Water System Cooperation Opportunities Project … System Cooperation Opportunities Project...

Water System Cooperation Opportunities Project Feasibility Study

October 18, 2016

Camano Cooperative Water & Power Co. Camano Island Summit Association

Camano Sunset Water System Camano Water Association

Elgerwood Maintenance Association Mecca Community Association Seascape Water Association Thunder Ridge Water System

This project was funded by the Washington State Department of Health Consolidation Activities Grant program.

Water System Cooperation Opportunities Feasibility Study, October 18, 2016 2

Executive summary With the help of a grant from the Washington State Department of Health (DOH), the Water System Cooperation Opportunities Project ran from July 2015 through August 2016. The goal was to explore opportunities for cooperative efforts among several water systems on Camano Island. This feasibility study documents this exploration and the resulting recommendations. This study looked to answer the question: “What types of cooperative working relationships among the many water systems on Camano Island might build capacity, prepare for water emergencies, and enhance operational efficiency so that a safe and abundant drinking water supply is ensured for Camano Island residents?” The assumption was that the types of cooperation could include interties, emergency preparedness, resource sharing, and selective or complete water system consolidation. Eight water systems on Camano Island participated in the feasibility study. They took part in several meetings, offered input, and shared information. A professional engineering firm worked with each water system, doing research and analysis to learn its water infrastructure, capacity, strengths, and weaknesses. This research resulted in a comprehensive capital facilities replacement plan for each system, which are included in Appendix C. At the same time, other project team members coordinated the study and met with leaders of the participating water systems to facilitate the conversation about possibilities, communicate possible outcomes, learn more about their business operations, and to uncover potential obstacles to cooperative working relationships. The results of the dialog, meetings, and research brought clarity to the benefits and challenges of various consolidation scenarios along with the impact of maintaining the status quo. The study found that it would be beneficial for all water companies on Camano Island to join as a single entity. Water customers would indeed see improved efficiencies, resource sharing leading to lower capital improvement costs, and better emergency preparedness. Roadblocks to cooperative efforts were found to be finances, reluctance on the part of specific water system leadership, and the county water system permitting process. The findings of the study were rather different from what the researchers had originally envisioned. Although there are several alternatives, stakeholders concluded that the best scenario for a safe and abundant drinking water supply for Camano Island residents is to form a local structure such as a water district or public utility district for gradual water system consolidation while also working with Island County commissioners to improve the water permit process with developers. Each water system has its unique strengths and challenges, and the chosen solution should take these into account and be sensitive to preferences of the leaders. Implementing a plan gradually over a number of years — even decades — can be part of the plan. The next step is to research the different water system structures, decide which one is most beneficial to the participating water systems and their customers, write a business plan for the new structure, and develop a project plan for implementation.


Table of Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 2 The current environment ....................................................................................................... 4 What kinds of cooperation might be feasible? ................................................................... 6 Implementing the feasibility study ........................................................................................ 8 Water system analysis ......................................................................................................... 10 Findings ................................................................................................................................ 12 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 13 Next steps ............................................................................................................................. 15 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... 16 Appendixes ......................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A. Data gathering phase: Sample memo and questionnaire Appendix B. Discussion of notional system consolidation Appendix C. Engineering reports for participating water systems 1. Camano Cooperative Water & Power Co. 2. Camano Island Summit Association 3. Camano Sunset Water System 4. Camano Water Association 5. Elgerwood Maintenance Association 6. Mecca Community Association 7. Seascape Water Association 8. Thunder Ridge Water System


The current environment Camano Island has 329 different community water systems serving a population of about 14,000 people. Nearly all of these water systems have fewer than 100 connections. All these systems are privately owned. By contrast, the entire Seattle metropolitan area has a single water system. Ten of these Camano Island water systems are located in the central area of the island. The following map shows the service areas of the 10 central Camano Island water systems.

The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is concerned about the proliferation of small community water systems, for the following reasons:

Many are managed by community volunteers rather than water system professionals. Most of them have limited funds for capital improvements and system maintenance. They tend to have more water quality violations and instances of regulatory

noncompliance. Some are ill-equipped to respond to water emergencies. Many are probably not able to maintain their water utility in the long-term as a

sustainable enterprise.


The Washington state legislature has also expressed concern over the financial sustainability of small community water systems. The Department of Health, therefore, is motivated to consolidate water systems where it makes logical business sense. It believes that consolidated water systems can increase water source reliability and also leverage costs through economies of scale. Camano Water Association, with more than 1,000 connections, is the largest water system on the island. Several years ago, it started becoming aware of the jeopardy that multiple small water systems on the island presents to the residents, both in terms of the availability of clean and safe drinking water as well as a reliable water supply in the event of an island-wide emergency. Through informal conversations with leaders of neighboring water companies, it appeared that they shared this concern, but did not see how the problem could be solved, especially if it involved additional expenses or relinquishing control of their own community water system.


What kinds of cooperation might be feasible? In February 2015, Camano Water Association applied for a consolidation grant from the Washington State Department of Health to fund the Water System Cooperation Opportunities Project. The goal was to explore opportunities and do a feasibility study for small to large cooperative efforts and capacity-building among several water systems in central Camano Island. This feasibility study report documents this exploration and the resulting recommendations. This study looked to answer the question: “What types of cooperative working relationships among the many water systems on Camano Island might build capacity, prepare for water emergencies, and enhance operational efficiency so that a safe and abundant drinking water supply is ensured for Camano Island residents?” When the project was proposed, planners expected to research up to 10 water systems in the central Camano Island area and identify each water system’s challenges and goals with regard to water safety, system sustainability, compliance, and operations. With the participating water systems, planners expected to explore opportunities to help resolve existing challenges, build capacity, or achieve organizational goals through the following types of cooperative activities:

Emergency preparedness and management Interties Resource sharing to mitigate substandard water treatment Resource sharing to mitigate unreliable or inadequate supply Resource sharing to mitigate low pressure or water outage situations Other types of resource sharing Water system consolidation or ownership transfer Other consolidation activities as yet undiscovered

It was expected that the study would clarify what was feasible in this region, along with the best options for planning and obtaining funding to implement the infrastructure improvements indicated by the study. The activities of the Water System Cooperation Opportunities Project were to:

Engage with the leaders of neighboring water systems to open the dialog about water system cooperative efforts and to participate in working meetings.

Obtain commitments from water systems who were willing to participate in the study. Conduct engineering and business operations research with each of the participating

water systems. Collate the research, analyze the findings, and make recommendations as part of the

feasibility study report.


Determine the next steps for coming to consensus and the recommendations. Deliver the feasibility study report to all participating water systems, the Washington

State Department of Health as a condition of the grant, and other stakeholders. The following eight water systems committed to participate in the feasibility study:

1. Camano Cooperative Water & Power Co., #10600 2. Camano Island Summit Association, #08344 3. Camano Sunset Water System, #26951 4. Camano Water Association, #107507 5. Elgerwood Maintenance Association, #09131 6. Mecca Community Association, #22888 7. Seascape Water Association, #07095 8. Thunder Ridge Water System, #88200

The following additional water systems in the vicinity were invited but they chose not to participate in the study:

1. Camano Sunrise Water Association #1 (north area), #10746 2. Camano Sunrise Water Association #2 (south area), #29669 3. Lost Lake Property Owners Association, #48345

Because the Department of Health awarded the grant to fund the project to Camano Water Association, leaders in this water system took on the roles of project coordinator, outreach, and administration.


Implementing the feasibility study The outcome of the consolidation activities for the Water Systems Cooperation Opportunities Project feasibility study was a formal analysis of the costs and benefits of initiating cooperative working relationships and building capacity among neighboring water systems up to and including system consolidation. This study consisted of multiple discussions among eight neighboring water systems and an in-depth analysis of planning, design, and engineering components for each system. The following is the timeline of major activities for implementing the Water Systems Cooperation Opportunities Feasibility Study. February 23, 2015. Camano Water Association submitted its proposal to the Department of Health Consolidation Activities Grant program, requesting $30K for the Water Association Cooperation Opportunities project. March 19, 2015. Camano Water Association received letter announcing the award of funding from the Department of Health Consolidation Activities Grant program for the full amount requested. April 9, 2015. Camano Water Association sent a letter to participating companies to inform them that grant was awarded and that work can begin with a kickoff meeting on April 22. April 22, 2015. The project kickoff meeting was held with the participating water companies. The meeting agenda included:

1. The issue of many water companies and the potential for cooperation. 2. The engineering and management research for the feasibility study. 3. The Department of Health perspective; the presentation titled “Water System

Consolidation and Restructuring” was given by DOH engineers. 4. The engineering research approach for gathering data and preparing the reports; the

presentation titled “Water System Consolidation Study” was given by consulting engineer Greg Cane.

April 29, 2015. Camano Water Association submitted the grant project scope of work and budget to the Department of Health. July 21, 2015. Engineer Greg Cane sent letters to all participants regarding the start of the data-gathering phase of the feasibility study. The letter included a questionnaire and a request to return information before the site visit. July 24, 2015. The grant contract was signed and executed by Camano Water Association Board President Dave Weir and the Department of Health. September through November 2015. Although none of the questionnaires were returned, site visits took place. Project coordinator Dave Weir, engineer Greg Cane, and others visited all


participating water systems to gather data for the feasibility study and to discuss opportunities for sharing resources up to and including consolidation. December 22, 2015. A meeting was held with all participants to review project progress. Greg Cane presented a sample report for one water system. January 20, 2016. Project coordinator Dave Weir sent a letter to all participants summarizing current progress. The letter included notification of a March meeting to present preliminary engineering reports from data gathered at all systems. February 2016. Greg Cane developed the map of a possible “Central Camano Water System – 2050.” March 4, 2016. The project coordinator sent an email to all participating systems asking for their company’s overall financial information: gross revenue and expenses, capital improvements fund, and debt amount for 2015 so that financial feasibility could be assessed. The email also asked for the company’s bylaws for the assessment of legal feasibility. March 9, 2016. Greg Cane produced engineering reports (Capital Facilities Replacement Review) for all systems. March 10, 2016. A meeting was held with all participants to give a project update. Greg Cane reviewed the study’s format, results, and future possibilities. The individual reports were distributed to each company’s representatives for their review and feedback, which were requested by April 11. March 14, 2016. The project coordinator emailed all participants to request that they send a list of obstacles and concerns about moving forward with a water systems consolidation. There were no responses. April 22, 2016. No further feedback was received on the preliminary reports, and the final engineering reports were made available to all study participants. August 16, 2016. A meeting was held with local, county, and state stakeholders to discuss the findings of the feasibility study and possible next steps. This included the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC), Whidbey Island Water Systems Association (WIWSA), Island County, and the Department of Health. They discussed the findings of the feasibility study, resource sharing scenarios among water systems, and possible structures for a consolidated system over the next 20-30 years. August 31, 2016. The preliminary feasibility study was delivered to the Department of Health. This marked the end of grant period.


Water system analysis Before the feasibility study began, preliminary research on area water systems from records and self-reporting filed with the Washington State Department of Health specified the following known issues.

1. Elgerwood Maintenance Association Well is in an area identified as being at “very high risk” for seawater intrusion.

2. Camano Sunrise Water Association #1 (north area) (not a study participant) Some recent non-acute coliform violations.

3. Camano Sunrise Water Association #2 (south area) (not a study participant) Some nitrate impacts on well source. Recent history on non-acute coliform MCL violations.

4. Camano Sunset Water System Iron and manganese (both secondary contaminants) exceed respective MCLs. 2013 Sanitary Survey reported treatment system not functioning properly.

5. Mecca Community Association. Iron (secondary contaminant) level exceeds MCL. One recent (2013) failing total coliform test.

6. Thunder Ridge Water System 2012 Sanitary Survey recommended a second well. Recent history of non-acute coliform MCL violations. E.coli presence in the distribution system in 2011.

Eight water systems on Camano Island participated in the feasibility study. They took part in several meetings, offered input, and shared information. A professional engineering firm worked with each water system, doing research and analysis to learn its water infrastructure, capacity, strengths, and weaknesses (see Appendix A for an example of the memo, questionnaire, and preliminary research findings sent to each participating water system). This research resulted in a comprehensive capital facilities replacement plan for each system, which are included in Appendix C. This comprehensive analysis was done to thoroughly understand the resources available and the future capital requirements for each system, as this would affect opportunities for interties, resource sharing, emergency planning, and system consolidation. This analysis was also needed to determine the financial feasibility for cooperative activities. It was important to understand the resources — such as wells, water tanks, and piping — for each water facility, their age, when replacement would be necessary, how much it would cost to replace, and the number of households served. The first step of the engineering data-gathering phase consisted of collecting information from the Washington State Department of Health Sentry website, which contains public information about all water systems. The second step of the engineering data-gathering phase consisted of site visits at each of the participating water systems. The engineer visited their systems, took photos, reviewed maps,


as-built drawings. He also spoke with as many water managers and board members as were available.

While the engineering research was being done, other project team members coordinated the study and met with leaders of the participating water systems to facilitate the conversation about possibilities, communicate possible outcomes, learn more about their business operations, and to uncover potential obstacles to cooperative working relationships. After the data gathering phase was complete, the second phase was data analysis and report preparation.


Findings The feasibility study found that it would indeed be beneficial for all water companies on Camano Island to join as a single entity, either with coordinated management or physically consolidating. All perspectives — water systems, capital improvements, finance, and business operations — support this assertion. Water customers would indeed see improved efficiencies, resource sharing leading to lower capital improvement costs, and better emergency preparedness. Joining together as a larger water system would greatly improve a community’s ability to maintain a water utility as a sustainable enterprise in the long term. When the project was first initiated, it was expected that when all the data was gathered and analyzed, there would be a clear case for system consolidation, providing benefits for public health, customer service, and finance. The participating water systems responded initially with cooperation and degrees of enthusiasm. The principals for each system were willing to have the engineering research done on their systems. In fact, they all received, free of charge, a comprehensive water systems analysis — the Capital Facilities Replacement Review, included in Appendix C for each water system in the study. The analysis details each individual water system’s components, capabilities, and capital improvement needs and costs into future years. It also includes the number of households served. However, the project lost momentum, as meeting attendance dwindled and requests for business operations information went largely unanswered. This points to an inclination among participating parties to move more slowly, and it became clear that outcomes might not be realized for 20 years or more. The following are the key barriers to cooperative efforts that were uncovered in the study:

Finances are a roadblock to cooperation efforts. In nearly all cases, the cost to replace system components likely exceeds what the households in their service areas would be willing to pay. However, certain water systems can save a lot of money with certain interties, other joint activities, or the sharing of tanks and wells to reduce duplication.

While some leaders of individual water systems would welcome the opportunity to implement certain cooperative scenarios, others are more reluctant and even resistant. The inclination toward self-determination and autonomy might be a roadblock to cooperative efforts.

The county permitting process allows new small water systems to be easily formed. So many water systems currently exist because of the ease and low cost to drill a well, along with the state’s ease of access to water rights for an application fee of $25.

The process was invaluable to learn the capabilities of the water systems in the study area. The water infrastructure is now thoroughly understood, and there’s now a basis for informed discussion about emergency preparedness, interties, resource sharing, and consolidation. There’s also a clearer understanding about the cost savings that might be realized through certain types of relationships. This study resulted in a more open dialog among neighboring water systems.


Recommendations Although there are several alternatives, the researchers and community stakeholders concluded that the best scenario for a safe and abundant drinking water supply for Camano Island residents is to establish some kind of consolidated structure that smaller water companies can join over time. Forming a water district or public utility district are possibilities for such a consolidated structure, which can ensure coordinated management and also provide the infrastructure and resources needed to physically combine wells, pipes, and other water system resources where financially advantageous. It’s also recommended that work be done with Island County commissioners to improve the water permit process with developers. Each water system has its unique strengths and challenges, and the chosen solution should take these into account and be sensitive to preferences of the leaders. Implementing a plan gradually over a number of years can be part of the plan. Over the next 20 or 30 years, it’s possible that the vision of a future “Central Camano Water System” (see the map on the next page) could become a reality. In the near term, the following actions could be considered:

Mecca Community Association, Seascape Water Association, and Elgerwood Maintenance Association might consider sharing resources or even consolidating, as it makes good engineering as well as economic sense.

