Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 19, 1986 (77)rTsJA _27 NOVEi4 M 19, 1986 WATER TANK RF.PIACIIMENP Council was reminded that, at the Shirtsleeve Council meeting on July 2, 1986, Staff presented alternatives for the design OC -20 and location of the replacement water tank on the Parks and Recreation Corporation Yard site. Council directed staff to: 1) coordinate the location with a new Master Plan for the site; and 2) investigate maintenance and all applicable costs for the various design alternatives. Preparation of the site Master Plan has begun. In order for the consultant to work, on the new tank location, a design should be selected as the carious alternatives occupy different amounts of space. A report on life cycle costs of each alternative was prepared and circulated to City management staff and to the Council for its perusal. The total life cycle (60 years) costs are: Alternative 3 - Standard Tank with Legs $262,000 Alternative 1 - Standpipe 267,000 Alternative 5 - Hydropillar 286,000 Alternative 4 - Pedestal 298,000 Alternative 2 - Standpipe with Aesthetics 315,000 A major factor riot included in the cost analysis is the "risk factor" from unauthorized entry/climbing. Alternatives 4 and 5 are the most secure. Canments received from staff all favored Alternatives 4 and 5 for the following reasons: - security/safety - interior access - occupy least space - aesthetics Written comments from the City's engineering ccansultant, Psomas and Associates, were received and pre cr.ted for Council's perusal. They point out, and staff oonc.°urs, that the additional cost of Alternative 4 or 5 over Alternative 3 is relatively small when considered on a life cycle basis. The difference between Alternative 5 and Alternative 3, the least expensive, is $24,000 or $400 per year in 60 years. Since the cost of Alternative 5 is less than Alternative 4, staff recommends its selection. Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Olson second, Council approved the hydropillar/fluter column (Alternative 5) design concept of the replacement water tank. (b CITY OF LOCM COUNCIL COMMUNICATION,' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Water Tank Replacement - Select Alternative RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the hydropillar/fluted column ternat ve 5) design concept of the replacement water tank. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Shirtsleeve Council meeting on July 2, 1996, staff presented alternatives for the design and location of the replacement water tank on the Parks and Recreation Corporation Yard site. Council directed staff to: 28coordinatethe location with a new Master Plan for the site; and investigate maintenance and all applicable costs for the various design alternatives. Preparation of the site Master Plan has begun. In order for the consultant to work on the new tank location, a design should be selected as the various alternatives occupy different amounts of space. A report on life cycle costs of each alternative was prepared and circulated to City management staff. A copy of the report is attached. The total life cycle (60 years) costs are: Alternative 3 - Standard Tank with Legs $262,000 Alternative I - Standpipe 267,000 Alternative 5 - Hydropillar 286,000 Alternative 4 - Pedestal 298,000 Alternative 2 - Standpipe with Aesthetics 315,000 A major factor not included in the cost analysis is the "risk factor" from unauthorized entry/climbing. As noted in Exhibit 2, Alternatives 4 and 5 are the most secure. Comments received from staff all favored Alternatives 4 and 5 for the following reasons: - security/safety - interior access - occupy least space - aesthetics APPROVED: [/ / f 1` -- FILE 40. THOMAS A. PETERSON, City Manager CWATTANK/TXTW.02M November 11, 1986 City Council November 19, 1986 Water Tank Replacement _ Page 2 Written comments from our engineering consultant, Psomas and Associates, were received and are attached. They point out, and staff concurs, that the additional cost of Alternative 4 or 5 over Alternative 3 is relatively small when considered on a life cycle basis. The difference between Alternative 5 and Alternative 3, the least expensive, is $24,000 or $400 per year in 60 years. Since the cost of Alternative 5 is less than Alternative 4, staff recmn election. Jac tc L. Ronsko Public Works Director JLR/ma Attachments cc: Chief Civil Engineer Water/Wastewater Superintendent Parks & Recreation Director Psomas & Associates CWATTANK/TXTW.02M November 11, 1986 MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department TO: City Manager Assistant City Manager (Risk Management Committee Parks & Recreation Director LJR & Associates, Chuck Gormely City Attorney Finance Director Community Development Director Police Chief Electrical Utility Director FROM: Public Works Director DATE: September 11, 1986 SUBJECT: Water Tank Alternatives At a recent Council shirtsleeve meeting, the design alternatives of the replacement water tank were discussed. The Council asked for data on maintenance and other related costs, in addition to construction costs. They also asked about security and liability. We have received some additional construction and maintenance cost data from our consulting engineers and have added additional information as shown on the attached cost analysis. The information summarized on Exhibit 1 is taken from the cost analysis. We would appreciate receiving any comments you may have on our analysis by October 1st, in order to forward this material and a recommendation to the City Council as soon as possible. Additional background discussion on the cost analysis follows. Item Comment First Cost These are the median construction cost figures for the alternatives provided by Psomas & Associates. Repainting The cost shown is for one repainting. The tank will be repainted at least twice during its lifetime. Ground Space It was assumed all the ground space occupied by the tank would be lost for other purposes. Land Value We �jsed $10.00 per square foot as the value for commercial land. Cathodic Protection This is an electrical system which prevents corrosion of the metal tank. The cost per year is for power. i Item Comment Security The cost on the first three alternatives is for shields on the lower portions of the external ladders. The tank with legs (Alternative 3) has diagonal braces which could be climbed by most any determined individual. Risk Factor No dollar value has been assigned to the relative risk of unauthorized entry. It should be noted that all the designs would be an improvement over the existing tank. Construction Space The various designs will require -different amounts of construction space. This space will be lost to Parks & Recreation. A value of 5% of the land value was assigned to this factor. Present Worth of As indicated in Note 5 on Exhibit 2, we have Future Costs/ estimated an interest rate. The effect of interest Discount Rate rate on the analysis is shown graphically for the tank alternatives on Exhibit 3. Note that the graph starts at $230,000, not 0. ti a Ronsko ubl i c. Works Director Attachments cc: Water Superintendent Psomas & Associates, Harold Welborn JLR/RCP/ma l CITY OF LODI � '-�AT�v� WATER TANK coSTs PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ALTERNATIVn -0 !j O -+ K.5 K. - l.onsmir-Tlon CosT or Tank only. - Total cost (including land, construction 4 maintenance G 3% discount rate) i Rtr�t�on Approved dy IbIIC works Director post RC E - Water 1 - Acc,ess 1 Ladder �xh'►bifi 1 Tot First Cost $232,000 $276,000 $Z40,000 $278,000 5257,0©0 Pres. Worth of future costs Q $35.000 $39,000 $22,000 $20.000 $29,000 disc. rate = 3.e% (See note 5) Total Cost $267.000 $315,000 $262.000 8298,000 $286,000 Notes: i. Assumed 60 year life with two repaint ings. 2. Construction soace includes area of tank plus i00 feet on one side. 3. Security on first ttree alternat,ts is cost to secure e,terior ladder. Ability tototally secure tart. with legs is ouestionable: Last two alternates have interior ladders behind locked mors. 4. Risk cyst is difficult to estivate with any degree of confidence. Risk of unauthorized perscrs climbing the tank is indicated relati-e to the most secure designs �Aits. 4 b S). S. Future e•pen;es arel.en in present day costs, thus the Ciscount rate is a 1-.rg terr:est.rnate ,--,P the percentage points interest rates .;r. sa:in,qs W.!: eel '1-e ,ate of inflation. FEExhib�tEj WATER TANK COST ANALYSIS. Tank Design Alternate: Alt. t Alt. Z Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. S Item Standpipe S'pipe u/ Std. Tank Pedestal Hydropillar aesthetics w/legs w/sphere /fluted col. First Cost $210,000 $250,000 $190,000 $265,000 $245,000 (Average) Repainting 30,000 34.000 0 ,000 18,000 26 ,000 Ground space 34' Dia. 36' Sq. 60' Sq. 72' Uta. 19' Dia. Land value 0 $10.00 9,000 13,000 116,000 4,000 3 , 000 per sq. ft. Cathodic Prot. Initial 8,000 8,000 6 ,000 6,000 6 ,@00 $/yr 350 350 175 175 175 Security 2000 2000 2:,00 0 0 Risk Factor 0 0 0 0 0 (See Note 4) medium medium med/high low low Const. space Area - sq ft 5600 6525 11900 5600 5600 Value 0 S% 3,000 3.,000 6,300 ?,000 3,-100 of Land Value Tot First Cost $232,000 $276,000 $Z40,000 $278,000 5257,0©0 Pres. Worth of future costs Q $35.000 $39,000 $22,000 $20.000 $29,000 disc. rate = 3.e% (See note 5) Total Cost $267.000 $315,000 $262.000 8298,000 $286,000 Notes: i. Assumed 60 year life with two repaint ings. 2. Construction soace includes area of tank plus i00 feet on one side. 3. Security on first ttree alternat,ts is cost to secure e,terior ladder. Ability tototally secure tart. with legs is ouestionable: Last two alternates have interior ladders behind locked mors. 4. Risk cyst is difficult to estivate with any degree of confidence. Risk of unauthorized perscrs climbing the tank is indicated relati-e to the most secure designs �Aits. 4 b S). S. Future e•pen;es arel.en in present day costs, thus the Ciscount rate is a 1-.rg terr:est.rnate ,--,P the percentage points interest rates .;r. sa:in,qs W.!: eel '1-e ,ate of inflation. Water Tank Cost Analysis Incl. Land, Const. & Maintenance Costs $400 $390 .$380 $370 $360 $350 $340 $')30 v q o $320 0� Q $310 $300 $290 $280 $270 $260 $250 $240 $230 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0"� 8.0% Discount Rate tt /vt• 1 + AJ t. 2 Alt 3 AJ t. 4 r: r 'w C Li V . Ri8UC %V0Ft K:.:. i ;A, T Y F N T LOD 01 03 September 25, 1986 City of Lodi Oublic Works Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241 ATTN: Mr. Jack Ronsko, Director RE: ELEVATED WATER TANK ALTERNATIVES Gentlemen: I have reviewed the "Water Tank Alternatives" memorandum dated September 11, 1986. I concur with the information presented. In addition, I would like to supplement the information sent to you previously by adding the following comments and recommendations. 1. During our research of tank manufacturers and tank costs it was evident that the major suppliers of elevated tanks were eager to supply information and experience about the "watersphere" type tank and somewhat reluctant to endorse the use of the "standpipe" type tank. They cited design uncertainties with the tank and foundation related to the Zone 3 earthquake forces. We believe that good CO'Mpetitive bids are more assured for Alt. 3, 4, and 5 Tanks than would be the case with the Alt. 1 or 2 Tanks. 2. We would recommend a tank alternative that has the least future cost due to the uncertainty or risk of those costs being greater than anticipated. This factor would favor Alt. 3 and 4. 3. While serving a vital function in the operation of the water distribution system, one of the most obvious impacts of the elevated tank will be long term visual. It will become a landmark. we believe that the modern designs of Alt. 4 and 5 are a definite asset in this area. Affiliate Offices: S 4. It is difficult to put a dollar value on the securit,, and liability aspects of this kind of public facility. We feel this is a very important consideration. Although not so important to dictate a decision, it strongly favors the alternatives that do not have external ladders. 5. Considering the factors mentioned above and the rel-i- tively small difference in total life -cycle cost, our recommendation to the City would be for the Watersphere (Alt. 4) or Hydropillar (Alt. 5) design style structures. If you, your staff,. or members of the Council would care to discuss our conclusions we would be glad to meet with you or provide additional information. Sincerely, Psomas & Associates of Sacramento Harold L. Welborn HLW/law:10-34