HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.d.1)c) Action Summary-Engineering & Operations Committee 12-9-14Jl Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
DAVID R. RULIAMS
SANITARY DISTRICT
President
ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
MICHAEL R.M
President Pro ro Tem Tem
COMMITTEE
PAUL H.CAUSEY
JAMES A. NEJEDLY
TAD J. PILECKI
ACTION SUMMARY
PHONE: (925) 228 -9500
FAX.- (925) 676 -7211
Chair Pilecki
www.centralsan.org
Member Causey
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
10:00 a.m.
2 "d Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California
PRESENT: Chair Tad Pilecki, Member Paul Causey, Provisional Deputy General
Manager / Director of Engineering Jean -Marc Petit, Director of Administration David
Heath, Provisional Capital Projects Division Manager Edgar Lopez, Finance
Administrator Todd Smithey, Environmental Services Division Manager Danea
Gemmell, Consultant with NexLevel IT Consulting Stephen Madler, Senior Engineer
Dana Lawson (arrived during Item 4.), Senior Engineer Sasha Mestetsky (arrived during
Item 4.), Senior Engineer Craig Mizutani (arrived during Item 4.), Associate Engineer
Nathan Hodges (left after Item 4.), Assistant Engineer Justin Waples (left after Item 4.),
Gisa Ju with RMC Water and Environment (consulting engineer) (left after Item 4.),
General Manager Roger Bailey (left after Item 7.), Senior Administrative Technician
Christina Gee
1. Call Meeting to Order
Chair Pilecki called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
2. Public Comments
None.
*3.4 Review draft Position Paper for public hearing on January 8, 2015 to consider
award of three power purchase agreements (PPAs) to SunEdison, LLC for solar
photovoltaic panels at the District's Household Hazardous Waste Facility,
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 2
Collection System Operations Building, and Vehicle Maintenance Shop
[Discussed at the September 22, 2014 Committee meeting and draft
Position Paper to set the public hearing was recommended for Board
approval at November 24, 2014 Committee meeting]
Environmental Services Division Manager Danea Gemmel) and Associate
Engineer Nathan Hodges gave a PowerPoint presentation (attached). Should
the Board hold the public hearing and award the PPAs, the contracts would likely
be arranged by February 2015 for a twenty -year term and operational in July
2015. If the PPAs are signed by a certain date, the District may be able to obtain
a 3% bundle rate discount (this bundle discount has not been considered in the
economic analysis presented). Under the contracts, the equipment will not be
owned by the District, SunEdison will own and will be responsible for
maintenance. The PPAs are dependent on the Collection System Operations
(CSO) site moving forward, and they stipulate that any environmental credits
(such as greenhouse gas emission credits) are owned by SunEdison and not the
District.
Provisional Deputy General Manager/ Director of Engineering Jean -Marc Petit
noted that the PG &E Sustainable Solutions Turnkey project beginning on
December 10, 2014 will also look into opportunities of reducing energy costs,
including additional solar panels at the Martinez plant site.
In response to a question from Member Causey, staff confirmed that the
calculations presented take into account the dedicated "solar rate" from PG &E
that would be charged to the District were it to install the solar panels.
Member Causey suggested that staff inquire with SunEdison to accommodate
future renewable power or efficiency projects the District may undertake.
Staff and the Committee discussed what would occur if the power that is
produced by the solar panels does not meet or exceeds expectations. Chair
Pilecki suggested that perhaps staff could negotiate some sort of rebate to the
District in that situation. Staff responded that the District is entitled to rebates in
the event that solar power production, on an annual basis, is less than 90% of
anticipated production stipulated in the PPA.
Member Causey asked that staff run a PPA scenario to estimate the annual
PG &E power cost escalation rate that would match energy costs as if no PPAs
were executed. He asked that an annual report be given to the Board on the
effectiveness and status of the project, if the project goes forward.
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 3
Chair Pilecki asked, if PG &E were to change its rates to the point where it would
not benefit the District to have solar, how payout would affect the ability to
terminate the contract. He stated that a major risk factor in his opinion was the
likelihood that the energy rates will change. He recommended that staff inform
the Board that there are time constraints associated with obtaining a bundle rate.
Staff responded that assumed PG &E rate escalation is a critical component of
analyzing the economics of the solar PPAs. If the District elected to terminate
the PPAs due to changing electric rates, SunEdison would be entitled to
compensation.
Regarding Chair Pilecki's concern at the November 24 meeting regarding the
potential glare off the panels toward the freeway, Mr. Hodges stated that staff
has a conference call scheduled with District Counsel at Meyers Nave and
SunEdison to address this and other issues.
Staff stated that a "removal fund" that accumulates over the duration of the
contract will pay for the extraction of the panels. Member Causey asked what
would happen to that removal fund, which is factored into the rates, if the District
were to purchase the panels. Staff will provide an update at a future Engineering
& Operations Committee meeting.
Member Causey stated that he was comfortable with moving forward with the
contract.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed and recommended the Board hold the
public hearing as soon as possible. Staff will give a presentation to the
Board on December 18, 2014, when it will be asked to consider setting a
public hearing for January 8, 2015.
4. Review revised draft Position Paper, including changes suggested by the
Committee at its November 24, 2014 meeting, awarding a technical services
agreement with a cost ceiling not to exceed $214,000 to V &A Consulting
Engineers for flow monitoring, under the Collection System Modeling Upgrade
Project, District Project 8418
Assistant Engineer Justin Waples gave the PowerPoint presentation included in
the agenda packet. Ms. Gemmell noted that staff is hoping to install the meters
by January 2015.
Member Causey expressed concern that it may be too late in the season to
obtain the maximum or enough usable data and asked why there was a rush in
moving forward with this contract. He believed the District should conduct all
flow monitoring next year to capture an entire wet weather season.
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 4
Mr. Petit replied that flow monitoring and flow calibration is crucial for the new
dynamic hydraulic model and the upcoming Collection System Master Plan
(CSMP). He noted that staff has begun the contracting process (a draft contract
and insurance requirements have been sent to the consultant) in advance of
Board approval, so the meters can be installed as soon as possible, should the
Board elect to award the contract. V&A is prepared to install the 36 meters
shortly after given a notice to proceed. Should the Board decide not to award the
contract, both the new hydraulic model and CSMP will be delayed, and he had
hoped to begin both at the end of the fiscal year.
Chair Pilecki stated that the weather forecast looked promising for the upcoming
months.
In response to a previous question from Chair Pilecki, staff and Gisa Ju, a Senior
Modeling Engineer with RMC Water and Environment, determined that the 2005
meter locations were not appropriately placed for the purposes of model
calibration, and the data produced by those meters is ten years old. Chair Pilecki
replied that in his opinion, not much has changed in ten years that was not
predicted in the 2010 CSMP and the base flow is not changing either. He is,
however, more comfortable with awarding the reduced contract than the
previously proposed amount. He also stated his opinion that other agencies are
not as conservative as the District, with its twenty -year storm event design
criteria.
Member Causey agreed to recommend the Board award the contract, but he
reiterated his concerns with the weather and timing of the placement of the
meters. He also discussed the option of installing 72 meters this year instead of
the 36 meters proposed for the first phase of this flow metering study.
Chair Pilecki stated that he was leaning toward doing the proposed work (36
meters) for $214, 000 this year, then evaluating to what extent additional metering
is needed next year, when, by suggestion of Member Causey, he agreed that the
Committee should not yet authorize the additional $54, 000 contingency contract
extension included in the Position Paper at this time and only recommend the
base scope of work for flow monitoring at 36 sites for a period of nine weeks at a
cost of $160, 000. The time extension will be included in V&A contract but needs
further Board approval before proceeding. He stated that staff should return to
the Committee in early Spring 2015 with an update prior to asking for the contract
extension. The Position Paper will also acknowledge that the cost for additional
flow meters (72 meters in Winter 2015 -2016) has already been negotiated with
V &A Engineering, if staff and the Board agree that further flow metering is
required.