Camano Water Association and Camano Cooperative Water & Power might consider an intertie.

The other three water systems (Camano Island Summit Association, Camano Sunset Water System, and Thunder Ridge Water System) could remain unchanged for the near term, as there’s no economic sense to make any immediate changes.

For the engineering and technical details about these and other recommended actions, see Appendix B, “Central Camano Water Systems Cooperation Study: Discussion of Notional System Consolidation.” With certain incremental changes, small benefits will start to be seen in the near term. A foundation can now be laid for more far-reaching benefits in the future.

CENTRAL CAMANOWATER SYSTEM - 2050

SUMMIT:HGL 560

12 IN. WATERMAIN: 3,500 LF

SUNSET:HGL 520

THUNDER RIDGE:HGL 440

CAMANO WATER:HGL 375

MECCA (SCHOOL):HGL 290

MECCA:HGL 240

SEASCAPE:HGL 250

ELGERWOOD:HGL 370

CAMANO COOP:HGL 304

BPS: HGL 560

PRV

BPS W/ PRV: HGL 480

BPS W/ PRV: HGL 480


PRV

PRV

PRV




UPSIZECWA TANKS


Next steps The following are the recommended next steps, based on the work of the feasibility study and discussions with stakeholders:

1. Research the establishment and operation of a water district, public utility district, and municipality.

2. Decide which structure is most beneficial for Camano Island water systems and their customers.

3. Develop a business plan to detail the operations, engineering, finance, legal, and personnel aspects of the new water system structure.

4. Develop the project plan to implement the new water system structure. 5. Work with Island County officials to revise the water permit process in such a way that

water system consolidation can be sustained and successful.


Acknowledgments Thanks go to the following individuals for their contributions to the Water Systems Cooperation Opportunities project and this feasibility study. Dave Weir, Project Manager, Camano Water Association Robert LaLanne, Camano Water Association Duane Atkins, Camano Water Association Lenore Heffernan, Camano Water Association Peter Turner, Camano Water Association Greg Cane, P.E., Cane Engineering Jennifer Kropack, Washington State Department of Health Virpi Salo-Zieman, P.E., Washington State Department of Health Teresa Stover, Stover Writing Services


Appendixes

A. Data gathering phase: Sample memo and questionnaire B. Central Camano Water Systems Cooperation Study:

Discussion of notional system consolidation C. Engineering reports for the eight participating water companies

1. Camano Cooperative Water and Power Co. 2. Camano Island Summit Association 3. Camano Sunset Water System 4. Camano Water Association 5. Elgerwood Maintenance Association 6. Mecca Community Association 7. Seascape Water Association 8. Thunder Ridge Water System

For each of the eight participating water systems, the data includes the following components as applicable:

Initial information from the Department of Health Sentry website o Water System File Report o Water Facilities Inventory Form o Pre-Adequacy Data Summary o Exceedances

Water systems overview map Final letter Capital facilities replacement review Water system components expected useful life New drilled well budget construction cost Well pump budget replacement cost Pumphouse budget construction cost Fe/Mn/As removal treatment budget cost information Reservoir budget installation cost Distribution system piping budget construction cost 4-inch PRV station (for 6” main) budget construction cost Backup generator budget installation cost Chain link fence budget replacement cost

14-05-T01 Memo w Questionnaire 09131 JL2015bg.docx

CaneEngineering

231 SE Barrington Dr, Suite 205 P.O. Box 459 Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Tel: 360-279-0615 Fax: 360-679-5046

Gregory R. Cane, P.E.

Memo To: Jeff Aschenbrenner, Elgerwood Maintenance Association

From: Gregory R. Cane, P.E.

Date: July 21, 2015

Re: Water System Consolidation Study Data Gathering Phase

Cc: Camano Water Association King Water Co.

This is in follow-up to our meeting of April 22, 2015, wherein the Water System Consolidation Study was reviewed with several water systems in the south-central Camano Island area. As I reflected at that meeting, the project will have two primary phases. The first phase (see PowerPoint slide from the presentation, below) will include data gathering. The second phase will be for analysis and report preparation. With your cooperation, I would like to begin the onsite data gathering phase. It is my hope to visit two or three water systems during each site visit.

During my site visit, I would appreciate the opportunity to talk to one or more of your Board members, as well as your Water Manager (if available).

At your earliest convenience I would appreciate if you could complete the attached questionnaire; it will help me greatly in being better prepared prior to my site visit. I have included a SASE for your convenience. Please drop the questionnaire in the mail when it is completed. We would like to have these back by August 7.

My thanks in advance. If you have questions, or need additional information, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 360-279-0615, or [email protected].

Elgerwood Maintenance Association Page 2


Questionnaire:

1) The Sentry website of the Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH) (https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/eh/portal/odw/si/Intro.aspx) has excellent water system data. It sometimes, however, has outdated or inaccurate information. I have attached the Water System File Report and Sentry information for your water system (Enclosures E-1to E-6). Please review the information and let me know if there are inaccuracies in the data.

2) Future cooperation between water systems in our area could take many forms. It will, as a minimum, hopefully increase the amount of mutual aid amongst nearby systems (“We’ve got an emergency and our reservoir is dry; can we borrow your generator?”). Additionally, however, there may be opportunities over the long-term to work on capital improvement projects which would serve the needs of two or more water systems. Are there capital projects that you foresee that could be a shared value to two, or more, systems (For example, two components which can often be shared by adjacent systems are reservoir storage and well source. Do you anticipate that your water system may make significant improvements to either of these facilities in the next five years)?

3) It looks like I will be on Camano Island for site visits on the afternoons of Wednesday, August 12; Friday, August 14 and Thursday, August 27. Would one of these dates work better for your schedule? Once we have the initial responses back from the water systems, I will contact you so that we can refine the date/time.

4) One of my jobs for this project will be to see how adjacent water systems might function if combined. Such questions as :

If a water main is installed to intertie two adjacent water systems, what will be the pressure and volume available to the water customers?

or

Elgerwood Maintenance Association Page 3


If the well from Water System A were used to jointly serve Water Systems A and B, what size pipe would be needed to share this well supply between the two systems?

It would greatly help my work in answering these types of questions if I could receive copies of previously prepared plans, maps, and reports related to your water system. If these are available, I could make copies and return the originals to you. Or, if you prefer, there is some money in the project budget available for copying. We could reimburse your system for reproduction fees if you would like to make copies yourself. (Please let me know the approximate cost of the reproduction prior to making the copies). Does your water system have copies of plans, maps and reports that could be made available for my use?

5) During my visit, it would be very useful for me to take photographs of the various water system components. Would this be acceptable?

E-1

9. 24 HOUR PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION 110. OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION

Primary Contact Daytime Phone: (360) 678-5336 Owner Daytime Phone: (360) 387-1856

Primary Contact Mobile/Cell Phone: (360) 969-1019 Owner Mobile/Cell Phone:

Primary Contact Evening Phone: (xxx) xxx-xxxx Owner Evening Phone: (xxx) xxx-xxxx

Fax: | E-mail: XXXXXX Owner Fax Phone: | E-mail: XXXXXX

WWAC 246-290-420(9) requires that water systems provide 24-hour contact information for emergencies.

6. PRIMARY CONTACT NAME & MAILING ADDRESS 7. OWNER NAME & MAILING ADDRESS 8. Owner Number 008938SANDRA V. BODAMER [CONTACT] ELGERWOOD MAINTENANCE

ASSOCIATIONTITLE: PRESIDENT

KING WATER CO JEFF ASCHENBRENNER PO BOX 2243 1992 ELGER BAY RD - PMB# 506 OAK HARBOR, WA 98277 CAMANO ISLAND, WA 98282

STREET ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE STREET ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVEATTN ATTN

ADDRESS ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP

11. SATELLITE MANAGEMENT AGENCY - SMA (check only one)

Not applicable (Skip to #12)

Owned and Managed SMA NAME: KING WATER COMPANY SMA Number: 128Managed Only

Owned Only

12. WATER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS (mark all that apply)

Agricultural Hospital/Clinic Residential

Commercial / Business Industrial SchoolDay Care Licensed Residential Facility Temporary Farm WorkerFood Service/Food Permit Lodging Other (church, fire station, etc.):1,000 or more person event for 2 or more days per year Recreational / RV Park ________________________________________

13. WATER SYSTEM OWNERSHIP (mark only one) 14. STORAGE CAPACITY (gallons)

Association County Investor Special District

City / Town Federal Private State 32,000

1. SYSTEM ID NO. 2. SYSTEM NAME 3. COUNTY 4. GROUP 5. TYPE

09131 0 ELGERWOOD MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION

ISLAND A Comm

ONE FORM PER SYSTEM

WATER FACILITIES INVENTORY (WFI) FORM

Printed: 7/19/2015Updated: 03/04/2014Quarter: 2

Submission Reason: Annual UpdateWFI Printed For: On-Demand

RETURN TO: Central Services – WFI, PO BOX 47822, Olympia WA 98504-7822

15 16SOURCE NAME

17INTERTIE

18SOURCE CATEGORY

19USE

20 21TREATMENT

22DEPTH

23 24SOURCE LOCATION

Source N

umber

LIST UTILITY'S NAME FOR SOURCEAND WELL TAG ID NUMBER.

Example: WELL #1 XYZ456

IF SOURCE IS PURCHASED OR INTERTIED,

LIST SELLER'S NAMEExample: SEATTLE

INTERTIE SYSTEM ID

NUMBER

WE

LL

WE

LL FIE

LD

WE

LL IN A

WE

LL F

IELD

SP

RIN

G

SP

RIN

G F

IELD

SP

RIN

G IN

S

PR

ING

FIE

LD

SE

A W

AT

ER

SU

RF

AC

E W

AT

ER

RA

NN

EY

/ INF

. G

ALLE

RY

OT

HE

R

PE

RM

AN

EA

NT

SE

AS

ON

AL

EM

ER

GE

NC

Y

SO

UR

CE

ME

TE

RE

D

NO

NE

CH

LOR

INA

TIO

N

FILT

RA

TIO

N

FLU

OR

IDA

TIO

N

IRR

AD

IAT

ION

(UV

)

OT

HE

R

DE

PT

H T

O F

IRS

T

OP

EN

IN

TE

RV

AL IN

FE

ET

CA

PA

CIT

Y

(GA

LLON

S P

ER

MIN

UT

E)

1/4, 1/4 SE

CT

ION

SE

CT

ION

NU

MB

ER

TO

WN

SH

IP

RA

NG

E

S01AGA695 Well X X Y X X X 341 57 NW NW 32 31N 03E

Page: 1DOH 331-011 (Rev. 06/03) E-2

WATER FACILITIES INVENTORY (WFI) FORM - Continued

ELGERWOOD MAINTENANCE CommA ISLAND09131 05. TYPE4. GROUP 3. COUNTY1. SYSTEM ID

NO. 2. SYSTEM NAME

1

33. ROUTINE COLIFORM SCHEDULE

1

A. How many residents are served by this system 180 or more days per year?

29. FULL-TIME RESIDENTIAL POPULATION

110

DOH USE ONLY!CALCULATED

ACTIVE CONNECTIONS

DATE:SIGNATURE:

36. I certify that the information stated on this WFI form is correct to the best of my knowledge.

36. I certify that the information stated on this WFI form is correct to the best of my knowledge.

SIGNATURE: _________________________________________________________ DATE:_________________________________________

PRINT NAME: _________________________________________________________ TITLE:_________________________________________

35. Reason for Submitting WFI:

1111111111

DECNOVOCTSEPAUGJULJUNMAYAPRMARFEBJAN

DECNOVOCTSEPAUGJULJUNMAYAPRMARFEBJAN

30313130

2222DECNOVOCTSEPAUGJULJUNMAYAPRMARFEBJAN

555555555555

111111111111

B. How many days per month are they present?

A. If you have schools, daycares, or businesses connected to your water system, how many students daycare children and/or employees are present each month?

B. How many days per month is water accessible to the public?

A. How many total visitors, attendees, travelers, campers, patients or customers have access to the water system each month?

31. TEMPORARY & TRANSIENT USERS

B. How many days per month are they present?

A. How many part-time residents are present each month?

32. REGULAR NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS

DECNOVOCTSEPAUGJULJUNMAYAPRMARFEBJAN30. PART-TIME RESIDENTIAL POPULATION

28. TOTAL SERVICE CONNECTIONS

00B. Institutional, Commercial/Business, School, Day Care, Industrial Services, etc.0A. Recreational Services and/or Transient Accommodations (Campsites, RV sites, hotel/motel/overnight units)

00

C. Part Time Residential Units in the Apartments, Condos, Duplexes, Dorms that are occupied less than 180 days/year

B. Full Time Residential Units in the Apartments, Condos, Duplexes, Dorms that are occupied more than 180 days/year0A. Apartment Buildings, condos, duplexes, barracks, dorms

244

B. Part Time Single Family Residences (Occupied less than 180 days per year)

A. Full Time Single Family Residences (Occupied 180 days or more per year)025. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (How many of the following do you have?)

26. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (How many of the following do you have?)

27. NON-RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS (How many of the following do you have?)

46

046

00

47

DOH USE ONLY!APPROVED

CONNECTIONS

47

ACTIVE SERVICE CONNECTIONS

OtherNew System Name Change

Inactivate Update - No Change

Update - Change Re-Activate

Page: 2DOH 331-011 (Rev. 06/03) E-3

Last WFI Update:3/4/2014

See approved numbers - 47Approved Connections.:

46Active Connections......:

Connections:

County................: ISLANDDOH Region.......: NorthwestType....................: Comm

Group..................: A

Owner Type..: OtherOwner Name.: ELGERWOOD MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION

Ownership:

Sandra V Bodamer(360) 678-5336King Water CoPO Box 2243Oak Harbor, WA 98277

"Mailing Information:"ELGERWOOD MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION , 09131

Administrative Data

As of: 7/19/2015 Report Date: 7/19/2015

Pre - Adequacy Data Summary Page 1 of 2

E-4

Operating Permit Description

Current and Valid Operating Permit (Yes/No) - Yes

Permit Category Color.: GreenDOH Recommendation:

Green: Systems in this category are considered adequate for existing uses and new service connections up to the number of approved service connections.

*** No Current Violation Found for Water System ***

Water Quality Violations

Incident Date Severity

In Compliance

Not Required

Water System Plan Requirement

Operator Certification Requirement

Compliance Actions

*** No Current Compliance Actions Found ***

Action Status Issue Date Reason

Regional Staff Comments

This is a DOH Pre - Adequacy Data Summary for this water system that is based on information available at this time. Other entities such as Local Building, Planning and Health Jurisdictions, or financial institutions have alternative authority to make final decisions involving development, building permits and financing.

