Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan. City Council Presentation December 13, 2016

Transcription

1 Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan City Council Presentation December 13, 2016

2 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

3 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 longterm costs Allow for Onsite Composting Onsite composting is not recommended, regional facility will be more cost-effective

4 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

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 Project Schedule 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

10 Project Schedule 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

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 WRF Program Overview What we know now Anticipated Rates: Estimated Total Cost Effect Average Monthly Rate (FY14/15) Average Monthly 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 $ $ $

15 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

16 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

17 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

18 City of Morro Bay WRF South Bay Boulevard EXISTING EXISTING WWTP WWTP WRF WRF Morro Bay

19 WRF Provides City Ability to Make Highest and Best Use of New Water Supply Resource Groundwater Injection to Supplement Ocean City Discharge Water Supply Agricultural Irrigation Unrestricted Irrigation Restricted Irrigation Ocean Discharge To Be Determined in Master Water Reclamation Plan

20 Evaluation Criteria Align With Community Goals 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

21 List of Treatment Technologies Considered Was Inclusive TREATMENT STEP Preliminary Treatment Primary Treatment Biological Treatment Tertiary Treatment Disinfection UNIT PROCESSES Influent Screens Shaftless Spiral Screen Mechanically-Cleaned Bar Screen Grit Removal Horizontal Flow Grit Chambers Aerated Grit Chambers Vortex Grit Chambers Primary Clarifiers Rectangular Clarifiers Circular Clarifiers 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) Disc Filters Media Filters 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

22 Two Treatment Strategy Alternatives Provide for Highest and Best End Uses Conventional Train: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Combined Secondary/Tertiary Train: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

23 Advanced Treatment Required to Achieve Community Goals for Highest and Best Uses of Product Water Groundwater Injection to Supplement Ocean City Discharge Water Supply Agricultural Irrigation Unrestricted Irrigation Restricted Irrigation 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

24 Solid Material from Treatment Process Will Be Composted at a Regional Facility City s current practice is most cost-effective Investigated opportunities to reduce costs for project by: Create marketable products processing materials on-site Use biosolids to generate energy Processing on-site or providing facilities to generate energy not cost-effective Liberty Composting in Kern County provides beneficial use of processed materials

25 New Pipelines and Pump Stations Needed to Connect WRF to City System Alignment Generally Follows Quintana Road PS EXISTING WWTP Lower Cost Less Environmental Impact WRF More Energy Efficient

26 New Pipelines and Pump Stations Needed to Connect WRF to City System Morro Bay High School Location Near Existing WWTP Most Efficient and Least Expensive Existing WWTP 1A 5A City WTP Floodplain Issues to be Mitigated Lila Keiser Park Duke Energy Property CCC Supportive of Location

27 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

28 WRF Site Overview WRF Treatment Process Facilities WRF Offices and O&M Facilities Bayside Care Center Highway 1 Quintana Road South Bay Boulevard

29 WRF Site

30 WRF Site with Consolidated Maintenance Facilities

31 WRF Looking South

32 WRF with Consolidated Maintenance Facilities Looking South

33 WRF Looking Southeast

34 View From Highway 1 Heading West East of South Bay Boulevard

35 View From Highway 1 Heading West West of South Bay Boulevard

36 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.)

37 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

38 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

39 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 Lower water rates in future Reclaimed Water Best available treatment for CECs Ph 1 + Ph 2 built in 5 yrs

40 WRF Cost to Customers Hard Costs (Construction, Demolition) Operation & Maintenance (Power, Staffing, and Chemicals) Soft Costs

41 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?

42 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

43 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

44 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)

45 WRF Project Capital Cost Opinion Hard and Soft Costs Capital Cost Opinion (2016 US $MM) Phase 1 WRF 114 Phase 2 Recycled Water Facilities Total WRF Capital Cost Subtotal Construction Contingency Total WRF Capital Cost Total 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)

46 WRF Project O&M Costs Annual O&M Cost Opinion (2016 US $MM) Phase 1 WRF $ Phase 2 Recycled Water Facilities $ Total WRF $ 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)

47 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

48 Annual Cost of State Water Estimated Annual Cost State Water at Current Rate ($2,000/AF) State Water at Estimated Future Rate ($2,200/AF) $2.4M $2.64M Note: Annual cost based on 1200 acre-feet (AF)

