T5 further refine alts min

3,965 views
4,197 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,965
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3,405
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

T5 further refine alts min

  1. 1. Oak Harbor Facilities Plan City Council Workshop April 11, 2012Oh910i1-8594.pptx/1
  2. 2. City’s Goal for this Project “Recognizing that Oak Harbor is connected to the pristine waters of Puget Sound, specifically Oak Harbor and Crescent Harbor Bay, the City’s goal is to obtain the highest level of water quality practical while recognizing the limitations of the rate payers of the City to fund the improvements.”Oh910i1-8594.pptx/2
  3. 3. Goal of Tonight’s Workshop • Provide sufficient information to support the Project Team’s recommendation… – Illustrate how a 6th site compares to others based on the City’s overall project objectives – Provide additional cost information for alternatives at all sites being consideredOh910i1-8594.pptx/3
  4. 4. What comprises an alternative for evaluation? Site Where will a new facility be located? Process Discharge What treatment How will the clean technology will be water be used? used?Oh910i1-8594.pptx/4
  5. 5. Recommended Alternatives September 20, 2011 City Council Meeting 1. Consider three final sites for further evaluation: – Windjammer Park – Old City Shops – Crescent Harbor 2. Develop final alternatives around membrane bioreactor (MBR) process – Consider AS (if applicable) for short-listed sites 3. Discharge treated effluent through new outfall in Oak Harbor – Evaluate opportunities for beneficial reuseOh910i1-8594.pptx/5
  6. 6. City Council Direction Resolution 12-05: February 7, 2012 Report back with the following information… 1. Add a 6th site (Crescent Harbor North) to the list of candidate sites 2. Provide additional cost information to assist in the analysis 3. Consider both MBR and AS processes – Windjammer Park: MBR only 4. Consider Oak Harbor outfalls for all sites – Beachview Farm: Also consider West Beach 5. Collect and incorporate additional public inputOh910i1-8594.pptx/6
  7. 7. Tonight’s Agenda • Public Open House • Overall Alternative/Site Comparison • Additional Cost Information – Basis of Current Cost Estimates – Key Cost Assumptions for Each Site – Opportunities for Phasing to Reduce Cost • Summary and Recommendation • Questions?Oh910i1-8594.pptx/7
  8. 8. Six Sites Included in Resolution 12-05Oh910i1-8594.pptx/8
  9. 9. Crescent Harbor North Site Description • Approximately 24 acres within Urban Growth Area (UGA) • North of Crescent Harbor Drive – Not on Navy Seaplane Base • Comprised of 9 separate privately owned parcels • Field conditions are comparable to Crescent Harbor site (US Navy Property): – Some wetlands evident based on aerial photos – Similar risk of finding cultural resourcesOh910i1-8594.pptx/9
  10. 10. Crescent Harbor North Site MapOh910i1-8594.pptx/10
  11. 11. Triple Bottom Line Plus Technical (TBL+) Review of City’s Objectives for the Project E3 E2No. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 S3 S2 S1 Reliable Performance F3 F2 F1 T1 • Select treatment processes with many years of proven service • Design for adequate redundancy Ease of Construction T2 T3 T2 • Avoid steeply sloped sites and/or sites with difficult access T1 • Avoid sites where acquisition/construction could cause delays Ideal Overall System Efficiency Alternative T3 • Maximize the amount of gravity flow to/from the new WWTP • Minimize the amount of new conveyance infrastructure Oh910i1-8594.pptx/11
