city wide sewer rehabilitation program - apwa...n 50 john deere mini track hoe 1 n 624 john deere...

1

““You You CANCAN Compete with the Private SectorCompete with the Private Sector””

The City of Lawton, OK.The City of Lawton, OK.

Jerry Ihler, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer

Rusty Whisenhunt, Assistant Director of Sewer

“You Can Compete with the Private Sector!”

Jerry Ihler, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer

Rusty Whisenhunt, Assistant Director of Sewer Rehab & Collections

City Wide Sewer Rehabilitation Program

The City of LawtonThe City of Lawton

Lawton / Fort Sill

Population: 97,265

Oklahoma

2

HistoryØ EPA Administrative Order - September, 1994

Ø Reasons:Ø Noncompliance with NPDES Permit.Ø Unauthorized Overflows from the Sewer Collection System.

SSOSSO’’s s -- They have to Go!They have to Go!

ØSSO Contributing factorsØ Concrete PipeØ 70% of collection system

Ø Proximity of pipe manufacturing plantsØ Effects of H2S Gas

HistoryHistory

ØConsent Order Agreement (May 1995)Ø ParticipantsØ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)Ø EPAØ City of Lawton

ØØTo Perform SSESTo Perform SSES

3

The SSESThe SSESØ SSES was performed to identifyØ Necessary RepairsØ Required Expansions

Ø GoalsØ Eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)Ø Reduce Inflow/InfiltrationØ Improve Pipe Carrying Capacity

Ø Scope of workØ 37 Flow meters Three (3) Drainage BasinsØ Physical inspection 6,094 manholes & 400 miles

of sewerlineØ T.V. inspection (CCTV) 111,000 L.F. televisedØ System modeling 10” and larger –

approximately 100 milesØ Smoke testing 1,614,000 L.F. based on

Flow MonitoringØ Rehabilitation/Expansion recommendations with costs

(1996 DOLLARS)

Item Quantity Estimated CostManhole Rehab 1,625 ea. $ 698,000Mainline Rehab 191,000 L.F. $ 18,986,000Expansion/Upgrade 92,500 L.F. $ 20,700,000Wet Weather Facility 15 MGD 1-ea. $ 2,250,000

Sub-Total Construction$ 42,634,000Engineering / Inspection LS $ 4,466,000Contingencies LS $ 5,460,000

Sub-Total(Eng./Contingencies) $ 9,926,000City Maintenance Rehab LS $ 7,500,000Admin of Private Service Rehab LS $ 680,000Flow Monitor Assessment LS $ 510,000

Estimated Grand Total $ 61,250,000

Cost SummaryCost Summary

Ø City of Lawton requested three construction phases

Ø Phase I - Includes the first 10 sub- basins (NuMuCreek Basin) and the first 7 expansion/upgrade projects.

Ø Phase II - Address the 14 sub-basins (Wolf Creek Basin) and 10 expansion/upgrade projects.

Ø Phase III - Address the 14 sub-basins (Cache Creek Basin) and 9 expansion/upgrade projects.

Ø Proposal was approved in September 1997.

Program ScheduleProgram Schedule

4

SubSub--Basin Location MapBasin Location Map

REHABILITATION SCHEDULE

NUMU BASIN 1998 – 2005

WOLF BASIN 2005 – 2012

CACHE BASIN 2012 – 2019

Expansion/Upgrade ProjectsExpansion/Upgrade Projects

n Conclusion of StudyThe SSESThe SSESØ System Rehabilitation Recommendations:Ø The City must reduce the wet weather inflow by 25% to 30%Ø Areas that the City must focus on to achieve reduction:Ø Public Mainlines Ø Private Service Lines Ø Manholes

Ø Only defects that contribute to system overflows were scheduled for repair (later expanded to include additional high maintenance sewer mains).

Ø The City should clean and inspect 400,000 linear feet of line pe r year.Ø 1,625 manholes were identified for some type of rehab work.Ø 191,000 linear feet of mainline segments were identified for rehab.Ø 2,109 private service lines were identified for rehab.Ø 92,500 linear feet of expansion/upgrade projects were identified (26

projects).Ø 1- (15) million gallon wet weather facility constructed at WWTP fo r wet

weather flows.

