preliminary engineering report - crescent city water projec… · • church tree district •...

City of Crescent City Water Improvement Project

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT

Prepared by:

Project #: CRES16-001

July 8, 2017

Crescent City Water Improvement Project i Preliminary Engineering Report CRES16-001 July 8, 2017

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1

2 Project Planning Area ................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Water Systems to be Served ................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Environmental Resources Present ........................................................................................ 2

2.4 Population Trends ................................................................................................................. 3

2.5 Equivalent Dwelling Units ..................................................................................................... 3

2.6 Community Engagement ....................................................................................................... 4

3 Existing Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Location Map ......................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 History ................................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Condition of Existing Facilities ............................................................................................... 5

3.3.1 Storage Reservoirs – Washington and Amador Tanks ................................................... 5

3.3.2 Transmission ................................................................................................................... 6

3.3.3 Distribution System ........................................................................................................ 8

3.4 Financial Status of Existing Facilities ..................................................................................... 9

3.5 Water/Energy/Waste Audits ............................................................................................... 10

4 Need for Project ......................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Health, Sanitation, and Security .......................................................................................... 10

4.1.1 Storage .......................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.2 Transmission ................................................................................................................. 17

4.1.3 Distribution / Meters .................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Aging Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 18

4.3 Reasonable Growth ............................................................................................................. 19

5 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................. 19

Crescent City Water Improvement Project ii Preliminary Engineering Report CRES16-001 July 8, 2017

5.1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 19

5.1.1 Storage .......................................................................................................................... 20

5.1.2 Transmission ................................................................................................................. 21

5.1.3 Water Meters ............................................................................................................... 23

5.1.4 Alternatives Summary .................................................................................................. 25

5.2 Technical Feasibility Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................................. 26

5.2.1 Permits and Agreements .............................................................................................. 26

5.2.2 Groundwater Supply ..................................................................................................... 28

5.2.3 Surface Water Supply ................................................................................................... 28

5.2.4 Compliance Issues / Design Criteria ............................................................................. 28

5.2.5 Map ............................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.6 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................. 29

5.2.7 Land Requirements ....................................................................................................... 29

5.2.8 Potential Construction Problems ................................................................................. 29

5.2.9 Sustainability Considerations – Water Efficiency / Energy Efficiency / Other ............. 30

5.3 Alternative Cost Estimates .................................................................................................. 30

5.3.1 Construction Costs ........................................................................................................ 31

5.3.2 Non-Construction Costs ................................................................................................ 31

5.3.3 Annual Operating and Maintenance (O&M) ................................................................ 32

5.4 Other Alternative Discussions ............................................................................................. 33

6 Selection of an Alternative ......................................................................................................... 33

6.1 Project Cost Evaluation of Alternatives............................................................................... 33

6.1.1 Project Costs ................................................................................................................. 34

6.2 Non-Monetary Factors Analysis .......................................................................................... 34

7 Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative) ......................................................................... 37

7.1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 37

7.2 Project Schedule .................................................................................................................. 42

7.3 Permit Requirements .......................................................................................................... 42

7.4 Sustainability Considerations: Water and Energy Efficiency .............................................. 42

Crescent City Water Improvement Project iii Preliminary Engineering Report CRES16-001 July 8, 2017

7.5 Total Project Cost Estimate (Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost) ................................... 42

7.6 Debt Payment ...................................................................................................................... 44

7.7 Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget..................................................................... 45

7.7.1 Income .......................................................................................................................... 45

7.7.2 Annual Water System Income and Expenses ............................................................... 46

7.7.3 Debt Repayments ......................................................................................................... 46

7.7.4 Reserves ........................................................................................................................ 46

8 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 47

List of Tables:

Table 1 – Equivalent Dwelling Unit Calculation Table 2 – Historical Summary Table 3 – Meter Services in Crescent City Table 4 – 2016 Water Rate Structure and User Categories Table 5 – Washington Reservoir Observations and Potential Upgrades Table 6 – Amador Reservoir Observations and Potential Upgrades Table 7 – Summary of Alternatives Table 8 – Summary of Anticipated Permits and Agreements for each Alternative Table 9 – Summary of Construction Costs – Alternatives Table 10 – Summary of Non-Construction Costs – Alternatives Table 11 – Summary of Total Project Costs - Alternatives Table 12 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternatives for KVM for each route Table 13 – Advantages and Disadvantages of alternatives for HSM on each route. Table 14 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternatives for Digital Meter Reading Table 15 – Washington Reservoir – Recommended Project Table 16 – Amador Reservoir – Recommended Project Table 17 – Transmission and Meters – Recommended Project Table 18 – Projected Milestones Table 19 – Total Project Cost Estimate Table 20 – Potential Debt Payments Table 21 – Likely Annual Operations Cost Changes for AMI Table 22 – Financial Summary Table 23 – Short-Lived Asset Reserve

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1 – Service Area Maps Exhibit 2 – Proposed Water Main Alignments Exhibit 3 – Proposed Meter Box Design

Crescent City Water Improvement Project iv Preliminary Engineering Report CRES16-001 July 8, 2017

Exhibit 4 – Meter AMI Reading Propagation Studies Exhibit 5 – USA North Design Inquiry Results Exhibit 6 – Recommended Alignments

Appendices:

Appendix A – Pittsburgh Tank Survey Reports Appendix B – CSI Tank Survey Reports Appendix C – VE Solutions, Inc. Review Letter Appendix D – Surveyor Proposed Alignment Appendix E – Meter Cost Estimates Appendix F – Biological and Cultural Resources Initial Study Appendix G – Cost Opinions

Crescent City Water Improvement Project 1 Preliminary Engineering Report CRES16-001 July 8, 2017

1 Introduction

1.1 Background The City of Crescent City owns and operates its drinking water system, including supply sources, treatment, transmission pipelines, storage tanks, distribution pipelines and service connections. The water system needs improvements for which the City of Crescent City is applying to USDA for funding. The City’s official population in the 2010 census was 7,643. There are approximately 4,624 total connections (meters) as of July 2016, with approximately 4,238 of those being active water accounts. Three sources were used and referred to in the preparation of this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER):

• The City recently completed and adopted the “2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Crescent City, California” dated May 26, 2016 (UWMP).

• A Pre-application for Federal Assistance through USDA Rural Development was prepared last year entitled, “Water System Improvement Project 2015” (Pre-App 2015) which contained pertinent information.

• Water Rate Study, Willdan Financial Services, September 16, 2013 (WRS).

This Preliminary Engineering Report will not address all the components of the City’s water system. “Crescent City has an adequate water supply with sufficient permit limits. There are no future plans for projects to increase the water supply available” (UWMP). The purpose of this PER is to evaluate and summarize existing conditions and make improvement recommendations of certain specific features of the City’s water system, namely:

• Washington and Amador Water Storage Tanks • Kings Valley Transmission Main • Blackwell Lane Transmission Main Interconnection • Sutter Coast Hospital Secondary Main • Meter Replacement and Telemetry

The upgrades proposed in this PER are not a result of any existing or planned growth in the City’s service area. Due to the age of these components and critical need for capital infrastructure projects, the City has engaged the United Stated Department of


Agriculture – Rural Utility Service (USDA) for funding these multiple projects that would provide for a more reliable, secure, and efficient service operation to the existing users.

2 Project Planning Area The project planning area is identical to the City’s current water service areas. No expansion of service or change in boundaries is contemplated as part of this project.

2.1 Location The City of Crescent City is located on Highway 101 on the Northern California coast about 20 miles south of the Oregon border in Del Norte County. The proposed water system improvements are located in and around the City. Improvements will be along Kings Valley Road and Blackwell Lane and at the Washington and Amador Tank sites.

The City limits, water service areas, and water system map are included in Exhibit 1.

2.2 Water Systems to be Served There are five water systems that will be served by this project. The City of Crescent City is the water supply purveyor for all and is also the funding applicant for this upgrade project.

In addition to the City of Crescent City, areas outside the official City limits that are served include:

• Pelican Bay State Prison • Meadow Brook District • Church Tree District • Bertsch Ocean View District

2.3 Environmental Resources Present Crescent City is the county seat and the only incorporated city in Del Norte County, California and is the location of the Redwood National Park headquarters. The City is in a seismically active area and over the past few decades has been affected by tsunamis.

The City has a total area of 2.415 square miles, of which 1.963 square miles (81.3%) is land and 0.452 square miles (18.7%) is water. Fishing and crabbing, tourism, and timber are the major sources of income in the City, as well as the County of Del Norte. Crescent City has an oceanic climate, with characteristics of a cool-summer Mediterranean climate. It is one of the wettest places in California: the annual rainfall is 67-inches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_fisheries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_industry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_climate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_climate


All potential project sites are located on previously disturbed and developed lands.

2.4 Population Trends “Based on the GIS analysis of 2000 US Census Bureau data at the block level, the population of the Crescent City water service area was 16,968, including the Pelican Bay State Prison population. Based on the GIS analysis of 2010 US Census data at the block level, the population of the Crescent City water service area was 17,840 including the Pelican Bay State Prison population. Projections of populations from 2016-2035 are based on California Department of Finance (CS DOF) projected population growth for the planning period (2016-2035) as indicated below:

• 2016-2020, 0.4% per year • 2021-2025, 0.4% per year • 2026-2030, 0.3% per year • 2031-2035, 0.1% per year (UWMP).

