HomeMy WebLinkAboutENGINEERING & OPERATIONS ACTION SUMMARY 08-26-15Committee:
Chair Paul Causey
Member Jim Nejedly
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
3:00 p.m.
2"d Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California
Invited Guests:
Gisa Ju of RMC (left after Item 3.)
Staff.
General Manager Roger Bailey
Deputy General Manager Ann Sasaki
Director of Engineering and Technical Services Jean -Marc Petit
Director of Administration David Heath
Capital Projects Division Manager Edgar Lopez
Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Division Manager Lori Schectel
Senior Engineer Dana Lawson
Associate Engineer Dan Frost (left after Item 3.)
Assistant Engineer Justin Waples (left after Item 3.)
Senior Accountant Chris Thomas
Senior Administrative Technician Cindy Granzella
1. Call Meeting to Order
Chair Causey called the meeting to order at 3:52 p.m.
2. Public Comments
None.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
MICHAEL R. MCGILL
President
TAD J. PILECKI
President Pro Tem
PAUL H. CAUSEY
JAMES A. NEJEDLY
DAVID R. WILLIAMS
PHONE: (925) 228 -9500
FAX: (925) 676 -7211
www.centralsan.org
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
August 26, 2015
Page 2
3.* Receive update on Collection System flow monitoring and review draft Position
Paper authorizing the General Manager to execute an amendment to the
engineering services agreement with V &A Consulting Engineers for $400,000
with a cost ceiling not to exceed $560,000 for the Collection System Modeling
Upgrade, District Project 8418
Jean -Marc Petit explained that the District converted the collection system
hydraulic model to a dynamic model in 2012. He explained that it is critical for
flow monitoring to be performed, and that the model is a tool used by District staff
to support development on a day -to -day basis and that it will be used by the
Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWMP) team to determine potential
capacity limitations of the District's collection system. Therefore, the model will
be calibrated with the flow monitoring data. Data collected last year was mostly
for dry weather conditions, with limited storm information. With forecasted wet
winter conditions, staff is recommending this second phase of flow monitoring of
the collection system to improve the accuracy of the model.
Mr. Petit distributed a handout (attached) showing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 -16
Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Collection System Program Budget/Project
List. District Project 8418 is listed in the current budget. Four other projects are
closing this fiscal year with remaining allocations, which can cover the cost of the
requested amount for this item. Chair Causey supports the project but would
prefer using funds from the Collection System program contingency rather than
using monies from close -out projects or savings resulting from active projects
which are completed under budget.
Member Nejedly stated that flow monitoring was done several times in the past,
and it seems that the data has not been accurate. He believes that there should
be sufficient data already on hand. Member Nejedly also questioned what
mistakes were made last year to result in this request for additional funds.
Mr. Petit explained that part two of the flow monitoring project was not accounted
for in the current CIB, which was an oversight. He reiterated the importance of
gathering additional data for accuracy to show wet weather results, since there
were only two storms last year. He also explained that the last major flow
monitoring effort dates back 20 years, with limited additional data collected in
2005, which is why it is critical to collect more data to increase the model
accuracy.
Mr. Petit distributed a handout (attached) with questions from Chair Causey and
staff responses.
Member Nejedly stated that he will vote against the project for the reasons
stated.
COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee was split on this matter; therefore,
no Board recommendation was made.
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
August 26, 2015
Page 3
4. Review draft Position Paper approving revised Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 -16 Capital
Improvement Budget (CIB) funding authorization table (Table 1) with actual
rather than estimated carryover of unspent funds previously allocated to ongoing
projects and revised total FY 2015 -16 authorizations for each program, based on
end of FY 2014 -15 financial data
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed and recommended Board approval.
5. Review draft Position Paper authorizing the General Manager to allocate
additional funds to complete the Lafayette Sewer Renovations, Phase 8, District
Project 8404
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed and recommended Board approval.
6. Standing Items
a. Receive Change Order Log, Quarterly Reports, and Bid Schedules to
compare budgeted versus actual costs
Edgar Lopez stated that the bid schedule was updated for the fiscal year.
The Wet Scrubber Caustic Injection System Project will be presented to
the Committee at the September meeting, and the Engineer's estimate is
being revised.
Mr. Petit explained that this is a short -term remedy project to meet new
upcoming air regulations, effective March 2016. The long -term solution will
be discussed in the CWMP, with the likely replacement of the wet
scrubber system which will be in the multiple millions of dollars.
b. Receive update on Asset Management Program
Dana Lawson stated that the Computerized Maintenance Management
System (CMMS) project has commenced. The consultant is on board and
moving forward. She estimates that the system will be live by July 2016.
