Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-23 PacketCITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Adjourned Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 August 23,1995 4:30 p.m. . , . Roll Call AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If you have a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Cancellation of Previous Awarded Contract and Approval of Sodium Hydroxide Bid for the Water Treatment Plant and Award to Jones Chemical in the Amount of $334.25 4. U-NF~IS~D BUSINESS a. Award of Contract for Hydroseeding at the Ukiah Solid Waste Site 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Award of Contract to Conduct a Feasibility Study for VOC Remediation at the Ukiah Solid Waste Site b. Consideration of Banner Pole System for State Street and Award of Bid to Wipf Construction for an Amount Not to Exceed $2,000, for Installation of Footings ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. M.E.M.O.R.A.N.D.U.M DATE: TO: FROM: August 18, 1995 Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer REQUEST FOR SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF AWARDING LANDFILL VOC FEASIBILITY STUDY TO CONSULTANT As you are aware, we are under the "gun" to (1) conduct an Engineering Feasibility Study for VOC Remediation, (2) design the preferred or recommended remediation system, (3) construct the system, and (4) perform other studies including the feasibility of leachate extraction from the landfill mass and the lining of the leachate holding ponds all prior to the rain season of 1996 pursuant to directives from Regional Water Quality Control Board and our new waste discharge requirements for the Landfill. Pursuant to the attached correspondence from Regional Water Quality, I responded by submitting a proposed schedule, a copy of which is attached. Given my workload and the effort needed to produce a detailed RFP, it was necessary that I revise the schedule to change the proposal due date from July 31 to August 11, 1995. As you will note on Page 1 of the schedule, I had assigned August 23, 1995 as the date of award by City Council. Its obvious to me now that I had miscounted the third Wednesday of the month for the second City Council meeting in August. As acknowledged in the RFP, the schedule is very condensed, however, all consultants who have submitted proposals in response to the RFP have confirmed their ability to complete the study reports by December 14, 1995 and to present to the final report to City Council on December 20, 1995. Ten (10) proposals were submitted by the deadline of August 11, 1995, reviewed Saturday, August 12, and references called Monday, August 14th. Consultants will be notified on Tuesday, August 15th of the consultant short list for participation in an oral interview to be conducted on Thursday, August 17, 1995. Because time is of the essence, I respectfully request that this request for a special City Council meeting to be held on August 23, 1995, for the purpose of awarding the Feasibility Study be presented to City Council as an emergency item for their consideration during the meeting of August 16, 1995. RHK:kk R:I~PW MROUGH.12 STA [ E OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD NORTH COAST REGION 5550 SKYLANE BLVD. SUITE A SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 PHONE: (707) 576-2220 June 2, 1995 PETE WILSON, Ooverno, Mr. Rick Kennedy, Director Department of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Semi nary Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mr. Kennedy' Subject- Ukiah Landfill This letter follows our conversation on May 31, 1995 regarding compliance with time schedules contained in Regional Water Board Order No. 94-123, Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Ukiah landfill. Order No. 94-123, Provision D.l.b., requires that the City complete engineering design for facilities necessary to abate groundwater contamination in the alluvial aquifer along the toe of the landfill by June 1, 1995. During our conversation you indicated that the Request for Proposals (RFP) has not yet gone out for this work. This constitutes a violation of Order No. 94-123. We further anticipate that it will not be possible for the City to meet the August 1, 1995 date for implementing construction of facilities required under Provision D.l.c. In addition, Provision D.l.d. requires completion of an investigation of extradting leachate from the landfill by August 1, 1995. At this time it is necessary for the City of Ukiah to proceed forthwith to return to compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements to avoid formal enforcement action by the Regional Water Board. Please submit a proposed schedule for completing the work specified in Provision D.1. of Order No. 94-123 by June 19, 1995. The schedule must be of sufficient detail to demonstrate that construction of engineered control facilities can be accomplished during the summer months of 1996. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerel~ David S. Evans Associate Water Resource Control Engineer DSE' lmf/ukenf.doc cc' Dave Koppel, Mendocino County Health Department Laura Niles, CIWMB Gilbert Ashoff, Vichy Springs Resort .Jste Discharge Requirements Jr'der No. 94-123 -10- De . . o PROVISIONS The discharger shall implement corrective action measures in accordance with the time schedule outlined below: a o By June 1, 1995, the discharger shall have completed the extent of contamination investigation for the benzene groundwater problem below the entrance to the landfill. The discharger shall be relieved of this responsibility if it is demonstrated that the benzene and other fuel constituents detected in local groundwater is not the result of releases from the landfill. bo C° By June 1, 1995, the discharger shall complete the engineering design for facilities to abate groundwater contamination in the alluvial aquifer along the toe,of the landfill. The design shall contain a complete cost estimate as necessary to budget for constructing required facilities during the 1995 to 1996 fiscal year. By August 1, 1995, the discharger shall implement construction of facilities to abate groundwater contamination in the alluvial aquifer along the landfill toe. Construction of required facilities shall be complete and fully' operational by July 1, 1996. d, By August 1, 1995, complete investigation of extracting leachate from the 1 andfi 11. The discharger shall submit to the Regional Board construction specifications and a Construction Quality Assurance Plan for all construction a~tivities not covered by the approved Preliminary Closure Plan 45 days prior to commencing construction. Annually, prior to August 1, the discharger shall submit a report which delineates any needed drainage and erosion control work to prepare the site for winter rains. Annually, beginning March 30, 1995, the discharger shall submit an operations plan to the Regional Board consisting, in part, of the fol lowing information' a o Short term cell sequencing, design and location and soil borrow locations for the upcoming year. bo Location of disposal cells that will reach final grade and receive final cover during the upcoming year. C o d o Interim erosion control, drainage and grading plans for the upcoming year. Any other activities that may affect operations at the site. 300 UKI^H, CA 95482-5400 · AL)MIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFELY 463-~242/6274 · · FAX It 707/463-6204 June 16, 1995 David Evans, Associate Engineer REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD North Coast Region 5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A Santa Rosa, California 95403 RE: UKIAH LANDFILL - SCHEDULE FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES - PROVISION D.I OF ORDER NO. 94-123 Dear Mr. Evans: As you have requested, I am submitting the enclosed schedule which outlines the various work tasks and completion dates related to the construction of facilities which will facilitate the abatement of VOC contamination of groundwater at the northwest corner of the landfill. It is our intention that the Feasibility Study and Report will include the review of current technologies for groundwater cleanup applicable to our situation, the sizing and lining of the leachate recovery ponds and the feasibility of extracting leachate from the landfill. For the record, I wish to restate the reason why the City has not been successful in implementing those tasks outlined in Paragraphs b, c and d of Provision D. 1 this fiscal year. It ali boils down to the lack of money. Last year the City increased the tipping fees to generate revenue needed to offset additional costs caused by increased regulation, the need to mitigate VOC impact, investigate benzene impacted area, install gas monitoring wells, enlarge the east sedimentation basin, and set asides for closure and postclosure. We are currently faced with a shortfall of approxi~nately $250,000 from anticipated revenue which we believe is attributable to a loss of waste stream by reason of the increase in tipping fees and waste stream diversion mandates. Any business person can confirm that a decrease in sales will usually occur with an increase in co~nmodity prices. Increasing our tipping fee again would be counter productive. '~(/e Are Here To Serve" Mr. Dave Evans June 16, 1995 Page 2 The required project, including study, engineering and construction has been re-budgeted for Fiscal Year 1995/96. Other non-mandated projects have been placed on hold (raise power lines) and a pledge of revenue financial assurance mechanism for postclosure maintenance is being implemented in order to finance the project. We are doing the best we can. Please call me should you have comments concerning my schedule. Sincerely, irector of Public Works/City Engfneer RIIK:kk R: I ~ANDFII2JLE~AH$.4 EXHIBIT "B" PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING WORK SPECIFIED IN PROVISIONS D.1 OF WDR 94-123, PARAGRAPHS b THROUGH d 2. , . . 7~ o . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT Prepare and issue R.F.P. Response period to R.F.P. Due date for Proposals Review Consultants Proposals and conduct background checks Conduct Consultant Interviews Make recommendation of Award City Council to award Consultant Contract Execute Consultant Agreement Consultant Performs work of Contract (90 days) Draft Study/Report delivered to City City reviews Draft Draft revisions and preparation of Final Report Final Report to City Council for adoption and selection of preferred corrective system Final Report to North Coast R.W.Q.C.B. DA_ TIE June 19 - June 30, 1995 July 3 - July 31, 1995 Aug 12- Aug 14, 1995 August 16, 1995 · August 18, 1995 August 23, 1995 Aug 24 - Aug 31, 1995 Sept 1 - Nov 29, 1995 November 29, 1995 Nov 30 - Dec 6, 1995 Dec 7 - Dec 14, 1995 December 20, 1995 December 21, 1995 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING WORK SPECIFIED IN PROVISIONS D.1 OF WDR 94-123, PARAGRAPHS b THROUGH d Ae le e e e e 8, e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT '. Prepare and issue R.F.P. R~ponse period to R.F.P. Due date for Proposals Review Consultants Proposals and conduct background che~ks Conduct Consultant Interviews Make recommendation of Award City Council to award Contract Execute Consultant Agreement Consultant Performs work of Contract (90 days) Draft Study/Report delivered to City City reviews Draft Draft revisions and preparation of Final Report Final Report to City Council for adoption and selection of preferred corrective system Final Report to North Coast R.W.Q.C.B. DATE June 19 - June 30, 1995 July 3 - July 31, 1995 July 31, 1995 Aug I -Aug'9, 1995 Aug 10- Aug 16, 1995 August 17, 1995 August 23, 1995 Aug 24 - Aug 31, 1995 Sept 1 - Nov 29, 1995 November 29, 1995 Nov 30 - Dec 6, 1995 Dee 7 - Dee 14, 1995 December 20, 1995 December 21, 1995 Be le e 3e 4, Se e 7~ ge 9, 10. 11. ENGINEERING CONTRACT Issue Engineering R.F.P. Response period to R.F.P. Due date for Engineering Proposal Review Engineering proposals and conduct background check Conduct Consultant interviews Make recommendation for award City Council to award contract Execute Consultant agregment Consultant prepares Engineering Drawings and contract documents (45 days) City Staff reviews Engineering plans and Consultant documents Revisions and production of contract documents DATE December 26, 1995 Jan 1 -Jan 19, 1996 January 19, 1996 Jan 22 - Jan 26, 1996 Jan 29 - Jan 31, 1996 February 1, 1996 February 7, 1996 Feb 8 - Feb 14, 1996 Feb 14 - March 29, 1996 April 1 - April 5, 1996 ,April 8 - April 16, 1996 Ce 2, 3, Se , CONSTRUCTION OF MITIGATION SYSTEM Request for Bids (3 weeks) Bid Opening Recommendation to City Council City Council awards contract Contract documents executed Contractor performs work of the Contract (4 months) April 17- May 8, 1996 May 8, 1996 May 9, 1996 May 15, 1996 May 16 - May 30, 1996 May 30- October 1, 1996 z z z m =- =. ee =' g '. Z Z, ITl 23, 1995 Re: City investment nortfolio Dear L,.,~,yor .'.:-nd. Coun:;ilmember::, I re~o-r~t I ::ill be unab!,~ to ~ttend t~ia evening'~ co,~cii m~etin~s :o I a'm t~.king tbi: oo:?ortunity to ::r'ovide you v:ith my vze,>':oo int. ~q ~-~ nut ~: .: 1-1 , .._ ,.. -- ..j , ) '..'. m~ ',., =' '-' ..... :___~iddie couz',-~,,~. ....of ....-t~',. Pir;:.,t ~n:ro~-ch t~ n~ t :.o!d .... %eve tment t ....... t you no',,' cont'=m: r:t;bst:~nci¢':i -!o¢_':.. :5u:::::::;..% t}::: % the-- bu: -r,-,ll ' ........ i'] ] : On~,,..'.,',-k ('}ii"~ ,':'. :.liL. 'h 'L'S .... ;~ %.2}.~ il iFC')¥[ 07:~,-' i,N.:' ]_2.": ' '.:'" . i .,. .... .: -._toe _l' _3_ :_-~ L _::_ b.. . -5::/ ~--_ L ' ' -% -:] ...... - ' ' - -:- : '- : -- -: .... 4 ..... - -, .... ~ ' t -'- ~ ........... , ......... : ~ - . . : '. ~, . ..... ....... .... .... '" ,:..; -"c;- -: -:-.c . ---': u' '-,.'", :..:, :_- i:,? -::: --,-- .............. ,-: .....: .....F -:3' '" -4 :~".' ,-.. :-" .... 4-t-.- . .- :,-.-~:r-.~. '~.: ....: ..... -'-- -:--:,. -: ..... F .... ......... %.,-) ~r .... =' ",. '-J -t fit ::zot: :-',,- -,'>v_~ ! :',,:,'e !a:::':_i )il!. __ i? :r::~ : '~:' :'" J_).l:'" -~0 C:.t-~ yO:l" I of :"e ' ~ " -0:'''-'~ r: m~ ~!OU.:/es '"" '" -"~. .... ~ '- ' "~ "" ~._7 .... ~--' in tl~eir %ntcrest to ::'void th~ v,:u,, _, C:: v.'nr'k.., OL:.t. It i;." e. ou~ you c~n then ~::do:t the r~co~ona~d cour:,e ~-F ~'ct~on ~'!~:r2.: /:.rOU fOP con:_:ic}er'in:~',' 'b?'.i.'~ l. ett~.~r. P. ~" 0 5:':~- 2 Uki:.h, .,. ., .. _ mmmm League of California Cities August 21, 1995 To: All City Managers Re: AB 49 XX (Granhmd) Local Agency Formation Commission Funding URGENTI Contact all Assembly Members and Urge a NO vote on A~ -- County Bill Would Require Cities to Pay for Couniy LAFCO Staff AB_4.9.~x (Oranlund) would require all cities to pay for LAFCO s!.afling. Most LAFCOs are currently staffed by county employees. Many cities have had problems getting even h.a.uded treatment for mmexations and other LAFCO approvals, For example, com~ty-dom, inated LAFCOs have witheld mmexation approvals unless the County recieves most or all of fi~ture property and sales tax revenues. AB__~ would have cities pay for the privilege of being held hostage by counties. The League believes critical LAFCO reforms are needed before cities should be forced to pay tbr these county domlnated proceedings. Cities shottld hnmedtately contact their Assetnbly Members and urge them to VOTE NO on AB 49xx. unless League amendments are taken. The amenthnents include: City representation on the LAFCO should bo increased to reflect the proportion of residents whtch live in incorporated areas. For example, if 2/3 of a county's residents live in incorporated cities, 2/.3 of LAFCO' members should represent cittes. Atmexation reve.nue pass through agreement provisions in statute should guarantee that cities receive no less than their proportionate share of AB 8 properly tax revem~es. · County development should be barred within a city's sphere of influence unless the city council approves it, ' ' WARNING: This bill was introduced in the Second Extraordinm-y Session, Therefore this bill does not need to meet the normal legislative notice and heating requirements. It is crucial to immediately contact your representatives and urge tl.~eir NO votes on Alt 49xx. CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE BOX 1519. LAFAYETTE. CA 94549 HEADQUARTERS 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO'), SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE ~.xf ~ P~trick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP Director, San Francisco CFP Society .Treasurer, Cit~ of Ukiah Safety Of Investment First OFFICE OF TREASURER 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-6223 FAX (707) 463-6204 E-mail: ukiahcfp~pacific, net Management With Integrity August 18, 1995 Ukiah City Council & City Manager 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mayor Schneiter; Members of City Council and City Manager: As you well know, we have received the recommendations from Chandler Liquid Assets regarding which direction the City of Uldah should take with its current investment portfolio. I would like to take the opportunity at this point to address the following issues: (1) my recommendations, taking into consideration the Chandler report and an evaluation I solicited from Mike Kennedy, a Stein Roe & Famham Asset Manager, (2) the need for and the use of an outside fee only investment advisor and (3) my thoughts and input regarding the office of City Treasurer. 1. During the course of evaluating the City's investment portfolio, I have had extensive conversations with many asset managers and investment advisors. During this period I asked Mike Kennedy, a Stein Roe & Famham asset manager, to evaluate our portfolio. Stein Roe & Famham is the investment management firm that owns and manages all Stein Roe mutual funds. Below is his report. 1 Page 1 of 5 Committed To Serving The Citizens Of Ukiah Here are my thoughts on the City of Ukiah's portfolio: The portfolio has an effective duration of approximately 20 (excluding the approximately 5% invested in Kemper GNMA Trusts which I could not get much information on). Given that the majority of the portfolio is invested in inverse floaters tied to' 1 month LIBOR, the portfolio is very sensitive to changes in short term interest rates. At current market prices, the portfolio has a yield of approximately 12.5 %. · The portfolio is not well diversified. Approximately 75% of the portfolio is invested in inverse floaters. Short-term interest rates have risen sharply since the City of Ukiah purchased the inverse floaters. Therefore, the portfolio has substantial unrealized losses. Unless short-term interest rates decline 200-250 b.p. (which we believe is unlikely over the next 12 months), the portfolio's value is likely to remain substantially below cost. Assuming the City wants to maintain a fairly short portfolio, most of the corporate bond holdings are good investments. The one exception is Salomon Inc. which continues to have problems. We don't think Salomon is going out of business but we are monitoring the situation very closely. Unless the City wants a very long portfolio and subject to loss constraints, I would recommend selling the inverse floaters and investing in other short and intermediate term investments. I have enclosed a copy of the portfolio analysis I performed on the City's portfolio using a Capital Management Sciences sol, are package. The first page is a summary of the portfolio. The second page shows the individual securities along with estimated prices. The market for inverse floaters is very illiquid (especially for the size securities the City owns) and the prices used in the analysis are very rough estimates. Actual prices could differ by 10% or more. In addition to the above report from Mike Kennedy, I have preparcd and enclosed in this report a "Summary Comparison Chart of Advisor Recommendations" for use as a discussion piece Page 2 of 5 Committed To Serving The Citizens Of Ukiah and for your consideration. With only one exception, you can see by reviewing the chart that I am in full agreement with Kay Chandler's recommendations. I think the Shearson Lehman corporate bond should be held to maturity because of its quality and short duration. Even though I have stated my position, I would be remise if I didn't share with you my other thoughts. Mv experience and knowledge tell me that the portfolio, from the point of view of risk reduction and rate-of- return, would be better off following the recommendations of Mike Kennedy. His position is essentially to sell all the inverse floater investments along with the Salomon corporate bond and reinvest these funds in short and intermediate fixed income securities. His position can not be substantiated without a great deal of expensive and time delaying analysis. Although I trust the analysis would support this position, the conclusions would not be so unambiguous as to fully satisfy ones concern entirely. Further, I am not certain the risk in delaying would be fully offset by any possible gain achieved from Mike's recommendations. Lastly, implementing Mike's recommendations would be much more politically painful. Selling the recommended investments will cause a realized loss of approximately $1,455,940 as opposed to $2,072,599 that would arise from implementing Mike Kennedy's recommendations. In conclusion, I agree with Kay Chandler's recommendations that we move swiffiy and that we should seek legal r~medy from the brokerage houses that sold the City of Ukiah mortgage-backed derivatives, inappropriately. 