The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About22-02 RESOLUTION• A. RESOLUTION NO, 22-02 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.1 WITH MCGOODWIN, WILLIAMS, AND YATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $580,296.00 WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas after a public hearing determined that the 5% fixed fee should be deducted from the previously requested amount of the proposed contract amendment for that portion applicable to the cost overruns of Hanifin Associates, and ECO, Inc. prior to approval of the City Council; and WHEREAS, representatives of McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates, Inc. agreed to such reduction which resulted in a total reduction of $15,495.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves Contract Amendment No. 1 with McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates, Inc. in the amount of $580,296.00 (attached as Exhibit A); and authorizes the Mayor to execute said contract amendment. PASSED and APPROVED this the 5th day of February, 2002. 11 14 Woodruff, City C - k APPROVED: • NAME OF FILE: CROSS REFERENCE: Resolution No. 22-02 • 02/05/02 Resolution No. 22-02 Amendment No. 1 to City of Fayetteville Contract Agreement for Engineering Services Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility with McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates, Inc. 01/15/02 Copy of the Budget Adjustment Form 02/11/02 Letter to Greg Boettcher, PW Director, from James C. Ulmer, Vice President, McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. 02/11/02 Memo to Mayor Coody from Greg Boettcher, PW Director, CC: Kit Williams, Steve Davis, Jim Beavers, Heather Woodruff, regarding Engineering Contract Amendment No. 1 02/05/02 Staff Review Form 02/26/02 Memo to Greg Boettcher, Public Works Director, from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk News Release from Greg Boettcher regarding Historical/Archaeo- logical Field Study NOTES: • ORIGffiAL V az AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WESTSIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City of Fayetteville (the Owner) and McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. (the Engineer) entercd into an Agreement for Engineering Services in connection with the construction of the new Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve the Illinois River Basin. The scope of these services included preliminary studies and preliminary design, resulting in a Preliminary Engineering Report setting forth the findings; and WHEREAS, the Engineer has completed those services required under the original scope including preparation and submittal of the Preliminary Design Report; and WHEREAS, the overall prQlect (hereinafter referred to as "the Overall Project") being developed by the Owner includes an upgrade of the existing Paul Noland Wastewater Treatment Plant on the cast side of the city and the sewer system collection and transmission facilities work for both the east and west sides. This work is being accomplished by three other engineering consultants; and WHEREAS, the Owner requested that the Engineer's and its subconsultants' original scopc be expanded to include services relating to the Overall Project; and WHEREAS, the Engineer agrees to provide the requested services; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Owner and the Engineer, the parties hereto, stipulate and agree that the Agreement for Engineering Services dated March 21, 2000, is hereby amended in the following particulars: Section IV. Services to be Furnished by the Engineer During Design Phase 1. Section A - Study, Preliminary Desibm and Report, is amended by adding the following paragraphs under Section IV -A. Environmental Permitting. The environmental work in the original scope being provided by subconsultant ECO, Inc. shall be expanded from only the Westside Treatment Plant to include all four elements of the Overall Project, thus allowing continuity of activities and eliminating duplicated efforts by the other engineering consultants. This work includes: • Corps of Engineers 404 permitting; • Initiating the work on the NPDES storm water permit; • Participating in the public information program including attendance at public meetings; providing environmental information justification for the Overall Project and assisting in the dissemination of accurate environmental information about the Overall Project; Amend 1 to Fy-296 - 1 of 5 A R • 411 • Assisting in the evaluation of and development of Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) to address prospective and endangered species concerns; • Providing specialized environmental guidance regarding the environmental issues surrounding the planned Westside sewer line construction at the former Research and Technology Park to include preliminary evaluation of site conditions, site issues, and possible mitigation measures. The Engineer shall coordinate the work between ECO and the other engineering consultants for the Overall Project, and provide specific data regarding the Westside Treatment Plant. Public Education and Involvement. The public education and information work being conducted by Hanifin Associates for the Westside Treatment Plant shall be expanded to include all four elements of the Overall Project, thus allowing continuity of activities and eliminating duplicated efforts by the other engineering consultants. This additional work includes: • Increasing the public informational meetings from three to 16; • Formalizing the public involvement program to meet specific requirements for Facility Planning/State Revolving Loan Fund under the regulations of the Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission; • Providing written information/graphics/handouts to inform the public on the proposed work; • Expanding the scope of the public information program to include the use of web -site and media mediums; • Development of communication resources, tools, and criteria to improve the effectiveness and clarity of the information presented to the public; • Assist in the conduct of a Public Hearing regarding the final selected alternative in the Facility Plan and Environmental Information Document. The Engineer shall coordinate the work between Hanifin Associates and the other engineering consultants, and provide specific data regarding the Westside Treatment Plant. 3. Wastewater System Improvement Project Facility Plan. The Engineer will prepare an amendment to the Facility Plan for the Overall Project previously prepared by another consultant and presented in February of 1997. The plan will utilize the preliminary engineering work completed by each of the four engineering consultants. The plan will be completed in accordance with requirements as set out by the State of Arkansas for projects utilizing the Revolving Loan Fund. This Facility Plan will be submitted to ASWCC in the final version (following the September 20, 2001 public hearing) in November, 2001. The Engineer will coordinate the review of the Facility Plan by the state and federal agencies until final approval. Amend 1 to Fy-296 - 2 of 5 • • 4. Environmental Information Document. The Engineer will prepare an Environmental Information Document for the Overall Project to accompany the Facility Plan which evaluates and presents the environmental issues and program documents required to reflect work proposed by the four project consultants. The Engineer will work with ECO, Inc. to produce this document and coordinate the review of the EID until final approval. 5. Revolving Loan Fund Coordination. The Engineer shall assist the Owner by providing project coordination, preparation of Revolving Loan Fund documents, and necessary engineering services as required to complete the RLF program requirements. 6. Biosolids Management System Coordination. The Engineer shall expand investigations into the biosolids management planning for the Overall Project, including investigations of additional alternatives and the coordination of a recommended strategy. 7. Industrial Loadings. The Engineer shall provide the necessary services to determine the impact of a prospective industrial plant on the Westside Treatment Plant. 8. Broyles Road Extension. The Engineer shall develop and implement preliminary planning for the Broyles Road extension in Farmington. This extension, if constructed, would provide access to the new Westside Treatment Plant. The study shall be conducted jointly for the Owner and the City of Farmington. 9. Additional Services. The Engineer shall conduct other studies and analyses as required to facilitate the production and approval of the Facility Plan, environmental permitting, and public involvement as required. These services to be furnished by the Engineer shall be subject to the agreed cost ceiling set out in Section XII.5 as amended. Section X. Subcontracting Add the following paragraph: "The Engineer shall furnish copies of all sub -agreements if requested by the Owner." Section XII. Fees and Payments I. Section A is amended as follows: The fixed fee set out in this section is increased to $130,505. Amend 1 to Fy-296 - 3 of 5 • • 2. Section A is amended by adding the following: Compensation for the Broyles Road Extension Study shall be a lump sum amount of $12,900. The cost of this study is to be shared equally with the City of Farmington. Thus, the Owner's portion is $6,450. 3. Scction B, the estimate of cost for ECO, Inc., shall be increased to $343,868, including expenses. 4. Scction C, the estimate of cost for Hanifin Associates, Inc., shall be increased to $187,166, including expenses. 5. Section D, second paragraph, first line, is amended to read as follows: ' The estimated total compensation for the services set out under Section IV.A as amended is $1,535,598, including the fixed fee of $130,505 and reimbursable expenses, and Fayetteville's share of the lump sum fee for the Broyles Road Extension Study." 6. Attachment A to this Amendment sets out a summary of the original budget and requested changes. 7. After the last paragraph under Section D, add the following: "The Engineer shall furnish copies of invoices, billing information, and other materials as the Owner may request, to verify the accuracy of invoices and the nature of the work being performed." Section XVI. Miscellaneous Provisions Add paragraph H as follows: H. Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. The Engineer agrees that it will provide to the Owner, at a cost to be agreed upon, all documents in its possession that are, under this Agreement, the property of the Owner and which the Owner believes to be subject to an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act request made to it, or, in anticipation of such a request, which it believes necessary for it to possess. The Engineer further agrees that it will request of all subconsultants, retained by the Engineer to perform services under this Agreement, to provide to the Owner, at a cost to be agrecd upon, all documents in the possession of such subconsultants that are, under this Agreement, the property of the Owner and which the Owner believes to be subject to an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act request made to the Owner, or, in anticipation of such a request, which it believes necessary for the Owner to possess. The Engineer will produce all documents or material in the format that are kept by the Engineer, or at the option of the Engineer, in some other format. If a specialized format is requested by the Owner, the cost of conversion, if that additional responsibility is accepted by the Engineer, will be borne by the Owner at the then prevailing rates for the parties actually performing the conversion. Production of requested items will be done with reasonable diligence, but cannot in some circumstances be within the time frame established by the Act. Amend 1 to Fy-296 - 4 of 5 • • • The above and foregoing provisions apply only to work performed from this date forward and does not apply retroactively. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an acceptance of the Engineer or its subconsultants to the application of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act to the Engineer or its subconsultants or to the Engineer's or subconsultant's books, records, drawings, or other items not constituting the property of the Owner under this Agreement, nor a waiver of its rights to object to any requests made to it pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act by any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. All other provisions of the original agreement remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed this day of 74 , 2002. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS McGOODWIN, WILLIAMS AND YATES, INC. By: By Dan Coody, Mayor ATTE arl Yates, Pre ATTEST: rk del CO\• oodruff, City Cle s C. Ulmer, Vi 'resident Amend 1 to Fy-296 - 5 of 5 NOTE: All cost figures include expenses. o o v •= CO `� m ..- T<'22o m -( d 0 F-• ?55Q0 ,2338 m o(7om =4 m 3 nm CD CD 3 a m O O S 03co Cr a 3 m 3 3 0 n C C n f) y 0 > > m Qo (D Cn a • m 0 • (n 3 0 S (A EA 01 �COCO CP CO 0) W N (071 - EA 01 C0 O▪ CO—sCAO CO CO V CO -I V O — . N C00 CR b cn tP Co co CO A O N CP0C)A m 2a6png lew6u0 E0 R EA CD X) 1N -S N CA O CCD 0 A.A Co CCO00) ON(0l1 Cr = 3 N v 6M(7)O) Of -•(A0 N ry m NAcoWd0 OO CoCA C)t0 EA -4 CO (0 O Co EA W 0000 a))a)coo 000 NA A A -co ' 000 N co W 000)v v N EA EA oA O NCO r co 0. O 0A O' 0 0 Co 0 Co 0 0 EA EA EA (n 01 W-• CoCR N co tAT CO 03 COOTCA 0N) Cr CO 0 CO 00IV A ID -4). -Co CO CO Co O 0) O CO 00°A ACIN(0 u W (D N_ 0. 0 73 3 CD CD N A C (7 N n as 9 co n (^ f0 CO C a (0 o •0 2 z m a m cn O. N CCD n 3a CO EA EA (,. EA W co o A Apo AODW N O -I W V1 O (J1 W W CO v O N W W 13 C O_ C O N (P O O N 0 O) - (b W n 0 co 0 CO (P CO O 0 0a) � U1 CO W a fn` (^ .0.. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED BUDGET V1N3WHOVlld • City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Budget Adjustment Form • Budget Year 2002 Department: Division: 'Program: Public Works Sewer Construction Date Requested January 15, 2002 45.22 oz Project or Item Requested: $579,000 in the Professional Services account in the Wastewater Treatment Plant - Expansion capital project. Project or Item Deleted: $579,000 from the Use of Fund Balance account in Water & Sewer Fund. Justification of this Increase. The funding is needed for the City to contract with McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates Inc. for consultant services as related to the construction of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. Justification of this Decrease: The fund balance is from remaining funds not spent in 2001. Increase Expense (Decrease Revenue) Account Name Amount Professional Services 579,000 Account Name Use of Fund Balance Account Number 5400 5700 Decrease Expense (Increase Revenge) Amount 579,000 Project Number 5314 00 98047 10 Account Number 5400 0940 4999 99 Project Number Approval Signatures Requ ed By B getaX 6146( t Director Date OZ JfieoZ Utile 0/7o 2.. Date ky% Date Budget Office Use Only Type: A B C Date of Approval Posted to Genual Ledger Posted to Project Accounting Entered in Category Log RJ.., r.....,- n..ana. x. Ra..s...r. r V n,.... �,...... o__....., E • • McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville. Arkansas 72703 Telephone 501/443.3404 FAX 501/4434340 February 11, 2002 Re: Contract Amendment No. 1 Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant Fayetteville, Arkansas MWY Project No. Fy-296 Mr Greg Boettcher, P E Public Works Director City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Greg: Enclosed herewith are three copies of executed Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for Engineering Services for the Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility. We trust you will find this document in order and can forward it to the Mayor and City Clerk for a date and signatures. If you will notify our office when the signatures are complete, we will send someone to pick up one copy for our files. We appreciate very much the city's willingness to go forward with this contract amendment, and look forward to continued service to the city in this very important wastewater treatment facilities project. JCU:sc Enclosure Cordially yours, /mes C. Ulmer, P. E. ce-President 2-12 2 :✓ &o0&EOJnfl TD 7716 &#J4/, it- zSc21 j/.t/lo ,Z € ?m 43cDS— ZE /LJe Att t ratnis Tom' Pes,G,tc C'cwniliMT- 1 c • • FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor Coody COPY: Kit Williams, Steve Davis, Jim Beavers, Heather W FROM: Greg Boettcher, Public Works Director DATE: February 11, 2002 RE• Engineering Contract Amendment No. 1 McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Wastewater system Improvement Project West Side Wastewater Plant Attached please find a copy of the professional fee calculations that have been developed by McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. (Memorandum dated February 8, 2002). This communication outlines the methodology for the elimination of professional fees on the labor costs for ECO and Hannifin and Associates. The Fayetteville City Council, at its February 5, 2002 meeting, approved this contract amendment provided that the 5% fixed fee estimated at $15,000.00 to $17,000.00, be deducted from the amount requested. I have reviewed the information presented, that computes a fixed fee reduction of $15,495.00, and find said amount to be both in order and in accordance with City Council approval. The resulting value of Contract Amendment No. 1 is $580,296.00, bringing the not -to -exceed total contract value to $1,535,598.00. A revised contract amendment shall be provided for signature on Monday, February 11,2002 GB:ks 2- S-02;,i:48AM;MC000OWIN WILLIAMS ;479.443.4340 0 1/ 2 • • McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Telephone 479/443-3404 FAX 479/443-4340 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Greg Boettcher, P E , Public Works Director City of Fayetteville, Arkansas From: James C. Ulmer, P. E., Vice -President Date: February 8, 2002 Re: Wastewater System Improvement Project Contract Amendment No. 