City Oak Harbor Wastewater Facility Plan

1. City Oak Harbor Wastewater Facility Plan City Council Workshop July 15, 2010

2. Wastewater Facility Plan • History and Background • Project Need • Project Goals • Project Process • Project Scope • Project Cost • Next Steps

3. Out houses, cesspools and rudimentary Septic Systems 1850-1935 Connections of individual systems and sewage conveyance to Pioneer Way outfall 1935-1954 City builds its first Primary Treatment plant with anaerobic digestion 1954-1956 History

4. URS Facility plan 1976 Upgrade of the Primary Plant to Secondary RBC system with anaerobic upgrades 1978 Cooperative effort with the Navy through a lease agreement to operate the Seaplane Base facultative aerated Lagoon facility October 1987 Incorporation of a Diversion pumping station 1989-90 Upgrades of the Lagoon facility including an inverted siphon and process changes 1989 History

5. RBC plant thickener 1997 Liner in Cell “E” damaged 2003 Anaerobic cell construction and NW cell “E” modified 2005 Sewer comprehensive plan update 2007 identified need for new plant capacity by 2017 History

6. History • Armoring of the Lagoon 2008 • New Lagoon head works and redundant siphon 2008 • Flooding of the Marsh August 2009 • Lagoon generator winter 2010 • RBC Generator and Third pump project Spring 2010

7. Project Need • Age and condition of plants • Existing RBC plant is more than 30 years old and showing signs of failure • Lagoon plant at risk of flooding • Oak Harbor Bay outfall is failing (60 years old) • Crescent Harbor outfall is failing (60 years old)

8. Project Need • Future permitting requirements will be more stringent – existing plants will not be able to meet anticipated permit requirements • Cleanup of Puget Sound • Nitrogen and phosphorous removal • Endocrine disruptors

9. Project Need • Long Term Capacity • Plant capacity is adequate for today • Long term planning forecasts indicate a need to double the plant capacity within the 20 year planning horizon • Capacity is a function of both flow and loading

10. Project Need • Project time line • New wastewater treatment plants typically take 5 to 7 years to plan, design, construct and finance • Comprehensive plan from 2007 identified a 2010 facility plan effort and a 2017 plant start up

11. Project Goals “To obtain the highest level of water quality practical while recognizing the limitations of the rate payers of the city to fund improvements. A primary goal of the City is the continued protection of the water quality of the waters in and around Oak Harbor to meet the goals outlined in Puget Sound Action Plan developed by Puget Sound Partnership for the cleanup and protection of Puget Sound. “ Source: Facility plan RFP

12. Project Goals • High quality wastewater effluent – protects valued community asset • 40 year life cycle analysis – affordable to rate payers • Safe, reliable facility for O&M staff • Beneficial use of resources • Water reuse • Biosolids management

13. Project Goals • Long-term investment for COH • Aesthetic fit with surrounding area • Environmentally responsible • LEED certified facility • Due diligence evaluation of multiple sites and multiple processes • Compliance with permits for foreseeable future • Targets for discharge limits significantly lower than current permit

14. Project Goals

15. Project Process • Major steps for construction of a new wastewater treatment plant • General Sewer Plan – completed in 2007 (Tetra-Tech) • Engineering report/facilities plan – pending (Carrollo) • Financial and Rate analysis – ongoing (HDR) • Environmental reviews (SEPA and NEPA) – pending (Carrollo)

16. Project Process • Major steps for construction of a new wastewater treatment plant • Construction Plans and specifications – start in 2013 • Construction – 2015 through 2017 • Testing, startup, and commissioning services - 2017 • Staff training - 2017 • Declaration of Completion by Engineer - 2017

17. Consultant Selection • Major project requires outside assistance • RCW 39.80 and OHMC 2.350 dictate selection process • Selection engineering firms is based on qualifications not low bid

18. Consultant Selection • January – August 2009 –staff development of solicitation materials • September 2009 publication of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) • 8 firms submitted • Statements of Qualifications were ranked by staff • November 2009 Request for Proposals sent to 4 four firms J • HDR, Tetra- Tech, Carollo, Kennedy Jenks • Written proposals were ranked by staff in January 2010 • February 2010 All four firms invited for formal interview 2010 • Top ranking or most qualified firm selected by interview panel is Carrollo • March 2010 Council authorization to negotiate scope of work with Carollo as the most qualified firm

