East Salina Master Utility Plan
ENGINEERING REPORT
. The City of Salina, Kansas .
Cltyof
!:i
SalIna
City C~K-
EAST SALINA MASTER UTILITY PLAN:
Between Crawford Street and Country Club Road
adjacent to Holmes Road
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
December 2007
I
I
I.
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
II
I
I,
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
ENGINEERING REPORT
The City of Salina, Kansas.
EAST SALINA MASTER UTILITY PLAN:
Between Crawford Street and Country Club Road
adjacent to Holmes Road
City Commissioners
Alan E. Jilka, Mayor
John K. Vanier II, Vice-Mayor
Luci Larson
Aaron G. Peck
R. Abner Perney
City Manager
Jason Gage
Director of Utilities
Martha Tasker
Director of Public Works
Mike Fraser
City Engineer
Karlton Place, P.E.
Director of Planning and Community Development
Dean Andrew
Address all communication
regarding this work to:
IN.lSO'N
& COMPANY
Wilson & Company, Ine., Engineers & Architects
P.O. Box 1640
Salina, Kansas 67402-1640
(785) 827-0433
December 2007
WCI File No. 07-200-518-00
*
~QN~_A
""".."....
~",~ SCHlt"",-
~,. ~ v~....... C'~ '"
$~..<\CENS~;;...~A
~ ~ . .';t\~.
/j"iiiil ~ _ ./) . [' L Li'.i~ . ~
//~19i27~
: ~ . : =
':. -0 . /2. -:2.0 - 0, 0 ^" lit
':. ~ .. ~.J.;; ...
'\ O~....'(ANSt.~oo..~1
'" ~Sn ........~:,.~ ,..
""" u10NA\. ~~,~
'""..........
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS .................................................... 1.1
1.2. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ANALySIS.............................................................. 1.2
1.3. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM ANALYSIS............................................................ 1.2
1.4. TOTAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 1.3
SECTION 2 - PURPOSE AND SCOPE
2.1. UTII.lTY PLANNmG ..;.....................................................................................;...... 2.1
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATIONS
3 .1. PLANNING................................ ....... ............... .............. ..,............. ....... ........ ............. 3.1
3.2. WATER DISTRffiUTION SYSTEM ........................................................................ 3.1
3.2.1. Existing Water Distribution System.............................................................. 3.1
3.2.2. . Alternatives.. .........................................................;..... ..;................................ 3.3
3.2.3. Recommendations............ ........................... ........................................... ........ 3.4
3.3. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ................................................................................ 3.5
3.3.1. Existing Sanitary Sewer System..................................................................... 3.5
3.3.2. Projected Flows. .................................. ..................... ...................................... 3.6
3.3.3. Alternatives................................................. ..................... ..... ... ................. ..... 3.7
3.3.4. Recommendations...................................... ........................ ................ .......... 3.11
3.4. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM ............................................................................. 3.12
3.4.1. Background............................... ........... ,.................. ~.......................... ........... 3.12
3.4.2. Preliminary Analysis ................................. ......... .......................................... 3.13
3.4.3. Recommendations................................................................. ..;........ ..........;. 3.15
SECTION 4 - ESTIMATED COSTS
4.1. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.....;................................... 4.1
4.2. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ................................................. 4.6
4.3. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................4.11
4.4. TOTAL...................................................................................................................... 4.14
APPENDIX - AERIAL MAPS
A. WATER DISTRIBUTION SySTEM................................................................... Insert
B. SANITARY SEWER SySTEM........................................................................... Insert
WIlSON
&COMPANY
TOC-l
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS
To provide the undeveloped areas within the Master Utility Plan area (generally bounded from
Country Club Road on the north, Crawford Street on the south, East Dry Creek on the east, and
Estates Drive on the west) with water service, several alternatives were analyzed. The following
proposed improvements are recommended to provide adequate fire flow and pressures in the
Master Utility Plan area:
~ Phase 1: Connect a new 16-inch water line to the existing 16-inch water line near
Country Club Road and Eastborough Road then run east approximately 2,600 linear feet
along Country Club Road to Holmes Road, then follow the proposed Holmes Road
alignment south approximately 6,000 linear feet for Plan A or 5,600 linear feet for Plan B
to Crawford Street, then increase to a new 20-inch water line running west along
Crawford Street approximately 900 linear feet to connect to the existing 20-inch water
line near Crawford Street and Prairie Lane. Included in this phase is connecting a new 8-
inch water line to the proposed 16-inch water line along Country Club Road near Skyline
Drive and connecting to an existing 6-inch water line.
~ Phase 2: Connect a new 8-inch water line to the existing 8-inch water line along
Brookwood Lane then run east approximately 1,200 linear feet tothe proposed 16-inch
water line along Holmes Road.
~ Phase 3: Connect a new 8-inch water line to the existing 6-inch water line along Glen
Avenue then run east approximately 2,000 linear feet to the proposed 16-inch water line
along Holmes Road.
Construction costs for these water distribution system improvementsar~ estimated at $1,603,928
which includes materials, installation, engineering, land acquisition, and contingency.
WIlSON
&COMPANY
1.1
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS
To provide the undeveloped areas within the Master Utility Plan area (generally bounded from
Country Club Road on the north, Crawford Street on the south, East Dry Creek on the east, and
Estates Drive on the west) with sanitary sewer service, several alternatives were analyzed. The
following proposed sanitary sewer improvements are recommended:
~ Phase 1: Installation of approximately 2,000 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer line,
1,200 linear feet of lO-inch gravity sewer line, and connection to the existing 36-inch
interceptor sewer line along East Dry Creek.
~ Phase 2: Abandonment of existing Pump Station No. 53 and installation of
approximately 1,000 linear feetof 8-inch gravity sewer line.
~. Phase 3: Abandonment of existing Pump StationNo. 56, installation of approximately
4,500 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer line, 1,700 linear feet of 12-inch gravity sewer
line along Crawford Street, and connection to the existing 36-:inch interceptor sewer line
along East Dry Creek.
Construction costs for these sanitary sewer system improvements are estimated at $1,527,632
which includes materials, installation, engineering, land acquisition, and contingency.
