Loading...
05/19/2020 - PacketUtilities Committee Meeting Agenda May 19, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Pursuant to the Governor's "Stay Home - Stay Safe" Order, the City is prohibited from conducting meetings unless the meeting is NOT conducted in person and instead provides options for the public to attend through telephone access, internet or other means of remote access, and also provides the ability for persons attending the meeting (not in person) to hear each other at the same time. Therefore; Remote access only Link: bt!ps://us02web.zoom.us/J/8 1063927226?wd=eWdwRVZxNGirUXdmaGtHdExzNn rdzO9 Zoom Meeting ID: 810 6392 7226 Password: 608497 Zoom Call -In: 1 253 215 8782 • Joint Planning Area (JPA) Sanitary Sewer Coordination - Update ■ SKWRF Nutrient Cap - Discussion ■ Water & Sanitary Sewer - Discussion: o Updated Water/Sewer CIP's • McCormick Woods Consolidation Grant - Discussion • 580 Zone Water Campus - Update: o Splash Pad o Well #12 • Utility Department Work Plan - Update: o Foster Pilot Project & Water Rights 2019/2020 o Well # 13 - Drilling o Well # 13 - Maple Avenue (Water Main & Well #6) o Well # 11 Improvements o McCormick Sewer Pump Station #2 o Marina Sewer Pump Station • Next Meeting: June 16, 2020 Future Auenda Items: * Updated Sanitary Sewer CFC's • McCormick Communities - Global Agreement • 580 Reservoir - Update • Transmission Main Extension - Update • Well # 13 Mains & PRV's - Update • Water System Plan (2017) 2020/2030 - Update • McCormick Sewer Pump Station #1 Repairs - Update • Blackjack Creek Homeless Camp Abatements - Discussion: • Cross Connection Control & FOG Programs - Discussion Stormwater Comprehensive Plan (2021) - Update Fermif DraftComments - p a e Bay Street - Street Lighting & Marquee - Update • Touch -Read Water Meters - Update Water System Fluoridation - Update • Fire Hydrant Operation and Maintenance Program - Update • Valve Operation and Maintenance Program - Update • Sanitary Side Sewer Policy - Discussion Basin 7 is anticipated to have -2,150 ERUs at ' final buildout. Existing ERU count is -150 ERUs. The Ridge an ■■W f r' a .k flytitO -.00 1 Pottery [r, f --r ' ,ilt VOW Flow Cedar Heights.* 9 Mead.* `)V BERRY LAKE RD 7. �; J .� . North Basin to be served by a single �, ` V �• pump station built on the Tallman Property. (fir �■ Future gravity line to route flows i to South Basin pump station. -540 ERUs are within this subbasin. The Tallman Properties is the only known development proposal at this time. Sedg wick �� ■ BASIN 7 - N Existing 6" force main has the ry capacity for approximately 1,200 ^ ERUs. Capacity to be increased �. with second force main once capacity is reached. ltCl J� BASIN 7 S Lowes Ibertson \\JJI IIIIIIIIIV■■M■■�r♦ South Basin to be served by a single pump station on the Krueger Property and a few privately owned grinder pumps. -1,610 ERUs are within this subbasin. Known development proposals include Stetson Heights, McCormick West, Rush Properties, and Krueger Properties. Future gravity line to route flows to South Basin pump station. S � .n1%���� .-'•ram'•".r..• .�,• •�. p ' L Est- 1890 Sewer Basin 7 ORCHARD North / South Sub -basin Concept Legend New Pump Station Existing Pump Station • •' Gravity Line - - - - Existing Force Main Basin 7 North ® Basin 7 South DRAWN BY I IDS S DATE 12/12119 SCALE 1"=1,500' DRAWING NUMBER 01 1 Water Quality Program DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Focus on: Water Quality Permitting to Control Nutrients in Puget Sound Learn more... What problem are we trying to solve? Puget Sound Nrftrietrt Reduction Excess nutrients can cause too much plant and algae growth which Project Proms ultimately depletes dissolved oxygen (oxygen). Many parts of Puget Sound have oxygen levels that fall below the concentrations needed for Domestic Wastewater Treatment marine life to thrive and are below our state's water quality criteria. Technoloev Discharges of excess nutrients to Puget Sound from domestic sewage treatment plants (WWTPs) are significantly contributing to low oxygen General permits levels in Puget Sound. Ecology must require WWTPs to control nutrients consistent with the US Clean Water Act and Washington's Provide feedback... Water Pollution Control Act. Most WWTPs are owned and operated by municipalities or public We are seeking public comments utility districts. Infrastructure costs associated with reducing nutrients about using a general permit to from WWTPs are primarily paid by the public through local sewer control nutrients at WWTPs that rates. With our region's growing population and recognizing that discharge to Puget Sound marine WWTP improvements to limit nutrients will take time, we need to start waters and estuaries. work now. Aug. 21, 2019 through Oct. 21, 2019 at 11:59 pm Why is Ecology considering a Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit? Submit Comments: We have made a preliminary determination that a general permit is the httj2: //ws.ecolQZ3b-cummentinp!At best tool to address excess nutrients from domestic WWTPs discharging .c+ m ?id=HMk9A to Puget Sound. A Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit would: • Create a single coordinated public engagement process, allowing To view the public notice online, more stakeholder collaboration during permit development. visit: • Place WWTPs on a similar schedule rather than staggering https: / jecology.wa.gov Events t requirements based on individual permit reissuance schedules. Searsh/Listing. Provide a foundation for communities to work together to achieve nutrient controls across Puget Sound. Publication 19-10-033 August 2019 Water Quality Program Stay informed... To receive email updates about this effort, register for the Nutrients Permit listserv, httn: f Ilistserv.ecolouv.wa.eovlsc rims f waEC0L0GY,exe?SUBEDI- NUTRIENTS-PERMIT&.A=1. Contact information Maia Hoffman 425-649-7146 Rachel McCrea 425-649-7033 PSN a tri entsGP@ecy.wa.gov DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY What is the purpose of this public comment period? State regulation (Chapter 17 3-2 26 WAC) requires that we notify the public of a preliminary determination to develop a general permit. The primary purpose of this public comment period is to obtain feedback on whether a general permit is an appropriate tool to control and reduce nutrients in discharges from WWTPs to Puget Sound. The alternative to a general permit is to include nutrient control requirements in each WWTP's individual permit. In addition, this is an opportunity for commenters to provide other information relevant to WWTPs and Puget Sound water quality. For example, you may provide any documented information on the characteristics of the discharge (individually or categorically) including effluent quantity, quality, and any receiving water impacts. Existing information about WWTPs and Puget Sound water quality is available in our searchable database and relevant publications. How would a Nutrients General Permit work? A Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit would apply to nearly 70 - 711 71 4--lowThese WWTPs discharging to marine and estuarine waters of Puget Sound. - WWTPs already have individual permits. A Nutrients General - -- Permit would focus only on controlling nutrients. It would act in conjunction with the individual permits that regulate all other pollutants. Therefore, WWTPs would have two permits. Because we are at the earliest stage of a general permit process, it is too soon to be certain about what the exact permit conditions would be. If we move forward with the general permit, the permit development ADA accommodations process will determine: ■ Which specific domestic WWTPs will be regulated by the request ADA accommodation proposed permit. A potential WWTP permittee list is available. in including materials da format for , How to cap nutrient loading. A cap could be expressed as a the visually impaired, , visit numeric effluent limit or other similar value against which l��tp$:�'jecof��,y.wa;gnyj�a�ces�lailily. effluent quality would be compared. or call Ecology at 7-6831, . What planning efforts are needed to evaluate nutrient reduction Relay Service 711, oor r TTY at targets. Planning efforts might involve near -term WWTP 877-833-6341. optimization to reduce nutrients where possible with existing treatment infrastructure. Additional planning considerations may Availability in alternate include infrastructure upgrade feasibility assessments, languages foundational work for water quality trading programs, or other If you need this document in a collaborative water quality improvement efforts. language other than English, call How to specify numeric effluent limits that reflect treatment Maia Hoffman at 425-649-7146. efficiency of existing WWTPs consistent with facility -specific engineering reports. Controlling nutrients from WWTPs will not solve Puget Sound's low oxygen problem. WWTPs are only part of the solution, but a critical part. We will continue our work to reduce nutrients from other sources as well. Publication 19-10-033 August 2019 �c -�-� E V E R E T T Tacoma WASHINGTON �s ,fstr Lakehaven 3 - A?F Ali DIM RICI � •• •dtll!!sn/fA� s •. frFfe. f LLDERW00D n.Yvv H : u [stmfuex LYNNWOOD `""Rlt� WASHINGTON West S o u n d& m-kilt.- Water and Wastewater District Ullll fY �`UIS f IIIC f October 21, 2019 Water Quality Permit Coordinator Northwest Regional Office State of Washington Department of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 (Submitted Electronically) BALL �v[-- --•.q• OiU 3 S Q + t� ►,_ 'r� �'SHlt4G'C �e 0nr�� '1 iiy r M MOUNT VERNON �1SY (yam LAKE STEVENS SEWER DISTRICT 1 c1c � ?o THE MARITIME CITY 1P p+N D 9�sy. . 4013 5? 1:mn igf Sfr�! 