Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-04-11 JWC Agenda Packet
AGENDA JOINT WATER COMMISSION 1:30 pm — May 4, 2011 Council Conference Room Golden Valley City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes --April 6, 2011 3. Preview of May 11 Tri-City Council Meeting 4. Update on the 42nd Avenue JWC Pipe/Road Project 5. EPI Contract for Air Conditioning Project at Golden Valley Pump House - Clancy 6. Adjournment JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES Golden Valley -Crystal - New Hope Meeting of April 6, 2011 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 Randy Kloepper, Utility Supervisor, Crystal Tom Mathisen, Director of Public Works, Crystal Minutes of February 2, 2011, MOVED by Norris seconded by McDonald and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the February 2, 2011 meeting. Minutes of Water Advisory Minutes. November 4. 2010 MOVED by Norris seconded by McDonald and motion carried to receive and file the November 4, 2010 Water Advisory Minutes. Bid for High Service Pump/Motor Replacement for Crystal Pump Station and Golden Valley Pump Station MOVED by Norris seconded by McDonald and motion carried to approve bid from Keys Well Drilling Co, in the amount of$338,500 and motion carried unanimously to approve the bid for High Service Pump/Motor Replacement for Crystal Pump Station and Golden Valley Pump Station. Update on study of JWC 36" Force Main through Robbinsdale Mathisen reported they will be meeting at the end of April with the City of Robbinsdale and Hennepin County to discuss three possible scenarios for the 36" Force Main that goes through Robbinsdale. The 36" Force Main could be left in its current position, or be relocated deeper, or the 36" Force Main could be slip lined. Mathisen will report back at the May meeting with additional information. Joint Water Commission Page 2 of 2 Letter from Bernie Bullert and Res•onse in Retard to Accurate Meterin Tracy stated, that there has been issue with metering of the water and a new meter will be delivered on April 11, 2011 and the meter will be installed by April 15, 2011. After the meter is installed and reading correctly, Tracy will invite the City of Minneapolis out so they can observe the testing of the meter. Proposal to Assist the JVUC with the Three Council Meetings in May, A proposal to participate in a meeting of the Three JWC City Councils was submitted by Environmental Financial Group Inc., MOVED by McDonald, seconded by Norris, to accept proposal in the amount of$7,650 from Environmental Financial Group Inc., for the assistance of Three Council Meetings in regards to water rates, cost of service concepts and other information, the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Mathisen stated that he and Tracy would gather more information regarding the costs of having a joint city wide water loss and water leak detection survey completed. Next Meeting The next meeting will be May 4, 2011. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 pm. Thomas D. Burt, Chair ATTEST: Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant 'i-A: F)NMEIN°I AL FlNANG :L c�l� vUl" 1fi5 ■1 C: k St.Stile 4700 :ricag; Il. 6GU1n-6/b7 €'MnRANDLIM Date: 15 April 2011 To: Jeannine Clancy Tom Mathisen Guy Johnson cc: Tom Burt,Chair From: Scott Harder Subject: Draft Presentation Outline-Three Council Meeting 1) Introductions [Tom Burt,others] [SLIDE 1: Introduction and summary] 2) Drinking water source,treatment,storage and delivery [SLIDE 2: Minneapolis/JWC water system and service area graphic] 3) JWC history:how did we get here? a) 1961 Golden Valley- Minneapolis agreement b) 1963 Golden Valley-Crystal - New Hope agreement c) 1991 JWC- Minneapolis agreement d)2004 JWC - Minneapolis agreement [SLIDE 3:timeline graphic] 4) JWC history: how did we get here? a) 1997 Alternate Water Supply Study b)2002 Peer Review of 1997 study c) 2003-4 Future water studies d)2004 Special legislation,Water Fair e)2004 Three Council Meeting on FUTURE WATER f) 2005 JWC Water Planning and Governance Task Force g)2005-8 Joint Water Task Force with Minneapolis h)2008 Minneapolis Cost of Service Update(2009-2013 JWC rates) i) 2009- JWC/Minneapolis Water Advisory Board J) 2009 JWC Water Supply Plan k) 2009 JWC emergency water supply planning [SLIDE 4: 1997-present Drinking Water Supply Planning Efforts] 5) Status:how are things going? a)Cost of water [SLIDE 5:water cost bar or pie chart] b)JWC retail rates [SLIDE 6:historical JWC retail rates and Minneapolis cost line graph] c)Water Quality [SLIDE 7:Minneapolis and PDC/J water quality characteristics] d)Water Consumption [SLIDE 8:Graphic of historical consumption,contract limites and conservation efforts] 6) Emergency water supply a) National and regional overview of emergency water supplies [SLIDE 9:Selected peer efforts] b)What is Minneapolis doing? I) Interconnection with St.Paul-status ii) Groundwater development c) What are the risks? [SLIDE 10: Risks and Mitigating Factors matrix] d)Options i) Defer to Minneapolis-what are its contractual obligations to the JWC? ii) Develop JWC groundwater to augment supplies during a crisis iii) Construct interconnections with others iv) Develop JWC groundwater to replace Minneapolis supplies [SLIDE it Options matrix] 7) Q&A and Discussion JWC Kick-Off Meeting October 7, 2010 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CYLINDER PIPE /f sd`av i _ -Morta r t! Prestressing Wires _ Outer Concrete ---` Steed Cylinder ,R2 Inner Concrete 15; Potential Problems • Cracked, Brittle Mortar • Broken Wires • Deteriorated Steel Cylinder • Cracked, Spalled Concrete Liner • Cracked, Broken Concrete Diaper Joints I I 1 ' i 1 Brooklyn Pr'r. . i _ F Brooklyn Cerrfer L� ,.