HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1106 Study Session Packet
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, November 6, 2017
Council Chambers; 1175 E. Main Street
5:30 p.m.
1. Public Input (15 minutes, maximum)
II. Look Ahead review
III. North Main Road Diet project update
IV. Water treatment plant siting and status update
V. Pioneer Hall structural and facilities improvements
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTYphone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
Council Stud Session November 6, 2017
Title: North Main Road Diet Project Update
Item Type: Information
Requested by Council? Yes
From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director
Paula. brown(a-),ashland. or. us
Summary:
At the September 5, 2017, City Council meeting, the Council accepted the update and annual
report of the function of the North Main Road Diet. At that time, staff had presented proposed
design improvements to some lane and crosswalk configurations that were presented in that
report. Council requested that the proposed projects be further explained. Before the Council's
study session tonight is an explanation of those improvements.
Discussion Questions:
Does the information presented meet the need and level of detail for Council? Do Council wish
for additional information on the projects? Is Council comfortable with the direction of staff?
Resource Requirements:
The following four projects are included in the 2017-2019 biennium budget
• Restripe North Main Street at Bush Street to include a center two-way-left-turn lane
o Part of the $100,000 Super Sharrow project
• Adding a pedestrian island and crosswalk on North Main Street at Van Ness Avenue
and adding a pedestrian crossing with rapid flashers on North Main Street at Nursery
Street
o $75,000. Design complete. Awaiting ODOT approval.
• Removing a portion of the center median on North Main Street at Main Street to provide
a center refuge lane for side street vehicles to pull into when turning onto North Main.
o $80,000. Design complete. Approved by ODOT.
The following projects are not included in the current budget and require preliminary design and
cost estimates, along with community and ODOT coordination to continue to move forward:
• Remove the Helman Street / North Main Street signal
• Improving sight distance for the Hersey Street and Wimer Street approaches
The project to upgrade the traffic signal at Laurel Street has been withdrawn by ODOT as it is
not necessary at this time. Staff will continue to track the need.
Sug,gested Next Steps:
Unless otherwise directed, staff will proceed with the improvements as shown and as previously
Page 1 of 3 CITY OF
ASHLAND
I
approved in the budget. Staff will continue to evaluate the effects of the road diet and
subsequent improvements and report to Council on an annual basis.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
The projects presented above represent the development and subsequent Council approval of the
2017-2019 Biennium Budget.
Council Goals:
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals.
13.3 Support alternative transportation choices.
22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community.
Administrative Goals:
30. Deliver timely life-cycle capital improvements.
Backl4round and Additional Information:
The year-long test of the North Main Road Diet pilot project was completed on October 20,
2013. The project re-striped North Main Street from four lanes (two travel lanes in each
direction) to three lanes (one travel lane in each direction with a center turn lane) and bike lanes.
The goal of the pilot project was to improve safety for all modes of travel including vehicles,
bicycles and pedestrians, while maintaining travel times in the North Main corridor. The City's
contract traffic engineer, Kim Parducci with SOTE, provided a Post Road Diet Assessment of
data collected in June, August and October of 2016 as compared to prior data collected in 2013
and 2014. This evaluation assessed safety and "road diet" performance as it relates to roadway
speed, bicycle/pedestrian use, side street delay, main street delay, intersection level of service,
gaps, travel times, crashes, and average daily traffic differences.
As summarized and accepted in the Council meeting on September 5, 2017, and in the traffic
engineer's report, it was concluded that the North Main Street corridor continues to operate
better overall as a "road-diet" than it did as a four-lane facility and should remain. Delay for side
street movements continues to be reduced at stop-controlled intersections, crashes within the
corridor have been less severe, the speed and average travel time through the corridor has
remained the same, and pedestrian activity has increased.
The traffic engineer in collaboration with City staff, our citizens, the City's Transportation
Commission and ODOT, recommended additional safety and performance improvements:
• Adding a pedestrian island and crosswalk on North Main Street at Van Ness Avenue
• Adding a pedestrian crosswalk on North Main Street at Nursery Street with rapid flashers
• Restriping North Main Street at southern transition to create a center two-way-left-tum-
lane at Bush Street
• Improving sight distance from Hersey Street and Wimer Street approaches
There are two additional recommendations that will require further engineering and evaluation:
• Removal of the Helman Street / North Main Street signal
• Removing a portion of the center median on North Main Street at Main Street to provide
a center refuge lane for side street vehicles to pull into when turning onto North Main.
Page 2 of 3 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Attachments:
Conceptual site images of the proposed changes
Additional Links:
September 5, 2017 Council Meeting staff report link
Page 3of3 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Removing the Helman
n A
Street North Main
Street signal and
restriping North Main
J; ~A~~~~•,. "~a 1 'fie § t~ ~4~: ~PF
e~aw ' ~ 1 f e ru ~ { MS
Street to transition
sooner into the road- + ,~~:•T _ ~Y
r +y ,
diet; `~-I r!
]b►
Transportation
j,t.
Commission
f
k ~ YY
~ F.
recommended that
z
staff complete r , ; h"~~h,, fl
preliminary designs to ti _ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~
. o ~ti.
a r
alter the Helman
Street traffic signal in.
Fr' _ 1.
•
order to have the , • + ~ ` ~ ~ ~
materials necessary to ,q t
4 1,
have an informative ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ - . k `u~°~~
public hearing prior to
making a
„ err
recommendation to the city council. w ` fir;
t"I
lit"
« 1 M G✓
Recommended improvements to Helman Street. Additional information and input is
required to discuss the signal changes.
x A f,~
51
- c
r
3'. P
mom
•
.
z ~ ~ i,;~. - e, rFy
M p 1 7
Restriping North Main Street at Bush Street to include a center two-way-left-turn lane (TWLTL);
Transportation Commission recommended that staff complete preliminary design for restriping N.
