HomeMy WebLinkAbout76-82 RESOLUTION4
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 176 — g�
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE A RESOURCE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
WITH HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a resourse recovery implementation contract
with Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc. A copy of the contract
authorized for execution hereby is attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.�
PASSED AND APPROVED this /�yday of '/ , 1982.
V
r
n
,�. ^ A,
::ATTEST: *e
�4
it.
APPROVED:
9„1'i %%/SyedMAYOR'
RESOURCE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
This Contract, entered into on the /� day of , 1982,
by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, (hereinafter referred to as (City)
and Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc., 8404 Indian Hills Drive, Omaha, Nebraska
68114, (hereinafter referred to as HDR).
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage HDR to do additional work
pertaining to the Solid Waste Resource Recovery Implementation Plan entered into on
the 10th day of April, 1981 between the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning
'Commission and HDR, and
WHEREAS, HDR desires to render certain services as described in
Exhibit A (attached); if the City wishes HDR to perform any Additional Services, it
shall be as provided in Section 12.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises
and representations herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. Employment of HDR. The City hereby agrees to engage
HDR and HDR hereby agrees to perform the services set forth in Exhibit A.
Section 2. City's Responsibilities. The City agrees to provide HDR
with all existing data, plans, and other information in the City's possession which is
necessary for the planning of the project.
The City agrees to designate in writing a person authorized to act as the
City's representative. The City or its representative shall receive and examine
documents submitted by HDR, interpret and define the City's policies and render
decisions. and authorizations in writing promptly to prevent unreasonable delay in the
progress of HDR's services.
EXHIBL A
1
Section 3. Time of Performance. HDR agrees to commence work
within 10 days of the date of execution of this CONTRACT and shall complete the
scope of services as set forth in Exhibit A as expeditiously as reasonably possible.
Section 4. Compensation. City agrees to pay HDR an amount equal to
the payroll cost times a factor of 2.5 plus reimbursable expenses. Payroll costs are
defined as salary plus 35% for fringe benefits and payroll taxes. Reimbursable
expenses shall include such costs as commercial travel, meals, lodging, printing and
computer time. Travel in private car will be billed at 20 cents per mile.
It is agreed that the total cost of all services under this Agreement is
estimated at $60,000 and that this amount will not be exceeded without the written
approval of the City.
Section 5. Payment. Requests for payment will be made every four
weeks. Invoices will show manhours, payroll costs, expenses, and the amount invoiced
for the period.
Upon receipt of the Request for Payment, the City will promptly process
the Request. If the City fails to make any payment due HDR for services and
expenses within sixty days after receipt of HDR's bill therefore, the amounts due
HDR shall include a charge at the rate of 1 1/296 per month from said sixtieth day;
and, in addition, HDR may, after giving seven days' written notice to the City,
suspend services under this Contract until it has been paid in full all amounts due it
for services and expenses. Payment is considered contested if the City informs HDR
of this action in written form within 30 days of receipt of the Request for Payment.
Work will he stopped until the issue is resolved. No penalty will be incured in the
case of contested payment.
Section 6. Subcontracts. HDR shall subcontract certain parts of the
work as defined in Exhibit A to McClelland Consulting Engineers (MCE) as HDR and
MCE deem appropriate.
- 2
fi
Section 7. Equal Employment and Non Discrimination. In connection
with this Contract, HDR agrees to comply with the provisions of Exhibit B. (Equal
Employment Opportunity Clause)
Section 8. Reports and Meetings. HDR shall bear the responsibility of
maintaining close liaison with the City and of making sufficient meetings, oral
briefings and other contact with the City and participating agencies to allow proper
coordination of work. Not more than three public meetings are expected to be
attended by HDR during the performance of the work as presented in Exhibit A.
Section 9. Reports and Materials. All reports, drawings, data
(including base data) and other materials formally prepared in the performance of this
Contract shall become the property of the City on payment for the services
performed as specified in this Contract, and all such reports, drawings, data and
materials shall be delivered to the City as specified in this Contract, or upon any
termination thereof. Any risk or loss, destruction or damage of or to said reports,
drawings, data and materials shall be borne by HDR prior to the time when same are
delivered to the City nor shall any such loss, destruction or damage excuse
performance of HDR under this Contract. Any reuse without written verification or
adaptation by HDR for the specific purposes intended will be at the City's sole risk
and without liability or legal exposure to HDR.
