The Clean Water Facility project team's review of the 60 percent cost and design estimate.

1. Clean Water Facility
60% Estimate Review

2. • Project Team
• City of Oak Harbor
• Carollo Engineers
• Hoffman Construction
• KBA Construction Management
• OAC – Project Advisor
• HDR – Rates
• PFM – Funding Advisor
Introductions
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 2

3. • 60% Design Cost Estimate
• Bio-solids Alternatives
• Community Room Options
• Funding and Rates
Agenda
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 3

4. 60% Cost Estimate
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 4

5. • 2008 Sewer Comp Plan – Anaerobic Cell at Lagoons
• 2010 Facilities Plan – Site and process selection
• 2013 Selected Windjammer Park
• 2014 Selected and Purchased former WIB property
• 2014 Selected GC/CM Process and Hoffman
Background
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 5

6. • 60% Engineers estimate provides a probable range of cost
• -5% to +15%
• GC/CM provide opinion of cost for a Guaranteed Maximum Price.
• Conservative escalation factors, allowances and contingencies
“Budget Number”
• Think of these numbers as the “Bookends” of potential
construction costs
• Estimate is not a bid!
GC/CM “Opinion of Cost” vs.
“Engineers Estimate”
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 6

7. • Incorporated Cost Savings from 30% review
• Reduced Deep Excavation Footprint
• Headworks / MBR Common Wall
• Electrical, Instrumentation and Controls
30%  60%
What’s Changed?
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 7

8. • Greater Detail in Drawings
• More Advanced Vendor Quotes
• Site Prep A – Better Understanding of Site Risks
• Confirmed Depth to Glacial Till
• Some Systems Showed an Increase in Cost
• Others Systems Showed a Decrease in Cost
30%  60%
What’s Changed?
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 8

9. • Everything inside the box to
the right 
• Architectural Concept A
• Construction Only!
• Does not include splash park
What’s included in
the
Opinion of Cost?
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 9

10. • Bio-solids Dryer
• Community Room
• Rebuilding City Beach Street
• Southern Access Road
• Architectural Concept A
What’s Included
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 10

11. • Demolition of former bank building
• North parking lot
• Southern parking lot
• Mitigation
• Property / Easements / Right of Way
• Engineering / Construction Management / Archaeology
What isn’t included
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 11

12. 60% Cost Estimate
$98M
$113M
$91M
$109M
$60M
$70M
$80M
$90M
$100M
$110M
$120M
Carollo Hoffman
30% 30%60% 60%
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 12

13. Area 30% 60% Delta % Delta
Admin/Maintenance $6,576,485 $5,957,850 ($618,635) -9.4%
Community Center $1,670,560 $2,372,686 $702,126 42.0%
Landscaping $766,966 $2,446,105 $1,679,139 218.9%
Civil Sitework $17,522,245 $17,869,334 $347,089 -2.0%
Headworks $13,225,668 $13,226,368 $700 0.0%
Secondary Building $28,521,730 $26,447,663 ($2,074,067) -7.3%
AB WAS Storage $13,272,552 $13,022,498 ($250,054) -1.9%
Blower Building $2,009,339 $2,657,458 $648,119 32.3%
Biosolids Facility $17,827,572 $14,615,311 ($3,295,443) -18.5%
Odor Treatment $4,036,544 $4,820,893 $784,349 19.4%
Electrical Building $7,873,971 $5,543,733 ($2,330,238) -29.6%
Total $113,303,660 $108,896,717 ($4,406,943) -3.9%
Hoffman 30% vs. 60%
We will discuss
these two later in
the presentation
We will discuss
these two later in
the presentation
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 13

14. Description Costs
Direct Costs $9,046,471
Escalation Allowance $550,046
Market Conditions Allowance $136,241
Design Contingency $622,807
Subcontractor Bonding $47,819
Negotiated Support Services $644,488
GMP Contingency $386,676
SUBTOTAL, GMP $11,434,547
GC/CM Specified General
Conditions
$243,826
GC/CM Fee $489,399
Sales Tax $1,058,596
Total Construction Costs $13,226,368
Headworks Breakdown
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 14

15. • Mechanical
• Concrete
• Contingency Factors
• Construction Indirect Costs
• Explore Options to Increase Value and Reduce Cost
Cost Savings Moving Forward
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 15

