020
;. "1./' .' Vi)-,
;.0 .. '.,\, 0\ j.'f) l ..' !'
I vV \ \ : ,I' '--
~'J v' . '(I I ~ .
')I' '\ r: ^ "
~. ,.'l..r 1<. ~. ~J.Y
"r.'I~:) "
.' V i.'V;~v'i;
\j fV-
"v'
r~
/'
9~
PAGGI & MARTIN
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors
;i; A .
~<.A..L
OdU
~
54-56 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
9 14-47 1 - 7 898
October 28, 1996
Town Board
Town of wappinger
P.O. Box 324
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Attention: Constance o. smith, Supervisor
Reference: Fleetwood Water District
Water supply Alternative
Dear Supervisor Smith & Board Members:
As per your request, our office has performed an analysis
of various alternatives of supplying the Fleetwood Water
District with a stable water supply. This analysis was
performed due to the continued deterioration of the
existing Fleetwood wells and the necessity to truck water
on a daily basis during periods of warmer weather.
The intent of the analysis was to provide the framework
for the Town Board to make a decision as to which
direction to pursue. The numbers and costs listed in
this report are a result of desktop analysis and are
within the accepted range of accuracies.
Please note that all benefit unit calculations are based
on the parameters stated in the appropriate section, and
will be subject to verification by the Assessor's office.
The six (6) alternatives that we will discuss in this
report are listed below.
ALTERNATIVE NO.1 lFishkiJJ):
This first alternative proposed is a connection to the
Village of Fishkill Water Distribution system located on
Osborne Hill Road.
Joseph E. Paggi,Jr., P.E.
Ernst Martin, Jr., P.E., L.S.
@ prtnted on recycled paper
supervisor contance O. smith & Board Members
Fleetwood Water District Alternatives
October 28, 1996
Page 2
The alternative includes all the necessary components to
tie into the village of Fishkill Water system including,
but not limited to, the cost of a new pump station,
metering pit, pressure reducing pit, connector piping,
and all other associated work.
ALTERNATIVE NO.2 - (MacFarland Road);
This alternative consists of constructing a pipe from the
existing water line on MacFarland Road at its
intersection with Pavilion Condominiums, down to Route 9,
across Route 9, and through private easements to the
Fleetwood Water District. The connection point would be
on Ronsue Drive at the most northerly point of the
Fleetwood Subdivision.
The work would include the necessary construction of the
connection pipe and highway work associated with the
Route 9 crossing. Easements will need to be obtained
from private property owners' for all work west of
Route 9. All necessary restoration work has been
included.
In this proposal there is a forty-five acre parcel of
land owned by the AVR Realty company located on the
southeast side of MacFarland Road. Two calculations were
performed for debt reduction. One with this property in
its present state and one with this property developed.
Each of these numbers are listed in the cost section so
that the Board can evaluate each alternative.
ALTERNATIVE NO.3 - (Route 9 With WaDDimzer Park);
This alternative includes the construction of the water
main down Route 9 from the entry road of the Alpine
Shopping Center, southerly on ~oute 9, through a proposed
private easement to the Fleetwdod Water District. This
alternative also includes connection of the Wappinger
Park Water District to the newly constructed distribution
main.
supervisor Contance o. smith & Board Members
Fleetwood Water District Alternatives
October 28, 1996
Page 3
Again, as in Alternative 2, private easements will be
required west of Route 9 south of MacFarland Road.
The total benefit units include the commercial benefit
units located adjacent to Route 9 that will have access
to ~he proposed pipe.
Please note that the benefit units are calculated based
on the formula currently used by the Town Board in
determining commercial benefit units and do include the
Alpine Shopping Center. This is an area where the Board
might have to make a decision, as the Shopping Center
would bear the brunt of the commercial benefit units due
to its assessed value.
Another aspect that should be considered is the fact that
the Shopping Center already constructed a water main from
Central wappinger to Route 9 at no expense to the Town.
If the Board feels that Alpine benefit units will need to
be calculated in a different manner, the number of
benefit units for any option that includes commercial
benefit units along Route 9 will necessarily be lower.
ALTERNATIVE NO.4 (Route 9 Without Waooim!er Park):
Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 without the
inclusion of Wappinger Park.
The work that will be deleted is the proposed connection
to Wappinger Park. The costs and benefit units are
reduced proportionally.
ALTERNATIVE NO.5 (Route 9 & MacFarland Road With Waooim!er Park):
Alternative 5 includes the work in Alternative No. 2 with
the work in Alternative No.3. . This will be a dual feed
from the Central wappinger line on Route 9 and the
Central Wappinger line on MacFarland Road.
Supervisor contance o. smith & Board Members
Fleetwood Water District Alternatives
October 28, 1996
Page 4
As in Alternative 2, there are two (2) sets of benefit
unit calculations performed. One with the current status
of the AVR parcel and one with the potential development
of the AVR parcel.
