HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.a. (Handout) PowerPoint(Handout) hl Q
Board Capital Projects Workshop
April 14, 2011
Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Summary
FY 2011 -12
Capital Improvement Ten Year Plan (CIP) Summary
P, o0, 1% 2011 - 122012,132013.142014 - 152015162018 -172017182018.192019- 2020w- t T01ale
T,eannent Plant 17.1M 8.814 S M 7.5M 11.2M 15M 21.7M 29.5M 29.7M 7.1M $146M
Collection System $12.814 17.114 '17.8M 16.7M 16.714 16.OM 17.2M '18.781 18.714 19.9M $172M
Getw,nl I... veme„R $5.4M 3.6M 1.514 1.514 1.5M UM 1.8M 1.5M 1.561 1.514 $21M
Recycled Wme, $0.6M 0.614 OAM 0.01 0.6M 0.614 0.614 0.614 0.6M 0.6M $6M
Totul $25.9M 30.1M 28.8M 26.361 MOM 33.OM 41.3M 501M 50.4M MOM $345M
Prop 218 noticed two year $30 increase allows raising capital component from current
$11 to $39 in 2011 -12 and $ 49 in 2012 -13 and will fund first two years of CIP.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Estimated Estimated
Estimated
Total
Program
FY 2011 -12 Carry-over
Allocation
FY 2011 -12
Program from Prior
FY 2011 -12
Proposed
Expenditures Fiscal Year
Authorization
Treatment
$7,082,000
$3,134,200
$5,141,000
$8,275,200
Plan
Collection
$12,840,000
$2,017,000
$10,909,000
$12,926,000
System
$5,442,000
$4,024,000
$3,952,000
$7,976,000
G eneral ents
Recycled
$550,000
$405,000
$215,000
$620,000
Water
Total
$25,914,000
$9,580,000
$20,217,000
$29,797,000
FY 2011/12
Capital Improvement Ten Year Plan (CIP) Summary
P, o0, 1% 2011 - 122012,132013.142014 - 152015162018 -172017182018.192019- 2020w- t T01ale
T,eannent Plant 17.1M 8.814 S M 7.5M 11.2M 15M 21.7M 29.5M 29.7M 7.1M $146M
Collection System $12.814 17.114 '17.8M 16.7M 16.714 16.OM 17.2M '18.781 18.714 19.9M $172M
Getw,nl I... veme„R $5.4M 3.6M 1.514 1.514 1.5M UM 1.8M 1.5M 1.561 1.514 $21M
Recycled Wme, $0.6M 0.614 OAM 0.01 0.6M 0.614 0.614 0.614 0.6M 0.6M $6M
Totul $25.9M 30.1M 28.8M 26.361 MOM 33.OM 41.3M 501M 50.4M MOM $345M
Prop 218 noticed two year $30 increase allows raising capital component from current
$11 to $39 in 2011 -12 and $ 49 in 2012 -13 and will fund first two years of CIP.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
$345 Million Ten Year Plan Is a Responsible
One That Funds....
• Treatment Plant
— Incinerator /Solids Handling Impvmts
$14 M
— Primary Sedimentation Renovation
$6.5 M
— Cogeneration Replacement
$71M
— Nitrification
$71 M
• Collection System
$550,000 (2 %)
— Identified Renovation Needs Plus
$120 M
— Identified Capacity Needs
$20 M
— Pumping Station Renovation
$14 M
— CAD's and Developer Sewers
$5 M
• General Improvements and Treatment Plant
— Seismic Improvements
$10.6 M
FY 2011 -12 CIB Expenditure
RPCnmmPnr1ntinno*
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 D
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 Includes Planning'
Total Treatment Plant Program
$7,082,000
NA
*Presentation to follow.
