Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cover Photo: Free Falling by Elayna Cary, age 16, Grossmont High School, Entry in the color category, 2014 HWD Photo Contest
HELIX WATER DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MASTER PLAN 2015
1. OVERVIEW A. Executive Summary B. Abbreviations
2. COMPLETED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, 1995 – 2014 A. Annual Capital Improvement Program B. East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program
Los Coches Pump Station ($9.4 million) 48-Inch Pipeline ($4.0 million)
C. Flume Pipeline Construction ($12.4 million) D. H. Warren Buckner Pump Station ($4.1 million) E. Fletcher Hills Combined Tank ($8.6 million) F. Administration Office Purchase and Remodel ($4.1 million) G. Nat L. Eggert Operations Center Construction ($14.8 million) H. R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant Improvements
Upgrades and Expansion ($30.2 million) Ozonation Project ($17.3 million)
I. Homelands Pump Station Project ($1.8 million) J. Operations Center Solar Energy Project K. Calavo Pump Station Replacement and El Cajon Tank Modification Project ($3.6
million) L. Homelands Tank Replacement Project ($3.3 million) M. Johnstown Tank Recoating ($1.2 million)
3. EXISTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS A. R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant Improvements B. Pump Stations C. Storage Tanks D. Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement E. Steel Pipe Replacement F. Small Valve Replacement G. Large Valve Replacement H. Emergency Interconnects I. Equipment and Vehicles J. Special Projects K. Solar L. HP Replacement 4. FUTURE CAPITAL NEEDS A. R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant Regulatory Upgrades ($40 million) B. R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant Expansion – 106 MGD to 120 MGD ($30
million) C. Lake Jennings Campground Master Plan ($10 million) D. Main Transmission Pipeline Rehabilitation ($190 million) E. Asbestos-Cement Pipe Replacement ($650 million) F. Grossmont Reservoir Reconstruction ($20 million) G. Cuyamaca Dam Reconstruction ($20 million) H. Chet Harritt Dam Reconstruction ($40 million) 5. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS A. Ten Year Capital Improvement Program Budget Projection 6. STRATEGIC PLAN
1A-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY April 2015
The attached Helix Water District Capital Improvement Program Master Plan dated April 2015 is the update to the 2020 Capital Improvement Plan approved by the board of directors in March 2011. The capital improvement program master plan quantifies and analyzes the district’s assets to provide a framework for developing future capital improvement program budgets. The total value of the district’s assets is estimated at $1.6 billion and the continuing maintenance of these assets is an essential element of the district’s mission to provide reliable, high-quality water to its customers. The capital improvement program master plan includes significant maintenance and capital programs that address the district’s infrastructure. It also provides background information and cost summaries for each of the district’s existing and future capital improvement programs. Staff will continue to update this capital improvement program master plan approximately every five years or as needed to assist with the preparation of future budgets. The capital improvement program master plan addresses the strategic plan in several of the strategic focus areas. The primary focus is on Infrastructure with overview and analysis of all of the district’s various infrastructure and programs and provides a road map for future maintenance and replacement. Indirectly addressed are Water Resources with studies and projects funded for future water supply and treatment and Fiscal Integrity and Sustainability addressing major future projects and the regular replacement of assets to avoid unexpected expense.
1B-1
ABBREVIATIONS April 2015
AC asbestos-cement AWWA American Water Works Association CCP concrete cylinder (steel) pipe CI cast-iron CIP capital improvement program CML&C cement-mortar lined and coated (steel pipe) ECMS Enterprise Content Management System ECTWA East County Treated Water Agreement ECRTWIP East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program ERP Enterprise Resource Planning fps feet per second ft foot or feet FY fiscal year gal gallon or gallons GIS geographical information system gpm gallons per minute GPS global positioning system HP or hp horsepower HWD Helix Water District in inch or inches kWh kilowatt-hour R.M. Levy WTP R.M Levy Water Treatment Plant LF linear feet LWD Lakeside Water District MCC motor control center MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day MWh megawatt-hour NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OWD or Otay WD Otay Water District O&M operations and maintenance PDMWD or Padre Dam MWD Padre Dam Municipal Water District PRV pressure reducing valve PS pump station PVC polyvinyl chloride RCP reinforced concrete pipe RFP request for proposal RS riveted steel SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority TBD to be determined TDH total dynamic head TOC total organic carbon VFD variable frequency drive WO work order WS welded steel WTP water treatment plant
2-1
2. COMPLETED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, 1995 – 2014 April 2015
Annual Capital Improvement Program
o Funds Helix Water District’s capital improvement needs on an annual basis o Current funding is approximately $10 to 11 million per year on a PayGo basis
A. East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program (ECRTWIP)
Los Coches Pump Station (WO 0219) Jointly funded by HWD and San Diego County Water Authority Replaced Los Coches Pump Station at R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant.
Existing 23 million gallons per day facility replaced with 64 MGD facility designed to augment deliveries to HWD, Padre Dam Municipal Water District and Otay Water District as part of the ECRTWIP.
Basis of capacity for the new 1,800 horsepower pump station is 40 MGD for HWD, 12 MGD for Padre Dam MWD and 12 MGD for Otay WD. Highly variable flow conditions are met with the use of variable frequency drives.
Construction completed in 2008 Total project cost = $9.4 million
48-Inch Pipeline (WO 1037) Jointly funded by HWD and SDCWA Replaced 4,000 linear feet of existing 42-inch concrete cylinder pipe flume
transmission main with new 48-inch cement-mortar lined and coated steel pipe with higher pressure rating necessary to serve increased Los Coches Pump Station operating pressures and flows.
Location: Old Highway 80 between Lakeview Road and Los Coches Road Construction completed in 2008 Total project cost = $4.0 million
B. Flume Pipeline Construction (WO 2978)
Funded by HWD Replaced 4.8 mile length of flume transmission main between Bostonia Tank,
Bermuda Lane and Chase Avenue. New 48-inch and 42-inch CML&C replaced segments of CCP of various sizes. The new high-pressure reach of the flume transmission main augments flow capacity and eliminates all remaining gravity flow segments of the flume system. The project includes new connections for existing tanks and pump stations.
Construction completed in 1999 Total project cost = $12.4 million
2-2
C. H. Warren Buckner Pump Station (WO 2238)
Funded by Helix Water District Replaced existing El Monte Pump Station with new 30 million gallons per day,
1,750 horsepower raw water pump station. Pumps raw water out of storage in El Capitan Reservoir via the city of San Diego’s 48-inch raw water pipeline in El Monte Road. Water can be delivered to Lake Jennings or directly to the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant. Highly variable flow conditions are met with the use of variable frequency drives.
Construction completed in 1999 Total project cost = $4.1 million
D. Fletcher Hills Combined Tank (WO 1410)
Joint project of HWD and Padre Dam Municipal Water District, funded by CalTrans
Replaced HWD’s existing Fletcher Hills Standpipe and Padre Dam MWD’s existing tank with a single combined tank. The facility combines two storage tanks, a standpipe and an elevated tank; HWD’s storage is provided by the 1.1 million gallon elevated portion of the tank. Valving provides for interconnections between HWD and Padre Dam MWD systems. Replacement of the two tanks was required by the construction of State Route 125.
Serves HWD’s Fletcher Hills distribution system and is supplied by the Fletcher Hills 2 Pump Station at the Aldwych Tank site.
Construction completed in 1996 Total project cost = $8.6 million
E. Administration Office Purchase and Remodel (WO 2599)
Replaced previous administration office constructed in 1956 at the southerly corner of University Avenue and Baltimore Drive
Address: 7811 University Avenue, La Mesa, CA New administration office opened in 1998 Total project cost = $4.1 million
F. Nat L. Eggert Operations Center Construction (WO 9856.3)
Replaced previous operations center constructed in 1953 at the northwest corner of Marshall Avenue and Wagner Drive
Address: 1233 Vernon Way, El Cajon, CA Nat L. Eggert Operations Center opened in 1997 Total project cost = $14.8 million
2-3
G. R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant Improvements
Treatment Plant Upgrades and Expansion (WO 2175) Jointly funded by Helix Water District and San Diego County Water Authority Expanded treatment capacity from 84 million gallons per day to 106 MGD and
upgraded treatment processes. Provides for HWD’s long-term water supply needs and provides a regional supply of filtered water. Treatment process improvements enable the plant to meet current and future state and federal drinking water standards. Provisions in the design allow for ultimate expansion to 120 MGD.
Construction completed in 2002 Total project cost = $30.2 million
Treatment Plant Ozonation Project (WO 3070) Jointly funded by HWD and SDCWA Added ozone disinfection at the R.M. Levy WTP through use of a change order
to the treatment plant upgrades and expansion project. The incorporation of ozone provides a new primary disinfectant to the treatment process and meets more stringent disinfection standards. Included in the change order was a mid-plant pump station (Archimedes screw pump station), ozone generation building, 1 million gallon ozone contactor, and associated chemical storage facilities.
Construction completed in 2002 Total project cost = $17.3 million
H. Homelands Pump Station Project (WO 3488)
New pump station and building with 3,000 gallon per minute capacity
New inlet/outlet piping to Greenfield Tank and site improvements
Address: 2050 Greenfield Drive, El Cajon, CA
Construction completed 2005 Total project cost = $1.8 million
I. Operations Center Solar Project (WO 2669)
New solar panel arrays and shade structure Power Purchasing Agreement (454 MWh annually) Address: 1233 Vernon Street, El Cajon, CA Construction completed in 2011
2-4
J. Calavo Pump Station Replacement and El Cajon Tank Modification Project (WO 2945)
Replaced pump station and building with new 2,600 gallon per minute facility
Replaced tank steel roof with new geodesic aluminum roof
New inlet/outlet piping, surge tanks and tank appurtenances
Address: 110 West Cajon Drive, El Cajon, CA
Construction completed 2012 Total project cost = $3.6 million
K. Homelands Tank Replacement Project (WO 1912)
Replaced 0.30 million gallon circular reinforced concrete tank, built 1948, with new 0.8 MG reinforced concrete storage tank
New grading, access road, supply pipeline and appurtenances Address: 2424 Euclid Avenue, El Cajon, CA Construction completed in 2013 Total project cost = $3.3 million
L. Johnstown Tank Interior and Exterior Coating Project (WO 3452)
Refurbished 2.26 MG welded steel tank, built 1971 New interior and exterior coating, tank
appurtenances, site improvements Address: 9500 Harritt Road, Lakeside, CA Construction completed in 2014 Total project cost = $1.2 million
3A-1
3A. R.M. LEVY WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
April 2015
Background
The R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant is a conventional water treatment facility that utilizes ozone for primary disinfection. It provides for Helix Water District’s long-term water supply needs and provides a regional supply of filtered water. The current treatment capacity is 106 million gallons per day with design provisions to expand to an ultimate capacity of 120 MGD. The term “conventional” refers to a treatment plant that includes all of the major processes: rapid mixing, flocculation, sedimentation and filtration. These processes are equipment intensive and the mechanical, electrical and instrumentation components are subject to rapid wear, obsolescence and short useful lifespans. These non-structural components must be replaced on a relatively frequent basis as compared to other types of infrastructure and must be considered a significant factor in asset management. Pumps are often assumed to have a useful life of 15 to 20 years in comparison to concrete structures that are often useful for 50 to as many as 100 years. The original plant construction was completed in 1965, with the addition of sedimentation basins in the 1970s. The most recent upgrade and expansion project began in 1998 and
was completed in early 2002. The major additions of this project were: ozone disinfection, chemical feed and storage systems, washwater pumping, a chlorine contactor structure and new filters. The estimated replacement value of the R.M. Levy WTP including original construction and upgraded facilities is approximately $250 million.
Fig 3A-1: R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant aerial photo.
Fig 3A-2: R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant (circa 1965) with Chet Harrit Dam and Lake Jennings visible in background.
3A-2
Cost Summary
Many of the original non-structural components are still in use and are approaching 50 years of service, attributable to an effective maintenance program. The increasing cost and labor of maintaining and refurbishing older equipment justifies complete replacement and in some cases is necessitated by an inability to purchase replacement parts for the more antiquated equipment. Table 3A-1, Equipment Replacement and Maintenance, contains items of significant expense that are expected to reach the end of their useful life or require major maintenance within 5 to 25 years.
Table 3A-1: R.M. LEVY WATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
Item Fiscal Year Estimated Cost*
Archimedes (Screw) Pump Flame Spray 2014-2015 $266,000
Motor Control Center 2015-2016 $560,000
Filter Effluent Valve Actuators 2015-2016 $101,000
Security Cameras 2016-2017 $82,000
Filter Effluent Valves 2016-2017 $450,000
HVAC Upgrade 2016-2017 $47,000
Backwash Pumps 2017-2018 $170,000
Individual Filter Backwash Actuators 2017-2018 $102,000
Asphalt Overlay – Heavy Traffic Areas 2018-2019 $140,000
Waste Washwater Pumps 2018-2019 $225,000
Ozone Power Supply Units Inverters 2019-2020 $340,000
Chlorine Solution Valves and Piping 2020-2021 $110,000
Roofing System 2020-2021 $560,000
Laboratory Instrumentation 2022-2023 $100,000
SCADA System 2023-2024 $50,000
Archimedes (Screw) Pump Drives 2025-2026 $1,125,000
Standby Generator 2025-2026 $790,000
Filter Drain Gates 2025-2026 $340,000
Fig 3A-3: Archimedes screw pump.
