HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050788.tiff r
r
TOWN OF MEAD, COLORADO
WWTP Facilities Study
February 4, 2005
ea
'- Prepared for:
Town of Mead
441 Third Street
ad, Colorado 80542
(970) 535-4477
RED/•
7 94809
'1 '
"`",,Ai0'
Prepare by:
JR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(970) 491-9888
1 JR Project No. 39241.26
1 `
ar
2005-0788 4,4".,
APPENDICES
r APPENDIX A Cost Estimates
APPENDIX B Capital Improvement Schedules for Preferred Alternatives
APPENDIX C Other Capital Improvement Schedules
APPENDIX D CDPHE Grant Funding Letter
APPENDIX E Implementation Schedule
APPENDIX F CDHPE Site Application Review Process
■ APPENDIX G Existing WWTP Service Area
APPENDIX H Existing Treatment Plant Site Plans
APPENDIX I New WWTP Alternative Locations Maps
al
!
■
■
jv.
\� FEB 1 0 2005 \
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Facilities Implementation Plan
r
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r
Section Section Page
rNumber Number
Executive Summary i
r Introduction 1
Background and History 1
ri A. Executive Summary of 2001 Feasibility Study Update. 3
A.1 Introduction 3
A.2 Effluent Limitations 3
A.3 Current Situation 4
A.4 Future Situation 4
A.5 Alternatives 4
ot
A.6 Plan Selection 5
in B. Population Projection Alternatives 6
C. Additional Alternatives 7
a —
D. Selecting an Alternative. 8
D.1. Alternative Screening 8
• D.2. Selected Alternatives 8
D.3. Total Present Worth 9
D.4. Alternative Ranking 12
so
E. Preferred Alternatives 15
F. 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan Alternatives 16
F.1. Phasing Exiting WWTP Improvements 16
A F.2. Discharge Permit Issue 18
I F.3 Capital Improvement Schedule 19
Al G. Financial Considerations 19
H. 1-25 East Development Financial Considerations 20
1 1. Permitting & Environmental Requirements 21
. Al J. Outfall Sewer and WWTP Pre-design Study. 22
K. Conclusions and Recommendations. 23
- 1
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Facilities Implementation Plan
Executive Summary
1 Town of Mead, Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study •
The Town of Mead (Town) has been evaluating its existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) since 1999, trying to develop a plan for expansion or replacement that
corresponds with ongoing and future population growth. Due to new discharge limits,
which require the plant to remove ammonia from the wastewater before it is discharged
to a stream, population growth and its increased WWTP capacity requirement are no
longer the only driving force behind this effort. In the new discharge permit effective
1 January 1, 2005, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPH,E)
issued a compliance order to the Town to meet the ammonia discharge limits by
December 1, 2009. With this compliance order and recent effluent limit failures in mind,
1 the Town must move forward to replace the existing aerated lagoon WWTP with a
mechanical WWTP capable of producing a higher quality effluent.
1 This study addresses a 20-year capacity for the new WWTP, beginning in 2010, which
corresponds with the construction of a new WWTP by December 2009 to meet the
anticipated state and federal compliance order. When considering where to build the new
WWTP and what size it must be to meet the 20-year capacity, population growth must be
forecasted. Population growth is determined by the number of new houses developers
desire to build in Mead and its wastewater service area, and how much of this
development is allowed to proceed by the Town Board, Planning Commission, citizens,
and/or other land use agencies (i.e. Weld County).
The Town's 208 planning area results in the need to provide wastewater service on the
east and west sides of 1-25. The east and west WWTP alternatives are presented in this •
study because most of the land east of I-25 is not currently annexed into the Town. The -
Town has a policy that wastewater service will not be provided unless the land is annexed
to the Town. The possibility exists that land east of 1-25 may not annex to the Town due
to the landowners not wanting to be subject to the annexation process that requires a
1 public vote.
Population projections have been used to establish the 20-year capacity for a new WWTP
1 based on 5% annual growth, which is approximately 0.52 mgd in 2030. To accommodate
the 5% growth, ensure extra capacity for unknown growth, and construct the new WWTP
in sensible phases, this study presents a regional alternative (Alternative 4A — East of CR
1 17) with a 1 mgd plant capacity. This regional alternative is the preferred alternative.
However, the costs are significantly higher than other alternatives that do not service the
1 entire 208 planning area.
While a total of eleven alternatives for wastewater treatment were considered in this
1 Facilities Study, they were narrowed down to only five alternatives that are evaluated in
• detail. The alternatives are as follows:
• Alternative 4A —East of WCR 17. This alternative considers a WWTP located
- 1
r
reast of WCR 17 and providing service to the entire 208 planning area east and
west of 1-25, utilizing gravity flow to the treatment plant.
r • Alternative 4 - SVSD East and West. This alternative considers using a lift
station to pump wastewater to the St. Vrain Sanitation District (SVSD) treatment
plant for the entire service area east and west of 1-25.
r • Alternative 5 — West of 1-25. This alternative considers constructing a WWTP
west of 1-25. This alternative would start out providing treatment for the area
r west of I-25 initially with the possibility that the area east of 1-25 could pump to
the west 1-25 WWTP location should there be a need.
• Alternative 6 = SVSD West. This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 except
the lift station that pumps to the SVSD WWTP would be sized to initially
accommodate flows only from the west side of 1-25. This alternative could also
be phased and allow for serving the east 1-25 area. The capacity needs of the lift
station and sewer interceptors would have to be re-calculated. In this scenario, all
the financial risk would be placed on the developers instead of the Town.
• Alternative 7 —West 1-25/East SVSD. This alternative considers a combination
of constructing a new WWTP west of I-25 (Alternative 5) to treat flows west of I-
25, and constructing a lift station to pump to the SVSD WWTP (Alternative 4) for
flows east of 1-25.
•
When alternatives were initially selected, it was assumed that landowners on the east side
of 1-25 would participate in the Mead wastewater system. In light of the possibility that
^ these landowners may not participate in the Mead plan for disposing of their wastewater,
or delay implementing their development plans, this study evaluates two alternatives
(Alternative 7 — West I-25/East SVSD and Alternative 6 — SVSD West) that assume the
property east of I-25 will not be served by Mead.
If development on the east side of 1-25 does not contribute flow to the new WWTP, a
a much smaller WWTP can be built, and the location does not need to be east of 1-25. If a
new WWTP is constructed to accommodate only the west side of 1-25, population growth
can be assumed to be closer to 3% for 20-year planning, which equates to a WWTP
capacity of 0.39 mgd in 2030. The 3% population growth is used instead of 5% because
much of the service area west of 1-25 as designated in the Town's Comprehensive Plan
consists of large lots with septic systems, which do not contribute flow to the WWTP. To
• accommodate a 20-year WWTP life based on 3% growth, the West I-25/East SVSD
Alternative 7 is evaluated assuming a 0.5 mgd plant will be constructed and operational
by November 1, 2009.
