HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070743.tiff i'
JACKSONKELLY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLLC
1099 18TH STREET,SUITE 2150•DENVER CO 80202•TELEPHONE 303-390-0003•TELECOPIER:303-390-0177
www./othMkeNycom
Direct Dial: 303-390-0186
rlsanda uist(a,iacksonkelly.com
March 5, 2007
Via Hand Delivery
Kent Kuster and Jennifer Miller, P.E.
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
Re: Town of Mead Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Application
Dear Kent and Jennifer:
On behalf of the East I-25 Sanitation District ("East 1-25"), we are submitting to the
Water Quality Control Division ("Division") information regarding the Town of Mead's
("Mead") site application for a new wastewater treatment plant which warrants denial of the site
application. The Mead site application is incomplete and predicated on factual errors. We
describe these defects in more detail below. There are strong policy and legal reasons why the
Division must deny Mead's site application.
I. MEAD'S SITE APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETE
A. Mead Has Not Obtained Weld County's Approval
The Town of Mead has submitted its application to the Division under the guise that it
has obtained conditional approval of its site application from the North Front Range Water
Quality Planning Association ("NFRWQPA"), and under the guise that Weld County is
recommending approval of the application contingent on the outcome of the litigation with East
I-25. As a 208 Management Agency, Mead only has jurisdiction over land within its municipal
boundaries. Unless property is annexed into the Town of Mead, Mead does not have land use
jurisdiction or 208 Management Agency authority over the property.
The property east of 1-25 is outside Mead's municipal boundaries and is in
unincorporated Weld County. It has not been annexed into Mead. Therefore, Weld County was,
and still is, the 208 Management Agency responsible for making decisions regardin" suaetewater
2007-0743
dpi we/xi/re/7044c 44c (0,' Ph.� fit.
Charleston,WV • Clarksburg,WV • Martinsburg,WV • Morgantown,WV • New Marto nsville,WV • Parkersburg,WV •Wheeling,WV
/� {D0442525.5} Lexington.KY • Pittsburgh,PA •Washington,D.C.
Water Quality Control Division f//
March 5, 2007
Page 2
service and development for lands east of 1-25. Weld County Commissioner's approval is
required before the Division can proceed with this site application review. As a prerequisite to
the NFRWQPA's consideration of the site application, Mead should have secured approval from
the Weld County Commissioners before submitting it to NFRWQPA. A conditional approval by
the Weld County Public Health and Environment Department ("Health Department") is not
legally sufficient, as the Health Department only serves as the local health authority not the 208
Management Agency. The Site Approval Regulations clearly require the applicant to obtain "all
necessary signatures on the form before sending it to the Division." 5 CCR 1002-22.4(2).
Signatures are required from the Management Agency as well as the Local Health Authority.
Therefore, while the Health Department signed the application (with enumerated conditions),
such signature may only address the requirement for approval from the Local Health Authority,
not the requirement for approval from the Management Agency. Mead has failed to obtain the
208 Management Agency signature so the application is incomplete.
Moreover, the Health Department signature is at best a conditional approval, but more
likely a contingent approval subject to future action. The Health Department attached two
conditions to its "approval" of Mead's site application:
(1) This approval is contingent upon the outcome of the East I-25
court case currently in Weld County District Court. We reserve the right
to amend comments concerning this application upon the release of the
Court's decision.
(2) According to the application materials, this new plant will allow
the Town to provide service to Mead's entire 208 service area. In the
interest of public health, it is our expectation that the Town provide
service to any request for service within the designated service area
irregardless of the Town's jurisdictional boundary.
Accordingly, the Health Department may change its recommendation for approval
pending the outcome of the litigation with East I-25. Its approval is neither static nor final.
Moreover, their comments are not exclusively related to land use planning issues. The outcome
of the East I-25 litigation is intimately related to wastewater planning in the region.
Furthermore, the Health Department's second condition clearly states that wastewater treatment
be provided in the interest of public health and not linked to annexation.
