HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.B. Splash Pad Project – Central Park Improvements Phase 1 ROSEMOLN- 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Special Work Session Meeting: March 4, 2014
AGENDA ITEM: Splash Pad Project — Central Park AGENDA SECTION:
Improvements Phase 1 Discussion
PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation AGENDA NO.
Director
ATTACHMENTS: Concept Plan and Water Reuse APPROVED BY:
Assessment Memo _ 1 -1
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None, discussion only.
ISSUE
The Parks and Recreation Department continues to move forward with plans to build a splash pad at
Central Park in the spring. Included in the packet are the most recent plans.
One topic to be discussed further is the reuse of water used at the splash pad. Included in the packet is a
memo regarding different options for the water that will be used at the splash pad.The options for
managing the effluent water from the proposed splash pad have been categorized and evaluated in four
groups that are detailed in the attached Water Reuse Assessment Memo.These options include a
recirculation system,a flow through system discharging to the sanitary sewer,a capture and re-purpose
system,and an ornamental re-purpose system.
The staff recommendation is to use option 3.A as currently proposed,which discharges water from the
splash pad into Erickson Pond and Wetland.As part of this option the City should conduct water level
monitoring in Erickson Pond and Wetland to verify discharge and infiltration assumptions. If additional
volume reduction is needed after the monitoring assessment,we recommend the City construct Option
3.C.1 which utilizes stormwater from Erickson Pond for irrigation in Erickson and Central Parks.
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this topic on Monday, February 24,2012 and made a
recommendation to use Option 3.A. as currently proposed,which discharges water from the splash pad
into Erickson Pond and Wetland. As part of this option, they also recommended the City should conduct
water level monitoring in Erickson Pond and Wetland to verify discharge and infiltration assumptions.
When additional volume reduction is needed after the monitoring assessment, they recommended the City
implement Option 3.C.1 which utilizes storm water from Erickson Pond for irrigation in Erickson and
Central Parks.
a
, 1.1111111621111
'i` co
• Ya. i ; , ~ , +yam n U 4)
w S,
VORTEX • , fi ;.'''tf`iz _EMI
Central Park Splash Pad - Rosemount, MN _ ;^� _ O
ENGRA'
DATER FEATURE efiliPr." = SHELTER T'
i
141P141101 . • ..-
lir , b.gip. ,
, ...
.., ....
..,,
.,.,
;" ''''.•••-s. .-'::•7.-^4.. 1111111kre: III • \ - . . . . ■1 ,
T w
Milli -111.1iiONIMPF • ..
,• ..• Introducing:Water J4
LFS AS SEATING FEATURE }' VORTE
• .
•
•
(1. .
\\-- .. „../ raw,
DRAINS r,_ AR
WSB
&A.so engineering.planning.environmental•construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis,MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Technical Memorandum
To: Dan Schultz,Director of Parks & Recreation— City of Rosemount
Cc: Jason Amberg, RLA
Andy Brotzler, PE, City Engineer—City of Rosemount
From: Bill Alms, EIT
Pete Willenbring, PE
Date: February 7, 2014
Re: Central Park Splash Pad Water Reuse Assessment
WSB Project No. 02235-010
I. INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of the water reuse assessment
completed for the splash pad proposed in Central Park as outlined in Phase C of the scope
of services.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing site conditions for the splash pad and capabilities of
surrounding systems to support the proposed discharge options in Section III.
Existing Site Location and Service Area
The splash pad is proposed to be constructed within the current hockey rink area in
Central Park, which is located approximately 400 feet southeast of Erickson Pond. Soil
borings in the area indicate at least 15 feet of sandy soils beneath the proposed splash
pad.
Erickson Pond and Wetland Complex
In 2009, a water quality improvement project for Erickson Pond was completed which
included excavation of two stormwater pretreatment basins in the southwest corner of the
Erickson Pond and Wetland Complex. The pretreatment pond provides 4.0 acre feet of
dead-pool storage and has a clay liner to maintain this treatment volume. The clay liner
allows water to overflow through the pond minimizing impacts to the hydrology of the
Erickson Pond and Wetland.
St.Cloud• Minneapolis•St.Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\02235d110Wdmin\Docs\Reuse Assessmcnt Memo-Reuse Assesmcnt-dshultz-020714 do,
Mr. Dan Schultz
February 6, 2014
Page 2
The water quality improvement project included installing a 6-inch forcemain, two
submerged pond intake strainers, and electrical service for use with a future active
treatment system or water reuse irrigation system booster pump. A dry hydrant
connection was installed to the southwest of the amphitheater to be used for a future
irrigation system watering the amphitheater site and playground areas south of the pond.
