Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutJFOCP 2009-10-01%3'917- 4#O j 105.7831 1740`901. 1-63 I0176' 1 5917'6 117175 1098'61- IOOI 99 11 095' l 1- 10817'81. 11766 11.63 19808 38 808 0969E It'60'L 1 1099'1-1- 6L0•6 199 [17 6L0 OIE•Z S917 1-09 06917 009'8„; 0 117170'9LZ 1E96:66 099" H. OL6'8 9173`E GC #1 37.04 3.334 11766'6 o 117 [L 1- 17176'661- 1890 :L93 11-L0'309 %0'63 MdM I les 0017'99 S17S`99 9171- 81-3'. 9L 1-'Z 63 0817'£ OOC8 I 14.500 93L I 093' I 009'1. I. 1089 9171- 9L0'9 I 24.360 003;63 1 10.730 1093'L 906' l 34.800 101-9'3 I 908'1- 0917' 1- 9L I'Z LL£ 006'3 0,05 8 1' 0 I6E17`9L 4 25.085 1 I093' 2 037 nown.Oign 48,583 1009'3 o 16617'96 104,0041 1 L617:003 425,519 1 FSD 24.8% 1 56,784 906`95 1731. 3170'1. 1 098'1. 1 93 1 9L6'3 1 OWL 1 0017'31- 1 039 I 003'9 1 iOZ6'6 9617 1 1731- I 017£'17 368'03 0178'61 9L 1-'6 003`9 91-1-`1- 09L'63 363'3 91-1-'1- 0173'1- 098'1. 336 0817`3 009`8 0 1L44`ZS4 13917'1-3 1003'9 1 ,742 14,211 43,605 FSD 34.07% 3,066 1990`£ o 113,7941 122,6521 236,4461 1891.'3E17 1 2010 Budget 1 228,967 500 229,467 003`17 009' 001 1 12,000 000`06 000'09 009`3 I 25,000 017 I 000`3 I 005 I I 17,500 1 84,000 I 80,000 I 37,000 1 25,000 1009`17 I 000'03l 000'6 009`17 1000`9 1009'L 006' 1- 000`0 I- 000`' C 0 1001.`£11.9 1009'98 I 00 994`494 EE9`,3 930'L 2 009 Budget 9,000 1000`6 334,0001 1000`096 1000'1769 1,468,258 228,017 950 228,967 >c 447,6051 83,000 15,000 6,600 42,633 147,233 2008 YE EST 9,000 I000`6 0 465,000 360,000 1000`938 1868'6 1- 1 2009 Budget 1 1717`L6I. 1 i 4176`L61. 009 1003`8 I 000`6 I 001 I I 12,000 I 60,000 000`39 I 009'3 1 25,000 1 40,000 000` 000' I I 17,500 1 80,000 000`36 000`33 I 000`03 10091 130,2001 1000`6 (009`17 10017`3 1009'L 100£` 1- 1000`0 (939`63 570,3251 1009`98 100L'93 808`. 9L6'9 2008 Budget 25,000 1000`93 465,0001 360,0001 825,0001 1,557,1331 2008 Actual 161,954 0 161,954 1890'8147 84,323 18,202 6,639 42,633 151,797 2 008 Actual 0 1,424 8,510 360,000 11766`696 1176L`6E6_ f the column hee 1 2008 Budget L170` 8L 1- 1 Lt'S`8L 4 009 0031 000`E I 001- I 000'91- I 000`93 I 000` I 1 I 000`L3 I 000`93 000`3 000` 1- I 1 17,500 50,000 000`L I. I 000' 1009`L I 1009'17 147,0001 1000`6 100 1- 10017`3 I o 100£` 1. 10 00`0 1- 52,9581 1000`'93 502,4581 79,0001 1009`93 81-9`1791- EE91Z,16. 983`9 2008 Budget 25,000 000`93 45,0001 300,0001 360,0001 000`90L 19L6'1-92'1. 04 listed JF©C 3t iEYENUES Checking Acct Balance 0 M Interest Total Revenues JFOC Q&c.M EXPENDITURES; a) c co cr) Ts O U_ W Ts t� c co in Cr N N O O M N_ 0 as O N 025 C 0 cu (l O� V) N o„) U Q Q .0 U (6 (,D a u) L p 0 CC (z Q .o-L+ i L C N U C O O as w Z w CL O CO N O C is u_ U O C 2) o _Q E. d _C N N O N O a) w C 2 m c Es g g_ Cg. m m:�:-i -i- cs 8 OAS 1- ¢mJwCn cLU' wOOw{— a_ »tUO :E.c 1 1- 1 '��„y „CA W'80 4Ueld IetolgnS Se1Pn3S /6ultsel aanla Salaries Benefits (health, retirement) Employment Taxes JFOC, Mgmt Fees.., SubTotal Salaries/Mgmt Fees Capital Reserve Interest 1 I Total Revenues Q. �,I� 0; c Purchases Projects Reserves Deposit c SubTotal Capital Expenditures f WI LU Grey rows are; not subject to partner perc co O O co O m 0 0 U a) co 0 -0 co ca a) a) `a co 0 0 C0) -c L C cri 7 L a) C O C W 03 i N cca C E. T 1 s, U .0 C O 0 a) v m c o N N c 0 m a) 0 a) C C O O L 0 0 cr U Cc' O O d G N a5 O C O .z co L C) E CA a) Q- C g r C C C co O i o O .Q •O i 0 L as co 6% a) U a) (A O O r L O C� C- y E E ,„co a9 C --s- a) C a) 0— 0 •G> a) N 0'c L 3�D- a cc •O !Z Y 0 C 4, i� !Z O E O 0 "C3 CC a3 L 0 0 0 O O .0 v 0 0 0 C 0 7 0 0 O� m .1 C 0 d' O Q v(� a) off 3 T a) co a5 co 0 O CO C C a) -.1 as E N O N O a 'C N W m L a) 2 CS C as h d 0 0 0 0 C U a3 Q E r 0 0 0 O 4? d'a O 8 O C O O 0 0 0 C_ 0.O t3 v 0 P7 t p 0 tO O) co 0 0) 0) 0 U C a) o C c?) x O T r r d' N O N N N C •C cr3 0 0 a) V_ O p N U c O O .N 0 O O O E O E E E a) 0 m c. C E p 'a o O O I'll O O O C L C E 0 0 0 0 V V V 0) y_ co ad m o 0 C C N 00 cn cu o N a) a) 0 a) co Ca Ca Q N .0 Q aa) N L 0 L L L 0 0 0 U V E a C0 c C Ca F- w 0000000 00000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Cn 0 0 Cn 0 0 O 0 0 0 CY) O ct co to co co 0 co N N T a. O C CO t C O E 0) co co L U U as V O U J E Y a) a) -c-', C0) 0 a) co 0 a) C O W a) as y in to a) a) ID N O C Q 0 L W O d m 0 LL as L CT O U CO C C d i cp a) 'C O C C W O n a) O 2 L a) m C a) a) a) E m t W I— a 3 W OC a) C O C E U N O y CO m o Cn a_ E C C= CS eL CT 0 a) N Z U (A W I— <WWOI —OD2W V a) .0 4- N O C E 4- 0 a) O a. a5 O a. csi t 0 E c d d Co. E L 4 O TO: Joe Fuqua, Frazer Sanitation District FROM: Jim Egan DATE: August 19, 2009 SUBJECT: CDPS PERMIT RENEWAL ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL In accordance with your request, RMI is pleased to submit this brief proposal to assist the Frazer Sanitation District "FSD with the analysis, preparation, and negotiations necessary and attendant to the renewal of the CDPS Permit for the FSD Wastewater Treatment Facility "WWTF Scope of Work RMI will assist the FSD with the following: 1. Review and analysis of current discharge monitoring data for inclusion in the renewal application, including modeling and analysis of ammonia data and temperature data; 2. preparation of a Technical Memorandum analyzing temperature monitoring data against the new WQCC Temperature Water Quality Standards for submittal with the renewal application; 3. preparation of the draft renewal application for and relevant attachments; 4. active coordination of the above with the FSD, and preparation of the final renewal application submittal package; 5. coordination with WQCD permit writer, as necessary; 6. review of and preparation of formal comments upon the WQCD draft renewed CDPS Permit; and 7. negotiation with WQCD on behalf of the FSD to secure the most accurate and appropriate Permit. Level of Effort RMI estimates the NTE cost to be $10,000, to be billed on a time and expenses basis. RMI's standard rate is $150 /hr, which includes all overhead and indirect expenses, direct expenses such as Fedex and travel is passed through at cost. Information Required Work: R eg ula t o ry Ma n ag e m e n t In c. The following information is needed for RMI to complete the above Scope of Phone (719) 531 -6883 Fax (719) 599 -4410 6190 Lehman Drive, Suite 106 Colorado Springs, CO 80918 1. Influent, effluent, and river monitoring data (electronic version); 2. Current Permit documents (Permit, rationale, WQA) 3. Draft proposed permit documents (when available) 4. WWTF schematics and description if changed from current Permit Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. BBA water consultants BISHOP -B ROGDEN ASSOCIATES, INC. September 16, 2009 Mr. Joe Fuqua District Operations Superintendent Fraser Sanitation District PO Box 89 Fraser, CO 80442 Dear Joe: The purpose of this letter is to provide a proposal for consulting services to assist Fraser Sanitation District with water supply well permitting and physical yield evaluations associated with the two existing wells at the District's wastewater treatment facility. We understand that the District operates a well constructed in 2002 under permit number 62349 -F (Well No. 2), but the physical yield from that well has declined, resulting in a water supply deficit. We further understand that an older and unpermitted well (Well No. 1) exists within approximately 30 feet of Well No 2. Two possible solutions were discussed in order to regain the physical yield lost in Well No. 2. (1) The District could equip and bring Well No. 1 online as an alternative to operating Well No. 2, if the yield from Well No. 1 proves to be more favorable. (2) Rehabilitate Well No. 2, to effectively restore the yield of the well and possibly make it as productive as Well No. 1. In order to prepare this proposal, we met with you and toured the wastewater treatment facility. We also researched and reviewed the permit files for Well No. 2, we briefly reviewed the pumping test data that you provided from Well No. 1, and we relied on our knowledge and experience with water supply wells and water rights in Colorado and Grand County. In addition, we contacted the State Engineer's Office to confirm permitting alternatives for Well No. 1. Bishop Brogden Associates, Inc. has provided consulting services related to ground water supplies and water rights since 1980. We assist various clients, including municipalities and land owners with the development and protection of water supplies, including numerous clients in Grand County. We are available to provide additional information regarding our qualifications if it would be helpful to the District. Michael A. Sayler Christopher J. Sanchez Jeffrey A. Clark Charles E. Stanzione Robert E. Brogden Su'te 1050 Enslewood Colorado 80110 hone 303.806.8952 fax 303.806.8953 Mr. Joe Fuqua September 16, 2009 Page 2 We propose three primary tasks to complete our investigation: (1) a review of well permits and water rights decrees to confirm whether or not Well No. 1 can be operated under the existing augmentation plan decree, (2) a formal short term pumping test program on both wells, (3) analysis of the pumping test data and preparation of a technical memo