The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAPITAL PROJECTS ACTION SUMMARY 04-06-11J� Central Contra Costa Sanitary District SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE ACTION SUMMARY Chair McGill Member Hockett Wednesday, April 6, 2011 3:00 p.m. 2 Floor Conference Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California B0.4RD OFDIRECTORS BARB. iR4 D. HOCKETT President J�111IES _ 4. NEJEDLY President Pro Tem A11CH.IEL R. 1SCGILL :1 L IRIO:1I :1 1ENTESIA7 DAi7DR. fT7LLIdDIS PHME: (925) 228 -9500 F_II: (925) 676-7211 www. centralsan. or g PRESENT: Mike McGill, Barbara Hockett, Jim Kelly, Ann Farrell, Randy Musgraves, Ba Than, Margaret Orr, Tad Pilecki, Alex Rozul, Andrew Antkowiak, Gail Chesler, Earlene Millier, Dana Lawson, Melody LaBella, Tom Godsey, Mark Greenawalt, Jarred Miyamoto- Mills, Curt Swanson, Christina Gee 1. Call Meeting to Order Chair McGill called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 2. Public Comments None. *3. Review and provide comments on Draft 2011 -2012 Capital Improvement Budget and Ten -Year Plan (CIB /CIP) Director of Engineering Ann Farrell presented a slideshow reviewing the draft 2011 -2012 CIB /CIP (attached). She stated that the total Fiscal Year 2011 -2012 expenditure recommendations total $25,914, 000 and noted that $3 million in expenditures for anticipated planning and design work to comply with Section 129 incinerator regulations has been removed from the Treatment Plant Program. Ms. Farrell reviewed the budgeted revenue for 2011 -2012 and stated that the estimated RUE of 800 may be optimistic, given the current construction Capital Projects Committee April 6, 2011 Page 2 and economic climate, which would result in less Sewer Construction Revenues than the estimated $22,246, 000. Ms. Farrell noted that the Board action required in June will be to authorize $29,797,000 to fund the Treatment Plant, Collection System, General Improvements and Recycled Water Programs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the CIB /CIP. 4. Review and provide comments on Draft 2011 -2012 Information Technology Development Plan (included in General Improvements Section of CIB /CIP) Information Technology Administrator Mark Greenawalt presented a summary of the Draft 2011 -2012 Information Technology Development Plan (attached). The proposed budget for new projects is about $602, 000, which, when coupled with the carryover allocations for outstanding projects, equals $1,279, 000 in total estimated expenditures. Director of Administration Randy Musgraves noted that the proposed Sungard Public Sector (HTE) One Solution software implementation, estimated at $100,000, is a significant upgrade. He stated that the Administration Department plans to perform a thorough analysis of the software, which debuted six months ago, including sending District staff to a One Solution conference in May to test the program and develop contacts with other agencies. Member Hockett questioned if there was a way for field workers to communicate with District offices beyond a phone call, and if there would be a way to track this communication. General Manager Jim Kelly stated that staff would look into the possibility. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the Draft 2011 -2012 Information Technology Development Plan. *5. Provide comments on suggested format for Executive Summary of the Capital Improvement Budget and Ten -Year Plan Ms. Farrell reviewed the draft Executive Summary (attached), adding that staff will continue to edit the document before distributing it to the full Board at the CIB /CIP Workshop on April 14, 2011. She noted that a discussion of the proposed rate increase as well as the sewer service charge comparison table has been added to the basic format used last year. She also invited the Committee to submit any comments they would like incorporated before submission to the full Board by Monday, April 11, 2011. COMMITTEE ACTION: Provided initial comments. Capital Projects Committee April 6, 2011 Page 3 *6. Discuss key projects for 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program. This item for information only. Staff presented a slideshow outlining the key projects (attached). • Use of Greenhouse Gas Model of District Operations for Decision Making Assistant Engineer Melody LaBella stated that staff has developed a model which incorporates energy consumption and green house gas generation and can be used to compare different treatment scenarios. Staff will be adding a capital and operating cost component to the model and will be using it to compare three possible solids handling approaches. These approaches include continuing with multiple hearth incinerators, converting to fluidized bed incinerators or converting to anaerobic digestion. Ms. Farrell noted that even though the change to Section 129 of the Clean Air Act will not require a significant new investment in the multiple hearth incinerators, there are still significant expenditures that will be required in the next ten years in these facilities. Therefore, staff believes the work on comparing solids handling alternatives should be completed and consensus reached on the District's future approach to solids handling. • Long Range Planning to Consider Next Generation Wastewater Treatment Environmental Services Division Manager Curt Swanson stated that staff is proposing an innovative approach to treatment plant planning to look twenty - five to fifty years in the future to see conceptually if the District should be making a significant investment in upgrading /renovating current facilities or considering new treatment approaches. He noted that trends in the industry are toward anaerobic and fixed film treatment and generally toward an energy neutral or even energy positive process. He stated that the District is planning to hold a planning competition providing a participation honorarium to prequalified consultants who submit a concept for the District's next generation treatment facility. Staff will then evaluate the concepts and consider if they should be incorporated into the District's long -term plan for the treatment plant. COMMITTEE ACTION: Discussed the projects. Member Hockett left the meeting at 4:10 p.m., after which Chair McGill adjourned the meeting and received the reports on the remaining projects below: Capital Projects Committee April 6, 2011 Page 4 • Primary Sedimentation Tank Renovations • Seismic Retrofit of District Buildings • Treatment Plant Asset Management • Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer • Other 7. Reports and Announcements 8. Suggestions for future agenda items 9. Adjournment — at 4:10 p.m. Capital Projects Committee April 6, 2011 _ �CD Capital Improvement Budget Summary for 1=Y 2011 -12 d� I 1 Estimated Estlmated Estimated Total Program FY 2011 -12 Carry -over Allocation FY 2011 -12 Program from Prior F1.2011 -12 Proposed Expenditures Fiscal Year Authorization Treatment $7,082,000 $3,134,200 $5,141,000 $8,275,200 Plant Collection $12,840,000 $2,017,000 $10,909,000 $12,926,000 System General $5,442,000 $4,024,000 $3,952,000 $7,976,000 Improvements Recycled Water $550,000 $405,000 $215,000 $620,000 Total $25,914,000 $9,580,000 $20,217,000 $29,797,000 FY 2011/12 d� I 1 i FY 2011 -12 Expenditure Recommendations* EXPENDITURES (% Capital Program) FY 2011 -12 Treatment Plant $7,082,000 (27 %) Collection System $12,840,000 (50 %) General Improvements $5,442,000 (21 %) Recycled Water $550,000 (2 %) TOTAL FY 2011 -12 EXPENDITURES $25,914,000 (100 %) 'Note that $3 million in expenditures for complying with 129 Incinerator Regulations has been removed from Treatment Plant Program resulting in total expenditures less than $29 million suggested baseline. FY 2011 -12 Large Project Expenditures Treatment Plant Program PROJECT 2011 -12 Total Project Expenditures Cost Primary Treatment Renovation* $750,000 $6,540,000 Auxiliary Bowler Burner Upgrades $750,000 $855,000 Pump and Blower Building Seismic $1,000,000 $2,155,000 Upgrades* Outfall Inspection and Renovation $685,000 1,085,000 Piping Renovations Phase 6 $1,000,000 $1,145,000 Protective Coatings Phase 4 $725,000 $835,000 Total Treatment Plant Projects< $2,172,000 NA $685,000 Total Treatment Plant Program $7,082,000 NA *Presentation to follow. E 6 $146 million (42 %) of the Ten Year Capital Improvement Program of $345 million is dedicated to Treatment Plant. Includes $63 million (18% of CIP) for Treatment Plant Renovation Projects. Includes $71 million (20% of CIP) for Nitrification to respond to new regulatory requirements. 