HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-02 Study Session
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, April 2, 2018
Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
5:30 p.m.
1. Public Input (15 minutes, maximum)
II. Look Ahead review 10
III. Water Treatment Plant status update 7b
IV. Economic Development, Cultural, Tourism, and Sustainability grants process
V. Discussion of Sister City 50th Anniversary Celebrations io - Cs--
VI. Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act of 2017
Immediately following the study session, Council will hold an Executive Session for
real property transaction pursuant to ORS 190.660(2)(e) in the Jury Room.
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 (TTY phone 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
4116 Study Session (in Council Chambers) 4113
1 Review of employee health benefits plan options Finance/ HR Mark Welch/ Tina Gray SS
2 Pioneer Hall Construction Cost Estimates & Options Public Works Paula Brown SS
3 Discussion of potential deer summit and/or deer-issues options Administration Adam Hanks SS
4117 Regular Council Meeting 4117
4 Annual presentation b the Historic Commission Com Dev Bill Molnar PRES
5 Proclamation re: volunteer week and volunteer recognition Fire Mike D'Orazi PROC
6 CDBG Public Hearin and Grant awards Com Dev Bill Molnar PH
7 Housing Trust Fund Grant awards Com Dev Bill Molnar PH
8 475 Nevada - Land Use Decision Continuation Com Dev Bill Molnar UNFIN
9 TOT/Live Entertainment Ticket Tax/ Direction Finance Mark Welch RES
10 TOT allocation resolution Finance Mark Welch RES All Three items linked - Police Funding
11 Public Safety support fee resolution Finance Mark Welch RES
12 Potential Sale of Real Property Administration Adam Hanks NEW
13 Council Position #6 - Select Finanists Recorder Melissa Huhtula NEW
k
ion in C
14 Discussion regarding Master Plan updating Public Works Paula Brown SS
15 U date on City Administrator Recruitment HR/Finance Tina Gray SS
16 Discussion of senior issues (request of Councilors Slattery/Seffinger) Administration Adam Hanks SS
511 Regular Council Meeting 5/1
17 RVCOG annual presentation b Michael Cavallaro Administration Adam Hanks PRES
18 Public Hearing on utility (Electric, Water, Wastewater) fees update Finance/ Electric/ PW Mark Welch/ Tom McBartlett/ PH
Paula Brown RES
19 Public hearing and approval of annexation and zoning change - Comm Dev Bill Molnar PH
Washington Street
20 Transportation Network Companies - Amend AMC 6.28 Legal David Lohman ORD1
21 Annual Approval of Employee health benefits plan HR/Finance Tina Gray/Mark Welch NEW
22 Potential Purchase of Real Property Administration Adam Hanks NEW
23 Polic regarding civic donations Legal David Lohman NEW
24 Approval of the disillusion of the Waterline Road LID Public Works Paula Brown NEW
25 Council Position #6 - Appointment Recorder Melissa Huhtula NEW
77W-M-77 -7,
i14 Study Session (in Cou t"
26 Presentation b Sherrif Sickler re: Jackson Count Jail Police Tighe O'Meara PRES
5115 Regular Council Meeting 5/15
27 Annual presentation b the Wildfire Mitigation Commission Fire Mike D'Orazi PRES
28 Annual Use of Force report Police Tighe O'Meara CONS
29 Transportation Network Companies - Amend AMC 6.28 Legal David Lohman ORD2
30 Downtown Beautification Projects & Downtown Parkin Plan Public Works Paula Brown NEW
7-77777-1
d stun inCoun
:..,n _ _
31 Annual Winter shelter report and discussion Administration Adam Hanks SS
32 10 B 20 Project Update - Rate Analysis Report Electric /Admin McBartlett/Hanks Ss
6/5 Regular Council Meeting 6/5
33 Annual presentation b the Band Board Administration Adam Hanks PRES
34 Ashland High School - Sister City Representatives Presentation Administration Adam Hanks PRES
35 Public hearing and annual update to misc. fees resolution Finance Mark Welch PH
RE
36 Update on Internal Controls Policy Finance Mark Welch RES
6/18 Study Session with Budget Comm. Members invited 6118
37 1st Year Budget Review Finance Mark Welch BDGT
38 Budget Book - Present and Review updated layout Finance Mark Welch BDGT
6/19 Regular Council Meeting 6/19
7/2 Study Session (in Council Chambers)
Cancel Due to Jul 4th Holiday?
7/3 Regular Council Meeting 7/3
Page 1 of 2
7116 Study Session with Budget Comm. Members invited 7116
39 Year Two Preview & Outlook
7117 Regular Council Meeting 7117
40 Annual resentation b the Forest Lands Commission Fire Mike D'Orazi PRES
e stud Session in Council Chambers
817 Regular Council Meeting
7 771
w,esorr maunefl Chambers" -A
8i21 Regular Council Meeting
41 Annual presentation b the Conservation Commission Administration Adam Hanks
Commission Presentation Dates - 2018 Study Sessions with Budget
Comm. members invited
-April 17 - Historic Commission
May 15 - Wildfire Mitigation Commission
June 5 - Band Board March 19, 2018
Jul 17 - Forest Lands Commission June 18, 2018
August 21 - Conservation Commission July 16, 2018
September 18 - Airport Commission October 15, 2018
October 16 - Public Arts Commission
November 6 - Housing & Human Srvcs. Comm.
December 4 - Planning Commission
To Be Scheduled
Discussion regarding the seismic code
Re ort on Eugene homeless and shelter infrastructure, including car camping (re q. of Mayor Stromber
Council Rules - Review and Proposed Revisions (continued)
Page 2 of 2
Council Stud Session
April 2, 0:
Title: Water Treatment Plant Status Update
Item Type: Informational
Requested by Council? Yes
From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director
paula.brown(a ashland.or.us
Summary:
Before the Council is an update on the results of the comprehensive cost comparison for the
water treatment plant (WTP). Council will recall staff s update at the November 6, 2017 study
session in which staff proposed suspending the current direction of building a new 2.5 million
gallon per day (mgd) WTP and concurrently running the existing plant, to allow staff to
financially assess and compare the costs to either build a new 7.5 mgd water treatment plant or
continue to upgrade and utilize the existing water treatment plant (WTP). The costs to operate
two separate WTPs are not in the best interest of the City.
Discussion Questions:
The issue has not changed from last November: ensure the City has the ability to provide clean
water reliably to our community, today and for the next 20-50+ years, and further ensure that the
City is capable of meeting not only today's water quality standards, but to also anticipate
meeting future regulation changes. The City has an outstanding water quality staff that operates
the existing WTP and distribution system exceptionally and with pride for our community. The
existing plant is in a less than optimal site, but has performed well in all but the most extreme
circumstances.
Staff has moved forward on obtaining a competitive cost comparison from RI-12 Engineering and
their partner, Black and Veatch, at a fee not to exceed $34,900. That analysis is to evaluate:
1. Costs for a new 7.5 mgd WTP with a comparable treatment process to the existing plant.
2. Costs of facility and operational improvements to the existing treatment plant along with
a risk assessment for seismic, flooding and operational expandability at the current site.
As such, based on the results of the cost comparison;
• Is council willing to overlook significant seismic, potential flooding and other risks at the
existing plant site and continue to operate the WTP in its current location?
• Is council ready to fully invest in its future and build a 7.5 mgd WTP at the lower granite
pit location?
Resource Requirements:
The current adopted biennium budget (BN 2018-19) appropriates a total of $22,674,000 dollars
for the engineering and construction of two projects: a new 2.5 mgd supplemental water
Page 1 of 4 CITY OF
ASHLAND
treatment plant (Project # 2015-31) and proposed 2.6 million gallon (mg) Crowson II water
storage reservoir. To date expenditures for the water treatment plant and reservoir siting study
total $525,140. The preliminary engineering associated with these expenditures remain effective
and will inform staff through the remainder of the water treatment plant design and construction
as well as completion of the water master plan work.
Suf14ested Next Steps:
Staff recommends moving forward with a single project to build a new 7.5 mgd plant with
potential for future capacity and stay within the same BN 2018-19 budget appropriation. Unless
there are objections voiced tonight, staff will proceed with developing a formal request for
qualifications to complete design of a 7.5 mgd water plant.
Staff will bring a formal decision for design consultant selection, final design approvals,
construction award and any required additional funding options to Council at relevant points, as
well as periodic updates through the Capital Improvements Plan reviews, budget reviews or
water program updates as desired.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
The original projects represent priorities within the Council approved 2012 Comprehensive
Water Master Plan Update. Staff is currently in the process of completing a new Water Master
Plan Update that evaluates the 2020-2030 time period 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: Cost Comparison and Evaluation Report:
it was determined that it is not possible to develop comparable alternatives due
to the inability to rehabilitate the existing plant that mitigates three major risks... "
In short, the engineering team of RH2 and Black & Veatch determined the existing plant could
not fully overcome the risks associated with seismic stability, flooding and ensuring capacity for
potential future regulatory requirements without rebuilding the WTP. Yes, the existing plant
could be modified and updated one element at a time, but in the end, short of a full rebuild, the
overall risks remain - and the City would still be operating in a less than desirable location
which is also prone to wildfire and localized landslides.
Staff reviewed the details of the assessment and is confident in the approach taken. Although as
suspected, the short term costs to provide upgrades to the existing plant are less than the cost to
build a new plant, the risk, not only to plant personnel, but the City as a whole is not acceptable.
Page 2 of 4 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
In addition, deferring construction of a new plant only imposes greater overall cost to the City.
The existing plant has a finite life and the City's needs continue beyond that life span.
Backl4round: Additional Information:
The 2012 Water Master Plan (Carollo) developed the recommendation for a supplemental 2.5
mgd WTP and 2.6 million gallon (mg) Crowson II storage reservoir as part of the final capital
improvement plan. The 2.5 mgd plant was initially identified and sized to assist the City in
meeting peak projected water usage in the summer seasons. It was meant to operate year round
with the existing plant 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 WTP 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 has shown that the "Crowson II" storage reservoir may be unnecessary
as the new Park Estates Pump Station is designed to maximize utilization of water in the existing
Crowson Reservoir at full capacity. The need for future reservoir capacity and operational
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. 2016, Business Meeting. Staff has not yet secured
financing for the storage reservoir and will revise project costs and evaluate the need once
Council makes a final recommendation on the WTP. 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 original project to proceed through preliminary engineering.
Through a formal selection process the City awarded Keller Associates stage 1, preliminary
Engineering of the new treatment plant and reservoir (March 21. 2017, Business Meeting). This
project had three phases; 1) determine the treatment process for the new WTP, 2) conceptual site
selection, 3) the evaluation of repurposing the TID line, and 4) through addendum, support the
evaluation of membrane filtration pilot analysis. Keller has completed their preliminary
engineering work.
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 finished peer
review of the first phase of Keller Associates' work and is in the process of completing the
Water Master Plan. The Water Master Plan is on schedule for completion this summer (2018).