7948��.".70ly �►Si'gl� Subject: Ecology's Preliminary Determination to Develop a Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit Puget Sound clean water utilities jointly appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) proposal to prepare a general permit to address nutrient discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that discharge directly to Puget Sound. Ecology's nutrient general permit proposal introduces new concepts that will likely impact clean water utilities as the state continues to develop nutrient management plans for Puget Sound. New approaches to watershed management, such as a nutrient general permit for Puget Sound dischargers, may be appropriate providing they do not create regulatory compliance requirements that extend beyond our understanding of commensurate water quality benefits, and provided that concerns about practical applications to real -world circumstances can be addressed, such as technical feasibility, timing, and affordability. We want to be sure that our citizens and ratepayers see meaningful results for what is likely to be a significant investment of dollars. Preliminary Determination Response Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit October 21, 2019 Pagel of 6 O_ige# So, indwle2n water, ,-tml' ' lat R01 nd-IS-21_l MY water resource for our region and that the Salish Sea is a complex natural system impacted by many factors. These include man-made development, urbanization, discharges, ocean conditions, climate, weather, agriculture and aquaculture, and many other factors. Collaborative management of all of the manageable human -induced factors impacting the Puget Sound watershed offers the best opportunity to preserve and protect this important resource. We welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with Ecology to develop a science -based general permit that protects water quality in Puget Sound while providing flexibility, equity, and opportunities for adaptive management for improvements with time. Long History Protecting Water Quality in Puget Sound For decades, the mission of Puget Sound clean water utilities has been focused on protection of water quality and successful compliance with regulatory requirements for secondary treatment, wet weather controls, toxics reduction, stormwater management, and beneficial use of biosolids. These water quality protection efforts require utilities to extensively plan, fund, construct, operate, and maintain billions of dollars in investments in their complex wastewater infrastructure. New regulatory requirements with the potential to add significant technical, operational, and economic impacts need to be carefully balanced with the understanding of the necessity and expected benefits. It is especially important that uncertainties are addressed with permit structures that provide opportunities for adaptive management over time to ensure that investments are on -target, effective, and produce tangible results. Principles for the Development of a Nutrient General Permit Puget Sound clean water utilities jointly believe that the following principles are essential for the development of a nutrient general permit: 1. Nutrient general permit requirements must be technically and scientifically defensible and technically achievable. 2. An independent panel of scientific assessment and water quality subject matter experts should be actively convened to guide ongoing modeling work, identify modeling gaps, and advise on future monitoring and adaptive management strategies. 3. Nutrient reduction requirements must be based on demonstrated cause and effect relationships. 4. A watershed approach using adaptive management is essential to the long-term protection of Puget Sound water quality. 5. General permit requirements should result in a net environmental benefit and consider cost, as well as associated environmental, social impacts and affordability. 6. Considerations of equity should be incorporated into any new general permit. 7. Time should be provided for utilities to test, implement, and optimize any necessary nutrient control measures. B. Ecology should coordinate closely with the municipal wastewater stakeholder group during the development of draft and final general permit requirements. 9. Flexibility should be included as part of the general permit framework to allow dischargers to consider joint reductions in the form of bubble permits, offsets, and trading. Preliminary Determination Response Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit October 21, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Puget Sound clean water utilities jointly offer the following recommendations for moving forward with a nutrient general permit based on reasonable and scientifically valid objectives. 1. Science -based Adaptive Management Our understanding of Puget Sound water quality issues is evolving and it is anticipated that we will better understand cause and effect relationships linked to dissolved oxygen depletion with greater certainty over time. No definitive nutrient endpoints for Puget Sound dissolved oxygen have been developed to date. Given that, provisions for consideration of uncertainty analysis should be incorporated into the general permit as a guide to improve the understanding of the impact of nutrient loadings on Puget Sound water quality. Time is needed to continue the water quality planning, monitoring, and modeling exercises necessary to address scientific uncertainties in the spatial and temporal extent of human -caused dissolved oxygen depletion. Further, the most effective nutrient management strategies need to be investigated to ensure that investments in implementing nutrient reduction will be effective in producing the intended results and not rendered ineffective due to a lack of scientific understanding of this complex system, counteractive mechanisms, or unanticipated causes. 2. Watershed Management Approach A watershed management approach should be central to a nutrient general permit for Puget Sound. Both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients should be managed together such that reductions accomplished by marine dischargers are not lost to increased tributary loadings from upstream discharges, nonpoint sources, and growth with inland development. The artificial boundary created in Ecology's Salish Sea Model (SSM) may have been necessitated by the availability of monitoring data, resources, and the time available for analysis. However, that artificial boundary for analysis should not compromise the more comprehensive need to manage all watershed sources to successfully protect Puget Sound water quality. 3. Equity Considerations Considerations of equity should be incorporated into any new general permit. These considerations may include the geographic location of discharges and their influence on near field and far field water quality. The technical and operational challenges associated with reducing nutrient discharges in wastewater effluent increase as effluent concentrations are driven to lower levels. Nutrient speciation issues become increasingly important at lower levels and refractory constituents, interference, facility specifics, and other factors may vary among different utilities and the areas they serve. Consideration should also be given to balancing other regulatory compliance impacts that present overlapping challenges for utilities. 4. Preferred Structure of a Nutrients General Permit The preferred structure for a general permit is one which sets forth goals for nutrient reduction but allows time for more definitive water quality science prior to setting numerical effluent nutrient limits. By avoiding early effluent limits in the body of the general permit, utilities can focus on identifying the most effective and efficient opportunities for nutrient load reduction without the dominant concern of immediate compliance. Nutrient load caps, reductions, and accounting can all be addressed in the fact sheet that supports the nutrient general permit. That provides a vehicle to not only establish baseline loadings to track progress in load reduction, but also a place for documentation of the myriad of site specific details in the unique circumstances of many diverse dischargers. Accounting for all of the nuances in 70 separate facilities with different baselines and various stages of process development, plant improvements, construction improvement projects, treatment technology testing, etc. leads to a level of complicated and granular detail not well -suited for inclusion as permit effluent limits. Further, attempting to include the specifics of effluent limits in the general permit dilutes the value of a general Preliminary Determination Response Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit October21, 2019 Page 3 of 6 permit- because it introduces- all of the time-consuming aspects of developing individual nutrient permits. The general permit fact sheet can support this level of detail until, when, and if, nutrient endpoints are defined for Puget Sound and final water quality based effluent limits are warranted. Tracking of load reductions in the fact sheet rather than the general permit also avoids the potential dysfunction associated with the antibacksliding provisions of the federal regulations, and use of effluent performance statistics applied to under -loaded facilities that results in effluent limits that cannot be sustained as plant flows and loadings increase to full buildout. 5. Accurate Modeling of Wastewater Treatment Facilities Accurate representation of individual facility effluent characteristic flows and loadings in water quality model simulations and load reduction planning is key in portraying both current conditions and future nutrient management scenarios. This includes nutrient speciation and accounting for speciation changes with application of advanced nutrient reduction treatment technology. Expressions of effluent characteristics on a concentration basis may be useful as a general description. However, mass loadings are more useful in establishing baseline conditions and tracking load reductions over time. 6. Flexible Provisions for Regional Optimizing Solutions General permit considerations should include flexible provisions for load offsets, exchanges, and trading both within utilities that have multiple treatment facilities, and between different utilities. In this way, optimization opportunities can be developed to include the earliest, efficient, and effective nutrient reductions. Again, a mass basis for tracking and accounting in load reduction planning and reduction goals is most useful to facilitating these opportunities. 7. Foundation for Adaptive Management and Science A Puget Sound general permit should include a foundation for a continuing dialog and exchange between Ecology's monitoring, credible scientific expert oversight, Salish Sea modeling efforts and clean water utility stakeholders subject to potential control requirements. Periodic monitoring and modeling reviews and briefings should be scheduled to coincide with general permit progress reporting requirements for treatment facilities. This provides a predictable structure for information exchange and to track progress, water quality changes, and foster adaptive management review and program improvements. 8. Compliance Schedules that Allow for Maximizing Benefits The pace of mandatory nutrient control requirements should not outpace the time needed for utilities to analyze and plan for nutrient reduction at their facilities. The general permit should foster not only full-scale nutrient removal treatment improvements, but also analysis of optimization opportunities within existing facilities, side stream treatment options, and development and implementation of new technology. Provisions should be made for compliance schedules that extend over multiple permit cycles to support these efforts. In this way, utilities can formulate a complete understanding of all of the options available to reduce nutrient discharges, including capital and operating costs, energy and chemical demands, space requirements, operational complexities and staffing, and others factors associated with site specific circumstances. Premature application of load caps and effluent limits will truncate the treatment technology analysis, inappropriately eliminate potentially viable options, and limit the potential for collaborations to develop more creative solutions within and between utilities. It may also curtail the ability to optimize results by load trading and offsets between facilities and among different utilities. 