The URL can be used to link to this page

AP 02-05-09 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT IIBasic Services for a Complex World" REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA Thursday, February 5, 2009 2:00 P.M. District Board Room 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South lake Tahoe, California Richard Solbri~, General Mana~er Mary Lou Mosbacher, President BOARD MEMBERS Paul Sciuto, Ass. istant Gen. eral Manaier ....mmm Dale Rise, Vice President James R. Jones, Director Eric W. Schafer, Director Ernie Claudio, Director 1. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Short non-agenda items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the District. Five-minute limit. No action will be taken.) 3. CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA OR CONSENT CALENDAR 4. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR (Any item can be discussed and considered separately upon request) 5. CONSENT ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION I ACTION 6. ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION REQUESTED BOARD ACTION a. Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Pg. 43 Project (John Thiel) Authorize Staff and Counsel to Complete Property Acquisition from Delta Tahoe for an Amount Not to Exceed $59,000 REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - FEBRUARY 5, 2009 PAGE - 2 (Note: Public Hearings will not be called to order prior to the time specified, but may occur slightly later depending on the length of each.) b. Pg.45 c. Pg. 79 d. Pg. 111 e. Pg. 119 2:15 D.m. Public ScoDina Meetina South Tahoe Public Utility District Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan (Jim Hoggatt) 2:30 D.m. Public Meetina Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Project (John Thiel) Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Project (Jim Hoggatt) 2:45 D.m. Public Meetina Angora Tank Replacement Project (Julie Ryan) f. Payment of Claims Pg. 129 Hold a Public Scoping Meeting to Take Public Comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (1) Hold a Public Meeting to Receive Any Comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; (2) Certify the Negative Declaration of Environ- mental Impact; and (3) Approve the Additional "De Minimis" Finding that the project will have No Effect on Wildlife Resources; and (4) Authorize Staff to Submit a California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption (1) Waive the Minor Bid Irregularities; and (2) Award the Bid to the Lowest Responsive, Responsible Bidder, Resource Development Company, Inc., in the Amount of $1,743,395.00 Hold a Public Meeting to Take Public Comments on the Proposed Project for Consideration During Environ- mental Analysis Approve Payment in the Amount of $2,279,036.24 7. BOARD MEMBER STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) a. Water & Wastewater Operations Committee (Jones / Rise) b. Finance Committee (Schafer / Claudio) c. Executive Committee (Mosbacher / Rise) d. Planning Committee (Mosbacher / Schafer) 8. BOARD MEMBER AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS a. City of South Lake Tahoe Issues Ad Hoc Committee (Mosbacher / Jones) 9. EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY PURVEYOR REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - FEBRUARY 5, 2009 PAGE - 3 10. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) 11. GENERAL MANAGER REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) a. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan & Proposition 84 b. Tahoe Keys Water Company Purchase 12. STAFF I ATTORNEY REPORTS (Discussions may take place; however, no action will be taken) a. Grants Update (Paul Hughes) b. AB 642 Public Contract Code Amendment re: Design/Build Projects (Brad Herrema) c. SWRCB Recycled Water Policy (Brad Herrema) d. State Budget Update (Dennis Cocking) Budget Status State Revolving Loan Fund Status e. Federal Legislative Update (Dennis Cocking) Current Appropriations Request Status FY 10 Appropriations Requests Tahoe Restoration Act Reauthorization 13. NOTICE OF PAST AND FUTURE MEETINGS I EVENTS Past Meetinas I Events 01/21/09 - CASA Conference 01/27/09 - Ad Hoc Committee Meeting re: City Issues 01/28/09 - ECC (Employee Communications Committee) Meeting 02/02/09 - Water and Wastewater Operations Committee Meeting 02/05/09 - Finance Committee Meeting Future Meetinas I Events 02/10/09 - 8:30 a.m. - Finance Committee Meeting at District 02/11/09 - 8:30 a.m. - Finance Committee Meeting at District 02/11/09 - 9:00 a.m. - EI Dorado County Water Agency Meeting in Shingle Springs 03/11/09 - 3:00 p.m. - Executive Committee Meeting at District 02/12/09 - Lincoln's Birthday (District Office Closed) 02/16/09 - Presidents' Day (District Office Closed) 02/17/09 - 9:00 a.m. - Alpine County Supervisors Regular Board Meeting in Markleeville 02/17/09 - 3:30 p.m. - Water and Wastewater Operations Committee Meeting at District 02/19/09 - 2:00 p.m. - STPUD Regular Board Meeting at District 02/23/09 - 02/27/09 - ACWA Washington D.C. Conference 02/25/09 - 8:00 a.m. - ECC (Employee Communications Committee) Meeting at District (Director Mosbacher is Board representative) 14. CLOSED SESSION (Closed Sessions are not open to the public) a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)/Conference with Legal Counsel- Pg. Existing Litigation re: Meyers Landfill Site: United States of America vs. EI Dorado 149 County and City of South Lake Tahoe and Third Party Defendants, Civil Action No. S-01-1520 LKK GGH, United States District Court for the Eastern District of CA REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - FEBRUARY 5, 2009 PAGE-4 15. ACTION I REPORT ON ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING CLOSED SESSION 16. ADJOURNMENT (To the next regular meeting, February 19, 2009, 2:00 p.m.) The South Tahoe Public Utility District Board of Directors regularly meets the first and third Thursday of each month. A complete agenda packet, including all backup information is available for review at the meeting and at the District office during the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A recording of the meeting is retained for 30 days after minutes of the meeting have been approved. Items on this agenda are numbered for identification purposes only and will not necessarily be considered in the order in which they appear on the agenda. Designated times are for particular items only. Public Hearings will not be called to order prior to the time specified, but may occur slightly later than the specified time. Public participation is encouraged. Public comments on items appearing on the agenda will be taken at the same time the agenda items are heard; comments should be brief and directed to the specifics of the item being considered. Comments on items not on the agenda can be heard during "Comments from the Audience;" however, action cannot be taken on items not on the agenda. Please provide the Clerk of the Board with a copy of all written material presented at the meeting. Backup to any agenda item(s) not included with the Board packet will be made available when finalized at the District office, at the Board meeting, and upon request to the Clerk of the Board. The meeting location is accessible to people with disabilities. Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate participation of the disabled in all of the District's public meetings. If particular accommodations for the disabled are needed (Le., disability-related aids, or other services), please contact the Clerk of the Board at 530.544.6474, extension 6203, at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR FEBRUARY 5, 2009 ITEMS REQUESTED ACTION a. Ordinance No. 512-09: Cross Connection Program Enact Ordinance Adding Pg. 1 (Lisa Coyner) Section 3.3.6(d) and Amending Section 3.3.4, of the Administrative Code Regarding Cross Connection Program Exempting Installation of Backflow Prevention Assemblies on Hydronic Heating Systems b. Indian Creek Reservoir Oxygenation (1) Approve Change Order NO.3 Pg. 7 (Ivo Bergsohn) to Hobbs Electric for $9,743.83; and (2) Add 33 Calendar Days to the Total Contract Time c. Arrowhead Arsenic Treatment Facility Project Approve the "Purchase and Sale Pg.11 (Ivo Bergsohn) Agreement (For Potential Land Coverage Rights)" for the Purchase and Transfer of 1,173 Square Feet of Potential Land Coverage Rights from the California Tahoe Conservancy to the District Property Located at 1961 Arrowhead Avenue, EI Dorado County, California (APN 034-294-04) in the amount of $7,038 d. Replacement of Country Club Tank Approve Amendments to Existing Pg.21 (Julie Ryan) Task Order NO.8 for Tank Design with Brown and Caldwell, in the Amount Not to Exceed $9,987.20 e. Final and Secondary Effluent Pump Station Approve Change Order NO.5 to Pg.25 (Julie Ryan) Pacific Mechanical Corporation, in the Amount of $41 ,807.1 7 f. Markleeville Public Utility District Approve and Authorize Execution of Pg.33 (Gary Kvistad) Disclosure of Relationship and Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest CONSENT CALENDAR - FEBRUARY 5, 2009 PAGE-2 g. Regular Board Meeting Minutes: Pg. 39 January 15, 2009 (Kathy Sharp) Approve Minutes South Tahoe Public Utility District · 1275 Meadow Crest Drive · South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474 · Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us ~I~ Rlcluird H. 501t1rlt South Tahoe Put/He Utility Diatrict Directtn ErnIe CIatNlb """"- ~ JorwIe MMyLou ~ o.te II:lM 1215 M-aow Creet ~... South. ~uTattoo. CA 96150 Phone 530 fS44-6414 · F. !580 541-0614 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4c:i TO: FROM: Board of Directors Lisa Coyner, Manager of Customer Service MEETING DATE: February 5,2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Ordinance No. 512-09: Cross Connection Control Program REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Enact Ordinance adding Section 3.3.6(d) and amending Section 3.3.4, of the Administrative Code regarding Cross Connection Control Program exempting installation of backflow assemblies on hydronic heating systems. DISCUSSION: District staff has determined that certain hydronic heating systems contain intemal features that isolate the systems from a water user's potable water system, eliminating the possibility of any flow of contaminants or pollutants into the District's public water supply system. District staff has further determined that water users operating such systems should not be required to install a backflow prevention assembly on their service line. All hydronic heating systems must be approved by a District inspector to be exempt from the requirement of installing a backflow prevention assembly. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 512-09 CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTIO GENERAL MANAGER: YES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES CATEGORY: Water NO NO -1- ORDINANCE NO. 512-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ADDING SECTION 3.3.6(d) AND AMENDING SECTIONS 3.3.4, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REGARDING CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM BE IT ENACTED by the Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District, County of EI Dorado, State of California, as follows: SECTION 1- POLICY AND PURPOSE The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt certain changes to the Administrative Code regarding the requirement for backflow prevention assemblies for certain hydronic heating systems. SECTION II - DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Ordinance, the terms used herein are defined as follows: A. The District - The South Tahoe Public Utility District. B. The Board - The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District. C. Administrative Code - The compilation and codification of all of the Administrative, Water, Sewer, Street Lighting and Groundwater Management Plan Ordinances of the District, which establish the authority and the principles for the decisions of the District, and provide the public with guidelines applicable to District operations. SECTION III - FINDINGS The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District, County ofEI Dorado, State of California, make the following findings: 1. The District maintains a Cross Connection Control program, provided for in the Administrative Code. The purpose of this program is to protect the District's potable water supply from the possibility of contamination or pollution by isolating within each water user's internal distribution system or private water system contaminants or pollutants that could backtlow into the District's public water supply system. -3- 2. District staff have determined that certain hydronic heating systems contain internal features that isolate the systems from a water user's potable water system, eliminating the possibility of any flow of contaminants or pollutants into the District's public water supply system. District staffhave further determined that water users operating such systems should not be required to install a backflow prevention assembly on their service connections. 3. The proposed amendments are designed to reflect District staff s determination as to hydronic heating systems and to reflect the enforcement measures that the District may employ in ensuring compliance with the Cross Connection Control program. . 4. The Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the health and safety of District residents to adopt an Ordinance to add and to amend certain provisions to the Administrative Code regarding cross connection control. SECTION IV - ADD SECTION 3.3.6(d) TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Administrative Code Section 3.3.6(d) to be added as follows: "3.3.6(d) Hvdronic Heatin/! Svstems. The presence of a hydronic heating system will not be considered a condition requiring the installation of a backflow prevention assembly if the system is a "closed loop system" that is not connected to the potable water .system for the provision of make-up water. To be considered a closed loop system, exempt from the backflow prevention assembly requirements, the hydronic heating system must have a stand-alone reservoir for make-up water and a double-walled heat exchanger. To be exempt from the backflow prevention assembly requirements, a hydronic heating system must be approved by a District inspector." SECTION V - AMEND SECTIONS 3.3.4 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Administrative Code Sections 3.3.4 to be amended as follows: "3.3.4 ResDonsibilitv. The District shall be responsible for preventing the backflow or back-siphon of contaminants or pollutants through the water service connection. If, in the judgment of the General Manager or other authorized District representative, an approved backflow prevention assembly is required for the protection of the District's water system at the District's water service connection to any water user's property, the General Manager, or other authorized District representative, shall give notice in writing to such water user to install an approved backflow prevention assembly at each service connection to the water user's property. The water user shall install such approved backflow prevention assembly or assemblies at the water user's expense within the time schedule required by the notice. Failur~, refusal or inability on the part of the water user to install such assembly or assemblies within the time schedule required by the notice shall constitute cause for the imposition of administrative fines and Ordinance No. 512-09 Cross Connection Control Program Page 2 -4- penalties, or discontinuing water service to the property, pursuant to Section 6.5 and Section 6.6, until such assembly or assemblies have been properly installed." SECTION VII - SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance and its implementing rules and regulations is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or the Administrative Code. The Board of Directors declares and determines that it would have passed section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof of this Ordinance and its implementing rules and regulations and the Administrative Code irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be determined to be unconstitutional or invalid. SECTION VIII - EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance amending the above referenced sections to the Administrative Code shall take effective thirty days after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED the Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District at its duly held regular meeting on the 5th day of February, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mary Lou Mosbacher, President South Tahoe Public Utility District ATTEST: Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board Ordinance No. 512-09 Cross Connection Control Program Page 3 -5- South Tahoe Public Utility Dietrict ~l~ RIchard H. 5" Dlntctor6 Ett'N CIaIwIo Ja...1t Jo.. t.WyLou~ CWo._ 12'10 MMdow CtMt Prfw · South LaU f,k.. CA 961!50 Phone ~ 544-64-74 · fiaK fS30 541...oe14 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4b TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ivo Bergsohn, Hydro-Geologist MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Indian Creek Reservoir (ICR) Oxygenation REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Approve Change Order NO.3 to Hobbs Electric for $9,743.83; and (2) Add 33 Calendar Days to the total contract time. DISCUSSION: The itemized parts of Change Order No.3 are as follows: Item 1, in the amount of $9,743.83, is to complete engineer-requested panel layout, relay, wire and terminal block changes for the Master Control Panel (MCP-900). The changes are needed to address time delay errors in the relay logic and improve the panel layout by reorganizing terminal blocks and adding relays to segregate 24DC from 120V AC voltages and provide added terminals for field wiring to meters. These improvements are extra work items to be completed by the contractor's sub-contractor (Neal Electric) that were not included in the plans and specifications. Item 2, is a time extension adding thirty-three (33) Calendar Days to the total contract time. The added time is required to complete all engineer-requested changes to the MCP-900. Approval of the time extension will change the project completion date from February 15, 2009, to March 20, 2009. SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $9,743.83 ACCOUNT NO: 1029-8605/1CTMDL BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $321,034 ATTACHMENTS: Change Order NO.3 CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES CATEGORY: Sewer NO NO -7- CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3 Project: INDIAN CREEK RESERVOIR (lCR) OXYGENATION Contractor: HOBBS ELECTRIC Date: 02.05.2009 PO #: P20564 The Contract Shall Be Changed As Follows: 1) Increase $9,743.83 to complete added bench-scale testing, research, shop labor and material costs to complete engineer-requested relay, terminal block, wiring and backpanel and terminal layout changes required for fabrication of the Master Control Panel (MCP-900). The increase represents the total costs for all added labor, equipment, expenses and sub- contractor and contractor mark-ups to complete fabrication of the MCP-900. TOTAL FOR ITEM 1: $9,743.83 2) Add thirty-three (33) calendar days to the total contract time to account for added time to complete all engineer-requested changes to the MCP-900. This time extension will change the project completion date from February 15, 2009 to March 20, 2009. TOTAL FOR ITEM 2: $0.00 TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER NO.3, ITEM 1-2 IS: $9,743.83 "wM/;/;';",i'~I_ ";IilWI..flJ,h,JU'I. Original Contract $115,000.00 Previous Change Order $9,716.71 82 Calendar Days Current Contract $124,716.71 187 Calendar Days THIS CHANGE ORDER $9,743.83 33 Calendar Days New Contract Total $134,460.54 220 Calendar Days Contractor agrees to make the hereln-descrlbed changes In accordance with the terms hereof. The change In contract price and/or contract time noted Is full settlement for costs Incurred as a result of the change(s) described, unless specifically noted In Individual descrlptlon(s). Authorized By STPUD Board President Date: Date: Accepted By Contractor Date: Reviewed By -9- ~411IMA. ~rd H SoItIrft South Tahoe Pubric Utility District ~ ErnIe c!-...tlt> ........ ~. Jbtw Marylou ~ D_1l:lIIlJ 1215 MeNJow CrMt Drfvat · South Lskt: T4h04 · CA 961!50 Phone 530 544-6474. Fsx 530 541-0614 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4c TO: FROM: Board of Directors Ivo Bergsohn, Hydro-Geologist MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Arrowhead Arsenic Treatment Facility Project REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve the "Purchase and Sale Agreement (For Potential Land Coverage Rights)" for the purchase and transfer 1,173 square feet of potential land coverage rights from the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) to the District property located at 1961 Arrowhead Avenue, EI Dorado County, California (APN 034-294-04), in the amount of $7,038. DISCUSSION: The Purchase and Sale Agreement is needed to obtain 1,173 square feet of transferred coverage required to satisfy Special Conditions Item 3.E. of the conditional Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) permit (#ERSP2008-0856) for the Arrowhead Well Treatment Facility. Potential land coverage rights are available to the District from the CTC at the current price of $6.00 per square foot. The total purchase price of the Rights is seven thousand thirty-eight dollars ($7,038). SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $7,038 ACCOUNT NO: 2029-8864/ARSNIC BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $1,087,917 ATTACHMENTS: January 26, 2009, Purchase and Sale Agreement (For Potential Land Coverage Rights) for EI Dorado County Assessor Parcel Number 34-294-04/TRPA File #2008-0856, Arrowhead Well-Arsenic Building Addition Project. CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES 141'/ CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ CATEGORY: Water NO 1IjO -11- STA TE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Govemor CALIFORNIA TAHOE CONSERVANCY 1061 Third Street SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 (530) 542-5580 January 27, 2009 Ivo Bergsohn South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Re: Purchase and Transfer of Land Coverage For El Dorado County Assessor Parcel Number 34-294-04 / TRP A File # 2008-0856 Arrowhead Well- Arsenic Building Addition Project We have received your application regarding the purchase and transfer of one thousand one hundred seventy-three (1.173) square feet of potential coverage rights to satisfy permit requirements for your project in the Tahoe Paradise area ofEI Dorado County. The California Tahoe Conservancy is prepared to sell these rights pursuant to the terms and conditions of the enclosed Purchase Agreement. Once this agreement is signed by both parties, the Conservancy will then solicit the "documentation letter" from TRPA verifying the assignment and transfer of these rights. After TRP A verification, we will request your payment of seven thousand thirty-eight dollars ($7,038.00) for the purchase of the rights. (The check should be made payable to the "Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Coverage Mitigation Fund" and bear the notation: "Tahoe Conservancy Land Coverage Bank - Coverage Transfer". If you would like to discuss this transaction further, please give me a call at (530) 543-6033. I look forward to your return of the purchase agreement. Sincerely, ..-{ , ' I ~ _or: ~ '\......M...-( l." Amy Cecchettini Program Analyst Enclosures -13- @ 1 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (For Potential Land Coverage Rights) Seller: California Tahoe Conservancy Buyer: South Tahoe Public Utility District Date: January 26, 2009 Gentlemen: THIS AGREEMENT, entered into on this day of , 2009, by and between the California Tahoe Conservancy ("Seller") an agency of the State of California, and the South Tahoe Public Utility District ("Buyer"). 1. DEFINITION OF SALE Through this escrow, Buyer is paying Seller to perform and complete those actions necessary in order to credit a certain project, identified as the Arrowhead Well- Arsenic Building Addition Project (the "Receiver Project"), with certain ground coverage rights recognized by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (hereafter "TRPA") as meeting, in whole or in part, the coverage requirements of a TRP A Permit (File Number 2008-0856, EI Dorado County APN 34-294-04) ("the Permit") for development on the Receiver Parcel in the amount of: one thousand one hundred seventy-three (1.173) square feet of potential land coverage rights (the "Rights"). When credited to the Receiver Parcel, the Rights shall be used solely as described below, and subject to all of the terms and understandings set forth herein. Buyer is not obtaining from Seller any interest in real property in this transactiotl. 2. PURCHASE PRICE - PAYMENT TO SELLER The total Purchase Price to be paid by Buyer for the Rights is $7.038.00, to be paid by check made payable to: Tahoe Regional Planning Agencv Coverage Mitigation Fund. The check shall bear the notation: "Tahoe Conservancy Land Coverage Bank - Coverage Transfer". All payments by Buyer shall be sent to the following address (or to the Conservancy Office): Land Coverage Bank c/o Tahoe Regional Planning Agency P. O. Box 5310 Stateline, NY 89449 -14- 2 At the time of depositing the funds, Buyer shall notify Seller by letter or telephone, attention Amy Cecchettini, California Tahoe Conservancy, 1061 Third Street, South Lake Tahoe, California, 96150, (530) 543-6033. 3. CLOSE OF TRANSACTION This transaction will be completed and closed, and the transfer of the Rights satisfied when: (1) Seller has obtained (or caused to be obtained) documentation, signed by a representative ofTRPA confirming (a) that the final project plans have been approved under the Permit; and (b) that, effective upon Buyer's deposit of the Purchase Price to Seller, the Rights have been transferred to the Receiver Parcel to satisfy, in whole or in part, the transfer of coverage condition in the Permit (hereafter called "the Documentation"); and (2) Seller has provided such Documentation to Buyer; and (3) Buyer has deposited with Seller or TRP A the full amount of the Purchase Price. In the event that any recording fees, broker's fees, commissions, attorney's fees, or taxes are charged in connection with this transaction, such costs shall be solely the responsibility of Buyer. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, this transaction shall in no event close later than 120 days from the date of the Agreement (the "Scheduled Closing Date"), unless said date has been extended by written agreement of the parties (see Paragraph 4 below). Buyer shall be responsible for carrying out all actions necessary to satisfy the requirements and conditions of the Permit, other than the transfer of the Rights as provided under this agreement. In the event that the final project plans approved by TRPA do not require the transfer of the Rights to the Receiver Project in an amount as large as the Rights specified in Paragraph 1, Buyer and Seller shall execute an amendment of this Agreement, pro-rating the amount of the Rights to be provided to Buyer and the Purchase Price. In the event that the Documentation cannot be provided to Buyer by the Scheduled Closing Date, or any extension thereof, Seller may nevertheless satisfy its obligations under this paragraph by depositing to Buyer substitute documentation from TRP A, confirming that Seller has taken all actions required on its part, in order to credit the Rights to the Receiver Parcel. 4. EXTENSION OR CANCELLATION OF TRANSACTION (a) This agreement is subject to and contingent upon Seller's right to cancel this transaction if: -15- 3 (i) at any time prior to the completion of sale, in Seller's reasonable judgment, circumstances arise or events occur that effectively impair Seller's legal ability to perform under the transaction and generate the Rights; or (ii) within two (4) weeks after the execution of the Agreement (or later date approved by Seller), Buyer has failed to submit to Seller a copy of a filed application to TRP A for the Permit, or other TRP A document specifying the need for the Rights, in order to construct the Receiver Project; or (b) If, owing to Seller's failure or inability to perform, the transaction is not completed by the Scheduled Closing Date, or such later closing date as may be mutually agreed between the parties, Buyer shall have the choice of (i) cancelling the transaction, or (ii) continuing the transaction in effect. Nothing in this paragraph shall detract from any other legal remedies which Buyer may have in the event of Seller's breach. (c) If, owing to Buyer's failure or inability to perform, the transaction does not close by the Scheduled Closing Date, Seller shall have the choice of (i) cancelling the transaction, or (ii) continuing the transaction in effect. 5. SELLER'S OPTION TO RE-PURCHASE UNUSED RIGHTS (a) In the event that Buyer fails to commence construction under the Permit within two-and"-one-halfyears following conditional approval of the Permit by TRPA, or the resulting project 'does not require the full number of Rights being sold through this transaction, the Seller shall have the exclusive option to re-purchase the unused Rights from Buyer, at the original Purchase Price, pro-rated if necessary, less any closing costs borne by Seller (Conservancy) in the sale and repurchase of the Rights. The term of Seller's option shall be for 180 days following the~' expiration of said two-and-one-half year period (hereafter, the "Option Term"). Exercise ofthe option shall be by written notice from Seller to Buyer. (b) Buyer agrees that, ifit fails to utilize all of the Rights on the Receiver Parcel(s) within the two-and-one-half year period described in (a) above, Buyer will not transfer the remaining Rights away from the Receiver Parcel unless the Option Period has expired and Seller has not exercised its option to repurchase the remaining Rights. (c) Buyer further agrees that, following completion ofthe transaction, a signature on behalf of the Seller (California Tahoe Conservancy) shall be required on all applications to TRP A to transfer ground coverage rights away from the Receiver Parcel. This subparagraph (c) shall not apply if at least three years have elapsed since the conditional approval ofthe Permit by TRP A, and Seller has not, within the Option Term, exercised its option under subparagraph (a) to re-purchase the Rights. -16- 4 6. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS (a) Buyers shall not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement except to a transferee of the Receiver Parcel in connection with a conveyance of said project; nor shall any other party succeed to Buyer's rights hereunder, who does not also succeed to Buyer's rights and interest in the Permit. (b) Subject to (a) above, all rights and obligations arising under this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the assigns and successors in interest of the parties. 7. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (a) Use of rights restricted to the Receiver Proiect All Rights sold through this transaction may be applied only toward satisfying the requirements and conditions of the Permit on the Receiver Parcel, subject to Paragraph 6 above; except that prior to close of this transaction, Buyer shall have the right to designate a substitute Receiver Parcel, provided: (i) the Seller is notified of Buyer's intent to designate the substitute Receiver Parcel no later than the Scheduled Closing Date; (ii) the transfer of the Rights to the substitute Receiver Parcel, and the completion of this transaction, shall be subject TRP A approval of a permit allowing said transfer. Buyer's ability to designate a substitute Receiver Parcel shall also be subject to Seller's ability to provide eligible coverage from its inventory, consistent with TRP A Ordinances and Regulations. (b) Consideration Buyer understands and acknowledges that the Purchase Price being paid by Buyer is in consideration for Seller's agreement to restrict the development potential of property owned by Seller and to eliminate ground coverage rights thereon; for the resulting diminution in value of Seller's property; and for costs incurred in crediting the Rights to Buyer. (c) Seller's disclaimers The obligations of Seller in this transaction are limited to providing the Documentation (or substitute documentation under Paragraph 3) to Buyer just prior to completion of this transaction. Seller does not guarantee the ability of Buyer to obtain any other development approvals from TRP A or other agencies. Seller makes no representation: (1) that the amount ofthe Rights will be sufficient to satisfy all of Buyer's coverage needs under the Permit; (2) that the Rights can be applied or transferred to any real property or project other than the Receiver Parcel; (3) that, once the Rights have been -17- 5 purchased by Buyer, the Rights and/or the Receiver Parcel can be marketed or re-sold to any other party; (4) that the Rights now have, or will in the future have, any value deriving from the possibility that they may be marketed or re-sold to any other party; or (5) that no taxable event or property tax reassessment oftheReceiverParc~1 will result from the transfer ofthe Rights. (d) Buyer's representations and acknowledgments Buyer represents to Seller that Buyer is seeking the transfer of the Rights for the purpose of development of the Receiver Project. Buyer acknowledges that this transaction does not constitute the sale of a "security" under Federal or State law. (e) No documentary transfer tax This transaction does not involve the transfer or sale of realty for purposes of California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 11911, et seq., and no documentary transfer tax shall be charged to any party in this transaction. (f) Execution of other documents Buyer agrees to execute and acknowledge, at Seller's request, such amendments to this Agreement or other documents as may be necessary to comply with applicable law or administrative regulations or procedures of the State of California, provided said amendments do not materially alter the fmancial terms or duration of the transaction. -18- 6 8. NOTICES All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent by U.S. Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested. The date of notice shall be deemed to be the first business day following mailing. The parties' addresses for purposes of notice are shown beneath the signature blocks below. SELLER: CALIFORNIA TAHOE CONSERVANCY By: Date: Bruce Eisner Program Manager California Tahoe Conservancy 1061 Third Street South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 BUYER: SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT By: Date: Richard H. Solbrig General Manager South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 -19- General ManBllU Richard H. 5oil:l~ South Tahoe Public Utility Dietrict Dlrl'.ctorf. Ernie Claudio Jame!! ,. .JDMfl Mslry Lou Mo611.teher D..te Rise 1215 Mwow Creet Drlw · South Lake Tah~ · CA 96160 Phone 530 544-6474 · Fax 500 541-0614 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4d TO: Board of Directors FROM: MEETING DATE: Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer February 5,2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Replacement of Country Club Tank REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve amendments to existing Task Order No.8 for tank design with Brown and Caldwell (B&C), in the amount not to exceed $9,987.20. DISCUSSION: At the November 15, 2007, meeting, the Board approved the proposal from B&C for the design of replacement tanks at Angora and Country Club sites. At the August 7, 2008, meeting, the Board approved additional funds to add the design of a replacement tank at the Echo View Tank to B&C's contract, and to allow the Angora design to be completed and bid separately from Country Club Tank. As the Country Club Tank construction nears completion, staff is requesting that the Board approve an additional $9,987.20 to be added to B&C's existing Task Order NO.8 for services during bidding and construction. In their original cost estimate, B&C budgeted $3,595.40 for bid period services for both Country Club and Angora Tanks, assuming they were bid together under one contract. Not only were the construction projects for the two tank split, but the work at the Country Club site was divided into two separate contracts (one for sitework and one for tank construction). Dividing the construction in this way effectively doubled the effort required from B&C to bid the project, helping to answer contractor questions and attending a second pre-bid meeting. B&C is asking for an additional $1,717.88 to account for this additional effort. Construction of the Country Club Tank has encountered numerous problems that have extended the construction period by approximately 4 months and have required staff to seek consultant input. In particular, B&C provided additional review and recommendations to address the following unexpected issues: (1) coating repairs at the overlapping edges of the steel plates, which were found during inspection to have inadequate coating coverage; (2) structural repairs to one of the rafters supporting the roof of the tank, which had been improper!~if!stalled; and (3) structural review and ~ 'f' Julie Ryan February 5, 2009 Page 2 modification of the mixing system supports, which were inadequately designed by the Contractor. B&C is asking for an additional $8,269.32 to account for the additional effort required to see the project through construction to completion. Construction of Country Club Tank is nearing completion. The Contractor has a few exterior accessories to modify when he returns to disinfect the tank around the first week in February, but staff does not anticipate needing much help from B&C on these items. B&C's remaining activities are expected to be limited to project closeout and transfer of files. Staff recommends that the Board approve an additional $9,987.20 for services during bidding and construction of Country Club Tank. This work will be completed as an extension to the existing Task Order No.8 with B&C. SCHEDULE: November 2007 to March 2009 COSTS: Not to exceed $9,987.20 ACCOUNT NO: 2029-7063 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: Revised Task Order, Scope of Work and Cost Estimates. CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES-----F-- NO ATEGORY: Water -22- Labor Group " Effort Rate, dollars per hour South Tahoe Public Utility District 2008 Tanks Replacement Project Country Club Tank Level of Effort and Cost January 13, 2009 Project Management after December 25, 2008 • General project management, accounting, and coordination. 2.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 1,061.49 48.00 001 005 006 006 Bidding Services May 20, 2008 • Attended pre-bid meeting for the tank construction on May 20, 2008. 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 Engineering Services During Construction November 21, 2008 to December 25, 2008 • Reviewed Submittal No. 12 - bolted tank drawings and calculations. ▪ Reviewed Submittal No. 13 - bolted tank interior coating touch -up. Responded to RFIs regarding mixing manifold pipe supports. • Modeled the anchorage assembly using a finite element analysis. • Suggested modifications to the pipe support assembly. • Conducted field visit to Country Club Tank (Edgardo Ouiroz) on December 23, 2008. 0.00 3.00 12.00 8.25 2.00 Engineering Services During Construction after January 14, 2009 • Respond to four Requests for Information. 0.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 1,653.88 64.00 25.25 4,340.14 202.00 16.00 2,489.70 128.00 1,109.49 1,717.88 4,542.14 2.617.70 209.51 160.62 -. 206.73 143.80 95.57 Total 9,987.20 ~ P-62.r- ^l Co r'"'\-SQr-J w; n bJL odo p~d w-;u,~ C'~O~\-k South Tanoe > Public Utility District General Ma~cr Richard H. 5albrig -t Ditt',eU)n? Ernie Claudio Jame9 R. Janet; Mary Lou Mo6l1acher Dale Riae Eric Schafer 6~ U-PC~ BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4e 1275 Meadow Cm6t Drive · South Lake Tahoe. CA 00150 Phone 5:30 544-6474 · Fax 530 541-0614 TO: Board of Directors "Th(yt WA.~ "" error in tltm '1. Stl mOk"~ys -Cor n~ VAlw. ~. -r FROM: Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 '" ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Final and Secondary Effluent Pump Station REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve ihange Order NO.~ Pacific Mechanical Corporation, in the amount $_1,887'.17. t...: 41, 5~q. 15" (fl S ;).{. 6'8' M6...-e- ) J - DISCUSSION: Change Order No.5 addresses 12 work items tFiat are beyond the scope of the Contract and 1 credit for work eliminated from the contract. 