tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 15, 2017 7:00am-8:01am PST
now what that would mean is that your tunnel would be pressurized on a regular basis as opposed to just that certain times of the operational cycle. and so, therefore, we would want to install some steel lining at critical locations at addits as well as low cover areas where we have low cover of rock or soil above the tunnel in order to prevent seepage out of the tunnel as a result of this work. so the hydraulic and operational characteristics for downstream control mean that erosion would be reduced because when the tow is maintained full, you are able to reduce turbulence, minimize flow velocities, your cyclic running and draining of the tunnel is eliminated, your service fluctuations are minimized, and ground water intrusion is minimized because you have a pressurized tunnel all the time. from an operational standpoint, it would also allow changes of
flow rate to be implemented much faster than they are currently. and then lastly the tunnel could be dewatered for entry without draining priest reservoir, which has a substantial benefit for both people and fish during critical outages of the tunnel. and so the benefits of downstream control include water quality benefits, conveyance capacity benefits, operational flexibility, maintenance, reduction costs -- excuse me, reduction in maintenance and operations costs over the 100-year life of the tunnel, expected to be on the order of $20 million on a preliminary basis. more flexibility with priest reservoir supply and also hydro power benefits which are currently under evaluation. and so the schedule for this project would be essentially to
begin our ceqa and nea process immediately. that would take a little over two years. in parallel, we would do our design process and also the right-of-way accusations that are needed for the project for staging areas and access and we would expect to issue notice to proceed on construction in the spring of 2020. at that point, the contractor would mobilize and start doing the excavations necessary for the downstream control new portal at priest. they would do that work in isolation from the existing tunnel and then in 2021, which is our first shutdown, which is shown in red on that chart, we would tie that new downstream control facility into the existing tunnel. now that is a 60-day shutdown. if you recall, before we had that control, we have to drain priest reservoir. that means we have limited water to supply to both people and fish during that shutdown.
once that downstream control structure is in place, we don't have to drain reservoir any longer for future shutdowns. therefore, the four subsequent shutdowns on the schedule would be 100 days which makes our work much more efficient going forward. at that point, we would be able to implement the critical repairs and finish the project with the last shutdown in 2025. >> what is the impact on the animals? the fish in that -- during that stage? >> so there is a fish hatchery run by the state and they rely on water supply for the viability of the fish hatchery work that they're doing. so during an extended shutdown, it is doubtful that we would be able to supply the amount of water that they need for both the garden variety trout as well as the endangered species
that are at that hatchery. yep. so what are the next steps? first of all, we intend to go forward with the 2018 interim repairs that have been scheduled for some time and this is essentially a continuation of the urgent repairs that were started in 2017 to keep the tunnel operational. we plan to finalize it next month and complete in the spring of next year so the contractor can mobilize and be ready for that shutdown. that is a 60-day shutdown next fall. in parallel, we would continue our plan to plan for the large tunnel improvements project. as i said, we would start on environmental documentation and design immediately and issue a request for proposal for construction management in early 2018.
with that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> i have a question. so the hydro power benefits. i know earlier on when talking about this project, i had raised the question of micro hydro suns i think it has been coming online a little bit more. and i don't know if that is what you are referring to. but any of -- >> no. >> and if not, what are the potential hydro powered benefits and is there a way to maximize them with this project? >> right. the potential benefits relate to being able to operate the tunnel more efficiently and provide some shaping benefits at kirkwood as well as some additional benefits at moccasin as a result of implementing downstream control as well as the repairs to the tunnel reducing the friction on the overall hydraulics of the system. >> i'd love to get a better understanding when you have them of what those benefits are. and how we could maximize them.