9. Allow for Incentives that Promote Greatest Benefit The general permit should include provisions to incentivize early nutrient reduction. In this way, progress in nutrient load reduction may be accelerated. Nutrient reduction incentives may take many forms. These may include financing and funding support, priority for State Revolving Funds (SRF) and Preliminary Determination Response Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit October 21, 2019 Page 4 of 6 other .funding programs, and schedule relief or time extensions on other individual NPDES- permit compliance requirements. Sincerely, � one, tih-ael P. Slevin III, P.E. `ter �aneVandenberg, P.E. Environmental Services Director Sewer Division Manager City of Tacoma Pierce County Planning and Public Works r Ryan Sass Public Works Director City of Everett Judi Gladstone Executive Director Washington Association of Sewer & Water Districts .�f Tom Knuckey, P.E. Director of Public Works and Utilities City of Bremerton Esco ell Public Works irector City of Mount Vernon YjL-11 (I' ��— William A. Franz, P.E. Director Public Works Department City of Lynnwood Jeff Clarke General Manager Alderwood Water & Wastewater District Preliminary Determination Response Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit October 21, 2019 Page 5 of 6 L Eric Johnston, P.E. Interim Public Works Director City of Bellingham Jo n Bowman General Manager Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Ronald D. Nall General Manager Southwest Suburban Sewer District Marc Montieth General Manager Midway Sewer District Stella V. Vakares, P.E. Senior Program Manager — Sewer Utility Kitsap County Public Works Tonya hristoffersen General Manager Lake Stevens Sewer District +.1 ,e.AN.c Rebe,ccAi Wastewater Treatment Plant Manac_ Anacortes Public Works City of Anacortes Jim Voetberg General Manager Mukilteo Water and Wastewater District ❑an Eisses General Manager Birch Bay Water & Sewer District Preliminary Determination Response Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit October 21, 2019 Page 6 of 6 General Manager West Sound Utility District Jeff Langhlm, P.E. Public Works Director City of Gig Harbor -- - Th.�s_i�.he.!_ar�g�a�ge_th�t Tas©ma �pr�g.ca.rf�aeir...�.�mits._ "'The City reserves the right to rescind this certificate prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy in the event new requirements are imposed by the Washington State Department of Ecology that limit or restrict the City's then -currently available wastewater treatment capacity through a TIN (total inorganic nitrogen) load cap, or other control mechanism, and the City determines that, as a result of these new requirements, capacity is not available for this project." STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 April 3, 2020 Elizabeth Pauli, City Manager City of Tacoma 747 Market Street Room 1200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Re: Reducing nutrient pollution in Puget Sound Dear Elizabeth Pauli: I am writing in response to the City of Tacoma's (City) concerns regarding the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) work to reduce excess nutrient pollution in Puget Sound. My understanding is that the City plans to add language to its building permits that point to this work as a signal of why the issuance of a permit will not guarantee future service by the City's wastewater treatment plants. We believe any action to this effect is premature, and we hope the City will reconsider this approach. Ecology respects the City's desire to be as transparent as possible in explaining potential limitations on future capacity as they issue permits. However, at this early stage of the process, we believe predictions about the effect of the nutrients works on the City's duty to provide adequate public facilities under RCW 36.70A.020(12) is unnecessary. We believe Ecology's work to develop a general permit provides a path to reducing nutrient pollution in Puget Sound while allowing cities to continue to grow as they envisioned. We are committed to exploring the specific technology and policy solutions that will meet both of these shared responsibilities. As you know, we are engaging in a robust public process to develop the permit. Given that this general permit will cover treatment plants of various sizes that utilize different processes, we have formed an advisory committee representing diverse interests. The City of Tacoma is an important member of the advisory committee and we look forward to collaborating with the City moving forward Elizabeth Pauli April 3, 2020 Page The purpose of the committee is to develop alternatives and recommendations. Once finalized by the committee, the recommendations will form the basis of permit conditions for the first 5-year general permit. Ecology and the Department of Commerce will also participate on the advisory committee to ensure Clean Water Act obligations and Growth Management requirements are considered and/or reflected in final recommendations. The current general permit timeline for development is as follows: Note: We recognize that this schedule may change due to COVID 19. • April 15 — First meeting of the advisory committee (remotely) • April — July 2020: Monthly advisory committee meetings • July 2020: Final recommendations from advisory committee • Fall 2020: Preliminary draft permit conditions released for informal public comment • Early 2021: Final draft developed by Ecology with a formal public comment period. • Spring/Summer 2021: Anticipated final permit issuance We understand that nutrient reduction efforts will require significant time and investment. We are committed to working with permittees involved in this process on strategies for how to acquire funding, achieve the reductions, accommodate growth, and maintain permit compliance. The Pacific Northwest is a national leader across many disciplines. We are well positioned to protect and restore the health and vitality of Puget Sound by making smart investments in wastewater treatment systems designed for the future. We look forward to partnering with the City in this effort. In light of the permit development timeline and the City's opportunity to directly engage in development of permit conditions, we think it unnecessary and premature to include language in your building permits around future capacity. If you have questions or would like to discuss this further, please contact me at vincent.inc og wan(&ecy.wa.gov or (360) 407-6405. Sincerely Vincent McGowan, P.E. Water Quality Program Manager cc: Dave Andersen, AICP, Washington State Department of Commerce Jennifer Hennessey, Office of Governor Jay Inslee PF_ ..dw Taco City of Tacoma Memorandum TO: Elizabeth A. Pauli, City Manager William C. Fosbre, City Attorney FROM: Christopher D. Bacha, Chief Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Nutrient Permit — Impacts on Development, Housing and Ratepayers DATE: March 26, 2020 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information regarding the State Department of Ecology's program to reduce nutrient loads discharged to the Puget Sound from wastewater treatment plants, and the potential impact of this program upon development and utility ratepayers. SUMMARY: The State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has announced its intent to issue a general permit that will implement nutrient total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) load caps and planning requirements that will become effective upon issuance of the permit. We understand that the proposed TIN load caps will limit treatment plant effluent flows to their current levels, and will not accommodate current or future development in the City unless, and until, the City makes substantial improvements to the Central Treatment Plant (CTP) and North End Treatment Plant (NETP). Ecology has also indicated it will be issuing a Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit with lower TIN limits by mid-2021. However, individual permits may be issued sooner. The costs of such full-scale improvements are estimated to range from $250 million to over $750 million and would likely take at least six years or longer to fund, plan for and implement. In the interim, implementation of the TIN load cap would have the unintended consequence of halting development, in effect a de facto moratorium. Projects could not be approved because sewer capacity would not be available. The City will be exposed to substantial risk if it does not qualify all sewer availability notices with the right to rescind the assurance of sewer availability in the event Ecology's permit caps sewer capacity. Adding this condition will impair lending and effectively halt most development, including affordable housing, shelters, and accessory dwelling units. Further, funding of capital improvements needed to meet the new permit requirements has the potential to more than double or triple sewer rates, disproportionately affecting low-income populations. BACKGROUND: The focus of Ecology's efforts to reduce nutrient loads (the level of nutrients in wastewater discharged from the treatment plant) is based upon a state water quality standard of requiring no more than a depletion of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen from anthropogenic sources (originating in human activity). The term "dissolved oxygen" (DO) refers to the level of oxygen present in water that can sustain marine life, i.e. oxygen that is not bonded to another element or "non -compound" oxygen. DO levels are affected by many factors including the quality of water entering the Puget Sound from the ocean, local circulation patterns, air and water temperatures, the timing and size of river flows, and nutrient retention and loading from various sources (e.g. freshwater and marine sources). Nutrients provide nourishment for growth of the aquatic ecosystem. In particular, nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients that support growth of algae and aquatic plants, which provide food and habitat for fish, shellfish and organisms that live in water. However, when nitrogen or phosphorous levels are high, they can fuel excessive marine algae growth that consumes DO when it dies and decomposes. This process is called eutrophication and results in depleted DO. Wastewater treatment plants are one source of nitrogen and phosphorous found in the Puget Sound. In November of 2018, Nina Bell, Director of Northwest Environmental Advocates, filed a petition for rulemaking with Ecology. The petition asked Ecology to amend state regulations and require new effluent limits on the amount of nutrients that can be discharged