HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 21, 2010 J-01AGENDA ITEM 340. 1
&% CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
,m
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility Project
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2010
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve plans and specifications and authorize advertisementfor
bids for Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility Project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On December 16,2009 City Council authorized HDR, Inc., of Folsom,
to complete the final design work for the Surface Water Treatment
Facility and Transmission Project and approved the selection of the
Pall Membrane Filtration System. The design work is now complete,
and we are ready to proceed with the next phase of the project.
The project has been presented to and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Site
Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
Council is being asked to approve the plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids for
the Surface Water Treatment Facility Project, which includes:
• The construction of a raw water pump station in Woodbridge;
• Approximately 500 feet of 30 -inch raw water transmission pipe, an operations building, chemical
building, sedimentation structure, 3 -million -gallon treated water storage tank, and treated water
high service pump station at the treatment facility's 4.2 -acre site adjacent to Lodi Lake;
• Approximately 4,000 feet of 36 -inch treated water transmission pipe and installation of chlorine
and chemical injection systems at approximately 25 well sites throughout the City;
• Traffic signals and intersection work at Mills Avenue and Turner Road; and
• All other site and utility improvements associated with the project.
A prequalification process is being used to determine eligible prime contractor, electrical and
instrumentation bidders to ensure contractors have the necessary experience to perform the work. The
prime contractor qualification process has already begun. Of 18 submissions received, about
10 contractors will meet the requirements. Review of the qualifications and reference checks are ongoing.
FISCAL IMPACT: Operation costs associated with the project are estimated to be $1,200,000
during the 12 -month start-up period and then $1,000,000 per year after that.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: This project will be funded by the Water Fund with bonded debt planned to be
sold in October2010. A requestfor appropriation of funds will be made at
contract award.
,�- hva,6L. ja,_J_�
F. VVaIIv Saildelin
Public Works Director
Prepared by Gary Wiman, Construction Project Manager
FWS/GW/pmf
APPROVED: t A N
Konradt Bartlam, Interim City Manager
K:\WP\PROJECTS\WATER\SurfaceWaterPlant\SWTF Project\CPSA SWTF.doc 7/15/2010
WHITE PAPER
Surhce Water Treatment Facilities
City of Lock
Public Works Department
June 30, 2010
K:\WP\Projects\Water\SurfaceWaterPlant\White Paper
Table of Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................................
4
Past City Council Water Actions..............................................................................................
4
Future City Council Actions.....................................................................................................
6
Projected Water Demands and Sources of Supply................................................................
6
Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Sale Agreement...........................................................
8
First Amendment to the Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Sale Agreement .................9
Project Description—Surface Water Treatment Plant Facilities ..........................................
10
ProjectCost.............................................................................................................................
37
LandPurchase Cost...............................................................................................................
37
PreviousExpenditures...........................................................................................................
37
FinancingOptions..................................................................................................................
37
Financial Model of Water Utility.............................................................................................
46
Infrastructure ReplacementfWater Meter Program...............................................................
50
RateAdjustments...................................................................................................................
52
Surface Water Treatment Plant Financing Plan....................................................................
52
New Development Share of Costs.........................................................................................
53
New Development Capacity Charge......................................................................................
53
New Development Debt Service.............................................................................................
53
K:\WP\PROJECTS\WATER\SurfaceWaterPlant\White Paper.doc 1
List of Figures
Figure 1. Historical groundwater elevation and annual rainfall ....................................... 7
Figure2. Project Location......................................................................................... 12
Figure 3. Layout of Raw Water Pump Station.............................................................. 13
Figure 4. Existing SWTF Site.................................................................................... 14
Figure 5. Layout of SWTF Facilities.......................................................................... 17
Figure 6.Access Road and Intersection Improvements .............................................. 22
Figure 7. Existing Location of Entrance.................................................................... 23
Figure8. SWTF Entrance....................................................................................... 23
Figure 9. SWTF as Viewed from Turner Road............................................................ 24
Figure 10. Groundwater Well Locations................................................................... 25
Figure 11. Surface Water Treatment Facility Process Flow Schematic ......................... 32
Figure 12. Surface Water Treatment Facility Process Flow Schematic ......................... 51
2
List of Tables
Table 1. Existing Groundwater Wells....................................................................... 26
Table 2. Chemicals for Membrane System................................................................ 34
Table 3. Process Chemicals................................................................................... 36
Table 4.90% Design Cost Estimate................................................................... ..39-44
Table5. Expenditures............................................................................................ 45
Table 6. Financial Plan Summary........................................................................ 47-48
Ki
White Paper — Surface Water Treatment Plant
Introduction
Staff has compiled this summary report of historical information, studies and reports to assist in
preparation for many important decisions the Council will be asked to make in the coming
months. Copies of many of the referenced documents are contained in the large Water Binder
provided to Council in the past.
The Lodi Surface Water Treatment Plant project is an integral element of a conjunctive water
supply program that assures a long term high quality water supply for its customers. The term
"conjunctive" refers to the combined usage of surface water and groundwater supplies to serve
the needs of the community. As we are all aware, the California water cycle includes years of
ample rainfall and also multiple year droughts.
Lodi exists in a region that has critically overdrawn it groundwater resource. As reported by the
Legislative Analyst's Office, "California's water system is facing a series of challenges affecting
water availability, reliability, and delivery. Groundwater management is one of the state's most
critical liquid assets — a key component of both local and statewide efforts to better manage
water supply and water quality in the state." Further, "In our view, reevaluating how
groundwater is managed is necessary if it is to achieve its full potential as a reliable source of
water." It truly is not an issue of whether the groundwater basin will be adjudicated but only a
matter of when.
Lodi's agreement with Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) anticipated the surface water would
be put to the highest beneficial use. A number of experts in the water field have reported to the
City Council that "treat and drink' is the highest beneficial use of the Mokelumne River.
The most effective form of preserving the groundwater resource is leaving it in the ground.
Utilizing the 6,000 acre-feet annually from WID will effectively bank groundwaterfor use during
times of drought when our deliveries will be limited to 3,000 acre-feet. This is a primary benefit
of a conjunctive water supply program.
Past City Council Water Actions
The following presents a summary of past City Council decisions relating to the City's water
utility and the acquisition, alternatives evaluation and the proposed project for putting the WID
water to its highest and best use.
October 3, 2001 —Approved water rate increase to reconstruct small diameter water mains
throughout the community but primarily east of Church Street. To date $5,986,187 has been
expended through four wastewater projects and three water projects.
April 16, 2003 — Approved Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Sale Agreement. A summary of
the Agreement can be found on page 9.
4
November 2, 2005 — Accepted West Yost and Associates Study for full implementation of the
WID water supply that identified a capital cost for a future water treatment plant at $51 million
(2005 dollars)
February 7, 2006 — Received presentation on 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Update on
Surface Water Treatment Plant and Proposed Recycled Water Master Plan. Capital cost for
future water treatment plant stated to be in the range of $20 — 25 million.
March 1, 2006 — Received background information on implementing WID surface water
program. Capital cost for future water treatment plant stated to be up to $29.5 million.
November 14, 2006 — Received presentation on water treatment plant financing (i.e.,
Community Facilites District).
December 20, 2006 —Approved Contract with HDR for Surface Water Treatment Facility
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Evaluation for water supply and transmission system.
(Appropriated $400,000)
October 17, 2007 —Approved preferred site selection for surface water treatment facilities at
Lodi Lake. Conditioned decision upon Parks and Recreation receiving value for land taken out
of future park usage based upon an appraisal.
January 16, 2008 —Approved Amendment to Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Purchase
Agreement. A summary of the Amendment can be found on page 10.
January 16, 2008 —Approved agreements for the construction of raw water connection at WID
fish screen. (Appropriated $92,000)
July 16, 2008 — Received Surface Water Treatment Facility Conceptual Design and Feasibility
Evaluation Final Report. Capital cost for future water treatment plant stated to be $41 million
and annual operating costs were estimated to be $1.5 million per year.
March 18, 2009 - Approved contract with HDR, Inc. for preliminary design (30%) of surface
water treatment plant, storage tank, transmission main, and well modifications. (Appropriated
$987,000)
April 15, 2009 —Approved construction of the surface water treatment plant raw water
transmission pipeline via cooperative agreement with San Joaquin County. (Appropriated $1
million)
December 16, 2009 —Approved contract with HDR, Inc. for final design of surface water
treatment plant and associated facilities. Approved selection of Pall Membrane Systems as the
water treatment plant filtration equipment. (Appropriated $2 million)
January 6, 2010 —Approved engagement of Lamont Financial Services and Stone and
Youngberg LLC for professional services related to financing the surface water treatment plant.
N1
May 19, 2010 —Approved the engagement of Jones Hall for legal professional services related
to financing the surface water treatment plant.
May 5, 2010 - Approved Standardized Questionnaire for Bidder Qualification for use in pre -
qualifying contractors for the construction of the surface water treatment plant and associated
facilities.
Future City Council Actions
July 21 —Approve Plans and Specifications and Advertisement for Bids for Surface Water
Treatment Plant Facilities
Public Hearing to Consider Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Water Plant
Authorize the entry of a Joint Powers Agreement creating the Lodi Public Financing
Authority
Authorize Staff to Proceed with Bond Financing for Water Plant Project
Adopt Amended Reimbursement Resolution
Authorize City Manager to Sign Incidental Take Mitigation Measures
September 1 —Approve Preliminary Official Statement and Legal Documents
September 1 —Approve Pre -payment of State Revolving Fund Loan (approximately $1.4 million)
October 20 —Award Construction Contract
Date Uncertain - Amend WID Contract to extend banking provisions beyond 42,000 acre-feet
and to include long-term lease of the raw water pump station site at the WID Construction Yard.
Projected Water Demands and Sources of Supply
Projected Water Demands —The City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
projected the City's total future demand based on an average increase rate of 1.5 percent over
the recorded 2004 demand of 17,011 acre feet per year (AFY) (15.2 mgd). Average annual
potable water demands are expected to increase to 25,100 AFY (22.4 mgd) by 2030. With 15
percent residential use conservation, the future demand is anticipated to be reduced to 21,300
AFY (19 mgd). The City's 2010 General Plan estimated future water demand (Phase 1, 2, and
3) to be 29,377 acre feet per year.
Current and Projected Water Supply — The City has historically used from 11,462 AFY of
groundwater in 1970 to 17,011 AFY used in 2004. Historical data indicate that the City's
groundwater elevation decreased on average 0.39 feet per year from 1927 to 2004, although
groundwater elevation also fluctuates due to annual rainfall. Historical groundwater elevation
and annual rainfall are presented in Figure 1. This figure indicates that the groundwater basin
underlying Eastern San Joaquin County that supplies the City's wells is in an overdraft
6
condition. The 2005 UWMP estimates that the safe yield of the underlying groundwater basin is
approximately 15,000 AFY on an acreage -based retationship. The declining groundwater basin
is a result of groundwater extraction by all groundwater users in the area, including other cities,
agriculture, private well owners, and the City.
35
30
25
20
5
0
-5
40
35
30
25
20
Z
15
10 A
-10 0
1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Year
Figure 1. Historical groundwater elevation and annual rainfall
The City plans to reduce its groundwater pumping in the long term as part of a regional effort to
stabilize the groundwater basin. To achieve this goal, the City of Lodi entered into a purchase
contract with Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) in October 2003 and began purchasing 6,000
acre-feet per year (AFY) of W ID's pre -1914 Mokelumne River water entitlement. The purchase
is intended to supplement the City's water supply to meet long term water demands and to
reduce the City's dependence on the groundwater aquifer. The City evaluated alternatives for
utilizing the purchased water, including recharge in spreading basins and construction of a
surface water conveyance and treatment system to allow for direct use by current and future
users.
The UWMP projected the future water supply will include groundwater, surface water, and
recycled wastewater. The projected groundwater supply will be 15,000 AFY from now until year
2030, based on an estimated safe yield of the groundwater basin serving the City. The
projected surface supply is 6,000 AFY from now until year 2043 based on a contract with WID.
Potentially, an additional 7,000 AFY could be secured after that based on the formula of 3 AF of
water for each acre of City land within the WID service area converted from agricultural to
municipal/industrial uses. The projected recycled water supply is 10,380AFY in 2030 based on
the UWMP.
Improvementsto the WID water delivery system funded in part by the City's water purchase
include construction of an inflatable dam to raise the water level in the river. The City has not
yet used any WID water and has negotiated with WID to extend the banking period for unused
water. The diversion of WID water from the Mokelumne River is permitted from March 1
through October 15. The City has reached agreement with EBMUD to allow operation of the
SWTF year-round with 1,000 AFY available from October 16 through the end of February. WID
has indicated they will be able to leave the inflatable dam in place year round to allow water
supply to the City through the recently completed fish screen and canal intake structure. The
intake structure is fitted with a 48 -inch outfall pipe to supply water to the City.
The City also investigated the possibility of using the purchased water to recharge the aquifer
with spreading basins. However, the costs of this option, the lack of control of the fate of the
water, and efficiency of the water reaching the aquifer has led the City to pursue utilizing the
water by treating and pumping the water into the existing water distribution system.
Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Sale Agreement
On April 16, 2003, the City Council approved the Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Sale
Agreement providing up to 6,000 acre-feet annually to the City to address an existing
groundwater overdraft condition. By 2030, the estimated overdraft will grow to 10,000 acre-feet
annually if nothing were done.
The major points of the WID Water Sale Agreement are summarized below:
• 6,000 acre-feet of water annually to the City — This represents the amount of water the
District feels it can provide under normal circumstances.
• Payment to the District of $1.2 million annually — This amounts to a cost of $200 per
acre-foot, which is a reasonable and fair amount, particularly in light of the cost of other
alternatives and the fact that the delivery point of the water is at our doorstep.
• City to build and pay for facilities necessary to accept and use the water.
i Provision for additional water under various circumstances — Should the City obtain
other rights on the Mokelumne River, we could "wheel" water via the WID at a reduced
cost ($20 per acre-foot), or if WID had additional water available, we could purchase it at
a lower rate ($100 per acre-foot).
• Price escalator provisions after six years — Linked to the CPI with a 2% minimum and
5% maximum.
• A 40 -year term, with mutually agreeable renewal provisions.
8
Provisions for dry year curtailments — Recognizing that the WID's supply is reduced in
dry years, and that the City can fall back on groundwater, we can reduce our use of
surface water in a greater proportion than the District, from 6,000 to 3,000 acre-feet (see
next point).
Provisions for "carryover" or banking of water — Recognizing that we will not be able to
use the water immediately, we can "bank" the first three years for use later, as the water
is available. Similarly, during dry years when we curtail use per the preceding point, we
can use additional water in later, wet years when the water is available.
Use of the District canal and right-of-way for delivery and distribution — In addition to
eventually building intake(s) within the WID canal right-of-way, we may wish to use the
canal right-of-way to transport water to portions of the City or build groundwater injection
facilities.
First Amendment to the Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Sale Agreement
On January 16, 2008, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the WID Water Sale
Agreement. The amendment included a four year extension to 2047 and four years additional
banking (total 42,000 acre-feet). The banking provision terminates October 15, 2010.
The major points of the amendment are summarized below:
In Section 2, WID is providing a water supply connection with their fish screen project
which will allow the City to construct pumping facilities within the District's right of way in
Woodbridge. This wiii allow for a smaller diameter (and less expensive) transmission
pipe from the connection at the WID fish screen to the planned treatment plant site. It
will also reduce the area needed for the facility.
• Section 3 covers availability of additional water and potential sharing with Stockton.
• Section 4 covers the extended term but also includes new provisions that strengthen
renewal of the agreement in 2047.
• Section 5 provides for assurance of additional WID water should the City annex lands
within the District.
• Section 6 provides more flexibility to the City to utilize the water during a dry year.
• The 2003 agreement, in Section 4(c), gives the City a first right of refusal should WID
consider sale of additional water to another entity. WID and the City of Stockton have
been negotiating a sale similar to the Lodi sale. The proposed amendment, in Section 7
waives that right of first refusal. Staff feels this is appropriate as the City is not in a
position to economically utilize the additional water, and the benefit of Stockton's using
this surface water in lieu of groundwater will benefit the entire groundwater basin. Staff
has reviewed the District's draft sale agreement with the City of Stockton. While there
are some technical differences between it and Lodi's agreement, they mainly refer to
9
delivery details to Stockton. The main portions of the agreement (price, dry -year
curtailment, provisions for additional water with newly annexed land) are identical to the
Lodi agreement as revised.
• Section 8 extends the "bank by four years, to a total of 42,000 acre-feet (from three
years/ 18,000 acre-feet).
• Section 9 clarifies use of WID right-of-way.
• Section 10 provides that the District may install water quality improvements at the City's
pump stations, subject to the City's approval.
Fourth Supplementary Agreement between Woodridge Irrigation District and East Bay Municipal
Utiltiy District (EBMUD)
April 2009, the Fourth Supplementary Agreement between WID and EMBUD was approved.
The most significant element of this agreement is the provision allowing WID to request EBMUD
to release up to 1,000 acre-feet during the period from October 15 through the end of February.
This will permit the surface water treatment plant to potentially operate year round and facilitate
the City usage of the 42,000 acre-feet of banked water.
Project Description— Surface Water Treatment Plant Facilities
The purpose of the Project is to provide a secure, reliable supplemental supply of water for the
City to meet their current and future water needs while reducing dependence on groundwater.
Project Location
The City owns 12.75 acres between the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) spur line and Lodi Lake
near the intersection of Turner Road and Lower Sacramento Road. The SWTF would be
constructed on approximately four acres at the south end of the property adjacent to the UPRR
spur line (Figure 2). The entrance to the property would bean access road located at the north
leg of the intersection of Turner Road and North Mills Avenue. The entrance would be shared
with future park uses that would be constructed between the SWTF and Lodi Lake.
The City has decided to build the RWPS on the west side of Lower Sacramento Road across
from the WID intake and fish screen and south of the WID canal on property currently owned by
WID. During construction of the WID fish screen structure, a 48 -inch pipe was constructed
along with a 36 -inch raw water pipe to the RWPS site and a 30 -inch discharge pipe to the
SWTF site. The portion of the raw water pipeline located on the City -owned property has yet to
be constructed.
Proposed Facilities
A detailed description of all facilities of the project is provided in the following subsections.
10
Raw Water Pump Station
The RWPS would deliver 2.0 to 11.5 mgd of untreated water to the SWTF at the initial phase,
and would be expandable to 23 mgd at the final phase. The initial phase is expected to be in
operation in less than three years and the final phase would be built much later. The layout of
the RWPS is provided in Figure 3.
11
£ � uoge;S dwnd JOMM Mea jo;noAe-7 •£ a rnAid
90OL16LOLIK oN132fwd210HIHO'!Po-llobf0I4.1ioed;uauge2JJJ24eMa3e4ang 'swoe:slips4-prib,Aylltoo$lgo
E -z 3anow U4
The RWPS building would include a pump room and an electrical room. Concrete masonry
construction would be provided for aesthetics, durability, and security reasons. The RWPS
building would be designed around vertical turbine pumps, which would be mounted on a
concrete pad above the floor. Climate control would be provided for the electrical room to keep
the electrical equipment and controls within their operable temperature range. The pump station
would be ventilated.
The RWPS would receive electrical service from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) since it is
located outside the area served by the City's Electric Utility Department. A new 800 -ampere,
480/277 volt, three-phase, four -wire electrical service utility service would serve the RWPS.
The RWPS design would incorporate design elements to attenuate the noise generated by the
pumps and motors. These building design elements would include acoustical barrier panels on
the pump room walls and use of acoustical louvers.
Security measures would be provided to protect the RWPS from vandalism or other threats to
the City water supply. Secure locks and intrusion alarms would be, provided for the doors and
electrical panels. Lighting would be provided on all sides of the building. Video cameras would
be provided outside the building and would have the ability to record and store up to 24 -hours of
data.
The RWPS site, occupying approximately 0.2 acres, would be fenced with access from Carolina
Street. Decorative fencing, facing Lower Sacramento Road and Carolina Street, would be
provided similar to the existing fish screen fencing. A sidewalk, curb, and gutter would be
constructed along the Carolina Street frontage of the RWPS.
Raw Water Pipeline
The 36 -inch gravity line from the WID fish screen to the RWPS and the 30 -inch discharge
pressure line from the RWPS to the SWTF, as identified on Figure 2, were constructed as part
of the planned widening and reconstruction of Lower Sacramento Road by the County.
Surface Water Treatment Facility
The City owns 12.75 acres land between the railroad tracks and Lodi Lake. The SWTF would
be constructed on approximately four acres at the south end of the property adjacent to the
railroad tracks. The entrance to the property would be located at the southeast corner of the
parcel at the intersection of Turner Road and North Mills Avenue. The entrance would be shared
with other park uses that would be constructed in the future. A photo of the existing site is
provided in Figure 4.
14
Figure 4. Existing SWTFSite
The SWTF would have an Operations Building that would house the membranes, laboratory,
and administration and operations offices. A Chemical Building would house a workshop,
membrane feed pumps, autostrainers, chemical storage and feed systems, and a future
dewatering system. Space would be provided on the site to allow for expanding the Operations
and Chemical buildings to accommodate plant expansion to 20 mgd. A third building would
contain the high service pumps and electrical room. Other components of the SWTF would
include a reverse filtration waste tank, plate settler for reverse filtration water, sedimentation
basin, high service pump station, soda ash silo, and a three -million -gallon storage tank.
The SWTF would receive electrical service from the City's Electric Utility Department. The
SWTF would require a 3,200 ampere, 480/277 volt, three-phase, four -wire electrical service,
which would be sufficient to handle the additional loads installed in the future for 20-mgd
service.
A small standby generator (diesel or natural gas) would be provided to operate critical systems
(computers, lights HVAC system, etc.) in the Operations Building. A larger standby diesel
engine generator is planned for the future to provide electrical power to the SWTF in case of a
power outage. The future backup power system would operate the membrane equipment;
chemical feed system; high service pumps; facility lighting; heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
equipment during poweroutages. The largerstandby generator system could be expanded as
the facility grows.
The SWTF would have a SCADA system that would provide control and automatic operation of
the water treatment processes as well as storage of plant operating and regulatory compliance
data. The SCADA system would include the RWPS, storage facilities, and groundwater wells,
and would be set up as a fully functional network node that can be monitored remotely from the
City's central SCADA location at the Municipal Service Center.
The following sections discuss the general layout of the SWTF. A layout of the SWTF is
presented in Figure 5. Referto Figure 11 to view the location of the various components in the
treatment process.
15
Structural Facilities
The Operations Building containing the membranes and operations and administration offices
would be located on the west side of the SWTF site and near the SWTF entrance to minimize
visitor traffic on the site. The storage tank, soda ash silo, and the high service pump station
would be placed on the southeastern portion of the site to minimize their visual impact when
viewed from the future park. Views of these structures from Turner Road would be screened by
existing trees. The finished floor elevation of both structures would be 48 feet above mean sea
level, approximately six inches above finished grade and one foot above the 100 -year
floodplain. The storage tank would be partially buried to minimize its visual impact. The
sedimentation basin would be located along the northwestern property line. Sanitary service
from each building would be routed to the existing sewer main in Turner Road as indicated in
Figure 5. The sewer line would be bored under the railroad tracks to Turner Road where it would
connect to an existing manhole.
Operations Building
The Operations Buildingwould house administrative offices, the operations and control room,
the process control laboratory, locker rooms, membrane filtration equipment, and associated
electrical gear. The large room that would house the filtration equipment would have ample
exterior access for the maintenance of this equipment. Roll -up doors would be placed for
installing and removing large pieces of equipment, such as the membranes, strainers, chemical
storage tanks, and pumps. Overhead doors would be placed in other areas, such as the
membrane room, and compressor and electrical rooms to accommodate equipment or truck
access.
Chemical Building
The concrete masonry unit (CMU) -block Chemical Building would include the following rooms
and equipment: membrane feed pump and autostrainers; electrical room; mechanical room;
rooms for polymer, corrosion inhibitor, coagulant, soda ash storage and feed; sodium
hypochlorite storage and feed room; aluminum chlorohydrate storage and feed; and a
workshop. Space would be provided on the site to expand the building for future facilities that
could include rooms for mechanical dewatering, ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection, powdered
activated carbon, or fluoride.
High Service Pump Station
The high service pump station would be housed in a CMU -block building that also would have
an electrical room, containing the main switch gear for the SWTF. The initial phase of the SWTF
high service pump station would have a firm capacity of 10 mgd while the final phase capacity
would be 25 mgd. The pump station's capacity would be greater than the SWTF capacity to
account for peak periods when demand exceeds treatment capacity. The initial phase would
have three 200 -hp pumps (two duty; one standby); the final phase would have six 200 -hp
pumps (five duty; one standby).
16
Layout of SWTF Facilities
hr] FIGURE2.5
ONE COMPANY IMaxy Solutkm- Surface Water Treatm nt Facility I City of LodL CAI HDR Project No 141.107977 006
Figure 5. Layout of SWTF Facilities
Finished Water Storage Tank
The finished water tank would be a partially buried, prestressed concrete tank. The tank would
serve as a storage tank for finished water at the SWTF, providing chlorine contact time to
inactivate disease -causing organisms and storage of treated water prior to pumping into the
City's water distribution system. The 130 -foot -diameter tank would store three million gallons of
water with three to four feet of free board. The inlet and discharge, and overflow pipes would
enter and exit through the floor. The tank would be 35 feet in total height, with 25 to 28 feet
above grade and seven to 10 feet below grade.
Soda Ash Silo
The soda ash feed system would consist of an outdoor silo that sits atop the feed equipment.
The silo would hold approximately 30 days storage, which would be approximately 35 to 40 tons
at build -out. The steel silo would have a standard diameter of 12 feet and a cylinder height of
approximately 26 feet. A dust collector would be provided to prevent soda ash dust from leaving
the silo. The soda ash silo would be located near the point where the treated water pipeline
enters the concrete storage tank in order to minimize the length of chemical piping. The silo
would be painted a neutral (tan or gray) color to match the other structures on the site.