it just feels like this is an opportunity once you are in there to be able to add on, if not maximize and create more efficiency through the rebuild. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> commissioners, anything else? ok. and don't go anywhere because i know you're up two more times. >> i believe we take public comment on this item. >> with that, any public comment related to mountain tunnel? ok. >> all right. next update that dan will give is the water system improvement program. the local and regional quarterly report. >> if we could go to the slides, please. so it is about 95% complete, as
you know. we have one project remaining in the local program that still needs to be closed out which is lake merced pump station. there are electrical issues we've been working on. we think we have those resolved but we're letting the system run a little bit longer before we close that contract out completely. the regional system is about 95% complete. so we do have a number of recent accomplishments -- excuse me. before -- before i get into the accomplishments, i want to talk about cost and schedule forecasts in the current quarterly report. the current overall forecast is 4.876 billion which is approximately 2k34r0r million over the approved budget of 4.846 million. the current forecast completion is may of 2021, which is approximately 17 months beyond the current approved schedule.
now this forecast covers soft costs for scheduled extensions that are necessary for the capsule project as well as the regional ground water storage and recovery project as well as other miscellaneous issues. and i also covers the remaining risk at approximately the 60% confidence level. now we do plan to forecast a budget in our december quarterly report that would cover the risk at greater than the 80% confidence level. i believe that would be in the range of there 10 to $15 million more than is currently forecast in this quarterly report and our proposal would be to include the additional requested budget in the proposed 10-year cirp that will be presented to the commission earlier in the year. so the recent accomplishments that we achieved can final construction completion on northington tunnel, as you know, we completed the physical work quite some time ago but we
had some claims to resolve and we successfully resolved those claims of over $21 million for approximately $7 million. the reasonable groundwater recovery and storage project has completed the five-day testing of the individual components of the phase one and phase two wells as 13 well stations and we plan on installing two test wells this fall to get that additional capacity that's needed in the san bruno area this fall. the replacement project is moving along very well and i know all of you have been out there, some more recently than others. but the dam embankment is at elevation 645 at the end of the quarter. we completed several of the other buildings and facilities at the site and the outlet works have been turned over to operations for the up coming wind every and the fish passage facilities at alameda creek
conversion dam has advanced to over 50% construction. now as you know during the previous quarter, the planning department did certify the final environmental impact report for the alameda creek recapture project. but subsequent to that certification, the alameda county water district filed an apale to the board of supervisors overturning a portion of the e.i.r. and in addition, the national marine fisheries service filed a letter in support of that appeal. and so the board adopted the findings, reversed in the final e.i.r. certification and directed the planning department to provide additional information and analysis regarding whether the proposed project would result in operational impacts on steelhead fish as a result of stream flow in alameda creek. as well to have an independent third party review the e.i.r. ground water and surface water model. the board determined with
respect to all other issues on the e.i.r. that it is acceptable and complete. so the planning department will recirculate a portion of the e.i.r. to provide analysis on operational impacts on steelhead fish in the loer watershed as a result of the project induced effects on stream flow in alameda creek. so, the bidding process that we had in place was canceled and we'll rebid it after this process is complete. as i mentioned, the replacement project is moving along very well. you can see the new embankment in the foreground of this photo with the reservoir and existing dam in the background. it is a little hard to see, but if you get a little bit closer look up, you can see that the dam is making substantial progress. and we expect to be essentially done with the dam em bankment construction by this time next year.