� .. i I O' 1 - „ , , ..,` CSC] North Tower ' s r■•• y j '� �.-ekl.. Minneapolis Connection "� �'' i, 1 t to Crystal Reservoir J;'si IIP 'it ° * • . Lai .�.wr ; } til.E..:., .. � „rt ..�.�..®. • i I /• - ! ,, Ly sell -•.-, MP 03 ' 36”PL�CP� 1 i NO Reservoir �t . S • i v'711-(3 b 5 i ri.. &al e :�'3' • t� �. h � e °� r..a/ - . ,....Uri !y , Medicine Lake _ - �++^wa-4-->rr, ' "°+.a�• Tower `. I r 4 i Or ;r"- Medicine Lake-d ' '* i J e- t t + r^• f•``f -1. ..rr,•..i ,,.�. '°r,.`. ' .. Golden Valley „�j°° 'tit• x �'e' s Reservoir ; Minneapolis Connection to ,. . . Golden Valley Reservoir 1../.." t F.. } 100 Golden Valley ' : i ti e' '�+'c},, VI Tower Colder; :y . i. . . r. - , _ 'r''' r 4r-11 _ 1,, •fee`..; - ,y_ t d . , �. I { Ilrl •l + c .--r a ik i,41; . - •.. -n- u ii i-- a 3i fi1 1 ! r ti - -1 ? , i Y, of . • -. } � ". ' f `139 d I StF Louis Park °.° niit �, P, ! '--t L w•' E E. as t .._.. pp • r - . tti e JWC Water ON la HYDRAULIC Miles Nodes Bonestroo JWC Service Area SUPPLY MODEL 1,2 0.6 0 1.2 APRIL2001 NPR City Boundary k:\2896\289610001\gis\projecNwc2•mx AA r1 rDJkIyrl rlt� • 49111 Avo N ii�oii ,AAinneapolis Connection, to Crystal Reservoir1 I I ',V Fl��, 1 I 42nd Ave N ' SCCP Crystal Reservoir ti -- 36th Ave N - • Medicine Lake-= Tower ° -o° �(I l rl fl 0 I i rdcdicino Lake Rd. -. - _ - Go/den Va/'ey Reservoir z filinneapolis Connection to�, Golden v i ey K Golden Valley Reservoir - Too/er I f I i'jr' JWC Service Area FIGURE 1 I* JWC 36" WATER Miles JWC Service Area TRANSMISSION LINE 1.2 0.6 o i.z City Boundary Bonestroo EVALUATION k:\2896\289610001\gis\project\jwc.mxd Scope The scope of work for this report provides for a review of the existing 36"PCCP in County Road 9 in the City of Robbinsdale based on the following: • Historical Data/Existing Condition • Review of Cover Issues and Utility Conflicts • Hydraulic Flow Analysis After the review of the above information,JWC needs to consider the following: • OPERATION: How will JWC elect to operate the water transmission line in County Road 9 based on its arrangement with Minneapolis and the JWC infrastructure which provides potable water to the Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope? INSPECTION: Many testing techniques are available to further evaluate the condition of the existing 36"PCCP constructed in 1963. How much additional effort does JWC put forth to evaluate its condition? CONSTRUCTION: The proposed reconstruction of Hennepin County Road 9 in the City of Robbinsdale in 2013 requires JWC to investigate all its options for the existing 36"PCCP.The preferred construction option will be based on cost and the cooperative relationship it has with all stakeholders. Joint Water Commission Page 4 JWC 36°Transmission Line Evaluation Bonestroo 002896-10001-0 Recommendation This report provides information to help JWC understand all its options from an operational additional inspection/testing, and available construction practices. However, because there are many alternatives, it's recommended the JWC proceed as follows: • Stakeholders:The stakeholders effecting JWC preferred decision includes, but is not limited to Hennepin County and the Cities of Robbinsdale and Minneapolis. A meeting is scheduled with Hennepin County and the City of Robbinsdale April 27 to review the information presented in this report. Further review with stakeholders will help JWC decide its best course of action.The relationships and agreements that need to be in place to reconstruct County Road 9 need to be developed and finalized. • Pothole Existing 36"PCCP: The elevation of the existing 36"PCCP is critical to understand its affect on Hennepin County's road reconstruction and the City of Robbinsdale's utility reconstruction. A joint effort by JWC, Hennepin County, and the City of Robbinsdale to pothole and confirm not only JWC 36"PCCP but other utilities will assist all agencies to plan for the most efficient road reconstruction in 2013. Confirm/Identify Conflicts: The potholing effort will confirm many of the conflicts anticipated with the new road/utility reconstruction.The conflicts, once identified, shall be reviewed by affected agencies and confirm the best outcome to resolve the conflict. • Additional Testing/Inspection: Once the previous three items are better understood,the JWC shall evaluate if additional testing/inspection is justified. It's likely due to the options available and the preferred outcome, some additional testing/inspection may be justified. • Recommended Option/Cost: At this point,further investigation is required to identify the preferred option. After all the investigation is completed,the recommended option/cost shall be identified and negotiated between all parties. A feasibility report would be