Section 10. Contract Termination.
A. Termination of Contract for Cause. The obligation to provide
further services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven
days' written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform
in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. In
the event of any termination, HDR will be paid for all services rendered to the date
of termination, all Reimbursable Expenses and termination expenses. In the event of
termination, all finished and unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings,
maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by HDR shall, at the option of the
City, become the property of the City and HDR shall be entitled to receive just and
equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and
other materials.
- 3
B. Termination for Convenience of the City. The City may terminate
this Contract at any time by a notice in writing to HDR. In that event, all
unfinished documents and other materials described in Paragraph 9 above shall, at the
option of the City, become the property of the City. If the Contract is terminated
by the City as provided herein, HDR will receive final payment from the City in an
amount not less than the actual costs incurred by HDR for and during the duration of
the Contract. This payment will be made only after HDR has filed a project status
report.
Section 11. Amendment. The parties agree that no change or
modification to this Contract, or any attachments hereto, shall be of any force or
effect unless the amendment is dated, reduced to writing, executed by both parties
and attached to and made a part of this Contract. No work shall be commenced and
no costs incurred in consequence of any amendment to this Contract or any
attachments hereto unless and until such amendment has been executed and made a
part of this Contract.
Section 12. Additional Services. If the City wishes HDR to perform
Additional Services, it shall so instruct HDR in writing, and HDR will be paid
therefore as provided in Section 4.
Section 13. Documents Forming This Contract. The parties agree that
this constitutes the entire Contract between the parties hereto, and there are no
agreements or understandings, implied or expressed, except as set forth specifically in
this Contract and that all prior contracts and understandings in this connection are
merged into and contained in this Contract. The parties hereto further agree that
this Contract includes Exhibits A and B incorporated herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this
7S day of , 1982.
- 4
I
•.
City ,e€ -Faye jtevij1, Arkansas
By Paul Noland
Mayor
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
t, HENNINSON, DURHAM
Witness: & RII1-jARDSON, INC
By: Harvey D. Funk, P.E.
Vice President
r
EXHIBIT A
WORK PLAN
Introduction
In July of 1981, Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc. (HDR) and McClelland
Consulting Engineers, Inc. (MCE) presented to the Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste
Authority a Resource Recovery Plan which conluded that resource recovery appeared
feasible, and recommended certain actions toward implementing resource recovery in
Northwest Arkansas. The Authority authorized HDR to initiate the first step of
implementation by evaluating critical issues of implementation in the northwest
Arkansas area. In April of 1982, HDR and MCE presented findings of the first step
of implementation to the Authority, and recommended further action toward full
implementation.
Because the City of Fayetteville is the single largest contributor toward
implementation of resource recovery in the northwest Arkansas
recommended that they control much of the implementation process.
other recommendations made in the report of April, 1982, the City of
authorized HDR to continue with the implementation of resource
completing a second step of implementation.
area, it was
With this and
Fayetteville
recovery by
Scope of Work
The second step of implementation will carry the City through the following:
Preparation of and review of responses to an RFQ.
Negotiation of energy purchase and waste supply contracts.
Initiation of permits for a facility and a residue/by-pass landfill.
A 1
r.
•
To achieve this goal, HDR will perform the following tasks:
Task I Development of Risk Posture
Development of a risk posture is an essential element in the implementation of a
resource recovery program. Such development presents the "pros" and "cons" of
various elements of implementation concerning which the City must establish its
position. From this posture the City can then develop contract negotiation positions
and evaluation criteria for RFQ's and RFP's, as well as positions on procurement and
financing.
HDR will meet with the City to discuss various risks of implementation and will
assist the City in developing this risk posture by presenting to it the various options
open to the City and advantages and disadvantages of various risks. As contracts are
negotiated, various new options may present themselves in which case those also
would be discussed with HDR before decisions are made by the City.