1. While excavating for the foundation of the new Electrical and Generator Building, the Contractor encountered unidentified underground piping (likely associated with the old Administration Building). Where the piping conflicted with underground work, the piping was removed. This additional work to remove unidentified underground piping in the vicinity of the Electrical & Generator Building was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for an additional cost of $1 ,472.44. 2. With the demolition of the catwalk at Holding Pond #1, the District lost power to the sump at Holding Pond #2. There were no provisions in the Contract Documents to replace this feed. The additional work to replace the electrical feed to Holding Pond #2 was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for a net additional cost of $5,797.72. 3. At staff's request, the Contractor backfilled and compacted a hole in the project area that had been excavated previously by District crews. The additional work to backfill this hole was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for a net additional cost of $462.76. 4. Structural review of the Contractor's submittal for the aluminum gratings at the pump station found that the anchoring requirements were omitted from the Contract Drawings, and that the gratings designed were undersized for the anticipated loads. The additional work to modify the design of these items was performed on a Lump Sum Basis for an additional cost of $4,773.89. \. I- t Julie Ryan February 5, 2009 Page 2 '-' 5. During the course of construction, the Contractor found that the concrete pipe supports for the above-ground piping could not be constructed as designed due to the large diameter of the pipe. An alternative design was developed by the District's engineer, but not until after the original supports had been manufactured and delivered to the Site. The additional work to install the alternative pipe supports was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $2,165.49. 6. During construction of the yard piping the Contractor encountered a number of unidentified or incorrect piping configurations. The additional work to remove, relocate or reconfigure piping, and to survey the pipe locations, was performed on a Time & Materials basis for the additional cost of $8,094.03. 7. To allow construction of the yard piping to progress in a timely manner, the Contractor proposed an alternative configuration of the 10" #3 waterline. With this relocation, the District requested that the Contractor install an additional valve and flange spool to add operational flexibility. The additional materials for the valve and spool were provided on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of ~,6~S.S2.'~ The District incurred no additional charges for the piping realignment work. 4, 1'1. DO , ~ 8. During construction of the above-ground piping at the Pump Station, staff noticed that the design provided for pipe supports'at ;.ery close spacing. At staffs request, the Contractor did not construct two of the redundant supports. The Lump Sum cost savings for the work eliminated from the Contract is <370.43>. 9. During construction of the electrical services at the Pump Station, the Contractor brought to staffs attention that the electrical drawings did not provide for wiring motor heaters at the 8 motor locations. At staffs request, the Contractor performed the additional wiring work on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $5,650.39. 10. In conjunction with re-sizing the louvers at the Electrical & Generator Building (see Change Order #2), three gravity dampers need to be added to the intake louver. The additional work to provide and install the additional louvers was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $2,075.70. 11. To protect the raised valve box behind the new Sampler Building and the electrical panel at the Pump Station, staff directed the Contractor to install three additional bollards. The additional work to provide and install these bollards (and to provide welded caps on all bollards) was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $4,396.18. 12. At District request, the Contractor has installed float-type level sensors instead of the ultrasonic-type that were called for in the Contract. Additional programming was required to incorporate these levels into the flow regime. The additional work to change the type of level indicator and perform the programming was performed on a Lump Sum basis for a net additional cost of $3,022.67. \.r J \.. ... \... i- Julie Ryan February 5, 2009 Page 3 13. At District request, the Contractor will be installing upgrades for the District's licenses for its Wonderware software for the Plant's SCADA system. These upgrades are needed to run the new installations for the Final and Secondary Pump Station. The additional work to install the software will be performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $1 ,622.41. The Board should be aware that the Contractor's Second Liquidated Damages Deadline has passed as of January 30, 2009. This deadline required completion of the new pump station, electrical building, sampler building and electrical components. The Contractor requested extensions to this deadline based on delays in fabrication of the motors, but they were denied by staff. Installation of these components is generally complete, and they are undergoing testing and startup at this time. Staff is currently negotiating with the Contractor regarding time extensions to the deadline due to inclement weather and changes in work. Staff recommends that the Board approve the changes to the Contract (Items 1-13 listed above) in the amount $-41,887.1 ~ith no changes to the Contract Time'pr intermediate deadlines at this time. ~ .L .1 ... '1-2., ~..... 1.S SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $41,667.17 \f-2.,5'!*. 2.5" ACCOUNT NO: 1029-8676/EFFLEV BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: Change Order NO.5 CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES-fE!- NO CATEGORY: Sewer Genersl Man.r Richard H. Sol~ South Tahoe Public Utility District Director& Ernie Claudio Jamee R. JOMe Mary Lou Mollil:lacher Dale~ Schafer 1275 Meadow Cnset Drive · South LaQ Tahoe · CA 96U50 Phone 530 544-6474 · Fax 530 541-0014 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4e TO: Board of Directors FROM: Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Final and Secondary Effluent Pump Station REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve Change Order NO.5 to Pacific Mechanical Corporation, in the amount $41 ,807.17. DISCUSSION: Change Order NO.5 addresses 12 work items that are beyond the scope of the Contract and 1 credit for work eliminated from the contract. 1. While excavating for the foundation of the new Electrical and Generator Building, the Contractor encountered unidentified underground piping (likely associated with the old Administration Building). Where the piping conflicted with underground work, the piping was removed. This additional work to remove unidentified underground piping in the vicinity of the Electrical & Generator Building was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for an additional cost of $1,472.44. 2. With the demolition of the catwalk at Holding Pond #1, the District lost power to the sump at Holding Pond #2. There were no provisions in the Contract Documents to replace this feed. The additional work to replace the electrical feed to Holding Pond #2 was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for a net additional cost of $5,797.72. 3. At staff's request, the Contractor backfilled and compacted a hole in the project area that had been excavated previously by District crews. The additional work to backfill this hole was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for a net additional cost of $462.76. 4. Structural review of the Contractor's submittal for the aluminum gratings at the pump station found that the anchoring requirements were omitted from the Contract Drawings, and that the gratings designed were undersized for the anticipated loads. The additional work to modify the design of these items was performed on a Lump Sum Basis for an additional cost of $4,773.89. -25- Julie Ryan February 5, 2009 Page 2 5. During the course of construction, the Contractor found that the concrete pipe supports for the above-ground piping could not be constructed as designed due to the large diameter of the pipe. An alternative design was developed by the District's engineer, but not until after the original supports had been manufactured and delivered to the Site. The additional work to install the alternative pipe supports was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $2,165.49. 6. During construction of the yard piping the Contractor encountered a number of unidentified or incorrect piping configurations. The additional work to remove, relocate or reconfigure piping, and to survey the pipe locations, was performed on a Time & Materials basis for the additional cost of $8,094.03. 7. To allow construction of the yard piping to progress in a timely manner, the Contractor proposed an alternative configuration of the 10" #3 waterline. With this relocation, the District requested that the Contractor install an additional valve and flange spool to add operational flexibility. The additional materials for the valve and spool were provided on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $2,643.92. The District incurred no additional charges for the piping realignment work. 8. During construction of the above-ground piping at the Pump Station, staff noticed that the design provided for pipe supports at very close spacing. At staffs request, the Contractor did not construct two of the redundant supports. The Lump Sum cost savings for the work eliminated from the Contract is <370.43>. 9. During construction of the electrical services at the Pump Station, the Contractor brought to staffs attention that the electrical drawings did not provide for wiring motor heaters at the 8 motor locations. At staffs request, the Contractor performed the additional wiring work on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $5,650.39. 10. In conjunction with re-sizing the louvers at the Electrical & Generator Building (see Change Order #2), three gravity dampers need to be added to the intake louver. The additional work to provide and install the additional louvers was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $2,075.70. 11. To protect the raised valve box behind the new Sampler Building and the electrical panel at the Pump Station, staff directed the Contractor to install three additional bollards. The additional work to provide and install these bollards (and to provide welded caps on all bollards) was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $4,396.18. 12. At District request, the Contractor has installed float-type level sensors instead of the ultrasonic-type that were called for in the Contract. Additional programming was required to incorporate these levels into the flow regime. The additional work to change the type of level indicator and perform the programming was performed on a Lump Sum basis for a net additional cost of $3,022.67. -26- Julie Ryan February 5, 2009 Page 3 13. At District request, the Contractor will be installing upgrades for the District's licenses for its Wonderware software for the Plant's SCADA system. These upgrades are needed to run the new installations for the Final and Secondary Pump Station. The additional work to install the software will be performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $1 ,622.41. The Board should be aware that the Contractor's Second Liquidated Damages Deadline has passed as of January 30, 2009. This deadline required completion of the new pump station, electrical building, sampler building and electrical components. The Contractor requested extensions to this deadline based on delays in fabrication of the motors, but they were denied by staff. Installation of these components is generally complete, and they are undergoing testing and startup at this time. Staff is currently negotiating with the Contractor regarding time extensions to the deadline due to inclement weather and changes in work. Staff recommends that the Board approve the changes to the Contract (Items 1-13 listed above) in the amount $41,807.17, with no changes to the Contract Time or intermediate deadlines at this time. SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $41,807.17 ACCOUNT NO: 1029-8676/EFFLEV BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: Change Order No.5 CATEGORY: Sewer CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES----fE!- NO -27- ~ C6n.S~t W;n ~ ~op4ed ~~-.L-h ~ L'~O~'-k South Tahoe > Public Utility District G~t1eral Mat1~CI' Richard H. Solv~ ,. Director'!> Ernie Claudio James R. Jon~ Mary Lou M0611acher Dale Ri!'ie Eric 5chafCl' BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4e 1275 MesaowCm&t Drive. South Lake Tahoe. CA 96\60 Phone 5:30 544-6474 · Fax 530 541-0614 "Th(yt Wl~ "t\ error in ttem'1. Ste mON"u.~ -Cor nt,W VAIw. ~. -'F TO: Board of Directors FROM: Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Final and Secondary Effluent Pump Station \.,. REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve ihange Order NO.5 to Pacific Mechanical Corporation, in the amount $..1 ,8S7.1 '7. t...: 41, S~q. 2. S- DISCUSSION: Change Order NO.5 addresses 12 work items that are beyond the scope of the Contract and 1 credit for work eliminated from the contract. 1. While excavating for the foundation of the new Electrical and Generator Building, the Contractor encountered unidentified underground piping (likely associated with the old Administration Building). Where the piping conflicted with underground work, the piping was removed. This additional work to remove unidentified underground piping in the vicinity of the Electrical & Generator Building was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for an additional cost of $1 ,472.44. 2. With the demolition of the catwalk at Holding Pond #1, the District lost power to the sump at Holding Pond #2. There were no provisions in the Contract Documents to replace this feed. The additional work to replace the electrical feed to Holding Pond #2 was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for a net additional cost of $5,797.72. 3. At staff's request, the Contractor backfilled and compacted a hole in the project area that had been excavated previously by District crews. The additional work to backfill this hole was performed on a Time & Materials Basis for a net additional cost of $462.76. 4. Structural review of the Contractor's submittal for the aluminum gratings at the pump station found that the anchoring requirements were omitted from the Contract Drawings, and that the gratings designed were undersized for the anticipated loads. The additional work to modify the design of these items was performed on a Lump Sum Basis for an additional cost of $4,773.89. \., :fo f Julie Ryan February 5, 2009 Page 2 \." 5. During the course of construction, the Contractor found that the concrete pipe supports for the above-ground piping could not be constructed as designed due to the large diameter of the pipe. An alternative design was developed by the District's engineer, but not until after the original supports had been manufactured and delivered to the Site. The additional work to install the alternative pipe supports was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $2,165.49. 6. During construction of the yard piping the Contractor encountered a number of unidentified or incorrect piping configurations. The additional work to remove, relocate or reconfigure piping, and to survey the pipe locations, was performed on a Time & Materials basis for the additional cost of $8,094.03. 7. To allow construction of the yard piping to progress in a timely manner, the Contractor proposed an alternative configuration of the 10" #3 waterline. With this relocation, the District requested that the Contractor install an additional valve and flange spool to add operational flexibility. The additional materials for the valve and spool were provided on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $2,6-43.92~ The District incurred no additional charges for the piping realignment work. ., 111. DO , \.,. 8. During construction of the above-ground piping at the Pump Station, staff noticed that the design provided for pipe supports"at..ery close spacing. At staffs request, the Contractor did not construct two of the redundant supports. The Lump Sum cost savings for the work eliminated from the Contract is <370.43>. 9. During construction of the electrical services at the Pump Station, the Contractor brought to staffs attention that the electrical drawings did not provide for wiring motor heaters at the 8 motor locations. At staffs request, the Contractor performed the additional wiring work on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $5,650.39. 10. In conjunction with re-sizing the louvers at the Electrical & Generator Building (see Change Order #2), three gravity dampers need to be added to the intake louver. The additional work to provide and install the additional louvers was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $2,075.70. 11. To protect the raised valve box behind the new Sampler Building and the electrical panel at the Pump Station, staff directed the Contractor to install three additional bollards. The additional work to provide and install these bollards (and to provide welded caps on all bollards) was performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $4,396.18. 12. At District request, the Contractor has installed float-type level sensors instead of the ultrasonic-type that were called for in the Contract. Additional programming was required to incorporate these levels into the flow regime. The additional work to change the type of level indicator and perform the programming was performed on a Lump Sum basis for a net additional cost of $3,022.67. '-' i ,< f \.., ~ ~ .. Julie Ryan February 5, 2009 Page 3 13. At District request, the Contractor will be installing upgrades for the District's licenses for its Wonderware software for the Plant's SCADA system. These upgrades are needed to run the new installations for the Final and Secondary Pump Station. The additional work to install the software will be performed on a Lump Sum basis for an additional cost of $1 ,622.41. The Board should be aware that the Contractor's Second Liquidated Damages Deadline has passed as of January 30, 2009. This deadline required completion of the new pump station, electrical building, sampler building and electrical components. The Contractor requested extensions to this deadline based on delays in fabrication of the motors, but they were denied by staff. Installation of these components is generally complete, and they are undergoing testing and startup at this time. Staff is currently negotiating with the Contractor regarding time extensions to the deadline due to inclement weather and changes in work. Staff recommends that the Board approve the changes to the Contract (Items 1-13 listed above) in the amount $41,887.1~ith no changes to the Contract Time4pr intermediate deadlines at this time. ~ ... .1 ~ '1-1, 51 ar. IS SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $41,867.17' q1, 5'!*. 2.5' ACCOUNT NO: 1029-8676/EFFLEV BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: Change Order NO.5 CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES~ NO CATEGORY: Sewer CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ~ Project Final and Secondary Effluent PumD Station Contractor PACIFIC MECHANICAL CORPORATION Date: February 5.2009 PO # P19831 The Contract Shall Be Changed As Follows: A. Amend Bid Item 16, to include labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to remove unidentified underground piping in the vicinity of the Electrical and Generator Building for an additional cost of $1472.44as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00045 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested by the District in Construction Memorandum #13, dated June 6, 2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM A IS $1,472.44 TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER #5 IS A + B + C + D + E + F + G + H + I + J + K + L + M = $41,807.17 Ori inal Contract $ 6,011,817.00 Previous Chan e Orders $ 182,580.71 Current Contract $ 6,194 391.71 THIS CHANGE ORDER $ 41,807.17 New Contract Total $ 6,236,198.88 Contractor agrees to make the herein-described changes In accordance with the terms hereof. The change in contract price and/or contract time noted Is full settlement for costs Incurred as a result of the change(s) described, unless specifically noted In Individual descrlptlon(s). Date: Authorized By STPUD Board President Date: Accepted By Contractor Date: Reviewed By -29- 1 B. Amend Bid Item 12 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs to install an electrical feed to Holding Pond #2. The net difference in cost for this item is $5,797.72 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00042 (attached). This item addresses in full the charges for additional work requested by the District in Construction Memorandum #14, dated July 11,2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM B 18$5,797.72 C. Amend Bid Item 12 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to backfill a hole in the project area on July 10, 2008. The net additional cost for this item is $462.76 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00050 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested by the District in Construction Memorandum #15, dated July 11, 2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM C 18 $462.76 D. Amend Bid Item 13 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to modify the aluminum gratings at the new pump station. The additional cost for this item is $4,773.89 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00040 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in the District's response to Shop Drawing Nos. 53 and 53A, dated July 22 and August 21, 2008, respectively. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM D IS $4,773.89 E. Amend Bid Item 12 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to modify the concrete pipe supports for the above-ground piping at the Pump Station. The additional cost for this item is $2,165.49 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00044 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in the Response to RFI #61, dated July 18, 2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM E 18 $2,165.49 F. Amend Bid Item 12 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to address unidentified piping and incorrect piping configurations, including survey of the unidentified piping. The additional cost for this item is $8,094.03 as detailed in Change Order Quote Nos. 00038 and 00054 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in the Response to RFI #85, dated August 26, 2008, and Construction Memorandum #23, dated August 18,2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM F 18 $8,094.03 G. Amend Bid Item 12 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to realign the 10" #3 waterline. The additional cost for this item is $2,643.92 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00051 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in the Response to RFI #95, dated September 19, -30- 2 2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM G IS $2,643.92 H. Amend Bid Item 12 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to eliminate two flow meter supports at the above-ground piping from the Contract. The net savings for this item is <$370.43> as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00047 (attached). This item addresses in full the net savings for the work eliminated in Construction Memorandum #38, dated November 14, 2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM H IS < $370.43> I. Amend Bid Item 21 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to install wiring to the 8 motor heaters. The additional cost for this item is $5,650.39 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00052 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in the Response to RFI #117, dated November 13, 2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM liS $5,650.39 J. Amend Bid Item 16 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to install three additional gravity dampers on the intake louver at the Electrical and Generator Building. The additional cost for this item is $2,075.70 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00039 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in the REVISED Response to RFI #116, dated November 26,2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM J IS $2,075.70 K. Amend Bid Item 6 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to install three additional bollards and provide weld caps on all bollards. The additional cost for this item is $4,396.18 as detailed in Change Order Quote Nos. 00034 and 00031 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in Construction Memorandum #50, dated January 23,2009. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM K IS $4,396.18 L. Amend Bid Item 13 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to install float-type level sensors in lieu of ultrasonic-type, including associated programming for flow pacing. The additional cost for this item is $3,022.67 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00053 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in the Response to RFI #121, dated December 12, 2008. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM LIS 3,022.67 -31- 3 M. Amend Bid Item 22 to include all labor, equipment, materials and subcontractor costs necessary to provide upgrades to Wonderware software. The additional cost for this item is $1,622.41 as detailed in Change Order Quote No. 00033 (attached). This item addresses in full the additional cost for the work requested in Construction Memorandum #51, dated January 23, 2009. This item does not address any impacts to Contract Time or intermediate deadlines resulting from this change in work. TOTAL FOR ITEM M IS 1,622.41 TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER #5 IS A + B + C + D + E + F + G + H + I + J + K + L + M = $41,807.17 -32- 4 ~I~ Richard H. 5ol""e South Tahoe Public Utility District Dnctor& Ernie Cbtudlo ~~. Jone& MIry Lou ~ O-*llON 1215 Meadow CrNt Drfwt.. South laM Tahoe · CA 96U50 t"hoM 530 !544-0414' Fsx 530 !541-D614 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 4f TO: Board of Directors FROM: Gary M. Kvistad, Esq. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Markleeville Public Utility District REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Approve and authorize execution of the attached Disclosure of Relationship and Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest. DISCUSSION: The Markleeville Public Utility District (MPUD) has requested that Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (BHFS) represent the MPUD with respect to sewer service requested by Mr. Abdoo for his proposed development in Markleeville. Our firm is agreeable to such representation provided it would not disqualify BHFS from representing the District in the future if a dispute or transaction arose between the District and MPUD. While there is no conflict at this point, in an abundance of caution, BHFS is requesting MPUD to execute a similar waiver in order to maintain our relationship with the District. MPUD is currently considering our proposal for representation. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: Disclosure of Relationship and Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTj: GENERAL MANAGER: YES ~H CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES F CATEGORY: General NO NO -33- Brownstei n I Hyatt Farber I Schreck .A Strategic Califo,."ia Merger with Hatch & Parent January 27,2009 Gary M. Kvlstad Attomey at Law 805.882.1414 tel 805.965.4333 fax GKvistad@bhfs.com VIA U.S. MAIL Richard .Solbrlg, General Manager South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Re: Disclosure of Relationship and Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest Dear Richard: As discussed, the purpose of this letter Is to disclose to you in writing the potential conflict of Interest which arises from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP's ("BrownsteinW) proposed representation of Markleevllle Public Utility Dlsbict (MPUD) regarding Its provisIon of sewer service to a proposed development owned by Mr. Abdoo (Project). We are general counsel to the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) regarding STPUD's various legal matters Including, but not limited to, wastewater, water, environmental, and other matters In the Lake Tahoe area as well as STPUD's recycled water operations in Alpine County, California. We have represented STPUD for many years and anticipate representing STPUD into the future. Our proposed representation of MPUD regarding the Project, an unrelated matter, does not create an indirect or direct conflict; however, by concurrently representing both STPUD and MPUD there Is a potential for a future conflict. We are required to make this disclosure and to secure both of your Informed written consents because we have been asked to provide legal advice and representation with regard to the Project, which Is located In Alpine County. At the same time, we will continue to work on the various matters and Issues on behalf of STPUD. The applicable Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to California lawyers (attached) require the Informed written consent of both STPUD and MPUD because our concurrent representation of both clients can create an Issue of divided loyalty. Should a legal dispute or transaction develop between STPUD and MPUD, It may create a conflict of Interest that will render it Impossible for us to continue to represent both of you In a manner consistent with our ethical and professional obligations. In this event, we reserve the rIght, and by signing below you consent, to our continued representation of STPUD in all matters, Including litigation, other legal dispute or transaction with MPUD, or at our option to withdraw from representing either party in connection with the disputed matter, In which case both parties would need to seek independent counsel. The facts upon which any such litigation, legal dispute or transaction is based would determine whether or not our firm would refuse to represent either one of you. In the event that we elect to represent STPUD in a litigation, legal dispute or transaction, we wllllnform MPUD of that decision so that MPUD can obtain separate counsel. If we determine that we cannot represent either party in the litigation, legal dispute or transaction, we will Inform both parties of this determination. We also request that you each waive any conflict of interest that would arise should this firm be representing either or both of STPUD and MPUD In unrelated matters simultaneously with other legal counsel representing each of you in any litigation or legal dispute between STPUD and MPUD. MPUD Will receive a similar Disclosure of Relationship and Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest to execute. We cannot represent MPUD without executing both waivers. . ";~l;~.~I~~.m~f~~i~', South Tahoe Public Utility District January 27, 2009 Page 2 We request that you signify your Informed written consent by signing and returning this letter to us. We encourage you to seek independent counsel regarding the Import of this consent, If you so desire, and we emphasize that you remain completely free to seek Independent counsel at any time even If you decide to sign the consent set forth below. Given the requirements of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, we request that you acknowledge your Informed written consent by signIng and returning this letter to us. We encourage you to seek Independent counsel regarding this consent and emphasize that you remain completely free to seek Independent counsel at any time, even If you decide to sign the consent set forth below. a . vlstad Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP GMK:amm Enclosures: California Rules of Professional Conduct CONSENT AND WAIVER The undersigned, as an authorized representative of South Tahoe Public Utility District, acknowledges receipt of the above written disclosure dated January 27, 2009 pursuant to the California Rules of Professional Conduct and understand the matters discussed therein. Having all this Information In mind and having the legal authority to do so on behalf of South Tahoe Public Utility District, I consent and give approval to Brownstein's representation of Markleevllle Public Utility District and South Tahoe Public Utility District as described In this letter, I consent and give approval to Brownstein representing South Tahoe Public Utility District In any litigation, legal dispute or transaction that may arise between Markleevllle Public Utility District and South Tahoe Public Utility District, and I waive any actual or potential conflict of Interest arising from Brownstein's concurrent representation of South Tahoe Public Utility District and Markleevllle Public Utility District on unrelated matters. I acknowledge that I have had an opportunity to review this matter w1thlndepsndent legal counsel. In the event that I have not discussed the matter with a legal counselor of my choice before executing this consent/waiver, I freely and voluntarily waive such counsel, although I understand that I have the right to seek such Independent counsel regarding this matter at any time. South Tahoe Public Utility District By: Richard Sol brig, General Manager S8 495503 v1:007627.0001 -36- South Tahoe Public Utility District January 27, 2009 Page 3 Rule 3.310 ofthe California Rules of Professional Conduct: "(B) A member shall not accept or continue representation of a client without providing written disclosure to the client where: "(1) The member has a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with a party or witness In the same matter; or "(2) The member knows or reasonably should know that: "(a) the member previously had a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with a party or witness In the same matter; and "(b) the previous relationship would substantially affect the member's representation; or "(3) The member has or had a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with another person or entity the member knows or reasonably should know would be affected substantially by resolution of the matter; or "(4) The member has or had a legal, business, financial, or professional interest In the subject matter of the representation." "(e) A member shall not, without the Informed written consent of each client: "(1) Accept representation of more than one client in a matter In which the Interests of the clients potentially conflict; or "(2) Accept or continue representation of more than one client In a matter in which the Interests of the clients actually conflict; or "(3) Represent a client In a matter and at the same time in a separate matter accept as a client a person or entity whose Interest In the first matter Is adverse to the client In the first matter. S8 495503 v1:007627.0001 -37- ~---- ..~ //f,OOTH TA.-liO;". . .~ ' ~". ~;,.-- 'f1II4DlJpn t\.~~ ~~.~.'.'.5.;"'.~/ .roM."'I,.,... . ~ ...' ~~ "I4'fJ;J.'l).r..~. . ~rl . II,..~ . SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT "Basic Services for a Complex World" Richard Solbri~, General Mana~er Mary Lou Mosbacher, President BOARD MEMBERS Paul Sciuto, Assistant Mana~ Dale Rise, Vice President James R. Jones, Director Eric W. Schafer, Director Ernie Claudio, Director REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT JANUARY 15, 2009 MINUTES The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District met in a regular session, January 15, 2009, 2:00 P.M., District Office, 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California. BOARD OF DIRECTORS: President Mosbacher, Directors Rise, Claudio, Jones, Schafer ATTENDEES STAFF: Solbrig, Sharp, Sciuto, Hughes, Cocking, Bird, Curtis, Brown, Hussmann, Attorney Herrema GUESTS: Cathy Monaghan/EI Dorado County Water Agency, John Runnels/Citizens Alliance John Runnels led the pledge to the flag. Moved Rise / Second Claudio / Passed Unanimouslv to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSENT CALENDAR a. 2009 & 2010 Bulk Sodium Hypochlorite Supplies - Awarded bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Sierra Chemical Company, in the estimated amount of $138,084.32; b. Temporary HR Coordinator - Approved additional $8,000 for temporary Human Resources Coordinator through The Substitute; -39- REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE - 2 c. Nutrient Management Plan Grant Funding - Adopted CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution No. 2854-09 approving the application (continued) for grant funds to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy Grant Program; d. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes: December 18, 2008; e. Approved Regular Board Meeting Minutes: December 30, 2008. MOP lED MlNutES ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION Moved Schafer / Second Rise / Passed Unanimouslv to approve payment in the amount of $1,099,962.24 Directors Jones, Claudio; and Dennis Cocking attended the January 14 meeting. The main topic of discussion was related to CABY (a river organization) and associated funding agreements. A cost of living increase for staff was put on hold. Director Schafer reported he will attend the CASA mid- winter conference beginning January 21. He decided not to attend the CASA Washington D. C. conference since two directors are already going to Washington D.C. He stated the travel costs are expensive and it should be incumbent on directors to select which trips are pertinent; plus since the staff was asked to cut back, the Board should too. Director Mosbacher encouraged other board members to follow suit. Director Claudio reported on his attendance at the EI Dorado County Water Agency board meeting. Director Jones reported on economic infrastructure stimulus plan improvements. General Manacer: Richard Solbrig reported on Prop. 84. The local grant coalition views the state freeze on grants as temporary and are moving forward under the existing MOU. (2:30 p.m. - Dale Rise excused himself and left the meeting at this point.) General Counsel: Brad Herrema updated the Board on the state's recycled water policy. -40- PAYMENT OF CLAIMS EL DORADO COUNTY WATER PURVEYOR REPRESENTATIVE REPORT BOARD MEMBER REPORTS GENERAL MANAGER REPORT STAFF REPORTS REGULAR OARD MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 2009 PAGE-3 District Information Officer: Dennis Cocking reported on the state's budget crisis. He also reported on the upcoming State Water Resources Control Board's clean water state revolving fund program economic stimulus water quality infrastructure workshop. STAFF REPORTS (continued) 2:45 P.M. ADJOURNMENT UMAOOPlE\l MMUlES Mary Lou Mosbacher, Board President South Tahoe Public Utility District ATTEST: Kathy Sharp, Clerk of the Board South Tahoe Public Utility District -41- Genua I ~naeer Richard H. Sollnig South Tahoe Public Utility District DirectOl"f> EmieClaudio JSmtl6 ~. JOMl5 IMry Lou Motttl.actwJr Daltl Rlt;e rlc .. 1275 Meadow Creet Drive · South Lake Tahoe · CA 96160 Phone 5:30 544-6474 · f.x 530 541-0014 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6a TO: Board of Directors FROM: John Thiel, Principal Engineer MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Project REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize staff and counsel to complete property acquisition from Delta Tahoe for an amount not to exceed $59,000. DISCUSSION: The new Twin Peaks Booster Station is to be located on the District's Industrial Well No. 1 property as well as on a portion of the adjacent property owned by Delta Tahoe. The District has been negotiating with Delta's representative, Mr. Tom Haen, for a lot line adjustment and the purchase of 3,515 square feet of property. Johnson Perkins completed a property appraisal this past December which resulted in a valuation of $28,500 for the land plus another $26,732.50 for the existing coverage. The District and Delta Tahoe have agreed to complete the purchase of the lot for $28,500 upon close, the District will retain all existing coverage on site, and the District will hold the additional value of the coverage for future coverage purchase and transfer to a project identified by Delta Tahoe. If Delta Tahoe has not identified such a project within three years, the District will make a final payment of $26,732.50 to complete the transaction. The lot line adjustment is in-process at the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA, and must be complete prior to close. The proposed lot line adjustment has been analyzed, pursuant to CEQA, as part of the larger Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Project. Brownstein is preparing the Agreement for Lot Line Adjustment and Old Republic Title is handling escrow. Escrow is scheduled to close on February 27, 2009. The total cost for this item includes $28,500 for the land, $26,732.50 for coverage, and standard closing costs. -43- John Thiel February 5, 2009 Page 2 SCHEDULE: Complete acquisition by February 27,2009. COSTS: Not to Exceed $59,000 ACCOUNT NO: 2029-7070 BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $62,071 ATTACHMENTS: None. CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO NO -44- CATEGORY: Water General MJJna~ Richard H. 5oil1rie South Tahoe Public Utility District Dir~,.. Ernie ClaudIo Jamee 1Ii:. JOMe ~ry Lou MofWacher Dale~ rk; hafe..