City chooses costlier, non-1880s pedesphere tank: Savings to come from less repainting
From the Daily Democrat:
City council OKs water tank project; cost has nearly doubled, thanks to steel prices
The Woodland City Council authorized staff to seek construction bids on the pedesphere water tank project Tuesday night, despite an engineer's estimate indicating it will likely cost double the amount originally anticipated.
Over the past year, the estimated cost for building the 400,000-gallon elevated tank jumped to $3.5 million. The total estimated cost, including planning, design and surveys, is $4.8 million.
Read more at the Daily Democrat.
From The By Hell Chronicles:
Water tower issue buried on page A-4
On June 10, 2008, on this blog, were a series of questions and answers regarding this waste of water user's fees.
According to the story buried on page A-4 of the 10/19/08 Democrat (read the entire story here) matters are even worse than they were in June. Instead of 2.5 Million it has now blossomed into $4.83 Million.
Read more at the By Hell Chronicles.
From the City of Woodland staff report:
Approve Plans and Specification; Authorize Bid Advertisement; Authorize Funding and Designate City Manager to Award the Construction Contract for the Water Tank Replacement Project 07-49
After the City of Woodland received a study that identified seismic concerns regarding the existing 300,000 gallon tank on Beamer Street, the City selected Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers to prepare bid documents for replacing the tank.
The existing multi-column tank is 45 feet in diameter and 115 feet tall. The replacement tank will have a capacity of 400,000 gallons and be approximately 135 feet above natural ground level. The new tank will meet the current building code seismic requirements.
Read more of the staff report.
Posts
8 comments:
The point trying to be made by city staff is this is a very critical issue. Water supply and delivery are kind of fundamental rights people expect.
Will the water taste better?
The council asked to have this returned to them because the cost overruns are a big concern.
Can the existing tank make it a few more years is the big question?
Woodland has to have one tank for water pressure. It is a safety issue.
JM
Thanks JM,
I was wondering... how will the new well generators work with the tank?
As I understand it, the water that we get from our faucets comes directly from the tank - the gravity provides pressure.
Water is pumped from the wells to the tank using electricity. So the generators will then pump water to the tank during an electrical outage.
The existing tank holds 300,000 gallons - so how many gallons does Woodland use in a day? If Woodland were to lose all power for a day, would the existing generators be able to supply the tank with water? How many wells are needed to be able to contribute to the tank in order to meet supply and demand?
It comes down to this... is the $450,000 cost of three additional generators overkill? Is the "significant risk" really that significant?
Granted, the big storm in January knocked out many areas of Woodland for several hours - and a few for days - but I'd like to know if there was a risk analysis done comparing minimum well output, replenishing 300,000 gallons of water, peak water usage and likelihood of a repeat event?
Under normal conditions, the wells supply the pressure to your faucet.
I do not know how many gallons we use in a day. Pressure supplied by gravity is what is really important.
The likelyhood of a power outage is always prevalent especially if you to take into account global warning and the belief that weather in Woodland is going to get worse. Personally, I don't know.
What I know is a constant clean water supply is essential to life as we know it.
At the last council meeting, I was prepared to vote no. I thought we should wait until fairer economic times. However, staff argument is hard to ignore but council asked that this item be returned. Gives us time to think about it.
There is no rate increase with this purchase.
My first question was why not? Are we charging too much now?
Rate increase are inevitable when we start placing water meters per state law at every household.
The current water tank has passed its useful life span. It is not safe to continue usage of it too much longer.
JM
JM,
With all due respect, wouldn't the amount of water consumed by Woodlanders in a day or week be in a staff report that is endorsing a back-up system?
The generators are not providing the pressure... that is a phenomenon of the weight of water in the tanks and how high off the ground it is. So the question is really about adequate back-up and reasonable risk. The global warming observation does not address how long the city can sustain it's water source for any period of time.
I did not ask about the rates, but it does bring up other concerns. Where is the money coming from for the new tank?
Also, we all know much of the rate increase goes for the meters, themselves. It will essentially be a measurement tax, not a water use tax. Thank you State of California.
JM,
PS: I just reread your comment and missed a point. You said "Under normal conditions, the wells supply the pressure to your faucet." Then you said "Pressure supplied by gravity is what is really important."
Please tell me how the wells provide the pressure.
Wells provide some pressure by keeping the system charged. The tank provides the rest.
JM
Post a Comment