Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 8.B 12/11/2000
• CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA (� o[ I„ 7 AGENDA BILL / .v Agenda Title: Resolution Authorizing City Manager To Execute Meeting Da Professional Services Agreement With Carollo Engineers For` December 1 i, LuvU Professional Engineering Services In Support of Phase 2 — Project Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project Department: City Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Manager's Office/Water Fred Michael Ban_,fk 778-4487 Resources & Stouder/Tom Y Conservation Hargis Cost of Proposal: $7,677,812 with a project contingency of Account Number: 602-400-9012 $300,000 - Name of Fund: Water Recycling Amount Budgeted: S5M for Phase 2 — Project Development in Facility Project (Wastewater the FY 00-01 Budget. The Project Budget for Phase 2 in the FY Enterprise Fund) 01-02 Budget will be 58.OM. Attachments to Agenda,Packet Item: ► Resolution I Agenda Bill / Attachment A—Draft Scope of Work Summary Statement: The City began an effort in May 2000 to identify, develop, compare and evaluate five alternatives for an ecologically and economically sustainable water recycling facility. This effort included two public forums, meetings with members of the Oakmead/Northbay. Business Association, and preparation of Water Recycling Facility Project Report. The Petaluma City Council determined Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration to be the preferred alternative on November 20, 2000. This concludes Phase 1 — Project Report. The objective of Phase 2 — Project Development is to describe anticipated changes to the environment from the project and alternatives and translate the conceptual plan described in Water Recycling Facility Project Report into plans and specifications that will be the basis for construction of the new water recycling facility. Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED To BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY To, ONE OR MORE OF THE 1999-2000 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30, 1999 AND MARCH 18, 2000. Priority(s): Complete wastewater facility plan process. Recommended City Council Action/Suggested Motion: City'Management recommends the City Council consider the project and the proposed scope of work, provide comment or direction on changes or clarifications, and adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase,2— Project Development of the water recycling facility project. Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attorney: A. 'ro s by City Manager: Date: Date: ( Date: Today's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: File Code: # - Z Received at gss • OA © 7 Water Recycling Facility Project Resolution For Professional Services in _Support;of Phase 2 — Project Development December 11, 2000 • Requested Action • Consider, r=eview and approve reso'lirtio i authorizing City Manager lo execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional engineering services-in support of Phase.2— Project Development of the water recycling facility project 1 ft Project. Program • Facility to be develope,d under following, program: — Phase 1 —.project Report — Phase 2H Project Development —•Phase 3 — Construction and Start-Up • Phase 1 now complete on to Phase 2! Objectives For Phase 2. — Project Development. • Prepare project EIR (describe,anticipated changes to environment from the project and alternatives); • Translate conceptual plan described in Project Report into very detailed construction plans and specifications for construction offacility 2 Phase 2, — Project .Development Predesigti;and • Final.Design Predesign = ThreeSi'multaneous Activities I. .Predesign report — Prepare.'9,[ethnical memorandums,focus'ng, n key .processes.(i.e:,preliminarytreatment.secondary,treaiment, algae'removal,tertiary.treatment.biosolids treatment, disinfection landscaping,in trumentatign andreontrol etc.) Phase 2 — Proj`ect Development:. Predesign 1 ., Predesigr teport.(cont'd) • .Aerial mapping;surveying;and,geotechntcalinvestigation' • Value engineering(SRE requirement) 2 Permitting • .Regional..Water Quality Control Board • Bay Area Air;Quality Management Dist ict • US Army Corps of Engineers • CalTrans • Other Agencies: US fish& Wddlife}Sen ce Califi Dept.aof Ftsh:R Game; Marin/Sonom t Mosquito Abatemenoand Vector Control.State of Califomia,Division of ',Dams 3 Phase 2 - Project Development: Predesign 3 FIR • EIR ScopingiNotice of Preparation • :DrahaEIR • -Final EIR Phase 2 — Project Development: Final.Design • Prepare contract documents (detailed plans and specifications) — Specifibations • Legal,`bondingand+contractual documents • Detailed description of every piece'of equipment on. • project Plans• • Detail all components•of project • Estimate over400,drawings 4 Professional Services In Support PP o of Phase '2 Requires — Detailed understanding of project and the prefeiredalternative —Detailed understanding of environmental ( regulations, environmental quality and wasteivater,treatment --Ability',to efficiently-and effectively-manage broad_project team Recommendation Recommend CarolloEngineers —Demonstrated.experience and ability Co manage complex wastewater treatment facility`projects — Demonstrated ability to communicate with public:on project — Demonstrated ability to complete projects within schedule and budget 5 Carollo Engineer's Project Team Carollo Engineer's team is supplemented by: — 'Survey: Hogan, Schoch;& Assoc. (Sebastopol) — -Architect: Burks Toma'(Berkeley) — E{R Parsons (Santa Rosa); — Geotechnical: Harza (Walnut Creek) — Wetlands: S: Reed, Fran Demgen, Bob Gearheart - Landscaping/Aesthetics: ZACLandscape,(Petaluma)'& Patricia 'Johansont - Traf is DKS Associates (Oakland) • Estimated Costs • Predes'ign.= $1.8M • .Final Design = $5.8M • Total = $,7.68M 6 Additional Scope of Work Items • Evaluate microfiltration • Evaluate fast tracking project schedule • Evaluate hydrogeology of oxidation ponds • Conduct forcemain analysis (pipe from town to xreatment plant) • Conduct outfall analysis (pipe from treatment plant to river) • Contingency budget of$300,000 Schedule Phase :2 • Predesign & EIR: January 2001 — January 2002 (12 mos.) • Final Design: January 2002 — January 2003 (12 mos.) • Bid/Award Construction.Contract: January 2003 — July 2003 (6 mos.) • Phase 2 complete: July 2003 7 Schedule Phase 3 - Construction • Construction July 2003 —.July 2006.(3 years) • Startup and Testing: July 2006:— December 2006.(6 trios.). • Phase 3 complete: December 2006' Recommendation. •' Review;,consider and approve resolution authorizing City Manager to execute professional services agr-eement with Caroller Engineers,for professional engineering services in suppor,-t,of Phase 2 Project Development'of the Water Recycling Facility Project 8 • • 1 2 3 4 AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL 5 SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR 6 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PHASE 2 — 7 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY 8 PROJECT 9 10 11 WHEREAS, in 1938, the original'wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 12 950 Hopper Street; 13 14 WHEREAS, to,meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements, 15 various upgrades;and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through 16 the 1960s; 17 18 WHEREAS,in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway 19 to provide additional treatinent:capacity; 20 21 WHEREAS, in 1988, with-influent;flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the 22 wastewater-treatment-facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment 23 capacity and continue to meet,the needs to the community too costly, the City determined 24 to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; 25 26 WHEREAS; in 1991,the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with 27 Envirotech Operating Services (EOS)lto design, build, construct; own and operate (20 28 years) a new wastewater treatment facility(Resolution No. 91-107); 29 _ 30 WHEREAS, on July31, 1991, LOS submitted an application to the California Public 3,1 Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the 32 California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; 33 34 WHEREAS, on:October,21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that 35 the MOU;did notsmeet the requirements of the Public`Utilities Code and ordered that "the 36 application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; 37 38 WHEREAS,,in;February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed,to rescind the MOU; 39 • 40 WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a reports prepared by Ernst and Young, the City 41 Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156, which directed that the Service Aexeement 42 Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a.new'wastewater treatment 43 facility; 44 1 s.\wastewater\eitvcouncil\2000\december I I\resolution-carol lo doe I WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No 96-1 63, which 2 certified the Final EIR documents,Resolution.No 96-164, which approved then project, • 3 and Resolution No 96-165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For 4 Proposal; 5 • 6 WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the REP was issued to,five pre-qualified vendor teams •. 7 8' WHEREAS; in January 1997, the City received'.proposals from Montgomery United 9 Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; 10 11 WHEREAS,on,January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted,Resolution No.•98-11, which 12 selected MUW for contract negotiations; 13 14 WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues°began on. 15 January:27, 1998 and,proceeded through'spring 1999;, 16 17 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council„recognizing the need for 18 development a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved 19 preparation of the wastewater treatment facility,masterplan, 20 21 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No 99-188, • 2 • which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new 23 wastewatentreatrnedt facility; 24 25 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted ResolutionNo. 