- 1215 Meadow Cmet Drive · South Lake Tahoe · CA 96150 Phone 530 544-6474 · F$( 5:30 541-0614 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6b TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: Board of Directors Jim Hoggatt, Construction Manager/Engineer February 5,2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: South Tahoe Public Utility District Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan 2:15 P.M. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Hold a Public Scoping Meeting to take public comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report DISCUSSION: At 2:15 'p.m. open meeting to receive public comments on the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Enviormentallmpact Report for the South Tahoe Public Utility District Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan. SCHEDULE: COSTS: NA ACCOUNT NO: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Notice of Preparation (NOP) CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES~ NO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YESf- NO -45- CATEGORY: Sewer REVISED NOTICE OF PREP ARA TION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN INVITATION TO PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THURSDAY FEBRURARY 5, 2009 AT 2: ISPM SOUTH TAHOE PUD BOARD ROOM, 1275 MEADOW CREST DRIVE, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150 Project Title: Project Location: Lead Agency: County: Project Description: South Tahoe Public Utility District Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan EIR Focused on Four New Components. Alpine County, CA South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) Alpine County This Revised Notice of Preparation expands upon the information provided in the previous NOP that was circulated by the District in May of 2007 and is herein referenced. The focus of this Revised NOP is four new components that have been added to the project description of the Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan. In addition, two new alternatives to the proposed action have been identified for study in the EI, The Master Plan Recommended Projects Alternative (Alternative 3) and the Master Plan Trigger Alternative (Alternative 4).' The District is seeking focused comments only on the four new components and two new alternatives that are included in this Revised NOP. Comments submitted to the District during the circulation of the May 2007 NOP will still be considered during the preparation of the EIR. The four new components added to the project description are as follows: 29. 'rrlgate the District Pasture Land This component will irrigate the District Pasture using recycled water. The total amount of land is approximately 150 acres. Recycled water will be supplied either from a branch off the existing C-Line or from a new pipeline leading from the existing C-Line to the Diamond Valley Ranch. Minor grading will occur to the District Pasture to prevent recycled water from entering the Upper and Lower Harvey Channels. The primary use of the Upper Harvey Channel and the Lower -1- -47- f Harvey Channel is to direct Indian Creek flows (exceeding the conveyance capacity of the Upper Dressler Ditch) around the Harvey Place Reservoir. The Upper and Lower Harvey Channels carry freshwater only and enter Indian Creek below the dam of the Harvey Place Reservoir. The configuration of the irrigation and associated minor grading will need to include a means of continuing the ability to spill very high flow rates (induced by flood or snowmelt) out of the Harvey Channel. Alternatively, the Upper Harvey Channel could be enlarged to contain the peak flow rate induced by a loo-year stonn event with benns to prevent recycled water from entering the channel. A variation on this project component will be to irrigate the District Pasture with freshwater if the Diamond Valley Ranch is irrigated with recycled water. In this case the water rights from the District Pasture will be used to resume irrigating the District Pasture and a portion of the water rights of Diamond Valley Ranch will be used for storage in ICR. The basis of this variation is that the original water rights for irrigating the District Pasture were transferred to storage in ICR. Since the District Pasture is no longer irrigated, it may be desirable to resume irrigating to restore the land as a pasture. 30. Irrigate the "Jungle" with Recycled Water The District obtained land known as the "Jungle" with its purchase of the Diamond Valley Ranch. The jungle is located northwest of the Snowshoe Thompson No.2 Ditch and north of the Millich Ditch. At its nearest point the jungle is approximately 1,100 feet from the West Fork of the Carson River. The jungle is not currently irrigated and is characterized as sloping and bottom valley land. There are approximately 150 acres that will be irrigated with recycled water once infrastructure is constructed to convey water to this area. The need for additional lands may arise from loss of lands currently irrigated with recycled water due to subdivision or some other cause, or by increased annual volume of recycled water resulting from growth in the District's service territory. Spray irrigation methods will be utilized as the irrigation method. Water will be supplied under pressure from a pipeline branching off the existing C-Line or from the proposed pressurized line that would pump water back to Harvey Place Reservoir (Component 11). 31. Divert Stormwater Flow Away from Harvey Place Reservoir to Indian Creek Reservoir This project component constructs a ditch near the southeast comer of the Harvey Place Reservoir to intercept stonnwater and drainage flows that currently flow into the Harvey Place Reservoir and divert them to ICR. The purpose will be to reduce stonnwater flow into the Harvey Place Reservoir thereby increasing the available recycled water storage volume of the Harvey Place Reservoir. Another benefit of this project component will be to increase the amount of freshwater entering ICR. A method of sediment control may be necessary to reduce sediment loading in ICR. This component will be implemented only if recycled water volume increases and additional storage volume for recycled water in Harvey Place Reservoir is needed, or if additional freshwater is needed in ICR to improve water quality and meet -2- -48- minimum water surface elevation obligations. The disadvantages of this project component include capital cost expenditure and additional operation and maintenance responsibilities. 32. Indian Creek Reservoir Spillway Channel The ICR spillway originally discharged recycled water to Indian Creek in the event the reservoir filled beyond capacity. This was permissible when the District utilized tertiary treatment at its wastewater treatment plant in South Lake Tahoe. With the construction of HPR (to serve as the District's recycled water storage reservoir) ICR was converted to a fresh water reservoir. The construction of HPR resulted in an ICR spillway configuration which discharges to HPR. This component will construct a spillway channel for ICR that conveys reservoir spillage around HPR to Indian Creek. The component has an added benefit of intercepting stormwater flow entering the east side of the HPR, thereby increasing storage capacity in this reservoir for recycled water. This component will reduce the potential of emergency spills from HPR. The implementation of this component is contingent upon the District's desire to reduce their liability of unauthorized releases of recycled water from HPR due to large flood events. Considerations for this component involve the likelihood of a spill from HPR. The 1997 flood event created operational problems for the District that required approval by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) to land apply recycled water from HPR outside of the normal irrigation season. Component implementation is a question of the likelihood of very large flood events and the District's tolerance for risk. Background The South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan includes a combination of actions to dispose treated effluent and associated actions to convey, store and apply fresh water. The Plan updates the 1989 Master Plan and includes new and revised information on increases in system demands and disposal opportunities and constraints. The project area is located in Alpine County, California as shown on Figure I. The Master Plan consists of a number of specific components that are capable of being grouped into alternative sets of actions for meeting the Plan's overall objectives. In addition to the No Project alternative that is required by CEQA, the program EIR will evaluate additional alternatives. Each of the Master Plan project components that may be included in the alternatives are listed below (in no particular order of preference) and briefly described in the attached Initial Study (new components are listed in bold): 1. Provide recycled water to new non-i"igated, permitted land 2. Make Recycled Water Available to Irrigators in Nevada 3. Capacity and Conveyance Improvements in the Diamond Ditch System 4. Provide Pressurized Recycled Water to the Fredericksburg System -3- -49- Alternatives: 5. Provide Pressurized Recycled Water Through Wade Valley 6. Provide Pressurized Recycled Water to the Ranchettes 7. Non-Flood Irrigation Application System 8. Improve Recycled Water Quality 9. Groundwater Recharge Using Infiltration Basins 10. Construct Zero-Discharge Basins 11. Construct Storage Facility With Pumping Back to Harvey Place Reservoir 12. Growing Biomass Crops for Pulp Production using Recycled Water 13. Wetland sod and seed production 14. Pipe Recycled Water Systems to Minimize Setbacks and Human Contact 15. Mitigation wetland creation using freshwater 16. Subsurface Recycled Water Irrigation in Public Contact and Buffer Areas 17. Increase Snowshoe Thompson No. 1 Conveyance Capacity 18. Optimize Application Rate on Existing Irrigated Lands 19. Pursue the Permitting of More Land in Alpine County 20. Improve Operation of the Diamond Ditch System to Meet District and User Needs 21. Develop Tai/water Control System 22. Parallel Recycled Water Pipeline Along Existing Diamond Ditch 23. Route Mud Lake Winter Flows through Indian Creek Reservoir 24. Transfer Additional Water Rights to Storage in Indian Creek Reservoir 29. Irrigate the District Pasture Land 30. Irrigate the "Jungle" with Recycled Water 31. Divert Stormwater Flow Away from Harvey Place Reservoir to Indian Creek Reservoir 32. Indian Creek Reservoir Spillway Channel A total offour alternatives will be analyzed in the EIR and are listed as follows (new alternatives are listed in bold): Alternative 1, No Project; Alternative 2 - 32 Component Alternative; Alternative 3 Master Plan Recommended Projects; and Alternative 4 Master Plan Trigger Alternative. Alternative I - No Project The No Project Alternative will evaluate impacts that will occur if the District does not adopt a new Master plan The No Project Alternative consists of the existing District Recycled Water Facilities in Alpine County, CA as of April 19, 2007. Alternative 2 - 32 Component Alternative The 32 Component Alternative includes all the components that are listed in the District's Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan. This alternative enables the Distirct to meet the Project's need though the implementation of fresh and recycled water projects and management of fresh and recycled water. A brief description of the 32 Components are listed later in this document. -4- -50- Alternative 3 - Master Plan Recommended Projects Alternative This alternative includes Components 3, 4, 6, 11, 18, 19,22,29, and 30. The Master Plan states these projects, at a minimum, should be implemented regardless of the future outcome of contingencies and project triggers that are identified in the Master Plan. Alternative 4 - Master Plan Trigger Alternative This alternative includes Components 1,2,3,4,6,7,9, Ill, 14, 17, 18, 19,22,23, 24, 29, 30, and 31 as listed in. These Components will allow the District to respond to future project triggers and contingencies as discussed in the Master Plan. Environmental Documentation: The Project site is currently used for a mix of agricultural and treated effluent uses. Future development of new and revised treated effluent measures could have a significant effect on a range of environmental issues, as identified in the attached Initial Study. Consequently, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared to analyze these effects, as well as to explore alternatives to the Project and possible mitigation measures to avoid or lessen identified effects. The South Tahoe Public Utility District will prepare an EIR for the project under the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CAL. PUB. RES. CODE SS 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) and the implementing CEQA Guidelines (14 CAL. CODES. REGS. SS I 5000, et seq.) (CEQA Guidelines). The purpose of the EIR is to provide decision-makers, public agencies, the general public and other interested parties with an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and the alternatives to the project. The purpose of this notice is: (I) to serve as the NOP to potential "Responsible Agencies" as required by Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines; and (2) to advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the preparation of the EIR, environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR, and any related issues from interested parties other than potential "Responsible Agencies," including interested or affected members of the public. STPUD will accept written comments regarding this NOP through the close of business, Februrary 5, 2009. All Comments or other responses to this NOP should be submitted in writing to: South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Attn: Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan EIR STPUD will also accept responses to this NOP bye-mail received through the close of business, February 5, 2009. If e-mail comments are submitted with attachments, any attachments should be delivered separately, in writing, and in person or by -5- -51- regular mail, to the address specified above. The virus protection measures of STPUD's e-mail system, and the variety of potential formats for attachments, limits the ability for the attachments to be delivered bye-mail. Responses to this notice may be sent to: dvreir@stpud.dst.ca.us .. -6- -52- Figure 1 - Project Site Location Map .. I ; ~ mUD ItKyd.d WIt... PKI"IIM .._ PI.. ElIt LOCATION MAP FilJJre1 -7- -53- In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, STPUD will conduct two public scoping meetings on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the project. STPUD would like to invite you to one or both of these meetings to identify potential environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in the ElR. A brief presentation on the project and technical analysis to be prepared will be provided at the beginning of each meeting, after which there will be the opportunity to provide comments on the content of the EIR, data to be utilized in the EIR, alternatives to be evaluated, and criteria to be used to evaluate the environmental impacts at the meeting either verbally or in writing. Public Meetings Time and Location: Location: Address: South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Februrary 5, 2009 2:30 pm Date: Time: Please call Anders 1. Hauge, at (916) 671-5844 if you have any questions regarding the scoping meeting. Notice Date: January 5, 2009 Attachment - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form -8- -54- SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form I. Project Title: South Tahoe Public Utility District Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Jim Hoggatt 530.543.6206 4. Project Location: Alpine County, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Zoning: Alpine County, CA - Agricultural with smaller areas of Scenic Highway, Residential Estates-5 acres, Residential Neighborhood, and Land Preserve. General Plan Designation: Alpine County, CA - Open 7. Space, Rural Residential, Agricultural, and a small portion of Residential Medium Density. 6. 8. Project Description: The STPUD Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan includes a combination of actions to dispose of treated effluent. The Plan updates provisions of the 1989 Master Plan and includes new and revised information on increases in system demands and disposal opportunities and constraints. The project area is located in Alpine County, California The project setting is shown on Figure I below. The Master Plan consists of a number of specific components that are capable of being grouped into alternative sets of actions for meeting the Plan's overall objectives. In addition to the No Project alternative that is required by CEQA, the program EIR will evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, components of which are listed below. Alternatives will be generated which will vary in the combination of the listed components. Each of the Master Plan project components that may be included in the alternatives were described in the May 2007 Nap. The four components that were added to the project description are described briefly below. -9- -55- Project Component Descriptions: 29. Irrigate the District Pasture Land This component will irrigate the District Pasture using recycled water. The total amount of land is approximately ISO acres. Recycled water will be supplied either from a branch off the existing C-Line or from a new pipeline leading from the existing C-Line to the Diamond Valley Ranch. Minor grading will occur to the District Pasture to prevent recycled water from entering the Upper and Lower Harvey Channels. The primary use of the Upper Harvey Channel and the Lower Harvey Channel is to direct Indian Creek flows (exceeding the conveyance capacity of the Upper Dressler Ditch) around the Harvey Place Reservoir. The Upper and Lower Harvey Channels carry freshwater only and enter Indian Creek below the dam of the Harvey Place Reservoir. The configuration of the irrigation and associated minor grading will need to include a means of continuing the ability to spill very high flow rates (induced by flood or snowmelt) out of the Harvey Channel. Alternatively, the Upper Harvey Channel could be enlarged to contain the peak flow rate induced by a 100-year stonn event with benns to prevent recycled water from entering the channel. A variation on this project component will be to irrigate the District Pasture with freshwater if the Diamond Valley Ranch is irrigated with recycled water. In this case the water rights from the District Pasture will be used to resume irrigating the District Pasture and a portion of the water rights of Diamond Valley Ranch will be used for storage in ICR. The basis of this variation is that the original water rights for irrigating the District Pasture were transferred to storage in ICR. Since the District Pasture is no longer irrigated, it may be desirable to resume irrigating to restore the land as a pasture. 30. Irrigate the "Jungle" with Recycled Water The District obtained land known as the "Jungle" with its purchase of the Diamond Valley Ranch. The jungle is located northwest of the Snowshoe Thompson No.2 Ditch and north of the Millich Ditch. At its nearest point the jungle is approximately 1,100 feet from the West Fork of the Carson River. The jungle is not currently irrigated and is characterized as sloping and bottom valley land. There are approximately 150 acres that will be irrigated with recycled water once infrastructure is constructed to convey water to this area. The need for additional lands may arise from loss of lands currently irrigated with recycled water due to subdivision or some other cause, or by increased annual volume of recycled water resulting from growth in the District's service territory. Spray irrigation methods will be utilized as the irrigation method. Water will be supplied under pressure from a pipeline branching off the existing C-Line or from the proposed pressurized line that would pump water back to Harvey Place Reservoir (Component II). 31. Divert Stormwater Flow Away from Harvey Place Reservoir to Indian Creek Reservoir This project component constructs a ditch near the southeast comer of the Harvey Place Reservoir to intercept stonnwater and drainage flows that currently flow into the Harvey Place Reservoir and divert them to ICR. The purpose will be to reduce stonnwater flow into the Harvey Place Reservoir thereby increasing the available recycled water storage volume of the Harvey Place Reservoir. Another benefit of this project component will be to increase the amount of freshwater entering ICR. A method of sediment control may be necessary to reduce sediment loading in ICR. This component will be implemented only if recycled water volume increases and additional storage volume for recycled water in Harvey Place Reservoir is needed, or if additional freshwater is needed in ICR to improve water quality and meet minimum water surface elevation oblil!.ations. The disadvantages of this project comoonent include caoital cost -10- -56- expenditure and additional operation and maintenance responsibilities. 32. Indian Creek Reservoir Spillway Channel The ICR spillway originally discharged recycled water to Indian Creek in the event the reservoir filled beyond capacity. This was permissible when the District utilized tertiary treatment at its wastewater treatment plant in South Lake Tahoe. With the construction of HPR (to serve as the District's recycled water storage reservoir) ICR was converted to a fresh water reservoir. The construction of HPR resulted in an ICR spillway configuration which discharges to HPR. This component will construct a spillway channel for ICR that conveys reservoir spillage around HPR to Indian Creek. The component has an added benefit of intercepting stormwater flow entering the east side of the HPR, thereby increasing storage capacity in this reservoir for recycled water. This component will reduce the potential of emergency spills from HPR. The implementation of this component is contingent upon the District's desire to reduce their liability of unauthorized releases of recycled water from HPR due to very large flood events. Considerations for this component involve the likelihood of a spill from HPR. The 1997 flood event created operational problems for the District that required approval by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) to land apply recycled water from HPR outside of the normal irrigation season. Component implementation is a question of the likelihood of very large flood events and the District's tolerance for risk. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is located about I mile east of Highway 89 and 1 mile south of Highway 88 just to the southeast of the Highway 88/89 Junction at Woodfords, CA. Surrounding land uses include low density residential, agricultural lands, and two reservoirs, Harvey Place Reservoir and Indian Creek Reservoir. Indian Creek Reservoir provides recreational fishing opportunities to the community and tourists. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Federal Permits: . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - A Section 404 Permit may need to be obtained to fill wetlands or waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act. Section 303, 401, and 402 permits/certifications may also be required. A Rolling Stock Permit will be required for equipment operating within waters of the U.S. . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Before granting a 404 permit or 401 certification the Corps will ask the USFWS to concur with their decision to issue the permit. If there are endangered species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, then a consultation and permit under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act may be required. . Advisory Council on Historic Preservation/State Office of Historic Preservation - Before granting a permit the Corps will ask for this agency to concur with their decision to issue the permit. The District will need to manage any cultural resources at the site in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as implemented by the State Historic Preservation Officer. . Bureau of Land Management - STPUD currently has agreements with the BLM -11- -57- regarding the use of Harvey Place Reservoir, Indian Creek Reservoir and associated facilities on BLM land. Due to the proposed changes in the use of BLM land, an Environmental Assessment (EA) followed by a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) may be required prior to federal approval. · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - The facility would likely be exempt from FERC permitting because it would use a dam constructed prior to 1977 and generate less than 5 MW. The Corps of Engineers may need to approve the use of a state waterway to generate power, and because it may affect the fishery in Indian Creek. · U.S. District Court Watermaster - The proposed water system would be entirely new to the Carson River system. The permitting of the water rights will need approval from the U.S. District Court Watermaster and from the California Department of Water Resources. State of California Permits: · Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board - The LRWQCB will have permit authority over recycled water application and rapid infiltration basins for their site- specific requirements, and for compliance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. These would include minimum setback, signage and public notification requirements, and regulations regarding tailwater and application rates to protect groundwater and surface water. · The Board may need to issue a Section 40 I water quality certification for fill of any wetlands or waters of the U.S., which requires a 404 permit, a Section 402 NPDES General Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit, and a Temporary Authority to Discharge into waters of the U.S. Ifa constructed wetland discharges into a water of the U.S. an NPDES Permit will also be needed for that discharge. Activities involving over 5 acres (soon to be reduced to I acre) would require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. · State Department of Water Resources - This agency may need to issue approval of plans and specifications for the modification of existing ponds or construction of wetlands. In addition, the CDWR will need to approve new water rights from creation of the proposed water right system within the Carson River system, in coordination with the U.S. District Court Watermaster. · California Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Cal OSHA may need to issue permits for construction, trench excavation, and demolition. · California Department of Fish and Game - A Streambed Alteration Agreement (Code Section 1601) will be required for any work in Indian Creek or other streams. In addition, if there are affected endangered species as listed under the California Endangered Species Act, a Section 2081 Management Authorization may be required. The possible introduction of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout into Indian Creek would require approval from CDFG. · State Historic Preservation Officer - The SHPO will need to provide clearance for any state or federal approvals impactin2 historic, archaeol02ical or paleontol02ic resources, -12- -58- or traditional cultural properties affected by the project, as specified by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. · Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District - The District will be required to obtain an Authority to Construct from the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District for control of dust emissions during construction. No permits to operate are anticipated since the project would entail no emissions-producing equipment. · County of Alpine, California - The County will need to issue grading and building permits for construction, a Use Permit, a General Plan Consistency Review, and a stream crossing permit. Other permits may include a transportation permit for heavy or oversized loads during construction, a County Public Works permit for construction and operation within county rights-of-way and encroachment permits for work in the streams. . II. Alternatives To Be Considered: A total of four alternatives will be analyzed in the EIR and are listed as follows: Alternative I, No Project; Alternative 2 - 32 Component Alternative; Alternative 3 Master Plan Recommended Projects; and Alternative 4 Master Plan Trigger Alternative. Alternative I - No Project The No Project Alternative will evaluate impacts that will occur if the District does not adopt a new Master plan The No Project Alternative consists of the existing District Recycled Water Facilities in Alpine County, CA as of April 19, 2007. Alternative 2 - 32 Component Alternative The 32 Component Alternative includes all the components that are listed in the District's Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan. This alternative enables the Distirct to meet the Project's need though the implementation of fresh and recycled water projects and management of fresh and recycled water. A brief description of the 32 Components are listed later in this document. Alternative 3 - Master Plan Recommended Projects This alternative includes Components 3, 4, 6, II, 18, 19,22,29, and 30. The Master Plan states these projects, at a minimum, should be implemented regardless of the future outcome of contingencies and project triggers that are identified in the Master Plan. Alternative 4 - Master Plan Trigger Alternative This alternative includes Components 1,2,3,4,6,7,9, Ill, 14, 17, 18,19,22,23,24,29,30, and 31 as listed in. These Components will allow the District to respond to future project triggers and contingencies as discussed in the Master Plan. -13- -59- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology ISoils Hazards & Hazardous X Hydrology I Water Land Use I Planning Materials Quality Mineral Resources Noise Population I Housing Public Services X Recreation Transportationffraffic Utilities I Service Systems X Mandatory Findings of Significance -14- -60- DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a 'potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed hy mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, hut it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (h) have heen avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGA TIVB DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. I s;pawre~ ~ / BV ALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I JlIIllIa(J' 5. 2009 Date The following checklist is used to evaluate the potential of the project for significant environmental impacts. Because the lead agency has decided to prepare an EIR. mitigation is not defined herein, but will be developed and specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as part of the EIR process. References used to develop these evaluations are listed at the back of this document and are available for review at the South Tahoe Public Utility District. Potentially Significant Impact Le..than Slgnlflcant with Mitigation Incorporation Le..than Slgnlllcant No Impact I. Aesthetics Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ./ -15- -61- Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant No Impact b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Analysis ~ ~ ~ a.-c. Construction of, conveyances to the east of Indian Creek Reservoir could alter and substantially damage existing scenic resources in the area. This would affect views by recreational users and potentially travelers along Highway 88, which is a designated Federal Scenic Byway and is designated a Scenic Highway by Alpine County. d. The project would not create new sources of light and glare. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than SI\lnlflcant No Impact II. Agriculture Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland. to non-agricultural use? Analysis ~ ~ ,/ a. The project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation will enhance and possibly extend agricultural uses in the area. -16- -62- b. No conflicts with existing zoning of Williamson Act contracts are anticipated. The project will enhance agricultural uses. c. The project is not expected to encourage the conversion of other lands to non-agricultural use. It will enable enhanced agricultural uses in the area. Potentially Significant Impact Le..than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact III. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable Air Quality Management or Air Pollution Control District may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant , concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Analysis ../ ../ ../ ../ ../ a. The proposed project would serve growth that is projected in the Alpine County General Plan, EI Dorado County General Plan, and TRPA Transportation/Air Quality Plan, and would thus be expected to be included in growth forecasts used to develop those plans. Alpine County is part of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, which is classified as non-attainment of the State standard for suspended particulate matter. Construction of the new effluent recycling facilities would be subject to all current air quality rules and regulations. Project operation will not be a source of particulate emissions, and will thus not interfere with attainment of the ambient air quality standard for particulates in Alpine County. b-d. Demolition of old facilities and construction of the new facilities would result in generation of dust, as measured by particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. Other pollutants, primarily nitrogen oxides, are also generated during construction. Mitigation in the form of dust control and equipment maintenance measures will be required to reduce dust and other emissions to less than significant. Project operations will not be a source of new emissions from equipment or vehicles. -17- -63- ;~ Sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project include the Diamond Valley Elementary School and the Washoe Community. With mitigation of construction emissions to insignificance, students at the school would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Discharge of reclaimed water does not create objectionable odors or degrade air quality. Potentially Significant Impact Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact IV. Biological Resources Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool. coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery site? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Analysis ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ a. The Lahontan cutthroat trout is included on the Federal List of Endangered Species, and is found in Alpine County. The proposed project will improve water quality in Indian Creek and Indian Creek Reservoir. The project may increase the volume of freshwater entering Indian Creek Reservoir, improving water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. -18- -64- b. Project construction has the potential to affect riparian habitat along Indian Creek, which would require mitigation. See item c. for a discussion of potential effects on wetland habitats. c. Construction of wetlands and related facilities for disposal of recycled water would have the beneficial effect of creating new habitat. Construction activities may temporarily impact existing wetlands and riparian areas, requiring mitigation. These impacts would cease at the end of construction. d. The project may affect wildlife movement or corridors because of new drainage crossings to be constructed. While the effects would be temporary, mitigation will need to be designed to restrict construction work in active streams. Siting of constructed wetlands would not be expected to adversely affect wildlife migration. However, the project could impact resting, feeding, and potential breeding habitat for waterfowl. Pond improvements could temporarily disturb areas used by waterfowl. If migratory or special status bird species nest within the zone of impact, then construction effects would be considered significant if they occur at the same time as avian reproductive efforts. Potential sites for raptor nests may occur within the riparian habitat along Indian Creek. Mitigation measures will be required to protect birds in the construction area. e. Construction has the potential to affect riparian habitat along Indian Creek. Mitigation may be required to ensure that trees or riparian vegetation along the riparian corridor are preserved. f. This site is not included in any local. regional. or state habitat conservation plan. Potentially Significant Impact less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation less than Significant No Impact V. Cultural Resources Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a .J' historical resource as defined in ~ 15064 .5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? .J' .J' .J' -19- -65- Analysis a. A complete cultural resource survey has not been completed for the entirety of the project area. Therefore the potential exists for significant historical resources to be present within the project area and for impacts to occur. This impact is considered potentially significant. b. Previous investigations have identified no known archaeological resources in the vicinity of the project site. Mitigation would be incorporated in the project to address the possibility of uncovering previously unidentified buried cultural resources during construction. c. Part of the project site is already disturbed, and there are no known unique paleontological resources or geologic features. d. Mitigation would be included in the project to address the possibility of uncovering previously unidentified human remains during project construction. Mitigation would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact VI. Geologic Problems Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ./ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code ( 1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems? ./ ./ -20- -66- Analysis a. Geologic reports done for two projects in the Woodfords area indicate that those developments were in a Zone 4 area and that structural design for Zone 4 per the Uniform Building Code was required. In Alpine County the most probable ground failures resulting from seismic activity would be from landslides or liquefaction. The project area is subject to induced ground shaking, landslides in some locations, and liquefaction. Mitigation would be required in the design of facilities to withstand an earthquake. b. Site grading could cause erosion, resulting in sedimentation of local water bodies. Mitigation would be required to minimize erosion. c. The project site is subject to liquefaction and would require mitigation. See item a. d. The soils in the area may be expansive. Mitigation would be required to ensure that facilities are designed to withstand the effects of soil expansion-contraction. e. The project does not involve use of septic systems or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Potentially Significant Impact Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact VII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials Would the proposal involve: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ./ ./ ./ ./ e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ./ -21- -67- Potentially Significant Impact Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intennixed with wildlands? ./ ./ ./ Analysis a. No hazardous materials are associated with the proposed project. b. No hazardous materials are expected to be used in project operation. Minor amounts of hazardous materials would be used during construction of the facilities (e.g. fuel for vehicles), but compliance with Federal and State hazardous materials laws and regulations would minimize the risk to the public presented by these potential hazards. c. No hazardous materials will be used near Diamond Valley School. d. The Project location is not known to be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant Government Code Section 65962.5. This will be confIrmed as part of the EIR analysis. e. Alpine County Airport is located several miles from the Project site, and the project site is outside the Airport's land use plan. The proposed Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan does not represent an increased risk to human safety associated with airport use. f. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the project site. g. Some construction will occur alongside and crossing public roads. The Project will propose mitigation measures to minimize interference with adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation routes. h. The project components include new wetlands, irrigation areas, pipelines, changes in operations, etc. None of these components expose more people or structures to existing fIre hazard areas. -22- -68- Less than .Ignlflcant Potentially with Mitigation Less than Significant Incorporation Significant Impact Impact No Impact VII/. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a. Cause a violation of any water quality standards or waste ./ discharge requirements. or worsen any existing such violations? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ./ substantial with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pennits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ./ or area, including the alteration of the course of stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ./ capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ./' f. Place housing within a loo-year flood hazard area as ./ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g. Place within a loo-year flood hazard area structures that ./ would impede or redirect flood flows? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ./' injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam? i. Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ./ Analysis a. Land application of recycled water and the construction of wetlands for disposal of recycled water have the potential to degrade groundwater quality from the nitrogen or other nutrients present in the recycled water. The project will comply with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations regarding tail water and application rates will be planned to minimize surface water and groundwater impacts. The replacement of ditches with piping will help prevent groundwater contamination. Groundwater quality will be monitored according to NPDES and other permit requirements to ensure maintenance of quality. Increasing the flow through Indian Creek Reservoir will improve water quality in that impoundment, but may result in an increase in phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in Indian Creek downstream from the -23- -69- reservoir. These issues will be evaluated further in the EIR and additional mitigation measures proposed if necessary. b. Infrastructure and irrigation improvements, new wetlands, and new conveyance facilities would not interfere with groundwater recharge and would not use groundwater. The proposed project will enhance groundwater supplies. c. Most of the proposed facilities would be constructed in sites already used for the District's existing recycled water disposal system and would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area. New wetlands and conveyance facilities may be constructed, but these would not change the overall drainage pattern of the area. Improvement of conveyance facilities will reduce erosion or siltation from open ditches. d. The planned improvements would not create or contribute to runoff water from the project site. Discharge does not create runoff and will not alter existing drainage patterns. e. The EIR will evaluate overall water quality impacts of the project including the potential for groundwater contamination associated with new facilities. The EIR will evaluate potential impacts to water quality of Indian Creek associated with the recycling and discharge, and determine if mitigation is available to reduce the impacts, if any, to less than significant. f. The project does not include any housing. g. A portion of the proposed wetlands and other facilities may be located within the loo-year floodplain. The EIR will determine whether the wetlands would impede or redirect flood flows, or worsen any existing flooding problems. h. The proposed project does not include any new levees or dams. Failure of Indian Creek Reservoir dam could inflict damage. County regulations require that proposed construction include review of flood potential. The EIR will evaluate whether increased water recycling activity would increase the risk of downstream flooding from dam or irrigation ditch failure. 1. The proposed project area is not subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Potentially Significant Impact Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Lee. than Significant Impact No Impact IX. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy. or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan. specific plan. local coastal program. or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ./ ./ ./ -24- -70- Analysis a. Proposed project components do not divide any established community. b. Proposed project components do not appear to conflict with any applicable land use plans or regulations. Because the District's facilities provide recycled water to irrigate agricultural lands, they support the continued agricultural use of lands zoned for land extensive agriculture and would be consistent with policies in the Alpine County general plan. This issue will be evaluated further in the EIR. c. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in this area. Potentially Significant Impact Lell than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X. Mineral Resources Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan. specific plan or other land use plan? Analysis ./ ./ a-b. The primary mineral resource in the project area is aggregate. The project site has not been identified as an aggregate resource. The increased use of recycled water would not affect the availability of mineral resources. Therefore, no impacts on mineral resources are identified. Potentially Significant Impact LeIS than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact XI. Noise Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards establishes in the local general plan or noise ordinance. or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? ./ ./ -25- -71- " Potentially Significant Impact Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact c. A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted. within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Analysis ./ ./ ./ ./ a. Construction of facilities would require mitigation to ensure that noise levels comply with Alpine County standards. b. Although there may be some minor ground-borne noise and vibration during construction this is expected to be temporary. and therefore less than significant. c. No permanent increase in noise levels are expected to occur as a result of the project implementation. · d. Construction noise would be potentially significant without mitigation. See item a. e. The proposed project is further than two miles from an airport. f. The Alpine County Airport is in the project vicinity. The facility is lightly used and the proposed project would not expose people in the area to excessive noise levels. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. Population and Housing Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ./ -26- -72- Potentially Significant Impact less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation less Than Significant Impact No Impact b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Analysis ./ ./ a. Construction of the new facilities will enable improved water recycling activities and assist growth consistent with TRPA, EI Dorado County, and Alpine County general plans. It will not induce or enable substantial new growth either in the Lake Tahoe area or rural Alpine County. b. Construction of wetlands and conveyance facilities will not displace existing housing. c. Construction of wetlands and conveyance facilities will not displace people. Potentially Significant Impact le.. than signifiCant with M"lgatlon Incorporation les. than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? ./ ./ ./ ./ c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other public facilities? Analysis a-e. Construction and operation of the new recycled water disposal facilities will not induce population or employment growth, interfere with delivery of public services, or otherwise impact the need for public services in the area. -27- -73- Potentially Significant Impact less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation less Than Significant No Impact XIV. Recreation a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Analysis ~ ~ a. The project would not increase permanent population or employment growth in the area. Improved surface water quality could enhance the potential in the area for recreational use, especially for fishing. See the response to Item b. b. Increased recreational use of the site is not expected to occur as a result of project implementation. Potentially Significant Impact lesl than significant with Mitigation Incorporation leiS than Significant Impact No Impact xv: Transportationffrafflc Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicles trips. the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (i.e., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ./ ./ ./ ./ f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ./ ./ -28- -74- Potentially Significant Impact Less than significant with MItigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Analysis ./ a. Construction vehicles would temporarily increase traffic on Highways 88 and 89, and local roadways in the area, but this increase would not be expected to represent a substantial increase over the existing traffic load. Operational traffic increases would be negligible. b. Level of service standards on designated roads or highways, or on local streets, are not expected to be impacted or exceeded in the area due to its limited population. c. The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. d. The proposed facilities do not include any roadway design features affecting safety. All project facility roadway crossings will be designed to meet safety standards. e. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access to the site or access to nearby uses. All construction of pipelines would be done in such a way as to maintain emergency access. f. Adequate on-site parking for construction workers is expected to be available. Parking at the site will be available for workers operating the facilities. g. The project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Potentially Significant Impact Less than slgnlflcant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? ./ ./ ./ -29- -75- Potentially Significant Impact Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a detennination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient pennitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Analysis ./ ./ ./ ./ a. The new facilities will have to meet the treatment requirements of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to operate. b. Because the project is the construction and expansion of water recycling facilities, the project in and of itself will not require any additional construction or expansion. c. Operation of the new facilities may require construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be implemented to ensure the reduction of sediment and other pollutants in the stormwater discharge from the construction site. d. The proposed project will not have any requirements for additional water supplies. e. The project itself will not create wastewater. It is planned to improve the recycling and disposal of treated effluent from District wastewater treatment facilities to enable the District to meet future increases in treatment and disposal demands. f. Project construction will generate construction debris that will be disposed in approved solid waste facilities. Project operation is expected to create some demand for solid waste disposal (such as disposal of vegetation and soil from constructed basins), but this is not expected to adversely impact landfill capacities. g. The project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. -30- -76- Potentially Significant Impact Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant No Impact XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -31- ./ ./ -77- ./ South Tahoe Public Utility District Dirtctof'& Ernie Clauaio JamM~. Jonmt Msry Lou Moebacher D.ale Rlec ric 5<::tuIfM Gt!ll1Cral Manaqe:r Richard H. Solbrig 1275 Meadow CrHt Drive · South La~ Tahoe. CA 96150 Phone 530 544-6474 · Fax 530 541-0014 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6c TO: Board of Directors FROM: John Thiel, Principal Engineer MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Replacement 2:30 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Hold a Public Meeting to receive any comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; (2) Certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and (3) Approve the additional "De Minimis" finding that the project will have no effect on wildlife resources; and (4) Authorize staff to submit a California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption. DISCUSSION: The District has approved the Initial Study and the determination of no significant effect on the environment, prepared a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration with submittal to the State Clearinghouse, and published such notice in the Tahoe Tribune. At this time, after a review period of over 30 days, staff has received no comments or questions on the proposed action. At 2:30 p.m., open a meeting to receive public input on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Replacement Project. After receiving public comments and response to comments by staff, the Board may close the meeting, certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and approve the project. The Environmental Checklist and supporting documentation completed supports a finding that the project will have no effect on wildlife. The Board can make this additional "De Minimis" finding and authorize staff to file a fee exemption. -79- John Thiel Februry 5, 2009 Page 2 SCHEDULE: N/A. COSTS: N/A. ACCOUNT NO: 2029-70701TPBSTR BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Notice of Intent To Adopt a Negative Declaration. CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES .tf4.J CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO NO -80- CATEGORY: Water NOTICE OF INTENT To Adopt a Negative Declaration SUBJECT: Notice ofIntent to Adopt a Negative Declaration in Compliance with Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND) for the action identified below. PROJECT TITLE: Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Project PROJECT LOCATION: El Dorado County APN 032-314-13 and 032-314-14 within the City of South Lake Tahoe, California, and the right-of way of Lake Tahoe Boulevard south of"D" Street, within the unincorporated area of El Dorado County, California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of, 1) adjustment of boundaries between two adjacent parcels, El Dorado County APN 032-314-13 and APN 032-314-14; 2) construction of a new booster station building on the resulting (larger) parcel APN 032-314-13; 3) construction of new 12-inch diameter water mains within Lake Tahoe Boulevard between the proposed booster station and "D" Street, approximately 2,150 feet to the north. POTENTIAL ENVffiONMENT AL EFFECTS: The Initial Study describes the potential environmental effects of the proposed project, and concludes that implementation of the project would not result in any significant adverse environmental effects. HAZARDOUS WASTE: The site does not contain hazardous waste materials, and the site is not on any list of hazardous waste facilities prepared pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: STPUD has determined to make the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration available to the public for review and comment pursuant to Section 15073(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The comment period begins December 29, 2008 and ends on January 30, 2008 at 5 p.m. STPUD's Board of Directors will consider adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the project at its regularly scheduled Board Meeting on February 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. to which the Public and all interested parties to this matter are invited. RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization and send your responses and comments to: John A. Thiel, P.E., M.B.A. Principal Engineer, STPUD 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are available for review during regular business hours at the STPUD address listed above. If you require additional information please contact Mr. Thiel at (530) 543-6209 or submit questions and comments by fax at 530-541-0614. -81- Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title: Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Proiect Lead Agency: South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) Mailing Address: 1275 Meadow Crest Drive City: South Lake Tahoe, CA Zip: 96150 Appendix C SCH# Contact Pel1lon: John Thiel, P.E.. M.B.A Phone: 530-543-6209 County: U.S.A Project Location: County: EI Dorado County City/Nearest Community: South Lake Tahoe, CA Cross Streets: Lake Tahoe Blvd, and Industrial Way Zip Code: 96 Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): ~o ~/~" N / 120 o~'~" W Total Acres: 0.11 Assessor's Parcel No.: 032-314-13 Section: 8 Twp.: 12N Range: 18E Base: MOM Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: HWY 50 and HWY 89 Waterways: Lake Tahoe Airports: Railways: Schools: South Tahoe Hiqh Document Type: CEQA: 0 Nap o Early Cons [{] Neg Dee OMit Neg Dec o Draft EIR o Supplement/Subsequent EIR (Prior SCH No.) Other: NEPA: o NOl Other: o EA o Draft EIS o FONSI Local Action Type: o General Plan Update o General Plan Amendment o General Plan Element o Community Plan o Specific Plan o Master Plan o Planned Unit Development o Site Plan o Rezone o Prezone o Use Permit o Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) Development Type: o Residential: Units _ Acres o Office: Sq. ft. Acres_ o Commercial:Sq.ft. === Acres_ o Industrial: Sq. ft. Acres D Educational: - - o Recreational: [2] Water Facilities:Type Booster Station Employees_ Employees_ Employees_ o Transportation: Type o Mining: Mineral o Power: Type o Waste Treatment: Type o Hazardous Waste:Type o Other: o Joint Document o Final Document o Other: o Annexation o Redevelopment o Coastal Permit o Other: MW MGD MGD N/A Project Issues Discussed in Document: [2] Aesthetic/Visual 0 Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks o Agricultural Land 0 Flood Plain/Flooding . 0 Schools/Universities [2] Air Quality 0 Forest Land/Fire Hazard 0 Septic Systems [2] Archeological/Historical [{] Geologic/Seismic 0 Sewer Capacity [{] Biological Resources 0 Minerals [{] Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading o Coastal Zone [{] Noise 0 Solid Waste [2] Drainage/Absorption [{] Population/Housing Balance [{] Toxic/Hazardous o Economic/Jobs [{] Public Services/Facilities [{] Traffic/Circulation o Vegetation o Water Quality o Water Supply/Groundwater o Wetland/Riparian o Growth Inducement [{] Land Use o Cumulative Effects o Other: -------------------------------- Present Land UselZoning/General Plan Designation: Commercia Iflnd ustria I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) Please see attached Project Description -82- Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. {fa Sell number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or preriol/s draji docl/menr) please fill in. Revised 2008 Reviewing Agencies Checklist Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". Air Resources Board Boating & Waterways, Department of _ California Highway Patrol Caltrans District # Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Caltrans Planning _ Central Valley Flood Protection Board Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy Coastal Commission Colorado River Board _ Conservation, Department of Corrections, Department of Delta Protection Commission Education, Department of Energy Commission ~ Fish & Game Region # ~ Food & Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of Housing & Community Development Integrated Waste Management Board Native American Heritage Commission _ Office of Emergency Services Office of Historic Preservation Office of Public School Construction _ Parks & Recreation, Department of _ Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission ~ Regional WQCB # ~ Resources Agency _ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. _ San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy _ San Joaquin River Conservancy Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy State Lands Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants _ SWRCB: Water Quality _ SWRCB: Water Rights ~ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency _ Toxic Substances Control, Department of _ Water Resources, Department of x X Other: EI Dorado County Other: City of South Lake Tahoe Local Public Review Period (to be filled In by lead agency) -------------------------------------------- Starting Date Dec. 29, 2008 ------------------------------ Ending Date Feb. 5, 2009 Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: South Tahoe Public Utility District Address: 1275 Meadow Crest Drive City/State/Zip: South Lake Tahoe, CA Contact: John Thiel, P.E., M.BA Phone: 530-543-6209 Applicant: Same as lead agency Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Signature of Lead Agency Representative: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code. -83- Revised 2008 NOTICE OF INTENT To Adopt a Negative Declaration SUBJECT: Notice ofIntent to Adopt a Negative Declaration in Compliance with Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND) for the action identified below. PROJECT TITLE: Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Project PROJECT LOCATION: El Dorado County APN 032-314-13 and 032-314-14 within the City of South Lake Tahoe, California, and the right-of way of Lake Tahoe Boulevard south of"D" Street, within the unincorporated area ofE! Dorado County, California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of, 1) adjustment of boundaries between two adjacent parcels, El Dorado County APN 032-314-13 and APN 032-314-14; 2) construction of a new booster station building on the resulting (larger) parcel APN 032-314-13; 3) construction of new 12-inch diameter water mains within Lake Tahoe Boulevard between the proposed booster station and "D" Street, approximately 2,150 feet to the north. POTENTIAL ENVffiONMENTAL EFFECTS: The Initial Study describes the potential environmental effects of the proposed project, and concludes that implementation of the project would not result in any significant adverse environmental effects. HAZARDOUS WASTE: The site does not contain hazardous waste materials, and the site is not on any list of hazardous waste facilities prepared pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: STPUD has detennined to make the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration available to the public for review and comment pursuant to Section 15073(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The comment period begins December 29, 2008 and ends on January 30, 2008 at 5 p.m. STPUD's Board of Directors will consider adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the project at its regularly scheduled Board Meeting on February 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. to which the Public and all interested parties to this matter are invited. RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization and send your responses and comments to: John A. Thiel, P.E., M.B.A. Principal Engineer, STPUD 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are available for review during regular business hours at the STPUD address listed above. If you require additional infonnation please contact Mr. Thiel at (530) 543-6209 or submit questions and comments by fax at 530-541-0614. -84- JJ Appendix C Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 SCH# Project Title: Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Prolect Lead Agency: South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) Mailing Address: 1275 Meadow Crest Drive City: South lake Tahoe. CA Zip: 96150 Contact Person: John Thiel, P.E., M.B.A Phone: 530-543-6209 County: U.S.A .----------------------------------------- Project Location: County: EI Dorado County City/Nearest Community: South lake Tahoe. CA Cross Streets: Lake Tahoe Blvd, and Industrial Way Zip Code: 96 LongitudelLatitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): ~o ~' ~"N / 120 0 ~: ~"W Total Acres: 0.11 Assessor's Parcel No.: 032-314-13 Section: 8 Twp.: 12N Range: 18E Base: MOM Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: HWY 50 and HWY 89 Waterways: lake Tahoe Airports: Railways: Schools: South Tahoe Hl~h -------------------- Document Type: CEQA: 0 NOP o Early Cons o Neg Dee OMit Neg Dec o Draft EIR o Supplement/Subsequent EIR (Prior SCH No.) Other; NBPA: o NOl Other: DBA o Draft EIS o FONSI o Joint Document o Final Document o Other: ---------------- Local Action Type: o General Pian Update o General Plan Amendment o General Plan Element o Community Plan o Specific Plan o Master Plan o Planned Unit Development [2] Site Plan o Rezone o Prezone o Use Permit o Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) o Annexation o Redevelopment o Coastal Permit o Other: Development Type: o Residential: Units _ Acres_ o Office: Sq. ft. _ Acres_ o Commercial:Sq.ft. _ Acres_ o Industrial: Sq. ft. _ Acres_ o Educational: o Recreational: o Water Facililies:Type Booster Station o Transportation: Type o Mining: Mineral o Power: Type o Waste Treatment:Type o Hazardous Waste:Type o Other: Employees_ Employees_ Employees_ MW MGD MGD N/A Project Issues Discussed In Document: [2] AestheticlVisual 0 Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks o Agricultural Land 0 Flood Plain/Flooding 0 Schools/Universities [2] Air Quality 0 Forest Land/Fire Hazard 0 Septic Systems [2] Archeological/Historical 0 Geologic/Seismic 0 Sewer Capacity [2] Biological Resources 0 Minerals 0 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading o Coastal Zone 0 Noise 0 Solid Waste o Drainage/Absorption 0 Population/Housing Balance 0 Toxic/Hazardous o Economic/Jobs 0 Public Services/Facilities [{] Traffic/Circulation o Vegetation o Water Quality o Water Supply/Groundwater o Wetland/Riparian o Growth Inducement o Land Use o Cumulative Effects o Other: --------------------- Present Land UselZonlng/General Plan Designation: CommercJal/lndustrlal -------------------------------------------- Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) Please see attached Project Description Note: Tlte Slule Cleuri"ghouStl will ussigt. idelfti!icu/ion numbers /01' all new projecls. If a SCH uumber ulready e.Tistsfor u project (e.g. NOlice of Prepam/ioIJ or previous dmft documelfl) pleuse Jill in. Revised 2008 -85- ..,1,- . ,H . ... .J i Reviewing Agencies Checklist Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". Air Resources Board _ Boating & Waterways, Department of ~ California Highway Patrol Caltrans District # Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Caltrans Planning _ Central Valley Flood Protection Board Coacbella Valley Mtns. Conservancy Coastal Commission Colorado River Board _ Conservation, Department of _ Corrections, Department of Delta Protection Commission Education,Departmentof Energy Commission 2L- Fish & Game Region # ~ Food & Agriculture, Department of _ Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of Housing & Community Development Integrated Waste Management Board Native American Heritage Commission _ Office of Emergency Services Office of Historic Preservation Office of Public School Construction _ Parks & Recreation, Department of _ Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission ~ Regional WQCB # !..- _ Resources Agency _ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. _ San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy _ San Joaquin River Conservancy Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy State Lands Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants _ SWRCB: Water Quality _ SWRCB: Water Rights ~ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency _ Toxic Substances Control, Department of _ Water Resources, Department of x X Other: EI Dorado County Other: City of South Lake Tahoe Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date Dec. 29, 2008 Ending Date Feb. 5, 2009 Lead Agency (Complete If applicable): Consulting Finn: South Tahoe Public Utility District Address: 1275 Meadow Crest Drive CitylStatelZip: South Lake Tahoe, CA Contact: John Thiel, P.E., M.B.A. Phone: 530-543-6209 Applicant: Same as lead agency Address: City/StatelZip: Phone: S~~t:,"~~d ~":y ~:~.:..~~,~ Date: /2.. /,. or Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code. Revised 2008 -86- Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Replacement Project 2. Lead agency name and address: South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 3. Contact person and phone number: John Thiel, P.E., M.B.A., 530.543.6206 4. Project location: 1012 Industrial Ave., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96140, APN #032-314-13 5. Project sponsor's name and address: STPUD Same as above 6. General plan designation: Industrial 7. Zoning: Commercial-Public Service 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) See attached Project Description. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: See attached Project Description. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits. financing approval. or -87- participation agreement.) See attached Project Description. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Cl Aesthetics Cl Agriculture Resources Cl Air Quality Cl Biological Resources Cl Cultural Resources Cl Geology/Soils Cl Hazards & Cl HydrologylWater Cl Land Use/Planning Hazardous Materials Quality Cl Mineral Resources Cl Noise Cl Population/Housing Cl Public Services Cl Recreation Cl T ransportationlT raffic Cl Utilities/Service Cl Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: m I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Cl Cl Cl -88- [J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Bree Allen Printed Name STPUD For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR -89- or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b). the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -90- Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant MItigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a CJ CJ CJ ~ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, CJ CJ ~ CJ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual CJ CJ ~ CJ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or CJ CJ LI ~ glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique CJ CJ LI ~ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural CJ LI LI ~ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing CJ CJ LI ~ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? -91- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of Ll Ll Ll r&l the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or Ll Ll ~ Ll contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net Ll Ll Ll lEI increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial Ll Ll Ll [I pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a Ll Ll Ll lEI substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either Ll Ll Ll ~ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any Ll Ll Ll [I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Ll Ll Ll lEI federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, -92- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement LI LI LI ~ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or LI LI LI ~ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted LI LI D ~ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the D LI ~ LI significance of a historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the LI LI ~ LI significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique LI LI ~ D paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including D D ~ Ll those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential D LI f[I D substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as D LI D rEI delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. -93- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? r:J r:J r:J !XI iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including r:J r:J r:J !XI liquefaction? iv) Landslides? r:J r:J r:J !XI b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the r:J r:J r:J IKJ loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is r:J r:J r:J IKJ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in r:J r:J r:J !XI Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately r:J r:J r:J !XI supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or r:J r:J ~ r:J the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or r:J r:J ~ r:J the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle r:J r:J ~ r:J hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? -94- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant MItigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a Ll Ll Ll I!I list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land Ll r:J Ll l!] use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private Ll r:J Ll I!I airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically Ll r:J Ll 1M interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a Ll r:J LI 1M significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALlTY- - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or Ll Ll 1M r:J waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater Ll Ll [J r:J supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage Ll r:J rn:I r:J pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or -95- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage Cl Cl ~ Cl pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which Cl Cl ~ Cl would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water Cl Cl [I Cl quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood Cl Cl Cl ~ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area Cl Cl Cl ~ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant Cl Cl Cl !XI risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Cl Cl Cl !XI IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established Cl Cl Cl ~ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, Cl Cl ~ Cl policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat Cl Cl ~ Cl conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? -96- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known D D D rEI mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- D D D ~ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of D D D ~ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 D 0 ~ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 D 0 ~ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 D !XI 0 increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land 0 D 0 ~ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 D 0 ~ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? -97- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an Ll Ll Ll [J area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing Ll Ll Ll IXJ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, Ll Ll Ll ~ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Ll Ll Ll IXJ Police protection? Ll Ll Ll IXJ Schools? Ll Ll Ll [J Parks? Ll Ll Ll [J Other public facilities? Ll Ll Ll ~ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of Ll Ll Ll [J existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? -98- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Does the project include recreational [j r:J [j ~ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTA TION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is [j r:J ~ r:J substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, [j LJ LI lEI a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, LI LJ LI lEI including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a LI r:J lEI r:J design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LI LJ LI ~ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? LI LJ LI ~ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or LI LI LI ~ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment LJ r:J LI ~ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? -99- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than with Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Require or result in the construction of Cl Cl ~ Cl new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new Cl Cl ~ Cl storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to Cl Cl Cl iii serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the Cl Cl Cl iii wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient Cl Cl Cl ~ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local Cl Cl Cl l[I statutes and regUlations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to Cl Cl ~ D degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are Cl Cl [] D individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental -100- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Cl Cl [I Cl Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,21094,21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988); Leonoffv. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 (1990). -101- Twin Peaks Pump Station and Waterline PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT INTRODUCTION The South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) is located in California on the south shore of Lake Tahoe, delivering domestic water supply for an estimated 14,000 residential and 600 commercial customers. STPUD also provides sewage collection, treatment and disposal for an estimated 17,000 connections. Since the Angora Fire in the summer of 2007, the District has been concerned about providing reliability and redundancy for all transmission and distribution infrastructure systems, to maintain fire fighting capabilities in the event that one or more facilities becomes disabled during a fire event. One area where the current infrastructure has been identified with limitations is the South Tahoe High School. Therefore, the District has proposed the construction of the Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Project (Project). The Project includes the construction of a booster station building housing pumps and related equipment and related 12-inch diameter water mains in Lake Tahoe Blvd. Figure 1 depicts the concept plan. Project Location The booster station will be located approximately 2,080 feet south of the intersection of Industrial Ave. and Lake Tahoe Blvd. on a proposed SO-foot x 80-foot parcel, easterly and adjacent to Lake Tahoe Blvd. The site for the proposed booster station includes an existing STPUD-owned parcel (APN 032-314-13), and a portion of the adjoining parcel (APN 032-314- 14) currently under separate ownership. The parcels are located within the City of South Lake Tahoe, and are bordered to the west and south by the unincorporated area of EI Dorado County. Existing Conditions The existing STPUD parcel is small (25' x 50'), and includes an abandoned water well and associated pump building. The parcel and well facilities were purchased by STPUD from the Angora Water Company in the 1970's, but no longer serves any function as part of the STPUD water infrastructure. The adjoining parcel to the north and east is owned by Delta Tahoe, Inc., is approximately 1.89 acres in size, and is occupied by automobile repair facilities and outdoor paved parking areas. The proposed project will require the acquisition of land from Delta Tahoe Inc., through a Minor Boundary Line Adjustment (MBLA). The remaining portions of the project are located within the right-of-way of Lake Tahoe Blvd., between the booster station site and Viking Road approximately 3,510 lineal feet to the north. Lake Tahoe Blvd. is currently a 4-lane paved road. There is an existing 12-inch water main running parallel to Lake Tahoe Blvd. on the west side of the roadway. Other underground utilities exist within the roadway as well. This portion of the project area is within the unincorporated area of EI Dorado County. FINAL - DECEMBER 18, 2008 J:\0071.0S\Docs\Planning\CEQA\71.0S_Project Description.doc -102- PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of the construction of a new booster station adjacent to Lake Tahoe Blvd., and associated underground pipelines and utilities located in Lake Tahoe Blvd. The project is proposed to be constructed during the 2009 construction season, between the months of May and October. Booster Station The proposed booster station building is a masonry block structure with slab floor and wood framed roof structure. The building is approximately 38 feet in length, 27 feet in width and 27 feet tall. The building will house three vertical turbine pumps, backup power generator, motor controls and related equipment. Site work associated with the building includes approximately 2,700 SF of asphalt paving for access by maintenance vehicles. This includes a 20-foot wide driveway connection to Lake Tahoe Blvd., with tapers designed to the requirements of EI Dorado County Dept. of Transportation (DOT). The site will be fenced for security purposes. The South Y Industrial Tract Community Plan (Plan) includes the area about one-mile southwest of the South Tahoe "yn, east of Lake Tahoe Blvd. and generally includes all properties south of D St., between Industrial Ave. and Lake Tahoe Blvd. The plan states that all parcels along Lake Tahoe Blvd. shall be required to screen all development. The screening proposed by the District solid wood fence along Lake Tahoe Blvd. with a wrought iron or chain link fence, six feet high along the north, east and west property lines. The access gate will be operated manually and will a swing type gate. Site work will include installation of drainage improvements designed to collect, treat and dispose of runoff associated with a 100-year storm from all impervious surfaces on the site. Storm water treatment and snow storage will be located on the east side of the site. Drainage from the northerly building roof line would be collected in a drip line infiltration trench along the north property line. The pavement would be graded to slope to the east and to facilitate drainage collection and treatment. Materials and equipment for construction of the project would be staged immediately to the north of the booster station site, on existing paved areas. Water Mains The booster station will lift water from the pressure zone around the Industrial Blvd. area to the high school. A 12-inch diameter water line will be constructed in Lake Tahoe Blvd. from the intersection of Industrial Blvd. to the booster station (approximately 415-feet), to provide the water supply (suction line) to the pump. This portion of the water line will be located in the westerly edge of the southbound lane of Lake Tahoe Blvd. A 12-inch diameter pump discharge FINAL - OcTOBER 7,2008 J:\OO71.0S\Docs\Planning\CEOA\71.0S_Project Descripllon.doc 2 -103- line will be placed from the booster station to D Street (approximately 2,150-feet) where it will connect to the existing South Tahoe High School (STHS) a'-inch water main at the northwest corner of D Street and Lake Tahoe Blvd. and will tie into an existing 12-inch waterline that will convey flows up Lake Tahoe Blvd. to two water tanks that would support fire flow. The suction line and the discharge line will occupy the same trench to the intersection of Industrial Ave. From Industrial Ave. to D Street, the discharge line will be placed in the center of the easterly southbound lane of Lake Tahoe Blvd. All trench construction within Lake Tahoe Blvd. will occupy only one lane of traffic in any direction, such that three lanes will be available for traffic during construction. Materials for the proposed water lines will be polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) or ductile iron. Open cut trenching methods will be used to allow for continues service of the existing water mains. Standard trench depth under the paved surface will be 5-1/2 feet, allowing for 48-inches of pipe cover. The pipelines will be deeper in the vicinity of Industrial Ave. to provide clearance to existing water lines in that area. Trench surface restoration will consist of a 2-inch grind over the entire lane width by the pipeline length within the roadway, and an asphalt overlay to match existing grades. Other Utilities Primary power will be provided to the site through installation of underground conduits from a pole located approximately 200-feet to the south of the site. The conduits will be placed east of the roadway shoulder, at the bottom of the roadway fill slope and clear of the pavement. Boundary Line Adjustment Parcel boundaries will be adjusted to accommodate the booster station building and site work. The existing parcel has 25-feet of frontage along Lake Tahoe Blvd., and a depth of 50-feet. STPUD will acquire additional land to the north and east from Delta Tahoe, Inc. The adjusted parcel will have SO-feet of frontage, with a depth of 80-feet. The property to be acquired by the STPUD to complete the project is currently entirely paved. Other Agency Approvals Required EI Dorado County (County) A roadway encroachment permit will be will be required for the driveway access to the booster pump station from Lake Tahoe Blvd. and for the pipeline proposed within the County road right-of-way. City of South Lake Tahoe (City) A roadway encroachment permit will be will be required for that portion of the pipeline FINAL - OCTOBER 7, 2008 J:\0071,OS\Docs\Planning\CEOA\71.0S_Project Description.doc 3 -104- within the City road right-of-way. In addition, an application for Minor Boundary Line Adjustment will be submitted for the modifications for the boundaries of the existing District and Delta Tahoe Inc. properties. The booster station building may be subject to Minor Design Review through the City Community Development Dept. - Planning Division. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) The TRPA will require Project Review for the booster station, pipelines and Minor Boundary Adjustment. This will be done through submittal of a Public Service Application to TRPA. EXPANDED RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. Aesthetics The site is currently developed with a structure, fencing and paving. Land uses to the north and east are industrial. Existing views from the roadway will change as a result of the project, but will not be out of character with the existing developed conditions. No exterior lighting or reflective surfaces are proposed. II. Agricultural Resources No agricultural lands are affected. III. Air Quality Normal operation of the facility will not result in impacts to air quality. Air quality impacts due to emissions during construction of the project will be mitigated through implementation of standard conditions of approval in accordance with Chapter 91 of the TRPA Code. IV. Biological Resources The project is proposed within an urbanized, previously developed area. The lot on which the booster station will be built is entirely paved, as is the road under which the waterline will be constructed. There will be no removal of vegetation proposed with this project and no impacts on drainage courses, as there are no streams, lakes, ponds or drainage courses within the limits of the proposed project. V. Cultural Resources No known cultural resources exist in the project area. Previously undiscovered cultural resources may be impacted during construction. This potential impact will be mitigated through identification and protection of previously undiscovered cultural resources in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 29 of the TRPA Code. FINAL - OcTOBER 7, 2008 J:\0071.0S\Docs\Plannlng\CEOA\71.0S_Project Description.doc 4 -105- VI. Geology and Soils The project geotechnical report prepared by Stantech (June 2008) identified no unstable soils or potential for liquefaction. The closest fault lies V4 mile to the south of the booster station, but its existence was deemed uncertain. Earthwork and ground disturbance required for construction of the project is summarized in Table 1, below: Table 1 Earthwork/Ground Disturbance Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Project STPUD Total Area of Total Export Total Import Total Import Disturbance (sf) 1 (cy)2 Structural/Bedding (cy) Native (cy) Booster Station 4,800 304 154 150 Water Mains Single Trench 3 5,205 1,060 482 578 Double Trench 4 1,656 337 153 184 Total 11,661 1,701 789 912 Notes: 1. sf = square footage 2. cy = cubic yardage 3. The single trench contains one 12-inch water main and is 3-feet wide. 4. The double trench contains two 12-inch water mains and is 4-feet wide. The geotechnical report prepared by Stantec Consulting dated June 2008 recommends that the entire booster station building footprint area be over- excavated to approximately four feet below the existing surface. That material is to be replaced with structural fill to the proposed pad grade. The report also recommends that bedding material be placed in the bottom of pipeline excavations from the bottom of the trench to 12-inches above the top of pipe, with the remainder of the trench filled with native backfill. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials No hazardous materials will be routinely transported or stored during operation of the project. Construction of the project will involve the transport and storage of fuels, paints and other flammable and/or toxic materials, and construction of the project could expose workers to hazards due to the nature of construction. This potential impact will be mitigated through preparation and implementation of a Health and Safety Plan by the project contractor. FINAL - OCTOBER 7, 2008 J:\0071.0S\Docs\Planning\CEOA\71.0S_Project Description.doc 5 -106- VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The project will involve excavation and disturbance of soils, and as such there is a potential for impacts to surface and ground water quality. These impacts will be mitigated through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's). Project BMP's shall include installation and monitoring of temporary erosion protection and water quality treatment systems, permanent water quality treatment systems, and erosion controls and revegetation all in accordance with TRPA requirements. Permanent water quality treatment systems shall be designed to treat and retain the runoff associated with a 20-year, 1-hour storm from all proposed impervious surfaces. The project includes a storm water detention facility sized to accommodate a higher quantity of runoff, to reduce the likelihood of offsite discharge to downstream properties. According to the geotechnical report, groundwater was located at 21-feet below the booster station site and between 2 and 8-feet throughout the pipeline alignment. Groundwater levels can fluctuate significantly during different times of the year with typically higher groundwater levels encountered during spring runoff. The field exploration done for the geotechnical report was completed in May when groundwater levels were likely higher than most times of the year. Due to the anticipated depth of the water mains, dewatering can be achieved by pumping directly from the bottom of the excavation. The contractor will be required to submit a dewatering plan for District and TRPA approval prior to beginning construction, demonstrating how dewatering will be conducted to prevent impacts to water resources. IX. Land Use and Planning The proposed land use associated with the booster station is consistent with the South Wye Industrial Tract Community Plan (CP), which classifies the land use as Commercial-Public Service. The project as proposed includes the construction of a paved driveway from Lake Tahoe Boulevard into the booster station site. The CP, adopted in March 2003, includes Policy F, which implements Objective 2 of the Transportation Goal 1. Policy F provides that "No new ingress/egress points shall be access to Lake Tahoe Boulevard. n The parcel upon which the Twin Peaks Booster Station will be located was created in 1965 through transfers from Inter-County Title to Delta Terminals, Inc. and Angora Water Company. When the parcel was created, there were no access rights or easements reserved or created, as the parcel abuts Lake Tahoe Boulevard. While since that time the STPUD may have has permissive access to the parcel from neighboring landowners, the parcel's rights as to ingress and egress were and have been from Lake Tahoe Boulevard since the parcel's creation. For that reason, the FINAL - OCTOBER 7, 2008 J:\0071.0S\Docs\Planning\CEOA\71 .05 _Project Description.doc 6 -107- District's access (ingress/egress) of the parcel from Lake Tahoe Boulevard is not "new" ingress and egress, as prohibited by the CP, as it has existed for over 40 years. Accordingly, STPUD's "projectn - the placement of a booster station on the former well site and the access of the station by District staff - includes nothing inconsistent with the CP. X. Mineral Resources There are no mineral resources identified on the site. XI. Noise The booster station will not generate noise during normal operation. Construction of the project will subject adjoining properties to short-term noise impacts as a result of the running of heavy equipment and tools. As the project is being conducted within an industrial neighborhood, there are no sensitive receptors to temporary noise during construction, and this impact will be less than significant. XII. Population and Housing The infrastructure proposed by this project will provide for enhanced fire suppression for existing developed areas, and is not planned to provide supplemental water supply for domestic use purpose. The project therefore is not growth inducing. XIII. Public Services The project proposes to enhance public services (fire suppression). XIV. Recreation The project proposes no new recreational facilities, and does not impact any recreational opportunities. XV. TransportationlTraffic No long term impacts to traffic or transportation are expected as a result of the project. Access to the site from lake Tahoe Boulevard will be necessary for maintenance and monitoring purposes, but this would be very infrequent (once per week). The project will result in short term impacts to traffic in the vicinity of the project during construction, as a result of the single lane closures and excavating equipment operating in the roadway and intersection. These short term impacts will be mitigated through preparation and approval of a traffic control plan, which must be approved by EI Dorado County DOT prior to construction. FINAL - OCTOBER 7,2008 J:\0071.0S\Docs\Planning\CEOA\71.0S_Project Description.doc 7 -108- XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The Project will not generate wastewater during normal operation. During maintenance to the pump station building, the inside of the building may require occasional washing. A drain has been installed inside the building to collect any wastewater and connects to a sump outside the building in the driveway. A vactor truck will collect the wastewater generated from the washing of the building and dispose of it appropriately. This impact will be less than significant. The Project will result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities. The stormwater treatment includes the following: . Trench Drain . Catch Basin . Storm Drain Piping · Underground Infiltration System. This impact will be less than significant. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Lahontan Region (Lahontan) and TRPA appropriate project Best Management Practices (BMPs) both temporary and permanent will be installed. The following are descriptions of both the permanent and temporary BMPs. TEMPORARY BMPs Temporary erosion control will be provided during the construction of the Project. All BMP's will be monitored on a daily basis and any problems will be immediately rectified and include the following: 1. Soil Protection Measures 2. Erosion Control Fencing 3. Tree Protection Fencing 4. Gravel Bag Check Dam 5. Dust Control PERMANENT BMPs Permanent BMP's will be implemented for long-term erosion control. All permanent BMP's will be in-place at the conclusion of the construction of the Project. 1. Stormwater Treatment a. Valley Gutter b. Catch Basin c. Storm Drain Piping d. Underground Infiltration System. FINAL - OCTOBER 7, 2008 J:\0071.0S\Docs\Planning\CEOA\71.0S_Project Description.doc 8 -109- G~ntlral Manager Richard H 5olbri~ South Tahoe Public Utility District DirecUm;; Ernie Claudio Jam~ ~. JOMlt Mary Lou Mo~ACher Date RIse 1275 Meadow Q"et Driv8 · South LskB Tahoe. CA 96t50 PhOnB 530 544-6474 · Fax 530 541-0614 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6d TO: Board of Directors FROM: MEETING DATE: Jim Hoggatt, Construction Manager/Engineer February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Project REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: (1) Waive the minor bid irregularities; and (2) Award the bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Resource Development Company, Inc., in the amount of $1 ,743,395.00. DISCUSSION: District staff received and opened 10 bids for the above project on January 27, 2009. Resource Development Company submitted the low bid of 1,743,395.00. They had two minor irregularities in their bid: (1) The total bid amount written in words was $1,743,395.00. The numbers presented in the bid items calculated out to be $1,745,433.50. The project specifications state the amount written in words shall govern. (2) They wrote in the surety broker in the space provided instead of the surety company and agent. The project specifications allow the Board to waive minor irregularities. SCHEDULE: As soon as possible COSTS: $1,743,395.00 ACCOUNT NO: 2029-7070rrPBSTR BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: $62,071 ATTACHMENTS: Bid results memo CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES A2H CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES CATEGORY: Water NO NO -111- South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Telephone: (530)544-6474 Fax: (530)541-0614 Memorandum Date: January 27, 2009 To: Board Members, Richard So/brig, Paul Sciuto From: Heidi Donovan, Contracts Administrator Subject: Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Project At 2:00 o'clock this afternoon we received and. opened ten (10) sealed bids for the above-referenced project. Bids ranged from $1,743,395 to 2,080,425. The engineer's estimate was $2,088,049. A careful review and analysis of each bid showed only minor deviations. See attached spreadsheet and list of deviations for full breakdown of each bid. ROC, Inc. (Resource Development Company) is the apparent low bidder. ROC, Inc. had two minor deviations. I contacted the Contractors License Board and was given the following information: License Number 461393 is current and active and expires 08/17/2010. The company is a corporation. ROC, Inc. (Resource Development Company) holds a Class A - General Engineering license. South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.64741.1~simile 530.541.0614 Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Proiect Bid OpeninQ: 1/27/2009 at 2:00 o'clock p.m. Deviations found in review of five lowest bids: ROC, Inc.: . Their written bid was $1,743,395; but the numbers presented in the bid items calculate out to be $1,745,433.50. . They wrote the surety broker in the space that requested the "surety company and agentn information. KG Walters Construction Companv.lnc. . Their bid written in words was One Million Seven Hundred Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Five Dollars and no cents, and was written in numbers as $1,771,755. Pacific Mechanical Corporation: . Their bid was written in figures to read $1,888,295. . They had two bid amounts written in words (one matching the numerical bid and one matching the numerical amount that had been crossed out). . The bid items actually calculate out to be $1,888,295. Thomas Haen Companv.lnc.: . No deviations. WES Construction Co.. Inc.: . Only listed insurance broker/agent in blank where "surety company and agent" information is requested. -114- SOUTH TAHOE PUBUC UTILITY DISTRICTS TWIN PEAKS BOOSTER PUMP STATION AND WATERLINE BID SUMMARY ump station pavement section (3" AC over 8" AB) Storm drain system Suction piping (DIP) Suction piping (PVC) Discharge piping (DIP) Discharge piping (PVC) Fire Hydrants SF Item Description 1 2 3 4 $23,100.00 $8,400.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18A 18B 19A 198 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Unit Mobilization and demobilization LS Temporary erosion control complete and in place LS Traffic Control LS Pump Station Site Preparation LS Pump Station site overexcavation LS Dewatering LS Storing and worker safety LS Pump station site grading and improvements LS Pump Station 6' fencing LS Pump Station 8' fencing LS Pump Station site access gate LS Pump Station building Booster pumps and motors Bridge Crane LS EA LS LS LS LF LF LF LF EA LS Electrical Systems Instr mentabon and Control r LS tandby power generator et al LS LS Primary power service Pavemer$ Restoration (Ste 10+00 to 14 +20 Pavement RestSration (Sta 14 +20 to 14+64) Pavement Restoration (b 27 14+64 to 31+66) 28 Connection Detail No. 1 29 Connection Detail No. 2 SF SF 30 Connection Detail No. 3 TOTALS per DI I T R IEW TOTALS as WRITTEN IN BID RECEIVED ATY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2400 1 475 475 2265 2265 2 1 1 1 1 5100 900 SF LS LS LS 1 ULATION: Engineer's Estimate Unit Price 99,300.00 13,030.00 32,570.00 32,570.00 39,080.00 32,570.00 58,630.00 32,570.00 5,860.00 4,560.00 9,770.00 390,840.00 106,827.00 $516,700.00 $217,500.00 88,590.00 65,140.00 10.42 45,600.00 98.00 $17,800.00 $0.00 98.00 3,910.00 195,420.00 52,110.00 110,740.00 19,540.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 19,540.00 9,770.00 19,540.00 Amount $99,300.00 $13,030.00 $32,570.00 $32,570.00 $39,080.00 $32,570.00 $58,630.00 $32,570.00 $5,860.00 $4,560.00 S9,770.00 $390,840.00 $320,481.00 $88,590.00 $65,140.00 $25,008.00 $45,600.00 $46,550.00 $0 .00 $221,970.00 $0.00 $7,820.00 $195,420.00 $52,110.00 $110,740.00 $19,540.00 $40,880.00 $19,540.00 S9,770.00 $19,540.00 $2,088,049.00 Resource Development Unit Price $56,800.00 $13,700.00 $23,100.00 $8,400.00 $14,600.00 $5,800.00 $5,300.00 $37,600.00 $19,300.00 $9,400.00 $17,300.00 $516,700.00 $72,500.00 $36,000.00 $69,300.00 $7.00 $17,800.00 $86.00 $43.90 $7,050.00 $179,600.00 $86,600.00 $100,800.00 $23,800.00 $3.50 $3.50 $5.00 $35,700.00 $18,100.00 $14 500.00 Amount $56,800.00 $13,700.00 $14,600.00 $5,800.00 $5,300.00 $37,600.00 $19,300.00 $9,400.00 $17,300.00 $36,000.00 $69,300.00 $16,800.00 $40,850.00 $0.00 $99,433.50 $14,100.00 $179,600.00 $86,600.00 $100,800.00 $23,800.00 $40,800.00 $7,200.00 $14 500.00 $1,745,433.50 $1,743,395.00 KG Walters Construction Unit Price 90,000.00 7,000.00 8,300.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 950.00 1,100.00 35,000.00 13,500.00 4,000.06 3,100.00 252,000.00 78,000.00 60,000.00 86,700.00 8.00 29,300.00 79.00 35.00 3,950.00 515,000.00 95,000.00 82,000.00 8,400.00' 5.00 5.00 5.50 5,500.00 13,500.00 7,400.00 Amount $90,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,300.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $950.00 $1,100.00 $35,000.00 $4,000.00 $13,500.00 $ $252,000.00 $234,000.00 $60,000.00 $86,700.00 $19,200.00 S29,300.00 $0.00 $37,525.00 $0.00 $79,275.00 $7,900.00 $515,000.00 $95,000.00 $82,000.00 $8,400.00 $25,500.00 $4,500.00 $28,105.00 $5,500.00 $13,500.00 $7 400.00 $1,771,755.00 Same Pacific Mechanical Corp Unit Price $95,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $50,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,500.00 $375,000.00 $55,000.00 $50,000.00 $250,000.00 $7.80 $25,000.00 $100.00 $95.00 $6,000.00 $159,490.00 $ 145,200.00 $ 72,500.00 $ 22,500.00 3.70 3.90 $ 3.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 9 500.00 Amount $95,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $50,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,500.00 $375,000.00 $165,000.00 $50,000.00 $250,000.00 $18,720.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 $47,500.00 $0.00 $215,175.00 $12,000.00 $159,490.00 $ 145,200.00 $ 72,500.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 18,870.00 $ 3,510.00 $ 15,330.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 9 500.00 $1,888,295.00 Same Thomas Haen Company Unit Price $95,800.00 $6,900.00 $28,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,400.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,900.00 $31,900.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $502,000.00 $69,800.00 $45,830.00 $70,500.00 $7.00 $16,300.00 $68.00 S78.00 $4,200.00 $209,200.00, $ 183,700.00 $ 77,430.00 10,960.00 4.75 11.00 $ 5.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 16,000.00 Amount S95,800.00 $6,900.00 $28,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,400.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,900.00 $31,900.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $502,000.00 $209,400.00 $45,830.00 $70,500.00 $16,800.00 $16,300.00 $0.00 $32,300.00 $0.00 $176,670.00 $8,400.00 $209,200.00 $ 183,700.00 $ 77,430.00 $ 10,960.00 $17,850.00 $3,150.00 $ 24,225.00 $ 9,900.00 $25,550.00 $35,700.00 $18,100.00 $ 25,550.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $1,889,065.00 Same 1 item ascription Engineer's Estimate WES Construction Co., Inc Doug Veerkamp Gen1 Eng Manito Construction, Inc. Auburn Constructors, Inc. Unit QTY Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unk Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization and demobilization LS 1 99,300.00 S99,300.00 $23,825.00 $23, 825.00 $87, 000.00 $ 87,000.00 $629,000.00 $629,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 2 Temporary erosion control complete and in place LS 1 13,030.00 $13,030.00 $5,790.00 $5,790.00 $13,300.00 $13,300.00 $22,700.00 $22,700.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 - Mtf in Traffic Control LS 32, 570.00 $32,570.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $5,600.00 $11,100.00 $6,800.00 $11,100.00 $6,800.00 $13,500.00 S20,000.00 $13,500.00 $20.000.00 Pump Station Sde Preparation LS 32,570.00 $32,570.00 $4,675.00 $4,675.00 $5,600.00 Pump Station site overexcavation LS 'I 39,080.00 $39,080.00 $1,130.00 $1,130.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00 $58,500.00 $58,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 1 6 7 Dewateri • LS 1 32 570.00 $32,570.00 $12,000.00 $12 000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Shoring and worker sa = LS 1 58,630.00 $58,630.00 $16,600.00 $16,600.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $7,300.00 $7,300.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 8 Pump station site grading and improvements LS 1 32,570.00 $32,570.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 $29,700.00 $29,700.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 9 Pump Station 6' fencing LS 1 5,860.00 $5,860.00 $14,400.00 $14,400.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $18,700.00 $18,700.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 10 Pump Station 8' fencing LS 1 4, 560.00 $4,560.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $6, 600.00 $6,600.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 11 Pump Station site access gate LS 1 9,770.00 $9,770.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $4, 700.00 $4,700.00 $4,300.00 $4,300.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 12 Pump Station building LS 1 390,840.00 $ 390 ,840.00 $478,200.00 $478,200.00 $596, 000.00 $596, 000.00 $ 482, 500.00 $ 482 ,500.00 $650,000.00 $650,000.00 13 Booster poops and motors EA 3 106,827.00 $320,481.00 $65,000.00 $195,000.00 $67,000.00 $201,000.00 $75,800.00 $227 400.00 $59,000.00 $177,000.00 14 Bridge Crane LS 1 88 ,590.00 $88,590.00 $41,200.00 $41 200.00 $53, 000.00 $53, 000.00 $67, 700.00 $67,700.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 15 Yard piping LS 1 65,140.00 $65,140.00 $248,900.00 $248 900.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $96,500.00 $96,500.00 $85 000.00 $85,000.00 $24,000.00 16 Pump station pavement section (3" AC over 8" AB) SF 2400 10.42 $25,008.00 $5.96 $14,304.00 $9.27 $22,248.00 $9.00 $21,600.00 510.00 I 17 Stonn drain system LS 1 45,600.00 $45,600.00 $21,800.00 $21,800.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $30,300.00 $30,300.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 18A Suction piping (DIP) LF 475 98.00 $46,550.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18B Suction •i•• PVC LF 475 $0.00 $63.96 $30,381.00 $71.00 $33,725.00 $2.11 $1,002.25 $76.00 $36,100.00 __ Pr Discharge piping (DIP) LF 2265 98.00 $221,970.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Discharge piping (PVC) LF 2265 $0.00 $67.50 $152,887.50 $69.00 $156,285.00 $45.00 $101,925.00 $74.00 $167,610.00 Fie Hydrants EA 2 3 910.00 $7,820.00 $7,900.00 $15,800.00 $5,400.00 $10, 800.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 21 Electrical S ems LS 1 195,420.00 $195,420.00 $196,500.00 $196,500.00 $175,000.00 $175,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $108,000.00 $108,000.00 22 I on and Control S LS _ . _ _ I In 52,110.00 $52,110.00 $ 166,500.00 $166,500.00 $ 168,000.00 $168,000.00 $ 186,200.00 $186,200.00 $ 212,000.00 $212,000.00 23 ndby power generator et al LS 110,740.00 $110,740.00 $ 71,000.00 $71,000.00 $ 94,000.00 $94,000.00 $ 93,100.00 $93,100.00 $ 90,000.00 $90,000.00 24 Primary po service LS 19,540.00 $19,540.00 $ 5,600.00 $5,600.00 $ 5,000.00 $5,000.00 $ 10,600.00 $10,600.00 $ 15,000.00 $15,000.00 25 Pa vemerrZ Restoration (Ste 10+00 to 14 +20) SF 8.00 $40,800.00 $ 7.28 $37,128.00 $ 5.57 $28,407.00 $ 6.00 $30,600.00 $ 6.00 $30,600.00 26 Pavement Restoration (Sta 14 +20 to 14+64) SF 900 8.00 $7,200.00 $ 6.27 $5,643.00 $ 4.27 $3,843.00 $ 5.00 $4,500.00 $ 5.00 $4,500.00 27 Pavement Restoration (Sta 14+64 to 31+66 SF 5110 8.00 $40,880.00 $ 13.41 $68,525.10 $ 4.76 $24,323.60 $ 6.00 $30,660.00 $ 5.00 $25,550.00 28 Connection Detail No. 1 LS 1 19,540.00 $19,540.00 $ 16,000.00 $16,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $27,000.00 $ 6,300.00 $6,300.00 $ 29,000.00 $29,000.00 29 Connection Detail No. 2 LS 1 9,770.00 $9,770.00 $ 12,400.00 $12,400.00 $ 14,000.00 $14,000.00 $ 15,500.00 $15,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $15,000.00 30 Connection Detail No. 3 LS 1 19,540,00 $19,540.00 $ 16,100.00 $16,100.00 $ 11,000.00 $11,000.00 $ • 8,500.00 $8,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $12,000.00 TOTALS per DISTRICT REVIEW & CAL ' ULATION: $2,088,049.00 $1,894,588.60 $1,909,931.60 $2,419,887.25 $1,962,360.00 TOTALS as WRITTEN IN BID RECEIVED: Same 1,939,931.60 $1,959,460.00 Same SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT'S TWIN PEAKS BOOSTER PUMP STATION AND WATERLINE BID SUMMARY IMrrh 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 JJQ,u]•ka° ® 13 I 15 16 NM Finn I 19A Description Mobilization and demobilization Traffic Control tabon ite re • . ration Plan • Station site overezcavation Dewateri • Short • and worker safe Pump station site grading an im. • merits Ptah • Station 6• fenci MEM Unit S S LS LS LS LS LS S LS LS ® EA ® LS SF ® � LF LF �iIIl ' Engineer's Unit Pries 99,300.00 13 030.00 32,570.00 Estimate Amount 513 030.00 Aspen Developers Unit Price $20 000.00 Corp Amount 580,000.00 520 000.00 $50000.00 T&S Construction Unk Price $94,000 00 : 000.00 526,000.00 Co., Inc. Amount 594,000.00 58 000.00 526,000.00 32 570.00 39,080.00 532 570.00 $15 000.00 315 000.00 515.000.00 __.__ 8 888 88888888 88888 ... ........ ..... 1 § § §§§& §gg & § § - -- — - a p p — ppp - — N NN F § N NN 511 000.00 54 000.00 511 000.00 32 570.00 58 630.00 32,570.00 32 570.00 558 630.00 $32,570 00 :88 88888888 8 8 8 §.§ § §(p §p(ppip &p�p§§ 4§ H 56 000.00 54,000.00 $4,000.00 56 000.00 $4,000.00 514,000.00 514,000.00 5,860.00 $5,860.00 530,000,00 $30,000.00 [j .,,hr:ly,-r,.• l,:•` 4 560.00 9770.00 390,840.00 $4 560.00 59770.00 $390,840.00 510,000.00 510,000.00 • < -s ivy -z Y. - Pum • Station butidi • Booster • •. and motors Brid• = Crane Yard •' •' • ump station pavement section 3' AC over 8" AB Storm drain - = em Suction • .' • DIP Suction •' • i • PVC Discha • > piping (DIP) 54,000.00 $4,000.00 5584,000.00 5584,000.00 106 827.00 88 590.00 65140.00 10.42 45 600.00 98.00 $320 481.00 588 590.00 •5140.00 525 008.00 545 600.00 546,550.00 564,000.00 5192,000.00 $61.000.00 $61 561,000.00 5118 000.00 510.00 5118 000.00 524,000.00 36 000.00 536 000.00 50.00 98.00 50.00 5221,970.00 5105.00 $49,875.00 50 19B Discharge piping (PVC) LF 2265 50.00 580.00 5181,200.00 5100.00 5226,500.00 59,800.00 5172,000.00 5157,000.00 20 Fire Hydrants EA 2 3 910.00 57,820.00 55,000.00 510,000.00 $180,000.00 $4,900.00 5172,000.00 $ 157,000.00 21 Electrical Systems LS 1 195,420.00 5195,420.00 5180,000.00 22 Instrumentation and Control S s LS 1 52,110.00 552,110.00 5 170,000.00 5170,000.00 23 Standby power generator et al LS 1 110,740.00 5110,740.00 $ 70,000.00 570,000.00 $ 93,000.00 593,000.00 24 Primary power service LS 1 19 540.00 519 540.00 $ 25 000.00 525 000.00 $ 25,000.00 525,000.00 25 Pavement Restoration 10+00 to 14 +20) SF 5100 6.00 540 800.00 $ 4.00 520 400.00 $ 5.00 525,500.00 26 Pavement Restoration ( 14 +20 to 14+64) SF 900 8.00 57,200.00 $ 4.00 53,600.00 $ 8.00 57,200.00 27 avement Restoration (Sta 14+64 to 31+66) SF 5110 8.00 $40,880.00 $ 5.00 525,550.00 $ 5.00 525,550.00 28 Connection Detail No. 1 LS 1 19,540.00 519,540.00 $ 25,000.00 525,000.00 $ 28,000.00 528,000.00 29 Connection Detail No. 2 LS 1 9,770.00 $9,770.00 $ 15,000.00 515,000.00 $ 19,000.00 519,000.00 30 T. AL Connection Detail No. 3 per c '` ' = VIEW & AL LS ULA I 1 • N: 19 540.00 $19 540.00 52,088,049.00 $ 10 000.00 510 000.00 51,988,150.00 $ 16 000.00 $ 16 000.00 52,080,425.00 TOTALS as WRITTEN IN BID RECEIVED: Same Same SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT'S TWIN PEAKS BOOSTER PUMP STATION AND WATERLINE BID SUMMARY South Tahoe Richard Solbrig, General Manager Public Utility District Board Members Ernie Claudio James R, Jones Mary Lou Mosbacher Dale Rise Eric Schafer Fax Cover Sheet Date: February 3,2009 To: Board Members From: Kathy Sharp Total Number of Pages: 7 Subject: ACTION ITEM 0 - TWIN PEAKS BOOSTER STATION AND WATERLINE Additional Copy to be Provided at the Board Meeting We received two bid protests for this project. Attached are: 1) Carpenter's Local 1789 - Their contention is that ROC, the low bidder, is using a subcontractor (Fencecorp Inc.) they consider to be unqualified. 2) Byars Construction Company - They claim to have had a representative in line in time to make the 2:00 p.m. cut oft for bids. 3) The Districts response to Byars Construction Company with witness accounts contradicting Byars claim. See you Thursday! South Tahoe Public Utility District · 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541,0614 · www.stpud.us ~h~l2nt ~eti~~ 't . ~',,' L~: ,;;; ",. 1-~,~" . :, 1I~ "//~ /., ,. , ", -l I t. CARPENTER'S LOCAL #1789 .: . f' P.O. BOX 15070 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 February 3, 2009 South Tahoe Public Utility District Attention: Purchasing Department 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Re: Bid Protest - Contract #/Ref 7979A 10 Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Project RDC, Inc. (Resource Development Company) Dear Purchasing Department: This is an official letter of protest submitted on behalf of the 150 members of the Carpenters Local Union 1789 who live and work in the South Tahoe Public Utility District service area. It is our contention that RDC, Inc. (Resource Development Company), the apparent low bidder on the above-referenced project, is not a responsible contractor. RDC, Inc. has failed to adequately screen subcontractors as evidenced by their listing of Fencecorp Inc. of Sacramento. Fencecorp Inc. is closely linked via common management and control to Fenceworks Inc., dba Golden State Fence Company. In March 2007, Fenceworks Inc., dba Golden State Fence Company pled guilty and was convicted in United States District Court of the unlawful employment of unauthorized aliens, 8 USC 1324(a) and was ordered to pay a $4.7 million fine to the United States Government. According to the California Contractors State License Board, Fenceworks Inc.'s contractor's license is pending disciplinary action. Mel Kay, the CEO of Fenceworks Inc. and a Director of Fencecorp Inc., is a convicted felon. In March 2007, Me' Kay pled guilty and was convicted in United States District Court of hiring ten or more unauthorized aliens, 8 USC 1324(a) and was fined $200,000.00, ordered probation, electronic monitoring and other court ordered conditions. Other indications of common management and control between Fencecorp Inc. and Fenceworks Inc. dba Golden State Fence Company include: . Fencecorp Inc. and Fenceworks Inc. share a common Sacramento business address. . Floyd G. Nixon is the current CFO and a Director of both Fencecorp, Inc. and of Fenceworks, Inc. Because of the monetary magnitude and the circumstances surrounding Fenceworks, Inc. and Mel Kay's convictions, the aforementioned judgments received national and international media attention. Minimal attention on RDC Inc.'s part would have revealed these criminal convictions. Phone: 530-544-4754 Fax: 530-544-8191 carpenters@fhcglobaJ.net Due to the inadequate screening process employed by RDC Inc., we assert that RDC Inc. does not display the trustworthiness, quality or fitness required to perform this contract. We believe that RDC Inc. should be found to be irresponsible, and the project should be awarded to the second low bidder, KG Walter Construction Company Inc. Please treat this as a formal protest and contact me at (530) 544-4754 if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, J <~~ f6'J Mike Berg Field Representative Cc: South Tahoe Public Utility Commission Board of Directors - with enclosures -Ernie Claudio, Director -James R. Jones, Director -Mary Lou Mosbacher, President -Dale Rise, VIce President -Eric Shafer, Director Enclosure(s) - Portion of judgment. United States of America V. Fenceworks, Inc" dba Golden State Fence Co. Case .. 06CR26lM Portion of judgment, United States of America V. Melvin Kay case" 06CR2606 Copies of Fenceworks, Inc. and Fencecorp, Inc.'s CSLB records II'AI. Aff~h~ ~ ~~-L~d, January 28, 2009 HAND DELIVeRED South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-7401 Attn: Paul Sciuto Re: Proposal for Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station & Water Line Dear Mr. Sciuto, With regard to the non-acceptance of our bid proposal for the above mentioned project, please accept this letter as the intent of H. M. Byars Construction Company to protest the award of this project. Doug Jones, a representative of H. M. Byars Construction Company, was in the building on January 27, 2009, prior to the 2:00 p.m. deadline for bid acceptance, with the completed and sealed bid documents in his possession. Due to the large number of people in the lobby area, including the unanticipated number of people attending the bid opening, the lack of direction, and subsequent confusion as to where the bid documents were being accepted, Mr. Jones was waiting in what he believed to be the "bid acceptance" line. At 2:00 p.m. it was announced that no further bids would be accepted. Mr. Jones attempted to make it known that he had been waiting in line for several minutes to turn in the bid documents. He was again told that no further bids would be accepted. At that time, he called our office for instructions and was directed to turn in the bid anyway. He proceeded to the office of Rex Marshall and demanded that the bid be accepted. At that point, an uninvolved bystander (with no connection to this bid opening or H. M. Byars Construction Company) stepped forward and explained to Mr. Marshall that our representative had indeed been waiting in line for several minutes prior to the announcement that no more bids would be accepted. Mr. Marshall took the bid, wrote the date and time on the envelope and placed the sealed envelope in the STPUD safe until resolution of this dispute. P.O. BOX 10047. RENO, NEVADA 89510 - TELEPHONE (775) 677-6620 South Tahoe Public Utility District January 28, 2009 PAGE TWO Additionally it has come to our attention that SfPUD was aware of the confusion in the lobby prior to the 2:00 p.m. deadline. Based on these facts, H. M. Byars Construction is protesting the non-acceptance of our proposal for this project. Sincerely, H. M. BYARS CONSTRUcrrON COMPANY '/ ;; \. "j/~),A~ ('( 'c>c~6V Sheri! B. Bradley President South Tahoe 4+fqch~3 -l\ch~ :r.