Membrane Treatment
Membrane treatment components would include a sedimentation basin, autostrainers,
membrane feed pumps, membrane modules, and ancillary support systems such as Clean -In -
Place (CIP) and compressed air systems.
Sedimentation Basin
A sedimentation basin would protect the membranes from fine sand particles that could pass
through the autostrainers. The basin would allow sufficient contact time for coagulation and
settling of fine sand. The basin would be approximately 113 feet long by 35 feet wide and would
handle 12 mgd at a water depth of 16 feet.
The basin would be split into three parts: inlet channel, sedimentation basin, and effluent
chamber. After being injected with a pre -oxidant and coagulant, the raw water would enter a
two -foot -wide inlet channel that would span the width of the basin. The inlet channel would be
used to minimize turbulence and promote even flow distribution across the sedimentation basin.
A sludge collectorwould be installed on the basin floor to collect and discharge settled particles
directly to the sewer or to the backwash waste tank, which could reclaim the water by thickening
the solids. The final section of the basin would include an eight -foot wide -effluent chamber that
would supply the membrane feed pumps. The sedimentation basin could be divided in the future
into a flocculation basin followed by inclined settling plates, if more aggressive pretreatment is
required. Space would be reserved for a second basin upon future expansion.
18
Membrane Feed Pumps
Raw water from the sedimentation basin would feed the centrifugal membrane feed pumps
housed in the Chemical Building. During the initial phase three 200 -hp pumps would be installed
(two duty; one standby) each having a capacity of 4,164 gpm (6 mgd) to provide a firm capacity
of 12 mgd. Additional capacity would be provided in the future as required by adding a fourth
pump (three duty; one standby) and replacing the 150 -hp pumps with larger pumps, each
having a capacity of 5,552 gpm.
The pumps would be designed to provide sufficient pressure through the autostrainers,
membranes, and all piping and valves to the finished water storage tank. The associated suction
and discharge isolation and check valves would be sized for the final phase conditions to make
future pump installation more cost effective.
Autostrai ners
Autostrainers would remove any large particles such as pine needles, leaves, or other items in
the raw water influent that pass through the fish screens and sedimentation basin. Any particles
of significant size could damage the membranes and decrease their treatment efficiency. Two
strainers would be installed to meet the initial treatment capacity. Each autostrainer would have
a screen opening size no greater than 400 microns and be equipped with an automatic cleaning
system that would operate without the unit being taken out of service.
Membranes
Membranes would serve as the primary filtration in the production of finished water quality that
would meet or exceed state and federal standards for drinking water. The SWTF would utilize a
Pall Microza pressure membrane system that would pump water through the membranes under
pressure. The membrane system would provide a positive barrier to bacteria and organisms
such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium.
The membrane system would have an initial firm capacity of 8 mgd and a total capacity of 10
mgd net production capacity. The SWTF would be expandable to 20 mgd net production
capacity. Four equally sized trains (2 mgd each) would be used to produce 8 mgd. A fifth train
would be installed to provide firm capacity when one train would be out -of -service for cleaning
and backwashing. All trains could operate to provide additional capacity.
Water and Sewer Pipelines
One 8 -inch water service pipeline would connect to the existing 8 -inch water line that runs along
the east side of the proposed SWTF site. This line would provide potable water for each
building, fire sprinklers, and onsite fire hydrants. Backflow prevention devices would be installed
on the potable water service, fire service, and irrigation lines.
19
Sanitary sewer lines would be separated both vertically and horizontally from all water lines.
Sanitary service from each building would be routed to the existing sewer main in Turner Road
as indicated in Figure 5. The sewer line would be bored under the railroad tracks to Turner Road
where it would connect to an existing manhole.
Stormwater System
Stormwater collection at the SWTF would comply with the City's Stormwater Management
Program. Bordered areas in and around the plant would be filled with gravel as a structural best
management practice (BMP). Culverts would direct runoff from interior borders to perimeter
borders where catch basins would be placed. The borders would be excavated approximately
six inches and backfilled with gravel material or decorative rock. The gravel would serve to
reduce stormwater pollution and ongoing costs otherwise needed for vegetative landscape
maintenance. Stormwaterwould percolate through the gravel into the ground. Periodically, when
large volumes of stormwater are collected, the gravel would serve to filter the runoff priorto it
entering the catch basins. Borders around the perimeter of the SWTF site would have trees to
help screen the SWTF from the park. The storm drain system would connect to the existing
stormwater pump station near the SWTF entrance.
Finished Water Main
The City's existing distribution system is typical of a groundwater -based system; incorporating
27 wells distributed across the system and connected by pipelines with diameters in
predominantly 6-, 8-, and U -inches. None of the existing pipelines are greater than 14 -inches in
diameter. As a result, the City's distribution pipelines do not have significant capacity to transmit
large flows to or from any location. Therefore, four connections would be spread out among the
existing water mains that are 8 -inch diameter and larger. The four connection points for the
SWTF would be on North Mills Avenue at Turner Road, Yosemite Drive, Lockeford Street, and
Elm Street.
The finished water pipeline would be placed along the south side of the SWTF, parallel to the
railroad tracks. The 3,200 -foot -long, 36 inch transmission main would exit the SWTF and follow
the access road to the intersection of Turner Road and North Mills Avenue, where it would
tunnel under the railroad tracks and continue south along North Mills Avenue to Elm Street. In
the future, the water transmission main would be extended south another 2,400 feet to West
Lodi Avenue and continue west along West Lodi Avenue past Lower Sacramento Road to serve
the development west of the Lower Sacramento Road.
Access Road
The SWTF would share an access road with future park land. The volume of traffic visiting the
SWTF is expected to be minor. Most visitors are expected to arrive by automobile; however, a
few large trucks would arrive for deliveries, construction, and maintenance.
20
The access road to the SWTF would extend northwest from the intersection of Turner Road and
North Mills Avenue in the southeast corner of the City's property (Figure 6). The road would be
24 -feet wide with four -foot wide shoulders. The intersection of Turner Road and North Mills
Avenue would require signal modifications to accommodate a four -leg intersection.
An existing raised traffic island in the intersection would be removed to accommodate the
northbound through movementfrom North Mills Avenue. New traffic signal equipmentwould be
installed to operate the four leg intersection. The existing high voltage power pole would
remain.
Currently, the traffic signals also function as the railroad crossing control signals. The City met
with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and UPRR to determine if any changes
to the crossing controls would be needed with the intersection improvements. Due to the low
number of incidents at the intersection, the CPUC decided to allow the existing crossing controls
to remain.
New crosswalk, curb ramps, and traffic signal poles with traffic and pedestrian signal heads
would be added for the north leg of the intersection. The access road would be constructed from
Turner Road along the lake (between the existing pedestrian/bicycle path and the stormwater
pump station), which would necessitate the removal of mature trees and an earthen
embankment. A few pathway lights and park benches along the path would be relocated to the
lake side of the path. Lighting along the access road would be compatible with the existing park
lighting design.
Figure 7 shows the existing view from Turner Road looking towards the lake. Figure 8 shows a
conceptual image of the same view after the SWTF is built and the 12 oak trees (three valley
oaks and nine interior live oaks) have been removed. Figure 9 shows a conceptual image of the
SWTF as viewed from Turner Road once the SWTF has been constructed.
Well Modifications
The City's water system is currently supplied by groundwater from 27 well pump stations and a
grid water main system (Figure 10). Well 27 will be constructed by 2011. Portable chlorination
equipment consisting of a tank of 12.5 percent sodium hypochlorite solution and a small feed
pump are used to chlorinate the well water on an as needed basis. Well 4R includes permanent
chlorination facilities and would not require any modifications. All wells except for wells 2, 8, and
12 would be active and maintained for the lifetime of the SWTF. The City plans to decommission
wells 2, 8, and 12 in the near future. The City's wells are listed in Table 1.
21
Figure 7. Existing Location of Entrance
Figure & S W F Entrance
23
i _ __-
_, .c
r
•
7.
Mpg rc a�iwf
raft
All
+"
q_---
Nor
M
M,.
fir®
_
r
cable 1. Existing Groundwater Wells
Well No.
Assumed
Capacity, gpm
Add Chlorine
Facilities
Comment
1R
1,130
Yes
2
820
No
Decommissioning planned
3R
820
Yes
4Ra
1,960
No
Pumps directly to elevated
storage tank. Station includes
existing chlorination facilities.
5
1,180
Yes
6R 1,580 Yes
7
I 1,160 I Yes
8
800
No
Decommissioning planned
9
I 900
I Yes
1OC
1,300
Yes
11R
1,320
Yes
12
800
No
Decommissioning planned
13
1,150
Yes
14
1,670
Yes
15
1,500
Yes
16"
1,110
Yes
17
1,800
Yes
18a
1,800
Yes
19
1,110
Yes
20a I 2,070 I Yes
21 2,050 Yes
22a
1,400
Yes
23a
1,410
Yes
24
I 1,420 I
Yes
25 1,580
Yes
26 I 1,370 I Yes
27
Yes
28
Yes
a equipped with granular activated carbon
26
The need for existing groundwaterwell modifications arises from operational and regulatory
requirements to accommodate the combined use of surface and groundwater supplies, water
quality monitoring, and disinfection guidelines. In compliance with Title 22, Section 64650 et
seq. of the California Code of Regulations, all utilities using surface water or any groundwater
supply under the influence of a surface water supply must provide adequate disinfection. In
order to comply with these rules, chlorination facilities would be added to each of the well sites.
Two federal regulations also affect the operation and structure of the City's water system. First,
the introduction of the new surface water supply will require continuous chlorination of the
groundwater supplies due to California regulations stemming from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Total Coliform Rule. This rule requires the maintenance of a
detectable level of chlorine throughout a distribution system that contains surface water.
Second, USEPA's Ground Water Rule requires sanitary surveys of groundwater supplies every
3 to 5 years and source water monitoring for coliform bacteria.
To ensure compliance with state and federal regulations, modifications to the existing
groundwater distribution system would include the following:
Chlorination of each groundwater supply to provide a minimum of 0.5
milligram per liter (mg/L) of residual chlorine at the entry point into the distribution
system.
O Continuous monitoring of the chlorine residual at each distribution system
entry point.
All groundwater supply facilities would be updated with permanent chlorination facilities.
Continuous chlorination would require sodium hypochlorite tanks and an electronically controlled
chemical feed pump monitored by an online chlorine residual analyzer and controlled by the well
pump programmable logic controller (PLC). Because none of the well pumps in the City's
system have variable -frequency drives, simple on/off control of the chemical feed pump would
be sufficient.
A fiber -reinforced plastic (FRP) or high density polyethylene (HDPE) sodium hypochlorite
storage tank, local SCADA system equipment, chemical feed pumps and PLCs, and chlorine
residual analyzer would be housed in a FRP shed mounted on a concrete slab at each well site.
Taste and odor issues associated with chlorinating the groundwater supplies would be
minimized by the use of high-quality sodium hypochlorite and maintaining the chlorine residuals
in the well water at about 0.5 mg/L and in no case greater than 1.0 mg/L.
27
Construction
Construction is expected to take approximately 18 -24 months. A portion of the 12.75 acre site
will be used for construction staging.
Concrete and CMU block would be the primary construction material for structures. Major
process piping would be made of steel and ductile iron. The chemical storage tanks would be
HDPE. The major construction phases for the SWTF and RWPS would be:
• Clearing and Grubbing
• Intersection Improvements
• Excavation and Sitework
• Structural Facilities
• Electrical, Process Mechanical, and Instrumentation
• Paving and Striping
• Architectural, Landscaping, and Security
• Startup and Testing
Excavation and Site Work
Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. completed a geotechnical report for the treated water
pipeline, and SWTF and RWPS sites (HDR, 2010). Two to three feet of organic laden fill was
encountered at the SWTF and RWPS sites that would need to be removed and replaced.
Therefore, a geotechnical engineerwould be on-site during all grading operations in case soft or
undesirable soils would be encountered during excavation.
Approximately 5,000 cubic yards (CY) of soil would be excavated for construction of the storage
tank and the soda ash silo. An additional 2,600 CY of soil would be excavated for the
construction of the high service pump station, pipelines, and lakeside embankment. It is
anticipated that some of the excavated soil would be suitable for use as fill elsewhere on the
SWTF site. However, based on geotechnical data and the possibility of organics in the soil, the
soil would require testing to meet specifications prior to use. Any excavated soil that would be
unsuitable for fill would be placed around the remainder of the park site.
Fill
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Project area places the RWPS, SWTF, and
pipelines outside of the 100 -year flood plain. The Proposed Project is located in Zone X
(unshaded), which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard and above the 500-yearflood
level and protected by a levee from the 100-yearflood. However, in order to provide proper
onsite drainage for the SWTF, the entire site would be elevated to six inches above the 100 -
year floodplain elevation, which would require approximately 21,000 CY of fill. The 21,000 CY
includes fill to replace the top soil that is recommend for removal.
28
Dewatering
During construction dewatering may be required for deep excavations due to the close proximity
of the site to the Mokelumne River, WID canal, and Lodi Lake. California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) well data indicate that seasonal groundwater levels in the Project area
fluctuate between 24 and 30 feet below grade. Geotechnical investigations of the SWTF site
measured groundwater at 34 feet below grade (HDR, 2008, 2010). A boring at the RWPS found
groundwater at 19 feet below grade,
The higher level encountered at the RWPS site is influenced by the WID canal, which was full
when the geotechnical investigation was conducted. The pump cans would be placed
approximately 18 feet below grade. Even with WID restricting construction to the winter months
when the canal is empty, the groundwater level could still be high enough to require dewatering
at the RWPS site.
