|
ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE |
||||
|
|
||||
|
1. |
Consider Approval of Scope
of Work and Expenditure of Funds for Hydrogeologic Studies Related to MPWMD
95-10 Desalination Project |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Meeting
Date: |
January 14,
2009
|
Budgeted: |
No |
|
|
|
||||
|
From: |
|
Program: |
Water Supply Projects |
|
|
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: |
N/A |
|
|
|
||||
|
Prepared
By: |
Andrew M. Bell,
|
Cost
Estimate: |
$291,800 |
|
|
|
District
Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
General Counsel Approval:
N/A |
||||
|
Committee
Recommendation: The Administrative
Committee reviewed this item on January 14, 2009 and recommended _______. |
||||
|
CEQA Compliance: N/A |
||||
SUMMARY: In August and October 2008, the Board received reports from District consultants Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) and ICF Jones & Stokes Associates (JSA) regarding the feasibility of the MPWMD 95-10 Desalination Project (95-10 Project). These Phase 1 studies for this project are a constraints analysis and additional policy review regarding the potential for the project. No “fatal flaws” in the potential for development of the project were identified in the Phase 1 studies.
At the October 20, 2008 meeting, the Board directed staff to bring a scope of work, costs, and schedule for the next phase of studies for the project. At the December 8, 2008 Board meeting, staff presented a proposal by JSA and CDM for Phase 2 studies that included field hydrogeologic investigations of feedwater extraction sites, a study of the use of the regional treatment plant outfall for disposal of brine from the desalination plant, development of a detailed project description suitable for analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and project cost estimates. Rather than proceeding with this proposal, the Board directed staff to describe alternative approaches to investigation of the project, including proceeding with the hydrogeologic investigation but not the engineering portion of the project (outfall analysis, detailed project description, and cost estimates) until the hydrogeologic studies are completed.
In December, staff met with Martin Feeney, Consulting Hydrogeologist, to discuss tasks required to complete the hydrogeologic investigations. Based on these discussions and subsequent meetings, Mr. Feeney submitted the proposal provided in Exhibit 1-A.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should receive a presentation by staff, receive public comment, and discuss the scope of work, costs, and schedule as presented in Exhibit 1-A. If the Board decides to proceed with studies for the 95-10 Project, staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to contract with Martin B. Feeney, Consulting Hydrogeologist, at a cost not to exceed $291,800. As this expenditure is not included in the FY 2008-2009 budget, the Board must designate a source of funds. Staff recommends drawing from the District’s $2.5 million line of credit, and that the Board determine the method of repayment at a future meeting.
BACKGROUND: At the January 24, 2008 Board meeting, the Board endorsed Director Brower’s request to direct staff to prepare a report on requirements to update the MPWMD 95-10 Project, a seawater desalination project proposed to be located in Sand City that was most recently studied by MPWMD in 2004. At the April 21, 2008 Board meeting, the Board authorized Phase 1 studies of the project, termed a “constraints analysis,” to be conducted by JSA and CDM. Representatives of these two firms presented their report at the August 18, 2008 Board meeting. At that meeting, the Board directed that the consultants be authorized to address additional policy issues related to the feasibility of the project. The report on the consultants’ findings and conclusions regarding these issues was received by the Board at the October 20, 2008 meeting. At the October 20 meeting, the Board directed staff to bring a scope of work, costs, and schedule for the next phase of studies for the project.
JSA and CDM prepared a proposed
scope of work for Phase 2 studies with input by District staff and with
information obtained at a meeting with Mat Fuzie and Ken Gray of the California
Department of Parks and Recreation in
At the November 24, 2008
Administrative Committee meeting, members of the committee did not make a
formal recommendation to the Board, but rather directed that the item be
presented to the full Board for consideration.
The committee members requested that staff describe alternative
approaches to investigation of the project, including proceeding with the
hydrogeologic investigation but not the engineering portion of the project
(detailed project description and cost estimates) until more is known regarding
the potential for obtaining a supply of seawater from coastal wells without
adversely affecting the
At the December 8, 2008 Board meeting, the full Board supported this more limited approach. Following the Board meeting, staff met with Martin Feeney, Consulting Hydrogeologist, to discuss tasks required to complete the hydrogeologic investigations. Based on these discussions, Mr. Feeney submitted the proposal provided in Exhibit 1-A. Mr. Feeney proposes to subcontract with Pueblo Water Resources (PWR) for hydrogeologic services, Denise Duffy & Associates (DD&A) for permitting of the field program, and with a drilling contractor for drilling, testing and cleanup of borings and wells. PWR and DD&A have recent, relevant experience in the work proposed for them to perform, including permitting and installation of sentinel wells for the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster and preparation of the EIR and permitting for the City of Sand City desalination project. DD&A’s qualifications specific to this project are detailed in their proposal, which is included in Exhibit 1-A.
IMPACT TO DISTRICT STAFF/RESOURCES: Total estimated costs for the services proposed by Martin B. Feeney, Consulting Hydrogeologist, total $291,800, as shown in Table 1 on page 13 of Exhibit 1-A. In addition to these costs, the District will be responsible for permit fees for the field investigations.
No funds for additional investigations for the MPWMD 95-10 Project are included in the FY 2008-09 budget. If the Board decides to proceed with additional studies, the $2.5 million line of credit authorized earlier in 2008 could be used to fund it at the outset. At present, there are a number of uncertainties regarding the most advantageous method of repaying funds drawn from the line of credit. For example, FY 2008-09 user fee revenues could be significantly greater than anticipated in the budget. The Board would determine at a future meeting whether it is necessary to increase the user fee rate, or to use another source of revenue.
District Engineer Andrew Bell
will administer the professional services agreement with Mr. Feeney. Mr. Bell, Water Resources Manager
EXHIBIT
1-A MPWMD 95-10 Desalination Project – Proposal for Hydrogeologic Services – Feedwater System Feasibility, by Martin B. Feeney, Consulting Hydrogeologist, January 9, 2009
U:\staff\word\committees\Admin\2009\20090114\01\item1.doc