The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14.a. Agenda and PowerPoint for Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan Workshop-Collection System Update14.a. CCCSD Board Meeting - October 6, 2016 Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan Collection System Update Agenda 1. Collection System Master Plan A. Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement - 30 minutes 1. InfoMaster.® Risk Model Using ESRI GIS, CCTV, and Cleaning Data 2. Recommended Sewer Rehabilitation & Replacement Program B. Wet Weather Capacity Improvements - 45 minutes 1. InfoWorks® Modeling Process 2. InfoWorks® Model Calibration & Design Criteria 3. Model Results & Recommended Wet Weather Capacity Improvements C. Planning and Rate Setting Schedule - 15 minutes miCP. .; 7. • •-•.c.• . • COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN - COLLECTION SYSTEM UPDATE Board Meeting October 6, 2016 Jean -Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services Danea Gemmell, Planning & Development Services Division Manager Dan Frost, Senior Engineer, Planning and Applied Research 14.a. COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN LEVERAGES DISTRICT -WIDE RESOURCES Planning & Development Services Division Capital Projects Division Collection System Operations Division Plant Maintenance Division RMCTa I ave ra & water and Richardson Engineers... Working Wonders With Water ® :Ili V&A Consulting Engineers Z OUTLINE A. Sewer Rehabilitation & Replacement Program InfoMaster® Risk Model Using ESRI GIS, CCTV, and Cleaning Data 2. Recommended Sewer Rehabilitation & Replacement Program B. Wet Weather Capacity Improvements 1. InfoWorks® Modeling Process 2. InfoWorks® Model Calibration & Design Criteria 3. Model Results & Recommended Wet Weather Capacity Improvements C. Planning and Rate Setting Schedule 3 PART A: SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT PROGRAM C aproskintoi Tim Loper, P.E. Associate Vice President Engineers...Working Wonders With Water° OUTLINE A. Sewer Rehabilitation & Replacement Program InfoMaster® Risk Model Using ESRI GIS, CCTV, and Cleaning Data Recommended Sewer Rehabilitation & Replacement Program B. 1. 2. 3. C. 5 INFOMASTERO RIsK MODEL USING ESRI GIS, CCTV, AND CLEANING DATA DESCRIPTION OF SEWER SYSTEM • 145 square mile service area • 2nd largest collection system in Bay Area after San Jose • 1,500 miles of gravity sewers • 37,000 pipe segments • 31,000 manholes • Pipe Diameters: 4" — 102" • Oldest Pipe: 1913 (103 years old • Pipe Materials: Concrete, Clay, Plastic, Metal 7 GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM AGE PROFILE BY PIPE MATERIAL 70.00 60.00 50.00 w 40,00 30.00 0-50 years ip 50+ years (960 miles) (530 miles) s 20.00 . HOPE III 1 . a le 11111 I II IJiJ - - II III 11111111 1 I 1 _ m tr. r.... c) q--( rn ul N. q-4 rn Lrl N. Chi r -r fn Lt N. crl. ,,I rr Ln N CU , -i re) LA N. m ril m ir) N .