~ - _I Richard Sol brig. General Manager ~ . Public Utility District Board Members Ernie Claudio James R, Jones Mary Lou Mosbacher Dale Rise Eric Schafer Memorandum Date: January 29, 2009 To: Board of Directors File From: Paul A. Sciut~ ~ Assistant Gener7 M:~gineer Subject: Twin Peaks Booster Station and Waterline Project The following information is in regards to the letter of protest from H.M. Byars Construction Company (Byars) concerning the above referenced project. The construction bid from Byars was not accepted by the District because the company's representative, Mr. Doug Jones, arrived after the 2:00 p.m. deadline to submit their bid. A letter dated January 28, 2009 from Byars contests that Mr. Jones was in the building prior to the 2:00 p.m. deadline and therefore is protesting the non- acceptance of their proposal for the aforementioned project. The following is a list of District employees and a description of their responsibilities regarding the bid the day it was due: · Eileen Eidam was in the Customer Service Facility lobby directing people into the Customer Service area from 1 :50 p.m. to after the 2:00 p.m. deadline. Eileen did not see Mr. Jones enter the District facilities prior to 2:00 p.m. · Jimmie Hoggatt and I were behind the Customer Service desks from approximately 1 :50 p.m. until the 2:00 p.m. deadline. At that point we closed the bid acceptance, gathered the 10 bids submitted on time and proceeded into the Board Room to open the bids publicly. Walking through the lobby through the door of the Board room neither Jimmie nor I saw Mr. Jones. · After the 2:00 p.m. deadline I did see Robert Haen and Carrie May with Thomas Haen Company Inc. in line to sign in at the door entering the Board Room. Mr. Haen and Ms. May are verbally on record stating they did not see Mr. Jones in line as is stated in the protest letter by Byars Construction. · Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer, was standing at the sign-in podium after the 2:00 p.m. deadline and did not see Mr. Jones in line. South Tahoe Public Utility District · 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us . Heidi Donovan and Eileen Eidam were seated at the table in front of the Board Room at 2:03 p.m. and saw Mr. Jones run down the entryway and into the Customer Service Facility. . When I first saw Mr. Jones in line at the sign-in podium the atomic clock adjacent to the counter in the Board Room showed 2:03 p.m. Mr. Jones requested to talk with me at approximately 2:10 p.m. and stated his case. told Mr. Jones that we would investigate his statements and asked Rex Marshall to stamp Byars bid with a time of 2:03 p.m. and place it in the Customer Service safe and not open the bid. Based on the overwhelming consistent visual evidence, it is District staffs opinion that Mr. Jones was not in the Customer Service Building prior to the 2:00 p.m. deadline for submission of bids for the Twin Peaks Project and therefore Byars bid can not be accepted. If the Board concurs with this opinion, Byars bid will be returned unopened. Cc: South Tahoe Public Utility District. 1275 Meadow Crest Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone 530.544.6474. Facsimile 530.541.0614. www.stpud.us ~ M.II~,. ~ H 50Ibrit South Tahoe Public Utility District ~ I\Jtt:hWn F~ Jam_ It .Jont;& Mal)' Lou Moel>.tcNr "'- W.a.ce Eric SclWer I 1275 Me.adow Crest Drive. South Lake Tahoe- CA 96150-7401 Phone 530544-6474. Fax 5'30 541-0614-www.stpud.U5 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6e TO: FROM: Board of Directors Julie Ryan, Senior Engineer MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 ITEM - PROJECT NAME: Angora Tank Replacement Project 2:45 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Hold a Public Meeting to take public comments on the proposed project for consideration during environmental analysis. DISCUSSION: Staff will present to the Board, comments received in writing from the public during the scoping period for the Angora Tank Replace,ment Project, which ended on January 30,2009. The Project Description is posted on the District website, under "Current Noticesn, and is included as an attachment to this agenda item. At 2:45 p.m. open the meeting to receive public input on the Project Description for the South Tahoe Public Utility District Angora Tank Replacement Project. Public comments will be considered during the environmental documentation process. The project includes replacement and upsizing the Angora Tank, the waterline that feeds the tank, and installation of an access road to the landlocked site. An access road is needed to construct the new facilities, and to provide access to the site for future maintenance, inspection and repair, as is required by California Waterworks Standards. A number of routes to the site were considered, and the proposed route was found to be the most stable and the shortest in length, with the least potential environmental impacts. SCHEDULE: COSTS: N/A ACCOUNT NO: 2029-7064/ANGOTK BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Project Description. -119- Julie Ryan February 5, 2009 Page 2 CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES -120- NO NO CATEGORY: Water South Tahoe Public Utility District General Manager . Richard H. Soll>rlg Oirect:0r5 Emili C~udlo Jamll5ll:. Jonee Mary Lou MOsPacMr Dale RIM Eric Schafer December 18, 2008 1275 Meadow Crest Drive · South Lake Tahoe - CA 96150-7401 'Phone 530 544-6474- Fax 530 541-0614- www.Stpud.U5 Dear Neighbor and Other Interested Parties: RE: ANGORA WATER TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT The South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) is proposing to replace their existing Angora Water Tank and associated waterline to upgrade the District's water distribution system and improve its fire flow capacity. The proposed project is located on Angora Ridge, above the Angora Highlands neighborhood. The proposed project will replace ,.the existing Angora water tank and rebuild a new tank immediately adjacent to the existing location. In addition, the 800' waterflne that originates from the Forest Mountain Booster Station (located above Forest Mountain Drive) and that supplies the Angora tank will also be replaced in conjunction with the new tank construction. A new access roadway to the STPUD parcel and tank site is proposed across USFS land as part of the project. This access roadway will allow for construction access and aI/ow for continued access to the tank site for ongoing maintenance. The construction is anticipated to begin during the summer of 2009 and should be complete by October 2010. For a detailed project description please refer to the District's website: www.stDucI.us under "Current Notices." The District is currently in the process of public scoping to solicit comments on the preparation of environmental documentation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the USFS Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and California Environmental Quality Act for the District (CEQA) The District is requesting comment on the proposed action prior to the official circulation of the environmental document to the interested public and state agencies. Attached please find a map showing the location of the proposed tank and access roadway. Issues that the environmental document and analysis is expecting to cover include, but are not limited to: water quality, soil erosion, vegetation removal an~ land use restrictions on adjacent USFS Burton-Santini lands. If you have questions about the project, please call the District's Project Manager, Ms; Julie Ryan, at (530) 544-6474 for additional informatipr:'!. If you have comments regarding the proposed project, please submit them in writing to the following address by January 30, 2009. South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Attn: Julie H. Ryan, P.E. -121- SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ANGORA WATER TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT Proiect Description The South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) is planning to replace the existing Angora Tank and Waterline in an effort to upgrade the District's water distribution system and its fire flow capacity. The existing tank is aging and undersized to meet public health storage requirements for domestic demand and fire flow capacity. The tank was within the bum area of the Angora Fire in June 2007 and was therefore impacted by the fire. The property (0.236 acres) on which the tank is located lies above and behind Heather Way and Aberdeen Circle in South Lake Tahoe (T 12 N, R 18 E) - see Figure 1. The District-owned tank site is currently land-locked, as the District has no means of accessing the site other than by foot across property owned by the United States Forest Service (USFS). To simplify construction and to provide reliable access to the site into the future, the District proposes to install a pennanent access road to the site across land owned by the USFS under a Special Use Permit as shown on Figure 2. Tank History and PUI:pose The tank site was acquired by the District as part ofthe Angora Water Company merger in 1984. The existing tank. was constructed by the Angora Water Company in the late 1960s and has an operating volume of approximately 63,000 gallons. Based on current water supply standards for domestic and fire capacity, the tank should be approximately four times its current size. The District proposes to replace the existing tank with a new tank with an operating volume of249,000 gallons, to meet both District standards for domestic supply and California Fire Code standards for fire supply. This tank is a critical facility for the District's water system. The Angora Tank (and the associated waterline) is the only source of water serving the Angora Highlands neighborhood; there are no wells in this zone and there is no other connection to the main water supply system. As of 2000, there were 87 residences in the area served by the tank; this number grows as vacant lots in the neighborhood are built out. Angora Tank is fed by a dedicated pressurized line from the Forest Mountain Booster Station, which is located about 800 feet from and 250 feet below the Angora Tank Site. The District holds easements with CTC and the Forest service for the properties that it crosses on its route from Forest Mountain to Angora. The waterline will be replaced as part of the project, and the District is proposing to have the waterline diverge from its current alignment along the CTC property at the ridgeline, so that it turns and follows the access road into the site. The Angora Tank is located atop a ridge, approximately 80 ft above the nearest residences being served by the tank on the perimeter of the neighborhood. Water is provided to these residences by gravity, so that at this elevation only about 35-40 psi pressure is available at the nearest homes. This pressure is on the low end of what is acceptable for domestic and fire supply. A review by the District of regional topography suggests that the current tank site is the only feasible location a tank in this zone (Figure 3). The current tank. site is situated at the highest point between the service area (Angora Highland neighborhood) and the source (Forest Mountain Booster Station). Any other -122- STPUD Angora Water Tank Project Description 4 December 2008 Page 2 of 4 location would require significantly longer access and a substantial lengthening of the pressure line from Forest Mountain Booster Station, therefore the District must rebuild at the existing site. Proposed Access Road In conjunction with construction ofthe new tank, the District needs to establish pennanent road access to the site. Being restricted to foot-only access year-round threatens the District's ability to provide safe and reliable water service to the Angora Highlands neighborhood. California's Department of Public Health recommends that domestic water tanks be visually inspected on a monthly basis; because there is no access road District inspections of Angora Tank have been performed only every 2 to 3 months. With reconstruction of the tank, site improvements and instrumentation will also be installed that will require more frequent access for maintenance than was needed for the old tank. It is the District's goal to design and construct a permanent road to the tank site that is both structurally and environmentally stable. The tank site is bordered to the west, south and east by USFS-owned lands (APNs: 032- 060-16 and 032-060-15); it is bordered to the north by private residences. The District holds a utility easement for the waterline from Forest Mountain Booster Station on a strip of property to the west and south of the tank site; this easement is on conservancy land owned by the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) (APN: 032-060-10). CTC also owns a narrow parcel, called "Lot A", which extends between the District's tank site and the eastern ann of Aberdeen Circle. The District also holds a utility easement for the gravity- fed pipeline that connects the tank to the neighborhood; this easement falls along the eastern perimeter of "Lot 115" at the comer of Heather Way and Upland Way. With its ridgetop location, only the approach from the west will provide permanent access at a grade that is environmentally stable and sustainable; an access road is proposed to be constructed across USFS property with approximately a 11 percent slope at the bottom, steepening to a 18 percent slope to make the ridge (see Figure 2). The District's existing easements across CTC and private parcels are both very steep, approximately 40 percent grade and steeper in some areas, such that they are not appropriate alignments for pennanent access to the site. The USFS-owned land to the west, south and east of the District' parcel was all obtained by the USFS under the auspices of the Santini-Burton Act at some time after the existing Angora Tank was constructed. Originally, the area had been slated for residential development, by extending the two arms of Aberdeen Circle to meet to the south of the tank site and then splitting the area into residential parcels. When the land was retired under Santini-Burton without reserving an alignment for an access road, the tank site was effectively cut off from the existing (and any potential future) right-of-way. The proposed road is approximately 630 feet long, the last 90 feet of which are on District property. The alignment has been selected to (1) minimize the grading and disturbance on Forest Service land, (2) minimize the number of trees to be removed, (3) minimize visual impact, (4) minimize impact on wildlife and cultural resources, and (5) minimize the distance between the County ROWand the tank site. -123- STPUD Angora Water Tank Project Description 4 December 2008 Page 3 of 4 The road will be lO-ft wide, and will be secured at the bottom by a Forest Service gate. The road will be stabilized using permanent erosion control best management practices, and will be paved with AC pavement. The road will not be plowed in the winter, and once construction of the tank is complete access to the tank site by District crews will be infrequent: monthly when conditions allow access by truck, and less frequently in the winter when access will be by Snowcat or by foot. Access Road Construction Construction of the road will require some earthwork and tree removal. The access from the west arm of Aberdeen Circle is currently impeded and will require soil removal to build the access. The approach to the ridgetop will require a compacted fill transitioning to a cut at the top to keep the slope of the road to 18 percent. Some minor cut and fill will be required on the approach to the tank site to establish a level road surface. A total of approximately 500 cubic yards of cut and 400 cubic yards of fill will be required to build the access road. Some of the material cut to establish grades will be unsuitable for re-use and will be hauled offsite to a Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) approved disposal facility. However, the construction of the tank pad will require additional excavation, so that off-site soils will need to be brought on to establish the fill. The District has a permit to remove all trees on its tank site property, which were all burned in the Angora Fire. Based on a topographic survey of the site, a total of eight (8) live trees on USFS property will need to be removed to build the road to the tank site; all are 16" in diameter or smaller. Two (2) large diameter trees (a 30" fir and a 24" pine) located along the edge of disturbance are proposed for retention, and will require special protection during and after construction. On-site staging areas will be required during construction. One potential staging area has been identified on Forest Service property in a flat, treeless area near the bottom of the road. A second potential staging area has been identified on Forest Service property on the flat, treeless ridgetop, adjacent to the District's property. Both areas will be clearly delineated by construction fencing, and protected with temporary BMPs. The areas will be restored to its original condition after construction. Land Disturbance. Capability and Coverage The project in its entirety (access road, tank replacement, waterline replacement and . associated staging) will require land disturbance of approximately 42,000 sf. This is less than the I-acre trigger requiring involvement of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); no Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required for this project under the District's Memorandum of Understanding with TRPA. The District obtained a Land Capability Verification for its tank site from TRP A in 2007 (LCAP-2007-0503). which shows that 6,786 sq feet ofthe 10.276 sq foot site is Class 3 (5% allowable coverage) and 3,490 sq feet is Class 5 (25% allowable coverage). The existing tank. which will be demolished after the new tank is placed in service. is located fully within the Class 5 portion of the site and covers approximately 1.250 sf. This tank -124- STPUD Angora Water Tank Project Description 4 December 2008 Page 4 of4 was built prior to 1971. Of the new facilities (tank and appurtenances), 1,558 sf will be on Class 3 land and 1,577 sf will be on Class 5 land. The parcel will be over-covered by 1,219 sfin Class 3 and 327 sfin Class 5. The District has applied for Land Capability Verifications for the CTC and USFS properties which the proposed access road will cross. The classifications have not yet been verified, but a few general statements about land capability within these parcels can be made. The USFS parcels (032-060-15 and 032-060-16) are very large (one is 12 acres, the other is 5.75 acres) and completely undeveloped. The access road will cover 4,451 sfand 791 sfon each of these parcels, respectively. The District expects that the proposed road alignment will fall fully within Class 5 capability land, but even if it were in Class 1, the project would be within the coverage limits for the parcels. The CTC parcel (032-060-10) is long and narrow and completely undeveloped. It has an area of 12,117 sf. The access road will cross the parcel at the top, where the District expects the land will be verified as Class 5. The District's access road will cover 167 sf, which is within the expected coverage limits for the parcel. Additional Benefits The District would like to point out that this access road will provide benefits beyond those provided to the District. The Angora Fire burned up to the tank site, where it was held off from the Angora Highlands neighborhood. The homes to the north and the forest to the west of the tank remain vulnerable to future fire. The proposed alignment will provide emergency access onto Angora Ridge, and it will allow both District staff, USFS Staff and fire crews better access to the tank and forest on Angora Ridge during any future wildland fires in that area. It is important that the District proceed with this tank replacement project as soon as possible, since it is such a critical facility for this neighborhood. The replacement of this tank is the first step in a number of upgrades needed to provide adequate domestic supply and fire-fighting capability to this area. Attachments: Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Proposed USFS Access Road Figure 3, Regional Topography and Location -125- SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT DRAWN: JHR FILE: PERMITPLANS DATE: 01/22/08 SCALE: NTS VICINITY MAP ANGORA TANK AND WATERLINE REPLACEMENT Apr �. i ■ SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT lbw . Rw S Met w � aim ABM w Maw PIM 4111.1111110 all* DRAWN: JHR FILE: GRADING DATE: 11/21/08 SCALE: 1" = 60' USFS 1 NI..". _ n O. .,._. Sir MI. MINIM 00 OM.. MOW MGM PROPOSED USFS ACCESS ROAD ANGORA TANK AND WATERLINE REPLACEMENT I FIG 2 , < '"', - ~ ./ " l SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT FILE: PERMITPLANS DATE: 01/22/08 REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY ANGORA TANK AND WATERLINE REAPLACEMENT PROJECT ..... . 1110 . _ & ~ IIIOI:tf 'Z ~ .......... Ctwt l1ritM South ,oW ,.... CoIiIomio H'!KJ _ (SXJ) 54.-.." ,.". (SXJ) 54'-0/1'. SCALE. NTS -128- FIG 3 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL February 5, 2009 Payroll 1/14/09 Payroll 1/28/09 Total Payroll 469,218.89 369,434.07 838,652.96 BNY Western Trust Company CDS-health care payments Brownstein/HyattlFarberlSchreck legal services LaSalle Bank Union Bank Total Vendor EFT 85,037.99 95,365.12 26,285.66 0.00 0.00 206,688.77 Accounts Payable Checks-Sewer Fund Accounts Payable Checks-Water Fund Accounts Payable Checks-Self-funded Insurance Accounts Payable Checks-Grants Fund Total Accounts Payable 1,060,424.30 173,270.21 0.00 0.00 1,233,694.51 Grand Total 2,279,036.24 Pavroll EFTs & Checks 1/14/09 1/28/09 EFT AFLAC Medical & Dependent Care 2,400.41 1,777.77 EFT CA Employment Taxes & W/H 22,031.85 15,368.29 EFT Federal Employment Taxes & W/H 126,952.25 90,260.56 CHK CalPERS Contributions 27,859.35 28,498.66 EFT Great West Deferred Comp 17,287.71 17,287.71 CHK Stationary Engineers Union Dues 2,356.99 2,356.99 EFT United Way Contributions 142.00 142.00 CHK CA State Disbursement Unit 460.15 460.15 EFT Employee Direct Deposits 256,535.76 201,004.66 CHK Employee Paychecks 13,192.42 12,277.28 Adjustments-prior period correction 0.00 0.00 Total 469,218.89 369,434.07 -129- Vendor Name A -1 CHEMICAL INC A -1 CHEMICAL INC ACWA HEALTH BENEFITS AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL AECOM Water (Boyle) AFLAC ALPEN SIERRA COFFEE ALPINE METALS AMERIGAS AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERVICES AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERVICES AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERVICES AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERVICES ARTRAGEOUS FINE FRAMING ARTRAGEOUS FINE FRAMING ASPEN PUBLISHERS INC. ASPEN PUBLISHERS INC. AT &T /CALNET 2 AT &T /CALNET 2 User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department / Proi Name GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING - ICR TMDL GEN & ADMIN FINANCE HEAVY MAINTENANC DIAMOND VLY RNCH GEN & ADMIN PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE GEN & ADMIN PUMPS PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description SHOP SUPPLY INV JANIT /SUPPLY INV VISION INS SUBSCRIPTIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS O2SYS/TMDL,ICR AFLAC FEE DED OFC SUPPLY ISSUE BUILDINGS PROPANE UNIFORM PAYABLE SMALL TOOLS SAFETY/EQUIP/PHY SAFETY/EQUIP /PHY OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES TELEPHONE TELEPHONE Acct# / Proi Code 1000 - 0421 1000 - 0422 1000 - 2530 1021 - 4830 2021 - 4830 1000 - 2538 1039 -6081 2004 - 6041 1028-6360 1000 - 2518 1002 - 6073 1002 - 6075 2002 - 6075 1039 - 4820 2039 - 4820 1039 - 4820 2039 - 4820 1000 - 6310 1002 - 6310 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1029 - 8605 - ICTMDL Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Page: 1 Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 Amount Check Num Tvoe 115.15 1,069.12 1184.27 AP 00071770 MW 2,587.06 2,587.06 AP - 00071771 MW 43.50 43.50 87.00 AP - 00071772 MW 423.90 423.90 AP -00071773 MW 130.00 130.00 AP- 00071774 MW 231.50 231.50 AP -00071775 MW 8.08 8.08 AP- 00071776 MW 1,476.91 1476_91 AP - 00071777 MW 1,264.01 113.71 693.95 723.30 Check Total: 2,794.97 AP - 00071778 MW 20.20 20.20 Check Total: 40.40 AP - 00071779 MW 72.36 72.36 144.72 AP - 00071780 MW 334.63 88.20 Vendor Name AT &T /CALNET 2 AT &T /CALNET 2 AT &T /CALNET 2 AT &T /CALNET 2 AT &T /CALNET 2 AT &T /CALNET 2 AT &T /CALNET 2 BARTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM BAY AREA COATING CONSULTANTS BAY AREA COATING CONSULTANTS BAY AREA COATING CONSULTANTS BAY TOOL & SUPPLY INC BAY tOL & SUPPLY INC BB &H BENEFIT DESIGNS BB &H BENEFIT DESIGNS BENTLY AGROWDYNAMICS Best Best & Krieger Best Best & Krieger BI STATE PROPANE BING MATERIALS BROWN & CALDWELL CONSULTANTS BROWN & CALDWELL CONSULTANTS User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Deoartment / Proi Name OPERATIONS INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE GEN & ADMIN PUMPS INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE OPERATIONS ENGINEERING - EFFLUENT EVAL ENGINEERING - C CLUB TNK REPL ENGINEERING - TANK,FOREST MT GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES OPERATIONS BOARD OF DIR BOARD OF DIR UNDERGROUND REP UNDERGROUND REP ENGINEERING - COLL SYS MASTER ENGINEERING - C CLUB TNK REPL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS X140 TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE SAFETY/EQUIP/PHY REP EXP PUMPS TANK, COUNTRY CL TNK COAT FRST MT SHOP SUPPLY INV SMALL TOOLS INV CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE SLUDGE DISPOSAL TRAVEL/MEETINGS TRAVEUMEETINGS PROPANE PIPE /CVRS/MHLS COLL SYS MST PLN TANK, COUNTRY CL Page: 2 Acct# / Prot Code 1006 - 6310 1037 - 6310 1038 - 6310 2000 -6310 2002 - 6310 2037 - 6310 2038 - 6310 1006 - 6075 1000 - 0421 1000 - 0423 1022 - 4405 2022 - 4405 1006 - 6652 1019 - 6200 2019 - 6200 2001-6360 2001 - 6052 Check Total: Check Total: 1029 - 8676 - EFFLEV 2029 - 7063 - CLUBTK 2029 - 8995 - FMCOAT Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1029 - 8721 - CSMSPL 2029 - 7063 - CLUBTK Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 Amount Check Num Tyne 29.82 82.75 7.13 334.63 42.97 82.75 7.13 1,010.01 AP - 00071781 65.00 65.00 AP - 00071782 1,011.44 144.91 9,752.72 MW MW 10,909.07 AP- 00071783 MW 391.03 409.66 800.69 AP -00071784 MW 624.50 624.50 1,249.00 AP -00071785 MW 3,943.34 3,943.34 AP - 00071786 MW 12.33 12.33 24.66 AP - 00071787 MW 12.96 12.96 AP- 00071788 MW 1,661.62 1,661.62 AP -00071789 MW 24,759.47 7,729.46 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Prof Code Page: 3 Current Date: 01/29/2009 User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Current Time: 15:15:30 Check Total: Amount Check Num TYPe 32,488.93 AP -00071790 MW BROWN, LINDA FINANCE TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1039 - 6200 31.12 BROWN, LINDA FINANCE TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2039 - 6200 31.12 Check Total: 62.24 AP- 00071791 MW BUTZ, GARTH UNDERGROUND REP TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2001 - 6200 209.00 Check Total: 209.00 AP -00071792 MW CALIF DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES UNDERGROUND REP DUES/MEMB /CERT 2001 - 6250 65.00 Check Total: 65.00 AP- 00071793 MW CALIF WATER RESOURCES CTRL BD ENGINEERING OPERATING PERMIT 1029 - 6650 1,595.00 Check Total: 1.595.00 AP-00071794 MW CALIFORNIA STEAM INC HEAVY MAINT BIOSOL EQUP /BLDG 1004 - 6653 388.86 Check Total: 388.86 AP -00071795 MW CAMPBELL AUD, NANCI HUMAN RESOURCES SAFETY/EQUIP /PHY 1022 - 6075 27.50 CAMPBELL AUD, NANCI HUMAN RESOURCES SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY 2022 - 6075 27.50 t Check Total: 55.00 AP- 00071796 MW CAMFIOR GEN & ADMIN SHOP SUPPLY INV 1000 - 0421 590.87 i Check Total: 590.87 AP -00071797 MW CAPITOL ENGINEERING LAB INC HEAVY MAINT MOBILE EQUIP 1004 - 6012 400.00 Check Total 400.00 AP- 00071798 MW CAROLLO ENGINEERS ENGINEERING - ARSENIC STUDY ARSNC TRTMNT 2029 - 8864 - ARSNIC 31,395.00 Check Total: 31.395.00 AP- 00071799 MW CDW - G CORP INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS 1037 - 4840 870.65 CDW - G CORP INFORMATION SYS SERVER, IFAS 1037 - 8981 718.50 CDW - G CORP INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS 2037 - 4840 870.64 Check Total: 2,459.79 AP -00071800 MW CITY NATIONAL BANK GEN & ADMIN - EFFLUENT EVAL CONST RETAINAGE 1000 - 2605 - EFFLEV 6,777.57 Check Total: 6,777.57 AP- 00071801 MW CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE UNDERGROUND REP OPERATING PERMIT 2001 - 6650 2,400.00 Check Total: 2,400.00 AP- 00071802 MW CONSUMER REPORTS ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS 1021 - 4830 19.50 CONSUMER REPORTS ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS 2021 - 4830 19.50 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / ProI Code Amount Check Num I Check Total: _ 39.00 AP -00071803 Mw CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LABS LABORATORY MONITORING 1007 - 6110 2,825.00 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LABS LABORATORY - BKRFLD TRTMT EXP MONITORING 2007 - 6110 - BKRFLD 340.00 Check Total: 3165.00 AP- 00071804 MW CROSSPOINTE CONSULTING GROUP DIAMOND VLY RNCH TRAVEUMEETINGS 1028 - 6200 5,500.00 Check Total: 5,500.00 AP- 00071805 MW CSUS REGIONAL PUMPS TRAVEUMEETINGS 2002 - 6200 105.60 Check Total: 105.60 AP -00071806 MW CUEVAS, SIMON A UNDERGROUND REP TRAVEUMEETINGS 2001 - 6200 99 Check Total: 99_00 AP- 00071807 MW CWEA UNDERGROUND REP DUES /MEMB /CERT 1001 - 6250 132.00 CWEA UNDERGROUND REP DUES /MEMB /CERT 2001 - 6250 132.00 CWEA PUMPS DUES/MEMB /CERT 2002 - 6250 61.00 CWEA ELECTRICAL SHOP DUES/MEMB /CERT 2003 - 6250 134.00 CWEA LABORATORY DUES/MEMB /CERT 2007 - 6250 66.00 r CWE J CUSTOMER SERVICE DUES/MEMB /CERT 2038 - 6250 132.00 Check Total: 655.00 AP -00071808 MW DATCO SERVICES CORP HUMAN RESOURCES SAFETY PROGRAMS 1022 - 6079 364.00 DATCO SERVICES CORP HUMAN RESOURCES SAFETY PROGRAMS 2022 - 6079 364.00 Check Total: 728.00 AP 00071809 MW DELL MARKETING L P INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS 1037 - 4840 623.48 DELL MARKETING L P INFORMATION SYS SERVICE CONTRACT 1037 - 6030 224.90 DELL MARKETING L P INFORMATION SYS DIST.COMP SPPLIS 2037 - 4840 623.47 DELL MARKETING L P INFORMATION SYS SERVICE CONTRACT 2037 - 6030 224.90 DELL MARKETING L P INFORMATION SYS SERVER, IFAS TES 2037 - 8983 5,500.04 Check Total: 7 196.79 AP- 00071810 MW DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH UNDERGROUND REP DUES /MEMB /CERT 2001 - 6250 170.00 Check Total: 170.00 AP- 00071811 Mw DICK'S FULLER - UNDERGROUND REP SMALL TOOLS 1001 - 6073 279.88 Check Total: 279.88 AP-00071812 MW DIONEX CORP LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 323.25 User: THERESA Page: 4 Current Date: 01/29/2009 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Current Time: 15:15:30 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# 1 Proi Code Amount Check Num Imps DIONEX CORP LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 333.13 Check Total: 656.38 AP- 00071813 MW DIVERSIFIED SYSTEMS INTNL INC ELECTRICAL SHOP BUILDINGS 1003 - 6041 419.00 Check Total: 419.00 AP- 00071814 MW DOUGLAS DISPOSAL GEN & ADMIN REFUSE DISPOSAL 1000 - 6370 543.26 Check Total: 543.28 AP 00071815 MW DOWNEY TELEVISION DIAMOND VLY RNCH GROUNDS & MNTC 1028 - 6042 271.32 Check Total: 271.32 AP- 00071816 MW EIDAM, EILEEN ADMINISTRATION TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1021 - 6200 53.50 EIDAM, EILEEN ADMINISTRATION TRAVEUMEETINGS 2021 - 6200 53.50 Check Total: 107.00 AP -00071817 MW ELECTRICAL GENERATING EQUIPMENT REP DUES/MEMB /CERT 1005 - 6250 100.00 ELECTRICAL GENERATING EQUIPMENT REPAIR DUES/MEMB /CERT 2005 - 6250 100.00 Check Total: 200.00 AP -00071818 MW ENRIQUEZ, JESUS S. UNDERGROUND REP TRAVEUMEETINGS 2001 - 6200 209.00 r w Check Total: 209.00 AP-00071819 MW ENS R INC DIO CONTRACT SERVICE 1027 - 4405 3,115.85 ENS RESOURCES INC DIO CONTRACT SERVICE 2027 - 4405 3,115.85 Check Total: 6 231.70 AP -00071820 MW ENTRIX INC ENGINEERING - SUT WELL REDRILL SUT WELL REDRILL 2029 - 8463 - RWSUTR 2,055.72 Check Total: 2,055.72 AP- 00071821 MW ETS LABORATORY MONITORING 1007 - 6110 735.00 Check Total: 735.00 AP -00071822 MW FARR WEST ENGINEERING INC ENGINEERING - DVR IRRIG FIELDS DVR ESB 1029 - 8836 - MEIKO8 10,074.30 Check Total: 10 AP -00071823 MW FAST FABRICATORS LLC ENGINEERING - TWIN PEAKS BS BSTR, TWN PEAKS 2029 - 7070 - TPBSTR 946.05 Check Total: 946.05 AP - 00071824 MW FEDEX LABORATORY SFTWR, LIMS 2007 - 8622 78.24 Check Total: 78.24 AP- 00071825 MW FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC. HEAVY MAINT BUILDINGS 1004 - 6041 408.89 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC. PUMPS WELLS 2002 - 6050 14.78 User: THERESA Page: 5 Current Date: 01/29/2009 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Current Time: 15:15:30 Vendor Name Deoartment / Proi Name PAYMENT OF CLAIMS FISHER SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 FISHER SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 GERLINGER STEEL PUMPS PUMP STATIONS 1002 - 6051 GFS CHEMICAL LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 1007 - 4760 GFS CHEMICAL LABORATORY LAB SUPPLIES 2007 - 4760 GRAINGER GEN & ADMIN SHOP SUPPLY INV 1000 - 0421 GRAINGER HEAVY MAINT SECONDARY EQUIP 1004 - 6022 GRAINGER HEAVY MAINT EXPORT/FRCE MAIN 1004 - 6047 GRAINGER HEAVY MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES 1004 - 6071 GRAINGER HEAVY MAINT SMALL TOOLS 1004 - 6073 GRAINGER HEAVY MAINT BIOSOL EQUPBLDG 1004 - 6653 GRAIVGER EQUIPMENT REP AUTOMOTIVE 1005 - 6011 kn GRAINGER DIAMOND VLY RNCH SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY 1028 - 6075 GRAINGER PUMPS WELLS 2002 - 6050 GROVE MADSEN INDUSTRIES INC ELECTRICAL SHOP WELLS 2003 - 6050 HACH - GLI International ELECTRICAL SHOP SECONDARY EQUIP 1003 - 6022 HACH - GLI International LABORATORY REPL FINAL SMPLR 1007 - 8922 HARRY BROWN TRAINING PUMPS TRAVEUMEETINGS 2002 - 6200 HARTFORD, THE HARTFORD, THE HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES LLC User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN ENGINEERING - ANGORA TNK REPL TANK, ANGORA won Acct# / Prol Code LIFE INS 1000 - 2512 LTD, UNION 1000 - 2539 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 2029 - 7064 - ANGOTK Check Total: Page: 6 Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 Amount Check Num TYPO 423.67 AP- 00071826 MW 90.44 66.52 156.96 AP -00071827 MW 60.88 60.88 AP -00071828 MW 120.72 127.05 247.77 AP -00071829 MW 126.06 171.00 217.80 327.78 104.22 814.82 94.80 - 327.06 79.38 1,608.80 AP -00071830 MW 304.15 304.15 AP- 00071831 MW 136.84 -53.88 82.96 AP -00071832 MW 300.00 300.00 AP -00071833 MW 3,381.26 3,564.90 6,946.16 AP- 00071834 MW 8,455.00 8,455.00 AP- 00071835 MW Vendor Name HELPING HANDS OUTREACH HERNANDEZ,LAZARO HIGH SIERRA BUSINESS SYSTEMS HIGH SIERRA BUSINESS SYSTEMS HIGH SIERRA BUSINESS SYSTEMS HIGH SIERRA BUSINESS SYSTEMS HOBBS ELECTRIC INC HOBBS ELECTRIC INC HUGO BONDED LOCKSMITH HUGO BONDED LOCKSMITH HUGO BONDED LOCKSMITH f.4 w rn HYDRbNIC SPECIALTIES COMPANY INTERSTATE SAFETY & SUPPLY IS INC IS INC IVES TRAINING GROUP IVES TRAINING GROUP J &L PRO KLEEN INC J &L PRO KLEEN INC KELLEY EROSION CONTROL INC User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department / Proi Name GEN & ADMIN UNDERGROUND REP HUMAN RESOURCES CUSTOMER SERVICE HUMAN RESOURCES CUSTOMER SERVICE GEN & ADMIN - ICR TMDL ENGINEERING - ICR TMDL HEAVY MAINT CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE HEAVY MAINTENANC GEN & ADMIN INFORMATION SYS INFORMATION SYS EQUIPMENT REP EQUIPMENT REPAIR FINANCE FINANCE ENGINEERING - EFFLUENT EVAL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description H2O PY DED TRAVEL/MEETINGS SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT CONST RETAINAGE O2SYS/TMDL,ICR BUILDINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES BUILDINGS SHOP SUPPLY INV TRAVEUMEETINGS TRAVEL/MEETINGS SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY SAFETY/EQUIP/PHY JANITORIAL SERV JANITORIAL SERV REP EXP PUMPS Page: 7 Acct# / Proi Code 1000 - 2524 2001 - 6200 1022 - 6030 1038 - 6030 2022 - 6030 2038 - 6030 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1000 - 2605 - ICTMDL 1029 - 8605 - ICTMDL Check Total: 1004 - 6041 1038 - 4820 2038 - 4820 2004 - 6041 1000 - 0421 1037 - 6200 2037 - 6200 1005 - 6075 2005 - 6075 1039 - 6074 2039 - 6074 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1029 - 8676 - EFFLEV Check Total: Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 Amount Check Num Tyne 287.50 287.50 AP -00071836 MW 99.00 99.00 AP -00071837 MW 129.01 70.52 129.00 70.52 399.05 AP- 00071838 MW 649.93 31,383.98 32 033.91 AP -00071839 MW 300.57 1.89 1.88 304.34 AP-00071840 MW 3,130.91 3,130.91 AP -00071841 MW 802.83 802.83 AP - 00071842 MW 810.00 810.00 1,620.00 AP -00071843 MW 183.19 171.32 354.51 AP -00071844 MW 1,603.50 1,603.50 3,207.00 AP- 00071845 MW 1,200.00 1,200.00 AP- 00071846 MW Vendor Name LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDER LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDER LIVE WIRE MEDIA PARTNERS LONG, WES LOOMIS LOOMIS MARSHALL, REX B MARSHALL, REX B MARV McQUEARY EXCAVATING INC MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MC MASTER CARR SUPPLY CO MID MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOTION INDUSTRIES INC MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department /Proi Name ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION DIO - PR EXP- EXTERNAL DIAMOND VLY RNCH FINANCE FINANCE CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE GEN & ADMIN - WTRLN,GRD MTN PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS HEAVY MAINT HEAVY MAINT ENGINEERING - ICR TMDL PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS UNDERGROUND REP PUMPS PUMPS PUMPS PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page: 8 Description SUBSCRIPTIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS PUB RELATIONS TRAVEL/MEETINGS CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE Acct# / Proi Code 1021 - 4830 2021 - 4830 1028 - 6200 1039 - 4405 2039 - 4405 TRAVEUMEETINGS 1038 - 6200 TRAVEUMEETINGS 2038 - 6200 CONST RETAINAGE LUTHER PASS PUMP STATIONS SHOP SUPPLIES PRIMARY EQUIP SHOP SUPPLIES O2SYS/TMDL,ICR WELLS SHOP SUPPLIES UPGRADE SHOP EQ Check Total: 2027 - 6620 - PREEXT 2000 - 2605 - GMWL07 1002 - 6048 1002 - 6051 1002 - 6071 1004 - 6021 1004 - 6071 1029 - 8605 - ICTMDL 2002 - 6050 2002 - 6071 2002 - 8706 MOBILE EQUIP 2001 - 6012 PUMP STATIONS 2002 - 6051 PUMP STATIONS 1002 - 6051 SMALL TOOLS 2002 - 6073 Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 Amount Check Num TYPe 262.28 262.27 524.55 336.00 336.00 30.30 30.30 291.92 291.92 AP -00071847 AP- 00071848 AP- 00071849 583.84 AP- 00071850 51.75 51.75 103.50 AP- 00071851 14,100.00 _ 14100.00 AP -00071852 458.39 280.76 786.95 257.82 238.15 531.53 101.88 73.85 1,331.66 4,060.99 AP- 00071854 206.00 206.00 AP- 00071855 211.47 211.47 AP -00071856 422.79 314.25 MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num tun Check Total: 737,04 AP - 00071857 MW MWH SOFT INC ENGINEERING TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1029 - 6200 5,000.00 MWH SOFT INC ENGINEERING TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2029 - 6200 4,200.00 Check Total: 9,200.00 AP- 00071858 MW MY OFFICE PRODUCTS FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 1039 - 4820 57.16 MY OFFICE PRODUCTS FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 2039 - 4820 57.16 Check Total: 114.32 AP- 00071859 MW NEOGOV HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICE CONTRACT 1022 - 6030 1,800.00 NEOGOV HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICE CONTRACT 2022 - 6030 1,800.00 Check Total: 3,600.00 AP-00071860 MW NEVADA GENERATOR SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT REPAIR GENERATORS 2005 - 6013 420.00 Check Total: 420.00 AP- 00071861 MW NEWARK IN ONE ELECTRICAL SHOP SECONDARY EQUIP 1003 - 6022 286.29 Check Total: 286.29 AP - 00071862 MW NORTHERN CA BACKFLOW PREV ASSO CUSTOMER SERVICE DUES/MEMB /CERT 1038 - 6250 10.00 NORTHERN CA BACKFLOW PREV ASSO CUSTOMER SERVICE DUES /MEMB /CERT 2038 - 6250 10.00 co Check Total: 20.00 AP- 00071863 MW NORTHWEST HYD. CONSULT INC ENGINEERING - CTC GRNT -BMPs BMP PROJECTS 1029 - 8737 - CTCBMP 4,601.83 NORTHWEST HYD. CONSULT INC ENGINEERING - CTC GRNT -BMPs BMP PROJECTS 2029 - 8745 - CTCBMP 4,601.83 Check Total: 9,203766 AP -00071864 Mw O'NEAL, TRACY GEN & ADMIN RET CKS RECEIVAB 1000 - 0505 513.75 Check Total: 513.75 AP 00071769 MW OFFICE MAX OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1006 - 4820 191.80 OFFICE MAX ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 1029 - 4820 5.14 OFFICE MAX INFORMATION SYS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1037 - 4820 35.25 OFFICE MAX FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 1039 - 4820 148.31 OFFICE MAX ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 2029 - 4820 5.16 OFFICE MAX INFORMATION SYS OFFICE SUPPLIES 2037 - 4820 35.28 OFFICE MAX FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 2039 - 4820 148.39 Check Total: 569.33 AP 00071865 M W OLIN CORPORATION OPERATIONS HYPOCHLORITE 1006 - 4755 7,649.03 User: THERESA Page: 9 Current Date: 01/29/2009 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Current