The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-0401 Study Session MIN CITY OF -ASH LAN D CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Monday, April 1, 2019 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street Mayor Stromberg called the Study Session to order at 5:30 P.m. 1. Public Input (15 minutes, maximum) William Shanor - Ashland - Spoke regarding the fiscal implications of piping the canal. Dr. Carol Voisin- Ashand - Spoke in concerns of the piping of the canal (see attached). John Hauschild - Ashland - Spoke in opposition of the canal project. He explained that repairing and maintaining the canal is the most logical way to fix the problem (see attached). Dave Helmich - Ashland - Spoke in opposition of the canal project. He spoke that this meeting should have happened sooner. Michael Bielec - Ashland - Spoke in opposition of the canal project. He spoke of the cost. He spoke of the importance of the City keeping up with maintenance and repairs. Allen Bosima- Ashland - Spoke that he lives on the canal. He spoke to different options and in concern for water conservation. Allan Sandler - Ashland - Spoke that the ditch goes through his property and spoke in support of the project. He spoke in concern for saving the water. He spoke regarding climate change and water loss. II. Ashland Canal Project Public Works Director Paula Brown and Julie Smitherman presented Council with a PowerPoint Presentation (see attached). Items discussed were: • Cost comparisons. • Next steps. • Environmental report. • Ecoli. • Community Feedback and input. • Impacts to wildlife. • Water efficiency and quality. • Project cost & property values. • Alternative assumptions. • Klamath water rights. • Wildlife impacts. • Alternatives 1 through 4. Council gave consensus to have an upcoming listening session and to bring this topic up again at a future Study Session. The Study Session was adjourned at 7 PM. Respectfully submitted by: City ecorder Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor S ro berg April1 Study Session on Piping the Canal Hi Counselors, Mayor and Paula Broom; Dr. Carol Voisln;Ashland SUBJECT: "Canal Improvement Project" I have serious concerns about piping the Canal project that is before us. First, the Idon't know the specific history of this Canal but it appears that a decision was made by public liability of underground piping=out of sight, out of mind until it breaks. Second, no plan for works to pre-judge the environmental process and decide the present canal should proceed asa mitigating storm surges which we have annually and that the canal handles by virtue of being buried pipe project. open. Third, the risks of piping have not been adequately addressed by staff like the draining for storm surges and the subsurface springs that are prevalent on 21st any mountain side. Finally, citizens have an alternative that needs to be taken seriously.trlo I am glad that your decision at the 4219 CC Business Meeting will NOT be in select a preferred alternative bmjust authorize an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Elk will determine the Does a buried pipe really have a lower risk than a canal? A buried pipe clearly has more preferred alternative. NOTE: federal funding can't be granted and applied before an EIR is risk than does an open canal. Asurge of water from heavy rains which we have every year has Completed (including a public comment period). At the 4219 CC meeting this motion needs to be passed by the Council: The completed EIR must be brought back to the Council for foal no place to go without an open ditch. Any plan to close that ditch must address the risk of review. storm surge going Into people's yards and into their basements or even living rooms. There will be property damage-this happened on my propertyl This could mean more lawsuits for the I am sorry I will be unable to attend the 4219 City Council meeting due to an urgent family city. medical event out of town. The risk of ground water springs flowing into the properties below the Canal is real. The plan to pipe must address this issue in and through an Environmental Impact Report which Below, I have detailed some critical Issues for you to consider BEFORE you make your incgI de an elite siveh rology re rtmust r~ppme ~~I~{` before any decision is mad to pipe this decision. Again thanks you for you service. ~q ;rR~,~ls,o C I;1d~le~~FFd_ s,oW 4sa ts-Ftt4t,A, I~.P~1°'a" 1 s S p, #I: Material Choice, "fairness in time frame" assumptions: Finally, citizens are serious. We re li Ing up real life risks and concerns. We also want The comparison table in the study session paper is OVER ESTIMATING the system life for the another alternative, the Citizen's alternative, to be considered. It is really simple. Fix the leaksl HOPE pipe as Compared to Concrete lining alternatives. Thel00yeais Remove the failing gunnite lining; replace it with sllpform applied reinforced concrete to line + life number is a manufacturer's "assertion" based on studies that the HDPE industry has the canal, and maintain the rest. This Is different from alternative four presented by staff.