Listed below is a summary of costs for the top five alternatives considered in this study.
WWII'Alternative Locations
7 5 4A 6 4
West 1-25& East of
East SVSD West of I-25 WCR 17 SVSD West SVSD E&W
Item 0.5 mgd 1 mgd 1 mgd 0.5 mgd 1 mgd
' 1 Initial 2008 Capital Cost $3,341,089 $5,593,022 $7,354,772 $8,025,799 $11,206,498
Total Present Worth in 2005 Dollars $4,511,411 $6,199,798 $7,252,683 $8,342,565 $11,086,864
ii
r
The West I-25/East SVSD Alternative 7 is less expensive due to the plant capacity being
0.5 mgd as opposed to 1.0 mgd in Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5. Also, because of the very
short outfall sewer required for the West of 1-25 WWTP compared to Alternatives 4, 4A
and 6, millions of dollars are saved in pipeline costs. Reduced pipe sizes compared to
alternatives 4, and 4A also contribute to the dollar savings. A significant cost is incurred
in alternatives 4 and 6 where $3,315,000 is required to pay the SVSD Plant Investment
Fee for the 600 existing Town taps. The Town has 560 taps as of February 2005, but
expects 600 by the end of 2005.
.1 Using the assumptions noted in the Capital Improvements Schedule in Appendices B and
C, the West I-25/East SVSD Alternative 7 requires that the Town be capable of paying
annual debt service of$147,502 to pay back the borrowed money. This debt load can be
met with Tap Fees at $7,000 and the projected number of new taps each year.
Analyzing the Total Present Worth data and the Capital Improvements Schedules, the
a West I-25/East SVSD Alternative 7 is the least expensive, and the only alternative that
enables the Town to finance a new WWTP without significantly raising Tap Fees in 2006
or finding other funding sources. Other factors for each alternative are evaluated as
presented in Table D-2. Alternative 4A is ranked first in this evaluation.
In addition to planning for the new WWTP, this study proposes minimum improvements
to the existing WWTP to keep it in service for five more years without experiencing
effluent violations, until a new WWTP is operational in late 2009. The cost of these
improvements is included in the Capital Improvements Schedule for each alternative that
is found in Appendices B and C.
The Capital Improvements Schedules in Appendices B and C are based on population
projections of either 3% or 5%, the number of new wastewater taps the increased
population will require each year, and associated Tap Fees. In order for the required cash
flow in these tables to occur, the Town Board, Planning Commission, and citizens have
the responsibility of allowing enough growth to proceed so that the number of new taps
for each year is met. If fewer new taps are allowed, the Town would be required to raise
user rates for existing customers to cover the debt service. Each alternative is first
1 evaluated assuming that the $7,000 tap fee, which took effect on February 1, 2005, will
not be increased in the future. The only alternative that has a positive cash flow in this
scenario is the West I-25/East SVSD WWTP Alternative 7. Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5
were evaluated to determine the number of prepaid taps that would be required by the
land owners east of 1-25 to meet the debt service assumptions. The analysis shows that
Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5 require 357, 154, and 31 prepaid taps, respectively.
1 Possible ways to raise the dollars needed for alternatives 4, 4A, and 5 are discussed in
Section H of this study, and the end result will require landowner participation in the
cost.
. 1
1 iii
r
In summary, the new WWTP location must be chosen based on who will contribute
r wastewater to the plant, whether there will be any landowner contributions in the form of
• tap fee pre-purchases, infrastructure installation, or other additional funding sources, and
how much money the Town can borrow and meet the debt service for each year. At this
time, there is a possibility that the property on the east side of 1-25 may not participate in
the new WWTP. This should lead the Town to consider constructing the new WWTP on
the west side of 1-25 if the Town Board does not believe that the issue of growing the
Town and providing wastewater treatment east of I-25 is feasible. This decision can be
made once further discussions with the SVSD and the land owners are complete.
The alternatives preferred in this study and presented in order of preference are as
follows:
r • Alternative 4A —East of WCR 17. This alternative considers a wastewater
treatment plant located east of WCR 17 and providing service to the entire 208
planning area, both east and west of 1-25, utilizing gravity flow to the treatment
r plant. This alternative will require cooperation from Weld County in allowing the
Town to expand its growth boundary to WCR 17, and participation in the cost
from the land owners east of I-25.
r • Alternative 4 - SVSD East and West. This alternative considers using a lift
station to pump wastewater to the SVSD WWTP for the entire service area, both
east and west of 1-25. This alternative requires that the SVSD perform a rate
r" study and the results of the rate study establish a cost that makes this alternative
equal to or less than the cost for Alternative 4A. In addition, a master meter
agreement (Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA)) will need to be developed that
is acceptable to both parties.
• Alternative 5 — West of 1-25. This alternative considers constructing a WWTP
west of I-25. This alternative would start out providing treatment for the area
west of I-25 initially, with the possibility that the area east of 1-25 could pump to
the west I-25 WWTP location. This alternative is the most costly alternative from
the perspective of serving the entire service area. However, this alternative
provides the least financial risk for the Town because all costs for developing the
wastewater collection system east of 1-25 would be the responsibility of the land
owners, and would be constructed in phases as required by each development.
1
iv
r
Introduction
1 The purpose of this study is to provide the Town of Mead with a road map showing steps
necessary to get to the point of constructing a new outfall sewer and wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP). This study will be submitted to the State of Colorado and North Front
Range Water Quality Planning Association for necessary regulatory approvals, and will
be used to assist in obtaining grant and loan money for the project. Additional reports
and information will be required for submittal to the various agencies, and this plan will
describe the information that will be required.
r In the past several years, the Town has examined the wastewater facilities through
Il various studies and reports. The documents produced have assessed the current situation,
as well as projected future needs for the existing and new facilities. This WWTP
C Facilities Study will attempt to utilize the information from the past studies, while at the
same time updating the recommended course of action based on current conditions.
Section A of this plan is an Executive Summary of the 2001 Wastewater Feasibility
C Study Update prepared by Jacobson Helgoth Consultants (MC), with information
updated as necessary. Sections B-K build on the information from the 2001 study,
adding and/or summarizing recommendations based on current conditions.
[ Background and History
r ^ Upon dissolution of the Mead Sanitation District on January 1, 1993, the Town of Mead
assumed ownership and control of the wastewater treatment facilities serving the Town.
The Town of Mead has been designated as both a wastewater"Management Agency" and
r an "Operating Agency" in the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
L ("NFRWQPA") Areawide Water Quality Management Plan 2003 Update ("WQMP").
The WQMP is a planning document mandated by Section 208 of the Clean Water Act,
r which requires designation of waste treatment management agencies, and provides that
l_ such agencies may only obtain discharge permits for wastewater treatment facilities
which are not in conflict with such a plan. Section 208 in conjunction with Section 201 of
rthe Clean Water Act also provides for designation of service areas for wastewater
t- treatment facilities and facility operators within the adopted regional plan. A copy of
Mead's Service Area, as designated in the WQMP, is attached in Appendix G.
