HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2006-04-24 Item 4D - Agreement - EPA Drinking Water Requirements Consulting with HDR Engineering COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
ITEM No. O ZS Initials
1 1 tll eetinq Date Prepared Mayor's revzesv Council review
us r .41-41) Ii-- 10 4/24/06 1 MC 4; ,A,a 1 ft L,
''x• �'p I 5/1/06 1 1 1 1
L A
soa
I I 1 I I.
1 1
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 06-048 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE. APRIL 24, 2006
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) Compliance Assistance and Water
Blending Consultant's Agreement with HDR Engineering.
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Besolutton Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 4/24/06 Mtg Date 5/1/06 Mtg Date Mtg Date Alltg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date:
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police Pi'
SPONSOR'S The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently mandated that the City must
SUMMARY monitor for disinfectants and water quality. The initial report, IDSE, will be due October 1,
2006. This consultant agreement with HDR Engineering will recommend the preliminary
monitoring sites to be sampled and assess the implications of water quality blending from
the City of Kent's intertie.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 4/18/06
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN Authorize Mayor to sign the consultant's agreement with HDR.
CON11M1'I EE Unanimous approval, forward to COW.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$66,358.00 $90,000.00
Fund Source: 401.02 Water Fund (page 83, 2006 CIP)
Comments: Upgrades to the Supply Stations can be delayed and the $90, 000 budget applied to this new requirement.
1 MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
1 4/24/06 1
5/1/06
I MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
4/24/06 Information Memo dated March 29, 2006
Consultant Contract with Scope of Work
Utilities Committee Meeting Minutes from April 18, 2006
5/1/06 1
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Directo
Date: March 29, 2006
Subject: New Drinking Water Requirement from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
ISSUE
Contract with HDR Consultants to assist the City of Tukwila in meeting the requirements of the USEPA
and a water blending study.
BACKGROUND
After many delays, the USEPA has published final versions of the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfectants
By- Products Rule (DBPR) and the Long -Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR).
The Rules will trigger several deadlines some of which are almost immediate. The first deadline
requires all systems to submit two formal written reports outlining their plans for: a) the Initial
Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) and b) Cryptosporidium monitoring. Systems serving 100,000 or
more people (and any wholesale purchasers from the system) must submit their plans by October 2006.
The DBPR requires that new DBP monitoring locations be identified for the Stage 2 DBPR compliance
samples. Some of these new sites are to represent the maximum trihalomethane (THM) and/or haloacetic
acid (HAA) levels in the distribution system. The highest THM sampling point and the highest HAA
sampling point will not necessarily be the same points. The utility is required to locate these maximum
points, as well as the other sampling points as prescribed by the DBPR. The procedure for finding the
appropriate sample points and justifying their selection to the Primary Agency is called the Initial
Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE).
The City of Tukwila purchases Cedar River water from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) through the Cascade
Water Alliance (CWA). Tukwila is currently considering an additional supply source. Under this
scenario, Tukwila could receive additional water purchased from CWA which would be wheeled through
the City of Kent. Tukwila would be receiving drinking water from Kent, a system that relies on multiple
groundwater sources and, in the near future, Green River surface water. If this occurs, Tukwila will be
blending surface and groundwater sources of different water qualities in its distribution system.
As a consequence of blending water from Kent, it is possible Tukwila's compliance with the Lead and
Copper Rules may change. Tukwila is currently part of the regional monitoring plan for compliance with
the lead and copper in drinking water.
ANALYSIS
This EPA mandate can be funded by the Water Enterprise Fund from the ending fund balance or Supply
Station Upgrades and Abandonments on page 83 of the 2006 C.I.P. Upgrades to the Water Supply Station
are not needed this year thus freeing up $90,000.00 which can be used for the EPA required mandate.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the agreement with HDR in the amount of $66,358 to assist the City of Tukwila in meeting Stage
2 Disinfectants and Disinfectants By- Products Rules (DBPR) and Water Blending Study.
MC:1w
attachment
(Mauie Admix MUm\soonx o032906� Drinking Wan= Requiremem)
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, herein -after referred
to as "the City and HDR Engineering, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant in
consideration of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified.
1. Project Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform engineering services
in connection with the project titled IDSE Compliance Assistance and Water Blending.
2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies.
3. Time for Performance. Work under this contract shall commence upon the giving of written
notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and
provide all work products required pursuant to this Agreement by February 1, 2009, unless an
extension of such time is granted in writing by the City.
