Regional Water Feasibility Study Comparison of Toledo ... and BG Comparison Study.pdfRegional Water...

Regional Water Feasibility Study

Comparison of Toledo &

Bowling Green Water Supply

August 2019

Regional Water Partners | Water Feasibility Study 238-7596.001

Page 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 3

Chapter 1 - Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4

The Regional Partners and Their Toledo Water Contracts ....................................................................... 4

The Bowling Green Option ........................................................................................................................ 4

The Toledo Water Rate Proposal .............................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2 – Bowling Green Water Option ........................................................................................... 5

Operational Concept ................................................................................................................................. 5

Treatment & Pumping Considerations ..................................................................................................... 6

Transmission Pipe Alignment .................................................................................................................... 6

Opinion of Project Costs ........................................................................................................................... 8

Construction Contingency ....................................................................................................................... 10

Operation and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................................................... 10

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 3 – Toledo Water Option ..................................................................................................... 11

Bulk Water Rate ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Chapter 4 – Financial Analysis .......................................................................................................... 12

Water Service Option Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 12

Financial Evaluation Approach ................................................................................................................ 12

Cost Per Unit of Water Comparison ........................................................................................................ 13

Cumulative Cost Comparison .................................................................................................................. 18

Chapter 5 – Discussion of Options .................................................................................................... 20

Bowling Green Water Option .................................................................................................................. 20

Toledo Water Option .............................................................................................................................. 21

Chapter 6 - Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 22

Water Supply vs. Infrastructure Costs .................................................................................................... 22

Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 22

Closing ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

Dedication ............................................................................................................................................... 23


Page 2

References ....................................................................................................................................... 24

List of Tables

Table 1 – Transmission Pipe Length Summary ............................................................................................. 7 Table 2 – City of Perrysburg Water Rate Comparison ................................................................................ 16 Table 3 – City of Maumee Water Rate Comparison ................................................................................... 16 Table 4 - Northwestern Water & Sewer District Rate Comparison ........................................................... 17

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Unit Rate per Ccf Comparison....................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 - Unit Rate per Ccf Comparison (High Range Escalation) .............................................................. 14 Figure 3 - Unit Rate per Ccf Comparison (Low Range Escalation) .............................................................. 14 Figure 4 - Unit Rate per Ccf Comparison (Unbalanced Escalation Range) .................................................. 15 Figure 5 – Total Cumulative Costs Comparison (High Range Escalation) ................................................... 18 Figure 6 – Total Cumulative Costs Comparison (Low Range Escalation) .................................................... 19

Appendix

Appendix A – Water Transmission Route Alternatives (Modeling and Route Summary)

Appendix B – Water Transmission Opinions of Probable Project Costs

Appendix C – Water Transmission Route Cost Share Allocations


Page 3

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the work of Jones & Henry Engineers and Raftelis to evaluate the feasibility of a water supply from the City of Bowling Green for the Northwestern Water and Sewer District, Cities of Maumee and Perrysburg for comparison with the water rates proposed by the City of Toledo. The Bowling Green Option requires the construction of roughly 22-miles of water transmission piping, ranging from 24-inch diameter to 36-inch diameter estimated at $65 million. The construction of needed treatment and pumping improvements to upgrade the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant are assumed to be funded by the City of Bowling Green based upon discussions with Bowling Green. The Bowling Green rate has a wider range of potential rates due to the assumptions presented in this analysis.

The key consideration to these options is the annual cost to obtain water. While the costs to build new infrastructure are significant, the debt used to fund the improvements is retired over time. Appropriate asset management practices can extend the useful life of the transmission system beyond the term of this debt. Annual debt service funding the water transmission infrastructure needed for the Bowling Green Option ($65 million) is approximately $4.5 million (30-year term). The cost to purchase water from the City of Toledo or Bowling Green is between $15 to $20 million annually for the first few years of the forecast. This annual purchased water cost continues into perpetuity.

The significance of purchased water cost shows the criticality in obtaining a water rate that is known, can be predicted for a long duration with some certainty, or has some limits on how quickly that rate may change. For example, using our assumptions the Bowling Green water unit cost may range between $4.37 to $5.56 / Ccf* while the City of Toledo has offered a set rate of $4.60 / Ccf*.

Figure 1 - Unit Rate per Ccf Comparison

The results of our analysis show the Toledo Water Option to be least cost while carrying fewer unknown variables compared with the Bowling Green Option. Toledo has provided a projection of rates through 2040 which provides more certainty in the cost of purchased water. *Range over the proposed rates including water purchase and required infrastructure financing in the year 2030.

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

2020 2030 2040 2050

Pre

oje

ct C

ost

pe

r C

cf

Total Estimated Unit Rate per Ccf

Bowling Green 5.5% Rate Escalation Bowling Green 3.5% Rate Escalation

Toledo 5.5% Rate Escalation Toledo 3.5% Rate Escalation


Page 4

Chapter 1 - Introduction

This document has been prepared to summarize a feasibility study performed by Jones & Henry Engineers and Raftelis regarding a Bowling Green water supply options for the Communities of Perrysburg, Maumee and the Northwestern Water & Sewer District (District). This study was performed in January through August of 2019. The goals and objectives for this study were developed through a series of meetings with representatives from each of the communities. At the outset of this study, we met individually with each community to gain an understanding of the current water distribution system operations as well as individual study objectives particular to each community. The meetings subsequent in the study development were held collectively with the representatives from each community in attendance to review findings and objectives for the study.

The Regional Partners and Their Toledo Water Contracts

These communities, referred in aggregate herein as the Regional Partners, retained Jones & Henry and Raftelis to review the feasibility of an alternate water supply from the City of Bowling Green for areas currently receiving water from the City of Toledo’s water system. The water supply contracts of each of the Regional Partner communities with the City of Toledo are currently set to expire soon. The District’s contract expires in 2024, while the City of Maumee’s contract expires in 2026 and the City of Perrysburg’s contract expires the next year in 2027.

The Bowling Green Option

This study was aimed at evaluating the feasibility of obtaining treated water from the City of Bowling Green and conveying that water to each Regional Partner through new transmission infrastructure. During meetings with the City of Bowling Green it was stated the City of Bowling Green was willing to supply the required water capacity to the Regional Partners and would fund the necessary water treatment and pumping improvements internally.