The Town currently owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities. The primary
facility is the Town of Mead WWTP located near downtown Mead. The other facility is
the Lake Thomas WWTP located east of 1-25. Both facilities are aerated lagoon
WWTPs. The Lake Thomas WWTP treats only one small condominium complex, while
the Town of Mead WWTP treats the remainder of the Town's wastewater. The Town of
Mead WWTP is the main focus of this plan, but the Lake Thomas WWTP is discussed as
an option for increasing treatment capacity. Figures of the existing WWTP locations and
site plans can be found in Appendices G and H.
"' The main Town WWTP was originally constructed by the aforementioned former Mead
Sanitation District. Treatment is presently provided by a three-cell aerated lagoon system
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 1
r
including a fermentation cell, aeration cell, and settling cell. In 1992 and 1993, the two-
basin facultative lagoon treatment system was converted to an aerated lagoon treatment
• r system. Improvements included placing an earthen berm across Basin 2, which created
Basin 3, placing aerators into Basins 1 and 2, changing the method of chlorination, and
installing flow recording devices on both the influent and effluent sides of the plant.
r
Following a study of the system by the Town's consulting engineer, it was determined
that sludge needed to be removed from Basin 1 and that its detention time allowed algae
to grow and be discharged in the effluent, thereby exceeding the TSS for the plant. In
1995, the Town began bypassing Basin I of the plant and drying it for sludge removal.
Curtains were placed across Basin 2 to create three cells, and the polishing cell was also
bypassed. This effectively cut the detention time and allowed the plant to operate more
efficiently. In July 1996, Basin 1 was cleaned out and 1.1 million gallons of biosolids
were removed.
A new influent headwork structure was constructed in 1998. Four new 4,500-gallon
chlorine contact vaults were added in 2000. These tanks are sized for a 30-minute
detention at the peak flow rate of 180,000 gallons per day.
The WWTP currently treats an average of 80,000 gpd, and has the design capacity to
treat 140,000 gpd. However, the lagoon system has had treatment failures in the recent
past that make its ability to effectively treat the higher design flow questionable. The
r accuracy of the flow meter is also in question, since recorded flows have not increased as
expected as new taps have been added to the system.
In 2000, the Town acquired the Lake Thomas Wastewater Treatment Plant. This facility
has a hydraulic and organic loading capacity of 12,000 gpd. The aerated lagoon facility
was constructed in 1989 and was used to serve the Country View Day Care Center.
Currently the facility is receiving minimal flow and has not discharged into Lake Thomas
since the day care facility was closed in late 1998. The day care center was renovated.
and converted in 2001 to the Lake Ridge Condominium complex. The Lake Thomas
WWTP lagoon was also rehabilitated. New inlet and outlet structures, a new chlorine
contact chamber, rehabilitation of the lagoon banks, and removal of solids from the
bottom were completed in December of 2001.
The 12,000 gpd capacity of the Lake Thomas WWTP equates to an approximate
population of 120, assuming a contribution of 100 gpcd. The flow from Lake Ridge
Condominiums is expected to be in the range of 5000 gallons per day for the 29 units
available. This flow recognizes an average population density of 1.75 residents per unit,
because the complex is targeted to senior citizens. Considering the remaining 7,000 gpd,
an additional 23 single-family residences (beyond the existing 29 units of Lake Ridge)
could be connected to this facility.
A
Town of Mead,Colorado
• al Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 2
r
r , A. Executive Summary of 2001 Feasibility Study Update
rIn August 2001, Jacobson Helgoth Consultants (JHC) submitted the "Wastewater
Feasibility Study Update" final draft report to the Town. Information compiled in the
study includes service area delineation, population growth projections, effluent
limitations, trunk sewer general routing, and treatment alternatives.
•
This section provides a summary of Chapters 2 through 7 of the Wastewater Feasibility
Study Update, August 2001.
A.1.' Introduction
The purpose of the "Wastewater Feasibility Study Update" final draft report to the Town,
was to update a 1992 Wastewater System Feasibility Study for the Town of Mead. The
service area under study contained 18.2 square miles or 11,650 acres. Since development
of the study, the Mead 208 service area boundary was expanded to include land east of
WCR 13 approximately one half mile. A service area map is attached as Appendix G.
A.2. Effluent Limitations
rThe Town currently has a State of Colorado Discharge Permit that will be effective until
December 31, 2009. The permit hydraulic and organic loading is based on a maximum
^ flow of 140,000 gallons per day(gpd) and 333 pounds of BOD.
For the year 2001, the WWTP treated an average flow of 72,000 gpd and 171 pounds per
r day of BOD. Based on the 2000 census data and added taps in 2001, approximately 1000
people were served by the existing WWTP in 2001, which results in 75 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd) contribution to the WWTP. This calculation indicates that Mead per
r capita wastewater flows are low compared to the national average of 100 gpcd.
Review of the flows from 2002-2004 indicates the flow has not increased, but this cannot
be accurate since approximately 100 taps have been added to the system during this time.
Although influent and effluent flows continue to be recorded, the flow meters at the
_ WWTP do not seem to be accurately measuring the flow, most likely due to the 750 gpm
pump surges from the Feather Ridge pump station which began operating in 2001. Using
the historical Mead average of 75 gpcd of wastewater, with 500 taps and 3.15 people per
_ tap, the actual 2004 flow could be as high as 118,125 gpd. The analyses in this study
assume a 2004 flow of 100,000 gpd in 3% growth scenarios and 110,000 gpd in 5%
growth scenarios, which are both higher than the 68,000 gpd that is being recorded.
• 7 If the flow meter is recording flows accurately, two other possibilities for the low flows
are 1) exfiltration through a leak in the system, or 2) the per capita water consumption for
the Town is very low. There is no evidence of a large leak in the wastewater system, and
1 it is very unlikely that the average consumption in Mead is that much lower than the
^ national average. In order to make accurate evaluations of current conditions, and to
accurately project future conditions, the Town must install a V-notch weir with a recorder
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 3
r
•
r "` on the effluent side of the plant. This will avoid the flow surges that are encountered by
the influent meter.
. r
BOD from 2001-2004 has increased an average of 20 pounds per day each year, with
January through August 2004 averaging 190 pounds per day.
.ri
In summary, the existing treatment facilities are treating somewhere between 49 and 84
percent of the design capacity. This range is calculated from the metered flow of 68,000
gpd (49%) to the probable flow, which is calculated to be 118,125 gpd (84%).
A.3. Current Situation
The 2000 population for Mead was determined to be 2017 with 641 occupied housing
units. The WWTP serviced 400 taps in 2001 and nearly all taps are single-family
l residences.
l The Town maintains two lift stations, one east of the Feather Ridge Subdivision, and one
r in the North Creek Subdivision. The Feather Ridge lift station is intended to be a
temporary lift station until an interceptor sewer is constructed to a new WWTP east of I-
25, at which time it will be connected to the outfall sewer.
