Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7.B 02/07/20057.B CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL February 7, 2005 Agenda Title: February 7, 2005: Presentation and Discussion on Meeting Date: February 7, 2005 the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project February 28, 2005: Resolution Directing the Department of Water Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM Resources & Conservation to Solicit Bids for Construction of the ® 7:00 PM Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Category (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business ® Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Department: Water Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Resources & Michael Ban, P.E. Margaret Orr, P.E. 778-4589 Conservation Cost of Proposal: Construction Cost of $92.3 million Account Number: C500402 Amount Budgeted: FY 04-05 Budget is $10.2 million Name of Fund: Wastewater Utility Fund Attachments to Aeenda Packet Item: Agenda Report Draft Resolution Summary Statement: The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility represents a significant and valuable investment by Petaluma. It will serve the needs of the community for 50 plus years, and help protect the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay, as required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Through the innovative use of polishing treatment wetlands and creative connection to Shollenberger Park and the Petaluma Marsh, the facility will also serve as a valuable amenity for Petaluma. This project has benefited from the support and input of interested community members and interested organizations, such as the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation District and the California Coastal Conservancy. Recommended Citv Council Action/Sua2csted Motion: City Management requests the City Council: February 7, 2008: Consider and discuss the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project. No City Council action is being requested at the February 7th Council meeting. February 28, 2008: Consider and discuss the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, and provide direction on the resolution directing the solicitation of construction bids. The draft resolution provided with this Agenda Report will be amended to reflect the City Council's direction. City Management recommends the City Council proceed with development of Alternative 2 — Phase -In Secondary Process for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. r Riviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attornev: A r Cit Manager: / I Dat , j .,, Date: Date: Tod v's Date: February 1, 2005 Revision # and Date Revised- File Code:s:\waterresources & j # conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\&bruary 7, 2005\agenda report cover.doc CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA REPORT FOR February 7, 2005: Presentation and Discussion on the Ellis Creek Water Reevelins Facilitv Proiect February 28.2005: Resolution Directing the Department of Water Resources & Conservation to Solicit Bids for Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facilitv 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility represents a significant and valuable investment by Petaluma. It will serve the needs of the community for 50 plus years, and help protect the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay, as required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Through the innovative use of polishing treatment wetlands and creative connection to Shollenberger Park and the Petaluma Marsh, the facility will also serve as a valuable amenity for Petaluma. This project has benefited from the support and input of interested community members and interested organizations, such as the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation District and the California Coastal Conservancy. The City's path to development of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility has been subjected to an extraordinary amount of public and professional scrutiny and review. Since 1992, over 30 resolutions have been adopted on the project. The design has been developed, reviewed and refined through a master plan, a project report, environmental documentation, consultation with thirteen governmental regulatory agencies, three value engineering efforts, a bidability and constructability review, preparation of a detailed cost estimate, and preparation of plans (comprising over 750 drawings) and specifications (comprising over 1,500 pages). Key components of the project include: A robust wastewater treatment system with the capacity to treat Petaluma's wastewater through build -out of the General Plan (over 2 billion gallons of wastewater annually) Production of tertiary recycled water which can be used for irrigation of landscaped areas to offset demands on the water supply 1 S:\water resources & conservation\Wa51ew2ter\9012\phase 3 - construction\Cety CounciMcbruary 7, 20051Staff Report solicit bids final.2-1-04.doc Production of biosolids that can be beneficially reused instead of being disposed at the landfill Innovative use of natural wetland treatment systems to improve water quality Since 1988 there have been several options proposed for treatment of Petaluma's wastewater, including a 1988 proposal by the treatment plant operator, a privatization proposal, and two designs submitted by the Sonoma County Water Agency. It is important to remember that none of these options met the goals of the project, which is why they were not selected. A key factor to the success of this project is the ability to begin construction this summer. This will allow the City to begin using the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility at or near the time the existing wastewater treatment facility reaches its capacity, and will also serve to reduce the impact of further unprecedented increases in the cost of construction materials. City Management requests the City Council: February 7, 2008: Consider and discuss the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project. No City Council action is being requested at the February 7th Council meeting. February 28, 2008: Consider and discuss the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, and provide direction on the resolution approving Alternative 2 and directing the solicitation of construction bids. The draft resolution provided with this Agenda Report will be amended to reflect the City Council's direction. City Management recommends the City Council proceed with development of Alternative 2 — Phase -In Secondary Process for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. 2. BACKGROUND: Petaluma's Water Recycling Facility is being developed under the following program: ► Phase 1 — Project Report ► Phase 2 —Project Development ► Phase 3 — Construction and Start-up The City completed Phase 1 — Project Report on December 11, 2000, with City Council approval of the water recycling facility project report. Work on Phase 2 — Project Development, which includes predesign, permitting, design and funding, is nearly complete. 2 S'\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids final.2-1-04.doc The purpose of this Agenda Report is to update the City Council on the status of the Water Recycling Facility project and present the results of the work conducted in support of Phase 2 — Project Development. This presentation and discussion will occur on February 7`h. On February 28`h, City Management will request City Council approval to solicit bids for construction of the project. As an introduction, this Agenda Report begins with the reasons for replacing the City's existing wastewater treatment facility, followed by a description of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, and status of the construction permitting process. Finally, a detailed analysis of the construction cost is presented along with the estimated impacts to wastewater utility rates. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Petaluma's wastewater treatment facility provides services to the City of Petaluma and the unincorporated Sonoma County community of Penngrove. The City began treating wastewater in 1938, a time when less than 30% of all urban wastewater in the United States was treated. Wastewater treatment is conducted at two facilities: the Hopper Street Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Lakeville Highway Pond Site. All wastewater is conveyed to the Hopper Street plant through an underground network of 200 miles of collection system pipeline. Up to 6 million gallons per day (mgd) of flow is treated at Hopper Street. All flow exceeding 6 mgd is routed to the Pond Influent Pump Station (PIPS) and sent directly to the oxidation ponds located on Lakeville Highway. Effluent from the Hopper Street plant, which consists of approximately 2 mgd primary effluent, 2 mgd trickling filter effluent and 2 mgd activated sludge effluent, is routed to the PIPS and sent to the oxidation ponds. The oxidation ponds were constructed in 1972 to provide additional treatment and storage before the effluent is disinfected and either discharged to the Petaluma River in the winter or reused for agricultural irrigation in the summer. Petaluma annually recycles approximately 35% of all wastewater treated at its facilities. An upgrade to the PIPS was completed in 2001. This project increased the peak capacity from 20 to 36 mgdl. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility at 950 Hopper Street The wastewater treatment plant at 950 Hopper Street consists of several different types of treatment systems built over many decades. The Hopper Street facilities consist of two parallel plants: a trickling filter plant (built in stages in 1937 and 1953) and an activated sludge plant (built in 1966). Hopper Street is located near downtown Petaluma and is ' The limited capacity of this pump station had resulted in overflows occurring in the sewer system during wet weather events. These types of overflows have been reduced since the pump station was upgraded. Additionally the pump station had no standby capability. This was remedied by the upgrade project. 3 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solieat bids.final 2-1-04.doc adjacent to the Petaluma River waterfront. Potential odors from the Hopper Street facilities are a concern for existing and future neighborhood businesses. Essentially all of the structural and many of the mechanical facilities at Hopper Street are at or near the end of their useful life. Numerous repairs have occurred at the plant over the last ten years. Many of the concrete structures have visible cracks and contusion and were not built to current seismic standards. The underground piping is deteriorated and prone to failure. If any of the buildings or structures were to be significantly altered or modified, compliance with current building/structural codes would be required which would be costly. Preliminary and Primary Treatment Raw wastewater entering the Hopper Street plant is limited to 6 mgd. All flows exceeding 6 mgd are routed directly to the oxidation ponds located at 4400 Lakeville Highway. All 6 mgd, or less, of wastewater flow is treated by the preliminary and primary treatment facilities, which were constructed in 1966. The influent screening facilities have adequate capacity for 6 mgd. However, the grit removal capacity has been rated at 4 mgd and the primary clarifier capacity has been rated at 2.5 mgd. Consequently, the grit removal and primary treatment facilities are overloaded under the current operation. The concrete in these structures has cracking. Frequent repair and/or replacement of mechanical equipment and piping have been necessary to maintain treatment capacity. In the last three years, wall sleeves for piping connections for future tanks have failed. The facilities have no provisions for odor control. Activated Sludee Plant The activated sludge system was constructed in. 1966 and is operated at 2.5 mgd. The aeration tanks and support equipment have adequate capacity to operate at 2.5 mgd, although the secondary clarifier performance degrades at flows greater than 2 mgd. The aeration tanks have structural cracking. When the tanks were last dewatered, cleaned and put back in service in 1985, leaking around the tanks was observed for the next 6 months. Trickline Filter Plant The trickling filter plant was constructed in two projects in 1937 and 1953 and is operated at approximately 2 mgd. The piping and pumping systems are corroded and have experienced failure. As -built drawings and plans for the trickling filter plant site are incomplete, and the location of the underground piping and utilities are unknown. Recent excavation work uncovered numerous pipes, electrical conduits, and gas lines that are not recorded on any available drawings. The original distribution arms for the filters were replaced in February 2000. During the replacement work, the concrete crumbled when attempts were made to drill and bolt into the existing concrete structure. Given the deteriorated condition of the concrete, the 4 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04.doc ability to rehabilitate the filters is questionable. The filter structures do not meet current Uniform Building Code requirements and would have to be seismically upgraded. The trickling filter media is the original rock media and much smaller than current design standards would specify. The original underdrain system was constructed of "irrigation grade rough redwood," and is likely to have deteriorated after over 60 years exposure to wastewater. The ventilation is inadequate based on current standards and no provision is provided for odor control. The trickling filter plant is not very effective for wastewater treatment due to media type and size, lack of ventilation and shallow depth. These factors coupled with the age, physical condition of the structure and limited treatment capacity lead to a determination that none of the trickling filter plant facilities are suitable for future use. Solids Handline Facilities The secondary anaerobic digester, originally constructed in 1937, has severe cracking and leaking has been observed. Therefore, this structure has been abandoned for use as a digester and currently acts as a sludge storage tank prior to dewatering. The primary anaerobic digester, constructed in 1950, currently treats the primary sludge and secondary sludge from the trickling filter plant. This structure reportedly has some structural cracking. While the primary digester could potentially be reused after extensive upgrades to meet current structural and uniform fire codes, its capacity is not large enough to treat the quantity of sludge that would be generated by 6.7 mgd of primary and secondary wastewater treatment. The earthen sludge lagoons / aerobic digesters have no provisions for odor control. Based on the poor structural conditions, it is recommended that none of the digestion or lagoon facilities be reused. The dewatering equipment consists of a centrifuge, manufactured in 1963, and a trailer -mounted belt filter press, which was installed for temporary use in 1995. Summary of HovDer Street Facilities A summary of the condition of the Hopper Street facilities and recommendations of potential future use are listed in Table 1. Most facilities at Hopper Street site are not suitable for any long term treatment alternative. New facilities would have to be constructed. For most of the facilities, rehabilitation is not feasible. Other facilities may be rehabilitated, but the costs of rehabilitation would likely exceed the costs of constructing new, more reliable facilities. Continued use of the existing aged facilities increases risk of failure, increases risk of permit violations, and increases costs for operations and maintenance to upkeep and repair the crumbling infrastructure. The existing administration and maintenance building, blower building, secondary clarifier, old outfall 2 and belt filter press all may be reusable. Continued use of the existing facility will not achieve the City's goal of providing long-term (25 to 50 years), reliable, wastewater treatment. 