A second dry hydrant was installed in the northwest of the soccer field and could be
connected into the existing adjacent irrigation systems for the ball fields in the future.No
pumps were installed as part of this project. See Appendix A for locations of the dry
hydrants.
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Capacity
The sanitary sewer that services central park flows to Lift Station No. 1 located along the
north side of 145th Street at the intersection of 145th Street and Burma Avenue, and is
adjacent to the driveway entrance to the lower parking lot of City Hall. The lift station
has a pumping capacity of 388 gallons per minute (gpm) and has an estimated existing
peak hour flow rate of 368 gpm. The closest sanitary sewer connection point to the
proposed splash pad is approximately 100 feet southwest of the pavilion building in
Central Park.
Regulatory Requirements for Reuse Water
The State of Minnesota does not have a state-specific code applicable to discharging or
reusing splash pad effluent water. The Metropolitan Council has developed a Stormwater
Reuse Guide based on review of water reuse programs and guidance from other states but
is not regulatory at this time.
III. PROPOSED SPLASH PAD DISCHARGE OPTIONS
Options for managing the effluent water from the proposed splash pad have been
categorized and evaluation in four groups detailed below. These groups include a
recirculation system, a flow through system discharging to the sanitary sewer, a capture
and re-purpose system, and an ornamental re-purpose system.
Option 1 -Recirculation Splash Pad System
Option 1 is a recirculation system that connects the splash pad system drain to an
underground storage tank where the water in the storage tank is disinfected and sanitized
before it is recirculated back to the splash pad(shown in Figure 1).Recirculating water
treatment system uses about 97% less water than Option 2 (flow-through to sanitary
sewer) or Option 3 (flow-through to storm sewer). However, it requires a pool certified
and licensed operator and requires more daily monitoring and management.
The estimated annual operating and maintenance cost for the recirculating system (not
including water usage and discharge fees) is $16,250. This is just over 4 times greater
K:102235-010 Adnun\Do s\Reuse Assessment\Memo-Reuse Assesment-dshultz-020714 docx
Mr. Dan Schultz
February 6, 2014
Page 3
that annual operating cost for the flow-through system of$3,860.'Additionally,the initial
equipment cost for a recirculation system is about$130,000 - $156,000 more than the
flow-through system.
The savings for the recirculation system comes as a result of the reduction in water
consumption which equates annually to about$16,600 for Option 2 and$9,525 for
Option 3.
The long term cost analysis located in Appendix B, shows that after 15 years of operation
the total cost of the recirculation system is still about$100,000 more than the total cost of
a flow-through system. This is because the initial and annual operating costs are so high
compared to the annual savings in water usage.
Benefits:
• Significant decrease in annual water consumption.
• Effluent water is treated to potable water quality standards so no adjustments will
be required if treatment standards for stormwater reuse systems change.
Drawbacks:
• Addition of certified staff, additional capital cost, and increase in equipment to
maintain make the cost of the recirculation treatment system significantly higher
over the other two options.
• Recirculation systems can be down more frequently for maintenance than a flow
through system,which can result in public disappointment.
BIM
Vortex Highflow WMS
Figure 1: Sketch of a Recirculation Splash Pad System with a Treatment System.
Option 2—Flow-Through Splash Pad System - Discharge to Sanitary Sewer
Option 2 is a flow through system that connects the splash pad system drain directly to
sanitary sewer for disposal (shown in Figure 2). The average consumption for the flow-
through splash pad is estimated to be just over 53,000 gallons per day or 4.26 million
gallons per year. This volume of water would be subject to the City's standard water and
sewer rates.
K:\02235-010\Admin\DocslReusc AssessmenftMemo-Reusc Assesment-dshultz-020714.docx
Mr. Dan Schultz
February 6, 2014
Page 4
Additionally,this option would most likely require an underground storage tank to allow
effluent water to be sequenced to Lift Station No. 1 during non-peak flow times.as the lift
station is currently operating near capacity during peak times. A detailed evaluation to
determine upgrade requirements to Lift Station No. 1 and associated cost would need to
be completed if this option is selected.
Benefits:
• No adjustments will be required if water quality treatment standards for
stormwater reuse systems change.
