Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.d.1)b) Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee minutes 02-09-16 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Protecting pr the environmentl SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TAD J.PILECKI President SANITARY DISTRICT PAUL H.CAUSEY REAL ESTATE, ENVIRONMENTAL President Pro Tem MICHAELR.MCCILL & PLANNING COMMITTEE JAMES A.NEJEDLY DAVID R.WILLIAMS M I N U T E S PHONE: (925)228-9500 FAX: (925)372-0192 Tuesday, February 9, 2016 www.centralsan.org 1:15 p.m. 2nd Floor Conference Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California Committee: Chair Mike McGill Member Jim Nejedly Invited Guests: Dave Richardson, RMC Water and Environment Sarah Hollenbeck, PFM Group Tom Terrill, Diablo Country Club Hank Salvo, Diablo Country Club Frank Cordeiro, Diablo Country Club Jim Brezack, Brezack & Associates Staff.• General Manager Roger S. Bailey Deputy General Manager Ann Sasaki Director of Engineering and Technical Services Jean-Marc Petit Director of Administration David Heath Planning and Development Services Division Manager Danea Gemmell Capital Projects Division Manager Edgar Lopez Finance Manager Thea Vassallo Senior Engineer Dan Frost Associate Engineer Melody LaBella Associate Engineer Nathan Hodges Senior Administrative Technician Cindy Granzella 1. Call Meeting to Order Chair McGill called the meeting to order at 1:16 p.m. Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 2 2. Public Comments None. 3. Present Final Recycled Water Wholesale Opportunities Study and review proposed amendment to existing agreement with RMC Water and Environment to pursue further development of projects identified in the Study— Presenter. Dave Richardson of RMC will be presenting the findings of the Study Mr. Bailey explained that this report will be presented to the full Board at the February 18 Board meeting, but at this time, staff would like to postpone the discussion on amending the existing agreement with RMC. Ms. LaBella reviewed the presentation that was included with the agenda materials, and explained that similar information was given to the Board at the November 5, 2015 meeting. She stated that the previous direction from the Committee was to seek alternatives for larger wholesale opportunities. Mr. Richardson presented information on the four preferred alternatives, including the estimated costs and suggested next steps. Chair McGill confirmed that this presentation by RMC represents completion of the Study. It will be presented at the next Board meeting to get direction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the report. 4.* Review program approach for Satellite Water Recycling Facilities (SWRF), formerly referred to as scalping plants Sarah Hollenbeck, Managing Director of PFM Group (Public Financial Management), was present to answer questions related to financing options. Mr. Petit distributed updated presentation slides, as well as a larger map from slide 13 (attached). He reviewed the five SINRF implementation model options, stating the pros and cons for each. He also reviewed SWRFs from a point of view of a larger program if this satellite plant concept approach were to be implemented for other golf courses and potentially at sites in cities within our District service area boundary. Ms. Gemmell reviewed the second part of the presentation, focusing on the risks to the District. Mr. Bailey reminded the Committee that the Board requested information on what it would look like for the District to own and operate the facility, showing pros and cons for various implementation options. Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 3 Mr. Terrill explained that Diablo Country Club (DCC) currently has a strong membership, little debt, and the desire to have its proposed SWRF project move forward as soon as possible. DCC can offer funds up front, so that no money is expended by the District. He also believes that it would make the most sense if the District financed, owned, and operated the SWRF, with DCC repaying the District over time. Chair McGill said there was no need to discuss financing options that Ms. Hollenbeck was prepared to discuss, unless they directly affect the decision-making process. Member Nejedly expressed his support for this project. He also expressed reservation about a third party (P3) owning and operating the SWRF, and would prefer to see DCC or the District assume that role. Chair McGill liked the option for the District to finance, own and operate. He would like to proceed at full speed. Member Nejedly concurred. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed and provided input to staff. 5. Review Committee Parking Lot items COMMITTEE ACTION: Due to time restraints, this item was postponed. 6. Announcements a. Moraga Country Club Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) status update will be presented at the next Committee meeting. b. Future scheduled meetings: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the announcements. 7. Suggestions for future agenda items Mr. Petit stated that staff will bring an update on AB 129 at a future meeting. Chair McGill requested an update on bird control at the Kiewit property. 8. Adjournment— at 2:42 p.m. * Attachment Satellite Water Recycling Facilities DCC and Beyond... February 9, 2016 Real Estate, Environmental, and Planning Committee Jean-Marc Petit Danea Gemmell Director of Engineering& Planning&Development Technical Services Division Manager Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Terminology •fi}moi.