Loading...
06-25-12 CC WS Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2012 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda 2. WATER PLAN UDPATE 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Hotvet Siakel Woodruff Zerby ATTACHMENTS Engineer's memo, WSB Report, Feb. 27 WS Attachments 3. ADJOURN ® #2 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Work Session Title / Subject: 20 Year Municipal Water Plan Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Prepared by: James Landini Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn Attachments: Consultant review letter, 20 Year Water Plan Map of Existing and Potential Water System Policy Consideration: Should the City Council adopt Updates to the Comprehensive 20 Year Water Plan that expands the water system through the entire City and put in place a finance plan for such improvements? Background: On November 14, 2011, the City Council directed staff to compile a comprehensive cost analysis for expansion of the municipal water system through the remaining portion of the City that does not currently have access to this service. The Council further directed that this plan was to be prepared to coincide with the Pavement Inventory and Management System (PIMS) that has been developed and adopted by the City Council for the City's roadway infrastructure. Staff has completed this analysis for costs of installation of water main and prepared a map indicating the locations and sequencing. On April 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to have the Water Plan update reviewed and refined by a consultant. WSB has reviewed and suggested refinements in the attached letter. Financial or Budget Considerations: As can be seen, the cost for this program is rather steep over the 20 years. Under current policy, most projects fall outside of our feasible threshold of $10,000. Again, staff believes providing municipal water to as many residents as possible is a desire of the Council and therefore, a review of how to cover the costs needs to be explored. Options: 1) Determine that expanding water city wide is not a feasible project and expand water only where residents achieve the necessary petition numbers; 2) Determine the expansion of water is needed and direct staff to prepare policy options for council to consider for paying for the plan; 3) Direct staff to gather additional information and bring back for further discussion; 4) Determine expansion is not possible and direct staff to develop a policy to address only those situations where a parcel has access to water — e.g. develop a connection fee policy not based on the current $10,000 threshold. 5) Do nothing. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Recommendation / Action Requested: Accept the recommendations of WSB, provide staff with direction toward recommendations and direct staff to perform the financial analysis for a future work session. Next Steps and Timelines: If Council directs, Staff will perform a financial analysis with the updated information. Staff will develop policy options for council consideration. Connection to Vision / Mission: This presentation is tied to the missions of providing safe drinking water and cost effective services to city residents. WSB & Associates, Inc. Engineering ■ Planning ■ Environmental ■ Construction June 15, 2012 Mr. James Landini, P.E., City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: 2012 Water Plan Update City of Shorewood WSB Project No. 02100 -000 Dear Mr. Landini: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 -541 -4800 Fax: 763 - 541 -1700 The City authorized WSB & Associates, Inc. to update the City Water Plan/CIP, which projects anticipated construction and indirect cost for the expansion of the City water distribution system. The plan update concentrates project costs for capital improvement forecasting for the seven year period from 2013 through 2019. We have also provided costs through the 2032, aligning with the schedule of the Pavement Management Plan. In preparation for the City Council Workshop on June 25, 2012, we are providing summary information for the 2012 Water Plan Update. The following items are proposed for discussion at the Council Workshop: ■ Capital improvement project cost forecasts from 2013 — 2019, and projection to 2032. ■ Discussion of alternative construction methods that may reduce overall improvement costs, reduce disturbance to existing streets, and reduce inconvenience to residents. ■ Review the schedule of water system improvements; water system improvements compared to the pavement management planned improvements and provide recommendation for modification. ■ Discuss policy alternatives to encourage /incent residents to the City water system. ■ Discuss funding alternatives for the expansion of the water distribution system. As part of the workshop we plan to discuss the watermain segment project costs which are higher than previous projections, discuss minor modification to the pavement schedule, as compared to the pavement management plan, we will provide information regarding trenchless technologies Minneapolis ■ St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer KA 02100- W0\ldndn\Docs\LTR - PTH_JU ndini -0G 1 212 -CC Workshop Discussion Items DRAIT.doc Mr. James Landini, P.E. June 15, 2012 Page 2 as an alternative means of construction, as well as some alternatives for funding and approach to City policy for implementation of capital improvement planning. Capital Improvement Project Cost Forecast — The format utilized for the preparation of the project cost projections are based on construction items typically included in watermain system expansion projects, but may not be specific in detail to each individual segment identified for the watermain improvement. The project cost forecasts are performed in this manner to provide slightly conservative Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budgeting tool for preparation of annual finance planning, but does not provide the specific level of detail that would be provided at the feasibility study /preliminary design phase for a project. The project cost projections are prepared in 2012 construction cost data and include a 10- percent contingency for miscellaneous construction items and 20- percent for indirect costs such as legal, administrative, fiscal and engineering design. The indirect costs do not include the application process and construction monitoring for specialized governmental loan programs due to the competitive nature of the programs. Program funding from the Public Facilities Authority, Clean Water Revolving Fund and other agency funding should be reviewed for individual projects. Project costs forecasted for the 2012 water distribution system plan include watermain costs for lateral watermain (8 -inch diameter and smaller) and trunk watermain (10 -inch diameter and