3A-3
SCADA Radio System 2025-2026 $100,000
Asphalt Overlay – Entire Site 2030-2031 $340,000
Ozone Power Supply Units 2030-2031 $1,690,000
Flocculator Drives 2030-2031 $675,000
Chlorine Gas Valves and Piping 2030-2031 $560,000
Filter Media 2040-2041 $1,690,000
*Estimated costs are in 2014 dollars. Examples: Replacement of the original 50-year-old motor control centers is proposed for fiscal year 2015-16 with new units meeting current electrical standards, ensuring power supply reliability and improving service technician safety; replacement of laboratory instrumentation (gas chromatograph, TOC analyzer, etc.) occurred in fiscal year 2014-15 and is proposed again for fiscal year 2022-23 citing relatively short useful life of existing equipment due to constant use, rapid technological development of equipment and inability to service obsolete technology. In accordance with the existing East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program Agreement, 34 percent of future capital costs are funded by the San Diego County Water Authority with contributions deposited into the Helix Water District general fund. Unfunded Regulatory Upgrades Future regulatory mandates may dictate treatment plant upgrades that have been omitted from Table 3A-1. The district is monitoring unconsummated legislation that would make necessary the following projects: (1) on-site chlorine generation system to replace existing chlorine gas delivery and storage method ($10-15 million), (2) filter backwash clarification and solids handling ($20-40 million). Neither project has been studied in sufficient detail to provide site specific cost projections; estimates are based on order-of-magnitude costs from similar projects in 2014 dollars. Further discussion on the chlorination system and solids management can be found in section 4A of this report.
3B-1
3B. PUMP STATIONS April 2015
Background
The Helix Water District owns and operates a total of 25 pump stations to move and pressurize water within its collection, treatment and distribution network. 21 of these pump stations are distribution system pump stations, two are potable water transmission pump stations (Harold Ball Pump Station and Los Coches Pump Station), and two are raw water transmission pump stations (Chet Harritt Pump Station and H. Warren Buckner Pump Station). The 25 pump stations include 79 pumping units with a total capacity of 176,600 gallons per minute and a combined maximum output of 9,500 horsepower. The average pump station service age is 33 years with original construction date ranges between 1957 and 2009. Vital statistics on individual pump stations can be found in Table 3B-3, Pump Station Summary. Replacement and maintenance of district pump stations has historically been performed on an as-needed basis with nearly all older stations having been improved at some point during their service life to assure reliable performance. Future pump station replacements are to be designed with pressure relief valves sized for full back flow into a closed system. Three pump stations currently require complete replacement (further
described in section, Cost Summary – Pump Station Replacements, due to a combination of insufficient capacity, antiquated electrical equipment and inadequate pump housing structures. Numerous other pump stations require smaller scale electrical, piping or site improvements that can typically be completed without major renovations to pump station structures, described in section, Cost Summary – Pump Station Improvements.
Fig 3B-1: Los Coches Pump Station, built 2008.
Fig 3B-2: Harold Ball Pump Station, built 1986, upgraded 2009.
3B-2
Cost Summary – Pump Station Replacements
Pump stations in this section require comprehensive replacement of the pumping units, power supply, controls and building structures. Fletcher Hills 2 Pump Station and the Chet Harritt Pump Station are top priorities for replacement with Dictionary Hill Hydropneumatic Pump Station also in line for complete replacement. A description of the existing pump station condition and work to be performed for each of these stations follows, together with Table 3B-1, Pump Station Replacement Estimated Costs, showing budgetary projections for pump station replacements over the next 10 years. Fletcher Hills 2 Pump Station is located at the Aldwych Tank site and pumps into the Fletcher Hills (Combined) Tank. The two existing 50 horsepower pumping units must run simultaneously to fill the tank. The electrical motor control center is inadequate to run the pump station under certain flow conditions. This station has no stand-by capacity and servicing either pump results in a lack of pumping capacity to the Fletcher Hills Tank. This situation does not conform to the district’s minimum standard for pump redundancy. A new pump station with adequate electrical motor control center and stand-by capacity is proposed. The estimated cost is $2,100,000 with replacement scheduled in fiscal year 2015-16. Chet Harritt Pump Station is an open-air, three pump unit station built in 1970 that transfers raw water from Lake Jennings to the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant at a maximum flow rate of 42 million gallons per day. The current pump station motor control setup is antiquated but allows for one pumping unit to be interchangeably run with a variable frequency drive while powering the remaining pumps at constant speed. This setup allows for nominal operational flexibility that is in effect mandated by
seasonally fluctuating Lake Jennings water levels. Citing increased reliance on the R.M. Levy WTP as a water source by neighboring agencies and possible use in the future indirect potable reuse project, the Chet Harritt Pump Station requires replacement for greater reliability, operational flexibility and energy efficiency. A new pump station with building enclosure, full variable frequency drive controlled duty and standby pumping units and emergency back-up generator is proposed with 60 MGD flow capacity to match the ultimate expansion capacity of the R.M. Levy WTP. The estimated total cost for replacement is $3,000,000.
Fig 3B-3: Fletcher Hills 2 Pump Station.
Fig 3B-4: Chet Harritt Pump Station.
3B-3
Dictionary Hill Hydropneumatic Pump Station is an open-air, two-unit station, built in 1975, that pumps from the Dictionary Hill storage tank and into a hydropneumatic pressure vessel that provides additional pressure to customers at higher elevations in the Dictionary Hill system area. This facility has been deemed critical for fire protection and has an on-site emergency generator with automatic transfer switch. The existing 25 and 30 horsepower pumps are unable to meet current fire flow standards and discharge piping is above-ground and requires replacement. A study will be completed during the design of this project to establish a standard for all hydropneumatic pump stations for meeting fire flow and will consider alternatives including interconnects with the neighboring water agencies. A new pump station with enclosure, electrical controls, yard piping and additional pumping capacity to meet fire flow requirements is proposed. The estimated total cost is $600,000. Table 3B-1, Pump Station Replacement Estimated Costs, summarizes the expected budgetary projections for these pump stations.
TABLE 3B-1: PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT ESTIMATED COSTS
Priority Location Work To Be Done Estimated Cost*
1 Fletcher Hills 2 Replacement $2,112,000
2 Chet Harritt Replacement $3,000,000
3 Dictionary Hill Hydro Replacement $600,000
TOTAL $5,712,000
*Estimated costs are in 2014 dollars.
Fig 3B-5: Dictionary Hill Hydropneumatic Pump Station, pressure vessel visible (replaced 2014).
3B-4
Cost Summary – Pump Station Improvements
Pump stations in this section require capital improvements that are smaller in scale than the previous section. Electrical components and motor control centers become antiquated on a continual basis along with the foreseen need to add and replace backup systems and pressure reducing valves. Table 3B-2, Pump Station Improvements Estimated Costs, summarizes the expected budgetary projections for these pump stations. Table 3B-3, Pressure Relief Valve Prioritization, defines a generalized order for implementation of pressure relief valves at pump stations.
TABLE 3B-2: PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED COSTS
Priority Location Work to be Done Estimated C *1 Dictionary Hill MCC Upgrade $255,000
2 Calavo Hydro Generator Install, Electrical Upgrade $104,000
3 Tunnel Hill 2 Generator Install $55,000
4 Vista MCC Upgrade, PRV Install $240,000
5 Windsor Hills Hydro Electrical Upgrade $15,000
6 Dictionary Hill Hydro Electrical Upgrade $15,000
7 Johnstown MCC Upgrade, PRV Install $240,000
8 South Rim MCC Upgrade $200,000
9 Lubbock MCC Upgrade $200,000
10 Warren Buckner VFD Replacement $500,000
11 Tunnel Hill 1 MCC Upgrade, PRV Install $240,000
12 Helix 2 MCC Upgrade $200,000
TOTAL $2,264,000
*Estimated costs are in 2014 Dollars.
TABLE 3B-3: PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE PRIORITIZATION
Priority Location Work Priority Location Work
1 Johnstown Install 6 Tunnel Hill 2 Replace
2 Vista Install 7 Tunnel Hill 1 Install
3 Fletcher Hills 1 Install 8 Helix 3 Replace
4 Helix 1B Replace 9 Dictionary Hill Hydro Replace
5 Lubbock Replace
Fig 3B-6: Typical MCC cabinetry.
Syst
emPu
mp
Pum
p St
atio
nsLo
catio
n1
23
45
12
34
51
23
45
gpm
HP
Type
Mod
elSi
zeM
ax fl
owPr
essu
reC
alav
o11
0 W
. Caj
on V
iew
Dr.
, El C
ajon
125
125
125
125
375
375
375
375
1,00
01,
000
1,00
01,
000
2,60
037
5ve
rt. t
urbi
neC
la-V
al10
4,90
019
2
Cal
avo
Hyd
ro44
02 A
stra
Wy.
, La
Mes
a10
1012
012
012
012
020
020
hori
zont
alC
la-V
al2
210
65
Dic
tion
ary
Hil
l37
06 S
. Cor
doba
St.,
Spr
ing
Val
le10
010
010
020
920
821
31,
250
1,25
01,
250
3,10
030
0ve
rt. t
urbi
neC
la-V
al8
3,10
018
6
Dic
tion
ary
Hil
l Hyd
9601
Ivy
St.,
Spr
ing
Val
ley
2525
125
125
500
500
900
50ve
rt. T
urbi
neC
la-V
al3
460
80
Fle
tche
r H
ills
194
50 M
ilde
n S
t., L
a M
esa
125
125
125
125
242
242
242
242
1,50
01,
500
1,50
01,
500
2,50
037
5ve
rt. t
urbi
ne
Fle
tche
r H
ills
256
1 A
ldw
ych
Rd.
, El C
ajon
5050
106
104
1,00
01,
000
2,00
010
0ho
rizo
ntal
Cla
-Val
346
066
Gro
ssm
ont 2
9661
El G
rani
to A
ve.,
La
Mes
a40
4018
919
275
071
075
040
vert
. tur
bine
Cla
-Val
221
083
Hel
ix 1
A11
51 1
/2 P
ine
Dr.
, El C
ajon
100
300
300
300
254
255
255
255
1,20
03,
500
3,43
03,
440
7,00
070
0ve
rt. t
urbi
neC
la-V
al6
1,80
017
2
Hel
ix 1
B91
21 S
pice
St.,
La
Mes
a20
020
020
020
025
025
025
025
02,
000
2,00
02,
000
2,00
05,
000
600
vert
. tur
bine
Cla
-Val
618
0016
6
Hel
ix 2
9810
Lem
on A
ve.,
La
Mes
a75
7575
7533
533
533
533
570
070
070
070
02,
000
225
vert
. tur
bine
Cla
-Val
83,
100
189
Hel
ix 3
4988
Mt.
Hel
ix S
r., L
a M
esa
1515
1520
820
820
820
020
020
035
030
vert
. tur
bine
Cla
-Val
221
098
Hom
elan
ds20
50A
Gre
enfi
eld
Dr.
, El C
ajon
125
125
125
303
303
303
1,00
01,
000
1,00
03,
000
375
vert
. tur
bine
OC
V10
4,90
015
0
John
stow
n91
60 P
inka
rd L
n., E
l Caj
on10
010
010
022
422
423
31,
250
1,25
01,
400
2,85
020
0ve
rt. t
urbi
ne
Lub
bock
8799
Eld
en S
t., L
a M
esa
100
100
100
100
210
210
210
210
1,50
01,
500
1,50
01,
500
4,50
030
0ve
rt. t
urbi
neC
la-V
al4
800
105
Sou
th R
im13
20 O
ld C
hase
Ave
., E
l Caj
on12
512
512
531
531
531
51,
200
1,20
01,
200
2,40
025
0ve
rt. t
urbi
neC
la-V
al8
3,10
021
0
Sou
th R
im H
ydro
4903
Lon
gvie
w W
y., E
l Caj
on20
2014
014
013
013
025
020
hori
zont
alC
la-V
al2
210
83
Tun
nel H
ill 1
1966
E. M
ain
St.,
El C
ajon
125
125
125
125
266
266
266
266
1,50
01,
500
1,50
01,
500
4,50
037
5ve
rt. t
urbi
ne
Tun
nel H
ill 2
1302
Hig
hway
8 B
usin
ess,
El C
ajo
2525
2512
812
812
844
044
044
085
050
vert
. tur
bine
346
078
Vis
ta17
50 V
ista
Del
Val
le B
lvd,
El C
aj10
010
010
031
031
031
01,
050
1,05
01,
050
2,00
020
0ve
rt. t
urbi
ne
Win
dsor
Hil
ls38
20 C
osta
Bel
la W
y., L
a M
esa
6060
6060
258
258
258
258
700
700
700
700
1,85
015
0ve
rt. t
urbi
ne8
3,10
011
7
Win
dsor
Hil
ls H
ydr
4165
W. A
rrie
ta C
ircl
e, L
a M
esa
3030
125
125
475
475
950
60ho
rizo
ntal
346
080
49,5
504,
795
Har
old
Bal
l97
38 L
k Je
nnin
gs P
ark
Rd,
Lak
esi
700
700
6868
31,2
5031
,250
31,2
5070
0ho
rzon
tal
Los
Coc
hes
9550
Lk
Jenn
ings
Par
k R
d, L
akes
i45
045
045
045
045
011
011
011
011
011
011
,460
11,4
6011
,460
11,4
6011
,460
44,4
421,
800
vert
. tur
bine
75,6
922,
500
Che
t Har
ritt
9738
Lk
Jenn
ings
Par
k R
d, L
akes
i15
020
020
044
5452
10,0
0012
,000
12,0
0034
,000
550
vert
turb
-VF
D
War
ren
Buc
kner
1403
9 E
l Mon
te R
d., L
akes
ide
350
350
350
350
350
155
155
155
155
155
3,47
23,
472
3,47
23,
472
3,47
217
,360
1,75
0ve
rt tu
rb-V
FD
16N
/A
51,3
602,
300
Che
t Har
ritt
Sum
pB
elow
Che
t Har
ritt
Dam
, Lak
esid
e7.
