Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/2005 AGENDA BACKUPCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: November 10, 2005 No.: 3.a. ITEMS HELD OVER FROM PREVIOUS Type of Action: HUMAN RESOURCES BOARD MEETINGS subject: ADOPT SALARY MODIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIED POSITIONS AS A RESULT OF THE MS /CG SALARY SURVEY. ADOPT AMENDED MS /CG JOB CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS, INCLUDING POSITION OF CHEMIST III, S -71 ($5616- $6794), AND RECLASSIFY TRI NGUYEN AS CHEMIST III. Submitted By: Cathryn Freitas, H. R. Initiating Dept./Div.: Administration /H. R. Manager REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: C. Freitas Argraves General ISSUE: As part of the Side Letter to the Management Support/Confidential Group (MS /CG) Memorandum of Understanding, "A salary survey to be performed in the second year of the agreement will be implemented according to the Board's direction in the third year of the agreement by October 18, 2005." In accordance with the District Code the Board of Directors must adopt salaries and job classification descriptions. RECOMMENDATION: Effective October 18, 2005, adopt the committee's recommended salary adjustments according to the MS /CG salary survey (Attachment 1); adopt the amended job classification descriptions as previously distributed to the Board; create the position of Chemist III; adopt the job classification description of Chemist III, S -71 ($5616- $6794); and appoint TO Nguyen as Chemist Ill. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximate increase of $237,000 in annual MS /CG salary adjustments. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board has total discretion under the MOU Side Letter to consider any recommendation for market adjustments presented by the joint committee. BACKGROUND: A joint committee of MS /CG and management representatives was formed in January 2005 to oversee the survey and make recommendations to the District Board. Chris Casey of Casey and Associates was retained to conduct a salary survey based on market adjustments for benchmark positions in the MS /CG. The joint committee met with Ms. Casey to review the MS /CG job classification descriptions and provide input on the scope and parameters of the survey. Per the Side Letter to the MS /CG M.O.U., five public water and wastewater agencies in the East Bay were surveyed. The median of surveyed salaries was utilized for comparison purposes and positions that deviated five percent or more from the median were considered for market adjustments. The recommendations also considered supervisor- subordinate differentials, and internal equity adjustments. The management representatives and CA)ocuments and Settings \cfreitas\My Documents\mscg sal sur pos ppr cwb 11 -4 -05 Page 1 of 3 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: November 10, 2005 subject. ADOPT SALARY MODIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIED POSITIONS AS A RESULT OF THE MS /CG SALARY SURVEY. ADOPT AMENDED MS /CG JOB CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS, INCLUDING POSITION OF CHEMIST III, S -71 ($5616- $6794), AND RECLASSIFY TRI NGUYEN AS CHEMIST III. MS /CG representatives were to make a joint recommendation through the General Manager to the Board. The Board Personnel Committee, as well as the full Board, received the consultant's report and recommendations, as well as the MS /CG's representatives' alternate recommendations for consideration. At the October 20, 2005 Board meeting, the consultant's recommendations were presented to the Board for approval. MS /CG representatives asked the Board to postpone making any decisions until the November 3, 2005 Board meeting to allow for further discussions at the joint committee level. The joint committee has met twice since October 20th, holding lengthy discussions. As a result, the committee is now able to make a joint recommendation. Those market adjustment recommendations are attached. The amended job classification descriptions were provided to the Board for consideration at the October 6, 2005 Board meeting. They have currently been updated to have a new adoption date of October 18, 2005. During the salary survey, job classification descriptions were reviewed to ensure valid comparisons of salaries, duties and responsibilities. In reviewing the duties and responsibilities of Chemist II Tri Nguyen, it became clear that his job duties differ considerably from other Chemist II's. His job has evolved to focus on sophisticated research techniques and developing methods for ultra -low chemical analysis. He works at the direction of Laboratory Superintendent Bhupinder Dhaliwal on projects which have area -wide significance and are acknowledged by the Regional Board for their innovation and importance to water quality. The work performed by Mr. Nguyen requires a higher level of knowledge, skill and ability than the Chemist II position; therefore, staff recommends that Mr. Nguyen be reclassified to the position of Chemist III. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt the committee's recommendations for salary adjustments according to the MS /CG salary survey to be effective October 18, 2005. Adopt the amended job classification descriptions for MS /CG as previously distributed to the Board for its Oct. 6, 2005 Board meeting. The adoption date for the descriptions has been changed to October 18, 2005. Create the position of Chemist III; adopt the job classification description for Chemist III, S -71 ($5616- $6794), and appoint Tri Nguyen as Chemist III. Page 2 of 3 CADocuments and SettingsWreitaMy Documents\mscg sal sur pos ppr cwb 11 -4 -05 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED MS /CG SALARY SURVEY ADJUSTMENTS CLASSIFICATION EMPLOYEES RECOMMENDATION Associate Control 1 5% Systems Engineer S -77 to S -79 Associate Engineer 10 5% S -77 to S -79 Assistant Engineer 13 2.5% S -72 to S -73 Household Haz. 1 5% Waste Supervisor S -72 to S -74 Chemist 1 /II 5 5% S -67 to S -69 Chemist III 1 10% S -67 to S -71 Community Affairs 2 5% Representative S -68 to S -70 Electrical Shop 1 5% Supervisor S -74 to S -76 Engineering 1 5% Support Supervisor S -74 to S -76 Field Operations 2 7.5% Supervisor S -77 to S -80 Finance 1 5% Administrator S -76 to S -78 Instrument Shop 1 5% Supervisor S -74 to S -76 Land Surveyor 1 2.5% S -75 to S -76 Maintenance 3 5% Supervisor S -73 to S -75 Mechanical 2 5% Supervisor S -71 to S -73 Plant Maintenance 1 2.5% Superintendent S -80 to S -81 Plant Operations 1 2.5% Superintendent S -80 to S -81 Pumping Stations 1 7.5% Superintendent S -77 to S -80 Pumping Stations 2' 5% Supervisor S -71 to S -73 Shift Supervisor 8 7.5% S -73 to S -76 Vehicle and 1 5% Equipment Su r. S -71 to S -73 Total 59 of 90 CADocuments and SettingsWreitasNy DocumentAMSM SAL SUR POS PPR CWB ATT 1 10- 28 -05.DOC Page 3 of 3 4a Capital Planning Workshop November 10, 2005 Why are we here? • Review Capital Program role in District finances • Review purpose and need for Capital Program • Assess current level of revenue and expense • Review new data on revenue and impact on priorities • Set direction for January Board Financial Planning and Policy Workshop • Develop Direction for 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project Authorization • November — Workshop Recommends Program Expenditure Levels • January — Board Financial Planning Workshop Uses Data to Predict Sewer Service Charge Scenarios • April — Workshop Finalizes Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) for Fiscal Year • June — Board Authorizes CIB ■ Board has continued approval role: — For consultant agreements over $50,000 — For award of construction contracts over $15,000 — For project overruns in excess of 15% of project budget at time of construction contract award — For construction change orders over $50,000 Current commitment ■ Baseline Capital Program - $21 million in January 2000 dollars ■ Baseline is now $25 million with inflation @ 3% per year ■ ENR inflation rate has been greater than 3% per year ■ Baseline does not address capacity increases or changing regulations Review of recent Capital Program activity CCCSD Actual Capital Revenue vs. Actual Capital Expenditures $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 1999 -2000 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 —f —Total Actual Capital Revenue 1999100 2000.01 2001.02 2002.03 2003.04 2004.05 Total budgeted expenditures 26.7 M $24.4 M $25.1 M $28.2 M $25.9 M $26.6 M Total actual expenditures $21.3 M $28 M $20.5 M $22.4 M $19.8 M $26.5 M Total actual revenue $21.6 M $18.9 M $17 M $23.5 M $28.2 M $30.0 M Variance + $.3 M - $9 M - $2.5 M + $.9 M + $8.4 M + $3.5 M SCF Balance — 6130105 $58.6 M CCCSD Actual Capital Revenue vs. Actual Capital Expenditures $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 1999 -2000 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 —f —Total Actual Capital Revenue $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 CCCSD Actual Capital Revenue vs. Budgeted Capital Revenue 1999 -2000 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 -Total Actual Capital Revenue (Total Budgeted Capital Revenue Capital revenue discussion • Capital revenue from a number of sources • Recently sources are highly variable • Only discretionary source: sewer service charge F F aa,ECUv 1999 -200D 200001 2OD1-M =-M 200004 2004..05 2006..05 206..06 9�CC Vtal o rpmert $31 $15 $20 $41 $4 $78 $46 $46 SeAoer 9arViceCharge $4600000 $Z2Q000 $3,10Q000 $6,900.000 $8.400000$12104000 $7,000.000 $7,400,000 Ad\"cremmTa ( $Ek50Q000 $6,10QOOD $Q40QOOD $7,700,000 $7,900000 $270,000 $D X00000 C edty $4,900000 $4,10Q000 $4,400,OOD $G100000 $7.60QOOD$1Z -=00D $$200,000$14,404ODD Trial Adual Canal Peaue $21,600000 $18.900000 $17,OOQ0O0 $23,50Q000 $.A20QOOD $3QO0QOOD $X =CK)D $2R 0M $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 0 f CCCSD Projected Capacity Fee Revenue ��oo�o oo�Aoo�p oo� o�Q �t ooro 'A HIV 'ofQr o�N, o��,�o�(Y o ^V oNtr ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti I ti ti Fiscal Year ■ Base Capacity Fee Revenue ■ DV Capacity Fee Revenue RajecladAIW R=nCLnwt (2006) RM . C3aNh 90�W CD01 OU2 CZM 0604 0405 CGQi 0607 07-M C309 O9-10 10,11 11-12 12-13 13-14 1415 15-16 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 c $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 CCCSD Projected Capital Project Expenditures Total Expedited Capacity Expenditures 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 09 -10 10 -11 11 -12 12 -13 13 -14 14 -15 Projected 2005 -06 and 2006 -07 Capital Program activity *SCF Balance