All wastewater is currently being treated in Basin 2. Basins 1 and 3 are not in use.
s
A.4. Future Situation
The study predicts that the service area population could reach 17,400 by the year 2020.
At this population, an average flow of 1.74 mgd would occur based on an average flow of
100 gpcd.
a
Typically, WWTPs are constructed in phases to lessen the cost burden on current users.
Utilizing 1.0 mgd increments of capacity for the new WWTP in the early years of a
01, growing system is recommended. The evaluations performed in the next sections will
assume starting with a 1.0 mgd WWTP.
A.5. Alternatives
Four alternatives were evaluated in the study for replacing the existing WWTPs. The
at four alternatives considered three alternative plant sites located in the Town's service
area and one alternative for pumping the flow to the St. Vrain Sanitation District for
treatment. The alternative locations can be seen on the map in Appendix I, labeled 1, 2,
. 3, and 4.
The location and cost for the new WWTP and outfall sewer alternatives are indicated
. below.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 4
c
Location Estimated Cost
Alternative 1 1-25 at North Creek $5,746,000
Alternative 2 North Creek above Lake Thomas $6,334,000
Alternative 3 North Creek below Lake Thomas $6,334,000
Alternative 4 St. Vrain Sanitation District $7,343,000
Cost estimates for these four alternatives are included in Appendix A.
A recommended or preferred alternative was not named in the report. It is believed that
• the Lake Thomas WWTP could be abandoned under Alternatives 3 and 4. These two
alternatives would allow the outfall sewer to be located near the existing Lake Thomas
WWTP.
r •
A.6. Plan Selection
The report recommended that a public hearing be conducted to obtain public input for the
study results. The public hearing has not occurred and additional information will be
required before a public hearing is appropriate. Information developed later in this report
will provide the necessary information for the public hearing.
This section of the report also noted that the implementation plan was to follow the
•
public hearing. The implementation plan will be addressed later in this study.
Funding alternatives were presented that included the following:
• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
> State Sewer Construction Grant Program
➢ Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
• United States Department of Agriculture
IN ➢ Water and Waste Program
• Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority
> State Revolving Loan Fund
• Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
> Energy & Mineral Impact Assistance Grants and Loans
> Community Development Block Grants
> Rural Development Authority Loans
Typically it is very difficult to obtain grants for infrastructure for new development. The
Town should be able to receive a grant for the existing flow portion of the WWTP as
follows, depending on the growth projection and size of new plant:
Town of Mead,Colorado
al Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 5
1
• Grant Amount for 1 mgd plant & 5%growth:
1 110,000 gpd/1,000,000 gpd = 11 percent of the total cost
• Grant Amount for 0.5 mgd plant & 3%growth: '
100,000 gpd/500,000 gpd = 20 percent of the total cost
Loan money is available for the remaining construction cost through the above-named
1 agencies at an interest rate of 3.5 to 4 percent. The cash flow analyses in this study •
assume a rate of 4 percent. To apply for loans, the Town must have completed the
Preliminary Engineering Report, the Environmental Assessment, and the Public
1 Meetings. The site application and the construction documents are approved after the
loan application is approved.
1 In recent discussions with CDPHE and DOLA, these agencies indicated that the Town of
Mead is a good candidate for the grant and loan programs. DOLA, who will conduct the
financial needs assessment and financial condition of the Town for the loan programs,
' 1 stated that the Town's assessed value of$22 million in 2001, coupled with minimal
existing debt, indicate that the Town is in excellent financial condition for obtaining a
loan for the WWTP. These agencies also stated that the Town can borrow 100 percent of
1 construction and engineering costs if it desires. Thb cash flow analyses in this study
assume the Town will borrow only 60% of the total cost,but this issue should be further
analyzed when the WWTP site is chosen and financial projections are finalized. With the
't^ low interest rates currently in place, it may be more desirable to borrow a higher
percentage, and use the cash reserves as the debt service pledge.
1 B. Population Projection Alternatives
1 In the JHC "Feasibility Study", a population projection was made for the proposed
WWTP. The projection resulted in a 2020 population of 17,372. This projection was
compared with growth projections that have been developed by the state of Colorado.
The growth projection for this region of the state varied from 1.1 to a maximum of 5.2
percent annually. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the total increase in
population based on three different levels of growth. The graph below shows the
historical growth compared with alternative projections of 3, 5, and 10 percent.
. 1
. 1
- 1
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 6
r
Town of Mead, Colorado
rPopulation Projection
zs000 _ � i !r _. _. __ _ -.- 2A.854
20000 __. _.__. _ __ _ _ I_.
!!
r
15000
r .
10000 --- - -r I _. 6,830
5000 - , _. _ _ _ i
'� .,...+HY- 4,2231 I
±-,--2e-r7--,, ,I
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
t Historical Population --"--3%Growth -X-5%Growth t 10%Grow[J
1 After review with the Town Manager and Town Board, it was agreed that the Town
would most likely achieve a 5 percent average annual growth rather than the 3 percent
• I growth. This is based on the number of annexations that are being processed and the
knowledge that northern Colorado is a desirable place to reside. The 10 percent growth
was presented as a growth projection twice the anticipated five percent value.
. IThe 5 percent growth applies to the areas west and east of I-25 for sizing the WWTP.
When only the west side is used to size the plant, 3 percent growth is used. This
. 1_
difference in growth projections is due to a significant portion of the service area west of
1-25 consisting of large lots with septic systems, which will not contribute flow to the
WWTP.
. 1._
The projected growth will need to be compared with actual growth periodically to make
adjustments in the capital improvement plan and resulting financial plan.
. r
C. Additional Alternatives
. r Since the 2001 Wastewater Feasibility Study Update, seven additional alternative
locations have been identified due to new circumstances and possible future
• r development. These locations can be seen on the map in Appendix 1, labeled 1A, 2A,
3A, 4A, 5, 6 and 7, along with the four original alternatives.
r
-at
Town of Mead,Colorado
IWastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 7
r
r ^ Four of these alternatives -- IA, 2A, 3A, 4A -- are outside the existing 208 Service Area,
r but correspond with the Mead Area of Influence indicated in the 2004 Mead
Comprehensive Plan. Since these four alternatives are further east than the original four
alternatives, a larger service area can be accommodated, and none of the alternatives
require pump stations.
.r
D. Selecting an Alternative
rAlthough eleven alternatives have been considered, they were narrowed down to the top
five for further analysis in this section. Alternatives were eliminated from further
` evaluation if they were very similar to another alternative. Preference was given to
!! alternatives that provide service to a greater area for about the same cost as another
alternative serving a smaller area.
