tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 28, 2019 8:00am-9:01am PDT
director. i just wanted to say good it is this week's business times. >> i attended the july 16 monthly council district merchant meeting. also on june 20, i attended the ten year anniversary of sfa. an organization that i founded to support local manufacturers, and a program oewd has been very supportive of over the last ten years he and much appreciated. >> i just wanted to report back in that with some heavy-duty construction going on in north each. they close down washington square park for many months. the norge -- the business associations along with neighborhood groups are still holding their feet to the fire to make sure it is happening in
a correct manner that there are on -- no unnecessary delays. we would urge every other neighborhood that is facing such a major disruption to business to follow our footsteps. get involved, and make sure we are actively involved with whatever the department and contractors that are involved. >> yes, i have attended the dumb festival in chinatown. it is organized -- -- dumpling festival in chinatown. it is a promotion for the businesses in chinatown. many of the restaurants participated by providing different types of dumplings. delicious.
>> i mentioned previously, i been working with oewd on a possible concert for jobs area that continues to progress. i just want to drop while everybody is here. when it hopefully pops up down the road, we are already to jump in and be supportive. >> any other commissioner comments? do we have any members of the public that would like to make comments on commission reports? seeing none. next item, please. >> item ten, new business. allows commissioners to introduce new agenda items for future consideration by the commission. discussion item. >> any new business or from any of the commissioners? do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on new business? seeing none. public comment is closed.
>> richard kurylo please show the office of small business live. -- sf gov tv please show the small business commission lie. >> a reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start a new business in san francisco on the best place to get an answer to your questions about doing business in @ san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop when you have questions about what to do next. you can find us online or in person here at city hall. all of our services are free of charge. small business commission is the official public forum to voice your concerns about policies that affect the economic vitality of small businesses in san francisco. if you need assistance with small business matters start here at the office of small business. >> next item. >> adjournment. >> do we have a motion to adjourn?
>> i move approval. >> second. >> any public comments on the minutes? all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. the next item, please. >> item 4 is general member of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. >> mr. di costa. >> commissioners, i want to talk on a number of issues, and i was watching one of the committees the board of supervisors. two of your consultants, one who deals with iso, electricity, and the other one is, i suppose he's an engineer that i haven't met before. so i'm very much interested in
how you commissioners are going to be dealing with the transmission line from the 75 megawatts. so i had to do a little bit of investigation, and i see that the digesters cannot go forward unless they have steady energy, electricity. so why don't we have this conversation? are we dumb or something? we have a contracting center there and we don't have any discussion what really is happening with the digesters, where are they going to get the energy and electricity to do it. why are we kept in the dark? in the interim, there is community benefits and outsiders are getting $300,000 in grants, and we advocates who have been
monitoring everything, we are getting shafted, but not for long. not for long. so commissioners, some of you all are astute and i worked with you all, and we need to get the empirical data first before we make all these plans. now, reflecting to a different time when ed smelof was here, we were good friends and we would discuss about some of these areas. so this transmission line, i want to know more about this transmission line, there's full accountability and transparency. it's supposed to be bringing about 75 megawatts so that the digester project can go forward.
