Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kanarraville reviews 20-year water plan; board asks for larger concrete tank cost estimates
Summary
Consultants presented a revised water improvements plan Dec. 12 showing optional hydrants, pipe-loop alternatives, storage calculations and financing scenarios. The board asked staff to add a larger concrete-tank option and to return with revised cost and rate impacts in January.
Kanarraville town staff and engineering consultants presented a revised 20-year water infrastructure plan at the Dec. 12 town board meeting, covering hydrant locations, line sizing, emergency storage and financing scenarios.
Consultants said they removed a planned loop from the map by upsizing a proposed line to 10 inches to limit private‑property crossings, and labeled three hydrants on private property as optional. They recommended adding seven hydrants in public right-of-way after a review of current hydrant spacing and fire‑flow standards.
On storage, the consultants reported about 68,000 gallons of pipe storage in the system but cautioned the town that stored volume in mains does not necessarily produce usable pressure for fire flow. A staff member summarized state guidance and said there is conflicting material in state documents (meeting participants referenced rule R309-54 in the discussion). “I actually contacted the state… and they at some 309 or 30954 that says no, you can't,” a staff speaker said, highlighting the regulatory uncertainty staff found while researching whether pipe storage counts toward emergency storage requirements.
The consultants also reviewed financing options: Kanarraville’s median adjusted gross income was cited as roughly $54,000, which under the parameters shown would likely make the town a candidate for low-interest loan programs rather than for formula grant money tied to higher levels of poverty. The model presented several rate scenarios linking four projects—hydrants/line work, spring refurbishment, a new tank, and other improvements—to different base-rate and overage structures. One scenario that included all four projects produced an average residential monthly bill in the low-to-mid $50 range; staff noted current audit-based averages around $46 per month.
On tank sizing, consultants presented scale and cost tradeoffs and urged considering a larger concrete tank now rather than replacing smaller tanks later. A participant cited a financing figure for a 100,000‑gallon steel tank as '700' during discussion; the meeting record did not specify the currency unit (e.g., thousands), so staff were asked to supply clarified, written cost estimates. Board members asked consultants to revise the plan to show a larger concrete tank option and to provide updated impact-fee and rate scenarios based on that option.
No formal vote was taken to commit to construction; the board accepted the consultants' recommendation to include both the spring refurbishment and tank options in the plan for budgeting purposes and asked staff to provide revised spreadsheets and comparison numbers for the January meeting. Next procedural steps are that staff will send the revised plan materials and the board will revisit the tank-sizing decision and rate implications in January.