2.5 Equivalent Dwelling Units USDA uses the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) to determine income for each system and as a way of comparing different systems on similar criteria. In order to calculate the EDU’s in the Crescent City system, the 2015 UWMP data was used because it has the user type breakdown. Table 1 below demonstrates that the City is calculated to have 8,494 EDUs.

Table 1. Equivalent Dwelling Unit Calculation

User Type Average

Monthly Flow (gallons)

Total Number of Users

(connections)

(b) Total Monthly Flow (gallons)

(b) / (a) Number of EDUs

Single Family Residential and Mobile Homes

5,396 (a) 3,614 19,501,144 3,614

Multi-family 76,291 71 5,416,661 1,004

Commercial 19,380 473 9,166,740 1,699

Industrial 13,889 6 83,334 15

Institutional / Governmental1 11,666,667 1 11,666,667 2,162

TOTAL EDUs: 8,494 Type, Number of Users, and Annual Water Usage from 2015 UWMP – Section 3.1 and Table 4-1 Million Gallons per Year (MGY) 1Pelican Bay State Prison


2.6 Community Engagement Public participation in the PER is not required. However, in the future, if a construction loan is required to make the improvements and user rates are increased, a public hearing will need to be completed per the requirements of Proposition 218. A public hearing may also be required to solicit public comments after the City, as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency, makes a determination regarding CEQA.

3 Existing Facilities

3.1 Location Map The City provides water to residences both inside and outside City limits. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the existing facilities and the boundary of the water service area. The City supplies water to the State Prison and three water districts; as well as customers in the urban service area and within the City’s jurisdictional area.

3.2 History The City has constructed and maintained the water system in a manner typical to most municipal systems. The most recent significant project in the late 1990’s included the construction of over 7 miles of 24-inch water transmission main from the Elevated Tank along Lake Earl Drive to the City’s distribution system and storage reservoirs. Table 2 below summarizes the age and major improvement history of the system components addressed in this PER.


Table 2. Historical Summary System

Component Project Name Year Constructed Description of Renovation

Storage Washington

Reservoir (4.0 MG)

2001 None

Storage Amador

Reservoir (1.5 MG)

1982 None

Pipeline Kings Valley

Transmission Main

1958

The original 14-inch pipe is 60 years old and is lesser-quality material than today’s material. Rather than renovating the old pipe, new pipe has been installed paralleling the original pipe. A gap exists between the new, paralleled pipes that needs to be filled.

Pipeline

Blackwell Lane and Hospital

Secondary Main Interconnect

Proposed new project

These pipes do not exist now.

Meter / Telemetry Meters 1976 +/-

The average age of the meters are over 40 years old. Multiple repairs and some replacements have occurred. No complete replacement and revamping of the meter system has taken place. There is no existing meter telemetry system.

3.3 Condition of Existing Facilities Most components of the City water system are in relatively good condition. The purpose of this project is to address poor and unreliable water system components in the following specific portions of the system:

• Water Storage Reservoirs • Transmission Pipelines • Meters and Telemetry Systems

3.3.1 Storage Reservoirs – Washington and Amador Tanks The City has been increasingly concerned about the existing condition of two storage reservoirs that serve their community, namely the Washington Reservoir and Amador Reservoir. Both tanks exist in a corrosive salt-water ocean


environment. There have been two independent evaluations on each reservoir: 1) in April 2013 by Pittsburg Tank & Tower Maintenance Co., Inc. (Pittsburg); and 2) in August 2016 by CSI Services, Inc. (CSI).

Each company provided detailed evaluation reports with pictures and recommendations which are found in Appendix A and B respectively. VE Solutions, Inc. was retained to provide a review of the reports and provide independent structural recommendations (VE Solutions did not make a site visit). VE’s review letter is found in Appendix C. Pertinent OSHA, American Water Works Association (AWWA), and other sources were referenced as applicable in the reports.

Both evaluations concur that both tanks need rehabilitation and repairs. The inspections revealed the need for multiple safety upgrades. Current conditions, deficiencies, and recommendations for each tank by each company are summarized in following sections of this report.

3.3.1.1 Washington Reservoir The Washington Reservoir is a welded steel, above ground tank built in 2001. The tank is approximately 132-feet in diameter by approximately 40-feet in height, providing a nominal capacity of 4 million gallons.

A report with conditions, deficiencies and recommendations from Pittsburgh is included in Appendix A and a similar report from CSI is included in Appendix B.

3.3.1.2 Amador Reservoir

The Amador Reservoir is a welded steel water storage tank built in 1982. The tank is approximately 80-feet in diameter by approximately 40-feet in height, providing a nominal capacity of 1.5 million gallons.

A report with conditions, deficiencies and recommendations from Pittsburgh is included in Appendix A and a similar report from CSI is included in Appendix B.

3.3.2 Transmission The existing transmission main pipelines operated by the City are fully functional and at various stages in design life. However, it has been identified that three areas exist, namely the Kings Valley Road, Blackwell Lane, and the Sutter Coast Hospital area, as labeled in this report, which exemplify key vulnerabilities such as security, lack of redundancy, and questionable reliability of water service, especially in a seismic event. Improvements are important to give the City the redundancy and operational flexibility to protect the residents from a catastrophic failure.


Kings Valley Transmission Main (KVM). The original 14-inch cast iron transmission main was constructed in 1958 and is currently one of the City’s most significant vulnerabilities. The pipe runs from the Smith River water source to the Elevated Tank, then reduces to a 12- and 10-inch pipe as the transmission main approaches and enters the City. From two past projects instigated by the State Prison and the City, the original 14-inch cast iron main has since been paralleled by an 18-inch and a 24-inch pipe respectively for purposes of increasing security and redundancy. However, there exists a gap of approximately 7,600-feet that does not have a parallel redundant pipe. Refer to Exhibit 2.

Redundancy is especially important given Crescent City’s high seismic activity. Not only is the 14-inch pipe old, but it is cast iron, which is not as strong and resistant to seismic loads as other materials, such as ductile iron pipe. If during a seismic event, or simply due to age, the existing cast iron pipe was to rupture, the water customers, hospital, and other emergency services would be severely impacted as this transmission main is the only source of water to the City. A proposed improvement project will consist of designing and constructing approximately 7,600-feet of 24-inch Water Transmission Main, connecting the 18-inch State Prison main to the 24-inch City main at the Elevated Tank. This project is referred to as the Kings Valley Road Main (KVM).

Blackwell Lane Transmission Main Interconnection Project (BLM). There are two transmission mains that come into the City from the Elevated Tank; one being the newer 24-inch ductile iron transmission main on Lake Earl Drive and the other being the original 10-inch cast iron transmission main on Railroad Ave. The two mains are not well connected. The proposed project will provide needed bypass and redundant capability by interconnecting these two transmission mains. Approximately 4,900-feet of 12-inch pipe is proposed. This project is referred to as the Blackwell Lane Transmission Main Interconnection (BLM). Refer to Exhibit 2.

Sutter Coast Hospital Secondary Main (HSM). The Hospital has been open since 1992 and provides much needed emergency service to the community. The Del Norte County High School is also near the hospital as well as other schools and businesses. The Hospital currently has only one water connection from the south. A second connection for redundancy, security (in the event of a catastrophic emergency), and peak flow conditions is desired. This project is referred to as the Hospital Secondary Main (HSM). Refer to Exhibit 2.


3.3.3 Distribution System

The City’s existing distribution system is aging but functional. Pipelines can maintain a minimum of 20 psi in normal conditions, including fire flow. The primary concern the City faces is the relatively high unaccounted for water loss occurring in the system. The UWMP documents unaccounted for water loss at 15.5%. Crescent City has an ongoing leak detection and correction program, including ongoing public education programs, to help conserve water and maximize the water resource.

“Crescent City has been utilizing the AWWA water loss methodology annually since 2013 to evaluate distribution system losses…The results of the 2015 AWWA water loss audit indicates a total water loss of 92.8 million gallons, or 15.5% non-revenue water. Crescent City has been working over the past three years to understand and reduce real loss” (UWMP).

“Due to the water distribution system’s age and the area’s seismic activities, the City routinely monitors for leaks, conducts distribution system repair and meter calibration activities. Totalizers connected to the Crescent City’s control system measure and record production rates, receiving rates, as well as delivery rates. These readings are taken continuously and are monitored…” (UWMP).

Meters. Crescent City has meters on all services and sources. All customer sectors are metered including separate meters for single-family residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and educational facilities. All customers are billed by volume used.

As of July 2016, the City had 4,624 aging meters in place. The average age of these meters is over 40 years. Monthly manual meter reading is required, there is no telemetry system associated with the service meters. There are substantial labor costs associated with manual reading in addition to the costs of undetected leaks and slow identification of leaks due to the infrequent monthly usage collection.

During site visits a general understanding of typical water meter configurations and settings was obtained. Most of the meters and the meter boxes are in a precarious state with many beyond their useful life. Some meter boxes have been repeatedly repaired by City staff. Although no attempt was made to visit each meter, an understanding of the general characteristics of the majority of the


meters was observed. Typical and non-typical installations were pointed out by City staff. It was clear that new meters and boxes system-wide are needed.

Of the 4,624 aging meters, approximately 4,238 (as of July 2016) are current active water accounts according to the City Clerk. The remaining meters were not active due to abandoned accounts, non-payment of accounts, or other reasons.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the user type (residential, multi-family, commercial, industrial, and governmental) and annual water usage per user type as given in the 2015 UWMP, the most recent document where such information was readily available. As will be seen, the current user count of 4,238 does not equal the 2015 UWMP user count of 4,165 because additional meters were added or activated since the 2015 UWMP inventory.