now, paradoxically we started with $6 billion and now this system, the sewer system improvement project is $10 billion. it's like the central subway that started with $600 million and ended up with $2 billion. somebody has to ask the question and commissioners and those appointed in high places and who get high salaries, they have to be accountable with full transparency. thank you very much. >>president caen: thank you. [ bell rings ]. >>president caen: any other speakers snr i would like to take this opportunity to welcome the project management bureau interns who are seated in the back row. welcome to our meeting. next item, please. >> clerk: item 5 is communications. >>president caen:
commissioners, any comments? public comments on this item. i see none. let's move on to the report of the general manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners. first, i wanted to update you on one of the items that you requested from me about working with the planning commission to present on our water supply assessments. so what has happened is that the twalimee river trust has engaged with the mayor's office and so the mayor's office is helping coordinate a lot of activities they would like to see happen. so the first thing is that the mayor's office will sit down with the twalimee river trust
and have a meeting with them, and i believe it's scheduled for august 6. and then the next thing that we're working on is actually the pc making a presentation number of the planning commission i think sometime in august. we're nailing down those dates, where we will give an assessment of our water supply and then they have an opportunity to present their case in front of them. so i just wanted to give you an update on that because that's something you wanted me to follow up on. and then the other item i just wanted to give you, that today was a very exciting day. we had an opportunity to really partner with the community about the best use for our different water supplies. it kind of follows a whole
one-water concept. we worked with energy center san francisco, which is previously in our deed. they use 33 million gallons of water to produce steam to heat buildings in the downtown area. meanwhile, bart was pretty much dewatering their foundations and putting it in our sewers which was nearby. we found a unique opportunity to have those folks partner to save water, and what we did is we participated with giving them a grant to help them put a reverse osmosis plant there so they actually now are using the groundwater that bart would normally put into our sewers, treat it so that they can use that water instead of our water. we thought that was a great partnership. that is one of the largest on-site use projects in san
francisco today and we're really proud of it and you will probably see it in the news today. i think it was earlier today. but that's the type of projects that we're really pushing and that really means a lot to san franciscans. other than that, that concludes my report. >>president caen: that's wonderful news. why do they have to use reverse osmosis? is there salt in the water? >> the groundwater that they're using is from from aquafer. so it's not only to remove sod, but it had other things in the water. so they're actually spending i think the whole processing train is about $4 million, and we provided a grant for half a million dollars, but they're
saving about 1.2 to 1.5 million in water costs purchasing water. so it actually benefits them in like four or five years. they get a payback. >>president caen: so the bart water then, the bart water goes down our system and then we do something with it there? >> it goes to our treatment plant. they pump it into our sewers and it goes to the treatment plant. now it doesn't. >>president caen: it doesn't go to our treatment plant? >> there's an infrastructure there that we have to build? >> what they did as part of the whole coordination is that energy center san francisco, part of their whole design was to also give larger pumps so that bart can actually pump it to their location. so instead of pumping into a cistern that pumps -- that it
goes into our sewer system, they actually pump it directly to them. so they worked in partnership, which is very challenging working with city government and a sort of quasi state agency bart. so it was a partnership. it took about seven years of going back and forth and figuring out all the obstacles that we had to figure out to get around, but very excited about it. >>president caen: thanks. any public comment on the general manager's report? next item, please. >> clerk: item 7 is the bay area water supply and conservation agency update. >> good afternoon, commissioner applis s, thank you for having me here today. last month i talked to you about the new dry your water supplies in the san francisco water
system that are needed for the water that is represented and mandated by state law. i was encouraged by commission's strong positive response, and i want to take part in the conversation. for your successful water improvement program which was built to rebuild the earth quake system, you established a strong and qualified organization within the pc that was led by an outsider at the time who reported directly to the general manager. that was a very bold step and i suggest that you need to take another bold step now, perhaps with someone already in the organization or another outside executive to lead this new water supply area. this new leader should be responsible to the general manager. this new leader should be responsible to the commission. this new leader should be assigned the huge and urgently needed task to find and develop new water sources for future
drought years with an adequate program to make process. this was about rebuilding the pipes and infrastructure of the system. this new program will be the water to put through the system during drought years. annual reports about your progress should be continued to the state, as required by law, and they should talk about the real water sources and their development. as bosco's chair said during our board meeting, the next dry year for water users should depend on your regional water system may not be far away, so there is no time to lose and time for the pc to find a water center as needed during drought years. similarly bosco will respond and fulfill its obligations. so i suggest by december of this year, 2019, that the pc staff should bring to the commission a plan that documents how your
agency will develop and implement a program, not a plan, to deliver new critical water supplies for future droughts. they shall have a realistic budget. they should have full staffing, focus and responsibilities. this program should be included in your cip that you will be considering for adoption in 2020. also needed will be a schedule that will be met with updated details as they're available adds this program gets implemented and with continued engagement of bawsca. with that, that concludes my comments. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i had an opportunity to talk to nicole and i do agree that we need to focus and make sure we have a program manager. we've been talking internally about that, but i would say that
the way we structure the water system improvement program, we have a program manager that actually reports through infrastructure and because that's what they do. and so i think we will come back with a structure of what we feel is appropriate and what resources we need. we will try to put together an overall schedule, but it is a little more difficult than designing a project when you have a lot of negotiating with other parties. so i don't know how a realistic schedule that you could put together when you don't know what your people that you're trying to coordinate is very challenging. but we will do our best to put it together. we understand the seriousness of this, and we are going to put resources we need so we can be successful. >> thank you. >>president caen: it's a start. >> it's a start.