and so contractor has been working very diligently six days a week, day shift and night shift, that there will be a break during the winter time when they cannot really place the clay core material, but there will be other work going on on the site throughout the winter to drive at that schedule. the fish passage facilities at the alameda creek conversion dam are over 50% dam and this aerial photo shows the fish ladder on the left. you can see where the fish would enter the ladder and make a turn to the right, to go over the top of the existing diversion dam and then enter the stream upstream of the diversion dam. and recently the new fish screens arrived at the site and have been installed and sort of the project is essentially complete with the in-stream portion of the work. and the project will continue
through next year for some of the work that is outside of the stream, including some retainingle whats, buildings, electrical improvements, scada, etc., but the project is moving along very well. the project completed its five-day testing for all 13 well stations. and this is what a typical well station interior looks like. you can see the well kind of in the right center portion of the photo with the plumbing to connect to our regional water system. and the biohabitat restoration project on the peninsula, which is the last active project that is part of the b.h.r. is essentially done with vegetation removal and you can see the flags for acorn plants for the oak woodlands that will be there in the future. with that, i'll be happy to
take any questions. >> commissioners? >> so, when will we see our al -- alameda creek project come back through? >> it would be next summer. >> summer? >> late spring-summer. >> ok. any public comment on this item? >> all right. the last item for dan is the water enterprise capital improvement program quarterly report. >> so, the last item i'd like to present today is a report ton water c.i.p. and i'll start with the variances shown in the
report, on page five of the report. for the water transmission system, we have the san andreas pipeline number two, lock bar replacement project. that project has just recently gone out to bid. it does show a cost variance of about $3.8 million and about 12.9 months behind schedule. this is through densely populated areas and a new construction cost estimate that was done just prior to bid. we have the micro turban project, which is on budgets but about asian months behind schedule and this is primarily because the project is on hold until the alameda creek recapture promise is complete. at that time we can better evaluate the benefits associated with that project. and then the southern skyline boulevard ridge trail extension
project, there was a memo in the communications about that project and so you know already that that project is 22 months behind schedule and this is essentially due to delays in ceq ark as we work out the traffic issues with caltrans. and lastly, the long-term improvements is about 3 1/2 months behind schedule. more significantly it is about $37 million overbudget and this is due to the high bids that we received on both the yard project and the water shed center. and so we are looking to the new c.i.p. to consider potential additions to the budget so that the water shed center can go forward. so if we go to the slides --
highlights for the reporting period are that the pipeline project is over 95% complete. you may recall this is the last seismic reliability project that drives toward the level of service goals that were established and are continuing as par of the water program and so that project will be nearly complete and will signify level of service xlaoeltion t. construction of the administration building has progressed to structural framework and of the administration buildings and the design is complete for the replacement of the san andreas pipeline through san bruno. in fiscal year 2016 and 2017, we completed 10.4 miles of san francisco distribution system pipelines.
this photo shows the work through sterngrove. pretty difficult work, including the tunnel. as i said, we're nearly complete. a for any toe of the structural framing in the sunol yard that looks completely different than it used to and it's good to see the progress on that work. the san francisco ground water supply lake merced pump station is, again, has completed the five-day tests and we'll be entering into the operational testing phase with the overall system including both the san francisco groundwater system and regional groundwater system on the peninsula. we have some new buildings and grounds improvements at sun reservoir, including the storage building. and if you look at the san francisco waterline replacement program here locally in san francisco, i mentioned the 10.4
miles last year. this year we are forecasting about 14 miles and our city distribution division has increased staffing in various trades in other words to really strive to make that goal of 15 miles that the commission set for us a while back. but we do need additional resources to sustainably construct those 15 miles of pipeline per year. in addition, the cost of this work has gone up substantially due to the construction going on in san francisco currently. so this graph charts the progress over the last five-year when we had a budget of about 20 million to our current budget of nearly $50 million. in order to make 15 miles we do expect that we need a larger budget than that. you can see the dash line going upwards just because of the high pidses and some of the
