City Council Presentation December 13, 2016

Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan

City Council PresentationDecember 13, 2016

Presentation Overview

• Introduction

• Project Goals

• Project Background

• Recent and Upcoming Schedule

• WRF Program Overview – “Big Picture”

• Draft Facility Master Plan Overview

• Project Financing

• Next Steps

• Q&A

WRF Project Community Goals

• Produce Tertiary Disinfected Wastewater• Project to be designed accordingly

• Produce Reclaimed Wastewater Cost-Effectively• Master Reclamation Plan will address this• Including reclamation as early as possible reduces long-

term costs

• Allow for Onsite Composting• Onsite composting is not recommended, regional facility

will be more cost-effective


• Design for Energy Recovery• Consideration included in FMP

• Design to Treat for Contaminants of Emerging Concern• Included in treatment evaluation criteria

• Allow for other Municipal Uses• Site planning in FMP allows for this possibility


• Ensure Compatibility with Neighboring Land Uses• Siting was key to this• FMP required this in project design; EIR will analyze

this

• Operational within 5 years• Project on schedule for beginning operation in 2021

WRF Project Background

• Jan 2013: CCC denial of CDP for WWTP Upgrade

• Dec 2013: Site Options Report 17 sites narrowed to 7; Council direction to compare the best sites (in both Morro and Chorro Valley)

• May 2014: Report recommends Morro Valley, but Chorro Valley also suitable; Council direction to compare WRF in MV to regional facility at CMC

• Dec 2014: Report determines CMC facility not desirable (very high cost; logistical challenges); Council focus remains on Morro Valley

• April 2015: CSD decides to pursue separate project

WRF Project Background

• Feb 2016: Neighborhood concerns in Morro Valley lead to additional site analysis

• May 2016: Chorro Valley site (South Bay Boulevard) determined to be most achievable in 5-year timeframe when balancing cost and other logistical issues

• June 2016: City Council selects South Bay Boulevard site for detailed studies, FMP site planning, and EIR analysis

Project Schedule – 2016

Key Milestone Scheduled Date Actual Date

City Council Selects Site for Study (South Bay Blvd.) June 2016 June 2016

Technical Studies (biology, cultural, geotech, survey work)

August 2016 August 2016

EIR Scoping Meeting August 2016 August 2016

MOU with Property Owner October 2016 October 2016

Project Schedule – 2016-17


Draft Facility Master Plan December 2016 November 2016

Draft Master Water Reclamation Plan March 2017 On Schedule

Draft EIR Released August 2017 On Schedule

Final EIR Certified November 2017 On Schedule

Project Schedule – 2018-21


Award Contract for Phase I WRF Improvements May 2018 On Schedule

Begin Project Design August 2018 On Schedule

Project Construction Begins June 2019 On Schedule

Completion of Phase I WRF Improvements May 2021 On Schedule

WRF Program Overview

What we know now …

• We can build a WRF at South Bay Blvd site that meets the Community Project Goals

• “Total WRF Project” by June 2021 is possible• Recycled water 2 years ahead of schedule

• Groundwater injection & extraction appears feasible


What we know now …

• Total WRF Project can provide recycled water for groundwater injection to supplement the City’s water supply and provide water independence

• Advantages of Accelerating Recycled Water Component • Potentially eligible for more grant money• Long-term construction cost savings• Potential reduction in State Water Use = Cost Savings


What we know now …• Estimated Cost without recycled water: $114M - $136M*• Estimated Total Cost with recycled water: $125M - $168M*

*High includes Contingency + “High Cost” Reuse alternative


What we know now …• Anticipated Rates: Estimated Total Cost Effect

Average Monthly Rate

(FY14/15)

AverageMonthly Rate

Today

Approved Average 19/20

Monthly Rate

Estimated Average

Monthly Rate with Total

WRF project

Water $27.58 $52.00 $67.00 $50 – 67 (TBD)