Following the idea that Bowling Green would provide the pumping and water treatment needs to supply water to the Regional Partners, this feasibility study evaluated a water transmission concept as would be necessary to deliver water from the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant to each Regional Partner. A detailed route study was performed to quantify the obstacles along each route and to identify the likely construction method for each segment. Both construction and total project opinions of cost were developed for the needed infrastructure. The magnitude of the costs for the water distribution infrastructure is on the order of $65 million.

The Toledo Water Rate Proposal

During the preparation of this report, the City of Toledo was modeling new water rates for customers outside of the City, including the Regional Partners. This new water rate model was being developed with the intention of providing the outside customers a clear idea of the bulk water rate for the near term. For the purposes of this study we have used the proposed Toledo water rates as provided to us by the Regional Partners. This study is completing at roughly the same time as the final version of a new water contract with the City of Toledo is being drafted.


Page 5

Chapter 2 – Bowling Green Water Option

This chapter summarizes the feasibility of a drinking water connection from the City of Bowling Green’s Water System for the Regional Partners. This work is concentrated on transmission pipeline infrastructure required to convey treated water to each Regional Partner.

Herein, we will discuss a transmission main concept developed by this study including; the operational assumptions, the preliminary pipeline route and sizing along with an opinion of probable project cost for the proposed route. Costs are presented as total project costs including both the construction along with a collection of non-construction costs such as; design and construction engineering, easement acquisition and construction related permits. Pipeline alignment and modeling results are graphically presented in Appendix A. Estimated costs for the proposed water transmission pipelines are provided in Appendix B.

Bowling Green’s water pumping and treatment infrastructure improvement costs are not included in the analysis discussed in this document. It was assumed from discussions with Bowling Green that the treatment and pumping infrastructure would be constructed by Bowling Green. The focus upon the transmission pipeline was requested by the Regional Partners to form an understanding of the magnitude of costs related to pipeline construction. At this time, we have assumed the alignment presented will be constructed as one complete project.

Operational Concept

Through the course of several meetings between the engineering team and the Regional Partners, the basic operational concept was selected. This operating concept was used to evaluate and model the transmission infrastructure and select pipeline diameters. The concepts and assumptions selected for the proposed operation of the transmission piping are summarized herein.

Local Distribution System Operation

In general, the transmission improvements are contemplated to deliver water from the City of Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant to each water system’s clearwell. This functionality was selected by the Regional Partners to permit each community to use their existing water distribution system as it operates today, thus simplifying a future water supply transition and minimizing likely operational changes for each community. All five clearwells (Perrysburg has 2, Maumee 1 and the District 2) will be maintained in service under the operational concept selected.

Modeling

To evaluate the proposed water transmission concept, we developed a hydraulic model of the proposed water transmission system for the purpose of selecting pipe sizes required to deliver water to each of the Regional Partners at demand rates selected by the Regional Partners. The results of our modeling work are summarized in Appendix A.

The Regional Partners asked that our analysis use water demand figures from the Water Source Evaluation Study Phase II completed in December of 2017. Given the scope of these improvements, we felt initially it was pragmatic to size the transmission system to meet future demands of 20 to 30-years into the future. As such, we have opted to use the “Projected Maximum Demand” values listed in the December 2017


Page 6

Study (noted as 20 to 30-year demands), to populate our water transmission infrastructure model. We have analyzed the water transmission facilities for both average and peak demands (Projected Maximum). To develop a Future Average Demand, a factor of 1.5 was used to scale the Projected Maximum Demands down to an average demand value. The demands used for each community are shown on the map provided in Appendix A. Results presented in Appendix A depict a range of flows and pressures in selected pipes as predicted by the modeling.

Conservatively, we have assumed that all the clearwells are being filled concurrently in our modeling. In practice, it is unlikely that all five clearwells would need to fill at the same time, however it is difficult to predict that this situation would never occur. The engineering team felt that assuming concurrent filling represented a conservative assumption that would maximize the flexibility of the water transmission piping. In order to control the flow of water to each clearwell and maintain sufficient system pressure to fill the other clearwells, we have included a pressure sustaining valve at each clearwell connection. The pressure sustaining valve is envisioned to permit all five clearwells to fill concurrently and prevent the closest clearwell from taking all of the flow.

Treatment & Pumping Considerations

The existing Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant capacity is 11-mgd. The addition of the Regional Partner’s to the Bowling Green Water System will require a long-term treatment and pumping upgrade on the order of 12-mgd (average day) to 24-mgd (peak flow) to place plant capacity at an ultimate future rating of above 30-mgd.

Treatment and pumping costs required for the Bowling Green Water Option are on the order of $100 million as described in the 2017 Phase II Study. The costs associated with upgrading the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant were beyond the scope of this study. The infrastructure costs to upgrade the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant were estimated by the previous work at around $100 million.

In our evaluation, it was assumed that the upgraded pumping and treatment costs at the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant would be funded through bulk water rates and constructed by the City of Bowling Green. As such the impacts of the new treatment and pump infrastructure are assumed to be included in the bulk water rate for water purchased from Bowling Green.

Transmission Pipe Alignment

The engineering team performed a route study to analyze potential pipeline alignments directly in the field. We have selected the current route option for analysis based on discussions with each of the Regional Partners, from our field work and using the plan to run transmission piping to each of the clearwells. The alignment selected is intended to minimize construction related obstacles while achieving relatively direct routes to each clearwell.

Table 1.0 on the next page shows a summary of footages to connect to each community’s clearwell(s).


Page 7

Table 1 – Transmission Pipe Length Summary

Location Length of Pipe (Feet)*

Length of Pipe (Miles)*

Perrysburg South Boundary Clearwell 53,550 10.14

Perrysburg East Boundary Clearwell 66,750 12.64

Maumee Clearwell 77,200 14.62

NWWSD Wales Road Clearwell 93,200 17.65

NWWSD East Broadway Clearwell 107,600 20.38

* Starting at BG WTP

The engineering team’s route study involved observations made in the field and selection of the likely pipe location based upon observable above grade construction related obstacles. The proposed pipe location was then recorded in the field directly with GPS. These GPS coordinates were then used to develop GIS features for cost estimating and modeling.

Pipeline Construction Method Selection

GPS positions for the proposed alignment were collected and the type of construction was classified as one of the following in the field:

• Type B - premium backfill and pavement repair.

• Type C - outside of pavement.

• Jack and Bored Casings - as needed to cross streams or roadways.

• Horizontal Directional Drilling to cross the Maumee River.