Table 3. Meter Services in Crescent City

User Type No. of Users1 2015 Usage (MGY)

Single Family Residential2 3,614 234

Multi-family 71 65

Commercial 473 110

Industrial 6 1

Institutional / Governmental3 1 140

TOTALS 4,165 550 1 – Count is active services as noted in 2015 UWMP 2 – Including Mobile Homes 3 – Pelican Bay State Prison

3.4 Financial Status of Existing Facilities The City of Crescent City approved a new water rate structure as part of the September 2013 Water Rate Study (WRS). Over the past three years the City has progressively increased their rates, and plans to continue with one more planned rate increase next year. The rate structure utilizes a uniform rate and results in conservation pricing. The present rate structure (effective July 1, 2016) follows, as obtained from the WRS:


Table 4. 2016 Water Rate Structure and User Categories

Meter Size Monthly Fixed Water Rate Monthly Rate for Use Above 500 cubic feet (3,740 gallons)

3/4" $21.83 $2.54 per 100 cu. ft.

1” $30.73 $2.54 per 100 cu. ft.

1-1/2” $48.88 $2.54 per 100 cu. ft.

2” $74.61 $2.54 per 100 cu. ft.

3” $109.94 $2.54 per 100 cu. ft.

4" $143.62 $2.54 per 100 cu. ft.

6" and larger $204.80 $2.54 per 100 cu. ft. The City’s typical annual water system income is approximately $2.6M, not including grants the City may obtain. The City has a long-term debt with the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund. The remaining balance of an existing $7,000,000 loan is approximately $2,625,000 with an annual debt service of $350,000 (Pre-App 2015).

3.5 Water/Energy/Waste Audits In 2015, the City performed an AWWA water loss audit for the calendar year. The results indicated losses of 15.5% as cited above. As mentioned earlier, “Crescent City has been utilizing the AWWA water loss methodology annually since 2013 to evaluate distribution system losses…”. The City also performs water loss studies to locate and repair leaks in their distribution system as part of regular maintenance activities. The City is performing additional assessments as part of their ongoing effort to reduce non-revenue water and comply with SB 550 which requires water suppliers to achieve a 20% reduction in water use by 2020 compared to a year 2000 baseline.

4 Need for Project

4.1 Health, Sanitation, and Security The City is now in need of additional improvements to provide secure and sustained water service, especially in the event of a catastrophic event; to keep intact existing key water system components; and to improve water conservation. The proposed water system improvements, detailed in Section 5 below, are associated with old components that have reached or are nearing the end of their expected useful life.

The purpose of this project is to mitigate known risks to the water system’s security, reliability, and operations and reduce public health hazards generally by improving the City’s water supply infrastructure.


4.1.1 Storage Reservoir inspections by two companies concur that both reservoirs need repairs, improvements, and refurbishing. Health of the water system users and security of the tank facilities are a potential risk. The inspections revealed the need for many safety upgrades due to there not being any safety provisions and/or due to changes in safety codes. Tables 5 and 6 below combine recommendations from both investigations and VE Solutions. Common recommendations further substantiate and confirm the need for certain improvements and an overall refurbishing of both reservoirs. Blank spaces indicate no comments were made on that item. Major maintenance work and safety upgrades are recommended.

Table 5. Washington Reservoir Observations and Potential Upgrades Deficient Item Pittsburgh CSI / VE

1. Lightning protection is not adequate

Electrically ground the tank for lightning protection. Insert sacrificial cathodic protection rods, radially every 15-feet, beneath the floor of the tank, and to prevent corrosion

2. Confined Space Entry Signs not adequate

Place Confined Space Entry signs on primary and secondary shell and roof manways. This deficient item has been addressed and completed by the City at the time of this report.

3. Upgrade shell access ladder (Exterior)

Install an approved, skid-resistant, shell access ladder complete with standoffs every 10' on center. Install a cable type ladder safety climb device. Reinstall the lockable ladder guard. Post a Fall Protection Required sign

Ladders should have knurled surface or be treated with a skid-resistant material

4. Relocate overflow pipe Disconnect the pipe from the underground drain, replace the internal overflow system with a properly sized exterior overflow system, complete with a weir box, standoffs every 10-feet on center, and fitted with a flapper valve and screen

Anchor tank. This repair will also mitigate concerns about differential movement between the piping and the tank Lateral bracing should be checked


Deficient Item Pittsburgh CSI / VE 5. Roof handrails not adequate Extend the high handrail system

around the circumference of the tank roof, complete with a toe board, an intermediate rail and a swing gate at the junction of the shell-to-roof access ladder and tank roof

The guardrail at the roof hatch is only on two sides. The railing should be extended around all four sides of the hatch

6. Add safety chain in handrail opening

A safety chain should be added to comply with OSHA standards for fall protection.

7. Interior shell ladder not adequate

Install an approved, anti-skid rung equipped, interior access ladder complete with standoffs every 10' on center. Install a cable type ladder safety climb device

Ladders should have knurled surface or be treated with a skid-resistant material

8. Tank base not secured or sealed to foundation

Caulk around the base of the tank to foundation connection to prevent water from entering under the tank and sealing the foundation with a sealant

The tank is unanchored. Widen concrete footing and weld steel chairs to the side of the tank and attach the chair to the concrete with anchor bolts all around the perimeter. Mitigate concerns about differential movement between the piping and the tank.

9. Level indicator not operational

Repair the existing liquid level indicator, replacing damaged parts, the cable, and the target board, as needed, then adjust and calibrate the unit

Level indicator was repaired during investigation by connecting a new wire.

10. Roof vent requires upgrade Replace the existing center roof vent with a vacuum/pressure, frost proof vent and screen

11. No lock on existing roof manway

Install new lock on existing roof manway

12. Seam seal and weld as recommended

• Seam seal all un-welded interior roof lap seams

• Seam seal the roof-to-knuckle connection

• Re-weld the rafter-to-support column and rafter-to-knuckle support connections to reinforce

Roof or the knuckle can be strengthened to resist wave “sloshing” forces during a seismic event


Deficient Item Pittsburgh CSI / VE 13. Cathodic protection

enhancements recommended

Remove the Cathodic Protection System and weld steel plates over the holes. Install a passive cathodic protection system

A more frequent verification of the cathodic protection system should also be completed.

14. Remove excessive sediment buildup

Clean tank out to avoid problems associated with excessive sediment buildup. This deficient item has been addressed and completed by the City at the time of this report.

15. Exterior painting requires recoating

Pressure wash the tank exterior with biodegradable detergent injection (minimum 3,500 psi at 3.0 gpm) then remove all loose rust and scale with wire brushes and hand scrapers in accordance with SSPC#2 (hand tool cleaning), spot prime and apply one (1) finish coat of alkyd enamel

Consider spot repairing the tank and overcoating the exterior roof within the next 4 to 6 years. The tree scraping the shell should be pruned to avoid further damage to the paint system.

16. Interior liner requires replacement

Sandblast all rusted and abraded areas of the tank interior to SSPC #10 (near white blast) condition, brush-blast all remaining areas, stripe coat all seams and welds, then apply an epoxy liner to achieve 8-10 mils dry film thickness

Place the tank on a 3 to 5-year maintenance inspection cycle (interior and exterior) as recommended by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). The underside of the tank roof needs to prepped and painted to prevent further corrosion

17. Repair seismic reinforcement ties

Repair or replace numerous seismic reinforcement ties throughout the reservoir that were found to be bent.

18. Seal joint between shell and knuckle plate

Weld steel plate at this joint that is not currently sealed. Roof or the knuckle can be strengthened to resist wave “sloshing” forces during a seismic event


Table 6. Amador Reservoir Observations and Potential Upgrades Deficient Item Pittsburgh CSI / VE

1. Lightning protection is not adequate

Electrically ground the tank for lightning protection. Insert sacrificial cathodic protection rods, radially every 15-feet, beneath the floor of the tank, to prevent corrosion.

2. Shell manways not adequate

Install a second 30-inch diameter shell manway 180o from primary manway. Post Confined Space Entry signs on shell manways. Install galvanized bolts on existing shell manway. The City has posted Confined Space Entry signs on shell manways at the time of this report.

Strengthen area around new manway

3. Confined Space Entry Signs not adequate

Place Confined Space Entry signs on primary and secondary shell and roof manways. The City has posted Confined Space Entry signs on shell and roof manways at the time of this report.

4. Upgrade shell access ladder (Exterior)

Install an approved, anti-skid rung equipped, shell access ladder complete with standoffs every 10' on center. Install a cable type ladder safety climb device. Install an aluminum lockable ladder guard. Post a Fall Protection Required sign

Consider completing structural retrofitting work such an installing an exterior ladder, fall prevention systems, and flexible pipe couplings. Consider installing an internal ladder.

5. Relocate overflow pipe

Replace the interior overflow system with a properly sized exterior overflow, complete with a weir box, standoffs every 10-feet on center, an elbow at the bottom fitted with a flapper valve, a screen and a splash pad

Consider relocating the drain and overflow pipe from the tank bottom to the shell. Retrofit a concrete ring foundation under and around the perimeter of the tank. This would also mitigate the need to move the overflow pipe. Lateral bracing should also be checked

6. Roof handrails not adequate

Install an approved 42-inch high handrail system around the circumference of the tank roof,

Consider completing structural retrofitting work such as installing…fall prevention systems.


Deficient Item Pittsburgh CSI / VE complete with a toe board, an intermediate rail and a stainless-steel gate chain at the junction of the shell-to-roof access ladder and tank roof

Add guard rail around all four sides of the hatch.