5 &\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\CityCouncil\February 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids final.2-1-04.doc 4400 Lakeville Highway The facilities at 4400 Lakeville Highway consist of an aerated lagoon, oxidation ponds and disinfection facilities, all built in 1972. Oxidation Ponds Wastewater from the PIPS at Hopper Street is pumped through a 14,100 -foot, 36 -inch diameter forcemain to an aerated lagoon and Pond 1. Approximately 60 percent of the flow goes directly to the aerated lagoon, while the other 40 percent goes to Pond 1. The aerated lagoon is approximately 3 acres and is 16 ft deep. Aeration is provided by three vertical 15 horsepower (Hp) surface aerators. The first oxidation pond (Pond 1) also has surface aeration provided by four 15 Hp vertical aerators and three 10 Hp horizontal aerators. Pond 1 is approximately 10 acres and 8 ft deep. The remaining ponds 2 through 10 provide further treatment and storage. Each pond is approximately 15 acres and the depths vary from 5 to 11 ft. Approximately 1,300 acre -ft of volume is provided in Ponds 2 though 10. The full depth of the ponds cannot be used for active storage due to the location of the water transfer structures. The usable volume provided in the ponds provides storage from May through October when no discharge to the Petaluma River is allowed. The storage is also used to balance the needs of the water recycling program during the summer months. Disinfection Facilities The original disinfection facilities were constructed in 1972 and consist of a chlorine contact basin and gaseous chlorine and gaseous sulfur dioxide facilities. In 2000 the City completed the project to convert from a gaseous disinfection/dechlorination system to a liquid system. This project improved worker and public safety. The chlorine contact basin has a volume of 0.36 MG and will provide a contact time of 90 minutes at 8 mgd. 3 S \water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Counciffebruary 7, 2005\Slaff Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04.doc Table 1 Summary of Hopper Street Treatment Facilities Petaluma, California FacilityI Date Constructed Headworks 1 1966 Primary Clarifier 1 1966 Primary Digester 1 1950 Secondary Digester 1 1937 1 Centrifuge 1 1963 Belt Filter Press I 1995 Primary Sedimentation 1937 Tank (2) Primary Trickling Filters 1937 and Final Trickling Filter Final Sedimentation Tank 1953 Aeration Basins (2) I 1966 1 Blower Building 1 1966 Blowers 1 1966 I I Final Clarifier 1966 Secondary Sludge 1966 Structure I Aerobic Digester and 1966 Lagoons(2) Pond Influent Pump I 1972 Station Electrical System I 1937-1966 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Assessment I Reason Unusable I Structural cracks; grit facilities sized for 4 mgd — inadequate capacity. Unusable I Structural cracks; unreliable for continued long-term use. Unusable I Inadequate capacity; does not meet _ structural/seismic: codes. Unusable Extensive structural damage; does not meet stmcturallseismic codes; unheated. Unusable 1 Inadequate capacity. Useable 1 Unusable I Inadequate capacity; does not meet stmctural/seisiric codes. Unusable Inadequate capacity; does not meet structural/seismic codes; poor ventilation; deteriorating underdrains; media not optimum size; source of odors with no provisions for odor control. Unusable I Inadequate capacity; does not meet structural/seismic codes. Unusable I Inadequate capacity; structural cracks; unreliable for long-term use. Usable 1 1 Unusable End of useful life; inadequate capacity; recent attempts at repair have not been successful. Usable I Unusable 1 End of useful life. Unusable. 1 Inadequate capacity; no odor control UsableI Upgrade completed in 2001 will provide another 30-50 years of operation. UnusableI No capacity for additional loads without upgrades; does not meet electrical codes. Regulatory requirements for Petaluma's wastewater treatment facility are based on federal, state and local regulatory agencies and regulations. Regulations apply to water discharge, water reuse, biosolids reuse or disposal, air quality, and land use. 7 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Stair Report solicit bids.rinal.2-1-04.doc Water Quality Requirements Water quality requirements are set nationally by the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate discharges to the waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. EPA also grants authority to state agencies for regulation and enforcement of water quality standards. In California, the authority to regulate discharges falls with the State Water Resources Control Board, which authorizes Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), permits. Existine NPDES Requirements The City's existing NPDES permit (No. CA 0037810) was adopted on July 15, 1998 by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The permit contains over 80 different compliance parameters. To confirm compliance with the permit, the City regularly analyzes the wastewater effluent for over 180 constituents2, and reports the results to the Regional Board each month. A few of the specific provisions of the permit include: The average dry weather flow shall not exceed 5.2 mgd. The average dry weather flow is determined over three consecutive dry weather months each year. Discharge to the Petaluma River is prohibited from May 1 through October 20. Monthly average biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) no greater than 30 mg/L. Monthly average total suspended solids (TSS) concentration no greater than 45 mg/L. To meet the discharge prohibition, the City must store and recycle all its effluent during the summer. Petaluma provides secondary recycled water for irrigation of 800 acres of agricultural lands and Adobe Creek Golf Course 3. The NPDES permit limits the City to an average dry weather flow of 5.2 mgd. To accommodate build -out of the General Plan, the new Water Recycling Facility will require an average dry weather flow capacity of 6.7 mgd. The City will have to apply to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for a new permit to increase the capacity to an average dry weather flow of 6.7 mgd. WHY DO WE NEED A NEW WATER RECYCLING FACILITY? Now that we've covered how wastewater is treated in Petaluma and the regulatory authority under which this treatment takes place, let's talk about why the existing wastewater treatment facility is being replaced. 2 Example constituents include copper, mercury, total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARS). 3 Irrigation of Rooster Run Golf Course is scheduled to begin in summer 2005. 8 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04.doc The Existing Facility is Operating Near Its Permitted Discharge Capacity The permitted discharge capacity for Petaluma's wastewater treatment facility is an average dry weather flow of 5.2 mgd. The average dry weather flow is the average daily amount of wastewater that is treated by the wastewater treatment facility during the dry weather months of the summer. In 1985, the average dry weather flow was 4.00 mgd. This was the first time flows exceeded 75% of the permitted discharge capacity. In response, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Order No. 90-153, which included a time schedule for upgrading the wastewater treatment facility. At current flowrates, it is estimated that the existing facility will reach the permitted discharge capacity of 5.2 mgd between 2007 and 2009. This is illustrated on Figure 1. To treat wastewater flows in excess of the permitted discharge capacity at the existing wastewater treatment facility would constitute a violation of the City's NPDES permit. If this occurs, the City could be subject to fines and other actions by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Existing Facility is Near the End of Its Useful Life Equipment has generally reached the end of its useful life when it becomes more cost effective to replace it than repair it. This is the case with the existing wastewater treatment facility. Table 1 provides a component -by -component review of the equipment at the existing wastewater treatment facility. Even if the City were to undertake the repairs described in Table 1, the facilities would not provide another 50 plus years of reliable service due to their current condition. Facilities not at the end of their useful life include the Pond Influent Pump Station, the Blower Building, and the belt filter press. The Existing Facility Is Costly To Maintain It is often said that the existing wastewater treatment facility is held together with "band- aids and bailing wire." This statement is more a reflection of the difficulty of keeping an aged facility operating than a reflection of the actual repairs implemented to maintain the facility. Due to the volume of wastewater treated (nearly 2 billion gallons annually) and the corrosive environment, repairs must be substantial and robust. As the existing wastewater treatment facility nears the end of its useful life, the City finds itself increasingly in the position of having to conduct more frequent and costly repairs in order to continue treating the community's wastewater in accordance with the NPDES permit. Table 2 summarizes some of the recent major maintenance projects constructed at the facility. E S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebr Lary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04.doc M r r Ma 0 < ;Um m;U Ox> �DM nM< M r�O 9r-rn p Z ;U G) -n -n O D r- 13 f Discharget-imit V 1 f Actual ADW F 10 — -A Flow Projection - 1 % Growth LL ——Flow Projection - 1.5 % Growth 9 - _ o Flow Projection - 2% Growth d 0 m a 7 } 4 M 5 � I Q -,N •� ,('>) ,�- •lL) .^ � r C7 .� I". W r ('7 4� hO? r CO Irl r` 01 r C7 � � � M lA p p p p r r r rnr N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r Years Figural. The City of Petaluma average dry weather flow (ADW F) projections based on annual growth ranging from 1% (blue) to 2% (green). The City is permitted to discharge 5.2 mgd ADWF. If growth is 1.5% or less between now and the time the new recycling facility comes on-line then enough permitted capacity is available to treat all the incoming wastewater. Table 2 Summary of Recent Major Maintenance Repairs at the Wastewater Treatment Facility Petaluma, California Date Description Cost Purpose 1995 Trailer Mounted Belt Filter Press $239,000 Designed to improve solids I handling and reduce load on aging centrifuge. The belt filter press handles 90% of the solids. 1997 Installation of screen and compactor at $105,000 Improve treatment capability of the Pond Influent Pump Station and treatment plant and oxidation upgrade/repair of the existing screen ponds by removing large materials and compactor at the influent from wastewater. headworks. were prone to failure. 1998 Oxidation Pond Capacity Increase $283,000 As wastewater flows increase, more load is placed on the oxidation ponds. This project improved the treatment capability of the oxidation ponds. 1999 Influent Pump Station Upgrades $48,000 To improve control and reliability of influent pump station. Included replacement of electrical panels, drives and motors. 2000 Trickling Filter Upgrade Project I $138,000 I Maintain treatment capability of trickling filters. Replaced three trickling filter distributor amu and drive mechanisms. 2001 Replacement of Plant Influent Pumps, $81,000 Improve reliability and Return Activated Sludge Pump, and performance of Influent and RAS controls Pumps. Replaced pumps had been in operation for over 33 years and were prone to failure. 2002 Biofilter Plant Primary Clarifier $44,000 Repair of malfunctioning 1938 clarifier. Replaced the dnve unit, drive motor and reconstructed top sweeper arm. Replaced electrical from unit to control panel. 2003 Blower Repairs 1 $110,000 1 Rebuilt blower. 2003 I Sludge PumpsI $50,000 I Added sludge pumps to aerated lagoon. 2004 I Control Building HVACI $30,000 Upgraded heating & air conditioning units. Since the 950 Hopper Street facility is operating at capacity, more burden is placed on the oxidation ponds as flows increase. As the loading to the oxidation ponds increases, additional projects may be necessary to improve the treatment capacity of the ponds. The Existing Plant Cannot Meet Permit Requirements NPDES permits are designed to be stringent and to set a very high performance standard 11 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construcoonWity CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04 doc to protect water quality. Prior to the Year 2000, the Regional Board was given a certain amount of discretion to address permit excursions. Since the Regional Board understands that it is impossible to comply with an NPDES discharge permit 100% of the time, they did not automatically fine agencies for occasionally exceeding the limits of their permit. If an agency was recalcitrant, and did not demonstrate a diligent and good faith effort to comply, the Regional Board would issue a fine. In January 2000, a new California law became effective and radically changed how the Regional Board addressed permit noncompliance. S13709, the Clean Water Enforcement and Pollution Prevention Act, removed the Regional Board's penalty assessment discretion and required the Regional Board to assess mandatory minimum penalties (MMP) of $3,000 per violation of certain parameters of the NPDES permits. Regardless of the level of exceedance, SB709 requires a fine to be issued. From January 2000 through April 2004, the City was assessed mandatory minimum penalties totaling $162,000 for fifty-four penalties°. The majority of these penalties were the result of algae present in the effluent. Algae are a natural by-product of the wastewater treatment process that occurs in the City's oxidation ponds. They provide oxygen necessary for treatment, and also play a significant role in the reduction of metals concentrations in the effluent. But they also contribute to higher total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations in the effluent. During the warmer months of late spring, the TSS concentration in the effluent increases primarily due to the presence of algae. It is not uncommon for the effluent TSS concentration to exceed the permit limit of 45 mg/L monthly average. The higher algae concentrations can also disrupt other treatment processes, such as disinfection, making it difficult to maintain compliance with other permit parameters. Control of Odors Emanating from the Existing Plant is Limited Like all wastewater treatment plants, the existing facility occasionally has odor issues. Over time redevelopment has moved closer and closer to the wastewater treatment facility at 950 Hopper Street. The Mary Isaac Center was recently constructed in the middle of the wastewater treatment facility. Several odor complaints have been received from nearby Hammer's Ski & Marine, Inc. A new fast food restaurant (In -N -Out Burger) is currently being sited right next to Hammer's which will likely increase awareness of odors emanating from the old facility. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has been contacted by Hammer's and inspectors have observed odors coming from the old plant. If five complaints are received then a citation could be made and fines could follow. 4 The total amount of $162,000 in penalties is the total of three different penalties that were assessed by the Regional Board during the time period. The most recent penalty was $87,000. The City paid this penalty and was reimbursed for the total amount by Veolia Water North America, the City's wastewater treatment plant operator. $51,000 of this penalty was directed to supplemental environmental projects that will benefit the Petaluma Watershed. 12 S.