Main at Bush Street in order to have the materials necessary to have an informative public
hearing prior to making a recommendation to the city council (Jan 2017).
i`L~ I a
maim
, Tj
NEI"
i [ r '1 i 'E
fi r i- E c ,
ft i
* C ~r .p~J aj4 i P 1eM '~L `i ~3 l B)li.}
ell
•
a
J
toll
Super Shorrow Features
Color may be used to enhance the visibility of shared lane pavement markings and to further encourage
Super desired lane positioning. Some cities, such as long Beach, CA, Oakland, CA, and Salt Lake City, UT have
S h a rrow experimented with a continuous strip of green coloring along the centerline of the travel lane to
concepts enhance the sharrows. Other cities, such as San Francisco, CA have experimented with green boxes that
from the surround the sharrows.
Kittleson
Report LAN
(May 2017).
wr
More to A_ ,T
follow as -
M1
this project
is fully designed.
While there are many benefits to using color, some of the challenges include:
• Green coloring can be difficult to see at night with and without street lighting. Increasing the
visibility of the green coloring can make it slippery when it is wet.
■ Green coloring is used by some jurisdictions to designate bicycle only space and therefore it
could be confusing to some motorists.
• Green coloring requires more maintenance than regular sharrow to ensure visibility.
Additional pavement markings may also be used to enhance the visibility of the shared lane pavement
markings and to further encourage desired lane positioning. More recently, some cities, such as Allston,
MA and Minneapolis, MN have used dashed lines on both sides of the sharrows, while others, such as
San Francisco, have used a combination of green boxes and dashed lines.
Y v-,
Adding a
;i, If
pedestrian island
la.r1.t a r x . a ~.i .r,
and crosswalk on
North Main C4
Per
` a
7,
Street at Van. , ,m
+ - 'ate irk' 4- I
~Y
f .
47
Ness Avenue, r ,~f h+~~ ~~x}
a ~L
t
r qq ~
Recommended by Y4.
f j 1
r . b
i l J'r
.
Transportation
~t$
-Arlo
Commission Jan 1 n G
2017 ~ .`w~TYf ' `J~~° t j ~ ?y^ .
f i 4
- i j
UVV
VA
Ice-
K Fa
a~f -I
r
.h
@ C
Proposed crosswalk improvements and pedestrian island at N. Main
and Van Ness Avenue. Design complete. Awaiting ODOT approval.
,t
li
R
f
7
f
I I1sv I~ I ! ` j i zt
I4 E ~ paw
t I It ~ I ' (f9 Y eF
Z
D
Z
N MAIN i ( / LK AT VAN NESS
Adding a pedestrian crosswalk on North Main Street at Nursery Street with (flashers)
RRFBs; Recommended by Transportation Commission Jan 2017
11 or ~IN
;tom.
fir'': • w. - a rti'.
s. I~ ! y.. V"~ 'S7M A~ ,~5, _.d+ 4 ` `itla ,Oy,• i u" f r ! t
J •
c 1 ny ~ A
m
gw + c'
_ f
a
F~ 4 •
#,a TTT ~i" f~ dF p t i ~p
-in
XA,
j~l
e
e
t .
AA
a
y • f I~
i ( 5
J^,, 47v
fAi
R y
TI
r
v
d Y
,
,
loot^
hr (ryT tT`
J, LYy !~l' 1 •=.^6.1 . , y 1 ai'af„ : .1 r•T 1 g. r ~
,
ooo
Proposed improvements at N. Main and Nursery Street - includes
rapid flashers. Design complete. Awaiting ODOT approval.
I
w
N.MAIN CROSSWALK AT NURSFRY STRFFT
Removing a portion of the center median on North Main Street at Main Street to
provide a center refuge lane for side street vehicles to pull into when turning onto
North Main;
w-
y M .
Art
i
u -
i
'Arf
t.k
:r
Proposed improvements at N. Main and Main
Street. Design complete and approved by ODOT.
EXISTING CURB
EXISTING STRIPE
ISLAND SIGN`.1
R4-7 (18 X 24)
RPM '
-2.65
0 20
SCALE V= 20'
a
EXISTING STRIPE
2
\ EXISTING STRIPE
19.87
~ ~ 11.00 MIN, rye ~ ,
~ puinr 'A _ ` 1
CAWWO
72
Improving sight distance from Hersey Street and Wimer Street;
Recommended by Transportation Commission Jon 2017
TOO
t ~ tR IC ~ F
" r
_ r
, At
.
t~
r % A ~ ~ it • . ' _ ~ ~.r.. ~ it
- . _ - , r,~, e,, ~ - - it
Plr~
1fr ,~lY'~t` ~~P~ i1 I f.. A _ Wtt~~,, ~ 1 '1.
• _ 'r~w ate' . t`' ~ y` u'~''"~ Lr'
iii 1 ~ e ► • ~ • ~ I~^j 'lra r.~
} A preliminary look at the Hersey Street approach
and sight distance restriction stems from foliage
within the right-of-way and/or sight triangle that
l
could be improved.
W V+
, .r, . 3 a,~~ Pr t
a
( a
_ rc;l+k
, 41
Igo
i6 5 i s ` w
r .