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 5
Member Causey asked that the Board be shown the total project costs and,
include under Financial Impacts the CIB amount for this project. He asked that
the Financial Impacts section of all future Position Papers include the CIB
amount. Provisional Capital Projects Division Manager Edgar Lopez noted that,
in response to a question from the Committee at the last meeting, he confirmed
with Finance Manager Thea Vassallo that there were in fact no allocations from
closeouts to this year's fiscal budget. The projects discussed were closed prior to
July 1, 2014.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed and directed staff to revise the Position
Paper, including changing the contract amount to the base scope of work
for flow monitoring not to exceed $160,000, and recommended the Board
award the agreement to V &A Consulting Engineers, with the understanding
that staff would report back to the Committee before bringing the contract
extension to the Board in Spring 2015.
5. Review schedule of upcoming bids and awards and discuss change orders over
$50,000, if needed
• Bid of Sludge Blending Tank Repair Project, District Project 7316
• Bid of Treatment Plant Safety Enhancements — Phase 4, District Project
7311, and Plant Operations Division (POD) Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Improvements Project, District Project 8239
Mr. Lopez discussed the report in the agenda packet.
Member Causey asked for confirmation that all upcoming bids and awards will be
routed through the Committee. Mr. Lopez responded that his direction to staff
was to seek Committee input when timing permits prior to bringing its projects to
the full Board.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the schedule.
6. Receive report regarding any projects approaching a budget overrun within the
15 percent General Manager authority, if needed
• DAF Renovations Project, District Project 7309
Member Causey asked that staff characterize more detail relating to labor as it
pertains to change orders.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received report and provided input on the report.
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 6
7. Receive information requested at the November 24, 2014 Committee meeting on
how the allocation portion of the table would be addressed using the new format
of the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Treatment Program / Project List
Estimated Expenditures and Project Handouts
Mr. Petit stated Engineering staff has met several times, including with Finance
staff, and that more revisions and additions are being contemplated to the table,
but the item was not ready enough for a full discussion at the meeting. The
Committee scheduled a meeting for Friday, December 19, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. to
discuss the item further with members of Finance and Administration staff.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received information and tabled the item for the
newly - scheduled December 19, 2014 meeting.
*8. Discuss Board CIB Workshop materials and presentation
Mr. Lopez began the PowerPoint presentation (attached), which went over the
programs and selected projects from the Treatment Plant, Collection Systems,
General Improvements, and Future Recycled Water Development. He stated
that $33.89 million in expenditures is estimated for the Fiscal Year 2015 -16 CIB.
Chair Pilecki stated that staff should make clear what is driving the significant
increase.
Member Causey stated his opinion that staff should slow down the program
pending the results of the Master Plans and Asset Management findings.
Mr. Petit stated that staff has chosen the projects carefully. The District has
aging infrastructure, and staff anticipates that each of the projects listed for the
next two years will be recommended by the Master Plans, and would likely
already be included and identified by the Asset Management studies.
Member Causey stated that his highest priority is IT and software enhancements.
Mr. Petit stated that the budget requested for IT- related projects as part of the
General Improvement program is based on the proposed IT Master Plan, and is
included in the proposed FY 2015 -2016 CIB presented today.
Senior Engineer Sasha Mestetsky presented the Collection System portion of the
presentation. He emphasized the importance of the Sewer Renovation Program
and its results. Only the highest priority sewers are being replaced based on
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 7
detailed engineering evaluations, including condition assessments (CCTV) and
based on the RiverWatch Agreement.
Chair Pilecki commented that in his opinion, degradation analysis is better than
percentage. He encouraged that it be included as part of the CSMP.
Member Causey said that in next year's audit, he would like the District to look at
a 75 -year depreciation period on the collection system's pipes, which he believed
would be less conservative. Staff will evaluate the request.
Member Pilecki suggested that work be done based on the District's experiences
and the results of this year's cleaning, rather than what other agencies have
done. He recommended that staff include how many sites are in each number of
feet of pipe, since it is helpful to the Board Members in visualizing the scope of
the project. Member Pilecki also asked what the expected life of the Cured -In-
Place Piping may be. In the past, several sources estimated 25 years but now it
is likely to last much longer. Staff will research and provide a response.
Member Causey stated his opinion that the cathodic protection annual survey is
better characterized as an Operations & Maintenance (O &M) expense and not
Capital. Chair Pilecki and staff agreed. Following discussion, it was determined
that even if the project is an O &M expense and not a capital expense, cathodic -
protection- related projects themselves should continue to be executed by
engineering staff.
Senior Engineer Craig Mizutani presented the Treatment Plant Program and
noted that the Request for Proposal (RFP) /Request for Quotation (RFQ) for the
Master Plan is currently being prepared. He stated that the seismic retrofit of the
Solids Conditioning Building did not include bracing the furnaces, and a portion of
the estimated construction costs was represented in the CIP. Chair Pilecki asked
if the furnaces should be braced to protect them from possible seismic events
ahead of the building seismic retrofit project, given that the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) recently increased the potential for activity of the Concord fault.
Senior Engineer Dana Lawson presented the General Improvements Program
and handed out an excerpt from the draft Asset Management (AM)
Implementation Plan (attached), since AM is a major component of that program.
Chair Pilecki emphasized the need for the asset management program to be
completed quickly, since it will play a role in justifying the increases in the Capital
Plan costs, which may necessitate a rate increase. He stated his opinion that
staff needs to re- prioritize the projects, as it is too big a program considering
everything else the District has going on, especially without a Master Plan to
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 8
support it. He clarified that the IT Program was an exception to these
statements, since that needs to go forward.
The Committee discussed their recommendation that the Board be made aware
of the high CIB/CIP costs and the challenge they present from a financing point
of view, and to get the overall District costs under control. Member Causey
believed there was a need for more Board Workshops and Study Sessions,
which the Committee agreed facilitate discussion better than the regular Board
Meetings.
Mr. Petit stated that he will work with Finance on the rate model, however, the
projects need to be addressed. He noted that staff has been thinking about
alternative payment methods, such as pay -as- you -go and bond financing, and
bundling projects.
Member Causey suggested that staff also evaluate possible reductions in the
O &M budget, because when proposing the potential for a significant rate
increase, the District needs to evaluate everything possible to carve down its
programs pending all the information in the upcoming studies. He stated that, if
the District uses bonds, they should only be used on projects that benefit all the
ratepayers. Chair Pilecki added that there is only so much bonding capacity the
District has, so it needs to be reserved for significant projects.
Member Causey stated his opinion that the District does not sufficiently engage
the public, and they should be informed of all the necessary upcoming work and
how much it will cost, especially the impact of large accounts such as the City of
Concord. Chair Pilecki agreed.
Chair Pilecki noted that the Capital Program is floating the running expense fund,
and if that practice, which in his opinion is problematic, continues, the District will
have to fix its reserve issues. He stated that Member Causey had a point when
he previously suggested that Capital Program should be its own fund. Chair
Pilecki added that he felt uncomfortable with the proposed CIB dollar value
knowing how they would play out financially; however, he stated that he was
more comfortable with them from an engineering perspective, knowing the need
for the projects. He suggested that staff list how to make the approach work, the
pros and cons for the program, and the Ten- and Twenty- Year Programs. He
noted he was aware that $15 million of work in the Capital Program was
postponed in past years to reduce costs, and that is part of the reason the costs
in the upcoming year's budgets are higher.
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 9
Director of Administration David Heath and IT Consultant Stephen Madler
provided a proposed Ten -Year IT Capital Budget chart, listing the types and
amounts of costs (attached). Mr. Heath noted that the numbers presented are on
the higher end of what may be actually needed and reported that the IT Master
Plan is completed and has been reviewed by the Administration Committee.
Member Causey stated that staff should ensure that the new software programs
can communicate with each other, especially the Computerized Maintenance
Management System (CMMS) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system.
Mr. Madler noted that he foresaw significant changes in workflow with the new
proposed lT Program. Regarding records management, he stated that he did not
see Lasen`iche (the District's current electronic records management software) as
a long -term viable option.
Chair Pilecki recommended using Laserfiche as a short -term solution until
records management can be sorted, but given that the installation and use of a
new ERP is already a significant change and is higher priority, it may need to be
postponed.