Drawbacks:
• No local benefit from effluent splash pad water(i.e.,wetland health, ground water
recharge or turf irrigation)
• Additional cost and maintenance associated with an underground storage tank,
pumping,lift station umping, and MCES sewer rates.
Vortex Smartt low WMS
Figure 1: Sketch of a Flow-Through Splash Pad System to Sanitary Sewer
Option 3—Flow-Through Splash Pad System - Capture and Re-purpose Discharge
Option 3 connects the splash pad system drain to storm ponds, infiltration trenches,
irrigation systems or a combination of all three. As in Option 2,the average consumption
for the flow-through splash pad is estimated to be just over 53,000 gallons per day or 4.26
million gallons per year.
> Option 3.A. - Flow-Through System—Erickson Pond and Wetland
The lowest initial cost option would be to connect the splash pad drain directly to the
storm manhole located just northwest of the ice rinks and discharge the effluent water
to Erickson Pond and Wetland. Erickson Pond and adjacent wetland have a surface
area of 3.3 acres. The average daily discharge of water from the splash pad would
cause a rise of 0.6 inches/day across the Erickson Pond and Wetland basin.
In 2011, the evaporation and infiltration study showed that the water surface elevation
p Y
dropped an average of 1.75 inches per day due to evaporation and infiltration when
the water surface is above the Normal Water Level (NWL). The study also showed a
range of evaporation and infiltration across the monitoring season from 0.3 to 4.5
K:‘02235-010\Admin\DocsUtcuse AssessmentlMemo-Reuse Assesmcnt-dshultz-020714.docx
Mr. Dan Schultz
February 6, 2014
Page 5
inches per day above the NWL. Since the splash pad will be operated primarily
during dry,hot periods the basin should have the capacity to handle the estimated
4.26 million gallons per year of water that would be discharged from the splash pad.
It would be recommended to monitor the water surface elevation in Erickson Pond
and Wetland for several years after splash pad construction to determine if addition
volume reduction is required through infiltration trench or irrigation reuse.
Benefits:
• Lowest Cost Option
• Effluent water is discharged to a limited access water body so stormwater reuse
system water quality standards adjustments should have minimal impacts.
• Local benefit from effluent splash pad water to support wetland health.
Drawbacks:
• Lost opportunity thought construction mobilization to provide cost savings to City
through an irrigation reuse system.
Vortex Smartf tow WMS
Figure 3: Sketch of a Flow-Through Splash Pad System to Erickson Pond
➢ Option 3.B.—Flow-Through System- Infiltration
An infiltration chamber or trench could be used to reduce the volume of effluent
splash pad water and provide vital ground water recharge which may have positive
impacts on the Erickson Pond and Wetland. An infiltration trench would consist of
perforated pipe laid on top of 2 to 3 feet of large washed rock wrapped in geo textile
fabric. The trench would have a high flow bypass into the storm sewer to prevent
backups in the splash pad if the capacity of the rock and perforated pipe is exceeded.
Soil Borings from the north end of the splash pad indicated 15 feet of course alluvium
(sand with gravel). The Minnesota stormwater manual recommends an infiltration
rate of 1.63 inch/hour for this soil class as function of soil texture alone. Based on the
soil boring material description and the lack of any tight soil horizons, higher design
infiltration rates are anticipated but should be field verified though an infiltration rate
analysis. The higher the infiltration rate the smaller the infiltration trench needs to be
to accommodate the splash pad discharge rates.
Ka02235-010Wdmin\Docs\Rcuse Assessment\Mcmo-Reuse Assesment-dshultz-020714.docz
Mr. Dan Schultz
February 6, 2014
Page 6
Benefits:
• Effluent water is discharged into the ground so stormwater reuse system water
quality standards adjustments should have no impacts.
• Some local benefit from effluent splash pad water to support wetland health
through groundwater recharge.
Drawbacks:
• Lost opportunity to provide cost savings to City through irrigation reuse system.
Percolation
Figure 4:Sketch of a Flow-Through Splash Pad System with Infiltration
> Option 3.C.—Flow-Through System- Irrigation
There are two existing surface irrigation system located within the vicinity of
Erickson Pond. One in Erickson Park and the other in Central Park. See the map in
AppendixA for locations of existing irrigation systems.
The control panels for Erickson Park are located in the pavilion on the north side of
the Park and in the Northwest corner of the Public Works garage. This system
provides irrigation water to the outfields of five baseball fields and one soccer field.