from wastewater treatment plants to the Puget Sound, including tertiary treatment (nutrient removal). While Ecology in its January 11, 2019 letter to Nina Bell denied this request, it acknowledged that it shared concerns regarding nutrient impacts and dissolved oxygen impairments in the Puget Sound but did not agree that tertiary treatment was reasonable to address Puget Sound water quality impairments. Instead, Ecology confirmed its belief that a water quality -based approach was necessary to address DO impairments. In addition, Ecology made other commitments to the petitioner, including adding nutrient (TIN) caps at current levels for all wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that discharge into Puget Sound. This decision was appealed to the Governor who affirmed Ecology's decision. The Governor further confirmed that within five years Ecology expects to have capped the nutrient levels discharged from all marine municipal treatment facilities and will have moved some facilities to advanced treatment programs where necessary to meet water quality standards. More specifically, the Governor indicated that Ecology would require 2 wastewater utilities to develop programs "suited to their physical spaces and financial resources".' Ecology commenced discussion of the nutrients issue with the dischargers beginning with its first Nutrient forum in July of 2017. During the August 21, 2019 nutrient forum, Ecology announced its preliminary determination to develop a Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit to address nutrient limits and established a comment period ending October 21 st The permit schedule announced by Ecology provided that the general permit would be issued in spring or summer of 2021, and that the draft would be available in the fall of 2020. A consortium of 19 Puget Sound Dischargers2 (including Tacoma) responded collectively expressing the need to ensure that regulatory requirements be based upon current understanding of water quality benefits and take into consideration technical feasibility, timing and affordability. The joint letter also requested that Ecology wait to issue nutrient limits or caps to allow for adaptive management to evaluate the most effective and efficient methods to protect Puget Sound water quality. Instead, Ecology announced during the December 12, 2019 meeting of the Coalition for Clean Water,3 that individual permits issued before the general permit will have TIN load caps. Ecology reiterated this decision at the Puget Sound Nutrients Forum on December 19, 2019. Further, and of immediate importance to the City, is the statement from Ecology that the TIN load caps will not allow for growth and that immediate compliance would be required. On December 16, 2019, the first NPDES wastewater permit was issued to Kitsap County by the EPA with nutrient requirements imposed by Ecology pursuant to its 401 certification authority. The nutrient requirements imposed a TIN load cap and planning requirements that include a plan for optimization of the treatment plant to maintain compliance with the TIN load cap after the cap is initially exceeded. Studying and implementing optimization at a wastewater treatment plant can take one to three years. Kitsap County appealed the planning requirements of the 401 certification and a hearing has been scheduled for October of 2020. Kitsap County did not appeal the TIN load cap. The City of Tacoma moved to intervene in the appeal which motion was granted by the Pollution Control Hearings Board presiding officer assigned to this appeal. The City of Tacoma intervened because of the potential impact of the outcome of this appeal upon the City of Tacoma and other marine dischargers. The Environmental Services Department believes that the ' In a subsequent lawsuit filed in February of 2019, NWEA filed suit against Ecology in Thurston County challenging Ecology's decision and seeking an order requiring Ecology to updates its regulations to require technology based effluent limits. The Court has since dismissed the lawsuit. z Alderwood Water & Wastewater District, Anacortes, Bellingham, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, Bremerton, Everett, Gig Harbor, Kitsap County, Lake Stevens Sewer District, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District, Lynnwood, Midway Sewer District, Mount Vernon, Mukilteo Water and Wastewater District, Pierce County, Tacoma, Washington Association of Sewer & Water Districts, and West Sound Utility District. 'The CCW was formed by an interlocal agreement among 12 municipalities, which meet to address preservation and improvement of water quality as well as the reduction of pollution and the planning and financing of necessary facilities. planning requirements are infeasible, that the scientific understanding of the impact of nutrients discharged from wastewater treatment plants and other sources is not yet developed, and that there is currently no demonstrable evidence that the nutrient loads from wastewater treatment plants have a measurable impact upon the anthropogenic depletion of levels of DO throughout Puget Sound. DISCUSSION: Ecology's decision to issue TIN load caps and planning requirements has far-reaching impacts. Ecology has indicated that the TIN load caps will be implemented when an individual permit is issued with requirements for immediate compliance. No provision for an implementation schedule will be included, which is typically part of a new effluent permit limit in order to allow time for a facility to comply. The TIN load caps will be calculated using effluent data submitted monthly by the City. However, there has been no indication from Ecology that it will take into account the capacity that has been reserved by the City for permitted projects that are not yet connected to the City's sanitary sewer system, or for planned projects that are not yet permitted. The load cap will therefore limit the available sewer capacity to existing levels, and thus will immediately prohibit growth. Additionally, for many wastewater dischargers, the imposition of the TIN load cap will result in immediate non-compliance and a permit violation. The City's land use code establishes concurrency requirements for permitting of development. TMC Ch. 13.16. Concurrency is a requirement of the Growth Management Act. These requirements currently require a sanitary sewer capacity analysis at the time of permit application to determine if there is available sewer capacity for the proposed development. The side sewer manual limits the requirement for an analysis of projects in excess of 100 equivalent residential units. Projects under this standard receive informal assurance of available reserved capacity through issuance of a development permit. Projects in excess of 100 ERU's must be issued a certificate of capacity at the time the development permit is issued. The permittee will fund and construct the proposed project in reliance upon the City's assurance that capacity will be available when the project is completed. The City can no longer provide such assurance because the proposed nutrient cap limit will not accommodate growth and immediate compliance will be required. The City must modify its certificates of capacity and permits to make applicants aware that while capacity may be available at the time that the certificate or permit is issued, capacity may not be available at the time of connection or occupancy. This qualifying language will have a direct effect upon lender and investor financing of projects that require sewer availability. The probable result is de facto moratorium on most if not all development. 11 A de facto moratorium is clearly not what the Governor or Ecology intended; however, it is a consequence of the efforts to move quickly to implement nutrient limits. Stating the obvious, a de facto moratorium minimally means for the next five to seven years or longer, an end to most, if not all, multi -family projects for both market rate and affordable housing as well as commercial development that requires sewer capacity. The upgrades to the CTP and NETP to accommodate nutrient removal are estimated to have a minimum cost of between $250 and $750 million4 depending on the effluent limit required by Ecology, and could be higher. The utility currently spends $25 million per year on capital improvement projects. Assuming that the City could secure financing for the plant upgrades at the minimum costs, this would add about $13 million per year to the utility's debt service costs. At the higher end, the annual financing costs would be as much as $38 million per year. Ratepayers should expect their rates to double or triple. The impacted utilities have been in on -going discussions with Ecology and Ecology has convened an advisory committee to provide input regarding development of the general permit. A representative of the City is participating as a member of this committee. The City is also concurrently working to develop a science -based consortium to provide funding for the scientific research that is necessary to fully understand, among other things, the impacts of nutrients within the aquatic ecosystem, the source of those nutrients, and the impacts of nutrient reduction from wastewater and other discharges. The goal is to provide a neutral science -based analysis that will aid Ecology in assessing and developing the best approach to nutrient removal from the Puget Sound. I hope that the foregoing has been assistance to you. a These estimates are preliminary only. s Financing for a project of this size would be complex and would require an increase in utility rates prior to issuance of debt. All, WSUD and SKWRF has been monitoring the actions of Ecology regarding the potential of nitrogen capping. Ecology has provided a calculation method for the potential determination of a nutrient cap which we just recently recelved. ECUlogy hd-b provided a Macro for analysis of analytical data That Mas been required To 15e reporTed over the la.51 two permit cycles by SKWRF. The calculation method for a potential nitrogen loading cap is described by Ecology as follows: The macro uses a "bootstrapping" procedure to calculate either the one -tailed upper 95% confidence interval around the mean effluent load, or the one -tailed lower 95% confidence interval around the mean pollutant removal efficiency. To perform these calculations, the macro randomly resamples the original data to create 5000 datasets with the same number of values as the original data. The mean of each resampled dataset is then calculated. The 5000 means are then sorted in ascending order. The one -tailed upper 95% confidence interval around the mean effluent load is the mean with the rank of 4750 out of 5000. The one -tailed lower 95% confidence interval around the mean pollutant removal efficiency is the mean with the rank of 250 out of 5000. With consideration given to last five years of analytical results at the SKWRF, and the provided "bootstrap" calculation method provided by Ecology. The current potential nitrogen loading cap could be set at 556.7 lbs./day on or before the next permit issuance which will is currently identified January 1, 2024. 