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas MWY Project No. Fy-296 Attached is a table showing the labor cost and expense calculations for ECO, Inc. and Hanifin Associates through December 9, 2001, as shown on our original cost figures presented to you as a part of the worksheets accompanying Contract Amendment No. 1. At the bottom of this table, we have calculated our allowable fee for labor for both ECO and Hanifin Associates in order to determine the amount of fee reduction as required by the Council at their meeting of February 5, 2002. The original fee request for Contract Amendment No. 1 was to increase the fee to $146,000. However, the fee reduction requested by the City Council on February 5 was $15,495, which represents five percent of the ECO and Hanifin costs (over and above the original scope) through December 9, 2001. Therefore, our revised total fee to be reflected in Contract Amendment No. 1 shall be $130,505, as shown on the attached table. We trust you will find this explanation acceptable for the purposes of establishing the amount of fee in Contract Amendment No. 1. Attachment Post -n• Fax Note 7671 -1 O E pT 0 a 0 M M N 4 elD9 a • • 2 5 N $ 9L'OEY'BiZ s a Ul N Z /Z • OpEr•EIVeSLt1 M M P A co m O N suonhIn,lp pd co CO co 0 mmm(m�flcmiclOOq c acg m o spm �c3 -4 a ma m a. 8 w V 0 m O mm b A a O Q -• A+ N N V Al N 0m N N mNm V O N N O N O bY O + • 0 pqA n + o t{�m a M u -saoI A N+ca o O N N N V OqI tpl1l m • o ,iowwa(a-- 4§ 8 a 2m 3 t7 O 3 D 3 J 2y 3 3 3 0 $WYI1 IM NIMOOOOOrl tVIVO? . t!ZO-6 -Z • • McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 909 Rolling Hills Drive MIC OIFELPID Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Telephone 501/443-3404 FAX 501/443-4340 January 25, 2002 Re: Wastewater System Improvement Project Proposed Contract Amendment between City and Engineer Fayetteville, Arkansas MWY Project No. Fy-296 Mr. Greg Boettcher, P E Director of Public Works City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Greg: Thanks for your letter of November 13 requesting a contract amendment. We're pleased to answer your questions and provide whatever detail you require to move our work forward. I've summarized relevant information below and attached a more comprehensive memorandum to this letter. Project History Our original contract with the City was executed March 21, 2000. It called for MWY to complete the Preliminary Engineering Design for the proposed Westside WWTF, including a written Preliminary Design Report. We completed this report in May 2001 and enlisted the services of subconsultants whose special expertise was critical to complete the work. They are listed in the attached memorandum. MWY successfully completed contract scope requirements approximately $200,000 below budget. Along the way, the City made several decisions which resulted in the expansion of MWY's role in work related to the wastewater system improvement project. They are summarized as follows: Revolving Loan Fund Concurrent with the preliminary design process, the City elected to pursue Arkansas' Revolving Loan Fund program. This was an excellent decision, because it would provide a low-cost source of capital for all facets of the total project. In Apnl 2000, at the City's request, Don Bunn, Assistant Public Works Director and Jim Ulmer, Vice - President of MWY, met with officials of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to assess the program requirements to enter the RLF program and learned: Mr. Greg Boettcher January 25, 2002 Page 2 • • 1. The 1997 Facility Plan created by CH2M Hill did not meet ADEQ requirements and the City would be required to produce a new Facility Plan Amendment. Later, at the City's direction, in May through November 2001, MWY created a new Facility Plan Amendment which required approximately 2,800 manhours to complete. A new Environmental Information Document (EID) was required that would address all known environmental issues and program requirements. 3. A formal public hearing on the selected plan was also required. This meeting was supplemental to the numerous public meetings conducted during the preliminary design process. As you are aware, planning, organizing, facilitating and following-up a formal public hearing that conforms to state requirements is a time -intensive process. MWY also assumed responsibility for this activity. Environmental Permitting 1. Early in this process, consultation with environmental regulatory agencies determined that the project would require one 404 and NPDES storm water permit rather than one for each part of the project. At this point, the project team agreed that ECO would develop the single 404 and NDPES storm water permit for the total project, a less cumbersome way to proceed. While this decision reduced work for each of the subconsultants, it significantly increased ECO's work, which accounts in large part for its higher billing. 2. ECO participated in nearly all public meetings to provide environmental overview, requirements and to answer public concerns regarding environmental issues. ECO also prepared the EID required for the Facility Planning process. In an attempt to reduce costs, much of the information developed during the 404 permitting process was used to develop the EID This also allowed us to address the difficult environmental issues the City would have to overcome to successfully complete the projects. Public Education 1. The City's decision to pursue RLF financing intensified the need to develop clear and effective information for voters who would be asked to approve a %-percent sales tax on November 6, 2001. And it resulted in significant additional support from our public information consultant, Hanifin and Associates. Instead of the planned three public meetings, sixteen were held before the election. Hanifin and Associates planned, coordinated and followed-up on all sixteen of these meetings. Mr. Greg Boettcher January 25, 2002 Page 3 • • 2. In a public opinion survey, Hanifin and Associates learned a significant number of voters felt they had insufficient information about the overall wastewater treatment system improvements. This was a major concern, as voters won't approve issues they don't understand. As work moved forward, odor control issues at Noland, property value concerns and environmental matters took on paramount importance. Public education took on new importance and resulted in additional cost from our public information consultant. Expanded Responsibilities As you know, the RLF application process is complex and time-consuming. In the absence of clearly defined project leadership responsibility, the dearth of long-term experience with RLF as well as numerous regulatory agencies, and the absolute necessity of voters approving the 'As -percent sales tax, MWY became the de facto project manager. We did so with the implicit consent of the City to help ensure the compatibility of each project aspect and success of the total project. While the choice resulted in significant additional responsibility, we saw a significant benefit to the City. MWY and its consultants helped the people of Fayetteville save over $38 million in interest costs related to these projects by successfully completing the RLF Program requirements to qualify for the 3 percent RLF loan. In an August 8, 2001 memo, Don Bunn informed the public works director, the mayor and city council that MWY was: ...currently in the process of Facility Plan revision and EID preparation, working with ADEQ and the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission in connection with securing RLF funding and has attended several city related public meetings on the protect. In addition, they have been working with the City in the investigation of the possible construction of a fertilizer plant in the Northwest Arkansas area which would utilize sewage sludge from the area cities and poultry litter. Contract Amendment No. 1 for the above activities will be presented to the Council for review and approval at a later date. Unquestionably, these activities went beyond the scope of work in our original contract and we accept responsibility for our decisions. We made them with the City's best interests at heart and the interests of the project we have an obligation to complete in a timely manner and at the lowest possible cost. At the same time, we fully understand the importance of keeping clients informed about our activities and the cost of services that exceed the scope of our contract. As this letter is written, we are reviewing internal processes to identify what changes we can make to better accomplish this objective. Prior to their implementation, we will discuss these changes with you to ensure they meet the City's objectives. Mr. Greg Boettcher January 25, 2002 Page 4 • • The attached memorandum provides detail and explanation of costs incurred by us and our subconsultants in the performance of our contract responsibilities. We trust you will find this information adequate and that you will forward our request for payment to the Council with your recommendation for approval. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call us. We are at your disposal. LCY:sc Attachment cc: Mayor Dan Coody Board of Aldermen Cordially yours, L. Carl Yates McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Telephone 501/443-3404 FAX 501/443-4340 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Dan Goody Mr. Greg Boettcher, Public Works Director Fayetteville City Council From: McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Date: January 25, 2002 Re: Wastewater System Improvement Protect Proposed Contract Amendment between City and Engineer Fayetteville, Arkansas MWY Project No. Fy-296 On March 21, 2000, McGoodwin, Williams and Yates (MWY) entered into a contract with the City of Fayetteville to provide engineering services through preliminary design, final design, and the construction of facilities for the Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility. The contract provided for fees through the necessary studies, preliminary design and completion of a preliminary design report, with the fees for subsequent work to be negotiated at a later, unspecified date. At about the same time, the City entered into engineering contracts with the RJN Group for collection and transmission system engineering for the west side, with Garver Engineers for the same type of services on the east side, and with Black & Veatch to provide the required services for necessary upgrades to the existing Paul Noland Plant. We completed our work under our original scope in May, 2001, at a cost approximately $200,000 below the estimated cost set out in the contract. Our contract provides for the utilization of several subconsultants to assist us in our work. Two of these subconsultants and their scope of work are as follows: 1. ECO, Inc. — ECO's original scope provides for general environmental guidance to us as we developed the project and to provide services required for the filing of a Section 404 permit based on the assumption that the treatment facility could be permitted under the Nationwide permit rather than filing for an Individual 404 permit. The services proposed to be provided were for the Westside Treatment Plant only. Hanifin Associates, Inc. — Hanifin Associates' charge was to develop a strategic communications program to inform the general public about January 21, 2002 Page 2 • • issues concerning the new proposed Westside Plant. Because of known opposition to constructing this facility, it was believed that a compre- hensive program to inform the public about the issues related to their concerns was critical to the success of the project. Soon after the work commenced on the project, the City decided that the services ECO, Inc. and Hanifin Associates, Inc. were providing for the Westside Treatment Plant should be expanded to include the total project, and in the case of ECO, Inc., to provide services necessary to obtain a 404 permit for the total project (including both plants and all line work). This decision was based on regulatory mandates that a single Individual 404 permit would be required. ECO was further directed to work closely with all project consultants and Hanifin Associates in the public involvement processes. Although these two subconsultants would then be working with the City and all consultants, we agreed that these expanded services would be invoiced to our firm and then passed on to the City for reimbursement. The 400 -page 404 permit application with documentation has been completed in draft format and will be finalized shortly after work has been re -authorized on the project. It is anticipated that once the final application is submitted it will take approximately six months for completion of review by the Corps of Engineers and the issuance of the permit. Consequently, in order to avoid delay of construction, when plans and specifications have been completed, environmental permitting work should proceed with all due haste. The cost to -date for the environmental management and permitting (over and above that accomplished under the original scope) is approximately $160,000, of which $154,000 is for work accomplished by ECO, Inc. and $6,000 by us. Please note that approximately 75 percent of the cost for work accomplished by ECO is for line work projects on both the east and west sides of the City and not part of our contract for the Westside Facilities. A brief summary of the 404 permit work elements is shown in Attachment A. The cost of the additional work performed by Hanifin Associates, Inc. was due to its involvement in the entire project rather than just the Westside Treatment Facility, and for educational assistance during the development of the Facility Plan and the AutumnFest exposition in early October. Additional costs involved relate to odor problems at the existing Noland Plant, i.e., several meetings with attendant preparation were held to discuss this matter. The added cost for Hanifin Associates over the original budget is $88,426. Hanifin's original budget assumed three public meetings, whereas 16 were finally held. The need for additional public education was noted in Hanifin's summary of written comment presented in the Public Opinion Survey (Attachment B). A summary of Hanifin's work is shown in an October 15, 2001, letter included as Attachment C. From the very beginning of the project, the City began evaluating the best method of funding for the project. At the City's request, we provided assistance in this evaluation. By May of 2001, the City had decided to utilize the State of Arkansas Revolving Loan Fund and at that time asked us to provide the necessary services to January 21, 2002 Page 3 • • amend the Facility Plan which had been prepared in 1997 by CH2M Hill. This work was not included in our original contract. The Draft Facility Plan Amendment (including the required Environmental Information Document) was completed in August. A summary of significant meetings conducted relevant to the total project effort is presented in Attachment D. The entire Draft Facility Plan Amendment includes 10 separate volumes and was submitted to the Arkansas Sod & Water Conservation Commission in August for review and approval. The Draft Facility Plan was revised and has become the Final Facility Plan and incorporates the comments of the public at the formal public hearing and reviewing agency comments, and was resubmitted for final review and approval on November 2, 2001. By letters dated December 3 and 4 (Attachments E and F) to Mayor Goody from the ASWCC, they indicate that the Facility Plan had been reviewed and it appears to be "approvable." However, they cannot give final approval until certain programmatic events have occurred. Specifically, the City of Fayetteville must have officially entered into the Revolving Loan Fund program and environmental review processes must have been completed with closure on several environmental issues which should be resolved with the completion of the 404 permit process. Final Facility Plan and Environmental Information Document approval will come in