PROJECT UPDATE

June 8, 2015
Agenda: What led to this point?
Project Background
Latest Findings
Risk Management
Alternate Routes
Next Steps

2
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Goals, design process, preliminary work

3
Project Goals: Trust & Transparency

Environmental stewardship

Fiscally responsible approach

Manage project risks

Minimize impacts to the public

4
Project history to date

Malcolm Pirnie Stantec Boyle | AECOM

April 2006 April 2007 April 2009

Relocate to former Luke Wood Park and Luke Wood Park and
high school parking lot inverted siphon under microtunnel under
Hudson Bayou Bridge Hudson Bayou Bridge
5
Project Status

U.S. 41
2011 2012
Construction Work stops due to
begins microtunnel issues

AECOM terminated November 2012

McKim & Creed retained August 2013

Lift Station Issues

Operational
Structural
Safety
Osprey Ave.

6
New Successor Engineer of Record

Review existing design

Perform supplemental investigations

Create technical memorandums

Present to city and public

Restart project time of the essence

7
Hudson Bayou Crossing Phases
Phase I Scope of Work
Microtunnel under existing bridge as designed or at revised
elevations
Horizontal Directional Drill under the existing bridge as inverted
siphon
Microtunnel under bayou on either side of bridge (alternate
alignment)

McKim & Creed Recommendation

Microtunnel under bridge within the right of way

Approved by City Commission Jan. 21, 2014

8
Hudson Bayou Crossing Phases
Phase II Scope of Work
Finalize microtunnel design (-16.5 feet)
Redesign Lift Station 87

McKim & Creed Recommendation

Hurricane storm surge protection

City Commission direction April 21, 2014

9
Current Design Route
U.S. 41

Microtunnel Microtunnel
receiving pit jacking pit

Current Alternate
alignment alignment
Benefits
Maintenance of Traffic
Microtunnel Access to Businesses
jacking pit
Less US 41 Impacts

Hudson Bayou
Osprey Ave.

10
Hudson Bayou Crossing

Microtunnel under bridge

Developed by Staheli Trenchless

Peer reviewed by Atkins

Approved by City Commission

Alternate alignment accepted by Staff

11
 LATEST FINDINGS
New studies, inspection data and analysis

12
Comprehensive Geotechnical Review

0 0 0 0

0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0

0 1996-2012 0 2013 0 2015 + bathymetric survey, geophysical

borings borings borings survey, concrete cores/testing 13
Assessment of Bridge Abutment

NORTHWEST NORTHEAST SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST

CORNER CORNER CORNER CORNER

Original Original
8.75' 36" pipe 8.0' 36" pipe

Proposed Proposed
36" microtunnel 36" microtunnel
8'

Concrete core Concrete abutment Concrete abutment

(surveyed) (interpreted)
Geotechnical Summary
North to
Mound St.

Original pipe
Top of pipe
elevation: -8.5'

Proposed
microtunnel
Top of pipe
elevation: -16.5'
15
RISK MANAGEMENT
Designs, data and assessments

16
Risk Assessment of Designs

Original design Lessons learned

McKim & Creed design Before bridge investigation

McKim & Creed design After bridge investigation

17
Risk Register and Criteria

IMPACT
Low Medium High Probability
1: 0 20%
2: 20 40%
High

3: 40 60%
4: 60 80%
PROBABILITY

5: 80 100%
Medium

Impact
1: < $100 K
2: $100 K $250 K
3: $250K $500K
Low

4: $500 K $1M
5: > $1M
18
What is a Risk Register?

Identify Issues Risk Score Mitigation Plan

Potential Risks Probability times Additional Field

Impact Work
Estimate
Probability of Lower the Better Modify Design
Occurrence
Monitor During
Estimate Impact Construction
($)

19
Analysis of microtunneling
High jacking force i.e. stuck machine
Environmental impact to Hudson Bayou
Mixed face conditions hard soils on part of machine, soft on another
Unexpected geotechnical conditions
Line and grade deviations outside of tolerances
Pipe breaking
Differing Site Conditions claims
Damage to the bridge

20
Risk Example: High Jacking Force

Mitigation Probability Risk

Plan & Impact Score
Extensive Probability Reduced from
geotechnical reduced from 25 to 5
investigations 5 to 1
Contingency
Prescriptive Impact remains reduced from
specifications at 5 $900K to $100K
Monitor during
construction

