Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Item 4.A 08/18/2003 FAO! CITY OF:PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA_ AGENDA, BILL 'AUG 1 8.2003 Pii , 4 •A • ,Agenda`Title: Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend Meeting Date: August 18, 2003 't the Professional Services Agreement With Carollo Engineers For Professional, Services In 'Support of the Water Recycling Facility _ • Project! Meeting Time ✓3 00,PM ❑ 7:00 PM Category:(check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business v1 Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Department: Water Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Resources & Michael Ban, P.E. Michael Ban, P.E. 778-4487 Conservation \ Margaret Orr„P.E', Cost of'Proposal: $1,291,420 with a requested contingency of Account Number: 9012 $40,000, for a total not to exceed_amendment of$1,331,420 Name of Fund: Wastewater Amount.Budgeted: The FY 03-04'design.budget is $4M Enterprise Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: Resolution • Attachment A—Executive Summary Feasibility Study and VE Review Attachment B — Proposed Scope.of Work • Figures Summary'Statement: Locating the Water Recycling Facility on Parcel A, along with the polishing treatment wetlands, provides numerous:benefits, including:rreduces.project cost by approximately$3.96 million, reduces•time to construct facilityliyone year, ininimizesiinpactsto operafion of existing wastewater treatmentfacility, preserves treatment and storage capability of Aerated Lagoon and Oxidation Pond No. 1, and provides more opportunity and flexibility to respond to future changes. Recommended.City Council Action/Suggested Motion: To accommodate the relocation of the Water Recycling Facility, an amendment to the agreement with Carollo Engineers is necessary. City Management recommends the•CityCouncil adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend.the Professional-Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers. Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed'byCity Attorney: A I s roved,) 4Cit Mana'er: M D . Date: D_ V / Date: Ayr Today's Date:. July 30, 2003 Revision # .. t a evised: File Code: s:vwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august 18-2003\Agenda Bill.doc r r -•■••' 11. • .1 •Y1/41Ai 1-1( • • .■ • • 'tI r C.. CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA August 18, 2003 AGENDA REPORT FOR • RESOLUTION,AU,THORIZING CITY MANAGER To AMEND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL.SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT 1. EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY: Locating the Water Recycling Facility on Parcel A, along with.the.polishing treatment wetlands, provides numerous benefits,including: reducestroject cost by approximately $3.79 million, reduces time to construct facility by one year,:minimizes impacts to operation of existing wastewater treatment facility, preserves treatment and storage capability of Aerated Lagoon and Oxidation Pond No. 1, and provides more opportunity and flexibility to respond to future changes. To accommodate;the relocation of the Water Recycling Facility, an amendment to the agreement with Carollo Engineers'.is necessary. City Management recommends the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the Professional Services Agreement with CarolloEngineers. 2. BACKGROUND: The impetus for developing a new wastewater treatment facility'began in 1988 when the City's population:was:40,300'and.the average:dryweather flow at the treatment facility was 4.0 million gallons perday(mgd). Today, the population is approximately 56,000 and the average dry weather flow is approximately 4.93 mgd. In 1988 the City evaluated the capital improvements necessary for operation of the-existing wastewater treatment facility on Hopper'Street and identified an extensive list of major repairs including repair and cleaning of the anaerobic digesters, repair of the grit collection and removal system, 1 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council nieetings\august,18-2003\new draft agenda bill doe te repair of clarifiers and°biofilters, and repair to the ponds and pond distribution-system. In addition to being in need of repair, the facility was also in need of expansion since average dry weather flows had exceeded 75 percent:of the;5.2-mgd average.dry"weather design (and permitted) capacity. The City determined,that additional investment in the treatment plant would-not be cost-effective and, therefore, decided to implement the minimum repairs necessary to theexis`ting treatment,facility(cleaning and relialiilitation of the digesters),and begin pursuing a long=term strategyto meeting the community's wastewaterrtreatment-needs. Thereafter the City twice atternpted.to`privatelydesign, build, finance and operatethe newtreatment plant, going as far as°the:•selection of a preferred.contractor: In July 1999, the City Council determined the,City would,no'longer pursue development of a privately owned wastewater treatment facility andthat'the new facility would be publicly owned. In support.of development of a publicly owned facility, the City prepared the Water. Recycling.Facility Project Report (Project Report)`.. The Project Report identified:and evaluated five alternatives for the Water Recycling Facility. On December11, 2000, the City Council approved the Project Report'andselected Alternative 5 :Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative, and identified Option A—Wetlands as the preferred alternative for algae removal. •Even though its costs were comparable to other alternatives, Alternative;5 was selected as•thetprreferred alternative' 'rimarilybecause'it had thek:smallest ecological footprint. The potential<envirenmental•impacts of the alternatives were evaluated:in the+.Environmental Impact Report'(EIR). The•City, Council certified the ER on August 5, 2002 and directed City Management to prepare final plans and specifications. The preferred project, asshown:on Figure 1, included the following: • Location of the water recycling facility in°the.Aerated Lagoon and Oxidation Pond No. 1. - Construction of algae-removal treatment,wetlands in Oxidation Ponds 9 and 10 • Construction of polishing treatmenvwet lands on Parcels A and B. 2 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase.2\city,council'meetings\august.18-2003\new draft agenda bill.doe i • ff PS Value Engineering The purpose of Value Engineering (VE) is to maximize the value of a project or a facility by emphasizing cost=effective design. The City first conducted a VE analysis on the Water Recycling Facility Project upon completion of the.Predesign,Report. This VE was presented to the CityCouncil in November 2001. The City conducted a second VE in December 2002. The purpose of the second VE was to evaluate the'co"st-effectiveness of the project elementsiincluded in Water Recycling-Facility'Project at the 50 percent design level, and to proposetpotential cost saving changes to,the project. The City retained Gordon Culp of Smith Culp Consulting to manage the VE effort. Mr. Culp also managed,the first VE effort. The VE team reviewed the 50 percent design submittal during a VE workshop conducted in Walnut Creek, California, from December 2 through 6, 2002. A seven-person team conducted the VE. Carollo Engineers began the VE workshop on December 2 by presenting an overview of the project to the VE team. The presentation describedthe project elements, project objectives, design criteria and project constraints. The constraints for the project included: 1. Reliablymeet NPDES discharge permit requirements 2.. Reliably meet Title 22 and NPDES water recycling permit requirements. 3. Produce biosolids'that;meet EPA 503 Class'B biosolids requirements. 4.. Maximize use of existing oxidation ponds for,storage in summer and year round metals reduction. 5. Use of extended aeration activated sludge for secondary treatment. 6. Restrict-facility to existing oxidation pond;site, with,the,exception of locating polishing treatment wetlands on Parcels A and B. The VE team presented its report to Carollo Engineersland the City on December 6. Carollo carefully reviewed the ideas with respect to technical feasibility, integration into 3 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august 18-20038new draft agenda bill.doc 50 percent design and impacts on other processes. A summary of Carollo Engineers' review of the VE-report iseprovidedsin Attacliinent.A. Facility Location During review of the 50'percent design and•the'V'E study,-.it became apparent that adhering to Constraint No. 6 "Restrict facility to existing oxidation pond site; with the exception'of lbcating•polishing treatment wetlands on Parcels A and:B,"would°have a significantimpact onihe project. Here's why: Wastewater pumped:from'-tliie existing, treatment facility,,at 950 Hopper Street to the oxidation ponds is.discharged into.the Aerated Lagoon and,then flows into Oxidation PondNo. 