prepared documenting the findings. • Schedule:The critical success of any project is an acceptable schedule that is clearly communicated and understood by all parties. In the case of this project maintaining water service or identifying an alternative approach to maintaining water service must be finalized. The approach JWC takes to implement its preferred option will be identified in a schedule that addresses all the tasks and outcome. Joint Water Commission Page 5 JWC 36"Transmission Line Evaluation Bonestroo 002896-10001-0 Summary A summary of the findings identified in this report are noted below. OPERATIONAL The diameter size of pipe serving Crystal's reservoir is dependent on the supply of water from Minneapolis over a period of time and to some extent the water supply to Golden Valley's reservoir. In addition,the booster stations at Crystal/Golden Valley and the water distribution system from each booster station defines how water is conveyed to the JWC service area. Different options are suggested in this report if the water transmission line in County Road 9 is a 36-inch or 24-inch diameter pipe.The JWC shall review the two options and determined the preferred option based on operational preferences and Minneapolis requirements. INTERNAL INSPECTION OF 36"PCCP($37,000—$104,500) A proposal is provided from Pure Technologies suggesting two different approaches to internally inspect the existing 36"PCCP. Based on historical review and past performance, it's believed the existing 36"PCCP has approximately 40 years of remaining service. An internal inspection will document the existing condition and provide the basis to justify the next step.The internal inspection can also serve as the document if protecting the existing 36"PCCP is the preferred option thereby, documenting the existing condition of the 36"PCCP. PROTECT EXISTING 36"PCCP($113,500—$187,000) The approach to protect the existing 36"PCCP during the road construction in 2013 is valid based on historical information and past performance. However, subgrade excavation/granular backfill around/near the pipe and sanitary sewer excavation where depths are greater than 15-feet deep may impact the existing 36"PCCP during construction. Private/public utility crossings and poor soils will also likely impact the condition of the existing 36"PCCP. Estimated costs to protect the pipe presented herein could vary as the design for utilities and road are further developed. Locations where the greatest impacts are identified could also vary based on further design. SLIP-LINE 36"PCCP($731,400—$895,700) Many examples exist around the country where existing PCCP has been lined. However, a smaller diameter pipe will reduce the flow rate to supply water to Crystal's reservoir from Minneapolis. Slip-lining a pipe is typically comparable in cost to open cut if the open cut cost does not include road restoration costs. In addition, slip-lining is done when a pipe is typically in poor condition. Therefore, the approach JWC would take to slip-line the PCCP is as follows: • Slip-line the pipe before the road reconstruction to reinforce the PCCP during road reconstruction. • Slip-line the pipe after the road reconstruction because the PCCP was damaged due to the road reconstruction. • Slip-line the pipe before a future road reconstruction as the PCCP begins to show signs of deteriorating due to evidence of corrosion/leakage. In other words,the slip-line is required before future road reconstruction. Similar to protecting the existing 36"PCCP, slip-lining the PCCP could be limited to areas where damage would most likely occur during the utility/road construction. Joint Water Commission Page 6 JWC 36"Transmission Line Evaluation Bonestroo 002896-10001-0 v 5�. NEW PIPE INSTALLATION($731,400—$1,293,200) The new pipe installation would occur before or during the road reconstruction in 2013.The JWC would reconstruct either all or portions of the existing 36"PCCP.The diameter of pipe constructed would be dependent on how JWC and Minneapolis decide to supply water to Crystal's reservoir. Cost estimates included to construct new pipe(24"or 36") do not include removal and/or road reconstruction costs because these costs are assumed they would be part of the County Road 9 road improvements. The benefit to construct the new pipe before the road improvement is the new pipe would be in place allowing the road improvement to proceed not including the new pipe construction. In 1964 records indicate the JWC 36"PCCP was constructed just prior to the construction of County Road 9 with its current concrete section as part of a separate contract.This is a similar approach CenterPoint Energy is taking to reconstruct its 12"gas main in 2011. The existing water service provided by 36"PCCP is critical for the water supply to the Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope.The preferred option is not to take the 36"PCCP out of service. However, if it were taken out of service, the preferred time is that the pipe would be back in service by Memorial Day. In addition, removal/reconstruction road costs would have to be coordinated/ included with the road improvement.Therefore, if the new pipe installation were to occur before the road