presenting the results and recommendations. The objective of this approach will be to determine the current yield of Well No. 1 and the reason why Well No. 2 has lost production. We will then use this information to recommend solutions to the well production problem. For example, it is possible that the well has plugged in recent years as a result of fine grained material clogging the gravel pack in the well, or it is possible that water levels in the aquifer have dropped, resulting in the well production problem. It is important to understand which factor has caused the problem in order to identify the best solution. This approach will benefit from work and analyses previously completed on the well. As we discussed, in order to minimize costs, we believe that we can work with you to complete the pumping test program, without retaining the services of a pump contractor. However, we recognize that some work on your part will be required in order to prepare for the pumping tests. We will need your help to configure both wells with operational pumps, down -hole access to measure water levels, install meters and install flow control valves. We can help you to coordinate with a pump contractor to complete this work if that is your preference. Our specific scope of work is described below. 1. Review the water rights decree and well permitting documents to confirm our understanding of the operation of the water rights and the well permitting provisions specified in the District's augmentation plan. We will determine whether or not there is any language in the water rights decree that would disallow the operation of the older well under the augmentation plan. If we identify any such language, then we will notify you and the District's water rights attorney immediately and seek guidance from legal counsel regarding the possible use of the old well in the augmentation plan. We have contacted the State Engineer's Office and learned that it is likely feasible to obtain a well permit for Well No. 1, even though as -built construction details are not available for the well. The State has developed a form that can be submitted by the well owner along with the well permit application for use in these situations. 2. Review the existing well construction information and pump testing information to determine potential well yields and efficiency of the existing well structures. We have briefly reviewed the pumping test data from Well No. 1, and it appears that the local aquifer system should be adequately productive to yield 15 gallons per minute for multi -day pumping periods, but we understand that well permit number 62349 -F is not actually achieving these yields. We have some questions about the way in which the consultant originally analyzed the pumping test data and we propose to take a close look at the existing data to determine (1) the efficiency of the old well structure, (2) the ability of the aquifer system to produce to om a Bisho -Bro den Associates, Inc.' Mr. Joe Fuqua September 16, 2009 Page 3 15 gpm on a sustainable basis, and (3) aquifer boundary conditions, which could impact the long -term performance of the well. 3. Work with you to complete short -term pump testing of both well structures. The purpose of the testing program will be to determine the reason why the well is not producing enough water to meet the District's demands at the facility. The limitation could result from plugging of the well structure, a decline in water level in the aquifer, or the transmissivity of the aquifer may not be adequate to transmit sufficient quantities of water to the well. These analyses will help us to understand the fundamental problem with Well No. 2, in order to determine the best solution to the well production problem. During the test, we will also determine which well provides a more favorable water supply. 