HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.a. (Handout) 2012-13 Capital Improvement Budget and Plan(MOO&,O)
8.a.
Item 8a.
2012 -13 Capital Improvement
Budget and Plan
December 15, 2011 Board Presentation
Proposed Ten -Year
Capital Improvement Program
Pfograni/Subprogram
201114
2014.15
2015.16
2016.17
2017 -18
2016.19
2019.20
2020.21
2021.22
Totals
Treatment Plant
R .Can rcenma
960.000
421.000
4.720.000
5.15500D
10 15 .000
27165.000
23.780000
27180.000
101167000
Ont -Tme Rerov40m
7.7P.0D0
4.542.000
7.745.000
4.020.000
so=
80 .000
80.000
80.000
35292.000
R Renova54n
J2DI2.13
402,000
R5.6-00.0-DO
2460.000
2470000
2600000
]050000
3.050000
]800.000
26.000000
22600.000
Er mien
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100000
100000
subtotal
9,013,01M
7 3.000
14,136.M
11.766.000
11"16
30296.060
26.if0A00
30160
10.16900
Collection System
Renw4lnn
10.310.000
11,702000
10.501.000
12"51.000
12,150.000
14.0".000
14.451000
1 151000
13.651.000
12A30.000
124.541000
R nayPn - Sal
381
770"00
270"00
270. 000
7" 00
270"00
770.000
270.000
270.000
2 "11.000
& mm�
1 e94
4'467' ODD
5.343000
2.914.000
1 1
101000
4 1
3 %1000
2A�.000
31 000
Pumom Sulown
1335
1 00
136.000
135.000
1.635000
610000
1425000
MOOD
1 15.O0D
9576000
Suerolel
13 r23;
1179! 000
11 000
1
17
tt 32
11307
1 407
17 681"00
166 T
General lm ovements
RMI'l.lMDO
501000
501.000
501000
5D1. 000
501.000
500.000
500.000
500.000
500.000
5006.N
lnlometm
1400000
900000
500
500000
500.000
500.000
500.000
SWAOD
500.000
8300.000
Mos
5.353000
440. 000
440. 000
470. 000
855.000
480.000
400000
480.000
480000
9%3.000
su01aW
1 001
1 1.000
1AM
1 71.000
t.066A00
1420A00
1.480.0001
1.490AN
I tA60.OW
21261"00
Recycled Water
Urban LaWma
3"30.000
551.000
550"00
550.000
550. 000
550000
550.000
550"00
550.000
550.000
s.sai DDD
Suotm
7 000
551.Ml
660 000
160000
660.000
660000
660"10
660
660
1 660"00
6 1.000
ToW
3,000
b 0,000
26.672000
26]71"00
32.872000
71 1.000
33 .007
60.p20W
47 7.000
/l .071000
766 000
$358 Million Ten Year Plan Is a Responsible
One That Funds....
• Treatment Plant
— Incinerator /Solids Handling Impvmts
$12.2 M
— Primary Sedimentation Renovation
$9.7 M
— Cogeneration Replacement/Alternative Energy
$7M
— Nitrification
$70 M
— Contaminated Soils Remediation
$20 M
• Collection System
$6,534,000
— Identified Renovation Needs Plus
$125 M
— Identified Capacity Needs
$20 M
— Pumping Station Renovation
$10 M
— CAD's and Developer Sewers
$13 M
• General Improvements and Treatment Plant
$481,000
— Seismic Improvements
$10.2 M
Sewer
Service
Charge is
Critical
Funding
Source
for Capital
$265,000
Program
FY 2011 -12 CAPITAL REVENUES
BUDGETED
Facility Capacity Fees
$4,372,000
Pumped Zone Fees
$562,000
Interest Sewer Construction Fund
$265,000
Property Taxes (Net after debt paid)
$6,882,000
Sewer Service Charge ($39 capital component)
$6,534,000
Reimbursements from Others
City of Concord
$2,549,000
Recycled Water Sales (Net after O &M)
$110,000
Developer Fees /Other
$491,000
Alhambra Valley /CAD's
$481,000
TOTAL
$22,246,000
RIA
Current Year Program Sets Beginning
SCF Balance for Ten Year Plan
FY 2011 -12 CAPITAL
PROGRAM
BUDGETED
PROJECTED
Total Expenditures
$25.9 million
$27.7 million
Total Revenue
$22.2 million
$22.2 -24.2 million
Variance
-$3.7 million
- ($3.5 -$5.5 million)
SCF Balance 6/30/12
(Beginning balance 6/30/11
$52.1 million)
$48.4 million
$46.6 -$48.6 million
Sewer Service Charge Revenues Diverted
from Capital Program to Balance District O &M Budget
$400
S371
Total charge per RUE /4
$360 - $34t
$300
$248
$260
f224
5200
$200
$160
$100
$60
Capital program component
�_ S39 S39
� ✓ 517
SO
3
Assuming Similar FY 2012 -13 Revenue...