the form of the issuance of a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project. Thus, final approval may take some period of time, as all agencies having interest in the project must be given opportunity to comment on the draft 404 permit. Consequently, the City is "ahead of the curve" on receiving facility plan approval so that it will not delay start of construction. Additionally, the environmental issues that affect the design will have been identified and resolved early in the design process, so that costly redesigns will be avoided. The cost to -date on this facility planning part of the work (including RLF coordination) is approximately $245,000, with $190,000 being for work performed by us and approximately $55,000 for work performed by ECO, Inc. in the development of the Environmental Information Document. A graph showing the dates of our effort in manhours by payroll date is shown in Attachment G. In addition to extra services detailed above, the City requested that we assist in the following tasks: 1) Broyles Road Extension study; 2) preliminary work on the Candidate Conservation Agreement involving not only the "Westside line protect" but also the research and technology park; 3) evaluating the possible impact of potential industry on the Westside Plant; and 4) coordination of the effort to utilize the "waste -to - energy -to -fertilizer" process for the biosolids (DukeSolutions/Harmony). There is still work to be completed in the facility planning process and securing approvals of preliminary environmental issues. This work will basically be completed by us, ECO, Inc., and by the Arkansas Archeological Survey, with some consultation with the other three engineering consultants on the project. Our work will include working with ECO, Inc. in the environmental permitting (including a wetlands mitigation plan, if required), coordinating final review and making any changes required in the Facility Plan Amendment, RLF coordination, and coordination of the effort to finalizing the definitive contract between the City and DukeSolutions/Harmony for the utilization of the waste -to -energy -to -fertilizer process for biosolids treatment and disposal. We estimate the cost of our effort to be approximately $57,500. January 21, 2002 • • Page 4 ECO's work will involve the completion of the environmental permitting process with some possible work revising the Environmental Information Document. It is estimated the cost of ECO's work to complete these tasks will be approximately $58,000. A summary of ECO's total project cost separated by work elements is presented as Attachment H. A cultural resources survey will be required for those areas impacted by the project. We propose to utilize the Sponsored Research Program of the Arkansas Archeological Survey for this work, with an estimated cost of $45,000. A summary of our requested contract scope is included in tabular form as Attachment Ito this Memorandum. We certainly understand the City's desire to execute contract amendments prior to completing the work. In this instance, we acknowledge that we were in error in not working with City staff to prepare and present the appropriate amendments to the Council for consideration prior to starting the work under the increased scope. We are implementing in-house procedures to assure that this doesn't happen with future work. Once these have been fully developed, we will share them with you. It was not until July, 2001, that our cost actually began exceeding the original budget amount, and we notified the City. At that time, with the urgency of completing the Facility Plan to keep the project moving, we felt that the best interests of the project would be served by concentrating our efforts on completing the work so that the City could complete the program requirements to qualify for the 3 percent RLF loan, rather than stopping to amend our contract. We believe that the City's intent is evidenced in Don Bunn's memorandum of August 7, 2001 (Attachment J), which accompanied the contract amendments for the other project consultants on the Council meeting of September 18, 2001. Actually, we put the interests of the City and the project above our own. We work in an atmosphere of trust. As clients have asked us to do additional work, we have bent over backwards to get that work done, with the understanding that formal contract amendments would be executed at a later date. Attachments January 25, 2002 McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 ATTACHMENT A Summary of 404 Work Elements • Illinois River Watershed Sewer Lines (20 miles) - 40 stream crossings - 11 wetlands totaling 10.82 acres • Westside Plant Outfall - I stream crossing • Westside Plant Effluent Line (2.78 miles) - 1 stream crossing - I wetland totaling 1.47 acres • Westside WWTP Site - 2 wetlands totaling 7.0 acres • Broyles Road Reroute (0.40 miles) - 2 stream crossings - 2 wetlands totaling 1.5 acres • West Fork of the White River Watershed Sewer Lines (14.84 miles) - 28 stream crossings - 4 wetlands totaling 2.35 acres PROJECT TOTALS 72 stream crossings 20 wetlands totaling 23.14 acres 38.02 miles for linear portions of project • ATTACHMENT B • PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY COMMENT SUMMARY I" I, II I' C IN Question Comments NO When this survey first arrived, we lacked knowledge and information. It was during a meeting with the "Candidates for Mayor' that we heard discussion of this matter. We plan to be alert to future information from any source. We didn't return the first survey because we did not believe we were informed enough to give t you opinions that we could substantiate with facts. We hope this survey is helpful despite our lack of knowledge regarding the treatment of wastewater. We are new to the area and not very informed about this topic. ;This is certainly an important issue and I appreciate your efforts to seek citizen input. It asks about respondent's self -assessed level of information, and then, at times assumes quite a lot of :information and understanding about Fayetteville's current waste matter situation. To rally 'support for the new facility, you might have provided a quick summary of the current situation !and future options. Just a paragraph. and then ask more esoteric questions. Just a suggestion!! Since I don't know anything about the subject I do not feel that I can make any kind of an opinion. Thanks anyway. Obviously, I need to be more informed Not sufficient information to have an informed opinion. Need to know more information : Need more knowledge about how existing funds are used. Another area where consumer is last ;to know facts —true story? re info here since 6/98 and know there is a debate about waste but have never read a good n or learned an hin from media. NEED MORE INFO!!t alexianation all of these issues should be presented in a public forum to educate the citizens so 1 ht make more informed decisions on these matters. 't know anything about this problem. Either way. 1 it don't know enough about fair pricing, need for improvement of water treatment, or need for tax increases to make an informed decision on this matter. Does most of the public? t ; I don't feel that I have enough knowledge about water treatment to answer these questions do not feel that I am informed enough to property answer the above questions (questions 9b -e). it 'I can't answer any of these questions without knowing something about deficiencies and strengths of current system. ' I not well informed about water quality systems or waste treatment. But if a new facility is am I think it should be of a quality that will last and meet all the city's needs. I would necessary, rather pay for it on my bill (those who use more, pay more), than with a sales tax. 1 !IGo`dd'luck: Your department is asking questions that require more information in order to 'develop an intelligent response. 1 Do not understand any of this!!! 'Being to Arkansas and the Fayetteville area, were not knowledgeable about the new residents water problems Water Quality 2000 Program Public Information Program t 1u:6U1-??6-7409 0CT 17'01 15:05 No.014 P.0; • I;ujt7cj ■N■■N■ATTACHMENT C • j I � I • • (;n IIIIYIIfj' Ulil@V('h "Soar nn,n, 1LhJC(i1M - C J'rvr un*-.nllf,, I $f/Ul$I IK' A S S O C I A T E S 632 Mainsheet - laurel, MD 20707 - 301 •776.7407 - lax; 301 •7 I NC. October 15, 2001 James Ulmer, P.E. Vice President McGoodwin, Williams & Yates 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville, AR. 72703 RE: Public Information and Communications Program City of Fayetteville, AR. — Wastewater System Improvement Project Dear Jim: The following information provides the sequence and circumstances affecting the additional program efforts required for the City's wastewater system improvement project. This work was primarily performed to comply with the public participation program efforts of the City's amendment to its 201 facilities planning process. The additional work that occurred, primarily in 2001, was not identified in the original scope of work for Hanifin Associates, Inc (March 2000 — Attachment 1), inasmuch as the overall technical efforts and final regulatory requirements were not clearly defined for the City's Proposed amendment to its Wastewater Management Facility Plan. The City's initial objective in February 2000 was to provide a public information program that addressed the project's overall objective. However, changes in the direction in which this program would continue into a second phase was acknowledged by the project leaders in January 2001. At that time, it was determined that an increased level of public education was needed as a result of the analysis derived from the public information and opinion survey (October/November 2000). This analysis confirmed that low levels of public knowledge existed about the project, the methods in which it would be financed, and the overall affects to water quality if the project did not materialize. Subsequently, the project leaders agreed in January 2001 that an aggressive public education effort would be initiated over the next several months (Attachment 2). This decision was also reinforced by the City's newly -elected public officials. The City's new leaders recognized the importance of customer education in order to secure approval by State DEQ officials for the facility plan amendment. In summary, the additional work tasks and out of scope costs incorporated the following level of effort. 1. Redesigning the information program to comply with the Facility Plan Amendment Update requirements, based on the survey analysis and public official's requests. 2. Additional (bi-monthly) trips to provide essential program support and produce the work required for the Facility Plan Amendment update. 3. Development and production of a comprehensive public information project summary mailed to over 2500 residents and distributed through numerous ID:301-776-7409 C 0CT 17'01 15:06 No.014 P.02 • meetings; an information report about the costs of the wastewater system and needed improvements, and one about the environmental regulations that guided the overall technical development of the facility plan amendment. 4. Providing additional survey and socio-economic analysis on property owner issues and establishing a significant database of citizen questions and responses. 5. Developing special graphics and information for the City's web site. 6. Design, management and facilitation and documentation services for additional public information meetings, the amendment public hearing and educational workshops about the project. 7. Production of project graphic materials to support the City's public information presentations and activities about the project, and additional mailings to wastewater system customers and property owners. 8. Developing the framework and script for the City's public information video. 9. Providing additional communication services and public official updates. 10. Establishing for the City a framework for a long-range public information program about the relationship of clean water and the value of wastewater treatment technology. Should you desire additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, ,. da 44c1Hanifin Bonner, Ph.D ID:301-776-7409 0 0CT 17'01 0 15:06 No.014 P.03 �. �� _■. m,. | �| §�� .! #4! =r| §!| ■� t4- §;. 2,� 2 !$ 22t !` t3 �| || R|| J Q- e ;■# 2.■ 88. ,E! ..- ].s# §� �! 2 \!| §�k■! kk,! - - "` ; ` §■a� oe! � ... ;■| ■B! P.�# § f § ,■7 !� _� §- *-§- U . • I!! ;- - �. -;k _` k| - . ,; |E fl.- '!, )i4 ,,. dqv §|| 1. 2° 3 .| @ a* ;_S. -, ■E, S. | ;!■■; ;;; ��- ., -- .. rm, .��. | k 7§| DI (§| � | | %§§| ! | | / | | | | | § | 0 | | § § t • § 2 • ID:301-776-7409 0CT 17'01 15:07 No.014 P.04 • • Summary of Out of Scope Tasks Costs Public Information Program • City of Fayetteville, AR Wastewater System Improvement Project October 15. 2001 ..... �Ctls1aT�. `.:.._„ ..,....:iTsa lama:" .: __. ; " ^;:-• '.': Di➢lilptloh � ..: OUT OF SCOPE WORK TASKS , Special Information maelings and large scale public 2000 turn Public and community meetings workshop to prosom program approach Conducting 30C10-ournumic analysis on properly 2000 Sep Database Developmont owner Issues & values: establishing database 2000 Oct Information Survey Printing, postage end mailing fees Travel Survey management RedeslgnIng program to comply with overall program development. Additional trips (2) for Fsclily Plan Amendment; Travel & project meetings associated with program 2000 Mar Survey Production development and survey presentation Newsletter development for clllr ens which 7AJxPubllc Iransitionod Into an overall 'layman• summary of the facility plan: Spacial graphics for clllrens 2001 Education & graphics summary report and war) page development Additional travel to auppon program reschoduling 2001 - Msy Travel & Moelings and facility plan amendment needs Web site davolopinenl to support City needs. 2001 - Jun Public Education Materiels & travel education project summary 6 special graphics Public education (finance) fact sheet, workshop, 2001 - July Meetings, Materials & Travel meetings & travel (2) trips (3) flips. workshop b material production. meetings, 2001 -Aug Meetings, Materials & Travel and printing 8 displays (1) trlp. public hearing materials 8 producion 2001 . Sep Mcot;ngs, Materials & Travel displays 8 printing Invoice Information: Date Invoice No. Amt 4/3/2000 961348 2461.65 513/2000 961350 5804.3 6/1/2000 961350 3409.59 7/6/2000 961365 18118.3 811/2000 961370 18391.04 9/7/2000 961372 6772.75 10/4/2000 981376 5393. 12/4/2000 961383 14308.48 2/1612001 961393 4575.4 5 1/8/2001 961386 2883.9 _6 _ 3/14/2001 ..._... 961397 _. ___ -- 2750.1 4/4/2001 —. ._.__.. 961405 -_- —-_—_6624.8 5/2/2001 - 961409 7456.09 — 6/4/2001 .. _. —. . - _ 961412 .- 4195.9 17/512001 __. .. - 961415 5789.93 _ _ 8/6/2001 - 9G1418 - , 15063.2 - 8/4/2001 901420-�_ - 28288.97 26288.97 Total layette;: 162787.92 ATTACHMENT D Fayetteville Wastewater System Improvements Project MEETING SUMMARY April 19, 2000 Partners meeting at MWY. April 26, 2000 Jim Ulmer and Don Bunn to Little Rock — ADEQ/RLF meeting. May 5, 2000 Meeting at MWY. June 6, 2000 Neighborhood meeting — West Side. June 7, 2000 Media briefing. June 8, 2000 Neighborhood meeting — East Side. June 14-15, 2000 Meetings; sludge meeting in p.m. on 15th. Meet with Greg Boettcher and Ted Webber re project update. June 15, 2000 Major public meeting at Hilton. June 28, 2000 Partners meeting — Linda H. Bonner insisted that we initiate meetings with ODEQ and OSRC. June 29, 2000 Sludge Workshop at Fayetteville Room 326. July 20, 2000 Partners meeting. August 24, 2000 Partners meeting;Odor Control Seminar at Drake 5:30-8:00 p.m. Sept. 11, 2000 ADEQ at Fayetteville. Sept. 21, 2000 Partners meeting — RLF process. Oct. 12, 2000 Meeting w/Don Bunn at 10:00 a.m. re Facility Planning schedule. Oct. 13, 2000 Conference call w/Murray Flemming re effluent limits. Oct. 16, 2000 Meet with ODEQ/OSRC at Tahlequah. Oct. 19, 2000 Partners meeting and Citizens project update. Oct. 25, 2000 Meeting with Thone & Scott Carr at 8:30 a.m. re biosolids disposal. Nov. 8, 2000 Biosolids meeting at Don Bunn's office. Nov. 16, 2000 Partners meeting and Citizens project update. Dec. 28, 2000 Meet with Don Bunn re Farmington report of overflows. Jan. 11, 2001 Meeting with Mayor Coody at 10:00 a.m. Jan. 25, 2001 Meet with Kim Hesse and Bruce Shackleford re perimeter screening. Jan. 25, 2001 Meet with Mayor Coody in Room 313 re odor. Feb. 15, 2001 Meet with Mark Bradley re ADEQ permits. Feb. 20, 2001 Meet with Don Bunn at 1:15 p.m. Feb. 22, 2001 Partners meeting. March 7, 2001 Don Bunn at 9:00 a.m.; Mayor Coody at 1:30 p.m. March 15, 2001 Mayor Coody at 3:00 p.m. — prepare for Water & Sewer Committee. March 27, 2001 Water & Sewer Committee. March 28, 2001 Duke Solutions conference call. April 3-4, 2001 Charlotte, N.C. & Harrisburg, VA to Duke -Harmony plant tour. (Jim Ulmer, Jeff Richards, Don Bunn, and other NWA city officials.) April 19, 2001 Murray Flemming 9:30 a.m.; Rogers Tour 2:00 p.m.; Public Mtg. p.m. April 23, 2001 Conference call 10:00 a.m., Springdale/Fayetteville Biosolids. Bold signifies meeting about RLF or where RLF discussed. 