4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services
rendered under this Agreement as follows:
A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided in Exhibit
"B" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not
exceed $66,358.00 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the
City.
B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of
the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such
vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made
to the Consultant in the amount approved.
C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be
made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of
the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City.
D. Payment is provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed,
services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to
complete the work.
E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City and state for a period of three (3)
years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon request.
5. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other
materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this
Agreement shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is
executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible
copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with
the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any use of the said
documents, drawings, specifications or other materials by the City on any project other than
the project specified in this Agreement.
6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by
this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws,
ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services to be rendered under this Agreement.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability,
including attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property to the
extent arising from any negligent act, omission or failure of the Consultant, its officers, agents
and employees, in performing the work required by this Agreement. With respect to the
performance of this Agreement and as to claims against the City, its officers, agents and
employees, the Consultant expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code
of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees, and agrees that the
obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to
any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Consultant. This waiver is mutually
negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any damage resulting from the
sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the damages
referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence of the
City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid
and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Consultant, its officers, agents and
employees.
8. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of this
contract comprehensive general liability insurance, with a minimum coverage of $500,000 per
occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; and $500,000 per occurrence/
aggregate for property damage, and professional liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000.
Said general liability policy shall name the City of Tukwila as an additional named insured
and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy except upon thirty (30)
days prior written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage as required by this section shall
be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement.
9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an inde-
pendent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing
in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee
between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall
2
be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under
this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting
federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial insurance
program, otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Consultant, or any
employee of the Consultant.
10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the
Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon
or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant,
the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to
deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under
this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion,
creed, age, sex or the presence of any physical or sensory handicap in the selection and
retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies.
12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this
Agreement without the express written consent of the City.
13. Non Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation
provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
14. Termination.
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10)
days written notice to the Consultant.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its
supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant
hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do
so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement
between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses.
15. Attorneys Fees and Costs. In the event either party shall bring suit against the other to
enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such suit shall be entitled to
recover its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in such suit from the losing
party.
3
16. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
Gregory J. Kirmeyer, P.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
500 108 Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004 -5549
17. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents
the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by written instrument signed by both the City and the Consultant.
DATED this day of 20
CITY OF TUKWILA CONSULTANT
By:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Printed Name:
Title:
Attest/Authenticated: Approved as to Form:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Office of the City Attorney
4
Exhibit A
Scope of Work and Budget for City of Tukwila
Introduction
City of Tukwila (Tukwila), a member of the Cascade Water Alliance (CWA), relies on 100%
purchased water for its potable water supply and fire flow. Currently, Tukwila purchases
Cedar River water from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). The Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection By- Products Rule (DBPR) contains requirements for developing an Initial
Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) Plan and Report for submittal to the USEPA. As a
combined distribution system with SPU, Tukwila must comply with Schedule 1 of the Stage 2
DBPR and submit its IDSE Plan to the USEPA by October 1, 2006. The IDSE Plan will
recommend preliminary monitoring sites to be sampled for a one -year period. After
completing monitoring and evaluating results, Tukwila will be required to prepare the final
IDSE Report to identify Stage 2 compliance monitoring sites within the distribution system.
In addition to Cedar River water from SPU, Tukwila is currently considering an additional
supply source. Under this scenario, Tukwila could receive additional water purchased from
CWA which would be wheeled through the City of Kent. Tukwila would be receiving
drinking water from Kent, a system that relies on multiple groundwater sources and, in the
near future, Green River surface water. If this occurs, Tukwila will be blending surface and
groundwater sources of different water qualities in its distribution system.
As a consequence of blending water from Kent, it is possible Tukwila's compliance with the
Lead and Copper Rules may change. Tukwila is currently part of the regional monitoring
plan developed by SPU for compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule. This regional
monitoring plan would likely not be applicable when Tukwila begins using a new supply
source.
The City has requested that FIDR provide assistance in (1) developing an IDSE Plan and
Report for compliance with Stage 2 DBPR and (2) assessing implications to water quality of
the potential new source of supply from Kent. The following scope of work has been
developed to meet these objectives.
Task 1— IDSE Compliance Assistance
Task 2 Blending Evaluation
Task 3 Project Management and Administrative Functions
These three tasks and associated subtasks for completing this work are described below.
1
Task 1 IDSE Compliance Assistance
The scope of work for this task has been prepared for Tukwila based on the following
assumptions:
Retail population is between 10,000 49,999.