beginning FY 2005 -06 (7/1/05) approximately $58.6 M Budgeted 2005.06 Projected 2005 -06 Recommended 2006 -07 Total expenditures $27.7 M $30.9 M $25.0 M baseline $10.3 M capacity projects Total revenue $20.8 M $28.2 M $37.1 M Variance - $6.9 M - $2.7 M + $1.8 M SCF balance * $51.7 M $55.9 M $57.7 M *SCF Balance beginning FY 2005 -06 (7/1/05) approximately $58.6 M FY 2006 -07 Capital Budget by program Program Baseline 2006 -07 expenditures Recommended Total 2006 -07 expenditures Treatment Plant $ 6,200,000 $ 9,800,000 Collection System $ 16,300,000 $ 19,500,000 General Improvements $ 2,200,000 $ 5,700,000 Recycled Water $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Total $ 25,000,000 $ 35,300,000 2006 -07 Major Projects Treatment Plant Service Air Improvements $600,000 POD HVAC Improvements $900,000 UV Disinfection Expansion $1,800,000 Plant Control System Improvements $1,000,000 Wet Weather Bypass Improvements $1,000,000 Chemical Feed Building Renovation $900,000 Standby Power Facilities $1,750,000 Other Projects $1,850,000 Total $9,800,000 2006 -07 Major Projects Collection System Danville Renovation — Phase 1 $1,200,000 North Orinda Renovation — Phase 2 $2,400,000 Walnut Creek Renovations — Phase 4 $1,379,000 Concrete Corrosion M3 (CIPP) $3,000,000 Concrete Corrosion Minert/Akell (CIPP) $1,580,000 Concrete Corrosion St. Mary's (CIPP) $1,350,000 TV Inspection Program $1,350,000 Alhambra Valley Trunk Sewer $1,800,000 Developer Sewers $1,180,000 M4A Force Main Replacement $1,115,000 Other Projects $3,146,000 Total $19,500,000 Concrete Corrosion Study ■ Completed April 2003 ■ Found /completed 4 urgent projects — Orinda Trunk at Camino Pablo (850') — M3 Sag (100') — Contra Costa Boulevard 2 Phases (9,500') — Bancroft Road near BART (600') ■ Crown Spraying to preserve other problem areas ■ 3 lining projects planned for this year: $6 million — Complete M3 — Minert/Akell at Bancroft — St Mary's Road along trail �. r r' 27.3 Ft< 2006-07 Major Projects General Improvements HOB HVAC Improvements CSOD Facility Improvements Other Projects Total 2006 - 07 Major Projects Recycled Water $800,000 $2,700,000 $2,200,000 $5,700,000 All Projects $300,000 M3 Pro ad Area 4TV o Punping St. Mary's J- -A Project Area NTS A ' i W� .,Minert a Arkell Project Area T GntrN cons. Dort. CONCRETE CORROSION PROJECTS LEGEND FY 2005/ 2007 W, GormYOn Prof. 2006-07 Major Projects General Improvements HOB HVAC Improvements CSOD Facility Improvements Other Projects Total 2006 - 07 Major Projects Recycled Water $800,000 $2,700,000 $2,200,000 $5,700,000 All Projects $300,000 Discussion of Significant Capacity Projects Solids Handling Improvements Capacity Primary Sedimentation Tank Expansion Final Phase San Ramon Interceptor Concord Segment A -Line Interceptor 60 50 0 c7 f 40 30 Projected ADVUF From Current (2005) Planned Growth $14M $11M $4M $7M 9300 00-01 01 -02 02 -03 03-04 0405 05-06 0607 07 -08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11 -12 12 -13 13-14 14-15 15-16 FISCALVEAR -+- HSTORCAMW -0- FLMJ: EAaIAFL0WGVV t FURFEADA&AVE GIN - t- FURIiEAUW -FK IGN -0 -8: LIENTOIS - ARMI -W Primary Sedimentation Capacity Secondary Treatment Primary Sedimentation 50 mgd Independent Process 64 mgd Primary Sedimentation 59 mgd Secondary Treatment 59 mgd Coupled Process Primary Sedimentation Capacity Issues ■ Overflow rates much higher than standard practice ■ Coupled process derates secondary treatment ■ Oxidation of extra solids in secondary costs money • Primary solids have higher fuel value • Wet weather primary sedimentation capacity taxed ■ One unit out of service in wet weather is a problem Primary Sedimentation Tanks A - Line Relief Interceptor Sedimentation Tanks `/ WIWNTP C. CO_ NTY AW Concord Segment A - Line Relief Interceptor Inv =12.0 Inv =3.6 San Ramon Schedule C Interceptor NT Inv =8.8 BUCHANAN SOUTH Inv =12.4 BUCHANAN NORTH Inv =6.3 Inv =0.0 Liam FASTM — IPN,ROR Summary /Conclusions ■ Capacity fee revenue at all time high ■ Intended to fund needed capacity projects ■ Expedite needed capacity projects to take advantage of one time capacity fee revenue from Dougherty Valley ■ Board must award construction contracts..... if financial picture changes, projects deferred Central Contra Costa Sanitary District November 3, 2005 TO: HONORAB BO R OF DIRECTORS FROM: ANNE. FA R D E T�?R OF ENGINEERING SUBJECT: FY 2006 -07 1 CAPITAL PLANNING WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION In preparation for the Board Capital Planning Workshop on November 10, 2005, 1 have summarized the material we will be covering in this memo. If you have questions, this information, with additional detail, will be reviewed in the workshop. As you may recall, we routinely hold a Capital Planning Workshop in the fall to set an estimated dollar amount for our capital program for the following ten years. We have found this approach to be very helpful in narrowing the scenarios and considerations for the January Financial Planning Workshop in which the Board this year will be asked to confirm the rate setting scenario adopted two years ago of a 3% rate increase. By fixing the level of capital expenditures, approximately one third of District overall spending, the possible budgeting scenarios become more limited and understandable. If the scenarios in January lead to some concerns about