2 May 9, 2001 Meet with Alderman Lionel Jordan at 4:30 p.m. — briefing on project. May 23, 2001 ADEQ at Fayetteville — agenda and sign -in sheet available. May 24, 2001 Partners meeting at 1:00 p.m. June 5, 2001 Odor presentation 8:30 a.m.; Review Appl. WWAC 1:30 p.m. June 21, 2001 Partners meeting. July 6, 2001 Meet with Greg Boettcher and Don Bunn at 8:30 a.m. July 9, 2001 Fayetteville Water & Sewer Committee 7:00 p.m. July 10, 2001 Meet with Don Bunn at 8:30 a.m. July 10, 2001 Fayetteville Council Agenda Meeting. July 11, 2001 WWAC at Little Rock with Don Bunn. July 17, 2001 Fayetteville Council, call for Sales Tax election. July 26, 2001 Meet with Don Bunn, Bruce Shackleford, et.al. 10:00 a.m. re environmental permitting. July 26, 2001 Financing seminar. August 1, 2001 2nd trip to WWAC (Little Rock) with Don Bunn & Lane Crider. August 2, 2001 Sierra Club tour and meeting (6:00 p.m. to midnight). August 5, 2001 Advertise Public Hearing. August 7, 2001 Council meeting setting Sales Tax election. Aug. 13-14, 2001 AutumnFest educational booth. August 16, 2001 Draft Facility Plan to Depositories. August 23, 2001 Partners meeting. August 23, 2001 Environmental Workshop at Continuing Ed. Center 6:30-9:00 p.m. August 28, 2001 West Side neighborhood meeting. August 30, 2001 East Side neighborhood meeting. Sept. 20, 2001 Facility Plan/EID Public Hearing at Continuing Ed. Center. Sept. 24, 2001 Review RLF application and re ASWCC meeting. Oct. 12-13, 2001 AutumnFest booth & display about Project and Environmental Issues. Oct. 16, 2001 Fayetteville Staff meeting re Project. Oct. 16, 2001 Meeting at Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission re ProjecUBiosolids. Oct. 18, 2001 Meeting/Conf. Call re Mayor's Town Hall meeting. (Greg Boettcher, Don Bunn, Maureen Hoover, Linda Bonner, Jim Ulmer.) Oct. 29, 2001 Mayor's Town Hall meeting. Oct. 30, 2001 Meeting with cities re Biosolids Disposal. Nov. 20, 2001 Meeting with Greg Boettcher and Don Bunn. Nov. 20, 2001 Meeting with Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission. Dec. 4, 2001 Meet with Greg Boettcher re MOA dates. Dec. 11, 2001 Meeting w/USFWS, Corps, AG&F, ASWCC, Mayor Coody, Greg Boettcher, Don Bunn, Ted Webber & Gary Dumas re. Environmental Coordination. Jan. 3, 2002 Okla. Scenic Rivers Commission Select Committee w/Mayor Coody and Greg Boettcher. Jan. 28, 2002 Mayors' meeting at Fayetteville re Biosolids. Bold signifies meeting about RLF or where RLF discussed. 12/04/2001 11:46 501-60561 ASWCC • PAGE 02 Fy J. RanOy Young. P.E. E*ocullva Director December 3, 2001 Honorable Dan Coody Mayor, City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: CS -050803-03 Fayetteville, Arkansas Dear Mayor Coody: �4rkansas Soil and cWater Conservation Commission 101 EAST CAPITOL SUITE 350 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 ATTACHMENT PHONE 501.662.1611 FAX 501.662.3991 The Water Resources Development Division (WRDD) of the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission (ASWCC) has reviewed the Final Environmental Information Document and offers the following comments. It appears every effort has been made to notify every agency, organization, citizen group, and citizen that may have an interest in this proposed project. The attention given to the Environmental Review Process (ERP) is greatly appreciated. Prior to the production and publication of a required Finding of No Significant Impact (Fonsi) and Environmental Assessment (EA) that meets the ERP requirements t`..c_e are a few things that must take place. A couple of these reviewing agencies have made comments requesting clarity so they may make a better determination of their position on the proposed project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program are two of the agencies requesting more information. The U.S. Corps' of Engineers will also be involved with the permitting of stream crossings and construction within "waters of the United States." These issues are being addressed with diligence and coordination is taking place at the time of this letter to satisfy the above reviewing agencies. Once again, we appreciate the attention given to the environmental aspects of this project and please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Keith enders Environmental Program Manager Cc: Lane Crider, P.E.; McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. An Equal DppoINry Ernooyar 12/04/2001 13:51 501-682-6561 ASWCC • PAGE 01 y Z9(a -,••'�; �'"�. ^ Arkansas Soil and cWater J. RanOy Young. P.E. Executive Oiraclor Conservation Commission 101 EAST CAPITOL SUITE 350 PHONE 501-682-1611 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 FAX 501.662.3001 December 4, 2001 The Honorable Dan Coody Mayor, City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: CS -050803-03 Wastewater Systems Improvement Project Fayetteville, Arkansas ATTACHMENT F Dear Mayor Coody: As stated in my October 15, 2001 letter, I bad no particular comments regarding the "draft facility plan"; other than the need to address the comments received from all other interested parties. It does appear that that mission was accomplished. The "final facility plan" has been reviewed, and it appears to be approvable. I would like to emphasize that final approval cannot be given until certain programmatic events have occurred. Specifically, the City of Fayetteville must have officially entered the RLF program; or have signed the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Next, the EID process must have been completed, with the issuance of a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact). At such time that these two key steps have been completed, official approval may be given. Any changes resulting from the EID or other activities (water quality modeling, etc.) may require the amendment of the facility plan. This would not pose that great of a problem. This is not a totally unique situation; as many communities at this stage authorize thc?: consultants to proceed with the development of plans and specifications. Please contact me at 501-682-0556, if there arc any questions. Sincerely, Michael L. Core, P.E. Project Engineer cc: James C. Ulmer, P.E., McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Greg Boettcher, Public Works Director, City of Fayetteville Pa Egret Oppaaaary Employer I V It 2 ,q d 4 a d4 LL ag N p dO N O O A Jg a �pQpQpQpQoQ OO O O p OO O OO O O O OO O OO O O O OO it.O O VI m m N N sjq-ueyy ATTACHMENT H ECO's Total Project Cost Summary Section Description Total Cost 169-01 General Regulatory Compliance $ 46,511.51 169-01A Regulatory Compliance Westside WWTP/MWY 2,423.48 169-01B Regulatory Compliance Westside Linework/RJN 412.87 169-01C Regulatory Compliance Eastside WWTP/B&V 246.43 169-01 D Regulatory Compliance Eastside Linework/Garver 929.72 169-02 404 Permit General Services 27,159.21 169-02A 404 Permit Westside WWTP/MWY 27,655.65 169-02B 404 Permit Westside Linework/RJN 52,471.09 169-02D 404 Permit Eastside Linework/Garver 26,829.88 169-03 Storm Water Permit General Services 55.76 169-03C Storm Water Permit Eastside WWTP/B&V .90 169-04 EID Review/Revision 55,591.20 169-04A EID Westside WWTP/MWY 13.69 169-04C EID Eastside WWTP/B&V 42.50 169-05 Public Participation Process 34,565.59 169-06 Candidate Conservation Agreement 9,642.80 169-07 ART Park 1,315.77 Total---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 285,868.05 q m 8 O C a CD co x CD N CD CD CA T ?PBT o a im o �m� T J o o m 0 O 3 co O y CA O y m 3 3 T O Pe N J N 3+ W <Da. Q Op a C ( Cm T N a CD y (D a) -, C m m c m Q axC 33o o 0 0 y o N N L m N W 3 n O Q rD CD O) I N (D O m A O J N .-. m O) V O) V V N m V Q� N a(OO0J, N N CD Oo coA a 1O CO I O N N O m A cc No 'Cl (D O O n N - N N O O C a coA A0o 0ocD C 3 to a w f D C) O N N N - 0N0) O) O)-Oo co 0CD N N N OO0Vo O A0 )O ) n O D N auw O o rn ww_°Jw rnrnmm CD X > ' Nt?p A ppo' (D w - w m m C/) z 6nI `^ a n C J IA NN 1 0770 ^ W m m C a0 b000O 8 C W ao OOO O 3 co co G7 w OO c n m m -1 Co ^ C ^ o. Cr I O1 I .-.0c, (Wl1 V (AJ1 CO O) O) O .1 O ^ N m 00-D O fD wm N d� N tVD CA coo N O) 000Avvp)w (�Op ay�Ny m 3 a CD a) I v) a' (N71 A O A A Co A W o) W 0 C 0 W a N N N W)D V ON W O 1O O OO-. O) aO]w a CO O CO (D y N... W O W I0000)0100 W d r ATTACHMENT J • 1tv of _ DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENC• To: Fayetteville City Council From: Don Bunn, Assistant Public Works Director Thru: Greg Boettcher, Public Works Director Mayor Dan Coody Subject: Contract Amendments Wastewater Improvements Project Date: August 7, 2001 In March and April of 2000 the City entered into contracts with Black and Veatch Engineers of Kansas City, Garver Engineers of Fayetteville, McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates Engineers of Fayetteville, and RJN Group of Dallas. The contracts were for the purpose of developing Preliminary Design Reports connected with the Fayetteville Wastewater Improvements Project. The contract amounts and the responsibilities of each engineer are: Black & Veatch Renovation, Existing Noland Plant $ 359,720.00 Garver Engineers East Side Lines and Pump Stations $ 429,392.00* McGoodwin Westside Treatment Plant $ 955,302.00 RJN Group Westside Lines and Pump Stations $ 638,267.00. and Development of Design Flows Total of All Contracts $ 2.382.681.00 * Includes Amendment No. 1 approved Feb 6, 2001 1 \J L Iv I0 Since the execution of thoucontracts in February and March2000, there have been several developments which has necessitated a change in the scope of the work and justifies increases in each of the contracts: 1. In the summer of 2000 the City of Fayetteville made the decision to participate in the State's Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Program as the primary source of funding for the project. By participating in the RLF Program the City obligated itself to a) Revise the Facility Plan of 1997 to the satisfaction of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, b) Prepare a revised Environmental Information Document (EID), and c) Hold a Public Hearing. 2. In early December it became apparent from preliminary data developed at that time that the cost of the project, based on established design criteria, would run well over $150,000,000.00. At that time the consultants were asked to revise their cost estimates and make the other changes necessary based on some revised design criteria*. Three (3) contract amendments are being presented for the Council's review and approval. The contract amendments are with Black and Veatch, RJN Group, and Garver Engineers. Explanations of each are: Garver Engineers: On February 6, 2001 the Council approved Amendment No. 1 with Garver Engineers in the amount of $37,860.00. This amendment was for the extra work in connection with the change in design criteria. Attached for your review and approval is Amendment No.2 in the amount of $37,218. The specific work included in Amendment No. 2 is: 1. Revision of the Preliminary Design Report as a result of the design flow changes. 2. Coordination with McGoodwin on Facility Plan and EID Revisions. 3. Additional Monthly Coordination Meetings. 4. Additional meetings with the Council, the public, and with the Health Department, ADEQ, and other regulatory agencies. * Two changes in the design criteria were made in order to reduce costs on the project. The ori&inal criteria called for the 2025 design flows to be met in sewer pipes flowing 2/3 full with no surcharge of sewers under ultimate flow conditions. This was changed so that sewerpipes would carry 2025 design flows flowing full and ultimate flows would be carried under a surcharged condition. In addition, man credit was taken for flow reductions as a result of future sewer rehabilitation efforts than onginalf planned • • • 2 This work is intended to ry through the Public Hearing tob celd in September and also cover any incidental work until such time as an amendment for the preparation of Detailed Plans and Specifications is approved. The amount of this • • amendment is $37,218, bringing the total not -to -exceed contract amount to $466,610. Black and Veatch: Attached for the Council's review and approval is proposed Contract Amendment No. 1 with Black and Veatch in the amount of $38.809. The work specifically included under this proposed amendment is: 1. Preparation and attendance at the Public Meeting to be held September 20. 2. Additional public information meetings (4). 3. Attendance at six (6) additional coordination meetings. 4. Provide coordination and assistance in the preparation of the Revised Facility Plan. This amendment is intended to carry through the Public Hearing to be held in September and provide for miscellaneous assistance until such time as an amendment for the preparation of Detailed Plans and Specifications is approved. The not -to - exceed figure would be increased to a total of $398,529 with approval of this amendment • RJN Group: Attached for the Council's review and approval is proposed Contract Amendment No,_ I with the RTN Groun in the amount of $124.903.03. This amendment is to provide compensation for additional work incurred in connection with the change in design criteria, additional public meetings, and coordination and assistance in connection with the Revised Facility Plan and EID. Generally, the work includes: 1. Work involved in revising flow projections for both east and west sewer lines, the existing Noland Plant, and the proposed Westside Treatment Plant 2. Additional public meetings and coordination meetings required until such time as an amendment is approved for the preparation of detailed Plans and Specifications. 3. Provide assistance in the preparation of the Revised Facility Plan and the EID. Exhibit A of the proposed Contract Amendment No. 1 gives a more detailed listing • of the additional work items required. The not -to -exceed Contract Amount would be increased to $763,170.88 with the approval of this amendment. • RI I. McGoodwin Williams, armed Yates: The engineering firm oilolcGoodwin, Williams, and Yates is currently in the process of Facility Plan Revision, EID preparation, working with ADEQ and the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission in connection with securing RLF Funding, and has attended several city related public meetings on the project. In addition, they have been working with the City in the investigation of the possible construction of a fertilizer plant in the Northwest Arkansas area which would utilize sewage sludge from the area cities and poultry litter. Contract Amendment No. 1 for the above activities will be presented to the Council for review and approval at a later date. It is the recommendation of the Staff that Contract Amendment No. 2 with Garver Engineers, and Contract Amendment No. I with Black and Veatch and RJN Group be approved. A summary of the proposed amendments is: • l= Engineering Firm Cost of Amendment Revised Contract Amount Black and Veatch $ 38,809 $ 398,529.00 Garver Engineers 37,218 466,610.()0 RJN Group 124.903 763.170.88 • Totals $200,930 $1,628,309 Staff also recommends the approval of a project budget adjustment of $236,572.00 to fund this request as well as provide funding for the additional financial services to be performed by Stephens, Inc and rate studies to be performed by Black & Veatch. 4 STAFF REVIEW FORM • • X Agenda Request Contract Review Grant Review f�/(i�n ��Zr* 1vi1 1� l�i''.� A f�rl-J1ED For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of Ee--e 5, 2002 FROM: Greg Boettcher Water and Sewer Public Works Name Division Department ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of a Consultant Contract Amendment No. I (original contract dated March 21, 2000) for Wastewater System Improvement Project in the amount of not more than $578,918.24 to address: ( I) Additional engineering services, outside original contract scope, by McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. - $115,100.06, (2) Expanded sub -consultant services by Environmental Consulting Operations for environmental permitting for the Project - $326,782.05, (3) Additional technical services by Hanifin Associates for public involvement program for the Project -$88,836.13, (4) Land appraisal services by Reed and Associates, not included in the original Project scope, to assess the Project's potential impacts upon neighboring land values - S2,600.00, (5) Cultural Resource Survey by Sponsored Research, not included in the original Project scope, to assess the Project's potential impacts upon historical and archaeological resources - $45,000.00 and (6) Flood elevation analysis services, not included in the original Project scope, to define 100 -year flood elevation for the West Side Treatment Plant site - $600.00. Current contract amount is $955,302.00, with the requested increase raising the contract value to $1,534,220.24. Approval of a budget adjustment is requested. The funding of a budget adjustment for the approved contract increase is from the proceeds of the Series 2000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Issue. COS E 1'O CITY: (Subject to Negotiations) $578,517.52 Cost of this Request 5400-5700-5314-00 Account Number 98047-10 Project Number Budget Manager 73.099 Category/Project Budget $ 73.099 Funds Used to Date $ -0- Remaining Balance X Budgeted Item Administrative Services Director CONTRACI'IGI N I7LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: Accounting Ma ager J Date ice Co..vu �f _ City Attorney Date Purchasing Officer , Professional Category/Project Name Wastewater Improvements Program Name Water and Sewer Bonds- Series 2000 Fund X_ Budget Adjustment Attached ADA Coordinator - Date _sJc�. In emal dnor Date STAFFREVIEW: Cos{S s"L,ec.f ♦o Ct4-t Cot.