HNTB Phase 2 Westlake Water Switch Study 2011-11-04

CITY OF
WESTLAKE, OHIO

WATER SYSTEM STUDY
PHASE 2

November 2011

CITY OF
WESTLAKE, OHIO

DRAFT
WATER SYSTEM STUDY
PHASE 2

November 2011

Prepared by:

HNTB OHIO, INC.
330 WEST SPRING STREET, SUITE 310
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215
(614) 228-1007

HNTB Job No. 45943-PL-002

Water System Study Phase 2 Table of Contents
City of Westlake, Ohio i November 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of Study .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Revised Projection of Water Demand ...................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Considerations for Analysis ....................................................................................... 1-3

SECTION 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE HYDRAULIC MODEL .............................................. 2-1
2.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Developing the Model ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.1 Physical Parameters .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Demand Allocation ..................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 Calibration .................................................................................................................... 2-5

SECTION 3 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES ....................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Pressure Zones ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Connections ................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4 Transmission Mains .................................................................................................... 3-3
3.5 Finished Water Storage ............................................................................................... 3-4
3.6 Infrastructure from CWD .......................................................................................... 3-4

SECTION 4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Scenario Comparison .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2.1 Pressure Zone Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 Connection Analysis ................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.3 Transmission Main Analysis ...................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Finished Water Storage Analysis ............................................................................... 4-4
4.2.5 CWD Infrastructure Analysis .................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Fire Flow Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4-4
4.4 Final System Check ..................................................................................................... 4-5

SECTION 5 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ................ 5-1

SECTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 6-1
6.1 Review of Analysis ....................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Overview of Recommended Action Items ............................................................... 6-2

Water System Study Phase 2 Table of Contents
City of Westlake, Ohio ii November 2011
TABLES

Table No. Page No.

1.1 Westlake Water Demand Constituents .................................................................................. 1-3
1.2 Summary of Demand Scenarios .............................................................................................. 1-3
2.1 Hazen-Williams Roughness Coefficients ............................................................................... 2-2
2.2 Top Ten Waters Users .............................................................................................................. 2-4
2.3 Needed Fire Flow for Residential Buildings ........................................................................... 2-4
3.1 Proposed Transmission Mains for Two-Connection Scenario ........................................... 3-3
4.1 Pressure Range for Phase 1 Scenarios ..................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Minimum System Pressures (Single-Connection Scenarios) for Max Day Demand ...... 4-2
4.3 Transmission Main Lengths for Single-Connection Scenarios ........................................... 4-3
4.4 System Pressures for Schwartz Connection Scenario ........................................................... 4-3
4.5 System Pressures for Alternative Tank Locations ................................................................. 4-4
5.1 Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ............................................................. 5-1
6.1 Overview of Recommended Improvements .......................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Pressures for Proposed Improvement Scenario .................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Future Project Phases ................................................................................................................ 6-3

APPENDICES

Appendix

A Figures

Figure 2.2 Hydrant Testing Site Locations
Figure 2.3 Calibrated C-values of Existing Pipes
Figure 3.1 Disconnection/Reconnection Map
Figure 3.2 Existing Pressure Zones
Figure 3.3 Proposed Connection Alternatives
Figure 3.4 Proposed Storage Tank Locations
Figure 4.1 Final Proposed System Improvements
Figure 6.1 Pressures at Average Day Demand with Proposed System Improvements
Figure 6.2 Pressures at Maximum Day Demand with Proposed System Improvements
Figure 6.3 Pressures at Peak Hour Demand with Proposed System Improvements

B Hydrant Flow Data Summary from ISO Report

C Hydrant Testing Protocol

D Water Rates and Capital Expenses Memo from Avon Lake Municipal Utilities

E References

Water System Study Phase 2 Executive Summary
City of Westlake, Ohio ES-1 November 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HNTB completed a Phase 1 study of the City of Westlakes water distribution system in
December 2008. The purpose of that study was to provide a preliminary assessment and give
recommendations for system improvements that would be necessary to switch water suppliers
from the City of Cleveland Water Division (CWD) to the Avon Lake Municipal Utilities (ALMU).
The result of the Phase 1 study was the recommendation that The City of Westlake continue to
pursue a switch in water supply from CWD to ALMU and initiate a Phase 2 water system study.

The purpose of the Phase 2 study is to amend the preliminary recommendations from Phase 1 by
creating a hydraulic model of the Citys distribution system in WaterCAD to evaluate the
proposed system improvements. The hydraulic model was created in WaterCAD using
AutoCAD files provided by Westlake, containing the existing pipes and connections within the
City of Westlake. After the pipe network was built in WaterCAD, the C-values of the existing
pipes were adjusted based on hydrant testing to more closely match actual conditions. Multiple
scenarios were then developed with different combinations of pressure zones, connection
locations, transmission main configurations, and storage tank locations. After modeling various
scenarios and discussing results including pressures, costs and maintenance, it was determined
that a connection to ALMU via Schwartz Road is the best alternative.

The scenario for the Schwartz Road connection includes a ground storage tank for system
equalization as well as a packaged pump station for delivering stored water back into the system
during high demand. Approximately 30,000 feet of new transmission mains ranging in size from
12-inch to 30-inch will be needed to convey water from the new ALMU supply. Other
improvements include a new master meter and meter pit at the 30-inch transmission main
connection point with the ALMU distribution system, new service meters for approximately
11,000 water users and pressure reducing valves for the portion of the users with greater than 80
psi incoming pressure.

COST OF IMPLEMENTATION

To change water providers, significant capital improvement investments will be needed. These
improvements include a water transmission main between the ALMU distribution system and the
Westlake system, replacement of existing transmission mains within Westlake and existing lines
conveying water between Westlake and neighboring cities, and construction of additional storage
facilities. In addition to the capital cost corresponding to these improvements, the City will also
need to consider other aspects associated with changing its water provider new water
department equipment purchases, a significant expansion of city staffing, and administrative,
financial, political, and regulatory issues. Only the project costs relating to infrastructure have
been included in the scope of this study.

HNTB has developed an opinion of the total project costs needed to switch water providers,
summarized below:

Total Estimated Project Cost: $17.7 M

Water System Study Phase 2 Executive Summary
City of Westlake, Ohio ES-2 November 2011
RECOMMENDATIONS

HNTB recommends that the City of Westlake to continue to pursue the purchasing of water on a
wholesale basis from the Avon Lake Municipal Utilities (ALMU), based on the projection of
annual water system revenue from the Phase 1 study, the relatively low wholesale cost of water
from ALMU, and the opinion of project cost developed in the Phase 2 Study. A thorough
accounting analysis of the recommendations and a comprehensive water rate study are
recommended to confirm the feasibility of implementing the recommended improvements. It is
also recommended that Westlake obtain legal advice regarding the liability for CWD stranded
assets and other potential contract liabilities.

Water System Study Phase 2 Section 1
City of Westlake, Ohio 1-1 November 2011
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY

Historically, the water customers within the City of Westlake have been provided with service by
the Cleveland Water Division (CWD) through an agreement for direct service. Planned rate
increases and other contract changes from CWD have prompted the Westlake City Council to
pursue the evaluation of other options for water service. As a first step, a Phase 1 Water System
Study was completed by HNTB. The Phase 1 study focused on a preliminary assessment and cost
analysis of the water distribution system improvements necessary to enable the City of Westlake
to switch water service providers from CWD to Avon Lake Municipal Utilities (ALMU).

The Phase 2 Water System Study is aimed at determining the extent of new and upgraded
infrastructure necessary for the City of Westlake to provide municipal water service to its
customers from the water system owned and operated by ALMU. In order to achieve this, a
hydraulic model of the City of Westlakes current water distribution network was developed using
the WaterCAD software by Bentley Systems, Inc. The hydraulic model was used to test a variety
of scenarios and determine the best and most cost effective means to provide water service to
Westlake customers for average day, maximum day, and peak hour demand while meeting the
considerations given in Section 1.3 of this report.

1.2 REVISED PROJECTION OF WATER DEMAND

According to metered sales information from CWD, the City of Westlake water users purchased
approximately 1,473 million gallons (MG) of finished water from CWD in 2007, averaging just
over 4 million gallons per day (MGD). Although Westlake is a substantially developed
community, there is still room for growth in several areas. Therefore, to properly assess the
needed infrastructure for the City of Westlake going into the future, full buildout water demand
projections have been developed. Proposed scenarios will be evaluated using the projected
demand for the future buildout of the City.