capital revenue and expenditures, adjustments can be made at that time and incorporated into the draft Capital Improvement Budget and Plan, which is brought to the Board in a second FY 2006 -07 Capital Planning Workshop in April. BASELINE RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM In January 2000, staff established a baseline for investment in our capital facilities based on replacement every one hundred years. At that time the total replacement value of our facilities was estimated at $2.1 billion and the annual investment was set at $21 million. This amount was then increased for inflation at 3% per year. This is a modest increase as building costs have increased approximately 10% per year over the last two years. This 3% annual increase brings the suggested reinvestment for renewal and replacement of existing assets to $25 million for the next fiscal year, year 2006 -07. Expenditures for significant projects to increase capacity would be in addition to this baseline renewal and replacement program, as would projects to address changing regulations. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Since fiscal year 1999 -00, District capital spending has ranged from a low of $19.8 million in 2002 -03 to a currently projected high of $30.8 million for the current fiscal year, 2005 -06. This wide variation was due in large part to the conscious effort to defer projects in fiscal years 2001 -02 through 2003 -04 when the permanent loss of ad valorem tax was feared. During this same time period District capital revenue has also varied significantly, as shown in the following figures. This variation is due to changes in three revenue sources, ad valorem tax, Dougherty Valley capacity fees and the capital component of the sewer service charge. The capital component of the sewer service charge is the one revenue source that is controlled by the District. Each year this is adjusted to attempt to match revenues to planned expenditures. In some years adjustments have been made to reduce the capital component of the Sewer Service Charge to avoid increasing rates. In fiscal years 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 there was a sharp increase in capital revenue due to the unanticipated rapid build out of the Dougherty Valley. On average, our efforts to match capital revenues to expenditures have been extraordinarily accurate. Over the six years shown on the figures, the average annual revenue was $23,200,000 and the average annual expenditures were $23,100,000, a less than 1 % difference. Our average budgeted revenue was $21,600,000 as compared to average actual revenues of $23,200,000. Thus over the six year period we have underestimated revenue by about 7 %. This shortfall is understandable since prudent management would call for being conservative in estimating revenues. In conclusion, while there have been annual swings in capital expenditures and revenue, on average the District has done a remarkable job of matching expenditures with revenues. PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06 EXPENDITURES /REVENUES Last year at this time we suggested an additional $3 million per year in expenditures for the next three years, over the then baseline of $24.3 million. This recommendation was to fund some needed capacity projects, including the expansion of the ultra violet disinfection facilities, a wet weather discharge point to increase the wet weather discharge capacity, and study and implementation of improvements to increase furnace capacity. When this recommendation was made it was assumed that Dougherty Valley facility capacity fee revenues would accumulate gradually over a ten or more year period. Because capacity fee revenues are intended to fund needed capacity projects, staff recommended expenditures above the baseline budget to take advantage of these one -time capacity fee revenues. Our current projections are that the Dougherty Valley revenues are and will continue to come in much faster than anticipated. For this reason, we are again expecting actual revenues to exceed budgeted revenues this year and have accelerated expenditures on several projects in an attempt to match revenues with expenditures. In particular, the entire Vessing project was bid this year, adding $1.5 million to the original budget for that project, the Alhambra Valley trunk sewer project is being expedited to begin construction this fiscal year and the Solids Conditioning Building HVAC project was expedited to bid and will be substantially complete this fiscal year. Total projected expenditures for fiscal year 2005 -06 are currently estimated at $30.8 million N d L d CL x W c� CL N U v Q N ca U N 7 V Q V V A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M N N — 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0 6 O O N O O O N O O r O 69 CA a-+ C Q. x W .Q ca U W U Q 0 H N C N N W :L- CL cu U is Q' 0 F- a x w 06 m U Q O O N C C f0 E O w m (0 CL U m U O O U- a O N co O O O N N r a� I � rn m 0 o 6 0_ 4 CD m N Q c6 N U c o N N N LL MO N Q �_ m U C (0 E O •Q a N m ~ U O co ui co CO = C? � LO O O N Gi > CD N N N �- N i V O m ev oo U d••+ Q O N m 0 ' Q _ M V o N i O O O O O O O O O O O C) 69t O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O In O Ul O M) O In M M N N — — 69. EA 69k EA 1 A Efi EA REVENUE PROJECTIONS