1=Y 2011 -12 Large Project Expenditures Collection System Program PROJECT 2011 -12 Expenditures Total Project Cost Walnut Creek Sewer Renovations Phase 8 $1,800,000 $2,149,700 South Orinda Sewer Renovations Phase 5 $1,800,000 $2,167,800 Lafayette Sewer Renovations Phase 7 $1,790,000 $2,113,600 TV Inspection Program $500,000 NA Pleasant Hill Road Lafayette Capacity Impvmnts $1,900,000 $2,411,000 Grayson Creek Pleasant Hill Capacity Impvmnts* $500,000 $3,100,000 San Ramon Pumping Station Upgrades $549,000 $579,000 Contractual Assessment Districts $500,000 NA 201142 Development Sewerage $500,000 NA Total Collection System Projects <$500,000 $3,001,000 NA Total Collection System Program $12,840,000 NA 'Presentation to follow 3 $172 million (50 %) of the Ten Year Capital Improvement Program of $345 million is dedicated to Collection System. Includes $120 million (35% of CIP) for Collection System Renovation Projects. Includes $14 million (4% of CIP) for Pumping Station Renovation and Capacity Projects. FY 2011 -12 Expenditures Recycled Water Program* PROJECT 201142 Total Project Expenditures cost Zone 1 Recycled Water Continued $310,000 NA Expansion Total Remaining Recycled Water Projects including Industrial Concepts $240,000* NA Planning and Concord Naval Weapons Station Total Recycled Water Program $550,000 NA 'Note that Concord Landscape Irrigation and Martinez Refinery �I Recycled Water Projects are budgeted only for planning activities. 11 4 FY 2011 -12 Large Project Expenditures General Improvements Program PROJECT 2011 -12 Expenditures Total Project Cost CSOD Facility Improvements $2,025,000 $13,654,100 Seismic Improvements for HOB* $510,000 $2,523,000 Vehicles and Equipment Acquisition $891,000 NA Information Technology Development* $602,000 NA Total General Improvements Projects < $560,000 $1,414,000 NA Total General Improvements Program: $5,442,000 NA Presentation to follow. FY 2011/12 Sewer Construction Fund Revenues SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND REVENUE W /$30 SSC Increase Facility Capacity & Pumped Zone Fees (800 RUE) $4,934,000 Interest $265,000 Property Taxes $6,882,000 Sewer Service Charges $6,534,000 City of Concord $2,549,000 All Other $1,082,000 TOTAL REVENUE $22,246,000 FY 2011/12 Capital Cash Flow Estimate Capital Program Cash Flow Residential Unit Equivalents (RUES) Connected by Fiscal Year nou $22,246,000 Total Budgeted Expenditures $25,914,000 Negative Variance - $3,668,000 Estimated SCF Balance June 30, 2012 $50.2 M Iwo �xo Imo qy Q 1 vc - ear soo 0 JULY µ1G SEPT OGi Y JUN — 2006 -0] — zoo] -06 G - 200e -09 — 2009 -10 — 201041 w FY 2011/12 Capital Cash Flow Estimate Capital Program Cash Flow Revenue Includes $30 SSC Increase Total Budgeted Revenue $22,246,000 Total Budgeted Expenditures $25,914,000 Negative Variance - $3,668,000 Estimated SCF Balance June 30, 2012 $50.2 M `Assumes projected beginning SCF Balance $53.9 M 6 Capital Improvement Budget Summary for FY 2011 -12 7 Estimated Estimated Estimated Total Program FY 2011 -12 Carry -over Allocation FY 2011 -12 Program from Prior FY 2011 � Proposed Expenditures Fiscal Year Authorization Treatment Plant $7,082,000 $3,134,200 $5,141,000 $8,275,200 Collection System $12,840,000 $2,017,000 $10,909,000 $12,926,000 General $5,442,000 $4,024,000 $3,952,000 $7,976,000 Improvements Recycled Water $550,000 $405,000 $215,000 $620,000 Total $25,914,000 $9,580,000 $20,217,000 $29,797,000 FY 2011/32 7 w Information Technology Development Capital Improvement Budget Plan 2011 -2012 Proposed Budget Summary Estimated $602k • PC Replacement - $100k • Eng Support Upgrades - $ 77k • Source Control Software Update - $ 25k • Phone & VM Upgrade (additional) - $ 75k • CSO Building / IT Upgrades - $ 25k • Records Management Upgrades- $40k • HR Document Management - $10k Central Contra Costa Sanitary District a Proposed Budget Summary • Server Replication & Redundancy - $100k • Sungard Public Sector (HTE) One Solution Software Implementation - $100k • Miscellaneous / Contingency - $50k -Conference Room Display -Virtual Desktop Pilot •iPad Pilot -Communication Services Updates •Misc Software & Hardware Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Outstanding Budget Summary Estimated $677k • PC Replacement - $100k • Permits Backlog - $18k (Ongoing) • Laboratory Information Management System Replacement - $82 • HOB Phone / VM - $200k • CSO Phone / VM - $50k Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2 of e Outstanding Budget Summary • Email Upgrade => Outlook - $100k • IBM AS400 Server Replacement - $60k • Inventory Scanning Software - $15k • IT Consultant Review - $30k • Miscellaneous / Contingency - $ 22k Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Completed Projects & Expenditures Estimated $431 k • Network Upgrade - $57k • Permits Backlog - $32k • LIMS - $100k • SAN Storage Addition - $49k • Software Upgrades — Microsoft - $51 k • EOC Updates - $15k • Presentation Systems - $20k Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 3 �5 IT Development CIB Budget Summary Estimated Balance • Expenditures 2011 -12 New Projects $602k 2010 -11 Outstanding Projects 677k Total Est. Expenditures $1,279k Central Contra Costa Sanitary District IT Development CIB Budget Summary Estimated Balance • Allocations Remain Balance — Feb 2011 $346k Current Allocations — 2010 -2011 $331 k ($660k approved) Proposed Allocation — 2011 -2012 602k Total Est. Allocations $1,279k Central.Contra Costa Sanitary District 4 4 IT Development CIB Budget Summary Estimated Balance Questions? Central Contra Costa Sanitary District J ;4 11 i y r At, �. 