B. NFRWQPA's Conditional Approval Amounts to a Deferral
Moreover, Mead does not have final approval from the NFRWQPA. The NFRWQPA
approved Mead's Wastewater Utility Plan ("WUP") on the condition that "at the time there is
final resolution to the litigation involving the proposed East 1-25 group and the land area on the
east side of I-25 within the Town's current 208 service territory and contained within the East I-
25 group's proposed area, the Town must resubmit the [WUP] for consideration and any
(D0442525.5)
Water Quality Control Division
March 5, 2007
Page 3
necessary changes." See Minutes of NFRWQPA November 16, 2006 Meeting. Accordingly,
upon resolution of the litigation, Mead is required to resubmit the WUP to the NFRWQPA.
Therefore, this is not a final approval, so the WUP lacks 208 Planning Agency approval
rendering the site application incomplete.
A site application to the Division is not complete unless it includes an engineering report.
5 CCR 1002-22.4(1)(6). Mead's WUP serves as the engineering report for its site application.
Since the WUP must be resubmitted to the NFRWQPA upon resolution of the litigation, any
aspect of the engineering report may be modified. Without a final and complete engineering
report, the site application is not complete.
C. Mead Did Not Comply With Public Notice Requirements
The regulations governing site applications require that all new treatment works must
notify the public and provide opportunity for public input. 5 CCR 1002-22.4(3). Because Mead
is constructing a new wastewater treatment facility, it was required to post a sign on the proposed
new wastewater facility location for 15 continuous days. A photograph of that sign is a required
part of the site application. While Mead represents in its February 14, 2007 letter to Jennifer
Miller that "the proposed site has been posted since August 1, 2006," there is no photograph or
documentation of compliance with this requirement. Nor, does Mead detail whether the posting
provides the notice required for their proposed site application. Mead failed to include adequate
documentation of compliance with the public notice requirements; therefore, the application is
incomplete.
Opportunities for public input were limited and the public was unexpectedly limited in
the length and extent of comment. The representations in Mead's letter of February 14, 2007
that the site application has undergone a thorough four-month review and public comment period
is not true. NFRWQPA, as the 208 Planning Agency, does not provide notice to the public of
utility plans pending before its Utility Plan Review Committee. In fact, such Utility Plan Review
committee meetings are not even noticed to the NFRWQPA members. See Letter from T. Culp
to Connie O'Neill dated February 26, 2007. From such sub rosa utility plan meetings came the
recommendation to NFRWQPA regarding the Mead WUP and site application. Developing a
recommendation without public notice and involvement truly precludes public participation.
Moreover, NFRWQPA's decision to approve wastewater service for properties without notice to
those landowners, especially landowners outside Mead's municipal boundaries, deprives the
landowners of due process. The public notice process fails to meet the spirit and intent of the
law, and, therefore, no deference should be given to NFRWQPA's decision. The public process
was defective, so the site application must be disapproved.
)D0442525.5)
Water Quality Control Division
March 5, 2007
Page 4
II. MEAD IS ATTEMPTING TO FORCE ANNEXATION AND IMPAIR EAST I-25
OWNERS' PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mead requires annexation before it will provide wastewater service. Mead's Resolution
No. 5-R-2004 states:
It has been and shall continue to be the policy of the Town of
Mead to not extend sanitary sewer service to property outside the
corporate limits of the Town, unless and until said property is
annexed to the Town.
See attached copy of Resolution No. 5-R-2004. This has become a blatant attempt by Mead to
leverage wastewater service approval into mandates for those same properties to annex to Mead.
Colorado law requires that municipal annexations be voluntary, especially when the property is
greater than 20 acres and held in identical ownership. COLO. REV. STAT. § 31-12-106(1)(6).
Such owners of property within East I-25 Sanitation District have greater than 20 acres, so
cannot be forcibly annexed. Mead proposes to circumvent the voluntary nature of annexations
by listing properties as part of its wastewater service area, precluding those properties from
arranging other wastewater service - and by ordinance mandates annexation as a condition for
wastewater service. Mead demonstrates complete disregard for Colorado law.
Moreover, Mead's coupling of wastewater service approvals and annexation
requirements constitutes a taking of private property. A key element of private property is the
right to choose whether to annex to any municipality — Mead contends that through the site
application approval that a property owner be denied of its right to elect annexation. An
approval of Mead's site application, knowing that wastewater service requires annexation, would
make the Division a co-party to Mead's scheme to require annexation.
