The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutContract 38688CITY SECRETARI� �q�� CONTRACT NO, _`y�L2.Q.3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Between City of Fort Worth Johnson Controls, Inc. 1000 Throckmorton Street and 707 N Freeway I-35W Suite 112 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 WHEREAS, City desires to obtain an energy and water conservation evaluation of the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to determine what measures can be taken to conserve natural resources and the associated savings in plant operating costs; and WHEREAS, JCI is knowledgeable in providing professional consulting services directly related to electric, gas, and water conservation measures; and WHEREAS, Chapter 302, Texas Local Government Code, generally authorizes the execution of a contract whereby the cost of the contract is to be paid for from the savings incurred as a result of implementing the conservation measures recommended by a consultant. NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL BY THE PRESENTS: The City of Fort Worth, acting herein by and through Fernando Costa, its duly authorized Assistant City Manager, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Johnson Controls, Inc., acting herein by and through Lisa Loupe, its duly authorized South Region Solutions Manager, hereinafter referred to as "JCI", enter into this Project Development Agreement this, day of Qf 20 As used in this contract, the following terms shall mean: A) "Premises" shall mean the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant and any support buildings related to the energy consuming systems of this facility. B) "Payback" shall mean the period of time needed for the cumulative savings the City realizes to offset the fully burdened project costs. C) "Savings" shall mean energy and "hard" operational costs avoided as a result of the project. D) "Revenues" shall mean revenues paid to the City as a result of the project. E) "Fully Burdened Final Project Costs" shall mean all costs to the City associated with implementing JCI's recommendations including but not necessarily limited to: fhe cosfto prepare the Study, the direct and indirect costs associated with designqit Energy Savings Performance Contract }� ORIGINAL the measures accepted by the City, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs and annual measurement and verification (M&V) costs. 2. Services of JCT The City hereby contracts with JCI as an independent contractor, and JCI agrees to perform with the professional standards customarily obtained for such services in the State of Texas, for the preparation of a Detailed Evaluation Study ("Study") of the City's Premises to determine the operational expenditures and characteristics of the Premises and to identify improvements, operational efficiency measures, procedures, installations and services that can be made to the Premises in order to improve the infrastructure, reduce the operating costs, and increase revenues on these existing Premises. The Study shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: A) Descriptions of the specific Facility Improvements Measures (FIMs) that JCI recommends, including: scope of work, costs, equipment list, and implementation schedule. B) A breakdown of the utility, O&M and capital costs that can be avoided and increased revenues than can occur by implementing the FIMs. C) A statement of the amount of savings and revenues JCI guarantees that the City would realize for each recommended FIM. D} The project payback shall be based upon the Fully Burdened Final Project Cost and shall be 10 years or less. 3. Attachments The following attachments are a part of this Pxoject Development Agreement: Attachment A of this Agreement defines the Scope of Services for the Study. Attachment B of this Agreement outlines special constraints applicable to the development of the FIMs and installation procedures. Attachment C of this Agreement is the Preliminary Report dated September 24, 2007. 4. City Responsibilities Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant During the work required by this contract, the City shall provide all criteria and full information as to City's requirements and designate an individual to act on the City's behalf on all matters concerning this contract. Energy Savings Performance Contract City will furnish to Jul upon its request, accurate and complete information concerning operational procedures and expenditures for the Premises, including but not limited to the following data: I } Actual utility bills supplied by the utility and other relevant utility records; 2) Descriptions of relevant operational or maintenance procedures utilized at the Premises; 3} Summary of annual operating expenditures; 4) Discharge permits; 5) Operating reports; b} Prior efficiency audits or studies of the Premises and/or operating procedures. JCI agrees to work diligently to assess validity of information provided and to confirm or correct the information as needed. 5. Preparation of Performance Contracting Project Agreement Within 3Q days after the City decides to implement the FIMs recommended by JCI in the Study, JCI will prepare and submit to the City a Performance Contracting Project Agreement, which shall define the Scope of Work for implementation of the facility improvements and operational efficiency measures, procedures, and services recommended in the Study that will reduce the City's overall expense in operating the Premises. 6. Price and Payment Terms A. The fixed fee for implementation of the Study is $1,584,Q00 ("Fee"). B. The Fee shall be payable to JCI if and only if (1) after careful review of the Study by a licensed professional engineer mutually acceptable to the City and to JCI, who is not an officer or employee of the City or JCI or who is not otherwise associated with the City or JCI, said licensed professional engineer determines in its professional opinion that the costs of the improvements and recommendations that meet the requirements of Attachment B will be recovered in 10 years or less through the guaranteed savings to be experienced and the City decides not to implement the improvements recommended by JCI; or (2) the City implements the improvements recommended by JCI. C. The City shall require the aforesaid engineer to document the findings, and conclusions, and the basis therefore, in a written report ("Engineer's Report") and shall further require such engineer to transmit one (1) photocopy of the report to JCI within three (3) days of its preparation. D. In the event of the occurrence of paragraph B(1), City will make payment to JCI within 90 days of the date of the City's decision not to implement the improvements and recommendations of the Study but no later than 180 days from the date of submission of the Study by JCI. Energy Savings Performance Contract E. In the event of the occurrence of paragraph B(2), the Fee shall be included in the costs for the implementation of the Performance Contracting Project Agreement and shall be payable in accordance with the terms to be contained therein. F. At any time during the performance of this Contract, should JCI determine that sufficient savings cannot be attained to meet the City's project criteria and the maximum payback period of 10 years, the contract will be terminated by written notice from JCI to the City. In such event, this Agreement shall be terminated and the City shall have no obligation to pay, in whole or in part, the amount specified. 7. Indemnity JCI covenants and agrees to, and by these presents does hereby defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, suits or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, brought for or on account of any personal injuries or damages to persons or property, including death, to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of JCI, its contractors, subcontractors, employees, agents, invitees and guests in connection with the performance of the work under this contract. 8. Insurance Requirements A. Insurance coverage and limits: JCI shall provide to the City certificates) of insurance documenting policies of the following coverage at minimum limits that are to be in effect prior to commencement of work on under this contract: Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate Automobile Liability $1,000,000 each accident (or reasonably equivalent limits of coverage if written on a split limits basis). Coverage shall be on any vehicle used in the course of performing this contract. Worker's Compensation Coverage A: statutory limits Coverage B: $100,000 each accident $500,000 disease - policy limit $100,000 disease - each employee Professional Liability $1,000,000 each claim/annual aggregate B. Certificates of insurance evidencing that the JCI has obtained all required insurance shall be delivered to the City prior to proceeding with the Project. Energy Savings Performance Contract (1) Applicable policies shall be endorsed to name the City an Additional Insured thereon, as its interests may appear. The term City shall include its employees, officers, officials, agents, and volunteers as respects the contracted services. (2) Certificate{s) of insurance shall document that insurance coverage specified herein are provided under applicable policies documented thereon. {3} Any failure on part of the Ciry to request required insurance documentation shall not constitute a waiver of the insurance requirements. (4) A minimum of thirty (30) days notice of cancellation or material change in coverage shall be provided to the City. A ten (10) days notice shall be acceptable in the event of non-payment of premium. Such terms shall be endorsed onto JCI's insurance policies. Notice shall be sent to S. Prank Crumb, Water Director, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, Texas76012. {5) Insurers for all policies must be authorized to do business in the state of Texas or be otherwise approved by the City and such insurers shall be acceptable to the City in terms of their financial strength and solvency. (6) Deductible limits, or self -insured retentions, affecting insurance required herein shall be acceptable to the City in its sole discretion; and, in lieu of traditional insurance, any alternative coverage maintained through insurance pools or risk retention groups must be also approved. Dedicated financial resources or letters of credit may also be acceptable to the City. (7} Applicable policies shall each be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City as respects the Project (8) The City shall be entitled, upon its request and without incuzring expense, to review JCI's insurance policies including endorsements thereto and, at the City's discretion, JCI may be required to provide proof of insurance premium payments. (9) The Commezcial General Liability insurance policy shall have no exclusions by endorsements unless the City approves such exclusions in writing. (10) The Professional Liability insurance policy, if written on a claims made basis shall be maintained by JCI foz a minimum two (2) year period subsequent to the term of this contract unless such coverage is provided JCI on an occurrence basis. Energy Savings Per%rmance Contract (11) The City shall not be responsible for the direct payment of any insurance premiums required by this agreement. It is understood that insurance cost is an allowable component of JCI's overhead. (12) All insurance required herein, except for the Professional Liability insurance policy, shall be written on an occurrence basis in order to be approved by the City. (13) JCI's sub -consultants, if any, shall be required to maintain the same or reasonably equivalent insurance coverage as required for JCI. JCI shall provide City with documentation thereof on a certificate of insurance. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event a sub" consultant's insurance coverage is canceled or terminated, such cancellation or termination shall not constitute a breach by JCI of this agreement. 9. Assignment This Agreement cannot be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. Any such attempted assignment shall be void. 10. Disputes Disputes will be resolved by litigation. Venue of any litigation shall lie exclusively in Tarrant County, Texas. 11. Notices Any notice to be given under this Contract shall be given as follows: If to City: S. Frank Crumb, PE Water Director City of Fort Worth Water Department I000 Throckmorton Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 If to JCI: Lisa Loupe South Region Solutions Manager Johnson Controls, Inc. 3021 West Bend Drive Irving, Texas 75063 Energy Savings Performance Contract 1I Conflicts between Documents Any conflict between this contract, the Request for Proposal, and JCI's Response to the Request for Proposal shall be resolved in this order: this contract shall control over the Request for Proposal and the Response. The Request for Proposal shall control over the Response. 13. Minority and Women Business Enterprise (MWBE) Participation In accord with City of Fort Worth Ordinance No. 155303 the City has goals for the participation of minority business enterprises and woman business enterprises in City contracts. JCI acluiowledges the M/WBE goal established for this contract and its commitment to meet that goal. Any misrepresentation of facts (other than a negligent misrepresentation) and/or the commission of fraud by JCI may result in the termination of this agreement and debarment from participating in City contracts for a period of time of not less than three (3) years. 14. Miscellaneous Provisions A. JCI shall perform all work and services hereunder as an independent contractor, and not as an officer, agent, servant or employee of the City. JCI shall have exclusive control of, and the exclusive right to control the details of the work performed hereunder, and all persons performing same, and shall be solely responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, employees and sub -consultants. Nothing herein 'shall be construed as creating a partnership or joint venture between the City and JCI, its officers, agents, employees and sub -consultants, and doctrine of respondent superior has no application as between the City and the JCI. B. The parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel have reviewed and revised this contract and that the normal rules of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this contract or exhibits hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Fort Worth has caused this instrument to be signed in four counterparts in its name and on its behalf by the City Manager and attested by its Secretary, with the corporate seal of the City of Fort Worth attached. The Contractor has executed this instrument through its duly authorized officers in four counterparts with its corporate seal attached: Done in Forte orth, �exass tlieJ�day of � { '1— A.D., 20 F� By: Lisa Loupe Name South Region Solutions Manager Office APPROVED: By: Fernando Costa Assistant City Manager Energy Savings Performance Contract By: �. rnanK (:numb, llirectoz Water Department APPROVED AS O FORM AND By: k 4�� Amy J. R s Assistant City Attorney ALITY: By: Hendrix City Secretary PRU ract Authorization I Energy Savings Performance Contract PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Attachment A Scope of Services Energy Savings Performance Contract PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Attachment A Scope of Services The JCI ESPC Phase V Project Development Agreement {PDA) will include a detailed energy audit for the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The result of the audit will be a report to the City that includes: baselines, existing conditions, proposed Facility Improvement Measures (FIMs), guaranteed maximum (GMAX) implementation price for each FIM, guaranteed annual savings & revenues for each FIM, measuring and verification (M&V) plan and project cash flow analysis (CFA). The following describes the method the JCI Team will follow to execute this PDA. To accomplish the desired schedule, the various FIMs will be developed in parallel. 1. Project initiation • Submit a request for information to City • Kick-off meeting with City 2. Site Visit • Interview plant operators • Visit the applicable areas of the plant • Visit construction document room. Identify key documents needing to be copied. • Work with plant operators to obtained customized operating reports needed to analyze the existing systems • Develop a fundamental understanding of the existing systems • Setup an E-Room website for sharing information of all project stakeholders. 3. Critical Success Items • Develop preliminary list of items critical to the successful outcome of the project 4. Review Meeting with City 5. Data Logging • Energy use of selected pieces of equipment will be measured and/or monitored for use in establishing the energy baseline. 6. Engineering Analysis • Assess existing situation &the opportunities; assess the options. • Assess construction costs; impact on O&M costs; other special requirements. • Implementation requirements • Project savings & revenues • M&V requirements • Preliminary CFA 7_ Review Meeting with City 8. Implementation Costs • Pre -qualification of subcontractors & vendors Perform site and geotechnical surveys • Finalize scope of work for each FIM • Develop GMAX price for each FIM 9. Savings &Revenues • Finalize utility savings &increased revenues for each FIM Finalize O&M cost impacts for each FIM 10. M&V Plan • Finalize M&V plan &costs 11. Review Meeting with City • Deliver Reports, Plans and Specifications for each FIM 12. Submit Detailed Audit Report 13. Third Parry Review • Coordinate with third party review engineer 14. Submit Performance Contract Agreement Facility Improvement Measures FIM #1: Aeration Diffuser Upgrades The focus of this effort is the replacement of the aeration diffusers in the existing aeration basins, which is expected to reduce the operating pressure of the aeration system, thereby reducing the amount of energy required by the plant. Cl Team will also work with maintenance personnel to identify leaks and determine the practicality of repairing. Leaks that are repaired will reduce the amount of air that must be compressed and reduce energy use at the site. FIM #2: Turbine Waste Heat Recovery he existing facilities use landfill gas, digester gas and natural gas to power combustion turbine driven generators. The electricity produced by the generators is used on site to power pumps and blowers. A small amount of the waste heat is used to heat the anaerobic digesters. initial analysis indicates that there is sufficient waste heat available to generate steam to use for generating electricity and/or powering aeration blowers. FIM #3: Digester Gas Improvements There is the potential to increase the production of digester gas by the addition of compatible industrial and/or food waste to the anaerobic sludge digesters (codigestion}. The increased amount of digester gas would-be available to make electricity and waste heat for use at the plant. There are already two existing turbine driven generators which are fueled by digester gas, landfill gas, and some natural gas. Accepting food waste will more than likely require the enhancement of the operation of the existing digesters, including: improvements to flow distribution, mixing, and/or cleaning the existing digesters. JCl Team will also assess the ability to add motorized operators to existing valves as part of enhancements to improve digester mixing. FIM #4: Scada System Replacement JCl Team will provide the design of a new process control system. The new system shall replace the existing Johnson Controls Yokogawa XL/System (XL/S). Throughout the design, several workshops will be held with plant staff to ensure their requirements for the new system are met. The scope of the design includes the following: • Replacement of the servers and operator workstations located in the Administration building. • Removal of all Yokogawa single loop controllers currently located in the Administration building control room. • Replacement of the existing XL/S Universal Control Modules located in the Administration building control room. • Replacement of the Programmable Logic Controllers in the following process areas: Fine Screen Facility, High Rate Clarifiers, Grit Building (Odor Control), Gravity Belt Thickeners, Electrical Distribution, Filters, and Gas Compressors. • Design of a new control room that will allow for more efficient space planning based on the removal of the single loop controller panels. • $20,000 travel allowance for City personnel to visit vendor sites. Due to previous negotiations with the City concerning the engineering requirements for this FIM, a more detailed scope of services is included at the end of this Attachment. F1M 545: Aeration Anoxic Zones There is an opportunity to improve the operability and reduce total energy demand at the site, by adding an anoxic reactor at the head end of each aeration basin, and a recirculation line to recycle nitrate rich mixed liquor (MLSS) to the head of the aeration basin. FIM #6: Additional