The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081133.tiff REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AUTHORITY PO Box 597—Commerce City, CO 80037-0597 Office: 303-288-2646—Fax: 303-288-9531 March 31, 2008 Commissioner William Jerke Commissioner Bill Garcia Commissioner David Long Commissioner Rob Madsen Commissioner Douglas Rademacher Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear Commissioners: It is the purpose of this letter to keep you informed of developments on the siting, financing, construction and operation of regional wastewater treatment facilities in the northeastern quadrant of the Denver metropolitan area. As you may know, for the past seven years the City of Brighton, the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District and the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District have been engaged in a cooperative effort to establish a single, large wastewater treatment facility to help meet all three entities' needs. This cooperation ultimately took the form of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Authority, an intergovernmental- agreement entity of those three parties (the "Authority"). In the latter part of 2007, Metro Wastewater informed the Authority, Brighton and South Adams that Metro Wastewater was withdrawing from the Authority. Recently, Metro Wastewater also informed the Authority and its two remaining members that Metro Wastewater is proposing a new Northern Treatment Plant in the vicinity of E-470 to serve its northeastern service area. Metro Wastewater invited Brighton and South Adams to discuss participation in this facility as Special Connectors. While recognizing the need for additional wastewater treatment in the northeast quadrant of the metro area, the remaining members of the Authority have substantial concerns with Metro Wastewater's proposed site. Those concerns have been expressed to Metro Wastewater in the letter enclosed herewith. As you can see, the Authority, Brighton and South Adams remain convinced that a regional approach to meeting the area's 2008-1133 Cc/-/ -off (/9 , �� wastewater treatment needs is preferable, and can be accomplished in a location acceptable to the entire regional community. We would be pleased to meet with you to further discuss these matters at your convenience. Sincerely, REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AUTHORITY Gregory A. Fabisiak Chairman Cc: Don Warden, Weld County Director of Finance and Administration End. RWWTPA Weld County Letter 033108 2 REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AUTHORITY PO Box 597 — Commerce City, CO 80037-0597 Office: 303-288-2646—Fax: 303-288-9531 March 7, 2008 Chairman Charlie Long Board of Directors Metro Wastewater Reclamation District 6450 York Street Denver, CO 80229-7499 Re: Regional Wastewater Treatment Dear Mr. Long: This letter will respond to your District Manager Catherine R. Gerali's letter of January 9, 2008 inviting the City of Brighton and South Adams County Water and Sanitation District ("SACWSD") to enter into discussions about possibly joining Metro as special connectors at a proposed new Metro Northern Treatment Plant. As you may know, for more than five years Metro joined with Brighton and SACWSD to plan for a regional wastewater plant for all three entities. This effort culminated in an Agreement in 2005 establishing the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Authority ("Authority"), in which Metro was a participant. In late 2007, after mutual effort of all three members to accomplish a regional plant, Metro withdrew from the Authority to explore a different, separate path. This history is necessary background for our continuing belief that the public wastewater treatment needs of the northeastern quadrant of the Denver metropolitan area should be addressed on a regional basis. Brighton and SACWSD persist in their efforts to work together through the Authority to plan for a regional approach to their wastewater needs. In this context, the Authority Board invites Metro representatives to re-engage in discussions regarding further regional cooperation. Brighton and SACWSD believe that re-engagement in northeast-metro regional treatment of wastewater makes good sense for them, for Metro and for the broader community, especially given the inherent problems associated with Metro establishing a northern treatment plant in the vicinity of the E-470 Highway and the South Platte River, which we understand is the site selected by Metro. This site is immediately upstream of Brighton's well field. The proximity of tens of millions of gallons of wastewater effluent upstream of the City's wells, and the wells of the Todd Creek Metropolitan District, obviously is a substantial water quality concern. The Metro site also appears to be adjacent to the Adams County Regional Park. Adams County Chairman Charlie Long March 7, 2008 Page 2 of 2 citizens are quite proud of this beautiful park, and we do not believe that the County's representatives and constituents will be amenable to the construction and operation of a large wastewater plant right next door. In addition to the concerns of water quality and impact upon the Regional Park, we believe that Metro site produces a number of other significant concerns — including air quality, traffic and an impediment to open space/greenway corridor and regional cooperation — which will be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Therefore, the Authority Board has unanimously resolved its willingness to engage in discussions that would allow the construction of a new regional wastewater treatment plant at a location which is feasible and desirable for the customers of all three public entities. We look forward to your response, and we would be pleased to schedule a meeting to discuss our expressed concerns and, perhaps more importantly, to revitalize a regional solution to wastewater treatment in the northeastern part of the metro area. uthoity Chairman Authority Chairman Pro Tem Cc: Catherine R. Gerali Board of Directors, Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Authority #7 'C\tt, MEMORANDUM Wi` a TO: Board of County Commissioners County Administrators COLORADO DATE: April 7, 2008 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Evaluation of Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Attendees: Catherine (Cathy) Gerali, Distrbt Manager, Metro Barbara Biggs, Government Affairs Officer, Metro Bill Brennan, Director of Comprehensive Planning, Metro Brenda Hungerford, Metro Staff John Kuosman, Black & Veatch Water Consultants Trevor Jiricek, County Environmental Health Kim Ogle, Planning Attendees are identified in course of open forum discussion On Monday April 7, 2008 an informal presentation and discussion took place at the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Board Room, 6450 York Street, Denver, CO The meeting was billed as a half-day workshop to discuss the issues and alternatives for providing wastewater treatment to this fast growing region. The Agenda for this workshop is attached. Opening remarks provided by Gerali and Biggs. Overview of where the issues lie tod'. In 2001 the City of Brighton, South Adams County water and sanitation and Metro were engaged in a seven year study to identify and establish one large wastewater treatment facility that would service the needs of each. An Inter-governmental Agreement was established creating the "Authority" for representation. In 2007 Metro informed the Authority, South Adams and Brighton that they were withdrawing from the Intergovernmental agreement for no specified reasons. The "Authority" continued to operate wth South Adams and Brighton as the lone parties. Permitting would occur within Weld