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