During the latter phase of this study, it became apparent that the existing groundwater production capacity was becoming severely challenged by physical limitations of the existing assets and that groundwater quality was declining further at several sites.
During this study a number of changes in the operation of the City wells occurred and it is expected that due to a number of water quality issues, operational strategies of the City wells will continue to change as the City works with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to provide a safe water supply.
For example, during the course of this study it was found that the City did not have sufficient firm water supply to meet the maximum day demand.
Working with CDPH the City may continue to operate the previously inactive Well 13 with arsenic concentrations exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) CDPH has also provided the City with Guidelines for requesting a waiver for manganese that could allow the City to operate Well 13 for up to nine (9) years while a treatment solution is completed. Excerpts Above from: “City of Livingston Feasibility Analysis for a Sustainable Water Treatment Strategy”, Executive Summary, Page I, Kennedy Jenks Consultants, July 12, 2013
In 2008, we had a Water Rate Study prepared that included $19.84 Million in Filtration Systems and Upgrades to the Water System. But that one was Heard, and Tabled, and Tabled Again until the…
2009 Water Rate Study that included $8.178 Million in Filtration Systems and Repairs to the Water System, was eventually adopted by the City Council, and resulted in the Recall Election of 2010.
Now we have the Feasibility Study by Kennedy Jenks which includes details for at least $30 Million in Capital Projects for Treatment Systems and Upgrades to the Water System to address our growing Water Quality Issues and relies heavily on borrowing from the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving (Loan) Fund.
More on that a little later.
But first –
A CONTRACT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE COURT THEATER is an Item on this Tuesday’s City Council Meeting Agenda. The Staff Report tells the story this way:
The "Court" Theater was designed in August 1945 and built soon thereafter by the Court Family to replace a 200-seat theater that had burned to the ground…. It was used extensively over the subsequent years and used primarily for movie viewing. The theater is reported to have closed in 1977 and has remained vacant since then.
The property was purchased by David and Judith Theodore in November 1987.
On February 5, 2002, the Livingston City Council approved a motion to buy the theater for $115,000.
In April 2002, the City purchased the property from the Theodore family in hopes of restoring it to its former glory.
On January 15, 2002, the City Council established the Livingston Court Theater Committee and appointed Committee members on February 5, 2002.
In 2004, the building was evaluated by a structural engineer (Pelton Engineering) which determined, at that time, that the building structure was in general good condition, but the interior needed "proper rehabilitation."
The planned renovation efforts involved six phases: 1) roof repair, 2) clean up, 3) interior demolition, 4) refurbishment, 5) new construction and expansion of north side 6) new construction and expansion of south side. The architects estimated costs totaled $2,350,000.00.
In 2004, the City applied for four grant applications (CDBG Planning and Technical Assistance Grant, California Cultural and Historical Endowment, and Roberti-Z’Berg Harris Nonurbanized Open Space and Recreation Grant Program) to assist the City with design and renovation costs associated with the Court Theater Renovation Project.
In July 2005, the City was awarded a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of $500,000.00 from the State of California Housing and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) General/Native American Allocation Program.
I’m going to interrupt the Staff Report at this point to add a few more details.
In Fiscal Year 2008, the City used its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to complete the architectural drawings for the Court Theater renovation. It also applied for another $1 million Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and a low-interest loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to help provide funds for the Court Theater Restoration Project. Total cost of the Court Theater restoration was estimated at that time to be $7,652,672. (2008-2009 Budget p. 344)
By February, 2010, the Court Theater Project had become caught up in the turbulent politics of “Run Up to the Recall About Water Rates”: with the accusation being that $1 million dollars had been cut from the Police and Fire Department Budget in order to finance the Project.