Mr. Heath reported that he proposed that the OTIS intranet be replaced by
Sharepoint. He described Sharepoint as a step toward the ERP, and one he
would have taken sooner had security issues not preoccupied his resources this
year. He also stated that upgrading timekeeping and attendance software is
being considered in advance of the installation of the new ERP, given the
potential productivity gains. He also discussed agenda management software
which aims to streamline the Board and Committee agenda production processes
with automatic routing.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Provided input to staff in advance of the
December 18, 2014 Board CIB Workshop.
9. Announcements
a. Future scheduled meetings:
Friday, December 19, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. (Special)
10. Suggestions for future agenda items
At the upcoming December 19 Committee meeting, the Committee will
discuss Item 7. regarding allocations, which was continued from the
December 9 agenda, as well as the draft Asset Management
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
December 9, 2014
Page 10
Implementation Plan. Member Causey expressed interest in holding a
meeting with staff to better understand the differences between GDI and
GIS; however, that discussion will likely not occur as part of a Committee
meeting but rather as a separate discussion with staff.
11. Adjournment — at 2:26 p.m.
* Attachment
' Standing Item
Regional Renewable
Energy Procurement (R -REP) Update
December 9, 2014
Engineering & Operations
r'r% vmrvmi ++on Moc +incf
.. Protecting Public Health and the Environment
R -REP Timeline
(4/21/14) E &O Committee
(1/10/13) CCCSD recommended staff
Board Authorized continue to evaluate sites (9/22/14) Staff
GM to execute and agreed on triple update to E &O
MOU with R -REP bottom line approach Committee
Optony, Inc.
Completed
CCCSD Solar
Feasibility Study
R -REP RFO/RFP led by
Alameda County (19
agencies, 180+ sites,
>30MW) per CA Govt
Code 4217.12
Sun Edison selected for
bundle with CCCSD sites
R -REP Group PPA
negotiations
R -REP Timeline
(12/18/14) Staff Presentation & Request Board
(12/4/14) Board Authorization to Set Public Hearing Date
Meeting vote to
"table" setting (1/8/15) Board
of public Meeting to consider
hearing date award of PPAs
* 20 -Year PPA Term (approx.)
Nov 2014 Dec
4
j Design and
(11/24/14) Staff
(12/9/14) Staff Construction
Update & E &O
Presentation & Phases (approx.)
Committee
E &O Committee
recommended
review of Position
setting public
Paper to consider
hearing date
awarding PPAs
How do Solar PPAs work?
Facility's Power Demand (kWh)
100% 1 <30% 1 1 >70%
Power Power Power
PG &E
100%
of Power
Costs
Without PPA
PG &E
% of Power
Cost Varies
Each Year
OR
Solar PPA
% of Power
Cost Varies
Each Year
With PPA
* 1sr Year Estimates are -5% PG &E, -95% PPA
How do Solar PPAs work?
• Current PG &E rate schedules --> "Solar- friendly" PG &E rate sch.
� Higher peak pricing during export, no demand charges
• Optimal sizing and savings varies by site - specific factors:
Power demands (time of use)
Solar production (site constraints, degradation)
Rate schedules & PPA pricing
• Ideal sizing results in:
Solar used during peak demands (PPA pricing < PG &E pricing)
Imported PG &E for off -peak demands (PG &E pricing < PPA pricing)
Ideal sizing generally -- 70 -90% of annual demand
r Avoided over - production (PG &E compensation << PPA pricing)
Lower overall power costs
( "solar- friendly" PG &E costs + PPA costs < PG &E w/o PPA costs)
r
Savings Escalate Over Time as PPA
Escalates Less than PG &E Escalation
Collection System Operations
Building
Annual Energy
Use, kWh 285,M 211115�1=
Proposed Solar
System Size, kW
-
t.i
Year 1 Solar
Z Output, kWh 21%404
Yearl Energy
Offset w/Solar
PPAs dependent on CSO inclusion Year I Electricity $51,814 $48,M1
Costs
20 -Year Levelized Cost of Electricity: ,
Without PPA = $0.199 /kWh Electricity Costs $1,137,666 $9M,901
With PPA = $0.165/kWh
Savings increase as PG &E escalates '
at higher rate than PPA (2 %/year) NPV Savings N/A $MT65
12/9/2014
El
Vehicle Maintenance Shop
tt ✓i^ try
20 -Year Levelized Cost of Electricity:
Without PPA = 50.229 /kWh
With PPA = $0.187/kW h
* Savings increase as PG &E escalates
at higher rate than PPA (2 9/o/year)
Key PPA Terms
• Agreement Length: 20 -year + 5 -year optional (re- negotiate)
• Purchase Option: Fair market value after -6 years, 3 months
• Production Guarantee: 90% of the expected output
• Early Termination Fees: If District terminates without cause
(from $6.63- $8.59/W in 15t year to $1.53- $1.85/W in 20th year)
• Removal Fund: Sun Edison establishes reserve fund for removal of
the solar systems and restoration of facilities
• Project Management Funding: - $30,000 included in PPA for
District project management costs
• Maintenance: Sun Edison, Inc. responsible for all maintenance
including routine cleaning of the panels
• Energy Pricing: Includes 2 percent per year fixed escalator
• Permitting: Sun Edison responsible for permitting (except CEQA)
Energy Cost Savings
Minimal Savings
Energy Price Stability
Early Termination Fees
High Visibility to Public
Unforeseen Costs
Aligns w /Strategic Plan
No Grants or Rebates Available
(Goal Four, Strategy 1)
"Green" Power: 200 tons
Site Constraints
CO2 /year reduction
Grandfathered into Net Metering
Cannot Predict PG &E Rates
Tariffs prior to NEM 2.0
Reduced Effort using R -REP
Solar Vendor Owns Environmental
Credits
Lower Pricing w/ R -REP Potential Liabilities *
12/9/2014
0
Summary
• Payback not applicable to PPAs (panels owned by solar vendor)
• 3 Sites, -- $300,000 20 -year savings, -195kW
• Financial savings are marginal
• Aligns with Triple Bottom Line direction (no estimated increased
energy costs, social & environmental benefits)
• Risk -based decision to move forward (do Triple Bottom Line benefits
outweigh potential risks ?)
• Continued contract negotiations with Meyers Nave
• CSO system must be included for HHW and VMS to move forward
• Schedule driven by target NTP by February 28, 2015 for potential
3% bundle discount
Next Steps
• 12/9/14 E &0 Meeting:
• Present R -REP project
• Obtain Committee recommendation to continue w/ R -REP solar PPAs
• Obtain Committee recommendation to continue previously "tabled"
Board Item to Set Public Hearing Date (for 12/18/14 Board Meeting)
• Obtain Committee recommendation to proceed with Position Paper to
Hold Public Hearing (for 1/8/15 Board Meeting)
• 12/18/14 Board Meeting:
• Present R -REP project
• Obtain Board authorization to Set Public Hearing Date for 1/8/15
(previously `tabled" Board Item)
• 1/8/15 Board Meeting:
• Hold Public Hearing to Consider Award of PPAs
BACKUP SLIDES
Key Assumptions
• Utility Rate Escalation: 4% per year
• Net Present Value Calculation: 3% discount rate, 20 years
• Solar Degradation: 0.5% per year
$0.2100
$0.1900
$0.1700
z $0.1500
3
'^ $0.1300
$0.1100
$0.0900
$0.0700
PG &E prices per kWh for
Representative Commercial Facilities
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
-E -195 -A -6 - A -1TOU -A -10TOU -E -205
12/9/2014
y
Year
1998
A-6
%Increeee
A -1TOU
S 0.1289
%Ineroase
A -IOTOU %Incrtas�
$ 0.0984
$ 0.1034
1999
$ 0.1034
0.00910
$ 0.1289
0.00%115
0.09941 0.0090
2000
$ 0.1034
0.01%
$ 0.1289
0.009b
5 0.0984 I 0.0090
2001
$ 0.1402
35.61%
$ 0.1662
28.9690
$ 0.1339 36.11%
2002
$ 0.1593
13.60%
$ 0.1856
11.6990
$ 0.1541 15.0990
2003
$ 0.1593
0.0MI
$ 0.1856
0.005yo
5 0.1541 0.009
2004
2005
$ 0.1408
$ 0.1262
- 11.60%
- 10.41%
5 0.1672
$ 0.1531
-9.92%
-9.43%1
JS 0.1426 -7.46%
$ 0.1393 -2.30%
2006
$ 0.1393
10.41°%
S 0.1590
3.81%
S 0.1471 5.61%
2007
$ 0.1409
1.16%
S 0.1622
2.04%
S 0.1452 -1.2
2008
$ 0.1543
9.521%
5 0.1620
-0.14%
S 0.1372 -5.52%
2009
2010
$ 0.1644
$ 0.1798
6.52%
9.35%1
$ 0.1724
$ 0.1790
6.44%
3.80%
S 0.1538 12.08%
S 0.1596 3.80%
2011
$ 0.1802
0.25%
$ 0.1781
-0.48%
$ 0.1571 -1.5994
2012
S 0.1834
1.80%
5 0.1818
2.09%
S 0.1568 -0.181/.