Asset Management will be coordinating with the CWMP to do baseline
condition assessments. This will connect with CMMS to track failures
and /or replacements, and the costs associated with those assets.
C. Receive pre - closeout report on projects with total expenditures of
$1 million or more, if needed
None.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed standing items.
Engineering & Operations Committee Action Summary
August 26, 2015
Page 4
7. Announcements
a. Future scheduled meetings:
Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the announcements.
8. Suggestions for future agenda items
None.
9. Adjournment — at 4:33 p.m.
* Attachment
3.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District rtVISI�G+�
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PO NandO�
POSITION N PAPER
S O
Board Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 31-7, 2015
subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 WITH V &A
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING
UPGRADE, DISTRICT PROJECT 8418
Submitted By:
Justin J. Waples, Assistant Engineer
Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Engineering and Tech Services /Planning
& Development Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
N. Hodges — Associate Engineer
D. Frost — Senior Engineer Roger S. Bailey
D. Gemmell — Planning and Development Services Division Manager General Manager
JM. Petit — Director of Engineering and Technical Services
ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager to
execute an amendment to an existing agreement in the amount greater than $100,000
or 15 percent above the original agreement amount.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to amend an existing
Engineering Services Agreement with V &A Consulting Engineers, Agreement
No. 042498, in an amount not to exceed $400,000, increasing the contract ceiling to
$560,000 for the Collection System Modeling Upgrade, District Project 8418.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total anticipated cost for winter 2015 -16 expanded flow
monitoring (70 meters for 13 weeks) by V &A Consulting Engineers is $400,000. Under
the existing agreement, V &A Consulting Engineers performed the winter 2014 -15
limited flow monitoring (86 meters for 9 weeks) for $160,000. The total cost for winter
2014 -15 and winter 2015 -16 flow monitoring is $560,000. Due to project closeouts,
Ththere will bea-re adequate funds in the Fiscal Year 2015 -16 Collection System
Program Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) to fund the additional flow monitoring work.
PROJECT PRIORITY: Critical, as shown in the CIB.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Do not perform flow monitoring for winter 2015-
16. This alternative is not recommended, as there will be limited data to calibrate the
new collection system hydraulic model. The Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan
(CWMP) will have to rely on a model calibration using the limited winter 2014 -15 flow
monitoring results, which did not capture adequate storm data and did not represent
saturated soil conditions.
Page 1 of 5
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 347, 2015
Subject. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 WITH V &A
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING
UPGRADE, DISTRICT PROJECT 8418
BACKGROUND:
Collection System Hydraulic Model
The District's collection system hydraulic model is a critical tool used to predict flows,
analyze impacts of point discharges, investigate impacts of proposed and future
development and provide crucial flow information for strategic planning, asset
management and Capital Project design for the District's collection system and
wastewater treatment plant.
The District began the conversion to a new dynamic model in 2012 from the existing
steady state model, ArcSNAP. The dynamic model will more accurately simulate the
hydraulic complexities of the District's collection system and will bring the District up to
current hydraulic modeling standards used in the wastewater industry. Most public
agencies including the City of San Jose, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
Sacramento Regional Sewer District, and many others have converted to dynamic
modeling. Before the model can be confidently implemented, two processes must be
completed: 1) the model network configuration; and, 2) the model calibration.
The InfoWorks dynamic model is being built for the main backbone trunk sewers. This
includes 290 miles of trunks and interceptors that convey wastewater flows to the
District's wastewater treatment plant in Martinez. The CWMP consultant is tasked with
completing the model network configuration. To verify that the model network matches
field conditions and correctly models the network's hydraulic response, it is critical that
flow monitoring is performed and that the model is calibrated to the flow monitoring
data.
District's Flow Monitoring History
System -wide flow monitoring has been conducted twice over the past 30 years, in 1985
and in early 2005. The first flow monitoring (1985) was the foundation for what became
the District's steady state hydraulic model. The second flow monitoring (2005) was
focused on the relationship of pipe deterioration to inflow /infiltration, particularly for
sewers constructed between 1985 and 2004. In late 2014, the District began a flow
monitoring program with the intent of calibrating the new dynamic model.
The current flow monitoring program, approved by the Board included conducting
limited flow monitoring during winter 2014 -15 and determining if additional flow
monitoring is recommended.
