Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board Study Session 2010-07-09
9, LE /1-0./f-~.o-/ STUDY SESSION TOWN BOARD Friday, July 9, 2010 9:00 a.m. Museum 200 - 4~h Street AGENDA 1) Glacier Creek Water Facility Upgrade. 2) Miscellaneous. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. £3Wl*. J 4. Cynthia Deats From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:06 AM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 2990 ST. TIME 07/07 10:58 PGS. 1 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR 5861691 Channel 8 1 Work Session July 9. 2010 4 :rpv,i 4411#. i ././ Estes Park Water Treatment Facilities Phase 2 Study Update m .a Sarah Clark, P.E. TOWN OF Ci~LA HR ON[· CO.M['ANYI,t/.in,69/"tin„, ESTES PARK COLORADO Phase 2 Study Goals • Define steps for permitting, design, construction of replacement for Glacier Creek WTP • Develop schedule for Glacier Creek WTP • Evaluate distribution system for getting 4 MGD out of Marys Lake plant • Provide budget cost estimates for all work - Planning - Rate study - Budgeting over next few years Key Project Findings • Large quantity of work to be done to rebuild Glacier • Expensive • Sequential steps - Need to move ahead with early items to ensure plant can be built - Schedule is relatively tight to meet 2015 finish • Cost savings potential from reducing discharge fees - Pilot 3rd stage treatment at Marys Lake WTP • Integrate distribution improvements into ongoing CIP plans Organization of Today's Presentation • Distribution System • Schedule • Steps to new treatment plant • Glacier Creek Treatment Plant preliminary design - Raw water supply - Treatment process and building layout - Site concerns - Utilities • Estimated Cost 2 ./-/.*&- C Evaluation of Existing Distribution System k y - ./7 * fU i • Utilizes existing hydraulic system model Mililillimili--1-2 1-_---1."llif >4 • Review system-wide : ~ q253\.2-:DY:Mo- AAE, 1--, r - Pressures > ' 1/21 - Flow velocities .-*. .--··- n / 01 1-«--/Aft#trf-1 1 - Storage capacity /-- • Determine improvements : ~per i P t.7 1*217 ~D - Upsizing pipes . - Upsizing valves , «-- ~~f-2-t --f- - Location and size of new - -24 6 L/L..44x~ 'f,¥92 storage facilities 1,4/5 . . F 4.6 .k/'/ -a j. ...-*#-En ...1.1- KR ... -iNH,&*4- FR-*-. ----I Distribution System Requires Some _Improvements • Evaluation of distribution system with respect to moving 4 MGD of water out of Marys Lake WTP • Overall system is low on storage - CDPHE: Need to store minimum of average day use + fire demand • Especially low on available fire flow delivery (low on storage and many small pipes with hydrants) • Some bottlenecks in system to be fixed (PRVs and pipe segments) 3 . r f 0. 1 StoraOd Compdnents OVERFLOW SOURCE OFF ELEVATION OPERATING varies SOURCE ON 1 EQUALIZING varies 11 1 'EFFECTIVE" If. 1, STORAGE t'I VOLUME FIRE FLOW 1i,4 Ilil STANDBY 30 ps] (69') 4 ' 20 psi (46') ,(h ~ DEAD 12[-]El ................. i - Highest Service 11 In Pressure Zone 1 .lili J--19 Recontmended Improvements to System __Storabe_ SYSTEM STORAGE Add storage with HGL at 8,22011 in 'Yellow Zone' 10 provide 1.4 MG Yet!ow Zone' storage ko »wer zones for standby and Ore flow and irrvove 1 Storage Tank - Buried 900.000 . $3,600,000 5,orage out of Mays Lake WTP for maintenance and Con,rete 77aximum day demands. 0.05 MG 'Crysti Zone' Add strage with HGI at 8,06611 with in 'Crystal Zone' to 2 Storage Tank - Buied 50~00 $4 $200,000 Drovide opera6ng pressure to highest cuslorners in the zone. Concrete Add storage with HGI at 8,11011 with in 'Fau River Estates 0.4 MG 'Fal River Estales Zone' to provide required standby md lire now slorage. 