(plus Prop 84 $1 M Reimbursement and Payback of $1 M
Property Tax)
Planned Program Brings SCF Balance Down
Close to Funds Required
FY 2012 -13 CAPITAL PROGRAM
PROPOSED BUDGET
Total Expenditures
$32.3 million
Total Revenue
$24.3 million
Variance
-$8 million
SCF Balance 6/30/13 (Beginning
balance 6/30/11 $46.6 — 48.6 million)
$38.6 - $40.6 million
Capital Program Has Been Deficit
Spending for Seven Years
S70M
good s
Seem 567.3 INwfl...
f53.e SSS.2
fffi'.On6WG110n f61A f51.7
$SOM 7.e Fund Balance
f44.3 f46.a
S40M
S30M
S20M
S10M
SOM
.e
Me
o w,do d o ..a.e0
M
Upcoming Developments
Name City RUEs
Sprouts Market
RU.E's Year to Date are Promising and Exceed
2
24 Hour Fitness w/ Chick -Fil -A
Budget by $1.8 Million
45
Paragon Apartments
2.500 ---------------------- _ -------------- ---------------- _------------------ - - - - -- ....... .. ° °........................ - _
300
North Main Apartments
2.000 ..................._....-...............---------------------------------- - - - - -. ............ ..............------ .. .. ° °-- °.•
98
The Village Mixed Use at Newell Ave
W
1.500 ........ ......... .................. . ............................ .a.
39
Wilder
Orinda
244
Alamo Creek Senior Apartments
1.000 ..... ............................ .
;
1120
500
0
cp�phry�y���1�1p0�Q9�-11Z) �1o,�ryo�,,1'L
Fiscal Year
n Total RUES per Year 2011 -12 Budgeted RUES
Upcoming Developments
Name City RUEs
Sprouts Market
Walnut Creek
2
24 Hour Fitness w/ Chick -Fil -A
Walnut Creek
45
Paragon Apartments
Walnut Creek
300
North Main Apartments
Walnut Creek
98
The Village Mixed Use at Newell Ave
Walnut Creek
39
Wilder
Orinda
244
Alamo Creek Senior Apartments
Danville
1120
What increase in Capital Component
will be needed in FY 2013 -14 & FY
2014 -15 and beyond?
• Proposed 10 -year plan calls for $29.4 million in spending in
FY 2013 -14 and $25.6 million in FY 2014-15..... modest as
compared to $30 M benchmark
• Assuming similar revenue stream for next two years and
about 166,000 connections
• Increase in capital component of $20 in 2013 -14 and $20 in
2014 -15 will be needed to bring capital component to
sustainable level
• In subsequent years modest cost of living increments suffice
until 2018 -19 when spending increases to fund soil
remediation /nitrification projects
What are our total unfunded liabilities
as of most recent information?