-I. r done. NOTE: HOPE pipe has only been =and for approximately 25 years. THUS: There are no reference applications yet in existence that would "prove" the "100 years + life number CC manufacture's "selling point" assertion. ~t1.t'CE The RCP (reinforced Concrete pipe) industry would argue "WITH PROOF "of 100 year life that RCP is a better choice. These studies also apply to reinforced concrete (RC) as a channel liner option. TIRJS: The reinforced concrete (RC) channel liner option has the same rife as the RCP industry studied pipe material. Iligh Strength Reinforced Concrete canal liner can be applied on the Canal by the economical "slip footing" process and achieve a "provable" 60-100 yen life. I refer you to the Civil Engineer article about the Marshfield Wisconsin 2015 project to replace their 89 year old storm seven RCP system for some streets. They chose to put reinforced Concrete pipe (not plastic pipe) back. I also =go you to review the NCPA analysis "Comparing RCP and Plastic Pipe". It begins with "When a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing". There is also the article in Power Magazine (powermae.coml titled : "Underground Piping: Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Until it Leaks". 05/01115 by Aaron Larson. In my opinion, the Ashland Mayors and Counselors of the past 90 years have handled this issue year is not a fair value IF the gunnite is maintained. A reinforced concrete alternative will result well. The original canal was built in 1929 and was reported to be a raised open metal canal. in a 60-100 year life as detailed in #1 ( see above). Then in the 1970's, the original canal was converted to the current in-ground canal and lined with (reasonable cost) Shot Crete. This Shot Crete application has been virtually un-maintained for approximately 50 years and has performed well. It now has a 23% leaking situation that can The buried HDPE pipe options should use an industry value of 50-100 year life in the be easily fixed (by either remove and replace the Shot Crete in the offending sections (proven comparison table. There is a lot of commentary going on about 100+ year life, but there is no 40-50 year life at a low cost) or remove and replace with a Reinforced Concrete lining section factual proof to support that. (with 60-100 year proven life) at a higher but still reasonable cost. These applications would result in retaining the open channel, which is viewed by many including myself as a positive. I U. Risks: like to be able to see what is going on. 1 don't like the "out of sight out of mind, until it leaks" The 4/1/ 19 study session report says that a buried pipe option has a lower risk. scenario. I would not like to see this Council and Mayor break with 90 years of good I disagree with that as do most irrigation districts (refer to Cal Poly ITRC studies). The only stewardship of the canal by your predecessors and fall for a costly better mousetrap trap scenario ~(~.compelling reason Cal Poly cites for requiring a buried pipe was public safety in developments that you may be second guessed about 30 years from now if it leaks. 4 compelling have schools. I have been told by canal residents there has been no public safety occurrences in the canal in it's 90 year life.. Is this correct? I just think that the risks that come Important Technical Concern: with the "bury the pipe option" have not been thought out. NOTE: "Out of site, out of mind, The cross sectional area of an open trapezoidal channel is hydraulically efficient and replacing it until it leaks". This is why I believe the pipe options Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs with a closed circular pipe will result in a reduction of capacity. The replacement design should are understated. Staff needs to think about and quantify those risks associated with pipe burial. compare the Hydraulic