1, or is discharged directly into Oxidation Pond;No. 1: From Oxidation Pond No 1, the wastewater flows through the remaining oxidation ponds for further treatment. The wastewater is then disinfected,prior to:discharge or reuse. As prop"osed in the 50 percent design, the new water recycling facility would_be located in the Aerated Lagoon and Oxidation Pond No, 1' To prepare the Aerated.Lagoon.and Oxidation Pond No. 1 for construction, the following actions are needed: • The removal, drying and disposal of approximately 5,000 tons of sludge from the Aerated.Lagoon and Oxidation.Pond.No. 1. • Construction of a new pipeline to route influent wastewater around the Aerated Lagoon and Oxidation PondNo. 1 into Oxidation Pond No 2. • Installation'of aerators iri OxidationPond Nos. 2 and 3 for additional treatment of influent wastewater. • Placement and consolidation of 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill into Oxidation Pond No. 1. Construction would require,four separate'contracts: 1) sludge'removal, 2) pipeline construction, 3):placernenfof imported fill, and 4) construction of water recycling facility., The'pond'project's;construction Lost is estimated at $72.91 million, and'.isianticipated toy be fully operating;--in early 2009. Given the'amount,of time and resources,necessary to 4 S:\water resources'&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\citycouncil meetings\august 18-2003\new:draft-agenda bill.doc prepare the Aerated Lagoon and Oxidation Pond No. 1 for construction, the City began to .ask the question, Is it feasible to locate the facility on Parcel A, along with the polishing treatment wetlands? If'so, what are the implications? An analysis conducted,bythe City concluded that constructing the new water recycling facility on Parcel A is feasible. It was initially believed that there might be the potential for liquefaction to occur on Parcel A. Liquefaction;is a phenomenon in which the strength and.stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the"space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This waterexerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the.particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressureds relatively low: However,..earthq' ake shaking can cause the'water pressure'to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. The potential for liquefaction would not render.Parcel A infeasible. If liquefaction were an issue, the structural integrity of thefacilities would have to be designedlo accommodate this potential. The feasibility study is summarized in Attachment A. Table 1 compares the Pond 1 and Parcel A options. "Pond 1" refers to locating the facility in Oxidation Pond No. 1 as shown on Figure 1. "Parcel A"refers to locating the facility on Parcel A.as shown on Figure 2. As shown in Table 1,,:the constructiomcost.for the Parcel A option is approximately$5.25 million less than the Pond 1 option, but requires $1.29 million in additional engineering, for a total:savings of$3.96 million. 5 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase2\city council meetings\august;l8-2003\new draft agenda bill.doc 1� Table 1 Summary Comparison.of Pond11 Option:and Parcel A Option Item Pond 1. Parcel A Costs Construction Cost $7291,million $67:66'million Additional-Engineering $0:00' $1.29 Total: $7291 $68:95 Estimated Completion Date Spring-2009 Suing, :2008 No of Construction,Contracts 4 1 Preserve Water Storage No Eliminates storage in Aerated 'Yes Lagoon and:Oxidation'Pond No 1, which,reduces available storage by 80 :acre-feet: Impacts to Operation of Existing Significant Minimal Facility DuringConstruction CEQA and Engineering In order to consider the potential environmental impacts of locating the facility on Parcel A, a supplemental EIR will need to be prepared. The City has initiated this effort and anticipates,bringing the supplemental.EIR to the City Council in early Fall;2003 for Council considerationand selection,ofa preferred alternative. Design of the Pond 1 option has not progressed beyond the 50 percent level. The design • team has,been.on-hold since January 2003"when•the+City began evaluating the feasibility of Parcel A. To,relocate the facility to Parcel A and;accommodate the accepted VE review recommendations; an amendment to Carollo's,design agreement is.riecessary. The City and Carollo Engineers have initiated negotiations on a comprehensive revised scope of work. A;copyof the proposed scope of work•is provided in Attachment B. 3. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives for this project include: 1. Take no:action. 2. Direct:City Management`to proceed.with:development of the new water recycling facility at the oxidation ponftsite • 6 S:\water fesourees&'consctvation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august 18-2003\new draft agenda'billfdec 3. Approve`theiesolution authorizing the City Manager to amendthe:professional services,agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional services'in support of the WaterRecycling Facility Project. 4. Take other,action asdirected by City Council. • 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:' The construction cost savings for locating the water recycling facility at Parcel A instead • of Pond 1 are approximately-•$5.25'million. The additional engineering necessary to accommodate this change and other accepted recommendations from the VE review is $1.29 million, which yields a total savings of$3.96million•($5.25 - $1.29). These savings are illustrated in the-report Under Attachment A. The FY 03-04 project budget is presented in Table,2. Table 2 FY 03-04 Project Budget Prior Est. USES (dollars irt$000) Years 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 Total 7105 General Fund Overhead $ 330 $ - $ 668 •$ 1,152 $ 1,380 $ 1,095 $ 4,625 7106 Administration 4 2 60 4 4 4 78 7107 Planning/Environmental 3,080 375 90 50 - - 3,595 7108 Design 800 3,500 4,000 - - - 8,300 7109 Legal Counsel - - - - - - - 7110 Land Acquisition - - - - - - Construction 7111 Management - 1,200 3,000 3,600 2,900 10,700 7112 Construction - - 8,000 20,000 24,000 19,000 71,000 7113 Community Outreach • - - - - - - 7114 Contingency _ - 800 - - 800 TOTAL S 4,214 -5-3,877. $14,818 524;206 128,984 $22,999 S 99,098 7 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase.2\city council meetings\august 18.-2003\new draft agenda bill doe 5. CONCLUSION: Locating the Water Recycling Facility on ParcePA-versus Pond No. I offers numerous benefits, including: Projectcost savings of;approximately$3.96 million. • Reduce construction schedule by one year. Only one construction contract. Pond No.1 option.could.requiretip to four separate construction contracts: Impact to existing wastewater titan-Dent-facility during:constructioniis minimized. Preservesstorage and treatment capabilities of Aerated Lagoon and Oxidation Pond No 1, which provide approximately 80 acre-feet in storage: Provides more flexibility for.future:changes to facility. 