• The need for easements was also identified and recorded.

The type of construction method was used to develop costs for each of the pipe segments.

Construction Obstacles

During the field investigation work, the engineering team made observations of existing conditions along the route of the proposed water transmission mains. Environmental concerns or obstacles included; stream or ditch restoration, high volume traffic maintenance, steep slopes, heavily wooded areas, existing structures, railroads, other utilities and large quantities of pavement repair. These obstacles were avoided as much as possible through trenchless construction methods or pathed to miss the concern. No investigation into the presence of possible hazardous or contaminated soils was made. There is not


Page 8

believed to be significant quantities of rock removal required along the alignment based upon ODNR well logs consulted for the study.

Route Considerations

Given the time permitted for this phase of the study, we have identified only one complete route running from the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant to the five clearwells.

At the time the estimates were prepared, there existed the possibility that additional routes might be identified for evaluation. The transmission mains have been divided into segments terminated at locations where alternate routes may deviate from the alignment currently presented. Alternate routes are expected to carry project costs similar in magnitude to the route selected and presented.

Easements

During the field investigation, the need for easements was identified based upon space available within the road right-of-way. Preliminary discussions with ODOT District 2 indicate that construction along State Route 25 may be permitted inside the existing right-of-way. Additional easements were identified based on GPS positions taken in the field that were compared with existing right-of-way using GIS data in the office. The costs for easement acquisition have been included in the opinion of probable project costs as noted as non-construction costs for each segment.

Opinion of Project Costs

An Opinion of Project Cost was developed for each segment of the pipeline route and are summarized in Appendix B. Some of the key considerations for pipe construction are summarized here.

Pipelines

Using the pipe construction methods identified in the route study, per foot unit prices were developed for each pipe diameter, construction type and pipe depth required by the project. Material pricing was obtained from suppliers and vendors.

In developed urban areas, we have computed higher unit prices that attempt to account for additional pipe depth as might be required to avoid existing buried infrastructure, more complex construction, clearing or elaborate restoration. The limits for pavement restoration were defined during the field work portion of the route study. The repairs to paved surfaces are included in the cost estimates provided as separate line items.

Open-Cut Construction

We have assumed Class 300 ductile iron pressure pipe for all the water transmission mains. The selection of ductile iron pipe was made based upon our knowledge of the design and construction standards for each Regional Partner. We may consider other pipe material types if so desired by the Regional Partners in a future analysis. Other pipe materials that may be appropriate for water transmission mains in the diameters identified may include; steel pipe or prestressed concrete cylinder pipe. The selection of alternate pipe materials may impact the cost for the project but is not expected to significantly change the magnitude of the project costs.


Page 9

Considerations for excavation, pipe restraints, bedding, restoration and backfill have been included in the unit pricing for pipelines.

Trenchless Construction

Crossings of streams and major roadways have been assumed to require trenchless construction methods. Given the diameter of the pipe segments required for this project, trenchless construction was assumed as a jack and bore method incorporating a steel casing pipe with the water main installed as a carrier pipe within and supported by casing spacers.

Space limitations in the developed areas are expected to limit the feasibility of horizontal directional drilling methods. The use of horizontal directional drilling may be considered if pipe could be pulled into place using a material that permits the pipe sections to be connected one section at a time to the drill / pull string. The proposed crossing of the Maumee River is assumed to require a horizontal directional drilling method. Costs for the crossing of the Maumee River were developed from recent similar work performed for the City of Waterville. The River Crossing is anticipated to require a High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe with one pipe diameter larger than nominal due to wall thickness specifications for such pipe.

Excavations for the purpose of boring and receiving pits have been incorporated into the per foot unit pricing for the trenchless methods proposed.

Transmission Main Appurtenances

The following appurtenances have been included in the cost estimates for the proposed water transmission main improvements.

Valves

To provide a means for shutting off the transmission mains for maintenance or emergency repairs along the route, we have included control valves. Control valves have been located at 1,000-foot intervals along the proposed transmission mains and placed inside of manholes. The use of manholes is also based upon the specifications of the Regional Partners. For economy, butterfly style valves have been selected for the preliminary pricing. Round and rectangular manholes have been sized appropriately for a butterfly valve with mechanical joint connections.

Air Release Structures

Air release structures have been located along the route to provide a means for removing air from the water main. We have assumed the air valves will be placed in manholes sized similarly to the valve structures for the purpose of estimating. No hydrants are included in the proposed improvements at this time. Hydrants could be included in the project and could replace some of the air release structures as a measure for economy.


Page 10

Master Meters

A master meter is proposed at the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant along with master meters located at each community’s clearwell. The master meters are intended to provide a means for measuring water consumption at each clearwell along with an aggregate consumption for all water provided by the City of Bowling Green.

Master meters have been assumed to be constructed below-grade in pre-manufactured structures with backflow devices, telemetry and adequate valving for operation and maintenance. Telemetry interfacing is not included in the cost estimates provided.

Allowances for head losses at master meter facilities have not been included in the modeling. It is assumed that the discharge pressure from the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant could be increased to offset such losses.

Construction Contingency

With this study being performed without the benefit of a terrestrial land survey, topographic mapping or detailed investigation into the presence of existing utilities or other obstacles not visible during field investigations, an appropriate contingency is recommended to be applied to the construction costs portion of the estimates.

To account for uncertainty in the costs of the facilities, a contingency of 15-percent has been applied to the construction costs developed for each segment. This contingency level was selected by the Regional Partners during project development meetings. To provide a context for the impact of the contingency level selected, we have also provided pricing with a 20-percent contingency in Appendix B.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

For this evaluation, we estimated the annual operation and maintenance of the water transmission infrastructure at $50,000 in the first year and escalating at 3% annually. In general, the annual operating and maintenance costs for water transmission piping is relatively low when compared with the annual cost of purchased water or the debt service related to the construction of the pipe.

Summary

The water transmission main concept as proposed will maintain a minimum of 35 to 40-psi of pressure in the pipe while delivering the Future Maximum Demands identified. The 35 to 40-psi requirement is sufficient to fill each of the ground level clearwells. To deliver this pressure at the clearwells roughly 150-psi of discharge pressure is required at the City of Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant. Modeling indicates that no additional pumping after the Bowling Green Water Treatment Plant is needed to deliver the required pressure and flow described given the assumptions described herein.