1 n vl . Y M ` R l � t eta`= i Central Contra Costa Sanitary District FY 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Budget and Ten Year Plan Executive Summary ";� 94 j, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District FY 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program Executive Summary Central Contra Costa Sanitary District funds an extensive Capital Improvement Program designed to preserve, maintain, and enhance the District's assets, accommodate the community's needs, and protect the environment. Capital improvements are construction, acquisition or renovation activities which add value to the District's fixed assets (buildings, pipelines, facilities, equipment) or significantly increase their useful life. The District's FY 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) details expenditures of approximately $25.9 million for the planning, design and construction of treatment plant, collection system, general improvements, and recycled water projects. By adopting the CIB, the Board of Directors authorizes staff to pursue this work. In addition to the CIB for the upcoming year, the Board approves a Ten -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that forecasts needed expenditures. The CIP focuses on facility renovation, expansion and future regulatory compliance projects. It estimates expenditures for the next ten years at $345 million (in 2011 dollars), an average of $34.5 million per year. The CIB and CIP also include projected revenues and cash flow discussions to demonstrate how planned expenditures could be funded. Each planned project addresses one or more District goals: • Protect public health and the environment • Maintain existing assets • Respond to regulatory and community concerns • Accommodate planned growth This year we are faced with some challenges and opportunities. Our revenue stream for the next several years is projected to be significantly reduced due to the downturn in the U.S. economy. This downturn has also created an opportunity by substantially reducing the number of projects under construction in the marketplace, resulting in a very competitive bid climate. The low bids on some recent District projects have been as much as 30% less than the pre -bid estimate. The recommended budget projects that expenditures will exceed revenue, but will maintain an appropriate Sewer Construction Fund balance. This summary describes the major projects for FY 2011 -12, the major projects included in the Ten -Year Capital Improvement Plan, and the revenue streams that will support the planned expenditures. FY 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Budget The FY 2011 -12 CIB includes expenditures of approximately $25.6 M for planning, design and construction of capital projects in four programs: • Treatment Plant • Collection System • General Improvements • Recycled Water Each of the programs is divided into subprograms to track different types of work. Most of the money will be spent on renovation or preservation of capital assets, as shown in the following table: Capital Program/ Subprogram Treatment Plant Program Planned Expenditure $7.1 million (27 %) Regulatory Compliance /Planning $0.7 million One -Time Renovation $4.1 million Recurring Renovation $2.2 million Expansion /Capacity Improvements /Miscellaneous $5,000 Collection System Program $12.8 million (50 %) Renovation $7.8 million Regulatory Compliance /Planning $0.4 million Expansion /Capacity Improvements $3.4 million Pumping Stations /Force Mains $1.3 million General Improvements Program $5.4 million (21 %) Vehicles and Equipment $0.9 million Management Information Systems $0.9 million CSO Facility Improvements $2.1 million All Other $1.6 million Recycled Water Program Total $0.6 million • 00•, Major Project Emphasis Although the CIB is made up of funding estimates for many individual projects, each year there are several major projects which together account for a majority of total estimated capital expenditures. In FY 2011 -12, the emphasis will be on 15 large projects, which together account for $16,777,000, or 65 percent of the total estimated expenditures. Estimated FY 2011 -12 expenditures for each of these projects are noted below. Collection Systems Operations Department Facility Improvements FY 2011 -12: $2,025,000 Estimated total project cost: $13,654,000 This project consists of design and construction of a new Collection Systems Operations administration, crew, and warehouse building at 1250 Springbrook Road in Walnut Creek. The project also includes site improvements such as new paving and landscaping. Completion is scheduled for summer 2011. I The Collection System Operations Department Facility building is scheduled for completion in summer 2011. Lafayette - Pleasant Hill Road Trunk Sewer FY 2011 -12: $1,900,000 Estimated total project cost: $2,411,000 This project will construct a 15 -inch relief sewer along Pleasant Hill Road from Springhill Road to Stanley Boulevard in Lafayette. Deficient sewers in nearby neighborhoods will be upsized within their current alignments. South Orinda Sewer Renovations — Phase 5 FY 2011 -12: $1,800,000 Estimated total project cost: $2,167,800 This project will replace /rehabilitate approximately 12,000 feet of 6 -inch through 8 -inch sewer pipe at several sites in Orinda. :16 Construction in a narrow easement between two properties, not unusual in areas such as Martinez. Walnut Creek Sewer Renovations — Phase 8 FY 2011 -12: $1,800,000 Estimated total project cost: $2,149,700 This project will replace /rehabilitate approximately 10,000 feet of 6 -inch through 8 -inch sewer pipe at several sites throughout the City of Walnut Creek and neighboring unincorporated areas. Lafayette Sewer Renovations — Phase 7 FY 2011 -12: $1,790,000 Estimated total project cost: $2,113,600 The project will replace /rehabilitate approximately 13,000 feet of 6 -inch and 8 -inch sewer pipe at several sites throughout the City of Lafayette and neighboring unincorporated areas. Open -cut construction in the street. Treatment Plant Piping Renovations — Phase 6 FY 2011 -12: $1,000,000 Estimated Total project cost: $1,145,000 The first five phases of this program renovated or replaced various piping systems. This phase of the project will include work on the following areas: the seal tank on Wet Scrubber #2, the centrate pipe at the Foam Suppression Tank, discharge piping of Aeration Blower #2, a section of the scrubber drain piping in the SCB plenum, leaking connections at the cake pump feed pipelines, and other areas as needed. In addition, a new baffle system will be added to one primary sedimentation tank for evaluation. Piping Replacement work in the treatment plant — Piping Renovations & Replacement — Phase 5 FAA permitted crane work to replace aeration air header piping — Piping Renovations & Replacement — Phase 5 Pump & Blower Building Seismic Upgrade FY 2011 -12: $1,000,000 Estimated total project cost: $2,155,000 In 2009, a seismic evaluation of treatment plant facilities was completed. Included in the evaluation are recommendations to bring the Pump and Blower Building in line with current seismic design standards, which this project will accomplish. Vehicles & Equipment Acquisition FY 2011 -12: $891,000 Estimated total project cost: $891,000 Purchases of vehicles and major equipment are made under a capital project. Auxiliary Boiler Burner Upgrade FY 2011 -12: $750,000 Estimated total project cost: $855,000 This project will replace the burners in the two auxiliary boilers and modify related ancillary systems to meet upcoming BAAQMD regulations that require NOx emissions to be reduced from the current permit limit of 30 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 15 ppmv by January 2013. Primary Treatment Renovation FY 2011 -12: $750,000 Estimated total project cost: $6,540,000 This project will renovate or replace the water and air supply pipelines at the primary sedimentation tanks. This project also includes improvements to the scum and grit systems. f The new Sludge Handling Facility is almost complete. Treatment Plant Protective Coatings — Phase 4 FY 2011 -12: $725,000 Estimated total project cost: $835,000 This project will clean and coat critical renovation areas including headworks, SCB basement, Pump and Blower Building basement, clear