III. EAST I-25 PARCELS ARE NOT PROPERLY WITHIN MEAD'S SERVICE
AREA
The property east of I-25 should not be shown as part of Mead's service area. In 2003,
the NFRWQPA amended its Clean Water Plan ("CWP") to include the East I-25 properties
within Mead's service area without affording the organizers of the East 1-25 properties full due
process and without satisfying the requirements for a major amendment to the CWP. Therefore,
this property should either not be shown as part of Mead's service area or at a minimum reflect
its disputed status.
(D0442525.5(
Water Quality Control Division
March 5, 2007
Page 5
A. CWP Amendment Process
The NFRWQPA's process requires CWP amendment requests to be submitted by the
responsible management agency. "An application for a plan amendment should be submitted to
NFRWQPA by the responsible management agency." NFRWQPA/Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan Amendment Process, page 1. As a 208 management agency, Mead only has
jurisdiction over property within its limits. Because the property east of I-25 is in unincorporated
Weld County, Weld County was, and still is, the 208 Management Agency responsible for
making policy decisions regarding wastewater planning and development. The request for a
CWP amendment to expand Mead's service area to include county properties therefore should
have been submitted by Weld County, not Mead. Accordingly, the NFRWQPA should not have
considered the 2003 CWP Amendment incorporating the subject property into Mead's service
area.
B. Lack of Due Process
Mead undertook the 2003 CWP Amendment without providing actual notice to the
affected landowners. The service area amendment has resulted in a substantial restriction on the
use and the ability to determine land use and wastewater service for the properties, in
contravention of Colorado law. Colorado's legislative declaration for rulemaking and licensing
procedures states:
. . .an agency should not regulate or restrict the freedom of any person to conduct
his or her affairs, use his or her property, or deal with others on mutually
agreeable terms unless it finds, after a full consideration of the effects of the
agency action, that the action would benefit the public interest and encourage the
benefits of a free enterprise system for the citizens of this state.
COLO. REV. STAT. § 24-4-101.5. Because Mead did not provide proper notice of the proposed
2003 CWP Amendment to affected landowners, the landowners did not participate in
NFRWQPA's planning process. Accordingly, the NFRWQPA was not presented full and
adequate information. The CWP Amendment restricts the use of the properties owned by the
East I-25 organizers and their ability to function within the free enterprise system. The CWP
Amendment violated the affected landowners' due process rights and therefore the area should
not be included as part of Mead's service area for Mead's WUP or site application.
C. Disputed Area
The NFRWQPA has had under consideration a request for a CWP amendment to serve
these properties since March 2005. See Clean Water Plan Amendment and Supplement to CWP
Amendment Submitted to NFRWQPA by East 1-25. Development, and therefore infrastructure, in
the East I-25 District is anticipated to occur in three phases. In the first phase, East I-25 will
develop 2180 acres of land, with development in the following categories: 1900.50 acres for
(D0442525.51
Water Quality Control Division f//
March 5, 2007
Page 6
residential, 239.50 acres for commercial, and 40 acres for industrial, which will have a combined
projected wastewater flow of 2.65 mgd.
Because of the litigation commenced by Mead against the organizers of the East I-25
Sanitation District and Weld County, the NFRWQPA has refused to consider East I-25's CWP
Amendment for more than a year and a half. Mead initiated the lawsuit challenging the
formation of the East I-25 District, yet now Mead uses the litigation to preclude East 1-25 from
obtaining approvals for St. Vrain Sanitation District's ("SVSD") wastewater service to its
development. The crux of Mead's litigation is to stop the formation of the East I-25 District and
prevent East 1-25 from obtaining wastewater service from SVSD. Although East I-25 is delayed,
Mead apparently believes its litigation should not thwart its activities, and seeks approvals to
expand its service area and construct a new wastewater treatment facility. Mead argues that any
outcome of the litigation could take years and therefore it should be allowed to move forward;
yet it is Mead who made the decision to initiate and pursue litigation. Furthermore, the
NFRWQPA considered how to reflect the disputed nature of these properties during the
Areawide Water Quality Management Plan 2005 Update. During the public hearing on the East
I-25 CWP amendment, the disputed nature of the area was discussed, as was the possibility of
reflecting the overlap of service areas. The NFRWQPA passed a "motion not to take any action
on this issue pending the outcome of the formation of the district." Minutes of the NFRWQPA
February 23, 2006 Meeting. This resolution is recognition of the disputed nature of the service
area and a commitment to defer activity and approvals for service in the area until the Court's
ruling. Approving Mead's site application was contrary to the NFRWQPA's 2006 decision.