SUGGEST INCREASED EXPENDITURES As discussed above, the Dougherty Valley will build out at a much faster rate than expected and this one time influx of approximately $55 million in revenue will probably come in over a four to five year period. This one time capacity fee revenue is required by law to be spent on the facilities necessary to accommodate this capacity. A projection of capacity fee revenue is shown in the following figure. It is important to note that connections in locations other than the Dougherty Valley have significantly decreased in number due to the build out in the rest of the District. Thus, after build out of the Dougherty Valley, facility capacity fees are expected to decrease dramatically. For this reason, staff feels it is critical to direct the approximately $55 million in one -time Dougherty Valley revenues to those capacity projects that will ultimately be needed to accommodate this growth. In light of this information, staff is asking for the flexibility to accelerate some significant needed capacity projects in the CIB schedule. The rationale surrounding this request will be discussed in the following sections of this memo. SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR PLANNED GROWTH The last comprehensive analysis of collection and treatment capacity needs was completed in November of 2001 as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project. This project established the treatment plant capacity required for the then planned growth at 53.8 mgd average dry weather flow and the treatment plant was re -rated to this capacity during the NPDES permit renewal process. The rate at which we approach this plant capacity will depend on weather patterns and the rate of ground water infiltration we experience during the summer months. This infiltration is influenced both by the height of the groundwater and the condition of the collection system. The second figure following this page shows the range of potential flow increase rates, depending on whether groundwater infiltration is high or low. Under the high groundwater scenario, treatment plant capacity will be approached within the ten year planning horizon. In order to accommodate the planned growth, a number of capacity projects are needed which have been scheduled towards the end of the ten - year plan or just outside of the ten -year window. The capacity fee revenue being collected from the Dougherty Valley connections is intended to fund such capacity projects. Needed capacitv Proiects include: Project Cost Final Phase of San Ramon Interceptor (Dougherty Valley flows $4 million Capacity Improvements to Solids Handling Facilities $14 million Expansion of Primary Sedimentation Tanks $11 million Completion of A -line Interceptor Buchanan to Meridian $7 million Subtotal $36 million Completion of A -line Interceptor Meridian to Y nacio $41 million Total $77 million d d d w d 4) LL v m Q cc V V 4) V d .O L 0- U V A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 C Ct 0 °o °o °o °o °o Co Co °o C 0 0 0 0 Ct 0 0 c0 N O o0 c0 It N ER t4 Eli 69 E9 69 ER Eii 9y, zO c' �O c' A2" zO c' �O 2 �O 01- OAS Op 6p8 N OV } N SO. LL 00 9ps 00c- SpX Op 2 A ol Op z COQ, Op z col 04-1 X00 Op z 006' e 0 0� El} () c a) Q a) CD LL U cc Q. M ■ W C CD W w W LL U M C- CU a) ca m ■ c� U I Y c N E 0 4 LO O N 0 m a� N LL a- m U 2 U (D .O d a 0) r N N r t 3 0 ♦L^ V w� W FL Y 0 0 N i L L V E O L LL Ll. Q W V ■O L a 0 0 0 0 co U-) � M Q Dw Lo v M co N N r r O r 0 O rn O ao ° a o w C) } � J C) Q U cn � LL O O O O Lo 0 Lo 0 v 0 0 m 0 M O N O N 0 0 0 a 0 0 O O i ui a LL ° Q w H D LL H J V, w C� Q O = J U U) o° Q � w Z W w D J H U- LL w I C� 2 C� w = LL Q ° U Q w O� H C/) ~ 2 LL f f In addition, improvements to the Collection System Operations Division (CSOD) corporation yard are essential to maintaining responsive service, especially to the furthermost part of the District, the Dougherty Valley, and should logically be funded from Dougherty Valley Revenues when the Board and staff have reached consensus on the scope of the project. These improvements are expected to cost in the range of $10 million. PRELIMINARY (NOT APPROVED) PLANS WILL REQUIRE ADDED CAPACITY We recently received information from both the cities of Concord and Walnut Creek that they will be increasing their ultimate planned populations above the figures provided to us in 2001 General Plans. These increases are in the preliminary planning stages. In particular, Concord is proposing to develop sections of the Naval Weapons Station for an additional build -out population currently estimated at 33,000. This equates to approximately 3.4 mgd average dry weather flow. Because much of this development may occur within the City of Concord service area, the District may not have the benefit of collecting the connection fees and may have to rely on the contract's flow proportional reimbursement of capital project costs to recoup any needed expenditures. Walnut Creek is updating their General Plan and is planning densification projects that will add approximately 10,000 persons for an approximate 1 mgd increase in average dry weather flow. So, with these two changes alone, the ultimate needed dry weather capacity under high groundwater conditions will increase to 58.2 mgd. It is expected that other cities in the service area will