Disclaimer

** End of Report **

As of: 7/19/2015 Report Date: 7/19/2015

Pre - Adequacy Data Summary Page 2 of 2

E-5

Help

Individual System View - ELGERWOOD MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION - Water System Id - 09131

Compliance Actions Operating Permits Operators Reports Water Use Efficiency

General Information Source Information Samples Exceedances Water Quality Monitoring Schedule

Type Source DOE Source

Collect Date Analyte Result

Quantity Units Test Panel Analyte Group

Sample Number

Lab Number

MCL2 01 06G249 4/20/2004 COLOR 50.0 CU IOC IOC 04995 046MCL2 01 06G249 4/20/2004 IRON 3.05 mg/L IOC IOC 04995 046MCL2 01 06G249 4/20/2004 MANGANESE 0.060 mg/L IOC IOC 04995 046MCL2 01 06G249 4/3/2001 IRON 1.94 mg/L IOC IOC 02641 046MCL2 01 06G249 4/3/2001 MANGANESE 0.054 mg/L IOC IOC 02641 046MCL2 01 06G249 4/22/1998 IRON 0.920 mg/L IOC IOC 02658 046MCL2 01 06G249 7/8/1996 IRON 1.56 mg/L IOC IOC 02586 046MCL2 01 06G249 7/8/1996 MANGANESE 0.060 mg/L IOC IOC 02586 046MCL2 01 06G249 7/30/1993 COLOR 25.0 CU ICHEM IOC 02788 046MCL2 01 06G249 7/30/1993 IRON 0.870 mg/L ICHEM IOC 02789 046MCL2 01 06G249 7/30/1993 IRON 1.29 mg/L ICHEM IOC 02788 046MCL2 01 06G249 7/30/1993 MANGANESE 0.079 mg/L ICHEM IOC 02788 046MCL2 01 06G249 1/1/1990 IRON 0.930 mg/L ICHEM IOC 01026 081MCL2 01 06G249 3/16/1987 COLOR 75.0 CU ICHEM IOC 02931 081MCL2 01 06G249 3/16/1987 IRON 1.20 mg/L ICHEM IOC 02931 081

P Distribution 9/16/2009 TOTAL COLIFORM Present /100ml COLI_AP MICRO 30629 164










Records 1 - 25 of 30

Export CSV

Home Page | Find Water Systems | Find Water Quality | Downloads/Reports

DOH Home | Community and Environment| Drinking Water Home | Drinking Water ContactsAccess Local Health | Privacy Notice | Disclaimer/Copyright Information

Links to external resources are provided as a public service and do not imply endorsementby the Washington State Department of Health

Page 1 of 2Water Quality Exceedances

7/19/2015https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/eh/portal/odw/si/SingleSystemViews/ExceedSingleSys.aspxE-6

Central Camano Water Systems Cooperation Study

Discussion of Notional System Consolidation(Central Camano Water System - 2050)

INTRODUCTION

Lacking an imperfect “crystal ball”, there is no way of knowing what the configuration of the eight participating water systems will be in 2050, 34 years from now. In fulfillment, however, of the stated goal of the Study to provide an example of a consolidated water system, a notional Central Camano Water System (CCWS) - 2050 was created. This is just one possibility out of many reflecting how the water supply facilities in this area may be configured in the future. Given the numerous options, it is more than likely that in 34 years the water systems in this area will be different from the concept discussed here. Having said that, there is value in taking an in-depth look at the CCWS. Information relative to the improvements required and the shared and participant-specific costs/benefits, will be useful for any number of potential scenarios.

In future years, if individual systems desire to consolidate, required improvements, costs and benefits will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

As noted above, there are costs and benefits associated with the creation of a Central CamanoWater System. Four enclosures are provided herein which describe these costs/benefits, both from the standpoint of CCWS as a whole, and the eight study participants individually. The enclosures are listed here and are described below:

Conceptual Plan: Central Camano Water System - 2050 (Updated May 10, 2016)Table I: System-Wide ImprovementsTable II: Internal System Costs and SavingsTable III: Summary of Costs and Benefits

As a note, in order to facilitate the following discussion, the participating systems have been numbered, as follows:

System 1: Camano Water Association (CWA)System 2: Camano Cooperative Water and Power Co. (Co-op)System 3: Camano Island Summit Association (Summit)System 4: Camano Sunset Water System (Sunset)System 5: Thunder Ridge Water System (Thunder Ridge)System 6: Mecca Community Association (Mecca)System 7: Seascape Water Association (Seascape)System 8: Elgerwood Maintenance Association (Elgerwood)

CCWS - 2050 Page 1/5

DESCRIPTION OF ENCLOSURES

Conceptual Plan - Central Camano Water System - 2050

This plan graphically shows the shared improvements that would be required in order to create the CCWS combined water supply facilities. Project ID lettering isincluded in order to facilitate coordination with the report tables.

Table I: System-Wide Improvements

Improvements detailed in this table provide benefits to multiple participating water systems, as follows:

Improvement A:

106,000 gallons of additional storage volume is required if Water Systems 3 through 8 are connected to the Central Camano Water System (CCWS). Costs are shared on a per-ERU basis by the noted systems.

Improvement B:

Improvement B is the installation of a twelve (12) inch transmission main along Elger Bay and Mt. View Roads. The benefitting systems include CWA, Mecca, Seascape and Elgerwood. A possible cost sharing formula is suggested in Table III.

Improvements C and D:

These improvements include the construction of an eight (8) inch main, and associated booster pump stations, which will interconnect CWA and the Co-op. The construction of this main will add valuable source and storage redundancy for all of the CCWS. As such, costs are shared equally by all CCWS ERUs. The new main passes through an area which is currently unserved by any existing water system. Collection of latecomers fees, therefore, would be possible when future connections are made to the water main.

Improvements E to G:

These combined improvements represent the transmission main and booster station construction that will be required to serve the higher elevation water systems at the north end of CCWS. These improvements are needed in order to connect the Summit, Sunset and Thunder Ridgewater systems. Costs for the noted improvements would be shared on a per-ERU basis by these systems.


Table II: Internal System Costs and Savings

> Background:

As further discussed below, the systems are grouped according to their common characteristics:

Large Systems:

System 1: Camano Water AssociationSystem 2: Camano Cooperative Water and Power Co.

The Large Systems will retain both their pipe1 and non-pipe2

infrastructure. Analysis shows that, with minor improvements, CWA and the Co-op have adequate source, storage and water treatment capacity to serve the entire Central Camano Water System.

North Systems:

System 3: Camano Island Summit AssociationSystem 4: Camano Sunset Water SystemSystem 5: Thunder Ridge Water System

These are the higher elevation systems. A pressure boosting station and transmission mains are required to connect these to CCWS.

South Systems:

System 6: Mecca Community AssociationSystem 7: Seascape Water AssociationSystem 8: Elgerwood Maintenance Association

The South Systems are generally at lower elevations. In some cases, pressure reducing valve vaults will be required to serve the customers in these areas. Additionally, these systems are near the location of a proposed transmission main, currently slated for construction by the Camano Water Association (circa 2020).

1 Distribution system piping (and appurtenances). 2 All water system facilities except distribution system piping including, but not limited to, storage tanks, pumphouses, wells, water treatment, fencing and back-up generators.


> Internal System Costs Related to Inclusion in CCWS:

For inclusion into CCWS, each of the North and South systems will require two types of capital expenditures:

1) Improvements within their service area required to connect to CCWS, and

2) Contributions to “offsite improvements” common to CCWS in proportion to their benefit from these shared improvements.

This table evaluates internal improvements and their related costs, as described in (1), above.

> Internal System Savings Related to Inclusion in CCWS:

By connecting to CCWS, the North and South Systems will, over the long-term, be able to discontinue the use of their non-pipe infrastructure. These systems will benefit from the cost savings resulting from not havingto replace these components at the end of their useful life.

The internal improvements, and their associated costs, are reflected for the respective water systems in Columns C and D of this table. The infrastructure eliminated over the long-term, and the value of those components, is reflected in Columns E and F.

Table III: Summary of Costs and Benefits

This table provides an overview of the impacts to each of the participating water systems resulting from inclusion into CCWS, and takes into account:

The cost of internal improvements required in order to connect to CCWS.Non-pipe infrastructure eliminated, and the associated long-term savingsderived from not having to replace these components at the end of their useful life.The proportioned share of participant costs of the system-wide CCWS improvements.

The Discussion column provides a description of possible cost sharing formulas.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS - SUMMARY INFORMATION

For convenience, summary pages have been prepared for each of the study participants. As reflected in Figure 1, these summaries take into account the results of the Capital Facilities Replacement Review and the current analysis in order to determine the long-term additional cost (or conversely the long-term savings) associated with inclusion into the Central Camano Water System.


FIGURE 1

Water System Cooperation Study Sample Page 1/1Summary Information - Participating System

NAME OF WATER SYSTEM: Sample Water AssociationDESCRIPTION OF WATER SYSTEM:The system has 40 currently-connected ERUs, located on Appian Way, just north of Mt. Vesuvius. Much of the drinking water infrastructure was installed circa 250 BC.

CAPITAL FACILITIES REPLACEMENT REVIEW, SAMPLE SYSTEM ONLY *: All System Long-Term Replacement Cost:

o Total: $1,500,500o Total (Per ERU): $37,513

“Non - Pipes” Only, Long-Term Replacement Cost: o Total: $500,250o Total (Per ERU): $12,506

“Pipes” Only, Long-Term Replacement Cost: o Total: $1,000,250o Total (Per ERU): $25,007

LONG-TERM CAPITAL FACILITIES COST, CONNECTION TO CENTRAL CAMANO WATER SYSTEM - 2050

Estimated Required Contribution to 2050 Construction:Cost of Connection to 2050 Distribution System: Total Connection and Contribution Costs:

“Pipes” Only, Sample Long-Term Replacement Cost: o Total: $1,000,250o Total (Per ERU): $25,007

$155,00020,000

$175,000

COMPARISON OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL FACILITIES COSTSSample as a Separate System: Non-pipe and pipe replacement required per Capital Replacement Review:

Total Long-Term Cost: $1,500,500 Total Long-Term Cost Per ERU:

$37,513

Sample as a Part of 2050 System: Total Long-Term Connection and Contribution Costs: $175,000 Total Pipes Only Long-Term Replacement Cost: $1,000,250- - - - Total Long-Term Capital Facilities Costs:$1,175,250

Total Long-Term Capital Facilities Costs Per ERU: $29,381

DISCUSSION:If Sample becomes a part of the 2050 System, the long-term need for the replacement of non-pipe facilities is eliminated. As a result, the long-term net cost reduction for Sample is, as follows (2016$):

Total ($1,500,500 - $1,175,250 = ) $325,250 Total Per ERU ($37,513 - $29,381 = ) $8,132

NOTES: “Non-Pipes”: Cistern tank, well, and windmill * - Construction Costs Only


This is the construction-onlyreplacement cost of the watersystem, as determined by theCapital Facilities Replacement

Review enclosed with thisCooperation Study.

"Pipes" is all distribution systempiping and appurtenances. "Non-Pipes" is all other infrastructure,

generally including the well, storagetank and pumphouse.

Proportioned share ofimprovements to "core" 2050System. These improvements

will be needed in order toserve the 2050 System as a

whole.

These costs are for the connection to the 2050 distributionsystem for work required inside the the service areas of

the respective systems. Connection costs vary widely andcan range from a simple tap onto an adjacent water main,

to a long water main extension.

The replacement cost for pipes is the same for bothoptions (Separate System, or part of the 2050 System).

In the long-term, it is less expensive for the SampleSystem to be included in the 2050 System (the long-termcost savings will be $325,250). For other water systems,the cost of inclusion may be greater than if they were to

remain separate.

CENTRAL CAMANOWATER SYSTEM - 2050

(Updated May 10, 2016)

SUMMIT:HGL 560


SUNSET:HGL 520

THUNDER RIDGE:HGL 440

CAMANO WATER:HGL 375

MECCA (SCHOOL):HGL 290

MECCA:HGL 240

SEASCAPE:HGL 250

ELGERWOOD:HGL 370

CAMANO COOP:HGL 304

BPS: HGL 560

PRV

BPS W/ PRV: HGL 480

BPS W/ PRV: HGL 480


PRV

PRV

TWO PRVS




UPSIZECWA TANKS A

B

C

B

D

D

E

F

G

Improvement ID2050 System Improvement

Description2050 System

Improvement CostMisc Notes

AAdditional Storage at Monticello Site(266 ERUs X 400 Gal/ERU=) 106,400

Gal. ; Assume $1.25/gal$133,000

Storage for 266 additional ERUS: Cost based on current required capacity of areasystems (Camano Co op: 373 Gal/ERU; CWA 382 Gal/ERU)

B6,200 LF of 12" Water Main on Elger

Bay and Mt. View:1,230,000 From CWA June 4, 2015 Improvement Plan

C 8" Pipe Intertie, CWA/Coop; 5,800 LF 667,000 Use $115/LF

DTwo BPS/PRV Stations (HGL 480);

CWA/Coop Intertie; 440 SF each @$670 / SF

589,600 BPS to HGL 480; PRV to respective CWA/Coop storage tank WSL.

EBPS to North (HGL 560); 440 SF @

$670/SF294,800

Incl. fire pump capable of 500 gpm @ 200 ft. Possible pump:Aurora No. 3x4x9b (50 hp)

EGenset for BPS to North for 50 hp 3 ph

pump (125 Kw); Use $800/kw100,000 Ref CE Notes and City of Paducah Bid Tab (6/10/14)

F2,700 LF of 12" Water Main to North @

$205/LF553,500 Use $205/LF based on Elger Bay estimate

G8" Pipe; North Transmission;

3,500 LF402,500 Use $115/LF

Total 2050 SystemWide Improvements $3,970,400

SYSTEM WIDE IMPROVEMENTSCENTRAL CAMANOWATER SYSTEM

TABLE I

Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E Column F

System No. Water SystemInternal Improvement

Description

InternalImprovement

CostInfrastructure Eliminated

Total Value ofInfrastructureEliminated

1 Camano Water None NA None NA2 Camano Cooperative None NA None NA

3 Summit600 LF of 6" pipe to connect

to mains63,000

Well; Well Pump; Pumphouse; StorageTank

163,950

4 Sunset1,800 LF of 6" pipe to

connect to mains189,000

Well; Well Pump; Pumphouse; Treatment;Storage Tank

283,410

5 Thunder Ridge200 LF of 8" pipe to connect

to mains23,000

Well; Well Pump; Pumphouse; Fence; TwoStorage Tanks; Standby Generator

582,245

6 Mecca One 6" PRV; One 4" PRV 64,000Well; Well Pump; Pumphouse; Fence;

Storage Tank; Standby Generator; 1,530 LFof 8" Pipe

515,950

7 SeascapeTwo 4" PRVs; 700 LF of 6"pipe to connect to mains

131,500Well; Well Pump; Pumphouse; Fence;

Storage Tank389,375

8 Elgerwood Two Interties 10,000Well; Well Pump; Pumphouse; StorageTank; Treatment; Standby Generator;

1,200 LF of 6" Pipe534,380

INTERNAL SYSTEM COSTS/SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH INCLUSION IN THE CENTRAL CAMANOWATER SYSTEMTABLE II

Discussion

System-Specific

Add'l

System -SpecificDeduct

Share of 2050

System

System-Specific

Add'l


Share of 2050

System

System-Specific

Add'l


Share of 2050

System

System-Specific

Add'l


Share of 2050

System

System-Specific

Add'l


Share of 2050

System

System-Specific

Add'l


Share of 2050

System

System-Specific

Add'l


Share of 2050

System

System-Specific

Add'l


Share of 2050

System

Cost Shared by Systems 3 through 8 Total

1 - Cam

ano Water

(1055 ERU

s)

2 - Cam

ano Cooperative

(538 ERU

s)

3 - Summ

it (18 ER

Us)

4 - Sunset (15 ER

Us)

5 - Thunder Ridge

(134 ERU

s)

6 - Mecca

(29 ERU

s)

CENTRAL CAMANO WATER SYSTEM - 2050

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

7 - Seascape (24 ER

Us)

8 - Elgerwood

(46 ERU

s)

TABLE III

System

2050 System Improvement

A - Increase Storage 9,000 7,500 67,000 14,500 12,000 23,000Cost Shared by Systems 3 through 8. TotalProject Cost: $133,000. Cost Per ERU: (133,000/266=) $500

B - 12" Main to Southeast 1,035,790 56,890 47,081 90,239

Assume one half of System 1 ERUs Benefit from this improvement. Other Systems Benefitting are 6, 7 and 8. Total ERUS Benefitting: (528+29+24+46=) 627. Cost Per ERU: (1,230,000/627=) $1,962

C - 8" Main on Monticello 378,528 193,032 6,458 5,382 48,079 10,405 8,611 16,505Source and Storage Reliability Improvement. This Work Shared by all Eight Systems. Cost Per ERU: (667,000/1,859=) $359

D - Two BPS for Monticello Main 334,604 170,632 5,709 4,757 42,499 9,198 7,612 14,589Source and Storage Reliability Improvement. This Work Shared by all Eight Systems. Cost Per ERU: (589,600/1,859=) $317

E - BPS and Genset for North 42,553 35,461 316,786Costs Shared by Systems 3,4 and 5. Total Project Cost: $394,800. Cost Per ERU: (394,800/167=) $2,364

F - 12" Main to North 59,659 49,715 444,126Costs Shared by Systems 3,4 and 5. Total Project Cost: $553,500. Cost Per ERU: (553,500/167=) $3,314

G - 8" Main @ North 43,383 36,153 322,964Costs Shared by Systems 3,4 and 5. Total Project Cost: $402,500. Cost Per ERU: (402,500/167=) $2,410

System Internal Changes(See Table II) 63,000 163,950 189,000 283,410 23,000 582,245 64,000 515,950 131,500 389,375 10,000 534,380

Totals 1,748,922 363,664 63,000 163,950 166,762 189,000 283,410 138,968 23,000 582,245 1,241,454 64,000 515,950 90,993 131,500 389,375 75,304 10,000 534,380 144,333

NET CAPITAL COSTS/SAVINGS

COLOR CODE KEY:RED - WATER SYSTEM COSTSGREEN - WATER SYSTEM SAVINGS

$360,957 $182,571 $380,047$1,748,922 $363,664 $65,812 $44,558 $682,209

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

o

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

14-05-T01 Cam Co-op DRAFT Cost Analysis Ltr RO MR0916gc.docx

CaneEngineering

231 SE Barrington Dr, Suite 205P.O. Box 459Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Tel: 360-279-0615Fax: 360-679-5046


March 9, 2016

Camano Cooperative Water and Power Co.

