Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 01 26 Regular 601 Reclaimed Water Augmentation from Lake Jesup Engineering Report COMMISSION AGENDA CONSENT INFORMATIONAL ITEM 601 PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR X Januarv 26. 2009 �G � /DEPT � ��v� Meeting Authorization REQUEST: Utilitr� Department Requesting the Cih� Commission Review the Preliminan� Engineering Report b�� CPH Engineers for Reclaimed Water Augmentation from Lake Jesup I PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to seek direction from the City Commission ', regarding the alternate scenarios provided for constructing the Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility at Lake Jesup in Central Winds Park. CONSIDERATIONS: This agenda item is needed to provide direction to staff so the reclaimed water augmentation I project can proceed to final design. The long term goal of the city is to discontinue irrigation with potable groundwater. The close proximity to Lake Jesup provided a unique opportuniry to augrrient the reclaimed water system so all property ovvners would use some combination of reclaimed water and/or surface water in lieu of the higher quality groundwater. This project was conceived approximately 10 years ago but begin to move forward in 2003 when the Wincey property became a��ailable adjacent to Central Winds Park. The property was purchased with Park, Road Improvement. Utilit�� Funds prorated b�� acreage as exhibited below. _I I 1 I I I I I ' , —°.z �� v � � � unurY z.o na�3=N �— . ' ROAD 1.3 A�res 1 I �� '$ I II i I—I I I—I I I—I I I— \. � I � PARK 1.1 Acre — ARK 4.2 Acres � � � � \ � WINCEY PROPERTY 01?6U� Cl)11�1 R�sular htll Reelaime� \�atcr :�u��mentau��n_Przlimfnan_f_n�inc�nm�_R�part January 26, 2009 Regular Agenda Item 601 Page 2 In 2007, the City received a 20 year permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District for withdrawals of surface water from Lake Jesup. As we prepared to move forward with design in 2008, there was a desire from the Commission to evaluate alternative scenarios for locating the facilities for construction as well as integrating the facilities needed at the lakeside location into the park environment by making them amenities where possible rather than segregated "industrial" looking structures. Terry Zaudtke of CPH Engineers will take you through this report to review those alternative and the associated costs. FUNDING: No funding is needed at this time. A design proposal by CPH Engineers will be brought back for Commission approval when available. The final design costs for the augmentation plant are budgeted in the FY 2008/2009 budget in the 3640 fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission consider the alternatives and provide the direction deemed appropriate. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: A design proposal will be brought back for commission consideration within 30 to 45 days. ATTACHMENTS: Preliminary Engineering Report Lake Jesup Augmentation by CPH Engineers COMMISSION ACTION: 012609_COMM_Regular_601_Reclaimed_Water Augmentation_Preliminary_Engineering_Report CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS LAKE JE SUP AUGMENTATION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT December 2008 Incorporated 1959 Engineers C I ~ Planners Landscape Architects Suroeyors Construction Management Desigq/Burld ce.r~~ronre of a„rbn.l:Amon No. oooo3zrs CPH Engineers, Inc. -Orlando 1117 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 (407)425-0452 CPH Project No. W04140 Section 1 -Executive Summary This report was developed to identify four alternatives for the implementation of the Lake Jesup Augmentation System. The following items are discussed: 1) An identification of the required processes for treating the surface water from Lake Jesup 2) Conceptual layouts for the alternatives located at the Lake Jesup site. 3) The placement of several components/processes offsite 4) Landscaping and construction techniques to disguise the process equipment We recommend that these alternatives be presented to the City Commission for their input. Upon receipt of their comments, we can proceed with the chosen program and begin the design and permitting process. During earlier reports on the reclaimed water system and the Lake Jesup augmentation system, we recommended that the water from the artesian well (in the Parkstone Subdivision) be routed over to the Lake Jesup Augmentation site and commingled with the treated Lake Jesup water. Since that time, samples of the water from the artesian well have been taken. It is apparent that the water quality