Staff will be looking into this further as well '
as addressing the Wimer Street approach. v 4 -
I
Council Stud Session
November 6, 2017m
Title: Water Treatment Plant Siting and Status Update
Item Type: Informational
Requested by Council? Indirectly
From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director
paula.brown(a-)_ashland.or.us
Summary:
Before the Council is a summary update on the status of the proposed supplemental 2.5 million-
gallon a day (MGD) water treatment plant (WTP) and Crowson II reservoir siting study (Project
# 2015-31). The supplemental water treatment plant and storage reservoir are priority projects in
the approved water master plan.
Discussion Questions:
The issue is the ability to provide clean water reliably to the City today and for the next 20-50
years. The City has an outstanding water quality staff and operates the plant and distribution
system well. The existing plant is in a less than optimal site but has performed well in all but the
most extreme circumstances. As such;
• Is council willing to look at viable options at the existing plant site?
• Is council determined to build a 2.5MGD supplemental water treatment plant and run two
plants in the City for the next decade?
• Would Council like to build a new plant regardless of cost`?
Resource Requirements:
The current adopted biennium budget appropriates a total of $22,674,000 dollars for the
engineering and construction of a new 2.5 MGD supplemental water treatment plant and
proposed 2.6 MG Crowson II water storage reservoir. To date expenditures for the water
treatment plant and reservoir siting study total $525,140. These expenditures are valid and will
inform staff through the remainder of the water treatment plant study and water master plan
work.
Suggested Next Steps:
With the completion of the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie, a change in public works
leadership, and a renewed fiscal interest in the events leading to this decision, staff proposed a
suspension on the current plan for a supplemental plant and a deeper investigation into the
existing water treatment plant and remaining life of that plant and its ancillary facilities.
Unless otherwise directed, staff will proceed forward to obtain a comprehensive cost comparison
from RH2 Engineering as shown in detail under "next steps." Once this cost comparison is
Page 1 of 4 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
completed, staff will return to Council (likely February 2018) with a recommendation to
proceed.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
The projects presented above represent the development and subsequent Council approval of the
2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan Update. The water master plan update was the
culmination of a multiyear effort between Carollo Engineers, AWAC and city staff. Staff is
currently in the process of completing a new Water Master Plan Update with RH2 Engineers.
Council Goals:
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals.
22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community.
Department Goals:
• Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle
costs
• Deliver timely life cycle capital improvement projects
• Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the
community
• Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources
Background and Additional Information:
The 2012 Water Master Plan developed the recommendation for a supplemental 2.5 MGD water
treatment plant and 2.6 million gallon (MG) Crowson II storage reservoir as part of the final
capital improvement plan. The 2.5 MGD plant was sized to assist the City in meeting peak
projected water usage in the summer seasons and meant to operate year round with the existing
plan operating as required to meet system capacity requirements past 2.5 MGD. It was expected
the 2.5 MGD plant would be expanded to a full 10 MGD sometime in the future, and the existing
water treatment plant phased out of operation. Based upon the prior water master plan, the
Crowson II reservoir was initially assumed to be sized for 2.6 MG of potable water storage.
Further analysis by RH2 showed that Crowson 11 was unnecessary, although the need for
reservoir improvements will be assessed with the current Water Master Plan evaluation.
The City obtained low interest financing from the Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) for
Engineering and construction of the water treatment plant. The loan was in the amount of
$14,811,865 with a 1.79% interest rate and $1,030,000 in principal forgiveness. The Council
authorized the IFA loan at the June 7, 2017 Business Meeting. Staff has not secured financing for
the storage reservoir and will look to do so in the future once the reservoir size and full need has
been determined. The Council approved a financing resolution at the December 6, 2016 Business
Meeting that allows for the reimbursement of funds towards the reservoir project to be
"reimbursed" once financing is obtained. This financing resolution allowed the project to
proceed.
Through a formal selection process the City awarded Keller Associates stage 1, preliminary
Engineering of the new treatment plant and reservoir, reference March 21, 2017 Council
Communication. Keller Associates was given notice to proceed on the preliminary engineering
Page 2 of 4 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
of the 2.5 MGD WTP and Reservoir on March 22, 2017. This project had three phases; 1)
determine the treatment process for the new WTP, 2) conceptual site selection, and 3) the
evaluation of repurposing the TID line; in addition, the contract was amended to include the
evaluation of membrane filtration pilot support. With the addendum, the contract price is
$427,825. Award of subsequent contract stages was not guaranteed to Keller Associates.
To date the consultant team from Keller Associates has worked with staff on the siting and
preliminary engineering associated with the 2.5MGD treatment plant and reservoir. Numerous
workshops have been held with public works staff to determine an appropriate site for
development of the new water treatment plant. Three specific sites (all city owned property)
were analyzed and compared against each other for placement of the future water treatment plant
(Granite Pit site, Asphalt Pit site, Concrete Pit site) reference attachment 3 site map. The same
treatment plant train and plant sizing was used for each of the three proposed locations to
generate an apples-to-apples comparison.
Criteria were established to compare the proposed site alternatives. Criteria included; capital
cost, operations and maintenance costs, environmental/carbon footprint, expandability, access
and impacts to existing development.
Subsequently, and as identified in the original request for qualifications, RH2 Engineering was
hired to perform peer review on the preliminary engineering work of Keller Associates. RH2
Engineering also competed and was selected through a separate request for proposals process to
complete the City's comprehensive Water Master Plan Update. RH2 Engineering has finished
peer review of the first phase of Keller Associates' work and is in the process of completing the
Water Master Plan.
Keller Associates is currently in the process of addressing comments generated by RH2
Engineering to complete the preliminary design report for the siting of the new plant and
reservoir. This will generally complete the phase I analysis and the membrane pilot will be
completed in December.