joint project work that we're doing. with that, i'd be happy to take any questions. >> i have a question about the pipeline replacement. didn't we set the goal of 15 miles per year, quite some time ago? >> yes. i don't know if you recall the exact date. >> yes, we have. and the challenge has been, lately, is with the -- all the buildings that are going on. we haed to shift our resources to tie the buildings -- the water connections. so, we've been having with the public housing and all the development that is going on, so that has been challenging for us to get resources. remember last budget cycle asked for additional staff for plumbers, to have more plumbers
and the proposal yet again is to add more resources because we're just overwhelmed of the queue time for hookups are becoming quite long and we wanted to reduce that. the other thing is that we are finding that with construction mitigation and trying to coordinate is becoming very, very expensive. and so even at the board, they are talking about construction mitigation that, you know, for impacting businesses, they are talking about identifying mitigation. the one thing that i mentioned to you as part of the -- as part of my work plan, is we're going to have a dedicated funding for makinging the 15 miles and i think where we're falling short is when we were putting some of that money to meet the 15 miles in joint projects that we really didn't have control over. so, we're going to have 15 miles on projects that we have control over and then we're going to have additional money when there is an opportunity to
join in with m.t.a. or san francisco public works luke, for example, van ness. that is behind, right? and can you imagine if 15 miles was dependent on that portion is this we wouldn't make it. right? we wouldn't make it. so, that is why we're shifting and that is why i had a conversation that we're going to have 15 miles dedicated and make sure that we have staff so we can hold ourselves accountable for it. >> well, how is that going to fit in with the overall problem of digging up the street and having different entities put their equipment in? i mean, we can't just go dig up a street to get to the sewer. [please stand by]
pay and hopefully they have a moratorium so the street won't be dug up anytime soon. >> we'll be watching. >> any other comments? >> anyone for public comment on this item? >> so i do have one last item, which is an update. now you may have heard on the news that we had a mountain lion sighting and it was interesting because everyone was calling me and i was like watching on tv, like, why are you calling me? the department of fish and game, rec and park, the fire department, animal care and control. and they called me and i said, okay, i will call steve ritchie and i will call tim.
and so it went down. so i think that steve has some pictures to tell you what happened after that. >> yeah, steve ritchie assistant general manager. i saw the general manager's number come up and so i pulled over and answered the phone and said, you should call tim. but tim was on vacation. and we gave approval to relocate the lion it our property, which is a fine thing to do because you have to do something with it. so we worked with the department of fish and wildlife, game wardens, and our staff working on these issues before, so they did identify the lion and by 3:00 p.m. they met a team of our watershed keepers with the collared, sedated mountain lions there. these guys do the work out on
the ground, so three of our watershed keepers, that work on the peninsula. they're doing a good job out there. like i said, this lion was fitted with a tracking color and tag. he's a male, 18 months old, weighed about 80 pounds. everybody hung out with it until it started to come around and eventually moved off to the watershed and people said adios and he will be tracked with the radio collar and kept track of by the puma project out of u.c. santa cruz. we did have -- this is not an everyday event for us, by the way. the last time, the lion found near downtown san matao in 2015. actually, five blocks from where you guys meet. thought i would pass that on. you get called on to do stuff and we live with nature and in and around nature and so it's part of our business of managing
the watershed. >> did we name the mountain lion? >> it has an identifyer for radio tracking, but not a name. >> would you like a name? [laughter] >> all right. thank you. any public comments on the puma? okay. >> and that concludes my report. >> all right. thank you. madam secretary? >> next item is item 8, a workshop, capital improvement strategy for sewer program treatment facilities.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. it's a pleasure to be here to present to you the status of the wastewater treatment improvement and strategy. i will summarize the approach that we used in conducting this process of the we'll first focus on phase one and then look at phase two and three. when we go through them, we'll look at them by treatment facility, northeast and oceanside. and then i will present a summary for your consideration. all of our projects are grounded in the levels of service. these were crafted through a series of workshops in 2010 with the commission. they were endorsed in 2012 when the commission authorized staff to proceed with ssip.