99-189, 26 which-approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan,with the understanding that the 27 Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed•to address questions 28 asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; 29 30 WHEREAS, on October•29, 1999, the City issued a,Request For Proposal for 31 engineering services`in sup port,of the water recycling facility project (new";wastewater 32 treatment facility); 33 34 . WHEREAS, the City Council adopted;Resolution No 2000-66 on April 3, 2000; which 35 authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement,with Carollo 36 Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 —Project Report of the W,'ater 37 Recycling Facility-Project; 38 • 39 WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling:facility were developed, 40 evaluated and compared in the report. Water Recycling Facility Project Report(Carollo 41 Engineers);, 42 43 WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Water Recycling-Faciliy 44 Project Report(Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on'November 20,.2000; 45 9 s:\wasr ewnrer\cii,scounci1\2000\december I Resolution-carollo'doc 1 WHEREAS, the City Council determined Alternative 5;—Extended Aeration to be the 2 preferred alternative; 3 4 WHEREAS,Phase 2- Project Development includes California Environmental Quality 5 Act documentation (preparation,of the environmental impact report), preparation and 6 submittal of the State Revolving Fund,Loan application, detailed geotechnical 7 investigations and review, permitting (including National Pollutant Discharge 8 Elimination Permit, Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit, US Army Corp 9 Section.404 Nationwide permit, California Department of Transportation Encroachment 10 Permit), preliminary design toestablish the foundation for final,design, and preparation 11 of final plans and specifications:(contract documents) addressing equipment, site work, 12 yard piping,hydraulic profile, architectural drawings, landscaping, structural features, 13 mechanical features, and electrical and instrumentation for construction bidding 14 purposes; 15 16 WHEREAS, the successful completion of Phase 2 — Project Development requires the 17 contract services of a highly qualified professional engineeringfirm familiar with the 18 water recycling facility project;- 19 20 WHEREAS, the professional•contract services for Phase.2 Project Development are 21 estimated at $7,677,812 with a requested contingency of$300,000 for a total authorized 22 amount of$7,977,812; 23 24 NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED by the Petaluma City Council.that the City 25 Manager is authorized to execute a;Professional Services Agreement with Carollo 26 Engineers for professional engineering services in support'of Phase 2 —Project 27 Development. 28 29 30 31 • 3 r,wastewarer•:cirvcounciI\1000`deceinber I Ilresoiution-_orollo.doc CITY OF PETALUMA,, CALIFORNIA December '113 2000 AGENDA REPORT FOR RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE,PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS:FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF PHASE 2 -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT 1. EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY: The City began an effort in May 2000 to identify, develop; compare and evaluate five alternatives for an ecologically+and economically sustainable water recycling facility. This effort included two public forums, meetings with members of the Oakmead/Northbay Business Association, and preparation of Water Recycling Facility Project Report. The Petaluma City Council determined Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration to be the preferred alternative on November 20, 2000. This concludes Phase I —Project Report. The objective of.Phase 2 — Project. Development is to describe anticipated changes to the environment from the project and alternatives and translate the conceptual plan described in Water Recycling"Facility Project Report into plans and specifications that will be the basis for construction of the new water recycling facility. City Management recommends the City Council consider the project and the.proposed scope of work; provide comment or direction on changes or clarifications, and adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement,with Carollo Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2—Project Development of the water recycling facility project. 2. BACKGROUND: The•Water Recycling Facility will be developed under the following program: Phase.1 —Projeet Report ■• Phase 2 —Project Development ■ Phase 3 —Construction and Start-up The City Council considered the report Water Recycling Facility Project Report on November 20, 2000. and.determined'Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration to be the preferred alternative. This completes Phase 1 —Project Report. We are now ready to.begin Phase 2 —Project Development 1 S:\WastewatenCiryCouncil\2000\december Il\aeenda bill-carollo.doc • Phase 1—Project Development During Phase 2 the conceptual plan identified in.Water Recycling Facility,,Project Report will be translated into very, detailed construction specification and drawings that will be the basis for construction ofthe.facility, and a description of anticipated,changes to the environment from the project and.alternatives.will be made. Phase 2 — Project Development comprises two phases: Predesign.and,Final Design. Predesign Preliminary design'includes a focused engineering review and report on the key',processes. This work is the .foundation for final design. A Predesign Report, comprising approximately 19 Technicai'Mernorandums(TMs) will be prepared. The TMs present a focused evaluation of the key processes, including secondary treatment facilities, algae removal facilities,; tertiary treatment facilities, disinfection facilities, site improvements, landscaping, electrical power and electrical distribution, instrumentation and control, architecture and facility aesthetics, and hydraulic profile. Additional work includes aerial mapping of the site control survey, and a geotechnical'investigation on constructionsoils. Additional work to be conducted during _Predesign includes ,permitting. environmental • • documentation. It is anticipated that permits for the project`will be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of'Transportation. Consultations with various regulatory agencies,will also be conducted, including the State of California Division,of Safety of Dams, the US Fish and Wildlife Service,the•California Department of Fish and Game, Sonoma County, LAFCO, the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control.District, and the California'Department of HealthyServices. A subsequent Environmental Impact.Report (EIR)' will be prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR will describe anticipated changes to the . environment from the project and alternatives with respect to land use, agriculture, geology, water quality, hydrology, public health and safety; biological resources, traffic and circulation, air resources, noise, historic and archaeological resources, open space and visual resources, and . public services and:utilities. This EIR will be•a.stand-alone document, but will be prepared using as much information as possible from the previously certified EIR. Hearings will be held before - the City Council regarding the EIR and certification.- Final Ddsial • • The specifications prepared during. final design.'include instructions' to bidders, bid forms, contract and bonding forms; a description of general conditions on the project such as the hours, of construction. changes and extra work, and safety. The specifications describe in detail the 2 S\WasrewaterLitvCouncii\2000\december I I'agenda bill-earollo.doe • requirements for every single piece of equipment to be supplied on the project, from valves, piping, painting, 'and metals, to programmable logic controllers, switches and alarms. The drawings prepared during final design illustrate how the facility is to be constructed, including the location .of piping, the thickness and location„of,concrete slabs, the size of reinforcement bars, the location of all pumps, blowers, controllers, and valves and all the other equipment, the layout of electrical•services, landscaping, and architectural features. Once completed, the plans and specifications are issued for public bidding purposes. The construction bids are then reviewed and the lowest responsible bidder is submitted for. City Council consideration for the construction contract: • Figure 1 illustrates the schedule for the project. Starting in January 2001, it is anticipated that Phase 2 — Project Development will be completed at the end of 2002. After the contract documents are publicly bid and the construction contract awarded, is anticipated that construction would begin in.the summer of 2003 and be completed in the summer of 2006. Approximately six months of start-up and testing would follow, and be completed near the end of 2006. Professional Services In Support of Phase 2 —Project Development Completion of Phase 2 — Project Development will he a very complex process. The process requires a detailed understanding of the City's wastewater treatment`facility and the preferred alternative, a significant amount of interaction with a wide range of regulatory agencies, effective and efficient management of a broad project team, and a detailed understanding of environmental regulations, environmental quality, and wastewater treatment. The City selected Carob° Engineers for preparation of Phase I — Project Report based on their experience and the quality of their team. Their, ability to effectively manage wastewater treatment projects, and complete these projects on time and under budget was clearly demonstrated by their work on Phase 1 —Project Report. For these reasons.City Management recommends that the City contract with Carollo Engineers for professional services in support of Phase 2 —.Project Development. The draft Scope of Workan Attachment.A describes in detail the tasks proposed for Phase 2 — Project Development, including predesign, permitting, environmental documentation, and final design. Based on City. Council discussion during the, November 20`h meeting, the following items will be added to the Scope of Work and addressed during predesign: ► Microfiltration. Detailed technical review of the potential applicability of microfiltration for the water recycling facility project. ■ Schedule. Review question of accelerating construction of tertiary treatment facilities, including costs,'benefits and timing with respect to recycled water program (including public education on the use of recycled water at parks and schools, user 3 • S W astewaierCit)CounciI'2000`december I I\agenda bill-earollo,doe • commitments and contracts, design and construction of recycled water pipelines and infrastructure, and permitting.). o Pond Hvdroeeologv. Determine and implement appropriate methodology for • evaluating'the;hydrogeology of the oxidation ponds. Based on the age and critical nature of the outfall •'and the forcemain; -City Management.. recommend's that the following items be added to theTscope of work: ► Outfall Analysis. Conduct detailed review of 1972 outfall. (pipeline that conveys 'treated wastewater from the oxidation ponds to the Petaluma River), including structural 'and-seismic analysis. . ► Forcemain Analysis. Conduct detailed review of the 36-inch .diameter forcemain. contructed.in 1972,that conveys wastewater,from the Pond Influent=Pump Station torthe oxidation ponds. The total estimated fees for completing Phase 2 — Project Development are $7, 677, 812. As shown in Table 1, this estimate comprises $1,830,712 for Predesign (including environmental documentation) and $5,847,100 for Final Design. These-costs are also presented"in'Attachment A. To address the items described above and not,included' in the scope of work, and to address any unanticipated occurrences during Phase.2' Project Development, a contingency of$300,000 is requested. • • • 4 S:\Wastewater\CityCouncil\2000\december I l'agenda{bill—carollo.doc • Table 2 Professional.Fees For Phase 2 -Project Development • Description Cost. Predesign Engineering Services $1,032,284 Geotechnical Investigation $100,000 Landscaping $15,000 Architect $25,000 Survey $50,000 EIR $330,000 Wetlands Professionals 550,000 Permit Support $50,000 Environmental-Artist 530,000 Traffic Engineer 530,000 Other Direct Costs(travel,computer, site visits, priming, 5%mark-up on subconsultants) $1 18,428 Subtotal $1,830,712 Final Design Engineering,Services $4,795,218 Geotechnical Investigation $30,000 Landscaping $110,000 • Architect $140,000 Survey $10,000 EIR $50,000 Wetlands Professionals $125,000 •.PermitSupport $15,000 Environmental Artist $30;000 Traffic Engineer $40,000 Other'Direct Costs (travel, computer aided drafting, • site visits,/printing, 5% mark-up on subconsultants) 5501.882 Subtotal 55,847,100 TOTAL 57,677.812 S:\Wastewarer CitvCouncil\2000\december I P•agenda bill-cazollo.doc • To aid in the completion of this project, the following professionals supplement Carollo's project team: Hogan, Schoch& Associates, Sebastopol, CA Surveying and Photomapping Burks'Loma, Berkeley, CA Architect Parsons FIB and Associates;Santa Rosa; CA EIR'Preparation and-Permitting . Harza, Walnut Creek. CA Geotechnical ZAC Landscape-Architect, Petaluma, CA Landscape Architect. Sherwood,Reed, Vermont Wetlands Professional Francesca Deingen, Oakland, CA Wetlands Biologist • Robert Gearheart, Arcata, CA Wetlands Professional Patricia Johanson, Buskirk, NY Environmental Artist DKS Associates; Oakland, CA Traffic Engineering 3. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives for this work include: 1. Taken° action. 2. Select another contract services firm and projecttteam 3. Approveresolution authorizing City Manager to execute professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional services in support of Phase 2 Project Development of the Water Recycling.Facility Project. 4. FINANC!AL.IMPACTS: With an=estimated professional fee of $7;677,812 and a contingency of,$300,000, the project budget for Phase 2 = Project Development is $7,972,812. This is 12,5% of the estimated construction cost of..$63.7M for Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration, which is similar to other Petaluma wastewater facility projects. This project will be funded by the wastewater enterprise fund through :Project No. 9012 — Water Recycling Facility. Proceeds' from the $8,895,000 Wastewater•Revenue Bonds issued in.spring 2000 will be used to fund a portion of Phase 2 — Project Development. 5. CONCLUSION: The ability of Carollo.Engineers to effectively manage complex wastewater treatment facility projects, and complete these projects on time and under budget was clearly demonstrated by their work on Phase 1 — Project Report. For these reasons City Management recommends that the City contract.with Carollo Engineers for professional services in support of'Phase'2 — Project Development:: 6 S:\WastewaterCityCouncil\2000\december I I\agenda bill-carollo.doc 4. 6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: Certification of the EIR, preparation, of the contract documents (plans and specifications), and construction and start-up of the water recycling facility. 7. RECOMMENDATION: The objective of Phase 2 — Project Development is to describe anticipated changes to the environment from the project and: alternatives and translate the conceptual plan described in Water Recycling Facility Project Report into plans and specifications that will be the basis for construction of the new water recycling facility. City .Management recommends the City Council consider the project and the proposed scope of work, proyide comment or direction on changes or clarifications,. and adopt the resolution authorizing, the, City Manager to execute a . professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2—Project Development of the water recycling facility project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A —Draft Scope of Work • 7 59Wast ewater\CityCouncil\2000Cdecember I I\aeenaa bill-cutollo.doc IQ; - T--- CQ cot a e ar: 1 O a gf ° NI ,,mot 51 . l 4p Icl : o W al u) d -J rn To 76 2 Qu : • E ` W N N `m m o W W 0 I a o [ [ • O ix ° o° 9_',01' R 0. o-o W H Cti N z a E a_ CU ------- m E a Z O ZN a -- J a ° N U W to P IX of 3 o(N a, N HL......__; Y `-' 2., III 'a 2 al I �_ 1_ 1. — a• cu a c m c I c ,m, .c o �, U -o c N1'.y • r. •V 'V, m p Q- `° 2 a U z:a R E a ¢ N r �o (n ° ce. C d g .7 o F. N_N a W L. a J m U tn. ❑ice H „-' . ' h 4'o v- h 2-'� 1 I 0- 0 ATTACHMENTA SCOPEOF WORK LAKEVILLEiHIGHWAY WATER RECYCLING FACILITY • CITY OF PETALUMA CALIFORNIA • I. • PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Petaluma (City), California, has prepared a Project Report for a new 6.7 million gallons per day (average dry'weatherflow) (mgd) water recycling facility at the Lakeville Highway site. The Project Report outlines a recommended process train, as outlined below. Treated effluent from the new facility must meet NPDES permit requirements when discharging to the Petaluma River, October 21 s` to April 30`h. The permit requires a monthly average of 30 milligrams per liter(mg/L) for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD);and 45 mg/L for total suspended solids (TSS). With the:new.facility, it is anticipated°that the requirements for BOD and TSS will be a monthly average.of 30 mg/L or lower. Although not directly listed in the permit, ammonia nitrogen must be reduced when discharging to the river to prevent effluent toxicity to aquatic organisms. In,addition, effluent limits for toxic substances and a mass limit for mercury must be met. Nitrification:may also be necessary to protect mosquito fish used for vector control in the wetlands. From May 1s` to October 20"', the:City,is prohibited from discharging treated effluent into the Petaluma River. Recycled water produced by the water recycling'faciiityWill be reused for unrestricted use which means the treatment process must meet Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycling requirements. These"include flocculation, filtration to a turbidity`of 2 NTU and disinfection to a coliform count of no more tham2.2 most probable number(MPN)/100 ml. The Scope of Work;is divided into‘three phases: Predesign, Final Design and Services During Construction. The Predesign phase includes CEQA environmental documentation, SRF loan application and submittals, response to initial'Value Engineering Workshops (conducted by others on the 10 percent design), site survey, geotechnical report; initiation of permit procurement, and Predesign.Report. The'Predesign phase will be followed by the Final Design phase, which includes, preparation of the Plans and Specifications, response to final Value Engineering workshop (conducted by others'on the 50 percent design), completion of the permit procurement, SRFeligibility.analysis and approval to award package and project bidding services. The third phase consists of engineering services required during construction, O&M Manual startup;;training and project certification for the Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility (W RF).The scope for the third phase is not included'herein and will be defined and submitted later. II. SCOPE OF PROJECT/PROJECT ELEMENT LIST P etalumascope 1 03 1 7 Version 3—November 29,2000 The scope of the Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility (WRF) Project shall be generally as developed during the Project Report. The major work items to be completed as partof the design are included in the project element`list-summanzed below: A. Preliminary Treatment Facilities. 1. Bar-Soreens. 2. Flow•Measurement. 3. Grit Removal (Vortex). 4. Odor Control Facilities. • B. Secondary Treatment;.Facilities. • 1.. Extended.AirActivated'Sludge: 2. Secondary Clarifiers. 3. RAS/WAS,Pump Station. 4. Blower Building and Aeration System. C. Oxidation Pond Improvements. 1. Modification'to Existing Oxidation Ponds Transfer Structures 2. Additional Surface Aerators. 3. Sitework,(Deepen:or Fill), as required. 4. Pond Lining:(lf required) 5; Levee Rehabilitation (If required) D,. Algae;Removal Facilities: 1. Pond'•.EffluentPump Station. 2. Wetlands including: • Conversion of Ponds 9 and 10 to densely vegetated wetlands. • • Addition of 70 +/--acres of open ovaterand„densely vegetatedrwetlandson Parcels A and B. E. Tertiary Treatment-/ Filtration Facilities. • 1. Filter Pump Station. 2. Filters: 3. Polymer Feed System. 4. Alurn:Feed System. • F. Disinfection Facilities 1... UV System;! Contact Channel: 2. Hypoohlorite/Bisulfite System Modifications. G. SOlids Treatment and Disposal Facilities 1. Sludge€Lagoon (with Aeration). 2. Dewatering Facilities: . 3. Dewatered SludgeStorage/T,ruck Loading'Facility. 4. Odor Control Facilities. Pdtalu>nascope103,1 z Version 3-Nqvemoertze:z000 • 5. Chemical Storage & Feed Facilities. H. Recycled Water Facilities. • 1. Recycled Water'Storage Reservoir 2. RW Pumping system modification (if required). I. Sitework/Yard Piping/Suppdt,Facilities. • 1. Site Access through Business Park. 2. Bridge over Ellis Creek. 3. Site Grading/Drainage. 4. Site Paving. 5. .Fencing/Site Sedurity. • 6. Site Utilities including, potable water, plant water, natural•gas and power. 7. Yard Piping. 8. Lakeville Highway Improvements. J. Administration/Operation/Maintenance / Laboratory Building(s). K. Electrical. 1. Maim Electrical Substation/Transformer. 2. MCCs/Lighting Panels. 3. Power/Control/Wiring/Conduits. 4. Interior/Exterior Lighting. 5. Ductbank System. . 6. Standby Power(Diesel Generator). L. Instrumentation. 1. Field Instrumentation. 2. Control System. M. Public Amenities. 1. Trails. 2. Public Access. • • 3. Interpretive-Center/ PublicEducation Facilities N. Site Landscaping 1. Plant areas. 2. Tree farm areas. III SCOPE OF.DESIGN SERVICES The Design Services are divided into three..major tasks:Predesign, Final Design and.Services During Construction. The,product of the Predesign Task will be the Predesign Report, which will serve as the basis of design'forthe final design effort. The deliverable from Final Design Task will be design documents for bidding and construction. Petalumascope103 1 Version 3-Novemoer 29 2000 PHASE 1 - PREDESIGN (10%, Design) The objective of this Phase is develop a'Predesign'Report that will be the basis of designifor the final design, The Predesign Report will;consist,of=a collection of approximately19 Technical Memoranda(TM). Two types of TMs areenvisioned,for this project Therfirst'TM is generally brief (2 to 3 pages), will list design criteria and provide a recommended layout:,The "List" type will documentthe design of process areas that require,minimal input from the City or evaluation., The second.type of TM, the "Expanded' type,;will be more detailed (10 to 12pages), will`;require inputfrom City staff,'include additional engineering evaluation, alternative layouts,,cost analysis and refined design criteria. During this Phase. engineering analyses shall be, for several process:.areas in order, to select the appropriate treatment processes provide the,optimum facility siting, and.develop the necessary tinformation to obtain the perrdifs:to proceed with the project. Task 1 Predesign Report Task 1.1 Information,Collection - Plan*Site. There Is significant technical information to'be collected necessary to complete the final design of a wastewater treatment facility.. Certain key information will include the following: 1:1.1 Aerial Mapping. It will be necessary to,develop a base topographic:drawing forthe development of the final;design documents. During this task, aerial mapping photography shaWbe performed'of the entire property:at a 1:3600 scale; provide 1 inch = 20 feettopographic plots at 1-foot contour intervals and,spot,elevations; provide 1 inch.