01-13-10 JWC Agenda
AGENDA
JOINT WATER COMMISSION
1 :30 pm - January 13, 2010
Council Conference Room
Golden Valley City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes - December 2, 2009
3. 10-01- Resolution Designating Depositories for Joint Water Funds
4. Update the JWC on Emergency Supply Plan - Harder
5. Letter to City of Minneapolis - Harder
6. Contract for Services for Environmental Financial Group, Inc - Harder
7. Contract for 2009 Audit Services - Virnig
8. Clearwire Communications ( South Tower) - McDonald
9. Adjournment
"
JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES
Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope
Meeting of December 2,2009
The Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Joint Water Commission meeting was called to
order at 1 :30 pm, in the City of Golden Valley Council Conference Room.
Commissioners Present
Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal
Kirk McDonald, City Manager, New Hope
Staff Present
Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager, Gol<ff~1"'l Valley
Dave Lemke, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor, Golden Valley
Paul Coone, Operations Manager, New Hope
Bernie Weber, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor, New Hope
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works, New Hope
Other
Scott Harder, Environmental Financi
Brian Lemon, BARR Engineering Co.
Minutes of October 7
Norris
, 2009 meeting.
carried unanimously to approve the
MOVED by McDonal
minutes of the Oct
Upgrading of SCADACompute~$(iatiCrvstal and New Hope
Staff tog~(<quot@5'f,f'~~Total:~grtrol Systems, Inc. for upgrading the SCADA computers for
the citi~~:of New Hop~>~(ld C~~ I.
MOVEO)9~ Norris, seco~~t~~ by Mc<'onald and motion carried unanimously to proceed with
the upgradjrg of SCADA OgrJ1puters by Total Control in an amount not to exceed the
approved quqtlPof $3800 for Crystal and New Hope.
Repairs to the PulTi!,House Roof In Golden Valley
Lemke said repairs need to be made to the pump house roof. The cost for the partial
repairs was $827.00. The complete repair of the pump house roof is scheduled and
budgeted for 2010.
MOVED by McDonald, seconded by Norris and motion carried unanimously to proceed with
partial repairs to the pump house roof in an amount not to exceed $827.00.
Joint Water Commission
Page 2 of 2
Barr Engineering Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply Technical
Memorandum
Brian Lemon from Barr Engineering was hired as a sub consultant to Environmental
Financial Group Inc. to prepare a cost comparison between developing an emergency
water supply plan using only existing wells where all but one of the wells are owned by
General Mills and an option using only wells owned by the JWC.
MOVED by Norris, seconded by McDonald and motion carried
Barr Engineering Joint Water Commission Emergency Water
Memorandum.
to receive the
Technical
Other Business
Scott Harder will draft a letter to Minneapolis to reop~hnegotiations
with the Minneapolis Water Department will expir~iri 2013.
agreement
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will get cost estimatestn regards to an emergency
water supply plan that would use wells that JWC will rehabilitate or purchased.
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be January 6,
Adiournment
The meeting was
Thomas D. Burt, Chair
ATTEST:
BARR
Technical
Memorandum
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group, Inc
Barr Engineering Co.
Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
November 23,2009
23271009.00
Executive Summary
The purpose of this memo is to compare the costs of the Joint Water Commission (JWC) developing
an emergency water supply using only existing wells (Option 1), to an option using only wells owned
by the JWC (Option 2). In the option where only existing wells are considered all but one of the
wells are owned by General Mills and all are more than 20 years old. New well locations identified in
this memo have been selected for cost planning purposes only, and not as an actual well siting study.
This memo is a follow up effort to the January 9, 2009 memo. Both that memo and this one were
prepared by Barr Engineering Co. as a subconsultant to Environmental Financial Group Inc.
The following assumptions were used in developing the cost comparison between the two options.
· The New Hope Well appears in both options since it fits into either concept, IE it already
exists and is owned by a JWC member community.
· Construction costs for both options were based on portable chemical feed stations
· New well connection costs were based on connection to a large diameter watermains, rather
than the closest main, which would lower costs but might cause unacceptable pressure spikes.
· New wells were assumed to have a capacity of 2 million gallons per day (mgd) each (1,400-
gallons per minute, gpm) which is considered a safe yield in the Prairie du Chein aquifer.
However, one is shown at 2.8 mgd (1,950-gpm) to recognize that this is an emergency
system. It is assumed one well could safely operate at this rate during an emergency scenario.
· The adequacy of the distribution system in the vicinity of the existing wells, or proposed new
wells has not been verified through modeling.
· Preliminary well sites identified in this memo were suggested by the JWC technical advisory
committee and are based upon readily available sites and should be investigated further
before used as final well locations.
To: Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject: Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
Date: November 23, 2009
Project: 23271009.00
Page: 2
· The Honeywell site, which is Site 3 on Figure 1, is the assumed location for a future water
treatment plant based on its availability, size, and location.
From this study it can be concluded that:
· JWC owned wells can meet emergency needs at a cost similar to using only existing wells.
· It also results in newer wells that could be part of a future JWC water supply system.
The construction costs identified below provide important information when reviewing potential
future well locations. Other criteria, such as distribution system hydraulics, ground water
contamination, and future system flexibility are also important. Considering the importance of these
criteria, we recommend consideration of conducting the following additional investigations:
· Distribution system modeling of existing and future well sites
· Revisit the previously completed well siting study to refine well spacing with a focus on
potential groundwater contamination issues in the vicinity of proposed new wells.