(After the Recall, the person who leveled this charge was appointed to the Planning Commission by the Post Recall City Council. Go Figure)
By May of 2011, the Court Theater Committee did not feel that they had the Council’s support for the project when they went out to do fundraisers and they just wanted to know if this project was something the Council wished to continue and asked for an official Resolution of Support. During the City Council discussions, the Committee was taken to task by Mayor Pro-Temp Margarita Aguilar for the “perks” the Committee was receiving: Thing like, being referenced on the City’s Web Page. Having Published Agendas and meetings in the City conference Chamber. Things of that sort.
In contrast, Council Member Samra stated the intent of this resolution was to give moral support. He went on to state the Council needed to make a decision on what to do with the project and not place the blame on the committee and suggested that if the Council’s desire was to eliminate the project, then they should deny the resolution and bring back the project for a decision on what to do with the building.
A Motion to Deny Approval of the Resolution of Support was made by Council Members Land and Aguilar: and failed by a 2-3 vote. A Motion to Approve the Resolution of Support was made by Council Members Samra and Vierra: and passed 3-2.
By December 2011 there were discussions about changing the scope of the project, because finding sources of funding was becoming increasingly difficult.
On January 17, 2012, the City Council unanimously adopted a Resolution Accepting Submittal of a Proposition 84 Grant Application to Construct the New Court Theater, Office Buildings and Downtown Parking Structure; Prepare a Downtown Master Plan and Form-Based Zoning Code; and Provide Passive Recreation Activities at the Merced River.
I also remember the City hiring a Professional crews to clean up the Pigeon droppings and cover the roof with a tarp in an effort to stave off more damage. (I don’t remember exactly when. I just remember seeing the workers dressed up in white Hazmat type suits)
Returning to the Staff Report, we find
The City spent some of this money on permits and design work but was unable to start the work.
The State has since asked for reimbursement of grant proceeds. The City entered into a repayment plan to pay back $147,000 per year for three consecutive years.
The Livingston Court Theater is in a state of disrepair and is no longer structurally sound. The building appears to be in imminent threat of falling and is considered unsafe. The building now serves as a nesting area for pigeons and has now accumulated a significant amount of pigeon waste.
In the City’s efforts to look ahead and examine downtown revitalization efforts, it is considering various options to restoring a vibrant downtown. One option is deconstruct the theater to make room for other possible options, including a new theater project that preserves the integrity of the old architecture design and integrates new technologies available for a theater and auditorium use.
(How much you wanna bet it ends up a parking lot……. Just sayin)
THE FINAL DRAFT of the KENNEDY JENKS “City of Livingston Feasibility Analysis for a Sustainable Water Treatment Strategy” has been distributed to the members of the Utility Rate Stakeholders Committee. Members of the Utility Rate Stakeholders Committee Meeting Include:
-
Richie King – Foster Farms – representing the “Industrial” Business Sector
-
A representative from the Livingston Union School District
-
A representative from the Merced Union High School District
-
Albert Arias – representing Commercial Businesses
-
Warren Urnberg (Planning Commissioner)– representing Livingston Residents
-
(there was another person appointed to represent Livingston Residents. But she resigned and there is currently a vacancy in that position)
-
City Council Liasons: Mayor Pro-Temp Gurpal Samra and Councilperson David Mendoza.
Meetings of the Utility Rates Stakeholders Committee are open to the public and a meeting to discuss the Kennedy Jenks report and other issues related to Livingston’s Groundwater and Water System has been set for August 19th.
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for as many people as humanly possible attend this meeting. You need to hear for yourself exactly what is going on with our Water System, and what the Consultants are proposing Livingston do in order to comply with Clean Water Regulations and State Requirements: those on the books right now, and those expected to be imposed between 2014-2016.
There is quite a bit of detail in the report. (I am still working my way through my copy: page by page) In the meantime, here are a few more excerpts from the Executive Summary: pages III-VI
-
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has identified TCP as a contaminant of concern and is in the process of developing a MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level)….It is expected that an MCL…may be in place as soon as 2016 with enforcement required by 2018.