+c.tf 4-PPre"( Date Cross Reference OL Date New Item: Yes No ,//I/oZ ate Prev Ord/Rcs /I 34 -00 B- 1 SO t c Orig Contract Date: 3/ )-O S .• STAFF REVIEW FORM X Agenda Request Contract Review Grant Review For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of January 5, 2002 FROM: tree Boettcher Water and Sewer Public Works Name Division Department ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of a Consultant Contract Amendment No. I (original contract dated March 21, 2000) for Wastewater System Improvement Project in the amount of not more than $578,918.24 to address: (I) Additional engineering services, outside original contract scope, by McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. -$115,100.06, (2) Expanded sub -consultant services by Environmental Consulting Operations for environmental permitting for the Project - $326,782.05, (3) Additional technical services by Haniftn Associates for public involvement program for the Project - $88,836.13, (4) Land appraisal services by Reed and Associates, not included in the original Project scope, to assess the Project's potential impacts upon neighboring land values - $2,600.00, (5) Cultural Resource Survey by Sponsored Research, not included in the original Project scope, to assess the Project's potential impacts upon historical and archaeological resources -$45,000.00 and (6) Flood elevation analysis services, not included in the original Project scope, to define 100 -year flood elevation for the West Side Treatment Plant site - $600.00. Current contract amount is $955,302.00, with the requested increase raising the contract value to S 1,534,220.24. Approval of a budget adjustment is requested. The funding of a budget adjustment for the approved contract increase is from the proceeds of the Series 2000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Issue COST TO CITY: (Subject to Negotiations) S578.517.52 $73,099 Professional Cost of this Request Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name 5400-5700-5314-00 Account Number 98047-10 Project Number BUDGET REVIEW: $73,099 Funds Used to Date Remaining Balance X Budgeted Item Wastewater Improvements Program Name Water and Sewer Bonds- Series 2000 Fund Budget Adjustment Attached Budget Manager Administrative Services Director CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: Accounting Manager Date ADA Coordinator Date City Attorney Date Internal Auditor Date Purchasing Officer Date STAFF REVIEW: Costs subject to City Council approval Division Head Date Cross Reference Department Director Date New Item: Yes No Administrative Services Director Date Prev Ord/Rcs#:39-00 Mayor Date Orig Contract Date: prX� Page 2 STAFF REVIEW FORM Description Meeting Date Comments: Reference Continents: Budget Coordinator Accounting Manager City Attorney Purchasing Officer ADA Coordinator Internal Auditor FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor Dan Coody and City Council City of Fayetteville, Arkansas FROM: Greg Boettcher, Public Works Director DATE: January 3, 2002 RE: Wastewater System Improvement Project McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. Engineering Contract Amendment ********************************************************************** BACKGROUND The City of Fayetteville (OWNER) and McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. (ENGINEER) entered into an agreement for engineering services (New Westside Treatment Facility -Study, Preliminary Design and Report) on March 21, 2000, the contract's total compensation for authorized services being $955,302.00. This contract covers two phases of Engineering Services, the first being the aforementioned "Study, Preliminary Design and Report -Section IV. (A) and the second phase being the "Detailed Design and Preparation of Construction Plans and Specifications -Section IV. (B). Only the first phase services were negotiated and authorized by the City of Fayetteville. The engineering contract terms specifically noted that the compensation set forth in the agreement did not include costs for services associated with the requirements of the State Revolving Loan Funding Program. In addition, the agreement's terms specifically required all changes, modifications or amendments in scope, price or fees to he addressed by a formal contract amendment that is approved by the Mayor and City Council in advance of the change in scope, cost or fees. The ENGINEER, in the performance of the authorized services, subcontracted with other engineering and technical consultants to fulfill the scope of work. The listing of subcontract parties and their subcontract values are as follows: Boyle Engineering S 99,985.00 Webster Environmental S 83,820.00 Hanifin Associates S 98,252.00 Environmental Consulting S 17,086.00 Grubs and hloskyn $ 14,000.00 M.J. Harden 510,980.00 Environmental Services 533,170.00 A copy of the Engineering Cost Summary and the Detailed Scope of Work, as set out with the engineering S agreement of March 21, 2000 are included as Exhibit "A". This engineering services contract was one of four contracts covering a comprehensive wastewater system improvement project (PROJECT) for the City of Fayetteville. Other consultants and PROJECT sub - elements included: RJN Engineers -West Side Collection System, Black and Veatch Engineers -Paul Noland Wastewater Treatment Plant and Garver Engineers- East Side Collection System. The City of Fayetteville did elect to finance the Wastewater System Improvement Project using the State Revolving Loan Fund as administered by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission. This funding program does impose additional engineering, environmental and administrative burdens upon both the OWNER and ENGINEER. The ENGINEER has recently submitted a request for a contract amendment to cover the alleged changes, modifications and amendments in scope, price and fees. The requested contract amendment represents an increase of 5578,5 17.52, changing the contract amount from $955,302.00 to 51,533,819.52. DISCUSSION The information submitted by the ENGINEER has been summarized in the spreadsheet included herewith as Exhibit "B". This spreadsheet includes the original contract budget amounts, the current costs in each category as of December 2001 and the anticipated final costs to complete the facility planning/permitting/administrative tasks now underway or needed to complete the facility planning process. Following is a brief description of each cost category as 10 (1). nature of services provided, (2). scope of original services and (3). alleged additional services for which extra compensation is requested I. McGoodwin. Williams and Yates, Inc. -The authorized scope of engineering services related to the development of a preliminary design report for a new west side wastewater treatment plant, coordinating the plant's preliminary design with the other engineering consultants already retained by the OWNER for associated elements of the PROJECT. The engineering services scope was detailed in the agreement (Exhibit "C") and consisted of preliminary design activities including submission of a preliminary design report. The scope of services was reportedly expanded to include the following items, greatly increasing the level of effort: (a) Served as central coordinator for the PROJECT, (b) Expanded scope of engineering report from only the West Side Treatment Plant to include all four elements of the PROJECT including conformance with the requirements set by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission for a (Wastewater Facility Plan, Preliminary Design Report, and Environmental Informational Document), (c) Assisted in the coordination of and preparation of applications for funding from the State Revolving Loan Fund, (d) Developed and implemented planning for the Broyles Road Extension, (e) Administration of the expanded environmental permitting for the PROJECT, (f) Expanded investigations into the biosolids management planning for the PROJECT, including investigation of additional alternatives and coordination of recommended strategy, and (g) Special investigations into West Side Industrial loadings. The costs for those services are above the approved amount. 2. Boyle Engineering- The services of this sub -consultant related to the provision of specialized technical assistance of wastewater process evaluations, (selection and preliminary design). Due to the increased use of in-house resources of McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. the costs for sub -consultant services was below budgeted levels, with the unused budget amount being transferred to the services of the prime consultant. 3. Webster Environmental -The services of this sub -consultant related to the provision of 4 0 specialized technical assistance for odor control at the proposed West Side Treatment Plant, including assessment of odor potentials, evaluation of odor control alternatives and furnishing preliminary design recommendations for the selected odor control system. The costs for these sub -consultant services were below budgeted levels, with the unused budgetamount being transferred to the services of the prime consultant. - 4. Environmental Consulting Operations (ECOJ-The original scope of services of this sub - consultant related to the provision of specialized environmental assistance for the permitting of the proposed West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant. The scope of this sub - consultant's work was reportedly expanded, greatly increasing the level of effort, including the following activities: (a) Expanded environmental permitting scope from the West Side Treatment Plant to include all four elements of the PROJECT, (b) Increased the scope of the Corps of Engineers 404 permitting from only the West Side Treatment Plant to include permitting for all four elements of the PROJECT, allowing continuity of activities and eliminating duplicated efforts by the other consultants, (c) Initiated work on the NPDES Storm Water Permit for the PROJECT, (d) Added the development of an Environmental Information Document (EID) to the scope of work, said EID addressing the entire PROJECT; the development of the EID being a specific requirement of the Revolving Loan Fund under the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, (e) Participated in the public information program for the PROJECT funding, including attendance at public meetings, providing environmental information and justifications for the PROJECT and assisting in the dissemination of accurate environmental information about the PROJECT, (f) Assisted in the evaluation of and development of Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for the PROJECT, to address prospective endangered species concerns, (g) Provided specialized environmental guidance regarding the environmental issues surrounding the planned construction at the former Research and Technology Park along Highway 540, including preliminary evaluations of site conditions, site issues and possible mitigation measures. A more detailed description of the services provided by ECO is detailed in the correspondence dated November 27, 2001, a copy of which is included as Exhibit "D". The costs for these sub -consultant services are above the approved amount. 5. M.J. I larden-The services of this sub -consultant related to the provision of current aerial photography for the West Side Treatment Plant Site, to support the preliminary engineering activities. The costs for these sub -consultant services were at budgeted level. 6. Gruhhs-Hoskvn- The original scope services of this sub -consultant related to the performance of geotechnical services associated with the preliminary design of the West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant. The costs for these sub -consultant services were below budgeted levels, with the unused budget amount being transferred to the services of the prime consultant 7. Hanifin Associates- The services of this sub -consultant related to the provision of professional guidance in the development of a public information program for the proposed West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant, including development of a methodology for the public involvement, arranging three public meetings to discuss the proposed new treatment plant and coordination of the program with others concerned. The scope of work by this sub -consultant was allegedly expanded to include such areas of additional work as: (a) Expansion of the public information scope from the West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant to include the entire PROJECT, (b) Increasing the extent of public informational meetings from the initially planned three meetings to approximately sixteen public information meetings, (c) Expanding and formalizing the public involvement program to meet the specific requirements for Facility Planning/State Revolving Loan under the regulations of the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, (d) Expanding the scope of the 0 public information program to include the provision of written information/graphics/handouts to inform the public on the proposed Sales Tax Bond Issue held in November of 2001, (e) Expanding the scope of the public information program to include the use of video and web site mediums, and (f) Development of communication resources/tools/criterion to improve the effectiveness and clarity of the information presented to the public on the PROJECT. A more detailed description of the services provided by Hanifin Associates is detailed in the correspondence dated October 15, 2001, a copy of which is included as Exhibit "E". 8. Environmental Services Company -The services of this sub -consultant relate to the laboratory testing to provide background data for the preliminary design of the West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant. This work included water testing, sludge testing and sub- system raw wastewater testing. The costs for these sub -consultant services were below budgeted levels, with the unused budget amount being transferred to the services of the prime consultant. 9. Reed and Associates -The services of this sub -consultant were not included in the original scope of work of engineering consultant. This sub -consultant provided a detailed land appraisal report that evaluated the effects of wastewater treatment plants upon the values of surrounding properties. The appraisal firm researched the values of specific properties, comparing their value prior to and after the construction of a wastewater treatment plant in their immediate vicinity. '[he analysis found no loss of land value when a wastewater plant was constructed near a private property. This analysis was not included in the original scope of work. 10. Sponsored Research (Arkansas Archaeological Survey)- l'he services of this sub -consultant were not included in the original scope of work of engineering consultant. This sub - consultant's services are now needed to survey the PROJECT construction areas for the presence of historical and archaeological resources. The Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer has required that the PROJECT include a Cultural Resources Survey, hence, the need for this sub -consultant. This sub -consultant utilizes local resources from the University of Arkansas and is an approved provider of Cultural Resource Survey Services. This survey was not included in the original scope of work. II. TWH-The services of this sub -consultant were required to assess the flooding potentials of the proposed West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant. The flood mapping for the proposed plant site did not have specific 100 -year flood elevations, as required for the design of wastewater treatment facilities. The new facilities must be able to withstand a 100 -year flood without damages to equipment and structures. This sub -consultant performed a detailed hydrologic study of the site and established the design 100 -year flood elevation. This analysis was not included in the original scope of work. ASSESSMENT The final decision regarding any proposed contract amendment rests with the Fayetteville City Council. The terms and conditions of the agreement obligated the ENGINEER to secure prior approval from the OWNER for all changes in scope, costs or fees, said approval being issued by the Mayor and City Council. From a more liberal perspective, however, it is recognized that the scope of the PROJECT has changed including the decision to use the Revolving Loan Fund to finance the PROJECT, increasing the levels of effort by the ENGINEER. It is also noted that the agreement specifically exempted the work associated with the Revolving Loan Fund as a component of the original scope, said condition being further confirmed in the letter of transmittal for the contracts dated February 29. 