3 Zone' Stor* Tink- 400,000 " $1,600,000 Buried Concret, 0.13 MG 100#a Estates Add storage with HGL. at 8,350It wiN 'Kiowa Estates Zone 4 Zone' Storage Tank - 130,000 $4' $520,000 lo provide required standby md fre flow storage. Buried Concrele Syitem Storage Total $5,920,000 1 . "~4. - - Notes: (1) Unit Prices expressed in 2010 Donars and all inclusive induding materid md installation costs. No laid, right-of-way acquisition, engineering or legal costs ire k,ch,ded. I- 4 .Recohimbnded Distribution System Piping, -Upgrades I ..7, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MPES Quitity Unit Estimated Celt 'z. Project De'aff~M (LF) Pllcom In 2010 Dollors Purpose To increase low through Prospect Estates PRV and redirect 1 8' Pipe 325 $160 $52,000 away hm Dongs PRV - Replace existing 4* pipe with 80. PRV upgrade required, see PRV ieckn below. 2 r Pipe 365 $160 $58.400 Replace exisOng 40 pipe with 80. To alleviate bottleneck downstrean irom Crystal Zone PRVs - 3 17 Pipe 1,850 $190 $351,500 To alleviati bomeneck into Downb,m area - Replace existing C pipe on Riversids Dlive wie, 17. To increase flow through soulh system away from Strongs PRV 4 r Pipe 350 $160 $56,000 -Connect 8' on Grey Fox Drive with 4' on Whispering Pines Drive. New PRV Vault required, see PIN secOon below. Dhblbution Synrn Total $520,000 70 - Notes: (1) Unit Prices expressed in 2010 Dollars and all inclusive including material and installalion costs. No land, right-of-way acquisition, engineering or legal costs are induded. Recommen-dedlmprovements to Pressure Reducing_Valves and Vaults PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES AND VAULTS projeCt prolect D.<d*ki QuM94' UnIt Estlm-d Coll In No. (IF) Pric•(9 2010 Dellm Purpo„ 1 Upgrade Prospects 1 $100,000 $100,000 Upgrade or parallel existing F PRV in Prospect Estates Estates PRV PRV Vault 106'. 2 ~ 1. $75,000 $75,000 Jpgrade exismg 7 PRV in S•ong's PRV Vault to 4'. New PRV vault to redirect Ilow away from Strong's PRV - 3 New Grey Fox PRV 1 $175,000 $175,000 Instal 4' PRV and vault on Gmy Fox Dr. near Url(spur Ave. intersection. PRVand -R Total $350,000 /4 9 I Notes: (1) Unit Prices expressed in 2010 Dollars and all indusive including material md installa#on costs. No land, right-*way acquisioon, engineering or legal costs afe included. 5 Distribution System 1./.**'-44/7 Capital Improvement L. =_-L.ip 4- 0 Projects Sequence .3- , A. r.' r ,./3'f,\ • Upgrade pipelines with 1*/4 -I.--* . 11.. L=*, ..7 4+ high velocities or headloss ~ c.i..... <, • Upgrade PRV installations 2~33* -- ·- 1 11_/ r • Construct additional .. -7 .J , 7-01 - U..14 -=2 1 , storage h -L E.=£4 1 =3=@iEWI- I .+ ,U-&,L- U > 13 mr- ~==--- 6 1~»~4]3 /3423=4~ i 4** 44.~ I .6- . 95 4/hal, 4 Kit .....„ Schedule for GWTP Completion in 2015 20·0 :911-----_---9911--__ ____-:913.---- _--_ ;911-_______--:015.---_ Activity Evaluate 3rd Stage Treatment Technologies Pilot Technologies for 3rd Stage Treatment i Flood Plan Delineabon Study + Reviews Purchase Property Rezoning Wildfire Protecdon Plan/Implementa~on Wildlife Protection Plan + Review Treatment Plant and Intake Predesign ' Drainage Plan + Permit to Consouct Evaluation of Irnpacts to Wetlands Membrane Procurement Documents Membranes Adverbe, Bid, Awad -1 Location and Extent Applicdon Final Design Variance Applicaoons . r ., COPHE Plan Review Larimer County/Estes Valley Building Depafnent Review Lan'mer County Sewer Review I Adverbse for Constudon . Open Bids, NTP, Sign Conkact 101 3-'; Conskudon 1 Demol~on Startup