Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-05 - Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee Meeting Agenda Packet Yorba Linda Water District PLANNING-ENGINEERING-OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, February 5, 2009, 4:00 p.m. 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia - Tel: (714) 701-3020 AGENDA COMMITTEE STAFF Director William R. Mills, Chair Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager Director Paul R. Armstrong Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager Lee Cory, Operations Manager Ken Mendum, Operations Superintendent John DeCriscio, Chief Plant Operator PUBLIC COMMENTS Any individual wishing to address the Committee is requested to identify themselves and state the matter on which they wish to comment. If the matter is on this agenda, the Committee Chair will recognize the individual for their comment when the item is considered. No action will be taken on matters not listed on this agenda. Comments are limited to matters of public interest and matters within the jurisdiction of the Water District. Comments are limited to five minutes. ACTION ITEMS This portion of the agenda is for items where staff presentations and committee discussions are needed prior to formal committee action. 1. Change Orders No. 4 & 5 for Construction of the Lakeview Reservoir Project Recommendation: The Committee recommend that the Board approve Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $167,113.53 and 49 calendar days, and Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $142,016.71 and 19 calendar days for construction of the Lakeview Reservoir Project, Job No. 200704. 2. Review of Radio Read Meter Replacement Project Phases 1 & 2 Recommendation: The Committee recommend that the Board continue to use the $489,000 in funds available to replace those meters identified needing replacement while continuing to improve the reading and billing processes through the fiscal year 2009 and to identify funds in upcoming budgets to continue this program. 3. Award of Construction Contract for Zone Reconfiguration Project Recommendation The Committee recommend that the Board award the Contract for Construction of Zone Reconfiguration for Areas 1, 2 and 3 Water System Improvements to Ken Thompson, Inc., for $1,099,000. 1 4. Contract for Highland Booster Station Engineering Feasibility Study Award Recommendation: The Committee recommend that the Board authorize the execution a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech, in the amount not to exceed $45,675, to provide an Engineering Feasibility Study for the Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Project. 5. Amendment No. 4 of Professional Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers for Design of Hidden Hills Reservoir Recommendation: The Committee recommend the Board approve Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement for Carollo Engineers for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project for additional design services for a total fee not to exceed $20,615. 6. Presentation of Final Report for Irrigation Feasibility Study Recommendation: The Committee recommend the Board receive and file the Final Irrigation Feasibility Study and that there be no further consideration of this project. DISCUSSION ITEMS This portion of the agenda is for matters such as technical presentations, drafts of proposed policies, or similar items for which staff is seeking the advice and counsel of the Committee members. This portion of the agenda may also include items for information only. 7. Monthly Groundwater Production and Purchased Water Report 8. Annual Preventative Maintenance Program Report 9. Monthly MWDOC Managers Meeting Summary Report 10. Monthly OC Groundwater Producers Meeting Summary Report 11. Status Report on Progress of AB28 12. Preview Report on Capital Improvement Projects from 2002 through 2009 13. Status Report on Capital Improvement Projects in Progress ADJOURNMENT The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee will be held March 5, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. Items Distributed to the Committee Less Than 72 Hours Prior to the Meetina Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items and are distributed to the Committee less than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection in the lobby of the District's business office located at 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870, during regular business hours. When practical, these public records will also be made available on the District's intemet website accessible at http://www.ylwd.com/. Accommodations for the Disabled Any person may make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation needed for that person to be able to participate in the public meeting by telephoning the Executive Secretary at 714-701-3020, or writing to Yorba Linda Water District, P.O. Box 309, Yorba Linda, CA 92885-0309. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and the type of accommodation requested. A telephone number or other contact information should be included so the District staff may discuss appropriate arrangements. Persons requesting a disability-related accommodation should make the request with adequate time before the meeting for the District to provide the requested accommodation. 2 ITEM NO. AGENDA REPORT Committee Meeting Date: February5, 2009 To: Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee From: Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager Staff Contact: Joe Polimino, Project Engineer Reviewed by General Counsel: N/A Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $ 11.5 Funding Source: District and Developer Funds CEQA Account No: 101-2700 Job No: 200704 Compliance: Mitigated Neg. Dec. Estimated Costs: $ 11.5 M Dept: Eng Subject: Change Orders No. 4 & 5 for the Construction of Lakeview Reservoir Project SUMMARY: On January 25, 2007, the District Board of Directors authorized the execution of an agreement with SSC Construction,lnc. (SSC) for construction of an 8-million gallon underground concrete reservoir, piping and appurtenances. The project also includes demolition of the existing Bastanchury Booster Pump Station and Reservoir (two steel storage tanks). The site is located north of Bastanchury Road off the new Lakeview Avenue extension, north of the Hover Development and south of Vista Del Verde's Village 4. When completed, the project will increase operational, fire and emergency storage capacity, retain better water quality through improved circulation and improve reliability of the water system. DISCUSSION: In accordance with the contract documents, SSC submitted a request for Change Order No. 4 which represents an increase in the contract amount of $167,113.53 and a time extension of 49 calendar days. Also submitted from SSC is requested Change Order No. 5 which represents an increase in the contract amount of $142,016.71 and a time extension of 19 calendar days. Proposed Change Orders No. 4 & 5 consist of: Change Order No. 4 • Nine calendar-days time extension due to rain, which prevented work on the site. • An additional $131,862.13 and 33 calendar-days for a work item requested by the District to complete the front entrance to the site. This work was previously removed from the Lakeview Pump Station Project and delayed until the end of this project so that the pavement would not be damaged from construction traffic. • An additional $33,532.24 and five calendar-days for modification of mounting for fence along south and west walls, because holes for the fence posts were not provided in the block wall by the previous contractor. • An additional $1649.32 for an added retaining-wall pilaster located at the northwest property corner. • An additional $784.84 and one calendar-day for interior reservoir water sampling tube anchors. • An additional $785.00 and one calendar-day for modification to the drainage system of the Bastanchury steel tanks due to them being plugged in previous contract. • A $1500.00 credit to eliminate the painting of galvanized miscellaneous metals throughout the project. Change Order No. 5 • Seven calendar-days time extension due to rain, which prevented work on the site. • An additional $42,245.11 to match style of retaining wall caps used for the Lakeview Booster Pump Station Project. • An additional $33,074.03 and twelve calendar-days to add curb on south side of access road requested by the design engineer. • An additional $47,618.06 to place jute netting and wood chips on all finished slopes to prevent erosion, and add base for future landscaping. • An additional $14,735.36 to add concrete slab all around upper access hatches, as requested by YLWD Operations. • An additional $3,026.93 for additional electrical conduits required to complete the work. • An additional $1,317.22 for re-routing of duct banks as directed by the design engineer. The status of the construction contract with SSC Construction, Inc. is as follows: • The current contract is $10,697,781.37 and 574 calendar days starting June 18, 2007. • Total payments to date including retention are $10,095,333.97 (94.4% of the total contract amount). • As of December 31, 2008, 563 calendar days were used (98.1 % of the contract time). • If approved, Change Order No. 4 adds $167,113.53 (1.6% of the original contract) and 49 calendar days. • If approved, Change Order No. 4 increases the total contract amount to $10,864,894.90 and to 623 calendar days. • If approved, Change Order No. 5 adds $142,016.71 (1.3% of the original contract) and 19 calendar days. • If Change Orders No. 4 and 5 are approved, the total contract increases to $11,006,911.61 (a 4.9% increase from original contract) and to 642 calendar days. Staff and Butier, the District's construction manager for the project, have reviewed the contractor's request for Change Orders No. 4 & 5 and recommend approval. A copy of Change Orders No. 4 & 5 are attached for your review and consideration. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): January 25, 2007, Board approved and awarded a construction contract with SSC Construction, Inc. in the amount of $10,489,500 and 487 total contract calendar-days for construction of Lakeview Reservoir and demolition of the existing Bastanchury Booster Pump Station and Reservoir. April 10, 2008, Board approved Change Order No. 1 increasing the total contract amount to $10,639,500 and total contract calendar-days to 547. June 30, 2008, staff approved Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $2,887.92 increasing the total contract to $10,642,387.92. July 10, 2008, Board approved Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $55,393.45 increasing the total contract to $10,697,781.37 and increasing the total calendar-days to 574. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommend that the Board approve Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $167,113.53 and 49 calendar- days, and Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $142,016.71 and 19 calendar-days for construction of the Lakeview Reservoir Project, Job No. 200704. YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT CHANGE ORDER NO. 004 DATE January 8, 2009 Page 1 of 2 CONTRACT NAME: Lakeview Reservoir CONTRACT AMT.: $ 10,097,781.37 DAYS: 574 CONTRACTOR: SSC Construction Inc. THIS CHANGE: $187,11353 DAYS: 49 (1.69%) OWNER: Yorba Linda Water District REVISED CONTRACT AMT: $10,884,884.90 DAYS: 023 This Change Order covers changes to the subject contract as described herein. The Contractor ehan conabucL fumy equipment and materials, and peKorm an work as necessary or required to complete the Change Order items for a lump sum price agreed upon bent een the Contractor and Yorba Linda Water District otherwise referred to as Owner. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES +iNCREASE I OR CONTRACT -DECREASE IN TIME CONTRACT +EXTENSION/ AMOUNT OR-REDUCTION (DAYS) 1.) Rein days which prevented work on the job elte. + $0.00 + 9 2.) Added scope to contract for of work contained within the area as shown on ~ment 'X including but not limited to entry access road, entry gate, fencing, curb art gutter, pilasters, utilities as shown on Dwg. C-12CX and also Lakeview Booster Pump Station Drawkins and additional truck tum-around as requested Owner. COR #34 + $131 1182.13 + 33 3.) Provide altamats farce Installation on approximately 934 LF of retaining wall along the + 5 south and west property lines. CDR #33 + $33132.24 4.) Add retraining wall pilaster at northwest property comer, (COR #14A) + $1549.32 0 5.) Added PVC pipe anchor®fgubdee for the bottom of 4° water sampling tube carrier pipes Inside reservoir. COR 016 + $704.84 + 1 Modty steel tank resenroirs drainage system due to 18° CMP drain One being cud and Plunlied by previous contract GOR #30 + 0500 + 1 7. Credit to Owner for eliminatifinish painting of all galvanized metals. COR #32 c$1500.00- 0 NET CHANGE + $187,115.53 49 Days REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT AND TIME $10,564,59400 023 Days The amount of the contract w4ti be increased by the sum of $187,113.83 and the contract line shat be Increased by 49 calendar days. The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing Change Order as to the changes, If any, In the con li price sperJOed for each item Including any and all supervision coats and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change in work, and as to the extOnsion of time allowed, If any, for completion of the entire work on aunt of said Change Order. The Contractor agrees to firmish all labor and materials and perform all other necessary work, Inclusive of Chet directly or indirectly related to the approved time edansion, required to complete the Change Order Items. This document wit become a supplement of the contract and an provisions will apply hereto. It is understood that the Change Order shall be etedW when approved by the Owner. This Change Order constitutes full, final, and complete compensation to the Contractor for all costs, oWenses, overhead, profit and any damages of every kind that the Contractor may incur in connection with the above i referenced changes In the work. Including any impact on the referenced work of any other work under the contract, any changes In are sequences of arty wort, any delay to any work, any disruption of any work, any rescheduling of any work, and any ether effect on arty of the work under this contrast. By the errecution of the Change Order, the Contractor accepts the contract price change and the contract completion date change, if any, and efgKessly waives any daims for any additional compensation, damages or time wdenslons, in connection with the above-referenced changes. ENGINEER OR RECOMMENDED: Ia ex r caCa CONSULTANT DATE: ~I 0q John lean stnrction Manager q ACCEPTED: CONTRACTOR DATE: 1/WIOf Greg L.a*rn, President SSC Construction APPROVED: OWNER DATE: Kenneth R. Vecchteralll, General Manager k VV L-0 'A38 •ON CMMVVG ,,d 1.t~3WT17dLld •e a 8V NI 13S -0.0 ,06 IV (£•0-0 'ONE NO L 'S'O ON01 5t TIVISNI 'AtlMOVOM 3NL SSOMOV '3dOlS 3HL MM VWV SYU 3HL OINO S3NONI 9 OOOMA~MayOa 3N1 d0 53003 TTY NO 03TIVIM 38 TONINA-0 00 NO t,ro '3015 M301M .81 0300d 38 7WS AYMOVOM 3HL A NOUkOd £ p ~m H1110S WOMB ,t'0 TAI! 01 NOLL03S SSOW M a3dOIS 38 INNS v 3HL 3AM Z 13S 38 TIVHS MIOAM3S3M 3HL .40 d01 NO 3OS ov .9 v No (0ootw) OV b Hum a3LOnMLSNOo 38 Twm 0-0 'M NO Z W130 021 3OVNraQ OW ONICWO YJW NOLLtl1S awnd am 000 3OVNNWO OW WHOM MIOAM = d0 3015 '£0-0 Wa NO t IMM Mad H0110-A Ol SWUM NIV •£'0-0 'OMB NO SW13C T. 'OMa NO L 1Itl130 NO NMOHS Sv SNLS78 H200 B 'U •SdOLLVATO 03LON Mad Id ll ,_:1 V M, tip' tr , t" s . '0 Q s 1~ I - At. l Sd8 1 1 5 1 \ LJLJ 1 \ a 91 s ~ S ~ fi•.. ~ ~y I j`. \ 5s ; YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT CHANGE ORDER NO. 005 DATE January 26, 2009 Page 1 of 1 CONTRACT NAME: Lakeview Reservoir CONTRACT AMT.: $ 10.864,894.90 DAYS: 823 CONTRACTOR: SSC Construction Inc. THIS CHANGE: 5142,016.71 DAYS: 19 OWNER: Yorba Linda Water District REVISED CONTRACT AMT: $11,006,911.61 DAYS: 642 This Change Order covers changes to the subject contract as described herein. The Contractor shall construct, furnish equipment and materials, and perform all work as necessary or required to complete the Change Order items for a lump sum price agreed upon between the Contractor and Yorba Linda Water District otherwise referred to as Owner. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES +INCREASE / OR CONTRACT -DECREASE IN TIME CONTRACT +EXTENSION/ AMOUNT OR -REDUCTION (DAYS) 1.) Rain days which prevented work on the job site. + $0.00 + 7 2.) Owner request to change style of wall caps for 1540 LF of retaining walls. (COR 13A) + $42245.11 0 3.) Owner request to add safety curb to access road, south & east of reservoir. (CDR 35A) + $33,074.03 + 12 4.) In lieu of topsoil, place jute netting 8 2" deep wood mulch covering areas indicated by shading on attachment "A°. Wood mulch to meet the requirements of Cakrens Std. Spec. 2006,20-2.08. CDR 19A + $47,618.06 0 5.) Construct concrete slabs around reservoir access hatches in lieu of gravel. (COR 39A) + $14,735.38 0 6.) Added electrical conduits to complete required work. (CDR 10 & 11) + $3028.93 0 7.) Rerouted electrical duct banks to clear future vauk. (COR 38) + $1317.22 0 NET CHANGE =$1 + 19 Da REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT AND TIME 642 Da The amount of the contract will be Increased by the sum of $142,016.71 and the contract time shall be increased by 19 calendar days. The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing Change Order as to the changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each item including any and all supervision costs and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change in work, and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the enfire work on account of said Change Order. The Contractor agrees to furnish all labor and materials and perform all other necessary work, inclusive of that directly or indirectly related to the approved time extension, required to complete the Change Order Items. This document will become a supplement of the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. It is understood that the Change Order shall be effective when approved by the Owner. This Change Order constitutes full, final, and complete compensation to the Contractor for all costs, expenses, overhead, profit, and any damages of every kind that the Contractor may incur in connection with the above referenced changes in the work, including any impact on the referenced work of any other work under the contract, any changes in the sequences of any work, any delay to any work, any disruption of any work, any rescheduling of any work, and any other effect on any of the work under this contract. By the execution of the Change Order, the Contractor accepts the contract price change and the contract completion date change, if any, and expressly waives any claims for any additional compensation, damages or time extensions, in connection with the above-referenced changes. /I ENGINEER OR RECOMMENDED: ti w 0 ~Al a CONSULTANT DATE: f 2 6 I lO61 John priltunt, onstruction Manager ACCEPFEQ;~ CONTRACTOR DATE: )1 Z4// i -f GraII£aA Presidant. SSC Construction APPROVED: OWNER DATE: Kenneth R. Vecchiarelli, General Manager ITEM NO. AGENDA REPORT Committee Meeting Date: February5, 2009 To: Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee From: Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager Staff Contact: Stacy Bavol, Customer Service Supervisor Reviewed by General Counsel: N/A Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $ 3.964M Funding Source: Water Revenue Bond CEQA Account No: 101-2700 Job No: 200512 Compliance: Exempt Estimated Costs: $3.964M Dept: Bus Subject: Review of Radio Read Meter Replacement Project Phases 1 & 2- Job 0801 & 0802 SUMMARY: The Board of Directors approved Phase 1 of the Meter Replacement Project with the adoption of the Fiscal Years 2005-2007. Within the FY 2007-2009 approved budgets and the approved Capital Improvement Projects List for FY 2007-2012, funds were designated for use to complete Phase 1 and begin Phase 2 of the Radio Read Meter Replacement Project. DISCUSSION: Phase 1 (Western Service Area) and Phase 2 (Western Service Area Job 0801) are completed with a final cost of $ 3,386,543. With the completion of the entire Western Service Area, which totals 13,934 services, the Meter Reading staff can now efficiently read the Yorba Linda Water District's entire service area once a month. The Customer Service staff and Meter Reading staff are currently working on a schedule to have all customer-service meters read and billed monthly by the first week of April 2009. The customers will no longer see the delay of up to 45 days on their water bills. Phase 2 - Job 0802 of the Radio Read Meter Replacement Project is the service area known as Improvement District 1 (ID-1) which includes all the meter routes with a 600-series number. The majority of the meters within this area are 22-28 years old. There have been approximately 2,500 meters identified as needing replacement due to their age. The remaining Capital Improvement Budget for Job 0802 is $ 489,000. