HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 5, 2007 K-01AGENDA ITEM K-1
JQ CITY OF Low
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
�A
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Staff Recommendation for Preferred Site Selection for the Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facilities
MEETING DATE: September 5,2007
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the staff recommendation for the preferred site selection for
the Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facilities.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the August 15,2007 Council meeting, staff and the consulting firm,
HDR, presented the results of a study that considered five alternative
sites for the new Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) with the
objective to receive site selection direction from the City Council early
in the program. Selecting the preferred site early in the program allows for a focused evaluation of the
single site instead of multiple sites.
The five alternative sites (as shown on Exhibit 1) were:
A — The vacant 13 acres at the west side of Lodi Lake
B —The General Mills orchard propertywest of Site A
C —The "scenic overlook site at the end of Awani Drive at the Mokelumne River
D —Along the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Canal, 0.6 miles northwest of the corner of
Lower Sacramento Road and Sargent Road (immediately west of the proposed Westside residential
development project)
E —Along the WID canal, just north of Turner Road
The City Council had a number of concerns and questions and directed staff to report back at the
September 5, 2007 meeting. Site A is still recommended as the preferred site. The concerns/questions
were:
Would General Mills be willing to sell part of their orchard for the project?
o City Manager Blair King and Public Works Director Richard Prima met with outgoing
General Manager Bob Wheeler, incoming Manager Carson Funderburk and Plant Engineer
Jenny Wright to discuss this possibility. They indicated General Mills has kept that property
as part of their buffer between their industrial activities (including rail deliveries) and adjacent
residential land. They were willing to consider the possibilityof selling the property but wanted
more information as to noise, etc., that the City facility might generate, and they wanted to visit
a similar facility. Staff is working on responding to their requests.
o At the Council meeting, the Mayor commented that the site would probably cost more than the
$200,000 per acre assumed in the site assessment. Staff does not doubt this is the case but
has not proceeded on a formal appraisal. For a rough comparison, the recent appraisal of the
City property (3.6 acres) at the end of Awani Drive resulted in a gross value of just under
$330,000 per acre.
The cost of sites D and E (located westerly of the WID canal and the General Plan limits) is high
because of the plan to pipe the rawwater from the River to the site. Omitting that cost would
make them nearly equal to Sites A and B. Why not take the water out of the canal?
APPROVED:
Blai „ City Manager
K IWPIPROJECTSNWATER1SurfaceWaterRFPICApproveSite2 doc 812412007
Approve Staff Recommendationfor Preferred Site Selection for the Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facilities
September 5, 2007
Page 2
o Both the City's consultants and staff strongly recommendedfor safety and security reasons that
the water not be taken from the canal. In addition, the State Health Services Department
(DHS), which regulates our drinking water system and has permit authority over the project,
"strongly recommends" that the water be piped. Since the City has not yet submitted the full
watershed assessment, DHS has not provided a formal response on this issue, but in
conversations with the DHS District Engineer, the State relies heavily on the recommendations
of the design professional.
o In addition, these sites are located in agricultural land outside the General Plan boundaries.
The City has, in the past, been criticized for placing urban facilities in the County, and staff
anticipates similar difficulties for these sites. Locating the site within the General Plan
boundarywould eliminate Site E (unless we wanted to buy a large part of the Bridgetowne
subdivision), and Site D would be within the proposed Westside development, certainly at a
cost much higher than considered in the site assessment.
Utilizing Site A is incompatiblewith the planned park improvements and would make the rest of
the site unusablefor Park purposes, and the SWTF project should "pay" for the land.
o As noted, there is no current master plan for the site, so it is difficult to assess specific losses
of potential uses. The proposal for Site A, as conceived by staff and in response to comments
from the Parks & Recreation Commission, is:
• Develop a master site plan for the entire parcel, including the SWTF and park uses
• Share facilities and improvements as much as possible to be efficient in terms of land
usage (such as roadway access, parking, restrooms)
• Attempt to minimize land needs by locating the raw water pump station at the WI canal
■ Design the facility with site and architectural enhancements to fit with the park. Also, the
building elements of the SWTF can be separated such that the more "industrial"
components are located near the railroad tracks and the existing substation.
• Have the SWTF facility itself provide public benefit through development of a
viewing/educational multi-purpose room, possibly as a replacementfor the aging
Discovery Center currently located in the old snack bar at Lodi Lake.
p Having the project literally pay the General Fund for the site is within the discretion of the City
Council. Staff has assumed that the compensation and/or mitigation for park impacts would
be in the form of enhanced or additional improvements as part of the SWTF project.
"Next steps" in this project processwill be to refine the site layout and the treatment technology (which
includes the watershed assessment), geotechnical work, evaluation of environmental considerations,
distribution system modification evaluation and phasing/cost estimates. Staff hopes to be ready to start
final design in less than eighteen months, in order to have a functioning facility in the 2010111 time frame.