--i Cr),.N NJ iN r N rn rfl rft rel tr) si.1. ier 'Ker kin irt ul ul Ln ko ko ko t.o 1 10.00 Age (as of 2016) qq. • : 75+ years 1.! (9 miles) 1 N Cr) mtn rc") N 47, q-1 re) N 00 CO CO CO CO Cr) Crl q c) GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM ASSET VALUE Asset Value = $2.9 Billion* Plastic �$826 M Metallic $162 M concrete $974 M 9 (*Value based in 2016$) WHAT IF GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT ESTIMATE WAS ONLY BASED ON PIPE AGE 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 - u Calculated Pipe Replacement (miles) based on install date and assumed service life -Annual Pipe Replacement (miles) 20 years NEED TO DEVELOP A RISK- BASED MODEL FOR VALIDATING SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT PROGRAM j THE CWMP INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF A RISK MODEL USING INFOMASTFR Likelihood of Failure CCTV11111 Data Pipe Ag� S Pipe Material Cleaning �� Data Multiple Calculation Options Calculation L._ of Risk Risk Class Example Capital Action Extreme High Priority in CIP / Yearly Operational Frequency High Standard Priority in CIP / Biannual Operational Frequency Medium Low Priority in CIP / 1 in 5 Years Operational Frequency Low 1 in 10 Years Operational Frequency Negligible Wait for a problem to arise Consequence of Failure • Q/Qmax Capacity • Hospitals, Schools • Streets, Rails, \vaterways • Pipe Diameter Hydraulic Model Results GIS Data GIS Data Other COF - High COF - M. High COF - Medium COF - M Low COF - Low LOF - Low 270 Pipes, 21.3 miles LOF - M. Low ipes, 8.4rei LOF - Medium LOF - M. High LOF - High 885 Pipes, 44.4 miles 376 Pipes, 20.5 miles 213911PipallMIMPIR PiPgs, 1.2 mil 5918 Pipes, 246.5 miles 2403 Pipes107.6 miles 1232 Pipes, 51.5 mil IR • Pipes, 2 3631 Pipes. 145.9 miles 1410 Pipes, 60.7 miles 963 Pipes, 38.8 miles 579 Pipes. 28.4 milesili8 Pipes, '9.All 2 10867 Pipes. 396.1 mile; 3815 Pipes. 141.5 mile: 2117 Pipes. 77.9 mile! 997 Pipes, 37.5 mile! 438 Pipes. 13.8 mile! EXAMPLE PIPE RISK SUMMARY COF - High COF - M. High COF - Medium COF - M. Low 10867 Pipes, 396.,1 riles 3815 Pipes 141.5 rile; 2117 Pipes, 77.9 riles 997 Pipes, 37.5 mile COF - Low LOF - Low LOF - M. Low 270 Pipes, 21.3 miles 107 Pipes, 8.4 mils 865 Pipes, 44.4 miles 376 Pipes. 20.5 riles LOF - Medium LOF - M. High 5918 Pipes, 246.5 miles 2403 Pipes, 107.6 mile! 1232 Pipes, 51.5 riles 488 Pipes, 23. 3631 Pipes, 145.9 miles 1410 Pipes, 60.7 miles 963 Pipes. 38.8 miles 579 Pipes. 28.4 miles -11 LOF - High !!'"11 IMIllipes _ L "218 Pipes, 9.2 miles Pipes. 13.8 miles RECOMMENDED SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 1-3 100 -YEAR SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT FORECAST Period Cost ($M) 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 0 Ili 30,000,000 cou 20,000,000 10,000,000 ‘,, 75-lOOYears $561 0-5 Years • 5-10 Years 10-20 Years $68 x$124 $302 Mileage 38 43 184 20-30 Years 30-50 Years 50-75 Years $499 284 $800 404 $393 206 N N• rJ N r4 r r r r r rJ N r N. c 1 rwCNI rn c t lin to t.o o0 0o can cn o c o o c o 0 o o o o a c NINNNNJNINNNININNINNINNININININ Forecast Year z77 2016-18 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL FIVE MAINTAIN A RELIABLE INFRASTRUCTURE 111. STRATEGY 3 - PROTECT DISTRICT PERSONNEL AND ASSETS FROM THREATS AND EMERGENCIES Enhance our capability to mitigate, prepare, respond and reco from emergencies. Key Success Measures tne minimum reader w uinis or trki • Add one contifitlieV, held and treatrnem plan t practk- the Erneigencv Marlagerne7 TrainT9 Piogtann ▪ Conlpie the tee -year LI-Pdate to thQ multi jar Hazard Mitigation Pram 1_1-1101,) (Conn Contra ' Update the Emergency CiDerations Plan. • Plovide an annual Emefgency