experience similar densification in future General Plans. Thus, it is probable that densification and new development will increase the rate of growth and the current rated capacity of 53.8 mgd will be approached more quickly than currently projected. In fact the rate of growth since the 2001 capacity project E I R was completed has been 50% greater than projected in that document. Therefore, expediting needed capacity projects to take advantage of the increased Dougherty Valley revenues and have facilities in place when required, is necessary and reasonable. RECOMMENDED TEN YEAR PLAN FY 2006 -07 TO FY 2015 -16 Staff has developed a ten -year capital expenditure plan which budgets for a baseline of $25 million per year to fund renovation, renewal and replacement projects for a ten -year total of $250 million in 2006 dollars. Staff has supplemented this baseline with approximately $40 million in needed capacity expenditures between fiscal years 2006- 07 and 2011 -12, as shown in the following figure. This is the period of time over which the Dougherty Valley revenues of approximately $55 million are expected to come in to District coffers. Thus the Dougherty Valley revenues can be used to directly fund needed capacity improvements, as intended by the capacity fee program. The capacity projects included are the completion of the San Ramon interceptor, the capacity improvements to the incinerators, the primary sedimentation tank expansion, and the portion of the A -line from Concord to Martinez. In addition, funds for CSOD corporation yard facility improvements are still being budgeted, as discussed in last year's capital i Cl) a) i M ' M Q N mom T— N � x w L C14 cu 'C � cu U a) W V ° X d 'p I w L a 0 ; v CD 0� a L L a 0 X w V ° cu a. U ° ° c a U V I aD co o c — o cn cu m °0 °0 00 °0 °0 °0 00 °0 0° 0 C 0 0 CC 0 C 0 ui o vi o ui o L o i 14t tt M M N T— T- 69 69 69 6q 6F} 69 69 6F} 6F} suo!II!W ul plan. This leaves the remainder of the A -line, approximately $41 million, as one of the few remaining potential capacity expenditures not included in the current ten year plan. Staff resources will be taxed by increasing the rate of expenditures and it is anticipated that use of consultants will be increased, particularly on the large capacity projects. It should be noted that projects to meet new regulatory requirements are not currently budgeted. As you know, the mercury TMDL which staff developed in cooperation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and which established mercury effluent limits that we felt we could possible meet, was not approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The RWQCB has been sent back to work and instructed to come back with a stricter interpretation of the TMDL which will likely result in effluent limits that will be difficult to meet. Therefore, there will likely be a substantial project required to remove mercury within the next five years. Staff is continuing to evaluate possible treatment options and will be developing budgetary figures over the next year. When these figures are available, they will be presented to the Board and incorporated into the capital plan, either during this budgetary cycle or the next. It is anticipated the cost will be in the millions of dollars and would be an appropriate use for any remaining Dougherty Valley revenues not committed to needed capacity projects. RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2006 -07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND 2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The recommended fiscal year 2006 -07 Capital Improvement Budget includes $25 million for baseline renewal and replacement projects and an additional $10.3 million for needed capacity projects for a total recommended expenditure of $35.3 million. The allocation of the recommended $35.3 million among the four programs is as follows: Program Baseline Capacity Addition Total Treatment Plant $6,200,000 $3,600,000 $9,800,000 Collection System $16,300,000 $3,200,000* $19,500,000 General Improvements $2,200,000 $3,500,000 $5,700,000 Recycled Water $300,000 1 $0 1 $300,000 Total 1 $25,000,000 1 $10,300,000 1 $35,300,000 *Includes $1.4 million for Alhambra Valley Trunk Sewer. Staff will be working to develop the detailed budget document using the above preliminary figures as modified by the November 2005 and January 2006 Board Workshops. Many of the projects have already been defined. Others will evolve and emerge as we prepare the budget document over the next six months in anticipation of the second Board Capital Workshop in April 2006, when the detailed draft Capital Improvement Budget is reviewed with the Board. The proposed 2006 Capital Improvement Plan will include the baseline renovation projects as well as some of the large needed capacity projects over the next six years while the Dougherty Valley revenues are available. The types of large projects we are including under capacity addition take many years to plan, design and construct. The Board will have opportunities to approve these projects at many steps along the way. If the funding picture changes, project bidding and construction can be deferred. Staff recommends proceeding with the planning and design phases of these needed projects and constructing them if the Dougherty Valley revenue