\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncnlTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids Rnal.2-1-04 doc Reuse of Secondary Recycled Water Is Limited Secondary recycled water produced by the existing wastewater treatment facility is suitable for irrigation of pasture and limited access golf courses. It is not suitable for irrigation of parks, schools, and residential areas. It also cannot be used for process water at the wastewater treatment plant. In summary, the existing wastewater treatment facility needs to be replaced because it is operating near its permitted discharge capacity, is near the end of its useful life, is costly to maintain, cannot consistently meet NPDES permit limits, and does not produce tertiary recycled water to augment the City's water supply. ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY This section presents the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. We begin with a review of the project's goals. Goals of New Water Recycling Facility In August 2002, the City Council certified the EIR for the project to construct a water recycling facility to meet the following goals: To develop an economically and ecologically sustainable water recycling facility to accommodate growth and development anticipated by the City's General Plan. To comply with Federal, State and regional air and water quality regulations through appropriate design and operation of the water recycling facility. Reliability and redundancy features will be included to be able to meet applicable regulations consistently. To replace or upgrade the existing wastewater treatment facility that is operating near its capacity and the end of its useful life. To protect the water quality of the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay by continuing to conduct wastewater treatment in an environmentally sensitive manner. The water recycling facility will include the additional steps of ammonia removal to reduce the risk of ammonia toxicity in the river and polishing wetlands to reduce effluent concentrations of metals, organics and nutrients. To stabilize and treat the biosolids generated in the wastewater treatment process to EPA's Class B standards for beneficial reuse of the biosolids. 13 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04 doc To produce tertiary recycled water in accordance with California Title 22 so water can be recycled to irrigation users throughout the City 5. To provide storage in the oxidation ponds during river discharge prohibitions from May 1st to October 20th and to balance the recycled water program during this non -discharge period. To develop a facility that serves as an amenity to the community by providing educational and recreational opportunities. The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility will meet these goals. This facility will be located at 4104 Lakeville Highway, adjacent to the City's oxidation ponds. The existing wastewater treatment plant, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and the oxidation ponds are shown on Figure 2. The existing treatment facilities at 950 Hopper Street will be decommissioned, excepting the Pond Influent Pump Station. In February 2004, the City acquired 262 acres of land at 4104 Lakeville Highway with the assistance of grant funding from the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District and the California Coastal Conservancy. The project site is shown on Figure 3. Wastewater Treatment Capacity The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility will treat an Average Dry Weather Flow of 6.7 mgd. Depending on the rate of growth, it is estimated this capacity could be reached sometime between 2019 (based on a growth rate of 2%) and 2034 (based on a growth rate of 1%). The City's water conservation program will support extending the life of this facility6. These projections are illustrated on Figure I. Short term peak hour flows can be much higher during extreme wet weather events, so the treatment facilities are designed with sufficient hydraulic capacity to handle peak wet weather flows. The existing Pond Influent Pump Station will remain at Hopper Street and will convey wastewater collected in the City's sewer system to wastewater to the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. It has a maximum capacity of 36 mgd. Therefore, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility has been designed to handle a peak capacity of 36 mgd. 5 In 2004 the City installed a recycled water pipeline to Rooster Run Golf Course. Using tertiary recycled water for irrigation of areas adjacent to this pipeline, including the treatment plant and Rooster Run Golf Course, would offset demands on the City's potable water system by approximately 420 million gallons per year. This is equivalent to the amount of water used annually by over 3,000 single family households. Tertiary recycled water is an important component of the City's water supply. 6 Petaluma's conservation efforts through June 2004 save the City approximately 51 million gallons per year (equivalent to the amount of water annually used by approximately 380 single family households). S9water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\StafT Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04 doc Figure 2 LOCATION MAP ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY CITY OF PETALUMA °MB°IN94MAdr 15 � L�keYi����Flit��1V� �`,k{$I"4k�jr'�� � •.�r � � ' t y 'v Oxidation -Pond {T 1pIA } a � Y Y ' t act Basin r Pump St<jtiarf tion Facuities Wo6tfati' Pip 4 y.l Elements of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility includes the following combination of biological and physical processes to remove organic material and pollutants from wastewater (these facilities are shown on Figure 4): Force Main The existing force main (pipe carrying wastewater to the oxidation pond site) runs adjacent to the old railroad right-of-way and crosses under Ellis Creek near Oxidation Pond No. 5. A new 42 -inch diameter pipeline will tie into the existing force main to convey influent wastewater to the headworks (see below) at the new facility. Preliminary Treatment The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility's preliminary treatment process or "Headworks" includes physical treatment to remove large particles and solids such as rags and plastic that can clog pumps and subsequent treatment processes. Preliminary treatment facilities include screening, grit removal, influent flow metering, and associated washers and compactors. The headworks area will be equipped with odor control. These project elements allow the City to meet regulatory requirements for influent flow monitoring and sampling and landfill requirements surrounding grit and screenings. Secondary Treatment Following preliminary treatment, the effluent is conveyed to the secondary treatment facilities, which include two oxidation ditches, two secondary clarifiers, and a secondary sludge pump station. In the oxidation ditches, oxygen is supplied through rotating surface disc aerators to microorganisms that use the waste in the water as food. The oxidation ditches have a volume of three million gallons each. The secondary clarifiers are large round basins (125 -feet in diameter) that provide a quiescent area for the microorganisms to settle from the now clean water called secondary effluent. A pump station is used to return a set amount of microorganisms to the oxidation ditch. Any excess microorganisms are pumped to solids handling (described below). Secondary effluent is then pumped either to the oxidation ponds for additional treatment, or to the tertiary facilities. Solids Handling - Solids materials removed in the preliminary and secondary treatment processes are pumped to the solids handling system. The biosotids treatment system includes thickening, anaerobic digestion, and dewatering. Thickening is the first step in the solids handling process. This is accomplished with a 17 Sawater resources & consemaboniWastewaterW012%phase 3 - constructionkCity CouneiRFebruary 7, 200h.Staff Report solicit bids final.2-1.04.doc North Stream II -Crossings J l I) Lakeville Highway - - Oxidation ( - r Ditches "� - i Iaero )igestion / q1 Z - I 'orks r I i I existing road i will be repaired i 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 Chlorine Contact Basin Figure 4 PROJECT ELEMENTS ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY CITY OF PETALUMA gravity belt thickener (GBT). The excess microorganisms that grow each day in the secondary treatment process are pumped to the GBT. These microorganisms are pulled from the bottom of the secondary clarifiers (these are the big round quiescent basins that allow the biosolids to settle) and consist of a solution that is about 0.5% solids and 95.5% water. This stream is placed on a fabric material where some of the water is drained through the fabric. The solids stream is about 4-6% solids after this unit operation. This process can produce noxious odors and is therefore enclosed in a concrete building equipped with odor control. The thickened solids are then pumped to digesters. The digesters convert bulky, odorous, and putrescible raw biosolids to a well -digested material (disease causing bacteria are reduced as part of this process) that can be further dewatered without emission of noxious odors. The first digester is an acid phase digester in which an environment is provided for acid forming bacteria to ferment hydrolysis products to acetic acid (vinegar). The next digester is a methane digester in which methane bacteria use the vinegar and hydrogen produced in the first reactor to produce methane and carbon dioxide. This methane digester is kept under pressure and heated. The methane gas produced in the reaction is reused to heat a boiler which keeps the digester temperature around 100nF which is an ideal environment for methane producing bacteria to grow. The digestion process is similar to that of human digestion, except food is not digested, biosolids are digested! Thus, the biosolids are reduced in volume by about 40% in this reactor and disease causing bacteria are reduced to within EPA standards for handling. The digested solids are conveyed into a storage tank for storage and delivery to the next device described below. A digester control building, including boiler facilities (to provide heat to the reactor as described above) will also be included. Any excess methane gas is burned in a flare. The flare is stabilized with natural gas as needed through automatic controls. The digested solids are then sent to a mechanical device called a screw press for further dewatering. The stabilized biosolids are thickened from 4-6% solids to 20-24% solids. This stable product looks like soil and can be recycled by placing it on farm land (biosolids have nitrogen in them and can be reused to minimize a farmer's need for chemical fertilizers) or used as daily cover of garbage at the local landfill. This process will manage approximately 1,800 tons of biosolids annually. Odor control is provided in this building to reduce the earthy/musty smell of digested biosolids. The solids handling facilities will produce biosolids that met EPA's criteria for Class B biosolids. Digestion is a cost effective means of producing Class B biosolids. Without the volume reduction and stabilization steps provided through digestion, the City would have approximately 100% more solids to dispose of and options for disposal would be limited to recycling facilities owned by others or the landfill. The Federal Government does not determine the manner in which biosolids are used or disposed. The Federal Government has allowed this to be a local decision. The design provided allows the City options for recycling the biosolds instead of only landfill disposal. Odor Hardline Processes The most common sources of odor are incoming raw wastewater and solids handling 19 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Councd\February 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04 doc facilities. The project includes a biofilter to treat these potentially odorous air streams. The biofilter is simply a bed of organic material, typically a mixture of compost and wood chips or shreds. Air is pulled from the odorous areas and transferred to the biofilter. As it passes through the biofilter the microbes on the organic material convert the odorous gases to carbon dioxide and water. The media is changed every 3 — 5 years. These facilities will be located near the eastern edge of the property, over 1,000 -feet away from the business park. Tertiary Treatment (Recvcled Water) Tertiary treatment is accomplished using filtration to remove solids remaining after secondary treatment and disinfection to meet the Department of Health Services (DHS) requirements for unrestricted reuse. Unrestricted use means that the water can be used for irrigation of parks and playgrounds, golf courses, school yards, flushing toilets and urinals, and structural fire fighting. Filtration and disinfection facilities will consist of filter feed pump station, tertiary sand filters, ultra violet (UV) light disinfection system and filter support building consisting of chemical storage (alum and polymer are used during filtration to help remove any remaining biosolids). Because the City's existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prohibits discharge to the Petaluma River from May I to October 20, all effluent must be stored or reused during this period. Meeting the discharge prohibition requires careful balancing of reuse, storage and river discharge immediately before and after the non - discharge period. The existing oxidation ponds and wetlands provide adequate storage of approximately 800 acre-feet of secondary water. Oxidation Ponds The oxidation ponds will remain an integral component of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility7. For the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, the oxidation ponds will continue to provide storage of secondary -treated effluent to meet the discharge prohibition and balance the recycled water program, provide treatment of wet weather peak flows, and polishing of the effluent to reduce metals concentrations during the river discharge season. The pond aeration system will be upgraded and capacity expanded by adding aerators to handle peak flow. Treatment Wetlands (All?ae Removal) Algae are naturally generated in the oxidation ponds as part of the treatment process. These algae will be removed to meet discharge and reuse requirements using a wetlands treatment system. Oxidation Pond Nos. 9 and 10, the last two in the sequence of ponds, will be converted into approximately 30 acres of densely vegetated treatment wetlands. The wetland 7 The City's oxidation ponds provide many benefits, including enhanced removal of metals. Napa Sanitation District recently attempted to remove their oxidation ponds from their treatment process and had difficulty meeting treatment standards for metals. 