Manager"-, rf,iocate th,e data Miter to A mote SE • Explu'e cloud -based systems suiti solutions. Evaluate and Implement a Security Program to mee Key Success Measu Develop J COM PC( * Conduct pilysic Walnut Creek • Consoled I • tnhanc • tipgr :DORI I • • dfltSiJtt 4 fetxrt to the atJ icy:;:kon r` 18i .rrrallz,cd Mut, boc_kur roprlate Improvements to OUr ew or evolving threats ,s,ve Stmirily Pirtisief i.nan assewrients of the Martinez an.:, Acutitv mOnliut !tog at ail Wiict fat:Arlt ie Se(.1.1,1tY uw ttt((jUhitiggrelfed Co rEitlic)ft, !ferment piant.urie naworit ana notwm t1.11WritIfIi aft troinclyTi p.ArTr.. ancl Onoirrtent rr -aIfl seCuttly polKYrproco_lure. KEY METRICS FOP Go Ot ; -11- • Ditat ‘?gooftc, rrrS upiv7v: '737'1Y itAik IVE MI KEY METPICS FOP GOAL FIVE Safety work orders complete° on time . Regulatory Title V work orders completed on time Planned treatment plant preventative maintenance completed on time I ,41t1111...11111111111- 'I -UM.' 100% 100% Greater than 9596 I1° 1 ipi 0 1 1 • • 1 1 Miles of pipeline replaced Greater than 196 of assets • . • • cash flow Information Systems uptime (excluding planned maintenance) Data backup and recovery 100% Zero lost data Loco Greater thafs9S13 liVfliSiAU.111C101201; Cfpa:01 tri411 l'Ocr,f .tit; tr.n. ir; :in SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT RATE • Current Rate: -0.3% per year • Strategic Plan: 1% per year • CWMP: -0.5 to 2%/year \ Legend 1=ClIV 6c...n. Renewal Period Replace 30-50 Year, C.9 CI Service Are. . - qecia, ‘re&r.,, - 5Z-75 Years CCCSO SOI ReOwe 05-10 TOM RePleze 75-. Years Replace 10-20 'fears Replace 100+ Yea' s Replace Yea r$ COr..."".* • Efi. PIPELINE RENEWAL PERIOD FIG,E 4 CEIVIrRAIC,01,11,,,A 5..17.0.SY OPSTRICT Timeframe Miles/Year %/Year 0-5 7.6 0.5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-50 50-75 8.6 18.4 0.6 1.2 28.4 1.9 20.2 1.4 8.2 0.6 75 100 0.7 /6 UPDATED CIP COSTS TO ADDRESS SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT NEEDS Existing CIP already anticipated elevated spending in pipeline rehabilitation & replacement (FY15/16 budget was $6.1M compared to $15M in FY16/17) $100 $80 .69. $60 - ..d)(1) 0 (-) $40 a U $20 so CI P Drivers ■Aging Infrastructure -Sewers Current 0 -5 -Year CIP /7 CWMP 0 -5 -Year CIP UPDATED CIP COSTS TO ADDRESS SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT NEEDS $160 $140 $120 .09. $100 •c $80 0 $60 Z.75 $40 $20 so CIP Drivers Aging Infrastructure - Sewers Current 5-10 Year CIP .1. II I II 1111 III...11 I I I DRAFT CWMP 5-10 Year CIP .......... UPDATED CIP COSTS TO ADDRESS SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT NEEDS $350 CI P Drivers $300 • Aging Infrastructure - wers $250 .c $200 3 $150 $100 $50 $0 +$160M ".111111P 4 1 Current 10-20 Year CIP DRAFT CWMP 10-20 Year CIP /9 UPDATED CIP COSTS TO ADDRESS SEWER REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT NEEDS $550 $500 $450 $400 2 $350 .