well, sludge blending area, and the fuel oil storage tanks. Application of coatings extends the useful life and minimizes corrosion of treatment plant equipment, piping, and surfaces. Outfall Improvements — Phase 6 FY 2011 -12: $685,000 Estimated total project cost: $1,085,000 This project will inspect both the land and submarine portions of the treatment plant outfall as allowed by the current NPDES Permit, and will make repairs as needed. Information Technology Development FY 2011 -12: $602,000 Estimated total project cost: N/A This project provides funding for the development of the District's computer and telecommunications technology. San Ramon Pump Station Upgrades FY 2011 -12: $549,000 Estimated total project cost: $579,000 This project will replace existing dry weather pumps to provide the capacity needed to handle increased flow from the Dougherty Valley. Additional improvements identified by pumping station operators may be added to the project. Seismic Improvements for HOB FY 2011 -12: $510,000 Estimated total project cost: $2,523,000 Structural steel frames constructed before the most recent Northridge earthquake may weaken during an earthquake and be unable to resist the forces generated during a seismic event. These steel framing problems in combination with the building's flexibility are the primary reasons for the HOB's seismic vulnerability. The HOB will be retrofitted or replaced to ensure a life- safety level of structural performance. Historical Capital Improvement Program To place this year's proposed CIB and CIP in perspective, it is helpful to review historical expenditures and revenues. As shown in the expenditure graphs, annual capital expenditures in inflation- adjusted dollars have decreased over the years to approximately $30 million per year from a high of $60 million in 1993 -94. This rate of spending represents a replacement of all assets about once every hundred years, based on an estimated replacement value of approximately $3 billion for the treatment plant, collection system, and pumping station facilities. $70,000 Annual Capital Expenditures $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 /�_ /�\ $30,000 %14F --- "/ $20,000 - _�, $10,000 90-91 91 -92 92 -93 93 -94 94 -95 95 -96 96 -97 97 -98 98 -99 99 -00 00 -01 01 -02 02 -03 03 -04 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 09 -10 10 -11 —In Actual Dollars — Adjusted by 3 9 /. /Year Historically, the District has attempted to keep expenditures close to revenues so as to avoid reducing the Sewer Construction Fund balance below $30 - $35 million. This allows the Fund to act as the bank to meet the District's cash flow needs between its biannual receipt of Sewer Service Charge and property tax revenue collected by Contra Costa County. As noted in the below figure on property tax and capacity fee revenue trends, capital revenues can be highly variable. The District has two discretionary sources of capital revenue, the Sewer Service Charge capital component and bond sales. In 2009 -10, the District chose to augment the Sewer Construction Fun balance with $30 million in bond proceeds in order to ease the pressure on Sewer Service Charge rates and allow the capital program to move forward with needed projects. This decision was deemed prudent because the competitive construction bidding climate occasioned by the current recession has resulted in construction costs being reduced by 20 -30 %, providing significant savings for the program. The District will continue to balance capital expenditures and revenues to ensure that appropriate investments are made in capital facilities while maintaining an adequate Sewer Construction Fund balance to meet cash flow needs. Property Tax and Capacity Fee Trends $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 ^000 ^ O °O ^0°� ^000 X000 ^0 0� ^000 ^O°O 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 000 OO b OO b OO h 00 0 00� 000 000 c ol' �oY �oY Q �o1 Q �ol Q �ol Q �oY Q �ol Q �ol Q �ol' Q �ol 0^ 0 0, O �J 0b 00 0 0 0� 0' 0 �� OO`L O ^ � 0 00� ' 65 ' 6 5 �"� ��` � �0 ,�0 � � �0 ,�0 � �0 �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O 00' �p ,�'�• O ^`t% O ^"� ,�D� ,�h ,��o ,�'�• ,�0 ,�0• —$.—Property Tax t Connection Fees Ten -Year Capital Improvement Plan The District updates its Ten -Year Capital Improvement Plan each year to guide long - range policy and to: • Identify, prioritize, and schedule capital projects for the ten -year period. • Provide financial resources for completing those capital projects. The plan covers FY 2011 -12 through FY 2020 -21 and projects total expenditures of approximately $345 million (in 2011 dollars), or an average of $34.5 million per year, as described in the following table: Capital Program Expenditure Category Renovation (one -time and recurring) Dollars $ 208 million Percent 60% Expansion (capacity increases for new customers $ 37 million 11% Regulation- Driven $ 84 million 24% Miscellaneous $ 16 million 5% Total 10 -Year Capital Program Expenditures $345 million 100% The plan is divided into the same four programs as the budget. While a large portion of the plan is devoted to ongoing renovation, several projects address capacity and regulatory issues. The following table lists projected ten -year expenditures by program and subprogram. A brief description of the major projects /programs not described in the FY 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Budget section follows the table. Capital Program/Subprogram Treatment Plant Program Planned 10 Year Expenditure $146.5 million (42 %) Regulatory Compliance /Planning $81.3 million One -Time Renovation $33.9 million Recurring Renovation $28.8 million Expansion /Capacity Improvements /Miscellaneous $2.4 million Collection System Program $171.6 million (50 %) Renovation $120.1 million Regulatory Compliance /Planning $2.5 million Expansion /Capacity Improvements $34.6 million Pumping Stations /Force Mains $14.3 million General Improvements Program $21.5 million (6 %) Vehicles and Equipment $5.4 million Management Information Systems $5.6 million All Other $10.5 million Recycled Water Program Capital $5.5 million (2 %) 00% Major Ten -Year Treatment Plant Projects /Programs District Seismic Improvements: Substantial changes have been made to seismic design standards. Recent evaluation of District buildings identified a number of necessary improvements to address the new standards. These improvements will provide increased safety for personnel and protection of plant processes. (Ten -year plan: $12.7 million total project cost in both Treatment Plant and General Improvements programs) Buil ding Solids Conditioning Building 2013 -14 . $5,055,000 Plant Operations Building 2015 -16 $1,240,000 Pump & Blower Building 2011 -12 $2,155,000 Warehouse 2016 -17 $895,000 Laboratory 2015 -16 $192,000 Headquarters Office Building (in GIP) 2011 -12 $2,523,000 Rental Properties (in GIP) 2011 -12 $640,000 N I FbralIgn ICI rid!