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): See Summary Section above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuing to use the $489,000 in funds available to replace those meters identified as needing replacement, while continuing to improve the reading and billing processes through the fiscal year 2009, and to identify funds in upcoming budgets to continue this program. PHASE I (Western Service Area) Job 0512 Meter Replacements (Budgeted w/ Outside Labor): Meter Size Qty. Mat'I Cost Labor Subtotal 314 - inch 1577 $ 237.49 $ 40.00 $ 437,601.73 1 - inch 4277 $ 284.86 $ 40.00 $ 1,389,426.22 Total 5854 Total $ 1,827,027.95 Meter Replacements (Contractor Skips) Meter Size Qty Mat'I Cost Labor Subtotal 314 - inch 137 $ 291.08 $ 39,877.96 1 - inch 840 $ 323.70 $ 271,908.00 Total 977 Total $ 311,785.96 Meter Replacements (Large Meters) Meter Size Qyt. Mat'I Cost Labor Subtotal 1 1/2 - inct 151 428.56 $ 64,712.56 2 - inch 207 678.98 $ 140,548.86 Total 358 Total $ 205,261.42 Non-ldentitied Meters replaced during 3 year contract' Meter Size Oty Mat'I Cost Labor Subtotal 314 - inch 352 $ 291.08 $ 102,460.16 1 - inch 352 $ 323.70 $ 113,942.40 Total 704 $ 216,402.56 SUBTOTAL $ 2,560,477.89 Some areas were identified during the Meter Replacement Program as benefical to Retro-Fit to complete an entire route. But this was not identified in the original Meter Replacement Program. Meter Retro-Fits (Exsisting meters within a route that just needed upgrade costs posted to Job 0512) Meter Size Qty. Mat'I Cost Labor Subtotal Various 1319 $ 211.65 $ 279,166.35 Total Costs to Job 0512 $ 2,839,644.24 CIP Job 0512 BUDGETED TOTAL PHASE 1 $ 2,804,000.00 Job 0512 did not Include YLWD labor ' This non-identified difference is the meters that were changed by YLWD during the meter replacement programs time frame. The monthly average for meter failures prior to the meter replacement programs implementation was 40 per month. Phase II Meter Retro-Fits Job 0801 (Western Service Area) Meter Retro-Fits Meter Size Qty. Mat'I Cost Labor Subtotal Various 2714 $ 201.51 $ 8,400.00 $ 546,898.14 FY 2007-2009 CIP BUDGETED PHASE II RETRO-FITS $160,000.00 In early 2007 when the CIP Budgets were being put together this Job was to be completed by the Meter Reading staff as time allowed. But, to the benefit of the District, this Job was given to the Operations and they completed the entire project. The rest of the Western Service area was upgraded to radio read. Phase II Meter Replacements Job 0802(Portion of ID No. 1) Meter Replacements Meter Size Qty. Mat'I Cost Labor Subtotal 1 - inch 278 312.34 $ 86,830.52 2 - inch 1 630.84 $ 630.84 Misc Parts $ 894.62 Subtotal $ 88,355.98 FY 2007-2009 CIP BUDGET TOTAL PHASE II $ 1,000,000.00 Overview of Costs Bud eted CIP Actual Costs # 20 Job 0512 - completed $ 2,804,000.00 $ 2,839,644.24 # 22 Job 0801 -completed $ 160,000.00 $ 546,898.14 # 21 Job 0802 - working $ 1,000,000.00 $ 88,355.98 $ 3,964,000.00 $ 3,474,898.36 $ 489,101.64 Job 0802 is not finished and staff will continue to work on replacements within budget allowance. When working on the next budget cycle funding will be requested for on-going meter replacements. ITEM NO. AGENDA REPORT Committee Meeting Date: February5, 2009 To: Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee From: Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager Staff Contact: Joe Polimino, Project Engineer Reviewed by General Counsel: Yes Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $ 2 Million Funding Source: All Water Funds CEQA Account No: 101-2700 Job No: 200710 Compliance: Exempt Estimated Costs: $1,800,000 Dept: Eng Subject: Award of Construction Contract for Zone Reconfiguration Project SUMMARY: On January 20, 2009, bids were received from 19 contractors for the construction of approximately 8,500 lineal feet of pipeline and appurtenances for the subject project, also known as the Zone 4C Pipeline Reconfiguration Project. Staff reviewed the bids and requests that the Committee support staff recommendation for award to the low bidder, Ken Thompson, Inc., for $1,099,000. The Engineer's Estimate was $1,800,000. DISCUSSION: The Zone 4C Reconfiguration Project was conceived to raise the hydraulic grade line from 675 to 706 to mitigate for low pressure in three separate areas, totaling approximately 800 homes. The construction project consists of approximately 8,500 lineal feet of 8" to 12" PVC pipe, valves and other related improvements. It is anticipated that construction will be complete by December 2009. Bids were received from 19 contractors, ranging from a low of $1,099,000 to a high of $1,732,175. The bid tabulation and other bid documents from the low bidder, Ken Thompson, Inc., was reviewed by District staff and the District's attorney, and found to be acceptable. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): June 28, 2007, Board adopted Budgets for Fiscal Years 2007/08 and 2008/09 and approved the Current Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2007-2012. September 13, 2007, Board authorized staff to modify the Current Five Year Plan Capital Improvement Projects List and the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2007-2009 by adding the Zone 4 Reconfiguration Project for the Twin Peaks Area of East Lake Village. March 13, 2008, Board received and filed the Zone Reconfiguration Study for Areas 1, 2 and 3 and authorized staff to solicit proposals for the design of the combined projects. May 15, 2008, Board authorized execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Psomas for a fee not to exceed $113,676 to provide design and bid services for the Zone Reconfiguration and Sub Zone Extension Projects. December 11, 2008, Board approved Amendment No. 1 to the Consultants Agreement with Psomas, in the amount of $43,125 for additional work to provide design services and bid assistance for upgrades to the San Antonio PRS, in conjunction with the Zone Reconfiguration Project. January 8, 2009, Board approved Amendment No. 2 to the Consultants Agreement with Psomas, in the amount of $58,950 for construction-phase services for the San Antonio PRS Upgrade and the Zone Reconfiguration projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommend that the Board award the Contract for Construction of Zone Reconfiguration for Areas 1, 2 and 3 Water System Improvements to Ken Thompson, Inc., for $1,099,000. I i ITEM NO. AGENDA REPORT Committee Meeting Date: February5, 2009 To: Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee From: Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager Staff Contact: Hank Samaripa, Project Engineer Reviewed by General Counsel: No Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $ 5.5M Funding Source: Water Revenue Bond CEQA Account No: 101-2700 Job No:200814 Compliance: N/A Estimated Costs: $ 50,000 Dept: Engr. Subject: Contract for Highland Booster Station Engineering Feasibility Study SUMMARY: As part of the District's plans to maximize the full potential of its groundwater production capabilities to its service area, the District solicited proposals from several consultants for conducting an Engineering Feasibility Study to replace and expand the Highland Booster Pump Station (BPS) to eliminate deficiencies and increase flow to 18,000 gpm. Staff received four consultant proposals for the expanded booster station. Following an evaluation, staff recommends award to Tetra Tech for a fee of $45,675.00. DISCUSSION: As previously reported to the PEO Committee, the District is experiencing lower than projected flows at the Highland BPS. Currently the maximum throughput is 10,500 gpm. Initial reports indicate an undersized suction header pipeline to be the cause. The projected requirement for Zone 2, the District's largest, is 15,000 gpm with peak flow up to 18,000 gpm. With the current suction pipeline configuration this is not possible. The District solicited proposals for an engineering feasibility study to address the undersized suction header, the number of pumps, location of the suction and discharge pipeline for the increased production, and constructability while maintaining the existing Highland BPS in production. A committee of four District engineering staff individually reviewed all four proposals, and evaluated and scored each, based on technical presentation, staff qualifications and experience. Following the technical evaluation and ranking, the committee met to discuss the proposals and to open the separately provided envelope from each firm with their proposed fee for services. The combined evaluation score and proposed fee for each firm are as follows: Firm Evaluation Score Proposed Fee Tetra Tech 4.65 $45,675 Carollo 4.19 $44,500 MW H 4.02 $73,482 PBS&J 3.87 $116,903 Based on proposal presentation, staff qualifications, experience and relative fee for services, staff recommends award to Tech Tech for $45,675.00. A copy of the Proposal by Tetra Tech is attached. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): October 2, 2008, the PEO Committee approved the Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion project prior to proceeding with expansion of the Palm Avenue Booster Station. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommend that the Board of Directors authorize execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech, in the amount not to exceed $45,675, to provide an Engineering Feasibility Study for the Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Project. O TETRATECH January 13, 2009 Mr. Hank Samaripa Project Manager Yorba Linda Water District 1717 East Miraloma Avenue Placentia, CA 92870 Reference: Proposal for Engineering Feasibility Study Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Project Dear Mr. Samaripa: Tetra Tech enthusiastically submits our proposal to provide engineering services for Engineering Feasibility Study - Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Project. We believe that this proposal accurately portrays our knowledge of the project, the skill and unique talents of our project team, and, most of all, our excitement to be a part of this assignment. We are offering an outstanding team, which combines the experience, depth, and understanding needed for the successful delivery of this project. The Tetra Tech team brings the District the following distinct advantages to the project: • Commitment of Our Best People to the Project - We are committing one of our most experienced project managers in our water/wastewater resources staff to this project, Mr. Scott Szymborski. Scott has worked successfully with Mr. Samaripa on the recent Miraloma Avenue storm drain project. Mr. Szymborski, with over 23 years of experience, has been responsible for the design of booster pump station projects similar to the one required for this project. Key Tetra Tech staff that have worked on these previous projects have been assigned to assist Scott on this assignment. Our project team has a proven track record of completing projects on time and within budget with a high degree of client satisfaction. • Unequaled Experience in the Successful Management of Booster Pump Station Facilities- During the last five years, our project team has worked on the design of numerous pump station facilities with challenging project constraints. Our team has resolved critical issues to produce successful projects to the satisfaction of our clients. • Dedication to YLWD - Tetra Tech is accustomed to serving as a team member on engineering design projects and has demonstrated our ability to integrate our people with clients' staff. Our approach to this project will include a "teamwork and partnering" approach with the District. Our intention is to use this project as another step in strengthening our solid, long-term working relationship with you. We will do this by exceeding your expectations through hard work, attention to detail, high level of communication and professional presentations. Tetra Tech, Inc. 16241 Laguna Canyon Road. Suite 200, Irvine. CA 92618 Tel 949.727.7099 Fax 949.727.7097 www.tetratech.com O TETRATECH Mr. Hank Samaripa January 13, 2009 Page 2 Our team is excited about the possibility of working with you and your staff on this challenging project. We befieve that our outstanding record of performance and reputation is our best reference. As such, we invite you to contact client references provided in this proposal. Per the requirements of the Request for Proposals, our proposal will remain in effect for 90 days. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit our proposal. We look forward to your positive response. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. We are both located in our Irvine, Laguna Canyon Road office and can be reached at (949) 727-7099. Sincerely, 'S~ z - ~ r~ Steven Agor, P.E. Scott Szymborski, P. . Project Director Project Manager RSA/SES:cg M:\Marketing\Proposals\WTRS\2009\001\fiml\Olcover lm.doc Attachment YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Introduction The Yorba Linda Water District has solicited proposals for engineering consultants to provide a comprehensive engineering feasibility study (EFS). The EFS will determine the best approach for the Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion; including but not limited to, the booster pump station location and layout; number, size and type of pumps and drives (gas or electric), other site constraints (noise, power, interruption, etc.); project phasing and staging; design and construction cost estimate; and schedule for design and construction. Background The Highland Reservoir and Booster Pump Station (BPS) is located at 5252 1/2 Highland Avenue in the City of Yorba Linda The original 4.7 MG reservoir, constructed in 1910, is being replaced with a new 6.0 MG buried concrete reservoir, planned for completion in late 2010. Schuler Engineering is the District's General Contractor for the Reservoir Replacement Project. During the construction of the new reservoir the District will be operating with two temporary above-ground steel tanks. The existing BPS was upgraded in 2003 to provide a maximum flow of 15,500 gpm, with the planted replacement of two 125-hp electric motors (BOI and B02). However due to an undersized 18-inch suction header, the maximum capacity has been determined to be in the range of only10,500 gpm Existing pump information is as follows: B01 125 Vertical Turbine 2,000 gpm Electric Motor B02 + 125 Vertical Turbine 2,000 gpm Electric Motor B03 200 Vertical Turbine 3,000 gp_m Electric Motor B04 200 Vertical Turbine 3,000 gput Electric Motor B05 250 Horizontal Split Case 3,500 gpm Natural Gas Engine I _ I As part of the 2003 Highland BPS upgrade project, a 525 kW rated engine-generator was added to supplement the electrical power needs of the pump station during high demand periods and peak electric- rate periods by Southern California Edison. During its operation, the 525 kV engine-generator can operate two 200-hp electric pumps and one 125-hp electric pump. The existing Highland BPS site also has an on-site hypochlorite generation (OSHG) chlorine generation system. The OSHG is located in a building, which upon evaluation, is not being utilized 80 percent of the time. Disinfection treatment is otherwise being provided at the main Richfield Operations site and again at Lakeview Booster Station thereby rendering operation of the OSHG at Highland expendable. The Highland Reservoir and BPS is a major supply for 570 foot pressure zone 2 and the Lakeview Reservoir and Booster Station. Supply is delivered via a 30-inch CML&C steel transmission main through the main thoroughfares of the City of Yorba Linda. Access to the Highland site is from the northeast corner through the narrow north Highland Avenue, Mountain View, and eventually to Yorba Linda Boulevard. There is restrictive and limited access available from the southwest corner through Highland Avenue from Buena Vista Avenue. It is anticipated that both the new Highland reservoir and the proposed Highland Booster Station Replacement and Expansion could be in construction simultaneously thereby requiring coordination of certain activities to avoid conflicts between contractors. The EFS is to address this coordination issue. :mark.,mewooowi,twixcuoovmt~dron:.