greater). Lateral watermain provides general distribution of water to properties while trunk watermain provides water distribution to the networks of lateral watermain. Larger diameter mains will also provide water service to commercial properties where higher demand for industrial or commercial use is required, and /or a higher fire flow demand is required. The projected improvement costs for this plan update also considers the City pavement management plan schedule and includes costs for the excavation and restoration of one half of the roadway width for watermain segments where roadway reconstruction is not anticipated with the water system expansion, and excludes roadway restoration costs where the pavement management plan requires reconstruction. Roadway restoration anticipates the excavation and compaction of the roadway subgrade, placement of eight inches of aggregate base and four inches of bituminous pavement. Roadways that have curb and gutter and granular sub -base have construction cost projections adjusted to reflect this cost on a segment by segment basis. Our projections of typical watermain costs in 2012 construction dollars for the purpose of this update are forecasted as follows: Lateral Watermain Extension $80 per linear foot Trunk Watermain Extension $101 per linear foot Roadway restoration costs (one -half roadway width) $95 to $160 per linear foot The watermain specific extension segment along with the proposed construction year is included in Table "A" in the appendix. Miscellaneous cost such as driveway restoration and service construction from the watermain to the property line are also provided. K: \02100- 000\Adndn\Da \LTR- PTH_1Landini- 061212 -CC Wwhh.p Discussion hunm_DRAPI'A. Mr. James Landini, P.E. June 15, 2012 Page 3 Alternative Construction Methods — The recent advancements in trenchless construction technologies does provide alternatives to conventional open trench construction while minimizing disturbance to an existing neighborhood and inconvenience to residents. The City of Shorewood does have some watermain segments that have been installed by directional drilling in the mid- 1990's, utilizing high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) pipe. New technologies in materials and methods have provided competition for the material suppliers, and there is more contractor competition to reduce construction cost as well. The City typically utilizes ductile iron pipe (DIP) for watermain constructed with conventional trench excavation and restoration, and the Public Works Department is familiar with this pipe product and methods of maintenance and repair. The HDPE requires a more specialized method for the connection of services and laterals to the pipe by means of thermal fusion connectors or specialty connectors along the pipe length. PVC manufactures have a new fusible C -900 watermain class pipe that can be installed by trenchless methods similar to HDPE pipe. Laterals and service connections to the PVC pipe can be made in a method similar to DIP, with DIP or PVC fittings, similar pipe restraints and gaskets. DIP can also be constructed by trenchless technologies with a restrained joint system. Watermain constructed with trenchless methods would be performed with an alignment outside of the roadway pavement area to minimize pavement disturbance, but effectiveness can be limited by narrow rights of way. Extension of services from the watermain can be grouped at property lines to reduce the number of excavations for connection to the watermain, and services can be bored or drilled under the roadway to serve properties on the opposite side of the roadway from the watermain. Watermain construction for the pipe portion of the project is expected to be approximately 50- percent higher in cost that construction by conventional open trench construction; however, the restoration costs can be reduced significantly. Costs for this technology can vary widely and should be considered on individual watermain segment basis taking into consideration the rights of way width, items of environmental significance, woodland areas and other obstacles for individual watermain segments. For the purpose of CIP planning, conventional construction methods are projected. Water System Improvement Schedule and Comparison to Scheduled Pavement Management Plan Improvements — The City previously prepared a schedule of construction for watermain improvements identified by the proposed year of construction. There are some general modifications that could be made to the schedule that can concentrate the improvements within sub - districts of the City to reduce mobilization or transit cost the construction. However, the City staff also may have prioritized water extension improvements in a manner where the improvement is needed for the overall functionality of the water system, is scheduled to reduce conflict with the pavement management plan, and scheduled where residents have expressed an interest in the improvement. The preliminary schedule of improvements included in this memorandum provides only a few minor changes in the year of construction for a few segments for discussion purposes at the Council Workshop. Our goal is to provide a schedule that works well with the pavement plan and some minor scheduling changes can be made to street maintenance, construction or water system expansion. The pavement management plan indicates some roadway maintenance items K: \021 W- 000\Admin\DocsV.TR - PTH_1Landini -061212 -CC Workshop Disc—ion llcnu_DRATT.doc Mr. James Landini, P.E. June 15, 2012 Page 4 (seal coat and overlay) that occur just before or soon after the installation of watermain. We recommend the schedule for either the water system expansion or the pavement management items be adjusted so that the overlay occurs not less than two years after watermain construction to account for any differential settlement that may be experienced in pavement restoration areas. After the two year period the overlay can include a leveling course where needed and the overlay of new pavement can accomplish a consistent finished pavement surface. We recommend that the seal coat schedule be adjusted so that there is at least a two year period between a seal coat and watermain improvement on a roadway segment to provide a seal coat approximately two years after roadway restoration after watermain construction. This allows for leveling or patching with bituminous pavement of any differential settlements that may occur in the restoration area followed by a seal coat and uniform surfacing of the roadway. The watermain schedule can also be modified to match the pavement management plan if desired. Policy Alternatives — Setting policy for the expansion of the water distribution system, connection to the system and collection of funds to reimburse the City for infrastructure costs is a critical step to planning