FISCAL IMPACT: Site A is the recommended site for the Surface Water Treatment Facility
and, if selected, could realize a reduced capital expenditure in excess of
$1,000,000 or provide additional public park improvements.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable at this time.
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
RCPlpmf
Attachment
K IWPIPROJECTSIWATERISurfaceWaterRFPICApproveSite2.doc
8/24/2007
'Nil
v jr
iF': ' �• _ _ � _ r --�;:-r�� "'ter l r � 1
_ r �.� — �• �. - •+r�- �1{--'ry. �^ +���yy J" iii,,;,,-'r." ia• T. ��'��,''(� ,
/l1fry{F V .
�,:ii yw�{ ■i 9•,...ir.�1e{['S�; �_� ri�',i ��j' � �:SY;��-?, � �\.riai�"" —�
i' '.�L y�i{d c �Y �1�: i. e `t �� '� [ t l: •I 1>r '' 1 _ �.
f ,\ � r. _ � S11==AY.?I''� j } '�t •mac' • " t � � i
� - � • , cis js.'�
Aq
TL' r "�P.t�S''�" -•�' ; ai_:iF '• ti :"'"��! I 1 1 ; ,{ a' r ry ' �
+C�'"� 'F"• ;;;;L 4 is '� /i,, r* 7►.-
l�.YM!'+40-: - - ) ..} +., x �• - 3 "'7�� - � - ,�� �� •'�" ' R�`,,��"�i�4,y1
�•atr`n�-� a '�, �' '�Y. �'�� R11?�:d•� .�e c .�7s#,mss � a •° • ��k
PP
ff ■.- l-ft,PUF
..�, -' y _ w ly' I �"ffy r!T!s. - a r'f v� .r :� .Y. '•'� .a� f
Ya• +t �' 7': !3r'. �F.[ • •R s�'!'#:• :; 1� {'fes?,fF .. ,h .5. f �w+'
+TT
.43 Fa �' ,�r•.., rY' ��k?1!s •��:.•� �".' 3,1 i{�' � l ,Y �•'�� - �.�� i �: V -41i..}�
r p�i y ' '�r if.�. y�� f�,�•. . '3�1.+ r �i..•�.',�• '�-- . '7 �• �• tiir , r r rl M r' � �'� ..
11
'�, ft -yr .t. � r }� .a. .,� ;.YS. _� •,� ...-_� [ .�`}rTs'i11M;. i,:S,itY ��';��c ." ""�`€: ��,�.',�• f,A..� , f• �S{ y y .�� . , `!
'c ��r• .r��y ���� • #�' i� •�'�s`] i .i } '�[rr � � i �;J,S. � ,�5■�P• i!� _ '..1: 5�� •' �rr�+ �{ �- y.j
µti :: r' _�� .� � ! f -+;,..�!' *:►�1'�' � - - 2 y `� +:���� ��_ � -•;-►u
'} -A' Y� l�� ����,ifiYf� �-Y.� .L�' l r�11��.-- •• �� _ wYy � 1. •�' -
- 71 Ir...- '�'.!' ZNYiniTi.i �^ i<�I~..• �'TF ."V'.$,'.i 1
. ..
�,,q '►r ` 1 i -
y Il• it .'-3 !s
:':"!Y.i'�y •moi. �4 '.65 �.�s.. •9'{J.,,; '::•`"''� • �{
7 ,. .._i•. hrna�_�.ri'���,,.�,. - •� [7k..:!_i- g �..';. tziP"?•- ?:ir'F'"' 1{ �A
i44��, -3�;��1�^•A'Fz�r� �yy �-��,,.,■ �'1'�3 'i1��a ir4�-rte- __ _��- :,�r" .s� �•:��� 't;:-. �,y,�e,
'1 y�An
a rFw,
�''��.F.'f."-r'�•1.' -■4 : #�+f-�.LK•�r vw: .,rt � :y:..��1•��,�i. .;�y}� . - ��;�� Y.�' 1'�,• F�_'r:•i� + �` �' �:�>�d� '�i�t~ � • '�nf..� ��Fq_ [ �Y`
?s
,�� ,-d:,,,,��VV �[C. ■� Ste. ,( w ! f f.• �, ' 'µF':.,
Aa
�L �Ci[.iflt� [ •T T e���a5.ni}I. Cr'ts'Y illy: �li ��y9 _ � ` y 1 �i'F.. � r4�[ } 4 .. ] ,..r
- 1-'. �� i",r�i�:,'Z .-0'!* ,�4k • .;,i ice.--:-• _ .T-'.. rY
- - - '•[�wq„•, 1rt, �� -�i.4'iY•'Ly�l^lt�k''4::i'r".., r' ��-'x-1�.{l. _ _ •i4•:• 1' y�� s����• ,_h" �
�� r� �: �'�-!;' C �°�•' i-•° ^ hr' .� �' ".K;• j y
% •`'4z''�. i'• m���� ��Y•R.+'f; 1•�:,'�' ,:a'�� - �,r�y '�>�,+�
l��$j=�iy"I,• ._Z Ili. -- i -d .w•. ��1.�� Ji N��V�•" �7�y .i'iT �^ j4 �. [,LT �.� y-.q _.I ..