In the Phase 1 Water System Study, future buildout water demand was determined using a
combination of the 2003 Guide Plan population projection and the Westlake Zone Map, provided
in that report. The Citys 2003 Guide Plan suggests a future buildout population of 40,250, an
approximate 23% increase over the most recent decennial census population of 32,729. Combined
with the projections for commercial and industrial land use, the Phase 1 study estimated an
average day buildout demand of 5.7 MGD.

The water demand projections in the Phase 1 study utilized a zoning map that reflected all zoning
changes through May 18, 2007. The revised projections use an updated zoning map which
includes all zoning changes through June 19, 2008. In addition to using updated zoning the
demand projections included in this Phase 2 study use land areas taken from the zoning map in
lieu of projected population to quantify the future buildout demand from residential customers.

This revised method projected an average day water demand approximately 8% higher than that
calculated in the Phase 1 Study.

For the revised demand projection, the number of single-family and multi-family residences was
determined using the zoning map dated June 19, 2008 by counting the parcels zoned for each use
and the units within each parcel. Residential water demand was then determined using a standard
value for per-capita demand of 100 gallons per day (gpd), with the assumption of 2.6 persons per
household in a single-family residential unit and 1.7 persons per household in a multi-family
residential unit.

Future Single-Family Residential Water Demand:
8,261 households x 2.6 persons/household = 21,479 persons
21,479 persons x 100 gpd/person = 2,147,900 gpd
Average flow = 1,492 gpm

Future Multi-family Residential Water Demand:
14,349 households x 1.7 persons/household = 24,393 persons
24,393 persons x 100 gpd/person = 2,439,330 gpd
Average flow = 1,694 gpm

Commercial demands have been calculated based on land area for each use. Commercial land use
includes office, retail, lodging, restaurants, health campus, educational buildings and City
buildings. Actual metered consumption was analyzed in the Phase 1 Study to determine a
realistic daily flow rate per acre. Based on the metered usage, a demand of 750 gpd/acre has been
assumed in the commercial water-demand calculations.

Future Commercial Water Demand:
760 acres x 750 gpd/acre = 570,000 gpd
Average flow = 396 gpm

Industrial demands have been calculated in the same manner as commercial demands, using land
area. Industrial land use includes office, laboratory and light industrial. Again, actual metered
consumption was analyzed in the Phase 1 Study to determine a realistic daily flow rate per acre.
Based on the metered usage, a demand of 1,000 gpd/acre has been assumed in the industrial
water-demand calculations.

Future Industrial Water Demand:
1,013 acres x 1,000 gpd/acre = 1,013,000 gpd
Average flow = 703 gpm

Table 1.1
Westlake Water Demand Constituents

Demand
(gpd)
Demand
(gpm)
Demand
(MGD)
Residential demand 4,587,190 3,186 4.6
Commercial demand 570,105 396 0.6
Industrial demand 1,013,090 703 1.0
Total Average Day Buildout Demand 6,170,385 4,285 6.2

The average day water demand for the City of Westlake at buildout is projected to be 6.2 million
gallons per day (MGD). Refer to Table 1.1 for a breakdown of the components of the average
water demand. The average day demand represents the total annual water use on a daily basis
(over a 24-hour period).

The maximum day and peak hour demands can be determined by applying multipliers to the
average day demand. Maximum day demand represents the average rate of demand during a
maximum usage day such as during hot weather. Water production capacity must, at a minimum,
equal the maximum day demand. To determine the maximum day water demand at buildout the
average day demand is multiplied by a factor of 2, which gives a projected value of 12.3 MGD. The
peak hour buildout demand is determined in similar fashion with a multiplier of 4 applied to the
average day demand, giving a projected value of 24.6 MGD. Peak hour demand is the peak hourly
usage during the maximum day. This may occur during one or more periods lasting several
hours. Peak hour demand is primarily used in sizing storage tanks and booster pump facilities.

Table 1.2
Summary of Demand Scenarios
Demand Scenario Demand (gpm) Demand (MGD)
Average Day 4,285 6.2
Maximum Day 8,570 12.3
Peak Hour 17,140 24.6

1.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR ANALYSIS

When assessing infrastructure improvements in a water distribution system, regulatory
requirements, waterworks standards and customer needs should all be considered. For the City of
Westlake, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) is the primary regulatory agency
governing water distribution systems in Ohio. In addition to addressing regulatory concerns, this
Phase 2 study takes into consideration the guidelines from the 2007 Edition of the Recommended
Standards for Water Works (Ten States Standards) and the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) standards. These references were applied as they pertain to performance requirements
of the distribution system components.

In a meeting on April 26, 2011, OEPA Northeast District staff expressed that their primary
concern, related to infrastructure, would be that the City has access to sufficient finished water
storage capable of equalizing peak hour demands and supplying needed fire flows. Other
concerns expressed at this meeting included existence of a backflow prevention program and
numerous staffing and water quality testing concerns.

The guidelines used when assessing the different scenarios developed during the study pertain to
pressure upper and lower limits, pipe velocity, pipe headloss, and ability to meet fire flow
demand. These guidelines have been pulled from both the Ten States and AWWA standards and
are listed below:

Normal working pressure in the distribution system should be between 60 and 80 psi and
not less than 35 psi

Minimum acceptable system pressure is 20 psi

Pressures should not be allowed to go much higher than 100 psi on a regular basis, as
doing so can cause main breaks and significant water loss through leakage.

Pipe velocity should not exceed 5 feet per second (fps)

Pipe headloss should not exceed 6 ft/1,000 ft

Fire flow demands are discussed more fully in Section 2.2.2

SECTION 2
DEVELOPMENT OF THE HYDRAULIC MODEL

2.1 BACKGROUND

Hydraulic models are widely employed and can be applied in a number of useful ways. Hydraulic
modeling software affords the user the ability to analyze the impacts of changes to the distribution
system by making changes within the model. It can be used for long term planning or for
evaluating major capital improvements, small line extensions, the impact of large new customers,
or other various system changes both physical and operational. More recently, hydraulic
modeling software packages have been expanded to include functions such as energy
management, water quality simulations, and criticality analysis.

The hydraulic modeling software utilized for the Phase 2 study is called WaterCAD and is a
product of Bentley Systems, Incorporated. WaterCAD is a user friendly hydraulic modeling
software for use with water distribution systems. This software uses the Gradient Algorithm to
solve the conservation of mass and conservation of energy problems that describe the system.
WaterCADs outputs include pipe flow, velocity, pressure, and available fire flow. In addition, the
model output from WaterCAD is easily integrated with both CAD and GIS environments for
mapping or additional analysis.

2.2 DEVELOPING THE MODEL

2.2.1 Physical Parameters

In order to build the hydraulic model, detailed information about the distribution system being
modeled is needed to create an accurate representation of the system. This information includes
pipe locations, interconnections, material, diameter, roughness, elevation, and installation year
(pipe age) as well as the locations of closed valves, the demand from the systems customers, and
the operating conditions of all pumps and storage facilities in the system.

The City of Westlake maintains mapping in AutoCAD of all water distribution infrastructure
including water mains, hydrants, and shut-off valves. This mapping was provided to HNTB and
utilized in developing the hydraulic model piping network in WaterCAD. All piping 6 inches in
diameter and larger was included in the hydraulic model with the exception of short dead-end
mains to keep the model small and able to make quick calculation runs. This is standard practice
when modeling water distribution networks and has not been shown to have any appreciable
effects on the results from model calculation runs. The hydrant and shut-off valve locations were
also not included in the hydraulic model because they are not essential to the model as it is used
for this study.

In addition to the pipe network mapping, the City of Westlake also maintains a database of
information regarding all of the Westlake-owned pipes in the system. This database is organized
by street name and includes pipe diameter, installation year, type of joint, and the pipe length.
This database was used to input the pipe diameter and pipe installation year. The version used for
developing the model was last updated on November 23, 2010. The pipe material was included in

the database in only a few instances. Therefore, where pipe material was unknown, the
installation year was used to determine the pipe material likely used. The following guidelines
were used in determining the pipe material based on the pipe installation year:

Cast iron was the pipe material of choice in the mid- to late-twenties when the oldest
water mains in the City of Westlake were installed
Ductile iron pipe was not introduced to the marketplace until 1955 (DIPRA).
PVC pipe has not been used within the City of Westlake.