AWAC:
The Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC) continues to be appraised of the status of the
project and the preliminary siting study information was presented at their June 27, 2017
meeting. On the August 22, 2017 meeting, staff took AWAC members on a site tour of the
proposed supplemental plant location and existing treatment plant. AWAC met again on
September 26, 2017 and the members were brought up to speed on the current status of the
Keller contract and the Master Plan.
The existing recommendation is to construct a supplemental water treatment plant for 2.5 MGD
and construct a 2.6 MG reservoir. The proposal includes running both the new supplemental
plant and also maintaining the existing plant.
With a change in public works leadership, completion of the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP)
Intertie, and a renewed fiscal interest in the events leading to this decision, staff proposed that we
take a pause to allow a deeper investigation into the problem we are trying to solve, the existing
Page 3 of 4 CITY OF
ASHLAND
plant and remaining life of that plant and its ancillary facilities. Staff asked AWAC for
concurrence to suspend the current decision and make a comprehensive cost comparison for a
single new 7.5 MGD plant and decommissioning the existing plant as opposed to making
improvements to the existing plant for a 20-year life which includes upgrades to the treatment
process, and necessary facility improvements to sustain potential earthquake and flooding
damage.
After general discussion and better understanding of staff's request for defined fiscal
responsibilities, AWAC unanimously supported staff s request.
Next Steps:
Staff has moved forward on obtaining a competitive cost comparison. As time is a factor and as
RH2 Engineering has completed the peer review and has the background on the proposed
supplemental plant and new reservoir, they have been asked to provide a scope and cost to
provide the full cost comparisons for the following:
1. A new 7.5 MGD plant (full operational needs) with comparable treatment process to the
existing plant including operations and maintenance costs for 20 years
a. Include time to construct and cost to keep the existing plant operational
b. Include costs to decommission the existing plant
2. Evaluate the life of the existing plant- can it be renovated for a 20-year life to treat 7.5
MGD
a. Include operational seismic upgrades; flood protection, fire, etc.
3. Identify risks to each option
4. Do not cost "like" options (doing exactly the same thing to both options)
Once a cost comparison is completed, staff will return to Council (likely in February 2018) with
recommendations on the next steps.
Attachments:
• IFA (Infrastructure Award Authority) Award Letter dated April 22, 2016
• Conclusions and Recommendations, Section 9, Preliminary Design Report-Siting Study
• Preliminary site map (Granite Low Plant Option-Preferred)
• AWAC Minutes, September 26, 2017
I~
Page 4 of 4 CITY OF
ASHLAND
i
busln ss
ore • • .~i
Infrastructure
APri122 2016 Finance
Authority
Mr. John Stromberg, Mayor
City of Ashland
20 E. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
i
RE: Award for Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, New 2.5 MG Water Treatment Plant, Project
#S16021, ($14,811,865), April 21, 2016
Dear Honorable Stromberg:
Congratulations on the City's successful application for the above-referenced project to design and construct a new
2.5 million gallon Water Treatment Plant.
The award consists of a loan of $13,781,865 and a forgivable loan of $1,030,000. The interest rate on the loan will
be 1.79% for a maximum term of 30 years. The full terms and conditions of the City 's award are contained in a
contract, which will be sent to the City shortly for your signature.
I
Please note that the legal obligations for funding and for reimbursement of project expenses are subject to executl on
of the contract.
The City's project is being administered through the Infrastructure Finance Authority. We encourage, the City of
Ashland to offer appropriate media opportunities to help build public awareness of the project's purposes d
benefits. Please notify us of any event celebrating the project.
i
As always, we are available to answer questions that may arise during the implementation of the project. If you ne d
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 541-882-1340 or by email at marv.a.bakerna oreoon. ov
Sincerely,
Mary Baker, Regi*th Infrastructure Finenc. Copy of Sta
ff Recommendation
c: Mr. Michael Faught, Ashland Public Works Director
Mr. Scott Fleury, Ashland Public Works Department
Ms. Patricia Foley, Rogue Valley Council of Governments
File
775 Summer St. NE, suite 200 • Salem, OR 97301-1280
503-986-0123 • fox 503-581-5115 • TTY 800-735-2900 • www.odnfrastructure.org
DRAFT
SECTION 9: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the suitability of the proposed sites, Keller Associates worked with City staff
to identify factors that should be considered in selecting the preferred treatment plant site.
These factors included capital costs, O&M (power) costs, environmental/sustainability
impacts, expandability, access, and impacts to the public.
Table 3 shows the comparative capital costs and power costs for each site. These costs
include major transmission piping (onsite and offsite), access roads, and site development
costs for both the treatment plant and the Crowson II reservoir. More detailed cost
breakouts are included in Appendix F of this report.
Table 3 - Capital and O&M Costs (Site, Piping, and Power Only)
Concrete High Concrete Low Granite High Granite Low Asphalt Pit
Site (Ex/Backfill, Rdwys, $ 2,951,000 $ 3,248,000 $ 4,140,000 $ 2,704,000 $ 4,625,000
Rtng Wall, Site Imp.)