County or Adams County. Each process requires a 1041 land use application and an Intergovernmental Agreement. [Armchair aside: WC does not require a 1041 application as stated in the County Code.] Siting alternatives as presented by Biggs, included the Thornton-only sites, the Aurora only sites, the Fort Lupton sites, the Riverdale sites, the existing Central Treatment Plan and the Weld county site. The Brantner site 's within an area identified as the Riverdale sites. Constructed and in operation in 1985 Located at 128`h Avenue and Riverdale Road Improvements: Generator in 1999 Improvements: Containment Basin in 2004 Improvements: Parallel pipeline— 5 miles in length Future Improvements: Backflow Preventer 2010 Future Improvements: 2015 Future Improvements: Parallel pipeline— 10 miles in length To accommodate capacity, the existing lift station would require expansion 3x fold from existing facility. Projected at capacity in FY 2010-2012, with full capacity reached in FY 2015 Northern Treatment Plant Alternative. Issues of discharge into the south Platte given the proximity to the recently approved by Weld County for the Prairie Waters project. The relatiorship is a public perception nightmare. There are discharge issues, including the 4-mile distance from the CR2/SH85 site to the Prairie Waters site. There are also issues with existing well fields for the communities of Fort Lupton and Brighton and the proximity of the discharge location. Representatives for Brighton indicated that the Town "blends" water for consumption. Questions were raised on the decision to align the treatment plant adjacent to the river. It was indicated that the City of Northglenn utilizes an irrigation ditch to convey the treatedwater to the South Platte river. Has metro considered this viable option? Opening Remarks concluded, there was a ten minute break. At 10:50 the meeting continued. This portion of the workshop-meeting was to call out, by jurisdiction honest comment, opinion and concerns. Comments were generally received in alphabetical order. Adams County issues: [Jim Robinson and Rob Coney] Disappointed that the regional concept fell apart There was an agreement in place, why did Metro pull out It was noted that there is probably not a perfect site, however, there is a need to keep the regional plant on the drawing board. To benefit region, there is a greater need to review alternatives between 112' and 144'" Avenue Identify additional sites. This has been a 30-year issue with no resolution Regional Plant needs a Regional solution The existing central plant is in Adams County The likelihood of attaining the preferred option, Site 1, is not doable, Site is in Grenway and adjacent to existing golf course. Not to be sited adjacent to City park. Alternative Plant— Brantner Ditch, Previously hd success here with City of Aurora Mitigate the Short Term Resolve the long term Pipe, pipe easements not and issue Thornton needs sewer Aurora Issues [Dana Ehlen and Mark Pfiffer] High Point Creek 1 and 2, Prairie Water project Able to support Riverdale Sites Need to Find the solution and move project forward Stop the talk, need the commitment Need a driver to the solution — Prairie Waters intake and discharge outfall has issues Evaluate site down stream or North of alluvial well intake It is an issue of Quality v. quantity ARR Site: Issues to mitigate Appears to not have evaluated or studied enough for an answer Authority Issues [Greg Fabisiak] Regional Plant requires study With Metro withdrawing from IGA— new issues Metro wants Control of all activities Authority wants a place at the table, with ability to comment Brighton is "special" as do not want plant built in their backyard What is the concept of regionalism? There are more factors than one of economics Who or what are the controlling interests Briggs and MacDonald were hired by the Authority to evaluate sites. The Weld County Site is not dead yet, but,what is the preferred alternative? Not in Brighton's community gateway Brighton issues [John Bramble, Jim Landeck] Concerns with the existing well field and effects on water quality City does not put water through a treatment system What is the public perception? The Northern (Weld County Site) is the community gateway Proposed sites south of Brighton do not solve regional issues as City still pumps Commerce City issues [Tom Auer] Plant capacity. South Adams or Commerce City Discharge locations do not appear to be thought out What is the regional response? Denver Water issues [Larry dirks, Chris Piper] Scenario with Denver pumping upstream, do not know if supportable BMWA for Barr Lake-- needs assistance from others to provide a clean low BODwater source to enable the City to meet or exceed compliance with the Federal standards City and County of Denver— Mayor Ritter's Office [David Ferrel] Substantial political issues, seeking a role to participate and at what level Metro issues and comments [Cathy Gerali] Comments provided in rebuttal to issues raised by the Authority. Metro has been a provider of sanitary sewer since the 1960s. in February 2006, Metro met with the Adams County Board of County Commissioners to discuss the Regionalfacility. Feedback provided on the Metro preferred site, unsupportable. Metro sought input from Brighton and South Adams as they via the Authority were to under take a new study. It was indicated that with no regional solution or lack of a multi-plant solution there may be tap moratoriums placed on future connections and development until a solution found. No one wants to see this drastic step taken. Metro disagrees it is a matter of control v. improvement dollars provided. For instance it was perceived that Metro would be contributing a greater share of the monies, hence they should have a greater say at the table. See Greg Fabisiak comments under the "Authority". Metro is presently evaluating sites for cost effectiveness. There is movement forwardwith the Weld County site under review. Is this the right thing to do? Is it a Regional solution or an alternative? Requires resolution. Brantner Gulch Life Station services the City of Thornton. With expansion of this facility, there will be assistance to Adams County issues South Adams [Greg Fabisiak] What are the benefits? Need to look farther downstream Preferred Site 1 not viable Appears that Control and costs drive decision Ways to mitigate costs, not all are financial Growth v. Capacity issues Thornton Issues [Jack Ethredge] Brantner Gulch Lift Station— upgrade Force Mains and/or Gravity lines What are the water rights of others? Three existing plants— move to one regional plant What are the degrees of comfort? Instead of negative corrments of why the Regional Facility proposal can not be done, think of ways to attain positive results. Thornton seeks movement wants resolution Weld County [Kim Ogle] County is not a beneficiary to the proposal County will process application if in Weld County The Board of County Commissioners have not indicated their position on this project at this time Staff will provide assistance at future meetings Next Steps? Attain the services of a professional facilitator top move process in a positive direction. Bring all parties to the table with even footing. Take the preferred site 1 off of the Table, not supportable by Adams County elected officials and others. Weld County site removes a mobile home park, and a commercial salvage yard. Metro wants 50 acres. Floodplain may be an issue. Appearances are that this is the most valid site on the table. Closing remarks The CD and Proceeding's will be provided to attendees. Ogle provided business card to obtain information. Biggs and Gerali both indicaled that a work session with the Commissioners can be arranged if