AWAC:
The Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC) continues to be appraised of the status of
both projects. On September 26, 2017, AWAC unanimously supported staff s request to suspend
the current decision to construct a supplemental 2.5 mgd WTP and a 2.6 mg reservoir with the
intent to run both the new supplemental plant while also maintaining the existing plant. The City
Page 3 of 4 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
has a reliable alternative water source with the connection of the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP)
water line and should not be running two separate water plants. AWAC supported staff s
recommendation to develop a comprehensive cost comparison for either a sin le new 7.5 mgd
WTP or improvements to the existing WTP for a 20-year life to include upgrades to the
treatment process, and necessary facility improvements to sustain potential earthquake and
flooding damage. On March 27- 2018, AWAC will be advised of staffs current recommendation
to build a new 7.5 mgd plant.
Next Steps:
Staff will develop an RFQ for the final design of the 7.5 mgd WTP and bring the recommended
award to Council once proposals are received and a recommended consultant selected. The
design contract would come to council for approval (June or July 2018), as well as periodic
updates on the design progress and final cost estimates. If necessary, staff will also seek
approval for an increase in the IFA loan to accommodate any cost difference and those
agreements will also come to Council for approval. Staff anticipates a 9-12 month design likely
starting in July 2018 depending upon the selected treatment process and would build upon the
work completed by Keller Associates. It is expected that construction could begin in the fall of
2019 (pushing this into next biennium), and will likely take three years to complete.
Attachments:
Water Treatment Plant Evaluation Report
Page 4 of 4 CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY OF ASHLAND
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
FINAL
kii
k~f_ ~a f
r I
t)
+4 }
r
B&V PROJECT NO. 197823
City of Ashland
26 MARCH 2018
BLACK &VEATCH
Building a world of difference®
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Introduction 4
2.1 Existing Information ................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Project Approach .......................................................................................................................................4
2.2.1 Treatment Plant Process Areas ........................................................................................5
2.2.2 External Considerations ......................................................................................................6
3.0 Plant Evaluation 9
3.1 Existing Water Treatment Facility .....................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Summary of Existing Plant Evaluation by Discipline ...........................................10
3.1.2 Facility Evaluation ..............................................................................................................12
3.1.3 Asset Life Expectancies .....................................................................................................25
3.1.4 Planning Horizon ................................................................................................................26
3.2 New Water Treatment Facility .........................................................................................................26
3.2.1 Site and Hydraulics Considerations ............................................................................26
3.2.2 Treatment Process Considerations 26
3.2.3 Cost Considerations 27
4.0 Cost Comparisons ..................................................................................................................................28
4.1 Cost Categories 28
4.1.1 Equipment-Specific Construction Costs ....................................................................28
4.1.2 Rehabilitation Costs ...........................................................................................................29
4.1.3 Cost Factors and Contingencies ....................................................................................29
4.2 Prioritization of Improvements .......................................................................................................30
4.3 Summary 31
4.3.1 Additional Considerations ...............................................................................................33
4.4 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................................................37
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Capital Cost Comparisons (Level 5 AACE Cost Estimate) ........................................................3
Table 2-1 Asset Hierarchy ..........................................................................................................................................5
Table 3-1 Asset Effective Life Expectancies .....................................................................................................25
Table 4-1 Cost Factors to Develop Total Project Costs ...............................................................................29
Table 4-2 Capital Cost Comparisons ...................................................................................................................32
Table 4-3 Considerations with Positive /Negative Impacts ......................................................................34
BLACK & VEATCH I Table of Contents i
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Existing Water Treatment Plant Site ................................................................................................4
Figure 2-2 Proposed Water Treatment Plant Flood Wall (Carollo, 2010) ...............................................7
Figure 4-1 Itemization of Rehabilitation Cost Allocations Over Time ....................................................31
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 2-1 - Lab in Administration Building ...............................................................................................................13
Photo 2-2 - Potable Water Storage Tank and Hydro-Pneumatic Tank ...........................................................13
Photo 2-3 - Influent Weir ...................................................................................................................................................14
Photo 2-4 - Influent 36-inch Butterfly Valve .............................................................................................................14
Photo 2-5 - Talent Irrigation District Influent Pipeline ........................................................................................14
Photo 2-6 - Top of Alum Tank .........................................................................................................................................15
Photo 2-7 - Base and Pedestal of Alum Tank ............................................................................................................15
Photo 2-8 - Soda Ash Hopper ...........................................................................................................................................16
Photo 2-9 - Soda Ash Hopper, Dissolving Tank, and Metering Pumps ...........................................................16
Photo 2-10 - Powdered Activated Carbon Hopper .................................................................................................17
Photo 2-11 - Filter Polymer Aid Hopper and Mixing Tank ..................................................................................18
Photo 2-12 - Filter Polymer Aid Feed Tanks .............................................................................................................18
Photo 2-13 - Cationic Polymer Feeder .........................................................................................................................18
Photo 2-14 - Sodium Hypochlorite Tank and Hoist ................................................................................................20
Photo 2-15 - Corrosion in Chlorine Building .............................................................................................................20
Photo 2-16 - Flocculation Basin and Paddle Mixer .................................................................................................21
Photo 2-17 - Grating Above Overflow Box .................................................................................................................21
Photo 2-18 - Dual Media Filters ......................................................................................................................................22
Photo 2-19 - Abandoned Dual Media Filter #7 .........................................................................................................22
Photo 2-20 - Air Scour Air Supply (Evident Leakage) 23
Photo 2-21 - Efflorescence on Exterior Dual Media Filter Wall ........................................................................23
Photo 2-22 - Motor Control Center ................................................................................................................................24
Photo 2-23 - Potable Water Pump Disconnects .......................................................................................................24
Photo 2-24 - Dual Media Filter #1 Turbidity Meter ...............................................................................................25
Photo 2-25 - PLC Telemetry Unit ...................................................................................................................................25
BLACK & VEATCH I Table of Contents ii
City of Ashland ; Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
1.0 Executive Summary
The City of Ashland is evaluating the rehabilitation costs associated with continued operation of the
existing surface water plant as compared to the costs associated with construction of a new
treatment plant. Black & Veatch reviewed available facility information and performed a site walk
of the facility to determine the rehabilitation needed at the existing plant to maintain its operation
for a 20-year planning horizon. Costs for rehabilitation were compared to a non-site specific cost to
build a new water treatment plant similar to the existing plant.
Background
The City's primary source of raw water comes from the Ashland Creek watershed. Raw water is
supplied to the existing plant from Reeder Reservoir on Ashland Creek, located approximately two
miles southwest of the city. The existing Ashland WTP site is approximately 0.6 acres in size, and is
constrained by the Ashland Creek roughly to the east and south, and by a cliff to the north. Water is
conveyed from reservoir through a penstock from Hosler Dam to supply water to the Reeder Gulch
hydroelectric power plant. The powerhouse is located immediately upstream of the existing WTP.
After flow passes through the powerhouse, it discharges into a tailrace structure where a portion of
the water is diverted to feed the existing WTP.
Existing WTP Risks and Limitations
In its current location, the plant faces several challenges/risks to its safe operation. These include;
the risk of flooding due to rain or Dam failure, risk of a seismic event/damage due to landslide and
inability to meet future treatment requirements,. Based on the evaluation, it was determined that
mitigating these risks in a cost-effective and practical manner is not possible. Consequently, it is
not possible to develop comparable alternatives due to the inability to rehabilitate the existing plat
in a manner that mitigates these three major risks; the risk of flooding, risk of a seismic event and
the inability to meet future treatment requirements. The limitations associated with mitigating
these risks are summarized below
Flood Risk. The existing WTP is susceptible to flooding due to rain or dam failure. It has
experienced flooding three times in its last 60 years of operation. The flood risk could potentially
be mitigated by constructing a flood wall; however, its ability to withstand a major flood event is
questionable. Constructing a flood wall next to existing basins and structures along the creek is
risky because it could potentially damage the existing facilities due to vibration related to
construction activities. As such, the cost to mitigate the flood risk cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty and therefore not included in the cost comparison.
Seismic Risk and Landslide Risk. Regarding the seismic risk, a detailed structural assessment of
the existing structures is outside the scope of this document; however, a cursory review indicates
BLACK & VEATCH 1
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
that the existing structures do not meet the current seismic code requirements. Assuming that the
current loading on the existing structures remains the same, it is not required to upgrade the
existing structures to meet the current seismic codes. However, in a seismic event, these structures
could suffer significant damage and impair the ability of the plant to produce potable water. Due to
the age and condition of the facilities it is not feasible to upgrade the existing structures to current
seismic standards in a cost effective manner. Depending on the severity of a seismic event, the time
to repair and make the plant functional could range from days to months. In its current location in
the canyon, the existing plant is susceptible to damage from landslides. Similar to the seismic risk,
the extent of damage that the plant could suffer will depend on the severity of a landslide event.
Treatment Limitations. The existing plant is able to produce high quality drinking water using the
current microfloc/filtration treatment process. It is currently unknown if additional treatment
would be required by EPA as the regulations evolve in the future. However, due to lack of space, it
is not possible to construct additional treatment processes or modify existing facilities to
accommodate new treatment while keeping the plant in operation. Additionally, exposure of any
new facilities to other risks (flooding, seismic, landslide) cannot be practically mitigated. As such,
the existing plant does not have the ability to meet any additional treatment requirements such as
treatment of algal toxins, if required by future regulations. Any additional treatment would need to
be located offsite and would require associated infrastructure investment for pumps, piping, and
storage to convey to the distribution system. Since this additional offsite treatment would be
needed for both alternatives (existing and new plant configuration), it has not been included in the
cost comparison.
Capital Cost Comparison
The cost comparison presented below does not take into account the risks outlined above since
these cannot be mitigated cost-effectively. The cost purely focuses on the rehabilitation of the
existing plant in its current condition. The capital cost comparison of the two alternatives shows
the rehabilitation cost of the existing plant to be approximately 25% of the construction costs of a
new plant. The base cost comparisons are demonstrated in Table 1-1 below. It assumes that the
new plant will have the same capacity of 7.5 mgd and identical treatment processes as the existing
water treatment plant.
A cost escalation is applied for both alternatives assuming that these costs will be incurred roughly
5 years from today's date. The cost escalation for both alternatives is determined to be the same as
further explained in Section 4.1.3.
BLACK & VEATCH I 2
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Table 1-1 Capital Cost Comparisons (Level 5 AACE Cost Estimate)
Facility Construction Cost $12,148,000 $3,047,500
Contractor Markups $2,915,000 $731,400
Subtotal Total Construction Cost $15,063,000 $3,778,900
Total Non-Construction Costs $5,475,000 $1,284,826
Escalation (2%/yr. @ 5 yrs. = 10%) $2,053,000 $506,373
Total Project Cost $22,591,000 $5,570,099
Total Project Cost (Rounded to nearest $1000)1'' $22,591,000 $5,570,000
1 Level of Accuracy corresponds to AACE Level 5
2 The major risk factors (Flooding, Seismic, Landslide, and Treatment) are not addressed in the cost.
*-Non-site specific estimate.
Conclusion
While it is feasible to continue operating the existing facility over the 20-year planning horizon at a
lower initial investment, the existing plant has some negative considerations that present a risk to
continued operation. The City has the opportunity to accept or mitigate these risks in the decision
process. Ultimately, the existing facility has a definitive life span and will reach a point where
continual investment is no longer financially prudent or will not achieve the desired level of service
for the City. Deferring construction of a new plant beyond the 20-year planning horizon will
impose a greater overall cost to the City.