Probability x Impact = Risk Score

Note: High Jacking Force happened twice during initial construction. 21
Risk Management Results
Current design reduces risk significantly from original design

Relative Risk
score (total)

Original design 120

McKim & Creed design 36

Prior to bridge inspection

McKim & Creed design 25

Post bridge inspection

22
Additional factors considered
Bathymetric Surveys
Nettles (2013) 6-8 feet
Forensic/Hyatt (2014) 7 feet

Geotechnical Borings Foundation Material

Phase 1 Report 7-10 feet (each side of bridge)
Bridge Inspection (2014) 9 feet (mid Bayou)

Reclaimed Water Main (1997)

East of Bridge (ROW)

Centerline (-16 feet)

23
ALTERNATE ROUTES
Methods, plans and other considerations

24
 Open Cut vs. Microtunneling
Evaluate options to re-use existing wetwell
Open Cut Microtunneling

25
Alternate Routes: Control Elevations
U.S. 41

Top of
Influent MH Wetwell
Foundation
Invert Invert
Material
(-13.08) (-13.52)
(-9.0)

Hudson Bayou
Osprey Ave.

26
Regulatory Considerations
Subaqueous
Crossing
Regulations
Florida
Department of
Environmental
Protection (FDEP)
3 Feet Cover
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
(USACE)
6 Feet Cover

Top of Pipe
El. -9.00
Open cut

27
Alternate Route 1
1903 Lincoln Drive
U.S. 41

36"

Disrupts condos

Permits needed

New easement
Osprey Ave.

Disrupts home
0 Manhole 30"
28
Alternate Route 2
1821 Lincoln Drive
U.S. 41

36"

Disrupts condos

Permits needed

New acquisition Hudson Bayou

New easement

0 Manhole 24" 30"

29
Alternate Route 3
East of Bridge
Disrupts park
U.S. 41

36"

Permits needed
Disrupts home
Hudson Bayou

New easement

0 Manhole 24" 30"

30
Open Cut Considerations
Easements and land acquisition required

Regulatory permits
- FDEP/Sarasota County
- Sovereign Submerged Lands
- Environmental Resource Permit
- FDEP/ACOE Variances

Environmental
Documented Lead Contamination (2001 Boyle Report)

Geotechnical Investigations
Borings/Bathymetric

Schedule
31
Operational Impacts
Period submergence of sewer system
- Reduced conveyance capacity
- More frequent pipeline cleaning
- Increased odor potential in neighborhood

Hydraulic Institute Standards not met

- Un-even flow patterns
- Increased frequency of wet well cleaning
- Increased wear on one pumping unit
- Air entrainment/cavitation
- Reduced pumping capacity
- Less energy efficiency
- Reduced life expectancy for pumps

Additional operational and maintenance costs

32
Normal Operating Conditions
Odor
Open Cut Control

Odors
Elevation -13.5 ft.

Overflow hazard
Gravity Sewer

Wetwell
33
Surcharge Conditions
Existing Wetwell Design
-TBD ft.

Odors
Elevation -13.5 ft.

Overflow hazard
Gravity Sewer
Manhole

Existing Wetwell

34
Upgrades will still be required

Wet Well Slab

Modification required to
withstand Cat 3 Storm Surge

Stand-by Pump
Reliability required

35
Planning level comparable costs
Microtunnel Open Cut
current est.
36 Inch (Phase 1) $11.0 M $6.5 M

Lift Station 87 (Phase 2) $16.0 M $13.3 M

24 Inch (Phase 3) $5.0 M $5.0 M

Land Acquisition - $4.0 M

& Legal
Environmental - $6.2 M

Luke Wood Park - $1.0 M

Restoration
Total Estimate $32.0 M $36.0 M

Open Cut notes: Hudson Bayou crossing assumes variance from state and federal regulation requirements; Land 36
Acquisition & Legal estimated based on city input; Environmental from 2001 Hudson Bayou Stormwater Study
Analysis of project costs
Previous Bid Previous Bid Current Difference
January 2011 indexed to 2015 estimate

36 Inch $1.5 M $1.7 M $11.0 M $9.3 M

(Phase 1)

Lift Station 87 $5.4 M $6.1 M $16.0 M $9.9 M

(Phase 2)

24 Inch $2.7 M $3.0 M $5.0 M $2.0 M

(Phase 3)

Total Estimate $9.6 M $10.8 M $32.0 M $21.2 M

Note: 2011 bid indexed to 2015 dollars based on industry-standard methodology.