thank you very much. >>president caen: any public comment? >> commissioners, i'd like to go to the source. so i mentioned the raker act umpteen times over here, but i think some of you commissioners haven't read the raker act. some of you commissioners -- and i know one or two of you all have been in the capacity of being the general manager, i don't know if it was under the water department or the san francisco public utilities commission which was formed in 1996. so when you say san francisco
public utilities commission, people think it's a hundred years old. no, it was formed in 1996. the reason why i say that -- am i wrong? >> the commission's been around for a long time. it has had some changes in structure. >> okay. the structure. >> but it's -- >> i made a mistake -- >> it goes back at least -- >> the structure in 1996 when things were changed. i'm saying this because originally we have to come to an understanding why did we damn the hachachee dam and reservoir and whose needs did we have in mind? that's what i'm focused on. some years ago i was doing some investigative reporting and i found out that ibm and some of
the companies in the south were using inordinate millions and millions of gallons of water. and we agreed to those contracts because we get some money. now, i've attended a few of the meetings and they do a good job, but again i want to come to this place when the raker act was established, whose needs did we have paramount in mind? that's what i'm focused on. and the reason why i'm focused on that is because i work very closely with the native americans, the first people of the area, whose water that was. [ bell rings ]. >> and without their permission, the water was taken away from them and dammed. today we think we can flush our toilets with clean drinking water, and that's a shame.
i want y'all to connect the dots. i'm not going to go into the details because i'm not here to teach adults what is right and what is wrong, but those are my comments. thank you very much. >>president caen: thank you. any other public comment? next item, please. >> clerk: item 8 is other commission business. >>president caen: commissioners, any business to bring up? no? okay. the next item is the consent calendar. >> clerk: item 9 is a consent calendar, all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the
calendar and considered a separate item. >>president caen: is there any item you would like removed from the consent calendar? any item that the public would like removed from the consent calendar? seeing none, may i have a motion. >> so moved. >> seconded. >>president caen: all those in favor? >> aye. >>president caen: opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 10 is a workshop: overview of the sewer system improvement program including update on new headworks facility and biosolids digester facilities projects. approve the terms and conditions >> if i can figure this thing out.
donna, can you -- >> can i have the overhead -- or the computer, please. >> good afternoon, president caen, commissioners. howard sung acting director of the water programs. commissioners, this will be our second part of our two-part workshop in advance of our monthly updates. at our last workshop we provided an overview of this program and went over the construction manager, general contractor cmgc model being used for our headworks and biosolids. we also discussed how we incorporated environmental justice into the program and went over our workforce development strategies. for today i would like to recap
on the approach as well as go over how we cost estimate -- how we cost estimate our projects and how we address project risks before we dive into the two biggest projects in head work ones and biosolids given they their respective project managers. at our last workshop we presented the concept of a traditional design bid build and the construction manager general contractor, cm/gc approach. to recap the majority of our projects were using the bid build project where we developed 100% of steins and put the project out to bid. at no time during the design phase do we interact with the designer. for more complicated projects like head work ones and biosolids we have decided to utilize a cm/gc approach.
with that approach we bring the contractor in as an integrated team member, usually after 35%, and utilize their experience and construction expertise to help improve our design, reduce risks, and validate schedules. the cm/gc approach fosters collaboration between owner, designer and contractor, integrates the contractor entering into design phase to bring the benefit of construction expertise and improve our overall design, increasing our confidence of the design 100%, which is now more developed and vetted with the contractor and pricing and schedules are more realistic. that gives us the ability to identify construction risks and verify and mitigate them during design, which is less expensive than trying to find them during construction. both the design and the construction can be done in parallel, which can increase schedule efficiency, versus the linear approach to design-bid
build, which requires us to complete 100% design before starting construction. bidding in smaller packages also increases our opportunities for lb participation and allows for more time to develop a certain -- develop and train local workforce to suit the actual construction schedule. and lastly, it's more agile and flexible in bidding. when certain bid packages come in over we can elect to rebid that package or design or break out the scopes to better increase participation. although cm/gc has many advantages, there are still some considerations we need to recognize. it is a new process for us and for our organization. we are not yet as efficient as we would like to be, so we are still working on developing efficiencies. we need to establish or amend some of our administrative functions, policies and procedures, and increase our resources that are necessary to fully implement cm/gc more
effectively. because packages are bid out over time we do not have a contract certainty until the end of the bidding process, which can take a couple of years from the start of construction. moving on to cost estimates, we conduct cost estimates at standard intervals, 10% conceptual, 35, 65, 95, and 100% as our project design progresses. what this slides shows is the industry standard for cost estimating over the life of the design. the accuracy of the estimates are expressed as a plus or minus percentage range around the estimate intervals. these are the green and orange lines that bound the blue cost estimate line in the middle. basically this line indicates how much a given project cost should vary from the estimate. the accuracy reflects the move from the earlier less-accurate estimates to more specific and more refined estimates that design approaches 100%.