By not disclosing the disputed status of the service provider for this property, Mead has
misrepresented itself as the sole service provider. Mead should be precluded from including
these East I-25 properties in its service area until NFRWQPA makes a final determination on
East I-25's CWP Amendment.
IV. MEAD IS ILL-SUITED TO MANAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERMITS AND THE LAW
Mead has a history of disregard for water quality requirements and protection of the
environment at both of its sewage lagoon treatment facilities located in the town of Mead
(CDPS Permit Number CO-0046876) and the Lake Thomas subdivision (CDPS Permit Number
CO-004868). The Division graciously included a compliance schedule in Mead's permits,
affording Mead an opportunity to study the seepage rates from its lagoon and report the results to
the Division by August 1, 2005. The purpose of the seepage study was to evaluate whether
Mead must repair or replace the lagoon liner. Only recently, long after the permit deadline, has
Mead complied with the requirement to submit the findings of its study. Mead's flagrant
disregard for the permit terms demonstrates disregard for protection of the environment.
(D0442525.5)
Water Quality Control Division f//
March 5, 2007
Page 7
A. Lake Thomas Facility
Mead's position and plans for the Lake Thomas facility are forever changing. Mead does
not clearly commit whether the Lake Thomas facility will be upgraded to comply with water
quality requirements, or decommissioned and consolidated with the new facility. The Lake
Thomas facility has not been effectively operated by Mead and has been repeatedly out of
compliance during its operation. Further, none of the requirements of the compliance schedule
for the Lake Thomas facility (CDPS Permit Number CO-004868) have been met and violations
are under evaluation by the Clean Water Compliance Assurance section of the WQCD. Any
plans Mead has for new wastewater treatment facilities must include consolidation with the
existing Lake Thomas facility. According to Mead's Comprehensive Plan (September 2004) the
Lake Thomas facility "... expansion potential is limited. A new conventional wastewater
treatment plant east of I-25 would allow this plant to be dismantled."
If Mead plans to decommission the Lake Thomas facility and consolidate it with the new
facility, the site application should include consideration and evaluation of those costs in the
financial analysis. We understand Mead requested deactivation paperwork from the WQCD for
this facility due to noncompliance (electronic communication from Loretta Houk, WQCD), yet
to date Mead remains noncompliant, has not submitted appropriate documentation to the WQCD,
nor have they proceeded with decommissioning of the Lake Thomas facility.
Subsequently, Mead has suggested that the Lake Thomas facility remain in operation.
See, Mead Letter, February 14, 2007, p. 3. Mead states that "the Town does not see the need to
address alternative or consolidation" for the Lake Thomas facility. Mead provides no evidence
of the feasibility of consolidating the Lake Thomas facility; the presumption must be that
consolidation is feasible. The Division must deny the Mead site application because it does not
conform with regulatory requirements to encourage consolidation of wastewater treatment
facilities. Failure to include financial analysis of the options for the Lake Thomas facility
renders Mead's site application incomplete. Moreover, if the Division allows the Lake Thomas
facility to continue operating in violation of its permit, there are ongoing continuing violations of
the Federal and State Clean Water Acts.
B. Mead Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Town of Mead WWTF (CDPS Permit Number CO-0046876) has also had a history
of effluent violations and compliance schedule requirements. The "Enforcement and
Compliance History" and WQCD records indicate effluent violations for constituents such as
fecal coliform and BOD5 This facility is also unable to meet the proposed ammonia standards.
Approval of Mead's site application would violate federal and state laws which prohibit
approvals of discharges which are not in conformance with approved Total Maximum Daily
Loads ("TMDLs"). See, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d), 40 C.F.R. 122.33 and COLO. REV. STAT. § 25-8-
503(4). An ammonia TMDL has been adopted for the Boulder Creek/St. Vrain watershed.
