Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ssip Treatment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

PUC reviews revised Sewer System Improvement Program treatment strategy; program cost shifts identified

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission · November 14, 2017
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners heard a multi‑phase update on the Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP) treatment projects. Staff reported a program‑wide net increase of roughly $97 million driven by cost and scheduling adjustments across treatment facility phases and proposed project repackaging; a consolidated wastewater CIP will return to the commission in January.

PUC staff presented a detailed workshop Nov. 14 on the Sewer System Improvement Program’s (SSIP) treatment capital strategy, focusing on Phase 1 treatment projects and the reassessment of Phase 2 and Phase 3 scopes.

Staff described the program baseline approved in 2016 and said they revalidated project scopes, timing and costs using updated condition assessments and input from plant operators and maintenance crews. The baseline for Phase 1 treatment projects rose by roughly $68 million, while Phase 2 decreased and Phase 3 increased, producing a net program‑wide increase in estimated treatment costs of about $97 million. Many changes result from repackaging similar projects, shifting certain Phase 3 projects earlier into Phase 2 to address immediate needs (for example, primary clarifier and aeration tank work), and eliminating low‑value projects where alternative solutions were available.

Staff emphasized the program’s guiding levels of service — regulatory compliance, reliability and resiliency — and noted cost‑control measures such as CMGC (construction manager/general contractor) engagement and contractor input to find lower‑cost solutions. Several commissioners asked for higher‑level policy context connecting the proposed project list and cost shifts back to the program’s original urban watershed assessment and earlier policy commitments; staff said a consolidated wastewater CIP and detailed cost schedule will be presented to the commission in January for further scrutiny.

Commissioners also asked for clearer cross‑referencing between Phase 1 actions and effects on Phase 2 and 3 to ensure transparency on what changes eliminate or modify downstream projects. Staff committed to providing that crosswalk and additional high‑level material that explains drivers for schedule and cost adjustments.