The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00. (Handout) Member Causey questions and staff responses re various agenda items Item 00. Donna Anderson (Handout) To: Donna M.Anderson Subject: Member Causey Questions&Staff Responses for 06-20-19 Board Meeting From:Jean-Marc Petit Subject:Questions for Thursday board meeting Dear member Causey, I assembled responses from staff to answer your questions in preparation for Thursday board meeting(highlighted in blue and italicized). Hopefully this helps clarify some of your questions on topics scheduled for discussion at tomorrow's board meeting. Sincerely, Jean-Marc -----Original Message----- From: Paul Causey Sent:Tuesday,June 18, 2019 2:40 PM To: Roger Bailey Subject: Board Questions for Thursday Roger, Here are my questions for the Board meeting: 1. Sludge Tank Repairs-what is the impact of the recent lime testing program on the reduced use of lime at this facility? Any operational impact? Can the project be delayed if we are using substantially less lime in the future? The lime testing confirmed that with a smaller sludge blend tank(SBT), we should use less lime.Smaller blend tanks are being designed as part of the solids handling project. However, we need to continue operating the existing SBT for another three to four years until the new system, new SSTs, are in place and in service.Also, the rehab done under this project will not be in vain since we are planning on keeping the existing lime storage tanks and the keeping existing SBT tank. The existing SBT tank will be converted to an emergency sludge holding tank needed for furnace switchover and for any emergency. Originally, the scope under this project was included as part of the solids handling improvement project, but operation staff indicated to the piping is clogging and they can't wait and risk losing the availability or reliability of this tank vital to our operation.Several months ago, we lost use of a blending pump due to a split pump casing caused by clogged valves and piping.So eventhough we only recenceived on bid, and we were fortunate to obtain one bid, we recommend proceeding with the project. 2. CalTrans Lease-why do we really need this lease? Why are we concerned on the uses of the property by Caltrans? If this need is so important to us what would it cost to purchase the property rather than leasing it? Please explain why we need to make a deposit as part of the lease? What does the deposit cover? We need the CalTrans lease as it provides buffer and allow access to HHW for Recycled Water Residential Fill station. The District is working with CalTrans on purchasing the property, but this is a multi-year effort. CCTA and CalTrans are trying to have the property designated as surplus property as part of the Highway 4 Bridge Improvement project. CalTrans received the deposit upon execution of 1 the initial lease, so no new money will be forwarded. The lease references the deposit to document these funds until termination of the lease. 3. Montrose's agreement-why not just a three year agreement rather than one year plus potential for two more-do we really think we won't use them for the two additional years?Staff had initially recommended a three year agreemenr aur after discussion at the RESP committee, it was decided to award the contract to Montrose but renew it annually to provide flexibility since they were the only testing company who responded at this time. 4. ESP-can't the additional$80,000 for Emtec just be added again to next years budget number rather than taking it from the contingency this year? Will the full contract amount be expended in 19/20? The development of this was done to quickly and poorly put together and is still very complicated and you know my position on the funding issue which is further exacerbated with the addition$80,000. Response: In order to target o financial system "go-live"date as soon as reasonably possible that aligns with the start of a fiscal year, 7/1/2020 is the targeted date for use of the new system. Working back from there, the project implementer has indicated the project needs to start in June 2019. To accomplish this,several activities were put on parallel paths, including drafting position papers while contract negotiations were not yet finalized. The information reflected in the position papers was the understanding of staff at the time the papers were generated, however schedules transmitted as negotiations continued resulted in the slightly different final/to be contracted for cost estimates. Several alternatives to address the issue of incorporating the final/latest cost figures into the project budget were developed by staff and the GM, which were weighed against the following criteria: • When the project commences(in next 2-3 week), having the initial budget reflect the best estimate of anticipated costs, by year; • Avoiding making major changes to the overall budget as presented,such as increasing the overall CIB; • Not starting a project while deferring a known cost issue to a future year;providing maximum transparency; • Following standard use of the CIB contingency to absorb cost changes; • Recognizing that the CIB contingency can be replenished upon the closing of FY 2018-19; • Recognizing that regardless of steps to get there, there is only source of funding for this project—the Sewer Construction Fund, which was funded by collections from customers; The approach proposed, of using the CIB contingency to adjust for the final amount per the contract payment schedule provided by the vendor and proposing this adjustment now before the project starts was deemed the most appropriate choice. Other alternatives discussed, but not selected included. 1. Waiting for the close-out of the FY2018-19 and using funds from closed-out projects. Why rejected? We didn't want to start a project not providing the Board with the most up to dat%ontracted cost figure. 2. Waiting until a future year to make the adjustment. Why rejected? Most of the milestones will be in FY 2019- 20, and from an accrual accounting perspective,funds should be available in FY 2019-20. 3. Absorb the$80,000 within the project level contingency of 20%. Why rejected? Would prefer start the project with a 20%contingency given the nature of ERP projects(with additional discovery on interface 5. EVCS- please provide the time and cost staff has spent working on this proposal to date. This seems like something that should have started at the Board not by staff and brought to the Committee after the preliminary work. The has very little benefit for the District or our rate payers and I do not see enough justification in the agenda summary to understand why we should do this at the current time- put the$100,000 to solar proposals would be more beneficial in my view-when will we see something on solar-hope this did not delay that issue any further than already delayed. Staff has spent minimal time in developing an SVCS proposal to bring forward to the Admin Committee and Board. As a 2 result, the amount of staff time has not been tracked and was charged to O&M planning budget. Staff is scheduled to provide an update on Central San's solar energy evaluation at the July 22nd REEP Committee meeting. The use of solar power at Central San is complicated by Central San's investment in a natural gas Cogeneration system in the 1990s, which makes solar economics for Central San different than wastewater treatment plants that rely predominantly on grid power. The "low-hanging fruit"for solar at Central San (HHW and CSO)have already been implemented. What remains is more challenging, therefore to that end,staff has hired ARC Alternatives, an expert solar energy consulting firm based in Morago, under a$30,000 contract to: 1)Evaluate Central San's power usage,sources, and costs across the organization, 2)Develop an economic model specific to Central San's operation, 3)Recommend any economically-viable solar energy projects to Central San, 4)Assist Central San in developing an RFP for any viable solar projects, and 5)Evaluate any solar proposals received. That's it. Hope this helps. Paul H. Causey CCCSD Board of Directors Pcausey@centralsan.org Jean-Marc H. Petit, P.E. Director of Engineering and Technical Services Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Direct: (925)229-7112 Main: (925)228-9500 Cell: (925)-708-9364 Impetit@centralsan.org 3