Sewer $45.59 $62.50 $83.00 $127 - $157

Combined $73.17 $114.50 $150.00 $177 - 224

Facility Master Plan (FMP) Purpose

• Define Viable Facilities to Meet Community Goals

• Support Environmental – Evaluation of Alternatives and Impacts

• Provide Next Step Toward Design and Construction

• Inform Master Water Reclamation Plan

• Support City Budgeting

• Engage Community Input

Facility Master Plan (FMP) Primary Components

• Identify Viable Alternatives for WRF Facilities• Highest and Best Use of Water

• Obtain Community Input

• Evaluate Cost Saving Opportunities• Offset Project Costs, Enhance Green Attributes

• Develop Preliminary Site Plan • Support Property Acquisition and Environmental Evaluation

• Provide Conceptual Visualizations• Encourage Community Engagement and Input, Support Environmental Evaluation

• Prepare Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost• Support Budgeting

FMP Presentation Organization

• Wastewater Treatment Process Alternatives

• Advanced Treatment

• Solids Handling/Energy Recovery

• Facilities to Convey Wastewater to WRF• Pump Station and Pipelines

• Site Planning and 3D Visualizations

City of Morro Bay WRF – South Bay Boulevard

EXISTING WWTP

WRF

EXISTING WWTP

WRF

Morro Bay

WRF Provides City Ability to Make “Highest and Best

Use” of New Water Supply Resource

To Be Determined in Master Water Reclamation Plan

Ocean Discharge

Agricultural Irrigation

Unrestricted Irrigation

Groundwater Injection to Supplement City Water Supply

Restricted Irrigation

Ocean Discharge

Comparative Capital Cost

Comparative Operating Cost

Odor Mitigation

Technical Complexity

Reliability

Staff Requirements

Scalability

Product Water Quality

Flexibility for Title 22 Redundancy

Visual Impact/Footprint

Evaluation Criteria Align With Community Goals

List of Treatment Technologies Considered Was

InclusiveTREATMENT STEP UNIT PROCESSES

Preliminary Treatment

Influent Screens

● Shaftless Spiral Screen

● Mechanically-Cleaned Bar Screen

Grit Removal

● Horizontal Flow Grit Chambers

● Aerated Grit Chambers

● Vortex Grit Chambers

Primary Treatment Primary Clarifiers

● Rectangular Clarifiers

● Circular Clarifiers

Biological Treatment Suspended Growth Biological Treatment

● Activated Sludge (AS)

● Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

● Oxidation Ditch

● Aerated Lagoons/ Pond Systems

Fixed Film Biological Treatment

● Trickling Filters (TFs) and Rotating Biological Contactors (RBCs)

● Moving Bed Bioreactors (MBBR)

● Biological Aerated Filter (BAF)

Hybrid Biological Treatment

● Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS)

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

Tertiary Treatment Disc Filters

Media Filters

Disinfection Chlorine

Ozone

Ultraviolet Light (UV)

• Achieve Highest and Best Use of Water

• Proven

• Cost-effective

• Achieve to regulatory compliance

• Appropriate to plants of this size and scale

Two Treatment Strategy Alternatives Provide for

“Highest and Best” End Uses

Conventional Train: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

Combined Secondary/Tertiary Train:

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

Advanced Treatment Required to Achieve Community

Goals for Highest and Best Uses of Product Water

• Advanced treatment is used to remove dissolved salts, viruses, TOCs, organic and inorganic chemicals, and emerging contaminants

• Title 22 requires MF/RO + AOP for IPR

• Many agricultural irrigation uses require salt removal (MF/RO)

Ocean Discharge

Agricultural Irrigation

Groundwater Injection to Supplement City Water Supply

Unrestricted Irrigation

Restricted Irrigation

Ocean Discharge

Solid Material from Treatment Process Will Be

Composted at a Regional Facility

Investigated opportunities to reduce costs for project by:

• Create marketable products processing materials on-site

• Use biosolids to generate energy

• City’s current practice is most cost-effective

• Processing on-site or providing facilities to generate energy not cost-effective

• Liberty Composting in Kern County provides beneficial use of processed materials

New Pipelines and Pump Stations Needed to

Connect WRF to City System

• Alignment Generally Follows Quintana Road

• Lower Cost

• Less Environmental Impact

• More Energy Efficient

EXISTING WWTP

WRF

PS

New Pipelines and Pump Stations Needed to

Connect WRF to City System

Morro Bay High School

Lila Keiser ParkDuke Energy Property

Existing WWTP

City WTP

1A5A

• Location Near Existing WWTP Most Efficient and Least Expensive

• Floodplain Issues to be Mitigated

• CCC Supportive of Location

Preliminary Architectural Concept Developed for Consistency

with Highway 1 Corridor

• Farm or Dairy style buildings

• Color palette similar to buildings along Highway 1 between CMC and Morro Bay

• Landscaping screening envisioned near entrance

WRF Site Overview

WRF Treatment Process Facilities

WRF Offices and O&M Facilities

Bayside Care Center

South Bay Boulevard

Quintana Road

Highway 1

WRF Site

WRF Site with Consolidated Maintenance Facilities

WRF

Looking South

WRF with Consolidated Maintenance Facilities

Looking South

WRF

Looking Southeast

View From Highway 1 Heading West

East of South Bay Boulevard

View From Highway 1 Heading West

West of South Bay Boulevard

Why So Much Higher than 2013 Costs?

• $100M Estimate was mid-range for comparison of sites ONLY

• South Bay Boulevard is 10-15% higher than Morro Valley sites

• 3 years of cost escalation was 8-9%

• Highest and best water recycling opportunities required higher-end treatment processes

• Ancillary facilities and work not known or included (plant decommissioning, recycled water delivery system, etc.)

May 2016 Site Analysis

• Goal was comparison of sites only

• Partial WRF Costs at South Bay Blvd site

• Midpoint of cost range (based on 2014 assumptions) = $107M

• 2013 siting studies assumed wide range of treatment technologies

• No regional recycled water system

• No decommissioning of existing site

$84M – 132M

Preferred site

New Information from FMP and Studies

SBB site is preferred & has less delays

Standalone EQ storage is needed for advanced treatment

WWTP decommissioning costs are higher than previous estimates

SBR/MBR, membrane filtration, and UV disinfection are essential

Groundwater aquifer storage is available in the Morro Valley

Possible to offset State Water deliveries with groundwater injection

New Opportunities

Water independence is possible

All water demand may be met through reuse and groundwater

Current and future costs of State Water could be eliminated

Initial water/wastewater costs will be higher, but less vulnerable to escalation

WRF will be well positioned to meet the Project Goals

Highest & best use

• Reclaimed Water• Best available treatment

for CECs• Ph 1 + Ph 2 built in 5 yrs

Lower water rates in future

WRF Cost to Customers

“Hard” Costs

(Construction, Demolition)

Operation & Maintenance

(Power, Staffing, and Chemicals)

“Soft” Costs

How Do We Predict Rate Impacts?

• What are the Total Project Costs (“Hard”, “Soft”, and Operation & Maintenance (ongoing))?

• Can the WRF Project reduce other customer utility costs?

• Can we buy less imported water and what would that save?

• What will be the financing cost (interest rates & terms)?

• What grants can we pursue?

• Could project design include solar power to reduce ongoing costs?