2013
2014
$ 0.1929
$ 0.2005
5.16%
3.93'':
$ 0.1891
S 0.1920
4.019
$ 0.1648 5.09%
$ 0.1702 3.280%
1.54%
Annualized %
Escalation
(since 2000)
4.84%
2.891/6
3.99%
12/9/2014
y
O &M Included
• Continuous remote monitoring and alarming to
detect irregularities early
• Remote diagnostic capabilities and performance
analysis d
• Remote controls of system
• Preventative maintenance schedule:
• Mechanical: 2 visits per year
• Electrical: 2 visits per year
• Cleaning/Corrosion Checks: 2 per year (min)
Item 8
Proposed
loqw
2015 -16 Capital Improvement
Budget and Plan
Edgar J. Lopez
Prov. Capital Projects Division Manager
Engineering and Operations Committee Meeting
December 09, 2014
11 central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Protecting Public Health and the Environment
Kick -off FY 2015 -16
Financial Planning
• Today's meeting reviews proposed Program
Expenditures for the Capital Improvement
Budget (CIB) Fiscal Year 2015 -16 and next nine
years
• Review programs and selected 2015 -16 projects
— Treatment Plant Program
— Collection Systems Program
— General Improvements Program
— Future Recycled Water Development
Program
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Drivers
• Replacement and Rehabilitation (R &R),
Aging Assets
• Regulatory
• Sustainability /Energy /Optimization
• Capacity Expansion
20-Yr i g Picture
o l d ' Oou w r sv /bme rvu I eb o yi • 14uotaR
m' H�m< mart ngetnoA rar.oa/ au ¢enew new a</owt a 0 o ei �S+
c =uen - to A e
y e - J Total Wernln... a .`. Z P
O f
_-
% �:� � -,...- rlrEle,l NOr 1 Bed Gq¢tl NCUtrJI ralmlalign IMb MI<r -9 FII• Song NnnN
Qft
e:q•s/ a �_- ...____ I< ,law- rwn• snrn-
___yUOarJ n <r�grun<nl Nunarr
All /. treatment plans lmprov¢m¢nlf - - - '- -- - - - - --
— _ —. ___ ___ —_ __ -
Ab.attm .'•O➢bY Omer ON}I Urr. COs: fb +� -0ab Cpi -QJ -. -- ...__. _... _. —. _47�t - -_-
LI
— _ —. ___ ___ —_ __ -
Ab.attm .'•O➢bY Omer ON}I Urr. COs: fb +� -0ab Cpi -QJ -. -- ...__. _... _. —. _47�t - -_-
Ten Year Plan Is a Responsible One That
Funds....
• Treatment Plant ($200 M)
— R &R projects
$
97
M
— Regulatory
$
66
M
— Sustainability/ Energy/ Optimization
$
11
M
— Capacity/ Expansion
$
26
M
• Collection System ($191 M)
— R &R
$
130
M
— Capacity/ Expansion
$
32
M
— Pumping Stations
$
12
M
— CAD's and Developer Sewers
$
14
M
• General Improvements
& Future Recycled Water ($25 M)
— IT Development $ 9 M
—Asset Management $ 4 M
Proposed 10 -YEAR CIP
Proposed Ten -Year Capital Improvement Plan Expenditures
R &R
2015 -16
2016 -17
2017 -18
2018 -19
2019 -20
2020 -21
2021 -22
2022 -23 2023 -24 2024 -25
Total
Treatment Plant
$7,240,000
$7,490,000
$6,790,000
$2.040,OOC
$49,295,000
Pumping Stations
$400,000
$900,000
$1,150,000
R &R
$7,980,000
$8,965,000
$6,900,000
$8,740,000
$9,653,400
$7,016,550
$6,079,050
$7,760,000 $15,460,000 $18,060,000
$96,614,000
Regulatory
$1,000,000
$4,825,000
11,175,000
$7,720,000
$2,340,000
$2,640,000
$1,400,000
$4,500,000 $6,000,000 $24,400,00C
$66,000,000
Sustainability/ Energy
$2,930,000
$2,330,000
$1,000,000
$1,450,000
$1,000,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000 $500,000 $1,500,000
$11,460,000
Capacity Expansion/ Planning
$1,250,000
$1,500,000
$510,000
$510,000
$510,000
$510,000
$1,210,000
$1,200,000 $8,500,000 $10.350,000
$26,050,000
Subtotal
$13,160,000
$17,620,000
19,585,000
$18,420,000
$13,503,400
$10,416,550
$8,939,050 $13,710,000 $30,460,000 $54,310,00
$200,124,000
Collection System
IT Development
$1,367,000
$1,925,000
$1,935,000
$225,000
$1,235,000
$425,000
1
$225,000
R &R
$9,000,000 $12,500,000
12,750,000 $13,000,000 $13,250,000 $13,500,000 $13,750,000 $14,000,000 $14,250,000 $14,500,OOC
$130,500,000
Capacity/ Planning/ CADS
$7,050,000
$3,525,000
$2,440,000
$1,440,000
$1,940,000
$9,340,000
$7,240,000
$7,490,000
$6,790,000
$2.040,OOC
$49,295,000
Pumping Stations
$400,000
$900,000
$1,150,000
$2,180,000
$500,000
$700,000
$1,600,000
$2,100,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,00
$11,530,000
Subtotal
16,450,000 $16,925,000
16,340,000 $16,620,000 $15,690,000 $23,540,000 $22,590,000
$23,590,000 $22,040,000
$17,540,OOC
$191,325,000
General Improvements
AM/ Vehicle &Equip
$2,261,000
$1,420,000
$1,240,000
$1,150,000
$1,100,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,OOC
$9,671,000
Buildings/ Property
$260,000
$385,000
$905,000
$370,000
$320,000
$320,000
$320,000
$320,000
$340,000
$370,OOC
$3,910,000
IT Development
$1,367,000
$1,925,000
$1,935,000
$225,000
$1,235,000
$425,000
$235,000
$225,000
$235,000
$1,225,OOC
$9,032,000
Other
$145,000
$145,000
$70,000
$70,000
$70,000
$70,000
$70,000
$70,000
$70,000
$70,OOC
$850,000
Subtotal
$4,033,000
$3,875,000
$4,150,000
$1,815,000
$2,725,000
$1,315,000
$1,125,000
$1,115,000
$1,145,000
$2,165,00
$23,463,000
Future Recycled Water
Capacity/ Planning $250,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,00 $1,600,000
Total F33,893,000 $38,570,000 40,225,000 $37,005,000 $32,068,400 $35,421,550 $32,804,050 $38,565,000 $53,795,000 $74,165,OOOI $416,512,000
Proposed FY 2015 -16
Capital Improvement Budget
FY Y 2015 -16 CIB Program
Expenditures
Treatment Plant
$
13.16 million ( 39 %)
Collection System
$
16.45 million (48 %)
General Improvements
$
4.03 million ( 12 %)
Future Recycled Water Development
$
0.25 million ( 1%)
Estimated Budget:
$
33.89 million (100 %)
Collection
Capital
Program
Overview
• District's Stated Goals
• Asset Management -Sewer Renovation
Plan
• CCTV Program &Results
• Renovation Program Requirements
FY 15 -16 Collection System Programs and
Selected Projects
District's Goals
District's 2012 SSIVIP:
• Responsibly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the
wastewater collection system and adhere to the components of the
SSMP -
• Provide adequate capacity to convey design peak flows
• Minimize the frequency of SSOs
Sewer system
Management Plan
Strategic Plan:
Central contrat costa
• Reducing SSOs; target is less than 3.5 Sanitary
SSOs per 100 miles of pipe October 2012
• Continue CCTV program; target is to televise 175 miles of pipe per
year
Replacement Value of District
Recycled Water,
Treatment $77,609,035
Plant,
$712,814,807
CCCSD
Assets
General
Collection
System,
$3,141,709,030
$ 3.97 Billions in
Total Assets
Force Main, Pumping
$55,633,530_ Station,
$60,712,736
Equip &
CS Structures, Vehicles,
$191,400,315 $1,250,000
90%
Sewer Main,
$2,832,712,449
Collection System Installation
Profile by Pipe Material
350
300
250
200
N
50
100
50
1910 -1919 1920 -1929 1930 -1939 1940 -1949 1950 -1959 1960 -1969 1970 -1979 1980 -1989 1990 -1999 2000 -2009 2010- present
■ VC ■ AC MRC ■ Meta Ilic n Plastic
CCTV Program
The purpose of the CCTV program is to
determine the actual condition of the pipes
so that...