this is an example -- in this example, the flat blue estimate line represents an ideal situation, where the overall total estimates remain the same. this does not take into account changes such as scope additions or risk factors or such things as operational logistic constraints, market factors, tariffs, and other uncertainties that develop over the design duration. in our next slide we will talk a little bit about risks as well. a more realistic line would tend to slope up as some of these changes or risk factors are incorporated into our project. for risks, these are some of the potential risk factors that can impact project costs and schedule. these are the same types of risk that we'll find on head work ones and biosolids projects. for risk mitigation, the team does prepare a plan to identify, assess, evaluate and manage potential risks in their projects. some of these risks can be mitigated, some cannot, like
market conditions, tariffs, or commodity cost increases. what we -- we account for the risks in trends or it is incorporated into the project as a higher cost or potentially longer schedules. however, one of the advantages of the cm/gc approach is to provide greater flexibility in managing and mitigating risks prior to starting construction. this approach allows us to quantify risks prior to design rather than encountering them during construction. mitigation can involve changes to the design, material selection, construction means and methods, or even resequencing work. you'll hear more of these examples in our next two project presentations. i'd like to take the time now to stop and ask if there's any questions before i turn it over to my colleague to go over the details of the head work ones project. >>president caen: any questions? thank you.
>> good afternoon, president caen and commissioners. i am the superior project manager for head work ones project and i'm also a district and bay view resident. i have been working on project programs and operational aspects over 20 years for puc. first i want to thank president caen and commissioner maxwell for coming out to the site yesterday and look at the progress of the construction as well as the constraint with the site logistics. as howard recapped cm/gc process and its salient features, i will provide overview how we have applied those principles on h d headworks project. i would like to spend a few moments to explain what
headworks is, what are the current deficiencies, and how new headworks will address those shortcomings. as the name suggests, headworks is the head of the plant, also known as a preliminary treatm t treatment. all the flow from collection system first enters into the plant into headworks. it is also a highest elevation at the plant and wastewater flows by gravity to all remaining liquid treatment downstream. the majority of existing equipment associated with the headworks process is over 30 years old and approaching its normal replacement interval. in addition, the existing preliminary treatment process does not meet the level of service established by the commission and exhibits inefficiencies in the fine screening and grit removal, which if not removed it can clog
up the downstream process or affect the downstream processes. the grit loading that we experience is 6200 pounds per million gallons. imagine a day like today, we are treating 50, 55 million gallons. so multiply each million gallon by 6200 pounds of grit, that's enormous grit coming to the facility. any well-functioning plant, the maximum upfront removal of debris that you can achieve, everything works as designed on the downstream side. the current headworks only removes 50% of grit and screenings, which comes with the influent flows. the new headworks will -- it's designed to remove 90, 92% of this debris coming into the plant. the plant also as a seismic
structural vulnerabilities and has control along the fence line. along with reducing odors, the project will reduce the noise and ensure the quality of the structure along the road. in the next few slides, i will describe evaluation of the scope to mitigate risk by utilization of cm/gc delivery method. the original scope as depicted on the slide had three scopes. scope one was the site preparation, which includes demolition of the existing wet weather facility, installation of permanent 78-inch bypass line, which is the blue line shown there, and various utility relocation and readouting. scope two which is upper left, which is known as a flint pump station, the intent was to convert that wet weather facility into an all-weather
facility, which would require us to do extensive sewer diversion work and impact the traffic on the road there. as soon as we onboarded a cm/gc contractor, we started to get feedback from them and first major input was to remove that underground line which is 78-inch and was on the piers to an above-ground 54-inch hdp line on the road. that helped us to reduce significant risk associated with the congestion in the plant road and eliminating conflict with the seismic work. the second major collaboration between cm/gc and designers was to move the lift station from across from evans out. initially we were trying to convert it to all-weather, but we were going to install a new lift station. one of the major inputs we
received from cm/gc was to lift the scope, eliminating all the work on evans avenue. another aspect i want to mention on the red is the seismic and electrical work which was originally not part of the project, but since it's in the same footprint of the headworks, we adopted those two scopes part of headworks project, to eliminate the conflict of multiple contractors working in the same footprint. so the red aspects outlines the new scope which was developed in collaboration with cm/gc and helped to mitigate some of the risk. next i would like to go where the project budget as it stands today is $418 million. there are two scopes which are in construction. scope one which is the site prep which is shown on a green box
and also scope two a outlining the line on the upper left. those two scopes are in construction. the green outlined scope is scope 3 which is in a bidding and award phase. and last but not least, scope 2 b.c. which is the new lift station is in a design phase. the beauty of the cm/gc process allows overlapping phases. so somebody in construction, somebody in bidding phase and we are still completing design on some of the design elements. so the next slide is to provide you an overview of how major benefits are received through cm/gc delivery method and some of the consideration that howard talked about, process and nature of bidding a bid process. this shows if we had delivered