Task 2 Development of and Review of Responses to RFQ
A request for qualifications provides for vendors to show their interest in this
resource recovery project and to provide information regarding their experience and
technical and financial qualifications. It includes background information regarding
the project including waste supply and ownership, anticipated markets and the general
intent of the City. Also included is protocol for vendors to follow in responding and
evaluation criteria of the City. A specific list of information which is requested of
vendors is also included. •
HDR will prepare all necessary documents for issuance of a Request -For -
Qualifications (RFQ). Such documents will include the following:
Applicable State and Federal Environmental Regulations.
State or Local Acts authorizing a Solid Waste Authority if applicable.
A - 2
f
I
f
Project background information including waste generation and ownership;
energy markets; contract arrangements and siting.
Information requested including complete technical capabilities of
respondants and financial status, and concerns regarding such a project.
Evaluation process and criteria.
Tentative timetable for the selection of vendors.
HDR will print and issue adequate numbers of RFQ's to appropriate vendors and will
review all vendor responses according to established criteria and recommend
responsive vendors qualified to receive a formal Request -for -Proposals.
Task 3 Waste Supply and Energy Purchase Contracts
Waste supply and control, and the sale of energy are vital issues in the
implementation of a resource recovery program. The quantities of waste that are
available t9 the resource recovery facility dictate not only the facility size, but also
the revenues that can be derived through tipping fees and energy sales. The type of
assurances made in supplying waste and selling energy directly effects the security of
the financing arrangements for the facility.
HDR representatives will sit with representatives of cities, counties, and energy
markets to negotiate the requirements of each energy purchase and waste supply
agreement. The agreements will be reviewed by HDR before being presented to the
City for their review. It will be helpful for the City to perform a legal review of
its own also (by city attorney). HDR will meet with the City and/or the City
attorney to describe the requirements of the agreements, and discuss any questions.
Task 4 Initiation of Environmental Permits
Preparation of environmental permits will strengthen the position of the City when
dealing with vendors. HDR will prepare any applications for water, air or sewer
permits as the information becomes available Some applications require the
A-3
ii
knowledge of technical aspects of the facility and., must be completed after selection
of the vendor. However, all permit requirements will be identified and included in
proposal requests.
A residue landfill that is designed to also accept non -processed solid waste is an
integral part of a resource recovery system. The selection of such a landfill may
require several months of site review and permit preparaton prior to pre operation
construction. HDR will identify all necessary requirements of landfill permits
including the time required to issue a permit. Permit requirements will be included
in the proposal requests. The City should initiate actions necessary to acquire a
landfill site.
Task 5 Review of Economics
In the Step 1 Implementation Program, HDR developed a computer program to assist
in the determination of the effect of various parameters on the cost of owning and
operating a resource recovery faciltiy. In this second step of implementation, HDR
will use that program and any new information gathered from vendors to update the
economics of this proelct. Only a review or update will be done now. More detailed
analyses will be done in the next step of implementation which includes the review of
proposals from vendors.
Task 6 Report
HDR will prepare a report to be presented to the City which will describe activites
performed during the second step of implementation. The report will include:
Description of the City's Risk Posture.
RFQ documents.
Summary of RFQ responses.
Identification of recommended vendors.
A - 4
Waste supply and energy purchase agreements as well as required future
activities if any.
All documents pertaining to environmental permit requirements including
data required to complete such permits.
Summary of the review of economics.
Timetable
As we have done in the past, HDR will work as expeditiously as possible to complete
this step of implementation. HDR anticipates the above work will require four to six
months duration to complete. This assumes a sixty day response time in which
vendors have to prepare a response to the RFQ. Any shorter time frame tends to
limit the number of vendors who are willing to reply. In addition, this assumes no
major problems with waste supply and energy purchase contract negotiations. Such
contract negotiations are expected to require approximately four to five weeks of
effort.
Prior to these tasks being completed a risk posture for the City must be developed.
Such a psoture is expected to require four to five weeks of effort initially and as
other issues present themselves, additional time will be required. Any major delays
may require a longer time frame to complete the project.
