Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 4.C-2 08/01/2005
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL 4. C. 2. August 1, 2005 Agenda Title: Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract for Meeting Date: August 1, 2005 the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project. Meeting Time: ® 3:00 PM ❑ 7:00 PM Category (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business ® Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Water Resources & Michael Ban, P.FA Margaret � Orr, P.E. 778-4589 Conservation �� W . ( - v n. Cost of Proposal: $110,329,000 Account Number: Amount Budgeted: FY 05-06 Budget is $30,027,000 8299-C500402 Name of Fund: Wastewater Fund Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: • Agenda Report • Resolution Summary Statement: 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, preparation of plans (comprising over 750 drawings) and specifications (comprising over 1,500 pages), and prequalification of general and electrical subcontractors. 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. Kiewit Pacific submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid in the amount of $110,329,000 for the total project. Their bid included a "Base Bid" of $106,250,200 and a bid price for "Bid Alternative No. 1," which includes the second oxidation ditch and Wetland Cell C, for $4,078,800. Determination of the lowest bid submitted was based on the sum total of the "Base Bid" plus "Bid Alternative No. 1" which is $110,329,000. City Management recommends the project include Bid Alternative No. 1 because it provides a back up unit operation, more reliable and predictable treatment, provides full treatment on a daily basis and will save the City $2-$4 million in future construction costs. Recommended City Council Action/Suggested Motion: City Management recommends the City Council approve the resolution awarding the contract for construction of the "Base Bid" and "Bid Alternative No. 1" to Kiewit Pacific Company for $110,329,000. Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attornev: ADnrovo by City Manager: \l 04�w Da�f G Date: Date: Codav's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: File Code: SAwater resources & 7/20/05 # conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CounciMugust I, 2005\Construction Contmct\Award Agenda Bill & CC Report Revised.doc 1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 1, 2005 AGENDA REPORT FOR RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYLING FACILITY 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 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, preparation of plans (comprising over 750 drawings) and specifications (comprising over 1,500 pages), and prequalification of general and electrical subcontractors. 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. Mewit Pacific submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid in the amount of $110,329,000 for the total project. Their bid included a "Base Bid" of $106,250,200 and a bid price for "Bid Alternative No. 1," which includes the second oxidation ditch and Wetland Cell C, for $4,078,800. Determination of the lowest bid submitted was based on the sum total of the "Base Bid"lius "Bid Alternative No. 1" which is $110,329,000. City Management recommends the project include Bid Alternative No. 1 because it provides a back up unit operation, more reliable and predictable treatment, provides full treatment on a daily basis and will save the City $244 million in future construction costs. City Management recommends the City Council approve the resolution awarding the contract for construction of the "Base Bid" and "Bid Alternative No. 1" to Kiewit Pacific Company for $110,329,000. 2. BACKGROUND: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The existing wastewater treatment facility needs to be replaced because it is near the end of its useful life, is operating near its permitted discharge capacity, is costly to maintain, cannot consistently meet NPDES permit limits, and does not produce tertiary recycled water to augment the City's water supply. Facility at End of Useful Life The City began treating wastewater in 1938, a time when less than 30% of all urban wastewater in the United States was treated. The result of more than 66 years of operation is that the facility at Hopper Street is at 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. For instance, the concrete infrastructure is corroding, motors and drives are so old that replacement parts are no longer available, the facility meets no requirements for seismic consideration, computer automation and control is non-existent and most instrumentation does not meet current regulatory standards. Table I 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. Table 1 Summary of Hopper Street Treatment Facilities Petaluma, California Facility Date Assessment Reason Constructed Headworks 1966 Unusable Structural cracks; grit facilities sized for 4 mgd — inadequate capacity. Primary Clarifier 1966 Unusable Structural cracks; unreliable for continued long-term use. Primary Digester 1950 Unusable Inadequate capacity; does not meet structural/seismic codes. Secondary Digester 1937 Unusable ( Extensive structural damage; does not meet structural/seismic codes; unheated. Centrifuge 1963 Unusable Inadequate capacity. Belt Filter Press 1995 Useable Primary Sedimentation 1937 Unusable Inadequate capacity; does not meet Tank (2) structural/seismic codes. Primary Trickling Filters 1937 Unusable Inadequate capacity; does not meet and Final Trickling Filter structural/seismic codes; poor ventilation; deteriorating underdrains; media not optimum size; source of odors with no provisions for odor control. Inability to rebuild arms if failure occurs. Final Sedimentation Tank 1953 Unusable Inadequate capacity; does not meet structural/seismic codes. Aeration Basins (2) 1966 Unusable I Inadequate capacity; structural cracks; unreliable for long-term use. Blower Building 1966 Usable Blowers 1966 Unusable End of useful life; inadequate capacity; recent attempts at repair have not been successful and replacement was necessary. Final Clarifier 1966 Usable Secondary Sludge 1966 UnusableI End of useful life. Structure 3 Aerobic Digester and 1966 Unusable. Inadequate capacity; no odor control. Lagoons(2) Pond Influent Pump 1972 Usable Upgrade completed in 2001 will provide Station another 30-50 years of operation for conveying sewage to the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Electrical System 1937-1966 Unusable No capacity for additional loads without upgrades; does not meet electrical codes. Facility at 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. 90-1.53, which included a time schedule for upgrading the wastewater treatment facility. At current flow rates, 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. 4 7 6.5 2 5 Figure 1 Summary of Average Dry Weather Flow Petaluma, California -- tActuaIAGWF —+r Flow Projection -1 96 Growth — —Flow Projection- 1.596 Growth �_�Flow Projection - 2% Growth a 4.5 4 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years 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. 5 Table 2 Summary of Recent Major Maintenance Repairs at the Wastewater Treatment Facility Petaluma, California Date I Description Cost Purpose 1995 Trailer Mounted Belt Filter Press $239,000 Designed to improve solids handling and reduce load on aging centrifuge. The bell 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. 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 $138,000 Maintain treatment capability of trickling filters. Replaced three trickling filter distributor arms 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 drive unit, drive motor and reconstructed top sweeper arm. Replaced electrical from unit to control panel. 2003 Blower Repairs $110,000 1 Rebuilt blower. 2003 Sludge Pumps $50,000I Added sludge pumps to aerated lagoon. 2004 Control Building HVAC $30,000 Upgraded healing & air conditioning units. 2004 Flow Meter biweekly Calibration $24,000I Meters won't hold calibration due to improvised installation 2005 Aeration Blower No. 3 1 $70,000 1 Replacement Blower 2005 1 Hot Water Boiler 1 $30,000 1 Replaced digester boiler Existing Plant Cannot Meet Permit Requirements NPDES permits are designed to be stringent and to set a very high performance standard 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 3 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. SB709, 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 mg1L 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. 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. 1 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 I'or 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. 7 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 Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Class B standards for beneficial reuse of the biosolids. To produce tertiary recycled water in accordance with California Title 22 so water can be recycled to irrigation users throughout the City'. 