6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT'WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: Successful design,:construction and operationtfthe,water recycling facility: 7. RECOMMENDATION: City Management recommends the City Council adopt.the resolution authorizing'the City Manager to amend the Professional Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers. . • 8 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august I8-2003 new draft agenda bill doe AUTHORIZING'THEPCITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE WATER RECYCLING'FACILITY PROJECT (Project No. 9012) WHEREAS, the Water Recycling Facility Project, Project No. 9012 ("Project") is included in the Department of Water Resources and Conservation Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program Budgetas Project 9012; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on August 5, 2002 for the Project;and WHEREAS, the Project certified in the EIR included locating a portion of the treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds (APN 068-010-025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4100 Lakeville Highway (APN 068-010- 026, and 017-170-002); and WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November 2002; and WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4100 Lakeville Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further evaluation; and WHEREAS, to construct the Water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would require the removal, drying and disposal. of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to'deliver influent to oxidation pond no 2, the construction of,aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment capacity, and require the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill in oxidation pond no. 1; and • , 'J A WHEREAS, a. feasibility study determined that locating1 the water recycling'facility at 4100 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields manybenefits;.and WHEREAS, additional engineering effort is necessary to accommodate relocating the water recycling facility to 4100 Lakeville,Highway and other.accepted recommendations from.the VE' review; and WHEREAS, the cost of the additional engineering:effort is estimated at $1,291,420,'with a City Management requested contingency of $40,000 to efficiently address any changes or modifications that may occur prior to completion of the plans and specifications; for a total authorized amoun •of$1,331,420; and • NOW BE ITRESOLVED.by the Petaluma City Council that: 1. The=above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City Council of the City of 2. The City Manager is authorized. to amend the professional 'services agreement with Carollo Engineers 'in support of the Water Recycling Facility project in the amount, of $1,291,420, and a not too exceed.amount of$1,,331,420„subject to the review and„app roval of the.CityAttorney. 3. This resolution shall"become effective'iminediately. 4. All portions,of this resolution are•severable. Should any individual component of this; resolution°be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable.by a body of:coinpetent-jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall'be and continue in full force and effect, except as to•those resolution portions',that have been adjudged invalid: The City Council of the City of Petaluma herebydeclares that.itwould have.adopted:this resolution and each section, subsection,,clause, sentence,phrase and;other portion thereof, irrespectiveof the facythat one ocmore section subsection,,clause sentence, phraseor other portion may be held invalid or.unconstitutional': City of i etaluma, California Lakeville HighwayWater Recycling Facility Project REVIEW OF VALUE ENGINEERING REPORT AND INTEGRATION OF PARCEL,A COST SAVINGS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT July 2003 4 ccIroLLo enaineers S:\wafer resources 8 conservation\Waslewater\9012\chase 2\city council meetings\august 18-2003\NEWEIN/Wexec sum DOC- 2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 300 • WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • (92,5) 932-1710 • FAX (925) 930-0208 City of Petaluma, California Lakeville Highway Watdr Recycling Facility Project REVIEWOF VALUE ENGINEERING REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE.OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ES-1 2:0 VE STUDY OVERVIEW ES-1 3M SUMMARY OF DESIGN ENGINEER'S REVIEW ES-3 4.0 PARCEL A SITECOST SAVINGS- - ES-12 5.0 SUMMARY ES-13 • LIST OF-TABLES Page.No. Table 1 Summary of Accepted VE,Ideas and Project Team's Response' ES-4 Table 2 Summary of Accepted VE.Ideas ES-9 Table 3 Summary of Parcel A Site 'Cost Savings ES41 DRAFT August'6„2003 ES-i S water resources&conservation\Wastewater190121phase 2 city council meetings august 18-20031NEWDWWexec sum DOC City of Petaluma EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION' The main purpose ofthis'Executive Summary is to.review.and document the Value Engineering (VE) ideasthat will be,incorporated into the City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility (WRF) project and`.combine those ideas with potential savings.with relocation of the WRF to Parcel A. The Parcel A location is adjacentto the:City oxidation ponds and has been identified as the location for the polishing treatment wetlands and public amenities associated with the Petaluma Marsh.Acquisition, Enhancement and.Access project. The Executive Summary outlines the ideas that can be integrated with these facilities to minimize the cost of the overall facilities. A VE study i •required for,State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan applicants with a total project cost estimated to be greater than $10 million, and is recommended for all projects. The City of Petaluma conducted aVE review of final design,at the 50;percent design stage in December 2002. The results of the VE review are contained in the "Draft.Value.Engineering Workshop Report for the Petaluma Water Recycling Facility"dated December 2002. The Design Engineers response to the VEideas based on.the 50 percent•design is included in the "Review of Value-Engineering Report' dated March 2003.. After the formal VE review and"Carollo's internal review was:completed, the City requested that Carollo Engineers(Carollo) evaluate the feasibility of Iodating the WRF on Parcel A, instead of the existing Pond No. 1 location. In prior studies and reviews, the plant location was constrained to the pond site. The City was interested.in:this Yalternative due to the high cost of construction on the.Pond'No. 1 site A feasibility study was prepared to determine the potential cost savings for the Parcel A site. This executive summary presents the measures to reduce project costs in chronological order: 1) value engineering (VE), 2) design engineer's review of VE ideas and incorporation into the project, and 3).relocation of facilities to Parcel A. • 2M VE STUDY OVERVIEW The purpose of the VE study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of project elements included in the Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility Project (project) at the 50 percent final design level,:and to propose-potential cost saving changes to the`project:The City of Petaluma;retained Smith Culp Consulting to'facilitate a VE review of the 50 percent final design submittal for the project dated November 2002. The proposed project outlined in the 50 percent final design submittal includes the following elements: DRAFT -August 6:;2003 ES-1 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august 18-.2003W EWOW Wexec sum.DOC U f • Preliminary'treatment consisting of bar screensand grit removal. • Secondarytreatment including extended aeration activated sludge,.sedondary,clarifiers, and`RAS/WAS`pumping.. • Tertiary treatment including filtration and UVrdisinfection. • Oxidation ponds for stora9e, wet weather flow treatment and°metals reduction. • Treatment wetlands (densely vegetated)for algae removal. • Polishing treatment wetlands'.forreduction ofnutrients (including ammonia), metals and organics. • Solidslreatment and handling consisting'of-gravity belt thickeners'', two,stage anaerobic digestion,rand centrifuge dewatering. The VE team:reviewed the 50 percent final design submittal during a .VE workshop on becernber 2 through 6„2002. The VE reviewwas conducted by'a'seven person team, including a team facilitator selected by the,City of'Petaluma. The results of the VE'review are presented in a°draft report'dated December6, 2602. These results focused on cost reductions and process improvements. . The VE review workshop;included a presentation by'Carollo Engineers on December 2, 2002., The,presentation provided an overview of,the facilities, outlined the design criteria rand the,site, constraints of the:i'proposed facilities. In addition, Carollo outlined several constraints for the 'VE review: The constraints included: • ReliablYmeet.discharge tequiremerits'(Octobet 21 to April:30). • Reliably.meet Title 22 reuse'°requirements (May 1 to October20). • Continuous sludge disposal, produce biosolids that can betbeneficially reused:(Meet'. EPA 503 requirements for Class B:biosolids). • Maximize use of`existing oxidation ponds'for storage,in:summer and year round metals, reduction. • Restricted to extended aeration;activated sludge alternative for secondary treatment. • Restricted to existing Lakeville.Highway WRFsite and Parcel A/B. Carollo presented a 50 percent final design construction costestimate for tneproject to'the VE Review Team. The construction costrestimate based,on the 50 percent design documents was $98.04 million. Carollo`also presented to the VE team'a list of cost;saving measures the design engineers had'identified. The VE'Team prepared the Draft VE Report summarizing'VE design change ideas which were anticipated to result?in significant cost savings orincreased process reliability.Some+of DRAFT:-:Augutt 6, 2003 ES-2 S\water.resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\citycouncil meetings\august'18-2003\NEW DW Wezec sumiDOC these VE ideas weresimilar to"or incorporated the ideas:Carollo had presented to save costs. The VE report was presented tote City of Petaluma and Carollo on December 6, 2002. Carollo reviewed the ideas with respect to technical feasibility, integration into the 50 percent design and impacts on other processes. The degree of cost savings proposed by the VE team for each idea was also reviewed. The Final Report presents a.summary of Carollo's review of the VE team's ideas. 