WRF Project Contingency

• “Contingency” – Not a “soft cost”, but not used if not needed

• “What we don’t know we don’t know”

• Typically reduced as project moves forward

WRF Project Components

Phase 1 WRF

• Lift Station

• WRF for tertiary disinfected

• Pipeline to ocean outfall

Phase 2 onsite

• Advanced treatment

• Recycled water storage

• Recycled water pump station

Phase 2 offsite

• Recycled water distribution system options:

• Groundwater Injection

• Ag Exchange

• Urban Irrigation

Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Opinion

“Hard” and “Soft” Costs 2016 US $MM

Phase I WRF Construction Cost Subtotal (FMP w/o contingency) 97.1

Procurement (4%) 4.3

Project Administration and CM (12%) 10.6

Permitting, Monitoring, and Mitigation (1%) 0.9

Existing WWTP Demolition 3.3

Property Acquisition 0.3

Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Subtotal 114

Construction Contingency (25% of construction subtotal) 22

Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Opinion Total 136

Note: Phase 1 WRF costs based on Draft Facility Master Plan (Nov 2016)

WRF Project Capital Cost Opinion

“Hard” and “Soft” Costs Capital Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)

Phase 1 WRF 114

Phase 2 Recycled Water Facilities 11 – 26

Total WRF Capital Cost Subtotal 126 – 140

Construction Contingency 25 – 28

Total WRF Capital Cost Total 150 – 168

Note: Phase 1 WRF costs based on Draft Facility Master Plan (Nov 2016). Phase 2 costs are preliminary and to be further developed in the Master Reclamation Plan (Draft March 2017)

WRF Project O&M Costs

Note: Phase 1 WRF O&M costs are based on the Draft Facility Master Plan (Nov 2016). Phase 2 costs are preliminary and to be further developed in the City’s Master Reclamation Plan (Draft March 2017)

Annual O&M Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)

Phase 1 WRF $1.3 – 1.6

Phase 2 Recycled Water Facilities $0.5 – 0.8

Total WRF $1.8 – 2.4

Water Supply Costs

• Indirect potable reuse could offset State Water Costs

• State Water Project Costs

• $2,000 per acre foot (16/17)

• $2,200 - $2,400 per AF (est. future)

• Morro Valley Groundwater costs

• $1,000 per acre foot

• 580 AFY allocation

• Seawater desalination costs

• $1,600 per acre foot

Annual Cost of State Water

Estimated Annual Cost

State Water at Current Rate ($2,000/AF) $2.4M

State Water at Estimated Future Rate ($2,200/AF) $2.64M

Note: Annual cost based on 1200 acre-feet (AF)

How Much Could We Reduce Costs?

Potential Savings

30 Year SRF Loan Payment (2% vs. 2.5% Financing) $1.6M/yr

Savings without State Water Project costs $1.5M/yr

Grant Funding10 – 20% of capital costs

Solar Power Purchase AgreementUp to 1/3 of power costs

Water vs. Sewer Rates

• Currently, water and sewer are separate funds

• Water rates were raised to correct existing funding shortfalls (had nothing to do with the WRF project)

• Sewer rates were recently raised to account for a reclamation-ready (Phase 1) project, and assumed Cayucos would participate

• Since we are now considering a full reclamation project alone and have more cost information, sewer rates will need to be increased to account for the difference


• A rate study will be needed to determine the potential increase

• This study will occur once both the FMP and Master Reclamation Plan are completed (likely in summer 2017)

• Grants may offset part of that possible increase

• Reduced dependence on current water supplies (State Water, groundwater, and desalinated seawater) may also reduce the net rate increase, when sewer and water are considered together


• No current water supply benefit for wastewater disposal

• In the future, highly treated wastewater will become part of the water supply

• Cost for imported water (State Water) is higher than other City water supplies (groundwater and seawater) but…

• Groundwater supply is limited and seawater is expensive and can be treated only during emergencies

• Therefore, new WRF (“sewer project”) can reduce water rates

What Would be Impact on Utility Rates

Historic(FY 14/15)

Current(FY 16/17)

Approved (FY 19/20)

With Total WRF Project

Estimated Average Monthly Water Rate

$27.58 $52.00 $67.00 $50 - $67 (TBD)