(nE $300 8 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 so CIP Drivers E Aging Infrastructure -wers +$220M onsommilin id DRAFT Current 20 -Year CIP CWMP 20 -Year CIP Total 111,111,1111111.11111111111 20 11 SOME KEY TAKEAWAYS System is Well - Maintained & in Relatively Good Condition • 64% of pipes are < 50 years old • CCTV'd 90% of pipes: • 2%-VeryBad lid hi LIP SIPS /•w •. �+Y.hP 1 •us. Developed Data - Supported Risk Model to Confirm Sewer Needs • Uses ESRI backbone • Uses LOF and COF to calculate risk • LOF based on District CCTV and cleaning data • Used data to build statistical model to estimate service life ade Optimized Rehabilitation & Replacement Forecast • Forecasted CIP: — --$68M in 5 years — --$494M in 20 years • Forecast will be updated routinely by staff for CIP updates 60,000,00 S0,00C1,000 4.000 r000,00) 2o.000.00 e-+ ,A e+1 h 4 Of1P QUESTIONS? PART B: WET WEATHER CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS .ateif and en, ironrnent Complex Challenges Innovative Solutions Gisa M. Ju, P.E. Senior Civil/Environmental Engineer Principal 23 A. 2. OUTLINE B. Wet Weather Capacity Improvements 1. InfoWorks® Modeling Process 2. InfoWorks® Model Calibration & Design Criteria 3. Model Results & Recommended Wet Weather Capacity Improvements INFOWORKSO MODELING PROCESS THE CWMP INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF A CRITICAL TOOL FOR DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS • Under the Master Plan, a new collection system hydraulic model was implemented: InWo®ICM • Transition from ArcSNAP -> InfoWorks® ICM • Collection System Model is used to: ➢ Identify Wet Weat ger Capacity Deficiencies ➢ Size Pipes for Capita Projects ➢ Eva uate Impacts from New Deve opment ➢ Eva uate Potentia Limitations for Specia Disc urges 26. INFOWORKSO DYNAMIC MODEL IS MORE ROBUST & MORE ACCURATE ✓ Dynamic Model instead of Static Model ✓ Commercially Available Software ✓ Builds on District's new GIS (ESRI) ✓ New Model Uses Updated: • GIS Data • Topographic & Survey Data • Parcel Consumption Data • General Plan & Development Projections ✓ New Model Provides More Detailed & Accurate Information: • Hydraulic Grade Line • Predicted Extent of Deficiency (SSO vs. Surcharge) • Quantifies Deficiencies (Gallons of SSO, Feet of Surcharge) • Uses Rainfall Event & Area -Specific 1/1 characteristics from flow monitoring STEPS FOR USING INFOWORKSO TO CONFIRM WET WEATHER CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES Network Configuration & Parcel Loading Flow Monitoring Model Calibration Input Future Parcel Loads Apply Design Criteria Identify Deficiencies Resolve Deficiencies eZ 8 INFOWORKSO MODEL CALIBRATION & DESIGN CRITERIA �9 PREVIOUS DESIGN CRITERIA & APPROACH FOR IDENTIFYING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES • Peak 1/1 flows based on pipe age • 5 -year event triggered need for capacity relief projects for CIP • Triggered if peak flow exceeded full pipe capacity (i.e. no surcharge) • Ultimate level of service goal was to achieve capacity for 20 -year event • 20 -year event used for design of relief pipes • Replacement pipe designed to District ,n, depth/diameter (dID) standards wco e b▪ Y • Not all wet weather capacity = �NPH �� deficiencies were identified in current CIP to achieve a 20 - year system capacity MZ -A Con Ind Ei • • X 1,950 1955 180 ./ ES Pil a l bl Yrvw PS 1945 1970 !975 Aviv hgt Pvt. Conrwtion Year 1990 Latin k Pitai at HO 34•Ramo, Witt AI ',11.9art°F i 1 SR -13 9R•H SRA �# 199,3 1995 30 2010 COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPACITY MASTER PLAN ➢ 14 wet weather capacity projects identified: 1 Project Completed (Pleasant Hill Road, Lafayette) 1 Project in Progress (Grayson Creek) Some Projects Partially Addressed in Renovation and Rehabilitation Projects A-. 