Download - 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
WRF Project Community Goals
• 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
WRF Project Community Goals
• 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
Key Milestone Scheduled Date Actual Date
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
Key Milestone Scheduled Date Actual Date
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
WRF Program Overview
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
WRF Program Overview
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
WRF Program Overview
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
Water vs. Sewer Rates
• 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
Water vs. Sewer Rates
• 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
Feedback: WRFCAC Input 12-6-16
• 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?)
Feedback: WRFCAC Input 12-6-16
• 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?
Feedback: WRFCAC Input 12-6-16
• 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
Feedback: WRFCAC Input 12-6-16
• 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
Capital Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)
Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Subtotal 9 – 20
Construction Contingency 2 – 5
Phase 2 Capital Cost Range 11 – 25
Capital Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)
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
Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month
What if the WRF were a joint facility with
CSD at the Toro Creek Site?
Capital Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)
Partner Facility with CSD at Toro Creek 165 – 214
Construction Contingency 32 – 42
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
Estimated Average Monthly Rate
$114.50 $150 $177 – 224 $177 – 248
Future Rate Increase
$27 - 74 $27 – 98
Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month
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
Capital Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)
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)
Capital Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)
Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Subtotal 49 – 78
Construction Contingency 10 – 16
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)
Capital Cost Opinion(2016 US $MM)
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)
Estimated Average Monthly Rate
$114.50 $150 $172 - 175 $192 – 247
Difference from approved rate (19/20)
$22 - 25 $42 - 97
Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month
Anticipated Combined Water/Sewer Rate
Current Rate (16/17)
Approved Future Rate
(19/20)
With Total WRF Project
With Total “Startup at Secondary”
Project
Estimated Average Monthly Rate
$114.50 $150 $177 – 224 $192 – 247
Difference from approved rate (19/20)
$27 - 74 $42 - 97
Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month
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