The estimated opinion of project costs for the pipeline route illustrated in Appendix A is estimated at $63,000,000 with the 15-percent contingency applied. For the purpose of discussion, a 20-percent contingency would yield a total estimated project cost of $66,000,000.


Page 11

Chapter 3 – Toledo Water Option

This chapter describes an option whereby the Regional Partners continue the receive water from the City of Toledo as they currently do today. This option requires no new infrastructure construction and no new operation and maintenance costs. This option is considered for comparison with obtaining water from Bowling Green.

Bulk Water Rate

The primary component of this option is the bulk water rate offered by the City of Toledo. At the time of this study, the City of Toledo has proposed the bulk water rate that was used in the financial section of this study. This rate was developed by the City of Toledo using assumptions for infrastructure improvements within the City’s treatment and distribution systems. Significant infrastructure improvements contemplated by the City in the rate development included the construction of a new water intake and elevated storage throughout the system. It is unknown if all of these improvements will be constructed at this time. There was hope expressed by the Regional Partners that bulk water rates could be lower than proposed if the elevated storage work was not constructed. With the Toledo rate being modeled through 2040, the only variable applied to the Toledo Option was the escalation rate starting in the year 2041. To establish a high end for the water rate, an escalation of 5.5% was applied from year 2041 forward. This is described in greater detail in the Financial Analysis (Chapter 4) section of this report.

Summary

Operationally, this option requires no changes from the Regional Partners and no new infrastructure. It is assumed that each community will still have their own distribution system and unchanged operation and maintenance. As noted, the water rate proposed by Toledo is the only variable for this option.


Page 12

Chapter 4 – Financial Analysis

A financial evaluation of the water service options was completed to approximate which option provides the best long-term economic position for the Regional Partners. Initial capital investments are but one component to a thorough financial evaluation. A potential change in how water service is provided to the Regional Partners requires a long-term evaluation of potential life-cycle costs. A 40-year projection of future costs was developed for each scenario that demonstrates the relatively minor impact of initial capital investment compared to the annual costs of purchasing or producing water.

Water Service Option Assumptions

The following is a list of assumptions used in developing the model for evaluating the long-term economics of the water supply options.

Bowling Green Water Option

• The Regional Partners would switch their water source to the City of Bowling Green and construct the required transmission infrastructure to deliver water throughout the system.

• The initial capital investment is projected to be $65.5 million.

• Water would be purchased from Bowling Green at the city’s bulk rate for service “with storage.”

Toledo Water Option

• The Regional Partners would continue to purchase water from the City of Toledo according to the new cost-of-service based rate projections.

• The Toledo rate projections extend through 2040.

• Beyond 2040 a general escalation is applied to water rates.

• This option does not require additional capital investment.

Financial Evaluation Approach

The projected total annual costs for each water service option were developed over a 40-year forecast period. The annual costs included:

• Annual principal and interest payments for the initial capital investments based on a 30-year amortization, 4.5% interest rate, and a 1.0% cost of issuance.

• Because the jurisdictions must maintain certain debt coverage requirements, a coverage factor was also included.


Page 13

o The Bowling Green Option was assumed to have a 110% coverage requirement as the costs may be independently funded by each jurisdiction.

o This coverage allowance also provides for annual renewal of the assets as they age.

• The annual costs of purchasing water from Bowling Green or Toledo was calculated based on the anticipated water rates and water consumption volumes for each community. The water demand volumes are based on the projected future average daily flow values developed by Jones & Henry in concert with the Regional Partners as discussed herein.

o Toledo water rates are based on projections through 2040 from the cost of service model provided by Toledo and named “Water Rate Calc 2017Q w 2018 Budget 8 yr straight line trans2.15.2019.xlsx”

o Bowling Green bulk water rates are based on their published rates through 2022.

o The water rates for Toledo and Bowling Green beyond their published data are escalated annually based on generic industry assumptions (up to 5.5%). These assumptions are varied to test the sensitivity of each option to potential future rate increases.

• Additional and incremental operating costs associated with each option are also included in the annual cost development.

o The transmission main between Bowling Green and the Regional Partners will be in excellent condition at startup and require little maintenance. A $50,000 annual operating and maintenance cost was assumed, which was escalated by 3.0% annually.

o The Toledo Option has no additional operating costs to include.

Cost Per Unit of Water Comparison

An overall unit rate per Ccf was calculated for both options to provide a uniform and easily presented value for comparison. These figures include the costs of purchased water and new infrastructure investments required to connect to the City of Bowling Green’s water system. The total annual cost projection was divided by the projected annual customer demand volumes to develop a forecast of future unit costs per hundred cubic feet (Ccf) of water. The unit rates are based on flow projections that include assumptions for higher future levels of water use. The overall unit costs of each scenario are shown in the summary graph in Figure 1 on the next page.


Page 14

Figure 2 - Unit Rate per Ccf Comparison (High Range Escalation)

(1) Bowling Green bulk water rate projected with 5.5% annual rate increases beginning in 2023. (2) Toledo wholesale water rate projected with 5.5% annual rate increases beginning in 2041.

The effect of long-term, compounding rate increases can be seen in the slope of the Bowling Green Option. As each year of potential future rates is added, the costs quickly escalate faster than the Toledo Option. For the Toledo Option, however, delaying these increases until 2040 using rate projections provided by Toledo minimizes the impact. It should be noted that if Bowling Green were able to provide lower per unit rate or lower rate escalation, the projected water rates in this comparison could be far closer. Figure 2 shows a projection of water unit costs if the Bowling Green Rate were increased at 3.5% annually.

Figure 3 - Unit Rate per Ccf Comparison (Low Range Escalation)


Bowling Green Water, $20.64

Toledo Water, $12.65

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Total Unit Rate per Ccf

Bowling Green Water Toledo Water

Bowling Green Wholesale, $10.37

Toledo Rate Proposal, $8.96

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055


Bowling Green Wholesale Toledo Rate Proposal


Page 15

The costs and unit rates were also developed for each jurisdiction of the Regional Partners based upon each community’s proportionate share of the costs using the estimated volumes and capacity for each. Capital costs for the Bowling Green Option are divided proportionately on the total, long-term capacity needs of each jurisdiction while the operating/purchased water costs are based on projected annual volumes. Summary tables for each jurisdiction are presented below. These tables demonstrate a range of potential unit costs for the assumed range of cost contingencies and annual rate increases. It is important to note that the Bowling Green Water Option rates presented is based upon all three communities participating in the project. If only one or two of the entities were to pursue this option, the costs are expected to be greater for the participating community(s). This study did not evaluate the feasibility of one or two of the partners proceeding with the Bowling Green Option. In fairness, we have applied the same rate escalation for our comparisons, however the two water options may not have the same rate escalation. For example, if Bowling Green could offer a 3.5% escalation rate and Toledo’s rate were to escalate by 5.5% beyond the known 2040 date, the Bowling Green Option could be more favorable in the long-term. Figure 3 illustrates a scenario in which Bowling Green’s rates escalate at slower rate than Toledo’s.