Accrued Compensated Absence
$5.1 M
GASB 45 OPEB Liability
$77.6 M
CCCERA Unfunded Liability
$122.5 M
Outstanding Debt
$51.8 M
TOTAL UNFUNDED LIABILITY
-$257 M*
*SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE
6 -30 -12 $- 47 MILLION
(Funds Required - $35 Million)
What is our bonding capacity and
how should it be used?
• Guideline 10% of revenue going to debt service. Current
revenue - $85 million therefore debt service $8.5 million.
• Current debt service $5.6 million per year vs. $8.5 million
per year guideline.
• Investigating benefits of using remaining bonding
capacity to fund capital and free up funds to pay down
CCCERA unfunded pension obligation.
• Discussion should risk of using bonding capacity which
has historically been reserved for large capital
requirements for unbudgeted regulatory mandates.
Conclusion of Rate Setting
Discussion
• Two year $30 rate increase (FY 2010 -11 & FY 2011 -12) did
not close the funding gap for the Capital Program
• Additional - $40 rate increase over two years will be needed
($20 FY 2013 -14 & $20 FY 2014 -15) to close the Capital
Program funding gap .... O&M needs will add to that increase
• Raising rates to pay for capital improvements is essential to
maintain existing assets and meet new regulatory mandates
• Bonding capacity is limited and prudent management would
preserve some capacity for future unidentified Capital
Program necessities
7
Proposed FY 2012 -13 Capital Improvement Budget
FY 2012 -13 CIB
Program /Project
Total Cost
Treatment Plant Baseline
$ 7.4 million
Collection System Baseline
$13.7 million
General Improvements Baseline*
$ 7.3 million
Recycled Water Baseline
$ 0.5 million
Concord Landscape Irrigation
$3.4 million
Total Baseline
$28.9 million
Total Baseline + Concord REW
$32.3 million
*Includes $4.75 million for one time seismic retrofits of HOB and 4737 Imhoff
FY 2012 -13 TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM
CATEGORY
PROJECT
ANNUAL
EXPENSE
One Time
Renovation
Pump & Blower Building Seismic*
$3,000,000
Primary Treatment Renovation*
$1,000,000
Outfall Inspection and Renovation
$ 815,000
Recurring
Renovation
Piping Renovation Phase 6
$526,000
Piping Renovation Phase 7
$ 700,000
All Other
$1,395,000
Total Baseline
$7,436,000
Current CCCSD Treatment Approach
State of the Art When Constructed
Recovers Energy and Phosphorus...
What is our Treatment Plant of the Future?
Disinfectlon 8
Ash Reuse = phosphorus recovery Waste heat recovery
Incineration & steam production= Energy Recovery
Adapted from Bmwn and Caldwell
h
&
wdea WaW
CCCSD Plant of the Future Planning
Exercise
to 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.
• Invited two consultants to develop & submit
concepts for CCCSD treatment plant of the future
and phased approach to get us there.
• CCCSD staff & technical advisors attended
presentation and reviewed documents.
• Technical advisors submitted recommendations...
9
Plant of Future Findings
• Industry is "morphing" from doing things as they have for
100 years to looking at sustainability
• Research ongoing on biological nutrient removal utilizing
"short-cut NDN (nitrification /den itrification) processes" to
reduce energy consumption
• Research ongoing on biosolids to energy conversion as
an alternative to incineration
• Future biological nutrient facilities concepts entirely
driven by effluent limits
Recommendation: Maintain current facility /monitor
research by others /identify research needs for
CCCSD over the five years of the next NPDES permit
10
S -Curve for adoption of innovation
Lo '�-
�pp.�a=
R
I
s
K ub
Mafefry
E01Y
LNeep1.6
Eaa,
Innevabez Ngoily
Hi
Ear& Late
Time of Adoption ------------------------------- - - - --►
Where do we want to be on the innovation curve?
CCCSD has built a comprehensive integrated
energy /GHG model to analyze different scenarios
for planning purposes.