1.3. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM ANALYSIS
The following improvements are recommended to provide the undeveloped areas within the
Master Utility Plan area (generally bounded from Country Club Road on the north, Crawford
Street on the south, East Dry Creek on the east, and Estates Drive on the west) with a proper
pond and dam for storm drainage:
~ Construct an 800 linear foot dam and a 7.3-acre pond near the existing farm pond and
dam in the northwest corner of the Master Utility Plan area.
Construction costs for these storm drainage improvements are estimated at $1,174,922 which
includes materials, installation, engineering, land acquisition, and contingency.
WIlSON
&COMPANY
1.2
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
~
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.4. TOTAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Construction costs for all water distribution system, sanitary sewer system improvements, and
storm drainage improvements discussed previously are estimated at the following:
.
Description Estimated Costs
Water Distribution System $1,603,928
Sanitary Sewer System $1,527,632.
Storm Drainage $1,174,922 - $1,891,505
TOTAL $4,306,482 . $5,023,065 .
WIlSON
&COMPANY
1.3
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 2 - PURPOSE AND SCOPE
2.1. UTILITY PLANNING
The purpose of this Master Utility Plan is to provide the City with planning documents to assist
with potential residential and commercial developments. The general boundaries of this Master
Utility Plan are Country Club Road on the north, Crawford Street on the south, East Dry Creek
on the east, and Estates Drive on the west. The total Master Utility Plan area consists of
approximately 260 acres, of which the majority of existing land usage is agricultural. Refer to
Figure 2-1 for the boundaries of this Master Utility Plan.
Recommendations have been developed for providing water and sanitary sewer service to this
area based on the City's anticipation of this area becoming fully developed with residential and
commercial users. A preliminary analysis of the storm drainage/flood management
improvements was also completed. The scope of this Master Utility Plan is defined by the
following:
. Review all pertinent existing sanitary sewer collection and water distribution systems within
and bordering the Master Utility Plan Area.
. Determine water distribution system improvements necessary to provide adequate services
and available fire flows for the Master Utility Plan Area.
. Determine potential sanitary sewer service collection systems required to serve the Master
Utility Plan Area. Analyze existing sanitary system improvements and offer
recommendations to make the current system more efficient (i.e. the abandonment of any
pump stations).
. Prepare cost estimates for the proposed water distribution and sanitary sewer system
improvements which will allow the City to formulate financing options for these proposed
improvements.
. Prepare cost estimates for storm drainage/flood management improvements which will allow
the City to formulate financing options for these proposed improvements. Alternatives for
storm drainagelflood management improvements were analyzed by a previous consultant
therefore only a preliminary analysis and updated cost estimate for the proposed storm
drainage/flood management improvements were completed as part of this Master Utility
Plan.
Not included as part of this Master Utility Plan are any street improvements.
WIlSON
&COMPANY
2.1
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
- - --~-_._- -- ~--- --------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .;
~
~ 1
I I EAST SALINA MASTER UTILITY PLAN
WIlSON BOUNDARIES
.l.
;; & COMPANY
~
I . NOT TO SCALE DSGN. MDS DR. TMH CK. JMS
~ 07-200-518-00 DATE SEPT. 2007 FIGURE NO. 2-1
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1. PLANNING
For purposes of this Master Utility Plan, the land use plan completed by HNTB will be utilized
in planning the proposed layout of water and sanitary sewer systems. Figure 3-1 illustrates the
proposed land use plan. For purposes of this Master Utility Plan it will be assumed that the
proposed elevations of the new development will be the same as the existing elevations.
3.2. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
3.2.1. Existing Water Distribution System
The City of Salina's water distribution system consists of several water towers which
supply water to different pressure zones throughout the City. The existing water
distribution system east of the Smoky Hill River is served by two water towers: Markley
Tower and Gypsum Hill Tower. Each of these water towers serves two separate pressure
zones east of the Smoky Hill River. There are three pressure reducing valves separating
the two pressure zones: one along Markley Road just south of Crawford Street and two
in the Cedar Ridge Drive area. Based on the location of the existing pressure reducing
valves the entire Master Utility Plan area shall be serviced by the Gypsum Hill Tower
and therefore all connections need to be made to waterlines in this pressure zone. Major
water mains in this pressure zone and adjacent to the Master Utility Plan area include a
16-inch water main along Country Club Road ending at Eastborough Road, a 20-inch
water main along Crawford Street ending atPrairie Lane, and a 24-inch water main along
Marymount Road connecting the two previously mentioned lines. Minor 8-inch and 6-
inch distribution lines branch off of these water mains to service individual areas.
Given that the Gypsum Hill Tower high water level is at elevation 1414.00 and the
ground elevation at Country Club Road and Eastborough Road is elevation 1224.00 it
was assumed that the pressure at the existing 16-inch water main at Country Club Road
and Eastborough Road is approximately 80 psi (1414.00-1224.00 = 190 ft /2.31= 82.25
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.1
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
iii
i
I I
I
..
;;
I ~
..
I
LEGEND
I
-
-
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTAL
t
CK. JMS
FIGURE NO.3_I
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTAL
WIlSON
& COMPANY
EAST SALINA MASTER UTILITY PLAN
LAND USE PLAN
COMMERCIAL
DSGN. MDS
07-200-518-00
DR.
TMH
NOT TO SCALE
DATE SEPT. 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
psi). In the same manner, given that the Gypsum Hill Tower high water level is at
elevation 1414.00 and the ground elevation at Crawford Street and Prairie Lane is
elevation 1274.00 it was assumed that the pressure at the existing 20-inch water main at
Crawford Street and Prairie Lane is approximately 60 psi (1414.00-1274.00 = 140 ft /
2.31 = 60.6 psi). These pressures only include static pressures and don't include any
friction losses within the piping but friction losses should be negligible. These assumed
pressures can always be confirmed when the City's hydraulic model of the water
distribution system is completed.
3.2.2. Alternatives
There is only one feasible alternative for routing a water main loop through the Master
Utility Plan area: connect to the existing. 16-inch water line along Country Club Road
then east to Holmes Road, then follow Holmes Road south, then west along Crawford
Street, and connect to the existing 20-inch water line near Crawford Street and Prairie
Lane. This location of the water main loop will provide water service to the east and
west of Holmes Road. In case the proposed Holmes Road alignment on Figure 3-1 is not
followed, two proposed water main routes and cost estimates will be shown. Plan A will
be a water main that follows the proposed curved Holmes Road alignment. Plan B will
be a water main that follows the existing straight north-south Holmes Road alignment.
