12-02-09 JWC Minutes
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, Golden 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 Financial Group (EFG)
Brian Lemon, BARR Engineering Co.
Minutes of October 7,2009
MOVED by McDonald, seconded by Norris and motion carried unanimously to approve the
minutes of the October 7,2009 meeting.
Upgrading of SCADA Computers at Crystal and New Hope
Staff took quotes from Total Control Systems, Inc. for upgrading the SCADA computers for
the cities of New Hope and Crystal.
MOVED by Norris, seconded by McDonald and motion carried unanimously to proceed with
the upgrading of SCADA Computers by Total Control in an amount not to exceed the
approved quote of $3800 for Crystal and New Hope.
Repairs to the Pum{l 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 unanimously to receive the
Barr Engineering Joint Water Commission Emergency Water Supply Technical
Memorandum.
Other Business
Scott Harder will draft a letter to Minneapolis to reopen negotiations the current agreement
with the Minneapolis Water Department will expire in 2013.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will get cost estimates in 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, 2010.
Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 pm.
Th~;:~h/
ATTEST:
(l, Il/ /
!.~~
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
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 Summarv
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.
i
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 psed for the construction
of a future water treatment plant should the JWC choose such a direJtion.
Option 1, Rehabilitated Existing Wells
Well Cumulative Estimated
Well Capacity Capacity, Construction
Desi!:mation 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
Desianation mad mQd 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\232710091WC OM Emerency Water Supply\FinaIDeliverables\1WC 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
Backl!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 I 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\2327 1009 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
4
Type 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,OOO-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,OOO-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 I,OOO-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 of 1,400-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\2327I 009 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
5
Well Spaciol!
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
Fi ve 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\23271009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverables\JWC Emergency W~ter 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 I 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 I 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 Rankin!!
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:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327 1 009 JWC OM Emerency Water Supply\FinaIDeliverables\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
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 ~ite 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 I 2 3
Diameter Water Main
Proximity to Potential I I 2 3 4 5 5
Future WTP Site
Table Key:
I = 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
Well 3a
Well 3b
Connection to Potential
Future Water Treatment Plant
Well 3a
Well 3b
Well 3c
Well 3d
Well 3e
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: 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: 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/J ordan 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/J ordan 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
Well 3a
Well 3c
Well 3d
Well 3e
Well 3f
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
We1l3a
Well 3b
Well 3c
Well 3d
Well3e
Well 3f
Well 3 g
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\23271009 JWC GM Emerency Water Supply\FinaIDeliverables\JWC Emergency Water Supply Memo dated 11-23-
2009 Final.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Project:
Page:
Joint Water Commission and Scoll 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 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
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\23271009 JWC OM Emerency Water Supply\FinalDeliverablesUWC 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
DescriDtion Quantitv Units Unit Price Extension
Mobilization/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,fChem. 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
Description 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 $ 71,875
Description 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 (to Well 3d)
12 inch HDPE 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 HDPE 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 Quantity Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well 3a (to well 3c and 3d)
12 inch HDPE 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 1 500
Restoration 1 Is $ 2,000 2,000
Total Well 3b $ 49,500
Description Quantitv Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well 3c
12 inch HDPE 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 HDPE 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 HDPE 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 HDPE 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
DescriDtion Quantitv Units Unit Cost Subtotal
Well 3f (to Well 3e discharRe DiDinR)
12 inch HDPE 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 HDPE 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 Well 3f $ 521,000
Well 3R (to Well 3f discharRe DiDinR)
12 inch HDPE 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 HOPE 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 HOPE 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
~
u:
::;;
ll.
'"
'<t
o
'<t
"i
Ol
o
~
g
a;
16
o
c:
2
o
&
t:
'"
<D
...
Potential Location of Historical
Soil or Groundwater Contamination
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank
Potential Well Location
f!1
tl~ii~ I
,. .>.c.;,..,' 1">'-":
.. .-"
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, M N
Barr Footer: Date; 11/27/20094:55:08 PM File;
'"
o
o
N
'"0
o
o
"T1
cO.
C
CD
N
s::
Om.
CD
..,
en
o
>~~O
CD-a-ca
1ii' () () OJ
c;;>>cn
mr~g
~m~n
CD ~CD~
~co ~..
r-;>C::l
o~::r.
oo.q-
(()~(J)
~~
0_
c CI>
5.3
en~
-~
Om
Qlen
to ~
Cl>O
o;l~
::l OJ
,..0-
OJ
~ en
ECI>
en
.::!
o
OJ
!ii
0-
OJ
en
CI>
o
<!J
~
G)-u
CDO
~-1
~m
O)z
s:-1
,... =~
UJ en r
~G)m<
CDCD3<
~ m
~CDCDr
<:::-.-.r
0) ~~ en
ros:~~
':< = ~ ::0
s:en~g
Z 9tz
~O
en en
C-I
:gm
,<W
-u
o
-
CD
~
=
0)
enr
-CD
o 0)
-'7';
0) _.
CO~
CD CO
o;lC
~ ~
7';c.
CD
-.
CO
-.
o
C
~
C.
en-u
o 0
-.-
-CD
o ~
-. -
G) 5).
ar
C 0
~ C')
c.0)
:E=
m 0
-~
CD 0
-.-
(')I
o -.
~!e.
-0
0) ...,
3 rr
-.0)
~-
0)
-
o.
~
"'T1
o~
-
~
9!.
r
o
C')
0)
-
o.
~
'"
o
o
N
'"0
o
o