Grade Line of the existing canal to the replacement pipe. The 4/1/19 Some of which are: Study Session paper (Item 27) already indicates that there will be a need for an overflow system at the beginning and midpoint to "mitigate potential storm surges." This is a significant cost issue Storm water costs- many additional man holes required not required by the open channel options. Manholes could also be required every 500 feet. This Ground water subsurface springs issues is another risk issue not required by the open canal. Tree roots damage in pipe joints, leaks Ground movement causing joints to leak The current open canal does collect stormwater runoff. All stormwater that is currently tributary to the existing canal will need to be considered. The storm water issue was largely dismissed in the study session report by saying essentially that To maintain existing drain patterns, new inlet structures will need to huiIt and connected to the the street systems above the canal capture the storm water. This viewpoint does not match up closed pipe system. The required manholes and drainage inlets for the new system will be with residents observations that during storms the canal often times is "pretty full". In the next maintenance intensive adding additional cost. phase, a detailed hydrology study must be done before any "bury the pipe" scheme is considered as a preferred alternative. Note: In addition, as in the very well thought out Hersey Ave, ground And besides the technical burying a pipe issues, the economics isn't compelling: water analysis being done (before Hersey is re-paved) a ground water study should be done to the elevation that the "bury option" excavation requires. There is a VERY real risk that ground #2: Economics, doing the MATH: water will be intercepted by the bury excavation and water will move from where it travels now The study session report states that the TID irrigation water costs City of Ashland 50.20/1,000 to where it isn't expected. That is a risk. Tree roots getting into pipe joints is a risk that is gallons. The leakage amount identified is 63 million gallons. That Math is $.0002/gallon x 63 definitely in the 30 year window of a bury option. The O&M costs for the bury options in my million gallons or $12,600! Spending almost $4 million because of a $12,600 per year leak issue opinion are UNDERSTATED . to me makes no sense. Also 77% of the canal is operating well. Only 23% of the canal is really to blame, so fix the 23%, with a reasonable cost option. My vote: a "slip formed applied" reinforced concrete canal lined option for the leaking section. Maintain the rest. But at a As you can tell, I am bury "Risk Adverse". NOTE: "Out of site , out of mind, until it reasonable maintenance cost approach. leaks". That comes from experience and I think burying that canal in a pipe on a mountain side The 4/1/19 study session comparison table indicates that the buried pipe option will essentially residential area is packed with unforeseen risks, never mind the lack of economic justification. be trouble free for 100 years. Do you believe that? There is no proof anywhere that is the For 90 years the above grade canal has successfully and safely avoided serious risks. It now leaks a little, so fix the leak. case. HDPE has only been in use for less than 25 years. The table places only a 25 year life on maintaining our present "gunnite" canal when the City of Ashland's own experience suggests at Here is an analogy: least a 40-50 year life on 77% of the canal. Fix the 23% with the 60-100 year reinforced concrete approach and reflect the 40-50 year life in revised table for the rest of the canal. The 25 Let's say your house has a leak in a waterline to your kitchen. You contact a plumber and he I am one of a large number of people opposed to the Ashland Canal Pipe Project. suggests that you remove and replace all the water lines in your house to fix the leak to your Repairing & maintaining the canal is the most sensible & economical way to stop kitchen. the water losses caused by years of neglect & a lack of regular maintenance. 4. E-coli issue: Conserving water is at the top of our concerns. I think the E-coli issue is a non issue as regards the decision to bury the canal in a pipe or not. It is unfortunate there is E-coli in Ashland Creek. But as I understand it, even if E-coli were Aside from the destruction of private property & disruption of neighborhoods completely eliminated in the canal, they're will still be F.