7. Clean and regrade tank site

Clear dirt, debris and other loose gravel away from the tank base, down to the bottom of the floor chime and install a steel retaining ring.

Remove the dirt around the exterior lower chime of the tank as part of this painting work.

8. Roof vent requires upgrade

Replace the existing roof vent with a vacuum/pressure, frost proof vent and screen



10. Correct ponding areas on tank roof

Hand tool clean all ponding areas, then apply a commercial epoxy adhesive filler, as needed, to prevent ponding of water

11. Repair hole in the tank roof

Weld a steel plate over the hole in the roof to prevent contaminants from entering the tank

Anticipate minor welding repairs to locations with the most advanced metals loss (i.e. around the center vent). Consider completing structural retrofitting work… …roof or the knuckle can be strengthened to resist wave “sloshing” during a seismic event. Prep and paint center column base plate. Roof structural members need to be removed and replaced



• Seam seal the roof-to-rim angle connection

• Reweld the rafter-to-support column and rafter-to-shell connections

13. Reinforce support column

Install an 18-inch plate on the support column, ½-inch gussets equally spaced to reinforce the connection and new guides on the sides of the base plate

14. Remove excessive sediment buildup

Clean tank out to avoid problems associated with excessive sediment buildup

Sediment was removed from the floor during CSI’s investigation

15. Cathodic protection

Install a passive cathodic protection system

Consider cathodic protection


Deficient Item Pittsburgh CSI / VE enhancements recommended

16. Repair floor buckling condition

Stabilize floor by cutting holes…installing couplings in the tank floor and pumping grout to the underneath…to fill the voided areas where buckling is occurring.

No buckling or floor distortions were observed during the inspection

17. Exterior painting requires recoating

Remove and replace. Pressure wash the tank exterior with biodegradable detergent injection (minimum 3,500 psi at 3.0 gpm) then remove all loose rust and scale with wire brushes and hand scrapers in accordance with SSPC#2 (hand tool cleaning), spot prime and apply one (1) finish coat of alkyd enamel.

Within the next 3 to 5 years, remove and replace the exterior paint system. This work should include abrasive blast cleaning in accordance with SSPC–SP6 “Commercial Blast Cleaning”. The newly applied paint system should include an epoxy primer and urethane finish coat. The painted surfaces should include the stainless-steel roof hatch.

18. Interior liner requires replacement

Remove and replace. Sandblast all rusted and abraded areas of the tank interior to SSPC #10 (near white blast) condition, brush-blast all remaining areas, stripe coat all seams and welds, then apply an epoxy liner to achieve 8-10 mils dry film thickness

Within the next 2 to 3 years, remove and replace the interior lining system. This work should include abrasive blast cleaning in accordance with SSPC–SP10 “Near-White Metal Blast Cleaning”. The newly applied paint system should include three 4-6 mils coats of an NSF Certified immersion grade epoxy to a total minimum thickness of 15 mils. The relining should include the caulking of all roof plate lap seams and other small crevices.

The completion of the recommended items will help ensure the tanks continue to provide safe and reliable service with a service life anticipated to extend over 20 years. Timely maintenance on the reservoirs as proposed will prolong their useful service life and sustain their structural integrity.

Based on review of AWWA D100-11 the following are comments specific to certain recommendations for the City’s information and consideration when embarking on an improvement project. It should be noted that the AWWA standards are industry standards and should be utilized as a good reference to follow when designing new or upgraded facilities. However, the AWWA standards do not carry the force of law and owners are not strictly obligated to follow them as they would


a building code. Most water system owners choose to follow most provisions of the AWWA standards. • Overflow Pipe. 7.3, “unless otherwise specified, the overflow may be external

or internal.” Whether internal or external, the important factor is where and how the pipe exits the tank. During a seismic event the drain pipe exiting from the bottom may shear apart, likely then draining the tank completely. Thus, CSI’s recommendation to “consider relocating the drain and overflow pipe from the tank bottom to the shell” or VE’s recommendation to anchor the tank.

• Interior Shell Ladder. 7.4.2.4, “Inside tank ladder. When specified, an inside tank ladder shall be provided for access from the roof to the bottom of the tank.” This statement implies an interior ladder is not required unless otherwise specified but an outside tank ladder “shall” be provided (7.4.2.2).

4.1.2 Transmission The pipeline improvements proposed herein are essential to water sustainability and security, and to the long-term health and safety of all City water users.

KVM. The existing cast iron transmission main along King Valley and Wonder Stump Road is nearly 60 years old and undersized, and is cast iron which is a lesser strength material. A ductile iron pipe, the industry standard for transmission mains due to its strength, reliability, and flexibility, needs to be used to lessen the chance of a main break and the City being completely disconnected from the sole water source. Since no other sources of water supply are available, construction of approximately 7,600-feet of pipe is essential to the City’s water security.

BLM. The BLM pipeline is similarly important to Crescent City’s water resiliency. This project will interconnect the primary transmission mains providing redundancy, security, and flexibility to protect against a potential break in one of the transmission mains from the source. The BLM pipeline is also a key piece in providing a secondary, redundant water connection to some of the community’s most critical facilities, such as the hospital. The proposed improvement project will consist of designing and constructing a 12-inch interconnecting main approximately 4,900-feet along Blackwell Lane between Railroad Avenue and Lake Earl Drive, connecting the existing 24-inch main on the west with the existing 10-inch main on the east.


HSM. The HSM pipeline will directly benefit the ability to adequately serve many critical facilities like Sutter Coast Hospital (the only hospital within 90 miles any direction), Del Norte County High School, and the Washington Fire Station, which also acts as the County’s Emergency Operation Center. The absence of potable water in any one of these locations would cripple the City. This main will also provide better flows and pressures to the general area. A proposed improvement project will consist of designing and constructing approximately 3,600-feet of 12-inch transmission main from the new Blackwell Lane main south to connect into the existing water distribution system in the Hospital area.

4.1.3 Distribution / Meters The distribution pipeline system is presently not at risk from any health, safety, or regulatory shortcomings. However, the system is old and the City has been working over the past three years to understand and reduce water loss.

New meters are needed for the following reasons:

• Help manage water loss and increase revenue. • To bring the system up to date. Old meters are obsolete and not able to

be retrofitted to accommodate remote data collection. • Able to monitor the meters wirelessly will help the City meet the 25%

water reduction directed by Governor Brown on April 1, 2015. • The ability to detect and notify if a water leak exists. • Enhance water and energy efficiency by increasing water use awareness

and encouraging conservation. • Improve accuracy, most old meters are not accurate. • Assist the City in isolating areas where water loss is occurring so

appropriate repairs and upgrades can be made. • Alarm the City if a backflow condition is occurring.

In short, new meters will be more accurate; have a data recorder; and transmit water consumption data automatically using radio telemetry. With regards to the impact on the whole water system, new meters will reduce operating expense (manual labor) and maintenance should remain comparable to the existing situation.

4.2 Aging Infrastructure The Washington Reservoir has been in service for over 15 years, and the Amador Reservoir for over 34 years. Both need refurbishment and repairs due to their ages.


The original cast iron transmission main built in 1958 to deliver water from the Smith River site to the City is still in service. Although redundant mains have been added up to the State Prison and southward from the Elevated Tank to the City, a 7,600-foot gap still exists where the original main is the only way for water to get to the City. Adding a second, parallel 24-inch transmission main, the KVM, is essential for water supply security.

Similarly adding the BLM will allow for water to be transferred from one side of the City to the other should one of the two primary transmission mains be out of service for any reason. It will allow portions of the old main on Railroad Avenue to remain in service while a break in another part is being repaired. The BLM will allow the hospital to be supplied from two mains reducing risks to the entire region during an emergency.

The existing meters are simply old and breaking down and are past their useful life. Many are buried in mud or otherwise difficult to access for observation and maintenance purposes. For the City to provide service to customers at industry standards, the meters need to be replaced with modern equipment.

4.3 Reasonable Growth The proposed improvements are based on current needs and are not planned to accommodate future growth projections; the tanks, mains, and meters are not needed to serve new water users. Instead, the maintenance of the tanks and upgrades to transmission mains are critical for maintaining safe and reliable service to the existing customers.

5 Alternatives Considered This section will describe the alternatives that were considered to meet the needs identified earlier.

5.1 Description The project consists of three separate system upgrades that are needed in Crescent City to continue to provide reliable, safe, and affordable water to the service area. Each of the parts: storage, transmission, and distribution (meters) are broken out in detail below. The storage part of the Project consists of maintenance and safety improvements at the two system tanks. The transmission part includes installing the last segment of redundant transmission main (KVM) from the source to the City and two interconnecting pipelines (BLM and HSM) to enhance system reliability. The distribution part of the Project includes replacement of all manual read meters with a modern, automated metering system.


5.1.1 Storage There are two alternatives associated with the reservoirs:

Alternative 1:

Washington Reservoir. Proceed with painting and lining, performing necessary code upgrades, making structural repairs, and otherwise refurbishing the reservoir to include: • Install Lightning Protection • Upgrade Exterior Ladder • Relocate the internal overflow

system with an exterior overflow system or anchor the tank

• Install (upgrade) Fall Prevention System per current Codes and standards

• Install Interior Ladder

• Replace the existing roof vent • Correct and repair all noted

structural deficiencies, perform structural retrofitting and strengthening

• Install a passive cathodic protection system

• Remove and replace exterior Coating System

• Remove and replace interior Lining System

Amador Reservoir. Proceed with painting and lining, performing necessary code upgrades, making structural repairs, and otherwise refurbishing the reservoir to include: • Install Lightning Protection • Install second Shell Manway • Install Exterior Ladder • Install Interior Ladder • Relocate the interior overflow

system with an exterior overflow system or relocate from the tank bottom to the shell or retrofit a ring foundation and anchor the tank

• Provide up-to-date fall prevention systems per current codes and standards

• Replace the existing roof vent • Correct and repair all noted

structural deficiencies, perform structural retrofitting and strengthening

• Install a passive cathodic protection system

• Remove and replace exterior Coating System. Prevent ponding of water

• Remove and replace interior Lining System.