system expansion. Items the City Council could consider in establishing policies for the expansion of the water system are indicated below. Connection Policy — The City should expect that property owners will connect to the water system as the system becomes available. The City could review the timeline when connection is required with the expected lifecycle of a residential well. The City policy could require connection to the public water supply upon failure of an individual well, or a set time line within five to ten years after the public water has become available. Policy written in this format provides some middle ground for a property owner to plan for the connection to the City system. Sanitary Sewer Fees — Unless the private well water supply to an individual home is metered by the City, determination of wastewater discharge to the sanitary sewer is estimated based on the expected daily use for an individual property, or divided annually among sewer connected properties from wastewater charges by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). Connection to the public water system when available provides a means for the City to more accurately distribute wastewater fees by actual water use. Irrigation Wells — The City could allow property owners to maintain their existing private well for irrigation purposes after connection to the public water supply for domestic use, provided the well is permanently disconnected from the water system. The City has to ensure that the public water supply is not contaminated from a private source such as a private well. Other - Funding Alternatives for the Expansion of the Water Distribution System — The City does have the ability to utilize a variety of funding resources for the expansion of the water distribution system. Alternatives are identified below for discussion purposes at the Council Workshop. These alternatives can be considered individually or in combination in an effort to reduce upfront costs to connect to the water system, but spreads the costs over a selected period of time. In reviewing the potential funding mechanisms for the water system expansion, overall cost of the system expansion (in present value or 2012 dollars) is projected to be $26.5M, with an average per unit (parcel) cost of $17,230. The lowest average cost when comparing by year K: \02100- 0O0Wdmin\D —\LTR - PTH_JUndink)61212 -CC Worksiwp Discussion Items DMFP.d. Mr. James Landini, P.E. June 15, 2012 Page 5 of construction is $7,100 per parcel and the highest average cost is $33,200 per parcel. These costs are reviewed with existing parcels of record and do not reflect the future subdivision of these parcels. Connection Charge - The City of Shorewood currently uses a connection charge for funding water system expansion and availability of the public water supply. The City can utilize this up -front connection charge to fund a portion of the water system expansion while using other financial mechanisms that will spread costs over a longer period of time for property owners. If the City chooses a connection charge that funds a portion of the cost to expand the water system, another funding tool will be required for the City to finance the improvements such as the water funds, bonds, low interest loans or other such tool. • Assessments to benefitting properties — Assessments for the expansion of the water system can be used as the sole mechanism to fund the improvements or can be used to partially fund the improvements. Special assessments reflect the influence of a specific local improvement on the value of selected property. No matter what method the city uses to establish the amount of the assessment, the real measure of benefit is the increase in the market value of the land because of the improvement. o City property owners can expect that the replacement of a well will range from about $6,000 for a drift well to about $10,000 for a bedrock- drilled well. Assessments should be limited to a reasonable value of the construction of a new well for this area. The City may also allow property owners to have the option to add the connection charge, if so levied, to their assessment to spread costs over a longer period of time. This option provides some incentive to a property owner to connect to the public water system, however, the City will need to use other financial means to fund the potion covered by the assessed connection charge. Establishment of a Water System Utility District — The City does have the authority to establish a district under Minnesota Statues Chapter 444 to collect revenue for the establishment and expansion of water supply, storage and distribution systems. The City of Shorewood could consider establishing a waterworks district to fund the expansion of the water system. The City already has an established water system where some properties have the public water system available to them but are not connected to the system. A district could be created over the entire City, with the exception of the island areas, and subdivisions constructed with public sewer and water (all properties are connected to both utilities). Improvement costs that are not included within connection charges and are not assessed, can be covered over a longer period of time through the establishment of a district, and can reduce upfront costs to property owners. The waterworks district could be established and utilized for a period up to 30 years, but should be utilized as a tool to reimburse the City for bonds and other associated costs for the desired time frame. • The City should identify a requirement for connection to the system in order to recoup the initial investment. • There is no requirement to show benefit to properties as required by Ch 429 K:102100- 00041dnun\Das\LTR - PTH_1L:wdini-OG 1212 -CC Workshop Discussion Itenu_DRAFTAoc Mr. James Landini, P.E. June 15, 2012 Page 6 o There is not a mechanism through title search for a new owner to know about the fees /charges established in this manner, as there is under an assessment Establishment of Utility Franchise Fees — Franchise fees are a tool available to cities for the collection of revenue for utility company use of public rights of way and easements. The City would need to negotiate with the private utility owner (gas and electric) for inclusion in the franchise agreement. The franchise fee is limited to 5- percent of the gross operating revenues or gross earnings from its operations in the municipality. Establishment of a franchise fee can provide long -term revenue stream that can assist the city with funding waterworks improvements. Funding through Bonds/Loans - In the preparation of a long -term infrastructure funding program, the City will likely need to borrow funds through the bonding process or through low interest loans through funding programs such as the Public Facilities Authority (PFA), Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF), or other such agency program. The City may discover that the sale of bonds may provide a more favorable interest rate than low interest loans, depending on the City bond rating and the agency program/provider of the loan. ® Sample Funding Scenario - A sample funding scenario with several of the alternatives identified above follows (all costs represent present value /2012 dollars): Water system expansion costs for CIP 2013 through 2032 = $26,541,000 Estimated number of residential sewer connections — 2829 Estimated number of residential water connections — 1538 Average Cost Scenario - Average projected cost per lot for watermain expansion (construction and indirect costs) — $26,541,000 / 1538 Lots = $17,260 per Lot Connection charge - $ 6,500 per Lot Assessment portion - $ 8,500 per Lot Utility District fees - $ 2,260 per Lot (spread over 15 years = $12.60 /mo) KA02I00 -000V dminlDocs\I.TR - PTH_kandini-06 1212 -CC Workshop Discussion Items DRAFT.doc Mr. James Landini, P.E. June 15, 2012 Page 7 High Cost Scenario - Average projected cost per lot for watermain expansion (construction and indirect costs) — CIP Year 2021 - $33,230 per Lot Connection charge - $ 6,500 per Lot Assessment portion - $ 8,500 per Lot Utility District fees - $ 18,230 per Lot (spread over 15 years = $102 /mo) (spread over 20 years = $76 /mo) (spread over 25 years = $61 /mo) The scenarios above do not include interest for long term loans or bonds and this cost will need to be factored through financial analysis. We roughly estimate that the establishment of a utility franchise fee can reduce interest costs by 30% to 50 %. Construction and indirect costs should be adjusted annually with the ENR Construction Cost Index, or other construction cost factor to maintain the CIP over time. The projected costs spreadsheet with costs representing present value (2012 dollars) is enclosed for your information. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 651- 286 -8453 or phornbygwsbeng.co m with any questions you may have regarding this summary information. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, P.E. Senior Project Manager Attachments: Shorewood Implementation Plan Spreadsheet (Draft) K102100- 000V+dndn\D— XLTR -PTH_R ndinl-061211 -CC Workshop Discussion ItemsDRAFr.dm SHOREWOOD WATER MAIN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Lateral Trunk Date: 6/2/2012 Water Main per LIN FT $ 79.59 $ 101.30 Revised: 6/13/2012 Water Service per EACH $ 617.00 $ 1,234.20 Printed: 6/4/2012 Restoration (without curb)per LIN FT $ 95.56 $ 95.56 Restoration (with curb) per LIN FT $ 158.81 $ 158.81 Driveway Resotration per EACH $ 381.14 $ 381.14 Priority Street Name From To Road Reconstruction Existing Curb Existing Water Main Length Size Services Total Water Main Improvements Total Restoration Total Amount 2013 Club Lane Smithtown Road Dead End No 620 8 5 $ 52,479.61 $ 61,154.11 $ 113,633.72 2013 Country Club Road Smithtown Road Yellowstone Trail No 2330 12 13 $ 252,078.45 $ 227,614.20 $ 479,692.64 2013 Glen Road E County Road 19 Manitou Lane No 850 8 18 $ 78,935.87 $ 88,088.13 $ 167,024.00 2013 Glen Road W Manitou Lane Dead End No 1500 8 11 $ 126,279.12 $ 147,535.47 $ 273,814.59 2013 Lake Linden Drive Yellowstone Trail TH 7 No 1150 12 4 $ 121,434.19 $ 111,420.83 $ 232,855.02 2013 Ridge Point Circle Country Club Road cul -de -sac No 400 8 3 $ 33,716.23 $ 39,368.20 $ 73,084.43 2013 Smithtown Circle Smithtown Road cul -de -sac No 238 6 5 $ 22,076.96 $ 24,649.43 $ 46,726.39 2013 Valleywood Circle Valleywood Lane cul -de -sac Yes 500 6 6 $ 43,556.04 $ - $ 43,556.04 2013 Valleywood Lane Eureka Road Dead End Yes 1310 8 10 $ 110,530.38 $ - $ 110,530.38 2013 IYellowstone Trail ISeamans Drive jAcademy Avenue No 6360 12 44 $ 698,586.03 $ 624,544.21 $ 1,323,130.24 $ 2,864,047.46 2014 ISunnyvale Lane I Meadowview Lane I Eureka Road Yes 650 8 8 $ 56,748.25 $ - $ 56,748.25 TOTAL 2014 $ 56,748.25 2015 Cathcart Drive Smithtown Road LRT No 2610 8 22 $ 221,518.89 $ 257,801.77 $ 479,320.66 2015 Excelsior Boulevard St. Albans Bay Road East City Limits (Deephaven) No 2132 12 32 $ 255,470.43 $ 215,934.49 $ 471,404.93 2015 Fatima Place Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End No 500 8 7 $ 44,183.04 $ 50,448.94 $ 94,631.98 2015 Garden Road Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End No 1240 8 13 $ 106,840.22 $ 123,451.63 $ 230,291.85 2015 Lakeway Terrace Minnetonka Boulevard cul -de -sac No 1200 8 23 $ 109,926.70 $ 123,440.50 $ 233,367.20 2015 1 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Albans Bay Road Deephaven City Limits No 2990 12 16 $ 322,640.42 $ 291,828.51 $ 614,468.93 2015 St. Albans Bay Road N Suburban Drive Iminnetonka Drive No 1955 12 15 $ 216,558.57 $ 192,540.72 $ 409,099.29 2015 Star Circle Star Lane cul -de -sac Yes 260 6 4 $ 23,200.90 $ - $ 23,200.90 2015 Star Lane Smithtown Road cul -de -sac Yes 810 8 11 $ 71,363.34 $ - $ 71,363.34 TOTAL 2015 $ 2,627,149.08 2016 Afton Road Smithtown Road Cathcart Drive No 990 8 10 $ 85,062.20 $ 98,417.72 $ 183,479.92 2016 Amlee Road Manitou Lane cul -de -sac Yes 800 8 16 $ 73,702.46 $ - $ 73,702.46 2016 Birch Bluff Road E Grant Lorenze Road Tonka Bay City limits No 730 12 56 $ 143,065.72 $ 91,103.83 $ 234,169.55 2016 Ferncroft Drive Minnetonka Boulevard Forest Drive No 1230 8 16 $ 107,925.34 $ 123,639.41 $ 231,564.75 2016 Howard's Point Road Smithtown Road Dead End No Yes 1000 8 18 $ 90,874.08 $ 102,422.43 $ 193,296.51 2016 1 Idlewild Path Rustic Way Suburban Drive No 660 8 7 $ 56,917.13 $ 65,738.86 $ 122,655.99 2016 Ivy Lane Ferncroft Drive Rustic Way No 700 8 12 $ 63,235.66 $ 71,467.02 $ 134,702.67 2016 Lee Circle Birch Bluff Road cul -de -sac No 260 8 4 $ 23,200.90 $ 26,370.66 $ 49,571.56 2016 Manitou Lane Amlee Road Glen Road No 360 8 4 $ 31,159.71 $ 35,926.86 $ 67,086.57 2016 Rustic Way Sunset Lane Forest Drive No 1190 8 13 $ 102,860.82 $ 118,673.53 $ 221,534.34 2016 Suburban Drive Rustic Way Park Street No 1075 12 33 $ 149,628.34 $ 115,306.60 $ 264,934.94 2016 West Lane Rustic Way cul -de -sac No 1050 8 11 $ 90,464.48 $ 104,532.58 $ 194,997.06 2016 lWoodend Place ISt. Albans Bay Road I Forest Drive No 340 8 1 $ 27,686.95 $ 32,872.21 $ 60,559.16 TOTAL 1016 1 $ 2,032,255.49 2017 Elm ridge Circle Edgewood Road cul -de -sac No 330 8 6 $ 30,026.07 $ 33,822.27 $ 63,848.33 SHOREWOOD WATER MAIN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Lateral Trunk Date: 6/2/2012 Water Main per LIN FT $ 79.59 $ 101.30 Revised: 6/13/2012 Water Service per EACH $ 627.00 $ 1,234.20 Printed: 6/4/2012 Restoration (without curb)per LIN FT $ 95.56 $ 95.56 Restoration (with curb) per LIN FT $ 158.81 $ 158.81 Driveway Resotration per EACH $ 381.14 $ 381.14 Priority Street Name From To Road Reconstruction Existing Curb Existing Water Main Length Size Services Total Water Main Improvements Total Restoration Total Amount 2017 Grant Lorenz