Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 82-060 - Approving agreement for joint development by the City of Redding, the County of Shatsa and the Shasta Dam Public Utility District of a sewage treatment study for the Redding Metropolitan Area .�:»�•�f ' :� ', ' � � . ��_ •• ] RESOLUTION N0. ��-(p0 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT BY THE CITY OF REDDING THE COUNTY OF SHASTA AND THE SHASTA DAM PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT OF A SEWAGE TREATMENT STUDY FOR THE REDDING METROPOLITAN AREA. WHEREAS, land in the Redding Metropolitan Area is subject to over- lapping planning and sewer service delivery by the City of Redding, the County of Shasta, and the Shasta Dam P.U.D. , and WHEREAS, the three agencies recognize the importance of the development of regional_sewage treatment systems, and WHEREAS, said agencies also wish to protect the health, safety and wel- fare of persons residing and working within the area of interest, and WHEREAS, the three agencies propose the development of a joint sewage study as the most effective method to identify major sewage planning issues and resolution thereof, to examine alternative sewage treatment schemes, to establish criteria for judging individual or joint sewage treatment plans in the � future, and to provide a schedule for development timing and sequencing within the plan area, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Agreement attached hereto, between the City of Redding, the County of Shasta, and the Shasta Dam P.U.D. , for the joint sponsorship and preparation of a comprehensive evaluation of sewage treatment alternatives for the Redding Metropolitan Area, is hereby approved, and the Mayor is authorized to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Redding. , � � � C - is7� ° � , , ._.,- , . .. . V � . . . . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 3rd day of Mav , 1982, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote: , AYES: COUNCILMEN: Demsher, Fulton, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Gard NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None ATTEST: �ET�EC��E��ity erc Mayor of the City of Redding FORM AP OV,ED1•" , , � ^ `� . � - ,, i y, orney r A � _ '�' I , � l � � -� A �^ �� � � ...,. �Q� .L'.J���,� f . ... � .� - � � V U DRAFT • . JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT • REGIONAL SEl•JAGE STUDY THIS AGREEMENT, dated the _ day of , 1982, by and between the CITY OF REDDING, the COUNTY OF . SHASTA, and the SHASTA DAM PUBLIC UTILITY - DISTRICT, public agencies under the laws of the State of California, WITNESSETH: IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. AUTHORITY - This agreement creates a Planning Committee by which the City o�e ing, the County of Shasta and the Shasta Dam Public Utility District will jointly fund and cause to be prepared an evaluation of sewage treat- ment alternatives for the plan area. . 2. NAt1E AND STATUS - The name of the Cormnittee shall be Redding Metropolitan rea ewage�tudy Committee. The status of the Committee shall be advisory to the funding agencies. 3. POWER ANO RESPONSIBILITIES - The Committee shall be charged with the preparation o a compre ensive community sewage plan for the plan area. The plan shall cover alternate sewage treatment alternatives, financing mechanisms, administrative mechanisms, policies pertaining to sewage . treatment and goals and objectives. After said plan is prepared it shall - be submitted to the City of Redding and the County of Shasta for possible inclusion as an element or part of an element of their general plans and to the City �of Redding, County of Shasta and Shasta �am Public Utility Dis- trict for adoption as a master sewer plan. The Committee shall review bid proposals to prepare the plan and shall recormnend to each participating agency a consultant(s) to whom a contract should be awarded to prepare the plan. Prior to recommending a plan to each participating entity, the Corttaittee shall hold at least one public hearing on the recommended plan and its alternatives. 4. PLAN AREA - The area which the sewage study shall cover is depicted on x i it ," attached hereto. 5. COMMITTEE COt4POSITION - The Committee shall consist of seven members, inc u ing a oar em er from the Shasta Dam �P.U.D. , two Councilmen and one Planning Commissioner from Redding, and a Supervisor and Planning Cormnis= sioner from the County of Shasta. The Committee shall appoint a seventh member to represent the public at large who has knowledge of the operation or financing of sewage s,ystems. 6. TREASURER - The Treasurer of the Committee shall be the Treasurer of the it�'-o�IFedding. - ' ' � � • . ' �::-. 7. BUDGET AN� PARTICIPATION - The Committee shall be assigned up to $100,000 in or er to eve op t e plan. The participation of each agency shall be 10 percent for the Shasta Dam P.U.D. , 53 percent for the City of Redding, and 37 percent for the County of Shasta. Funds for the sewage plan shall be deposited with the City of Redding irc an account prior to first payment. 