HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 00-214 N.C.S. 12/11/2000
4
1Zesolution No. 00-214 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
APPR®VING WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PR®JECT REP®RT
ANI) SELECTI®N ®F THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE
NEW WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 950
Hopper Street;
WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements, various
upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through the 1960s;
WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway to
provide additional treatment capacity;
WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the
wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment capacity
and continue to meet the needs to the community too costly, the City determined to replace the
existing wastewater treatment facility;
WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with Envirotech
Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 years) a new
wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107); -
WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the California Local
Government Privatization Act of 1985;
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that the MOU
did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the application is
denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment";
WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU;
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared. by Ernst and Young, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156, which directed that the Service Agreement Approach
(privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment facility;
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163, which certified
the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164, which approved the project, and Resolution
No. 96-165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For Proposal;
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor teams;
Reso. 00-Z 14 NCS Page 1
WHEREAS, in January 1997, the. City received proposals from Montgomery United Water
(MUW) and US Filter/EOS;
WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on May
28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 1997,
November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997;
WHERAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8, 1997,
September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997, December 3,
1997, and December 8, 1997;
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11, which selected
MUW for contract negotiations;
WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on January
27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999;
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for development of
a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved preparation of the wastewater
treatment facility master plan;
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188, which
terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new wastewater
treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among others:
/ Risk of Change Required Over 30-Year Contract Term. Changes in the City's
needs may occur during the 30-year life of the contract. The City is at a disadvantage by
being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the facility's capacity.
® Requirement of Fair 1Vlarket Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain tax
ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract term would
have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be fixed in the contract,
but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of the exercise of the option,
thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having to pay for part of the plant twice.
® Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership,
Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the design process.
9 Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 5.2.4
would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the City) at the
Project Site.
1 Inability to Agree ®n Contract Language. After extensive negotiations between
the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other critical issues could
not be agreed upon.
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189, which
approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the Master Plan's
recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions asked by the City's
independent wastewater professionals;
Reso. 00-214 NCS Page 2
WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for engineering
services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater treatment facility);
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-66 on Apri13, 2000, which
authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers
for engineering services in support of Phase 1 -Project Report of the Water Recycling Facility
Project;
WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a Public
Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000;
WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the alternatives on
September 5, 2000;
WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were presented at a
Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling Facility
Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000;
NOW, 'T'HEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED by the Petaluma City Council that:
1. The Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) is
hereby approved and incorporated into this resolution as if set forth in its entirety;
2. Alternative 5 -Extended Aeration is the preferred alternative for the new water recycling
facility;
3. Option A -Wetlands is the preferred alternative for algae removal over Option B - DAFs;
and
4. During Phase 2 -Project Development, pre-design and environmental documentation
shall be completed for Alternative SA -Extended Aeration With Wetlands and
Alternative SB -Extended Aeration With DAFs.
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
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on December 11, 2000 Approved as to
By the following vote: form:
City Attorney
AYES: Healy, Cader-Thompson, Keller, Maguire, Hamilton, vice Mayor Torliatt, Mayor Thompson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
r
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
Reso. 00-214 NCS Page 3