Road Smithtown Road Birch Bluff Road No 2930 12 24 $ 326,435.89 $ 289,143.88 $ 615,579.77 2017 Noble Road E Grant Lorenz Road 670' west No Yes 670 12 8 $ 77,745.99 $ 109,453.71 $ 187,199.70 2017 Noble Road W 670' West Grant Lorenz Road 2120' W Grant Lorenze Road No Yes 1 1450 12 35 $ 190,085.02 $ 243,618.40 $ 433,703.41 2017 Oak Ridge Circle Grant Lorenz Road cul -de -sac No 540 8 8 $ 47,993.56 $ 54,652.56 $ 102,646.12 2017 Orchard Circle Eureka Road cul -de -sac No 290 8 5 $ 26,215.54 $ 29,618.65 $ 55,834.20 2017 Riviera Lane Yellowstone Trail cul -de -sac Yes 915 8 14 $ 81,601.09 $ - $ 81,601.09 2017 Shorewood Lane Smithtown Road cul -de -sac Yes 900 8 16 $ 81,661.27 $ $ 81,661.27 2017 lWild Rose Lane lGrant Lorenz Road ISylvan Lane I Yes 1 400 1 8 1 34 1 $ 53,153.23 1 $ $ 53,153.23 2017 JSyIvan Lane Wild Rose Lane cul -de -sac No 315 1 8 1 4 1 $ 27,578.25 1 $ 31,626.57 1 $ 59,204.81 TOTAL 2017 $ 1,734,431.95 2018 Mann Lane Eureka Road Seamans Drive Yes 660 8 4 $ 55,036.13 $ - $ 55,036.13 2018 Maple Street Lake Linden Drive End East Yes 450 6 3 $ 37,695.64 $ - $ 37,695.64 2018 Apple Road Mill Street south City limits No 1750 12 16 $ 197,025.84 $ 173,331.65 $ 370,357.49 2018 Galpin Lake Road State Highway #7 Mayflower So. City Limits No 2230 12 18 $ 248,119.24 $ 219,963.67 $ 468,082.91 21018 Galpin Lane Galpin Lake Road Dead End No 760 8 7 $ 64,875.94 $ 75,295.06 $ 140,171.00 2018 Murray Street lGalpin Lake Road Dead End No 1790 8 28 $ 160,018.66 $ 181,727.75 $ 341,746.41 TOTAL 2018 $ 1,413,089.58 2019 62nd Street W Catcart Drive Strawberry Lane No 1330 8 7 $ 110,241.15 $ 129,765.39 $ 240,006.54 2019 62nd Street W Catcart Drive Dead End No 1320 8 8 $ 110,072.27 $ 129,190.91 $ 239,263.17 2019 Blue Ridge Lane Lake Virgina Drive Lake Virginia Drive No 900 8 7 $ 76,018.27 $ 88,673.74 $ 164,692.01 2019 Boulder Circle Boulder Bridge Drive cul -de -sac No 700 8 7 $ 60,100.66 $ 69,561.34 $ 129,662.00 2019 Eureka Road S Smithtown Road TH 7 No 3250 12 25 $ 360,086.76 $ 320,104.85 $ 680,191.61 2019 1 Lake Virgina Drive lSmithtown Road Dead End No 1570 1 8 1 11 1 $ 131,850.29 $ 154,224.81 $ 286,075.10 2019 Maple Ridge Lane I Lake Virgina Drive cul -de -sac No 280 6 5 $ 25,419.66 $ 28,663.03 $ 54,082.70 2019 Strawber Lane ISmithtown Road Maple Avenue No 2010 12 24 $ 233,237.98 $ 201,226.85 $ 434,464.83 TOTAL 2019 $ 2,228,437.95 2020 Elder Turn Minnetonka Drive cul -de -sac No 370 1 8 1 6 $ 33,209.59 $ 37,644.75 $ 70,854.34 2020 McLain Road Minnetonka Drive cul -de -sac No 460 8 5 $ 39,745.52 $ 45,864.19 $ 85,609.71 2020 Seamans Drive Yellowstone Trail Mann Lane Yes 1800 1 8 19 $ 155,171.54 $ - $ 155,171.54 TOTAL 2020 $ 311,635.59 2021 Cardinal Drive Murray Street south City limits No 770 8 5 $ 64,417.82 $ 75,488.41 $ 139,906.23 2021 Chaska Road E Mayflower TH 7 No 1150 8 10 $ 97,796.29 $ 113,707.64 $ 211,503.93 2021 Chaska Road W TH 41 Mayflower No 1275 8 6 $ 105,236.80 $ 124,128.35 $ 229,365.15 2021 Mayflower Road Chaska Road Galphin Lake Road No 660 8 1 $ 53,155.13 $ 63,452.05 $ 116,607.18 2021 Murray Court Murray Street cul -de -sac No 500 8 5 $ 42,929.04 $ 49,686.67 $ 92,615.71 2021 1 Murray Hill Road Chanhassen City Limits Chaska Road No 520 12 1 2 $ 55,145.48 $ 50,454.51 $ 105,599.99 2021 ISummit Avenue I Murray Hill Road ISouth City Limits No 940 8 1 3 $ 76,693.80 $ 90,971.68 $ 167,665.47 SHOREWOOD WATER MAIN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Lateral Trunk Date: 6/2/2012 Water Main per LIN FT $ 79.59 $ 101.30 Revised: 6/13/2012 Water Service per EACH $ 627.00 $ 1,234.20 Printed: 6/4/2012 Restoration (without curb)per LIN FT $ 95.56 $ 95.56 Restoration (with curb) per LIN FT $ 158.81 $ 158.81 Driveway Resotration per EACH $ 381.14 $ 381.14 Priority Street Name From To Road Reconstruction Existing Curb Existing Water Main Length Size Services Total Water Main Improvements Total Restoration Total Amount TOTAL 2021 $ 1,063,263.67 2022 Christmas Lake Road 3rd Avenue Christmas Lane No 2790 12 1 29 $ 318,424.60 $ 277,670.88 $ 596,095.48 2022 Christmas Lane E Christmas Road Dead End No 300 8 1 $ 24,503.42 $ 29,049.73 $ 53,553.16 2022 Christmas Lane W Christmas Lake Road Dead End No 390 8 7 $ 35,428.35 $ 39,937.12 $ 75,365.47 2022 Radisson Entrance Radisson Inn Road cul -de -sac No 616 12 2 $ 64,870.48 $ 59,628.46 $ 124,498.94 2022 Radisson Road Old Market Road Christmas Lake Road No 5238 12 41 $ 581,222.50 1 $ 516,180.25 $ 1,097,402.75 2022 ITiffany Lane I Radisson Road cul -de -sac I No 1 350 6 9 1 $ 33,498.83 $ 36,876.91 $ 70,375.74 TOTAL 2022 $ 2,017,291.53 2023 Carrie Lane Radisson Inn Road cul -de sac No 500 8 7 $ 44,183.04 $ 50,448.94 $ 94,631.98 2023 Covington Road Carrie Lane Old Market Road $ - $ - $ - 2023 Delton Avenue Radisson Inn Road Old Market Road $ - $ - $ 2023 Shore Road Radisson Inn Road Dead End No 625 6 6 $ 53,504.55 $ 62,013.06 $ 115,517.61 TOTAL 2023 $ 210,149.59 2024 Christmas Lake Point Radisson Inn Road cul -de -sac No 1050 8 15 $ 92,972.48 $ 106,057.12 $ 199,029.60 2024 1 Ridge Road Covington Road Chanhassen City Limits No 4150 12 39 $ 468,537.43 $ 411,446.53 $ 879,983.97 2024 jAcademyAvenue Tellowstone Trail Grant Street No Yes 650 8 10 $ 58,002.25 $ 107,039.72 $ 165,041.97 TOTAL 2024 $ 1,244,055.54 2025 Charleston Circle Yellowstone Trail cul -de -sac No 685 8 7 $ 58,906.83 $ 68,127.91 $ 127,034.75 2025 Club Valley Road Yellowstone Trail Wood Drive No 650 8 7 $ 56,121.25 $ 64,783.24 $ 120,904.49 2025 Edgewood Road Howards Point Road Grant Lorenz Road No 3800 8 43 $ 329,395.70 $ 379,524.38 $ 708,920.08 2025 Glencoe Road North City Limits (Excelsior) Dead End No 1200 8 15 $ 104,910.70 $ 120,391.42 $ 225,302.11 2025 Rampart Court Wood Drive cul -de -sac No 208 8 5 1 $ 19,689.32 $ 21,782.57 $ 41,471.89 2025 lTee Trail IYellowstone Trail Wood Drive No 380 8 4 $ 32,751.47 $ 37,838.10 $ 70,589.57 2025 Wood Drive State Highway #7 cul -de -sac No 1290 8 12 $ 110,192.62 $ 127,848.59 $ 238,041.21 TOTAL 2025 $ 1,532,264.11 2026 Hillendale Road Mill Street Dead End No Yes 930 8 12 $ 81,540.91 $ 152,269.59 $ 233,810.51 2019 Eureka Way Smithtown Road Dead End No 405 6 2 $ 33,487.17 $ 39,464.88 $ 72,952.05 2026 Merry Lane TH 7 cul -de -sac No Yes 870 8 10 $ 75,511.63 $ 141,978.55 $ 217,490.18 2026 Vine Hill Road Broms Boulevard Shady Hills No 400 8 3 $ 33,716.23 $ 39,368.20 $ 73,084.43 TOTAL 2026 $ 597,337.17 2027 Christopher Road Smithtown Road cul -de -sac No 670 8 10 $ 59,594.01 $ 67,837.89 $ 127,431.90 2027 1 Peach Circle Strawberry Lane cul -de -sac Yes Yes 448 8 7 $ 40,044.46 $ - $ 40,044.46 2027 ISpruce Hill Court Yellowstone Trail cul -de -sac No 750 8 7 $ 64,080.06 $ 74,339.44 $ 138,419.50 TOTAL 2027 $ 305,895.86 2028 Beverly Drive Cathcart Drive cul -de -sac No 1180 8 14 $ 102,691.93 $ 118,099.04 $ 220,790.98 2028 Cajed Lane Smithtown Road Beverly Drive No 780 8 5 $ 65,213.70 $ 76,444.03 $ 141,657.73 2028 High Pointe Road Our Saviour Church cul -de -sac No 800 6 3 $ 