BLACK. & VEATCH 1 3
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
2.0 Introduction
The City of Ashland is evaluating future improvements needed at the current surface water
treatment plant (WTP) (Figure 2-1) to provide reliable service over a planning horizon of the next
20 years. The purpose of the assessment is to evaluate the costs associated with continued
operation of the existing plant as compared against the costs associated with construction of a new
treatment plant. In addition to condition related inputs, the study considers adherence to future
regulations, treatment capabilities, capacity, and external/environmental risks with continued
operation of the existing plant.
S~Od~ a
e~
F1ott~atae ~ -
Y~i` Ta;/ ace Chem1U~ gaNns
guild~~b ~
AV&AW
- _------.t
Figure 2-1 Existing Water Treatment Plant Site
2.1 EXISTING INFORMATION
Data request forms were developed with a basic questionnaire for WTP staff to complete with any
additional information and past reports. The City staff responded with relevant information for
each plant system. A hierarchy of evaluated systems was developed from the drawings provided by
the City. Information provided by the City on the various systems was incorporated as a reference
during the site evaluation.
2.2 PROJECT APPROACH
This report summarizes the key points of the evaluation with recommendations for improvements
needed at the existing plant to maintain its operation, cost opinions for a new plant construction
with features duplicating the existing plant, and further evaluation recommendations as necessary.
The findings from the existing plant evaluation are compared against a typical generic cost
(national cost) to build a new 7.5 Million Gallon/Day (mgd) water treatment plant employing
similar treatment technologies.
BLACK & VEATCH 1 4
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
2.2.1 Treatment Plant Process Areas
As part of the evaluation, Black & Veatch reviewed available facility information and performed a
site walk of the facility to determine the existing condition of the major process structures and
equipment. To facilitate the assessment, the WTP was subdivided into the following areas:
Administration Plant Influent Chemical Feed
Pretreatment Dual Media Filters Clearwell/Product Water
Assessments were categorized by discipline as followings:
Process Mechanical Electrical
Instrumentation and Controls Civil/Structural
Black & Veatch performed a walk-through condition assessment of the facilities on February 7,
2018 to document materials of construction and evaluate potential concerns and systems
performance. Visual inspections of the facilities were performed to document conditions.
Documentation of conformance with current design standards and codes were noted. The following
hierarchy represents the major facilities at the plant that were included in the assessment:
Table 2-1 Asset Hierarchy
Operations Building, building mechanical systems
Administration Plant roadways
Fire Protection Systems
Intake/Headworks Piping and feed from the dam 70
Plant Influent
Talent Irrigation District Piping
Alum, Soda Ash, Carbon, Potassium Permanganate & Cationic Polymer Feed Pumps
Filter Polymer Aid Feed Pumps
Chemical Feed Building Structure
Sodium Hypochlorite Tanks
Old Chemical Storage Building
East & West Flocculation Basin (incl. gates/valves)
Pretreatment
Flow Control Box (incl. gates/valves)
Filter Basin Structures 1 through 8
Backwash Pumps 1-3 (incl. associated valves, meters and instrumentation)
Dual Media Filters Blower Motor
Potable Detention Tank
Hydro-pneumatic Tank
Clearwell Basin Structure
Clearwell Potable Pumps
Finished Water Flow Meter
BLACK & VEATCH I S
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
2.2.2 External Considerations
With the existing plant, there are several external considerations that have the potential to disrupt
or impact the WTP operation. Although out of scope for this project, it is recommended that the City
perform an in-depth evaluation of these potential risks to quantify their impacts to maintaining
operation of the existing WTP. The intent of this section is to describe the external factors for
further consideration and action by the City to mitigate risk.
A new plant would obviously provide provisions for increased capacity, redundancy, and improved
effluent water quality. Furthermore, an alternate location would be sited in an area that is less
susceptible to damage from periodic flooding, landslides, and wildfire. The two primary
considerations for addressing existing facility treatment constraints and addressing natural
hazards are presented below.
2.2.2.1 Treatment Constraints
A new plant could be designed to improve finished water quality by reducing taste and odor
concerns, and treating any future regulated contaminants. Although generally a seasonal issue, the
raw water occasionally contains a high concentration of algae. In previous years, the City cleaned
the upstream reservoir to remove sediment which can contribute to algae growth. City also
routinely sends algae samples to the lab for toxicity analysis.
Although historically non-toxic, the reservoir can contain algae that can produce cyanotoxins. This
potential water quality concern is something that a new plant could be designed to be able to
address through additional treatment. The existing site lacks the area to expand treatment
capabilities to mitigate algal toxins to address EPAs anticipated Algae Guidance that is currently
being developed.
The algae are also the source for the seasonal taste and odor issues that the City currently
experiences. The existing plant uses powdered activated carbon (PAC) on a seasonal basis to
attempt to remove tastes and odors. The past performance of PAC has not been adequate in
removing Geosmin low enough to avoid customer taste and odor complaints. Furthermore, PAC can
be difficult to manage; it is messy to handle and feed and PAC dust can create an explosive
atmosphere around the feed equipment. PAC feed facilities are typically classified as explosive
hazard areas. A new plant could be designed to be able to address these taste and odor issues.
Furthermore, the following additional treatment considerations could be incorporated into the new
plant design:
Improved ability to remove iron and manganese
Corrosion control by supplementing alkalinity and controlling pH
Removal of color / control of disinfection byproduct formation
BLACK & VEATCH 1 6
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Other factors that should be considered include expanding the existing site to meet future capacity
requirements. The existing 7.5 mgd plant is located on a constrained site with limited ability to
expand. A new plant can be designed for an ultimate production capacity of 10 million gallons per
day (mgd), which would provide the water needed to meet the City's demands for the next 20 years,
and beyond.
Automation is an important consideration in the evaluation to maintain the existing plant as
compared to constructing a new plant. A new plant would likely be automated which would benefit
the City by being less labor-intensive (potentially increasing over time with facility age) to operate
and maintain the existing plant over the 20-year planning horizon. Through the use of automation,
it is anticipated that a new plant would require less operator attention than the existing plant.
2.2.2.2 Natural Hazards
The location of the existing plant places the facility at risk of flooding. Based on information from
the City, high flows in Ashland Creek during 1997 caused significant damage to the plant and
disrupted water supply to the City. The existing plant was also damaged in the flood events in 1964
and 1974. Because of its remote location within the steep walls of Reeder Gulch, it may not be
practical to completely protect the plant from periodic flooding. However, a flood wall at the
existing water treatment plant would improve reliability of the existing plant.
Construction of a flood wall at the existing water treatment plant was evaluated by Carollo
Engineers in the Water Conservation & Reuse Study (WCRS) & Comprehensive Water Master Plan
(CWMP) prepared in October 2010. The flood wall proposed by Carollo (Figure 2-2) would tie into
the slope north of the existing plant then extend between the water treatment plant and Ashland
Creek for a length of approximately 1,000 feet. The wall would have a height of 10 feet with a
thickness of 2 feet and the construction assumes that the wall would tie into existing structures at
the plant, rather than be free standing.
/i- Tie into Slope to
North of Plant
Construct Clearwell and
j Storm/Flood Backwash
w Wall Pump Station
Distribution
Po ae~
Reeder P F•~~~e~`'
Reservoir
Chemicai %
Building Flocculation
TID Supply Tailrace! Basins
Rapid Mix
Flash
Mixer
Figure 2-2 Proposed Water Treatment Plant Flood Wall (Carollo, 2010)
BLACK & VEATCH 7
L
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
The existing plant is also susceptible to failure from a seismic event. The original plant was built in
1949 and has had one major renovation conducted in 1995. Considering the age of these facilities it
is uncertain if the original design approach considered both static and dynamic loads. Since the
original construction date, seismic loading design considerations have changed. Most water-
retaining structures today are designed using ACI 350, which provides increased levels of
reinforcing, closer rebar spacing, and limitations on crack width to prevent leakage. It is unlikely
that ACI 350 or any of its principles were used to design the existing plant. The existing structures
are likely unable to resist modern day seismic loads. These changes, coupled with a facility with
concrete condition that has deteriorated due to normal use, makes the existing structures
susceptible to failure from seismic activity. The plant basins and structural elements (such as walls)
should be evaluated to determine if they can resist the current seismic acceleration and
hydrodynamic forces per ACI 350. The City should consider whether existing facility should be
upgraded to meet the requirements of the current seismic code.
2.2.2.3 Redundancy/Reliability
The City has some provisions for redundancy for up to 2.1 mgd treated water supplied from the
Talent, Ashland and Phoenix (TAP) Pipeline. The TAP Pipeline benefits the City to provide supply
during a treatment plant outage. The City has water rights for TAP through Lost Creek Lake up to
2.1 mgd only, but the TAP pumps can supply up to 3.0 MGD. Currently the TAP system has the
ability to supply roughly one half of the population in the City. Additional improvements need to be
made to the pumps and piping system to convert this into a full redundant supply. Although the
City has provisions for an alternate source of finished water, the overall supply is not under the
City's control.
BLACK & VEATCH 8
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
3.0 Plant Evaluation
The following sections discuss the evaluation between the existing water treatment plant and a new
water treatment plant. This includes the condition assessment and capital improvements to the
existing plant, as well as new facility treatment assumptions and process description.
3.1 EXISTING WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
The City's primary source of raw water comes from the Ashland Creek watershed. Raw water is
supplied to the existing plant from Reeder Reservoir on Ashland Creek, located approximately two
miles southwest of the city. Water is conveyed from reservoir through a penstock from Hosler Dam
to supply water to the Reeder Gulch hydroelectric power plant. The powerhouse is located
immediately upstream of the existing WTP. After flow passes through the powerhouse, it discharges
into a tailrace structure where a portion of the water is diverted to feed the existing WTP. Average
water production is 2.9 mgd with peak summertime demands approaching 6.5 mgd. The WTP can
also be fed using raw water supplied from the Talent Irrigation District's (TID) pipeline. TID water
is used to supplement the WTP during low watershed conditions in reservoir.
The Ashland WTP site is approximately 0.6 acres in size, and is constrained by the Ashland Creek
roughly to the east and south, and by a cliff to the north. The entire plant is gravity flow. Water is
pulled from the Ashland Creek via a 36-inch raw water tailrace structure.
The treatment process consists of rapid mix, mechanical flocculation, granular media filtration, and
chlorination. The water flows through a flash mixing process, then to the flocculation basins. The
high rate filtration plant continues utilizing alum as a coagulant to aid particle agglomeration and
soda ash for alkalinity adjustment and pH control. A chlorine solution is fed immediately ahead of
the flocculation tanks. The chlorine feed is adjusted in response to the water temperature.
Following flocculation, the water flows through the filter beds and then into a 168,000-gallon
clearwell where the water is chlorinated and distributed to the system.
Alum, sodium hypochlorite, soda ash, and activated carbon can be mixed with the raw water in the
flash mixing tank as part of the treatment process to aid in the removal of solid particles and other
contaminants. Alum, soda ash, cationic polymer, and potassium permanganate are added via a
mixer and the flow is sent through flocculation basins. The powdered activated carbon is used only
seasonally when TID water is included in the system to treat any taste and odor problems or if the
color is high. Color may be the result of organic matter, manganese, copper, or iron in the water.