Alternative 2:

Washington Reservoir. CSI noted that the interior lining is in good to excellent condition. As such, replacement of the interior liner could be postponed until conditions are more degraded. However, VE noted that the “underside of the tank roof needs to prepped and painted to prevent further corrosion.” Alternative 2


simply consists of removing the interior lining work for the Washington Reservoir from Alternative 1 but proceeding with all other recommended work.

Amador Reservoir. There is no recommended change to the approach to the Amador Reservoir under the Alternative 2 project description.

5.1.2 Transmission

Although the need for new interconnecting transmission lines have been substantiated, optional pipeline alignments provide alternatives to consider. An on-site investigation of alternative new transmission pipeline alignments was made. Factors for evaluating possible pipeline alignments consisted of:

• Visual inspection and input from City staff

• An environmental and cultural resources review (study found in Appendix F)

• Identifying and quantifying possible utility interferences and conflicts through a full Design Inquiry from USA North (see the table of findings in Exhibit 6)

• Title searches using title companies and county and City parcel maps to determine the location of all recorded property lines, right-of-way, and easements in the possible corridors

• Easement acquisition from private land owners Permits required from other agencies (Caltrans, County, railroad, etc.)

• Best location for connecting to the existing system (tie-in) that would provide optimum service

• Potential of conflicting with groundwater and/or rock

• Potential of significant tree roots or other sub-surface obstructions

• General topography with respect to likely location of air-release valves and blow-offs

The routing analysis did not include: topographic surveys, geotechnical analysis, or potholing.

KVM. Two feasible pipeline alignment alternatives exist, which are both depicted in Exhibit 2:

1. Construct the 24-inch transmission pipeline along Kings Valley Road and Wonder Stump Road or

2. Parallel to Highway 101 in the Caltrans right of way.

Upon review and correspondence with Caltrans, they were not amenable to having the pipeline constructed parallel to their right-of-way. Because of this,


there is only one alternative to consider for pipeline routing – construct the 24-inch transmission pipeline along Kings Valley Road and Wonder Stump Road. Nevertheless, because the Highway 101 alignment has many advantages, information, analysis, and costs will be presented for both routings should the possibility present itself in the future to parallel Highway 101.

BLM. Various alternatives were given cursory consideration but no alternatives to the Blackwell Lane Main were fully developed because the available options all suffered from serious shortcomings.

The alternatives that were not selected for comparison are: Malone Road, Boulder Avenue, and Pine Grove Road. The first two options substantially reduce the size of the loop formed between the two water transmission mains leaving a greater portion of each main that would not benefit from the redundancy of a loop. The Malone Road and Boulder Avenue alignments each extend the water system through existing development along those routes; however, the alignments are not the proximate system extension that Blackwell Lane is. Blackwell Lane is a main thoroughfare through a large developed area along the north side of the existing water system.

Pine Grove Road is located similarly along the systems northern edge, but the alignment would have to run cross-country over an old railroad grade for half its length. Due to the impacts on the environment (the area is heavily forested) and the difficulty for maintenance access, a Pine Grove Road alignment was precluded.

The Blackwell Lane alignment offers a much superior location to create redundancy in the transmission mains and extend the distribution system with minimal costs and maximum benefit to the system.

HSM. The Hospital Secondary Main could be constructed using one of three alternative alignments, the first two alignments extend south from the proposed Blackwell Lane Main down to the hospital area, the last from the west (refer to the following descriptions and Exhibit 2).

1. Follow Carole Lane (private roadway) and extend cross-country for approximately 575-feet to a connection point in Summer Park Court behind the hospital. Total length: 3,600-feet

2. Follow Holben Road (private roadway), cut through 150-feet of woods and continue south to Winter Lane and Summer Lane, connecting to an existing 12-inch main at the south end of Summer Lane at the northeast corner of the Winding Creek Circle Development. Total length: 3,300-feet


3. From Northcrest Drive to the west, cross Las Palmas Mobile Home Park and a subsequent vacant lot and connect at nearly the same point as the Carole Lane alternative. Total length: 1,900-feet.

5.1.3 Water Meters There are no alternatives regarding the need to replace the water meters, all meters need to be replaced as substantiated earlier. However, there are alternatives to evaluate on how the meters are read and data collected. In addition to the current manual reading system, there are four general alternatives for reading meters and collecting data, all of which are automated:

1. Manual meter reading with new meters. 2. Handheld reader or drive-by system. 3. Partial Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI). Fully automated, real time

reading w/ hand read or drive-by as needed for rural areas. 4. Full AMI. Fully automated, real time reading using additional antennas or

relays to read the outlying meters.

The alternatives are generally presented below. Coleman Engineering explored metering and reading systems from Badger, Mueller, Neptune, and Sensus. Each company had a system that could accomplish the options described below. Most of the reading systems could read any meter brand. There are also companies such as Itron that specialize in reading and transmitters only and work with all meter systems. The quality and versatility of the equipment varied quite a bit from brand to brand and warrants serious consideration and comparison during the design phase. The City should procure a system that best achieves their long-term goals and keeps operation and maintenance costs down.

1. Manually read new Meters: A human reader would manually read and enter the data monthly into the system as is currently done. This option includes new meters and meter boxes as the others do, but not the electronics and automated equipment that overlays the meters in the other options. Nearly all new meter types allow the automated equipment to be added later if desired.

2. Handheld reader or Drive-by: Handheld reader or drive-by would provide the City with electronic monthly reads that transfer directly to the billing system. There are three ways meters are read and data collected:


a. Handheld (or touch read). A handheld reading device or rod is carried by a walking meter reader. The device reads the radio frequency from the antenna in the meter lid. (Touch read systems are becoming outdated and require contact between the reading device and meter box lid.)

b. Laptop Computer (drive-by). Radio frequency signals are locally detected by a device that plugs into a laptop computer in a vehicle. An antenna system is often included to gather signals from a greater distance.

c. Mobile (drive-by). Handheld devices come as stand alone, rechargeable electronics or plugin antennas that work with an app on a smart phone.

All the above methods eliminate hand transcription and manually reading each meter. In addition to new meters, meter boxes would be replaced with new standardized boxes. Transmitters would be installed to read the values to the handheld reader or drive-by receiver. Smart metering features such as leak detection and time of use would not be available with this system. The new infrastructure would have an expected service life of approximately 40-years but the transmitters and receivers would likely need to be replaced in about 20-years when the batteries fail.

3. Partial Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) is an integrated system of smart meters, communications networks, and data management systems that enables a utility to better manage their system and operations and provide enhanced service to their customers. The second alternative is to make the downtown area fully automated, real time reading by using centralized antennas located at strategic locations. This option would use one or more centralized antennas to read all meters within a certain range. Water usage data is collected hourly, allowing for leak detection and quantifying time of use. Outlying areas that could not be read by the antenna(s) would be read with a drive-by or hand read system. This alternative has the potential to significantly reduce City meter reading labor since at least 4,000 meters could be read automatically, leaving only several hundred to be read manually. However, more expensive professional services are likely to be required to maintain the hardware and software systems required to operate the AMI systems.


4. Full AMI: The third alternative is to make the entire service area AMI ready by using additional antennas or relays to read the outlying meters. This would eliminate nearly all labor for the City related to manual meter reading. Having the fully automated system will enable the City to have a consistent and constant data collection and management plan for the entire distribution system. This will allow the City to have full system wide data set and provide time of use and leak detection to all consumers. With this alternative, there may still be a few meters that require cellular transmitters or drive-by reads. These few meters would still record hourly data but such data would only be collected monthly; the monthly read accounts would provide the data at time of reading only, not real time.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would allow water usage data collected by AMI to be made available via the web to customers for their own interests and usage evaluation. Customers personally could share in the advantages of real-time smart metering. The City could use the data to better isolate water loss areas (leaks) and reduce the amount of water unaccounted for.

5.1.4 Alternatives Summary The following table summarizes the potential project alternatives.


Table 7. Summary of Alternatives

Proposed Project Component Alternatives Considered

Storage:

Washington Reservoir:

1. Full renovation, repairs, and painting

2. Same renovation as Alt 1 but excluding interior lining

Amador Reservoir: No Alternatives – Full renovation, repairs, and painting recommended

Transmission:

King Valley Road Main:

1. Alignment along Hwy 101*

2. Alignment along Kings Valley Road and Wonder Stump Road

Blackwell Lane: No Alternatives – Install pipeline along this corridor

Hospital Loop:

1. Alignment along Carole Lane

2. Alignment along Holben Road

3. Alignment from Northcrest Drive

Meters:

1. Manually Read New Meters

2. Drive-By Meter Reading System

3. Partial AMI Radio System

4. Full AMI Radio System *Caltrans permit required and appears not attainable

5.2 Technical Feasibility Evaluation of Alternatives

5.2.1 Permits and Agreements No permits or agreements are anticipated to be required from other public agencies pertaining to the storage and meter projects. However, certain permits and easement agreements are likely to be necessary for the transmission projects depending on the alignments chosen. Anticipated permits/agreements include:

• County encroachment permit for King Valley Road and Wonder Stump Road. • Caltrans encroachment permit to cross Hwy 101 at Wonder Stump Road. • County encroachment permit for BLM and connection to HSM.