• 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
11
Comparing Solids Handling Methods
B_j Be C* Bns Y..t FwW I.* �0r VAW *1P KFGe+ei
Ji3N tjMA in A.4A•'1 1) - - a 11 ®lam
J tj TZO 12 E3 P s
rw .10 D t Il EEEM T % :R _- Ce•a•16
®13
G2 F
t. D F - -H I J. L M N 0 P 0
1
2 MULTIPLE HEARTH FURNACE
3 Pl"M CLoade WO URN
4 Who STUkry lb TS
5 Gas wrong ReWnnlms NM8TWtr,t.@21 %TS
'6 q G.. He wg Requremms NMTWdry tm
.7 Bosokds Gas Wang Retp.eenms hMTIYda,
" Nxual Gas —•. —.�
2, MA910 headh
I LudM Gas — • • —. Lamue
Ash
Grte Ja .
gases UsabM
Steam stum
Waste Nat
bode,
Feed
Blosatlame heaug
Feed sea. F—Wat. T.* /
Desert.
LmO G, T- Be Wild
MMSCF /da, _
Mss Futon LFGO ps w gas supply
wwTrmsfened
MMSTWda,
Siam Gentle x. (Pasaos)
IWW.1401" TS/day
3M Land Gee Us-
.d 7 08 mWil y gas heateg
MHF in
MMSCF LGl„
Miff R
WAW LGI,1
Wff Sun
MMSCF LGIV
Miff Sun LF Ga,
Gx
FR mr,
2D®Noval llasm
Mff in
kd NG/V
Mff 02
kd NGl,r
Mff Sun
WMKF NCJ,,
Mff Sun Nat Ws
MMBTW„
FesQrwtn wrong
Po steam p. Item p. gpm makeup n
CadeMNa Rstun
duuw steam
C. de-ne BW.*-
d—b4 slum
,stun Sews mans b9ams shut
e M yivbM�en.a J. 6.luY.rr.•..l A G.IUWA�I Jau4aln�,Mf fw e j _!l
Preliminary Findings of Solids
Handling Alternatives Analysis
Solids Handling
Capital Cost
O &M Cost
Annualized
Alternative
($ /year)
Cost ($ /year)*
Anaerobic
$54,400,000
$7,450,000
$11,510,000
Digestion
Fluidized Bed
$60,000,000
$2,620,000
$7,850,000
Incineration
Multiple Hearth
$18,600,000 **
$4,910,000
$6,530,000
Furnace Upgrade
*Assumes discount rate of 6% and 20 year analysis period.
** Includes $6 million for Solids Bldg Seismic Upgrade
12
Treatment Plant Renovation Needs Continue to
be 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
•..w s.: aia •..ru.r.� w.�.rr..
o.rrrwn..: �aaaor or..w or.w.: �ur.�r ru va.�
4.w' IYr..M1.Q4rv�aiw..�Yt1
cr.o.ruw u. s�.r+c iamrr.
rw.x�c
Y/mwry.m Ntm May .aa M�.rirw.lYw G./� ML,^pM a.rN
Photo 13 Bay 1 • Detail of Exposed
Appropale Above Water Una (Typical)
$6.5 M Primary Sedimentation Tank
Renovations Incorporates Condition
Assessment Findings and Improves Efficiency
• 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
lim
Scum Spray System
Improve
Requires Renovation to
Performance
Tank Baffles Will Improve Solids
Capture /Reduce Load on Secondary
14
Grit Handling Facilities are Odorous and
Reaching End of Useful Life
Ammonia removal looking more likely within ten
year window of the CIP (Status Dec 2010)
• December 2010 — CVRWQCB adopts Sacramento Regional
Permit with Stringent Ammonia and Nitrate Removal
• December 2010 - San Francisco RWQCB initiates nutrient study plan
for Suisun Bay to evaluate impact of ammonia on phytoplankton
• September 2010 Sacramento Regional tentative NPDES renewal
calls for ammonia and nitrogen removal
• August 2009 — An Urgent Call to Action report of the State -EPA
Nutrient Innovations Task Group
• May 1, 2009 — Ammonia included as "other stressor" in Bay Delta
Conservation Plan and all treatment plants discharging to the Delta,
including CCCSD, listed as contributors
• June 2, 2008 —Dr. Dugdale finds that ammonia from wastewater
treatment plants may pose a threat to Delta species
• November 27, 2007 - Petition for Rulemaking on Secondary
Treatment Standards for Nutrient Removal to EPA by NRDC
15
Ammonia removal looking more likely within ten
year window of the CIP (Status Dec 2012)
• Report of Waste Discharge for Reissuance of NPDES Permit
submitted to RWQCB May 31, 2011.
