Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 200 - Contract Proposal - Tippett & Gee, Inc. - Power Supply Study - 07/12/1979DGV:hw F RESO. #200 - 7/12/79 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a proposal from Tippett & Gee, Inc., Consulting Engineers for Consulting Engineering Services for Power Supply Study, attached herewith which shall be spread upon the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail. Passed by the City Council this 12th day of July ,1979. ATTEST; Evelyn Gaffga, :City SecretaryLfreasurer APPROVED AS TO:'FORM: C. Ross, Jr., City 4 ALAN- HErff1:Y, ' Ffe yo'r Pro T ENGINEERING SERytCE CONTRACT FOR POWER SUPPLY STUDY BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS AND TIPPETT S GEE, INC. ABILENE, TEXAS AGREEMENT, madelft.L 12, At _ between the City of Lubbock, Texas, a Texas Municipal y, tff Lubbock County, Texas, (hereinafter called the "Owner") and Tippett S Gee, Inc., a Texas Corporation, having its prin- cipal office in Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, (hereinafter called the "Engineer"). WHEREAS, the Owner directs that the future growth of the demands upon its electric utility System and the means for meeting these demands be studied in detail; and WHEREAS, the Engineer represents that he has sufficient experienced personnel and equipment to perform, and the Owner desires the Engineer to perform the engineering services herein described in respect of the System. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein con- tained, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 EMPLOYMENT OF ENGINEER The Owner agrees to employ the Engineer and the Engineer agrees to perform professional engineering services in connection with the Work as stated in the sections to follow, and for having rendered such services, the Owner agrees to pay to the Engineer compensation as stated in the sections to follow. The Engineer hereby agrees to assign the personnel to this Project which may be necessary for satisfactory completion of said engineering services. ARTICLE II CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF SERVICES The Engineer agrees to perform the services required by this Contract as expeditiously as practical and to schedule the completion of all phases of the study and its submittal in final form not later than May 1, 1980. The Engineer shall render services on the project including but not limited to the following: A. Study the feasibility of possible sources of future additional electric power supply to ensure continued economic and reliable electric service for the citizens of Lubbock including: i 1 1. Types and sizes of generating prime movers including combined cycles utilizing existing or future gas turbines. 2. Fuel types and sources available for power generation, including Western coal and solid waste as a supplemental or alternate fuel. 3. Use of sewage effluent as a source of cooling water. 4. Requirements for compliance with all state and federal regulations for additional power production sources. 5. Siting considerations and their impact on the environment. 6. Disposal of wastes incidental to electric power production utilizing solid fuels. B. Study general feasibility of interconnection and/or joint generation installa- tion with other electric utility systems, and the specific feasibility of a 100 MW interconnection to be in operation by the summer of 1983. ARTICLE III FURNISHED BY OWNER Lubbock Power s Light shall furnish the Engineer all relevant maps, load data including future load projections, descriptions of property, records, cost data, existing fuel contracts and generating plant performance,data in regard to quantity and quality of solid waste, fresh water availability, sewage effluent quantity and quality, and any other pertinent data which it may possess relating to the services to be performed by the Engineers. ARTICLE IV REVIEW MEETINGS S DOCUMENTATION The Engineer shall meet with the Owner at agreed -upon -intervals and shall submit preliminary drafts of parts of the study to the Owner for review and dis- cussion. The Engineer shall submit 20 bound final copies of the study to the Owner. ARTICLE V ENGINEER, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood and agreed that in all work covered in this Agreement that the Engineer shall act as an independent contractor administrating complete control over its employees. ARTICLE VI COMPENSATION A. For and in consideration of the services to be rendered by the Engineer, the Owner shall pay, and the Engineer shall receive the compensation hereinafter set forth for the Study. -2- I The compensation payable by the Owner to the Engineers shall be as follows: 1. A fee for the performance of the Study in the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($125,000); and 2. Reimbursement for out-of-pocket expense at actual cost for all normal travel expenses for inspection of solid -waste generating facilities as may be directed or authorized by the Owner. B. PAYMENTS Payments to the Engineer shall be made in Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, as follows: 1. 50% of the fee in 10 equal monthly payments beginning one month after authorization to proceed with the Study. 2. 40% of the fee upon submittal of the final draft of the completed Study. 3. 10% of the fee upon acceptance by the City of Lubbock, but not later than 90 days after submittal of the completed study. 