Strategic Business Plan Department of Water Resources€¦ · Stormwater. STORM WATER. Provide...
44
Strategic Business Plan Department of Water Resources Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources g w i n n e t t c o u n t y
Transcript of Strategic Business Plan Department of Water Resources€¦ · Stormwater. STORM WATER. Provide...
Strategic Business
PlanDepartment of Water Resources
Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources
g w i n n e t t c o u n t y
A Message from the Director
The Department of Water Resources’ Strategic Business Plan defines the
vision, mission, values and goalsfor our organization and our
overall business strategy
Our fundamental roleis to protect public health
S StrengthsTriple AAA RatingCredibility with Regulatory AgenciesBusiness Focused OrganizationIndustry LeaderDedicated, Loyal Staff with Dependable KnowledgeCapacity
W WeaknessesMaturing Infrastructure / Funding Rehabilitation NeedsDebt ServiceLimited Resources for Training and Skill DevelopmentLimited Resources for Public Outreach
T ThreatsIncreasing Cost of Operations and MaintenanceWeather ExtremesLoss of RevenueWater WarsOverall Economic Environment
O OpportunitiesImprove Public OutreachContinue Developing Asset / Data IntegrationSustainable EnterpriseEnvironmental Mitigation BankingContinue to Reduce Costs and Improve Performance
S W O T Analysis Results
Threat
On July 17, 2009, in U.S. District Court, JudgeMagnuson ruled the U.S.Army Corps of Engineersfailed to comply with itsstatutory obligations andwater supply is not anauthorized purpose of Lake Lanier.
The Court stayedPhase I of the litigationfor 3 years to allowparties to obtainCongress’s approval forthe operational changesthe water supplyproviders request.
S W O T
WHAT WAS THE RULING WHAT DOES IT MEAN
Threat
Act and support the Georgia 4-pronged strategy:
• Gwinnett Appeal• Strongly lobby our Congressional Delegation• Support negotiations between the 3 states• Explore alternatives of contingency planning
The Court recognizes it will take time to secure the required Congressional authorization and that municipalities cannot suddenly end their reliance on that water.
S W O T WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO
DOES IT IMPACT YOUR FINANCIAL PLANNING
– We will intensify pressure on Congress– We will seek relief through the courts at
whatever level of appeal we need to– We would file injunctions to continue to
operate the water system for the sake of public health and fire protection
Threat S W O T
But … what if …
Water Resources
Core Services
core services
WATER
STORMWATER
SEWER
Strategic Objectives
Unified PlanEconomic
Developmentand
Fiscal Health
DWRMaintain
InfrastructureStability
Unified PlanFoster
Redevelopment
DWRProvide Adequate
Water Supply
unified plan
Rehabilitation and Replacement
Lowest Life Cycle Costs
Tolerable Risks and Level of Service
Increase Conservation, Reuse and Efficiency
Maximize Returns to River Basins
Protect Water Quality
Core Services
Objectives
Watercore services
WATER
IncreaseService
Reliability
ImproveCustomer
Service
EnsureFinancialViability
Operatethe Dept
UsingSound
BusinessPractices
ImproveAsset
Knowledge
EnsureWater
Adequacy
IncreaseKnowledge
andSkills
core services2009 Scorecard
Core Services
Objectives
core servicesSewer
SEWER
Increase Service
Reliability
Improve Customer
Service
Ensure Financial Viability
Operate the Dept Using
Sound Business Practices
Improve Asset
Knowledge
Increase Knowledge
and Skills
core services2009 Scorecard
The Collections SAMP
Consistent in our overflow response
Consistent in our procedures, including sampling and clean-up
Conduct proper notification, reporting and documentation of SSO’s.
Strategic Asset Management Plan
core services SewerImprove Asset Knowledge
Core Services
Objectives
core servicesStormwater
STORMWATER
ProvideEffective
CustomerService
ProtectWaterQuality
EnhancePublicSafety
Operatethe Dept
UsingSound
BusinessPractices
IncreaseService
Reliability
ImproveAsset
Knowledge
IncreaseKnowledge
andSkills
core services2009 Scorecard
core servicesStormwater
Improve Asset Knowledge
Prioritize Maintenance
Research Alternative Pipe Materials and No-Dig Rehabilitation Technologies
Develop Decision Tree to Guide Rehabilitation Decisions
Implement New Data Management Software
Stormwater Assets
County-Owned Pipe
1,313 Miles
79% Metal Pipe
1,006 Miles
19% RCP Pipe
242 Miles
Metal Pipe Begins to Fail at 20 Yrs
300 Miles of Pipe Older than 20 Yrs
Need $420M over next 20 Yrs
Current Spending Level $10M / Yr
StakeholderUnderstandingand Support
WaterResourceAdequacy
CommunitySustainability
OperationalResiliency
InfrastructureStability
FinancialViability
OperationalOptimization
Employee andLeadership
Development
CustomerSatisfaction
Product Quality
EffectiveUtility
Management
2010 Objectives
The Ten Attributes of Effectively Managed Water and Wastewater Utilities“Charting a course for wise management of water systems and precious water resources.”