requested. Coordination of this meeting can be at the Staff level. End memorandum. Charles W. Long, Chairman of the Board METRO WASTEWATER Kathryn E.Jensen,Chairman Pro TernCurt A.Aldstadt,Secretary RECLAMATION DISTRICT Robert C.Monks,Treasurer 6450 York Street-Denver, Colorado 80229-7499 Robert W.Hite,District Manager (303)286-3000 Telefax(303)286-3030 www.metrowaste water.corn Northeast Service Area Workshop Agenda Greeting — Cathy Gerali II. Introductory Comments— Biggs a. Goals for the workshop b. History of the issues i. Metro's obligation to provide service H. Water rights issues Hi. Land use issues iv. Growth issues III. Brantner Gulch System Alternative a. Peak Flow Basin Construction - 2009 b. Lift station expansion c. Parallel pipelines IV. Northern Treatment Plant Alternative (Any Site) a. Coordination with Adams or Weld County master plans i. Heritage Plan ii. Riverdale Road Scenic Byway Master Plan iii. Open Space Master Plan iv. Regional Park Master Plan 1. Buffers — native prairie grasses and trees 2. Odor Control 3. Architectural treatments 4. Outfall wetlands 5. Habitat preservation V. Other Basin Alternatives a. First, Second or Third Creek Alternative b. Big Dry Creek Alternative VI. Open Discussion of Issues/Concerns/Alternatives Serving Greater Denver METRO WASTEWATER Charles W. Long, Chairman of the Board Kathryn E.Jensen, Chairman Pro Tem Curt A.Aldstadt, Secretary r.: RECLAMATION DISTRICT Robert C.Monks.Treasurer Catherine R.Gerali. District Manager 6450 York Street- Denver, Colorado 80229-7499 (303) 286-3000 Telefax (303) 286-3030 www.metrowastewater.com March 21, 2008 Mr. Don Warden Director of Finance and Administration Weld County Post Office Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Mr. Warden: As you may be aware, there is significant growth occurring in the western portion of Adams County. The Metro District, as the regional wastewater treatment provider for nearly 60 local governments throughout the metropolitan region, is obligated to provide wastewater service to the portion of this growth that is occurring in our service area—primarily within the northern portions of the Cities of Thornton and Aurora. Charles Long, Chairman of the Metro District Board of Directors, my staff, and I recently met with the Adams County Board of County Commissioners and heard their concerns with the District's preliminary evaluation of alternatives to serve this area. Since that meeting, I have also heard from the City of Aurora and Denver Water regarding their concerns with siting new wastewater treatment facilities. Given the issues that have been raised, I am inviting you to attend a half-day workshop to discuss all of the issues and alternatives for providing wastewater treatment to this fast- growing area of the region. The Metro District must make a decision soon and is very interested in working together to identify alternatives that work for all our entities while accommodating the growth that helps fuel the region's economy. I hope you will join me for this important discussion on Monday, April 7, from 8:30 to 12:00 p.m., in the Metro District's Board Room. I know all of you are busy and may need to send your staff instead of attending yourself. I would only ask that you send staff authorized to actively participate in the discussion on your organization's behalf. I would also request that we keep the group small enough to facilitate meaningful discussion. For example, I will be attending with the District's Director of Comprehensive Planning, Bill Brennan, and Governmental Affairs Officer, Barbara Biggs, whom I have asked to lead and facilitate the discussion. Please let Brenda Hungerford (303-286-3306) or Karen Johnston (303-286-3323) of my staff know by April 2, 2008, if you plan on attending so we can make appropriate arrangements. Serving Greater Denver WE USE RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Don Warden March 21, 2008 — Page 2 I look forward to working with you to resolve these complicated issues and move forward in a way that protects the environment and accommodates all of our needs while respecting stakeholder concerns. Sincerely, Catherine R. Gerali District Manager CRG:beh ADM09\Gerali Correspondence\2008\Letters\Warden Workshop Invitation 03-21-2008.doc i ee cad t1 e, REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AUTHORITY PO Box 597 —Commerce City, CO 80037-0597 Office: 303-288-2646 —Fax: 303-288-9531 March 31,2008 Commissioner William Jerke Commissioner Bill Garcia Commissioner David Long Commissioner Rob Madsen Commissioner Douglas Rademacher Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear Commissioners: It is the purpose of this letter to keep you informed of developments on the siting, financing, construction and operation of regional wastewater treatment facilities in the northeastern quadrant of the Denver metropolitan area. As you may know, for the past seven years the City of Brighton, the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District and the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District have been engaged in a cooperative effort to establish a single, large wastewater treatment facility to help meet all three entities' needs. This cooperation ultimately took the form of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Authority, an intergovernmental- agreement entity of those three parties (the"Authority"). In the latter part of 2007, Metro Wastewater informed the Authority, Brighton and South Adams that Metro Wastewater was withdrawing from the Authority. Recently, Metro Wastewater also informed the Authority and its two remaining members that Metro Wastewater is proposing a new Northern Treatment Plant in the vicinity of E-470 to serve its northeastern service area. Metro Wastewater invited Brighton and South Adams to discuss participation in this facility as Special Connectors. While recognizing the need for additional wastewater treatment in the northeast quadrant of the metro area, the remaining members of the Authority have substantial concerns with Metro Wastewater's proposed site. Those concerns have been expressed to Metro Wastewater in the letter enclosed herewith. As you can see, the Authority, Brighton and South Adams remain convinced that a regional approach to meeting the area's wastewater treatment needs is preferable, and can be accomplished in a location acceptable to the entire regional community. We would be pleased to meet with you to further discuss these matters at your convenience. Sincerely, REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AUTHORITY i L-7v YC ✓✓(j/"7/ ✓/ s Gregory A. Fabisiac Chairman Cc: Don Warden, Weld County Director of Finance and Administration Encl. RWWTPA Weld County Letter 033108 2 REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AUTHORITY PO Box 597 — Commerce City, CO 80037-0597 Office: 303-288-2646—Fax: 303-288-9531 March 7, 2008 Chairman Charlie Long Board of Directors Metro Wastewater Reclamation District 6450 York Street Denver, CO 80229-7499 Re: Regional Wastewater Treatment Dear Mr. Long: This letter will respond to your District Manager Catherine R. Gerali's letter of January 9. 