20 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04.doc plants create a dark zone in which algae can no longer photosynthesize. This causes the algae to die off and settle, clearing the water of its murky green color (from algae not wastes in the water) and allowing disinfection chemicals to work better prior to discharge. Hence, these wetlands are necessary to meet disinfection requirements prior to discharge. Polishine Treatment Wetlands Following treatment in the treatment wetlands, the highly treated effluent will be treated in thirty acres (wetted area) of polishing treatment wetlands. The polishing treatment wetlands will be located on land acquired with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy. The City's decision to use polishing treatment wetlands was instrumental in attracting Coastal Conservancy funding. The polishing treatment wetlands will reduce metals, organic compounds, and nutrients prior to discharge. Water to the polishing wetlands will meet disinfected, secondary effluent standards. The wetland berms will be open to the public for use as &ails. In addition to improving water quality, the polishing treatment wetlands will provide habitat for wildlife .8 The polishing treatment wetlands also help offset some construction costs in that soil not appropriate for building on (called spoils) can be used to form the wetland berms, instead of being hauled off-site for disposal. River Discharee and Disinfection Disinfection is currently provided using sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite at the existing chlorine contact basin located at the southeastern end of the oxidation ponds. The existing sodium hypochlorite/sodium bisulfite system will continue to be used for agricultural reuse (restricted use recycled water) and during the winter discharge period. Revisions will be made to the hypochlorite system, electrical equipment, control system, and discharge configuration to meet regulatory requirements for flow monitoring. Storaee Reservoir and Pumn Station A one million -gallon recycled water storage reservoir will be located adjacent to the Administration Building. A recycled water pump station will be constructed distribute recycled water in support of the water recycling facility and the City's water recycling program9. Half the water in the reservoir will be reserved at all times for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility's fire suppression system. To conserve water supply, recycled water will be used for pump seals, wash down water, irrigation, toilet flushing, and the building cooling system. This system is an integral part of the recycling facility. It will save the City approximately 500,000 gallons per day of potable water use. Wastewater facilities are notoriously high water consumers due to process requirements. e The City's oxidation ponds also provide habitat for wildlife, including ducks, geese, and pelicans. 9 Petaluma's Recycled Water Master Plan will be presented to the City Council at a later date. 21 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\February 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids final.2-1-04.doc Operation. Lab. Maintenance and Administration Building Operation of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility will be conducted by approximately fourteen employees (this is two fewer employees than the Hopper Street treatment facility). These employees may be City employees or, as is the case with the existing wastewater treatment facility, employees of a private contract operations firm. Fewer employees are driven by state-of-the-art monitoring and control. The roles and responsibilities of the employees are summarized below: Plant Manager. This position will be responsible for regulatory reporting, maintenance planning and oversight, personnel, budget and capital improvement planning and execution, along with safety and emergency response. Assistant Plant Manager. This person will be responsible for plant operations and process control, solids disposal, sampling and testing including quality assurance and quality control, industrial and commercial monitoring and inspections. Lead Operators. Three lead operators will provide daily inspections and process activities, pond and recycled water operations, sample collection at the plant and within the industrial and commercial setting, provide routine process control and some regulatory lab work, direct other operators, enter lab data in the process database, and enter plant readings into the process database. Plant Operators. Three plant operators will take direction from the lead operators and will typically be responsible for one of the following areas within the plant: secondary treatment, solids handling, or discharge/recycle. One operator in training is provided since the first wave of retirements from the "baby -boom" generation, those born between the mid -1940s and early 1960s will begin in earnest within the next 5 years. In preparation, utilities are "growing their own" operating staff. The average age of wastewater staff in California is 47 and between 60%-65% of supervisory staff is anticipated to retire within 5 years. Office Professional. An office professional will prepare correspondence, process receiving slips, track employee attendance, answer phones, track purchases, provide high level support for regulatory report generation and assist with regulatory database management, and maintain a regulatory compliance library for housing of the legal documents that track plant performance. Some documents must be kept for the "life of the facility" while many others must be housed for 5 years. Lab Technician. The lab technician will perforin routine process and regulatory testing, implement and follow quality assurance and quality control procedures, provide industrial and commercial sampling and inspections, train operators in basic test procedures, and document bench data and chain -of -custody records as required by the regulating agencies. The lab technician will support the following regulated programs: wastewater, water, storm water, collection system, recycled water, and the Federal Pretreatment Program (industrial and commercial monitoring). This area is always expanding as pollutants of concern 22 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construcuon\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids. final.2-1-04.doc are identified and then regulated. It is likely that the combination of the increase in regulation of all the above listed programs will necessitate the addition of a second lab technician in the coming years. Electrical Instrumentation Technician. An electrical instrumentation technician will perform preventative maintenance on electrical and instrumentation equipment, perform routine calibration on instruments, oversee outside vendor calibrations as required by the Regional Board, provide corrective maintenance as required, and assist in maintenance and operational activities as needed. Mechanics. One lead mechanic will perform predictive and preventative maintenance on mechanical equipment, oversee outside vendor preventative maintenance (large pumps, etc.), direct the plant mechanic, and assist with electrical and operational activities as needed. One plant mechanic will take direction from the lead mechanic and will provide preventative maintenance on mechanical equipment, and support electrical and operational activities as needed. A building for operations, laboratory analyses, maintenance, and administration will be constructed to support these activities. The laboratory will serve Petaluma's water, storm water, wastewater, collection system, recycled water, and industrial analytical needs. Also included in the operations area of the building is a state-of-the-art control system. The system will provide monitoring and control of the new facilities 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. During off hours, the control system will call the operator if a priority alarm rings. Programming of the control system will be a companion project bid separately from this project. The anticipated cost of programming has been included in the overall cost model for the project. The maintenance area of the building includes a garage for operating equipment maintenance, parts storage and instrumentation support. Access to the Ellis Creek Water Reccecline Facilitv From Lakeville Highway there are two entrances into the oxidation pond site: East Gate and West Gate. These gates will remain, although the West Gate will be used only for emergency access. The current access to 4144 Lakeville Highway is located adjacent to the existing farm house: one driveway is used for the residence and one drive is used for access to the agricultural fields. A new entrance into 4104 Lakeville Highway will be constructed to the west of the existing farmhouse, as shown on Figure 4. Due to the speed and volume of traffic on Lakeville Highway, access to the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility will be provided as follows: A new access road through the Oakmead Northbay Business Park will be constructed from the cul-de-sac off Cypress Drive to 4104 Lakeville Highway. This road will provide access to the water recycling facility. This road will be used during construction and by staff and the public during operations. The traffic light into and out of the business park at McDowell Boulevard will facilitate safe access. 23 SAWater resources & conservaUonlwasiew ter190121phace 3 - constructionTity CouncilTebruary 7, 20051Staff Report solicit bids rinal.2-1-04.doc The new entrance into 4104 Lakeville Highway from Lakeville Highway will include a right -turn lane from Lakeville Highway for east -bound right turns into the site, and an acceleration lane will be added for right turns out of the site for east -bound traffic. Caltrans has notified the City that they have no funding to bring roadways up to standard and have decided to achieve standards by having each project granted a permit for work on roads in their jurisdiction invest in the roads adjacent to the work for their individual project. As mentioned above, the City needs to add a right turn lane into the new site on Lakeville Highway and an acceleration pocket. Caltrans recently indicated that the City will need to expand the lanes in front of the new plant from eleven feet to twelve feet to meet Caltrans standard. This new information about Lakeville Highway required improvements will be designed separately and bid as a companion project to this construction contract. This work has been included in the project cost estimate. Public Access. Habitat and Communitv Amenities Grant funds from the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District and the California Coastal Conservancy will support development of the following: A trail link to Shollenberger Park. Two point access trails to Ellis Creek. Trail through agricultural field to tertiary recycled water reservoir. Parking for 80 cars, including 10 spaces for oversized vehicles. Trial linking the polishing wetlands to the river. This access trail into the Petaluma Marsh is designed along an existing raised road. The cost of these enhancements has been deducted from the project construction costs because they will be grant funded. PERMITTING It is difficult to underestimate the amount of permitting necessary for a project.of this magnitude. Through the permitting effort the City has consulted with thirteen different government regulatory agencies (including the City of Petaluma). Each agency has a particular interest, focus and desire on this project, which are often at odds with other regulatory agencies and the goals of Petaluma. The City has worked diligently to strike a balance between the City's goals and the requirements of the regulatory agencies. This section briefly describes the permitting and regulatory consultation process. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A Section 404 Individual Permit was applied for on September 6, 2004 regarding 24 S.\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Couned\February 7, 2005\.Staff Report solicit btds.f inal.2-1-04.doe potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers sent out a required Public Notice on January 20, 2005. The City anticipates the permit will be issued between April 29, 2005 and June 16, 2005. This permit allows the City to fill wetlands or waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. The project is estimated to require up to 4.24 acres of temporary wetland disturbance and 2.87 acres of permanent disturbance to jurisdictional wetlands10 of the United States. Mitigation wetlands totaling 3.12 acres will be created to offset the permanent impact (final approval is pending permit approval). The Corps and Regional Board Water Quality Control Board typically require a 2:1 or more mitigation ratio, but may accept a lower ratio of mitigation wetlands to permanently disturbed wetlands given the low quality of the wetlands being taken. The project includes the creation of approximately 30 wetted acres of polishing treatment wetlands that will be used for wastewater treatment and will provide wildlife habitat. Since the polishing treatment wetlands will be managed for wastewater treatment as well as habitat, the Corps and Regional Board has asserted that they will not qualify as mitigation for the lost wetlands. Before granting a permit, the Corps will ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Office of Historic Preservation, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to concur with their decision to issue the permit. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Since there are potential impacts to species or migratory fish listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, a consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has been initiated. The City prepared a Biological Assessment to determine if the project may affect any of the threatened, endangered, or candidate species known to occur in the footprint of the construction area, or in the immediate vicinity of the construction area. The Corps of Engineers has reviewed the Biological Assessment and in October 2004 forwarded the document to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a recommendation that a finding of no adverse effect be made. The Biological Assessment is currently being reviewed by USFWS. The Biological Assessment was prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and follows standards set forth by the USFWS. Seven federally -listed animal species and one candidate species were identified as either present or potentially present within the project area. Four species with threatened or endangered status with the State of California were also included in the 10 These jurisdictional wetlands are variously referred to as "degraded farmed wetlands." They have been farmed for at least 50 years. Nonetheless, the Corps has asserted their jurisdiction over the wetlands and is requiring mitigation for any disturbance that occurs. They have regarded the City's mitigation plan very favorably. 25 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\rebruary 7, 2005\.Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04.doc Biological Assessment to expedite review by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The threatened or endangered species that are known to occur or could potentially occur on the site are as follows: Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, California Clapper Rail, Bald Eagle, Western Snowy Plover, California Freshwater Shrimp, California Red -legged Frog, Steelhead, Chinook Salmon, California Black Rail, American Peregrine Falcon, and the Little Willow Flycatcher. USFWS's initial position was to deny all public access to the trail on the southern most section of the site during the breeding season of the endangered Clapper Rail (from January 15 until August 31 each year). The Clapper Rail was put on the Endangered Species List on October 13, 1970. Even though the species has been protected for more than 30 years, only 600 individuals are thought to reside in the wild wetland areas of northern California. Coastal development has damaged more than 90% of the native costal wetlands threatening the destruction and degradation of the Clapper Rail habitat. The Rail is subject to predation by the non-native red fox, feral cat, and various native mammals. The USFWS has characterized the Petaluma Marsh area as one of the highest thriving Clapper Rail habitats in the Bay Area. USFWS has full legal authority to protect endangered species and has in most cases denied any and all access to breeding areas. After meetings with USFWS and extensive explanations of the City's goal to provide public access, the following concessions were gained from USFWS by the City. To avoid any potential impacts to the Clapper Rail, construction will occur either during the non -breeding season (September 1 — January 14) as prescribed by USFWS or at a distance greater than 200 feet from potential Rail habitat. Resurfacing of the trail will occur after the breeding season has ended on August 31. Maintenance will occur after the breeding season has ended on August 31 (unless outside of the 200 -foot boundary). Use of a portion of the trail will be limited during the first two months of the Clapper Rail breeding season (1/15 to 3/15). During this time, four passive surveys would be conducted to determine if Clapper Rails are breeding within 200 feet of the trail. If nesting Rails are found, the trail from the area of the nest to the River would be closed to the general public for the remainder of the breeding season (until August 31). However, access on this portion of the trail would be permitted for groups led by trained docents. Groups would primarily consist of school groups and birders. Docents would ensure that groups are quiet and stay on the trail. If no nesting Clapper Rails are found within 200 feet of the trail, it would be open to the general public for the rest of the year. Dogs will be prohibited on the trails of the Petaluma Marsh at all times of the year. USFWS does not allow predators such as dogs near endangered species at any time. 26 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids final 2-I-04.doc Signage will be installed in the public parking area and at the trailhead defining the access restrictions (no dogs, seasonal docent -led tours only, etc.) and describing the life cycle and importance of the Clapper Rail and other endangered species known to occur on the site. California State Office of Historic Preservation The California Office of Historic Preservation is responsible for administration of federal and state mandated historic preservation programs in California. Before granting a permit, the Corps will ask for this agency to concur with their decision to issue the permit. The City will need to manage the historical and archaeological resources on the property in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as implemented by the State Historic Preservation Officer. The City's initial Draft Cultural Report, which was submitted in October 2004 as part of the City's application for a State Revolving Fund loan, was rejected by the State Water Resources Control Board's Cultural Resources Officer (Resources Officer). The State Water Board is involved because they must also comply with the National Historic Preservation Act since the State Revolving Loan is a Federal funding mechanism. The Resources Officer visited the site and rejected the conclusions of the report. A second report prepared by the City was accepted by the Resources Officer in January 2005. The preliminary recommendations of the report indicate that the Masciorini Ranch, which was established at 4104 Lakeville Highway in the 1920s, may be eligible for listing in the National Historic Register for its close association with activities that defined the agricultural identity of Sonoma County and that the Masciorini residence may be eligible for listing in the National Register as a "fine" example of the Prairie style of architecture popular from 1900 to 1920. Thus, the City is in the process of developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in which the State Water Resources Control Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State Historic Preservation Officer will be signatory parties and the City of Petaluma will be a concurring party. State Historic Preservation Officer approval of the MOA is anticipated between April 10, 2005 and June 9, 2005. The anticipated mitigation to be outlined in the MOA may be that the City must record the history of any areas of the site that will be changed, develop a pamphlet documenting the history of the site, and perform any required maintenance on the farm house. This project will not impact the farm house, but will impact other degraded buildings on the site. California Department of Transportation The improved entrance from Lakeville Highway (State Highway 116) requires an encroachment permit. As stated previously, this work will be done as a companion project. 27 S.\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit Dtds.final.2-1-04 doe State Water Resources Control Board The primary source of funding for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility project will be a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan. The SRF program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, and provides low interest (less than 3%) loans to public agencies engaged in water utility projects. The State has indicated they will have bond proceeds in May/June or July/August to fund the project. The City can obtain a line of credit, if needed, once the Board agrees to fund the project. Thus, funding is not anticipated to delay a summer construction start date. The State Water Resources Control Board is currently reviewing the plans and specifications for the new facilities. California Department of Fish and Game The California Department of Fish and Game issued a Streambed Alteration Agreement to Petaluma on December 16, 2004. This Agreement allows the City to install piping below Ellis Creek in two locations. The Department of Fish and Game will also review the Biological Assessment regarding state -listed endangered species. California Department of Health Services The California Department of Health Services has required the City to prepare an Engineering Report regarding the City's recycled water program and the use of tertiary recycled water. Approval of procedures for production and distribution of recycled water will allow the City to distribute tertiary recycled water as soon as it is available. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board The City currently has a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (No. CA 0037810) and Waste Discharge Requirements (Regional Board Order No. 98-076) that describe permit conditions for its existing conveyance, treatment and disposal facilities. The requirements have been established for permitted flows up to 5.2 mgd ADWF. The new recycling facility will have the capability to treat an average dry weather flow of 6.7 mgd. The permit will need to be amended for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. The current permit expired on July 15, 2003, but was extended by the Regional Board pending the hiring of additional staff to work on the renewal. The City currently has a Water Reclamation Permit under Regional Board Order No. 88- 036. This order allows the City to recycle secondary treated water. The City is in the process of developing a Notice of Intent which will allow the City to recycle secondary and tertiary recycled water under a General Water Reuse Board Order No. 96-011. Development of the Notice of Intent was begun in December 2004 and is anticipated to 28 S'\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\CityCouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04.doc be submitted to the Board by June 2005. The City is pursuing permission to fill approximately 2.87 acres of jurisdictional wetlands which are waters of the United States. The Regional Board is expected to approve a Section 401 Water Quality Certification between March and May 2005 to the City. The Corps will wait to see the recommendations of the Regional Board before they issue their permit. The City has prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in pursuit of an NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit. The plan is kept at the construction site and the Notice of Intent will be sent to the Regional Board 30 days prior to the start of construction. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The City has submitted an Authority to Construct permit application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The City is anticipating the permit for construction by March 2005. The City will submit a permit to operate closer to the start up of the facilities. Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District The City has worked closely with the District to review the Management Plan for the wetlands and ponds. County of Sonoma The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) needs to approve annexation of 4104 Lakeville Highway into the City of Petaluma. The Petaluma City Council is scheduled to formally approve this action on February 7, 2005. LAFCO will take action 60-90 days later. The project requires annexation in order to receive a building permit for construction to begin. Sonoma County Water Agency The Sonoma County Water Agency will issue an encroachment permit for work in Ellis Creek. The City is working on this permit application. City of Petaluma Petaluma's Site Plan and Architectural Committee (SPARC) approved the project on 29 S \water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005Staff Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04.doc November 18, 2004. The Petaluma Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment to the land use designation of Public/Institutional, Prezoning to Planned Community District (PCD) and Rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Community District (PCD), modification of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and Annexation to the City of Petaluma on December 14, 2004. The City Council is scheduled to formally accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission on February 7, 2005. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE This section presents the estimated construction cost of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, and the rates necessary to support this project, other planned capital improvements for the wastewater utility, and operation and maintenance of the wastewater utility. Since January 2002, when the City Council adopted the design parameters for the new facility, the project has been further refined, detailed and designed. In this same time period the construction industry has experienced an unprecedented rise in the cost of construction materials. This section examines how the project has improved since January 2002, the changes in the construction industry, and their impact on the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility's anticipated construction cost. In November 2002, after the City completed approximately 50% of the design of the facility (to be located at the oxidation pond site), the City undertook a second value engineering effort. The results of the value engineering effort were presented to the City Council in November 2002. The estimated construction cost for the project, based on the 50% design drawings, was approximately $98.04 million. The value engineering effort reduced those costs to approximately $72.91 million. Subsequent to the value engineering effort, the City determined to locate the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville Highway. This change reduced the estimated project cost to $67.6611 million in 2002 dollars. Shortly after City Council authorization to locate the water recycling facility to 4104 Lakeville Highway in August 2003, the City began final design of the facility. In February 2004, the City acquired the 262 acres of land at 4104 Lakeville Highway. As the City proceeded with design of the facility through the spring of 2004, City Management became aware of recent rapid changes in the construction market. The bid price for a wastewater treatment facility project for the City of Tracy came in 20% higher than the engineer's cost estimate. These and other factors prompted City Management to t t This estimate was likely 20% - 30% low, and did not account for the rapidly changing construction market. 30 S \water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit btds.final.2-1-04 doc conduct a detailed bidability/constructability review of the project and prepare a detailed cost estimate, approaching the project from a contractor's perspective. The City Council approved this approach in June 2004. As shown in Table 3, the opinion of probable construction cost for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility is $102 million. The total estimated project cost, including construction management, engineering services during construction, construction, administration, and General Fund transfer of 5%, is approximately $130 million. Table 3 Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Description Estimated Cost ($millions) Construction $102 Project Administration, Construction $12.4 Management, Engineering Services During Construction Subtotal $114.4 Construction Contingency $10.2 General Fund CIP Overhead $5.7 Total $130.3 Unprecedented Rise in Cost of Construction Materials Increases Cost of Projects It is important to remember the $67.66 million cost estimate was based on drawings and specifications prepared at the 50% level. All of the information on the project was not available. It is more difficult to accurately predict the cost of a construction project based on 50% plans and specifications than 100% plans and specifications. The 50% cost estimate had an accuracy range of -15% to + 30%, which means the estimate could have been as high as $87.9 million (+ 30%). The 50% estimate was also prepared before the unprecedented rise in the cost of construction materials occurred. Many wastewater treatment facility projects have experienced unexpectedly high bid prices due to materials price inflation and the active construction climate. The Department of Water Resources and Conservation has been tracking other projects as bid information becomes available. As shown in Table 4, these wastewater treatment plant projects have bid at prices over the estimated price, from 18% for the City of Rio Vista's wastewater treatment plant to 33% for the City of San Jose's project. The root cause of these problems is a global supply and demand issue. 31 S'\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\CityCouncil\February 7, 2005\.Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04 doc Table 4 Agency Estimates of Project Construction Costs Versus Low Bid Price ProjectI Estimate Low Bid % Difference ($millions) I ($millions) I City of San Jose's 160 mgd $52.3 $69.5 33% Headworks Facility I City of Tracy WastewaterI $54 $64.5 19% Expansion I I City of Rio Vista Northwest $21 $24.8 18% W WTP I Tahoe -Truckee SanitaryI $40.7 $51.5 27% Agency WWTP Expansion I �City ofCoachella, CAWWTP $16.1 I $20.5 27% City of Auburn, CA Vater $22 $27.4 25% Treatment Facility Expansion I I China is beginning to develop their entire country. .It is estimated that China is starting development of a city the size of Houston each month. The development boom began with the Olympic Games scheduled for China in 2008. This explosive growth within China has caused China alone to consume 20% of the world's steel supply. Estimators call it the "China Factor!" Since demand for steel is so high, the cost of steel has increased 50% since October of 2003 (see Figure 5). The cost of stainless steel has increased 100%. Steel reinforcement bars (rebar) are used to strengthen concrete structures. Steel is also used in pipes (carbon steel and stainless steel), conduit, valves, structural shapes, and numerous other appurtenances. Since the United States is no longer a steel producing country our projects get in line with everyone else. Forming materials (lumber) have been increasing at a rate of 20% each year. The cost of concrete has followed the supply shortages and increased in price by 39%. This is illustrated on Figure 6. Concrete pricing was stable for 10 years prior to the shortages observed in 2004. Another factor affecting pricing is that many components of the United States infrastructure are at the end of their useful life. Couple failing infrastructure with historically low interest rates, capital planning and subsequent expenditures are at a very high level. For instance, 13 major projects are bidding in Northern California during this first quarter of 2005 alone. These projects total in the hundreds of millions of dollars. A Public Works boom is coming in California with 18 billion dollars of bond money planned through 2006-2007. 