Revised Aug 25, 2015 Page 2 of 5
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 34-7, 2015
Subject AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 WITH V &A
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING
UPGRADE, DISTRICT PROJECT 8418
2014 -15 Flow Monitorina Results
The 2014 -15 flow monitoring was conducted between February 2015 and mid -April
2015 at 36 sites on the collection system trunk sewers for a nine -week duration. Winter
2014 -15 was a continuation of drought conditions and rainfall was relatively low
compared to a typical wet weather season. Only two storm events were captured during
the monitoring period, with each event preceded by significant dry periods. When soils
are not saturated, the rate of inflow /infiltration tends to be underestimated. The flow data
obtained from the winter 2014 -15 flow monitoring provides a basis for an initial
quantification of inflow and infiltration response in the collection system. However, the
results did not represent saturated soil or maximum response conditions, which are
needed for developing a design storm event response for accurate model calibration.
The winter 2014 -15 flow monitoring tributary area covered by the 36 flow meters
averages to a large area per meter (approximately 47 miles of tributary sewer per flow
meter). With large tributary areas, it is difficult to reflect actual variations in response
within the tributary areas. The relatively small number of flow meters used in winter
2014 -15 was to mitigate the high probability of a dry winter.
The District's CWMP consultant and District staff are recommending additional flow
monitoring during the upcoming 2015 -16 wet weather season. The monitoring would
include a repeat of most sites from the 2014 -15 flow monitoring program as well as new
sites identified from the results of the 2014 -15 flow monitoring. Specifically, monitoring
at areas showing significant flow response is recommended to provide hydraulic data at
a level of refinement necessary to calibrate the model for wet weather events,
particularly for smaller trunk sewer areas and in areas with high infiltration and inflow.
Benefits of the additional flow monitoring include:
• System -wide flow data for storm events under more favorable (wetter winter)
antecedent conditions.
• More accurate model calibration and wet weather flow predictions for both large
and small trunk lines.
• More refined and reliable assessment of hydraulic deficiencies and resulting
capital improvements.
This winter has a higher probability of producing a typical or normal wet weather
pattern. On July 9, 2015, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate
Prediction Center announced an El Nino advisory indicating El Nino conditions are
Revised Aug 25, 2015 Page 3 of 5
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 34-7, 2015
Subject AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 WITH V &A
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING
UPGRADE, DISTRICT PROJECT 8418
presently observed, and stated there is a 90 percent chance the El Nino event will last
through the northern hemisphere winter of 2015 -16. El Nino events typically are
associated with above normal precipitation in California and other states.
The flow monitoring planned for this winter is necessary to assess the hydraulic
behavior of the present collection system infrastructure and calibrate the new collection
system model to enable representative simulations of base sewer flows and peak
design event sewer flows in the new InfoWorks model. The District's hydraulic model is
used frequently to assess the hydraulic impact of new commercial developments on
District sewers and to identify capacity - related capital improvement projects. As part of
the CWMP, the calibrated model will be used to identify potential new capacity - related
capital improvements and to confirm the $35.7M in capacity - related (expansion) capital
improvements currently identified in the District's 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan.
Consultant Selection
In 2014, District staff selected V &A Consulting Engineers to conduct flow monitoring.
On December 18, 2014, the Board approved an Engineering Services Agreement with
V &A Consulting Engineers to conduct 2014 -15 flow monitoring in an amount not to
exceed $160,000. The scope of work also included an option for 2015 -16 flow
monitoring at the District's discretion that includes 70 flow meters and five rain gauges
at a cost of $295,000 for a period of nine weeks. Because of the uncertainty of weather
conditions, an additional four weeks of monitoring has been negotiated with V &A
Consulting Engineers as a contingency for a cost of $105,000. This brings the total cost
of 2015 -16 wet weather flow monitoring to $400,000 for a period of 13 weeks. The new
contract ceiling will be $560,000.
Staff intends to work with V &A Consulting Engineers, in consultation with weather
forecasts, to install flow meters after soils have been estimated to be saturated and wet
weather is expected. If the wet weather season is typical, nine weeks of flow monitoring
is sufficient and the meters will be removed. However, if storms do not materialize as
forecasted or storms are significantly spread out, flow monitoring may continue for the
entire 13 week period. Ideally, we will collect flow data for multiple, significant storm
events with saturated soil conditions. If there are no significant storms forecasted after
nine weeks, flow monitoring will be terminated and the four -week contingency amount of
$105,000 will not be spent.