$ M SAR IKYR94`1F ICI �yL�.fl PACIFIC PLATE defer awkss �mJl'd'�➢ �� C. Q X MILE KI LOMETERS NORTH AMERICAN cra ca a- PLATE NAWWAi1 � EtEN VkICd _ � CCCS 4 y Id THRUST { °uiti The Bay Area is seismically active. District facilities have been evaluated and $12.7 million is currently budgeted for retrofitting various buildings over the next several years. w ° it Future Regulatory Projects: The next ten years hold the potential for significant regulatory changes. These include potential requirements for nitrification (convert ammonia to NOs), increasing pollutant removal from incinerator air emissions, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Funding for unspecified regulatory projects has been included in the ten -year plan to represent this potential need. Nitrification would require an expansion of the aeration tanks. Effects of greenhouse gas reduction requirements are still being studied and could require significant investment. Changes to air emission and solid waste regulations may affect the furnaces and the impacts of these regulatory changes range from additional emissions equipment to total replacement of the furnaces. (Ten -year Plan: $81,305,000) Piping Renovation and Replacement Program: The replacement value of treatment plant facilities is conservatively estimated at $600 million. Piping systems are an important and critical component of the treatment plant infrastructure. These systems will continue to be evaluated and prioritized for repair or replacement. (Ten -year Plan: $12,410,000) Major Ten -Year Collection System Projects /Programs Sewer Renovation Program: In 2002, the District initiated a long -term program to televise all 1,447 miles of its gravity sewers. To date, the program has televised approximately 1,100 miles of sewers. Taking into account sewer mains renovated since the start of the TV program, approximately 57 miles of sewer mains (6 -, 8 -, and 10 -inch pipe) need to be renovated at a cost of $86 million. The current ten -year plan targets renovating all 57 miles of sewer mains. (Ten -year plan: $120,120,000 estimated total project cost — includes TV programs, large- diameter pipe renovation, and cathodic protection.) Sewer Capacity Program: The Collection System Master Plan was updated in 2010 to reflect recently approved land use and new flow- monitoring data. The Capital Plan has been updated to reflect the new results. Sewer capacity projects will include trunk sewers on Pleasant Hill Road in Lafayette, Lancaster Road in Walnut Creek, Moraga Way in Orinda, and the San Ramon Schedule C Interceptor. (Ten -year plan: $34,631,000 estimated total project cost) TV inspection of the collection system helps to guide sewer renovation plans. Potential Future Projects Not Included in 2011 Capital Plan The projects listed in this CIP are those that are reasonably certain to be undertaken by the District. However, when evaluating project priority and cash flow impacts, consideration must be given to potential projects that are uncertain and not currently included in the plan. If some or all of these potential projects listed below are required to be undertaken, there could be a significant impact on the financial forecasts contained in the plan. TABLE 2: POTENTIAL PROJECTS NOT IN 2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Description Time frame Estimated total project Estimated probability cost Treatment Plant Other Projects Greenhouse Gas Reduction- Regulations are under development that will require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The appropriate reduction plan may include diversifying our energy $15-$30 portfolio by adding a renewable energy source, such as solar or wind. 2 -5 yrs million Medium Alternatively, the requirements may be satisfied by buying carbon dioxide allowances on the open market or shutting down or cogeneration facility. Nutrient Removal - Construct facilities for nitrogen and phosphorus 10 -20 yrs $70 million Low removal to address more stringent receiving water standards. Recycled Water Projects Martinez Refinery Recycled Water Project- Construct new treatment and distribution facilities to supply up to 20 mgd to the Shell and Tesoro 3 -10 yrs $100 Medium refineries for cooling tower makeup and boiler feed water. Money for million planning activities only is budgeted. Concord Landscape Recycled Water Project - Construct recycled water distribution facilities to supply the Diamond Boulevard 2 -5 yrs $5 million Medium commercial area of Concord. Money for planning activities only is budgeted. Capital Revenue /Cash Flow/ Sewer Construction Fund Balance CAPITAL REVENUE The Capital Program is funded by a number of different fees and charges as described below. Capacity Fees: A capacity fee is paid by each new connector to the District's collection system. This fee is recalculated each year and represents the cost of buying into the existing assets of the District. The revenue from these fees is dependent on the housing market and rate of new connections. Pumped Zone Fees: For connections in an area where pumping is necessary, an additional capacity fee is charged to buy into the existing pumping station assets of the District. The revenue from the pumped zone fees is highly dependent on the housing market and the rate of new connections in the pumped zones. Property Taxes: Historically, the District has received significant revenues from property taxes. In 1978, when Proposition 13 reduced the taxation rate on property, the State Legislature urged enterprise special districts to shift to user fee financing. In FY 1992 -93, the State of California began diverting portions of the property tax revenue. The District still receives a significant amount of property taxes which are allocated entirely to debt service and the Capital Program. If those taxes were to be permanently diverted, a significant increase in other forms of revenue, particularly the Sewer Service Charge, would be necessary. Sewer Service Charges: The Sewer Service Charge is an annual charge placed on the property tax rolls which funds operation and maintenance costs as well as a portion of the Capital Program. Each year the capital revenue from all other sources is estimated, and the additional revenue needed to fund the planned expenditures, after consideration of any increase or decrease to the Sewer Construction Fund Balance, is generated by adjusting the capital component of the Sewer Service Charge. Reimbursements from Others: The District receives reimbursements from others for capital expenditures which benefit others. For example, the City of Concord is served by a contract which requires them to pay a flow - proportional share of capital projects which benefit Concord (such as projects to improve wastewater treatment facilities and large interceptors.) Also, the District has formed Assessment Districts to promote the installation of sewers in unsewered areas and loaned money from the Sewer Construction Fund for construction of the sewers. This money is then repaid with interest to the Fund. Interest: Interest is earned on the balance of the Sewer Construction Fund, the money held in reserve to fund future capital projects. The interest earned is returned to the fund. Bond Proceeds: While the District generally follows a pay -as- you -go philosophy, Sewer Service Charge rate increases can be mitigated by utilizing bond funding to spread the payments over time. The total budgeted revenue for FY2011 -12 is $22,246,000, assuming a $30 Sewer Service Charge rate increase, which has not been adopted by the Board. FY 2011 -12 Capital Budget Revenue ($000) Interest Sewer Service $265 Charge ($30 Taxe: $6,88 Conc increase) $6,534 \II Other $1,082 $2,549 Capacity & Pumped Zone Fees $4,934 One of the District's goals is to maintain responsible rates while investing in the capital programs needed to protect public health and the environment, maintain existing assets, respond to regulatory and community concerns, and accommodate planned growth. The District has always prided itself on providing a high