Time: 15:15:30 Vendor Name OMEGA ENGINEERING ONTRAC ONTRAC ONTRAC ONTRAC P K SAFETY SUPPLY PACIFIC MECHANICAL CORP PACIFIC MECHANICAL CORP PDM STEEL PERit -SMITH LLP PERR'{' -SMITH LLP PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department / Proi Name ENGINEERING - ICR TMDL LABORATORY ENGINEERING - EFFLUENT EVAL LABORATORY - BKRFLD TRTMT EXP ENGINEERING - ARSENIC STUDY PUMPS HEAVY MAINT FINANCE FINANCE PUMPS HEAVY MAINT LABORATORY ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE FINANCE LABORATORY ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYS CUSTOMER SERVICE FINANCE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description O2SYS/TMDL, ICR POSTAGE EXPENSES REP EXP PUMPS POSTAGE EXPENSES ARSNC TRTMNT GEN & ADMIN - EFFLUENT EVAL CONST RETAINAGE ENGINEERING - EFFLUENT EVAL REP EXP PUMPS Acct# / Proi Code SAFETY/EQUIP /PHY 1002 - 6075 SECONDARY EQUIP 1004 - 6022 AUDITING 1039 - 4470 AUDITING 2039 - 4470 PUMP STATIONS 1002 - 6051 DUES/MEMB /CERT 1004 - 6250 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1007 - 6200 INCNTV & RCGNTN 1021 - 6621 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1029 - 6200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1037 - 4820 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1038 - 4820 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1039 - 4820 TRAVEUMEETINGS 2007 - 6200 INCNTV & RCGNTN 2021 - 6621 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2029 - 6200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2037 - 4820 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2038 - 4820 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2039-4820 Page: 10 Check Total: 1029 - 8605 - ICTMDL Check Total: 1007 -4810 1029 - 8676 - EFFLEV 2007 - 4810 - BKRFLD 2029 - 8864 - ARSNIC Check Total: Check Total: 1000 - 2605 - EFFLEV 1029 - 8676 - EFFLEV Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 Amount Check Num TVee 7,64903 AP -00071866 MW 337.92 337.92 AP- 00071867 MW 12.50 10.00 8.00 56.50 87.00 AP- 00071868 MW 142.37 142.37 AP- 00071869 MW - 6,777.57 771,364.25 764,586.68 AP- 00071870 MW 640.60 640.60 AP- 00071871 MW 287.50 287.50 575.00 AP- 00071872 MW 10.00 34.00 17.55 32.95 22.18 13.82 12.11 5.06 17.54 32.94 22.17 13.82 12.10 5.05 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num :tun Check Total: 251.29 AP 00071873 MW POLYDYNE INC OPERATIONS POLYMER 1006 - 4720 4,956.50 Check Total: 4,956.50 AP 00071874 MW PRAXAIR 174 PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 1002 - 6071 132.31 PRAXAIR 174 PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 1002 - 6073 9.30 PRAXAIR 174 HEAVY MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES 1004 - 6071 201.05 PRAXAIR 174 PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 2002 - 6071 132.29 PRAXAIR 174 PUMPS SMALL TOOLS 2002 - 6073 9.29 Check Total: 484.24 AP 00071875 MW PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES ENGINEERING - HV VLY ADDL WTR TELEPHONE 2029 - 6310 - HVNWTR 103.01 Check Total: 103.01 AP 00071876 MW PRIETO, ANTONIO UNDERGROUND REP TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2001 - 6200 33.00 Check Total: 33.00 AP-00071877 MW PUMPWORKS LLC. PUMPS - ANGORA FIRE 07 G PUMP /MTR, FOREST 1002 - 7567 - FANG07 14,517.16 PUMPWORKS LLC. PUMPS PUMP STATIONS 2002 - 6051 1,449.27 Check Total: 15,966,43 AP -00071878 MW 0 RED VYING SHOE STORE UNDERGROUND REP SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY 1001 - 6075 169.44 Check Total: 169.44 AP-00071879 MW REED ELECTRIC & FIELD SERVICE ELECTRICAL SHOP PRIMARY EQUIP 1003 - 6021 1,657.50 Check Total: 1,657.50 AP- 00071880 MW RENO GAZETTE- JOURNAL ENGINEERING - TWIN PEAKS BS BSTR, TWN PEAKS 2029 - 7070 - TPBSTR 141.25 Check Total: 141.25 AP -00071881 MW RHP MECHANICAL SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT REPAIR GEN/TRF SW CC TK 2005 - 8956 1,878.00 Check Total: 1,878.00 AP-00071882 MW RSN SPORTS NETWORK DIO - PR EXP- EXTERNAL PUB RELATIONS 1027 - 6620 - PREEXT 730.63 RSN SPORTS NETWORK DIO - PR EXP - EXTERNAL PUB RELATIONS 2027 - 6620 - PREEXT 730.62 Check Total: 1,461.25 AP 00071883 MW RUTHERDALE, JEREMY PUMPS TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2002 - 6200 209.00 Check Total: 209.00 AP- 00071884 MW SCHMIDT CENTER GEN & ADMIN CAPACITY CHARGE 2000 - 3401 3,443.00 Check Total: 3,443.00 AP- 00071885 MW User: THERESA Page: 11 Current Date: 01/29/2009 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Current Time: 15:15:30 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code SCOTTYS HARDWARE Amount Check Num Tvpe DIAMOND VLY RNCH GROUNDS & MNTC 1028 - 6042 13.08 Check Total: 13.08 AP- 00071886 MW SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES LABORATORY SERVICE CONTRACT 1007 - 6030 95.25 SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES LABORATORY SERVICE CONTRACT 2007 - 6030 95.25 Check Total: 190.50 AP -00071887 MW SIERRA CHEMICAL CO PUMPS HYPOCHLORITE 2002 - 4755 911.07 Check Total: 911.07 AP -00071888 MW SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY MONITORING 1007 - 6110 380.00 Check Total: 380.00 AP -00071889 MW SIERRA NEVADA MEDIA GROUP OPERATIONS HYPOCHLORITE 1006 - 4755 55.68 SIERRA NEVADA MEDIA GROUP OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1006 - 4820 504.56 SIERRA NEVADA MEDIA GROUP DIO - PR EXP- EXTERNAL PUB RELATIONS 1027 - 6620 - PREEXT 328.51 SIERRA NEVADA MEDIA GROUP FINANCE PRINTING 1039 - 4920 290.95 SIERRA NEVADA MEDIA GROUP DIO - PR EXP- EXTERNAL PUB RELATIONS 2027 - 6620 - PREEXT 328.51 SIERRi4 NEVADA MEDIA GROUP ENGINEERING - TWIN PEAKS BS BSTR, TWN PEAKS 2029 - 7070 - TPBSTR 157.58 SIERf1 NEVADA MEDIA GROUP FINANCE PRINTING 2039 - 4920 290.95 Check Total: 1 956.74 AP- 00071890 MW SIERRA PACIFIC POWER GEN & ADMIN ELECTRICITY 1000 - 6330 59,057.72 SIERRA PACIFIC POWER GEN & ADMIN ST LIGHTING EXP 1000 - 6740 25.44 SIERRA PACIFIC POWER GEN & ADMIN ELECTRICITY 2000 - 6330 33,299.95 Check Total: SIERRA SPRINGS UNDERGROUND REP SUPPLIES 1001 - 6520 34.60 SIERRA SPRINGS PUMPS SUPPLIES 1002 - 6520 Y SIERRA SPRINGS ELECTRICAL SHOP SUPPLIES 1003 - 6520 11.53 SIERRA SPRINGS HEAVY MAINT SUPPLIES 1004 - 6520 34.60 SIERRA SPRINGS EQUIPMENT REP SUPPLIES 1005 - 6520 11.53 SIERRA SPRINGS OPERATIONS SUPPLIES 1006 - 6520 34.60 SIERRA SPRINGS DIAMOND VLY RNCH SUPPLIES 1028 - 6520 11.53 SIERRA SPRINGS CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPPLIES 1038 - 6520 11.53 SIERRA SPRINGS UNDERGROUND REP SUPPLIES 2001 - 6520 34.60 SIERRA SPRINGS PUMPS SUPPLIES 2002 - 6520 9.23 SIERRA SPRINGS ELECTRICAL SHOP SUPPLIES 2003 - 6520 11.53 User: THERESA -- - - - - -- Page: 12 Current Date: 01/29/2009 Report: OH_PMT CLAIMS_BK Current Time: 15:15:30 92,383.11 AP- 00071891 MW PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# / Proi Code Amount Check Num am SIERRA SPRINGS EQUIPMENT REPAIR SUPPLIES 2005 - 6520 11.53 SIERRA SPRINGS CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPPLIES 2038 - 6520 11.53 Check Total: 230.65 AP -00071892 MW SMITH, GREG PUMPS TRAVEL/MEETINGS 2002 - 6200 209.00 Check Total: 209.00 AP -00071893 MW SOUND STRATEGIES /OFC INC. DIO CONTRACT SERVICE 1027 - 4405 49.00 SOUND STRATEGIES /OFC INC. DIO CONTRACT SERVICE 2027 - 4405 49.00 Check Total: 98.00 AP -00071894 MW SOUTH TAHOE REFUSE GEN & ADMIN REFUSE DISPOSAL 1000 - 6370 2,682.61 SOUTH TAHOE REFUSE GEN & ADMIN REFUSE DISPOSAL 2000 - 6370 311.13 SOUTH TAHOE REFUSE PUMPS WELLS 2002 - 6050 7.55 Check Total: 3,001.29 AP- 00071895 MW SOUTHWEST GAS GEN & ADMIN NATURAL GAS 1000 - 6350 283.63 SOUTHWEST GAS GEN & ADMIN NATURAL GAS 2000 - 6350 423.06 SOUTHWEST GAS UNDERGROUND REP MISC LIAB CLAIMS 2001 - 4520 522.36 Check Total: 1,229.05 AP- 00071896 MW N SPRINGBROOK SOFTWARE INC INFORMATION SYS CONTRACT SERVICE 1037 - 4405 3,450.00 SPRINGBROOK SOFTWARE INC INFORMATION SYS SERVICE CONTRACT 1037 - 6030 93.74 SPRINGBROOK SOFTWARE INC INFORMATION SYS CONTRACT SERVICE 2037 - 4405 3,450.00 SPRINGBROOK SOFTWARE INC INFORMATION SYS SERVICE CONTRACT 2037 - 6030 93.76 Check Total: 7,087.50 AP -00071897 MW STANG INDUSTRIES OPERATIONS UP AERBSN3 WTR 1006 - 8917 1,744.47 Check Total: 1,744.47 AP -00071898 MW STANTEC CONSULTING INC ENGINEERING - ANGORA TNK REPL TANK, ANGORA 2029 - 7064 - ANGOTK 2,849.00 Check Total: 2,849.00 AP- 00071899 MW SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & HUMAN RESOURCES CONTRACT SERVICE 1022 - 4405 1,292.05 SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & ENGINEERING CONTRACT SERVICE 1029 - 4405 8851 .80 SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & HUMAN RESOURCES CONTRACT SERVICE 2022 - 4405 1,292.06 SUBSTITUTE PERSONNEL & ENGINEERING CONTRACT SERVICE 2029 - 4405 885.79 Check Total: 4 355.70 AP -00071900 MW SUTER WALLAUCH CORBETT &ASSOC DIO CONTRACT SERVICE 1027 - 4405 1,225.00 Current Date: 01/29/2009 User: THERESA Page: 13 Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Current Time: 15:15:30 Vendor Name Department / Proi Name SUTER WALLAUCH CORBETT &ASSOC DIO TAHOE BASIN CONTAINER SERVICE TAHOE BASIN CONTAINER SERVICE TAHOE BLUEPRINT TAHOE BLUEPRINT TAHOE BLUEPRINT TAHOE MOUNTAIN NEWS TAHOE MOUNTAIN NEWS TAHOE PARADISE CHEVRON TAHOE TRADING POST TAHOE TRADING POST w TAHOE TRADING POST TAHOE TRADING POST TRI STATE SURVEYING LTD TRPA TWEEDS UPHOLSTERY UNDERWATER RESOURCES INC UNDERWATER RESOURCES INC UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK GEN & ADMIN OPERATIONS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING - TWIN PEAKS BS ENGINEERING - ARSENIC STUDY DIO - PR EXP- EXTERNAL DIO - PR EXP - EXTERNAL UNDERGROUND REP UNDERGROUND REP PUMPS PUMPS UNDERGROUND REP ENGINEERING - ICR TMDL ENGINEERING - ARSENIC STUDY EQUIPMENT REPAIR GEN & ADMIN - ICR TMDL ENGINEERING - ICR TMDL GEN & ADMIN GEN & ADMIN PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Description CONTRACT SERVICE REFUSE DISPOSAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL SHOP SUPPLIES BSTR, TWN PEAKS ARSNC TRTMNT PUB RELATIONS PUB RELATIONS DIESEL SAFETY/EQU I P/PHY SAFETY/EQU I P/PHY SAFETY/EQU I P/PH Y SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY O2SYS/TMDL,ICR ARSNC TRTMNT AUTOMOTIVE CONST RETAINAGE O2SYS/TMDL,ICR POSTAGE EXPENSES POSTAGE EXPENSES Page: 14 Acct# / Proi Code 2027 - 4405 1000 - 6370 1006 - 6652 2001-4620 1001-6075 1002 - 6075 2002-6075 2001 - 6075 2005 -6011 1000 -4810 2000 - 4810 Check Total: Check Total: 2029 - 6071 2029 - 7070 - TPBSTR 2029 - 8864 - ARSNIC Check Total: 1027 - 6620 - PREEXT 2027 - 6620 - PREEXT Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: Check Total: 1029 - 8605 - ICTMDL Check Total: 2029 - 8864 - ARSNIC Check Total: Check Total: 1000 - 2605 - ICTMDL 1029 - 8605 - ICTMDL Check Total: Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 mount 1,225.00 ___2,450.00 AP- 00071901 MW 65.46 6,886.96 Check Num 6,952.42 AP- 00071902 MW 690.44 1,243.65 1,350.86 3.284.95 AP -00071903 MW 300.00 300.00 600.00 AP -00071904 MW 218.60 218.60 AP- 00071905 MW 223.47 165.77 165.76 555.00 AP - 00071906 MW 90.19 90.19 AP -00071907 MW 895.00 895.00 AP -00071908 MW 1,320.60 1,320.60 AP -00071909 MW 762.82 762.82 AP- 00071910 MW 63.54 11,596.56 11.660.10 AP - 00071911 MW 500.00 500.00 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vendor Name Department / Proi Name Description Acct# 1 Prol Code un Check Num Type Check Total: 1,000.00 AP- 00071912 MW USA BLUE BOOK UNDERGROUND REP SMALL TOOLS 2001 - 6073 69.27 USA BLUE BOOK PUMPS WELLS 2002 - 6050 4,000.43 Check Total: 4,069.70 AP- 00071913 MW VERIZON DIAMOND VLY RNCH TELEPHONE 1028 - 6310 246.08 Check Total: 246.08 AP- 00071914 MW WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION ELECTRICAL SHOP DUES/MEMB /CERT 1003 - 6250 217.00 Check Total: 217.00 AP- 00071915 MW WATSON - MARLOW INC OPERATIONS PMPS,FLTR CHEM 1006 - 8920 5,596.54 Check Total: 5,596.54 AP- 00071916 MW WECO INDUSTRIES INC UNDERGROUND REP PIPE /CVRS /MHLS 1001 - 6052 942.00 WECO INDUSTRIES INC UNDERGROUND REP SHOP SUPPLIES 1001 - 6071 103.46 Check Total: 1,045.46 AP -00071917 MW WEDCO INC ELECTRICAL SHOP BUILDINGS 1003 - 6041 435.67 WEDCO INC ELECTRICAL SHOP PUMP STATIONS 1003 - 6051 92.88 1— WEDV INC ELECTRICAL SHOP BUILDINGS 2003 - 6041 31.44 WEDCb INC ELECTRICAL SHOP SHOP SUPPLIES 2003 - 6071 142.34 Check Total: 702.33 AP-00071918 MW WEST PAYMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS 1021 - 4830 147.10 WEST PAYMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS 2021 - 4830 147.09 Check Total: 294.19 AP-00071919 MW WESTERN ENERGETIX INC GEN & ADMIN GASOLINE INV 1000 - 0415 4,537.46 WESTERN ENERGETIX INC GEN & ADMIN DIESEL INVENTORY 1000 - 0416 7,9 WESTERN ENERGETIX INC EQUIPMENT REP OIL & LUBE 1005 - 4630 734.26 WESTERN ENERGETIX INC DIAMOND VLY RNCH GASOLINE 1028 - 4610 1,028.12 WESTERN ENERGETIX INC DIAMOND VLY RNCH DIESEL 1028 - 4620 715.76 WESTERN ENERGETIX INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR OIL & LUBE 2005 - 4630 734.26 Check Total: 15,698.50 AP -00071920 MW WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY UNDERGROUND REP SHOP SUPPLIES 1001 - 6071 193.65 WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY PUMPS PUMP STATIONS 1002 - 6051 330.88 WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY PUMPS SHOP SUPPLIES 1002 - 6071 112.61 User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_C LAIMS_BK Page: 15 Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 Vendor Name WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY WESTERN NEVADA SUPPLY WILLIAM A DOWNEY OD INC WILLIAM A DOWNEY OD INC WINZLER & KELLY CONSULT ENGRS WINZLER & KELLY CONSULT ENGRS XEROX CORP XEROX CORP User: THERESA Report: OH_PMT_CLAIMS_BK Department / Proi Name HEAVY MAINT PUMPS PUMPS CUSTOMER SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE UNDERGROUND REP UNDERGROUND REP PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page: 16 DescT PRIM/yRY EQUIP PUMP (( STATIONS SHOP SUPPLIES SAFETY /EQUIP /PHY SAFETY/EQUIP/PHY OPERATIONS - MAP UG UTILITIES PLANT GIS ENGINEERING - EFFLUENT EVAL REP EXP PUMPS SERVICE CONTRACT SERVICE CONTRACT Acct# / Prot Code 1004 - 6021 2002 - 6051 2002 - 6071 1038 - 6075 2038 - 6075 Check Total: 1006 - 8921 - GISMAP 1029 - 8676 - EFFLEV Check Total: 1001 - 6030 2001 - 6030 Total 1„2d •7 ,222.68 " . esand t t 1.2433, Oft. 3.1 Check Total: Check Total: Grand Total: Current Date: 01/29/2009 Current Time: 15:15:30 Amount Check Num tug 639.24 26.92 112.61 1,415.91 AP -00071921 MW 77.00 77.00 154.00 AP -00071922 MW 4,994.50 6,511.50 11 506.00 AP -00071923 MW 45.46 45.46 90.92 AP- 00071924 MW 1,247,222.08 South Tab P.U.D. 01/26/09 VOID, TYPED & REVERSED Af P CHEEK REGISTER MN, JAN 26, 2009, 10:58 PM ---xecp -- -lerg: C$, JL- - -loc: aEIIE - - - -j : 428016 $7501 --- pg t: EE200 <1.19> Payee Nam Die CYiedcnct Type Subs Rel To Ncte 03/06/08 03/06/08 06/19/08 07/07/08 07/17/08 07/17/08 Ccedc Payee ID. AP00069004 7929 AP00069005 '1929 AP00069809 V44267 AP00070031 T955 AP00070089 V44091 AP00070103 E45127 1 0 • R'R, ROSE MARIE ROEMER, F2':1SE MARIE CRC ESPOME =SUEZ= Best Best & Krieger HMS CUIREPQ3 MC, WES GRAND TOTALS: Total Void N>achir a Written Total Void Hari Written Total N1aci ire Written Total Hand Witted Total Reversals Total Cancelled GRAND TOTAL 0 2,734.00 709.00 5,500.00 24.66 287.50 30.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,285.46 0.00 9,285.46 RV TR RV M. RV 7R RV TR RV TR RV TR Reversed Reversed Reversed Remised Reversed Reversed Nutter of Clacks Pmoessed: Nags of Qradss Processed: BLEter of aedcs Processed: Nuttber of Checks Processed- Rub= of Checks Processed: Biter of Checks Processed: 003 0•* 9 '285.46+ 3'880.11+ 362.00+ 13'527•57* + 0 xpt id: c--1 0: 0 0 0 6 0 Sa th 'Tahoe P.U.D. WED, JAN 21, 2009, amok Payee ID. AP00071167 V24150 r J z 1 4(601 Pa 3:38 FM - - -� 01/21/09 - VOID, TYPED & �,A/P CSC F�Sr� - -leg: GL JL- - -loc: QN IiE - - - -j : 427775 4J423---- B200 <1.19> Payee Natre e C 'Dice Subs RellbNote SIERRA NEVALA NEDJA CR 11 /06/08 3, 880.11 RV TR GRAND TOTALS: Tbt a1 Void MachirE written Tbtal void Hard Written Tbtal Machine e W ittei Tbtal Hand written Tbtal Reversals GRAND TOTAL ( /2 -1 /0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,880.11 0.00 3,880.11 Reversed Nitter of Checks Processed: linter of (backs Processed: Natter of (harks Processed: Natter of Checks Processed: Hitter of Checks Pr N.mber of Checks Prcoesse : (75) ipt id: - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 O * 10 1 4 ae � U Scuth Tahoe P.U.D. 01/14/09 Va[D, 'TYPED & REVER5ED pJP CHECK K RE IS = p 1 W D, JAN 14, 2009, 10:29 PM - - -req: DCNIEE E -- -leg: GL JL- - -loc: CI�STIE - - - -j : 427380 fJ365 - -- pgn: Ht200 <1.19> rpt id: Qdr -- Check Payee ID. Payee Nate rate Check Prnc uit Type Subs Ref Tb Note AP00071587 E44493 AP00071610 E24020 AP00071632 V45223 CALLI N, JERALEE KCSCTCEEK, =A. PINE CM ACRE M71EL GRAND TOTALS: Ibtal Void Machine Written Ibtal Void Hand Written Ibtal Iv lire Written Ibtal Hand Written lbtal Reversals Ibtal celled GRAND TOTAL 12/30/08 12/30/08 12/30/08 C eteeitte. ( 78.00 RV 78.00 RV 206.00 RV t /«/o9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 362.00 0.00 362.00 TR TR Reversed Reversed Reversed Nutter of chocks Processed: N rb r of Checks Processed: Nutter of Cracks accessed: N.th er of Checks Processed: Nutter of Checks Processed. tinter of Clams accessed: 0 0 0 0 3 0 , Gel'l.eral Man~r Richard H. 50itnie South Tahoe Public Utility District Dir&;tor& Emle ClJIudio Jamee fI{. JOM& Mary Lou M~cher Dale Rifle 1276 Meadow Crest Drive · South Lako Tahoe · CA 96160 Phone 530 544-6474 . Fax 530 541-0614 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 14a TO: FROM: Board of Directors Richard H. Solbrig, General Manager MEETING DATE: February 5,2009 ITEM - PROJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) of the California Government Code, Closed Session may be held for conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Meyers Landfill Site - United States of America vs. EI Dorado County and City of South Lake Tahoe and Third Party Defendants, Civil Action No. S-01-1520 LKK GGH, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. SCHEDULE: COSTS: ACCOUNT NO: BUDGETED AMOUNT REMAINING: ATTACHMENTS: CATEGORY: Sewer CONCURRENCE WITH REQUESTED ACTION: GENERAL MANAGER: YES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: YES NO NO -149- (0 l r-<,..s Q ......-) en l-.....~ b lj '. ~yY.to NaL~ . '\ RECYCLED WATER. FACILmES MASTER. PLAN SOOPING HEARING CEQA Disclose significant environmental effects :;'v:~~~~;~a~:~ificant FOCUSED NOP . Four new project components . Two new alternatives . Program and Project EIR Cob 2/5/09 1 . \ NEW COMPONENTS . Component 29 - Irrigate the District pasture . Component 30 - Irrigate the jungle with recycled water . Component 31 - Divert stonnwater flow from HPR to ICR . Component 32 - ICR spillway channel New Alternatives . Alternative 1 - No Project . Alternative 2 - Master Plan Components (The Project) . Alternative 3 - Master Plan Recommended Projects . Alternative 4 - Master Plan Trigger Projects Phase I Projects Project 1 - Recycled Water Irrigation Fields on Diamond Valley Ranch (Components 11 & 19) Project 2 - Harvey Place Reservoir llypass System Pipelines and Ditches (Component 11) Project 11 - Prepare Nutrient Management Plan (Component 18) Project 12 - Permitting for Recycled Water Use in Diamond Valley (Component 19) 2/5/09 2 .' \ Project Map ~- " ",'-.--..--.. -- "'1 ~"'I ...--' SCOPING PURPOSE IdentifY environmental concerns and issues Identify data sources Identify new project components Identify new project alternatives Identify potential mitigation measures DISTRICT RESPONSIBILI1Y Listen and record comments Provide clarification of project objectives and components , Draft EIR will address environmental concerns and issues . Project comments will be considered by the District Board 2/5/09 3 , . NEXT STEPS February 5th - Circulation ofNOP ends Spring 2009 - Circulation of Draft EIR Fall 2009 - Circulation afFinal EIR . Winter 2009 - FEIR Certification and project action RECYCLED WATE1l F'ACILl'l1ES MASTEIl PLAN SCOPING HBARJNG 2/5/09 4 . .,.. .'. '. . , ... ~ . ..... . .;" ,~ -,' ",",". . '- ", :," . .,"':. ", =, ....,. . .", .", '". . ; ~ . - . :. :. ,: ...... t ".: Janua.rv 28, 2009' -:....:,.. .: . . i .~ f", . ~:. . . .. .' " . "',".',:, ":".iJPEmlERlD; .' .,.". .,-...";'.....:.~: ".: .....,... ',.:>::::' '>"'::':2:'\':';':. ,;~ ." ';>c'" ,....: "","""':".,<'~: ..:".': .". ..:.,....<. .;':' ,"<':u:,:'.::::" ... '.' ,', ". ~. . ,. '. ' , . : ,"SOuttl.Taho~.-Public UtilitY. Dl$trld: .' . ':"" .' ", ;. ' ,., :'<,::.:,;.,'. :';,":1275 Meadow.Crest.OtiVe'.., '." " '" '. '. ,:::":,,,";'>SouthLcik~,tahoe,' CA '96150~j40f:: · . . . " . :; i . -:. '." ..' .'. . . '.~ .' ' ," .' ..'..!' '.: .' .'. .... - .' ",I .' '_' , . ., .. '-., _,' ",',' ;'. . .'t . . . - - . .". . . . .:';" . ,;,:;'Oe,ar Mr..Sci~,: . .' ." ,'. " . . .. ..;Paul~il.tto. '. ' :. . ". . .' ., ":. Pr~~S~1 fotTwin '~akS -a06~ter PlJ~P :~~tIOri &.. Wa~r :Line . ., .' '.~' _ . ' , '., '. .'", ,.:, "'. ,:. ,"~'., ~._' "'; '", "\ _ :. ". _ I , , .,'-', " . ." .'" . . ..., , ",. .' ~,:. . " ,:. . "..' .. ..... . "';'.. .. ", ;.... -', ,: . .. .,. '.' '.' ....., ~, . . '. ..;'.' ;",. .. ' . . '" 1 " .' ' " ". '. .:~ .' . ',' "":..' . ~.. ,-. :' , ,': .'. ':;':":.:- '. .', . .. ':. ....~ - :~ ;':.. ' ....." . .:: ;. '.' . P:O, B<)X 10047~~EN<).NEVAOA89fi10:~.tEl.EPi-tONE. (775),877"6620:' ,,;'.' .. '. -. '. . .. '" ,:.:.....'...../.:- .\-~'~.';::..;:. ..:....:...,.:-,. .,,' l~"~:. .~~.::<..": ,", .' ;".,~-"" '" ;.,.,... '. ": ~ , : '",' .... '., :::"'1 , .... .,': , . , '. . . . .. . ........ ._._...._.__........U...._.HH..............._ '.... ,. '. !:....~.....~.. ,"" " .., '. '. :'. ,'. . .' .....\ , . ... ':'.". .'.'. '." ,."# ':il~cWI~:~~~ . " ". I..'; ,.... '., :...J..... . '~" Add~~~~i.IY.:li .h~S.~,~~, tP...~~~~ ~tt~nti()~~~t.. ~U~. was .aware~~fttie~~fct~i6n .'~~.t.he'lob~y ,Prio(t;6 t~~e ~:;~ .~.m~ '<Jea.dlin~..'<~'$ed o(Lthe~ .fa~, .~.!. M', }3.yars :' .Co~,oh '1$ :P.rPt~ogthe non-accep~hce' of-our pr~.PQsal'for: t~is prpject ',-" .~ .... ,." '.' ".~' ..~'..,' ". ...... :.~ ..~. .-' ~ '., ",' .'-::....,.~. ',' .... '" " :i' .....# .. .,'. ..' '\.' .~. '." "'J' ..... ,:." ., ;;t>i3*~,,~ .. ,.,,~~~~~~r~~I.e}(; " :.',' ... ..; .... . . ~. . .. . ':.';0'.. ...... '.:" ~. ,:. . .', '\. .:1 ',.. '::.' ,,' .' .:.i:.' . . ~'. ..... ..\..... \'.... !~ .' .. '::' :." . ',. .'. '. ;. . . , . .;- ,;. ...".' ; ..., . "" ~':' : '.::' . '. . \".' ..r .;. ;': '. ,." ",:':.,:' "1;' ..," :,' . .; '.- }... -:' '.. ',' :. ",: ,(:.. : '"1' ',' '.'.' '.,. . . '" ...... ......,. ... . . .:....< '. , . ~. "'" . . ;": /,. ;; ".' ':'" -:-. . " i'.I' .'. " '.!' ';.\.' "'.;:. ....... .,..... .". ' ..I..':. :' '.. '. ~ .~ - '1 ;' fO J qQ\'\I khtv-. d. 8 ~ Inc. RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY qlr~ f5/!f fr:llk.4f C'--~~~' "1 !;~-, '~'" 1/ l, ' i~~* ffi?:> \ --...--.. 0'\ / '. "" ,\ ,'.. SJY<, ! : ..:.:.:;~:.. \ J .,' ,,~ ':-: ,i' \ \ .....-...--.'..'.' ',' ~~;'_'-'",'u,_,_. '.' I I u....?..,.---- t L.// ,,_ -----".L..... 1 1.-/;- I 61 DATE:.... ............................ .............................. TIrv1E:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JOB NO:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO:. . . 7.~~r~ 1" ~.~ ~.I::. p.~~ .L}.C; .l)f'.1..~1.y .o.l.~1'~ n:. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . AITENTION:..J~~.H~~.~A!!... ......... ....... ..... .... .......... FAX NUMBER{ ~ P,).?:lf.l. :'. ~~. ( ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBJECT:.1.4.!!N. f.~A ~~. .f3<J.Q P. ~;~.e.(). ~p.. ?!~T{~~. ~.fI}P. .L~A1f;{)J..JNl; {JROJfCT MESSAGE:. .. . . .J.I.J1.l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ............... .1~(\.~~. .tI.~ Y.. f.V.r-:.. Ar.~~PJ~':-!~. . T!1.I.~. .f..€;.~ f.~ ~~.~.:.. .~.~ .1!!.l.Lf:-:..r;, :-.A.-1 ~~. . .rf. ..~.~~9.:. /~~.S.~.. CA.t,.-~...~ I ~.<!~5T.i.~.^:1.~.:..................................................... ."............. ......... ......... ~ ... .............~.......e.. ..~.. ...... .......~.... ..... ...... ....... ...a. ...... ..~ a...... ..... ........ .. . . . . 4 .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. ~ .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . ~ . . .. ~ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . ..oooo........................................................oO.............................. .............................................. ....................................................oO.............................oo'O.....................'O...........oO.................. .oo............. .........................'O'O.................. 'O..... ...................oo...... ............ ...........'O....'O. ...................................... ....... .......'O'O.................'O.....oo...oO...........................oO....................... .............'O......'O......'O................. .........'O..................'O..'O........................... ..........'O...................'O......'O..'O.'O.'O.'O....'O................'O.'O. 'O.............. _.......... _.oO......... _.. _........oO......... - _.... _.......... _. _...................oO..........oO................ _......... .'O.....'O.....'O....'O................oooo...'O.................oO..oOoo...oo............oO..oO'O.........................oo......oo..oo.......... . ................ ........................................ .........................'O............'O.'O'O.....'O........................'O.'O.'O.'O.'O'O ..........'O'O'O.'O......'O......'O.......'O...........'O'O.....'O...'O'O....'O.............'O......'O..'O.'O'O...........'O......'O...........'O..'O'O'O...... . ...'O.'O...'O.'O'O............'O....'O..'O......'O'O'O.....'O....'O'O....'O...'O'O.'O.'O.......'O.'O.....'O...'O'O.'O......'O.....'O'O....'O'O........'O..'O....'O'O... . ..... . .'O..'O...'O'O....'O....'O.'O......'O...............o.o..............o.....o.....o.o...o'O..............o...........'O'O...'O........'O......o'O..... SENDER:.. .S~~. ??:I.~!-:................................... ./ Total number of pages including this page 2 . Original _ will )(. wiII not follow in the mail. Advise Resource Development Company if you did not receive all pages. 2305 Glendale Avenue, Suite 10, Sparks, Nevada 89431-5598 (775) 356-8004 I Fax (775) 356-0610 Nevada License No. 12777AB I California License No, 461393AB 'f f) J81O]loc. RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA % 150 02105109 ATIENTION: Jim Hoggatt REFERENCE: Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Project. Gentlemen, Thank you for the infonnation provided regarding the protest of the bid for the above referenced project. Tbe memorandum from Mt Sciuto dated 29 January, 2009 addresses Byars Construction accusations and our fmn bas no comment other tlum ten of the would be bidders turned in documents in the proper manner. Regarding the protest from Carpenters Local # 1789 dated 3 Feb, 2009 we offer the following comments. TIle)' state that ollr finn is not a "responsible contractor" and failed to "screen subcontractors" by listing Fencecorp. Attached is the most recent listing of contractors license detail from the Contractors State License Board which states that Fencecorp license is current and active, With Fencecorp in good standing with the board we wouldn't have any reason to reject their bid. . Further on in their letter they state we are not "tmstworthy or fit" to perform this contract Resource Development Company has been in business since 1975 and have completed numerous projects around the basin and Truckee, those being Kingsbury General hnprovement District, Douglas County Sewer Improvement District #1, Roundhill General hnprovements District, Incline Village OlD, North Tahoe Public Utility District, Tahoe City Public Utility District, Tahoe- Truckee Sanitation District, Tmckee Donner Public Utilities District and South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District. Attached please find a list of projects our firm has completed for South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District. For representatives of a union local to make such statements regarding our finn is unfounded and is only self sening on their part. Should additional information be needed regarding our ability to perfonn the contract, please contact our office 2305 Glendale Avenue, Suite 10, SparkS, Nevada 89431-5598 (775) 356-8004 I Fax (775) 356-0610 Nevada License No. 12777 AS I Califomia License No. 461393AB ,. ., Check a License or Home Improvement Salesperson (HIS) Registration - Contractors Stat., , Page 1 of 1 Contractors State Li~elnse'Board Contractor's License Detail - License # 886544 & DISClAIMER: A lic:en.. status check provides information taken from the CSLB license database. Before relying on thlalnform8tion, you .houlcl be _re of the following limitation.. CSLB tomp/U1t di$cIoslP is mtricted by"w (~f:'}'124,6).lfthlt entity is subject to public complaint disclosure. a link for complaint disclosure wi. appear below. CIlck on the Ink or button to obIain complaint anellor legal action information. Per 6&P lOll 1"1, on/yconstruclion re"tedc:lviljudgments reported to the C5LB are disclosed, Arbitrations are notllsted unless the contractor laBs to comply with the !enTIa of the arbitration, Due to workload. there may be relevant Information that hIlS not yet beel'lenlel'ed onto the Board'slcen$e database. License Number: Busln..slnformatlon: 886544 FENCECORP INC 882 MAIN STREET RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 Business Phone Number: (951) 888-3170 CorpolStion 10/3112006 10/3112010 This license i. current and active, AlIlnformatlon below should be reviewed. Extract Date: 0210<4I2OO9 entity: ISlue DIlte: ExpIre o.te: License Status: CLASS DESCRIPTION C1asalficallons: C13 F(:N(~JNQ B GENEP;',LIO\I,JIl,QING CONTRACTor;; c-ONTRA.CrOk'S BUNG Thla Ianullled Contractor's Bond number 14904978 in the amount of $12,100 with the bonding co/Tlllllny WE$Tf-RN SI)REIY COMPANY. Bonding: Effective Date: 0110112007 Go I1tro<:ttlr:~f1ondil)gljl~i9ry eOI'm 0"" QiJf\L !F'rING INf)lVlD\JP.L 1. This lleens. filed Bond of Qualifying Individual number 1490.4987 for DALE EMERY MARRIOTT In the amount of $12,600 with the bonding company Ii'V!;ST;:RN $1)Rl;TYQQMPl1-/'lY. Effective Date: 0110112007 SQXsG?rxiing History This license hils WClfkefs compensation insurance with the N,~nONI\~ U.NIQNfJRE: fN$I)8ANCE COr,lPANY QF.p'Tr::;:BUF:c;H, PA Work.,.' CompenMtion: Policy Number: 1894750 Effective Date: 0710112008 Expire Date: 0710112009 \Mlrl<Qr!" <;::ompens;aliootli;;tg!y Personnel ft8led on ltll$lIcenae (current or dlsas&ociated) are II6led on other licenses Gongi!i9.fl$ 9.Ll)Ji,I11 Prfya9Y f'<;>iI9Y Copyright \0 2009 state of Califomla http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServiceslCheckLicenselLicenseDetail.asp 2/4/2009 .. J(,lleck a License or Home Improvement Salesperson (HIS) Registration - Contractors Stat... Page 1 of 1 Contractors State LiGen~e ftoard Contractor's License Detail (Personnel List) COntractor Ucense .: Contractor Name: 886544 FENCECORP INC Click OIl the person's name to see a more detaifed page of information on that person. NAME TITLE ASSOCIA TiON OlSASSOCIA nON CLASS MOR.E DATE DIHE CLASS Qt,b!;.J_~f;:RY M.Af1f(IQTf THQMA~ ,Pl;RRYMAS$Jf 8..QYO G!:QRGE;; NiXQN RMOICEO/PRES OFFICER OFFICER 10131/2006 C13 More 1013112006 1013112006 CQngi1iQm;!Qtl.)~!;l1 Pri.l@QyE'qii9Y Copyright C 2009 State of California http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/0nIineServiceslCheckLicenselPersonneIList.asp?LicNum=886544 ... 2/4/2009 ~ -j Projects Completef for South Tahoe Public Utility District 1993 AL Tahoe Water Well No.2 1993 AL Tahoe Pump Station Odor Scrubber 1993 South Upper Truckee Stand-by Generator Building Expansion 1995 Stateline Phase II & Arrowhead Sitework Project 1998 Christmas Valley & Gardner Mountain Tanks 2002 Sludge Tank (Pacific Mechanical, General) r-any ~e.... : .... :---r~ r\;;- ~ . '~..., ~ ...., Industrial Commercial Fencing" FenceCorp.US License #886544 February 5, 2009 Attn: Mr. Doug Allen Resource Development Company 2305 Glendale Ave, Suite 10 Sparks, Nevada 89431 Re: Bid Protest - Contract # Ref 7979A 10 Twin Peaks Booster Pump Station and Waterline Project Dear Mr Allen, I am responding to the Protest Letter that was filed by the Carpenter's Union. It is a fact that our parent company Fenceworks Inc. was found guilty of employing a few undocumented workers. Fenceworks Inc, is a residential fence company specializing in new housing projects and at the time of the incident had over 800 employees and 10 locations. Fencecorp Inc. is Public Works / Military Fencing Contractor. We specialize in Military fence projects and have fenced nearly every Military Base in California and a few in Nevada. We are currently working on the Yuma Sector of the U.S / Mexico Border Fence. All of Fencecorp's employees have been run thru the E-VERIFY system and we have a 100% LEGAL work force. That is something that the Carpenters Union cannot claim. Fencecorp Inc. adheres to all prevailing wage laws and we employ union apprentices on all of our fencing projects. We had to set up a new company policy just for the union requiring that their apprentices show up 48 hours early and fill out our new hire packets so that they could be ran thru the E-VERIFY program. We had to set up this program which actually costs us money for the 2 hour show up for the apprentices. The reason for the 48 hour advance show up is that approximately 50% of the union apprentices were in fact undocumented workers. Do to the fact that we are a Government Military Contractor and it is our company policy to run all new hires thru E-VERIFY we cannot have any undocumented workers on any of our projects at any time. Fencecorp Inc Contractors license is in good standing with the State of California's License Board and we have never had any issues with undocumented workers. Please feel free to check out our company web site @ www.fencecorp.us so that you can better understand the type of organization that you are dealing with. Hopefully this will put some minds at ease. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss further. Thank You. ~~\"'l~ Dale Marriott President Ph# 951-686-3170 OCEANSIDE SANTA PAULA CORPORATE OFFICE BAKERSFIELD SACRAMENTO 2420 # A Industry St. B91 Corporation St 882 N Main Street 4750 Burr SUB 5700 881h street Oceanlide, CA 92054 Santa Paula, CA 93060 Riverside, CA 92501-1016 Bakersfield, CA 93306 Sacramento, CA 95828 Ph, 760.754-8372 Ph. 805.933,4522 Ph, 951.686-3170 Ph. 661.323.3380 Ph. 916,388-0887 Fa. 760,754-9810 Fax 805.933.4521 Fa. 951. 788, 7759 Fa. 661,323,3406 Fa. 916,383,5769 ANAHEIM PALM DALE BRAWLEY FRESNO MANTECA 2861 La Crelta Ave 35656 N Sierra Hwy 4724 US Hwy 111 1250 N Backer Ave 1125 Vanderbilt Circle Anaheim, CA 92806 Palmdale, CA 93550 Brawley, CA 92227 Fresno, CA 93727 Manteca, CA 95337 Ph, 714,238.0091 Ph. 661.265.0082 Ph,760,344.8896 Ph. 559,454,1712 Ph, 209-824-7328 Fa. 714.238,0096 Fa. 661,265,0179 Fa. 760,344,8086 Fa. 559,454.1713 Fa. 209-824-7842 Angora Tank Replacement and Access Road Project Public Meeting: 2/5/2009, 2:45 pm Environmental Documentation (CEQA/NEPA) > Disclose significant environmental effects Avoid or mitigate significant environments effects SLOPING PURPOSE Community input to help... • Identify project components • Identify project alternatives • Identify environmental concerns and issues • Identify data sources Identify potential mitigation measures DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITY Listen to and record comments Provide clarification of project objectives and components Project comments will be considered by the District Board Address environmental concerns and issues in environmental document > Tank Replacement Waterline Replacem Drainage Upgrades Backup Power > Site Security New Access Road Project Features Project Features Tank Replacement Replace aging structure • Increase volume 4x Waterline Replacement Drainage Upgrades Backup Power . Solar Panels • Power Supply from Forest Mountain Generator Site Security • Replace aging structure • Increase size, if needed • Overflow and tank drain controls • BMPs • Swing Gate at Road Entrance • Chain Link Fence around Tank Area Access Road Features Permanent Access is Required by California Regulations (Title 22) Site is land - locked with foot access only Location is atop a steep ridge > Selected route is: • Short • Stable • Feasible Angora Access Roar I 1 .---- -- 1 ..---------``,......______. \ -----4 ON rBEISIEEN CIRCLE AS NEEDED m ■ -. i l . ^, •: k , . w 9rD "ft- caQN01 • INSTALL 9N� 1 a ;l . . / 4 MO r�r row ® ,. r •..• - i� REIEIYION pICEN. 4' ' f _ ,111.61 r.�. a �r ` r . ..... �` :l roma / _ - N'(IN rt 4. AMP • . ' µ ? � .. I ma= •....--- , ''''' . , • " ..� / � � ,. PPOSIEC'C_Na.' TREE RI cawo►t:+ED. cease FLL •. F= '� ✓ r�n'r vFw ex err /, cave mire �m e + �ar . x t IrpCE-DFF I4. '..Ft V � : • • + A/C PAVED 4 .4, USCG: ROW, 4 ' . 1D Fr WS L il c9' r 2008 ANGORA WATER TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT ACCESS ROAD GRADING Angora Access Roar Comments Received To Date • Impact on Historic Resources • Visual Impact Concerns over Security • Need for a Permanent Road Need for a Paved Road Consideration of Alternative Routes `-4 • 7 • 1 :4' " •,-•••Pr•:•••;4•?,4;,•%77,77:4m • 7* . . Proposed Route 630 ft long, 11-18% Alternative Routes FIN NPR Ile-101 "Waterline" Route 900 ft long, 23-36% "Watertine" Route aligner Route Proposed Route NEXT STEPS February 5th — Public Comment period ends February 2009 — Finalize and File Environmental Document March 2009 — Apply for Project Permit July - Oct 2009 — Construct Road, Waterline and Tank Pad Summer 2010 — Construct New Tank, Demo Old Tank VERNON A. BRY, JR., M.D. DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF PSYCHIATRY AND NEUROLOGY Q /.J~!0sL Qe-f ~"~ k( Cd &CV-& e . .. .... .. .. .. .... .. .... .... .... .. ..... .. "" .... .. .. .. "" .. .. .. .. .... "" .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 960 Emerald Bay Road Suite 5 POBox 7335 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158 Phone 530 573 8952 January 27, 2009 South Tahoe Public utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe CA 96150 Attention: Julie H. Ryan, P.E. RE: Angora Water Tank Replacement Project Dear Ms. Ryan: We would like to add comments to the issues addressed in the attached copy of a letter from the residents of Angora Highlands. Regarding: ACCESS ROUTE FOR TANK CONSTRUCTION We would like consideration be given to improving and using the original access route to the existing tank (Aberdeen off of Healther Circle). In the past 25 years that we have lived here, maintenance vehicles have used that road with no apparent problems. We would like consideration be given to routing the proposed access road to the SOUTH side of the existing tank. Our property, 325 Uplands Way Lot 116, is located directly below (NORTH) of the existing tank. Our concern is that heavy road construction equipment on the north side of the tank could potentially dislodge large boulders which could fall downhill, endangering structures and people on our property. Regarding: LIABILITY Because of our proximity to the existing tank for 25 years, we are aware of much recreational activity in the area. The tank is climbed for play and scenic viewing, and the area surrounding it is popular for partying. We would request that the access road be gated and posted, and the tank be fenced to discourage this type of activity. / 1 January 24~ 2009 To: Sautb Tahoe Public Utility District Mary Lou Mosbad1er~ President, Board of Directors Richard SoIbrig. Gen<<nJ. Manager Julie Ryan, Project Manager ((;~j@~ Bryan Hanson Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit U.S. Forest Service, USDA JoIm Singlaub~ Executive Director Tahoe Regional Pl8DDing Agency From: Residents of Angora Highlands Re: Proposed watec tank project As a nei~ group of South Tahoe Public Utility District users and rate payers, living in dose proximity to the proposed Angora Highlands water tank COJISlIuctim prqect, we wish to express both support and concern. We support the Distrid~s proposal to replace the existing water tank and waterline with a larger tank and an upgraded pnlSSID'ized waterIi~. These upgrades seem likely to provide much needed water source reliability and fire protection for our neighborhood. As explained below in detail~ we have four areas of ooncem that we ask the District to diligently address. CeIIItrudiea or a New Paved Read We respectfully ask for careful consideration of the issues surrounding the road CODSttuctioo as currently proposed. As part of the water storage jmprovem~ the District has proposed building and paving over 600 feet of new asphalt road into what is now largely undistmbed forest Jand. As proposed, we question whether the District needs a permanent paved road to the site aft<< CODSttuctiOll is oomplete. As a <DDp8rison, the compacted base road to the comparable water tank above Cbiapa Drive is routed through some steep terrain, bas been there for years~ shows very liuJe erosion, and is visually unobtrusive. Under the current arrangements. inspection and maintenance of the existing Angora tank is handled by a technician who only accesses the site occasionally and does so on foot. Given that a new road would be under snow for appI"oYimately five months out of the year~ paving it to save walking to the tank a few times per year seems an excessive expansion of unnecessary impervious coverage and an unjustifiable and inefficient expenditure of user fees. Liability Along wi1h our CODCemS about the cost and environmental impact of paving a road of this size for rare or oo:asional use,. we are also concerned about the potential legal exposure a gated and untended road of this sort wooId represent to the District, to the U.S. Forest Savice,. and to our neighborhood. As proposed,. a rdatively steep. paved,. gated,. and traffic-fn"e road would stand out as a dnunatic Attractive Nuiaance and a magnet for skateboarden and others who would find it to be an irresistible playground. The pereeived "deep podccts" of the USDA,. TRPA,. and STPUD oouId bring unwanted legal exposure in the wake of the likely accidalts and fire hazards such users could bring. ~ aad Media Iatttes In an environment in which FJ Dorado County is proposing to eliminate a large amount of paved road (Lake Tahoe Boulevard) less than a mile away, it seems ludicrous to, at the same time,. propose paving an occasional-use access road in this forest setting. The evidence would show that a structurally and environmentally sound road that is not easily eroded does not have to be a paved road. The mass media would have a heyday with the story. "Tahoe and I"ederal bureaucrats' bumbling: One unit of government spends millions to tear up asphalt while another lays down pavement for a road to be used a few times per decade . . 