— CSOD can optimize maintenance strategies,
spot repairs; and
— ENG can optimize replacement...
to lower the District's risk exposure of an
overflow or failure.
Pipe Evaluation Flow Chart
TV
Severe
No
Pipe
Segment
Problem
Yes
I
CSO
Type
Engineering I
Increases =
Of
Replaces/Rehabs
Maintenance
Problem
v Line
=
I
a
I
Fix
I
CSO
n
Pdnt
Repair
I
Risk for overflow I
� � � � �
EVALUATION:
• Prior overflows
Score Score Yes • Location
Pipe >5000 • Maintenance frequency
Segments • Age/pipe typeAength
• Flow /capacity
• See Attachment 11
No
Good Pipe:
Routine maintenance & TV
Prioritize
Pipe segments based on
score and evaluation
Capital Budget & Plan
Replace/Rehab
Fix
Solution
Maintain
CSO
Increases Maintenance
CCTV Program
Between 2002 -10, the entire system was
televised (condition assessment)
— 83 miles identified for detailed evaluation
(score >5,000 points)
• Re- inspection is currently underway
• CCTV scores are a major indicator of pipes
in need of renovation
R Root
C
Lat Conn
Tahlc J - TV Inspection Bating.schcdule Defect classification
Light
CCTV
J
TELEVISION INSPECTION RATING SCHEDULE
M
Medium
Alters or distorts normal flow
DEFECT CLASSIFICATION TABLE
In Pipeline
S
CLASS
CODE
DIVISION CODE TYPE ADDITIONAL DESCRIPnQN
,RATING
Sediment
L
Lateral
LATERAL
T
Tapped-in
Alters or distorts normal flow
Scoring
TYPE
P
Protruding L Light Minor
1�
Olfficult or impossible to pass - obstruction
0
M Medium Difficult to pass
S Severe flow restriction or im"ssibIg_U nass
260
500
g;
A Alignment
B Broken S Spiral
100
STRUCTURAL
Any observance, flow Is undisturbed
M Multiple
300
Medium
Longitudinal
500
H Holes; Brks Small Piece Missing
100
S
Sag
F Fractured Pipe broken, not slgnHicantly deformed
100
Flow below bottom of lens, depth increase
D Deformed Pipe is out of round
500
less than 10% of pipe diameter
L Collapsed Pipe Is caved In, cannot pass
1000
(►
tfIt Hill
Flow level below lop of lens, depth increase
M Missing Wall sections missing - cavities
750
Way (
0 Open L Light Less than pipe wall thickness
20
F Offset M Medium Greater then pipe wall thickness
250
S Severe Difficult or impossible to pass
500
greater than 25% of pipe diameter
Infiltration
C
C Cracked R Radial
300
Evidence of infiltration
B Broken S Spiral
100
L
Light
Water seeps Into line
M Multiple
400
R Root
C
Lat Conn
L
Light
Any observance, flow is undisturbed
J
At Joint
M
Medium
Alters or distorts normal flow
P
In Pipeline
S
Severe
Difficult or Impossible to pass
D Debris
S
Sediment
Light
Any observance, flow is undisturbed
G
Cheese
Medium
Alters or distorts normal flow
L
Scalinq
Severe
Olfficult or impossible to pass - obstruction
0
Other
Describe "Other" in comments
A Alignment
H
Horizontal
Light
Any observance, flow Is undisturbed
Medium
Alters or distorts normal flow
Severe
Difficult or impossible to pass
S
Sag
light
Flow below bottom of lens, depth increase
less than 10% of pipe diameter
Medium
Flow level below lop of lens, depth increase
from 10% to 25 °E of pipe diameter
Severe
Camera Is under water or depth increase
greater than 25% of pipe diameter
Infiltration
C
Lai Conn.
K
Evidence of infiltration
J
At Joint
L
Light
Water seeps Into line
P
in Pipeline
M
Medium
Water drips in line
S
Severe
Water runs or spouts into line
C Corrosion
C
Lat. Conn.
L
Light
Surface is visibly rough
P
In Pipeline
M
Medium
Aaoregate is cleariv exposed
S
Severe
Rebar exposed or gone
F
¢nil
Natives anti is visihin and holes
130
230
330
110
210
500
10
200
500
10
250
500
15
220
320
520
15
50
250
500
CCTV Reports
M.slv_MINC—.—Ib M PAGE' 1
ATTACHMENT #1
INSPECTION REPORT
X > 4,000 POINTS
DATE-
WORK/
WEAT/1ER
OPERATOR
SF. COON NR
SECTION NAME
I!_Y%
p
.unnY• Wy
A1.1WN
_
_NO
PRESENT.
_____
VE78ClE.
___
CAMERA
PRESET.
_f21 _
CLEANED
RATE.
T—kS 1
C:..1
No
NOW
STREET. UPN.PPY V.O-Rd IE)
MM II' 1102
M/1 71OlMl2
CITY ufty .
MAP Al2
Ltl/ 710 M!)
LOCALE EN«nMI
TAPE It MNIC—PRJ RS
I OLGTN N)R
INSPECT REASON Obbkl Project
PIPE SIZE
S.
MATERIAL
VCP IT LOTH )R
SECTION TYPE. SMM—.m
LINING'
AREA
RSRVO
REMARK'...
1:402 POSITION
CODE OBSERVATION
MPEG PH
000
0
VnPS bWft M 6Vw **Sn,.W+bob
0008:11
1240
40 0
M&A" Cmcks. Iron 01 to 05 o'do[A
000810
IID2Nljr
•� 2020
500
dP. 8=MOe o'dxk
0007.11
2030
800
PP. B ok M 03 o do&
0007.22
)320
300
C.a.daM Cr.c2 N WK 1— OT W 03.'Dock
0002.11
1210
300
CVculftw" 0.0.1).Vl h-12o 12.'dock
00.0051
5210
100
wM co—ton MArods1gN,010.'cock
001013 i>s.b
6S
000
Cba.a.r.MW Cr.rk, Dom 12 to 12 o'do*
00.10 N
+'7 72.10
300
CYandr.dW Cl,* M'K tan 121012.'dock
001132
7010
100
C.c —gws uFr *, lam 01 to 050,ckU
001700
ys
130
rood lgM
OO ILIt
27.)0
130
room pM
001225
0020
130
roM FON
0012 N
0700
YJO
CVtvd.r.MM Cr.0 M I.IN, ho," or to I I o'd"k
00 121)
0300
110
don. gww.ON 6an 07 0 11 o'doc2
00 1215
11270
ISO
a.dc n<a.KKYm. M02.'dock
001102 104.. b
17180
300
C— I.W4.1 Crack M I..A Iron, 12 012 o'dmx
00' 1110
13140
130
rod."
001507
IAN
160
s«V,c. con . .0 lo011.011. 10. dock
0015 1 / 121., b
13050
120
rout. •Oh1
001528
13970
130
r..t..y1
001537
,1250
I30
rod. yN
COIS40
15120
150
.OSm ) .A. a2N
001554
151.10
170
rout."
