1. PROJECT UPDATE June 8, 2015

2. Agenda: What led to this point? Project Background Latest Findings Risk Management Alternate Routes Next Steps 2

3. Goals, design process, preliminary work PROJECT BACKGROUND 3

4. Project Goals: Trust & Transparency Environmental stewardship Fiscally responsible approach Manage project risks Minimize impacts to the public 4

5. Project history to date 5 Malcolm Pirnie April 2006 Relocate to former high school parking lot Stantec April 2007 Luke Wood Park and inverted siphon under Hudson Bayou Bridge Boyle | AECOM April 2009 Luke Wood Park and microtunnel under Hudson Bayou Bridge

6. Project Status 2011 Construction begins 6 Osprey Ave. U.S. 41 2012 Work stops due to microtunnel issues AECOM terminated November 2012 McKim & Creed retained August 2013 Lift Station Issues Operational Structural Safety

7. New Successor Engineer of Record Review existing design Perform supplemental investigations Create technical memorandums Present to city and public Restart project — time of the essence 7

8. McKim & Creed Recommendation Microtunnel under bridge within the right of way Phase I Scope of Work 8 Hudson Bayou Crossing Phases Approved by City Commission Jan. 21, 2014 Microtunnel under existing bridge as designed or at revised elevations Horizontal Directional Drill under the existing bridge as inverted siphon Microtunnel under bayou on either side of bridge (alternate alignment)

9. McKim & Creed Recommendation Hurricane storm surge protection Phase II Scope of Work 9 City Commission direction April 21, 2014 Finalize microtunnel design (-16.5 feet) Redesign Lift Station 87 Hudson Bayou Crossing Phases

10. 10 Benefits Maintenance of Traffic Access to Businesses Less US 41 Impacts Current Design Route Hudson Bayou Osprey Ave. U.S. 41 Current alignment Microtunnel jacking pit Microtunnel receiving pit Microtunnel jacking pit Alternate alignment

11. 11 Hudson Bayou Crossing Microtunnel under bridge Developed by Staheli Trenchless Peer reviewed by Atkins Approved by City Commission Alternate alignment accepted by Staff

12. New studies, inspection data and analysis LATEST FINDINGS 12

13. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 borings 0 0 Comprehensive Geotechnical Review 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996-2012 borings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 borings 0 0 + bathymetric survey, geophysical survey, concrete cores/testing

14. Assessment of Bridge Abutment Concrete core Concrete abutment (surveyed) Concrete abutment (interpreted) 8' 8.75' NORTHWEST CORNER NORTHEAST CORNER SOUTHWEST CORNER SOUTHEAST CORNER 8.0' Proposed 36" microtunnel Original 36" pipe Original 36" pipe Proposed 36" microtunnel

15. North to Mound St. Geotechnical Summary 15 Original pipe Top of pipe elevation: -8.5' Proposed microtunnel Top of pipe elevation: -16.5'

16. Designs, data and assessments RISK MANAGEMENT 16

17. Risk Assessment of Designs 17 Original design Lessons learned McKim & Creed design Before bridge investigation McKim & Creed design After bridge investigation

18. Medium Risk Register and Criteria 18 Probability 1: 0 – 20% 2: 20 – 40% 3: 40 – 60% 4: 60 – 80% 5: 80 – 100% Impact 1: < $100 K 2: $100 K – $250 K 3: $250K – $500K 4: $500 K – $1M 5: > $1M IMPACT PROBABILITY Low High Low Medium High

19. What is a Risk Register? 19 Identify Issues Potential Risks Estimate Probability of Occurrence Estimate Impact ($) Risk Score Probability times Impact Lower the Better Mitigation Plan Additional Field Work Modify Design Monitor During Construction

20. Analysis of microtunneling 20 High jacking force i.e. “stuck machine” Environmental impact to Hudson Bayou Mixed face conditions hard soils on part of machine, soft on another Unexpected geotechnical conditions Line and grade deviations outside of tolerances Pipe breaking Differing Site Conditions claims Damage to the bridge

21. Risk Example: High Jacking Force 21 Mitigation Plan Extensive geotechnical investigations Prescriptive specifications Monitor during construction Probability & Impact Probability reduced from 5 to 1 Impact remains at 5 Risk Score Reduced from 25 to 5 Contingency reduced from $900K to $100K Probability x Impact = Risk Score Note: High Jacking Force happened twice during initial construction.