1 believe there are a number of factors which will need to be considered and it is prudent that we take a methodical approach to the potential impact to the City and District's ability to allow connections to the systems. West Sound utilizes and issues Binding Sewer Availability Letters that commit to the connection(s) when applied for based on available system capacity. My understanding is that the City and County require these letters as part of the permitting process. Most certainly, an additional consideration by both entities will be how a new or modified system connection could potentially impact the facilities nitrogen cap and how the new capacity consideration can be managed by the City and the District concurrently. Marty and I can provide current information on SKWRF and how the discharge nitrogen loading compares to the calculated potential nitrogen cap at the next SAC Meeting. We can also share with the members, some of the considerations we have discussed on the potential for lowering the nitrogen discharge loading and what has been accomplished at SKWRF in preparation for a potential nitrogen cap. On another note, in light of the current events in relation to Covid-19, I would suggest a request of the SAC members is made to consider moving the location of the next meeting on May 27, 2020 from SKWRF to the WSUD offices. We can provide a venue that will easily accommodate social distancing. Please let me know your thoughts on relocation of the meeting. Regards, Randy Screws General Manager West Sound Utility District 2924 SE Lund Avenue Port Orchard, WA 98366 Direct: 360-874-5004 West Sound City of Port Orchard Water System Capital Improvement Plan Project Description Cost Estimate % CFC Financing 1 580 Zone Storage 1,000,000 100 CFC 2A Well 13 Development & Treatment 7,500,000 75 CFC/rates 2B Maple Street T & D Main 2C 390 to 260 Zone PRVs 3 Well 11 Development & Treatment 7,000,000 25 CFC/rates 4 580 ZoneTransmission & Distribution Main 945,000 100 CFC 5 390 Zone Storage 3,000,000 100 CFC/rates 6 Telemetry Upgrades 100,000 25 CFC/rates 7 390 to 580 Zone Booster Station (Old Clifton) 525,000 75 CFC/rates 8 390 to 580 Zone Transmission Main (Old Clifton) 1,325,000 75 CFC/rates 9 Well 12 Development & Treatment 7,000,000 100 CFC 10 Melcher Pump Station Upgrade 500,000 25 CFC/rates 11 PRV Improvements per Hydraulic Model 350,000 50 CFC/rates 12 390 to 580 Zone Booster Station (Glenwood) 525,000 0 developer (condition of plat approval) 13 390 to 580 Zone Transmission Main (Glenwood) 2,750,000 75 CFC/rates 14 580 to 660 Zone Booster Station 500,000 100 CFC 15 660 Zone Storage 1,500,000 100 CFC 16 Well 7 Treatment/Pump Station Upgrades 750,000 0 rates 17 Main Replacements per Hydraulic Model 2,000,000 25 CFC/rates 18 Feasibility Study for Consolidation and Fluoridation 50,000 50 CFC/rates 19 Risk and Resiliency Study for AWIA 50,000 0 rates 20 Annual Main Replacement Program 500,000 0 rates 21 Annual Valve Replacement Program 80,000 0 rates 22 Annual Hydrant Replacement Program 50,000 0 rates 23 Foster Pilot Mitigation Projects 1,000,000 100 CFC 24 390 Reservoir Booster Station 600,000 100 CFC 25 Well 10 Rehab, Activation, and Water Main 3,092,000 100 CFC Total CIPI 42,692,0001 * Update of Table 7-2 of the City Comprehensive Plan City of Port Orchard Sewer System Capital Improvement Plan Project Description Cost Estimate % CFC Financing 1 Marina Pump Station 15,000,000 50 CFC /rates 2 Bay Street Pump Station 1,300,000 25 CFC/rates 3 McCormick Pump Station 2 4,500,000 100 CFC 4 Eagle Crest Generator Set 300,000 0 rates 5 Albertson's Pump Station Upgrade ** 0 developer 5A Bravo Terrace Lift Station and Force Main 5,000,000 75 CFC 5B South Sidney Lift Station 2,500,000 100 CFC 5C North Sidney Lift Station 2,500,000 100 CFC 5D Sidney 2nd Force Main 1,537,500 100 CFC 6 McCormick Woods Pump Station 3 1,000,000 100 CFC Total CIPI 33,637,500 * Update of Table 7-1 of the City Comprehensive Plan ** dependent on the scope of the upgrade GVL24702 Grant Agreement between Department of Health and City Of Port Orchard FACE SHEET Contract Number: CB024702 Washington State Department of Health on behalf of Financial Services Division Office of Drinking Water Drinking Water System Repairs and Consolidation 1. CONTRACTOR 2. CONTRACTOR Doing Business As (optional) City of Port Orchard Address doing Business as 3. CONTRACTOR Representative 4. DOH Representative Jacki Brown Eloise Rudolph PO BOX 47822 Utility Manager Grants and Loan Officer Olympia, WA 98504-7822 360-876-4991 360-236-3124 public+vorks0meityoFPortorchard.us Eloise.Rudolph(rdoh.+va.gov 5. Contract Amount 6. Funding Source 7. Start Date 8. End Date $30,000 Federal: ❑ State: ® Other: ❑ N/A: ❑ DOE 6/30/2021 9. Federal Funds (as applicable) 10. Federal Agency 11. CFDA Number: N/A N/A N/A 12. Tax ID # 13. SWV # 14. UBI # 15. DUNS # 91-6001487 00265665-00 182-000-005 08.193.2790 16. Contract Purpose The purpose of this contract is to fund a study for the consolidation of McCormick Woods's water system (PWSID 40529) with Port Orchard. DOH and CONTRACTOR acknowledge and accept the terms of this Contract and have executed this Contract on the date below to start as of the date and year referenced above. The rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the Contract Special Terms and Conditions, General Terms and Conditions, Attachment "A" -- Scope of Work, and Attachment "B" -- Budget. FOR CONTRACTOR FOR DOH 1,Y)a tj or 'L � ( I(.j1'• [,ILL partment of Health Contracting Officer Signature i Frank Webley . �- Date Signed: Contract S dbialisfff Datd Sign 6d: APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL APPROVAL ON FILE Contract # GVL24702 Page 1 of 12 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD 4,RD NOTICE TO CONSTIL PANTS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) McCORMICK VILLAGE PARK SPLASH PAD RETROFIT PROJECT 2020 SCHEMATIC & AD READY DESIGN (PS&E) The City of Port Orchard solicits Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) from qualified A&E consulting firms with expertise in the preparation of the 2020 Schematic (30%) and Ad Ready (100% PS&E) Design for the McCormick Village Park Splash Pad Retrofit Project (the "Project"). Submittals meeting the criteria described herein shall be submitted to the City of Port Orchard, RE: 2020 McCormick Village Park Splash Pad Retrofit Project, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366, and Mark R. Dorsey, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 29, 2020. Information related to this RFQ, including any addenda, will be posted to the City's website at httpsalwww.cityofportorchard.us/bids-and-proposals/. Any questions regarding this project should be directed to Mark R. Dorsey, P.E., (360) 876-4991 or publicworks@cityof portorchard.us. Project Description The Work to be performed by the Consultant Team shall consist of the Schematic (30%) and the subsequent 100% Ad Ready Design (Plans, Specifications & Estimate) necessary for the future retrofit of the existing McCormick Village Park Splash Pad Facility located at 3201 SW Old Clifton Road, Port Orchard, WA. The design Work to be performed, in compliance with all International, Federal, State and Local Regulations, is as follows; • Retrofit the existing `flow-thru' recreational splash pad system to a `recycled/treated' recreational splash pad system • New mechanical building to house the necessary recycled water treatment and pumping equipment and chemical storage • New water storage tank to augment the new recycled/treated recreational splash pad system • Site water, storm drainage and sanitary sewer modifications to accommodate the new recycled/treated recreational splash pad system • Electrical modifications as needed to accommodate the new recycled/treated recreational splash pad system The City intends to utilize the City's standard consultant agreement for this work. The Project shall occur in FY 2020, with the option for the City of Port Orchard to extend the consultant agreement for additional time if necessary at the City's sole discretion. RFO Schedule: (Dates are estimates and subject to change by the City) Event Date RFQ Release M4y 15, 2020 and May 22, 2020 Submittals Due May 29, 2020 Selection June 5, 2020 Notify Apparent Successful Firm June 5, 2020 New Contract in Place June 23, 2020 U:\ENGINEERING\PARKS - LANDSCAPE\PARKS\McCormick Village Park\Splash Pad Retro_2020\RFQ- Splash Pad Retrofit.docx Page 1 of 5 Fundini! To be determined Submittal Submittals should include the following information: • A cover letter/statement of interest demonstrating the firm's interest in the project and highlighting its qualifications to meet the City's needs; • Firm name, email address, phone and fax numbers; • Name of Principal -in -Charge and Project Manager; • A brief overview of the firm, and the number of employees in each firm proposed to project; • A statement of the consulting firm's qualifications, including brief resumes of staff proposed to work on the project. The information should be focused on the firm's demonstrated ability to meet the criteria set out below, and experience with similar projects to the City Hall Improvement Project. • Description of the most recent projects performed by the consulting firm, that included a similar scope of work. The consulting firm's SOQ shall be limited to 10 pages, double sided excluding resumes, cover sheet and cover letter. Submittals shall include a completed and signed Non -Collusion Affidavit form (Attachment A). Please submit THREE copies of your SOQ to: City of Port Orchard, RE: Future City Hall Improvement Project 2020-2021, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366, and Mark R. Dorsey, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 29, 2020. Submittals will not be accepted after that time and date. Evaluation Criteria Submittals will be evaluated by City staff based upon the responsiveness of the submittal to this RFQ, and based on the following criteria: 1) Demonstrated Qualifications of Proposed Project Manager, including ability to work without significant monitoring, provide strategic recommendation, and ability to communicate information to the community and Council. (15 points) 2) Demonstrated Qualifications/Expertise of Firm and/or Team (20 points) 3) Demonstrated Ability to meet Schedule (20 points) 4) Description of General Approach to this Project (15 points) 5) Familiarity with Port Orchard Municipal Code and Related Regulatory Requirements (10 points) 6) Relevant Past Performance/References (10 points) 7) Demonstrated Water Treatment System Expertise in the Retrofit Project (10 points) Evaluations will be based on criteria outlined herein, which may be weighted by the City in any manner it deems appropriate. Interviews, if considered necessary, will be held