city of sturgis...rate study sturgis’ city commission requires and approves 3-year rate...
TRANSCRIPT
CITY OF STURGIS INTEGRATING 20 YEARS OF
MAINTENANCE HISTORY INTO AN AMP
ASSET MANAGEMENT FROM PLAN TO PROGRAM -
JANUARY 25, 2017
Tom Sikorski – WWTP Superintendent Allen Gelderloos, PE – AMP Project Manager
Agenda
▪ Overview of Sturgis
▪ WWTP AMP ▪ Review of WWTP AMP Tasks
▪ Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History
▪ Collection System AMP
▪ Rate Study
Sturgis Michigan
▪Population: 10,900
▪Abbott Nutrition
▪Sturgis owns and operates a power plant to produce its own power since 1896 Sturgis
Sturgis WWTP
Headworks
Final Clarifiers
Polishing Pond
Chlor/Dechlor
Intermediate Clarifiers
Nitrification Tower
Primary Clarifiers Trickling Filters
Sludge Storage
Digesters
WWTP & Lift Station AMP Tasks
1. Asset Inventory
2. Condition Assessment
3. Business Risk Assessment
4. Capital Improvement Planning
5. Additional Tasks ▪ Performance Assessment
▪ Impact of Future Growth
Overview of AMP Project/Status
▪ City awarded ~$1,900,000 SAW grant from MDEQ
▪ Wastewater Treatment Plant and Collection System
▪ Draft AMPs completed
▪ Commission approved 3-year rate increase in August 2016
Asset Inventory
▪Started with existing CMMS inventory
▪Added additional assets ▪ Electrical
▪ Building/Roofs
▪Updated replacement costs
Condition Assessment
▪Based on operator input, visual inspection and review of CMMS
▪Detailed inspection reports for ▪ Process-related equipment
▪ Electrical equipment
▪ Buildings and roofs
▪ Sludge storage tank
Sludge Storage Tank cleaning for inspection
Business Risk Helps Define Maintenance and CIP Strategies
Business Risk Evaluation Results for WWTP
Co
nseq
uen
ce o
f F
ailu
re
High High Risk
6
High Risk
7
Extreme Risk
0
Medium Low Risk
44
Medium Risk
30
High Risk
39
Low Low Risk
131
Low Risk
190
Medium Risk
242
Low Medium High
Probability of Failure
Capital Improvement Planning
Existing CIP Projects
Confirm thru review of
Business Risk
Review Business Risk
to Identify CIP Projects
Review Remaining Assets: • >$10,000 • Near End of
Useful Life
Capital Improvement Projects
5 Year CIP &
6-20 Year CIP
Prioritize and Sequence Project Based on: • Staff Input
• Budget Constraints
Replacement
Fund Projects
Overview of Sturgis’ CMMS (Computerized Maint. Mmgt System)
▪ In 1990, City purchased Infor MP2
▪Most WWTP & lift station assets in system
▪Collection system on a separate MP2 system
▪Switched to Antero by Allmax in 2016 ▪ MP2 no longer being supported
▪ Investigated other facilities and evaluated trial system
▪ Antero determined to be more cost-effective to meet objectives
What is a Computerized Maintenance Management System?
▪Generate and track work orders
▪Historical record of past PMs/repairs
▪ Tracking of operator and maintenance staff time and material expenses
▪Operator training records
Benefits of CMMS
▪ Tracking of work orders ▪ Are all WOs being completed?