Offsite & Major Yard Piping
/ Offsite PRV Station' $ 3,399,000 $ 3,727,000 $ 4,194,000 $ 3,692,000 $ 3,405,000
Pumping Station $ 888,000 $ 1,462,000 $ 888,000 $ 888,000 $ 1,615,000
Subtotal $ 7,238,000 $ 8,437,000 $ 9,222,000 $ 7,284,000 $ 9,645,000
Contingency (30%) $ 2,172,000 $ 2,532,000 $ 2,767,000 $ 2,186,000 $ 2,894,000
Construction Costs $ 9,410,000 $ 10,969,000 $ 11,989,000 $ 9,470,000 $ 11,539,000
Engineering (23%) $ 2,165,000 $ 2,523,000 $ 2,758,000 $ 2,179,000 $ 2,884,000
Total Project $ 11,575,000 $ 13,492,000 $ 14,747,000 $ 11,649,000 $ 15,423,000
Pumping Power Costs
(20 yrs)2 $ 104,000 $ 512,000 $ 92,000 $ 98,000 $ 1,052,000
20-Year Comparative $ 11,679,000 $ 14,004,000 $ 14,839,000 $ 11,747,000 $ 16,475,000
Life Cost
1. Concrete Low and Asphalt Pit Sites include a small PRV station.
2. Pumping Cost are based on a 4MGD flow 24/7. Discount rate was assumed to be equal to the inflation rate to arrive
at the 20-Year Comparative Life Cost.
3. Costs are in 2017 dollars.
Power costs assume that the available head from the Tailrace is preserved where feasible.
For the Concrete Low and Asphalt Sites, the pressure head would need to be cut to limit
pressures to no greater than 65 psi entering the membrane facility. This results in higher
power costs for these alternatives. It should be noted that if conventional treatment
processes are selected, it would likely be necessary to break head somewhere within the
treatment plant. Consequently, the annual power costs over the 20-year life of the facility
would increase as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 - Added Power Cost for Conventional Treatment
Concrete High Concrete Low Granite High Granite Low Asphalt Pit
Added Pumping $ 436,000 $ 956,000 $ 448,000 $ 1,018,000 $ 936,000
Power Costs (20 yrs)1
1. Added pumping cost based on a flow of 4 MGD. Discount rate was assumed to be equal to the inflation rate
to arrive at the 20-Year Comparative Life Cost.
2. Costs are in 2017 dollars.
217002/b/l7-131 CITY OF ASHLAND - WTP Siting Study TM • - .
DRAFT
The two most attractive alternatives from a life cycle cost standpoint appear to be the
Concrete High and Granite Low Sites. It should be noted that a new concrete bridge/culvert
structure was included in the cost estimate for granite sites to mitigate the City's concern of
the culvert historically washing out where Horn Creek Road crosses Ashland Creek in the
canyon.
A pairwise comparison process was employed to compare each site in terms of the
selection criteria mentioned above. This process included an evaluation of selection criteria
to develop overall weighting (see Table 5). A similar comparison process between
alternatives was developed for each selection criteria. Scoring in the pairwise comparison is
as follows:
1 Alternative is much worse than the one being compared to.
2 Alternative is a little worse than the one being compared to.
3 Alternatives are comparable.
4 Alternative is better than the one being compared to.
5 Alternative is much better than the one being compared to.
For Ashland's capital cost, the ranking went as follows. Similar comparisons of each criteria
were developed with input from City staff. (see Capital Costs Row in Table 5):
• Capital Costs compared to O&M Cost - Capital Costs is more important than O&M
cost resulting in a score of 4.
• Capital Costs compared to Env./Sust./Carbon - Capital Costs is less important than
Env./Sust./Carbon resulting in a score of 2.
• Capital Costs compared to Expandability - Capital Costs is more important than
Expandability resulting in a score of 4.
• Capital Costs compared to Access - Capital Costs is more important than Access
resulting in a score of 4.
• Capital Costs compared to Impacts to Ex. Develop. - Capital Cost is more important
than Impacts to Existing Development; resulting in a score of 4.
Table 5 - Weighting Criteria
Capital •O&M Env./Sustj Expanda- Impacts to Weights
Costs Cost Carbon bility Access Ex. Develop.
Capital Costs 4 2 4 4 4 18 20%
O&M Cost 2 2 4 3 4 15 17%
Env./Sust./Carbon 4 4 4 3 5 20 22%
Expandability 2 2 2 2 4 12 13%
Access 2 3 3 4 4 16 18%
Impacts to Ex.
Develop. 2 2 1 2 2 9 10%
90 100%
217002/b/17-131 CITY OF ASHLAND - WTP Siting Study TM • . • - M .
DRAFT
Appendix E shows the scoring for each selection criteria. Table 6 and Figure 19 show the
summary results. Granite Low scored the highest and is the preferred site, while
Concrete High was ranked second. Both sites have comparable site development costs
and retain the available energy from the existing treatment plant Tailrace, allowing for
gravity flow conditions for much of the time. Granite Low has a much larger developable
area which allows for better site access, more flexibility in building layouts and greater
expansion potential. Moving forward, predesign of the new treatment plant and offsite piping
will focus on the Granite Low Site.
Table 6 - Summary Scoring
caoital s:
Carbon Impacts to
® lop. Total
~ost *s EX_
Concrete-High 3.40 2.50 2.59 1.07 1.07 1.10 12.5
Concrete-Low 2.60 2.00 2.37 1.87 2.04 1.10 12.0
Granite-High 1.60 1.83 2.67 1.47 1.78 1.50 10.8
Granite-Low 3.40 1.33 3.11 2.67 2.13 1.50 14.1
Asphalt Pit-Low 1.00 2.33 2.59 0.93 2.84 0.80 10.5
60.0
Figure 19 - Summary Scoring
Siting Selection - Pairwise Comparison
16.0
14.0
12.0 ■ .
10.0 . ■ Impacts to Ex. Develop.