49 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 Grant Funding Solar Power Purchase Agreement $1.5M/yr 10 20% of capital costs Up to 1/3 of power costs

50 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

51 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

52 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

53 What Would be Impact on Utility Rates Estimated Average Monthly Water Rate Estimated Average Monthly Sewer Rate Estimated Combined Average Monthly Rate Historic (FY 14/15) Current (FY 16/17) Approved (FY 19/20) With Total WRF Project $27.58 $52.00 $67.00 $50 - $67 (TBD) $45.59 $62.50 $83.00 $ $73.17 $ $ $ Future Rate Increase $27-74 Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month

54 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 $ (2019 from 2014) Includes current approved rate increase of $37.41 Full water recycling facility (not phased) Over 50% savings in water cost possible

55 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

56 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)

57 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)

58 Feedback since November Workshop Six (6) letters and/or s with substantive comments Two (2) s with meeting requests (SLCUSD; Farm Bureau) Two (2) speakers at WRFCAC

59 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)

60 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

61 Feedback: Key Issues at WRFCAC Public Input Similar to feedback received in letters

62 Feedback: WRFCAC Input 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

63 Feedback: WRFCAC Input 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?)

64 Feedback: WRFCAC Input 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?

65 Feedback: WRFCAC Input 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

66 Feedback: WRFCAC Input 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

67 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

68 Q&A

69 BACK-UP SLIDES

70 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

71 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

72 SBR Rated Favorably in Evaluation for Conventional Train Options 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

73 MBR Rated Favorably in Evaluation for Combined Secondary/Tertiary 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

74 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

75 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

76 What if the WRF is at the Righetti site? Capital Cost Opinion (2016 US $MM) Phase 1 WRF at Righetti Construction Contingency 20.8 Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Total 128.6

77 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

78 WRF at the Righetti site Ph 1 + Ph 2 Capital Cost Opinion (2016 US $MM) Phase 1 WRF Total Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Total Phase 1+ Ph 2 Capital Cost Opinion Total

79 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 Future Rate Increase $ $150 $ $ $27-74 $20-62 Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month

80 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 Construction Contingency Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Total

81 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 Future Rate Increase $ $150 $ $ $27-74 $27 98 Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month

82 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 Construction Contingency (25% of construction subtotal) 22.1 Phase 1 WRF Capital Cost Opinion Total Note: Phase 1 WRF costs based on Draft Facility Master Plan (Nov 2016)

83 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

84 Secondary disinfected WWTP at startup - Phase 2 Capital Cost Opinion Capital Cost Opinion (2016 US $MM) Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Subtotal Construction Contingency Phase 2 Capital Cost Range Note: Phase 2 costs are preliminary and to be further developed in the Master Reclamation Plan (Draft March 2017)

85 Secondary disinfected WWTP at startup- Ph Capital Cost Opinion Capital Cost Opinion (2016 US $MM) Phase 1 WWTP Total Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Total Phase 1+ Phase 2 Capital Cost Opinion Total Note: Phase 2 costs are preliminary and to be further developed in the Master Reclamation Plan (Draft March 2017)

86 Cost for Secondary Disinfected WRF Estimated Average Monthly Rate Difference from approved rate (19/20) Current Rate (16/17) Approved Future Rate (19/20) Phase 1 Rate Impact (2021) Phase Rate Impact (2023) $ $150 $ $ $22-25 $42-97 Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month

87 Anticipated Combined Water/Sewer Rate Estimated Average Monthly Rate Difference from approved rate (19/20) Current Rate (16/17) Approved Future Rate (19/20) With Total WRF Project With Total Startup at Secondary Project $ $150 $ $ $27-74 $42-97 Average sewer rate for single family residential and water rate for 5 units/month

88 Average Monthly Water + Sewer Rate Impact from Approved 2019/2020 Increase $ $ $ $ $ $50.00 $- Ph 1 WWTP + Ph 2 RW Ph 1 WWTP (Sec disinf) Total WRF

89 Recycled Water Opportunities EXHIBIT

90 Annual Cost of GW Injection & Extraction Est Annual Cost SRF Bond Service for WRF $ M Total Annual O&M $ M Extraction and Treatment of Groundwater $1.2M Total Estimated Annual Cost to Supplement Water Supply $ M

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

92 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

93 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

94 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 OWNER DESIGNER Design-Build Entity CONTRACTOR