= 100 feet semi-rectified,;spot photo. Topographic plots shall be++delivered:as.AutoCAD Release 14 DWGfiles.. 1.1.2. Control Survey. !twill be necessary to perform a control.surveYto as§ist'the aerial.photogrammet y firm provide a reliable topographic°drawing. Vertical_ and'horizontal control shall be setifor parcel.points for aerial,niapping;'set base.line and vertical control points on the site set staking for soil borings; acquire+rim and invert!:elevations of existing sanitary facilities along.or adjacent-to site. 1.1.3. Soil Classification/Construction Soils Report. It is necessary to obtain soils information to complete'the structural design of the treatment processes. The'geotechhical subconsultantshall analyzethe inforniation gathered in the preliminary investigation, perform the necessary laboratory testing, and, provide a geotechnical report. See Geotechnical Subconsultant Scope (To be added). • Task 1.2 Prepare Technical':Memorandums (TMs) The objective of this task shall be to,prepare TMs that'will be included inahe Basis of Design Report.:Activities involved in this task'include: Task 1.2.1 Prepare TM No 1A - Preliminary Treatment'Facilities. This TM shall list the design criteria for the preliminary treatment facilities including fine bariscreens. flow measur'erheot, gritremoval and odor bontrol. Influent,pumping will be;incl`uded, if required.,A preliminary layout is provided: (List type). • Petalurnascope103'l Versmn.3—'November 29.2000 • Task 1.2.2 Prepare TM.No..2 - Secondary Treatiiient Fadilities This TM shall include refinements'of the selected secondary treatment alternative, including,alternative layouts refined design criteria, operation and control concepts and other issues Secondary sedimentation basins, aeration systems, and'•sludge pumping alternatives will also be discussed iVrequired: (Expanded type). Task 1.2.3 TM No. 3 —Oxidation Pond Improvements. This TM shall include layouts/details for the recommended modifications to the existing ponds including,additional surface aerators, pond transfer piping and structure modifications including levee lining and . rehabilitation. (List type). Task 1.2.4 TM'No. 4—Algae Removal Facilities. This TM shalHist;the design criteria for Wetlands. The TM'will include alternative layouts,refinement of design concepts for treatment andaenhancement wetlands, and a review of features for mosquito and vegetation management: This design memorandum will be submitted to the Marin/Sonoma MosquitoyAbatement and Vector Control District for review. The flow distribution and collection system layouts are provided (Expanded type). Task 1.2.5 TM No. 5.— Tertiary Treatment Facilities. This TM shall list the design criteria for the tertiary filtration system;Design criteria and costs for a continuous backwash type filter versus microfiltration will be developed: Preliminary layout and design criteria for the tertiary filters, pump station and support facilities are provided. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.6 TM No. 6 Disinfection Facilities. This TM shall develop the design criteria for Ultraviolet Light (UV)system. The configuration and type of UV system will be evaluated and layoutwill be provided. Modifications tote existing hypochlorite and bisulfite system-will'also be evaluated. (Expanded.type). Task 1.2.7 TM No. 7 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Facilities. This TM.shalllist the design criteria for the sludge storage lagoon and provide_a,layoutfor solids treatment and storage facilities. Dewatering processes, either belt filter presses or centrifuges, will be evaluated. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.8 TM No. 8 — Sustainable Design Features. This TM shall evaluate sustainable features that can be incorporated into the design,,suctlassrecycled building materials, use of flyash,in concrete mix design and renewable energy sources. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.9 TM No 9 —Recycled Water(RW) Facilities / Water Balance. This TM shall list the design criteria for the recycled water reservoirand include a preliminary'layout for • reservoir. 'A water balance will.be developed to confirm the storage required to meet zero,discharge from May to October. The existing RW pumping system shall be evaluated to determine if any improvements or modifications are required to deliver RW to:the"booster pump station. Up to three operating scenarios will be evaluated.for delivering RN/ to agricultural and other users. Facilities needed to deliver RW to the existing Booster Pump Station No. 1 will be identified. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.10 TM No. 10 ,.Site Master Plan / Improvements. This TM:shall evaluate the various necessary site improvements including, site access through the Business Park, bridge across Ellis Creek and in-plant roads, improvements=to Lakeville Highway, public access trails';:and fencing/ site security. Site:utilities shall also be reviewed including potable water supplies, non-potable wate'supplies, plant storm water Petalumascope 1 03 1 Vets;on 3—Novemoer 29,2000 drainage facilities, and tank drain facilities. Issues of system sizing, system pressures, and system equipment will beainvestigated. The TM will serve as a site •master plan and include a preliminary site plan. In-addition, staging•areas for construction activities shall be identified..(Expanded type). . Task 1.2.11 TM No 11 - Administrative Facilities. This TM shall evaluate the needs for the on- site:administration, operation, maintenance, and laboratory facilities. The results shall be based on the facility staffing,needs which will be determined by the process selection. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.12 TM No 12 Architecture and Facility Aesthetics. The objective for this TMlis to develop the architectural,and aesthetics theme for the facility. This:TM shall include spatial/function,relationships for the Plant}results of code study; architectural themes for the facilityand preliminary renderings of,the administration / maintenance buildings for each architectural-theme developed; recommended architectural theme; materialsof construction for buildings and schematic;floor plan for each building..Public education features and benefits will.baidentified. (Expanded type). Task 1:2.13 TM No:'13_- Landscaping. This;TM shall include landscape:design criteria using native, drought tolerant; species. Areas on°the site appropriate for a tre e fermrwill also be identified. (List:type) . Task 1.2.1.4 TM No. 14— Structural Design Criteria. This TM shall include structural design criteria for the project,including'seismic design,'Code requirements will:alsoibe identified. Results from the Geotechnical site investigation will,be"reviewed and recommendations for foundation design will be made. (Expanded type). Task 1.2.15 TM No. 15-- Electrical Power andElectrical Distribution. This-TM shell include plans for power distribution; expansion;,;emergency power. It:shall also identify protect design:standards, code;requirements and electrical requirements as follows: connected loads based on process redundancy anticipated;:operating loads, and 25:percent expansion capacity. Initial coordination with PG&E will be documented in this TM (Expanded type). • • Task 1:.2.16- TM'No:.16is Instrumentation and Control. This TM shall address the plant operationalphilosophy, the control system hierarchy, the control'system,block diagram:and protect=design•standards. This'TM will also investigate alternative SCADA systems•for communications,and controls and security This TM shall also investigate plant security requirements and a planfor providing,security,and` remote:viewing. (Expanded. type): • Task.1.2:17 TM No 17 — Project Delivery Analysis This TM shall include the;development of a detailed construction schedule to identify the.critical path and determine thelength of construction and constructability issues; review equipment procurement options and identif •potential prequalified or sole source equipment. (Expanded type). • Task=1.2.18 TM No 18 — Preliminary=HydraulicrProfile / Process Model This TM shall include a preliminary hydraulic:profile based on'the site plan, predeign process:sizing and existing plant hydraulics This TM will also include a preliminary,process model. P etal umascope 1 O3'1 g Version'3—November 29:2000 • (Expanded type). Task 1.2.19 TM No. 19 — Construction Cost Estimate. This TM Shall provide an updated construction and project cost estimate. (Expanded type). TMs shall be provided no,less than one week before any scheduled.workshop for City review. Any review comments on a TM by the City will be provided to Carollo either at the workshop or within two weeks following the workshop. Task 1.3 Site Visits It is anticipated in the course of developing the TMs that the City will wish to make site visits to existing installations to assist in thadecision-making process. A total of up to ten (10) site visits during the project shall be made during the Predesign. A summary trip report shall be prepared for each site visit. Task 1.4 Technical Workshops. Four (4) one —day workshops shall be scheduled over the duration of the Predesign Task including: • Wetlands Treatment, • Preliminary, Primary and Secondary Treatment, • Disinfection, Tertiary and Solids Treatment • Architectural / Landscaping and Electrical /Instrumentation. At these workshops, the findings in the TMs shall be discussed and all review comments shall be incorporated into the final TM. Decisions made at these workshops and the TMs shall serve as the basis for the Predesign Report. Task 1.5 Predesign Report A Draft and Final Predesign report shall be provided for the Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility (WRF) site facilities based upon the TMs. City staff shall review a draft report and comments shall be incorporated into the final predesign report.. The Predesign Report'shall provide the conclusions for the following items: the design of the preliminary, secondary'and%tertiary processes; design of the oxidation pond system modifications and the wetlands. The optimum layout based upon hydraulic restrictions; the ultimate set back requirements on all sides of property; the general flow stream layout and unit process locations; the "good neighbor"requirements for the facility including: 1) level of noise control; 2) level of odor control; 3) building height requirements; 4).perimetecsecurity and 5) visual screening requirements; and key technical decisions such as electrical power, control, and instrumentation. Task 1.6 Value Engineering and Peer Review Workshops Two review workshops will b •cooducted before finalizing the.Predesign Report. A Value Engineering (VE) review team will be assembled by the City and will receive a brief presentation by the Carollo design team describing the project. The design team shall prepare a response to Petalumascope 1 031 Version 3-November 29.2000 • the VE report. The final VE report and responses shall be submitted to the SWRCB. • In=liouse (Engineer's own staffs) peer review:of the design using senior staff'engineers not directly part-of the design team. The peer review team shall consist of,one member each of the following disciplines:- sanitary, structural, mechanical, electrical / instrumentationland construction management. The peer review shall occur,at