The three-year-average water consumption outlined in Appendix C- Table 1 for
Erickson Park is 5.5 Million gallons per year. The irrigation in Erickson Park
accounts for about 20%of all water used for municipal operations. It should be noted
that the soccer field is proposed to be replaced with tennis courts which will reduce
the overall irrigation demand in Erickson Park. However, additional green space may
be available to expand a reuse irrigation system within the park.
The other control panel for Central Park is located in the pavilion just south of the
amphitheater. This system provides irrigation water to the amphitheater lawn and
green space around the playground. The three-year-average water consumption
outlined in Appendix C- Table 2 for Central Park is 0.53 Million gallons per year.
The irrigation in Erickson Park accounts for about 2% of all water used for municipal
operations.
K:02235-010\Admin\Does\Reuse Assessment\Memo-Reuse Assesment-dshultz-020714.docx
Mr. Dan Schultz
February 6, 2014
Page 7
The discharge from the splash pad has the potential to reduce the water consumed for
irrigation from 6.02 million gallons per year to 1.76 million gallons per year. This
70% reduction (4.26 million gallons per year) in irrigation water usage for the two
parks would provide a significant recovery of the high water usage associated with
the flow-through system. The annual irrigation potable water usage savings is
estimated at$9,877.
Utilization of grey water from splash pad or stormwater in irrigation systems that are
also connected to the potable water supply is allowed by the City building code as
long as the backflow preventer on the potable water line is upgraded to a reduced
pressure zone backflow preventer(RPZ).
There are two primary options to consider for storing the water discharged from the
splash pad so it can be reused for irrigation. The water can be discharged directly to
Erickson Pond or into an underground storage tank.
Option 3.C.1. —Irrigation with Storage in Erickson Pond
The pond provides a large existing basin to store water to be reused for irrigation.
Intake strainers,wet wells and force main have been installed as part of a previous
project but pumps, controls, and connections between the dry hydrants and the
control stations for the two irrigation systems would be required.
Benefits:
• Lower initial cost option
• Provides additional volume reduction for downtown stormwater drainage to
Erickson Pond which could offset the majority of potable water use for
irrigation.
Drawbacks:
• DNR appropriation permit would be required to pump water out of Erickson
Pond(permit required if it greater than 10,000 gallons/day or 1 million
gallons/year from any waters of the state).
• Chloride levels in Erickson Pond have not been assessed and may be high due
to downtown business districts that drain to Erickson Pond. High chloride
levels can cause heat stress for park grasses.
• Stormwater that is used for irrigation reuse in public access areas may be
subject to additional water quality standards in the future.
• Water that is discharged to Erickson pond is subject to infiltration and
evaporation; which during dry periods could result in less water available for
irrigation.
K:W2235-010\Admin\Docs\Reuse AssessmenL\Mcmo-Reuse Assesmcnt-dsholtz-020711.docx
Mr. Dan Schultz
February 6, 2014
Page 8
Option 3.C.2. —Irrigation with Underground Storage Tank
Underground storage tanks would need a capacity equivalent to the average daily
discharge from the splash pad(about 53,000 gallons) in order to maximize the
reuse potential of the splash pad runoff. Pumps, controls, and connections
between the underground tank and the control stations for the two irrigation
systems would be required.
Benefits:
• DNR appropriation permit would not be required.
• Stormwater that is used for irrigation reuse in public access areas is cleaner,
which may result in fewer health concerns and a reduction in irrigation
equipment maintenance.
• 100% of the water stored is available to offset potable water use for irrigation.
Drawbacks:
• Much Higher initial cost option—Storage tank sized for average daily
discharge is $120,000 (50,000 gal)
• No additional benefit of water reuse to volume reduction for downtown
stormwater drainage or wetland health.
Above-Ground Irrigation
Figure 5: Sketch of a Flow-Through Splash Pad System with
Underground Storage and Irrigation
Option 4—Flow-Through Splash Pad System - Ornamental Re-Purpose System
Other uses for the splash pad grey water could include using water for ornamental use in
a fountain or landscaping waterfall. Ornamental use of the splash pad effluent water
would be purely atheistic and would need to be used in combination with one of the other
options described since it will have minimal volume reduction or water quality treatment
effects. For this reason this option was not considered as a viable option for the scope of
this analysis.