Situation Facing CCCSD
• Present plant was designed in the 1970s
• Specific processes 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:
Ammonia and Nutrient discharges
Emerging pollutants
Greenhouse gas reduction
Increasing energy costs
Sustainability
4sn Russ = MosP�orus mrnvery nune� Wade lw®rtcwary
6.c�eain gotlupion = Eneryy Recovery
WERF Plant of the Future Emphasizes Anaerobic
Treatment and Resource Recovery..... What is the
CCCSD Plant of The Future?
Current CCCSD Treatment Approach
State of the Art When Constructed
Recovers Energy and Phosphorus...
Can It Be Optimized?
Future Treatment Plant Decisions
• Before making expensive improvements to the
plant.... primary renovation, solids handling
improvements, seismic retrofit of solids building.....we
need to confirm the current treatment approach...
• What is the future plant that can sustainably comply
under various discharge scenarios?
• Can we make the plant energy positive /neutral? How do
we achieve this? Is anaerobic digestion preferred?
• Is there a way to begin "morphing" to the future plant
with our ongoing improvements?
"7f you don't know where you're going, any road will
get you there."
We want to know where we are going so we can
make good investments in our future.....
CCCSD Plant of the Future Planning
Exercise
• Comprehensive look at how to sustainably treat
wastewater for next 50+ years.
• Consider how CCCSD can transition to the plant of the
future.
• Incorporate findings of Greenhouse gas study of
Incineration vs. Digestion.
• Invite consultants to develop & submit concepts for
CCCSD treatment plant of the future and phased
approach to get us there.
• CCCSD staff & technical advisors to review & select
winning concepts for incorporation into Treatment Plant
Master Plan.
• Consultants will be paid a lump sum contract amount
upon submittal of a conceptual plan.
What is the view of the future for CCCSD?
s .
1
CCCSD has built a comprehensive model to
analyze our greenhouse gas emissions under
different scenarios for planning purposes.
AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) targets
industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, including
large stationary combustions sources like CCCSD's
Cogeneration Facility (Cogen)
CCCSD is on border of being in the capped sector
(25,000 metric tons CO2 emissions per year) and must
consider cap when making future treatment plant
decisions
Energy production and usage within our Treatment Plant
is very integrated.... model is needed
=e"C
Examples of 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 incineration process and cogen impact both
energy usage and steam production
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Model Capabilities
• Base model simulates GHG production and energy
usage /cost for current operating conditions
• Model scenarios include:
— Switching to fluidized bed incinerators
— Making modifications to cogeneration system
— Going to higher level of treatment (nitrification /nutrient
removal)
— Switching to anaerobic digesters (in development)
• Cost of electrical power, natural gas, landfill gas and
CO2 allowances can be input to test sensitivity of
different scenarios to energy prices
£ -f
�__
X1 x
ILI
N
m
c
F
1F.
li,
Q'
r
-5
va
1
ai
�I
ay
�
4
$f
o
+8
Q LL
6
W
{
7
IIIIII
(V
-
III
W
�
h
I
Z
H
r
1
IM
- 1 11
m
SI
;y
1
m
w
7
q
Q
(V
W
m
--
w
x
C
---- ---- - -- - --
--
- --
a --
- --
LL
ELL
e
~
_
-
C
z
O
r L
�C
wwin
aLLU
�
O
U
U
r
m
v
m£
E a
E
g
a
W i
q
N
m
N
N
Q
w
O
Q
3
y , V O N o U U
O
c °o . °-
° p_
n
'wa
c p
.G
oc a� c�.
A q_
?
maw
m
b
r
■I p U �. U q
a v
h i
LL y o
r
L
q
.- O
d
a
U •; i
u
0 .E
d
u
C
q
d
d
.£
W? W W U4 Z 1-011
[�2 W
mdQUm
Jd�
C7 CL
in
a
O
f
C
;Q
3
r
o ° e =off x•+04 $
G
"ry
�
O OO C O G
O N
T
G
a a a a a a
_a
O
�
I.
C
A _o m o o 6
.D 01 G . .a ✓
4 q
e °
ry
O O
C
o
N
C U cO,
U U G L U U p U U U U
F Q F
G
if
H LO
111
N
d
mo
=aid
3 5 m U 2
d fq 0 U'
Nq
W
< N
1I
R'?