-' 'i:�.'�1YN' • :.y� 3;. �. '�.. Sa•�t'�!.�' yH h.°` l r7:�� � , +t'yF�•'� "�•ti•1'yr �•• l '.i 1f a 'j v'
.real.. :c' . r. _ s, ',j,. •'IF. aR_-
s 1.7 1 i .-?� .� .�'�I,��'���'�-�� •,n�;� Liy ' �'�y�„g rf%.�.iF-a. I� �,� r�• `� •`��y
{{SS �• '•f J� ^�S.' �, _[ice:•..
_ {{ r i. .= 1�/'+1 1"�,'r''rs.•' '�R� i y, 1i ,liTq{V:: 1,, i� — 6
-..:
Vit{,ry ..ev.'r-:1rl',:y— '.•�i�,:r-- � IF cE'i�r •' •'=�:.'L� %i �1` * T "?s• � �
White Slough Wastewater
Treatment Facility Capital
Projects, including
Domestic Outfall Sewer
Pipeline Rehabilitation
Lodi City Council
September 5, 2007
Overview
Treatment Facility Projects
Discharge Permit Issues
Pipeline Rehabilitation Project
PA
Treatment Facility Projects
Mostly guided by Regulations & Discharge
Permit:
• Phase 1, 2003 — Interim aeration improvements
• Phase 2, 2004 — Tertiary filtration & disinfection, additional
aeration improvements
• Phase 3, 2007 — De -nitrification
Some growth and capital maintenance related
elements:
Phase 3 — additional secondary clarifier, digester, aeration
basins, headworks improvements
y Project costs allocated between existing users
(rates) and new users (development fees):
3
How have we done since 2000?
r Lodi first San Joaquin County city to go to tertiary
treatment (January 2005), followed by Stockton and, on
Friday, Manteca.
v Lodi and Ripon only San Joaquin County cities without
cease-and-desist orders or fines.
Lodi is "setting the standard for compliance and a
demonstrated concern for the White Slough area in the
Delta. They demonstrated a willingness ... to do what
they could to protect water quality."
-Well-known local environmental activist, March 2005
4
Changes for the better
By adopting new practices since 2000, Lodi has:
Raised dissolved oxygen in treated effluent to
levels higher than in Dredger Cut.
v Required sustainable farming practices to limit
nitrogen applications to agronomic rates on a
per -field basis.
v Installed 19 monitoring wells to track
groundwater characteristics; more are planned.
Eliminated use of chlorine in disinfection.
July 2007 Construction
5
6
Phase 3 Project Budget
Total Project: $20.6 million
. Construction Management, Engineering,
Testing, misc. - $1.61 million
. Equipment - $0.63 million
. Contingencies - $1.97 million
. Construction Contract - $16.39 million
As of 7/30/07 — 30% complete
$37,839 in net change orders
Anticipate additional $153,000 in change order for
diversion structure
Discharge Permit Issues
Summary of City's comments; Board staff response:
. Mercury limits too strict, penalize City for performance
of recent improvements; Agreed, limits changed
. Ammonia limits too strict, technical question on
calculation; Agreed, limits changed
. Compliance times should be longer; not necessary
given change to ammonia limit (City concurs)
. Field application BOD limit (new) should be revised to
be more workable; Disagree, not changed (City will
need to work with PCP cannery on this)
s
Chloride
(mg/L)
39
Flag City avg
177
Hajek well
42
s. m. well —
117
s. m. well —
105
s. m. well
130
W.S. well
77
W.S. irrigation water
1,800
test well (max.
detected by USGS,
"high concentrations
...to almost 1,000 ft.
below land surface."
s. m. well
= shallow monitoring well
Chloride Data
Regiohal'C/V Flow
�?7
USGS Salinity Study
"Water levels are declining and chloride
concentrations are increasing in water
from wells ... near Stockton, California, as
a result of pumping in excess of recharge.
... increases in chloride concentrations
from evaporation of irrigation water are
small compared to chloride inputs from the
Delta and underlying deposits."