Eight (8) IDSE monitoring sites will be identified.
Four (4) proposed Stage 2 monitoring Locations will be identified.
Primary source of supply is surface water from SPU's Cedar River source. Prior to the
completion of IDSE monitoring, additional groundwater may be supplied from the City of
Kent in the Southcenter portion,of the system.
No booster disinfection is practiced.
Tukwila is part of a combined distribution system with SPU, and therefore is on Schedule
1 for compliance.
Tukwila will give selected representatives of HDR permission to log on to the USEPA
Data Collection and Tracking System to prepare and submit the IDSE Plan and the IDSE
Report.
Tukwila will conduct all field monitoring and will work with SPU and/or CWA to pay for
analysis of IDSE samples. Additional "investigative" monitoring may be necessary to
better characterize distribution system water quality conditions.
Tukwila has selected HDR to comply with the IDSE using the Standard Monitoring
Program (SMP) approach. HDR will conduct modeling runs that will be needed in
support of the SMP effort. HDR has most current version of Tukwila's hydraulic model.
HDR has the most current version of Tukwila's Water System Plan and associated data.
This first task is divided into the following six subtasks as described below. Subtasks 1.1
through 1.4 will result in the first submittal to USEPA the IDSE SMP Plan. This work will
occur in 2006, with the IDSE Plan being submitted no later than October 1, 2006. Subtasks
1.5 and 1.6 will result in the second deliverable to USEPA, the IDSE SMP Report. This work
will occur primarily in 2008, with some effort in 2007. The IDSE Report will be submitted
no later than January 1, 2009. Thus, the final deliverables will be an IDSE Plan and an IDSE
Report. Both will be prepared per the USEPA format in an electronic version and paper
format.
Subtask 1.1 Review Existing Information
Approach:
1. Work with USEPA to determine potential impacts of introduction of new Kent
source on IDSE timeline.
2. Prepare data request list. Data will include current Water System Facilities
Inventory, TTHMs, HAAS, disinfectant residual, HPCs, temperature, pH,
operational data, source water quality information, and other pertinent parameters
and information. The data request will also address parameters to further our
understanding of potential blending scenarios should City of Kent water be
introduced into Tukwila's system.
2
3 Attend kick -off meeting between Tukwila and HDR, Inc., to review the scope,
budget, deliverables, project management, and administrative functions. Review
data request list.
4. Review information received by Tukwila. Summarize the data into tables, graphs,
etc., for use in subsequent tasks.
5. Determine potential for HAAS biodegradation based on existing data. If data are
inadequate, additional monitoring will be recommended.
6. Confirm that an SMP is the appropriate compliance approach (i.e., Tukwila does
not qualify for the 40/30 certification, or other compliance /waiver options).
Deliverables:
1. Meeting materials.
2. Data request list.
3. Monitoring plan (if needed to assess inlet water quality, HAAS biodegradation,
peak historic month, and future blending).
Tukwila Input:
1. Attend kick -off meeting.
2. Provide requested information and assist with interpretation.
3. Assist HDR with obtaining necessary water quality information from the City of
Kent and SPU, if not already available to HDR.
4. Conduct additional "investigative" monitoring if necessary per monitoring plan.
Subtask 1.2 Determine Peak Historical Month
Approach:
1. Review historic source water and distribution system temperature, DBP levels, and
organic carbon levels (since ozonation began for the Cedar River supply).
2. Review data collected by Tukwila during "investigative" monitoring.
3. Based on data provided in Task 1, the peak historical month of DBP formation will
be determined.
Deliverables:
1. Technical memorandum that determines the peak historical month and summarizes
the data used to make this determination, per USEPA requirements.
Tukwila Input:
1. Review Technical Memorandum.
2. Conduct additional monitoring if necessary.
3
Subtask 1,3 Assemble SMP Plan Elements
Approach:
1. Determine required number and type of SMP monitoring locations per final Stage 2
DBPR.
2. Meet with Tukwila to discuss system operations and understanding of water age.
3. Determine appropriateness of using model to help with water age predictions
based on current model capabilities.
4. Identify the most appropriate Near Entry Point location(s) by reviewing DBP
levels, temperature, and .organic carbon levels and flow rates.
5. Determine Average Residence time sites by reviewing chlorine residual data from
Total Coliform Rule monitoring sites and other operational chlorine residual data.
6. Determine High TTHM and High HAAS locations based on Tukwila's
understanding of system operations, water age, potential future blending, and other
information. Use hydraulic model to confirm system understanding.