Re: Central Camano Water SystemsCooperation Study - Report Appendix(Capital Facilities Replacement Review)

Dear Camano Cooperative Members:

Please find enclosed the DRAFT Capital Facilities Replacement Review for your water system.The purpose of analyses such as this is to use available information to estimate both the total cost, and the annual contribution to the eventual replacement, of all water system components.

I have prepared the analysis based on the records available to me at this time. One reason for this initial draft is to seek refining data (e.g. for Camano Cooperative, the age of the Indian Beach pressure reducing valve). Once the data is refined, the final report can be a very useful tool for the Board of Directors in guiding future decisions relative to assessments for the replacement of the water system’s facilities (I’ve discussed this further below).

There is one caution that I always make when preparing these analyses, that is, we should be wary of over-refinement. There is no doubt that there could be much fine-tuning on the margins. For example, should the useful life of the storage tank be 40 years, as I have used, or should it be 50 years? Or, should interest / inflation be included in the calculations? Communities invariably determine, even after many tweaks, that the required cost per household per year (as reflected in Column K) is still very high. The lesson, therefore, is not whether the Co-op’s cost per household per year should be $1,065.27, or $900, or $1,200, but that the replacement cost of the water systems capital facilities is high and should be addressed to the best ability of the Association.

If community members would like to further discuss the results of this review, I would be happy toanswer any questions that may arise. As possible, it would be very helpful if you could forward to me any updates or corrections that you may have by Monday, April 11, 2016.

- - - - -

The notes below discuss the columns in the attached table.

As of April 11, 2016, there was noindication from Camano Cooperative Water and Power Co. that changes to the Capital Facilities Plan are necessary.

Page 2 of 4


Column A

This column reflects a summary of the water system components. Water system component sizes, capacities, age, etc. have been based upon record information and documents. Please review this column and if you find incorrect information, please note it.

Column B

This is an estimate of the replacement cost (construction only) for the various water system components. For the most part, it is based on the budget cost information sheets enclosed herein. For instance, for the 100 square foot Conklin pumphouse, it is prudent to budget $670 per square foot for a new pumphouse. This is an all‐inclusive construction cost and takes into account the building, piping, pumps, electrical, control system, etc. The Column B value therefore for the 100 square foot pumphouse is (100 x $670/sq. ft.) = $67,000.

Column C

Recent experience has shown that other (non‐construction) costs for water system projects in Island County can add as much as 35% – 40% on top of construction costs. For this cost analysis, an additional 35% has been used. These additional costs can include engineering, construction management, archaeological / environmental review and mitigation, permitting, attorney’s fees and contingencies. This column reflects the total estimated component replacement costs.

Column D

The review year for this report is 2016.

Column E

Based on available information, the installation year for the noted component is reflected in this column. In some cases, I have estimated the installation year of a component. Please review this column. If your information differs from that included herein, please note this also. Column F

Column D minus Column E.

Column G

The expected life of a component is based upon the table enclosed in this report (Enclosure E-1). This Expected Useful Life table is a summary of fourteen data sources which evaluated

Page 3 of 4


the expected life of water system components. In the right hand column of the table, I have suggested an anticipated useful life for the various components. Column H

Column H is the arithmetic difference between the component age and the expected life. As noted herein, the result may not necessarily be meaningful for this cost review. For example, for the Monticello Storage Tank, the years remaining to replacement is zero. Clearly, the tank is functioning, and will continue to function for some time into the future.

Column I

This column allows the reviewer to use a more reasonable anticipated remaining life value for the various components. Again, considering the Monticello storage tank, I have estimated a remaining life of ten years for this component. The values placed within this column will be based upon the reviewer’s knowledge of the condition of the various water system facilities.

Column J

The current number of households (aka, Equivalent Residential Units) connected to the water system.

Column K

This is the amount that each household would need to contribute toward a Capital Facilities Replacement Fund (“Replacement Fund”) each year to provide their share of the cost for the noted component. For example, for the Monticello storage tank, each household would need to contribute $22.19 per year for the replacement of this component.

Column L

The noted support documents for your report are included herein, and the location reflected in this column.

Column M Miscellaneous notes, including cost information not reflected elsewhere in the report.

Discussion

Looking at the bottom of Column K, the total required contribution per household of $1,065.27 per year to a Replacement Fund is much more than is typically acceptable to the average homeowner. With the exception of a new water system, I am not aware of any similar analysis which did not result in an uncomfortably high required contribution to a Replacement Fund. Most communities, therefore, do not find it feasible to contribute to a Replacement

Page 4 of 4


Fund at the level provided in these analyses.

Having said that, however, one should not cast aside the results of this analysis as it does a reasonably good job of providing a long‐term replacement cost of a community’s water system. Most communities of which I am aware, have utilized the results of these analyses to increase (or to initiate) contributions to a Replacement Fund. If a given component were to fail and require replacement before there is sufficient money in the Fund, a water system may elect to finance these capital replacements through one of a number of loan programs available.

Sincerely,

Cane Engineering


Encl

CAMANO COOPERATIVE WATER & POWER CO.PIPE AGE RECORD INFORMATION (SAMPLE)

8 IN. PVC PIPEINSTALLED - 2013- - - - -RECORD INFORMATION:ASBUILTS - 2013

ROWE RD

8 IN. PVC PIPE.INSTALLED - 2006.- - - - -RECORD INFORMATION:ASBUILTS - 2006.

CHAPMAN RD

ROWE RD

SECO

ND

CT

8 IN. PVC PIPE.INSTALLED - 1991

- - - - -RECORD INFORMATION:

MISC. PLANS - 1991.

CH

APM

AN R

D

GAR

Y LN

6 IN. PVC PIPE.INSTALLED - 1980 AND1986.- - - - -RECORD INFORMATION:PLAT - 1980 ANDPROJECT PLANS - 1986

EBO

NY

PL S FA

LCO

N R

D

A B C D E F G H I J K L M

Water System ComponentReplacement

Cost - Construction

Replacement Cost - Total (1)

ReviewYear

YearInstalled(Approx.)

Component AgeExpected

Life (2)

Years to Replacement(Theoretical)

Years to Replacement (For

Analysis)

Number of Households

Required per Household per

YearEnclosure Notes

Wells

Lost Meadows Well - 220' Deep, 8" Casing 17,600 23,760 2016 2003 13 35 22 22 538 2.01 E-2

Lost Meadows Well Pump - 15 Hp 16,900 22,815 2016 2003 13 15 2 5 538 8.48 E-3 Well Pump Age Estimated

Weston Well - 315' Deep, 8" Casing 25,200 34,020 2016 1984 32 35 3 10 538 6.32 E-2

Weston Well Pump - 25 Hp 21,100 28,485 2016 2011 5 15 10 10 538 5.29 E-3

Well Houses

Lost Meadows - 66 SF 33,000 44,550 2016 2004 12 40 28 28 538 2.96 E-4

Weston - 180 SF 90,000 121,500 2016 2015 1 40 39 39 538 5.79 E-4

Treatment

Lost Meadows - 100 Gpm 90,000 121,500 2016 2008 8 15 7 7 538 32.26 E-5

Storage Tanks

Springs - 105,700 Gal 143,752 194,065 2016 2013 3 40 37 37 538 9.75 E-6 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.36 / Gal.

Weston - 104,100 Gal 143,658 193,938 2016 1988 28 40 12 12 538 30.04 E-7 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.38 / Gal.

Monticello - 47,800 Gal 88,430 119,381 2016 1976 40 40 0 10 538 22.19 E-8 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.85 / Gal.

Lost Meadows - 31,300 62,600 84,510 2016 1986 30 40 10 10 538 15.71 E-9 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $2.00 / Gal.

Pump Houses

Lost Meadows - 570 SF 381,900 515,565 2016 1991 25 40 15 15 538 63.89 E-10

Springs - 192 SF 128,640 173,664 2016 2013 3 40 37 37 538 8.72 E-10

Conklin - 100 SF 67,000 90,450 2016 1977 39 40 1 5 538 33.62 E-10

Monticello - 64 SF 42,880 57,888 2016 1988 28 40 12 12 538 8.97 E-10

Pipes

8" PVC:

1980 to 1989 (5,033 LF) 578,795 781,373 2016 1985 31 75 44 44 538 33.01 E-11

1990 to 1999 (4,740 LF) 545,100 735,885 2016 1995 21 75 54 54 538 25.33 E-11

2000 to 2009 (4,696 LF) 540,040 729,054 2016 2005 11 75 64 64 538 21.17 E-11

2010 to 2016 (5,877 LF) 675,855 912,404 2016 2013 3 75 72 72 538 23.55 E-11

8" PE:

2010 to 2016 (160 LF) 18,400 24,840 2016 2013 3 75 72 72 538 0.64 E-11

8" DI:

2010 to 2016 (476 LF) 61,880 83,538 2016 2013 3 75 72 72 538 2.16 Use $130/LF for Estimate

6" PVC:

1980 to 1989 (10,103 LF) 1,060,815 1,432,100 2016 1985 31 75 44 44 538 60.50 E-12

1990 to 1999 (4,693 LF) 492,765 665,233 2016 1995 21 75 54 54 538 22.90 E-12

2000 to 2009 (573 LF) 60,165 81,223 2016 2005 11 75 64 64 538 2.36 E-12

4" PVC:

1960 to 1969 (1,131 LF) 118,755 160,319 2016 1965 51 75 24 24 538 12.42 E-12 Replace w/ 6" HDPE/PVC


1980 to 1989 (712 LF) 74,760 100,926 2016 1985 31 75 44 44 538 4.26 E-12 Replace w/ 6" HDPE/PVC


4" DI:

2010 to 2016 (476 LF) 49,980 67,473 2016 2013 3 75 72 72 538 1.74 Use $105/LF for Estimate

4" AC:

1960 to 1969 (6,641 LF) 697,305 941,362 2016 1965 51 45 -6 10 538 174.97 E-12 Replace w/ 6" HDPE/PVC

3" PVC:



3" AC:


2" PVC:

1970 to 1979 (1,931 LF) 125,515 169,445 2016 1975 41 75 34 34 538 9.26 Replacement for all Pipes, 2" and Smaller; Use $65 / LF


1990 to 1999 (410 LF) 26,650 35,978 2016 1995 21 75 54 54 538 1.24 Replacement for all Pipes, 2" and Smaller; Use $65 / LF



2" PE:


2" GIP:

1960 to 1969 (232 LF) 15,080 20,358 2016 1965 51 30 -21 5 538 7.57 Replacement for all Pipes, 2" and Smaller; Use $65 / LF

1 1/2" PVC:





1 1/2" PE:


1 1/2" GIP:

1960 to 1969 (2,562 LF) 166,530 224,816 2016 1965 51 30 -21 5 538 83.57 Replacement for all Pipes, 2" and Smaller; Use $65 / LF

Pressure Reducing Vaults

Manaco 29,000 39,150 2016 2014 2 35 33 33 538 2.21 E-13

Indian Beach 29,000 39,150 2016 1977 39 35 -4 5 538 14.55 E-13 Age Estimated

Cove Beach 29,000 39,150 2016 2014 2 35 33 33 538 2.21 E-13

Hill St. 29,000 39,150 2016 1977 39 35 -4 5 538 14.55 E-13 Age Estimated

Standby Generators

Monticello - 12 Kw 20,200 27,270 2016 2010 6 15 9 9 538 5.63 E-14

Conklin - 12 Kw 20,200 27,270 2016 2010 6 15 9 9 538 5.63 E-14

Chain Link Fence

Springs - 423 LF 10,787 14,562 2016 2013 3 40 37 37 538 0.73 E-15

Lost Meadows - 810 LF 18,630 25,151 2016 2001 15 40 25 25 538 1.87 E-15 Fence Age and Length Estimated

Monticello - 190 LF 8,265 11,158 2016 2008 8 40 32 32 538 0.65 E-15 Fence Age and Length Estimated

Conklin - 95 LF 4,560 6,156 2016 2010 6 40 34 34 538 0.34 E-15

Weston - 164 LF 7,462 10,074 2016 2015 1 40 39 39 538 0.48 E-15

Misc.

Corporate Office - Storage (660 SF) 66,000 89,100 2016 2001 15 50 35 35 538 4.73 Use $100/SF Replacement Cost

Totals 9,025,049 12,183,815 1,065.27

Camano Cooperative Water & Power Co. - Capital Facilities Replacement Review - 2016

(1) Total Cost reflects additional 35% for engineering, archaeological and environmental review / mitigation, permitting, construction administration, attorney's fees and contingencies.(2) See Enclosure E-1.

Expected Useful Life Table,

Fannie Mae, 2014

TexasCommission on EnvironmentalQuality, 2014

EnvironmentalFinance Center,

New Mexico Tech, 2006

Water Resource Engineering

Linsley/Franzini3rd ed

Illinois Municipal TreasurersAssociation,

Website 2007

IrrigationPractice and Engineering,Early 1900's

Long Term Performance

Prediction of PVC Pipes,

AWWARF, 2005

Drinking Water DistributionSystems,

Assessing and Reduction of

Risks, National AcademiesPress, 2006

EPA, 2005

CorrosionProtection of Ductile Iron

Pipe, Corrpro Companies, Inc.

