The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04.a. 2010-2011 Captial Improvements Program Board Workshop 2010-11 Capital Improvements Program Board Workshop April 8, 2010 2010/11 Capital Improvements Program Workshop Agenda • Review Board role in Capital planning • Review planned 2010/11 Capital Expenditures • Review programs and selected 2010/11 projects - Collection System Program - Treatment Plant Program - Recycled Water Program - General Improvements Program • Review proposed Ten Year Capital Plan • Review next steps in Capital Budgeting process Capital Improvement Budget Summary for FY 2010/11 Estimated Estimated Estimated Total Program FY 2010/11 Carry-over Allocation FY 2010111 Program from Prior FY 2010/11 Proposed Expenditures Fiscal Year Authorization Collection 810,508,000 $4,558,000 $9,920,000 $14,478,000 System Treatment Plant $7,437,000 $7,388,000 $3,374,000 $10,762,000 General 8g 869,000 $7,071,000 $4,319,000 $11,390,000 Improvements Recycled Water $550,000 $81,000 $755,000 $836,000 Total 828,464,000 $19,098,000 $18,368,000 $37,466,000 FY 2010/11 Board Role in Capital Program is Ongoing • Authorize Program Budgets each fiscal year in June • Re-authorize Program Budgets in August with actual carryover amounts • Authorize Supplemental Program Funds if needed • Create New Projects > $25,000 • Award Construction Projects > $15,000 • Authorize Construction Change Orders >$50,000 • Authorize Consultant Contracts > $50,000 • Authorize Revisions to Consultant Contracts > 15% 2 FY 2010111 Expenditure Recommendations EXPENDITURES (% Capital Program) FY 2010/11 Collection System $10,508,000 (37%) Treatment Plant $7,437,000 (26%) General Improvements $9,969,000 (35%) Recycled Water $550,000 (2%) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $28,464,000 (100%) 2010111 Large Project Expenditures Collection System Program PROJECT 2010111 Expenditures Total Project Cost Diablo Sewer Renovations Phase 1 $2,000,000 $2,370,000 Martinez Sewer Renovations Phase 3 $1,400,000 $1,612,000 Hall Drive Sewer Renovations Phase 26 $1,200,000 $1,404,000 2010-11 Development Sewerage $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Pleasant Hill Road Lafayette Capacity Impvmnts $520,000 $1,700,000 TV Inspection Program $500,000 $500,000 A-Line Easement Acquisition Phase 2 $500,000 $1,936,000 Total Collection System Projects <$500,000 $3,888,000 NA Total Collection System Program * $10,508,000 NA *Discussion of Renovation Program, Pleasant Hill Road Capacity Project, A-Line Easement Acquisition and CAD Program Financing to follow. Ten Year Capital Improvement Program of $306 million includes approximately $105 million or more than 1/3 of the CIP for Collection System Renovation, TV Program and related activities. Renovation Program Map of N'd Sewer Lines Estimated completion first pass June 2011 -~ Progress to Date (miles per year) The following table reflects the miles of pipe (6, 8 &10 Inch) identified by the TV program renovated to date. FISCAL YEAR PIPE RENOVATED 2005106 3.7 Miles 2006107 4.4 Miles 2007/08 5.6 Miles 2008/09 6.3 Miles 2009/10 7.5 Miles TOTAL Completed Renovation 27.5 Miles 10 year Renovation Scenario Achieves 100% Completion (2010/11 - 2019/20) Total miles of pipe to be renovated - 84 miles Miles of pipe