· If the Honeywell site is not available as a plant location then a water treatment plant siting
study will be needed to determine other practical sites that could be used for the construction
of a future water treatment plant should the JWC choose such a direction.
Option 1, Rehabilitated Existing Wells
Well Cumulative Estimated
Well Capacity Capacity, Construction
Oesianation mad mad Cost, $
New Hope
Well 1.4 1.4 $487,000
GMO Well
No.3 1.7 3.1 $979,000
included
GMO Well directly
No.4 1.7 4.8 above
JFB Well
No.2 1.7 6.5 $604,000
JFB Well
No.3 1.7 8.2 $532,000
Estimated Construction Cost $2,602,000
Option 2, JWC Owned Wells
Well Cumulative Estimated
Well Capacity Capacity, Construction
Oesianation mad mad Cost, $
New Hope
Well 1.4 1.4 $487,000
3d 2 3.4 $702,000
3f 2 5.4 $702,000
3e 2.8 8.2 $708,000
Estimated Construction Cost $2,599,000
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271009 JWC OM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverablesVWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Final.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Page:
Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
Barr Engineering Co.
Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
November 23, 2009
23271009.00
3
Backe:round
In a memo prepared by Barr dated January 9, 2009 the JWC reviewed the option of utilizing existing
wells in the cities of Golden Valley and New Hope to provide potable water to Commission residents
and businesses during an emergency event. The wells considered included one owned by the City of
New Hope and four owned by General Mills. For clarity this will be called Option 1. In Option 1 all
of the wells considered are 20 or more years old and four are not under direct JWC control. The costs
associated with Option 1 were still significant and all wells are located on the west side of town
where most of the watermains are generally smaller. The JWC system is set up to deliver water from
two large ground storage reservoirs located on the east side of town where watermains are larger.
The JWC would now like to review an option where they would own all of the wells used for
emergency supply and where most would be new wells. For clarity this will be called Option 2.
Under Option 2 the New Hope well will be considered along with new wells constructed within the
Joint Water Commission communities to provide the remainder of the potable water needed during
an emergency event. The emergency event could be any event which would interrupt or reduce the
amount of water currently provided from the City of Minneapolis.
During a previous review of potential "emergency" scenarios it was recognized that they could fit
into two general categories of source water need. The two categories included a 6.0 mgd source
water need and a 9.5 mgd source water need. Previously, while reviewing the potential of using
existing wells, it was recognized that the total output of viable existing wells is approximately 8.2
mgd. Therefore, to better compare the use of existing wells versus the use of wells owned by the
JWC, we will focus on the viability and cost associated of an 8.2 mgd source water need. While cost
estimates for Option 2 will focus on the 8.2 mgd water source need, general information, such as
number of wells needed to supply the amount of water in the other two categories of source water
need identified above, will also be included in this report.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverables\JWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 FinaI.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Page:
Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
Barr Engineering Co.
Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
November 23, 2009
23271009.00
4
Tvpe and Number of Wells
Production wells in the vicinity of the Joint Water Commission are predominately Jordan or Prairie
du Chien/Jordan wells. These wells predominate due to the quality and quantity of water that can be
reliably obtained from these aquifers. In addition, the depth of construction to reach this water
source is not excessive. Based on the history of these types of wells in this area, we will focus on
providing new Prairie du Chien/Jordan wells to meet the emergency source water needs of the JWC
for the operating scenarios previously described.
Prairie du Chien/Jordan wells have been known to produce in excess of 2,000-gpm. However, as
well capacities increase so do velocities of the water entering the wells, the risk of sand production,
and the risk of open hole collapse in the Jordan sandstone formation. To protect the stability of
Jordan wells, long term capacities are generally planned in the range of 1,200 to 1,400-gpm. At flow
rates of 1,400-gpm and below, velocities generally do not damage the wells or result in excessive
maintenance. However, portions of the Prairie du Chein formation can be very productive since it is
a fractured limestone. If productive fractures are encountered safe yields can be quite high. For
shorter durations associated with emergency use it would not be out of the question to approach
2,000-gpm. Such yields cannot be guaranteed and would need to be verified on a well by well basis
following carefully monitored pumping tests. Long term supply at these rates may not be sustainable,
but for short term emergency use they are reasonable to assume for one of the wells.
Based on these limitations each scenario in Option 2 will assume the New Hope well at 1,000-gpm
(1.4 mgd) and one new well with a variable capacity of up to 1,950-gpm (2.8 mgd). All other wells
will be assumed to have a capacity ofl,400-gpm (2 mgd). Based on the flow scenarios described in
the previous section, and the range of well capacities just described, we anticipate the following
number of new wells for each source water need scenario:
Flow Scenario Source Water Need Water from New Wells * Number of New Wells
One 6mgd 4.6 mgd 2
Two 8.2 mgd 6.8 mgd 3
Three 9.5 mgd 8.1 mgd 4
*This is the amount needed after subtracting out the New Hope well from the source water need.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverables\JWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Final.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Page:
Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
Barr Engineering Co.
Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
November 23, 2009
23271009.00
5
Well Spacioe
A good rule of thumb with Praire du Chien/Jordan wells is to maintain a 1,500 foot separation to
minimize the potential for well interference. Due to common limitations of available land for a well
field and piping construction costs to tie a well field together, these distances are often reduced.