▪ % Emergency vs PM vs Corrective
▪ Improves annual budgeting process
▪ Justify new equipment purchases
▪ Justify annual equipment replacement costs
▪ Justify staffing levels
Justification of Staff Time thru Tracking
Annual Replacement Cost Justification
Asset
Category Category Description
Total Assets Repair and Maintenance Fund Replacement Fund for Assets <$10,000
Total No. of
Assets
(In Service)
Total Category
Replacement
Cost
Expected
Useful Life
(yrs)
Qty. of
Assets
Rehab Cost
(% of
Replace)
Rehab
Frequency
(yrs)
Annual Rehab
Related Costs
Qty. of
Assets
Total
Replacement
Cost
Annual
Replace-
Related Costs
AIRGAS Compressors; blowers 15 $38,498 10-15 15 $38,498 $3,433
ETRON Control panels & VFDs 37 $284,795 10-20 15 20% 10 $3,687 22 $100,425 $6,463
GRBX Gearboxes; Reducers 20 $266,897 30-50 20 5% 10 $1,334
HVAC Boilers; Fans; Blowers; MUAs;
Digester Heat Ex. 45 $233,724 10-20 43 20% 10 $3,115
INST Flow Meters; Level Sensors;
Samplers; Transducers 48 $99,546 10 48 $99,546 $10,573
LAB Lab equipment 29 $42,095 Various 29 $42,095 $5,302
MAINT Maintenance equipment,
building cranes 47 $700,392 10-20 10 20% 5 $3,632 36 $27,417 $2,690
MOTOR Motors 79 $152,756 10 10 10% 10 $598 69 $92,923 $9,285
PUMP Pumps 55 $774,118 10-20 55 30% 10 $23,224
SAFETY Sensors, backflow preventers,
flame traps, eye wash stns 40 $44,714 5-10 40 $44,714 $6,508
VALVE Valves (shorter life) 148 $482,301 25 26 5% 15 $987 122 $186,270 $7,451
Valves (longer life) 144 $867,801 30+ 24 5% 15 $1,658 120 $370,435 $12,348
Total (not all assets shown for clarity) 761 $13,029,711 225 $55,043 506 $64,593
CMMS Lessons Learned
▪Understand what you want to get out of it
▪Separate systems for WWTP and Collection Systems are OK
▪Work with CMMS company – they can make many of your desired improvements
▪Any system requires full commitment to get full benefits
Agenda
▪ Overview of Sturgis
▪ WWTP AMP ▪ Review of WWTP AMP Tasks
▪ Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History
▪ Collection System AMP
▪ Rate Study
1,759
210,443
39,997 24,619
10,934 13,086 15,758 5,516
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
6 in 8 in 10 in 12 in 15 in 18 in 21 in 24 in
Fee
t o
f G
ravi
ty S
ew
er
Collection System Statistics
Gravity Sewer Size
97,872
7,036
112,309
19,831 22,223
7,911 13,658
28,076 26,575
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1920 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Fee
t o
f G
ravi
ty S
ew
er 65% of the sewers
were constructed before 1960
Date of Installation
Of the 323,200 ft of gravity sewer, 65% is 8 inch diameter
Overview of Collection System AMP Activities 1. CCTV’ed 54 miles of collection system (85% of system)
2. F&V conducted hydraulic modeling to identify bottlenecks
3. F&V conducted flow monitoring for I/I
4. City conducted smoke testing to remove stormwater inflows into sanitary system
5. Developed short (5-year) and long term (6-20 year) CIPs
6. Completed Draft Asset Management Plan Report
Collection System Inspection Results
Sewer Condition
For 284,200 feet of pipeline analyzed
34%
18% 19%
20%
9%
Manhole Condition
For 1,262 manholes analyzed
Very Poor Excellent
40%
12%
22%
10%
16%
Collection System Rehab Model for Pipes and Manholes
▪ Innovyze model utilizes ▪ GIS utility data (pipe IDs, lengths, etc.)
▪ NASSCO condition scores (PACP/MACP)
▪ Consequence and likelihood of failure
▪ Rehab/replace costs
▪ Customizable rehab logic flow chart
▪ Model output includes risk-based, prioritized, capital improvements & PM recommendations:
▪ Inspection
▪ CCTV
▪ Point repair
▪ Lining
▪ Replace
Consequence of Failure – Gravity Lines COF No. Category Criteria Scoring Risk Weight
1 Intersection Railroad Within x ft F=0; T=10 xx%
2 Intersection, Road Type Within x ft State Route = 10 Alley = 0
xx%
3 Intersection: Stream, Lake or Wetland
Within x ft F=0; T=10 xx%
4 Intersection: Building Type Within x ft Emergency =10 Blank = 0
xx%
5 Pipe Diameter Diameter 36” = 10
6” = 2 xx%
6 User Defined Gravity Trunkline = 10 Intermediate = 5 Neighborhood = 0
xx%
Likelihood of Failure – Gravity Lines
LOF No. Category Criteria Scoring Risk Weight
1 Life Expectancy Cohort Analysis from Material and Install Date
<20% = 10 … >80% = 0