reconstruction in 2013, it's likely the new pipe installation would occur in the late fall of 2012 to allow the road improvement to begin in the spring of 2013. The removal/road restoration costs would have to be coordinated/negotiated with Hennepin County. The challenge in constructing a new pipe is finding an acceptable location especially if the existing PCCP is kept in service. In 1964 the shallow depth and reinforced concrete pavement design was the preferred option not to interfere with existing utilities/services below the 36" PCCP. HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 24"PVC($1,500,000) The estimated cost assumes a 24"PVC would be directional drilled between 7 and 15 feet below the ground surface. Utility conflicts would have to be reviewed further to determine if the directional drill approach is feasible.The cost to directional drill a 36"pipe would be significantly greater. • Joint Water Commission Page 7 JWC 36"Transmission Line Evaluation Bonestroo 002896-10001-0 Discussion HISTORICAL DATA AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The JWC 36"PCCP Water Transmission Line was constructed in 1964 as part of Water Improvement No. 32A for the City of Crystal.The as-built plan is included in Appendix A.The plan/cross section sheets prepared by Hennepin County from CSAH 81 to Xerxes Avenue North in County Road 9 are included in Appendix B.The Hennepin County plans were prepared documenting the existing road and utilities in County Road 9.The existing JWC 36"PCCP is shown approximately 20'south of existing centerline. Two types of PCCP are manufactured; lined cylinder pipe(LCP) and embedded cylinder pipe (ECP).The JWC 36"PCCP is a LCP, which are pipes 48"in diameter and less. Appendix C includes a detail showing the LCP compared to the ECP. Also included in Appendix C is the specification for the LCP(SP-5)for Water Improvement No. 32A, which notes Class 1, 2, and 3.The Class 2 and 3 are a slightly heaver design than Class 1. As noted, significantly more Class 1 (1,140 LF) was constructed than Class 2(720 LF) and Class 3 (240 LF).The pipe laying schedule identifies where the Class 1, 2,and 3 were constructed by station.The pipe laying scheduled is not included herein and can be provided as requested. Pure Technologies provides engineering analysis, non-destructive testing, and monitoring testing focusing on PCCP. Pure Technologies has provided a proposal to provide different inspections and engineering review of the existing 36"PCCP which is included in Appendix D. Included on the bottom of Page 1 and top of Page 2 is a their review of all Historical Documents. In general, based on preliminary observations and lack of historical problems with the existing 36"PCCP; the existing 36"PCCP has the prospect of having a significant design life remaining (±40 years). However, based on Pure Technologies review, the Class 1 PCCP did not pass AWWA C301 based on assumed design conditions.Therefore an internal inspection and engineering review could confirm if the existing PCCP would pass AWWA C301. Visual inspection was done on the existing 13 structures in County Road 9 from CSAH 81 to Xerxes Avenue N.The Structure Report for each structure and pictures are included in Appendix E.The visual inspection was done Thursday, December 9, 2010.The structures are either air release, drain valve, gate valve, or meter manholes/structures as noted on the Structure Report sheets. In general,the precast structures are in good condition while the two block structures are in poor condition. Many of the concrete rings are also in poor condition. COVER ISSUES AND UTILITY CONFLICTS The Hennepin County plans for CSAH 9 in Appendix B identify the potential impacts.The cross sections are drawn at 100'stations. A summary of potential impacts and number of stations noting impacts are shown below. • Grading (29 stations) • Storm Sewer(7 stations) • Concrete Light Base(10 stations) The City of Robbinsdale proposes to reconstruct all new utilities (sewer,water, sewer/water services).The proposed sewer/water is shown on the cross sections in Appendix B. New sewer/water services are not shown. It has been stated approximately 60 new sewer/water Joint Water Commission Page 8 JWC 36"Transmission Line Evaluation oft Bonestrao 002896-10001-0 al) services will be constructed.Therefore it could be assumed approximately 30 sewer/water services will be constructed likely beneath the existing 36"PCCP if it is left in place The greatest impacts to the JWC 36"PCCP during the road construction are noted below: • Subgrade Excavation • Sanitary Sewer Excavation • Other Utility Excavation (adjacent/below) To quantify the impacts due to subgrade and sanitary sewer excavation,the table in Appendix F was developed.The table identifies the approximate cover over the JWC 36"PCCP based on the elevations noted in the cross sections in Appendix B.The table further goes on to identify the approximate subgrade and sanitary sewer elevations. It is felt the subgrade elevation within 2'of the top of the JWC 36"PCCP and sanitary sewer excavation greater than 15'deep will cause the greatest impacts. A summary of the water main cover, subgrade excavation,and sanitary sewer excavation depths in Appendix