519
185
857.
5ve
rt. t
urbi
ne
Sub-
Tota
l 2 S
tatio
ns (8
pum
p un
its):
Mis
cella
neou
s Pum
p St
atio
ns
Pum
p (H
P)To
tal D
ynam
ic H
ead
(ft.)
Pum
p D
isch
arge
(gpm
)
Sub-
Tota
l 21
Sta
tions
(65
Pum
p U
nits
):
Pres
sure
Rel
ief D
ata
Tab
le 3
B-4
: Pum
p St
atio
n Su
mm
ary
Trea
ted
Wat
er T
rans
mis
sion
Pum
p St
atio
ns
Sub-
Tota
l 2 S
tatio
ns (7
Pum
p U
nits
):
Raw
Wat
er P
ump
Stat
ions
Stat
ion
Cap
acity
3C-1
3C. STORAGE TANKS April 2015
Background The Helix Water District owns and operates a total of 24 water storage tanks. The storage tanks range in capacity from 73,000 gallons to 5.3 million gallons with an average tank size of 1.6 MG. 22 of the storage tanks hold potable water that is pumped directly to the distribution system with a total capacity of 38.3 MG. This does not include the underground Grossmont Reservoir (31.4 MG capacity) or the district’s four hydropneumatic tanks. Two additional tanks are used for washwater purposes at the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant. The district’s catalogue of storage tanks consist of 16 steel tanks, seven reinforced concrete tanks, and one prestressed concrete tank. The median service age is 45 years with original construction date ranges from 1946 to 2013. Most of the older storage tanks have received structural or operational modifications since their original construction and all tanks require on-going maintenance to assure reliable performance and a long service life. Steel tanks are commonly retrofitted to conform to current seismic standards while concrete tanks cannot usually be economically retrofitted and are typically demolished and replaced. Following the recommendations of a seismic review study, prepared by Enartec Consulting Engineers in 1988 (Seismic Study), 10 tanks received seismic modifications, a further eight were demolished and replaced, with two tanks (Helix 1 and Greenfield) awaiting seismic retrofit further described in section, Cost Summary – Tank Replacement and Modifications.
Fig 3C-2: New Homelands reinforced concrete tank under construction 2013.
Fig 3C-3: Old Homelands concrete tank, constructed 1948, during demolition in 2013.
Fig 3C-1: Clearwell welded steel tank at the R.M. Levy WTP.
3C-2
Steel tanks provide a longer useful service life than concrete tanks with the caveat that steel tanks require additional maintenance in the form of coating replacement and cathodic protection to prevent corrosion to the metal wall of the tank structure. Interior tank coatings have a life expectancy of
approximately 20 years with exterior tank coatings lasting only 10 years. The current average age of the interior coatings is 13 years and 11 years for exterior coatings. Most recoating projects comprise both interior and exterior coatings at the same time and are typically deferred due to funding allocation, further described in section, Cost Summary – Tank Recoating Projects.
Information on individual tanks can be found in Table 3C-3, Storage Tank Summary. Cost Summary – Tank Replacements and Modifications Storage tanks in this section require replacement or seismic modifications. The concrete Helix 2 Tank is the highest priority for replacement. The Greenfield and Helix 1 Tanks are in need of seismic modifications to conform to current design standards. A description of the existing storage tank condition and work to be performed for each of these tanks follows, together with Table 3C-1, Tank Replacement and Modification Estimated Costs, showing budgetary projections over the next 10 years. South Rim Tank is a 1.0 million gallon welded steel tank constructed in 1956. The tank wall and foundation is in satisfactory structural condition and the coating, both interior and exterior, is in need of replacement. The tank is undersized for the existing needs of the service area and the roofing system requires extensive structural repairs. A new aluminum domed roof and an additional ring section of welded steel plates to expand tank capacity to approximately 1.24 MG is proposed along with new interior and exterior wall coating. The estimated cost of the work is $1,120,000.
Fig 3C-4: Typical tank coating in need of replacement.
Fig 3C-5: Tank coating freshly replaced.
Fig 3C-6: South Rim Tank with pump station (foreground) and hydropneumatic tank (right).
3C-3
Helix 2 Tank is a 0.36 million gallon reinforced concrete tank, constructed in 1946 and structurally strengthened in 1982, located on the upper slopes of Mount Helix. The current seismic capacity of the tank is unknown as it had been recently retrofitted at the time of the seismic study and was not evaluated. The storage capacity of the tank is inadequate for domestic flow with four cycles required to meet demand on a daily basis where one cycle per day is preferred operationally. Complete demolition and replacement of the tank at the existing location is proposed, with an expanded storage capacity to 0.67 MG. The estimated cost of the work is $2,000,000. Helix 1 Tank is a 4.0 MG prestressed concrete tank constructed in 1957 and is located on the lower slopes of Mount Helix adjacent to Mount Helix Lake. The tank is seismically substandard and requires additional analysis to determine if it can be retrofitted. The tank is essential to the service area and is difficult operationally to bypass when taken down for maintenance. The tank is oversized for the current demand that it serves. There is adequate space at the site to keep the tank in service during construction of a new tank if necessary. A feasibility study is recommended to determine modification and replacement options including consideration of recirculation and chlorination headers and dual tanks to add operational flexibility. A new tank, or set of tanks, is proposed with a reduced storage capacity commensurate with the current operational needs of the service area along with seismic provisions that meet current code. The existing tank is to be left in service until completion of the new tank at which time it will be demolished. The estimated cost of a tank or tanks with reduced capacity is $6,500,000.
Fig 3C-7: Helix 2 Tank, circa 1946.
Fig 3C-8: Helix 1 Tank.
3C-4
Greenfield Tank is a 2.0 million gallon steel tank constructed in 1956 with some seismic retrofit work completed in 1982. Additional retrofit is required for the inlet and outlet piping to provide flexible expansion joints to further enhance seismic performance of the tank. The estimated cost of the work is $100,000.
Table 3C-1, Tank Replacement and Modification Estimated Costs, summarizes the expected budgetary projections for these storage tanks with project priority given based on tank condition and level of required on-going maintenance.
TABLE 3C-1: TANK REPLACEMENT AND MODIFICATION ESTIMATED COSTS
Priority Location Work To Be Done Estimated Cost*
1 South Rim Roof Modifications
Coatings $1,120,000
2 Helix 2 Replacement $2,000,000
3 Greenfield Modifications $100,000
4 Helix 1 Replacement $6,500,000
TOTAL $9,720,000
*Estimated costs are in 2014 dollars.
Fig 3C-9: Greenfield Tank, built 1956, seismic retrofit 1982.
3C-5
Cost Summary – Tank Recoating Projects Beginning in fiscal year 2014-15, costs for the district’s tank recoating projects will be included as part of the capital improvement project budget (schedule 64). This work has previously been budgeted under the operating budget (schedule 123). The tank recoating program and estimated costs for the next 10 years are described below. The district’s water storage tanks are monitored and maintained as a part of the corrosion control and tank maintenance program with each tank being analyzed on a five-year schedule including a thorough inspection both below and above the waterline to assess structural integrity, safety, condition of the coatings and compliance with California Department of Drinking Water requirements. A detailed inspection report (not included as part of this document) is generated from each inspection and is used to reprioritize the schedule as necessary. Tank rehabilitation and recoating projects are prioritized based on expected life, the condition of the coatings as outlined in inspection reports and any required seismic or structural modifications. Clearwell, Dictionary Hill, Lemon Grove, and Tunnel Hill 1A Tanks all have coatings that are approaching the end their expected service life. A new interior and exterior coating is proposed for all tanks. Dictionary Hill tank is to be analyzed for potential addition of recirculation and chlorination header. The estimated cost of the work is as detailed in Table 3C-2 below. Table 3C-2, Tank Recoating Project Estimated Costs, summarizes the expected budgetary projections for these storage tanks.
TABLE 3C-2: TANK RECOATING PROJECT ESTIMATED COSTS
Priority Location Work To Be Done Estimated Cost*
1 Clearwell Interior/Exterior $1,110,000
2 Dictionary Hill Interior/Exterior $1,100,000
3 Lemon Grove Interior/Exterior $1,380,000
4 Tunnel Hill 1A Interior/Exterior $800,000
TOTAL $4,390,000
*Estimated costs are in 2014 dollars.
Cap
acity
Hig
h W
ater
Ele
vSi
zeD
epth
Dat
e of
Plat
Wor
k O
rder
Gal
lons
Syst
em T
anks
(mg)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
Type
Con
str
Shee
tN
o.Pe
r Foo
tA
ldw
ych
A*
0.88
983
5.50
82 d
ia.
22.5
0S
teel
2001
D-0
3-09
-B31
3839
,502
Ald
wyc
h B
*1.
900
835.
5012
0 di
a.22
.50
Ste
el19
61D
-03-
09-B
7813
84,5
97
Bos
toni
a0.
706
695.
5065
.5 x
65.
522
.00
Rei
nf. C
onc.
2004
G-0
5-06
-A38
0132
,091
Cal
avo*
1.82
097
9.40
100
dia.
31.0
0S
teel
1959
Q-0
4-22
-D77
2258
,748
Dic
tion
ary
Hil
l*3.
010
851.
3012
8 di
a.31
.30
Ste
el19
55U
-04-
33-C
7286
96,2
52
El C
ajon
*2.
062
659.
0010
0 di
a.35
.10
Ste
el19
48K
-03-
15-D
6638
58,7
48
Fle
tche
r H
ills
(co
mbi
ned)
*1.
090
932.
7510
0 di
a.18
.54
Ste
el19
96D
-03-
05-D
1410
58,7
48
Gre
enfi
eld*
1.99
068
8.50
120
dia.
23.5
0S
teel
1956
G-0
5-05
-C73
9584
,597
Gro
ssm
ont 1
0.66
790
6.50
70 x
52
24.5
0R
einf
. Con
c.19
95J-
03-1
6-C
1431
27,2
27
Gro
ssm
ont R
eser
voir
31.4
1065
6.00
588
x 35
423
.45
Rei
nf. C
onc.
1978
J-03
-16-
A89
641,
556,
977
Hel
ix 1
3.99
088
0.00
148
dia.
31.0
0P
rest
ress
Con
c.19
57J-
03-1
6-D
7482
128,
681
Hel
ix 2
0.36
41,
179.
0055
dia
.20
.50
Rei
nf. C
onc.
1946
J-03
-21-
A65
2217
,771
Hel
ix 3
0.07
31,
368.
0036
x 2
1.4
12.6
7R
einf
. Con
c.19
85J-
03-2
1-A
9645
5,76
3
Hom
elan
ds*
0.80
093
1.50
99 x
55
23.0
0R
einf
. Con
c.20
13R
-05-
08-D
1912
John
stow
n*2.
260
931.
5075
dia
.68
.50
Ste
el19
71C
-05-
21-C
8437
33,0
46
Lem
on G
rove
*3.
990
621.
0014
8 di
a.31
.00
Ste
el19
55O
-02-
30-C
7483
128,
681
Sou
th R
im*
1.01
097
8.00
70 d
ia.
35.0
0S
teel
1956
L-0
5-23
-A73
9528
,786
Tun
nel H
ill 1
A*
2.04
093
1.50
105
dia.
31.5
0S
teel
1956
B-0
5-31
-A73
9564
,761
Tun
nel H
ill 1
B0.
857
931.
5078
dia
.26
.25
Rei
nf. C
onc.
1992
B-0
5-31
-A98
6235
,742
Tun
nel H
ill 2
0.65
11,
030.
0054
dia
.38
.00
Rei
nf. C
onc.
1988
B-0
5-31
-A97
6417
,131
Vis
ta*
1.16
097
8.50
72 d
ia.
38.0
0S
teel
1958
M-0
5-18
-D75
7230
,455
Win
dsor
Hil
ls*
0.99
382
5.00
65 d
ia.
40.0
0S
teel
2006
O-0
2-30
-A38
5424
,821
Sub-
Tota
l Sys
tem
Sto
rage
:63
.7
R.M
. Lev
y W
TP ta
nks:
Cle
arw
ell*
5.29
068
2.50
160
dia.