8.0 . . ■ Access
6.0 Expandability
4.0
a Env./Sust./Carbon
2.0
0.0 ■ O&M Cost
`
A 4R c``e `~i ace O~a\`~ ra\Q` ■ Capital Coss
Lo Coc
Crowson II Considerations
In order to get a more complete picture for the costs to develop the sites, the tank
access road, piping to and from the tank, and tank excavation costs were also
included. For the Granite Low Site, this accounts for approximately 30% of the site
development capital costs, or $3,520,000 of the $11,544,000 total. We also
understand that the final tank size has not yet been determined and the City is
considering a potential future Crowson III reservoir site adjacent to the Crowson II
reservoir. A preliminary review of the proposed granite sites' tank location suggests
that two 3 MG tanks could be accommodated. Depending on the selected treatment
disinfection technology, construction of Crowson II may not be required, which could
allow Crowson II improvements to be completed at a later date.
217002/b/17-131 CITY OF ASHLAND- WTP Siting Study TM .
~
MAN"
A 10111.
.4 JAI% AV- 'J
r ~
Pl"' r •r
ti
Allh
a~' ~ + ~ ~5'~j% "s~ y v~ s'y^ b '~M,sy~, 5 r+.'`,•~ ' t ''.F'9.. Jh+'l
} r
r
, a
4 4
• _ rah
"r„,w' ^,d"~. c*`,~J.7'M"-'~'i► rr, h ' )l ^ K l: r ` R ` 4r'
"e
R eR t i 9 M ♦ '4'
q itrJO 500 1,000 1.500
Feet 1 y m t
'4 .f~ b
~F
ApIr
~ f
r. i1~~~/1•'' t-'~ l~/~ ~ ~ ,r ,w~ ~If, ^l,~ i., f ~ ~ I~~I h11~
rt/ X ~w9'`raI
~rlla S~ ) ♦ ~t i ~~fi
II
J ttt 1 r ~A
- ~ Sri 'W yJ / 1 ~ ' i ~ A ~ ~AA ~i ~ ~ f ~ s~( d "A 1 ~re~"' ~ /~i
j.e a i~ fi `l~``,~~\ ~i ~ /ice i~ ~ ~ C~~ r ~ , Y ~/✓r ~ ~ ~ ~
~ v Nt• \l ~ ~ rte/ f'~-~/~✓/ / / 7~',t~'~ ~ 4 ~ r~'
lW10\`~
k2
44- 7\7 ~N
a
F - ;
l
y
cif ~ ~ • ~II~T , s i iQ '"j*i s:,
e
A~
J .f~~ ~ fie- --x, _ s • : tp{ , / ry i ~ ~ 1 >r X ~ ~ x
~ ~r2 ~ ~~l 111111111 ` ` ~ F~~,'' ?•>`J s~~ Y
I h I( 1 ~ '0 ~ t
1W
( 1 i (I
f vy x
l `I
SITE LAYOUT - GRANITE SITE - LOW CITY OF ASHLAND WATER TRL=ATMENT PLAN F KE L L E R
SITING STUDY somoolat••
ASHLAND WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 26th, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
John Williams called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM
Committee Members Present: Darrell Boldt, Joe Graf, Rich Miller, Pat Acklin, Alex
Amarotico, Kate Jackson, John Williams (chair), Don Morris, Michael Morris (Council
liaison)
Committee Members Absent: Donna Rhee
Staff present: Tami De Mille-Campos, Scott Fleury, Steve Walker, Michael Morrison,
Greg Hunter, Kevin Caldwell, Julie Smitherman, Paula Brown
Staff absent: None
Consultants: Jeff Ballard (RH2)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Paula Brown gave background on herself and the committee then gave around the
room introductions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 27, 2017
Boldt/Graf m/s to approve minutes. Approved unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
None
NEW 2.5 MGD WATER TREATMENT PLANT/CROWSON 11 RESERVOIR PROJECT
UPDATE
Brown shared with the committee that she has been back as Public Works Director for
three weeks and one of the things she asked about when she became Director was
where are we and what has been happening. In the past three weeks a few things have
happened which brings her to recommend taking a pause and allow time to finish the
siting study which should be finalized before the next meeting. Keller and Associates
lost an intricate member of the group and because of this staff felt it was appropriate to
part ways with Keller and look at what phase II brings. With phase II we need to look
closer at what problem the committee is looking to solve and why we would want to
build a new plant while continuing to operate the old plant. She is a bit perplexed as to
why we would operate two plants for a town of our size. She is proposing a phase II for
the committee which would be a much deeper review and would include hiring a new
consultant to evaluate our existing plant from the standpoint of what lifespan does that
plant have left and what risks currently exist and look at what is fiscally responsible.
Brown said a lot has changed since the committee re-formed, one of the biggest things
is we now have TAP (Talent Ashland Phoenix Intertie). Brown would like the committee
to look at what the policy is for using TAP and what is the realistic expectation for TAP.
She wonders how we should best use it, if we are "paying for it' maybe we should be
using it more than we are. She feels there should be a more detailed analysis and
doesn't feel we have the necessary information right now to move forward with a new
plant. Brown questions if the old plant won't last longer than ten years, should we decide
to scrap it and just build a new one or if it turns out that the existing plant will last twenty
years, then it may be a good deal to keep the old plant and not build a new plant. If the
old plant will last between ten and twenty years for a reasonable price then that is a
debate we may need to have. She suggests that we spend roughly fifty to seventy five
thousand to do a detailed study of a fifty year time period and what the costs of
retrofitting the old plant would be versus building a new plant. This study could take
three to six months with a new consultant. She is going to put together an RFP (request
for proposal) before the next meeting.