8. t4ETHOD OF PAYMENT TO CONSULTAPJT - Payments to the consultant shall be based on t e comp etion o t e various items listed in the scope of work and shall require approval by the Committee. ° 9. COt4MITTEE STAFF - Staff for the Committee shall consist of the staff of the entities un ing the study. The City of Redding shall provide a steno- grapher to maintain minutes of each meeting of the Committee. • ' � � 10. PLACE OF MEETING - Meetings of the Committee shall be held in the Redding ity ounci hambers located at 1313 California Street, •Redding, California, as scheduled by the Committee. 11. RUIES ANO PROCEDURES - The Cortmittee will adopt rules and procedures for t e time an con uct of its meetings. The Committee may select a chairman from its members to administer its meetings. 12. PLAN AGREEMENT - No action taken by the Cortonittee shall bind the Committee s sponsors to any recommended plan or to any future funding • commitments. � • 13. SCOPE OF 4JORK - The scope of work for the plan shall be generally as out ine in xhibit "B." The consultant is required to use the EPA system of task identification in developing his proposal . The Committee may require the consultant to present these work sheets during the interview. While changes in allocated times may be approved, the consultant should program his work based on the times shown in the scope of work. 14. TERMIFIATION - The Cortonittee shall be terminated upon submission of a final report to each of its members. Such submission may include an oral or written report by the Committee to each member agency. 15. At4ENDt4ENTS - This agreement may be amended only by the terms and conditions satis actory to all members. ' � ,i�-=-�',='r � .-1 � ,. _ � e .. a U . . :� EXHIBIT B . REGIONAL SEWERAGE FACILITIES STUDY , , . ., Introd�ction ' Recommended fundinR formula� to develop a sewer system for the area , northeast of Redding, evaluation of system interties, and the design of a legislative body to direct and control a waste collection and treatmen[ system. , , ' The development of a comprehensive collection, transportation,� and � treatment process for sewage generated in [he developing area northeast and east of the City of Redding proper was the subject of a meeting held _ in the fall of 1981. Numerous projects are being considered for . development in that azea which could utilize small sewage treatment ' ' plants for processing wastes generated by that developroent. .'•Redding's , Municipal Airport properties are located in the same drainage basin, and ' : the City of Redding is in[erested in providing an expanded waste • . . � callection and treatment system for the airport properties. � The � ' location of the proposed developments described at that meeting are :. . ; shown in Figure 1 which is attached. Figure 1 also illustrates the � . . location of the various political entities who are operating in and adjacent to the Stillwater drainage basin. . ' Currently, the Redding Piunicipal Airport terminal and U.S.F.S. . , properties are served'by a joint leach field. While the system can serve additional developing airport properties, there are physical � limits to the effectiveness of this type of subsurface system. This . . land disposal system was the simplest waste disposal system covered in • , . the 1980 airport sewer study. Shasta College is located in the SCillwa[er basin and is no doubt served by sanitary sewer system, however, we do not know what type of sewage treatment is provided. The development oi numerous small collection and • treatment systems needed to serve the individual developments do not appear to be cost effective based on discharge constraints and repeated high 0 6 M costs. While the use of small package type treatment plants may be an early alternative for sewage treatment in the basin, it is recommended that a study be authorized that will identify intermediate � and long-term construction and admnistrative programs for the collection, transportation, and Ceratment of sewage generated in the study. area. Both the Shasta Dam Area PUD and thc City of Redding operate sewage collection and treatment systems. IIoth have recen[ly had special engineering studies prepared that deal with their specific problems. The City of Redding's Atastcr Sewer Plan prepared in 1979 addressed sewage service within the Redding Regional wastewater treatment plant limits, (only) , which is illustrated on Figuze 1. An assessment district is currently being worked on that would provide sewer service for the Upper Churn Creek section within the Redding Regional boundary linits, however, the trunk is sized to only handle waste loads generated within the Redding Regional plant limits and does not consider 'the upstream tributary area. The existing Shasta Dam Area PUD collection : -. . , • � � � • � '_��• . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF REDDING , ATTEST: By � City Clerk �1ayor FORM APPROVED:' � • � - City Attorney . . COUNTY OF SHASTA � ATTEST: , � By . County Clerk � Chairman, Board of Supervisors FORM APPROVED: • • N P County Counsel SHASTA DAM P.U.D. � ATTEST: � By District Attorney Chairman of the Board , �1=. ','� : . . r . „`- . , !