A - 5
j
lama
•
•
•
EXHIBIT 13
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE
During the term of this agreement, HDR agrees as follows:
a. The Engineer will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. The
Engineer will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed,
and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their
race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not
be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer;
recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of pay or
o ther forms of compensation; and selection for training, including
apprenticeship. HDR agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to
e mployees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth its' Equal
Opportunity Policy.
b. The Engineer will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed
by or on behalf of HDR, state that all qualified applicants will receive
consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or
national origin.
•
c. The Engineer will send to each labor union or representative of workers with
which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or
understanding, a notice advising the said labor union or workers' representative
of the Engiener's commitments under this non-discrimiantion article, and shall
post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and
applicants for employment.
The Engineer will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of
September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevent orders of the
Secretary of Labor.
B 1
•
e. The Engineer will furnish al information and reports required by Executive
Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations and
orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access
of his books, records, and accounts by the commission and the Secretary for
purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations,
and orders.
f. In the event of the Engineer's non-compliance with the non-discrimiantion
Article of this contract, or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders,
this contract may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part
and the Engineer may be declared ineligible for contracts in accordance with
procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and
such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in the
said Executive Order or by rule, regulations, or order of the Secretary of
Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
g•
The Engineer will include the provisions of sections "a" through "g" in every
subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders
of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Sec. 204 of Executive Order No.
11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each
subcontractor or vendor. The Engineer will take such action with respect to
any subcontract or purchase order as the Commission may direct as a means of
enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for non-compliance, provided,
however, that in the event the Engineer becomes involved in, or is threatened
with, litigation with a sub -contractor or vendor as a result of such direction by
the Commission, the Engineer may request the United States to enter into such
litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
h. In accordance with regulations of the Secretary of Labor, the rules, regulations,
orders, instruction, designations, and other directives referred to in Section
403(b) of Executive Order No. 12246 remain in effect and, where applicable,
shall be observed in the performance of this contract until revoked or
superseded by appropriate authority.
B - 2
- 8404 Indian HiIIe Drive
.Omaha, NE .6811-4- '
(4021399-1000
:—Hennings—b?:—Durhamr6 RicherrHson
-=June "2; -1-982
Ms Sherry Rowe -- --
=-C1tyCl-rk- -- -
--City _ of-Fayettevil l e.—
P.O. Drawer _F..--
-Fayetteville, AR 72701
- -- -=-:Dear-.Ms Rowe. -
--- - -As- __ - -As-per your:request-of_May 26, enclosed. please_fi nd one -copy of the
_-_Resource-Recovery impreMentation-Contract-between the-City:of
-
.- _ -Fayetteville, and-Henningson,-Durham=&=-Richardson-, Inc.
-__- — We -are -pleased to to-ser-vethe_City of__Fayettevill-e-and
--surroundrng_communrtres=i_n=their-_-endeavor to -improve the management
of -theft sol id-wastes=We-_feel eonfislent-that-by worki ng --together,
- a project-will=6-m
eodel:ed_that=best benefits-tfieC.i.ty and-nei_ghbor-
_ oommunn
-- _ ing ities".- -_ - -
If I may -be -of-further assistance.,z.pi:ease-feel_free to cal 1. -.---
__
Sincerely - - a _
HENNINGSON.,--DURHAM�& RICHARDSON_,
c -
-_Arcnitecture:- Jilts_ Reynolds
Engineering----P-r-o7ect- Manager -_
—_
Systems JR: dd -
Encl:osur_e
Alexandria--
Atlanta — CC Louis Watts- -
- - --- Austin — -
Charlotte -- - - -
Chicago -
--
- "' Denver -
-
Helena- - -. -=7---
- _ Houston--- -
_----
-_ -' Minneapolis-------
• Norfolk. _ _ - -. - . _
__ -Omaha - __..__ - - _.
---Pensacola -
LPhoenix
- -- -
▪ �.
Santa Berbera----
_ -. _Seattle _ - -
Washington. D:C: _ _.____ __ ---`-- - -
•
•
FAYETTEITILLE, ARKANSAS
P. 0. DRAWER F
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
72701 (501] 521.7700
May 26, 1982
Mr. James Reynolds
Project Manager
Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive _
Omaha, NE 68114
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
•
Attached are three copies of the contract between the City of Fayetteville
and Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc., for services and work for Step II of
Implementation of the Resource Recovery Project.