O O N 4 p Ri O p O I a LL g O O O I O I O N
y m�
}N N E i ZZ2Z d
YN
69
N
A
m
E C Y 1•i
O
N
lV
1
N
1
N U
I
b LL O w
■
c
.=�
P '
a
LL LL LL LLLL LL
�'
r
w
a
a
a'
U U U U U
N N W N N
O 0
m m L.1 U U
0
U
0
U
0
U
0
U
0
U
c sff� a t3
G2 r G E
Ef 3
r
r
❑
w
v 3 a
E
G c p
N
Iz 8 L q
N
p C
W LL N C
O W
5 a
n o ?? U
> 9 w ^
c w
N .4 'E
E W
. vJ
E
w
L
c
99jj
N d N
m U Q O
D
Q
�I
w w p
Y_
■� -
OI c N E
p
C
O
6
Q
- 4 L m • a rn - a L 3 L 1
6 �' O q w; J p O N° C
y
4 w q C5 U
m
n
?N
aT
w
t
o6QQ L urO �_ °' d W
2
-
W �Qw °
a p 6 == p c . q E.y
N
J°� =
O
A q U p1 q q b J O p 4' 6 C ■ d N
r
A
9
q
'G
O
O
-
4 d a m N V W U W W 22 O W d N W
�. 2 d L7 m
2
W
i•i
� \\
%)])\ 2 ;2
2§21$\, \$7
° kkE }
\4 \ \ \ \ \/\
Z2JJ)±] /ƒ
\
E
/
/ }\ )ee
/ \ \w { \ \k
k}); 25);72]
] D ƒf5 k
/ \) >7§ 2
§§« §■ °a ®
�sg,eZsgcrirn
k$$$$7$$$$ }}]/
\)
_ I\
ix
\%
�
\
�
»
�
^
�
^
�
�
�
CO
c
(
I
�
�
\
�
�
�
\
a
%
\
�
\
!
2
}
�
a
CO)
,
�
}
®
/
& a
�
!
_
•
l+2�
mS
i•i
� \\
%)])\ 2 ;2
2§21$\, \$7
° kkE }
\4 \ \ \ \ \/\
Z2JJ)±] /ƒ
\
E
/
/ }\ )ee
/ \ \w { \ \k
k}); 25);72]
] D ƒf5 k
/ \) >7§ 2
§§« §■ °a ®
�sg,eZsgcrirn
k$$$$7$$$$ }}]/
\)
_ I\
)
\
\�
\
o\
, L
\ �
k
t�
/
/
$
f
#
!
! ,
k �
j/
!®
f u
k �
.�
3
�
2
e
2
. }
, \}
\\
(
I
�
\ \
�
\
�
\
T
CD
)
\
\�
\
o\
, L
\ �
k
t�
/
/
$
f
#
!
! ,
k �
j/
!®
f u
k �
.�
3
�
2
e
2
. }
, \}
\\
A",�
'L
m o �0 8 o'o o m�a
08
n �
g
O a
m �
a En a
r
� En � c�a i, z m m �
`m m m
a v v o J z Q m in
O
n a
m
m a L
c ^! L G
q? a aEi 1—J m 7 J u m� LL 9
U N
00 m m N d m m m =
rn
CO U' C7 `m n
I C!7 J m m m U] li U m VJ
N � 1I♦
C S 1♦
v �li
o ' v
m
N
N
m m c
N
m m
m
� S O
m
x x
e o
r
-O
m
(0)
0
c
s
05
O i
ate/
a
L N
S W
D)
O
LL
r�
d
.141.
