Minutes of The Special Price City Council Meeting
City Hall: Price, Utah
April 19, 2001, 8:00 a.m.
Mayor Lou Colosimo Vernon W. Jones, Community Administrator
Councilmembers: Pat Larsen, Finance Director
Roy A. Nikas Gary Sonntag, PWD/City Engineer
Betty P. Wheeler
Joe L. Piccolo
Stephen L. Denison
Excused: Joanne Lessar, City Recorder
Lisa Petersen Ben Grimes William Luce David Hansen
Greg Poole Sam White Kevin Ashby John Serfustini
Gary Sonntag introduced Bill Luce, David Hansen, Greg Poole and Ben Grimes, from Hansen,
Allen and Luce, Engineering. They are working with the City to determine the best way possible to
convey water down Price Canyon and through the valley to Price City. This includes treated river
water as well as spring water. In the feasibility study by CRS Engineering, it was suggested that
the size of the pipe be increased to 30" diameter. However, as the project progressed, it was felt
there could be other alternatives that would be less costly. Hansen, Allen and Luce was given the
task to investigate those alternatives. Hansen, Allen and Luce have completed their review and are
ready to present their findings.
David Hansen explained that during the process of determining where the City is and where they
want to be, they looked at what the water demands have been and what they will be in the future.
They found that during the last 10 years, Price has actually experienced a 3% decline in
population. The report completed by CRS Engineering projected that a 30" pipeline would be
needed to meet the demands of Price City. The City currently has two water pipelines, one from
the Water Treatment Plant and one from the springs source. After further evaluation, they came to
the conclusion that a 30" pipeline would be oversized. A more realistic size would be 18", which
translates to a fairly significant cost savings.
Mr. Hansen reviewed the following alternatives. Alternative #1 has been broken into two parts. #1A
is a replacement of the pipeline from the water treatment plant to the 10 million gallon reservoir.
Part of option #1 would be to modify and upgrade the Water Treatment Plant in its existing location
in the future. The water treatment plant is approximately 40 years old and it is projected that in
another 10 years or so, will require some sort of modification and upgrade to keep it current to
continue with water treatment requirements. Alternative #1 involves the replacement of the existing
pipeline with the size of pipeline that will meet the demands of Price City, conveying both treated
river water and spring water. The second part would be to refurbish or replace the existing water
treatment plant in 10 years. Alternative #2 involves the construction of a new 4 million gallon per
day (mgd) water treatment plant in a region closer to the City that has two potential water source
locations, the canal or river. The first would be out of the canal system. The water could be
diverted from the river below Helper in the Spring Glen area and then piped down the canal channel.
Water would then be taken from the canal pipe and sent to the water treatment plant. Treated
water would then be pumped into the 10 million gallon reservoir. The second source of water would
be from the Price River through a new diversion. The advantage of the above two options is that
Price City would get a new water treatment plant using modern techniques and current
technologies to treat the water. However, the City would end up with treating river water that has an
increased raw water degradation. This would require additional treatment. In the second option,
you are also maintaining the spring pipeline down the valley into the City. The spring pipeline would
require additional maintenance until it is replaced. Alternative #3 also involves a new water
treatment plant, but all of the water is taken out of the river, including the spring water. This would
mean a 6 million gallon per day (mgd) treatment plant to treat the water. In this option, all of the
spring water would be drained into the river upstream and not piped to the City. The difference
between Alternative #2 and #3 means that 100% of the water would come out of the river and would
need to have full treatment. All of the river water would need to be treated to full surface water
treatment requirements based on water conditions in the river. Alternative #1 deals with replacing
the existing pipelines with a single pipe, and then upgrading the water treatment plant at a later
date. Alternative #2 builds a new water treatment plant closer to the City. Water is diverted from
the canal or river and the treated water is mixed with spring water that is transmitted in the existing
12" pipeline. This pipeline will have to be maintained or replaced. The water is then pumped up to
the tank. In Alternative #3, the existing pipelines coming down the valley will no longer be used.
This includes draining the spring water into the river upstream. A new water treatment plant will be
built near the City and will treat all of the river water. The water is then pumped up to the tank.
Alternative #4 is working with the Price River Water Improvement District to supply and deliver all of
the water to Price City. The City could turn over all of the City's water shares from the springs,
reservoir and river. However, at this point in time, it was felt that this was not a practical alternative,
but it is one that could be considered in the future.
Bill Luce stated that we are dealing with differing water treatment costs for comparative purposes
and trying to compare these alternatives and understand what is the most cost effective. The most
significant factor in determining the differences in cost per water treatment have to do with defining
water quality as you come down stream. The current water the City is now consuming is a high
quality water. It has a salinity or total dissolved solid concentration of roughly 250 milligrams per
litre. As you move downstream on a river, that increases significantly by
several times, where at the last location you are dealing with salinity or total
dissolved solids of roughly 3 to 4 times what they are at the higher location.