Please execute copies and return 1 of the originals to me at the above
address. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Louis Watts
Sincerely,
Sherry Rowe
City Clerk
FT'
Aler.enr Irl°
ALIOr Le
Ausan
Cherkn:^e
ChtoeQo
Delles
Denver
Helene
Houston
Ono. vale
NlunxeahoAe
Pensucolo
Phoenin
Se me Gertner°
SeeLI:!e
Washington. D.C.
•
May 17, 1982
Mr. Louis Watts
Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste Authority
406 N. Shilo Street
Springdale, Arkansas 72764
•
Dear Louis:
Enclosed are five (5) copies of the Contract for Services and Work
Plan for Step 2 of Implementation of the Resource Recovery Project.
Please execute and return two (2) copies to me.
Also enclosed for your information are four copies of the Official State-
ment for the sale of bonds relative to a project we are involved with
in Haverhill, Massachusetts. You will note the complexity of such a
financial arrangement and the engineer's feasibility report. Something
to look forward to.
If there are any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON, INC.
i
M.�
J Reynolds
Project Manager
JR:glc
Enclosures
•
Alexandria
Atlanta -
Austin
Charlotte
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Helene
Houston
Knoxville
Minneepolis
Norfolk
Omaha
Pensacola
Phoenix
Santa Barbera
Seattle
Washington. 0 C
May 14, 1982
Mr. Donald L. Grimes
City Manager
P. 0. Drawer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Re: 201 Facilities Plan Review
Gentlemen:
MICROV{LMED
We propose .to render professional engineering services in
connection- with the proposed 201 Facilities Plan Review
(hereinafter called the !'Project!'). We understand that the City
will furnish HDR with full information as to your requirements,
including any special or extraordinary consideration for the
Project or special services needed, and also to make available
pertinent existing data.
Our services will consist of preparing the 201 Facilities Plan
Review, all as set forth in Section 1 of the General Provisions,
attached to this letter, and such additional services as you may
request.
Charges for these services will be on the basis of Payroll Costs
times a factor of 2.4 plus Reimbursible Expenses. Maximum billing
cost for the services set forth in Section 1 of the General
Provisions is twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000.00). Billing
will be monthly for services and Reimbursable Expenses.
•
This proposal is based on a timely notice to proceed with the work
and timely completion of the work. Should notice to proceed or
completion of the proposed work be delayed beyond a period of six
(6) months, the agreement will be subject to renegotiation to take
into consideration changes in price invoices and pay scales
applicable to the period when services are in fact being rendered.
The general understandings applicable to our relationship with
you, are set forth in the attached General Provisions which are
attached to and made a part of this proposal.
This proposal and the General Provisions represent the entire
understanding between HDR and the City of Fayetteville, in respect
of the Project and may only be modified in writing signed by both
of us. If it satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of the
l
Page Two
Donald L. Grinmes
May 14, 1982
arrangement between us, we would appreciate your signing the
enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided below and
returning it to us.
Very truly yours,
HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON, INC.
Az- A -0 -
Peter L. Davis, P.E.
Vice President
Environmental Engineering Division
Accepted this / / '"`day of
City of F etteville, Arkansas
6)
hy "
•
191oL.,
atetzii_WY
•
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Attached to and made a part of LETTER AGREEMENT dated May 14, 1982 between the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (Owner) and Henningson, Durham R. Richardson, Inc.
(Engineer) in respect of the project (Project) described therein.
SECTION 1 - BASIC SERVICES OF ENGINEERS
Task 1 - Mobilization
1.1 Conduct organization meeting with members of City staff and HDR to
establish lines of communication, functions, and responsibilities
of HDR and City staffs.
1.2 Establish project schedules and procedures for obtaining data.
Task 2 - Evaluate design Basis
2.1 Review land use, population and industrial projections.
2.2 Review 1/1 and SSES work and results predicted and/or obtained.
2.3 Review industrial waste survey and evaluate industrial
pretreatment program or potential for separate treatment of
industrial wastes.