5

How is the City of Lawton going to meet this task?How is the City of Lawton going to meet this task?

Mayor/Council Requested Staff Proposals

In-House vs Private Sector

Ø Benefits for In-House Design/ConstructionØ Phase I savings of $2.6 millionØ Cost Savings would come through:Ø Omitting costly contract modifications (i.e. change orders,

amendments)

Ø Design-Build projects should save time

Ø Established relationships with other utility owners

Ø Working knowledge of existing systemØ No profit

Proposal For Proposal For Design/Construction DivisionsDesign/Construction Divisions

Phase I Sewer Rehabilitation Program Cost Comparisons

Fiscal Year

Program Year

1996Contract

Other Costs

1996 Contract

Construction Costs

1996 Contract

Total Costs

Inflated Contract

Other Costs

Inflated Contract

Construction Costs

Inflated Contract

Total Costs

InflatedIn-House

Other Costs

InflatedIn-House

Construction Costs

InflatedIn-House

Total Costs

98-99 1 $604,000 $2,617,000 $3,221,000 $604,000 $2,617,000 $3,221,000 $592,500 $4,687,156 $5,279,65699-00 2 $491,000 $1,959,000 $2,450,000 $503,275 $2,007,975 $2,511,250 $491,488 $1,613,441 $2,104,92900-01 3 $543,000 $2,106,000 $2,649,000 $570,150 $2,211,300 $2,781,450 $558,075 $2,023,748 $2,581,82301-02 4 $535,000 $2,113,000 $2,648,000 $575,125 $2,271,475 $2,846,600 $562,763 $2,137,417 $2,700,18002-03 5 $901,000 $3,747,000 $4,648,000 $991,100 $4,121,700 $5,112,800 $978,450 $1,661,560 $2,640,01003-04 6 $596,000 $2,385,000 $2,981,000 $670,500 $2,683,125 $3,353,625 $657,563 $1,951,454 $2,609,01704-05 7 $651,000 $2,660,000 $3,311,000 $748,650 $3,059,000 $3,807,650 $735,425 $2,253,626 $2,989,051

Totals $4,321,000 $17,587,000 $21,908,000 $4,662,800 $18,971,575 $23,634,375 $4,576,264 $16,328,402 $20,904,666

* The 1996 numbers represent those provided in the Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey (SSES) prepared by Biggs and Mathews, Inc. (SSES Consultant)and which were submitted to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). As a result, the ODEQ issued a consent order to construct Phase I of the Sewer Rehabilitation Program. It should be noted that the 1996 numbers do not incorporate an inflation factor for any of the Program Years.

* The Contract and In-House Costs include a 2 1/2% per year inflation factor.

* Other Costs consist of Engineering, Inspection, Flow Monitoring, Private Service Line Administration, etc.

6

n Capital Improvements Program (CIP) $ 5,507,359n Oklahoma Water Resources Board SRF Loans $15,397,307

Total Funding $20,904,666

Repayment of SRF Loans: Utility Bill - $2.35/mo. for 20 years

FundingFunding

Ø First steps in building the construction divisionØ StaffingØ Select construction technologiesØ Material and Equipment specs had to be written and approvedØ Bidding procedures had to be followed Ø Equipment purchased

Building the Construction DivisionBuilding the Construction Division

Engineering Associate

SSTD Civil Engineer

Assistant Directorof

Sewer

Scheduler

Construction Inspector

(2 employees)

CAD Technician

(1 employee)

Survey

Technician (1 employee)

Large Line Crew

(6 employees)

Small Line Crew

(6 employees)

Pipe Bursting

Crew (6 employees)

Manhole Rehab /

Cleanup Crew (3 employees)

Auto Mechanic II

(1 employee)

Construction Line Supervisor

(September 1998) Sewer Construction Division

Proposal for Construction DivisionProposal for Construction Division

7

ØEvaluation of Available TechnologiesØ CIPP (1.0%)

Ø Fold and Form / Slip lining (1.0%)

Ø Directional Bore (8%)

Ø Pipe Bursting (54%)

Ø Conventional Open-trench (36%)



Ø Equipment PurchasingØ Based on TechnologyØ Pipe BurstingØ Pneumatic Bursting

EquipmentØ Electro FusionØ Fusion tapping saddlesØ Fusion collars

Ø Butt Fusion of HDPE pipeØ Directional BoringØ Conventional

Ø SpecificationsØ BidsØ Delivery (60 day max delivery)

Ø Material PurchasingØ Selection of materialsØ HDPE, PVC, FITTINGS,

AGGREGATE, Etc.