level of service at reasonable rates. When the severity of the economic downturn became apparent, the District Board of Directors, after thoughtful debate, elected not to raise rates for two years in order to provide some financial relief to customers. Staff responded to the Board's actions by implementing cost - saving measures which resulted in a savings in operating and maintenance costs of over $2 million in 2009 -10 and $2.5 million in 2010 -11. Because the economic downturn resulted insignificant bid savings on capital projects, staff recommended, and the Board agreed, that the Capital Program should continue and needed projects should be built. In order to fund these projects without raising rates for two years, $30 million in bonds were sold. This increased the District's bonded indebtedness to over $50 million and the annual debt service obligation to $5.6 million. FY 2010 -11 has been challenging for the District. Increased expenditures for regulatory mandates and reduced revenues due to the economic downturn result in the need for a significant sewer service charge (SSC) rate increase if the District is to continue providing the same level of service and investing in infrastructure. Staff is recommending a two -year SSC increase of $30 per year. The following chart compares the District's rates to 26 other Bay Area sanitary agencies. If the two -year increase is adopted, the District's rates will still be well below the mean rate for these agencies. Ii F I � (LP 453 r 77 E_ ` r c I CO F *F 1,; I LO r 4p cm co WM r� N u + r CA I F r@ k +rr art an r r N r a C t5 Ft � C A r r 4 2 W I� I� a I iH 6 � i WRI R fi �5 r r CASH FLOW /SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE As part of the Ten -Year Capital Improvement Plan, estimates of expenditures and revenues are made and a cash flow projection is developed to show the interrelationship of revenues and the Sewer Construction fund (SCF) balance. Each year a policy decision is made by the Board of Directors, based on staff analysis and recommendations, on the amount of the capital component of the Sewer Service Charge to fund the planned Capital Program while maintaining an adequate SCF balance. The SCF balance is needed for future capital projects. It also acts as the bank to meet the District's cash flow needs. To provide sufficient funds for cash flow needs, a balance of approximately $30 million is recommended for the SCF. This year, a drawdown of the SCF of $6 million to $9 million is budgeted. This can be supported because the drawdown will fund construction of specific projects for which $30 million in bonds were issued in 2009 and placed in the SCF. Sewer Construction Fund Revenues and Expenditures A summary of projected FY 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program revenue and expenditures is presented below: With $30 Sewer Service Revenues Charge Increase * Facilities Capacity Fees $4,372,000 Pumped Zone Fees 562,000 Interest 265,000 Property Taxes 6,882,000 Sewer Service Charges 6,534,000 Reimbursements from Others: City of Concord 2,549,000 Recycled Water Sales 110,000 Alhambra Valley 481,000 Developer Fees, Charges, Other 491,000 Total Revenues ** $22,246,000 Expenditures Treatment Plant Program $7,082,000 Collection System Program 12,840,000 General Improvements Program 5,442,000 Recycled Water Program 550,000 Total Expenditures $25,914,000 A summary of Sewer Construction Funds Available impact is presented below: Projected Revenues Projected Expenditures Draw from Funds Available $22,246,000 ($25,914,000) ($3,668,000) More specific information regarding expenditure categories is included in the Capital Improvement Plan. * Has not been recommended by Capital Projects Committee or approved by District Board. ** Revenue is first recorded in the O &M budget until O &M costs are offset. Any additional revenue will be recorded in the Sewer Construction Fund. OWS-Y m The Ten -Year Capital Improvement Plan includes over $145 million to renovate and improve the wastewater treatment facility located in Martinez. Questions? For additional information about the District's Capital Improvement Budget and Ten -Year Plan, please contact Director of Engineering Ann Farrell at (925) 229 -7302 or Capital Projects Division Manager Tad Pilecki at (925) 229 -7273. Key Projects for 2011 -2012 Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Committee Meeting April 6, 2011 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Key Projects for 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program • Green House Gas Model of District Operations for Decision Making • Long Range Planning to Consider Next Generation Wastewater Treatment • Primary Sedimentation Tank Renovations • Seismic Retrofit of District Buildings • Treatment Plant Asset Management (Capital Project Forecasting) • Pleasant Hill- Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer • Outfall Project /Old Primary /Lime Silos Demolition 1 • Alternative Energy Project, DP 7256 Melody LaBella Capital Projects Committee Meeting April 6, 2011 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Why Are We Doing this Project? • AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act • Signed into California law in 2006 • Targets industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, including large stationary combustions sources like CCCSD's Cogeneration Facility (Cogen) • Energy production and usage within our Treatment Plant is very integrated 2 Energy Integration in Plant • Energy sources • Natural gas, landfill gas, Cogen and grid power • Steam Sources • Waste heat boilers (from incinerators), Cogen and auxiliary boilers • Aeration Basins primarily receive air from steam - driven blowers • Changes to energy usage impact steam production URS' Original Scope of Work • Build GHG computer model to evaluate various energy production and usage scenarios • Complete an alternative energy study • Recommend an energy portfolio that will meet' the plant's current and projected future energy demands while complying with AB 32 • Many variables, including AB 32 compliance, future regulatory requirements, future energy costs 3 • • GHG Model Capabilities • Base model simulates GHG production and energy usage for current operating conditions • Model enhancements include: • GHG impact of switching to fluidized bed incinerators (FBIs) • Seasonal performance variations • Cogen modifications • Future nitrification /nutrient removal Added Scope Items (to Model) - • Evaluate GHG impact of switching to anaerobic digesters (AD) • Add capital and operating costs to comparison of existing MHFs vs. FBI vs. AD 11 GHG Model Handling Methods :Ief:l �41 (ILA tlG1�9II1�-�]d�J�C�d �I ; �CiQ��g da N 0s + � N^'/ � E N_ P•r M»+• tlT. a 9+a 9 JJ.I .. ?af3 x161 gal f't r"c� fa - � 0 No r .« �. or..o.NM .my • ., o mMO.»rma. Mrr w+x .s aAn „ . '. ••R ...E Y C yG J.� u {: -. M.. l.. xa x .— . ..MO x. ...r.r. r.. ... P. ..cl w pweevvw •r } YVLNLE UCE 3 Pi LIW iPMNtlw�UM { Lev »rm.. ms m.w »rmr., s G n .3 xeaw.m wrewmy ®2ixrs 6 &a,dd y n'A k\ G N n9 Np �tt �4lhwmw-�sOOC7.�A 4 -.Il fitll J -�' -d Gw 90 Y1 � - Comparing Solids Handling Methods �41 da N 0s + � N^'/ � E N_ P•r M»+• tlT. a 9+a . ^. " � A „ . '. ••R ...E Y C yG J.� u {: -. M.. l.. xa x .— } YVLNLE UCE 3 Pi LIW iPMNtlw�UM ms ewm s G n .3 xeaw.m wrewmy ®2ixrs 6 &a,dd y n'A k\ G N n9 Np MBTYary G X • WaaY 0 M • A Q' NnurJ G, L. fillG a i B V 10 ... ,' M M1 lFG9u4,Lmy pplY - to y° " a ` x r ... « ,.d mMeyuiery t.naL 13 F Nx a G p »rev) y®LarrJfeG„IF,a, vm.a�e.