Members of the St. Robert Public Works Committee voted Tuesday evening to recommend that the full city council accept a bid of about $100,000 by Ozark Applicators to refurbish Water Tower No. 5, located in the city hall parking lot, despite concerns by one alderman that the money might be better spent on a new tower.
That was the lower of two bids; the other came from Whitehead Brothers Painting. St. Robert already has a contract with Ozark Applicators to service and do routine maintenance on the city’s water towers, though major work such as the rehabilitation project is still sent out for bids.
“Ozark Applicators is cheaper, but we’ve also gotten to know their work extensively in the past two or three years,” said Lyle Thomas, the city’s director of public works.
Work to be performed includes aircraft warning lights, coating the interior of the tower, painting the exterior, power washing, and any welding repairs that need to be made. A “positive retention system” will be installed that will become crucial later if the city decides to chlorinate its water; a rotating ladder on the tower that no longer meets federal safety standards will be welded into place. Painting the city logo of “come grow with us” on the tower is included in the price
However, Ed Spotts said he served on the city council years ago and said he thought the tower had been refurbished then.
“Did we look at any options other than renovating the tower, or possibly replacing the tower?” Spotts asked.
Thomas said that’s prohibitively expensive.
“You’re looking at in the neighborhood of a million dollars to replace that tower,” Thomas said.
Utility Foreman Steve Long said the cost might be even worse today and could run $1.5 to $1.7 million to replace a 250,000-gallon water tower due to what he called an “astronomical” increase in the price of steel. Tower estimates used to be about $1 per gallon, but they are far higher now and will likely remain high for the foreseeable future, he said.
“We renovated the inside of this tower, we had it all painted and everything, and it’s gone to h___, so to speak, in that short amount of time, and here we are pushing another $100,000 into it,” Spotts said. “I’d like to see if there are any options other than just keeping sinking money into this tower.”
City staff said they didn’t remember a full rehab but only touch-up work to the tower.
Thomas said the company which did “those so-called repairs” has done no additional business with the city and may no longer be in business at all.
Long said a preliminary inspection showed some of the original interior coating is still present on the water tower, which means the tower could not have been sandblasted on the inside.
“So if you thought that’s what you got, you probably did not get that,” Long said.
At Spotts’ request, city workers said they would try to find out the history of the tower repair work but said they weren’t sure how detailed the city records would be.
Aldermen said they thought the city’s plan years ago was to tear down and replace the water tower eventually, but Long said he’s been advised that would be a bad choice.
“The plan was to get rid of that tower since it is in such bad shape,” Spotts said.
Thomas and Long said the inspectors don’t agree.
“In looking at when they’ve done the inspections, that tower is not in that bad of shape,” Thomas said. “It’s structurally sound.”
“From what we’re gathering, the company says they would never take down a tower, you can always repair it; the ones that are telling you to take it down, it’s beyond repair, are the ones who are selling towers,” Long said.
Alderman Bill Shaw said maintenance bills will be needed no matter what the city does with towers.
“Aren’t you going to have this same problem with all the towers that they have to be maintained?” Shaw asked.
Thomas said that’s correct. The city now has a yearly maintenance contract for about $10,000 per year with Ozark Applicators to clean, do maintenance and alert the city to problems.
Spotts asked if ground storage tanks would be cheaper, but Long, Thomas and Shaw said the city would have to do maintenance on ground towers anyway and would also be faced with problems in case of power outages.
“I don’t like the ground storage approach because then you’ve got to have power to operate your pumps,” Shaw said. “With our system, if the power goes out, you’ll still have water for the city.”