2008 inviting the City of Brighton and South Adams County Water and Sanitation District ("SACWSD") to enter into discussions about possibly joining Metro as special connectors at a proposed new Metro Northern Treatment Plant. As you may know, for more than five years Metro joined with Brighton and SACWSD to plan for a regional wastewater plant for all three entities. This effort culminated in an Agreement in 2005 establishing the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Authority ("Authority"), in which Metro was a participant. In late 2007, after mutual effort of all three members to accomplish a regional plant, Metro withdrew from the Authority to explore a different, separate path. This history is necessary background for our continuing belief that the public wastewater treatment needs of the northeastern quadrant of the Denver metropolitan area should be addressed on a regional basis. Brighton and SACWSD persist in their efforts to work together through the Authority to plan for a regional approach to their wastewater needs. In this context, the Authority Board invites Metro representatives to re-engage in discussions regarding further regional cooperation. Brighton and SACWSD believe that re-engagement in northeast-metro regional treatment of wastewater makes good sense for them, for Metro and for the broader community, especially given the inherent problems associated with Metro establishing a northern treatment plant in the vicinity of the E-470 Highway and the South Platte River, which we understand is the site selected by Metro. This site is immediately upstream of Brighton's well field. The proximity of tens of millions of gallons of wastewater effluent upstream of the City's wells, and the wells of the Todd Creek Metropolitan District, obviously is a substantial water quality concern. The Metro site also appears to be adjacent to the Adams County Regional Park. Adams County Chairman Charlie Long March 7, 2008 Page 2 of 2 citizens are quite proud of this beautiful park, and we do not believe that the County's representatives and constituents will be amenable to the construction and operation of a large wastewater plant right next door. In addition to the concerns of water quality and impact upon the Regional Park, we believe that Metro site produces a number of other significant concerns — including air quality, traffic and an impediment to open space/greenway corridor and regional cooperation — which will be difficult, if not impossible,to overcome. Therefore, the Authority Board has unanimously resolved its willingness to engage in discussions that would allow the construction of a new regional wastewater treatment plant at a location which is feasible and desirable for the customers of all three public entities. We look forward to your response, and we would be pleased to schedule a meeting to discuss our expressed concerns and, perhaps more importantly, to revitalize a regional solution to wastewater treatment in the northeastern part of the metro area. Authority Chairman �-1 \ A t�i hority Chairman Pro Tern Cc: Catherine R. Gerali Board of Directors, Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Authority 4\ METRO WASTEWATER ,, RECLAMATION DISTRICT 6450 York Street•Denver, Colorado 80229-7499 (303) 286-3000•Teletax(303)286-3035 BARBARA J. BIGGS Governmental Affairs Officer Direct Line: (303)286-346. bbiggs@mwrd.dst.co.0 www m etrowastewater.com John A. Kuosman, P.E.* Engineering Manager *Licensed In Colorado,Arizona B&V Water Nit ® BLACK I&��VEATCH Building a of difference BLACK&VEATCH CORPORATION 6300 South Syracuse Way•Suite 300 Centennial,CO 80111 USA Tel:720.834.4334•Fax:720.834.4285•Cell:303.601.5660 kuosmanja®bv.com NORTHEASTERN SERVICE AREA EVALUATION Executive Summary i 'irpait•tt i ui C9S) i3" Iritiis4-s .:1 )) 41 d1 )tai ii )i fyiiI\ i The information contained in this document should not be duplicated, bb lb : lb METRO WASTEWATER Rb RECLAMATION DISTRICT Rik Rik PAR 1050 mik Capital Project Management Program Rik Rik Northeastern Service Area Evaluation Report gik Executive Summary e A November 2007 B&V Project Number 146939 S A The information contained in this document is confidential. It should not be duplicated, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than for evaluation of the options discussed herein. S S S BLACK tling af&��VEATCH of difference'. o, P � O 2Ww ✓ci e BROWN AND CALDWELL ONE PLANT e 4. METRO WASTEWATER `, NORTHEASTERN SERVICE AREA EVALUATION 4 )RECLAMATION DISTRICT) 4 'e ,-rma i n.,e A Table of Contents 1� Evaluation Methodology 2 NTP Phased Capacities and Treatment Technologies 4 NTP Siting Alternatives 7 Comparative Net Present Value Evaluation 12 4 Evaluation of Potential Outcomes to Constructing the NTP 13 Final Recommendation and Schedule Going Forward 15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 • 0 i i 3 i I a I PAR 1050 it 10/29/2007 0 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. • . NORTHEASTERN SERVICE AREA EVALUATION Ilb) METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT) ql List of Figures Figure ES-1 Potential NTP Service Areas 1 Figure ES-2 Evaluation Methodology 2 Figure ES-3 Projected Northeastern Flows and NTP Phased Capacity Requirements 5 Figure ES-4 NTP Process Flow Schematic (Phase 3 [2035] — 32-mgd ADAF) 6 Figure ES-5 NTP Siting Corridors 7 Figure ES-6 Ft. Lupton Corridor Sites 8 Figure ES-7 Riverdale Corridor Sites 10 Figure ES-8 Riverdale Corridor Site 1 (Van Scoyk Site) 11 111 Figure ES-9 Timeline for NTP Activities 17 I List of Tables Table ES-1 Total Wastewater Flow Projections that Would Be Tributary to the NTP 2 Table ES-2 Riverdale Corridor Site Non-Economic Evaluation Criteria 4 Table ES-3 Comparative Present Value Evaluation Summary 12 I i 4 lb S I I I lb I I I I I 0 i a PAR 1050 111 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. i NORTHEASTERN SERVICE AREA EVALUATION METRO WASTEWATER - RECLAMATION DISTRICT ;r: r77 S 4 4 Abbreviations and Acronyms 4 4 ADAF average day annual flow ARR Aquifer Recharge and Recovery BNR biological nutrient removal CaRRB Centrate and RAS Reaeration Basins 4 CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4 CTP Central Treatment Plant DAFT dissolved air flotation thickening DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments Metro District Metro Wastewater Reclamation District mgd million gallons per day MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids NSAE Northeastern Service Area Evaluation NTP Northern Treatment Plant O&M operations and maintenance ♦ PELs Preliminary Effluent Limits ♦ RAS return activated sludge 4 ROW right of way RWTPA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Authority it RWWTP Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant UV ultraviolet WAS waste activated sludge WWTP wastewater treatment plant 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 PAR 1050 iv 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document A , 4 CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM lill) METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT / at- 1.-:::e.:1._.,•F -,- , 11 Executive Summary , , In order to meet development trends and population growth in the Denver il metropolitan area, the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro District) is 01 evaluating the engineering and financial feasibility of long-term treatment options to serve its current and future customers in the northeast portion of its service area. This 4 Northeastern Service Area Evaluation (NSAE) Project examined economic and non- 4 economic issues associated with two alternatives: either constructing a new wastewater y treatment plant (WWTP) to treat northeastern flows or investing in upgrades to the 4 existing Central Treatment Plant (CTP) and transmission system to treat these projected ill flows. 4 As part of the NSAE Project, the Metro District identified and evaluated parcels 4 of land that could be used as the site for the new WWTP, herein termed the Northern 4 Treatment Plant (NTP). The NTP would be sited to treat wastewater flows collected from 4 portions of Thornton, Aurora, and Denver, as illustrated by the color-shaded areas on 4 Figure ES-1. This Executive Summary discusses the NTP phased capacities and 4 4 - ------.--___ Potential O, j _ /NTP Site-__ 4 , F Legend Dine Inbuin in NT. ,.