HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.h. Rural Water UpdateM E M O R A N D U M
TO: MAYOR KNUTSON
COUNCILMEMBERS: NAPPER
TUCKER
WALSH
WILLARD
FROM: STEPHAN SILK, ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: AUGUST 28, 1987
RE: RURAL WATER SYSTEM UPDATE
The informational update meeting to review cost of construction and operation for
three alternative "rural water" systems for East Rosemount was held on August 25,
1987. Minutes of that meeting, prepared by Gordon Kraus of Dewild, Grant,
Reckert, are attached for your reference. Also attached are copies of
information presented by Gordon outlining the costs and a map showing the layout
of the proposed system(s).
As minutes show, it was decided that City staff should review the information and
discuss the proposals with you on September 1st.
Staff has reviewed the information presented along with discussing the City's
position in all of this, what future operation of the "rural" system will mean to
the City if it owns and operates it, and what the City would consider as a "best"
approach to this project, from the Citys perspective would be.
Without entering into a detailed discussion on such topics as hook-up fees,
future expansion, insurance, future liability, etc., all of which will need to be
answered before City ownership becomes a reality, Staff would present the
following recommendation:
Choose none of the alternates as presented, but propose a fourth which would
be to locate two new wells on or immediately adjacent to the old City Hall
site as the system supply source. Extend the service across County Road #42
to the South, serve D.C.A.V.T.I. and then head east to the looped service
area for those wells contaminated as is shown on the map for all systems
proposed. Also supply water to the City of Coates on a sale at point of
boundary method.
Inclusion of D.C.A.V.T.I. as a purchaser of water would decrease the fixed
system cost per 1,000 gallon to a point where water could be sold to all
users on the system at a rate similar to City residents on the existing
municipal system (.95 cents/1000 gal.). Without D.C.A.V.T.I. as a buyer
this would be impossible.
Location of the wells and system source on the north side of County Road X642
and on our easement would allow us to connect up to our existing municipal
system more easily in the future.
PAGE 2
RURAL WATER SYSTEM UPDATE
It would also allow a simple, inexpensive method of hooking up the old City
Hall to the new system.
This approach is really a slight extension of Alternate B, as proposed, and
gives the City a much better position as far as control of the system is
concerned and financially is better for the residents being served because
it brings the rate per thousand gallons down to par with other City users.
D.C.A.V.T.I. now pays the University the .95 cents/1000 gal. rate. This
alternative would cause the loss of the revenue, to the University, of the
sale of water to D.C.A.V.T.I. but without that source of revenue to the City,
or other owner of the rural system,that system would be financially
strapped.
We believe that although this proposal would be less attractive financially
to the University they are not in a good bargaining position and would
accept it.
This then is Staffs recommendation and we do continue to support the Citys
ownership/operation of the system as we now propose it.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS:
1. I reviewed the construction cost and O & M cost estimates of
the three water source alternatives with the group.
2. A question to consider is, should the University consider
providing services to the Dakota County AVTI from Alternate
A (University well water source)?
3. Fay will find out the current water use of the AVTI and
provide this information to Steve before Friday, August 28.
4. It was pointed out that depreciation was not considered in
t developing the operating cost estimates.
5. The University was asked to consider serving the system from
their existing two -well system and deeding to the rural
water system Owner the wells and water tower.
6. The Owner of the rural water system will need to develop a
policy regarding new users. Additional users would be a
cost benefit in that their water use would allow the fixed
costs to be spread over a larger volume of water sales.
MINUTES OF MEETING
Date:
August 25, 1987
Location:
Rosemount City Hall
PROJECT NAME:
Rosemount Rural Water System
SUBJECT:
Preliminary Organization
PROJECT NO.:
3776
ATTENDEES:
Steve Jilk - Rosemount Administrator
Rich Hefti - Rosemount City Engineer
Dean Johnson - Rosemount Director of
Community Development
Leland Knudson - Rosemount Mayor
Vern Knapper - Rosemount Council Member
Fay Thompson - University of Minnesota
Bob Karls - Delta Environmental Consultants
Mark Longson - Delta Environmental
Consultants
Gordon Krause - DeWild Grant Reckert & Assoc.
DISTRIBUTION:
Mark Longson
Fay Thompson
v9teve Jilk
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS:
1. I reviewed the construction cost and O & M cost estimates of
the three water source alternatives with the group.
2. A question to consider is, should the University consider
providing services to the Dakota County AVTI from Alternate
A (University well water source)?