~.ao~ - 1 - TETRA TECH YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion The existing booster station pad area is approximately 42 feet by 115 feet and consists of concrete-block walls with sound attenuation panels around the perimeter, and two interior block structures; one for the gas engine and other for disinfection facilities. Within the booster station pad area are the pumps and support equipment, a 1200A Main 480V 3-phase electrical service, one steel surge tank and a 24-inch epoxy-lined discharge header. The surrounding site has many large native trees, some of which will be removed from the site for the new 6.0 MG reservoir. The trees are identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration report of June 2006 by Bonterra Environmental. The purpose of the EFS is to evaluate layout options and to determine cost-effective resolution to all issues which may surface for the replacement/expansion of the Highland BPS. The new facility will be sized to deliver 15,000 gpm on a continuous basis and 18,000 gpm of peak flow. Critical issues include maintaining operation of the existing pumps B01 through B04 during construction of the new pump station without interfering with the construction of the new 6.0 MG reservoir or the delivery of water. It is noted that Pump B05 does not have to remain in service during construction of the new BPS. It is assumed that at the completion of construction of the new BPS, all of the existing pumps and the two existing buildings can be demolished. The EFS should address the possibility of reuse of the current PLC cabinet and controls. Key Issues Successful implementation of the project will involve resolution of several key issues. We believe Tetra Tech has an unparalleled grasp of these issues based on our overall experience, capabilities and familiarity with this site, other YLWD BPSs as well as YLWD standards, personnel and policies. Our approach to resolving project issues is summarized below. Constructability Review and Phasing: The existing BPS is required to remain in service while the new BPS is constructed to provide continuous water service. Developing an acceptable layout that will allow this to occur will be of the utmost importance. Tetra Tech will develop alternatives to best allow this to occur. We have already developed some layouts that meet this requirement and included them as pact of this proposal. A written construction phasing description will be presented in the EFS. Tetra Tech will consult with Schuler Engineering, the District's reservoir contractor, to review constructability and phasing for the alternatives developed. Selection of Pump Drives: Tetra Tech will investigate pump station alternatives that will include: vertical motor driven pumps, engine driven pumps, and combination motor and engine driven pumps. Capital and operation costs will be developed and presented and a recommended alternative will be made. Economics will consider peak and off peak power costs that the District pays for its pumping of water. Pump Station Sizing and Layout: We have done some preliminary sizing and layout options for the pumping station. We took into consideration providing access around equipment for operation and maintenance as well as access into the building. Preliminary General Sizing Information r Description Number of Duty Pumps_ 3 Discharrge Line Size- 24 inch Number of Standby Pumps 1 Suction Line Size 24 inch Pump Flow Rate Max 6,000 gpm Pump Diameter 19 inch I Estimated HP to 570_Zone 400 hp _ Number of Stages e~_ 2 Suction Barrel 30 inch _ Pump Control Valve _ __24- inch RPM 1800 Estimated Engine (Waukesha) 440 BHP F18GSID N:~tlarWmgwr~.mot:~umtsuooswotv~imtreuda -2- TETRA TECH YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion We have attached two preliminary pump station layouts in Appendix B. Figure 1 is a layout for electric motor driven pumps. It would be able to fit within the northeast portion of the existing facility. See marked up Sheet CIA. Figure 2 is a layout with engine driven or combination engine driven motor driven pumps. Major pieces of equipment include: engines, motors, right angle drives, drive shafting, heat exchangers, a single oil reservoir, battery boxes, pump control valves, butterfly isolation valves and suction and discharge headers. Cooling water supply and return piping for the engine can be concealed in a below grade pipe gallery to keep more available floor space. The pump station building would be located northwest of the existing facility. See marked up Figure C113. This location would require that the building be partially buried, see Figure 3. Access would be on the east side of the building. Ventilation would be provided through louvers on the east wall and a forced fan ventilation system exiting the roof opposite the intake louvers. This layout location is advantageous in that the area east of the building containing the existing pump station equipment will be allowed to be cleared. This will free up space to provide needed access to the new pump station's engines for future maintenance. There appears to be minor existing utility conflicts including an existing telephone line that may require relocation. The option with all new motors will require that the existing pad mounted transformer be upsized to accommodate the larger horsepower requirement. Another possible option to investigate is one that sizes the electric motors to take advantage of the existing engine generator. It has a capacity to operate 600 hp worth of motor power. The pumps could be designed so that at least two pumps would total 600 hp and be able to be powered by the full load of the generator. Instead of having four 400-hp pumps as shown in Figure 1, there could be one 400-hp 6,000 gpm, one 200-hp 3,400 gpm and two 500-hp 8,600 gpm pumps. The District may want to consider a 36-inch sized suction and discharge line which for the given expected flow rates would provide better head loss characteristics compared to a 30-inch pipe. 30-inch Suction Line Routing: It appears that routing the suction fine around the existing facility as shown on marked up C-IA would be advantageous from a constructability stand point. Routing the suction fine within the existing facility as shown in the exhibit attached with the RFP, would be difficult to construct, potentially affect the operation of the existing pump station; impact the existing electrical equipment, not to mention the mere difficulty of trenching for the 30-inch pipe through existing concrete floor and appurtenances. Cursory Surge Review: The existing pump station has a surge tower. The new pumping conditions will require more flow be pumped to the same 570 feet pressure zone. Tetra Tech will provide a cursory surge review for the new pumping requirements. We will determine if it is possible to re-use the existing surge tower or provide another method of surge protection. Due to the capacity of the pump station and the large size of the distribution system, a cursory review will be completed. A more detailed surge analysis can be provided in the next phase of design for the project if warranted. AQMD Moratorium on Issuance of Certain Air Permits: AQMD is required to make significant changes to its permitting program as a result of a recent court ruling. The court decision may substantially affect the District's activities if there are plans to install, construct, modify, replace or relocate equipment that emits air pollution. The court decision was that under federal and state law, AQMD can issue permits for new, replaced relocated or modified equipment only if emissions increases are "offset" by emissions reductions from other equipment. This moratorium could affect the District's decision to consider engines are an option to operate the new pumps. SCOPE OF WORK Tetra Tech project manager and engineer will attend a project kick-off meeting with District staff to discuss project issues and concerns, scope of work, review existing documents, staffing, schedule, deliverables and other project elements. Tetra Tech project manager and required project team members will visit Highland reservoir and booster station site to review current construction conditions, limitations and coordination for future expansion. Tetra Tech will gather data and information provided by the District, including construction drawings for the new 6 MG reservoir, the 2003 Highland booster upgrade project, transmission piping drawings from Zone 2 H:Haammewi+~w'1"NS~zOtYimotVvanOxex,.d« -3- TETRA TECH YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion reconfiguration, as well as other pertinent drawings and information as necessary including environmental documents. We will review District provided 1995 and 2005 geotechnical report for the Mghland Reservoir by Leighton and Associates. We will review District provided June 2006 Mitigated Negative Declaration by Bonterra Environmental for the new 6 MG reservoir site. Tetra Tech will develop at least three layout options for the new 18,000 gpm BPS on-site. As one of the options we will evaluate the layout as shown in Exhibit 1V attached in the RFP. For each option developed we will identify risks, issues, concerns and limitations associated with existing conditions that may require compliance with existing regulations; codes, and other environmental regulation that may impact the future of the project. Tetra Tech will meet with District staff to review and discuss the options developed, including advantages and disadvantages for each and preliminary estimated construction costs and schedule. We will consider ml driven and engine-driven pumps. We will discuss the recommended alternative and why it's recommended. From meeting with District staff, Tetra Tech will prepare a draft EFS, presenting the three options. We will develop recommended option and prepare draft EFS in report format. We will furnish five copies of draft EFS to the District for review. Tetra Tech will meet with District staff to discuss review comments. We will prepare a final EFS incorporating and responding to all reasonable comments received. We will provide five bound copies of a final report and an electronic copy. PROJECT TEAM Although overall firm credentials and experience are important, the key to a successful project is the caliber and depth of experience of the specific individuals assigned to the project team. Tetra Tech's approach for your project has been to assess the technical and management skills required and then match Tetra Tech staff members to address the needs. This careful teaming approach, which draws from a large technical resource base, enables Tetra Tech to deliver the most effective project team that can quickly and efficiently focus on your project issues. This section presents our project organization and introduces the members of the proposed project team. Because of the importance of the Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion project, we have given special attention to dedicate our most knowledgeable engineering staff to the team. Our organization features central reporting and frequent interface with the District's Project Manager to efficiently complete the assignment. We have included an experienced senior construction contractor, Bruce Schuler, on our team to perform a constructability review. Project Team Table W1119 N Scott Szymborski, P.E. Project Manager _ Steven Agor, P.E. _ Project Director _ i Tom Epperson, P.E. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Crisna Estrada, P.E. Lead Design Engineer Victor Ramirez, S.E. Structural Engineer Mike Molinari, E.E. I Electrical Engineer Bruce Schuler* Constructability Review Scott Foster, P.E.** _ Cursory Surge Review *Subconsultant - Schuler Engineering (General Contractor) **Subconsultant - Flow Science. Inc. (Surge Expertise) Resumes for each of the key individuals on the project team are included in Appendix A of our proposal. N~hlarkdiogwroposals~wl'RS~3o09~rolVioalmEtexr.doc -4- TETRA TECH YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion PROJECT EXPERIENCE The following Table lists five projects for our project specific experience. We are confident in our past work with these clients having been able to meet schedule, control costs and produce quality projects. We encourage you to contact any of them for a reference. Scott Szymborski, PM 4800 gpm Booster Pump Richardson San Bernardino, Crisna Estrada, PE ]azb Thaipejr Treatment Plant Station with 3-Vertical 909 799-4401 Booster Station I C 4 Mike Molinari, EE Turbine Pumps ( ) Victor Ramirez, SE Scott Szymborski, PM Crisna Estrada, PE 1200 gpm Booster Pump Steve Delight Pump Station 4A Dublin, CA Mike Molinari, EE Station with 3-Vertical (925) 828-0515 Victor Ramirez, SE Turbine Pumps Steven Agor, QA/QC Scott Szymborski, PM Demolish existing BPS and Crisna Estrada, PE build 3-130 gpm Booster Steve Delight Pump Station 4B Dublin, CA Mike Molinari, EE Pump Station with (925) 828-0515 Victor Ramirez, SE Steven Agor, QA/QC 3-Vertical Turbine Pumps 5000 gpm Booster Pump Phil Miller Canyon Hills Elsinore, CA Scott Szymborski, PE Station with 4-Vertical (909) 674-3146 Booster Station Turbine Pumps I Mark Bush, PE [Plaza Pump Mission Viejo, Tom Epperson, PM 8000 gpm BPS 5 pumps I Dan Ferons on CA Mike Molinari, EE vertical turbine (949) 459-6581 Dale Wall, SE ~i w:~ti~ke,iogn~aeis~~'resaoouoot~n.loz,ex.e« - 5 - TETRA TECH Yorba linda Water District Engineering Feasibility Study Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Project Schedule ID O Task Name Duration Start Finish 2009 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar r Ma 1 Gj RFP 26 days Contract Award 24 days Kickoff Meeting 5 days Site Visit 1 day Data Gathering and Research 10 days Develop Alternatives 15 days Meet with District 1 day Prepare Draft EFS 15 days District Review 10 days Meet with District 1 day Prepare Final EFS 10 days Fri 12/5/08 Mon 1 /12/09 Fri 2/13109 Fri 2/20/09 Fri 2/20/09 Fri 316/09 Fri 3127/09 Mon 3/30/09 Mon 4/20109 Mon 514109 Tue 515109 Fri 1 /9/09 Thu 2112109 Thu 2119109 Fri 2120/09 Thu 3/5/09 Thu 3126/09 Fri 3/27/09 Fri 4/17/09 Fri 511/09 Mon 5/4/09 Mon 5118/09 _.,Ho. +,s' 2 3 4 _ 6 7 6 9 10 11 Project: Schedule.mpp Date: Tue 1/13/09 Task Page 1 Yorba Linda Water District Engineering Feasibility Study Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Manhours Task Task Description PD ----___ Labor PM Hours PE by ENG Statf Classification CADD Intern Clerical Total Hours ----____ SCOPE OF ' ---.____ �.:: ::. , . •:: �oMM�A�O -m�-�__m — NIW wdh D .. to IDL-.. O.i... -©©-___� — • :.:: Dinlift EFS Mm®- ®_m© TETRA TECH m: vvoh. ���exn ..,aw�wrztinzam�noiu�nnfe�nm om r« es��re�.w O TETRATECH January 13, 2009 Mr. Hank Samaripa Project Manager Yorba Linda Water District 1717 East Miraloma Avenue Placentia, CA 92870 Reference: Fee Letter for Engineering Feasibility Study Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Project Dear W. Samaripa: Tetra Tech enthusiastically submits our fee to provide engineering services for the Engineering Feasibility Study - Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Project. We have attached our Fee Summary and Exhibit "A" for reference. Time and materials Not to Exceed Fee: $45,675. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit our fee proposal. We look forward to your positive response. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Project Manager, Mr. Scott Szymborski or myself. We are both located in our Irvine, Laguna Canyon Road office and can be reached at (949) 727-7099. Sincerely, Steven Agor, P.E. Scott Szymbors P. . Project Director Project Manager RSA/SES:cg M:\Muketlng\Proposals\WTRS\2009\001\Flml\Olfee lmdoc Attachment Tetra Tech, Inc. 16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 Tel 949.727.7099 Fax 949.727.7097 www.tetratech.com Yorba Linda Water District Engineering Feasibility Study Highland Booster Station Replacement/Expansion Fee Summary TETRA TECH M:4NarkdioeW wu ®WwfR4�2009�DD1 ViwlkNaMmv eM h'x Fsamvtexle SCOPE OF WORK 7$30$2,394 Kickoff meeting 6 3 9 $1,689 Site Visit 6 3 9 $1,689 Data Ga9nadng and Review 4 a 4 16 $2,364 Develop Three ABemative LayoutS 24 50 24 98 $15,854 $0 $15,854 Meet wM District to Discuss Optlons 3 3 6 $1.089 $30 $1,119 Prepare Draft EFS 32 12 16 77 $11,586 $3,558 $15,144 Prepare Final EFS ff27n 20 8 8 49 $7,626 $100 $7,726 119 44 4 24 294 $41,1197 193779 $48,973 TETRA TECH M:4NarkdioeW wu ®WwfR4�2009�DD1 ViwlkNaMmv eM h'x Fsamvtexle O TETRATECH EXHIBIT "A" 2009 HOURLY CHARGE RATE AND EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE Professional Administrative Engineering Intem/Pechnician/Assistant..... $ 65.00 Administrative Clerk $ 58.00 Project Administrator $ 89.00 Word Processor/Admin. Support................ $ 90.00 Designer/CAD Operator/Engineer I............ $ 121.00 Graphic Designer $ 118.00 Engineer 11 and 11I/Senior Designer $ 128.00 Biologist $ 128.00 Planner $ 128.00 Senior Engineer/Landscape Architect......... $ 145.00 Construction Manaeement Project Engineer/Project Coordinator......... $ 163.00 Construction Observer L $ 99.00 Senior Planner $ 174.00 Construction Observer B $ 108.00 Senior Scientist $ 174.00 Project Manager/Sr. Project Coordinator.... $ 200.00 Senior Construction Observer $ 131.00 Senior Project Manager $ 265.00 Resident Engineer....................................... $ 163.00 Program Director/Project Director $278 . 00 Construction Manager $ 184.00 Reimbursable In-House Costs Photo Copies (B&W 8.5"x11")....... $ 0.15/Each Compact Discs $10.00/Each Photo Copies (B &W 11"x17")........ $ 0.40/Each Large Format Copies $ 0.40/S.F. Color Copies (up to 8.5"x11") $ 2.00/Each Mileage $0.585/Mile Color Copies (to I Vx17") $ 3.00/Each *current IRS POV Mileage Rate subject to change Computer Usage $ 2.35/Hour Company Vehicles $8.00/Hour All other direct costs, such as reproduction, special photography, postage, delivery services, ovemightmail, out-of- area telephone calls, printing and any other services performed by subcontractor, will be billed at cost plus 15%. NOTE: All costs and rates are effective December 1, 2008, and subject to annual increase. ...............,i.~w ro clorxwvvu lf. 1W, hihi, A -CA 71N1R dce ITEM NO. AGENDA REPORT Committee Meeting Date: February 5, 2009 To: Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee From: Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager Staff Contact: Joe Polimino, Project Engineer Reviewed by General Counsel: No Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $9,000,000 Funding Source: Water Revenue Bond CEQA Account No: 401-2700 Job No: 200028 Compliance: Mitigated Neg. Dec. Estimated Costs: $20,000 Dept: Eng Subject: Amendment #4 to Professional Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers For Design of Hidden Hills Reservoir SUMMARY: In the process of preparing the final design plans for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project, the design consultant, Carollo Engineers, performed additional work beyond its contractual scope. Carollo Engineers is requesting an amendment to its scope and fee for this additional work at a cost of $20,615. DISCUSSION: In December 2004, the Board approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Carollo Engineers for design of the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project. The project has gone through various delays and changes; however, it has now been advertised for construction bids. In October 2006, the Board approved an amendment to Carollo's PSA for the project for additional design work requested by the District. At that time, Carollo indicated in its August 31, 2006 letter concerning the extra work, that it would be performed, provided there was no significant shift in the centerline of the utility easement or property boundaries that would require major revisions to the reservoir grading and piping plans, roadway plans and profiles, and pipeline plans and profiles. Unfortunately, when Carollo was recently requested to finalize the project design plans after various issues were resolved, it was determined that significant changes were necessary with the utility easement, as summarized on the attached letter of December 9, 2008 from Carollo. As indicated in the December 2008 letter and attachments, the cost to perform the changes totaled $20,615. Carollo is requesting a change order for the cost of these additional services. District staff reviewed the documentation, discussed the issue with Carollo, and recommends approval. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): November 9, 2004, Board authorized staff to execute an agreement with Carollo Engineers for the design of the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project. November 22, 2005, Board authorized staff to execute an amendment to the PSA with Carollo for design of the Santiago Booster Station Upgrades. October 26, 2006, Board authorized staff to execute an amendment to the PSA with Carollo Engineers for $26,500 for additional services for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the PEO Committee recommend that the Board approve Amendment #4 to the PSA for Carollo Engineers for Hidden Hills Reservoir Project for additional design services for a total fee not to exceed $20,615. I Engineers... Working Wonders With Water'" December 9, 2008 7106A.10 Yorba Linda Water District 1717 E. Plumose Drive Placentia, CA 92870 Attention: Mr. Steve Conklin, P.E. I Subject: Additional Work Associated with the Final Design of the Hidden Hills Reservoir Dear Mr. Conklin: In reference to the previous Amendment to the Engineering Design for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project dated August 31, 2006, additional work associated with the final design was incurred with respect to the discrepancies in the base map files. Under task 3 of the amendment, assumptions were made that no significant shift to the centerline of the utility easement would be encountered. However, as discussed with you two weeks ago, in finalizing the drawings the following additional work associated with the utility easement provided were required: 1. Pipeline alignments needed to be modified within the given easement as well as the clearances between pipelines. Horizontal alignments stationing also needed to be updated. 