Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 5.C 08/16/2004�xb 0. U Agenda Title Resolution Authorizing General Contractor and Meetim Date: August ; 1:6 '2004 Electrical Subcontractor' Prequalification. for theCity. of Petaluma 0. U Agenda Title Resolution Authorizing General Contractor and Meetim Date: August ; 1:6 '2004 Electrical Subcontractor' Prequalification. for theCity. of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project-. Meetinjz Time Z 3.:00 PM ❑ 7:00 P Category (check one) ❑ Cons ent Public Iearn ❑ g ❑ New Business Z Unfinished Business ❑ :Presentation Department Water. Director Contact; Person Phone Number Resources & Michae J. Ban; Margaret P. Orr, 778- 4589 Conservation P.E. P.E.'}�1,/� e` Cost of Proposal Account Number C500402 The cost to prequalify' contractors is $47 Amount. Budgeted $47,000 Name of Fund: Wastewater Bete, rise Attachments to Agenda Packetltem Resolution J Attachment A — .Request for Qualifications from Interested General. Contractors and Electrical Subcontractors and Invitation to Submit Prequalif cation Packages for The City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Summary Statement Contractor Prequalification is primarily employed to prequalify contractors for' large public works projects that-require, a specific skill or expertise: The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project is a large;, complex public works project that requires technical expertise and specialization. Thus, Petaluma has developed a program for prequalifying general and electrical contractors for this specific project. Recommended City Council ActionlSuggesied Motion 'Citylylanagetneni recommends the City Council adopt a resolution ,Authorizing Genera'1., Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification for the City.of Petaluma Ellis Greek Water Recycling Facility Project. Reviewed by Finance Director: "Reviewed n'e v,- Approved by Ci , .Mana er: Date: . 'JUL 2 ' 0 200 1 . Date: da 's Date: July 28, 2004 Revision ' #' and bate Revised: File Code !Ss \water resources& : con servation \WastewaterA6i \city council\Aueust 16 2004CMenda Bill'Preuualificatiou.doc - CITY OF PETALUMA, CA A u g ust • 1 S: \water resources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city council\August l6 2004\Agenda Bill Prequalification.doc .* CITY OF P ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA •. August 16; 2004 AGENDA RE PORT. FOR RESOLUTION AUTHORIZINGSGENERAL�CONTRACTOR AND ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTORS PREQUALIFICATION FOR THE CITY OFYETALUMA ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING .FACILITY PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Contractor prequalification`is priinarily,employed to.,prequalify contractors .for large public works projects that require'aspecificskill or expertise. The Ellis, Creek Water Recycling Facility Project is.a large, complex pubiic=works,project thatrequires technical expertise and .specialization. Thus, Petdt ilas developed ayprogram for prequalifying,'general and electrical contractors for this, specifi p'rgJect:,; g Pequal fic pt solution a re Authorizing General City Mana ement recommends the Ci ty-C o uncil Contractor and Electrical Subcontractors' °' ation.for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creels Water Recycling Facility Project'. 2. BACKGROUND Introduction Prequalifying bidders , is the. "process by which the owner of a public works proj ect screens potential contractors according to. a,gven set of cri`teria to any competitive bidding. The objective is to identify a pool 'of biddersAhat Have been determined to be responsible and qualified. In 1999 the California. Legisl ature enacted a..law, that, allows many public agencies to require licensed contractors that wish to bid, for public works projects to "pre - qualify" for the right to bid on a specific public works project. The legislation is codified in Public Contract Code Section 20.1:01. The law applies to all cities,.counties and special dist but does not apply to, K -12 school districts. The law does not-require any public agency to adopt a pre - qualification, ystem. Instead, it authorizes every public agency to adopt , a pre - qualification system, and describes certain requirements that must be met, if'a public age newchoose to.adopt such.a, system:. The 1999 law allows a public agency to­estab'lish different kinds.of pre- qualification procedures for public works projects: 1. The, law allows_ a public agency to establish a pre - qualification procedure linked to a single project, or; 1 SAWater resources & conservation\ Wastewater \9012 \city council\August 16 2004\Agenda Bill Prequalification.doc 1- 2. The public agency may, adopt aprocedure by which a. contractor may qualify to bid on.proj ects which . are put out forbid by that agency for a period of.one year after the • date of initial pre- qualification. The 1999 law requires every'public agency" that creates either kind of re- qualification procedure to: 1.. Use a "standardized