32 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids final 2-1-04.doc $3.50 . w $2.50 w $1.00 Aug -03 Oct -03 FIGURE 5 STEEL STEEL COST INCREASE INDICATOR t Structural Steel, SIW --0E— 316 Stainless Steel, $/LS Nov -03 Jan -04 Mar 04 Apr -04 Jun -04 Aug -04 Sep -04 Nov -04 FIGURE 6 CONCRETE CONCRETE COST INCREASE INDICATOR $900 $850 $800 $750 w 4 $700 $650 October 2003 Ready -Mix ICY $78.21 $600 Reinforcing Steet,erials $ tS $0.26 1.93 Forming Materials, $/SF $1.93 $550 January 2064 $500 Ready -Mix, $ICY $78.21 Reinfoning Steet, $1LB $0.31 Fomtlng Materials, $/SF $2.2D $450 $400 Aug -03 Oct -03 Nov -03 Jan -04 Mar -04 October 2004 Ready -Mix, $/CY $80.00 Reinforcing Sliest, $/LB $0.51 Forming Materials, $/SF $2.32 II 1 t 12" Concrete Wall in Place, $/CY Apr -04 Jun -04 Aug -04 Sep -04 Nov -04 The result of so much work and the short supply is that many suppliers cannot commit to fixed prices or to delivery times. A Senior Sales Engineer for a Portland Steel Pipe supplier told the Carollo Engineer estimator that the price of his products has gone up from $0.74/Lb in fall 2003 to $1.15/Lb (55% increase) in late summer 2004, and prices were still rising. When the Sales Engineer was asked about the future, his answer was that he will quote on a 3 -day basis, and is considering adding a disclaimer to all quotes. His opinion was that prices will continue to rise until at least mid -2005. The combination of lower supply and higher demand for construction materials and a very active construction market creates a level of uncertainty for agencies and contractors who bid their projects. Contractors must submit fixed bids without cost certainty and with unreliable delivery schedules. The bonding sureties are also tightening their coverage requirements due to the market conditions. The volume of work also allows contractors to choose which jobs they will bid. Contractors are being very selective since preparing a bid document is a costly endeavor. For instance, a project of our size will cost near $100,000 for a general contractor to bid. Contractors are dealing with the risks by conducting monthly market surveys and pressuring their sub -contractors to lock down prices and delivery times. Contractors are also working on their schedules paying particular attention to delivery analysis. To address the issues of risk for the City, the City Council approved a contract with the City's construction management firm, The Covello Group. A team of construction experts from The Covello Group, with numerous years' experience in the construction industry, conducted a `Bidability and Constructability" review of project. Through this review, over 1,500 detailed comments were made on the 90% design documents 12. Follow up reviews are on-going as the design is finalized. As a companion project, the City hired The Covello Group to use their construction expertise to provide an opinion of probable construction cost. The cost estimate provided to City Council today exemplifies the teamwork of The Covello Group looking at the design as a general contractor would and utilizing the equipment cost expertise provided by Carollo Engineers. Thus, the City has likely reduced the risk of bids higher than anticipated because the engineering drawings and specifications are of a high quality and the cost estimating has been thoroughly updated for the current market conditions. The City has also generated interest in this project by prequalifying contractors to bid the project. The City has prequalified six competent, experienced and skilled general contractors. A delay in the 12 Given the complexity of large wastewater treatment projects, it is extremely difficult to prepare plans and specifications that are without need for refinement. Most agencies elect to accept this risk and deal with the consequences during the bid period (issue addendums) or during construction (issue numerous change orders). Petaluma chose a different path in an effort to minimize risk during the bid period and construction. 35 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\February 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit blds.final.2-1-04.doc bidding of the project could reduce this pool of potential bidders if the general contractors were to bid other work and become too busy to bid the City's project. Final Design Improvements and Regulatory Mandates The $67.66 million estimate of 2002 was based on 50% design documents for design of the project at the oxidation pond site. As design progressed, it became apparent that a few changes were necessary to improve the performance of the facility and accommodate regulatory requirements. These improvements are summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Estimated Cost of Performance Improvements and Additional Regulatory Requirements ItemI Comment I Estimated Cost ($millions) Jurisdictional Wetlands Project amended to accommodate increasedI $5 acreage of jurisdictional wetlands asserted by I the US Army Corps of Engineers. Oxidation DitchI Improvements to performance of oxidation $1 ditches I Secondary Clarifiers Increased size of secondary clarifiers toI $1.5 improve performance. Effluent Capacity Increased capacity of effluent discharge system. $1 Solids Dewatering I Replaced centrifuge with screw press(increased $0.2 capital cost, but lower O&M cost). I Digester Improvements Performance improvements to the digester $2.25 system. I Recycled Water Increased discharge pressure of recycled waterI I $0.25 Improvements system. Electrical Improvements to reliability of electrical system. $0.55 Buildings Electrical buildings and admin building. $2.5 Environmental Address endangered species issues and $2 Regulations and Site I geotechnical considerations. I Geology Total $16.25 The extent of wetlands asserted as jurisdictional by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on the project is shown on Figure 7. SAter resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04 doc �C,D� N �bn Sy O .(Q n O CD a) N 7 N CL S N N S—'CD (D N av CD CD M o tQ m co 0CDa N 7 '<CDx�n v Cn O, � CD t o CL �- o CD03 C.n �. 3CD j N Q EL _. CL 0 M v,m» ca o 7 N as M� -Do 7 City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility Alternatives Analysis Wry"'.., �,.., :.I MINIMIZE® WETLAND IMPACTS OIFAYM- I2-03-03 - . ' MON t .. AFB �3" fsf• ON `� � � jfto � iii .�•� �JSfa .. . .'�__x is >mmu I__ ,OI.L ,CI.164 City of Petaluma Water Recycling Facility Alternatives Analysis Wry"'.., �,.., :.I MINIMIZE® WETLAND IMPACTS OIFAYM- I2-03-03 Summary of Impact of Inflationary Pressures and Facility Improvements As discussed previously, the cost of some construction materials have inflated by more than 50% since the construction season of 2002. As shown in Table 6, inflationary pressures added approximately $18.12 million to the $67.66 million estimate from 2002, which changes the price of the project to an estimated $85.78 million. Design changes necessary to improve the performance of the facility and accommodate regulatory requirements added an estimated $16.25 million. The distribution of changes to almost every treatment facility indicates that the 50% design was a work in progress requiring refinement. The opinion of probable construction cost for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility is estimated at $102 million Table 6 Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Construction Cost Changes Due To Inflation and Final Design/Regulatory Improvements Item December 2002 Construction Cost Estimate Inflation and Construction Materials Price Increases Final Design Improvements Regulatory Mandates/Geology Facility Improvements Total Estimated Cost WASTEWATER UTILITY RATES Estimated Cost ($million) $67.66 $18.12 $7 $9.25 $102.03 Petaluma's wastewater rates were last updated in December 2002. The adopted rates are being phased in over a 4 -year period. The most recent change occurred in January 2005. Most public agencies charge a flat monthly wastewater fee for single family residential customers, regardless of the amount of water used. This approach is not equitable and provides a disincentive for water conservation. Petaluma's wastewater utility rate for single family residential customers is a combination of a flat fee and a usage based fee. The rate changes were programmed to emphasize the usage fee over time. The rate for a single family residential customer is $12.74 per month plus $3.396 per hundred cubic feet (hcf)13 of water used during the winter months. For the average single family customer in Petaluma using an average of 9 hcf/month during the winter months, their wastewater service charge would be $43.30 per month ($12.74 + (9 hcf) x ($3.396)). Customers using less than 9 hcf/month during the winter months will realize a lower wastewater fee. 13 t hundred cubic feet (hcf) of water equals 748 gallons. 38 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04.doc The current wastewater utility fees are not sufficient to support construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, costs for operation and maintenance of the wastewater facilities, and to support other needed capital improvements to the wastewater utility (upgrade of the C Street Pump Station, expansion of the water recycling program, management of biosolids, repair of deteriorating sewer mains in the downtown area and throughout the City). An increase in wastewater utility rates and fees will be necessary. The current rate program is effective through January 2006. A preliminary analysis of the wastewater utility rates indicates additional rate increases will be necessary. The preliminary rates for an average single family residential customer are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Estimated Monthly Wastewater Bill for Average Single Family Residential Customer Year 2005 (current rate) 2006 (current rate) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Estimated Monthly Rate For Average Single Family Residential Customer $43.30 $47.98 $53.74 $60.19 $67.41 $73.14 $82.13 The rates in Table 7 are based on constructing all of the project's elements. Lower cost alternatives, with correspondingly lower rates, are presented in the Alternatives section below. City Management anticipates presenting the final results of the rate study to the City Council in spring 2005. 3. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives available for construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility include: Alternative 1 — Full Project Alternative 2 — Phase -In Secondary Process Alternative 3 — Phase -In Secondary Process and Solids Handling Alternative 4 — No Project 3] S \water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncnlTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04 doc Alternative 1 — Full Project This alternative is the full project as described in this Agenda Report. The construction cost for this alternative is estimated at $102 million. The annual O&M cost estimated is at $4.3 million. Alternative 2 — Phase -In Secondary Process The second alternative includes the following changes to reduce project costs: Delete septage receiving station Delete construction of one oxidation ditch and associated piping, and phase-in construction at a later date (if necessary) Delete one biofilter Utilize heat detection for fire suppression in unoccupied buildings constructed of non-combustible material Reduce capacity of tertiary recycled water system from 5 mgd to 3 mgd Eliminate the use of T-lok Eliminate the second, standby gravity belt thickener Eliminate sulfide scrubber Eliminate $1 million landscaping Utilize different concrete aggregate for dry structures Increase use of native soil for trench backfill These changes are estimated to save approximately $9.7 million. The construction cost for Alternative 2- Phase -In Secondary Process is estimated at $92.3 million. The annual O&M cost is estimated at $3.8 million. The potential risks of this alternative include possible future permit issues associated with not having enough secondary treatment capacity to treat all the wastewater during the peak month and no backup options for one oxidation ditch. To mitigate this risk, the City would continue to use the oxidation ponds for secondary treatment and add additional aeration capacity to the oxidation ponds. Alternative 3 — Phase -In Secondary Process and Solids Handling Alternative 3 includes all of the cost reduction items in Alternative 2, plus deletion of all the solids handling facilities. The estimated construction cost for this alternative is $83.4 million. The annual O&M cost is estimated at $4.2 million. ,M SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Councd\rebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bi ds. final.2-1-04.doc Similar to Alternative 2, the potential risks associated with Alternative 3 include possible future permit issues with not having enough secondary treatment capacity to treat all the wastewater during peak months and no back up for one oxidation ditch. Because Alternative 3 does not include processes to treat biosolids, Alternative 3 will generate 100% more biosolids than Alternatives 1 and 2. Even though the capital costs for Alternative 3 are lower than Alternative 2, the additional biosolids to be handled under Alternative 3 result in an annual O&M cost that is approximately $400,000 greater than Alternative 2. Since the biosolids produced under Alternative 3 will not meet EPA's Class B requirements, these biosolids cannot be beneficially reused. Under Alternative 3, the solids handling facilities will need to be phased in over time and will cost more to construct in the future. The City of San Mateo opened bids in January 2005 for a second anaerobic digester and new dewatering facilities. The cost of the new solids handling facilities for San Mateo are approximately $2.44 per million gallons treated versus Petaluma's anticipated cost for solids handling of $1.11 per million gallons treated under Alternatives 1 and 2. This indicates that delay of these necessary facilities could cost the City twice the current construction estimate. In addition, over the past 20 years, the cost paid by the City for landfill disposal of its biosolids has increased at more than twice the rate of inflation. Without a stabilized biosolid, disposal costs are anticipated to be even higher making the City dependent upon others for further treatment or landfill as the primary means of disposal. Alternative 3 will also require a fair amount of redesign. Additional time to redesign the project will delay the project by about 3 months, which will likely result in cost increases. Cost increases resulting from this delay have not been calculated, and are not included in the $83.4 million construction cost estimate. Alternative 4 — No Project Under Alternative 4 — No Project, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility would not be constructed. The cost of this alternative is $13.5 million. The rate increases are not predictable due to the risks associated with trying to continue treating wastewater at a facility that is deteriorating and is operating near its treatment and permitted capacity. The elements for each alternative are compared in Table 8. A comparison of the estimated construction costs and relative rates for each alternative is presented in Table 9. City Management recommends the City Council proceed with development of Alternative 2 — Phase In Secondary Process. The benefits of this alternative include: Construction cost savings of approximately $9.7 million versus Alternative 1 — Full Project. 41 S \water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CounciMebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04 doc Table 8 Comparison of Alternatives SAwater resources & commat1oMWasi9water%012Wiase 3 - crostruction\City CouncUebmary 7. 20MTaMe 8.YJs 2/1/2005 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Phase -In Secondary Alternative 1 Phase -In Secondary Process and Solids Element Full Project Process (if necessary) Handling_ Headworks yes yes yes Septage Receiving Station yes no no Oxidation Ditch 1 yes yes yes Oxidation Ditch 2 yes no no 2 Secondary Clarifiers yes yes yes Solids Thickening yes yes - 50% no Acid Digester yes yes no Methane Digester yes yes no Sulfide Scrubber yes no no Dewatering yes yes yes Odor Handling Process yes yes - 671/o yes - 67% Tertiary Treatment yes yes - 60% yes - 60% Oxidation Ponds yes yes , yes Treatment Wetlands yes yes yes Polishing Treatment Wetlands yes yes - 75% yes - 75% River Discharge / Disinfectin Upgrade yes yes yes Storage Reservior and Pump Station yes yes yes Operation, Lab, Maintenance, Lab Building_ yes yes ( yes Meet Anticipated Discharge Limits yes yes yes SAwater resources & commat1oMWasi9water%012Wiase 3 - crostruction\City CouncUebmary 7. 