There are several alternatives that were analyzed for the sizing of this proposed water
main loop in order to supply a fire flow demand of 1,500 gpm within a residential area
while maintaining a pressure of 20 psi. To determine which size of water main is the
most feasible, friction losses or headloss within the piping, valves, and fittings were
considered for an 8-inch, to-inch, 12-inch, 16-inch, and 20-inch water main. Based on
the calculated headloss within the water main, a pressure loss through the piping can be
determined. Because the existing ground elevations within the Master Utility Plan area
are between the ground elevations of 1224.00 and 1274.00 at the tie-in points mentioned
previously, the approximate total pressure can be calculated for each water main size
based on the existing static pressures of 60 psi to 80 psi. The following table shows the
pressure loss through the respective sized water main and the total pressure:
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.3
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pipe Diameter Flow Friction Pressure Loss Existing Static Total Pressure
Headloss Pressure
(inches) (gpm) (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi)
8 1500 367 159 60 to 80 -99 to -79
10 1500 125 54 60 to 80 6t026
12 1500 52 23 60 to 80 37 to 57
16 1500 13 6 60 to 80 54 to 74
20 1500 5 2 60 to 80 58 to 78
3.2.3. Recommendations
As shown in the previous table an 8-inch water main would produce a negative total
pressure which is not a feasible alternative. As mentioned previously a total pressure of
20 psi should be maintained which a lO-inch water main does not fully provide. A 12-
inch water main does maintain the 20 psi but keep in mind that these calculations are only
taking into account the existing static pressures from the water tower to the tie-in points
and does not account for the existing friction losses in the existing piping from the water
tower to the tie-in points. Therefore it is recommended that a 16-inch water main loop be
installed within the Master Utility Plan area. This will provide adequate pressure at fire
hydrants along the water main and still allow for additional pressure loss within the
existing water lines. It is also recommended that this water main loop be constructed in
entirety as opposed to in phases which would create inadequate looping thereby reducing
water quality and fire flow.
It is still recommended that the existing 20-inch water main along Crawford Street
continue to be 20-inch rather than reducing the line size to 16,:"inch to service the Master
Utility Plan area. This is recommended in order to service possible commercial
development along Crawford Street and possibly allow for potential future growth east of
the East Dry Creek. It is also recommended that at the intersections of Country Club
RoadIHolmes Road and Crawford StreetIHolmes Road a cross and necessary valves be
installed in order to provide for future extension of the water main.
For construction phasing purposes and to provide additional sources of water mains
which will aid in increased water quality and fire flow, it is recommended that anS-inch
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.4
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water line be installed along Brookwood Lane (extended) and Glen A venue (extended)
connecting into the proposed 16-inch water main along Holmes Road.
City staff has indicated that the already developed Country Club Estates Addition which
is located east of Eastborough Road and south of Country Club Road is currently an area
that would benefit from additional fire flows. Therefore it is recommended that the new
16-inch water main along Country Club Road be connected with an 8-inch water line to
an existing 6-inch water line located near the intersection of Skyline Drive and Country
Club Road. This will be a cost effective way to increase fire flows in this already
developed area.
It is also recommended that the City analyze the capacity of the existing Gypsum Hill
Tower. It may be shown that there is a need for an additional water tower to service this
area of town, especially with the increased water demand from this Master Utility Plan
area.
A map of the proposed water system with phases is shown in Appendix A.. The phase
numbering is not indicative of construction sequence and certain phases are broken into
smaller pieces to accommodate possible development sequencing.
3.3. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
3.3.1. Existing Sanitary Sewer System
Existing sanitary sewer service in the area consists of 8-inch gravity sewer lines serving
areas. directly to the north, south and west of the Master Utility Plan area. Two pump
stations are also currently in service near the Master Utility Plan area. Pump Station No.
56 is located on Quail Hollow Drive which is north of Crawford Street. Pump Station
No. 53 is located along Deborah Drive between Presley Drive and Eastmoor Drive.
There are two interceptor gravity sewer lines near the Master Utility Plan area. A 36-inch
interceptor sewer line is located east of the Master Utility Plan area and gravity flows
from south to north along the west side of East Dry Creek to Pump Station C which is
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.5
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
located near the intersection of North Street and Eastborough Road. An I8-inch/2I-inch
interceptor sewer line is located west of the Master Utility Plan area and gravity flows
from south to north along Seitz Drive to Pump Station C.
3.3.2. Projected Flows
The sanitary sewer system was analyzed assuming the entire Master Utility Plan Area is
to be completely developed with residential and commercial users as shown in the
previous Land Use Plan map. Residential developments within the study area include
single family homes, duplexes and town home type dwellings. A couple commercial
developments are planned along Crawford Street. There are areas within the Master
Utility Plan area that cannot be developed because of storm drainagelflood management.
Projected wastewater flows for the study area are shown in the following table:
Service Area Number Population Density Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow
Land Use (acres) of Lots (people/acre or lot) Rate' (l!Dd) (cfs)
Single Family --- 128 3 per lot 900 gpdIlot 115,200 0.178
Single Family 80 -- 10 per acre 3,000 gpdJacre 240,000 0.371
Medium Density Multi-Family (Townbomes) 40 --- 18 per acre 5,400 gpdJacre 216,000 0.334
High Density Multi-Family (Duplex) 12 --- 30 per acre 9,000 gpdJacre 108,000 0.167
Commercial 6 --- ---- 5,000 gpdJacre 30,000 0.046
TOTAL 709,200 1.097
. .
Based on KDHE nummum baSIS of deSIgn: Peak Flow Rate = PopulatIon DenSIty x 100 gallons per capIta
per day (gpcd) x 3.0 peaking factor.
At these projected peak flow rates, the gravity sewers will be designed to flow at a depth
of two-thirds full for lines sized 8-inch through I8-inch, and, if flows necessitate, three-
quarters full for lines sized larger than I8-inch, in accordance with KDHE's minimum
design standards. The following table shows the minimum slopes and maximum flows
through each size pipe:
Peak Flow Peak Flow
Pipe Diameter Minimum Slope2 (Factored)3 (Factored)3
(in.) (%) (gpd) (cfs)
8 0.400 389,000 0.60
10 0.248 562,000 0.86
12 0.194 806,000 1.24
15 0.145 1,253,000 1.94
18 0.114 1,814,000 2.80
21 0.092 2,851,000 4.42
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.6
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2KDHE minimum design standards.