Structural Facilities
This phase would consist of compacting and preparing the soil for all structural facilities. Prior to
pouring concrete, structural forms, rebar, and conduits would be installed for each facility. After
the concrete is poured, it would be finished and cured before the forms would be removed. After
the concrete footing, slab, and
Paving and Striping
All parking areas, roads, and designated locations would be paved and striped. Paving would be
performed incrementally throughout the site area as large construction and non -rubber tread
equipment are removed from the site.
Electrical, Process Mechanical, and Instrumentation
After the structures have been erected and roofed, electrical equipment (e.g., machinery control
consoles, switchboards, lighting, etc.) would be installed. Site work such as installing pull boxes,
conduits, and cables would continue.
Process mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, mixers, and chemical injection systems) would be
installed and piped through the process facilities. Site work would continue as small diameter
chemical piping would be routed throughout the site.
After roofs on building and facilities are secured; flow meters, level probes, pressure meters,
and other instrumentation such as process analyzers would be installed.
29
Architectural, Landscapingand Security
During the architectural phase, several specialized crews would apply finishes, tile and flooring,
windows, paint, and wall fixtures.
Decorative fencing or a wrought iron style fence would be constructed where the SWTF is
exposed to the park or otherwise visible from the street. On the side facing the railroad track,
one -inch chain-link fencing, eight feet in height topped with three strands of barbed wire would
be placed.
The SWTF would have three vehicular gates: the main entrance, delivery entrance, and a utility
entrance. Motorized gates would be provided at both the main and delivery entrances. The main
entrance would be located in the parking lot adjacent to the Operations Building. The delivery
entrance would be located on the other side of the storage tank from the Operations Building
and out of view. The utility gate would provide access for service or maintenance on the north
side of the Operations Building. It would be a manual gate since its use would be infrequent and
it would be normally locked. Manual gates would be provided at the parking lot in front of the
administration offices to prevent park guests from using the SWTF's parking during weekends or
after hours.
Landscaping within the facility would be kept to the perimeter to screen the SWTF and to
minimize maintenance. Evergreen trees would be placed along the fence line facing the future
park. Sixteen oak trees and one black locust trees would be removed in the construction of the
SWTF and the access road. The trees removed would be mitigated with oak trees planted in the
future park and at other city parks.
Startup and Testing
This final phase of construction would involve city personnel (i.e., operators, maintenance
crews, and instrumentation specialists) working with the equipment vendors to understand how
each piece of equipmentwould operate and function at the RWPS and the SWTF. Under city
supervision, the equipment vendors would startup and test the equipment on-site to guarantee
that pumps, mixers, gauges, SCADA system, and other operating equipment are functional and
able to meet design standards. A 30 -day performance test would be conducted to verify that the
membranes would meet specified performance standards.
Staging Areas
Staging areas would be located on both the RWPS and SWTF sites and on future park land.
The staging areas would store pipe, construction equipment, and other construction related
items. The staging areas will be delineated on the project civil drawings. Staging areas would be
used for the duration of construction.
30
Operations and Maintenance
The SWTF would operate continuously, 24 hours per day, every day of the year at various flow
rates during the year with ongoing operations and maintenance. The process schematicfor the
SWTF is illustrated in Figure 11. Because the SWTF would be automated, it is anticipated that
the City would retain a relatively small task force for day-to-day operations. Projected personnel
would include a plant manager, two operators/general maintenance technicians, one specialty
maintenance technician, one instrument technician, one half-time laboratory analyst, and one
half-time administrative assistant.
It is anticipated that the staff would accept full operations and maintenance responsibilityfor
both the existing groundwater facilities and the new surface water supply facility. Staff hours
would be 6:00 am to 4:00 pm, Mondaythrough Friday. Because the SWTF would not be
continuously staffed, the staff would also be responsible for responding to emergency calls
during unattended hours of operation. Staff hours and shifts may change as more experience is
gained with plant operation.
Autostrainers
Raw water from the sedimentation basin would feed the membrane feed pumps housed in the
Chemical Building. Autostrainers would remove any large particles such as leaves or other
items in the raw water influent. Each autostrainer would be equipped with an automatic
backwash system that would use city water to reverse flow through one portion of the strainer at
a time to clear! it. The backwash waste stream from the strainers would be sent to the backwash
waste tank for treatment with the membrane backwash water prior to recycle. The backwash
frequency would depend on solids build-up and would be triggered by a differential pressure set
point.
Membrane System
Water from the autostrainers would be pumped through the Pall membranes under variable feed
pressure. As the water flows through the membranes, the membraneswould eventually foul or
clog. Two processes would be utilized to clean the membranes: (1) an air scrub in which
compressed air would be injected through the membranes; and (2) a combination backwash, or
reverse filtration, which would immediately follow the air scrub.
Two other processes would also be used to clean the membranes: (1) enhanced flux
maintenance (EFM), and (2) clean -in-place (Cl P). The EFM process would extend the time
between CIPs. Depending on water quality and solids loading, the EFM would automatically
occur either daily or weekly. During the process the membrane system would be drained and
warm sodium hypochlorite solution would be introduced into the system. The solution would
then circulate through the membrane feed to remove accumulated debris. After the process is
complete, the solution would be drained and the membraneswould be rinsed before normal
operation resumes.
C.
N
MDKELUMNE RM 'IS"
SCM16
cua
PAW WATER
PURRS
If
115111 1
SEDIMENTATKlN SAM KED—
PW , AUTOMOM MEMORMES
MM
IN_UE a
L-NNNNN.-
I I
REVERSE
PN.TRATKRt
RECtA1M Pans
I - 1. 11 111
REVERSE
VA= PUMPSPUMP;
RV, -t StVlN
PUTS SEMM
Not to Scale
TREATED
*am
SFORAM
UNK
Water Treatment Facilitv Process Flow Schematic
L�'rO FIGURE 2-10
ONE COMPANYINe" S/Iasi/ss- Surface Water Treatment Facility I City of Lodi, CA I HDR Project No 141 107817006
I
I
ayur
REVFlt'f
I
'
FlLTRATION
SUPPLY
i
xn[uc
TANK
nnwian
w,n
I
3
i
i
REVERSE
T
CIP
NEVFRN JZM
ACID CIP
CP/EFN
A= AN
WASTE 71WK
I
TNNK
TANK
TANK
Old -i My
I
roam
PLAIP W
a
I
RECIRCUUTKRJ _ - _
PUMP
_.� _ - _
- _ _ _
- -. nw,. niw
- - _
- - - -
Water Treatment Facilitv Process Flow Schematic
L�'rO FIGURE 2-10
ONE COMPANYINe" S/Iasi/ss- Surface Water Treatment Facility I City of Lodi, CA I HDR Project No 141 107817006
Eventually the membranes may be unable to be cleaned via the reverse filtration or EFM
processes. Therefore, to fully clean the membrane system, a CIP would be performed. The CIP
process would occur every 30 to 90 days, and similar to the EFM wash, the frequency would be
dependent on the raw water quality and membrane run time. The CIP process would be
completed in two steps: (1) first, a wash in a solution of one percent sodium hydroxide and
1,000 mg/L sodium hypochlorite; and (2) followed by an acidic wash in a solution of two percent
citric acid. After the CIP process, the membranes would go through a reverse filtration process.
Chemicals for Membrane Operation
Sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide, citric acid, and sodium bisulfite would be used in
membrane operations.
Sodium hypochlorite would be used to prepare batch make-up solution for the EFM and CIP
cleaning processes. Due to the volume of sodium hypochlorite needed for EFM/CIP, it would be
stored centrally in the Chemical Building with the sodium hypochlorite needed for pre -oxidation
and disinfection. The Chemical Building would be kept cool during the summer by the HVAC
system, which would help protect the sodium hypochlorite from deteriorating. The sodium
hypochlorite would be stored in a HDPE tank; the piping material would be polyvinyl chloride
(PVC). Sodium hypochlorite would be supplied as a 12.5 percent solution.
Applications of sodium hydroxide in the membrane cleaning process would include the pH
adjustment of batch make up of the CIP/EFM system, which needs make-upwater high in pH;
and neutralization of the spent citric acid used for CIP of the membrane. Sodium hydroxide
,vould be supplied in solution form up to a 50 percent concentration;
Citric acid would be primarily used in the CIP system. Citric acid solution would be circulated
through the membranes to clean the membranes of any biological and colloidal fouling
approximately once every three months. Citric acid would also be used for neutralization of
spent sodium hydroxide solution used for removing fouling from the membranes. Citric acid
would be supplied in liquid form as a 30 percent solution.
Sodium bisulfite would be used to neutralize any residual chlorine in the membrane unit after
EFM. A 38 percent sodium bisulfite solution would be used.
Table 2 summarizes the chemicals to be used in the membrane system.
33
Chemical
Parameter
Initial (8
mgd)
Final (20
mgd)
Sodium
Hypochlorite
Number of Storage Tanks
1
2
Storage Volume, each (includes EFM
and CIP)
400 gallons
400 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity (day tanks)
2 to 3 days
2 to 3 days
Number of Storage Totes
1
2
Sodium
Hydroxide
Storage Tank Volume, each
350 gallons
350 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
3 months
3 months
Citric Acid
Number of Storage Totes
1
2
Storage Tank Volume, each
350 gallons
350 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
4 months
4 months
Number of Storage Totes
1
2
Sodium
Bisulfite
Storage Tank Volume, each
350 gallons
350 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
37 days
74 days
Chemical Systems
Sodium Hypochlorite
Sodium hypochlorite would be used at the SWTF for: (1) pre -oxidation of raw water; (2)
disinfectant in the treated water storage tank and a chlorine residual in the distribution system;
(3) to prepare batch make-up solution for EFM of the membranes; and (4) to prepare batch
make-up CIP solution for the membranes.
The sodium hypochlorite storage tank would be located inside the Chemical Building, which
would be kept cool during the summer by the HVAC system. Sodium hypochlorite would be
delivered in a 12.5 percent solution for use as the primary disinfectant of raw water and in the
filtrate to achieve 0.5 -log Giardia disinfection in the treated water storage tank. Sodium
hypochlorite would also be used to prepare batch make-up solution for EFM and CIP solutions
for the membranes.
Aluminum Chlorohydrate
Aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH) would be used, if needed, as a coagulant in both the
sedimentation basin for the removal of turbidity, suspended solids, total organic carbon, and
color; and at the plate settler to assist in the solids removal.
34
Coagulant Polymer
An anionic polymerwould be used in the reverse filtration recovery system to assist the ACH
and enhance performance. Using polymerwould lower the ACH dosage and provide more
operational flexibility of the backwash recovery system.
Corrosion Inhibitor (Zinc Orthophosphate)
Zinc orthophosphate would be used for corrosion control when blending with groundwater. The
storage tank would be located in the chemical storage area. The zinc orthophosphate would be
injected upstream of the finished water storage tank before the high service pump station.
Sodium Carbonate (Soda Ash)
Soda ash would be required to adjust the alkalinity of the membrane effluent prior to entering the
storage tank.
Powder Activated Carbon
Powdered activated carbon (PAC) was not included in the initial design; however, space has
been reserved in the Chemical Building. In the future, PAC may be added to provide taste and
odor control. PAC can be purchased and stored in bags, and fed as a powder using dry feed
machines or using bulk liquid delivery and wet feed.
Table 3 summarizes the process chemicals to be used by the SWTF.
35
M
Chemical
Parameter
Current (8 Final (20
mgd) mgd)
Number of Storage Tanks
1 2
Storage Tank Volume, each
4,000
4,000
Aluminum
Chlorohydrate
gallons
gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
45 days
45 days
Number of Storage Drums
1 1
Storage Tank Volume, each
55 gallons 55 gallons
Coagulant
Polymer
Storage Tank Capacity 165 days 88 days
Diluted Polymer Batch Tank
30 gallons 30 gallons I
Capacity
Number of Storage Tanks
1 2
Sodium
Storage Tank Volume, each'
6,000
6,000
Hypochlorite
gallons
gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
30 days
30 days
Corrosion
Number of Storage Totes
1
1
Inhibitor (Zinc
1,000
1,000
Orthophosphat
Storage Tank Volume, each
gallons
gallons
e)
Storage Tank Capacity
80 days
32 days
Sodium
Maximum Feed Rate
42 Ib/hr
105lb/hr
Carbonate
(Soda Ash)
Dry Chemical Usage
1,000lb/day
2,500 Ib/day
Sodium hypochlorite storage includes volume for membrane CIP/EFM
rocesses
Residuals Handling
Periodically (every 20 to 40 minutes), the membranes would go through a reverse filtration
process to remove the accumulated solids and return the membranes back to their original
operating pressure. In addition to the reverse filtration process, the membranes periodically
would need a chemical cleaning to remove any scale or particulate matterthat is not removed
through reverse filtration. A CIP would also be used once every 1 to 2 months to remove the
accumulated organic and inorganic scales. On a more frequent basis (once per day), the
membranes would receive an EFM chemical cleaning to help extend membrane life.