Estimated Average Monthly Sewer Rate

$45.59 $62.50 $83.00 $127 - 157

Estimated Combined Average Monthly Rate

$73.17 $114.50 $150.00 $177 – 224

Future Rate Increase $27 - 74

Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month

Summary

• Initial Sewer Rate Increase of $37.41 (2019 from 2014)

• $75M Phase I WRF (“not complete”, no recycling)

• Cayucos Sanitary District as partner

• $56.25M investment by Morro Bay (with debt coverage to $70M)

• Proposed Rate Increase up to $111.41 (2019 from 2014)

• Includes current approved rate increase of $37.41

• Full water recycling facility (not phased)

• Over 50% savings in water cost possible

Project Design/Construction Method

• Current schedule is based on:

• Design-Build for WRF

• Design-Bid-Build for pipelines and lift station

• Draft FMP Completed

• No new findings that would conflict with recommendations in Oct 2015 workshop

Project Delivery Alternatives

• Delivery Alternatives Workshop (Oct 17, 2015)

• Conventional Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

• Construction Management at Risk (CMAR)

• Design-Build (DB)

• Best Value Design-Build (BVDB)

• Progressive Design-Build (PDB)

• Design-Build-Operate (DBO)

• Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO)

Project Delivery Alternatives

• Recommendations:

• Since schedule/cost are critical

• Lift Station and pipelines: Conventional Design-Bid-Build

• Water Reclamation Facility: Design-Build

• Based on Delivery Alternatives Workshop (Oct 17, 2015)

Feedback since November Workshop

• Six (6) letters and/or emails with substantive comments

• Two (2) emails with meeting requests (SLCUSD; Farm Bureau)

• Two (2) speakers at 12-6-16 WRFCAC

Feedback: Key Issues

• FMP Analysis

• Explain rationale for combining Phase 1 and 2

• More detail needed in lift station evaluation?

• Storage for excessive storm flow—more analysis needed?

• CEQA Issues

• Economic impacts?

• County LCP Consistency?

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (and corp yard)

Feedback: Key Issues

• Financial Issues

• Pumping Costs

• Interest Rates for loans?

• Reclamation

• Where will water be injected? Need more evaluation

• Corporation Yard

• Some support moving corp yard to WRF site; others do not

Feedback: Key Issues at WRFCAC

• Public Input

• Similar to feedback received in letters

Feedback: WRFCAC Input 12-6-16

• Project Costs

• Minimize costs; focus on the WRF, not other community goals

• Why include a 25% contingency? Too high?

• Unclear as to how project costs were derived; clarify and fine-tune

• Was there peer review of the cost opinions?

• Show effects on sewer and water rates separately

• Questions raised about involvement of City finance staff, use of software, budget report


• Facility Layout and Amenities

• Focus on WRF, not other city facilities—intent is to minimize costs

• Other City facilities (like the corp yard) should be studied in EIR

• Possible to have lift station locations between Highway 1 and the coast?

• Pipeline location; disagreement about whether cross-country or in City streets would be better (cheaper? less environmental impact? less traffic disruption?)


• Environmental and Design Issues

• How would raw sewage be prevented from leaving the WRF in a storm?

• Potential groundwater contamination?

• Access road width; disagreeing opinions as to need

• Concerned about the amount of cut and fill needed

• Would elimination of corp yard reduce footprint? Or cut/fill?


• Environmental and Design Issues

• Need to address biological and cultural resource impacts from pipelines

• Lift Station elevations would be useful to see in EIR for CCC

• If solar is included, address potential battery storage options

• Minimize lighting


• FMP Document – editorial comments

• Executive Summary is clear

• Some chapters could be more clearly written (Ch.3, for example)

• Other City facilities (like the corp yard) should be studied in EIR

Next Steps

• City Council Meeting – December 13

• Draft Master Reclamation Plan – March 2017

• RFP for Design-Bid-Build of WRF Offsite Improvements – January 2017

• RFQ for Design/Build of WRF Onsite Improvements – June 2017

• RFP for Design/Build of WRF Onsite Improvements – October 2017

• Rate Study – Summer 2017

• Draft EIR – August 2017

• Final EIR – November 2017

Q&A

BACK-UP SLIDES

Technical Memoranda Form Basis of FMP

TM-1 – Summary of Existing Documents Reviewed

TM-2 – Inf. Waste Characteristics, Flow Projections, and Eff. Discharge Req.