2000 (enclosed as Exhibit "F"). Certain elements for which additional compensation arc requested do relate to the exemption for Revolving Loan Funding, however, other elements of the requested additional compensation relate only to changes in 0 scope for which no authorization was granted by the Mayor and City Council. This deviation from contract terms eliminated the OWNER's opportunity to review the changes in scope, fees and costs prior to their performance, and prevented negotiation of approvable terms, conditions and compensations. Actions of the ENGINEER have compromised the OWNER's ability to evaluate scope, assess costs, to investigate alternative methods and to adhere to proper procedures for the expenditure of public funds. The fault lies with the ENGINEER, who had sole control over his work and that of the sub -consultants. The ENGINEER's contract administration is not acceptable performance and should not be rewarded. In the request for a contract amendment, the ENGINEER has requested additional compensation to cover additional past and future costs associated with the PROJECT. The costs being claimed are at normal billing rates and include fixed fees (profit). In the agreement, the fixed fee for the prime consultant was established at 10.15%, said fixed fee being applied to the services of sub -consultants, direct labor, indirect labor and expenses. As a beginning point for the negotiation of the contract amendment, the OWNER may consider the removal of profit (10.15% fixed fee) from all claimed costs performed without prior approval, said discounting of the requested additional compensation being computed as follows: A. McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. - For actual services provided by the staff of the ENGINEER, an increase in costs of $140,819.19 has been requested, which is offset in part by a $81,819.85 under run of certain sub -consultants (Boyle (-$66,494.43), Webster (-S6,835.07), Grubbs (-$5,795.50), and ESC (-$2,694.85). Accordingly, the net increase requested becomes $58,999.34, of which, 542,500.00 represents work yet to be performed. In addition to the direct labor, indirect labor and expenses requested under the proposed contract amendment, the ENGINEER is requesting that the fixed fee (profit at 10.15%) also be increased by $55,700.00, raising the current agreement's fixed fee from $88,105.00 to $143,805.00. It is proposed that the fixed fee (profit at 10.15%) he limited only to the actual increase in the ENGINEER's costs, or 10.15% of the $58,999.34 or a fixed fee increase of $6,000.00. Accordingly, the $196,919.91 increase request is proposed to be reduced to $64,999.34 ($58,999.34 for direct labor, indirect labor and expenses plus $6,000.00 for fixed fee increase). B. Environmental Consulting Operations - For environmental consulting services, ECO is requesting a total contract amount of $343,868.05, increasing the original $ 17,086.00 contract by 5326,782.05. While this sub -consultant has identified certain tasks that were not in the original scope of services and has attributed cost to each category, the resultant costs are deemed excessive. Of the $326,782.05 contract increase, approximately $58,000.00 relates to work that remains to be completed and $251,696.05 represents work already performed without authorization. It is recommended that the OWNER consider discounting the invoice for work performed without prior authorization by a factor of 10.15%, reducing the contract increase by $25,500.00. Accordingly, the $326,782.05 increase request is proposed to be reduced to an increase of $301,282.05, bringing the total contract value to $318,368.05 for all work. This approach to the cost overrun should address the hard costs of the consultant, but will remove profit from the work performed without prior authorization. C. Hanifin and Associates - For development of a public information program for the PROJECT, Hanifin and Associates is requesting a total contract amount of S187,088.13, increasing the original $98,252.00 contract by $88,836.13. While this sub -consultant has identified certain tasks and services that were not in the original scope of services, and has identified certain activities that exceeded the original levels of involvement, the resultant costs are deemed excessive. All of the requested $88,836.13 in increased contract compensations relates to activities already completed without prior authorization. It is recommended that the OWNER consider discounting the invoice for services performed without prior authorization by a factor of 10.15%, reducing the increase by $9,000.00. Accordingly, the $88,836.13 increase request is proposed to be reduced to an increase of $79,836.13, bringing the total contract value to $178,088.13 for all work performed. D. Reed and Associates - For the land appraisal services, not included in the prime consultant's original contract scope, it is recommended that the engineering contract be increased by $2,600.00. Since this work was not approved in advance, the 10.15% fixed fee should be denied, making the increase a total of $2,600.00. E. Sponsored Research - For the performance of a Cultural Resource Survey, not included in the prime consultant's original contract scope, it is recommended that the engineering contract he increased by $49,567.00. Since this work is to he approved in advance of the authorization, the increase to the contract should include the cost of the cultural resources survey ($45,000.00) and a 10.15% fixed fee ($4,567.00), making the increase a total of $49,567.00. F. TW Fi - For the performance of a 100 -year flood level analysis, not included in the prime consultant's original contract scope, it is recommended that the engineering contract be increased by $600.00. Since this work was not approved in advance, the 10.15% fixed fee should be denied, making the increase a total of $600.00. The following table includes a comparison of the original contract values, the contract values proposed by the ENGINEER, and the contract values that would result from the discounting of all work performed without prior approval by the OWNER: COST CATEGORY PRIME/SUBS ECO HANNIFIN ASSOC. REED AND ASSOC. SPONSORED RESEARCH TWH "I'Ol'AI. ORIGINAL VALUE $ 839,964.00 $ 17,086.00 $ 98,252.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 S 955,302.00 REOUESTED VALUE $ 954,663.34 S 343,868.05 $ 187,088.13 S 2,600.00 S 45,000.00 $ 600.00 $1,533,819.52 ALTERNATE VALUE $ 904,963.34 S 318,368.05 S 178,088.13 S 2,600.00 S 49,567.00 S 600.00 $1,454,186.52 It was the responsibility of the ENGINEER to communicate the need for a contract amendment to the OWNER, affording an opportunity for review and evaluation in advance of the work. The decision regarding this contract amendment does rest with the Mayor and City Council, with the range of actions possible including approval, denial or negotiation. PRELIMINARY DRAFT COP AMENDMENT NO I TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES WEST SIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT: West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant CONSULTANT: McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc., 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 OWNER: City of Fayetteville, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, AR 72701 WHEREAS, McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. (ENGINEER) and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (CLIENT) entered into an agreement for Consulting Services dated March 21, 2000, and, WHEREAS, the scope of the March 21, 2000 agreement set out a specific scope of services, and additional items of work, outside the initial scope of services have been required to complete the study, preliminary design and report phase of the West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant (PROJECT), including the following items by the prime consultant, McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc.: • Served as central coordinator for the PROJECT • Expanded scope of engineering report from only the West Side Treatment Plant to include all four elements of the PROJECT including conformance with the requirements set by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission for a Wastewater Facility Plan, Preliminary Design Report, and Environmental Informational Document • Assisted in the coordination of and preparation of applications for funding from the State Revolving Loan Fund • Developed and implemented planning for the Broyles Road Extension • Administration of the expanded environmental permitting for the PROJECT • Expanded investigations into the biosolids management planning for the PROJECT, including investigation of additional alternatives and coordination of recommended strategy • Special investigations into West Side Industrial loadings and, WHEREAS, the scope of the March 21, 2000 agreement set out a specific scope of services for the various sub -consultants and additional items of work, outside the initial scope of services have been required to complete the study, preliminary design and report phase of the West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant (PROJECT), including the following items of work by designated sub -consultants: 12. Boyle Engineering -No change in scope 13. Webster Environmental -No Change in scope 14. Environmental Consulting Onerations (ECU' *Expanded environmental permitting scope from the West Side Treatment Plant to include all four elements of the PROJECT *Increased the scope of the Corps of Engineers 404 permitting from only the West Side Treatment Plant to include permitting for all four elements of the PROJECT, allowing continuity of activities and eliminating duplicated efforts by the other consultants *Initiated work on the NPDES Storm Water Permit for the PROJECT *Added the development of an Environmental Information Document (EID) to the scope of work, said EID addressing the entire PROJECT; the development of the EID being a specific requirement of the Revolving Loan Fund under the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission *Participated in the public information program for the PROJECT funding, including attendance at public meetings, providing environmental information and justifications for the PROJECT and assisting in the dissemination of accurate environmental information about the PROJECT *Assisted in the evaluation of and development of Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for the PROJECT, to address prospective endangered species concerns *Provided specialized environmental guidance regarding the environmental issues surrounding the planned construction at the former Research and Technology Park along Highway 540, including preliminary evaluations of site conditions, site issues and possible mitigation measures I5. M.J. Harden -No change in scope 16. Grubbs-Hoskvn-No Change in scope 17. Hanifin Associates - *Expansion of the public information scope from the West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant to include the entire PROJECT *increasing the extent of public informational meetings from the initially planned three meetings to approximately sixteen public information meetings *Expanding and formalizing the public involvement program to meet the specific requirements for Facility Planning/State Revolving Loan under the regulations of the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission *Expanding the scope of the public information program to include the provision of written in formation/graphics/handouts to inform the public on the proposed Sales Tax Bond Issue held in November of 2001 *Expanding the scope of the public information program to include the use of video and web site mediums *Development of communication resources/tools/criterion to improve the effectiveness and clarity of the information presented to the public on the PROJECT 18. Environmental Services Company -No change in scope 10 19. Reed and As0• .ates- *Performance of a detailed land appraisal report to evaluate the effects of wastewater treatment plants upon the values of surrounding properties 20. Sponsored Research (Arkansas Archaeological Survey) - *Cultural resource survey of the PROJECT construction areas for the presence of historical and archaeological resources, as required by the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer 21. TWH- *Calculation of the 100 -year flood elevation for the proposed West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant site and, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved between the ENGINEER and OWNER, that the above referenced items of additional work, when authorized in writing by the OWNER, shall be completed for the following additional compensation, with the agreement to be amended in the following particulars: A. Breakdown of Fees: "TO BE INSERTED WHEN APPROVED" B. Section XII. Fees and Payments is amended as follows: For the original and amended scope of services as set out in agreement and attachments hereto (Administrative Correspondence dated January 3, 2002), compensation shall be based upon actual salary cost for employees doing the work plus overhead at not more than 1.55 times the actual salary cost (said overhead rate to be based upon an independent certified public accountant's certified copy of "Overhead Computation" conforming to Fomi RLF-155, latest revision, as issued by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The ENGINEER shall furnish copies of completed RLF-155 forms for each fiscal year that work is performed on the PROJECT, with the rate to be adjusted retroactively for any fiscal year in which deviations result), plus a fixed fee in the amount of S The estimated total compensation for the authorized services is S , including a fixed fee of $__________ and S for direct labor, indirect labor, sub -consultant services and reimbursable expenses. C. Section XVI. Miscellaneous Provisions is amended to include the following: H. The ENGINEER and all sub -consultants providing services under this agreement shall be required to comply with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, latest provisions, with regard to records and information associated with the PROJECT. The ENGINEER shall comply with all requirements, including placement of identical disclosure requirements in agreements with all sub -consultants, and shall meet the obligations of the law regarding such items as electronic copies, time frame for responses, reasonable charges for information and similar conditions to those placed upon the City of Fayetteville. 1. The ENGINEER, in the performance of the authorized services, shall comply with 11 applicable schedules and conditions of the approved Memorandum of Agreement with the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, including amendments to said agreement. The ENGINEER shall furnish copies of all sub -agreements, invoices, billing information, correspondence and other materials as the OWNER may request to verify the accuracy of invoices and the nature of the work being performed. K. The ENGINEER shall comply with the applicable provisions of the approved Memorandum of Agreement (copy attached), shall comply with the applicable rules, regulations and guidelines of the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission - Revolving Loan Fund, including Regulation 10 provisions relating to nonperformance or negligence of the consulting engineering firm. These provisions are incorporated into the agreement by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF to the acceptance of the terms and conditions as set forth in the Amendment No I to the March 21, 2000 agreement for Engineering Services, McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas have executed this amendment to agreement effective the date set forth below. All other terms and conditions of said Agreement not in conflict with or not amended herewith remain in full force and effect. Signed this day of , 2002. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE McGOODWIN, WILLIAMS AND YATES, INC. FAYETTEVILLE, AR FAYETTEVILLE, AR Dan Coody Mayor of Fayetteville ATTEST — City Clerk L. CARL YATES President ATTEST- Vice -President 12 ATTACHMENT 6 ENGINEERING COST SUMMARY WEST SIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS MWY Project Number Fy-296 Engineering McGoodwin, Williams and Yates Direct Labor $183,635 Overhead on direct Labor (1.55) 284,634 Subtotal MWY Direct Labor+ Overhead $468,269 Engineering Subcontracts Boyle Engineering $99,985 Webster Environmental Associates 83,820 Subtotal Engineering Subcontracts $183,805 Total Engineering $652,074 Technical Support Services Environmental Consulting Operations, Inc $17,088 Geotechnical Services 14,000 Laboratory Sampling andTesting (3 Weeks) 33,170 Photogrammetry 10,980 Subtotal Technical Support Services $75,236 Public Involvement Hanifin Associates, Inc. $98,252 Reimbursable Expenses AirTravel Car Rental Lodging Meals GPS EguiF Subtotal F Rental $28,800 2,820 4,425 4,590 1,000 Total Estimated Project Costs $867,197 Professional Fee 88,105 Exhibit "A" Engineering Cost Summary Pagel of 2 •• s TRAVEL COST SUMMARY WEST SIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT _ FoYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS-- - Project No. Fy-296 Air Travel Site Visits $21,000 WEA 3,000 Boyle 4.800 $28,800 Car Rental Site Visits $ 1,500 WEA 720 Boyle _ 66 $ 2,820 Lodging Site Visits $ 2,625 WEA 900 Boyle 900 $ 4,425 Meals Site Visits $ 3,150 WEA 540 Boyle 900 $ 4,590 Exhibit "A" Engineering Cost Summary Page 2 of 2 C 0 ■#8;829■ j@R;;§#; , \k�k�� k■ ■| B§ 7 82!82@ q R 7 i§ ! 