Improvements FIM #6A: DO Control Improvements Initial review of the existing control system and discussions with plant personnel indicate the potential for reducing energy costs by updating the existing method for controlling the level of dissolved oxygen in the aeration basins. F1M #6B: Digester Gas Storage Systems for Peak Loads There is potential for enhancing the use of digester gas by provg storage an site. The cost of providing storage (including where to locate such a facility) will be considered as well as the benefits from providing on4te storage. FIM #6C: Solar Energy Systems The scope will be to identify/evaluate/ develop feasible solar FIMs for the plant. Initial opportunity will be using solar thermal energy to heat the digesters, thereby increasing the amount of turbine waste heat that can be used to power the aeration blowers. �3 FIM #fiD: Pump & Motor Upgrades Assess the opportunity for various pump & motor efficiency upgrades. FlM #fiEa HVAC Improvements The scope will be to review the functional building areas on the plant site to identify/evaluate/develop feasible HVAC efficiency improvements. FIM #fiF: Lighting Retrofits The scope will be to identify/evaluate/develop feasible indoor and outdoor lighting efficiency upgrades. FIM #fiG: Water Canservatian The scope will be to identify/evaluate/develop feasible water conservation projects. FIM #fiH: Power Factor Correction Assess opportunity for implementing power factor correction to reduce electric bill charges. Detailed Scope of Services — Scada Svstem Replacement (F1M #4) Phase I —Evaluation and Planning 1100 Control System Upgrade Data Gathering 1110 Field ReconnaissancelData Collection Conduct field reconnaissance and review existing documentation to gather information and details concerning the existing control system. Data, such as control strategies, databases and system reports will be electronically extracted from the system to be used for reference and determination of migration into the new system. Field verify 1/0 signals and compare to the extracted database to develop detailed documentation of the 1/0 signals to aide in rewiring the existing 1/0 to the new system. Additionally, assist the City staff in determining the status of components that may be- in danger of failure. This information will be utilized for developing a list of spare parts that may be required to maintain the system online throughout the duration of the construction of this project. The list of spare parts will be used as the basis for bartering for XUS spare parts with other JCI Team clients that are currently in the process of replacing their XUSystem. 1120 Evaluate Existing Control System Configuration Evaluate the existing control system configuration, including defini#ion of all monitoring and control signals, terminations, condition of cabling and wiring and locations of equipment. 1130 Definition of Control Strategies and System Reports L! Review the XL/S configuration to capture the existing control strategies and associated databases extracted from the XL/System as part of task 1110. This data will be used as the basis for preparation of control system narratives to document the existing monitoring and control strategies. A control system narratives submittal shall be prepared and presented to the City for review and comment. To aid in the review of the control narratives, the JCI Team will conduct a two-day workshop to discuss the control strategies that are to be implemented. Appropriate comments will be incorporated into the control narratives and these will be formulated for inclusion into final control narratives for use during the program development. Additionally, the report formats shall be extracted as part of task 1110. All calculations included on the reports will be reviewed so that the design team can ascertain the likelihood of importing the reports as they currently exist onto the selected system. The importing of the reports will be determined once a vendor is selected, following the Request for Proposal.(RFP) process defined in Task 2100. 1140 Define Control System Objectives Conduct workshops to discuss requirements for hardware, software, and programming, including communications network, redundancy, system standardization and learn of problems with existing system. A maximum of two separate one -day workshops are anticipated for this effort. 1200 Control Room Space Planning Evaluate the existing floor plan of the control room at the Village Creek WWTP for spatial layout of the proposed equipment. Subsequently, provide a maximum of two schematic layouts of the proposed control room. Submit schematic layouts to the City and hold one workshop with City staff to discuss comments and finalize layout. 1300 Development a Plan for Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO) Conduct a workshop with the City to establish the criteria that is required to maintain plant operations throughout the commissioning of the project. The discussions held will be used as the basis for development of plan for Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO) that will facilitate the commissioning activities for the system. Submit the MOPO plan to the City for review and comment. 1400 Development of Requirements Technical Memorandum Utilize the information gathered in Tasks 1110 through 1140 as the basis for generating a System Requirements Technical Memorandum (TM). The System Requirements TM will represent approximately 30% of the final design documents. It will be submitted to the City for review and subsequently a review workshop will be held to gather and discuss all comments from appropriate stakeholders. Upon confirmation of all comments, the TM will be finalized and will be used as the basis for developing a RFP document that can be sent to system suppliers to aid in determining the appropriate solution that will meet the needs of the City. 5 1500 Project Management and Quality Assurance 1510 Monthly Progress Meetings Conduct monthly progress meetings throughout the duration of this phase to keep all project stakeholders apprised as to the efforts that are taking place. 1520 Project Management and Communication ■ Conduct a Kickoff Meeting. ■ Develop and update a Work Plan and schedule. ■ Provide budget control and develop monthly progress reports. ■ Communicate with the City concerning project issues. ■Maintain an E-Room website for sharing information of all project stakeholders. 1530 Quality Assurance Provide quality assurance and quality control of al! work products developed according to JCI Team Quality Management Plan (QMPA ). Phase !l —Detailed Design Phase 2100 DCS Request for Proposal Assist the City in determining a list of criteria desired -for the new system. The criteria list, along with the Requirements TM developed in Task 1400, will be used to create a detailed RFP that will be delivered to system vendor/installers. The RFP will include sufficient technical details to allow the vendors to, first, determine whether or not their solution will meet the needs of the City; and second, determine their respective preliminary costs associated with furnishing and installing the system and all related improvements. Work with the City to develop selection criteria (qualifications and price) for inclusion in the request for proposals. The request for proposals will generally include the items listed below_ Specific development of these items are detailed in Task 2200. ■ Detailed drawings for the DCS system ■ Detailed drawings for incorporation of PLC systems into the DCS ■ Technical specifications for the DCS and support systems ■ Architectural specifications for the control room modifications ■ General terms and conditions L ■ Selection criteria 2110 Mr Delivery and Response Prepare, copy and distribute the RFP to system vendors/installers. JCI Team will attend the pre -proposal conference, answer vendor/installer inquiries, and prepare addendum as needed. 2120 RFP Evaluation and Vendor Selection JC( Team, with input from City personnel, will evaluate the responses to the RFP and shortlist up to a maximum of three vendors. The shock listed vendors will be sent a list of questions and an agenda in which they will be asked to provide a detailed presentation to the JCI Team and the City. The vendors will be allowed a two -week time frame to respond to the questions and prepare for a formal presentation detailing their offering. The JCI Team and the City will utilize the vendor's responses to the questionnaires and their presentations as the basis for ranking the respondents. To ensure an equal and fair evaluation, the agenda sent to the vendors for their presentations will include an outline of topics in which their presentation should follow. The outline will be based on the previously defined criteria. if required, the JCI Team will assist the City in coordinating site visits to selected facilities that are currently utilizing the systems of the short listed vendors. JCI Team is anticipating a single two-day site visit to view and evaluate a system that is representative of each of the three vendors. At the conclusion of the vendor presentations and site visits, each vendor will be scored in accordance with the established selection criteria. 2130 City Travel Allowance for Vendor Site Visits For the purposes of funding khe travel of City personnel to the vendor site visits, JCI Team has provided for a $20,000 allowance. 214fl D('S Recommendation At the conclusion of the vendor presentations -and site visits, JCI Team will tabulate an overall scare for each vendor based on the criteria previously developed and a weighted scoring system with regard to the priority of each criterion. The scores of the individual vendors along with their proposed system cost will be compared to aid in determining the most appropriate selection for the DCS. JCI Team will schedule a review meeting with the City to present the ratings and to determine the system that should be provided. This effort will include completion of the design documents (as noted in Task 2200) to achieve sufficient information to allow JCI Team to develop the guaranteed maximum (GMAX) pricing. 2200 Detailed Design Documents 210 Prepare Drawings Prepare design drawings to define the requirements of the new control system. 2220 Prepare Specifications Prepare specifications as necessary to define the requirements of the new control system. This effort will include the JCI Team working closely with the plant staff to define detailed functional specifications to ensure functionality desired is carried forward into the new system. Initially, the specifications will be developed in sufficient detail to support the RFP process detailed in Task 2100. Once a vendor is selected, the specifications will be modified with input from the vendor to confirm their compliance with the desired functionality. 