2. To begin with, there is no question in my mind that the City of Ukiah should employee the assistance of a professional fee only investment advisor in managing its investment portfolio. Besides the portfolio evaluation and reporting capabilities provided by a professional advisor, this person or group should be able to create added value in the portfolio while simultaneously reducing associated risk. I would expect, after the problems with our current portfolio are dealt with, that a professional advisor would be able to produce a 50 to 75 basis point higher return on the portfolio then that of a non-professional ( i.e. most Treasurers and Finance Directors). Using the City of Ukiah's current portfolio, this would represent a $100,000 to $150,000 annual premium. Having said this, the real questions are who and when? As an aid in this discussion, I have enclosed an "Investment Advisory Comparison Table" for your use. Because Chandler Liquid Assets and COYNE ASSOCIATES (my company) are finns that provide very similar ser'/ices, I have used them for comparative purposes in the enclosed table. Back to the real questions. In my opinion, the when is a more urgent question then the who. Page 3 of 5 Committed To Serving The Citizens Of Ukiah Currently, I am providing the City of Ukiah, at no cost, almost all of the services that a professional investment advisor would provide. I have enclosed copies of reports that I provide to City Management and the Finance Director that are in addition to the monthly "investment portfolio statement" the council receives. As my tenure progresses, I will begin adding the remaining services as we move away from the investment liquidation phase toward the repositioning phase. The repositioning phase involves the design and implementation of a portfolio utilizing modem portfolio management techniques. Unless the City feels that an outside investment advisor firm can do better than I can, I would recommend that the City continue to use my skills and services for free until the end of my term. This gets to the question of when. If you accept my recommendation, then the when would be at the end of my term as Treasurer (November 1996). There was some question as to who could best implement the sale of the City's assets. The answer is simple and straight forward. The bigger the firm and the more traders the firm has, the more likely the firm will get the best price in the market for the sale of an investment asset. Charles Schwab is one of the biggest brokerage firms in the world with offices in every major region of the world. As a fee only institutional advisor, I conduct all my trades (commission free) with the Institutional Group at Schwab. I am confident that Schwab traders can get the best possible price for the City's assets. 3. In my opinion, the real failure surrounding the City's current investment situation was oversight. The failure had nothing to do with whether the Treasurer was appointed or elected. This, I'm afraid, is a pure political issue and has nothing to do with how the Treasurer can best manage the City's investment portfolio. Also, Finance Directors and Treasurers are generally ill equipped to manage an investment portfolio well. There is a large misconception that people trained in accounting know investment finance and vice a versa. This could not be further from the truth. These are two entirely different disciplines and each has a very different mind-set from the other. My concern is that there are some among you who thinks maybe the Finance Director can take over the Treasurer's Office completely, thereby eliminating the need for a Treasurer and an outside professional investment advisor. This would be an unfortunate move. I think the outside advisor is a good decision under any circumstance. They can reduce investment risk and add value to the portfolio--net of their fees. I will have, when I complete the first draft of the new Investment Page 4 of 5 Committed To Serving The Citizens Of Ukiah Policy Statement in the next couple weeks, more to offer regarding what I believe to be the best arrangement for managing the City's investments properly. If you should have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. PC:lcd City Manager Director of Finance Patrick Coyne, CFP City Treasurer Page 5 of 5 Committed To Serving The Citizens Of Ukiah o 0 o o o o 1.0 IZ) ~ IZ~ LO t.O 0 0 0 0 0 ,,, o~o o o ~o >- )- >- ~ >- >. Z Z Z o o 8 o° 8 o° 1 I o° oo o 8 8~ g ~ · u.I 08/18/95 City of Ukiah City of Ukiah COYNEASSOCIATES Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP 514 South School Street, Suite 105 Ukiah, CA 95482 707-462-9053 *** Account Reconciliation Report *** FrQm 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 ACCT$ : 23385704 Date 06/30/95 07/06/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/17/95 07/18/95 07/18/95 07/19/95 07/19/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/27/95 07/27/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 Description S~ GOVT. SEC. FUND Beginning Balance Deposit Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from Interest from FORD M3TOR CRED 5.625%99 FEDL HC~E LOAN 8.736%24 FEDL HC~E LOAN 10.125%24 FEDL HC~E LOAN 4.736%97 FEDL HC~E LOAN 4.5643%07 FEDL HC~E LOAN 2.9901%00 FEDL HM LN MTG 6. 105%00 FEDL HC~E LOAN 9.4532%08 FEDL HC~E LOAN 9.231%23 FEDL HQME LQAN FRN 2022 FEDL HQME LOAN 5.692%97 FEDL HC~E LOAN 4.4571%08 FEDL HM I/4 Prig FLT 1997 FEDL HC~E LOAN Dividend from S~GOVT. SEC. FUND Expense ;FEE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT Withdrawal Expense ;FEE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT Withdrawal Interest from FEDLNATLMTG 5.432%23 Interest from FEDL HC~E LOAN 8.065%23 Interest from FEDNATLMTGASSN 8%21 Interest from FEDLNATLMTG 8.40%21 Interest from FEDLNTLMTGASN 8.75%21 Expense ;FEE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT Withdrawal Return of principal from KEMPER GOVT TR 37 Return of principal from KEMPERGOVT TR 40 Return of principal from KEMPERGOVT TR 39 Interest frQmKEMPERGOVTTR 37 Interest from KEMPERGOVT TR 40 Return of principal from KEMPERGOVTTR 22 Return of principal from KEMPERGOVT TR 27 Interest frQmKEMPERGOVTTR 22 Interest frQmKEMPERGOVTTR 27 Interest from KEMPERGOVTTR 39 Amount 4.26 14,062.50 11,110.68 3,388.00 3,255.30 2,919.62 2,615.08 2,337.50 2,123.61 1,927.89 1,875.27 1,704.95 1,500.00 1,197.41 1,114.53 12,490.00 (15.00) (500,000.00) (15.00) (600,000.00) 8,540.00 2,392.04 920.00 413.00 54.50 (15.00) (500,000,00) 2,035.19 1,767.96 1,127.93 856.92 851.11 738.52 720.33 480.19 380.55 362.92 Balance 2,711,582.72 2,711,586.98 2,762,719.32 2,775,209.32 2,275,194.32 1,675,179.32 1,687,498.86 1,187,483.86 1,196,805.48 08/18/95 City of Ukiah *** Account Reconciliation Report *** Fr~m 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 23385704 Page 2 Date Description SChSq~ GOVT. SEC. FUND 08/01/95 CGS Ending Balance Amount Balance 1,196,805.48 08/i8/95 COYNE ASSOCIATES Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP 514 South School Street, Suite 105 Ukiah, CA 95482 707-462-9053 *** Cash Ledger *** Range: 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 City of Ukiah ACCT~ : 23385704 City of Ukiah Activity Date Description Item 06/30/95 Interest 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Return of Principal 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Interest 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Return of Principal 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Interest 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Return of Principal 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Interest 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Return of Principal 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Interest 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 06/30/95 Return of Principal 06/30/95 Deposit CGS 07/06/95 Capital Flow 07/06/95 Deposit CGS 07/15/95 Interest 07/15/95 Deposit CGS 07/15/95 Interest 07/15/95 Deposit CGS 07/15/95 Interest / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / o.oo0% / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / 0.o00% / / o.o00% / / 0.000% FEDL HC~E LOAN 8.73 02/15/2024 8. 736% FORD NK/fOR CRED 5.62 01/15/1999 5. 625% FEDL HM LN MTG FLT 07/15/1997 0.000% Amount 486.27 -486.27 1173.12 -1173.12 387.35 -387.35 650.11 -650.11 861.38 -861.38 2240.49 -2240.49 370.76 -370.76 575.72 -575.72 864.95 -864.95 1114.06 -1114.06 4.26 -4.26 11110.68 -11110.68 14062.50 -14062.50 1197.41 08/18/95 *** Cash Ledger *** City of Ukiah Range: 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 ACC~ : 23385704 Date Activity Description Item 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/15/95 07/17/95 07/17/95 07/18/95 07/18/95 07/18/95 07/18/95 07/19/95 07/19/95 07/19/95 07/19/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Dividend Deposit CGS Expense Withdrawal CGS Capital Flow Withdrawal CGS Expense Withdrawal CGS Capital Flow Withdrawal CGS Interest Deposit CGS FEDL HC~E LOAN 5.69 06/15/1997 5. 692% FEDL HC~4E LOAN 4.73 12/15/1997 4.736% FEDL HC~E LOAN FRN 12/15/2022 0.000% FEDL HC~E LOAN 2.990 09/15/2000 2.990% FEDL HC~E I/DAN 03/25/1999 0.000% FEDL HC~E LOAN 9.453 08/15/2008 9.453% FEDL HM LN MTG 6.10 10/15/2000 6. 105% FEDL HC~E I/DAN 9.23 11/15/2023 9.231% FEDL HOME LOAN 4.564 11/15/2007 4.564% FEDL HOME IZ1AN 4.457 12/15/2008 4.457% FEDL HC~E LOAN 10.12 02/15/2024 10.125% ; FEE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT FEDL NTL FfI~ ASN 8.7 01/25/2021 8.750% Page 2 Amount -1197.41 1704.95 -1704.95 3255.30 -3255.30 1875.27 -1875.27 2615.08 -2615.08 1114.53 -1114.53 2123.61 -2123.61 2337.50 -2337.50 1927.89 -1927.89 2919.62 -2919.62 1500.00 -1500.00 3388.00 -3388.00 12490.00 -12490.00 -15.00 15.00 -500000.00 500000.00 -15.00 15.00 -600000.00 600000.00 54.50 -54.50 08/18/95 Page 3 *** Cash Ledger *** Range: 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 City of Ukiah ACCT% : 23385704 Date Activity Description Item 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/25/95 07/27/95 07/27/95 07/27/95 07/27/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 07/31/95 Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Interest Expense Withdrawal CGS Capital Flow Withdrawal CGS Interest Deposit CGS Return of Principal Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Return of Principal Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Return of Principal Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Return of Principal Deposit CGS Interest Deposit CGS Return of Principal Deposit CGS FEDL NATL MTG 8.4 01/25/2021 8.400% 12/25/2021 8.000% FEDL NATL MTG 5.43 02/25/2023 5.432% FEDL HC~E LOAN 8.06 08/25/2023 8.065% / / o.0o0% / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / 0.000% / / o.0o0% / / o.oo0% / / 0.000% Amount 413.00 -413.00 920.00 -920.00 8540.00 -8540.00 2392.04 -2392.04 -15.00 15.00 -500000.00 500000.00 480.19 -480.19 738.52 -738.52 380.55 -380.55 720.33 -720.33 856.92 -856.92 2035.19 -2035.19 362.92 -362.92 1127.93 -1127.93 851.11 -851.11 1767.96 -1767.96 08/18/95 COYNE ASSOCIATES Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP 514 South School Street, Suite 105 Ukiah, CA 95482 707-462-9053 Transaction Ledger City of Ukiah ACCT# : 23385704 City of Ukiah Trade / Settle Activity Description 06/30/95 Return of Princi~l KEMPER GOVT TR 39 / / 0.000% 06/30/95 Return of Principal KEMPER GOVT TR 22 / / 0.000% 06/30/95 Return of Principal KEMPER GOVT TR 37 / / O. 000% 06/30/95 Return of Principal KEMPER GOVT TR 27 / / O. 000% 06/30/95 Return of Principal KEMPER GOVT TR 40 / / O. 000% 06/30/95 Interest KEMPER GOVT TR 39 06/30/95 Interest KEMPER GOVT TR 22 06/30/95 Interest KEMPER GOVT TR 37 06/30/95 Interest KEMPER GOVT TR 27 Trade Date From 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 Quantity 575.72 Accrued Fee / Amount Paid/Recvd Broker 1173.12 2240.49 650.11 1114.06 370.76 486.27 861.38 387.35 Total From/To 575.72 CGS 1173.12 CGS 2240.49 CGS 650.11 CGS 1114.06 CGS 370.76 CGS 486.27 CGS 861.38 CGS 387.35 CGS 06/30/95 Interest KEMPER GOVT TR 40 864.95 864.95 CGS 07/06/95 Capital Flow Prior Portfolio Value: 07/06/95 Deposit O. O0 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 8.736%24 02/15/24 8.736% 4.26 11110.68 4.26 CGS 11110.68 £GS 08/18/95 Page 2 ir** Transaction Ledger ,ink City of Ukiah ACCT# : 23385704 Trade Date From 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 Trade / Settle Activity 07/15/95 Interest Description FORD MOTOR CRED 5.625%99 01/15/99 5.625% Quantity Accrued Amount Paid/Recvd 14062.50 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HM LN MTG 6.105%00 10/15/00 6.105% 2337.50 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 10.125%24 02/15/24 10.125% 3388. O0 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 9.4532%08 08/15/08 9.453% 2123.61 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN FRN 2022 12/15/22 0.000% 1875.27 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 9.231%23 11/15/23 9.231% 1927.89 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 2.9901%00 09/15/00 2.990% 2615.08 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 4.5643%07 11/15/07 4.564% 2919.62 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 4.4571%08 12/15/08 4.457% 1500.00 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 5.692%97 06/15/97 5.692% 1704.95 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 4.736%97 12/15/97 4.736% 3255.30 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HOME LOAN 03/25/99 0.000% 1114.53 07/15/95 Interest FEDL HM LN MTG FLT 1997 07/15/97 0.000% 1197.41 07/17/95 Dividend SCHWAB GOVT. SEC. FUND 07/18/95 Capital Flow Prior Portfolio Value: 07/18/95 Withdrawal 12490. O0 Fee / Broker Total From/To ......... 14062.50 CGS 2337.50 CGS 3388.00 CGS 2123.61 CGS 1875.27 CGS 1927.89 CGS 2615.08 CGS 2919.62 CGS 1500.00 CGS 1704.95 CGS 3255.30 CGS 1114.53 CGS 1197.41CGS 12490.00 CGS -500000. O0 C6S 08/18/9~ Transaction Ledger City of Ukiah ACCT# : 23385704 Trade / Settle Activity 07/18/95 Expense 07/19/95 Capital Flow Prior Portfolio Value: 07/19/95 Withdrawal 07/19/95 Expense 07/25/95 Interest 07/25/95 Interest 07/25/95 Interest 07/25/95 Interest 07/25/95 Interest 07/27/95 Capital Flow Prior Portfolio Value: 07/27/95 Withdrawal ; 07/27/95 Expense 07/31/95 Return of Principal 07/31/95 Return of Principal 07/31/95 Return of Principal 07/31/95 Return of Principal 07/31/95 Return of Principal Description ;FEE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT 0.00 ; ;FEE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT FEDL HOME LOAN 8.065%23 08/25/23 8.065% FEDL NATL MTG 5.432%23 02/25/23 5.432% FEDL NTL MTG ASN 8.75%21 01/25/21 8.750% FED NATL MTG ASSN 8%21 12/25/21 8.000% FEDL NATL MTG 8.40%21 01/25/21 8.400% ;FEE CHARGED TO ACCOUNT KEMPER GOVT TR 39 / / 0.000% KEMPER GOVT TR 22 / / 0.000% KEMPER GOVT TR 37 / / O. 000% KEMPER GOVT TR 27 / / O.0OO% KEMPER GOVT TR 40 / / 0.000% Trade Date From 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 Quantity 1127.93 738.52 2035.19 720.33 1767.96 Accrued Fee / Amount Paid/Recvd Broker -15.00 2392.04 8540.00 54.50 920. O0 413.00 -15.00 Page 3 Total From/To -15.00 CGS -600000.00 CGS -15.00 CGS 2392.04 CGS 8540.00 CGS 54.50 CGS 920.00 CGS 413.00 CGS -500000. O0 CGS -15.00 CGS 1127,93 CGS 738.52 CGS 2035.19 CGS 720.33 CGS 1767.96 CGS 08/18195 *** Transaction Ledger *** Trade Date From 06/30/95 to 08/01/95 Page 4 City of Ukiah ACCT# : 23385704 Trade / Settle Activity 07/31/95 Interest Description KEMPER GOVT TR 39 Quantity Accrued Fee / Amount Paid/Recvd Broker 362.92 Total From/To 362.92 CGS 07/31/95 Interest KEMPER GOVT TR 22 480.19 CGS 07/31/95 Interest 07/31/95 Interest 07/31/95 Interest KEMPER GOVT TR 37 KEMPER GOVT TR 27 KEMPER GOVT TR 40 856.92 380.55 851.11 856.92 CGS 380.55 CGS 851.11 CGS 08/18/95 COYNEASSOCIATES Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP 514 South School Street, Suite 105 Ukiah, CA 95482 707-462-9053 *** Income Report *** City of Ukiah City of Ukiah All Income Year Ending 06/30/1995 ACCT# : 23385704 ** Interest Incc~e ** Name of Payer 12/25/21 8.000% 8%21 Date Received 02/25/95 03/25/95 04/25/95 05/25/95 06/25/95 FEDL HM LN M~G 6. 105%00 10/15/00 6.105% 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HMLNMTG FLT 1997 07/15/97 0.000% 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HC~E LOAN 03/25/99 0.000% 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 Amount 920.00 920.00 920.00 920.00 920.00 4600.00 2222.92 2910.42 2337.50 2337.50 2337.50 2452.08 14597.92 1167.83 1345.30 1197.41 1197.41 1197.41 1226.98 7332.34 1059.90 1387.69 1114.52 1114.52 1114.52 1169.16 08/18/95 *** Income Report *** City of Ukiah Name of Payer All Income Year Ending 06/30/1995 ACCT% : 23385704 Date Received FEDL HC~E LOAN 4.736%97 12/15/97 4.736% 01/15/95 01/15/95 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HC~E LOAN 5.692%97 06/15/97 5.692% 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HC~E LOAN 8.065%23 08/25/23 8.065% 02/25/95 03/25/95 04/25/95 05/25/95 06/25/95 FEDL HGME LOAN 8.736%24 02/15/24 8.736% 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HflME LOAN 9.231%23 11/15/23 9.231% 02/15/95 03/15/95 Page 2 Amount 6960.31 3172.82 -3172.82 2884.38 3705.30 3255.30 3255.30 3255.30 3345.10 19700.68 1659.12 1934.11 1704.95 1704.95 1704.95 1750.78 10458.86 3076.46 2858.46 2703.31 2528.53 2448.01 13614.77 13480.95 12691.32 12165.54 11573.24 11300.37 61211.42 2621.97 2400.90 08/18/95 *** Income Report *** Page 3 All Income Year Ending 06/30/1995 City of Ukiah ACCT~ : 23385704 Name of Payer Date Received 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HC~fl~ LOAN FRN 2022 12/15/22 0.000% 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HC~E~ 10.125%24 02/15/24 10.125% 01/15/95 01/15/95 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HC~4E LOAN 2.9901%00 09/15/00 2.990% 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HC~E I/DAN 4.4571%08 12/15/08 4.457% 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 Amount 2243.56 2066.30 1984.65 11317.38 2112.04 1875.27 1875.27 1875.27 1922.62 9660.47 3811.50 -3811.50 3811.50 3811.50 3388.00 3388.00 3388.00 3388.00 21175.00 2491.72 3231.86 2615.08 2615.08 2615.08 2738.43 16307.25 1857.15 1857.14 1500.00 1500.00 1500.00 1500.00 08/18/95 *** Income Report *** City of Ukiah Name of Payer All Inccme Year Ending 06/30/1995 ACCT~ : 23385704 Date Received FEDL HC~E LOAN 4.5643%07 11/15/07 4.564% 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL HC~E LOAN 9.4532%08 08/15/08 9.453% 01/15/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/15/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 FEDL NATL MTG 8.40%21 01/25/21 8.400% 02/25/95 03/25/95 04/25/95 05/25/95 06/25/95 FEDL NATL MTG 5.432%23 02/25/23 5.432% 01/25/95 02/25/95 03/25/95 04/25/95 05/25/95 06/25/95 FEDL NTL Prig ASN 8.75%21 01/25/21 8.750% 02/25/95 03/25/95 04/25/95 Page 4 Amount 9714.29 2852.66 3254.44 2919.62 2919.62 2919.62 2986.59 17852.55 2657.60 2548.21 2412.97 2316.72 2208.28 2158.33 14302.11 413.00 413.00 413.00 413.00 413.00 2065.00 4526.67 4643.33 5320.00 6346.67 6463.33 7676.67 34976.67 54.50 54.50 54.50 08/18/95 *** Income Report *** City of Ukiah All Income Year Ending 06/30/1995 ACCT# : 23385704 Name of Payer Date Received 05/25/95 06/25/95 I B M CR CORP 5.76%98 11/25/98 5.760% / / 0.000% 03/01/95 02/28/95 03/31/95 04/28/95 05/31/95 06/30/95 / / 0.000% 02/28/95 03/31/95 04/28/95 05/31/95 06/30/95 / / 0.000% 02/28/95 03/31/95 04/28/95 05/31/95 06/30/95 / / 0.000% 02/28/95 03/31/95 04/28/95 05/31/95 06/30/95 Page 5 Amount 54.50 54.50 272.50 7200.00 516.66 510.58 510.58 498.42 486.27 2522.51 403.20 398.67 396.41 391.88 387.35 1977.51 897.09 897.09 888.16 879.24 861.38 4422.96 395.56 387.73 381.20 374.67 370.76 1909.92 08/18/95 Page 6 *** Income Report *** City of Ukiah ACCT~ Name of Payer / / 0.000% ~N INC 6.03%99 02/11/99 6.030% SHEARSON Tk~5~%N 6.25%98 06/29/98 6.250% Total Interest Income Name of Payer S~ GOVT. SEC. FUND Total Dividend Income Total Income All Income Year Ending 06/30/1995 : 23385704 Date Received 02/28/95 03/31/95 04/28/95 05/31/95 06/30/95 03/15/95 02/15/95 ** Dividend Income ** Date Received 01/17/95 01/17/95 02/15/95 03/15/95 04/17/95 05/15/95 06/15/95 Amount 903.01 889.17 878.79 871.87 864.95 4407.79 30150.00 31250.00 359960.21 Amount 82.00 11.58 618.00 5289.00 6897.00 7491.00 12012.00 32400.58 32400.58 392360.79 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 18, 1995 Mayor Fred Schneiter and Members of City Council Candace Horsley, Acting City Manager Special Meeting - August 23, 1995 Attached you will find an expanded agenda, as well as a Redevelopment Agency agenda, for the special meeting called for August 23, 1995. After staff review, we realized there were a few additional items we should get to you prior to your September 6, 1995 agenda. If you have any questions or concerns regarding any of the items included in your packet, please do not hesitate to contact me. CH:ky 4:0an:MO01 ITEM NO. 3a DATE: August 23, 1995 AOENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CANCE!,LATION OF PREVIOUS AWARDED CONTRACT AND APPROVAL OF SODIUM HYDROXIDE BID FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT Per City Council action on July 5, 1995, Jones Chemical Inc. was awarded the annual sodium hydroxide contract. They were the lowest bidder. They have contacted staff asking for our consideration to withdraw from their commitment. After our first purchase of the product they realized their error in the calculation of the percentage of solution we requested. We requested a bid on a 30% solution, they calculated on a 50% solution. Under our terms we state: ~In case of default, the City of Ukiah may procure the items quoted on from other sources and the original bidder liable for any increased costs." Jones Chemical Inc. Is aware that they will be responsible for the increased costs, but would suffer less of a monetary hardship by paying the difference in the unit cost, being: $33.80 per dry ton. Staff has contacted the next lowest bidder, Sierra Chemical Co. and they have agreed to honor the bid price offered that expired (over 30 days) on July 6, 1995. Staff recommends we proceed with Sierra Chemical, as this is a necessary product required for the operation of the Water Treatment Plant. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Release Jones Chemical Co. from the obligation to supply product at a unit price of:$334.25 per dry ton and to bill the company the increase incurred by awarding the bid to the next lowest bidder, Sierra Chemical Co. at a unit price of:$368.05 per dry ton. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject all bids and direct Staff to re-advertise and re-solicit bids. Take legal action if necessary to have Jones Chemical honor their bid price. APPROVED: Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 820-3908-510 Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) $38,500 Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: ~--~ Prepared by: Nora Kennedy, Purchasing Warehouse Supervisor Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, Interim City Manager and Elton, Director of Finance Attachments: Agenda Summary Report 7/5/95 Bid Tabulation Letters from Both Companies ITEM NO. 6b DATE: July 5, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR SODIUM HYDROXIDE PRODUCTS REPORT: Each year it is necessary to purchase approximately 87 tons of sodium hydroxide for use at the Water Treatment Plant. Sodium hydroxide is used to raise the pH of the water and for corrosion control. Total quantities are an annual estimate of usage. Orders are placed on an as needed basis by water treatment personnel. $38,500 was budgeted in the Water Production and Storage account 820-3908-510 for the purchase of chemicals. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for Sodium Hydroxide to Jones Chemicals, Inc. for the amount of $334.25 per ton. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Take no action. 2. Postpone award of bid. Acct. No. (if not budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 820-3908-510 Appropriation Requested: N/A (If Budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: George Borecky, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent~/~ Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, City Manager Attachments: Tabulation of bids. APPROVED: June 7, 1995 BID TABULATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF SODIUM HYDROXIDE Jones Chemicals, Inc. Sierra Chemical Co. Pressure Vessel Service, Inc. All Pure Chemical Co. UNIT PRICE $334.25FFon $368.05FFon $376.00FFon $498.88/Ton City Of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Ca. 95482 Attention: Nora Kennedy Re; Caustic Soda 30% bid contract Dear Nora, As per our conversation on August 14, 1995, I am forwarding this written explanation of our withdrawal from the 1996 contract for Sodium Hydroxide - 30% solution. Jones chemicals was low bidder on this particular bid and an order was placed with us from the City Of Ukiah. After researching a discrepancy on the billing from our supplier we have noted a gross error on our part on this bid. We quoted a bid price for a 50% solution of Sodium Hydroxide not a 30% solution as specified in the bid package. Jones Chemicals would suffer a considerable monetary hardship if we were to fulfill this contract. We would like you to consider rewarding this bid to the next lowest bidder. We understand that this has already gone before the city council and that we will need to wait for a response from your City Attorney's office. In all fairness we do note that we may be held responsible for any increased costs to the City Of Ukiah. We would appreciate your understanding and consideration in this matter and will await a fair consideration from your city officials. We do wholeheartedly apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Sincerely, Sherri Beebe Sales Representative Jones Chemicals Jones Chemicals, Inc. 1900 McCarthy Boulevard, Suite 107, Milpitas, California 95035 TEL. (408) 232-7710 FAX (408) 232-7717 AUG-18-1995 08:12 FROM SIERRA CHEMICAL CO. TO 919074624281 P.O1 · . 23~2 LARKIN CIRCLE SPARKS, NEVADA P,O. BOX 12550 RENo, NEVADA ~510 TEi,-EPHON¢_. (702) 358~)888 FAX (702) 358-0';87 AugUSt 17, 1995 SIERRACH'EMICALCO. Mrs. Nora Kennedy City of Ukiah 1320 Airport Road Ukiah, CA .95482 Dear Mrs. Kennedy: A~ per our phone conversation on August 16, 1995, i have reviewed our caustic contract from last year and would like to pursue the extenmion for an additional year. The delivered contract price from last year i~ $368.05/t°~ dr~ with a delivered product, of 30% Sodium Hydroxide. As I mentioned, the market prices, have been much higher during the last year; however, over the last few months prices have reduced enough to allow us to .extend the price for an'additional year. For your information, the market trend appears to be getting tight which will probably force pricing back up towards the end of 1995. If you have any questions, please call at your. earliest convenience. LK/rah cc: Mr. Start Kinder ~_a_.9~f. nR_~4OU~. ArN · M~STANG ~ ROCKLIN. · SPARKS AUG-18-1995 08:12 FROM SIERRA CHEMICAL CO. TO 917074624281 ·., QUOTATION P. 02 8490 2302 LARK, IN CIRCLE SPARKS, NEVADA P.O. BOX 12SS0 RENO, NI~AD, A 8'9510 TELEPHONE (702) 358-0'888 FAX (702) 35~0987 SIERRACHEMICALCo. TOTAL CHEMICAL AND EXPLOSIVE NEEDS TO; City of Ukiah 1320 Airport Road Ukiah, CA 95482 'WE ARE PLEASED TO QUOTE AS FOLLOWS: Nora Kennedy Net 30 Days 3 Days ARC I 8/i7/95 mil ' ......... . ~_ L ......... rreM DESCRIPTION PRODUCT UNIT UNIT UNIT AMOUNT NO, .. CODE QTY, PRICE [ Sodium Hydroxide Solution 30% MISC54 T/L Bulk 368.05 Ton contract based on truckload quantities 48,000# minimum. Price is based on Dry Ton 100%. basis. - . .............................. A _-_~. ~ .,. ABOVE PRICES ARE GOOD THRU: 6 / s / q &''--~1~''~-~~'- ' - EFFECTIVE:_ 8/17/95 P. Sal~s/Marketing FILE: ukiahcit, q~2 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. zt~ DATE: AUGUST 23, 1995 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT TO METAMORPHOSIS HYDROSEEDING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,250 FOR THE APPLICATION OF A LIME MATTE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AT UKIAH LANDFILL As instructed by City Council at their regular meeting of August 16, 1995, this item is being returned for Council's action with the following additional information concerning the Poz-o-cap product. Poz-o-cap is a patented lime matte erosion control material developed by the Chemical Lime Group in Scottsdale, Arizona. Metamorphosis Hydroseeding Inc., is the exclusive California Distributor of Poz-o- cap and, therefore, they are to be considered a sole source. This has been confirmed by Starr Curtis, Ph.D, Technical Services Manager for Chemical Lime Corporation (telephone number (602-941-1291). Mr. Curtis has indicated that Metamorphosis is authorized to sell the product to end users for application by others. The purchase price for the product is $310 per ton (including trucking). For 10 acres, approximately 20 tons of material would be needed, resulting in a total materials cost of $6,200. Given the superb performance of Poz-o-cap during last year's heavy rains, Staff urges Council to approve the use of this sole source product. Given Metamorphosis' experience with the application of this product, Staff recommends that a contract for the application of the product be awarded to Metamorphosis Hydroseeding Inc. in the amount of $12,250 for the coverage of 10 acres at $1,225 per acre. Contract price includes Milorganite Organic Fertilizer and application of customer's seed mixture. Council is advised of the urgency to apply this product prior to the first rains, usually in late September or early October. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award Contract to Metamorphosis Hydroseeding Inc., in the amount of $12,250 for the application of Poz-o-cap Erosion Control Matte at the Ukiah Landfill. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Authorize Staff to procure Poz-o-cap material and seek bids from local hydroseeders application of fertilizer, seed, and Poz-o-cap. for the Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted):N/A Acct. No.:660-3401-250 Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Prepared by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, Acting City Manager Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated August 16, 1995 2. Metamorphosis Proposal R: ! ~LANDFILL:kk:AMEYAMORPHOSIS.2 [ "A LIME-BASED DUST CONTROL AGENT" by H. STARR CURTIS, Ph.D. CHEMICAL LIME GROUP SCOTTSDALE, AZ A Paper presented at the I.E.C.A. Convention Reno, NV February 16, 1994 ;~~EMI£AL L-Ilt4E POZ-O-CAP®: A LIME-BASED DUST CONTROL AGENT H. Starr Curtis, Ph.D. Chemical Lime Group Scottsdale, AZ Abstract chem~a'T-~ r~'~-;~'T~~31~a,~"~'---~ ~"- ~'-~ inorganic spray coating effectively locks the dusting substrate with a binder. As the name suggests pozzolanic reactions are important in its effectiveness. The agent is formulated and shipped as a dry powder and easily prepared on-site for application as an aqueous slurry. The material is suitable for short or long-term control of fugitive emissions from areas with little or no traffic. Additional development work has expanded the realm of materials for which POZ-O-CAP is an effective and economical control agent. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Chemical Lime Group has grown with our customers in the West for fifty years. Mining, principally copper and gold mines, and construction have been a solid base for our business in Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Colorado. In this arid region, high winds and little vegetative cover create wind-blown dust problems for any activity which disturbs the natural surface. Our customers' operations and our own mines and plants are under increasingly stringent regulation for control of fugitive dust emissions. An observant salesman persuaded our Research and Development Director to visit a customer's mine site in the Spring. He correctly surmised that seeing plumes of dust blowing off the tailings ponds would excite interest, inventive imagination and a zeal for business opportunity in our most experienced and knowledgeable R&D man. mportant Information About the Latest_ Advancements in Dust & Erosion Contro~) Pubfished by Metamorphosis Hydroseeding, Ina the Exclusive California Distributor ~f POZ-O-CAP~ POZ-O-OAP® Introduced at IEOA Conference in Reno Information on a new lime-based product for control of dust and water erosion was presented at the International Erosion Control Association annual conference February !7, !994 in Reno, Ney. The information was presented in a paper delivered by Dr. Starr Curtis Technical Services Manager for Chemical Lime Company Phoenix AZ the manufacturer of POZ-O-CAP®. -' ' ' ~~~i~ ~~i~ ............... .~?;~:~::%*:.,::.,::[..':'"'~!!~ .................. ~-'~ Dr. Cudis, a geochemist, explained that the product was developed as a result of his company's 50-year affiliation and fam liarity with the mining and construction ~,~~ · . . . .::~. '-~ ....... : ~ndustnes ~n the western states. Our customers are under increasinalv .... str n~ent re(~ulat ons for control of fuo., t ve dust emission," Curtis explained. 'q'his led us to look for and develop a product specifically designed to aid in controlling blowing dust on mine tailings piles, construction sites and similar areas." According to Curtis, POZ-O-CAP® meets the criteria the company was looking for in a dust and erosion control material, in terms of economy, ease of application, effec- tiveness, durability and regulatory acceptance. POZ-O-CAP® is produced as a powder which is mixed with water and applied with conventional hydroseeding or spray equipment. Curtis said successful commercial applications of POZ-O-CAP® included mine tailings ponds and dams, flood control basins, kiln dust piles, forest burn areas, new highway berms and ski areas. Six Distinct Advantages of POZ. O.CAP® Vs; Other Hydroseeding Mediums 1) 2) Extremely pdce competitive. Penetrates the ground and continues to harden during its first 28 days. This is much more effective than mulches that rest on top of the soil. 3) Will hold the ground even if the seed fails, for six to twelve months, 4) Holds moisture'in the'around incredibly well. This reduces the chance'of Seeds: dessicating due to' lack of rain after the seeds have germinated. 5) Replaces blankets in effectiveness at a fraction of the cost. 6) Can be economically applied with a helicopter in hard to reach areas. How POZ-O-CAP® Works POZ-O-CAP® is a patented lime-based dust and erosion control agent. The long-lasting inorganic spray coating effectively locks the dusting substrate with a binder. As the name suggests pozzolanic reactions are important in its effectiveness. The agent is formulated and shipped as a dry powder and easily prepared on-site for application as an aqueous slurry. The material is suitable for short or long-term control of fugitive emission from non-traffic areas. Helicopter Application Eliminates the Need for a Hydroseeder For 12+ acre jobs POZ-O-CAP® can be applied through a Porta Batche machine, which mixes a 12 acre Icad. This is then pumped into the helicopter bucket where seed is mixed in. The helicopter then applies the mix on difficult to access areas. Twelve acres can be covered in a single day. · Why Should-You Use It? POZ-O-CAP® is one of the most effective and economical seeding mediums on the market today. · How Do You Use It? For accessible areas apply through a hydroseeder, and for inaccessible areas apply through a Porta Batche/helicopter combination. · How Much Does It Cost? Approximately $1,300 per acre by hydroseeder and $1,800 by helicopter. · How Do You Buy It? Call Metamorphosis Hydroseeding, Inc., the exclusive California POZ-O-CAP® distributor. Porta Batch® POZ-O-CAP® Mixing System Produces Up To 25 Tons of Slurry in Less Than One Hour As soon as the batch is mixed, the POZ-O-CAP® slurry is pumped into the helicopter bucket. The helicopter makes numerous trips from the Porta Batch® to the field, so the Porta Batch® is best situated close to and above the job. Porta Batch® · 0,~,o, Fo~-~ side view System SaleCy Rails Manhole ~n~ ,-; ............................ J ........................ Z .......... ~....../=,Co~r ~' .--/ZI A A A A Al ~<-~ ~,~,o, -II I--//'-I! I / ~ ! \ / \ / \ / \1 "--,'-~.._ isuo!ss tuD,d SlOJl uoo ® d VO-O-ZOd Metamorphosis Hydroseeding, Inc. 1022A San Andreas Rd. La Selva Beach, CA 95076 USA 1-800-99-4SEED BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID Santa Cruz, CA Perrn,~t No. 200 P NEWS Important Information ~bout the Latest Advancements in Dust 8, Erosion Control Published by Metamorphosis Hydroseeding, Inc. the Exclusive California Distributor of POZ-O-CAP® Caltrans Applies POZ-O-CAP® on Cypress Freeway After being severely damaged in the 1989 Loma Pdeta earti3quake, CaJtrans Distdct 4 applied POZ-O- CAP as part of its reconstruction job. The 4.25 acre area below the free- way structure was seeded with badey and Milorganite fertilizer. It was then covered with two tons per acre of POZ-O-CAR Another area which was not seeded was covered with POZ-O- CAP at three tons per acre. In addi- tion, over 1800 lineal feet of silt fence, as well as straw bales were installed. POZ-O-CAP was applied both with and without seed on areas below the Cypress Structure. Helicopter Eliminates Need for Hydroseeder For 300+ acre jobs, POZ-O-CAP can be applied through a Porta Batche, which makes a 12 acre load. This is then pumped into the helicopter bucket where seed is mixed in. The helicopter then applies the mix on difficult to access areas. Twelve acres can be covered in a single day. Helicopter application is extremely useful for hard to reach areas that cannot be accessed by traditJonal hydroseeding equipment. Successful Jobs, Tests Prove POZ-O-CAP®'s Effectiveness As Hydroseeding Medium Chemical Lime Company, the manufacturer of POZ-O-CAP, has tested all sorts of native and reclama- tion seeds with POZ-O-CAP in its greenhouse laboratory, and has had tre-mendous success with all the seed varieties. In addition, POZ-O-CAP has been used by several mining operations to successfully prevent dust and erosion problems. An article published in the July/August issue of Land and Water attests to POZ-O-CAP's ability to stand up through Arizona's full circle of weather conditions. Its cure strength, ability to absorb water, effectiveness as a mulch medium and ecologically benign ingredients made it an excellent solution for the Cypress Mineral Park in Kingman, Adzona. The following list of references includes sites where POZ-O-CAP has been successfully applied to solve erosion control problems. Green International 25 acres, Rifle, CO (Superfund site), Attn: Guy Green, (303) 625-0815. L.A.C. Mineral Company 50 acres, Beatty, NV, Attn: Lennie Boteilho, (702) 553-2900. Cypress Mineral Park 120 acres, (colorant added to job), Tempe, AZ, Attn: George Beach, (602) 565-2226, Tony Gomez, (602) 929-4501. Rand Mining Company, (colorant added to job), Randsburg, CA, Attn: Sonia Manuel, (619) 374-2467. Product Comparison'~'i~::~; Product Approx. cost/acm POZ-O-CAP® $1,300* Bonded Fiber $5,000 Matrix Blankets $I 5,000 *Includes six-month warranty ;i.: POZ;O,CAP:~:dhe'::Uf the most -: tire, econ~licai and enviro~rnentally safe Seeding mediums on the market. ®How MUch Does it Cost? :.; Approxtmate¥'$1,300 per acre by hydroseeder &: $1 ;800 by helicoPter. · HOW D0'You! Call Metamorphosis California POZ-O-CAP ( POZ-O-CAP® Specification The following is provided to assist landscape architects, mine and landfill managers in the specification of POZ- O-CAP for erosion control jobs. Materials: Lime Matte Erosion Control shall consist of an alkaline earth hydroxide matedal derived from calcium hydroxide, siliceous pozzolan- ic materials and other inorganic min- erals that react in the presence of water to form a cementilJous, fiber- linked matte. The Lime Matte Erosion Control matedal shall be a free flow- Mito~g~nit6 MiLORGA#IT~ pROFESSIONAL PROTECIT. D ENVIRONMENT WITH POZ-O-CAPe POZ-O-CAP* PROTECTNE LAYER · ALLOws RAIN TO PENETRATE · PROTECTS FROM WIND · STOPS EROSION · BONDS TO SOiL ing powder with a specific gravity of 2.4 grams per cubic centimeter, a bulk density of 0.8 grams per cubic centimeter and a solubility in water not to exceed 40 grams per liter. Application: Lime Matte Erosion Control shall be applied at the rate of two tons per acre if used in conjunc- tion with seeds, or at the rate of three tons per acre if used without seeds. Lime Matte Erosion Control matedal shall be mixed at the rate of one UNPROTECTED ENVIRONMENT :: EXPOSED TO VARIOUS CONDITIONS WIND' RAIN AND ERODE SURFACE · ALLOWS FOR BLOWING DUST · UNSIGHTLY NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ' · .. · pound Lime Matte per 0.45 gallons of water in applicalJon equipment with continuous agitation. Apply the Ume Matte Erosion Control slurry at the rate specified above as a uniform slurry over the area to be treated. If seed is used, apply seed first with Fiber at 500 lbs./Acre and Milorganite fertilizer (or equal) at 300 lbs./Acre, and then spray Lime Matte Erosion Control over the first application of seed, fiber and fertilizer. Jeldoo!leH ~E! pe!lddV eel ueo ~ eJnls!olN sploH ~ punoJID seleJleued ~ sle)lUelE] IOJlUOO uo!soJE] seoeldeld ~ pees lnoql!M ue^Ei UO!leZ!l!qels I!oS ~ METAMORPHOSIS HYDROS£EDING, INC. 1022A San Andreas Rd. La Selva Beach, CA 95076 USA 1-800-99-4SEED Rick Kennedy City of Ukiah, Dir. of Public Works 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 _P_O A P ® WA R RA N T Y Chemstar warrants that the product supplied hereunder will conform to the description herein stated and, if used DroDerty, should continue to perform for ~ period of up to six (6) months. This is Chemstar's sole warranty with respect to the product. CHEMSTAR MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WHATEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED; AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WHICH EXCEED THE AFORESTATED OBLIGATION ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED BY CHEMSTAR AND EXCLUDED FROM THIS AGREEMENT. The warranty period is six (6) months and commences on the date of installation of the product. Seller will have no warranty obligation under this agreement if the product is subjected to abuse, misuse, negligence, improper installation or accident or if Purchaser fails to maintain the product as instructed in the product materials. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT CHEMSTAR'S LIABILITY WH_~-HFR IN CONTRACT, IN TORT, UNDER ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, IN NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE RETURN OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE PURCHASER AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL CHEMSTAR BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. The price stated for the product is a consideration in limiting Chemstar's liability. No action, regardless of form, arising out of the transactions under this Agreement may be brought by Purchaser more than one (1) year after the cause of action has accrued. POZ- O- CA P® THE REVOLUTIONARY NEW AND IMPROVED DUST CONTROL PRODUCT STORAGE, HANDLING, MIXING, APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS AND STANDARDS STORAGE POZ-O-CAP® contains ingredients that must be stored in moisture proof containers, i.e., water tight bulk storage bins or moisture proof super sacks. HANDLING Precautions must be observed when handling POZ-O-CAP® as POZ-O-CAP® can be an irritant to unprotected skin and eyes. See enclosed safety data sheet for further inform~:tion. POZ-O-CAP~ flows readily and can be handled as any dry product by pneumatic conveyance or by gravity from super sacks to a mixing vessel. MIXING POZ-O-CAP® is mixed with water at the rate of one ton per 900 gallons of water, or one pound of POZ-O-CAP® per 0.45 gallons of water. The mixing procedure for POZ-O-CAP® is essential to good performance of the product. Procedure for mixing one ton super sacks of POZ-O-CAP® in a hydro-seeder type mixing device: Step One: Step Two: Step Three: Step Four: Add nine hundred gallons of water to hydra-seeder or other mixing unit. Turn on agitator. Empty POZ-O-CAP® from super sack into mixing unit. Apply POZ-O-CAP® at rate specified below with agitator running at all times until unit is empty. Procedure for mixing bulk P0Z-0-CAP® in a Porta Batch mixing unit: Step One: Step Two: Step Three: Step Four: Step Five: Step Six: Add 21,600 gallons of water to the Porta Batch mixing unit. Connect discharge hose from pneumatic truck to Porta Batch unit. Engage Porta Batch agitator. Discharge entire Icad of POZ-O-CAP~ into Porta Batch mixing unit with agitator in operation at all times. When truck is empty, disconnect hose from Porta Batch. Deliver POZ-O-CAP~ from the Porta Batch unit to the hydra- seeder or other spreading unit via a discharge pump. NOTE: sure to keep the Porta Batch agitator operating at all times during discharqe of POZ-0-CAP~ · Be APPLICATION POZ-O-CAP~ is applied as a porous cover to loose, fine dirt areas to prevent blowing dust. POZ-O-CAP~ is applied as a slurry at a minimum rate of two tons per acre or one gallon of slurry per each 24 square feet of area. WEATHER CONDITIONS The recommended outdoor temperature for the application of POZ-O-CAPe is 40oF and rising. POZ-O-CAP~ should never be applied during heavy rain or snow storms. Wind conditions should be no more than 10 miles per hour. AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 5a DATE: AUGUST 23, 1995 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PERFORM AN ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR VOC REMEDIATION AND ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR THE UKIAH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 94-123, has directed the City to perform an Engineering Feasibility Study and to implement Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) corrective action measures within a specified time frame. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Authorize Acting City Manager, with consultation from City Attorney and Director of Public Works, to negotiate a service agreement with GeoSyntec Consultants and authorize Acting City Manager to execute the Service Agreement. . Authorize the expenditure of funds in an amount not to exceed $20,000, from Design and Permitting Account, for any required work for Phase II of Task III, Leachate Extraction Feasibility. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Same as above except authorize negotiation with one of the following consultants: 1. Dames and Moore 2. EBA Wastechnologies Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Acct. No.: 660-7301-250-002 $50,000 for Engineering Feasibility Study Acct. No.: 660-7301-250-003 Not to exceed maximum of $20,000 Requested by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Prepared by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 7~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, Acting City Manager Michael F. Harris, Assistant to the City Manager Attachments: 1. Request for Proposal, Pages 1 - 13 2. Government Code Section 4526, Pages 14 - 15 3. Summary of Proposed Maximum Compensation by Consultant 4. Applicable portions of Consultant's Proposals including Fee Breakdown and Qualifications, Pages 17- 59. (GeoSyntec, Dames and Moore, and EBA Wastechnologies) 5. Excerpt from City's adopted Budget, Page 60. APPROVED: R: 1 kLANDFILL:kk:AVOC AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PERFORM AN ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR VOC REMEDIATION AND ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR THE UKIAH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY August 23, 1995 Page 2 Subsequent to these directives, a Request for Proposal (RFP) to perform the required studies was prepared and submitted to engineering consultants having the required expertise to perform the work and who had indicated an interest in receiving the RFP. Thirty three (33) requests were sent out and ten (10) proposals were received by the deadline of August 11, 1995. The Director of Public Works and Public Works Administrator evaluated the proposals pursuant to the criteria specified in the RFP and selected five (5) consultants (short list) to be invited for an oral interview on August 17 conducted by a Consultant Selection Committee consisting of the following individuals: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works Sue A. Goodrick, Public Works Administrator Michael F. Harris, Assistant to the City Manager Paul Caylor, Manager of Mendocino County Solid Waste Division The five (5) consultants selected for interviews were: . 2. 3. 4. 5. Anderson Consulting Group Dames and Moore Golder Associates GeoSyntec Consultants EBA Wastechnologies The consultant selection criteria used to rank the consultants were: 1. Adequate resources to perform the work within the time specified. . Knowledge of and experience in VOC corrective action measures and systems by Firm, Project Manager or Project Team. Number of projects completed satisfactorily and degree of customer satisfaction. Track record for completing projects on time and within budget. . Reasonableness of rates and fees. Is proposed guaranteed maximum compensation in line with available financial resources? It is noted that pursuant to Section 4526 of California Government Code, Professional Services firms are to be selected on the bases of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the types of services to be performed and at fair and reasonable prices to the public agencies. AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PERFORM AN ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR VOC REMEDIATION AND ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR THE UKIAH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY August 23, 1995 Page 3 It is noted that the five (5) consultants interviewed included in their study of correction action measures, the feasibility of pursuing "no-action" or "non-attainment" given that the VOC impacts are below maximum contaminant levels for Drinking Water Standards except for vinyl chloride and two (2) other constituents. Regulatory agencies are beginning to recognize that complete cleanup is unattainable and that cost benefit to the public and risks to public health must be included in the equation. To demonstrate that no action or non-attainment is appropriate or feasible, it is necessary to document that the contaminant plume is not moving and that it will not threaten drinking water sources, public health, or other beneficial uses of a water body. It is the opinion of the Selection Committee that all five (5) consultants are capable of performing the work of the contemplated contract as well as committed to performing the work within the specified time frame. However, the following three (3) consultants stood out from the rest based on the consultant selection criteria: . GeoSyntec Consultants EBA Wastechnologies Dames and Moore The high points and low points for each consultant are as follows: GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Positives . . . . Negatives . . Very high qualifications. Project Manager has Ph.D in Civil Engineering, teaches and lectures on water pollution control and remediation issues. Extensive background in remediation of groundwater. High regard for Patrick Lucia by Damon Brown (EBA Wastechnologies). Would bring new look at landfill. Fees are one of highest of the five firms interviewed. Proposed guaranteed maximum compensation is at limit of budgeted funds. Additional funds would be necessary to complete Phase II of Task III (Investigation of Extracting Leachate from Landfill) which is to be negotiated after the completion of Phase I (refer to Scope-of-Work in RFP). AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PERFORM AN ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR VOC REMEDIATION AND ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR THE UKIAH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY August 23, 1995 Page 4 EBA WASTECHNOLOGIES Positives 1. Knowledge of landfill and continuity of current consultant services. 2. Lowest rates for personnel and associated services. 3. More man-hours are included in proposal. 4. High regard for Project Manager by Director of Public Works. Negatives . . Proposed maximum compensation exceeds budget. Consultant has indicated willingness to negotiate hours. Previous issues regarding landfill life. DAMES AND MOORE 1. Good qualifications and experience of Project Team. 2. Rates for Professional Services are mid-range. 3. Proposed guaranteed maximum compensation below budget limit. $9,000 remaining for negotiated work related to leachate extraction study. 4. Would bring new look at landfill. In consideration of the importance in pursuing a no-action or non-attainment alternative, the scrutiny over our landfill by the neighbors, and the need to provide a comfort level for the regulatory agencies, as well as the public, the Selection Committee recommends that the Professional Services contract be awarded to the firm with the highest qualifications. The Committee recommends that the award be made to GeoSyntec Consultants. Positives AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PERFORM AN ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR VOC REMEDIATION AND ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR THE UKIAH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY August 23, 1995 Page 5 The Council is advised that should award be made to GeoSyntec, it will be necessary to utilize funds budgeted for remediation engineering to perform Phase II of Task III, Leachate Extraction. The cost of this work may range from $6,000 to $20,000. Staff is hopeful that we are successful in demonstrating that a no-action or non-attainment alternative is appropriate and, therefore, no engineering or construction of a remediation system would be required. Toward this end, it may be necessary to construct additional monitoring or compliance wells under the no-action alternative with continued monitoring and associated costs. R: 1 ~N'DFILL AVOC July 20, 1995 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL "ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES FOR UKIAH LANDFILL Dear Consultant: Your Proposal to perform an Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures and associated preliminary engineering studies for the purpose of remediating VOC impacts to groundwaters at the northerly toe of the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal facility is requested. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Article 5, Title 23, CCR, a Detection Monitoring Program was prepared for the Landfill. The Program included substantial information and data that suffices as an Evaluation Monitoring Program. The Program p.roposed an intrawell monitoring approach due to spatial variations in background conditions. Since manmade COC's and monitoring parameters can be assumed to be absent in non-impacted natural waters, concentration limits for the man-made compounds were established at a concentration below the method detection limit for the individual analytes. VOC impacts to groundwater along the northerly toe of the Ukiah Landfill have been detected in the northwesterly groundwater monitoring wells and benzene has been detected in the monitoring wells at the east extremity of the Landfill property. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 94-123, has directed the City to perform an Engineering Feasibility Study and to implement corrective action measures within a specified time frame. Because of financial constraints and delays resulting from litigation initiated by a citizen residing and conducting a resort business adjacent to the Landfill, the City was not able to package an Engineering Feasibility Study to include the eastern benzene impacted area with the VOC impacted area. These constraints and delay have caused the City to miss the deadlines stipulated in the WDR for these areas of concern. Because the cause of the benzene impacted area remains a mystery until further investigation work is completed, it is necessary that the City proceed with a Feasibility Study which will be limited to the VOC impact area. As directed by Regional Water Quality Control Board, the City has submitted a revised schedule to implement VOC corrective measures. The Consultant is advised that the schedule has been condensed with no room for further delays. It will be necessary for the selected consultant to perform various tasks simultaneously and to complete the work of the Draft Study within 90 calendar days and the Final Report no later than December 14, 1995. Consultants attention is directed to the following attachments: Attachment "A" - Scope-of-Work Attachment "B" - Work Schedule Attachment "C" - Landfill Information Attachment "D" - Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations Attachment "E" - Site Plan of Landfill Attachment "F" - Location of Preferred Route for Leachate Force Main and Gravity Line. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS A. DUe Date and Number of Copie,q Proposals are to be submitted in triplicate no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 1995. Proposals, received after this deadline will not be considered. Proposal documents received by the City will become the property of the City and the documents will not be returned to the Proposer. Proposals are to be sealed, labeled and addressed or delivered to: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 PROPOSAL: ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UKIAH LANDFILL g. Proposal Contents The Proposal shall contain the following elements: 1. Firm Qualifications and Resources. A summary of the Consulting Firm's qualifications pertaining to expertise and practice in Solid Waste engineering assessments and feasibility studies. How long in business and size of firm. Consultant may submit the Firm's "Statement of Qualifications" with the proposal to satisfy this requirement. Consultant is advised that it will be necessary to dedicate considerable Staff resources to complete the project within the required time frame. . 0 Name, Background, and Experience of Project Manager to the Project Proposed for Assignment to the Project. This is one of the most important "selling points" the Consultant can make. The Project Manager must have an extensive background in and knowledge of corrective measures pertaining to the cleanup of VOC impacted groundwater and soil; the selected Consultant for the project will offer a Project Manager who has the appropriate experience, a track record of completing projects on time and within budget, has a sense of urgency, strong work ethic and dedication to an assigned project. Provide list of projects completed by the PM which are similar to the proposed work and provide corresponding client references with current telephone numbers who worked closely with the Project Manager. Consultant shall check with the Project Manager's references to verify their availability for a telephone interview on August 14th. A written reference will be acceptable if the reference is current and pertains to a project similar to the proposed work. A written reference specifically addressed to the City is preferred. Project Manager shall make a commitment to his employer and City that he/she will remain an employee of the Consultant until the proposed project is completed. The Consultant will not be allowed to change the assigned Project Manager unless prior approval from the City has been obtained. City will reserve the right to have Consultant assign another Project Manager should execution of the work not proceed in a satisfactory manner. Demonstrate Understanding of Scope-of-Work. Consultants shall demonstrate that they have a full understanding of the Scope-of-Work and the effort needed to complete the project on time and within budget. Prospective and interested Consultants are invited to visit the site and inspect the Landfill records. It will be necessary for the Consultant to check in with the Gate Attendant and show identification prior to site inspection. No one except inspectors from the LEA, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Fish and Game are permitted to tour the Landfill without checking in with the Gate Attendant. The City will make every effort to provide a Staff member to accompany Consultant's staff, however, depending upon Landfill Staff's workload, it maybe necessary for Consultant to review site independently. A list of prospective Consultants will be provided to the Gate Attendant; bring business card as means of identification. Sketches depicting locations of groundwater and gas monitoring wells, primary and secondary leachate ponds, and contemplated route for leachate force main and gravity line to public sewer in Vichy Springs Road are attached to this RFP for Consultants reference. Consultant is advised that a site inspection of the Gun Club Property is not practical, because of lessees's allowed use. Topographic maps of Gun Club property are on file at City Hall and are available for inspection. The Landfill records will be made available to prospective and interested Consultants for inspection at City Hall. Considering the number of Consultants who have shown an interest in this project, it is advisable that Consultant make an appointment by calling Sue Goodrick, Public Works Administrator at (707) 463-6286, or Kathy Kinch, Public Works Secretary at (707) 463-6214. Four (4) hour time periods will be allocated to each Consultant, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. We regret that copies of documents will not be provided due to cost and time. A detailed Scope-of-Work by task has been included in this RFP as Attachment "A". Considerable effort has been made to provide sufficient detail in the Scope-of-Work to permit prospective Consultants to prepare a proposal without the need to consult with the Landfill Operator. Consultants are advised that Landfill Operator may not be available at convenient times to field questions by telephone. Should questions arise during the RFP period, it is advisable that you fax your questions well in advance of the proposal due date. 4. Work Schedule. Consultants shall include in their Proposal a proposed work schedule which shall indicate duration and completion dates for work tasks and any appropriate sub-tasks or phases. All tasks shall be completed to facilitate the completion of the Draft Engineering Feasibility Study by November 29, 1995 assuming contract award on August 23, 1995 and execution of Consultant Agreement no later than August 31, 1995. The selected Consultant will have 90 calendar days to complete the Draft Study/Report. Draft revisions and final report are to be completed prior to December 14, 1995. Task V, 'Engineering Feasibility Study of VOC Corrective Action Measures,H is the primary task of the proposed work. Task I, "Review Phase, H must occur to accomplish Task V and the work of Task II will be incorporated into the corrective action plan (refer to Item 7 of Task V). Leachate extraction and the reconstruction and lining of the leachate pond and leachate disposal directly to public sewer may become components of the corrective action measure. The work products of Tasks III and IV are to be included in the Feasibility Study as appendices. The work of Tasks III and IV can proceed independently of Phase I of Task V. In light of the drilling and testing requirements of Task III, it is imperative that this Task be commenced as soon as Task I is completed. Consultant's attention is directed to the two phases of Task V; Preliminary Report and Final Report. Consultant shall allow a presentation not exceeding three (3) hours of Phase I report to City Staff including a discussion period with Staff for the purpose of selecting the three corrective measures for further detailed study (Phase II). The three corrective measures will be selected prior to the conclusion of the meeting. Consultant is advised to allow three (3) hours for presentation of the Final Report to City Council on December 20, 1995. 5. Proposed Compensation Compensation for performing the work of the contract shall be on a time and expense basis not to exceed a guaranteed maximum amount. Consultants shall include in their proposals a guaranteed maximum amount for compensation and a listing of their standard hourly rates for each profession, position, function or trade involved in the work and standard fees for typical expenses. Consultants shall also provide budget totals for each Task for progress payment purposes, and an approximate cost for the drilling of one leachate exploratory bore based on depth assumptions and for appropriate pump testing. The approximate cost for drilling and testing is not to be included in the guaranteed maximum amount for compensation. Progress payments will be made on a monthly basis and the total of progress payments for each Task will not exceed 110 percent of the budget amount for the respective Task. Final payment for the work will not exceed a guaranteed maximum amount of the contract. Consultants are to provide budget amounts for Phase I and II of the Task V and may submit in their proposal budget amounts for other sub-tasks or sub-phases. Upon the approval or modification of Consultant's proposal for the number and location of borings needed for leachate extraction and the proposed compensation for performing the work (Phase I of Task HI), the negotiated work of Phase H of Task III will be added to the contract as an amendment and the guaranteed maximum cost will be modified appropriately. Should a progress payment be submitted between the Draft Report (November 29) and Final Report Phase of Task V, the total of all progress payments prior to submittal of the Final Report shall not exceed 95 percent of the maximum total compensation. Final payment will be made within 30 calendar days from the completion of the Final Report. Pursuant to the Government Code, the award of the consulting contract will not be made solely on the basis of cost, however, cost will be an important factor in the consultant selection process. Refer to Consultant Selection Criteria. Consultants are advised that financial resources available for this project are limited. The City has budgeted $50,000 for the Engineering Feasibility Study, $50,000 for the design and completion of contract documents for the preferred corrective measure and $200,000 for construction of the corrective measure excluding leachate pond reconstruction and lining and force main for leachate disposal. In consideration of the limited finances, the City shall reserve the right to delete Tasks III and IV from the proposed work. Consultants shall include in the proposed compensation appropriate deductions from the guaranteed maximum for the preliminary work of Task III and all of Task IV, should these Tasks be eliminated individually from the proposed work prior to the execution of the contract. 6. Proposed Sub-consultants and Contractors Consultants shall list in their proposals proposed sub-consultants and/or contractors which will assist consultant in the performance of the work. Provide brief description of work to be performed by each sub-consultant and/or contractor. 