Another parameter that can be determined from the pipe installation year is an initial value for
the pipe roughness. The WaterCAD software uses the Hazen-Williams formula to calculate
headloss within the pipe network. The Hazen-Williams formula uses a pipe roughness coefficient,
C, along with pipe length and diameter to relate flow to head loss for each pipe within the model.
Table 2.1 gives a list of the initial roughness coefficients used for the pipes in the City of
Westlakes model before the model was calibrated.

Table 2.1
Hazen-Williams Roughness Coefficients
Material Installation Years C - value
Ductile Iron 2007 - present 140
Ductile Iron 1995 - 2006 130
Ductile Iron 1983 - 1994 120
Ductile Iron 1971 - 1982 110
Ductile Iron prior to 1971 100
Cast Iron 1970 - 1980 90
Cast Iron 1960 - 1969 80
Cast Iron 1950 - 1959 70
Cast Iron 1940 - 1949 60
Cast Iron 1920 - 1939 50

The elevations in the model were set using topographic mapping provided by the Cuyahoga
County Engineers Office. This mapping provides ground elevations for the distribution area
which can be used to determine node elevations for the hydraulic model. Ground elevations are
used rather than pipe elevations due to the fact that fire flow standards are based on available
pressure at the hydrant, which is nearly at ground level, not the pressure in the main. Ground
elevations are also typically known to a higher degree of accuracy than main elevations. Figure 2.1
below shows a screen shot of the finished model.

Figure 2.1
Screen Shot of the Completed Hydraulic Model

2.2.2 Demand Allocation

As discussed in Section 1.2 of this report, the projections for the City of Westlakes daily average
water demand were developed by means of land use areas from the Citys zoning map. The same
map was used in determining the allocation of total demand throughout the distribution system.
From the zoning map, the average day demand was determined for each residential subdivision
by taking a count of households and using multipliers for persons per household and gallons per
day (gpd) per person. For each commercial or industrial area, demand was based on the land area
(acres) with a multiplier for gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre). The calculated demand was then
divided up evenly among the nodes within each zoning area. The maximum day and peak hour
demand alternatives were created by using a global multiplier in the hydraulic model.

As demand was allocated throughout the distribution system, consideration was given to the ten
largest users in the City of Westlake distribution system. The top ten users were determined from
billing information provided by CWD. Table 2.2 contains a list of the top users and their
associated daily demand.

Table 2.2
Top Ten Water Users
Property Address Property Type Demand (gpd)
29000 Center Ridge Road Health Campus 45,835
159 Crocker Park Boulevard Shopping Center 28,936
1100 Crocker Road Hotel 24,829
25050 Sperry Road Hotel 24,717
27830 Hilliard Boulevard School 23,587
28600 Center Ridge Road Multifamily Residential 22,181
25225 Detroit Road Office Building 21,672
25735 First Street Commercial 21,245
30167 Detroit Road Shopping Center 20,804
27601 Westchester Parkway Multifamily Residential 20,430

In addition to the daily water usage demands of the customers in the City of Westlake, the
hydraulic model accounts for the fire protection demands of the structures within the City.
Allocating fire flow demand can be completed using a few simple steps within the WaterCAD
software. First, the base fire flow constraints can be set simultaneously for every node in the
system by inputting the pressure lower limit (20 psi), the needed fire flow, and the fire flow upper
limit in the fire flow alternative dialog box. Due to the mainly residential nature of the
community, residential fire flow was used as the base flow. Table 2.3 gives the needed fire flow for
1- and 2- family dwellings not exceeding 2 stories in height required by the ISO Guide for
Determination of Needed Fire Flow.

Table 2.3
Needed Fire Flow for Residential Buildings (not exceeding 2 stories)
Distance between buildings Needed Fire Flow
More than 100 500 gpm
31 100 750 gpm
11 30 1000 gpm
10 or less 1,500 gpm

The Cuyahoga County Topographic survey picked up buildings as well as the elevation contours
of the area. Using this mapping, it was determined that the majority of homes within the City of
Westlake have a 30 ft. distance between buildings. Therefore, the base needed fire flow was set at
1,000 gpm according to the values given in Table 2.3. The maximum needed fire flow for
habitational buildings, according to the ISO Guide, is 3,500 gpm. Accordingly, the fire flow upper
limit was set to 3,500 gpm in WaterCAD.
As a second and final step, the needed fire flows from the City of Westlakes Public Protection
Summary Report from the Insurance Services Office, Inc. were input to the models fire flow
alternative. The needed fire flows from the Citys ISO report were calculated for 27 locations with
buildings of various sizes and hazard classifications throughout the community. These locations

were tested and the data was reviewed by an ISO field representative to determine the Citys
Public Protection Classification Number.

By evaluating these 27 locations separately, we can compare available fire flow calculated by the
hydraulic model for the new scenarios with the available fire flow measured for the existing
system. The proposed changes to the distribution system will be evaluated for their ability to
maintain the Citys current classification. The Hydrant Flow Data Summary from the ISO Public
Protection Summary Report for the City of Westlake, Ohio is given in Appendix B of this report.

2.3 CALIBRATION

In calibrating the hydraulic model, extensive hydrant testing was completed by the City of
Westlake. This testing was implemented to measure the pipe roughness of a sampling of various
pipes throughout the distribution system. Testing sections were chosen based on pipe age, pipe
diameter, and their importance for conveying water from the proposed ALMU supply
connection. The locations of the testing sections are illustrated in Figure 2.2. In each case, the test
section chosen was used as a representative sample and the C-value calculated from the test was
applied to neighboring pipes. Measured pipe roughness factors can be used for nearby pipes of
the same material and age but should not be used in further locations since water quality and
velocity may have been dissimilar in those areas and would have affected pipe roughness quite
differently.

The testing was completed using three (3) hydrants for each test. One hydrant was used for flow,
to create a higher velocity and therefore a higher pressure drop across the test section of pipe. The
other two hydrants defined the ends of the test section and were fitted with gauges to measure
pressure at each end, both before (static) and after (dynamic) the flow hydrant is opened. The
static pressure difference was then subtracted from the dynamic pressure difference to solve for
the headloss in the test section. Doing this removes any head difference that is actually due to
elevation difference from the calculations. The head loss is then used with the measured hydrant
flow and the pipe length and diameter to calculate the C-value of the test section. Appendix C
includes the hydrant testing instructions, data form, and the maps of testing locations.

The following is the Hazen-Williams equation, which was used to solve for the C-value of each
test section:

C = S.SS1
-2.63
I
0.54
E
-0.54

Where

= Rotc o low in gpm

= iomctcr o pipc in incbcs

I = Icngtb o pipc in cct

E = EcoJ loss in cct

Measured C-values that varied substantially from the C-values given in Table 2.1 were re-
evaluated or confirmed by doing another test on that section of pipe. Once all of the sections C-
values were calculated and verified, they were input to the hydraulic model for all relevant
sections of pipe. Figure 2.3 shows a color-coded map of the calibrated Hazen-Williams C-values
for the existing pipes in the City of Westlake distribution system.

SECTION 3
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The improvement alternatives detailed in this section are developed from the recommendations
proposed in the Phase 1 Water System Study. These alternatives are all focused around the
proposed supply of finished water from Avon Lake Municipal Utility (ALMU). This new supply
will bring water into the City of Westlake from the direction opposite that of the current supply
and will require new infrastructure to convey water across the distribution network.

Each of the scenarios evaluated in the Phase 2 study are built upon a base scenario with several
basic elements included. First, ownership of all 16-inch and smaller water mains within the City
will continue to be the property of the City of Westlake, and all 20-inch and larger water mains
will continue to be owned and operated by Cleveland Water Division (CWD). Second, all
disconnections as shown in Figure 3.1 will be completed to separate the City of Westlakes
distribution system from the CWD system and other surrounding systems. This includes a total
of 26 disconnections from mains conveying water from Westlake, and 33 disconnections from
CWD transmission mains conveying water into Westlake. In addition, all reconnections as shown
in Figure 3.1 will be completed to reconnect the City of Bay Village to the CWD system. These
reconnections include a total of approximately 10,300 feet of 16-inch water main and 9,400 feet of
12-inch water main.