These numbers are listed in the cost table and are self-
explanatory.
ALTERNATIVE NO.6 (Route 9 & MacFarland Road Without WaDDim!er Park):
Alternative No. 6 is the addition of Alternative No. 2
and Alternative No.4. This alternative includes the
connection at MacFarland Road and the connection along
Route 9. However, this connection does not include
Wappinger Park connection.
Again, there are two benefit unit calculations provided
for this alternative due to the development potential of
the AVR parcel.
The commercial benefit unit calculations in this
alternative (and in Alternatives No.3, No. 4 and No.5)
do include total benefit units for the Alpine Shopping
Center. As discussed above, this may want to be reviewed
by the Town Board.
The project costs for each alternative are listed in the
cost table on Page 5.
Supervisor Contance o. smith & Board Members
Fleetwood Water District Alternatives
October 28, 1996
Page 5
ALTERNATIVE COSTS
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION PROJECT COST
NO.
1 village of Fishkill Tie-in $ 815,000.00
2 MacFarland Road $ 2,200,000.00
3 Route 9 Tie-in with $ 3,000,000.00
wappinger Park
4 Route 9 Tie-in without $ 2,800,000.00
Wappinger Park
5 Route 9 & MacFarland Road $ 3,800,000.00
with Wappinger Park
6 Route 9 & MacFarland $ 3,600,000.00
without Wappinger Park
The project cost include the all necessary construction
costs, contingency construction cost, engineering fees,
legal fees, proposed land acquisition cost, and all other
incidental items necessary to complete the alternative.
Please note that these costs are estimates and based on
the most recent bids received by the Town for work of
this nature.
supervisor Contance o. smith & Board Members
Fleetwood Water District Alternatives
October 28, 1996
Page 6
To reduce the debt of any of the alternatives listed
above, bonds would be taken out by a newly created
district. The amount would then be amortized over twenty
years and paid back by the members of the district.
For purposes of this report, we have assumed that the
term of the bonds would be 20 years and that the interest
rate realized would be 7.5%. This is a very conservative
calculation as interest rates are not in this range as we
speak.
Please note that we have also used the 50% Rule for Debt
Reduction, which places the maximum per year debt
retirement in the first year.
I have prepared a table for each alternative showing the
first year debt retirement paYment and the per benefit
unit cost.
Please keep in mind, that for some alternatives there are
different benefit units that may be realized. We have
tried to list them in the table so that the Board can see
what will happen under each different scenario.
supervisor Contance O. smith & Board Members
Fleetwood Water District Alternatives
October 28, 1996
Page 7
FLEETWOOD WATER ALTERNATIVES
20 YEARS, 7.5%, 50% RULE
I FIRST YEAR II PER B.O. COST I
ALTERNATIVE PROJECT
NO. COST AVR AVR
PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL EXISTING DEVELOPED
1 $ 815,000 $ 32,600 $ 61,125 $93,725 +187=$ 502
2 $2,200,000 88,000 165,000 253,000 +226=$1119 +457=$554
3 $3,000,000 120,000 225,000 345,000 +460=$ 760
4 $2,800,000 112,000 210,000 322,000 +390=$ 826
5 $3,800,000 152,000 285,000 437,000 +490=$ 892 +710=$616
-
6 $3,600,000 144,000 270,000 414,000 +410=$1010 +630=$658
As you can see from the table above, the costs range from
a low of $502.00 for Alternative 1 to a high of $1,119.00
for Alternative No.6.
As you can see also, the per benefit unit cost of
Alternatives No.2, No. 5 and No. 6 is drastically
reduced if the AVR Realty property is developed.
supervisor Contance O. smith & Board Members
Fleetwood Water District Alternatives
October 28, 1996
Page 8
As there are no former applications for this property at
this point in time, I did not take the liberty of
speculating that this project would become a reality.
I think it can also be seen under Alternatives No.3, No.
4, No. 5 and No.6, the inclusion of the full commercial
benefit units greatly effect the cost. If the Board,
after it's deliberation, wishes to reduce the Alpine
commercial benefit units due to work already performed,
then these numbers would necessarily increase.
In any event, please keep in mind that for any of these
alternatives, except Alternative No.1, that the
expansion of the Atlas Water source will need to be
accomplished.
The existing Central wappinger source could handle the
existing flows from Fleetwood on an interim basis,
however, making a permanent connection assumes the
improvement of Atlas source and the upgrading of the
connection of Atlas and Central wappinger.
As you recall, we are seeking proposals for the Phase II
Study for the Atlas Well Field site, and expect the
proposals to be in by the November 12, 1996 Workshop
session.
If there are any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
s,
P.E.
JEP:law
cc: Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
Michael Tremper