is very good and that the artesian well water could be placed directly into the reclaimed water system in accordance with FDEP Rules. We recommend that the City pursue the implementation of a small pump station adjacent to the artesian well and that this station be equipped with pumps to pump the water directly into the reclaimed water system at pressures compatible with the reclaimed water distribution system. The pump station should be connected to the City SCADA system and the system must be operated in accordance with the issued CUP. Section 2 -Required Processes/Components 1) Intake Structure - an intake structure will be constructed from the shore into Lake Jesup. The structure will be constructed as a boat dock/observation platform. The dock will allow the public to walk out and view the lakefront from the Central Winds Park site. The intake piping will be under the walkway and the observation platform at the end of the dock. The dock/walkway will be constructed to protect the intake piping of the augmentation system from debris and boating activity. The platform at the end of the intake structure will be covered with a "hip" style metal roof. 2) Intake Pumping Station - a submersible low head pumping structure will be required to lift the water from Lake Jesup into the Actiflo treatment unit(s). This system will be very similar to a standard submersible wastewater lift station. No components will be visible above grade. The top of the structure will be placed above the 100-year flood elevation; 10.05 based on the 1929 datum. We recommend that this pumping system be set-up as a triplex station to allow for the future expansion of the augmentation treatment system and also provide for the back-up capabilities required for environmental treatment facilities. We also recommend that the station be equipped with variable speed pumps to allow treatment flow capacity flexibility. 3) Barscreen - a barscreen is required in front of the Actiflo treatment unit to protect the treatment process from large items that may cause damage to the treatment unit. The manufacturer of the Actiflo unit requires a maximum solids size of 2 mm passing the barscreen. 4) Raw Water Treatment Unit - we recommend an Actiflo treatment unit for this project. It offers flexibility in flow capacity; it can be started and stopped (depending on demand) with minimal consequences on treatment quality; and, it has been proven effective on treating surface water to the required "Public Access" treatment levels required for augmentation of the reclaimed water. 5) Filtration -filters could be added at a future date. We believe that the water quality required for this project can be obtained without filtration. However, it is prudent to plan for future requirements that may be stricter than current regulations. One such future concern is the removal of Cryptosporidium. We believe that if the regulations required removal of this type of bacteria, then filtration would be required. Therefore, we have shown additional space in the site plan to allow for filter installation. 6) Storage -Storage of treated clean water available to augment the reclaimed system is recommended. During the peak demand periods of the year, it may be advisable to operate the system fora 24 hour period. Since irrigation demand occurs over an 18 hour period (maximum), storage for approximately 6 hours of supply is required. Also, storage will allow the system to treat and supply Lake Jesup water over the longer period of time to supply the demand and allow a smaller capital investment. We do not have to match treatment supply directly to the demand. It is our recommendation that the tank be constructed below the ground surface and serve as an observation deck and possible pavillion. The building style storage tank will also shield some of the other treatment items. Please see our attached diagrams. 7) High Service Pumping -High service pumps will supply the augmentation water directly into the reclaimed water distribution system. We propose a portion of the storage tank building to be a pumping facility. 