renovated to date - 27.5 miles Remaining miles to renovate - 56.5 miles 10 Yr Budget Miles of Percent of Add. for ~ Pipe Remaining Years to Renovation ~ Renov. in Miles Complete (millions) i Next 10 Renov. in ~ Yrs* 10 Yrs $86 56.5 100% 0 * Estimated at $250/ft for 20010/11 & $280/ft for subsequent years 5 Pleasant MIII - Plaasanl Mill/Orayson Creak Mnraga - ~_ Nb rapa WaY . Lvpvnd GPacHy prllc,errc.V O rouP Parun~ Aull Ppa Capacity (]WIO OarMapmanl. a-YaM trann No 4kry~c oe I~rv~n Elm j - ~=1lltlw. Capacity Program w C•-i 10 year plan includes ` $20M in high priority - capacity projects .... 6 A-line Easement Acquisition Project • Clean up of SPROW Easements to Reflect Actual Sewer Location - 17 miles of ROW - 9 easement documents including 64 parcels - One recorded which will form basis for other 8 documents - Working with County survey and ROW staff to complete Purchase of remaining A-line easement (Meridian to Monument Blvd) deferred - County terms very onerous - Condemnation could improve terms, but not possible unless build within 5 years - County agreeable to first-right-of-refusal document ~, .~ ~L `~. -~ - ~- •~ Q ~- c ~ ; ~- ~ it `'...~ =E `tea ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "apt"' ~ ~ `~. ~°~,°' ~ n ~ ` I ~! '~ ~~.. r 7 ~ ~~ lye -..~ ~1 ~. 1~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ..ar ~~, '_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~~ _ v ~~ {+ I..p..p /1 ~ - ~\ ~ ~~ S.P. WW and ALINE PROJECT ~O , y r ~ - 3. P. RIVY '~. ' mde reacr~? ~ •~ -MINE RELIEF INTERCEPTOR ~ ~ 5"^,~"~(."' ~„~ .. ~: ue« 1 ~ ~ ,.,,. .-. ~..-., rwr ~„~nan,~ . 7~1m~al.P.LaI nymww~ rrx..i c.wcny Nlnmcirlm - Gnnetrun rarlrun for muV¢alion urnmonu In nnmmi to vnnreie mare Nnnpnnl e.eeinnu wile` Slo yri !a9 mnhnn Mapum ssinbmm ror .mmm,a Nubwerpanbvnl-COnepni:l reenmei lw nnrn.nr•enm..~n~nome+..., ne-,.."i~~n.•=e,n~„n~ie~.r.r -nun. ~ ,m~ _ .,, .:..... - bn•r m~ewn ~pw nmop.n inn nnn.pnn<~ _ ~ rre.rm.mwrw ~la•N.~~ udgeted Project U n b s Uppr~ee n Ripici E.IirMp SBrngelnclnaibwr SYeran VSF.I'Arotle+ernpvp rew limes nalnr uaF-e~ ~~~~~, ~ ,.a. xr...ss.„~~,~~~, .,. ,e~ ~._ .. ~. $f-0M Men~un. een to upgran. ar em+selnnv Conlrak nr replicn Ine ilunpv incinerenon vyilem LfYmtaLCYaI. OtlNr M1aweO Grwniewu Gii ReWCein- Rpu4twni ai vWir nivNipmiM tMl rw1 rpuvi ignivinl rinuclwrri in prnnrrnun yn .mrianm Tne arryrnpri.le rieueV.n pNn miy rnc4rae dvasey.q w' wwUY ponrV•n by innep Ks f t!, bb memo Nr~n ren.we0re e+reepy Soryoe. suet/ ie emsr or vnntl ~~ iyYTT.vRMnery RicYOIW WiroY RpJ.pl GuNVUCI ne.. Veelm¢nleM detVGUWnlecueieq to wpplY Vp rV ~U J.rp . S'OU Mennrn~ mBn to Ine SnBll Ina Teettn .nlru!rw. !a cadnQ !owa miAwp Intl ntwa lien wild , e mlwn eincae taneie.R. a«YCy.e wxa v ~a orrerrun recycles werer aulnn,llnn recai~.. m s„pply me .imenn ¢nWe..rn wmmawuree r. cnn.au . 7.s yle y~, mmwn Rqn ccrymlon s.mm vrol.n. Contractual Assessment Districts -Provide financing for construction of main line 1-10 ~ $4 extensions to serve neighborhoods who High million Y~ wish to organize contractual assessment ~ districts. Potential CAD Projects $4 Million in Next Ten Years Significant Interest .