D.1. Alternative Screening
�c Selection of a wastewater management plan is a difficult task. Although cost is an
` important element, it cannot be used as the sole criteria in making decisions. In this
facilities study, the following criteria will be used in selecting the recommended plan:
1 • Capital Cost
• Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Total Present Worth Cost Comparison
• Energy Consumption
• Staffing Requirements
• Wetlands
• Floodplain Impacts
• Socioeconomic Impacts
Ir • Reliability
• Flexibility• r • Expandability
• Operational Complexity
• Implementation
For some of these criteria, a direct comparison can be made of the relative advantages or
disadvantages. For example, capital costs and annual energy consumption can be
• r quantitatively defined and compared. However, the rating of other parameters, such as
socioeconomic impacts, is a subjective process because benefits and adverse impacts
cannot be directly quantified and mean different things to different people.
a
D.2. Selected Alternatives
The five alternatives selected for further evaluation are as follows:
• Alternative 4A: East of WCR 17. This alternative considers a WWTP located
M' east of WCR 17 and providing service to the entire 208 planning area east and
Town of Mead,Colorado
- Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 8
r
west of 1-25, utilizing gravity flow to the treatment plant.
• Alternative 4: SVSD East and West. This alternative considers using a lift
station to pump wastewater to the SVSD treatment plant for the entire service area
reast and west of I-25.
• Alternative 5: West of 1-25. This alternative considers constructing a WWTP
west of 1-25. This alternative would start out providing treatment for the area
west of I-25 initially with the possibility that the area east of 1-25 could pump to
the west 1-25 WWTP location should there be a need.
r • Alternative 6: SVSD West. This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 except
the lift station that pumps to the SVSD WWTP would be sized to initially
ra accommodate flows only from the west side of 1-25. This alternative could also
be phased and allow for serving the east 1-25 area. The capacity needs of the lift
station and sewer interceptors would have to be re-calculated. In this scenario, all
r the financial risk would be placed on the developers instead of the Town.
• Alternative 7: West 1-25/East SVSD. This alternative considers a combination
r' of constructing a new WWTP west of I-25 (Alternative 5) to treat flows west of I-
i 25, and constructing a lift station to pump to the SVSD WWTP (Alternative 4) for
flows east of 1-25.
See Appendix I for exhibits for each of these five alternatives, showing WWTP, lift
station, interceptor sewer, and force main locations and sizes. Appendix A presents the
capital cost of all infrastructure.
In Sections D.3. and D.4. that follow, these five alternatives are evaluated according to
• P the criteria described in Section D.1. above, and are ranked in order of preference.
D.3. Total Present Worth
A present worth analysis is used to determine the most cost-effective alternative. The
total present worth is the amount of money, if invested at a specified interest rate, that
would pay for all capital and Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs over the life of
the planning period. Items included in the present worth evaluation are probable
construction cost, contingencies, engineering fees, O&M costs, and the remaining value
of improvements at the end of the design period.
The following table, Table D-1, summarizes the present worth cost for the five
alternatives evaluated herein.
-
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 9
•
•
•
_— . 1 1 _1 1 r o —1 !
Table D-1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS: CAPITAL,OPERATIONS& MAINTENANCE,AND PRESENT WORTH
WWTP Alternative Locations
7 5 4A 6 4
West 1-25& East of
East SVSD West of I-25 WCR 17 SVSD West SVSD E&W
Item 0.5 mgd 1 mgd 1 mgd 0.5 mgd 1 mgd
Total 2008 Cost for WWTP and/or Lift
Station for SVSD, including outfall sewers,
PlFs,contingencies,engineering.etc. $3,341,089 $5,593,022 $7,354,772 $8,025,799 $11,206,498
SVSD Plant Investment Costs
($5,525/SFE,500 taps as of 9/04)(1) $0 $0 $0 $3,315,000 $3,315,000
Outfall Sewer Length,ft 6.000 6,000 25,100 27,800 27,800
Outfall Sewer Cost $240,000 $240,000 $1,545,000 $1,545,000 $1,707,000
Initial 2008 Capital Cost $3,341,089 $5,593,022 $7,354,772 $8,025,799 $11,206,498
2020 Plant Upgrade(No Capacity)(2) $775,272 $1,338,255 $1,452,443 $226,259 $678,777
Total 20 Year Cost $4,116,361 $6,931,277 $8,807,215 $8,252,058 $11,885,275
Present Worth Costs
Total Capital Cost $4,116,361 $6,931,277 $8,807,215 $8,252,058 $11,885,275
Remaining Value(negative value)in 2030 $2,008,363 $3,275,075 $4,967,497 $1,568,068 $2,947,403
O&M Cost,$/Year(3) $132,762 $132,762 $145;262 $133,850 $133,85O
O&M Gradient Increase Begins 2010 $6,600 $6,600 $7,000 $7,780 $12,100
Total Present Worth in 2005 Dollars $4,511,411 $6,199,798 $7,252,683 $8,342,565 $11,086,864
Difference In Present Worth,$ $0 $1,688,387 $2,741,272 $3,831,154 $6,575,453
Difference In Present Worth, % 0% 37% 61% 85% 146%
Notes:
(I) Plant investment fee(PIE)that would have to he paid for existing customers.
(2) This line item is to repair/replace major components,which is periodically necessary,not to add new capacity.
(3) SVSD master meter fee is part of the O&M costs for Alternatives 4 and 6. It is assumed to be$18.00 per customer per month,which is
$4 less than the$22 SVSD monthly customer fee,to account for subtracting the portion of the fee that applies to SVSD distribution lines.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 10
r
r , Probable construction cost estimates for treatment facilities and the outfall sewer were
r determined from the JHC study and some further evaluation of interceptor sewers. O&M
costs were obtained from estimates provided by the contract operator for the St. Vrain
Sanitation District WWTP.
rThe criteria used to determine the present worth of the alternatives are listed below:
` • Planning period (2010 to 2030) 20 years of operation
1r • Service life
o Structures 50 years
1 o Pipelines 50 years
o Equipment 20 years
o Basins 30 years
1 • Interest rate 4 percent
• Allowance for contingencies 20 percent
• Allowance for engineering, legal
and administrative costs 15 Percent
It should be noted that cost estimation procedures are approximate, and therefore
1 alternatives that have total present worth within 15 percent of each other should be
considered as having the same cost. The selection of an alternative should then be based
ron other non-monetary factors.
1 The present worth analysis shown in Table D-1 assumes that a new treatment plant will
need to be on line in November 2009 to meet the conditions of the State Compliance
( Order regarding ammonia removal. It is assumed construction will begin in 2008. The
1 Town's current aerated lagoon will provide service on the west side of 1-25 until a new
WWTP is operational. However, the aerated lagoon will need to be improved to meet the
1 growth needs on the west side prior to the new WWTP being built.