After a reverse filtration sequence, the residual stream from the reverse filtration would flow to a
waste tank, which would equalize the flow fed to the thickening system. Coagulant and small
doses of polymerwould be used as the thickener to efficiently separate the solids from the liquid
stream. Thickened solids would be sent to the sewer for disposal. The water would then be
recycled to the head of the plant. The treatment process would produce residual flows from
36
membrane reverse filtration process and the CIP neutralization tank. The CIP and EFM spent
chemical streams would be neutralized and sent directly to the sewer.
Project Cost
The estimated construction costs for the various elements of the project are summarized in
Table 4. The total estimated project cost of $35.8 million includes construction, construction
administration, inspection and testing services. This estimate is based upon 90% complete
plans and specifications.
Land Purchase Cost
The surface water treatment facilities will utilize four acres of the 12.75 acres located west of
Lodi Lake. The remainder 8.75 acres are comprised of the access road, pedestrian trail,
earthen berm and a future group picnic area.
At the time of site selection, City Council directed staff to value the four acre site based upon a
property appraisal. Rather than incur the cost of a site-specific appraisal, staff considered the
recent appraisal prepared for the Tienda Drive Affordable Housing to be appropriate. That
appraisal set that property value at approximately $287,500 per acre. Therefore, the value of
the land at the surface water treatment facility would be $1,150,000.
Previous Expenditures
Over the past seven years since entering into the WID Water Purchase Agreement, the City has
expended approximately $3.9 million in for the form of studies, staff costs and design of the
Surface Water Treatment Plant Facilities. A partial listing of the expenditures is provided in
Table 5 found on page 45.
The City Council will be asked to considerwhether to reimburse itself from bond proceedsfor
these past expenditures.
Financing Options
The following presents excerpts from a memorandum prepared by Stone & Youngberg for this
project.
Build American Bonds — The most dramatic market development of 2009 was the introduction of
Build America Bonds (BABs). BABs can be used to finance tax -exempt -eligible projects at
taxable interest rates with a 35% federal interest subsidy. The economic benefits of BABs vary
with changing market conditions but can provide interest savings of 30 to 100 basis points,
depending upon credit and maturities. The benefit of BABs tends to be greatest on longer
maturities but the economics vary as market rates change.
Since the program's inception, more than 1,300 BAB issues totaling more than $100 billion have
come to market, representing between 20% and 30% of overall municipal market issuance
since last summer. While the very large issues have dominated market activity, the vast
37
majority of issues (>70%) have been less than $50 million in size. As the program has gained
greater market traction, so too have more traditional municipal structures — such as 10-yearcall
features and serial amortization.
The primary drawbacks of BABs have been qualitative in nature. Specifically, BABs require
additional administrative effort to secure the subsidy; the issuer or its agent would need to file
payment requests for the federal subsidy between 45 and 90 days in advance of each semi-
annual interest payment date over the life of the bonds. More importantly, the program does
transfer legislative and tax risk from investors to issuers. Because the interest subsidy is
treated like a tax refund, any unpaid federal tax liability of the issuer can be withheld from the
subsidy payment. While this may be a larger concern for a state or county than for a city, the
IRS did recently withhold a $1.2 million payment to the City of Austin and payments to the Los
Angeles airport agency, both apparently due to disputed payroll taxes. The State of Florida
recently announced its suspension of further BAB issuance due to concerns over tax liabilities.
While the BAB program doesn't increase an issuer's tax liability to the federal government, it
does increase the opportunities for IRS collection of any outstanding or future contested tax
bills.
Revenue Bonds vs COPs — Most municipal utilities in California leverage water revenues
through the issuance of either revenue bonds or certificates of participation (COPs). (The City's
recent wastewater and electric utility financings have all been COPs.) From the City's
perspective, the two structures are essentially the same. Many investors, however, prefer
revenue bonds to COPs. Cities throughout California use COPs for general fund lease
financings which are subject to annual appropriation and abatement (payments can be reduced
if the city's use of the leased asset is diminished). As the financial condition of cities has
deteriorated, many investors have come to shun general fund COPs. This aversion has tainted
market perceptions of utility COPs — even though the underlying credit is quite different. In the
current market, the interest rate "premium" investors may require for water COPs versus
comparable water revenue bonds can add 10 to 20 basis points (bps) to the financing cost in
the tax-exempt market. This penalty is even more pronounced in the taxable market where it
can add as much as 30 to 40 bps to borrowing costs. To avoid this pricing penalty, the City
could create a "joint powers authority" (JPA) between the City and its industrial development
authority to serve as issuer for the bonds. The primary drawback of this approach would be the
added annual cost to the City of an annual audit of the JPA. In our estimation, the potential
interest rate savings on this and future City utility financings should far outweigh the audit costs.
38
Job No.
JCalc. No.
Computation
HIR
Project. Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility
Computed:
MB
Subject. Cost Estimate
Date:
6/8/2010
Task: 90% Design Cost Estimate
Reviewed:
RS
File Name: CADocuments and SettingslmbecklLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent.outlook14307MTYM1(9l Date:
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT COST
TOTAL COST
DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Mobilization
1
LS
1.00%
$284,600
Demobilization
1
LS
1.00%
$284,600
Bonds and Insurance
1
LS
2.00%
$575,100
Construction Facilities/Fencing/Off ices
1
LS
1.50%
$429,100
Permitting incl SWPPP
1
LS
1.00%
$284,600
General Conditions
1
LS
2.00%
$575,100
Shop Drawings and O&M Manuals
1
LS
1.00%
$284,600
Facilities Start-up & Testing
1
LS
2.00%
$575,100
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK:°
$3,292,800
Turner Road Intersection and Site Access Roadway
Railroad Crossing Improvements
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
Traffic Lights and Island/Striping Changes
1
LS
$600,000
$600,000
Access Roadway Clearing and Grubbing
38,700
SF
$0.15
$5,805
Access Roadway Fill and Gradin
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
Access Roadway Paving
4,300
SY
$40
$172,000
Bore and Jack Pits
4
LS
$25,000
$100,000
SWTF Yard
Site FencingIron
1,160
LF
$50
$58,000
Site Fencing(Omega)
650
LF
$37
$24,050
Manual Rollin Gate
3
EA
$5,000
$15,000
Motorized SwingGate
1
EA
$10,000
$10,000
Manual SwingGate
1
EA
$5,000
$5,000
3 FT Pass Gate
4
EA
$500
$2,000
Clearingand Grubbing202,500
SF
$0.15
$30,375
Landscaping and Irrigation System
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
Tree Removal
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
AC paving5 inch AC/6 in AB
6,000
SY
$40
$240,000
RSP 6 in
220
CY
$35
$7,700
Clearwell Excavation and Backfill
6,000
CY
$15.00
$90,000
Fill over Entire Site
7,500 1
CY
$5.00
$37,500
Final Grading
22,500
SY
$1.00
$22,500
Raw Water Pump Station
Fencing
400
LF
$50
$20,000
Pump Can Excavation
150
CY
$30
$4,500
AC Paving1,100
CY
$40
$44,000
Clearing and Grubbing
10,000 1
SF
$0.15
$1,500
Motorized Rolling Gate
1
EA
$10,000
$10,000
Chemical Buildin
Structural Excavation
350
CY
$20
$7,000
Backfill and Compaction
100
CY
$10
$1,000
Operations Buildin
Structural Excavation
450
CY
$20
$9,000
Backfill and Compaction
100
CY
$10
$1,000
High Service Pump Station Building
Pump Can Excavation
200
CY
$20
$4,000
Backfill and Compaction
150
CY
$15
$2,250
Well Chlorination Facilities
# of Facilities
Gravel Surfacing
24
10 1
CY
$50
$12,000
Sample Line
24
80
LF
$25
$48,000
Injection Line w/ Containment
24
40
LF
$50
$48,000
Waste Line
24
60
LF
$25
$36,000
Pipe Taps
24
2
EA
$250
$12,000
Miscellaneous
24
1
LS
$1,500
$36,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
IMMUNE
SWTF Yard
$2,316,180
Treated Water Flow Meter Vault
1
EA
1 $15,000
$15,000
Inline Mixer Vault
1
EA
$15,000
$15,000
Chemical Injection Vault
1
EA
$15,000
$15,000
Table 4. 90% Design Cost Estimate
90% Design Cost Estimate Page of 6
Job No.
jCalc. No.
Computation
hr']R
Project: Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility
Computed:
MB
Subject: Cost Estimate
Date:
6/8/2010
Task: 90% Design Cost Estimate
Reviewed:
RS
File Name: C:IDocuments and SettingsVnbecklLocal SettingslTempormy Internet FileslContent.0utlook143o7M7-YU[gG Date:
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY1
UNITS UNIT COST
TOTAL COST
Sample Manhole
1 1
EA
$5,000
$5,000
Sedimentation Basin
600
CY
$800
$480,000
Sedimentation Basin Residuals PS Manhole
1
EA
$7,500
$7,500
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
4
EA
$5,000
$20,000
Storm Drain Manhole
4
EA
$7,500
$30,000
Storm Drain Inlet
4
EA
$2,500
$10,000
Raw Water Pump Station
Concrete Foundation
60
CY
$800
$48,000
Flow Meter Vault
1
EA
$15,000
$15,000
Chemical Building
Concrete Foundation
360
CY
$800
$288,000
Operations Building
Concrete Foundation
600
CY
$800
$480,000
High Service Pump Station Buildiftq
Concrete Foundation
135
CY
$800
$108,000
Pump Foundation
10
CY
$800
$8,000
Well Chlorination Facilities # of Facilities
Concrete Pad 24
1
CY
$1,500
$36,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
' 4. `i-, t .g.. L•`S.h �`' - , fi. 4-:.3ix?.a# ..!._ S _ t ..:-.� a4e
Included in Div. 13
$1,580,500
r; '
$0
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
SWTF Yard
$0
°�-,-; j-'
'wo..
Miscellaneous Metals
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Stairway and Guardrail at SD Pump Station
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Raw Water Pump Station
Miscellaneous Metals
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Chemical Building
Miscellaneous Metals
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
Operations Building
Miscellaneous Metals
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
High Service Pump Station Building
Miscellaneous Metals
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
�R - . _. R.T�M;�• �� .���M�S[Yr; `K. __'�.Py_.e. 4� � y2 .. _
Chemical Building
yy �Fg $130,000
Y .i.�„°�' E��*S. �2 'F-' , . _ } T�.r�`.`.T��-�f
i ter_
FRP Chemical Containment Grating
1,000
1 SF
$38
$38,000
Trench Containment
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Operations Building
Trench Containment and Gratin
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000,
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
Included in Div. 13
$98,000
$0
DIVISION SUBTOTAL$
:s� . ermrw
Raw Water Pump Station
Roof Hatches (Pump Access
4
EA
$1,600
$6,400
Single Exterior Door incl. hardware
3
EA
$2,500
$7,500
Single Interior Door incl. hardware
1
EA
$2,000
$2,000
Double Exterior Door incl. hardware
1
EA
$4,000
$4,000
Chemical Building
Sin le Exterior Door incl. hardware
5
EA
$2,500
$12,500
Single Interior Door incl. hardware
3
1 EA
$2,000
$6,000
90% Design Cost Estimate Page 2 of 6
Job No.
lCalc. No.
Computation
hy-IR
Project: Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility
Computed:
MB
Subject: Cost Estimate
Date:
6/8/2010
Task. 90% Design Cost Estimate
Reviewed:
RS
File Name: C."Wocuments and SettingslmbecklLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent.Outlookl4307MTYMV9G Date:
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNITS UNIT COST
TOTAL COST
14'Roll-up Door
4
EA
$6,000
$24,000
10'Roll-up Door
1
EA
$4,500
$4,500
Double Exterior Door incl. hardware
4
EA
$3,500
$14,000
Miscellaneous Windows
1
LS
$7,500
$7,500
Operations Building
Single Exterior Door incl. hardware
5
EA
$2,500
$12,500
Single Interior Door incl. hardware
17
EA
$2,000
$34,000
Double Exterior Door incl. hardware
6
EA
$4,000
$24,000
Double Interior Door incl. hardware
3
EA
$3,500
$10,500
14'Roll-up Door
1
EA
$6,000
$6,000
10'Roll-up Door
1
EA
$5,500
$5,500
Miscellaneous Windows
1 1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
High Service Pump Station Building
Roof Hatches (Pump Access
6
EA
$2,000
$12,000
Single Exterior Door incl. hardware
1
EA
$2,500
$2,500
Double Exterior Door incl. hardware
3
EA
$4,000
$12,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL $232,400
Yui`, .c s.,,�.