K 02235-010\Mum\Do s\Reuse Assessmenl\Memo-Reuse Assesmenl-dshullz-020714.docx
Mr. Dan Schultz
February 6, 2014
Page 9
IV. COST ESTIMATE
Detailed opinions of total probable project costs are attached in Appendix D. The
opinions of probable costs are based on projected 2013 construction costs and include a
10%contingency factor and 20% indirect costs. The total project costs are summarized
as follows:
Splash Pad Effluent Water Discharge Options Estimated Totals
Option 1—Recirculation System Initial' - $258,000
(See Appendix B for additional annual cost details) Annual2- $ 16,600
Option 2—Flow-Through System to Sanitary Initial'- $62,000
(Additional costs may be needed for additional lift station pumping capacity) Annual2- $20,800
Option 3.A—Flow-Through System to Erickson Pond Initial' - $0
(Option planned to be constructed) Annual2- $13,740
Option 3.B—Flow-Through System to infiltration trench Initial'z $86,000
Annual2- $13,740
Option 3.C.1—Flow-Through System with irrigation reuse from Erickson Pond Initial'- $111,000
Annual3- $13,740
Option 3.C.2—Flow-Through System with irrigation reuse from Storage Tank Initial'- $276,000
Annual3- $13,740
'—Initial costs are to perform future modifications to proposed flow through splash pad to be constructed.
2—Annual cost includes estimated water,electricity,chemical usage charges along with projected maintenance costs.
3—Annual cost does not include the savings of the reduction in irrigation water usage for Erickson and Central Parks.
(Annual savings are estimated to be$9,877).
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the City construct Option 3.A as currently proposed, which
discharges water from the splash pad into Erickson Pond and Wetland. As part of this
option the City should conduct water level monitoring in Erickson Pond and Wetland to
verify discharge and infiltration assumptions.
If additional volume reduction is needed after monitoring assessment,we recommend the
City consider constructing Option 3.C.1 which utilizes stormwater from Erickson Pond
for irrigation in Erickson and Central Park.
The project is feasible, environmental responsible, and cost-effective from an engineering
perspective and WSB and Associates, Inc. recommends construction of the proposed
improvements as detailed in this technical memorandum. The economic feasibility of
this project should be determined by the City Council.
K:102235-010\Admm\Does\Reuse Assessment\Memo-Reuse Assesment-dshuliz-020714.docz
APPENDIX A
Central Park and Erickson Pond Map
St.Cloud• Minneapolis• St.Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:02235-010V dmin\Docs\Rcusc Asscssmcnalemo-Reuse Asscsment-dshultz-020714.docx
. :
1.
e."-.tea.f _ '
�inch'a�f+� rn .
—
ii - /,' . . y — '
'j �
•
J
/
0
\
' '
,i
I .,f,`
•
- � _
s•
II
f
i
•,
'-''‘'.\-V1/4 . .r , � �` Irrigation Location Map
}., " 'Existing Irrigation Meter/Con[rol Panel
� ,a •�a?„p/�q� p ✓..,nisi•d��. ® F i •f,�^w.j ,, on_HVa any
- ,.
A. , - .• to . _ -°• taryPoints• Sani
-� � � � �� � , r.' j f4, � Lift Station•:.- r / ;# 0 Manhole `
�, Vii. y • Stub
'� '
y P Sanitary Sewer
1 — —►-san ary sewer nes
a. . a* __,-h �� ''� ..__ ,� � Storm Points �_
a( •
I P, t� M
O
II`1 I 1�~.. ., ", _..: %" j I I �.i .. __.- b ° CBMHf
•i t y,,,,o„ , '1'. ..:4'... ( ,1`4 r g 1 " `r•. MH
.. A' `�fl l3 ..2. . FES
' '7,' t{.tilt a .qa F171
9 s �� Idl •l ® Lift Station■
$' t'� $ ! tt- -O t "i ` StormLines
'�`� I n )--,. x ._ t s� ' / � i Irrigation Areas
: d.. " " Y"fi a i I Current Use
I I ,,
I
„ a.,.-4,,•, -Potential Use ■
1t Rt
Y
1
�y y
APPENDIX B
Splash Pad Vendor Cost and Usage Estimates
K:432235.OIO Admin\Docs\Reuse Assessment\Memo-Reuse Assesment-dsl ultz-020714.docx
