Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-86 Meeting of the La Porte Area Water Authority Minutes LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:32 P.M. by President Jerry Bramlett. MEMBERS PRESENT: President Jerry Bramlett, Vice-President Al Fields, Secretary Rick Matthews, Member Cary Burnley OTHERS PRESENT: City Manager Jack Owen, Authority Attorney John Armstrong, Acting Public Works Director Steve Gillett, Neil Bishop and Cecil Allen of Turner Collie & Braden, David Fetzer and Pete Fisher of Maroney Beissner & Co., Water/Wastewater Superintendent Buddy Jacobs 2. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the meetings on February 25, August 12, and September 3, 1986. It passed unanimously. 3. The letter to the entities advising them of the LPAWA's direction was presented and signed and will be delivered to each entity on September 18, 1986. Costs figures from the City of Deer Park were presented for a 4 mgd and a 10 mgd surface water treatment plant. Transmission lines were not included due to the site location not being determined. A motion was made by Cary Burnley for TC&B to compare the costs from Deer Park to the costs presented for the Southeast plant to determine the feasibility of going with Deer Park. Second by Rick Matthews, passed unanimously. TC&B will call Klotz Associates on September 18, 1986 to set up a meeting to accomplish this and should have the comparison within one (1) week. Neil Bishop asked David Fetzer that although Deer Park would vote twenty (20) year G.O. Bonds the City of Houston would only give them a ten (10) year raw water contract and would that affect the bonding capability of the LPAWA. Mr. Fetzer did not know definitely and would check on it. Mr. Fetzer also indicated that the City of Deer Park would vote on the bonds in a very short time leaving the LPAWA little time to make a decision. Mr. Owen will call Deer Park on September 18 to get additional information for TC&B so that they can present their comparison in a timely manner. Jerry Bramlett stated that although this is a viable option the LPAWA should continue their negotiations with the City of Houston for a portion of the Southeast Plant. A motion was made and seconded to have a meeting on Thursday, September 25, 1986, at 6:30 P.M. to discuss TC&B's findings. It passed unanimously CITY OF DEER PARK TEXAS ESTIMATE COST FOR WATER TREATMENT COST 4 MGD AND 10 MGD Job 103-05 Prepared by: Klotz/Associates, Inc. 1155 Dairy Ashford Road Suite 705 Houston, Texas 77079 (713) 589-7257 KLOlZ/L ~SOCI~TES, INC. Consulting Engine...., _ 1155 Dairy Ashford Jite 705 Houston, Texas 77079 (713) 589-7257 September 17, 1986 Mr. Floyd Socia City Manager P. O. Box 700 Deer Park, Texas 77536 Re: City of Deer Park Water Treatment Plant Study KIA Job No. 103-05 Dear Sir: We are presenting our brief study prepared to establish treated water cost for a quantity of four million gallons per day and ten million gallons per day. Study considerations reflect an estimated cost of $1.194 per 1000 Gallons, using 4 MGD capacity facilities and an estimated cost of $0.934 per 1000 Gallons, using 10 MGD capacity facilities. Our estimates are based upon Current Cost for all services, supplies, materials and labor. We appreciate you giving us this opportunity to serve the City of Deer Park. Please let us know if you desire further information pertaining to study details or if we can assist city officials in providing other engineering services. Sincerely, tr!~{!kf! Vice President DCPlveb KL01Z/ L::h JCI6TES, INC. Consulting Enginel AUTHORIZATION Deer Park City Officials authorized Klotz/Associates, Inc. to provide estimates of cost to provide treated potable water. Quantities to be considered are four million gallons per day (4 MGD) and ten million gallons per day (10 MGD). Raw water source is to be derived from Coastal Industrial Water Authority and treated to potable water quality. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study is to determine the cost advantage for providing 10 MGD treatment facilities (for City of Deer Park and City of La Porte) versus 4 MGD treatment facilities, on a per unit basis (1000 Gal.). Normal and usual planning for municipal facilities give consideration to future and ultimate need for system development. Elements to be considered consist of domestic needs and facilities required to provide fire protection. Guidelines for public water system improvements have been established by the Texas Department of Health and State Board of Insurance. Historical data and design experience of the engineer are usually complemented by State Health and Board of Insurance Guidelines and Requirements. KLOlZ /6, "CI6TES, INC. Consulting Engineer. The recent study and analysis of the water distribution syste!.u for Deer Park provided data used in future needs projections. These future needs projections are considered in site size and water treatment plant cost contained in the following estimates. EXISTING GROUNDWATER SOURCES (City of Deer Park) The existing city system is served by groundwater, provided by three wells. The first well is located on the north side of "P" Street approximately midway between Center and Luella Streets and has a nominal capacity of about 800 GPM. Recently its capacity has been limited to about 250 GPM. The City is reworking the well pump and motor, however, and it has been assumed for the purpose of this study that the full 800 GPM is available. A second well is located at the intersection of Coy and Durant Streets. This well has a 1,500 GPM capacity and is reportedly in good repair. The third well is located just north of Pasadena Boulevard about 2,100 feet from the eastern city limit. This well also has a 1,500 GPM capacity and seems to be in good condition. A fourth well is located in the northwest quadrant of the city just off 13th Street. This well is very old and shallow. After having been abandoned for years, it was recently put to use KLOlZ/L::. ">CIL::.TES, INC. Consulting Enginel ' , . during high demand periods. The well is unreliable due to its age and shallow depth, and it was not counted on as a source of supply for the purpose of this study. Total well capacity amounts to 3,800 GPM, or 5.5 MGD. GROUND STORAGE (City of Deer Park) Each of the three operational wells pumps to onsite, steel ground storage tanks. The water is also chlorinated before being pumped into the distribution system. A 1.0 MG ground storage tank exists at the "P" Street well site, and a 0.5 MG ground storage tank exists at each of the Coy/Durant and Pasadena well sites. HIGH SERVICE PUMPING CAPACITY (City of Deer Park) High service pumps include two 750 GPM units at each of the "P" Street and Coy/Durant well sites. Three 750 GPM units exist at the Pasadena well site. Therefore, the total present firm high service pumping capacity, with the largest single unit out-of-service at each location, is 3,000 GPM, or 4.3 MGD. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 illustrate the design high service pump curves (head versus flow) for each of the three well locations. Although some impeller wear and loss of pumping efficiency over the years can be normally expected, it was assumed for the purpose of this study that the pumps are capable of delivering their design heads and flow rates. KL01Z / h. 'jCIh.TES, INC. Consulting Enginee, ELEVATED STORAGE (City of Deer Park) At present, three elevated storage tanks exist in the city system. They include a 0.5 MG tank at the Pasadena plant site, a 0.5 MG tank at the Coy/Durant plant site, and a 0.5 MG tank located on 8th Street in the northwest corner of the city. The low water, level and mid-depth level for each of the three tanks is estimated to be 143.0 and 154.0 respectively (U.S.G.S. Mean Sea Level elevation) for the purpose of this study. PROPOSED FACILITIES This study provides estimated cost for treatment facilities required to treat 4 MGD and 10 MGD with necessary appurtenances. Deer Park. The City of Deer Park current demand for treated surface water is assumed to be 4 MGD. Existing wells with storage facilities are to be used for water requirements beyond 4 MGD surface production and proposed 2 MG ground storage. Existing ground water sources are to be eventually retired. Site requirements included in this study provide for an ultimate production requirement of 12 MGD (after retirement of wells) and 6 MG ground storage. KL01Z / 6.~ "CI6.TES, INC. Consulting Enginee. La Porte - Deer Park. A current need for 10 MGD treatment is assumed to provide 4 MGD for Deer Park and an additional 6 MGD for the City of La Porte. Proposed facilities considered for a current demand of 10 MGD consist of treating units and 2 MG ground storage. Site requirements included in this concept provide for an ultimate production requirement of 12 MGD for Deer Park, 12 MGD for La Porte, and 6 MG ground storage. Basic design concepts for either quantity, 4 MGD or 10 MGD, consist of on site storage necessary for filter backwash and proposed treatment facility design giving consideration to hydraulic requirements for ultimate production. Either production requirement is to be provided using dual treatment units necessary for maintenance without total production shut down. A brief description of additional proposed design features is included in related cost estimates as follows. KL01Z/ 6~ ICI6TES, INC. Consulting Enginee. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 4 MGD Treatment Plant and Appurtenances. Treatment Plant Flash Mixing, Flocculation, Chemical Storage and Feed, Clarifiers, Filters, Structures, Piping, Electrical and Site Development $3,700,000 2 Million Gallon Concrete Ground Storage TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 970,000 280,200 420,300 280,200 5,650,700 169,500 157,800 $5,978,000 Construction Contingencies Engineering Construction Observation Legal & Fiscal Project Contingencies TOTAL PROJECT COST ---------- ---------- 10 MGD Treatment Plant and Appurtenances Treatment Plant Flash Mixing, Flocculation, Chemical Storage and Feed, Clarifiers, Filters, Structures, Piping, Electrical and Site Development $ 7,300,000 2 Million Ground Concrete Ground Storage TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 970,000 496,200 744,300 496,200 10,006,700 300,200 250,100 $10,557,000 Construction Contingencies Engineering Construction Observation Legal & Fiscal Project Contingencies TOTAL PROJECT COST =========== LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY BOARD MINUTES September 3, 1986 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:37 P.M. by President Jerry Bramlett. MEMBERS PRESENT: President Jerry Bramlett, Vice President Al Fields, Secretary Rick Matthews, Member Cary Burnley OTHERS PRESENT: City Manager Jack Owen, Authority Attorney John Armstrong 2. The Authority adjourned into Executive Session at 6:38 P.M. and returned at 7:24 P.M. 3. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, ~------ '~ Rick Matthews, Secretary/Treasurer PP.SSED AND \ \ DAY THE1g\ f {;>", \ i LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY BOARD 1 MINUTES September 3, 1986 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:37 P.M. by President Jerry Bramlett. ~~ERS PRESENT: President Jerry Bramlett, Vice President Al Fields, Secretary Rick Matthews, Member Cary Burnley OTHERS PRESENT: City Manager Jack Owen, Authority Attorney John Armstrong 2. The Authority adjourned into Executive Session at 6:38 P.M. and returned at 7:24 P.M. 3. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, ~ .. Rick Matthews, Secretary/Treasurer PASSED AND 'LDAY T~El~ ( LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY BOARD MINUTES August 12, 1986 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by President Jerry Bramlett. MEMBERS PRESENT: President Jerry Bramlett, Vice-President Al Fields, Secretary Rick Matthews, Member Cary Burnley OTHERS PRESENT: Authority Attorney John Armstrong, Neil Bishop and Cecil Allen of Turner, Collie & Braden, David Fetzer of Moroney, Beissner & Co., Ron Neighbors, General Manager of the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, Steve Gillett, Acting Public Works Directol 2. The minutes of the meeting on May 28, 1986, were read and approved with corrections as noted. 3. Neil Bishop and Cecil Allen presented the new cost comparisons between the Southeast Plant and building a plant in La Porte. The new costs include the CIWA line, expansion of the Lynchburg pumping station, additional engineering (geotechnical), and operation and maintenance costs. The bottom line figures were quite similar. 4. Ron Neighbors made a presentation of the Subsidence District's Plan and Policies. He indicated that although he could not speak for the Subsidence District Board, he believed the delays the La Porte Area Water Authority were encountering were unavoidable and should not have any bearing on permit reapplications. He also stated that the present goal of being on surface water by 1990 should be adhered to regardless of the direction the Authority moves. Cary Burnley made a motion for the La Porte Area Water Authority to purchase treated water from the City of Houston Southeast Plant-subject to a satisfactory contract being negotiated with the City of Houston. Second by Rick Matthews. It passed unanimously. Another motion was made and seconded to advise all entities involved with the La Porte Area Water Authority that negotiations will be started with the City of Houston. It passed unanimouSly. This letter is to be hand carried to each entity with a copy to the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District. John Armstrong will begin reviewing contracts for development of a satisfactory contract between La Porte Area Water Authority and the City of Houston. 5. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. Page Two Minutes August 12, 1986 La Porte Area Water Authority fully Submitted, a -t.hews Secretary/Treasurer PASSED AND APPROVED~ THE \ ~ DAY OF ~~ ,19~ ~~~L~ Jer ett, Presiden KLOlZ / D lCI6TES, INC. Consulting Enginee, 4 MGD 10 MGD Project Cost Land Cost (15 Ac.) $5,978,000 300,000 (30 Ac.) $10,537,000 600,000 $11,137,000 TOTAL FACILITY COST $6,278,000 TABLE COMPARISON OF UNIT TREATMENT COSTS Unit Cost Unit Cost Per Per 1000 1000 4 MGD Gal. 10 MGD Gal. Raw Water Cost $ 496,400 0.34 $1,022,000 0.280 Amortized Capital Cost (1) 608,000 0.416 1 , 110 , 300 0.30 (Equal Annual Payments) Annual O&M Labor 144,800 0.10 273,750 0.075 Annual Power Costs 94,900 0.065 204,400 0.056 Annual Chemical Cost 116 , 800 0.08 292,000 .08 Annual Replacement (or 209,230 0.082 368,800 .101 Capital Maintenance) Cost Miscellaneous Services 73,000 0.05 138 , 700 .038 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $1,743,130 $3,409,950 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Total Cost Per 1000 Gal. $1.194 $0.934 (1) Projections were prepared by Moroney, Beissner & Co. Inc. using 7.5% interest rate, 20 year straight line amortizing schedule. LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS JERRY BRAMLETT, PRESIDENT 718 SOUTH KANSAS LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 PHONE: HOME - 471-2944 WORK - 676-8717 AL FIELDS, VICE PRESIDENT 10303 RUSTIC ROCK LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 PHONE: HOME - 471-8626 WORK - 471-4400 RICHARD MATTHEWS, SECRETARY/TREASURER 2015 CRESCENT SHORES LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 PHONE: HOME - 470-0351 CARY BURNLEY, MEMBER 3207 SOMERTON LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 PHONE: HOME - 479-8538 WORK - 476-8274 NEIL BISHOP CECIL ALLEN TURNER COLLIE & BRADEN, INC. P.O. BOX 13089 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77019 JACK OWEN, CITY MANAGER STEVE GILLETT, ACTING PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JOHN ARMSTRONG, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID FETZER MARONEY & BEISSNER 2000 POST OAK BLVD. SUITE 1865 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 960-8900 MAYOR BILL HAIFLICH CITY OF SHOREACRES 601 SHOREACRES BLVD. LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 471-2244 MR. CLARK MORRIS BAYSHORE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 707 SHADY RIVER ROAD LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 471-5205 MAYOR JOHN GRIMES CITY OF MORGAN'S POINT 1415 EAST MAIN STREET LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 471-2171 MAYOR HELMUT A. KUEHNEL CITY OF SEABROOK P.O. BOX 539 SEABROOK, TEXAS 77571 474-3201 KATHRYN CHAPMAN, OFFICE MANAGER FRANK ADAMS, SUPERINTENDENT HARRIS COUNTY WCID #50 1122 CEDAR LANE SEABROOK, TEXAS 77586 326-5573 l'~' ,.: LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1986 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:37 P.M. by Vice-President Al Fields. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-President Al Fields, Secretary Rick Matthews, Member Cary Burnley MEMBERS ABSENT: President Jerry Bramlett OTHERS PRESENT: City Manager Jack Owen, Acting Public Works Director Steve Gillett, Water and Wastewater Superintendent Buddy Jacobs, Neil Bishop and Cecil Allen of Turner Collie & Braden, David Fetzer and Pete Fischer of Maroney Beissner & Co. 2. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting held on September 17, 1986. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Cecil Allen, of Turner Collie & Braden, presented an analysis of cost comparisons for the three (3) water supply and treatment alternatives to serve the La Porte Area Water Authority. Discussion of the need to obtain a copy of the drafted raw water contrac between Deer Park and Houston. A motion was made and seconded to have a joint meeting with La Porte City Council, and present all past correspondence between the LPAWA and the City of Houston, and the three (3) alternatives to supply water to the LPAWA, and ask their guidance as to which alternative they preferred. Motion passed unanimously. Motion made and seconded that a member of the LPAWA Board be present at any major negotiations with any entity dealing with the LPAWA. Motion passed unanimously. La Porte Area Water Authority Board Minutes September 25, 1986 Page Two Al Fields requested that, prior to the City Council meeting, the Board meet to assure that the presentation will be adequate. Suggested that the next Board meeting be held Tuesday, October 14, 1986, and a joint La Porte Area Water Authority Board and La Porte City Council meeting to be held Thursday, October 16, 1986. 4. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Rick Matthews, Secretary/Treasurer PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE DAY OF , 19 Al Fields, Vice President TurnerCollieC6Braden Inc. H. CECIL ALLEN VICE PRESIDENT PO BOX 13089 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77219 5757 WOODWAY 713 780-4100 TElEX 774185 TCD HOU September 24, 1986 La Porte Area Water Authority P. o. Box 1115 La Porte, Texas 77571 Attention: Mr. Jack OWen Re: Water Supply and Treatment Alternatives Cost Comparison Turner Collie & Braden Job No. 13-28000-040 Gentlemen: In accordance with your directions, we have prepared a side-by-side comparison of costs for three water supply and treatment alternatives to serve the La Porte Area Water Authority. The bases of these three alternative plans are: 1) construction of a new 6 mgd La Porte Area Water Authority water treatment plant in the City of La Porte (LPAWA) 2) purchase of 6 mgd of treated water from the proposed City of Houston Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP) 3) purchase of 6 mgd of treated water from a proposed water treatment plant in the City of Deer Park (Deer Park). I The comparisons are based on recent (8-4-86) estimates of costs for the LPAWA and SEWPP prepared for the Authority by Turner Collie & Braden and on a letter report dated 9-17-86 prepared for Deer Park by Klotz/Associates, Inc. The cost estimates have been adjusted to reflect a 6 mgd capacity for each alternative, and any differences between the estimates have been evaluated and corrected so that the comparisons are for similar facilities in each alter- native. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · TEXAS AUSTIN/DALLAS/I 'aUSTON/PORT ARTHUR COLORADO DENVER TurnerColliec9Braden Inc. September 24, 1986 La Porte Area Water Authority Attention: Mr. Jack Owen Page Two The assumptions used in preparing these estimates are indicated on the attached tables. The estimated Capital Costs for each alternative are shown on Table 1, the calculations of Annual Debt Services are given on Table 2, and the total Annual Costs for the three different systems are listed in Table 3. From Table 3, the esti- mated costs per 1,000 gallons of water are $1.14 for LPAWA, $1.13 for SEWPP, and $1.21 for Deer Park. These costs include the raw water supply, treatment and finished water transmission to each of the customers in the LPAWA. The capital costs for raw water supply, treatment, storage and pumping are approximately the same for the LPAWA and Deer Park options, and are slightly lower for ~he SEWPP alternative. The major capital cost differences between alternatives are due to the pipeline costs. The costs of pipelines to transmit treated water to the LPAWA from the SEWPP or Deer Park sites are high because of the dis- tances and relatively large diameter pipe required. This factor is the primary reason for the differences in capital costs. The estimated annual operation and maintenance costs for the LPAWA and Deer Park alternatives are approximately equal, but the corresponding costs for the SEWPP alterna- tive are significantly lower than for the other two systems. This difference is due to the "economy of scale" resulting from operating a large capacity (80 mgd) facility. The lower estimated O&M costs for the SEWPP offset the higher annual debt service, resulting in a total annual cost that is the lowest of the three alternatives. The total annual costs estimated for the LPAWA alternative are just slightly higher than for the SEWPP, and could be considered essen- tially equal to the SEWPP costs based on the accuracy of the estimates. The estimated total annual costs for the Deer Park alternative are about 7% higher, due to the higher annual O&M expense compared to the SEWPP and to the higher annual debt service compared to the LPAWA alternative. . "':" Turner Collie <9Braden Inc. September 24, 1986 La Porte Area Water Authority Attention: Mr. Jack OWen Page Three We have provided two additional tables as an appendix to this letter report. These tables provide comparative data on water production costs for the three alternative supply sources evaluated in this report. Tables 1, 2 and 3 of this report provide total system cost data, including water pro- duction costs. We hope this information is sufficient and responsive to your request. Please feel free to call if there are any questions concerning this analysis. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be of service to the La Porte Area Water Authority. Very trUIY~ A. aa~ H. Cecil Allen, P.E. Project Director HCA: RCR: If Attachments cc: La Porte Area Water Authority Board members TABLE 1 - CAPITA.... COSTS LP1\WA SEWPP DEER PARK TREMMENT PLANT $ 4,800,000 $ 7,055,000 $ 4,380,000 FIN. WATER PUMP STATICN 350,000 100,000 350,000 (1) S'l'OOJIGE FJlCILITIES 300,000 I 582,000 YAK> PIPING 200,000 I I SITE ~RK 150,000 I I lAND CX8I' 200,000 I 360,000 CWA- LYNatBt.JR; P. S. 293,000 I 293,000 (1) ~-RAW WATERLINE 500,000 I NR (2) TREATED WATERLINE NR 1,820,000 1,440,000(3) WATER TRANSMISSIoo LINE 2,117,000 2,220,000 2,117,000 ENGINEERING-PLANT 657,000 I 744,300 -FIN. WATER P.S. I 18,000 33,000 -RAW WATERLINE 86,000 I NR (2) -TREATED WATERLINE NR 210,000 177,000(3) -WATER TRANS. LINE 261,000 265,000 261,000 CXNrINGFN::IES I I 447,800 IB;AL & FISCAL 180,100 (4) I 180,100 $10,094,100 $11,688,000 $11,368,200 I - INCWDED IN 0l'HER CCST ITEMS NR - Nal' REUJIRED (1) - ASSUMED cn:3T EQUAL TO ESTIMATE FOR IPAWA FACILITY (2) - ASSUMED BASED 00 PI.l\NT SITE AroACENT 'ill CWA LINE (3) - CALCUIATED BASED 00 ASSUMED DEER PARK PI.l\NT IDCATICN (4) - ASSUMED CCST EQUAL 'ill ESTIMATE FOR DEER PARK FACILITY TurnerCoIlie0Braden Inc. \ " ", TABLE 2 - ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE (COSTS IN THO~uANDS OF DOLLARS) LPAWA SEWPP DEER PARK cx:N)TRUCl'ICN & ENGINEERING COSTS $10,094 $11,668 $11,360 CAPITALIZED INTEREST 2,301 2,660 2,592 ISStJ1\OCE 0tAIQ: 238 275 269 INTEREST IN<n1E (1,191) (1,377) (1,341) TOI'AL aET $11,442 $13,226 $12,888 ANNt1AL DEBT SERVICE $ 1,131 $ 1,307 $ 1,274 7.6~, 20 YEARS TurnerCollie~Braden Inc. , TABLE 3 - ANNUhu COSTS (COSTS IN THOUSANDS uP DOLLARS) WAWA SEWPP DEER PARK TRFA'1MENT PIANT & PUMP STATIOOS O&M COSTS $ 723 (1) $ 657 (2) $ 723 (1) SWOOE DISPOSAL Ca5'lS 30 0 30 PIPELINE O&M CX>S'lS 27 40 36 RAW WATER CC6TS 591 (3) 473(4) 591 (3) StJ13'1UrAL - O&M Ca5'lS $1,371 $1,170 $1,380 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 1,131 1,307 1,274 TOI'AL ANNUAL CX>STS $2,502 $2,477 $2,654 Ca5TS PER 1000 GAI..UNS $ 1.14 $ 1.13 $ 1.21 (1) $0.33/1,000 GALLONS TREATED (2) $0.30/1,000 GALLONS TREATED (3) $0.27/1,000 GAI..LCNS PURaIASED (4) $0.216/1,000 GAI..UNS PURCHASED TurnerCoIlie<S1Braden Inc. APPENDIX <~;;:: LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES COST COMPARISON TURNER COLLIE & BRADEN JOB NO. 13-28000-040 LETTER REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 Turner Coli ie 0Braden Inc. ,,- The two tables presented in this appendix provide water production cost information for three alternative water supply sources as described in the letter report. Cost Com arison - Water Production compares the total costs for e lverlng treate water under pressure to the La Porte Area Water Authority water transmission system. Table 3~Annual Water Production Costs - $1000, compares the annual water production costs for providing 6.0 mgd of treated water under pressure for delivery through the water transmission system. I' TurnerCoIlie0Braden Inc. TABLE 1A - CAPITAL COST COMPARISON - WATER PRODUCTION 6.0 MGD Production Facilities LPAWA SEWPP Deer Park Treatment Plant Storage and Contingencies $5,800,000 $5,384,199 $5,259,720 Engineering, Inspection, and Testing 657,000 825,049 744,300 Subtotal $6,457,000 $6,199,248 $6,004,020 Water Conveyance and Pumping to LPAWA Site :~;~ Raw Wa ter Pumping $ 268,000* $ 267,621* $ 268,000* Line 500,000 465,600 0 Engineering 111,000 74,550 25,110 Treated Water Pumping I 100,000 350,000 Line I 1,820,000 1,440,000 :; Engineering I 228,000 210,000 Subtotal $ 879,000 $2,955,771 $2,293,110 Land 200,000 48,385 360,000 TOTAL $7,536,000 $9,203,404 $8,657,130 *Pro rata cost expansion of Lynchburg facilities. I - Included in other costs. TurnerCollie0Braden Inc. TABLE 3A - ANNUAL WATER PRODUCTION COSTS - $1,000 LPAWA SEWPP Deer Park O&M Plant $ 723 $ 657 $ 767(1) O&M Lines 5 18 14 Sludge Disposal 30 I 1(2) Raw Water Cost 591 473 613(3) Debt Service 844 1,031 970 Total $2,193 $2,179 $2,364 Costs/l,OOO Gallons $1.001 $0.995 $1.079 Costs/l,OOO Gallons $0.959(4) $0.943(4) $1.031(4) (1) Differs from cost in Table 3. Figure taken from Klotz/ Associates report and assumed to include sludge disposal. ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4) Assumes included in plant O&M. Differs from cost in Table 3. Cost taken from Klotz/ Associates report. Uses amortization rate from Deer Park report. TurnerCollie0Braden Inc.