AssetManagement:

A Handbook for Small Water

Systems, EPA, 2003

EPA Control and Mitigation

of Drinking Water Losses in

DistributionSystems, 2009

JM Eagle Pipe Web Page,

2010

Plastics Pipe Institute Web Page, 2010

USE - First Pass

Water Storage Tank (Generic) 30 50-80 30 30-60Concrete Water Storage Tank 50Steel Water Storage Tank 40 50+

Pipe (Generic) 50 35-40 35 35-40 35Transite Pipe 50PVC Pipe 25 100 (New Pipe?) 50-100 100HDPE Pipe 50 50-100Steel Pipe 30-40 15-50 30Ductile Iron Pipe 75 40+ 75-100 100Cast Iron Pipe 65-75

Wells 25-35 40-50 25-35 35Well Pump 15

Water Meter 10-15 30 40 15 10-15 15

Hydrants 40 50 40-60 40

Pumphouse Bldg 30 60-70 50 30-60 40

Water Pump (Generic) 15 10-15 18-25 10-15 15

Standby Generator 25 10-20 14-17 15

Site and Building Electrical 7-10 25 20 20

Valves 35-40 35

Water Treatment 15 10-15 10-15 15

Source

Component

Cane Engineering, 201 a Table - Water System Life .xls

Co-op E-1

Water System Components - Expected Useful Life

Project Cost Per Ft

Recent Bid Information 62.48$ Estimate for Budgeting 65.00$

New Drilled Well - Budget Construction Cost

(Estimated Lifespan: 35 years)Island County (2015 Dollars)

Cost Assumptions:6 inch casing

100 ft deepIncludes taxIncludes some site workDoes not include contingency

Well Costs DE1815gc.xlsx

Co-op E-2

Use $80/Ft for 8" Well

$10

000

$12,

000

$14,

000

$16,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$22,

000

$24,

000

eplacementCostW

ellP

ump

Budg

etRe

plac

emen

tCos

tIs

land

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

Estim

ated

Use

fulL

ife:1

5Ye

ars

$0

$2,0

00

$4,0

00

$6,0

00

$8,0

00

$10,

000

05

1015

2025

30

R

Capa

city

(HP)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

clud

esne

wpi

ping

and

wiri

ngIn

clud

esm

inor

wel

lreh

abili

tatio

nIn

clud

esta

xDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Co-op E-3

Wes

ton

Lost

Mea

dow

s

Area (SF) Year Project LocationTotal

Construction Cost

Cost per SF

432 2007 South Whidbey - Bid $208,000 $481

256 2010 North Whidbey - Bid 109,000 426

192 2012 Camano Island - Bid 174,000 906


620 2015 Camano Island - Bid 481,000 776$615

53

Pumphouse - Budget Construction Cost - Island CountyEstimated Useful Life - Building: 40 years, Electrical: 20 years

(2015 Dollars)

Average Per SFSales Tax (8.7%)

668$670

( )Total

Estimate for Budgeting

Cost Assumptions:All costs in 2015 dollarsIncludes electrical componentsIncludes building and concrete slabIncludes booster pumps and appurtenancesIncludes site pipingIncludes taxIncludes some site work

Pumphouse Costs DE1915gc.xlsx

Co-op E-4

Use $500/SF for Well Houses(Based on 2014 Camano Bid Tabulation)

1,40

01,

500

1,60

01,

700

1,80

01,

900

2,00

02,

100

2,20

02,

300

Pergpm(2015$)

Fe/M

n/As

RemovalTreatm

ent

Budget

CostInform

ationforIslan

dCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars)

(DesignFlow

GreaterT

han100gpm)

USEPA

2015

CostEvalua

tion:

Includ

esEq

uipm

ent,Installatio

n,Pu

mph

ouse,

Engine

eringan

dPe

rmits

.

700

800

900

1,00

01,

100

1,20

01,

300

100

150

200

250

Cost

Design

Flow

Rate

gpm

Use

forIslan

dCo

unty

for

100

150gp

m.Treatmen

tSystem

Equipm

enta

ndInstallatio

nOnly.

Co-op E-5

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Co-op E-6

Spr

ings

10

5,70

0 G

al

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Co-op E-7

Wes

ton

104,

100

Gal

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Co-op E-8

Mon

ticel

lo

47,8

00 G

al

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Co-op E-9

Lost

Mea

dow

s 31

,300

Gal


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




Co-op E-10

Description Unit Quantity Unit Price TotalMobilization LS 1 11,000.00 $11,000.00Removal of Structure & Obstruction LS 1 5,000.00 5,000.008-Inch HDPE Pipe LF 1,000 36.00 36,000.008-Inch Gate Valve EA. 2 1,400.00 2,800.008-Inch Tees, Bends & Fittings EA. 4 500.00 2,000.006 Inch Hydrant Assembly EA. 1 3,700.00 3,700.00Air Vacuum Valve Assembly EA. 1 1,900.00 1,900.00Single Service - Near Side EA. 10 900.00 9,000.00Single Service - Far Side EA. 10 1,800.00 18,000.00Connect Main to Existing System EA. 2 1,800.00 3,600.00Crushed Surfacing TN 75 32.00 2,400.00Commercial HMA - Pavement Patch TN 10 275.00 2,750.00Topsoil / Bark Mulch CY 20 45.00 900.00

8-Inch HDPE PipingPreliminary Cost Estimate: Installation Per Typical 1,000 FT

Distribution System Piping - Budget Construction Cost - Island CountyHDPE with Meters and Appurtenances

(Estimated Useful Life: 75 years)(2015 Dollars)

Corrugated Polyethylene Culv. Pipe 12 Inc. Diam. LF 60 22.00 1,320.00Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 500.00 500.00Select Gravel Backfill TN 300 15.00 4,500.00

$105,370.009,167.19

$114,537.19$114.54$115.00

Estimated Price Per LFEstimate Per LF For Budgeting

Sub-TotalSales Tax (8.7%)Total

Cost Assumptions:Pipe installed on shoulder of roadTypical residentialAssume HDPE pipe but similar for PVC pipeIncludes taxDoes not include permits, engineering, archaeological review

(these additional items can be 30 40% additional cost)Does not include contingency

Eight Inch Pipe Costs JA2816gc.xlsx

Co-op E-11

Description Unit Quantity Unit Price TotalMobilization LS 1 10,000.00 $10,000.00Removal of Structure & Obstruction LS 1 5,000.00 5,000.006-Inch HDPE Pipe LF 1,000 28.00 28,000.006-Inch Gate Valve EA. 2 900.00 1,800.006-Inch Tees, Bends & Fittings EA. 4 500.00 2,000.006 Inch Hydrant Assembly EA. 1 3,700.00 3,700.00Air Vacuum Valve Assembly EA. 1 1,900.00 1,900.00Single Service - Near Side EA. 10 900.00 9,000.00Single Service - Far Side EA. 10 1,800.00 18,000.00Connect Main to Existing System EA. 2 1,800.00 3,600.00Crushed Surfacing TN 75 32.00 2,400.00Commercial HMA - Pavement Patch TN 10 275.00 2,750.00Topsoil / Bark Mulch CY 20 45.00 900.00





$95,370.008,297.19

$103,667.19$103.67$105.00





Six Inch Pipe Costs JA2816gc.xlsx

Co-op E-12

Year Project Name Cost2006 North Whidbey - Bid $34,6522010 North Whidbey - Estimate 27,9402011 North Whidbey - Bid 19,4352013 Camano Island - Bid 23,033

$26,2652,285

28 550T t lSales Tax (8.7%)Average

4-Inch PRV Station (For 6" Main)

(Estimated Useful Life: 35 Years)Island County Budget Construction Cost (2015 Dollars)

28,550$29,000Estimate for Budgeting

Total

Cost Assumptions:Includes taxIncludes some site workDoes not include contingency

Four Inch PRV Costs DE1915gc.xlsx

Co-op E-13

$30,

000

$40,

000

$50,

000

$60,

000

nstalledCostBa

ckup

Gene

rato

rBu

dget

Inst

alla

tion

Cost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:15

Year

s

$0

$10,

000

$20,

000

010

2030

4050

6070

I

Capa

city

(kW

)Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

stal

led

and

test

ed,i

npl

ace,

onco

ncre

tepa

dIn

clud

esbo

thdi

esel

and

prop

ane

fuel

edge

nera

tors

Incl

udes

auto

mat

ictr

ansf

ersw

itch

Incl

udes

tax

Incl

udes

purc

hase

offu

elta

nkIn

clud

esso

me

site

wor

kDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Co-op E-14

Mon

ticel

loan

dC

onkl

in

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

placementCost/FtCh

ain

Link

Fenc

eBu

dget

Repl

acem

entC

ost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:40

Year

s

$15

$20

$25

$30

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rep

Fenc

eLe

ngth

(Ft)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:6

FtHi

ghFe

nce

Incl

udes

Barb

edW

ireAt

opIn

clud

esG

ate(

s)In

clud

esSo

me

Site

Prep

arat

ion

Incl

udes

Tax

Does

Not

Incl

ude

Cont

inge

ncy

Co-op E-15

Lost

Mea

dow

s: U

se $

23/L

f fo

r Rep

lace

men

t

Sprin

gs

Wes

ton

Con

klin

: Use

$48

/Lf

for R

epla

cem

ent

Mon

ticel

lo

14-05-T01 Cam Summit DRAFT Cost Analysis Ltr RO MR0816gc.docx

CaneEngineering


Tel: 360-279-0615Fax: 360-679-5046


March 8, 2016

Camano Island Summit Association


Dear Camano Island Summit Association Members: Please find enclosed the DRAFT Capital Facilities Replacement Review for your water system.The purpose of analyses such as this is to use available information to estimate both the total cost, and the annual contribution to the eventual replacement, of all water system components.

I have prepared the analysis based on the records available to me at this time. One reason for this initial draft is to seek refining data (e.g. for the Camano Island Summit Assn., the age of the well pump). Once the data is refined, the final report can be a very useful tool for the Board of Directors in guiding future decisions relative to assessments for the replacement of the water system’s facilities (I’ve discussed this further below).

There is one caution that I always make when preparing these analyses, that is, we should bewary of over-refinement. There is no doubt that there could be much fine-tuning on the margins. For example, should the useful life of the storage tank be 40 years, as I have used, or should it be 50 years? Or, should interest / inflation be included in the calculations? Communitiesinvariably determine, even after many tweaks, that the required cost per household per year (as reflected in Column K) is still very high. The lesson, therefore, is not whether the Summit Assn.cost per household per year should be $1,907.34, or $1,700, or $2,100, but that the replacement cost of the water systems capital facilities is high and should be addressed to the best ability of the Association.


- - - - -


As of April 11, 2016, there was no indication from Camano Island Summit Association that changes to the Capital Facilities Plan are necessary.

Page 2 of 4


Column A This column reflects a summary of the water system components, as reflected on the map included in this report. Water system component sizes, capacities, etc. have been based upon record information and documents. Please review this column and if you find incorrect information, please note it.

Column B

This is an estimate of the replacement cost (construction only) for the various water system components. For the most part, it is based on the budget cost information sheets enclosed herein. For instance, for the 128 square foot pumphouse, it is prudent to budget $670 per square foot for a new pumphouse. This is an all‐inclusive construction cost and takes into account the building, piping, pumps, electrical, control system, etc. The Column B value therefore for the 128 square foot pumphouse is (128 x $670/sq. ft.) = $85,760.

Column C


Column D


Column E



Column G


Page 3 of 4


the expected life of water system components. In the right hand column of the table, I have suggested an anticipated useful life for the various components.

Column H

Column H is the arithmetic difference between the component age and the expected life. As noted herein, the result may not necessarily be meaningful for this cost review. For example, for the well the remaining useful life is noted as zero. Clearly, the well is functioning and will continue to function for some time into the future.

Column I

This column allows the reviewer to use a more reasonable anticipated remaining life value for the various components. Again, considering the well, I have estimated a remaining life of ten years for this component. The values placed within this column will be based upon the reviewer’s knowledge of the condition of the various water system facilities.

Column J


Column K

This is the amount that each household would need to contribute toward a Capital Facilities Replacement Fund (“Replacement Fund”) each year to provide their share of the cost for the noted component. For example, for the storage tank, each household would need to contribute $450.00 per year for the replacement of this component.

Column L



Discussion


Page 4 of 4




Sincerely,

Cane Engineering


Encl

CAMANO ISLAND SUMMIT ASSOCIATION



Cost - Construction

Replacement Cost -Total (1)

ReviewYear



Life (2)



Analysis)


Required per Household

per YearEnclosure Notes

Well 1 - 106' Deep, 6" Casing 6,890 9,302 2016 1981 35 35 0 10 18 51.68 E-2

Well 1 Pump - 2 Hp 11,300 15,255 2016 2006 10 15 5 5 18 169.50 E-3 Estimated Installation Year

Pumphouse - 128 SF 85,760 115,776 2016 1981 35 40 5 10 18 643.20 E-4

Storage Tank - 30,000 Gallons 60,000 81,000 2016 1981 35 40 5 10 18 450.00 E-5 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $2.00 / Gal.

6" PVC - 2,430 LF 255,150 344,453 2016 1981 35 75 40 40 18 478.41 E-6

2" PVC Pipe - 940 LF 61,100 82,485 2016 1981 35 75 40 40 18 114.56 Estimate $65 / LF

Totals $480,200 $648,270 $1,907.34

Camano Island Summit Assoc. - Capital Facilities Replacement Review - 2016

Notes:(1) Total Cost reflects additional 35% for engineering, archaeological and environmental review / mitigation, permitting, construction administration, attorney's fees and contingencies.(2) See Enclosure E-1.


Fannie Mae, 2014







Website 2007




AWWARF, 2005




EPA, 2005



AssetManagement:


Systems, EPA, 2003





2010


USE - First Pass



Wells 25-35 40-50 25-35 35Well Pump 15

Water Meter 10-15 30 40 15 10-15 15

Hydrants 40 50 40-60 40

Pumphouse Bldg 30 60-70 50 30-60 40




Valves 35-40 35


Source

Component


Camano Summit E-1


Project Cost Per Ft







Camano Summit E-2

$10

000

$12,

000

$14,

000

$16,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$22,

000

$24,

000

eplacementCostW

ellP

ump

Budg

etRe

plac

emen

tCos

tIs

land

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

Estim

ated

Use

fulL

ife:1

5Ye

ars

$0

$2,0

00

$4,0

00

$6,0

00

$8,0

00

$10,

000

05

1015

2025

30

R

Capa

city

(HP)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

clud

esne

wpi

ping

and

wiri

ngIn

clud

esm

inor

wel

lreh

abili

tatio

nIn

clud

esta

xDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Camano Summit E-3


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




Camano Summit E-4

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Camano Summit E-5






$95,370.008,297.19

$103,667.19$103.67$105.00






Camano Summit E-6

14-05-T01 Cam Sunset DRAFT Cost Analysis Ltr RO MR0916gc.docx

CaneEngineering


Tel: 360-279-0615Fax: 360-679-5046


March 9, 2016

Camano Sunset Water System


Dear Camano Sunset Water System Members: Please find enclosed the DRAFT Capital Facilities Replacement Review for your water system.The purpose of analyses such as this is to use available information to estimate both the total cost, and the annual contribution to the eventual replacement, of all water system components.

I have prepared the analysis based on the records available to me at this time. One reason for this initial draft is to seek refining data (e.g. for Camano Sunset, the age of the well pump). Once the data is refined, the final report can be a very useful tool for the Board of Directors in guiding future decisions relative to assessments for the replacement of the water system’s facilities (I’ve discussed this further below).

There is one caution that I always make when preparing these analyses, that is, we should be wary of over-refinement. There is no doubt that there could be much fine-tuning on the margins. For example, should the useful life of the storage tank be 40 years, as I have used, or should it be 50 years? Or, should interest / inflation be included in the calculations? Communities invariably determine, even after many tweaks, that the required cost per household per year (as reflected in Column K) is still very high. The lesson, therefore, is not whether the Camano Sunset cost per household per year should be $4,571.44, or $4,000, or $5,000, but that the replacement cost of the water systems capital facilities is high and should be addressed to the best ability of the Association.


- - - - -


As of April 11, 2016, there was no indication from Camano Sunset Water System that changes to the Capital Facilities Plan are necessary.

Page 2 of 4


Column A

This column reflects a summary of the water system components, as shown on the map included in this report. Water system component sizes, capacities, etc. have been based upon record information and documents. Please review this column and if you find incorrect information, please note it.

Column B

This is an estimate of the replacement cost (construction only) for the various water system components. For the most part, it is based on the budget cost information sheets enclosed herein. For instance, for the 320 square foot pumphouse, it is prudent to budget $450 per square foot for a reconstructed pumphouse. This is an all‐inclusive cost of reconstruction and takes into account the renovated building, and new piping, pumps, electrical, control system, etc. The Column B value therefore for the 320 square foot pumphouse is (320 x $450/sq. ft.) = $144,000.