4. Reimbursement for out-of-pocket expense upon submittal of itemized invoices for such expenses. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Contract as of the day and year first hereinabove written. ATTEST: 1 City Secre ary Approved as to form: G hn C. Ross, Jr., City Attorney ATTEST: Secretary r (Tv nr i IIRRnri< TCYec T I PPFTT t_ Mrr i ur President Title -3- t I Mayor McAlister requested the Executive Committee to serve as the "Steering Committee" for public Information emphasis in preparation of the November bond election, speaking to various citizens groups, organizing media campaign, organizing a speakers bureau, etc. Dr: Sart os queried as to the Council's rationale for the cuts in the health facilities, which was considerably less than that committee recommended, to which the Mayor responded that the Council felt that the recommended dollar figure included a totally new facility, and that either existing facilities renovated, or.remodeling the present Health Dept. facilities would be a more palatable approach to the citizens. Additionally, there are other sources of funding for equipment, etc'. than through bond issues. With respect to including the railroad grade crossing at 34th St. and Quirt, the Council felt that the projected increase in train traffic at this intersection, which would tie up vehicular traffic for hours each day, posed a great concern, and this project, too, is unbelievably expensive, so by considering a portion - or phase - of the project for improvement would be a beginning. Furthermore, the residents of East Lubbock were entitled to this encouragement on this proposed project. Russ•Wilkerson asked if it was too late to alter the proposed issues including the recreational facilities at the Burl Huffman Complex, and the Mayor responded the commitment had been made and could not be retracted or altered at this time. Mayor West indicated the prime consideration should be given a timetable for events, publicity,etc. immediately; that the election was less than 60 days away and a timetable with assignment of responsi- bilities needs to be done the next week (Sept. 28). All members of the Committee present indicated they would be most willing to serve in the capacity of the "Steering Committee" on this matter that is so important to the future of the City. 5. Review information regarding LP&L. On August 13, 1981,"Councilman Brown submitted to the Staff a three-step phase study for the feasibility of operating LP&L, with the suggestion that Step 1 be completed, and then proceed if the data submitted so indicates. Carroll McDonald, Director of Electric Utilities, submitted to the Council the data as requested on the Step 1 document. Councilman•Brown's response was that the data - on the surface - indicated that there was a variance in rate structure as compared with SPS data, especially as related to the commercial rate charged; that LP&L bills on a load factor and SPS bills on a demand factor; that there is a variance from 17% (low) to 69% (high) and that somewhere in between is a breaking point - the question being, where is that point; that it is his opinion that both utilities should charge on the same factor; that SPS rates are lower outside the City with other customers, but they are in accordance with the City rate for those customers within the city limits. 2. • S_ In response to Council query as to the historical basis for LP&L billing on a load factor, none of the current staff members had a response. Councilman Brown indicated he has received on the day before (9/23/81) responses from SPS to all three phases of the questions he submitted on August 13, and the answers in some cases were identical, in some cases they differed; that it would be sound business practices to compare the answers to all questions from both utilities before making a firm evaluation of the entire situation. Councilman Brown also indicated that apparently the fuel cost pass-through charge was too.low, and should be increased to accommodate the actual costs involved. The statement was made that SPS requires a deposit for all new connects, or reconnects, and LP&L does not. Historically, what is the basis for LP&L not requiring a deposit? - the current staff responded they did not know the historical background of this practice. There was a brief discussion about the accounts receivable, and the total volume of overdue or unpaid accounts, which probably needs to be reassessed for higher rate of return. McDonald commented that there was a representative of the Economic Energy Service who was going to present a study on demand factor rates at the next Utility Board meeting (the week of Sept. 28), and further consideration could be given to this aspect of the matter following this presentation. Members of the Council responded that would be good; that careful evaluation of a new rate system should be given before any changes are made whatsoever. Councilwoman Baker asked when to expect answers to the questions members of the Council submitted to the Staff (May and June, 1981); that Councilman Brown received his answers long before she or Mayor Pro Tem Henry had received responses to their questions, and she queried as to the delay in receiving these. Apparently it was: the Staff's understanding that the Step 1 questions superseded the others. AI EVELYN G GA City Secretary -Treasurer �m 11 / in