The third element of the base scenario involves the pressure available to the City of Westlake via
the ALMU connection(s). For the Phase 2 Study, build-out water demand projections were
provided to ALMU and ALMUs water system model was revised to simulate new flows to
Westlake. According to their model, ALMU can provide a pressure of 154 psi at the northern
connection points to the City of Westlake. The ALMU feed to the Citys distribution system is
modeled as a reservoir with a water level of 355 feet (2.31 feet = 1 psi) to simulate the provided
pressure. In the scenario with two connections, the second connection point (at Center Ridge
Road) has a pressure of 80 psi as provided by the ALMU model. This connection point was
modeled as a reservoir with a water level of 185 feet.

3.2 PRESSURE ZONES

The existing distribution network within the City of Westlake consists of two pressure zones,
whose delineation is based on the topography of the area. The division between the two pressure
zones is roughly parallel to and south of Detroit Road. Initial model scenarios included the
existing pressure zones delineation with a separate water feed from ALMU to each zone. For this
configuration, the pressure coming into each of the pressure zones could be regulated separately
to optimize the pressure in that zone. Figure 3.2 illustrates the division between the two existing
pressure zones within the City of Westlake.

Another scenario looked at modifying the existing pressure zone boundary and feeding water
from the South pressure zone into the North pressure zone via pressure reducing valves. The

northern pressure zone customers are at a lower average elevation than the southern pressure
zone and therefore would have a higher pressure due to elevation difference. The changes to the
zone boundary associated with this scenario could be achieved by opening certain valves and
closing others and would therefore not require major system additions.

Finally, a third configuration was evaluated that combined the two existing pressure zones into a
single pressure zone. No new piping connections would be required to create a single pressure
zone because the existing pressure zones are separated by closed valves. However, a single
pressure zone would be more challenging in terms of optimizing the pressure in the system due to
the elevation difference across the distribution system. The system elevations range from 629 ft. in
the northwest corner of the City to 752 ft. in the southeastern portion.

3.3 CONNECTIONS

In order to convey the needed water demands from Avon Lake Municipal Utilities (ALMU), the
City of Westlake will need to be connected to the ETL1 transmission main. This existing 36-inch
main conveys finished water from the Moore Road Booster Pump Station east along the Norfolk
Southern Railroad tracks and then south along Lear Nagle Road to Detroit Road. From Detroit
Road the ETL1 transmission main decreases to a 30-inch pipe and continues to Center Ridge
Road where it continues as a 24-inch transmission main south into North Ridgeville.

The Phase 1 System Study looked at making two new connections to ALMU via Detroit Road (20-
inch) and Center Ridge Road (16-inch). Figure 3.3 illustrates these proposed connections which
would bring finished water into the City of Westlake from the ALMU-owned ETL1 transmission
main. In the Phase 2 study, the effectiveness of these proposed connections is evaluated by
comparing the available pressure under different demand scenarios.

In addition to looking at the two-connection scenario described above, the modeling effort looked
at using only one connection to ALMU to convey the needed water demand to Westlake. There
are several options for a single connection that could optimize the system design. The most
feasible options include using existing right-of-way corridors for the installation of a new water
transmission main. The four scenarios that were considered during analysis are shown in Figure
3.3 and are described below:

Clemens Road Connection One 30-inch transmission main heading east from Lear
Nagle Road along Chester Road and slightly north to Clemens Road, the transmission
main then follows Clemens Road east, turns south along Bassett Road and connects into
the distribution system at the intersection of Bassett Road and Detroit Road.

Detroit Road Connection One 30-inch transmission main heading east from Lear Nagle
Road along Detroit Road and connecting into the system either at the intersection of
Detroit Road and Bradley Road or the intersection of Bassett Road and Detroit Road

Bassett Road Connection One 30-inch transmission main will connect where the ETL1
main turns south from the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks onto Lear Nagle Road, head

east along the railroad to the intersection of Bassett Road and Crocker Road, continue
south along Bassett Road and connect into the system at the intersection of Bassett Road
and Detroit Road

Schwartz Road Connection One 30-inch transmission main heading east from Lear
Nagle Road along Schwartz Road and connecting into the distribution system at the
intersection of Bradley Road and Schwartz Road.

3.4 TRANSMISSION MAINS

Since all of the transmission mains (20-inch and larger) are property of Cleveland Water Division
(CWD), the City of Westlake will need to install new transmission mains to convey finished water
from ALMUs ETL1 transmission main into Westlakes distribution system. There are three
transmission main configurations, each of which corresponds to one or more specific connection
scenarios. Each configuration includes completing the connection along Crocker Road between
Coventry Drive and Schwartz Road (1,400 feet).

The first transmission main configuration was developed in the Phase 1 Water System Study. In
this configuration three new transmission mains were recommended which would convey water
from the two proposed connections at Detroit Road and Center Ridge Road. These mains are
described in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1
Proposed Transmission Mains for Two-Connection Scenario
Location (street, etc.)
Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet)
Detroit Road, western corporate boundary to Clague Road 20 24,250
Crocker Road, Coventry Drive to Schwartz Road 16 1,400
Center Ridge Road, western corporate boundary to Clague Road 16 28,970

The second transmission main configuration corresponds to the Clemens, Detroit and Bassett
Road connection options. These connections all hook into the Westlake distribution system at the
intersection of Detroit Road and Bassett Road. All three options are proposed to convey water via
a 24-inch main along Detroit Road from Bassett Road to Dover Center Road (6,300 feet), with a
connection at that intersection, and then south along Dover Center Road to the intersection of
Dover Center Road and Hilliard Boulevard (2,700 feet).

The third configuration correlates to the Schwartz Road connection which hooks into the
Westlake distribution system at the intersection of Schwartz and Bradley Road. The transmission
mains associated with this option are all 24-inch in diameter. From the intersection of Schwartz
and Bradley, the transmission main travels first south and then east before connecting into the
system again at the intersection of Schwartz and Hilliard (1,800 feet). The transmission main
continues east along Hilliard Boulevard and ends at a connection near the intersection of Hilliard
with Crocker Road (3,000 feet).

3.5 FINISHED WATER STORAGE

Currently, storage for the City of Westlake is supplied by CWD via a combination of the Bassett
Road tank and on-site storage at the Crown Water Treatment Plant, located on the northeastern
edge of Westlake. With a switch to ALMU water supply both of these storage facilities will no
longer be connected to Westlakes distribution system. Therefore, the option of constructing a
storage tank within the Westlake city limits has been included in the scenario evaluations.

Sizing for the storage tank was based on the need for equalization storage to cover the peak hour
demand for Westlakes system. The peak hour demand, estimated to be 24.6 MGD, cannot be
fully supplied by the proposed ALMU supply at a pressure that would keep the entire system
above the 35 psi minimum working requirement. By adding a tank into the system, water can be
added to the tank during times of lower system demand (such as during the nighttime hours) and
then extracted from the when needed to supplement supply. Typical equalization storage capacity
ranges from 10 to 30 percent of the average day demand depending upon the size for the system
(10% for large systems, 30% for small systems). For the City of Westlake, a 1 MG tank was chosen.
This represents approximately 16% of the average day demand of 6.2 MGD. This sizing will be
verified by the hydraulic model.

Proposed locations for a storage tank have been chosen based on their proximity to areas of lower
pressure and the availability of land in the area. Three locations were selected as shown in Figure
3.4 and described below:

Location #1: Middle School, South of the intersection of Hilliard Boulevard and Dover
Center Road; ground elevation = 707 feet

Location #2: Clague Park, North of the intersection of Hilliard Boulevard and Clague
Road; ground elevation = 696 feet

Location #3: Fire Station, North of the intersection of Center Ridge Road and Columbia
Road ; ground elevation = 718 feet

3.6 INFRASTRUCTURE FROM CWD

Initially, it was thought that the City of Westlake might gain some benefit from acquiring one or
more pieces of infrastructure from Cleveland Water Division (CWD). The benefits of acquiring
infrastructure from CWD could include lower capital cost for needed infrastructure and avoiding
the difficulties of installing new infrastructure along busy thoroughfares.