{D0442525 5)
Water Quality Control Division f,
March 5, 2007
Page 8
Mead is within the St. Vrain watershed. Mead does not have a wasteload allocation for its
proposed discharges, in accordance with the ammonia TMDL. Since Mead's prior facilities
were not surface water discharges no allocation may have been awarded. However, Mead is now
proposing a facility that will discharge into surface water (unnamed tributary to St. Vrain Creek)
and, therefore, ammonia is a pollutant of concern. The TMDL Assessment states: "This TMDL
should be reviewed when ... new wastewater treatment plants are proposed on the main stem or
tributaries. . ." See TMDL Assessment: Ammonia: Boulder Creek Segments 9 and 10 and St.
Vrain Creek, Segment 3. Effluent limitations based on the TMDL must consider the cumulative
effect on the stream's ability to attain the standard. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d). If Mead begins
discharging ammonia into surface waters already impaired by ammonia and subject to a TMDL,
Mead's discharge will contribute to the stream's inability to attain the standard. Mead's site
application must be denied because Mead does not have an ammonia wasteload allocation in
accordance with the TMDL; and, Mead has failed to demonstrate that its proposed facilities will
not contribute to water quality impairment and failure of the stream to meet water quality
standards.
In contrast to Mead's pattern of recalcitrance and noncompliance, the SVSD has a
superior record of protecting water quality and the environment in compliance with its discharge
permit. Since its inception in 1987, the SVSD WWTF has provided a consistent, high quality
effluent, in compliance with water quality standards, permitting requirements and the ammonia
TMDL. Plant operators pride themselves in producing the highest quality effluent in the St.
Vrain basin (telephone communication with SVSD). Their exemplary performance and standard
of care is demonstrated with their environmental compliance record. Upgrades in 2002 have
poised the St. Vrain WWTF for compliance with new ammonia standards.
V. CONSOLIDATION
Site applications must evaluate the feasibility of consolidation with other wastewater
treatment facilities ("WWTFs") in the area. 5 CCR 1002-22.4. The Division is directed by
statute to "encourage the consolidation of treatment plants, whenever feasible." Id. "In addition
to being a legislative directive, consolidation is often a matter of fiscal responsibility for entities
funding facilities with public monies." WQCD, Guidance Document for the Site Location and
Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works, pg. 23 (Nov. 2004).
Consolidation can offer significant cost savings. Id.
Mead has failed to evaluate consolidation of its Lake Thomas facility with the new
proposed facility. In fact, Mead has acknowledged that it has not evaluated consolidation and
instead has made a unilateral decision to simply ignore the requirement to evaluate consolidation.
In its February 14, 2007 letter to Jennifer Miller, Mead stated that it "does not see the need to
address alternative service or consolidation." Failure to evaluate opportunities for consolidation
(D0442525.5)
Water Quality Control Division 1//
March 5, 2007
Page 9
is contrary to statutory requirements and water quality planning objectives. Coco. REV. STAT. §
75-8-702 (2)(C).
Mead has approximately 36% of its residents on individual septic systems. Mead is
responsible for assuring adequate wastewater treatment for all of its residents. The WUP fails to
evaluate "consolidation" by connecting the residents on septics to Mead's proposed wastewater
treatment facility.
In accordance with Colorado's consolidation policy, the SVSD has utilized a long-term
planning horizon for wastewater treatment services. SVSD has negotiated with adjacent sewer
utilities on a plan for consolidating the existing facilities. The inclusion of Tri-Area Sanitation
District, Dacono Sanitation District, the East I-25 Sanitation District, and the Town of Mead
would create a consolidated CWP planning area and is consistent with the SVSD Master Plan.
The SVSD has approximately 1.8 mgd capacity available at its 3.0 mgd treatment facility.
The SVSD first presented an offer to serve Mead on May 3, 2006 and later renewed its
offer. SVSD offered to provide Mead's existing customers with service at no cost for
connection. St. Vrain's waiver of the tap fee for existing Mead customers, estimated at 700
residents is equivalent to a $3,500,000 savings to Mead and its residents. SVSD offered to
provide service to future customers for the then prevailing tap fee. SVSD's current fee is a
$5,000 tap fee plus line extension fees. Current and future customers would be charged the
current monthly fee, which was $22 per month for a single-family residential home.