  12. 12. City’s Objectives (cont.) E3 E2No. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 Low Capital Cost F1 S3 S2 • Pursue alternatives that are lowest in cost (or “reasonably close” to low cost) NOTE: Considers WWTP, conveyance, and outfall costs S1 F3 Low Life Cycle Cost F2 F2 F1 • Pursue alternatives that are lowest in cost (or “reasonably close” to low cost) NOTE: Considers capital cost and annual O&M cost for 20-year period T3 T2 Protect Assets for Future Economic Development T1 Ideal F3 • Avoid areas zoned for commercial/business use within downtown urban core Alternative Oh910i1-8594.pptx/12
  13. 13. City’s Objectives (cont.) Protect Public Health & Safety E3 E2 S1 • Minimize public and City staff exposure to toxics and chemicals • Reliably meet NPDES permit requirements; provide for safe water qualityNo. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 Preserve/Enhance Public Amenities S2 S3 S2 • Preserve existing undeveloped open spaces for public use S1 • Protect important view corridors in the community F3 Minimize Neighborhood Impacts S3 F2 F1 • Construct facilities to match the character of surrounding areas • Minimize public exposure to noise, odor, and truck traffic T3 T2 T1 Ideal Alternative Oh910i1-8594.pptx/13
  14. 14. City’s Objectives (cont.) Produce Best Water Quality E1 • Produce the best effluent quality (NTU, TSS, BOD) within a reasonable cost • Produce “Class A” reclaimed water for beneficial reuse Protect Culturally & Environmentally Sensitive Areas E2 E3 E2 • Protect wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, forests, and other critical areasNo. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 NOTE: Critical areas defined by OHMC S3 Minimize Carbon Footprint E3 S2 S1 • Pursue alternatives that emit the lowest levels of Greehouse Gases (GHG) (or alternatives that are “reasonably close” to lowest GHG levels) F3 F2 F1 T3 T2 T1 Ideal Alternative Oh910i1-8594.pptx/14
  15. 15. Crescent Harbor North TBL+ Summary E3 E2No. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 E2 S3 E1 E2 S2 S3 E1 S1 S2 S3 F3 S1 S2 F2 F3 S1 F1 F2 F3 T3 F1 F2 • Property acquisition process is T2 T2 F1 well defined for Crescent Harbor North T1 T1 T1 Ideal Crescent Crescent Alternative Harbor North Harbor • Property acquisition process is highly uncertain for Crescent HarborOh910i1-8594.pptx/15
  16. 16. Crescent Harbor North Compares Well with Other Recommended Sites E3 E2No. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 E2 S3 E1 E2 E2 E2 S2 S3 E1 E1 E1 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 F3 S1 S2 F3 S1 F2 F3 S1 F2 F2 F1 F2 F3 F1 F1 T3 F1 F2 T3 T3 T2 T2 F1 T2 T2 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Ideal Crescent Crescent Windjammer Old City Alternative Harbor North Harbor ShopsOh910i1-8594.pptx/16
  17. 17. Full TBL+ Summary of Sites/Alternative Project Through Year 2030 MBR at all Sites E3 E2No. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 E2 S3 E1 E2 E2 E2 S2 S3 E1 E1 E1 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 E2 F3 S1 S2 F3 S1 E1 F2 F3 S1 F2 F2 S3 E2 F1 F2 F3 F1 F1 S2 E1 T3 F1 F2 T3 T3 S1 S1 T2 T2 F1 T2 T2 F3 F3 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Ideal Crescent Crescent Windjammer Old City Beachview Marina / Alternative Harbor North Harbor Shops Farm Seaplane BaseOh910i1-8594.pptx/17
  18. 18. Cost remains a key question for all alternatives/sites... Are costs for all sites How much & why truly equal? are costs higher? E3 E2No. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 E2 S3 E1 E2 E2 E2 S2 S3 E1 E1 E1 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 E2 F3 S1 S2 F3 S1 E1 F2 F3 S1 F2 F2 S3 E2 F1 F2 F3 F1 F1 S2 E1 T3 F1 F2 T3 T3 S1 S1 T2 T2 F1 T2 T2 F3 ? F3 ? T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Ideal Crescent Crescent Windjammer Old City Beachview Marina / Alternative Harbor North Harbor Shops Farm Seaplane BaseOh910i1-8594.pptx/18
