Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03. (Handout) Responses to Chair Causey's questionsThis 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