8) Wastewater Pump Station - A small wastewater pump station is required to transport the waste generated by the treatment process to the wastewater treatment facility. For every million gallons treated, there is approximately 2.5% or reject material (25,000 gallons). Therefore, if we treat 1 MGD, we will have a waste product of 25,000 gallons or a flow rate of approximately 18 gpm AADF/million gallons treated. Section 3 - Offsite Components The main items that need to remain at the Lake Jesup site are the Intake Structure and the Intake Pumping Structure. All other components could be placed at a remote site. In order to use a remote site, the Intake Pumping Station would have to be increased in horsepower to deliver the raw water to the treatment unit. One possible remote site is the reclaimed water disposal area known separately as Site 16; Site 17; Oak Forest spray site; and, the property owned by the City between these sites. These sites are directly adjacent to one another. With the advent of more reclaimed water going to residential irrigation demand, these disposal sites are not now used on a regular basis and are used only as back-up disposal sites. There is also additional unused available land at these sites. Previously we analyzed Site 16 for the placement of a ground storage tank and found that the subsurface soils conditions were not recommended for the support of structural items. Soil injection grouting would be required. At the time we decided to increase the storage capacity at the West Water Reclamation Facility rather than pursue a re-pumping facility at Site 16. We did not examine the areas directly adjacent to the location at Site 16. A storage tank could be placed in this area with additional care and construction for the support of the tank. Additional soils boring s would be required prior to placement of structures in this area. Although these sites are close to each other, they all have very different terrain and soils conditions. Section 4 -Alternatives We developed and analyzed four alternatives for equipment placement. 1) Alternative 1 -Conventional Storage and Treatment Layout at the Lake Jesup Site 2) Alternative 2 -Enhanced Environmental Layout at the Lake Jesup Site 3) Alternative 3 - Offsite Treatment and Storage Alternative 4) Alternative 4 -Lake Jesup Treatment and Offsite Storage Alternative These alternatives are discussed below: Alternative 1-Conventional Layout Lake Jesup Site This alternative is the conventional treatment system located at the Lake Jesup site. It includes the intake structure, pumping facilities, treatment facilities, transfer pump station, a 2.0 Million gallon above grade storage tank, and high service pumping. A separate storage building is required for the chemical storage and feed systems. Advantages: 1) The plan provides the most facility for the least amount of money as there are no expenses for "special features". 2) The plan provides the largest storage capacity at the "source" location. 3) Serves the needs of the utility reclaimed water system. 4) Resolves pressure and flow problems at the Central Winds Park irrigation system. Disadvantages: 1) The facility does not blend into the environment. 2) Landscaping costs are higher than the offsite alternative. Alternative 2 -Enhanced Environmental Layout Lake Jesup Site This alternative is a modified version of the conventional treatment system. The storage tank is constructed above and below grade to provide a volume of approximately 250,000 gallons. The above grade portion of the storage tank is constructed to shield the treatment facilities and to blend in with the surroundings by using the top for an observation deck and pavillion. It also uses landscaping to blend the storage tank in with the surroundings. The garage portion of the building is the pumping, chemical storage and electrical building. Access to the equipment is provided by a double garage door. Skylights may be required to allow access and removal of the high service pumps. Under this plan, augmentation water will be pumped directly into the reclaimed water distribution system after treatment. A secondary storage system will be required offsite to provide the necessary storage requirements of the reclaimed system (3 day minimum per regulations). The secondary system will work as an offline system and provide water during peak usage times. Advantages: 1) The plan provides adequate storage capacity to meet the minimal daily peaking needs of the system at the Lake Jesup site. 2) Serves the needs of the utility reclaimed water system. 3) Resolves pressure and flow problems at the Central Winds Park irrigation system. 4) The facility blends into the environment and enhances the area. Disadvantages: 1) The storage at the treatment plant site is smaller than optimal. 2) The costs are slightly higher for the enhancements and landscaping. 3) Additional storage and pumping facilities are required offsite. Alternative 3 - Offsite Treatment and Storage Alternative This alternative utilizes the conventional type layout, but places the treatment process, storage and high service pumping in the Site 16/17 area. Site 16/17 is approximately 2.5 miles away from the Lake Jesup site. Advantages: 1) The plan provides a cost effective treatment facility as there are no expenses for "special features" due to its location. 