questionnaire and financial statement in, a form specified by the public entity'-; 2. Adopt and apply a uniform system of rating bidders on objective criteria, on the basis of thei completed questionnaires and financial statements 3. Create an appeal�procedure, by which a contractor that i& denied pre - qualification may seek.a reversal of that determination. Information from City of Redwood, City and City of Brentwood Subsequent to th Febru 23 meeting; on June 21, 2004 City Management, 23, 2004: The Petaluma City Council considered contractor re ualification on Feb p q inept resented information gathered on the experience of the City of City and the City of Brentwood, two municipal, agencies sirnilar'to'Petaluma that have experience with contractor' prequalifi cation. At-1-he June 2.1, 2004 meeting City Management indicated that Redwood City uses contractor re ualification for ve s ecific, ro'ects only. projects that re uire uni ue skilisi or a s ecialt. p . very p p J Y, projects, q q e p y contractor. They have used contractor prequalifi'eation for "construction ofa new Fire- Station, , a_ new-City Hall and for a project',that °involved micro tunneling under Highway LOL. When used, the contractor ' requal ficati'on package;is adapted for, the specific project. They do noti`use A scoring system `(they were not'aware of the 1999 law on contractor- prequal>fication)_. Redwood City has notreceived any protests from contractors that were determined to 'be. unqualified: At the June 21 2004 meeting information was also presented about .the A City of.Brentwood. The City of Brentwood is located in eastern Contra 'Costa County and; � provides a full -range of municipal services to its 25;000 residents. The City covers approximately.'l l square miles. . 1 Their FY 04/05 Capital Improvement Program budget is $60 million . Li1ce.,Redwood City., Brentwood employs- contractor prequalification for specialty projects: 'S'o far they have only used :it once for their new Wastewater Treatment Facility. Now Water Recycling Facility "The City developed the contractor prequalification package for construction of the new Ellis Creels Water Recycling Facility for following reasons: 1) This -is the largest public worksproject in the City of Petaluma's,history: Prequalification of large projects is important to ensure that Contractors bidding the work have - the abilityto provide the proper bonding and `insuran'ce According to the PY.02 /03 — 06/07 CIP budget. 2' SAwater resources 4 conseivation\ Wastewater \901 -2 \city couneil\August 16 2004\Agenda'Bi11 Prequalification.doc 2) The. prod ect.'s „a ,complex network of structures, mechanical equipment, piping; and electrical: systems to; iece ve; proce_ ss, aild recycle wastewater. The • complexity o p , y f the'j ob demands ~experience: to coordinate the necessary end result of an .integrated' system. i hk meets the expectations of the .City, regulators, and the environm entin a safe and cost efficient manner. 3) The project is very °complex technically. Coordination of hydraulics, structural, mechanical,, electrical and'finall'y control will be orchestrated via the contract, 1 . Y n have experience in documents b. ;,a General contractor The contractormust building these facilities,and properly integrating all functions successfully. 4) Wastewater is a specialized constructionfield. The .City of Petaluma is looking for a contracting firm in the General and,Electrical areasAhat,have the special resources needed,`to; build - the large structures 'needed, install mechanical equipment appropriately and wire them properly for control from the office field Or home. 5) A project this'size will have sign fi'cant number of construction workers employed onahe site each day working - major'coiistruction equipment. With all of'this activity safety;need's,to be properly addressed to attempt avoid numerous accidents and ;incidents. Prequalification will •also; assist in ,providing, contractors who have established minimum acceptable practices and standards. Prequalification cannot guarantee thet,e won't be any challenges with this project, but through. this process the City will •know,that .General and Electrical contractors`bidding on the project have met the minimum standards established in the package. This will help provide a qualified and safe contractor for our'pro�ect. Prequalification will also require contractors to begin . planning for this proj ect, •and' Wilk preveni.,unqualified contractors from bidding on this proj ect, at the last minute. Prequalification Package The prequalificahon package consists ofasix sections , (Attachinent,A). , The requirement of each section is highlighted; below. Part I consists of'essential requirements for qualification. Contractors must have a valid contractor's license, .provide insurance as defined in the - provide' reviewed and audited financial,,statements; prov d,e a notarized „statement from a:surety insurer authorized to issue e years, have;been default terminated, b the tr license that has been revoked.n the