and then they were endorsed in 2016 when you approved the program baseline. in applying the levels of service, we focus on regulatory compliance, operational flexibility, reliability, community impact and rate payer affordability. we have the southeast plant that served the bay side of the city and treats approximately 57 million gallons a day in dry weather and 250 million in wet weather. oceanside plant serves the west side of the city and treats 13 million a day in dry weather and up to 65 million gallons a day during wet weather. the north point facility is a wet-weather-only facility and has the capacity to treat up to 150 million gallons per day. so we have a system that treats 70 million gallons in dry weather and capacity to deal with 575 million gallons in wet
weather. it's a very, very robust system. our overall process considered cost, timing and, of course, the level of service. ssip is a huge undertaking at just under $7 billion and cost control is very important, particularly in the bidding climate that's been discussed previously this afternoon. as we identify projects for the capital program, not only are we looking at ssip projects, but we will be factoring in other wastewater capital projects. we consider the criticality of the improvements that should be factored in. we base our work on condition assessments to properly identify when the improvements are needed and proper timing of them. and obviously rate payer impacts in level of service. so our starting point was the 2016 baseline. we looked through all of the phase one projects and assessed
them in term of scope and budget and schedule. we then looked at phases two and three and held a series of workshops in july and august with the operators and maintenance crews at each of the facilities so we could thoroughly go through all the projects and identify, is the scope appropriate, is the timing appropriate, is the need appropriate? and we're able to assess all projects. we further addressed items like site constraints, process dependency and schedule dependency. once we had projects identified, we re-established cost based on 2017 dollars, so as we moved into the projection for the 10-year plan we had current information available to us. the baseline that you approved in 2016 totals just under the $7 billion. you can see phase one has $2.9
billion in the collection and $2.2 billion in the treatment system. today we'll focus on treatment and we'll go through all the projects in phases one, two, and three. so last month, stephanie harrison presented to you the prioritized collection system projects. today we're going through the treatment projects and these together comprise the sewer system improvement program. as we move forward, we'll be factoring in the other wastewater capital needs so that when we come back to you in january we'll present a consolidated west water cip for your consideration and that will be followed in february when finance presents the 10-year fore your approval. as we look at phase one, we see an in crease of $68 million,
totalling just under $2.2 billion in the baseline to just over $2.2 billion now. we had three projects that changed by $10 million or more. the power feed for southeast, and the north shore wet weather station. i will describe some of those now in each of the projects. not surprisingly, due to its location and the fact that we're replacing a facility in its present location while maintaining operations throughout construction, we've encountered many challenges with the headworks project. however, a solid approach has come up to move forward. we have primary qualifiers, power feed and central bayside project. we're doing a lot of utility work in the corridors around
evans, rankin and davidson streets. we're putting in new pumps there, new bar screens. interconnecting wet wells to provide more flexibility and we're looking at if that can be use as a dry weather station as well. its purpose now is wet weather. as the design progressed and we did a more sophisticated fluid dynamics modelling, it was clear that the arrangement of the structure was not conducive to the flow going through it without risking grit deposition, which we do not want. we want the grit to make its way to headworks. so we came up with the consent of a trench pump situation that will function in dry weather and convey all the flow to the plant. it will be tied with bruce flynn
station to provide flexibility and redundancy. so we have a system that properly handles the dry weather flow and wet weather flows. the power feed project -- the increase here was primarily due to the opportunity that we had to work with the power enterprise and receive our distribution services from puc instead of pg & e. the challenge there is to bring a new line in from the potrero substation, so we have one from there and one from hunter's point. we'll realize a delay of about a year on the schedule, but we anticipate construction activities to is totally support the need for the power that we'll need for testing in about 2022. the third project that changed had a savings. this is a wet-weather station, where we have a permit requirement to treat 150 million