3.0 SUMMARY OF DESIGN ENGINEER'S REVIEW The Draft VE Report=include d 87 ideasvfor consideration by Carollo and the City of Petaluma. Carollo completed a review of 85 VE ideas. Of the 87 ideas, the VE team eliminated two ideas. Consequently,,Carollo did not provide a VE response for these ideas. TheVE Team also provided other ideas that were not evaluated due to time;constraints. Carollo provided a response to some of these ideas. It should also be noted that some of the individual VE ideas are not separate and that,several overlap. Therefore, the total potential cost savings cannot be obtained by summing the cost savings for individual ideas. Carollo rated each idea as accepted (A), accepted conditionally (AC), rejected based on technical concerns (RT) orrejected based on cost considerations (RC). An accepted rating was given to those ideas that were technically feasible, desirable, and resulted in cost savings. An accepted conditionally rating was given to the ideas that appeared to result in cost savings, but contained•aspects that are still under consideration or require modification. A rejected rating was given'to ideas that were either technically"infeasible or showed a lack of apparent cost savings: Note that for some of the rejected ideas, hybrid recommendations were developed that made use of the original VE idea. These are documented in the VE idea response forms,and have;resulted:in modifications to Carollo's recommended project. After reviewing the merits of each of the recommendations,„the project team ranked each VE idea. A summary of the original design concept, the VE idea and Carollo's response and ranking for the acceptable VE ideas and hybrid ideas incorporated into the project is presented in Table 1.. The cost savings for the-project frOm the VE ideas and hybrid ideas is presented in Table 2. Thetotal cost savings from the.incorporatiori ofVE„ideas and hybrid ideas is $23.321 million bringing the total costs down from the original 50 percent design estimate of$98.04 million to $74.91 million. Subsequent changes made to the project by the design engineers`,were able to reduce costs an additional $1.809 million. These changes'included: simplifying the solids,handling buildings (reducing the size); reducing site work by reducing number of sidewalks, reducing,road widths and reducing fill°and off-haul; and simplifying instrumentation systems. The total construction cost estimate for the Pond 1 site was thereby reduced to $72.91 Million as shown.in'Table 3. DRAFT - August 6,.2003` ES-3 S:\water resources 8 conserv"anon\W astewater\9012\phase 2\city,council meetings\august 18-20031NEW D W W exec sum DOC U CD - Q < Q• Q Q Q Q Q Y Q Q C M CL N o j N '-o 0 y'—m.. Q L U .c .m-.' 0 O'. w• .Y• 0' 0 3 $ m 3 5 E 2 w y. rn�.o: CO 3 0:m "0 a E- Ji m o. .ao cvm -o c TIY fn 0 0 m a) a`) �-o g s a) = d o o,`m c m 7,m cmvi 2mc o '?. 'C '� Y0 E 9 - 11-a 0 91 o f o a■E.m ,o a � m m. �� o >' E .0 w o 0 d `o 0 a-o a a c' O N m"o u c ..'m .E. O w c o a 0 0 E E m: E'.- `m la a U . ' w' W 0 .0 o d :Ua 0L kc ` a c 0 . i m � c o a? � 3 m m m E x ma) m a) E l('.2 p m m .o E o o %m Io, .E t w �. m o. ;E o ;o a E Ebr c a E.O m c o o . C � QymmG a) -0 E "c � : `m a> 0 a) > > > -0 6 . E . Uy , C L. . -c m .N V imU ,Na a U C N a.'-':6 L V E 2 a )N R m c> . . m.17 m O' ifN 'c. a> a a) m U a1 N - 10 N V -6.0 o ,..c'5 oM U U ? oS Vp o L 0 N 0 2, o O o a a E a E d o o 3 .n o 0;Im a E Q Q m a,- a a • • • • • • • • • • • 0 M aa)) o C m m m c 0> m N O, 'N c m 'C, Q. O) 0 -o U L N rm N E E _ o v; CI 'o. y.N 2 o `0 0 S''40 0 • 2 d o —moo S a°?. 'G _C)'. .4) C m m �. 0. O N'` INaa' 3 'a U co. m 5,0 a> A -0 O CO U N d,C 4 O'CO 0 0: m 3 N. ..`�,E•, O 3.,L .0 CD O• W '30 O!':_ U N 'y: C OO —c m. C C N >. U. N .c r— ., d m rn .c :m:c_ m _ t' c_ N )n'. a`> o o E p A a) .N O 2 Cr N O > N �(V y N D. - N :'E N. a) 0,CI 0. ya. := c C w„ .0 m CO D 0'fa N m O.Cl . m 0 m O 0 .a)r C 0.y...a) `O Q' m N an d U a a) N a),O m d C j C N �. �;° 6 EO E.,:C,C L ''a C° r C- .S c`a c' O LL 'E c. m m E m t 'c. sa, 'E E 'E.E 0 -7) E N m..r N 0 c: `m E 0 ._ '- 2 . 0 0) 'rd ml 0.5 E E' 2 C O) w M. 0 7 c m �a=Ewa Da Ina Cc) Oa w all N •C, RI n A •. . . . . • • . . • . 0) O, 'O C), N: W �. E. a .m 0 2 0i. - r;o a-c ,Lm, o '0 3 13 16 W V �0�-0 h:CD N a O. N . .> a� C � T. L C OD w ICI Q p m. C w O)'O L m la a C ao.0 N W a' D N-■O. . 0: U ,r N m CM -0 rn j • 'y a m ai E c CO «?, 0 Vco �. C C�'C m..� N N 2 o N. m m is O L" N .0, 0O 3,C V m 17 '01 �r 17.N m m V 2� 3N. N �' N .. m ,7a cc r: 7 ..y S.c. aO).. `0) N d(0 0 a) i°•.' — 2.c;• m.�. o' `a) >;E P -01 —= d L co' 17 > U— m at L,m N:: C O O C c,, 2 a > a ` a> N. m m T N U 7> m w N 'N. Q = r+' O Y 00).0 a, m U U. O b E'N cla a> a. O o. 01. 0)m m uC). 43.' c 8.c.,a '4;c w C ami ac) 3 _ChM E 'm'.o m �I .' c€ E $' a',6 3. E >' O co m 2 ] . m 4 y;a 0 o;w as c a'E� ...= Ern �^ am p_-- .5s rn CE - .` m U.0- o,r .0 a). o t a) m ..5 J.F3 O'm a) 0'N co' 'U C a) S o'..N ,E N, w Q co'a) Z. o r) o,9 w a a.co m;N W a m w.a.o ca co a 0_-o co r J, o (n C1 .N <f: ,N Qi r co R CQ W Z 2- -i 2 Q Q Q, Q Q Qf. Q Q i- DRAFT:- Aygust 6, 2003 ES= 4 S\WATER RESOURCES'&CONSERVATION\WASTEWATER 19012\PHASE 2\CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AUGUST 18-.2003\NEWDWWEXEC: v f` ,, • • a) Y Q Q- Q Q Q Q- Q. (3 Q Q Q Q c A It '0 a N O: o C Co.> Q) ta- co c C a) 2 La C C O C N 0-.0 3:10 C c N r 0;U C -N d; a) 0 0�. c 0) -0 .> -0 m' - 4a E E. c ;.. E. a A o.m. o E - c o .. .c w 0 0' w, od o > d° °E E E ° a 0 , 0 0 0 0 To m N E ) a), o ` ° � ;r uo 0' CO o.0 m t .inm > E N O •I' .. .N. NL. a C`$ or N: c > Dc a) co s C o; yL • N w' O o o a)�o... _.. o N .N N N•N -C,. N y y V y c•C. .> N. N '0. U E E N o N w O a a C aC o' a'.° 0. 0 U C C• 3'.N aC' E d Ew 3 a'- a) o °a c0a 8'„ ,= a, c.)) „ - � Z t 1:1? u e = ao0 ,00. N 0 g r to y � CO .Y. ° � „ „ 0 � � 0 , w p E Ea- Ea � �'a, E 'o Ev 01?c. r o �E,-. E E o a) a) E co:o 00 N ` «a) E .00. E a) � t)ito 2, E ° om a) co 0.) a) O ;.c to . O « N. N - y.0 •` O a) E, U E E L E t, N m 30 O -5-0 O L ;5 5 O j > 0 a O C O 0 U •a a` 3 a` 3' ow om o_ a` 3 x 'oa` aEa` 3 0oN o. S a2 • • • • • • • • • LV - w a aa) ••.- rn 0 a) '' rn Li o C C i) a.� t 3 J C y ] N O t m c U)) ,c E C 0 o o E c o .. c y o c ° c C) a) 0 O C .0 V d C ..p.. C 0 y CO ° m CO) .,. a' ,O. O•'N co It '0 a y.4=,�U o m = a7 N C E d 0 a 0 c O j N Co °,.- N 0..�' p � d d •O '°_ �O a.�a) O � N • O. N i:co.O' ° 0 0 a1' o > C LLI v '.QE c a) N a da U J c >, 9 toN N F. _ ., d > o D `o. E'. ;c. o N 3•C',-el. 'a" yO°.? 3 m °) N !-' is X,fO• U �N O C O C• a.y IJ N N c a U ta:c `N, > N O •0 -E p..N pi v U w C 2-0- y"a2) 8 -0 0 O .E N a) C O. . o >,0) E c 0 o' a a o m N aG ° > S E H mLL. p.� U. 0 a) 0 E E O - c 0 �E co E r a -c a) .0 v 0 0 "0 N O o 0 'N N O N ... O a) o' a) u O N.. C M a c as 0 C C D a !o p ca a in 7w U a 3 W... cC co D m to a 3 CO . U) U • • • • • • • • • • • • m >. CD O V IQ "O 45 N 0 LLI .,, w v o; o m.E .;,o ,2 a c`3 o'm) .pIn o yo c c 'O 10 c, a-.: 'O C a o 0 -- _ 4 o N rots C '>, y N m o w .• ,.A p' c,aa. = a Cf V y a L O tc m m U )?-N o `a :.--- N D 0_ -est_ U 0. T.'0 U .°,E. Nm -:,_a E °) oo,5 ma) am a5 o '`- 30 co mm U CO '_ 0) `.O a H ,a 0 v3).E'. a ..0,'Q ° E ` 0. ac)•,s o, c 2 > d o O m r a s o a) a 7 N N O O O. 0) 0 N' .0. 0 < t 7' H 17 -- O N E E ' N 0,> N•� a w >9 a N D >' ' > > w on,— a) N,a c a 'aI O 0 D = E, 0 E C C a , a):o..C: 0 m > N N O 2 ..... L °c n. Co o E'',0 o a c' =' u:E o. 'E 0) w a= > Z�E rta. y r a R ,0) 0) C.. - < O a) an t. �' c '0 O y a) y co 0. ,t2 N .y.. to N o do d a co a, 0 x c g N O E .- c c E o) 'm C0 c CO 1° 0 L. Z c-, ty a Z 'm' E o.r E � O - to � .0 en N E .2)NUO yN NOa'.= a,a) `ON o >„ s_ c,,_ co A: r O D° V U C:. Cr) N O 17 m N a N,0.Z N (/) .o.+.L.- a d u) N a. N U o J U • • • • • • • • • • • 2 �: (O V I,- to to co f�0 .2 CI) N ' LL. LL LL LL LL' O CO CC CC I- ■ DRAFT-August 6, 2003` ES-5 S:\WATER RESOURCES&CONSERVATION\WASTEWATER\9012\PHASE 2\CITY COUNCIL MEETINGSWUGUST 18-20031NEWDW WEXEC U 1 Q) Y 'a a a a a < : ; : a a c.m te � L . c' cO1r..c W Nd :O O W T 0 3 19 o) 3 C O 3 C0 .N':O M ,�.a.' 