�,1R11 ILI,
$
eN
g}
I
�
V1
c n
199
,,
III
CL
ti
E
�I�
m
0
H
m K
Z J
3
�
l
U
7C
y WI
M Q 1p fD n GD Q10� ^N M v ^ iD n � �
--
O
9
A",�
'L
m o �0 8 o'o o m�a
08
n �
g
O a
m �
a En a
r
� En � c�a i, z m m �
`m m m
a v v o J z Q m in
O
n a
m
m a L
c ^! L G
q? a aEi 1—J m 7 J u m� LL 9
U N
00 m m N d m m m =
rn
CO U' C7 `m n
I C!7 J m m m U] li U m VJ
N � 1I♦
C S 1♦
v �li
o ' v
m
N
N
m m c
N
m m
m
� S O
m
-O
m
m
05
O i
a
L N
cl
IV m
O
LL
d
c n
J
LL
m K
Z J
�fV
M Q 1p fD n GD Q10� ^N M v ^ iD n � �
--
9
Next Steps in Greenhouse Gas Compliance /
Solids Handling Alternatives Analysis
• Complete development of anaerobic digester module
• Expand analysis to include capital cost and life cycle cost
• Develop life cycle costs for three solids handling alternatives
— Continue with Multiple Hearth Incinerators
— Change to Fluidized Bed Incinerator
— Change to Anaerobic Digestion and Land Application or other Disposal
Method
• Factor findings into long -range Treatment Plant Master Plan
• Finalize study and develop recommended energy portfolio
— Run Cogen at full capacity and buy allowances
— Replace Cogen with solar/wind /etc
— Run Cogen below 25,000 m ton CO2 cap/ buy more PG &E power
— Shutdown Cogan and buy more PG &E power
Treatment Plant Renovation Needs Being
Identified with Condition Assessments
-Determine the likelihood of failure and /or the
remaining life of the asset.
-Completed Assessments
-Concrete
-Asphalt Paving
-Protective Coatings
-Transformers
-Buildings re Seismic
-Presence of Hazardous Materials
-Critical Piping (Aeration)
-Elevators
-Electrical Switchgear
O .11: 9q 1 =1 a40...4
A, - 09... W.O.U..(Typal)
�e"CD=
Next Step Develop Condition Assessment
Approach for Mechanical Equipment
1. Pilot- assessment of mechanical equipment at Primary
Sedimentation Tank area.
— Develop condition assessment forms & procedures for
sustainable & repeatable in -house assessments.
2. Develop relative consequence ranking approach.
3. Assess — remainder of plant mechanical.
•
3 � 2
Primary Sedimentation Tank Renovations
Design will Continue as We Complete
Mechanical Equipment Condition Assessment
and Consider our Future
• Proposed Renovations
— Replace Scum Collection System
— Install Baffles
— Replace Chain Drives
— Rehabilitate Concrete
— Replace Scum Skimmers and Thickener
— Construct New Grit Handling Facilities
— Upgrade /Renovate Electrical Conduits /Equipment
Scum Spray System Requires Renovation to
Tank Baffles Will Improve Solids Capture
(Taken from Stone Cutter Islands Treatment Works)
Improve Performance
Grit Handling Facilities are Odorous and
Reaching End of Useful Life
Dry/Wet Weather Bypass Structure
must be in service to begin Outfall
Improvements Projects
1
I fYAI
is
Pf6Fl
A
Delivery Schedule for Gate Operators
has delayed Project into Summer 2012
4rict
ra
�r-
:.o
9
Abandoned Primary Tanks are Taking Up
Valuable Space and Continuing to Deteriorate
MIII':I J
lus
IF
_ —- » _ —
- NYC
y
si.reur a►a�
Primary /Lime Silo
Demo currently
budgeted at $1.3 M
and scheduled for
2015 -16 may be
moved up if funds
available due to delay
in Outfall Project and
low bids..... current bid
climate may lead to
favorable bids.
Abandoned Lime Silo•
Should Be Removed -
$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
Ammonia removal project to respond to
new regulatory requirements.
How is Ammonia removed?