20MTaMe 8.YJs 2/1/2005 W Construction Cost (million) Schedule for Rate Increase Table 9 Estimated Construction Cost and Rates for Each Alternative Alternative 1 Full Project $102.03 Alternative 2 Phase -In Secondary Process (if necessary) $92.30 Alternative 3 Phase -In Secondary Process and Solids Handling $83.40 Estimated Percent Rate Increase Alternative 4 No Project N/A"' January 2006 (already scheduled)tt1 11.30% 11.30% 11.30% 11.30% January 2007 12.00% 10.00% 10.00% 3.50% January 2008 12.00% 10.00% 9.00% 3.50% January 2009 12.00% 10.00% 8,50% 3.50% January 2010 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 3.50% January 2011 8.50% 8.25% 8.25% 3.50% January 2012 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% Schedule for Monthly Bill Change Estimated Monthly Wastewater Bill for an Average Single Family Residential Customer January 2006 (already scheduled)(' 1 $47.98 $47.98 $47.98 $4798 January 2007 $53.74 $52.78 $52.78 $49.66 January 2008 $60.19 $58.06 $57.53 $51.40 January 2009 $67.41 $63.86 $62.42 $53.20 January 2010 $73.14 $69.29 $67.72 $55.06 January 2011 $79.36 $75.01 $73.31 $56.99 January 2012 $82.13 $77.63 $75.88 $58.98 (1) This rate increase was approved on Decem-)er 2, 2002. Resolution No. 2002-189 N.C.S. (2) Though there is no construction cost for Alternative 4, the cost for development of the project is estimated at $13.5 million. SA"ter resources 8 won9ervatW\VVaS%"1er19o121phase 3 - mnstrucum\Ciry Coune febrwry 7, 200STabte 9 finallds 1!3112005 Full management and treatment of biosolids. The risks and future costs associated with having to construct solids handling facilities in the future under Alternative 3 outweigh the capital cost savings of this alternative. Ability to stay on schedule for start of construction in summer 2005. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: As shown in Table 10, the total estimated project cost for construction of Alternative 2 is $118 million. This includes construction management, engineering services during construction, project administration, construction, contingency, and General Fund Overhead. Table 10 Estimated Total Costs for Construction of Alternative 2 Item Construction Project Administration, Construction Management, Engineering Services During Construction Subtotal Construction Contingency General Fund CIP Overhead Total Alternative Rate Structure Estimated Cost ($millions) $92.3 $11.3 $103.6 $9.2 5.2 $118 The approach to the rates in Table 9 are based on higher rate increases in the early years, followed by lower rate increases in the later years. Another option for rate increases is to make them a uniform percentage. For Alternative 2 this would require 5 years of annual 9.5% rate increases, for Years 2007 through 2011. The projected annual rate increase after 2011 is 3.5%. This is illustrated in Table 11. The estimated monthly charge for an average single family residential customer is also shown. M S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final.2-1-04.doc Table 11 Estimated Annual Rates For Alternative 2 — Phase -In Secondary Process With Uniform Rate Increases Year Estimated Rate Increase 2005 (current rate) N/A 2006 (current rate) I 10.8% 2007 9.5% 2008 I 9.5% 2009 9.5% 2010 9.5% 2011 I 9.5% 2012 I 3.5% Estimated Monthly Wastewater Charge For Average Single Family Residential Customer $43.30 $47.98 $52.54 $57.53 $63.00 $68.98 $75.53 $78.18 These rates are based on preliminary projections. Final rate recommendations will be presented to the City Council later in the year. How Do the Preliminary Rates Compare With Other Cities? Like Petaluma, other Sonoma County communities are upgrading or expanding their wastewater treatment facilities. Santa Rosa recently completed construction of their Geysers Project, and is in the early planning phase of an upgrade to their wastewater treatment facility. Because they operate a subregional system, their projects affect their subregional partners. Table 12 compares Petaluma's rates with nearby communities for the monthly charge for an average single family residential customer using 9 hcf/month. 45 S.\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Councd\February 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids final.2-1-04 doe Table 12 Comparison of Monthly Wastewater Charges for Average Single Family Residential Customer Agency Estimated Monthly Wastewater Effective Date Charge for Average Single Family I I Residential Customer City of Windsor I $43.06 I July 1, 2004 City of Santa Rosa I $60.23 I January 1, 2005 City of Healdsburg $48.80 January 2005 $50.27 April 2005 $51.77 July 2005 $53.33 October 2005 $54.93 January 2006 $56.57 April 2006 Sonoma Valley County I $40.50 I July 2004 Sanitation District City of Rohnert Park $50.22 April 2005 (proposed) $62.95 April 2006 $72.23 April 2007 City of Petaluma $43.30 January2005 (scheduled) $47.98 January 2006 City of Petaluma $52.54 January 200? -T (preliminary estimate) $57.53 January 200' 8 $63.00 January2016 ') Project Financing Financing for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility project will be obtained through State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program. This program provides low interest loans for construction of wastewater treatment and water reclamation facilities. The State Water Resources Control Board has informed the City that the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility is eligible for this funding and that funding will be available in the time frame needed for starting construction in summer 2005. SRF loans have a term of 20 -years with an approximate interest rate of 2.7%. Conventional revenue bonding mechanisms have a typical interest rate of 4.5%. The use of SRF will save the City an estimated $46 million versus revenue bond financing. 5. CONCLUSION: The City's path to development of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility has been 46 S.\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids final.2-1-04.doc subjected to an extraordinary amount of public and professional scrutiny and review. Since 1992, over 30 resolutions have been adopted on the project. The design has been developed, reviewed and refined through a master plan, a project report, environmental documentation, consultation with thirteen governmental regulatory agencies, three value engineering efforts, a bidability and constructability, review, preparation of a detailed cost estimate, and preparation of plans (comprising over 750 drawings) and specifications (comprising over 1,500 pages). The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility represents a significant and valuable investment by Petaluma. It will serve the needs of the community for 50 plus years, and help protect the water quality of the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay, as required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Tertiary recycled water produced by the facility will also provide a critical component for the City's water supply. How does the cost of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility compare with other wastewater treatment facility projects? Table 13 compares the capital cost of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project with the escalated cost of wastewater treatment facility projects constructed for the cities of Roseville, South San Francisco, Benicia, Coachella and the Tahoe -Truckee Sanitary Agency. With an estimated capital cost of $92.3 million (Alternative 2) and an annual average capacity of 8 mgd, the unit cost of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility is $11.54 million/mgd. The Year 2000 bid price of the City of Roseville's wastewater treatment facility was $92 million. If this project were bid today, its estimated cost would be $139.43 million. With an annual average capacity of 12 mgd, the unit cost of this project would be $11.62 million/mgd. This is similar to Petaluma's unit cost. Petaluma's unit cost is approximately 4% more than Coachella's project, 3% less than Benicia's project, and 20% less than South San Francisco's project. Each of these examples demonstrates that constructing wastewater treatment facilities to improve water quality and comply with the Federal Clean Water Act is a very costly endeavor. 47 S \water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\rebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit btds.tinal.2-1-04.doc TABLE 13 Construction Cost Comparison of Recently Bid/Constructed Wastewater Treatment Facilities Project Roseville, CA South SF, CA Benicia, CA Chico, CA Petaluma, CA o' Tahoe -Truckee Coachella, CA'-' Sanitary Agency, CA (1) Bid Date 2000 1998 Mar -98 Sep -97 2005 Oct -03 Oct -04 Elements Headworks Headworks No lleadworks Hdwks rehab Headworks Hmdworks w/ pumping w/ mf pumping 2 ABs, 2 SCs I PC, 2 ABs, Odor control Secondary PCs, ABs, SCs DAF, Digester 2 SCs, DAF Grit Removal Grit Removal (No limitary) Hypochlorite 2 digesters Ox. Ditches Sec Tom Expansion 2 Ox Ditch Tertiary Sludge thickening, Admin dewatering SCs 2 Sec C'lar Solids digest, dewatering admin wetlands Elec Bldg EM Ponds Ops building blower, SCADA digest, dewatering eff pump station tertiary;(N Salt Removal Sludge Drying Beds No Tertiary No Tertiary No'rertiary admin building admin bldg Construction Cost (SM) $92.00 $4200 $25.11 $29.00 $51.50 $20.48 Estimated ENR 6,130 6,762 6,745 5,895 6771 8169 20 cities ENR SF ENR SF ENR 20 cities ENR 20 cities ENR LA ENR Adjust to Prescnt ENR 8230 $123.52 $51.12 $30.64 $40.49 $62.60 $20.63 Adjust to Mid Pt -13% $139.43 $57.70 $34.59 $45.70 $92.31 $70.66 523.29 Annual Average 13 4.1 9 Capacity (mgd) 12 4 29 5 8 22 2,1 Unit Cost (Smillion/mgd) Jan 2007 Costs $1162 $1443 $11.93 $914 $11.54 $32.12 $11.09 (1) Plant expansion from 7.4 mgd to 9.6 mgd (2) Plant expansion from 2.4 mgd to 4.5 mgd (3) Based on Altemauve 2 - Phase -In Secondary Process Tabte 13 - cost comparison to other bid projects.xis 1131/2005 How does the performance of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility compare with projects proposed for treatment of Petaluma's wastewater? Envirotech Operating Services submitted the first proposed project for the new wastewater treatment facility in 1988. The oxidation ditch facility proposed included continued use of the existing aeration basins and secondary clarifier at the Hopper Street facility, with construction of oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers at the Lakeville Highway site. Tertiary treatment facilities were not included. Since that time, other proposed projects include Montgomery United Water's privatization proposal (January 1997), the Sonoma County Water Agency's proposal (March 1998), the Master Plan prepared by Brown & Caldwell (May 1999), and Sonoma County Water Agency's second proposal (April 2001). Table 14 summarizes these proposals with respect to the following items: Odor Control. Includes facilities to contain and treat odors generated by the wastewater treatment facility. Tertiary Treatment. Use of filters to remove fine suspended particles that remain in the secondary effluent. Grit Removal. Removal of grit, sand, gravel, cinders and other heavy solid materials in the influent wastewater to protect moving mechanical equipment in the plant from abrasion and abnormal wear and to reduce formation of heavy deposits in pipelines, channels, conduits and storage/treatment ponds. Oxidation Pond Storage. Needed to support the City's water recycling program and comply with NPDES permit, which prohibits discharge of, treated effluent into the Petaluma River from May 1 through October 20. Algae Removal. Storage of effluent in the oxidation ponds is conducive to algae growth. Removal of algae from the secondary effluent is necessary to meet current discharge standards for total suspended solids and disinfection. Solids Handling & Treatment. The 100 — 150 tons/month of biosolids contained in the influent wastewater must be removed and treated prior to landfill disposal or beneficial reuse. Facilities typically included digesters and dewatering units (belt filter presses or centrifuges). Class B Biosolids. Allows biosolids to be beneficially reused. Tertiary Recycled Water. Production of tertiary recycled water in compliance with Title 22 requirements will allow the City to expand its water -recycling program and meet peak water supply demands. Recycled Water Storage. Allows tertiary facilities to operate at a steady rate, which improves operation and reduces wear and tear. Storage also allows the City to conduct maintenance on the facility without disrupting recycled water service. Lil S:\,, ater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\CityCourciUebruary 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.final 2-1-04 doc Table 14 Summary of Proposals For Water Recycling Facility Petaluma, California Petaluma Water EOS Privatization MUW Privatization B&C SCWA Recycling Project Element Proposal SCWA Proposal Proposal Master Plan Proposal Facility Date October -88 March -98 January -97 May -99 April -01 June -05 Tertiary Treatment no yes yes yes yes yes Odor Control no no no no no yes Grit Removal yes yes no yes no yes Oxidation Pond Storage yes yes yes yes yes yes Algae Removal no no no yes no yes Ammonia Removal no yes yes no no (2) yes Solids Treatment & Handling yes yes yes no no yes Class B Biosolids yes yes yes no no yes Tertiary Recycled Water no no no yes no (3) yes Recycled Water Storage no no no no no (4) yes Public Amenities no no no no no yes Meet Anticipated Discharge Limits no no no no no (5) yes Notes: EOS = Envirotech Operating Services MUW = Montgomery United Water SCWA = Sonoma County Water Agency (1) Estimate provided as part of SCWA proposal. (2) Proposed method to lower pH with addition of citric acid does not remove ammonia. (3) Without algae removal, ability for microfilters to meet Title 22 is uncertain. (4) :Narrative refers to storage, but size and costs were not provided. (5) Ability of proposed method for addition of citric acid to meet toxicity requirements is uncertain. SAwater resources & wnsewationtW astzwatert90121phase 3 - wnstructim\City CounciiTebruary 7, 20051Tabie 14.xis 1/31/2005 Meet Anticipated Discharge Limits. It is anticipated that the permit discharge limits for the new Water Recycling Facility will be more stringent than the current requirements. As shown on Table 14, the only project that includes all of the critical elements described above is the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. 6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: Following City Council direction regarding solicitation of bids for construction of the facility, the outcomes or performance measurements that will identify success or completion include procurement of bids, award of the construction contract by the City Council, construction of the facility (safely on schedule and within budget), and operation and maintenance of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. The schedule for the project is shown in Table 15. Table 15 Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Anticipated Construction Schedule Item Bid Advertisement Bid Period Pre -Bid Meeting City Council Contract Award Notice -To -Proceed / Begin Construction Construction Phase Start Up Phase Project Completion 7. RECOMMENDATION City Management requests the City Council: Date March 29, 2005 March 29, 2005 — May 26, 2005 April 11, 2005 June 20, 2005 June 30, 2005 July 2005 — December 2007 January 2008 — July 2008 August 2008 February 7, 2008: Consider and discuss the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project. No City Council action is being requested at the February 7th Council meeting. February 28, 2008: Consider and discuss the Ellis Creek Water Recycling 51 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Counctl\February 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids. fi nal.2-1-04.doc Facility, and provide direction on the resolution approving Alternative 2 and directing the solicitation of construction bids. The draft resolution provided with this Agenda Report will be amended to reflect the City Council's direction. City Management recommends the City Council proceed with development of Alternative 2 — Phase -In Secondary Process for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. 