be provided a list of items removed. Central Equipment Division Public Works Department 2301 Hill Avenue Superior, WI 54880 Web site: www.ci.superior.wi.us Phone: (715) 394-0585 Fax: (715) 394-0401 TTY: (715) 395-7521 July 22, 2026 Page Two 3. Fiscal Impact Proceeds from the sale will provide revenue for the fund the purchase originated from (General, Enterprise and CIP). 4. Conclusion This information has been established to notify the Common Council of necessary fleet and equipment removals and reassignments. CC/cn Memorandum DATE: July 30, 2026 TO: Members of the Public Works Committee FROM: Steve Roberts, Environmental Services Director RE: ESD Director’s Report for the August 2026 PWC Meeting 1) Wastewater Treatment a) A total of 116.4 million gallons (MG) of treated effluent was discharged in May from the main Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and CSTPs, as follows: 116.4 MG @ WWTP 0.0 MG @ CSTP 2 (adjacent to WWTP) 0.0 MG @ CSTP 5 (South Superior) 0.0 MG @ CSTP 6 (Billings Park) b) All effluent discharges complied with permit limits. 2) Collection System a) The sewer maintenance crew continues to perform routine sewer cleaning in addition to rehab work. b) The South Superior Storm Sewer project has a tentative start date in mid-August. c) An unanticipated long lead time for some of the sewer pipe has resulted in a delay to the Woodstock Sanitary Sewer project. Construction is anticipated to begin in September, depending on the actual delivery timeline for the pipe. SR/sr C: ESD Managers, Chris Carlson, Todd Janigo Environmental Services Division Public Works Department Phone: (715) 394-0392 Ext. 1034 Fax: (715) 394-0406 E-mail: robertss@superiorwi.gov Website: www.superiorwi.gov ES Director Steve Roberts 51 E 1st Street Superior, WI 54880