F are noted below: Water Main Cover less than 5.0' 4,000 LF Water Main Cover less than 3.0' 800 LF Subgrade Excavation less than 2'of Cover 3,000 LF Sanitary Sewer excavation over 15'deep 2,600 LF The acceptable loading over the existing 36"PCCP during the road reconstruction before movement,flexing,or failure is dependent in part on the amount of cover and activity over/near the pipe.The specification for the existing 36"PCCP constructed in 1963 included in Appendix C note the following recommended design conditions. Design Condition Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Working Test Pressure(psi) 150 150 150 Cover(feet) 11 5 6 In reviewing the cover and loading issue with Pure Technologies and their review with the pipe manufacturer,their recommendation is the cover over the existing 36"PCCP should be maintained at 5'during road reconstruction.To accurately determine if less cover is acceptable during road reconstruction, internal/external testing can be done including a Structural Analysis and Pipe Condition Assessment. Other utility excavations(adjacent/below(crossings)) include utility services (approximately 30 crossings), storm sewers, and private utilities. CenterPoint Energy has stated they intend to replace 3,000 feet of 12-inch main under the north sidewalk in 2011 if budget allows. CenterPoint Energy has provided a map of their 12-inch gas main reconstruction program. Construction techniques to protect the JWC 36"PCCP during the road reconstruction include removing subgrade material by backhoe from the top of pipe and pushing granular material over the pipe,thereby eliminating construction activity over the JWC 36"PCCP.To achieve density and eliminate voids in the subgrade backfill, the backfill trench could be flooded to a point where construction activity could occur over the pipe. Sanitary sewer excavation would include protecting the pipe by using a box/double box or slide rail system (similar to sheet pile only movable).These construction techniques would add costs to the road reconstruction by reducing production time for the subgrade/granular backfill installation and sewer work. Other construction techniques for utility crossings primarily for storm sewers which are elevation/grade dependent Joint Water Commission Page 9 JWC 36"Transmission Line Evaluation Bonestroo 002896-10001-0 would be to construct water main offsets. Water main offsets however,for a 36"PCCP will be extremely costly due to the time and labor not only to construct the offset, but make the connection either side of the offset. We have estimated these costs under the Options and Cost Estimates section of this report. Based on these costs it would be desirable to evaluate the current draft offset locations to minimize the number of conflicts HYDRAULIC FLOW ANALYSIS The water demands were reviewed to determine average maximum day demands for the Joint Water Commission (JWC) service area. Water demands are noted below and separated between the Crystal and Golden Valley Reservoirs. Crystal Golden Valley 19 mg 9 mg Total (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Average Day Demand 3.0 --- 2010 Maximum Day Demand 7.86 - --- Estimated Maximum Day Demand 12.0 8.0 20.0 The flowrate from Minneapolis to fill Crystal's Reservoir calibrated in December 2010 was 12,400 gallons per minute (gpm). It is our understanding this flowrate is applied until the Crystal Reservoir is filled regardless of the time it takes to fill the Crystal Reservoir. It is also our understanding the time limit per the agreement between JWC and Minneapolis executed many years ago is the water supply from Minneapolis to JWC is supposedly limited from 11 P.M. to 7 A.M.The table below summarizes the hours to fill Crystal's Reservoir based on a flowrate of 12,400 gpm for different day demands and the flowrate if the time limit were enforced from 11 P.M. to 7 A.M. Average Day 2010 Maximum Maximum Flowrate Demand Day Demand Day Demand 12,400 qom 3.0 MGD 7.86 MGD 12.0 MGD Time to Fill 4 hrs. 10.5 hrs. 16.0 hrs. Time Limit 11 P.M.to 7 A.M. Flowrate to Fill 6,250 gpm 16,375 gpm 25,000 gpm The maximum flowrate to serve the Crystal Reservoir assuming the existing 36"PCCP in County Road 9 between Xerxes Avenue and County Road 81 in Robbinsdale is changed to a 24"and the remaining existing 36"PCCP remains in service is approximately 16,000 gpm.Therefore, the maximum day demand (7.86 MGD)for 2010 can be met based on the time limit for a 24"pipe. However, the overall maximum day demand (12.0 MGD) cannot(25,000 gpm required versus 16,000 gpm capacity flowrate for a 24"). In addition, if the remaining 36"PCCP were replaced from County Road 81 to Crystal Reservoir with a 24"pipe, then the maximum flowrate is reduced from approximately 16,000 gpm to 12,000 gpm. The Golden Valley Reservoir is served by a 48"steel pipe constructed in 1927 from Minneapolis, which is looped as shown on Figure 1 from the draft report. However,the pipe directly serving the Golden Valley Reservoir from the 48"is a 16".The flowrate through the 16"to the Golden Valley Reservoir was calibrated in January 2011 and was 24,300 gpm (38 fps).The plan is to install a dissipater to reduce the flowrate to 15,000 gpm (24 fps). Similar