The activated carbon absorbs the organic material in the raw TID water, to remove the color.
The original plant construction included a previous sedimentation basin that was repurposed into
the current chemical building. A separate chlorine building is located next to the old sedimentation
basin structure. A 12.5% sodium hypochlorite solution is fed via a peristaltic pump to the influent
mixer and the clearwell. All chemical pumps are located in the building basement level near the raw
BLACK & VEA i CH I 9
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
water pipeline and the flash mixer. Existing parallel sedimentation basins were repurposed into
flocculation basins where redwood baffles and mechanical vertical flocculators were installed to
help to grow the microfloc. Sediment from the flocculation basin and the filter backwash waste is
piped to a sludge lagoon. After flowing through a flow control box at the end of the flocculation
zone, the water is sent through one of six dual media filters that consist of sand and anthracite coal
layers. There are two additional filter basins that have been abandoned. Each filter is equipped with
automatic rate of flow controller valves. These filters remove remaining particles in the water
before it enters the clearwell. A filter backwash system of tanks and pumps is also included.
Backwash water for the filters is pumped from the clearwell. Beneath the filters, there is an air
scour system and associated equipment. Above the filter gallery, there are administration offices
and a SCADA workstation area.
Solids from the filters are routed to a pond, which is eventually sent to the sewer. After the filters,
product water is flows to the clearwell. After the clearwell, the chlorinated effluent flows to the
downstream Crowson Tank finished water reservoir located off site.
3.1.1 Summary of Existing Plant Evaluation by Discipline
From a broad perspective, the existing WTP is old with outdated facilities, is located in a hazardous
flood and seismic zone, and does not have room to expand to meet future capacity requirements or
the ability to provide additional treatment processes to address potential algal toxins or to fully
remove taste and odor issues.
The current WTP was partially re-built in 1995. From an engineering discipline perspective, the
existing plant contains electrical and control systems that will need replacement or are obsolete, as
well as mechanical equipment that is nearing the end of its useful life. City input regarding
condition, operations and maintenance issues, and recent improvements, was incorporated into
defining the rehabilitation needs. Input from plant staff regarding functional needs was also
evaluated. For example, if equipment requires replacement because it is no longer reliable or no
longer meets functional needs, the rehabilitation needs reflect this input. Since the plant will need
to continue to provide peak capacity into the foreseeable future, many components are slated for
replacement in the 20-year planning horizon.
3.1.1.1 Structural
The concrete observed at the existing plant is performing as expected given its service, usage,
surrounding environment, and age. Deteriorated and corroded concrete was observed. Minor
defects observed included localized concrete spalling, scaling, and cracking.
The structural integrity of the tanks and floors has not yet been compromised due to the
deterioration that has occurred to date. However, concrete degradation will continue to occur and
spread if left unchecked. Potential repair and rehabilitation methods and mitigation strategies
BLACK & VEATCH 1 10
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
recommended for further evaluation include: performing localized, partial depth concrete crack
repairs and protective coating systems.
3.1.1.2 Process Mechanical
To meet the criteria of extending the existing plant useful service life by approximately 20-years, it
is recommended that the pumps, gearboxes, and motors be replaced. Based on their assessed
condition and operability, it is recommended that process mechanical valves either be refurbished
or replaced in the 20-year planning horizon.
In general, it is assumed that replacement would be based on equipment types and sizes to match
existing. However, it may be appropriate to replace with a different type of pump, valve or other
equipment to better meet plant requirements or City staff preference. In most cases, replacement
rather than repair of pumps, valves and other equipment is recommended to achieve the objective
of extending service life by 20 years. If an asset is in good condition, and replacement parts are
readily available, refurbishment may be more cost effective than replacement. However, it is
important to also consider the amount of time the equipment can be taken out of service if it is
scheduled for refurbishment.
Process mechanical pipelines were assessed to be in varying condition states. Most piping systems
require attention and improvements. Some extent of piping protective systems, coatings and linings
will be required to extend piping system useful service life by 20-years.
3.1.1.3 Electrical
In general, it was observed that some electrical equipment is not expected to last another 20 years
and is recommended for replacement. Some of the electrical equipment that provides power to
pump motors, valves, instruments, and other process related electrical loads is considered obsolete
and is due for eventual replacement. The equipment includes:
Switchgear and motor control centers
Panelboards
Disconnects
Based on the evaluation, it was observed that the panelboards serving process-related loads had
reached the end of their useful life, with parts becoming difficult, if not impossible, to find.
Therefore, panelboards are assumed to be obsolete and are recommended for replacement.
3.1.1.4 Instrumentation and Controls
The existing equipment will not meet the targeted service life of an additional 20 years. Typical
instrument service life is 15-25 years, which is within the planning timeframe used for
instrumentation components of this assessment and subsequent improvements. Therefore, it is
BLACK & VEATCH it
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
recommended that the equipment be replaced. Much of the existing I&C equipment is nearing the
end of its service life or does not meet the desired level of service for I&C equipment.
3.1.2 Facility Evaluation
The inspection of the Ashland Water Treatment Plant relied primarily on visual inspection of the
plant assets, with a particular focus on what it would take to maintain useful plant operation for the
next 20 years. Digital photos of the plant were taken to document asset condition. Because the plant
was in operation during the time of the inspection, the interiors of process structures were not able
to be inspected.
Prior to the inspection, the City of Ashland had sent Black & Veatch information on known
deficiencies, or desired improvements to the site. The following sections describe the observed
condition of each of the process areas of the WTP, and incorporate a description of these known
deficiencies.
3.1.2.1 Administration
The assets within Administration area were generally in good condition. This facility includes the
control room, offices, lockers, and lab, as well as other miscellaneous site civil structures, such as
facility roadways.
The offices were in good condition, with no visible defects, or known issues brought up by the WTP
staff. Within the lab, the sample sink needs to be replaced. The metal shelf stands have begun to
corrode, and the narrow sink might not effectively suit technicians' needs (Photo 3-1). It was
brought up by the City that they would like the shower facilities to be updated in the locker room.
Furthermore, the City voiced a desire to recoat the plant administration building.
BLACK & VEATCH 12
City of Ashland Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Photo 3-1- Lab in Administration Building Photo 3-2 - Potable Water Storage Tank and Hydro-
Pneumatic Tank
In terms of site civil assets, the plant roadways appeared in good condition, with no visible defects.
However, the City would like for the roads to be improved to accept bulk chemical deliveries. The
current chemical delivery truck is not able to provide reliable deliveries, and newer trucks might
have trouble navigating the roads on site. With geological site constraints caused by the canyon
walls, it is unlikely that the roads will be able to be enlarged enough to accommodate a larger truck.
The potable detention tank is adequate and there were no observable defects. However, the hydro-
pneumatic tank will require eventual replacement in the 20-year planning horizon. A photo of the
potable water storage tank and the hydro-pneumatic tank are above (Photo 3-2). Lastly, there are
several concerns with the safety equipment installed on site. The fire protection system has an
alarm component only and it does not include any fire suppression measures. This system should
be updated to meet NFPA code. There are two emergency eyewash/shower stations on site. They
don't have freeze or scald protector valves installed, which would be recommended as a safety
provision for the WTP staff. An emergency eyewash/shower should also be installed in the chlorine
building (preferably inside the containment area). The WTP staff would currently have to exit the
building and go to the adjacent chemical building to access an emergency eyewash/shower.
The City would like intercom and video feeds throughout the site to record video when the
operators are not on site, as well as a remote controlled electric gate. This would be an optional
improvement recommendation, and not viewed as essential for plant operation for the next 20
years.
3.1.2.2 Plant Influent
The WTP tailrace structure, influent weir, and influent line were all structurally in good condition. It
was noted by the City that there is a desire to be able to actuate the influent weir electronically,
instead of manually adjusting the weir height. Furthermore, the 36-inch butterfly valve on the plant
influent line doesn't close completely or modulate effectively. This should be replaced. Lastly, the
City would like the hydroelectric generator bypass to be redesigned to eliminate vibration issues
BLACK & VEATCH 13
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
and improve flows. They are currently limited to 5 mgd with this bypass pipe. Photos of the influent
weir and 36-inch butterfly valve are below (Photo 3-3 and Photo 3-4).
Water from the Talent Irrigation District is used to supplement supply during periods of drought or
low water years. A 24-inch steel water pipe feeds the WTP from the Terrace Street Pump Station.
The pipe supports were not closely inspected; however, material under some of the supports
appears to be washing away. Furthermore, when there are high-level flows, the pipe is submerged
in the creek, subjecting it to damage from debris (Photo 3-5).
Photo 3-3 - Influent Weir Photo 3-4 - Influent 36-inch Butterfly Valve
to", tt yes: y r ~w
Photo 3-5 -Talent Irrigation District Influent Pipeline
3.1.2.3 Chemical Feed
The assets within the chemical feed process group were in fair condition. The individual chemical
feed systems are discussed in the sections below. Some of the systems were in better condition than
others, but, generally speaking, it is ultimately recommended to replace the entire Chemical
Building and the equipment inside in the next 20 years.
BLACK & VEATCH I 14
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Alum Feed
The alum feed system consists of one alum tank, two alum feed pumps, and two alum feed motors.
The new chemical building was built around the existing alum tank, with little regard given to tank
replacement or maintenance (Photo 3-6). It was reported to Black & Veatch that the transducer
located in the tank isn't functioning. However, to replace this transducer, the tank top would need
to be removed, and there is limited space within the chemical building to perform this work.
Additionally, if the tank were ever needed to be replaced, the building and second floor would likely
have to be modified to accommodate this work.
The older auto diaphragm feeder pump was replaced with a peristaltic pump 2 years ago, and the
City is very satisfied with the performance (Photo 3-7). However, the older pump can only be
manually operated and replacement should be considered.
' T
i~ •6
N ?
Photo 3-6 -Top of Alum Tank Photo 3-7 - Base and Pedestal of Alum Tank
Soda Ash
The solution tank, hopper, storage tanks, feed pumps, and feed motors are all part of the soda ash
system. The soda ash is used to maintain or adjust pH for finished water, and the City has
mentioned that they would like to develop an improved caustic soda feed system to replace the
BLACK & VEATCH I is
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
current one. The current system is functional, and there weren't any visible defects. However, the
age and efficacy of the system should be taken into consideration, and B&V concurs with the City
that the system should be replaced in the next 10 years. The current system will be unable to meet
any future higher pH requirements. Furthermore, the lower level of the chemical building is
susceptible to flooding. Photos of the soda ash system are below (Photo 3-8 and Photo 3-9).
I
t
SOW
Photo 3-8 - Soda Ash Hopper Photo 3-9 - Soda Ash Hopper, Dissolving Tank, and
Metering Pumps
Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)
The PAC hopper, auger feed and motor, and an educator- make up the PAC feed system (Photo 3-10).