2230 Submittals Submit to City 75% design drawings and specifications as documentation for the GMAX pricing. Provide six sets of half size drawing sets. For each submittal stage, the JCI Team will conduct a review workshop with the City to discuss comments and/or issues associated with the design documents. (n addition to the design drawings and specification and the GMAX pricing, prepare a detailed scope of work for the construction, integration, programming, start-up, testing and training for the process control system improvements. 2240 Guaranteed Maximum Pricing During the development of the design documents, the JCI Team wil( work with the selected vendor to negotiate a scope of services and fee for their involvement in providing and installing a new control system. The vendor's fee will be incorporated into the guaranteed maximum pricing (GMAX) for complete delivery of the DCS system and related improvements. JCI Team will submit a GMAX to the City including costs for final engineering, construction, integration, programming, start-up, testing, and training for the establishment of a construction contract. 2300 Monthly Progress Meetings JCI Team will conduct monthly progress meetings throughout the durafion of this phase to keep all project stakeholders apprised as to the efforts that are taking place. 2400 Project Management ■ Update the schedule. � Provide budget control and develop monthly progress reports. � Communicate with the City, concerning project issues. 2500 Construction Schedule Develop a construction schedule defining construction durations, restrictions and down time, coordination with plant operations to minimize impact on plant operations. rj 2600 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Provide quality assurance and quality control of all work products developed according to JCI Team Quality Management Plan (QMP-1). 27aa Guaranteed Operating Cost Savings Develop and submit guaranteed operating cost savings associated with the new process control system. 28a0 Savings Measurement &Verification {M&V} Develop and submit operating cost savings M&V plan. E PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Attachment B Special Constraints 1. All operating procedure changes must be approved by the City. 2. Light intensities will meet Illumination Engineering Society (IES) standards. 3. Any O&M savings included in the guaranteed savings amount must be "hard" savings (Le. clearly definable savings in parts, materials, and/or contract services) as compared to actual O&M costs associated with the status quo system. 4. All facilities must maintain normal operations ducting renovations so FIM costs must account for whatever accommodations are necessary (to be determined on a case by case basis) to ensure this. 5. Any utility or process shutdown at Village Creek WWTP requires a written shutdown plan to be submitted and approved by the City no later than two weeks before the shutdown. 6. During installation of approved F1Ms, JCI and City shall coordinate the activities of JCI and JCI's subcontractors with City employees and/or agents. JCI shall not commit or permit any act that will interfere with the performance of business activities conducted by the City or its employees without prior written approval of City. 7. The procedures/systems for establishing base year consumption and calculating future year's savings are subject to the City's review and approval. 8. Procurements will comply with the Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprise requirements of the City of Fort Worth Ordinance. 9. Performance and payment bonds that conform of the requirements of Chapter 2253, Texas Government Code, are required. Contractors shall also carry insurance in such amounts as may be determined by the City in its sole discretion. energy Savings Performance Contract PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Attachment C Preliminary Report Energy Savings Performance Contract TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1—Table of Contents.................................................................1 Section 2 - Executive Summary.............................................................2 Section3 —Photo Tour............................................................................6 Section 4 -- FIM Descriptions................................................................11 Section 5 —Additional FTM Opportunities............................................23 Appendix A --Attachments CO�� SON oRT�i'ORTH Intellectual property m 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 1 Executive Summary In September 2003, the City of Fort Worth entered into a Phase I Energy Savings erfon Contract (ESPC) project with Johnson Controls (JCI) to implement facility mVrov measures (FIM's) at four City facilitieslN : City Hall, Public Safety, Municipal An Meacham Terminal. Table I shows the final financials compared to the preliminary resu the Phase I project: Project Phase Cost Annual Utility Electric Utility Savings Savings Rebate Preliminary Report �, . • �. Final Contract In February 2006, the City of Fort Worth entered into a Phase II ESPC project with JCI to implement FIM's at three additional City facilities: Will Rogers Memorial Center, Fort Worth Convention Center and Central Library. In September 2006, the City of Fort Worth entered into a Phase III ESPC project with JCI to implement additional FIM's at the same three City facilities. Table 2 shows the final financials compared to the preliminary results for the Phase II and Phase III projects. Project Phase Cost Annual Utility Electric Utility Savings Savings Rebate 'ReportPreliminar M :f ;11111111WEER .. 1 Final Cintract MUM•. 1 Ii1 Table 2 Notes: 1. Preliminary results do not include Police Administration Building and Police &Fire Training Center 2. TXU Electric Delivery was offering a higher $/kW rebate during the preliminary analysis JCI is almost complete with the ESPC Phase IV Detailed Audit phase. Table 3 shows the anticipated final financials compared to the preliminary results for the Phase IV project: Table 3 JC1 ESPC Phase IV Project Phase Cost Annual Utility Electric Utility Savings Savings Rebate Preliminary Report Table 3 Notes: 1. Final contract cost &savings are still under review. Increased size of final contract is primarily due to the addition of the Police Administration Building. 2. Utility rebate is an estimate. As shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3, JCI can typically identify additional savings during the Detailed Audit phase. Both parties are very pleased with the project performances so far. Phase I project was completed on schedule and within budget. Phase H project was recently completed and Phase III construction has begun. Phase I savings results have also been exceptional. After the first two years of the Phase I guaranteed period, actual savings have exceeded the guaranteed CONTR®SON LS ORT��4'oRTH Intellectual property O 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 2 amount by $85,000. In April 2007, the City instructed JCI to conduct a preliminary analysis for the PC Phase V r_'[` project at the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. • C JCI submits this Preliminary Analysis Report based on several site visits and staff intervi s. (� The results of this report are based upon preliminary audits, development of site-specifc FIM's, estimation of utility cost savings, increased revenues and O&M costs, as well as preliniinaiy, turn -key engineering design and implementation costs. During the preliminary analysis, Johnson Controls discovered many potential improvement opportunities. For this Preliminary Analysis Report, JCI focused on three excellent FIM opportunities. More detailed information for each FIM can be found in Section 4 of this report. A list of additional FIM opportunities that JCI recommends to be analyzed further during the v� Detailed Audit phase are shown in Section 5. Based on the three FIM's outlined in this report, the initial estimate for the potential annual project benefits, including utility savings, increased revenues and O&M costs, is $25965,000. Co Authored Solutror�s JCI develops solutions tivith its customer, not for its customer. This ensures that the City of Fort Worth' concerns and requirements are identified at each step along the performance contracting process. This proposal was developed with the outstanding assistance of the Water Department and T/PW. Key personnel involved were Mr. Marc Ott, Mr. Frank Crumb, Mr. Buster Fichera, As. MadeIene Rafalko, Mr. Gary Burton, Mr. Ron Carlson, Mr. Ray Moreno, Mr. Jason Le, Mr. Ken Wang, Mr. David Townsend and Mr. Sam Steele. Mr. Vic Weir with Weir Consulting also provided some assistance with this report. Baseline Utility Summary Table 4 summarizes the FY06 annual utility history provided by the Water Department. Table 4 Notes: I. Generated Electric (kWh} represents the total electricity generated by turbine generators TGI and TG2. 2. Generated Digester Gas and Purchased Landfill Gas (MCF) represents the gas usage of turbine generators TGI and TG2 to generate electricity. Based on the latest 12 months of electric bills we received from the City (ending in Feb, 2007), JCI used a blended rate of $0.0805/kWh for all electric savings calculations in this report. CONTI ®LS SU�l FORTV4'ORTH Intellectual property ® 2007, Johnson Controls, Confidential. Ail rights reserved. Page 3 Recommendations Based on the analysis summarized in this Preliminary Analysis Report, J recommends that the City of Fort Worth proceed with the Detailed Audit phase. results clearly indicate an excellent opportunity to develop a self -funded project. Annual Annual Annual Simple Project Cost Electric Increased Increased Payback ($) Savings Revenues O&M Period FIM # FIM Description ($) ($) Costs ($) (Years) © • -M.M. a OFIMM• III FINE= IF •: i11 © Digester .. - - .. 