Reducing the distances between wells will result in additional well interference that increases the
cost to deliver each gallon of source water due to additional well drawdown which translates into a
greater pump horsepower to pull the water to the surface. We would recommend that well separation
distances should never be less than 1,000 feet. Greater well spacing will cost more but in the end
will result in a more sustainable well field that will not be subject to dramatic draw downs during
prolonged drought and excessive pumping.
Proposed Well Sites
Five general areas around the JWC were considered for potential well fields and are shown on Figure
1. The locations were recommended during previous studies performed for the JWc. The ground
elevation of the five sites varies by approximately 55 feet from roughly 845 feet to 900 feet. The top
of bedrock elevation at each of the five sites varies by roughly 20 feet from approximately 630 feet to
650 feet in elevation. The potentiometric water surface of the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer at each
of the sites varies from an elevation of approximately 825 feet to 850 feet. Total well depth at most
sites will be approximately 600 feet.
Based on these rather small variations in ground surface and pertinent subsurface geology and
hydrogeology, the variation in individual well costs will be insignificant. The location of the wells
with respect to the distribution system will have a much greater impact on site selection.
Another factor considered was the potential location of a future water treatment plant should the
JWC ever elect to supply and treat its own water rather than purchase it form Minneapolis. After
discussions with the technical advisory committee our effort focused generally around Site 3. There
are very few tracts of land centrally located on the east side of the JWC that are large enough to be
considered for a future treatment plant. This is one of the few that could be used for a plant and is
currently considered available. New well sites considered during this effort will take into account
costs associated with piping to this location and resulted in developing a grouping of new wells in an
area reasonably close to Site 3. If this site does not remain available for a treatment plant an
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327 1009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverables\JWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Pinal.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Page:
Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
Barr Engineering Co.
Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
November 23, 2009
23271009.00
6
additional study would be needed to select a new site for a potential plant. Potential well sites have
been identified near proposed Site 3. These sites have been identified as a potential well field to
serve a future water treatment plant which could be located at Site 3. These potential well sites are
identified as Site 3a through 3g and are shown in Figure 2.
Potential Contamination at Proposed Well Sites
Figure 1 and Figure 2 indicate the location of potential contamination in relation to each of the
proposed well sites. There is potential contamination in close proximity to each of the proposed well
sites shown on Figure 1 and well locations shown on Figure 2. It is beyond the scope of this effort to
determine how severe the contamination is at any of the locations shown on either figure. Before any
final well or treatment plant sites are selected a more detailed investigation into the severity of
contamination throughout the JWC will need to be undertaken. Such an investigation should be
undertaken in conjunction with revisiting the previous well siting studies to determine the effects of
adding individual wells, or a well field, upon any identified contamination. Such a study was not
included in the original scope of this project.
Site Rankine
A number of factors can be utilized to prioritize potential well sites. The following criteria have
been utilized to develop a ranking system for the potential well sites:
· Depth and configuration of a well
· Distance and complexity to tie into existing large diameter water main
· Distance and complexity to discharge into existing water reservoirs
· Location with respect to city wide large diameter water main network
· Location with respect to city wide large diameter main between existing water reservoirs
· Number of major road and railroad crossings necessary to connect individual wells to
existing large diameter water mains
· Depth to static water level
· Distance from potential future water treatment plant site (Site 3)
· Ability to place a number of wells in the same general location (well field concept)
· Location with respect to known contaminants
P:\Mp1s\23 MN\27\23271009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supp1y\FinalDeliverables\JWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Fina1.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Page:
Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
Barr Engineering Co.
Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
November 23, 2009
23271009.00
7
A number of potential well sites have been identified by the JWC technical advisory committee on
and near Site 3, which is also the site that has been identified as a potential site for a future water
treatment facility. Based on the criteria identified previously in this memo, the well sites near Site 3
have been generally ranked and are shown below:
Criteria Site 3a Site 3b Site 3c Site 3d Site 3e Site 3f Site 3g
Proximity to Contamination 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Proximity to Reservoir 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Proximity to Large 4 4 4 2 1 2 3
Diameter Water Main
Proximity to Potential 1 1 2 3 4 5 5
Future WTP Site
Table Key:
1 = The Most Advantageous 7 = The Least Advantageous
Based on the available information, and on the analysis completed to date, the potential well sites are
ranked for direct connection to the existing distribution system, and for connection to a potential
future water treatment plant located at Site 3, the site where proposed wells 3a and 3b are located.
These rankings are indicated directly below and are listed from most desirable location down to least
desirable location:
Connection to
Distribution System
Well 3e
Well 3d
We1l3f
We1l3g
Well 3c
We1l3a
Well 3b
Connection to Potential
Future Water Treatment Plant
We1l3a
Well 3b
Well 3c
Well 3d
We1l3e
Well 3f
We1l3g
As previously noted the depth and configuration of all the wells is very similar as is the depth to the
static water level. Potential contamination exists relatively close to all well sites, and therefore will
not be a useful tool in prioritizing well sites until a more thorough review of the contaminated sites
and hydrogeology is completed for the area.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327I 009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverables\JWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Final.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Page:
Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
Barr Engineering Co.
Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
November 23, 2009
23271009.00
8
Construction Costs
The construction cost of a single Prairie du Chien/Jordan well utilizing a submersible well pump with
pitless adapter and portable chemical feed equipment is approximately $630,000. The construction
cost of a single Prairie du Chien/Jordan well utilizing a vertical turbine well pump housed in a small
well house without chemical feed equipment is approximately $780,000. The construction cost of a
single Praire du Chien/Jordan well utilizing a vertical turbine well pump housed in a full well house
with chemical feed equipment is approximately $1,000,000. Table No.1 provides a breakdown of
these anticipated construction costs. The construction cost of connecting each well directly to the
existing distribution system is detailed in Table No.2, and summarized directly below:
Well
Well3a
Well 3c
Well 3d
Well 3e
Well3f
Cost to Connect to Distribution System
$ 113,000
$ 295,000
$ 72,000
$ 78,000
$ 72,000
The costs to connect the New Hope well to the distribution system are included in the previous memo
and are not displayed separately here. Also note that distribution system modeling has not been
completed as part of this study. The adequacy of the assumed well connection locations used in
preparation of this opinion of probable construction costs must be confirmed through distribution
system modeling. The construction cost of connecting each well to a future water treatment plant
located at the well 3a and 3b site is detailed in Table No.3, and summarized directly below:
Well
Well3a
Well 3b
Well 3c
Well 3d
Well 3e
Well 3f
Well 3g
Cost to Connect to Future Water Treatment Plant
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 223,000
$ 292,000
$ 873,000
$ 521,000
$ 313,000
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327 1009 JWC OM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverables\JWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Final.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Page:
Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
Barr Engineering Co.
Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
November 23, 2009
23271009.00
9
Please note that seven wells have been indicated for potential connection to a future water treatment
plant. The seven wells may have a capacity of approximately 12 mgd to provide raw water to a
future water treatment plant.
The costs of connecting the New Hope well to a water plant at Site 3 are not shown here because of
the distance. Pipe costs alone would exceed $1.3 million. Adding restoration would significantly
increase that cost. Because of this the New Hope well would truly be only an emergency supply well
even in a future scenario where a water treatment plant was constructed. Many cities own similar
wells that become orphaned when a water treatment plant is constructed too far away to make
connection feasible. These wells often remain in their system as emergency back up wells. This is
not necessarily a negative since the cost of using that existing asset is relatively low and it provides
additional flexibility and security.
The construction cost of connecting a future water treatment plant located at the Well 3a and 3b site
to the large diameter north south distribution main is approximately $1,408,000. The breakdown of
this cost is shown in Table No.4. Distribution system modeling is needed to confirm the need and/or
adequacy of the northern and southern routes utilized for this opinion of probable construction cost.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327 1009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverablesVWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Final.doc
To: Joint Water Commission and Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group Inc.
From: Barr Engineering Co.
Subject Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply
Date: November 23, 2009
Project: 23271009.00
Page: 10
Conclusions and Recommendations
The main objective of this study was to compare the costs of using only existing wells to supply the
JWC during an emergency to that of developing an emergency supply only from wells owned by the
JWC. From this study it can be concluded that:
· JWC owned wells can meet emergency needs at a cost similar to using only existing wells.
· It also results in newer wells that could be part of a future JWC water supply system.
· The New Hope well can be used in either an existing wells only or a JWC owned scenario but
may never be connected to a future water treatment plant given its location so far from the
larger watermains on the east side of the JWC.
· Additional study is needed to refine specific well sites and investigate potential
contamination.
The construction costs identified in this memo provide important information when reviewing
potential future well locations. Other criteria, such as distribution system hydraulics, ground water
contamination, and future system flexibility are also important. Considering the importance of these
criteria, we recommend consideration of conducting the following additional investigations:
· Distribution system modeling of existing and future well sites
· Revisit the previously completed well siting study if specific sites are considered in order to
refine well spacing with respect to potential groundwater contamination issues in the vicinity
of proposed new wells.
· If the Honeywell site cannot be used for a future water treatment plant then perform a water
treatment plant siting study to determine several practical sites that could be used for the
construction of a future watertreatment plant. Such a study would be valuable even if the
JWC plans to continue to purchase water from Minneapolis for many years. The reason is
that any new wells constructed as part of a JWC owned emergency water supply system
should still be sited in such a way that at some point in the future they could be routed to a