2. All three Pipeline plan and profile sheets needed to be revised to reflect the correct alignment and layout. Text modifications and curve data call outs needed to be revised. Based on 44 hours of engineering (Maria Alvarez) and 76.5 hours of CAD design (Ben Hawes), our cost for these additional services totals $20,615 (44hrs x $197/hr + 76.5hrs x $142/hr + 120.5hrs x $9/hr (PECE)). We respectfully request an amendment for this additional work. Please feel free to contact me to discuss any questions or comments that you may have. Sincerely, CAROL O ENGINEERS, P.C. Ga Me er, E. Pa n 1ecrcrH SUffe 2D6}~Fb~illteTn 1f911 6~8 9?708 a~w'Ma a„ r ,-its-Fxe +i', a x x e 4 , a ~F r xr r 1.?,S Pagel of 5 Tuesday, December 9, 2005 Job-to-Date Labor Hours Drill Down (1,011.50) 11:15:05 Carollo Engineers (Production) Total Regular Overtime Name Data Hours Hours Hours Project: 7106A.10 Hidden Hills Reservoir Pry. Design Task: 006 Civil 01465 Hutchinson, William 12/5!2006 2.00 2.00 1216/2006 2.00 2.00 12/812006 4.00 4.00 Subtotal for Hutchinson, William 8.00 6.00 02328 Galks, Henry 8!20/2005 2.00 2.00 02434 Magleoic, David 4110/2008 2.50 2.50 a11/2006 6.00 6.00 818/2006 1.00 1.00 10!5!2006 1.00 1.00 10/8/2006 2.00 2.00 10110/2006 1.OD 1.00 10113/2006 4.00 4.00 10/23/2006 1.00 1.00 10124/2006 4.00 4.00 10/31/2006 1.00 1.00 11/112008 1.00 1.00 1/4/2007 2.00 2.00 1/5/1007 5.00 S.OD 1/812007 3.50 3.50 3/1112007 3.00 3.00 Subtotal for Magiecic. David 38.00 38.00 03217 Picado, Jose 7/1712006 2.00 2.00 03309 Doering, James 7/1412006 1.50 1.50 04209 Davis, Jason 4=005 2.00 2.00 412512005 4.00 4.00 4/26/2005 2.00 2.00 5/2/2005 1.00 1.00 5/512005 4.00 4.00 519/2005 2.00 2.00 5/162005 2.00 2.00 523/20D5 8.00 8.00 5126/2005 6.00 6.00 512712005 2.00 2.00 616/2005 4.00 4.00 60/2005 4.00 4.00 6/02006 2.00 2.00 6!92005 .50 .50 6/10/2005 4.00 4.00 611312005 2.00 2.00 621/2005 4.00 4.00 6/23/2005 5.00 5.00 6292005 4.00 4.00 711/1005 1.50 1.50 72720D5 8.00 9.00 8/1912005 3.00 3.00 http://l72.16.42.8/ipr/drillPtint.htm 12/9/2008 Page 5 of 5 Job-to-Date Labor Hours Drill Down (1,011.50) Total Regular Overtime Name Date Hours Hours Hours 1/2512006 2.50 2.50 Subtotal for Robins, Shelby 139.50 139.50 04639 Lara, Stacey 9/1412006 2.50 2.50 04752 Alvarez, Maria / 10/31/2008 44.00 44.00 .over--- 04853 Garcia, Mario U ` 1/2312007 8.00 8.00 1124/2007 7.00 7.00 1/2512007 2.00 2.00 1!26/2007 1.00 1.00 1/29/2007 8.00 8.00 1/30/2007 8.00 8.00 Subtotal for Garcia, Marlo 34.00 34.00 04973 Hawes, Benjamin 10/2012008 9.00 9.00 10/2112008 11.50 11.50 10/22/2008 12.00 12.00 10/2312008 6.50 6.50 10/24/2008 7.00 7.00 10/27/2008 8.00 8.00 10/28/2008 8.00 8.00 10/29/2008 2.00 2.00 10130/2008 5.50 5.50 10/3112008 7.00 7.00 Subtotal for Hawes. Benjamin 76.50 76.50 Total 1,011.50 1,011.50 http://172.16.42.8/ipr/dril lPrint.htTn 12/9/2008 A_ 'x ITEM NO. i AGENDA REPORT APPFIOYED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ' OFREYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Board Meeting Date: October 26, 2006 OCT 2 20 To: Board of Directors 8Y From: Michael A. Payne, General Manager Staff Contact: Ken Vecchlarelli, Assistant General Manager Reviewed by General Counsel: No Budgeted: Yes Dept: Eng Funding Source: I.D. No. 2 G.O. Bonds Account No: 401-2700 Job No: 200028 CEQA Compliance: Mitigated Neg. Dec. Estimated Costs: $ 6.4 M Subject: Consultant Agreement Addendum with Carollo Engineers for Hidden Hills Reservoir SUMMARY: The District's 2005 Water Master Plan Update established the proposed Hidden Hills Reservoir capacity at 1.86 million gallons (MG) to meet operational and emergency needs for the local service area. Carollo Engineers Is designing this reservoir along with upgrades to the Santiago Booster Pump Station, which pump to this reservoir. These plans are currently 90% completed. Carollo has performed additional services beyond their original scope of work and has provided the District with an estimated fee not to exceed $26,500 for these services and additional tasks requested by the District to complete the plans and specifications for this project. DISCUSSION: Carollo has submitted a request for an addendum to their Consultants Agreement in an amount not to exceed $26,500, for additional work required to complete the plans, specifications and contract documents for the Hidden Hills Reservoir and Booster Pump Station project. These services include the review and coordination of boundary survey information, preparation of a hydrology report and hydraulic analysis of downstream storm drain systems, and survey and design for an additional grading and construction easement. Carollo based their engineering design and plan set development on field survey work previously performed by Tetra Tech in 2001 and 2004. Carollo has had to provide additional coordination and engineering efforts to clarify discrepancies between this data, recorded easements and grant deeds and work improvements proposed by Shapell Industries in extending Hidden Hills Road for construction of homes north of the existing end of the street. Carollo has requested $11,550 for these services. In the course of utility planning and coordination with the City of Yorba Linda for the reservoir site drainage, drain line and overflow systems connecting to the City's storm drain in Hidden Hills Road, Carollo was required to analyze the City's existing downstream collection system to confirm it has sufficient capacity to accept the additional flows. Caroilo prepared a hydrology report and performed hydraulic analysis on the downstream system for a fee of $6,420. In preparing the utility and access road plans Carollo determined the District will need a temporary construction and grading easement beyond the limits of the existing easement previously granted by Shapell Industries, Inc., the property owner. Carollo has prepared an estimate not to exceed $8,530 for these efforts. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): On November 9, 2004, the Board of Directors authorized staff to execute a Consultants Agreement for the design of the new 2MG Hidden Hills Reservoir, Job No. 200028. On November 22, 2005, the Board of Directors authorized staff to execute an amendment to the Consultants Agreement with Carollo for design of the Santiago Booster Station Upgrades. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve an Amendment to the Consultants Agreement with Carollo Engineers in an amount not to exceed $26,500 for additional services for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project, Job No. 200028. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The PEO Committee discussed this matter at their meeting on September 7, 2006 and support staffs recommendation. I I ~I I ccroLLo °°°QwAd `°"'Ii`"m ra4vnsiA e n e it n e e r s for lkose Lhm manpfnrwwas me mm. August 31, 2006 Yorba Linda Water District 4622 Plumose Drive Yorba Linda, California 92886-0309 Attention: Mr. Bill Moorhead Project Manager Subject: Amendment to the Engineering Design for the 2.0 Million Gallon Hidden Hills Reservoir Project (YWLD Job No. 200028) Dear Mr. Moorhead: To follow up on our discussions, we have summarized below the additional services associated with the final design of the Hidden Hills Reservoir project, including: 1. Check discrepancies in the deeds and base map files provided by the District: This task includes the effort spent to check and identify the discrepancies In the deeds and base map files, as summarized in our letter dated August 30, 2006, which may require further clarifications and possibly revised deeds and base map files be prepared for use in the final design of the reservoir facilities. 2. Prepare a hydrology report: At the request by the District, Carollo prepared a hydrology report in response to a request by the City of Yorba Linda for the connection of the new 18-inch diameter storm drain to the City's storm drain system. 3. Revise design drawings per the revised deeds and base map: As a result of the discrepancies identified in Task 1 above, the 90 percent final drawings may have to be modified per the revised tract boundaries, reservoir site property lines, and easements to be confirmed by the surveyor. An estimated effort for the possible revisions to the drawings is presented in Exhibit A includes checking and adjusting the property boundaries and easements on the final design drawings assuming no significant shift in the centerline of the utility easement or property boundaries that would require major revisions to the reservoir grading and piping plans, roadway plans and profiles, and pipeline plans and profiles. 4. Design of water sampling stations for Camino de Bryant and Elk Mountain Reservoirs: The District currently takes water samples via the roof hatches in the existing reservoirs. The new sampling stations would enable the operations staff to take water samples from locations other than the access hatches and at two to three selected elevations in the reservoirs. C:lOocementa and SettinpslTAda.00010e3kloplAmendmonl2.doc 199 SOUTH LOS ROBLES AVENUE. SUITE 530 • PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 • (6261535-0180 • FAX (626( 525-0185 Mr. Bill Moorhead Yorba Linda Water District August 31, 2006 Page 2 The design of the new sampling stations would be similar to the sampling stations provided for the Hidden Hills Reservoir. We will work with District staff to select the locations on the reservoir roof and the elevations that are desired by the District for water sampling purposes. It is anticipated that two to three sampling stations will be provided for each reservoir considering the existing reservoir configuration, roof structures, water depth, floor elevations, and inlettoutlet pipe locations. Our cost for these four items is $39,980 and is broken down as follows: • Item No. 1 - $11,550 • Item No. 2 - $6,420 • Item No. 3 - $8,530 • Item No. 4 - $13,480 Our cost assumes that the District will provide us with amended deeds and base map files showing correct site property lines, track boundaries, City's right-of-way lines, and easements to be used in the final design drawings of the Hidden Hills Reservoir facilities. Please call me to discuss any questions or comments that you may have. Sincerely, CAROLL ENGINEERS, P.C. of gt G bn PEnclo sures C1D000MENTS AND SETnNOSRADA.000MSKTOF-AMENDMENT2.DOC ITEM NO. AGENDA REPORT Committee Meeting Date: February 5, 2009 To: Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee From: Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager Staff Contact: Leon De Los Reyes, Water Quality Engineer Reviewed by General Counsel: N/A Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: Funding Source: CEQA Account No: 1-2700 Job No: 200807 Compliance: N/A Estimated Costs: Dept: Eng Subject: Final Report: Irrigation Feasibility Study SUMMARY: As.previously reported to the PEO Committee, the Engineering Department initiated the irrigation Feasibility Study to investigate the feasibility of developing a non-potable water supply source in the Bryant Ranch area for irrigation of school grounds, parks, and greenbelts. The study has been completed and is being presented to the Committee for review and consideration. A copy of the final report, titled "Irrigation Feasibility Study," prepared by Metcalf & Eddy/AECOM, is attached. At the same time that report was in progress, staff performed a preliminary water quality investigation, which is also attached and titled "Status Report on Feasibility Investigation of Irrigation Water Project." DISCUSSION: Please refer to the attached Status Report for information on the background, proposed project, water quality investigation, summary of the Irrigation Feasibility Study, and conclusions. As noted in the attached documents, the proposed project is to construct a new well at the site of the two abandoned wells, and use the existing 16-inch pipeline to carry the water to landscaped sites along or near the alignment of the pipeline. A Water Well Feasibility and Siting Study completed for the District in 2006 indicated that it is feasible to drill and construct a new well at the former well site. Well production would be limited to about 500 gallons per minute due to limited water-bearing deposits and underlying bedrock. The study also found that the water would be usable for landscape-supply purposes only due to elevated concentration of total dissolved solids and other minerals. The Conclusions in the Status Report states that, based on the preliminary information on water quality and soils, there is concern for potential soil clogging and resulting growth problems for grass and foliage. Concerning project economics, the life-cycle cost comparison in the Irrigation Feasibility Study indicated that Phase 1 development might be cost-effective over 25 years, but not Phase 2. Based on water quality concerns and cost-effectiveness, the project appears questionable. Accordingly, the recommendation of staff is not to pursue the project. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend that the Board of Directors receive and file the Final Irrigation Feasibility Study and that there be no further consideration of the project. ML 7W MEMORANDUM DATE: January 29, 2009 TO: Ken Veechiarelli, General Manager FROM: Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager SUBJECT: Status Report on Feasibility Investigation ofIrrigation Water Project The District is proceeding with an investigation into the feasibility of developing a non-potable irrigation water system at the far easterly end of the district, in the vicinity of La Palma Avenue and Camino de Bryant. The project would make use of groundwater not meeting drinking water standards because of high-mineral content, but otherwise safe and reliable. The water will be used for irrigation of grass and landscaping in parks, greenbelts and parkways and will conserve potable water now used for this purpose. I Background In the early 1990s, two groundwater wells were dedicated to the District by local developers, and renamed District Wells 16 and 17. The water from those wells was high in total dissolved solids (minerals), and required blending with imported water to meet potable water quality standards. The well water was carried from the wells through a 16-inch diameter ductile iron pipeline, approximately 8,300 feet, to the Elk Mountain Reservoir, where the well water was blended with imported water for distribution. The pipeline and reservoir were developer-provided and dedicated to the District. Over time, the quality of the well water deteriorated to the point that blending no longer yielded acceptable quality water due to mineral content. At that time, the Board made the decision to abandon and cap the wells, and to meet the local water demand with imported water only, supplied to the reservoir. The existing 16-inch pipeline from the site of the wells to the reservoir was no longer needed and is currently unused. Proposed Project The proposed project is to construct a new well at the site of the two abandoned wells, and use the existing 16-inch pipeline to carry the water to landscaped sites along or near the alignment of t the pipeline. A Water Well Feasibility and Siting Study completed for the District in 2006 indicated that it is feasible to drill and construct a new well at the former well site. Well production would be limited to about 500 gallons per minute due to limited water-bearing deposits and underlying bedrock. The study also found that the water would be usable for landscape-supply purposes only due to elevated concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) and other minerals. Data from other wells indicated that the TDS concentration might be in the range of 700 to 1200 mg/l. The State's secondary standard for TDS is 500 mg/l. Potable water provided by the District in that area (imported water) has a TDS concentration of approximately 378 mg/l. Water Quality Investigation District staff did a follow-up investigation to determine how other nearby facilities are faring, located near the Santa Ana River and using well water. Located not far upstream is the Green River Golf Club, which irrigates with water from wells near the river. Data from 2006 and 2007 indicates that the water from those wells had a TDS concentration in the range of 1015 to 1254 mg/l. The grass and landscaping at the golf course looked very good based on a site visit by District staff. Alan Andreason, the golf course superintendent indicated that they use salt- tolerant grass strains and over-water approximately 15% to leach the salts out of the grass. He said that they are successful, but close monitoring, over-watering, chemical treatment and maintenance are required. He also noted that, while they have reduced water use somewhat, their wells are not metered, and water is used as necessary to keep the course green and lush. Located downstream of the proposed new well site is Featherly County Park and Canyon RV Park, which has two water wells. District staff visited the site and was informed that the well water is disinfected and used for irrigation and for drinking. Recent test data indicates TDS concentration in the range of 600 to 700 mg/l and no problems. Lastly, staff visited Neff Ranch, which is immediately adjacent to the proposed site for the new well. The existing Bryant Well at Neff Ranch is used for irrigation of orange trees, on property leased to Neff Ranch from the County of Orange. District staff visited the site and were informed that the orange trees are doing well with no problems with the water. On a return visit, District staff collected a well water sample for analysis. The analysis indicated a TDS concentration of 1100 mg/l, which is similar to analyses in 2003 and 2005, showing TDS concentrations of 1200 and 1300 mg/l, respectively. Being that the Bryant Well is very close to the proposed new well, current data from this well is considered the best indicator of expected water quality for the proposed well. In addition to TDS, other water quality parameters important for landscape irrigation were analyzed for the Bryant Well. That data was submitted to Dr. Ali Harivandi at the UC-Davis School of Agriculture, a specialist in the use of marginal-quality water for irrigation. After reviewing the data, Dr. Harivandi called the water "borderline on the good side," adequate for turf-grass but a concern for its effect on ornamental plants. He recommended an evaluation of the soil at the user sites. Dr. Harivandi noted that successful use will require site management and education of the staff maintaining the sites. He also pointed out that the water might be fine 2 for years with normal rainfall (13+ inches per year) to leach and dilute, but problematic with multiple dry years when there is no leaching. This leads to the need for site management, such as chemical additions, flushing, etc. Dr. Harivandi recommended that Dr. Larry Stowell at Pace Consulting be contacted, a specialist