  19. 19. To address more specific questions related to cost, we will: • Summarize the basis of existing cost estimates – Cost for wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) – Cost for conveying wastewater to the WWTP – Cost for conveying treated effluent & outfall • Explain key assumptions impacting cost for each potential alternative/site • Review potential phasing opportunities to reduce cost, which may vary from site to siteOh910i1-8594.pptx/19
  20. 20. Wastewater Treatment Plant CostsOh910i1-8594.pptx/20
  21. 21. WWTP costs are developed using a range of information and in three basic steps: 1. Size/layout a facility to meet Oak Harbor’s requirements 2. Develop cost estimate based on rough takeoffs, vendor quotes, and actual designs that have been constructed 3. Compare to similar facilities in the area to confirm overall costs are reasonableOh910i1-8594.pptx/21
  22. 22. 1. MBR WWTP Sized for Oak Harbor (3.9 mgd) 8 4 9 4 4 2 7 6 10 1 9 7 7 8 NOTE: Elements 3 & 5 only apply to AS alternativeOh910i1-8594.pptx/22
  23. 23. 2. MBR Construction Cost Estimate Process Element MBR • Developed process model 1. Equalization $0.5 using Oak Harbor’s 5-year 2. Headworks $5.0 flow data 3. Primary Treatment -- • Sized process/tanks using 4. Secondary Treatment $10.1 model 5. Tertiary Treatment -- • Estimated quantities for 6. Disinfection $2.2 major cost components 7. Solids Handling $4.2 • Solicited budget pricing from equipment vendors 8. Odor Control $3.0 • Totaled costs for Oak Harbor 9. Admin/Mnt $2.3 estimate 10. Site Work $4.0 • Compared Oak Harbor Total Direct Costs $31.3 estimate to similar projectsOh910i1-8594.pptx/23
  24. 24. 2. MBR Construction Cost Estimate Cost Component MBR Total Direct Costs $31.3 Indirect Costs (GCs, OH&P) $11.2 Subtotal $42.5 Sales Tax (8.7%) $3.7 Subtotal $46.2 Contingency (30%) $13.8 Total Construction Costs $60.0 Recommended Contingency 35% 35% Percent of Estimate 30% 30% 25% 25% 20% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% Concept Concept Final Final Level of DesignOh910i1-8594.pptx/24
  25. 25. 3. MBR Cost Comparison Lake Stevens, WA Alderwood, WA Oak Harbor, WA Arlington, WA Blaine, WA Carnation, WAOh910i1-8594.pptx/25
  26. 26. Construction Cost Comparison MBR vs. AS Options Process Element MBR AS Diff. 1. Equalization $0.5 -- $0.5 2. Headworks $5.0 $3.2 $1.8 3. Primary Treatment -- $1.2 ($1.2) 4. Secondary Treatment $10.1 $6.3 $3.8 5. Tertiary Treatment -- $1.9 ($1.9) 6. Disinfection $2.2 $2.2 -- 7. Solids Handling $4.2 $4.0 $0.2 8. Odor Control $3.0 $3.0 -- 9. Admin/Mnt $2.3 $2.3 -- 10. Site Work $4.0 $4.8 ($0.8) Total Direct Costs $31.3 $28.9 $2.4 Indirect costs, sales tax, contingency $28.7 $26.5 Total Construction Costs $60.0 $55.4 $4.6Oh910i1-8594.pptx/26
  27. 27. Site-Specific Cost Factors The following were considered… Here’s how they compared… $6.0 • Land acquisition Land Acquisition Allowance $5.0 • Soil conditions Site Project Costs, Millions Geotechnical Conditions Allowance • Architecture/Landscaping $4.0 Premium Architecture – Premium for facilities in Allowance public view $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $- Windjammer Park Crescent Harbor NorthOh910i1-8594.pptx/27
  28. 28. MBR Project Cost Summary for Year 2030 $90 Site Solids Liquid $80 $70 $60WWTP Project Costs $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 Windjammer Park Crescent Harbor Crescent Harbor Old City Shops Beachview Farm Marina / Sea North Plane Base Oh910i1-8594.pptx/28
  29. 29. Wastewater Conveyance CostsOh910i1-8594.pptx/29
