SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

a' } STATE OF CAUFORNIA _4 PETE 4ViLSON,Gvverncr DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OFFICE OF LOCAL. ASSISTANCE 501 J STREET,SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 September 25, 1992 Mr. Kenneth Olds State School Deferred District Representative Maintenance Program Lammersville Application No. : 40/77300 School District Lammersville 16555 W. Von Sosten Road S hool District Tracy, CA 95376 Cou� y of San Joaquin Dear Mr. Olds: STATUS OF 1986/87 FISCAL YEAR CRITICAL HARDSHIP This letter is in response to our telephone conversation on September 16, 1992 regarding the new cost estimate submitted by the district from Groundwater Technology for your 1986/87 fiscal year Underground Toxic/Contaminated Tank clean-. up/removal project. In our conversation, I explained that we would not be closing out the 1986/87 Fiscal Year tank hardship (see attached letter dated March 18, 1992) . Thus, these costs will be considered as an increase for the project. However, be advised that the availability of additional funds to complete this project, are contingent upon funds being available to the State Alloca ion Board (SAB) . Also, in the Cost Summary and Rate Schedu a prepared by Groundwater Technology there are some costs that are not approvatle under the Deferred Maintenance Program. These costs are: o Project Manager Fees a Administration Cost o Purchase of any type of equipment. o Rental/Lease of any type of equipment. a Any Architect/Engineer Fee over 12% percentage of the removal/replacement cost. a Any Monitoring and Testing after th initial lab test from each monitoring test wells and any testing or monitoring beyond one year from the installation of the equipment. (The district can use their basic participation for any additional cost for testing and monitoring for further years) . The Office of Local Assistance (OLA) cannot concur with the district that the vapor extraction method is the only viable solution to effectively decontaminate the soil . It is the District responsibility to further investigate which method is most cost efficient and complies with all governing laws and regulations, i .e. all State, County, and local ordinances. If this method is deemed legally acceptab e, the bid specifications must be written in a non-restrictive manner disclosing the method of decontamination, but not the specific type of equipment that will be utilized.