35.2
0S
teel
1965
V-0
5-20
-A79
6015
0,39
4
Was
hwat
er A
*0.
219
753.
5062
dia
.23
.00
Ste
el20
00V
-05-
20-A
2175
22,5
71
Was
hwat
er B
*0.
519
753.
5062
dia
.23
.00
Ste
el19
97V
-05-
20-A
2019
22,5
71
Sub-
Tota
l WTP
Sto
rage
:6.
0
Tota
l Tan
k St
orag
e (M
G):
69.8
Tank
s Ret
ired
Fro
m S
ervi
ce:
Dat
e Re
tired
Com
men
tsA
ldw
ych
A0.
928
835.
5090
dia
. 19
.50
Pre
stre
ss C
onc.
1952
D-0
3-09
-B70
7147
,586
2000
Rep
lace
d
Bos
toni
a0.
584
696.
2570
dia
.20
.50
Rei
nf. C
onc.
1947
G-0
5-06
-A65
3528
,786
2003
Rep
lace
d
Fle
tche
r H
ills
sta
ndpi
pe1.
388
906.
5050
dia
.94
.50
Ste
el19
55D
-03-
05-D
7287
14,6
8719
96D
emol
ishe
d
Gro
ssm
ont 2
0.08
11,
077.
0049
.3 x
23.
89.
20R
einf
. Con
c.19
46J-
03-1
6-C
5993
8,77
719
94D
emol
ishe
d
Win
dsor
Hil
ls A
0.14
782
4.60
50 d
ia.
10.0
0R
einf
. Con
c.19
27O
-02-
30-A
unkn
own
14,6
8719
75D
emol
ishe
d
Win
dsor
Hil
ls B
0.99
382
4.60
65 d
ia.
40.0
0P
rest
ress
Con
c.19
58O
-02-
30-A
7538
24,8
2120
06R
epla
ced
* Ta
nks u
nder
cat
hodi
c pr
otec
tion
Tab
le 3
C-3
: Sto
rage
Tan
k Su
mm
ary
Com
men
ts
Sei
smic
Mod
. WO
313
8 (0
1)
Sei
smic
Mod
. WO
224
0 (9
7)
Sei
smic
Mod
. WO
994
4 (9
0); R
ehab
WO
294
5 (0
7)
diam
. & g
al/f
t sho
wn
for
uppe
r 11
.5' o
nly
gal/
ft s
how
n fo
r up
per
15.2
5' o
nly
Rec
ondi
tion
ed W
O 8
165
(64)
Rei
nfor
ced
WO
952
8 (8
2)
Sei
smic
Mod
. WO
828
(92
)
Sei
smic
Mod
. WO
116
9 (9
3)
Sei
smic
Mod
. WO
132
(91
)
Sei
smic
Mod
. WO
157
4 (9
5)
Sei
smic
Mod
. WO
234
9 (9
8)
Rei
nfor
ced
WO
849
6 (7
0); S
eism
ic M
od. W
O 1
886
(95)
3D-1
3D. CAST-IRON PIPE REPLACEMENT April 2015
Background
Cast-iron was the predominant piping material in the water industry for the first part of the 20th century and was the most commonly installed pipe material within the Helix Water District between 1926 and 1949. The expected useful service life for cast-iron pipe is approximately 50 years (and in some cases as little as 25 years observed within the district) at which time replacement
is necessary due to decreased pipeline capacity from tubercle deposits (corrosion byproduct) narrowing and roughening of the pipeline interior in conjunction with increased occurrences of pipeline ruptures. Still commonly installed until 1959, the district began systematically replacing the estimated 979,000 linear feet (185 miles) of cast-iron pipe in 1967. In March 2005, the board approved a cast-iron pipe replacement master plan that prioritized the replacement of all remaining 355,000 linear feet (67 miles) of cast-iron pipe and adopted a rate of 25,000 linear feet (4.7 miles) per year for completion within 13.5 years in 2019. The estimated cost ($83.6 million) for the adopted rate of replacement resulted in a capital improvement program budget shortfall that was met by raising the budget’s typical annual rate of increase by an additional 0.5 percent (resulting in a water rate increase of 0.07 percent) and by transferring funds designated for other programs. The cast-iron pipe replacement master plan cites cast-iron pipe leak rate reductions of 39 percent as validation of the evaluation tools created to identify pipelines prone to
failure; from 1.7 leaks per 10 miles per year in the period before implementation of the plan to 1.0 leaks most recently (Chart 3D-1: Cast-Iron Pipe Leak Rates). Given other urgent capital needs faced by the district and the decreased risk of cast-iron pipe failure evidenced by leak rate reduction, the board voted in 2011 to reduce the cast-iron pipe replacement rate to 15,000 linear feet per year for completion of the program in 2025.
Fig 3D-1: Cast-iron pipe in trench.
Fig 3D-3: Circumferential cast-iron pipe rupture.
Fig 3D-2: CI pipe installation 1955.
3D-2
As of December 2014, a total of 175,000 linear feet (33 miles) of cast-iron pipe remains active in the system with current construction and design projects to soon retire approximately 15,000 and 34,000 linear feet (2.9 and 6.2 miles) respectively. Cost Summary Table 3D-1, Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement Budget Projections, details the yearly cost and completion date for eliminating all cast-iron pipe in the district’s system at a replacement rate of 15,000 linear feet per year:
Table 3D-1: CAST-IRON PIPE REPLACEMENT BUDGET PROJECTIONS
Fiscal Year Pipe Remaining
(Feet) Unit Cost Per Foot
Estimated Total Cost*
2014-2015 171,000 $265 $3,982,000
2015-2016 156,000 $276 $4,141,000
2016-2017 141,000 $287 $4,307,000
2017-2018 126,000 $299 $4,479,000
2018-2019 111,000 $311 $4,658,000
2019-2020 96,000 $323 $4,845,000
2020-2021 81,000 $336 $5,039,000
2021-2022 66,000 $349 $5,240,000
2022-2023 51,000 $363 $5,450,000
2023-2024 36,000 $378 $5,668,000
2024-2025 21,000 $393 $5,894,000
2025-2026 6,000 $409 $2,423,000
TOTAL $56,126,000
Projected Completion Date: Fall 2025
*Estimated costs are increased by 4.0 percent per year
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Number of Leaks per 10 Miles of Cast‐Iron Pipe
Year
Chart 3D‐1: C
ast‐Iron Pipe Leak Rates
Leak
s p
er 1
0 m
iles
of C
ast-
Iron
Pip
e
5-Y
ear
Mo
ving
Ave
rage
Tre
ndl
ine
Program
Implementation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Total Number of Leaks on Cast‐Iron Pipe
Year
Chart 3D‐2: Total N
umber of Leaks on Cast‐Iron Pipe by Year
Cas
t-Ir
on P
ipe
Lea
ks
5-Y
ear
Mov
ing
Ave
rag
e T
ren
dlin
e
52 leaks
(1970)
27 leaks
(1963)
25 leaks
(1990)
16 leaks
(2004)
3 leaks
(2014)
Program
Implementation
2005
3E-1
3E. STEEL PIPE REPLACEMENT April 2015
Background Steel has historically been, and is still today, the predominant piping material used in the water industry for large diameter water transmission pipelines. The properties of steel pipelines provide advantages for larger diameter pipelines and has made steel the preferred choice for many of the Helix Water District’s transmission pipelines. The earliest steel pipelines, installed in the 1920s within the district, were of a riveted steel and later welded steel design, both lacking a cement mortar lining and coating to protect the interior and exterior from corrosion. WS pipe installed after 1930 and more modern types of steel pipelines include various types of coating to prevent corrosion and have all been observed to be in acceptable working condition within the district. In February 2011, the board of directors approved the riveted and welded steel (pre-1930) pipeline replacement plan as a guide for replacement of the district’s remaining
25,000 linear feet (4.7 miles) of uncoated steel pipelines installed prior to 1930. The replacement plan is divided into five phases and includes only RS and WS pipe due to elevated levels of recent leak history for these pipe materials and specifically excludes the more modern types of steel pipelines and equivalent (listed in order from obsolete to modern): reinforced concrete pipe, concrete cylinder pipe, and cement-mortar lined and coated steel pipe.
The first phase (Phase I) of the riveted and welded steel pipeline replacement plan was completed in 2012 (WO 2582) and replaced 3,800 linear feet of 26-inch RS pipe that made up a portion of the “G-1 Line” (further described as “Pipeline B” below). The
Fig 3E-1: Rivet failures were repaired with welding material to fill empty rivet holes and welds to augment joint strength.
Fig 3E-2: Uncoated welded steel pipe is susceptible to corrosion as seen in this pipe installed in 1927, replaced circa 2008.
3E-2
Easement
Pipeline
Fig 3E-3: Pipe lining added to protect interior of early non-lined steel pipe, photo circa 1960.
remaining quantity and size of riveted steel and welded steel pipelines in the district’s system are as follows:
26-inch Riveted Steel: 700 LF (0.13 miles) 22-inch Riveted Steel: 2,100 LF (0.40 miles) 20-inch Riveted Steel: 6,310 LF (1.20 miles) 16-inch Welded Steel: 3,710 LF (0.70 miles) 12-inch Welded Steel: 9,050 LF (1.71 miles) Total all sizes: 21,870 LF (4.14 miles)
Cost Summary All riveted steel and welded steel pipelines existing within the district were originally installed as part of four specific pipe segments within the distribution system. A brief description of the pipelines and of each segment of the proposed work is provided below: Pipeline “A” is a welded steel pipeline originally installed in 1927 and was rehabilitated with the addition of internal lining for corrosion protection during a series of projects in the 1950s. Segments of Pipeline A shall be the last phase, Phase V, of the replacement plan. The pipeline is an offshoot of the original San Diego flume line and is referred to historically as the “El Cajon City Feeder.”
o Segment A-1: Replacement of 3,710 LF of 16-inch WS in Palm Avenue, Wilson Avenue and Grossmont Avenue from Foote Path Way to Washington Avenue with 3,710 LF of smaller 8-inch polyvinyl chloride pipe is proposed. A 325-foot portion of the pipeline south of Chase Avenue extends within an easement across the east side of a parcel upon which there are currently 11 mobile homes parked over the centerline of the existing pipe or in close proximity. Alternative alignments will be considered.
o Segment A-2: Replacement of 1,110 LF of 12-inch WS in Washington Avenue from 370 feet west of Van Houten Avenue to South Orange Avenue with 1,110 LF of 12-inch PVC is proposed.
o Segment A-3: Replacement of 2,490 linear feet of 12-inch welded steel in Washington Avenue between Magnolia Avenue and Lincoln Avenue with 2,490 LF of 12-inch polyvinyl chloride is proposed.
Fig 3E-4: Homes in conflict with existing A-1 segment alignment.
3E-3
Pipeline “B” is a riveted steel pipeline originally installed in 1927 and was internally lined during a series of rehabilitation projects in the 1950s. Pipeline “B” shall be replaced in Phase II and III of the plan. The pipeline originally extended from the terminus of the original flume at the former site of the Eucalyptus Reservoir (Figure 3E-6), that is now the site of the Briercrest Park, and is historically known as the “G-1 Line.” A portion of the G-1 line, in Valencia Street from Central Avenue to Bancroft Drive, was replaced with cast-iron pipe in 1940 and will also be replaced. A further 460 LF of 26” RS pipe is to be replaced by private development and is not included in the capital improvement program budget. Phase III consists of segments B-1 and B-2:
o Segment B-1: Replacement of 240 LF of 26-inch RS and 2,100 LF of 22-inch RS in Bancroft Drive from Golondrina Drive to Tropico Drive with realignment of 2,340 LF of 20-inch PVC to be fully within the public street right of way is proposed.
o Segment B-2: Replacement of 2,590 LF of 20-inch RS in Bancroft Drive from 450 feet south of Helix Street to Olive Drive with 2,590 LF of 20-inch PVC is proposed.
Phase II currently in bidding phase consists of the following segments: o Segment B-3: Replacement of 975 LF of 20-inch RS in Bancroft Drive from 220
feet south of Olive Drive to Lamar Street with 975 LF of 20-inch PVC is proposed. o Segment B-4: Replacement of 1,570 LF of
20-inch RS in Bancroft Drive from Lamar Street to Valencia Street with realignment of 1,570 LF of 16-inch PVC to be fully in the public right of way is proposed.
o Segment B-5: Replacement of 970 LF of 16-inch cast-iron pipe in Valencia Street from Bancroft Drive to Central Avenue with 970 LF of 16-inch PVC is proposed.
o Segment B-6: Replacement of 1,180 LF of 20-inch RS in Valencia Street from Central Avenue to Sweetwater Road with 1,180 LF of 16-inch PVC is proposed.
Fig 3E-5: Straight seam riveted steel pipe with riveted spiral seam pipe (inset).
Fig 3E-6: Eucalyptus Reservoir, c. 1950.