Figure 4 - Unit Rate per Ccf Comparison (Unbalanced Escalation Range)


Bowling Green Wholesale, $10.37

Toledo Rate Proposal, $12.65

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055


Bowling Green Wholesale Toledo Rate Proposal


Page 16

Table 2 – City of Perrysburg Water Rate Comparison

Table 3 – City of Maumee Water Rate Comparison

Notes for Tables 2, 3 and 4:

(1) Infrastructure costs at 20% contingency and Bowling Green bulk water rate figured at 3.5% annual increase. (2) Infrastructure costs at 30% contingency and Bowling Green bulk rate figured at 5.5% annual increase. (3) Toledo bulk rate per proposed rates ‐ 2019 contract negotiations. (4) Toledo bulk rate at 5.5% escalation starting in 2041. (5) District contract with Toledo expires. (6) Maumee contract with Toledo expires. (7) Perrysburg contract with Toledo expires. (8) Unit costs based upon infrastructure and O&M divided by estimated demands.

$/Ccf (10) City of Perrysburg Water Rate Comparison

Bowling Green Water Toledo WaterLow (1) High (2) Low (3) High (4)

2024 (5) $3.63 - $3.79 $3.48 - $3.48

2026 (6) $3.86 - $4.17 $4.06 - $4.06

2027 (7) $3.98 - $4.37 $4.38 - $4.38

2030 $4.37 - $5.05 $4.60 - $4.60

2035 $5.11 - $6.47 $5.05 - $5.05

2040 $5.99 - $8.31 $4.82 - $4.82

2045 $7.03 - $10.72 $5.73 - $6.31

2050 $8.27 - $13.88 $6.81 - $8.24

Year

$/Ccf (10) City of Maumee Water Rate Comparison

Bowling Green Water Toledo Water(1) (2) (3) (4)

2024 (5) $4.09 - $4.29 $3.49 - $3.49

2026 (6) $4.32 - $4.67 $4.07 - $4.07

2027 (7) $4.44 - $4.87 $4.38 - $4.38

2030 $4.83 - $5.56 $4.60 - $4.60

2035 $5.57 - $6.97 $5.05 - $5.05

2040 $6.45 - $8.82 $4.82 - $4.82

2045 $7.50 - $11.24 $5.73 - $6.31

2050 $8.74 - $14.40 $6.81 - $8.24

Year


Page 17

Table 4 - Northwestern Water & Sewer District Rate Comparison

Notes for Tables 2, 3 and 4:

(1) Infrastructure costs at 20% contingency and Bowling Green bulk water rate figured at 3.5% annual increase. (2) Infrastructure costs at 30% contingency and Bowling Green bulk rate figured at 5.5% annual increase. (3) Toledo bulk rate per proposed rates ‐ 2019 contract negotiations. (4) Toledo bulk rate at 5.5% escalation starting in 2041. (5) District contract with Toledo expires. (6) Maumee contract with Toledo expires. (7) Perrysburg contract with Toledo expires. (8) Unit costs based upon infrastructure and O&M divided by estimated demands.

$/Ccf (10) NWWSD Water Rate Comparison

Bowling Green Water Toledo Water(1) (2) (3) (4)

2024 (5) $4.10 - $4.30 $3.55 - $3.55

2026 (6) $4.31 - $4.66 $4.11 - $4.11

2027 (7) $4.43 - $4.86 $4.38 - $4.38

2030 $4.79 - $5.51 $4.60 - $4.60

2035 $5.49 - $6.88 $5.05 - $5.05

2040 $6.33 - $8.69 $4.82 - $4.82

2045 $7.34 - $11.06 $5.73 - $6.31

2050 $8.55 - $14.18 $6.81 - $8.24

Year


Page 18

Cumulative Cost Comparison

The time-value of money is a critical aspect of a long-term projection and comparison of annual costs. Here we have provided a comparison of the total cumulative cost in terms of present-day dollars. A significant capital investment in year one of any forecast is given more weight than the same magnitude investment made in year 35. The net present value of future costs can be calculated to account for this. This comparison is presented in the following chart which demonstrates that the Toledo Water Option is significantly less cost over time that a potential Bowling Green Option using the assumptions that we have described herein. The financial evaluation indicates that continuing to receive service from the City of Toledo is a better financial decision than installing a transmission line to connect to the City of Bowling Green. The current cost of purchasing water from Bowling Green is higher than the projected of Toledo Rate. The Toledo rate increases through the Toledo Rate Equalization date of 2027 by an average about 9.0%. However, the rates projected between 2028 and 2040 provided by Toledo have an average annual increase of about 1.0%. This overall average annual increase of 3.2% for Toledo water rates yields lower long-term costs than Bowling Green with a projected increase of 5.5% rate escalation per year. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 5 – Total Cumulative Costs Comparison (High Range Escalation)

(1) Cost projections assume 30% contingency on infrastructure, future water rate increases of 5.5% for Toledo and Bowling Green (beyond the known rates).

As presented for the unit costs, if a 3.5% annual increase in rates is applied to both the Toledo and Bowling Green Option is applied, the results are far closer.

Bowling Green Water, $831M

Toledo Water, $579M

$0M

$100M

$200M

$300M

$400M

$500M

$600M

$700M

$800M

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Mill

ion

s

Total Cumulative Costs1

present value

Bowling Green Water Toledo Water


Page 19

Figure 5 on the next page demonstrates that assuming a lower annual increase narrows the difference in total cumulative costs between the two options by $167 million. In both the low and high range rate escalations, the Toledo Option appears to be the most favorable option. The assumptions presented shown how critical the bulk water rate and rate escalation factors are to the choices of water feasibility. The Regional Partners do not currently have an agreement with either jurisdiction that the projected rates be consistent with known or estimated values beyond the dates listed and changes in the actual rates may significantly adjust realized costs.