-soli in Ashland Creek. adjacent to the canal, piping is a waste of precious taxpayer dollars. Repairing & Again, thank you for your service. Good luck in weighing the issues at hand in this case. maintaining the canal will achieve the same goals of water conservation for less money. 77% of the canal is presently in serviceable condition; to dig it up & throw it in a landfill is truly a waste of an important City asset. The 23% of the canal in need Summary: of replacement is approximately one-half mile or less. A local contractor, Left Coast Underground owned by Danny Beard, has inspected the canal & estimated that My recommendation is to fix the 23% of the canal responsible for the vast majority of the one-half mile of new reinforced concrete canal using the slip-form method will cost leaking. Remove the existing gunnite lining and replace it with a slip form applied reinforced concrete (60-100 year life) lined canal in the affect area. Maintain the rest. Also, I agree with the $250K. So, this cost, plus any repairs to the remainder of the canal could certainly proposed plan to line the existing pipes that require it, as determined by the camera inspections. be done for well under $500K, NOT over $3M as the City has estimated their My last recommendation is not to spend money unnecessarily. recently added #4 'repair option'. Respectfully Submitted No Environmental Impact Report is needed to repair & maintain the canal. The Ted Hall EIR Plus additional engineering will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the 210 East Nevada St. Peer Reviewed by: pipe project. Once digging starts, on site modifications required to handle James Robison PE underground water sources encountered on the hillsides, will add considerable costs. In our opinion, the City has grossly understated the cost of the Pipe Project in Ashland Resident Reviewed by: order to make it more 'appealing'. Shaun Moran 615 Taylor Street While some call piping water a 'modern' solution, it is seldom used because it is expensive & very difficult to monitor. Future leaks or blockage of water are difficult to locate once a pipe is underground, while a canal allows simple visual inspection. Just last week I encountered a public works crew using hi-tech camera equipment to inspect a length of water pipe under the street above SOU. The camera scope could not navigate a turn in the pipe preventing their crew from continuing forward. Such a turn in a canal is easily navigated - if the canal turns right, you turn right... and so on. Simple is good. When you add inexpensive & effective, it's even better! John Hauschild 942 Elkader Street Ashland, OR 97520 541.482.4553 Testimony to the City Council from Julie Norman April 1, 2019 Study Session on the Canal Project ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS - LOW COST SOLUTION: REPAIR THE LEAKY 25% of the CANAL LINING & MAINTAIN CANAL as is • Repairing the canal was not an option considered by the Pipe Project group. Note title of Project I Many citizens want the City Council to adopt a pragmatic, cost- • Pipe Project ahs artificially inflated cost to repair canal while underestimating efficient solution, based on realistic expense projections, in order to: cost of piping. (a) significantly reduce the leaks in the TID canal lining, and (b) minimize long-term maintenance costs to the open canal. • Life span of options again is skewed. HDPE pipe has only been in use for 25 years. The 50-100 year life of pipe is an unknown factor. CRITIQUE #1 • Reinforced concrete is known to last more than the 25 years quoted by pipe COST ESTIMATES NEED TO BE REVISED: According to engineer Ted Hall, the current cost estimates for the two group. Our untended canal has already lasted 40 years. piping alternatives overstate the life expectancy of a buried pipe By repairing the existing canal and not needing an E.I.R., the money saved solution and understate long-term maintenance costs for buried pipe. from that alone would fund most, if not all, canal repairs. • The $238K spent so far to research and promote piping project could have maintenance for the "piped" Alternatives 1 and 2 ($12,500/yr.) paid a major portion of a canal repair project. do not reflect the true expense of fighting back incessant root invasions across 2 miles of steep mountainside averaging 75 to John Hauschild 942 Elkader St. Ashland, OR 97520 541.482.4553 100 percent slope. Leaky pipe will have to be dug out, repaired, repacked with fill, and reburied. [I spent $3,000 