IRGIUding the ameunt speRt to date, the prc)jeGt Gan be G9Mpleted within the GIB Total
The Collection System Modeling Upgrade, District
Project 8418, is included in the FY 2015 -16 CIB on page CS -24 with a total estimated
project cost of $949,998. However, the additional flow monitoring cost ($400,000)
presented in this position paper was not included in the total budget.
Revised Aug 25, 2015 Page 4 of 5
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 34-7, 2015
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 WITH V &A
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING
UPGRADE, DISTRICT PROJECT 8418
Staff has conducted a budget analysis of the FY 2015 -16 Collection System Program
budget and concluded that adequate funds are available, as shown below:
FY 2015 -16 Collection System (CS) Program Allocation Budget:
Authorized Estimated Allocations for Projects $ 24,650,000
Supplemental Board Authorizations: $ 0
Estimated Allocations Returned from Closeouts: $
650,0000
Total Board Authorized Allocations: $ 25,300,000 1 _ ,
FY 2015 -16 Allocations to Date for CS Program: $ 5,2i� 0006,542,600
This Allocation for DP 8418: $ 400.000
Remaining Unallocated Budget for CS Program: $ 19;038,00018,357,400
CEQA
The Board concluded at the April 3, 2014, Board meeting that this project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guideline
Section 15306 as the project involves data collection that will not result in a serious or
major disturbance to an environmental resource.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Engineering and Operations Committee
reviewed this project at its meeting on August 26, 2015, and recommended
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to amend an
existing Engineering Services Agreement with V &A Consulting Engineers, Agreement
No. 042498, in an amount not to exceed $400,000, increasing the contract ceiling to
$560,000 for the Collection System Modeling Upgrade, District Project 8418.
Revised Aug 25, 2015 Page 5 of 5
3.
SUMMARY TABLE: FY 15 -16 CIB Collection System Pro ram Bud et/ Project List
Status as Of Date: 08/25/15
Estimated Expenditures
Priority
Project
Number
Project
Estimated Total
Project Budget
Allocated to
date
Prior FY(s)
Spent
Remaining
Budget
FY15/16
FY16/17
Future FY
Page
Closeouts/
return
Allocations
Critical
5941
PS Equipment Piping Replacement
$819,000
$640,000
$604,183
$35,817
$100,000
$100,000
$0
CS-32
High
5962
Manhole Remot Monitor
$325,500
$325,500
$131,963
$193,537
$1,000
$0
$0
CS -27
$190,000
Critical
5982
Pipeburst Blanket Contract
$1,477,000
$928,000
$679,586
$248,414
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
CS -4
Very H
5991
PH Sewer Renovation Ph2
$2,550,000
$400,000
$133,017
$266,983
$50,000
$0
$2,350,000
CS -18
Very H
5993
Forcemain assessment
$127,000
$127,000
$96,535
$30,465
$0
$0
$0
CS -26
$30,000
Critical
5999
CIPP Blanket Contract
$472,000
$472,000
$134,650
$337,350
$150,000
$150,000
$0
CS -55
NA
8402
CADS
$1,300,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
$1,100,000
CS -30
Critical
8404
Laf Sewer Reno Ph8
$2,735,000
$2,735,000
$2,726,698
$8,302
$0
$0
$0
CS -6
Critical
8406
Pump Station Safety Improvs
$611,000
$611,000
$606,169
$4,831
$2,000
$0
$0
CS -33
Critical
8411
N. Orinda Sewer Reno Ph5
$3,020,000
$3,020,000
$2,953,490
$66,510
$200,000
$100,000
$0
CS -7
Critical
8412
PH Grayson Creek*
$10,700,000
$1,250,000
$1,133,211
$116,789
$3,120,000
$6,400,000
$0
CS -29
Critical
8413
WC Sewer Reno Ph 10
$3,884,000
$3,884,000
$3,761,081
$122,919
$0
$0
$0
CS -8
$120,000
Critical
8415
Martinez Ph 4 Sewer Reno
$3,922,000
$3,922,000
$973,143
$2,948,857
$2,948,857
$0
$0
CS -9
Critical
8417
ISurvey Monument Install
$488,000
$150,000
$125,931
$24,069
$50,000
$50,000
$250,000
CS -10
Critical
8418
JCol System Modeling
$950,000
$801,600
$375,065
$426,535
$401,600
$200,000
$0
CS -24
Critical
8419
Collection System Planning LT
$1,369,000
$470,000
$304,442
$165,558
$165,558
$200,000
$700,000
CS -25
NA
8420
Development Sewerage
$3,940,000
$2,667,000
$1,967,606
$699,394