Ø Write Specs., Bid, and Award Contracts

Ø Yearly contracts to allow purchasing as needed

The City of Lawton, Sewer Construction Division isThe City of Lawton, Sewer Construction Division isReady to Begin Construction.Ready to Begin Construction.

ConstructionConstruction

8

Ø Council approved In-House Construction Program. (September 1998)

Ø Equipment started arriving. (January 1999)

Ø Crew personnel started coming onboard. (February 1999)

Ø Small line crew started laying pipe. (March 11, 1999)

Ø Large line crew started laying pipe. (March 19, 1999)

Ø Pipebursting started installation of pipe. (April 19, 1999)

Ø Fully Operational in 6-month time frame.




Expansion/Upgrade Project - Bishop Road Interceptor (Large Line Crew)

3800 L.F. of 36” PVC

9


Expansion/Upgrade Project - Bishop Road Interceptor

(Siphon Construction)


Expansion/Upgrade Project - Bishop Road Interceptor (Completed)


Setting trench box at NW 24 th & Gore – 21” PVC pipe

for the 24th Street Upgrade

10


Directional boring used for air impact pipe bursting

for the Arlington Avenue Project


Air impactor for the

Arlington Avenue Project

12” HDPE pipe


Sub-Basin 316 - Pipebursting Winch

8” HDPE pipe

(NW 42nd & Lindy)

11


HDPE Pipe Fusion Equipment - Large Diameter Pipe (30” – 42”)

Installed in 6-weeks

(2400 L.F. of 30” HDPE)


HDPE Pipe Fusion Equipment - Large Diameter Pipe (30”)

(2400 L.F. of 30” HDPE)


Expansion/Upgrade - Large Line Pipebursting (30”)

12


Directional Bore Equipment In Action

Sub-Basin 203 (pipe bursting)

Between NW 25th Street and NW 26 th Street (North of Gore Blvd.)

Sheridan Road Upgrade Project – Phase I (open trench)

SW 21s t Street (South of Gore Blvd.)

SW 21s t Street (South of Gore Blvd.)

NW Morford Avenue (North of Gore Blvd.)

13

Sub-Basin 316 –Phase II

Wet Weather Facility (map)

Wet Weather FacilityWet Weather Facility

14

Manhole RehabilitationQuadex/Strong Seal

Aluminaliner

n ½ ton pickup 6n 1 ton flat bed truck 6n 6 wheel dump truck 3n 10 wheel dump truck 6n 580L Case backhoe, 4WD, extd/hoe 3n LB75 New Holland, 4WD, extd/hoe 1n 230 John Deere large trackhoe 1n 120 John Deere mid size trackhoe 1n 80 John Deere mid size trackhoe 1n 50 John Deere mini track hoe 1n 624 John Deere front end loader 2n John Deere skid steer loader 2n McElroy TracStar butt-fusion welder 1n Trimble GPS – RTK survey system 1n Close- Circuit TV inspection van 1

Equipment ($3,000,000)Equipment ($3,000,000)n Electro fusion machine (fusion fittings) 2n Evanco tandem axle trailer 10 & 20 ton 4n 1620 Directional bore machine 1n 35 & 65hp – 26” concrete saw 2n Manhole form system 3(sets)n Manhole rehab machine 1n Assorted trench shields and boxes 5n 6” trailer mounted pump 2n 7, 8 & 16” pneumatic bursting hammer 1n 8” pneumatic bursting hammer 1n 7” pneumatic bursting hammer 1n Pipeline laser 5n 10 & 12 ton TT winch 2n Tool trailer 4n 750 cfm air compressor 1

Challenges...