The two pieces of infrastructure that were considered for acquisition are the 0.5 million gallon
(MG) tank at Bassett Road just south of Detroit Road and the 24-inch transmission main running
parallel to Detroit Road. It should be noted that the existing 24-inch main along Detroit Road is
an older main that is likely to have a decreased capacity due to tuberculation and increased
roughness. This transmission main could be improved in place by technologies such as pipe-
bursting or slip lining. However, the cost and effort may not be worthwhile investments for the
City of Westlake when consideration is given to the geographic distribution of demand.

SECTION 4
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This section addresses the results from the hydraulic model of the various improvement
alternatives discussed in the previous section. As different scenarios were developed from the
alternatives, each was evaluated based on the criteria listed in Section 1.3. Additional factors were
taken into consideration when determining the best possible scenarios. These factors include
constructability, cost and community concerns. Although these are not essential to the operation
of the distribution system, they provide further means for assessing each scenario.

4.2 SCENARIO ANALYSIS

The recommended improvements that were developed in the Phase 1 Water System Study were
used to create the initial proposed improvement scenario for the City of Westlakes distribution
system. This scenario included two connections to ALMU, one at Detroit Road and one at Center
Ridge Road, more than 54,000 feet of new transmission mains (see Table 3.1), no storage tank, no
infrastructure from Cleveland Water Division and no change from the existing pressure zone
boundary. Analysis determined that this scenario is capable of meeting the criteria listed in
Section 1.3 for both the average day and maximum day demand scenarios, but cannot meet the
minimum pressure requirement for the peak hour scenario.

4.2.1 Pressure Zone Analysis

In the existing distribution system arrangement, there is a wide range of pressure across the
system despite the division of the system into two pressure zones. From the static pressures taken
across the system at the 38 hydrant testing sites, it was determined that current system pressures
range between approximately 116 psi and 44 psi, a difference of 72 psi. From the standpoint of
elevation difference within the distribution system, the expected pressure range within the
network should be close to 53 psi (123 feet elevation difference x 2.31 psi/ft of water = 53 psi).
This information, along with a desire for simplified operations, makes the use of a single pressure
zone an attractive choice for the City of Westlake.

To determine if a single pressure zone would be adequate, the Phase 1 scenario discussed above
was altered to create a single pressure zone in the hydraulic model. The modeling run results
showed a more even distribution of pressure across the distribution system as well as higher
minimum pressures and a tighter range of pressures. These results can be attributed to improved
access to the southern pressure zones areas to water conveyed via the 20-inch transmission main
into the northern pressure zone areas.

A third option was addressed in the analysis of pressure zones. This option involved feeding water
from the south pressure zone to the north pressure zone via pressure reducing valves, as discussed
in Section 3. This alternative does provide a smaller pressure range throughout the system and an
improvement in the minimum system pressure, but the single pressure zone alternative provides
better pressures and is preferred by the Westlake engineering staff for purposes of operational

simplicity. Because Westlake can effectively be served by a single pressure zone and it is the
preferred option, all further alternatives will be evaluated with a single pressure zone. Table 4.1
shows the pressure range, or the difference between the maximum and minimum calculated
system pressures, for each of the three demand scenarios for the one- and two-pressure zone
alternatives.
Table 4.1
Pressure Range for Phase 1 Scenarios
Demand
Scenario
Pressure Range (Difference between Max and Min pressure)
Two Pressure Zones
(Existing Division)
Two Pressure Zones
(Updated Division)
One Pressure Zone
Average Day 109 psi 67 psi 54 psi
Max Day 125 psi 54 psi 56 psi
Peak Hour 162 psi 59 psi 59 psi

4.2.2 Connection Analysis

In the Phase 1 scenario, two connections are used to convey water from ALMU into the City of
Westlake; a 20-inch line via Detroit Road and a 16-inch line via Center Ridge Road. There are
four single-connection scenarios that have also been considered. These scenarios are described in
detail in Section 3.3. All of the connection scenarios include the use of a 30-inch transmission
main. The main is sized to keep the pipe velocity below 5 feet per second (fps) at the maximum
day demand (12.3 MGD). It is important to note that a 30-inch main is also capable of conveying
the peak hour demand (24.6 MGD) at less than 10 fps. Table 4.2 gives the minimum system
pressure calculated by the hydraulic model for each scenario.

Table 4.2
Minimum System Pressures (Single-Connection Scenarios) for Max Day Demand
Connection Scenario Minimum System Pressure
Clemens Road 56 psi
Detroit Road 87 psi
Bassett Road 55 psi
Schwartz Road 41 psi

Analysis of the four single-connection scenarios reveals that each of them is capable of providing
the maximum day system demand while meeting the 35 psi minimum pressure requirement. In
order to determine which scenario is the optimal choice for the City of Westlake, cost and
constructability become important factors in the decision. The length of required transmission
main for each connection scenario is used to help evaluate both of these factors.

Table 4.3 gives the approximate length of transmission main piping that would be required within
City of Westlake limits for each of the connection scenarios. The Detroit Road scenario provides
the highest minimum system pressure and will require less transmission main piping than the
Clemens Road and Bassett Road scenarios. However, the Detroit Road corridor is a busy
commercial corridor and contains a number of existing underground utilities. These issues make
construction in the area a greater challenge which can affect the amount of time required to
complete construction and will likely come with increased cost.

The Schwartz Road scenario will require the least amount of transmission main (5,500 feet less
than Detroit Road) and it meets the minimum pressure requirements for maximum day demand.
In addition, the Schwartz Road area is a residential area which is expected to have a fewer number
of construction challenges due to the smaller amount of traffic along this thoroughfare and the
fact that this corridor is not congested with many other existing buried utility lines. The
minimization of these types of construction issues can lower the cost of construction as well as
accelerating the construction schedule. Construction in the area of Schwartz Road would also
have a lower impact on the community due to reduced impact to traffic and shorter construction
timeline. The Schwartz Road connection was therefore chosen based on the expected lower
installation cost, the decrease in expected installation challenges, and the reduced impact to the
community.

Table 4.3
Transmission Main Lengths for Single-Connection Scenarios
Connection Scenario Length of Transmission Main
Clemens Road 9,300 feet
Detroit Road 7,900 feet
Bassett Road 10,700 feet
Schwartz Road 2,400 feet

4.2.3 Transmission Main Analysis

The proposed connection scenario includes a 30-inch transmission main from ALMUs ETL1 to
the intersection of Schwartz Road and Bradley Road. As discussed in Section 3.4, the transmission
main configuration is determined by which connection scenario is chosen. Therefore, the third
transmission main configuration from Section 3.4 is proposed. This configuration includes
approximately 4,400 feet of 24-inch pipe extending south and then east from the intersection of
Schwartz Road and Bradley Road, connecting into the system again at Schwartz Road and Hilliard
Boulevard, then continuing east to the intersection of Hilliard Boulevard and Crocker Road. Since
this transmission main configuration adds less than the 5,500 feet of additional transmission main
that the Detroit Road connection would have required, while meeting the design criteria, it
provides the most favorable option for the City of Westlake.

Table 4.4
System Pressures for Schwartz Connection Scenario
Demand Scenario Maximum Mean Minimum
Average Day 167 psi 138 psi 113 psi
Maximum Day 152 psi 123 psi 94 psi
Peak Hour 124 psi 69 psi 26 psi

The system pressures shown in the table above illustrate the highest available pressures to the City
of Westlake users with the full available ALMU pressure open to the distribution system. There
are two important things to note here. The first thing to note is the presence of maximum
pressures much higher than the suggested 100 psi limit mentioned in Section 1.3. This issue can
be addressed via the use of a pressure reducing valve at the connection point from ALMU. A

pressure reducing valve will allow the City of Westlake to regulate how much water pressure is
coming into the distribution system, therefore allowing more control over the system pressure.
The other important thing to note is that the minimum system pressure at peak hour is below the
35 psi lower limit for normal working pressure. This deficiency can be corrected using additional
transmission piping, but since finished water storage is both required by OEPA Northeast district
and good practice for any water system, a tank is proposed for providing pressure at peak hour.

4.2.4 Finished Water Storage Analysis

In order to provide the needed finished water storage, three tank locations have been evaluated to
determine the optimal location for supplying the distribution system at peak hour demand. The
three locations were evaluated in the hydraulic model as three elevated tanks of identical design
(including total volume and overflow elevation relative to ground elevation), to determine the
effect of each location on the minimum system pressures in the southeast region of the
distribution system.