22. Relative Risk score (total) Original design 120 McKim & Creed design Prior to bridge inspection 36 McKim & Creed design Post bridge inspection 25 Current design reduces risk significantly from original design 22 Risk Management Results

23. 23 Additional factors considered Bathymetric Surveys Nettles (2013)6-8 feet Forensic/Hyatt (2014)7 feet Geotechnical Borings – Foundation Material Phase 1 Report7-10 feet (each side of bridge) Bridge Inspection (2014) 9 feet (mid Bayou) Reclaimed Water Main (1997) East of Bridge (ROW) Centerline (-16 feet)

24. Methods, plans and other considerations ALTERNATE ROUTES 24

25. Open Cut vs. Microtunneling Evaluate options to re-use existing wetwell Open Cut 25 Microtunneling

26. Alternate Routes: Control Elevations 26 Hudson Bayou U.S. 41 Top of Foundation Material (-9.0) Top of Foundation Material (-9.0) Influent MH Invert (-13.08) Influent MH Invert (-13.08) Wetwell Invert (-13.52) Wetwell Invert (-13.52) Osprey Ave.

27. Regulatory Considerations 27 Subaqueous Crossing Regulations Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 3 Feet Cover U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 6 Feet Cover Top of Pipe El. -9.00 Open cut

28. Alternate Route 1 1903 Lincoln Drive 28 U.S. 41 Osprey Ave. 0 0 Manhole 36" 30" New easement Disrupts home Permits needed Disrupts condos

29. Alternate Route 2 1821 Lincoln Drive 29 Hudson Bayou U.S. 41 0 0 Manhole 36" 30" 24" New easement New acquisition Permits needed Disrupts condos

30. Alternate Route 3 East of Bridge 30 Hudson Bayou U.S. 41 0 0 Manhole 36" 30" 24" New easement Permits needed Disrupts home Disrupts park

31. Open Cut Considerations 31 Easements and land acquisition required Regulatory permits - FDEP/Sarasota County - Sovereign Submerged Lands - Environmental Resource Permit - FDEP/ACOE Variances Environmental Documented Lead Contamination (2001 Boyle Report) Geotechnical Investigations Borings/Bathymetric Schedule

32. Operational Impacts 32 Period submergence of sewer system -Reduced conveyance capacity -More frequent pipeline cleaning -Increased odor potential in neighborhood Hydraulic Institute Standards not met -Un-even flow patterns -Increased frequency of wet well cleaning -Increased wear on one pumping unit -Air entrainment/cavitation -Reduced pumping capacity -Less energy efficiency -Reduced life expectancy for pumps Additional operational and maintenance costs

33. Normal Operating Conditions Open Cut 33 Elevation -13.5 ft. Overflow hazard Odors Gravity Sewer Wetwell Odor Control

34. Surcharge Conditions Existing Wetwell Design 34 Elevation -13.5 ft. Overflow hazard -TBD ft. Odors Manhole Existing Wetwell Gravity Sewer

35. Upgrades will still be required… 35 Wet Well Slab Modification required to withstand Cat 3 Storm Surge Stand-by Pump Reliability required

36. Planning level comparable costs Microtunnel current est. Open Cut 36 Inch (Phase 1)$11.0 M$6.5 M Lift Station 87 (Phase 2)$16.0 M$13.3 M 24 Inch (Phase 3)$5.0 M Land Acquisition & Legal -$4.0 M Environmental-$6.2 M Luke Wood Park Restoration -$1.0 M Total Estimate$32.0 M$36.0 M Open Cut notes: Hudson Bayou crossing assumes variance from state and federal regulation requirements; Land Acquisition & Legal estimated based on city input; Environmental from 2001 Hudson Bayou Stormwater Study 36

37. Analysis of project costs Previous Bid January 2011 Previous Bid indexed to 2015 Current estimate Difference 36 Inch (Phase 1) $1.5 M$1.7 M $11.0 M$9.3 M Lift Station 87 (Phase 2) $5.4 M$6.1 M $16.0 M$9.9 M 24 Inch (Phase 3) $2.7 M$3.0 M $5.0 M$2.0 M Total Estimate $9.6 M$10.8 M $32.0 M$21.2 M Note: 2011 bid indexed to 2015 dollars based on industry-standard methodology. 37