- ; '�'. • Scalping Plant • Remote Reclamation Facility • Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant • Recycled Water Satellite Treatment Plant • Satellite Water Reclamation Facility • Satellite Recycling Facility • Satellite Recycled Water Plant • Satellite Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant • Satellite Water Recycling Facility D 1 2/10/2016 Satellite Water Recycling Facility Implementation Models SWRF Customer Operates Satellite Water Recycling Facility Concept Screenings auled Off-Site ' Water Storage Chemical/Supplies Deliveries to Site Pumped Process Solids Wastewater Returned to Withdrawal Collection System Lateral CCCSD Collection System 2 2/10/2016 1 - SWRF Customer Finances/Owns/Operates Pros Cons • Lowest risk to CCCSD • Does not require CCCSD capital • Raw wastewater availability may funds not meet customer needs • Does not impact CCCSD borrowing • Nearby agency concerns capacity • Potential impacts on collection • Does not require CCCSD O&M staff system and treatment plant O&M and resources • Potential zoning concerns • Reduced effluent discharge 2 - SWRF Customer Finances/Owns & CCCSD Operates Pros Cons • Requires additional CCCSD O&M • Does not require CCCSD capital staff and resources funds • CCCSD potentially responsible for • Does not impact CCCSD regulatory compliance borrowing capacity • Raw wastewater availability may • Reduces nearby agency concerns not meet customer needs (e.g.odors, SSOs) • Potential impacts on collection • Reduced effluent discharge system and treatment plant O&M • Potential zoning concerns 3 2/10/2016 3 - CCCSD Finances/Owns/Operates Pros Cons • CCCSD has experience • Requires long-term,secure form of owning/operating WWTPs debt repayment • Reduces nearby agency • Potential impact on CCCSD future concerns(e.g.odors,SSOs) borrowing capacity • Eligible for SRF loan' • Requires additional CCCSD staff and • Reduced effluent dischargeresources • Eliminates potential zoning • CCCSD responsible for all regulatory concerns compliance • Raw wastewater availability may not meet customer needs • Potential impacts on collection system and treatment plant O&M May not be eligible for tax exempt bonds 4 - Public Private Partnership (P3) - Third Party Finances/Owns/Operates Pros Cons • Lower risks to CCCSD • Does not require CCCSD capital funds • Raw wastewater availability • Does not impact CCCSD borrowing may not meet customer capacity needs • Does not require CCCSD O&M staff and • Potential impacts on resources collection system and • P3 experienced in owning/operating treatment plant O&M WWTPs • Potential zoning concerns • Private partnership interest exists • Contract operations • Reduced effluent discharge 4 2/10/2016 5 - Regional Water Partnership ("Water Wheeling") Pros Cons • Centralized recycled water production & More complex (1 centralized plant vs. -20+SW RFs) coordination/agreements • Optimizes O&M efficiency • Offset refinery recycled water project between water agencies costs State concurrence on water • Lower cost recycled water compared to offset concept SWRFs(economies of scale) Current recycled water quality Provided by • Eligible for SRF loan&better positioning CCCSD may not for grant funding match watteo r quality required by customers • Reduced effluent discharge • Raw wastewater availability nearly Longer implementation schedule guaranteed Regional Water Partnership ("Water Wheeling") for DCC { . o i hell RefineiRefinery i ® paten p Baa 6°ve kA O ` • O ♦ I 5 2/10/2016 Regional Water Partnership ("Water Wheeling") 20 MGD Refinery Demand DCC(0.5 MGD) Satellite Water Recycling Facilities as a District Program L, 6 2/10/2016 SWRF Program Opportunities for CCCSD I c R me .. 7-41 I SWRF as a Regional Water Partnership Tool to Offset Water SWRFs for Cities (4 MGD) 20 MGD Refinery 14 Other Golf Courses Demand (7 MGD) 12 MGD (Cities& Moraga CC (0.5 MGD Golf Courses) DCC(0.5 MGD) 2/10/2016 Implementing SWRF Program - Risks to District Operations Financial Maintenance I."-,Klmpacts Financial Risks • Qualification for Tax Exempt Financing • How to ensure full cost recovery of services? • How guarantee repayment of debt service? • What is impact on District Debt Capacity and Credit Rating? • Will O&M costs be considered too high over time? • How to prioritize SWRF vs. District needs? • How to ensure replacement costs of SWRF infrastructure are funded in the future? G�J4-1 8 2/10/2016 0&M Risks • Change nature of wastewater treated at Martinez WWTP (Flows/Loads/Biology) • Increased maintenance of collection system • Unfamiliar technology • Responsibility for complaints (e.g. odor, traffic) D SWRF Customer Impacts • Raw wastewater availability may not meet customer needs • Interruption of Service: Operations or technical issues • Water Quality may not meet Customer expectations for end use D 9 2/10/2016 Legal and Regulatory Risks • Purveying Rights: Water Agency must approve SWRF operation within their service area. • Will recycle water offsets be challenged? • Ongoing Title 22 Compliance. • CEQA challenges for SWRF Program • Who owns spills and non-compliance? Public Perception Risks • What is the benefit of the project for the public at large? • "Effluent for the Affluenf'-CC Times • Treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods (NIMBY) D 10 2/10/2016 By Sarah Hollenbeck, PFM DISTRICT FINANCING OPTIONS FOR SWRF D 11 .. L w SS; f O O .:^ O ,,fir ��cslluau .`;yam 41it; O ^F1f�flC�3 . O �t yQ .. Rf- t1C� , 1d /.NY,.�s Tri � 1, n RoomA. l f Y O O : .. Potential Satellite Sites(8) O Potential Golf Course Customers (14) , • Existing Golf Course Customers(2) > " — Existing Recycled Water Mains Former Shell Pipeline a d Central Contra Costa Sanitary District w �" N Contra Costa Water District r :s a Dublin San Ramon Services District, East Bay Municipal Utilities District a 3 Mountain View Sanitary District v = Zone 1 ON U © ConcordlClayton New 471 U yy ti ° Central Contra Costa 0 10,000 N ' Sanitary District Potential Satellite Sites Feet z