Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring Hill moves forward on reservoir study and accelerated water-purification pilot amid costly regional pipeline options
Summary
City staff outlined a multi-pronged water strategy that includes an on-city reservoir feasibility study, an accelerated advanced-purification pilot, and participation in regional options such as the Cumberland pipeline; board members warned of steep costs and possible rate impacts.
Spring Hill officials spent the Sept. 15 work session outlining parallel efforts to secure long-term water supply, from city-owned reservoirs to regional pipelines and an advanced purification pilot. Mister Allen, the staff lead for the discussion, said geotechnical work and subsurface exploration are underway to determine whether the city's newly acquired Stone Creek property can host reservoirs with 200 million to 500 million gallons of storage.
"This is a feasible project. Just a costly project," Mister Allen said, summarizing findings on a proposed Cumberland pipeline and other regional alternatives. Staff cited a Cumberland pipeline estimate in the transcript of roughly $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion in today's dollars that could rise to $2 billion–$3.5 billion after inflation depending on pipe configuration. Allen said those totals do not include the distribution work needed to connect Spring Hill and noted potential wholesale-rate impacts for ratepayers.
City staff described a complementary, on-city approach: a reservoir feasibility study under a revised scope from Thomas & Hutton tied to an ARP-funded professional-services budget. Allen said the original project contemplated about $1 million in professional services with $800,000 funded by grant and $200,000 as a local match; after the city purchased additional property, the scope and the subsurface-exploration costs increased. He detailed the geotechnical program: test pits, soil borings and electrical-resistivity testing to map subsurface conditions and groundwater levels so engineers can determine reservoir depth, footprint and structural approach.
Allen said the reservoir work is intended to reduce procurement risk for future progressive design–build solicitations by giving design teams a robust technical appendix. He described the dual objectives: "address water supply and drought resilience" while exploring how to make the site useful public space rather than "just a pond with a chain link fence around it." The plan would consider passive amenities such as trails and open space.
Board members pressed staff on cost and timing. One board member noted an estimate in the feasibility discussion that operation, maintenance and depreciation for a shared pipeline could be about $6 million per year, and staff referenced a rough first-pass wholesale charge near $12 per 1,000 gallons as an example of potential rate impacts. Several board members said participation in a multibillion-dollar regional pipeline would likely require substantial state or federal assistance and could be unaffordable for local ratepayers without outside funding.
On the advanced purification pilot, Allen said staff changed the procurement approach to a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) delivery to trim the construction schedule from an estimated 18 months to roughly 12 months. He said staff expects to return with resolutions in two weeks to proceed.
Next steps: staff will complete subsurface exploration and the pilot procurement revisions and return to the board with contract or programming requests and more detailed cost estimates for board approval.