2.4 Review historical records used to establish design loadings.
•
Task 3 - Review of Treatment Standards
2.1 Obtain and review present and future effluent limitations set
forth in NPDES permit.
2.2 Evaluate potential for change in future effluent standards.
2.3 Review water quality standards for area and potential for change.
Task 4 - Alternative Review
4.1 Review selected alternatives to establish if they are feasible
solutions to the problems present.
4.2 Evaluate capabilities of present facilities and investigate their
use in proposed alternatives.
4.3 Investigate use of other treatment processes.
4.4 Review proposed sludge handling methods and quantity estimates.
4.5 Investigate alternative methods of sludge handling includinguse
of existing plant and land application.
J1
Page Two
4.6 Review land disposal of effluent analysis.
4.7 Review proposed action to determine operability under existing
conditions.
Task 5 - Cost Review
5.1 Review all cost (capital and 0 8 M) estimates for accuracy and
completeness.
5.2 Investigate funding potential and estimate cash flow.
5.3 Evaluate staged construction to coincide with grant availability.
5.4 Estimate additional cost to City and effect on sewer rates.
Task 6 - Report Preparation
6.1 Review finding and recommendations with City staff.
6.2 Prepare report for presentation to City.
SECTION 2 -- ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF ENGINEER
.2.1 Normal and customary engineering services do not include services
in respect of the following categories of work which are usually
referred to as "Additional Services." If Owner wishes the
Engineer to perform any Additional Services, he shall so instruct
the Engineer in writing, and Engineer will be paid therefor as
provided in the Letter Agreement. Additional Services include:
o Preparation of applications and supporting documents for
governmental financial support of the Project.
o Services to make measured drawings of existing facilities.
o Services resulting from significant changes in the extent
of the Project or major changes in documentation
previously accepted by Owner where changes are due to
causes beyond Engineer's control.
o Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness
in any legal or administrative proceeding or public
hearing.
o Providing services normally furnished by Owner.
SECTION 3 -- OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Owner shall provide all criteria and full information as to the
Owner's requirements for the project; designate a person to act
Page Three
with authority on the Owner's behalf in respect of all aspects of
the Project; examine and respond promptly to Engineer's
submissions; and give prompt written notice to Engineer whenever
he observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the work.
SECTION 4 -- MEANING OF TERMS
4.1 Payment for "Additional Services by the Engineer" shall be based
on payroll cost times a factor of 2.4 plus Reimbursible Expenses
at actual cost.
4.2 The Payroll Costs used as a basis for payment mean salaries and
wages (basic and incentive) paid to all personnel engaged directly
on the Project, including, but not limited to, engineers,
architects, surveyors, designers, draftsmen, specification
writers, estimators, other technical personnel, stenographers,
typists and clerks; plus the cost of customary and statutory
benefits including, but not limited to, social security
contributions, unemployment, excise and payroll taxes, workers'
compensation, health and retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation
and holiday pay applicable thereto.
4.3 "Reimbursible Expenses" mean the actual expenses incurred directly
or indirectly in connection with the Project for: transportation
and subsistence incidental thereto; telephone calls and telegrams;
reproduction, drawings, specifications and similar Project -related
items in addition to those required under Section 1.
SECTION 5 -- MISCELLANEOUS
5.1 Late Payment: If Owner fails to make any payment due Engineer for
services and expenses within sixty days after receipt of
Engineer's bill therefor, the amounts due Engineer shall include a
charge at the rate of 1% per month from said sixtieth day, and in
addition, Engineer may, after giving seven days' written notice to
Owner, suspend services under this Agreement until he has been
paid in full all amounts due him for services and expenses.
5.2 Termination: The obligation to provide further services under
this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven days'
written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other
party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no
fault of terminating party. In the event of any termination,
Engineer will be paid for all services rendered through date of
termination, all Reimbursible Expenses, and termination expenses.
5.3 Successors and Assigns: Owner and Engineer each binds himself and
his partners, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and
legal representatives to the other party of this Agreement and to
the partners,successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and
legal representatives of such other party, in respect to all
covenants, agreements and obligations of this Agreement.
11
Page Four
5.4 Nothing herein shall be construed to give any rights or benefits
hereunder to anyone other than Owner and Engineer.