12 Projects Currently Remaining in Existing CIP Pleasant Hifi - Pleasanl HilUGraytson Crook Lafayette, Pleasant Hill Road C+II., Ca,F 74r C If A 040 74 04-0 00.0 _Welnut Creek. Walnut Blvd Muraga Moray. Way Legend Capacity parficl.nay Group Per...0 i*uO Pips Capocdty (2040 Otava Moprn.rrf. 11.year Event) erc, w;1., 4]r inner thy. -1iX1, -.100.4 1 - 1 130% geo 04 J! San Ramon San Raniurr Schedule C NSA 1O -YEAR DESIGN EVENT IS COMMON 5 -Year Design Event EBMUD Satellite Agencies SFPUC San Mateo Palo Alto Gilroy West County Wastewater District Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District North San Mateo County Sanitation District Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 10 -Year Design Event Union City San Jose Union Sanitary District Orange County San Diego Sac Sewer Regional San Silicon Valley Clean Water Santa Clara Santa Rosa Modesto Hayward Burlingame San Bruno San Carlos Pacifica 20 -Year Design Event Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Dublin San Ramon Services District Fairfield Suisun Sewer District (high risk areas of collection system) jz DESIGN CRITERIA MAKES USE OF AVAILABLE SYSTEM CAPACITY BY ALLOWING SOME SURCHARGE 4 14 '' ..,e0eid Manhole 4 -� 1E1117-ill1=-1111E I 1 1--III--I I !=1 1 1=1 11::: • Q` Sewer Available System Capacity Not Used EXISTING CRITERIA • Manhole Flow Kept within Pipe Sewer 4 4 NEW CRITERIA -I 11==.7 II, I II:7711 ii-iii-µ��, - Maintain at least 5 -ft Freeboard Allow Surcharge to Use Available System Capacity 3_3 DESIGN CRITERIA & APPROACH FOR IDENTIFYING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES • Capacity Trigger & Design Events: 10 -year event used to trigger need for and design of relief projects • Capacity Deficiency & Design Criteria: Deficiency triggered if surcharge reaches within 5 feet of rim (i.e. 5 -ft freeboard) Replacement pipe designed to District d/D Standards Continue to confirm pipe size during predesign size pipes to avoid upstream/downstream bottlenecks • Peak RDI/I flows calibrated to flow monitoring & applied to design rainfall pattern ADVANTAGES OF NEW CRITERIA ✓ Criteria more consistent witi other agencies ✓ Capacity project trigger criteria consistent wits design criteria vt. New Criteria: Maximizes use of available system capacity Reduces size of improvements Improves dry weather flow characteristics 3 s 2015/2016 FLOW M0NIT0RING CCC401.4.4aar ill Aro 11 a Al R(1 .1MC 44 wR JA f11, 4 4 4lMi 2O16f11E Flow Monitoring Program ctook44 wok.' Ott*, Cettit,1aYtlSr ,11EVItalitkilAk • 70 meters • Gauge -adjusted radar rainfall data • Captured wet weather events & f saturated soil condition • Refined 1/1 high response areas • Improved model confidence 36 FLOW MONITORING FOR MARCH 2016 SELECTED FOR WET WEATHER CALIBRATION Example Calibration: Meter OR -1, Peaking Factor = 12.5 Rainfall intensity (in/hr) o_ooa---.--,- 1 0 050 • a_ 100 0.150 • 0203 0250 Flow (MGD) 6,0 4.0 2.0 r 3/512016 Example Calibration: Meter SR -5, Peaking Factor = 2.6 3,7!2016 3/9/2016 3/11/2016 Legend: BIue Line = Actual Rainfall Green Line = Actual Flow Red Line = Model Predicted Flow Fainta(( intensity(inlhr) 0,00 • T —.Tr .�.• . . 0 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 Flow (MGD) 5.