>sa mf ]eS W10WEry gas Mtlry 1, Mli tll MMFLG/yr Is Gramnause Mr44 MMWSCf Lfilyr yvea Ur,aae MMSCi LdYr 17 Steam MxF Sum V Gar mmORV/r X10 WaNe Aeel p)j Naua Ga, Vraoe 19 F Xr 4n NfYyr feea MrFR 4tl NCJyr 21 MNry Iqi SU.n MMSCf NGyr }} BWO-n MY Srvn NY Orr MLL91Wyr n F..m..,�x+.r eneam EM bx »evm m...r •. - E.eanert.na c.re.vae atlm,r ss F..e w,rn c..emr arommv Nu.,de n.,m }� Grer r.,,r, sa.N. era Agave en.n 4 x k 0 6 Comparing Solids Handling Methods G1 % 1 1 . ® ywLl ty ] t1 8 �.. w..'� "u �✓,%,aL. S � '..t. .SicX v..�Yi. W p .LP _l =.E 1 1 } LHIU BW REdCiOR �i H A . 9IWtlrY ltl i$ 6ID.G C e] 5 Bla.oree— ''JJII � h F 10 maM 9TMnllw .l% '. ,: ww f.P O.m.m MMViuM,r p B Havel — — flwf,.p B.E IW.61 Ga.io M,rYf /0.1 eW lFG6opOM' 9 P.Ww Ma, Kann x IW %C Ga II aR 9.am Gen.nIn9 GV 'AMQ LJNYS I®1 S p,6 1] F OR i9X 'MMSCE L0.tir OG 15 Uativ mitt 16 Sb.m Wvna bap ie NE./ R.-I c.a 19 +n• F8R M MMSff HWlr ' f .. E Sourte.IMko iBP WOH p ]I Blrndmm I.vI1nA R n N.ea.r H..9nA le n..m R•rnm R.rgm na v f..a.att f.Mml.ri.Ei c.m�.. coomm+a. Pn.m m.ml. n..m n %' n G...mw ,.r„m eloeamm mN,el..u.m 5x z, smm. Mrr m...6mM..i.M I} � Comparing Solids Handling Methods _ E f •.. G >.. e4L.M19_L...O... "0� —R ' ' °' L: I PMf0.091C 01GESP 06 II e P�v b vcun B moil I io oaa[omml —� tluEge IS PaeWO V ii F� •'"?• c Rea l I, � .0 wrM. .] Vw^LSl - I. m,. ' e fumV.l 1 L „mill. 9 RfS Iw. SIUeA. ID urgMwre paiJy InYeeh. n 0 µnorm Lm1951 -3 n t. a W Si 1•kTw��O01 ./xj 11 �;3WY d —aa� Ci Next Steps • Expand analysis to include a life -cycle assessment of our solids handling method • Develop costs /benefits for the three solids handling methods • To be factored into our long -range Treatment Plant Master Plan • Finalize alternative energy study • Finalize recommended energy portfolio 0 Any Questions? Key Projects for 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program • Green House Gas Model of District Operations for Decision Making • Long Range Planning to Consider Next Generation Wastewater Treatment • Primary Sedimentation Tank Renovations • Seismic Retrofit of District Buildings • Treatment Plant Asset Management (Capital Project Forecasting) • Pleasant Hill- Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer • Outfall Project/Old Primary/Lime Silos Demolition CCCSD Treatment Plant of the Future (Future Plant Concepts to be Developed by Planning Competition) Curtis Swanson April 6, 2011 1 0 0 Situation Facing CCCSD • Present plant was designed in the 1970s • Specific processes have been upgraded in the 1990s (UV disinfection, solids dewatering, headworks) • Major improvements needed over next 25 years • Future regulatory & operation Issues that may affect what a future plant looks like: ➢ Nutrient discharges ➢ Emerging pollutants ➢ Greenhouse gas reduction ➢ Increasing energy costs ➢ Sustainability 2 Is the current CCCSD treatment process the best approach for the future? RENEWABLE ENERGY INFLUENT ORGANIC � TREATMENT REUSE = ENERGY PLANT BENEFICIAL WASTE Future approach needs to harness influent energy and minimize waste while reducing greenhouse gases. 3 0 WERF Panel's view from technology roadmap Brrn and Caldwell STRASS WWTP, AUSTRIA erx%SS %I 11 - rP UPMIrV TRa ItOVI -1Cakj Full Plant Retrofit for Nitrogen Removal 4 - Perry McCarty's Concept Future Treatment Plant Decisions • Before making expensive improvements to the plant, we need to decide if the current treatment approach is the future approach. • What is the future plant that can sustainably comply under various discharge scenarios? • Can we make the plant be energy positive /neutral? How do we achieve this? 6� Hest N.1whic'y Dtgesud DI(,mter ^ Generator 4(lumt ¢ias ' �Btogdi Thaud axarpuy(4r w.newaur —► —C —> —fie! ,flr StFipper - Primur7 Settling Anaerobic Dloreacmr Air Future Treatment Plant Decisions • Before making expensive improvements to the plant, we need to decide if the current treatment approach is the future approach. • What is the future plant that can sustainably comply under various discharge scenarios? • Can we make the plant be energy positive /neutral? How do we achieve this? 6� 0 Planning Competition • Comprehensive look at how to sustainably treat wastewater for next 50+ years. • Start with a "blank sheet." • Incorporate findings of URS study of Incineration vs. Digestion. • Invite consultants to develop & submit concepts for CCCSD treatment plant of the future. • CCCSD staff & technical advisors to review & select winning concepts. • Consultants will be paid a lump sum contract amount upon submittal of a conceptual plan. 6 0 r 0 Key Projects for 2011-12 Capital Improvement Program • Green House Gas Model of District Operations for Decision Making • Long Range Planning to Consider Next Generation Wastewater Treatment • Primary Sedimentation Tank Renovations • Seismic Retrofit of District Buildings • Treatment Plant Asset Management (Capital Project Forecasting) • Pleasant Hill- Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer • Outfall Project /Old Primary /Lime Silos Demolition Primary Sedimentation Tank Renovations Capital Projects Committee Meeting April 6, 2011 1 Primary Sedimentation Tank Renovations • Proposed Renovations - Replace Scum Spray System Install Baffles - Replace Chain Drives - Rehabilitate Concrete - Replace Scum Skimmers and Thickener - Construct New Grit Handling Facilities - Upgrade /Renovate Electrical Conduits /Equipment Primary Sedimentation Tank Renovations Schedule: • Construction:. July 2012 - June 2014 Estimated Costs: • Total Project Cost Estimate: $6,500,000 5 0 0 Scum Spray System Tank Baffles 9 (Taken from Stone Cutter Islands Treatment Works) b Chain Drives Scum Skimmers El! Scum Thickener Grit Handling Facilities 5 Seismic Retrofit of District Buildings Capital Projects Committee Meeting April 6, 2011 Seismic Study has Identified Deficiencies in Critical District Facilities t• t t I: 1 tI Im Soma l .,. t i Nusa , a 9 �0 •A \� CONCORD HA4AIn GREEN YALLEYp• p i C'olun�6ie 1\ -MT GPS'iile Farellon LIC r t 81tO Islands O kl d P. 88T h GPS site E i �� 9 •� � t R PACIFIC PLATE V 'Major faults ," � tNl. ,�:'ty; D t 3O MILES o ..,. R� D 0 OOKILOMETERS Alun4rty N1 0 0 Maximum Ground Acceleration at Treatment Plant Results from Concord Fault Fault Design Earthquake (Mw) Concord Fault Proximity to District Facilities Concord 6.71 0.73 Greenville 6.94 0.21 Mt. Diablo 6.65 0.29 San Andreas 7.90 0.25 Hayward 7.26 0.30 Calaveras 6.93 0.24 troperty Line to FaW[ k i 13 miles or -769fl } s {, }. f , ! F F 91axer NIAt 1 Fault + ^ to Fault 0. L l h s i �® r0.bl mlei tir- 3,75411' i OBI FaWt Y " — 421411 °4. " �1 i Maximum Ground Acceleration at Treatment Plant Results from Concord Fault Fault Design Earthquake (Mw) Ground Acceleration (g) Concord 6.71 0.73 Greenville 6.94 0.21 Mt. Diablo 6.65 0.29 San Andreas 7.90 0.25 Hayward 7.26 0.30 Calaveras 6.93 0.24 ThereftQf$,,Qpar.pS4,,fa ^ggv4e,XD;3 design..... * *I sec spectral acceleration 0 0 • New Zealand Earthquake • Christchurch, NZ: M6.3 occurred on 2/21/11. • Was an aftershock from the M7.0 Danfield event on September 2010. • Severe damage and loss of life. • Christchurch occurred on separate fault from Danfield. • Accelerations greater than Danfield, depth was relatively shallow, and located very close to densely populated area. • Seismic codes have evolved and appear similar to the 2007 CBC. • Nearly 3 weeks after the event, sewer and other buried utilities remained severely compromised. Liquefaction was the major factor affecting buried pipes. Sendai, Japan Earthquake • M9.0 on March 11, 2011. • 4"' largest event in world since 1900. • Largest in Japan since records kept (130 years). • Just 2 days earlier a 7.2 event occurred. • Aftershocks are a significant risk to structures: - In the past week (3/20 - 3/25) - 46 earthquakes between 5.0 - 5.9 - 7 earthquakes between 6.0 - 6.9 • Island of Honshu moved 8 feet eastward. • North American plate was moved 66 feet eastward. 