2§ § � & o § ■ 2 a 2 &e z | cn I- ■ <a 88 888 § \ f ` 2<zB M o. !8@9!888 q ,3= ! / §| =a,;. 4. cok3 § -• S § 's 8888888 a'■ ■A##§mf` N 7 w z § ! w `�;s88888888 C, ; ! \ a § � 888888,n n 8 ° #a!!#K/laaa 2 &±!z!a ,» 4. a § / }|| 2-!|1111k -!| f!! 7111 2 e ; �� Exhibit "B" West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant Attachment 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas MWY Job No. Fy-296 SCOPE OF WORK 1. DEVELOPMENT OF SCOPE OF WORK 2. CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT 3. PRELIMINARY DESIGN .. , ..,., I ..Iw u•: .• .• 1 . Ij Ii/. I •. I I.. _. .. '• • 1 1• 1 •'.•1 ,L_1, ••_I • 1\11 N\ 1•'p''• 1. 1sits, :1•II Pt 1 1 1 1 1•' 1 I. 1 ..l !II 1 •1 • •II ij \• + 11 1' 1 +.1 •'1'JII 11 1 • 1.• 11 • II •• +111 II•_.1.• .• I ,I%it.nl •.' 'JI I. I • • 11 I 1_.Y'11 I .•1 I. 1• 1 I.I.!tII 1 1 sic • I rt.IDetermine11 \•• 11 I. 1•I• • 1 •: .• po •1 • ... I Determine11 \•• .111 • • _• .1. I. t-, •1 • •• Ill Y 1 • I I •• • I. 11 1conditions1 _ I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I. w I K 1 1 ✓. 1\ 1 • 1 11 4111: I. 11AlternativesIj41jijt fll • 11 • 1 1 • 1 i• 11 \ 11 •11 1 + 1 1 .n 1 I .1 •1.� l 1: I• .\ 1 1 1 1 u. 1:1 1 • 111 +I 1• 1•' II I.v I•.w1 • I • 11removal4 1•. ••.1 .11 ulfacilities • i 1 54.: 111 11 u • esse •gt III 1 . 1 I. • 4 11 1._• • 1 J 1 _4 Clarifiers I.Y :1. 1 _M• • 1 ' I 1n : 1 • • •11• • ' •: 11 . 1 r •• .• 1 1 1 1 • 1 4 •. q 1 1 I ' 11 \ • 1 1• I • 1_ 1 • 1.-. equipment• I • 11 II 1 1 11 1 ..M +1: • 1 1'A • •, • 1 1 1• 1 1 I • 1 1•.• 1 1 • i • 1 + I 1 • • • 1 • • • .. : 1 • • 1 ' .. 1 ..1 1 • (monetary . I 1 non -monetary) Exhibt "C" Scope o Work Page I of 3 ,!.U,,1 . O • ' . • •. u 1 1 1 • . I • . 1. t4I u . • ..nv 1 1 UI•.A I r / lI 11,7 ' 1 . I1 • 1 • 1 -. I.1 I ✓. w w 1. . V _ I • . . . II I • I 'ItL.!1'r' ' I I • .. . • I .n\ 1 1 _ _. +1.+1 II 1 . • • 4i','t . I. +1 11 , ••I. •1 • -. _ • • 1 II II • •. •• ✓.•I II II IC• 11 • I I • _• • 1 I I I •'ill••. 1 . I i i I • • _.•II II+. -• +I I ,•I I. III IIIIY WIIt Ii,: J.• I I .. • I I . I •IA: ••I•I I. IIJ , .. 1 II¼iit!c.!lI I w I ' 1• •1 Y. : . • .. I • 1 1 ! . • n w I• . I • 1 iii .. .. ., • . • • I . I r . • • n • 1.. I •rI •. • I_ • • .d•1-• U I - -fljr liii p Hr • I.w I 111+1 -« •I II I,1 II • . 1 '.: 1 .• . - 1 . 11 . 1 I:. II Ii 1 . r r.• -.. 1.11 J. .r -. w 1 I -� IL• . ✓. L. 1 . I II • jr-hi \ ip I r ✓. n • . ,, • ..• n . .: I I 1 •. • I • • • ii I 1 • I. • . . . • :n • 1 .. ij • •.-: r: -. • I 1. -.- .. ..I • 1: •. • I : ..• . I � I : :II 1 �ty,tLA'. II -. • u II Il • 1 1 1.1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1. --- I Iir.. . u I I I - 1 1 1 i s .. 1• u w. • I I ' . . I •.1 . u .. :.,. • m . I v.. a .. I Y: I.I I .. II.YI •: I • 1 • • 1t':'j!_ .I II 11�+1 1 F .1 + 1 -- III I.w1: 1 I I I , II . 1 1 — 1 •:Y. *%V I ✓. I I : I• I I I I I:: M. 1. I I : 1 I -.I I 111 I• •' • 1. w: •/me I I • • ,• / II �.I In1. �-.. ••1 I1 �. v . • 1 �: u • .. I I I • rt . -. I I I 1 ✓ . +. • I 1 I . • • .. • • . A w I.. -}I nw • u.0 lul I I ..I C II I•II.1 ii.1 v. I I 1 1:. 1. «r 1 I .• 1 I •. • l 1.. • • .-\ .I 11 I .t.)ijt1I1 • 11I I I I 1 I I. I Y. • I ., 11 •1 •I 1 • ••.• 1II II, .1• • •I1 • :Vj • • I I I I • .•rt I .II .n 1• I • I 1 •• 1. I • • 1 1 1 • • 1 1• I -n • • 1 110! ✓. I .n ,flit.) . 1 I[.)t&)' 1• 1/ + ''I • I ,v iaJ fltIN 1 1 I I 1 1 MI: .. I1 A •. 1. I v w. l••. 11' I.1 • MI. I . I•n• . 1 .••: r1• . .I. ..n\ .I • I I - • 1 1. 111 I I I 1 11 1 •1 I w • • n I . • • • I • 1 I 1. 411 • • • •1 •11 .•11• vl '' • 1 •. .!,j. • 1 I : I • . • .1 1 • • . • • • • �: 1 . • 1 • I I . I . • I Y. N • Hn .nom 111 . 11 • 111 11 • I III 1 1 •- • I• 11 1 1 L w I M 1111 ' • w I • .: I v. 1 I. I: 1 Vr •• I • •. 1 v -n : 1 I . 1 • 1 . r: 1 • 1 • . • . I • wK 'D) I .:I - lt .I .• • 1 1 . • 1 II • 1 11 • I II 1 •• •I• •.•.• • I. 1: ••KI •_tP.. • r: I• . . •.n. • 1 I:.•w •I 11 •. .. 1. .I ...u...I•I LI ..•. .1 I •I••I•. u1•.:•.I jI .n 1 I .• O•• I 1 .n• I (ii I 1 . i 1 . .• I i.. • .. •I N 1.• ••: v I I •• 1.• • I I I 11 I .P 1. • I.I • • �. I+u P1 • + lu up I • • II I 11 1 .I 1 • • I .. L.+1 I . 1 'w :.ot.It I 'w Y.!J. . 1•: I• `Y: • '• .VI IIK . . ••.I ••v 1 II 1.1 • V 1 1.1 . Y. 1- • • •+I II -I 'I I1j4I Y•I' ri... y I •1 •• I 11-+1 .. • ••• I: 1: 1'11. 1: .• 1 1. . IT.. +I lIIjj 1'_ • 114 IIj ph ji Ii • • 1 I'I I- 1' •. • ., • • .1 • -. I • -. 111 11 • . • I • • .1 • 1 • 1 I 1 1 • 11 1 \Y I I •• 1 . NOV-28-01 WED 05:22 PM • • P.02 ENVIRONMENTAL III i,'COTI OPERATIONS NS November 27, 2001 ECO, INC. 1nle8rating ECOnomy and ECOlogy" Jim Ulmer, P.E. McGoodwin, Williams, & Yates, Inc. 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville, AR 72703 1313 Highway 229-5A Benton. Arkansas 72015 Phone (501) 315-9009 FAX (501) 315.9035 e-mail: eco@aristotle.net Re: ECO, Inc. projected costs for Section 404 permit for City of Fayetteville Wastewater Improvements: MWY project # FY 296 Dear Jim, As requested, I am providing information regarding projected costs for completion of the Section 404 permit application for the City of Fayetteville Wastewater Improvement Project. The City's decision -makers that are reviewing the projected costs should be aware that the Section 404 permit application for a project of this magnitude is a complex process that goes way beyond simply filling out applications forms. It will be important to develop the application in a comprehensive manner that provides the Corps with all of the required information. To date, we have printed a very rough draft of the 404 appl+.ration. The introduction, narrative descriptions of the 76 stream crossings (including photos of streams) narrative descriptions of the 21 linework wetlands and 50 wetland data points (including photos of wetlands) comprise approximately 140 pages. As required by the Corps, a Wetland Mitigation Plan, which details the compensatory mitigation to offset the wetlands that will be permanently altered at the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant site, is to be submitted with the application. Currently, our rough draft Mitigation Plan totals approximately 170 pages (including 56 wetland data points and wetland photos) and will involve further development. By the time we complete the Section 404 permit, the document will be in the neighborhood of 350 to 400 pages, excluding appendices and attachments. Although the Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) is coupled to the. 404 permit, it will be outside the scope of the actual 404 permit application. Exhibit "D" NOV-28-01 WED 05:23 PM P.03 • • Consequently, I have not included the actual development of the CCA in the projected costs for the 404 application. Below are descriptions of the tasks that remain to complete the 404 application: 1. Completion of COE Wetland Data Forms for Wetland Data Points We have completed approximately 98% of the work for this task, contingent upon the lack of wetlands on the site selected for the mitigation wetland. This has been the most labor-intensive portion of the 404 application. It involved field identifications of potential wetland areas, soil characterizations, hydrological evaluations, identification of plant specimens to the species level, and completion of the Corps' wetland data forms. On, the average, it takes about 8 man-Lurs per data point, depending on the location and number of plant species. With a total of 106 data points, a lot of labor was required. As required by the Corps, additional fieldwork by ECO, Inc. will be necessary to mark the delineated wetlands in the field. I will attempt to get the Corps to agree to allow us to complete this after submittal of the permit application. 2. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan The site selection process for the mitigation site will be a joint effort by ECO, Inc. and MWY. Many variables must be evaluated in order to choose the location of the 17 -acre constructed wetland. Building a functional wetland is much more involved than simply constructing a few berms to hold water. The design criteria will be developed as a part of the site selection process. ECO, Inc. will provide this information to MWY for the design work. A water budget/hydroperiod analysis must be modeled to determine the source and volume of input during the growing season to provide for hydrologic support of the proposed structure and functions in order to determine the amount of water needed to support a wetland plant community. Calculations with major input and output components of a hydrologic budget will form the basis for the wetland design. The calculations will need to represent a variety of years of rainfall data, which include median conditions and typical variations from those conditions. We will have to conduct an evaluation of potential water sources, which will provide the flexibility to regulate inputs to achieve a minimum level, and the output to limit the maximum level. We must answer such questions as: Is it possible to select a site with the input source to be provided solely from runoff? Is it feasible to construct a well as the primary (or supplemental) input source? Can an input source for the wetland be developed that will also provide irrigation water for the propr...c,d tree farm? 2 Exhibit "D" NOV-20-01 WED 05:23 PM All of the issues described above, along with others, must be discussed in the Mitigation Plan. For example, what depths of inundation are to be achieved, and what plant species can survive in these conditions? What will construction of the wetland cost, including the planting of wetland vegetation? We have found a source of wetland vegetation that sells clumps of sedges for $2.50 a bunch. Will this be cost-effective to the City, or will the use of wetland soils as a source of plant propagules better achieve the desired results? Furthermore, if the depth of inundation is not relatively uniform, there will be hydrologic zonation, whereby plant species adapted for specific depth ranges must be planted within the zones in which they can survive. We may evaluate the possibility of using treated effluent as an input source. To avoid having an additional permitted outfall, any excess water that is removed from the wetland could be pumped back to the wastewater treatment system to co - mingle with the effluent just prior to disinfection. The relatively small volume of excess wetland water would make up a very small portion of the total effluent volume. Pumping, as a means to rid the system of any excess water, however, would require a greater expenditure of resources and energy than the conventional weir discharge. The cost-effectiveness of this will need to be evaluated. Another issue that we may face is the possibility of having to conduct more wetland delineations. If the site we select has existing wetlands that will be altered during the construction of the mitigated wetland, additional delineations will need to be done. 3) Meetings/Additional Field Work Before the Mitigation Plan can be fully developed, ECO, Inc. and MWY will need to have meetings and site visits to evaluated the suitability of the selected site. I suggest that we also have a meeting with the Corps at the time we submit the application. Presenting the nature of the proposed project to the Corps should provide them with a better understanding of the project timelines and goals. We should also receive feedback from the Corps, regarding permit requirements, and time frame for the permit issue date. This will be an important consideration that will be associated with the detailed design work completed by the engineering firms. It will be more cost-effective for the City if the engineers have an understanding of the permit restrictions prior to completion of the design work. For instance, I anticipate seasonal restrictions to be in the permit, whereby construction activities across streams will be limited to a six month period during the calendar year. This will have a great bearing on project phasing for 3 Exhibit °D" NOv-20-01 WED 05:24 PM P.05 construction activities. Additionally, having an issued 404 permit in hand will be vital in the development of the construction contract language (environmental requirements) further down the road. As previously mentioned, the final development of the CCA will not be included within the scope of work for the 404 permit application. However, because the CCA will be closely associated with maintaining the 404 permit after it is issued, it will be essential to include the USFWS in some of the planning meetings. As I have mentioned before, Susan Rogers (USFWS Biologist) has requested a meeting with the City before the end of this year. We need a response from the City regarding this issue, because the USFWS will be among the regulatory agencies that will provide comments to the Corps after review of the draft 404 permit. Consequently, it would be prudent to have at least one meeting with USFWS before submittal of the 404 application. The final CCA can be developed at a later date. Susan Rogers has agreed to approach the CCA as a working, evolving document. Her primary goal at this point is to see some demonstration of reasonable assurances that the City will eventually execute the CCA. It will also be advisable to schedule meetings with the City administrators in order to provide project updates, general design and operation/maintenance strategy, and potential site location(s) for the mitigation wetland. They will need to be aware that the selected site will be required to be deed -restricted in perpetuity, only one of several decisions that will also have to go before the City Council. 4) Division of Labor As the 404 permit application process evolves, we will better define which tasks will be completed by MWY, and those to be performed by ECO, Inc. We will provide you with a general narrative of the mitigation wetland design cri►Pria, and the models to analyze the hydrologic budget. ECO, Inc. will also accompany MWY personnel during site visits in the site selection process. Additional input will be provided by ECO, Inc. regarding the most feasible approach to establishing wetland vegetation. At this point, we will need the following information to be provided by MWY: Drpwins • Aerial photograph/site location map indicating location of wetland mitigation site • Cross-sectional drawings of berms/wetland design drawings 4 Exhibit "D" "OV-28-01 WED 05:25 PM P.06 • • • The complete "marked" set of drawings for the RJN work, showing wetlands and stream crossings, based on our field work (sent to Lane). Garver has completed marking their drawings. • Drawing or aerial of delineated wetlands on Westside WWTP site • Cross sectional drawings for the entire Westside access road, with the stream crossings. • A "Typical Stream Crossing" diagram for Fayetteville similar to one completed for previous pipeline projects. • The cross sectional drawings of the effluent line, specifically for the single stream crossing (Station 16+25), and the Goose Creek outfall structure. Additional Informa tion/Documentation • Completed calculations/models for constructed hydrologic budget for constructed wetland • An explanation of what will be done with the existing Mud Creek outfall structure • Floodplain maps for areas within floodplalns where construction activities will occur • List of property owners along specific project scope areas within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Refer to marked RJN and Garver drawings for station numbers of stream crossings and wetlands. • Archaeological Study — This does not have to be completed prior to submittal of the 404 application to the Corps, however, the Corps will require a letter from the SHPO which states that the project will have no anticipated adverse impacts to cultural or historical resources before the final 404 permit can be Issued. 