last fiv y y own er over, the past, five years, not been debarred; and not been” convicted of a crime involving'the` awarding of a contract of a government.construction•project (Attachmen ; 6= t A, pages8). Part II consists of information from the submitting contractor concerning current organization . and structure ofthe business.; history of the business and;organizati-onal performance, licenses, criminal matters. and related civil ,suits, bonding,, compliance vith o,ccupational'safety and health laws, and prevailing wage and: apprenticeship compliance record (Attachment A, pages 9 through 17) 3 S \waterresources & conservation \Wastewater \9012 \city counclWugust 16 2004Wgenda Bill Prequalification.doc M Part III requ'ites coiitr�L&tor six public completed over the pastfive years. At- least three of those ptoj' -t& in. ust bewastewateT Water projects of cc s similar size and complexity as `the Ellis Creek. Water Recycling Facility. Th&gbneral contract-or must list at least one , pfqject with, a minimum comoleiion of $315.0 millio n: he contractor must list. at least onelprojeof,wit-h- a,mimmum- completion value of $5'.0'rnillion (Attachment. , pages 18' and 19). Part IV requires the, contractor to provide.' fotniationabo contracts. in 4fterS6Dtemberl, 2004 valued ai$10.0 for , gpnpral contractors or �,!$2 , '.O, , million 'for electrical co ntractors. This allows the lCity of Petaluma A6 dete nnihe: if the contractor: has the time an&bondin capadity - efficiently comp lete the Ellis Creek Water` ecycling'.Facility' g y comp (Attachment A, p,a:ge 20). Tart V requires the contractor to provide information iericeof - quit ion aboutthe expen propose d personnel. A minimum of five years experience is- required for the pr Oj their - , , backups. Similarrequirements are necessary foflhe pr ject schedule reuire& that backups to'proposed key sm ilar expen ei . icb(Attadliment, A � pages . q 21,and h 22). The p the evaluation page that will , be utilized'for scori 'the iig responses., in nrify pro experience. Ai ' .qnses.,,Als'o included�are iefVidw. quegti s to verify ' questions i , lf�, , h ded,to-co , 116e. I Mp lete that; to bid (Schedule Section below); Attachmehts cons --­ sist 'Workers' Compensation Experience Modifier, Insurance: Requirements, and Affidavit of'Saf&-y Compliance; Schedule The.. Ellis Creek Water. Recycling Facility is scheduled to break ground for, construction iii June . ,of 2005 As shown iii Table 1, the contractor ptequAlific ation. package is: 'an 'integral tomp6n&nt of the bid phase.. Deserip ti6n Date City Council. consider and,di s prequalifiq4tipn p ackage 'August. 1 20,04 City Advertise prequattf�catjoji ;ickag& to contractors September 1,20Q4, 'Contractors, submit:pr6qualifidati6h Package to City October 7,20b4 - City notifies prpqq;4jif1ed firms November 2, 2004 ,. Appeal Pf6cess (ifileeded.) Whtfi, of N ovember.2,004 AdveTti§`e,f6r "Bids December - 1, 2 Op en Aids - Februarv 1, 2005 Award Construction 'Contract March 7, 20.Q5 1 Construction, / Start Up Conipldier M a'r c'h 2 0'0'81 • S, - &!cons.ervation\Was,iewaier,\9012\cjiy'council\August 1'62604\t,gerfda Nequalifibation.doc 3. ALTERNATI-VES Alternative 1- Adopt the Authorizing General'. Contractor and Electrical Subcontractors ..Prequalification the City of „Petaluma,Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project. Alternative 2'— Take no action at this time. Utilize ah'e normal,bidding.procedure and documents to gather information on contractor qua'lificahons for' the work. Alternative 3 —Take n'6 a ction at this time. Provide direction to City Management as to how to proceed on.the pr ec t 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS the re ualifi'cation documents and t,o g review and a l� the d'ocum:ents services time d develop Costs for im iementin contractor; re ualification include rofessional p q pp y and is estimated at $47,000. This work is being completed:as part of the construction management services contract, which* was approved by the City Council on June 7, 2004. 5. CONCLUSION Contractor prequalification is' prnnaril ' em to ed to. , re ualif 'contractors for large' ublic works ro • ect_ s that re wire a speci p g p Y' P Y p, q Y p q . f c skill or ex ° ertis'e: The :Ellis Creek Water Recycling J g, ' P p p j_ q • Facility Pro • ect is 'a lar e com lex _ ublie works ro ect that re uires tec hnical expertise and spe for this s, Petaluma 0 `developed aiprogram for prequalifying general and electrical p p. . 