7. Other Information At the Consultant's discretion, other information may be included in the proposal that Consultant deems appropriate to highlight the Firm's experience and its ability to perform the work of the contract within the short time period allowed. Ce Consultant Selection Criteria Proposals received on or prior to August 11, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. will be reviewed and ranked based on the following criteria and maximum number of points: 1. Adequate resources to perform the work within the time required. Maximum points: 40 . Knowledge of and experience in VOC corrective action measures or systems either by Firm, Project Manager or Project team. Number of projects completed satisfactorily and degree of customer satisfaction. Track record for completing projects on time and within budget. Maximum points: 40 . Proposed Compensation. Are rates and fees reasonable. Is Proposed Guaranteed Maximum Compensation in line with available financial resource with or without deductions for Phase I of Task III and all of Task IV. Maximum points: 20 The initial rating will be performed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and discussed with the City Manager. Telephone interviews with Consultants references will be conducted on Monday, August 14, 1995 and a maximum of five (5) Consultants receiving the highest rating will be invited to an oral presentation/interview with a Consultant Selection Committee. Consultants will be notified of the rating results the morning of August 15, 1995 in the order of their rating from high to low. Consultants selected for the presentation/interview phase will be asked to select a time for their presentation which will be conducted on August 17, 1995. The first available hour for presentation will be at 10:00 a.m. with subsequent appointments set on the hour thereafter excluding 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. The last appointment available will be at 3:00 p.m. The Committee will consist of the Public Works Director/City Engineer and a representative of the City Manager. A representative of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board will be invited to sit on the Selection Committee. Twenty-Five (25) minutes will be allocated for the Consultant's presentation, fifteen (15) minutes for questions from the Committee members, and five (5) minutes for the Consultant's concluding comments. Consultants shall use their discretion on how they can best emphasize the Firm's ability to perform the work and why they should be selected. It is necessary that the proposed Project Manager attend the presentation/interview. At the conclusion of the presentation/interview process, the participating Consultants will be ranked and the Committee will make their recommendation to City Council. Award of the consulting contract is scheduled for the City Council's meeting of August 23, 1995. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to City policy, it will be necessary that the successful Consultant obtain the following insurance coverages and limits for this project: . General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. . Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. e Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker's compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 4. Professional Liability: Not less than $500,00 and shall remain in force for two (2) years after completion of Consultant's work product and acceptance by City. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims, demands, liability, costs and expenses, including court costs and counsel fees, arising out of the injury to or death of any person or loss of or physical damage to any property resulting from any negligent or wrongful act or omission committed by Consultant or its officers, agents or employees while performing the services under the contract. Any questions concerning the City's insurance requirements should be directed to Candace Horsley, Assistant City Manager/Risk Manager at (707) 463-6212. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT The successful Consultant will be required to enter into a written contract with the City prior to performing the proposed work. The contract will be prepared by the City and the contract must be executed by the Consultant on or prior to August 31, 1995 in order to facilitate a start date of September 1, 1995. A sample Professional Consulting Services Agreement is on file at the Department of Public Works and is available for inspection. In recognition of the efforts and resources required to prepare an adequate proposal and the short duration in which the proposal is to be prepared, consultants are encouraged to keep the proposal "basic" and to the point; high quality graphics, etc., and voluminous proposals are not necessary. We look forward in receiving your proposal. Sincerely, Rick H. Kennedy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Landf'fll Operator R:I~LANDFILL RFP.VOC NOTE: II. A~rACttMENT "A" SCOPE-OF-WORK BY TASK Review phase to gain full understanding and knowledge of landfill conditions as it pertains to VOC impact to groundwater. A. SITE INSPECTION: Perform site inspection to become familiar with location of landfill facilities including, but not limited to, groundwater monitoring wells, gas monitoring wells, leachate holding ponds and collection main, sedimentation ponds, down drains and benches. Review and inspect with designated Landfill employee location of historical leachate breakouts. Bw INTERVIEW LANDFILL EMPLOYEES: Conduct interviews with current and former Landfill employees to learn the trouble areas such as problem ponding areas, possible springs and seeps and other pertinent information. It is suggested that one interview be conducted off-site with all former Landfill employees. Director of Public Works/City Engineer will select employees and will coordinate meeting with consultant. Current Landfill employees are to be interviewed on-site. Co LANDFILL RECORDS: Review Article 5, Detection Monitoring Program, WDR Order No. 94-123, Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 94-123, groundwater well installation and construction reports, Landfill Gas Monitoring Program, Storm Water Prevention Plan, and applicable sections of RDSI and Preliminary Closure and Post- closure Plans to become familiar with the specific geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical and hydrochemical characteristics of the site, adopted WQPS, detection monitoring program, initial evaluation program and COC's to be monitored. Review current and historical aerial photos and topographic maps, correspondence between Regional Water Quality Control Board and City, EIR prepared by Eric Toll, and other available records as determined necessary by the consultant. Copies of the documents will be loaned to the Consultant for review at Consultants place of business. Original reports and documents officially included in the Landfill Record WILL NOT be removed from City Hall. Consultant will allow City reasonable time to produce copies of documents requested by Consultant. The cost for performing the work of this Task shall be included in the guaranteed maximum compensation. Work Items Related to Evaluation Monitoring Program. A. Complete WQPS for COC's 1. Concentration limit for COD at Well 90-3. The concentration limit for COD constituent at Well No. 90-3 was not established at the time Article 5, Detection Monitoring Program, was published . in April of 1993 due to insufficient data. Utilizing current and appropriate past data, Consultant shall determine statistically the COD concentration limit for Well No. 90-3 using the tolerance interval method; reference is made to Attachment "E" and Page 2 of Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 94-123 and Appendix D and E of Article 5, Detection Program. Provide time (monitoring event) - Concentration (value) Graphs. Input data into a Microsoft - Excel Software Program (Version 5.0) to produce time - concentration graphs for groundwater monitoring wells, surface water monitoring points, and leachate monitoring data for the indicated monitoring parameters: (a) Quarterly Field Parameters, and Quarterly and Annual Monitoring Parameters as listed in Table II, "Groundwater Monitoring Program" of WDR, Page 6 for the following Groundwater Monitoring Wells: Well No. 87-1 Period: 4 quarters 1989 and 1990, one quarter of 1991 and 1992, and 4 quarters of 1993 and 1994 and 2 quarters of 1995. Well Nos. 90-1 thru 90-8 Period: 1 quarter of 1990, 4 quarters of 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, and 2 quarters of 1995. Well Nos, 92-1 thru 92-3 Period: 4 quarters of 1993 and 1994, and 2 quarters of 1995. Well No. 92-4 Period: 4 events in 1993, 4 quarters of 1994, and 2 quarters of 1995. Well No, 94-2 - 2 Periods of 1995 Only those VOC's detected in the Wells need to be plotted. Well No. 87-1 - Chloromethane, dechlororodifluoromethane, methylene, chloride. 90-93. Well No, 90-1 - None Well No, 90-2 -None Well No. 90-3 -CIS - 1,2-Dichloropropene Well No. 90-4 - Vinyl chloride, CIS 1,2-Dechloroethane, dichlorodiflu - oromethane Well No. 90-5 - Vinyl chloride, chloroethane, CIS 1,2-Dichloroethylene, benzene. Well No. 90-6 - None Well No. 90-7 - None Well No. 90-8 - P- & M- xylene, o-xylene, benzene ethylbenzene, toluene. Well No. 92-1 - Chloroethane, CIS - 1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1- Dichloroethane vinyl chloride. Well No, 92-2 - None Well No. 92-3 -None Well No. 924 -Benzene, toluene, acetone. Well No. 94-2 -None Co) Quarterly field parameters and quarterly monitoring parameters as listed in Table III, "Surface Water Monitoring Program" of WDR, Page 7 for S-1 and S-2 surface water monitoring points between period beginning last quarter of 1988 and ending second quarter of 1995. (c) Monthly field parameters, semi-annually monitoring parameters and annual constituents of concern as listed in Table I, "Leachate Monitoring Program" of WDR, Page 4 for leachate samples taken from December 1988 to April 1995. (d) Consultant shall provide one (1) hard copy of each time-concentration graph produced and one (1) copy of 3-1/2 working computer disc. These graphs will become a component of the Evaluation Monitoring Program and will be utilized in the Corrective Action Program. The cost for performing the work of this Task shall be included in the guaranteed maximum compensation. III. Investigation of Extracting Leachate from Landfill Subsequent to the review of the seismic refraction profile (Appendix J, Volume II, RDSI), groundwater and gas monitoring well logs, and other pertinent reports and available information and data and following employee interviews, Consultant shall propose the number and location of borings needed and type of testing required to investigate the feasibility of leachate extraction from the western half of the landfill. At a minimum, there shall be one (1) boring on the first bench in line with Gas Well No. 4 and Groundwater Monitoring Well No. 90-5. After receiving Consultant's proposal and cost estimate for the boring work including observation and testing such as pumping, borehole video, etc. (Phase I of this Task), City shall determine a scope-of- work for boring and testing and City and Consultant shall negotiate Consultants compensation for performing the boring and testing work. The work shall include a report of findings and IV. V. recommendation regarding the feasibility of extracting leachate from the landfill (Phase II of this Task). The cost for performing the work of Phase I of this Task shall be included in the guaranteed maximum compensation with an appropriate monitory deduction which would be made to the maximum compensation should Phase I be deleted prior to executing the professional services contract. Cost for performing the work of Phase II shall be negotiated. Preliminary Engineering for the Reconstruction and Lining of Leachate Holding Ponds and Disposal to Public Sewer System. Consultant shall perform preliminary engineering design for the reconstruction and lining of the leachate holding ponds. Preliminary engineering design shall include capacity analysis based on rainfall, runoff, and tipping area exposed during rain season, layout of reconfigured ponds, details, and cost estimate for budgeting purposes. Preparation of final plans and contract documents are not a part of this work. Consultant shall also perform a brief feasibility study which shall include a budget cost estimate for the installation of a pump, force main and gravity main to the existing sanitary sewer main in Vichy Springs Road for purposes of leachate disposal to a public sewer. The preferred route for the force main is along the southerly access road to the location of Gas Well No. 4. Behind Gas Well No. 4 the gradient of the Terrain will permit the use of a gravity line to Vichy Springs Road. The gravity line would be installed on an adjacent parcel owned by the City and known as the Gun Gun property (AKA Landfill buffer zone). Currently, the City disposes leachate by water truck transfer to sewer manholes located within the easterly City limits. Leachate disposal to Sewer Treatment Plant is permitted under an approved monitoring program (reference is Report prepared by Kennedy/Jenks). The cost for performing the work of this Task shall be included in the guaranteed maximum compensation with an appropriate monitory deduction which would be made to the maximum compensation should the work of this Task be deleted prior to the execution of the professional services contract. Engineering Feasibility Study of VOC Corrective Action Measures. The Consultant shall prepare an engineering feasibility study of corrective action measures or systems that can be taken or incorporated to achieve the removal of VOC contaminates in groundwaters along the northerly toe of the landfill footprint for the purpose of achieving water quality objectives. The study shall be consistent with applicable regulations (Title 23, CCR Chapter 15, Article 5, Section 2550.8, (k)(6); Title 40, CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter I, Part 258, Section 258.56). At a minimum, the feasibility study should include the following: 1. Corrective action objectives. 2. Applicable site information. 3. Review of regional and local geology and hydrogeology. 4. Summary of groundwater quality and site specific water quality protection standards. . 6, , Written presentation of corrective action alternatives. Evaluation of ~elec~;ed alternatives based on performance, reliability, ease of implementation, time required to begin and complete remediation, life cycle costs of alternatives and other evaluation criteria as deemed necessary or recommended by the Consultant. This task will be performed in two phases. After the Consultant has become familiar with site conditions, monitoring data and objectives, consultant shall submit report to City which shall discuss various systems or methods available for VOC remediation that are applicable to the Ukiah Landfill. Approximate life cycle costs shall be provided for each system or method. Consultant shall recommend at least three (3) systems or methods for further detailed study and the reasons behind the recommendation. Consultant shall meet with City for consultation and presentation. City will confirm which systems or methods deserve further detailed study in the second phase. The second phase will consist of more detailed study and presentation as described above and the completion of the Engineering Feasibility Study. Consultant shall provide presentation of completed study to City Council. Methods of confirming or monitoring the corrective action effectiveness (Corrective Action Plan). The cost of performing the work of this Task shall be included in the guaranteed maximum compensation. 4525 GOVERNMENT CODE (c) "Local agency head" means the secretary, administrator, o~' head of a department, agency, or bureau of any city, county, city and county, whether general law or chartered, or any district which is authorized to contract for architectural, landscape architectural~ engineering, environmental, land surveying, and construction project management services. (d) "Architectural, landscape architectural~ engineering, environmental, and land surveying servic- es'' includes those professional services of an architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, or land surveying nature as well as incidental services that mem')ers of these professions and those in their employ may logically or justifiably perform. (e) "Construction project management" means those services provided by a licensed architect, registered engineer, or licensed general contractor which meet the requirements of Section 4529.5 for management and supervision of work performed on state construction projects. (f) "Environmental services" means those services performed in connection with project develop- ment and permit processing in order to comply with federal and state environmental laws. (Amended by Stats.1983, c. 469, § 2; Stats.1987, c. 698, § 2; Stats.1988, c. 1016, § 1; Stats.1989, c. 695, § 1; Stats.1989, c. 1412, § 1, elf. Oct. 2, 1989; Stats.1989, c. 1412, § 2, elf. Oct. 2, 1989, operative Jan. 1, 1990; Stats.1991, c. 314 (S.B.805), § 1.) Historical and Statutory Notes 1989 Legislation Under the provisions of § 9 of Stats.1989, c. 1412, the 1989 amendments of this section by c. 695 and c. 1412 were given effect and incorporated in the form set forth in § 2 of c. 1412, to be operative on the operative date of c. 695 (Jan. 1, 1990). An amendment of this section by § 1 of Stats.1989, c. 1412, was operative until Jan. 1, 1990 under the provisions of § 9 of that Act. Amendment of this section by § 2 of Stats.1989, c. 695, failed to become operative under the provisions of § 3 of that Act. 1991 Legislation Section 9 of Stats.1991, c. 314 (S.B.805), eft. August 2, 1991, provides: "Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, of this act lc. 314] shall not become operative unless Senate Bill 1219 lc. 313] in the form as amended in Assembly July 9, 1991, and Assem- bly Bill 915 lc. 305] in the form as amended in Senate June 18, 1991, of the 1991-92 Regular Session, are both chaptered [so chaptered] and become effective [so effec- tire]." Cross References Emergency removal or remedial actions, hazardous substances, exemption from this chapter, see Health and Safety Code § 25358.5. Underground storage tanks ,cleanup fund, multiple bids, private professional services as defined by this chapter, see Health and Safety Code, § 25299.57. Code of Regulations References Department of water resources, provisions, see 23 Selection process for private architectural and engi- Cal. Code bf Regs. 382 et seq. neering firms, see 21 Cal. Code of Regs. 1301 et seq. Notes of Decisions 1. In general ' Gov. C. § 4525 et seq., relating to the selection of architectural and engineering firms are inapplicable to local agency such as counties. 62 Ops. Atty. Gen. 332, 6-20-79. § 4526. Selection of professional services firms; adoption of procedures Notwithstanding any other provision of law, selection by a state or local agency head for professional services of private architectural, landscape architectural~ engineering, environmental, land surveying, or construction project management firms shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. In order to implement this method of selection, state agency heads contracting for private architectural, landscape architectural, professional engineering, environmental, land survey- ing, and construction project management services shall adopt by regulation, and local agency heads contracting for private architectural, landscape architectural~ professional engineering, environmen- tal, land surveying, and construction project management services may adopt by ordinance, proce- dures that assure that these services are engaged on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the types of services to be performed and at fair and reasonable prices to the public agencies. Furthermore, these procedures shall assure maximum participation of small business firms, as defined by the Director of General Services pursuant to Section 14837. In addition, these procedures shall specifically prohibit practices which might result in unlawful activity including, but not limited to, rebates, kickbacks, or other unlawful consideration, and shall Additions. or changea Indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks * * * 114 GOVERNME] specifically pro~ those employee~ section which w (Amended by St 293, § 1; Stats operative Jan. 1 1989 Legislatiol Under the prov~ the 1989 amendm 1412 were given e: forth in § 4 of c. date of e. 293 (J, section by § 3 of ~ Jan. 1, 1990 undel § 4526.5. Corn A state agenc, applicable statw (Added by Stats § 4527. Annus In the procm surveying, and firms engaged qualifications ar (a) When the architectural, la project manage respective profe statements of q~ may be submitt~ no less than thr~ of approach fol preference, bas~ firms deemed k (b) When the described in sub might result in ~ consideration, m selection proces~ a contract undel (Amended by St 1412, § 5, eft. £ 1991 Legislatio! Operative effect tory Notes under. § 4528. Negoti (a) When the (1) The state: landscape arc.hit. agement service the State of Cai (2) Should the considered to be Additl YERNMENT CODE department, agency, or d, or any district which ng, environmental, land t land surveying servic- hitecturalf engineering, hat members of these )y a licensed architect, ~ts of Section 4529.5 for cts. ,n with project develop- ~nmental laws. 016, § 1; Stats.1989, c. § 2, eft. Oct. 2, 1989, 314 (S.B.805), elf. August of this act [c. 314] shall not ate Bill 1219 It. 313] in the ly July 9, 1991, and Assem- orm as amended in Senate ,~ Regular Session, are both become effective [so effec- ks cleanup fund, multiple ~rvices as defined by this ~ty Code, § 25299.57. ate architectural and engi- ~ode of Regs. 1301 et seq. es. 62 Ops. Atty. Gen. 332, local agency head for neering, environmental, , basis of demonstrated ~ory performance of the cy heads contracting for ronmental, land survey- and local agency heads ngineering, environmen- ~pt by ordinance, proce- strated competence and iable prices to the public ation of small business 4837. ~ight result in unlawful consideration, and shall iterlaks * * * GOVERNMENT