Similar to the Soda Ash system, the PAC system is susceptible to flooding since part of the hopper is
located on the lower level of the chemical building. There were no significant observable defects
with the PAC system. However, the PAC system does not meet the desired level of service, and has
not been effectively treating taste and odor during high Geosmin events. Furthermore, handling
PAC can pose a health risk. The MSDS lists that the primary concerns for occupational exposure are
skin contact and inhalation in the form of dust. The dust may cause eye irritation, slight skin
irritation, and possible respiratory tract irritation. In confined spaces, it can adsorb oxygen, and
asphyxiation may result. The dust from loading PAC can also lead to an explosive environment. It is
recommended that this system be replaced in the 10- to 15-year timeframe,
BLACK & VEATCH 1 16
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
40~0-- ~4-
I
y A
Photo 3-10 - Powdered Activated Carbon Hopper
Potassium Permanganate (KMn04)
The potassium permanganate system is comprised of the hopper, auger feeder and motor and an
educator feed system. It is located on the lower level of the new chemical building, which is prone
to flooding. It has been noted by the City that the KMn04 system does not meet the desired level of
service, and has not been effective at treating taste and odor during high geosmin events. It is
recommended to replace the potassium permanganate system altogether, either with a newer feed
system, or with a better oxidation system.
Polymer
The polymer system is comprised of two tanks, filter polymer aid (Superfloc N-300) feed pumps
and motors, and cationic polymer (Superfloc C-573) feed pumps. Overall there were no significant
visible defects detected with the polymer feed system. There are no visible defects with the LMI
Polymax feed system. However, the City is hoping to upgrade the current cationic polymer
diaphragm feed pump with a peristaltic pump. At this time, they would also like to reevaluate
alternate injection points other than mixer M015. Due to lifespan expectancy, it is recommended to
replace this system in the next 10 years. The filter polymer aid system is functional, but obsolete.
The City has also reported that it delivers polymer aid unevenly to the filter surfaces. It is
BLACK & VEATCH 1 17
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
recommended to replace this system in the next 10 years. The tanks for the polymer feed and
mixing are functional and should be used until the end of their useful life. However, the City has
stated that functionally only a third (approximately 33 gallons) of the working capacity of each tank
are able to be used. In the 10- to 15-year timeframe, the current tanks should be replaced with
smaller, more adequately sized tanks. The City currently has planned replacements for both
polymer systems budgeted. Photos of the polymer system are below.
_ l1IW ilp[CyllMf t •1
rr •7
ICI h,
,gyp
Photo 3-11- Filter Polymer Aid Hopper and Mixing Photo 3-12 - Filter Polymer Aid Feed Tanks
Tank
,Fc
i= {t 5
7 A"Ik i
r
x
wr: 7 X
Photo 3-13 - Cationic Polymer Feeder
BLACK & VEATCH 18
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Hvnochlorite
One 3,000-gallon tank and three feed pumps make up the hypochlorite system. The current tank
was installed in 2008 and is nearing the end of its life (Photo 3-14). It is recommended to replace
the tank in the next 10 years. As seen in the photo below, there is corrosion near the floor on some
of the concrete masonry unit (CMU) bracing angles, mostly likely due to sodium hypochlorite
contact (Photo 3-15). If the CMU blocks are not internally reinforced, this corrosion could
ultimately weaken the structure. For this reason, when the tank is replaced, this will trigger
removal of the containment basin and a major building demolition and renovation due to structural
and safety considerations. The City has also voiced that they would like bulk chemical delivery if
possible. This is not feasible at the existing facility. Bulk deliveries would require construction of a
transfer station on the plant access road downhill from the existing plant with pumps and piping
installed to supply the tanks at the plant.
The City has reported that there are signal issues with some of the sodium hypochlorite feed
pumps. Pump #2 has frequent operational issues, and Pump #3 has communication issues with the
SCADA. It is recommended to replace these pumps in the next 10 years.
The hoist in the Chlorine Building appeared in good condition with no observable defects. Due to its
useful life estimate, the hoist will likely require replacement in 10-15 years.
BLACK & VEATCH 19
I
City of Ashland Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
to ,
} r
4- / L
- i
Photo 3-14 - Sodium Hypochlorite Tank and Hoist Photo 3-15 - Corrosion in Chlorine Building
Miscellaneous
There are several miscellaneous components to the chemical feed process that are discussed in the
list below. All replacements are suggested to occur in the next 10 years.
Due to flooding concerns, and seismic events, the existing Chemical Building is a liability, and is
recommended to be replaced in the next 10 years.
The chemical feed piping is in good physical condition. However, reconfiguring the piping is
recommended to add more injection points.
The chemical feed flow indicators are not functioning correctly and require replacement.
It is recommended to upgrade all pumps to peristaltic pumps. This upgrade will render many of
the valves unnecessary, ultimately creating fewer assets for the City to manage.
Motor actuators for valves are recommended to be replaced.
The mixer appears in good physical condition. However, it is in a corrosive, continuous-duty
environment, and it is also recommended to be replaced.
Lastly, the sump pumps are currently adequate, and appear in good physical condition. However,
they will near the end of their useful life in the 10- to 15-year range, and are recommended to be
replace in that window.
BLACK & VEATCH, 20
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
3.1.2.4 Pretreatment
The Pretreatment process is made up primarily of the Flocculation Basins. During the inspection, it
was observed that the Flocculation Basin structures were in good condition. However, it is
recommended that they be recoated within the next 10 years to preserve concrete integrity. The
City has mentioned that they would like to upsize and relocate the drain, as it is currently not at the
bottom of the basin. Upsizing and relocating the flocculation basin drain would trigger major
structural modifications, and this recommendation should be considered optional. It was also
reported by the City that there has been hydraulic short-circuiting in the Flocculation Basins. Black
& Veatch would recommend rewiring the flocculation motors to spin in the opposite direction and
disassembling and reversing the vertical paddle mixers to improve settlement (Photo 3-16). This
should be done in the next 10 years.
The Flow Control Box Structure is in good condition structurally, but it is undersized, and it is
doubtful that it would be able to handle peak flows of 7.5 mgd (Photo 3-17). Structural
modifications to enlarge the overflow drainage box are recommended, including upsizing the drain
piping and fixing the slide gate. This is recommended to be constructed in the next 10 years. Lastly,
as an optional improvement, underwater lights could be installed in the basin for enhancing
visualization of floc flow patterns.
i
s. + ~r44ti4V644hh4+i44+A4+d`J`MJd AdOiPJJJdJJPAP f
3'~ ^ A+ 4+iA1hti044MA4M+MJdJIJIJddJJJddJCdP
cf.~Xr~.' ~ 4AM1M1WOOhMPJ+'JdJddddJdPJJdJdPP?
~ ~ ~ 41S44b~A45M,hMdd,MdJJJdJtJddNdddfJ
~ ~ ' ' rit -•ty ' ~ 4~ 41b0144ihhA4VhHMd,M~4~JddddfJ,!,`d~
' ;~:tia, ° i' i1~V~..144~40A4M,0~~6+,Vh ,,++,,~~IJJPd d1 0
_ - : , - _ ~ y4h6 h4+,A4AVlAMP,SM,MJ,hM I,MNid,' P
~ ~ ; <.:,40r,44G','+hi4h',40Mt~J4,+~d1J Al1Plt P4f
-~,,.y~• , ,11 htiW,ti~h444hMiiMAd1~MIP IOOdP P~f
r~~~. ~i9~4~i~btir~?„~r~1h~lhk~d,~~,N,~;~~~idi~';4'~~~►~i~`~r.A~
y~ R44940G'r4'ti+~Oi'~hM~4Mr~'tftA'«+d~Nd,~d'~ds~d'' • '
rr retfr~ r r its:rr++ ~ + „
~ yr; yV4~4~4dh,~',r~'~'44hh4f~r~r~OPi+~PdPO'Pd~t''1~di'
~ d; , ~'~t' 4 d1f ►F'~'i4M~''~'~'~~ir~' yap
Photo 3-16 - Flocculation Basin and Paddle Mixer Photo 3-17 - Grating Above Overflow Box
3.1.2.5 Dual Media Filters
The Dual Media Filters were in fair condition (Photo 3-18). There is evidence of cracking within the
filter structures, and possible leakage, visible from the efflorescence on the exterior of the filter
concrete wall and from the leakage pattern staining around the air supply line on the exterior wall
(Photo 3-20 and Photo 3-21). The coating is also failing in some areas. Concrete cracks should be
repaired, and the filter basins should be recoated in the next 10 years. The City has mentioned that
excessive debris falls into the basins during normal operation, affecting filter performance. Recent
BLACK & VEATCH 21
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
removal of overhanging trees has improved this situation. While not necessary for proper operation
of the plant, a canopy structure over the Dual Media Filters would be considered an optional
improvement to the plant to prevent the debris entering the filters. Filters 7 and 8 are currently not
operational, and it is recommended to rehabilitate these filters in the 10- to 15-year timeframe to
meet future treatment process demand (Photo 3-19). Rehabilitation would require concrete crack
repair and surface restoration in addition to replacement of process mechanical equipment,
launders and piping penetrations. In the same time frame, it is expected that existing filter media
will reach the end of its useful life, and should be replaced. The filter influent pipe showed some
signs of surface corrosion, and it should be recoated in the 10- to 15-year timeframe as well. When
this effort is undertaken, it is recommended to perform a detailed condition assessment of the pipe.
The backwash pumps were in good condition, with no major observable defects detected. However,
they are near the end of their useful life, and will require a major overhaul or should be replaced in
the next 10 years. The backwash pump flow meters and instrumentation should also be replaced in
the next 10 years. The backwash piping should be recoated and inspected for integrity during this
same time. The backwash lagoon is expected to need cleaning in the next 20 years, and the
backwash water samplers will also likely need to be replaced during this time. The City would like
to remove the original steel backwash tanks on the slope above the WTP, which are no longer in
use. These tanks present a dangerous risk to the facility if they were to fall. Although not critical to
continued plant operation, removal of the steel backwash tanks should be considered.
There were no notable defects with the blower motor. However, it is subject to major overhaul or
replacement due to reaching asset life expectancy during the 20-year planning horizon. This would
occur in the 10- to 15-year timeframe. Similarly, the process air valves would need to be replaced in
this same time frame.
- s
i~- - r +K<
Photo 3-18 - Dual Media Filters Photo 3-19 - Abandoned Dual Media Filter #7
BLACK & VEATCH 22
City of Ashland Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
j
M+ +
--A 2 A cma y r Y
f +r Y~"g
90
~ ~ d t
Photo 3-20 - Air Scour Air Supply (Evident Leakage) Photo 3-21- Efflorescence on Exterior Dual Media
Filter Wall
3.1.2.6 Clearwell / Product Water
The Clearwell is a concrete tank located beneath the Backwash Pump Station. It was not physically
able to be inspected, but the City informed Black & Veatch of operational issues related to the tank.
The sealing material on the cold joints within the Clearwell are deteriorating, and should be re-
caulked in the next 10 years. There are currently dead zones within the Clearwell resulting from
poor dispersion of the sodium hypochlorite. It is recommended to improve delivery piping to
improve dispersion within the Clearwell in the next 10 years. The City would like to add a drain
pipe from the Clearwell to the sludge pond or plant sewer drain. However, Black & Veatch considers
this an optional recommendation and not necessary for continued plant operation. The Clearwell
sample pump should also be changed to a peristaltic type in the next 10 years to prevent loss of
prime. It is recommended that the contact basin drain valves and slide gate be replaced, as the City
reports that they currently leak.