-\ -� . �J Lj , and treatment system is tributary to the Churn Creek trunk. The Shasta � Dam Area PUD currently has a cease and desist order placed on it by the Water Quality Control Board due to raw sewage overflows during periods • of high rainfall. An early review of their existing problems is needed ' ' . to properly size and construct the trunk proposed in the assessment ; district. The [iming of a decision on the district's ability or desire to oversize the trunk can be done outside of this study. However, , � anything other than an extremely short-term solution should be � considered in [he total study plan. • • � . As a result of recognizable City of Redding, Shasta Dam Area PUD, and ' developers needs for planned and expanded. collection and treatment ' systems, the study committee recommended that the scope of vork to be � �� � � • shown in the request for proposals be expanded to include not only the �� ' , Stillwater drainage basin but those areas currently providing sewage collection and treatment agencies as well. .Functionally, ihe study area illustra[ed in Figure 1 covers the Churn Creek and Stillwaeer drainage basins and the area now covered by the Redding Regional boundary. In � � . � general, the eastern half of the Stillwater basin is not included in the ' early. phasing of the recownended study. " ' r • While all of the agencies, Shasta County, Shasta Dam Area PUD, Bella Vista Water District, Mt. Gate Co�nuni[y Water District, Centerville . Community Services District, and [he City of Anderson, may be influenced by and may ultimately be a part or a member of a joint powers type . :,�... '. adminis[rative district, the early committee discussions focUsed on " , sharing the study costs between the City of Redding, County of Shasta, and the Shasta Dam Area PUD. Concern for or about the General Plan .of the study area has been co�non to every meeting. In order to mitigate this concern, the Request for Proposal (RFP) assigns a minimum tributary area of 640 acres for use by � the engineer in evaluating collection and treatment alternatives. Utilizing either average sewage flows per square mile from developed Sacramento Valley communities or average sewage flows from developed one • square mile areas of Redding will provide flows which represent the � � [otal mix of land uses. The largest ultimate trunk sewer developed to serve the entire drainage basin based these averages will very closely match the final designed line. The initial trunk system may need some minor adjustments wUen construction drawings are prepared but the chances of the size of the line having to be significan[ly enlarged is remote. We believe that the use of the units of flow procedure permits the engineer to make objective evaluations of trunk and treatment needs without having to worry about the influence of either the County of the City's General Plan. The study has been broken down in[o three basic and integrated phases. They ure: ' ' Phase I Review and evaluate numerous legislative and administrative type programs that can be developed to operate waste collection and treatment systems on top of existing municipal, county, and special discrict 2 � • � � . _�.�.;. organizations. The consultant shall recommend a legislative organizational structure which • best fits the needs of the member organizations. Phase II The evaluation of engineering alternatives for the collection, transpor[ation, exportation, and treatment of sewage within the study area. The consultant will be required to prepare intermediate stages or plans to serve developing , areas or to solve existing collection and treatment , problems. The short-term review of joint Shasta Dam Area PUD and City of Redding needs in the ' Upper Churn Creek basin could probably be .: . .. ' handled outside of this study, however, any long- � � term solution at the joint boundary of the Shasta " Dam Area PUD and City of Redding has to be , � _ ' , ' included in the total study. , Phase III The establishment of cost sharing formulas, • definition of benefit programs, illustration of short-term funding based on benefits, long-term funding alternatives, and.illustration of .timing involved in the various available programs. Phase IV The design of subtrunks to serve the east side of the Stillwater Creek drainage basin. .This phase will not be inclUded in the request for proposals. � , The recommended formula for sharing the coses of the three tiered study is as follows: � ' ' Since the eastern part of the Stillwater basin is shown �as low density in the County's General Plan, it would be left out of the first phases of the study. This area, while excluded in the first phase, however, iE can be added at any time during the review process. • Phases I and III cover thc administrative segments of this program without regard to [opography, political juris- dic[ions, or General Plan considerations. • The estimated ratio, (percentage) , of each phase's cost to _, _ the total cost is shown in Table 1. A recommended sharing plan is also shown for each phase in the Table. 