SR 05:036 - Laserfiche WebLink

be expended to serve this small amount of customers. However, the City as owner of these facilities, has an obligation to maintain the facilities and provide for the public's health, safety and well being in continuing to provide water service to these customers. Several alternatives for managing the project were examined by staff and are presented below: Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is to do nothing and perform repairs of the three pump station facilities as needed. However, as noted, the facilities are over 40 years old and at the end of their projected useful life. These facilities will need to be replaced and the fuming before these facilities fail is unknown. Piecemeal repairs as emergency work tend to be more expensive and are geared to solve the immediate deficiency and put the system back on line. The resultant repair is typically a band-aid approach and is not part of an overall coordinated replacement effort. Delays in replacing these facilities are also subject to rising construction costs. Since 1939, construction costs have risen every year. The average annual increase in construction costs over the last five years is approximately 2.6% per year. Therefore, if current construction cost trends continue, the project will increase approximately $75,000 per year, on average, over the next five years. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would be to award the project to the second lowest responsible bidder, GSE. The current project balance is currently at $2.3 million dollars and therefore an additional $900,000 would need to be added to the project. While, prior to bidding, it was anticipated that additional funding may be needed (over the current project fund balance) to complete the project, the range of additional funding was projected at $300,000 to $500,000. The project as currently designed, significantly exceeds anticipated costs. Therefore, staff is not recommending the project go forward as currently designed and as bid. Alternative 3 Since the time the project has been bid, staff met with both the designer (Tetra Tech Inc.) and representatives from the second low bidder, GSE, to discuss possible changes to the project to reduce the overall project cost. These meetings were beneficial in that they identified over twenty items that could be eliminated or changed in such a manner, that the functionality of the pumps stations would not be significantly affected in the future. Some of these items included the removal of non-essential amenities such as the paving of the parking areas adjacent to the pump stations, the use of less architectural elements to the exterior of the pump station buildings (the buildings are located in fairly SR 05:036 Page 5 of 6