16. Questions?
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 16

17. Bio-solids
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 17

18. Background: “Biosolids 101”
• What are biosolids?
“Sewage sludge” are the solids that settle out in the wastewater
treatment process. “Biosolids” are produced by treating sewage
sludge to meet standards that allow for beneficial use.
• How can biosolids be used?
Biosolids can be used in different ways, depending on their
classification. “Class B” biosolids must be land applied in bulk at a
permitted site. “Class A” biosolids can also be land applied in bulk,
and may even be bagged and sold if they are high enough quality.
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 18

19. Biosolids Reuse in Washington
Covered dump
truck
Dewatered
biosolids
King County’s “Loop”
Trucks
Land application in Eastern
WA
SoundGRO
Fertilizer
Pierce Co, WA
Dried Biosolids
Loading
Alderwood, WA
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 19

20. Background: Oak Harbor’s Plan
• Several alternatives evaluated in Facilities Plan, including:
- Beneficial reuse of dried Class A biosolids
- Beneficial reuse of lime-stabilized Class B biosolids
- Landfilling dewatered untreated solids that do not meet reuse standards
• Dryer for Class A biosolids preferred long-term solution
- Most flexibility for local reuse (Potential revenue source to reduce annual O&M cost)
- Reduced truck traffic
- “Manageable” odor and aesthetic risk
• Lime-stabilization for Class B proposed for Phase 1
- Lower initial capital cost, but higher cost for hauling to Eastern WA
- Provides time to develop and implement Class A beneficial reuse program
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 20

21. What has changed since planning?
• Lime stabilization not recommended at Windjammer Vicinity
- Potential for odor, mess
- Large footprint required to store treated biosolids
- Truck traffic (lime deliveries; Class B biosolids off-haul)
• Cost of Class A dryer has increased between planning and 60%
- More proven technology (that is also larger, more expensive)
selected to reduce risk and increase operator safety
• Estimated total WWTP construction cost at 60% motivates
review of solids treatment alternatives to reduce impact to rate
payers
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 21

22. What alternatives are currently
being considered?
• “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids
- Construct on-site dewatering and thermal drying to Class A
- Beneficial reuse of biosolids on Whidbey Island
- NOTE: Basis of current 60% cost estimate
• Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids
- Construct on-site dewatering
- Construct off-site treatment with lime stabilization to Class B
- Haul lime-stabilized biosolids for beneficial reuse in Eastern Washington
• Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids (Interim Only)
- Construct on-site dewatering
- Haul dewatered solids to landfill (extending 2-year period requires Ecology
exemption)
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 22

23. “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids
Solids Process Schematic
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 23

24. TRUCK
LOADING
DEWATERING
DRYING
WAS STORAGE
SOLIDS
BUILDING
“Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids
Site Plan & Solids Building at WWTP
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 24

25. “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids
Summary of Estimated Costs
Base Case - Class A Dryer Estimated Cost Notes
Based on 60% design
8,700 sf building with dryer installed
Assumes 1 FTE for solids process
Assumes $0 for hauling/Class A reuse
10-year Annualized Cost (Capital + O&M) $2.2 M Assumes 3% interest
Capital Cost (WWTP)
Annual O&MCost
$14.5M
$500,000
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 25

26. “Base Case”: Beneficial Reuse of Class A Biosolids
Advantages and Challenges
Advantages
• Consolidates solids treatment at
WWTP
• Fewest truck trips to/from WWTP
• Beneficial reuse consistent with
Ecology requirements
• Class A provides flexibility for
reuse options
• Potential revenue to offset O&M
cost
Challenges
• High Capital Cost
• High Operating Cost
• Requires development of Class A
Biosolids Program
• Additional complexity for O&M
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 26

27. Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids
Solids Process Schematic
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 27

28. Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids
Site Plan at WWTP
WAS STORAGE
SOLIDS
BUILDING
TRUCK
LOADING
DEWATERING
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 28

29. Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids
Site Plan Off-Site (Lime Stabilization Facility)
Lime Stabilization
Facility
Lime Stabilized
Biosolids
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 29