6. OUTCOMES OR P ERFO RM ANCE 'MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL -IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: 'Wdi er Recycling Facility. p � Successful construction and, start u of the Ellis Creek 7. RE COMMENDATION : g ntreco y tion Authorizing .General. Contra or and E�lectncal Subconhte,�Cit. Council adopt a� resolu City ` actors�Prequalifi6ation for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project. F 5 S:\water resources & conservation\ Wastewater \9012 \city counci]\August 16 2004\Agenda Bill Prequalification.doc 3 Water Recycling; Facility' 4 � er treatment processes were constructed at 6 9 Hoer Street 938 the on" g " in al 7 8 WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and�changing re-gulatory,requirements, 9 various upgrades and additionsAo the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through 10 the 1960s; 12 WHEREAS, in 1972';, the, oxidation` ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway 13 to provide additional treatment capacity; 14 15 WHEREAS, °in 1988, with influent flows exceeding; 75% of it e capacity of the 16 wastewater - treatment. facility; .and necessary upgrades to the:facilityto increase treatment 17 capacity and continue to meet the needs of the comrnur ity wemdeterxnined tube too 18 costly, the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; 19 . 20 WHEREAS, in I 99"I'L the City executed. a Memorandum of Understanding with 21 Envirotech Operating Services; (EOS) to design, build, construct, fown and operate (20 22 years) a new'wastewate"r treatment facility (Resolution No. 91- 107)•, 23 24 WHEREAS; on July 3 L J 991, EOS :submitted `pan application to the California Public 25 Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the 26 California.Local Government'Privat zation Act'of 1985 27 28 WHEREAS , on October. 2.1, 1991,- Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that 1. 29 the MOU did not meet the requirements of 'the Public Utlities,Code'and ordered that "the pp p J g after. - amendment" 30 application is denied without re'udi'ce .to refilin 31 V 32 WHEREAS in Februa ry - EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; , 1992 33 34 ^WHEREAS, on June 20; 1994, following a report prepa "red by.Ernst and Young, the' City 35 Council adopted R "esolution No.. 94 -156, which directed -that the Service Agreement 37 facility;ch nvatizat>on be utilized for rocurement of a hew wastewater treatment ' p (P ) P 38 40 cveHEREAS, on June I `1' `the City No. 96 -163, which 2 17 996, - pp p J Final EIR documents Resolution No. 96 164 ' which a roved the` ro ect 41 and Resolution: No.,196 165, which approved and authorized, issuance of 'the Request For 42 Proposal; 43 44 WHEREAS, on July 17; 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre - qualified verndor teams; 45 E • l ii Re s' , , uthorizin ;;,General Contractor and electrical 2 Subcontractor P e u'alificat'ion for the .Ci f,Petaluma Ellis Creek q tY , o Page l of 6 SAwater resources & conservation\ Wastewater \9012 \city;council\August 16 2004\resolution certifying prequalification.doc I WHEREAS, in January.1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United 2 Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; 4 WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered 'the proposals on 5 May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4 July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997 October 30, . 6 1997 November 4 1997 ' November, 18 1997 and on December 3 1997, 8 WHERA ,, the City Counci -1, considered the ;proposals on July 7, 1997, September' 8, 9 1997, September 15, 1997, . September 22, 19.97, September 29, 1997, .October 6. 1997, 10 December 3, 1997, and December 8,1997 11 12 WHEREAS; ;on January 5,,1998 .the City'Counciladopted Resolution No: 98 -11, which 13' 1 selected MUW for contract'negotiations; 14 15 WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement `issues'began on 16 January27, .1=998; land - proceeded through spring, 1.999; 1.7 18 WHEREAS, on September. 21 , 1998, . the City`Council,.recognizing`the need -for 19 developrnert,ofa °public alternative to the proposed`privatizaton protect, app "roved 20 re aration of the wastewater treatment facility p p ty master plan; ' .21 22 WHERE'AS', on September 21„ 1999, the .CityCouncil adopted Resolution;No..99 -188, 23' wluch_,terrnnated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new 24 wastewater :treatrnernt ;facility. Reasons cited for this 'determinafion included, among: 25 others; 26 27 / Risk of.Change Required Over 30 Year :Contract Term. Changes' n,the 28 City's -needs may occur dunng,the 30 =year life of the contract. The City is at a ; 29 disadvantage by':being,able to negotiate with only one party for'changes in the 30 facility' s capacity. 31 ► Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain 32 tax ownership„ the. City's option to purchase the ;facility at the' end the contract 33 term.would have to °beat fair market value. , The price of the facility' not,be. 34 fixed;in the contract,' but would.depend on the value of the facility at the time of 35 ,the exercise, of the option, iherebyputting the City and ratepayers at risk ofhaving 36 to pay for part of the plant twice: 37 ®" Lack` of City Approval_ of Design. In order for NIUW to retain tax ` 38 ownership .S'ection 4.8. 1, of the agreement limited the City's part cipation.in the 39 design process. 