USGS Open File Report 2006-1309
12
Pipeline Background
y Constructed in Late 1960's
v Alignment Follows Original Outfall Constructed
in the 1940's
Pipeline Characteristics:
. 5 miles - 48" -Diameter - Reinforced Concrete Pipe
. Severe Hydrogen Sulfide Corrosion Present
. Alignment Crosses: Roads — Railroads -
1-5 — Kingdon Airport — Ag Lands
. Roughly Half of Alignment Under Permanent Crops
13
14
Pipeline Evaluation/Assessment
History
Black & Veatch Study — 1979
Recommended Methods of Controlling 1-12S Corrosion
Looked at trunk lines in town
pH adjustments for Industrial Customers
Periodic Cleaning
Black & Veatch Update — 1987
. Confirmed Procedures reduced 1-12S Concentrations
CDM Study — 1999
Focused on 48" trunk line
Revealed Corrosion — Predicted Exposed Rebar within 10 Years
Suggested chemical addition be studied
Chemical Addition Pilot Project - 2004
Intended to test H2S reduction by Chemical Addition
Results indicated minimal benefit, high cost
, Video Assessment — 2007
. Confirms Pipeline Rehabilitation is Needed Soon
16
Pictures of Corrosion
Domestic Outfall Sewer Pipe (Westerly Portion of Alignment)
19
Rehabilitation Project Issues
Old Pipelines Can Be Fragile
• Careful and Well Planned Construction Operations a Must
• Methodical Steps to Facilitate Construction & Minimize Risks
Service Interruption is Not an Option
Two Pipelines — 63,000 Customers
5 Miles Between "Town" and the Treatment Plant
Timing
• Cannery Flows (June — September)
• Construction Window — (September — June)
Considerations for Surface Features
• Existing Road, Rail, and Airports
• Existing Vineyards
Replacement is Costly, Disruptive and Unnecessary
• In -Situ Rehabilitation Methods Available
• Does Reduce Pipe Diameter, however xx.x MGD Capacity with 42" Pipe
20
Project Plan
Assess Pipeline Condition
• Video Assessment Confirmed Pipeline is Severely Corroded
• Rehabilitation Can Be Done — Some Point Repairs Needed
Construct Diversion Structure
• Needed to Bypass 6.5 Million Gallons of Wastewater Per Day During
Construction or Maintenance Activities
• Permanent Structure
• Allows for Pipe Cleaning and Flow Control During Rehab Work
Construct Additional Manholes
• Current Interval Beyond Capabilities of Maintenance Equipment
• Typical Manhole Separation = 600-800 Ft. (1000-1800Ft.)
Perform Pipeline Rehabilitation
• Sliplining
• Cured — In — Place Pipe (CIPP)
• Traditional Open — Cut Replacement (Least Desirable Alternative)
Diversion Structure
August 13, 2007
r-
A
,a
O
22
Sliplining Photos
v I d
Cured -In -Place Pipe
(CIPP)
23
24
Anticipated Schedule/Costs
Project Task
Anticipated
Completion Date
Estimated Cost
Assessment
Complete
$65,000
Diversion Structure
September 07
$175,000
Manhole Installation
Summer 2008
$160,000
Pipeline Rehab
Fall 2008
$7,500,000
TOTAL
$7,900,000
Questions/Discussion
25
26
e
fm 1 0X I- CO M M NV I
-lop
I kr
e
fm 1 0X I- CO M M NV I
11 . . '11, -jk..k
Identify Preferred Site Early in Process
Allow Focused Evaluation of Preferred Site
Provide Good Rationale for Eliminating Other Sites
P 'N , ,
N,
0I
.I'
:r
ion
s lft
s a_
�,. an b +�o�
6%.UbtfI Wtj 67',';J67C)'F 1�Ij it l
I
I �1
r
rou dl
r
f'.1
ISI
I
f � 1
,
�' •� .� ` \A +I�1�r!- f t � • � \` ifs ,.,
'\ `` .
,, ,. ot , e ""
tG '"
~ ♦.
Tr, a
- -0
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
F-Imff Alona WID Canal. North of Turner Road
■
Ske
E
U
D
�
O
She D
O
r
E
L
:.i
cn
L
3
0
J
Z
She ,A She C i
■ W. Turner Road
Sile B
W. Lodi Avenue
� ,.' + i � S; ;. t A t,•\� ,3.�L\'.a`wi��, �Mu� � t l �. � ` pit t `ti � yi � aa:% w� s � '
Z \ t `\- {\ j {. ,'� `• \Y Y ✓,8 - \� wt.,., n'��y'q't .k j-
..�, i{t�
`. ,� ;:s tit •��. , d o�s�'jL`.`p. �_�a<x ,. � ' �wc�' �• t� �
,� A , � Jnr _ • �. � ,� -�. ;' �✓ �e '� `la ', 'tt .;
_� � _ - -\.t�� ,.`7� ,c� �-hR�'G t•iaA�"�6.- - 1. � 1�, i4.r.t a"-' ��' -'3w,.. � .d: I ,♦
x ��_ :♦ ,�� ., �- .--- �� � .—_.,_.. - � —� � ,fit
. }_p'4i'�t ',:• 1; r v r��r.'•t- �'r'4r`fx'- ,~��• k.-..� � � �'��#� '#.