111 I e 1111 Project Cost includes all detailed audit, final design engineering, construction management and construction period measurement and verification costs. Simple payback period does not include f nance costs or annual performance assurance costs. Just as 3CI has been successful in acquiring utility rebates on behalf of the City for the ESPC Phase I, 11 & III projects, JCI will make every attempt to secure additional utility rebates for the Phase V improvement measures. The implementation of this self -funded project will result in infiastructure improvements, reduced operating casts, increased revenues and reduced air pollution. This project will also complement the investment & efforts the City has already made in the Turbine Generator plant. Based on the preliminary analysis, electric consumption will be substantially reduced. Table 6 —Annual Electric kWh SavingAnnual Savings FIM # FIM DescriptionElectric 1 Aeration Diffuser Upgrades 81530,633 2 Turbine Waste Heat Recovery 16,3753904 3 Digester Gas Improvements 10,104,950 Total 36,011,487 Existing electric kWh consumption will be reduced by 46% and current electric kWh purchases wOil be reduced by 96%. As long as both turbines remain operational, VC WWTP should be able to self -generate all of its power needs. These electric savings will greatly assist the City in meeting the Senate Bill 12 mandate requiring the City to reduce electrical consumption 5% per year for the next 6 years. Cost to Proceed In order to develop final cost and savings for the F]M's analyzed in this report, in addition to, the COS®LS SON ORT��DRTN Intellectual property O 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 4 additional FIM opportunities listed in Section 5, the City of Fort Worth nee s to commit to Johnson Controls' performance of a Detailed Audit. The cost to the City to cond ct the Detailed Audit at Village Creek Wastewater Plant is $540,000. r"i" The Phase I Performance Contract between the City and Johnson Controls allows t City to 'C proceed directly to the Detailed Audit phase, pending Council approval for the audit cost. It would be very beneficial for the City to expedite this next step for two primary reasons: • Based on the preliminary results, City will save over $247,000 per month. • For 2008, TXU Delivery Services has increased the rebate amount to $198/kW for each monthly peak kW that is reduced (rebate amount was $150/kW in 2007). TXU will begin accepting project applications for the 2008 program next month. Applications will be approved on a first come basis. CONIRF�LH,SNSON oarl'4�xrH Intellectual property O 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. Atl rights reserved. Page 5 Photo Tour Johnson Controls has conducted awalk-through and preliminary evaluation of the ' lage Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The photo tour is designed to highlight specific reas of improvement that were highlighted in discussions with City staff. These concerns should n be addressed under a comprehensive program. The examples shown in the photo tour are just a of the identified improvement opportunities for the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. We are sure that many of the items mentioned in this report have been brought to your attention before. We are offering a solution that will address all of these needs under one comprehensive program. J HNSON Fou_ r,�_H CONTR LS Intellectual property O 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential AU rights reserved. Page 6 .•rr}�All �i used to provide oxygen to biological treats increases the power required to compress th ,r = s �� ., - -- a a _ ��f F)iM Descriptions FIM #1 : Aeration Diffuser Upgrades Introduction The following describes the results of a preliminary investigation to assess the potential for replacing the aeration diffusers at the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Implementation of this Facility Improvement Measure (FIMI) will reduce electric consumption and compressed air operating pressures. All preliminary recommendations will need to be analyzed further during the Detailed Audit. Background The Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (VC WWTP) began operation in 1958, and has undergone a number of major upgrades and expansions. The aeration diffusers currently in place in all of the basins were installed in 1990. o Aeration Basins 5 & 6 were new in 1990 • Aeration Basins 14 and 9-13 were refurbished in 1990. An aeration diffuser study, prepared by Alan Plummer and Associates (APAI) in conjunction wI th Multatech and Redmon Engineering, was published in August 2004 (APAI Study). The reasons for the study were: 1. Perceived decrease in oxygen transfer efficiency (QTE) due to fouling of ceramic dome diffusers (e.g. aeration diffusers). 2. More difficult to provide air to some basins than others. Therefore, fouling of aeration diffusers in those basins was suspected. 3. Increased system back pressure resulted in higher energy costs to deliverer the same quantity of air. Increased back pressure is normally associated with fouling of the diffusers and reduced the capacity of the aeration blowers. The purposes of the APAI Study were to: 1. Evaluate the oxygen transfer eff ciency of the existing system. 2. Evaluate the energy efficiency of the existing aeration system 3. To evaluate options for improving the energy efficiency A number of field and laboratory tests were performed. The transfer efficiency of the diffusers was good, but there was pressure loss across the diffusers, which results in wasted energy. The following observation from Redmon Engineering dated December 1, 2003 seems to summarize Icz' CONTR�� SON 9 ltrWoR1•x Intellectual property ©2007, Johnson Controls• Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 11 the f ndings best. 13espife the excellent process �Nater oxygen trartster results obtained ay o#tgas anafysis at'fhe snd Qf October Ct�Q , 3hV l�V �j L? at dif{Usi,r fouling ObseraeCl iri the fiabaratary needs to be addressed as it ]mpacta the future perrormance of the system. Seven options were considered: 1. Clean the existing diffusers through firing (e.g. refiring of the ceramic stone aeration diffusers) 2. Replace the existing ceramic diffusers with new ceramic diffusers (use existing piping, supports, and diffuser holders) 3. Replace the existing ceramic diffusers with membrane disk diffusers (retrofit holders). �}. Replace the entire system with new piping, supports and membrane disk diffusers. 5. Replace the entire system with new piping, supports and ceramic diffusers. 6. Replace the entire system with new piping and membrane disk diffusers, reusing the existing supports. 7. Replace the entire system with new piping and ceramic diffusers, reusing the existing supports. Recommendation A present worth analysis was performed leading to the recommendation that the existing diffusers be replaced with new ceramic diffusers. Present worth analysis for all seven Options can be found in Attachment FIM #1-1. JCI agrees with this recommendation but other options and latest technologies will be investigated further during the Detailed Audit phase. There are reported to be 138,500 seven-inch Aercor aluminum oxide ceramic dome diffusers in the 13 existing aeration basins. As proposed, the new diffusers will be installed in the existing diffuser holders. A small scale test was recommended prior to proceeding with the replacement program to confirm the ability of the new ceramic dome dif$zsers to form a seal around the edge of the diffuser where it is mounted on the existing diffuser holders. Also to be confirmed is the condition of the diffuser support piping and structures. Inspections of the existing diffuser support piping and structures will be made during the Detailed Audit phase. The APAI Study reported that the existing diffusers are in various stages of clogging. Aeration Basins 5 & b being the worse, followed by Aeration Basins 1 through 4, and then by Aeration Basins 9 through 11. This affects the computation of anticipated savings. J HNSON QRT��r4RTH CONTR l.S IntellectuaE property ©2407, Johnson Controls. Confidential. Att rights reserved. Page 12 Project at As indicted in the pricing from the APAI Study (Attachment FIM #1-1}, the replacing all of the diffusers in 2004 dollars, is: Material Costs: $1,510,000 Installation: $ 2053000 Contractor O&P: $ 257,000 Total $1,972, 000 cost JCI has updated the preliminary project cost to reflect current costs and included turnkey additional detailed audit, contingency, final engineering and project management costs: Total Cost: $2,695,000 Annual Project Benefrts As noted above, the anticipated savings come from being able to operate the aeration blowers at a lower discharge pressure. Based on the results of field and lab testing, installing new diffusers will reduce the operating pressure. Since the existing ceramic diffusers are already "fine" bubble type diffusers, the new diffusers are not expected to significantly increase oxygen transfer efficiency. The APAI Study evaluated the cost of continuing to use the existing diffusers, which are summarized in the following table. Mare detailed operating cost calculations can be found in Attachment FIM #1-2. Basin 6 Basin 3 Basin 9 Total electric cost per year of $113,742 $56,871 $11,374 continuing existing operation (e.g. anticipated savings) Total electric savings: 1. Assume that Basin 6 reflects Aeration Basins 5 & 6. Subtotal = $227,484 2. Assume that Basin 3 reflects Aeration Basins 1— 4. Subtotal = $227,484 3. Assume that Basin 9 reflects Aeration Basins 9 —13. Subtotal = $ 56,870 4. Total = $227,484 + $227,484 + 56,870 = $511,838. JCI is in agreement with these preliminary savings calculations. The savings in the APAI Study were based upon a cost of $0.06 per kWh. The blended cost of electricity for the past year has been $0.0805/kWh. Increase anticipated savings by a factor of 816 =1.34 J HNSON 2rWoe1•x CONTR (aS Intellectual property O 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 13 Updated Electric Cost Savings Total =134 Y $5115$38 = $685,863 -7 Use $6 The APA1 Study estimated that the annual cost of O&M of the system to be Use $70,000 per year. Simple Payback Period J HNSON CONTR LS Intellectual property ©2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. 