There was discussion amongst the committee regarding what has transpired since the
committee began its work and Brown said she had a pretty good handle on what this
committee has been looking at and in her discussions with support staff she has looked
at risk versus affordability and she doesn't feel comfortable moving forward without
taking a deeper look at what is best for the community. Acklin shared when they came
up with the plan they didn't think there was a good enough solution to the flooding,
landscape, seismic issue and they felt like that was a precarious place for the sole
treatment plant to be, the thinking was that we have to find another location at some
point because it is susceptible. She agreed that several things have changed since they
made their original recommendations, including TAP. She also feels if we do not know
more about what citizens are willing to conserve we will know a lot more in the future as
a result of the computer modeling which is currently underway. While this committee
has discussed TAP, they have been circular discussions and the committee hasn't
necessarily arrived at a conclusion for how often we use it. She feels it would be foolish
to not stop and look more carefully. Graf shared he thought the vision of this committee
always was that there would be one plant (the new plant) and the recommendation that
came out was a compromise because there was a lot of difficulty amongst the
committee in regards to TAP and other things. They landed on 2.5mgd largely because
that was the average winter consumption. He doesn't think anyone had any desire in
operating two plants long term. Williams shared that for him the idea of a new treatment
plant came out of an economic analysis and when looking at the cost of continuing to
use the old treatment plant, given the information that was available at that time, it was
so close to the cost of building a new treatment plant with the additional advantages of a
new treatment plant that was a no brainer for him and that is why he supported that
recommendation. Brown said she would love to have a new 7.5mgd treatment plant that
does everything we want it to but she would be remiss in not taking these options and
the various cost options to City Council. Jackson shared as a continuing member of this
committee she feels we need to understand how the decision was made, she can't
recall how they decided, other than what Graf eluded to which was there was a lot of
disagreement. She's wondering how the committee should reopen the discussion
without revisiting all of the old arguments. Councilor Morris recalled at the Council level
the discussion was all about the redundancy of running two plants. He shared that he
never saw enough of the technical side. His personal opinion is he has always felt that
Ashland's problem isn't the impoundment of treated water but it is more the
impoundment of untreated water (reservoir) but he never saw real numbers on that at
the council level. Boldt shared that when the committee started this process there were
two key factors they were keeping in mind were reliability and redundancy and based on
the information they spent a lot of time looking at different options for conservation and
with climate change coming along we know that is going to be even more critical. The
information they got on the existing plant all weighed into the fact that it has a limited life
span that won't be easily extended which then made a lot more sense to phasing the
old one out and building a new plant. The redundancy part of the equation was TAP and
now that TAP is in place this changes the equation. He is never opposed to going back
and revisiting something just to verify that we are going in the right direction. He agrees
with Brown's recommendation to step back and make sure the right decision is being
made and it is justifiable.
Brown estimated this cost analysis would probably take three to six months and cost
maybe fifty to seventy-five thousand. Ballard said a seismic evaluation creates a whole
different level of evaluation. Williams said there was a lot of talk about how much money
was going to need to be spent on keeping the old plant going and it was adding up and
they just want to make sure that even if it does have some lifespan left that it makes
financial sense. Brown doesn't believe we have spent bad money at the existing plant
and this plant has served the city well through three floods in recent history, there is
capacity that may be untapped and there are risk issues that haven't been fully
addressed but we owe it to the community to spend the money wisely. Graf said he
expected this committee would have to wrestle with the notion of a 2.5mgd plant and it
sounds like this is the data staff feels they need in order to make a recommendation and
he is fully supportive of moving ahead with this study. He also indicated he has always
thought operating two plants is a bad idea. Acklin said as she remembers the process,
Pieter Smeenk was instrumental in helping us get what we needed out of Carollo.
Brown said the information we have from Carollo and Keller is great information and not
something you throw out but she isn't sure if it went deep enough, but we can go
deeper. Brown will draft the phase II RFP and hopefully get it out for publishing before
the next committee meeting. If there are things that she missed we will bring it back and
get those added. She will give an update to the City Administrator and then the plan
would be to take it to the November 6, 2017 Council Study Session for their input. The
committee voiced unanimous agreement for Brown to draft the phase II RFP.
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Jeff Ballard, Rh2 Engineering passed around a handout (see attached) and Brown
passed around the original committee charter (see attached).
Ballard shared they have all the information they need and the modeling is going
through the final steps of calibration and then they will move on to the system
evaluation. They are in the process of working with the conservation consultant and
should be able to bring that information to the October meeting. He is continuing to build
the Water Master Plan Update document itself, but the conservation element will be a
big part of it. Thus far there haven't been many surprises, there could be some zone
change recommendations made but other than that the system is fairly simplistic with
the water all flowing downhill.
Ballard presented the Level of Service Goal recommendations (see attached), those
shown in red are his recommendations.
Walker shared that cross-connection (backflow) is really important to make sure we
don't have a user who infects the entire supply. Currently we satisfy the Oregon Health
Authority regulations requirement which is that we have a database that tracks the
testing of the backflow devices that we know of in town. One of the areas that this
community hasn't gotten to is going around property by property and identifying hazards
on that property and ensuring the homeowner has the proper level of protection
installed. That is a huge task and politically it is a hot topic if not handled properly, there
is a lot of public outreach to be done to ensure it is handled properly. He said that is a
pretty simplistic explanation of it but he hopes this is something we can take a look at in
the future. Brown said in addition to the water plant having cross connections, the waste
water plant also has cross connection issues. She thinks we will at some point be
asking Council to update the ordinances to give the City permission to monitor, check
and report on every residential backflow situation, along with the public outreach
component which the water conservation division has already been trying to do when
they are out with property owners doing irrigation audits.