in landscape management for golf courses and other areas. Alan Andreason of Green River Golf Club also recommended Dr. Stowell, who is a consultant for Green River. Dr. Stowell was contacted and said that what has been found over the years with use of high-TDS water is that the best indicator of success is the type and condition of the soil receiving the water. The best soil condition is sandy with good drainage. Soils with clay and silt and poor drainage are problematic. Some general comments from Dr Stowell: • Bermuda grass does ok. • Trees may not fare well, but do better if the water drains away and does not collect around the trees. • Some foliage my not do well, particularly with spray irrigation; conversion to drip and bubblers is an improvement. • Over-watering may result in better growth and acceptance of the water. Perhaps 15-20% more water may be required. Dr. Stowell was sent site and water quality information and was requested to provide a proposal on what the next steps might be in the process of determining if the District should proceed with the cost of drilling a new well. In the response from Dr. Stowell, he stated that the site is complex with many soil types and lots of slopes. Some of the soils have very low hydraulic conductivity that will make irrigation more difficult. The low hydraulic conductivity clay- containing soils will also respond poorly to high sodium irrigation water. Leaching to manage salt accumulation that results from irrigation will also be difficult on soils with low hydraulic conductivity. Dr. Stowell said that the question to be asked is: What are the management practices and plant types that will perform to expectation using the well water? He said that the answer to that question is not so simple and will depend upon what type of management options will be available following adoption of well water use. If planting pits for trees are properly constructed (deep and wide enough with good drainage and filled with a sandy soil) tree management will be feasible. If salt sensitive and high-water-using cool season turfgrasses such as tall fescue or ryegrass are going to be used, leaching will be needed and soils must be well drained. If bermudagrass or paspalum are going to be planted, salinity accumulation is not such a great concern but winter color is a problem (these grasses go dormant and must be either painted or overseeded - resulting in other problems). Dr. Stowell indicted that he is booked up through the winter and would be unable to assist much further in the near future. He recommended the following be considered: 3 I . Characterize the current water source and compare and contrast to the new well water quality. If the new well water is within 10% of the TDS, bicarbonate, sodium and SAR of the current water source, there should be no serious problem - no guarantees, but the risk is low (of course, other factors should be considered but these four are easy to evaluate). This assumes that the current water source is performing well under all conditions at the site. 2. If the well water is of substantially lower quality compared to the current well water, the site will need to be characterized for areas of high risk from damage if the well water is used. The attached soil maps and areas with less than 7 um/sec saturated hydraulic conductivity are targets for additional study. 3. Propose modified and soil management practices based upon the new well water source, soil conditions and plant types. In response to Dr. Stowell's recommendation that the quality of the current water source be compared to that expected in the well water, Bryant Well water was compared to that currently being delivered by the District into that area, as shown below: Bryant YLWD Percent Parameter Well Water Variation m a b a-b /a x 100 Calcium 170 37 78% Magnesium 44 17 61% Sodium 130 65 50% Chloride 150 66 56% TDS 1100 378 66% H 7.5 8.2 9% Per Item 1 above, Dr. Stowell suggested that if the two water sources have water quality parameters within 10% of each other there should be no serious problem. However, for the two water sources above, the percent variation is much greater than 10% for all parameters except pH. Based on this guideline from Dr. Stowell, it can be inferred that there may be significant problems using the well water for irrigation. In the information above, Dr. Stowell notes that information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) indicates that the proposed area to receive the well water for irrigation is complex with many soil types and lots of slopes. Some of the soils have very low hydraulic conductivity that will make irrigation more difficult. The low hydraulic conductivity clay-containing soils will also respond poorly to high sodium irrigation water. Further, in Item 2 above, he notes that if the quality of the water is low (as shown in the above table) there may very well be problems applying it to soils with a low saturated hydraulic conductivity of 7 um/sec or less. This parameter, from information provided by the NRCS, refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water, expressed in terms of micrometers per second. The parameter is a 4 function of soil characteristics, particularly structure, porosity, and texture, and is an indicator of soil drainage. Included at the end of this memo is information from the NRCS for the proposed project area, including: • A map showing soil types in the area proposed to receive the well water for irrigation. The soil types were determined by the NRCS. • A map unit legend for the soil types shown on the map, a description of each soil type, and a breakdown of the acreage and percent of the total area addressed. • Physical Soil Properties information, including the estimated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (SHC) for each soil type. From the above information the following was tabulated regarding the soil conditions: Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Project Area General Approx. Percent of SHC Soil Area Total Value Characteristic acres Area 1.4 - 4.0 Poor drainage 59 6.5% 4.0 - 14.0 Marginal drainage 464 51.2% 14 - 42 Good drainage 337 37.2% 42 - 141 Very good drainage 46 5.1% Total 906 100% From the tabulated soils information summarized from data provided by the NRCS, the table indicates that approximately 57.7% of the total project area has soil that is estimated to have "poor" (6.5%) to "marginal" (51.2%) soil-drainage characteristics. The balance (42.3%) is estimated to have "good" to "very good" soil-drainage characteristics. In summary, the above information indicates that over half of the total proposed project area may have poor to marginal drainage problems if the well water is used. This may translate to clogged soils and problems growing grass and foliage. This is an important issue that would need to be discussed with the City of Yorba Linda, because most of the irrigation sites are maintained by the City. The City would need to understand the cost and implications of changing to the new water source. Irrigation Feasibility Study An investigation titled "Irrigation Feasibility Study" was completed in January 2009 and determined that 23 landscaped sites along the pipeline route could be served in the first of a potential two-phase project. The existing 16-inch diameter pipeline would be used. Also required would be the construction of a new well and appurtenances, pipeline laterals to reach the irrigation users, and a 370,000 gallon steel reservoir and site improvements. Based on a review 5 of historical water use, those 23 sites consume an average of 184 acre-feet per year of potable imported water that could be saved by using the non-potable groundwater. Phase 2 would consist of constructing 11,300 feet of 12-inch pipeline and service laterals from the existing 16-inch mainline to reach 15 more users with an estimated annual demand of 55 acre feet. With the implementation of Phase 2, the combined system would include 38 users and an average of 239 acre-feet per year of non-potable water consumption. The Irrigation Feasibility Study made a determination of the estimated capital facilities and construction cost required for each of the two phases. A life-cycle cost comparison was made for each phase for a 25-year life. The comparison included the cost of non-potable groundwater versus the cost of Met water over the 25 years. Based on the factors in the study, the finding was that for Phase 1 development, the average non-potable water system cost was $1,470 per acre- foot versus $1,544 for MWD Full-service water. That is, under this scenario with Phase 1 development, non-potable water would be approximately 5% less costly than MWD water in 25 years. However, for Phase 2 development, the non-potable water system cost would be $2,102 per acre- foot versus $1,543 for MWD Full-service water. Thus, it does not appear that Phase 2 development is reasonable for further consideration. Conclusions Based on the preliminary information above on water quality and soils, there is concern for potential soil clogging and resulting growth problems for grass and foliage. Concerning project economics, the life-cycle cost comparison indicated that Phase 1 development might be cost- effective over 25 years, but not Phase 2. Based on water quality concerns and cost-effectiveness, the project appears questionable. Conversely, the other consideration is that the project would make use of a currently under- utilized non-potable water source for irrigation purposes. The project would reduce the demand on potable water at a time of supply limitations and increasing demand. With this in mind, further evaluation of this water source may be prudent. 6 .i W METCALF&EDDY AECON/I January 5, 2009 Ken Vecchiarelli Assistant General Manager Yorba Linda Water District 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue Placentia, California 92870 Subject: YLWD Irrigation Feasibility Study - Final Report Dear Mr. Vecchiarelli: Metcalf & Eddy AECOM is pleased to submit the final report of the Yorba Linda Water District's Irrigation Feasibility Study. Along with the final report, a spreadsheet will also be transmitted to you electronically containing the cost estimate and life-cycle analysis calculator per our agreement. We would like to express our appreciation to you and your staff for your help, availability, and comments that allowed us to perform the study. Please feel free to contact either of the undersigned with any questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, Respectfully, (01 Ashok Dhingra, PE,SE J. Eduardo Espinoza, PE Senior Vice President Project Manager Project Principal-In-Charge Mal OVWOO F ~ yJ W No. C-70866 * Exp. 6.30-09 CM! E YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ]FINAL REPORT Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Project Description 1 1.2. Background ..............................................................................................................................1 1.3. Project Purpose ........................................................................................................................2 1.4. Scope-of-Work 4 2. Proposed System Evaluation 5 2.1. Hydrogeologic Evaluation 5 2.2. Demand Evaluation 5 2.3. Constructability evaluation 7 2.4. Cost Evaluation 8 3. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................12 Table of Fissures Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Project Vicinity in the City of Yorba Linda, California ..........................................2 Figure 2: Proposed Irrigation System on GIS Map ....................................................................................3 Figure 3: Standard YLWD water main trench detail ..................................................................................7 Table of Tables Table 1: Conclusions and Recommendations for Proposed Irrigation Supply Well (by RCS) 5 Table 2: Irrigation Demand by 38 Proposed System Users, based on July 2002-June 2007 Data 6 Table 3: Phase 1 Irrigation Demand by first 23 Users, based on July 2002-June 2007 Data .....................6 Table 4: Phase 2 Irrigation Demand by additional 15 Users, based on July 2002-June 2007 Data 6 Table 5: Preliminary order-of-magnitude Capital Cost Estimate ................................................................8 Table 6: Life Cycle Costs and Comparison - Non-potable Water System vs. MWD Water ........................9 Table 7: Average Annual Cost of Irrigation System by Phase compared to MWD Water over 25-yr life cycle .......................................................................................................................12 Appendix Appendix A: Cost estimate and Life-cycle cost analysis spreadsheet M ETCALF & EDDY Page i January 5, 2009 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT 1. Introduction 1.1. Project Description In an effort to incorporate a non-potable water system for irrigation use into its Capital Improvements Program (CIP), the Yorba Linda Water District (District) wishes to investigate the feasibility, both logistically and economically, of developing a non-potable water system in the Improvement District No. 2 (ID2) Bryant Ranch area, in the City of Yorba Linda. This feasibility study will evaluate installing a new well in the District's existing abandoned Wells Nos. 16 and 17 site to provide a source of water for nearby irrigation needs. 1.2. Background The project area is located in the City of Yorba Linda in Improvement District No. 2, also known as Bryant Ranch. ID2 is located on the eastern portion of the City of Yorba Linda, north of the Santa Ana River and south of Blue Mud Canyon and Wire Spring Canyon. The area consists of relatively steep hillsides with several housing developments on the southern portions. The site of Wells No. 16 and 17 is located approximately 1,000 feet east of River Bank Drive just north of Highway 91, and 2.8 miles east of the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Highway 91. I Currently, these wells are abandoned and capped. These are shallow wells, approximately 90 to 100-feet deep, and had an expected operating capacity of around 500 gpm each. However, due to characteristics of the hydrogeology and the zone of interference, the combined well output was 600 to 700 gpm. The existing system also included a 16-inch ductile iron pipeline, approximately 8,310 linear feet, which carried the well water flow to the Elk Mountain Reservoir, where the groundwater was blended with other higher quality water. The 16-inch pipeline alignment runs from the Wells No. 16 and 17 site, west along Brush Canyon Drive, north on Camino de Bryant, and north on Elk Mountain Drive to Elk Mountain Reservoir. The existing 16- inch pipeline is abandoned now. Wells Nos. 16 and 17 were abandoned due to the deterioration of water quality to the point that blending no longer yielded acceptable water quality. Water quality issues include high manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), and total dissolved solids (TDS). The existing Elk Mountain Reservoir is a 6 MG buried reinforced concrete tank. The project area includes a school and two (2) parks: Bryant Ranch School, Brush Canyon Park and a park located next to Bryant Ranch School on Paseo de Toronto. Figure 1 illustrates an aerial photo of the project vicinity. M ETCALF & EDDY Page 1 January 5, 2009 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT *-W L Proposed irrigation Wr. Well Nos. 16 & 17 Site Ad )1114f iz- 11 ti . LL g fh' !t. a *Ir ` ~a.'i i Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Project Vicinity in the City of Yorba Linda, California 1.3. Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to investigate the feasibility of using the existing well site, with a new well, as a source of water for nearby irrigation needs. A hydrogeology report entitled "Water Well Feasibility and Siting Study" for the well site was prepared by Richard C. Slade & Associates (RCS) in September 2006. The proposed project would be to drill and equip a new well and utilize the existing, unused 16-inch pipeline as a transmission pipeline of non-potable water. A new reservoir would be proposed near the existing Elk Mountain Reservoir to store the non-potable water. Additional irrigation users, such as greenbelts, schools, parks, etc., could be added to the system in the two implementation phases described below. Initially, there are 2 implementation phases planned for the irrigation water system as follows: 1. Phase 1 would consist of drilling and equipping a new shallow well, approximately 90-100 feet deep, at the abandoned Well Nos. 16 and 17 site, and connect to the existing 16-inch ductile iron pipeline. The existing pipeline is approximately 8,310 linear feet long. Before any design and construction can begin, a pipeline assessment would need to be conducted to determine the condition of the existing pipeline. If the pipeline assessment determines the integrity of the existing pipeline is unable to meet applicable codes and regulations, a new pipeline would need to be considered for the proposed irrigation system, thereby increasing the capital cost. The cost of installing a new 16-inch pipeline, for example, alone can be upwards of $1.3 million, not including utility relocations, and demolition of the existing M ETCALF & EDDY Page 2 January 5, 2009 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT pipeline if another pipeline alignment is unavailable. However, if an assessment proves the existing pipeline worthy, the project could move forward. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the existing pipeline is usable for the proposed project. Ten irrigation users adjacent to the existing pipeline will be connected to the irrigation system first. Various 8- inch laterals would be installed, approximately 2,500 linear feet total, to connect thirteen users that are not immediately adjacent to the existing 16-inch pipeline. A new steel storage reservoir would also be constructed near the Elk Mountain Reservoir for the storage of non potable water. 2. Phase 2 would consist of designing and installing a new 12-inch pipeline. This new pipeline alignment will connect to the existing 16-inch ductile iron pipeline near the intersection of Paseo de Toronto and Via Cantada, continue west along Paseo de Toronto, continue south along Via Lomas de Yorba East, turning east along La Palma Avenue, continuing north along Camino de Bryant until it connects to the existing 16-inch ductile iron pipeline to form a loop within the pipeline system. The new pipeline will be used to convey irrigation water to fifteen new users along the new pipeline alignment. At the end of this phase a total of 38 irrigation users would be connected. Figure 2 shows the existing and proposed non-potable water system on a GIS map. tLIK (l l r N t Ul1~G' $go R Tlr yY FNIp - D UR p 9PNK 01 We 1L V 1~ ` G II y E L-~~;- S ~1 ll 11~ t rI 1 41 Li Legend . ELK MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR " M EXISTING WELLS . PROPOSED IRRIGATION WATER RESERVOIR STUDY IRRIGATION METERS EXISTING PIPELINE- PHASE 1 PROPOSED PIPELINE - PHASE 1 i PROPOSED PIPELINE - PHASE 2 Figure 2: Proposed Irrigation System on GIS Map M ETCALF & EDDY Page 3 January 5, 2009 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT 1.4. Scope-of-Work This Feasibility Study includes the following tasks: 1. Investigate the feasibility of installing and equipping a new shallow well with a capacity of 500gpm in the vicinity of YLWD Wells No. 16 and 17 as the supply source for a non- potable water system in the ID2 service area. Collect and review GIS maps with historic demand data provided by YLWD. Review existing well studies provided by YLWD. Provide a demand analysis compared to well capacity. 