Figure 6 – Total Cumulative Costs Comparison (Low Range Escalation)

(1) Cost projections assume 30% contingency on infrastructure, future water rate increases of 3.5% for Toledo and Bowling Green (beyond the known rates).

$624.8

$539.8

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Mill

ion

s

Total Cumulative Costs1

present value

Bowling Green Existing Rates Toledo Rate Proposal


Page 20

Chapter 5 – Discussion of Options

This section provides a summary of advantages and disadvantages for the water supply options and lists key considerations that may impact the feasibility of each option. In order to complete a feasibility study some assumptions must be made, and this section discusses the potential implications of those assumptions upon the feasibility of each option. In many cases these assumptions are difficult to quantify in the financial evaluation alone. Especially challenging are potential regulatory or governmental constraints that are unknown or difficult to ascertain at the feasibility study level which may lead to longer design or construction times as well as additional project costs.

Bowling Green Water Option

Obtaining water from the City of Bowling Green is a feasible option as shown in practice by the City of Waterville’s switch in 2018. However, to add a customer of the magnitude of the Regional Partners, a significant upgrade of the water treatment and high service pumping capacity will be required. The following is a list of considerations for the Bowling Green Water Option.

Advantages:

• Good water quality with existing treatment processes.

• Operation of the new facility will be by the City.

• Treatment and pumping infrastructure will be constructed at City’s cost.

Disadvantages:

• The City has limited reservoir capacity and will need to obtain land for the construction of additional storage to serve the Regional Partners.

• Longer-term rates are unknown yielding a wider range of future rates.

• Limited ownership or governance in water treatment plant for Regional Partners.

• Overall capacity may be limited for additional future growth with existing infrastructure (reservoir capacity).

• Potential oversight from the Great Lakes Compact and additional water withdraw from the Maumee River.

• Concern with City’s ability to fund treatment and pumping improvements through existing rates.

Further Evaluation:

• A cost of service evaluation of the Bowling Green Water Rate might be performed to confirm the City’s capability of funding the needed infrastructure.

• The location and cost of the new treatment facilities could be evaluated.

The primary drawback for the Bowling Green Water Supply option is the variability in the City’s future bulk water rate, though this variability was considered in the range of projected water rates presented in this report.


Page 21

Toledo Water Option

Continuing to obtain water from the City of Toledo carries the least amount of risk for the Regional Partners. This option requires no new infrastructure construction which is the primary risk factor associated with the other two options.

Advantages:

• Rate model provides more certainty about long term bulk water rates than the Bowling Green Option.

• The Toledo rate model includes a detailed review of O&M and infrastructure costs.

• Included in the Toledo rate projection is $170 million in contingency for infrastructure (intake and elevated storage). It is unknown if this work will need to be constructed at this time. Should this work not be constructed following an OEPA required study by 2021, the projected water rate may decrease.

• Operation of the treatment facilities by the City of Toledo does not require additional staffing by the Regional Partners.

• Overall capacity believed to be better than the Bowling Green Option.

• The Toledo Regional Water Commission to be formed with representation of the contracting communities for oversight of the rates and capital budget.

Disadvantages:

• Uncertainty about long term rates beyond rate model in 2041.

We have not included any Further Evaluation recommendations for the Toledo Option as the only variables to this option is the water rate proposed by the City of Toledo. With the information received from the City, we feel the rate up to 2040 is well defined. We have applied a range of escalation rates to the Toledo Water Rate beyond 2040 as part of the financial analysis to quantify the impacts of future rate increases upon this water supply option.


Page 22

Chapter 6 - Conclusion

In closing, we offer the following key points derived from our evaluations along with a discussion of the results and recommendations of this study.

Water Supply vs. Infrastructure Costs

The most important finding of this study is the annual cost of purchased water represents the most significant cost factor for each option. How that water is obtained through an outside provider, with or without new infrastructure, is the most significant consideration in the feasibility of the Bowling Green Option. The infrastructure construction costs and associated debt service for funding these improvements are secondary to the cost to purchase or produce water.

The estimated infrastructure costs, $65 million for only transmission infrastructure, is a seemingly large number, but when compared with annual water purchase costs over a long-range forecast, infrastructure costs are small. The annual cost of purchased water is on the order of $20 million annually from either Bowling Green or Toledo (at full future average daily flow volumes). For comparison, the annual debt service on $65 million in infrastructure costs is roughly $4.5 million.

The assumptions about future purchased water costs is a key consideration. In our analysis, we evaluated low and high ranges for cost escalations in bulk water costs, both purchased and operational (transmission). For the Bowling Green Option, we looked at water rate escalations ranging from 3.5% up to 5.5% while looking at Toledo’s proposed rates up to a 5.5% annual increase. In the long term these assumptions about rate stability drive the separation in the costs for each option. As such, there may be unaccounted for infrastructure costs in the Bowling Green Option, however those costs are of lesser significance than the annual water purchase cost or production costs.

The significance of the purchased water cost shows the criticality in obtaining a water rate that is known, can be predicted for a long duration, or has some limits on how quickly that rate may change.

Results

Given the magnitude of costs associated with this study and the degree of unknows at the feasibility study level, we have provided all costs in the form of a range of costs using low and high assumptions. The range for the presented figures were developed using a range of contingencies values for infrastructure construction and cost escalations over time for water rates and O&M for new facilities constructed as part of this work.

Recommendations

The results of the Financial Analysis (Chapter 4) show the Toledo Water Option to be least cost with a high degree of certainty from the rate model provided by the City of Toledo.


Page 23

Closing

We hope this information is helpful to your review of the contemplated supply options for the Regional Partners. If you have any comments or require further clarification on the work we have completed, we would be happy to discuss them.

This feasibility study was a challenging and interesting assignment that we appreciate the opportunity to have been selected to work on. We look forward to the presentation of our findings to your governing bodies at your direction.

Dedication

We would like to dedicate the efforts our team on this study to recognize Nicole Spieles, P.E. of Greeley and Hansen Engineers who was instrumental in the development of the study approach. Ms. Spieles regrettably was unable to be a part of the study phase due to an illness. Nicole’s leadership and creativity helped our team immensely, leading to the successful result we are proud to submit. We wish her all the best in her recovery.


Page 24

References

Poggemeyer Design Group. (2017). Water Source Evaluation Study Phase II. Wood County Economic Development Commission.

City of Bowling Green Water Rates (2019). https://www.bgohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-Water-Rate-Plan-Approved-BPU-05-14-18.pdf.