7. Using a system schematic (using model files prepared by HDR), plot candidate
sites, existing Stage 1 sites, and review applicability with Tukwila.
8. Determine final sites per USEPA requirements.
9. Develop preliminary schedule based on required monitoring frequency and peak
historical month.
10. Prepare Technical Memorandum describing data used, rationale used for selecting
each site per USEPA requirements, and monitoring schedule.
Deliverables:
1. Technical memorandum summarizing final SMP monitoring locations and
rationale used for site selection.
2. System schematic (per USEPA requirements).
3. SMP Plan in electronic and hard copy formats that meets USEPA requirements.
Tukwila Input:
1. Meet with HDR to discuss system operations and understanding of water age.
2. Provide addresses for Stage 1 locations.
3. Provide data related to system operation and understanding of water age, to be
used in developing rationale for site selection.
4. Assist with preliminary and final site selection.
5. Review and comment on Technical Memorandum.
4
Subtask 1.4 Prepare and Submit SMP Plan
Approach:
1. Prepare draft and final SMP Plan per USEPA requirements. SMP Plan will
include: number and type of samples, sample locations and rationale for selection,
schematic showing locations, sampling schedule.
2. Compile all Plan elements and submit to USEPA Information Processing and
Management Center.
3. Provide hard copy of complete submittal and submittal receipt information to
Tukwila.
Deliverables:
1. Draft and Final SMP Plan submitted to USEPA no later than October 1, 2006.
Tukwila Input:
1. Review and comment on draft SMP Plan.
2. Retain Plan on file for a minimum of ten (10) years per USEPA requirements.
Subtask 1.5 Review IDSE Results and Select Stage 2 Monitoring Locations
Approach:
1. Summarize all IDSE and Stage 1 monitoring results and determine Locational
Running Annual Average for each monitoring site.
2. Using USEPA's 8 -step protocol, meet with Tukwila to select the appropriate
number and location of Stage 2 compliance monitoring locations.
3. Document rationale for site selection.
Deliverables:
1. Tabulated and evaluated IDSE data.
2. Recommended Stage 2 compliance monitoring locations and rationale, per USEPA
requirements.
Tukwila Input:
1. Conduct monitoring per IDSE SMP Plan.
2. Provide IDSE and Stage 1 monitoring results to HDR after each monitoring round.
3. Attend meeting to select final Stage 2 compliance monitoring locations.
5
Subtask 1.6 Prepare and Submit SMP Report
Approach:
1. Prepare draft and final SMP Report per USEPA requirements. SMP Report will
include: number and type of Stage 2 compliance samples, sample locations, and
rationale for selection of each sample locations, other attachments and recording
keeping requirements.
2. Compile all Report elements and submit to USEPA Information Processing and
Management Center no later than January 1, 2009.
3. Provide hard copy of complete submittal and submittal receipt information to
Tukwila.
Deliverables:
1. Draft and Final SMP Report submitted to USEPA no later than January 1, 2009.
Tukwila Inout:
1. Review and comment on draft SMP Report.
2. Retain on file for a minimum of ten (10) years per USEPA requirements.
6
Task 2 Blending Evaluation
The objective of this task is to determine how Tukwila can blend water from the City of Kent
with water purchased from SPU in their distribution system and continue to meet the Lead
and Copper Rules and serve aesthetically pleasing water to its customers. In particular, the
City is concerned with regard to corrosivity of the blended waters and compliance with the
Lead and Copper Rule and other drinking water regulations. The approach for this study
consists of five subtasks as described below.
Subtask 2.1 Review the Water Quality Data and Supply System
This subtask will include a project kick -off meeting, to discuss Tukwila's supply and
operations scenarios and timelines related to these scenarios. It will evaluate water quality
data for Tukwila's existing Cedar River source and water from Kent, a mixture of surface and
water sources. This evaluation will review water treatment methods, including both
disinfection and pH adjustment. Additionally, this task will review distribution system entry
points and the movement of water through Tukwila's pressure zones. This will build upon
previous work conducted as part of the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. This task will be
conducted cooperatively with Subtask 1.1 of the IDSE study.
Subtask 2.1.1 (Optional) Develop a Water Quality Monitoring Plan
This subtask will be conducted only if necessary and would be conducted after completing
Subtasks 1.1 (IDSE) and 2.1 (Blending), which include a review of water quality conditions.