'm ,co 1 ,3 v E m c.S;. m '3... m'= m .c m`;a CO o c C c >,am) E a m C . 1 m a= -�'0 0 41) N CO v:° w oW o a"E'm 0 w E`0i w 2 c w o'W v_o OW.IE d �' a) 0..E N E a�. � N N U .. N -to 17' N E'EN TM1,° a a.�;.• V) act_ L 0 0 aL. N .L.. v ,'N « ;mo L O Ir O)r_O mrm p, C C N)L « L. E --.. 0) N « 0 0 °) ... 0 :E m N L„'. « E r E.m o! O. o�N a'3 a'3 N :> 0 a,';o a E,o).0 a E,�.« a.3.. a Er.° E:3 Vi a,o c 0 o o a)a\N � coi.U. coi �._' a t) 0.�p8 U o' U �,� w E E! Zcoos 03 0,- m m N b m.' N Cu N m co . 'U c m « m o w 8. O o'3 E'.a E -mo 0- ''c. 3 i0 E� E 2 > �,p E c 'E ,_0',2. E 3 E.'2 Ea E",0 m o; mlc me 'o 'o c m,0:. mo 0m2 mo m.... m m,c. mo C;.O mc `)o a,O' 00V mE •. E v?oo «,Emlu .E.._0m3 Nm"E „�;(mi art:'0 ..'- .2 RI, o .. o N EO .0 EO )N m'a) j 0'00 0 0)) .0)O 0 -- 0.§ C 0.o :0 v m:y a) N T O d:'da _. 0 10 °i o..s 0 I-10 a-w I- o'c 1.,. 0_ « o o_ 2 n. 2 Dm « c :a 3 a '�.E .2 .o O a E a+i° m.a �' :.a`E 'a`:�c°) a .E -2. • • • • • • • • • • • • • J. a 0) '0 o. E C cN .E m ai 4. .,r, a O ai0 N v” C N OI .CAN O. ° N E`a. la c.o' 'E co L aNi' :r 0 E m y d c .a) m r a=n :a; ,ao a) a 319 o a w c° te 0) 0 ` c c t c' O) 0 a - Q N N - C L:.3 .° w0• (/) Y m m • 7(0.- o, C C U . c O 0 0..O C'0 m �' N'.0: >' ve L CO Q.Q. a N 'O . CC I-: -o E C1 C i7 0 O v..N = .Oj. (0*2 '0.G m . Di o. c c >. 0,o m m v m o a) E a m d p W: a. a 3 c c '0°u Y: m ' m i.- t_.c.-0 :` a 3'vc T > 3, _ O) N U 0 N N L+a`O 0 - N w. 7 .0.w N > O.0 N`C O. > 2 L 0 10 N U E N' -0 co O m 00 0 O 6,1-a)':v ° a..0., T C 0 Lo 413 m N >.N = 'o. N C IL > d a) ca c m.� �,m o' 0a m co m ccaa,m c co cm `m 0> a.o 0 'N o f N ,E o m 'E ').c- d- , CO y a := a E co d o w o m o;m c ;a) 0'. 7 m y W%o o) W E 0!•; 7 c. S N S N co 7.3 '7 3 ❑'.a U t CO c U, !T • • • • • • • • • • ,• ,• • d G p 0/ m .. _, 30 ,� co m m. > CI . O C C N _;C a C. «. 'NO N U co, o; -" U m q -0 V CI d m p a.�3 .ae .0 m d'.0. O.. 0) 0 'N C C 0''N 0.0 a a) ;N. Q ;T V' V O''% lE O'. L %C m = U m ''C'. a O m U c,0 .0 C ,10„.c N 0. Vl- 0 m 6' p)C co t'a) c.-is« . '0 N,0 a_t � a'C - 0 c� 0 3 0 a) o CO, o Q �� E O 0{>.O .0 0) :3ty E 01 0) > m .L °. O L 0 L.c m c'� 3t=• .3i p,:�'U T,S' '� T U = co, dl' w °la) 3?.y m O A m 2.1-, N O m Q CD a O!� O > ,O y 0 N co,0 C C '� N O) L M p) , y', .E E o m m m t t o va) E, o'o N 4, o o) a.c o a 2° 0 0))_•n, E m ', c o 0,`vm) c N, N a m (m):.n-'w' -, O Too -5, •� N 9 a c � Y Ca it 0 CO= C .`m..a- E > O p) 3o O c c°,m._ c c 3 "5,i4 m m U. o,m 0 c! m t w' .,N c,— 'a.c E Y' r I- u. o Do c-oOo `m an . an 7n (Oa N, m 7aOE U) a CO J 0 r d C m _, m A Z 0) U) co CO 'Q V) CO CO 0 ;�' '��; F- DRAFT August 6, 2003 . ES-6 S:\WATER RESOURCES'&CONSERVATION\WASTEWATER\9012\PHASE 2■CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS\AUGUST 18'-2003\NEWDWWEXEC'. . ! i < IaiIi Q jj ; ffj1C C o Q E z�a) a- E 1a E - E'- E E E 0' 0 E E E o E cc •. 0 c 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 L w a) y 0 y O a . 10 co y • 0 y y a O 3 y j W E �'o S c c o o «' c �. 0 d a M- N B N 3 0 o EO �,N 0.0 N co N co c C a C y.CO N O N.'00:. y o 47 oy c o O Q.= N L,N o N'. o w o o3 = .r, 'O. V•F ca '1.1 -6 0 0 o c cc N... N aY 0 '� --20,1000o05 ca J, m' o m ,= y N c N w ; O E o Ec E E Eo E E EE °a oa EE E-o 5-0'o E -o o) o co c co t :N co O c co 0,C N C CO' - CO O N c.w. N o O E. E 9 E -S°c '.5 0,0 2 E m e d g •C..Y y a}. c N E t.. co o) WE E 1- N7 of N°'E ;V' ',:y i5 uEw 'E 005 ago 'tE 5 aiEc'E 115 6) N o N 'N a) -0 0 .N O a) a). N O 5 0).- a) O N 0•f N O V 'EL 'O. O° T:s l0'goo O.L.. iJ t. `O« N"p N. p.. E� O w -y T'j.T O a3 a` 2a`''3 a` o� d3o_ 3 o_ 30o o0 a` 30- 3 ❑ ya0a` 3 • •. •: •, • • • • • • • • • CO N v y N 'c c 0 3 L` 2 '- a ,. C ° =. p O O C 0. � y T ° E .>� U) N m �,,E N a L. d a N 3 a E ; ° o a o e E �0 . o . a fNo � 0 co NL o N oc LL . a c S a F2 E d w d o a ,m:a: c m � ' ro a _ c m ° o L c a) N co a' Z) CO h V .. C <V c . J Y a) `� mo ca o m N' o co aoE ' S lL ° D a; o E -0 ,- o 5 a o v ,.., > as E IDm °.- wi o °. a ,o T f r N > .4 C U a CD ° 2. HS N .. . a) " y co S N N O > — at'or CO d lL a E m E 'E '.°?a w•'5 a) w o d ...° 1.c .22� c E E' 'E d o yv o.mU C 0) cr wE in U'c-m = 000a) r5Ocoy 03 0o in OE OoE02 C c N c • • • • • • • • • • • • • c T N -o E w •2 Iii O y LL O N O C o o q 'y O N O c M N •O° co N ) o 13 y o O O O - = 0 N U O 4 V. U N' y a_. M a ° u °� w -4,i)••••-••. c.F c m � ' C N° o a) .a c. o E 0 R R: C -0 N a�. .. - N C° 'y N co -€ 0 •••- ° 02•17; _c•-: . N: E O N o N - Q L 3 N w a y;. c N w'L c;o ``' H c' coi.. o n ° c E N 2 L;�3 N N m « > E y.. 01 N { 'N N' o > a) c Q '>,' 'O ' E B. Q 'O �'.U N O co 0 CI 2 o 0 .a E, .0 y N O.y E-Y .0 c L a): > y C N CO. Q a1 0:,C5 -2 :3 y'0 c d a Cu f N N 'a) Cu y d` or N o 0 0 0 0' N o) O N E U • 'a) ° O as •C ' c > N > N N vi, c N' > d L zI N O 0 '` c a) Oft (n CN) 'O N N W a:,,,m•E d 0 0) O N ` E U d' N T o N y 0 0 O 0 a) 0 0 = 0 o.c O o ,- T to N, a 0 a-N xY O a y a a)' c_ co CO y a y = 'O D9 LL > 'c. a a o 0_ N to -o CI- to E E U)L O S N -J W, • • • • • • • • • • • • • a C C9 C7 0 N w CO N- w, o N Z w w w Ca H DRAFT - August 6, 2003 ES-7 S:\WATER RESOURCES&CONSERVATION\WASTEWATER\9012\PHASE 2\CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS\AUGUST 18-2003\NEWDW WEXEC U } C en 0 Y• Q Q CO cn 4! .0 U al C c Oj o o C co 0 o I I ::� •N N 0 0 -:E E - N`' o o ui E E a) CO N U• N C O o 2 N N U • • ce. 0. N i�0. 0 E o tE'a t O' o co o A :mm .0) E O) • :,.L ICI 0) - iN O C 0-- i q 3 0 cn CO . JD 'U a) ca co N C 2 E, CC 0., _c y II CO N y x U R U) r N,N J aE' 0 .•to ao .O ai ,a i g o a C m a, > Y E>, m ' ,N a O O' 'C! m.C. .. U y ca c = a LL, s d' o U lC 0 O w :0 U. of C Q co 13 . II ea >, • 0 CD a aai C Q O 2,', E -o ro w, O o a co� �w C o•« N 0. 0. C o w 0 a) d � Q• = E. N x m co O •„ IT N. !r- 0_ N co CC m E > 0.. 01 0 co ;o N. E Y T C a' 0 cc- — c1. - O 0 o m m W. J U a .. Q .U.: II Of r C) a, Z4 W W o H Z DRAFT August-6, 2003 ES-8 S\WATER RESOURCES-8 CONSERVATION\WASTEWATER\9012\PHASE 2\CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AUGUST 18-2003\NEWDWWEXEC Table 2 Summary of Accepted VE Ideas LakevillesHighway Water Recycling Facility Project City of Petaluma,:California Construction Item;'No. Description Cost Savings HW,1 Eliminatesheadworks building and reduce size of biofilters. $1,570,000 HV 7 Manuafoperators on all screen channel and.gritchamber slide $45,000 gates. HW8 Use,2 biofilter'cells•and reduce the number of odorcontrol'fans. Included in HW1 AS2 Increase'bypassed,flow. Eliminate 1 aeration basin and 1 clarifier. $4,050,000 AS4 Simplify,effluentstructures. Raise bottom elevation to minimize Included in AS11 size of-structures. AS5 Eliminate:stainless.steel beams and grating on selector basins. $551000 AS9 Eliminate basin dewatering drain pump. Use portable pump. $173,000 AS10 Eliminate utility trenches between aeration basins. $1,313,000 AS11 Delete scum system in aeration basins. Passscumto clarifiers. $457,000 AS18 Combine generator and blower buildings: $1,982,000 AS24 Eliminate groundwater dewatering purnpsl Use portable pumps. $46,000 Eliminate monitoring well level sensors. . AS25 Use oxidation ditch approach. $338,000 SC6 Move:Mixed liquor pipes from under the RAS/WAS pump station. $123,000 SC15 Remove chlorine lines around clarifier launders.. $157,000 F6 Use,hydraulicflocculation. Defer 2nd flocculation. $61,000 F7 Reduce;number of filter influent pumps. $70,000 F14 Simplify the filter support building. $270,000 F17 Use only'one polymer feed system for filters. $120,000 F20 Construct distribution system reservoir now:'Delete filterinfluent $1;722,000 pump station. Construct concrete clearwell inlieu of reservoir. D4 Eliminate piping for secondary effluent to UV/reuse system: $28,000 RW5 Reduce size'of'urban'reuse storage and move sludge facilities $777,000 north. RW6 Use Title 22 water for 3W and fire water and'eliminate 2W. Included in G11 W3 Reduce baffles in'Ponds 9 and 10 wetlands. $359,000 W8 Reverseiflow in Ponds 9 and 10. $1,894,000 SL8 Use1 gravity beltthickener. $300,000 SL9 Move storage containers and eliminate the inclined and horizontal $300,000 distribution•co riveyors. SL17 Eliminate dedicated sump pumps in container areas. Use Incorporated into portable,pump•orgravity drain. 