3Maximum flow that pipe can handle (Peak Flow x Depth Factor of 0.79 up to 18-inch or 0.92 for larger).
Based on the previous table and the previously projected wastewater peak flows of
709,200 gpd no larger than 12-inch sanitary sewer lines are required to service the entire
Master Utility Plan area. If the entire area is separated into basins or phases then 8-inch
collector sewer lines can be utilized with larger 10-inch or 12-inch sewer trunk lines.
This is further analyzed in the following Subsection 3.3.3.
3.3.3. Alternatives
Specific alternatives weren't individually evaluated but the following issues were taken
into consideration when determining the most feasible alternative to provide sanitary
sewer service to the different areas within the Master Utility Plan area:
· Evaluation of the elevation of the existing ground-utilization of the natural slope of
ground.
· Evaluation of the possible abandonment of any existing pump stations adjacent to the
Master Utility Plan area.
· Evaluation of servicing potential future service areas adjacent to the Master Utility
Plan area.
· Evaluation of the capacity of existing interceptor sewer lines and pump stations which
will have to convey the additional wastewater flows.
The elevation of the existing ground of the Master Utility Plan area generally slopes from
west to east towards the East Dry Creek. The proposed alignment of Holmes Road
follows a natural ridge in the middle of the Master Utility Plan area. The area east of
Holmes Road slopes to the east to East Dry Creek. The area west of Holmes Road slopes
to the west to a low point where there is an existing pond and dam. A new drainage/flood
management pond and dam to replace this existing structure is proposed in this same
general area. Refer to Section 3.4 of this report for further discussion of these proposed
storm drainage improvements. For purposes of this Master Utility Plan it will be
assumed that any development will follow the existing elevations with no major grading
to be done. The most cost effective and feasible alternative for providing sewer service
to the Master Utility Plan area is to install gravity sewer by following the natural slope of
the existing ground, therefore minimizing the need for pump stations.
WlISOIV
&COMPANY
3.7
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As previously mentioned, there are two pump stations (No. 53 and 56) located adjacent to
the Master Utility Plan area. As part of this Master Utility Plan it was evaluated if either
or both of these existing pump stations could be abandoned and serviced with gravity
sewer lines. Eliminating any existing pump stations will decrease sewer maintenance and
operation costs for the City. It was determined that both of these existing pump stations
can be abandoned and serviced with proposed gravity sewer lines in the Master Utility
Plan area.
While providing sewer service to the Master Utility Plan area, it was also evaluated if any
of the proposed sewer system could service any adjacent potential future service areas. It
is more cost effective to install increased pipe sizes of any of the proposed sewer lines to
service adjacent potential future service areas now rather than having to upsize an
existing line later. Based on the elevation of the existing ground there are potential future
service areas north and south of the Master Utility Plan area. Refer to Figure 3..2 to see
the locations and approximate sizes of these areas. Refer to Appendix B which shows the
phases of the proposed sewer system with the sewer service laterals (by others) which
depict the areas serviced by each phase. The following table shows the peak flows and
corresponding sewer line sizes required for each phase:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Service Number Population Density Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Sewer Pipe
Land Use Area or Lots (people/acre or lot) Rate! (gpd) Flow Size Req'd
(acres) (ds) (In)
Phase 1 and Phase 2:
Single Family -- 73 3 ocr lot 90020C lIot 65.700 0.102
Sin.e;le Family 40 --- 10 per acre 3 000 2Dl acre 120,000 0.186
Medium Density Multi.Family (Townhomes) 7 - 18 ocr acre 5,400 2.,. acre 37,800 0.058
Hi2h Density Multi-Family (Duplex) 12 -- 30 ocr acre 9,000 .e;J)C acre 108.000 0.167
Commercial 0 -- -- 5.000 .e;J)C acre 0 0.000
Potential Service Area 38 -- 10 ocr acre 3 000 2od1acre 114,000 0.176
TOTAL 445.500 0.689 IO-inch
Phase 3:
Single Family -- 55 3 ocr lot 900 2od11ot 49.500 0.077
Single Family 0 -- 10 per acre 3 000 2pd!acre 0 0.000
Medium Density Multi-Family (Townhomes) 0 -- 18 per acre 5.400 gpdlacre 0 0.000
Hi.e;h Density Multi-Family (Duplex) 0 -- 30 per acre 9.000 .e;pd/acre 0 0.000
Commercial 0 -- --- 5.000 .e;pd/acre 0 0.000
TOTAL 49,500 0.077 8-inch
Phase 4:
Sin21e Family --- 0 3 per lot 900 2odIIot 0 0.000
Sin.e;le Family 40 --- 10 per acre 3 000 20d/acre 120,000 0.186
Medium Density Multi-Family (Townhomes) 33 18 ocr acre 5,400 .e;pd/acre 178,200 0.276
High Density Multi-Family (Duplex) 0 -- 30 per acre 9,000 gpd/acre 0 0.000
Commercial 6 -- ---- 5,000 .e;pd/acre 30,000 0.046
Potential Service Area 93 -- 10 ocr acre 3 000 2nd/acre 279.000 0.432
TOTAL 607.200 0.939 12-inch
I
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.8
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
~
II I
11- ;p
~
.
I
LEGEND
t
CK. JIAS
FIGURE NO. 3-2
e'ZJ PROPOSED SERVICE AREA
_ POTENTIAL FUTURE SERVICE AREA
WIlSON
& COMPANY
EAST SALINA MASTER UTILITY PLAN
SEWER SERVICE AREAS
DSGN. lADS
07-200-518-00
DR.
TMH
NOT TO SCALE
DATE SEPT. 2007
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is therefore recommended to install a lO-inch sewer line along the northern border of
the Master Utility Plan and a 12-inch sewer line in lieu of an S-inch sewer line along the
southern border of the Master Utility Plan Area.