Paintingand Protective Coatin s (lping and a ui ment 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL$300,000
WWWWWWMAMOW
Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging System
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
Visitor Lobby Furnishin s
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Office Furnishings
2
LS
$20,000
$40,000
Employee Lobby Furnishings
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Kitchen/Vendinq Furnishings
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Open Offices Furnishings
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Operations Furnishings
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Restroom Facilities
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Women's Locker Room Furnishings
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Men's Locker Room Furnishings
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Conference Room Furnishings
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
Break Room Furnishings
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
Lab Equipment and Furnishings
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Chemical Building Lavatory
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
�f'/r i \ afP3
w..:
SWTF Yard
t $455,000
i{g^.L 6 �F �r ... rs.�wt
mts• .. _
Reverse Filtration Waste Tank
1
EA
$150,000
$150,000
Reverse Filtration Plate Settler
1
EA
$300,000
$300,000
Reverse Filtration Waste Tank Recirculation Pump
1
EA
$7,500
$7,500
Reverse Filtration Reclaim Pumps
2
1 EA
$20,000
$40,000
Reverse Filtration Waste Pumps
2
EA
$12,500
$25,000'
Hoseless Sludge Collector
2
EA
$65,000
$130,000
Sedimentation Waste Pumps
2
EA
$5,000
$10,000
Soda Ash Feed System
1
LS
$420,000
$420,000
H dro neumatic Tank
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
Raw Water Pump Station
Raw Water Pumps 50 hp, vertical turbine w/ can
3
EA
$45,000
$135,000
Pump Can w/o Pump
1
EA
$15,000
$15,000
Chemical Building
ACH Stora - e Tank
1
EA
$20,000
$20,000
ACH Metering Pumps
4
1 EA
$7,500
$30,000
ACH Process Piping
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
Sodium Hypochlorite Storage Tank
1
EA
$20,000
$20,000
Sodium Hypochlorite Metering Pumps
3
EA
$7,500
$22,500
Sodium Hypochlorite Process Piping
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
Polymer System
1
LS
$75,000
$75,000
Corrosion Inhibitor System Tank and Pumps)
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
90% Design Cost Estimate Page 3 of 6
Job No.
lCaIc. NoHIR
Com utation
Project: Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility
Computed:
MB
Subject. Cost Estimate
Date:
6/8/2010
Task: 90% Design Cost Estimate
Reviewed:
RS
File Name: C.ADocuments and SettingslmbecklLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContentOutlook143o7MTympc Date:
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT COST
TOTAL COST
Operations Building
Pall Membrane System and Equipment
1
LS
$3,500,000
$3,500,000
Membrane Installation and Commissioning
1
LS
$420,000
$420,000
550 -gallon CIP Chemical Totes Steel Cage IBC incl stand
4
EA
$7,500
$30,000
Hi h Service Pump Station Building
High Service Pumps w/ cans
3
EA
$64,000
$192,000
Pump Can w/o Pump
3
EA
$20,000
$60,000
Air Compressor and Receiver
1
EA
$12,000
$12,000
Well Chemical Feed/Electrical Improvements
Equipment and Piping
24
EA
$50,000
$1,200,000
Electrical, Instrumentation and SCADA
24
EA
$25,000
$600,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
SWTF Yard
$7,,5�14�,,00000
3.0 MG Clearwell 130 FT dia, partially buried
1
LS
$2,750,000
$2,750,000
Hypalon Baffles
1
LS
$110,000
$110,000
Raw Water Pump Station
Building Construction not inc. concrete floor and foundation
1,600
SF
$160
$256,000
Chemical Building
Building Construction not inc. concrete floor and foundatio!21
6,700
SF
$200
$1,340,000
O erations Building
Building Construction not inc. concrete floor and foundation
14,800
1 SF
$200
$2,960,000
Hi h Service Pump Station Building
Building Construction not inc. concrete floor and foundation)_3,500
SF
$160
$560,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
- �i t';. �j" ;`fi .-s ;
Loading Dock and Ramp
$7,976,000
� -�Yi F� 1R. 49`{.°� ,'� n � �s ,� •�.ry.;
1� EA $20,000 $20,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
$20 000
DI1l1$ICtN7,774v
Raw Water Pipeline
30" RW Pipe to SWTF Fencing)
450
LF
$360
$162,000
Treated Water Pipeline
36" PW Transmission Main From SWTF Fencing)
3,400
1 LF
$500
$1,700,000
48" Casing Bore and Jack
120
LF
$1,000
$120,000
SWTF Yard
Storage Tank Underdrain System
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
Filtrate Flow Meter
1
EA
$25,000
$25,000
24" Treated Water Flow Meter
1
EA
$30,000
$30,000
Raw Water Flow Meter
1
EA
$30,000
$30,000
Diesel Fuel Storage Tank
1
EA
$15,000
$15,000
Miscellaneous Site Piping and Valves
1
1 LS
$100,000
$100,000
Reverse Filtration Waste Pumps Piping and Valves
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
Reclaim Pumps Piping and Valves
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
Recirculation Pump Piping and Valves
1
LS
$6,000
$6,000
Inline Mixer
1
EA
$15,000
$15,000
18" Slide Gates
4
EA
$5,000
$20,000i
30" Pie
305
LF
$360
$109,800
30" x 8" Tee
1
EA
$6,000
$6,000
30" Tee
5
EA
$6,000
$30,000
30" BFV
5
EA
$10,500
$52,500
30" 90 degree Fitting
4
EA
$8,000
$32,000
30" 45 degree Fitting
2
EA
$11,000
$22,000
16" Piping
15
IF
$192
$2,880
16" 90 degree Fitting
1
EA
$2,750
$2,750
30" x 16" Reducer
1
EA
$4,000
$4,000
30" x 16" Tee
2
EA
1 $6,500
$13,000
30" x 24" Reducer
1
EA
$4,500
$4,500
24" Pie
60
LF
$330
$19,800
36" x 24" Tee
1
EA
$6,500
$6,500
90% Design Cost Estimate Page 4 d' 6
Job No.
jCa1c. No.
Computation
IM
Project: Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility
Computed:
MB
Subject: Cost Estimate
Date:
6/8/2010
Task: 90% Design Cost Estimate
Reviewed:
RS
File Name: C:IDocuments and SettingslmbecklLocal Settingsl Temporary Internet FileslContent.Outlookl4307MTYMl(gc Date:
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT COST
TOTAL COST
36" Pie
190
LF
$500
$95,000
36" x 24" Reducer
2
EA
$5,000
$10,000
24" BFV
2
EA
$9,000
$18,000
36" 45 degree Fitting
2
EA
$6,000
$12,000
36" 90 degree Fitting
5
EA
$6,000
$30,000
36" BFV
2 1
EA
$13,200
$26,400
36" x 14" Tee
1
EA
$6,500
$6,500
14" TW
35
LF
$168
$5,880
14" TW 45 degree Fitting
1
EA
$2,500
$2,500
14" BFV
1
EA
$3,500
$3,500
14" TW 90 degree Fitting
1
EA
$2,500
$2,500
Chemical Piping
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Sanitary Sewer and Waste Piping
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
Plant Water and Fire Water Piping and Hydrants
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
36" SD Pie
420
LF
$195
$81,900
30" SD Pie
70
LF
$170
$11,900
12" SD Pie
480
LF
$105
$50,400
4" S Force Main Pie
480
LF
$40
$19,200
14" Casing Pie
190
LF
$500
$95,000
Raw Water Pump Station
30" Blind Flange
2
EA
$1,500
$3,000
30" RW Pie
85
LF
$360
$30,600
30" 90 degree Fitting
3
EA
$8,000
$24,000
18" FCA
3
EA
$3,000
$9,000
ARV
3
EA
$500
$1,500
18" Check Valve
3
EA
$9,000
$27,000
18" RW Pie
20 1
LF
$160
$3,200
18" BFV
3
EA
$7,000
$21,000
30" x 30" x 18" Tee
3
EA
$6,250
$18,750
30" x 20" Reducer
2
EA
$4,000
$8,000
20" RW Pie
15
LF
$300
$4,500
20" Flow Meter
1
EA
$15,000
$15,000
20" FCA
1
EA
$3,500
$3,500
24" RW Pie
90
LF
$330
$29,700
36" RW Pie
80
LF
$500
$40,000
Pipe Supports
1
LS
$10,000
$10,000
Pump Can
4
EA
$20,000
$80,000
Plumbing included in Div. 13
$0
HVAC System included in Div. 13
$0
Chemical Building
30" RW Manifold with Pump Connections
50
LF
$500
$25,000
18" BFV
3 1
EA
$7,000
$21,000
18" Check Valve
3
EA
$9,000
$27,000
20" BFV
8
EA
$8,000
$64,000
20" 90 degree elbow
6
EA
$4,000
$24,000
20" x 10" Eccentric Reducer
3
EA
$2,500
$7,500
18" x 10" Reducer
3
EA
$2,000
$6,000
30" 90 degree elbow
4
EA
$8,000
$32,000
30" x 20" Tee
2 1
EA
$6,250
$12,500
30" x 20" Reducer
1
EA
$4,000
$4,000
20" Tee
6
EA
$3,500
$21,000
20" RW Piping
50
LF
$200
$10,000
Miscellaneous Process Piping and Valves
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Emergency Shower/Eyewash
4
EA
$3,000
$12,000
Plumbing included in Div. 13
$0
HVAC System included in Div. 13
$0
Operations Building
Miscellaneous Process Piping and Valves not incl by Pall
1
LS
$75,000
$75,000
Miscellaneous Chemical Piping and Valves not incl by Pa!L
2
LS
$60,000
$120,000
Emergency Shower/Eyewash
4
EA
$3,500
$14,00
Plumbing included in Div. 13
$0
HVAC System included in Div. 13
High Service Pump Station Building
20" TW Pie
160
LF
$300
$48,000
1 4 TW Pie
20
LF
$200
$4,000
20" BFV
6
EA
$8,000
$48,000
90% Design Cost Estimate Page 5 of 6
Job No.
Calc. No.
Computation
FM
Project. Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility
Computed:
MB
Sub ect: Cost Estimate
Date:
6/8/2010
Task: 90% Design Cost Estimate
Reviewed:
RS
File Name: C.lDocuments and SettingslmbecklLocal SettingslTemoorary Internet Files1Content.Outlookl4307MTYMl(9L Date:
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY1
UNITS UNIT COST
TOTAL COST
20" DMJ
12
EA $500
$6,000
16" x 12" Reducer
3
EA $2,200
$6,600
16" Silent Check Valve
3
EA $8,500
$25,500
16" Gate Valve
3
EA $3,300
$9,900
20" Blind Flange
3
EA $800
$2,400
16" Blind Flange
3
EA $500
$1,500
24" BFV
1
EA $10,000
$10,000
36" TW Manifold w/ Pump Connections
50
LF $500
$25,000
36" Blind Flange w/ Thrust Block
1
EA $3,000
$3,000
36" x 24" Reducer
2
EA $5,000
$10,000
36" x 20" Tee
6
EA $14,000
$84,000
2" ARV
3
EA $750
$2,250
Plumbing included in Div. 13
$0
HVAC System included in Div. 13
$0
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
$4,234,310
SUBTOTAL DIVISIONS 2 - 15$24,856,390
.
NOW
SWIM` OW664101AW
91101091M,
Miscellaneous Electrical % of Div 2-15, minus 13
13%
LS $2,194,000
$2,194,000
SWTF Yard
Standby Generator
1
EA $300,000
$300,000
Site Lighting
1
LS $50,000
$50,000
Site Security
1
LS $100,000
$100,000
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
$2,644,000
Miscellaneous Instrumentation % of Div 2-15, minus 13
4%
LS $675,000
$675,000'
DIVISION SUBTOTAL
1
$675,000
ONSITE CONSTRUCTION (LESS DIV 1) SUBTOTAL
TAX (8.75% ON MATERIALS)
SUBTOTAL2
(ADDITIVE FOR) DIVISION 1 (ABOVE)
SUBTOTAL3
SUBTOTAL4
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (6%)
SUBTOTALS
CONTINGENCY(029/6)
SUBTOTAL 6
ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION (2%)
TOTAL
$28,175,390
$1,232.673
$29,408,063
$3,292.800
$32,700,863
$32,700,863
$1,962,0521
$34,662,915
$563,508
$35,226,423
$563,50
$35 790,000
Notes: 1. This cost opinion does not include any City connection fees or City administrative costs.
2. The contingency is for unknown items left out of the estimate because the design is not yet completed.
90% Design Cost Estimate Page 6 of 6
Table 5. Expenditures
PREVIOUSLY INCURRED COSTS
Laboratory Testing
I $ 33,800
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Review (HDR)
$377,000
Preliminary Design and Environmental Review (HDR)
$ 858,000
Final Design, Plans and Specifications (HDR)
$ 1,737,000
Design Review (Ecologic)
$50,000
Financial Planning and Legal
$ 107,000
City Staff
$ 110,000
Raw Water Intake Pipe Construction
$ 572,000
Miscellaneous
$25,000
$3,869,800
Call Features — Municipal bonds are typically sold with "call protection"to investors, restricting
the timing of future refinancing. Most tax-exempt bonds are sold with a 10 -year par call —
meaning the issuer can refinance without penalty beginning 10 years after issuance. For
taxable bonds, many investors prefer "make whole call" feature which essentially eliminates
the economic benefit of refinancing. Taxable bonds can still be sold with more flexible call
features but often with a higher interest rate. In the current market, we estimate that the interest
rate difference between a make -whole call feature and a 10 -year par call feature on a taxable
bond would be approximately 25 to 30 bps on the longer maturities. We recommend building
both options into the legal documents for the City's financing but deferring the choice of call
features until the time of sale.