comes in at the anticipated escalated rate. A discussion of the capacity projects that have been recommended for funding over the next several years follows. TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM EXPEDITED CAPACITY PROJECTS The two projects in the Treatment Plant Program that are recommended for expediting are described below: Solids Handling Facility Capacity Improvements The results of the Solids Handling Facilities Plan were discussed with the Board at a previous Board meeting. This plan looked at the existing solids handling facilities to determine what capacity improvements were needed in order to treat ultimate solids quantities. It determined that there are capacity constraints with some of the existing solids feed equipment, particularly the pumps that feed sludge cake to the furnaces, which will require modification. There are also modifications to the furnace required to bring the capacity from the existing operational capacity of 50 dry tons per day to the permitted capacity of 55 dry tons per day. Finally, the facilities to accommodate any emergency or non - routine operations caused by equipment failure are limited. A truck loading station with the ability to add lime should be constructed that can be operated routinely if needed, and contracts should be put in place with EBMUD and a landfill to take dewatered sludge in the event of an incinerator failure or a surge in solids that exceeds the capacity of any element of the solids processing train. The total estimated expenditures to accomplish these improvements are approximately $14 million. Expenditures: 2006/07 $100,000 Design 2007/08 $4,200,000 Design and Construction 2008/09 $2,800,000 Construction 2009/10 $3,500,000 Construction 2010/11 $3,500,000 Construction Primary Sedimentation Tank Expansion The capacity of the primary sedimentation tanks was evaluated as part of the September 1999 Plant Capacity Analysis which supported the November 2001 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project. This project established the plant capacity at 53.8 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF). The capacity analysis initially established Sedimentation Tanks z le o 30 60 FEET Central Contra Costa Sanitary District PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANKS the primary capacity at 50 mgd ADWF with all units in service and 37 mgd ADWF with one of the four units out of service. Thus, using standard design assumptions, the primaries were not able to accommodate the plant capacity increase to 53.8 mgd ADWF. In addition, the primary sedimentation tanks are very highly loaded during wet weather and provide very little solids removal during wet weather flow conditions. If a unit needed to be taken out of service during wet weather, operations would be severely compromised and discharge of sewage to the ponds would be likely. The analysis of ADWF capacity went on to re -rate the primaries based on a coupling with the aeration basins. This approach assumed that, due to extra capacity in the aeration basins, solids could be allowed to overflow the primaries and be treated in the aeration basins. This approach effectively increased the rated capacity of the primaries and decreased the capacity of the aeration basins to a coupled ADWF capacity of 59 mgd. While this is not ideal, it allowed the recertification of the primaries to 59 mgd ADWF to accommodate the plant capacity re- rating to 53.8 mgd ADWF, without constructing a primary expansion. This coupling assumption reduced the aeration capacity from 64 mgd to 59 mgd ADWF and added the operational cost of aerating the additional solids. From an operations standpoint, it is simpler and more cost effective to remove the solids in the primary sedimentation tanks and send them to the incinerators, where they have a fuel value, rather than to oxidize them in the secondary treatment system. The expansion of the primary sedimentation tanks was then deferred into the future outside of the ten -year planning window. In order to maximize the treatment efficiency of the secondary treatment system and to return the primary sedimentation tanks to acceptable design criteria using traditional operations, it is recommended that the additional two primary sedimentation tanks needed in the future be expedited (see following figure). This addition would increase primary sedimentation capacity to 75 mgd ADWF with all units in service and 62.5 mgd ADWF with one unit out of service. This will also greatly improve primary sedimentation performance and reliability during wet weather. Expenditures: 2008/09 $250,000 Design 2009/10 $3,000,000 Design and Construction 2010/11 $3,000,000 Construction 2011/12 $4,500,000 Construction COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM EXPEDITED CAPACITY PROJECTS The two capacity projects in the Collection System Program that are recommended for expediting are described below. San Ramon Interceptor Schedule C The final phase of the San Ramon Interceptor Project will involve construction of 7200 feet of 36 thru 42 -inch gravity line from Norris Canyon Road (San Ramon) to St. James Court (Danville). The alignment of the interceptor will follow the old Southern Pacific Railroad corridor and will necessitate the temporary relocation /closure of the Iron Horse Trail (see attached map). Included in this project is the installation of two new 250 HP pumps at the San Ramon Pumping Station. Both the gravity line and pumps are necessitated at this time to accommodate the faster than expected connection rate in the Dougherty Valley. Expenditures: 2006/07 $ 250,000 Design 2007/08 $3,500,000 Construction A -Line Relief Interceptor Concord The District's 2000 Collection System Master Plan identified a future need to parallel the existing A -Line Relief Interceptor to provide wet weather capacity. The project would require the installation of approximately 36,500 feet of 66 thru 102 -inch concrete pipe. In 1995 the first phase of the A -Line Relief Interceptor was completed from the treatment plant to Buchanan Fields Golf Course. The construction entailed the installation of approximately 6400 feet of 102 -inch concrete pipe. Phase 2A of the A -Line Relief Interceptor would extend the interceptor from Buchanan Fields Golf Course 3150 feet to the intersection of Meridian Park Boulevard and Galaxy Way (Concord) (see attached map). To reduce traffic impacts on Concord Avenue and Meridian Park Boulevard and financial impacts on Buchanan Fields Golf Course, a significant portion of the line will be tunneled. The new 96 -inch concrete pipe will be installed at an elevation that will allow the City of Concord to connect to the District's system by gravity, thus eliminating the Concord Pumping Station. The Phase 2A extension will also allow the District to eliminate the existing North and South Buchanan Fields Pumping Stations. The construction cost of this reach of the A -Line is estimated at $5,500,000 with another $1,000,000 for design and construction management. Additional funds will be expended in Right -of -Way acquisition costs and loss of business claims from the Golf Course. Expenditures: 2006/07 $ 500,000 Design $ 300,000 Right-of-Way 2007/08 $6,000,000 Construction Total Project cost for all of the Remaining A -Line Relief Interceptor is estimated at $48,000,000 (includes Phase 2A above). To B LJ (' r-"\, CROW .q,/ S 1 f 3 1\ COURSE i O NORRIS CAI Connection To Existing San Ramon m Force Main cn N.T.S. =I Central Contra Costa z Sanitary District V 7 L L v EXECUTIVE PARKWAY 1 G O IROP Lt�' $ Og �Il j � _ 3 I A y, Z O COD CEP op ` CAMN A N •'� Z �i1 sr-�rt� • • 'r 5 L U { CAL K°s A 1\ COURSE �M 0 �N r� j(g UUL --'L-' ���Wgy"'q �"ZSLI LEGEND: ESTERO DR EXISTING D San Ramon FORCE MAN PROPOSED 1 s�i Connection Point � INTERCEPTOR PINE LLEY�— TT"��RD ,r ll�f Fi MIDDLE SCHOOL SAN RAMON SCHEDULE C INTERCEPTOR WWTP I 1. az a Cl�%'C _ BU FFIIEAL�AN PUMPING STATIONS j I 1 VET j� i SUCH FIELD �T 'j �� G04IC URSE J CONCORD �j J ;PUMPING ,ARD STATION H 11 I� p C 0 LEGEND: PHASE 1 u (EXISTING) — - PHASE 2A (PROPOSED) °u 0 2500 — J o IFBOYD RD !� ;% FUTURE E FEET - u n Central Contra Costa Sanitary District q s ' A - LINE RELIEF INTERCEPTOR a GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM EXPEDITED CAPACITY PROJECTS Collection System Operations Division Corporation Yard Improvements District staff and the Board have been involved in a discussion of the future of the Collection System Operations Division (CSOD) Corporation Yard improvements for over two years. While there is consensus that the facilities need to be improved, agreement has not been reached on the appropriate facilities and cost. Staff is currently working on refining and reducing the cost of the staff recommended option. We are studying the footprint of the building to attempt to reduce square footage. We are also doing a more thorough civil analysis to look at how the site work costs can be reduced. In parallel with this effort, the documents necessary to obtain a lease from Cal Trans for parking are being processed. The civil analysis of the site is incorporating the preparation of the detailed grading design documents, which need to be submitted to Cal Trans. The new CSOD Division Manager is being brought into the process to provide a fresh look and assist in developing cost reduction strategies. Staff is planning to bring our findings back to the Board in the next month to two months. As discussed with the Board, building costs have increased by approximately 20% since our original estimate of $10,000,000 was developed. Therefore, staff is continuing to carry an estimate of $10,000,000 for this project in the Capital Plan, anticipating that any cost savings achieved may be offset by increasing building costs. Expenditures: 2006/07 $3,500,000 Design and Construction 2007/08 $4,000,000 Construction 2008/09 $2,500,000 Construction SUMMARY We have a historical opportunity and obligation to make wise use of the capacity fee revenues coming into the District from the extremely rapid build out of the Dougherty Valley. There are a series of needed capacity improvements to support this growth and other planned growth in our service area. The time to make these improvements is now, when the revenue is available. Staff if proposing to develop a ten year plan that includes these needed capacity improvements and matches expenditures with revenue in order to make appropriate use of these additional revenues. We look forward to further discussing this recommendation and some of the specific needed projects at the November 10, 2005 Capital Improvement Budget Workshop.