Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community working group · PDF fileCessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3 December 2009 3 Tonight’s objectives • present the non-financial

Cessnock Water SupplyUpgrade

Community workinggroup # 3

Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3

December 2009 2

Meeting overview

Agenda

• objectives

• applying the non cost criteria to the proposed sites

• eliminating sites based on the non cost criteria

~ supper served ~

• Hunter Water’s method for applying cost

• applying the cost component to the remaining sites

• way forward - work to be undertaken to reach a preferred site


December 2009 3

Tonight’s objectives

• present the non-financial criteria results

• present the cost application rationale

• identify the shortlisted sites


December 2009 4

Project drivers

• this project is the first of a 4 stage upgrade in response to the2006/07 Department of Planning’s Lower Hunter RegionalStrategy. This report identified specific projected growth aroundCessnock - 21,000 lot connections by 2031.

• objectives of stage 1 aim to:

• improve the current water network by eliminating pressureissues within the area

• address the projected growth in the area


December 2009 5

Applying non cost criteria

• individual site assessments were undertaken with eachproperty owner

• each site was scored against the agreed non cost criteria

• a summary of each site assessment has been captured inthe report provided


December 2009 6

Summary graph of non cost criteria

Sites that score lower than 60 will therefore be discounted.

-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

We

igh

ted

Sc

ore

(/1

00

%)

Site

1A

Site

1B

Site

2

Site

3A

Site

3B

Site

4

Site

5

Site

6

Site

11

Site

12

Site

13

Site

16

Site

21

Site

22

Site

23

Site

24

Site

25

Site

26

Site

27

Proposed Reservoir Site

Cessnock water supply - stage 1 - reservoir site selection analysis

SOCIAL (40%)

ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)

DESIGN (40%)


December 2009 7

Summary graph of non cost criteria

-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Weig

hte

d S

co

re (

/100%

)

Site

1A

Site

1B

Site

2

Site

3A

Site

3B

Site

4

Site

5

Site

6

Site

11

Site

12

Site

13

Site

16

Site

21

Site

22

Site

23

Site

24

Site

25

Site

26

Site

27

Proposed Reservoir Site

Cessnock water supply - stage 1 - reservoir site selection analysis

SOCIAL (40%)

ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)

DESIGN (40%)


December 2009 8

Site 6


December 2009 9

Key findings of short listed sitesSite 3a

•visual impact – 4 propertyowners (500m)•proximity to vineyard -<50m

•access easement -extensive

Disadvantages

•property operations -minimal impact on current andfuture operations

•submerge structure – 4m

•visual impact – > 400m fromroad

•vegetation clearance – Nil

•endangered ecologicalcommunities – no impact.

•lead-in main length -~3.6km

•submerge structure –4mAdvantages

SOCIAL (40%)Good 29.20%

ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)Good 17.00%

DESIGN (40%)Satisfactory 23.60%


December 2009 10

Key findings of short listed sites

Site 3b

•visual impact – < 300m fromroad•proximity to vineyard -<50m

•access easement -extensive

Disadvantages

•property operations -minimal impact on current,potential impact on futureoperations


•visual impact – 3 propertyowner (500m)


•endangered ecologicalcommunities – no impact.

•lead-in main length -~4km


SOCIAL (40%)Satisfactory 22.00%

ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)Good 18.00%



December 2009 11


Site 6

•vandalism – high•endangered ecologicalcommunities – extensive

•vegetation clearance –extensive

•access easement -extensive•lead-in main length -~7.1kmDisadvantages

•property operations – noimpact


•visual impact – no impact

•submerge structure –4m

Advantages


ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)Poor 6.00%

DESIGN (40%)Poor 19.20%


December 2009 12


Site 21

•proximity to vineyard -<50m

access easement -extensiveDisadvantages



•visual impact – 0 propertyowner (500m)•visual impact – > 400m fromroad


•endangered ecologicalcommunities – minimalimpact.

•lead-in main length -~4.8km


Advantages


ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)Satisfactory 13.60%



December 2009 13

Key findings of short listed sitesSite 22

•vegetation clearance –extensive

•endangered ecologicalcommunities – extensive.

lead-in main length -~5.7km•access easement -extensiveDisadvantages

•property operations – noimpact on current or futureoperations

•visual impact – existingvegetation conceals

•visual impact – 4 propertyowner (500m) - partial


Advantages



DESIGN (40%)Good 28.80%


December 2009 14


Site 24

•proximity to vineyard -<50m

lead-in main length -~6.4km•access easement -extensive

Disadvantages



•visual impact – 1 propertyowner (500m)•visual impact – > 400m fromroad


•endangered ecologicalcommunities – minimalimpact.


Advantages


ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)Satisfactory 12.40%

DESIGN (40%)Poor 18.40%


December 2009 15

Key findings of short listed sitesSite 26

•vandalism – high•endangered ecologicalcommunities – extensive•vegetation clearance –extensive

•access easement -extensive•lead-in main length -~5.7km•Potential minesubsidence

Disadvantages

•property operations – noimpact

•visual impact – no impact





Break


December 2009 17

Applying cost to each site

• cost is important in determiningthe feasibility of each site.

• Hunter Water has undertakenpreliminary costing on thecapital construction cost.

• costing around land value andcompensation is yet to bedetermined.


December 2009 18

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

Co

st

($)

Sit

e 1

A

Sit

e 1

B

Sit

e 2

Sit

e 3

A

Sit

e 3

B

Sit

e 4

Sit

e 5

Sit

e 6

Sit

e 1

1

Sit

e 1

2

Sit

e 1

3

Sit

e 1

6

Sit

e 2

1

Sit

e 2

2

Sit

e 2

3

Sit

e 2

4

Sit

e 2

5

Sit

e 2

6

Sit

e 2

7

S ite Options

Reservoir Sites - preliminary cost estimates

Capital construction cost ($)

Summary graph of costing

$6.0M budget limit


December 2009 19

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000C

ost

($)

Sit

e 1

A

Sit

e 1

B

Sit

e 2

Sit

e 3

A

Sit

e 3

B

Sit

e 4

Sit

e 5

Sit

e 6

Sit

e 1

1

Sit

e 1

2

Sit

e 1

3

Sit

e 1

6

Sit

e 2

1

Sit

e 2

2

Sit

e 2

3

Sit

e 2

4

Sit

e 2

5

Sit

e 2

6

Sit

e 2

7

S ite Options

Reservoir Sites - preliminary cost estimates

Capital construction cost ($)

Cost impact on shortlisted sites

$6.0M budget limit


December 2009 20

• sites 6 and 22 have been eliminated once the cost filter was applied.

• sites remaining have been ranked in order of cost:

1. Site 3a2. Site 3b3. Site 214. Site 245. Site 26

• further work (geotechnical, visual impact study, environmental assessment) will beundertaken on sites 3a, 3b, 21

• Hunter Water will pursue sites 24 and 26 in the event sites 3a, 3b and 21 are deemedunfeasible

Short listed sites


December 2009 21

Way forward - reaching a preferred site

• further negotiations with short listed property owners will take place - landvalue and compensation will be determined.

• consultation with adjacent property owners will be undertaken

• Preliminary engineering design, geotechnical and environmentalassessments to be undertaken

• visualisation impact studies will be undertaken

• next CWG meeting # 4 – late March 2010 (date TBC)

• meeting minutes:– draft distributed by Thursday 10 December 2009– return comments by Thursday 17 December 2009

• are these dates okay?

Thank you

Documents

Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community working group · PDF fileCessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3 December 2009 3 Tonight’s objectives • present the non-financial