  30. 30. Basis of Comparative Collection/Conveyance Costs • Collection/Conveyance costs include: – Raw sewage pipes and pump stations • Assumptions – Peak flows from Navy do not increase over time – City flow increases consistent with Comp. Sewer Plan (and with WWTP analysis) – Pipe sizes based on 2060 flows – Pump sizes based on 2030 flows – ROW/land acquisition as needed – Pipe installation includes surface repair, utility relocation, (full Right-of-Way restoration and improvements)Oh910i1-8594.pptx/30
  31. 31. Wastewater Conveyance, WindjammerOh910i1-8594.pptx/31
  32. 32. Wastewater Conveyance Direct CostsProcess WindjammerPump Stations $1,440,000Force Main $654,000Gravity Sewer $1,111,000Manhole $188,000Traffic Control $50,000Dewatering, bracing, sheeting $60,000Pavement cutting, removal $336,000Sewer bypass, connection $80,000Surfacing, trench patch $402,000Restoration/cleanup $15,000Total $4,336,000 Oh910i1-8594.pptx/32
  33. 33. Unit Price Comparison $120 Oak Harbor Cost Est. $100 Comparitive Price #1 Comparitive Price #2 Comparitive Price #3 $80 $60 Cost $40 $20 $0 15-Inch Gravity Sewer 48-Inch Manhole (1% of CSTC HMA total cost) ItemOh910i1-8594.pptx/33
  34. 34. Wastewater Conveyance, Crescent Harbor N.Oh910i1-8594.pptx/34
  35. 35. Wastewater Conveyance Direct CostsProcess Windjammer Crescent Harbor NorthPump Stations $1,440,000 $2,480,000Force Main $654,000 $2,131,000Gravity Sewer $1,111,000 $551,000Manhole $188,000 $80,000Traffic Control $50,000 $50,000Dewatering, bracing, sheeting $60,000 $100,000Pavement cutting, removal $336,000 $418,000Sewer bypass, connection $80,000 $120,000Surfacing, trench patch $402,000 $427,000Restoration/cleanup $15,000 $60,000Total $4,336,000 $6,417,000 Oh910i1-8594.pptx/35
  36. 36. Wastewater Conveyance Direct CostsProcess Windjammer Crescent Crescent Old City Beachview Marina Harbor Harbor Shops Farm Sea North PlanePump Stations $1,440,000 $2,480,000 $2,480,000 $2,510,000 $3,150,000 $2,600,000Force Main $654,000 $2,131,000 $1,585,000 $736,000 $1,689,000 $1,702,000Gravity Sewer $1,111,000 $551,000 $975,000 $1,101,000 $1,727,000 $877,000Manhole $188,000 $80,000 $112,000 $180,000 $248,000 $106,000Traffic Control $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $75,000 $50,000Dewatering, bracing, sheeting $60,000 $100,000 $100,000 $85,000 $100,000 $100,000Pavement cutting, removal $336,000 $418,000 $418,000 $441,000 $675,000 $373,000Sewer bypass, connection $80,000 $120,000 $120,000 $105,000 $155,000 $102,000Surfacing, trench patch $402,000 $427,000 $427,000 $590,000 $850,000 $540,000Restoration/cleanup $15,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000Total $4,336,000 $6,417,000 $6,327,000 $5,858,000 $8,729,000 $6,510,000 Oh910i1-8594.pptx/36
  37. 37. Wastewater Conveyance Project CostsProcess Windjammer Crescent Crescent Old City Beachview Marina Harbor Harbor Shops Farm Sea Plane NorthTotal Direct Costs $4,336,000 $6,417,000 $6,327,000 $5,858,000 $8,729,000 $6,510,000Sales Tax (8.7%) $377,000 $558,000 $550,000 $510,000 $759,000 $566,000Subtotal $4,713,000 $6,975,000 $6,877,000 $6,368,000 $9,488,000 $7,076,000Contingency (30%) $1,414,000 $2,093,000 $2,063,000 $1,910,000 $2,846,000 $2,123,000Construction Costs $6,130,000 $9,070,000 $8,940,000 $8,280,000 $12,330,000 $9,200,000Soft Costs (25%) $1,530,000 $2,270,000 $2,240,000 $2,070,000 $3,080,000 $2,300,000Project Costs $7,700,000 $11,300,000 $11,200,000 $10,400,000 $15,400,000 $11,500,000 Oh910i1-8594.pptx/37
  38. 38. Full Replacement of R/W Cross SectionOh910i1-8594.pptx/38
  39. 39. Wastewater Conveyance Project CostsProcess Windjammer Crescent Crescent Old City Beachview Marina Harbor Harbor Shops Farm Sea Plane NorthTotal Direct Costs $4,336,000 $6,417,000 $6,327,000 $5,858,000 $8,729,000 $6,510,000Sales Tax (8.7%) $377,000 $558,000 $550,000 $510,000 $759,000 $566,000Subtotal $4,713,000 $6,975,000 $6,877,000 $6,368,000 $9,488,000 $7,076,000Contingency (30%) $1,414,000 $2,093,000 $2,063,000 $1,910,000 $2,846,000 $2,123,000Construction Costs $6,130,000 $9,070,000 $8,940,000 $8,280,000 $12,330,000 $9,200,000Soft Costs (25%) $1,530,000 $2,270,000 $2,240,000 $2,070,000 $3,080,000 $2,300,000Project Costs $7,700,000 $11,300,000 $11,200,000 $10,400,000 $15,400,000 $11,500,000Below the line project costsFull Curb and Gutter $5,200,000 $6,900,000 $6,200,000 $5,200,000 $8,300,000 $6,300,000 Oh910i1-8594.pptx/39