"! .: 4. „�Y ; . .�ir.kr *�1 .. � �•t• � � r�r r� �"` k?sry;,�r�.C�x�� a #,��
� .n. � &.r:{+,.,:.#Y.t `{ r .n' 'e ry kk �.�. X,.s�SY.'�`. �'- -i•,•: T
X � �� � �'��•� • � Site A
Site B
14,:-,V c Y
ILL
-
Site D - - _ -
Site 7�!r',A.i /( rIIT� i', ',��f Site E +':3
', .7 ` t 'f ail �,. 1� 7
� )�lr�� ����t � f ��, �•. � �A �yi � ����,( ���h� *''�1��,,
'�i��:n�/,,'i`•a'l.�k��11r��1r'"i1tl.\Ri'AihlliJ�: "r L\�ri.�,.'�.��'�^JIYf',I�?t,� ni%EY�;��fC' i� �',�\tF�l���� �� .�;
P,.,,.reg:
% � J
♦ , r
From
"River INNER*.'
- U
Station
(50' x 60') I
': • •
LJ1,111N11 0
W Y70
Operations/Parking Lotj
Building X60' x 220)Plant Entrance
...,
} =
r
���•yµ•.yt
': • •
LJ1,111N11 0
W Y70
Operations/Parking Lotj
Building X60' x 220)Plant Entrance
...,
} =
r
x
pp Ore.
Y i
it
- ,,,{ J Ir,, 1 Iii i � i� • �r� ��A �� 71.. JI, _ fi � i
/ � � ' � \�1��' 1�� r ill i �, �,���}t/�! •w- -r
� ���•A � / �� 1',f`�� �� i' 1 � 11 'r� � � � i' � I 'lei, I V ' �i �_ YQ V 't �'>4�
� �!\ c �. R` ` \tj �`�' it \ " �} � ..7 � ..� "'•!1� ,� ,2 � t� a : ��S n ��`�,~ ` 1�� 'r"
• , lyy�ro' 3 ` ,It„i`"� •'st�t� C��,,����a k �y�V16..�'`- R ( _.
4
NOELWOO wl�
5
I � '
�-
Lo
� � �• �.. � 'Jnr--- __
::.. ':
Wi
X.,
v I
't er-
k Y4
161
4
a 6JY-)c
411k
Al�
J
ML
0 AA,
07 -
OF,
IV
1,ly
bV
i- f i - JP- ..
ar.ra� t
v -.4".4Jty
Site Size (Acres)
Notes
. . . . . . . ....
Site Environmental
i
Impact
Notes
� `_v � � ",� �,��� � , { � t 1 � �, i � �l � �� � �; 'moi �• \ � � � �`-� it` �
, A
A�atf 1'
.:
Site Flood Zone
Notes
A-1
' 'it' 'S✓•,a,'lettia +v
Site 48" Raw Water
Pipeline (feet
24" Distribution
Main (feet)
At,,e
Site Pipeline
Site
Improve-
ments
kl I
Land
Acquisition
Ih,�r° � y I'.:', a,(.f 1�1 11 �y1 {fir ►' .:1�� �v , �v ,{ i j
KU, i 4
+� �R,', r •. � .fir .s, , 1. ( I\�.� �.; r L�.,l. ,,Uws � k
i44
w
ern
_I
"�tnY t,"1C t
s 4�
site Ranking Notes
Education center about .. - .
supplywater -
replace Discovery Center.
B 3 Similar to site A. Site is further from the
Lake.
C 2 Education center about Mokelumne River
and water supply and treatment.
D 4 Education center about water supply and
treatment.
E 4 Education center about water supply and
treatment.
. Y 1
� •� \ iii— !� � fY'•`\
\ � S
y
^ •.. ~ / �.� '. \lam Y P
\
Site Ranking
Notes
�Pp r''/till +��,' �'\�1`!'\ � \ �\•��Y � `� d �\!y �'•-
V k"",
Eliminate
Site C
Preferred
Site A
Re
Eliminate
Site C
Preferred
Site A
t�;`: ��i' '7 ` l�8• �A�\,� w �, i nr� -h �' .k
',m r .� 't 1 yk i�`ys,�`� � 1 �1 sh ,i �i •i
1 y LL - �v s , ,� �y'i�Y �• •'�
VA-.�,,.
"R"
t., • '� _e � f + ef'S 's '" ; `$-�' +� '� -.kit' �'�''': .T
.Y y
k+ y Ir� ' E r
r.s: ' ,w Location of
Naomi Ew
06.
O
6.Rhcommbnded
r —'
1
't.
