PROJECT UPDATE

June 8, 2015

Agenda: What led to this point?

Project Background
Latest Findings
Risk Management
Alternate Routes
Next Steps

PROJECT BACKGROUND
Goals, design process, preliminary work

Project Goals: Trust & Transparency

Environmental stewardship
Fiscally responsible approach
Manage project risks
Minimize impacts to the public

Project history to date

Malcolm Pirnie

Stantec

Boyle | AECOM

April 2006

April 2007

April 2009

Relocate to former
high school parking lot

Luke Wood Park and

inverted siphon under
Hudson Bayou Bridge

Luke Wood Park and

microtunnel under Hudson
Bayou Bridge
5

Project Status
U.S.
U.S. 41
41

2012
Work stops due to
microtunnel issues

2011
Construction
begins

AECOM terminated November 2012

McKim & Creed retained August 2013
Lift Station Issues
Operational
Structural
OspreyAve.
Ave.
Osprey

Safety
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

Current Design Route

U.S.
U.S. 41
41

Microtunnel
jacking pit

Microtunnel
receiving pit

Current
alignment

Alternate
alignment
Benefits
Maintenance of Traffic
Access to Businesses

Microtunnel
jacking pit

Less US 41 Impacts
Hudson
Hudson Bayou
Bayou

OspreyAve.
Ave
Osprey

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
00
0
0
0
0

1996-2012
0 borings

2013
0 borings

2015
0 borings

0
0

+ bathymetric survey, geophysical

survey, concrete cores/testing
13

Assessment of Bridge Abutment

NORTHW
EST
CORNER

NORTHEA
ST
CORNER

SOUTHWE
ST
CORNER

Original
36" pipe

8.75'

Proposed
36" microtunnel

8.0'

SOUTHEA
ST
CORNER

Original
36" pipe
Proposed
36" microtunnel
8'

Concrete core

Concrete abutment
(surveyed)

Concrete abutment
(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
Probability

High

High

Mediu
m

Medium

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

Impact

Low

PROBABILITY

Low

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

0 20%
20 40%
40 60%
60 80%
80 100%

< $100 K
$100 K $250 K
$250K $500K
$500 K $1M
> $1M
18

What is a Risk Register?

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

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

Prior to bridge inspection

36

McKim & Creed design

Post bridge inspection

25
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.
U.S. 41
41

Top of
Foundation
Material
(-9.0)

Influent MH
Invert
(-13.08)

Wetwell
Invert
(-13.52)

Hudson
Hudson Bayou
Bayou

OspreyAve.
Ave.
Osprey

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.
U.S. 41
41

36"

Disrupts condos

Permits needed

0 Manhole

Disrupts home
OspreyAve.
Ave.
Osprey

New easement

30"
28

Alternate Route 2

1821 Lincoln Drive

U.S.
U.S. 41
41

36"

Disrupts condos
Permits needed
New acquisition

Hudson
Hudson Bayou
Bayou

New easement
0 Manhole

24"

30"
29

Alternate Route 3

East of Bridge

Disrupts park

U.S.
U.S. 41
41

36"

Permits needed
Disrupts home
Hudson
Hudson Bayou
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
Control

Open Cut

Odor
s

Elevation -13.5 ft.

Overflow hazard

Gravity Sewer

Wetwell

33

Surcharge Conditions
Existing Wetwell Design
-TBD ft.

Odor
s

Elevation -13.5 ft.

Overflow hazard

Manhol
e

Gravity
Sewer
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

$5.0 M

$5.0 M

Land Acquisition
& Legal

$4.0 M

Environmental

$6.2 M

Luke Wood Park

Restoration

$1.0 M

$32.0 M

$36.0 M

24 Inch (Phase 3)

Total Estimate

Open Cut notes: Hudson Bayou crossing assumes variance from state and federal regulation requirements; Land
Acquisition & Legal estimated based on city input; Environmental from 2001 Hudson Bayou Stormwater Study

36

Analysis of project costs

Previous Bid

Previous Bid

January 2011

indexed to 2015

Current
estimate

Difference

36 Inch
(Phase 1)

$1.5 M

$1.7 M

$11.0 M

$9.3 M

Lift Station 87
(Phase 2)

$5.4 M

$6.1 M

$16.0 M

$9.9 M

24 Inch
(Phase 3)

$2.7 M

$3.0 M

$5.0 M

$2.0 M

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.
U.S. 41
41

Risk Management
Minimize Disruption to
Existing Utilities
Cost Controls
Hudson
Hudson Bayou
Bayou

Maintenance of Traffic

41

Construction Plan

Three
Phases

Phase 1
36 inch pipe

Phase 2
LS 87 construction
Demolition of
Lift Station 7
and park
restoration

Phase 3
24 inch pipe

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

Microtunneling
Work Zone

LS site
driveway

Jacking shaft
work zone

U.S.
U.S. 41
41

Receiving shaft
work zone

Construction
support
work zone

Jacking shaft
work zone
Hudson
Hudson Bayou
Bayou

44

Microtunnel Work Zone (Osprey)

OSPREY
AVENUE

MICROTUNNE
L ALIGNMENT

JACKI
NG
SHAFT

BENTONITE
MIXER

BAKER TANK

MICROTUNNEL
JACKING SHAFT
WORK ZONE

PIP
E

CONTR
OL
BOOTH

GENERATO
R

STORAGE

SOIL
SEPARATION
PLANT

HUDSO
N
BAYOU

CR
AN
E

STORA
GE

45

Microtunneling Work Zone (LS 87)

JACKING
SHAFT
EQUIPMENT
KER
BA K
TAN

41
US

ER
GEN R
O

LS SITE
DRIVEWA
Y

AT

N
CRA
E

E
PIP

PIPE
STORA
GE
AREA

O
NT
BE TE
NI ER
X
MI

AG
OR
ST E

IL
N
SO TIO
RA T
A
P AN
E
S PL

G
KIN
JAC AFT
SH
N
CO
TRO
L
O
BO
TH

OFFIC
E
TRAIL
ER

MICROTUNNE
L ALIGNMENT
46

Building Work Zone

APPROXIMAT
E
EXCAVATION
LIMITS
41
US

APPROVED
SITE PLAN

47

Scheduling and Timeframes

Estimates subject to final engineering decisions

C
ur
re
nt
D
es
ig
n

Bid Phase

Start

Finish

36 inch
(Phase 1)

July
2015

June
2017

Lift Station
(Phase 2)

Sept.
2016

June
2019

24 inch
(Phase 3)

Jan.
2019

Aug.
2020

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Q
1/
2

Q
1/
2

Q
1/
2

Q
1/
2

Q
1/
2

Q
1/
2

Q
3/
4

Q
3/
4

Q
3/
4

Q
3/
4

Q
3/
4

Q
3/4

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

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