Table 4.5
System Pressures for Alternative Tank Locations
Tank Location Maximum Mean Minimum
Location #1 115 psi 87 psi 61 psi

Analysis of the three tank locations reveals that the tank at Center Ridge Road and Columbia
Road (Fire Station) provides the greatest improvement in minimum system pressure, as
illustrated in Table 4.5. Additionally, it was determined that a 1 million gallon (MG) tank would
be adequate to both supply the needed flow equalization at peak hour demand and to maintain a
portion of storage for emergency use. Emergency situations include pipeline failures, natural
disasters and water treatment plant failures. The final amount of storage capacity that will be
required for Westlake by the Ohio EPA will be based on the approved capacity that is determined
for ALMU based on their proposed system improvements.

In anticipation of the aesthetic concerns of property owners in the local vicinity, a ground level
tank with a small package pump station is proposed to avoid obstructing the skyline. Additional
benefits to ground storage include reduced occurrence of freezing, the ability to adapt to changing
system hydraulics by changing pumps or controls, and reduced construction cost per unit of
volume when compared to elevated storage.

4.2.5 CWD Infrastructure Analysis

Early in the scenario analysis process, the value of acquiring the existing 24-inch transmission
along Detroit Road was investigated. This existing main would only be of value to the City of
Westlake if one of the three connection scenarios that hook into the system at the Detroit Road
and Bassett Road intersection was chosen. Since the Schwartz Road connection is being
recommended, the 24-inch CWD transmission main is not considered to be a valuable asset to
the City of Westlake.

Regarding the existing 0.5 MG Bassett Road tank, investigation as to the design of the tank
revealed that the overflow elevation of the tank was set to provide only about 50 psi
(approximately 115 feet of water). Since the target system pressure range is 60 to 80 psi, this tank
is not capable of providing any value to the City of Westlake.

4.3 FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS

After the basic infrastructure needs of the distribution system have been determined from
analysis of the different demand scenarios, the fire flow needs of the users within the system must
be addressed. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, most of the users within the distribution system need
1,000 gpm for fire flow. Before the needed fire flows calculated by the ISO were input to the
hydraulic model the fire flow analysis was run with a 1,000 gpm fire flow requirement at every
node. Analysis revealed that all but one node in the system can meet the 1,000 gpm fire flow
requirement at maximum day demand. The one node that does not meet the constraint is at the
end of a 6-inch main on the far east side of the system (Maybelle Drive). The users that
correspond to that node can get approximately 740 gpm while maintaining a system pressure of
20 psi. Replacement of this 6-inch water main with a new 8-inch water main will allow this node
to meet the 1,000 gpm fire flow requirement.

In the next step, the 27 locations which were tested by the ISO field representative were evaluated
for the needed fire flow calculated in the ISO report. As of the July 15, 2010 hydrant tests
conducted by the ISO field representative, there were 9 tested sites that did not meet the needed
fire flow requirement. When the test sites were evaluated in the hydraulic model with the
proposed system improvements the number of sites that do not meet the needed fire flow
requirement drops to five.

4.4 FINAL SYSTEM CHECK

In a final check of the proposed distribution system improvements, all piping within the
distribution system was evaluated to ensure that none of the water mains have a velocity greater
than 5 feet per second at maximum day demand. One 8-inch water main along Porter Road from
Center Ridge Road to Fall River Drive was found to have a high velocity. This main is proposed to
be upsized from 8-inch to 12-inch which will reduce the pipe velocity to 3.3 fps and increase
conveyance through this location by approximately 170 gpm. Additionally, it is suggested that a
12-inch connection be made along Southbridge Circle from Parkwood Drive to Dover Center
Road (approximately 1,350 feet) to help provide better pressures to the southeast portion of the
system and to loop the existing 12-inch main along Dover Center Road back into the system.
Figure 4.1 illustrates all of the proposed system improvements.

SECTION 5
ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

The estimated costs in this section include only the project costs for construction within the city
limits of Westlake. These costs include the cost of project financing, legal services and
engineering at 25% of the estimated construction cost. A 25% contingency has also been included
because this is a planning level cost estimate. Any costs associated with conveying finished water
to the western city limits from Avon Lake Municipal Utilities (ALMU) have not been included in
the following cost estimate and are assumed to be paid for by ALMU. Appendix D contains a
letter from ALMU that discusses a preliminary estimate of the costs associated with providing
finished water to the City of Westlake up to the city limits.

Table 5.1
Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
ITEM / DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1
AMOUNT
2

Storage Tanks
1 Million Gallon Ground Storage Tank 1 EA $800,000 $800,000
Package Pump Station 1 EA $450,000 $450,000
Water Mains
30" DI Pipe for New Transmission Main
(Schwartz Road) 2400 LF $200 $480,000
(Schwartz Road) 4400 LF $130 $572,000
16" DI Pipe for Replacement Mains
(Reconnections between CWD and neighboring
communities) 10300 LF $100 $1,030,000
(Crocker Road) 1400 LF $100 $140,000
12" DI Pipe for Replacement Mains
(Reconnections between CWD and neighboring
communities) 9400 LF $75 $705,000
(Porter Rd and Southbridge Circle) 2100 LF $125 $263,000
Fittings - DI Full Body
30" - 90 Bend 4 EA $5,000 $20,000
30" - 45 Bend 8 EA $4,000 $32,000
24" - 90 Bend 4 EA $4,650 $19,000
24" - 45 Bend 6 EA $3,500 $21,000
16" - 90 Bend 6 EA $1,500 $9,000
16" - 45 Bend 12 EA $1,500 $18,000
12" - 90 Bend 6 EA $750 $5,000
12" - 45 Bend 12 EA $650 $8,000
Valves
30" Butterfly 8 EA $20,000 $160,000
24" Butterfly 4 EA $15,000 $60,000
16" Butterfly 12 EA $3,750 $45,000
12" Butterfly 28 EA $2,250 $63,000

ITEM / DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Wet Taps
30" x 12" - Schwartz Rd and ALMU ETL1 1 EA $15,000 $15,000
24" x 12" - Schwartz Rd and Hilliard Boulevard 1 EA $7,500 $8,000
24" x 12" - Schwartz Rd and Crocker 1 EA $7,500 $8,000
Meter Pits & Meters
30" Connection at Schwartz Road with 30"
Pressure Reducing Valve 1 EA $75,000.00 $75,000
Casing Bores
48" Casing Bore for 30" Carrier pipe 150 LF $800 $120,000
28" Casing Bore for 12" Carrier Pipe 150 LF $400 $60,000
Miscellaneous Construction
Granular Backfill 13500 CY $25 $338,000
Pavement Repair
3
2500 SY $40 $100,000
Sidewalk Repair
3
2500 SY $30 $75,000
Curb Repair
3
2000 LF $20 $40,000
Service Meter Replacements 11000 EA $350 $3,850,000
Electrical @ Wholesale Meter Pits 1 EA $7,500 $8,000
Radio Telemetry @ Wholesale Meter Pits 1 EA $5,000 $5,000
Disconnect from Cleveland Water 33 EA $7,500 $248,000
Disconnect from Mains Leaving Westlake (to
North Olmstead, Fairview Park and Bay Village) 26 EA $7,500 $195,000
Clean up & Restoration 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
SUB-TOTAL $10,095,000
Mobilization/Demobilization/Insurance (10%) $1,010,000
SUBTOTAL $11,105,000
Non-Construction Costs Project Financing,
Legal Services, Engineering (25%) $2,776,000
Third Party Retainer for Emergency Water Main
Break Repairs during system start-up 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
SUBTOTAL $14,181,000
Contingency (25%) $3,545,000
Estimated Total Project Costs $17,726,000
4
NOTE! This estimate represents our judgment as professionals familiar with the construction industry.
We cannot and do not guarantee that bids will not vary from this estimate.

1. Unit price estimate includes installation.
2. Rounded to the nearest $1,000.
3. Does not include complete street rehabilitation.
4. Does not reflect any work outside the City of Westlake Corporate Limits.

SECTION 6
RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 REVIEW OF ANALYSIS

The Phase 2 Water System Study provides an updated assessment of the system improvements
necessary to switch to Avon Lake Municipal Utilities (ALMU) as Westlakes sole water provider.
The proposed improvements, summarized in Table 6.1, have been developed through careful
consideration of regulatory requirements, standard design criteria, potential costs and the
preferences of the community being served.

Table 6.1
Overview of Recommended Improvements
Item Quantity
1-MG Ground Storage Tank 1
Packaged Pump Station 1
30-inch New Transmission Main (Schwartz Road) 2,400 feet
24-inch New Transmission Main (Schwartz Road) 4,400 feet
16-inch New Transmission Main (Crocker Road) 1,400 feet
16-inch Replacement Mains 10,300 feet
12-inch New Transmission Main (Porter Rd and Southbridge Rd) 2,100 feet
12-inch Replacement Mains 9,400 feet
48-inch and 28-inch casing bores beneath roadways 300 feet
Master Meter and Meter Pit with PRV 1
Service Meter Replacements 11,000
Pressure Reducing Valves Customers TBD

The engineering opinion of the capital costs associated with switchover to Avon Lake Municipal
Utilities (ALMU) as Westlakes sole water provider totals approximately $17.7 million. This is a
significant reduction in capital cost from the Phase 1 Study cost estimate of approximately $33.6
million. It should be noted that the Phase 1 cost estimate included the cost of transmission mains
outside of the City of Westlake Corporation Limits, which represents approximately $2.1 million
of the $33.6 million estimate. The Phase 2 Study cost estimate did not include any work outside
the City of Westlake Corporation Limits. Costs associated with stranded assets as defined by
Cleveland Water Division (CWD) would be in addition to the construction cost estimate, but
could potentially be negotiated between Westlake and CWD.

Ultimately, the proposed improvements, coupled with ALMU as the new water supplier to the
City of Westlake, will provide numerous benefits to Westlakes water customers. The most
significant benefit is the improvement of pressures in the northern area of Westlake. According
to the hydrant testing performed in November 2010, pressures in the area north of Detroit Road
currently range between 44 psi and 60 psi. The Average Day pressures in the proposed water
system improvements scenario range from 102 psi to 125 psi. Not only is the pressure available in
the northern area of Westlake improved, but the distribution of pressure throughout the system is
reduced. While the existing system had a pressure range of 72 psi (between 44 psi and 116 psi),
the proposed improvements scenario has a pressure range of 53 psi (between 125 psi and 72 psi)

for average day demand. In addition to the pressure improvements, the City of Westlake will see
improved fire protection due to the ability of the system to meet the fire flow demands of a
greater number of its users.

Table 6.2 provides the range of system pressures that can be expected with the proposed
improvement scenario. These pressures are based on the use of a pressure reducing valve (PRV)
installed at the 30-inch connection to the Avon Lake ETL1 transmission main. The pressure
setting on the PRV at that location can be manually adjusted to provide the City of Westlake the
ability to regulate the pressures within the distribution system. The pressure is not regulated in
the peak hour scenario. Maps of the pressure distribution throughout the City of Westlakes water
system are given in Appendix A for each of the demand scenarios (Figure 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3).

Table 6.2
Pressures for Proposed Improvement Scenario*
Demand Scenario Max Pressure Average Pressure Min Pressure
Average Day 124 95 70
Maximum Day 118 89 61
Peak Hour 126 82 45

*Pressure is regulated at the pressure reducing valve on the 30-inch transmission main.
For average day demand, the pressure is regulated to 110 psi and for maximum day
demand the pressure is regulated to 120 psi. The pressure is not regulated for the peak
hour demand scenario (154 psi). The pump station at the storage tank is only active
during the peak hour scenario.

HNTB believes that the proposed switch in water suppliers has numerous benefits to the City
Westlakes water users and recommends that Westlake continue to pursue this path. The long-
term impact on Westlakes water users should favorable economically.

6.2 OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS

HNTB recommends that Westlake City officials take the following steps to move forward in their
evaluation of water suppliers and potentially switching from CWD to ALMU as municipal water
supplier:

Based on the updated engineering opinions of the construction cost in this study, reassess
Westlakes options related to water system improvements.
Obtain legal opinions regarding Westlakes options for switching water suppliers and the
acquisition of water distribution system stranded assets from CWD.
Based on agreement with HNTBs updated recommendations for water system
improvements and approval of the Phase 2 report, request a proposal for preliminary and
final design of water distribution system improvements.
After submittal of the proposal for preliminary and final design, authorize HNTB to
begin the design project for agreed-upon water distribution system improvements.
Upon completion of design, obtain approval of improvements from Ohio EPA.

Begin any required property/right-of-way acquisition.
Obtain financing for construction.
Issue the advertisement for bids of the water system improvements construction project
based on completed final design documents.

HNTB estimates that the time period required to complete the Phase 2 water system evaluation
and the subsequent design and construction phases of the project will be as follows:

Table 6.3
Future Project Phases

Project Phase Estimated Duration
Design of recommended improvements 12 months
Construction of recommended improvements 2 years, based on actual scope of improvements,
authorization by Westlake City Council, etc.
Unknowns that could affect project schedule Project administration, project financing, regulatory
approvals, property/right-of-way acquisition, and
potential litigation

APPENDIX A

Figures

C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Hydrant Testing Sites
Roads
Pipes
Figure 2.2 - Hydrant Testing Site Locations

C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Roads
Pipes
C-Value
50
60
70
80
100
110
120
130
140
Figure 2.3 - Calibrated C-values of Existing Pipes

"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
" Disconnects from mains leaving Westlake
" Disconnects from CWD
Existing Westlake Water Mains
Water Line Reconnections
Roads
Figure 3.1 - Disconnection/Reconnection Map

C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Existing Pressure Zone Boundary
Existing Distribution Mains
Roads
Figure 3.2 - Existing Pressure Zones

North or "Low-service"
Pressure Zone
South or "First High"
Pressure Zone
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
D
e
t
ro
it R
o
a
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
tio
n
Bassett Road Connection
Clemens Road Connection
Schwartz Road Connection
Legend
Roads
Figure 3.3 - Proposed Connection Alternatives

!
!
!
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Location #2
Location #3
Location #1
Legend
!
Proposed Tank Locations
Roads
Figure 3.4 - Proposed Storage Tank Locations

A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Roads
New Transmission Mains
Size
12
16
24
30
New 1 MG Ground Storage Tank

New 12" Distribution Main
Upsize from 8" to
12" Distribution Main
New 30" Connection
Figure 4.1 - Final Proposed System Improvements
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Average Day
PRESSURE
40.0 - 50.0
50.1 - 60.0
60.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 80.0
80.1 - 90.0
90.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 110.0
110.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.1 - Pressures at Average Day Demand with Proposed System Improvements
New 30" Connection
New 24" Transmission Main
Upsize from 8" to 12" Distribution Main
Incoming Pressure
Regulated to 110 psi
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Maximum Day
PRESSURE
40.0 - 50.0
50.1 - 60.0
60.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 80.0
80.1 - 90.0
90.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 110.0
110.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.2 - Pressures at Maximum Day Demand with Proposed System Improvements
New 30" Connection
Incoming Pressure
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
PRESSURE
45.2 - 50.0
50.1 - 60.0
60.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 80.0
80.1 - 90.0
90.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 110.0
110.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.3 - Pressures at Peak Hour Demand with Proposed System Improvements
New 30" Connection
Incoming Pressure
Unregulated
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Average Day
PRESSURE
40.0 - 50.0
50.1 - 60.0
60.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 80.0
80.1 - 90.0
90.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 110.0
110.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.4 - Pressures at Average Day Demand with Proposed System Improvements - No Tank
New 30" Connection
Incoming Pressure
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Maximum Day
PRESSURE
40.0 - 50.0
50.1 - 60.0
60.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 80.0
80.1 - 90.0
90.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 110.0
110.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.5 - Pressures at Maximum Day Demand with Proposed System Improvements - No Tank
New 30" Connection
Incoming Pressure
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
PRESSURE
26.4 - 30.0
30.1 - 40.0
40.1 - 50.0
50.1 - 60.0
60.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 80.0
80.1 - 90.0
90.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 110.0
110.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.6 - Pressures at Peak Hour Demand with Proposed System Improvements - No Tank
New 30" Connection
Incoming Pressure
Unregulated
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Average Day
PRESSURE
112.9 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
130.1 - 140.0
140.1 - 150.0
150.1 - 160.0
160.1 - 170.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.7 - Pressures at Average Day Demand with Proposed System Improvements - No Pressure Regulation
New 30" Connection
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
Maximum Day
PRESSURE
94.4 - 100.0
100.1 - 110.0
110.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
130.1 - 140.0
140.1 - 150.0
150.1 - 160.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.8 - Pressures at Maximum Day Demand with Proposed System Improvements - No Pressure Regulation
New 30" Connection
A
v
o
n

L
a
k
e

-

E
T
L
1
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
D
o
v
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
C
l
a
g
u
e
Rose
Hilliard
D
e
tro
i t
Westwood
C
e
n
t
e
r

R
id
g
e
Schwartz
P
o
r
t
e
r
Legend
PRESSURE
45.2 - 50.0
50.1 - 60.0
60.1 - 70.0
70.1 - 80.0
80.1 - 90.0
90.1 - 100.0
100.1 - 110.0
110.1 - 120.0
120.1 - 130.0
Pipes
Diameter
6
8
10
12
16
24
30
Figure 6.9 - Pressures at Peak Hour Demand with Proposed System Improvements - No Pressure Regulation
New 30" Connection
APPENDIX B

Hydrant Flow Data Summary from ISO Report

APPENDIX C

Hydrant Testing Protocol

Page 1 of 2

STANDARD C-VALUE TEST

1) Isolate test main by completely closing the valves circled in black.