•
•
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING,
AUGUST 15, 1983
CENTER FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Amy Lou Aston
NSVRA Certified Verbatim Reporter
2374 Raven Lane
Fayetteville, AR 71701 501-521-6071
WS -34.3
CRoftLkt€G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•
PROCEEDINGS
MAYOR NOLAND: According to the clock, it's seven
o'clock, and we need to move ahead with our public hearing.
The purpose of this meeting tonight is to receive public
comment on the potential economic and environmental impacts
of the proposed alternative of rehabilitating certain portions
of the wastewater collection system, construction of a pump
station, interceptor improvement to transport all wastewater
to the existing White River treatment plant site, upgrading
and expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant on the
White River to advanced wastewater treatment capability,
construction of an effluent storage reservoir,pump station
and force main.to divert a portion of the treated wastewater
to Mud Creek in the Illinois River drainage basin, with the
remainder of the flow being discharged to the White River.
Construction of a land application system for sludge management.
The main thing that we'll be doing here, sort of a format,
we'll have a presentation from CH2M Hill of more detail of
what's actually being proposed. We'll have a short question
and answer period, then we'll take a short break, about
fifteen minutes. We'll come back and get the actual comments
that
some
here
you have, pro and con, from the audience. We may have
reply from CH2M Hill or our rate consultants who are also
, and then we'll proceed on that basis, so that we'll take
1
our break before we have the formal comment period from each
of you that might want to make such a comment. If you would
prefer to make written comments and we just received a
written comment from the Beaver Water District'--- we will
take written comments until August the 19th, so they may be
entered as part of this hearing up to the 19th of August.
We might introduce who's sitting up here at the head
table. We have City Manager Don Grimes; City Engineer Don Bunn,
Rick Osborne, one of the directors; Marilyn Johnson, another
one of the directors; Marion Orton, another director; city
director, Frank Sharp; this is Vernon Rowe with McClelland
Engineering; Cliff Thompson, with CH2M Hill; Jim Otta, with
CH2M Hill; and Rick Hirsekorn, with CH2M Hill, the engineering
consultants who are working on the plans.
I guess this microphone has now been connected, and
so we'll proceed with the presentation from CH2M Hill as to
what's actually being proposed and what we are receiving
•
comments concerning tonight. Dr. Cliff Thompson.
DR. THOMPSON. Good evening. My name is Cliff
Thompson. I'm the project administrator for CH2M Hill for
the wastewater work that we'll describe tonight. With me
tonight is dim Otta, who is our land treatment specialist, and
Rick Hirsekorn, our project manager. Rick will present the
details of the plan. Many of you have heard most of these
details described. He will present slides and tables using
2
1
an overhead projector. Jim will describe the aspects of the
land treatment system. At the conclusion we'll be happy to
respond to comments, time willing. So at this point I'd like
to turn the program over to Rick Hirsekorn.
MR. HIRSEKORN: Thank you for the introduction,
Mr. Mayor, Cliff. We usually find as a project proceeds that
the project goes a lot smoother than the setting up of the
overhead projector and the microphone prior to the public
hearing.
To begin with, this is the 201 Facilities Plan
Public Hearing for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas on
the final draft that was presented to the State on behalf of
the City forty-five days ago. The purpose of our public
hearing tonight is to describe the recommended plan, the
elements of theplan, how and why the elements of the plan were
developed, and then afterwards to receive questions, provide
the answers.that we can tonight, provide official responses to
•
all the questions that are asked, and then receive the official
comments from the interested parties.
As previously mentioned, our presentation on the
wastewater management system will be approximately forty-five
minutes to an hour, and we'll be most happy to receive all
questions at the conclusion of our presentation.
Fayetteville is located in the northwest corner of
the state, approximately thirty miles from the Missouri state
3
line and twenty miles from Oklahoma, in the approximate center
of Washington County, as shown on these figures. The general
planning area that's covered by the 201 is shown on this
figure, and the wastewaters from this area that are presently
generated are treated at a high rate activated sludge plant
located east of the City of Fayetteville.