to the Crystal Reservoir, it appears Minneapolis has no issues if the time limit to fill the Golden Valley reservoir extends beyond 7 A.M. Joint Water Commission Page 10 JWC 36"Transmission Line Evaluation Bonestroo 002896-10001-0 6a). Inspection/Construction Options/Cost Estimates/ Responsibilities • The JWC has different options to pursue in whether they elect to maintain, rehabilitate/spot repair,slip-line, directional drill, and/or remove/replace the existing 36"PCCP. It should be noted the cost estimates are estimates and could vary based on further review as more design of the road/utility construction is developed. INTERNAL INSPECTION($37,000—$104,500) Internal inspection would provide JWC with a base line for the existing 36"PCCP condition.This inspection would provide JWC justification for either maintaining, rehabilitating portions of the pipe, and/or complete replacement. If maintaining the existing 36"PCCP is the preferred option, the internal inspection would also provide documentation of the existing conditions to determine if damage occurred during the road/utility construction.The internal inspection options are further discussed in Appendix D by Pure Technologies and are summarized below: Smart Ball Leak Detector(5,300 LF) $37,000 Electromagnetic Inspection (5,300 LF) $75,000 Engineer Review $29,500 VERIFY ELEVATION EXISTING 36"PCCP The existing cover noted in Appendix F over the 36" PCCP is based on record plan information noted on the Hennepin County Cross Sections.To verify the elevation of the 36"PCCP, pot holing could be done at specific locations to verify the location of the existing 36"PCCP both vertically and horizontally. It's suggested JWC review the potholing effort with Hennepin County/City of Robbinsdale.The potholing effort will benefit all parties to help identify conflicts.The design effort needed to confirm and resolve conflicts can be finalized jointly working with all parties. The estimated cost based on project management and a cooperative effort to pot hole(assume core drill/vactor jet) every 200'is noted below. Pot Hole 26 ea $1700/ea $44,200 PROTECT EXISTING JWC 36"PCCP($113,500—$187,000) It maybe determined the preferred option is to protect the existing 36"PCCP based on its present condition and remaining service life.The contractor would be required to utilize construction techniques to protect the 36"PCCP during and after construction.These construction techniques would add production time to construct the subgrade excavation/granular backfill and sewer excavation including the cost of in-kind road replacement with reinforced concrete.Appendix G estimates the additional cost to perform these construction techniques,which are summarized below: Subgrade Excavation/Granular Backfill (3,000 LF) $50,000 Sanitary Sewer Excavation (2,600 LF) $117,000 $147,000 Joint Water Commission Page 11 JWC 36°Transmission Line Evaluation Bonestroo 002896-10001-0 Utility crossings which are not elevation or grade dependent have not been quantified because these costs in most cases are included in routine utility excavation. However, storm sewer crossings which are typically elevation and grade dependent would likely require a water main offset be constructed. For purposes of this report, one water main offset is estimated and noted below: 1 Water Main Offset $40,000 For purposes of this report it could be assumed the lineal feet of 36"PCCP that would be protected could be cut in half for a number of reasons based on further investigation and/or testing .Therefore, a cost range is provided from $113,500 to$187,000.The JWC may review further with Hennepin County and the City of Robbinsdale cost responsibilities for protecting the 36"PCCP. SLIP-LINE/NEW PIPE INSTALLATION($731,400—$1,293,200) Slip-line options could include spot repair if internal inspection identifies specific locations where spot lining techniques are justified. Complete/partial slip line options exist provided the water supply demands can be met operationally based on a reduced pipe size.Two pipe line projects in Rhode Island and California are presented in Appendix I. Appendix J presents slip line and new pipe installation costs for different pipe sizes to show the difference in cost between pipe sizes. The cost estimates were developed from sample projects, pipe suppliers, and recent construction bids.The cost estimates are divided between material, installation, and 25% indirect costs. The cost estimate to slip-line a 24-inch diameter compared to open cut a 24-inch diameter and 36-inch diameter are noted below. Approximate Diameter Cost/LF Total Cost 5,300 LF 24"Slip Line 138-169 $731,400- $895,700 24"Open Cut 138 $731,400 36"Open Cut 244 $1,293,200 As noted, the cost to slip-line versus open cut a pipe is the same for similar size diameter pipe ($130 vs. $136), which is because the open cut cost does not include restoration. It's assumed the restoration would be included in the street reconstruction,which would be the responsibility of Hennepin County and the City of Robbinsdale.The above estimates assume all the 5,300 LF of 36"PCCP would be slip-lined or reconstructed. As noted in Appendix F, nearly every station is impacted by subgrade excavation/granular backfill