gallons during wet weather events. we do that with two 75 million-gallon pumps. if one is out of service, we cannot meet the requirements, so the project's focus was to provide an additional pump. so we have two pumps, and one stand-by. as we got into looking at that and developing the project, the complexities of adding and expanding the wet weather in that area were very challenging. so an alternative was determined with the maintenance folks and what we're doing here is expand the dry weather station, upsize its capability, that makes it more robust during the 24-hour, 7-day-a-week operation. and tie it into the wet-weather station and in the process save money for the program. when we looked at phases two and
three, and, again, this worked well to identify the projects and confirm their need and timing and costs as well. i will walk through each of the treatment facilities right now. and show you a list of projects that we've presented to you in march of 2016, that constitute the baseline for phase two and three. the types of things that we considered as we evaluated these projects were, could we remove projects? were they all necessary? this is an example of plant drainage station that we decided we did not need. we're building that new trench station, part of the headworks project. it enabled us to lower the grade lionel invasion for the local sewers to come into the trench station, thereby eliminating the need. right there, a savings of $20 million. through r & r work, the primary
scum screening project was not needed. that was $2 million. we did see a need to supplement security. the bulk of the security is being provided through the headworks project around rankin and around to phelps. but there are other sections in the plant that we wanted to make sure were at the same security standards, so we have a small $10 million security enhancement project. we looked to repackage. we had a number of packages dealing with primary tanks. combined them to one. the nature of the work is very different. so we have two different contracts there. and we consolidated southside demolition to one project as well. as we move through the assessment of the projects, we had a project in phase three that we wanted to move to phase two. now when we did the condition assessment earlier in the program, we moved half of the
primary colllarifclarifyers to and the last eight are being worked on now and these are the last eight that will move from phase three to phase two. and, finally, we did take -- because of the need for the bio side to be built before we demolish the southside, we're doing a move, not changing it, but shifted the category from phase two to phase three. here's a look at the proposed projects that we have for southeast. the schedule, very similar before in terms of the timing for most of the facilities here. and in terms of cost, phase one
increase is $73 million. phase two, decrease of $200 million. and phase three, increase of $400 million. a large part of the facilities that we moved. total increase at southeast $279 million. when we look next at the north point facility, again, we start with the projects that were proposed for north point. again, web look to adore remove projects. one is a $30 million project that because of the robustness in how the facility at southeast was designed, we no longer need this project, so there's a savings here, as well as significant savings with not running a plant affluent line from southeast up to north point. we also took advantage of repackaging, similar to what we did at southeast.
we consolidated odor control and distributed control system. we kept condition assessments separate from other projects. we had building improvements that were separated out into condition assessment. so, again, at north point, this is what the facilities list of projects is today. the schedule of implementation through the end of the contract and costs at north shore are decreases, minus $12 in phase one, $78 in phase two $117 phase three. so a total of $200 million in savings at the north point facility. if we move on to oceanside, what we see here is a small number of
projects. and when we look at opportunities to make changes, what we did, again, is we added security enhancements at oceanside, so that all facilities would have upgraded security. we consolidated the dcs again here. what we're doing here is we have the dcs planning for all three facilities being down as ssip and at ocean point and north point the implementation is in phase two and that extends through the 2032 time period. again, when we looked at the facilities here and working with the oem team, the improvements that we originally planned for phase three when we looked at the conditions there, we realized that that project cannot wait that long, so we move that project forward phase three to phase two. so, again, here's what the final list of projects is today in
terms of oceanside. the schedule, again, phase two runs through 2027-2028 time frame and then phase three fakes over. our costs at oceanside don't change significantly. plus seven in phase one. a savings $39 in phase three. part of that is the shifting of the prague pekt phase two to phase three, for increase at oceanside of $25 million. when we looked at this in total, we see the 2016 baseline, what we see when we look at the capital strategy now that we're taking into the cip planning process, we see an increase in phase one of $68 million. we see a decrease in phase two of $200 million. and an increase in phase three
of just over $200 million, for a net increase program-wide of about $97 million. again, phase one is through 2025. phase two would start in 2018-2028. and phase three starts in 2024-2032. as i mentioned before, last month we presented the collection strategy to you. right here is a summary of the ssip, which shows an increase of $6.97 billion to just over $7.3 billion, $336 million increase. $97 treatment. and $239 from collection presented to you last month. in summary, we believe we're putting forth projects, collection and treatment that reflects sound investments and