2. Provide a phased approach for installing a non-potable water system and connecting irrigation users in the ID2 service area. 3. Determine the economic feasibility of constructing the proposed irrigation water system. Provide an order-of-magnitude cost estimate for the construction of the system by phase. Provide a life cycle cost analysis for each phase. Consider the replenishment cost to the Orange County Water District for pumping well water and system revenue. Compare to purchasing full-service treated water from Metropolitan Water District. 4. Provide draft and final report. M ETCALF & EDDY Page 4 January 5, 2009 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT 2. Proposed System Evaluation 2.1. HYdro9Bolo9is Evaluation Based on the study "Water Well Feasibility and Siting Study" by Richard C. Slade & Associates in September 2006, it is "hydrogeologically feasible to locate, drill and construct new wells for YLWD on their property on the north side of the river within Santa Ana Canyon." Furthermore, "flow rates on the order of 500 gpm appear feasible." The study recommends a variable frequency driven (VFD) pump for higher and/or lower ranges of pumping depending on the season, depth to water, specific well capacity, and overall well efficiency. The hydrogeologic study reported water quality characteristics to be very similar for both abandoned Wells Nos. 16 and 17, and anticipated similar water quality for the proposed irrigation supply well. The abandoned wells had high total dissolved solids (TDS), and high total hardness (TH). On occasion, the wells produced water with elevated levels in iron, manganese, and turbidity. Therefore, based on the unfavorable water quality, the hydrogeology study recommends that the proposed water supply well be solely used for irrigation purposes. The study made the following conclusions and recommendations about the proposed irrigation supply well: Table 1: Conclusions and Recommendations for Proposed Irrigation Supply Well (by RCS) Unit Value/ range Drilled well depth, maximum Feet 125 Casing depth Feet 100 to 110 Blank cellar casing below bottom of perforations Feet 20 to 30 Casing diameter Inches 16 High strength-low alloy Casing material type Type (HSLA, aka Corten steel) Super-Flo louvers as by Roscoe Perforations type Type Moss Co. Perforations size Inches 0.060 (60-slot) Cement sanitary seal, minimum depth Feet 20 Pump motor type Type Variable frequency drive (VFD) Water Quality Estimated/ anticipated total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L 1000 to 2500 Estimated/ anticipated total hardness TH m L 700 to 2000 2.2. Demand Evaluation The District has provided customer service meter data for irrigation users for the 5-year period between July 2002 and June 2007. The District identified 38 irrigation users that could be connected to the new non-potable water system. Tables 2 through 4 show irrigation demand by M ETCALF & E DDY Page 5 January 5, 2009 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT 38 proposed users system-wide and by the two phases, respectively, for determining the feasibility of meeting irrigation demands. Table 2: Irrigation Demand b 38 Proposed System Users, based on Jul 2002-June 2007 Data Volume in gallons (gpm) Max Monthly Demand 11,152,706 gallons 258.2 gpm Average Monthly Demand 6,484,451 gallons 150.1 gpm Note: 1. GPM was calculated based on 30-day month, 24-hour/day, 60 min/hour average rate. Table 3: Phase 1 Irrigation Demand by first 23 Users, based on Jul 2002-June 2007 Data Maximum month Maximum month gallons (gpm) month Maximum Month Irrigation Demand 8,638,504 Aug 2004 200.0 gpm Maximum Single User 1,438,504 Oct 2002 33.3 gpm Average User demand for this Phase 217,143 5.03 gpm Average Monthly Demand, 23 users 4,994,282 115.6 gpm N ote: 1. GPM was calculated based on 30-day month, 24-hour/day, 60 min/hour average rate. Table 4: Phase 2 Irrigation Demand by additional 15 Users, based on Jul 2002-June 2007 Data Maximum month Maximum month gallons (gpm) month Maximum Month Irrigation Demand 2,836,613 Sept 2006 65.7 gpm Maximum Single User 1,538,743 June 2003 35.6 gpm Average User demand for this Phase 99,345 2.30 gpm Average Monthly Demand, 15 users 1,490,169 34.5 gpm Note: 1. GPM was calculated based on 30-day month, 24-hour/day, 60 min/hour average rate. 2. Demands are not cumulative, i.e. does not include Phase 1 and Phase 2 demands. The historic data shows that the highest average demand rate for all combined 38 users was 258.2 GPM, significantly below the average capacity of the proposed well output. However, this value cannot account for actual instantaneous peak demand, which can be many factors higher than the average calculated above. Nevertheless, these peak demands can be mitigated later with proper storage reservoir and pipeline sizing using appropriate peaking factors. For now, M ETCALF & E DDY Page 6 January 5, 2009 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT the purpose of this analysis is to determine whether there is enough capacity at the proposed well site for the proposed 38 users on an average basis. A 370,000-gallon steel tank is proposed, based on 1 day of storage at max-day demand. 2.3. Constructability evaluation The District owns all right-of-ways that are needed to install a new irrigation water system in the ID2 area. This includes rights to land for a new irrigation supply well near abandoned Wells Nos. 16 and 17, land for a proposed 370,000-gallon above-grade steel tank next to the existing Elk Mountain Reservoir, and rights to the new proposed pipeline alignments. See Figure 2 for the aforementioned facility locations. In addition, the District owns the abandoned 16-inch pipeline, which runs from the abandoned well site to the existing Elk Mountain Reservoir site. Because the pipeline has been abandoned for a number of years, it is recommended that a non- destructive inspection of the entire pipe length be performed to determine that the integrity meets applicable codes for its intended use. However, for purposes of the cost estimate in the next section, it will be assumed that the pipeline will be re-instated for water transmission use and minimal cost will be associated with returning it to service. Anticipated construction will not involve special construction methods. Conventional construction for PVC or ductile iron pipeline is anticipated, involving trenching in City of Yorba Linda streets, typically 3 to 5 feet of cover and compaction, and re-paving of the streets, as shown on Figure 3. PMIEMENT AND "BE AS REOUIRSD ST GOVERNING AGIENCT\ 6, MIN. TRENCH WIDTH TO BE DETERMINED BY GMAMI N{ ABENCT SAWCUT 1ACK 00117" .'t • tit i ~I r:.:°i° .w . tSii~. @• I EXCAVATED TRENCH WIDTH_ TRENCH ZONE - BAOIFILL AS .%ODMRACTION DIRECTED R , WaERMMW AGENCY S. PIPE :WIDTH.: .6"..:: Rif. SwIr" 0210. S MIN MINI; 3.06-7.11 DETECTABLE MARKING TARE By TIAOR ENTERIW4SES, WC. PIPE ZONE PIPE .J.'~ CO EQUAL. 90%COMMCTION ~---SAND ONLY S. E. 30 (MIN.) FOUNDATION NATIVE NO UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED TED D NOTES &T7 AaOlTHCALKORNAOMIN151T1YlODDE TITLE 4, ARTICLE S. SECTION 1639 THRU I541. 2. TRAFFSAWCUT IC LANES AS DETE FALL MINED HBY GOVERNING TRACKS AGENCY 3. "DETECTABLE MANIVK 1APE 811ALL' WEDAS M"NUfA I TOCTI/ED SACKf LLING ALL AIRED MIATER PMKL S r TIi011 ENTERP%$",INC ( 00 ISAJAL 1 TAP SMALL BE PLACED i-O ABWE►IlKLINE LOCATION. Figure 3: Standard YLWD water main trench detail M ETCALF & EDDY Page 7 January 5, 2009 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT 2.4. Cost Evaluation The proposed irrigation water supply system would require a condition assessment of the existing pipeline, along with capital costs of new facilities. The cost for a condition assessment by video surveillance of the existing 8,310-foot pipeline would be on the order of magnitude of $25,000. The system would consist of the following preliminary and simplified list of new facilities: 0 One irrigation supply well with 500 gpm capacity; • 370,000-gallon reservoir, size based on 1 day supply at max-day demand; • 11,300-ft of 12-inch PVC pipeline to extend system and to close irrigation loop; • 2,500-ft of 8-inch PVC pipeline (diameter assumed for now) for laterals to reach irrigation users not immediately near the abandoned and new loop pipeline; and • 38 new irrigation service connections. Based on the above preliminary list of new facilities, the Table 5 was developed to calculate an "order-of-magnitude" cost estimate by system implementation phase. Table 5: Preliminary order-of-magnitude Capital Cost Estimate Item No. Item Description Units Qt Unit cost Subtotal PHASE 1 1 125-ft shallow well ea 1 $350,000 $350,000 2 500-gpm well pump and motor ea 1 $22,000 $22,000 3 Irrigation service connections ea 10 $2,500 $25,000 4 370,000-gal steel reservoir gal 1 $612,150 $612,150 Additional service laterals, assume 8-in 5 PVC If 2,500 $118 $295,000 6 Irrigation service connections ea 13 $2,500 $32,500 Subtotal $1,336,650 Engineering (15%) % 15% $200,498 Contingencies (20%) % 20% $267,330 7 Condition Assessment LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 PHASE 1 TOTAL $1,829,478 PHASE 2 8 12-inch PVC, to complete loop If 11,300 $133 $1,502,900 9 Irrigation service connections ea 15 $2,500 $37,500 Subtotal $1,540,400 Engineering (15%) % 15% $231,060 Contingencies (20%) % 20% $308,080 PHASE 2 TOTAL $2,079,540 PROJECT TOTAL $3,909,018 M ETCALF & E DDY Page 8 January 5, 2009 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Table 5: Preliminary order-of-magnitude Capital Cost Estimate Notes 1. Pipeline estimate unit cost based on recent engineers estimate for recent YLWD pipeline project (provided December 2008) Estimate: $10011f 8"pvc and pipe $6/sf ac pavement, at 2,500 If and 3 ft wide pavement, approximate unit cost $11811f for 8" PVC Estimate: $1154f 12"pvc and pipe $6/sf ac pavement, at 11,300 If and 3 ft wide pavement, approximate unit cost $13311f for 12" PVC 2. 370,000-gal reservoir cost based on quote by CB&1,112/2009, for $371,000. 55' dia. x 24' tall with 24" freeboard. Includes normal accessories, internal coating, external painting, concrete ring wall foundation (24" W x 30" D), CA prevailing wages, CA sales and use taxes. 501/o added for civil site work and yard piping, 151k for electrical and instrumentation, 2.4.1. Life Cycle Cost Comparison A life cycle cost was developed for the irrigation feasibility study which includes the capital cost of a new irrigation system and associated facilities, the cost to replace those facilities at the end of the analysis period, the replenishment cost of pumping groundwater, and interest paid on the capital cost. For simplification of this feasibility study, the phases were assumed to be implemented within the first year. However, realistically the phase-implementation would be staggered over the course of a few years if it was decided to proceed with each respective phase. This cost was compared to the cost of buying water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The analysis cycle period was selected at 25 years, and all costs were calculated with the future value function given present values and estimated escalation and interest rates. The replacement cost of each facility component was calculated based on the fraction of the cycle period to the estimated life span. For example, the cost of replacing a facility with the an estimated life span of 50 years was calculated to be half of the future value at 25 years given today's capital cost and the annual inflation rate. The life cycle cost of MWD water was based on the current rate per acre-foot, and an average historical escalation rate based on yearly rates from calendar year 2003 through 2009. Table 6 tabulates the life cycle costs for each option. Table 6: Life Cycle Costs and Comparison - Non-potable Water System vs. MWD Water LIFE CYCLE COST FOR NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM BY PHASE Const. incl. Eng. & Est. life span in Replacement cost CAPITAL AND REPLACEMENT Contingent years at end of 25 years Phase 1 125-ft shallow well $472,500 50 $629,804 500-gpm well pump and motor $29,700 25 $79,175 Irrigation service connections $33,750 25 $89,972 370,000-gal steel reservoir $826,403 75 $734,351 Additional service laterals, assume 8-in PVC $398,250 50 $530,835 Irrigation service connections $43,875 25 $116,964 Condition Assessment $25,000 Subtotal Phase 1 $1,829,478 $2,181,101 M ETCALF & E DDY Page 9 January 5, 2009 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Table 6: Life Cycle Costs and Comparison - Non-potable Water System vs. MWD Water Phase 2 12-inch PVC, to complete loop $2,028,915 50 $2,704,378 Irrigation service connections $50,625 25 $134,958 Subtotal Phase 2 $2,079,540 $2,839,336 Total Capital and Replacement Costs for Phase 1 & 2 $3,909,018 $5,020,436 Interest Paid Interest paid on Capital Improvement (Bond) during bond period Phase 1 $67,081 Phase 2 $76,250 Total Interest paid, both phases $143,331 ANNUAL COST FV of all payments after life cycle Present cost period OCWD replenishment cost per ac/ft incl. YLWD cost of pumping $350 Phase 1 Cost to replenish per year, 2008109 $64,373 $2,680,865 Phase 2 Cost to replenish per year, 2008109 $19,207 $799,904 Total cost to replenish, both phases $83,580 $3,480,769 Total cost at end of Total Cycle Costs by additional phase cycle period Phase 1 Cycle Cost $6,758,524 Phase 1 and 2 Cycle Cost $12,553,553 LIFE CYCLE COST FOR PURCHASING MWD WATER FV of all payments after life cycle Present cost period MWD cost per ac-ft of treated water $610 Cost to purchase MWD water per year, 2008, Phase 1 demands $112,193 $7,096,078 Cost to purchase MWD water per year, 2008, Phase 2 demands $33,475 $2,117,293 Total Cycle Cost for MWD Water for all Phases $145,668 $9,213,371 LIFE CYCLE COST ASSUMPTIONS Life cycle analysis period 25 Replenish cost escalation per year 4% MWD water escalation per year 7% Interest rate 61/0 Inflation rate 4% Bond rate 4% Bond period, years 15 M ETCALF & EDDY Page 10 January 5, 2009 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Table 6: Life Cycle Costs and Comparison - Non-potable Water System vs. MWD Water Implement Non- potable Water Purchase MWD CYCLE COST COMPARISON BY PHASE System Water Life Cycle Cost for Phase 1 $6,760,000 $7,100,000 Life Cycle Cost for Phase 1 and 2 $12,550,000 $9,210,000 Notes 1. MWD cost of raw water, tier 1, $351/ac-ft, MWD website. Escalation based on 2003 through 2009 costs. 2. MWD cost of treated water, tier 1, $520/ac-ft up to Dec. 31, 2008. $610/ac-ft starting Jan 1, 2009 from YLWD 3.OCWD replenishment cost from YLWD. Escalation roughly based on last two years: $237/ac-ft in 2007108, $249 in 2008/09. 4. Replenishment cost of $350/ac-ft based on OCWD cost of $249/ac-ft and estimated YLWD cost associated with well and pumping operation. 5. Replacement cost is based on fraction of cycle period divided by estimated life span of respective facility. 6. Interest on capital cost based on 15 year bond at 4% interest The results indicate that the cost of implementing Phase 1 of the proposed irrigation system after 25-year period are comparable to that of purchasing water from MWD. However, as the second phase is implemented, the cost of the proposed irrigation system increases significantly compared to that of purchasing MWD water over the course of 25 years, and based on the life- cycle assumptions. ICI i M ETCALF & E DDY Page 11 January 5, 2009 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT 3. Conclusions Based on the available data and hydrogeologic study, it is hydrogeologically feasible to supply a new irrigation system in the ID2 zone of the District. The hydrogeologic study by RCS concludes that water is available for irrigation purposes from the existing abandoned Wells Nos. 16 and 17 sites at 500 GPM. The demand evaluation concludes that the maximum month irrigation water demands for the proposed 38 irrigation meters of approximately 258 GPM is within the supply capacity. However, this demand does not account for instantaneous peak demands. Nevertheless, these peak demands can be mitigated by proper storage and transmission pipeline design. A preliminary "order-of-magnitude" cost estimate resulted in a constructed cost of $3.91 million. In addition, an irrigation system would save the cost of purchasing potable water that can otherwise be used for drinking, other domestic and industrial needs. The volume of water that would be saved from the domestic water system is described in Table 7. The table also shows the average cost per year per ac-ft of water for implementing each phase compared to the cost of purchasing MWD water. Table 7: Average Annual Cost of Irrigation System by Phase compared to MWD Water over 25-yr life cycle Phase Volume of Average Non-potable Water Average MWD Full-service Water Water System Cost Cost (ac-ft/year) ($/ac-ft/year) ($/ac-ft/year) 1 183.92 $1,470 $1,544 1 and 2 238.80 $2,102 $1,543 Notes 1. Demands are based on 5-year average provided by YLWD, July 2002 to June 2007. Similar to the life cycle cost trend in the previous section, the cost per ac-ft of water is comparable to purchasing MWD water if the first phase is implemented. However, the cost increases significantly as the second phase is implemented, but will depend on the actual increase in the MWD rate. Based on the analyses presented in this study, it is recommended that the District consider further a more detailed study for implementing this phased approach. The project would make use of a currently under-utilized non-potable water source that can be used for irrigation purposes. At the same time, the project would reduce the demand on potable water, be it imported water or local groundwater, at a time of supply limitations and increasing demand. Accordingly, it would be prudent for the District to further consider adding "irrigation" water to its portfolio. M ETCALF & EDDY Page 12 January 5, 2009 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Appendix A Cost estimate and Life-cycle cost analysis spreadsheet ~I M ETCALF & E DDY January 5, 2009 Yorba Linda Water District Imigation Feasibility Study METCALF &EDDY AI (WO Yorba Linda Water District Irrigation Feasibility Study Capital Cost and Life Cycle Cost Analysis Spreadsheet The purpose of this spreadsheet is to provide a order-of-magnitude cost estimate and life -cycle cost analysis for the proposed YLWD Irrigation Feasibility Study. The workbooks in this spreadsheet are described as follows: Workbook/Tab Description Notes Demands This workbook is a compilation of demands for the proposed users of the non - potable water system for the period of July 2002 through June 2007. Demand averages and maximums are calculated for the basis of the preliminary design and cost estimate. Irr -Ca -Cost This workbook is the capital cost for the non - potable waters stem. Change of inputs allowed (yellow cells only) Life -Cycle This workbook is the life cycle cost analysis. It compares the cost of all future payments in a selected period Change of inputs allowed (yellow cells only) for implementing the non - potable water system versus buying full -service water from MWD. Cost -year This workbook compares the average yearly cost in $ /ac-ft of water over the life-cyle period for implementing the non-potable waters stem versus buying MWD water, by hase. Additional notes: The workbooks are protected from changes except the yellow cells. This is to protect against changes in the formula cells and . However, spreadsheet is not password protected if changes must be made to the formulas. To unprotect the workbooks, go to Tools >Protection >Unprotect sheet Appendix A Introduction Cost estimate and Life -cycle cost analysis 1 of 1 1/5/2009 Yarba Ueda WMer Di6bict a2Yaban FwibitY Sh* METCALF&EDDY ', 'I 1 I72"M 21[011rz BMJ$x CYNM10 flAYBERNI'whv US MOUNT 116 l 00179119 1 0 11% 0 IA% 0 16% 0 IAN 0 IAN 0 1.4% 0 'A% 0 IN. 1 2N1NI 2911018 BNUSx GHYM1 gfYOFYOREALINO, 116 ] TUNSUN O 2 136.623 2151% DINT WIN U2919 17050 10,00 69.016 01522 I61564 1N.W 25EM Min M3,2% A2N6 22101 ]ANTI EUU IR BRUSXGNYIXI CJIYO1YOFjT,, , 716 3 W524175 1 611,06 Wlln SOSW 271543 2701% 165415 10.211 62.836 6201 M314 261611 119.651 410M 112111 41001 21311 I NI.I 201418 W15HGMICN CM CO YORBA LWOP 116 ] Y99EE81 2 HKIN 20110 MIN 125.613 165925 MIN Uffi itm N,IN 126.165 127.10 PO.MS 210."1 179.532 1160% 15160 S 67612.1 N6141LMYOX p2 CITY Of YMBALINOA 118 ] "996682 2 NO Sol 14362 1421% 116M 115X0 0018 Bi 522 %670 ISM UM 515% 159225 157M 1 %242 INAN 116.111 1 19 651614 BRU%IGWYg100. OCCWAxi 716 ] 84117921 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 Ill %NWSNGHYIXI CITY Of Y0RB4 LINDA 716 3 0 "33261 2 9220 11019 15 ". SI.W 53.112 52.30 51 Ill 27616 26930 WIN 55356 57 NO %AU 96113 9705 6201 1 12693211 BRU$xCMTON CITY OF Yg184 LNIQ4 116 3 8817023 2 20.32! 