2) Flush test hydrants prior to attaching pressure gauges.

3) The Flow Hydrant requires a pitot type gauge for each nozzle that is to be open.
Hydrant 1 and Hydrant 2 require cap type gauges preferably with air bleed valves.

4) Tighten the hydrant caps on the unused nozzles to minimize leakage.

5) After attaching the pressure gauges, but before opening the Flow Hydrant, record the
static pressure at Hydrant 1 and Hydrant 2 (the hydrant valve should be completely
open when taking readings).

Note: In the static condition, the difference in pressure between Hydrant 1 and Hydrant 2
should reflect the difference in elevation.

6) Open one 2" nozzle on the Flow Hydrant and record the pressure readings at all three
locations (Flow Hydrant, Hydrant 1, and Hydrant 2)

Note: For 10", 12", and 16" mains open both 2" nozzles.

7) Neglecting the static pressure difference between Hydrant 1 and Hydrant 2, the net
pressure drop across the hydrants during the flow test should be a minimum of 5 psi for
6" or 8" mains and a minimum of 2 psi for 10", 12", or 16" mains.

8) If the net pressure drop is less than the required minimum, open an additional nozzle on
the Flow Hydrant and repeat the test.

If the test is on a 6" or 8" main, open the other 2" nozzle (provided that the
pressure at the Flow Hydrant was > 10 psi).

If the test is on a 10", 12" or 16" main, close one 2" nozzle and open the 4"
nozzle (provided that the pressure at the Flow Hydrant was >15 psi).

9) Record the pressure at each of the three hydrants.

10) Record the flow from the Flow Hydrant.

Page 2 of 2

GENERAL NOTES

1) The pitot tube on the pressure gauge for the Flow Hydrant should be positioned in the
center of the nozzle to be opened.

2) The pressures at the Flow Hydrant, Hydrant 1 and Hydrant 2 must be measured
simultaneously. Since the hydrants are frequently out of view of each other, some type of
radio communication or signal system will be needed.

3) Keep records of all tests, even those which did not meet minimum pressure requirements.

4) The Flow Hydrant is the only hydrant out of which water should flow.

5) All hydrant valves must be completely open during testing.

6) The pressure and flow at the Flow Hydrant must be measured at every open nozzle.

7) If all marked valves cannot be closed to isolate the test main, run the test anyway and
note the location of the valve that remained open in the comments section of the form.

8) The selected locations are the preferred locations and it is understood that there may be
limitations that may not allow testing in certain areas. Try to select an alternate location
on the main that is as close as possible to the original location and mark up the map to
show the new location.

If there are any questions regarding this material, please contact Ms. Robyn Toole at 317-636-
4682.
CITY OF WESTLAKE C-VALUE TESTS

1. Site Number:

2. Date:

3. Time:

4. Water main size: (inches)

5. Distance between Hydrant 1 and Hydrant 2: (feet)

6. Static Pressure (No Flow) at Hydrant 1 psi

Static Pressure (No Flow) at Hydrant 2 psi

Static Pressure (No Flow) at Flow Hydrant psi

7. Pressure while nozzle on Flow Hydrant is open

At Hydrant 1 psi

At Hydrant 2 psi

At Flow Hydrant psi

8. Flow measurement from Flow Hydrant: gpm

9. Comments:

close this valve
close this valve, also
This is the Flow Hydrant
This is Pressure Hydrant 2
This is Pressure Hydrant 1
- Hydrant 1 will
always be the
hydrant farthest
from the Flow
Hydrant within the
circled area
APPENDIX D

Water Rates and Capital Expenses Memo from Avon Lake
Municipal Utilities

Avon Lake Municipal Utilities
MEMORANDUM

To: Bob Kelly, Westlake City Engineer

From: Todd Danielson, Chief Utilities Executive

Subject: Water Rates and Capital Expenses

Date: July 15, 2011

During our last meeting, ALMU was asked to provide Westlake a rough idea about potential capital
costs for connecting into ALMUs system and possibly to include that in the rate. We have prepared
some rough estimates for your consideration as you proceed with determining whether you want to
purchase water from ALMU.

You recently determined that you would like your system to be fed from Schwartz Road with a 30 line
and asked us to estimate the cost for bringing that line to the City limits. This could be done in two
phases. The first phase would bring a line from our ETL1 line to the City limits at Schwartz Road. It
would cost ALMU about $1.5 million to run a 30 line the 1 mile necessary. Possible cost recovery
options include: Westlake could immediately reimburse us during construction, pay us back over a 5
year period at approximately $340,000/yr, or add it temporarily into the water rate. Assuming that your
annual average consumption is 4.5 mgd, the 5-year surcharge would be $0.21/1000 gal.

The second phase of construction is the line (or their portion of a line) from the WTP to the connector
or a separate one to the City limits, because the capacity in ETL1 and ETL2 is already sold to others.
A dedicated line and pumping station that takes the water from the WTP to the connector line from
ETL1 to Schwartz Road would cost on the order of $9 million. If a larger line was constructed and
Westlake shared a minority percentage of it, Westlakes cost may be on the order of $6M. Assuming
that Westlake shared in the cost and it was repaid over a 30 year period starting around year 6 of the
contract, debt service would be around $370,000/yr. At 5 mgd, that is around $0.20/1000 gal, which
would reduce to about $0.16/1000 gal at buildout average demands.

In is important to note ALMU has some temporary capacity at the WTP that may be used while an
expansion takes place to provide your ultimate capacity of 12.3 mgd peak day. ALMU is in the
process of completing a master plan for future expansion at the WTP. As the master plan concludes
during the next several months, ALMU will be determining the most appropriate methods to recover
the cost of expansion. It is possible that there may be a capital cost attributable to Westlake that you
could pay up front, through annual or debt service payments. Alternately, we may include expansion
costs in the rate. Any expenses associated with this are unable to be determined at this point.

All of these estimates are very preliminary and would be significantly revised, depending upon how
much capacity is needed and Westlakes share of it. Here is a table that distills these rough estimates:

Order of Magnitude Debt Service and/or Rates for Westlake

Opt 2: Debt Service in Wtr Rate

Water Rate (w/o rate increases) Water Rate (w/o rate increases)
Years 1 5 $340,000 $1.24/1000 gal* $1.45/1000 gal (4.5 mgd demand)
Years 6 35 $370,000 $1.24/1000 gal $1.40/1000 gal (5 mgd demand)
Years 36 40 $0 $1.24/1000 gal $1.24/1000 gal
* - ALMUs 7/1/12 water rate + 10% (admin chrg) + current ETL operation chrg
Note that $1.24/1000 gal = $9.28/MCF

HNTB Phase 2 Westlake Water Switch Study 2011-11-04

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HNTB Phase 2 Westlake Water Switch Study 2011-11-04

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY OF

Figure 2.2 - Hydrant Testing Site Locations

Figure 2.3 - Calibrated C-values of Existing Pipes

Figure 3.1 - Disconnection/Reconnection Map

Figure 3.2 - Existing Pressure Zones

Figure 3.3 - Proposed Connection Alternatives

Figure 3.4 - Proposed Storage Tank Locations

New 1 MG Ground Storage Tank

You might also like