water treatment plant located at a reasonable site.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327 1009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverables\JWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Final.doc
Table No. 1
Construction of 1,200 - 1,400 gpm Praire du Chien/Jordan Well
Joint Water Commission
(Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope)
23-Nov-09
Submersible Well With Portable Chemical Feed Construction Cost
Estimated
Description Quantitv Units Unit Price Extension
Mobil ization/Demobilization 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Furnish Drill and Drive 30 inch Dia. Outer Casing 40 LF $365 $14,600
Advancing 29.25 Inch Borehole 110 LF $220 $24,200
Furnish and Install 24 Inch Dia. Middle Casing 160 LF $105 $16,800
Advancing 23.25 Inch Borehole in Bedrock 240 LF $100 $24,000
Furnish and Install 18 Inch Dia. Inner Casing 400 LF $90 $36,000
Advancing 17.25 Inch Borehole in Bedrock 190 LF $80 $15,200
Removal of Excessive Cuttings From Site 500 CY $13 $6,500
Furnish and Install Neat Cement Grout 560 LF $40 $22,400
Plumbness and Alignment Test 1 Ea $350 $350
Furnish Development Equipment 1 Ea $2,500 $2,500
Install and Remove Development Equipment 1 Ea $4,500 $4,500
Operate Development Equipment 130 Hours $330 $42,900
Furnish, Install, Detonate Explosives 200 Lbs $20 $4,000
Remove Fill From Well 500 CY $85 $42,500
Furnish Test Pumping Equipment 1 Ea $1,500 $1,500
Install and Remove Test Pumping Equipment 1 Ea $4,800 $4,800
Operate Test Pumping Equipment 30 Hours $165 $4,950
Televise Well 1 Ea $1,350 $1,350
Well Disinfectiion 1 Ea $125 $125
Submersible Pump/Motor/Drop Pipe 1 Ea $65,000 $65,000
Pitless Adapter 1 Ea $30,000 $30,000
Furnish and Install Water Level Indicator 1 Ea $3,600 $3,600
Flow Meas';Chem. Feed MH and App. 1 Ea $18,000 $18,000
Flow Meter 1 Ea $6,000 $6,000
Air Release MH and Appurtenances 1 Ea $18,000 $18,000
12 inch DIP 50 LF $95 $4,750
12 inch Gate Valves 1 Ea $3,000 $3,000
12 inch Fittings 6 Ea $1,500 $9,000
6 inch DIP 10 LF $60 $600
6 inch Gate Valves 1 Ea $1,200 $1,200
Fire Hydrant 1 Ea $3,500 $3,500
Disinfection and Sampling 1 Ea $4,000 $4,000
Chemical Feed System and Enclosure 1 Ea $15,000 $15,000
Small Electrical-Chem Feed Hut 1 LS $2,000 $2,000
large Electrical-well 1 lS $95,000 $95,000
3 Phase Electrical Service to Well 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Standby Power 0 ea $250,000 $0
SCADA Update 1 LS $12,000 $12,000
Drive/Parking Area 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Site Restoration 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Total Submersible Well With Portable Chemical Feed
Systems and No Standby Power $629,825
Additional Cost for Non-Chemical Well House With
Vertical Turbine Pump $150,000
Additional Cost for Chemical Well House With Vertical
Turbine Pump $370,000
Additional Cost for Standby Power $250,000
Kev
lump Sum LS
linear Feet lF
Cubic Yards CY
Each Ea
Hours Hours
Pounds lbs
Table No.2
Joint Water Commission
Emergency Water Supply
Well Connection Costs
23-Nov-09
DescriDtion Quantitv Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well 3e
12 inch DIP 125 ft $ 95 $ 11,875
12 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 3,000 $ 3,000
12 inch fittings 4 ea $ 1,500 $ 6,000
18 inch gate valve 2 ea $ 12,000 $ 24,000
18 inch fittings 0 ea $ 4,500 $
Tee cut in-live 1 ea $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Road Crossings 0 Is $
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 Is $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Total Well 3e Distribution System Connect $ 77,875
DescriDtion Quantitv Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well 3d
24 inch DIP 125 ft $ 195 $ 24,375
24 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 20,000 $ 20,000
24 inch fittings 4 ea $ 8,500 $ 34,000
16 inch gate valve 2 ea $ 9,000 $ 18,000
16 inch fittings 0 ea $ 2,500 $
Tee cut in-live 1 ea $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Road Crossings 0 Is $
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 Is $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Total Well 3d Distribution System Connect $ 129,375
Well 3f
12 inch DIP 125 ft $ 95 $ 11,875
12 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 3,000 $ 3,000
12 inch fittings 4 ea $ 1,500 $ 6,000
16 inch gate valve 2 ea $ 9,000 $ 18,000
16 inch fittings 0 ea $ 2,500 $
Tee cut in-live 1 ea $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Road Crossings 0 Is $
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 Is $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Total Well 3f Distribution System Connect $ 71,875
Well 3c Ito Well 3d)
12 inch HOPE 1100 ft $ 75 $ 82,500
12 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 3,000 $ 3,000
12 inch fittings 4 ea $ 1,500 $ 6,000
16 inch HOPE 1900 ft $ 95 $ 180,500
16 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 9,000 $ 9,000
16 inch fittings 2 ea $ 2,500 $ 5,000
Road Crossings 0 Is $
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Total Well 3c Distribution System Connect $ 295,000
Description Quantitv Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well 3a (to well 3c and 3d)
12 inch HOPE 900 ft $ 75 $ 67,500
12 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 3,000 $ 3,000
12 inch fittings 4 ea $ 1,500 $ 6,000
16 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 9,000 $ 9,000
16 inch fittings 2 ea $ 2,500 $ 5,000
Road Crossings 1 Is $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Total Well 3a Distribution System Connect $ 112,500
Table No.3
Joint Water Commission
WTP Raw Water Supply
Well Connection Costs
23-Nov-09
DescriDtion Quantitv Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well 3a
12 inch DIP 400 ft $ 95 $ 38,000
12 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 3,000 $ 3,000
12 inch fittings 4 ea $ 1,500 $ 6,000
18 inch gate valve 0 ea $ 12,000 $
18 inch fittings 0 ea $ 4,500 $
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Road Crossings 0 ea $
Water Crossings 0 ea $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 Is $ 500 $ 500