decisions for the long term to meet ssip goals and objectives. it would help our system, ensure regulatory compliance and protect public health and the environment. we'll now factor in other wastewater projects and come back to you in january. and we'll continue our work with finance to ensure that the overall prioritized wastewater cip satisfies the level of service and rate payer affordability. we look forward to coming back to you in january with that summary as well. >> commissioners, any questions or comments? >> thank you. that was a lot of information. and i appreciate the level of detail. i must confess that i had a little bit of a hard time following. and then it felt quite a bit like a presentation on a collection of projects and i
didn't really understand what the main drivers were for the change in the projects, nor how they connected back to some of the earlier policy decisions that we've made on ssip going back to 2010, i believe, if not the commitment in 2015 to base a substantial amount of our decision making at the policy level on the urban watershed assessment. so i think it's a longer conversation. i did send a note to the general manager asking about when we as a commission would be able to big deeper into some of the questions and policy considerations at a higher level, without drilling down to the project level, which you
presented, and i appreciate, but don't fully understand or connect the dots. so what i did get from the end slide was by january, we're going to be asked as a commission to pretty much decide from a budgetary as well as a prioritization perspective on the ssip. is that correct? >> so, again, i want to clarify -- this is treatment. >> i understand. and we did collection last meeting. >> so treatment has to actually -- we talked about conveying to the treatment plants. this is the ability to treat and meet our permit compliance. this is what this is about. what you are concerned about is the collection and watershed assessment, which we talked about in the collection side. >> correct.
i want to understand -- it's this connecting of the dots to understand how that, then, connects with collection and the overall ssip as envisioned, the treatment standards put in place and without drilling down immediately to the approval or how we're going to approve these individual projects as they are proposed. >> i'm trying to understand. i think we can go over and be clearer on each one of the treatment plants and what the purpose is for and why are we doing certain components, and i think what we're doing is, we're trying to be able to meet our permit requirement and also future requirements and we can
talk more about that. but that's what the treatment is about. so that's a level of service that meet regulatory requirements and so i think that's what this is pertaining to. and so i'm trying to get an understanding -- i know what your issue is, is more collection. >> my issue is just the overall $7 billion decision that we're going to be making as a commission and to make sure that in particular that the commission understands, me in particular, each of the components, when there are significant changes like this -- i'm not as interested in each of the components, as how they're going to connect back up to the policy decisions, level of service that we committed to. and if the primary driver is
regulatory -- >> for this component, yes. >> then i want to understand at a high level the budget dollars, therefore, that will be shifted in order to be in compliance. and i can't really understand that as we go through these individual projects, because i'm not an infrastructure engineer. i need to understand it at the policy and budgetary level. >> when the program was developed in 2012, and you all approved the $7 billion at that time, we went through a validation process that was, in fact, tied to urban watershed assessment. and we laid out the projects. and then in 2016, reassessed the projects and today we're reassessing the projects. i honestly would say, we haven't changed any policy perspectives or any of the drivers, levels of service has not changed. what this is really a reflection of is continuing updating and ensuring ourselves that we're recommending for you the right
projects that are consistent with those levels of service that you have established and maintained throughout this process and to keep going through. and as harlan said, the collection system presented last month takes the policies and projects and delivers flows to three locations. today we're assessing the projects that we had previously identified, determining whether they're still needed, have any regulations changed that we have to adjust to? are there places we can save money because we have better information than before, so it's a constant review without any intent to deviate from the guidance that the commission gave us in 2012 and reaffirmed in 2016. >> that's more helpful. and so i just want to understand -- by -- when are these -- when
