Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24(2)/2001, C5 - RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION CENTER: CONTAMINATED SOIL REMOVAL, SPECIFICATION NO. 99059. counat Ap 1 4, 290 j agenba REpoRt �H CITY O F SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Wo sem' Prepared By: Barbara Lynch Civil Engineer SUBJECT: RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION CENTER: CONTAMINATED SOIL REMOVAL, SPECIFICATION NO. 99059. CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Appropriate $151,000 from the unreserved General Fund balance to cover the costs associated with the disposal of contaminated soil from the Railroad Transportation Center. 2. Authorize Public Works to proceed with stockpiling if a permit is issued and disposing of the material at the end of the summer as clean fill or contaminated soil as determined by testing under the supervision of the Fire Department. DISCUSSION On June 29, 2000 the CAO authorized contract award to R.Burke Corporation for the construction of the Railroad Transportation Center. The site was known to have contaminated soil at the time of bidding. The cost estimated for disposal of contaminated and hazardous soils at the time of bidding was about$32,000. To date the City has spent over three times that amount. The site grading has left two large stockpiles of contaminated soil with no place to go and no funding to dispose of it. This material was believed to be free of contamination having been separated during excavation, and was planned for use at another location. The City tested the material to confirm it was clean. It turned up as marginal with some contamination present. It is suitable for some conditions,such asunder parking lots,but not for others. The Contractor has been unable to find a site that would be able to use it in its present condition. Of the two stockpiles, one is at the City Corporation Yard temporarily. The other remains on site and is preventing the completion of the work. At the time of this report, Public Works is applying to Community Development for a temporary stockpiling permit. A stockpiling permit will provide a way to remove the material from the site so the project can be completed without further delay. The question of disposal remains. Typically, this type of marginal material is sent to a "remediation" site. Remediation is accomplished by adding certain fertilizers, mixing the material and giving it time. Public Works staff is already adding these fertilizers to the material in the hopes of beginning the remediation process. The City does not have an area where a significant remediation effort can take place; however, there is a good chance this limited effort will result in remediation. The material comes from property formerly owned by the railroad. The property was purchased"as is." This makes it difficult to get the railroad to pay the costs associated with the contaminated soil. It may cost more to pursue the railroad than to deal with the matter in house. As the material is "contaminated"not"hazardous,"it will not be an ongoing expense. Had it been hazardous,the City would retain ownership forever. When final costs are known,the information can be turned over to the City Attorney to determine if there is any benefit to pursuing the matter with the railroad. 4-1 r Council Agenda Report—Railroad Transportation Center Page 2 CONCURRENCES Public Works has been working with the Fire Department throughout the process to make sure the material is handled appropriately to prevent contamination of other areas or stream water. FISCAL IMPACT Initially, about $2,000 of additional contaminated soil disposal was paid for through the project contingency fund. Until the recent discovery of additional contaminated dirt, it appeared there was enough money to cover the necessary construction changes and this small additional disposal cost. Unfortunately, the volume of contaminated soil is now too great to fund through the existing contingencies. The project account now shows 95% of the contingency fund has been used. A third of that was spent on contaminated soil disposal. Change orders not related to removal of contaminated soil account for the remaining two-thirds. Contingency Spending Contingency Amount $193,300 Construction Change Order Costs to Date 111,000 Contaminated Soil Costs to Date * 73,000 Contingency remaining Now $99300 Additional Construction Change Orders Anticipated 48,000 Additional Soil Contamination Costs Anticipated 78,000 Recommended Additional Contingency for Unanticipated Items 25,000 Total Recommended Contingency After Council Action $160,300 Total Recommended Contingency Increase $151,000 'beyond the$32,500 provided for in the contract for hazardous or contaminated soil disposal The project needs another $48,000 in contingencies to pay for changes known at this time to complete the project. The project is currently 75% complete and contingency funding will be necessary in completing the remaining 25%. It will, therefore, be necessary to repay the contingency fund the $73,000 already spent on soil removal in addition to the $78,000 needed to dispose of the remaining soil. If this is not done, the project will run out of money before it is complete. While $151,000 is the amount needed to dispose of all the contaminated soil not covered in the original quantities, only $73,000 has already been spent. If remediation efforts are successful, only a portion of the $78,000 in potential future costs will be spent. The rest can be returned to support other projects. This project previously consolidated several accounts to provide funding for construction and there are no alternate sources available to us. As such, staff recommends appropriating $151,000 from the unreserved General Fund balance. Based on the Mid-Year Budget Review for 2000-01 and Council-approved changes since then, this will result in an ending fund balance that is 24% of operating expenditures compared with our policy minimum of 20%. Additionally, after adjusting for City's likely construction costs for our share of repairing the Santa Rosa-Sterner 4-2 � J Council Agenda Report—Railroad Transportation Center Page 3 Creek Culvert (about $200,000), this will reduce the estimated carryover balance available for 2001-03 to $810,000. ALTERNATIVES Staff has identified the following three alternatives and has summarized the estimated cost differences in the ALTERNATIVE TABLE. 1. — STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Hold the material at a stockpile location, completing what remediation effort the City is able to perform, until the fall. Retest the material. Give it away if it is clean, or contract for disposal. NOTE: This alternative assumes a stockpile permit can be obtained to hold the material through the summer Pros — This has the potential to reduce the cost of disposal through remediation. If it does not remediate over the summer it would cost about the same as Alt. 2. below. Disposal at a remediation site is paid for by the ton. The summer drying will reduce the tonnage and therefore the disposal cost. Cons — The City will have to pay to haul the material to the stockpile location and there will be staff time to arrange for the disposal. 2. Contract with a licensed trucking firm to haul the material to a disposal site. Pros—This is the least cost option for disposing of the material soon. Cons — Staff time will be required to arrange a separate contract with a trucking firm to complete the hauling. 3. Have the Contractor's hazardous materials subcontractor haul the material and pay for the disposal at a remediation site. Pros — The material can be disposed of more quickly than with any of the other options. This allows the project to proceed unrestrained and eliminates any future staff time to deal with the dirt. Cons—This is the most costly of all options. ALTERNATIVE TABLE Alternative Estimated Cost 1. Stockpile, remediate& give away or dispose of $6,500 to $78,000 2. Contract separately to haul & dispose of $78,000 3. Dispose of the material under the current contract $89,300 g1 wrrent projects\parking tots\99059 railroad transportation center\_staH reports\99059 contarnination.doc 4-3