xx%
2 CCTV Score Rating Index 0-1 = 1 .. 4-5 = 10
xx%
3 Last Cleaned/TV’ed Date <1990 = 10
.. >2015 = 0
xx%
4 Failure/Maint History Manual Input 0 = 0; 1= 5; >1 = 10 xx%
5 Wet Weather Flows Gal/cap/day <100 = 0
>200 = 10 xx%
6 Hydraulic Analysis Percent Flowing Full 10-25% = 2 75-100% = 10
xx%
Risk Ratings Results
Business Risk Matrix by Number of Gravity & Force Main Pipes
Business Risk Matrix by Number of Manholes
Risk Ratings Define Rehab Actions
Collection System Risk
Rehabilitation Summary Table & Asset Risk Ratings
Asset ID Address Total CostNormalized
Risk
Size
(in)
Year
Constructe
Length
(ft)Rehab Actions Year
Manhole 951 101-133 M-66 $4,270.00 100 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 1
Gravity Main 3A98-3A25 103 N Prospect St $3,501.56 100 10 1924 70 Full Lining 1
Manhole 952 101-133 M-66 $4,270.00 96 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 1
Manhole 955 201 N Nottawa St $5,020.00 81 0 1924 0 MH Clean + Line + Repair 2
Manhole 10A14 116-121 S Nottawa St $4,270.00 78 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2
Gravity Main 1614-1613 101-199 Surprise Ave $16,666.81 75 8 1924 417 Full Lining 2
Manhole 1122 398 Florence St $4,270.00 74 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2
Manhole 1601 485 W Chicago Rd $4,270.00 70 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2
Manhole 3A02 119 N Monroe St $4,270.00 70 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2
Gravity Main 1619-1617 700 W Chicago Rd $22,767.47 70 10 1924 335External Point Repair + Full Lin 2
Gravity Main 1613-1603 501-599 W Chicago Rd $4,570.00 70 10 1924 115 Internal Point Repair 2
Gravity Main 19C34-19C33 350-398 Magnolia Ave $29,020.45 63 18 1924 363 Full Lining 2
Gravity Main 916-914 108 S Jefferson St $35,455.88 63 15 1924 507 Full Lining 2
Gravity Main 1601-916 307 W Chicago Rd $18,373.79 62 10 1924 367 Full Lining 2
Manhole 3A52 605-699 US-12 $4,270.00 60 0 1924 0 MH Repair+Lining 2
Gravity Main 10A90-10A89 1200-1298 Ivanhoe St $17,625.00 53 8 1952 291External Point Repair + Full Lin 2
Gravity Main 961-904 209 Pleasant St $8,892.30 50 8 1924 222 Full Lining 2
Gravity Main 19C46-19C44 400-410 Wenzel Ave $15,632.78 49 8 1924 391 Full Lining 2
Gravity Main 7A46-7A45 1005-1199 N Clay St $14,066.88 48 8 1956 352 Full Lining 2
Table 6. Capital Improvement Plan Summary Table: 1-2 Year Rehabilitation
This table only the represents the highest priority assets in the collection system
Collection System 1-2 Year CIP
Replace MH
Replace Sewer
Full Lining
Point Repair
Line/Repair MH
Lessons Learned 1. Need to critically review initial results and iterate, if
necessary ▪ Brick manhole example
2. CCTV is priceless - Many pipes & manholes past their useful life can be rehabbed (rather than replaced) to extend their life & reduce capital costs
Example of 100-year old manhole
Agenda
▪ Overview of Sturgis
▪ WWTP AMP ▪ Review of WWTP AMP Tasks
▪ Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History
▪ Collection System AMP
▪ Rate Study
Rate Study
▪ 5- and 20-Year CIPs for WWTP and collection system
▪ SAW Grant required “gap analysis” performed
Rate Study
▪ Sturgis’ City Commission requires and approves 3-year rate adjustments for water and wastewater
▪ Rate study included more comprehensive analysis ▪ Projected Cash Balance
▪ Adjusted Operating Income
▪ Debt Coverage Ratio
▪ Performed by UFS
Projected
Recommended
Major Finding: Cash balance
less than recommended
Recommended Rate Adjustment
▪ 2% rate increase per year for next 3 years ▪ To meet projected CIP and provide recommended cash balance
▪ Approved in August 2016
Summary
▪WWTP already performing Asset Management ▪ Benefitted from detailed inspections and CIP planning
▪ There are definite benefits to CMMS data for justification and projection of O&M and capital budget planning
▪ Innovyze is a powerful tool for CIP planning in collection system
▪ Prudent rate planning involves looking out 3 to 5 years and includes other financial indicators
THANK YOU
Allen Gelderloos, PE, Fleis and VandenBrink
▪ C: 616.430.9298
▪ E: [email protected]
Tom Sikorski, City of Sturgis WWTP Superintendent
▪ P: 269.659.7250
▪ E: [email protected]