Restoration 1 Is $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Total Well 3a $ 49,500
Well 3b
12 inch DIP 400 ft $ 95 $ 38,000
12 inch gate valve 1 ea $ 3,000 $ 3,000
12 inch fittings 4 ea $ 1,500 $ 6,000
18 inch gate valve 0 ea $ 12,000 $
18 inch fittings 0 ea $ 4,500 $
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Road Crossings 0 Is $
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 Is $ 500 $ 500
Restoration 1 Is $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Total Well 3b $ 49,500
DescriDtion Quantitv Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well3c
12 inch HOPE 2400 ft $ 75 $ 180,000
12 inch gate valve 2 ea $ 3,000 $ 6,000
12 inch fittings 10 ea $ 1,500 $ 15,000
16 inch gate valve 0 ea $ 9,000 $
16 inch fittings 0 ea $ 2,500 $
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Road Crossings 1 Is $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 Is $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Total Well 3c $ 223,000
Well 3d
12 inch HOPE 3200 ft $ 75 $ 240,000
12 inch gate valve 4 ea $ 3,000 $ 12,000
12 inch fittings 12 ea $ 1,500 $ 18,000
16 inch gate valve 0 ea $ 9,000 $
16 inch fittings 0 ea $ 2,500 $
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Road Crossings 1 Is $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 Is $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Total Well 3d $ 292,000
Well 3e
24 inch HOPE 3000 ft $ 195 $ 585,000
24 inch gate valve 2 ea $ 20,000 $ 40,000
24 inch fittings 12 ea $ 8,500 $ 102,000
16 inch HOPE 0 ft $ 95 $
16 inch gate valve 0 ea $ 9,000 $
16 inch fittings 0 ea $ 2,500 $
Road Crossings 1 Is $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Track Crossings 1 Is $ 85,000 $ 85,000
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Total Well 3e $ 873,000
Descriotion Quantitv Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well 3f (to Well 3e dischars:e oioins:)
12 inch HOPE 2100 ft $ 75 $ 157,500
12 inch gate valve 3 ea $ 3,000 $ 9,000
12 inch fittings 8 ea $ 1,500 $ 12,000
16 inch HOPE 1300 ft $ 95 $ 123,500
16 inch gate valve 2 ea $ 9,000 $ 18,000
16 inch fittings 12 ea $ 2,500 $ 30,000
Road Crossings 2 Is $ 50,000 $ 100,000
Water Crossings 0 Is $
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 70,000 $ 70,000
Total Well3f $ 521,000
Well 3s: (to Well 3f dischars:e oioins:)
12 inch HOPE 2100 ft $ 75 $ 157,500
12 inch gate valve 8 ea $ 3,000 $ 24,000
12 inch fittings 20 ea $ 1,500 $ 30,000
16 inch gate valve 0 ea $ 9,000 $
16 inch fittings 0 ea $ 2,500 $
Road Crossings 1 Is $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Water Crossings 1 Is $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Tee cut in-live 0 ea $ 12,000 $
Disinfection and Sampling 1 ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 70,000 $ 70,000
Total Well 3g $ 312,500
Table No.4
Joint Water Commission
WTP Connection to Distribution System
23-Nov-09
DescriDtion Quantitv Units Unit Price Extension
North Connection
24 inch HDPE 3300 ft $ 165 $ 544,500
24 inch Gate Valves 4 ea $ 20,000 $ 80,000
24 inch Fittings 8 ea $ 8,500 $ 68,000
Road Crossings 1 Is $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Water Crossings 0 Is $ $
Tee cut in-live 1 ea $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Disinfection and Sampling 1 ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Total North Connection $ 780,500
South Connection
24 inch HDPE 2900 ft $ 165 $ 478,500
24 inch Gate Valves 3 ea $ 20,000 $ 60,000
24 inch Fittings 6 ea $ 8,500 $ 51,000
Road Crossings 0 Is $ $
Water Crossings 0 Is $ $
Tee cut in-live 1 ea $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Disinfection and Sampling 1 ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Restoration 1 Is $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Total South Connection $ 627,500
.5!
u:
::;
"-
'"
'"
o
'"
.;j~
a>
o
o
!::!
....
~
Qi
11i
o
]j
o
o
u.
t:
..
'"
Jl
Potential Location of Historical
Soil or Groundwater Contamination
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank
Potential Well Location
t!J
~"~".":,
',: ",.',/;<1:c;
~ '.'\/:~...<' J.f
Data Sources:
MPCA Master Entity System (MES) Database
MPCA Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Database
Aerials Express 2009
o
Feet
2,000
o
2,000
4,000
Meters
600
600
1,200
o
Figure 1
POTENTIAL WELL SITE IMPACTS
General Mills Emergency Water Supply
General Mills
Golden Valley, MN
a;
16
o
.,
o
o
"-
t:
III
CO
In
Potential Location of Historical
Soil or Groundwater Contamination
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank
Potential Well Location
(!J
o
Data Sources:
MPCA Master Entity System (MES) Database
MPCA Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Database
Aerials Express 2009
o
2,000
Feet
o
2,000
600
Meters
o
600
Figure 2
POTENTIAL WELLS AROUND SITE 3
General Mills Emergency Water Supply
General Mills
Golden Valley, MN
Resolution 10-1
January 13, 2010
Commissioner
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES FOR JOINT WATER FUNDS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Joint Water Commission of the Cities of Golden Valley,
Crystal, and New Hope that the following are named as depositories for funds on deposit
as provided in the Laws of the State of Minnesota:
Wells Fargo Golden Valley
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following signatories or alternates are
authorized to sign on checks drawn on funds deposited:
General Checking:
Joint Water Chair
Alternate:
Joint Water Vice Chair
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following shall be authorized to make
investments of Joint Water Funds and shall be authorized to deposit the principal of said
investments in the above named depositories and beneficial to the Joint Water
Commission: Joint Water Chair, Golden Valley's Finance Director; Golden Valley
AccounUng Coordinator.
Thomas D. Burt, Chair
ATTEST:
Anne Norris, Vice Chair
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:, , and and the following voted against the
same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by
the Chair and his signature attested by the Vice Chair.