the headworks project in traditional design-bid-build method, we would be still in design phase. we would bid singular large package in spring of 2020 or just beginning of 2020, and the project would complete sometime in 2026. the lower chart shows the efficiencies with cm/gc where we were able to start construction if you see the scope 1 in 2017 with site prep and bruce flint bump station, with anticipated construction finished by 2023, pulling the schedule back by three years, 2023 versus 2026. i also want to highlight on the chart below, the bidding process happens in multiple ways. it's not one-time bidding and you get a surprise. it happens along the way as the packages are developed. therefore, the final price will
not be of a level entity, the last package bid out and we receive the business. for headworks, it will be in the spring of 2020, where the last package will be bid out. so with cm/gc delivery method there exists continuous risk identification and mitigation of design components. in case of headworks, cm/gc during preconstruction phase performed numerous potholing utilities to identify conflicts and read out options and provide feedback to the design teams. the major design elements were configured to mitigate risk of construction, as i explained, the underground 78-inch under piers was removed and make it temporary above-ground line, as well as relocating a pump station from across the street on the site. so those were the two major reconfiguration of design
elements to mitigate the risk working in the public right of way. working on collaboration with planned operation contractor and designer, optimize the sequence of the construction phase, that's how we have now scope 1, 2 a, b, and c. contract work and timing is also very important. with cm/gc delivery method, the scope of work -- if the scope of work is going to happen three years down the road, cm/gc would not advertise on day one. they would progressively bid out the packages. this allows a level of participation as well. so i wanted to discuss a little bit about mitigating risk and also mitigating risk comes with pricing the risk into the cost estimates. as commissioner caen and maxwell
observed the site constraint, some of the cost increases are associated with risk mitigation related to site constraints complexities, and they have been priced accurately by cm/gc progressive in their bid and cost estimates. some risks are not possible to mitigate, such as working around the active plan where the flow still continues to come. we continue to treat 250 million gallons while building a new facility. the other factors, of course cost increase pertain to scope additions that i described earlier where we added scope to be in c to minimize or mitigate major deep excavation on public right of way on evans avenue. this helped reduce or eliminate impact to traffic for the neighborhood and eliminated major utility conflicts. and last but not least the market conditions. when we bid out scope i and ii
a, we did experience higher costs associated with steel, concrete, and also trades. so cm/gc helps us to accurately price those market factors into the cost estimates. these are some of the major factors that lead to cost impacts on headworks business. >> through the chair, i want to interrupt for one second since i have something to do with construction as the commissioner here, it would be nice if i would be invited to some of these meetings when you are doing a tour. it's great that commissioner maxwell and the president, there, but tim paulson and i have a day job. i would like to -- whether or not i can make it or not, i still want to be apprised so that the sfpuc has been incredib
incredibly attentive to the stuff that we're doing. >> i want to point out that they mentioned in previous meetings that they wanted to go out there and tour the site, but i'm happy to do that. unfortunately, we have to do two at a time because of the brown act, but we would love to take you out. i'm telling you everybody -- >> since i have something to do with construction and i've heard him say "construction" at least 17 times so far, i want to be part of that. thank you. >> slides, please. >> so as howard mentioned about the process of cost estimating, we do conduct cost estimates at standard intervals as the project design and details advances. also for the complex and long duration infrastructure projects, the duration between planning estimate to a 95% estimate could be three to five years. as various design deliverables are made available, various
estimating teams prepare estimates to reflect current market conditions, workforce availability, and updates based on the refined design. headworks projects started planning phase in march 2013. we just completed our 95% design last year. so it's five years planning and design process. at 35% design, so the first estimate that we get is at the end of the planning phase, which is cer, which reflects the 2016 market condition and preliminary design. as the 35% design team started various geotechnical and haz-mat investigation and many of the investigations still not baked completely at the 35%. along with that, if you look at the x axis, we brought cm/gc contractor right around 35%, about a month difference after the 35% was delivered. and as previously mentioned,
cm/gc and design team collaborated to identify and mitigate risk prior to construction and priced that risk mitigation cost into the estimates. so in a design build model, which is the common conventional delivery method, this risk would have never been identified or addressed until we are in the middle of construction and potentially leading to contractor down time and change orders and claims, which we want to eliminate by using this method. so the current state of the project we have already started construction scope i and ii a as i mentioned previously. we have awarded 24 packages at around $60 million, of which $15 is committed to lbe contractors. we have 15 packages of scope iii in bid and award phase.