Commercial Recreation Specialsists
Developed for Central Park Rosemount
SPLASHPAD LIFE CYCLE COSTS 10 AND 15 YEARS
ESTIMATED SPLASHPAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS
3900 sqft 3900 sqft
FLOW THRU WQMS
150 GPM 266 GPM
SMART FLOW TO
SEWER DOUBLE LOOP
EQUIPMENT COSTS $ 115,000 $ 205,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 255,000 $ 405,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS
WATER COSTS $ 9,877 $ 307
SEWER COSTS $ 7,067 $ 45
MAINTENANCE COSTS $ 2,700 $ 11,400
NORMAL PARTS COSTS $ 1,000 $ 2,000
CHEMICAL COSTS $ - $ 350
ELECTRICAL COSTS $ 160 $ 2,500
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS $ 20,805 $ 16,602
ESTIMATED 10 YEAR OPERATING COSTS $ 208,049 $ 166,020
TOTAL 10 YEAR COST $ 463,049 $ 571,020
ESTIMATED 15 YEAR OPERATING COSTS $ 312,074 $ 249,030
TOTAL 15 YEAR COST $ 567,074 $ 654,030
PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS
GALLONS PER DAY USED 53219 1652
COST OF WATER PER GALLON 0.0023 0.0023
COST OF SEWER PER GALLON 0.0017 0.0017
MAINTENANCE LABOR RATE PER HOUR 75 75
DAILY MAINTENANCE TIME REQUIRED(IN MAN HOURS) 0.25 1.5
SEASONAL MAINTENANCE HOURS 16 32
OPERATING HOURS PER DAY 10 10 10
DAYS IN SEASON 80 80 80
PAD RUNS 62%OF THE OPERATING HOURS 62%
Rosemount OPS COST ANALYSIS12/19/201310:44 AM
Flow Thru Cost Estimator
Estimated Splashpad
Drain Away System
Imperial
Total Play product Flow 266
Manifold Capacity 300
Use lesser amount 266
Average Sequence Flow Rate 159.6
System Flow after Downtime Between
Activation Factor 143.64
Maximum Flow per hour 8618
Hours per Season 494
Consumption per Season (gallons) 4257490
Average Daily Consumption (gpd) 53219
Average Daily Consumption (cf) 7115
Hundred Cubic Feet per Season (HCF) _ 5692
Usage Estimate based on degree Days
Temperature F/C Hours Per day Days per Season Hours of Use per Season
70-79 (21-26) 5 54 270
80-90 (27-31) 8 13 104
90-99 (32-37) 9 10 90
100+ (38+) 10 3 30
Total 80 494
Note: Days per season = 100 days- 20 days of rain within season
Evaporation and bather load loss 0.00%
Water meter cost per 1000 gal $2.320 0.00232
Sewer cost per 1000 gal $1.66 0.00166
Total Cost per season $16,944.81
Annulized Water Consumption gpd 11664
Additional municipal fees that may
apply within Madison 6 Mth Fee
Water Meter Charge $ 188
Sewer Base Charge
Landfill Remediation
Public Fire Protection
Storm Water Charge
Pad Total Combined Seasonal Operation Cost $ 17,132.81
Site Staffing ?
Maintenance Staff ?
Other ?
Total Operating and Staffing Costs
Rosemount_3900SQ_150_GPM FT Water Consumption Estimator Page 1
WQMS Operating Cost Estimate
3900 SQFT @ 266 GPM
Estimate is based on an operation season of 1000 hours or 10 user available hours per day over 100 days
Daily Energy Costs Estimate (kilowatt hours)
Amps Voltage Watts Operating Hours Kilowatt Hours Average Electricity
Vortex Controller 8 110 880 10 8.8 Cost per kWh
Chemical Controller 1 110 110 24 2.64
Chemical Pump 0.7 110 77 5 0.385
Circulation Pump 36 230 12190.17 10 121.9017358
Filtration Pumps 20.8 230 7043.211 24 169.0370737
Total kWh 302.7638095 $ 0.19
Estimated Daily Energy Cost $ 57.53
Notes: Seasonal Energy cost(l000hrs of operation) $ 2,841.74
Single Phase Watts=Amps x Voltage
Three Phase Watts=(Amps x Voltage)x 3^0.5 x.85PF
Kilowatt Hours=(Watts x Hours of operation)/1000
Approximate Operating Costs*=Kilowatt hours x Average Cost per Kilowatt Hour
*Does not include power factor penalty or demand charges which may be applicable in some areas
Daily Chemical Consumption Estimate
Due to varying operational conditions typical to a Splashpad instalation,variables such as bather loading,
and environmental debris(grass clippings,leaves,etc.)may increase chemical consumption.