50%estimate SL19 Eliminate check valve on digester mixing pumps. $32,000 'SL22 Relocate'.solidsihandling to Pond 1. $1,303,000 DRAFT -_August'6,,2003 ES-9 Si\water resources&conservation\Wastewater`9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august 18,-2003\NEW DW Wexec sum.DOC J Table 2 Summary.of Accepted VE;Ideas Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility Project City of Petaluma, California Construction ltern,No. Description, Cost Savings SL24 Use only dual fired boiler.,Eliminate'standby natural gas boiler. $110,000 SL25 Use:1 centrifuge. $350,000 SW1 Initiate surcharging ASAP-with separate contract.Accelerates $300,000 schedule for entire project: SW4 Use narrower berms on-polishing wetlands: $74,000 SW8, Use gravel 1parking;lotonsParcel A. $112,000 SW18 Defer or shorten 36-inch,force:main being built for future flows: $1,020,000 G1 Combine stormwater+and in-plantpump:stations. $300,000 G2 Reduce size of generator. ;$173,000 G5 Eliminate bypasses around magmeters.'Use spool pieces. $260;000 G6, Simplify 1&C. $425;000; G11 Combine 2W 3W and;FW as a single system and pull directly $708;000 off urban recycled water system. G13 Defer;generator synchronizer equipment. $63;000 E2, Use direct-buried cable_on north and east sides of site $650;000. E5 Use two half rated feeds.for blowers in lieuiof two fully-rated $120,000' feeds. E6 Delete intercom, but install empty conduits: $119 000 E7 Delete video, but install:erripty conduits. $90;000 E9 Combine intrusion alarm with-fire alarm., $80,000 E10 Simplify;SCADA architecture. $30;000 E11 'Delete stand-alone electric power-monitoring system. $108;000 E12 'Use'480Vdistribution;panel boards for 460V fractional '$105;000 horsepower valve;motor operators and other 480V loads not requiring motor starters in,a MCC: E14 Change 12kV loop,to 12kV single some,locations: $539;000 E15 Do not replace PIPS PLC. $40,000 TOTAL $23;321,000 Note: Table includes ideas'thatwere acceptedlanct accepted;conditionally by'Project team. DRAFT:-August 6,2003 ES-10 S\waterresources 8 conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august 18-2003\NE W D W W exec sum:DOC Y Table 3 Summary of Parcel A Site Cost•Savings Lakeville Highway Water Recycling;Facility Project City of.Petaluma, California Pond 1 Parcel'A Savings Item Site Cost ($M) Site Cost ($M) ($M) Common Elements(') $4012 $40.72 --- Preliminary Facilities (Headworks) 1.94 2.38 (0.44) Flow Diversion (Bypass line to Pond 2) 2.16 1.33 0:83 Site Work 9.94 7.10 2.84 Electrical Improvements 10.13 9.18 0.95 Mobilization/Demobilization 2.07 1.92 0.15 Liquefaction Allowance 0 1.08 (1.08) Sludge Removal 2.00 0 2.00 Polishing Wetlands 3.95 3.95 0 'Total $72.91 $67.66 $5.25 Added Engineering (1.29) Net Savings $3.96 Notes: (1). Common elements include all other process areas not impacted by site change. • DRAFT - August 6,..2003 ES-11 S:\water resources&conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings august 18-2003\NEWDWWexec sum.DOC u 4.0 PARCEL A SITE COST SAVINGS The;.feasibility'of locating the WRF on Parcel A instead of the existing Pond No. 1 location was suggested as part of the project review by the City of Petaluma. The City was Interested in this alternative due to the high cost of construction on the Pond No. 1.site. In addition, locating the WRF on Parcel A.would reduce the loss of treatment,capacity during construction.and provided space for future expansion to meet more stringent regulatory requirements. The Parcel A site was originally identified as the location for the polishing treatment wetlands and public amenities associated withthe Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access project. The relocation of the WRF to the Parcel A,location:was suggested to reduce the construction cost and reduce the time until project start=up. The estimated total construction costsaving is approximately $5.25 million based on theinitial study- The estimated.savings does not include the'cost of land acquisition. The major unknown cost is the cost for liquefaction remediation,a contingency is included for remediation and will be refined after the additionatgeotechnical investigation is completed. The construction`cost'•savings includes the items noted below: • The flow diversion project-is not required. This includes the bypassing of wastewater around the-aerated lagoon and Pond No..1 so that the plant could be built on Pond 1. However, a shorter bypass line and additional new aerators will still be needed"for the new plant • The temporary loss of treatment (volume)'in the Aerated Lagoon, and;Pond,Nos. 1 and 4 during the construction phase of the project is eliminated. This reduces the potential administrative costs and potential cost of discharge violations. • The permanent loss of storage capacity in the Aerated Lagoon, Pond No. 1 and portion of Pond No.4 is eliminated. This decreases the need to add future ponds for storage. Only Pond'Nos. 9 and 10 are modified during construction and converted!to vegetated treatment wetlands. • The,site work cost is reduced. Only 60 percent of the fill is required, north road improvements are minimized, and recycled water reservoir construction fill is reduced. - • Fill consolidation period for Ponds 1 and 4 is eliminated, thereby reducing construction time by-6 to 12 months. • Electrical improvement costs are reduced based on reduced power distribution system for Parcel A. • Access-road across Parcel A from the.southeast corner of Northbay/Oakmead Business Park is eliminated..Access to the Parcel A site will be provided off Lakeville Highway' (west gate entrance relocated). DRAFT - August 6, 2003 ES-12 Sawater.resources&conservation\W astewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august 18-2003\NE W D W W exec sum.DOC • The estimated added costs to the project from relocation to Parcel A include: • Headworkscost increased slightly due to higherelevation relative to grade. • Relocated west gate entrance costs may be higher than proposed east gate improvements. • An estimate of the cost for liquefaction remediation is included based on conceptual geotechnical evaluation. This assumes that the solids facilities are located in an area of potential liquefaction,to the southwest corner of the site. This is based on very limited information and may change substantially once preliminary and detailed studies are completed. Thus, a $1.08 million allowance has been added to the WRF cost for the Parcel A site. • Engineering redesign costs will add to the total cost and,are,estimated at $1.29 million. The redesign costs include incorporation of the VE idea's and relocation to Parcel A. The cost savings for the Parcel A alternative is summarized in Table 3. 5.0 SUMMARY The results of Carollo's review of the VE ideas were presented to the City of Petaluma, California in February 2003. The total savings identified by the design engineer review and for the accepted VE ideas is estimated to be $25.13 million, reducing the estimated construction costs from $98.04 million to $72:91 million. The post VE review by the City and Carollo has identified additional cost savings if the project is moved to the Parcel.A site. A net cost savings (after additional engineering costs) of$3.96 million has been identified. The additional engineering costs of$1.29 million include the reengineering for both the VE changes and the change to Parcel A. The estimated construction cost for the new recycling facility on Parcel,A is $67:66 million. DRAFT - August 6, 2003 ES-13 S:\water resources 8.conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 2\city council meetings\august 18-2003\NEW DW Wexec sum.DOC Amendment No:.2 PROFESSIONALSERVICESJAGREEMENT CAROLLO ENGINEERS WATER RECYCLING/FACILITY - PHASE 2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Project No. 9012 The:AGREMENT made and'entered into on March 294001' by and between the City of Petaluma, a Municipal Corporation and a charter city (hereinafter referred to as"City') and Carollo Engineers PiC., 2700 Ypnacio'Valley Road,,Suite300, WalnutCreek, California 94598', (hereinafter referred to as ("Consultant") is hereby amended to include the following: 1. Exhibit A, Scope of Workforthe original agreementshall;,be modified as noted in Attachment No. 1, Amendment No. 2 Scope of Services, attached. 