CODE § 4528 specifically prohibit government agency employees from participating in the selection process when those employees have a relationship with a person or business entity seeking a contract under this section which would subject those employees to the prohibition of Section 87100. (Amended by Stats.1983, c. 469, § 3; Stats.1987, c. 698, § 3; Stats.1988, c. 1016, § 2; Stats.1989, c. 293, § 1; Stats.1989, c. 1412, § 3, elf. Oct. 2, 1989; Stats.1989, c. 1412, § 4, elf. Oct. 2, 1989, operative Jan. 1, 1990; Stats.1991, c. 314 (S.B.805), § 2.) Historical and Statutory Notes 1989 Legislation Section 2 of Stats.1989, c. 293, provides: Under the provisions of § 10 of Stats.1989, c. 1412, "The amendment made to Section 4526 of the Govern- the 1989 amendments of this section by c. 293 and c. ment Code by Section 1 of this act does not constitute a 1412 were given effect and incorporated in the form set change in, but is declaratory of, the existing law." forth in § 4 of c. 1412 to be operative on the operative date of c. 293 (Jan. 1, 1990). An amendment of this 1991 Legislation section by § 3 of Stats.1989, c. 1412, was operative until Operative effect of section, see Historical and St~tu- Jan. 1, 1990 under the provisions of § 10 of that Act. tory Notes under § 4525. § 4526.5. Compliance with Public Contract Code § 6106 A state agency head entering into a contract pursuant to this chapter shall, in addition to any other applicable statute or regulation, also follow Section 6106 of the Public Contract Code. (Added by Stats.1990, c. 1128 (A.B.3968), § 1.) § 4527. Annual statements of qualifications and performance data; announcement of projects In the procurement of architectural,' landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, land surveying, and construction project management services, the state agency head shall encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of their profession to submit annually a statement of qualifications and performance data. (a) When the selection is by a state agency head, statewide announcement of all projects requiring architectural, landscape architecturalfengineering, environmental, land surveying, or construction project management services shall be made by the agency head through publications of the respective professional societies. The agency head, for each proposed project, shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the agency, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and shall conduct discussions with no less than three firms regarding anticipated concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required services and then shall select therefrom, in order of preference, based upon criteria established and published by him or her, no less than three of the firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to provide the services required. Co) When the selection is by a local agency head, the agency head may undertake the procedures described in subdivision (a). In addition, these procedure~ shall specifically prohibit practices which might result in unlawful activity including, but not limited to, rebates, kickbacks, or other unlawful consideration, and shall specifically prohibit government agency employees from participating in the selection process when these employees have a relationship with a person or business entity seeking a contract under this section. (Amended by Stats.1983, c. 469, § 4; Stats.1987, C. 698, § 4; Stats.1988, c. 1016, § 3; Stats.1989, c. 1412, § 5, eff. Oct. 2, 1989; Stats.1991, c. 314 (S.B.805), § 3.) - Historical and Statutory Notes 1991 Legislation Operative effect of Section, see Historical and Statu- tory Notes under § 4525. § 4528. Negotiation of contracts (a) When the selection is by a state agency head the following procedures shall apply: (1) The state agency head shall negotiate a contract with the best qualified firm for architectural, landscape architectural~ engineering, environmental, land surveying, and construction project man- agement services at compensation which the state agency head determines is fair and reasonable to the .State of California or the political subdivision involved. (2) Should the state agency head be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified, at a price the agency head determines to be fair and reasonable Additlono or changea Indicated by underline.; dolotlona, by aaterlaka ° · * 0 · · · · · · 0 ©© <m ~ o o Regulatory Support: GeoSyntec Consultants Regulatory strategy development, including agency negotiation and liaison assistance, permitting, regulatory compliance, and closure process assistance. A more detailed presentation of GeoSyntec's qualifications is presented in the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) in Appendix C. PROPOSED PROJECT TEAM GeoSyntec is committing an experienced project team to the City. The project team members have experience with the North Coast RWQCB, feasibility studies, corrective action programs, VOC contaminated sites and remediation. All members of the proj~ct team are iocated in GeoSyntec's Walnut Creek office. Brief descriptions of key project team members are presented below with more detailed resumes included in Appendix A. The proposed project manager will be responsible for all aspects of the project, each of the individuals discussed below will support Dr. Lucia on the project as described below and will be supported by more junior staff members as required. Patrick C. Lucia, Ph.D.,P.E.- Project Manager- Dr. Lucia will serve as the Project Manager for the project. GeoSyntec places a high value on effective project management, it will be Dr. Lucia's responsibility as project manager to assure that the project is completed to high technical standards, within the planned scope, on schedule and within budget. Dr. Lucia has extensive experience with feasibility studies of VOC corrective action measures. As previously discussed Dr. Lucia was an invited lecturer at a NATO conference on Ground Water Pollution Control in Turkey in May 1995. He has also been a lecturer for the National Ground Water Association (NGWA) and for the University of Wisconsin on methods of ground water remediation. Examples of Dr. NCP95/WC95411 4 95.08.11 G¢oSyntec Consultants Lucia's experience is included on his resume with specific relevant project experiences and references in Appendix D. The two projects listed in Appendix D are directly relevant to the proposed project. Dr. Lucia was project manager t'or the evaluation of remedial alternatives for a VOC contaminated plume for the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). The report, which considered four alternative approaches was submitted to the San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB. Currently Dr. Lucia is project manager for the investigation and remediation of a chrome and V OC contaminated plume for a confidential client for a site in Willits California. The project is ongoing and is being performed'under an order from the North Coast RWQCB. R. Jeffrey Dunn, Ph.D, P.E., G.E. - Principal-In-Charge - Dr. Dunn will serve as Principal-In-Charge for the project and will ensure that personnel and company resources are available as needed to complete the project on schedule and within budget. He is a California registered Civil and Geotechnical Engineer with more than fifteen years of experience in design, permittingl construction, and ground water investigations and monitoring of landfills.' He has had extensive experience with landfills in Northern California and is currently working with the North Coast RWQCB. He is currently working with Mendocino County on the Casper Landfill. He is also working with the Central Valley RWQCB on the closure of the Fresno Sanitary Landfill, construction of Module 3 at the Fresno County American Avenue Landfill, and on expansion design and permitting of the B & J Landfill in Vacaville. Dr. Dunn also has extensive experience with the state regulations governing landfills throughout California. K. S. Jesionek, P.E. - Design of Reconstruction and Lining of Leachate Holding Ponds - Mr. Jesionek is a civil engineer and geohydrologist with over 14 years of experience in all aspects of solid waste management permitting, facility design, construction quality assurance (CQA), operations, closure, and regulatory liaison. His experience also includes water resources development, soil and water remediation and management, drainage/dewatering investigations, and environmental assessments. He NCP95/WC95411 5 95.08. ! 1 G¢oSyntec Consultants is a highly experienced landfill design engineer and has managed the design of many landfills and surface impoundments including the Vasco Road sanitary Landfill, Cummings Road Landfill, and Sonoma Landfill. Mr. Jesionek has been managing all aspects of consulting services to the site owners and operators of the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill for the last eight years. He was also the lead design engineer and managed CQA services for the first alternative liner design landfill liner constructed in accordance with Subtitle D regulations in Northern California. Mr. Jesionek also managed a 2-year project for the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop performance based landfill closure criteria for solid waste disposal facilities. Carolyn R. Kneiblher - Investigation of Extracting Leachate from Landfill - Carolyn Kneiblher is a hydrogeologist with more than ten years of experience in hazardous waste management. Her fields of expertise include hydrogeology, water quality, site characterization, and remediation. Since 1987, Ms. Kn6iblher has worked on projects throughout California that have involved the RWQCB North Coast Region, as well as other state and local agencies. Ms. Kneiblher has been the lead hydrogeologist on the investigation and remediation of the chrome and VOC ground water plume in Willits, California. Ms. Kneiblher was the manager of investigations and remediation at a research and development facility in Modesto. She was the project hydrogeologist and manager for investigations of soil and ground water contamination at a chemical facility in the Central Valley. The feasibility of using remediation techniques such as vapor extraction, fixation, and bioremediation were evaluated for the project. Ms. Kneiblher is presently wor 'king with the RWQCB on the closure of a former evaporation pond at a chemical distribution facility in Modesto. Karen Streich - Feasibility Studies and Corrective Action Measures - Ms. Streich is an environmental engineer with over 6 years of experience on a wide variety of hazardous waste projects, ranging from Phase I site assessments through remediation alternatives evaluation, design, and construction. Ms. Streich's project experience includes management of a ground-water remediation evaluation at a Sacramento, NCP95/WC95411 95.08.11 GeoSyntec Consultants California site contaminated with chlorinated organic solvents. In addition, Ms. Streich has been involved with numerous field investigations, remedial alternatives evaluations · and conceptual designs, and remediation cost estimates for a variety of sites with soil and groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds, agricultural chemicals, and metals. Ms. Streich was the project manager of investigations and remediations at multiple agricultural chemical formulation and/or distribution sites performed under the oversight of the Central Valley and Central Coast RWQCBs. She also conducted field investigations and soil remediation at several nitrate fertilizer facilities in the Pacific Northwest on an accelerated schedule to accommodate a property transfer. 'I-Iarol~i A. Tuchfeld - Hydrochemistry - Mr. Tuchfeld is a hydrochemist and health risk assessor with over 17 years experience. His fields of technical expertise include geochemistry, geology, risk assessment, and water quality. His experience includes a wide range of projects, including groundwater monitoring projects, SWAT invest!gations, remedial investigations and feasibility studies (RI/FS's), health risk assessments, waste management facility closure, litigation support, and agency negotiation and liaison. He has also served as a Director of an analytical laboratory. His project experience includes preparation of a Water Quality SWAT proposal and investigation report for the Chevron debris disposal site located near Bolinas, California. It also includes preparation of a comprehensive ground water contamination assessment report in support of waste discharge requirements, and design of a hydrologic monitoring program for the Casmalia Resources Hazardous Waste Management Facility. VOCs were some of the primary chemicals of concern at the site. Mr. Tuchfeld managed the Precision Media, State of California Superfund project involving ground water monitoring and revisions to a remedial investigation/interim remedial measure (RI/IRM) report. The site is located in Sunnyvale. NCP95/WC95411 95.08. PATRICK C. LUCIA EDUCATION University of California: Ph.D., Civil Engineering, 1980 University of California: M.S., Civil Engineering, 1975 University of California: B.S., Civil Engineering, 1974 REGISTRATION California G.E. Number (Geotechnical Engineer) GE2033 California P.E. Number (Civil Engineer) C33274 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS remediation waste management PROFESSIONAL HISTORY GeoSyntec Consultants, Walnut Creek, California, Principal, 1'993 - Present Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Principal and Vice President, 1984 - 1993 The Tensar Corporation, Pleasant Hill, California, Western Regional 'Engineer, 1983- 1984 Converse Consultants, San Francisco, California, Senior Engineer, 1980 - 1983 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc., ..Winchester, Massachusetts, Senior Engineer, 1975 - 1977 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966 - 1969 ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS AND INVITED LECTURES NATO Advanced Study Institute on Ground Water Pollution Control and Remediation, Invited Lecturer,Kemer, Antalya, Turkey 1995 The Application of United States Pollution Control Technology in Korea, Invited Lecturer, Seoul, Korea 1989 National Ground Water Association, Lecturer in the Insitu Remediation course 1994- 1995 University of Wisconsin, Lecturer in the Insitu Remediation short course, 1993-1994 University of California, Berkeley Extension Program, Member of Advisory Panel on the Certificate Program in Remediation, 1992 University of California, Davis, Senior Lecturer, 1990 - 1991 University of California, Berkeley, Adjunct Lecturer, 1986 - date; Visiting Lecturer, 1984- 1986; Research Engineer, 1978- 1980; Teaching Assistant, 1977- 1978 W~iIiiii,~ GEoSYNTEC CONSULTANTS OTHER APPOIN~TS San Francisco Bay Conservation and DeVelopment Commission, Engineering Criteria Review Board 1985 to Present. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Dr. Lucia is a civil engineer specializing in the areas of waste management and engineering. He has been responsible for a broad range of site investigations, including soil contamination and remediation, soil and foundation engineering, and earthquake engineering. These projects range from industrial commercial sites to power plants and include interaction with federal, state, and local agencies. Dr. Lucia has supervised numerous site contamination and remediation studies and geotechnical engineering projects. Dr. Lucia's consulting experience includes the following: · Served as a member of the Board of Consultants for the review of the closure design for a hazardous and low level radioa&ive waste landfill in Illinois. Provided expert testimony in trial and in hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Provided expert testimony on remedial alternatives and cost of remediation of a site in Sacramento, California contaminated with over 700 cubic yards of battery casings. · · · Provided expert testimony' 'on remedial alternatives and cost of remediation of a lead contaminated site in San Francisco, California. Provided review and exPert testimony on the remediation and closure methods and estimated cost of closure for a Class II landfill in California. Remediation and development of a 30 acre Port of Seattle facility containing a former municipal landfill, metal salvaging yard and large quantities of slag. Portions of the site contained RCRA waste. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study for a former chemical manufacturing facility in Portland Oregon, contamination included significant ground water contamination adjacent to a fiver. Evaluation of remediation cost at 20 sites in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Georgia and Minnesota including an evaluation of the clients GEoSYNTEC CONSULTANTS probable cost sharing as a potentially responsible party. Evaluation of remediation costs at 200 former pesticide sites and 350 former fertilizer sites located in over 20 states nationwide. The evaluation included the distribution of cost with the probability of occurrence. Remedial Investigation of soil and ground water contamination at a former chemical manufacturing site. An objective of the investigation was to identify other potentially responsible parties within the one half mile long contaminated ground water plume. Development of ground-water management strategies for dewatering and treatment of contaminated ground water for a two mile long underground rail transportation project in Los Angeles. Managed the design and preparation of plans and specifications for construction of a hydraulic containment system for a Class II landfill at a chemical manufacturing facility in California. Supervised studies analyzing the static and dynamic stability of dikes containing hazardous waste, including field and laboratory testing programs in accordance with EPA and state requirements. Supervised the development of a work plan that utilized decision analyses theory to effectively sample and evaluate mercury-contamination soil at 4,000-acre state Superfund site. Field and laboratory investigation for identification of Soil and ground water hydrocarbon contamination, development of a remediation plan, and design and permitting of ground-water treatment facility. Remedial investigation and feasibility study at a'former electronics facility with contaminated soil and ground water. Studies included eValuation of human health risk and alternative water supplies for ground water users. AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers Society of American Military Engineers Tau Beta Pi Phi Beta Kappa R. JEFFREY DUNN EDUCATION University of California, Berkeley: Ph.D., Geoteclmical Engineering, 1983 University of California, Berkeley: M.S., Geotechnical Engineering, 1976 University of California, Berkeley: B.S., 'Civil Engineering, 1975 Gv_oSvmxc CONSULTANTS geotechnical engineering, waste management, geosynthetics regulatory ussistance PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION California P.E. Number C29128 . California G.E. Number G2015' PROFESSIONAL HISTORY GeoSyntec Consultm~ts, Walnut Creek, California, Associate, 1991 -date Golder Associates, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, Senior Project Manager, 1991 Kleinfelder, Inc., Walnut Creek, California Associate/Assistant Regional Manager, 1987-1991 Senior Project Enghw. er, 1985-1987 ' University of Colorado, Boukler, Colorado, Assistant Profossor, 1982-1985 University of California, Berkeley, California Graduate R~search Assistant Domestic Mining and Minerals Fellow, 1978-1982 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, Califonfa, Staff Geotechifical Engineer, 1977-1978 REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Over the last 15 years Dr. Dunn has been involved with the desi_ma, pennitth~g, operations, and closure of a large number of solid taxi lmzardous waste landfills and surface impoundments. He has worked on projects for both private and lmblic sector clients. His project management experience has included projects tbr Browning-Ferris Industries, County of Sononm, California, City of Sebastolml, California, The Koll Company, Monsanto, and Southern Pacific Transportation Company. He has also provided specialized consulting services to Nevada County, California, Agate Construction Company of New Jersey, Union Carbide, San Joaquln County, California, tho City of Whittier, California, and the California Integrated Wast~ Management Board. · Specific projects in which Dr. Da. mn has been managed landfill closure engineering and cover design include the City of Fresno Landfill SUPERFUND Site, Brisbane Lasglfill, McCourtney Road Landfill, Sonoma Landfill, Vasco Roed Sanitary Landfill, Brisbane Landfill, Sierra Point Landfill, Junipero Serra Landfill, and Industri-Plex SUPERFUND site in Woburn, Massachusetts He has worked with a number of clients and regulatory agencies in the development stages of state and regulations and ~fidelhies for closure and post-closure landuse at landfills. Recently he managed a two year state-of-the-art study of "Performance Criteria for Landfill Covers" for the Califon'fia Integrated Waste Management Board (CI'WMB). Tiffs was a comprehensive study of a wid~ variety of cover materials and provides reconunendatiom to the CIWMB regardh~g needed modifications to cover requirements in California. Dr. [hum is nationally r~o~ed tbr Iris expertise in design and construction of clay lh~ers and covers. He 'has conducted extensive research in hydraulic conductivity testing of soils and was one of the primary authors of GEOSYNTEC CONSL'LTANTS the recently promulgated ASTM standard for laboratory flexible wall hYdraulic conductivity testiag. AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE Committee on Environmental Geotechnology American Society for Testing and Materials, Conunittees D-18 and D-35 International Society on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Enginearing International Geotextile Society North American Geosynthetics Society GeoSyntec Consultants facility will be developed and will be presented in a Feasibility Report submitted to the City at the conclusion of the study. 