65,551.46 $ 77,593.00 $ 143,144.46 SHOREWOOD WATER MAIN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Lateral Trunk Date: 6/2/2012 Water Main per LIN FT $ 79.59 $ 101.30 Revised: 6/13/2012 Water Service per EACH $ 627.00 $ 1,234.20 Printed: 6/4/2012 Restoration (without curb)per LIN FT $ 95.56 $ 95.56 Restoration (with curb) per LIN FT $ 158.81 $ 158.81 Driveway Resotration per EACH $ 381.14 $ 381.14 Priority Street Name From To Road Reconstruction Existing Curb Existing Water Main Length Size Services Total Water Main Improvements Total Restoration Total Amount 2028 Manor Road Knightbridge Bowman Court No 1630 12 10 $ 177,464.39 $ 159,577.40 $ 337,041.79 2028 Manor Road Excelsior Boulevar East City Limits No 3650 12 39 $ 417,886.39 $ 363,665.54 $ 781,551.93 2028 Vine Street Manor Road East City Limits No 800 8 10 $ 69,940.46 $ 80,260.95 $ 150,201.41 2028 Woodside Lane Woodside Road cul -de -sac No 240 6 3 $ 20,982.14 $ 24,078.28 $ 45,060.42 2028 Woodside Road Howards Point Road cul -de -sac No 2900 12 40 $ 343,144.03 $ 292,375.18 $ 635,519.22 TOTAL 2028 $ 2,454,967.94 2029 Brand Circle Christmas Lane cul -de -sac No 360 1 8 1 4 $ 31,159.71 $ 35,926.86 $ 67,086.57 2029 Islandview Road Howards Point Road Dead End No 915 8 1 14 $ 81,601.09 $ 92,775.12 $ 174,376.21 2029 Strawberry Court Strawberry Lane cul -de -sac No I Yes 1 1 850 1 8 1 11 $ 74,546.87 $ 139,183.43 $ 213,730.30 TOTAL 2029 $ 455,193.07 2030 Anthony Terrace Vine Street cul -de -sac Yes 360 8 4 $ 31,159.71 $ - $ 31,159.71 2030 Church Road West 62nd Street cul -de -sac No Yes 750 8 12 $ 67,215.06 $ 123,683.28 $ 190,898.34 2030 Forest Drive Minnetonka Boulevard Suburban Drive No 1000 12 14 $ 118,580.88 $ 100,897.88 $ 219,478.76 2030 Harding Avenue Wedgewood Drive Harding Lane No Yes 285 8 4 $ 25,190.60 $ 46,786.21 $ 71,976.81 2030 Harding Lane N Harding Aveneu cul -de -sac No Yes 620 8 10 $ 55,614.61 $ 102,275.33 $ 157,889.94 2030 1 Harding Lane S Harding Avenue cul -de -sac No Yes 170 6 4 $ 16,037.97 $ 28,522.73 $ 44,560.70 2030 1 Lilac Lane Mill Street Dead End No 1070 8 5 $ 88,294.25 $ 104,157.01 $ 192,451.25 2030 Mary Lake Trail Country Club Road cul -de -sac No Yes 1040 8 7 $ 87,160.60 $ 167,833.33 $ 254,993.93 2030 Nelsine Drive Eureka Road cul -de -sac No 460 8 8 $ 41,626.52 $ 47,007.60 $ 88,634.11 2030 Oakview Court Chaska Road cul -de -sac No Yes 450 8 6 $ 39,576.64 $ 73,752.60 $ 113,329.24 2030 Pleasant Avenue Yellowstone Trail TH 7 No 580 8 3 $ 48,042.09 $ 56,569.36 $ 104,611.45 2030 Smithtown Lane Smithtown Road cul -de -sac No 605 8 8 $ 53,166.79 $ 60,864.09 $ 114,030.87 2030 ISpencerLane Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka Boulevard No 380 6 4 $ 32,751.47 $ 37,838.10 $ 70,589.57 2030 IStrawberry Circle Catcart Drive cul -de -sac No 615 8 3 $ 50,827.67 $ 59,914.03 $ 110,741.70 2030 lWild Rose Lane Eureka Road Sylvan Lane No Yes 2025 8 11 1 $ 168,062.86 $ 325,788.55 $ 493,851.41 TOTAL 2030 $ 2,259,197.81 2031 Arbor Creek Lane Grant Lorenz Road cul -de -sac No Yes 470 8 6 $ 41,168.40 $ 76,928.86 $ 118,097.26 2031 Meadowview Road Valleywood Lane Wild Rose Lane No Yes 660 8 1 $ 53,155.13 $ 105,197.63 $ 158,352.76 2031 Wiltsey Lane Pleasant Avenue cul -de -sac No 560 8 5 $ 47,704.32 $ 55,420.39 $ 103,124.72 TOTAL 2031 $ 379,574.74 2032 Echo Road County Road 19 Country Club Road No 1960 8 28 $ 173,548.64 $ 197,973.29 $ 371,521.93 2032 Kathleen Court Woodside Road cul -de -sac No 325 6 4 $ 28,374.13 $ 32,582.19 $ 60,956.31 2032 Park Street Glencoe Road Pleasant Street $ - $ - $ - 2032 Timber Lane Smithtown Road cul -de -sac No 1730 8 18 $ 148,973.38 $ 172,182.68 $ 321,156.06 TOTAL 2032 1 1 $ 753,634.30 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Work Session Title / Subject: 20 Year Municipal Water Plan Meeting Date: February 27, 2012 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Bruce DeJong, Finance Director James Landini, City Engineer Brad Nielsen, City Planner Attachments: 20 Year Water Plan Map of Existing and Potential Water System Policy Consideration: Should the City Council adopt a Comprehensive 20 Year Water Plan that expands the water system through the entire City and put in place a finance plan for such improvements? Background: On November 14, 2011, the City Council directed staff to compile a comprehensive cost analysis for expansion of the municipal water system through the remaining portion of the City that does not currently have access to this service. The Council further directed that this plan was to be prepared to coincide with the Pavement Inventory and Management System (PIMS) that has been developed and adopted by the City Council for the City's roadway infrastructure. Staff has completed this analysis for costs of installation of watermain and prepared a map indicating the locations and sequencing. Staff cannot emphasize enough that for this to be a useful tool the underlying premises and assumptions on which the analysis was compiled must be understood. The following is a brief overview of the attached analysis, in addition to the assumptions and premises used for the analysis, followed by a detailed look at the numbers. Staff will then provide a possible roadmap for the "Next Step" in this process. Brief Overview: As mentioned above, the attachments include a summary spreadsheet that mirrors the PIMS. While the focus remains on expansion of the municipal water system where it does not exist today, roadways that already have water are included within this document so it shows all scheduled activities in the adopted plan. Staff felt that this was important, as continuity between the documents will provide a consistent basis of discussion and smooth work flow for preparation of the Capital Improvement Program and annual budget documents. For each roadway, a detailed cost estimate has been prepared. The spreadsheet and map identify this information numerically and graphically. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Details. Definitions, and Assumptions: STREET NAME, FROM, TO: The first three columns of the document simply list the roadway segments. As mentioned earlier this mirrors the PIMS. Length W.M.: This is the length of the watermain proposed. Note that this length will vary from roadway lengths listed in the PIMS. Dia: This is the diameter of the watermain, in inches, proposed. It is noted that under the original Comprehensive 20 Year Water Plan performed in 1996, a demand and flow analysis model was completed for the entire City of Shorewood, based upon full expansion and ultimate development for the City. Diameters used in this analysis were obtained from the 1996 plan and used here. Staff believes this model to still reflect ultimate conditions. Exist W.M.: This documents roadways that already have watermain installed. A "Yes" indicates that watermain is already present. Amount Install w /Cut and Restore: This represents the cost of installing a watermain by cutting open an existing roadway that is not scheduled for reconstruction, placement of the watermain, hydrants, valves and services, and patching the roadway back to the existing condition. The cost shown includes the watermain costs and patching of the roadway since nothing has been previously programmed in the CIP. *Of critical importance is to emphasize that costs shown in the tables (with exception of annual summaries at the very bottom) are calculated using current market conditions for the year 2012. For now, staff has chosen to not inflate the individual project costs for every year, but to inflate the annual total amounts shown at the bottom of the table. * *Equally important is that while the costs shown include design, construction and base legal costs, the age old issue of right of way and easement acquisition is not included. Staff is attempting to come to grips with a method of estimating these costs. However, due to the many variables involved, this is going to take a substantial amount of additional work with input from the City Attorney. Install w /Full Road Reconstruct: Under the PIMS, the pavement structure of a roadway that is scheduled for a full roadway reconstruction will be funded from the Street Reconstruction Fund, the Municipal State Aid Program, or a combination thereof. Therefore, roadway costs are not included with this cost for the watermain installation. Cost for Domestic Supply: Oftentimes during funding discussions, the reference is made to "Trunk Watermain" or other infrastructure such as wells, water tower, or treatment plants. A Trunk Watermain is a pipe that is over sized to meet the system demands over and above meeting the "Domestic supply" or that which is used by the consumer. For the City of Shorewood's system, "Domestic Supply" is considered any watermain that is less than 12 inches in diameter. A 12 inch diameter watermain is considered a trunk watermain. To explain this further, take for example Apple Road on page one; the cost to install the 12 inch Trunk Watermain equals $315,000. The cost to install an 8 inch main to meet domestic supply is $295,000. Therefore the "Trunk Cost" equals $315,000- 295,000 = $20,000. This will become more important as the city council enters the funding discussion in future work sessions and determines how to cover the "oversizing" costs. Cost for Oversizing Main: This trunk cost has to be borne somewhere other than in the individual assessment since there is no real "benefit" to the properties directly. The oversizing is done to provide adequate flow to properties further away from the water towers. These costs are generally recaptured as part of a connection fee. The connection fee could also include a portion of the cost of sizing the wells, water towers, and other system components larger than was needed to serve properties which are already connected. The estimated cost of oversizing is $567,000 for the new extensions. No. of Lots: This column shows the potential number of lots that could be served if a new main is installed on each street. Staff has provided a subtotal of new lots served for both city streets —1,361 — and private streets —106 — if the entire city is served by city water. Cost per Lot: This column divides the Cost for Domestic Supply column by the No. of Lots column to get a cost per parcel on each project. The costs range from a low of $6,103 on Manor Road to a high of $118,000 on Meadowview Road. Year: This heading is at the top of the page and indicates the year that watermain has been proposed to be installed. It is also very important to note that staff purposely did not revise what was previously adopted on the PIMS for sealcoating, overlay, or reconstruction for continuity. If the City Council decides to move forward, staff will propose adjustments to either the PIMS or the watermain plan to ensure that watermain construction is coordinated with pavement maintenance and reconstruction plans. Staff has explained to the City Council that we operate under the premise that sealcoats and overlays are considered maintenance items in accordance with MN -DOT state aid funding rules. Annual Total Expenditures: There are multiple totals shown on the spreadsheet. The first subtotal line shows the cost for city streets. The total Water Fund cost for city streets is $21,997,000 with an average cost per lot served of $14,635. The total Water Fund cost for private streets is $2,309,000 with an average cost per lot served of $20,906. The higher cost for private streets in part is caused because each street includes full restoration costs for the pavement. Some of the city streets do not include restoration costs because they are already scheduled to be rebuilt from the Street Reconstruction Fund. There are no roadway costs included in the spreadsheet for those streets — only the cost of installing the watermain. The total cost for all streets in current 2012 dollars is $24,306,000 or $15,093 per lot served. As noted above, the grand total has been inflated by a 2% annual inflation factor leading to a 20 year cost of $29,385,092. The individual year totals are at the bottom of each yearly column. Staff has not calculated individualized parcel or project cost inflation figures at this time. Minimum connection Fee: This cost shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet just above the notes is a calculation of a per parcel cost of oversizing. The total cost of oversizing ($567,000) is divided by the number of new parcels served (1,345 + 106 = 1451) to come to an average cost of $391 per parcel. Staff Thoughts: Based on past council conversations, staff believes there is strong interest in moving forward with some type of water expansion plan. Staff needs to know if council is still interested in pursuing a water expansion plan, based on the cost implications laid out in the attached spreadsheet. If so, staff will move forward with preparing various options to pay for the installations. The one area we have not addressed is how to deal with residents who have access to water, but are not connected, which is the question that began this whole discussion. Staff needs a bit more direction from Council on how you would like us to incorporate this into the mix. Financial or Budget Considerations: As can be seen, the cost for this program is rather steep over the 20 years. Under current policy, most projects fall outside of our feasible threshold of $10,000. Again, staff believes providing municipal water to as many residents as possible is a desire of the Council and therefore, a review of how to cover the costs needs to be explored. Options: 1) Determine that expanding water city wide is not a feasible project and expand water only where residents achieve the necessary petition numbers; 2) Determine the expansion of water is needed and direct staff to prepare policy options for council to consider for paying for the plan; 3) Direct staff to gather additional information and bring back for further discussion; 4) Determine expansion is not possible and direct staff to develop a policy to address only those situations where a parcel has access to water — e.g. develop a connection fee policy not based on the current $10,000 threshold. 