- Sunnybrook Road, Alamo ($150,000) • 15 potential connections • Lesser Interest Cordell/Harper Lane, Danville ($1,100,000) • 66 potential connections La Sonoma Way, Alamo ($150,000) • 13 potential connections Jackson Way, Alamo ($650,000) • 38 potential connections :Six other areas in Orinda, Lafayette & Walnut Creek ($2,000,000) • 105 potential connections 9 Year ~yll~\t '' 1~ ' ~y 12'1 ,ti ~h ,A \~J ,F \ii 1h ",1 ,1 14 1Q.1A ,9211 ,Lp ~.R ,~~ 27 ,~..').3 ZS.2h ZA ~~~ 52 000 000 ~ - - - -. --.. CAD 51 SM SI SM 51.500.000 ~ Expense Assumes B % vNarest paid 51,1'0.660 Dy CADS rampare0 to 2 %-5.5 % St 000,000 i earned from LAIF SC' iM S[` SM 5500 000 ~ ' 50 , {I I -~ JI ~ 15500,000) $$C InC fB B Se $S aSf' +$tryr 53iyr 151,000,000) sl s00,oaol CAD Cumulative Revenue 152.000, 0001 152.500,000) (50.000,000) i -S2.9ta 3:1n 153 `00,000) CAD Financing Impact on Sewer Service Charge CAD Program Funding Options • District Sewer Construction Funds Used for previous CADs. Return on investment is attractive. ~ Will result in need for larger Sewer Service Charge increases during initial years. • Bonds Form Local Improvement Districts. High upfront administrative costs. Typically not economical for less than $1.0 Million. • Loans from Banks to District . No experience with this approach. Would reduce pressure on Sewer Service Charge. 10 2010/11 Large Project Expenditures Treatment Plant Program PROJECT 2010111 Expenditures Total Project Cost Dry/Wet Weather Bypass Improvements $2,200,000 $3,199,000 Piping Renovations Phase 5 $1,690,000 $1,957,000 Standby Power Facility Improvements $1,350,000 $5,432,000 Total Treatment Plant Projects< $1,000,000 $2,197,000 NA Total Treatment Plant Program ` $7,437,000 NA *Discussion of Dry/Wet Weather Bypass Improvements and Piping Renovations to follow. Plant seismic improvements discussed under General Improvements. Ten Year Capital Improvement Program of $306 million includes approximately $78 million or 1/4 of the CIP for Treatment Plant Renovation Projects. Piping Renovations Phase 5 • Major Components - Aeration Air Headers ($1 million) - 3W High Pressure Pipe in West Gallery - Tunnel Sump Pump Piping • Protective Tape Wrap Extended Air Header Life - Wrapping of Piping in 2003, 2004, 2005 - Extended 26 yr old Header Life for 5-7 Years - Cost for Wrapping 8 Air Headers - $200,000 • New Air Headers Carbon Steel or Stainless - Carbon Steel epoxy lined and coated w/33% greater wall thickness - Bid side by side carbon and stainless steel and award based on best value Condition of Aeration Air Pipe Prior to Wrapping ~~_. ._ ~ f . - ~~ ~t i - ~ ti _ r ~~'~ i "r- - _ ~ ,'~ r_ 1~ Fiberglass Repair Made Prior to Wrapping Tape Wrapping of Aeration Air Pipe (July 04) l~ Aeration Air Pipe (July 04) Internal Photo of Hole Through Aeration Air Pipe Dry/VVet Weather Flow Bypass Structure • Plant must have a reliable method of bypassing flow to creek if outfall is out of service - NPDES permit states that once every 5 years in dry weather outfall drained and inspected and repaired as needed. - This operation took 14 weeks (July to October) when last done in 2003 and required bypass to creek for this entire period. - Bypass resulted in flooding of adjacent properties. Easement obtained to allow flooding until property is developed. • Plant must have a reliable method of bypassing flow to creek when ponds are full and treatment/outfall capacity is exceeded - Has occurred twice in last 15 years - Is projected to occur about 9 out of 55 years at 105 mgd treatment plant capacity - At 105 mgd treatment plant capacity, peak creek discharge flows range from 30 to 210 mgd with 8 out of 9 projected discharges exceeding the 40mgd capacity of current bypass ]4 (June 09) Current Treatment Plant Bypass -_ ~~~~ '' ~ ~~-~X~ _ ~~ ~ Iti :.b.:? `. j 1 y ` ~ _ __ ,w ~ ~~ ~ Capacity ot~cxistin~ draina~c ditehcs for treatment plant bypass arc limited to ahout -~0 mgd and will result in flooding of adjacent prof ~. ~~.. `~ _ ~ ~ + L~ l 1 lh Effect of TreatmenUOutfall Capacity Overflow Frequency to Creek (55 Years of Rainfall Data) 0.35 - - ~Once i 3 yrs. ~At 105 mgd treatment, discharge to creek # 0.30 ~ ranges from 30 to 210 mgd with 8 of 9 Y ~ discharges > current 40 mgd capacity ~ 0.25 \ 0.20 \ U \ y v c `nce / G yrs. ~ 0.15 ~ ~ ~ 1'r ~ 0.10 '- Once 1 9 yrs ~ ~01~ nce / 11 yrs. c Yr~ppg ~ - ~ ' Once / 18 yrs 0.05 Once / 18 yrs Once / 18 yrs. ~ • O 0.00 - - 90 mgd 105 mgd 120 mgd 135 mgd TreatmenUOutfall Capacity (mgd) )~ $2.2 M Flow Bypass Structure will allow discharge directly to Walnut Creek i ~~r ~~, v, j~ - _ Rip-~ rap in Wallnut Creek Channel ,~ ; :% - ~_ ,.= • I_„ ~~ requires environmental mitigation _, . ~ . ~: a.F,a -- ....,-- r r.¢n: : ~.~: ~:~ 18 20010/11 Expenditures Recycled Water Program PROJECT 2010111 Total Project Expenditures Cost Zone 1 Recycled Water Continued Expansion $340,000 $1,449,000 Total Remaining Recycled Water Projects including Industrial Concepts Planning and $210,000 NA Concord Naval Weapons Station " Total Recycled Water Program $550,000 NA Discussion of Concord Naval Weapons Station REW planning to follow r K T~ M ~~ 19 Concord Naval Weapons Station EIR requires 2.7 mgd of REW 2010/11 Expenditures General Improvements Program PROJECT 2010-11 Expenditures Total Project Cost CSOD Facility Improvements* $6,080,000 $13,415,000 Seismic Improvements for HOB` $1,005,000 $2,009,000 Vehicles and Equipment Acquisition $700,000 $700,000 Information Technology Development $660,000 NA Total General Improvements Projects < $660,000 $1,524,000 NA *Update on CSO Facility Improvements Project and Discussion of Seismic Improvements to District Facilities to follow EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS COLLECTION SYSTEMS OPERATIONS CIVISION ~~ CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT ~. ~" ~'~1 ~ 20 ~~ Rubble Remaining after CSO Demo Rubble Converted to Uniform Size for Recycling ~~ Seismic Study has Identified Deficiencies in Critical District Facilities tiwnla ~~\\ 1aa-re~mnln ~ i Nu.a ~rw .. m~ ~ g0 NORTH 9y cq C .AMERICAN 9yp~ ~F¢9J' CONCORD- P~" RAYWARD /GREEN VALLEY Columbia MT GPS rite O Farallon rF•Il`'rritn DIABLO Islands ~ Uuklnnd TNRUSi GPS SIlB tiwn ` ~ C ~ F"rvnritn (~ y9j~ q r"~ 990 yr Rrurh l9 tun L~ ~' Jma 9' s 4 Major faults s2 tiwmw `\ l'nii 0 JO MILES c f"r'`'~"'fL~ y 0 70 KILDMETERS ° rtontcnr~ 7' _„ 1 District Construction Management Staff Located On Site Concord Fault Design Criteria Limited data exists for Concord Fault Last recorded activity on fault in October 24, 1954 - Magnitude 5.4 Design Criteria - Magnitude 6.7 Mw for 475 yr recurrance - 10% chance of 6.7 Mw earthquake in next 50 years USGS Research Data corroborates