52 S:\wateeresources & conservation\Wasiewaler\9012\phase 3 - construction\CityCouncil\February 7, 2005\Staff Report solicit bids.f nel.2-1-04.doc DRAFT RESOLUTION I Resolution Directing the Department of Water Resources and 2 Conservation to Solicit Bids for Construction of the Ellis Creek Water 3 Recycling Facility 4 5 WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 6 950 Hopper Street; 8 WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements, 9 various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through 10 the 1960s; 11 12 WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway 13 to provide additional treatment capacity; 14 15 WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the 16 wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment 17 capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community were determined to be too 18 costly, the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; 19 20 WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with 21 Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 22 years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107); 23 24 WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public 25 Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the 26 California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; 27 28 WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that 29 the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the 30 application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; 31 32 WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; 33 34 WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City 35 Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156, which directed that the Service Agreement 36 Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment 37 facility; 38 39 WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163, which 40 certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164, which approved the project, 41 and Resolution No. 96-165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For 42 Proposal; 43 44 WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre -qualified vendor teams; 45 Page 1 of 7 S\WR&C\W W\9012\phase 3 — construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005/resoltuion doc WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; 4 WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on 5 May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 6 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997; 8 WHERAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8, 9 1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997, 10 December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; 11 12 WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11, which 13 selected MUW for contract negotiations; 14 15 WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on 16 January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; 17 18 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for 19 development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved 20 preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; 21 22 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188, 23 which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new 24 wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among 25 others: 26 27 ► Risk of Change Required Over 30 -Year Contract Term. Changes in the 28 City's needs may occur during the 30 -year life of the contract. The City is at a 29 disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the 30 facility's capacity. 31 ► Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain 32 tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract 33 term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be 34 fixed in the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of 35 the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having 36 to pay for part of the plant twice. 37 ► Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax 38 ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the 39 design process. 40 ► Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 41 5.2.4 would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the 42 City) at the Project Site. 43 ► Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations 44 between the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other 45 critical issues could not be agreed upon. 46 Page 2 of 7 S\WR&C\W W\9012\phase 3 - construction\Ctty Council\February 7, 2005/resoltuion.doc 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; 6 WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for 7 engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater 8 treatment facility); 9 10 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-66 on April 3, 2000, which 11 authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo 12 Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 — Project Report of the Water 13 Recycling Facility Project; 14 15 WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a 16 Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; 17 18 WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the 19 alternatives on September 5, 2000; 20 21 WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were 22 presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000; 23 24 WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling 25 Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; 26 27 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 on December 11, 2000, which 28 approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 29 2000), selected Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the 30 new water recycling facility, and identified Option A — Wetlands as the preferred 31 alternative for algae removal over Option B — DAFs 32 33 WHERAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 on December 11, 2000, which 34 authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo 35 Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 — Project 36 Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project; 37 38 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the 39 Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2001) 40 on November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002; 41 42 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-012 on January 7, 2002, which 43 approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water recycling facility 44 project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report; 45 Page 3 of 7 S\WR&C\W W\9012\phase 3 — construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005/resoltumon doe WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft EIR (4pri12002) and distributed it to the California State Clearinghouse and to all responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the project and made it available for public review; WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed public hearings on May 13, 2002, and May 20, 2002, during which all interested persons were provided an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; 10 WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and 11 closed May 29, 2002; 12 13 WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access 14 Improvements Final EIR and Response To Comments (July 2002), which responded to 15 comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant 16 impacts that had not been previously evaluated in the Draft EIR. 17 18 WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to 19 consider the Final EIR; 20 21 WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council adopted Resolution 22 2002-135 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling 23 Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on 24 August 5, 2002. 25 26 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with 27 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA 28 Guidelines. 29 2. The documents referenced below constitute the Final Environmental Impact 30 Report and were presented and considered along with both written and oral 31 comments received during the public review period on the project and 32 environmental documents: 33 a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft 34 Environmental Impact Report, in two volumes (April 2002). 35 b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final 36 Environmental Impact Report and Response To Comments (July 2002). 37 3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma, 38 independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final 39 EIR and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment 40 of the City of Petaluma 41 4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and 42 comment. 43 44 WHEREAS, the project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the 45 treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds Page 4 of 7 S\WR&C\W W\9012\phase 3 — construction\Qty Council\February 7, 2005/resoltuion.doc (APN 0680-010-025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4104 Lakeville Highway (APN 068-010-026, and 017-170-002); and 4 WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November 5 2002; and 7 WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it 8 became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville 9 Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further 10 evaluation; and 11 12 WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would 13 require the removal, drying and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation 14 pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the 15 construction of aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment 16 capacity, and require the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill 17 in the oxidation pond no. 1; and 18 19 WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at 20 4104 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and, 21 22 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted resolution No. 2003-196 on August 18, 2003, 23 which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services 24 agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new 25 treatment plant at 4104 Lakeville Highway; and 26 27 WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 262 acres of land 28 in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling Facility 29 and development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project 30 on September 8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of real 31 property described as Sonoma County Assessor's parcel nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010- 32 002; and 33 34 WHEREAS, the City acquired Parcel nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002 in February 35 2004 with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy and 36 the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; and 37 38 WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access 39 Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the environmental 40 affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and 41 42 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR 43 remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have 44 new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified 45 significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 46 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and Page 5 of 7 S\WR&C\W W\9012\phase 3 — construction\City CounciMcbruary 7, 2005/resoltuion.doc 2 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for 3 public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community 4 Center, Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus; 5 and 7 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S. Re -certifying 8 Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental 9 Impact Report Addendum, and Adopting Findings and Statement of Overriding 10 Considerations, and Adopting Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program on 11 June 7, 2004. 12 13 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-092 N.C.S. Authorizing the 14 City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for 15 Construction Management Services Task 1 and Task 2 for the City of Petaluma Ellis 16 Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on June 7, 2004; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-156 Authorizing General 19 Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification for the City of Petaluma Ellis 20 Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on August 16, 2004; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the project on 23 November 18, 2004; and 24 25 WHEREAS, the Petaluma Planning Commission considered the project and the 26 proposed land use designations at 4104 Lakeville Highway on December 14, 2004, and 27 recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment to the land use 28 designation of Public/Institutional, Prezoning to Planned Community District (PCD) and 29 Rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Community District, and annexation to the City 30 of Petaluma; and 31 32 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility on 33 February 7 and 28, 2004; 34 35 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that the Department of 36 Water Resources and Conservation is directed to complete the contract documents for 37 Alternative 2 — Phase -In Secondary Process for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility 38 and issue the contract documents to prequalified contractors for procurement of bids for 39 construction; 40 41 NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council that: 42 43 1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the 44 City Council of the City of Petaluma. 45 2. The resolution shall become effective immediately. Page 6 of 7 S\WR&C\W WW012\phase 3 — construction\City CouncilTebruary 7, 2005/resoltuion doc 1 3. All portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of 2 this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of 3 competent jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall be and 4 continue in full force and effect, except as to those resolution portions that have 5 been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares 6 that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, clause, 7 sentence, phrase and other portion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more 8 section subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or 9 unconstitutional. 10 Page 7 of 7 S\WR&C\W W\9012\pbase 3 - construcuon\City Councill'ebruary 7, 2005Jresoituion.doc New access gate from Lakeville Highway - Filter Secondary (City Staff & deliveries only) Support arifiers I) ` [,Building Cl Operations — i Oxidation guiding/Laboratory T� +, Ditches Recycled p Anaerobic Water Storage ; O Filters Digestion / i oho / LIV Head - Disinfection o works / i SollL7 ds o - Access Road �' Handling a �q� GD New access gate from Cypress Drive (public access) ' I Biofllters Parkin i Trails on Native Berms' / Landscaping Islands--_.,_ Trail to Shollenberger Park Legend C Dense vegetation Open water pe160419.6069.cdr IR Existing Force Main Stormwater Wetlands Existing Trail to Naval Building and River runs iwc. = existing road ---- "` will be repaired •r � 1 i South Stream -_ Crossing i Treatment Wetlands - Plimn Atnfinn i CITY OWNED PARCEL Tr` vanat v - Crossing IP Vr I10m Wetlands To Outfall Figure 4 PROJECT ELEMENTS ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY CITY OF PETALUMA Chlorine i Contact Basin i i i 1 IP Vr I10m Wetlands To Outfall Figure 4 PROJECT ELEMENTS ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY CITY OF PETALUMA No.7