0012.01
15730
130
rods WA
001605
M.slv_MINC—.—Ib M PAGE' 1
CS Renovation Program
• Pipes are selected and prioritized for renovation
based on risk
M
• CCTV Score
• History of SSOs
or Plugs
• Maintenance
History
• Capacity
• Environmental
(e.g. creeks)
• Social (e.g.
traffic, zoning)
• Potential Volume
of SSO
(diameter)
Pipe Renovation Progress
(6, 8 & 10" Mains)
2006/07
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
2012/13
5.3
Miles
2013/14
4.5
Miles
2014/15
3.3
Miles
2015/16
3.2 Miles (estimated)
(Grayson Creek Trunks not included)
Renovation Program Impact on Number of SSOs
Running 12 -Month Overflow Totals
2003 to present
200
180
Feb 2003: 167
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 51
20
0
rV
N N N N N N N N N N N N
mr m me m m me m me m m mr me
> > > > > > > > > > > >
12- Month Total at Month -End
Collection System (CS)
Renovation Program
FY 15 -16
FY 2015 -16 COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM
CATEGORY
PROJECT
ESTIMATED
EXPENSE
R &R
Lafayette 10, Martinez 4, M1 CIPP
$ 9,000,000
Lining, and others
Capacity /R &R
Pleasant Hill - Grayson Creek
$ 511001000
Trunk
Pumping Stations
Pumping Station equipment, piping
$ 4007000
replacement and Safety
Improvements
Developer services
Cost Neutral
$ 700,000
Contractual
Cost Neutral
$ 5001000
Assessment Districts
Capacity/ Planning
Planning and CS Modeling
$ 750,000
Estimated Total
$ 16,4507000
Major Renovation Projects
• Lafayette, Ph. 9 - 9,000' of 8 to 15"
• Martinez, Ph. 4 - 8,500'of 8 to 127'
• Per River Watch Agreement:
✓ Lines within 200' of creeks are weighted 20%
higher to account for increased risks
✓ Pipes w/ adjusted scores:
— >20,000 must be renovated by 1/1/17
— 10,000 to 20,000 must be renovated by
1/l/20
M1 CIPP Lining
4
CIPP lining of corroded 3,000'of 42 -inch RCP
located at Treatment Plant
n
CS Capacity Program _.
Pleasant Hill
Note: Master Plan will be
- 1'
leasant Hill /Grayson Creek 'al' updated and projects
C C4 -A C4 -F
verified after dynamic
� 1',
I -- IF
o01 C4 -0 C4 -B hydraulic model completed
`
Lafayette - f CS -A
Pleasant Hill Road
(Co leted in FY 2011 /12)`- 4--C --Nt
t �D4 -E
�_.
r7
13D4-13 D4 - ��.. ,..1
2 -A D3 -A D4 -D
y
D4 -A
,'� �• ES -A Walnut Creek-
P4- / E3 -C E3-A C Walnut Blvd
E3-13 E4 B•�_� S
E4 -A
175-A
F3 -A
F3 B F3 -C`1
Moraga
Moraga Way "',, E:]. L - - --
G3 -4 .05 -A
�I
.eg en d He -A
San Ramon -
apacity Deficiency Group Percent Full Pipe Capacity San Ramon Schedule C
•� 1 (2040 Development, 5 -year Event) O /
�J 2 No Slope or Invert Elev f
3 —100% 145-A A �-
- >100% to < =130% 11/"
4
—• >130%
Pleasant Hill - Grayson Creek
Trunk
• Install 12,000' of 18 to 24" in Pleasant Hill
• Renovation /hydraulic capacity
— Abandon several deficient sewer lines
—Will provide relief for other capacity - deficient
sewers
• Coordinating with City of Pleasant Hill
pavement reconstruction project and other
Agencies.
680
'Nil
Op
Pleasant Hill - Grayson Creek Trunk Sewer
Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Phase 4
Sewer Mains
Creeks
Pumping Stations (PS) Program
Program includes:
• 19 Stations
• Force mains
• R &R Projects
Prioritization based on:
• Equipment Replacement
• Safety Improvements
• Corrosion Protection
• PS Inventory (AMP)
• Condition Assessments (AMP)
2011 Update
Coo F `_
Clyde 4
Central Contra
Costa Sanitary
itino[
District
Pacheco
Map of
rd
Service
P..Pln atxlon
Area
Pleasan
June 30. 2011
HIII
Clayton
®florapa
O
CCCSD Pumping Stations
'Walnut
wfW IpeWm a 461,000 peeps.
Creek
Orinda
Lafayette
P..Pln atxlon
2.1
11 L—Ul-
Alamo
sI... tFlO RM.al'
0Oe.,Ken6•at MGD
®florapa
11 IiYH BA Orhai
H"C.l W e QJy
Danville
10 O da Gr .,-ft
occw. .r%Me BUtlrq
Inxrtwf NHWCOWM fa0R1'
San Ramon
vsuewse, caeowWdtmewwam
CCCSD Pumping Stations
wfW IpeWm a 461,000 peeps.
W.rtcwxer a.W.4 and lt"cd*Aa1
P..Pln atxlon
I M.U-
11 L—Ul-
a175.400nUaerlt in CalcUa.Ila
C %Okatyro wtl
sI... tFlO RM.al'
0Oe.,Ken6•at MGD
11 IiYH BA Orhai
H"C.l W e QJy
7 MM/
10 O da Gr .,-ft
occw. .r%Me BUtlrq
Inxrtwf NHWCOWM fa0R1'
. 8ee eM 01.16C.fe
4 c,"
S. Ca d Yqufnel
14 W R&IM
pIH.
aae t0�6"#d CSOO.Pa14nM
Mmew
15 Mx g.
6 6adlarun FW ram 1s San R—n
IS W. /n
CCC50'f CMed- *Manor.*..
Ote.eenl•IOIA00
•
i. 811cenrlUlf.Mt Saar MR10Rall'e1WreQ
DroxineM lMwa maMarwrcel latal.a
fy
a Sow Hdw
V Wp1 «R J1
Meer
cnmW�xnAOaNNIp
•OeetarMn t01MA
O.AwOa
16 Larwr YNOH 170111
10 flM q.en
1B UPWYM.r(1012)
PS Program
Cathodic Program Prioritized
based on:
• Cathodic Protection Master
Plan
• Current CP Annual Survey
(updated every other year)
• Projects identified
I
I •Y, .b �.
�4
r
Treatment Plant Program
.. -.'�.. fie.. - -`�:•itx�r � _
FY 2015 -16 TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM
CATEGORY
PROJECT
ESTIMATED
EXPENSE
Planning
Treatment Plant Planning and
Comprehensive Master Plan
$ 1,200,000
R &R
Primary Treatment Renovation
$ 11400,000
Sustainability
Pump & Blower Seismic Upgrade
$ 21400,000
R &R
Centrifuge and Cake Pump Upgrades
$ 118007000
Regulatory
Headwork Screenings
$ 9007000
R &R
Piping Renovation Phase 8
$ 11500,000
All Other
$ 319607000
Estimated Total:
$ 1371607000
Seismic Retrofit Program (10 Year Plan)
Concord Fault Proximity to District Facilities
Seismic Retrofit Program
Project
2015 10 -YR CIP
CONSTRUCTION
Pump & Blower
$
319001000
Yr.
2 -FY
2015 -16
POB Office Area
$
134001000
Yr.
5 -
FY 2018 -19
TP Warehouse
$
950,000
Yr.
6 -
FY 2019 -20
Laboratory
$
3501000
Yr.
10
- FY 2023 -24
SCB1
$
112001000
Yr.
10
- FY 2023 -24
Estimated Total:
$
73800,000
1 Seismic Retrofit of SCB was estimated at $8 Million for construction; does
not include bracing furnaces. Budgeted outside 10 year plan in anticipation of
potential changes by TP Master Plan.