If Tukwila's existing water quality data are not sufficient for conducting a desk -top evaluation
of corrosion and blending, HDR will develop a monitoring plan to be conducted to fill in data
gaps. This water quality monitoring plan will include any additional data needs for the IDSE.
Subtask 2.2 Perform Blending Analysis for Blending Cedar River Water with
Kent Sources
This subtask will utilize spreadsheet models to predict the pH and other corrosion- related
parameters of blends of different proportions of the Cedar River, Kent groundwater sources,
and treated Green River water at four key locations in the distribution system. This analysis
will, if necessary data are available, also include a description of seasonal variation. This
subtask will be conducted cooperatively with Subtask 1.3 (IDSE). Hydraulic modeling of
Tukwila's distribution system will be conducted by HDR to predict blend ratios at these
locations. This effort will use the hydraulic model developed by HDR for Tukwila in 2004
and 2005.
Subtask 2.3 Assess the Potential for Other Water Quality Concerns
This subtask will assess the potential for iron uptake from iron or galvanized piping as water
sources are switched between surface and ground water sources. The extent, condition,
location of the pipe (service lines and mains), planned operating regimes, and the water
quality characteristics will be used in the assessment. The potential for iron uptake problems
to occur will be classified as Low, Medium or High. Additionally, this task will consider
7
other distribution system water quality concerns, including disinfectant residual maintenance,
disinfection by- products, and bacteria.
Subtask 2.4 Determine the Best Plan for Meeting DOH and City Objectives
with Regard to LCR Compliance
This subtask will include determination of Tukwila's next steps with respect to the Lead and
Copper Rule, including discussions with DOH regarding the applicability regional monitoring
for Tukwila in the future. If a new monitoring plan is required, this task will include a
determination of Tukwila's next steps for LCR compliance, covering issues such as
monitoring requirements and steps for developing a DOH approved monitoring plan.
Subtask 2.5 Prepare Summary Report Outlining Findings
This task will summarize all of the above information in a brief report and provide guidance
to Tukwila in how to best comply with the various DOH and USEPA requirements. The task
will include meetings between the City staff and HDR to discuss the issues and gain
comments on the report.
Deliverables:
HDR will develop the following deliverables:
1. A summary report describing:
A. Evaluation and conclusions for the following:
1) Identification of potential problems associated with corrosion control and
lead
2) Review of potential water quality issues associated with taste, disinfectant
residual, disinfection by- products, and microbes
B. Recommendations for addressing potential blending issues, including:
1) Monitoring if needed
2) Potential strategies for compliance
Tukwila Input:
will need to provide the following support City g pp ort for this project:
ty p
1. Three years of water quality data, including results of LCR water quality
parameter monitoring in distribution system, chlorine, coliform, and other
microbial sampling.
2. Participate in a team meeting to discuss:
A. Source of supply scenarios
B. Related operational scenarios
C. Seasonal variations in supply sources and operations
D. Timeline of scenario implementation
8
3. Participate in a second meeting to discuss evaluation findings and draft report.
4. Conduct any monitoring that may need to be performed.
9
Task 3 Project Management and Administrative Functions
Approach:
1. The HDR Project Manager will manage the Project to closely track the scope,
budget and schedule.
2. Status reports and invoices will be provided monthly to Tukwila.
3. HDR will notify Tukwila of budget or schedule issues, or out of scope
requirements in the monthly status report.
4 QC reviews will be conducted on all deliverables.
Deliverables:
1. Monthly invoices and status reports.
2. Documents that have received the necessary degree of QC.
Tukwila Inmut:
1. Tukwila will review and pay the invoices in a timely manner.
2. Tukwila will work with the I DR Project Manager to review and negotiate scope
changes.
10
Exhibit B
Estimated Fee Summary
The following table provides a fee estimate for Task 1 based on 2006 rates. Rates will be
adjusted annually for work occurring after 2006. Approximately 80% of the IDSE work will
occur in 2006. Fee estimate includes an assumption of approximately $10,000 in labor for
modeling effort associated with IDSE site selection and evaluation of blending zones.
Task 1 IDSE Compliance Assistance Estimated Fee
1.1 Review Existing Information 9,881
1.2 Determine Peak Historic Month
1 3 Assemble SMP Plan Elements 19,143
1 4 Prepare and Submit SMP Plan 2,834
1.5 Review IDSE Results and Select Stage 2 Locations 5,350
1 6 Prepare and Submit SMP Report 2,834
Total Estimated Fee 43,105
Note: Approx. $35,000 in fees would be incurred during 2006. This includes approx. $10,000 in modeling
costs.