000 per year per year, C/! FIM #2: Turbine Waste Heat Recovery Irttroafuction The following describes the preliminary investigation assessing the potential to capture vaste heat from the existing turbines for beneficial use at the Village Creek Wastewater Treatillbq Plant (VC WWTP). Implementation of this Facility Improvement Measure (FIM) will reduce electric consumption and improve redundancy for the aeration blower systems. All preliminary recommendations will need to be analyzed further during the Detailed Audit. Backgrorrtttl The VC WWTP began operation in I9S8, and has undergone a number of major upgrades and expansions. The plant has an average design capacity to treat 166 MGD. Average daily flows are approximately 110 MGD. About 1999, an existing engine driven digester gas to energy facility was replaced with two S- MW Solar Taurus 60 T7301 gas turbine powered generators. Waste heat is used to heat the digesters. This update enabled the plant to discontinue the use of four internal combustion engines that had gone way beyond their useful economic life. The capacity provided by the turbines allowed the City of Fort Worth to also use purchased landfill gas from the City of Arlington, TX to produce electricity. A summary of fuel usage for FY06 is presented in Attachment FIM 42-l. As evidenced by operating data for FY06, natural gas is used rarely as back-up to maintain the reliability of the power supply to the WWTP. Operating records for FY06 indicate that the two turbines were operated an average of 274 and 459 hours per month each, for a total of 733 hours per month. One machine operating at 100% of the time would operate 730 hours per month. This aligns with staff observations that there is sufficient biogas to operate one turbine all the time. City staff reports that one of the two turbines is approaching the number of run-time hours at which the turbine would be rebuilt or overhauled. Expected turbine performance is shown in Attachment FIM #2-2. As shown below, the three forms of gas furnished 50,532.575 mmBtu of energy input. Operating records report that 39,365,OS3 kWh were generated with the gas. Converting kWh into Btu, the conversion efficiency was computed to be 27% (comparable to the 28% that would be expected for a turbine generator). J HNSON ORTWORI'H CONTR LS Intellectual property 02007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. AlI rights reserved. Page 15 t!� Summary of FY06 Fuel Usage Village Creek Turbines Source Volume/year Btu/cf mmBtu/year Proportion Digester Gas 392,000 mscf 650 2543800 50.4% Landfill Gas 454,685 mscf 550 2505076 49.5% Natural Gas 449 mscf 1000 449 0.1% 5055325 1. Values of Btu/cf are "typical" values used for analysis 2. Mscf= thousand standard cubic feet The rest of the energy is assumed to go to the exhaust or leave the turbine as radiant heat (a relatively small amount). Of the heat in the exhaust, it was assumed that 42% of the original input would be available as heat input to produce steam (not all of this energy will be converted to steam). The remaining 31% would be low quality heat that is used for heating and/or Iost as radiant heat from the turbine. Converted to electricity 27% 134,3I4 mmBtu/yr Available to make steam 42% 212,237 mmBtu/yr Used for heating or radiant loss 31% 151,598 mmBtu/yr 100% 1 498,149 mmBtu/yr 1. An evaluation will need to be performed to determine if this is sufficient #o maintain the heat of the anaerobic digesters. 2. The value of 498,149 is equivalent to 505,325. The values are different because of round -off error. Presently, heat from the turbine exhaust is captured and #ransferred to an oil filled recirculation loop. A portion of the heat is transferred to a water circulation loop that heats the sludge feed to the digesters and/or maintains the temperature in the anaerobic digesters. The rest of the heat is discharged to the atmosphere. Reconttttendafiott Discussions with VC WWTP personnel & Iacal consultants and JCI experience indicated a number of possibilities for using the waste heat from the existing turbines, including: producing steam that would be used to generate electricity; producing steam that would be used to power aeration blowers; and using the heat to dry wastewater solids. Based on preliminary evaluations, a decision was made to present the following recommendation of using the waste heat to produce steam that would then be used to power aeration blowers. Other opportunities will be analyzed further during the Detailed Audit phase. JCI will work closely with the WWTP operators when considering other opportunities. The concept of using the waste heat to serve an aeration blower was brought forward in a meeting with VC WWTP staff. The VC WWTP had two engine driven blowers fueled with �M�H�SNSON Foy. T Wox Intellectual property 0 2007, Johnson Controls, Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 16 digester gas. The engines were removed when the turbines were installed buthe flames and Dresser single stage centrifugal blowers and associated piping remain. \ The two existing frames and associated blowers would be shipped to Dresser to b steam turbine drivers installed. This option provides a number of benefits: • Existing equipment is placed back into operation. All aeration piping and valves'dx@ existing. • The plant will be able to take one of the existing 250,000 cfin / 1,000 HP electric powered blowers off line. Residual heat would be available to maintain the temperature of the anaerobic digesters. • The additional blowers will restore plant capacity to meet periods of peak demands at design flow (not currently needed at reduced flows of 110 MGD vs. rated capacity of 166 MGD). • The additional blowers will restore redundancy to the aeration blower systems. • Using steam to drive aeration blowers reduces the total demand for electric power at the site. Notes: 1. The development of this option assumes that there is sufficient waste heat available from the turbine to power the blower. The supply of steam will vary in proportion to the production of digester gas (which varies on a daily, weekly, and seasonal basis). 2. The development of this option requires that the VCWWTP commit the funds needed to replace a turbine that is approaching its useful life. 3. The development of this option assumes that the motor driven blowers are equivalent to 13000 I1P aeration blowers. Project Cost Costs have been included to rebuild one of the rivo turbines. The installation of new boilers will be required to convert the heat from the hot oil circulation loop to Iow pressure steam. Project costs include the following: • Rebuild one of the two turbines • RebuiId blowers • New boilers and associated condensate return system, boiler makeup water system & water treatment system • New switchgear & controls Also included are turnkey detailed audit, contingency, final engineering and project management costs. J NNSON oxTWox7'l� CONTR®l.S Intellectual property ©2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 17 Total Cost: $3,559,000 Annual Project Benefits There is expected to be 212,237 mmBtu/year of heat available to convert to process Detailed savings calculations can be found in Attachment FIM #2 �. Electric Cost Savings: $1,318,000 per year There will be labor involved in operation of the steam generation facilities, and the proposed steam turbine driven blower. There will be labor, materials, and supplies needed to maintain the steam generation and proposed steam turbine driven blower. The blower costs will be offset by reductions in maintenance required for the existing electric motor driven blower. Estimated Increased O&M Costs: $98,000 per year Simple Payback Pea•iod' J HNSON oRTWORTH CONTR LS Intellectual property ©2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 18 Digester as Improvements liatroductiort The following describes the results of a preliminary investigation to increase the pr uction of digester gas by codigestion of compatible wastes (generally food wastes) in the existin sludge digesters. City staff at the plant supported this concept but advised that improved dig ter mixing would probably also be required. Implementation of this Facility Improvement Measure (FIM) will reduce electric consumption, increase revenues and provide better utilization of existing turbines. All preliminary recommendations will need to be analyzed further during the Detailed Audit. Backgrau►rd The Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Piant (VC WWTP) began operation in I958, and has undergone a number of major upgrades and expansion. The plant has a rated capacity of 166 MGD and currently treats an average daily flow of about 100 to 110 MGD. The bio-solids handling process includes anaerobic digestion which results in the production of digester gas which is typically more than 60% methane and burned as fuel. fiver the past 3 to 6 years, more and more major agencies have implemented, or are advancing plants to implement co -digestion to increase the production of digester gas. Co -digestion uses any excess digester capacity to degrade high strength food wastes with the digesting bio-solids. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EB MUD) in San Francisco has implemented co - digestion. The Inland Empire Utility Authority (Fontana, California) and San Bernadino, California are currently pursuing similar projects. Codigestion has not been widely practiced, although experience of those plants that have investigated codigestion is consistent: • Addition of compatible wastes {food/kitchen related wastes) increases the production of digester gas. • A significant portion of conventional wastewater solids are composed of hexane soluble material (fat, oil, and grease) as a result of the composition of the American diet. • Addition of free floating materials (free floating oil/grease) requires that the digester has good mixing in order to avoid the build up of a floating scum layer in the digester. This can largely be addressed by intense mixing of the material with digesting solids in a recycle line downstream of the sludge heater(s). • Almost every major community, such as Fort Worth, has restaurants, commercial kitchens, institutional kitchens, and/or food processors that have "wet" waste that result fi•om kitchen clean-up. Focusing on a few, reliable, easy to handle, large volume, high strength sources would result in the most benefit in the increased production of digester gas, with minimal impact on existing facilities. Potential sources that could be considered include dairies, breweries, and any other food processors that create high strength liquid waste. COIVTR®LS SOLI ORTWORT lntetEectual property Q 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. Atl rights reserved. Page 19 0 Va • Details to be worked out include the amount of food based wastes that an be added to thLaw e existing digesters. At this stage of development, a simplifying ass ption will be made that the addition of organic material will be made in proportion that in the (D LA existing digesters. n Recommendation Elements of the project could include: a receiving station; oily waste storage; and improved digester mixing. For the purpose of the analysis, the project includes: WWWA 0 Receiving Station & Storage System Description Normally, waste grease