2. The compensation listed in Paragraph 2D shall be increased by $1,291,420 from $8,392,326 to $9,683,746. Attachment No 2 summarizes the budget for each additional work item. AttachmentNo: 3; 2003 Fee Schedule, is-incorporated herein. • This Amendment No. 2 is hereby executed this _day of August 2003. CITY OF PETALUMA CONSULTANT • City Manager Partner ATTEST Partner City Clerk Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM 2700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300 Walnut Creek CA 94598 City Attorney Taxpayer ID No. 860899222 COMPLETED AND APPROVED Petaluriia'Business Tax Receipt No. 934809 Director of Water Resources& Conservation APPROVED: Risk Manager S:\water resources&conservation Agreements\REV5 Amendment Carollb.DOC 1 07/30/03 Amendment;No;a2• Attachment No. 1 SCOPE OF'WORK LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY WATER RECYCLING FACILITY CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA I. PROJECT BACKGROUND The,City of.Petaluma"(City), California, and Carollo Engineers,(Consultant)are currently preparing the final designfor a.new 6.7 million gallons per day (average try weather flow) (mgd) water recycling facility at the Lakeville'Highway site The City and Consultant entered into an agreement for the design of the facility in March 2001. The Agreement included Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which described the basis of design and tasks to,complete the design. This amendment lists the revisions to the original Scope of Work including relocation of the Water Recycling,Facilities"(WRF) plant from the existing Lakeville Highway pond;site to the neighboring Parcel A site, revisions:based on the Value Engineering'(VE) Review conducted in December 2002, and;additional work requested by the City..The changes to the Scope of Work necessary to"compl'ete the final design is outlined below. Parcel-A Relocation..The relocation of the WRF to the ParceLA location was suggested,as a VE change by the City to reduce;the construction cost of the facilities. In the current design, Parcel A is used for polishing treatment wetlands and the Petaluma'marsh;acquisition project, and is included in the project EIR. During the design of the WRF it was determined that construction of the facilities iri the existing oxidation'ponds would require significant`fill and consolidation period for geotechnical reasons. A preliminary feasibility study for the Parcel A site was prepared in February 2003. It identified advantages and disadvantages of the new WRF location. The advantages of this location includes: • Less fill (40%e less than Pond 1 location), therefore:lower construction cost • Less time is required for fill=surcharge and settlement, therefore shorter construction period and potentially lower-costs. • Significant reduction in the impact on the existing facilities, therefore an interim project is not",required and pond storage,volume left intact, thereby reducing costs. • No new CEQA impacts are expected, as determined in a preliminary reviewof the EIR docurnents..Ah.EIR addendum will be prepared for the new location to confirm'that no new impacts result`from the relocation of the WRF. • Lower Construction Costs The relocation of the,WRF impacts,,anumber of;design drawings,completed for the 50 percent submittal that will need updating. These include civil paving grading designs, yard piping, wetlands plans that will lbe.deleted and replaced with.new'drawings. In addition, several structures will requirepartial redesign for the new plant site;therefore, the current design S\water resources&-conservationlAgreemehts\REVS Amendment Carollo.DOC. 2 07/30/03 drawings will underga.revisibn. The?designscope changes are outlined below and,address the engineering cost impact ofthese changes. Value:Engineerinq (VEYReview. The City..conducted a VE,review by an independent team of engineers'that evaluated the project concepts and 50 percent.design submittal in December 2002. The result of theVE review were discussed;in a Review of VE Draft Report, dated February 2003 which identified the areas°where construction costs could be reduced and ways to keep the:projectwithin'the City's budgett The VE review'recognized that some redesign, would required^to implement the VE'ideas, but concluded.that the construction cost:savings was sufficient justifythe additional engineering cost. The main VE recommendations reduce cost include: • Consolidate facilities,in one pond.(or site)to. reduce,amount of fill • Use"pond capacity for peak wet-weather flows and reduce the peak wet-weather flow capacityand number of process units of•seconda y treatment facilities: • Usetoxidation ditch instead of the lagoon based Biolacsystem forsecondary treatment and eliminateblowersvand groundwater dewatering systems. • Reduce all'building sizes, especially+overall height and eliminate headworks and generator buildings. • Reduce ron-site recycled'water (RW) storage and'use:.RW for fire protection.:Off-site storagel,willtbe provided in the recycled water distribution system Phase II project. • Simplify treatment wetlands design and reverse'flow through ponds 9 an_d 10, includes deletion of'two pump stations. • Use heath-refit and polishing wetlands for nitrogen and algae reduction / polishing of pond effluent eliminate secondary effluent line: • Reduce solids process standby equipment; including deletion of one GBT and one centrifuge. • • Simplify_ electrical and instrumentation:systems, while providing same functions,with slightly love •reliability. The.impact of the VE revisiOnsts that a numberof'designdrawings completed for the;50 percent submittal will be:revised or deleted and replaced With new drawings. The design scope changes areloutlined below and address;the engineering cost impact'of the VE' recommendations: Additional Work. The City has requested additional'work"including the;following: • Preliminary design evaluation of an innovative dewatering technology the'screw.+press, that may reduce energy consumption. If the preliminary evaluation determines'that the screw press is the preferred dewatering process;;then this process would be carried into the final design of the,dewatering system�,The dewatering building will be revised'forthe process ifselected. • Revisionstothe operations and,maintenance:facilities for the ParcelrA site including relocation ofentrances'and facilities to accommodate siting next to the:business park. • Additional site visits to plantsbwith,oxidation ditch and screw press:. • Coordination with recycled water planning,and design:consultant(G.S:.Dodson and Associates).'Coordination of the tertiary treatment capacity, water balance; on-site,and off-site storage reservoir, pipeline and pumping facilities. • Design of plant business local?area network;(LAN),!and coordination with„City information services group to ensure an integrated system..is provided for cityfacility. S:\water resources'&conservation\Agreements\REV5 Amendment Carollo.DOC 3 07/30/03 • Ongoing schedule revisions;,project management, budget status reporting, and coordination,for project during six-month delay. ' • Additional meetings with City staff. The:design scope changes'are outlined below and address the engineering cost impact of the requested.additional work: II. SCOPE OF PROJECT The Scope of the Project/ Project Elements List shall be modified as noted below. Item B,Secondary Treatment:'Facilities shall be modified by replacing Item 1. "Extended Air Activated Sludge"with Oxidation Ditch Activated Sludge" and deleting Item 4. "Blower Building . and Aeration System." Item L, Instrumentation, Add Item 3, WRF Business LAN integrated with City WAN System III. SCOPE OF DESIGN SERVICES PHASE 2 — FINAL DESIGN Task 3.1 Contract Documents Submittal Task 3.1 shall be modified to Include revisions to the.50 percent submittal, submitted in November 2002 and reviewed in the December 2002 VE review. A new 50% submittal will be provided to the City of Petaluma. Attachment 4 lists the drawings revised for the change in plant location and VEReview changes. The submitted drawings shall.be modified as follows: Deleted Drawings: One hundred thirty-four (134) drawings that were prepared for the 50 % • submittal shall be deleted. The remaining budget for these drawings shall be credited to the added drawings outlined below. New Drawings: Seventy-five (75) new drawings shallbe added. These.include yard paving and grading, yard piping, yard structures, oxidation ditch plans, generator enclosures, electrical enclosures, electrical site plan and power distribution plans, oxidation ditch instrumentation and other miscellaneous drawings: The Yard.drawings will primarily be based on the new WRF location on Parcel A. In addition, ten to fifteen new drawings-are reserved for changes that will be requested by the City, including screw press design, business LAN design and other revisions as requested by the City. Revised 50 percent drawings completed to 50 percent:,Ninety four (94) drawings will be revised from the 50% package including general drawings, yard paving and grading, yard piping, yard structures, wetlands grading-and piping, headworks structure, filter support building, centrifuge and thickening.buildings, plant water systems, electrical MCC and single lines, electrical power distribution system and electrical buildings /enclosures. Task 3.4 Construction Cost Estimate