Tieing into the existing lS-inch/21-inch interceptor sewer line located west of the Master
Utility Plan area is not feasible due to the elevation of the existing ground. The flow line
elevation of the 18-inch/21-inch sewer line is approximately 1240.00 whereas there are
locations within the Master Utility Plan area that are lower than 1240.00. However,
tieing into the existing 36-inch interceptor sewer line located along the west side of the
East Dry Creek is feasible. The flow line elevation of the 36-inch sewer line is
approximately 1215.00 which is significantly lower than the existing elevations of the
Master Utility Plan area. The existing 36-inch interceptor sewer line was installed in the
early 1990s. A previous engineering report (City of Salina, Kansas, East Dry Creek
Interceptor Sewer, Phase 3 - Design Concept Report, Wilson & Company File No. 90-
074, July 1991) indicates that the existing East Dry Creek interceptor sewer was designed
to serve projected development in the service area through the year 2030. The July 1991
report divides the total East Dry Creek interceptor sewer service area into smaller service
areas. The service areas that correlate to this Master Utility Plan area are Service Areas
22 and 23. The following table represents the proposed development that was utilized to
size the existing 36-inch interceptor sewer:
Service Area Development Type Acres
Single Family 65
Townhomes 4
22
Multiple Family 6
Commercial 5
Single Family 215
23 Townhomes 13
Multiple Family 22
Single Family 280
TOTAL Townhomes 17
Multiple Family 28
Commercial 5
WlISOItI
& COMPANY
3.10
WCI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed development of 260 acres for this Master Utility Plan is less than the above
total of 280 acres for single family development alone. Also, in the July 1991 report a
peaking factor of 3.0 was maintained the entire length of the interceptor; however, peak
flowrates from the different tributary areas are unlikely to reach the interceptor at exactly
the same time. As a result, this peaking factor utilized in the original design of the
interceptor sewer allows for some flexibility for future development and an allowance for
non-excessive infiltration/inflow. Therefore the existing 36-inch interceptor sewer
should have adequate capacity to handle the additional wastewater flows from this Master
Utility Plan area.
The existing 36-inch interceptor sewer located along the west side of the East Dry Creek
flows to Pump Station C which pumps directly to the wastewater treatment plant.
Therefore it must be evaluated whether Pump Station C can handle the additional flows
from the Master Utility Plan area. According to the project shop drawings and pump
manufacturer's information the characteristics of Pump Station C are as follows:
1 Pump(2 Pumps Standby) 7 4,700 gpm @ 56 ft Total Dynamic Head
2 Pumps (1 Pump Standby) 73,050 gpm @ 65 ft Total Dynamic Head
If the Master Utility Plan area becomes fully developed as planned, Pump Station C will
run approximately two and a half additional hours each day (709,200 gpd/4,700 gpm =
150 min/day). Any existing flows which are diverted from existing Pump Stations No.
53 and 56 are not accounted for since they are currently pumping flows indirectly to
Pump Station C. This should be feasible but current pump run times should be analyzed
and current pump capacity should be analyzed to verify that the pumps are still operating
near the original design point of 4,700 gpm.
3.3.4. Recommendations
For construction phasing purposes it is recommended that the sanitary sewer
improvements be separated into four phases.
> Phase .1: Installation of approximately 2,000 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer line,
1,200 linear feet of lO-inch gravity sewer line, and necessary manholes. This
includes a connection to the existing 36-inch interceptor sewerline.
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.11
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
> Phase 2: Abandonment of existing Pump Station No. 53 and installation of
approximately 1,000 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer line and necessary manholes.
> Phase 3: Abandonment of existing Pump Station No. 56 and installation of
approximately 4,500 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer line, 1,700 linear feet of 12-
inch gravity sewer line and necessary manholes. This includes a connection to the
existing 36-inch interceptor sewer line.
A map of the proposed sanitary sewer system is shown in Appendix B. The phase
numbering is not indicative of construction sequence and certain phases are broken into
smaller pieces to accommodate possible development sequencing.
There are areas depicted on the map where the proposed gravity sewer line installation
will require deep excavation (> 20 feet). Deep sewer installation will increase
construction costs and depending upon the City's choice they may not want to maintain
such deep sewer lines. There is also an area depicted on the map where gravity sewer
line installation will be shallow (< 4 feet) and will require additional fill to provide
adequate cover over the pipe or concrete encasement. This shallow area may not be of
concern because this area is most likely within the 100-year flood zone where
development may not occur.
3.4. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
3.4.1. Background
Konza Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. completed a report titled 'East Salina
Drainage Project Extended Concept Phase and Preliminary Design Phase Report' which
was dated January 5,2001. This report included a comprehensive drainage analysis of
the drainage basin known as East Dry Creek Tributary No. 1 which encompasses the East
Salina Master Utility Plan area. This analysis of the watershed assumed full development
conditions for the East Salina Master Utility Plan area. The report analyzed several
alternatives and recommended a regional two pond/two dam drainage system within the
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.12
weI File No. 07~200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
East Salina Master Utility Plan area. The report also included a cost estimate for this
recommended alternative.
At a later date, the consulting firm of HNTB developed a land use plan for the East Salina
Master Utility Plan area which included a conceptual detention pond design. HNTB
proposed a one pond/one dam drainage system which would provide a better site for park
facilities. As part of the land use plan HNTB did not complete any preliminary analysis
or cost estimates on the one pond/one dam drainage system.
3.4.2. Preliminary Analysis
As part of this Master Utility Plan a preliminary analysis and cost estimate was
completed for the one pond/one dam drainage system proposed by HNTB. Refer to
Figure 3-3 for a preliminary layout of the one pond/one dam drainage system. The
following assumptions were made to complete the preliminary analysis and cost estimate:
· All analyses in the Konza report are accurate. An independent check of calculations
for basin discharge or flood control storage was not performed.
· The assumed full development of the watershed from the Konza report is equal to or
greater than the proposed development plan from HNTB' s land plan map. And the
resulting runoff would be the same under each fully developed plan.
· Dam No.1 (municipal golf course dam), DamNo. 2 (Presbyterian Manor dam), and
Dam No.5 (Holiday Manor dam) are to remain and will be maintained to function as
detailed in the Konza report.
· The single dam concept was intended to be equivalent to the two dam concept in
flood control and similar in total acres of restricted land use. The design targets taken
from the Konza report were: 44 total acres of land required for proposed dam
structures that will be made unavailable for development with 87.2 acre-feet of
required flood storage and a permanent/recreation pool surface of 4.1 acres.
· The increase in drainage area routed to the proposed single dam location, which is
downstream of the two dams proposed in the Konza report, will not significantly
impact the basin discharge results as detailed in the Konza report.