40 /- ' Third )Party Ser'Vlces. In,order for MOW to retain tax, ownership, Section 41 5:2.4 would. allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the. 42 City,) at the Project Site.. 43 1 :Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations 44 between the City andMUW, specific contract language on the above,•and other 45 critical issues could not be agreed upon. Page2of6 SAwater.resources & conservation \Wastewater\ 9012 \city. council\Augusi 16'2604\resolution certifying prequalificat t n.doc � I I 1' 2� 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 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,, on Se p ,,,1999., the City Council adopted Resolution No: 99= 1,8.9, which the Waste pp asap r. w ater Treatment Master Plan,, with the understanding that the a roved Master Plan's recommended project °would „be fiu-ther reviewed to address questions asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; 1.. WHEREAS, on October 29 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for , engineering services in support of the water recycling Igcility oj ect (new wastewater treatment facility); WHEREAS, the City Council'adopted.,Resolution.No. 2000 -66 on, April 3, 2000, which authorized the City Manager tio, execute a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in.., support of Phase .1 Project:Report of the Water Recycling Facility. Project; 1 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 Septexrlber 5, 2000; I I I aPublicForum the Co Center on No m of the"alternatives were presented .,, ty ber 8, 2000; Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, Novefn er 2000 o n Water Recycling WHEREAS the City' Counci l considered and disc n November 20, 2000.; WHEREAS, the City. Councilaadopted. Resolution ,00 21'4 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 Optibn;B DAFs WHERAS,.the City Council adopted Resolution 00- 215'oin Decerriber l`1, 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:Recyclin - Facility Proj ect; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Proj ect 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; I WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002 -0:12 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; I Page 3 of 6 S \water resources -& conservation \Wastewater\ 9012\ city cooncil \August•:162004\resolution certifying prequalification ; doc „ 2 WHEREAS, the; City prepared. Water Recycling.Facility and RiverAccess f its 3 Dra t:EIR;. ril2002) and distributed.itto the California'StateClearinghouse and to all .f ` � A P 4 responsible, local state and federal agencies involved in the project and made it. available 5 f6fpublic.review; _ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 1;5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 '28 20 30- 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 :3.9 40 41. 42 43 44 WHERFAS,'the City"Councilheld noticed public hearings. on May 13, 20.02 and.May 2-0,20 i 02, during which all 'interested persons were provided an opportunity to comment On the adeguacy Draft EIR; WHEREAS, the'public review°penod the Draft EIR began April "15 2002 and closed May 29; 2002; WHERE'AS, 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 'thathad notbeen 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, that after due consideration the Petaluma City Council; adopted Resolution, 2002 -:135 certifying the Final ,EnvironnentalImpact'Report for the Water - Recycling Facility and River _Access Improvements Pro" ect.and made the following findings on August 5,, 2002. • • 1. The Einal Environmental Impact Report.has been completed incompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA: Guidelines. '2. The documents, referenced below constitute .the Final Environniental;'Iinpact 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 . {Apri1;2002). b Water Recycling Facility and River.,Access Improvements, Final Env romnental:Impact Report and Response To Comments '(July 2002). 3. The City Council, as the decision making of the City of Petaluma, independentlyreviewed,, analyzed s and considered the information in the Final, EIR and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect.theindependent judgment of the City of Petaluma 4. The Final EIR was published, made available. ard.,circulated for review and comment. Page , 4 of 6 S:\watu resources & conservation\ Wastewater \9012 \city:counciMugust 16,2004\resolutiori certifying;prequalificatiomdoc I- . I ` q I WHEREAS; the prod ect,;certified ins the 'Final EIR_ locating a portion of the'- 2 treatment plant at 4'400 hakevrlle Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds 3 (APN 0680 =010 -025, 032 and 024) with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4100 4 Lakeville Highway(APN 068 - 010= 026,,,,and 0,177170 - 002) ;, and 5 , • 6 WHEREAS, the City completed approximately, SQ% design of the facility in November 7 2002; and 8 9 WHEREAS through the value engineering' effort conducted in December 2002, it 10 became apparent the alternative of locating -the water. recycling facility at 4100 Lakeville 11 Highway and preserving -the' oxidationpond,;site for its current: function' warranted further 12 evaluation; and 13 WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling. , facility atthe oxidation. -pond site would 15 require the removal drying and- ,disposal of sludge from: the aerated• lagoon and oxidation 16 pond no. 1, construction :of a p peline deliveninfluent to oxidation pond no. 2, the 17 construction of aerators ;n oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to'maintain• and improve treatment 18 capacity, and require the plad,ement.of approximately 25.0,000 cubic yards of imported fill 19' in the oxidation pond no. .1., ;and 20 21 WHEREAS, a feas ibility�s,Wdy,determined.that locating °the water recycling facility at 22 4100 LakevilleH ghway'Was . _ ible. and yields many benefits - .and, ,. 