last month to remove roots (again) in my 40-year old sewer line. My plumber said he deals with root removal more than any other problem.] And the current cost estimates for not piping (repair and maintain) understate the life expectancy of repairing the lining in the open canal and overstate the costs associated with long-term maintentance. Example 2: The estimated cost for operations and maintenance under Alternative 4 (no change) is "currently $50,000 annually." Actually the City spent $50,000 only once in the past, and that amount was spent to repair four miles of the TID, not two. CRITIQUE #2: THE "PARTIAL REPAIR AND MAINTAIN" ALTERNATIVE IS MISSING A new alternative is needed to (a) repair the liner in the 25% of the canal that is seriously leaking and (b) maintain the open canal, as is. I ~p r I I i. r"111ti~~~'P s y~ CONCLUSIONS: The Public Works team should REVISE THE COST ESTIMATES for the full range of FIVE ALTERNATIVES, so that City Council can realistically assess their options and meet their obligation for "due, diligence." l; Seventy-seven percent of the TID open canal is presently operating quite well, even though the canal lining has not been methodically maintained over the past 50 years. Fixing the 25% of the canal lining that is leaking badly can be€ performed by local contractors using small equipment, with fewer required environmental analyses for permits less loss of vegetation' less soil disturbance on steep terrain, less uncontrolled surface water during rain-on-snow events, and at a reasonable cost. - Please create an alternative to: REPAIR 25% of the lining & then MAINTAIN the open canal • Thanks for listening ~ 1..•i • o~ u~ City Council Study Session Expectations I.W. cW or ~45HLAND • Recap of project goals, project location and E.coli data • Condition of canal today; deferred maintenance concerns • Community feedback and input • Presentation of alternatives and pros and cons of each • Common concerns with all alternatives • Alt 1 Replace Entire Canal with New 24" HDPE Pipe • Alt 2 Replace Open Sections of Canal with New 4" and 3o" HDPE Pipe and Line Existing Piped Sections • Alt 3 Replace Open Sections of Canal with Urethane Under-liner and new Concrete Channel, Line Existing Piped Sections; canal remains open • Alt 4 Aggressively Maintain Existing Canal; Phase Concrete Repairs over the Top of Existing Concrete Canal Channel; Note: Alternative #4 replaces the "do nothing" canal remains open alternative as doing nothing is not truly feasible. z Ashland Canal Piping Project ICI it City Council Study Session Expectations - continued ASHLAND • Cost comparisons • Next steps • Council decision - May 7, 2019 (Council Business Meeting) • Final Design and Permitting • June 2019 -June 2020; depending on the selected alternative • Construction • startOctober 2020 depending upon the selected alternative 3 Ashland Canal Piping Project I IProject Purpose & Benefits ASHLAND Purpose: • Replace i0,700 feet of Ashland's open-channel seasonal irrigation canal from Starlite Place to Terrace Street with below-ground pipe to improve the water quality in Ashland Creek and to assist the City's goal for overall water conservation. • Recommended in the 2012 Water Master Plan Benefits: • Minimize water contaminants and health risks in Ashland Creek • Conserve water and reduce water loss due to seepage and evaporation • Maximize water resource - Right Water Right Use • Protect drinking water sources 4 Ashland Canal Piping Project 0 a w o rvKa, L as s 77. Terrace St k ump Station w vK _ g - 3 r. srn i P G r :s w w b as n , a : i :m G. ' t S ~ sv. m - r s , /mow 5xr[ L Es Starl t • 3 Monitor ng wwx.>Ha w' -v Station Nr. sEw s<. A. Ashland Lateral Canal M°I,w W GP Station -Start of Project F Starlite Monitoring ro 3rF Terrace St Pump Station - End of Project Ashland Lateral (Piped) - 5005 ft - - Currently piped sections to be repiped , r«cnw~ ~;i Ashland Lateral (Open Channel) - 7160 ft - - 0 200 400 800 1,200 react , "E- Ashland Canal Piping Pro~ett #68 Ashland Lateral Canal 54.5 , E. Coli Bacteria Study Samples , 4O.s ; q O T.,,-. s1 76.0 PumpSUHOn • ' t t 163.7 16.5 R 143. 3'^ 23.3° 74.8 d SU,I f4 F Data points are geometric mean ®16.6 73 7 54.5 MOS anon a in MPN/100 mL 'I All data are from the .12.1 2011 and 2018 48.1 _ Ashland Creek E. Coli Study collected by Rogue Riverkeepers 2018 E. Coll Sample Site 0 0.1 02 0.3 O.d OS 0.6 01101.1 44, 2011 E. Coll Sample Site 0 600 1.200 2400 3,600 Feet 1.4 Ashland Lateral (Piped) Ashland Lateral (Open Channel) ` 32.1- 6 '•=a`$ qc.t_ al Maintenance Issues J_ VW,1 x cr-eked I a I SEe ay ~t•o. J, p g f;: $1► y.