• Ongoing discussions with RWQCB and participation in Suisun
Bay studies and Numeric Nutrient Endpoints studies to support
work to identify stressors in Suisun Bay and the part played by
ammonia and nutrients.
• Administrative Draft of NPDES Permit received September 16
and comments returned September 22, 2011. RWQCB
strategy to study ammonia issue for five years of permit but not
require ammonia removal at this time.
• Draft Tentative Order received September 29, 2011 containing
achievable ammonia limits.
• CCCSD minor comments submitted November 1, 2011.
State Water Contractors take an
interest in CCCSD Tentative Order
• SWC comments submitted November 1, 2011
suggest immediate requirements for CCCSD to
remove ammonia and nitrogen.
• RWQCB initial response to issue 13267 letter requiring
CCCSD /DDSD to take the lead in studying nutrients in
the Delta and identify short term plant improvements to
reduce ammonia discharges
• Approach conflicts with regional approach that
CCCSD /RWQCB /BACWA have been promoting
• BACWA submitted detailed Comments rebutting State
Water Contractors letter December 8, 2011
• Discussions with RWQCB ongoing
• Permit Adoption Hearing moved from January 18, 2012
to February 8, 2012.
16
What could Ammonia Removal look like?
(Basis of $70 million capital cost estimate in CIP)
K ..
Y
''&. y aL� Conventional Nitrification
What could nutrient removal look like?
(Additional $70 M_without removal of contaminated soils.)
Aw NO ANWAb-
ss �.
Ilk
OP
Nutrient Removal level III
M
Nutrient
MBR
Some Nitrification /Nutrient Removal Approaches Take Less
Space
Cost of Contaminated Soil
Remediation is a Consideration in
Choosing Future Treatment
• Cost depends on Waste Class (estimated 150,000 cy)
- Non Hazardous — landfill - $18.9 Million
(Haul to Keller Canyon Landfill)
- Non- RCRA — Hazardous - $18.5 - 27.6 Million
(Rail transport to Utah)
- RCRA Hazardous - $42.7 - $145.8 Million
(Rail transport to Idaho)
- On -site treatment - $27 — 39.5 Million
(Stabilization /Solidification)
• Assume $20 Million for planning purposes in year 2019
i:3
19
FY 2012 -13 COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM
CATEGORY
PROJECT
ANNUAL EXPENSE
Renovation program*
Walnut Creek 9, North
Orinda 4, Lafayette 8,
Concrete Pipe, TV inspection
and others
$ 10,310,000
Capacity /Renovations
Grayson Creek Trunk in
Pleasant Hill
$ 500,000
Pumping Stations
San Ramon Pump Station
Upgrades, Buchanan South
Removal
$ 1,335,000
Developer services
Developer Services
$ 681,000
Contractual
Assessment Districts
Current CADs — Vista Del
Orinda, St. Mary's Road,
Harper Lane, Smith Road
$ 500,000
All others
$ 397,000
Total
$13,723,000
19
Pipe Renovated to Date
The following table reflects the miles of pipe
(6, 8 &10 Inch) renovated to date.