__ � _ -- AWon obuYp to NTP 4 • m 0vu m NTP Toes T• ry - 1-25 _ CI o Drstnct Service Area Samoan 4 -- j _ , � _-1 J 4 " I 4 N I-25 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 Miles , Figure ES-1. Potential NTP Service Areas 4 PAR 1050 1 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. a • " ,? CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ligib METRO WASTEWATER ,14 RECLAMATION DISTRICT) . Sf -ecor, t rrtn.r. • • • treatment technologies, as well as an economic and a non-economic evaluation and 41 comparison of constructing an NTP or investing in upgrades to the existing CTP and N transmission system. 4 4 Evaluation Methodology Determine Capacity Requirements &"Phasing 4 Figure ES-2 4 summarizes the NSAE Determine NTP Treatment Requirements & Phasing 4 Project methodology. The I 4 evaluation team used recent Evaluate Siting Options ' 4 planning documents as a Compare Net Present Value of NTP vs. CTP Alternatives 4 basis for the NSAE Project, 4 modifying or updating the Develop Report and Recommendations 4 information as appropriate. Figure ES-2. Evaluation Methodology Projected flow information 4 was used to project NTP capacity requirements and anticipated phasing of expansions to 4 the plant. Thornton wastewater flow projections to the NTP were presented in the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Authority's (RWTPA's) Wastewater Utility Plan (2006). Aurora flows were drawn from the Sand Creek Basin Wastewater Master Plan (2007). Wastewater flow projections from the Denver portion of the northeastern service area were based on projections developed by the Metro District as part of the NSAE Project. A summary of the wastewater flow projections for each of the Metro District entities served by the NTP is shown on Table ES-1. 4 4 4 Table ES-1 4 Total Was'tewate'r Flow Projections that Would Be Tributary to.theNTP' ''"- A Year(q Contributor 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Buildout illi Thornton 5.3 6.5 7.7 9.1 10.4 11.7 13.1 4 Aurora 1.7 2.8 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.8 16 Denver - - 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.6 A Total 7.0 9.3 12.0 15.1 18.1 21.7 30.7 (1)All flows are presented as average day annual flow(ADAC)in mgd. A 4 PAR 1050 2 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. 4 a CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM METRO WASTEWATER A RECLAMATION DISTRICT Exec .r .,7?,,t1! 4 • The conceptual process design for the NTP was developed in order to determine rough order of magnitude costs and acreage required. The conceptual process design is phased based on treatment limits expected to be implemented over the lifetime of the • plant's operation. While some of the design criteria for this plant are consistent with the conceptual design recommended for the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant A (RWWTP) in the RWTPA's Wastewater Utility Plan (2006), some modifications have 4 been made due to more stringent discharge limits for total nitrogen and total phosphorus A anticipated during the planning period for the NTP. !A Four corridors were evaluated for siting the NTP, one of which is expected to accommodate gravity flows from Thornton, one of which is expected to accommodate gravity flows from Aurora and Denver, and two of which are expected to accommodate gravity flows from all three municipalities. Preliminary screening criteria were established for evaluating each of the four siting corridors, including the minimum amount of usable land considering factors that will act to reduce the area available for construction; ability to bring wastewater to the NTP without transmission system pumping; current ownership, zoning, adjacent zoning, and ability to be rezoned for use as a WWTP site; proximity to neighboring growth centers (odor, noise, traffic, and visual impact concerns); proximity to the South Platte River or other suitable receiving stream; and ability to meet federal, state, and local permitting requirements. Sites meeting these 4 criteria were identified for further evaluation. Because the Riverdale Corridor Sites appeared to be the most advantageous, each was evaluated according to the additional criteria depicted in Table ES-2. A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 r 4 PAR 1050 3 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. s CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM lb METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT ,S, ?ocr- i':.:2-cu:: :r; n 77a',' 0 0 60 Rivegd'ate Corridor Site Nan-Economic Evaluation-Criteria flo Criteria Type Physical Economic Environmental Social Size Interceptor Routing Impact on Creeks or Transportation Access II Targeted for a minimum Length, road crossings, Ditches Shortest possible travel fli of 50 acres need for pumping length on a two lane road Natural Site Utilities Site Risk Factor Community Opposition O Buffers/Screening Assessment Wetlands, Targeted sites outside of a Targeted sites with Proximity ofexisting contamination, currently planned growth permanent natural utilities infrastructure threatened& areas S buffer zones endangered species , Future Expansion Assessment of Current Land Uses Odor Impacts Potential Purchasability Targeted sites currently Without permanent 044 Expansion within site Fewer parcel owners, used for agricultural neighbors to the , boundary owner(s)living off-site, purposes southeast minimal existing 5 physical structures Proximity to South Platte River O. Targeted sites with South Platte River S boundary Ili A Capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the NTP and associated 0 transmission system components were determined in net present value dollars A (August 2007) and included costs such as site acquisition, engineering and construction , fees, and anticipated chemical addition costs. Costs used for the NTP were based on the OS most advantageous site determined in the siting alternatives evaluation. Capital and O&M , costs associated with upgrading the CTP and transmission system as appropriate to meet projected flows and regulatory requirements also were developed in net present value 41 terms and were compared to the NTP costs. 0 NTP Phased Capacities and Treatment Technologies IS In order to evaluate costs associated with the NTP, as well as acreage required, ~ NTP treatment technologies and expansion phases were projected based on anticipated 0 flows and regulatory requirements. Figure ES-3 presents the projected capacity lA requirements (million gallons per day [mgd] average day annual flow [ADAF]) for the h NTP to provide adequate capacity to treat projected northeastern flows. 4 S 04 PAR 1050 4 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. I. . I lb) »M METRO WASTEWATER '...\ CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM I RECLAMATION DISTRICT) carr ;. re.r r, ' I I I To determine the likely NTP expansion phases, long-term flow projections through the year 2040 were considered and various phasing increments were evaluated. As reflected in Figure ES-3, it was determined for planning purposes that the NTP most likely would be online by 2015 and that the first phase of construction should provide a % minimum of 10 years of capacity. Future capacity upgrades at the NTP would be uniform I throughout the planning period and would be operational prior to the NTP reaching 95 percent of its rated 40.0 I capacity. Based on P""°3 35.0 — — - —- — (32 mod ADAFCapacit N these criteria, it was 30.0— i determined that the Phase 2 (24 mgd ADAF Cspaciy) IN initial capacity of the <25.011 ' a 1 NTP should be E 20.0 1 Phase I IN 1 (15 mgd ADAF Capacity)16-mgd ADAF and u 15.0- — el that capacity upgrades 4—Total projected flows itf would be made in 1D.D ✓*� •f 8-mgd increments. 