City of Toledo Water Rates (2019) Received via Microsoft Excel File Titled: “Water Rate Calc 2017Q w 2018 Budget 8 yr straight line trans2.15.2019.xlsx”

Chrysler Tower Cover Photo Source – Amplex Internet from the Northwestern Water & Sewer District

https://www.bgohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-Water-Rate-Plan-Approved-BPU-05-14-18.pdf

https://www.bgohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-Water-Rate-Plan-Approved-BPU-05-14-18.pdf

Appendix A – Water Transmission Route Alternatives (Modeling and Route Summary)

dR

dR

dR dRdR

Maumee Clearwell

Wales Road Clearwell

East Broadway Clearwell

Perrysburg East BPS Clearwell

Perrysburg South BPS Clearwell

80

75

24

20

47

5

28

0³

BG Operating Range: 60-80 psiElevation: 657 feet

0 2.5 51.25Miles

Legend

dR Meters

Clearwells

A1

A2

A3

B

C

D

E1

E2

F

G

H1

H2

A1

H1H2

PSV: 40 psi

PSV: 40 psi

PSV: 40 psi

PSV: 40 psi

PSV: 35 psi

Clearwell Operating Elevations: 625 - 638 feetClearwell Volume: 0.5 MG

Clearwell Operating Elevations: 625 - 635.5 feetClearwell Volume: 1.0 MG



Clearwell Operating Elevations: 606.5 - 631.25 feetClearwell Volume: 1.5 MG

Projected Average Day Demand: 3.38 MGDProjected Peak Hour: 5.07 MGD





Flow Range: 17.58 - 24.06 MGDOperating Pressure Range: 47 - 63 psi




Flow Range: 0 - 6.99 MGDOperating Pressure Range: 34 - 39 psi

Clearwell DataElevations and Volume

Average Municipal DemandsProjected and Peak Hour Peak Hour = 1.5x Average Demand

Pressure Sustaining Valve 35-40 psi upstream

Pipe Operating RangesFlow and Pressure at indicated locationsBased on 80 psi at BG WTP

Notes Key

Routes Size Type B (LF) Type C (LF) Trenchless (LF)

Easement

Area (Ac) Total

A1 36" - 7,000 600 2.48 7,600

A2 36" 100 5,300 100 1.83 5,500

A3 36" 300 13,500 1,800 4.86 15,600

B 36" 10,500 700 200 - 11,400

C 24" 9,600 300 2,700 0.07 12,600

D 36" 200 1,600 - - 1,800

E1 30" 800 17,500 700 - 19,000

E2 30" 7,500 - 300 0.07 7,800

F 30" 4,100 8,900 1,400 2.31 14,400

G 24" 500 200 - - 700

H1 36" 3,200 17,300 500 5.61 21,000

H2 36" - 3,500 - 1.21 3,500

ssssssss

Text

A2

A3

B

D

C

E1

E2

F

Regional Water Feasibility StudyRoute Alternatives

Appendix A

Appendix B – Water Transmission Opinions of Probable Project Costs

Appendix B1 – Segment Cost Summary

Regional Water Feasibility StudySegment Cost Summary

SegmentDiameter

(in) Length (ft) Per Foot Unit Cost Opinion of Project Costs Per Foot Unit Cost Opinion of Project CostsH1 36 21,100 474.73$ 10,016,800.00$ 494.85$ 10,441,400.00$ H2 36 3,500 434.75$ 1,521,610.00$ 452.19$ 1,582,680.00$ A1 36 7,630 515.52$ 3,933,450.00$ 537.04$ 4,097,600.00$ A2 36 5,525 455.04$ 2,514,078.00$ 473.81$ 2,617,820.00$ A3 36 15,610 516.17$ 8,057,390.00$ 537.94$ 8,397,320.00$ B 36 11,370 680.05$ 7,732,165.00$ 709.37$ 8,065,520.00$ C 24 12,640 715.62$ 9,045,430.00$ 746.51$ 9,435,840.00$ D 36 1,790 543.90$ 973,575.00$ 565.14$ 1,011,600.00$ E1 30 19,030 358.61$ 6,824,280.00$ 374.02$ 7,117,640.00$ E2 30 7,850 623.66$ 4,895,730.00$ 650.54$ 5,106,740.00$ F 30 14,480 475.63$ 6,887,150.00$ 495.87$ 7,180,200.00$ G 24 750 608.09$ 456,065.00$ 630.29$ 472,720.00$ Totals 121,275 62,857,723.00$ 65,527,080.00$

Average Per Foot Costs 518.31$ Average Per Foot Costs 540.32$

15% Contingency 20% Contingency

Jones & Henry Engineers Ltd.

Appendix B2 – Opinions of Segment Probable Project Costs (15% Contingency)

Engineers Opinion of Probable Project Cost

Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment H1 Checked By: TAB

Project No.: 238-7496.001ENR:

Item No. Description Qty. Unit Unit Amount Total Amount

1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $ 349,000.00 $ 349,000.00

2a 36-inch Water Main, Type B 3220 LF $ 270.00 $ 869,400.00

2b 36-inch Water Main, Type C 17330 LF $ 240.00 $ 4,159,200.00

2c 36-inch Water Main in 48-inch Bored Casing 550 LF $ 860.00 $ 473,000.00

3a 36-inch Butterfly Valves and Manholes 22 EA $ 31,800.00 $ 699,600.00

3b Air Release Valves and Manholes 6 EA $ 20,000.00 $ 120,000.00

4 Pavement Repairs 3018 SY $ 100.00 $ 301,800.00

5 Audio-Video Recording of Zone of Influence 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

6 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

7 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

8 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00

9 Master Meter Structure 1 LS $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00

Base Bid Subtotal $ 7,332,000.00

$1,099,800Total Estimated Construction Cost $8,431,800

Design Engineering $675,000Construction Engineering $675,000Easements (Estimated at $30,000 / Acre) $170,000Permits $15,000Legal $50,000

$1,585,000

Total Opinion of Project Costs $10,016,800

Total Length (LF): 21,100 Project Cost / Foot: $474.73

Construction Contigencies (~15%)

Technical & Non-Construction Subtotal

Jones & Henry Engineers, Ltd.