• Purchase of public utility easements from private land owners for the HSM on all alternative routes.

Easement negotiations for the transmission pipelines should begin as soon as possible so that design of the facilities will not be delayed. It is ideal to have all easement agreements and permits acquired and in place by the end of design. The HSM alternatives, namely Carole Lane and Holben Road, will require multiple easement agreements. Obtaining the necessary easements and permits appear feasible except the Caltrans permit associated with KVM Alternative 1 currently appears not favorable.

Environmental review under CEQA and NEPA will likely result in a Mitigated Negative Declaration for all project components. Some minor mitigation measures may be required to be incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project.

Table 8 summarizes anticipated permits and/or easements that may be required for each alternative.


Table 8. Summary of Anticipated Permits and Agreements for Each Alternative

Proposed Project Component Alternatives: Permits / Agreements Anticipated

Storage: None

Transmission:

King Valley Road Main (KVM):

1. CALTRANS Encroachment Permit. Easement(s) through private property from King Valley Road to Hwy 101. County encroachment permit for Wonder Stump Road.

2. County encroachment permit for King Valley Road and Wonder Stump Road. CALTRANS Encroachment Permit for boring across highway Right of Way.

Blackwell Lane Main (BLM):

County encroachment permit

Hospital Secondary Main (HSM):

1. Easement(s) through private property along a private roadway and through private property parcels.

2. Easement(s) through private property along a private roadway

3. Easement(s) through private property

Meters:

Meters should be located in public right-of-way or public utility easements which should result in no easements or permits required. However, some jurisdictions in similar situations still choose to contact all property owners and obtain the right to enter the properties. The City will need to determine their preferred protocol for accessing private properties.

5.2.2 Groundwater Supply The project does not include any elements with the potential to impact groundwater supply.

5.2.3 Surface Water Supply The project does not include any elements with the potential to impact surface water supply.

5.2.4 Compliance Issues / Design Criteria No specific compliance issues bear on the reservoir, water main, or meter portions of the overall proposed improvements.


The storage tanks will be refurbished and repaired per federal and state requirements and per industry standards. The KVM will be constructed of restrained joint ductile iron pipe for security since it is a critical lifeline of the City’s water supply. The remaining pipelines will be designed per City standards for water pipelines. The meter automation system will be as fully automated as possible per the City’s goal of reducing manual labor requirements and modernizing the system. Each improvement will meet the design criteria of the City and state and federal requirements. Design criteria do not impact the decision-making process of alternatives.

5.2.5 Map A map of the entire water system is included in Exhibit 1. Maps of the potential water main alignment alternatives are included in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 includes preliminary details of small and large meter installations that may be utilized by the City during design and construction. Final design of the meter details will include refinements to these details.

5.2.6 Environmental Impacts Coleman Engineering engaged the services of Enercon Environmental Services Group as an environmental consultant. Enercon has determined that this project and its alternatives appear to not pose environmental impacts of note. The largest factor contributing to this determination is that all proposed improvements are within the limits of previously disturbed land and right-of-way’s. During construction, directional drilling may be used to reduce impacts on large existing stands of trees. Water mains will be designed and constructed with the goal of minimizing impact on the natural resources and habitat along the alignment.

5.2.7 Land Requirements The tank maintenance project and metering upgrades will not require any new land or easement acquisition. The only land requirements expected to be needed to complete the improvements are the easements identified earlier for the HSM. The ability to acquire easements and any cost associated with easement acquisition will be key factors in the final routing. The land where the easements will be needed is currently used as a private road and for land owners’ common utilities, where a utility easement already exists.

5.2.8 Potential Construction Problems No unusual or significant construction problems have been identified relative to the reservoir work. The meter replacements should be routine except for a small


percentage anticipated to require specific custom installs due to unique site conditions.

Pipeline work may encounter high groundwater, rock, and utility conflicts. Work may also involve boring under highways and directional drilling under trees. A summer construction schedule for the pipelines will help to minimize the possibility that the contractor will encounter high groundwater. Design documents should be prepared sufficient for any groundwater condition that the future geotechnical report anticipates.

Large quantities of subsurface rock are not expected to be encountered and access to the sites is adequate. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be required since the pipeline alignments exceed one acre in size.

5.2.9 Sustainability Considerations – Water Efficiency / Energy Efficiency / Other All alternatives are similar with regard to sustainability considerations; therefore, sustainability is not a factor in selecting the best apparent alternative. With the installation of new pipe and meters, water loss will be reduced. Operational simplicity will result in meter reading due to the use of new technology. Modest energy savings may result from automated meter reading and reduction in water loss.

5.3 Alternative Cost Estimates Below are construction cost opinions for each Alternative. Cost opinions include contingencies that are consistent with the level of information and design detail prepared to date. It is assumed that the City will use the cost opinions for making final decisions on project elements that are to be included and for making application to USDA and other sources for design and construction funding. Detailed cost breakdowns are found in Appendix G.


5.3.1 Construction Costs Table 9. Summary of Construction Costs – Alternatives

Project Component Alternative Construction

Cost

Storage:

Washington Reservoir: 1. Full Renovation $682,000

2. Partial Renovation $352,000

Amador Reservoir: $694,000

Transmission:

Kings Valley Road Main: 1. Hwy 101* $2,099,000

2. Kings Valley Road $2,374,000

Blackwell Lane Main: $687,000

Hospital Secondary Main:

1. Carole Lane $424,000

2. Holben Road $377,000

3. Northcrest Drive $231,000

Meters:

1. Manually Read Meters $3,342,000

2. Drive-By System $4,283,000

3. Partial AMI Radio System $4,391,000

4. Full AMI Radio System $4,535,000

*Permitted parallel construction currently not favorable with Caltrans

5.3.2 Non-Construction Costs Typical non-construction costs include legal fees; environmental compliance mitigation; engineering services during pre-design, design, bidding, and construction (management and inspection); easement acquisition; and agency permitting. Easement acquisition expenses can be a variable project expense depending on negotiations with the property owner(s). For purposes of this report, non-construction costs were based as follows:

• Storage: Typical costs were based on a percentage of the total estimated construction cost (20%).


• Transmission: Typical costs were based on a percentage of the total estimated construction cost (20%) plus an allowance for easement acquisition.

• Meters: Typical costs were based on estimated hosting and licensing fees, hardware purchase (e.g. the hand-held device), and training. An allowance was also included for engineering services to research and make recommendations to the City and to prepare technical specifications, bidding, and contract documents.

Table 10 below shows a summary of the anticipated non-construction costs for each of the project Alternatives.

Table 10. Summary of Non-Construction Costs – Alternatives

Project Component Alternative Total Non-Construction

Storage:

Washington Reservoir: 1. Full Renovation $137,000

2. Partial Renovation $71,000

Amador Reservoir: $139,000

Transmission:

Kings Valley Road Main: 1. Hwy 101* $440,000

2. Kings Valley Road $495,000



1. Carole Lane $105,000

2. Holben Road $96,000

3. Northcrest Drive $67,000

Meters:

1. Manually Read Meters $50,000

2. Drive-By System $126,000

3. Partial AMI Radio System $218,000

4. Full AMI Radio System $218,000

*Permitted parallel construction currently not favorable with Caltrans

5.3.3 Annual Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Storage. Pre-project O&M will be the same as post-project O&M. The completion


of Alternative 1 tank improvements now will reduce future O&M.

Transmission. O&M comparisons for transmission alternatives was not made due to all the alternatives being similar and pipelines having relatively low O&M costs. New transmission mains and interconnectivity will simplify future City-wide O&M but costs should not change measurably.

Meters. The proposed meters are the same for each alternative, so no comparison is necessary. However, the data collection methods have some O&M comparison points.

Manual meter reading has continuous operational costs associated with reading the meters. The cost for manual meter reading is estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 per annum to pay for salary, benefits, and the City vehicle used to read the meters. Meter maintenance costs would be identical across all option in this comparison since the same meters are assumed to be installed.

Maintenance of the electronic devices, antennas, and other components are projected to be similar over 20-years. The operation cost differences, however, can be different when considering the labor associated with drive-by read and the costs of AMI data storage and user interface. O&M for the drive-by system is expected to be approximately 2 days per month for a person and a truck, about $10,000 per year.

The AMI systems recommended by Sensus come with annual subscription, software updates, data management, technical support, and FCC licensure fees of $23,000 annually. It is possible that other meter system manufacturers may have other pricing structures. This one is included as an example to help to set expectations for future costs that may be required.

5.4 Other Alternative Discussions There are no alternatives considered to be technically unfeasible.

6 Selection of an Alternative

6.1 Project Cost Evaluation of Alternatives Except for manually read meters, construction cost comparisons are used due to all alternatives having similar or negligible O&M costs and similar useful lives.