5) Projected Costs Based upon the information available to us at this time, I am providing projected cost estimates (in the attached tables) for completion and submittal of the ection 404 permit application to the Corps. This does not include tasks which will be necessary after the submittal of the application, such as annual wetland function and value monitoring (a standard requirement by the Corp), wetland construction oversight, or review/negotiation of the draft 404 permit. We do have a good general understanding of the necessary information to be provided in the permit application. However, it should be understood that the final regulatory requirements will be subject to the opinion and subjectivity of regulatory agency personnel. I understand the concerns expressed by some, regarding the costs of the 404 permit. However, our experience has proven many times that compliance is always the most cost-effective approach to our environmental projects. The 5 Exhibit "D" NOV-20-01 WED 05:26 PM P.07 importance of the 404 permit should not be under -estimated. It will have an impact on virtually every phase of this project. The first shovel -full of d;r? will not be moved until we have a permit that will have reasonable requirements, as provided by current environmental regulations. As you can see from reviewing the information provided in this correspondence, additional work will be necessary (primarily constructed wetland issues) before the 404 application is at a stage that is suitable for submittal to the Corps. It is vital that we maintain our inertia, in order to continue with the goal of obtaining the 404 permit before final detailed designs are developed. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Should you need additional information, please contact me at (501) 315-9009. Sincerely, Bruce Shackleford, M.S., REM, REPA President 6 Exhibit "D' •QY 4IQi�Il • H A O 3 33-• PC _�3 o' r Q = m e° 0 3 =° 1 m °: o api 3. E P, • • ,'.=c p p., .:•ue 3 A o 'J _ CD 3. .7 V w ^• N 1_I i ^• A f 0^• �•! ^• rr° 1 ♦D• c' ••• w d `' p 'o _ y fo p m �,'U1 '�_ 7 1 'fl O. A ; �• N a .t ro O. ^ C n A A -.O a n. C. a flre.. C. _. A oo -' n ii to ° a n Q+ d a !p ..r; d O 8 G d '�9 f y p H m y y N y •_ m p ^ O .•3y C: A s c ap d a z m ^- a a o d ,- i tp 7 0 0Vf 6n H Vi 6A fn S r' f ° () hil - A O. ... to oo .... ... 2 a fD -A,. ?: °y °•'� ^ `� N to O to p C' 7' a - 7 =, O. 'OO ao W ... ao J d Vi N o d ^• 'fig c 3 f ap A 00 - ,, w o o dpi C r: f7 r• C 7 a 6'9 d9 Vf iA Vl 6H ' 1 O 'r p fD N ^ -. A - . 7 00 N �+ fD; O d •.. • w 'O to O J w ; ? .• ,... (� < r• VI a a•� 00 'V 0• d (A fA fA fA (/f H {ya w �'• c tnJ - tnsp�c o a ^ OI - - 00 A O p' ci, C C ut O% J O -` J . '7 CD •• Qa CD y ' � � O o r• N ^ N O r C fD n Q. r • B �• 7 3 .» N S .O O ID:301-776-7409 0CT 17'01 15:05 No.014 P.01 • • hI Crwnrnlnlry OuryKVcn - t•wromxnrnlfiWernhn - Comnunhnfn,n $Mnfp,r,e•, ASSOCIATES 632 Main Street - laurel, MD 20207- 301.776.7407 - tax 301.776.7409 I NC. October 15, 2001 James Ulmer, P.E. Vice President McGoodwin, Williams & Yates 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville, AR. 72703 RE: Public Information and Communications Program City of Fayetteville, AR. — Wastewater System Improvement Project Dear Jim: The following information provides the sequence and circumstances affecting the additional program efforts required for the City's wastewater system improvement project. This work was primarily performed to comply with the public participation program efforts of the City's amendment to its 201 facilities planning process. The additional work that occurred, primarily in 2001, was not identified in the original scope of work for Hanifin Associates, Inc (March 2000 — Attachment 1), inasmuch as the overall technical efforts and final regulatory requirements were not clearly defined for the City's proposed amendment to its Wastewater Management Facility Plan, The City's initial objective in February 2000 was to provide a public information program that addressed the project's overall objective. However, changes in the direction in which this program would continue into a second phase was acknowledged by the project leaders in January 2001. At that time, it was determined that an increased level of public education was needed as a result of the analysis derived from the public information and opinion survey (October/November 2000). This analysis confirmed that low levels of public knowledge existed about the project, the methods in which it would be financed, and the overall affects to water quality if the project did not materialize. Subsequently, the project leaders agreed in January 2001 that an aggressive public education effort would be initiated over the next several months (Attachment 2). This decision was also reinforced by the City's newly -elected public officials. The City's new leaders recognized the importance of customer education in order to secure approval by State DEQ officials for the facility plan amendment. In summary, the additional work tasks and out of scope costs incorporated the following level of effort. 1. Redesigning the information program to comply with the Facility Plan Amendment Update requirements, based on the survey analysis and public official's requests. 2. Additional (bi-monthly) trips to provide essential program support and produce the work required for the Facility Plan Amendment update. 3. Development and production of a comprehensive public information project summary mailed to over 2500 residents and distributed through numerous Exhibit "E" Y Y Y Y S Gtl Cat 9 , M A I i £0'd V1000N 90:Si 10.21 170 60DL-9LL-i0£:QI ID:301-776-7409 OCT 17'01 15 07 No.014 P.04 Summary of Out of Scope Tasks Costs Public Information Program - City of Fayetteville, AR Wastewater System Improvement Project October 15, 2001 p D ? 'rDiidilptlon n OUT OF SCOPE WORK TASKS Special infdrmadon meetings and largo scale public 200O Jun Public and community meetings workshop to prosont program approach Conducting soelo-oeonvmie analysis on property 2000 Sep Databa6e Development owner Issues & values: estaullehing database 2O00 Oct Information Survey Printing, pwtege and mailing tees Travel Survey management Redesigning program to comply wtth overall program development: Additional trips (2) for Feafly Plan Amendment; Travel & project meetings associated with program 2000 Mar Survey Production development and survey presentation Newslotlw development for cdzens which Iransitionod Into an overall •layman' summery of the facility plan; Special graphics (or citlrens 2001 - Apr Public Education & graphics summary report and web page development Additional travel to support program reschoduling 2001 - May Travel & Moetings and facility plan amendment needs Web site development to supPat Cily needs, 2001 - Jun Public Education Materiels & travel education project summary 6 spodal graphics Public education (6nanco) fact sheet, workshop, 2001 - July Meetings, Materials & Travol meetings & travel (2) trips (3) trips. workshop & material production, meetings. 2001 -Aug Meetings. Materials & Travel and printing A displays (1)14. public hearing materials & production, 2001 - Sep Mcotings, Materials & Travel displays & printing Invoice Information: Date Invoice No. Amt 4/3/2000 961346 2461, 5/3/2000 961350 5604.3 6/1/2000 961358 3409.59 7/6/2000 961365 811/2000 961370 9/7/2000 981372 10/4/2000 961376 12/4/2000 961383 M4575.4 2/16/2001 861393 1/8/2001 961386 3/14/2001 - BBt397 • 4/4/2001 961405 - 5/2/2001 961408 7456.09 6/4/2001 961412 4195.95 7/5/2001 961415 5789.93 8/5/2001 881118 15063.2 -_ 9/4/2001 — 961420 — 26286.8 Total Invoices: - 152287.9 Exhibit "E" THE CITY OF EAYETTEVIEEL ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE February 29, 2000 To: Fayetteville City Council From: Don Bunn, Assistant Public Works Director 42 Thru: Charles Venable, Public Works Director Mayor Fred Hanna Subject: Contracts for Preliminary Engineering Services Fayetteville Wastewater Improvements Project The following three (3) items totaling $1,706,554.00 are proposed contracts for engineering services related to the Fayetteville Wastewater Improvements Project. The proposed contracts are with (1) Black & Veatch for services relating to improvements to the Noland Wastewater Treatment Plant, $359,720.00, (2) Garver Engineers for services related to sewer collection system improvements within the White River Watershed, $391,532.00, and (3) McGuodwin, Williams, and Yates for services relating to the new west side wastewater treatment facility, $955,302.00. The Council approved a contract with RJN for services in connection with the project in the amount of $638,267.00. All of the contracts authorize the development of a preliminary engineering report as a first phase of the engineering work and provide for future phases as the work progresses. Attached to this memorandum is an outline of the procedure that the Staff followed in selecting the above named consultants. The process began last May immediately following the approval by the Council for the purchase of land west of Fayetteville for the purpose of siting a new treatment facility. The Design Reports are due to be completed by November of this year. The Preliminary Design Reports will serve several purposes. The Reports will serve to update and revise the Facility Plan where needed to account for changes In conditions and costs since the Facility Plan was prepared (1995-1997). The basic conclusions of the Facility Plan will not change since those conclusions were based on comparative costs, however, the location and sizing of sewers and interceptors may change as well as the type of treatment considered, and the economics of various sludge alternatives. Also, enough detail will be generated by the studies to determine the size and location of new facilities and to establish reasonably accurate cost estimates of the work. The work program and cost estimates will be used to plan the financing of the improvements and will serve as a basis for the scope of work and cost of preparing the detailed plans and specifications. Exhibit UFe t. • 0 % We are considering utilizing the State's Revolving Loan Fund as the major source of funds for this project. The loan fund is managed by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and is backed by grants from the Environmental Protection Agency. They have indicated that a total of $60,000,000 would be available to Fayetteville over a two or three year construction period. The current lending rate is 3.75 percent. We have submitted materials to the State to determine the areas where we are already in compliance with their conditions and regulations, and how much additional work may be required to come into compliance. Areas that will be examined include our engineering selection process, form of engineering contracts, public involvement, sewer system evaluations as it relates to infiltration and inflow control, sewer rates, and accounting procedures. If we make the decision to participate In the program there will have to be amendments to these contracts to account for whatever extra effort that may be required to comply with ADEQ regulations. However, it is expected that the savings in interest costs over the life of the ADEQ loan will more than offset whatever additional costs that we incur because of our participation in the program. Exhibit "F' FAYETTEV&LE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Greg Boettcher, Public Works Director From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: February 26, 2002 • MICROFILMED Please find attached a copy of Resolution No. 22-02 approving contract Amendment No. l with McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. I am returning one original contract to you and mailing one original contract to McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates, Inc. The third original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. Your Budget Adjustment Form has been forwarded to the Budget & Research Division. cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Audit Steve Davis, Budget & Research 010 03 City of Fayetteville 2/27/2002 Update Index Maintenance • 13:47:12 Document Item Action Reference Date Ref. Taken Brief Description RES 2052002 22-02 MCGOODWIN, WILLIAMS, AND YATES INC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Enter Keywords.. .....: RES. 22-02 CONThACT AMEND MENT MCOOOD, WILLIAMS AND YATES File Reference # ......: MICROFILM Security Class........: Retention Type: Expiration Date.......: **** Active Date for Cont/Referred: Name Referred to......: Cmdl-Return Cmd8-Retention Cmd4-Delete Cmd3-End Press 'ENTER' to Continue Cmd5-Abstract Yes No (c) 1986-1992 Munimetrix Systems Corp. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 NEWS RELEASE Contact: Greg Boettcher (470) 575-8330 HISTORICAUARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD STUDY STARTED The Sponsored Research Program of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, a research unit of the University of Arkansas System, has commenced the cultural resources survey for Fayetteville's $120 million Wastewater System Improvement Project. Under the direction of Dr. Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., archaeologists will inspect all project construction areas, including proposed pipeline routes, new pump station sites, new treatment plant sites and all other areas that could be disturbed as a result of the planned construction. These investigations serve to locate and define resources of a historical, archaeological or cultural nature that could be affected by the planned work. Field identification of such resources allows appropriate mitigation measures to be taken to protect or avoid valuable cultural resources prior to construction activities. Resources of a significant nature are discovered as part of the proactive process, enabling: (1) amendment of planned construction to avoid the resource; (2) archiving of the resource, (3) protection of the resource or (4) other appropriate measures. The findings of the cultural resource survey will be consolidated into a technical report that will be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer in Little Rock, Arkansas, for review and approval. Any identified threats to significant cultural resources will need to be resolved prior to the issuance of an approval by the State Historic Preservation Officer. This evaluation and approval process must be completed prior to the start of any ground disruption activities (construction), but for publicly funded infrastructure projects, approval is secured during the preliminary design phase. The process of identifying cultural resources is most effective during the preliminary planning of a project. At this stage of project development, changes are easily incorporated into design to protect such resources and very little design effort is wasted on layouts that are in conflict with cultural resources. These responsible planning efforts provide even greater benefits during the project's construction phase by minimizing risks of cultural resource conflicts. Under the current federal and state regulations, the discovery of significant cultural resources during construction requires all work to be stopped until the significance of said resources is assessed by professional archaeologists, and approval to proceed granted by the State Historic Preservation Officer. The cultural resources survey now being performed avoids these types of costly delays and project complications. The City of Fayetteville has authorized the Arkansas Archeological Survey to proceed with the cultural resource survey work. The archaeologists conducting the survey will make every effort to contact property owners for permission to evaluate lands that could be affected by the proposed construction, but many of the proposed wastewater lines will be located along existing City easements. There will be no damage to the properties and when requested, the findings will be reported to all interested participating property owners. The cultural resource survey is scheduled to commence immediately, with the field assessment to be completed in approximately one month (weather permitting). A report on the findings is expected to be completed within 6— 8 weeks after completion of the field investigation. Hence, the report should be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer in August of 2002. The review and approval by the Historic Preservation Officer will depend upon backlogs and report findings, with comments/approvals expected in September of 2002. The cost of the cultural resource survey activities for the project is approximately $47,500.00 Mayor Dan Coody encourages all property owners to grant permission to the cultural resource surveyors, as it is important for these historical and archaeological resources to be located, cataloged and preserved for the future. The extent of the survey work includes approximately 30 miles of pipeline routes, 9 lift station improvements , the southern extension of the Broyles Road from the plant site to Farmington and the 300 acre west side plant site. 015 04 City of Fayetteville n aintenance/inquiry • Document IteAction Reference Date Ref. Taken Brief Description RES 2/05/2002 22-02 MCGOODWIN, WILLIAMS, Keywords ............... RES. 22-02 - - - CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 MCGOOD, WILLIAMS AND YATES $580,296.00 mcgoodwin File Reference #......: ORD CC OFC/02 Security Class........: Retention Type: Expiration Date.......: **** Active **** Date for Cont/Referred: Name Referred to......: Press Cmd 6 to update Cmdl-Return Cmd2-Check Out Cmd8-Retention Cmd3-End Press 'ENTER' to Continue Cmd5-Abstract Yes No (c) 1986-1992 Munimetrix Systems Corp. 8/12/2002 11:47:37 AND YATES INC