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.13
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
EAST SALINA MASTER UTILITY PLAN
STORM DRAINAGE
DSGN. MWB
07-200-518-00
DR. KBK
DATE SEPT.2007
CK. MWB
FIGURE NO. 3-3
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
· The removal of Dam No.3 (the existing farm pond within the Master Utility Plan
area) would be the last phase of construction and therefore the existing dam
embankment that is excavated would be wasted on site atminimal cost. This
excavated material could be utilized to develop site grading, streets, hiking paths, etc.
· The impact of the proposed dam on storagelflood relief will be determined during
final design. A preliminary estimate of the breach path area is shown in Figure 3-3.
No design computations or breach analysis was performed for this report.
· The actual shape and size of the recreation pool can be manipulated by varying the
depth of the pond which would affect the excavation quantities and storage
capabilities.
· Actual earthwork quantities will vary and should be recalculated after final
design/reservoir routing and a breach analysis is performed.
3.4.3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the City compare the costs of the one dam alternative with the two
dam alternative to determine which is the most cost effective yet still provide the City
with a flood control and recreational area that is both functional and aesthetically
pleasing. Based on the Konza Report, it should be noted that both dams in the two dam
alternative would be classified as a low hazard Class 'a' dam and most likely the
proposed one dam alternative will be a significant hazard Class 'b' dam which will
include the following additional requirements:
- More stringent design/construction requirements to withstand a higher design
storm
- More stringent or stricter permitting requirements
- Completion of an emergency action plan
- Routine inspection every 3 years
Matt Scherer ill, who is the Water Structures Program Manager for the Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Dam Safety Program, was contacted to discuss the evaluation of these
two alternatives. Matt Scherer ill was also formerly employed by Konza and was the
professional engineer who signed the original 2001 Konza Report and therefore was very
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.15
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
familiar with this proposed project. Mr. Scherer thought that if the single dam alternative
was constructed instead ofthe two dam alternative that the single dam alternative would
most certainly be classified as a high hazard dam. He also stated that it was very possible
that given the proposed development ofthe area and the recently updated (May 2007)
dam standards that the dams in the two dam alternative would also be classified as high
hazard dams. Preliminary design and a breach analysis (not part of the scope of this
report) need to be completed before a dam classification can be determined. Mr. Scherer
thought that it would be best to assume that under either option the dams would be
classified as high hazard dams. He then stated that in the 2001 Konza Report, the intent
of the two dam alternative was to better utilize the existing dam embankment, however
he wasn't sure this was the most economical alternative.
Based on the 2001 Konza report, the conversation with Mr. Scherer, and the updated cost
estimates provided in Section 4, it is recommended that the one dam alternative be
constructed as it is the most cost effective alternative. The exact location of the one
pond/one dam alternative, as shown in Figure 3-3, could be altered to accommodate
possible development around the pond. If the pond is shifted, additional earthwork
would be necessary therefore increasing construction costs.
WIlSON
&COMPANY
3.16
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
il
I
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 4 - ESTIMATED COSTS
4.1. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Phase la: 16-inch Water Main Along Country Club Rd (includes Skyline Dr Tie-in) in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
.
Mobilization 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
Water Pipeline, 8" 205 L.F. $40.00 $8,200
Water Pipeline, 16" 2,750 L.F. $65.00 $178,750
Tee, 16" x 8" 1 Each $5,000.00 $5,000
Cross, 16" x 6" 1 Each $7,000.00 $7,000
Cross, 16" x 16" 1 Each $13,000.00 $13,000
Miscellaneous Fittings & Bends 1 L.S. $8,000.00 $8,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 8" 1 Each $2,000.00 $2,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 16" 5 Each $3,500.00 $17,500
Remove and Replace Pavement 240 S.Y. $75.00 $18,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
SUBTOTAL $268,450
Land and Contingency (25%) $67,113
. TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $335,563
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $50,334
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $385,897
WIlSON
&COMPANY
4.1
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
Phase Ib: 16-ineh Water Main Along Holines Rd on North End in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 LS. $5,000.00 $5,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
Water Pipeline, 16" 1,350 L.F. $65.00 $87,750
Miscellaneous Fittings & Bends 1 L.S. $8,000.00 $8,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 16" 1 Each $3,500.00 $3,500
Fire Hydrant & Valve Assembly 2 Each $4,000.00 $8,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
SUBTOTAL $118,250
Land and Contingency (25%) $29,563
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $147,813
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $22,172
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $169,985
Phase Ie (Plan A): 16-ineh Water Main Along Holmes Rd (in the middle) in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
Water Pipeline, 16" 2,800 L.F. $65.00 $182,000
Miscellaneous Fittings & Bends 1 L.S. $8,000.00 $8,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 16" 2 Each $3,500.00 $7,000
Fire Hydrant & Valve Assembly 1 Each $4,000.00 $4,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
SUBTOTAL $212,000
Land and Contingency (25%) $53,000
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $265,000
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $39,750
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $304,750
WlISOIV
&COMPANY
4.2
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
Phase Ie (Plan B): 16-ineh Water Main Along Holmes Rd (in the middle) in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. .$3,000.00 $3,000
Water Pipeline, 16" 2,350 L.F. $65.00 $152,750
Miscellaneous Fittings & Bends 1 L.S. $8,000.00 . $8,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 16" 2 Each $3,500.00 $7,000
Fire Hydrant & Valve Assembly 1 Each $4,000.00 $4,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
SUBTOTAL $182,750
Land and Contingency (25%) $45,688
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $228,438
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $34,266
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $262,704
Phase Id: 16-ineh Water Main Along Holmes Rd on South End in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
.
Mobilization 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
Water Pipeline, 16" 1,765 L.F. $65.00 $114,725
Miscellaneous Fittings & Bends 1 L.S. $8,000.00 $8,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 16" 2 Each $3,500.00 $7,000
Fire Hydrant & Valve Assembly 3 Each $4,000.00 $12,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
SUBTOTAL $152,725
Land and Contingency (25%) $38,181
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $190,906
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $28,636
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $219,542
WIlSON
&COMPANY .