3E-4
Phase IV consists of the segments C and D outlined below. Pipeline “C” is a welded steel pipeline originally installed in 1927 and was internally cement mortar lined in 1955. The pipeline is a westerly extension of the “G-1 Line.”
o Segment C-1: Replacement of 335 linear feet of 12-inch WS in Palm Street from Golden Avenue to 335 feet west of Golden Avenue with 335 LF of 12-inch polyvinyl chloride is proposed.
o Segment C-2: Replacement of 1,330 LF of 12-inch WS in Palm Street from 280 feet east of Washington Street to 135 feet east of Skyline Drive with 1,330 LF of 12-inch PVC is proposed.
o Segment C-3: Replacement of 2,760 LF of 12-inch welded steel in San Miguel Avenue from Massachusetts Avenue to 400 feet east of MacArthur Drive with 2,760 LF of 12-inch PVC is proposed.
Pipeline “D” is a welded steel pipeline originally installed in 1927 and cement lined in 1954. It is the main connection from the El Cajon Tank to the Calavo Tank pumped via the Calavo Pump Station and is historically known as the “P-3 Line.”
o Segment D-1: Replacement of 1,030 LF of 12-inch WS within an easement from 250 feet north of Noakes Road to 180 feet north of Melva Road with 1,030 LF of 12-inch PVC is proposed. The entire existing pipeline is within easements that traverse seven parcels containing houses and other improvements in close proximity to the existing alignment and no acceptable alternate route is apparent. Fig 3E-8: D-1 Segment to be replaced 2021.
Fig 3E-7: Rivets connecting steel plates.
3E-5
TABLE 3E-1: STEEL PIPE SEGMENT REPLACEMENT ESTIMATED COSTS P
HA
SE
II
Segment Size (Inches) Length (Feet) Estimated Cost
Per Foot* Estimated Total
Cost*
B-3 20 975 $466 $455,000
B-4 16 1,570 $412 $647,000
B-5 16 970 $412 $400,000
B-6 16 1,180 $412 $487,000
TOTALS 4,695 $1,989,000
PH
AS
E II
I
B-1 20 2,340 $466 $1,091,000
B-2 20 2,590 $466 $1,207,000
TOTALS 4,930 $2,298,000
PH
AS
E IV
C-1 12 335 $358 $120,000
C-2 12 1,330 $358 $477,000
C-3 12 2,760 $358 $989,000
D-1 12 1,030 $466 $480,000
TOTALS 5,455 $2,066,000
PH
AS
E V
A-1 8 3,710 $304 $1,128,000
A-2 12 1,110 $358 $398,000
A-3 12 2,490 $358 $892,000
TOTALS 7,312 $2,418,000
*Estimated costs are in 2014 dollars. Totals are rounded to nearest thousand dollars.
3E-6
TABLE 3E-2: STEEL PIPE PHASE REPLACEMENT ESTIMATED COSTS
Fiscal Year Replacement Phase Work To Be Done Estimated Cost*
2015-2016 Phase II Replacement $1,989,000
2018-2019 Phase III Replacement $2,298,000
2020-2021 Phase IV Replacement $2,066,000
2024-2025 Phase V Replacement $2,418,000
TOTALS $8,771,000
*Estimated construction costs are in 2014 dollars. Totals are rounded to nearest thousand.
Fig 3E-9: Modern cement-mortar lined and coated steel pipe segment being installed.
Printed: 5/6/2014Scale: 1":500'
W WASHINGTON AVE
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
FRANKLIN AVE
EL CAJO
N BLV
D
S J
OH
NS
ON
AV
E
LEMON AVE
W WASHINGTON AVE
LEM
ON
AV
E
S MAR
SHALL AVE
EL CAJO
N BLV
D
FR
ON
T S
T
HILLSIDE WAY
TRAV
ELO
DG
E D
R
I-8
BOULEVARD PL
EL CAJO
N BLV
D
HILL ST
GRO
SSMO
NT AVE
WILSON AVE
GR
OS
SM
ON
T A
VE
GRANT AVE
LEM
ON
AV
E
W RENETTE AVE
GRO
SSMO
NT AVE
BOULEVARD PLWIL
SO
N A
VE
EUCALYPTUS DRLE
MO
N A
VE
LEM
ON
AV
EWIL
SON
AVE
EL CAJO
N BLVD
GRO
SSMO
NT AVE
W CHASE AVE
HELIX VILLAGE CT
HE
LIX
VIL
LAG
E D
R
PIN
E D
R
HELIX VIEW DR
MIDWAY DR
HE
LIX
VIE
W D
R
PINE DR
MID
WA
Y D
R
PA
LM A
VE
(P
VT
)
FOOTE PATH WAY
W CHASE AVE
HA
RD
IN D
R
NID
RA
H S
T
BE
NJA
MIN
PL
MO
NA
PL
LEM
ON
AV
E
LAGUNA AVE
PALOMAR AVE
HA
RO
L S
T
DELAND CT
LEM
ON
AV
E
HARDIN DR
HUB CT
PATRICIA LN
W RENETTE AVE
DOWNER AVE
LOQUAT CT
S J
OH
NS
ON
AV
E
GRANT AVEGRANT AVE
S J
OH
NS
ON
AV
E
W RENETTE AVE
AS
TE
R A
VE
S JO
HN
SO
N A
VE
PAULSEN AVE
CHESTER WAY
PELICAN WAY
AS
TE
R A
VE
DOWNER AVE
EUCALYPTUS DR
S J
OH
NS
ON
AV
E
AN
ITA
LE
E L
N (
PV
T)
PALOMAR AVE
SIE
RR
A C
IR
DELAND CT
867
SEGMENT A-1
Printed: 5/6/2014Scale: 1":500'
S LINCOLN AVE
E LE
XIN
GT
ON
AV
E
FILBERT ST
TAFT AVE
E C
AM
DE
N A
VE
E C
AM
DE
N A
VE
CAMDEN CT
S LINCOLN AVELYN
N P
L
S LINCOLN AVE
E W
AS
HIN
GT
ON
AV
E
TAFT AVE
W LE
XIN
GT
ON
AV
EE LEX
ING
TO
N A
VE
HIGHLAND AVE
FARRAGUT CIR
W P
ALM
AV
E
S MAGNOLIA AVE
S ORANGE AVE
W C
AM
DE
N A
VE
CLAYDELLE AVE
E LE
XIN
GT
ON
AV
EE
LEX
ING
TO
N A
VE
AVOCADO AVEAVOCADO AVE
PRESCOTT AVE
E C
AM
DE
N A
VE
CLAYDELLE AVE
AVOCADO AVE
PRESCOT AVE
CLAYDELLE AVEE W
AS
HIN
GT
ON
AV
E
COMMONDU CT (PVT)
S MAGNOLIA AVE
E C
AM
DE
N A
VE
JEFFERSON AVE
JEFFERSON AVEE
WA
SH
ING
TO
N A
VE
S MAGNOLIA AVE
S ORANGE AVE
W LE
XIN
GT
ON
AV
E
VAN HOUTEN AVE
W LE
XIN
GT
ON
AV
E
S SUNSHINE AVE
VAN HOUTEN AVEW
PA
LM A
VE
CH
AM
BE
RLA
IN A
VE
S SUNSHINE AVE
VAN HOUTEN AVE
W W
AS
HIN
GT
ON
AV
E
S LINCOLN AVE
DENISE LN
TAFT AVE
PA
ULIN
E A
VE
SALINA ST
DENISE LN
TAFT AVE
E R
EN
ET
TE
AV
E
DENISE LN
TAFT AVE
S LINCOLN AVE
SALINA ST
DA
NN
ER
PL
LIND
ELL A
VE
MIN
NE
SO
TA
AV
E
E R
EN
ET
TE
AV
EW
RE
NE
TT
E A
VE
S ORANGE AVE
LIND
ELL A
VE
PRESCOTT AVE
AVOCADO AVE
PRESCOTT AVE
MIN
NE
SO
TA
AV
E
E R
EN
ET
TE
AV
E
PRESCOTT AVE
JOY
CE
ST
AVOCADO AVE
S MAGNOLIA AVE
S SUNSHINE AVE
GR
AN
T A
VEPEARL PL
W R
EN
ET
TE
AV
E
PA
TR
ICIA
LN
SAND
Y STS SUNSHINE AVE
W R
EN
ET
TE
AV
E
HALE CT
LURA AVE
SEGMENTS A-2 & A-3
Printed: 5/5/2014Scale: 1":500'
EL TEJADO RD
BEAU
MO
NT
DR
CA
RM
ICH
AE
L DR
SPICE ST
HE
LIX
GLE
N D
R
GOLONDRINA DR
LOBRANO STLOBRANO ST
LAVELL ST
SAN JUAN PL
LA CUESTA DR (PVT)
CA
RM
ICH
AE
L DR
LAVELL ST
LAVELL STGOLONDRINA DR
EDGEWOOD DR
LAVELL ST
EDGEWOOD DR
GA
RF
IELD
ST
GARFIELD LN
ALPINE AVE
ALPI
NE
AVE
SKYLINE LN
BAN
CR
OFT
DR
EDGEWOOD DR
BA
NC
RO
FT
DR
GA
RFI
ELD
ST
MARIPOSA ST
MARIP
OSA ST
TROPICO DR
CA
MIN
O P
AZ
VIA COLINA
SP
RIN
G C
T
WO
OD
LAN
D D
R
ME
RR
ITT
BLV
D
PORTER RD
PORTER RD
WO
OD
LAN
D C
T
WOODLA
ND DR
MERRITT BLVD
SPRING LN
CAMINO PAZ LN
CA
MIN
O P
AZ
CITRADORA DR
BROOKSIDE CIR
CA
MIN
O P
AZ
TERRACE DR
CARTHAY CIR
PANORAMA DRTERRACE DR
ABIENTO PL (PVT)
MORCADO CIR
S T
RO
PIC
O D
R
TROPICO DR
LASER LN
BROOKSIDE CT
BR
OO
KS
IDE
CIR
TOMIKO CT
HALEY LNS T
RO
PIC
O D
R
S T
RO
PIC
O D
R
VIENTO FUERTE WAY
KAH
LUA
CT
S TROPICO DR
SHOWPLACE DR
KAHLUA WAY
SEGMENT B-1
Printed: 5/5/2014Scale: 1":500'
NE
RE
IS D
R
ORION DR
FENWICK DR
SA
DD
LE D
R
HA
RT
ZE
L D
R
HARTZEL DR
HA
RT
ZE
L CR
ES
T D
R
BENTLEY D
R
HARTZ
EL D
R
CENTRAL AVE
LAM
AR
CT
LAMAR ST
CIT
RA
DO
RA
DR
CA
MIN
O P
AZ
CAMPO RDWIL
LOW
SID
E L
N
SP
RIN
G D
R
BA
NC
RO
FT
DR
GREENVIEW
PL
SPRING PL
KENWOOD DR
COUNTRY CLUB PL
KE
NW
OO
D D
R
KE
NW
OO
D D
R KE
NW
OO
D D
R
GOLF DR
GOLF DR
KE
NW
OO
D D
R
SA
DD
LE D
R
SPRING PL
BANCROFT VIEW DR
SP
RIN
G D
R
BA
NC
RO
FT D
R
SETTINERI LN
HELIX ST
HILLSIDE DR
HEL
IX S
T
SINCLAIR LN
SIMMS CT
HE
LIX
ST
JAM
ES
CIR
CA
RO
L W
AY
(P
VT
)KOONCE DR
MEMORY LN
BA
NC
RO
FT
DRGR
AC
IA P
AS
EO
ZABEL CT
KENWOOD DR
GR
AC
IA P
AS
EO
KENWOOD DR
OLIVE DR
SWITZER DR
BA
NC
RO
FT D
R
KENWOOD DR
STEVENS LN
LORI MAR CT
OLIVE DRH
ELI
X S
T
WEBER CT
LAMAR STHE
LIX
STLA
MAR
SPR
ING
S CT
(PVT
)K
ATI
E V
IEW
LN
(PV
T)
LAMAR ST
BA
NC
RO
FT
DR
CE
NTR
AL
AV
E
SA
DD
LE D
R
OLIVE DR
CH
RIS
TY
WA
Y (
PV
T)
RO
NA
LD C
T
HE
LIX
LN
SEGMENT B-2
Printed: 5/6/2014Scale: 1":500'
PA
R D
R
NIB
LICK
DR
FAIRWAY DRN
IBLI
CK
DR
VALLEY VIEW LN
LAKEVIEW
DR
LAKEVIEW DR
FAIRWAY DR
PAR
DR
CENTRAL AVE
LAM
AR
CT
LAMAR STC
EN
TR
AL
AV
E
BE
RN
IS C
T
SHANNONBROOK CT (PVT)
PAR DR
PAR DRD
OV
EC
RE
ST
CT
(P
VT
)
LAMAR ST
SANDY BEV LN
TROY ST
SW
EE
TW
AT
ER
RD
CE
NT
RA
L A
VE
TROY ST
CE
NT
RA
L A
VE
VALENCIA ST
TROY ST
CLE
GG
CT
TIS
H C
T
SW
EE
TW
AT
ER
RD
VALENCIA ST
SW
EE
TW
AT
ER
RD
PALM ST
SW
EE
TW
AT
ER
RD
CE
NT
RA
L W
AY
CENTRAL WAY (PVT)
RA
E D
R (
PV
T)
CE
NT
RA
L A
VE
VA
LEN
CIA
CA
NY
ON
KIN
GS
VIE
W C
IR (
PV
T)
CORY CT
KIN
GS
VIEW
CIR
(PVT
)
CE
NT
RA
L W
AY
SID
E C
T (
PV
T)
KU
RLE
Y C
T
KINGS VIEW CIR (PVT)
SWITZER DR
BA
NC
RO
FT D
R
LAMAR ST
BA
NC
RO
FT
DR
LAMAR ST
OLIVE DR
CH
RIS
TY
WA
Y (
PV
T)
RO
NA
LD C
T
MA
RS
HA
LL L
N
TROY ST
BANCROFT
DR
FITZGERALD WAY
BA
NC
RO
FT
DR
ROSEDALE DR
VALENCIA STVALENCIA ST
KIN
G A
RT
HU
RS
CT
MEGHAN CT (PVT)
MAC LN
CH
ER
RY
LN
ROSEDALE DR
VA
LEN
CIA
ST
RO
SE
DA
LE W
AY
RO
SE
DA
LE P
LK
IRS
TE
N P
L
VA
LEN
CIA
PL
KA
RI C
T
ARLINGDALE WAY (PVT)LEMON ST
AVOCADO ST
WINDHAM CT (PVT)
KIN
GS
VIE
W C
IR (
PV
T)
125
SEGMENTS B-3, B-4, B-5 & B-6
Printed: 5/6/2014Scale: 1":500'
SA
ND
Y B
EV
LN
CRANE ST
RO
Y S
T
AD
AM
S S
T
WYNELL LN
AD
AM
S S
T
NATHAN ST
JULIELYNN WAY
DA
RR
YL S
T
KEMPF STLIN
CO
LN S
TSKYLINE DR
LITTLE LN
LINC
OLN
ST
RONDEVOO RD
IDE
RD
ELL LN
LINC
OLN
ST
JEF
FE
RS
ON
ST
ZE
ALA
ND
WA
Y
LON
GD
ALE
DR
WASHINGTON ST
JEF
FE
RS
ON
ST
NOMEL LN
DENNIS LN
PA
LM S
T
WASHINGTON STB
RO
CK
CT
MYRA ST
PA
LM S
T
LON
GD
ALE
DR
SKYLINE DR
PA
LM S
TSKYLINE DR
CRESTLINE DR
HA
VE
N D
R
MO
UN
T V
ER
NO
N S
T
HARDY DR
CIN
DE
RE
LLA P
L
CINDERELLA WAY
MULDER ST
MILD
RE
D W
AY