and we still have 78 packages to be advertised for scope iii and scope ii b and c. therefore, many opportunities exist for contracting community as well as lb contractors. so as a project manager, i can't wait to see this day where we have a headworks construction complete. the graphics in front of you reflects the rendering of completed headworks facility. it will look beautiful with art on the wall and improved overall esthetics of the facility. just a few highlights on the highest-looking building is our odor control, which is our commitment to neighbors. as you can see on upper right, the footprint is almost 25% devoted to two-stage robust odor control system.
so municipal green building code chapter 7 defines lead requirement which is green building requirements for municipal construction projects. sfpuc was the first municipal agency in san francisco to voluntarily pilot the envision sustainability rating system, which is a third party verification of institute of sustainable infrastructure known as isi. the analysis performance submitted to isi in five categories: quality of life, leadership, resource location, natural world, and climate and risk. earlier this year on may 15, isi informed to puc to headworks project has envisioned gold award and recognize sfpuc as leader in sustainable infrastructure. with that, i would like to ask if there are any questions for me before i turn over to my
colleague for the biosolid project. thank you. >> thank you for that, and i do have a question. a couple of slides back you showed the budget at the various stages -- or the estimates i should say at the various stages, as well as the uncertainty band. what do we use for our capital budget, which of those numbers? >> so the capital budget is about $418 million. it's right around 65%. that's when we did the last rebate lining effort. >> so we will -- >> maybe i can answer. so it really depends, if you're asking what do we use to put in the ten-year capital plan, it depends on where the project is. if we are in the process of doing a ten-year capital plan, we will use the best information we know at that time, while each individual projects go through the re-estimating stage at 35,
65, 95, and 100. on programs like water system improvement program, or sewer system improvement program, when we reassess and we identify the risk, we mitigate the risk, and it's trending, we actually then inform the commission that the number has grown and we would say what are the reasons that we feel that the projects have increased. and what we will do is put that new number in the ten-year capital plan when we update it again. >> so we would budget on the blue line. >> yes, the blue line -- yeah. >> okay. so as that changes over time, we would read the base line -- >> yeah, we would do the blue line. >> okay. and would the -- we also had a contingency that was the program
manager's contingency. >> yes. >> and do we budget that ahead of time? as a result, that came -- we had some surpluses that we moved money out of into that reserve. >> yeah, we had the program contingency for that particular reason that if one project have savings, we will put in the program contingency. if one project has some overages we would move money. as you remember on the sewer system improvement program, we were enjoying a lot of savings. we were actually receiving business 40% lower estimates. we put all that money into reserves. unfortunately calpers came about and it took all the money out because of the geotech hidden faults that we didn't identify and we had to overexcavate to address that, which hit up all
of that reserve and more. >> do we have any reserve like that in the ssip? >> we have a reserve -- i don don't -- i don't know how much reserve off the top of my head. >> we do have reserves, but they're really within the projects and the grouping of projects, we have collection projects, we have green infrastructure, and we have treatment facilities. so they kind of reside in an upper kind of a roll-up bucket, instead of an overall one line. >> okay. and i keep seeing this column is small, but those reserves are not robust at the moment? do we try to cover -- i figure what color the top line was, but our estimating range at the top of that, do we try to cover that or how much do we try to cover? >> so sort offed philosophy that we would use, is that we don't
try to cover the top of every project. what we try to do is cover the middle and then put money aside because some projects will go higher, some projects will go lower, and you don't want to tie up a lot of money if you really don't need it. so that's all about risk mitigation and also we want to try to have a probability of if all this comes in, either higher or lower, we can use a contingency amount that is not property and ask for more. if for whatever reason we're under, we would tell you what we estimated and what things came about that we need to provide more resources towards. >> and we had a risk management process that tried to assess the dollar value of all of the outstanding risks, and over time as things became known, as more
numbers became solid, the risk amount decreased. as i recall, we tried to fund something like 80% of the outstanding risk. do we have a similar risk management process for wesip for sfip? >> yes, we used the same professors for managing risk and preconstruction and construction. we have a procedure for that. >> maybe if we can actually present the risks and the amount of dollars that we have because what we normally would do is we have contingency in the project s. when you go through the different phases of projects, you have to put money aside for scope that you haven't identified. at 35%, you really haven't gone through and designed very much.