- - _ .. -
ar
VrF N
r`� ` f ^�r + iG• � t i ; � :� t � . t, ,ry�e � . 6�x ;,
� '. -. �-'• t'. 1... rr-q`
` •_Site`has� .bee .� a e1op d
.l�'�'
50 years.�ago� "
• Various Bevel ndht con17"
s
,;A`
considered. blu',
re is at
��es to COPS
.:
I�
Y
H,
r
I
lin
portu r ity, t cete ,rn
velo
p
, {
ek�r� arty �ss�c�n��-:c6,61 �rit��and
pa ti i a ror
,� �f, \. F,,yy ion . , • u
Oki_
4�• S ` j{F^ 11�. , '4 tit , �.ti+'t' Y' h�, `.
� r l
.s . . . . . . . . . . . .ion
.
_ it `9 �•.� Y .``. ..r �,l` ,,r� :] tr y�'.
• 1 nvolr Pyre com
Site Desi._
sth e*t'l
.a& •Pr
o
,
�. i ` .1, 1 1., ,rI SS tt:.�", f�,rx �}Qi FM�;,n�,➢n,. �:`""� - ���
Lland,
». � �_��, �< I', ,��} i , , ♦' � ,I��J���� X11 t � � ���
1 V If j I 1 �� i ,t ��'!\•,
'St. 1 1 •I '` �1' �i A �A .
-r4
.,bp•t
Q =LF,
�• 'r�.� i r
1 ;
w ti
f �
r.
i
-
'
r ,
A,
Development of Conceptual Design Criteria
�• , - �`` /1 ''`.ti ``'l• "��.�'.i+ .. T ��k ti" i "�� fir^:: �. -�k ..
October 17 2007 - Presentation to City Council
Capital Costs, O&M Cost, and Comparison of Life -Cycle Costs
1
�4.
December 17, 2007 - Presentation to City Council
Financing Alternatives
February 5, 2008 - Presentation to City Council
,,� ,"�'�,� �1.���1�� '!�� � i�.�i'Alil�il�;�r `'',(,, '�_ � i�I��t,� ii! E���;��, �'rC' �1 ,. '* `tF� :. '' •�. .}ts j. _.
4K 4K 4: 49 4K * 4K
RECEIVED dc7
17
CITY CLERK
C24 L&"
'lcl000lk�
L
JK * 4K * 4[ * 49 � I I
Be
735%=K
Lodi, CA 95242
(n
uj
ITW
cx_
F,
STOCKTON/STKN
CA 952 1 T &
10
04 SEP�2007 P41-1 W
A�
Zia �ez&')
ae4/-6'7� �-5
K-
Page I of 1
Randi Johl ~
-KL
From: Todd Mallory[todd.mallory@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04,20074:58 PM
To: Randi Johl; Susan Hitchcock; Bob Johnson; JoAnne Mounce; Phil Katzakian; Larry Hansen
Subject: Water Plant
Dear Council Members,
I had the pleasure and opportunity to work for Ed DeBenedetti &. Ron Williamson for almost ten years.
I also studied Recreation Administration at San Diego State for two years until changing major to
Business Admin. As a sportsjunkie I learned to appreciate the "parks" side of the department during
my tenure & studies.
More recently I worked as a Corporate Special Event Planner, specializing in outdoor employee
celebrations complete with BBQ catering & entertainment programs. For these events I worked in
hundreds of city, county, and state parks across 12 western states during my 13 years in this business.
I can not emphasize enough to you what an amazing facility we have in Lodi Lake.
Granted, the city budget is not what it used to be during good economic times. But, to use any part of
the 13 acre parcel adjacent to Lodi Lake would be a huge regret in the future.
I will compare it to the amphitheater wall blocking the majestic columns at Hutchins Street Square.
Sure, it sounded like a good idea at the time, and in planning, but the reality is that this space is not used
and one of Lodi's most beautiful structures can not be seen for the public to enjoy. How ironic is it that
the HSS logo is only the top of the columns?
As silly as this may sound, but this water treatment plant decision could be the legacy that this council
will be defined by for many years.
I hope city staff is able to provide ample information about the General Mills parcel. And I would
encourage the council to make a decision that is based on what is best for Lodi's future. A future that
includes new park space at Lodi Lake.
Thank you,
Todd Mallory
103 South Rose Street
Lodi, CA 95240
209-333-8335 Home
todd.mallory@sbcglobal.net
09/05/2007
MEETING MINUTES kar
LODI PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, August 7,2007
7:00 P.M. - Carnegie Forum
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Sasaki, Long, Wall, Wardrobe -Fox, Akin
Absent: None
Staff Present: Steve Dutra, Steve Virrey. Terri Lovell
11. Minutes of Auaust 7.2007
Motion by Commissioner Wall to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2007 as amended, Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Commissioner Akin.