Chemical Consumption Estimate GPD Season consumption Cost per gallon
Chlorine(liquid)gallon per day 1 80 Gallons $3.00
Muriatic Acid gallon per day 0.33 26.4 Gallons $4.20
Total Seasonal Cost $350.88
Make Up Water Consumption Estimate
WQMS Make Up Water Consumption
Imperial
Number of Users per day 300
Total Play product Flow 266
Average Sequence Flow Rate 212.8
Maximum Flow per hour 12768
Hours per Season 494
Spray Volume per Season(gallons) 6307392
Fill volume(Gallons) 3000
Bather Run Off Gallons Per Day
(estimate 1/49/bather) 75 6000
Environmental Loss(Percentage of
Sprayed Water) 2% 126148
Overflow loss(Gallons) 2% 60
Winterization sewer loss(Gallons) 3000
Backwash(Gallons per month) 1000
PAestmount_3900 SQ_266GPM_WQMS Operating Cost Estimate v1.0
132208
Splashpad Usage Estimate based on degree Days
Note: Days per season = 100 days
Days Hours of
Hours Per per Use per
Temperature F/C day Season Season
70-79(21-26) 5 54 270
80-90(27-31) 8 13 104
90-99(32-37) 9 10 90
100+ (38+) 10 3 30
Total 80 494
Total Fresh Water Make up(gallons) 131949.51
Total Fresh Water Make up(1000 Gal) 131.95
Total Sanitary Waste Water(gallons) 27302.42
Total Sanitary Waste Water(1000 Gal) 27.30
Water meter cost per 1000 Gal $2.32
Sewer cost per 1000 Gal $1.66
Total Cost per season $351.44
Combined Seasonal Operation Cost for Splashpad $ 3,544.07
Electric Service Charge @$1/day
Water Meter Charge
Sewer Base Charge
Landfill Remediation
Public Fire Protection
Site Staffing
Maintenance Staff
Other
TOTAL $ 3,544.07
If your state requires a Splashpad with a recirculation system to comply with local swimming pool codes you may need to consider
construction and operational costs associated other infrastructure elements when planning.
Will a bathhouse with restrooms and showers be required? If yes:
What is the cost of the construction of these items.
How much gpd of water will the showers/restrooms use and drain to sanitary sewer.
Whats the cost associated with the utilities.
What is the maintenance cost associated with a bathhouse
Will addittional design fees and stamps be necessary?
Will barrier fencing be required?
Will additional staffing be required?
Pdles'Pmount_3900 SQ_266GPM_WQMS Operating Cost Estimate v1.0
APPENDIX C
Irrigation Usage Tables
K:02235-01OWdmin\Docs\Reuse AssessmentlMemo-Reuse Asscsment-dshultz-020714.docc
Table 1: Erickson Park Annual Irrigation Usage in Millions of Gallons
%of City %
Year Erickson Park All City Buildings Buildings and Total City /o of Total City
and Parks Parks Consumption Consumption
2011 5.46 26.50 20.6% 855.76 0.64%
2012 6.04 31.55 19.6% 973.08 0.62%
2013 5.00 25.50 19.6% 880.61 0.57%
Average 5.50 27.85 19.8% 903.15 0.61%
Table 2: Central Park Annual Irrigation Usage in Millions of Gallons
All City Buildings %of City Total City
Year Erickson Park and Parks Buildings and Consumption %of Total
Parks
2011 0.535 26.50 2.02% 855.76 0.06%
2012 0.579 31.55 1.84% 973.08 0.06%
2013 0.475 25.50 1.86% 880.61 0.05%
Average 0.530 27.74 1.90% 903.15 0.06%
K.\02235-OI O .dmin\Do.\Reuse AssessmentNemo-Reuse Assesment-dshultz-020714 dots
APPENDIX D
Opinions of Probable Costs
1002235-010 Admin\Docs\Reuse Assessment\Memo-Reuse Assesment-dshultz-0207 H.docx
City of Rosemount Feasibility
Central Park Splash Pad Water Reuse Assessment
WSB Project No. 02235-010 Cost Opinion
Option I
Recirculation System
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost
1 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00
2 RECIRCULATION EQUIPMENT LS 1.00 $156,000.00 $156,000.00
3 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK(5,000 GAL) EA 1.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
4 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
5 SURFACE RESTORATION LS 1.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Subtotal $195,000.00
+10%Contingency $19,500.00
Subtotal $215,000.00
+20%Indirect Costs $43,000.00
Total Splash Pad Reuse Improvements $258,000.00
K:102235-0101Admin1Docsl Reuse AssessmentlAppendix D102235-01-Feasibility
City of Rosemount Feasibility
Central Park Splash Pad Water Reuse Assessment
WSB Project No. 02235-010 Cost Opinion
Option 2
Flow-Through System to Sanitary