• Typical process is "nitrification" through additional
aeration basins
• Double the tank volume (19.2 million gallons vs. 9.6
million gallons)
• Double the demand for oxygen /aeration
• Convert ammonia to nitrate ► A�>:\, M n
• Planning exercise will examine
other approaches that could
require less space and /or
less power
Potential Nitrification Facility Layout
(Basis of $71 million capital cost estimate)
tom. 409
A��
- - A
,t
11 4
i unvfntional Mt,t,c t D
Expanding to Achieve Nutrient Removal
Conventional Nitrification can be expanded for nutrient
removal by.......
— Anoxic zone placed upstream of the aeration basins
for nitrogen removal
— Anaerobic zone to promote uptake of phosphorus in
the downstream aerobic zone
— External source of carbon (methanol) to achieve very
low nitrogen levels
'W ill w�
�4 \
Nutrient Removal level III
Preliminary Capital Cost for
Nitrification /Nutrient Removal
Current
Ammonia
Nutrient (nitrogen
Item
Operation
Removal
and phosphorus)
(BOD
Removal
Removal)
Total Project
$70 million`
$70 million
Capital Cost
(budgeted)
(not budgeted)
Annual O &M
$1.6 million /yr
$4.8 million /yr
Cost Increase
(budgeted)
(not budgeted)
"Does not include contaminated soil removal.
FY 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
N 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
2011 -12 Development Sewerage
$500,000
NA
Total Collection System Projects <$500,000
$3,001,000
NA
Total Collection System Program
$12,840,000
N
'Presentation to follow
sewers in
TV'd as of Nov 2010
Pipe Renovated to Date
The following table reflects the miles of pipe
(6, 8 &10 Inch) renovated to date.
Miles of
FISCAL YEAR
PIPE RENOVATED
Pipe
Known
2005/07
8.1 Miles
Defects
(millions) **
2007/08
5.6 Miles
Yrs * **
2008/09
6.3 Miles
76.8
100 %+
2009/10
7.5 Miles
2010/11
2.6 miles
TOTAL
Completed Renovation
30.1 Miles
D
Renovation Program (6, 8 & 10 inch)
Achieves 100% Completion
of all known defects by FY 17118
Total miles of pipe to be renovated - 82.8 miles*
Miles of pipe renovated to date - 30.1 miles
Remaining miles to renovate - 52.7 miles
10 Yr Budget
Miles of
Percent of
for
Pipe
Known
Renovation
Renov. in
Defects
(millions) **
Next 10
Renov. in
Yrs * **
10 Yrs
$113.6
76.8
100 %+
* Based on TV inspection of 99 percent of 6, 8 and 10 inch mains
** Provides $33.6 million in FY 18119 to 20121 for lines currently
not identified by TV program D
* ** Estimated at $280 /ft
SSO Downward Trend Has Been
Significant Since Start of Renovation
Program
Running 12 -Month Overflow Totals
1999 to present
ti ti
12-M..M Te MM.nth- tl
SSO Downward Trend Has Been
Significant Since Start of Renovation
Program
Comparison of Cumulative overflows
120
100
eo
60
40
20
I
0
JAN ME MMI AM MY JUN JM AU0 SW OCi NOV MC
x-2007 (2008 - 2009 - 2010
$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 Projects.
Includes $20 million (6% of CIP) for
Collection System Capacity Projects
-
VI..Y NIIVOny.°n
y -
l+B.ne
w wma..w o.e.,
Im�.."..e B�. —.�� e..�nl
Capacity Program
v 1
10 year plan includes
$20M for eight high
= priority capacity projects
. r u
..ten —n ..... .. r...
.�`•`ea�g �, ��,.�,� -'rte
j u
INS V/71
r-
PLEASMTHILL
L` ORAYWN CREEK
—) CAPACITY PROJECT
�
mss`
\ \'�1T
P 4 4ny PWC Hedlln and tN Cnvlmnm[m
..ten —n ..... .. r...
j u
INS V/71
r-
PLEASMTHILL
L` ORAYWN CREEK
—) CAPACITY PROJECT
FY 2011 -12 Expenditures
2011 -12
Recycled Water Program*
Expenditures
Project 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
*Presentation to follow.