-
All of the City wells have TCP levels substantially about the estimated MCL…and remain some of the highest in the state. Two of the wells (12 and 14) produce water with TCP Levels exceeding the response level, the level at which CDPH recommends that the source be removed from service.
-
All City wells contain manganese with Well 15 above the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL)…and the future Well 17 is just over the SMCL…The City has been advised that a short-term waiver process may be pursued to allow for additional time to implement improvements and that this waiver process includes demonstration of public support of continued delivery of water with manganese above the SMCL.
-
The City wells also have arsenic levels at and above the MCL…Well 13 was recently reactivated and is delivering water in violation of the Arsenic MCL.
-
The city groundwater supply is showing elevated nitrate with Well 10 shut down to an MCL violation and DBCP in Well 14 approaching the MCL.
-
A Complete conversion to surface water is impractical due to the likely reduction of surface water availability during periods of drought as surface water would be curtailed and the City forced to rely substantially on groundwater as the primary supply on a cycle of a few years every decade.
-
Groundwater treatment will require multiple processes to address the differing contaminants. Initial challenges include addressing potential arsenic treatment at Wells 12, 13, and 15 as well as the elevated manganese levels at wells 9, 11, 14, and 15.
-
Well 17 has manganese levels above the SMCL and will require treatment before being permitted as a new water supply source.
-
Wells 12 and 14 are at risk of CDPH directing the City to discontinue use due to TCP levels above the RL (response level)
-
The combination of challenges leaves the City exposed to water rationing if existing demands repeat the 2010 and 2011 water use levels. Loss of Wells 12 and 14 would be catastrophic and without Well 16 operating the City would be unable to meet existing water commitments without implementation of water conservation measures.
-
Use of MID water for irrigation at selected sites is feasible and would reduce system demand modestly…(at) a high cost per unit of water delivered.
-
Recycled water is technically feasible but not economically feasible.
-
Conversion of Caltrans right-of-way to MID supplied irrigation is possible…(at) a high cost per unit of water delivered.
-
Development of a Surface Water Treatment Plant using MID water is feasible. Challenges as to supply reliability during drought need to be resolved and the resolution could result in the City still having to maintain significant potable groundwater production capacity to address drought periods.
-
Any potable surface water solution will be subject to dry year reductions and require the City to maintain substantial groundwater capacity.
-
Any potable surface water solution will require several years to resolve technical, permitting and economic challenges and reliance on surface water to resolve existing capacity and groundwater quality issues is infeasible.
-
Centralized groundwater treatment…is feasible and the recommended alternative for groundwater treatment.
Those of you who would like to do more reading about Livingston’s Water Woes can find more information by clicking on the following:
2008 City of Livingston Water Rate Study Presentation: Dan Bergmann, Interstate Gas Services, Inc.
2009 City of Livingston Water Rate Study: Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
California Department of Health Sept. 2010 Letter on Water System Funding
California Department of Health – Compliance Order For Violation of the Arsenic Maximum Contaminant Level: May 16, 2013
Arsenic Warning Insert
California Department of Health: City of Livingston 2011 Water System Inspection Report
California Department of Health: City of Livingston 2013 Water System Inspection Report
And Now On To The
CONCURRENT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF LIVINGSTON
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
AUGUST 20, 2013
CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 P.M.
OPEN SESSION: 7:00 P.M.
