Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2005-029 N.C.S. 02/28/2005 lZeso~ution IVo.2005-029j~,~,s, of the City of Petaluma, California RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at 950 Hopper Street; and, WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing- regulatory requirements, various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through the 1960s; and, WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway to provide additional treatment capacity; and, WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment .facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community were determined to be too costly, the City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; and, WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 years) a new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107 N.C.S.); and, WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the California Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; and, WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that . the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; and, WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU; and, WHEREAS,. on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared. by Ernst and Young, the City Council adopted Resoluton~No. 94-1.56 N.C.S., which directed that the Service Agreement Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment facility; and, WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163 N.C.S., which certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164 N.C.S., which approved the Resolution No. 2005-029 N.C.S. project, and Resolution No. 96-165 N.C.S., which approved and authorized issuance of the Request For Proposal; and, WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor teams; and, WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; and, WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 1997, November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 1997; and, 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.; and, WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11 N.C.S., which selected MUW for contract negotiations; and, WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved preparation of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188 N.C.S., which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among others: ? Risk of Change Required ®ver 30-Year Contract Term. Changes in the City's needs may occur during the 30-year life of the contract. The City is at a disadvantage by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the facility's capacity.. ? Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract term would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be fixed. in the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of the exercise of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having to pay for part of the plant twice. ? Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the design process. ? Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 5.2.4 would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the City) at the Project Site. Resolution No. 2005-029 N.C.S. Page 2 ? Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations between the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other critical issues could not be agreed upon. WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189 N.C.S., which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions asked by the City's independent wastewater professionals; and, WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater treatment facility); and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-66 N.C.S. 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; and, WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the alternatives on September 5, 2000; and, 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; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 N.C.S. 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; and, WIiEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 N.C.S. 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; and, 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; and, Resolution No. 2005-029 N.C.S. Page 3 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-012 N.C.S. 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; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State Clearinghouse and to all responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the project and made it available for public review; and, 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; and, WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and closed May 29, 2002; and, 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; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to consider the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, after due consideration,. the Petaluma City Council adopted Resolution 2002-135 N.C.S. 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 Resolution No. 2005-029 N.C.S. Page 4 0680-010-025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4104 Lakeville Highway (APN 068-010-026, and 017-170-002); and, WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November 2002; and, WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further evaluation; and, 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 N.C.S. 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, 2403 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, Resolution No. 2005-029 N.C.S. Page 5 WIIEREAS, 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 Center, Petaluma Senior Center, and. the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus; and, WIIEREAS, 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. WIIEREAS, 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 N.C.S. Authorizing General Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor Prequalification for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on August 16, 2004; and, WIIEREAS, 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; NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the Department of Water Resources and Conservation is directed to determine if HGH Electric meets the prequalification requirements and to complete the contract documents for Alternative 1A -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. Resolution No. 2005-029 N.C.S. Page 6 Electrical Contractors • Mass Electric • Contract Costa Electric • HGH Electric • Blocka Construction • Con J. Franke Electric BE IT FURTI~ER RES®LVED by the City Council that: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City Council of the City of Petaluma. 2. The resolution shall become effective immediately. 3. All portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting form th on the day of .......~~~?TuarY................................, 2005., by the following vote: City Attorney AYES: Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt NOES: None ABSENT: Vicnne Mayor Harris l.~ ATTEST: ~ City Clerk ayor Council File Res. Nn.......2~~5r.Q2~._._...N.C.S.