Potential New PH Zone 1 REW Connections
PROJECT
2011 -12
Total
Expenditures
Project 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
Potential New PH Zone 1 REW Connections
Oki
r'
—U"PA j
Blvd
Concord Naval Weapons Station
Planning Underway /Facilities Unbudgeted
O L
...s r 4.n• .ss. ..� �
EIR requires 2.7 mgd of REW
Concord Landscape Irrigation Project
Unbudgeted/Title 16 Funding Unlikely
�.
r
f 2,
FY 2011 -12 Large Project Expenditures
General Improvements Program
PROJECT
2011 -12
Total
Expenditures
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
$5,442,000
NA
Program
Presentation to follow.
■ ■rrr■
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
COLLECTION SYSTEMS OPERATIONS DIVISION
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT .ate
Concord Fault Proximity to District Facilities
1 Concord FaWt �� l >t„,
L
' y
i
roperV Lme m NaWI
/ •• � 0.13 miles o< —]O9fl
., ue � n m„ aide 1, �'s�l a al ro rTw�
1164 m�lasa-- 3.3-4H
A�mle nr- �4:14fl
� r-
..q
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
Therefore, Concord fault governs design.....
Concord Fault Design Criteria
• Limited data exists for Concord Fault
• Last recorded activity October 24, 1954 — Magnitude 5.4
• Design Criteria
— Magnitude 6.7 Mw for 475 yr recurrence
— 10% chance of 6.7 Mw earthquake in next 50 years
• Buildings at risk constructed in 1970's and 1980's
UDarade Cost and Imoact to District Facilities
Building
Estimated
Staff
Estimated
Operational
Replacemen
Impacted
Upgrade Cost $
Impact
t Cost $
#
% Replmt Cost
Headquarters
$15 M
112
$2M - $2.71VI
Displace
Office
staff,
Building(HOB)
13%-18%
Customer
Service
Solids
$100 M
5
$5.5 M
No sludge
Conditioning
processing,
Building(SCB)
5.5%
No steam,
No cogen
Pump &
$75 M
0
$1.8 M
No
Blower
secondary
Building(PBB)
2.5%
treatment
Plant
$10 M
20
$1.0 M
Control
Operations
Room, EOC,
Building(POS)
10%
IT, Di
i s
HOB Seismic Retrofit
Interior Alternative
Strengthen Columns
HOB Seismic Retrofit
Interior Bette Final Appearance but Disruptive
q ii
� k
FIMT FLOOR PLAN
D
Pump and Blower Building Houses Critical Plant
Equipment
Vol
QII! �E
0].00. Nil 06 s:. li
PBB Retrofit Can Be Accomplished
Keeping Plant in Service
West
-Buttress West Side
-Shear '
•Shear Walls all Sides south
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
'$30 rate increase allows for increase in capital component from
S11 to $39 per connection (RUE)
Residential Unit Equivalents (RUES) Connected by Fiscal Year
roo
rWp
HMO
iN0
as
L-
000
N
f0O
000
000
•W
voa
+m
ON
—
JVIY
w
.tee seer at xw csc ,nx see wx 1 r JUN
— 200"7 — 2007 -09 — 2009 -09 — 2009 -t0 — 2010 -1t
D
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
Capital Improvement Budget Summary for
FY 2011 -12
�_ CD
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Total
Program
FY 2011 -12
Car
Carry-over
allocation
FY 2011 -12
Program
from Prior
FY 2011 -12
Proposed
Expenditures
Fiscal Year
Authorization
Treatment Plant
$7,082,000
$3,134,200
$5,141,000
$8,275,200
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
1 $405,000
1 $215,000
1 $620,000
Total
$25,914,000
$9,580,000
$20,217,000
$29,797,000
FY 2011/12
�_ CD
Questions ? ? ??