15

ØØ Increased Footage Increased Footage (~ 7000 ft/yr)(~ 7000 ft/yr)

ØØPurchasingPurchasingØØ Strict Purchasing ProceduresStrict Purchasing ProceduresØØ Impacted Construction SchedulingImpacted Construction Scheduling

ØØFinancingFinancingØØ GrantsGrantsØØ OWRB Revolving FundsOWRB Revolving FundsØØ Record Keeping/AccountingRecord Keeping/Accounting

ØØ Inflation of MaterialsInflation of Materials

ChallengesChallenges

ØRehabilitation Footage VariationsØ Maintaining projected footagesØ Equipment malfunctionsØ Additional footageØ Unidentified defective lines exceed the

4,100 feet expected from SSES reportØ Phase I Footage Production (24,600

ft/year)

Challenges

Vendor 1999 Cost Vendor Current Cost DifferenceIncrease %8" PVC pipe Midstate Utility $1.65 per foot Oklahoma Contractors $3.50 per foot $1.85 112%

8" Poly pipe Oklahoma Winwater $2.77 per foot Oklahoma Winwater $4.77 per foot $2.00 72%

1 1/2 crusher run Dolese $3.25 per ton Dolese $5.25 per ton $2.00 62%#57 rock Dolese $4.80 per ton Dolese $6.00 per ton $1.20 25%

Concrete (cu yd) Southwest Ready Mix $52.5 per cu yd Southwest Ready Mix $74 per cu yd $21.50 41%

Rock Hauling Lawton Transit Mix $1.95 per ton Beall Trucking $4.50 per ton $2.55 131%

Diesel Low Bid $0.65 per gallon Low Bid $2.15 per gallon $1.50 230%CURRENT PRICES UPDATED: 01 July 2005

Budgeted Inflation Rate Was 2.5% per year for total of 7.5% from start of programActual CPI rate average was 3.82% per year for total of 27.72% from start of program

Material Cost Comparison1999 vs 2005

Phase I Phase I ChallengesChallenges

Material Costs - Inflation

16

ØØPersonnel/StaffingPersonnel/StaffingØØ TurnoverTurnoverØØ Skilled workersSkilled workersØØ Maintaining full crewsMaintaining full crewsØØ Employee motivationEmployee motivationØØ Available work forceAvailable work force

ChallengesChallenges

Challenges

Ø WeatherØ Bad Weather Days

Ø Utility EasementsØ Poorly Maintained by

Property OwnersØ EncroachmentsØ BuildingsØ Fences

Ø UtilitiesØ SBC (SWBT)Ø CenterPoint Energy

(ARKLA/Reliant Energy)Ø AEP (PSO)Ø CATV (Cablevision)Ø Waterlines

EasementBefore...

Fields & Dunning Addition (between Oak and Maple)

Easement After...

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS

17

Engineering/Construction Costs...


Accumulated Costs to Complete Phase I:Ø Original In-House (1997-2005) $20,904,666.00Ø Projected (1997/2005) $19,002,103.00Ø Emergency Liner Project (04/05) $ 867,715.00

Savings over Contracted SSES Projections:Ø Total Savings In-House $ 1,034,848.00Ø Original Budgeted Savings $ 2,600,000.00TOTAL SAVINGS PHASE I $ 3,634,848.00

Engineering, Construction, and Other Costs

Results…


Participants

18

SSO Reduction SSO Reduction –– Phase IPhase I

Results-Phase I

Ø Inflow/Infiltration (I&I) has been reduced and documented by flow monitoring of NuMu Creek Basin.

Ø Total I&I reduction of 40%, which exceeded our goal of 25 to 30%.