TM-3 – Morro Bay WWTP Decommissioning

TM-4 – Onsite Support Facilities

TM-5 – Offsite Support Facilities

TM-6 – Biosolids Treatment Evaluation

TM-7 – Liquid Treatment Technologies Evaluation

TM-8 – Potable Reuse Strategy

TM-9 – Organic Waste Treatment Feasibility

FMP Incorporates Valuable Input from

Numerous Stakeholders

WHO PROVIDED INPUT

• Morro Bay Community

• Morro Bay City Council

• WRFCAC Committee Members

• Morro Bay Residents

• Regulatory Agencies (RWQCB, CCC, Morro Bay Nat’l Estuary Prog.)

• City Technical Staff

• Program Management Team

HOW INPUT WAS OBTAINED• Community Workshops• Presentations to WRFCAC and

City Council• Meetings with Stakeholders• Meetings Workshops and

Meetings with City and Program Staff

• Review and Comment on Draft Deliverables

• Single batch operation tank results in smaller footprint than AS or Oxidation Ditch

• SBRs do not require final clarifiers

• Modular design results in more efficient approach to process redundancy than AS or Oxidation Ditch

• Modular design provides enhanced flexibility for alignment with changing plant capacity needs

SBR Rated Favorably in Evaluation for

Conventional Train Options

• Provides simultaneous secondary and tertiary treatment

• Positive solids barrier provides superior and consistent product water quality that is equivalent to membrane filtration

• Produces water quality sufficient for RO feed

• Smaller footprint than conventional treatment

• Smaller volume of air scrubbed for odor control than conventional treatment

MBR Rated Favorably in Evaluation for

Combined Secondary/Tertiary Train Options

Project Financing

• FMP – First detailed construction cost estimate for WRF

• Initial rate increase passed in May 2015 for:

• $75M project from April 2014 Workplan

• Prior to dissolution of City – CSD partnership

• CSD would fund 25% of project

• Intended to fund initial part of WRF Program

• Costs to be developed through Facility Master Plan concurrent with identification of reuse alternatives

2015 Rate Increase

• May 2015 rate increase:

• Source: “midpoint” of cost ranges from Dec 2014 Site Options Report (JFR)

• Morro Valley – preferred site

• Ph 1 WRF to produce tertiary disinfected wastewater ($100M midpoint)

• Partial RO treatment, recycled water pipeline to Hwy 41

$75M - $125M

What if the WRF is at the Righetti site?

Capital Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)

Phase 1 WRF at Righetti 107.8

Construction Contingency 20.8

Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Total 128.6

WRF at the Righetti site – Phase 2


Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Subtotal 9 – 20


Phase 2 Capital Cost Range 11 – 25


Phase 1 WRF Total 128.6

Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Total 11 – 25

Phase 1+ Ph 2 Capital Cost Opinion Total 139.6 – 153.6

WRF at the Righetti site – Ph 1 + Ph 2

WRF at Righetti – Est. Monthly Rate Impact

Current Water/Sewer

Rate (FY 16/17)

Approved Rate (FY 19/20)

With Total WRF Project at SBB

With Total WRF Project at Righetti

Estimated Average Monthly Rate

$114.50 $150 $177 – 224 $169 – 212

Future Rate Increase

$27 - 74 $20 - 62


What if the WRF were a joint facility with

CSD at the Toro Creek Site?


