Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 04-29-03 workshop agenda — reading text

The probable OpInIOn of capital costs for the upgrading the City' s WWTP by 11 incorporating an oxidation ditch process is summarized on Table 4- 3. As with the other reviewed alternatives, these costs were based on unit prices obtained from j recent bid experience with upgrades to similar wastewater treatment facilities, as well Ii as infonnation obtained from manufacturers of the equipment to be supplied. As indicated on Table 4- 3 the total probable opinion of cost for the upgrades to the City' s WWTP is estimated to be approximately $4, 262, 500. 4. 2.3.2 Scheduling and Sequencing till Based on the proposed plan described above it is anticipated that the overall program can also be completed within 2 years from inception, with no downtime of the facilities required. It is anticipated that final design and permitting associated with this alternative would take approximately 4- to 6- months to complete, including review periods. Similar to the other alternatives considered, bidding, review and recommendation for award will require 2- months to complete. Construction of the II improvements would take approximately 16- months to reach substantial completion. III During the last 2- months start- up and operational modifications to bring the system ill on line would take place. Based on our experience construction can proceed on the fill! new facilities without impacting the operation of the existing RBC system. Once the construction of the recommended improvements is completed, the necessary r yard piping to connect the new process structures would be connected, the equipment tested and certified, and the aeration basin seeded. A portion ofthe influent flow will till 1 then be diverted to new process tankage to acclimate the biomass in the unit. Once the new process is acclimated, the existing RBC facilities will then be III F:\200 1 \ 0 1. 0387. 000\Report\ R-4\ 041403 FINAL\ SEC 4. DOC HAI#01.0387. 000 4- 21 041403 ill Ii decommissioned and equipment removed, and all influent wastewater will flow through the new process tankage, for treatment. M II I I I I I I. I fill Iii I III J, fill t: iii II III' I. F:\2001\ 01.0387. 000\Report\ R-4\ 041403 FINAL\ SEC 4. DOC HAI#01. 0387. 000 4- 22 041403  TABLE 4- 3 lilt CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH II WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROBABLE OPINION OF CAPITAL COSTS OXIDATION DITCH I Description of Work Cost I RBC Equipment Removal and Disposal 20, 000 Flow EQ Mixers/Rails/ Supports 150, 000 I Oxidation Ditch Structure Additional Excavation to Maintain Hydraulic Profile 1, 600, 000 250, 000 Mechanical Aerators ( 2 - 150 HP) 500, 000 I Electrical Modifications 250,000 110, 000 Recycle Wetwell Recycle Pumps 115, 000 I Yard Piping Influent & Effluent Weir Gates ( includes recycle wetwell) 350,000 25, 000 Generator ( supplemental capacity) 40. 000 I SUB- TOTAL 3, 410,000 I Engineering, Contingency, Permitting @ 25% 852. 500 TOTAL 4. 262. 500 ill IIIII II F:\2001\ 01.0387. 000\Report\ R-4\041403 FINAL\table 4- 3. doc HAl #01.0387.000 4- 23 041403 i. 4.3 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS r The proposed alternatives that were evaluated to upgrade the City' s WWTP facilities will improve the level of service presently provided to the City's wastewater customers, as well as I meet the rules and regulations, which govern the treatment of wastewater. information researched for the improvements, modifications, and/or upgrades that are required Based on the cost for the existing wastewater facilities, a 30- year present value analysis was performed. I To accurately weigh the financial components of each alternative, the historical operating I expenses, projected operating expenses, and projected capital costs were utilized to determine a present value. The present value analysis for each wastewater treatment facility alternative was I for a 30- year service life utilizing data provided by the City and several other considerations and assumptions which are summarized below: I 1. Operating and maintenance ( O& M) expenses remained constant for the purpose of comparing the various wastewater treatment alternatives. I 2. The operating and maintenance expenses were estimated from the City' s Wastewater Utilities Fund, power costs were projected, and labor expenses were estimated. I 3. Capital costs were projected utilizing actual component replacement costs from City records as well as unit costs obtained from bid experiences of similar wastewater I facilities and cost estimates from equipment suppliers. 4. An analysis period of 30- years was used, together with an assumption of a discount r rate of 5- percent. 5. An average capital inflation rate of 2. 72- percent was assumed as reported in the fill' Engineering News Record ( ENR) and Handy- Whitman Index ( HWI). 6. An average operating inflation rate of2.5- percent was assumed. k' 7. Average service lives were assumed for each process component based on industry standard values. IIIIIIII The present value analysis performed for each of the treatment alternatives included the estimated construction cost and the present worth of O& M costs. Construction costs were f, estimated based upon vendor' s quotations, estimated installation costs, cost data for similar ill projects, and published cost data, as previously discussed. II F:\2001\ 01.0387. 000\Report\ R-4\ 041403 FINAL\ SEC 4.DOC HAI#01.0387. 000 4- 24 041403  The O& M costs utilized for this analysis included the cost of labor, power, and normal l1li replacement parts. Inflated component replacement costs are added to the present value analysis at the end of each components average service life ( ASL). A residual value was added back to the present value for components with a useful life remaining after the 30- year analysis. These Un residual values were based on an assumed ASL and straight- line depreciation over the ASL for each component. The estimated capital costs and component residual values for each alternative are shown in Tables A-4, A-5, and A-6. 4.4 CONCLUSIONS I The purpose of this section of the report was to evaluate several wastewater treatment I alternatives utilizing a present value analysis. As described previously, a 30- year proforma analysis was based on projected capital and O& M costs for each of the three alternatives. In Iii!! summary, the following conclusions were developed: Ira 1. The resulting present value of Alternative 1 was $ 5, 887, 585. A residual value of I 950, 000 was assumed for equipment with a remaining service life and this value was applied to the present value. The total present value of Alternative 1 is I 4, 937, 585 as shown in Table A- 7. 2. The resulting present value of Alternative 2 was $ 5, 298, 999. A residual value of I 656, 250 was assumed for equipment with a remaining service life and this value was applied to the present value. The total present value of Alternative 2 is I 3. 4, 642, 749 as shown in Table A- 8. The resulting present value of Alternative 3 was $ 6, 715, 312. A residual value of tII I' 925, 000 was assumed for equipment with a remaining service life and this value II was applied to the present value. A total present value of Alternative 3 is $ 5, 790,312 as shown in Table A- 9. II The present value analysis for each of the wastewater treatment alternatives is summarized in Table 4- 4. The results of the present value analysis are included in Section 5 as a part of a weighted analysis and is relative only in conjunction with the circumstances presented herein and III made part of such projections, and no assurances are