° y s' ea ' 1 i r 7 'Vf, ASHLAND ' ✓ i * r Rs ' Up ifted Liner G rv, g d r c z r e ' y Current Concrete .g 'ZI rE_ '4, i x Liner Condition L Cracked L ner. a,41" a►v~,.~, 23% k, 27% _At Leave, & Debr s - ,a T 4 { f 50% F. % Good Fair vPoor 4 r a r r ; .t r Cracked Lirtr~ Broken Up Liner 7 Ashland Canal P Community Feedback & Input ;ELI 'l ASHLAND • Impacts on trees & vegetation • Project costs *Aesthetics ofwater "feature" •PropertyValues • Not a community priority -Trail access• Impacts on wildlife • Drainage , a z A, • Homeowner access during -Wildfire construction _ • Privacy , 41 rz" :P • Disturbance and removal of '4 homeowner bridges, fencing, rocks, driveways, etc. • Water efficiency / quality 8 Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternatives Assumptions CITY Of -ASHLAND Alternative Criteria • Meet minimum design criteria of 7.2 cubic feet per second flow rate • Ensure maximum upstream water elevation of 2,327.05 feet Funding • Alternatives 1-3 assume the City will apply for new grant funding and/or secure addition loan funding from the DEQ • Potential grant funding sources: • Natural Resources Conservation Service • Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board • US Bureau of Reclamation • Oregon Water Resources Department • Rogue Basin Partnership 9 Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternatives Common Concerns ASHLAND • Tree loss within the existing canal in construction zones • of the 287 trees identified in Siskiyou BioSurvey's report, less than loo trees will need to be removed for any of the alternatives identified • the exact number and location of those trees to be removed will be included on final engineering plans • Unknown true impact to property values; subjective at this time • City has a maintenance easement for the canal throughout the canal section on all properties • Of the 69 properties along the project area, 291/2 have dedicated public access easements, 39 do not • portions of the "trail" are not accessible • ability to fully improve trail connection throughout the canal section is unknown • requires Council and Parks prioritization and coordination with property owners io Ashland Canal Piping Project w s ? t u b ~ i w ....em .x rw. +Il C y ?s. ' m »r Iwy _ - zi, rte, g•v, wo ..n.. .,s TM g t a em u {la a tW r gl n Ashland Canal Trail Easements Legend ' N- No Public Trail Easement dp dx Yes, Public Trail Easement ~ ii Ashland Cara[ Piping Project Alternatives Common Concerns - continued I.:1 c"' o, ASHLAND • Historic significance • the canal system was constructed in the early 19oos • specific historic status of the canal is unknown; not on the historic register • will be determined through the permitting stages • Klamath water rights adjudication is unknown for the basin • irrigation water rights challenges began in the basin in 1975 and continue today • Wildlife impact • although this is not a "wildlife corridor", wildlife do frequent the seasonally open canal; if the canal is piped, wildlife must find alternate water sources tz Ashland Canal Piping Project Presentation of Alternatives; pros and cons IRL40 „o, ,4SHLAND • Alt :L Replace Entire Canal with New 24" HDPE Pipe • Alt 2 Replace Open Sections of Canal with New 24" and 3o" HDPE Pipe and Line Existing Piped Sections • Alt 3 Replace Open Sections of Canal with Urethane Under-liner and new Concrete Channel, Line Existing Piped Sections; canal remains open • Alt 4 Aggressively Maintain Existing Canal; Phase Concrete Repairs over the Top of Existing Concrete Canal Channel; canal remains open 13 Ashland Canal Piping Project Net Present Value Calculation rat 'W * • See Ashland Canal Piping project Preliminary Engineering Report, Adkins, page 7-4 -ASHLAND NPV = C + USPW (O&M) -SPPW (S) C = capital cost USPW (O&M) = uniform series present worth of annual operation and maintenance cost USPW - (O&M) * (1 +1 ) " -1 i = interest = 0.7% i * (1 +i ) n n= #years = 6o SPPW (S) = single payment present worth of salvage value 1 SPPW = salvage (future value) (1 +i) n -4 Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternative #1-costs '11FALAI-all ASH ASHLAND W ' Replace Entire Canal with New 24" HDPE Pipe Estimated Initial Capital Cost: $1095,000 Estimated Life Cycle Cost (NPV) at 6o years: $3472,579 *NPV -net present value 2018 costs, Adkins p. 49 includes an anticipate salvage cost of pipe - indicating there is still "life" available in the pipe; HDPE life estimated at zoo years annualized O&M costs $12,500 .5 Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternative #1- pros and cons IFIR Replace Entire Canal with New 24" HDPE Pipe ASHLAND Pros Cons • Maximizes water efficiency - 23% of water • Loss of open seasonal waterway conserved • Loss of • water reducing new trees Maximizes quality bylikely the highest impact on trees (less contaminates / E. coli from entering the canal than loo) as it is full replacement, • Improved trail; potential for more connections including the existing piped sections • Restores natural stormwater drainage • Potential increase in trespassing • stormwater no longer travels in the canal Without the canal to define the easement, • Improved and metered irrigation connections trail users may wander on to private space • Improvements in irrigation service • Greatest impact to property owners during • less sediment and debris in private lines construction • Protection of a secondary potable water source entire section is replaced • this alternative has the most excavation • Reduces chances of canal failure - all new pipe excavation is 1-2 feet below existing canal • Removes seepage risk to foundation failure • Safer environment for children and pets • Minimizes water theft 16 Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternative #2 - costs Ate, Replace Open Sections of Canal with New Pipe ASHLAND (3o" and z4" HDPE) and Line Existing Piped Sections Estimated Initial Capital Cost: $19501000 Estimated Life Cycle Cost (NPV) at 6o years: $4339,,897 *NPV - net present value 2o18 costs, Adkins p. 49 includes an anticipate salvage cost of pipe - indicating there is still "life" available in the pipe; estimated life of HDPE loo years, anticipate 6o years life for cured in place pipe liners annualized O&M costs $12,500 17 Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternative #2 - pros and cons ME, Replace Open Sections of Canal with New Pipe _ASHIAND (30" and 24" HDPE) and Line Existing Piped Sections Pros Cons • Maximizes water efficiency- 230/0 of water conserved • Loss of open seasonal waterway IT Maximizes water quality by reducing new • Loss of trees (less than Alt #i) contaminates/ E. coli from entering the canal IT Potential increase in trespassing IT Improved trail, potential for more connections without the canal to define the • Restores natural stormwater drainage easement, trail users may wander • stormwater no longer travels in the canal IT Impacts to property owners during IT Improved and metered irrigation connections construction • Improvements in irrigation service • Transition of new/old can leak overtime • less sediment and debris in private lines IT must be actively monitored • Protection of a secondary potable water source • Highest capital cost • Reduces chances of canal failure - all new pipe $4 million • two different pipe sizes required to • Removes seepage risk to foundation failure maintain capacity and hydraulic head • Safer environment for children and pets • Highest life cycle cost IT Minimizes watertheft $4.3 million i8 Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternative #3 - costs IMEN c- or Replace Open Sections of Canal with Urethane ~ASHL.AND Under-liner and new Concrete Channel, Line Existing Piped Sections: canal remains open Estimated Initial Capital Cost: $21429,000 Estimated Life Cycle Cost (NPV) at 6o years: $4334379 *NPV - net present value 2o18 costs, Adkins p. 49 no salvage value concrete life 40-6o years with urethane liner; anticipate 6o years life for cured in place pipe liners annualized O&M costs $39,000 ig Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternative #3 - pros and cons AL, Replace Open Sections of Canal with Urethane ASHLAND Under-liner and new Concrete Channel, Line Existing Piped Sections: canal remains open Pros Cons • Improves water efficiency - 21% of water • Canal is open to contaminates / E. coli intrusion conserved • No additional protection to our secondary • Retains visual and aesthetic value of open potable water source seasonal waterway • Water loss to evaporation/transpiration • Minimal impacts or changes to trail • Loss of trees (potentially less than Alt #1 and z) • No new trespassing concerns as the • Stormwater drainage will still enter the canal canal is visible • Canal can flood/overflow, risk to private property • Improved and metered irrigation • Debris and debris dam potential