WASHINGTON ST
DI FOSS ST
MA
ZE
R S
T
RO
SE
WO
OD
LN
SHERWOOD DR
CHATSWOOD DR
BE
EC
HW
OO
D C
T
TE
ALW
OO
D C
T
MA
ZE
R S
T
RAVENWOOD DR
SECRET PL
GOLDEN AVE
GOLDEN AVE
CRANE ST
TR
OY
ST
CAMINO
DE LAS PALMAS
CR
AN
E S
T
TROY ST
PA
LM S
T
GOLDEN GROVE PL
LINC
OLN
ST
GOLDEN AVE
PALM LN
PA
LM S
T
SWEETWATER RD
TR
OY
ST
TISH CT
SWEETWATER RD
VA
LEN
CIA
ST
SWEETWATER RD
PA
LM S
TSWEETWATER RDTY
LER
ST
SR-125
MO
UN
T V
ER
NO
N S
T
GOLDEN AVE
DEBCO DR
CAMINO DE LAS PALMAS
CA
LLE N
OR
TE
LAWTON DRC
ALLE
SU
RR
OB
BIE
WA
Y
125
SEGMENTS C-1 & C-2
Printed: 5/6/2014Scale: 1":500'
VIS
TA
AV
E
CENTRAL AVE
FLO
RIN
E D
R
CENTRAL AVE
COLLEGE PL
CASA LN
CENTRAL AVE
CO
LLE
GE
PL
CENTRAL AVE
CH
AT
EA
U W
AY
CENTRAL AVE
CENTRAL AVE
HIBISCUS DR
BE
LIO
LN
(P
VT
)
FLO
RE
S L
N (
PV
T)
KE
NN
ES
TE
R D
R
CEDRAL PL
JAY
NIA
PL
HIBIS
CUS CT (P
VT)
GREEN LAKE CT
AMBER PL
SAN MIGUEL AVE
SAN MIGUEL AVE
GO
LD L
AK
E R
D
LONG LAKE CT
BLUE LAKE CTGOLD
LAKE R
D
MOUNT VERNON ST
69T
H S
T
MALLARD ST
MA
DR
ON
CIL
LO S
T
PE
PP
ER
MIN
T L
N
69 T
H S
T69
TH
ST
RUBY LN
SPRINGFIE
LD S
T
RA
DIO
DR
LAC
ON
IA S
T
LEMONWOOD LN
MA
SS
AC
HU
SE
TT
S A
VE
SUERICH LN
VIS
TA
SE
RE
NO
CT
MA
SS
AC
HU
SE
TT
S A
VE
BALKIS LN
ME
RC
UR
Y D
R
NIN
A R
D
JEANNE RD (PVT)
CO
RN
ELI
US
PL
(PV
T)
SAN MIGUEL AVE
McK
NIG
HT
DR
CAMELOT CT (PVT)
ME
RC
UR
Y D
R
ROSEMARY LN
BE
RR
Y S
T
ROSEMARY LN
BE
TH
PL
HO
LLID
AY
LN
MOUNT VERNON ST
BERRY PARK LN (PVT)
MA
SS
AC
HU
SE
TT
S A
VE
MA
SS
AC
HU
SE
TT
S A
VE
ST
CR
OIX
CT
LONNY LN (PVT)
LERMAS CT (PVT)
BRADBERRY CT
PARK GROVE CTOAK GLENN CT
SEGMENT C-3
Printed: 5/6/2014Scale: 1":500'
SUN MEADOW DR
TILLING WAY
EM
ER
ALD
HE
IGH
TS
RD
ORANGE CT
OR
AN
GE
AV
E
NOAKES RD NOAKES RDALZEDA DR
SNYDER RD
CR
ES
TLAN
D D
R
S M
AG
NO
LIA
AV
E
CAJON VIEW DR
AV
OC
AD
O B
LVD
ALZEDA DRSKYWOOD DR
AV
OC
AD
O B
LVD
AV
EN
IDA
CH
ER
YLI
TA
AV
EN
IDA
CH
ER
YLI
TA
VE
RN
A W
AY
ALZEDA DR
CIR
CO
DE
L CIE
LO D
R
EL
JAR
DIN
CT
DEWITT CT
OLD
E G
RO
VE
LN
HORIZON HILLS D
R
AV
OC
AD
O B
LVD
ROCKWOOD RD
MAYAPAN DR
CALAVO DR
AVOCADO
BLV
D
HU
ER
TE
RO
DR
FUERTE DR
FUERTE DR
EL MARBEA LN
SNYDER RDMELVA RD
ALZ
ED
A D
R
HESS DR
VIT
A R
D (
PV
T)
CALAVO DR
FUERTE DR
RE
DO
ND
O D
R
FUERTE DR
CR
ES
TLA
ND
DR
LA R
UE
DA
DR
CAL
AVO
DR
El Cajon Tank 6638(48)2.062 MG - HWE: 659'Seismic WO#: 9944(91)Other WO#s: 8831(75), 373(92),2945(07)
SEGMENT D-1
3F-1
3F. SMALL VALVES REPLACEMENT April 2015
Background
The Helix Water District operates and maintains over 16,000 small isolation valves, sized 4- to 14-inches, within the water distribution network. These valves are typically located near the junctions of connecting pipelines, at branches for fire hydrants and at approximately 400-foot intervals along isolated stretches of pipe. The strategic inclusion and careful location of isolation valves is critical for the operation of the water system so that proper pressure can be established, routing of the water flow can be controlled and so that individual pipe segments can be taken offline for periodic or emergency maintenance with minimal service disruption to customers.
The small valve replacement program was initiated in 2007 to identify and replace leaking, unsafe and inoperable valves within the distribution system and to strategically plan for the replacement of valves as they near the end of their assumed 60-75 year service life. The small valve replacement program establishes replacement criteria and a replacement schedule. The following criteria are used to prioritize the replacement of existing valves under the small valve replacement program:
Table 3F-1: PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA FOR SMALL VALVE REPLACEMENT
Priority Valve Condition Description
1 Leaking Components leak and water surfaces to street level.
1 Unsafe operation Unsafe to operate, potential of component failure or injury to operator.
1 Inoperable fire hydrant isolation valve
Prevents hydrant from being fully operational.
1 Age Significantly past the expected service life.
2 Inoperable Broken stem, packing plate or damaged disc/wedge.
3 Critical function Regularly used system interconnects or large dead-end valves.
4 Stiff Difficult operation even after numerous maintenance cycles.
5 Does not isolate flow Unable to adequately isolate flow during regular maintenance functions (i.e. shutdowns, servicing etc.).
Fig 3F-1: Gate valve wrapped for additional corrosion protection.
3F-2
Table 3F-2, Existing Small Valves By Installation Date, lists the installation dates and the quantities of valves installed in 10-year increments that are included in the small valve replacement program:
Table 3F-2: EXISTING SMALL VALVES BY INSTALLATION DATE
Installation Date Current Age
(as of December 2014) Number of Valves
Prior to 1954 More than 60 years old 350
1954-1963 51-60 years old 3,077
1964-1973 41-50 years old 2,029
1974-1983 31-40 years old 2,588
1984-1993 21-30 years old 2,113
1994-2003 11-20 years old 1,657
2004-2014 0-10 years old 3,478
TOTAL 15,292
The district currently assumes a useful valve life of 50-75 years and evaluates the need to replace 200-250 valves per year. Available program funding allows for replacement on a 60-75 year cycle at this time, with yearly adjustments to project schedules and funding in other capital improvement programs dictating the actual yearly valve replacement although 225 is the assumed rate for purposes of budget planning in this report. Owing to significant design changes in the working parts over the years, a more stringent materials and coatings specification since approximately 2001, and a consistent valve maintenance program there is the expectation that present day valve installations will last longer than those installed several decades ago.
Not considered part of this program are approximately 900 additional small valves that are associated with either a specific facility or pipeline due to be replaced or are specialty valves scheduled for replacement under different programs.
Fig 3F-2: Typical small valve condition near the end of useful service life cycle.
3F-3
Cost Summary Since the start of the program in 2007 through June 2013, the district funded the small valve replacement program through both capital improvement and operations and maintenance budgets. District crews replaced the valves exclusively until 2012 when private contractors began to perform valve replacements to increase the replacement rate and ease the burden on internal staff. Starting with fiscal year 2013-14, the program is funded exclusively with capital improvement program funds. Work will continue to be performed by a combination of district crews and by private contractors through formally-bid capital projects.
Based on actual costs for this program over the past several years and in 2014 dollars, the estimated average cost per valve installed by a contractor is $12,100 (inclusive of planning, engineering design, and inspections costs). For valves installed by district crews, the cost is $7,500 per valve for purposes of budgeting but does not reflect district crew overhead burden costs (benefits, planning and engineering) that bring the price in line with contractor installed valves. Constraints on district staff availability limit the number of valves that can be installed internally to 100 per year. The remainder of the valve program, 125 valves per year, will be constructed by private contractors. Tables 3F-3 and 3F-4 below summarize the budget projections for both district-installed and contractor-installed small valve replacements for the next 10 years.
Table 3F-3: CONTRACTOR-INSTALLED SMALL VALVE REPLACEMENT BUDGET PROJECTIONS
Fiscal Year Number of Valves Estimated Unit Cost*
Estimated Total Cost*
2014-2015 125 $12,100 $1,513,000
2015-2016 125 $12,600 $1,573,000
2016-2017 125 $13,100 $1,636,000
2017-2018 125 $13,600 $1,701,000
2018-2019 125 $14,200 $1,769,000
2019-2020 125 $14,700 $1,840,000
2020-2021 125 $15,300 $1,914,000
2021-2022 125 $15,900 $1,991,000
2022-2023 125 $16,600 $2,071,000
2023-2024 125 $17,200 $2,154,000
2024-2025 125 $17,900 $2,240,000
TOTAL $20,402,000
*Estimated costs are increased by 4.0 percent per year.
3F-4
Table 3F-4: DISTRICT-INSTALLED SMALL VALVE REPLACEMENT BUDGET PROJECTIONS
Fiscal Year Number of Valves Estimated Unit Cost*
Estimated Total Cost*
2014-2015 100 $7,500 $750,000
2015-2016 100 $7,800 $780,000
2016-2017 100 $8,110 $811,000
2017-2018 100 $8,430 $843,000
2018-2019 100 $8,770 $877,000
2019-2020 100 $9,120 $912,000
2020-2021 100 $9,480 $948,000
2021-2022 100 $9,860 $986,000
2022-2023 100 $10,250 $1,025,000
2023-2024 100 $10,660 $1,066,000
2024-2025 100 $11,090 $1,109,000
TOTAL $10,107,000
*Estimated costs are increased by 4.0 percent per year.