4. Prepare and provide a technical memorandum presenting the results of our analyses and recommendations for implementing a more reliable ground water supply. We will complete analyses of the pumping test data and determine the factors limiting the production from the well. Recommendations may include equipping and operating Well No. 1 instead of Well No. 2, completion of additional well development (cleaning) on Well No. 2, or in the worst case, the completion of a new well. It is important to note that if Well No. 1 is used as the primary water supply well, there may be less confidence that a reliable grout seal is in place, because the as -built construction details are not available for the well. Accordingly, if the District opts to bring this well online, there may be less confidence that the quality of the water from Well No. 1 is protected from surface contamination, which is probably only a consideration if the water from the well is used for potable purposes. Finally, we offer an alternative approach if the District has confidence that Well No. 1 will provide a reliable or much improved physical water supply. We could forgo the pumping test program and focus our investigations only on the well permitting matters, and well yield projections based only on the existing pumping test data. The advantage of this alternative approach is that it will result in a significant cost savings. The disadvantage of this approach is that it will not entail any confirmation of current aquifer conditions and will not include an investigation of the ability to continue using Well No. 2, in which the District has invested significant resources. We charge for consulting services based on hourly rates for our personnel assigned to your project. These rates include our employees' hourly salaries, general and administrative overhead, and fee. Our rates are reflected in the attached Standard Schedule of Compensation. The expenses our personnel incur in direct connection with the project will be billed to you at cost plus 10 percent. We will submit invoices monthly and terms of payment are net thirty days; interest at the rate of 1 percent per month (annual rate 18 percent) will Mr. Joe Fuqua September 16, 2009 Page 4 be added to that part of the balance not paid within thirty days of the invoice date. Consulting services are subject to be discontinued on the project if payment on an invoice is not made within 45 days of the date of that invoice, unless prior arrangements have been made. We estimate the work described above can be accomplished for approximately $7,700. If the alternative approach (no pumping test program) is selected, costs are estimated to be $3,500. Meetings with you and others, and work after our report has been delivered will be billed at our normal hourly rates. To confirm our understanding of this assignment, and authorize us to proceed, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to us for our files. The terms of this proposal are offered for a period of thirty days from submittal only. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Client agrees to limit the Consultant's liability for the Client's damages to the sum of $100,000. This limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. We hope that this provides you with an indication of the consulting services that will likely be involved in the implementation of well study for the District. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. We look forward to working with you on your project. Very truly yours, BISHOP- ROGDEN ASSOCIATES, INC. istophe Principal CJS /jeb Enclosure GO J. Sanchez, P.G. For: By: Date: Contracting Agency Authorized Signature Title wika e c rn Bisho -Bro den Associates, Inc. Water consultants BISHOP-BROGDEN ASSOCIATES, INC. STANDARD SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION Effective January 2009 Applicable to Services Furnished on a Per Hour Basis Classification Billing Rate PROFESSIONAL STAFF Principal $135.00-$165.00 Associate $115.00-$135.00 Project Manager $110.00- $125.00 Senior Engineer /Hydrogeologist /Hydrologist $102.50- $115.00 Project Engineer /Hydrogeologist /Hydrologist $92.50 $102.50 Engineer /Hydrogeologist /Hydrologist II $80.00- $92.50 Engineer /Hydrogeologist /Hydrologist I $70.00- $80.00 GIS Specialist $72.50- $92.50 TECHNICAL SUPPORT STAFF Drafting Technician $55- $65.00 Word Processing /Administration $50- $60.00 Intern/Technician $40- $50.00 The above Standard Schedule of Compensation is subject to periodic revision. The schedule includes salary costs, ordinary overhead and profit. Applicable expenses for travel and subsistence, incidental out -of- pocket costs, communications, reports preparation, printing, outside services, etc., are reimbursable at invoice cost plus 10 percent. Mileage is reimbursed at fifty five ($0.55) cents per mile. For services furnished by Senior Officers on direct assignments, such as special consultation, expert witness, etc., per day or per hour compensation may be negotiated. Michael A. Sayler Christopher J. Sanchez Jeffrey A. Clark Charles E. Stanzione Robert E. Brogden 333 West 1 den Avenue, Suite 1050 En lewood, Colorado 80110 hone 303.806.8952 fax 303.806.8953