PROJ00124 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I . Project Update During 1981 and the first part of 1982 the lvellington Water System Improve- rrents Project was disc.."Ussed at great lengths with both the Town Board and the residents of Wellington. At this point the connection to the ELCO Water System for treated water was the reccxmended alternative, hc:wever, SCJITe of the major concerns were high water costs, limited control of future costs from ELCO and a general dislike of relying upon another entity for water service to the Town. Therefore, the Town Board directed Taranto, Stanton & Tagge to research the alternative of locating a water treabrent facility at North poudre Irrigation Conpany, Reservoir No.3. This alternative had been researched in the past, hc:wever, the new research would evaluate a smaller water treatment plant of .9 million gallons per day instead of 1.5 million gallons per day. I The potential project was researched at great lengths and an innovative alternative utilizing a lease arrangement for the water treatment facility was proposed to the Tewn. This arrendrrent presents the background informa- tion and the 'economic evaluation of that alternative together with the previous ELCO alternative as a comparison. I I I I I I I I I I I I Evaluation of Alternatives I. ELCO Source In order to ITUnll11lZe costs the ELCO alternative "B" was re-evaluated previously and it was concluded that this alternate was the IlOst cost effective choice. The costs for that alternative has been reassessed to reflect FHA reccxmendations that a steel tank and asbestos cement pipe be used in lieu of a concrete tank and ductile iron pipe. Also, the size of the transmission line from the ELCO pump station to ,vellington was reevaluated. It was determined that, based on the lower projected demands and the costs of pumping vs. the capital cost of the transmission line that a IO-inch line will be adequate to serve the tewn. Finally, the cost of water shares was re-assessed to reflect the current market price. The proposed invrovements for this alternative are shewn on Exhibit A included with the arrend.rrent. A summary of the engineer's opinion of probable cost is shewn in Table 1. An analysis of the resulting average IlOnthly rate for the ELCO alternate is shewn in Table 2. II. North Poudre Source A. Background The possibility of constructing a water treabrent facility was evaluated as a part of the first arrendrrent to the Final Report. Ho.vever, it did not appear cost effective at that tirre without the sale of the Town I S existing North poudre shares. That sale was not acceptable to the Town which therefore made the ELCO source the reccxmended alternative. 1