FISCAL YEAR
PIPE RENOVATED
2005/07
8.1 Miles
2007/08
5.6 Miles
2008/09
6.3 Miles
2009/10
7.5 Miles
2010/11
2.6 Miles
2011/12
6.8 Miles
TOTAL
Completed Renovation
36.9 Miles
Renovation Program (6, 8 & 10 inch)
Achieves 100% Completion
of all known defects by FY 18/19
Total miles of pipe to be renovated - 82.8 miles*
Miles of pipe renovated to date - 36.9 miles
Remaining miles to renovate - 45.9 miles
* Based on TV inspection of 99 percent of 6, 8 and 10 inch mains
** Provides $31.1 million in FY 17118 to 21122 for lines currently
not identified by TV program
* ** Estimated at $280/ft
20
10 Yr Budget
Miles of
Percent of
for
Pipe
Known
Renovation
Renov. in
Defects
(millions) **
Next 10
Renov. in
Yrs * **
10 Yrs
$110.5
74.7
100 %+
* Based on TV inspection of 99 percent of 6, 8 and 10 inch mains
** Provides $31.1 million in FY 17118 to 21122 for lines currently
not identified by TV program
* ** Estimated at $280/ft
20
SSO Downward Trend Has Been
Significant Since Start of Renovation
Program
Running 12 -Month Overflow Totals
1999 to present
200.
1w
129
100
50 - - --
79
12 -Month Total at Month -End
SSO Downward Trend Has Been
Significant Since Start of Renovation
Program
Comparison of Cumulative Overflo�
100
90
so
70
60
50
40 {
30 i
20
10
0
JM FES rw APR MAY .NN JUL wa SEa OCT Nov 0EC
-0-- 2009 - o--2009 12010 - 41--2011
21
Pleasant Hill -
Pleassnt HIIUOroyson Crock
Latayette-
Plecsant Hill Road
l
ea ^.e l�-
hE]
V rs.w
ri�e F
nogg y
iga Way
Capacity Program
• - 6d
._I
10 year plan includes
$20M for high priority
- capacity projects
i Q e
f w .
f- 1 WalnutCrook-
�o.e ± S _ Walnut Blvd
Legend
Gwclly uaalclancy onauP
Be. Ramon - -
►aranl run Plpa CapaelPy San Ramon Schedule C
~M
\ \�\
O 1
(".a M.,manl. &year avant)
O
2
W Sk— or 1— In-
HO-a
22
Budget funds abandonment of Buchanan South P.S.
Contra
Tawer
Remo
North
Pumping
Station
Air Plaid %i«onnad
M1 Airport
8 Businesses
Pe neol
= Existing Sewers Airport
= Proposed Sewers Businessm
Sam e
ACC Club
C9
Remove �C
South '
Pumpi Sports Authority
to Ion
Recon Ta
Reconnect I d A
/Crowne Plaza
Hotel
Abantlonedl.+`
BB' A -Une Relief
Interutptor ^
FY 2012 -13 GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
PROJECT
ANNUAL EXPENSE
Vehicles and Equipment
$501,000
Information Technology
$1,400,000
Seismic Improvements HOB
and 4737 Imhoff Place`
$4,750,000
All Other
$603,000
Total
$7,254,000
23
SAGAS WDRULOW SEE
ADDITIONAL DIAGRAM
0 1. 0
SOL 5 -2005 iii • - 111 -'
' ieMAS40DS— SOLS -20115 SOL Sava 2005
ESGSOL ESGSDL
MGIS MME NJEB_GIS QiSerie CS602 SDL -0t
(aenwtw)
ESG Dae ESG DM HTE ACCNe CCCSOLFB
flaverfKnel
District and ColdFuslon (Reports)
Developer Jobs
Mapping MapGuide (Spatial)
GeoMedla
Collection system GDI
pan and profile
AutoCAID
GDI NME Saver
(W.J.- 2003 5-111S a 0)
Concord Fault Proximity to District Facilities
24
Concord Fault
y
I_.