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 water recycling facility 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. E To provide storage in the oxidation ponds during river discharge prohibitions from May I51 to October 20'h 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 Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and the oxidation ponds sites 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. PROJECT ELEMENTS ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY The project includes a combination of biological and physical processes to remove organic material and pollutants from wastewater (see Figure 2). Specifically, it includes facilities on Parcels A and B (adjacent to the existing Lakeville Highway oxidation pond facility) to produce secondary treatment for up to 6.7 million gallons per day (mgd) average dry weather flow, tertiary treatment for up to 4 mgd, biosolids treatment to meet EPA Class B requirements for beneficial reuse, and includes algae removal with wetlands and polishing with wetlands. A summary of the project elements follows. Preliminary Treatment Preliminary treatment or the facility "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 and required regulatory monitoring. Secondary Treatment Secondary treatment facilities include two oxidation ditches, two secondary clarifiers, and a secondary sludge pump station. In the oxidation ditches, oxygen is supplied through rotating surface W disc aerators to microorganisms that use the waste in the water as food. The secondary clarifiers are used to settle the biological solids from the effluent. The pump station is used to return a set amount of biological solids to the aeration basin. Any excess biosolids are pumped to solids handling (described below). The second oxidation ditch was bid as an alternate. Solids Handline Solids handling provides for treatment and handling of the solids generated in secondary treatment (biological solids called biosolids). The solids treatment will include thickening, anaerobic digestion, and dewatering. Thickening will be done using mechanical equipment enclosed in a concrete building. Anaerobic digestion will occur in a three -stage, enclosed concrete tank system consisting of acid digester, methane digester, and sludge holding tank. Digestion reduces the volume of biosolids by forty percent. A digester control building that will include boiler facilities will also be included. Digester gas produced in the process will be reused in boilers to heat the biosolids in the digester reactor. Excess gas will be flared. Consistency of the flare will be maintained through natural gas addition when required. Dewatering of the thickened biosolids will also be done using mechanical equipment enclosed in a concrete building. The building will include polymer storage and feed system. Odor control facilities will be provided for the thickening and dewatering facilities. Tertiary Treatment Tertiary treatment includes filtration to remove solids remaining after secondary treatment and disinfection to meet Title 22 standards for unrestricted reuse. Filtration and disinfection facilities will consist of filter feed pump station, tertiary 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 biological solids). Storaee Because the City's existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit does not allow discharge to the Petaluma River from May 1 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. Future Flow The buildout population for Petaluma and Penngrove is estimated to be 70,650, requiring treatment of 6.7 mgd during average dry weather flow (ADWF). Currently the plant is permitted for ADWF of 5.2 mgd and this capacity is predicted.to be met in 2007-2008. Because of infiltration and inflow with the sewers, average and peak flows during wet weather are higher than the average dry weather flows. Peak hour flows can be much higher, so the treatment facilities must be designed with a sufficient hydraulic capacity to handle peak wet weather flows. The existing Pond Influent Pump Station will remain at Hopper Street and will be used to pump raw sewage to the new Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. It is designed for a maximum capacity of 36 mgd. Therefore, the Lakeville facility will be designed to handle a peak hydraulic capacity of 36 mgd. Treatment Canacity The facility's permitted treatment capacity would be increased from an average dry weather flow of 5.2 mgd to 6.7 mgd, to accommodate the build out of the City's existing General Plan. Oxidation Ponds Oxidation ponds provide both storage and biological treatment using oxygen supplied primarily from algae. The oxidation ponds also provide significant metals reduction. In the future, the oxidation ponds will primarily store secondary -treated effluent to meet the discharge prohibition and balance the recycled water program. In addition, the oxidation ponds will provide treatment for wet weather peak flow and polishing of the effluent flow for metals during the river discharge season. The storage volume provided by the oxidation ponds is sufficient for effluent management. Pond 9 and Pond 10 will be graded to allow flow to go from Pond 10 to Pond 9. Both ponds will be converted to treatment wetlands for algae removal and therefore be densely planted with wetland species. Pond 9 will be equipped with a wetland pump station and disinfection capability for discharge in the polishing treatment wetlands or the chlorine contact tank. Aleae Removal Algae generated in the oxidation ponds as part of the treatment process will be removed to meet discharge and reuse requirements using a wetlands treatment system. The densely vegetated treatment wetlands system would consist of approximately 25 to 30 acres in the existing oxidation Ponds No. 9 and 10. These ponds will contain secondary -treated water that has not been disinfected, and they will not be open for general public access. River Discharee and Disinfection Disinfection is currently provided using sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfate 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. Minor revisions will be made to the hypochlorite system, electrical equipment, control system, and discharge configuration to enhance performance and provide long-term reliability. Storaee Reservoir and Pumo Station A one million -gallon recycled water storage reservoir is proposed to be located on Parcel A and will provide storage for filtered disinfected recycled water. A recycled water pump station will be located adjacent to the reservoir. Half the water in this reservoir will be available at all times for the new recycling facility fire suppression water. The City will supply water only for potable use in the operation and maintenance (O&M) building and emergency eyewash/showers located around the facility, otherwise all uses at the facility will be supplied from recycled water (i.e., pump seals, wash down water, irrigation, etc.) at a rate of 500,000 gallons each day. 12 Operation and Administration Buildines A new building for operation and maintenance will be included in the project. A laboratory will be included in the operations building. Also included in the O&M 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. The maintenance area of the building includes a garage for operating equipment maintenance, parts storage and instrumentation support. As part of the educational component of the project, the area around the operation and administration buildings will include landscaping, water conservation demonstration gardens, and an outdoor classroom. Polishine Wetlands Thirty acres (wetted area) of polishing wetlands will be constructed to further treat effluent from the oxidation ponds and treatment wetlands. The polishing wetlands will reduce metals, organics and nutrients prior to discharge. Water to the polishing wetlands will meet disinfected, secondary effluent standards. These wetlands are a key component in the City's effort to develop a community amenity. The wetland berms will be open to the public for use as trails. These new fresh water wetlands are being designed to attract birds with islands for nesting. Wetlands creation and enhancement is required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The fresh water seasonal wetland will be located between the parking area and Polishing Treatment Wetland Cell C. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has required enhancement to Ellis Creekfor mitigation of wetland take. Approximately 1,100 feet of Ellis Creek will be enhanced for erosion control, trash removal, and native species starting at the bridge on Lakeville Highway. Public Access. Habitat and Communitv Amenities The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District and the California Coastal Conservancy have provided grant funding for portions of the project. As part of this project, the site will have some public amenities provided from grant funding as follows (Figure 3): • A trail link to Shollenberger Park (river dredge reclamation site) • 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 • Land acquisition for site access to marsh • Trail linking the polishing wetlands to the river. This access trail into the Petaluma Marsh is designed along an existing raised road. 13 The City of Petaluma is providing access to the public to the following portions of the water recycling facility: • Access Road • Restroom and associated sewer and water piping • Polishing wetlands • Bermed trail around polishing wetlands • Riparian and upland habitat improvement along Ellis Creek as required for pipe crossings Force Main The existing force main (carrying wastewater to the oxidation pond site) runs through Parcel B adjacent to the old railroad right-of-way and crosses under Ellis Creek near Pond No. 5. A new pipeline will tie into the existing force main for conveying the wastewater to the new facilities on Parcel A. Pipeline CrossinEs The North Crossing of Ellis Creek will carry three buried pipelines and electrical conduits from the new treatment facilities to the area adjacent to Pond No. 1. The pipelines include a 42 -inch diameter Secondary Effluent (SE) line, a 42 -inch diameter Headworks Effluent (HE) line and a 20 -inch diameter Recycled Water (RW) line. The site plan on Figure 2 shows the approximate location of the crossing. The South Crossing of Ellis Creek will carry one 42 -inch diameter and one 22 -inch diameter buried pipeline from the polishing wetlands to the oxidation ponds under Ellis Creek. The South Crossing will include electrical conduits in the pipeline trench. A third pipeline crossing is proposed under the unnamed drainage (Canal C) between the ponds. Two buried high density polyethylene pipelines (42 -inch and 22 -inch diameter) and electrical conduits will be installed in the levee road from the west side of Pond No. 9, and extending to the chlorine contact basin at the southeast corner of Pond No. 10. See Figure 2. Site Access Currently, there are two entrances into the Lakeville pond site from Lakeville Highway (State Route 116) - East Gate and West Gate. These gates will remain, although the existing West Gate will be used only for emergency access. The current access to Parcel A is located at the existing farm house, one drive is used for the residence and one drive is used for access to the agricultural fields. A new West Gate will be located on Parcel A to the west of the existing farmhouse as shown on Figure 2. Due to the speed and volume of traffic on Lakeville Highway, the site will require improved site access as follows: • A new access road through the Oak -mead Northbay Business Park will be built from the cul-de-sac off Cypress Drive to the polishing wetlands, and then to the treatment plant. 15 This access 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 contractor access during construction. • The new West Gate to Parcel A 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. A companion project will be presented to City Council for the Lakeville Highway improvements near the end of this project. • One of the existing in -plant roads on the pond site (East Road) will be repaved. No other in -plant road improvements are planned. Construction access to the Parcel A site will be provided by two temporary access roads, one at the existing drive and a second at the location of the permanent access (new West Gate). The City will require the Contractor to use flagmen or temporary traffic signals on Lakeville Highway as needed during construction operations. Temporary access will be made available to the Contractor from the business park off Cypress Drive until the permanent road there is constructed. ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTRUCTION BIDS Six general contractors and four electrical sub contractors were pre -qualified to bid the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on December 15, 2004. Of the qualified contractors, two general contractors submitted bids and two electrical sub -contractors bid to the general contractors. The other four general contractors considered bidding the job. One preferred a large head works job in San Diego and did not have an estimating team available to bid our job at the same time. Another contractor picked up just one set of plans and specifications but waited until the last minute to decide because they were anticipating bids on other jobs. They won $30 million dollars of work within two weeks and explained that they did not have an "A Team" to provide on-site management for our project and felt our project needed that level of expertise. A third general closed offices in northern California and, although they attended the pre-bid meeting, did not pick up plans and specifications. The fourth general cited too much work to bid the entire job but ended up being listed as a sub -contractor to both bidders for HVAC work on the project. The two general contractors that actively bid the project were Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. and Kiewit Pacific Company. Both firms submitted questions concerning the bid documents and clarifications were provided in six Addenda throughout the ten week bid period. A total of 119 sets of bid documents were distributed during the bid period (April 26 — July 14). Twenty sets were provided to the exchanges and numerous were purchased by the two generals bidding the project. As anticipated and presented to the City Council on February 7, 2005, the bidders were very busy. Recall that bidders are busy because 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, over the past 18 months $785,133,000 dollars worth of treatment plant and heavy mechanical projects have bid in Northern California (Table 3). The climate is not anticipated to change in the coming 18 months with a Public Works boom on-going in California with 18 billion dollars of bond 16 money planned through 2006-2007. David B. Ewing of Ewing Construction Services sent an email to the City's Construction Manager and stated the following: "The estimator for Kiewit called me on his way home after Petaluma bid to say they were low. They are really fired up about that project. In today's market, Petaluma should be pleased with the bid results. Several treatment plant contractors have 2 to 3 times their nonnal backlog of work. Hope all goes well for a timely atvard and a good start for everyone. " Hence, the City was fortunate to receive two bids within 5% of one another (Table 4) at a time when contractors don't need work and are very selective about the projects they bid. Table 3 Summary of Recent Treatment Plant and Heavy Mechanical Bids Last 18 Months Low Bid vs. Engineers Estimate Job Name Low Bidder Tracv WWTP Expansion Overaa Manteca Water Quality Kiewit Pacific Co. Truckee Slayden NSR Pump Stations Kiewit Pacific Co. John Jones WWTP Overaa San Jose WPCP Kiewit Pacific Co. 10.74% Monterey Los Osos Expansion Mechanical Livermore WTP Pacific Mechanical Muni Metro Maintenance 46,000,000 Facility StacVWhitback Tisdale Fish Screen MCM Construction Hayward WWTP Kiewit Pacific Co. Ukiah WWTP Kiewit Pacific Co. Petaluma WWTP Kiewit Pacific Co. I TOTAL Bid Results Low Bid $ EE $ % Difference 64,509,000 46,250,000 39.48% 29,981,000 27,400,000 9.42% 45,980,000 40,700,000 12.97% 114,063,000 103,000,000 10.74% 35,864,000 30,000,000 19.55% 69,522,000 52,300,000 32.93% 46,000,000 29,000,000 I 58.62% 15,821,000 8,000,000 97.76% 130, 000, 000 I 110, 000, 000 18.18% 12,700,000 10,500,000 20.95% 53,826,000 45,000,000 19.61% 56,538,000 48,000,000 17.79% 1 110,329,000 98,700,000 11.78% 1 $785,133,000 1 $648,950,000 1 Avq.=20.99% The Notice Inviting Bids was issued on April 26, 2005. Bids were received and opened on July 14, 2005. The overall summary of the bids received is listed in Table 4. NAME OF BIDDER BID AMOUNT Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc., Fairfield, CA $116,750,000 Kiewit Pacific Company, Concord, CA $110,329,000 The engineer's estimate for the Project described as Alternative IA was $98,700,000. With a bid of $110,329,000, the apparent low bidder is Kiewit Pacific Company. This bid amount is above the engineer's estimate by 11.78%. Kiewit performed similar projects for the 17 Table 4 CITY OF PETALUMA ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY BID RESULTS July 14, 2003 Contractor Base Bid Bid Item 1 - Lump Sum minus following bid items IBid Item 2 - Shoring and Bracing IBid Item 3 - $25,000,000 Builder's Risk Insurance Bid Item 4 - Furniture Bid Allowance IBid Item 5 - Laboratory Bid Allowance IBid Item 6 - Maintenance Equipment Bid Allowance IBid Item 7 - Telephone System Bid Allowance IBid Item 8 - Business System Software Bid Allowance IBid Item 9 - Raptor Nest Bid Allowance 150 Days Bid Item 10 - Wtr. Vap. Emiss. Cntrl. Sys. Allow. 