  40. 40. Treated Effluent Conveyance & Outfall CostsOh910i1-8594.pptx/40
  41. 41. Potential Outfall Locations Crescent Harbor Mitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser Oak Harbor Limited Shellfish Impact West Beach Mitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep DiffuserOh910i1-8594.pptx/41
  42. 42. Effluent Conveyance, Beachview FarmOh910i1-8594.pptx/42
  43. 43. Effluent Conveyance, Crescent Harbor N.Oh910i1-8594.pptx/43
  44. 44. Confirmation of Outfall Location December 22, 2011 Project Report Potential WWTP Sites Beachview Farm Crescent Harbor Potential Outfall Locations West Beach Oak Harbor Crescent Harbor Oak HarborPipeline to Shoreline $2,100,000 $5,200,000(3) $4,900,000(3) $4,900,000(3)In-Water Work(2) $3,700,000 $2,900,000 $3,700,000 $2,900,000Natural Resource Damage $10,600,000 -- $7,600,000 --Fees Total Estimated Cost $16,400,000 $8,100,000 $16,200,000 $7,800,000Notes:1. Costs include sales tax, contingency and soft costs.2. Estimated cost of a near-shore outfall.3. Includes the cost of an effluent pump station. Oh910i1-8594.pptx/44
  45. 45. Effluent Conveyance/Outfall Cost Summary $9 Effluent Pipeline In-Water Work $8 $7 $6Project Cost, Millions $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 Windjammer Crescent Harbor Crescent Harbor Old City Shops Beachview Farm Marina Sea North Plane Oh910i1-8594.pptx/45
  46. 46. Summary of Overall Project CostsOh910i1-8594.pptx/46
  47. 47. Project Cost Summary for Year 2030 MBR Process at All Sites $100 $90 $80 $70Project Cost, Millions Effluent Pipeline $60 In water work $50 Sewage Conveyance - $40 Ultimate Sewage Conveyance - $30 Initial WWTP - Site $20 WWTP - Solids $10 WWTP - Liquids $0 Windjammer Old City Crescent Crescent Marina / Sea Beachview Shops Harbor Harbor Plane Farm North Oh910i1-8594.pptx/47
  48. 48. Project Phasing ConsiderationsOh910i1-8594.pptx/48
  49. 49. Projects are “phased-in” over time in several ways… • Phase-in WWTP capacity – Design for lower flows/loads now; expand to meet higher flows/loads in the future • Phase-in WWTP components – Build new liquid stream now; defer solids treatment (i.e. continue to use existing Seaplane Base Lagoon) • Phase-in WWTP “performance” – Design for less restrictive permit limits now; expand to meet more restrictive limits in the future • Phase-in wastewater conveyance – “Just-in-time” installation/expansion of pipes/pumps for wastewaterOh910i1-8594.pptx/49
  50. 50. Example of Capacity Phasing (MBR or AS) 6.0 5.5 5.0 Max. Monthly Flow (mgd) 4.5 2030 Projection 4.0 3.5 3.0 Phasing Approach: CURRENT 2.5 Assume slower growth rate Construct smaller Phase 1 WWTP 2.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065Oh910i1-8594.pptx/50
  51. 51. Example of Component Phasing (MBR or AS) 8 4 9 4 4 2 7 6 10 1 9 7 7 8 NOTE: Phasing Approach: Elements 3 & 5 only apply to AS alternative Defer construction of new solids treatment Continue to use Seaplane Lagoon for interim solids treatmentOh910i1-8594.pptx/51
  52. 52. Example of “Performance” Phasing (AS) (F) (F) Phasing Approach: Design Phase 1 for “Conventional” Permit (No Nitrogen Removal, no “Class A” Reclaimed Water)Oh910i1-8594.pptx/52
  53. 53. Example of Conveyance Phasing (Windjammer)Oh910i1-8594.pptx/53
  54. 54. Example of Conveyance Phasing (Windjammer)Oh910i1-8594.pptx/54