The proposed wastewater management system that
resulted from the study consisted of infiltration inflow
rehabilitation and interceptor and pump station improvements
throughout the system, expressed in 1983 dollars of $7.3
million.
An upgraded and expanded wastewater treatment plant -
to meet the more stringent discharge requirements as
established by the State, which are more stringent than
existing standards. The modifications for the upgrading and
expanding of the treatment plant are estimated at approximately
$10.9 million. The residual solids removed from the treatment
a
process are to be handled with a sludge land application
system, approximate cost of $2.9 million. The effluent from
the upgraded and expanded plant, if need be, can be handled
in a treated effluent storage reservoir, approximate cost of
$1,7 million. And to comply with the State discharge
requirements and the stream standards to which the effluent is
going, there is a planned treated effluent pumping station to
essentially split the flow to two discharge locations, as will
4
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be discussed later in the presentation, foran approximate cost
of $1.4 million.
The total project cost, in May 1983 dollars, is
$24.3 million.
As I mentioned, the existing plant, existing
standards right now are secondary treatment standards.
Basically, what that consists of is treating of wastewaters
to a level such that, in the effluent that's discharged, no more
than 30 milligrams per liter of biochemical oxygen demand and
30 milligrams per liter of total suspended solids remain.
The reason for the upgrading and expanding of the
plant facilities is that the future requirements will require
reduction of the constituents in the effluent to 5 parts each,
5 mg. per liter of biochemical oxygen demand, or BOD, and
total suspended solids. And in addition to that, nutrient
removal requirements, 2 mg. per liter of ammonia nitrogen and
1 mg. per liter of phosphorus.
•
The existing situation as of the 1980 census was
slightly over 39,000 persons in the planning area, in the
communities of Elkins, Farmington, Fayetteville, and Greenland,
served by the project. Tne sewered population at that time
was slightly less than 39,000, or 38,500.
The existing treatment plant, as I mentioned
previously, is a secondary treatment plant, which consists of
grit removal, settling of the heavy particulate matter.
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Activated sludge and biological treatment --- this is the
secondary portion of the plant, for actual treatment of the
wastewaters, settling of the solids prior to chlorination and
discharge into the White River. Currently, the residual solids
are thickened, stabilized with lime, and buried on the
treatment plant site.
In our revision of the 201, the plant was evaluated
and found to be capable of treating an average flow of
eight million gallons a day to secondary standards, and in
the past several months, the plant has been functioning
actually better than these standards, averaging somewhere
between 20 and 30 mg. per liter of BOD and total suspended
solids.
As part of the 201 facilities planning process, not
only the treatment plant is evaluated, but the sewer system
is evaluated as well, first through an infiltration inflow
analysis, which in essence determines the amount of
extraneous flow that is entering the sewer system, either
through underground sources, or uncapped or broken surface
sources,that allow the direct inflow of either surface water
or groundwater into the sewer system. This is an important
aspect of the study, as eventually it's necessary to do a
cost-effective analysis to determine whether it's more
economic to treat the extraneous flow or to try and remove it
through infiltration inflow rehabilitation.
6
C
The original estimates of the severity of the problem
put the maximum amount of infiltration inflow above 40 million
gallons a day, and estimated that by rehabilitation techniques
that slightly over 50 percent of the infiltration could be
removed, or that coming from groundwater, and over 90 percent
of the inflow, or the surface water, sources could be removed.
As more data became available, and as more
information on the state of the art of rehabilitation became
available, it was decided that these predictions were somewhat
optimistic. The problem now is being studied through a
mini -rehabilitation program that's currently in progress to
take selected areas of the city and implement some rehabilitation
measures to measure the flows before, measure the flows after,
and determine how realistic these original projections were,
or if they need to be revised accordingly.
The peak flow that can be generated in the system,
in our opinion, is equal to what the system is capable of
carrying. And as we discuss the peak flow capacity of the
collection, interceptor system, and treatment plant, we will
address the peak flows and what we feel a realistic peak is
that could actually travel through the sewer system and reach
the treatment plant itself. The estimate of that flow that
we feel is a realistic, practical amount is 30 million gallons
a day. That's based on what the treatment plant would be
capable of treating when expanded to an optimum size.
7