0
0
Centrifuge and Cake Pump
Upgrades
Replace old, at the end of
useful life, equipment
Parts for existing centrifuges
becoming obsolete
• Increase percent solids,
means less MHF Fuel
r
0
Screenings Facility Upgrade
Predesign Study — Determine Best Options
— Pilot New Screens
— Screenings Washer /Compactors
— Reduce Plastics to Process
— BOD /TSS reduction
y
Aw- `
y' 4;
rF
r
Screenings Facility Upgrade
New fine screens
Screening washer /compactor
Conveyance /disposal System
.I6,
I
I
Treatment Plant Planning
• Treatment Plant Master Plan (MP)
— Comprehensive Treatment Plant MP
— Formal RFQ /RFP for Qualified Consultant
— Condition Assessments
— Review of all existing District reports
— Experts in Incineration/ Solids Handling
— Detailed CI P
• Pilot Plant Program
— Continue Zeolite Annamox Pilot
— Dewatering
— Screenings
Plant Energy Optimization
PG &E SST program
• Feasibility Analysis
• Investment Grade Analysis
• Potential Construction
Projects focused on:
—UV
— Lighting
— Motors
—HVAC
REPAYiil
SAVINGS EQUIPMENT
TP- Recycled Water Facilities
• Filter Rehabilitation
• Existing Equipment
replacement as needed
TP- All Other
Includes:
• Cogen Rotating assembly - $ 600k
• Equipment Replacement - $ 300K
• Critical Switchgear Project - $500k
• Fire Alarm Project - $300k
• SST Project - $500k
• Urgent Repair - $150k
• TP Recycled Water - $250k
FY 2015 -16 GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
PROJECT
ESTIMATED COSTS
Vehicles and Equipment
$
800,000
Information Technology
$
113673000
Asset Management Program
$
7501000
GIS, GDI, CMMS Replacements
$
8111000
All Other
$
3057000
Estimated Total:
$
4,033,000
Asset Management Program
Development, DP 8238
Plan Elements to Initiate in FY 15/16:
• AM Steering Committee
11
0
0
C.n�w.w�M 11 CIY1MCOn1ll CO \ll. \Iptlll p \I\
F MMNJ I l \{It YIMIMYIN WIIIWwII�QVn
1I��bII WyYlwe lllal
I ��CN�y
Asset Hierarchy & Data Standards ��� MWI
Complete Asset Register (incl. TP piping
Business Process Mapping
Failure Modes &Condition Assessment Protocol
See Handout
Budqet: $750k FY 15 -16
�� SI
CMMS Replacement, DP 8242
Sc o e: This project will consolidate software systems into
one comprehensive CMMS solution for both collections
and plant and that efficiently integrates with GI.1
Budget: $500k FY 15 -16
Schedule:
Task Tentative Schedule
RFP for Implementation Services Feb — May 2015
Phase 1 - Integration Design Jul — Sep 2015
Phase 2 — CSO Migration & Configuration Oct 2015 — Mar 2016
Phase 3 — TP Migration & Configuration Jul — Dec 2016
GIS -GDI Replacement, DP 8238
Status: GIS migration from Geomedia to ESRI software
will be complete Spring 2015
Next: Update web mapping solutions (this replaces the
GDI portal software)
Budget: $271k FY 15 -16
ES L
r S
ESG Data J
a
3
m
District and
Developer Jobs
Mapping
GeoMedia
Collection system
plan and profile
drawings
AutoCAD
SQL Server 2005
ESG -SQL
\WEB GIS
FME
(attributes)
ESG Data
Bo
�y
�e
A
aPg�phjca/ vs$b�i
SMMS WORKFLOW SEE
ADDITIONAL DIAGRAM
IBM ASl400 Server SOL Server 2005 SOL Server 2005
Qiserie
EO J2 sQl-oi
HTE Accela CCCSDLF6
(Laserfiche)
NEX l'
ColdFuslon (Reports)
MapGulde (Spatial)
0
GDI Web Server
(Windows 2003 ServerAlS 6 .0)
k.
GDI
FY 2015 -16 FUTURE RECYCLED WATER
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
ESTIMATED EXPENSE
Martinez Refineries and other REW Future
Expansion Planning work
$ 150,000
Concord Landscape — Customer
Connections
$ 1001000
Estimated Total:
$ 250,000
Martinez Refinery Project
Construction Unbudgeted/ Conducting 0.5MGD Use with CCWD
Board Role in Capital Program is Ongoing
• Set Initial Capital Funding Levels in December
• Confirm Capital Funding Levels in Jan /February as
part of overall District Ten Year Financial Plan
• Board Workshop Focused on CIB /CIP Projects
April
• Authorize CIB /Program Budgets and O &M Budget
in June
• Authorize Supplemental Program Funds when
needed
• Award Construction Projects > $100,000
• Authorize Construction Change Orders >$100,000
• Authorize Consultant Contracts > $100,000
Questions or Comments?
CCCSD
IT Capital Budget Request
FY15 -16
Infrastructure Replacement (Desktop Units, Routers, Switches, etc.)
Server/ Storage Replacement
Records Management Software / Compliance
Intranet Collaboration Software
Timekeeping and Attendance Software - Interface to HTE
ERP (HTE replacement) Business Needs Assessment / RFP Prep
Professional Services - ERP
Agenda Management Software
Professional Services - Virtualization, Etc
Email Archiving & Security
Wiring - Training Room / Network
EOC Laptops
Website Redesign
Tablets - Pump Stations, Etc
Video Production Equipment
I
FYI 5-16
FYI 6-17
FYI 7-18
FYI 8-19 FYI 9-20
FY20 -21
FY21 -22
FY22 -23 FY23 -24
FY24 -25
TOTAL
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
200,000
300,000
300,000
800,000
150,000
150,000
200,000
200,000
150,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
2,150,000
400,000
400,000
800,000
100,000
100,000
200,000
200,000
25,000
25,000
91,500
91,500
16,000
16,000
200,000
200,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000 25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000 25,000
25,000
250,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
Total $ 1,367 500 $ 1,925,000 $ 1,935,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,235,000 $ 425,000 $ 235,000 $ 225,000 $ 235,000 $ 1,225,000 $ 9,032,500
• Life Cycle Asset Management Roles and Responsibilities - CCCSD will benefit
from an asset management steering committee to help promote and implement the
program. The forming of an asset management leadership role helps to build a solid
foundation to construct the asset management program. There is a lack of
understanding how the AM portion of staff roles links with others throughout the
organization.
• Information Systems - CCCSD should move forward with the procurement of a
replacement CMMS for the Collection System and potentially consolidate all
CCCSD's assets into this one system.
• Asset Hierarchy and Data Standards — CCCSD should continue with development
of its asset hierarchy and data standards for all assets. All other project improvements
are dependent on a good framework.
• Project/Program Management— There are currently four significant projects
underway within CCCSD (Cost of Service Study, IT Master Plan, Asset Management
Implementation Plan, and Succession Planning). A Project Manager is assigned to
each of the projects, however there is not a Program Manager assigned to coordinate
these initiatives. To provide this coordination, development of an internal Program
Manager role is recommended.
3.0 RECOMMENDED PLAN
Following completion of the Asset Management Needs Assessment, Carollo worked with
District staff to identify elements for the five year AMIP that would close the gap between
current practice and the District's AM goals. These elements link back to the strengths,
weaknesses, and quick start improvements that were identified by the District's gap
analysis and needs assessment. The elements are intended to close prioritized gaps in the
District's asset management practices, strengthen overall performance, and improve
investment decision - making during the next five years. A summary of the prioritized asset
management improvement elements is presented in Table 1, and each element is
described in the following section. Table 1 also lists related projects that are currently
underway.
3.1 Element Descriptions
The following sections presents the objectives for each of the AMP elements. Detailed
descriptions of each element are provided in Appendix B.
3.1.1 Element 1 — AM Organization, Policies and Key Strategies to Support Asset
Management
Develop the guidelines for CCCSD to implement the adopted vision, objectives and
strategies. The guidelines should appropriately reflect the need for purposeful integration of
November 2014 — DRAFT 9
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienUCA/CCCSD /9564AOO /AMIP/ Deliverables /AMIP_SummaryReport.docx
all essential elements of a fully functioning asset management program, including service
levels; performance monitoring; risk management; life cycle cost and performance
assessment; triple bottom line (TBL); asset data and data systems; roles, responsibilities,
and accountabilities; decision making processes; financial modeling, and benchmarking.