$700,000
$700,000
$700,000
CS -31
Critical
8421
Laf Sewer Reno Ph9'
$3,154,200
$3,154,200
$1,178,925
$1,975,275
$1,975,275
$0
$0
CS -11
Critical
8422
WC Sewer Reno Ph 11•
$3,750,000
$100,000
$97,895
$2,105
$0
$500,000
$3,100,000
CS -12
Critical
8423
N. Orinda Sewer Reno Ph6'
$3,649,000
$650,000
$158,447
$491,553
$490,553
$3,000,000
$0
CS -13
Critical
8424
1M1 Rehab
$2,776,000
$2,776,000
$405,185
$2,370,815
$2,060,000
$0
$0
CS -14
$310,000
Critical
8425
Cathodic Protection Ph 1
$559,000
$559,000
$473,427
$85,573
$9,000
$0
$0
CS -15
Critical
8426
Laf Reno Ph 10•
$3,755,000
$705,000
$149,792
$555,208
$555,000
$3,000,000
$0
CS -18
Critical
8427
Arc Flash Study
$100,000
$100,000
$93,445
$6,555
$6,555
$0
$0
CS -34
Very H
8429
Fairvew Maltby
$670,000
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
$120,000
$400,000
CS -36
Critical
8430
Laf Sewer Reno Ph 11
$3,650,000
$150,000
$0
$150,000
$150,000
$500,000
$3,000,000
CS -20
Critical
8431
Collection System Master Plan
$1,200,000
$600,000
$0
$600,000
$600,000
$600,000
$0
CS -28
NA
8432
JMisc Pump Stations
$1,230,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$80,000
$1,150,000
CS -37
Critical
8433
S. Orinda Sewer Reno Ph6'
$3,650,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
$3,500,000
CS -22
Critical
8434
Urgent Projects
$300,000
$300,000
$0
$300,000
$270,000
$0
$0
CS -17
Critical
8435
WC Sewer Reno Ph 12•
$3,750,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$650,000
$3,100,000
CS -19
Very H
8436
Mora a/ Crossroads PS Project
$1,090,000
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
$500,000
$440,000
CS -35
Medium
8437
Martinez Ph 5 Sewer Reno
$3,150,000
$150,000
$0
$150,000
$150,000
$0
$3,000,000
CS -21
Medium
8438
Cathodic Protection Systems Ph2
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
$01
CS -23
Subtotal: $75,172,700 $31,647,300 $19,263,886 $12,383,414•' , 0; $17,350,000 $23,040,000
Fixed Contingency $900000' $900,000
Total: $1,8,608,398 $18,250,000
[unspent Allocated Funds in CS Program: 1 $0 $0 $0 $444,602 $0 $205,398 CS -23 $650,000
CIB Budget: $15,950,000
Estimated FY
2015.16
Expenditures
2015 -15 Capital Improvement Budget Intro -9
This is a response to member Causey's questions.
From: Paul Causey
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:49 PM
To: Roger Bailey; Jean -Marc Petit; Edgar Lopez
Subject: Flow Monitoring Project Budget Questions
Hi guys,
Heads up on questions I have for tomorrow's committee meeting:
A. How did we miss the $400,000 in the current budget?
You are correct, this item was missed. During the budgeting process we had the three
scenarios A, B, and C. The budget was in A, but not in B and C. In retrospect we should have left
it in scenario B which was eventually approved, however in developing the budget scenario we
were hoping that we had sufficient data from the first year of flowing to appropriate calibrate
the model. Now that we have reviewed the data, we have determined additional data is
needed.
This project has two components:
A. The flow metering by V &A (with RMC as a sub)
B. The model completion by Carollo /RMC under the master plan agreement.
B. What are the current expenditures against this project to date?
Out of the $950,000 total budget for DP 8418, $375,065 has been spent to date, of which $160,000 was
spent on last year's flow monitoring agreement with V &A.
2. What is the new project budget amount - $1,300,000 + / -? Why doesn't the agenda summary indicate
the new budget amount?
You are correct that this should be reflected on the position paper. The position paper only focused on
the V &A agreement. The red line edits that we sent last night made reference to adding $400,000 to
the project budget. We will add the new project total of $1,350,000 on the final position paper.
3. What collection system projects will need to be delayed to fund this new allocation request? Or is
this increase budget to just come from reserves in the construction fund? Please explain the impact of
the additional $400,000 on the overall CIB.