4.3
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Phase Ie: 20-inch Water Main Along Crawford Street in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
Water Pipeline, 20" 960 L.F. $90.00 $86,400
Cross, 20" x 16" 1 Each $15,000.00 $15,000
Miscellaneous Fittings & Bends 1 L.S. $8,000.00 $8,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 16" 2 Each $3,500.00 $7,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 20" 2 Each $4,500.00 $9,000
Remove and Replace Pavement 100 S.Y. $75.00 $7,500
Seeding 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000
SUBTOTAL $143,900
Land and Contingency (25%) $35,975
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $179,875
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $26,981
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $206,856
Phase 1 Total in 2007 Dollars
Description Cost
Phase la: 16-inch Water Main Along Country Club Rd (includes Skyline Dr Tie-in) $385,897
Phase Ib: 16-inch Water Main Along Holmes Rd on North End $169,985
Phase lc (Plan A): 16-inch Water Main Along Holmes Rd (in the middle) $304,750
Phase Id: 16-inch Water Main Along Holmes Rd on South End $219,542
Phase Ie: 20-inch Water Main Along Crawford Street $206,856
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $1,287,030
WlISOIV
&COMPANY
4.4
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Phase 2: Brookwood Lane Water Main in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
Water Pipeline, 8" 1,230 L.F. $40.00 $49,200
Miscellaneous Fittings & Bends 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 8" 2 Each $2,000.00 $4,000
Fire Hydrant & Valve Assembly 2 Each $4,000.00 $8,000
Remove and Replace Pavement 40 S.Y. $75.00 $3,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $94,200
Land and Contingency (25%) $23,550
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $117,750
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $17,663
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $135,413
Phase 3: Glen Avenue Water Main in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
Water Pipeline, 8" 2,025 L.p. $40.00 $81,000
Miscellaneous Fittings & Bends 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000
Resilient Gate Valve, 8" 1 Each $2,000.00 $2,000
Fire Hydrant & Valve Assembly 2 Each $4,000.00 $8,000
Remove and Replace Pavement 70 S.Y. $75.00 $5,250
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $126,250
Land and Contingency (25%) $31,563
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $157,813
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $23,672
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $181,485
WIlSON
&COMPANY
4.5
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Total Estimated Water Improvements in 2007 Dollars
Phase 1: 16-inch Water Main Loop (includes Skyline Dr Tie-in) $1,287,030
Phase 2:. Brookwood Lane Water Main $135,413
Phase 3: Glen Avenue Water Main $181,485
TOTAL $1,603,928
4.2. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Phase la: Deborah Drive to 36-inch Interceptor Sewer in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $15,000.00 . $15,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 10" 1,200 L.F. $55.00 $66,000
Extra Depth Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 10" 800 L.F. $15.00 $12,000
Standard Manhole 3 Each $5,000.00 $15,000
Extra Depth Manhole 15 L.F. $300.00 $4,500
Connect to Existing Manhole 1 Each $5,000.00 $5,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
. SUBTOTAL $130,000
Land and Contingency (25%) $32,500
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $162,500
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $24,375
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $186,875
WIlSON
& COMPANY
4.6
weI FileNo. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Phase Ib: Glen A venue to Deborah Drive in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 8" 1,950 L.P. $50.00 $97,500
Extra Depth Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 8" 965 . L.F. $15.00 $14,475
Standard Manhole 8 Each $5,000.00 $40,000
Extra Depth Manhole 40 L.P. $300.00 $12,000
Connect to Existing Manhole 1 Each $5,000.00 $5,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $196,475
Land and Contingency (25%) $49,119
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $245,594
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $36,839
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $282,433
Phase 1 Total in 2007 Dollars
Description Cost
Phase la: Deborah Drive to 36-inch Interceptor Sewer $186,875
Phase 1 b: Glen A venue to Deborah Drive $282,433
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $469,308
WIlSON
&COMPANY.
4.7
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Phase 2: Pump Station No. 53 to Sewer Main
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 8" 990 L.F. $50.00 $49,500
Standard Manhole 2 Each $5,000.00 $10,000
Remove and Replace Pavement 40 S.Y. $75.00 $3,000
Abandonment of Wastewater Pump Station No. 53 1 L.S. $50,000.00 $50,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $140,000
Land and Contingency (25%) $35,000
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $175,000
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $26,250
. TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $201,250
Phase 3a: Crawford Street to Interceptor Sewer in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000
Construction Staking 1 . L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 12" 1,660 L.F. $60.00 $99,600
Extra Depth Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 12" 250 L.F. $15.00 $3,750
Standard Manhole 4 Each $5,000.00 $20,000
Extra Depth Manhole 20 L.F. $300.00 $6,000
Connect to Existing Manhole 1 Each $5,000.00 $5,000
Remove and Replace Pavement 70 S.Y. $75.00 $5,250
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $167,100
Land and Contingency (25%) $41,775
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $208,875
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $31,331
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $240,206
WIlSON
&COMPANY
4.8
weI FileNo. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Phase 3b: Brookwood Lane to Crawford Street in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 8" 1,575 L.F. $50.00 $78,750
Extra Depth Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 8" 1,375 L.F. $15.00 $20,625
Standard Manhole 4 Each $5,000.00 $20,000
Extra Depth Manhole 20 L.F. $300.00 $6,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $152,875
Land and Contingency (25%) $38,219
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $191,094
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $28,664
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $219,758
Phase 3c: Pump Station No. 56 to Interceptor Sewer in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 8" 1,525 L.F. $50.00 $76,250
Standard Manhole 4 Each $5,000.00 $20,000
Connect to Existing Manhole 1 Each $5,000.00 $5,000
Remove and Replace Pavement 40 S.Y. $75.00 $3,000
Abandonment of Wastewater Pump Station No. 56 1 L.S. $30,000.00 $30,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
. SUBTOTAL $161,750
Land and Contingency (25%) $40,438
I TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $202,188
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $30,328
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $232,516
WIlSON
&COMPANY
4.9
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
Phase 3d: Glen A venue Sewer in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Mobilization 1 L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000
Construction Staking 1 L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline, 8" 1,340 L.p. $50.00 $67,000
Standard Manhole 4 Each $5,000.00 $20,000
Seeding 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000
SUBTOTAL $114,500
Land and Contingency (25%) $28,625
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $143,125
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $21,469
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $164,594
Phase 3 Total in 2007 Dollars
Description Cost
Phase 3a: Crawford Street to Interceptor Sewer $240,206
Phase 3b: Brookwood Lane to Crawford Street $219,758
Phase 3c: Pump Station No. 56 to Interceptor Sewer $232,516
Phase 3d: Glen A venue Sewer .. $164,594
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $857,074
Total Estimated Sewer Improvements in 2007 Dollars
Phase 1: Glen A venue to 36-inch Interceptor Sewer $469,308
Phase 2: Pump Station No. 53 to Sewer Main $201,250
Phase 3a: Pump Station No. 56 and Glen A venue to Crawford Street and Interceptor Sewer $857,074
TOTAL $1,527,632
WIlSON
&COMPANY
4.10
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
,I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The unit costs of the cost estimate found in the Konza report, which was completed in 2001, was
updated to reflect current 2007 dollars so that the two alternatives could be easily compared.