with selected Consultants based on an evaluation of the Qualifications. All submittals will be evaluated using the same criteria and weighting. U:\ENGINEERING\PARKS - LANDSCAPE\PARKS\McCormick Village Park\Splash Pad Retro_2020\RFQ- Splash Pad Retrofit.docx Page 2 of 5 The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals, to waive all minor technicalities, and to accept the proposal or proposal determined to be the most advantageous to the City. Additionally, the City may accept a proposal subject to an exception if, in the sole judgement of the City, the proposal meets or exceed the City's specifications. The City of Port Orchard reserves the right to amend the terms of this "Request for Qualifications" (RFQ) to circulate various addenda, or to withdraw the RFQ at any time, regardless of how much time and effort consultants have spent on their responses. This Project is contingent upon the acquisition of a funding package, and as such, the City reserves the right to cancel this Project and any associated contracts depending on the quality of said funding package, solely at the City's discretion. All questions shall be submitted to Mark R. Dorsey, P.E., (360) 876-4991 or ptiblieworks@cityof portorchard.us. Unauthorized contact regarding this RFQ with other City employees may result in disqualification. Any oral communications will be considered unofficial and non -binding on the City. Any questions will be answered in writing and posted on the City's website at https://www.citfportorchard.us/bids-and-proposals/. It is the responsibility of individual firms/teams to check the website for any amendments or Q & A's to this RFQ. If you would like to schedule a tour of the area and existing facilities, please contact Tony Lang 360.535.2490 tlangAcityofpartorehard.us. The City reserves the right to reject any and all submittals and to waive irregularities and informalities in the submittal and evaluation process. This RFQ does not obligate the City to pay any costs incurred by Consultants in the preparation and submission of their Statement of Qualifications. Furthermore, the RFQ does not obligate the City to accept or contract for any expressed or implied services. The City reserves the right to request that any Consultant clarify its submittal or to supply any additional material deemed necessary to assist in the evaluation of the submittal. Modification of a submittal already received will be considered only if the request is received prior to the submittal deadline. All modifications must be made in writing, executed and submitted in the same form and manner as the original submittal. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information The City of Port Orchard in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), commits to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, in all of its programs and activities. This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Public Works Department at publicworks@cityofportorchard.us or by calling (360) 876-4991. Title VI Statement The City of Port Orchard in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such Act, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises as defined at 49 CFR Part 26 will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex in consideration for an award." U:\ENGINEERING\PARKS - LANDSCAPE\PARKS\McCormick Village Park\Splash Pad Retro_2020\RFQ- Splash Pad Retrofit.docx Page 3 of 5 ii.,,nembip a W®rk-P3 A -&co, Any and all data, reports, analyses, documents, photographs, pamphlets, plans, specifications, surveys, films or any other materials created, prepared, produced, constructed, assembled, made, performed or otherwise produced by the consultant or the Consultant's subcontractors for delivery to the City under this RFQ shall be the sole and absolute property of the City. Such property shall constitute "work made for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, and the ownership of the copyright and any other intellectual property rights in such property shall vest in the City at the time of its creation. Ownership of the intellectual property includes the right to copyright, patent, and register, and the ability to transfer these rights. Material which the Consultant uses to prepare a proposal in response to this RFQ but is not created, prepared, constructed, assembled, made, performed or otherwise produced for or paid for by the City is owned by the consultant and is not "work made for hire" within the terms of this RFQ. Public Records Request This RFQ and all public records associated with proposals submitted in response to this RFQ shall be available from the City for inspection and copying by the public where required by the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RC W (the "Act"). To the extent that public records then in the custody of the Consultant are needed for the City to respond to a request under the Act, as determined by the City, the Consultant agrees to make them promptly available to the City. Additional Terms and Conditions. To view the City's full terms and conditions for this project, please refer to the contract for this project on the City's website at https:llwww.cityofpoi-toi-cliard.us/bids-and-proposals/. By this reference, the terms and conditions in the contract are incorporated into this RFQ. Dates of publication: Port Orchard Independent: Daily Journal of Commerce: Kitsap Sun City of Port Orchard Website: May 15 and May 22, 2020 editions May 15 and May 22, 2020 editions May 15 and May 22, 2020 editions Posted May 15, 2020 U:\ENGINEERING\PARKS - LANDSCAPE\PARKS\McCormick Village Park\Splash Pad Retro_2020\RFQ- Splash Pad Retrofit.docx Page 4 of 5 Attachment A NON -COLLUSION DECLARATION I, by signing the proposal, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the following statements are true and correct: 1. That the undersigned person(s), firm, association or corporation has (have) not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive bidding in connection with the project for which this proposal is submitted. 2. That by signing the signature page of this proposal, I am deemed to have signed and agreed to the provisions of this declaration. By: (Authorized Signature) Title U:\ENGINEERING\PARKS - LANDSCAPE\PARKS\McCormick Village Park\Splash Pad Retro_2020\RFQ- Splash Pad Retrofit.dou Page 5 of 5 e a' gi all a L City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard WA 98366 (360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029 Agenda Staff Report Agenda Item No. Business Item Subject Adoption of Resolution No. 015-20, Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Contract No. C048-20 with Murraysmith, Inc. for the 2020-2021 McCormick Woods Well No. 11 Phase I —Site Improvement (Schematic 30% Design) Project Meeting Date: May 26, 2020 Prepared by: Mark Dorsey, P.E. Public Works Director Atty Routing No: N/A Atty Review Date: N/A Summary: As a function of the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget mid -cycle amendment process, the Ad Ready Design and Engineer's Estimate for the Well No. 11 Site Improvement Project was identified as a priority task for the Public Works Department. Therefore, on January 31, 2020, the Public Works Department published a Request for Qualifications for the 2020-2021 McCormick Woods Well No. 11 Site Improvement Project Ad Ready Design, Bid Support and Engineer of Record. By the February 14, 2020 deadline no Statements of Qualification (SOQ) were received, so upon confirmation of the required procurement process given that no responses to the Advertisement were received, the Public Works Department contacted Murraysmith, Inc., being a qualified firm from the current MRSC Roster. On April 13, 2020, a Proposal from Murraysmith, Inc. was received, but given the number of unknowns that created an unrealistic scope/budget, it was decided to implement a phased approach for the Project. Therefore, on May 8, 2020, after having met onsite with Public Works Department staff, Murraysmith, Inc. provided a new Proposal for the 2020-2021 McCormick Woods Well No. 11 Phase I — Site Improvements (Schematic 30% Design) Project in the amount of $94,673. Governor Inslee's Proclamation 20-28: This item is [check all that apply]: ❑ COVID-19 related; R1 necessary and routine, for the following reasons: This action supports the continuation of the previously determined essential and critical water system infrastructure improvement project. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 7 — Utilities Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 015-20, thereby approving Contract No. C048-20 with Murraysmith, Inc. for the 2020-2021 McCormick Woods Well No. 11 Phase I — Site Improvements (Schematic 30% Design) Project in the amount of $94,673 and documenting the Professional Services procurement procedures. Motion for Consideration: I move to adopt Resolution No. 015-20, thereby approving Contract No. C048-20 with Murraysmith, Inc. for the 2020-2021 McCormick Woods Well No. 11 Phase I — Site Improvements (Schematic 30% Design) Project in the amount of $94,673 and documenting the Professional Services procurement procedures. Fiscal impact: $300,000 of funding allocated -via -the 2019-2020 Bien lal Budget mid -Cycle affieriament process. Attachments: Resolution No. 015-20 Contract No. C048-20 w/ Exhibit A & B (dated May 2020) kE9o80mdohd 1CA `.* ti . NOTES: 1. MAUITAIN OPERATION OF EXIL PWP#TAMN 1r tS_ i DURINGCONSTRUCTION H DAPPUaTENANCE SSNALLE B RESTRAINED, D Ram— A OV 1YIEr YELL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: OK HDpE �� _ _ AND" CONTROL -� O WET TAP EXISTING Ir FORCE I NEW LIFT UNOERf}IIOIIND �� i k STATIONATWSTMAND "CS ETDRAOE TARIL SEt DETAIL SC•tT Oi[V WELL. STA". SEEDWG maw TANK AwMCSTALL.DRp ESTIMATED RDRCEIWNVGL4 CAP, EIS 17,DXIGALLONS, C-3ANDC GRADE @PROVIDE CON TINUOUSU 40PEW FORCE CARBON DRUM r...."...t............ ...�._._...Tfr�l i'T�T ..,..._,.,�,.>�_^�� MAIN BETWEEN n(VATIO0 TED ELSEWHERE DEE211EJI. DEE yETAa. 1A;.I1 .. TVVENT Q i4' Ii I:IJ III SEE DETAIL GENERA'M M `. T 1D e OtMEL PUMP, SEE DETAIL 1 Ir 68FN i 1.1fi"CAP, CDR DI �E B`SS FM fr DI GATE VALVE,\ THRUST BLOCK @ M LAVNCHVAULT DRAIN TO vcEr'Azu N MJ x MJ 9EE oe_TA Bea 1rssr. W. t . i` DI lIr BEaD. W .131 DI . rCAr III TEE, W. W 16' DI GATE FIOWMETER VAULT, W'THRUST ilAClt VALVE; EEDETWL2" I M MJ.mj _ { Y a- FENCE WI Ho LAUNCH VAULT, _ SCREENING AND SEE GETAB. IIGT _ _ _ i RAZORWIRE TF S6FM 1.1r01W inanIs Ir SSFM COMAEDI To a FM ei HIr TM MUST BLOCK 1 1r DI GATE 1 -1fi• WET TAP j VALVE MJxMI VNTHRU5To=K 11-16'DIGATEVALVE. d1`SS 11 I-16'DIWYE,MJx MJ -16'010.5'BEND, PE, MJ r•1 fi'x 12' DI ME, M.I x U1J FLx FL �, { Tf IRYOT DDCK A--' f-12' DI 0.5'BEND, PE x MJ WITHR UST BLOCK 1.16'D10.5°BEND, IFL. MJ 1WITHRUSTBLOCK _ ` — 3T ACCESS —'—•— OO IE RISER, TYP BSK ` lyf// YARD HYDRANT, 1 SEE DETAIL NC41 _ DOUBLE CHECKpE2-n• BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY, SFE DETAN. Fra SEE STD DET" INS See sheet C-4 if1� i� for GeDtech report indicated that buoyancy and uplift 1"WATERM DETAIL BEE Concerns about DETAIL STD DETAIL 860 0T9rB0rr �Yelra6Dna need to be considered Please confirm that the tank - - was designed counteract uplift or include an 1.rDLEllac'Lr w1N underdrain syslem 1°W rpT RIREAOB PB 1. 