The plant has a potable water system to serve the plant water needs (drinking water, restrooms,
chemical feed systems etc.). Currently, the potable water pump suction line isn't accessible without
entering the Clearwell, and it is recommended to reroute the piping to be able to replace the foot
valve at some point. Furthermore, the potable water pumps will most likely have to be replaced in
the 20-year planning horizon.
BLACK & VEATCH 23
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
3.1.2.7 Electrical
Electrical equipment was visually inspected while the plant was in operation; because of safety
considerations none of the cabinets were opened. Black & Veatch relied on information from the
plant operators to make plant improvement recommendations. The plant generators are currently
adequate, and no observable defects were detected. However, it is expected that the generators will
require a major overhaul or need to be replaced during the next 20 years. Similarly, transformers,
MCCs, breakers, cabling, and power lines were all in good condition, but will likely need to be
replaced in the next 20 years. The building and yard lighting should also be replaced with LEDs as
the existing lighting fixtures are considered to be economically obsolete. The photos of the
electrical equipment shows arc-flash related labels/stickers which would indicate that at some
point, an arc-flash analysis or study was conducted. NFPA 70-E guidelines stipulate that an arc-flash
analysis be conducted every five years. Representative photos of electrical equipment are below.
s.
BW
r
r -
4
Photo 3-22 - Motor Control Center Photo 3-23 - Potable Water Pump Disconnects
3.1.2.8 Instrumentation & Control
Similar to the electrical assets, Black & Veatch relied on the plant operators to make improvement
recommendations for I&C equipment. Instruments typically have a 10- to 20-year lifespan, so there
are many instruments that will need to be replaced in the next 20 years. Specifically, the
Flocculation Basin level sensor should be replaced in the 10- to 15-year timeframe. The following
recommendations should all be addressed in the next 10 years:
Plant-wide, the City would like to update the SCADA system and PLC telemetry to provide
pressure and flow indication for plant water supply. The telemetry unit should also be relocated.
In-line pH probes were in good condition, but will need replacement at the end of their useful life.
Recommended to move the streaming current detector to the lower chemical room for faster
response time. The instrument will also need to be replaced near the end of its life expectancy.
Flowmeters were in good condition, but will need replacement at the end of their useful life.
Turbidity meters were in good condition, but will need replacement at the end of their useful life.
It is recommended to add a TOC in-line analyzer.
BLACK & VEAiCH 24
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Inflow meters should be replaced as they are nearing the end of their life expectancy.
The WTP finished water effluent pipe empties as it flows to Crowson Tank during filter
backwashes, resulting from inaccurate measurements. It is recommended to relocate the plant
effluent flowmeter 1000-yards farther downstream to provide more accurate information.
Upgrade Wonderware software on plant computers.
Representative photos of instruments are below.
- Y .
b
I
f
99
Photo 3-24 - Dual Media Filter 41 Turbidity Meter Photo 3-25 - PLC Telemetry Unit
3.1.3 Asset Life Expectancies
The age of an asset, together with its typical useful life, is an important characteristic used to assess
an asset's condition. Because the actual installation date of most of the existing facility assets is
unknown, the assumption of asset age was based on available drawings, field observations or staff
input. Where assets appeared near or beyond their expected life, this factored into developing the
rehabilitation needs. Assets that have exceeded their useful life are generally recommended for
overhaul or replacement. Table 3-1 provides guidelines on typical life expectancies for plant assets.
Table 3-1 Asset Effective Life Expectancies
Civil structures 50-75
Pressure piping 60
Gravity pipelines 100
Pumps 40
Valves 30
Mechanical Systems / Motors 25-35
Electrical Systems / Components 30
Instrumentation and Controls 15-25
Building assets 30
BLACK & VEA T CH 2S
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
3.1.4 Planning Horizon
This study needs to address reliable operation of the plant into the future based on a criterion set
by the City for extending the remaining useful service life of the existing facilities by an estimated
20 years. The assumption is the existing plant would be required to remain operational for the next
20 years with no significant changes in its current treatment configuration. After this time, the
existing plant may be decommissioned and replaced by a new plant. The assessment identified not
only improvements required in the near term based on current condition, but also those
improvements needed to maintain reliable operation over the 20-year planning horizon. Therefore,
forward forecasts on replacement needs were developed for those assets that may not currently
need work. For example, a motor that was very recently overhauled does not currently need work.
However, the next improvement cycle, which may be in 15 years, has been included in the cost
forecast.
3.2 NEW WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
This section presents the basis for developing a conceptual cost for constructing a 7.5 mgd new
water treatment plant. The cost presented is an AACE Level 5 construction cost (with an accuracy
range of -50% to +100%). The assumptions used to develop the conceptual cost are presented
below.
3.2.1 Site and Hydraulics Considerations
The site identified to construct a new plant is located a couple of miles downstream of the existing
plant site. The elevation of this site is lower than the existing plant site. This elevation difference
would allow gravity flow of raw water into the new plant. However, because the new site is at a
lower elevation, gravity flow of treated water into the existing downstream reservoir may not be
possible. Additional analysis is warranted to confirm that gravity flow from the plant to the
distribution system is not possible. It is envisioned that a part of the existing treated water pipeline
from the existing plant could potentially be converted to convey raw water to the new treatment
plant. Additional piping would be required to convey raw water to the plant site and treated water
from the plant site to connect to the existing pipeline feeding the downstream reservoir.
The site is relatively flat with sufficient area to house the treatment facilities and auxiliary
structures. Moderate site work would be needed construct the new treatment plant facilities.
3.2.2 Treatment Process Considerations
To provide a direct cost comparison with the existing plant, it is assumed that the new plant will
employ the same treatment processes and chemical feed systems as the existing plant. These will
include:
A microfloc filtration plant that will employ in-line rapid mixing, flocculation followed by media
filtration consisting of dual media filters
BLACK & VE ATCH I 26
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Chemical systems will include PAC, Alum, KMn04, soda ash, coagulant aid polymer, filter aid
polymer and chlorine (12.5% sodium hypochlorite).It is assumed that the chemical systems
(storage and feed systems) will be located indoors
Administration building will be included to house offices/laboratory, electrical switchgear, as
well as SCADA workstations
3.2.3 Cost Considerations
The conceptual costs for a new 7.5 mgd capacity plant that employs the same treatment processes
as the existing plant are presented under Section 4. It should be noted that the costs associated with
raw and finished water piping and a small filter effluent wetwell with associated high service
pumps should be considered because these components will likely be required with the operation
of the new plant. For planning purposes, it is assumed that approximately 0.25 mile of raw water
piping and 0.25 mile of treated water piping would need to be constructed.
BLACK & VEATCH I 27
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
4.0 Cost Comparisons
Total life-cycle cost is evaluated based on the addition of the life-cycle 0&M to the total project cost.
The total life-cycle costs were developed for an equivalent 7.5 MGD WTP. This cost represents the
total cost of ownership of the plant at the end of 20 years normalized to today's dollars.
The estimates presented in this report are order-of-magnitude estimates as defined by the
Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating (AACE). Typically, an order-of-magnitude
estimate is expected be accurate within plus 100% to minus 50% of the estimated cost. Cost
estimates are considered AACE Level Class 5 prepared with 0% to 2% project definition to be used
as a general guideline for more specific and detailed studies.
The developed estimates have been prepared for guidance in evaluating the cost of maintaining the
existing plant versus constructing a new plant. These cost estimates are derived from the
information available at the time of the estimate. Detailed project costs will certainly depend on
actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project costs, implementation
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the actual costs can be expected to vary from the
estimates presented herein.
There is a substantial amount of uncertainty in the opinions of probable construction cost,
particularly with site development. Thus, the site considerations have been removed from this
evaluation.
4.1 COST CATEGORIES
Order-of-magnitude estimates of costs (in 2018 dollars) were developed for plant rehabilitation.
The cost estimates are comprised of several components described in this section:
Equipment-specific improvement construction costs
Rehabilitation costs based on site visit, industry knowledge and previous reports
Cost allowances and contingencies
4.1.1 Equipment-Specific Construction Costs
To the extent possible, construction costs for equipment repairs, overhauls and replacements were
developed. These costs represent installed costs, including purchase of equipment and labor to
install. This methodology was implemented for expediency, as the project budget and schedule did
not allow for development of construction cost estimates for each individual asset.
Asset replacement costs from equipment inventories from other projects were used as a starting
point for determining the cost data. Typically, general equipment specifications (e.g. motor hp,
valve size, etc.) would be used to assign replacement costs to individual assets. As this information
was not readily available, replacement costs were assigned based on comparable equipment
BLACK & VEATCH 'I 28
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
application and assumed size ranges. This approach represents a rapid means of compiling cost
estimates. A more detailed approach, such as assigning replacement costs based on nameplate data
for individual assets may be recommended for the future.
4.1.2 Rehabilitation Costs
Rehabilitation costs for the existing facility were based on results from site visit as well as Black &
Veatch's knowledge and experience with similar projects across the United States. The
rehabilitation recommendations and associated cost estimates are tabulated for reference in
Attachment A.
4.1.3 Cost Factors and Contingencies
A number of cost factors, allowances and contingencies were applied to the construction costs to
estimate an opinion for the total probable plant rehabilitation cost. These factors account for the
conceptual nature of the base construction costs, project costs such as engineering, and escalation.
The cost factors were applied consistent with industry assumptions. Table 4-1 describes the cost
factors applied.
Table 4-1 Cost Factors to Develop Total Project Costs
FACTOR CUMULATIVP
SUB PERCENT COST
• FACTOR ITEM ITEMS ALLOWANCE FACTOR
Site Work (misc. costs) 8% On Constr. Cost 1.08
Yard Piping 9% 1.17
Electrical 10% 1.27
Instrumentation and Controls 2.5% 1.30
Estimating Contingency 15% On Total Const. 1.49
Contractor Mark Up Costs (Cumulative) 24% On Total Const. 1.85
Overhead 7% + Contingency
Profit 10%
Mobilization/Bonds/Insurance 3%
Contingency 4%
Planning, engineering, and const. management 48% 2.74
Permitting 1%
Environmental Review 1%
Public Outreach 1%
Engineering design 8%
Engineering costs during construction 2%
Const. management services 7%
Commissioning/Startup 3%
City costs 5%
Construction change order allowance 5%
Contingency 15%
Escalation 2% 10% 2.84
Final Factor 2.84
BLACK & VEAi CH 29
I
City of Ashland Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Costs presented in this table include contingencies (30% for estimating and non-construction
related costs) and other soft costs (33% for planning, engineering, and const. management). The
final project cost factor represents the cumulative cost percentages and is useful in comparing
construction costs and overall project costs.
A cost escalation of 2% per year over year has been assumed. It is anticipated that the escalation
would be applied to represent the costs at the time of construction. It is conceivable that a new
treatment plant would be constructed within the next 10 years. Thus, a mid-point in construction
escalation of 5 years is assumed to arrive at the escalation allowance of 10%. By comparison to the
existing plant rehabilitation needs, it is estimated that many of the recommended actions are also
grouped in the 0- to10-year time frame for implementation. This is further described in the next
section (Section 4.2). Thus, the same cost escalation factor would be applied for the existing plant
rehabilitation needs.
4.2 PRIORITIZATION OF IMPROVEMENTS
Rehabilitation recommendations were organized with both short-term (immediate repair and
replacement activities) and long-term replacement needs. The City may continue to replace or
rehabilitate existing plant assets aligned with real time conditions at the plant. Refinements were
made to the rehabilitation recommendation time frames to maximize the remaining useful life of
the existing facilities.