1 For the SVSD alternatives, the Town will need to reserve capacity in the plant for future
growth. The details of reserving this capacity have not yet been addressed, and the cost is
unknown. As such, this cost is missing from the cost analysis at this time. Another
consideration for the SVSD alternatives is that the lift station, force main, and gravity
sewer from County Road 13.5 to the SVSD WWTP are major infrastructure items needed
by any entity in the area to pump wastewater to SVSD. With this in mind, the Town
could approach the SVSD regarding sharing in these costs, since the infrastructure
ultimately benefits the SVSD by bringing in wastewater customers to fully utilize the
SVSD WWTP, which is currently running at less than one-third of its capacity.
a
In summary, this analysis shows that the least expensive alternative from a capital cost
and present worth analysis is Alternative 7, to locate the treatment plant west of I-25, and
to pump the east side wastewater to SVSD. Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 7, in
that the Town is responsible only for the WWTP and interceptors west of 1-25,but
Alternative 5 assumes a 1.0 mgd WWTP instead of a 0.5 mgd. Alternative 4A costs
more, but has the ability to provide gravity flow service to the Town's entire current 208
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 11
■
0
planning boundary, plus some additional service area. Alternatives 4 and 6 cost more,
but require fewer personnel since the Town would only have to run a lift station instead
of a WWTP. Alternatives 4 and 6 also eliminate the need for the Town to have a NPDES
permit for a WWTP. It should also be recognized that the area being served by each of
the alternatives needs to be considered in the selection process.
in
D.4. Alternative Ranking
s
The purpose of this section is to summarize the alternative analysis with respect to a
number of evaluation'criteria, including capital and O & M costs. It is convenient to do
II
this in the form of a summary matrix. This is presented as Table D-2.
I
Alternative Location
tt 7 5 4A. 6 4
West 1-25/ West of East of SVSD SVSD
Evaluation Criteria East SVSD 1-25 WCR 17 West E & W
1 Capital Cost 1 2 3 3 4
2O & MCost 1 2 4 3 3
3 Energy Consumption 4 2 3 1 2
4 Staffing Requirements 3 3 2 1 1
5 Wetlands 1 4 4 2 3
,,^ 6 Flood Plain Impacts 3 1 2 4 4
7 Socioeconomic Impacts 3 4 1 2 2
8 Reliability 3 2 1 4 4
al 9 Flexibility 2 3 1 4 3
10 Expandability 3 2 1 4 4
11 Operational Complexity 4 3 2 1 1
12 Implementation 2 1 3 4 4
1 Total Score 30 29 27 33 35
Summary Ranking 3 2 1 4 5
1 Notes:
1. The rating system is based on a maximum scale of 1 through 4 with I being "best." The
lower total score is the best ranking.
1 2. Alternative 4A is the only alternative that provides gravity flow to the entire service area.
1 Each criterion is given the same weight, and lower values are indicative of a better rating.
Other than cost comparisons, subjective judgment can be made and the rationale for the
rankings is provided in the sections that follow. Although this evaluation will lead to a
1 selection of a recommended plan, it is understood that not everyone will agree with all
items presented herein. It does represent a consensus of thought between JR Engineering
and the Town of Mead officials involved with this project.
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 12
r ^ Lines 1 and 2. Capital cost and operation and maintenance cost. These items are
ranked as presented in the present worth evaluation.
The length and cost for outfall sewer pipe required is broken out in the Summary of
Alternative Costs to emphasize the effect the pipe length has on the overall cost estimate
Ir for each alternative. The further east a new WWTP is built, the faster the total cost rises.
Land owners in the east side of the service area would benefit significantly by having the
treatment plant readily accessible to their land by gravity flow. However, the millions of
dollars of additional cost will increase the financial burden on the Town, unless the
adjacent land owners elect to front the Town additional money for having the
convenience of a treatment plant available without the need and expense to pump back to
a plant located further west.
It must be noted that the capital costs for the SVSD alternatives could change
1 significantly if the Plant Investment Fee assumed in this study is changed. The Town is
trying to establish discussion with the SVSD to determine the legitimacy of the current
r. cost estimates. If the costs can be lowered, the Town would be much more interested in
pursuing the SVSD alternatives.
I'm Line 3. Energy Consumption. This rating is based only on electricity and fuel used to
operate the facilities and does not include energy consumption for construction.
Although the SVSD alternatives would consume the most power due to the need to
+ operate both a treatment plant and a lift station, the treatment plant energy costs are
already accounted for in the Master Meter Fees charged to the Town. In general, it is
assumed that a lift station consumes less energy than a WWTP of the same size.
Therefore, Alternative 4 and 6 will require less energy than Alternatives 4A, 5, and 7, and
Alternative 6 will require less than Alternative 5. Alternative 5 will require less energy
than Alternatives 3 and 4A, since it is only a 0.5 mgd treatment plant as opposed to 1.0
mgd.
Line 4. Staffing Requirements. Total staffing requirements for the SVSD alternatives
are considerably higher than the other two treatment alternatives due to the need to
operate a major lift station and a WWTP, but the WWTP staff is already accounted for in
the Master Meter Fees charged to the Town. A lift station will only require one staff
1 member to periodically check its operation. A WWTP of this size and complexity will
require 2-3 staff members for operation 24 hours a day.
1 Line 5. Wetlands. Wetland impacts will result from location of the outfall sewer that
will be installed along the bottom of the draw to Lake Thomas. The longer the outfall,
the greater the impact on the wetlands. Most of the wetlands that could be affected by the
1 alternative WWTP locations are upstream of Lake Thomas. The ranking was based on
the outfall with the least length being a lower number than the outfall with the longer
length. The WWTP will need to be located above the 100-year flood plain, so the
treatment plant will not impact the wetlands.
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 13
r
r _. Line 6. Floodplain Impacts. All the alternatives will require constructing the outfall in
the floodplain. The SVSD treatment plant is located next to the St. Vrain River and is
1 adjacent to the 100-year flood plain. The WCR 17 plant would be in a similar location
next to the St. Vrain River. The west of 1-25 treatment plant location is not adjacent to a
major river. Therefore, the SVSD and WCR 17 treatment plants have the possibility of
1 incurring significant damage from a major flood while the west of 1-25 treatment plant
location would not. The WCR 17 interceptor sewer would not have to cross the
1 floodplain, but the SVSD interceptor sewer would. Again, the length of the outfall was
also used to rank this category.
I Line 7. Socioeconomic Impacts. This category is based'on the traffic, noise, dust, odor,
aesthetic, and political impacts of each alternative. This item is probably the most
subjective of all the ranking criteria.
The SVSD alternatives have the most potential for impacts due to political concerns that
could arise when a public service is being provided by two units of government instead of
it all being controlled by one, but the aesthetic impacts would be smaller than the Mead
treatment plant alternatives. Alternative 4A would have less impact on the surrounding
area than Alternatives 5 and 7 because much of the land is in a floodplain, which will not
p. be developed. The low-lying land will allow the plant to be less visible to the
surrounding areas, and the buffer will also allow dissipation of odors, which will keep
them from spreading to any adjacent inhabited areas. •
A requirement affecting all possible WWTP location alternatives is the enforcement of
minimum setbacks from wastewater treatment works to habitable structures. The setback
requirements are given in Colorado Water Quality Control Division Policy No. WQSA-7.