criteria - Concord fault section: 6.5 Mw w/ 110 yrs recurrance - Green Valley fault section: 6.7 Mw w/ 150 yrs recurrance - Combined fault: 6.9 Mw w/ 180 yrs recurrance 24 Maximum Ground Acceleration at Treatment Plant Results from Concord Fault Fault Design Earthquake (Mw) Ground Acceleration (g) Concord 6.71 0.73 Greenville 6.94 ~ 0.21 Mt. Diablo 6.65 0.29 San Andreas 7.90 0.25 Hayward 7.26 0.30 Calaveras 6.93 0.24 Therefore, Concord fault governs design..... Earthquake Probabilities Like a Coin Toss.....the Past is not a Predictor of the Future.... • 475 return interval standard design criteria means - 100% probability of occurrence in 475 years - Approximately 10% probability in 50 years • Most buildings have a life of approximately 50 years. Recent Quakes Illustrate Unpredictable Nature Haiti Yr 1770 Yr 2010 (240 yrs later) (Design Quake - 7 Mw) Approx. 7 MW 7 Mw Chile 1985 2010 (25 yrs later) (Design Quake ~8 Mw) 7.8 Mw 8.8 Mw ~~ Seismic Design/Retrofitting Works......... 1994 6.7 Mw 72 deaths 9000 injured Northridge ($40 billion Earthquake property damage) 2005 7.6 Mw 79,000 106,000 Kashmir deaths injured Earthquake 2010 Haiti 7.0 Mw 170,000 250,000 Earthquake deaths injured Staff recommends implementing upgrades to address seismic design code changes resulting from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake analysis.......... Southern California building Post-Northridge earthquake. Building not safe to occupy. Repair cost $10 million and many months. This building was the first identified to have failed steel moment-frame connections. This led to a major revision of the building code and serious reconsideration of what was previously thought to be an earthquake resistant connection. 26 Pre Northridge this type of connection thought to be earthquake resistant .~ ~~°~ ~~ Failed steel _ ~y moment-frame connection -~ ~ . ~ ~ . ;~ ~, i tt~ No columns on huil~iing CO1'll~ l~s -~ deficiencies..... 1. HOB has cantilevered beams on the exterior. These "outriggers" are very flexible and tend to amplify movement. 2. Wood floors, as in HOB, are not typically seen in steel frame construction. The wood floors are not rigid and do not provide the stiffness that would be found in a typical steel/concrete deck floor. 3. The combination of these two factors leads to excessive flexibility and an amplification of any earthquake accelerations. 4. Analysis done under the 2007 CBC, FEMA 351 and ASCE 41 all show deficiencies. HOB does not meet Collapse Prevention criteria under FEMA 351 and ASCE 41. ~~ UDarade Cost and Imaact to District Facilities Building Estimated Staff Impacted Estimated Operational Replacement # Upgrade Cost $ % Impact Cost $ Replmt Cost Headquarters $15 M 112 $2.5 M Displace Office staff, Building 16% Customer Service Solids $100 M 5 $5.0 M No sludge Conditioning processing, Building 5% No steam, No cogen Pump & $75 M 0 $2.0 M No Blower secondary Building 3% treatment Plant $10 M 20 $1.0 M Control Operations Room, EOC, Building 10% IT, Displace staff FY 2010/11 Expenditure Recommendations EXPENDITURES (% Capital Program) FY 2010/11 Collection System $10,508,000 (37%) Treatment Plant $7,437,000 (26%) General Improvements $9,969,000 (35%) Recycled Water $550,000 (2%) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $28,464,000 (100%) ~g FY 2010/11 Sewer Construction Fund Revenues REVENUE W/$16 SSC Increase W/$0 SSC Increase Facility Capacity & Pumped Zone Fees $5,731,000 j $5,731,000 _ Interest $850,000 $850,000 Property Taxes $6,873,000 $6,873,000 Sewer Service Charges $4,556,000 $1,856,000 City of Concord $2,429,000 $2,429,000 All Other $1.077.000 $1.077,000 TOTAL REVENUE $22,369,000 $19,669,000 Residential Uni[ Equivalents (RUES) Connected by Fiscal Year roc ,.,~ n ~ ~,« ~mn `o ~n q„ ~ ~.; 2 .