The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAPITAL PROJECTS AGENDA 06-02-10Central Contra Sanitary District SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE Chair McGill Member Menesini Wednesday, June 2, 2010 3:00 p.m. Second Floor Conference Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE ON AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS M1CHAfi7. li. MCG7fJ. Presidmf BARBARA 2 HOCKG7T Yresidenl Yrn Tenr CIiRAI.D R. LUCh'Y MAIUO M. Mf:NBSINI JAMB ti A. NIJ7iD1.Y PHONE: (925) 228-9500 FAX: (925) 676-721 / www ronrrnlcnn nro Anyone wishing to address the Committee on an item listed on the agenda will be heard when the Committee Chair calls for comments from the audience. The Chair may specify the number of minutes each person will be permitted to speak based on the number of persons wishing to speak and the time available. After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought [o the Committee for discussion. There is no further comment permitted from the audience unless invited by the Committee. ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE ON AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA In accordance with state law, the Committee is prohibited from discussing items not calendared on the agenda. You may address the Committee on any items not listed on the agenda, and which are within their jurisdiction, under PUBLIC COMMENTS. Matters brought up which are not on the agenda may be referred to stall' for action or calendared on a future agenda. AGENDA REPORTS Supporting materials on Committee agenda items are available for public review a[ the Reception, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez. Reports or information relating to agenda items distributed within 72 hours of the meeting to a majority of the Committee are also available for public inspection at the Reception. During the meeting information and supporting materials are available in the Conference Room. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District to offer its public meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require special accommodations to participate, please contact the Secretary of the District at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 229-7303. ® Recycled Paper Capital Projects Committee May 27, 2010 Page 2 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Public Comments *3. Results of Sewer Renovation and Maintenance Benchmarking Study with other representative agencies (Penny) 4. Update on selected current Capital Projects (Staff) • Dry/Wet Weather Bypass • Seismic Improvements • Other 5. Review of selected closed-out Capital Projects (Staff) • Aeration Air Renovations Phase 2 • Auxiliary Boiler Improvements • Piping Renovations Phase 4 • Control System Improvements • Sewer TV Inspection Program • South Orinda Renovations Phase 4 • Lafayette Renovations Phase 6 • A-Line Phase 2A • Northern Pumping Stations Upgrades • Other 6. Adjournment * Attachment 3, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District May 19, 2010 File: 5547.4.1 TO: BOARD CAPITAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE VIA: JAMES M. KELLY, GENERAL MANAGER ~ g~ ANN FARRELL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEE ING L~ FROM: MICHAEL PENNY, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER /~'f SUBJECT: SEWER CLEANING AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM BENCHMARKING STUDY- RENOVATION PROGRAM FINDINGS In 2008 the District hired RMC Water and Environment to conduct a benchmarking study of sewer rehabilitation programs and cleaning frequency efforts by eight (including CCCSD) agencies in California. The study compared the District's performance with respect to sewer cleaning, inspection, and rehabilitation/renewal and the resulting impacts on system performance as measured by annual sewer overflows per 100 miles of sewerto other agencies. After obtaining results from the first round of the study in 2008 the survey was expanded and five more agencies were added to the survey list in 2009 for a total of thirteen agencies. The results of the survey show that the District is generally in the middle of the field when it comes to cleaning frequency, inspection frequency, current and future renovation rates, and most importantly sewer overflow rate. The purpose of this memo is to focus on our rate of renovation as compared to the agencies we benchmarked with. As we conducted the study, it became evident that agencies had different ways of defining renovation and rehabilitation. In order to ensure comparable results among agencies, the study defined a new term "renewal." Renewal was defined to include both sewer rehabilitation through different lining methods and replacement through methods such as pipe bursting and open cut. As long as the entire pipe asset was restored, it was considered to be renewed. Individual point repairs were not included in the calculation of renewal rates. Below are three figures showing past and future renewal rates and sewer overflow rates for the surveyed agencies. Figure 1 shows the percentage of each agencies system they have renewed in the past 25 years. Of the twelve agencies for which data is available, eight had a renewal rate higher than the District and four had a lower renewal rate. On average the 25 year historical renewal rate was .67 percent of the system per year or three times the Districts rate of .24 percent. Three outliers had a much higher renewal rate than all the other agencies. All three of these agencies have higher than average sewer overflows N:WDMINSUPWDMIN\DIST-SECVNiscellaneous\Benchmark Memo to Board-May 2010.doc per hundred miles and maybe responding to a need for reducing overflows by having a much more aggressive program of renewal. Figure 2 shows the planned renewal rates for each agency over the next ten years. Nine agencies are planning a more aggressive renewal program than the District and three are planning a less aggressive renewal program than the District. On average the agencies are planning a renewal rate for the next ten years of about .8 percent per year compared to the District's plan for a renewal rate of .4 percent per year. While the District's planned renewal rate is in the lower third of the other agencies surveyed, it has increased significantly to about .4 percent per year compared to our historical rate of about .24 percent per year. Figure 3 shows the sanitary sewer overflows per hundred miles for each agency. District staff has updated the sewer overflow rates data with 2008 and 2009 California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) data. The District is in the mid range of agencies surveyed. While we have shown an overall consistent improvement through the years, we still have greater sewer overflows per hundred miles than five of the agencies surveyed. (We believe that the agencies that show a significant uptick in overflow rate in 2008 were underreporting in previous years.) Staff's conclusion from reviewing the information we have collected is that our current renovation program is adequate but not aggressive when compared with other agencies. Staff sees no indication that we are significantly ahead of our peers or can afford to reduce the rate of investment in our sewer renovation program from what we have currently budgeted in the 2010-11 Capital Improvement Budget and Plan which will come to the Board for adoption on June 3, 2010. Attachment N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN\DIST-SEC\Miscellaneous\Benchmark Memo to Board-May 2010.doc Figure 1: Percentage of System Renewed in the Last 25 Years Union San Uistric t ~ Tamalpais CSD Stele San Uistrict Sacramento Area SD Clark Counry'Uti'RD Ciry of Santa Rosa City of San Dieao City of Oakland Ciry of Los Angeles City of Fullerton City of Berkeley City of Antioi h CCCSD ~a~, Figure 2: Percentage of System Planned for Renewal in Next 10 Years t_Mion San District Tamalpais CSD Steae San District Sacramento Area SD Clark tount•~; ''~1;'RD City of Santa Rosa City of San Diego City of Oakland Ciry of Los Angeles Ciry of Fullerton City of Berkeley City of Antioch CCCSD N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN\DIST-SEC1MiscellaneouslBenchmark Memo to Board-May 201D.doc 0`'i, 10''+_, 20'}b 30'x; 40'=\i 50'~~~ 60°a; Figure 3: Comparison of SSO Rates by Agency 30 r -~ o° 25 T L m >,. O ~ 20 N 3 ~ a~ w ~ 0 15 ~ rn ~ y E - z ~ 10 ~a c ~ 5 a 0 CCCSD Union San District Sac ramento A rea SD City of Antioch I City of Santa Rosa City of Fullerton City of Los Angeles ~ Stege San fistrict City of Berkeley City of Oakland City of San Chego Tarr~lpais CSD N:IADMINSUPWDMINIDIST-SEC1Miscellaneous\Benchrnark Memo to Board-May 2010.doc 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2008 - 2009 data tro m CIWQS