completion of the DraftPredesign sp c d l 9 cP design configuration, construction sequencing and construtabil tY constraints The: eerevie w shall include two days of independent review by each discipline engineer and one and one-half days of-group review. A set of meeting notes summarizing the peer review group session shall be made.. City staff will participate in the peer review process at their discretion. • Task 1.7, Permitting • The purpose of this task is to identify develop and procure the necessary permits required to design and construct the new Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility. However, at this time it is difficult to anticipate the full range of activities,required to secure the permits;for the facility Both the level of effort and the total listing of permit requirements to be satisfied are difficultoat this time to fully identify Therefore, the budget for this permitting task'should be considered an estimate only Any additional activities which may arisetas a result of regulatory or City direction may require an amendment to•the level of services anticipated"in this scope+of services: The City shall'be responsible for all permit fees. The environmental / general permits which are anticipated at this time for siting, construction; and startupof this project are listed below: A. Regional Water Quality Control Board — NPDES Permit assistance, Section 401 Water Quality Certification. B. State of California, Division of Safety of Dams — Ponds may be subject;to`these rules based on the;volume impounded and the heightof the containment levees C. Bay Area Air Quality Management District - Authority to Construct/Permitto Operate-for Lakeville Highway D. US. Army Corp of Engineers•— Wetlands Issues Section 404 (Ellis,Creek Crossing). E. U.S. 'Fish and Wildlife Service —Wetlands and endangered species consultation, F. California Department of Fish and Game — Streambed alteration, NPDES°permit and wetlands consultation. G. California;Department of Transportation (Caltrans)— Lakeville Highway Improvements, including eastbound right turn lane, if-required: H. Sonoma County— General land use permits. I. LAFCO —Rezoning issues.; J. Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District Review and comment on . wetlands concept and design. K. City of Petaluma including Building Department,Permits, coordination with Parks and Recreation, and Fire,Marshall, as required. L. Departfnent of Health Services _ Title 22 Engineering Report. Task 1.8 CEQA Environmental`Documentation. The purpose of this task is to develop CEQA Environmental Documentation forthe projebt including a project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The attached scope for Parson HB and Associates includes the details of this task. Task 1.9 StateRevolving Fund.(SRF )Loari Submittals / Support The purpose of this task is`to assist the City with>the SRF'ileari fund application:and submittal Petalumascope 1'031 3 Version 3—November.29;2000 process. Consultant shall address comments on the FirojectRepord, assist with VE Workshop (Task 1.6) and provide input and review of the draft Revenue Program (prepared by others). Task°2 Predesign Management( Administration . The purpose,of this task.is to provide administrative functions for the orderly execution of the work and tracking and reporting of work progress'including project schedule, project meetings, status reports, management of:subconsultants, and decision logs. Task 2.1 Project-Schedule Schedule Maintenance. Monitorproject progress against accepted schedule; take corrective actions Necessary to,keep projectiohschedule; revise the schedule as required to maintain established project milestone dates: Review comparison of project.schedule to projected labor requirements and budget: Task 2.2 Progress Meetings These meetings begin with the projectikick-off meeting, and shall include the following activities: review project scope; review project schedule; establish project communication procedures; define project deliverables; develop monthly project meeting schedule:- Progress meetings shall be held on a monthly basis to keep the City appraised,of the project, to review detailed plans or reports prepared to date, and to receive City input, comments, and approval on proposed concepts. Meeting notes shall be prepared within 14 calendar days of the meeting. Budget assumes approximately half of these meetings willfbe conducted at Carollo's office. • Task 2.3 Status Report Prepare and submit;a written,monthly progress report to City staff which shall show the percentage of work completed and•the percentage of contract billed, summarize the work completed during the month, and summarize the work to be completed during the following month. Task 2.4 Management of Subconsultants This is an on-going activity thatshall be performed throughout the project..Activities shall include the following: provide information on project issues; review/approve work product; integrate work product with Carollo,work effort; mitigate design issues,which arise between Subconsultant/Carollo/City; control subconsultant budgets and schedules. The following subconsultantsrare required to aid in the design and construction of this project: Hogan, Schoch &;Associates - . Surveying and Photomapping BurksrToma - Architect Parsons HB end Associates - EIR Preparation and Permitting consultation. Harza - - Geotechnical Consultant ZAC Landscape Architect - Landscape Architect Sherwood Reed - Wetlands Consultant Francesca Demgen - Wetlands Biologist,. Robert Gearheart - Wetlands Consultant(Review) Patricia Johanson - Environmental Artist DKS Traffic Engineering, Traffic Control and Roadway Design. Other special subconsultants may be added where required upon written notice to the City, provided prior approval of the City is obtained. Petalumascope 1 03 1 9 Version.3-November 29,2000 Task 2.5 Decision'Log A decision log summary shall be.maintained throughout the design period to record the decisions made by the team. The decision log shall contain the decisions made during regular design meetings and design workshops as;well as during meetings or telephone conversations. • The decision log shall list'the:date the decision was made, the type of meeting."in which it,was made (regular design meeting,;telephone conversation, etc.), the individual involved making the decision, and the nature of the decision. Task 2.6 : Technical Project Meetings • Project meetings will be held with City staff, subconsultants and others,as necessary; throughout.the project to coordinate and discuss specific technical issues One meeting each month has been assumed for budget purposes. Task 2.7 Public Forum / Council Workshops A total of four public forum meetings or councilworkshopswill be conducted in the Predesign phase of the project. PHASE 2,- FINAL DESIGN Final,Design.shall include the preparationrof design documents for bidding and,censtructioh. Three design submittals;i50 percent, 90 percent and'final bid documents shall'be prepared. This task,shall also include the effort to prepare:and meet;with City staff over the course of the design. Task 3 Final Design Task 3.1 ContractDocuments Submittals The objective of this task shall be to provide the City with,a'-set of Contract Documents. Contract Documents for bidding (including Plans and Specifications) shall be prepared and mylar plans provided, as well as "camera-ready" specifications for printing'. Plans shall be prepared using AutoCAD Release 14 and will.include general, architectural, landscaping, "mechanical, structural, civil, electrical, and'instrumentation drawings. Specifications shall include General Conditions, Special Conditions, and final Technical Specifications for bidding packages;Using Carollo's Standard Specifications. Specifications and Bid and-Contract Documents shall'be reviewed by the City's legal counsel`as to form. Specifications shall:be prepared to,meet SRF loan requirements. and'Specification Submittal- The 50 Percent Submittalr.shall. Task 3:1.1. include all schematics, P&IDs, control descriptions, schedule, specifications:for major mechanical equipment, draft construction sequencing plans'and all-other plans and specificationscompleted to date. Task 3.1,2. 90 Percent Plans and Specification Submittal: The 90 Percent Submittal shall include all the Plans and•Specifications" ready.for"intern'al checking by Carollo, final control descriptions, construction sequencing,ptans>and construction;schedule. Task 3.1,3. Final Plans and Specification Submittal. Submit the>Final Plans and Specifications Petalumascope 1031 10 Version 3 November 29,2000 in preparationT.for bidding.. The:50,and 90 percent plans and;specifications:shall_.be provided no'less.than two weeks prior to the scheduled staff review meeting. ThesCity will either provide comments at the review meeting or within two weeks following the;review.meeting. Task 3.2 Design Workshops 'During this task a design workshop shall;be conducted with City staff at the 50 and 90 percent completion stage,of the project. The purpose of these workshops will be to present the 50 and 90 percent submittals Written responses shall be provided for all questions raised during the review meeting and comments'incorporated, where appropriate. Task 3.3 Value Engineering and Peer Review Workshops Two review workshops will be conducted before finalizing the Final Design Contract Documents. A Value Engineering (VE) review team will be assembled by-the City to review the 50 percent design and will receive,a brief presentation describing the project. The design team shall prepare a response to the VE report. The final VE Report shall.be submitted to the SWRCB. A peer review team with outside and in-house reviewers will review the 50 percent design submittal. The in-house peer review team shall consist of one member each of the following disciplines: sanitary, structural,.mechanical, electrical / instrumentation and construction management. The peer review shall occur atapproximately the 50 percent design point. The review shall include all design concepts, design configuration, construction sequencing and constructabilit •constraints. The,peer,review shall include two days of independent review by each discipline engineer and one-day of group review. .A set of meeting notes summarizing the peer review group session shall°be made. City staff will participate in the peer review process at their discretion. Task 3.4 Construction Cost Estimate The objective of this task shall be to provide the City with a project cost estimate to allow the City to prepare for project funding:•A',preliminary construction cost estimate shall be prepared at the 50 percent complete design stage and following the final submittal of the plans and specifications. Task 3.5 Permitting The:purpose of this task is to complete procurement of the necessary permits required to construct;the new Lakeville Highway Water Recycling Facility. However, at:this tirne, it is difficult to anticipate the full range of,activities required to secure the permits for the facility. Both the level of;effort and'the total listing of permit requirements to be satisfied are difficult, at this time, to fully identify. Therefore, the budget for this permitting task should be considered an estimate only Any additional activities,which'mayarise as a.result of regulatory or City direction may require an amendmentto:the level.of services