5.0 A Northern Treatment Plant is Operational A Though there 00 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 A are several secondary Year A treatment technologies Figure ES-3. Projected Northeastern Flows and that can be used at NTP Phased Capacity Requirements A WWTPs, the Metro A District selected biological nutrient removal (BNR) activated sludge for the purpose of A preparing the conceptual process design for the NTP. All unit processes were sized and evaluated using modeling software; and considerations were made for both future A expansions and process redundancy in determining facility staging, sizing, and layout. Figure ES-4 depicts the Phase 3 process configuration of the NTP, which represents the plant at ultimate buildout. Phase 1 of the NTP is scheduled to be online in the year 2015 and includes design and construction of a 16-mgd ADAF plant. The first phase of the NTP was assumed to include activated sludge aeration basins with Centrate and return activated sludge (RAS) Reaeration Basins (CaRRB) and secondary clarification. The aeration basins would 1115 include anoxic zones, aerobic zones and a post-aerobic zone. 115 Phase 2 will upgrade the plant to 24-mgd ADAF and is anticipated to be PI operational by 2025. It was assumed that the secondary treatment process would be S a PAR 1050 5 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. le le ✓ IP. METRO WASTEWATER 1 CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RECLAMATION DISTRICT J '?perr e t:,,,6, .74'mm-tar/ It • modified in Phase 2 to enable the NTP to meet the total nitrogen and phosphorus limits IR required in 2025. The Phase 2 secondary treatment process would require additional IP CaRRB and aeration basins. In addition, anaerobic and post-anoxic zones would be added a to each existing aeration basin, methanol would be added at the post-anoxic stage, and • alum would be added at the secondary clarification stage. Finally, following the • secondary clarification, deep bed filters would be added to the process. The final phase is expected to be completed by 2035 and would have a buildout 0 capacity of 32-mgd ADAF. It was assumed that the secondary treatment process would • be modified in Phase 3 to enable the NTP to meet the total nitrogen, phosphorus, and 0 protozoan cysts limits required in 2035. Methanol would be added following secondary • clarification, the deep bed filters would be converted to denitrification filters, and tertiary lb filters would be added prior to disinfection as part of the overall Phase 3 process flow. 0 0 • Methanol Alum Methanol w lur u �' w Ilealwork% (;m Chamber Primary Reactors Rectors Secondary Fliers 1.Bar Screens Clarifiers Anaerobic Anoxic/Avnbic i Clarifier, Devito DeepBed UV InfluentIntluem - w Pump Station setn . s Effluent ADisposal Grit MSS Returnill Discharge Disposal South Plane —Q RAS Pumps River a Pttmpback `h � CuRRB Pumps Supernatant w (��)To Landfill Pump k D,,,,,to /C}Supernatant ♦ —o Fulton Ditch a Pump WAS Pumps a a OF--R---- ii.--5:7- Centrifuce, 01 Solids Pump DAFT &Jids Pump Anaerobic Digesters A ail Solids to Reuse Figure ES-4. NTP Process Flow Schematic (Phase 3 120351—32-mgd ADAF) O 1 A A PAR 1050 6 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. a 0, IP A CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM willilb) METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT' A S.- cccr.: ' F- t rna',:r,/ S A lib NTP Siting Alternatives ill The potential NTP corridors were chosen for evaluation based on their ability to lb treat wastewater flows collected from Thornton, Aurora, and/or Denver and were MI subjected to several preliminary screening criteria. As shown on Figure ES-5, four CA corridors were evaluated. ill The following is a summary of each of the four site corridors that were considered Ill for siting the NTP. PO Me • The Thornton-Only Sites: Only wastewater flows from Thornton are A expected to flow by gravity to these sites, which are located near the ill intersection of Highway 7 and Yosemite Street in Adams County. All of III the Thornton-Only Sites are located in heavily developed residential areas NA and are highly visible nt, from their surrounding Mg_:w _ I .b r- a communities. The g" 1 * ' ` = r* Ft Lu Lupton Sdes-_ aexisting terrain is very - 4 : P . „ -. "rR1a ti . 5 hilly and has significant —n�roraARRi� L..,CRn'—. floodplain issues that . q need to be addressed if a .t•_ i Se Thornton Sites - A,; eamA e plant were to be built in illi L '�t4 y this areaIlli . The Metro - x ':.,...,),0•/:- ' District thought that '�'% -,, Proposed.- „:. RWWTP,Site 1 : Ill siting a plant in this area Thornton servJcc , 0 l M Area Tributary to NTP - / f 1�� rerv, would be too _ t. '� ‘',--,;1:_,.., :� �-��" challenging to warrant aSI 1zom Ave red- - "c, a * '.-. =b further evaluation and, Riverdale sites i , s 1-' a as a result, the Thornton- ` - s �-ii* R, A Only Sites were not ,,`h a-9 _iv Gti y Aurora Sites >, o ; a evaluated beyond the 'l- ' o = z_ - t $I j. a initial screening. �4 Metro District - "I - = Central i ieatment `I"'-- ' .4 Plant-. The Aurora-Only Sites: Only wastewater e Denver(Red) Aurora (Blue) --K,, ^Service Area Tributary to NTP h. '4%. flows from Aurora and Figure ES-5. NTP Siting Corridors A a PAR 1050 7 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document A . A CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT) w S Denver are expected to flow by gravity to these sites, which are located w near the intersection of E-470 and Pena Boulevard in Denver County. All of the sites identified in this corridor were viewed to be viable for A constructing a WWTP. All of the sites in the corridor are owned by the w City and County of Denver and have very limited physical or geographic differences between them. A more detailed evaluation of the sites would be warranted only if the Metro District elected to site its plant in this area. lb This detailed evaluation, if warranted, would be completed at a later date. • The Ft. Lupton Sites: Wastewater flows i rd'iL k+ from Thornton, Aurora, and Denver all are Ft Lupton Sites, expected to flow by gravity to these sites, cR 10 o os which, as illustrated on Figure ES-6, are 3 'e located near the intersection of Big Dry Au ora R r w Creek and the South Platte River,just south ' 'ARP Site ' , . M. of Ft. Lupton in Weld County. All of the ' Proposed sites identified in this corridor were viewed RWWTP ri to be viable for constructing a WWTP. All !.., lb of the sites are located within Weld County F Riverdale Sites 4"Y y�o and are downstream of the proposed -Y a , a RWWTP Site, which could be beneficial in t I, a trying to permit the NTP. All of the sites 120th Ave would allow the City of Thornton to ' eliminate two of its existing lift stations, .4"*"1; which would not be possible at the Figure ES-6. Ft. Lupton Riverdale Sites. Corridor Sites The Ft. Lupton Sites are located approximately 9.5 miles north of the Riverdale Sites. As a result, it is expected that the Ft. Lupton Sites would require an additional 9.5 miles of 72-inch diameter interceptor sewer and 30-inch pressure pipe for the effluent pumpback when compared to the Riverdale Sites. The incremental total project cost difference (including contractor fees, overhead, and profit as well as other professional fees) between the two site corridors amounts to roughly $70 million. This assumes that land acquisition and a PAR 1050 8 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. !• + CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Alib) METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT) le ;r ~`sort L.,:;'Rae d'ut-rmaarJ le * site development costs would be the same for both the Riverdale Sites and the Ft. Lupton Sites and that the only difference between the two would be AP pipeline costs. * In addition, all of the Ft. Lupton Sites would impact the City of Aurora's Prairie Waters Project, and each site would have to be evaluated to determine its impact. A more detailed evaluation of the Ft. Lupton Sites would be warranted if the Metro District elected to site its plant in this area and would be completed at a later date. St • The Riverdale Sites: Wastewater flows from Thornton, Aurora, and Denver all are expected to flow by gravity to these sites, which are located near the intersection of E-470 and Riverdale Road in Adams County. Wastewater flows from Thornton would be collected in the area of the Olk existing Brantner Gulch Lift Station and diverted north in a new FIO interceptor to the Riverdale Sites. In this configuration, flow would bypass the Brantner Gulch Lift Station and it would be decommissioned from A service. The cost for the new interceptor was assumed to be borne entirely by the Metro District because they are replacing one of their current assets 00 (lift station) with a new asset (interceptor). Wastewater flows from Aurora and Denver would be conveyed in a new interceptor routed along Second Creek to the Riverdale Sites. As outlined in the Sand Creek Basin Wastewater Master Plan (jointly prepared by Metro District and Aurora), S1 the cost for the new interceptor along Second Creek was assumed to be �► borne entirely by the City of Aurora. This is because Aurora would bear the majority of the benefit associated with replacing its lift stations with a gravity flow interceptor system. Six sites were evaluated in the Riverdale Corridor as shown in IS Figure ES-7. The Riverdale Sites were all viewed to be viable for constructing a WWTP. All of the sites identified in this corridor are is located approximately 7 miles (straight line) south of the Aurora Prairie A Waters Aquifer Recharge and Recovery (ARR) Site and approximately 5 miles (straight line) south of the proposed RWWTP Site. This location, along with its location outside of commercial and residential development corridors, should help in permitting the site within Adams County. A PAR 1050 9 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. •' • CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM • METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT, • 'SA'S Z. .5 - -u riV Summ t—/ • • I,.. dam..- .�, �` � \ L • ' R 1 ( I' I �, -�. - _ ura,3tr,R o SITES - • h ' -..�:_ �;,,e�ro SITE3 .;Sourhptatt ,SITE2 • ® A w i w , �� P 1 , • ^` � �r .ef HI SITE 6 ,..,N s- I( A r SITE 5 � Fat' ` Py Y-- SITE 4 -I-(`�y tit ' _ '— :— i - .. �w1 3. ,Ate. ,L..4j. r A Figure ES-7. Riverdale Corridor Sites 41 A If the Metro District elects to construct the NTP, siting the plant within the A Riverdale Corridor Sites appears to provide the most benefit to the Metro District's A current connectors at the lowest capital cost. Based on an economic and a non-economic A evaluation completed for the Riverdale Site Corridor, Site 1 (Van Scoyk Site, illustrated on Figure ES-8) is the recommended site within the Riverdale Corridor. This A recommendation needs to be affirmed based on Level 1 and Level 2 Environmental 41 Assessments of the site that would be completed after this study. The Riverdale Corridor A Site I was recommended because of its size and the natural buffers which surround it and A because any odor generation at the site will have the least impact on the surrounding A community. As a result, the Riverdale Corridor Site 1 (Van Scoyk Site) was used in all A subsequent comparative economic evaluations completed in the report. 4 A A A A A a PAR 1050 10 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. me Z is Q L o N W CC E ,^ V N O - EL (2) l► y lLJ 1 m 0 0 1" n m N _ 0) laa CO c rn m d d a ry ,o Q I a. o Z Q z o 0 0 0 ,_ N N N N �Cy W U U Z Q Z Z Z V t Z K Q> > Q> > 7O 41 } U V It K K K W W W m4 ~ I c 9 F- LL cc p a Q w w n A A `d -, l ~ W J ¢ — 1A w o a rn a z i z i i O 0 0 ~ Q 'Q Q o ¢ W v. N o o z x i i w w w O N Z N n Q a D N I' y - - in R R' d' LL LL LL Z W Q ,., W Z W 000 Q Q W W W W J W 0 w .� a RQ. LL' W LL LL a a Q R Q a a Q m Q Vf J J J O in Ill 3 U h ~ t) o - i O i o w 1n W m n_ m 0 0 ry 0 Q ¢ W e %i o 'o a rc 'S $ l rc w N w w W 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Q I- -.I ti Y. 8 N m O O N > L) l� 1 W ~ J Q J 10.1 10.1 (N fOV VN N NCn a 0 W p < y 1' O Z_@ N N N N tV N N N (V W Z O O K w m w w Q W Q Z W C N W N N v1 0 F 0 N 2 EC! W W Q a A. LL •ThN O 2 O W J W O Z LL o 6 O O O O o O O O O V:. it i ❑ D ❑ ( r 4 m I- U o y La o z a N z w Q ticc W � 2 (o Q ✓'i 8 a 2 g a o x 9 n. _ n n o m n a 3 W I' Q ¢ 2 3 ~ i , cc W _ '`,41g 'rJ • W Z ft Cc ,g c, ,,;NIr qc„-. _ .�._ 0 A IL t Z y S ' z e I yea m s'4 U 3 O o ill n_ w' 2 ( CO n m U T J {l na _ _ '' ) - 4 o i N *As N Ed' W UV $ ) 41 Lt ca Lir Col A,, v U e t4 ` ' 7 i Lel W '� • at a o 0 K a • 0 CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM METRO WASTEWATER ,.�RECLAMATION DISTRICT . ,:r-I Rencrt Execurve -'urmrnary Ill O Comparative Net Present Value Evaluation • The present value comparison of capital and O&M costs of the two alternatives - • new NTP vs. upgrading CTP and transmission system—provides an indicator of the most O economic investment opportunity between the two alternatives. As shown in Table ES-3, 0 the present value of the NTP alternative (i.e., Riverdale Corridor Site 1) is estimated at S $227.8 million, while the present value of the CTP alternative is estimated at S $227.2 million. Based on the net present value evaluations and the assumptions made e within them, the Metro District would save $0.6 million through the year 2040 by electing to convey flows to the CTP for treatment. This amounts to less than a half percent of the total net present value cost for either of the alternatives over the same e planning period. e °�.,11ab1'e E9-3 e ., Cbmparative:BcesentValue Summary , e e NTP Option CTP Option Difference ($millions) ($millions) ($millions) O Capital Costs O Plant Costs $115.5 $79.7 $35.7 NTP/CTP Sewer Cost $6.4 $36.3 ($29.8) Sand Creek Sewer Cost $12.9 $16.4 ($3.5) Effluent Pumpback Cost $10.2 $0.0 $10.2 Total Capital Costs $145.0 $132.4 $12.6 O O&M Costs O Plant Cost $70.4 $66.4 $4.0 NTP/CTP Sewer Cost $1.1 $20.2 ($19.1) Sand Creek Sewer Cost $7.5 $8.2 ($0.8) Effluent Pumpback Cost $3.8 $0.0 $3.8 O Total O&M Costs $82.8 $94.9 ($12.1) O Present Worth $227.8 $227.2 $0.6 0 0 0 O PAR 1050 12 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. 0 • • CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM METRO WASTEWATER • RECLAMATION DISTRICT • VSAIE Vie_^or ec tiv • • • Evaluation of Potential Outcomes to Constructing the NTP This small cost difference indicates that the selection of the best long-term option for serving Metro District customers in the northeast portion of its service area should be based on a non-economic evaluation of the potential outcomes to constructing the NTP. The following advantages (+) and disadvantages (—) were identified and evaluated by Metro District management and the Board Directors present at the October 2007 Executive Retreat to be likely outcomes of constructing the NTP and are described in greater detail below. 