1114N 1699% VON 01266 F42.l. 110634 4922 2111 ... 0652 127169 12121 171011 1705% 10.114 1302662 Mt 9aEOF GYM'J DE 9WMR CITY OF YORRALW3A 116 1 69150200 1 59,01 52%1 %665 4151 36.64 4. NW 11IIi 9In MW 65136 "M M463 11113 39.07 I. 15112515101 M CIpsO Of 1185797 MY, Of YORBA LM, 115 3 "1502" 1 117143 61541 655,00 Will QUM 3821 271.MIS MM 212441 211 NO 211161 219.71 02.01 N1916 0132 6M ON 1 1671793 279601ON ANMDONE IATEPoSAU.COND(i "1 3 91007" 2 109U 106.1% M712 301216 A3314 MNO I".517 IM021 2169% 215439 WENT mill 20.011 237M 45205 592151 1 16132903 5535 IN xCgANNWMAII ME CITY OF YORBA LINDA 75 3 9100759 2 100,133 1ON IN 9 95116 699972 2M.W 231.101 BM 501 62602 31610 31201 mill) 30,101 %6.275 5%521 914119 912623 1 19132913 57021Ny1Y.EYN]IIMNY WAY CRY OF YOR8.A LINDA 115 3 91.37. 2 617,065 01317 70761 INN 116.005 11650 19110 1%,90 %3679 IN IN 264 (NO MUM 116659 415013 719M 710678 1 21711.01 SNIIRC.E6WY30EBRYAxi CITY Of Y0R8A LN0A 713 ] 6MU176 2 10IN 230 .179 MOST 167W 10468 7797 if Will 19.0% 97247 %199 117.36E 118616 1 %. 1002 155.5115 1 2201163 59S IQ Of 801797 011OFYiNINALWOf. 713 ] 191"210 1 416.50 Ulm U,ml Ulm 10.914 MM MIN 161.551 10 On NIM IN .W 30.%5 U31M 7102 10215 WIN 130721♦ SWIRGVMOMBRYAYT CIVICIY0R63LWW 713 3 117.211 1 60.10 MIN 9".1% 10150 1.07 71613 10311 0122 Ili mm 2901 W05 01.111 IM311 Imm "209 1 211N101 NUOIR NNELRNNTE RC,O UTYOf YORM LPFA 110 3 1306"66 2 713,130 01,571 QUM 476"5 MIN Ulm IN T92 M1070 59514 437610 136.852 012" W02 617MI 616%5 439655 2 )5 52130 SKFPMO'LALI11]Of &72401 VYUOELRTONOA 717 3 31.01" IIn 93.26 11."0 75.553 4185 41,127 SOUR %365 3519 11.662 8134 59.644 1201 11613 WON 553% N.W 2 Anil" SS9IEUPN6N1 CRYOf YCRfl3lWA 110 l 1914" 2 231.110 18452 170.5% 02M .1" 172" IM."0 .119 U,U3 MIN 37.103 fitM 001 1211N 12134 61.1, 2 211"1. -1 511501774[01AVf [014412OF CPMf£ 70 10 N011190 2 101 6129 I'M 0229 7,Yt 6440 BM 121 IM 697 Im 697 616 IY29 1441 1141 2 6.12.1 2011 UP/.LW AYL CpIM1Y0F ORMGf 710 10 030011 2 5901 49311 18.65 U3N .4 51616 0119 .393 LN9 463. 0.01 .665 53.112 001 9379 71065 2 21Nµ0 NS9IEUPNNA1OTB MYUYCAB.AIHDA 110 3 16411225 2 26,615 W117 X1621 IW20 19IM1 127.97 IM421 0.66 ..332 MIN 22601 1.7. 19SM 232.60 23160 INNS 2 01079.-0 NWEUPAIA. CITY Ci YORB, LWM lI0 3 154171124 2 I.0, 10,745 19220 INU3 IWIM 11590 114152 0395 ]6.M ",57 SENT IN727 103.979 141342 70431 71932 2 31 Wall 55tlEGPAl1M2 COY OF YINI LOOM 110 2 1017412 2 20.01 W56M 23937 165319 IN 121,932 12012 S2 So 51,616 43623 47,127 2796 SQUID 31860 336.119 111344 2 32 538%O NI I IN O, LOUIS D YORBAE CITY CF YOf2A L9TA 712 ] 796921150 2 I"M 7 049 16 111 NFM MW 0. 341 1201 915 025 32.1" 31418 %1E K332 62 N6 11. 31418 2 IN I2M50 59331. V LONAS D 4,p®, E CRYU YORRA L. TM 3 6669Ltl 2 119.01 111. IN.. "ITT 17.62 29.174 TAM 23.1" 2201 %57 µ "1 .NO 13.379 1"Dt 102,03 71065 2 IN MBN41 91910 YH LQNSDYgTAK 1211'[1YORPALAM 112 3 "61260 2 12.01 12291 1211N .592 W. bM El" 19.114 21.616 7"9 255) 93503 ,.010 1120% 11110 ,.ON 2 %01346 PASEO BE TORONTO CTry OF YORE, 1.3A 712 3 032515 2 NATO %Ill 45,623 11 %3 16,01 11 121 10473 IA7 I.I 2SW mill 17, %3 TIM 27.06 79,9% IIM2 1 %06251 SE CORNER MET) Of TORONT@M CWAM CMNYOMUNM III 3 31127630 I I a 0 56.X6 57W3 73.309 11601 19.9 11953 11 %9 MITI 43387 41691 2644 25434 16.3`9 45631 N.8 1 37 .1321 20. IQ PASEO DE TORONTO CITY OF YORG L6IDA 71 3 µ9M510 2 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 931060 2790 IN PASEO Of TORONTO tlfYM YORBAING 714 3 ONWAIS7 7 112798 11501 11112 1132 Ism 9101 .112 XAIO 32.911 901 5101 n%, 12M M. 11107 1900 2 3, 1314,-0 W21N.ALCWS14 [11201 Y0RAALICA 111 3 3IU4162 2 1037, 15162 MIN 11,013 116" 121" 3117 201 22u2 NUt 67M 0,l. .PI 10,114 1.616 1151" 2 .215950 9%179 `79[679. Yh M,COYORBALWM 111 3 1 0692955 2 WIN 3%.019 39553 107,719 1N971 NMI 9101 25.40 23 9Y 12201 121,IN 11594, 111152 181,71 1"381 132.106 2 4167114 1010114MLpMSYR CRYWYCW1AL"M 711 3 11 "92651 2 Ill 399 356,073 NIW 2410 M.05 MIN 37.3 36,05 556" 25,01 1511.743 1,5379% .601 445091 MM 13124241 21,1112 NNBERLY ME IATERPA2AROA 115 3 0052/116 2 23.081 352,332 3119% 310792 110712 109964 6132 "57 92759 92010 10962 19.231 00914 319,418 MIN 2W2. N ITIO, MI951R PASEO OE TORONTO P .Ui UNlll.. 114 I 1601. 1 10,083 192"1 1,249 118.50 175,792 InNO 112.052 107119 105911 91162 00514 109%1 IDOXI M6% 23401 1713N, 1 651901 24.1R1CWWAY LATEW.2ACCNDAS50 ]U S 9.96661 1 M25N M%9 M0 l 1.153 IN151 %4. 0151 32914 31416 97241 9649 191501 101153 60519 219.021 3..15 1 275537 -1 23071RNCOLEWAY UTFRWA.SOC 11] 3 9.72779 2 1001 154,091 IN= 1203 116&0 61.00 .02 205 2.10 412 4201 NM 0216 101719 1 06911 92M Nu�MpPNm41urm41cM piUw I Tdd 1592,71 165.446 1,61597 7MM7 sail 3330.321 3,05.651 2912914 2NOW 3 111745 94%244 40001 507"9 7m726 ON2W 660.511 23 GPI" 1759 1167 712 1 63b 1112 7.1 7.1 614 "E 716 "1 1111 1351 1%.9 1 "2 1516 7yAMldgie]uNwiNaM PNON27" 21MM 2331.179 3.315.969 1.M.Wil 1^,07 1114,44 115791 1,901 463,792 1,201.371 1,110116 2151319 2X0612 217210 2.19,130 15.,01 15 GPN 016 541 96 016 303 211 A8 "1 107 76 VA NA 44 013 .0 .1 T.U.dis4mu Ippw 401N9NNw 9,71.757 967112 9431.116 03",151 6.7199,712 4014.10 450.111 3.79,01 34".17 4.51113.117 401612 146637 0627.02 03µ664 10,10,112 63414 IN % a06 279.3 24.1 259 103 151.4 I"3 1654 6E 43 INTO 107A 1150 lm 2112 101 I%.1 1 011 ].9NUAlE46 ell AppN10N A DND11nG9 Cll6t FIN3n3a4 area Li2e<NI'6a Omit anaytis 1 024 iP.✓L I) Yam wa1 wamr ommca Im911aI FaaNmiy yam, METCALF&EDDY 4LCOM 1 2691X-1 BIMINBRLSII V N MAN 15,558 law 93,5% N,IY ASIN 227105 201,34 MINI 316,466 3u,6%I 1&2520 0 1WW] %,41 %]b 222919 a 10,%1 4125&2 MAN 257.440 1 3l1"10 285218 BWSNCNIYON A'm ",249 35.53 154451 152&23 MA12 4N616 Nl 314 SWW 6&2255 B33,Jb 146,562 0 140.161 M.07 5151 9,255 0 3MI14 333,1% 414W 4156" 1 IW1N1 264&2iR B0.U$NUWYaI 151162 1W,W5 IN 571 WAS MSW Il 1&2525 21,896 23040 Al l 25;]22 127917 0 125.461 51,616 m9W 137.W 0 0114 at% 1252513 1Am 1 5.7.12 -1 BR115N L0.VYa2DR 161,3% BINt 95151 18623 1]835 IMIN I %Wt 1168% 115200 153,351 152%3 20,511 0 0.016 44.135 O,WI 71.015 0 113,704 1469 20 %1 BO.A3 1 1001674 RAMHVM'a2D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 116.2562 WEah SIUWON W,02 11 a, 4110 A 1949 ",332 02838 62.17 U033 61,Yf5 MW 46,3% 0 ANT am A,112 53,112 a 0,311 0p0 MWt M,a2 1 1203211 BR115HG Ym 14,618 92,010 91.262 9.25 93,520 152M 151,855 762]0 19,312 233A2 Mw aw 0 2002 23.531 ".182 "Am 0 112A0 11100 118192 1166" 1 13 MA12 EAS1510Ea G"WOa 883120 0,201 31418 ARM 1101 11213 &2119 4623 97213 NAM "691 2034 aOwl 0 MNI 11]13 13,165 12.113 0 am 23,1" M111 46,123 1 15112513 55 %1212A44BWDEMFYW 35055 =317 53.111 242389 11..15 111.016 616255 algal BNAS w7g), ASSAM 52%2 MAW W. "M 25,151 31,43 125.1&2 13245 112,925 11"5 2W As 251.11. 1 16Ims3 2]%0112 NOR6Y.N3N OI0VE MINI 2 &2016 130,90 125113 111250 175,712 151.338 315% 00685 51,95 119,03 418.161 101,34 IMAM MA73 61.204 1NAN i9,W N6,1N Ng613 0202 Sam 1 IS 132013 55MIRK0'XON6 Wlslm5lE MAN 62,123 WAS INA7 %1,511 MAN 12059 120161 WAS 96230 1201&2 ]11,15 319.419 311,92 10.810 144.34 MAN mAw 41,55 mas 6NA52 W9N 1 19132914 SMIIIISMONEV6pN.T.. 31, T2 202,213 mill 29.10 23Ax iM.171 538.03 537.101 WIAN 01,146 MA9 W. %l 2X-,48 MW 133p31 132.45 W,010 3MA0 ]51.1" Nine 7151M 113.&2 1 21111633 SW IRCFNINO DE BHYA41 I54"1 Will 0,823 N .0M MJ56 IWN7 IMAS 21A74 AIN 51621 24,15 12201 121,932 &.BOB WAN 0 0 Rm 0,071 225,912 25.15 1 %,242 1 1207184 SNSIRCAWIW aa1YAV5 614151 120810 IN,MB 216.187 215,439 W.U7 N2m AN 192 105,444 352W M1,O44 b3A5 466A? Iam 1"09 29,I71 MIM Maw 253520 5M.w 519.10 535,M5 1 2307214 556512CNMWaa2W 901.43 211.521 218.79 MAN m.9, 114IN 15255 918369 917,821 01X3 ug"I WAM WIN %5,205 201.511 MIM 27670 W2.9M 832182 9TJ.N1 973116 107392 1 2/16110.2 242512 Pa1EMWWLE RCAO 101% 316.43 315,674 162321 162820 323Ata MOAN 516901 516.1% 543.89 513M6 114421 4129M 0 032W 4202 I66.1N 0 .2Am 4M,"2 516018 515253 2 2052500 SLLER1WYl MORYNIT 64036 Will 4AM 4,638 41.143 W.SN VAN 035 6201 N.312 MAN MASS &2,151 0 20618 M182 31418 0 "A" "AG MAN 4,51 2 AS MI160 593EUPA l SAM 10250 W.70 WAS MAN 120.55 134,649 59,101 N1,MI ISO" lam RA19 MSS\ 0 14MI 14213 .m 0 SIAM %,1N 120556 lam 2 21162151 MIISUPAIMIAK 9,125 11221 10 ,413 am 7,41 9.85 SAM 112511 9,25 10.4n BAN 11,201 925 0 10,411 1913 IBMi 0 1122 10 ,471 112531 10,12 2 A7012-1 25411 U PAI9N AW 70,313 11A13 M31] VA25 NW W514 0.018 %.201 925 AIMS 20,151 Was 29,131 0 am 6,22 ll 0 am 623" N,NI Will 2 2510.00 NS LAPN.WLOTB 1NA1 113A3 0NO n'm AWI 171044 11104 I 95950 1NW 80.12 ASIAN NMI 599 0 MAN 276M MISS 0 0010 NA14 117.51 115M 2 AMN1 hl CUPAL4A 121N B1,SN N.m 1622531 101138 law 16491 lam 197"1 112.24 Iam 20012 8545 0 M.gN ABM Sam a INM3 %,41 IN= 10.610 2 31 W 170556 118.940 117W am Sam lam 120,621 1A3S 425625 33152 MINI IM613 14.12 0 25.134 21206 38.00 a 63,02 MN4 =IN MAN 2 353060 all 14WSLMM50308.25E 2092 15,16 14M1 MAN 2041 am Q.MA WAS am %,NI %AM 10.12 0 9,85 am 3,34 20,028 0 was "S.7w .610 12012 2 334250 5903114VLmal) ORIAE am 61140 aw w d MIM lam 20,41 1NAM 12542 115,920 12002 bUt 0 44,W AN1 14A13 MAN 0 0.02 M3M 115255 15,02 2 34 218440 W191145MLOAMSDY010AE am 0.071 67.325 62,&21 6733 IMIN 131201 1M.41 INNS 1310 1370 4,W 0 am ".242 M.W 31.411 0 am 31113 117,444 115201 2 %6514&2 PASEO a TORONBO VAN OAN am 9,1M am W,N2 11205 M41 560 2005 62"8 11,X1 . VAN 1.,A33 B.. 11213 a 31.116 MAN SIAM 11121 1 "06281 51F CORYF0.PASEOa i00.0NiM'NLAN3Aa4 62"2 11221 93M 24W "m was W,119 42,09 4,W M782 822M 20"3 M151 I.401 SAN SAN SAS am 0,95 426M 41,143 20356 I 3780112 -I 247501RPMAODETORCNiO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a a . 0 0 0 0 a 2 20209160 24UIRIAMONTORNRD 1903 1W.9M Iaz"I 10,317 MN9 144.311 IQAM 15201 1219 u1.m I %31 a 0 a 0 0 0 MAN MN5 I%NN law 1".162 2 2051460 N221MMI.M SYB: lu.W M,317 0.0 M553 N.W am 0151 1am 10w 13801 120.145 am 0 N"I 31.411 a MAN 0 0.782 am 1",121 IMAM 2 021N50 SN51RY"LMUSYR 15,925 91202 M]" NAA 91X 1M,114 118,036 214.0I 23.53 Boy, 259.15i 61A0 a WIN 4255 0 M.W 0 120,10 lisw 170556 lam 2 116111140 W1014SAL4"SY& 262. %3 INA15 IN,n7 12115 IWA36 AIM M4A10 ffi.ae alAN 30,013 3".311 131.W 0 1%2539 81531 0 0715 0 mall lap3 3M1% 315620 1 412441 BBNIRN"Bla.Ylm& 121M 1204M 11402 111.%6 145,12 Islas 295,481 NSM 4MG2 124145 217,W 26,151 135,145 I %}91 U.9, 61M 120.14 11880 15351 19W MAN 3MM1 1 a130510 N6"IRPASEOXTORNNO 170556 1559 14.161 M,515 13.193 1aW 158.93 10.631 IMAM Will I9005 MN2 MA9 1305 12,717 34N MAW taw 1 %07 1Bt,m INA, W7210 1 N75 1 24044182NCMEWAY MB]N 055 62AM WIN KIM 191.01 190m 219,201 29,119 w.w 31500 10312 1 66116 %617 NAN 49371 4,621 5246 14,130 191,59 19101 2414 1 70 1520.1 2MMICMEWAY OUT 31.03 N,fiW N151 37,40 107,119 m.223 11908 118,192 153,11 lam 36,51 MSa M. X182 20442 2.01 62"2 1921 121.932 121.184 1",071 Numbv WFM1ael uxrwnnevlN 5,311021 3 ,417,W 2,M197 262014 2512351 4,119,113 5.120 SP 6401129 1.623,138 I,WSN 1.520,03 5 537,629 3,.1,51 2M.116 162.15 136209 23NAW 2"1,"9 4201,020 S,0.321 6411,A3 81152561 A INS NA 671 as %5 100 155 14.2 1166 AMA 1743 IAA 76.9 %5 al Nl NA 551 1201 1NA IN.. I A Numbs WFMe3uxranxa9 1,551A4 1018,020 1,0010 972120 054,2M I,W SIt 1,976114 23630% 2A611 2514AM 2.46714 W,IN 43,319 MAW 3MW 10231 50A93 Xm il",1N 1554,452 200325 2101% 15 Nt 336 231 201 19.0 436 OA 247 "3 NA 801 193 105 as 82 43 134 Ol 946 "A 42 as 162&2NUVdvNUmmnmeM . iOAw IMAII 4,436255 3NM,W 25WAN 3.mBX BN1984 706,51 8,161AM DAMON 11152,1% 1002,14 1372W 354970 2.121413 2.14500 1.W3A 2W,1N 241720 6.15.130 1.10.TR .325,714 B,W 131 N tat 10.1 MJ 623 N3 146 150 2029 2369 2552 =a 1473 ITS 0.0 N8 NA 202 %0 10.3 1201 fal Mai 195 = 3M11M22'FO6 Appomb,A pemands Cwt asnm.m 62110 Ld",M, am 9n*w 2&4 1/5200/ Y"W lnae We Dmbkt METCALF &EDDY Yliglmm Fea Uky S6Wy 1 117493" 21]OOIrs&1115M CMnxD BnYBEWlrwnr 1.496 0 70 7" 0 - 0 tw a 1456 0 ra a 0 0 1,4% 0 0 9 a I 2 697 1 n1fi IQ8RJS4GYI0N 3054 3x6"1 ]x2113 174,294 0 InN) laas 0 111,001 In In on Va Mal WAN 961 an '"All 12551? 1"374 Wall 116M0 I 317451.1 292921n BA,,NG O. x700 40910 35M Iu501 0 InM +70.55 0 256,X2 MAN Us In x761" M2122 391m 2x31 TOM 15110 tall. '1Xan 1 I.., 261%189WSNCANION MAN, 1X161 MIN +ape 0 .5,122 17.25 0 70517 OUT men 1246" 11700 11594 noon 225.114 92.35 91162 103211 1 567612-1 BIVSIi Olce in. IN", X1621 125.413 0 IXNS 101,961 o am, won 161.511 Mons In1N IWW 1x1356 15t 655 115945 111$64 X645 + is 90163.3 8814545 LNYONIW 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 o a 0 1 11 MXM2%PUW UWON Iism 114.452 Im", 52.366 0 51616 16301 0 72,561 11.11 40100 To 12749 +26.421 "1]s Nm 403% NN7 35.15 1 12451231 BRM3 C YOK IXm 1X49 +Ne1, 110712 0 1".996 10319 0 MX2 497. 163.075 LOW 115964 inns 979E 91247 .7. 90962 Nan n ami EA519DF Of 1.44545.'1 pE eIrvMT 17256 71613 nod, MIT. 0 X426 Mal 0 41x91 111a wIN 623M 10511 Nul MIN now 24456 21190 17902 1 11 laII -5 550512 [452510 GE 84599613 min ]91.451 410451 Min 267M As IN a 52%4 V= as NO 74M 1"545 10131 101111 761517 0 1". 0 21101 I 1.71.1 230' 1RNWNiiiin 011: 131,.1 ,wen 371 R] Mom NOW WIN 90112 63045 492945 will MIN 515152 MO 292.645 AIIa 0 45L., 0 15101 I 16131763 IIN114MCONKMOIININNORNE 611,14 676139 7102 11425 MIN Won Iw3X ta662 44515 45122 565521 X4.119 1521n 05120 NeMt 0 1190,15, 0 6260 I 19 IniJ 57121145NONUMOLN30411WAr 02117 MIN ..966 MIN 100342 105770 w592 Wan 379M )11,166 91195 915,40 325963 Visa 141519 0 014,161 0 172452 1 21111643 SSNIRCMIROMBWMT IMAM 127911 Mal 141.3 1.,06 ".2 ULM 10101 1110 Inlin 175045 Min, 1766. 90514 07. 111"4 ...6% am Mal 1 801113 SM1IRCNW]Df BI1rA1R X4.457 9009, .,It, WAN w3p6 245361 2"513 Loan, 15105 NS IN SMYA .641 .5.119 44.445 4096 245396 .7. 3M.9. 31941. 1 n6,21A S5651RCNN2ONENN21 lame% 1.556 145,10 as Min Mal 2610 111 NN IAW I,,M III 1,05.4"" 1.07 ,14 1069, MA" 171,00 1.,.0 131.2 107.5] 1011195 1 241.101 24291n2 GRNN7E0.Wll "1"1 07335 934317 No 701 305953 192349 191501 0 211.50 7096 97M Win 6% No 633,09 41 Mil Mass "150 WAIT MINI M 355251 S4EPOlDiWIB DE 6RYMT X02 am min .151 Mal 14113 12717 0 R,914 31411 90445 N., Ulu an 83762 a2w 47,127 4,631 "LIN 2 26201160 SMOEUPµW1 Imail 165,319 31567. IXM1 loan, 14% 0 0 will 0371 110,112 IN.. lam LMX2 162521 ,90631 aan 51.900 42127 2 21 10181 2NIS UPNYS A9E I'm, 97M 4197 IIn, 0,15 141 674 0 1445, 1345 1In, OM 12717 11131 M1,6M 4.197 14.961 LIAM I'M 2 2610121 25114UPAI.MAVf CAN 1110 MILT 11701 11953 Non X112 0 no. 31AIS 27676 MAN 6110 W. 26.11 645 ..90 %40 30670 2 961100 NW UPN.M LOT. 961 Mo X4531. 19,517 O.SM NM1 ]Jill 1.,w 0 1AM 122417 .1,.6 1.616 16241 I,1 5X 1120, 11140 95751 Jim In In 2 MW7W NSCEL,kl` M 111.036 172. 1.571 9070 "V2- 0 a IN 161 0 124.645 1159" 115190 in'. 1wM2 192W Iw.M1 9,821 Ian 70317 2 3131x0 SSJ*LAPAmk2 241,145 .:.016 MAW X1 97110 9005 635. 0 ,1149 119.712 MIMI .)90 3%.119 34911 Ill. Ulm 123.91 12194 Ulu 2 325.%0 9011545`96]9455290118811 X06 NXe 9350 0 NW 569. x172 0 41. A395 01522 wan as's 90514 x01 "IX I'm Ism 201 2 .4317170 1911INVLpNSOYDIwAF IN 196.1 1MAN 0 71,313 loll] 10961 0 79196 71117 T.LQl IMAn ,900] I"m 6501 90596 468 41251 ",a M .71440 4519145 `96 LOIASD50RRAE 1810 IMA, 12343 0 w]A MW ..SN a 39641 .N Inm 11.411 1571. 151"1 NOn 6657 471V Ism "in 2 .45"40 PASEO M TORWi0 61. a592 Win 0 31,418 an Will a 15.&6 .410 53112 1174 1111) 70317 .610 non 21696 Mal 19. 1 .Usual SFCOMER`Mkil a T0RCA70V GAIT Ik .600 1209 4143 41191 103. X965 19"9 son 02N S00% XW a., "in 436. 61.01 9001 90119 37403 MIN 1 316141 211 %1R Pn 5%1080960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 a 0 .I nl Mal 3.67 IM 127 230.40 2X95 2 .31660 MaIlN nOC81gN921D 163293 11206 II1,W 003" ui. 90"6 Nan +11.01 109. f.la 1.01 1..", VIAL) "24) 101,7. 11101 110712 NN 49371 2 39 3314.0 5117I.MlOu SrIF 167.56, Well lam 0 .7,51 9`155 i.n 0 NM2 n1M 1.45 190,5 1.08 1745, 900. 42116 awl id. s5..1 2 021160 1NINSMLCWSVE 79.117 217,W M1574 0 I.A, IRAN nom 0 15442 112.956 1 %1a 193.14 .02 in law 1431, Tom 12171 9I M 2 41671414 WIOI4YMUMkSY2 410.052 49055 439,106 0 II, an 1N281 152.03 0 196,170 19112X 31411 31341 590213 564111 190%9 M1.473 181,71 1.029 lum 1 4374241 22u1 1R MoMoILYINNE 290"0 M?n2 15a1% IM9u 131657 +..", TEXT 74M 964. in 329. 40960 IN. min MI. 96204 0 %l3M 0 114452 1 M7M14 X9518 PA L) DE TORDITO 17145] 12117 1.4. 131.61 130,161 Islas 1.127 436 n.l I... Iw715 111112 . ?W 124 In Inm 056) 97247 67In NOM 1 1 so laMI XONIQWOLEWI.V 107NII.1 1.311n WOLEWAV 24.6. 183173 151,01 NW] 1.56 91.50 19241 103on 1011" I "Pt 1.190 am n1M .1143 17134 will ,Mal 11545 45616 174196 25157 1n= nas41 XNAU 173996 N1.N ta]n 17917 112.517 ,21.19 Ini. 11743 11167 ,2969 6735 90119 N. a371 Xuli4lMRmst uvr�nnnMN 6.05.62+ 6161153 ,Ow "9 1776112 4451,905 41X50 2211X2 1M6.471 313139 58172536 7117,617 ?`.45.95 817245 5,,137111 9.]10 202.2. ill.., 1001.x1 8,).090 n 199 1431 TNT II.. "s.7 .5 511 216 NS 1313 12.9 In1 .36 136.0 148, 623 1455 71, 906 KnOrMFTe43urevnn4M AMM 2m.410 2.x491 Ulm 1145345 Inn' saw 21111 Intro 1201.45 1%4.60 19N110 M.e.6n .4173917 1566.421 ,61.9W 107110 JOINT Wal is Ma S2a M7 4A M. 33 VA S6 561 219 41 "1 0.7 901 X3 Nt A9 nt VA LW 64WMtl�m4vvYl. ipuw N 93111" 3)) 841996 INA 448117 1*3 SNdU4 13D 5.410.119 1X0 UMj Z7 450 3,196,11 179 1631045 301 4ANpt 1111 UNLIX 1NJ 911125 MIA 9,"11" 2166 I.M.712 411 9451617 MOP MUMS 1Us 4]111]17 MA 1,a0j. 1714 4"17.17 4A 4XIII 1119 1 MI ]."1"tl31EdB APPendil A Demands Cost esamate and Lice cost analysis 304 115/!0025 Yorea Linea Water District Iniganon FeassWity Study 1.. 2asasl. LLL1crt2M63mmiaryWY 0 2,244 70 In 001 I 2697xi1 VODOIRBa15NCAXYON 114.192 MIN 20,M1 Isom 40 1 a71MI 1 292921R69uSNG ON DIABI 403200 401,704 2)99)1 6. 1 4 61816L 293a01n RFUJ. NY0N IN.17 441112 310w IMSH 011 1 563612 -1 Ba115XLANYONDR 50,115 129,113 MISS 116,272 2.. 1 IS 0167.1 BPoISHGWYg1 pR 0 0 0 0 ON 1 11 Eni %B61151IGNY0N 34A10 65171 &,332 59.121 137 1 12603211 MV5XCN o 65601 144441 177383 120.910 260 I 13692091 E/Si ypE OE CAIaNOpE BRYNrt Wm `20.446 57,600 40,557 ON 1 1571251 -5 5W5In CPMIN00EHWMT 10021 t.2n 567.00 3 95193 915 1 1671%0] 2)VA IR NCONNYINONYf DSIV 218,179 362.052 NIAN 675 1 1972 3 553519 NOpLiM1"WAIN ORRE Balm 489,2% 611,936 555,104 1285 1 19 DaHA 902111Sa SKSA7A114 WAY 418M 417A13 551,31, 1 %051 1079 1 217176&3 554432LlJIINppE aKYN2f 129,413 122.812 %3314 IN932 2& I 60 69)163 3515112L.WNg0EBMART 360044 Sm.n. 25,860 4MID 916 1 23606019 5555112LPMINOOE&ryANT M" 691 ,475 1149,258 6.7% 1517 1 24764761 213% 112 MIEGIMATE RCNO ATM 601 ON sm 42710 ON 2 aU51M SYFRpWYq OEBMMT 426311 75.553 74067 52M 151 2 %N1160 SWEUPALWI 0,01 93$06 92010 MEN 2A 2 31101161 25415UP AVE 11321 14MI 1103 1010 OD 2 0M121 MUUPM AVE 29,922 107,719 IN171 48,521 1.12 2 MIY1190 NSCE U PN LOTS 132105 MASS Dow 137. 