Two Dam Alternative: Dam No.3 (Existing Farm Pond) in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Site Preparation (clearing & grubbing) 1 L.S. $1,000.00 $1,000
Site Preparation (remove portion of existing dam) 3,465 C.Y. $6.00 $20,790
Excavation, common 51,440 C.Y. $6.00 $308,640
Excavation, common, wet 16,500 c.Y. $9.00 $148,500
Earthfill, embankment 14,400 C.Y. $4.00 $57,600
Earthfill, hand compacted 250 c.Y. $10.00 $2,500
Water (to moisten fill) 72 M.gal $100.00 $7,200
Salvaging & spreading topsoil 43,560 S.Y. .$0.70 $30,492
Reinforced concrete, Class 3000 18.2 C.Y. $400.00 $7,280
Steel reinforcement 3,140 lbs $1.50 $4,710
Non-reinforced concrete bedding, Class 3000 13.6 C.Y. $300.00 $4,080
Reinforced concrete pipe, 42" dia. 110 L.F. $95.00 $10,450
Knife gate valve, 10" dia. 1 Each $4,500.00 $4,500
Trash rack 1 Each $4,500.00 $4,500
Plastic (PVC) pipe, 10" dia. 22 L.F. $50.00 $1,100
Slope protection -dam 1,430 S.Y. $35.00 $50,050
Drainfill & sand backfill, diaphragm, inc!. PVC pip 80 C.Y. $90.00 $7,200
Seeding & mulching 12.32 Acre $1,500.00 $18,480
Slope protection - shoreline 5,730 S.Y. $35.00 $200,550
Fishing piers 4 Each $15,000.00 $60,000
. SUBTOTAL $949,622
Land and Contingency (25%) $237,406
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $1,187,028
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $178,054
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $1,365,082
WIlSON
&COMPANY
4.11
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Two Dam Alternative: Dam No.4 in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Site Preparation (clearing & grubbing) 1 L.S. $1,000.00 $1,000
Excavation, common 15,600 C.Y. $6.00 $93,600
Excavation, common, wet 1,000 C.Y. $9.00 $9,000
Earthfill, embankment 9,300 C.Y. $4.00 $37,200
Earthfill, hand compacted 230 c.Y. . $10.00 $2,300
Water (to moisten fill) 30 M.gal $100.00 $3,000
Salvaging & spreading topsoil 57,600 S.Y. $0.70 $40,320
Reinforced concrete, Class 3000 14.0 C.Y. $400.00 $5,600
Steel reinforcement 2,408 lbs $1.50 $3,612
Non-reinforced concrete bedding, Class 3000 12,6 C.Y. $300.00 $3,780
Reinforced concrete pipe, 42" dia. 102 L.F. $95.00 $9,690
Knife gate valve, 10" dia. 1 Each $4,500.00 $4,500
Trash rack 1 Each $4,500.00 $4,500
Plastic (PVC) pipe, 10" dia. 14 L.F. $50.00 $700
Slope protection - dam 635 S.Y. $35.00 $22,225
Drainfill & sand backfill, diaphragm, inc!. PVC piPI 40 C.Y. $90.00 $3,600
Seeding & mulching 12.52 Acre $1,500.00 $18,780
Slope protection - shoreline 2,080 S.Y. $35.00 $72,800
Fishing piers 2 Each $15,000.00 $30,000
SUBTOTAL $366,207
Land and Contingency (25%) . $91,552
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $457,759
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $68,664
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $526,423
WllSOIV
&COMPANY
4.12
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
One Dam Alternative in 2007 Dollars
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Extension
Quantity
Site Preparation (clearing & grubbing) 1 L.S. $2,500.00 $2,500
Excavation, common 53,046 C.Y. $6.00 $318,276
Excavation, common, wet 3,000 C.Y. $9.00 $27,000
Earthfill, embankment 12,650 C.Y. $4.00 $50,600
Earthfill, hand compacted 300 C.Y. $10.00 $3,000
Water (to moisten fill) 52 M.gal $100.00 $5,200
Salvaging & spreading topsoil 96,800 S.Y. $0.70 $67,760
Reinforced concrete, Class 3000 22.0 C.Y. $400.00 $8,800
Steel reinforcement 3,784 lbs $1.50 $5,676
Non-reinforced concrete bedding, Class 3000 14.0 C.Y. $300.00 $4,200
Reinforced concrete pipe, 60" dia. 110 L.F. $260.00 $28,600
Knife gate valve, 10" dia. 1 Each $4,500.00 $4,500
Trash rack . 1 Each $4,500.00 $4,500
Plastic (PVC) pipe, 10" dia. 25 L.F. $50.00 $1,250
Slope protection - dam 2,065 S.Y. $35.00 $72,275
Drainfill & sand backfill, diaphragm, incl. PVC pip 80 C.Y. $90.00 $7,200
Seeding & mulching 25.00 Acre $1,500.00 $37,500
Slope protection - shoreline 3,100 S.Y. $35.00 $108,500
Fishing piers 4 Each $15,000.00 $60,000
SUBTOTAL $817,337
Land and Contingency (25%) $204,334
TOTAL Estimated Construction Cost $1,021,671
Engineering, Legal, Admin., etc. (15%) $153,251
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $1,174,922
Total Estimated Storm Drainage Improvements in 2007 Dollars
Two Dam Alternative
One Dam Alternative
$1,891,505
$1,174,922
WlISOIV
&COMPANY
4.13
weI File No. 07-200-518-00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4. TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS
Total Cost Estimate (2007 Dollars)
.
Description Estimated Costs
Water Distribution System $1,603,928
Sanitary Sewer System $1,527,632
Storm Drainage $1,174,922 - $1,891,505
TOTAL $4,306,482 - $5,023,065
WIlSON
&COMPANY 4.14
weI File No. 07-200-518-00