0.' Constructing a new, permanent,. and paved road could bring unwanted media attention to apparently conflictiDg and counter-produdive activities, and may poteotiaJly brand the USPS, TRPA and SlPUD as inefficient,. inept,. and wasteful. Aecas Route'for l'ok COIIItnadiea We are also concerned about the muting of the proposed access road (temporary or permanent) to the site. Beyond the proposed route, there are two other options. They include the original ~ to the existiDg tank from the other end of Aberdeen Circle ofT Heather Way (aa already disturbed area that. would benefit from erosion control measures) as well as a possible route following. the existing wataline up from Forest Mountain Drive. We respectfully are asking the District to re-examine all three routes since die proposed 630 feet of new asphalt pavement is a v<<y significant,. UIHlCCielsary, and environmentally questionable endeavor. Furthermore. to get past the existing tank, the proposed ac:cess road would be routed below (north of) of the ridge top on steep and erodible soil that wooId require significant mitigation. If the proposed road is 8allaDy built, it should be routed south of the existing tank onto less steep terrain during construction of the new tank, and then after the old tank is nmoved, the road oould run along the ridge top and the detour ranoved and environmentally restored. Regantless of which roote is ultimately chosen, we believe construding a pennanent,.paved road requiring over 6000 square feet of asphalt that will ulfUmately only be used a few times each year is not a prodentuse of rate payer fimds especially in these economically stressed times. In conclusion, replacing the existing Angora tank is a responsible and worthwhile pr~ect, but we believe that the paved access road 81 proposed is un~ly expensive,. environmentally questionabl~ visually unappealing in this forest setting, and is an attractive nuisance. Additionally, the project also represents potential legal and media liabilities. Reprdless of the eventual construction route, either a compacted bue road,. or better,. a temporal)' ~ re-vegetated after construction,. is a much better alternative economically, environmentally, and esthetically . We appreciate your consideration of our coocems and look. forward to your response to the issues we have raised. Sinccftly, Residents of Angam Highlands Leilani C0nn0lIy Mike C0nn0lIy 349 Uplands Way 577-2595 mikeconnollytahoe@ail.com Adrienne Ganberling Ron Gemberling 361 Uplands Way Jane Di Pinto Eric Graham 337 Uplands Way Jennifer Callistini Ted Edwards 344 Uplands Way Marla Weitzman Ken Weitzman 298 Uplands Way Vicki Bain John Bain 355 Heather Circle Jane Brane Doug Drane 332 Uplands Way Reba Dry.. _ vernOn DrY', . 325 Uplands Way Cookie Rork Paul Rork 314 Uplands Way Email from Ernie Claudio to Eric Sapirstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ernie Claudio To: Eric Sapirstein, Legislative Advocate, Washington DC Sent: Wednesday, February 4,2009 Hi Eric, I want to thank you for the communications and updates you have been sending us. I wish the news was better and I wish things were moving more quickly in Washington. Eric I am very worried about our country. I have friends who cannot find work. I have friends who have lost their jobs and friends who are close to losing their homes. I am not talking about losing their bigger home and going to a smaller home, I am talking about failing to pay their rent and becoming homeless. We need to do something quickly and we need your help. I think it would be fair to say that not one person in congress or one legislative advocate is in danger of becoming homeless. The time being wasted on the floor of the Senate is hurting the little people. As a Legislative Advocate you have the prerogative to advocate for these people, because they will be hurt the most. We are asking you to do everything you can to see that President Obama's "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" is enacted as quickly as possible. We want Congress to stop the debate and pass the plan immediately. Let us not make "Perfect" the enemy of "Good". The President's plan is not perfect, but it is good enough for a first step. Every day lost in debate is another day of pain and suffering for these people. Eric, these people are innocent and do not deserve what is happening to them. As American Citizens we put our trust in everyone in Washington DC including yourself. We were betrayed. We were swindled. We were cheated. We were ripped off. I am not accusing you or anyone in particular, but until we know who is accountable we can only trust the one person we have elected to get us out of this mess, President Obama. I have been struggling with an appropriate analogy for situation in Washington. It's like the senators are on a sinking ship debating whether to send the repairs crews to the bow first or the stem first. The longer they debate, the longer the repair crews wait and the more people drown. It's like a football game. The time for debate is before the game. President Obama is our quarterback and he just yelled, "hike!" How can a player yell, "Stop the play, I have a better idea"? We are a team and it will take a lot of teamwork to fix our country. The time for action is now. Eric, please use all your resources to convince the senators to stop the debate and pass the plan so we can get started with the action needed to save our country. Respectfully, Ernie Claudio Board Member, South Tahoe Public Utility District. (530) 541-2245 ~;. / National 20- Point Recovery Plan From the speech on the economy by President Elect Obama January 8, 2009 Every citizen, community group and government organization needs to implement the recovery points pertaining to them. As the "Obama Team" works from the top down, we will work from the bottom up. This is a call to action - our future depends on it. This mission statement and recovery plan were extracted from President Elect Obama's speech on January 8, 2009. The {letters} refer to the paragraphs in the speech (speech is on page 2). Mission Statement: Rebuild America, build a global economy {B} and put the American dream within the reach of the American people {K}. Confront challenges with spirit first then programs and policies {FF}. Work with urgency {s}, act without delay {BB} and don't use the wait-and-see approach {ee}. Look out for one another {GG} listen to one another {GG} and don't point fingers {v}. Put the urgent needs of our nation above our own interests {R}. 1. Equip schools, community colleges and public universities with 21 st-century classrooms, labs and libraries {A}. 2. Provide new training for teachers {A}. 3. Repair crumbling roads, bridges and schools {B}. 4. Build a new smart electricity arid {c}. 5. Deliver clean, alternative forms of eneray {c}. 6. Expand broadband lines across America {OJ. 7. Invest in the science, research and technoloay {E}. 8. Provide relief to workers and families who are bearing the brunt of this recession {F}. 9. Help Americans who have lost their jobs {G}. 10. Government at every level will have to tiahten its belt {H}. 11. Maintain essential services, like police, fire, education and health care {H}. 12. Independent experts will make decisions about where we invest, wherever possible {L}. 13. Every American will be able go online to see how and where their taxpayer dollars are spent {M}. 14. Eliminate unwise and unnecessary spendina {N}. 15. Create a foundation for long-term economic arowth {p}. 16. Eliminate earmarks and pet proiects {Q}. 17. Launch an effort to address the foreclosure crisis {T}. 18. Initiate significant restrictions on the firms that receive support ( oversiaht ) {U}. 19. Reform reaulatory systems {v}. 20. Reward hard work and responsibility {DO}. Page 1 Ernie Claudio {530} 541-2245 ErnieClaud io@sbcglobal.net .-- National 20-Point Recovery Plan From the speech on the economy by President Elect Obama January 8, 2009 , President Elect Barack Obama's speech on the economy: A. To give our children the chance to live out their dreams in a world that's never been more competitive, we will equip tens of thousands of schools, community colleges and public universities with 21st-century classrooms, labs and libraries. We'll provide new computers, new technology and new training for teachers so that students in Chicago and Boston can compete with children in Beijing for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future. B. To build an economy that can lead this future, we will begin to rebuild America. Yes, we'll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges and schools by eliminating the backlog of well- planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects, but we'll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy. C. That means updating the way we get our electricity, by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation. D. It means expanding broadband lines across America so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world. E. It means investing in the science, research and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries and entire new industries. F. And, finally, this Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will provide immediate relief to states, workers and families who are bearing the brunt of this recession. "To get people spending again, 95 percent of working families will receive a $1,000 tax cut, the first stage of a middle- class tax cut that I promised during the campaign and will include in our next budget. G. To help Americans who have lost their jobs and can't find new ones, we'll continue the bipartisan extension of unemployment insurance and health care coverage to help them through this crisis. H. Government at every level will have to tighten its belt, but we'll help struggling states avoid harmful budget cuts, as long as they take responsibility and use the money to maintain essential services, like police, fire, education and health care. I. Now, I understand that some might be skeptical of this plan. Our government has already spent a good deal of money, but we haven't yet seen that translate into more jobs, or higher incomes, or renewed confidence in our economy. J. And that's why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan won't just throw money at our problems. We'll invest in what works. K. The true test of policies we'll pursue won't be whether they're Democratic or Republican ideas, whether they're conservative or liberal ideas, but whether they create jobs, grow our economy and put the American dream within the reach of the American people. Page 2 Ernie Claudio {530} 541-2245 ErnieClaudio@sbcglobal.net ...-.:.r .J National 20-Point Recovery Plan From the speech on the economy by President Elect Obama January 8,2009 L. Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made transparently and informed by independent experts wherever possible. M. Every American will be able to hold Washington accountable for these decisions by going online to see how and where their taxpayer dollars are spent. N, And as I announced yesterday, we will launch an unprecedented effort to eliminate unwise and unnecessary spending that has never been more unaffordable for our nation and our children's future than it is right now. O. We have to make tough choices and smart investments today so that, as the economy recovers, the deficits start coming down. We cannot have a solid recovery if our people and our businesses don't have confidence that we're getting our fiscal house in order. P. And that's why our goal is not to create a slew of new government programs, but a foundation for long-term economic growth. a. That also means an economic recovery plan that is free from earmarks and pet projects. I understand that every member of Congress has ideas about how to spend money. Many of these projects are worthy; they benefit local communities. R. But this emergency legislation must not be the vehicle for those aspirations. This must be a time when leaders in both parties put the urgent needs of our nation above our own narrow interests. S. Now, this recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on. T. That means using our full arsenal of tools to get credit flowing again to families and businesses, while restoring confidence in our markets. It means launching a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis so that we can keep responsible families in their homes. U. It means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy, but only with maximum protections for taxpayers and a clear understanding that government support for any company is an extraordinary action that must come with significant restrictions on the firms that receive support. V. And it means reforming a weak and outdated regulatory system so that we can better withstand financial shocks and better protect consumers, investors and businesses from the reckless greed and risk-taking that must never endanger our prosperity again. W. No longer can we allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks. No longer can we allow special interests to put their thumbs on the economic scales. No longer can we allow the unscrupulous lending and borrowing that leads only to disruptive cycles of bubble and bust. X. It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. Page 3 Ernie Claudio {530} 541-2245 ErnieClaudio@sbcglobal.net .- National 20-Point Recovery Plan From the speech on the economy by President Elect Obama January 8, 2009 , Y. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people, for every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs, more families will lose their savings, more dreams will be deferred and denied, and our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that at some point we may not be able to reverse. Z. That is not the country I know. It is not a future I accept as president of the United States. A world that depends on the strength of our economy is now watching and waiting for America to lead once more, and that is what we will do. AA,lt will not come easy or happen overnight. And it is altogether likely that things may get worse before they get better. BB.But that is all the more reason for Congress to act without delay. CC. I know the scale of this plan is unprecedented, but so is the severity of our situation. We have already tried the wait-and-see approach to our problems, and it is the same approach that helped lead us to this day of reckoning. DO. And that is why the time has come to build a 21st-century economy in which hard work and responsibility are once again rewarded. That's why I'm asking Congress to work with me and my team day and night -- on weekends, if necessary -- to get the plan passed in the next few weeks. EE.That's why I'm calling on all Americans, Democrats and Republicans and independents, to put -- to put good ideas ahead of the old ideological battles, a sense of common purpose above the same narrow partisanship, and insist that the first question each of us asks isn't 'What's good for me?' but 'What's good for the country my children will inherit?' FF. More than any program or policy, it is this spirit that will enable us to confront these challenges with the same spirit that has led previous generations to face down war and depression and fear itself. GG. And if we do, if we are able to summon that spirit again, if we are able to look out for one another and listen to one another, and do our part for our nation and for posterity, then I have no doubt that, years from now, we will look back on 2009 as one of those years that marked another new and hopeful beginning for the United States of America. "Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America." Page 4 Ernie Claudio {530} 541-2245 ErnieClaudio@sbcglobal.net f ~s '(ater Environment Federation. PreservIng & Enhandng the GIobaJ lWltp' Environment Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment TESTIMONY OF JEANETTE A. BROWN, P.E., BCEE, D.WRE VICE PRESIDENT, WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STAMFORD (CONNECTICUT) WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FEBRUARY 4, 2009 Water Environment Federation 60 I Wythe Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 684-2400 www.wef.org ";r{ , Good morning, Madam Chair and Subcommittee Members. My name is Jeanette Brown and I am the Vice President of the Water Environment Federation. I am also the director of one of the largest wastewater utilities in Connecticut, the Stamford Water Pollution Control Authority. I am honored to be here today to discuss the opportunity within the wastewater sector to ensure protection of water quality and public health in a more energy efficient and economical manner through conservation, new technology, and innovation. The Water Environment Federation (WEF) was founded in 1928 and is a not-for-profit technical and educational organization with more than 35,000 members devoted to the preservation and enhancement of the global water environment. WEF members include scientists, engineers, regulators, academics, plant operators and other professionals working in the United States and around the world. Our goal is a sustainable water infrastructure. As the Executive Director of the Stamford, Connecticut Water Pollution Control Authority with 30 years experience in wastewater treatment I feel that I am most qualified to speak about the sector. The Stamford Water Pollution Control Authority provides advanced wastewater treatment for a community of 100,000 people. As an engineer, and a water professional, I am a steward of the environment and very proud of the job we do providing an essential community service and protecting the water quality of Long Island Sound. Later I will explain the steps that we are taking in both conservation and innovation, specifically utilizing the oldest waste product known to man as a sustainable and renewable energy source. I am referring to the by-product of the wastewater treatment process, technically referred to as wastewater residuals or biosolids. There are more than 16,000 wastewater treatment plants in the United States. Almost all are publicly owned. In the process of collecting and treating wastewater to Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4,2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 2 of 14 l protect public health and the environment, these plants use over one percent of all the electricity generated in the United States. Energy costs typically represent over 30% of a utility's operating budget second only to labor. In many communities the water and wastewater utilities are the largest municipal energy consumers. The water professionals who make up the Water Environment Federation are very concerned about the high use and cost of energy as well as the age of our infrastructure. Protection of our waterways requires that systems be expanded to meet the pressures of growing populations, increased treatment requirements to meet water quality needs and that aging systems be upgraded in a way that enables energy efficiency and the capture of energy from the waste products. As a sector, we are very concerned about the detrimental effect that high energy costs and high capital improvement costs can have on the ability of local communities to maintain or upgrade their water infrastructure. This in turn can have a detrimental effect on our ability to protect public health and the environment. Therefore, we need to act now if we hope to continue to protect our environment and ensure sustainable wastewater treatment through energy efficiency and energy independence. Sustain ability Includes Green Infrastructure, Water Efficiency, and Energy Efficiency and Independence The Water Environment Federation is supporting this concept of sustainable water infrastructure in a variety of ways including the promotion of green infrastructure. Weare also advocating sustainable operation of more conventional infrastructure. This includes advocating Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4,2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 3 of 14 lit energy conservation through effective operational practices and through technological advances, and innovation that allows the utilization of renewable energy sources. WEF's membership understands that energy conservation and renewable energy initiatives in wastewater treatment plants cannot solve the world's energy crisis, but we know that it will certainly make a difference. Weare therefore taking a proactive leadership approach; WEF hosts conferences, publishes papers, and convenes forums on the issue for water professionals. Of particular note, WEF is updating our Manual of Practice on Energy Conservation in Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities, to be released later this year. This manual will cover energy efficiency and tools to measure, assess, and conserve energy. It features new information on cogeneration, energy recovery, energy efficient design, use of renewable fuels, and related climate change issues. In 1989, WEF founded the Water Environment Research Foundation, (WERF). WERF is engaged in research to optimize wastewater operations for energy, cost, and environmental footprint. Additionally, WERF's climate change program is assessing processes and technologies to cost-effectively mitigate the sector's potential impact. One WERF project, Improving the Wastewater Plant Environmental Footprint: Options for Your Locality, will help wastewater treatment plants define their current carbon and ecological footprint as they take steps towards reducing their impact. As stated earlier, over one percent of all the electricity generated in the United States is used for collecting and treating wastewater. Within wastewater treatment systems, energy is used to run pumps and motors, aeration systems, disinfection processes, solids processing equipment, lighting, computers, and other electrical equipment. It is also consumed in pumping wastewater Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4,2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 4 of 14 -, to treatment plants. To reduce energy use, water conservation has to be our first line of attack: conservation through change of habit, conservation through the introduction of new technology, and innovation to open new doors and new approaches to solving old problems. In order to change old habits; we need to educate people about the value of water. We are very supportive of efforts to educate the public about water conservation measures and water-efficient products. Conservation of water will help conserve other vital resources. Our formula is: Use Less = Treat Less = Reduced Costs and Energy Required. In addition money has to be used wisely and put toward research and development of new technology and innovation, and prioritized to bring the most good or biggest bang per dollar. Water professionals over the past few years have worked hard to reduce power consumption by using high efficiency motors, high efficiency lighting, computer controls which can turn equipment on or off based on process needs, and education. Conservation alone is not enough to reduce the need for fossil fuel generated power, but it has to be our first and most pronounced step in our efforts to decrease our use of fossil fuels. Necessity is said to be the mother of invention. The need for new approaches is certainly apparent given present economic conditions and pressures on both limited resources and our natural environment. Innovation is indeed blossoming all around us driven by need. The landscape is changing as technologies and concepts are being developed to allow plants to be energy independent or even net energy producers. This evolution in thinking moves wastewater treatment plants from being major energy consumers to net energy producers and represents a paradigm shift in the sector. Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4, 2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 5 of 14 r " Why is this paradigm shift so important? There are three major reasons: 1. Cost of Energy and Energy Independence Recent spikes in energy prices highlight the volatility of global energy markets and their impact on a utility's bottom line. Energy efficiency, with a movement toward energy independence for treatment plants, reduces or eliminates a utility's vulnerability to energy prices and saves communities monies through decreased operating costs. Additionally, it can help mitigate the stress that an increasing population and aging electrical infrastructure are creating on our already strained energy grid. 2. Climate Change The water sector is keenly aware of the impacts of climate change as the tangible effects of these changes are already being manifested in the water cycle. Prolonged droughts, amplified storm intensity, and increased variability in precipitation patterns are forcing water managers to adapt to a new reality. As a result, the sector is taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint by reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the energy required for its operations and by capturing greenhouse gas emitted from the treatment process. 3. Sustainability Sustainable practices and approaches are becoming integrated into utilities' operating principles and capital improvement plans. Water managers view themselves as environmental stewards charged with protecting and enhancing water resources for the immediate and future generations. Sustainable approaches to water management include having a sound fiscal program where costs are scrutinized and revenues account for the true costs of treating water and Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4,2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 6 of 14 ; capital improvements. Additionally, sustainable approaches achieve environmental goals such as minimizing resource consumption and production of waste products. Energy efficiency plays a role in both of these aspects of sustainability in the water sector. Examples of these sustainable approaches include the use of natural, biological processes to remove pollutants rather than using chemicals and the reuse ofbiosolids to augment or replace chemical fertilizers. Besides energy conservation, what else can we do to guarantee sustain ability in the water sector? Here are three examples of innovative processes: Stamford Biogas Turns Waste into Energy Wastewater treatment generates solid residual material known as biosolids when it is appropriately treated. This material has a relatively high BTU (british thermal unit) or energy value. In other words, it is a good fuel and it is produced by every community. Typically wastewater residuals are trucked out of a community after processing and used on land as a fertilizer or buried in landfills. In some cases, they are burned at on-site incinerators at the treatment plant. Think about this: A one-pound package of the dried biosolids produced in Stamford Connecticut, or most other treatment plants, has a heating value of almost 9000 BTUs! My utility feels that putting this material on land is a waste of a renewable energy source which can help in a small way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and significantly reduce our carbon footprint. We are using a gasification process to convert biosolids to a synthetic gas which we call Stamford Biogas (you can read more at www.stamfordbiogas.com). Gasification produces no greenhouse gases and any gases produced by the generation equipment can be returned to the Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4, 2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 7 of 14 , gasifier to remove the carbon dioxide. This biogas can be used as fuel to run internal combustion engines or to fire boilers to produce electricity. The gas produced from this one-pound bag of biosolids can light three 60-watt light bulbs for an entire day. In the United States, just over seven million tons of wastewater residuals or biosolids are generated every year. That's over 14 trillion pounds per year. Just think how many bulbs we can light from this renewable energy source which is currently considered by most of the public as a waste product. We have built a pilot facility in Stamford where we test biosolids from various treatment plants and develop technology to improve gas production. Not only have we used the Stamford Biogas to generate electricity, but also have used it to run a car. Additionally we have tested our biosolids in full-scale equipment supplying energy to the electrical grid. Once funding is available (and we are hoping for stimulus funding), we plan to construct a 15 megawatt facility. This facility will demonstrate the feasibility of this technology for other plants in the United States. This truly falls within the definition of our conservation and innovation approach to the future. We have taken a waste product which is costly to dispose and by managing the product on site we conserve energy by elimination transportation, we produce a fuel by an innovative process, and we sustain our responsibility to the environment. Solar Energy Powers Water and Wastewater in Rifle, Colorado A different approach to energy efficiency is being practiced in the City of Rifle, Colorado, a city of 10,000 residents in Western Colorado. The City has recently built one of the largest renewable energy solar systems used for a combined (potable water and wastewater) Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4, 2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 8 of 14 r municipal system. Ninety percent of the daytime power used to pump drinking water is provided by a 600 kilowatt solar array. Sixty percent of the daytime power to run Rifle's wastewater reclamation facility is provided by a 1.7 megawatt solar array. These two systems will prevent more than 152 million pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted using traditional fossil fuel electricity over a 20 year period. More electricity could be generated by solar power but the City has approached the limit of power generation set by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. East Bay MUD's R2 Program Generates Electricity and Income Another local agency that has embarked on an innovative approach to utilizing a resource commonly thought of as waste is the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) of Oakland, California. About six years ago, EBMUD initiated what they refer to as their "Resource Recovery" or R2 program. The R2 program uses existing wastewater treatment capacity to treat high-strength industrial or commercial wastes from food processors such as dairies and wineries. By adding these high-strength wastes to anaerobic digesters, EBMUD was able to double biogas production and on-site electricity generation from the biogas. Currently EBMUD's on-site generation meets about 90% of its demand and they aim to exceed 100% in the future so that the wastewater plant becomes a net energy producer. The R2 program yields many benefits including cost-effective waste neutralization and minimization for industry, on-site energy generation to alleviate grid congestion, increased system reliability, less reliance on imported fuel sources, increased revenues, and a reduced carbon footprint. Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4, 2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 9 of 14 '\ According to EBMUD staff, there were several drivers for an aggressive Renewable Energy program, including: 1) the opportunity for revenue from taking additional organic wastes trucked to the treatment facility coupled with use (and/or sale back to the electrical utility) of the associated green energy from digesting the waste; 2) the District's mission includes a commitment to "Sustainability," and renewable energy helps reduce fossil fuel usage, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and 3) increased reliability associated with being 100% energy self-sufficient, particularly in the event of major utility power outages during storms and following any moderate or major earthquakes. These three examples demonstrate the kinds of innovative thinking being practiced within the wastewater sector. Another model is the performance of the Strass wastewater treatment plant located near Innsbruck, Austria, that is actually producing more energy than is needed to operate the facility. The Strass plant accomplishes this through a two-pronged approach of continually exploring options to improve the plant's overall energy efficiency and optimizing methane production from the solids digestion facilities that process its residual solids. WERF has a project that is studying the Strass plant and developing benchmarks for US facilities. How the Federal Government Can Help Wastewater Managers Achieve Greater Energy Efficiency -- and Energy Independence Although our sector is currently witnessing renewed interest in activity related to energy efficiency, we see opportunities for the Federal government to provide leadership and assistance as we move toward an eventual goal of energy independence for wastewater treatment facilities. Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4, 2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page JO of 14 1 Federal leadership will accelerate the progress being made in the areas of research, technology transfer, and education so that more communities benefit from the energy efficiency measures and innovative approaches described earlier. The Water Environment Federation respectfully offers the following suggestions and recommendations for greater Federal leadership: Fundin2: The Federal government helps fund wastewater infrastructure improvements through the Clean Water Act's state revolving fund (SRF) program. The SRF does allow funding to be used for energy efficiency projects and some states have moved in this direction. However, the reality is that priority for SRF funding has historically been given to treatment plant expansions to address additional flows and upgrades to meet increasingly stringent water quality standards. The SRF should be used more aggressively to help wastewater managers reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and operate in a more sustainable manner, where projects meet appropriate requirements. We are pleased that the recent economic stimulus package approved by the House of Representatives directs that up to ten percent of the additional $6 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund will be used for energy efficiency, water efficiency and other green technologies. We encourage the Subcommittee to consider making this priority permanent when you take up SRF reauthorization later this year. Cross-sector collaboration: Although this Subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over the electric power industry, we urge you to work with the appropriate Committees and Subcommittees in Congress to ensure that any new energy legislation includes provisions that encourage collaboration and cooperation between the energy and water sectors. Such provisions should include incentives or requirements for the electric power Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4, 2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page I I of 14 ... industry to support the installation of efficiency measures or renewable energy technologies at wastewater treatment facilities, and for the utilization of any excess electricity that is generated back to the grid. We realize that there are challenges associated with decentralized energy production and that this might run counter to the existing centralized power infrastructure. But as noted earlier, we believe that innovation and creativity are essential if we are going to meet our future energy needs in a sustainable manner. Education: The paradigm shift I referred to earlier--thinking of wastewater treatment plants as net energy producers--will require education of water professionals, utility operators and managers, the electric power industry, regulators, and the public. We can take the examples I cited earlier, demonstrating energy efficiency and even net energy production and educate other utilities across the country about the possibilities of energy independence. In addition, federal leadership and funding are needed to build on and expand worthwhile existing programs such as Energy Star, and to ensure that these programs reflect the latest in technology and best practices. Research: The wastewater sector needs research funding to allow the testing of the innovative ideas I just discussed. There are many possibilities for using the products or the processes to generate electricity at treatment facilities. But this takes money. Last May, WEF joined with seven other major water organizations in calling on Congress to establish a comprehensive, coordinated and federally-sponsored applied research program to give water managers predictive and decision-support tools to address the effects of climate change. Research is also needed on mitigation and adaptation Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4,2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 12 of 14 '7 strategies, such as those I've discussed related to energy efficiency and sustainability in the wastewater sector, focused specifically on mitigating the impacts of climate change on water quality and quantity. A Basic Triumvirate Thought Premise to Energy Sustainability I would like to summarize some key concepts in energy efficiency and energy independence for the wastewater sector: . Energy savings through water conservation -- by changing our habits, old ways, and business as usual. The water sector needs a new mind set, and we as Americans need a new mind set; . Energy savings through reduced energy use - by developing and introducing new technology, high efficiency motors, computer-controlled automation, and the capture of wasted power through hydroelectric generation, wind, and solar; . Energy savings through innovation and research -- such as utilizing by-products for the production of power in a way that doesn't pollute our environment. In conclusion, we ask the Subcommittee to keep in mind that wastewater is NOT waste! Currently wastewater utilities are big players in using energy, but we desire to be big players in conserving and even supplying energy. Every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the public produces wastewater. Our collective interest in a sustainable planet requires that we turn that waste into useful products. The water should be reused, and the solids should also be reused, and one way to reuse the solids is to create energy. This requires a shared vision, leadership and Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4,2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page I3 of 14 funding. We at the Water Environment Federation stand ready to work with you on a shared vision for turning "waste into watts" and ensuring energy efficiency and energy independence for sustainable wastewater treatment. Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss this important topic. We at WEF stand ready to assist you in any way as we work on continuing to improve the energy efficiency and promote energy independence for the water sector. ##### Energy Efficiency and Energy Independence for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee - February 4, 2009 Jeanette A. Brown, Vice President, Water Environment Federation Page 14 of 14