Contract Cost ComparisonContract Cost Comparison

19

Phase ILines Completed214,000 L.F +

ResultsResults

Phase 1 Footages by Year

SSESYEAR ** Original SSES / PHASE 2 & 3 Revised SSES Additional Maintenance Actual Installed

Consent Order Projects Rescheduled Schedule Identified LinesPre-99 0 7,215 7,215 21,765 28,9801999 17,428 2000 19,428 3,810 23,2382000 34,505 400 27,169 1,525 28,6942001 29,064 5000 30,445 0 30,4452002 23,227 1560 26,055 6,912 32,9672003 20,927 2420 28,709 -3,250 25,4592004 26,362 300 23,569 2,686 26,2552005 16,138 18,042

Total to date 151,513 18,895 162,590 49,586 214,080** Includes 4100 L.F. of maintenance identified lines (estimated at $375,00 per year)Actual footage installed plus proposed installation will produce 214,080 Total line Constructed In Phase 1

Rehabilitation Footages

Proposed Sewer Rehabilitation Footage Installation Schedule

Results

20

Private Service InspectionsPrivate Service InspectionsUpdated: July 1st 2005

SSESNon-

SSES SSESNon-

SSES SSESNon-

SSES

111 16 84 8 1 6 0 0 1% Working, inspected with Carver Street Upgrade (Phase 3)Subtotal 16 84 8 1 6 0 0 1%

201 244 215 29 215 29 0 0 100% Complete202 89 79 10 79 10 0 0 100% Complete203 326 300 26 300 26 0 0 100% Complete204 885 210 167 210 167 0 0 100% Complete206 117 103 14 103 14 0 0 100% Complete206 409 32 45 32 45 0 0 100% Complete207 32 31 1 31 1 0 0 100% Complete208 211 170 41 170 41 0 0 100% Complete209 134 114 20 114 20 0 0 100% Complete210 69 62 7 62 7 0 0 100% Complete

Subtotal 2516 1316 360 1316 360 0 0 100% Squaw Creek Basin Complete

316 49 47 2 47 2 0 0 100% Complete (Phase II)Subtotal 49 47 2 47 2 0 0 100%

TOTALS 2581 1447 370 1364 368 0 0 94%

Private Service Inspection status, 2nd QTR, 2005

Sub-Basin Inspections

M a d eDefects Found Defects Corrected Non-Compliance % Complete

SSES

Cache Creek Basin

Numu Creek Basin

Wolf Creek Basin

Note

Goals for Phase II


Ø Remain ahead of DEQ required scheduleØMaintain a full staff for Sewer Construction

crewsØReduce turnoverØTrain crew members in all aspects of

sewer constructionØ Improve the condition of the sewer collection

system for the Citizens of LawtonØ Continue to provide cost savings to the

Citizens of Lawton

GoalsGoals

21

GoalsGoals

Ø Increased ProductionØ Production will increase 5,800 ft/year above SSES

Ø Phase II Footage Total ProductionØ 30,400 ft/year

Ø Phase II In-House Estimated Construction Cost Ø $29 Million

Task Schedule – Phase IIProject Task Date

Complete Phase I Design ___________________________________________________ October 1, 2003

Begin Flow Monitoring Assessment Phase I ____________________________________ August 1, 2004

Begin Phase II Design _____________________________________________________ October 1, 2004

Complete Construction / Rehabilitation Phase I ________________ _________________ July 1, 2005

Begin Construction / Rehabilitation Phase II ___________________________________ July 1, 2005

Complete Flow Monitoring Assessment Phase I _________________________________ January 1, 2006

Submit a Proposal for Schedule for Phase III __________________ _________________ January 1, 2011

Complete Phase II Design __________________________________________________ July 1, 2011

Begin Flow Monitoring Assessment Phase II ___________________________________ January 1, 2012

Complete Construction / Rehabilitation Phase II ________________________________ July 1, 2012

Complete Flow Monitoring Assessment Phase II ________________________________ January 1, 2013

Expansion/Upgrade Schedule – Phase II

22

Ø Sewer Systems Technical Division, Public Works/Engineering 2100 Southwest 6th Street (580) 581-3324

Ø Jerry Ihler, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer

Ø Rusty Whisenhunt, Assistant Director of Sewer Rehabilitation & Collections

Ø Roger L. Bridges, P.E. SSTD Civil Engineer

ContactsContacts

Questions?Questions?

End of PresentationEnd of Presentation

city wide sewer rehabilitation program - apwa...n 50 john deere mini track hoe 1 n 624 john deere...

Documents