are all these pieces going to come together to have that conversation to be able to ask questions at that level to make sure we're on the same page? i've lost track of what the drivers are for these decisions. >> good afternoon. the processes that basically a lot of phase one has not changed. and we will be coming back to you -- we presented the whole program as a $7 billion program, but what is in the 10-year capital will not be the $7 billion. you are seeing all of phase one and we would have to come back to you for approval for any phase two projects. but we would not be moving forward with phase two at this time. we would just be recommending phase one with some -- a few changes in projects, which we would go over with you. >> in january? >> yes. and we can definitely go into more detail with you on some of those changes to the collection
system and urban watershed plan and the projects that you have a lot of questions about. >> that would be great. i would appreciate that. and i just want to all of us understand when we're going to be making these decisions at what level, at what cost, is my main interest level, and then we can drill down. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i want to amplify what cathy mentioned, is that, remember, we only -- you only gave us authority of phase one, which is the $2.9 billion and we're moving forward on that. we're teeing up what is in phase two and three and so we keep refining as we get more information. and so the plan is, as we feel comfortable and bringing them
into part of our ability to execute the projects, we'll bring each project or group of projects and really discuss why we feel that we need to move forward, because it's going to have an impact to our rates. and so we have a 10-year capital plan and we laid it out, but that's a 10-year capital plan and approval has not been given to any projects above phase one. so central bayside is one, which is $800 million project. we need to figure out if we want to move forward with that project or not. because if it comes from $2.9 to $3.7 billion program and what are the rate impacts and when will it happen? so we have to talk a lot about when the projects will, you know, bring before you, because we have to see what the real
my question is this. you presented this, which was a request from me, i know, and then afterwards, you reassigned some of these to either -- you either admitted them or you assigned them to a different phase. my question is, did you do this for all of the projects in phase two and phase three? in other words, i didn't check off, okay, that one's been relocated to phase three, blah, blah, blah. my question is, have you relocated all of them? >> yes, except for the two we eliminated. so all projects that are shown here show up in the recommendations phase two and phase three, pretty much in the same time line as originally anticipated with the exception
of said tanks because they need repair immediately. >> let's take the first one. the demo -- what happened to them? >> okay. i will advance here. so see the southside demolition, halfway down the list on this slide? that's the consolidation of the demolition projects that werelessed individual ee eed - individually. >> i see. perhaps in the future, you could have a sub title saying what that was because i couldn't find it. okay. i think it's something that we have to look at again. >> sure. >> so everybody understands it more clearly. >> sure. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. president.
>> thank you, commissioner. you remind us that we need to start with first principles here and when we aren't changing policy and criteria, we need to identify that. and when we aren't, we need to clarify that, too, that will make it clear for everyone in the room and whoever is watching. one of my takeaways, in the process of going from phase one to two to three, there is also a passage of time and the world changes around us. we will be presented at some point with a request to change the budget. the follow-up question is, have you looked at everything else, opportunities to combine or consolidate or refine the proposa
proposals. and my takeaway from this presentation, we had a chance to go over it a little earlier, is that process is ongoing. it's not just, we structure it and move on to the next good deed. it's under constant review to see if there's opportunities to save a buck here and do it more efficiently there. and i was, frankly, very impressed with the quality of thinking that's gone into this, of really looking not just at kind of the obvious things about how you can save costs, but if we do this a different way, if we change our way about how we're trying to solve problems, can that change the way we design the solution? and that thinking really seems to be going on. i was im pressed by that. it's a hard thing to do if you are dealing with parts of the
organization that may not talk to each other and getting that kind of thinking. i thought it was an impressive process and i appreciate you doing it. and when we do come up with that ultimate question as to the way in which we choose to meet the objectives we've set and there's a request for additional money, that we can have some confidence that the underlying work has gone on to try to make sure that costs can be saved where they can and provide tradeoffs. thank you to that. >> the other thing i want to point out that's been very helpful, even in the phase one projects is that, you know, we originally had operations working with the designer, but when we brought the contractor on, they start participating in solutions and how to lower the costs, because we went smgc, where they're helping us, helping the designer say, hey,