.fye'�•
.Y� �M
�
IAI
r
Ro
10"
;tV roperty Lme to Feutl
r� 13 '09 fl
-Tq
muc or
unp k Blmcel Bldg io Fault
ti -
-�- dg
A
`: f
cod es o J QSJ 8
"lids BI to Fault
24
Seismic Retrofit Program
Project
2012 10 -YR CIP
CONSTRUCTION
HOB
$ 4,500,000
FY 2012 -13
Pump & Blower
$ 3,005,000
FY 2012 -13
4737 Warehouse
$ 250,000
FY 2012 -13
POB Office Area
$ 1,177,000
FY 2015 -16
TP Warehouse
$ 895,000
FY 2016 -17
Laboratory
$ 192,000
FY 2016 -17
SCB'
$ 201,000
FY 2022 -23
Total
1$10,220,000
' Seismic Retrofit of SCB is estimated at $7 -8 Million for construction; does
not include bracing furnaces. Budgeted outside 10 year plan in anticipation of
potential change in solids handling method.
i Exterior Option
1.1 Ali
;FE= `ICI -� �• �=�
!• Aso . � ,� . �1
' ^_ f N� �• }I. YI fir.. �.�. °- iJib�^
25
HOB
Interior
Retrofit
Option
UYUCII ICIAN- 6
IV L-CW
I
I
E
I
wLvm
1
wow
ow
I
0 2 4 li :)
HOB Interior Retrofit Option
��� Nttt CI
9of7orn }la�ndt` pof �J.1.3
26
Preliminary Ideas for Relocating
Staff during HOB Seismic Upgrade
— Keep as much staff as possible on or near
Martinez campus
— Utilize existing facilities (4737 Warehouse, Annex,
space in POB)
— Use any excess space at new CSO facility
— Rent office trailers and place on Martinez campus
— Consider lease of unoccupied office space
— Review relocation plan with Board in the future
Pump and Blower Building Houses Critical Plant
Equipment
37 02:23
M
PBB Retrofit Can Be Accomplished
Keeping Plant in Service
3r 4
l0
9
West
-Buttress West Side
Shear Walls all Sides
4
South
.v
L
ANNUAL EXPENSE
Z7:
-1, v w� --,
:Z-A
$530,000
Concord Landscape Irrigation`
$3,400,000
Total
FY 2012 -13 RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM
PROJECT
ANNUAL EXPENSE
Baseline - Pleasant Hill Zone 1,
Martinez Refineries and other
REW Planning
$530,000
Total Baseline
$530,000
Concord Landscape Irrigation`
$3,400,000
Total
$3,930,000
Concord Landscape Irrigation Project
'i
Approx. 190
wo-
AFY
Approx. 190
'- — ��--,
AFY
r _
Over 34 New
Customers
$4.2 million
_ _ ®_ ---_
l S
total cost
° � i
$1.2 million
Prop 84 Grant
Martinez Refinery Project
Construction Unbudgeted/ Conducting Title 16 Feasibility Study and Pursuing
WRDA Funding
yyx
1
c
t y .•�• CGO Tru1 —e-
�! ... } • _ . _ Mart
W
Board Role in Capital Program is
Ongoing
• Set Initial Capital Funding Levels in Nov /December
• Confirm Capital Funding Levels in Jan /February
• Board Workshop Focused on CIB /CIP Projects April
• Authorize CIB /Program Budgets in June
• Authorize Supplemental Program Funds if needed
• Award Construction Projects > $100,000
• Authorize Construction Change Orders >$100,000
• Authorize Consultant Contracts > $100,000
What do we need from the Board today?
• Concurrence that proposed preliminary expenditure
figures for FY 2012 -13 and the subsequent 9 years are
acceptable for inclusion in financial planning documents
to be reviewed by Board in February 2012
• Concurrence that relative emphasis and allocation of
ex penditures between the four programs is acceptable
for development of the detailed FY 2012 -13 Capital
Improvement Budget and Ten -Year Capital Plan
• Acknowledgement that a significant increase in the
capital component of the Sewer Service Charge will be
needed in FY 2013 -14 and FY 2014 -15 to fund the
recommended 2012 Ten Year Capital Plan
ME