3. Fay will find out the current water use of the AVTI and
provide this information to Steve before Friday, August 28.
4. It was pointed out that depreciation was not considered in
t developing the operating cost estimates.
5. The University was asked to consider serving the system from
their existing two -well system and deeding to the rural
water system Owner the wells and water tower.
6. The Owner of the rural water system will need to develop a
policy regarding new users. Additional users would be a
cost benefit in that their water use would allow the fixed
costs to be spread over a larger volume of water sales.
7. The City staff will discuss the information presented in
this meeting with the Council on September 1 and if the
Council is interested in proceeding further, additional
information will be researched and presented to staff and/or
Council with the goal to develop a formal proposal from the
University to the Council regarding the details of ownership
by the City. Our attendance isnot required at the
September 1 council meeting. After that meeting a decision
will be made regarding a presentation to the Council on
September 15.
8. Steve asked that I send him five (5) copies of the map used
in the presentation.
The above constitutes our understanding of the items discussed
and the decisions reached and will be considered accurate,
barring notification within five (5) working days.
Respectfully submitted,
DEWILD GRANT RECKERT
& ASSOCIATES COMPANY
O
Gordon B. Krause, P.E.
GBK: jkv
t-'
'*ROSEMOUNT
0
RURAL WATER W
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE A
UNIVERSITY WELL WATER SOURCE
August, 1987
Item
No. of
Unit
Estimated
No.
Unites
Description
Cost
Cost
1.
23,450
6" PVC pipe
6.00
140,000
2.
13,150
4" PVC pipe
4.00
55,000
3.
3,500
2" PVC pipe
2.50
10,000
4.
Job
Valves, crossings, and
Miscellaneous (20%)
Job
40,000
5.
27
Meter settings and
service line
750.00
20,000
6.
1
Well House with hydro -
pneumatic tank
90,000
100,900
Total
Estimated Construction Cost
$365,000
Design Services
40,000
Legal
Services
5,000
Construction Services
45,000
Contingencies (25%)
115,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$570,000
Cost
to Provide
Service to Coates (Does not
include
Coates
Distribution System)
1.
3,500
Increase 211 to 4"
1.50
5,300
2.
1,800
4" PVC Pipe
4.00
7,200
3.
1
City Meter 5,000.00
5.000
Total
Estimated Construction Cost
$ 17,500
Pro rata Share - Other Costs
10.000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$ 28,000
{
!
i
ROSEMOUNT RURAL WATER
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE B
NEW WELL WATER SOURCE
August, 1987
Item
No. of
Unit
Estimated
No.
Units
Descriptions
Cost
Cost
1.
18,200
6" PVC pipe
6.00
110,000
2.
13,150
4" PVC pipe
4.00
55,000
3.
3,500.
2" PVC pipe
2.50
10,000
4.
Job
Valves, crossings, and
Miscellaneous (20%)
Job
35,000
5.
27
Meter settings and
service line
750.00
20,000
6.
2
New well construction
25,000
50,000
7.
1
Well completion-pitless
adapter
20,000
20,000
8.
1
Well House with hydro -
pneumatic tank
100,000
Total
Estimated Construction Cost
$400,000
Design Services
40,000
Legal
Services
5,000
Construction Services
45,000
Contingencies (25%)
120.000`
Total Estimated Project Cost
$610,000
Cost
to Provide
Service to Coates .(Does not
include Coates
Distribution System)
1.
3,500
Increase 2" to 4"
1.50
5,300
2.
1,800
4" PVC pipe
4.00
7,200
3.
1
City Meter 5,000.00
5.000
Total
Estimated Construction Cost
$ 17,500
Pro rata Share - Other Costs
10,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$ 28,000
•
*ROSEMOUNT RURAL WATER
•
•
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE C
ROSEMOUNT WATER SOURCE
August, 1987
Item
No. of
Unit
Estimated
No.
Units
Description
Cost
Cost
1.
61400
8" PVC pipe
8.00
$ 50,000
2.
241,950
6" PVC pipe
6.00
150,000
3.
13,150
4" PVC pipe
4.00
55,000
4.
3,500
2" PVC pipe
2.50
10,000
5.
Job
Valves, crossings, and
i
Miscellaneous (20%)
Job
55,000
5.
27
Meter settings and
service line
750.00
20,000
Total
Estimated Construction Cost
$340,000
Design Services
40,000
Legal
Srvices
5,000
Construction Services
45,000
Contingencies (25%)
100.000'
Total Estimated Project Cost
$530,000
Cost
to Provide
Service to Coates (Does not
include
Coates
Distribution System)
1.
8,000
Increase 6" to 8"
2.00
$ 16,000
2.
3,500
Increase 2" to 4"
1.50
5,300
3.
1,800
4" PVC pipe
4.00
7,200
4.
1
City Meter
5,000.00
5.000
Total
Estimated Construction Cost
$ 34,000
Pro rata Share - Other Casts
19,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$ 53,000
i 0
ROSEMOUNT RURAL WATER
ESTIMATE OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
August 1987
UNIVERSITY WELL WATER SOURCE - ALTERNATE A
Annual Water Use:
Rural: 27 connections @ 5 Kgal/mo. 1,620 Kgal/yr.
Plus 20% water loss 1,944 Kgal/yr.
Coates: 75 connections @ 5 Kgal/mo. 4,500 Kgal/yr.
Plus 20% water loss 5,400 Kgal/yr.
Total Rural and Coates (sold) 61120 Kgal/yr.
Total Rural and Coates (pumped) 7,344 Kgal/yr.
Variable Costs:
Chemicals @ .26/Kgal
Electrical Power @ .10/Kgal
Fixed Costs:
Well Maintenance
Pipeline Maintenance
Meter Maintenance and Billing
Total Estimated Annual Cost
Cost per Kgal Sold
Rural &
Rural Coates
$ 505 $1,900
194 734
1,000 1,000
500
500
50
800'
$2,949-
$4,934
$1.82
$0.81
0
i
ROSEMOUNT RURAL WATER
ESTIMATE OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
August 1987
NEW
WELL WATER SOURCE - ALTERNATE
B
Annual Water Use:
Rural: 27 connections @ 5 Kgal/mo.
1,620
Kgal/yr.
Plus 20% water loss
1,944
Kgal/yr.
Coates: 75 connections @ 5 Kgal/mo.
4,500
Kgal/yr.
Plus 20% water loss
5,400
Kgal/yr.
Total Rural and Coates (sold)
6,120
Kgal/yr.
Total Rural and Coates (pumped)
7,344
Kgal/yr.
Variable Costs•
Rural &
Rural
Coates
Chemicals @ .26/Kgal
$ 505
$1,900
Electrical Power @ .10/Kgal
194
734
Fixed Costs:
Well Maintenance
1,300
11300
Pipeline Maintenance
500
500
Meter Maintenance and Billing
750
800
Total Estimated Annual Cost
$3,249
$5,234
Cost per Kgal Sold
$2.01
$0.86
ROSEMOUNT RURAL WATER
ESTIMATE OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
August 1987
ROSEMOUNT WATER SOURCE - ALTERNATE C
The City of Rosemount's current cost for operation and
maintenance is $1.05 per 1,000 gallons and covers costs for such
things as electrical energy to pump the water, repairs to the
distribution system, maintenance of water meters, controls,
wells, storage tanks, chemicals, and related items. If the City
owns and operates the rural water sytesm and provides water to it
from it's existing system, most of the current costs will remain
as is. Because there will be more feet of distribution pipeline
per meter in the rural area than in the City's present system, we
would expect a somewhat higher cost per 1,000 gallons for
pipeline maintenance in the rural area. The same will be true
for meter maintenance due to the greater travel distance needed
between meters on maintenance calls. No doubt, there are other
cost dissimilarities between the "City system" and "rural water
system" but, in our opinion none should be.very significant
realizing, for example, that leak repair is a relatively
infrequent occurrence and the cost per leak on the rural water
system will probably be less since pavement removal and
replacement is not usually required and the smaller size rural
water main will be less costly to repair. Likewise, meter
maintenance, if done regularly in a planned program, should not
be significantly more costly in the rural area.
Another cost that may higher in the rural area is meter
reading. This will be true particularly if each meter is read
monthly by City personnel. An alternative to this might be a
self -reading system for the rural users. This method is used
successfully by most rural water systems and involves providing a
post card to each homeowner that is returned to the City each
month (or quarter) with the current meter reading.
In summary, without an exhaustive analysis of all of the costs
involved, we'd expect operation and maintenance costs in the
rural system to be the same to slightly higher than for the City
system. For comparison purposes with other alternatives in this
report, we will use a cost per 1,000 gallons of $1.15 which is
approximately 10% higher than City system costs.