Update The purpose ofthis task is to develop an updated construction cost estimate based on completion of the'50, 90 percent design, and the final submittal. An updated 50 percent estimate was prepared for the Parcel A alternative site This work was completed in conjunction with Parcel A Feasibility Study. S:\water resources&conservation\Agreements\REV5 Amendment Carollo.DOC 4 07/30/03 Task 4.1 Project Schedule Updates The purpose of this task is to maintain and revise,.the project'schedule. The project schedule has been updated on a monthly basis during the six,months.the project has been on hold and new milestone dates for the Parcel A.site alternative were developed. The project schedule will be updated monthly in Microsoft Project. Task 4.2 Progress Meetings Additional progress meetings have been required for the'extended.schedule,a number of these have been conducted to review the Parcel A Alternatives;:and update the.new Water Resources and Conservation Department Engineering Manager. These meetings will be:held monthly or on an as needed basis. Task 4.3 Status Report The overall design schedule has been extended,an additional 6 months from:the original. schedule prepared prior to the VE review..Additional monthly status reports including budget expended / remaining spreadsheets wilibe prepared"for the extended schedule. Task 4.4 Management of Subconsultants This ongoing activity shall be performed throughoutthe project. The additional subconsultant activities associated with the Parcel.A.alternative include CEQAdocumentation, geotechnical investigation, traffic, landscaping and architectural revisions. These additional investigations shall beadded to the existing scope and require additional coordination and supervision. Task 4.6 Technical Project.Meetings Additional project meetings have been held with the City,during the 6-month,delay to discuss issues relative to the revisions for the alternative site plan. On-going meetings will be held every month or on an as needed basis. Task 4:8 Site Visit Two additional site visits to oxidationditch.installation.and screw press installations are required to review design, operation, and maintenance issues for revised,secondary treatment and dewatering processes. Task 4.9 Coordination with Recycled Water Project Consultant: Provide'.coordination with recycled water planning and design;consultant.(G.S Dodson and Associates) on recycled water pipeline'and planning project: Coordination includes consultation on:.plant water balance, tertiary treatment system capacity and design, recycled water storage (on-site and off-site) and three additional meetings. Task 4.10 Preliminary Design Evaluation of Alternative Dewatering System. Consultant to conduct preliminary design evaluation of the screw press dewatering system compared'to recommended centrifuge dewatering system. Evaluation will include a review of data and information from existing installations,phone survey of existing installations,.development of layout based on existing dewatering building design, development of economicand non- economic evaluation criteria, life cycle cost evaluation between screw press and centrifuge, S:\water resources&conservation\Agreements\REVS Amendment Carollo.DOC '.6 07/30/03 draft and final technical memorandum reporting results of the evaluation„and presentation of results at design workshop. In addition,consultant will coordinate obtaining a.sludge sample for bench testing by screw press:and centrifuge vendors .No'piloftesting is included or recommended.at this time. A site visit is included for two design engineers. Task 4:11 Instrumentation.Design :Plant Network. Design of plant business network shall be added. The business network shall be in addition to the plant control and information already included in the.design. This task includes coordination with the City Information Management group and development of asystem that can be integrated with the City business network as well as data coordination through a SQL server with the already included SCADA system. VI. SCHEDULE A revised schedule is attached for the Parcel A alternative site. VII DELIVERABLES No change. S'.\water resources&conservation\Agreements\REVS Amendment Carollo.DOC 6 07/30/03 I I 1 iLL 4 Cr Cr N V m 0 0 N N H 0: N 0,0J0 0 0 0 N 0 y 0 O p U) ;N 0 f"N N N 0.0 Q U) V' N N O n n O1 01 0!.O1 M1 I� N e_ ,0 0 10 -f.m' ,- 0 0 1-0 N' W J O. f9gf9mM1969 f94.l94 0 0 N M J 0'O:;O` ,00 0 0 0 0 €,,Z! ,1, O O N N.N,IWO 010^N N N N � - to F W■ H co o 4 co O 0 0 4 n 0'(O 0 0 t0 10 CO CO 0 4 N 49. A O I- }^,i 0'O W W O W to 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 W W ' p• pj '0`O';O W O NO O 0 0,N� ' 0, CD N:V'N m' < 0 CO 1 .. e O 4T O O O CO 0.0W e CO O O e LP r.4;0'000) P e V' e;e < N e e V m 00 I C• W N N N r r. CS N 0 ou w C W co co 404 .444 a o 00 /I� :0 m o n N 4 W(0 CO N a o'O'0 0 0 000000 0 0 V/ O. ` O m:O m 0000000 O0 W Ni N:M1 c.N..N-�':0.1n- N..A V!00n.W 10 E9 CO f9�:�W mM II r w 1 0 /o 0 CL• I� N 0 0 N N'V' 0''CO CO LW co b TO 4-, w O m o W C 0 m 0 d 0 m : m (.1 0 A N,mO m -4..0.,_0 W O 9 4 4 4 .4 0 U N.o .c-.. U_1.2E ... q a = -a O ,_ ` ..0 N T.O J p"0 a o •E m 0 O.0.!_ U v w 01 c G U _N co:Lj N m 4 In N o ` 04 W CO ' m2 0 >. 0 0 a- O C m r. 3 _ d.x T d . , N O 3 W m N 0 C ; C cu N 0 'p N U.0 Z a _22,:g m� mQ y 2• > a A!wC OI C Wi t - OO O C, C ° > T 7.-. o o W y•.m z H Y N -0 a s '° N E Y UmE N W Q 0 0'W «q = p 0 t; wqrn1.,d m� 2-Q J' m,- o.d of E. d° n c T. m G E° c; Co Q m mE E ° o f o C V E m = 8 0 8 to m aK 0 u, :8 1; 1; m m a. E E p . . A.._ m : �• N N J CC " '_ 0N 2 C y { L O F V m ` 0 Q•a W d �1I o w a :I :U o "> v d L• m F 9 0 co N S.0 yo -m e N m d 0 W W 01 •- m. o c 'm C m 0 z+ ritieeav 6'4 4 4 LL m a m %no . N ° YYYYYY YYY Oo 0 LL 0 . • I R o > 0 F :N a..co 0 ct CC N f F I-1- 1- F F 1- I- f f. K • ATTACHMENT'NO3' CAROLLO'ENGINEERS, PC FEE.. SCHEDULE As of March,1,2003 Northern California HourIv.Rate Engineers/Scientists'(E/S) E/S I $84.00 E/S II 97.00 E/S III 118.00 E/S'IV 131.00 E/S V 138.00 EIS'V1 159.00 E/S VII 174.00 E/S VIII 189.00 Partner 195.00 Engineering Aides;(EA) EA I 45,00 EA II 65.00 EA III 80.00 EA"1V 112.00 EA'V 118.00 EA VI 126.00 EA VII 134.00 Engineering Technicians(ET) ET I 55.00 ET II 59.00 ET III 64.00 ET IV 71.00 ETV 84.00 ET VI 94.00 ET VII 110.00 ET VIII 141.00 Support Staff Office Aides 39.00 Clerical 56:00 W,ord'Processors 70.00 Project Equipment Communication Expense (PECE)per DL hour 6.00 Travel and Subsistence at,cost Mileage. .36/mile Subconisultant Cost+5% Other Direct Costs Cost+5% Thi's fee,schedule.is subject to annual revisions due to labor adjustments. C:\Docunments and Settinga tnorr\i Local'Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI I5\2003Fee.dor . F- Q r W Q W- GOZ m W e o O N d -I J Q ii- W WUCJ W- F- 0D o = Z N N a J F era th U LL W °ocrO Or wit k CD CC 4 N a 2 Q U o N 0 N o LL o d N n- -CI' et O O tV v i N R A cr o G i 2 N o' a ► lil L ce, 7 I O 47 O 7 1� 1: 'NQ o _a ► O N 7 C ; I O O N 1 [..-4: i I . O J Cl.) O C = C 0 0 Cr CD N 2 : c Y E Oin E .0 c o •E o Q. a V > z co m d ;m a a ~ , -o rn o f a y ¢ w 7 2 o`' -E Q Id cc 1- rn o 2 Q ---t. v o .gym.' w o a 0) O m a w ' D U 1 0 O n N a 9 ,r. r. Sg '1 U N I 4 io .Fs 1 L ri I © w ti N z ( A ri = z :1 0 m U a t Q k_..----_,...2.L—,,4L44,...2'°'_"" .x�:. — rZ/ — ----- _ 3 I 6 El li#,..2c.t.r./1[1- - r;,- l' - '.- s ti- ' ..- lir - III —1.11 .I.0 / 'l I' I. I I - e i II 0 „ ._...wsI �_ ol1: • H al 1. a , JL - . 1 kr g , o00 i I , iii{( I o° .• Eln u I r I f I Q F. 1 0 I, I 12'9�� 1 _\\ _ _ I �I/ u L t I`` r''4-'Cc�. 4 1r i` ! I I / y 1 - ;„ , 'A • i • 44 li! _a L�I 1 1 a / • I• :—.):,..,10 / / • g .1 1 I J ly Y. ••/ / 1 j' 1/ 4 e `r �` � E� ��il /% i / //_r 9 �. ra, o am � a // s,�.,' f;/ 1 ,I .71 ,,-...]: :: i$ �� I t ' J I 1 I II - a I ,. _ � . ti• I _ a to I O a is r� '�I Mg Z 9 dt Y 1\ f � 14 r` "'�' , I_ r,.. sl.'cf Y . _ R- I I Ib Fd H R� te. 1`l IA Pk'I,= 4.1- is �/ R3 =,° rqqd I__ rl// '3E al ]} 8 q4d Y4 y_, yx LG• q . w ' . .1.0,L----;4-2,,,-&—*.ts,.- ±-2-z,.1-_-7-s. ..: -. ''''I.ISII''''',--II‘,ei.,_±;,„ ;,1! .!...Nt.t-:\C\:,;,;,L141::1-41:;(1' . 1 1. P�` �J B 1 t'\\\\dP }j na il\l , � II, )1'1 •",. i C 7 s l 1 • .r i d ki ale a- J. s 1 i x. 014 Off.tip. j/�yr�—� 4 . ®�r%�' r - c + / - 0u ,sp Ic�11 9� � ) r6 X � I',o ��� rry/ //� r r n 1 Aliti Et \ rt_li.„)..:',-',7,t , `\0`I •..a.,IL.. 1_c i.„/r..{Li.72i.,..... 7:.:=;:;:'.,,z.1'.;.'.:7.:. r7141t I 1 r 1' \ .. .iI1 Nt f ' yi / I I / - / yrHH H ' i` Sa ,I I I r' '' t, / v / el . l " • h _ `II-- r : -\Sri — • E. Q . o r r P 1 gy iI i�;�j / • Ii / �r , � - �� IIIIIk . 'X I — _ � �`L;f:.� �'X r I .' -- - - , ...._• �' r ,.s•„ leis