2 36-inch Water Main, Type C 3500 LF $ 240.00 $ 840,000.00









$159,210Total Estimated Construction Cost $1,220,610


$301,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment A1 Checked By: TAB




2a 36-inch Water Main, Type C 7000 LF $ 240.00 $ 1,680,000.00

2b 36-inch Water Main in 48-inch Bored Casing 630 LF $ 860.00 $ 541,800.00











$664,000
























$450,000













2c 36-inch Water Main in 48-inch Bored Casing 1800 LF $ 860.00 $ 1,548,000.00











$1,297,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment B Checked By: TAB




2a 36-inch Water Main, Type B (Deeper than 7-feet) 10530 LF $ 300.00 $ 3,159,000.00

2b 36-inch Water Main, Type C (Deeper than 7-feet) 670 LF $ 250.00 $ 167,500.00












Design Engineering $529,000Construction Engineering $529,000Easements (Estimated at $30,000 / Acre) $0Permits $15,000Legal $50,000

$1,123,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment C Checked By: TAB









4 24-inch Water Main Trenchless (HDD) 2400 LF $ 1,050.00 $ 2,520,000.00










$1,308,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment D Checked By: TAB




2a 36-inch Water Main, Type B (Deeper than 7-feet) 170 LF $ 300.00 $ 51,000.00









Base Bid Subtotal $ 680,500.00

$102,075Total Estimated Construction Cost $782,575


$191,000

Total Opinion of Project Costs $973,575






Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment E1 Checked By: TAB

















$997,000

























$732,500







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment F Checked By: TAB


















$1,067,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment G Checked By: TAB
















$119,000


Total Length (LF): 750 Project Cost / Foot: $608.09




Appendix B3 – Opinions of Segment Probable Project Costs (20% Contingency)




















$1,643,000











2 36-inch Water Main, Type C 3500 LF $ 240.00 $ 840,000.00











$309,000











2a 36-inch Water Main, Type C 7000 LF $ 240.00 $ 1,680,000.00

2b 36-inch Water Main in 48-inch Bored Casing 630 LF $ 860.00 $ 541,800.00











$686,000
























$464,000
























$1,343,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment B Checked By: TAB


















$1,169,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment C Checked By: TAB









4 24-inch Water Main Trenchless (HDD) 2400 LF $ 1,050.00 $ 2,520,000.00










$1,362,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment D Checked By: TAB
















$195,000
























$1,037,000

























$762,500







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment F Checked By: TAB


















$1,107,000







Client Regional Water Partners Date: 3/20/2019Project Bowling Green Water Feasibility Study Estimator: DMURoute Segment Segment G Checked By: TAB
















$121,000


Total Length (LF): 750 Project Cost / Foot: $630.29




Appendix C – Water Transmission Route Cost Share Options

SegmentTotal Segment

Cost Perrysburg % Maumee % District % Perrysburg Cost Maumee Cost District CostH1 10,441,400.00$ 33% 33% 33% 3,487,400.00$ 3,487,400.00$ 3,487,400.00$ H2 1,582,680.00$ 33% 33% 33% 528,600.00$ 528,600.00$ 528,600.00$ A1 4,097,600.00$ 33% 33% 33% 1,368,600.00$ 1,368,600.00$ 1,368,600.00$ A2 2,617,820.00$ 33% 33% 33% 874,400.00$ 874,400.00$ 874,400.00$ A3 8,397,320.00$ 33% 33% 33% 2,804,700.00$ 2,804,700.00$ 2,804,700.00$ B 8,065,520.00$ 33% 33% 33% 2,693,900.00$ 2,693,900.00$ 2,693,900.00$ C 9,435,840.00$ 0 100% 0 -$ 9,435,800.00$ -$ D 1,011,600.00$ 50% 0 50% 505,800.00$ -$ 505,800.00$ E1 7,117,640.00$ 0 0 100% -$ -$ 7,117,600.00$ E2 5,106,740.00$ 0 0 100% -$ -$ 5,106,700.00$ F 7,180,200.00$ 0 0 100% -$ -$ 7,180,200.00$ G 472,720.00$ 100% 0 0 472,700.00$ -$ -$ TOTAL: 65,527,080.00$ 12,736,100.00$ 21,193,400.00$ 31,667,900.00$

Assumptions:1. Contingencies estimates at 20%

Regional Water Feasibility StudyRoute Cost Share

Option 1 - Percentage Based

SegmentTotal Segment

Cost

Average Segment Flow

(MGD)Perrysburg

Flow (MGD)Maumee

Flow (MGD)

District Flow

(MGD)Perrysburg Cost Share

Maumee Cost Share

District Cost Share

H1 10,441,400.00$ 12.42 4.24 3.38 4.80 3,564,500.00$ 2,841,500.00$ 4,035,300.00$ H2 1,582,680.00$ 12.42 4.24 3.38 4.80 540,300.00$ 430,700.00$ 611,700.00$ A1 4,097,600.00$ 12.42 4.24 3.38 4.80 1,398,900.00$ 1,115,100.00$ 1,583,600.00$ A2 2,617,820.00$ 12.42 4.24 3.38 4.80 893,700.00$ 712,400.00$ 1,011,700.00$ A3 8,397,320.00$ 12.42 4.24 3.38 4.80 2,866,700.00$ 2,285,300.00$ 3,245,300.00$ B 8,065,520.00$ 10.3 2.12 3.38 4.80 1,660,100.00$ 2,646,700.00$ 3,758,700.00$ C 9,435,840.00$ 3.38 0.00 3.38 0.00 -$ 9,435,800.00$ -$ D 1,011,600.00$ 6.92 2.12 0.00 4.80 309,900.00$ -$ 701,700.00$ E1 7,117,640.00$ 4.8 0.00 0.00 4.80 -$ -$ 7,117,600.00$ E2 5,106,740.00$ 4.8 0.00 0.00 4.80 -$ -$ 5,106,700.00$ F 7,180,200.00$ 4.8 0.00 0.00 4.80 -$ -$ 7,180,200.00$ G 472,720.00$ 4.24 4.24 0.00 0.00 472,700.00$ -$ -$ TOTAL: 65,527,080.00$ 11,706,800.00$ 19,467,500.00$ 34,352,500.00$

Assumptions:1. Contingencies estimates at 20%2. Flows estimated using future average daily flow

Regional Water Feasibility StudyRoute Cost Share

Option 2 - Flow Based

Date post:	13-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Regional Water Feasibility Study Comparison of Toledo ... and BG Comparison Study.pdfRegional Water...

Documents