Column C


Column D


Column E



Page 3 of 4


Column G The expected life of a component is based upon the table enclosed in this report (Enclosure E-1). This Expected Useful Life table is a summary of fourteen data sources which evaluated the expected life of water system components. In the right hand column of the table, I have suggested an anticipated useful life for the various components. Column H

Column H is the arithmetic difference between the component age and the expected life. As noted herein, the result may not necessarily be meaningful for this cost review. For example, for the well, the years remaining to replacement is a minus 3 years. Clearly, the well is functioning, and will continue to function for some time into the future.

Column I


Column J


Column K


Column L



Page 4 of 4


Discussion Looking at the bottom of Column K, the total required contribution per household of $4,571.44 per year to a Replacement Fund is much more than is typically acceptable to the average homeowner. With the exception of a new water system, I am not aware of any similar analysis which did not result in an uncomfortably high required contribution to a Replacement Fund. Most communities, therefore, do not find it feasible to contribute to a Replacement Fund at the level provided in these analyses.


Sincerely,

Cane Engineering


Encl

CAMANO SUNSET WATER SYSTEM



Cost - Construction


ReviewYear



Life (2)



Analysis)




Well 1 - 454' Deep, 6" Casing 29,510 39,839 2016 1978 38 35 -3 10 15 265.59 E-2 6" Casing Assumed

Well 1 Pump -3 Hp 11,800 15,930 2016 2010 6 15 9 9 15 118.00 E-3 Pump Age Assumed

Pumphouse - 320 SF 144,000 194,400 2016 1978 38 40 2 5 15 2,592.00 E-4 Reconstruction Pumphouse @ $450/SF

Treatment - 15 gpm 24,000 32,400 2016 1996 20 15 -5 5 15 432.00 E-5


4" PVC - 1,350 LF 141,750 191,363 2016 1978 38 75 37 37 15 344.80 E-7 4" Pipe Replaced with 6" Pipe

3" PVC Pipe - 150 LF 15,750 21,263 2016 1978 38 75 37 37 15 38.31 E-7 3" Pipe Replaced with 6" Pipe

2" PVC Pipe - 720 LF 46,800 63,180 2016 1978 38 75 37 37 15 113.84 Estimate $65 / LF

Totals $487,710 $658,409 $4,571.44

Camano Sunset Water System. - Capital Facilities Replacement Review - 2016



Fannie Mae, 2014







Website 2007




AWWARF, 2005




EPA, 2005



AssetManagement:


Systems, EPA, 2003





2010


USE - First Pass



Wells 25-35 40-50 25-35 35Well Pump 15

Water Meter 10-15 30 40 15 10-15 15

Hydrants 40 50 40-60 40

Pumphouse Bldg 30 60-70 50 30-60 40




Valves 35-40 35


Source

Component


Camano Sunset E-1


Project Cost Per Ft







Camano Sunset E-2

$10

000

$12,

000

$14,

000

$16,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$22,

000

$24,

000

eplacementCostW

ellP

ump

Budg

etRe

plac

emen

tCos

tIs

land

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

Estim

ated

Use

fulL

ife:1

5Ye

ars

$0

$2,0

00

$4,0

00

$6,0

00

$8,0

00

$10,

000

05

1015

2025

30

R

Capa

city

(HP)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

clud

esne

wpi

ping

and

wiri

ngIn

clud

esm

inor

wel

lreh

abili

tatio

nIn

clud

esta

xDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Camano Sunset E-3


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




Camano Sunset E-4

Camano Sunset Pumphouse: Assume Retention of CMU Walls and Conc. Floor. Estimate

Reconstruction @ $450/Sf

2,00

0

2,25

0

2,50

0

2,75

0

Pergpm(2015$)

Fe/M

n/As

RemovalTreatm

ent

Budget

CostInform

ationforIslan

dCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars)

(DesignFlow

Less

Than

100gpm)

USEPA

2015

CostEvalua

tion:

Includ

esEq

uipm

ent,Installatio

n,Pu

mph

ouse,

Engine

eringan

dPe

rmits

.

1,25

0

1,50

0

1,75

0

1020

3040

5060

7080

9010

0

CostP

Design

Flow

Rate

gpmU

seforIslan

dCo

unty

for

2050

gpm.Treatmen

tSystem

Equipm

enta

ndInstallatio

nOnly.

Camano Sunset E-5

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Camano Sunset E-6






$95,370.008,297.19

$103,667.19$103.67$105.00






Camano Sunset E-7

14-05-T01 CWA Draft Cost Analysis Ltr RO MR0916gc.docx

CaneEngineering


Tel: 360-279-0615Fax: 360-679-5046


March 9, 2016

Camano Water Association


Dear Camano Water Association Members: Please find enclosed the DRAFT Capital Facilities Replacement Review for your water system.The purpose of analyses such as this is to use available information to estimate both the total cost, and the annual contribution to the eventual replacement, of all water system components.

I have prepared the analysis based on the records available to me at this time. One reason for this initial draft is to seek refining data (e.g. for Camano Water Association (CWA), the size and age of the Monticello generator). Once the data is refined, the final report can be a very useful tool for the Board of Directors in guiding future decisions relative to assessments for the replacement of the water system’s facilities (I’ve discussed this further below).

There is one caution that I always make when preparing these analyses, that is, we should bewary of over-refinement. There is no doubt that there could be much fine-tuning on the margins. For example, should the useful life of the storage tank be 40 years, as I have used, or should it be 50 years? Or, should interest / inflation be included in the calculations? Communitiesinvariably determine, even after many tweaks, that the required cost per household per year (as reflected in Column K) is still very high. The lesson, therefore, is not whether the CWA cost per household per year should be $1,157.79, or $1,000, or $1,400, but that the replacement cost of the water systems capital facilities is high and should be addressed to the best ability of the Association.


- - - - -


As of April 11, 2016, Camano Water Association indicated that the Capital Facilities Plan is acceptable as is.

Page 2 of 4


Column A

This column reflects a summary of the water system components. Water system facility sizes, capacities, etc. have been based upon record information and documents. Please review this column and if you find incorrect information, please note it.

Column B

This is an estimate of the replacement cost (construction only) for the various water system components. For the most part, it is based on the budget cost information sheets enclosed herein. For instance, for the 950 square foot Bonnie Lane pumphouse, it is prudent to budget $670 per square foot for a new pumphouse. This is an all‐inclusive construction cost and takes into account the building, piping, pumps, electrical, control system, etc. The Column B value therefore for the 950 square foot pumphouse is (950 x $670/sq. ft.) = $636,500.

Column C


Column D


Column E



Column G


Page 3 of 4



Column H is the arithmetic difference between the component age and the expected life. As noted herein, the result may not necessarily be meaningful for this cost review. For example, for some galvanized steel pipe, the years remaining to replacement is a minus 31 years. Clearly, the steel pipe is functioning, and will continue to function for some time into the future.

Column I

This column allows the reviewer to use a more reasonable anticipated remaining life value for the various components. Again, considering the galvanized steel pipe, I have estimated a remaining life of five years for even the oldest steel pipe. The values placed within this column will be based upon the reviewer’s knowledge of the condition of the various water system facilities.

Column J


Column K

This is the amount that each household would need to contribute toward a Capital Facilities Replacement Fund (“Replacement Fund”) each year to provide their share of the cost for the noted component. For example, for the Bonnie Lane pumphouse, each household would need to contribute $42.87 per year for the replacement of this component.

Column L



Discussion

Looking at the bottom of Column K, the total required contribution per household of $1,157.79 per year to a Replacement Fund is much more than is typically acceptable to the average homeowner. With the exception of a new water system, I am not aware of any similar analysis which did not result in an uncomfortably high required contribution to a Replacement

Page 4 of 4


Fund. Most communities, therefore, do not find it feasible to contribute to a Replacement Fund at the level provided in these analyses.


Sincerely,

Cane Engineering


Encl



Cost - Construction

Replacement Cost - Total (1)

ReviewYear



Life (2)



Analysis)


Required per Household per

YearEnclosure Notes

Wells

Well 4- 372' Deep, 6" Casing 24,180 32,643 2016 1980 36 35 -1 10 1055 3.09 E-2

Well 4 Pump - 10 Hp 14,800 19,980 2016 2006 10 15 5 5 1055 3.79 E-3 Pump Installed Date Estimated

Well 5- 260' Deep, 8" Casing 20,800 28,080 2016 1984 32 35 3 10 1055 2.66 E-2



Well 6 Pump - 30 Hp 23,400 31,590 2016 2014 2 15 13 13 1055 2.30 E-3




Well 8 Pump - 30 Hp 23,400 31,590 2016 2014 2 15 13 13 1055 2.30 E-3

Well Houses

Well 4 - 128 SF 64,000 86,400 2016 1980 36 40 4 15 1055 5.46 E-4

Well 5 - 100 SF 50,000 67,500 2016 1984 32 40 8 15 1055 4.27 E-4 Well House Size Estimated

Well 6 - 150 SF 75,000 101,250 2016 1989 27 40 13 13 1055 7.38 E-4



Treatment

Bonnie Lane - 600 Gpm 240,000 324,000 2016 2006 10 15 5 10 1055 30.71 E-5 Per Noted Enclosure, Estimate $400/gpm for Treatment Equipment Only.

Storage Tanks

Monticello - 150,000 Gal 150,000 202,500 2016 1999 17 40 23 23 1055 8.35 E-6 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.00 / Gal.

Monticello - 100,000 Gal 140,000 189,000 2016 1977 39 40 1 10 1055 17.91 E-7 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.40 / Gal. (Approx. Const. Date)

Monticello - 80,000 Gal 128,000 172,800 2016 1969 47 40 -7 5 1055 32.76 E-8 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.60 / Gal.

Bonnie Lane - 86,000 Gal 129,000 174,150 2016 2006 10 40 30 30 1055 5.50 E-9 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.50 / Gal.

Bonnie Lane - 40,000 Gal 76,000 102,600 2016 1995 21 40 19 19 1055 5.12 E-10 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.90 / Gal.

Crest View - 80,000 Gal 128,000 172,800 2016 1977 39 40 1 10 1055 16.38 E-11 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.60 / Gal. (Approx. Const. Date)

Mountain View - 37,000 Gal 72,150 97,403 2016 2009 7 40 33 33 1055 2.80 E-12 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.95 / Gal.

Pump Houses

Bonnie Ln - 950 SF 636,500 859,275 2016 1995 21 40 19 19 1055 42.87 E-13

Mountain View - 200 SF 134,000 180,900 2016 1999 17 40 23 23 1055 7.46 E-13 Area and Age Estimated

Monticello - 340 SF 227,800 307,530 2016 1995 21 40 19 19 1055 15.34 E-13 Age Estimated

Pipes

8" PVC:

1990 to 1999 (8,872 LF) 1,020,280 1,377,378 2016 1995 21 75 54 54 1055 24.18 E-14

8" HPDE:

2000 to 2009 (7,887 LF) 907,005 1,224,457 2016 2005 11 75 64 64 1055 18.13 E-14

6" STEEL:


6" HDPE:

2000 to 2009 (556 LF) 58,380 78,813 2016 2005 11 75 64 64 1055 1.17 E-15

2010 to 2016 (8,696 LF) 913,080 1,232,658 2016 2013 3 75 72 72 1055 16.23 E-15

6" PVC:

1960 to 1969 (3,518 LF) 369,390 498,677 2016 1965 51 75 24 24 1055 19.69 E-15

1970 to 1979 (4,063 LF) 426,615 575,930 2016 1975 41 75 34 34 1055 16.06 E-15

1980 to 1989 (9,538 LF) 1,001,490 1,352,012 2016 1985 31 75 44 44 1055 29.13 E-15

1990 to 1999 (8,823 LF) 926,415 1,250,660 2016 1995 21 75 54 54 1055 21.95 E-15

6" AC:


1960 to 1969 (12,272 LF) 1,288,560 1,739,556 2016 1965 51 45 -6 10 1055 164.89 E-15 Replace w/ 6" HDPE/PVC

4" PVC:




4" AC:

1950 to 1959 (8,461 LF) 888,405 1,199,347 2016 1955 61 45 -16 10 1055 113.68 E-15 Replace w/ 6" HDPE/PVC


3" PVC:


3" AC:

1960 to 1969 (8,928 LF) 937,440 1,265,544 2016 1965 51 45 -6 10 1055 119.96 E-15 Replace w/ 6" HDPE/PVC

2" PVC:





2" PE:


2" GIP:



1 1/2" GIP:


1" GIP:


Pressure Reducing Vaults 0 0 1055

Three Total - 4" PRVs with Bypass 87,000 117,450 2016 1975 41 35 -6 10 1055 11.13 E-16 Installation Years Not Known - Estimated Here

One - 4" PRV with Bypass (Cavalero) 29,000 39,150 2016 1996 20 35 15 15 1055 2.47 E-16

Standby Generator

Standby Generator - 110 Kw 80,500 108,675 2016 2007 9 15 6 10 1055 10.30 E-17

Monticello Booster Generator - 10 kw 19,000 25,650 2016 2005 11 15 4 10 1055 2.43 E-18 Capacity and Date Installed Estimated

Chain Link Fence

Monticello - 734 LF 16,882 22,791 2016 1999 17 40 23 23 1055 0.94 E-19 Installation Date is Estimated

Bonnie Lane - 665 LF 15,295 20,648 2016 1995 21 40 19 19 1055 1.03 E-19 Installation Date is Estimated

Crest View - 200 LF 8,600 11,610 2016 1999 17 40 23 23 1055 0.48 E-19

Mountain View - 220 LF 9,020 12,177 2016 2009 7 40 33 33 1055 0.35 E-19 Estimated Length and Installation Date

Misc.

Corporate Office - Storage (2500 SF) 250,000 337,500 2016 1990 26 50 24 24 1055 13.33 Age is Estimated. Use $100/SF Replacement Cost.

Totals $14,576,712 $19,678,561 $1,157.79

Camano Water Assn. - Capital Facilities Replacement Review - 2016


WATER SERVICE AREA FOR

CAMANO WATER ASSOCIATION 1 of 54

ED

GE

WO

OD

DR

.

3" AC

6" AC

2" GI

2" PVC

2" PVC

NEXT PAGE(TYP.)

Sample for Pipe Length/Size/Age Data CollectionMethod. Pipes for Each of

54 Sheets Reviewed toDetermine Pipe

Characteristics in AreaShown.


Fannie Mae, 2014







Website 2007




AWWARF, 2005




EPA, 2005



AssetManagement:


Systems, EPA, 2003





2010


USE - First Pass



Wells 25-35 40-50 25-35 35Well Pump 15

Water Meter 10-15 30 40 15 10-15 15

Hydrants 40 50 40-60 40

Pumphouse Bldg 30 60-70 50 30-60 40




Valves 35-40 35


Source

Component


CWA E-1


Project Cost Per Ft







CWA E-2


$10

000

$12,

000

$14,

000

$16,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$22,

000

$24,

000

eplacementCostW

ellP

ump

Budg

etRe

plac

emen

tCos

tIs

land

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

Estim

ated

Use

fulL

ife:1

5Ye

ars

$0

$2,0

00

$4,0

00

$6,0

00

$8,0

00

$10,

000

05

1015

2025

30

R

Capa

city

(HP)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

clud

esne

wpi

ping

and

wiri

ngIn

clud

esm

inor

wel

lreh

abili

tatio

nIn

clud

esta

xDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

CWA E-3

Wel

ls6,

7an

d8

Wel

ls4

&5


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




CWA E-4

Use $500/SF for Well Houses(Based on 2014 Camano Bid Tabulation)

Equi

pmen

t Cos

ts: $

/ gpm

vs

Size

($/g

pm)

Des

ign

Flow

Rat

e -

gpm

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

0

Equipment Cost - $/gpm

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IR S

yste

ms

IR A

M S

yste

ms

C/F

Sys

tem

sIX

Sys

tem

s AM

Sys

tem

s

CWA E-5

Sour

ce: U

SEPA

Jan

uary

27,

20

15 W

ebin

ar -

Tom

Sor

g, P

E (R

ed L

ines

by

Can

e)

$400

/gpm

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

CWA E-6

Mon

ticel

lo

150,

000

Gal

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

CWA E-7

Mon

ticel

lo

100,

000

Gal

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

CWA E-8

Mon

ticel

lo

80,0

00 G

al

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

CWA E-9

Bon

nie

Lane

86

,000

Gal

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

CWA E-10

Bon

nie

Lane

40

,000

Gal

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

CWA E-11

Cre

st V

iew

80

,000

Gal

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

CWA E-12

Mt.