will be received during weekday, daytime working hours, when it is convenient for the haulers. It is recommended to provide storage so that the plant can equalize the loads to the treatment facilities during off-peak hours. Storage also provides the opportunity for the operators to sample the material before it is sent to the treatment process. Food oils containing large quantities of water can be allowed to separate and free water drained from the bottom of the tank. This will reduce the heat load to the digesters, and most effectively use digester volume. Components . Storage Tank, enclosed and vented to odor control. • Recirculation Pump with Grinder to mix contents of storage tank. • Positive Displacement, Variable Speed, Feed Pump. • Inject waste grease to mixing port on line from Sludge Blend Tank to the Anaerobic Digesters. Digester Mixing Improvements Description Currently the tanks are mixed with a system of lances that enter through the top of the digester cover. Digester gas is collected, compressed, and injected thru the lances. The rising gas bubbles promote mixing in the tank. In addition to gas lance mixing, a sludge recirculation line was incorporated at quarter points of each digester, at high and low elevations. Each discharge point was equipped with a manually a )crated valve. HNSON FOATWORT Intellectual property o 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. Alt rights reserved. Page 20 For the purpose of this analysis, it has been assumed that the OW existing manually operated valves on the recirculation line can be retrofitted with electric operators, which are controlled by a (D program to sequence open and close to provide adequate it Specific digesters may be dedicated to codigestion, reducing the r; extent of modification that needs to be made to the existing digesters. Components • Provide eight valve operators per digester, with automation Q system for entire installation. t!f The need for additional mixing will be determined during the Detailed Audit phase using modeling techniques that have proven useful for a similar facility. If needed, there are a number of new and improved mixing systems available that could be retrofitted to the existing digesters. The need to clean existing digesters and the method of distributing and measuring biosolids flows will also be considered during the Detailed Audit phase. Focusing on a few, reliable, easy to handle, Large volume, high strength sources could result in a cost_effective collection and delivery program providing the most benefit in the increased production of digester gas, with minimal impact on existing facilities. Focusing on less viscous wastes may allow continued use of the gas mixing system in the existing digester. Potential sources that could be considered include dairies, breweries, and any other food processors that create high strength liquid waste Project Cost Project costs include the following: • Receiving station, storage system and pumps • Eight (8) motorized valve operators for each digester & new automation system Also included are turnkey detailed audit, contingency, final engineering and project management costs. Total Cost: $4,991,000 Ar:Waal Project Bertefrts The savings is based upon the value of the additional electricity that will be produced by burning the additional digester gas, minus the cost of producing the electricity. The cost of energy displaced is equal to the blended cost of electricity, which is $0.0805 per kWh. The cost of producing electricity on site with the additional digester gas and the existing turbines, would be determined as a marginal cost, because the turbines have already been purchased, the cost of routine O&M has already been provided, and there will be an economy of scale gained CONTJR�LSNSON Fox�rx Intellectual propertyO2007, Johnson Controts. Confidential. A!t rights reserved. Page 2i that will reduce additional O(UM costs. For the purpose of the analysis, assu> e that marginal costs of production are $0.015/kWh based on discussion with plant staff and JCI perience with other projects. As a result, the net credit given per kWh of power produced per $0.0805 - $0.0150 = $0.0655 per kWh. Electric Cost Savings = $662,000 pee year The revenue is based upon the value of income that will be charged to receive waste grease and kitchen wastes. For the purpose of the preliminary analysis, assume that the plant received $0.05/gallon of waste grease received (based on knowledge of what other plants receive). To simplify the analysis, assume that the food waste will produce gas at the same rate (cf gas/lb of vol material destroyed) as wastewater solids will. Assume that the amount of capacity available is proportional to ratio of rated plant capacity to current wastewater flows. Waste Revenue = $637,000 per year Refer to Attachment FIM #3-1 for savings and revenue calculations. Cost of operating and maintaining the new receiving/storage station and associated screen: Estimated Increased O&M Cost = $62,000 per year Cost of operating &maintaining new valve operators: Estimated Increased O&M Cost = $108,000 per year Simple Payback Period CONTR®�S SON ourWoR� Intellectual property a 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 22 Additional FIM Opportunities JCI recommends that the following additional FIM opportunities be investigated Detailed Audit phase: • DO control improvements • Gas storage systems for peak loads • Use of Solar Energy as a source of renewable power • Pump & motor upgrades • HVAC improvements • Lighting retrofits • Water conservation The following will be considered in development of the Aeration Diffuser F1M: • Latest aeration diffuser technologies • Aeration diffuser support piping & structures the The following can be cosidered in lieu of using the waste heat to power.the aeration blowers: • Utilize waste heat to power a steam turbine generator • Utilize waste heat for sludge drying • Replace one of the existing turbines with new internal combustion engine driven generator(s) ___ J��HSNSON ORTWORTH I�ntLe�llvecit�uaMl property o 2007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. Atl rights reserved. Page 23 J HNSON o��Woxrx CONTR i_S Intellectual property 02007, Johnson Controls. Confidential. All rights reserved. Page 24 Attachment Aeration Diffuser Upgrades Present Worth Analysis Excerpt from: Fort Worth Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Aeration Diffuser Study August 2004 Prepared by: Alan Plummer Associates, Inc., (Betsy L Jordan, PE and Jeffrey E Caffey, PE) Multatech Engineers, Inc. (William A Manning, PE) Redmon Engineering, Inc, PEiESENT WdR7H ANALYSt5 fOR EtETTRS P`LAN7 (Ih'STA:tA i IDN ASSUhtEO Fb 6C P FL3RIy}ED FOR =;v MGM SYSTEM IIdi 7 YEAR) 0111 Optlen 2 Opittirt 3 opttan # Opdan 5A I OtNlan 3k3 Optics 6A Optkt SD 1?c3 gn Opt ons 1 save Exist no F4'tr°ttt5ng ; I WIN a lie y Ceramic Ditiusors in Khitf9'HKu:orS RaatAcsng V:! Mombrana Heir? Membrane Nevi Ceramic- System Vrtth System a401 P:OCBr fRWdiiivst•rr N'tusersto 10CLOng System System ExhAng Exiatiny Hoidars Supports Svpporta Ataltrv„^ICosta 50 Sfi4i.f)ft0 bi,51t1.07J1 Si 170.fi00 i 07�000 1.430 51A64.00C 52.2507. Povler C051sr 31,; 76.007� 50 .5305.00i' S�i6,(J 50 '.t>'� 59 trr9tal10ticnCasts t S?I St,p57.Ik0 52C�,a274,SOSP .000 'M.�5.f!<'O t SS.OQO $r66,�JJ Future trahrtensre Crisis- Sott.�j SM-1xOM $sg4i.0 Si agG.U.]0 66.D t F S1 Bix `iL. ow t:ciltaelprGliP i- S?1 5235.000 t 5257„OD6 5322,ffi0 335s.SEkO _...._... S�A.000 S267.008 $:x0. TOW Prc.:vntVlarinCot.t3 53,7ti,G40.W ;:2;894 0.00 52,�ki0,t7g0,0pj C4,2v"2.000 i Sa,30;a.tHt0.001 54,27Io,000.OD 53,98&,tW:i... I "7$s,m.00 ' C},t oaseo an most teuLW #aSG:f, sse r�cug; art: tex iPusercosts srFfor ci:2tyyeap8rpfatlabaysandtayui3the p;B>aatapeAa;4ancacfa:;S1kTMin!einedr,>:{>r„dr 7lteatat;;etpowiiroo.ticrcacnopt;dn33aStpit�,� OOV 1 i is St I.$,7W Attachment FIM #1-2 Aeration Diffuser Upgrades Annual Operating Casts Excerpt from: Fort Worth Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Aeration Diffuser Study August 2004 Prepared 6y: Alan Plummer Associates, [nc., (Beity L Jordan, PE and Jeffrey E Caffey, PE) Multatech Engineers, Inc. (William A Manning, PE) Redmon Engineering, Inc. (continued on next page) 2 OIr 1:l cave existing diffusers in place it Volume Supplied: Current Daily Average Air Used: 11 i; h141G>= 11240036000 of 77,778 cfm Blpwers Typ}Cally in Operation 00,000 cfm Typical Capacity in Operation 129,600,400 cld fiofor Horsep vklar Spent for not Cleaning the Diffusers (from bimer curves) 25J00 sclm biolver Basin 6 70 SHP Bassed on 1.14 psi savings Basin 3 35 BHP Based on 0.56 psi savings Basin 9 7 BHP Based on 0,17 psi savings $0000 scfrn b}oKer Basin 6 150 BHP Based an 1.14 pai savings Bashi 3 75 BHP Based on 0.56 psi savings Basin 9 is BHP %sed an 0. 47 psi savings Energy Cijst for rrpt Gluaning the Diffusors Basin 6 Total HP 290 SHP TOlal kW 21fi lci,rr Blower faun Timo 87&G hoursf+jFar 'lbtal k+vhrfyear t,898,705 Cost per kwhr 50.06 'fats} Cost $1 i3,742 Annual rate of increase 1.61% 2Ci-Year Pr2sont Worlh Cost: - Ye3r:, 20 Interest 4.0°i Present worth with $1,769,rst6 GK,rtsatric Gradient Puture Wltrinfensnce Costs (Ultra -High Prsssuro Spray LNash) Annual tabor to Maintain D llusers IJo. of Diffuseurstyear Annual Cost to Maintain Diffusers Present vorlh Cost to Maintain Diffusers B.1sin 8 1�U f3HA= 108 kW B765 hours/year 947,652 $0,00 556,871 i.61`Ie 2fl 4,Oe� t! BB4,B3B r<t fir diffuser 69,250 (Hatt of plant) $59,2SD $9a 1, t 30 2g BHF� = 22 M 8766 hoursfyear 1BUM MoS $111374 1.61°k 24 4.09'a $176,960 $1 per diffuser equates to 2 rnen hi[}h•prassure sprayitx7 diFts:secs year rorirtd.tar entire vystom 3 �. r' R-.' o i`' rr � cnI Iz 4� -r <Y L� T a t w cv� -T o o. of;kkxi v! w -t y w <IP to [T t� 1e- Erg w �r rd, T "r H a � NI t� rn In i frr [ t n M rrt to . M ft . t rry tyj r 1 �7 .t d F 'r: M a V.r O b .-+ CA. tr; -No � rt r- d i"'t (Ij U rh > %P r� trr to v. O G Q ti! Ira rSr ON +7 I» I on m n 1ri m In 1 U w vs P7 U WOr 1 !T 14 r-" ry Ci err 4r . Ki n I,y G •fl M fn rrt M on M Eel M l fork A i a ON rr l W r • o V Irk NO ry fn t'-. -h 1'T tT O. t0 ' t" t0 µj ia.l tl� r-- fi 1 w 1 w wr: w r�l y i H u V ert M `O N v'. vl "t '•I' t7. fro rrl t ti .�. ..t f N W rl UI w r.l M .-. a Gb Oh;xi fh r p a fY: pl �+ 4� gat O Ere N CJ j H w W P^ `b '�7' f-� tt%?r rl•'iIrk 10 rr P, tri �rl or ... co tT CCgCor' h, :* t�l fit Z1 -t r_ i <r M V'1 �f. ry n H �irrt++ rti Irk _, rl V G C Erg v L Ik IL IF, u ✓f. � ..t p trt Or 1 o -f r� -7- ^t 1'� -•# i r� tlL wadre w W ril +t r+ tti b I eW7a "t r'1 n N hl N Cl 1, nl O dm '-4} rn Qsam t`.'1 (�11 rf CJ c4 rl r`I rV CJ rV N C'f dom N CI tr•' F me H v o v f. * * A ' S C�1 rt O C n1 "J CJ <n a ry -t 1•J 01 at w .w a C w ',.