2) The plan provides the larger storage capacity. 3) Serves the needs of the utility reclaimed water system. 4) At the proposed location, the facility does not need to blend in with the environment. There are no houses or facilities in the area and it can be screened by natural vegetation. 5) Location of the treatment and storage is at the midpoint of the reclaimed system and provides a boost to both systems. Disadvantages: 1) The treatment facility is over 2 -'h miles from the source water/intake system. 2) Additional capital costs are required for the pipeline to transport the water from Lake Jesup to the site. 3) Controls are required via the SCADA system for the remote operation of the intake pump station. 4) Increased operational costs due to two locations versus the one site. 5) Does not resolve the pressure and flow problems of the Central Winds Park irrigation system. Alternative 4 -Lake Jesup Treatment and Offsite Storage Alternative This alternative utilizes the conventional type layout, but places a two million gallon storage tank and booster pumping system in the Site 16/17 area. Site 16/17 is approximately 2.5 miles away from the Lake Jesup site. The treatment units would remain at Lake Jesup along with high service pumps pumping directly into the reclaimed water distribution system. The storage and pumping facility at Site16/17 would be an off-line system. Advantages: 1) The plan provides a cost effective treatment facility as there are fewer expenses for "special features" due to its location. The storage system would not need to be hidden or disguised. 2) The plan provides the larger storage capacity. 3) Serves the needs of the utility reclaimed water system. 4) At the proposed location, the facility does not need to blend in with the environment. There are no houses or facilities in the area and it can be screened by natural vegetation. 5) Location of the storage tank and the booster pumping system is at the midpoint of the reclaimed system and provides a boost to both systems. Disadvantages: 1) Controls are required via the SCADA system for the remote operation of the intake pump station. 2) Increased operational costs due to two locations versus the one site. 3) Does not address peak demand requirements. 4) Water supply would only be provided when the treatment unit is operational. Section 5 -Artesian Well There is an existing artesian well located in the Parkstone subdivision. During construction of the Parkstone subdivision, an attempt was made to plug this well. This could not be accomplished and the well was piped towards the Lake and is allowed to flow freely into Lake Jesup. In the Augmentation Consumptive Use Permit issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District, the City was granted the right to utilize this artesian well flow to augment the reclaimed water system. The permit requires that all reuse sources be utilized prior to using the flow from the artesian well. The well provides a rate of approximately 350 gpm (0.5 MGD). The water quality of this well is very good and does not exceed/violate any of the water quality parameters for "Public Access" reclaimed water. It is our belief that this water can be directly fed into the reclaimed water distribution system. We recommend the following for the artesian well in Parkstone: 1) Install a submersible wet well pumping system adjacent to the outfall to take water as needed and to allow flow into Lake Jesup when the system is not required. 2) Design the lift station to be capable of providing higher pressures for the reclaimed water distribution system. 3) Design the pump station as a duplex station. 4) Connect the lift station directly into the reclaimed water distribution system. 5) Install a SCADA control system to operate the station remotely as demand requires or dictates. 6) Follow the guidelines of the Consumptive Use Permit. "The permittee may use flow from the free-flowing artesian well (District GRS ID 104913), as described in the permit application, to supplement the reclaimed water system whenever the demand for reclaimed water exceeds the quantity of treated wastewater available from the City's waste water treatment facilities. The free-flowing artesian well may not be pumped or otherwise used to produce more than its free flowing rate at anytime. The well must be allowed to flow into Lake Jesup when flow from the well is not being used to supplement the reclaimed system." i i ~ -£-------- --- --------------- n ~i 1 ,.c.