Refunding of State loan — In the mid 1990s, the City borrowed approximately $3.3 million from
the State Departmentof Water Resources Safe Drinking Water loan program. Those funds
were used to constructwater well facilities. Today, $1.4 million remains outstanding on the loan
with semi-annual payments of principal and interest at a 3.41 % interest rate through the October
1, 2017 maturity. The loan has a first lien on the net revenues of the water utility. The City
could either: (i) seek State approval to issue its planned 2010 financing on parity to the State
loan, (ii) structure the 2010 financing payable with a subordinate claim on revenues to the State
loan, or (iii) payoff the State loan. Given the very modest payments involved, we think the 2010
financing could be payable after the SRF loan without any consequence to credit quality — thus
avoiding the need for State approvals. In current market conditions, a refinancing of the State
45
loan would be about a "wash" economically. Therefore, for simplicity's sake, we'd recommend
paying the loan off.
Financial Model of Water Utility
August 6, 2008, Council approved the professional services agreementwith The Reed Group,
Inc. to prepare a Water Utility Financial Plan to address Rate Setting, Meter Installation
Program, and Capital Expenditures within the water utility. This would be the first such model
created for the Water Utility. It is an importanttool used to understand the financial impact of
ongoing projects including the infrastructure replacement program, PCE/TCE cleanup program,
water meter installation program, and the surface water treatment plant.
A copy of the Draft Financial Plan Summary is provided as Table 6. A few highlights regarding
the model are provided below.
Row 11 — Presents the total annual revenue to the Water Fund from all rates including usage,
infrastructure replacement and PCE/TCE charges. In the model, all revenues flow through the
180 Fund except the water impact fees and the property owner meter payments.
Row 15 — Transfers from the Water Impact Mitigation Fee revenues collected from new
development. The estimated capacity charge for the surface water treatment plant and other
water facilities serving new development is approximately $5,600 per single family unit. The
final Water Capacity Charge will be set via the Update to the Impact Mitigation Fee Program in
2012.
Row 18 —Annual Cost of Services transferred to Genera! Fund
Row 19 — Annual transfer of funds to the Capital Outlay Fund to cover the capital construction
costs for the infrastructure replacement and meter program
Row 28 — North San Joaquin Water Conservation District annual assessment that can now be
removed in the Final Financial Plan
Row 29 — Existing bonded debt through State Revolving Fund that will be recommended to be
paid off through the Surface Water Treatment Plant Financing Plan.
Row 30 — Estimated annual debt service for a $43 million (net proceeds) bond sale for
construction of the surface water treatment plant and reimbursementto the City for past
expenditures.
Row 33 — Annual ending balance demonstrates that the revenues are sufficient to fund the
water operations, infrastructure replacement, water meter program, and PCE/TCE capital
construction and operations. The latter years' growth in fund balance is principallythe result of
transfers from the Water IMF fund (the result of new development) and lower than previously
expected PCE/TCE expenditures.
ay
1191 Ending Balance 3,090,000 761,000 722,000 1,286,000 791,000 240,000 1,048,000 1,885,000 409,000 1,173,000 1,964,000
<-- Funds 180,181, and 182
15,091,752 <--Funds 183, 184, 185, 190, 191, 192, 193, & 194 at 6/30/09 (cash and investments) --NOT INCLUDED IN MODEL
lst_56n_027 a-- All Water Funds at 6/30/09
The Reed Group, Inc. DRAFT-- 7/14/2010
2
City of Lodi-- Water Utility
Financial Plan Summary
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Water Impact Mitigation Fees
Interest Earnings
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Vintner's Square
Surface Water -Design
Water Rate Setting
GPS Control Grid
Sacramento Street Water Main
MSC Fleet Service Shop
Well #27 - Pump, Motor &Site Impr.
MSC Rehab/Expansion
MWWI003-Well #28
Transfer to Fund 180 For Debt Service
Total Expenditures
EndingEalance
Owed Fund 180 For DS
Beginning Balance
Revenues
PCE-TCE Settlements
Transfer I n from Fund 180
Transfer I n From Fund 183
Transfer In from Fund 185
Interest Earnings
Total Revenues
Expenditures
PCE-TCE Remediation - Capital
PCE-TCE Remediation - O&M
Water PCE-TCE Legal
Transfer to Fund 183
Past Expenditures
Total Expenditures
I FY 09-10
Budget
13,768
13,768
400,000
25,000
425,000
(854,000)
-
15,600
3,666,381
-
3,681,981
-
250,000
100,000
-
350,000
FY 10-11
2.%3.5g
Jan. 2011
(854,000)
500,000
491,000
-
-
350,000
350,000
(713,000)
3,090,000
-
-
31,000
31,000,
1,760,000
600,000
2,360,000
FY 11-12
Jan. 2012
(713,000)
517,000
11
506,000
750,000
750,000
(957,000)
1,879,000
761,000
600,000
11,000
611,000
-
650,000
650,000
FY 12-13
3.5g
Jan, 2013
(957,000)
1,070,000
1
1,051,000
94,000
3,756,000
722,000
1,200,000
14,000
1,214,000
-
650,000
650,000
FY 13-14
3.5%
]an. 2014
94,000
2,214,000
2,000
2,216,000
2,214,000
2,214,000
96,000
3,421,000
1,286,000
1,500,000
32,000
1,532,000
1,377,000
650,000
2,027,000
FY 14-15
3.5%
Ian. 2015
96,000
2,292,000
3,000
2,295,000
-
-
2,292,000
2,292,000
99,000
3,008,000
791,000
1,500,000
24,000
1,524,000
1,425,000
650,000
2,075,000
FY 15-16
3.5%
Ian, 2016
99,000
2,373,000
3,000
2,376,000
2,373,000
2,373,000
102,000
2,513,000
240,000
1,500,000
8,000
1,508,000
-
700,000
700,000
FY 16-17
3.5g
Ian. 2017
102,000
2,457,000
4,000
2,461,000
-
2,457,000
2,457,000'
106,000
1,933,000
1,048,000
1,500,000
37,000
1,537,000'
-
700,000
700,000
FY 17-18
3.5g
Jan, 2018
106,000
2,544,000
4,000
2,548,000
2,544,000
2,544,000
110,000
1,269,000
1,885,000
2,500,000
66,000
2,566,000
3,292,000
750,000
4,042,000
FY 18-19
3.5%
Jan. 2019
110,000
2,634,000
4,000
2,638,000
-
2,634,000
2,634,000
114,000
666,000
409,000
1,500,000
14,000
1,514,000
-
750,000
750,000
FY 19-20
3.5%
Jan. 2020
114,000
2,727,000
4,000
2,731,000
2,696,000
2,696,000,
149,000
1,173,000
1,500,000
41,000
1,541,0001
-
750,000
750,000
4
5
6
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
82
84
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
117
1191 Ending Balance 3,090,000 761,000 722,000 1,286,000 791,000 240,000 1,048,000 1,885,000 409,000 1,173,000 1,964,000
<-- Funds 180,181, and 182
15,091,752 <--Funds 183, 184, 185, 190, 191, 192, 193, & 194 at 6/30/09 (cash and investments) --NOT INCLUDED IN MODEL
lst_56n_027 a-- All Water Funds at 6/30/09
The Reed Group, Inc. DRAFT-- 7/14/2010
The Reed Group, Inc. DRAFT-- 7/14/2010
A
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
I
K
L
M
2
City of Lodi -- Water Utility
Financial Plan Summary
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Water Sales
Infrastructure Replacement
Interest Earnings
Other Revenues
Transfer from Fund 182 for DS
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Transfer Out to Gen'I Fund (COS)
Transfer Out to Wtr Cap Outlay
Transfer Out to PCE-TCE Fund
Administration & Other
Water Production
Electricity
DBCP Monitoring
SWTF Oper. & Maint. (net)
Water Distribution
WID Water Purchases
1991 CSDW Loan Payments
Estimated 2010 COP Payments
Total Expenditures
Ending Balance
Operating Reserve (25%)
Available Balance
DS Coverage (min. = 1.20)
WATER CAPITAL OUTLAY (181)
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Operating Transfers I n
Interest Earnings
Retrofit Meter Install. Charge
DBCP Reimb. & Other
Debt Proceeds
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Water Meter/Main Install. Project
Water Taps
Miscellaneous Water Mains
Commercial Meter Replacements
Valve Exercising Program
Surface WTP Design
Raw Water Transmission Main
Calif,/St. Claire Water Main
Surface WTP Construction
UWMP Update
Vehicles/ Equipment
Total Expenditures
Endin Balance
FY 09-10
Bud et
-
6,793,974
2,384,556
79,200
115,000
9,372,730
1,060,122
2,384,556
1,132,313
696,160
780,000
294,780
798,742
1,212,000
228,024
8,586,697
2,858,000
1,551,000
1,307,000
16.23
2,384,556
88,200
200,000
2,672,756
582,000
75,000
50,000
15,000
20,000
2,946,000
787,000
75,000
4,550,000
9,962,000
FY 10-11
12,137,000
29,000
381,000
12,547,000
1,060,000
2,500,000
1,197,000
657,000
690,000
263,000
812,000
1,236,000
228,000
8,643,000
6,762,900
1,536,000
5,226,000
31.66
9,962,000
2,500,000
100,000
43021 000
45,621,000
2,852,000
78,000
52,000
10,000
21,000
8,280,000
52,000
55,000
11,400,000
44,183,000
FY 11-12
12,527,000
101,000
393,000
13,021,000
1,060,000
2,500,000
600,000
1,240,000
680,000
721,000
272,000
841,000
1,273,000
228,000
2,818,060
12,233,060
7 549 940
2,283,000
5,266,940
3.74
44,183,000
2,500,000
663,000
3,297,000
6,460,000
7,436,000
80,000
54,000
11,000
21,000
32,137,000
19,000
39,758,000
10,885,000
FY 12-13
12,915,000
151,000
404,000
13,470,000
1,060,000
4,000,000
1,200,000
1,284,000
704,000
753,000
280,000
1,716,000
871,000
1,311,000
228,000
2,815,935
16,222,935
4,797.005
2,756,000
2,041,005
2.79
10,885,000
4,000,000
218,000
1,719,000
5,937,000
6,890,000
83,000
55,000
6,000
22,000
2,217,000
39,000
9,312,000
7,510,000
FY 13-14
13,344,000
120,000
416,000
2,214,000
16,094,000
1,060,000
4,000,000
1,500,000
1,330,000
729,000
787,000
289,000
1,788,000
902,000
1,350,000
228,000
2,818,435
16,781,435
4109 570
2,820,000
1,289,570
3.21
7,510,000
4,000,000
188,000
1,719,000
5,907,000
7,888,000
86,000
57,000
6,000
23,000
46,000
8,106,000
5,311,000
FY 14-15
13,644,000
123,000
428,000
2,292,000
16,487,000
1,060,000
4,000,000
1,500,000
1,377,000
754,000
822,000
298,000
1,870,000
934,000
1,391,000
228,000
2,818,235
17,052,235
3,544,335
2,888,000
656,335
3.24
5,311,000
4,000,000
159,000
1,719,000
5,878,000
9,842,000
89,000
59,000
6,000
24,000
48,000
10,068,000
1,121,000
FY 15-16
14,184,000
124,000
440,000
2,373,000
17,121,000
1,060,000
4,000,000
1,500,000
1,426,000
780,000
859,000
307,000
1,942,000
968,000
1,433,000
228,000
2,817,160
17,320,160
3 345175
2,955,000
390,175
3.32
1,121,000
4,000,000
39,000
1,719,000
5,758,000
6,582,000
92,000
61,000
6,000
25,000
61,000
49,000
6,876,000
3,000
FY 16-17
14,784,000
117,000
453,000
2,457,000
17,811,000
1,060,000
3,500,000
1,500,000
1,476,000
808,000
898,000
316,000
2,030,000
1,002,000
1,476,000
238,000
2,815,210
17,119,210
4,036,965
3,030,000
1,006,965
3.43
3,00u
3,500,000
1,719,000
5,219,000
95,000
64,000
6,000
25,000
51,000
241,000
4,981,000
FY 17-18
15,478,000
141,000
467,000
2,544,000
18,630,000
1,060,000
3,500,000
2,500,000
1,529,000
836,000
938,000
326,000
2,491,000
1,038,000
1,520,000
2,819,435
18,557,435
4 109 53
3,139=
970,530
3.83
4,981,000
3,500,000
174,000
1,719,000
5,393,000
99,000
66,000
7,000
26,000
53,000
251,000
10,123,000
FY 18-19
16,198,000
144,000
481,000
2,634,000
19,457,000
1,060,000
3,500,000
1,500,000
1,584,000
866,000
980,000
336,000
2,214,000
1,076,000
1,566,000
3,046,860
17,728,860
5.8§Z.r270
3,1 0000
2,655,670
3.33
10,123,000
3,854,000
102,000
68,000
7,000
27,000
55,000
259,000
13,718,000
FY 19-20
16,949,000
204,000
496,000
2,696,000
20,345,000
1,060,000
3,500,000
1,500,000
1,641,000
896,000
1,024,000
347,000
2,313,000
1,115,000
1,613,000
3,044,546
18,053,546
8,1291.1
3,2 0000
4,866,124
3.56
13,718,000
3,980,000
106,000
71,000
7,000
28,000
56,000
268,000
17,430,000
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
60
62
The Reed Group, Inc. DRAFT-- 7/14/2010
Row 34 — The Financial Model includes an operating reserve of 25%. This is a common
industry standard.