37
Analysis of differences
$9.3 M: 36 Inch (Microtunnel)
Quotes from recent negotiation attempts

$3.0 M: Project Enhancements

Replacement of asbestos cement water mains*
Installation of reclaimed water mains*
Installation of new sewer mains (Pomelo Place)
Installation of new water main (Alta Vista to Bahia Vista)
Full roadway restoration
Landscaped Lift Station 7 site

* Osprey, Alta Vista, Pomelo, and/or Pomelo Place

38
Analysis of differences
$8.9 M: Upgrades
Category 3 storm surge protection
Operating redundancies
Totally enclosed for all operation & maintenance activities
Safe working environment for staff
Climate change provisions
Deeper wetwell/operational efficiencies
Site preparation

39
 NEXT STEPS
Resolving design issues, communicating challenges

40
Sequencing of
Construction Additional
Advantages
U.S. 41
Risk Management

Minimize Disruption to
Existing Utilities
Cost Controls

Hudson Bayou
Maintenance of Traffic

41
Construction Plan
Three
Phases Phase 1
36 inch pipe

Phase 2
LS 87 construction

Phase 3
Demolition of
24 inch pipe
Lift Station 7
and park
restoration

Lift Station 7

42
Construction Challenges
Limited site access
Construction zone restrictions
Minimize impacts to Luke Wood Park
Maintenance of traffic
Minimize service disruptions

43
 Jacking shaft
Microtunneling LS site
driveway
work zone

Work Zone
U.S. 41

Receiving shaft
Construction
work zone
support
work zone

Jacking shaft
work zone
Hudson Bayou

44
Microtunnel Work Zone (Osprey)
MICROTUNNEL
ALIGNMENT

MICROTUNNEL
HUDSON
BAYOU JACKING SHAFT
WORK ZONE

45
Microtunneling Work Zone (LS 87)
JACKING SHAFT
EQUIPMENT

PIPE
STORAGE
AREA

LS SITE
DRIVEWAY
OFFICE
TRAILER

MICROTUNNEL
ALIGNMENT
46
Building Work Zone
APPROXIMATE
EXCAVATION
LIMITS

APPROVED
SITE PLAN

47
Scheduling and Timeframes
Estimates subject to final engineering decisions

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
1/2 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/4
Bid Phase Start Finish

36 inch July June

(Phase 1) 2015 2017
Current Design

Lift Station Sept. June

(Phase 2) 2016 2019

24 inch Jan. Aug.

(Phase 3) 2019 2020

48
Project Goals
Environmental stewardship
- Improve service and system reliability
- Storm protection (Category 3 hurricane)
- Offset potable water demands with reclaimed water

Fiscally responsible approach

- Complete Hudson Bayou crossing first
- Obtain competitive bid packages
- Salvage existing equipment

Manage project risks

- Pre-qualify microtunneling contractors
- Use experienced construction specialists

Minimize impacts to the public

- Develop detailed MOT plans
- Construction updates on project website 49
Path to the Next Phase

Utility City
Design Team Administrative
Department Commission
conclusion acceptance
support direction

50
City Commission Direction
Actions to move the project forward

Pre-qualify specialty contractors

Microtunnel under the bridge

Pursue alternate alignment

Easements will be necessary

51
Discussion
Lift Station 87 Funding Options

2014 Rate Sufficiency Analysis

Annual Rate Increase

53
Option 1
Cash while maintaining CIP funding level

Defers $20 million of Infrastructure projects

Between 2015 and 2020

54
Option 2
Bond debt while maintaining CIP funding level

One time rate increase in 2017

In addition to planned 4%

No infrastructure projects deferred

Rate increase to fund debt service

55
Option 3
Bond debt while maintaining CIP funding level

No rate increase related to Lift Station 87

Annual 4% rate increase is necessary

Defer some infrastructure projects

$1.8 million per year until loan is satisfied

56
Staff Recommendation
Option 3
Bond debt while maintaining CIP funding level

No rate increase related to Lift Station 87

Annual 4% rate increase is necessary
Defer some infrastructure projects
$1.8 million per year until loan is satisfied

Finance and Utility Departments will review

with rate sufficiency consultant
Identify and develop best value option
Present to Commission 57
Discussion