Partner Facility with CSD at Toro Creek 165 – 214


Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Total 197 – 256

Partner Facility at Toro Creek Site

Current Water/Sewer

Rate (FY 16/17)

Approved Rate (FY 19/20)

With Total WRF Project at SBB

With Partner WRF Project at

Toro Creek


$114.50 $150 $177 – 224 $177 – 248

Future Rate Increase

$27 - 74 $27 – 98


Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Opinion

“Hard” and “Soft” Costs 2016 US $MM

Phase I WRF Construction Cost Subtotal 88.5

Engineering, Design and Procurement (12%) 10.6

Project Administration and CM (12%) 10.6

Permitting, Monitoring, and Mitigation (1%) 0.9

Existing WWTP Demolition 3.3

Property Acquisition 0.3

Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Subtotal 114.2

Construction Contingency (25% of construction subtotal) 22.1

Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Opinion Total 136.3

Note: Phase 1 WRF costs based on Draft Facility Master Plan (Nov 2016)

Secondary disinfected WWTP at startup -

Phase 1 Capital Cost Opinion


Phase 1 WWTP Subtotal 91.6

Construction Contingency 17.6

Phase 1 WWTP Capital Cost Total 109.2

Secondary disinfected WWTP at startup -

Phase 2 Capital Cost Opinion

Note: Phase 2 costs are preliminary and to be further developed in the Master Reclamation Plan (Draft March 2017)


Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Subtotal 49 – 78


Phase 2 Capital Cost Range 59 – 94

Secondary disinfected WWTP at startup-

Ph 1 + 2 Capital Cost Opinion

Note: Phase 2 costs are preliminary and to be further developed in the Master Reclamation Plan (Draft March 2017)


Phase 1 WWTP Total 109.2

Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Total 59 – 94

Phase 1+ Phase 2 Capital Cost Opinion Total 168.2 – 203.2

Cost for Secondary Disinfected WRF

Current Rate (16/17)

Approved Future Rate

(19/20)

Phase 1 Rate Impact (2021)

Phase 1 + 2 Rate Impact

(2023)


$114.50 $150 $172 - 175 $192 – 247

Difference from approved rate (19/20)

$22 - 25 $42 - 97


Anticipated Combined Water/Sewer Rate

Current Rate (16/17)

Approved Future Rate

(19/20)

With Total WRF Project

With Total “Startup at Secondary”

Project


$114.50 $150 $177 – 224 $192 – 247

Difference from approved rate (19/20)

$27 - 74 $42 - 97


Average Monthly Water + Sewer Rate

Impact from Approved 2019/2020 Increase

$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

Ph 1 WWTP + Ph 2 RW Ph 1 WWTP (Sec disinf) Total WRF

Recycled Water Opportunities

EXHIBIT

Annual Cost of GW Injection & Extraction

Est Annual Cost

SRF Bond Service for WRF $6.5 – 8.0M

Total Annual O&M $1.3 – 1.7M

Extraction and Treatment of Groundwater $1.2M

Total Estimated Annual Cost to Supplement Water Supply $9.0 – 10.9M

Delivery Alternatives

From the Municipal Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook, 3rd Edition, Water Design-Build Council, 2013

Benefits of Collaborative Delivery Methods

• Cost savings - early contractor involvement

• Early cost confirmation

• Time savings

• Design/construction overlap

• Reduction of bid periods

• Reduction of design reviews

• Single point of responsibility

• Fewer contracts

Drawbacks of Collaborative Delivery Methods

• Requires intensive management resources at the

• Potential for higher costs

• Qualifications-based considerations for DB team

• Requires prompt reviews and decision-making by owner to realize savings

Selection Process

• Owner develops requirements

• “Performance Criteria” –owner’s major requirements

• “Bridging Documents” – preliminary plans and specifications

• Request for Qualifications is issued

• Top three (3) teams selected

• Proposals reviewed

• “Top ranked” team selected

• Final contract (price/terms) is negotiated

Design-Build Entity

OWNER

CONTRACTOR

DESIGNER