Table 1 Recommended AMID Plan Elements
Asset Management Implementation Plan
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Planned Duration
ID Element Name Start (months)
Active 1 12 -18
TBD 1 18 -24
2015 -Q3 1 12
2a
Asset Hierarchy and Data Standards
2015 -Q1
6
2b
Complete A et Register-, Pump Station & Treatment'Plant Assets
2016-02
3'
2c
Complete Utility Locating and Drafting to Consolidate As- Builts
2015 -03
18
2d,
. Complete Asset Register for Treatment Plant Piping
201542
S'
3
Reliability Centered Maintenance Pilot Program
2015 -Q2
24
41''
,Business Process Mapping
2016 -01
0'
5
Knowledge Management Strategy
2016 -Q2
6
6a„
Failure Modes and Condition Assessment Protocol
6b
Condition Assessment of Pump Station / Treatment Plant Assets
2015 -Q4
6
Risk Assessment
2016-04
6'.
8
Failure -Based Maintenance Strategies
2017 -Q1
6
9
Asset Valuations
2017 -02
6'
10
Program and Project Management Standards
2018 -Q1
4
11
'Ash Commissioning and Hand ve'r
2018
4 ;'
12
Capital Improvement Program Business Case Evaluations
2018 -Q4
6
November 2014 — DRAFT 10
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienUCA/CCCSD /9564AO0 /AM I P/ Deliverables /A MI P_Su mmaryReport.docx
3.1.2 Element 2a — Asset Hierarchy and Data Standards
Provide a framework for CCCSD to enhance the asset hierarchy, define the Maintenance
Managed Item (MMI), and identify the data attributes required to support the asset
management decision - making process. Specifically, with implementation of this project,
CCCSD will be able to: develop an asset hierarchy, establish Maintenance Managed Item
(MMI), understand the data framework and data gaps, and prioritize data collection
strategy.
3.1.3 Element 2b — Complete Asset Register for Pump Station and Treatment Plant
Assets
While much of this information has been collected for this element, effort will be made to
collect standard data for all assets and to populate the Mainsaver database with consistent
use of data fields. Key data to be collected for each asset are: parent facility, process, or
component, asset tag, equipment ID, nameplate data, basic design criteria (size,
horsepower, if not covered with nameplate data), location, and installation year.
3.1.4 Element 2c -- Complete Utility Locating and Drafting to Consolidate As- Builts
In accordance with the Asset Hierarchy and Data Standards developed in Element 2a,
complete the utility locating and surveying /drafting to consolidate as- builts. This information
will be prepared for import into the new ESRI geodatabase.
3.1.6 Element 2d -- Complete Asset Register for Treatment Plant Piping
In accordance with the Asset Hierarchy and Data Standards developed in Element 2a,
complete the asset register for treatment plant piping. This information will be prepared for
import into the new ESRI geodatabase. Key data to be collected for each treatment plant
piping reach are: origin and terminus, contents, diameter, material, and installation year.
3.1.6 Element 3 — Reliability Centered Maintenance Pilot Program
Provide a framework for CCCSD to improve maintenance efficiency and results. RCM
supports business goals of reducing risk and overall costs of ownership. In conducting a
pilot study of RCM focused on one asset type, CCCSD aims to test the feasibility and
results of this approach before implementing RCM for all treatment plant and pump station
assets.
3.1.7 Element 4 — Business Process Mapping
Provide a framework for CCCSD to continue with the development and improvement of
business processes for the overall efficiency and safe operation of the utility system. In
developing the business processes, the goal is to accomplish certain financial and
management objectives and to improve the overall efficiency and safe operation of the
utility system. An example business process map was prepared during the AMIP
development project. The work flow process selected was that for creating and disposing
November 2014 — DRAFT 11
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienUCA/ CCCSD /9564A00 /AMIP/Deliverables /AM I P_SummaryReport. docx
assets, or "Asset Handover ". The business process map was developed in a workshop
setting with key participants from Engineering and O &M staff and is presented in Figure 4.
3.1.8 Element 5 — Knowledge Management Strategy
Develop a corporate knowledge management strategy, and capture CCCSD staff members
corporate knowledge. This strategy will focus on knowledge related to the assets, including
history, current performance, and future requirements.
3.1.9 Element 6a — Failure Modes and Condition Assessment Protocol
Provide CCCSD with a framework for identifying the imminent failure mode. Develop a
protocol for condition assessment. Develop the failure mode based management strategies.
Optimize the condition assessment process.
3.1.10 Element 6b —Condition Assessment of Puma Station/ Treatment Plant
Assets
In accordance with the failure mode analysis and condition assessment protocol developed
in Element 6a, conduct a condition assessment for pump station and treatment plant
assets. This assessment will include visual as well as testing data suitable to the varied
asset types at the pump stations and treatment plant. The data gathered will be geared
toward estimating the overall condition and remaining useful life of each asset. This
element will need to be repeated every three to five years.
3.1.11 Element 7 — Risk Assessment
Determine the relative risks of the plant, structures, and collection system pipes. Develop
risk -based management strategies.
3.1.12 Element 8 — Failure -Based Maintenance Strategies
Develop and implement continuous improvement processes that involves periodic re-
examination of failure histories and of the effectiveness of maintenance strategies. For
example, the role of maintenance planners could be expanded to include the periodic
evaluation and updating of maintenance practices and strategies.
3.1.13 Element 9 — Asset Valuations
Provide CCCSD with a higher -level system valuation. Replacement cost of all managed
maintenance items (MMIs) in the asset register will be determined based on the information
made available. Replacement costs will be determined based on current year dollars,
current and historical cost data provided by CCCSD, and the consultant's asset
replacement cost database. General cost tables or curves will be developed for each major
asset class and will be used to represent the replacement cost for all assets belonging to
the relevant asset class.
November 2014 — DRAFT 12
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienUCA/CCCSD /9564A00 /AM I P/Deliverables /A MI P_SummaryReport.docx
3.1.14 Element 10 —Program and Project Management Standards
Improve CCCSD's ability to manage projects effectively and efficiently. The standards
should be prepared to provide staff with the appropriate tools and techniques to manage
projects while also developing consistency and rigor in approach across the organization.
3.1.15 Element 11 —Asset Commissioning and Handover
Ensure assets are handed over in a "fit for purpose" state reducing costly rework and a
smooth transition from project to operations and maintenance. Ensure commissioning and
handover are in accordance with CCCSD requirements and with sound engineering and
construction practice. Identify stakeholders in commissioning and handover and increase
awareness of communication requirements.
3.1.16 Element 12 — Capital Improvement Program Business Case Evaluations
Develop a suitable CIP validation policy, framework and methodology for CCCSD that is
documented in user manual format. The methodology would include assessment of
confidence level ratings, business risk exposure, life cycle cost analysis, options evaluation,
business case evaluation, and project ranking and prioritization.
3.1.17 Element 13 — Update the AMP
Update the AMP for CCCSD using CCCSD's best available information. Cover all assets,
and specify which assets to assess in more detail in future AMPs. This effort will need to be
repeated every three to five years.
3.2 Schedule
The recommendations described above have been prioritized and distributed across a five
year timeframe to allow adequate time for completion and for adoption of the significant
cultural changes inherent in the AMIP. Figure 5 shows the proposed AMIP five year
schedule and includes the timing of related projects already underway.
3.3 Resources
Table 2 shows the level of effort estimated for each of the plan elements. Figure 6 shows
the hours per quarter, by consultant and in -house staff. Figure 7 shows the overall level of
effort in hours distributed among consultants and the various departments. In terms of full
time equivalents (FTEs), the total AMIP is estimated to require two FTEs, assuming that
one FTE is equal to 120 hours per month. The estimated consulting costs for the total five -
year AMIP is $1,341,800, based on a range of $180 to $220 per hour for this time.
December 2014 — DRAFT 14
pw: / /Carollo/ Documents /ClienVCA/CCCSD /9564A00 /AMIP/ Deliverables /AMIP _SummaryReport.docx