Notice is hereby given that the City Council and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Livingston will hold a Regular Meeting on August 20, 2013, at the City Council Chambers, 1416 C Street, Livingston, California. Persons with disabilities who may need assistance should contact the Deputy City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to this meeting at (209) 394-8041, Ext. 121. Any writings or documents pertaining to an Open Session item provided to a majority of the members of the legislative body less than 72 hours prior to the meeting shall be made available for public inspection at Livingston City Hall, 1416 C Street. The Open Session will begin at 7:00 p.m. The Closed Session will be held in accordance with state law prior to the Open Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Closed Session will be held at the City Council Chambers located at 1416 C Street. The agenda shall be as follows:
Closed Session
CLOSED SESSION
A “Closed” or “Executive” Session of the City Council or the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Livingston may be held in accordance with state law which may include, but is not limited to, the following types of items: personnel matters, labor negotiations, security matters, providing instructions to real property negotiators, conference with legal counsel regarding pending litigation. The Closed Session will be held in the City Council Chambers located at 1416 C Street, Livingston, California. Any public comment on Closed Session items will be taken before the Closed Session. Any required announcements or discussion of Closed Session items or actions following the Closed Session will be made in the City Council Chambers, 1416 C Street, Livingston, California.
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Successor Agency
Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)]
City of Livingston and Successor Agency to the Livingston Community Redevelopment Agency v. Ana Matosantos, et al
Superior Court of the State of California – County of Sacramento
Case No. 34-2013-80001460
4. Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation
[(Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)]
Number of Cases: 3
6. Conference with Labor Negotiator
(Government Code Section 54957.6)
Labor Negotiator: City Manager Jose Antonio Ramirez
Employee Organizations: All Represented City Employees
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER Next Resolution Number: 2013-38
Next Ordinance Number: 608
Pledge of Allegiance. Next Successor Agency
Resolution Number: 2013-4
Roll Call.
Closed Session Announcements
Changes to the Agenda.
AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS
1. Presentation by Public Works Director Humberto Molina: 25 Year Service Pin to Ruben Mendoza, Maintenance Worker II.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
Supervisor John Pedrozo Announcements and Reports.
City Staff Announcements and Reports.
City Manager Announcements and Reports.
City Council Members’ Announcements and Reports.
Mayor’s Announcements and Reports
CITIZEN COMMENTS
This section of the agenda allows members of the public to address the City Council on any item NOT otherwise on the agenda. Members of the public, when recognized by the Mayor, should come forward to the lectern, and identify themselves. Comments are normally limited to three (3) minutes. In accordance with State Open Meeting Laws, no action will be taken by the City Council this evening. For items which are on the agenda this evening members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council as each item is brought up for discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine or non-controversial and will be enacted by one vote, unless separate action is requested by the City Manager or City Council Member. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council or City Manager request that specific items be removed.
2. Resolution Rejecting All Bids Received for CMAQ Pedestrian Improvement – Sidewalk Installation Project, Project No. CML-5256(012) and Authorizing the City Manager to Re-advertise Bids.
3. Resolution for the Acceptance of the Phase 2 Water Line Improvement Project, Authorizing the City Clerk to Record a Notice of Completion with Merced County and Authorizing the City Manager to Release Performance and Material Bonds and to Make Final Payment of Retention Monies to California Trenchless, Inc.
4. Resolution Supporting Boundary Expansion No. 4 of the Merced County Regional Enterprise Zone.
5. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File a Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Estimate Exchange Fund Claim Form for Fiscal Year 2012/2013.
6. Consideration of Appointment to Utility Rates Stakeholders’ Committee.
7. Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 606, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Livingston Acting in its Capacity as the Legislative Body of City of Livingston Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 (Livingston Family Apartments) and Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Therein.
8. Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 607, of the City Council of the City of Livingston Amending Title 5, Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC) Relating to Second Residential Unit Development Standards in the R-2 Zoning District (Medium Density Residential).
9. Approval of Minutes of Meeting Held on June 18, 2013.
10. Approval of Warrant Register Dated August 15, 2013.
DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
11. Provide Staff Direction for Appointment to the Planning Commission.
12. Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement to Provide Contract Engineering Staff Support Services for the City of Livingston and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement in a Form Approved by the City Attorney.
13. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Demolition Agreement with Jim Brisco Enterprises, Inc. Relating to the Court Theater.
14. Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Budget Workshop #2: Questions & Answers Session.
Thegardeningsnail's Weblog (because not every critter is hiding under a rock...) 