13 i • Seismic Design /Retrofitting Works......... 1994 Northridge 6.7 Mw 72 deaths 9000 injured Earthquake ($40 billion property Replacement Impacted damage) Impact 2005 Kashmir 7.6 Mw 79,000 deaths 106,000 injured Earthquake $15 M 112 $21YI - $2.71VI 2010 Haiti 7.0 Mw 170,000 deaths 250,000 injured Earthquake staff, Building 2011 Christchurch, 6.3Mw 240 deaths Hundreds of Injuries NZ $158 to Rebuild Service Earthquake . $100 M 5 $5.5 M 2011 Sendai, Japan 9.0 Mw 11,000 deaths 2,800 Injured Earthquake $3008 Economic Building 16,000 Missing Loss No steam, No Staff recommends implementing upgrades to address seismic design code changes resulting from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake analysis.......... F Upgrade Cost and Impact to District Facilities Building Estimated Staff Estimated Operational Replacement Impacted Upgrade Cost $ Impact Cost $ g % Replmt Cost Headquarters $15 M 112 $21YI - $2.71VI Displace Office staff, Building 13 % -18% Customer Service Solids $100 M 5 $5.5 M No sludge Conditioning processing, Building 5.5% No steam, No cogen Pump & $75 M 0 $1.8 M No secondary Blower treatment Building 2.5% Plant $10 M 20 $1.0 M Control Operations. Room, EOC, Building 10% IT Di St — i 2 11 0 Current Status of HOB Seismic Retrofit • Issues - Very flexible building - Pre - Northridge moment frame joints • Board authorized pre- design on September 2, 2010 • Retrofit Options - Exterior Buttresses - Interior Column /Beam Strengthening HOB Seismic Retrofit • HOB pre - design complete. - Staff reviewing to make recommendation for retrofit. - Probable construction cost - $2M - $2.71M. - Construction period 4 - 6 months. • Staff currently evaluating relocation /disruption impacts associated with both options. • Upon completion of analysis /review staff will seek Board direction on how to proceed. 10 0 HOB Seismic Retrofit Exterior Retrofit Option-*. ExteriorButtress -^ ' $ `t QC a . ,mot t 11 I 12 0 9 HOB Seismic Retrofit • Column Strengthening - Columns boxed with additional plates - Beam /Column connection improvement (Weak Beam , Strong Column) - CGCc l l�ila�'�i � L . r Cover Plee DefaH 1J I11 HOB Seismic Retrofit C. 1 I� FIF]T FLOOR PLA r c 13 0 PBB Seismic Retrofit • Issues - Pre - Northridge moment frame joints. - 3 -sided building. This style of construction is no longer permitted. - Movement of building exceeds standards. • Retrofit - Minimize impact to operational functions of equipment. - Limit work to perimeter of building. - Tie building together, stiffen structure, maintain access to building/equipment. Critical Plant Equipment IV l t \� West Buttress West Side Shear Walls all South °' Sides `" 7.7 I 1 _ 1 s Current Status of Pump & Blower Building Seismic Retrofit • PBB pre- design nearly complete. • Probable construction cost - $1.8M. • Pre - design complete April 2011. Next step: staff will seek Board direction with respect to proceeding with detailed design. 15 r- 0 Solids Conditioning Building Seismic Retrofit • Issues - Pre - Northridge moment frame joints - Flexible structure - Stairwell structures on North and West are overloaded in a seismic event - Irregular loading of structure SCB Seismic Retrofit 16 0 0 0 Current Status of Solids Conditioning Building Seismic Retrofit • Position Paper to Board on April 7, 2011, for pre- design • Degenkolb Engineers recommended for pre - design • $125,000 authorization for Degenkolb 17 • • Design Criteria • Retrofit Options - Exterior Buttresses - Shear Walls • Design Level: Life Safety Plus which is recommended by California Building Code for new wastewater treatment facilities. • Incinerators will be analyzed to strengthen their expected response to an earthquake. Why Do This Now? • Issues with 129 Regulations are resolved • Potentially large dollar cost for seismic retrofit of SBC - $5.5 million • Need accurate costs to help make decisions with respect to future solids handling options and investments in current facilities 0 0 Capital Project Forecasting (part of TP Asset Management, DP 7269) Capital Projects Committee Meeting April 6, 2011 1 V Capital Project Forecasting Objective: • Minimize the life -cycle costs of assets and continue to deliver established levels of service at an acceptable level of risk. Process: • Anticipate retirement of assets. • Minimize reactive /urgent work. • Prioritize projects based on risk. • Develop 10 -year Capital Funding Plan. RISK 19 0 Ll CP Forecasting Process Assets sets Likelihood of Failure Consequence of Failure -Condition Assessment -Importance to operation of plant -Age -Meeting District Mission -Redundancy -Safety Business Risk Exposure (BRE) Likelihood of Failure x Consequence of Failure Prioritize & Scope Projects Determine Projects & Group Appropriately (e.g. by system, process, type) Incorporate in 10 yr CIP Condition Assessments *Determine the likelihood of failure and /or the remaining life of the asset. I I _ *Completed Assessments -Concrete -Asphalt Paving -Protective Coatings -Transformers -Buildings re Seismic -Presence of Hazardous Materials -Critical Piping (Aeration) -Elevators -Electrical Switchgear Photo 13: Bay 1- Dolan of Exposed Aarepela Above WSW Lim ITYViean bT Next Steps 1. Pilot- assessment of mechanical equipment at Primary Sedimentation Tank area. — Develop condition assessment forms & procedures for sustainable & repeatable in -house assessments. P w 2. Develop relative consequence ranking for plant assets. 3. Assess — remainder of plant mechanical. 3 1 2 Next Steps 4. Inventory & assess — piping, electrical conduits. 5. Develop Treatment Plant GDI. 6. Prioritize & scope projects. 7. Incorporate into 10 -year CIP. 21 0 0 Pleasant Hill - Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer Capital Projects Committee Meeting April 6, 2011 D Pleasant Hill- Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer Purpose: Prevent overflows due to insufficient wet weather capacity Scope: • 18 -inch sewer Pleasant Hill Rd - Westover Dr - Maureen Ln -4,000' • 24 -inch sewer - 2 possible routes 1) Maureen Ln - Elinora Dr - Ardith Dr - 1,700' 2) Lucille Ln - Kathleen Dr - Ardith Dr - 2,000' • Local sewer renovation 22 Pleasant Hill- Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer Schedule: • Design: July 2011 - April 2012 • Construction: June 2012 - April 2013 Project Cost Estimate: $3.1 M Coordinating with City paving/street improvement projects M mp_ 23 � F� � � i { .rE Yfl vi .aunwwwri. n ;�„ FAGNNT HILL • � ` �" ^ m � �� 2 PL � � GRAYGOR CREEK l Pleasant Hill- Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer Schedule: • Design: July 2011 - April 2012 • Construction: June 2012 - April 2013 Project Cost Estimate: $3.1 M Coordinating with City paving/street improvement projects M mp_ 23 OUTFALL PROJECT DELAYED • Construction delays in the Dry /Wet Weather Project • Schedule conflicts with the aeration basin air header replacement • Planned baffle installation in Primary Tank #4 • Flow meter sizing issues May move -up old primary /lime silos demolition project i OLD PRIMARY TANKS a 24 LIME SILOS Questions? 25