and Acceptance Test On Line - Producin Drinkin Water 6 Preliminary Steps to New Treatment Plant • Evaluate and pilot 3rd stage treatment • Define flood plain • Purchase property • Rezone property • Develop and implement plans - Wildfire Protection - Wildlife Protection - Drainage Early Evaluation of 3rd Stage Treatment Has Benefits • Reduce wastewater discharge fees ' 34 stage process can be used at both plants • Evaluate several technologies against one another at pilot scale using Marys Lake reject water - Ease of operation - Actual cost of operation • Operations staff learns about technology and has input into final selection • Potential for early implementation at Marys Lake 7 Flood Plain Delineation May Change All Plans • Flood plain at GWTP site not yet delineated • Several permits require flood plain delineation • Once limits of 100-year and 500-year flood plains are defined, decision must be made - Protect the site and build on it, or - Move to a different site • If protective measures change the stream surface elevation at 100-yr flood, hydrologic study of stream impacts required FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Project Area 1 .1,1/1277/ ./.CE RATE.. ARM 1 ARIMER COUNTY, »r COLORADO ..1.1.(...0.41'DA.,% $. ©c/.32~~-41~ -- _ JA-,2/0/1421 L-~ CM I ./-1/¥ WOUNWAIN ..AUD.1.1. 4 NA'HONA! PANK Approx Proj Location ,-4 5 -• 44 . --- 6/ I = K 4% 6#*-----# -- 1 2;' i-24. --- :0 Purchasing Property and Rezoning • Town currently owns parcels that are not contiguous • New plant will require some additional land • Purchase from YMCA is possible, but requires negotiation • Time allotment on the overall schedule is an estimate • Rezoning of property required by Town Planning Department • Correct existing parcel legal descAptions Glacier Creek WTP Existing Site =- 't -= ,t N ' .F Y. . 1. 11*'.'. . r . .. t .;3 , ... . .4 Existing SIt HIR - 18 inch walar line Properly Lnes· FIg- 1-1 ONUCOMMN¥ 1 Jj,iv.1-I ....:LOC."./.4-4 -- .f-1-4-1 .......C. 2.1.--7....0.-1-, 9 Develop and Implement Required Plans • Wildlife Protection Plan - required by Town ordinance • Wildfire Protection Plan - Current version (2009) needs review for local impacts at site - Possible implementation activities at site • Drainage Plan - required by State and County - Drainage during construction - Drainage long-term at site Design and Review Steps • Predesign treatment plant and intake • Evaluate impacts to wetlands • Membrane procurement • Planning Department review (location and extent) • Final design • Variance applications • Reviews: CDPHE, Larimer County, Estes Valley Building Department 10 Raw Water Supply and Water Rights • Intake on Glacier Creek - Water rights = 2.65 MGD Iimp#:-'ll"/3rt./,/il/fil - Improvements must :lillimil"'lliMtmillillizij:;Millimil · Minimize permitting and -I'll'£*=19,1-li'I~-4 environmental impacts · Increase size/depth of pool - Water rights available define initial design capacity of GWTP i. • Future pipeline from East Portal .-'.5'Aall--,1-1 1 - Uses Adams Tunnel water rights Existing Intake on Glacier Creek East Portal Pipeline Alignment Alternatives ---- • Potential partner in YMCA :¢:.~J~ · i. 1,1.....~.,1, : • Proposed alignments based on . .... ¥04 1 .- hydraulics (topography) - . . - 43>4 ..0 ..1 ic»,LA 7.. • Alignments require further , . ...%. aliiii2illsy.46 evaluation W. 1 =-- 'iyf<~~ - Compatibility with YMCA needs f,: .....JB -1, C .10/1./. 1 14= 4 a,Jr .2.f·49'r·%-ijl©tr#PS.N.-19·d - Number of pump stations needed .' ~' '1* R.·,:1 . .p:qwl - Compare length/constructability 5 -R,1-144-:i·.'.