3G-1
3G. LARGE VALVES REPLACEMENT April 2015
Background The Helix Water District operates and maintains 421 valves sized 16-inches and larger within the distribution network attached to our main transmission pipelines. These valves are primarily utilized to isolate sections of pipe for maintenance and to reroute large flows from source to pressure zone throughout the distribution system. New installations of large valves are typically butterfly-style and are located on the backbone transmission mains with long spacing between valves (1,000 feet and over). In some instances a large valve is placed inside deep vaults to allow for inspection and maintenance. Replacement of a large valve involves considerable advanced planning and design effort and in many cases includes special techniques to avoid taking other critical facilities offline. The large valves replacement program was initiated in 2011 and was developed to evaluate the replacement of 16-inch and larger valves in an ongoing and managed fashion. Considered in the large valves replacement program are 391 large valves, with an additional 30 large valves that are connected to cast-iron or steel pipelines due for replacement as part of the district’s cast-iron and steel pipeline replacement programs respectively. Cost Summary
The large valve replacement master plan as presented to the board in 2011 projected costs for large valve replacement under several different scenarios. The selected approach identifies old and inoperable valves and schedules them as high-priority replacements during a 12-year window with the remaining large valves to be scheduled for replacement on a 50-year life cycle. There are currently 73 high-priority valves remaining in the district’s system with an average estimated replacement cost of $60,000 each.
These valves are to be replaced by 2024. The valves not currently listed as priority replacements are on average smaller in diameter, and replacement costs are less, equating to approximately $43,000 per valve.
Fig 3G-1: Large butterfly valve ready for installation.
Fig 3G-2: Valve and spool piece.
3G-2
Table 3G-1: LARGE VALVES REPLACEMENT ESTIMATED COSTS
Fiscal Year Valves To Be
Replaced Estimated Unit Cost*
Annual Estimated
Cost*
Program Duration
2014-15 to 2023-24
73 $60,000 $438,000 10 years
2024-25 to 2063-64
318 $43,000 $342,000 40 years/ ongoing
*Estimated costs are in 2014 dollars.
Fig 3G-3: Large valves welded into place and installed inside cast-in-place vault.
3H-1
3H. INTERCONNECTS April 2015
Background The Helix Water District maintains interconnecting piping connections with neighboring water agencies. Also, the distribution system contains interconnects between normally isolated pressure zones within the district. These interconnects serve as back up water sources by providing uni- or bi-directional connections between hydraulically separated systems and are crucial for operational flexibility during planned shutdowns and during emergency situations. The distribution system also contains interconnects between normally isolated pressure zones that are part of the maintenance budget.
Emergency Interconnects Emergency interconnects between two water agencies are set up at the boundary of each agency’s jurisdiction and connect adjoining distribution systems. These facilities are utilized during shutdown and inspection scenarios and can be crucial as a backup water source during a major disruption in service such as in a natural disaster when a supply line or facility is unexpectedly out of service.
These facilities are designed to operate with flow in both directions when similar pressure settings allow benefitting both water agencies, or in one direction benefitting a single agency. Costs are split evenly when both agencies derive benefit from the interconnect while a single agency will cover all costs when the benefit is one-sided. Meters with a register for each agency to monitor flow are normally included.
Interconnects will be scheduled for replacement on an every other year basis.
HWD OWD
Bi‐directional Flowmeter
Fig 3H-1: Shared emergency interconnect with Otay Water District providing backup source for both agencies.
3H-2
Table 3H-2, Emergency Interconnects, lists the potential emergency interconnects to be implemented in future years:
Table 3H-2: EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTS
Location Agency Benefit Estimated Total Cost
to HWD*
Ivy/Barcelona Street Otay WD Two-way $250,000
Blossom Lane Otay WD Two-way $250,000
Grand Avenue Intertie Otay WD Two-way $250,000
Chase Avenue Otay WD Two-way $250,000
Graves Avenue Padre Dam MWD One-way (to PDMWD) $0
Cuyamaca Street Padre Dam MWD One-way (to PDMWD) $0
Ha-Hana Road Lakeside WD One-way (to LWD) $0
San Angelo Drive City of San Diego Two-way $250,000
TOTAL $725,000
*Estimated costs are increased by 4.0 percent per year.
3I-1
3I. EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES April 2015
Background The Helix Water District motor vehicle and equipment fleet is made up of 77 vehicles and 67 pieces of equipment that serve the varied needs of both office and construction staff in their service of the water utility. Vehicles range on the small side from passenger sedans and extend up to large dump trucks and flatbed haulers suitable for transporting construction equipment and maintenance tools. The equipment fleet is
made up of heavy construction pieces (loaders, backhoes) and numerous non-construction pieces necessary for operation of the water system (pumps, generators and forklifts). All vehicle and equipment purchases are funded through schedule 76 of the capital improvement program budget with repairs and maintenance funded through schedule 232 of the operations and maintenance budget.
Vehicle maintenance and repair is performed by local automotive dealership El Cajon Ford through a service agreement authorized by the board in 2012. This agreement includes routine scheduled maintenance, warranty repairs and safety inspections. Gasoline vehicles are evaluated for replacement at 100,000 miles and diesel vehicles are evaluated for replacement at 200,000 miles. Upon retirement, vehicles are traded in for new vehicles or declared surplus and sold at auction depending on the value that can be realized. New vehicle purchases are procured through the request for proposal process. Large vehicles, heavy equipment, trailers and generators are maintained by a variety of specialized vendors with the appropriate expertise. Replacement is determined by the normal and economic useful life with heavy equipment assumed to remain in service 15-20 years. The compact light-duty truck is the district’s most prolifically utilized vehicle type on a day-to-day basis with 30 Ford Ranger models currently in service. Production of the Ranger ceased as of the 2012 model year with no comparably sized replacement eminent from the Ford Motor Company. With continued need for the compact truck vehicle style the district selected, after careful consideration, the Toyota Tacoma model for future vehicle replacements in this segment.
Fig 3I-1: Large dump truck.
Fig 3I-2: Trailer with backhoe.
3I-2
Vehicles and Equipment Life Cycle The attached “Schedule 76 – Automotive and Heavy Equipment Replacement Schedule” projects the district’s vehicle and equipment needs over the next 10 years. The figures provided within schedule 76 are used for the projected costs detailed below.
Table 3I-1: EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES PROGRAM BUDGET PROJECTIONS
Fiscal Year Projected Yearly Costs
2014-2015 $0
2015-2016 $457,000
2016-2017 $423,000
2017-2018 $396,000
2018-2019 $451,000
2019-2020 $371,000
2020-2021 $237,000
2021-2022 $347,000
2022-2023 $261,000
2023-2024 $396,000
2024-2025 $412,000
TOTAL $3,751,000
Fig 3I-3: Compact light-duty truck with extended cab and tool chest.
3J-1
3J. SPECIAL PROJECTS April 2015
Background The special projects section of the Helix Water District budget is in place to cover the expenditures for projects not budgeted in other sections and also for unforeseen items or improvements that come to light during normal operations. Unused funds for the fiscal year may be rolled over into the following year’s special projects budget or may be allocated to other items within the capital improvement program budget as required. Past Projects The district was able to take advantage of opportunities to improve the system efficiency and reliability with the special projects budget in past fiscal years by implementing the pump station pressure relief upgrades project ($55,000 budgeted) and the emergency standby generator project for Helix #3 Pump Station ($45,000 budgeted). The special projects budget also covered the unexpected costs, in fiscal year 2013-14, of the operations center emergency fuel storage project ($290,000 budgeted) and the dictionary hill hydropneumatic tank replacement ($167,000 budgeted). Current and Future Projects The raw water study is the long-range analysis of the district’s raw water and potable distribution system and is to provide recommendations for future projects to strategically improve overall capacity, supply and operational flexibility of the systems inclusive of the raw water aqueducts feeding Lake Jennings and the El Capitan Reservoir, the utilization of the flume pipeline as a backup source to the upper systems and options for supplying indirect potable reuse water from Padre Dam Municipal Water District to the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant.
Cost Summary Special projects range in cost from $50,000 to $150,000 in any given year. For purposes of the capital improvement plan budget we are assuming $100,000.
3K-1
3K. SOLAR EQUIPMENT PURCHASE April 2015
Background Information The Nat L. Eggert Operations Center Solar Energy Project was constructed in 2011 in conjunction with a power purchase agreement with Borrego Solar/Sun Edison. The solar panel arrays are installed on the operations center building rooftops and on a new specially built shade structure. The district has the option to purchase the solar system at the 20-year terminus of the power purchase agreement and utilizes this budget item to ensure funds are available at that time. The solar panel arrays have been installed on building rooftops and on a new shade structure that has the added benefit of covering the materials storage area in the operations center yard. This provides protection from the damaging effects of the sun and rain for valves, fittings and piping materials that are stored beneath. The power purchase agreement stipulates that the district purchase approximately 454,000 kilowatt-hours of solar electricity per year. This accounts for approximately 90 percent of the operations center’s historic annual use and comprises 3 percent of the district’s entire energy use. Borrego Solar owns, operates and maintains the equipment during the 20-year term of the power purchase agreement with the district option to purchase the solar system and associated facilities at the end of the term at a value expected to be approximately $457,000. Commensurately, the district has established a sinking fund of $19,000 per year in order to exercise the purchase option of the infrastructure if desired.
Fig 3K-1: Solar panel arrays installed at the Operations Center.
3K-2
Fig 3K-2: Solar panel arrays during construction in 2011.
3L-1
3L. HP REPLACEMENT April 2015
Background
The Helix Water District utilizes a highly customized software application (HP) to support many of its core business functions (customer service, human resources, finance and operations). The HP system continues to serve the basic needs of the district but has been in service for over 35 years and is based on an antiquated computer programming language that is no longer viable for continued and expanded compatibility with services essential for efficient use by both customers and employees. Replacement of the entire HP system is necessary.
With the HP software replacement project the district is investing in the development, customization and training for an entirely new suite of integrated software applications that includes both the business management software necessary for the core functions (known as Enterprise Resource Planning -- ERP) and also the formalized means of organizing and storing the district’s documents and processes (known as an Enterprise Content Management System -- ECMS).
Cost Summary
The development, implementation and transition to a new ERP and ECMS software suite is a highly complicated and labor intensive undertaking. A smooth transition between the HP and the new ERP/ECMS system is critical for the continued good service that the district is known to provide. As such the district has retained the services of several consulting firms that specialize in the various aspects of the project in addition to dedicating several staff members to the effort.
Project Management Services are being provided by ThirdWave Corporation by means of a project management office that ensures execution of the project on time and budget. In their project management role, ThirdWave is to lead the analysis of current and desired future functionality of the augmented ERP and ECMS software suite for purposes of developing a request for proposal to solicit software vendors. ThirdWave has been contracted for the project management office role throughout Phase I of the project and will provide independent verification and validation (IV&V) of the vendors’ project deliverables.
The Customer Information System and utility billing software components of the ERP are being implemented by Cayenta. The software being implemented is called Cayenta Utilities. Cayenta application consultants are working on site at the district offices to configure the CU environment to meet district business requirements. District project
3L-2
team staff is responsible for configuration, testing, training and change management leading up to Go-Live in November 2015.
Additional software from XC2 is to be implemented during Phase I to help manage the cross connection control program. XC2 is deemed to provide better functionality than Cayenta Utilities for backflow testing/certification functionality. ECMS Development Services will be provided by KeyMark with the installation of OnBase software.
Contract and Temporary Staffing is being utilized to cover the normal responsibilities of key district staff that allows them to be involved on a full-time basis with the discovery, conversion, development, implementation, planning, and overseeing of project tasks. District staff involvement from the inside of the development process is paramount to having a final software suite that is customized to the specific needs of the district and minimizes problems otherwise involved in the transition since staff will gain familiarity in operating the system.
The estimated costs for implementing Phase I of the HP replacement project in fiscal year 2014-2015 are summarized in Table 3L-2 with the remaining HP replacement phases summarized in Tables 3L-3, 4.