3 . }��..- . ` � , � � " . .. � Shasta Dam Area' County of City of ' ' PUD 'Shasta Reddin Phase I - Phase 10�* 45;C* 45X* � • Share Ratio Identify recommended legislative structure ' to operate super � agency. It is esti- ' mated that this 2X 9:C 9X phase will amount to ' " ' 20�L of the total � ' . . . . ' 1:i�.. . scuay cosc. , _ . � . . * Used the initial , cost sharing ratios ' � ; " originally suggested � , ' , : . " _ . , Phase II - Phase � lOX** � 25Y.** 65R** Share Ratio ' . Engineering ' evaluations. It is ' . estimated that this 4X lOX 26X . phase will amount to ' 40X of the total ' study cost. ' ' ** The engineering ' ratios have been adjusted to reflect areas of beneEit in . the primary study area. It is a rough approximation and has . ._ not been based on either land area or sewage generation. . Phase III - Phase 10%* 45Z* 45%* Share Ratio Assigning of benefits, charges, ' � fee structure, etc. It is estimated that 4X 18X 18X this phase will � amount to 40X of the total study cost. Recommended sharing � ratios for Phases I, II, and III lOX 37X 53z 4 .. ' • � ,��� . . • %�, „ �i ��� - ^✓ v v The request for proposals has been redrafted and is attached. The RFP requires the consultant to illustrate their basic phase costs. Indivi— . dual jurisdictional charges will be defined at the time a consultant is selected. The RFP has been further expanded to recommend that the consultant retain or joint venture Phases 1 and 3 with a legal or financial consultant who has special training in the development of umbrella or special service joint power type districts. ,. � : , _ • � 5 ' . . .. . „Af • } , • • � � . • t. . 1 . ' RECIONAL SEWERAGE FACILITIES STUDY . � „ Scope of Work OBJECTIVES ” ' � The objective of this study is to develop a [hree phase plan to cover , legislative engineering and administrative pzocedures for the collection, transportation, inter-basin transfer of sewage treatment . . processes, necessary to accomplish the physical aspects of the accepted ' .. plan. , • . . ' PHASING OF STUDY . . . . � . � . The ini[ial study will be developed in three phases: . �, The study has been broken down into three basic and integrated phases. They are: ' Phase I Review and evaluate numerous legislative and administrative type programs that can be . � � developed to operate waste collection and � treatment systems on top of existins ' . municipal, county, and special district organizations. The consultant shall recommend � a legislative organizational structure which � best fits the needs of the member organizations. � Phase II The evaluation ot engineering alternatives for • - � � the collection, transportation, exportation, � and treatment of sewage in the study area. The consultant will be required to prepare . intermediate stages or plans to serve developing areas or to solve existing collection and treatment problems. The short-term review of joint Shasta Dam Area PUD and City of Redding needs in the � Upper Churn Creek basin could probably be handled outside of this study, however, any long- term solution at tlie joint boundary of the Shasta Dam Area PUD and City of Redding h�s to be included in the total study. Phase III The estaUlishment of cost sharing formulas, definition of benefit programs, illustration of short-term funding based on benefits, long-term funding alternatives, and illustration of timing involved in the various available programs. ' Phase IV The design of subtrunks to serve the east side of the Stillwater Creek drainage i .., . U � � basin. This phase will not be included in the request for proposals. • � PHASE I REVIEW AND EVALUATE NUMEOUS LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE • TYPE PROGRAMS THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED TO OPERATE WASTE COLLECTION AND TREATTfENT SYSTEMS ON TOP OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, AND SPECIAL DISTRICT ORGANIZATIO,IS. ' THE CONSllLTANT SHALL RECOMhiEND A LECISLATIVE ORCANIZA- ` TIONAL STRUCTLIRE WHICH BEST FITS THE NEEDS OF THE MEPiBER ORGANI2ATIONS � . A. Background . - ' � . ' . . .` � 1. Illustrate the governing and operational organiza- _. tions involved directly or indirectly in the study , area and list each type of service they perform and those services they may perform. . ' 2. Illustrate and describe the constraints imposed on each operating organization by the State. Describe their ability to raise funds, sell bonds, establish or participate in various improvement and/or mainte- nance districts, enter into contracts, etc. 3. Discuss existing planned capital projects and sources of revenue for each of the governing organizations along with current indebtedness that could limit " their future funding of improvements recommended by the engineering phase of the study. . . B. Survey of Other Agencies and Districts . 1. Discussion of what. other super .ar .umbrella agencies � - and districts have done to fund sewer improvements � ' .'