38. Replacement of asbestos cement water mains* Installation of reclaimed water mains* Installation of new sewer mains (Pomelo Place) Installation of new water main (Alta Vista to Bahia Vista) Full roadway restoration Landscaped Lift Station 7 site $3.0 M: Project Enhancements * Osprey, Alta Vista, Pomelo, and/or Pomelo Place Quotes from recent negotiation attempts $9.3 M: 36 Inch (Microtunnel) Analysis of differences 38

39. Category 3 storm surge protection Operating redundancies Totally enclosed for all operation & maintenance activities Safe working environment for staff Climate change provisions Deeper wetwell/operational efficiencies Site preparation $8.9 M: Upgrad es Analysis of differences 39

40. Resolving design issues, communicating challenges NEXT STEPS 40

41. Sequencing of Construction 41 Hudson Bayou U.S. 41 Additional Advantages Risk Management Minimize Disruption to Existing Utilities Cost Controls Maintenance of Traffic

42. Construction Plan Three Phases 42 Phase 2 LS 87 construction Phase 1 36 inch pipe Lift Station 7 Demolition of Lift Station 7 and park restoration Phase 3 24 inch pipe

43. Construction Challenges 43 Limited site access Construction zone restrictions Minimize impacts to Luke Wood Park Maintenance of traffic Minimize service disruptions

44. Microtunneling Work Zone 44 Hudson Bayou U.S. 41 Receiving shaft work zone LS site driveway Jacking shaft work zone Construction support work zone

45. Microtunnel Work Zone (Osprey) 45 JACKING SHAFT MICROTUNNEL JACKING SHAFT WORK ZONE OSPREY AVENUE CRANE PIPE CONTROL BOOTH BAKER TANK BENTONITE MIXER GENERATOR SOIL SEPARATION PLANT STORAGE HUDSON BAYOU MICROTUNNEL ALIGNMENT

46. Microtunneling Work Zone (LS 87) 46 US 41 PIPE CONTRO L BOOTH BAKER TANK BENTONITE MIXER GENERATOR SOIL SEPARATION PLANT STORAGE JACKING SHAFT EQUIPMENT PIPE STORAGE AREA OFFICE TRAILER MICROTUNNEL ALIGNMENT JACKING SHAFT CRANE LS SITE DRIVEWAY

47. Building Work Zone 47 US 41 APPROXIMATE EXCAVATION LIMITS APPROVED SITE PLAN

48. Scheduling and Timeframes 48 Estimates subject to final engineering decisions Bid PhaseStartFinish 201520162017201820192020 Q 1/2 Q 3/4 Q 1/2 Q 3/4 Q 1/2 Q 3/4 Q 1/2 Q 3/4 Q 1/2 Q 3/4 Q 1/2 Q 3/4 Current Design 36 inch (Phase 1) July 2015 June 2017 Lift Station (Phase 2) Sept. 2016 June 2019 24 inch (Phase 3) Jan. 2019 Aug. 2020

49. 49 Environmental stewardship - Improve service and system reliability - Storm protection (Category 3 hurricane) - Offset potable water demands with reclaimed water Fiscally responsible approach - Complete Hudson Bayou crossing first - Obtain competitive bid packages - Salvage existing equipment Manage project risks - Pre-qualify microtunneling contractors - Use experienced construction specialists Minimize impacts to the public - Develop detailed MOT plans - Construction updates on project website Project Goals

50. Path to the Next Phase 50 Design Team conclusion Utility Department support Administrative acceptance City Commission direction

51. City Commission Direction Actions to move the project forward Pre-qualify specialty contractors Microtunnel under the bridge Pursue alternate alignment Easements will be necessary 51

52. Discussion

53. Lift Station 87 Funding Options 2014 Rate Sufficiency Analysis Annual Rate Increase 53

54. Option 1 Cash while maintaining CIP funding level Defers $20 million of Infrastructure projects Between 2015 and 2020 54

55. Option 2 Bond debt while maintaining CIP funding level One time rate increase in 2017 In addition to planned 4% No infrastructure projects deferred Rate increase to fund debt service 55

56. Option 3 Bond debt while maintaining CIP funding level No rate increase related to Lift Station 87 Annual 4% rate increase is necessary Defer some infrastructure projects $1.8 million per year until loan is satisfied 56

57. Staff Recommendation Option 3 Bond debt while maintaining CIP funding level No rate increase related to Lift Station 87 Annual 4% rate increase is necessary Defer some infrastructure projects $1.8 million per year until loan is satisfied Finance and Utility Departments will review with rate sufficiency consultant Identify and develop best value option Present to Commission 57

58. Discussion