318 2 311502250 NSOEUPAIAM 69,559 161777 117381 1..2 2.60 2 31332480 SSSKUPA12M2 ISM, MASS 139138 177NO 412 2 YSMWa W11114 M LIAWSD RBAE 1196 MIN DOW 62$% I. 2 3312A&O S9219VL0MA5p Ye1&6E 0,445 13169 'Am 74,531 1n 2 44278440 SB191 /1'44 LONASOMRBAE 442060 119192 117441 29,170 1v 2 wm5 PASEO LIE TOAYRO 17263 17,6@ 69,441 31.012 M 1 X6 1 S ECORNERPA5E00ETgMNTpVN Ttt IB]N 45631 77448 38125 099 1 3)80132 -I 247M In PAYO a TORONTO 333,631 M21X 591,.9 50,830 1.16 2 X316180 244681 /4PASEOCETORgITO 1578M 157,171 197.417 95339 220 2 X331180 SB2219ml-USUSYF 53817 1311657 130909 69130 ON 2 4D5%0 589519M1.0465YR %251 86.972 M.", 142651 3. 3 41 671415 6O1019VIAL0SA5H£ 151196 X3073 M5.325 277,Im 112 1 43 12424-1 DWI 112 NYBERLYMPT 10,746 183.992 3532060 MOM 4. 1 69730615 DN51RPASE00ET0R0N70 4460 2132 1152020 126483 293 69 251761 2060 I2 W0,E WAY 237.210 86,162 31616 123,710 4,02 70 75537 2117&IRWOLEWAY I481a 14SA70 1 96244 MSY 219 10 YLS 471 2512 1501 Mglm V ®q pvyur 59931325 gaVp 16392 129620D Salo, 54 a 7791MI19 , 2X.. r. METCALF &EDDY 1. , .c -i Append,. A Demands Cost estimate and Lifer da cost analysis 4 of 4 1152009 Mgarcn Vu9+P+r mmN 3EFX632XE26 Araa9e Pnne 1 Veer 217113 GYne t 03 GPM Averaq P6ne2V 99,345 GaMMetnM 244 GPM Awpe,NVw 13155 Grtn 415 GPM Mglm V ®q pvyur 59931325 gaVp 16392 129620D Salo, 54 a 7791MI19 , 2X.. r. METCALF &EDDY 1. , .c -i Append,. A Demands Cost estimate and Lifer da cost analysis 4 of 4 1152009 Yorba Linda Water District Irrigation Feasibility Study Yorba Linda Water District Irrigation Feasibility Study Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate Item No. Phase 1 Item Description Units city Unit cost Subtotal 1 125-ft shallow well ea 1 $350,000 $350,000 2 500gpm well pump and motor ea 1 $22,000 $22,000 3 Irrigation service connections ea 10 $2,500 $25,000 4 370,000 -gal steel reservoir gal 1 $612,150 $612,150 5 Additional service laterals, assume 8-in PVC If 2,500 $118 $295,000 6 Irrigation service connections ea 13 $2,500 $32,500 Subtotal $1,336,650 Engineering % 15% $1,336,650 $200,498 Contingencies % 20% $1,336,650 $267,330 7 Condition Assessment LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 PHASE 1 TOTAL $1,829,478 Phase 2 8 12 -inch PVC, to complete loop If 11,300 $133 $1,502,900 9 Irrigation service connections ea 15 $2,500 $37,500 Subtotal $1,540,400 Engineering % 15% $1,540,400 $231,060 Contingencies % 20% $1,540,400 $308,080 PROJECT TOTAL $3,909,018 Note: 1. Pipeline estimate unit cost based on recent engineer's estimate for recent YLWD pipeline project (provided December 2008) Estimate: $100/If 8 "pvc and pipe $6 /sf ac pavement, at 2,500 If and 3 ft wide pavement, approximate unit cost $118/If for 8" PVC Estimate: $115/If 12 "pvc and pipe $6 /sf ac pavement, at 11,300 if and 3 ft wide pavement, approximate unit cost $133/If for 12" PVC 2. 370,OOOgal reservoir cost based on quote by CB&I, 1/2/2009, for $371,000. 55' dia x 24' tall with 24" freeboard. Includes normal accessories, internal coating, external painting, concrete ringwall foundation (24" W x 30" D), CA prevailing wages, CA sales and use taxes. 50% added for civil site work and yard piping, 15% for electrical and instrumentation. METCALF &EDDY (V\I Notes Life, yrs 50 25 25 75 50 25 50 25 Appendix A Irr- Cap -Cost Cost estimate and Life -cycle cost analysis 1 of 1 1/512009 Yorba Linda Water District Irrigation Feasibility Study MET CALF & EDDY LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON LIFE CYCLE COST FOR NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM BY PHASE Const. incl. Eng. & CAPITAL AND REPLACEMENT Contingent Est. life span in years Replacement cost at end of 25 year PHASEI 125-ft shallow well $472,500 50 $629,804 500-gpm well pump and motor $29,700 25 $79,175 Inflation service connections $33,750 25 $89,972 370,000-gat steel reservoir $826,403 75 $734,351 Additional service laterals, assume 8-in PVC $398,250 50 $530,835 Irrigation service connections $43,875 25 $116,964 Condition Assessment $25,000 Subtotal $1,829,478 $2,181,101 PHASE 2 12-inch PVC, to complete loop $2,028,915 50 $2,704,378 Irrigation service connections $50,625 25 $134,958 Subtotal $2,079,540 $2,839,336 Total Capital and Replacement Costs for Phase 1 and 2 $3,909,018 $5,020,436 Interest paid on Capital Improvement (Bond) Interest Paid during bond period Phase 1 $67,081 Phase 2 $76,250 Total Interest paid, both phases $143,331 ANNUAL COST Present cost FV of all payments after life cycle period OCWD replenishment cost per wA incl. YLWD cost of pumping $350 Phase 1 Cost to replenish per year, 2008/09 $64,373 $2,680,865 Phase 2 Cost to replenish per year, 2008/09 $19,207 $799,904 Total cost to replenish, both phases $83,580 $3,480,769 Total Cycle Costs by additional phase Total cost at end of cycle period Phase 1 Cycle Cost $6,758,524 Phase I and 2 Cycle Cost $12,553,553 LIFE CYCLE COST FOR PURCHASING MWD WATER Present cost FV of all payments after life cycle period MAD cost per ac-ft of treated water $610 Cost to purchase MWD water per year, 2008, Phase 1 demands $112,193 $7,096,078 Cost to purchase MWD water per year, 2008, Phase 2 demands $33,475 $2,117,293 Total Cycle Cost for MWD Water for all Phases $145,668 $9,213,371 LIFE CYCLE COST ASSUMPTIONS Life cycle analysis period 25 Replenish cost escalation per year 4% MWD water escalation per year 7% Interest rate 6% Inflation rate 4% Bond rate 4% Bond period, years 15 CYCLE COST COMPARISON BY PHASE IMPLEMENTED Implement Non-potable water System Purchase MWD Water Life Cycle Cost for Phase 1 $6,760,000 $7,100,000 Life Cycle Cost for Phase 1 and 2 $12,550,000 $9,210,000 Notes 1. MWD cost of raw water, tier 1, $351/ac-ft, MWD website. Escalation base on 2003 through 2009 costs. 2. MWD cost of treated water, tier 1, $520/ac-ft up to Dec. 31, 2008. $610/ac-ft starting Jan 1, 2009 from YLWD 3.OCWD replenishment cost from YLWD. Escalation roughly based on last two years: $237/ac-ft in 2007108, $249 in 2008/09. 4. Replenishment cost of $350/ac-ft based on OCWO cost of $249/ac-ft and estimated YLWD cost associated with well and pumping operation. 5. Replacement cost is based on fraction of cycle period divided by estimated life span of respective facility. 6. Interest on capital cost based on 15 year bond at 4% interest Appendix A Life-Cycle Cost estimate and Life-cycle cost analysis 1 of 1 115/2009 Yorba Linda Water District Irrigation Feasibility Study Comparison for average annual cost per ac -ft per year over 25 -year period, by phase METCALF &EDDY I AECOM Phase Volume of Water Average Non - potable Water System Cost Average MWD Full- service Water Cost (ac-ft/year) ($/ac-ft/ year) ($/ac-ft/ year) 1 183.92 $1,470 $1,544 1 and 2 238.80 $2,102 $1,543 Notes 1. Demands are based on 5 -year average provided by YLWD, July 2002 to June 2007. Appendix A Cost -year Cost estimate and Life -cycle cost analysis 1 of 1 1/5/2009 I YLWD SOURCE WATER SUMMARY ITEM NO. Fiscal Year 2008-09 TOTAL MONTHLY YTD BUDGET GW IMPORT DEMAND GW GW (Demand Est.) DELTA MONTH AF AF AF % % (AF) N Jul-08 1,535.2 1,170.0 2,705.2 56.7% 56.7% 3,005.5 -10.0% Aug-08 1,610.9 1,112.0 2,722.9 59.2% 58.0% 2,954.5 -7.8% Sep-08 1,481.3 974.4 2,455.7 60.3% 58.7% 2,597.9 -5.5% Oct-08 1,473.7 916.6 2,390.3 61.7% 59.4% 2,190.4 9.1% Nov-08 1,170.1 756.2 1,926.3 60.7% 59.6% 1,732.0 11.2% Dec-08 747.4 359.1 1,106.5 67.5% 60.3% 1,553.7 -28.8% Jan-09 1,011.3 459.2 1,470.5 68.8% 61.1% 1,349.9 8.9% Feb-09 1,299.0 Mar-09 1,528.2 Apr-09 1,910.3 May-09 2,547.0 Jun-09 2,852.6 FYTD 9,030.0 5,747.5 14,777.5 61.1% 15,383.9 Allowable GW (YTD) 7,667.7 (AF) CUP Obligation FY 2008-09 2,166.0 (AF) Monthly CUP Pumping (AF) - (AF) YTD CUP Pumping (AF) 1,960.8 (AF) YTD CUP Achieved 90.5% I GROUNDWATER PERCENTAGE 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% --*-MONTHLY GW -0--YTD GW 55.0% _BPP GOAL 52.0% 50.0% -CUP ADJ GOAL 60.0% 45.0% 40.0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 Month WATER SUPPLY FY 2008-09 January 2009 Water Supply CUP 0.0% IMPORT 31.2% GW 68.8% Year To Date 2008-2009 Water Supply i YTD CUP Achieved 90.5% of 2,166 AF CUP Obligation 13.3% GW 47.8% IMPORT 38.9% GW BPP GOAL 52.0% 3500 2500 2000 m LL V Q 1500 1000 500 Total Water Use §1 A0 A 01 00 7QQj0 Q6 jQ 00 4 0 ' �Q° ccc 01 p 0 �1 0 �0 6 A 0 A p 0 0A 0 0 )Y o 'A'54",:5 �e �e 40�a, .ao QQc'pQcpQt 4,av o S cS§cSzc Month ■ 06 -07 GW ■ 06 -07 IMPORT Monthly Average Mean Temperature ( °F) ■ 08 -09 GW ■08-09 IMPORT 76.1 72.7 7a.8 ■ 07 -08 GW 72.2 7z4 73.6 ■07 -08 IMPORT 70.2 70.5 72.1 67.3 70.4 69.8 63.8 64.0 65.1 67.4 63.3 62.8 65.4 s1.o so.z 59.5 60.1 55.2 56.4 62.6 57.3 54.0 54.3 55.0 55.4 §1 A0 A 01 00 7QQj0 Q6 jQ 00 4 0 ' �Q° ccc 01 p 0 �1 0 �0 6 A 0 A p 0 0A 0 0 )Y o 'A'54",:5 �e �e 40�a, .ao QQc'pQcpQt 4,av o S cS§cSzc Month ITEM # PM PROGRAM Annual 2008 JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Percent of tar et 8% 1 17% 1 25% 1 33% 1 42% 1 50% 1 58% 1 67% 1 75% 1 83% 1 92% 1 100% HYDRANTS (3,859) Tar et; all h drants to be serviced annuall . INSPECTED THIS MONTH 530 468 465 342 317 62 220 556 392 192 66 179 INSPECTED THIS YEAR 530 998 1,463 1,806 2,122 2,194 2,404 2,960 3,352 3,644 3,610 3,789 % OF TOTAL 13.7%1 25.9%1 37.9%1 46.8%1 55.0%1 56.6%1 62.3%1 76.7%1 86.9%1 91.8%1 93.5% 98% VALVES 10,000/2 = 5,000) ITarget, all valves to be 0 rated eve two ears OPERATED THIS MONTH 393 418 393 308 457 134 1 3291 4351 340 592 1 90 306 OPERATED THIS YEAR 3931 8111 1,2041 1,6121 1,9691 2,103 1 2,4321 2,867 1 3,207 ji 3,799 1 3,889 1 4,195 % OF TOTAL 1 7.9%1 16.2%1 24.1%1 30.2%1 39.4%1 42.1%1 48.6% 57.3% 64%1 76% 78% 84% DEAD ENDS (487x2 =974) Target: all dead ends to be flushed twice each ear. FLUSHED THIS MONTH 0 0 0 487 0 0 0 0 0 487 0 0 FLUSHED THIS YEAR 0 0 0 487 487 487 487 487 487 974 974 974 % OF TOTAL 1 0.0%1 0.0% 0%1 50%1 50% 50% 50% 50°h 50%1 100% 100% 100% AIR VACS 309) Target; all air /vacs to be serviced annually. INSPECTED THIS MONTH 37 18 39 82 110 9 21 110 15 6 3 0 INSPECTED THIS YEAR 37 55 94 176 286 295 316 426 441 446 449 449 % OF TOTAL 12.0%1 17.8%1 30.4%1 57.0%1 92.6%1 95.5%1 102.3%1 137.9%1 142.7%1 144.3%1 145.3%1 145.3% SEWER CLEANING 802.560) Tar et; all sewers to be cleaned annuall . CLEANED THIS MONTH 44,367 48,716 90,413 82,721 74,3011 73,111 67,6431 53,264 1 42,684 1 66,673 28,173 45,040 CLEANED THIS YEAR 44,367 93,083 183,496 266,217 340,518 413,629 481.272 534,636 677,220 643,893 672,066 717,106 % OF TOTAL 5.6%1 11.6%1 22.9%1 33.2%1 42.4% 51.5%1 60.0%1 66.6% 71.9% 80% 83.7% 89% SEWER TELEVISING (160,512) Target all sewers to be televised every 5 ears. TELEVISED THIS MONTH 1,727 700 1.261 0 3,414 7,1331 22.584 16,528 6.174 12,493 9.423 14.196 TELEVISED THIS YEAR 1,727 2.427 3,688 3,688 7.102 14,235 36,819 53,347 1 69,6211 72,014 ji 81,437 1 96,633 % OF TOTAL 1.1%] 1.5%1 2-3%1 2.3%1 4.4 0,6 1 8.9%1 22.9%1 33.2% 37.1% 4C9%j 50.7% 59.6 °,b PM PROGRAM KI1:, METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM WEST SIDE TO BE COMPLETED BY JULY 31st 2008 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JULY Percent of target 14% 28% 43% 57% 72% 100 °1° WEST SIDE SKIPS' 602 REPLACED THIS MONTH 16 90 109 64 72 74 REPLACED THIS YEAR 18 108 217 281 353 427 % OF TOTAL 4%1 22% 43% )%1 85% JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JULY Percent of target 14% 28% 43% 57% 72% 86% 100% LARGE RETRO FITS 161 REPLACED THIS MONTH ill 131 211 53 311 32 REPLACED THIS YEAR ill 241 461 981 1291 161 °h OF TOTAL 7%1 15% 28%1 61.0% 80%1 100% JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JULY 14% 28% 43% 57% 72% W. 100% SMALL RETRO FITS- (2 210) REPLACED THIS MONTH 3211 1 6731 16 1191 REPLACED THIS YEAR 3211 99,41 10101 2201 % OF TOTAL 15% 45% 45% 99% EAST SIDE TO BE COMPLETED BY JUNE 30th 2009 2008 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Percent of target 6% 1 11% 1 17% 22% 28% 33% 38% 44% REPLACEMENT PROD. 2500) REPLACED THIS MONTH 671 11 721 27 Ill 66 REPLACED THIS YEAR 671 58 1301 1571 1681 234 % OF TOTAL 2% 2% 5% 6% 7% 2009 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 72% 78% 83% 88% 94% 100% Percent of target REPLACED THIS MONTH REPLACED THIS YEAR OF TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS STATUS REPORT Date: February 2, 2009 New Information Since Last Report is Shown in Red IN CONSTRUCTION Z 0 r Project Current Status Next Actions Comments 1 Zone 4 Trans Pipeline, Reach 5 Pipeline complete and in Completion of punch- list Pipeline is in operation. However, Budget: $1,700,000 Job No. 200421 operation. The Contractor items, such as air - release project completion is subject to the Project Contact: Joe Polimino continues working on minor valves and valve cans, await developer (Shapell) finishing the Planned Completion Date: TBD punch list items. completion of road by the road and parkway construction. developer. 2 Lakeview Reservoir & Pump Station The new reservoir is in The contractor completed Estimated completion date is mid to Budget: $11,500,000 Job No. 200704 operation. SSC Construction placement of plastic sheeting late March 2009, assuming approval Project Contact: Joe Polimino continues to backfill on top of on top of roof so that now the of Change Orders 4 and 5. Planned Completion Date: Mar 2009 the roof and the south and east upper drain around the walls. Retaining wall work circumference can be installed. continues, and miscellaneous Backfill on the roof and walls metals work in the vaults also will continue, along with block continues. for retaining walls. 3 Highland Reservoir All four yard- piping tie -ins Completion of yard piping, Following completion of tie -ins, Budget: $11,200,000 Job No. 200309 were completed. vaults, electrical, disinfection, and pressure testing of Project Contact: Leon de los Reyes instrumentation & control the yard piping and temporary tanks Planned Completion Date: June 2010 Control, instrumentation, and system, and temporary tanks (TTs), and upon CDPH approval of electrical work on the appurtenances the TTs, demolition of the old temporary tanks expected to be reservoir should occur around end completed by February 9. Cure paint, vacuum test, of March. Production operators chlorinate and fill the TTs "comfort level" in TTs' operation Painting of inside of Temp will also dictate scheduled Tank #2 (TT #2) is complete. Clean, flush, pressure test, and demolition of old reservoir. Painting, leak testing, chlorinate all yard piping disinfection, and microbial A historian/paleontologist will be examination expected to be involved prior to reservoir completed and TT #1 ready by demolition as mandated by our February 9. project CE QA requirements. Z 0 r IN DESIGN Project On -going construction of retaining wall around Edison power pole on the east side of reservoir Next Actions CDPH sanitary engineer inspected the temporary tanks on January 27`h and results were acceptable. Permit will be issued within a week and half. 4 Well Capacity Optimization At the project initiation Staff discussed with CDM, the General Pump will provide details Budget: $1,000,000 Job No. 200813 meeting with General Pump District's consulting firm for of proposed tasks and cost for liner Project Contact: Leon de los Reyes (GP) on January 14, after a project, the outcome of the installation at Well 12, followed by Planned Completion Date: TBD review of well and aquifer data meeting with General Pump. review by district staff and CDM. for Well 12 and other wells on At the CDM meeting, Mike the Richfield site, it was Bodart of GP was put on a determined that a well liner is conference call to further the preferred option to discuss the details of the tasks rehabilitate Well 12. with Suzanne of CDM. Suzanne concurs with the recommendation but will further review the tasks. IN DESIGN Project Current Status Next Actions Comments 1 Zone 4C Reconfiguration Construction bids received Jan Recommendation for pipeline The planned construction Budget: $2,070,000 Job No.200710 20 for Zone 4C Pipelines. For award coming to Feb 5 PEO completion date for the pipeline and Project Contact: Joe Polimino upgrade of pressure reducing and Feb 12 Board meeting. the upgraded pressure reducing Planned Completion Date: 12 -19 -08 station, staff reviewed 50% Completing design of pressure station is December 2009. design plans. reducing station upgrade. 2 New Wells 20 & 21 For proposed Well 21, staff Review OCWD siting options Staff is prepared to perform the 4` Budget: $2,000,000 Job No.200711 identified four potential well in -house to identify those MPA test for proposed Well 20, Project Contact: Leon de los Reyes site locations near La Palma workable. Meet with OCWD during high river flow following Planned Completion Date: TBD Ave at OCWD's Santa Ana to discuss feasibility. rain storm. River Lakes Staff is also studying options on the placement of the planned well discharge pipeline that will connect to our 36" main transmission line at Richfield. Optional pipeline alignments are La Palma, Van Buren, and Miraloma Avenue to Richfield Road. 3 Hidden Hills Reservoir Advertised for bids Jan 19. Pursuing easement approval Construction contract bid opening Budget: $7,000,000 Job No.200028 Submitted draft Habitat with Shapell. In contact with scheduled for Feb 24. Project Contact: Steve Conklin Mitigation Plan requested by State Parks on final issues for Planned Completion Date: Sept2010 Parks, DFG & USFWS. permit. 4 OC -51 Connection Upgrade Completed application for Waiting for response from Design modifications to turnout will Budget: $242,000 Job No. 200815 upgrade and submitted to MET to schedule project be performed by MET staff to Project Contact: Steve Conklin MWDOC to forward to MET. meeting increase capacity from about 5 cfs Planned Com letion Date: TBD to a max of 20 cfs 5 Lakeview Sewer Lift Sta Upgrades Design complete. Right -of- Staff is investigating right -of- Meetings with property- owners Budget: $200,000 Job No. Ops. Project way issue delaying project. way alternatives. being planned. Project Contact: Lee Cory Planned Completion Date: TBD 3 IN PLANNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE BOARD (2007 -2012) THAT ARE STILL PENDING 1. Anaheim Intertie Connection Improvements ($500,000) 2. Zone 5 (1000) Booster Station ($1,080,000) 3. Fairmont Booster Station Reconfiguration ($400,000) 4. Foxtail Drive Pipeline ($245,000) 5. Elk Mountain Reservoir Site Improvements ($300,000) 6. Fire Flow Improvements- -Via Sereno and Ohio ($125,000) 4 Project Current Status Next Actions Comments 1 Highland Booster Station Upgrade Completed review of four Present staff recommendation Feasibility study will be completed Budget: $TBD Job No. 200817 Feasibility Study proposals for for study consultant to the Feb in approximately 10 to 12 weeks. Project Contact: Hank Samaripa the Highland BPS upgrade. 5 PEO and Feb 12 Board Planned Completion Date: TBD meeting. 2 Fairmont Site Improvements Proposed agreement "deal Prepare AR for FFDCA Review construction sequence with Budget: $300,000 (YLWD share) points" in the form of an between S &S and YLWD and SS Construction. Job No. 200803 FFDCA are under review by present to PEO committee. Project Contact: Hank Samaripa the legal representatives of Prepare AR for Board Planned Completion Date: TBD S &S and YLWD. Approval. 3 Irrigation Water Study Presenting findings of Subject to the direction Budget: $TBD Job No. 200807 Feasibility Study to Feb 5 provided by PEO and Board. Project Contact: Steve Conklin PEO. Planned Completion Date: TBD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE BOARD (2007 -2012) THAT ARE STILL PENDING 1. Anaheim Intertie Connection Improvements ($500,000) 2. Zone 5 (1000) Booster Station ($1,080,000) 3. Fairmont Booster Station Reconfiguration ($400,000) 4. Foxtail Drive Pipeline ($245,000) 5. Elk Mountain Reservoir Site Improvements ($300,000) 6. Fire Flow Improvements- -Via Sereno and Ohio ($125,000) 4