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 3/5/2016 37 r- 3,7/2016 3/9/2016 3/11/2016 3/13/2016 3/15/2016 DECEMBER 30-31, 2005 "NEW YEAR'S EVE" STORM SELECTED FOR DESIGN RAINFALL PATTERN • Recent large storm event, approximate 24-hour duration • Typical California storm pattern and reasonable peak rainfall intensity • Rainfall adjusted to simulate a peak flow consistent with predicted treatment plant flow 06a 0:00 200 4:00 6.00 8C0 10.00 1200. 14 00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 000 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 1000 1700 14:00 1600 18:00.20.00 2200 3? Imhoff Dr. bridge looking south along Grayson Creek MODEL RESULTS & RECOMMENDED WET WEATHER CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS 3 1O -YEAR EVENT MODEL PREDICTED OVERFLOW LOCATIONS (BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS) MODEL RESULTS FOR 1O -YEAR, 5 -FT FREEBOARD CRITERIA • <5 miles of improvements required compared to -12 miles in 2010 Capacity Master Plan • Project areas compared to 2010 Capacity Master Plan: • Portions of 8 projects still required • 4 projects eliminated • Several new project areas identified • No dry weather flow capacity deficiencies • No overflows predicted for 20 -Year Event when deficient pipes are corrected • Pump stations have sufficient reliable capacity Legend CCCSD modeled sewers Initially proposed projects Grayson Creek Project PRELIMINARY WET WEATHER CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS Area Improvements Required (feet of pipe) Improvement Locations (New areas not identified in 2010 Capacity Study shown in bold) Martinez Pleasant Hill Walnut Creek Lafayette Moraga Orinda 2,500 5,000 8,500 4,500 2,000 3,500 Total 26,000 Alhambra, Embarcadero 2nd Ave, Virginia Hills Rd, Starlyn Dr/ Barocio Ct, Marlee Rd, Ardith Dr Walnut Blvd, Palmer Rd, Lancaster/ Moraga Rd, Golden Rain/ Tice Creek, Geary Rd/Camino Verde Pleasant Hill Rd, Pleasant Hill Buchanan, Moraga Rd, Happy Valley Rd, Deer Hill Rd Brookfield/Hodges/Camino Pablo Moraga Way, Moraga Way & Ei Camino Moraga, Camino Sobrante 49:2 UPDATED CIP DRIVER DEFINITIONS Current CIP includes improvements for wet weather capacity deficiencies under "Capacity" CIP subprogram. Going forward, all capacity deficiencies identified triggered by rainfall -dependent 1/1, not planned growth, will be classified under "Regulatory" driver. • Capacity: Projects to address capacity deficiency for planned growth • Regulatory: Projects to ensure regulatory compliance and prevent potential wet weather sewer system overflows (SSOs) y3 UPDATED CIP COSTS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES $5O- $40 $10 so. CI P Drivers • Capacity Expansion • Regulatory (Capacity Deficiencies) DRAFT Current 10 -Year CIP CWMP 20 -Year CIP Total Vfl NEXT STEPS • Prioritize improvements used on severity of deficiencies and potentia impacts • Coordinate capacity wits pipe condition priorities to optimize CIP ■ Deve op recommendations to confirm needs: • Leve Monitoring • Micro -Basin F ow Monitoring & 1/1 Studies • Insta 1 Permanent Meters ■ Projects wi 3e imp emented witiin tie 20 -Year CIP SOME KEY TAKEAWAYS More Robust Model • Critical day-to-day tool • Commercially -available • Calibrated using flow monitoring data • Improved accuracy • More detailed results allowing