CORRECTION TO THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Sasaki noted that Commissioner Long was not at the 6/5/07 meeting.
Ayes: Commissioners Sasaki, Long, Wall, Wardrobe -Fox, Akin
Noes: None
Motion carried 5 — 0
III. Comments by the Public. Commission and Staff on Non-Aaenda Items
Additions to Aaenda
Donna Phillips, 1040 Laurel Avenue, Lodi — Ms. Phillips expressed her concerns about Lodi Lake Park and crime at
the Lake. Ms. Phillips suggested moving the ticket booth closer to the oak trees in the middle of the south parking
lot. She feels that a fee could be charged for parking only and this would limit vehicular traffic on the north side of
the lake. She also suggested possiblyworking in conjunction with Russ and Kathy Munson to help defer costs.
Commissioner Sasaki commented on how the Friends of Lodi Lake have not been as prevalent at Commission
meetings. Ms. Phillips stated the Friends of Lodi Lake have disbanded their 501(c) 3 corporation. Commissioner
Sasaki would like to see the Friends of Lodi Lake become more involved as in the past. Commissioner Wail
reminded Ms. Phillips that Lodi Lake is a public park and is therefor public use. He also suggested that Ms. Phillips
should contact the Police Department and report any criminal activities. Commissioner Akin asked Mr. Dutra how
Lodi Lake compares to other cities as far as their rules and regulations. Mr. Dutra shared the rental rules for Lodi
Park and a comparison to other regional parks within the area. Mr. Dutra stated that the City Manager has given him
approval to look into surveillance cameras or some other method to improve issues at Lodi Lake.
Comm issionerWall asked about an update on the graffiti ordinance. Mr. Dutra stated that 6 City Departmentsare in
the process of putting a meeting together to discuss the issue.
Commissioner Wall asked what happened to the picnic tables on the west side of the lake. Mr. Dutra shared the
Parks Division policy on vandalism within the parks and it was a decision by the Parks Department not to replace the
'vandalized tables but he's willing to look at it again Mr. Dutra said he'd evaluate it and get back to the Commission
at the next meeting.
CommissionerWall expressed his concerns with how you have to board kayaks at Lodi Lake. He stated that he's
concerned about the liability issues. Mr. Dutra will evaluate this situation. He also reminded the Commission that
'this issue will be addressed with the new boat house.
,CommissionerWardrobe-Fox asked the status of the pool heater. Mr. Dutra stated that they've both been ordered
Ihoweverthey're not here yet.
'Commissioner Sasaki would like to see community participationat the meetings. He suggested possibly putting an
;advertisement into the newspaper asking for feedback from the public on our parks.
Mr. Dutra informed the Commission that staff has compiled a poll survey in order to contact a number of agencies in
the Central Valley regarding various subjects i.e.: vandalism, neighborhood watch, and adopt -a -park.
IV. Action Items
Review Public Works Department Proposal for Lodi Lake West 13 Acres as Preferred Site for Surface Water
Treatment Facilities
Mr. Dutra introducedthis item.
Richard Prima, Public Works Director, shared with the Commission the process by which staff arrived at the 13
acres at Lodi Lake for this project.
Commissioner Akin asked when this item is going to Council. Mr. Prima stated it's going to Council on August 15`h
and he's going to ask the Council to approve this site.
CommissionerWall asked Mr. Prima where he's looking to place the facility. Mr. Prima didn't have an exact
location. Commissioner Wall asked if Mr. Prima was willing to trade something for this property. Mr. Prima stated
he was going to look for grant funds to help build this site.
Commissioner Wardrobe -Fox stated her initial reaction was she didn't see how this would fit into the esthetics of this
building. Commissioner Wardrobe -Fox asked if the wildlife plays an issue with water quality.
Commissioner Sasaki asked about ingress and egress into the 13 acres. Mr. Prima suggested the entrance to this
facility would be from Turner Road and Mills Avenue.
Commissioner Long questioned the fireworks on Lodi Lake. Mr. Prima stated he's spoken to Vern Person, Fire
Marshall, regarding this issue and they talked about using fire resistant materialsfor the proposed building.
Commissioner Long also shared his concerns with the esthetics.
Mr. Dutra asked Mr. Prima to comment on whether the trail out to Lower Sacramento Rd. would go away. Mr. Prima
said he didn't think the trail would go away however it might have to be reworked.
Comm issionerAki n asked if grants would cover the entire cost of this project. Mr. Prima stated that the total costs
have not been determined. Mr. Prima stated an analysis was done last year that showed it could be fully funded by
new development. Commissioner Akin wants this facility to be done in a way that's arch itectu rallycorrect for the
park, and in a way that benefits the Parks and Recreation Departmentwhich would include infrastructure.
