Oursan Ridge Conservation Bank

Update EBMUD Finance Committee

May 24, 2016

2

Presentation Overview

• Background –

– Pinole Valley Mitigation Bank

– Oursan Ridge Conservation Bank

• Activities since May 2012 Planning Committee ORCB Update

• Next Steps/Schedule

3

Pinole Valley Mitigation Bank

• Pinole Valley, Contra Costa Co.

• Approx. 2,600 acres

• Creation and Conservation credits

• Proposed credit types

– California red-legged frog

– Alameda whipsnake

– Steelhead

– Wetlands/Riparian

– Oak woodland

4

EBMUD-Owned Watershed Land

5

Pinole Valley Mitigation Bank

6

Pinole Valley Mitigation Bank

• Initiated work in 2007 and determined a large multi-species/wetland bank was viable alternative to sale of surplus land to evaluate.

• Submitted Pinole Valley Mitigation Bank prospectus to multi-agency review panel in 2008

– U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

– U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

– California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

7

Project Change

• Following further evaluation, the District makes the decision to shift from the PVMB project to the smaller and less-complex ORCB.

• Difference between “mitigation” and “conservation” banks

“Mitigation Bank”…

“Conservation Bank”…

protects, restores, creates, and enhances

protects

wetland habitats and listed-species and their

habitat

Listed-species and their habitat.

PVMB vs. ORCB

8

Pinole Valley Mitigation Bank

Oursan Ridge Conservation Bank

2,600 acres 430 acres

$4.5M endowment

$1.2M endowment

Creation and conservation credits

Conservation credits only

Proposed credit types California red-legged frog Alameda whipsnake Steelhead Wetlands Oak woodland

Proposed credit types

California red-legged frog Alameda whipsnake

Habitat development performance standards

No habitat development

9

Pinole Valley Mitigation Bank

10

Oursan Ridge Conservation Bank

Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank

• Nearest comparable existing conservation bank.

– Est. 2005 (Alameda County, Sunol-area)

– Privately-owned, 640 ac.

– Credits: CRLF, AWS, and CTS

– 638 approved credits

• 550 credits sold*

• 88 available*

(*CDFW website database 5/16)

11

From Fletcher Conservation Lands website

12

Oursan Ridge Conservation Bank

• Conservation Bank Review Team (CBRT) –

– Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

– U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• ORCB bank package submitted for CBRT review in April 2011

• New state legislation – revising mitigation bank process enacted in 2012

• ORCB bank package re-submitted April 2014

• CBRT currently completing the review ORCB bank package

13

ORCB Financial Projections

Low/$15K per credit; High/$25K per credit

$1,500,000

$6,448,500

$4,948,500

$1,500,000

$10,747,500

$9,247,500

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

Cost Revenue(low)

Net (low) Cost Rev. (High) Net (High)

Revenue

Cost

14

ORCB Marketing Plan

• Maintain relationship with CBRT agencies

• Self-identified interested parties

– Local agencies and governments

• Outreach

– Local agencies and governments

– Environmental consulting firms

– Industry and trade associations

– Nat’l Mitigation Banking Assoc.

• EBMUD website

15

Next Steps

• CBRT review completion – June 2016

• EBMUD Board consideration – July/August 2016 - Authorize entering CBEI agreement (EBMUD, CDFW,

USFWS)

- Authorize entering Endowment Fund agreement (EBMUD, Wildlife Heritage Foundation)

- Authorize recording of conservation easement (EBMUD, WHF)

- CEQA: Addendum to EBWMP PEIR will be submitted to BOD prior to the full Board meeting

16

Oursan Ridge Conservation Bank

• Any questions?

Pho

to C

redi

t: Fl

o G

ardi

pee/

US

FWS

P

hoto

Cre

dit:

EB

MU

D F

ishe

ries/

Wild

life

Maintenance Support Services

Finance/Administration Committee

May 24, 2016

Overview

• Summary

•Management of contract services

• Staffing levels and recruitment

• Impact of not approving contracts

• Recommendations and next steps

Summary

• Fully maintained and operated (FM&O) supplement District forces for – Paving and concrete

– Dump truck

– Backhoe

– Hydro-excavation

• District staff performs majority of this work (72% to 99%)

• District aggressively filling vacant funded positions

Use of Contract Resources

• FM&O contracts used for

– Unplanned absences (e.g., medical, fatigue)

– Planned absences (e.g., training, vacation)

– Peak workload demands

– Joint paving projects with cities

– Catch up on backlog (e.g., paving delays due to inclement weather)