Memorandum
To: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
From: Paul Coone, Operations Manager fJ t
Date: December 10, 2009
Subject: Clear Wireless, LLC
Kirk,
Clearwire sent you a Letter of Intent to request you permission to allow them to install
communication facilities on the south water tower and the property the tower is on.
Public Works staff recommends you deny this request for the following reasons:
1. When I told them on October 21,2009 to send me the Letter of Intent addressed
to you, they still sent it to me addressed to ME! I received this Letter the first
week in December.
2. When their engineer called me to gain access to the site, I asked him about the
Letter of Intent? I was told they had already mailed it to you! That was not the
case - I received it three weeks later.
3. The site already has three different communication structures and not enough
room for yet another structure.
4. The last project with T-Mobile literally took 12 months to complete.
5. To date, they have not proved to us that their project will go any better than
T-Mobile's project.
In speaking with KLM Engineering (civil engineers that specialize in water towers) told
me Clearwire does not follow through with requests from them for such things as plans
and specs. They try to use someone else's generic plans. I was told by KLM to be leery
of this company. They are trying to flood the market and will say virtually anything to
get their foot in the door. It is my understanding they are working on several tower sites
in the metro area and have not followed through and started any of them.
...
p: 425-216-7600
~overnber30,2009
City of~ew Hope
Attention: Mr. Paul Coone
5500 International Parkway
~ew Hope, MN 55428
RE: Letter of Intent from Clear Wireless LLC, also known as Clearwire to locate
our Equipment for Wireless Services on the New Hope Water Tower, located
at 2801 HiUsboro Avenue N., New Hope, Minnesota.
Dear Mr. Coone,
The purpose of this letter is to express Clearwire's interest in locating our Equipment on
the New Hope Water Tower located at 2801 Hillsboro Avenue N., New Hope,
Minnesota. Our Ractio Frequency Engineers have determined that locating our Antennas
on this Water Tower would deliver our services to a great portion of the ~ew Hope
Community.
This site is one of approximately 500 sites that we are currently working on within the
Minneapolis/St. Paul Market. We are expecting to launch commercial services by the
end of the third quarter of20l0. I have also included an informational packet that will
give you and the City more insight into who is Clearwire.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
Matt Sonke
Cleant,,"'p!:'; Minneapolis
Engineering
8800 Hwy. 7, Suite 203, St. Louis Park, MN 55426
303-859-9696 (Cell)
M
PRINCIPALS
Kenneth W. Malloy, CPA
Thomas M. Montague. CPA
Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA
Paul A. Radosevich, CPA
William J. Lauer, CPA
James H. Eichten, CPA
Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA
Victoria L. Holinka, CPA
CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTANTS
January 11,2010
Ms. Sue Virnig, Treasurer
Golden Valley - Crystal- New Hope
Joint Water Commission
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Ms. Virnig:
Enclosed are two copies of an engagement letter which explains and confirms the basic services we
expect to perform in conjunction with your upcoming audit.
Also enclosed is a copy of our most recent peer review report and letter of comment.
Assuming the letter adequately describes those services you desire, please sign both copies, return one
copy to our office, and keep the other copy for your files.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you believe the letter should be modified or if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
MALLOY, MONTAGUE, KARNOWSKI, RADOSEVICH & CO., P.A.
W:.&tVWj dd~-"'--
WilliamJ. Lauer, CPA
Principal
WJL:hls
Enclosures
Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A.
5353 Wayzata Boulevard' Suite 410' Minneapolis, MN 55416' Telephone: 952-545-0424' Telefax: 952-545-0569 · www.mmkr.com
M
KR
PRINCIPALS
Kenneth W Malloy, CPA
Thomas M. Montague, CPA
Thomas A Karnowski, CPA
Paul A Radosevich, CPA
William J. Lauer, CPA
James H. Eichten, CPA
Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA
Victoria L. Holinka, CPA
CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTANTS
January 11,2010
To the Board of Commissioners
Golden Valley - Crystal- New Hope
Joint Water Commission
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide for the Golden Valley-
Crystal- New Hope Joint Water Commission (the Commission) for the year ended December 31, 2009.
We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate
remaining fund information, which collectively comprise the Commission's basic financial statements as
of and for the year ended December 31, 2009. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United
States of America provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as Management's
Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), to accompany the Commission's basic financial statements. As part
of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the Commission's RSI. These limited
procedures will consist principally of inquires of management regarding the methods of measurement and
presentation, which management is responsible for affirming to us in its representation letter. Unless we
encounter problems with the presentation of the RSI or with procedures relating to it, we will disclaim an
opinion on it.
Supplementary information other than RSI, such as combining and individual fund financial statements,
may also accompany the Commission's basic financial statements. We will subject any supplementary
information to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the basic financial statements and will
provide an opinion on it in relation to the basic financial statements.
We will perform the required State Legal Compliance Audit conducted in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the provisions of the Legal Compliance
Audit Guide, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statute ~ 6.65, and it will include
such tests of the accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to conclude
that, for the items tested, the Commission has complied with the material terms and conditions of
applicable legal provisions.
Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A.
5353 Wayzata Boulevard · Suite 410 · Minneapolis, MN 55416 . Telephone: 952-545-0424 . TeJefax: 952-545-0569 . www,mmkr.com
Golden Valley - Crystal- New Hope Joint Water Commission
January 11,2010
Page 2
Audit Objectives
The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions as to whether your basic financial statements are
fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America and to report on the fairness of the additional information referred to in the
first paragraph when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Our audit
will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America established by the Auditing Standards Board, and will include tests of accounting records of the
Commission and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such opinions. If our
opinions on the financial statements are other than unqualified, we will fully discuss the reasons with you
in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form, or have not
formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or to issue a report as a result ofthis engagement.