2r. 1•REDUOEB IT PERSON N.TC DUD GLffll'DN ROAD Gall 48 Hours gefon You Dig —_ 0— Preliminary 100% Review Set ` >p F Not For Const_2019 OLYIOn OB-2019 Be R � BHC Concuttants, LLC 661 F�rtn A..nue, sure s6D seetlY. WelninE,on set of 2n'.]2s.3os M`lnx.m owa a PIL°�,y. i6 n, ..:.,,..� rr�". a6 Publie Mlorks Department — �L - Y �� N6 Pmapeclstrut �gggi HR PortOrclultl,WAFW66 L 6o n 1 pc6inwmF.. MCCURMTCK L12 IMPROVEMENTS SITE AND YARD PIPING PLAN oN..s l'"•1 D'a..* P 6��r�o� e,r... D..:re.-•s 7 iY $fi H:nsmy+ APPr... a y,• .T. A.PP McCormick Lift Station #2 Improvements - Mar 2020 Update I IMar-12-20 dryly ID AWY "µnuns Orgrna nag. Stan Finsn Total Mal W 1. 2020 O1r Q; 2010 42F 3, 2020 tv4.2 Duration Duration Project Milestones 148.0 12.0 Oeo.10.19A Nav16.20 PM1000 Contract Executed 0.0 0.0 Dec10-19A PM1010 MP 0,0 0.0 Feb-10-20A PM1020 SJC Substantial Completion 0.0 0.0 Oct-26-20 PM1030 Contract Substantial Completion 0.0 00 Nov-16-20 Major SubmittaWProcutlement 139.0 920 D:a10.19A Aug-06.20 SubmiBal Prep 40.0 40.0 Dea10-19A May-07,20 SP1000 33 36 00 Wastewater Storage Tank - Prep 20.0 0-0 Dec10-19A Jan-13-20A SP1010 22 13 29.17 Dry Wei Wastewater Pump - Prep 30.0 0.0 Dec10-19 A Jan-24-20A SP1020 22 13 29.18 Backup Diesel Pump - Prep 36.0 36.0 Dec10-19A Apr-30-20 SP1030 26 32 00 - Package GeneratorAssemblies-Prei 36.0 0,0 Deo-10-19A Feb-26-20A SP1040 Div 26-Electrical Gear - Prep 40.0 4D.0 Deo-10-19A May-07-20 SP1050 22 14 29 Sump Pump - Prep 36.0 36.0 Dec10-19 A Apr-30-20 SP1060 08 31 00 Access Hatches - Prep 30.0 0.0 Deo-10.19A Jan-13-20A SP1070 09 96 00 Painting & Coating Systems - Prep 36.0 36.0 Dec10-19 A Apr-30-20 SP1080 03 20 00 Concrete Reinforcement - Prep 30.0 0.0 Deo-10-19A Jan-29-20A SP1090 03 31 00 Concrete Mbdure - Prep 30.0 0,0 Dec10-19A Jan-27-20A SP1100 33 05 16 Utility Structures - Prep 30.0 30.0 Deo-10-19A Apr21-20 SP1110 22 13 11 Piping Systems - Prep 30.0 0.0 Dec10-19A FetrU6-20A SP1120 Div 23-HVAC-Prep 40.0 40.0 Deo-10-19A May-07-20 SP1130 Div04 -Masonry-Prep 40.0 40.0 Deo-10-19A May-07-21) SP1140 081113-Ebbw Metal Doors&Frames-Prep 40.0 40,0 Dea10-19A May-07-20 SP1150 2213190dor Control Unit -Prep 40.0 40.0 Deo-10-19A May-07-20 SubmitffiI Review &Approvall 7919 0,0.tan-14-MA May,2fo RA1000 33 36 00 Wastewater Storage Tank-Review&F 8.0 D.0 Jan-14-20A Feb-14-20A RA1060 22 13 29.17 Dry Wei Mslewaler Pump - Reviel 8,0 0.0 Jan-27-20 A Jan-31-20 A RA1030 03 31 00 Concrete Mixture - Review&Approved 8.0 D.D Jan-28-20A Feb-10-20A RA1020 03 20 00 Concrete Reinforcement - Review&Ai 8.0 0.0 Jan-30-20A Feb-19-20A RA1050 22 13 11 Piping Systems - Review B Approved 8.0 0.D Feb-07-20A Feb-14-20A RA1010 06 31 00 Access Hatches - Review & Approved 8,0 8.0 Feb-14-20 A Mar-12-20 RA1070 26 32 00 - Package GeneratorAssemblies - Rev 8.0 8.0 Feb-27-20A Mar-12-20 RA1040 33 05 16 Ulilly Structures - Review &Approved 8.0 8,0 Apr-22-20 May-05-20 RA1080 22 14 29 Sump Pump - Review &Approved 5.0 8.0 May-04-20 May-14-20 RA1090 09 96 00 Painting & Coaling Systems - Review 2 8.0 8.0 May-04-20 May-14-20 RA1100 22 13 29.1 a Backup Diesel Pump - Review&Ap 8.0 6.0 May-04-20 May-14-20 RA111D Div 26-Electrical Gear - Review&Approved 6.0 8..0 May-11-20 May-21-20 RA1120 Div 23-HVAC-Review &Approved 8.0 6.0 May-11-20 May-21-20 RA1130 Div04 - Masonry- Review&Approved 6,0 6,0 May-11-20 May-21-20 RA1140 081113-Ebbw Metal Doors&Frames-Revie- 8.0 6,0 May-11-20 May-21-20 RA1150 22 13 19 Odor Control Unft- Review B Approved 8.0 8.0 May-11-20 May-21-20 Delivery Lead 111.0 92.0 Jan 26-20A Aup.( 20 DL1010 22 13 29.17 Dry Wei Wastewater Pump 80.0 80.0 Jan-28-20A Jul-16-20 Remaining Level of Effort Remaining Work ♦♦ Milestone Amu[ Level of Effort Critical Remaining Work 1A Summary Actual W.rk O O Baseline Milestone 32.0 53A 74.0 79.0 20.0 51.0 53.0 76.0 39.0 90.0 31.0 51.0 2--- Page 1 oF3 329 1 NoV-1fi-20.. ,k!p I Contract Executed NP 54a5 tel Ca -. -Nun ... .......: ..... ... .. C%nlrap Su ... 1Y Aug-06 -20, MaJW SOM1YFa remenl mm=W May-07.20, Submittal Prep Tenk-Prur ep Xy WaIlrage ly WhI Ws6lewarer Purrp-Prep : .. . . -6-Bwkup Kesel Pump Piep.................. ..... '2-Pnep 1 ___ -I 26 32 00 - Package iperat&As mbks. Pmp Div 26:Elwftal Giev. Prep 22 14 29 Sump Pump, -Prep titrhes-Peep . ...OB 9606 Paibtin &domin - ....:.............. g g.. oaten-S --ems-Peep - .... .__..... "- ""' - aaawe Repforoot- ncmle Modwe - Prep 16 Utility Slruclure Prep Piping Sysems _.. .. �. ... _------- ---.......... ...... R$T3;IfiyAc=Pie -'' �'', p ....:... . Div 04 - Masonry - prep, 08 11 1,3 - Hollow Metal Doors & Frames-. Prtp 22 13 1,9 Odor Control Unit - Prep Submittal Review &Approval i 00Wesd "Cie a r........ ....... .. k=Tb w cwYS:byproied ....�---------- :......... .. ... 7 Dry Wal e - rVV -Review& Approved 1Ai ta�1n17d 1e MMd re- _ w&APD10WO meat- IA & - 20 to 1 �1: ft a w& . .......:.......... s........... ..... .... - ------- : - ... o01fA..'. 00 - ack rW A TOY & Approved 3W 16 $1 lea RevieW&Approved 1; mp . nip Review&ApprovEd 90 On 6 atirp Systems- Review &Appoved , -13- - - --p St�llyYinp-ReGlq�i[AIiP^pred............. D'Y2 ara rAAppmvad Gee -#A -.i.Appreved.'' nry- '&AppEvEcl Flapras - Review 4 Apprd .. ....... ...-- .. -.. s...-.. .,; 221" Y� - Ca i-Rav(Appiotiled.-.,.... .... .....----- -;_........ .,.... A4*-aD, Delivery Lead . 13 29,11 2yY, *1 WasleWater P , McCormick Lift Station #2 Improvements - Mar 2020 Update Data Date: Mar-02-20 Run Date: Mar-12-20 @ Oracle McCormick Lift Station #2 Improvements - Mar 2020 Update Mar-12-20 t341 A:i,vly 10 AgMty Name ong Start Fin Tolat Otr 1, 2020 Or 2, 2020 Or 3, 2020 Or 4. 2020 Duratron GnalrWr Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul I Aug Sep Cct Nov Dec DL1000 33 36 00 Wastewater Storage Tank 48.0 48.0 Fe1r17-20A May21.20 92.0 e a . DL1020 03 20 00 Concrete Reinforcement 10.0 10.0 reb-20.20A Mar-17-20 12.0 20 00 Co 1 rcem t i i : i DL1030 OB 31 00 Access Hatches 12.0 32.0 Ma06r20 May-07-20 32.0 DL1050 26 32 00 - Package GenemtorAssemblies 60.0 60.0 filar-16-20 Jun-25-20 53.0 261'00-PaUrage%3ne2iorAssemDies DL1040 22 13 29.1E Backup Diesel Pump 43.0 48.0 May-18.20 Aug-06-20 51.0 _.22 ,1 29.18 Backup Diesel Pump DL1060 221319Odor Control Unit 44.0 44.0 May26.20 Aug-06-20 31.0 22 A319 Color Cbnbol Lind Construction 148.0 138.0 Fett1020A Oct-26-20 12A pd 2620•=aelrutl Si1P Demo 134.0 122.0 FebiG20A Sep3D20 21.0 - .Silo -•Site Demo:- - - SD1040 MobilaeiSetup Staging Area 4.0 0.0 Feb-10.20A Feb-1320Aa0^0 An, SDI000 Remove Existing Fence/Set up Temp Fence 20 OA Fetr1220A Feb•1320AFerroelSe aq vorice SD7010 Clear&Grub/Fall Trees 8.0 0.0 Feb-1720A Feb-20-20A ra, & Cw b al Trees SD1020 Install ESC Measures 1.0 0.0 Feb-19-20A Feb-21.20A SD7050 Rebate Existing Bldg 1.0 OA Feb-20-20A Feb-20-20A ..- .. -.. �, • Iassures . le ._ .. Bldg y .....:.. ... . :. - ,. - - - --- -._.. .._;_.._._.._;_.---- : SD1070 Demo Chlorine Tank& Foundation 1.0 0.0 Feb-20-20A Feb-2620A Tank •S. SD1060 Relocate Existing Electrical, ContmLs, 8 Generals 1.0 1.0 Feb-26-20 A Mar-02-20 16.0 aloc it,6aswv SD1080 Demo HMA 1.0 1.0 Mar-02-20 Mar-02-20 100.0 �, SD1030 Relocate Water Meter/Demo Mier Line 1.0 1.0 Mar-02-20 Mar-02.20 129.0 SD1090 Demo Mech in Wet Well 1.0 1.0 Sep-29-20 Sep30-20 21.0 ... ..... _ . _;.. b t 4Va1er ... .......: ... .. ' p..- p I: -;-; .:..-�...;.:-.. Me46"n'mt W!Y ..... SD1100 Demo Valve Vauls 1,0 1 D Sep-29-20 SeIP40-20 21.11 • . VaMo Vau1s -_ - 117 Wet WeIVDry Well/CoMrol Bldg .0 117.0 Mar-02-20 Sep•22-20 31.0 VWV1350 Drift Pies for Esc Support System 3.0 3.0 Mar-02-20 Mar-04-20 13.0 0, wet We" inkYco 84 xg for E� Sk rr J !ep2Z, WW1360 Instal Devvelerimg Web & System 1.0 1.0 Mar 05-W Mar-05-20 13.0 n svotering I It S WW1000 Excavate Wet Vili Wet 4.0 4.0 Mar-09-20 Mar-1220 13.0 WM010 Slab Prep @ EL 364 1.0 1.0 Mar-16-20 Mar-16 20 13.0 Prep VWV1020 ExcavalelPrep Stair Fooling 3.0 3.0 Mar-16-20 Mar-1820 17.0 'q NAW1030 FRPS Slab @EL 354 6.0 6.0 Mar-16-20 Mar2620 120 PRISsla ' IAW 040 FRPS - Stair Fooling 4.0 4.0 Mar3020 Apr0220 12.0FRP S' MNV1050 FRPS NkI Well/Dry VVeYSIairNFalb 18.0 16.0 Apr-06-20 AprJ0-20 12-0 of I VWV1060 28-Day Cure an Walls 16.0 15.1) May-04-20 May-2920 12.0 '�, o WW10B0 Backfill For Stairs 2.0 2.0 May-04-20 May-0520 45.0 WN1090 FRPS - Stairs 4.0 4.0 May-06-20 May-12-20 45.0 VWV1070 FRPS OH Slab @ 378.5 6.0 6.0 May-11-20 May-19-20 32.0 WW1110 Cost Exterior of Buried Walk 6.0 6.0 Jun-01-20 Jun-09-20 12.0 WVVI120 FRPS-Fiefs in Wet Well 4.0 4.0 Jun-01-20 Jun-04-20 47.0 - ? 1 VVW1130 Coe tlntenor ofWet VVeIVDryWell 3.0 3.0 Jun-08-20 Jun-10.20 47.0 ?? ol!v ! ni l ~140 Backfil Wet WeWDryWeII5lals 3.0 3.0 Jun-10-20 J-15-20 120 i V Iftll VW16fars WM150 Excavate Control Bldg Grade Beam 1.0 1.0 Jun46-20 Jun-16-20 120 ! 4ta0r •. Bklg;C3tade Bea VVWI160 FRPS -Contml Bldg Grade Beam 4.0 4.0 Jun-17-20 Jurf23-20 12.0 ;. .". _.""..;-......". -• .. .Glade Benin � .. ____ VWV1170 FRPS- Control Bldg Stem Walls 5.0 5.0 Jun2420 Ju1411-20 12.0 FR1iS-ro *IB10g Stem Wa V1NV11B0 Prep Control Bldg Slab 1.0 1.0 Jub220 JuW2-20 12 0 tBk�o VWV1190 FRPS- Control Bldg Slab 3.0 3.0 Ju1-06-20 Juwa20 124 rttOtEft Slab VWV1200 Instal CMU Control Bldg 8.0 B.D JuW9-20 Ju42220 1" CAM VWV1210 Install Medical Centrifugal Pumps 3.0 3.0 Ju420-20 JuL2220 26.0 .......-....................... ..........- ......... - ;.. .. -....... _... .... - , .._ -•• :.-, _ _ --------- ----- VWV1230 Instal Roof Framing 8 Insulalbn 4.0 4.0 Jul,23-20 JuL292o 12-0 :instal Root n Remaining Level of Effort Remaining Work Milestone Page 2 of 3 McCormick Lift Station #2 Improvements - Mar 2020 Update Actual Level of Effort Critical Remaining Work A Summary Data Date: Mar-02-20 l♦ Acual Work O O Baseline Milestone Run Date: Mar-12-20 ©Oracle Corpo Iron McCormick Lift Station #2 Improvements - Mar 2020 Mar-12-20 WW1240 FRPS- Eederior Landings 3.0 3-0 Jul,23-20 Jul-28-20 620 - -.Me" Wn IT WW1220 Install Dry W'elWJel Well Piping 6,0 6,0 JuE23-20 Aug-03-20 36.0 I"1fly iNeY I1&kl R WW1340 Rough-ln Electrical 16.0 16.0 JuF23-20 Aug-19-20 260 n VWV1260 Install Metal Roof 8 Gutters 4,0 4.0 Ju130-20 Aug-05-20 47.0 WM270 Coat Interior Conlml Bldg & FloorSealer 2,0 2.0 Jut30-20 Aug-03-20 12.0 _ Cai ItN[TC Carl C4 bid;& bwsew, WW7200 Install Doors 2.0 2.0 Aug-04-20 Aug-05-20 49,0 WW1290 Install HVAC 16.0 16.0 Aug-04-20 Aug-31-20 35.0 sues C VW 1300 Install Electrical Equipment 24.0 24.0 Aug-04-20 Sep-15-20 12.0 V1NV1250 Paint Interior Piping 4.0 4.0 Aug-04-20 Aug-10-20 55.0 VW4/1100 Install Odor Control Unit 2.0 2.0 Aug-10-20 Aug-11-20 31.0 I s Ifpl Unit WW7310 Install Louvers 2,0 2..0 Aug-27-20 Aug-31-20 35.0"� WW1320 Coat Ededor CMU & Doors 4.0 4.0 Sep-01-20 Sep-08-20 35.0 Co t6ftrorIMADoom VWJ1330 Stadup/Testing of Lift Station 4.0 4.0 Sep-15-20 Sep22-20 12.D _ r WIN• e9aip of Lift Station Storage Tank 13.0 13A May-14-20 Jun-04-20 92.0 � _ t � Wt➢e ST1000 Excvavate Storage Tank 5.0 5.0 May-14-20 May-21-20 92-D F:ao+Sv9� Stlgrape tank ST1010 Install Deadman Anchors 1.0 1.0 May-26-20 May-26-20 92.0 Instal nAncisms ST1020 Set Storage Tank/Insall Deadman Cables 2-0 2..0 May-27-20 May-28-20 92.0 - Set sto age ihn1j4W1f mM= 5T7030 Install l2"SSTO&12"SS to W'et WetI 2.0 2,0 May-29-20 Jun-01-20 92.0 In tYS5T4&1 SS to Wet ° ST1040 Backfil Storage Tank 2,0 2D Jun-02-20 Jun-03-20 92.0 $l7 "O,�°k •{•- ••-- ST1050 Install R'ser/MH Colars 1,0 1.0 Jun-04-20 Jun-04-20 92.0 toss R4cCAM1 Ca15rs Yard PipingivauWMH nco 125.9 mss-0'6.20 Oct-08-20 :61, - -0 G, Yard P0hVVr - YP1000 Install l"Water 3.0 3-0 Mar-03-20 Mar-05-20 129.0 _ Ins1a111Yk16f - _.