for prioritization & higher confidence InfoWorks® ICM • Justified Less Conservative Criteria • 10 -year event design criteria selected • Clarified trigger & design criteria • Consistent with other agencies • Leverages model capabilities & allows some surcharge Maintain High Level of Service at Reduced Costs • New criteria & projects will prevent SSOs for 20 - year event • Reduced length of pipe replacement required • Flow monitoring & new model reduced CIP needs I/4 QUESTIONS? y7 OUTLINE C. Planning and Rate Setting Schedule PLANNING & RATE SETTING SCHEDULE ID Tia;Iesrs 1 Continued Master Plan Outreach 7 Stak+tholder Advrsoiy Group - Workshops 3 li rvelop Preliminary Draft (IP ttate Modal Planning/Prep s Tl3tun Draft CIP/Itate StenarIos 6 Board Meeting - Present Draft CSMP Tinchngs 7 Lhe►relop Draft (IP/Rales 8 Board Wor kstvop - Present Oraf l CIP/Rates 9 ' foar d Meeting 10 Board Meeting 11 Board Meeting 12 ,Board Workshop - Rat & CWMP 011-4 13 Board Meeting 14 Board Meeting 15 Board Meeting 16 Board Workshop - Nates 6 CWMP (111) 17 Board Meeting Select Hates for Prop Nntke 11 Board Meeting - Last Pow Select Kates for Prop 218 N Start f CCCSD DRAFT PLANNING & RATE SE'T'TING MILISTOMIS Mon 11/02/15 Wed 0S/31/17 Mori 10/03116 Wed 01/18/11 Mcti /01/16 Wed08/31/16 Mon 08/01/16 WedO8/31/16 Thu C*/01/16 Fr! 10/07/16 Thu 10/06/16 Thu 10/06/16 Mbn 10110/16 Thu 11/00/16 Mu 12/01/16 Zhu 12/15/16 Thu 01/12/17 Thu 01/26/17 Thu 02/02/17 Thu 02/16/17 Mu 03/02/17 Thu 0 Mon 10/31/16 Yfru 11/10/16 Ihu 12/01/16 Thu 12115/16 thu 01/12/17 Thu 01/26/17 Thu 02102/17 Thu 0 tI- e�r� +�I 6 07/02 • 02/16• 01/02 } 03/16** 03/23** 04/06 * Iii Drop Dead Date to Mail Prop e S hays Before t'ubk Hearing Tue 04/18/17 H 20 Board Meeting Thu 041/10/17 Thu 04/10111 21 Board Meeting - Reserved for Flr►al CWMP Thu 05/04/17 Thu 05/04/17 22 Board Meeting 73 Board Meeting - Public Hear. to Se SSC Approve 11ud1 t 24 Board Meetlrtig 2S Sewer Servl[e Charge tffecthnr Project CCICSO GAP' PLANNING & RATE SETTING MItESTONES bate: Thu 09/22i16 Thu 05/18/17 Thu 05/18/17 Thu 06/01/17 Tftu 06/01/17 1114)46/15117 Th1J06/15/17 Sat 07/01/17 Sat 01/01/17 r.. 04/181. . 04/20 , 05/04.84 05/11 06/01 06/15 • til/01*' • Ritchazit,. Schee, v a y9 PART C: PLANNING AND RATE SETTING SCHEDULE Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager 50 THE CWMP IS ON TRACK TO FINISH IN FY2016/2017 CWMP Draft CWMP &Rate Board WWTP MP CS MP CIP/Rates & Rates Selection Meeting Board Board Board Board Board Update Workshop Meeting Workshop Workshop Workshop 1 1 1 1 Notice to proceed Develop Revenue Requirements si T Prop Adopt 218 Rates Notice Adopt Final CIB/CIP CWMP QUESTIONS? ACRONYMS • ABS = Acrylonitrile -Butadiene -Styrene • AC = Asbestos Cement • CCTV = Closed -Circuit Television • CIB = Capital Improvement Budget • CIP = Capital Improvement Plan • COF = Consequence of Failure • CWMP = Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan • d/D = Depth/Diameter • ESRI = Environmental Systems Research Institute • FY = Fiscal Year • GIS = Geographical Information System • HDPE = High Density Polyethylene • 1/1 = Inflow & Infiltration • LOF = Likelihood of Failure • PVC = Polyvinyl Chloride • RCP = Reinforced Concrete Pipe • RDI/1 Rainfall -Dependent Inflow & Infiltration • SSO = Sewer System Overflow • VCP = Vitrified Clay Pipe 53