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost
1 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
2 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
3 8"PVC C900 SANITARY PIPE LF 600.00 $40.00 $24,000.00
4 DIRECTIONAL BORING LF 100.00 $50.00 $5,000.00
5 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
6 SURFACE RESTORATION LS 1.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Subtotal $45,500.00
+10%Contingency $4,600.00
Subtotal $51,000.00
+20%Indirect Costs $10,200.00
Total Splash Pad Reuse Improvements $62,000.00
1 G 10223 5-01 01AdminWocstReuse AssessmenllAppendix D102235-01-Feasibility
City of Rosemount Feasibility
Central Park Splash Pad Water Reuse Assessment
WSB Project No. 02235-010 Estimate Construction Cost
Option 3.B
Flow-Through System to Infiltration Trench
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost
1 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
2 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 1,700.00 $12.00 $20,400.00
3 1"-1-1/2"CLEAR ROCK(CV) CY 225.00 $15.00 $3,375.00
4 TOPSOIL SALVAGE CY 60.00 $6.00 $360.00
5 12"HDPE PIPE,PERFORATED(INCL.HDPE FITTINGS) LF 250.00 $75.00 $18,750.00
6 12"HDPE PIPE LF 50.00 $40.00 $2,000.00
7 HDPE CLEANOUT RISER LF 5.00 $50.00 $250.00
8 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC,TYPE I SY 250.00 $4.50 $1,125.00
9 SILT FENCE,TYPE HEAVY DUTY LF 250.00 $5.00 $1,250.00
10 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 2.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00
11 SURFACE RESTORATION LS 1.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Subtotal $64,010.00
+10%Contingency $6,500.00
Subtotal $71,000.00
+20%Indirect Costs $14,200.00
Total Splash Pad Reuse Improvements $86,000.00
1
I L 102235-010L1 dmin1Docs1Reuse AssessmenMlppendiz D102235-01-Feasibility
City of Rosemount Feasibility
Central Park Splash Pad Water Reuse Assessment
WSB Project No. 02235-010 Estimate Construction Cost
Option 3.C.1
Flow-Through System with Irrigation Reuse-Erickson Pond
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost
1 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
2 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
3 IRRIGATION BOOSTER PUMP AND CONTROLS LS 1.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
4 REDUCED PRESSURE ZONE(RPZ)BACKFLOW 3.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00
PREVENTION DEVICE
5 4"PVC DR18 FORCE MAIN LF 1,950.00 $15.00 $29,250.00
6 MODIFICATIONS TO SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM LS 1.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
7 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
8 SURFACE RESTORATION LS 1.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Subtotal $82,750.00
+10%Contingency $8,300.00
Subtotal $92,000.00
+20%Indirect Costs $18,400.00
Total Splash Pad Reuse Improvements $111,000.00
K902235-0101Admin IDocslReuse AssessmenllAppendix D102235-01-Feasibility
City of Rosemount Feasibility
Central Park Splash Pad Water Reuse Assessment
WSB Project No. 02235-010 Estimate Construction Cost
Option 3.C.2
Flow-Through System with Irrigation Reuse-Storage Tank
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost
1 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
2 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK(50,000 GAL) EA 1.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00
3 DIVERSION MANHOLE STRAINER EA 1.00 $500.00 $500.00
4 IRRIGATION BOOSTER PUMP AND CONTROLS LS 1.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
5 REDUCED PRESSURE ZONE(RPZ)BACKFLOW EA 3.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00
PREVENTION DEVICE
6 4"PVC DR18 FORCE MAIN LF 2,250.00 $15.00 $33,750.00
7 MODIFICATIONS TO SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM LS 1.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
8 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
9 SURFACE RESTORATION LS 1.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Subtotal $208,250.00
+10%Contingency $20,900.00
Subtotal $230,000.00
+20%Indirect Costs $46,000.00
Total Splash Pad Reuse Improvements $276,000.00
K.•102235-0101Admin1DocslReuseAssessmen[UppendixD%02235-01-Feasibility