Benjamin H. Grumbles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
core services
2010 Budget Summary
water resources
cost reductions DWR Initiatives
SavingsElectricity Costs
Rate Adjustments $0.5Off Peak Processing $0.7
Chemical CostsAlternative, less expensive Chemicals $0.1
Fleet CostsParking Vehicles / Savings on Fuel $0.6
Total 2009 Savings $1.9
2010
* In millionsFuel Cost Savings Initiatives:Backhoes Only when NeededWorking in Zones / Service AreasRight Size VehicleReduced Fleet Size 10%
DWR Initiativesrevenue enhancements
* In millions
2010 Added Revenue
Water Rate $8.5
Water Base Rate 0.7
Multi-Family Base Rate 0.1
Sewer Rate 8.0
Sewer Base Rate 8.7
Tiered Conservation Rate 1.2
Irrigation Rate 1.8
Leak Adjustment Elimination 1.0
Total 2010 Impact $30.0
2010 2009 2008 2007Budget Budget Actual Actual
RevenueWater 139,189 130,175 122,839 127,256Sewer 97,592 83,241 70,796 77,576Other Fees/Charges 573 505 1,392 3,115SDC's 9,000 2,800 9,111 20,745Total Revenue 246,354 216,721 1 204,138 228,692
Operating ExpensesWater Production 17,951 17,084 19,128 15,715Water Reclamation 38,247 37,545 35,498 34,746Field Operations 19,660 19,307 15,108 16,691Eng/Constr/Infrastructure Support 6,547 7,819 7,304 6,941Business Services 22,826 2 19,169 19,624 17,336Total Operating Exp. 105,231 100,924 96,662 91,429
Debt Service 89,657 70,097 62,825 60,344
Transfer to R&E 51,466 45,700 25,799 45,000
Total Expenses 246,354 216,721 185,286 196,773
budget plan Water & Sewer
1 2009 Operating revenue does not include $19.2M additional transfer to R & E from 20082 Increase in Dept. Admin Op Ex is related to $2.1M additional OPEB contribution and legal fees now being paid out of operating instead of capital.
* In thousands
2010 2009 2008 2007Budget Budget Actual Actual
RevenueStorm Water Fees 29,500 31,200 23,888 15,822Other Fees/Charges 70 75 117 78Total Revenue 29,570 31,275 24,005 15,900
Operating ExpensesPrograms 7,280 6,890 5,032 4,731Maintenance 2,426 2,777 2,054 2,018Planning/Permitting 645 759 924 627Total Operating Exp. 10,351 10,426 8,010 7,376
Debt Service - GEFA 344
Transfer to R&E 18,691 21,004 13,946 8,257
Total Expenses 29,386 31,430 21,956 15,633
budget planStormwater
* In thousands
2010 2009 2008 2007Budget Budget Actual Actual
Water Production 90 89 86 86Water Reclamation 157 157 174 173Field Operations 135 154 136 147Eng/Constr/Infrastructure Support 56 56 58 53Business Services 101 96 109 95
Total Authorized 539 552 563 554
2010 2009 2008 2007Budget Budget Actual Actual
Operations 20 20 21 18Programs 40 40 39 38
Total Authorized 60 60 60 56
599 612 623 610
budget plan StaffingWater & Sewer
Stormwater
DWR Total Authorized
2010 Capital Budget
water resources
capital budget 2010
SummaryWater & Sewer
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
Sources of Funds2008 Bonds2009 Bonds 76,185,591GEFA/Stimulus 5,783,194Internal Funding 44,621,527 84,560,738 78,174,635 87,714,065 97,983,601 115,000,324Total Source 126,590,313 84,560,738 78,174,635 87,714,065 97,983,601 115,000,324
Use of FundsWater Treatment 1,100,000 4,800,000 5,450,000 3,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000Water Distribution 7,490,000 8,710,000 8,420,000 9,385,000 8,050,000 8,000,000Wastewater Treatment 88,510,075 36,183,339 8,868,615 29,600,000 26,200,000 29,700,000Wastewater Collection 10,204,771 11,902,310 15,685,000 12,250,000 23,300,000 9,225,000General Plant 14,285,467 17,965,089 34,751,020 28,279,065 34,233,601 61,875,324Utility Relocation 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000Total Use 126,590,313 84,560,738 78,174,635 87,714,065 97,983,601 115,000,324
0 5 10
Regulatory Driven/Mandated 0 5 10
Revenue Enhancement/Cost Containment 0 5 10
Reduced Performance Risks/Enhanced Reliability 0 5 10
Enhanced Public and Workforce Safety/Health
0 5 10
Contributes to Compliance Required for Compliance
Cost/Benefit Ratio > 1 Cost/Benefit Ratio < 1 Cost /Benefit Ratio < 0.5
No relationship to reduced performance risk reduction
Moderate risk reduction/enhanced reliability Strong risk reduction/ enhanced reliability
No net environmental benefit
Enhances public/workforce health & safety
Significantly reduces greenhouse gas emission or waste or conserves energy
Customer Service Benefits
No Identified Benefits Addresses Occasional Complaint and Limited # of Customers or Moderate
Enhancement to Existing Service