- ______ ____ _ , , YP1160 Inslall Site Electrical 8,0 B.D Mar-03-20 Mar-16-20 100.0 ...,.y..+.cur,...• VMYa+, ISIG s w.....s •. .... YP1100 Install21"SS Line from SSMH 3 to Wet Well 2.0 2.0 May-04-20 May-05-20 91.0 ..--..-1........... ................................ � 1�{"S.. • dv11i St. Wet WellI ; YP1010 Excavate/Set/Backfil Pig Launch Vault 3.0 3.0 May-06-20 May-11-20 74.0 R4 L.aarndr YP1020 Install 6" SSFM Wei M to Pig Launch Vault 1.0 1.0 MayA 2-20 May-12-20 76.0 j p _ _ t 5' V1kt ;Awi to P$ Laandl Vault YP1030 Excavate/SetlBadfiil Flow Meter Vault 3.0 3.0 May-12-20 MayA4-20 74.0 lSe Bffcbfi Flow Meter Vault YP1040 Coat lnteriorof Pig Launch Vauft 1.0 1.0 May-12-20 May-12-20 82.0 - at InteriorPfa Launch Vaia! YP1060 Install 16"SSFM 5.0 5.0 May-1B-20 May-26-20 74.0 --- - •{•- •. • •tF - - Iralah�:.: 'n :.,rrssrs, YP1050 Install Mech in Pig Vault 1.0 1.0 May-18-20 May-18-20 80.0 YP1070 Coat Intenor of Flow Meter Vault 1.0 1.0 May-18-20 MayA B-20 78.0 _ Coal lnf PT:PI]W Meter Vauft YP1080 Instal Mech i. Flow Meier Vaul 2.0 2.0 May-19-20 May-20-20 78..0 - M39e1 kI F{DW Meter W YP1090 Install 12" SSFM 2.0 2.0 May-27-20 May-28-20 74.0 i ; Instal t StiFM ' Irrarali Gesiarelo[&Pad _ _ : ,i YP1110 Install Generator& Pad 4.0 4.0 Jun-29-20 Jul02-20 53,0 6nnocl YP1120 Install Line Stop & Make Connection 210 2.0 Sep22-20 Sep-24-20 14,0 1 jr*#L no Slop & Make YP1130 Install SSMH 03 & Connect to Existing 4.0 4.0 Sep-22-20 Sep-29-20 12.0 - Irrg SSMH 03 & Connect to YP1140 Install DSeal Pump & Pad 4.0 4.0 Sep-30-20 Oct-07-20 21.0 h tall diseal Pump,'8 Pad YP1150 Install Diseal Sudan Pipe 1.0 1.0 Od-07-20 Oct-08-20 21.0 - :h al4iied'&Iphll Pipe Site Improvements 15,0 154 &BP2&2g Oct-26-20 120 _ �, SI7000 Inslall/Grade CSBC 30 3.0 Sep-29-20 Oct-05-20 12.0 a CSBC - S11010 Inslall/Grade CSTC 3.0 3.0 Oct-05-20 Oct-08-20 12.0 _ - do CSTC S11020 Install HMA 1.0 1.0 Od-08-20 Oct-12-20 12,0 TL7.." A SI1030 Install Security Fence <.0 4.0 Od-12-20 Oct-19-20 12.0 ecurity,> ence S11040 Landscape & Restoration 4-0 4.0 Oct-19-20 Oct-26-2D 12.0 dscape & i Remaining Levelof Effort Remaining Work ♦♦ Milestone e� Aciaal Level of Effaa Critical Remaining Work A Summary Actual Work O O Baseline Milestone Page 3 of 3 McCormick Lift Station #2 Improvements- Mar 2020 Update Data Date: Mar-02-20 Run Date: Mar-12-20 C Oracle PreliminaryReview Copy ORCHARD MARINA PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS PREDESIG N REPORT Prepared for City of Port Orchard April 2020 PO 118.116 a".2 Prepared by: RH2 Engineering, Inc. 22722 291h Drive SE, Suite 210 Bothell, WA 98021 1.800.720.8052 / rh2.com City of Port Orchard Marina Pump Station 30% Design Review Comments Reviewer: Nick Bond, Community Development Director Refers to Kitsap County as local permits rather than City of Port Orchard permits. For pg 46 instance, SDAP is mentioned for instance rather than SDP/LDAP Reviewer: Mike DeLine, Electrician Overall, I am ok the Refined Alternative 1A Site Layout as proposed with keeping the existing dry pit and wet well. I like the idea of the backup generator and fuel tank being above ground, next to the multiuse building rather than underground. I like the Diesel driven Pump being located over the existing wet well. Where will the existing wet well Access be located? I don't really see it pointed out on the drawings but it seems like it would be inside the Diesel backup pump room. would like to see transducers included for level and the existing bubbler system removed as mentioned. Wet well level needs to be displayed in feet of wet well depth and not in elevation values. The proposed below -grade emergency storage structure needs to be included. Is the Sluce gate for the emergency storage structure going to automatically operate open and shut based on the existing wet well level or manually operated? Should be automatically operated. Need to ensure a manual transfer switch is installed for emergency power with the up position to route onsite generator power to the ATS and the down position to route power from a portable generator connection box to the ATS. Recommend replacing existing high flow and low flow mag meters with new ones as part of the project. In the Force Main valve vault would like to see the 18 and 24 inch force mains "Y" together rather "90'd" together to reduce the head that would be created by having two 90 degree bends to go from the 18 inch to the 24 inch force main. What is the plan for installing the Force Main valves in the valve vault since at that point there are not currently any valves to isolate the existing force main on the treatment plant side of the proposed vault location? Cut a isolation valve In or what other options might be available? Will portable pumps be used to bypass that point to keep the station on line during that work. Are there any options on the table to change out the spiral staircase into the existing dry pit for safer access/egress? Should the size of the one 25Hp Vaughan Chopper Pump proposed to remain be sized to a 50 Hp (or more) Vaughan Chopper Pedestal pump to provide for flow rates in the less than the 50% capacity of the three Hidrostal H8K-H pumps proposed since it looks like the on the Hidrostal pump specs sheet included in the proposal that they need to be run only in the range of above 50% to 100% capacity. There is not any information for them to run in the 50% or less range when being controlled by a VFD. What is the availability of repair parts and sefviee44a"he44idr=apumas? Reviewer: Tony Lang, Operations Manager Dry well access/ladder entrance issues need to be addressed and a top priority. The confined space access/safety requirements need to be fixed whatever layout we choose. New access hatch for pump removal needs to be designed so we don't need a backhoe to lift the lid. Multi -use facility could include the control room and odor control instead of the garbage containers and the spill response trailer. Do we have some requirement to house the Port of Bremerton's equipment/garbage? I feel comfortable with the emergency storage being delayed for the time being if needed. As we get closer to build -out it will be vital that this is done. Reviewer: Ian Smith, Civil Engineer pg 46 Permitting (Local) refers to Kitsap County permits and not City of Port Orchard permits. Excavation for emergency storage is deep and expensive as indicated in the report. Wondering if using 12' diameter tanks would be worth looking into to reduce construction time and overall depth. See attached. Potential issue with adjacent property encroachment in the attached layout. As indicated in the report shoring and dewatering is challenging. Wondering if using a precast structure for the below grade facility would be worth looking into to reduce construction time. Artificial ground freezing has been gaining steam for construction shoring recently (City of Seattle Seawall construction being a major project in mind). With the high groundwater and difficult location it may be beneficial to look into it to potentially reduce cost/risk, I have not looked into cost so it is just a shot in the dark. Reviewer: Darren Podraza, GIS Specialist/Inspector Alternative 1A revised looks acceptable although I prefer the alternative 3 site plan figure2l. I believe that the oil spill response trailer belongs to the Port of Bremerton, is it possible to have the Port store the response trailer so the city can use the space in figure 25 to house the generator? I would prefer the MCC and all electrical controls be set above grade. It looks like the Marina pump station receives a significant amount of inflow and infiltration, a program to minimize I&I could push out the need for a 24 inch FM for many years past 2036 and add time to the emergency response time totals. A gravity flow meter could be used on various sewer basins to determine what areas are having the largest impact on the system, summer vs winter rain events. Reviewer: Chris Hammer, Assistant City Engineer (initial comments) My initial impression is that the proposed project is too extensive/ overly complex. Value Engineering Proposal: Comments: Simplify the construction by locating all sewer apparatus in one building. Remove the partial underground vault/ viewing platform. Locate the public restroom and trash enclosure in a different location. (Perhaps at the currently proposed viewing platform location) Locate the oil spill response trailer off site. Reconfigure the above ground sewer apparatus building to house back up diesel pump and electrical panels. Locate odor control in the former bathroom and trash/ recycling. Locate the electrical controls in the oils spill response trailer area. From examination of the Cost Estimate the above modification to Alternative 1A should reduce costs by over $2.5M. Is there any way that an 18" force main can provide for future capacity with perhaps less efficient pumps. Seems like a very costly approach. Can we design the project to upgrade to larger pumps/ motors in the future to work with the 18" force main? Can a section of the skewered town that is closer to the treatment plant be rerouted to reduce the need for 24" main and reduce the length of new force main required? Provide for a mobile back up generator to power pumps as a contingency if the on -site generator fails. Reviewer: Chris Hammer, Assistant City Engineer (following discussion with PWD and Mayor) Removing the spill response trailer and public restroom from the above grade building to make room for sewer apparatus. Removing the partially under -ground building/ viewing platform from the project and relocating sewer apparatus into the above grade building. Minimizing the size of the above grade building. Omitting the removal of the old sewer lift station building and new viewing plaza from the project. The City will reserve this space for stormwater retrofit. We will pursue recreational and stormwater grant funding to address this work as part of a future project. Provide sewer service for and purchase of a new stand- alone restroom building to be located on the plaza near the road end. Design the current project to accommodate the future plaza, viewing area, and bay street pathway as shown in the rendering. Accommodating the future parking garage design to support development. Keeping the surge vault as designed.