7,000 SF IBid Item 11 - LIV Disinfect. System Prenegotiated Price IBid Item 12 - PLC System and Accessories IBid Item 13 - Screw Press Prenegotiated Price IBid Item 14 - Chem. Metering Pump Prenegotiated Price IBid Item 15 - Proces Aeration Equip. Prenegotiated Price 1Total Base Bid IBid Alternative 1 IBid Item 1.1 - Ox Ditch No.1 minus following bid items IBid Item 1.2 - Ox Ditch No. 1 Prenegotiated Price Bid Item 1.3 - Ox Ditch No. 1 Velocity Baffles 1Total Bid Alternative 1 1Total Bid Balfour Beatty I I ( I 1$2,000/Day I$5/SF 1 V Kiewit $106,927,646 $101,855,6461 $1,700,000 $1,119,0001 $612,0001 $208,0001 $160,0001 $160,0001 $75,0001 $75,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $25,0001 $25,0001 $150,0001 $150,0001 $300,0001$1,000/Day $150,0001 $35,0001$3/SF $21,000 $823,5001 $823,500' $184,4091 $184,4091 $472,8301 $472,8301 $287,6151 $287,6151 $698,2001 $698,2001 $112,471,2001 $106,250,2001 3,700,000 1 3,500,0001 $496,0001 $496,000 $82,8001 $82,800 $4,278,8001 $4,078,8001 $116,750,0001 $110,329,0001 City of Roseville ($96,619,000), City of Sacramento ($86,831,000), San Diego County Water Authority ($21,078,000) and Santa Clara Valley Water District ($39,519,000). When contacted by the City's Construction Manager during the pre -qualification process, these agencies gave good reviews of Kiewit's work. Staff verified that Kiewit Pacific Company possesses a valid Class A California Contractor's license, license number 433176, expiration date January 31, 2007, that qualifies Kiewit Pacific Company to perform the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project. Assessment of the Bid Results The project bid was 11.87% higher than the engineer's estimate. In this bidding climate similar projects have bid from 9.47% to 97.76% higher than the engineer's estimate with the average project bidding about 20% high (Table 3). The work done to re -calculate the cost of the project helped the City present a more realistic picture to the City Council prior to bid. Although difficult to compare the Contractor's bid price with the opinion of probable cost presented by our estimating team, we have learned that the electrical costs were approximately $5,000,000 higher than the engineer's estimate. The electrical design was in the final stages of design and review during the engineer's estimating process. Numerous items were finalized for the instrumentation and control system between the December cost estimate and the advertisement date in April which surely added to this difference. A comparison of the equipment costs indicated that electrical pull boxes were approximately $500,000 higher than the engineer's opinion of cost and duct banks were near $1,000,000 higher. The landscaping was approximately $1,600,000 higher than an allowance used as a plug number in the engineer's estimate. The "plug number" was not a true estimate just a place holder for what the team thought the landscaping would cost. In addition, as the permitting process has continued, the Regional Water Quality Control Board requested the following items be incorporated into the project in order to receive the 401 certification component of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit. Many of these regulatory requirements affected the landscaping budget. • Wetlands Creation, Enhancement Plan and Restoration of Temporarily Impacted Wetlands • Canal Restoration Plan • Ellis Creek Restoration Plan All other items were lumped in together (mechanical, site, etc.) by Kiewit Pacific Company accounting for the additional $5,000,000 difference in the bid. Should the City Proceed With Bid Alternative X? The project, as originally designed, included construction of Wetland Cell C, a second oxidation ditch, and the associated equipment and piping. Because the estimated cost of the project was higher than anticipated, the City decided to create a Base Bid that did not include Wetland Cell C and the second oxidation ditch. These items were included as Bid Alternative 1. If the City were to proceed with the Base Bid only, and not construct Wetland Cell C and the second oxidation ditch (Bid Alternative 1), the City would assume a significant amount of risk, including: IM 1. The oxidation ditch is the central component of the treatment plant, providing the bulk of wastewater treatment. With only one oxidation ditch, the City would not have a back-up unit. This would place the City at risk should the sole oxidation ditch malfunction or require repair. 2. With only one oxidation ditch, the plant would have a maximum treatment capacity of 7 mgd. Even though the plant is designed to handle an average dry weather flow of 6.7 mgd, daily flow variations, during the morning and evening, can reach up to 11 mgd. With only 7 mgd of capacity, this means any flow above 7 mgd would not be treated at the new facility and would be bypassed to the oxidation ponds. This could be a potential issue for the Regional Board. 3. With two oxidation ditches, the average time a microbe spends in the tank (Mean Cell Residence Time, or MRCT) would be 10 days. With just one oxidation ditch, the MRCT would be reduced to 5 days. Ten day MCRT provides for reliable removal of ammonia (nitrification). Five day MCRT provides for borderline nitrification. With just one oxidation ditch, ammonia removal would be more unpredictable and could make it difficult for the City to meet its NPDES permit limit. 4. If the City were to build only one oxidation ditch at this time, it would have to begin construction of the second oxidation ditch by 2012. It is estimated the cost to build the second oxidation ditch in the future would be $2 million to $4 million higher. Proceeding with Bid Alternative 1 will mitigate all these risks. The City anticipated a cost of $5.9 million for the second oxidation ditch. The contractor's bid price for Bid Alternative 1 of $4,078,800 is very favorable. It is estimated that the cost to construct the second oxidation ditch and Wetland Cell C in the future would range from $6 to $8 million. City Management and Carollo Engineers recommend the City proceed with construction of Bid Alternative 1 because it provides a back-up unit operation, provides more reliable and predictable treatment, provides full treatment on a daily basis, and will save the City $2 million to $4 million in future construction costs. 3. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Award the Base Bid and Bid Alternative No. 1 to the apparent low bidder. 2. Award the Base Bid to the apparent low bidder. 3. Reject all bids and re -advertise. 4. Take no action. Bid Alternative No. 1 includes construction of the three million gallon Oxidation Pond No. 1, Polishing Treatment Wetland Cell C, and all the appurtenant piping, valves, and equipment. Kiewit's cost for the bid alternative is $4 million, which is $1.9 million below the Engineer's Estimate of $5.9 million. The City can either choose to construct the bid alternative now, or construct the bid alternative in the year 2012. The cost to construct the bid alternative in 2012 will range from $6 to $8 million. Kiewit's price to construct the bid alternative is very competitive. City Management recommends the City take advantage of this favorable price and construct the bid alternative now. City Management recommends the City Council proceed with Alternative 1. 20 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The following is the breakdown of the estimated costs: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (TOTAL BID) $110,329,000 The estimated total cost of construction is $110,329,000. The construction will be funded by the Wastewater Capital, State Revolving Loan, Interim Financing, Bonds, Coastal Conservancy Grant, Open Space District Grant for a total of $110,329,000. In order to help offset the higher project cost, a thorough review of the Sewer Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget was conducted. The Hopper Street demolition was reduced from $6,014,000 to $658,000 for a total savings of $5,356,000. The SCADA pump stations project was deleted from the budget for a total savings of $3,283,000. These changes in the Sewer CIP reduced the overall funding requirements for the Sewer CIP by $8,639,000. The original engineer's estimate of $98,700,000 plus these funds from reductions equals $107,339,000. Hence, City Management recommends building the entire recycling facility project now and delete other expenditures to maximize the favorable pricing on the bid alternative and overall on the base bid. 5. CONCLUSION: 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, preparation of plans (comprising over 750 drawings) and specifications (comprising over 1,500 pages), and prequalification of general and electrical subcontractors. 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. 6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: Following City Council direction regarding award for construction of the facility, the outcomes or performance measurements that will identify success or completion include procurement of corps permit, 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. 