Commissioner Wall shared his concerns about why this is so fast tracked to go to Council. Mr. Prima stated that in
his mind it's already 1 %years behind schedule in the overall project.
Commissioner Wardrobe -Fox asked if the site could be squeezed into 3 acres instead of 5. Mr. Prima could not say
for sure. Commissioner Wardrobe -Fox asked if other sites have been viewed by staff. Mr. Prima stated they have
and they continue to view other sites. Commissioner Wardrobe -Fox asked what the flow of traffic would be in and
out this facility on an average day. Mr. Prima stated it would probably be approximately 12 people per day.
Mr. Dutra asked Mr. Prima to address smells, disposal of waste, and deliveries. Mr. Prima said he didn't think there
should be a smell and there's discussion about where to dispose of the waste. Mr. Dutra asked Mr. Prima if he
would be willing to take into consideration esthetics when it comes to the size and height of the tanks. Mr. Prima
stated he'd certainly look into it.
Donna Phillips, Laurel Avenue — Ms. Phillips shared the ideas the Friends of Lodi Lake had for the 13 acres. Ms.
Phillips suggested that the plant be located on the south side of the Lake and pump water from the lake which would
improve the Lake water quality.
Motion by Commissioner Wall that this item be moved forward to allow for the potential placement of the 5 acre
water treatment plant on the 13 acres on the west side of Lodi Lake with the caveat that Public Works and the Parks
and Recreation Commission work together for a quid pro quo and that the Council would be aware that the
Commission wants to continue to be included in the site design and planning. Commissioner Akin seconded.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Akin would like to add that the Council be aware that the Commission wants to continue to be
included in the site design and planning including public meetings.
Commissioner Sasaki will not be voting for this item. He would like to see more public meetings on this subject.
CommissionerWardrobe-Fox has serious reservations about the site and the esthetics. She would like to have
seen this issue a year ago.
Commissioner Long feels that the motion allows for additional information and nothing has been given away as of
yet.
CommissionerAkin doesn't feel giving up 4 or 5 acres in that parcel provided it is integrated in such a way that it
benefits the City and the Parks and Recreation Department. He feels the Commission must be involved in the
process to be true to their constituents.
AYES: Commissioner Long, Wall, Wardrobe -Fox, Akin
NOES: CommissionerSasaki
Motion carried 4-1
V. Reaular Agenda —Discussion Items
BOBS Update
Mr. Dutra introduced this item,
Tom Alexander, Recreation Supervisor, introduced the BOBS Board Members present at tonight's meeting. Kim
Ruoff, President; Ted Coffee, Vice President; and Hector Solis, Soccer Coordinatorwere in attendance. Mr.
Alexander asked the Commission to speak up for the BOBS if any questions ever arise with City management and
the public. Mr. Alexander is concerned about the future of the BOBS.
Commissioner Sasaki asked BOBS President, Kim Ruoff, if the BOBS are still against the possible mergerwith
Hutchins Street Square. Ms. Ruoff stated that the BOBS are against the merger because of the possibility of getting
swallowed up and lost and not get used to the best of their abilities.
CommissionerWardrobe-Fox stated that at times the BOBS feels like it's a closed door organization. She would
like to see the BOBS communicate better. Ms. Ruoff appreciated the comments and informed the Commission that
they are in the process of getting their newsletter back up and running and suggested going to the BOBS website.
Commissioner Long thinks the BOBS organization is a great organization however he doesn't think the BOBS
promote themselves enough.
Comm issionerAkin is troubled because he doesn't see the great love for the BOBS that he's seen in the past. He
agrees that the BOBS are not blowing their own horn.
CommissionerWall echoes everything that the other Comm issionerstated and really agrees that the BOBS need to
promote themselves.
Hector Solis, BOBS Soccer Coordinator, sharedwith the Commission his open door policywith his soccer parents.
Mr. Solis expressed to the Commissionthat he was unaware of what the Commission does and he sought out the
information through former Director, Tony Goehring. Mr. Solis gets questions from the public on what they can do to
improve fields, get more fields, etc. and he can answer their questions. CommissionerWardrobe-Fox agrees that
information regarding the Commission and what they do needs to be available to the public.
Ted Coffee, BOBS Vice President, shared with the Commission his experiences with youth sports in the Los
Angeles area. He also expressed how the City of Lodi has a unique asset in the BOBS which allows money and
time to be devoted to youth sports in this community.
State of the Budaet of Parks and Recreation Department
CommissionerAkin asked how Parks and Recreation getting 8% of the budget compares to other cities. Mr. Dutra
doesn't know but he'll investigate.
There was discussion regarding the budget and equipment replacement needs.
VI. Director. Superintendent, Supervisors. Reports{Updates
(Refer to packet reportsfor additional information)
None
Parks Proiects Update
None
VII, Announcements
None
VIII. Adioumment
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m