-742:~ • Can be built later Ft--*: :.-j.*51,k it 5,~ 2~96.~AE-1- • Estimated cost = $2.6 million ~ 7,maes. --:1~ ' 24 + . /4 84 -0,- 4) All~~~ HI< F~-/4 11 2.5 Water Quality d Concerns 1 2 * 15€ - • Generally high quality water - Neutral pH 051 1 - Low alkalinity 0.-" -1.- - --9----- - Low turbidity, except runoff period ////// & 8 • At moderate risk for Dat, biological pathogens 80.0 70.0 • Future regulatory eo requirements could 500 reclassify water for - 40.0 0.0 2/22/08 6/1/08 9/9/08 12/18/08 3/28/09 7/6/09 10/14/09 1/22/10 Water Treatment Design Objectives • Meet capacity needs Peak Day Demand MWTPFirm Finn Capacity Required Year Pilction (MGD) Capacity (MGD) at GWTP (MGD) 2015 5.5 4 1.5 2020 1.5 4 2.5 2025 7.9 4 3.9 • Meet treatment objectives Param- Tova Water Dipmtment Objective Tufbidity 0.1 NTU in 95% of readings lach mon* 01 7.2 -7.0 TOC Removal ([)BP control) 30% le 40% imeval Chlorine midual 0.5 1Lliving thi plant Lq Ronneval Credit for C,ypoosporidium 440, removal Log R-oval Credit for Glardia 3-log remeval C- and Tal and Odor Non-d-ct 12 Treatment Process Decisions • Utilize microfiltration membranes - Choice between pressure or submerged driven by plant hydraulics - Budget estimates for costs solicited for both types • Provide 2-stage membrane treatment - Minimize waste water - Maximize use of water rights • Provide pretreatment ahead of membranes - Meets runoff treatability issues - Removes total organic carbon - Protects against the unforeseen (forest fire in watershed) Process Flow Diagram: Pressure Membrane System With Third Stage Treatment - 1 F~~. r--1 --•" r--cr| =6 k~-1 == 1 I illl Z.€ <PPIN-1 i: LK-1.« -XX I 9Liag ~1Ii m 1,1,1~~11:7 .011 »-1 0 1 19==:- 1 -E- 'n.™VE g 1 EX~.1- 1 •t.JeCT (~~-0 n A TI-0 ~T~* PEFne'E ('~04'1~t~~~| -1-- ././-1 'lulD 1 "*,ATO• 1 -IMI - TD 1/,111[FU ./ Da~USE :=7 le [ 1 , p,~£ 1 a =i- 1 - 1.31 .;™,1. .0. Te- M Ellfi PAI€ ~~11 "ATER TREAT-ENT FACILmE, FIA,IMIAIE 2 ~3 PROCESS FLOW DAGRAM, PRESSURE MEMIN SYSTEM ~ ~MTH 1~IRD STADE TREATI.EN~ 4-4 13 Pei 7==*- Process Flow Diagram: Submerged Membrane System With Third Stage Treatment =/ FLiJ~ PI'.PS FIRST 8~CE CLEA-211 m-i g.. R-O WIX FLOCCU-MJX]N IN... 'CREE.1 .0/8-'ll f....2 I I == . =.1 19 1 11 1 1 1 i -••£ mn-J • 8 1 =127 01=-0 / 1 1 ; : Em i M.~.r E-TO -El 9,(Alry .um »---La_1 ==€ - FU-~I e 1, M~ECr 0~1,~ ,/ n ...... I.-i %..I--i = . :=~:15: Fluu.u.„M U~K MO. I C-[*4' 9 .- u. 1 7. 1 -C...H .0. TO-OPES-P.% Iill WATERTREATIIENI FACImE, MA»,HASE 2 ~AJLY 2010 PROCESS FLOW DIACRN,1. SU.ERGED ~IEMBRANE SYETE" r-- 4-2 WITH THIRD STAGE TREA™El~ Treatment Process Layouts Drive Building Arrangement • Space determined by layout of treatment processes • Included space for 3rd stage treatment • Separate building for chemical storage (due to site constraints) • Fine screens ahead of membranes • Waste holding space required to have multiple stages of treatment 14 Ul-WI Preliminary Building Layout: Pretreatment Building and Membrane Building '9 1/ i n• 1, - - Crk= ..... 0-L k M FUn .: 1 11 7 - MUL-' b 2 ge -0 ..f. = -2. , 1, EW Ful 1 7 9 UZ~~U-1 A .'.-1 LAI e = . FIR, .1,0 9E1./. 5~*I H•LL- m.n.20. i 0», 40 0 = =7 I C ~r.=. 1 1, i 1 . ~~~~~~lrmI pl.JAN./HAIE 2 JULY 2010 HIt i~.N------- P..IhilINARY WUILDNG /YOUr PRETREATI,ENT BULONG AND MEMBRA~ ER,ILDNG 4-5 Preliminary Building Layout: Chemical Storage Building and Clearwell . '01 W I 1/ A A 1 1 1 ~MUD~[JC .ED- .T.,L~ mL- 11.'IE BLNL-£1MO - A~ P~£~ ~1 - / 01//1 ..010 a. ' CO~~,1¤,Tli ..L. ~UTU~~~*dIWI1EIM.AIWIVIE2 ~.... 