anticipated in this scope of services. City shall be responsible for all permit fees. The environmental I general permits which are anticipated:at this time for siting, construction and startup of this project are listed in Predesign Task 1.7. Task 3.6 SRF Loan Submittals The purpose of this task is to assist•the City with the SRF loan fund application and submittal process. Consultant shall provide technical support to City during the.State review-of the Plans P etaturnascope 103 t J t Version 3-Novemser 29.2000 and Specifications on the project eligibility and the determination of the eligible capacity. Consultant shall meet with?the Citygstaff and State officials to discuss comments'on the,City SRF application; up to three meetings ares.included;ln the project budget: Task 3.7 Bid Period Assistance The Engineer shall take the lead in bidding the Plans and:Specifications including advertisingr printing, distributing plans and specifications to potential bidders, and answering questions during bidding • Task 3.7.1 Attend Prebid Conference. The Engineer shallyattend pre-bid conferenceand-site tour as the City's design representative;and present a project overview. Task 3:7.2 Addenda Preparation. Responses to bidder inquiries.shall beprovided and as appropriate, addendum shall be,prepared and issued to plan holders,. • Task,3t7:3 Bid Opening/Bid Evaluation: Engineer will attend Bid Opening; tabulate and•review • all bids received; check referehees,of contractor, subcontractors andequipment; and prepares bid evaluation/recommendation. Task 3.7.4 .Conformed Drawings and Specifications. Consultant shall coriform Drawings and Specifications to include all Changes made byraddenda during:bidding Conformed Drawings and Specifications'will be preparediwithin.21 days after,Notice-to- proceed'with construction. Engineer shall provide one conformed camera-ready full-size setof Drawings, one conformed camera-ready half-size set of Dra'wing`s, • and^one conformed original Specification Consultant shall make all copies of conformed documents necessary for,construction. Task 4.0 Final Design Management / Administratibn Theapurpose of this task is to provide administrative functions for the orderly'execution,of'the work and tracking and reporting of work progress including project schedule, project meetings, • status reports, management of subconsultants, and decision logs. Task 4.1 Project Schedule Schedule Maintenance. Monitor project.progress agthinstaccepted schedulestake corrective • actions necessary to keep project on schedule;;revise the schedule:as required;to maintain established project milestone dates. Review'comparison of project schedule to:projected labor - requirements and budget. Task 4:2. Progress'.Meetings These meetings begin with the project;kick-off meeting, and shall include the following activities:. review°project scope; review project'schedule; establish project_communication procedures; define project deliverables; develop monthly project'meeting schedule. Progress meetings shall be held on a monthlybasis to keep the City appraised•of_the project, to review detailed'plans or reports prepared to:.date, and to receive City input, comments•,and approval on proposed concepts: Meeting.notes shall be°prepared within,14 calendar days of the meeting. Budget assumes approximately:half of these meetings will be condudted,;at Carollo's office. • Task 4.3 Status Report P etaf uras cope t Q3:1 12 Version 3—November 29 200-0 • 'Prepare and submit a written monthly'progress,report`to City staff whleh:shallshow the percentage of work completed and the,percentage,of contractbilled, summarize the work completed during the month and summarize the work..to be completed during the following month. Task 4.4 Management of Subconsultants This is an on-going activitythat shall be performed throughout the project. Activities shall include the following: provide information on project issues; review/approve work product; integrate work product with Carollo work effort; mitigate design issues, which arise between Subconsultant/Carollo/city; control subconsultant budgets and schedules. The following subconsultants are.required to:-aid in the design and construction of this project: Hogan, Schoch & Associates - Surveying and Photomapping Burks Toma - Architect Parsons HB and Associates - EIR Preparation and Permitting consultation. Harza - Geotechnical Consultant ZAC Landscape Architect = Landscape Architect Sherwood Reed - Wetlands Consultant Francesca Demgen - Wetlands Biologist Robert Gearheart - Wetlands Consultant(Review) Patricia Johanson - Environmental Artist DKS Traffic Engineering, Traffic Control and Roadway Design. Other special subconsultants may added where required upon written notice to the City, provided prior approval of the City is obtained. Task 4.5 Decision Log A decision log summary shall be Maintained throughout.the design period to record the decisions made by the City. The decision log shall contain,the.decisions made during regular design meetings and design workshops as well as during meetings or phone conversations. The decision log shall list the date the decision was made, the type'of meeting in which it was made (regular design meeting, telephone conversation, etc.), the individual involved making the decision, and the nature of the decision. Task 4.6 ' Technical Project Meetings Projectmeetings will be held with City staff; subconsultants and others as necessary, throughout the project to coordinate and discuss specific technical issues. One meeting each month as been assumed for budget purposes. Task 4.7 Public Forum /Council Workshops A total of four public forum meetings or council workshops will be conducted in the Final Design phase of the project. ' VI SCHEDULE The conceptual overall schedule is presented in Attachment C and includes Predesign, CEQA documentation, permitting, Final design, bidding, construction, O&M Manual and startup/process optimization services. Petalumascope 1 03 t 13 Version 3—:November 29.2000 • • VII DELIVERABLES The following shall be the deliverables-for the Predesign and Final Design projects., Phase 1 —•Predesign • TMs Draft ofeach TM - 10tcopies. Final of each TM - 15 copies plus PDF file. Meetings Meeting agenda— draft,by-e-mail final provided-at meeting'. Meeting minutes —.el-nail-copy. Predesign Report D`r'aft of Repoit— 10 copies. Final•of report— 15 copies plus PDFfile. . Phase 2 —Final Design ProjecVschedule. 50 and 90-percent design submittals - 10 copies. Final design submittal — 10 sets and'electroniccopy. Cost estimateat 50 percent and final. Addenda;— Sent to Plan Holders List plus,electronic copy. Bid tabulation, analysis and recommendation. P etal umascope 1031 14 Version 3-November 29,;2000 Draft Scope of Work For Subsequent EIR • • Proposal for'Petaluma Wastewater Treatment Plant.Subsequent EIR SCOPE OF SERVICES Parsons proposes to prepare a.Subsequent EIR for one preferred alternative on the Petaluma Wastewater Treatment Plant. The work on the.-EIR will be divided into three tasks: EIR.Scoping/NOP, Draft EIR, and Final EIR. • 1 EIR 'ScopisG/PIOP SUBTASK 1.1 PROJECT KICK-OFF MEETINGS AND SITE VISIT • Meet with the City staff and Carollo Engineers to discuss and refine the environmental process necessary to obtain project approvals and the list of topics to be addressed in the environmental analysis. • Attend City Council meetings leading to the selection of a preferred alternative and • Conduct an. in-depth site visit with Petaluma staff to review existing conditions and document physical opportunities and constraints. SUBTASK 1.2 EIR OUTLINE Prior to the issuance of the Notice of Preparation, Parsons will prepare an ER outline for Staff and Carob review of the format and organization. DELIVERABLES: EIR Outline SUBTASK 1.3 INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE'OF PREPARATION Parsons will prepare a Draft Notice of Preparation for City Staff and Carollo'i-eview that includes: • A description of the proposed alternatives, • An In itialSt}idy;checklist,:and' • Information-about.the,public scoping meeting. Following staff review. Parsons will modify the NOP and circulate it to the California Office of Planning and Research and to other interested persons and agencies identified by the City. Parsons will distribute and^notice NOP to all responsible agencies and the public. DELIVERABLES: NOP/Initial Study SUBTASK 1.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS The Project Manager will facilitate two scoping sessions. Conclusions from the Initial Study will be summarized on a hand-out for discussion by attendees. A Scoot/1g Report will be prepared that Scope of Services ?.-I Proposal for Petaluma WastewaterTreatment Plant Subsequent'EIR summarizes public and agency comments, and which identifies how the HR scope of work responds to those comments. DELIVERABLES: Handout Scoping Report 2 DRAFT EIR SUBTASK`2.1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR/MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM Parsons will.prepare an Administrative'.Draft`EIR that contains the following sections. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY • summaryof the`environmental process, • brief description of the.project, • • summary table and alternative analysis:matrix, • mandated topics, including: irreversibleor irretrievable:commitments of resources;growth-inducing effects; and unavoidable adverse impacts, and • the environmentally preferred alternative based on a comparison of the significant_!impacts associated with the three alternatives. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND FUZE ALTERNATIVES • Description of the City's preferred alternative; • Description of"no action" and four alternatives. and • Alternative descriptions will include ,ma pping, a description of construction processes, and a determination of construction phasing. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. • Prepare a description of the affected environment for each topic:area identified below, and • Existing environment.will be described,at-a level of detail necessary to provide an understanding of the significant impacts of the project and alternatives. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES • Identify. impact evaluation criteria and describe anticipated changes (impacts) to the environment from the project and alternatives, • Assess potential impacts, and • Prepare mitigation measures. LAND.USE Scope of Services A-2 • Proposal;for Petaluma Wastewater Treatment Plant Subsequent EIR The Environmental Setting will include: • identification of planning jurisdictions, • regional land usepatterns, and • land use goals, objectives and policies. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • general plan land use designations, • zoning, and • land.use conflicts. AGRICULTURE The Environmental Setting will include: • agricultural soil capability, • current agricultural uses, • general plan policies; and • Williamson Act status. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • loss of prime farmland and Williamson Act land, and • • consistancy with General Plan policies and goals. GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC The environmental setting will include data from existing sources. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • geology in the project area, major landforms, earth materials and features, • seismic activity including the historical seismicity, and seismic hazards; • slope characteristics; slope instability and earthquake induced slope instability, and • soil hazards including corrosivity and shrink/swell hazards. GROUNDWATER Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • direction or rate of flow of groundwater, • change in the groundwater storage, or potential adverse affects on groundwater quality, • potential for discharge elements to degrade groundwater quality at existing drinking water wells, • potential for groundwater mounding or an increase in groundwater levels,and • • hydrogeological data based on information presented in existing literature. WATER QUALITY Scope of Services . ;v_3 Proposal for Petaluma Wastewater Treatment Plant Subsequent EIR Environmental Setting will include: • Existing water quality in Petaluma River and local surface waters, as provided by Larry Walker & Associates; and • Basin Plan and General Plan policies related to water quality. Potential project iinapcts evaluated will include: • Evaluation criteria based upon meetings with Regional Water Quality.Control Board and other interested agencies; • Evaluation of impacts, based upon analysis and data provided by Larry Walker& Associates; and • Recommendations for mitigation measures for construction and operation. Merritt Smith Consulting will work with Larry Walker;&;Associates to develop a strategy for addressing public•and.agency comments regarding'water quality issues. HYDROLOGY Existing information will be used to prepare the environmental.setting. Potentialproject impacts:evaluated will include: • flooding, and • streambank erosion. PUBLICiREALTH AND SAFETY/HAZARDOUS;MATERIALS' Existing information will,be used to prepare the environmental:setting. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • • use of hazardous materials during construction:and operation, • potential for the project to create safety hazards, and • potential'to create habitat for disease vectors: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The"Parsons"Team will characterize:, • vegetation cover types; • • special-status plant communities; • aquatic habitah„includingfisheries resources; and • key wildlife habitat. Where detectable; observations -of'spectal-status •plants and animals will be reported. However, this; scope of work doesinot include protocol-level`SUrveys for endangered or rare plant or anima! species. Parsons will conduct wetlands delineations„verified'bythe Corps of Engineers or.Resource Conservation. Service based on the,Corps 1987 wetland manual or National.Food Security Act Manual as determined to be appropriate for Parcels A, B, and C. scope of Services A-4 Proposal for Petaluma'Wastewater Treatment Plant Subsequent EIR •After consultation with CDFG, US F&WS, and NMES, Parsons will ,identify key aquatic species sensitive to changing concentrations due to discharge;; A,screening analysis will be performed to determine if significant bioaccumulation will occur amongstthese key species. Potential impacts to terrestrial,aquatic, and wetlands habitat and special status species will be identified and mitigaiton provided where necessary. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The Parsons Team will collect available;traffic count data from Caltrans, the City of Petaluma. and/or Sonoma County. Parsons assumes that new traffic counts will be required and has budgeted traffic counts for up to four roadway segments and one intersection. If current traffic counts are available and acceptable to the City, the new counts will not be performed. Potential project impacts evaluated will include: • congestion during construction; • lane closure during construction; • safety issues; • impacts to roadbeds during construciton; • parking impacts during construction; and • access points, especially sight.distance for trucks turning into the Lakeville Highway site. AIR RESOURCES The Environmental Setting and potential project impacts evaluated will include (air toxics analyses necessary for wastewater treatment facilities;permitting will be utilized):, • air pollutant.emissions associated with-construction and operation'of the proposed facilities, • baseline and project setting with meteorological and air quality data'developed through the California Air Resources Board GARB) and climatological and air quality profile data gathered by the BAAQMD. • • most recent air quality data from local monitoring stations for'the;past three to five years to help highlight;existing.air quality issues local to the proposed project site, • evaluation-of-odor impacts and recommendations for.mitigation, • summary of current.air'quality management efforts that are related to the proposed project, and • overview of the nature and location of existing sensitive receptors to set the context for how such uses may be affected by the proposed project. NOISE The Environmental Setting and potential project impacts'evaluated will include: • sensitive land uses adjacent to the proposed project sites, • short term project-related construction activities, • adjacent existing or planned noise sensitive areas resulting from long-term project-related stationary and mobile sources, Scope or Services .a-; Proposal for Petaluma Wastewater Treatment Plant Subsequent EIR • survey of existing ariibienthoise.levels to establish the.eharacteristics of the noise environment adjacent to the project sites: Noise measurements; if requested; will be made in periods,of.30 minutes,at up to six (6),Iocations. Observations of noise sources and other noise con-elates'will bernoted,during each measurement period. • areas where potential future noise impacts would occur, using land use information, aerial photographs, and field:econnaissance;.and • • discussions of existing and planned residences and other noise sensitive uses adjacent to the project sites. HISTORIC AND.ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES • The EnvironmentalSetting-and potential project;impacts evaluated will include: • prehistory-and-history of the project and its vicinity, • because previous records searches are likely more than five:years old, anew search will'.likely be required. Results of the search for ,previously recorded archaeological resources and historic buildings within or near the proposed project corridor, at the California Historical Resources File System at the Northwest Information Center, • • results of research in Sonoma County repositories, which might:include the Offices of the Sonoma County Recorder, Assessor; Surveyor; and Department of Public Works, the Sonoma County Historical.Society, and any others deemed.necessary, • • results of consultation with informants having pertinent information regarding the,project area, and • rock, formation of the project areas will..be tidentified and the potential fof fossils within that formation will be assessed using the environmental significance criteria. The preparation of a,technical.report containing information,on the.methods,and results,of:the archival and background research, and preliminary evaluations of significance (National .Register• 'of Historic Places) for identified resources, will be included as an appendix. OPEN.SPACE'AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Parsons Team will: • Identify'and describe existing open.space lands within the project area • Review and summarize scenic policies, and other+scenic,information available;-from-Petaluma and Sonoma County. • Develop scenic.impact mitigation measures. • Prepare one visual simulation of wetlands'area'to allow public to evaluate the visual and recreational benefits of the project. The-simulations Will be conceptual in nature and will be representative of several pond sites. PUBLIC SER VICES-AND UTILITIES The Environmental-Setting and potential projectimpacts-evaluated will include: • summary'ofinfoimation regarding existing service providers, service area-boundaries, current levels • and standards-of service in the project area, and currentservice planning or,expansion efforts. • ability:of service providers to maintain existing level-of,service. Scope-oi=Services A-6 • • Proposal forPetalunia,Wa'stewater Treatment Plant Subsequent EIR LIST OF'PREPARERS AND REFERENCES A list of preparers will be provided and will identify individuals on the consultant and client team that contributed to preparation of the EIR. A list of references will also be provided to identify each data source used during preparation ofthe background studies and environmental document. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM • The mitigation measures set forth i'n the Administrative Draft FR will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring.Program(MMP). The MMP will include: • overview of mitigation monitoring, compliance and reporting requirements, • . description of the required mitigation measure or action, • assignment of monitoring responsibilities by agency, • identification of the timing and method of ensuring mitigation implementation, and • criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation measures, (asneeded). The MMP will be modified based upon changes to the Administrative Draft FIR. The format could be modified as necessary to meet the City's.needs. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL The Technical Director will review all documents related to the Administrative DraT,EIR prior to their delivery to the City to ensure that the FIR conforms with CEQA requirements, and that all issues identified in public scoping.have been addressed. • DELIVERABLES: Ten (10) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR and Mitigation and Monitoring Program(MMP). SUBTASK 2.2 DRAFT 8R Based upon the comments, Parsons,will prepare two (2) screen check versions of the Draft EIR, MMP and Notice of Completion for final staff approval prior to production. One hundred (100) copies of the Draft'EIR and a camera-ready original will be submitted to the City for distribution. During circulation of the Draft-EIR,-Parsons will attend two public hearings. If requested, Parsons wilt prepare a presentation for the hearing. Parsons will compile and maintain a list of agencies and individuals for distribution of the Draft and Final EIR.