No projects identified in the FY 15 -16 CS program will need to be delayed. The good news is that we
have completed projects that we are closing out with remaining budgets unspent, and recent bids have
been lower than our budgeted amount. These funds will be returned to the CS program For FY -15 -16 ,
the net fund available that have been allocated but will not be spent is estimated at $444,602.
Therefore we do not need additional funding beyond what is already approved for expenditure for this
fiscal year.
4. Would like the committee to receive the authority from the Board to approve the added $109,000
extension before it is authorized.
We would favor this approach, as it would provide us a quicker response if the additional 4 weeks of
flow monitoring is required (i.e.; the additional $105,000). We could provide monthly updates to the
E &O committee and forecast whether or not the flow monitoring program would need to be extended
based on weather conditions. Please see the response to question number 8.
We would revise the position paper to request the Board to authorize the General Manager for
$400,000 with the stipulation that the $105,000 contingency must be approved by the E &O committee.
5. What was the original amount for flow monitoring in the original budget?
V &A was selected following a competitive selection process last year. The original scope for V &A
included a two year flow monitoring program. The original budget for 2 -years of flow monitoring was for
$593,000. The E &O committee approved the first year for 9 weeks without the additional 4 weeks of
contingency and without the second year of flow monitoring, and requested that we come back to the
committee with an update. This meeting today is intended to provide that update.
6. What will we do to assure that this large increase will not be missed in the future with the rest of the
master plan project?
We agree that this is not ideal. Now that we have a final scope and budget for the master plan (which
was negotiated and approved on June 4, 2015 after the budget process was completed), we do not
anticipate any additional large increases in the master plan project budget. There may be supplemental
project(s) recommended or requested to be expedited by the master plan. One possible case would be
replacing filter media in one of the four filters to determine filter capacity of the Recycled Filter plant
and inspecting the underdrains. This would be funded by the either the recycled water or wastewater
treatment programs. If needed, we would bring this to the committee and the Board for approval.
As for DP 8418, we do not expect any additional funding required.
7. How does this increase impact the overall wastewater master plan budget?
Technically it does not, as this is a parallel effort that would have been completed regardless of the
master plan. This additional flow monitoring is needed to calibrate the hydraulic model. The model will
be used by the master plan to determine capacity related issues with the collection system and the
model will also be used by the planning staff on a daily basis to evaluate requests from developers and
other agencies. The funding will increase the V &A contract which is separate from the Master plan
contract. As stated in Question 1A, this is a two part project. This project supports the master plan, but
is not part of the master plan overall budget.
8. No other options for reducing the added costs of this project considered?
The committee could consider approving $295,000 (70 meters for 9 weeks) and request staff comes
back to the committee with an update and to request funding ($105,000) for the additional 4 weeks if
needed. We could consider slightly reducing the number of flow meters; however, this is not
recommended due to the complexity and size of our collection system and the need to collect data on
tributary areas during a saturated soil condition. The additional data will support the master plan team
in making recommendations related to potential capacity related improvements.
X
We also looked at purchasing our own equipment. However, this would be a more expensive option
(each meter cost approximately $5K -$10K per unit uninstalled). There are only a few agencies that have
their own equipment and flow metering program. Sacramento for example, which has 3,300 miles of
collection pipelines, has 5 employees dedicated to that program, 3 field crews and 2 analysts, plus they
have modelers. They have 12 to 15 permanent meters and 200 portable flow meters. We are going to
evaluate as part of the Master Plan, the long -term flow monitoring strategy, which will likely include
several permanent flow meters in our system.
9. One additional question after reading the other item on the agenda and that is why the $400K is not
coming from the contingency like the Lafayette project - thought this was what those funds were for. I
do not agree that the funds are coming from the closed projects returned to the fund at the year -end
close.
This is one of the reasons we suggested to set up a contingency in each program. As in our response to
question 3, we are able to fund this project from the existing approved CIB budget from the CS program,
without impacting any of the other projects.
The proposed use of moneys available to the CS program due to closeouts (currently estimated at
$650,000) are from this FY15 -16, not from year end (FY14 -15). And as stated above (Ans. to Q3), the
current cash flow for the CS program in FY 15 -16 is $15.5 million which about $444,000 less than the
estimated expenditures to complete the projects in the CS program for this FY15 -16 (Table 1 column D
in the CIB, page Intro -8 shows $15,950,00).
We can have discussions and directions regarding how to use contingencies.
3