2010 HR i-Ii-~ F'PELIWIW,R' aU~LOING LAYOUT CHEMICAL ST[)FtAGE aul.ING AND CLEARWEL 4-5 15 Summary of New Plant Facilities Total Facility Square Description Footage Pr-atment Building 2,900 Below grade concrete tanks; above grade masonry *tructure 2-stoly above grade mal-y *ucture; warehouse sty* Membrane Building 4,800 Iloor for pre-packaged membrane equipment Chemical Storage 1,600 1-story above grado masonry shicture; individual rooms for Building each chemical hodsysum Clea,well GOO Above gradi concrete tank; 2 compartments; bamed; 10 R water depth Summary of Vendor Proposals for First and Second Stage Membrane Costs FRIT STZE MEMBR~NES I.'"br.,1. sy'tem Coet TIW 11-1 Oper-1 Operating 40* Wle (Mllions of Modd Pole Size MIM-- ..... Fl= MY Fl~*'11- Dollars) m ./.) ...(In ..(en -01 1'(ON)" P. Pr-ure $1.0 AN 0.1 4044 Al 50.0 74.1 81.00- Pril,url $111 CN«120) U4 137,Ne .UN ls.2 21, Z.aix-L.91 Ze- Mmer,ed $150 Owl 000,) 0,2 ••00 72* 27.0 *1 Budget SECOND STAGE MEMBRANES Membrane Syst•m Cost Total *1 Operating Operating Supplier 1»0 (Millions of model Pei» Size Membrane Hembrai,0 Fll,I MY Fl~lat~· Dollars) (1) (-on) A- (M A- M (-m rigid) 01 P. Pressure $111 AN 11 lilli UN U - $211 P- 24 0.04 1•* 47 115 Z-Box-#52 Zenoll Submerged $250 ON 17,1*0 .„0 110 (050¢•) 7.5 1 1 Budgdoost MJdes bob l md eefmid stage sy-r& 2 1'''' ' ' · 3 Operabr,FluxaIN-liSI,eoper-g#uxoflienlenlbr-ufltionine-,oneN@kloutofae,viol 1 16 Waste Management at the New GWTP • Waste flows at GWTP vary in quantity, quality, and frequency • Process waste flows - Second stage reject - First and second stage neutralized cleaning water - Sedimentation basin sludge (removed by sludge collector) - Fine screen flush, analyzer, block & bleed valve waste • Sanitary waste flows - Plant floor drains - Bathroom and laboratory sinks and drains • Can separate wastes into several categories for handling • Septic system is not viable due to code constraints - • Objective: minimize cost for discharge to UTSD UTSD Sewer ,"I"/"lizilimic//,ilililillippsrimilmoliall Connection Alignment flinitit:.:1Q~· Mi Alternatives - -1. .---.--- -- 4/ • Multiple alignments ...1; ..75,»., 7 4 possible 1.-4...; ..;trjad*:-.s . 1. 0.. . M • Coordination with YMCA - . required 3 16 - 4 4 ge • May require lift station . ... m.11524=. depending on alignment i ..,: 2 hEFRL'i: 2--449< , • Can bedesigned for all *t- ,.... r.4324 <-,-44:Li52>5 flows orjust sanitary flows * ' a~- 479:2.:t-1 + ' 95 'k r I -- ITS.....-1.- A#-- Al»,~-,e 17 UTSD-Fee Strubture Creatas Significalit- =Expgns?- • Tap fee = $8,700 per SFE • Discharge fee = $6.25 per 1,000 gallons discharged • Surcharge for total suspended solids (TSS) or biological oxygen demand (BOD) exceeding set levels - r TSS limit = 230 mg/L; surcharge is $0.36 #er pound f ~- BOD limit = 230 mg/L + - L..r r - . Waste,Discharge Costs for GWTP - • Discharge all waste flows to UTSD - Approximate volume = 30,000 gal/day - tap fee of $1.3 million - Average annual discharge = 3 MG with average TSS = 430 mg/L - discharge fee of $72,000/year • Discharge only sanitary waste flows to UTSD - Treat process waste flows through 3rd stage treatment - Approximate volume = 3,000 gal/day - tap fee of $130,000 - Average annu-al discharge = 300,000 gal/yrwith no surcharge - discharge fee of $1,855/year ' 3rd st* treatment resi~luals (solids) trucked toland* at cost ot approx}mately $570/year 18 Site Work and Utilities • Site must accommodate chemical delivery trucks and fire truck • Space at a premium for truck tum around • Road access improvements are significant • Existing power line adequate for new plant - need new transformer • Extension of Town LAN (fiber optic) to site • Heat and backup power - natural gas or other fuel? Site Improvements 520'Jj~'1,I/. 