or sewer excavation. However, as the final utility/road design is developed, further review could justify only lining/reconstructing portions of the 5,300 LF. HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 24"PVC($1,674,000) Directional drill a 24"PVC pipe is an alternative option to slip-line and new pipe installation.The distance from the ground surface to the top of the pipe would be between 7 and 15 feet. It is also assumed that a cost effective location can be found for the new pipe. It is likely the elevations of the existing sanitary and water services will conflict with a new pipe at this depth. Further investigation is required to address possible conflicts. Drill pits will be excavated at every major bend or 1000 feet(whichever is less). Entrance pits have a 20'diameter at the surface. The pipe is fused at the exit pit and pulled into the drilling alignment.The exit pit is larger due to the deflection limitations of the pipe.The exit pit required for a 24"diameter PVC is 100'x 20'. Joint Water Commission Page 12 JWC 36'Transmission Line Evaluation BOReStrOO 002896-10001-0 10A. The new pipe should be installed a minimum of 5'from any existing pipe (outside wall to outside wall of the pipes). The estimated construction costs, including 25% indirect costs,to directional drill a 24"diameter new trunk water main are shown below: Item Unit Qty Unit Price Total Cost Directional Drill 24" PVC Pipe LF 5300 $270 $1,431,000 Drilling Pits and Restoration EA 7 $10,000 $70,000 Fittings LB 8000 $6 $48,000 Air Release and Valve Structures EA 10 $12,500 $125,000 Total Construction Cost $1,674,000 COUNTY POLICY MUNICIPAL UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION Hennepin County policies for cost participation are noted in"Policies for Cost Participation between Hennepin County and Other Agencies for Cooperative Highway Projects", dated November 30, 1999.The section titled"Municipal Utility Relocation or Reconstruction"outlines the County's approach for municipal utilities.The County policy states the County will not participate in any cost unless relocation is"In-kind relocation required solely because of County Construction procedures". In summary,JWC shall review the information presented herein and additional information with Hennepin County to evaluate their participation to protect or possibly relocate portions of the 36" PCCP. Once that review is completed, determination how Hennepin County and JWC will work together to implement the road improvements and maintain water service to the JWC can be finalized. Joint Water Commission Page 13 JWC 36"Transmission Line Evaluation Bonestroo 002896-10001-0 0 2 Iii E c O o 3 g k Z \ � o © \ 3 \ k \ % o 2 \ $ r. § 0 E t ƒ - $ a ismi 2 E E a � 22 &k "0 W U U D. q co 5 = f 3 E ry � o N- cr, » • % 0 0 NI- O e / \ \ / LA'$ q / c.S 3 '4 ' E eu La CD (1) tri § 2 In + k ) 0 2 2/ ' L9 (9 kE o * _ a£ E \ % < $ E / 7 % $ § / co rit 1-4 d S / 5 g $ G & > % > £ § / \ \ o c ® # CL r0 0 tnƒ L Ln a § $ k / 3 u ru % 0 . / k / \ § E \ R ƒ E \ 2 k 0. / \ u ® EE = \ E o E E u c § E f / k k � � / / c 22kk00 E \ \ / / . 2 / / k k CO \ $ \ \ � � ° © / - k � k � / � & 2 \ CL ƒ d / < J k 0 Appendix J Slipline and Open Cut Installation Costs JWC 36" Water Transmission Line Evaluation December 22,2010 Open Cut Rehabilitation * Material Installation Constr. Indirect Project Pipe Material Units Unit Cost Cost/LF Cost/LF Cost(25 0/0) Cost/LF DIP 24",CL-200 PSI LF $55 $55 $110 $28 $138 DIP 36",CL-200 PSI LF $115 $65 $180 $45 $225 PVC 24",DR-25, 165 PSI,gasket joint LF $55 $55 $110 $28 $138 PVC 36",DR-25,165 PSI,gasket joint LF $130 $65 $195 $49 $244 Sliplining Rehabilitation Material Installation Total Indirect Project Pipe Material Units Unit Cost Cost/LF Cost/LF Cost(25%) Cost/LF PVC 24",DR-25,165 PSI,fused joint LF $60 $50 $110 $28 $138 HDPE 28"OD DR-11,160 PSI,fused joint LF $110 $Z5 $135 $34 $169 HDPE 30"OD DR-11,160 PSI fused joint LF $130 $25 $155 $39 $194 HDPE 32"OD DR-11,160 PSI,fused joint LF $150 $25 $175 $44 $219 * Cost does not include street removal and restoration cost CR * , , , . , , , . , . , , , , , . , , , , , , . , , . , L 3 Q Cr M 00 tD ul a1 .4 O O n N ,--1 .1 r-1 111 n r-I Cr 01 .-1 .--1 n N n tD N OD •� u1 n N 01 N N tD On O Cr Cr .--I O O O1 N cm uI O ,-i ri Ql 00 tn0 .--1 .-1 r-0 .1 •-'1 N •--1 4-1 ,-1 ,--1 TA ,--1 ,1 .--1 N N N .-4 .r-1 if N C Cr ul M CD 0? n nr M Cr +-{ 00 VD ul CD +A OR N M .-1 N M d Ln O > 1- CrCrCrCr CrCrd- CYCYCrCrCrCrTrCrCr NrCtnr f� O co 00 00 O 00 co O co 00 00 co O co a) co CO CO CO a) a) 00 co O co a) ul a) "O L O O 1n co p -- 111 Cr N '-4 O co N VD CY M N CD O' 00 ED ul nr N .-1 CD O N VD Cr M p Nrj -2 or; n.i of M M N N N N N N N �+ r4 •4 -4 -4 -4 ,7 -4 O O O O O p ii ,o u) Ce N tf O1 a1 In ,--1 O1 up .1 CO CT Cr O n Cr n, n tD .-1 CIl Cr ,1 .--1 O O O .--1 Q } 9 6 O C7 C7 ai Oi Ol CO Co Co Co N N tD tD tD tD ui ui ui ui ui ui Iri ui _C C N CululullnCrCr1- V ' ' 'rCrCr 'I" Cr 'r '4 d- d- NrCrCrCrCrZ C .L-+ r-+ v, 1--1 a) O 00 co O 00 O o0 00 O a) O OD CO 00 CO CO O O CO 0D OD CO 00 00 O N n, Li a) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * f L > j fL0 CO N O1 M ul ul .-4 CO In N O? N M N 01 nr M ul 01 N Cr 00 O CO Cr N W N ,Q p nn N .- N N N N C7 CD O O N .44 .1 M ,1 CD O ,--1 .