Addresses Multiple Complaints/ Larger # of Customers or Provides Significant
Enhancement to Service
0 5 10
Supporting Growth and Economic Development in Conformance with Approved Master Plans
No support for economic development Related to economic development Essential to Economic Development
0 5 10
Enhanced Stakeholder Confidence
No Improvement Moderate Enhancement Strong Improvement
0 5 10Improve Existing Asset Knowledge and Decision Making
No association w asset knowledge/decision making
Greatly improves relevant asset knowledge/decision making
No Regulatory Driver
Moderate improvement in asset knowledge/decision making
Environmental Sustainability/Stewardship
0 5 10No relationship to safety/health
Moderately reduces waste, reduces greenhouse gas emissions or conserves energy
Eliminates health & safety risk
• Process SOG and Workflow
• All Areas Represented
• Presentations toCIP Committee
• Weighted Criteria
• Final Ranking
• Focus Resources to theMost Critical Needs
CIP prioritization 2010
capital budget 2010
TrendWater & Sewer
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Total
2008 CIP Plan 298,008,334 206,675,001 161,842,136 143,695,696 160,711,039 153,674,351 1,124,606,557
2009 CIP Plan 199,784,411 126,589,806 84,561,071 78,174,968 90,714,065 112,983,601 692,807,922
2010 CIP Plan 126,590,313 84,560,738 78,174,635 87,714,065 97,983,601 115,000,324 590,023,676
Yellow River Improvements Project
Construction Manager @ Risk
with engineering by: JJ&G/CH2MHill/PPI and CM by: Pizzagalli Construction Company
2010 Budget: Total $57,656,591
Project Description:Consolidate smaller WRF’s with high unit costs and replace their capacity at Yellow River for economy of scale. Yellow River: 14.5 MGD to 22 MGD. The facility will maintained and under operation during the construction. The treatment process (BNR / MBR) is the latest technology in water reclamation.
capital budget
June 2009
2010
Yellow River WRFSeptember 23, 2009
Yellow River WRFSeptember 23, 2009
Yellow River WRFSeptember 23, 2009
Crooked Creek WRF Improvements
with engineering by: Metcalf & Eddy | AECOM in association with
Gresham Smith & Partners
Project Description: Focus is on reliability and energy efficiency and preparation for a potential future expansion to 25 mgd. The Project includes improvements to the headworks, disinfection and solids handling facilities, and a new influent pump station.
2010 Budget: Total
$23,225,000
capital budget 2010
capital budget 2010
SummaryStormwater
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
Sources of FundsGEFAGrants 4,646,011Internal Funding 25,041,225 18,935,709 19,082,605 19,246,737 20,036,535 20,246,346Total Source 29,687,236 18,935,709 19,082,605 19,246,737 20,036,535 20,246,346
Use of FundsStorm Drainage Improvements 14,083,537 14,844,889 15,094,786 17,846,334 18,649,465 18,904,108Watershed Improvements 2,900,249 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000Dam Rehabilitation 4,750,373 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000General Plant 7,953,078 3,445,820 3,342,820 755,404 742,070 697,238Total Use 29,687,236 18,935,709 19,082,605 19,246,737 20,036,535 20,246,346
capital budget 2010 Dam Upgrade and Rehabilitation 15 major watershed dams11 completed4 under design / construction Expect to be complete -
2011
Remaining Cost$5M
Collins Hill ParkSeptember 23, 2009
Channings LakeSeptember 23, 2009
capital budget Debt Debt Service
bonds plus GEFA
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
New, per proforma
Existing, including future GEFA
Rating AgenciesOctober 2, 2009
PricingOctober 7, 2009
Maintain debt coverage +1.5
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
200720082009
Water Production trend
In MGD, through September 21, 2009
The Transition
Reduce CIP from $1.1B to $590M51% reductionShift from new construction to maintaining infrastructure
summary
Cost reduction initiatives in 2009$1.9M
The Transitionsummary
Wastewater Consolidation Continues Reduction of 20 positions
Propose reducing another 10 positions by 2011
W & S Rate ResolutionApproved March 2009Commitment to Final Debt Offering• Rating Agencies October 2, 2009• Competitive Pricing October 7, 2009
The Transitionsummary
Supports our 2010 Budget TargetsSupports Debt ServiceSupports Pay-As-You-GoSupports Operating Expense Levels
Questions ?
strategic business plan
Department of Water Resources
