2008-11-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12 Mr. Slutzky said when Gannett Fleming prepared its cost estimates he felt they believed that the rock was solid, but after doing the borings, they discovered that the dam base would need to be a lot deeper to support the structure. If the figures for the pipeline were revisited now without any engineering analysis for a possible route through the right-of-way of the Western Bypass or as discussed today other alternative routes, he wondered how meaningful the exercise would be of coming up with revised cost estimates for that pipeline and comparing it to another vague estimate of what the Sugar Hollow pipeline might be. The actual costs will not be known until the engineering studies are conducted ten years from now. He questioned whether this would be good use of taxpayers’ money in the short term or are we creating the illusion that we have now looked at it again and hopefully get the right conclusion. He said he was struggling with the value of doing more than the casual look suggested by Mr. Fern which would entail having an engineer revisit the methodologies to confirm whether or not they are sound. Mr. Norris noted that GF and Schnabel Engineering both looked at the same data with a cost differential of about $15 million. He said he feels it would be worthwhile to spend a little money to have someone double check GF’s numbers and assumptions on the pipeline as well. Mr. Frederick offered the following observations to help the boards with their decision-making process: There was some suggestion that an independent study be undertaken on the conceptual design of the pipeline to verify if the project was feasible or if there were a better alternative and also provide an updated cost estimate. If there was agreement on this approach, he feels it would be a fairly simple process that could be done rather economically and in less time than the expert’s panel review of the Ragged Mountain project. Another aspect from today’s discussion related to conducting a comparison of multiple alternatives, which he felt would be a much larger, more costly, and much more time-consuming study. He used as an example a comparison of the South Fork and Sugar Hollow pipelines. Some of the advice that RWSA has received stated that if you take the split in the water source back to Sugar Hollow and split it to Ragged Mountain or South Fork, a decision will need to be made very early in a drought on how to split the flows. The decision cannot be taken back since there is no interconnection between the final reservoirs where the treatment plants are located. This would also require more storage space and/or more water treatment capacity to accomplish the same safe yield, which could result in the revisit of safe yield projections. He said he feels that an apples to apples comparison on those issues would be complex and difficult to orchestrate compared to a simpler review of only the South Fork pipeline related to its feasibility and the validity of the cost estimates. Mr. Boyd asked if the City would be in agreement with conducting a simple study on the conceptual design of the pipeline. Mr. Norris said he does not feel a study as in-depth as an apples to apples comparison is necessarily needed. He said he would like to be able to explain to the public in very simple terms what the advantages and disadvantages are between the South Fork and Sugar Hollow pipelines without having to go into engineering detail that had been discussed. Mr. Gaffney suggested that RWSA could help with the explanation for the public by summarizing the results of the independent pipeline study. Mr. Norris stated that the information should be based on the new analysis and not on Gannett Fleming’s work. Mr. Norris said that once the new information becomes available, some type of meetings would need to be held. Ms. Thomas said she is confused about the format of the City Council resolution. Number 1 stated “Appoint Board of Consultants,” and item d under Number 2 stated “Ragged Mountain Dam Design Review.” She assumed that the boards are in agreement