19. Consultant Selection • Development of scope based on RFP, WAC, RCW, CFR etc Is scope commensurate with the project requirements as established by Owner and WAC? If “yes”, proceed to 2: • Development of level of effort (hours)Is LOE consistent with Scope of Services, and reasonable for similar work tasks? If “yes”, proceed to 3: • Development of fee Comparison of fee structure to comparable firms

20. Facility Planning Requirements • RCW 90.48.110: Ecology review/approval of plans prior to construction • WAC 173-240-060: Engineering Report completed with sufficient detail for design • When Federal funds are used 40 CFR 35 requires a Facilities Plan • Most municipal treatment plant projects involve Federal Funding

21. Facility Plan Contents • Must include the following at a minimum per WAC 173-240-060: • Present and future wastewater quality and quantities • Degree of treatment requirement • Description of receiving water • Infiltration and inflow analysis • Industrial pretreatment analysis • Evaluation of alternatives and proposed treatment process • Advantages and disadvantages of various sites • Design data and sizing on treatment units • Flood Plain analysis • Reclaimed water opportunities analysis • Detailed Outfall analysis • Sludge Handling and Bio-solids disposal • Future needs • Staffing and testing requirements • Cost and expenses ---annual cost and present worth • Financial and Rate analysis • Environmental reviews (SEPA and NEPA)

22. Facility Plan Contents • Must include the following at a minimum per WAC 173-240-060: • Present and future wastewater quality and quantities • Degree of treatment requirement • Description of receiving water • Infiltration and inflow analysis • Industrial pretreatment analysis • Evaluation of alternatives and proposed treatment process • Advantages and disadvantages of various sites • Design data and sizing on treatment units • Flood Plain analysis • Reclaimed water opportunities analysis • Detailed Outfall analysis • Sludge Handling and Bio-solids disposal • Future needs • Staffing and testing requirements • Cost and expenses ---annual cost and present worth • Financial and Rate analysis • Environmental reviews (SEPA and NEPA) BACKGROUND EVALUATION DETAIL COMPLIANCE

23. Facility Plan Project Scope • Task 100 – Project Management • Manage scope, schedule, budget to deliver a quality Facility Plan • Task 200 – Preliminary Alternatives • Develop and evaluate a range of alternatives based on Oak Harbors objectives • Task 300 – Final Alternatives • Refine preliminary alternatives and select alternative for environmental review

24. Facility Plan Project Scope • Task 400 – Outfall Evaluation • Identify improvements to existing outfalls and/or new alternatives to meet future needs • Task 500 – Reuse Opportunities • Assess cost/benefit of reusing treated effluent • Task 600 – Facilities Plan • Document evaluation and produce plan for Ecology review and approval

25. Facility Plan Project Scope • Task 700 – Environmental Documentation • Document impacts of proposed alternative to comply with State and Federal requirements • Task 800 – Public Process • Effectively and proactively communicate with stakeholders and public throughout the process • Task 900 – Management Reserve • Used at the discretion of the City management to address minor scope changes

26. Facility Plan Project Scope • Scope responds to City’s RFP, meets each requirement for an approvable plan

27. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 600 – Facilities Plan (15%)

28. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 700 – Environmental Documentation (7%)

29. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 400 – Outfall Analysis (10%)

30. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 300 – Final Alternatives (10%)

31. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 200 – Preliminary Alternatives (29%)

32. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 500 – Reuse Opportunities (5%)

33. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 800 – Public Process Support (15%)

34. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 100 – Project Management (9%)

35. Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 900 – Management Reserve ($75k)

36. Summary of Project Scope and Level of Effort • 50% of the scope/effort associated with rigorous evaluation of alternatives, sites • Evaluation increases confidence in the City’s significant, long-term investment • A less rigorous evaluation would meet regulatory requirements and reduce effort/cost

37. Potential Facility Plan Scenarios • Current Scope • Evaluate various WWTP alternatives at a number of potential sites • Scenario 1: Focus evaluation of alternatives on a single site • e.g. Evaluate WWTP alternatives at Seaplane Base • Scenario 2: Develop Facility Plan following Comprehensive Sewer Plan recommendation • Documentation for activated sludge plant at lagoon site

38. Facility Plan Based on Current ScopeRigorous Evaluation of Alternatives/Sites

39. Facility Plan Based on Scenario 1Focused Evaluation on Single Site

40. Facility Plan Based on Scenario 1Implement Comp. Sewer Plan Alternative

41. Summary Planning level of effort varies with number of alternatives and sites evaluated

42. Summary • Planning phase accounts for approximately 1% to 2% of total project budget

43. Questions?