~ ~ ror ~~~ n :oc ~~ .I. !i ~ `•F~"~ -.t NOV C1E C. MN iC0 MAH 4PR kA'r lUN - 2006-07 - 2007-08 - - 2008-09 2D09-i 0 7~ FY 2010/11 Capital Cash Flow Estimate Bond Sales Provide a $30 M Cushion to Maintain SCF Balance ~ $30 M Capital Program Cash Flow w!$1s SSC I w!$o Ssc Increase Increase Total Budgeted Revenue $22,369,000 $ 19,669,000 Total Budgeted Expenditures $28,464,000 $28,464,000 Negative Variance -$6,095,000 -$8,795,000 Estimated SCF Balance wlo $30 M $29.5 M $26.8 M Bond Sales June 30 2011 Estimated SCF Balance wl $30 M ~ S59 5 M S5G 8 M 3ond S21cs Juno ~0 2C1" *Assumes projected beginning SCF Balance $65.6 M w! $30 M in Bond Sales Capital Improvement Budget Summary for FY 2010/11 Estimated Estimated Estimated Total Program FY 2010!11 Carry-over Allocation FY 2010!11 Program from Prior FY 2010/11 Proposed Expenditures Fiscal Year Authorization Collection System $10,508,000 $4,558,000 $9,920,000 ~ $14,478,000 Treatment Plant $7,437,000 $7,388,000 $3,374,000 $10,762,000 General Improvements $g,g69,000 $7,071,000 $4,319,000 $11,390,000 Recycled Water $550,000 $81,000 $755,000 $836,000 Total $28,464,000 $19,098,000 $18,368,000 $37,466,000 FY 2010111 30 Ten Year Plan Focuses on Renovation • Total Ten Year Expenditures reduced to $306 M from $330- 340 M in FY 2007-8, FY 2008-9 and FY 2009-10. • Over 60% of $306 M Ten Year Capital Plan, $190 M, allocated to Renovation Projects. • $32 M budgeted in 2016-17 for unidentified regulatory project to be bond funded. • An additional $190 M in potential regulatory projects is unfunded. • Construction of new recycled water projects is unfunded. • CAD program is unfunded. Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan ($ million) Program 2010. 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- Totals 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Treatment 7 4 10.0 8.5 8.6 8.3 9.6 17.4 22.9 9.8 9.8 112.3 Plant Collection 10.5 13.9 17.2 17.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 17.2 18.8 18.8 162.4 S stem General Improve- ments 10 2.8 1.8 1.6 1.9 1,5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 25.6 Recycled 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 5.5 Water Total 28.5 27.3 28.1 28.1 27.0 27.9 35.7 42.2 30.6 30.6 305.U 31 Next Steps in CIB/CIP Approval Process • May 6, 2010 set Public Hearing for CIB/CIP • June 4, 2010 hold Public Hearing, Board Approves CIB/CIP and Adopts all Budgets, including CIB/CIP, officially Authorizing the FY 2010/11 CIB • June 17, 2010 Board Approves Closeout Position Paper for completed CIB projects • Subsequent to June 17, 2009 Board Meeting, Capital Projects Committee may meet to review closed out projects • August 2010, Board may be asked to Reauthorize FY 2010/11 CIB with actual carryover amounts if necessary Questions? ,~