A rate analysis of 23 northern Colorado utilities shows the SVSD very competitive in its
rate structure in this region of Colorado. Residential service charges rates of $22/month are
average in comparison to other utilities in the area. The Town of Mead charges one of the
highest monthly rates, $37/month, second only to Broomfield. The area sewer tap fee of$5,000
is in the upper third of utilities surveyed, with Mead next to the highest at $7,000 (for a 0.5 mgd
facility). (St Vrain Sanitation District, Sewer Rates and Related Charges, April, 2006). So, the
costs of wastewater service to Mead residents and proposed service area would be substantially
less if SVSD provided the wastewater treatment services.
Pursuant to an IGA, the SVSD currently provides wastewater service to areas of Mead
west of I-25, comprising 1,952 acres north of the St Vrain River (Mead Comprehensive Plan,
September, 2004). A new 36-inch interceptor sewer (Liberty Gulch) was recently installed west
of I-25, providing approximately 15-cfs capacity for this sub-basin to receive high quality
treatment from the SVSD. Moreover, additional capacity exists in the interceptor sewer to serve
an adjacent 3,829-acre area that currently only has wastewater service provided by Mead along
Welker Avenue (other homes rely on septics). Wastewater service by SVSD is quality,
economic service; it does not affect Mead's jurisdiction over lands properly annexed into the
Town.
(D04425255)
Water Quality Control Division 1,,
March 5, 2007
Page 10
VI. COST COMPARISON
Due to the statutory and regulatory priorities for regionalization, site applications must
include detailed cost analysis. Such cost factors as land acquisition, logistical issues with
construction of transmission pipelines, capital construction (including such unique construction
expenses as flood-proofing, water rights compliance, and wetland mitigation), interceptors and
lift stations, treatment plant expansion and/or upgrade, inclusion of 36% of the homes that are on
ISDS, debt retirement expenses, removing any facilities to be abandoned, and operations and
maintenance costs for a minimum of 20 years for each alternative must be included. Financial
benefits realized, such as the value of land reclaimed and reuse water should also be factored into
the considerations. WQCD, Guidance Document for the Site Location and Design Approval
Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works, pg. 24 (Nov. 2004) and WQCD, WQSA
#5: Consolidation of Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works.
A. Mead's Proposed Replacement WWTP
Mead completed a wastewater facilities plan in August 2001 (Jacobsen Helgoth
Engineers) that evaluated four alternatives, all located on private property not annexed to the
Town of Mead. In February of 2005, an updated facilities plan was prepared by JR Engineering.
This plan evaluated the previously studied four alternatives and added seven others, eight
alternatives were on unannexed private property. A Service Area increase was proposed. In
each of the two studies noted, land owners east of I-25 were not asked, and permission was not
given for town facilities or inclusion in any "Town-claimed" Service Area.
Of the eleven total alternatives evaluated, Alternative 7 was the least costly, and was
structured such that private property west of I-25 desiring annexation would be served by a new
0.50 MGD plant west of 1-25; private property east of I-25 desiring annexation to Mead would
be served by a lift station and pumping back to the 0.50 MGD plant. Annexation to Mead is a
Town requirement for sanitary sewer service; a significant number of private property owners
choose not to annex to Mead. Significantly, upgrading/expansion of the Town's existing pond
treatment facility was not considered. Such upgrades are possible and cost effective.
The proposed East 1-25 Sanitation District commissioned preparation of a Service Plan
(MFG, Inc.) that was unanimously approved by Weld County Planning/Weld County
Commissioners in February of 2005. Wastewater from the proposed district would be treated by
SVSD; the proposed district presented a 3-phase plan that minimized investor risk due to varying
market conditions. Phases 2 and 3 would be developed based on private property owner plans
and market conditions at some point in the future. A district tap fee of $1,750 per SFE was
presented, exclusive of treatment costs.
)D0442525 5)
Water Quality Control Division f/
March 5, 2007
Page 11
On December 20, 2005, Mead voted to annex 10 acres of the Birch family property east
of I-25 near the 1-25 interchange east of Mead. The Birch property is the site for the new
wastewater treatment plant; this site most nearly matches that of Alternative 2 put forth in the
Jacobsen Helgoth Engineers report of 2001.
