Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2002-012 N.C.S. 01/07/2002 Resolution No. 2.002-0, 2T~T.C.S. 1 2 of the City of Petaluma, California 3 4 APPROVING DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 5 FOR THE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT 6 7 8 WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 9 950 Hopper Street; 10 11 WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements, 12 various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through 13 the 1960s; 14 15 WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway 16 to provide additional treatment capacity; 17 18 WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75°Io of the permitted capacity of the 19 wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment 20 capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community were determined to be too 21 costly, the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; 22 23 WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with 24 Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 25 years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107); 26 27 WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public 28 Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the 29 California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; 30 31 WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that 32 the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the 33 application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; 34 35 WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; 36 37 WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City 38 Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156, which directed that the Service Agreement 39 Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment 40 facility; 41 42 WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163, which 43 certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164, which approved the project, 44 and Resolution No. 96-165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For 45 Proposal; 2 0 0 2- 01 2 Page 1 of 5 Resolution No N.C.S. 1 2 WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor teams; 3 4 WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United 5 Water (MUW) and US FilterBOS; 6 7 WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on 8 May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 9 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997; 10 11 WHERAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8, 12 1997, September 15, 1,997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997, 13 December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; 14 15 WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the CityCouncil adopted Resolution No. 98-11, which 16 selected MUW for contract negotiations; 17 18 WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on 19 January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; 20 21 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for 22 development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved 23 preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; 24 25 WHEREAS, on September 21, 19,99, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188, 26 which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new 27 wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among 28 others: 29 30 ? Risk of Change Required Over 30-Year Contract Term. Changes in the 31 City's needs may occur during the 30-year life of the contract. The City is at a 32 disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the 33 facility's capacity. 34 / Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain 35 tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract 36 term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be 37 fixed in the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of 38 the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having 39 to pay for part of the plant twice. 40 9 Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax 41 ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the 42 design process. 43 1 Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 44 5.2.4 would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the 45 City) at the Project Site. Page 2 of 5 1 1 Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations 2 between the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other 3 critical issues could not be agreed upon. 4 5 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189, 6 which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the 7 Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions 8 asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; 9 10 WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for 11 engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater 12 treatment facility); 13 14 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-66 on April 3, 2000, which 15 authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo 16 Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 -Project Report of the Water 17 Recycling Facility Project; 18 19 WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a 20 Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; 21 22 WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the critei7a for evaluating the 23 alternatives on September 5, 2000; 24 25 WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were presented 26 at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000; 27 28 WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling 29 Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; 30 31 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 on December 11, 2000, which 32 approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo E~igineers, November 33 2000), selected Alternative S -Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the new 34 water recycling facility, and identified Option A -Wetlands as the preferred alternative 35 for algae removal over Option B - DAFs 36 37 WHERAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 on December 11, 2000; which 38 authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo 39 Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 -Project 40 Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project; 41 42 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the 43 Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carolloo Engineers, November 2001) 44 on November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002; 45 Page 3 of 5 1 NOW THEREFORE B~ IT RESOLVED by the Petaluma City Council that: 3 1. The Petaluma City Council authorizes completion of the environmental impact 4 report and the preparation of plans and specifications for the design and 5 engineering of Alternative 2D -Algae Removal/Polishing Wetlands 2, subject to 6 the resolution of Items 9 and 13 below. 7 2. The Water Recycling Facility will have the capacity to treat an average dry 8 weather flow of 6.7 mgd. 9 3. The Water Recycling Facility will have the capacity to produce 4 mgd of tertiary 10 recycled water that meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations 11 Title 22 for "unrestricted reuse." The capacity of the tertiary recycled water 12 facilities will be increased in the future as the demand for tertiary recycled. water 13 grows beyond 4 mgd. 14 4. UV disinfection will be used for disinfection of tertiary recycled water. 15 5. The solids handling system will remove, dewater and stabilize biosolids present in 16 the wastewater and produce Class B biosolids. 17 6. The layout forthe new water recycling facility will be approximately as shown on 18 attached Figure RES 1. 19 7. Wetlands: 20 a. Approximately 25 acres of constructed wetlands will be constructed in 21 City-owned Ponds 9 and 10 for algae removal and a flow of up to 6 mgd. 22 b. Approximately 45 acres of polishing wetlands, for a flow of up to 12 mgd, 23 will be constructed as follows: approximately 23 acres in "Parcel A," 24 approximately 11 acres in "Parcel B," and approximately ll acres in the 25 City-owned parcel adjacent to "Parcel B". 26 c. Polishing wetlands will not be constructed below the 100-year flood plain 27 elevation of 7-feet. 28 8. An access road from Cypress Drive to the new water recycling facility will be 29 constructed, including a bridge over Ellis Creek. 30 9. The City Manager is authorized to enter into negotiations for acquisition of the 31 properties known as "Parcel A" and "Parcel B". 32 10. The City Manager is authorized to pursue State Revolving Fund financing for the 33 project. 34 11. The City Manager, the Finance Director and the Director of Water Resources and 35 Conservation are authorized to sign the loan documents for the State Revolving 36 Fund loan. 37 12. The City Manager is authorized to pursue other funding sources in support of the 38 land acquisition and polishing wetlands. 39 Page 4 of 5 i 1 13. Items 7b, 7c, and 8 are subject to the resolution of Items 9 and 12. 2 14. Approval of the project will be subject to City Council consideration on or before 3 Apri12003. Under the-power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to Council of th 7Chty of Petaluma at JaRegular) (Adjourned) (Sp~) meeting _ e form on the day of y............---....................., by the following vote: ity Attorney AYES: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Mayor Thompson, Torliatt NOES: Moynihan ABSENT: None/1 AB TAIN: O Brien `9~`/ , ATTEST: City Clerk Yi Mayor T'34~i ~a~~! ~ Council File......._ 2002-012,._._.., N.cs. cn w-HS ties. N~ . .