  55. 55. Phased Conveyance Costs for Each Site $16 Long-Term Initial Phase $14 $12Project Costs, Millions $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 Windjammer Crescent HarborCrescent Harbor Old City Shops Beachview Farm Marina / Sea North Plane Oh910i1-8594.pptx/55
  56. 56. Phasing Opportunities Differ from Site to Site Windjammer (Component + Conveyance) $100 $90 $80 $70Project Cost, Millions Effluent Pipeline $60 In water work Sewage Conveyance - Ultimate $50 Sewage Conveyance - Initial WWTP - Site $40 WWTP - Solids $30 WWTP - Liquids $20 $10 $0 Windjammer Windjammer Phase 1 Oh910i1-8594.pptx/56
  57. 57. Phasing Opportunities Differ from Site to Site Crescent Harbor North (“Performance” + Conveyance) $100 $90 $80 $70Project Cost, Millions Effluent Pipeline $60 In water work $50 Sewage Conveyance - Ultimate Sewage Conveyance - Initial $40 WWTP - Site WWTP - Solids $30 WWTP - Liquids $20 $10 $0 Crescent Harbor North Crescent Harbor North Crescent Harbor North AS AS 30/30 w/o "Class A" Oh910i1-8594.pptx/57
  58. 58. Project Cost Summary for Potential “Phase 1” $100 $90 $80 $70Project Cost, Millions $60 Effluent Pipeline In water work $50 Sewage Conveyance - $40 Initial WWTP - Site $30 WWTP - Solids $20 WWTP - Liquid $10 $0 Windjammer Beachview Crescent Crescent Old City Marina / Sea MBR Farm Harbor Harbor Shops Plane AS AS North AS MBR MBR Oh910i1-8594.pptx/58
  59. 59. Summary and RecommendationOh910i1-8594.pptx/59
  60. 60. City Council Direction Resolution 12-05: February 7, 2012 Report back with the following information… 1. A 6th site (Crescent Harbor North) compares well with other candidate sites 2. Windjammer and Crescent Harbor North provide the lowest combination of initial/long-term cost 3. Using an AS processes at Crescent Harbor North is required to reduce initial and long-term cost 4. An outfall into Oak Harbor Bay provides adequate mixing and is the lowest cost option for all sites 5. Additional public input collected tonight will be included in the final site selection processOh910i1-8594.pptx/60
  61. 61. Recommended Alternatives April 17, 2012 City Council Meeting 1. Consider two sites for further evaluation: – Windjammer Park – Crescent Harbor North 2. Develop final alternatives around membrane bioreactor (MBR) process – Consider AS at Crescent Harbor North 3. Discharge treated effluent through new outfall into Oak Harbor Bay – Evaluate opportunities for beneficial reuseOh910i1-8594.pptx/61
  62. 62. Full TBL+ Summary of Sites/Alternatives Project Through Year 2030 MBR at all Site E3 E2No. of TBL+ Objectives Met E1 E2 S3 E1 E2 E2 E2 S2 S3 E1 E1 E1 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 E2 F3 S1 S2 F3 S1 E1 F2 F3 S1 F2 F2 S3 E2 F1 F2 F3 F1 F1 S2 E1 T3 F1 F2 T3 T3 S1 S1 T2 T2 F1 T2 T2 F3 F3 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Ideal Crescent Crescent Windjammer Old City Beachview Marina / Alternative Harbor North Harbor Shops Farm Seaplane BaseOh910i1-8594.pptx/62
  63. 63. Project Cost Summary Potential Phase 1 and Year 2030 $100 Ultimate Phase 1 $95 $90 $85 $80 $75 $70 $65 $60 Windjammer (MBR) Beachview Farm (AS) Harbor Crescent Harbor (AS) Shops (MBR) Crescent N. (AS) Old City Marina/Sea Plan (MBR)Oh910i1-8594.pptx/63
  64. 64. Final Thoughts Our recommendation is based on the following key points: • Windjammer MBR – Best opportunity to complete an initial phase below $70M target while controlling long-term cost – Highest quality water for current and future environmental protection – Required to justify decision to use more expensive alternative • Crescent Harbor North AS – Meets all “Social” objectives for the Project – Very close to the lowest Phase 1 / Ultimate cost – Straight forward site acquisition and permittingOh910i1-8594.pptx/64
  65. 65. Questions?Oh910i1-8594.pptx/65

×