Vie

w

37,0

00 G

al


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




CWA E-13






$105,370.009,167.19

$114,537.19$114.54$115.00






CWA E-14






$95,370.008,297.19

$103,667.19$103.67$105.00






CWA E-15

Year Project Name Cost2006 North Whidbey - Bid $34,6522010 North Whidbey - Estimate 27,9402011 North Whidbey - Bid 19,4352013 Camano Island - Bid 23,033

$26,2652,285

28 550T t lSales Tax (8.7%)Average

4-Inch PRV Station (For 6" Main)

(Estimated Useful Life: 35 Years)Island County Budget Construction Cost (2015 Dollars)

28,550$29,000Estimate for Budgeting

Total

Cost Assumptions:Includes taxIncludes some site workDoes not include contingency

Four Inch PRV Costs DE1915gc.xlsx

CWA E-16

CWA 110 kw Genset Cost Est.docx

Camano Water Association 110 KW Generator - Replacement Cost

February 11, 2016

Capacity Purchase Cost (w/ Transfer Switch) Installed Cost

Ratio(Installed Cost vs.

Purchase Cost)

12 KW $3,100.00 $20,000.00 6.5 : 1

38 KW 16,000.00 37,000.00 2.3 : 1

60 KW 20,400.00 52,000.00 2.5 : 1

Use 2.5 : 1 Ratio to Estimate Installation Cost for 110 KW Generator

110 KW 32,200.00 80,500.00 2.5 : 1

Cost Assumptions:Installed and tested, in place, on concrete padIncludes both diesel and propane fueled generatorsIncludes automatic transfer switchIncludes taxIncludes purchase of fuel tankIncludes some site workDoes not include contingency

CWA E-17

$30,

000

$40,

000

$50,

000

$60,

000

nstalledCostBa

ckup

Gene

rato

rBu

dget

Inst

alla

tion

Cost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:15

Year

s

$0

$10,

000

$20,

000

010

2030

4050

6070

I

Capa

city

(kW

)Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

stal

led

and

test

ed,i

npl

ace,

onco

ncre

tepa

dIn

clud

esbo

thdi

esel

and

prop

ane

fuel

edge

nera

tors

Incl

udes

auto

mat

ictr

ansf

ersw

itch

Incl

udes

tax

Incl

udes

purc

hase

offu

elta

nkIn

clud

esso

me

site

wor

kDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

CWA E-18

Mon

ticel

lo

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

placementCost/FtCh

ain

Link

Fenc

eBu

dget

Repl

acem

entC

ost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:40

Year

s

$15

$20

$25

$30

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rep

Fenc

eLe

ngth

(Ft)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:6

FtHi

ghFe

nce

Incl

udes

Barb

edW

ireAt

opIn

clud

esG

ate(

s)In

clud

esSo

me

Site

Prep

arat

ion

Incl

udes

Tax

Does

Not

Incl

ude

Cont

inge

ncy

CWA E-19

Mon

ticel

lo a

nd B

onni

e La

ne:

Use

$23

/Lf f

or R

epla

cem

ent

Mou

ntai

nVi

ew

Cre

stVi

ew

14-05-T01 Elgerwood DRAFT Cost Analysis Ltr RO MR0916gc.docx

CaneEngineering


Tel: 360-279-0615Fax: 360-679-5046


March 9, 2016

Elgerwood Maintenance Association


Dear Elgerwood Maintenance Association Members: Please find enclosed the DRAFT Capital Facilities Replacement Review for your water system.The purpose of analyses such as this is to use available information to estimate both the total cost, and the annual contribution to the eventual replacement, of all water system components.

I have prepared the analysis based on the records available to me at this time. One reason for this initial draft is to seek refining data (e.g. for Elgerwood, the size and age of the generator). Once the data is refined, the final report can be a very useful tool for the Board of Directors in guiding future decisions relative to assessments for the replacement of the water system’sfacilities (I’ve discussed this further below).

There is one caution that I always make when preparing these analyses, that is, we should bewary of over-refinement. There is no doubt that there could be much fine-tuning on the margins. For example, should the useful life of the storage tank be 40 years, as I have used, or should it be 50 years? Or, should interest / inflation be included in the calculations? Communitiesinvariably determine, even after many tweaks, that the required cost per household per year (as reflected in Column K) is still very high. The lesson, therefore, is not whether the Elgerwood costper household per year should be $2,660.17, or $2,200, or $3,000, but that the replacement cost of the water systems capital facilities is high and should be addressed to the best ability of the Association.


- - - - -


As of April 11, 2016, there was no indication from Elgerwood Maintenance Association that changes to the Capital Facilities Plan are necessary.

Page 2 of 4



Column B


Column C


Column D


Column E



Column G

The expected life of a component is based upon the table enclosed in this report (Enclosure E-1). This Expected Useful Life table is a summary of fourteen data sources which evaluated the expected life of water system components. In the right hand column of the table, I have suggested an anticipated useful life for the various components.

Page 3 of 4


Column H


Column I


Column J


Column K


Column L



Discussion

Looking at the bottom of Column K, the total required contribution per household of $2,660.17 per year to a Replacement Fund is much more than is typically acceptable to the average homeowner. With the exception of a new water system, I am not aware of any similar analysis which did not result in an uncomfortably high required contribution to a Replacement Fund. Most communities, therefore, do not find it feasible to contribute to a Replacement Fund at the level provided in these analyses.

Having said that, however, one should not cast aside the results of this analysis as it does a reasonably good job of providing a long‐term replacement cost of a community’s water

Page 4 of 4


system. Most communities of which I am aware, have utilized the results of these analyses to increase (or to initiate) contributions to a Replacement Fund. If a given component were to fail and require replacement before there is sufficient money in the Fund, a water system may elect to finance these capital replacements through one of a number of loan programs available.

Sincerely,

Cane Engineering


Encl

Elgerwood Maintenance



Cost - Construction


ReviewYear



Life (2)



Analysis)




Well 1 - 356' Deep, 8" Casing 28,480 38,448 2016 1979 37 35 -2 10 46 83.58 E-2 Est. $80/Ft for New Well See Reference

Well 1 Pump - 5.0 Hp 12,600 17,010 2016 2010 6 15 9 9 46 41.09 E-3 Pump Age is Estimated

Pumphouse - 290 SF 194,300 262,305 2016 1981 35 40 5 5 46 1,140.46 E-4


Treatment - 50 gpm 80,000 108,000 2016 1991 25 15 -10 5 46 469.57 E-6

6" PVC Pipe - 7,090 LF 744,450 1,005,008 2016 1981 35 75 40 40 46 546.20 E-7

4" PVC Pipe - 1,390 LF 132,050 178,268 2016 1981 35 75 40 40 46 96.88 Use $95/LF for Replacement Cost

Standby Generator - 25 Kw 29,000 39,150 2016 2010 6 15 9 9 46 94.57 E-8 Estimated Capacity and Installation Year

Totals $1,284,880 $1,734,588 $2,660.17

Elgerwood Maintenance Assoc. - Capital Facilities Replacement Review - 2016


14 05 T01 Elgerwood Cost Table FE1716bg.xls


Fannie Mae, 2014







Website 2007




AWWARF, 2005




EPA, 2005



AssetManagement:


Systems, EPA, 2003





2010


USE - First Pass



Wells 25-35 40-50 25-35 35Well Pump 15

Water Meter 10-15 30 40 15 10-15 15

Hydrants 40 50 40-60 40

Pumphouse Bldg 30 60-70 50 30-60 40




Valves 35-40 35


Source

Component


Elgerwood E-1


Project Cost Per Ft







Elgerwood E-2


$10

000

$12,

000

$14,

000

$16,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$22,

000

$24,

000

eplacementCostW

ellP

ump

Budg

etRe

plac

emen

tCos

tIs

land

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

Estim

ated

Use

fulL

ife:1

5Ye

ars

$0

$2,0

00

$4,0

00

$6,0

00

$8,0

00

$10,

000

05

1015

2025

30

R

Capa

city

(HP)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

clud

esne

wpi

ping

and

wiri

ngIn

clud

esm

inor

wel

lreh

abili

tatio

nIn

clud

esta

xDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Elgerwood E-3


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




Elgerwood E-4

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Elgerwood E-5

2,00

0

2,25

0

2,50

0

2,75

0

Pergpm(2015$)

Fe/M

n/As

RemovalTreatm

ent

Budget

CostInform

ationforIslan

dCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars)

(DesignFlow

Less

Than

100gpm)

USEPA

2015

CostEvalua

tion:

Includ

esEq

uipm

ent,Installatio

n,Pu

mph

ouse,

Engine

eringan

dPe

rmits

.

1,25

0

1,50

0

1,75

0

1020

3040

5060

7080

9010

0

CostP

Design

Flow

Rate

gpmU

seforIslan

dCo

unty

for

2050

gpm.Treatmen

tSystem

Equipm

enta

ndInstallatio

nOnly.

Elgerwood E-6






$95,370.008,297.19

$103,667.19$103.67$105.00






Elgerwood E-7

$30,

000

$40,

000

$50,

000

$60,

000

nstalledCostBa

ckup

Gene

rato

rBu

dget

Inst

alla

tion

Cost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:15

Year

s

$0

$10,

000

$20,

000

010

2030

4050

6070

I

Capa

city

(kW

)Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

stal

led

and

test

ed,i

npl

ace,

onco

ncre

tepa

dIn

clud

esbo

thdi

esel

and

prop

ane

fuel

edge

nera

tors

Incl

udes

auto

mat

ictr

ansf

ersw

itch

Incl

udes

tax

Incl

udes

purc

hase

offu

elta

nkIn

clud

esso

me

site

wor

kDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Elgerwood E-8

05-05-T01 Mecca DRAFT Cost Analysis Ltr RO MR0816gc.docx

CaneEngineering


Tel: 360-279-0615Fax: 360-679-5046


March 8, 2016

Mecca Community Association


Dear Mecca Community Association Members: Please find enclosed the DRAFT Capital Facilities Replacement Review for your water system.The purpose of analyses such as this is to use available information to estimate both the total cost, and the annual contribution to the eventual replacement, of all water system components.

I have prepared the analysis based on the records available to me at this time. One reason for this initial draft is to seek refining data (e.g. for the Mecca Community Assn., the age and length of the chain link fence). Once the data is refined, the final report can be a very useful tool for the Board of Directors in guiding future decisions relative to assessments for the replacement of thewater system’s facilities (I’ve discussed this further below).

There is one caution that I always make when preparing these analyses, that is, we should bewary of over-refinement. There is no doubt that there could be much fine-tuning on the margins. For example, should the useful life of the storage tank be 40 years, as I have used, or should it be 50 years? Or, should interest / inflation be included in the calculations? Communitiesinvariably determine, even after many tweaks, that the required cost per household per year (as reflected in Column K) is still very high. The lesson, therefore, is not whether the Mecca cost per household per year should be $1,439.39, or $1,200, or $1,600, but that the replacement cost of the water systems capital facilities is high and should be addressed to the best ability of the Association.


- - - - -


As of April 11, 2016, there was no indication from Mecca Community Association that changes to the Capital Facilites Plan are necessary.

Page 2 of 4



Column B

This is an estimate of the replacement cost (construction only) for the various water system components. For the most part, it is based on the budget cost information sheets enclosed herein. For instance, for the 245 square foot pumphouse it is prudent to budget $670 per square foot for a new pumphouse. This is an all‐inclusive construction cost and takes into account the building, piping, pumps, electrical, control system, etc. The Column B value therefore for the 245 square foot pumphouse is (245 x $670/sq. ft.) = $164,150.

Column C


Column D


Column E



Column G


Page 3 of 4


the expected life of water system components. In the right hand column of the table, I have suggested an anticipated useful life for the various components.

Column H


Column I


Column J


Column K


Column L



Discussion


Page 4 of 4




Sincerely,

Cane Engineering


Encl

MECCA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION



Cost - Construction


ReviewYear



Life (2)



Analysis)

Number of ERUs

Required per ERU per Year Enclosure Notes

Well 1 - 160' Deep, 6" Casing 10,400 14,040 2016 1968 48 35 -13 10 29 48.41 E-2

Well 1 Pump - 5 Hp 12,600 17,010 2016 1995 21 15 -6 5 29 117.31 E-3

Pumphouse - 245 SF 164,150 221,603 2016 2000 16 40 24 24 29 318.39 E-4

Chain Link Fence - 160 LF 7,360 9,936 2016 2000 16 40 24 24 29 14.28 E-5 Est. Fence Length: Installation Year Estimated


8" PVC Pipe - 1,530 LF 153,000 206,550 2016 2000 16 75 59 59 29 120.72 E-7 Some Transmission Pipe (No Services); Use $100 / LF

3" PVC Pipe - 1,120 LF 117,600 158,760 2016 1969 47 75 28 28 29 195.52 E-8 Use 6" HDPE (or PVC) for Replacement of 3" PVC Pipe

1" PVC Pipe - 780 LF 50,700 68,445 2016 1969 47 75 28 28 29 84.29 Replacement for all Pipes, 2" and Smaller; Use $65 / LF

Standby Generator - 25 Kw 29,000 39,150 2016 2000 16 15 -1 5 29 270.00 E-9

Totals $684,250 $923,738 $1,439.39

Mecca Community Assoc. - Capital Facilities Replacement Review - 2016



Fannie Mae, 2014







Website 2007




AWWARF, 2005




EPA, 2005



AssetManagement:


Systems, EPA, 2003





2010


USE - First Pass



Wells 25-35 40-50 25-35 35Well Pump 15

Water Meter 10-15 30 40 15 10-15 15

Hydrants 40 50 40-60 40

Pumphouse Bldg 30 60-70 50 30-60 40




Valves 35-40 35


Source

Component


Mecca E-1


Project Cost Per Ft







Mecca E-2

$10

000

$12,

000

$14,

000

$16,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$22,

000

$24,

000

eplacementCostW

ellP

ump

Budg

etRe

plac

emen

tCos

tIs

land

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

Estim

ated

Use

fulL

ife:1

5Ye

ars

$0

$2,0

00

$4,0

00

$6,0

00

$8,0

00

$10,

000

05

1015

2025

30

R

Capa

city

(HP)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

clud

esne

wpi

ping

and

wiri

ngIn

clud

esm

inor

wel

lreh

abili

tatio

nIn

clud

esta

xDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Mecca E-3


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




Mecca E-4

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

placementCost/FtCh

ain

Link

Fenc

eBu

dget

Repl

acem

entC

ost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:40

Year

s

$15

$20

$25

$30

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rep

Fenc

eLe

ngth

(Ft)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:6

FtHi

ghFe

nce

Incl

udes

Barb

edW

ireAt

opIn

clud

esG

ate(

s)In

clud

esSo

me

Site

Prep

arat

ion

Incl

udes

Tax

Does

Not

Incl

ude

Cont

inge

ncy

Mecca E-5

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Mecca E-6






$105,370.009,167.19

$114,537.19$114.54$115.00






Mecca E-7






$95,370.008,297.19

$103,667.19$103.67$105.00






Mecca E-8

$30,

000

$40,

000

$50,

000

$60,

000

nstalledCostBa

ckup

Gene

rato

rBu

dget

Inst

alla

tion

Cost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:15

Year

s

$0

$10,

000

$20,

000

010

2030

4050

6070

I

Capa

city

(kW

)Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

stal

led

and

test

ed,i

npl

ace,

onco

ncre

tepa

dIn

clud

esbo

thdi

esel

and

prop

ane

fuel

edge

nera

tors

Incl

udes

auto

mat

ictr

ansf

ersw

itch

Incl

udes

tax

Incl

udes

purc

hase

offu

elta

nkIn

clud

esso

me

site

wor

kDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Mecca E-9

14-05-T01 Seascape DRAFT Cost Analysis Ltr RO MR0916gc.docx

CaneEngineering


Tel: 360-279-0615Fax: 360-679-5046


March 8, 2016

Seascape Water Association


Dear Seascape Water Association Members: Please find enclosed the DRAFT Capital Facilities Replacement Review for your water system.The purpose of analyses such as this is to use available information to estimate both the total cost, and the annual contribution to the eventual replacement, of all water system components.