Rehabilitation recommendations for each subsystem are assigned a timeframe for implementation
to ensure continuous and reliable operation. The timeframe considers the typical useful life of a
given asset, its current condition, the service date, and City staff input.
Rehabilitation needs were developed at the asset level and summarized at the subsystem level. The
recommendations and timeframe for improvements are presented at the subsystem level with the
anticipation that improvements for all assets within a subsystem would occur within the same
timeframe for cost efficiencies and to reduce impacts to plant operations.
Recommendations are presented with a proposed timeframe for implementation such that budget
plans can be developed. Each recommendation is placed into one of three timing phases: short-term
(0 to 10 years), mid-term (10 to 15 years), and long-term (15 to 20 years). The overall summary of
the rehabilitation recommendations show that the majority of the work needs to be performed in
the short-term as demonstrated in Figure 4-1.
BLACK & VEATCH 30
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
1%
1
rN Implementation
27% Timeframe
t I ■ 0-10
■ 10-15
■ 15-20
Figure 4-1 Itemization of Rehabilitation Cost Allocations Over Time
Figure 4-1 shows that approximately 72% of the rehabilitation needs are recommended to be
performed in the short-term time frame. The graphic also shows that only a very small percentage
of rehabilitation work (1%) could be performed at the end of the 20-year planning horizon. Some
realignment of the timing intervals can be considered if asset run-to-failure strategies are
employed. Although this strategy would only be viable if a new plant was ultimately decided as the
City's future direction.
4.3 SUMMARY
The cost comparisons are provided for construction of a new plant versus the rehabilitation
recommendations for the existing plant. The costs are organized in the following categories:
Administration Plant Influent Chemical Feed Flocculation Basins
Dual Media Filters Clearwell / Electrical Instrumentation
Product Water & Controls
Costs were developed for the necessary rehabilitation required for the existing plant. The
rehabilitation recommendations and associated cost estimates are provided in Attachment A. These
costs were then grouped in the respective categories outlined above. Table 4-2 shows the
comparative capital costs for the existing plant and a new 7.5 mgd capacity plant. Note the sub total
amounts have been rounded to the nearest $1,000 dollars.
BLACK & VEATCH 31
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Table 4-2 Capital Cost Comparisons
Flocculation Basins $1,330,000 $472,000
Dual Media Filters $3,637,000 $702,000
Chemical Feed $923,000 $878,000
Administration $1,000,000 $181,000
Plant Influent (Existing WTP) & Offsite Inf/Eff. Piping (New WTP)1 $550,000 $20,000
3 0 $83,000
Clearwell/Product Water a $47,00 Nigh Service Pumpsz $400,000
Site Work ARNAEFAMN RIM $645,000
Yard Piping $725,000
Electrical h $806,000 $186,000
Instrumentation & Controls $201,000 $128,000
Estimating Contingency (15%) $1,584,000 $397,500
Total Facility Cost $12,148,000 $3,047,500
Contractor Mark Up Costs (Cumulative)
Overhead (7%) $850,000 $213,325
Profit (10%) $1,214,000 $304,750
Mobilization/Bonds/Insurance (3%) $365,000 $91,425
Contingency (4%) $486,000 $121,900
Total Contractor Markups $2,915,000 $731,400
Subtotal Construction Cost $15,063,000 $3,778,900
Non-Construction Costs (Additive)
Permitting (1%) $150,000 $37,789
Environmental Review (1%) $150,000 N/A
$150,000 N/A
Public Outreach (1%) Jffi L411
Engineering (8%) $1,200,000 $302,312
Legal/Administration (0.5%) $75,000 N/A
Construction Services (7%) $1,050,000 $264,523
Commissioning/Startup (3%) $450,000 $113,367
Contingency (1S%) $2,250,000 $566,835
Total Non-Construction Costs $5,475,000 $1,284,826
Escalation (2%/yr. @ 5 yrs. = 10%) $2,053,000 $506,373
Total Project Cost $22,591,000 $5,570,099
Total Project Cost (Rounded to nearest $1000) $22,591,000 $5,570,000
1 Refer to Section 3.2.3. The length of influent and effluent piping used for cost estimating is 0.25 mile each.
z A finished water pumping station for the new plant site is expected to send flow to the downstream reservoir.
BLACK & VEATCH 1 32
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
It should be noted in the above table that some costs are not applicable to rehabilitation of the
existing plant. Non-construction related costs associated with environmental review, public
outreach and legal/administrative functions are not expected to be incurred on the existing plant.
As such these cost assumptions for non-construction are provided for reference as they apply to the
new plant for comparison purposes but have not been included in the total project cost for a new
plant.
Based on the comparison table the following trends are evident. Overall rehabilitation costs for the
existing facility are approximately 25% of the construction costs of a new plant. Within the
individual facility areas, the improvement cost for the existing chemical feed is nearly equivalent to
the construction costs of a chemical feed area in a new facility. This intuitively reinforces the results
of the existing plant evaluation as the chemical feed area was noted to require the most extensive
amount of rehabilitation. Additionally, the rehabilitation costs associated with Instrumentation &
Controls are also 64% of the new I&C plant construction cost. The City has kept up with upgrades of
I&C equipment over time and these ongoing costs are expected going forward with the 20-year
planning horizon of the existing facility as the life expectancy of these systems is shorter than other
asset types.
From a broad perspective, it is feasible to continue to utilize the existing facility over the 20-year
planning horizon at a lower initial investment than constructing a new treatment plant. For the
purposes of this analysis, all efforts have been made to provide an equivalent cost comparison
between the existing facility rehabilitation requirements to the construction costs associated with
an equivalent new facility.
4.3.1 Additional Considerations
The capital cost comparison has worked toward providing an equivalent comparison between the
two primary alternatives of rehabilitating the existing plant and constructing a new plant. However,
it is prudent to provide discussion on the additional factors that should be included for the City's
consideration. Follow up studies to further vet these considerations, including performing business
case evaluations that factor in the importance of economic and non-economic factors should be
performed. For brevity, the following table (Table 4-3) provides some of the additional
considerations that may have either positive or negative impacts associated with either alternative.
General discussions of these considerations are provided following the table. The potential impacts
of these issues can be rated by the City according to their importance in a triple bottom line analysis
that considers social, environmental and financial factors.
BLACK & VEATCH I 33
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
Table 4-3 Considerations with Positive/Negative Impacts
POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE
CONTRIBUTION
Additional Rehabilitation Needs - +
Flood Risks - +
Seismic Risk - +
Operation Costs + -
Maintenance Costs - +
Treatment Requirements - +
Capacity - +
4.3.1.1 Additional Rehabilitation Needs
It should be noted that the rehabilitation needs were based on a cursory site assessment and that
the actual extent of rehabilitation could be greater than what was identified based on visual
inspection and input from operations staff. Based on the limited extent of inspection information
available, this consideration could negatively impact the existing plant alternative as actual
rehabilitation costs could be higher than anticipated.
4.3.1.2 Flood Risks
The existing plant is subject to flooding from the adjacent Ashland Creek. The existing plant has
flooded on multiple occasions. Flooding presents a risk to the reliable operation of the existing
facility. The impacts of flooding damage to the existing plant and the cost to mitigate flooding
cannot be well quantified. It is recommended the City evaluate the acceptable risk tolerance for
flooding impacts in the decision for rehabilitating the existing facility or construction of a new
plant. A new plant would be located in an area less prone to flooding and thus has a positive
contribution as compared to that of rehabilitating the existing facility.
Costs to construct a flood wall to mitigate flooding are provided in the City's WCRS & CWMP report
prepared by Carollo. The report indicates the direct costs for construction of the flood wall are
estimated at $1 Million dollars in 2010. The present cost of the flood wall in 2018 is $1.21 Million
dollars using Engineering News Record average construction cost indices for present day
adjustments. When applying the 2.84 cost factor developed in Section 4.1.2, the total present day
project costs for the flood wall are estimated at $3.44 Million dollars.
The flood risk could potentially be mitigated by constructing a flood wall; however, its ability to
withstand a major flood event is questionable. Constructing a flood wall next to existing basins and
structures along the creek is risky because it could potentially damage the existing facilities due to
BLACK & VEATCH I 34
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
vibration related to construction activities. As such, the cost to mitigate the flood risk cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty and therefore not included in the cost comparison.
4.3.1.3 Seismic and Landslide Risks
The existing plant is vulnerable to failure from a seismic event. Rehabilitation recommendations
presented in Table 4.2 do not reflect the costs to upgrade the existing facilities to current seismic
standards. The original existing structures built in 1948 are lightly reinforced compared to the
current ACI 350 requirements. Upgrades to the WTP structures have been performed since original
construction. In general, an increase in the gravity loads by more than 5 percent from the original
design would typically require a seismic upgrade to the current code standards. It is unclear if the
previous upgrades resulted in the seismic resiliency improvements. Furthermore, any vibration or
construction activity around these structures (e.g. construction of a flood wall next to the
flocculation tanks and filter cells) could potentially result in concrete cracking and leakage. A
detailed structural assessment of the existing structures is outside the scope of this document;
however, a cursory review indicates that the existing structures do not meet the current seismic
code requirements. Assuming that the current loading on the existing structures remains the same,
it is not required to upgrade the existing structures to meet the current seismic codes. However, in
a seismic event, these structures could suffer significant damage and impair the ability of the plant
to produce potable water. Due to the age and condition of the facilities it is not feasible to upgrade
the existing structures to current seismic standards in a cost effective manner. Depending on the
severity of a seismic event, the time to repair and make the plant functional could range from days
to months.
In its current location in the canyon, the existing plant is susceptible to damage from landslides.
Similar to the seismic risk, the extent of damage that the plant could suffer will depend on the
severity of a landslide event.
4.3.1.4 Operational Costs
Currently the existing plant benefits from gravity flow conditions which reduce operational costs
associated with influent or effluent pumping. Proposed locations downstream may result in a new
plant requiring some final effluent pumping to send treated water to the distribution system.
Capital costs for a final effluent high-service pumping station have been estimated at $400,000 as
presented in Table 4-2. The City would need to consider the additional operating costs of this
facility as part of the new treatment plant design.
Furthermore, increased pumping costs and operational costs can be expected with enhanced
treatment technologies (such as microfiltration, ozone or ultraviolet disinfection), should the City
decide to employ these technologies in order to fully address the current taste and odor issues,
future algal toxin treatment or other regulatory requirements. These costs are expected to be
BLACK & VEATCH 35
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
similar for both alternatives (existing plant vs new plant). Due to lack of space, it is envisioned that
these facilities would need to be located offsite.
With new treatment technologies, it can be expected that some labor costs could increase. These
may be partially offset through enhanced automation of the new facility which would require less
staff oversight and control. The lower operational costs would seem to be a benefit for continued
use of the existing plant. The possible opportunities for reducing operational costs at a new plant
may make this consideration neutral between the two alternatives. Regardless of the result,
additional financial analysis for operational costs should be undertaken as part of the pre-design
effort for a new plant and included in the decision making process for alternatives.
4.3.1.5 Maintenance Costs
As opposed to the operational costs, the reduced maintenance costs would favor the new plant.