– Need for specialized equipment

Paving and Concrete Services

• Board authorized 5-year contract January 2014 for $5,000,000

• Requesting $1,000,000/ year for the remainder of authorization

• District staff completed approximately 98% of work

• Added crew in FY16

• Increase past two years due to – Unanticipated projects

– Increase in catastrophic main breaks

– Backlog clean up lead to spike in concrete orders

– Expanded participation in joint paving projects with cities/counties

– Vacancies and absences

2014 2015 2016

Use $1,581,794 $2,702,421 $520,536

Dump Truck Services

• Board authorized 5-year contract October 2013 for $6,250,000

• Requesting $2,500,000/year for the remainder of authorization

• District staff completed approximately 72% of work

• Increase past two years due to – Increase in catastrophic main breaks

– Increase in main relocations

– Increase in infrastructure renewals

– Pipeline Rebuild startup

– Vacancies and absences

2014 2015 2016

Use $2,543,675 $2,849,306 $1,233,098

Backhoe Services

• Requesting $200,000/year for five years

• District staff completed approximately 99% of work

• Added four HEOs in FY16

• Increase due to – Increase in catastrophic main breaks

– Increase in main relocations

– Increase in infrastructure renewals

– Pipeline Rebuild startup

– Poly and copper service replacements

– Backlog

– Vacancies and absences

2014 2015 2016

Use $14,045 $95,568 $21,605

Hydro-excavation Services

• Requesting $100,000/year for five years

• District owns 4 truck-mounted and four trailer-mounted hydro-excavators

• Two new hydro-excavators on order ($400,000 each), 9-12 months to manufacture

• Contract provides different size configurations for equipment not regularly used by District

• Hydro-excavation needed – Unreliable third-party utility marking

– Hydro-excavation safer and more efficient than hand digging

– Clean-up after maintenance work

2014 2015 2016

Use $61,190 $89,048 $21,500

Management of Contract Services

• Spot checks performed on dump truck drivers

• Rotate work to different vendors

• Violations/concerns

– Reported to Purchasing

– Purchasing communicates with vendors

– Removes from use list if issues continue

Union Notification

•Monthly Contracting Out Committees

• Local 444 MOU Article 13

• Semi-annual updates provided on Board authorized services

Discussions with Local 444

•Discussed some contracts during January 2016 contracting out meeting

•Notified union of contracting out in March, April and May for maintenance support services

•Met with Local 444 four times to discuss contracts

•Delayed Board award two times to continue discussions with Local 444

OMD Staffing Increase

769 771

800

848 848

888

700

740

780

820

860

900

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Budgeted Positions

*

* Includes 29 positions for the Meter Reading and Maintenance Division

OMD Hires

36 39

92

73

67

0

20

40

60

80

100

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

OMD Staffing Level

Description Filled Hires Last 4 Years

Vacant Funded*

Eligible Retirements (thru 2019)

Heavy Equipment Operator

42 12 3 12

Heavy Transport Operator

16 9 3 4

Truck Driver 29 5 1 13

Concrete Finisher

6 1 0 1

Paving Raker 27 8 4 8

Total 120 35 11 38

* Currently recruiting all vacant funded positions

OMD Recruitment

Description Posting Testing Hiring List

Heavy Equipment Operator Completed Completed June 8

Heavy Transport Operator May 30 July August 5

Truck Driver June 6 July August 12

Concrete Finisher TBD TBD TBD

Paving Raker Completed Week of June 20 July 8

Recruitment Challenges

• Retirements

• Competition for hires

•Other challenges (e.g., resignations)

Multi-year Contracts and Pipeline Rebuild

•Multi-year contracts

– Necessary because preparing, issuing and reviewing proposals takes approximately 6 months

• Pipeline Rebuild

– Reviewing current methods and investigating new techniques for pipe installation

– Trenchless pipe installation will require less excavation

Impact of Not Approving Contracts

• Impacts without external resources:

– Delays in leak response

– Delays in service installations for customers

– Delays in capital project and applicant work

– Paving/concrete will not meet permit 30 day turnaround requirements

– Impact on joint paving projects with cities

– Backlog will grow

Recommendation and Next Steps

• Continue use of maintenance support service contracts on as-needed basis

• Prioritize, recruit and fill all current vacant funded positions for these classifications by September 2016

• Acquire equipment necessary to support these positions

• Provide Local 444 semi-annual reports on utilization of services

• Review staffing levels during the FY18/19 budget

Questions