0 - O $ -~ *415- . ---2.-~ 44 1 p -U..... -- C-j A>| --- 9/ -- .. . 1 \r 4. F ¥ 1-42. - 1. .......1 . .4 .k .1 4 -- TOW" / ellil PNIC IilK WATERT.~TINT FA€llnE, FLA»,~,~2 ,Lv 20~0 /(14£: ' 1- PROP'B ./. M.- 19 Roadway Improvements .f€ a . - r. . . /: tr* - . ·-14-a 2:#2:31-9.RPO- .4 '64.... : 'Al - 31:9.9 i .. . r 4 ¥4. , 3.. . h A : 4 ~1042 . 4 .At. ..:'thi "I .6.- ' .. 7': . 2-19 ~24; 0, 44:21 :24 . ...-... al I. F· .... , HR 1 -/............ Roid ,~ (»Lt.0~1~N' 1 -M,·144,IM' .....1.-1--, . --179 : 01·~ --. i 431 Xcel Natural Gas -3 iew , 4-- 112,•I .. =y ··161 ·.2/,4. e·»i.: Extension .'. - *mitj*#4$.162 VE<'ll,im#42+335.54 • Requires coordination --I, with YMCA .:64£-1 141#inmr<filL, • 2" pipeline for heat only .1.& 1 I ..0: L. - $365,000 cost estimate 4&4 Vilift~.26*. Il - Use diesel forgenerator 5*fi' ' ~~21-~2;~ • 4" pipeline for heat and «*•r . . / F.*,0 .4 4 .- -?~7.-i»,.0 e ../0·0 standby generator , - $500,000 cost estimate i,e'. -~w:-.2 ~liufi:.2 2 ::13 44.. . I.. W 41.-2 I. ./. k . 4 C. Hit --„ 20 -Buc14et Cost-Estimate Impacted by Unusual; Elements • :Narrow, odd shaped lot impacts design layout • Major site renovations for truck access, flood protection, storm water management • Sewer and gas lines must be brought to site • Temporary treatment needed to ensure potable .water supply during construction Fl -- I . • :Remote site increases unit costs ·+ - / *Estimatdd Net Construction Cost in 2010 Dollars Itirn No. Description Total Costs 1 Demolition $ 76,000 2 Temporary Treatment (Install Only) $ 60,000 3 Pretreatment Building $ 1,529,000 4 Membrane BuHding $ 2,022,000 5 Chemical Building $ 485,000 6 Clearwell $ 157,000 7 Utility Corridor $ 632,000 8 Inshmentation $ 100,000 9 Site Backup Power $ 150,000 10 Site Preparation/Improvements $ 667,000 11 Site Electrical Improvements $ 149,000 12 Glacier Creek Intake Improvements $ 200,000 13 Rehabilitate Backwash Pond $ 22,000 14 Access Road Improvements $ 300,000 r 15 UTSD Sewer Connection $ 506,000 - Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $ 7,055,000 Mountain Factor (10%) $ 705,500 Design Contingency (30%) $ 2,116,500 Total Direct Construction Costs $ 0.077.000 Standard General Conditions (14%) $ 1,382,780 $ 11,259,780 ~ Overhead (15%) $ 1,688,967 Profit (10%) $ 1.125,978 stimated NET Construction Cost (2010) $ 14,074,725 : 4 -P £ f . Estimated Net Projett Cost in 2014 Dollars f A 6 Estimated NET Constniction Cost (2010) $ 14,074,725 Inflaion Escalah (47 Months to midpointof oonstrudion at 2%) $ 1,103,000 Estimated NET Construction Cost (2014} $ 15,178,000 Ennineering Plans, Studies, and Pennit Preparation $ 500,000 Engineering Design, Construction Semices, and Legal (20% on 2010) $ 2,815,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost (2014) $ 18,500,000 17 Temporary Treatment(Rental Costs Only) $ 553,000 18 Membrane System (Not Induding Installation) $ 2,954,000 19 Control System and Programming (Non-Membrane) $ 200,000 20 Natural Gas $ 365,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost (2014) $ 22,572,000 6- ... 3Key~Projeet#indings • Large quantity of work to be done to rebuild Glacier • Expensive • Sequential steps - Need to move ahead with early items to ensure plant can be built - Schedule is relatively tight-to meet.2015 finish • Cost savings potential from reducingilischarge fees J - Pil¢3rd stage treatment at Marys Lake WTP _~' • Integrate distribution improvements into ongoing CIP- plans , 22 I . Questions? : 23