connections • Transition of new/old can leak overtime, must be • Reduces chances of canal failure - new actively monitored urethane liner • Impact to property owners during construction • Removes seepage risk to foundation failure • Does not reduce safety concerns for children or pets • Lower capital costs ($2.4 million) • Does not reduce or eliminate water theft 20 Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternative #4 - costs Aggressively Maintain Existing Canal, Phase ASHLAND Concrete Repairs over the Top of Existing Concrete Canal Channel; canal remains open Estimated Initial Capital Cost: $855,000 Estimated Life Cycle Cost (NPV) at 6o years: $1,004,658 *NPV - net present value 2oi8 costs, Adkins revised no salvage essentially a huge patchingjob with concrete slurry placed overthe existing concrete; no liner. Anticipated life 2-0-2-5 years. annualized maintenance costs $45,000 u Ashland Canal Piping Project Alternative #4 - pros and cons I.4., c- or HLAND Aggressively Maintain Existing Canal, Phase ,AS Concrete Repairs over the Top of Existing Concrete Canal Channel; canal remains open Pros Cons • Minimal improvements to water efficiency Canal is open to contaminates / E. coli intrusion • Concrete will continue to crack and seep No additional protection to our secondary potable • Retains visual and aesthetic value of open water source seasonal waterway Loss of trees • Minimal impacts or changes to trail Water loss to seepage, evaporation, and transpiration • No new trespassing concerns as the canal Loss of volume / capacity with additional concrete layers and easement trail is visible in the canal • Reduces chances of canal failure as sections Stormwater drainage will still enter the canal are repaired Canal can flood/overflow with riskto private property • Removes the seepage risk to foundation • Debris and debris dam potential failure as sections are repaired Transition of new/old can leak over time; must be actively • Least immediate impact to property owners; monitored impacts are more frequent Does not reduce safety concerns for children or pets • Lowest number of trees removed immediately Does not reduce or eliminate water theft • Lowest initial capital costs Requires repairs each year; will have to replace some sections of existing concrete and likely line existing pipes zl Ashlard Canal Plp,ng Project Alternative Comparisons CITY D! (2018 Costs) -ASHLAND Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4 Method All new 24" pipeline 30" & 24" Pipeline Replace Canal Liner Aggressively Maintain Pipe Material Corrugated HDPE Corrugated HDPE Concrete & Urethane Phased Repairs Capital Costs $3,095,000 $3,950,000 $2,429,000 $855,000 Annualized O & M $12,500 $12,500 $39,000 $45,000 Life of Option 60 - 100 years 60 - 100 years 40 - 60 years 20 - 25 years Salvage Value $354,280 $335,560 0 0 Net Present Value * $3,472,579 $4,339,897 $4,334,379 $3,004,658 • Life Cycle Cost / Net Present Value from Adkins Final Report p. 49 • Net Present Value is based on a 60 year life cycle 23 Ashland Canal Piping Project _ Comparable Irrigation 1. Talent Irrigation District: 2600 ft, 51 million, 28% loss 2. Gold Hill Irrigation District: 1000 ft, 5200,000 Piping Pf0J2CtS 13 3. Central Oregon Irrigation District: 3.2 miles, 52 million 14 d' 8 4, Central Oregon Irrigation District: 3,000 ft, $5 million, 50% loss 15 5. Tumalo Irrigation District: 5 miles, $6.4 million 10 6. Tumalo Irrigation District: 30 miles, 30% loss, Design ° 7. Three Sisters Irrigation District: 50 miles, 40-75% loss 16 r' oil 7 0 4o 0 3 8. East Fork Irrigation District: 4.5 miles, $11 million, 40% loss s e s 9. Swalley Irrigation District: 19 miles, $15.6 million, 22% loss a 10. Rock Creek Irrigation District: 1.8 miles, $2.5 million 11. North Unit Irrigation District: 16 miles, $7.5 million 12. Rogue River Irrigation District: 3.2 miles, $6 million _ 13. Farmers Irrigation District: 2.2 miles, $1.2 million 14. Dee Irrigation District: 4 miles 'r, 15. Dee Irrigation District: 2.7 miles, $1.2 million 2 16. Baker Valley Irrigation District: 3550 ft, $800,000, Design ..2 V 12 b...... a4 Ashland Canal Piping Project Next Steps o. ASHLAND Questions?` Concerns? t, ~F i~~~~ Interested in a canal tour? Next Meeting - alternatives decision:: May 7, 2019 Council Business Meeting s More Information: www.ashland.or.us/ashlandcanal 25 Ashland Canal Piping Project "We do not see things the way they are, we see them the way we are. " Anais Nin C I T Y O F _ ~SH LAN D f 1-hank you! I