�.1 _ r*. Irk yr M •t Cal r 1 M o bl r ra I f' r� .0 las (� trr rn r• -7' v. t CJ. C« fh O� l trl Ct L N y j }y r '-1 ^1 tr'i Ira f`•- 1`�. V. w N M n tlt t0 C% rl CI .y b r•1 r+, W N H rl' Gal M Cn -rat ..rat` rat rah en vJ d i NO vl to to `O to rO b b %c rD v5 � tti' %6 tf �� e to : G4 P O". id dbaff am r O 116 s sned pp 't� q w �j M1 G CID O a ILE n 1 b � r' rh m- orl t •rr w �- 't rl tlL " rp t.] t•11<li w Ot .l •-• O+ N w Nr, rS r' l Ot .. tH-1 r a a. CJ fJ0 CA, w rA, 01 10 O O% C ^1' C U iJ r- Ci w N n m 1� N rtEra "F fro L U ��----]] [•� :fi y Ua r. Q O?. fr CI t ••. G, v'1 fro F �t FI ri CJ C` rY r-1! [rt tej tri t f1l !ry rl .� rfl fei r•l r- f•'t W V N .� iJ a WI V. b W w 1 FIIEelCa vl C rn b C f r fro el r- a Oa hi w -f- cn •ba Y� fro Vl C; e`7 O 0l 14 �tl aY p� ?t H -3 rA O1 q� r rV CV r- W [? v' M =t rn V FRI 1`-- b r- M N 16 r-J er' C7 Ud `Y y V +^+ 0 i N o, w on to U Q a-tt to ofo a y�,� ra N G t.. -[4 t r t� I mul L 'r. .r.141 .O.f Was Gi ��r'a SIP far F fro eel eel n t r t t r r tft Nt r r t [r t R; ys ff t 6 v A o s n `t own O d O C'+ (=I rJ C O ca` n C " O L1 _ 4n •-t on w .r Ica .t rn -t f0 w o ry rj nj -:t t?, trt 10 r• w r H '� v H I A Lh ✓ 1.� C7 a vj i b_ tri Cr tri w or* -t O vi' KJ C) ^� a -71 •�'. IM O W r-i v ram• -Y ICNI r; w IMN ONo t ce( F tr( fro rid rr {Alt a fr. t'•r r1 N en 004 J i o {>•t �t t C Vr M �•j C> cd 4 6 � n o G arediet m Saw" Eli aO 0 W J� cp [r: rov b CoNN ma to to Y rrvl � FI O'r � fro %G F 4+: +" N Idea t-1 r 1 %, �. tr rn c1 v: at •t? ri r� -t ,..; �a 4; t�-,I (j (J ✓ rj b b r H r1�.5 b 4+ O+ N G? 1v r-- Ul rti' _t W erg tri wl cr t~ N o 1[? n! tb >Yj 7 0 w G 1' i ry r.r ,y Ir1 .-. b �,7 .-: Erg u 'J i't n b� tri IL nl u H . ^ Fy H x deal a re rUnmade n IN In b NO Y1 10 W b b 1O rJ .a1 l r L t-+ r1 p 7"1 CI 0 o 4 A o b O f3 H f� H F f En O i Or c tw a �•1 =„t ry x p o u a O ,rt o * is 0 %: A r. r-> as t+. t.`5t c1 '+: .c"t h h -f a r� H r+ -* tJ :� H * r. r. r_. .� Attachment FIM #2-2 Turbine Waste Heat Recovery Turbine Performance polar Turbines PREDICTED ENGINE PERFORMANCE A rourpii(er Cwrp�ny Ci:3fn T.or CITY OF FORT WORTH mmmounn Jab.tD HO8-848 Run By `Je:R Run Edward Monroe ZFER-O0, v>airta Prfgmut%cv Coe* na Ert@i?aefamwnee DATA REV. 2.84 REV, 0.1 tdodat TAURUS 60-T7300 Pesknae 'Nov Sc March STANDARD Fuel SystAm DUAL. KusI T'Gr S 3 NATURAL GAS DATA [=CR IiJICNIMUM F'E~RFC?RMACYGE Elevation Feet � � Intat Goss in. ; i2Q, 4,0 i xhaust Loss in. H2O 6.0 Engine Inlet Temperature Deg. F 59no 59.0 Relative Humidity `tra 60no 1 ' 6040 € 60A FULL Speciiiod Load Net Output rower Fuel Flow Heat Rate Engine Exhaust FloFlowExhaust Temperatwe kW kW FAMStulhr BtufkW-hr I% n € 37.99 9182h 71i,09'o , 6a.75'o 3578 I 327i 45.52 1 43,00 12647 't3143 Ibmlhr l 173422 172419 1772555 Dog. F ' 912 707 722 I roe« THIS IS GUARANTEE© POWER AND HEAT RATE ON SQ NATURAL GAS AT 100% LOAD ONLY PER "*", PART LOAD L}ATA IS FOR INFORMATION AND NOT GUARANTEED. SEE COVER SHEET FOR OTHER NOTES ON PERFORMANCE AND EMISSIONS, 5 Attachment F1M #2-3 Turbine Waste Heat Recovery Savings Calculations City of Forth Worth, TX 07/26l2007 Water Department PVC Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Turbine Generators Computations for use of heat to make steam to run the aeration blowers Savings mmBtulyear is the amount of heat 2121237 available 212,237,000,000 Btu/year 8,760 hours/year 24$2273968 Btu/hour 75% efficiency in converting heat to steam {assumed} 18,170,976 Btu/hour efficiency through steam 60% turbine 10,9021586 Btu/hour 0.65 efficiency in converting steam to compressed air through aeration blower 7,086,681 Btu/hour 0.2931 2,077,106 watt 2,077.11 kW 90% Uptime 81760 hours/year 16,3751904 kWh per year 36,434,122 kWh per year of power purchased by the plant kWh per year 16,375,904 offset $ 0.0805 per kWh - Blended rate at the plant $ 11318,260 per year savings in the cost of electrical power Attachment FIM #3-1 Digester Gas Improvements 7 Page I of 3 • • •;'!!rJ11111 W • COUNCIL ACTION: Approved on 9/'I6/2008 DATE: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 LOG NAME: 20ESPC5DES REFERENCE NO.: C-23046 SUBJECT: Authorize Execution of a Project Development Agreement with Johnson Controls, Inc., in an Amount up to $1,584,000.00 to Perform a Detailed Energy Study of City Water Department Wastewater Facilities to Identify Energy Saving Equipment Retrofit and Process Improvement Opportunities RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Project Development Agreement with Johnson Controls, Inc., to conduct a Detailed Energy Study of City Water Department Wastewater facilities to identify energy saving equipment retrofit and process improvement opportunities in an amount up to $1,584,000.00. DISCUSSION: On September 4, 2007, Johnson Controls, Inc., (JCI) completed a no -cost, no -obligation preliminary energy audit of the City's village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant facilities. JCI's report and subsequent negotiations have identified energy saving equipment retrofit opportunities with an estimated implementation cost $19,117,000.00, yielding an estimated net annual cost avoidance and additional revenue generation of $3,335,000.00 for a 5.7-year simple payback. The recommended scope of the Detailed Energy Study includes, but is not limited to, the following energy saving equipment retrofit and process improvement opportunities: - Aeration Diffuser Upgrades - Turbine Waste -Heat Recovery - Digester Gas Improvements - SCADA System Replacement - Aeration Anoxic Zones In order to finalize the project's guaranteed construction cost and energy savings amounts, JCI needs to conduct a Detailed Energy Study. Upon completion of this recommended study, the following scenarios are possible: 1. If the result of the study indicates that a project can be developed that meets the City's 10-year simple payback criterion and with City Staff recommendation, the City can, upon City Council approval, enter into a contract with JCI for the selected energy improvements. The cost of the study may then be rolled into the overall project and paid for through the savings -supported financing mechanism. 2. If the result of the study indicates that a project can be developed that meets the City's 10-year simple payback criterion but the City opts, for any reason, not to enter into a contract for implementing the improvements, the City will be obligated to pay Jul $1,584,000.00 and will receive the full product of the study effort. The fee in this scenario will be paid from the Water and Sewer Fund. 3. If the result of the study fails to produce a project that meets the City's 10-year simple payback criterion, the City will not pay for the study nor will there be any further obligation on the part of the City to continue to work toward an energy savings contract with JCI. http://apps.cfwnet.org/ecouncil/printmc.asp?id=9544&print=true&DocType=Print 5/15/2009 Page 2 of 3 As with other Resource Conservation Program projects, implementation costs of the final project is planned to be paid for through cost avoidance to the City Water Department's operating budget. Background On September 2, 2003, (M&C C-19739) City Council authorized execution of the City's first Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) with JCI including lighting, air-conditioning, and plumbing improvements to City Hall, Public Safety, Monroe Street Annex, and Meacham Airport Terminal facilities. Completed in September 2004, at a cost of $3,063,090.00, ESPC Phase I has realized cost avoidance of nearly $1,200,000.00 through the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2007-2008 exceeding the JCI- guaranteed cost avoidance of approximately $1,100,000.00 over the same period. The ESPC allows the City to develop and implement further such projects with JCI via contract amendment. On February 7, 2006, (M&C C-21289) and September 26, 2006, (M&C C-21737), City Council authorized the execution of ESPC Phases II and III as Contract Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 respectively with JCI. These phases included lighting, air-conditioning, plumbing, and electrical system improvements to the City's Will Rogers Memorial Center, Fort Worth Convention Center, and Central Library facilities. Completed in June 2008, at a cost of $7,594,596.00, these two phases have a combined average JCI-guaranteed cost avoidance of $1,169,879.00 to cover payments of $1,032,561.00 on an annualized basis. On June 17, 2008, (M&C C-22868) City Council authorized the execution of ESPC Phase IV as Contract Amendment No. 3 with JCI. These phases include lighting, air-conditioning, plumbing, and electrical system improvements to 90 City facilities within its Departments of Information Technology Solutions, Transportation and Public Works, Code Compliance, Public Health, Parks and Community Services, and Public Library. Due for completion in February 2010, at a cost of $9,248,307.00, ESPC Phase IV has an average JCI-guaranteed cost avoidance of $883,010.00 to cover payments of $883,009.00 on an annualized basis. Current City staff is currently evaluating options available to finance a resulting project and will make a recommendation in that regard if authorization is ultimately requested from Council to enter into another ESPC amendment with JCI. Whatever financing instrument is used, payments will be structured so as to be fully offset by guaranteed operations and maintenance cost avoidance and additional revenue generation. Cl is in compliance with the City's M/V1/BE Ordinance by committing to 10 percenf M/WBE participation. The City's goal on this project is 10 percent. The City facility involved in this project is in COUNCIL DISTRICT 5, but serves ALL COUNCIL DISTRICTS. FISCAL INFORMATION /CERTIFICATION: The Finance Director certifies that funds are available in the current operating budget, as appropriated, in the Water and Sewer Fund. Funds will be in the proposed Fiscal Year 2008-2009 budget of the Water and Sewer Fund. http://apps.cfwnet.org/ecouncil/printmc.asp?id=9544&print=true&DocType=Print 5/15/2009 Page 3 of 3 FUND CENTERS: TO Fund/Account/Centers CERTIFICATIONS: Submitted for City Manager's Office b� Originating Department Head: Additional Information Contact: ATTACHMENTS No attachments found. FROM Fund/Account/Centers PE45 531200 0705001 Fernando Costa (8476) Greg Simmons (7862) Frank Crumb (8246) Glenn Balog (2028) Andy Cronberg (5020) $1, 584, 000.00 http://apps. cfwnet. org/ecouncil/printmc. asp?id=9544&print=true&DocType=Print 5/15/2009