21 The schedule for the project is shown in Table 5. Table 5 Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Anticipated Construction Schedule 4 Item City Council Contract Award Notice -To -Proceed / Begin Construction Construction Phase Start Up Phase Project Completion 7. RECOMMENDATION: Date August 1, 2005 j August 31, 2005 { September 2005 — September 2008 1 October 2008 — March 2009 April 2009 City Management recommends the City Council approve the resolution awarding the contract for construction of the "Base Bid" and "Bid Alternative No. 1" to IGewit Pacific Company for $110,329,000. RESOLUTION Alternative 1 Award the Base Bid = Bid Alternative 1 23 1 Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract for the Ellis Creek 2 Water Recycling Facility 3 4 WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 5 950 Hopper Street; 6 7 WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements, 8 various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through 9 the 1960s; 10 11 WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway 12 to provide additional treatment capacity; 13 14 WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the 15 wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment 16 capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community determined to be too costly, 17 the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; 18 19 WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with 20 Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 21 years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107); 22 23 WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public 24 Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the 25 California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; 26 27 WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that 28 the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the 29 application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; 30 31 WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; 32 33 WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City 34 Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156, which directed that the Service Agreement 35 Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment 36 facility; 37 38 WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163, which 39 certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164, which approved the Project, 40 and Resolution No. 96-165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For 41 Proposal; 42 43 WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre -qualified vendor teams; 44 45 WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United 46 Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; Page 1 of 9 5:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CounciKAugust 1, 74 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc 2 WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on 3 May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 4 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8, 1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997, December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; 10 WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11, which 11 selected MUW for contract negotiations; 12 13 WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on 14 January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; 15 16 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for 17 development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved 18 preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; 19 20 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188, 21 which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new 22 wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among 23 others: 24 25 ► Risk of Change Required Over 30 -Year Contract Term. Changes in the 26 City's needs may occur during the 30 -year life of the contract. The City is at a 27 disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the 28 facility's capacity. 29 ► Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain 30 tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract 31 term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be 32 fixed in the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of 33 the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having 34 to pay for part of the plant twice. 35 ► Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax 36 ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the 37 design process. 38 ► Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 39 5.2.4 would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the 40 City) at the Project Site. 41 ► Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations 42 between the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other 43 critical issues could not be agreed upon. 44 45 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189, 46 which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the Page 2 of 9 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 25 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; 4 WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for 5 engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater 6 treatment facility); 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-66 on April 3, 2000, which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1— Project Report of the Water Recycling Facility Project; WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the alternatives on September 5, 2000; WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000; WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 on December 11, 2000, which approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000), selected Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the new water recycling facility, and identified Option A — Wetlands as the preferred alternative for algae removal over Option B — DAFs; WHERAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 on December 11, 2000, which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 — Project Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2001) on November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-012 on January 7, 2002, which approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water recycling facility project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report; WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State Page 3 of 9 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc 26 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 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; WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and closed May 29, 2002; WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final EIR and Response To Comments (July 2002), which responded to comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant impacts that had not been previously evaluated in the Draft EIR. WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to consider the Final EIR; WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council adopted Resolution 2002-135 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on August 5, 2002. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. The documents referenced below constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report and were presented and considered along with both written and oral comments received during the public review period on the Project and environmental documents: a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft Environmental Impact Report, in two volumes (April 2002). b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final Environmental Impact Report and Response To Comments (July 2002). 3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma, independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final EIR and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City of Petaluma 4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and comment. WHEREAS, the Project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds (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 Page 4 of 9 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CounciMugust 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc 27 I WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November 2 2002; and 4 WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it 5 became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville 6 Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further 7 evaluation; and 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would require the removal, drying and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the construction of aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment capacity, and require the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill in the oxidation pond no. 1; and WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2003-196 on August 18, 2003, which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new treatment plant at 4104 Lakeville Highway; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 262 acres of land in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling Facility and development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project on September 8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of real property described as Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010- 002; and WHEREAS, the City acquired Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002 in February 2004 with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy and the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the environmental affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community Page 5 of 9 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 28 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Center, Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S. Re -certifying Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum, and Adopting Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program on June 7, 2004. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-092 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for Construction Management Services Task 1 and Task 2 for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on June 7, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-156 Authorizing General Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on August 16, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the Project on November 18, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Planning Commission considered the Project and the proposed land use designations at 4104 Lakeville Highway on December 14, 2004, and 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, and annexation to the City of Petaluma; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility on February 7 and 28, 2004 and directed the Department of Water Resources and Conservation to complete the contract documents for Alternative I — Full Project With Bid Alternate for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and issue the contract documents to the following prequalified contractors for solicitation of bids for construction: 36 General Contractors 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Slayden Construction Kiewit Pacific Company Monterey Mechanical Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. Walsh Pacific Construction ARB, Inc. Page 6 of 9 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 29 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc 1 Electrical Contractors 2 3 Mass Electric 4 Contract Costa Electric 5 HGH Electric 6 Blocka Construction 7 Con J. Franke Electric 8 9 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying the 2005 Construction 10 Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR as 11 modified by the April 2004 Addendum and Adopting Findings of Fact and Adopting 12 Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program on August 1, 2005; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and 15 River Access Improvements EIR concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR 16 remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have 17 new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified 18 significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 19 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project ("Project") is included in 22 the Department of Water Resources and Conservation Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Capital 23 Improvement Program Budget; 24 25 WHEREAS, the engineer's estimate for the cost of the Project was $98,700,000; and 26 27 WHEREAS, in accordance with Article X of the City of Petaluma Charter, the Petaluma 28 Municipal Code, California Public Contract Code Section 20162 and other applicable 29 law, the City of Petaluma solicited bids for the Project; and 30 31 WHEREAS, two (2) bids for the Project were received on July 14, 2005, and opened in 32 accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 4105.5 and other applicable 33 law; and 34 35 WHEREAS, the apparent lowest bid for the Project was the bid of Kiewit Pacific 36 Company in the amount of $106,250,200 for the Base Bid, and $4,078,800 for Bid 37 Alternate No. 1, for a total bid amount of $110,329,000; and 38 39 WHEREAS, Kiewit Pacific Company was prequalified on December 15, 2004 to bid for 40 the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project; and 41 42 WHEREAS, staff have determined that Kiewit Pacific Company bid satisfies the bidding 43 requirements for the Project; and 44 Page 7 of 9 5:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 30 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 WHEREAS, staff have verified that Kiewit Pacific Company possesses a valid California Contractor's License, number 433176, classes A, B and C-10 that qualifies Kiewit Pacific Company to perform the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City Council of the City of Petaluma. 2. In accordance with Article X of the Petaluma City Charter, Section 20160 of the California Public Contract Code, and other applicable law, the City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby waives any non -conformities in the bid of Kiewit Pacific Company for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and finds such bid to be the lowest, responsive bid for such Project. 3. The contract for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility is hereby awarded to Kiewit Pacific Company, 5000 Marsh Drive, Concord, CA 94520 in the amount of $110,329,000, including the Base Bid ($106,250,200) plus Bid Alternate No. 1 ($4,078,800), subject to the following conditions precedent. Until the specified conditions are satisfied, no contract will exist between the City of Petaluma and Kiewit Pacific Company. First Condition: The City of Petaluma must obtain from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' a permit issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) authorizing placement of fill as required for the Project. Second Condition: Kiewit Pacific Company must timely execute and deliver to the City of Petaluma the Project Agreement and all required documents, including, but not limited to, executed bonds, certificates of insurance, and endorsements, in accordance with the Project bid documents. 4. City Staff is hereby authorized and directed to issue a notice of award to Kiewit Pacific Company, indicating that the award is subject to conditions precedent, stating the conditions, and that a contract will not result until all such conditions are satisfied. 5. Upon satisfaction of the specified conditions precedent, City Staff is hereby authorized and directed to so notify Kiewit Pacific Company and to issue a notice to proceed with performance of the Project. 6. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to sign the Project Agreement on behalf of the City of Petaluma uponsatisfaction of the conditions precedent specified in this Resolution. 7. Subject to available funds for the Project, the following staff are hereby delegated authority to execute Project change orders on behalf of the City of Petaluma as follows: Page 8 of 9 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August I, 31 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc I a. Project Engineering Manager - change orders that increase or decrease the 2 Project contract amount by up to $100,000 and/or that increase or decrease 3 the number of Project working days by up to 30 days. 4 b. Water Resources and Conservation Director - change orders that increase 5 or decrease the Project contract amount by up to $250,000 and/or that 6 increase or decrease the number of Project working days by up to 60 days. 7 C. City Manager - change orders that increase or decrease the Project 8 contract amount by up to $500,000 and/or that increase or decrease the 9 number of Project working days by up to 90 days. 10 8. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. 11 9. All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component 12 of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of 13 competent jurisdiction, then the remaining Resolution portions shall be and 14 continue in full force and effect, except as to those Resolution portions that have 15 been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares 16 that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, 17 sentence, phrase and other portion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more 18 section subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or 19 unconstitutional. 20 Page 9 of 9 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 32 2005\Construction Contract\Revised Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base and Alt Final.doc RESOLUTION Alternative 2 Award the Base Bid 33 Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility 4 WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 5 950 Hopper Street; 6 7 WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements, 8 various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through 9 the 1960s; 10 11 WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constricted at 4400 Lakeville Highway 12 to provide additional treatment capacity; 13 14 WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the 15 wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment 16 capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community determined to be too costly, 17 the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; 18 19 WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with 20 Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 21 years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107); 23 WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public 24 Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the 25 California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; 26 27 WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that 28 the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the 29 application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; 30 31 WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; 32 33 WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City 34 Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156, which directed that the Service Agreement 35 Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment 36 facility; 37 38 WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163, which 39 certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164, which approved the Project, 40 and Resolution No. 96-165, which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For 41 Proposal; 42 43 WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre -qualified vendor teams; 44 45 WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United 46 Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; Page 1 of 8 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc 34 2 WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on 3 May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 4 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997; WHERAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8, 1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997, December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; 10 WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11, which 11 selected MUW for contract negotiations; 12 13 WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on 14 January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; 15 16 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for 17 development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved 18 preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; 19 20 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188, 21 which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new 22 wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among 23 others: 24 25 / Risk of Change Required Over 30 -Year Contract Term. Changes in the 26 City's needs may occur during the 30 -year life of the contract. The City is at a 27 disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the 28 facility's capacity. 29 / Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain 30 tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract 31 term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be 32 fixed in the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of 33 the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having 34 to pay for part of the plant twice. 35 / Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax 36 ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the 37 design process. 38 1 Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 39 5.2.4 would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the 40 City) at the Project Site. 41 / Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations 42 between the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other 43 critical issues could not be agreed upon. 44 45 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189, 46 which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the Page 2 of 8 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 35 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; 4 WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for 5 engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater 6 treatment facility); 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-66 on April 3, 2000, which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 — Project Report of the Water Recycling Facility Project; WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the alternatives on September 5, 2000; WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on November 8, 2000; WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 on December 11, 2000, which approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000), selected Alternative 5 — Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the new water recycling facility, and identified Option A — Wetlands as the preferred alternative for algae removal over Option B — DAFs; WHERAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 on December 11, 2000, which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 — Project Development of the Water Recycling Facility Project; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2001) on November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-012 on January 7, 2002, which approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water recycling facility project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report; WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State Page 3 of 8 S9water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc 36 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 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; WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and closed May 29, 2002; WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final EIR and Response To Comments (July 2002), which responded to comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant impacts that had not been previously evaluated in the Draft EIR. WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to consider the Final EIR; WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council adopted Resolution 2002-135 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on August 5, 2002. 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. The documents referenced below constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report and were presented and considered along with both written and oral comments received during the public review period on the Project and environmental documents: a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft Environmental Impact Report, in two volumes (April 2002). b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final Environmental Impact Report and Response To Comments (July 2002). 3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma, independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final EIR and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City of Petaluma 4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and comment. WHEREAS, the Project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds (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 Page 4of8 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\Augusl 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc 37 I WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November 2 2002; and 4 WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it 5 became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville 6 Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further 7 evaluation; and 9 WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would 10 require the removal, drying and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation 11 pond no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the 12 construction of aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment 13 capacity, and require the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill 14 in the oxidation pond no. 1; and 15 16 WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at 17 4104 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and, 18 19 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2003-196 on August 18, 2003, 20 which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services 21 agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new 22 treatment plant at 4104 Lakeville Highway; and 23 24 WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 262 acres of land 25 in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling Facility 26 and development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project 27 on September 8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of real 28 property described as Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010- 29 002; and 30 31 WHEREAS, the City acquired Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002 in February 32 2004 with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy and 33 the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; and 34 35 WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access 36 Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the environmental 37 affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and 38 39 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR 40 remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have 41 new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified 42 significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 43 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and 44 45 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for 46 public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community Page 5 of 8 SAwater resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Center, Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S. Re -certifying Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum, and Adopting Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program on June 7, 2004. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-092 N.C.S. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for Construction Management Services Task 1 and Task 2 for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on June 7, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-156 Authorizing General Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on August 16, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the Project on November 18, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Planning Commission considered the Project and the proposed land use designations at 4104 Lakeville Highway on December 14, 2004, and 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, and annexation to the City of Petaluma; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility on February 7 and 28, 2004 and directed the Department of Water Resources and Conservation to complete the contract documents for Alternative I — Full Project With Bid Alternate for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and issue the contract documents to the following prequalified contractors for solicitation of bids for construction General Contractors Slayden Construction Kiewit Pacific Company Monterey Mechanical Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. Walsh Pacific Construction ARB, Inc. Page 6 of 8 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilWugust I, 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Electrical Contractors Mass Electric Contract Costa Electric HGH Electric Blocka Construction Con J. Franke Electric WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying the 2005 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR as modified by the April 2004 Addendum and Adopting Findings of Fact and Adopting Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program on August 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and WHEREAS, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project ("Project") is included in the Department of Water Resources and Conservation Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program Budget; WHEREAS, the engineer's estimate for the cost of the Project was $98,700,000; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Article X of the City of Petaluma Charter, the Petaluma Municipal Code, California Public Contract Code Section 20162 and other applicable law, the City of Petaluma solicited bids for the Project; and WHEREAS, two (2) bids for the Project were received on July 14, 2005, and opened in accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 4105.5 and other applicable law: and WHEREAS, the apparent lowest bid for the Project was the bid of Kiewit Pacific Company in the amount of $106,250,200 for the Base Bid, and $4,078,800 for Alternate 1, for a total bid of $110,329,000; and WHEREAS, Kiewit Pacific Company was prequalified on December 15, 2004 to bid for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project; and WHEREAS, staff have determined that Kiewit Pacific Company bid satisfies the bidding requirements for the Project; and Page 7 of 8 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City CouncilWugust 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 '42 43 44 WHEREAS, staff have verified that Kiewit Pacific Company possesses a valid California Contractor's License, number 433176, classes A, B and C-10 that qualifies Kiewit Pacific Company to perform the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City Council of the City of Petaluma. 2. In accordance with Article X of the Petaluma City Charter, Section 20160 of the California Public Contract Code, and other applicable law, the City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby waives any non -conformities in the bid of Kiewit Pacific Company for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and finds such bid to be the lowest, responsive bid for such Project. 3. The contract for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility is hereby awarded to Kiewit Pacific Company, 5000 Marsh Drive, Concord, CA 94520 in the amount of $106,250,200 for the Base Bid only, subject to the following conditions precedent. Until the specified conditions are satisfied, no contract will exist between the City of Petaluma and Kiewit Pacific Company. First Condition The City of Petaluma must obtain from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' a permit issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) authorizing placement of fill as required for the Project. Second Condition Kiewit Pacific Company must timely execute and deliver to the City of Petaluma the Project Agreement and all required documents, including, but not limited to, executed bonds, certificates of insurance, and endorsements, in accordance with the Project bid documents. 4. City Staff is hereby authorized and directed to issue a notice of award to Kiewit Pacific Company, indicating that the award is subject to conditions precedent, stating the conditions, and that a contract will not result until all such conditions are satisfied. 5. Upon satisfaction of the specified conditions precedent, City Staff is hereby authorized and directed to so notify Kiewit Pacific Company and to issue a notice to proceed with performance of the Project. 6. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to sign the Project Agreement on behalf of the City of Petaluma upon satisfaction of the conditions precedent specified in this Resolution. 7. Subject to available funds for the Project, the following staff are hereby delegated authority to execute Project change orders on behalf of the City of Petaluma as follows: Page 8 of 8 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc 41 I a. Project Engineering Manager - change orders that increase or decrease the 2 Project contract amount by up to $100,000 and/or that increase or decrease 3 the number of Project working days by up to 30 days. 4 b. Water Resources and Conservation Director - change orders that increase 5 or decrease the Project contract amount by up to $250,000 and/or that 6 increase or decrease the number of Project working days by up to 60 days. 7 C. City Manager - change orders that increase or decrease the Project 8 contract amount by up to $500,000 and/or that increase or decrease the 9 number of Project working days by up to 90 days. 10 11 8. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. 12 13 9. All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component 14 of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of 15 competent jurisdiction, then the remaining Resolution portions shall be and 16 continue in full force and effect, except as to those Resolution portions that have 17 been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares 18 that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, 19 sentence, phrase and other portion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more 20 section subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or 21 unconstitutional. 22 Page 9 of 8 S:\water resources & conservation\Wastewater\9012\phase 3 - construction\City Council\August 1, 2005\Construction Contract\Ellis Creek Construction Award Reso - Base Only Final.doc 42 New access gate from Lakeville Highway -- Filter Secondary North (City Staff & deliveries only) Support 1, Clarifiers Stream Building I I I Crossings J l Lakeville Highway .-._._._.-.-._.----------- '------------------- ._._.:._ .--- ------•------------------------------------ _.- - Operations - i' -_ - Oxidation t i Bulding/Laboratory Ditches _-- I ; Recycled — © O �, Anaerobic i Digestion Water Storage i O Filters Di g Pond No 1 P�nd No.,2 UV Head- ; !works t Disinfection o O O i sOlic s o +� t Access Road — PARCEL 92 LA Handling o & p17 i I Pond=No 4 - Pond No ,3 . New access gate from Cypress Drive Biotillcrs _..___ existing road (public access) i i wilt be repaired Existir g i Parking— Oxidation U Ponds ,• is �, fy; ;: s' .;, ! haus on ` 4 t Berms- - Native Landscaping _ _ , � - • - ='�'T Islands— Existing - — Existing \\ z Force Main Trail to Shollenberger Park apt C Dense vegetation n Open. water 10 pefflDVI 7,6069, cd, Stormwater Wetlands Existing Trail to Naval Building and River f �tiY f 1 I South Stream ... i Crossing i i `treatment Wetlands - ; Pump Station I 3g I�yM Ylttit Gilt' tlar�ds t "' Pipes from wetlands To Outfall Chlorine Contact Basin Figure 2 PROJECT ELEMENTS WATER RECYCLING FACILITY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT CITY OF PETALUMA ie 7 - ,{F 11i U o-'ca AVft �r /}Ilii_ 4- F. firl'i1S , Elements to be Permitted t Y � •• � �y,(F IFP' 4 �•�fl f If "j, 1 Site Access Road S"` x({ } 2 Polishing Wetlands i' � 11 3 Bermed Trails and Pond Access 7 • y�, " f 4 Riparian and Upland Improvement Along Ellis Creek I +•'. 'i • 1! g �:.;,:, t., ,+r:.:c;l�,;: �,�:;f;.,+.a 5 Grassland Habitat at Ellis Creek ,:'t,l• � ' + >,;. , /.. „� vr,,� f1 i � ;;i�a,.�:;; , 6 Point Access and Fenced Trail to Ellis Creek 91't(i !j ,�.� �I: I�:!'�Ci'.'I I•!�I tt'Y r'.4;�:ac:+. y,,LfV"rti i,f 7 Ag ricultural Fields-Habitat l by 8 Trails at Agricultural Fields -{ j I,Q' / - r , r fr ` e 7 qi { C t II III , 9 Upland Habitats 10 Parking for 80 Car 1;%;��1 J ;:..' •:,: r_ f' _r '�' t� 2iFr:i;.;�; 11 Restrooms (','rPU,. ;.. I J 12 Informational Kiosk - Self Guided Tours 13 Trail link to Sholenberger Park / f I 4 .•qy� Lli e.R4i. y3'11V tL01•:SS �/1.,' '+. L{wv,.-"' 5�i!"�fsy"'.- �1,•- 'lr%?= I ''15 M1 4]PY1?fi<II`llI CI!Iliti ! � � �'i 1 1 i ° I I I I L 1. FROVERTY 9 1 I 1 SlfiliM1ll I , 0 250 500' Figure 3 kff�;fl PUBLIC ACCESS 14 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT CITY OF PETALUMA 1]0t66:f15_50G0 cdr