The "Preliminary Engineering Report and Utility Plan for a New Wastewater Treatment
Facility for the Town of Mead (JVA Consulting Engineers, November, 2006) erroneously
proposes a new regional treatment facility with a capacity of only 0.5 mgd. The utility plan does
not account for the long-term planning horizon required of WWTF's when projecting treatment
needs and capacity issues to meet environmental and regulatory requirements for the future,
including service to the area east of I-25 and other areas within Mead's 208 Planning Area.
Mead proposes construction of the 0.5 mgd sequencing batch reactor (SBR) facility by 2009. As
proposed, upon completion, this treatment facility will already be outdated and not meet
hydraulic capacity requirements. Mead takes a short-sighted approach to wastewater treatment,
simply dismissing imminent wastewater needs, stating its desire to serve its 208 Planning Area,
while suggesting others (i.e. developers)need to plan for tomorrow.
Even a conservative, short-term planning horizon for the Town of Mead would indicate a
more significant expansion of the WWTF, with a hydraulic capacity exceeding 3.0 mgd, not 0.5
mgd, is necessary. A 3.26 mgd capacity WWTF appropriately takes into account wastewater
flows from a selective area within Mead (0.5 mgd), conversion of 36% of the homes on ISDS to
conventional wastewater treatment, and service for Phase I flows from the East I-25 Sanitation
District (2.8 mgd). Note that this conservative approach does not account for subsequent phases
of East I-25 Sanitation District, namely a WWTF with 5.0 mgd capacity (capacity requirements
for Phases I-III of East 1-25 is 4.5 mgd).
B. St. Vrain Sanitation District's Existing Facility
The SVSD treatment plant is located downgradient from the East 1-25 properties. SVSD
has a design capacity of 3.0 mgd and approval for a 1.5 mgd expansion.
SVSD's treatment plant is a mechanical plant with two 1.5 mgd extended aeration lagoon
and clarifier modules, to provide a 3.0 mgd plant capacity. The SVSD has approximately 1.8
mgd capacity available at its 3.0 mgd treatment facility.
C. St. Vrain Sanitation District's Expansion to Provide Service to East I-25
While SVSD has sufficient capacity to provide gravity flow wastewater treatment for the
initial development of the East 1-25 Sanitation District, long-term service will require expansion
of the SVSD wastewater treatment facilities. The SVSD Wastewater Master Plan projects
wastewater flows of 10.0 mgd in the year 2019 and has analyzed future service to East I-25,
other sanitation districts, and Mead (SVSD Sewer Rate Study, 2006). The SVSD Master Plan
also projects future regulatory requirements, ammonia limits, compliance with the ammonia
{D04425255)
Water Quality Control Division
March 5, 2007
Page 12
TMDL and CDPS permit requirements, and assurance of long-term operation and maintenance
of the collection system and lift stations.
D. Cost Comparison
i. Mead's facility
(A) Capital Cost
Mead's capital cost comparison (Table 8B, Preliminary Engineering Report and Utility
Plan) is inaccurate. Capital cost estimates do not account for the appropriate capacity required
by 2009, minimally a 3.26 mgd capacity needed to serve Mead, Phase I of East 1-25 Sanitation
District, and conversion of ISDS to conventional treatment. Therefore, while Mead states it is
cost effective and appropriate that it construct its own 0.5 mgd wastewater treatment facility, it is
not cost effective for it to build a facility that is appropriately sized at 3.26 mgd and meets the
demand it must necessarily have in the short-term.
Mead suggests total capital costs of$4,312,000 for a new Mead WWTF with a capacity
0.5 mgd (JVA, 2006). This proposed WWTF would have an outdated capacity upon completion.