Management Responsibilities
Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and all accompanying information as well as
all representations contained therein. You are also responsible for making all management decisions and
performing all management functions; for designating an individual with suitable skill, knowledge, or
experience to oversee our financial statement preparation services and any other nonattest services we
provide; and for evaluating the adequacy and results of those services and accepting responsibility for
them.
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controls, including
monitoring ongoing activities; for the selection and application of accounting principles; and for the fair
presentation in the financial statements of the respective financial position of the governmental activities,
each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Commission and the respective
changes in financial position and where applicable, cash flows, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
Management is also responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us
and for the accuracy and completeness of that information. Your responsibilities include adjusting the
financial statements to correct material misstatements and for confirming to us in the representation letter
that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and
pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the
financial statements taken as a whole.
You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect
fraud, and for informing us about known or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the Commission
involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others
where the fraud or illegal acts could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your
responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud
affecting the Commission received in communications from employees, former employees, regulators, or
others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the Commission complies with
applicable laws and regulations.
Golden Valley- Crystal- New Hope Joint Water Commission
January 11,2010
Page 3
Audit Procedures - General
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be
examined and the areas to be tested. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable, rather than
absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from
(1) errors, (2) fraudulent fmancial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or
governmental regulations that are attributable to the Commission or to acts by management or employees
acting on behalf of the Commission.
Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute assurance and because we will not
perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements or
noncompliance may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect
immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and
material effect on the financial statements or major programs. However, we will inform you of any
material errors and any fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets that come to our
attention. We will also inform you of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our
attention, unless clearly inconsequential. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by
our audit and does not extend to any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors.
Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the
accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of
receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, funding
sources, creditors, and financial institutions. We will request written representations from your attorneys
as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our
audit, we will also require certain written representations from you about the financial statements and
related matters.
Audit Procedures - Internal Control
Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the Commission and its environment, including
internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to
design the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. An audit is not designed to provide
assurance on internal control or to identifY deficiencies in internal control. However, during the audit, we
will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that
are required to be communicated under MCP A professional standards.
Audit Procedures - Compliance
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement, we will perform tests of the Commission's compliance with applicable laws and
regulations and the provisions of contracts and agreements. However, the objective of our audit will not
be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion.
Audit Administration, Fees, and Other
The assistance to be supplied by your personnel, including the preparation of schedules and analysis of
accounts, typing all cash or other confirmations we request, and locating any invoices selected by us for
testing, will be discussed and coordinated with you.
Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Joint Water Commission
January 11,2010
Page 4
We will provide copies of our reports to the Commission; however, management is responsible for
distribution of the reports and the financial statements. Unless restricted by law or regulation, or
containing privileged and confidential information, copies of our reports are to be made available for
public inspection.
The audit documentation for this engagement is the property of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski,
Radosevich & Co., P.A. (MMKR) and constitutes confidential information. However, we may be
requested to make certain audit documentation available to a regulatory agency pursuant to authority
given to it by law or regulation. We will notify you of any such request. If requested, access to such
audit documentation will be provided under the supervision of MMKR personnel. Furthermore, upon
request, we may provide photocopies of selected audit documentation to the regulatory agency. These
parties may intend, or decide, to distribute the copies or information contained therein to others, including
other governmental agencies.
The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of five years after the report
release date or for any additional period requested by the regulatory agency as applicable. If we are
aware that a federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, or auditee is contesting an audit finding, we
will contact the party(ies) contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destroying the audit
documentation.
William J. Lauer, CPA is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement and
signing the report or authorizing another individual to sign it. Our fees for these services will be based on
the actual time spent at our standard hourly rates. We will also bill you for travel and other out-of-pocket
costs such as report production, typing, and postage. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the
degree of responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our
invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable upon
presentation. Unless additional work is requested, or circumstances require additional work, we estimate
the basic audit fees to be $8,425.
The fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your persOlmel and the assumption that unexpected
circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If we find that additional audit procedures are
required, or if additional services are requested by the Commission, those services will be billed at our
standard hourly rates. Additional audit procedures may be required for certain accounting issues or
events such as new accounting or auditing standards, due to turnover of key accounting personnel, or if
there is an indication of misappropriation or misuse of public funds.
With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial statements
published electronically on your website, you understand that electronic sites are a means to distribute
information and, therefore, we are not required to read the information contained in these sites or to
consider the consistency of other information in the electronic site with the original document.
If you intend to publish or otherwise reproduce the fmancial statements, and make reference to our fmn
name, you agree to provide us with printers' proofs or masters for our review and approval before
printing. You also agree to provide us with a copy of the final reproduced material for our approval
before it is distributed.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Commission and believe this letter accurately
summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If
you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and
return it to us.
Golden Valley - Crystal- New Hope Joint Water Commission
January 11,2010
Page 5
Sincerely,
MALLOY, MONTAGUE, KARNOWSKI, RADOSEVICH & CO., P.A.
J;;J2;~ 1 J~
WilliamJ. Lauer, C~
Principal
WJL:hls
Response:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the Golden Valley - Crystal- New Hope Joint Water
Commission.
By:
Title:
Date: