County hears engineering options and grant paths for Pine Valley water system

Engineers and county staff presented five preliminary options on June 23 for replacing or repairing the Pine Valley Community Village water system, which the consultant said currently uses a 75‑year‑old, 40,000‑gallon reservoir and a private well and mains that could be contributing to water‑quality issues.

The presentation by Bart Nice of Delta 3 Engineering summarized capital and operating cost estimates for: repairing the existing reservoir, replacing piping and electrical controls, connecting to Richland Center city water, replacing the tank on‑site (with option variations), or constructing a new concrete tank closer to the facility. Nice said the minimum storage needed to meet code and facility usage is roughly 70,000 gallons to provide the two‑hour fire flow requirement and one day’s typical consumption.

Nice told the committee the existing reservoir is “about 40,000 gallons” and “about 75 years old” and that the minimum capacity needed is “roughly 70,000 gallons.” He estimated that replacing the long private mains and adding required electrical controls would add about $735,000 to some rebuild options and that the capital cost to connect to the city was roughly $825,000 by his preliminary calculations, with a roughly $100,000 savings if a smaller main were used for part of the route.

Why it matters: committee members and staff said the private system has shown reliability and quality problems at the facility, which serves about 96 licensed beds. County officials need to pick a path that balances long‑term maintenance burdens, upfront capital, and eligibility for state and federal grant programs.

The engineering presentation described tradeoffs: keeping the private system preserves current pressure and local control but requires more ongoing maintenance and potential future well or pump replacement; connecting to city water would eliminate most maintenance of the distribution source but could lower static pressure by about 15–20 pounds per square inch, which still meets minimum code in the consultant’s analysis. Nice warned that moving a replacement tank farther from the current reservoir could reduce available pressure by as much as 20–30 psi depending on final siting and elevation.

Committee members asked for more detail on assumptions and calculations, including how projected city water rates and future construction price inflation were applied. Nice said his cost numbers reflect 2025 prices and that present‑value engineering economy calculations were not run for long‑range rate forecasts: “I know today, this is what they would be if you were connected today in 2025,” he said.

Grant pathways were discussed at length. Nice and county staff outlined three principal funding sources they would pursue if the committee selects an option to advance: the U.S. Department of Agriculture water loans/grants, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Safe Drinking Water funding (described as a low‑interest loan option with some grant portion), and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Staff and the consultant warned that CDBG requires the county to be the applicant and can limit other county applications for a period after award; however, the program can provide large grant shares for eligible projects. Nice said the DNR loan currently quoted to the committee was about 2.2% interest locked for 20 years and that combined funding strategies sometimes reduce the county’s net out‑of‑pocket cost.

Questions and next steps: supervisors asked for more detailed backup on the consultant’s assumptions (pressure, pump and well condition, unit costs, and how electrical and pipe replacement costs were calculated). The committee also asked staff to contact Richland Center’s utility engineering for the city’s cost estimate and to provide specifics about regulatory consequences—especially periodic Legionella testing requirements that would apply if the facility connects to city mains. County staff said they will return with clarified cost assumptions, any additional requirements for hooking up to city water (including meter and backflow assembly space), and updated estimates for each option before the next county board meeting.

The committee did not choose a final option at the meeting but directed staff to return with the requested clarifications so the county can begin grant planning in 2025 if a preferred option is selected.