The remaining fees would be incurred in 2007 and 2008.
Fee does not include analytical costs.
The following table provides a fee estimate for Task 2. All of the work on the blending study
is expected to be completed in 2006.
Task 2 Blending Evaluation Estimated Fee
2.1 Review the Water Quality Data and Supply System 1,619
2.1.1 (Optional) Develop a WQ Monitoring Plan 1 0
2.2 Perform Blending Analysis 5,774
2.3 Assess Potential for Other WQ Concerns 1 1,911
2.4 Determine Best Plan 1 2,212
2.5 Prepare Summary Report 1 2,787
Total Estimated Fee 1 14,304
The following table provides a fee estimate for Task 3. Approximately 80% of this budget is
expected to be completed in 2006 for managing the IDSE and blending studies.
Task 3 Project Management Admin 1 Estimated Fee
3 Project Management 1 8,949
Total Estimated Fee 1 8,949 1
The total budget for the project is estimated to be $66,358:
Task 1 IDSE Compliance Assistance $43,105
Task 2 Blending Evaluation 14,304
Task 3 Project Management and Administrative Functions 8.949
TOTAL $66,358
Approximately 85% of the total budget is expected to be completed in 2006.
11
Utilities Committee
April 18, 2006
Present: Jim Haggerton, Chair; Pam Linder, Verna Griffin
Jim Morrow, Bob Giberson, Frank Iriarte, Ryan Partee, Mike Cusick,
Gail Labanara, Chuck Parrish
A. Council Chambers Remodel Cabinetry. Carpentry and Painting Bid Award Six bids were
solicited from the Small Works Roster. Three did not respond, two declined and only one
submitted a proposal. This contract will include adding an approximate 5 -inch lip to the dais that
will have under mounted lights. The wood on the dais and beams will be stained darker but will
still show the wood grain. Multiple decorative glass panels will be installed behind the Council that
are 20- inches wide and 5 -6 ft tall and lit with fiber optic lights. An example of the glass panels can
be found at www.innovativealass.com and go to the fiber optic tab. The glass panels will have the
City seal and a landscape etching of mountains, streams and cranes. The contract also includes
rebuilding the bailiff and City Clerk desk to incorporate a movable jury box. The plan is to
complete the cabinetry off site and install Thursday night through the weekend for at least 3
weekends. Updated interior lights will also be installed and Pam L suggested checking the lights at
Council position 6 7, as it seems darker at that location. Ryan P. was familiar and pleased with
this contractor's work, who is based out of Burien. Unanimous recommendation to send bid of
$176,538.88 to COW for approval.
B. Adoption of 2005 Sewer System Plan Update The large bound plan was distributed at the
meeting and CDs are also available and will be distributed to the full Council. This is the six -year
update for the sewer plan and was approved for the first time by the Department of Ecology. We
have a good working relationship with DOE and they only had minor changes to the plan. Overall
this means we are good system operators. The sewer improvements are listed in Table 8 -1 on page
8 -2 and have been incorporated into the 2006 CIP. The water plan is also being updated and is
currently under review at King County but there is a delay with water rights and the Muckleshoot
Tribe. Unanimous recommendation to send Ordinance adopting the 2005 Sewer Plan Update
to COW for approval.
C. New Drinking Water Requirements from the USEPA Consultant Selection and Agreement
A
This is the unfunded mandate that was brought to the last UC meeting on 4/4/06. The EPA has
mandated that we set up and report on the City's water monitoring sites by October 1, 2006. The
only options are that we do nothing and have problems with the EPA, have the City of Seattle do it
for a fee, or we hire this consultant to do the report. Unanimous recommendation to send
Consultant Contract of $66,358 with HDR Engineering to COW for approval.
Other
Jim M distributed the flyers that will be handed out at the Allentown/Foster Pt Open House on
April 27, 2006. The flyers include one with all of the charges that will be assessed to each owner,
one with the breakdown of construction costs, and the third flyer includes the 3 payment plans; 5,
10 or 15 years for the proposed $15,000 connection charge. The breakdown of costs from the bid
award brings the estimated connection charge to $20,446.73, when we had an estimate of $15,000.
There was a lengthy discussion on if the City should set a precedent and keep the connection fee at
$15,000 or apply the charge of $20,446.73.
C:\Documents and Settings \Gaii\My Documents \WINWORD \UC Minutes 2006 -04- 18.doc Page 1 of 2