4.5 TASK 5: ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES. VOC The RFP requires that the Engineering Feasibility Study(EFS) identify corrective action measures that can be taken to achieve the removal of VOCs from ground waters along the northerly toe of the landfill footprint for the purpose of achieving water quality objectives. After nearly fifteen years of remediation of contaminated ground water in the United States experience has shown that remediation of VOC contaminated ground water is most likely not possible. As discussed in Appendix B, review' of over 80 remediation projects indicates that,in limited cases with favorable soil, ground water and contaminant conditions, remediation of ground water to drinking water standards may be possible. However, in the great majority of cases, remediation of ground water to drinking water standards is not possible with currently available technology. The most important factor in achieving corrective action objectives is to develop objectives that are achievable given the hydrogeologic and contaminant conditions at the site and that consider the limitations of current technologies. A logical approach that can result in developing attainable corrective action objectives is the following: Evaluate potential human and environmental receptors that could possibly be impacted by migration of the contaminated ground water; Evaluate the potentially likelihood of contaminants migrating along a potential pathway to the receptors; NCP95/WC95411 14 95.08.11 Develop mitigation measures pathways; and GeoSyntec Consultants to prevent migration along potential Develop a monitoring' programs to measure the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Following completion of Task l, GeoSyntec will meet with the City to develop Corrective Action objectives that are reasonably attainable within the City's budget. GeoSyntec would follow a phased approach to develop the Engineering Feasibility Study (EFS) that would include input from the City and consultation with the RWQCB, as follows: Collect and review relevant data that would include site information, site geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics and ground water data and water quality protection standards. Evaluate at least three alternatives that can meet the Corrective Action objectives. Evaluate the alternatives against the evaluation criteria which can include performance, ease of implementation, and life cycle costs. '"". ' Present the results of the preliminary evaluation including life cycle costs to the City with a recommendation on alternatives that should be studied further. NCP95/WC95411 In the second phase of the EFS, complete more detailed evaluation of the alternatives and present the results to the City. 15 95.08. ! 1 GeoSyntec ConsultantS The EFS will include, as a minimum, the following alternatives. A more detailed review of the data may indicate other alternatives should be considered that cannot be identified at this time. 1) No action - Propose to continue monitoring with no further action. The basis for this alternative would be that the contaminants have not migrated. Based on a limited review of the data, the extent of contamination appears to be limited. A statistical evaluation of the data can be performed to evaluate the concentrations of the contamination with time to evaluate the rate of change of the concentrations. 2) Expanded monitoring - Propose to continue monitoring with the addition of one or more ground water monitoring wells to evaluate the potential for migration of the contamination and to provide additional points of compliance. This alternative could also include a statistical evaluation of the data to quantify the "~legradation of chemicals. If the data indicates that the concentrations of chemicals are decreasing with time and the additional monitoring wells can confirm no further migration of chemicals beyond the current limits of contamination, then this alternative may have a higher probability of acceptance. 3) Treatment and monitoring - Propose a series of extraction wells to pump contaminated ground water for treatment with an air stripper, carbon or other aeration treatments at a rate that provides hydraulic containment of ground water contamination. Also, in situ treatment systems such as air sparging and bioremediation will be evaluated. Each of the above alternatives and any others considered will be evaluated against criteria which may include technical feasibility, implementability, and cost effectiveness. The selection of an alternative will be made in consultation with the City staff. NCP95/WC95411 16 95.08. I 1 TABLE 6-2 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS RATE SCHEDULE Professional Services Staff Professional Senior Staff Professional Assistant Project Professional Project Professional Senior Project Professional Associate Principal Technical/Field Services Laboratory Assistant, Field Technician Laboratory Technician, Senior Field Technician Field Superintendent Senior Laboratory Technician, Field Manager Senior Field Manager Administrative Services Senior Drafter/Senior CADD Operator Drafter/CADD Operator/Artist Technical Word Processor Administrative Assistant Clerical General Rate/Hour $ 66 $ 76 $ 88 $ 99 $114 $124 $138 $ 39 · $44 $ 49 $ 54 $ 59 $ 54 $45 $ 40 $ 45 $ 34 Direct Expenses Subcontract Services Communications Fee Computer System (per hour) Personal Automobile (per mile) Photocopies (per page) Cost plus 10% Cost plus 15% 3 % of Professional Fees $10 $.42 $.12 Rates for field equipment, health and safety equipment, and graphical supplies presented upon request. G¢oSyntec Consultants Table 4-1 presents an example of a summary of alternatives considered for a project managed by Dr. Lucia. Confidential information has been deleted from the , table. Table 4-2 presents an example of cost estimate information for a carbon treatment system for a project managed by Dr. Lucia. TIME SCHEDULE The proposed schedule is shown on Table 5-1 with key dates shown as follows: . Meeting on 20 September 1995 - review results of data review - discuss format for data presentation of Task 2 - arrange for gas well observations for Task 3 - discuss requirements for leachate holding pond - develop corrective action objectives . Meeting on 3 November 1995 - present results of Task 2 - discuss recommendation from Task 3 Phase 1 - discuss recommendation from Task 4 - discuss recommendations for corrective action alternatives and select 3 alternatives for additional evaluation 3~ 4~ NCP95/WC95411 Meeting on 29 November 1995 - submit Draft Engineering Feasibility Study 14 December 1995 - submit Final Engineering Feasibility Study 17 95.08.11 ZZ ©© 0 0 II J .0 · · · · · · · Proposal Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for Ukiah Landfill City of Ukiah, California 1.0 Firm Qualifications and Resources Dames & Moore is a multidisciplinary earth science and engineering consulting firm founded in California in 1938. Since its humble beginnings, Dames & Moore has grown to over 4,000 professional staff and experts in every facet of investigation, engineering, and construction. The firm now serves its clients through 84 offices in the United States (12 in California), and 40 offices in other countries. Dames & Moore maintains its corporate headquarters in California. Dames & Moore recognizes that the project must be com- pleted in a short time period, and that our technical re- sources must be assembled and organized in a manner that ensures completion of the project within the required time and budget constraints. Furthermore, Dames & Moore has specific expertise in all aspects of solid.waste engineering assessment and remedial action feasibility studies that may be required for the Ukiah landfill. An outline of our firm's qualifications in the area of solid waste engineering and VOC remediation is provided in a brief statement of qualifi- cations presented in Appendix A. 2.0 Project Management and Key Personnel This section presents information on our project manage- ment approach, client references, and the key personnel who will be assigned to assist the project. 2.1 Project Management Experience Our proposed project manager, Mr. John Fawcett, P.E., is a California registered engineer and has over 15 years of experience (10 years with Dames & Moore) in solid waste management, remediation engineering, and multidisci- plinary project management. Mr. Fawcett's specific solid waste project experience includes 23 CCR, Article 5 com- pliance (including remediation of groundwater impacted by landfills), design and permitting of new and expanded waste management facilities, landfill gas control and recov- ery, and leachate control and recirculation. Example pro- jects that illustrate Mr. Fawcett's extensive background and knowledge of corrective measures pertaining specifically to cleanup of VOC-impacted groundwater and soil are listed below: SAC160.02 1 City of Ukiah Proposal- Engineering Feasibility Study · Union Pacific Railroad Yard, Central Fill Area, Sacra- mento, California -- chlorinated VOC impact character- ization and design/construction/operation of soil and groundwater remediation systems; · U.A. Local 38, Clear Lake, California- soil and groundwater VOC remediation; · Bonzi Landfill, Modesto, California -- VOC remediation; · Richmond Refinery, Landfill/Land Farm Sites, Richmond, Cai iforn ia -- VOC/pesticide investigation/remed iation; · U.C. Davis Landfill,' Davis, California -- groundwater VOC remediation; · Union Pacific Railroad, EPA Superfund Site, Oroville, California -- chlorinated VOC impact characterization and design/construction/operation of soil and groundwa- ter remediation systems; · Koppers Feather River, EPA Superfund Site, Oroville, California- pentachlorophenol groundwater investiga- rio n/remed iation; · Hillview-Porter, EPA Superfund Site, Palo Alto, Califor- n ia -- groundwater VOC remediation assessment; · Watkins-Johnson EPA Superfund Site, Scotts Valley, California -- groundwater VOC remediation; · Hewlett Packard, State Superfund Site, Palo Alto, Cali- fornia -- VOC remediation; · Old U.C. Davis Landfill, Davis, California; and · City of Davis Landfill, Davis, California Mr. Fawcett's technical expertise is coupled with strong project management experience, including completion of numerous VOC corrective action projects on time and within budget. Mr. Fawcett uses Timeline scheduling software to plan scope and schedule, and a unique Dames & Moore project tool called the Job Reporting System ORS) to track labor and material costs on a weekly basis for each subtask. The JRS is used on all Dames & Moore projects, is very accommodating, and can be matched with the City of Ukiah's project management needs. Dames & Moore recognizes that the City of Ukiah places a 'strong emphasis on consistent project management for the duration of the project. Therefore, Mr. Fawcett is commit- ted to serve-as project manager and to remain an employee $AC160.02 2 City of Ukiah Proposal- Engineering Feasibility Study Mr. Larry Effinger Water Quality Division Sacramento Regional Coun- ty Sanitation District Sacramento, California (916) 395-5480 of the firm until the project is complete. Dames & Moore is approaching the project with the intention of serving the City of Ukiah on this and potential future projects. We are therefore sensitive to the City of Uki~h's needs, and we recognize the importance of having a single project man- ager for the duration of the project. *We will not assign an alternative project manager, except under extenuating circumstances, and in no case without approval of the City of Ukiah. 2.2 Client References We have selected three clients to serve as references for Mr. Fawcett and the Dames & Moore team. These clients were selected based on similarities between their projects and the work requested by the City of Ukiah. Each has indicated willingness to discuss Dames & Moore's perfor- mance the City of Ukiah staff. Relevant information for each reference is provided below. ' Dames & Moore performed an investigation, and designed and implemented corrective measures for groundwater impacted by a closed landfill site, biosolids containment ponds, and dedicated biosolids land disposal facilities. Work to date has included a complete 23 CCR Article 5 .compliance program, including a development of a Detec- tion Monitoring Program, Evaluation Monitoring Program, and Corrective Action Program. This work included meet- ings and negotiations with the RWQCB to set Water Quali- ty Protection Standards (WQPSs). The selected remedial action alternative included extraction of groundwater from the shallow and deep water-bearing units, and discharge via a force main and gravity drain system to the on-site municipal wastewater treatment plant. An assessment of landfill gas was also conducted for a grit and screenings landfill. Based upon the character and extent of the landfill gas detected, appropriate remedial measures were recom- mended. Mr. Effinger indicated that he would be available for a telephone interview on August 14. SAC~.O~ 3 City of Ukiah Proposal- Engineering Feasibility Study 2.3 Proposed Project Team All members of the proposed project team are based in Dames & Moore's Sacramento's offic.e. Summary biosketches for each professional are presented below. William R. Short, C.E.G., is an AssOciate Engineering Geol- ogist who specializes in environmental and engineering geology. He is a Certified Engineering Geologist, Certified Hydrogeologist, and a Registered Geologist in California, and has over 12 years of professional experience. Mr. Short is currently managing the SWAT, Air SWAT, and Preliminary Endangerment Assessment investigations at the former White Rock North Landfill, a State Superfund site in Sacramento County. He has completed the Chapter 15 compliance investigation of the Class III landfill and Class II Solids Disposal Sites at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. · Mr. Short also prepared the geologic portions of closure plans, supervised the Evaluation Monitoring and groundwa- ter Corrective Action Programs, and supervised the landfill gas investigation for the waste management units at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Imple- mentation of the groundwater Corrective Action Program is currently underway. Landfill gas issues have been resolved through movement of the landfill boundary into buffer zones surrounding the landfill. In addition, Mr. Short has conducted engineering geologic analysis of bedrock and soils from the 825-acre expansion of the Altamont Landfill in Livermore. Mr. Short has a broad experience base in regulatory issues and interacting with the RWQCB and CIWMB, including supervising 23 CCR Article 5 assess- ments at the former City of Davis Landfill and the Old U.C. Davis Landfill. Robert B. Wallace P.E. Associate Engineer, will provide liner system selection and design expertise for Task IV. Mr. Wallace has 22 years of experience specializing in landfills, geosynthetics, and geotechnical engineering. He has pro- vided project supervision and consultation in geosynthetics and geotechnical engineering, especially containment systems incorporating soil and geosynthetic liners for nu- merous projects. He is project manager for the Graham $AC160.02 5 City of Ukiah Proposal- Engineering Feasibility Study Road, Lehigh, and Riverbend Landfill closure designs, and was technical reviewer'for the Hillsboro Landfill design. Mr. Wallace has performed supervision and certification of over 50 construction quality assurance programs for install- ing liner systems for landfills, closure systems, ponds, and other surface impoundments. Anne L. Olson, P.E., is a Project Engineer specializing in design of waste management units and engineering feasibil- ity studies. She is a registered civil engineer in the state of California, and has been with Dames & Moore for over 6 years. Ms. Olson recently completed design of geosynthetic lining systems for a 50-acre surface impound- ment complex and liner and LCRS systems for a biosolids land disposal pilot test cell at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. She has worked extensively on feasibility studies related to non,hazardous waste man- agement, as well as remedial action for soil and groundwa- ter impacts at numerous sites. She is also well-versed in storm water assessment and management principles. Anthony Mindling, R.G., is a Project Hydrogeologist with eight years of experience with Dames & Moore in site geologic and hydrogeologic investigations. His special expertise is database management, groundwater modeling, and aquifer test analysis. Mr. Mindling has been responsi- ble for coordinating database management, technical illus- tration services, and boring log production for several major RI/FS projects, including Hewlett-Packard in Palo Alto, California. This is a multi-site project with a database of over 250,000 records of analytical, water level, and flow monitoring results. As database management coordinator, Mr. Mindling is responsible for efficient utilization and application of database management tools, including FoxPro, Clipper, Dbase, Excel, and AutoCad. Mr. Mindling has been responsible for database management services for investigations related to several landfill sites, including Bonzi Landfill in Modesto and the Old U.C. Davis Landfill in Davis, California. Modeling services utilizing the HELP (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance) model have been provided by Mr. Mindling for a landfill in Fresno, California. $AC160.02 6 City of Ukiah Proposal- Engineering Feasibility Study J. David Zuber, R.G., is a Project Geologist and a Califor- nia State Registered Geologist specializing in geologic and hydrogeologic investigations and development of water quality protection standards. Mr. Zuber has managed groundwater monitoring programs for the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Sacramento Coun- ty, and for a federal facility in Davis, California. He devel- oped the water quality protection standards and assisted in developing the Detection Monitoring, Evaluation Monitor- lng, and Corrective Action Programs for the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant solids disposal facili- ty, and assisted in developing the water monitoring pro- gram for the federal facility. Mr. Zuber has also developed and implemented procedures for statistical analysis of groundwater and soil data at these sites. Additional landfill experience has included well installation, groundwater monitoring, reporting for a landfill io Modesto, California, and conducting PEA and SWAT investigations at an aban- doned landfill in eastern Sacramento County. Mark Eisen has over five years of experience specializing in hydrogeologic investigations. Mr. Eisen has combined innovative field evaluation techniques with contaminant migration principles to implement cost effective site investi- gations and aid in remedial design. Recently, Mr. Eisen has designed an extraction well field to address VOC im- pacts in groundwater originating from a landfill owned and operated by University of California, Davis. Mr. Eisen has played an integral role in Superfund site groundwater investigations in Oroville, Palo Alto, Sacramento, and Umatilla, Oregon. His expertise includes characterization of groundwater impacts, aquifer characterization, and groundwater flow and transport modeling. Mr. Eisen has designed and conducted, several aquifer pumping tests under a variety of hydrogeologic conditions, and designed extraction well fields for groundwater remediation. Kimberly Thomason, is a Staff Engineering Geologist with expertise in Geology and Hydrogeology. Her principal duties include field investigation and geologic consultation for waste-related projects. Ms. Thomason has conducted several aquifer pumping tests including installing and oper- ating data loggers and transducers, conducting step $AC160.02 7 City of Ukiah Proposal- Engineering Feasibility Study Task I-- Data Compilation and ' $ Review 4,000 Task II -- Evaluation Monitoring $ Program 4,200 Task III -- Feasibility of Leachate Extraction Phase 1 Phase 2 $ 2,900 $ 5,200 Task IV -- Preliminary Engineer- $ ing M Leachate Holding Pond/Discharge to Public Sewer Task V -- Engineering Feasibility' $ Study M VOC Corrective Mea- sures 6,400 23,400 Project Total (excludes Task III, Phase 2) $ 40,900 II Individual cost tables are provided in Appendix C. The cost tables include information on the hourly rates for each individual involved in the work, and estimated fees for expenses. Please note that a separate cost is included for the drilling of one leachate exploratory boring based on depth assumptions and appropriate pump testing. The cost for drilling and testing is not included in the project total. Dames & Moore will use the proprietary JRS job reporting system to track budgets and to prepare progress payments. SACI60.02 16 City of Ukiah TASK I: Data Compilation and Review LABOR pERSONNEL CHARGES [ Rate [ Hours ] Estimate TOTALS Project Manager - Fawcett $112.00 16 ' '$1~792 Associate - Short $108.00 8 $864 Associate - Wallace $108.00 $0 Project Geologist - Zuber $80.00 $0 Project Hydrogeologist - Eisen $76.00 8 $608 Project Engineer - Olson $80.00 8 $640 Staff Engineer - Blair $74.00 $0 Staff Geologist - Thomason $51.00 $0 Project Hydrogeologist - Mindling $82.00 $0 AutoCAD .' , . $65.00 $0 Technical Illustration $60.00 $0 Staff Database Technician $52.00 $0 Admin. Assistant $45.00 $0 Word Processing $55.00 $0 Support $35.00 $0 Subtotals 40 $3,904 $3,904 EXPENSES I $77 I TASK TOTAL [ $3,981 TASK II: Evaluation Monitoring Program- -Subtask A: Water Quality Protection ;tandards LABOR i PERSONNEL CHARGES [ Rate I HOurs I Estimate TOTALS Project Manager - Fawcett $112.00 $0 i Associate - Short $108.00 2 $216 Associate - Wallace $108.00 $0 Project Geologist - Zuber $80.00 6 $480 Project Hydrogeologist - Eisen $76.00 $0 Project Engineer - Olson $80.00 $0 Staff Engineer - Blair $74.00 $0 Staff Geologist - Thomason $51.00 '$0 Project Hydrogeologist - Mindling $82.00 $0 AutoCAD $65.00 $0 Technical Illustration $60.00 $0 Staff Database Technician $52.00 $0 Admin. Assistant $45.00 $0 Word Processing $55.00 $0 Support $35.00 $0, Subtotals 8 $696 $696 I TASK TOT/ti, I $696 TASK II: Evaluation Monitoring Program--Subtask B: Database Development anll Time-Cot LABOR - PERSONNEL