30. Alt 1 - Class B Lime Stabilization Estimated Cost Notes
Based on 60% design
5,800 sf building, no dryer
Based on preliminary information
Assumes facility at City Shops
Total Capital Cost Range $12.2M- $13.2M
Assumes .5 FTE for solids process
Includes $316,000 hauling to Eastern WA
10-year Annualized Cost (Capital + O&M) $2.1M- $2.2M Assumes 3% interest
Capital Cost (WWTP) $8.2M
Annual O&MCost $672,000
Capital Cost (Off-Site Lime Facility) $4.0M- $5.0M
Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids
Summary of Estimated Costs
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 30

31. Alternative 1: Beneficial Reuse of Class B Biosolids
Advantages and Challenges
Advantages
• Potentially reduced Capital Cost
• Beneficial reuse consistent with
Ecology requirements
Challenges
• High Operating cost
• Additional truck trips to/from
WWTP
• Limited flexibility for reuse of
Class B biosolids
• Separates biosolids handing and
treatment from WWTP
• Requires another site
• Likely requires amendment to
Facilities Plan and Environmental
Documents
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 31

32. Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids
Solids Process Schematic
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 32

33. WAS STORAGE
SOLIDS
BUILDING
DRYING
(FUTURE)
Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids
Site Plan at WWTP
TRUCK
LOADING
DEWATERING
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 33

34. Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids
Summary of Estimated Costs
Alt 2 - Interim Landfill Estimated Cost Notes
Based on 60% design
8,700 sf building, no dryer
Assumes .3 FTE for solids process
Includes $200,000 hauling to landfill
10-year Annualized Cost (Capital + O&M) $1.5M Assumes 3% interest
Annual O&MCost $440,000
Capital Cost (WWTP) $9.4M
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 34

35. Alternative 2: Landfill Disposal of Unclassified Solids
Advantages and Challenges
Advantages
• Reduced Capital Cost
• Reduced O&M Cost
• Class A facilities can be
phased-in over time
Challenges
• Not consistent with Ecology
requirements – requires
exemption
• Interim solution
• Limited flexibility for disposal of
unclassified solids
• Likely requires amendment to
Facilities Plan and
Environmental Documents 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 35

36. Summary of Solids Alternatives
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 36

37. Questions?
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 37

38. Community Room
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 38

39. • 60% cost
estimate based
on Concept A
Community Meeting Room
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 39

40. Community Meeting Room
9/30/2015 40
• +/- 146 w/o tables
• +/- 102 w/tables
City Council Special Workshop

41. Description Costs
Direct Costs $1,570,687
Escalation Allowance $95,501
Market Conditions Allowance $23,655
Design Contingency $155,468
Subcontractor Bonding $20,958
Negotiated Support Services $115,615
GMP Contingency $69,366
SUBTOTAL, GMP $2,051,250
GC/CM Specified General
Conditions
$43,740
GC/CM Fee $87,794
Sales Tax $189,902
Total Construction Costs $2,372,686
Community Meeting Room
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 41

42. Community Meeting Room
• Benefits
• Construction Efficiency
• Provide greater
integration into park
• Economic development
• Challenges
• Business case
• Operations
• Securing funding
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 42

43. Community Meeting Room
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 43
• Cost Estimate
for Concept B
under
development

44. Without Community Meeting Room
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 44
• Concept B
without
Community
Meeting Room

45. • Sewer Fund shouldn’t bear the entire burden
• Approximately half could be paid by Utility Funds
• The other half by the general fund, grants, etc…
Funding Options
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 45

46. Options
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 46
1. Include Community Room
2. Remove Community Room
3. Keep Community Room in Design as an
Additive/Alternate bid item

47. Questions?
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 47

48. Funding & Rates
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 48

49. 9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 49

50. Summary
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 50

51. • We have more work to do!
• There are more opportunities for cost savings
• We have a great team! (City, Carollo, Hoffman, OAC,
KBA, …)
• The bid prices are the ultimate determination of cost!
Summary
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 51

52. • October 20 – City Council Meeting
• Resolution 15-xx – Community Room
• Resolution 15-xx – Bio-solids Handling
• GMP #4 – Site Prep Package B
• GMP #5 – Bio-Solids Dryer Procurement
• Consultant Agreement Amendments
What’s Next
9/30/2015City Council Special Workshop 52