He is not certain, but he guesses it's a significant factor of why the treatment
plant is located where it currently is. The types of treatment that would be
required change as you move downstream, which increases the cost. If you were to
replace the treatment plant at the existing point, you would likely have to
replace it with the same plant that is basically the same as you have now, which
is referred to as full conventional treatment. This is required by the State of
Utah whenever you treat surface water as opposed to ground water. As you move
downstream, the alternatives would all contain at least a treatment plant that
would be equivalent to your current treatment plant in the type of treatment
that is used. As you move downstream, to remove the increasing salinity or total
dissolved solids, the cost is dramatically increased. You have to use a process
that will lower that salinity or total dissolved solids. That gets expensive,
not only in capital costs but operational costs.
Greg Poole stated that presently, peak demands are around 4 ½ million gallons/water per day
(mgd). The projected flow for the 30" diameter pipeline was 15 MGD. As the design flow rate was
re-evaluated, based on input from Sam White and Gary Sonntag, and looking at a population factor
of 9,000 instead of 12,000, and also looking at peaking factors, they now recommend a design flow
rate of 6 MGD. Currently, before the peak, it is less than five, so it does allow for some growth.
This is the design flow rate they have looked at in all the alternatives. Greg reviewed the costs
involved in all of the alternatives. They range from a low of Alternative A at roughly $7.8 million to
Alternative #1A at $8.9 million. He reviewed the annual operational costs, such as maintenance of
the facilities, power costs, personnel, etc. The least cost alternative is to replace the pipeline with
an 18" diameter and sometime in the future, upgrade the treatment plant as needed. The
alternative new water treatment plant with the least capital cost is considerably higher priced when
you look at it at an annual cost basis. The reasons are mostly due to the increased costs of
reverse osmosis or similar type of system to reduce the TDS of those flows. However, there are
other increased operation and maintenance costs associated with this as well. All the water has to
be pumped, where with the single pipeline alternative, the water doesn't have to be pumped, it
would be gravity fed.
Other options: (1) A secondary water system to water the college, school district, cemeteries,
parks, etc., was discussed and what this effect would have on the culinary system. (2) The
possibility of combining the City's water rights with the PRWID and having them deliver all of our
water. Gary Sonntag stated that the PRWID's pipeline does not have the capacity to delivery all of
their demands, plus Price City's demands. They would have to turn around a build a whole new
pipeline. It doesn't make sense to impact their system to that degree. Gary stated that the City
currently has an interlocal agreement with the PRWID and they deliver water to the City during
peak periods. Because of the interlocal agreement and the interconnections we currently have with
the PRWID, we have a regional solution to supplying the valley with water. The PRWID has the
ability to give the City water and the City has the ability to give the PRWID water. The City does
not want to get in a situation where we have a single source of water supplying the valley. The City
and the PRWID need to both be prepared for potential natural disasters, operational problems, etc.
Because of our remote location in the State, having two treatment plants and two sources of water
puts us in a much safer situation to be able to overcome potential problems.
Greg Poole stated that the quoted costs do not include upgrading the transmission pipeline from
Colton Springs down to Castle Gate. Sam White stated that there are 12 miles of pipeline from the
Colton Springs collection area to the treatment plant. It runs from 18" steel down to 12". A mixture
of steel and ductile iron pipe in certain areas. There are leaks, but they are maintainable. There is
not a lot of pressure, and there is not a history of corrosion leaks. The City had upgraded two
pipelines from the Utah Power and Light Wells #1 and #2, and they are able to pump water as a
backup measure through a water exchange agreement. However, when they pump from the UP&L
wells, the flow at Colton Springs drops. In order to get 400 to 600 from UP&L wells, we lose 200
gallons a minute from Colton Springs. It is not advantageous to pump from the wells when we are
dropping. Our primary option is the water exchange agreements with the PRWID.
Greg Poole stated that if the existing two water lines that come into the valley are replaced with a
single 18" transmission pipe or similar type line, that the current feeder line along Carbonville Road
would be made into a distribution line and continue to serve those 200 outside connections. With
the approach in Alternative #2A, we assumed we would be refurbishing or replacing that 12" line
and reconnecting those 200 outside connections. The estimated costs to reconnect those lines
have been included in the cost projection. There would be less pressure for these connections
because they would be served off the tank instead of the pipeline. This is a plus and a minus
option. Currently the biggest problems the City has are when the pipeline goes down for repairs. It
takes a while to drain it, fix it, and then refill the line. Feeding them out of the tank eliminates that.
The pressures will not fluctuate as much to the outside users as they currently do, but it would still
be an old pipeline that would have to be maintained and eventually replaced.
Gary Sonntag stated that the Council needs to determine which alternative to pursue and then give
direction to Hansen, Allen and Luce Engineering to head in that direction. Sam White stated that
he prefers the 18" pipeline and then upgrade the treatment plant in the future as needed. Beyond
that, as the demand increases, water could be supplied by the PRWID.
Councilmember Nikas thanked Hansen, Allen and Luce for putting together all of this information
and figures. MOTION. Councilmember Nikas moved that Alternative #1A be selected and that
Gary Sonntag be authorized to work with the engineering firm regarding the possibility of changing
the 18" line to either 20" or 21", and that he report back to the Council. Motion seconded by
Councilmember Tatton and carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m
ATTEST: Lou Colosimo, Mayor
Joanne Lessar, City Recorder