~ 1 INTAKE STRUCTURE SECTION INTAKE STRUCTURE PLAN I I I I I I na ernerua I I .,wer ~xn-... ru.une uo..u,. I `„ t I u~.a I '' au°~`~an° ~ I I 1 1 I II I I J -_____ I ______________~______________-__ J-_____-______ '- N-i_ u 4R~M[L SOLE ~ $ _ ~"° CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ~ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ~ ~~a. s©~ WINTER SPRINGS/SEMINOLE/FLORIDA N u v4 ,~y„u,u, '~~p1- ALTERNATE? ~~u~ Drawing. f SOUTH ELEVATION .~o+.sR..."w ..iw ~<. 364________ NORTH ELEVATION m-~~•+~•3c• ~ aoe.~.m.•+-• (.~r,».~ 1~~~ _ ___ _______________ _________________________________ -------------------------------wo ----------------1 B°~°""""'~•B°' "'OYAFV"'"•", WEST ELEVATION ________ _____________________________________________ _______30v__ ____________________________________ F----------------- „a ---------------1 EAST ELEVATION ~ v, ~ w~ „" i d t e ""a' "°' CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS /~ „~ "._„~ ~-~ ~ .~O "~ WINTER SPRINOSISEMINOLE/FLORIDA Vr/ y w p ~Ew~ TANK ELEVATIONS w..ew a*. eaRmvux oecKw _ _____ _ nn' i ~nn`~`r~u ~w`~ ___ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _1.v ~ i ie.o~ 1 ___ __ __ __ __ ___ __L.~ ~- a.o -a FLOORcPLA~N VIEW i i ROOF LINE PLAN VIEW i i i i w.~aixr~E i i i i -- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -- -- ----- - -~-- .n.~'~ i ~ N i~ I cwauuc PAEfira 5 BOARDWALK ELEVATION v~ CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS /~~~ ~,__„ ~~ WINTER SPRINGS/SEMINOLEIFLORIDA V _ N ~~ - BOARDWALK ELEVATION ~O +w Winter Springs Augmentation Alternatives Alternative 1 -Conventional Layout Lake Jesup Site Units Quanti Unit Price Total Estimate 1 Intake structure and lake walk system LS 1 $51,550 $51,550 2 Site Preparation LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 3 Intake Piping (24-inch) LF 300 $100 $30,000 4 Driveway and sidewalk SF 2500 $8 $20,000 5 Site security LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 6 _ _ Landscape _ LS 1 $35,000 _ $35,000 7 _ Low service pumping station at site _ _ LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 8 Barscreen - 2 mm maximum size LS 1 $135,000 $135,000 9 Actiflo Treatment Unit -Phase 1 - 1 MGD Flow LS 1 $ 40 0,0 0 0 $400,000 10 Filtration -FUTURE IF REQUIRED _ _ _ LS _ _ _ . _ . $0 11 Storage - Phase 1 - 2 MG Crom Style _ _ _ LS _ 1 $750,000 _ _ $750,000 12 High Service Pumping -Phase 1; 2 pumps LS 1 $150,000 $ 150,000 13 SCADA Connection LS 1 $45,000 _ _ _ $45,000 14 Wastewater pumping (reject water) LS 1 $45,000 $45,000 15 _ _ Reject forcemain - 3 inch LF 350 $23 _ $8,050 16 Yard Piping _ _ LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 16 _ _ _ Electrical, chemical and Pump building SF 500 $100 $50,000 17 Chemical Storage and Feed Equipment LS 1 $7 5,000 $75,000 18 Instrumentation and Controls LS 1 _ $35,000 _ _ $35,000 19 _ _ _ _ Electrical Equipment - _ _ LS _ _ 1 _ - $105,000 _ $105,000 TOTALS $2,064,600 Contin enc 15% $309,690.00 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,374,290.00 S:\dept -Public Works-Utility\Capital Projects\Project FilesWctive Projects\30043 Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project\Preliminary Engineering Report\Probable Opinion of Construction Cost Dec 2008 Page 1 Alternative 2 -Enhanced Environmental Layout Lake Jesup Site Units Quanti Unit Price Total Estimate 1 Intake structure and lake walk system LS 1 $51,550 $51,550 2 Site Preparation LS _ _ _ 1 _ _ $25,000 $25,000 3 Intake Piping (24-inch) LF 300 $100 $30,000 4 Driveway and sidewalk SF 2500 $8 $20,000 5 Site security LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 6 Landscape LS _ _ 1 _ $25,000 $25,000 7 Low service pumping station at site LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 8 Barscreen - 2 mm maximum size LS 1 $135,000 $135,000 9 _ Actiflo Unit -Phase 1 - 1 MGD Flow _ LS 1 $400,000 $400,000 10 Filtration -FUTURE LS $0 11 Storage - 250,000 gallon (buried) LS 1 $457,495 $457,495 12 High Service Pu mpin g - Phase 1; 2 pumps LS 1 $150,000 $150,000 13 _ _ _ SCADA Connection LS 1 $45,000 $45,000 14 Wastewater pumping (reject water) _ _ LS 1 $45,000 $45,000 15 Reject forcemain - 3 inch LF 350 $23 $8,050 16 Yard Piping LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 16 Electrical, chemical and Pump building SF 500 $100 $50,000 17 Chemical Storage and Feed Equipment LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 18 Instrumentation and Controls LS 1 $35,000 $35,000 19 Electrical Equipment LS 1 $105,000 $105,000 Offsite/Offline suplemental water supply station 20 Offsite