Acklin asked what the potential is to have power generated with all of our gravity flow.
Ballard answered that we started to go down that path as part of the water master plan
update, he isn't against evaluating it but where they landed is that within the existing
system we have limited locations where there is steady flow which is needed to
generate good power. They City's system operates on pressure reducing valves
(PRV's) so it allows water to come through as there is demand, you need a large
volume of water at a consistent flow rate. There are places where you could generate
power but it comes down to cost effectiveness. Graf said with the Climate Energy Action
Plan (CEAP) we are going to desperately being looking for ways to save energy and
this may come up again because we may come up against a limit as to where we are
going to save. Brown said she would like to explore that but that would be a future
phase to the plan. Williams said we spent a lot of time talking about a fifty year climate
prediction study for our watershed and staff may want to research and see if they did a
more recent study during the CEAP process. Ballard said they are using updated
climate data for the supply model and so we will want to make sure to have that
conversation at the end of next month to make sure we are consistent with what
Williams is talking about.
Brown asked the committee to review the original committee charter (year 2010
estimate) handout between now and the next meeting and come back to the next
meeting with any questions or comments.
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos
Public Works Administrative Supervisor
Council Stud Session
November 6, 2017A
Title: Pioneer Hall Structural and Facilities Improvements
Item Type: Informational
Requested by Council? Yes
From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director
pauIa.brown (a-)_ashland. or.us
Kaylea Kathol Project Manager, Facilities
kaylea.kathol(d)-ashland. or.us
Discussion Questions:
Should staff continue to define structural and facilities improvements necessary for Pioneer Hall
regardless of use?
Resource Requirements:
The biennial budget includes annual funds for minor and major improvements to all of the City's
facilities. Costs are not identified for specific buildings but are prioritized as requirements arise.
Steve Ennis, Architect and Marques & Associates, Inc. completed a condition assessment that
was presented to Council during the September 19, 2017 study session. This assessment
identified necessary seismic, roofing, floor strengthening and interior improvements for building
code compliance. At staff's request, they have provided the attached estimate to complete the
design and engineering drawings and to provide final construction cost estimates for the
necessary improvements to Pioneer Hall. Costs for final architectural and engineering design
work is $41,041 (see attached).
Suggested Next Steps:
No action is required to enable staff to proceed with final design, engineering and cost estimates.
Staff will bring back final construction cost estimates to Council to determine the level of effort
and priority for this City structure.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
Council Goals:
2.2 Engage boards and commissions in supporting the strategic plan
4 Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals
Department Goals:
• Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle
costs
• Deliver timely life cycle capital improvement projects
Page 1 of 2 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
• Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community
• Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources
Backsround and Additional Information:
NA
Attachments:
Design Costs
Additional Links
Council study session, September 19, 2017 Pioneer Hall
Page 2 of 2 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
STEVE ENNIS ARCHITECT
CITY OF ASHLAND
PIONEER HALL
ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING FEE WORKSHEET
October 31, 2017
ARCHITECT DRAFTSMAN
A SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE (DONE)
Ij
B DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
1 Scope Review Meeting with Owner 2
2 Cover Drawing & Site Plan (enlarged site plan) 2 5
3 Outline Scope of Work on Floor Plan, Building Sections & Ext. Elevs. 3 8
4 Draw up Roof Plan 1 3
5 Draw Interior Elevations 3 8
6 Coordination with Historic Commission & SHPO 8
7 Coordination with Cost Estimator 4
8 Approval Meeting with Owner 3
9 Coordination with Owner & Engineers (6 Weeks @ 2) 12
SUBTOTAL 38 24
j
C CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE
10 Details at Porch, Chimney & Cabinets 4 16
11 Meetings with Owner (75% & 95% Meetings @ 3 Each) 6
12 Specifications 16
13 Complete Cover Drawing, SP, FP, BS, RP, EE & IE 4 16
14 Coordination with Owner & Engineers (8 Weeks @ 2) 16
SUBTOTAL 46 of 32
D PERMITTING PHASE
15 Coordinate Permit with City 3
16 Approvals from Historic Commission & SHPO 16
17 Reply to Contractor Questions & Issue Addendums 8
18 Coordination with Owner & Engineers (6 Weeks @ 2) 12
SUBTOTAL I 39 0
E CONSTRUCTION PHASE
19 Inspections and Reports - 18 @ 3 Hours each 54
20 Shop Drawings & Submittal Reviews 16
21 Pay Requests & Change Orders 8 L {1 i
22 Coordinate with Owners & Contractor - 16 Weeks @ 4 64
23 Completion & Closeout 8
SUBTOTAL 115-0--. 0
TOTAL HOURS 273 56
s
HOURLY RATES $94 $70
SUBTOTAL $25,662 $3,920
ARCHITECTURAL FEE $29,582 7~9r'
b j1~0/ (0
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE (ACC Cost Consultants) $3,000
CIVIL ENGINEERING (Marquess & Associates) $1,500
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING (Marquess & Associates) $16,375 ~'l 9~ 2 Zs
MEP ENGINEERING (Marquess & Associates) $8,350
ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING FEE $58,807 ~ll5+~n
1108 EAS'I' JACKSON STREET • MBDFORD, OR 97501
Phone: (541) 618-9155 • Fax: (541) 618-9156 ~G /fir J ~ t ~
i