- .41 ,- .- N ui M N V+ O i C Nn J ''�t��3, ' O p p TA O j Cr N u1 01 N N M N O O O1 t0 A. On nr N M u1 on M nr 00 M 00 01 O -tn •-{ ro 7 l0 Cr M C1 ui I� OD N N u1 ui CO 00 d" d" M IV O N Ih N M Cr) •-1 O .-i LL 1A p Ol > L ul ul VD VD VD VD VD VD VD ul u1 u) 1.n 141 ul If) u1 In ul Nn VD VD lD VD tD tD X E. Q) N -� 0) j 00 00 a) OD 00 O 00 00 CO OD 00 OD 00 CO 00 co CO O CO 00 CO 00 CO CO co op L (./.) W0 C C f0 2 in Q 1" .D N C u @ U .1-J 03 v M N Cr CO O O VD A. O N Cr N OD A, Cr 01 Co O Cr N 01 M M M 01 N (0 ` 0 N O N up ul Cr CN- VI UM CY .1 M M M Cr M M VD n i N M NY NY M NI- Cr ul tD i: 05 > U o a c tD Z : 0 VD ul VD VD N. N N CD u1 Cr CD Cr In N u1 O CD CD M tD •1 rA In O In Cr) DI U lei O > Ull En VD VD VD VD VD tED VD EEl IIn IOn I! EMl IOn u) ul O� Enn u1 ED ED VD IIn III IUn it O 0) O CO O 00 CO O CO CO OD CO O CO 00 O O 00 00 00 00 CO OD O CO OD O CO r'1 f- W Ll. J ' J O O 0 p N > j M tn N > On N CD Cr N N O N Ln ul Cf .-1 N Cr O. N CO CD CO O 01 M CO M CY Ifl U) fO W 1- In tD trig tD tD tD O^ tD tD u1 ul tD tD u1 Ln In ul ul u f ul l0 t0 tD tD tD t0 O Q 1 00 OD OD CO a) OD a) CO OD OD CO 00 W OD CO OD CO CO CO Co CO OD OD 00 00 00 N CU O O C O O O y In L L v Cl) D. c n o . O M .--1 M N Cr ul N tD 01 O N OO ul CO N M N 'd" M N N I- N N I\ o0 cp r4 -1-i-i > IOn EDD VD VD VD VOD n VD EDD IOn Ipn VD VD INn Enn U1 III En Ui CD VD ED VD tEDD tEDD EMD N C N 00 00 OD 00 O 00 O 00 OD OD 00 CO CO CO O 00 CO CO 00 OD O CO CO 00 O CO u W �J = • C O . 0 -.C+ Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -9 N C CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD In I.,l O + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + u1 r1 ',tp u1 N 01 .-1 M u1 N, CN 4-4 M In N 01 .-1 M u1 N O1 ,--1 M u1 N 01 r-1 M u1 �f 4+ O CD CD .--1 .--1 .--1 ,--1 .-a N N N N N M M Cr) Cr) M NY - NI- Cr NY In tin u1 * In .1 .1 r-4 ri ri ri .--1 ri 4-1 .--1 ri .-1 .-4 4-4 rA ,-I .--1 r- ,1 11 r1 r4 ri ,--i .-1 r-1 * * Protection Cost Techniques Subgrade Excavation/Granular Backfill • Estimate 3007day subcut and granular backfill if adequate cover exists over 36"PCCP pipe • Estimate 150'/day to protect 36"PCCP by use of backhoe excavation/push granular backfill carefully over 36"PCCP including trench flooding to eliminate voids • Estimate$5,000/day for subgrade excavation and backfill equipment/labor • Estimate 3,000 LF to protect 36"PCCP • Estimate 10 days added (20 days vs. 10 days) • Estimate$50,000 loss to reduce production time(10 days @$5,000/day = $50,000) Sewer Excavation • Estimate production time 200'/day with single box • Estimate 100'/day production time lost due to double box/slide rail • Estimate 2,600 LF double box/slide rail required cuts greater than 15' • Estimate$9,000/day per sewer crew • Estimate 13 days added (26 days vs. 13 days) • • Estimate$117,000 loss to reduce production time(13 days @ $9,000/day) Citr a en Valley ';17 c Works 763.593.8030 783.693.3988(fax) Date: April 13, 2011 To: Tom Burt, City Manager Through: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works (.61 From: Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Dave Lemke, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor Subject: EPI Contract for Air Conditioning Project at Golden Valley Pump House The Joint Water Commission 2011-20'15 Capital Improvement Program includes $30,000 in 2011 for an air conditioning project at the Golden Valley JWC pump house. Currently, the pump house has two portable air conditioners that are utilized to keep the building temperature below 100 degrees during summer months. With the two portable air conditioners, it is only possible to keep the temperature below 100 degrees if only two of the five pumps are operating. When more than two pumps are operating, the heat is too burdensome for the air conditioners and the units do not keep up resulting in pump failure. When the pump fails, Public Works staff will respond (often an after-hours call) to reset pumps. The portable air conditioners were a temporary solution and were not meant to be a permanent solution to building cooling. The building needs to be kept at a moderate temperature (in the mid to upper 80-degree range) even when more than two pumps are required. The portable air conditioners are not compatible with the Xcel Peak Shaving program because they need to be manually controlled. In order to identify solutions to the concerns addressed above, Golden Valley staff has requested a proposal from Environmental Process Inc. (EPI) to develop options, prepare construction documents for mechanical and building modifications, and complete construction project management for a total cost of$9,800 plus an estimated $600 for reimbursable expenses. The estimated $20,000 remaining in the budget should be adequate funding to complete the project. Staff recommends approval of a contract with EPI in the amount of$9,800 for design and construction services. G:lBert Tracy\JWC Documents%Pump HouselAir Conditioning 20111.IWC EPI AC Memo.doc It is proposed that staff contract with EPI for contractual services to complete the air conditioning project at the Golden Valley JWC pump house. Attachments JWC Pump House Proposal, Professional Services Agreement, and EPI Fee Schedule