. over and within exiting governmental service areas. • 2. Review of the role private organizations or groups have played in developing an operational waste collection and treatment system. 3. Prepare a summary of potential legislative and admini- strative type pro�rams that can be used to implement � � the orderly collection and treatment of sewage in the study area. The consultant recognizes Chat the study area includes a number of existing governmental groups providing a wide range of governmental services. List ' the advantages and disadvantages of each al[ernative as they relate to potential participan[s in the opera- _ tional agency. 4. Meet with the Advisory Committee [o review alternatives. - 2 . � .. _ - ,� n x�. ' ' •"'.: ..i �: . . � � , �5. Prepare final recommendation which-will include a restaeement of the objectives, the procedures [o follow to implement the recommended program and the • time lines likely to be imposed. PHASE II EVALUATION OF ENGINLERING ALTERNATIVES A. Background and Introduction _, 1. Description of past developments in the study area and an inventory of existing or proposed community size sewage disposal facilities and discussion of ' . ' � problems associated with each system. � , 2. Discussion of the number, size, and general shape • of developable properties in the study area along • with building constraints from the various agencies . • involved. � • ' 3. Describe the charges and fees assessed by each of the agencies providing sewer service within the study area. B. Service Area Characteristics 1. Description of existing topography within the s[�dy area. , 2. Description of current County Health Depar[ment and Water Quality Control, Board requirements for individual waste disposal units in the study area. C. Projected Waste Loads in Study Area . ' 1. The City of Redding and the County of Shasta are both reviewing/developing their general plans within the study area. The consultant will size their system components, (trunks, lift stations, and treatment facilities) , based on a minimum tributary area of 640 acres, (one square mile) . The sewage generation per square mile including inflow/infiltration for , purposes of this study will be based on the peak dry weather flows occurring in the City of Redding and Shasta Dnm Area PuUlic Utility systems and will be . ' adjusted to represent full utilization of the sample areas. • 2. Discussion of the City of Redding and Shasta Dam Area Public Utility District collection systems and treat- ment plan[s and their ability to handle 'short and � long-term increases in flov. . , 3 � . . ,, . U �, .. .. '3. Review and discussion of the Shasta College collection and treatment�system zelating to capacity and current maintenance 'program. 4 . Review of the Ci[y of Redding's Municipal Airpor[ system and pro�ected system needs based on the joint airport plan. 5. Zllustration of major developments proposed by the �, private sector in the study area. D. . Waste Disposal and Discharge Requirements ' . . � . � � . i .. 1. Discussion of present waste discharge standards as mandated by State and Federal agencies for existing ' , sewer [reatment plants. - ' 2. Discussion of anticipated future discharge standards. . E. Existing Wastewater Disposal Systems in Service Area 1. Discussion of 0 6 M costs of existing treatment , facilities and pump stations versus cost [o abandon facilities and tie to a new regional system. Evaluation of income to expenses for each system. F. Short and Long-Term Alternatives 1. Independent review of the relationship of the existing Shasta Dam Area PUD to Redding Regional sewer system. Illustrate� short and long-term solutions to the existing Shasta Dam Area PUD sewage treatment pro- blems. The review should address the following areas: . _ (a) pros and cons .for each plan on ehe �agencies effected, (b) front end costs of each solution and who would be responsible, and (c) who would be responsible . for the assigning of operational costs and procedures. 2. Discussion of expanding Clear Creek treatment facility. " 3. Consideration of exporting wastewater from one drainage area to another to make optimum use of existing or proposed treatment facilities. 4. Describe and illustrate all alternatives considered relative to collecting, [ransporting, and treating • Wastewater generated within the study area. 5. Discussion of positive and negative aspects of smaller scale systems and on-site systems as alternatives to be a Regional system. 4 • . �•11 l . � f� 1.� �'l . 6. Illustrate which agenciea are benefitted by each , � alternative. Phase III is to assign benefits. G. Interim Facilities and Staging 1. Discussion of interim facilities or staged con— struction of each alternative. • ' 2. Describe and illustrate the approximate costs involved with the staging of each alternative along , with the liabilities/benefits to each of the various . agencies. • . " ' , 3. At this point, each of the alternatives .and the � . . associated interim facilities plans shall be presented to the Advisory Committee representing the various -- • � , agencies. The alteinatives shall be evaluated by . : �� the courmittee and a list of not more than five (S) • acceptable alternatives shall be returned to the � . consultant. The consultant shall proceed with the ' fuzther analysis of the acceptable alternatives to arrive at a best project. . H. Alternative Analysis � 1. Provide a detailed description of each of the five approved alternatives along with such maps and , sketches as required to clearly illustrate the components of each alternative. . 