Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pine Valley Water Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews options and grant paths for Pine Valley Community Village water system
Summary
Engineers presented five options — from repairing the existing 75-year-old reservoir to connecting to City of Richland Center water — with capital estimates ranging in the low six-figures; staff and board members directed follow-up on costs, grant eligibility and Legionella testing implications before the July county board meeting.
County-contracted engineer Bart Nice of Delta3 Engineering presented a multi-option engineering study June 23 on the Pine Valley Community Village water system and sought direction from the Richland County Executive Finance Standing Committee.
Nice summarized the system problems: a roughly 75-year-old 40,000-gallon concrete reservoir with interior concrete spalling and exposed rebar; no site electricity (controls run on batteries); aging distribution mains totaling roughly 4,400 feet; and water quality concerns potentially related to aging pipes. Nice said the facility’s average daily use is about 10,000 gallons and staff estimated a minimum storage need of roughly 70,000 gallons to meet a two-hour fire-flow requirement (500 gallons per minute) plus daily use.
He presented five preliminary options (no final design had been done): 1) abandon the private system and connect to the City of Richland Center (12-inch main estimate about $825,000); 2) similar connection with an 8-inch section to save about $100,000; 3) repair the existing reservoir (low initial cost, roughly $3,400, but recurring maintenance and short-term viability); 4) build a short elevated (steel) tower near the site; and 5) install an aboveground covered concrete tank (about 70,000 gallons) closer to the facility to reduce pipe length and future O&M costs. Nice noted adding replacement of the existing buried water mains and electrical controls would add roughly $735,000 to several options.
Committee members pressed for clarification on pressure, capacity and backup service. Nice estimated current facility static pressure at 75–90 psi and that city connection options would reduce pressure by roughly 15–20 psi but would still meet code for required fire flow. Board members asked whether the system could sustain required flow for two hours; Nice said the design phase and survey would confirm such calculations.
The committee discussed additional operational implications of hooking onto the city system. Staff and board members raised Legionella testing and monitoring costs: Britney and facility staff explained that connecting to the city might require increased periodic Legionella testing, and each external test could cost roughly $1,000; they noted construction on city mains anywhere in town can trigger additional testing at the facility because pipe disturbances can release Legionella. The committee also heard that hooking to city water would require a small addition to the building to accommodate the meter and backflow prevention devices and state permits from DSPS (Division of Safety and Professional Services).
Grant and financing paths were discussed at length. Nice described three potential funding sources: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) — potentially up to $1 million or two-thirds of eligible costs but with strict applicant rules and a May annual deadline — the DNR Safe Drinking Water program (grants/loans; requires full plans/specs before application; decisions typically by October), and USDA rural development loans/grants (often a smaller grant share and larger loan share). He said his firm has recent experience securing grant funds for similar projects and emphasized timing: if the county decides to proceed, staff would prepare an engineering report to submit to the DNR/PSC in 2025, perform design in 2026, and seek grants/loan approvals later in 2026 with construction in 2027.
No final decision was made. The committee asked for more detail on assumptions and calculations that produced the cost estimates (unit prices, allowances for electrical and main replacement, and assumed city water rates) and directed staff to continue discussions with the City of Richland Center on cost-sharing and routing. Board members also asked staff to provide DSPS guidance on permit and life-safety requirements and to return with refined numbers and negotiation positions for the July county board packet.
Bart and staff emphasized these are preliminary, 2-D estimates and that a design and survey would be required to firm up costs and hydraulic performance.