Accurate capital costs for a 3.26 mgd facility are estimated at $21,000,000 (Table 1). Costs
should necessarily include decommissioning of facilities, interceptor sewer upgrades, Phase I of
the East 1-25 Sanitation District, conversion of ISDS to conventional wastewater treatment, and
wastewater treatment facility capacity upgrades. Capital cost opinions from the Town of Mead
are insufficient in the following areas:
o The 10-acre WWTF site is not large enough to accommodate the 3.26 mgd
capacity and SBR treatment process, let alone a 5.0 mgd facility that will
be required for the subsequent Phase II and Phase III of East 1-25. An
additional 10 acres of land is estimated to be necessary for wastewater
facility sizing and setbacks.
o While more land is needed to host the appropriately sized WWTF, the
existing site selection is also questionable due to the significant impacts to
wetlands. Because the site likely contains jurisdictional wetlands an
alternative site may need to be identified. At a minimum, it appears the
proposed site would not be covered by the US Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit, so Mead would need an Individual Permit before site
alternative or construction could commence. Mead fails to show the site is
adequate for existing WWTF and future expansions.
o Wastewater service to those areas served by septics is not addressed in the
Mead Preliminary Engineering Report and Utility Plan. As a significant
percentage of Mead's population relies on septic, there should be
(D0442525.5)
Water Quality Control Division f//
March 5, 2007
Page 13
environmental foresight and appropriate water quality planning to convert
these systems, many quite aged, to conventional wastewater treatment
service.
o No costs are included for the Lake Thomas facility whether it is
decommissioned and connected to another WWTF or upgraded. Costs are
insufficient for interceptor sewers and lift stations; the Mead facility needs
to account for appropriate infrastructure within the 208 planning area
planning horizon and for the 3.26 mgd facility.
(B) Operations and Maintenance Costs
Mead bases its sewer charge on metered water use, with bills typically between $20.00
and $30.00 per month/SFE. Operation and maintenance costs for a 20-year period are estimated
at $3,600,000.
(C) Tap fees
In February of 2005, Mead adopted a tap fee of$7,000 (5/8" water tap) per single family
residence (SFE). The $7,000 tap fee proposed by Mead is underestimated. The Mead WWTP
Facilities Study (JR Engineering Report (2005) confirms this with identification of a "preferred
alternative" new 1.0 mgd WWTF on a 5-acre site located east of I-25, with a capital cost of
$7,252,683 (present worth 2005 dollars). The report states that the $7,000 Plant Improvement
Fee will not be enough to cover the improvements associated with a 1.0 mgd facility. Significant
additional investment and most probably tap increases will be required to meet plant capacity
beyond either 0.50 or 1.0 mgd, not to mention the needed 3.26 mgd capacity.
ii. SVSD
(A) Capital Cost
The SVSD has indicated there is existing capacity at SVSD WWTF, therefore no need
for $2,000,000 for the plant expansion. This cost will be built into the PIF for each tap.
(B) Operations and Maintenance Costs
SVSD O&M costs are approximately $400,000/year for the entire district. These costs are
covered in the service fees paid by customers, namely, $22.00/month for the SVSD.
(C) Tap fees
According to the SVSD Rate Study (2006) the SVSD Plant Improvement Fee is $5,060,
not $6,641 as suggested by Mead.
(D0442525.5)
Water Quality Control Division
March 5, 2007
Page 14
VII. INADEQUATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Mead's submittal contains a grossly inadequate implementation plan. In addition to
being outdated and lacking the information requested by the Division, it does not address future
phases for wastewater treatment and expansion or financial plans for future phases.
In its February 14, 2007 letter to Jennifer Miller, Mead indicated that it needs to meet
2007 deadlines in order to receive funding from an Energy Impact Grant; however, upon
information and belief, the grant may be extended. Further, financial resources and
environmental considerations mandate that State monies not be expended on a poorly conceived
wastewater treatment facility that is not consistent with state environmental requirements.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Mead has also failed to adequately address the problems and deficiencies outlined in this
letter and the Division's letter of January 11, 2007. Because Mead's site application is legally
incomplete, contains erroneous and defective information, and is contrary to state and regional
policies, we request that the Division deny the Mead site application.
Respectfully
submitted,
an& iiejltalat
Ronda Sandquist
RS/tic
Enclsoures
cc: (w/o encl.)Gary Woods
Stephanie Stewart
Julie Vlier
David Long, Commissioner
Douglas Rademacher, Commissioner
Rob Masden, Commissioner
Bruce Barker, Esq., Weld County Attorney
Eric Doering, St. Vrain Sanitation District
Richard Lyons, Esq.
Connie O'Neill, NFRWQPA
Michael Friesen, Mead Town Manager
(D0442525.5}
Hello