A manual read meter system was rejected from consideration for being much more labor intensive than the options considered. In the opinion of the engineer and the


City, a manual read meter system is not an appropriate technology for a system this size. Life Cycle Cost Analyses of a manual read meter system are therefore not included in this report

6.1.1 Project Costs Table 11. Summary of Total Project Costs – Alternatives

Project Component Alternative Total Project Cost1 Storage:

Washington Reservoir: 1. Full Renovation $819,000 2. Partial Renovation $423,000

Amador Reservoir: $833,000 Transmission:

Kings Valley Road Main:

1. Hwy 1012 $2,539,000 2. Kings Valley Road $2,869,000



1. Carole Lane $529,000 2. Holben Road $473,000 3. Northcrest Drive $298,000

Meters:

1. Manually Read System3

$3,392,000

2. Drive-By System $4,409,000 3. Partial AMI Radio

System $4,609,000

4. Full AMI Radio System $4,753,000 1Includes construction and non-construction costs 2Permitted parallel construction currently not favorable with Caltrans 3Annual operations costs are estimated at $100,000 per year versus less than $50,000 for all other options

6.2 Non-Monetary Factors Analysis There are no significant non-monetary factors to consider for the storage improvements and the Blackwell Lane Main.

The following tables list advantages and disadvantages associated with the Kings Valley Road Main, Hospital Secondary Main, and meter alternatives.


Table 12. Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternatives for KVM for each route Advantages Disadvantages KVM on Hwy 101 from the Penitentiary

main crossing to

the Elevated Tank

• Physical distance between existing transmission line, providing better security of water supply in the chance of a catastrophic event.

• Pipeline route along previously disturbed land.

• Fewer crossings of driveways and culverts.

• Existing right-of-way with large shoulders, no pavement repair.

• Construction will require closure of only one lane.

• No high tension electrical lines or any other utility in the corridor.

• Caltrans is currently not favorable of this alignment because there is another viable alternative. Caltrans will not permit a parallel easement without justification due to limited access highway designation along the corridor.

• Traffic impact will likely be greater

• Alignment traverses wooded area along the prison supply line. This would require a construction easement and cutting some trees.

• Additional pipe required (approx. 300-feet).

KVM on Kings Valley

Road and Wonder

Stump Road to the

Elevated Tank

• Pipeline route along previously disturbed land.

• A Caltrans permit will be required only to cross Hwy 101 (perpendicular).

• Traffic impact will likely be less. • 300-feet shorter alignment to the

intersection of Wonder Stump Road and Hwy 101.

• Many driveways and culverts along the alignment.

• Pipeline installed in pavement, significant additional project cost.

• Likely traffic disruption to both lanes simultaneously

• High tension electrical lines exist in the corridor.

• Powerlines on both sides of the road on King Valley Road

• Digging near existing transmission line in Wonder Stump could break old pipe and threaten City’s water supply.

• County Encroachment permit may be difficult and expensive due to the large amount of pavement being cut.


Table 13. Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternatives for HSM on each route Advantages Disadvantages

HSM along Carole Lane

• Connects to City’s preferred connection point.

• Provides alternative loop to deliver water to Hospital when Railroad Ave or Northcrest Drive transmission mains are down.

• Easements required along the entirety of Carole Lane.

• Easement required across private land north of the connection point at Summer Park Court.

• Longest pipeline of the three alternatives (300-feet longer than Holben Road).

• Higher traffic impact during construction.

HSM along Holben Road, Winter Lane, and Summer

Lane

• Existing right-of-way established from northeast corner of Winding Creek development to Embarcadero Drive and on Summer Lane.

• 300-feet shorter alignment than Carole lane.

• Lower traffic impact on dead end streets.

• Provides alternative loop the Hospital to either Railroad Avenue or Northcrest Drive transmission mains.

• Likely directional drilling required through 150-feet of woods.

• Easements required along Holben Road.

• Easements required on parts of Summer Lane north of Embarcadero Drive.

• Connects to an existing 12-inch main that is not the preferred connection point.

HSM from Northcrest Drive

• Shortest pipeline of the three alternatives (2,000-feet approximate length).

• 1,300-feet shorter than Holben Road alignment.

• Fewest number of property owners to gain easements from.

• Connects at City’s preferred connection point.

• Easement required across the mobile home park.

• Easement required across private land west of the connection at Summer Park Court.

• Higher traffic impact during construction.

• Does not provide a true alternative loop to Hospital from Railroad Ave or Northcrest Drive transmission mains.


Table 14. Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternatives for Digital Meter Reading Advantages Disadvantages

Manually Read Meters

• Maintains current City operations.

• Lowest cost to construct and maintain.

• Manual labor intensive, highest field operating cost by 2X.

• No real-time date available to City or customers.

• No enhanced leak detection or water loss analysis capability.

Drive-by or Walk-by

• Reduced manual labor compared to the current system.

• Accurate billings and records. • .

• Manual labor intensive. • No real-time data available to

City or customers. • No enhanced leak detection or

water loss analysis capability. Partial AMI w/

Drive-by/Walk-by for

Remainder

• Labor cost savings • Assist with isolating areas of

water loss on most of distribution system.

• Accurate billings • Full time of use data and leak

detection on most customers.

• Some manual labor involved • Ongoing cost to maintain cloud

based data and user interface. • Possible licensure fees for some

radio frequencies depending on equipment.

• No time of use data or leak detection available on drive-by customer’s accounts.

• Slight increase in costs for radio antenna(s).

Full AMI for all Meters possible

• Labor cost savings • Assist with isolating areas of

water loss across entire distribution system.

• Accurate billings • No manual labor associated with

meter reading • Full time of use data and leak

detection on all customers.

• Ongoing cost to maintain cloud based data and user interface.

• Possible licensure fees for some radio frequencies depending on equipment.

• Slight increase in costs for additional antennas and cellular transmitters.

7 Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative)

7.1 Description The recommended project includes the following components:

• complete rehabilitation and repair to both tanks • pipeline installation along Kings Valley Road and Wonder Stump Road


• pipeline installation along Blackwell Lane • pipeline installation along Carole Lane • meter installation using full AMI

Tables 15, 16, and 17 provide additional details about each component of the recommended project.

Table 15. Washington Reservoir – Recommended Project

Deficient Item Recommendation Commentary

1. Lightning protection Electrically ground the tank for lightning protection as recommended.

2. Shell access ladder (Exterior)

Install an approved, skid-resistant, shell access ladder as recommended.

3. Overflow pipe Anchor tank. This repair will also mitigate concerns about differential movement between the piping and the tank.

Anchoring the tank serves other purposes, which also eliminates the cost of relocating the overflow pipe.

4. Roof handrails The railing should be extended around all four sides of the hatch as recommended.

Installation of handrail around the entire perimeter of the tank is not needed or required.

5. Handrail safety chain Add safety chain in handrail opening

6. Interior shell ladder not adequate

Install an approved, anti-skid rung ladder as recommended.

Per AWWA D100-11 7.4.2.4 an inside ladder is not required. Either remove the ladder completely or upgrade as recommended.

7. Tank base not secured Anchor tank as recommended.

Caulking around the base of the tank is not recommended. If the tank were to leak water could be trapped between the tank floor and the foundation. Also, the existence of a leak would be hidden from operators.



8. Level indicator No improvement required. The level indicator was fixed by CSI during their inspection so there is no action remaining on this task.

9. Roof vent Replace the existing center roof vent as recommended.

10. Existing roof manway Install new lock on existing roof manway.

11. Seam seal and weld • Seam seal all un-welded interior roof lap seams

• Seam seal the roof-to-knuckle connection

• Re-weld the rafter-to-support column and rafter-to-knuckle support connections to reinforce

Perform all recommended structural strengthening.

12. Cathodic protection Remove the Cathodic Protection System and weld steel plates over the holes. Install a passive cathodic protection system.

13. Excessive sediment buildup

Clean tank out to avoid problems associated with excessive sediment buildup.

14. Exterior painting Remove old paint and recoat the entire exterior as recommended. Trim the tree as necessary.

Painting will be further warranted by the time the project is financed and underway.

15. Interior liner Replace interior liner as recommended.

The roof needs to be repainted. Cost savings will result from doing all work at the same time in one bid package.

16. Repair seismic reinforcement ties

Repair or replace numerous seismic reinforcement ties throughout the reservoir that were found to be bent.



17. Seal joint between shell and knuckle plate

Weld steel plate at this joint.

Table 16. Amador Reservoir – Recommended Project


1. Lightning protection

Electrically ground the tank for lightning protection as recommended.

2. Shell manways

Install a second 30-inch diameter shell manway 180o from primary manway as recommended.

3. Shell access ladder (Exterior)

Install an approved, skid-resistant, shell access ladder as recommended.

4. Overflow pipe

Anchor Tank. Retrofit a concrete ring foundation under and around the perimeter of the tank as recommended.

Anchoring the tank serves other purposes, which also eliminates the cost of relocating the overflow pipe.

5. Roof handrails

The railing should be extended around all four sides of the hatch as recommended.

Installation of handrail around the entire perimeter of the tank is not needed or required.

6. Clean and regrade tank site

Clear dirt, debris and other loose gravel away from the tank base, down to the bottom of the floor chime and install a steel retaining ring.

7. Roof vent

Replace the existing roof vent as recommended



9. Correct ponding areas on tank roof

Hand tool clean all ponding areas, then apply a commercial epoxy adhesive filler, as needed, to prevent ponding of water



10. Repair hole in the tank roof

Weld a steel plate over the hole



• Seam seal the roof-to-rim angle connection

Reweld the rafter-to-support column and rafter-to-shell connections

12. Reinforce support column

Install an 18-inch plate on the support column as recommended

13. Remove excessive sediment

No sediment removal recommended

Sediment was removed by CSI during their inspection. There is no action remaining on this item.