Mechanical plants with 100,000 gpd capacity or greater must be located at least 1,000
feet from habitable structures, which includes residences, schools, and commercial
�I structures. As the possible alternatives are being considered, development is progressing,
and in some cases is eliminating alternative locations as possibilities. It is possible to
have the Division approve a site within the 1000-foot boundary if mitigating factors are
approved, but it is much better for long term planning and future community relations to
meet the 1000-foot boundary.
(Some previously considered alternatives are not being further analyzed due to the above
setback requirements. Alternatives 1A, 2A, and 3A are now problematic alternatives
because new houses have been built in the vicinity of these locations since they were first
1 considered.)
Line 8. Reliability. The treatment plant below Lake Thomas would be the most reliable
1 due to serving the largest treatment area. The SVSD alternative would be the least
reliable due to the need to operate a lift station 365 days a year. Standby power would
need to be provided to limit overflows due to power failures, but other mechanical
1 equipment/electrical equipment can fail, resulting in the possibility of an overflow.
Typically, WWTPs are staffed 24 hours per day to allow for managing equipment
failures. In addition, the redundancy of equipment and basins provides for a more
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 14
r
r -- reliable system. However, it should be realized that many lift stations have been
designed to be very reliable, and thus this is not a serious issue.
Line 9. Flexibility. Flexibility includes the ability to meet changing flow and treatment
plant strength requirements. Typically, activated sludge treatment plants, as
recommended, are designed to receive changes in flow and strength. The SVSD
alternatives 4 and 6, would require close monitoring of the lift station to make sure the
peak flow is adequately pumped to the treatment plant.
Line 10. Expandability. This item views the ability to expand the treatment plant and
area serving the WWTP. Expanding the service area for the SVSD alternative would be
the most difficult. The treatment plants located above Lake Thomas would require lift
stations to serve development downstream.
I Line 11. Operational Complexity. The SVSD alternatives 4 and 6 will be more complex
to operate due to the need for a major lift station that must operate 365 days out of the
year. The Mead treatment plants would not require lift stations to deliver flow.
However, the Mead treatment plants will require a permit to operate, and will be required
to report regularly to the state on effluent parameters.
Line 12. Implementation. The SVSD alternatives 4 and 6 will require preparation of an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to implement. Implementing treatment plant
a locations west of I-25 will result in far more public concern from adjacent residents as
compared to east of WCR 17. Alternative 5 can be financed without contributions from
developers or other sources. Alternatives 4, 4A, 5, and 6 will require funding
r• contributions, or Tap Fees will have to be raised. This category is ranked according to
the funds deficit shown in the cash flow section of the Capital Improvement tables in
Appendices B and C, as well as concerns with 1GA requirements.
E. Preferred Alternatives
The alternatives ranked in order from best to worst according to Table D-2 are 4A, 5, 7,
6, and 4. However, the preferred alternatives of the Town are Alternatives 4A, 4, and 5.
This is because these alternatives all provide service to the entire service area, and each
involve only one governmental entity for wastewater treatment. In order to choose the
best alternative, the Town must have further discussions with the SVSD and land owners
on the east side of 1-25. The Town must further evaluate the SVSD alternative by
completing the cost of service study to validate the required Plant Investment Fees, and
determine if the land owners east of I-25 would participate in the WCR 17 or SVSD
alternatives by pre-purchasing taps.
The alternatives preferred in this study and presented in order of preference are as
follows:
• Alternative 4A: East of WCR 17. This alternative considers a wastewater
treatment plant located east of WCR 17 and providing service to the entire 208
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 15
r
-� planning area, both east and west of 1-25, utilizing gravity flow to the treatment
plant. This alternative will require cooperation from Weld County in allowing the
r Town to expand its growth boundary to WCR 17, and participation in the cost
from the land owners east of I-25.
• Alternative 4: SVSD East and West. This alternative considers using a lift
station to pump wastewater to the SVSD WWTP for the entire service area, both
east and west of 1-25. This alternative requires that the SVSD perform a rate
study and the results of the rate study establish a cost that makes this alternative
equal to or less than the cost for Alternative 4A. In addition, a master meter
agreement (IGA) will need to be developed that is acceptable to both parties.
• Alternative 5: West of 1-25. This alternative considers constructing a WWTP
west of 1-25. This alternative would start out providing treatment for the area
1 west of 1-25 initially, with the possibility that the area east of 1-25 could pump to
the west 1-25 WWTP location. This alternative is the most costly alternative from
the perspective of serving the entire service area. However, this alternative
provides the least financial risk for the Town because all costs for developing the
wastewater collection system east of 1-25 would be the responsibility of the land
owners, and would be constructed in phases as required by each development.
F. 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan Alternatives
The proposed 20 year capital improvement plan for the Town originally called for
utilizing the existing WWTP to its full capacity prior to constructing a new WWTP. This
capital improvement plan assumed that the State would allow utilizing the existing
aerated lagoon treatment system. However, new stream standards for ammonia now
require the Town to construct a mechanical plant earlier than needed due only to
population growth. A new WWTP capable of removing ammonia must be operational by
November 1, 2009, and must be meeting all permit limits by December 1, 2009.
Improvements to the existing WWTP aerated lagoon need to be accomplished in 2005 to
ensure that the existing plant adequately treats the wastewater until 2009,but these
improvements will be kept to the minimum amount necessary.
F.1 Phasing Existing WWTP Improvements
In the December 1999 report titled, "Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Evaluation
1 Report", JR Engineering determined a schedule of improvements that would allow
increasing the existing treatment plant capacity to 320,000 gpd. This study indicated that
the current capacity of the WWTP is believed to be in the range of 105,000 gpd while the
1 current flows being treated are in the range of 75,000 gpd. This results in a remaining
capacity of 30,000 gpd and equates to adding approximately 127 taps. This capacity is
based on 75 gpcd and 3.15 people per single-family residence. As of the date of this
report, approximately 100 taps have been added in 2003 and 2004, and as previously
mentioned, recorded flows do not appear to be accurate. Since flows may be closer to
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 16
r
•
r , 118,125 gpd instead of 75,000 gpd, the Town could already be behind in updating the
existing WWTP.
rListed below is a summary of phased improvements that would.achieve an ultimate
r capacity of 320,000 gpd. Since the new WWTP will be operational in 2009, the upgrade
from 180,000 gpd to 320,000 gpd would no longer be required.
rTable F-I
Phased ' Maximum Additional Total Construction
i Improvements Flow, gpd Taps Served Population Cost, $
(1) (4)
Phase 1 105,000 127 1400 156,000
1 Phase 2 125,000 85 1667 167,000
Phase 3 (2) 140,000 63 1866 85,000
New Permit (3) 180,000 169 2400 100,000_
Phase 4 (5, 6) 320,000 571 3200 945,000
Notes:
1. Existing population served by the WWTP is estimated at 1000 with a
J per-capita flow of 75 gpd
2. Cost for expansion to 180,000 gpd.
" ^ 3. Cost to revise permit from 140,000 gpd to 320,000 gpd.