•Parsons will do the noticing.;and distribution of the document. Preparation of the list will be coordinated witithe City staff and submitted for review prior to Draft EIR circulation. DELIVERABLES: • 2 Screen Check versions of the Draft.FIR 100 copies of the Draft ER Power point presentation Scope of Services Proposal for Petaluma Wastewater Treatment,Plant Subsequent EIR 3 FINAL EIR SUBTASKt,3:1 ADMINISTRATIVE FINAL EIR • Parsons will compile a database of written and oral comments submitted to the City of Petaluma.in response to the Draft;EIR. All comments, both written and verbal, will be numerically identified. Responses to the comments will be keyed to the comment reference number. An Administrative Final EIR will be,prepared and will include an introduction, numbered comments, responses to comments, revised Mitigation and Monitoring Plan,and replacement pages'showing changes to the Draft,EIR.. • Parsons:assumes that 100 comments Will be received on the Draft EIR. DELIVERABLES: Ten (10) copies of the Administrative Final'EIR. SUBTASK'3.2: FINAL EIR • Parsons will prepare the Final EIR by responding to City staffs comments on the Administrative:'Final EIR. DELIVERABLES: 100 copies'ofthe Final ElR. SUBTASK,3.3 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Parsons Team will prepare a draft and final statement of overriding consideration for the selection of the project. DELIVERABLES_ Five (5) copies of the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations Five(5) copies of the final Statement of Overriding Consideration's SUBTASK3.4 HEARINGS Parsons will attend two hearings before the City Council for Final EIR<and Certification. PROJECT MANAGEMENT/MEETINGS • The project management includes iihplêththitation of:the management systems that are requited to support the successful completion of the project. Project management includes coordination and tracking of scope and schedule, preparation of project status reports, administration of'the project budget, and twelve (12) monthly administrative meetings with Carollo Engmee s$to discuss project status, completed work,;projectschedule, and budget. • Parsons project management tools include: 1) a project management plan, 2) an automated cost accounting,system, and':3) monthlyproeress.reports. The use of these?manageinenftools ensures our complete:attention to the project's schedule, contract, and budget. Scope of Services ;k-g Proposal•for Petaluma`Wastewater Treatment,Plant Subsequent EIR • The project management plan is prepared upon project initiation and describes the project's deliverables, schedule, budget, and staff responsibilities. The cost accounting system receives information on a daily and weekly basis.tlu'oueh recovery and tiinesheet`entnes and can provide the Project Manager with a variety of financial reports at any point in time. • The Project Manager will prepare and submit monthly progress reports to Carollo Engineers for the duration of the contract (Appendix 2), The progress reports will provide a description of the work completed during the previous month, an estimate of the percent work completed to date; a description of any out-of-scope work conducted (such work will be conducted only with authorization from the City), and,a description of any current problems, including recommendations for resolution of each identified problem. • Parsons project manager will'attend up to five (5) meetings with City staff to review interim project submittals. LIST OF DELIVERABLES • One(1) EIR Outline • One(1) NOP/Initial Study • One (1) Scoping Report • Ten(10)copies of the Administrative Draft EIR and Mitigation and Monitoring Program(MMP). • Two (2) Screen Check version of the Draft EIR • One hundred (100) copies of the Draft'EIR • Two (2) power point presentations. • Ten(10) copies of the Administrative'Final EIR • One hundred (100)copies of the Final EIR. • Five (5) copies of the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations • -Five (S) copies of the final Statement of Overriding Considerations • Twelve (12) Progress Reports Scope of Services ;-‘a • 11/30/00 THU 15: 44 FAX 925 930 0396 ... .. . . CAROLLO SEND OLY UNIT• 0 002 • Attachment B Budget . City of Petaluma- LakevilleHighway Water Recycling'Facility Phase 1 -.Predesign Carollo Labor Estimate-Hours _ . .. . TASKS PIC/PM PE'. Engineer 'Draft' WP TOTAL TASK 1.0-Predesign Report . 1.1 Information Collection 1 24 80 1 140 1.2 Technical Design Memoranda 1.2.1 TM1.Preliminary Treatment Facilities 16 80 4 1 160 1.2.2 TM2.Secondary Treatment Facilities 16. 60 4 1 160 1.2.3 TM3.Oxidation Pond.Improvements • 8 60 3 1 124 1,2.4 TM4.Algae'Removal Facilities 1 16 160 4 1 248 1.2.5 TM5.Tertiary Treatment Facilities 8. 60 3 I 124 1.2.6 TM6.Disinfection Facilities 16 80 4 • 1 160 • 1.2.7 TM7.Sludge Treatment and Disposal Fac. 16 80 4 1 160 1.2.8 TM6.SustainableDesign Criteria 1 16 160 4 1 248 42.9 TM9. RW Facilities/Water Balance 1 16 160 4 1 248 1.2.10 TM10.Site Master Plan/improvements 1 16 160 8 1 288 1.2.11 TM11,Administrative Facilities 8 • 40 2 1 96 - 1.2.12 TM12.Architectural and Aesthetic Facilities a- 40 2 1 96 1.2.13 TM13. Landscaping 8 40 2 1 96 1.2.14•TM14. Structural Design Criteria 16 • 80 4 1 160 1.2.15 TM15, Electrical Power andDistribution .. 16 80 4 1 160 1.2.16 TM16.Instrumentation and Control 16 80 4 • 1 160 1.2.17 TM17. Project Delivery.Analysis 1 16 80 4 1 168 1.2.18 TM18.Pre!.Hydraulic Profile/Solids,Balance '16 80 4 t 160 1.2.19 TM19.Construction Cost Estimate 1 16 80 4 1 . 168 1.3 Site Visits(10 sites) 12 80 80 4 1 336 1,4. Workshops(4 meetings) 8 80 .200 4 1 416 1.5. Predesign:Report(Draft and Final) 8 80 160 -4 ' 4 400 ' LE VE&Peer Review Workshops 8 80 120 '4 1 336 • 1.7 Permitting 1.7.a RWQCB--SF Bay 4 40 40 1 144 1.7.b DSOD 16 40 80 1.7.c BAAQMD 16 '40 60 1.7.d US Army Corp.of Engineers 16 40 80 1.7.e US Fsh'and Wildlife Service 16 40 8o 1.7.f CA Deptof F&G 16 40 80 1.7.g CALTRANS 16 16 _ 56 1.7.h Sonoma County 16 40 80 1.7.1 LAFCO 16 40 80 1.7.j Marin/Sonoma M&VCD 16 40 80 I.7.k City oLPetaluma 1 32 90 144 1.7.k 'Dept_of,Health.Sennces(Engineering Report) 1 32' 80 4 1 184 1.8 CEOA..Documentation/Support/ Review 4 80 120 4 2 300 1.9 SRF Loan Submittal/Support: I 40 120 2 2 216 • TASK 2,0-Predesign'Management/Administration . 21 Schedule Updates, 8 40 40 16 16 120 2.2 Monthly•Progress•Meetinge(12'Meetings) 120 120 160 16 40 456 . • 2.3 Status Report 40 60 60 24 192 2.4 Management of Subconsultants 16 40.. 40 16 120 2.5 Decision Lag 8 • 16 40 8 80 2.6 Project Meetings' 40 40 80 8 176 2.7 Public Forum/Council Worksnops 40 .64 120 6 16 300 Predesign-Total Labor Hours 1,048 1,356 3,636 1,22 • 676 7,940 • PetalumaWRFfeex.xls 1 11/29/005:12 PM 11/30/00 THU 15:45 FAX 925 930 0396 CAROLLO SEND ONLY UNIT 2003 Attachment B - Budget; City of;Petaluma-Lakeville Highway'Water Recycling Facility Phase 2-Final Design Carollo.Labor..Estimate;Hours' TASKS • PIC PM En•ineer Draft 'WP :TOTAL. TASK 3.0-Final Design 3.1 Contract Document.Submittals)(440 Drawings) - 3.1.1 ,prepare 50/;Design Documents 160 800 6,400 6,400 320 14,080 3.1.2'.Prepare 90/Review Documents 80' 320 7,000 6000 320 13720, .11.3 Prepare Final Design Documents 60 160' • 1000 3,000 160 6,400 32 Workshops 32.1 50%Design,Documents Workshops 40 40 60 32 :32. ,204 3.2.2 90%design Documents Workshops 40 40 60 32 ,32. 204 3.3 VE 8;Peer Review'Workshops 80 '80 120 • 32 32 344 3.4 Construction Cost Estimate Update - 3:4.`1 50%Cosi Estimate 8 16 80 80 40 t224 3.412 Final,Cost Estimate': 8 ,16 60 40 40 164 3.5'Permitting 80 120 200 40 32 472 3.6 SRF Loan Submittals 8 16 80 80 40 .224 . 3.7 Bid Beriod Services' 37:1'Prebid Meeting - 8' 32 8 .6 8 64 3 72 Addenda Preparation, 40 .240 240 400 64 964 3.7.3..Bid Opening-/Bid Evaluation 16 40 40 '0 4 :100 3:7.4 COnlormed Documents 40 120 240 600 64 1,064 :Task 410-Final Design Management/'Administration • 4.1 Schedule Update 40 60 80 40 ' 16 236 4.2 Monthly Progress'Meetings 120 120 320 16; 40 8161 41 Status'Report: 60 60 60 8 24, 212: 4.4!Management of Subconsultams 60 60 60 . 8 24 212 4;5 Decision Log . 16 16' 40 0 24 96 4.5 Project Meetings 80 80 • 80 8 8 256 • 4.7 Public Forum./Council Workshops 40 64 120 .60 16. ,300 Design-Total Labor Hours' ' 1,104. 24500 18,348 16,884 1,340.: 40;176 • PetalumaWRFteex.xls 2 1:1/29/005:12 PM 11/30/00 THU 15.: 45 FAX 925 930 0396 CAROLLO! SEND ONLY UNIT 004 Attachment B - Budget. City of Petaluma-Lakeville Highway Water Reaycling"Facility Design Services: Predesign Report/Final Design/Bidding Services Predesign-Cost.Estimate Classification Hours Rate Amount Principal Engineer/Project Manager 1,048 $187.00 . $195,976 Project Engineer(EVII) 1,356 $161.00 $218,316 Engineer(EVIII)5% 182 $178.00 $32,360 Engineer(EVI) 15% 545 $147.00 $80,174 Engineer(EV)20% 727 $133.75 $97,263 Engineer(EIV)40% 1,454 $122.25 $177,800 Engineer(Ell)20%. _ 727 $94.00 $68,357 •Craftsperson(TVII)50% 612. $105.00 $64,260 Draftsperson(TV)50% - 612 $83.00 . $50,796 Word Processor 676 $69.50 $46,952 7,940 $1,032284 Other Direct Costs(ODC's) A.Carcllo 1.Travel $2,600 2.Site Visits' $10,000 • 3.Printing $25.000 4.Computer a.Engineering ®-.$12/hr $8,000 b.Word processing ® $12(hr $12,576 c.CAD(0 $18/hr $22,032 Subtotal $80,408 Mark-up(5%) $4,020 5.Subconsultants • 1. Geotech $100,000 2. Landscaping $15,000 3. Architect $25,000 4. Survey $50,000 5. EIR $330,000 6. Wetlands $50,000 7. Misc.Permit Support $50,000 8. Environmental Artist $30,000 9.Traffle Engineer $30,000 Subtotal $680,000 Mark-up(5%) $34,000 Total CDC's= $798,428 1Predesign Total $1,830;713 PetalumaWRFfeex.xls 3 11/29/005:12 PM 11/30/00 THU 15:45 FAX 925 930 0396 CAROLLO SEND ONLY UNIT 2 005 • Attachment B - Budget Phase 2-Final Design ' • Design Services: Predesign Report/Final Design BiddingServices Final'Design-Cost'Estimate: - , Classification .Hours Rate- Amount • Principal Engineer. 1,104' $195.00 $215;280 Project Manager . 2,500 '$169.00 $422;500 . Engineer-(EVIII)5%. 917 5189.00 $173,389 Engineer(EVI)'15% 2,752 $154.00 $423;839 • Engineer(EV)`20% 3;670 $140.00 $513,744 Enc;rJeer(EIV)I20% 3,670 $128.50. $471,544 Eng.neer'(EIII)-20% 3670 5113.25. $415,582 Engineer(EI)20/ 3,670 $85.00 $311,915 • Drar:spersbn(11.(11)50% 8,442 $129.75 $1,09'5,350 - Drartspersonl(TV);25%- 4,221 .$87,00' $367,227• Draftsperson(TIV)25% 4,221 588.00. .$287,026 Word Processor 1,340 $73.00 $97,820 40,176 ,$4,795218 Other Direct Casts(0110's) - .. A.Carollo • 1.Travel $2;600 - 2.SiteVisits. i$4,000 I 3.Priming $25,000 . 4.Computer - a.Engineering @'$12/hr $100,000 • •.b.Worchprocessing'@$12/hr $16;080 - c,,CAD;@-$16/hr: $303,912. _ Subtotal $451,792 • Mark-up(5%) • $22,590 6.Subconsultants 1. Geotech $30,000 2. Landscaping $110,000 3. Archltech $140,000 , • 4. Survey $10,000 5 ElRi Mitigation $50,000 6: Wetlands' $125,000 -• 7. Misc:,Permit Support $15,000 8.fEnvironmeNaLAnisi' $.30,000 . 9.Traffic'Engineer $40,000 - Subtotal $550,000•Mark-up.(5% . $27,500 Total ODC's= $1,051.882 . IFlnal Design Total $5;847,099 ( • . TOTAL-Phase l,-P.redesigni&IPhase 2'=Final'Design. - • 57,677.812 4 •11/29/005:12 PM P etalumaW RFfeez:als . 12/01/00 FRI 12:41 FAX 925 930 0396 CAROLLO SEND, ONLY UNIT DJ 002 . 1:f eNc s.raiu jJJ!T1L!!1, p�{i A !°n�m7� '°`� fr., ml „4 ry�`� n 'uk'p i'{t Iti ffiI idii ` i n U tl If) tt1 c' R ` 'Y r�� rgi, 'I^ �� 1 tl qi��1g��� {f�it �k3a a ,�"t rg�' i iIii i��y t �.,. .4'4: 401"11,/ =tali iG ,18�1dsl,.,”" h�. ; 6i 1,'w ,"1i,,l "(I ila .!' fH U'6 1 V h ,� I,t'' Ho$`di, ,..1 ", ' '1'I Ills"GI "!�;i ��, ,I, ''. i"lam.t'l °��I A� ��1 dt e4 �I"'.i A,ili WW.al I P II Ed Al 1 ;It f°I'�V�•I n . ,tl: mvq PRi9 n e �� n ling m r s ��pp pp {� ''dl gi 44i.11,1',1: " -- ��:h� {' rq Id.�l• u ,r 0, '� n tF K, ,�1,• � ' � ,i � . ' :f ,■t aI. Li" „. P '14 I ” , 1 J �ul� .if d ,k, 1r ti 4 �Ia d- .47,3OP �� 0 � 1Ift ry�rl nd"� 1 rnr 1 F: Ilpq� * 19 AgM%B v� ;otati)Y9.. 1b , dry- 1fi " `u >�.t'1' {i.a $fi ti 1 �a. tV 1. �e+'�1 , ne",:I " ' a' 4n, Ids 'R C.,��,�I�� " III Asp { E' ;,..,,oh trl ,Ili t �;, . 11i� .L il'I, Il✓ 1 ' 11 I n -��il u ` � � It t , ' i1 ,4NLh.J, rit - L6, "Y i- ,,'J. -r�k',` dyTv'i ,I r' R { t p�@kT�iy (9Afmfl1 la 1 S;i t c� lip �,"phifl„,rigip app Npn��{p:I� '^� 'y'%yj'4� ;, ;I IX'�':�4 `'Ali 1,". ? LiY.I!Ilt i6Li, „°NiupkA'P�I"�""Il"$h�H�rlfi9 I.% I N�.11 11� @19'r''Y IICIa P Itl��f'' �N��l1{ a. Jp! nJ tlA� vrli tle +'a i 1 gel].,,IIII , /1„Ail {Ii r "�{I 'I' 'ftil i�'��3Ntltiti I `.;i I'w.,'n't. L 9�y lIr q{ ,..��` I h�- q�f° ph'ry�q��yf6�gry q" r11P n4i4 i t �l 'n I AI{ d , ;q{ a.T,�G1!I�{ k,�'+�N ' .1 ink r FI 1 i „RN, ��.I; ,l}, LI!! 1 • r N U ,0 7 W f0 O_114 O N i - C L C 0•.. N 41. O a ", a a w a s o m o $ x 8