CHARGES I Rate I Hours I Estimate TOTALS Project Manager - Fawcett $112.00 4 $448 Associate- Short $108.00 $0 Associate - Wallace $108.00 $0 Project Geologist - Zuber $80.00 $0 !Project Hydrogeologist - Eisen $76.00 $0~ Project Engineer - Olson $80.00 $0_ Staff Engineer - Blair $74.00 $0 Staff Geologist - Thomason $51.00 $0 Project Hydrogeologist - Mindling $82.00 6 $492.. AutoCAD $65.00 $0 : Technical Illustration $60.00 $0.. Staff Database Technician $52.00 34 $1,768 Admln. Assistant $45.00 2 $90 Word Processing $55.00 1 $55 $35.00 $0 Support Subtotals 47 $2,853 $2,853 EXPENSES I $132 EQUIPMENT I $485 ~TASK TOTAl. I $3,470 TASK III, Phase 1: Feasibility of Leachate Extraction - Scoping and Proposal LABOR PERSONNEL CHARGES [ Rate [ Hours I Estimate TOTALS Project Manager - Fawcett $112.00 8 $896 Associate - Short $108.00 8 $864 Associate - Wallace $108.00 $0 Project Geologist - Zuber $80.00 $0 Project Hydrogeologist - Eisen $76.00 12 $912 Project Engineer - Olson $80.00 $0 Staff Engineer - Blair $74.00 $0 Staff Geologist - Thomason $51.00 4 $204 .Project Hydrogeologist - Mindling $82.00 $0 IAutoCAD $65.00 $0 Technical Illustration $60.00 $0 Staff Database Technician $52.00 $0 Admin. Assistant $45.00 1 $45 Word Processing $55.00 $0 Support $35.00 $0 Subtotals 33 $2,921 $2,921 I TASK TOTAl. I $2,921 TASK III, Phase 2: FEasibility of Leaehate Extraction - Estimate for One Leachate Nell and Pu LABOR PERSONNEL CHARGES I Rate I Hours I Estimate TOTALS project Manager - Fawcett $112.00 $0 Associate - Short $108.00 $0 Associate - Wallace $108.00 $0 Project Geologist - Zuber $80.00! $0 Project Hydrogeologist - Eisen $76.00 4 $304 Project Engineer - Olson $80.00 $0 Staff Engineer - Blair "' $74.00 $0 Staff Geologist - Thomason $51.00 28 $1,428 Project Hydrogeologist - Mindling $82.00 $0 AutoCAD $65.00 I $0 Technical Illustration $60.00 $6 Staff Database Technician $52.00 $0 Admin. Assistant $45.00 j0 Word Processing $55.00 $0 Support $35.00 $0 Subtotals 32 $1,732 $1,732 EQUIPMENT $500 DRILLER [ $2,800 I PERMIT [ ' $200 I TASK TOTAL I $5,232 ASSUMPTIONS: Total well' depth of 50" to base of waste. Drilling using hollow stem auger rig. Four-inch diameter leachate monitoring well. 24-hour pumping test. Discharge of pump test effluent to existing leachate holding pond. TASK IV: Preliminary Engineering - Leachate Holding Pond/Discharge to Public S ewer LABOR i PERSONNEL CHARGES [ Rate I Hours [Estimate TOTALS iProject Manager - Fawcett $112.00 10 $1,120 !Associate - Short $108.00 2 $216 :Associate - Wallace $108.00 4 $432 Project Geologist - Zuber $80.00 $0 i Project Hydrogeologist - Eisen $76.00 $0 Project Engineer - Olson $80.00 36 $2,880 Staff Engineer - Blair $74.00 8i $592 Staff Geologist - Thomason $51.00 $0 Project Hydrogeologist - Mindling $82.00 $0 AutoCAD $65.00 10 $650 Technical Illustration $60.00 $0 Staff Database Technician $52.00 $0 Admin. Assistant $45.00 1 $45 Word Processing $55.00 $0 Support $35.00 4 $140 Subtotals 75 $6,075 $6,075 ~ EXPENSES I 'EQUIPMENT [ $320 TASK TOTAL I $6,417 TASK V: Engineering Feasibility Study - VOC Corrective Measures LABOR PERSONNEL CHARGES I Rate [ Hours [ Estimate TOTALS Project Manager - Fawcett $112.00 32 Associate - Short $108.00 16 $1,728 Associate - Wallace $108.00 2 $216 Project Geologist - Zuber $80.00 10 $800 Project Hydrogeologist - Eisen $76.00 20 $1,520. Project Engineer - Olson $80.00 90 $7,200 Staff Engineer - Blair $74.00 60 $4,440 Staff Geologist - Thomason $51.00 20 $1,020 :Project Hydrogeologist - Mindling $82.00 $0 AutoCAD $65.00 12 $78t}" Technical Illustration $60.00 12 $720 Staff Database Technician $52.00 $0 Admin. Assistant $45.00 4 $180 Word Processing $55.00 14 $770 Support $35.00 6 $216 Subtotals 298 $23,168 $23,168 EXPENSES [ $99 EQUIPMENT I $180 I TASK TOTAl. ] $23,447! Section 2 Project Personnel PROJECT PERSONNEL The qualifications of personnel responsible for implementing the variou.s tasks of this project are described in this section. The overall project manager and primary contact for this project will be Damon Brown, R.G., C.E.G. Mr. Brown will be assisted by Duane Butler, P.E., Dale Solheim, P.E., R.E.A., and Mike Delmanowski, R.G., C.E.G. Statistical analysis for determination of the COD concentration limit for Well No. 90-3 will be performed by GeoChem. GeoChem performed the original statistical analyses on surface water and groundwater at the Ukiah Landfill and will participate in the project as an exclusive subconsultant to EBA. Brief descriptions outlining the responsibilities and experience of each project team member are presented below. The corresponding resumes for each of these individuals are enclosed in Appendix A of this proposal. Project Manager Damon Brown, R.G., C.E.G. Mr. Brown will supervise the overall project and will also be a technical participant in the majority of the tasks. Mr. Brown is a geologist with over fifteen years of experience in the fields of hydrogeology, engineering geology, and environmental geology. He has experience in: surface and subsurface geologic investigations, hydrogeologic characterization investigations, remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FS) for landfill and industrial sites, hazardous waste contamination studies, design and implementation of soil and groundwater corrective action programs, fault and landslide investigations, engineering geologic evaluations, borrow investigations, and environmental impact studies. Mr. Brown is committed to the project and has extensive knowledge and experience specific to the Ukiah Landfill site which contributes valuable insight to the evaluation of various remedial action alternatives. Project Oversight and Quality Control Duane'Butler, P.E. Mr. Duane Butler will provide oversight and'quality control to the project. The project will be the subject of weekly meetings between Mr. Butler and EBA staff to assure compliance with schedules and adherence to budgets. Mr. Butler will also be available to attend meetings with City staff and staff of the regulatory agencies as needed. Mr. Butler has over 25 years of solid waste experience on a wide variety of projects. He has managed and provided quality control supervision and regulat6ry agency liaison on many landfill and water quality projects. L:~PROPOSAL\1995~146-95\UKIAH 2-1 Printed o~ Recycled Paper Sectiou ~ l~oject Personnel Princioal Design Engineer Dale Solhehn, P.E., R.E.A. Mr. Solheim will act as the principal design engineer for development of pond reconstruction specifications and the leachate disposal pipeline. Mr. Solheim will also provide technical assistance in engineering matters associated with corrective action measures. He has extensive experience in the design of landfills, landfill gas systems, transfer stations and recycling facilities, and is proficient in the design .of liners, grading, drainage, sedimentation control and ancillary facilities such as roads, water systems, scales and utilities. Principal Hydrogeologist Mike Dehnanowski, R.G., C.E.G. Mr. Delmanowski will act as the principal hydrogeologist responsible for the leachate extraction investigation and evaluation of groundwater corrective action measures. Primary responsibilities will include implementation and analysis of the leachate extraction operations, evaluation of site hydrogeology as it pertains to proposed treatment operations, .and the evaluation of various groundwater treatment alternatives. Mr. Delmanowski has over eight years of experience in the field of hydrogeology and environmental geology. In addition to site characterization studies (i.e., aquifer analysis, fate and transport of contaminants, etc.), Mr. Delmanowski has been extensively involved in the development of soil and groundwater treatment programs, including the preparation and/or technical review of Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS), Corrective Action Plans (CAP), and Corrective Action Reports (CAR). Senior Hydrogeologist Safa Jubboori, Ph.D., CPSS Dr. Jubboori will provide technical assistance in the leachate extraction investigation and evaluation of groundwater corrective action measures. Dr. Jubboori has a broad range of experience in both soil and groundwater engineering, and will therefore be utilized in evaluating the feasibility of leachate extraction and provide technical insight with regard groundwater- related issues. Dr. Jubboori received his Ph.D. in the field of hydrology and soil physics, and is a Certified Professional Soils Scientist (CPSS). Areas of expertise include soil physics, irrigation and evapotranspiration mechanics, and modeling of flow and contaminant transport in soil and groundwater. Section 3 Scop~ of Wor~ TASK V: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF VOC CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES EBA will prepare an engineering feasibility study of corrective action measures for the removal of VOC contaminants in groundwater along the northerly toe of the Landfill footprint. The VOC contaminants are comprised of miscellaneous halogenated and aromatic organic compounds at concentrations ranging from slightly above to less than applicable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and/or regulatory action levels. In light of the borderline nature of the VOC concentrations with regard to regulatory limits, EBA will explore remedial action alternatives ranging from no action to more sophisticated in-situ and ex-situ treatment methodologies. The no action alternative is considered a potential option based on the low VOC concentrations detected to date and the fact that the Landfill is nearing closure. Two similar alternatives would be to: 1) close the Landfill early (i.e., prior to reaching full capacity) and cap the Landfill in accordance with Title 14 and Title 23 CCR requirements; and 2) partially close the Landfill by capping the older western portion (i.e., the portion that appears to be contributing VOCs) while allowing the newer eastern portion to operate to capacity. Each of the aforementioned alternatives would rely on natural degradation of the VOC component and would be coupled with long-term monitoring programs. Since these alternatives do not provide active treatment, they would likely require the greatest effort to obtain regulatory approval. With regard to more aggressive treatment alternatives, a large variety of remedial technologies are available for the treatment of VOC-impacted water. Several examples of these technologies include: Active pump and treat operations with subsequent VOC removal at the surface. Methods of treatment include: liquid-phase activated carbon; air stripping; bioremediation; incineration; chemical oxidation; and UV-ozone; · ln-situ bioremedialion; Air sparging coupled with vacuum extraction and treatment; and Passive treatment using a "funnel and gate" system in combination with a porous reactive medium. Application of the various methodologies is contingent upon a number of issues such as the local hydrogeologic characteristics, site operations and constraints, required regulatory cleanup levels, and most importantly, costs. Although each technology offers different advantages and disadvantages, the most appropriate alternatives can typically be narrowed down to two or three based on their ability to satisfy regulatory requirements and accommodate the client's operational and budgetary needs. As outlined earlier, EBA will explore a variety of different options. However, based on the anticipated duration of the treatment program (i.e., comparable to the postclosure maintenance period), special emphasis will be given to long-term operational costs. In addition, hydrocarbon destruction costs versus VOC concentrations will be closely scrutinized since the VOC concentrations detected in groundwater to date have been relatively low. Two other factors that will be evaluated as part of the feasibility study include the potential treatment of leachate generated by the leachate extraction system (if applicable) and the benefits L:XPROPOSAL\1995\1 ~9$\UKIAll 3-6 Printed on Reo,cDd Pape~ Section 3 Scope of Work of implementing an active landfill gas (LFG) extraction operation. If findings from Task III reveal that leachate extraction is a viable option, the potential cost to treat the leachate as opposed to disposal to the public sewer via a pipeline (as outlined in Task IV) will be evaluated. The treatment of leachate would be incorporated into the groundwater treatment operations, provided an ex-situ treatment alternative is selected for groundwater. With regard to LFG extraction, recent findings from LFG research suggests that LFG may be a major contributor to groundwater impacts. The primary mechanism causing this phenomenon appears to be the condensation of LFG along the perimeter of landfills due to temperature gradients. Although implementation of an active LFG extraction system will not abate existing groundwater impacts and, therefore will not be included as part of a recommended VOC Corrective Action Plan, it may be beneficial in achieving long-term water quality goals. EBA's assessment of potential corrective actions will comply with applicable regulations. As outlined in 40 CFR, Part 258, Section 258.56, analysis of the effectiveness of potential corrective measures will address, at a minimum, the following issues: The performance, reliability, ease of implementation, and potential impacts of appropriate potential remedies, including safety impacts, cross-media impacts, and control of exposure to any residual contamination; · The time required to begin and complete the remedy; · The costs of remedy implementation; and The institutional, requirements such as State or local permit requirements or other environmental or public health requirements that may substantially affect implementation of the remedy(s). . Findings from the feasibility study will be summarized in a "draft" Engineering Feasibility Study Report and presented to the City (two copies) for discussion an~l consultation. It has been EBA's experience that active participation by RWQCB staff at this phase of the project can be very beneficial. The report will include information regarding the corrective action objectives and all pertinent data .used in the evaluation of potential treatment strategies. In addition, a minimum of three corrective actions will be recommended for further detailed study by the City. Each of the recommended corrective actions will be supplemented with supporting documentation justifying their selection. The supporting documentation will include information regarding technical application, reliability, operation and maintenance issues, projected treatment periods, and life cycle costs. The report will also include, if deemed necessary, recommendations for additional field investigation to better define design parameters for the selected corrective actions. Following the City's review of the draft report, a second phase will be implemented to address any questions raised by the City and perform a more detailed study of the three preferred corrective action alternatives. Upon completion of these activities, the "draft" report will be finalized (six copies) and formally presented to the City Council. L:~PROPOSAL\1995\146.95\UKIAH Primed on Recycled Paper ~z> o mm =o >. = WAST£ HNO£OGI $ Engineers & Environmental Consultants STANDARD SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES Principal Engineer ............................ $125.00 per hour Senior Geologist ............................. $ 90.00 per hour Project Manager ............................. $ 95.00 Senior Engineer ............................. $ 75.00 Staff Geologist .............................. $ 60.00 Staff Engineer .............................. $ 60.00 Senior Hydrologist ........................... $100.00 Survey: 3 Man Crew (incl. equipment) ............... $185.00 Survey: 2 Man Crew (incl. equipment) ............... $145.00 Planner .................................. $ 65.00 Senior Planner .............................. $ 80.00- $ Environmental Specialist 1 ....................... $ 55.00 per Environmental Specialist 2 ....................... $ 60.00 per Senior Environmental Specialist ................... $ 65.00 per Design Draftsperson .......................... $ 45.00 per Wordprocessing ............................. $ 42.00 per Clerical .................................. $ 40.00 per Administrative .............................. $ 55.00 per Systems Manager ............................ $ 60.00 per hour Depositions or court proceedings ................... 150% of usual rates Subconsultants .............................. Cost plus 15% Prints and materials ........................... Cost plus 15% Miscellaneous expenses ......................... Cost plus 15% - $105.00 per hour - $ 90.00 per hour per hour - $ 75.00 per hour per hour per hour per hour per hour 90.00 per hour hour hour hour hour hour hour hour Effective December, 1993 L:~MASTERS~FORMS'~EBARATES.93 825 Sonoma Avenue, Suite C Santa Rosa, California 95404 (707) 544-0784 FAX (707) 544-0866 11344 Coloma Road, Suite 245 Gold River, CA 95670 (916) 852-6800 FAX (916) 8524)866 Also Las Vegas, Nevada I- Z ::3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C I 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ITEM NO. 5b DATE: August 23, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BANNER POLE SYSTEM FOR STATE STREET AND AWARD BID FOR CONSTRUCTION TO WlPF CONSTRUCTION FOR INSTALLATION OF FOOTINGS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,000 The City of Ukiah has experienced over the past few years a growing number of requests for the display of special event banners across State Street. In response, a fee-based Banner Permit Program has been initiated which permitted banners to be mounted between the Magnolia tree in front of the Courthouse and MacNab's Men's Wear. Banner installation was accomplished by City Electric crews and their boom truck, and required temporary closure of State Street. It has since become impossible to continue with the current location and process, and the Banner Program has been temporarily suspended. Staff has developed an alternative system which we believe will serve as a solution to both the location and installation problem. Larry Woods, Associate Civil Engineer, has provided a summary of costs and specifications for the construction of a free-standing pole system. The poles would be mounted on the east and west side of State Street at the Plaza site. (Continued to Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council authorize revised Banner Pole Program and authorize Acting City Manager to execute contract with Wipf Construction to install banner poles, in an amount not to exceed $2,000. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine new Banner Program is not necessary at this time. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 965-5612 Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Larry DeKnoblough, Assistant Redevelopment Director ~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, Acting City Manager Attachments: 1. Memorandum, dated February 8, 1995, from Larry Woods, Associate Civil Engineer 2. Bid from Wipf Construction for Banner Pole Installation APPROVED:', R:4/CM ASRBan A pulley system mounted on the poles would allow the banners to be installed by Community Service Division personnel without the necessity of mechanical equipment. The attached memorandum provides an estimated cost breakdown for the project, including the mounting of two poles. As identified in the memorandum, the total cost of the project is estimated at $3,050. Telephone bids have been requested from three contractors for footing construction. Wipf Construction of Ukiah was the only respondent, in the amount of $900 per pole. The two contractors whom did not respond to the request for bids were Ferranti Construction and Parnum Paving. The mounting of the pulley system to the poles and pole installation would be completed by Electric and Public Works crews and funding would be provided by the Redevelopment Agency. Staff believes the Banner Program has provided a significant benefit to the various clubs and organizations in Ukiah and could continue to do so in the future. The projected cost of the freestanding pole system appears to be reasonable and the Program will be supported by user fees. Staff is, therefore, requesting approval of expenditure for the pole system and authorization for Acting City Manager to execute contract with Wipf Construction in an amount not to exceed $2,000. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 8, 1995 Tammi Weselsky, Recreation Coordinator Larry J. Woods, Associate Civil Engineer FREE STANDING POLE SYSTEM FOR BANNER SUPPORTS The following is an estimate of cost to provide a free standing pole system to hang 4-foot by 25- foot banners over North State Street. This would replace the present system that hangs the banners from the McNab building on the east side to the Magnolia tree on the west side of North State Street. The two poles for this syste~n were purchased quit some time ago and they are being stored at the City Corporation yard. The poles are steel galvanized, type 24-4-80 traffic signal poles that are 30 feet high and have an outside diameter at the base of 12" and an outside diameter of 8" at the top. Anchor bolts for the foundations are also being stored at the Corporation yard. ITEM COST Poles and anchor bolts Weld two eye bolts and tie down bracket to each pole by City Sidewalk removal and replacement Drill 3-foot diameter, 8-foot deep holes for each pole's foundation 4 cubic Yards of reinforced concrete for the two foundations Mount poles on foundations $ 0 $ 150.00 $ 500.00 $ 600.00 $1000.00 $ 800.00 TOTAL $3050.00 -1- STD. PLAN ES-6R -~0 .c:u I-. ,I]--~- 8°° 255 STD. PLAN ES-6T 258 08-18-1995 03:18PM EXCAVATING · LOCATION 951 TALMAGE ROAD FROM WIPF Constt'uct, ion Wipf Construction LICENSED CONTFIACTOR LICENSE ¢/629598 P.O. BOX 234 UKIAH, CALIF. 95482 OWNER ERNEST M. WIPF TO 4636204 P. 01 PHONE 4.62-8741 July 12, 1995 City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Attention: Larry De Knoblough RE: Estimate - Banner Poles Bid to install 2 ea Banner Foundations 900.00/ea (This price does not include removal of existing foundations) WIPF CONSTRUCTION Ernest M. Wipf 'FOT~4L P.01