Storage - 2.0 MG LS 1 $_750,000 $750,000 21 Offsite high service pumping -exterior LS 1 $87,500 $87,500 22 Offsite site preparation LS 1 $12,500 $12,500 23 Offsite electrical/instrumentation/SCADA LS _ _ 1 $25,000 _ $25,000 24 Offsite Building for electrical etc. SF 250 $100 $25,000 25 Offsite and pipin LS 1 $8,500 _ _ $8,500 TOTALS $2,665,595 Contin enc 15% $399,839.25 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $3,065,434.25 S:\dept -Public Works-Utility\Capital Projects\Project FilesWctive Projects130043 Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project\Preliminary Engineering Report\Probable Opinion of Construction Cost Dec 2008 Page 2 Alternative 3 - Offsite Treatment and Storage Units uanti Unit Price Total Estimate 1 Intake structure and lake walk system LS 1 $51,550 $51,550 2 _ _ _ _ _ Site Preparation _ _ _ _ _ _ LS _ _ _ _ _ 1 $15,000 $15,000 3 Intake Piping (24-inch) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LF 300 $100 $30,000 4 Driveway and sidewalk _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SF _ _ 100.0 $8 $8,000 5 _ Site security ___ LS _ _ 1 _ $5,000 -- $5,000 - 6 _ _ _ _ -- Landscape LS _ 1 $5,000 $5,000 7 Low service pumping station at site to site 16/17 _ _ _ _ LS 1 $275,000 $275,000 8 Low service raw water main to Site 16/17 LF 13500 $85 $1,147,500 Offsite/Online Augmentation system 9 Barscreen - 2 mm maximum size LS 1 _ $135,000 $135,000 -- 10 _ _ _ - - Actiflo Unit -Phase 1 - 1 MGD Flow LS _ 1 $400,000 $400,000 11 _ _ Filtration -FUTURE _ _ LS _ $0 12 _ _ --- Storage - Phase 1 - 2 MG Crom Style _ _ _ _ LS _---- 1 _ $750,000 $750,000 13 ___ High Service Pumping -_P_h_as_e 1; 2 pum_p_s_ _ _ _ _ LS 1 - - $87,500 $87,500 __ - 14 SCADA Connection LS 1 _ $45,000 $45,000 __- - 15 _ _ _ Wastewater pumping (reject water) _ _ _ _ LS _ - 1 $4.5,000 $45,000 16 Reject forcemain - 3 inch _ _ _ _ LF _ _ _1000. _ _ _ $23 _ _ $23,000 16 Yard Piping and offsite site preparation _ _ _ LS _ _ _ 1 _ $37,500 $37,500 17 Electrical, chemical and Pump building _ SF _ 5.00 _ $100 $50,000 18 Chemical Storage and Feed Equipment_ _ _ _ _ _ LS _1 _ $75,000 _ $75,000 19 rols nt Instrumentation and Co LS 1 $35,000 $35,000 20 _ _ _ _ _ --_ Electrical Equipment _ _- LS _ _ _ 1 $105,000 $105,000 TOTALS $3,325,050 Contin enc 15% $498,757.50 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $3,823,807.50 S:\dept -Public Works-Utility\Capital Projects\Project Files\Active Projects\30043 Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project\Preliminary Engineering Report\Probable Opinion of Construction Cost Dec 2008 Page:. Alternative 4 Lake Jesup Treatment and Offsite Storage Units Quanti Unit Price Total Estimate 1 Intake structure and lake walk system LS 1 $51,550 $51,550 2 _ _ _ Site Preparation _ _ _ _ _ LS _ _ 1 $25,000 _ _ $25,000 3 Intake Piping (24-inch) _ _ LF 300 $100 $30,000 4 Driveway and sidewalk _ _ _ _ _ _ SF _ 2500 $8 $20,000 5 Site security _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 6 Landscape _ _ _ _ _ LS _ _1 _ $75,000 _ _ $75,000 7 Low service pumping station at site _ _ _ _ LS _ 1_ $75,000 $75,000 8 Barscreen - 2 mm maximum size LS 1 $135,000 $135,000 9 ase 1 - 1 MGD Flow Actiflo Unit- Ph LS _ 1 $400,000 $400,000 10 _ _ _ _ _ Filtration -FUTURE _ LS --- $0 12 Pumping and wetwell - high service _ LS _ _ _1_ $245,000 $245,000 13 SCADA Connection LS 1 $45,000 $45,000 14 _ _ _ Wastewater pumping (reject wate_r)_ _ _ _ _ LS _ 1 $45,000 $45,000 15 Reject forcemain - 3 inch _ _ _ _ _ LF 350_ _ $23 $8,050 16 Yard Piping _ _ _ LS 1 _ _ _ $10,000 _ _ $10,000 17 Electrical, chemical and Pump building _ _ _ SF _ 5.00_ $100 $50,000 18 Chemical Storage and Feed Eq_uipme_ nt _ _ _ LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 19 Instrumentation and Controls LS 1 $35,000 $35,000 20 _ _ _ Electrical E uipment LS 1 $105,000 $105,000 Offsite Stora e 21 Offsite Storage - 2 MG _ _ _ LS _ _1 __$750,000 $750,000 22 Offsite high service pumping _ _ _ _ _ _ LS _ 1 $127,000 $127,000 23 Offsite site preparation _ _ LS _1_ _ $28,000 $28,000 24 electrical/instrumentation/controls Offsite LS 1 $125,000 $125,000 25 _ _ _ Offsite Building for pumps a_n_d electrical etc. _ SF 2.50_ $100 $25,000 26 Offsite SCADA LS 1 $45,000 $45,000 27 _ _ _ _ Offsite and pipin _ _ _ LS 1 $17,500 $17,500 TOTALS $2, 562,100 Contin enc 15% $384,315.00 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,946,415.00 S:\dept -Public Works-Utility\Capital Projects\Project FilesWctive Projects\30043 Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project\Preliminary Engineering Report\Probable Opinion of Construction Cost Dec 2008 Page 4