Row 41 — Matches the transfer from Row 19 to fund the capital improvements and the surface
water treatment facility debt service. This is presented as a revenue.
Row 43 — Revenue generated from property owners' payments for meters. The FY 11-12
revenue is higher because it includes an assumed 30% lump sum meter payments by property
owners plus the first year's installment payments. The remainder of the $13 million in property
owners' meter payments is assumed to be amortized over a seven year period at an interest
rate equal to the Local Agency Investment Fund plus one percent.
Row 48 — Expenditures for the water meter program consultants and construction activity.
Row 57 — Capital expenditures for construction of the surface water treatment facilities.
Row 68 — Revenues from the payment of capacity fees are quite limited in the early years and
relatively modest in FY 2013/14 and beyond.
Row 85 — The IMF Water Fund balance is negative for several years until the level of
development increases to restore the positive fund balance.
Rows 112 & 113 — The level of expenditures on the PCE/TCE Cleanup Program is relatively
modest but is in line with the near term Central Plume activities approved by the Regional
Board. However, substantial uncertainty exists that can only be removed after written
agreements with the Regional Board have been approved.
Row 120 — The Financial Model assumes the PCE/TCE fund balances that reach a peak of
negative $12,291,000 are offset by the positive balance in the Settlement Funds that exceeds
$14 million. The Settlement Fund information is not shown in the Financial Plan Summary.
PCE/TCE Cleanup Program
The PCE/TCE Cleanup Program has entered the first phase with construction of facilities
beginning soon to remove PCE from the Central Plume area bounded by Church, Oak, Pleasant
and Pine Streets. Although progress on this phase has been slow, it has allowed staff to
continue working with the Regional Board on a number of different issue areas. We have
received approval of the Action Plan for the Central Plume first phase remediation work. In the
course of working through the Action Plan, we have begun discussions with the Board that
potentially would allow the City to be self-regulating of its cleanup activity. Monitoring and
reporting to the Board would continue in its current form.
In addition, we are presently preparing a Work Plan for submittal to the Board relating to the
South Central/Western and Southern Plumes. The Work Plan will propose that the City
"monitor natural attenuation" in these areas. This will involve the construction of additional
monitoring wells and quarterly sampling and reporting to the Board. Most importantly, the City
would not be required to construct extraction wells and treatment facilities in these areas and,
49
as a result, the City could save considerable costs. The assumed expenditures for the
PCE/TCE Cleanup Program are presented in Rows 112 and 113 of Table 6.
The City's responsibility in the Northern Plume Settlement Agreement is to clean up the
groundwater. Further investigation is required to establish an appropriate Work Plan for this
area. However, new groundwater test results for PCE /TCE indicate the concentrations to be
far lower than previously represented — remember that no testing results for this area were
provided to the City in the past.
Infrastructure Replacement/Water Meter Program
City Council decided to install residential water meters throughout the City over a five year
period (2011 — 2015) and, at the same time, construct replacement water mains for the
remaining two, three, and four inch diameter water mains located in back yards. The total
length of new water main construction includes over 22.5 miles. The total number of residential
water meters to be installed includes over 13,000 meters. The estimated construction
expenditures for the Water Meter Program are presented in Row 48 of Table 6 and the
estimated property owner payments (revenues) are presented in Row 43.
The construction cost of the combined infrastructure replacement program and the residential
water meter program will total approximately $34 million with approximately $13 million of the
cost being borne by residential property owners. The decisions by Council in this area have
allowed fairly concise planning of capital expenditures for the period between 2011 and 2015.
As a result, the water utility financial plan is relatively accurate in this area.
Phasing of the water meter program is presented in Figure 12. Approximately 12 field interns,
the majority of whom are college students living in Lodi, are busily collecting parcel -specific data
in support of the design phase of the annual construction projects. This information will also be
used to notify property owners regarding their costs for the meter installation (ranges from $300
to $1,200) and their option to prepay prior to June 30, 2011 or choose the installment plan
beginning July 1, 2011.
Each phase of the water meter program will include an application period for very low and low
income families to seek funding assistance for their meter installation. The details of this aspect
of the program are still in development.
A future expansion of the water meter program will include installation and replacement of water
meters for non-residential customers. This customer class includes industrial, commercial,
multi -family apartments, churches, schools, and others. As many of these customers are
already metered, an important component of this phase of the water meter program will be the
replacement of older meters that have a tendency to under -record the water usage.
50
Figure 12. Surface Water Treatment'Facility Process Flow Schematic
51
Rate Adjustments
At the July 21, 2010 Council meeting, a Public Hearing will be held to consider usage based
water rates that include a recommended two percent increase for the period from July 2009
through December 2010. The recommended increase is based upon the change in the
Engineering News Record Index over the same period. It is recommended that a similar two
percent increase be applied to the flat rates residential rates. In addition, the usage charge for
non-residential customers will increase from $.789 to $.88 per hundred cubic feet.
Annual rate increases of three and a half percent have been included in the Water Utility
Financial Plan based upon forecasts of expected increases in the ENR Index. Future increases
will be based upon actual changes in the ENR Index.
One of the recommended changes to the usage based rates reduces the monthly fixed rate
component (meter sizes one inch and smaller) of the non-residential rates to be the same as the
residential rates. Over the next several months, staff will be recommending increases to the
non-residential monthlyfixed rate charges for meter sizes of one inch and larger. It is expected
the recommendations will present substantial increases to the monthlyfixed rate component of
the fee for these customer classes. Approximately 19 percent of the revenue is generated from
this non-residential customer class.
Surface Water Treatment Plant Financing Plan
The Surface Water Treatment Plant project is nearing completion cf the final plans and
specification. The Council will be asked to approve the project for bidding on July 21, 2010.
The current estimated construction cost is $35.8 million not including funds aireaay expended.
Most municipal utilities in California leverage water revenues through issuance of either revenue
bonds or certificates of participation (COPs). From the City's perspective, the two structures are
essentially the same. Many investors, however, prefer revenue bonds to COPs. As the
financial condition of cities has deteriorated, many investors have associated COPs with general
funds, even though the issue is backed by utility revenues. In the current market, the interest
rate "premium" investors may require for water COPs versus comparable water revenue bonds
can add 10 to 20 basis points to the financing cost in the tax-exempt market. To avoid this
pricing penalty, the City could create a "joint powers authority" between the City and its
industrial development authority to serve as issuerfor the bonds.
As previously discussed, BABs have been shown to be cost effective for longer term maturities.
The recommended financing plan for the surface water treatment plant will probably be a blend
of BABs and revenue bonds. The debt service figures in the Draft Summary Financial Plan
(Table 6) conservatively present a mix of BABs and revenue bonds to finance construction of
the surface water plant.
In the mid-1990s, the City borrowed approximately $3.3 million from the State Department of
Water Resources Safe Drinking Water loan program. Today, $1.4 million remains outstanding
52
on the loan with semi-annual payments of principal and interest at a 3.41 % interest rate. It is
recommended this loan be paid off from available cash or through the financing.
The essence of a water financing is the City's promise to charge rates sufficient to generate
minimum threshold of debt service coverage from net system revenues. Typical minimum
coverage ratios range from 110% to 150% for most utilities, depending upon the enterprise's
credit, desired ratings and need for debt capacity. A recommended coverage ratio will be
presented following a more detailed review of the rate model. The coverage ratio for the 2007
Wastewater Bonds is 110%. The coverage ratio used for the water fund model is shown on
Row 36 in Table 6.
New Development Share Of Costs
At the present time, existing water customers are provided high quality water on a highly reliable
basis. The annual demand of the existing customers averages around 17,000 acre feet. The
estimated annual safe yield of the groundwater aquifer underlying the City is 15,000 acre feet.
The existing customer base is being served but only by over pumping the groundwater resource
by 2,000 acre feet per year. At present, it is planned to reduce the long term pumping of
groundwater by committing a minimum of 2,000 acre feet per year of the WID water to cure the
current overdraft condition.
The WI D Agreement provides the City with 6,000 acre feet per year. One could argue that
4,000 acre feet per year are designated for future development. For the Westside Annexation
and the Southwest Gateway Annexation, the City committed approximately 1,650 acre feet per
year to serve the water demands for these projects. For the Reynolds Ranch Annexation,
approximately 500 acre feet per year were committed to serve the demands of this project. The
remaining 1,850 acre feet per year of the WID water is uncommitted.
Staff recommends that the new development share of the surface water treatment plant facilities
be set at 66.7% (4,000/6,000 x 100) and existing customers share be set at 33.3% (2,000/6,000
x 100).
New Development Capacity Charge
A very preliminary calculation of the approximate capacity charge has been determined to be
$5,600 per equivalent dwelling unit. The actual charge will be set in latter 2011 as part of the
new Impact Mitigation Fee Program. The actual charge will be based upon the demand for
water service for the various types of uses that will develop in Lodi in the future. For
perspective, other communities in the region with surface water treatment plants have capacity
charges in the range of approximately $3,560 to $6,380.
New Development Debt Service
As is currently the condition with the 2007 Wastewater Bonds debt service, the rate of
development in Lodi does not generate sufficient cash to pay its portion of the total debt service
payments or about $2.7 million per year. As a result, the City Council decided to have the rate
53
payers commit to making the debt service payments with new development contributing what it
can when it can.
The same condition will exist for the water treatment plant financing plan. This condition can be
found in the Draft Financial Plan Summary on Row 30 (Estimated 2010 COP Payments) and
Row 68 (Revenue Water Impact Mitigation Fees). If new development is responsible for paying
66.7% of the debt service, or $1.88 million per year, there will not be sufficient funds to make a
full payment for several years and the 10 year average annual impactfee revenues are only
slightly over $1.93 million.
54
The City of Lodi
Public Works
Engineering
firr
■ ■ firs •
f ; _
F
Surface Water Treatment Plant
July 21, 2010
Surface Water Treatment Facility
• Background
• Timing
• Schedule
• Budget
TDS (mg/1)
Superior Water Quality
Hardness (mg/1)
Alkalinity (mg/1)
Copper (ug/1)
Turbidity (NTU)
PCE (ppb)
DCE (ppb)
TCE (ppb)
DBCP (ppb)
Groundwater Mokelumne
254
35
131
14
163
QO
320
<5
0.06
2.4
0.09
0
0.07
0
0.12
0
30 0
M
14A Delta Protection
Total Dissolved Solids (current)
Total Dissolved Solids (reduced)
Avoided Capital Cost
430 mg/I
300 mg/I
$8.6 million
• Avoided Annual Operations Cost $948,000
e •7!i�l;;ft�JlJrr
Vegetation
Uptake
3-5%
Recharge Is Slow
50 Pet
1700 eet
14 ` ;ars
250 Feet
35 Years
Evaporation
Losses
6-8%
RW.tL$ILW
w1ROoorsr}r:
n,Hct U"
Recharge tet. mac# Use Capful its
GAISIOUG
$119013.000
MIAMAN
w"" fond
$3501AM f0f 40
Y"ra
ab1 Plus
rtembolon
9"tm
late cm
!kft} All
�Itill am
V&IY Iftwy
3013CK,OW
6MI
purchased Land
$30O,DIMae
above plus
warOmiWan
2004 rWtraWu
Timing Issues
• Banking option ends October 2010
• Cost of indecision = $100,000 per month
• $12.4 million spent to date on water purchases,
studies, treatment plant design
• Favorable bid climate
• Creates local jobs
Layout of Raw Water Pump Station
LTA) FIGURE 2-3
)NE COMPANY I Many Solations • Surface Water Treatment Facility I City of Lodi, CAI HDR Project No. 141.167917.666
Ain
�,L Y
jp- - P -11'r,
5•7w
OPT
Ap
zz 10,
•`
. ._� � ;� is ��, r� � E .� � � ri yc : ,_�� � `r. -- - ��-Tey-�+_- rte-•!!:.
tj
Jo y
•� y � a .ri' .. ilr �i _ :t ... �, hl.. - + _'i -11 �-a- { '_ j f��k' � �► + ''r .
r-rarer'ffV!
UA
R.'L i� i�
j .• .'Y' S,'.^tl.ts_ ii- _ •tea ' 'a
'y
FE
if -
b ;VIA
r
4.,. �:r„I��"xi•�.' ' ` .+ r r -•,� - .i--.�T T-i�""...i„ `` - - �•f _ -fir -�--7e^ Y--t��. W�
M
Schedule
Prequalification of Contractors
• Notice Inviting Bids: August 5, 2010
• Financing approvals:
• Award contract:
• Construction period:
September 2010
October 20, 2010
18 — 24 months
M
Contractor Prequalification
• Business and organizational history
• OSHA, Workers Compensation and labor
compliance
• Project experience
• References
• 18 submittals
• 16 qualified
Recommended Action
Approve Plans and Specifications and
Authorize Advertisement for Bids
Questions?
I