TABLE 3L-1: HP REPLACEMENT PHASES
Phase Description Start Completion
I Customer Information System, Backflow and ECMS
September 2014 November 2015
II Financials, Inventory, Human Resources, Payroll
Early 2016 Mid 2017
III Work Order, Asset Management, GIS Late 2016 Late 2018
TABLE 3L-2: HP REPLACEMENT ESTIMATED COSTS – PHASE I
Description Consultant Estimated Cost
Project Management Services ThirdWave $341,000
ERP and ECMS Implementation Services Cayenta/XC2/KeyMark $1,356,000
Software Cayenta/XC2/KeyMark $579,000
Hardware Various $91,000
Contract and Temporary Staffing Various $367,000
Travel, Training and Miscellaneous Various $242,000
Project Contingency 10% $295,000
TOTAL $3,271,000
3L-3
TABLE 3L-3: HP REPLACEMENT ESTIMATED COSTS – PHASE II
Description Consultant Estimated Cost
Project Management Services TBD $280,000
ERP Implementation Services TBD $1,000,000
Hardware TBD $50,000
Software TBD $350,000
Contract and Temporary Staffing TBD $250,000
Travel, Training and Miscellaneous TBD $200,000
Project Contingency 10% $215,000
TOTAL $2,345,000
TABLE 3L-4: HP REPLACEMENT ESTIMATED COSTS – PHASE III
Description Consultant Estimated Cost
Project Management Services TBD $50,000
ERP and GIS Implementation Services TBD $800,000
Hardware TBD $75,000
Software TBD $350,000
Contract and Temporary Staffing TBD $200,000
Travel, Training and Miscellaneous TBD $100,000
Project Contingency 10% $200,000
TOTAL $1,775,000
4-1
4. FUTURE CAPITAL NEEDS April 2015
Background The Helix Water District has built up infrastructure that covers the 50 square mile service area over the course of more than a century. The purpose of this section is to consider each major piece of infrastructure for conceivable future upgrades and replacement not covered in other sections of the master plan. A. Treatment Plant Upgrades Chlorination System The R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant operates a chlorination system as part of the water treatment process. The chlorine gas is currently delivered by truck to the treatment plant in one-ton cylinders. Delivery is a commonly utilized industry method for the scale of the treatment plant operations. It is also the most cost-effective and has been the practice employed by the treatment plant since construction. There is growing concern and increased restrictions related to the transport of chlorine gas by truck and rail car. In response to this trend, many modern water treatment plants have installed at great cost on-site chlorine generation units that utilize a salt solution. The material for on-site chlorine production is inherently safer to transport than chlorine gas. Although currently on hold, the federal government periodically considers legislation to make on-site chlorine generation obligatory. An on-site chlorine system for the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant is expected to cost $15 to $20 million. Solids Management As a by-product of the water treatment process, the treatment plant produces waste filter washwater and solids from the sedimentation basins that are returned to Lake Jennings. The washwater is thus recycled and the solids are allowed to settle to the bottom of the lake where they do not detrimentally affect the raw water storage source and it is believed that the aluminum content of the solids adsorbs phosphorous that would otherwise stimulate algae growth and additionally enmeshes and settles out unwanted particulates in the reservoir. The net result is an improvement in the quality of the source water for the treatment plant. The California State Water Resources Control Board recently adopted a general statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for potable water discharges to surface waters that potentially precludes the continued practice of recycling the washwater and solids to reservoirs integrated into plant operations.
4-2
The capital cost of constructing a solids treatment system is expected to be in the range of $20 to $40 million. Discussion is ongoing (as of early 2015) with the State Water Resources Control Board and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board in regard to the need for regulation of discharges and treatment under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit with staff expecting further clarity and direction from the regulatory agencies by the end of calendar year 2015. If change to state regulations dictate solids treatment staff will recommend an engineering feasibility study estimated at $200,000 that identifies the capital and operation/maintenance costs for various alternative projects that meet the potential future effluent limitations for discharge to Lake Jennings. There will be additional expenditure for environmental consulting services if the district is required to move forward with a site specific NPDES permit. Treatment Plant Expansion Provisions were implemented in the most recent treatment plant upgrades for a future expansion from the current 106 million gallons per day capacity to an eventual 120 MGD. Additional capacity is slated to serve the needs for greater flow to adjoining agencies on behalf of the San Diego County Water Authority. Using the common industry standard estimate of two dollars per gallon per day of treatment capacity, the expansion is projected to cost $30 million. The East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program Agreement dictates that the San Diego County Water Authority and Helix Water District share expenditures in proportion to the plant capacity reserved for them. The district is responsible for 66 percent of the costs. B. Lake Jennings Campground A master plan for future improvements to the Lake Jennings recreation program and for the campground. The recreation program included several group picnic areas, a new entryway, tackle shop with space for offices and a learning center. The estimated cost for the recreation program in 2003 was approximately $6 million. In 2007, Helix Water District prepared a separate plan for the campground. The campground improvements would include replacement of all utilities including electrical and water, enlarged sites to accommodate the trend to larger recreational vehicles and additional sites. The estimated cost of these improvements is $9.7 million. An additional study is currently underway to provide estimates for campground refurbishment and decommissioning options.
4-3
C. Main Transmission Pipeline Rehabilitation The large diameter pipelines 12-inches and larger are considered the main transmission pipelines in the system and convey the majority of the flow. The replacement of riveted steel and welded steel pipelines are considered in section 3E but make up just ten percent of the main transmission lines. Concrete and steel pipelines make up the remainder and have not been considered elsewhere. Quantities of currently active concrete or steel pipelines 12-inches in diameter and larger are as follows:
Table 4-1: MAIN TRANSMISSION PIPELINE MATERIAL SUMMARY
Material Length Reinforced Concrete Pipe 11,900 feet (2.2 miles) Concrete Cylinder Pipe 173,300 feet (32.8 miles) All Other Steel Pipe Types 71,100 feet (13.5 miles) Total 256,300 feet (48.5 miles)
Median age of the main transmission pipelines, summarized in table 4-1, is 50 years. A condition assessment program is needed to establish pipeline rehabilitation and replacement needs. For the purposes of asset valuation, the estimated replacement cost of all main transmission lines considered above is $190 million. D. Asbestos-Cement Pipeline Replacement Asbestos-cement pipelines constitute approximately 74 percent of the linear footage of all Helix Water District pipelines, a total length of approximately 2,820,000 linear feet (534 miles). The majority of the district’s asbestos-cement pipelines are 8-inches or less in diameter, although asbestos-cement transmission mains as large as 36-inch diameter are in service. The oldest of the district’s asbestos-cement pipelines were installed in 1940 with median age of approximately 48 years old. The district discontinued the use of asbestos-cement pipe in 1995 and has since utilized polyvinyl chloride as its primary piping material. Helix Water District recently participated in an American Water Works Association Research Foundation study regarding the projected longevity of asbestos-cement pipe. The results indicate that the district’s risk factors and leak rates for asbestos-cement pipe are far below average for other water utilities surveyed in North America and it is generally believed that the district’s asbestos-cement pipelines will continue to provide reliable service for an additional 80 to 100 years. The quantity of such pipe in the system makes it incumbent upon Helix Water District to be aware of future replacement costs. The estimated cost in current dollars to replace all of the district’s asbestos-cement pipe is $650 million.
4-4
E. Grossmont Reservoir Reconstruction The Grossmont Reservoir is a 31.4 million gallon underground concrete storage facility constructed in 1978. Maintenance has kept this critical structure in excellent condition with an expected service life of 75 years. The estimated cost for replacement of the Grossmont Reservoir is $20 million. F. Cuyamaca Dam Reconstruction The Cuyamaca Dam was constructed in 1885 and impounds Lake Cuyamaca. No concerns about the capacity, durability or structural integrity of the dam are apparent at this time. The estimated cost for replacement of the Cuyamaca Dam is projected to exceed $20 million. G. Chet Harritt Dam Reconstruction The Chet Harritt Dam was constructed in 1962 and impounds Lake Jennings. No concerns about the capacity, durability or structural integrity of the dam are apparent at this time. The estimated cost for replacement of the Chet Harritt Dam is projected to exceed $40 million. H. Potable Reuse The legislative climate for potable reuse of reclaimed water is becoming more favorable, with increasing supply costs and drought, and a finalized framework of rules is expected in the next five years. Helix Water District has partnered with Padre Dam Municipal Water District, the city of El Cajon and County of San Diego Sanitation District on an engineering study for potable reuse to determine the scope and costs for facility upgrades. The district’s share of the study is $50,000 in the fiscal year 2014-15 budget. A key element of the study will be to determine the feasibility and identify the infrastructure needed to expand capacity of Padre Dam’s reclamation plant and deliver purified recycled water to Lake Jennings where it is mixed and retreated at the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant. The study will also focus on the capital and operation and maintenance costs relative to the cost for participating wastewater collection agencies to continue discharging to the sewer system. For Helix Water District the study will compare the cost of the purified recycled water to imported water purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority.
Programs
Motor Control Center ($606,000)
Filter Effluent Valves ($506,000)
Backwash Pumps ($199,000)
Asphalt Overlay ($207,000)
Roofing System ($737,000)
Lab Instrumentation ($142,000)
SCADA System ($74,000)
Filter Effluent Valve Actuators ($109,000)
HVAC Upgrades ($53,000)
Individual Filter Backwash Actuators ($119,000)
Waste Washwater Pumps ($274,000)
Chlorine Solution Valves and Piping ($145,000)
Security Cameras ($92,000)
Process Instruments ($70,000)
TP Improvements $448,000 TP Improvements $466,000 TP Improvements $485,000 TP Improvements $504,000 TP Improvements $524,000 TP Improvements $545,000 TP Improvements $567,000 TP Improvements $590,000 TP Improvements $614,000 TP Improvements $639,000
PS Upgrades - Vista - MCC (design)
$50,000PS Upgrades - Vista - MCC (construction)
$243,000PS Upgrades - Johnstown - MCC (des.)
$29,000PS Upgrades - Johnstown - MCC (constr.)
$263,000PS Upgrades - South Rim - MCC (design)
$26,000PS Upgrades - South Rim - MCC (constr.)
$237,000PS Upgrades - Lubbock - MCC (des.)
$57,000PS Upgrades - Lubbock - MCC (constr.)
$285,000PS Upgrades - Buckner - VFD (design)
$74,000PS Upgrades - Tunnel Hill 1 - VFD (constr.)
$369,000
PS Upgrades - Windsor - (des/const)
$18,000
Fletcher Hills 2 PS (constr.)
$880,000Fletcher Hills 2 PS (constr.)
$1,400,000PS Upgrades - Dictionary - (des/const)
$18,000Chet Harritt PS (design)
$711,000Chet Harritt PS (constr.)
$1,658,000Chet Harritt PS (constr.)
$1,579,000Dictionary Hills Hydro PS (design)
$85,000Dictionary Hills Hydro PS (constr.)
$256,000Dictionary Hills Hydro PS (constr.)
$512,000
Greenfield Tank Modification (design/constr.)
$117,000Lemon Grove Tank Rehab (des/constr)
$884,000
Storage TanksClearwell Tank Rehab (design/constr)
$608,000Clearwell Tank Rehab (constr.)
$743,000Dictionary Hill (design)
$163,000Dictionary Hill (constr.)
$570,000Dictionary Hill (constr.)
$1,058,000
S. Rim Tank Rehab (design)
$120,000S. Rim Tank Rehab (constr.)
$601,000S. Rim Tank Rehab (constr.)
$660,000 Helix 2 Tank (design) $274,000 Helix 2 Tank (constr.) $1,369,000 Helix 2 Tank (constr.) $1,095,000
Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$4,469,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$4,310,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$4,482,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$4,661,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$4,847,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$5,041,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$5,243,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$5,453,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$5,671,000Cast-Iron Pipe Replacement
$5,898,000
Steel Pipe Replacement
Steel Pipe Replacement Ph 2 (constr.)
$1,964,000Steel Pipe Replacement Ph 3 (design)
$280,000Steel Pipe Replacement Ph 3 (constr.)
$1,929,000Steel Pipe Ph 3 (constr.)+Steel Pipe Ph 4 (design)
$1,149,000Steel Pipe Replacement Ph 4 (constr.)
$2,074,000Steel Pipe Replacement Ph 4 (constr.)
$763,000Steel Pipe Replacement Ph 5 (design/constr.)
$968,000Steel Pipe Replacement Ph 5 (constr.)
$1,937,000Steel Pipe Replacement Ph 5 (constr.)
$968,000
Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,200,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,258,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,308,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,497,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,415,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,472,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,531,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,592,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,656,000Small Valve Replacement by Contractor (constr.)
$1,722,000
Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$780,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$811,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$843,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$877,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$912,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$948,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$986,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$1,025,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$1,066,000Small Valve Replacement Distr Crews (constr.)
$1,109,000
Large Valve Replacement
Large Valve Replacement (design)
$60,000Large Valve Replacement (constr.)
$1,000,000Large Valve Replacement (design/constr.)
$493,000Large Valve Replacement (design/constr.)
$513,000Large Valve Replacement (design/constr.)
$534,000Large Valve Replacement (design/constr.)
$555,000Large Valve Replacement (design/constr.)
$577,000Large Valve Replacement (design/constr.)
$600,000Large Valve Replacement (design/constr.)
$624,000Large Valve Replacement (design/constr.)
$526,000
Emergency Interconnections
Chase & San Angelo Interconnections
$270,000Emergency Interconnects (des/const)
$292,000Emergency Interconnects (des/const)
$316,000Emergency Interconnects (des/const)
$342,000Emergency Interconnects (des/const)
$370,000
Equipment and Vehicles
$457,000 $423,000 $396,000 $451,000 $371,000 $237,000 $347,000 $261,000 $396,000 $412,000
Special Projects $95,100 Special Projects $99,000 Special Projects $103,000 Special Projects $124,000 Special Projects $129,000 Special Projects $134,000 Special Projects $139,000 Special Projects $145,000 Special Projects $151,000 Special Projects $157,000
Solar Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000 Solar $19,000
HP Replacement $1,300,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
CIP Annual Total:
FY 2023-24FY 2022-23
Small Valve Replacement
(60-Year Cycle)
Special Projects
Pump Stations
$11,842,100 $12,180,000 $12,508,000 $11,093,000 $11,562,000 $12,199,000 $12,577,000 $13,030,000 $13,522,000 $13,585,000
HELIX WATER DISTRICTTEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING PROJECTION
Treatment Plant Improvements
FY 2024-25FY 2019-20FY 2017-18FY 2016-17FY 2015-16 FY 2018-19 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
4/8/2015 4:03 PM