65 you know better, but at 35 to really try to give a true estimate of what you don't know, we normally put a number there so that we hope that will cover all this stuff that we didn't really know about at 35. then if we go to 65, we can assess were we close when we start identifying things. then the same thing for 95. so that is -- we can actually present the risk -- because i think that's important of how do we manage risks. the other thing i want to point out is that we're starting to move away from programming of -- like a program other than the water program, wastewater program, capital programs, and power capital programs. so i don't think we're going to have a sewer system improvement
program or a water system improvement program and identify a subset of water projects. i think what we're going to do is treat all water as one program. as part of the the capital ten-year plan we will put money aside in a contingency for all water. so we're trying to figure out how to treat these enterprises as one capital program versus having a subset, because there's other construction that's going on in water and wastewater other than and wesip and sesip. >> the last question -- actually, forget the last question. we'll come back. oh, i know what it was. the -- do i read into this that there will be something coming back to the commission pre-base lining the headworks project
that will include the scope change? >> yes. and what will happen is the project that that scope came out of will also be re-base line. so you'll see one project number go up and another project number will go down because we shifted that dollars to this project. >> okay. thank you. >> could you clarify why you decided to just put it all under one water instead of initially when you had different programs. >> yeah, so -- well, i think what we wanted to do is not have a level of service for a group of projects. we realized that we wanted a level of service for all water projects to deliver water service. so we work with either cdd, you know, hechi, and we came up with level service.
then what we have done is identified what projects that we need to invest in to make sure they meet the level of service. so instead of just identifying a subset of projects, we are expanding that to the whole enterprise. that's how we come up with the ten-year capital plan. so i think we're moving more towards that per se. but we're going to continue with the sewer system improvement program, but the way we're looking at it is this all comes from the same sort of money. water enterprise is water enterprise, wastewater is wastewater. so if, for example, when calivaris was -- when we were putting more money there, it doesn't come from the water system improvement program, because it came from steve ritchie ten-year capital plan, we had to look at other water projects. so it has impact on the whole
enterprise. so that's why we felt it's better representation to have a capital program of all water, all wastewater, and all power. >> so part of it then is financial? >> yeah. >> it's easier to move money around? >> yeah. >> okay. >> i have a question for you. it's sort of an individual question. you know that 54-inch pipe for wet weather that we have above ground, that you're going to put above ground, where does that go? >> that goes to the primary treatment which is the next step since we are demolishing the wet weather headworks, we need to find out a way to get flow into the next process. so it enters into the next step of the process. >> to that end, where, how? physically if we saw it laying on the sidewalk, pipe, does it make a turn and go in, does it go underground and go in? >> the pipe you saw on evans
sidewalk comes into the building, then we have inflow junction box. a portion of the flow goes to the old sedimentation tank and a portion goes to the new existing. so it diverts flow into the wet weather primaries as well as the dry weather. >> yeah, i just want to let you know that after we left your company, a couple of commissioners i was with, they actually wanted to take a tour and see the pipe on the sidewalk and they were asking me, it's not connected. and i said, well, it will be. >> before the wet weather start, it will be all constructed, tested, and in operation. >> that's why you needed me there. >>president caen: you'll get there. >> thank you, commissioners. >>president caen: tha
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on