I have prepared the analysis based on the records available to me at this time. One reason for this initial draft is to seek refining data (e.g. for the Seascape Water Assn., the size and age of the well pump). Once the data is refined, the final report can be a very useful tool for the Board of Directors in guiding future decisions relative to assessments for the replacement of the water system’s facilities (I’ve discussed this further below).

There is one caution that I always make when preparing these analyses, that is, we should bewary of over-refinement. There is no doubt that there could be much fine-tuning on the margins. For example, should the useful life of the storage tank be 40 years, as I have used, or should it be 50 years? Or, should interest / inflation be included in the calculations? Communitiesinvariably determine, even after many tweaks, that the required cost per household per year (as reflected in Column K) is still very high. The lesson, therefore, is not whether the Seascape costper household per year should be $1,589.36, or $1,200, or $1,800, but that the replacement cost of the water systems capital facilities is high and should be addressed to the best ability of the Association.


- - - - -


As of April 11, 2016, there was no indication from Seascape Water Association that changes to the Capital Facilities Plan are necessary.

Page 2 of 4



Column B


Column C


Column D


Column E



Column G

The expected life of a component is based upon the table enclosed in this report (Enclosure E-1). This Expected Useful Life table is a summary of fourteen data sources which evaluated the expected life of water system components. In the right hand column of the table, I have suggested an anticipated useful life for the various components.

Page 3 of 4


Column H

Column H is the arithmetic difference between the component age and the expected life.

Column I

This column allows the reviewer to use a more reasonable anticipated remaining life value for the various components, if the value in Column H is unreasonably low (For older water systems some components may have a negative useful life in Column H). The values placed within this column will be based upon the reviewer’s knowledge of the condition of the various water system facilities.

Column J


Column K


Column L



Discussion

Looking at the bottom of Column K, the total required contribution per household of $1,589.36 per year to a Replacement Fund is much more than is typically acceptable to the average homeowner. With the exception of a new water system, I am not aware of any similar analysis which did not result in an uncomfortably high required contribution to a Replacement Fund. Most communities, therefore, do not find it feasible to contribute to a Replacement Fund at the level provided in these analyses.

Having said that, however, one should not cast aside the results of this analysis as it does a reasonably good job of providing a long‐term replacement cost of a community’s water system. Most communities of which I am aware, have utilized the results of these analyses to increase (or to initiate) contributions to a Replacement Fund. If a given component were

Page 4 of 4


to fail and require replacement before there is sufficient money in the Fund, a water system may elect to finance these capital replacements through one of a number of loan programs available.

Sincerely,

Cane Engineering


Encl

SEASCAPE WATER ASSOCIATION

Seascape Water



Cost - Construction


ReviewYear



Life (2)



Analysis)





Well 1 Pump -3.0 Hp 11,700 15,795 2016 2013 3 15 12 12 24 54.84 E-3 Est. Pump Size and Installation Year

Pumphouse - 320 SF 214,400 289,440 2016 1999 17 40 23 23 24 524.35 E-4

Chain Link Fence - 500 LF 11,000 14,850 2016 1999 17 40 23 23 24 26.90 E-5 Est. Fence Length: 500 LF; Est. $22/LF


6" PVC Pipe - 3,820 LF 401,100 541,485 2016 1999 17 75 58 58 24 389.00 E-7

4" PVC Pipe - 1,520 LF 159,600 215,460 2016 1999 17 75 58 58 24 154.78 E-7 Replace with 6" PVC Pipe.

2" PVC Pipe - 500 LF 32,500 43,875 2016 1999 17 75 58 58 24 31.52 Replacement for all Pipes, 2" and Smaller; Use $65 / LF

Totals $982,575 $1,326,476 $1,589.36

Seascape Water Assoc. - Capital Facilities Replacement Review - 2016

Notes:

(2) See Enclosure E-1.(1) Total Cost reflects additional 35% for engineering, archaeological and environmental review / mitigation, permitting, construction administration, attorney's fees and contingencies.

14 05 T01 Seascape Cost Table FE1716bg.xls


Fannie Mae, 2014







Website 2007




AWWARF, 2005




EPA, 2005



AssetManagement:


Systems, EPA, 2003





2010


USE - First Pass



Wells 25-35 40-50 25-35 35Well Pump 15

Water Meter 10-15 30 40 15 10-15 15

Hydrants 40 50 40-60 40

Pumphouse Bldg 30 60-70 50 30-60 40




Valves 35-40 35


Source

Component


Seascape E-1


Project Cost Per Ft







Seascape E-2

$10

000

$12,

000

$14,

000

$16,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$22,

000

$24,

000

eplacementCostW

ellP

ump

Budg

etRe

plac

emen

tCos

tIs

land

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

Estim

ated

Use

fulL

ife:1

5Ye

ars

$0

$2,0

00

$4,0

00

$6,0

00

$8,0

00

$10,

000

05

1015

2025

30

R

Capa

city

(HP)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

clud

esne

wpi

ping

and

wiri

ngIn

clud

esm

inor

wel

lreh

abili

tatio

nIn

clud

esta

xDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

Seascape E-3


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




Seascape E-4

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

placementCost/FtCh

ain

Link

Fenc

eBu

dget

Repl

acem

entC

ost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:40

Year

s

$15

$20

$25

$30

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rep

Fenc

eLe

ngth

(Ft)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:6

FtHi

ghFe

nce

Incl

udes

Barb

edW

ireAt

opIn

clud

esG

ate(

s)In

clud

esSo

me

Site

Prep

arat

ion

Incl

udes

Tax

Does

Not

Incl

ude

Cont

inge

ncy

Seascape E-5

Sea

scap

e:

Use

$22

/Lf f

or

Rep

lace

men

t

20'

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

Seascape E-6

Description Unit Quantity Unit Price TotalMobilization LS 1 10,000.00 $10,000.00Removal of Structure & Obstruction LS 1 5,000.00 5,000.006 Inch HDPE Pipe LF 1,000 28.00 28,000.006-Inch Gate Valve EA. 2 900.00 1,800.006-Inch Tees, Bends & Fittings EA. 4 500.00 2,000.006 Inch Hydrant Assembly EA. 1 3,700.00 3,700.00Air Vacuum Valve Assembly EA. 1 1,900.00 1,900.00Single Service - Near Side EA. 10 900.00 9,000.00Single Service - Far Side EA. 10 1,800.00 18,000.00Connect Main to Existing System EA. 2 1,800.00 3,600.00Crushed Surfacing TN 75 32.00 2,400.00Commercial HMA - Pavement Patch TN 10 275.00 2,750.00Topsoil / Bark Mulch CY 20 45.00 900.00



(Estimated Useful Life: 65 years)


$95,370.008,297.19

$103,667.19$103.67$105.00





Six Inch Pipe Costs DE1915gc.xlsx

Seascape E-7

14-05-T01 Thunder Ridge DRAFT Cost Analysis Ltr RO MR0916gc.docx

CaneEngineering


Tel: 360-279-0615Fax: 360-679-5046


March 9, 2016

Thunder Ridge Water System


Dear Thunder Ridge Water System: Please find enclosed the DRAFT Capital Facilities Replacement Review for your water system.The purpose of analyses such as this is to use available information to estimate both the total cost, and the annual contribution to the eventual replacement, of all water system components.

I have prepared the analysis based on the records available to me at this time. One reason for this initial draft is to seek refining data (e.g. for Thunder Ridge, the age of the well pump). Once the data is refined, the final report can be a very useful tool for the Water System Owners in guiding future decisions relative to assessments for the replacement of the water system’s facilities (I’ve discussed this further below).

There is one caution that I always make when preparing these analyses, that is, we should be wary of over-refinement. There is no doubt that there could be much fine-tuning on the margins. For example, should the useful life of the storage tank be 40 years, as I have used, or should it be 50 years? Or, should interest / inflation be included in the calculations? Communities invariably determine, even after many tweaks, that the required cost per household per year (as reflected in Column K) is still very high. The lesson, therefore, is not whether the Thunder Ridge cost per household per year should be $684.33, or $600, or $800, but that the replacement cost of the water systems capital facilities is high and should be addressed to the best ability of your organization.

If you would like to further discuss the results of this review, I would be happy to answer any questions that may arise. As possible, it would be very helpful if you could forward to me any updates or corrections that you may have by Monday, April 11, 2016.

- - - - -


As of April 11, 2016, there was no indication from Thunder Ridge Water System that changes to the Capital Facilities Plan are necessary.

Page 2 of 4


Column A

This column reflects a summary of the water system components. Water system component sizes, capacities, age, etc. have been based upon record information and documents. Please review this column and if you find incorrect information, please note it.

Column B


Column C


Column D


Column E



Column G


Page 3 of 4



Column H is the arithmetic difference between the component age and the expected life. As noted herein, the result may not necessarily be meaningful for this cost review. For example, for the well pump, the time remaining to replacement is 1 year. The well pump is functioning, and will likely continue to function for some time into the future.

Column I

This column allows the reviewer to use a more reasonable anticipated remaining life value for the various components. Again, considering the well pump, I have estimated a remaining life of five years for this component. The values placed within this column will be based upon the reviewer’s knowledge of the condition of the various water system facilities.

Column J


Column K

This is the amount that each household would need to contribute toward a Capital Facilities Replacement Fund (“Replacement Fund”) each year to provide their share of the cost for the noted component. For example, for Storage Tank 1, each household would need to contribute $53.73 per year for the replacement of this component.

Column L



Discussion

Looking at the bottom of Column K, the total required contribution per household of $684.33 per year to a Replacement Fund is much more than is typically acceptable to the average homeowner. With the exception of a new water system, I am not aware of any similar analysis which did not result in an uncomfortably high required contribution to a Replacement Fund. Most communities, therefore, do not find it feasible to contribute to a Replacement Fund at

Page 4 of 4


the level provided in these analyses.


Sincerely,

Cane Engineering


Encl

THUNDER RIDGE WATER SYSTEM



Cost - Construction


ReviewYear



Life (2)



Analysis)





Well 1 Pump -7.5 Hp 13,800 18,630 2016 2002 14 15 1 5 134 27.81 E-3

Pumphouse - 350 SF 234,500 316,575 2016 2000 16 40 24 24 134 98.44 E-4

Chain Link Fence - 625 LF 14,375 19,406 2016 2000 16 40 24 24 134 6.03 E-5

Storage Tank 1 - 80,000 Gallons 128,000 172,800 2016 2000 16 40 24 24 134 53.73 E-6 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.60 / Gal.

Storage Tank 2- 80,000 Gallons 128,000 172,800 2016 2001 15 40 25 25 134 51.58 E-6 Reinforced Concrete; "Low" Tank"; Per Graph, Use $1.60 / Gal.

8" PVC - 2,830 LF 325,450 439,358 2016 2001 15 75 60 60 134 54.65 E-7

6" PVC Pipe - 5,720 LF 600,600 810,810 2016 2001 15 75 60 60 134 100.85 E-8

4" PVC Pipe - 1,350 LF 128,250 173,138 2016 2001 15 75 60 60 134 21.53 Est. $95/Lf for 4" PVC

Standby Generator - 60 Kw 52,000 70,200 2016 2000 16 15 -1 2 134 261.94 E-9 Generator (and Electric Pumps) Assumed to Replace Engine-Driven Fireflow Pumps

Totals $1,636,545 $2,209,336 $684.33

Thunder Ridge Water System. - Capital Facilities Replacement Review - 2016



Fannie Mae, 2014







Website 2007




AWWARF, 2005




EPA, 2005



AssetManagement:


Systems, EPA, 2003





2010


USE - First Pass



Wells 25-35 40-50 25-35 35Well Pump 15

Water Meter 10-15 30 40 15 10-15 15

Hydrants 40 50 40-60 40

Pumphouse Bldg 30 60-70 50 30-60 40




Valves 35-40 35


Source

Component


ThunderRidge E-1


Project Cost Per Ft







ThunderRidge E-2

$10

000

$12,

000

$14,

000

$16,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$22,

000

$24,

000

eplacementCostW

ellP

ump

Budg

etRe

plac

emen

tCos

tIs

land

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

Estim

ated

Use

fulL

ife:1

5Ye

ars

$0

$2,0

00

$4,0

00

$6,0

00

$8,0

00

$10,

000

05

1015

2025

30

R

Capa

city

(HP)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

clud

esne

wpi

ping

and

wiri

ngIn

clud

esm

inor

wel

lreh

abili

tatio

nIn

clud

esta

xDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

ThunderRidge E-3


Construction Cost

Cost per SF






53


(2015 Dollars)


668$670

( )Total




ThunderRidge E-4

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

placementCost/FtCh

ain

Link

Fenc

eBu

dget

Repl

acem

entC

ost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:40

Year

s

$15

$20

$25

$30

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rep

Fenc

eLe

ngth

(Ft)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:6

FtHi

ghFe

nce

Incl

udes

Barb

edW

ireAt

opIn

clud

esG

ate(

s)In

clud

esSo

me

Site

Prep

arat

ion

Incl

udes

Tax

Does

Not

Incl

ude

Cont

inge

ncy

ThunderRidge E-5

Thun

der R

idge

: U

se $

23/L

f for

R

epla

cem

ent

20'D

x15

'H20

'Dx

19'H

20'D

x25

'H

30'D

x20

'H

20'

x20

'H

14'D

x50

'H

14'D

x55

'H

20'D

x50

'H

$1.5

0

$2.0

0

$2.5

0

$3.0

0

$3.5

0

CostperGallonRe

serv

oir

Budg

etIn

stal

latio

nCo

stIsl

and

Coun

ty(2

015

Dolla

rs)

(Est

imat

edU

sefu

lLife

:Ye

ars)

Low

Tank

High

Tank

30'D

x20

'H30

'Dx

40'H

$0.0

0

$0.5

0

$1.0

0

020

,000

40,0

0060

,000

80,0

0010

0,00

012

0,00

014

0,00

016

0,00

018

0,00

020

0,00

0

Size

(Gal

lons

)

Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:Re

info

rced

Conc

rete

Tank

Incl

udes

Pipi

ngU

nder

Tank

Incl

udes

Som

eSi

tePr

epar

atio

nIn

clud

esTa

xDo

esN

otIn

clud

eCo

ntin

genc

y(N

ote:

High

Tank

>32'

H)

ThunderRidge E-6






$105,370.009,167.19

$114,537.19$114.54$115.00






ThunderRidge E-7






$95,370.008,297.19

$103,667.19$103.67$105.00






ThunderRidge E-8

$30,

000

$40,

000

$50,

000

$60,

000

nstalledCostBa

ckup

Gene

rato

rBu

dget

Inst

alla

tion

Cost

Isla

ndCo

unty

(201

5Do

llars

)Es

timat

edU

sefu

lLife

:15

Year

s

$0

$10,

000

$20,

000

010

2030

4050

6070

I

Capa

city

(kW

)Cost

Assu

mpt

ions

:In

stal

led

and

test

ed,i

npl

ace,

onco

ncre

tepa

dIn

clud

esbo

thdi

esel

and

prop

ane

fuel

edge

nera

tors

Incl

udes

auto

mat

ictr

ansf

ersw

itch

Incl

udes

tax

Incl

udes

purc

hase

offu

elta

nkIn

clud

esso

me

site

wor

kDo

esno

tinc

lude

cont

inge

ncy

ThunderRidge E-9

Date post:	21-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vandien
View:	223 times
Download:	2 times

Water System Cooperation Opportunities Project … System Cooperation Opportunities Project...

Documents