2. Develop a preliminary construction cost estimate of each approved alternative based on present day costs. ' 3. Discussion of the effects of operations and . maintenance costs. on each of the approved alterna— . tives. - _ 4. Describe any environmental considerations that could affect each of the approved alterna[ives. I. Apparent Best Project 1. .List the alternatives in order of importance with the apparent best project listed first. Discuss the udvantages and disadvantages of each alternative to justify the order of thc alternatives on the list. 2. Develop an implementation schedule for the apparent best alternative. � 3. Develop and illustrate a cash flow schedule for implementing the apparen[ best alternative. The schedule should include 0 S H costs as vell as 5 . � � - �1U'�i' i'i .-� '� . .. . . '' . .�--� , � � ` . ., . construction costs. The source of funding will be � addressed in Phase III. . PHASE III THE ESTABLISliMENT OF COST SHARING FORMULAS, DEFINITION OF BENEFIT PROCRAMS, ILLUSTRATION OF SHORT-TERM FUNDING BASED ON BBNEFITS, LONG-TERM FUNDING ALTEItNATIVES, AND ILLUSTRA- TION OF TIAfING INVOLVED IN THE VARIOUS AVAILABLE PROGRAMS , A. Methods of Financing the Construction and Operation of � the Recommended And/Or Staged Program ' ' ' 1. Discussion of various types of financing to include � bonding and Federal/State grant and loan assistance. 2. Discussion of possible funding with private funds � . and a thorough description of the pros and cons of 'this method of funding. � - - , . , _ • ' : 3. ' Prepare charts to graphically show how each bene- ' fitted agency can raise money for construction and � operation for those umbrella groups that may be . formed to construct and operate the collection and ' - treatment systems. ' • B. Evaluation of Financing and Operational Alternatives � 1. Discussion of cost advantages and disadvantages of � each alternative by participating agencies. . 2. List procedures and timing involved to implement the various alternatives. � C. Recommended Financing and Operational Alternative 1. Discussion of the basis for distribution of cos[s and , establishment of example fees. •-2. Describe the time considerations involved with plan. 3. Discussion of reimbursement provisions both within and between agencies and private parties. 4. Design an organizational structure for administering the project during design and construction. S. DePine alternatives for administration of project after construction. 6. Propose apparent best alternative for operation and maintenance administration. 7. Recommend an implementation plan for the next stages ot the project. 6 . ,���j-•'��`�T � .• - • j�^\ ,� ' . v . ENVIRONMENTAL ITfPACT REPORT The data developed by the consultant shall be made available to prepare the necessary environmental impact reports. The consultant will not be required to prepare a project E.I.R. ; however, the evaluation of the existing conditions and alternatives shall fulfill the requirements of the Caltfornia Environmenal Quality Act for an E.I.R. PRESENTATIONS � The consultant should plan on a minimum of at least one (1) presentation ' of [he data and charts of this study to the governing boards of the City of Redding, County of Shas[a, and the Shasta Dam Area PUD. � � The consultant shall also be prepared to present intermediate proposals to the Advisory Committee: It is anticipated that at least four (4) � . meetings with the committee shall be necessary prior to acceptance of ' . ' the final report--two (2) during the preliminary stages of the report � " and two (2) during the finalizing of the report. , The consultant shall print' copies of the final report. PROPOSAL • . The consultant shall illustrate a time schedule of completion for each phase of the study. Ne shall also list the fee he proposes to charge ` for each phase of the study. The consultant shall s�bmi[ six copies of the request for proposals to the City of Redding, Director of Public Works, by 3 p.m. , on Each proposal shall be complete and may include � any illustrative data which the consultant feels best illustrates his qualifications, While the proposal should be complete, it should not be so voluminous to be unyieldly. ' The City of Redding will be the paying agency and r�ill make three ' progress payments. The payments will be based on the percentage of completion of each phase at the one-third (1/3) way point of the contract; one-third (1/3) at the time the rough draft is submitted and the remaining one-third (1/3) when the report is submitted to the , , Advisory Couunittee. The Director will set a date for the selection of a consultant by the Advisory Committee. 7 .