14. Cathodic protection

Install a passive cathodic protection system

15. Repair floor buckling condition

No floor repair recommended. No buckling or floor distortions were observed during the CSI inspection after they removed the sediment from the floor.

16. Exterior painting

Remove old paint and recoat the entire exterior as recommended.

17. Interior liner

Remove and replace interior liner as recommended.

Table 17. Transmission and Meters – Recommended Project Proposed Alternative Description

Transmission:

Kings Valley Road Main:

Alternative 2: Construct new 24-inch main along Kings Valley Road and Wonder Stump Road. By default, this is the only alternative that is feasible since Caltrans will not allow the parallel easement in its right-of-way.

Blackwell Lane Main: Construct new 12-inch mainline along Blackwell Lane.


Proposed Alternative Description

Hospital Secondary Main: Alternative 1: Construct new 12-inch mainline along Carole Lane.

Meters: Alternative 4: Install 4,624 new water meters and boxes with technology equivalent to the Full AMI Radio System Alternative.

7.2 Project Schedule

Table 18. Projected Milestones

Milestone Estimated Completion Dates

USDA RD Approval of PER July 2017

Project Funding Obtained October 2017

Begin Design November 2017

Permits Obtained February 2018

Easement Acquisition and Agreements March 2018

Environmental Clearances Obtained March 2018

Final Design Complete April 2018

USDA RD Approval of Final Design June 2018

Advertisement to Bid / Contract Award July 2018

Final Construction Complete June 2019

7.3 Permit Requirements The anticipated permits and agreements for the project were summarized in Table 8 (Section 5.2.1).

7.4 Sustainability Considerations: Water and Energy Efficiency The replacement of the meters will provide operational simplicity by appropriately using technology to help track and identify areas of water loss.

7.5 Total Project Cost Estimate (Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost) Table 19 below summarizes the probable project costs including construction and non-construction costs. An itemized estimate of the construction costs can be found in Appendix G.


Table 19. Total Project Cost Estimate Item Subtotal Total

Property Purchase / Lease Agreement $50,000 Easement Acquisition / Right of Way $75,000 Bond Counsel (1% of total project cost) $127,000 Legal Counsel $30,000 Interest / Refinancing Expense $30,000 Administration $75,000

Sub-Total Administrative Costs: $387,000 Environmental Services

CEQA Environmental Report $60,000

NEPA Environmental Report Environmental Mitigation Contract Services $25,000

Sub-Total Environmental Costs: $85,000 Engineering Services

Basic Services - Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) $61,000 - Preliminary and Final Design Phase Services $668,000 - Bidding / Contract Award Phase Services $141,000 - Construction and Post-Construction Phase Services $470,000 - Resident Project Representative Services $332,000

Additional Services - Permitting $15,000 - Regulatory Compliance Reports $25,000 - Environmental Mitigation Services (Construction Phase) $25,000 - Easement Acquisition / ROWs Services (Construction

Phase) $25,000

- Surveying Services (Construction Phase) $25,000 - Operation and Maintenance Manuals(s) $10,000 - Geotechnical Services $5,000 - Materials Testing Services (Construction Phase) $20,000 - Other Services (describe) $0

Total – Engineering Services: $1,822,000 Equipment / Materials (Direct purchase) $68,000 Construction Cost Estimate (breakdown found in Appendix G)

- Washington Tank $682,000 - Amador Tank $694,000 - KVM, 7,600’ @ 24” $2,374,000 - BLM, 4,900’ @ 12” $687,000 - HSM, Carole Lane 3,600’ @ 12” $424,000 - Meters and Telemetry $4,535,000

Total – Construction Cost: $9,396,000


Item Subtotal Total Contingency (10% of construction cost estimate) $940,000

Sub-Total = $12,700,000 Escalation (2% per year for 3 years) = $1,180,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $13,900,000

7.6 Debt Payment Based on the Estimated Project Cost above, and using 4,238 active connections (per City Clerk), average monthly debt payments per connection are estimated in Table 20 below. The estimated user debt payment was based on: 20- and 30-year terms; a $10 million loan (assumes the City qualifies for a $1.610 million grant); and an interest rate of 2%. The monthly debt payment per connection shown below is not necessarily a suggested user rate increase, but rather an indication of how much of the user rate would go towards debt payoff.

Table 20. Potential Debt Payments 20 Year Loan 30 Year Loan Annual Payment per User $611,567 $466,499 Average Monthly Debt Payment per User $12.03 $8.78

The City recently raised water rates to cover ongoing operational costs. The median household income in Crescent City is $27,622, well below the state and national averages making it difficult to consider raising customer’s bills further. Many of the customers are retirees or on fixed income and rate increases in California are required to pass a ballot initiative. The payments above are general figures included here as an indication of the order of magnitude that should be expected to fund project implementation. Many factors will affect the actual repayment cost per customer. All the following factors would likely decrease the cost per household:

• Additional amount of grant funding that can be obtained (which would require no repayment and no corresponding rate increase)

• Better loan terms – lower interest rate and/or longer period • Comparative rates between residential, commercial, and institutional users


7.7 Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget The annual operations and maintenance budget for the City will be unchanged for the storage and transmission improvements included in this project.

It is anticipated that the future annual operations and maintenance budget for automated meter reading will be similar to, or less than, the current manual reading budget. This statement includes consideration of the factors itemized in Table 21 below which are likely to contribute to changed operational expenses.

Table 21. Likely Annual Operations Cost Changes for AMI

Factor Estimated Additional Costs

Estimated Reduced Costs

The City employs one full time meter reader. As assumed 1/3 time ongoing meter maintenance is likely to be required. Therefore, the expense of a full-time meter reader should be significantly reduced.

$27,000 - $33,000

$80,000 - $100,000

Cost of new AMI system maintenance subscription

$23,000

Assumed cost of computer hardware replacements

$5,000

Additional office labor required to maintain the AMI system and to provide new customer support

$10,000

Assumed Total Operations Cost Changes = $65,000 - $71,000

$80,000 - $100,000

Though it appears that the future operations expenses connected to the AMI system should be reduced, it is recommended that no rate adjustments be made to anticipate this possibility. Instead, it is recommended that the operational budget be maintained at pre-project levels until operational experience is obtained with the new system. Following the accumulation of experience with the new system, the City may choose to adjust rates as necessary to cover costs of the new system equitably.

7.7.1 Income Income to the City is derived from water service charges and from connection fees. The 2013 Willdan Financial Services Water Rate Study was prepared for the purpose of recommending new rates consistent with the present and future financial needs of the City. The rate schedule developed presented a five-year


escalating rate plan, this being the fourth year of the plan. The financial goal of the City is to have “…a net revenue greater than or equal to 1.25 for any projected new debt service…” (2013 Water Study). Effective July 1, 2016, the rate schedule shown in Table 3 above applies (there will be one more rate increase effective July 1, 2017):

The City’s typical annual water system income is approximately $2.6M+/-.

7.7.2 Annual Water System Income and Expenses According to financial information provided by the City, Table 22 summarizes their past financial history and includes the current years’ budget.

Table 22. Financial Summary Year Revenues Expenses

FY 12-13 $1,423,229 $1,634,647

FY 13-14 $1,611,357 $1,716,925

FY 14-15 $2,204,537 $1,757,821

FY 15-16 $2,586,450 $1,676,753

FY 16-17 $2,937,871 $2,745,977

7.7.3 Debt Repayments The City’s water system has one long-term debt with the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund. The remaining balance of an original $7,000,000 loan is approximately $2,625,000 with an annual debt service of $350,000 at zero percent interest. The City has 7-1/2 years remaining on the existing debt repayment.

7.7.4 Reserves This section will describe the existing and proposed loan obligation reserve requirements for the anticipated debt service.

7.7.4.1 Debt Service Reserve “The City’s obligation under State Water Loan covenants require it maintain a debt service reserve equal to one year’s annual debt service, or $350,000, while also maintaining sufficient levels of working capital reserves” (2013 Water Study). Currently the City maintains $350,000 as a reserve payment for the existing debt. Additional reserve would be required for another capital project loan.


7.7.4.2 Short-Lived Asset Reserve It will be required that the City accumulate and maintain a reserve balance for replacement of short lived assets that will require replacement within 15 years. Assets that are anticipated to have useful lives in excess of 15 years are not considered short lived but are planned to be replaced using capital replacement funds. Likewise, maintenance work such as labor required to maintain the system as well as painting and coatings, inspection work, etc. are examples of costs not attributable to assets. Table 23 below is a summary of short lived assets anticipated to require replacement within the next 15-years. Meters are expected to have a useful life of 30-40 years; therefore, they are not included in the short-lived asset reserve. The suggested annual reserve is equal to the anticipated replacement cost divided by the useful life.

Table 23. Short-Lived Asset Reserve

Equipment Year Useful Life (years)

Replacement Cost Annual Reserve

Smart Radios 15 $720,000 $48,000

Communication Links 10 $10,000 $1,000

AMI System Computer Hardware

5 $30,000 $6,000

Replacement Reserve $55,000

8 Conclusions and Recommendations The recommended project is relatively straightforward and will result in significant improvements to the water system. The City of Crescent City is anxious to make the recommended upgrades so that they can bolster their system reliability, security, and longevity. Because of the City’s foresight and implementing the step rate increases over the past few years, the City is in a sufficient financial position to maintain their current system, but not to embark on the $11.61 million needed capital projects. The City is seeking assistance from USDA Rural Development and other funding sources for project funding.

It is recommended that the City pursue funding and implementation of the Project outlined above.

preliminary engineering report - crescent city water projec… · • church tree district •...

Documents