Currently the City spends a greater extent of time and resources in maintaining the existing plant. A
new facility would diminish the maintenance costs. Initially the new plant would incur low
maintenance costs. Over time with any facility, routine maintenance is expected. The benefit for
reduced maintenance of the new facility may only extend during the initial start-up, commissioning
and warranty period of the new plant. Thus after this time, it can be expected that maintenance on
the new facility would be somewhat comparable to the existing facility. However, the existing plant
continues to age and will certainly require an increasing amount of maintenance over the 20-year
planning horizon.
Situations can occur, such as at the existing facility, where maintenance activities are deferred. This
can create a backlog of maintenance to restore the facility to suitable operating conditions. It should
be noted that if a new plant is ultimately on the horizon for the City, the City may elect to defer
maintenance in a strategy to run assets to failure. This strategy is not necessarily advisable for any
assets critical to plant operation but could potentially reduce the City's cumulative investment in
the existing plant.
4.3.1.6 Treatment Requirements
The existing plant is able to produce high quality drinking water using the current
microfloc/filtration treatment process. It is currently unknown if additional treatment would be
required by EPA as the regulations evolve in the future. However, due to lack of space, it is not
possible to construct additional treatment processes or modify existing facilities to accommodate
new treatment while keeping the plant in operation. Additionally, exposure of new facilities to
other risks (flooding, seismic, landslide) cannot be practically mitigated. As such, the existing plant
does not have the ability to meet any additional treatment requirements such as treatment of algal
toxins, if required by future regulations. Any additional treatment would need to be located offsite
and would require associated infrastructure investment for pumps, piping, and storage to convey to
the distribution system.
BLACK & VEATCH I 36
City of Ashland I Water Treatment Plant Plant Evaluation Report
4.3.1.7 Capacity Requirements
Projections for water treatment capacity needs for the City of Ashland have been prepared under
previous master planning efforts. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider future capacity
requirements. Hence, the comparison between the existing plant and the new plant only considers
the current fixed water treatment capacity of 7.5 mgd. When considering the future capacity
requirements, the existing plant may be able to be marginally expanded by rehabilitating the two
abandoned filter basins (Filters #7 and #8) and returning these to service. Additionally, the City has
redundant provisions for treated water supply from the TAP pipeline for up to 2.1 mgd (City's
current water rights). However, the current understanding is that this pipeline is for emergency use
and not intended to provide drinking water supply for an extended period of time to the City. The
benefit when considering future capacity requirements clearly favors the construction of a new
facility that by design could be made expandable to accommodate future capacity requirements.
4.4 CONCLUSIONS
A summary of cost comparisons show that rehabilitation costs for the existing facility are
approximately 25% of the construction costs of a new plant. While it is feasible to continue
operating the existing facility over the 20-year planning horizon at a lower initial investment, the
existing plant has some negative considerations that present a risk to continued operation. The City
has the opportunity to accept or mitigate these risks in the decision process. Ultimately, the existing
facility has a definitive life span and will reach a point where continual investment is no longer
financially prudent or will not achieve the desired level of service for the City. Deferring
construction of a new plant beyond the 20-year planning horizon will impose a greater overall cost
to the City.
BLACK & VEATCH 37
Council Stud Session
2018
March 19, Title: Economic Development, Cultural, Tourism &
Sustainability Grants Process
Item Type: Request for Feedback
Requested by Council? Yes
From: Adam Hanks Acting City Administrator
Adam. Hanks@ashland. or. us
Discussion Questions:
The annual grant review, recommendation and approval process has in the past been done within
the structure and schedule of the Citizen's Budget Committee (CBC) budget approval process.
For grant allocations on the "off-year" of the budget process, Council has several options
available:
1) Mayor Stromberg could convene the full CBC, identify and select participants of the CBC to
form a grants sub-committee. The sub-committee would hold two meetings to review and
recommend grant allocations not exceeding levels authorized in Resolution 2017-03. The
Mayor would then again convene the full CBC to receive the presentation and
recommendation of the grants sub-committee and then vote to forward a final
recommendation along to the City Council for their review and formal approval.
2) Mayor Stromberg could create, with confirmation of Council, an ad-hoc grants review
committee with a focused committee charge to review and recommend grant allocations
consistent with Resolution 2017-03. This ad-hoc committee would hold two meetings to
conduct their work and report back to Council with a final recommendation of grant awards
for Council's consideration and ultimate approval.
Resource Requirements:
Grant funds were allocated by Resolution 2017-03, with an award amount for fiscal year 2018-
19 of $229,703. Funding for the grants come from the City's collection of Transient Occupancy
Tax, with a portion coming from tourism restricted funds (10% of total restricted or $79,703) and
the remainder from the unrestricted (non-tourism) funds ($150,000).
Staff time is the only cost consideration relating to the different process options. Neither option
poses a significant workload increase for staff. Option 91 does require additional staffing for
meeting prep and minutes for the two CBC meetings that would otherwise not be required with
option #2.
Sull1jested Next Steps:
Staff recommends Council determine a preferred grants award allocation process at its April 3,
2018 Business Meeting. If option #2 is selected, the following additional steps will occur at the
April 3, 2018 Business Meeting:
1) Mayor Stromberg will create the ad-hoc grants committee, with Council concurrence.
Pagel U3 CITY OF
ASHLAND
2) Appointments to the ad-hoc committee will be made (three citizen members of the CBC
have expressed formal interest in being a part of the grants process)
3) A scope of work/committee charge will be presented and approved, similar to the
following "To review and make recommendations to Council for specific grant
allocations consistent with Resolutions 2017-03 (award funds) and 2012-05 (eligibility
and award criteria).
Staff will then develop a complete process calendar to execute the chosen process. While legally
required to have Council approval by June 30, 2018, Staff will develop a calendar with a final
Council grant allocation approval scheduled for the May 15, 2018 Council Business Meeting.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
Council Goal #3 - Support and empower our community partners
Council Goal #15 - Seek opportunities to diversify the economy in coordination with the
Economic Development Strategy
Background and Additional Information:
The City of Ashland collects a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), from people who stay in
overnight lodging within the City limits. Over half (58%) of those funds are reserved for the
City's General Fund and are used to support Police, Fire, Community Development, and
Municipal Court. Slightly more than a quarter (26.67%) of those funds are used to support the
tourism industry. The tourist funds are either allocated directly to groups that market Ashland to
tourists or are spent on capital facilities that enhance the tourism experience within the
community. The remaining funds are dedicated to the City's annual grant program. The
amounts that go to each of these programs are allocated prior to the beginning of each biennium
by Council.
The City of Ashland reinvests a portion of the funds generated by the TOT in community non-
profits through an annual grant program. Of the total anticipated TOT collection of $2,191,467,
$229,703 is allocated to this grant program. Through these grants, the City is purchasing specific
services from non-profits that it might otherwise provide directly. The grant program has four
basic goals:
• Economic Development. The grant program will support the creation, retention, and
expansion of businesses and other ventures that enrich our community by creating goods
and services that provide employment opportunities while maintaining and enhancing the
overall quality of life. The 2011 Economic Development Strategy provides both policy
level and action level guidance for eligible grant application programs and activities.
• Cultural Development. The grant program will support increased diversity of and
accessibility to the creative arts and cultural opportunities in Ashland for citizens and
visitors and will support the visitor economy, maintain and promote job growth in this
sector and enrich the overall quality of life in the community.
• Tourism. As a long standing pillar of Ashland's economy, tourism programs support
programs, activities and events that act similarly to more traditional traded sector activity
Page 2 of 3 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
in that dollars from outside the community are brought in and circulated locally to the
benefit of our local businesses.
• Sustainability. The grant program will create and support programs and activities to
further support efforts to ensure Ashland is environmentally, economically and socially
resilient as a community.
Attachments:
None
Additional Links:
www.ashland.or.us/2018ectsgrants - Complete Grant Application, eligibility and award criteria
Page 3of3 CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Study Session
April 2, 2018
Title: Discussion of Sister City 50th Anniversary Celebrations
Item Type: Discussion
Requested by Council? Yes
From: Adam Hanks Acting City Administrator
Adam.hanks@ashland.or.us
Discussion Questions:
Does Council have any specific direction as staff moves forward in the planning process for the
50th Sister City relationship anniversary celebrations, occurring in 2019?
Resource Requirements:
Full costs are unknown at this time. However, staff has added funds to the BN2017-19 budget to
cover expected increases.
Suggested Next Steps:
Staff will continue to work with our community partners in planning the 50th anniversary
celebrations, based on Council's guidance.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
3. Support and empower our community partners.
Background and Additional Information:
Staff has been meeting with representatives from the Amigo Club, SOU, the Ashland Chamber
of Commerce, and the Ashland City Band to begin planning for the 50th anniversary celebrations
of our Sister City relationship with Guanajuato, Mexico. The basis for the plans is the 40th
anniversary celebrations which occurred in 2009. It is expected that a larger than normal
contingent of Ashland representatives will travel to Guanajuato (likely during their Presa de la
Olla festival in June) and an equally larger than normal contingent of Guanjuatenses will travel
to Ashland (likely for the 4th of July celebrations) in 2019. If Council has any specific events or
interactions they would like to propose as part of the planning process, this is the opportunity to
give staff direction.
Attachments:
N/A
Page 1 of 1 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Stud Session
April 2, 2018
Title: Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act of 2017
Item Type: Discussion & Potential Direction
Requested by Council? Yes
From: Adam Hanks Acting City Administrator
Adam. Hanks@ashland.or.us
Discussion Questions:
1) Is Council interested in further researching and potentially developing a formal statement of
position on this Federal Legislation emanating from Northern California?
a. If so, what is the scope of interest?
b. If not, is Council interested in staff continuing to monitor the legislation for future
potential local impacts?
Resource Requirements:
Other than limited staff time and resources for research and potential policy development, no
significant costs are associated with this item.
Suggested Next Steps:
Staff has no specific next steps identified, but is able to react and develop a suggested course of
action based on the results of this discussion. Likely next steps would include discussions with
both Jackson County and City of Medford staff to understand and coordinate common concerns
and issues, if possible.
In staff's initial review, no pending due dates currently exist for comment or development of a
formal City position on the matter.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
Council Goal #1 - Leverage our regional and state relationships to increase effectiveness in
relevant policy arenas.
Background and Additional Information:
The intent of the legislation is to restore federal recognition (terminated in 1958) of the Ruffey
Rancheria, the members of which are descended from Indian villages in central Siskiyou County.
While this federal legislation has a multitude of potential benefits and impacts to the petitioners,
descendants and those in the immediate proposed geographical area, an element of this matter
than has potential implications to Ashland and the Rogue Valley. One such implication, is the
potential for gaming casino operations near Ashland, given the proximity of the proposed Ruffey
Rancheria tribal lands.
Page 1 of 2 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
It is staff's understanding that the exact land area of the request has not yet been formalized,
which would play a significant role in determining whether or not the restoration of these lands
would provide the legal authority to site a gaming casino within Southern Oregon.
The complete text of the proposed bill is provided below. Staff is able to provide more complete
background research should Council so direct.
Attachments:
None
Additional Links:
https://www.con,ress.Qov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3535/text
Page 2 of 2 CITY OF
-ASHLAND