9 • Advantages and Disadvantages of Constructing the NTP + Offload capacity of CTP, providing future flexibility + Free up CTP capacity for Metro District members whose flows only go to the S CTP S + Provide "wide spot" for solids handling S + Eliminate Brantner Gulch Lift Station © + Eliminate several City of Aurora lift stations 5 + Avoid challenging interceptor paralleling 9 + Expand customer base - Maintain two discharge locations - Receive opposition during permitting + Offload capacity of CTP,providing future flexibility Investing in the NTP alternative will offload the ultimate capacity of the CTP by at least 32 mgd, which would benefit the Metro District by providing more flexibility in the future process alternative selection at the CTP. The Metro District would not be forced into a small-footprint type process in the future if some of the ultimate treatment demands are handled at the NTP. +Free up CTP capacity for Metro District members whose flows only go to the CTP Investing in the NTP alternative will allow the City of Aurora, the City of Thornton, and the City of Denver to divert a portion of their wastewater flows by gravity for treatment at the NTP. This benefits the Metro District members whose flows can only be treated at the CTP by"freeing-up" capacity for future growth in these areas. O PAR 1050 13 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. N CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT) 1 1 +Provide "wide spot"for solids handling 1 Investing in the NTP alternative could allow the Metro District to replace a portion of the solids handling operations that are being lost in expansions at the CTP. 9 +Eliminate Brantner Gulch Lift Station AJ Investing in the NTP alternative will allow Metro District to eliminate the use of 5 the Brantner Gulch Lift Station. There are inherent risks associated with wastewater D pumping, and investing in the NTP alternative could reduce the overall risk level exposure for the Metro District's collection system. 5 +Eliminate several City of Aurora lift stations 5 Investing in the NTP alternative will allow the City of Aurora to eliminate the lift 5 stations and force mains that would be required to convey flows to the CTP. Investing in the NTP would eliminate one existing lift station and two lift stations that will be required in the planning period. Investing in the NTP alternative could reduce the overall risk level exposure for the City of Aurora's collection system. II I +Avoid challenging interceptor paralleling Investing in the NTP alternative will allow the Metro District to avoid the construction of the South Thornton Interceptor Parallel Project. This project is anticipated to be a significant challenge because of the amount of infrastructure growth that ' ' surrounds the interceptor routing and the excavation depths that would be required for the project. +Expand customer base * Investing in the NTP alternative could allow the Metro District the opportunity to • expand its customer base beyond current service areas. This includes not only the Metro District members whose flows can be treated at the NTP but also those whose flows can only be treated at the CTP. s o PAR 1050 14 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. METRO WASTEWATER ,c c Y r „MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IP • CAPITAL PROJECT MANA•' )RECLAMATION DISTRICT' cui;veSum:rant • • • —Maintain two discharge locations • Investing in the NTP alternative will require the Metro District to maintain • effluent discharge compliance at two locations along the South Platte River. There are • inherent risks associated with wastewater treatment operations, and investing in the NTP • alternative would expand the overall risk level exposure for the Metro District's treatment system. S —Receive opposition during permitting Investing in the NTP alternative will expose the Metro District to risks associated with permitting the plant site within Adams County. The County and other entities within d County boundaries could provide significant opposition to the NTP. The level of S opposition and associated risk to the Metro District will depend in large part on what S develops in the next year with the RWTPA. S Construction of the NTP will require an amendment to the Denver Regional S Council of Governments' (DRCOG's) Clean Water Plan, approval by DRCOG and the S Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) of a site application S for the facility, and a permit for the discharge of effluent to the South Platte River. Each S of these steps provides an opportunity for opponents of an NTP to object. While many • objections can be addressed by designing the NTP to meet all applicable water quality • standards and protect all downstream uses, each of these approvals provides a public • forum for opposition. In addition, there is a provision in the Colorado Water Quality • Control Act that requires the State to consider consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities whenever possible. The consolidation issue will need to be addressed in the • Wastewater Utility Plan for the NTP. S Final Recommendation and Schedule Going Forward Based on the economic and non-economic evaluation of the potential outcomes to ' constructing the NTP as summarized herein, it is recommended that the Metro District 5 initiate the planning processes required for constructing the NTP within the Riverdale 5 Corridor. Constructing the NTP has been identified as the best long-term treatment option ' for serving the northeast portion of its service area, and will provide significant benefits ' to all of the Metro District's current and future customers, not just those in Thornton, 5 Denver, and Aurora. This recommendation is a critical first step in the Metro District's S e PAR 1050 15 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. • • CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM e } METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT) e c teccrt .Executitie 5ammari S S e long-term planning horizon and will drive the scope and timing of infrastructure S improvements for the Metro District for years to come. Based on this recommendation the Metro District must now complete the following activities. A summary of a likely timeline for completing these activities is shown on Figure ES-9. S • Reconfirm Thornton's Cost Participation in the Effluent Pumpback S Facilities S • Discuss with Aurora Interceptor Ownership/Funding S • Complete Level 1 and Level 2 Environmental Assessments S • Recommend Site within the Riverdale Corridor ® • Purchase Site for NTP S • Obtain Right of Way(ROW) Acquisition for Interceptors S • 9Develop and Negotiate Potential Effluent Limits (PELs) with CDPHE • Prepare Wastewater Utility Plan for DRCOG • Obtain Zoning and Subdivision Approvals (Annexation Planning) ® • Facilitate a Public Comment Process • • Amend DRCOG Clean Water Plan • • Complete CDPHE Preliminary Engineering Report and Site Approval ' Form • Obtain Site Application Approval from DRCOG and CDPHE • Complete Preliminary Design of NTP • Prepare Process Design Report for CDPHE Plan Review • Complete Final Design and Construction • Request and Obtain Discharge Permit from CDPHE • Startup the NTP 1 S 1 1 1 S ' PAR 1050 16 10/29/2007 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the beginning of this document. i l'-- 0 N C u Q Cu Y/ O O fi r O W Et N Sr) o. a, F— O ta 6 U 1 tl 11 ' O Lu a . z R(' I— LU V OJ Qj 0 CC O.. J a cC t u a i bo F. c O N Y b a v 1 w n O 0 u u .1 z Si' r v a t) u r c, 0 v e 'o 0 1 — `o a w O 4; ` v N Ii .' r 'o O :'E E O w E p o6 d w ) - 0 d re t = a N 10 U N d N 0 ~ O G7 v o m ° c K O Z d 4 c >_ 113. R o a a rn E IF to ° o c h ¢vv_ 6. ° E d a) a 0. L c ° o) d ° coo c m w . ° tu a o r ° d a to = c E 3 E > o c a N '> C ::, O OJ N d 'o CD o o c L a c • :: o E c m r., c O r Z Z E N = Z ° �-° ≥ O m a E .411 2 o c°v d o 3 � °o c — s - c °' m 'v c v = o E w c a Z E CI - v m .- z d -041 z O d d o '- m m 0 a h Q E C c 'o '° '= N 9 0 N c d U U j •p W a Q ; cm C o: v 7 3 c co m N c c 1114 0a y aa d0dm - N Wa-° aa0Lre oCh '' w E v° t Q o ca QQ UEac �. Q a =7 OL 7 N V •L L > EEO rY COLN Cd Ow7 ry o N O 7 O d QU WQ J Q d' U 0. Z O d N LL Q U CO CO t6 U d d it d' U COfn fy a 999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999 Hello