5) Do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff believes that council needs to review possible alternatives to the existing policy before making a decision on the expansion of water or general connection charge. Staff recommends council authorize staff to use necessary resources, which might include consulting and /or legal services, to prepare policy options to cover the cost of implementing a water expansion plan and connection fee for those with existing access. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will develop policy options for council consideration. Staff estimates it will take approximately 6 -8 weeks to complete this project. Connection to Vision / Mission: This presentation is tied to the missions of providing safe drinking water and cost effective services to city residents. City of Shorewood Summary of Opinion of Costs for 20 Year Watermain Extension See Notes and Key @elow 2/24/2012 rage I • /./ - ���_- 111 111 -�- ---� ©---- ©---- ®---- 111 - - ���_- •.111 ,. f11 1 .11 ®---- ©---- ©---- � . • '®��_ • 111. ' !PI - �.- © ©---- ©---- ©-_-- ©--- ' - �- © ®--__ ©---- ©_--- ©--- . •� ®- SMITHTOWN OR YELL OWSTONETR ©----©----©------ �� ©----©----©------ . ! ... :. '•.• �� ®_ •..111 ' 1!1 Ili IIf --_ ©_--- ©---_ ®-----� ' • �� ®_ ® -® 114 ®-__ ©_--- ©---_ ©--_--� -®-_--®----©----©--_--- . -®----®----©----©------ - -®-_--®----©-__-©-_---- • • � ���_ 111 111 .111 ®------©----®------ •.. ! • ... :: ... �m�_ .: Ifl .: fll .: 111 ---- ®---- ©---- ®--_--� '• ���_ • 111 111 -�- ©-- -©--_-©----©---- ---- ©---------- .' I/! • '®��_- 111 111 -®"'• ®---- -_-- ©---- ®----- .:" •.. - ©----��---�--- /.. .! �� ®_ 111 ' !/1 111 �-- ©-- - ©---- ©--_ ® ©--- !: ` • � ®�- 1 L.f 1 1 111 11 - ®--- ©----�--�- ©---- - " - - • ���_- 1111 Il11 - � ©----- --- ©---- ©----- ..� GALPIN LAKE RD_ ---- ©-- -- ®---- ©-�--a- -. ©---- ©-_---- STMWBERRY LA ®- --� ©-�-��--- :. ! :. ..' : : •:. - ""®m�_ 111 111 - �- ©---_- P -- ©---_ ©---- 2/24/2012 rage I 2J24/2012 Pa 2 WON m . .� ��m_ 1 111 •. 1.1 1. :.11 ------ �------ - - - - -- -- ©•-- - © - - -- ���_ - ..........- � .�.._ ©.. ®...... ©....- .� - �---o ®-�-� ®-... ©--�-�- ' �m�_ :• 111 :• 111 :11 .... ©.... ®.... ©.....- - I' '. ... .:..- . "®��_ 1• III .• 111 -®-; .� • • ���_ ' 1!1 ' 111 111 ©---- ©----�- ®Q- ©-_--- CHARLESTON CIR - ®�---- ' -'•-' ���_ 111 Ile 1 • 11 ---- ©-_-- ®---- . ".------ :. --- ©-- '®��_- - � ©_---�---- ©---- ®.---- !. •!! M ... . -... ���_ .f 111 •1111 11„-_©--_-©----©--_®©--- ® ... '' •®' m�_ IIr 111 1 I{ -__- ©--�'c�- ©---� ©- ®-_-� • ���_ IIA 141 ' :IA .. ®.... ©.... ©. -.� ©..- ' STPAWBERRV CT ANTHONY TER .��_- .111! .1.11 !11 .... © ............... -- :�. .•_' .•.1 '®��_ 111 . I11 I{ --©----©----©_---®©-- - - ���_ '1111 'I ♦11 - ®- ©---- ©--_- ©--_- ©- ©� ' 2J24/2012 Pa 2 •''� . -♦.r -- '��Q_ ®�Q_�- �QQ_ ::111 ::411 - ®-- ©--_- ©---- ©---- ©--�- ©---- ©---- ©-__ ©-.....1- i •'I r '. ��Q_ 111 lil - �Q----�----�--�- ©----� CHESTNUTCT ® ®_ ®_-® - - -_ - -� -_-Q----© _ ®-- ©----Q-- _ El . CCV�NGT0N_RD �Q ,�O���� ®QQ ©���Q ®��iQQQQQQQQIQQ :. �Q�������QQQQQ�� ©Q�QQQQQQQQQQQ MAPLE VIEW CT �Q�Q�����QQQQQQ ©QQQQQQQQQ ®QQQQ Q�Q��� ® ®QQQQQQQQQQ ®QQQ MARSHPOINTECT Q�Ql�����QQ ©QQQQ ©QQQQ ©QQQQQQQQ ,. ��Ql���� ®QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ�� ®QQQ � �Q�Ql�����QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ® �Q�Q���� ®QQQQQQQQ ®QQQQQQQQ_ ®QQ Q�Ql���� ®QQQQQQQQ ®QQQQ ©QQQQ ©QQ Q�Q����QQQ�QQQQ ©QQQQ ©QQQQQQQ ! ..• '. Q�Q�����OQQQQQQQQQ ©QQQQ ®QQQQ- �.. �Q�Q���� ®QQQQQQQQQQ ©QQ NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD • •• Q�Ql�����QQQQ�QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ �m�0- ����QQQQQQQQ ©��QQQQQQQQQQ �Q�Ql�����QQQQQQ ®QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ 2/24/2012 Page 3 2/24/2012 Page 4 SMITHTOWNRID SMITHTOWN WAY ST ALBANS 13AY RD 5 W. Street Name from To Length W.M. (Ft) Dia (in) Exist. W.M. Amount Install wj Cut and Restore Install /Full Rd Rei Cost for D—sti, Supply Cost for Oversizing Main No of Lots Cost per Lot YEAR 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2812913013,v Ridge Point Circle c- w $7q,000 $ 79,000 3 ®------I ` ',-------------- ®'... —®-----------®------- • ' ------------ ® '•- '''� ' ' '•' !'' '�� ®� 111 —. : Ilf — �------------'d'l-------- -�----�-------�------ �! ® —�_ ' 111 I/P —®----------------®---- 2/24/2012 Page 4 S treet, " "am Gideon Lane jj Length W.M. (Ft) Dia (In) Exist. W.M. Yes Amount Install w/ tut and Restore Install w /Full Rd Reconstruct Cast for Domestic supply Costfor Oversizing Main No. of Lots 16 Cost per Lot. YEAR 12 a 14 15 20 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 29 30 31 32, Goosefsland No Roads Island NA 0 Kensington Gate Yes 12 Lagoon Drive NA 6 MILL ST Ercelsiarcitylhnl[s Chanhassen city limns NA 25 OAK ST NA 0 Pond View Drive Yes 2S Regent, Walk Yes 37 Sams Way NA 0 Spray Island NO ROADS Island NA 0 Spring Circle Yes 13 St, Albans Bay Circle Yes 12 Sussex Place Yes 16 New connections served 106 Annual expenditures - Private Streets $2,309,000 Avg cost - private lots $20,406 °° e ° Total Annual Expenditures - Current Dollars $24,306,000 Average cost all lots $15,093 0 b Q 0 N 0 r6 0 0 O 0 6i 0 O < 0 O 0 eD 0 O 0 O 0 b 0 O a 0 O m 0 9i 8 0 O o 6 m a O Total Annual Expenditures - Inflated Dollars $29,385,092 N m h` m a a r N o °_ N Q a e e ° d O m a N u•; ° a o A iry Total Oversizing Cost $567,000 Divided by Total New Connections 1,451 Minimum Connection Fee $391 NOTES 1a Costs shown are in 2412 dollars. 2. Costs shown include design, construction, and soft costs - excluding right of way or easement costs. 3- Additional right of way and easement acquisistion costs are not included in the above figures. 4. Roadways shown to be fully reconstructed are from the Pavement Inventory. If not reconstructed, roadway will be restored to original (or better) condition. KEY Road to be sealcoated 5/W Watermain installed prior to sealcoat. Road to be overlaid. 0/W Watermain installed prior to overlay. 0 Watermain installed and road restored to existing condition or better. - Road is to be mc— tnacted - Watermain to be installed in addition to road being reconstructed 2/24/iO12 Page 5 1 ' Watermaln Construction Schedule City of shorewood, Minnesota proposed Watermaln Co 1—tl•n by Y-, Existing Watartnaln 21112 2022 Gak Valle e x"11 > Hytlranl =2e14 2021 Ae ft— M—.Il . �M1A �202A • fixe, =2016 —2026 Mij - �201T —202) McM,SRNOrv; Meder —2010 .2028 Romp HnOSe 201e �202A NRhr Mains zozo � zoae —zm1 �2- �2 +.xaa ran 3` ti R . zma J .m- 1 Op W NNW r S