23 n „ 24 4 . WHEREAS, the City Council,adopted resolution No 2003 -196 on Augu st 1.8, 2003, 25 which authorized the Ci M iy . ai ager fo` execute an ame to the professional services i 26. agreement with Carollo.En riee gi g services inns' p en neerin u port of locating the new , 27 treatment plant at 4100 Lakeville H or, p °, : Y, and _ 28 29 WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of 4pproximately '261.3.3 acres of 30 land in the'4000 block.of Ville Highway for construction.'of the'Water Recycling 31 Facility and development of "the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access 32 Project on September .8, 2003 i1irOugh Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of . .3 1 3, real property described as Sonoma County Assessor's parcel nos. 068 - 010 - 026 and 017- 34 '010 -002; , and, 35 36 ' WHEREAS ;,the,Citypurchased Parcel nos., 068_ 010 -026 and.-017 -010 -002 in February 37 2004; and 38 39 WHEREAS, an,Addendum to -the Water Recycling, Facility. and River Access 40 Improvements.,EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes tol the environmental 41 affects of the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and ' 42 43 WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concludes that the determinations of the Final. EIR an val Project in that none of the Project modifications will have 45 1 . irneactsis�ed new s p ; r substantially increase the severity of previously identified Page .5 of 6 SAwater resources & conservation \WastewateTS901T2�city counci]\August 16 2004\resolution certifying prequalification.doc u r ., r I significant effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines S'ect'ion 2 15.162 which outlines the standards by which.: subsequent EIlZs -are required;. and 3 4 WHEIR,,AS', the.E1R Addendum was publ slied.on April 15, 2004 and was available for 5 publicr 41 the, City of Petaluma City Hall„ Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community 6 Center, Petaluma Senior Center, the Santa Rosa- Junior College, Petaluma campus; 7 and 8 9 WHEREAS;'the City Council adopted..Resolution No.. 2004 -101 N.C.S. Re- certifying- 10 Water Recycling Facility, and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental 11 Impact Report Addendum, wand Adopting Findings and Statement of Overriding 12 Considerations, and Adopting Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program: 13 14. WHEREAS the City Council adopted Resolutiois No. 2004 -092 N.C.S. Authorizing`the 15 Cit,Manager to execute asP-rofess onal Services;Agreement with The •Covello Group for 16. Construction Management Services Task - 1 and Task 2• for the City bf Petafuina.Ellis' 17' Creek W atei. Recycling Facility Proj ect; 'and 18 - - 19 WHEREAS the Ellis Creek Water Recycling'Facility is a.large, complex public works -20 ' project thatregw" es'techiiicaI expertise and specialization; and .21 22 WHEREAS, the prequalification process helps provide a qualified and safe contractor 23 for the prof ect;' S 24 25 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the City Council that: 26 27 1. 'The above recitals are' -true and.correct and hereby-declared to be findings of the 28 City Council of the City of Petaluma. 29 2: 'The City Management is hereby authorized -to obtain Gendtal Contractor and 30 Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification•forthe City of Petaluma Ellis Creek 31 Water Recycling,Facil ty Project: 32 - 3. Theresokition shall become effective immediately: 33 4. All portions of this resolution are severable. •Should any individual component of 34 this resolution be' adjudged 'to be invalid and unenforceable by, a body of 35 competent jurisdiction; then the remaining resolution portions shall be and 36 continue.in full force exceptas'to',those resolution portion s that have 37 been adjudged invalid. The. City Council of the City of Petaluma herebr eclares 38 that`it• would, have adopted this resolution: and each section,, subsection, clause; 39 sentence phrase and other porttion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one >or more 40 section subsection, clause sentence, plirase or-Other portion maybe held- invalid.or 41 unconstitutional: • Page , 6 of 6 S:\waterresources,& con servation\ Wastewater \90]2lcity counciRAugust 16 2004\resolution c6rtifyingprequalification'Acic;