4. Construction costs have been inflated using the Engineering News-Record
construction cost index. (Jan 2000= 6130, Sep 2004 = 7298)
5. Per-capita flow of 75 gpcd used to determine "total population" and
"additional taps served" for Phases 1 to 3. A flow of 100 gpcd is used for
Phase 4.
S 6. The model was developed in 2002. Due to new ammonia limits that took
effect on January I, 2005, Phase 4 is no longer viable since it will not bring
the existing WWTP into compliance with ammonia standards. Instead, the
new WWTP is being scheduled for construction to meet the state compliance
order of November 1, 2009. The new plant must meet all permit limits by
December 1, 2009.
1 Several years have passed since the above recommendations were made in the 1999 JR
Engineering report, and none of the recommended phased improvements have been
1 completed to date. JR Engineering now recommends that the phases be accomplished in
one project in 2005, so that the existing facility will function well for the remaining five
years of its life through 2009. Rehabilitation of the existing in-service lagoon, Basin 2, is
1 recommended. A preliminary cost estimate for this rehabilitation is included in
Appendix A, and the costs are also included in the Capital Improvement Schedules in
Appendices B and C. The rehabilitation design and cost estimate need to be further
1 analyzed to ensure the lagoon capacity is consistent with the projected flows, but this cost
estimate meets the requirements of the conceptual nature of this analysis.
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 17
r
r -^ At a cost of$328,670, the rehabilitation of Basin 2 will cost much less than the phased
improvements, which total $1.5 million, allowing the Town's money to be spent more
rwisely on the new WWTP. Also, with only five years left, completing one project to
increase the lagoon's life will be more efficient than trying to implement several phases
of improvements.
F.2 Discharge Permit Issues
rThe Town's new NPDES permit became effective on January 1, 2005, and will expire on
December 31, 2009. The new permit incorporates an ammonia discharge limit, which the
Town is not capable of meeting with its current aerated lagoon treatment facility.
IAccordingly, a compliance schedule was included in the new permit. The compliance
schedule allows the Town a five year permit period to perform the necessary treatment
plant improvements.
11 The compliance schedule is as follows:
1 Task Deadline
Submit plan to meet discharge limits and increase hydraulic October 1, 2005 •
and organic loading.
Site Application and Preliminary Effluent Limits May 1, 2006
Final Plans, Specifications, and Construction Schedule October I, 2006
r ^ Progress Reports and Updated Schedule July 1, 2007, 2008, 2009
WWTP Complete and Operational November 1, 2009
WWTP Meeting All Permit Limits December 1, 2009
With this compliance schedule, the Town has a couple of options, as follows:
1. Design, construct and begin operation of a new treatment plant by November 1, •
2009.
2. Investigate technology that would allow using the existing lagoon site until such
time as a new treatment plant is required by population growth.
Currently, the state does not recognize aerated lagoon technology as a process that will
reliably remove ammonia from wastewater. There are some states that are beginning to
accept modified aerated lagoon technology for ammonia removal. These aerated lagoons
are generally modified to include recycle flows and clarification equipment. The cost for
these improvements has not been investigated. Additional research and meetings with
the state will be required to determine if Option 2 is viable. That investigation exceeds
the scope of this study. Furthermore, the Town has been pursuing the option of moving
1 the WWTP away from the Town's core to allow for a larger service area. Relocating the
WWTP east of 1-25 would reduce the number of lift stations needed to serve the area east
of 1-25.
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 18
r
•
rF.3 Capital Improvement Schedule
r Appendix B presents the capital improvement schedules for Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5,
which are the three alternatives being considered for implementation. Appendix C
r presents the capital improvement schedules for Alternatives 6 and 7, which are no longer
being considered. The top three lines in these schedules present the population, WWTP
flow, and number of taps assumed for each year from 2004 to 2030. The schedules for
r Alternatives 6 and 7 are based on an assumed population growth of 3 percent each year as
was illustrated in the population section of this report, and only treating wastewater from
the west side of I-25. The schedules for Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5 are based on an
1 assumed population growth of 5 percent each year and treating wastewater east and west
of I-25. The costs to upgrade the existing WWTP were placed under the year in which
the improvement must be completed to assure adequate treatment plant capacity for the
1 population and flow being served. In addition, the new WWTP improvements will need
to start design in 2005 in order to have the WWTP operational.by the time the existing
WWTP flow reaches its maximum capacity and the state compliance order must be met
•
in 2009.
G. Financial Considerations
1 Development of a financial plan for design and construction of new WWTP
improvements requires extensive evaluation of the Town's wastewater tap-on fees,
wastewater user rates, availability of grants and loans, and bonding or repayment
capacity. The Town will ultimately need to perform a detailed rate study prior to
obtaining the funds necessary to construct a new WWTP.
A preliminary tap-on fee model was created to determine the approximate range for tap-
on fees required to fund the new WWTP. This model, tailored to each alternative, is at
ra the bottom of the capital improvement schedules in Appendices B and C, and shows the
cash flow expected from current tap-on fees, as well as increased tap-on fees.
The assumptions that were made in this model are as follows:
• Tap-on fee revenues are based on the number of taps that are indicated at the top
of the schedule.
• Revenue calculations were based on the tap-on fee account balance from 2003,
the 2004 tap-on fee of$6,000, the current tap-on fee of$7,000, and the minimum
1 required to fund the particular WWTP alternative.
• Construction costs were assumed to inflate 3.5 percent each year.
• Interest on savings is 3 percent.
• The interest rate on borrowed money is 4 percent.
• Borrowing for the new treatment plant is limited to 60 percent of the total cost.
• No financial aid is included; however the Town should pursue available grants
when the new treatment plant is constructed.
• No funding is provided from existing customer revenues.
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 19
Results of the preliminary model for Alternative 7 shows that the Town can cash finance
the existing WWTP improvements with the current tap-on fees of$7,000 per tap. In
looking at the new WWTP where costs will start occurring in 2005, the $7,000 tap-on fee
will also generate enough revenue to meet the annual debt service of$147,502. This debt
service results from financing $2.0 million of the total probable cost of$3.3 million that
will be required for the new WWTP.
There do not appear to be adequate funds to implement Alternatives 4, 4A, 5, and 6,
1 according to the current cash flow projections. This could change depending on the
outcome of discussions with the SVSD and the land owners east of 1-25.
Further evaluation of this model will be required in the future to assure that adequate
funds are available for the new WWTP improvements. It should be noted that all cost
estimates are conceptual at this time, and are based on previous studies completed for the
11 Town.
H. 1-25 East Development Financial Considerations
The financial analyses presented in the Capital Improvement Schedules in Appendices B
and C do not account for all infrastructure required for development east of 1-25.
Alternatives 6 and 7 include nothing for the east side, while Alternative 5 includes excess
WWTP capacity for the east side. Alternatives 4 and 4A include excess capacity in the
lift station and WWTP, respectively, plus interceptor sewers that are closer to the east
side property. The land owners will be required to build interceptor sewers to tie into the
Town sewers, and will be required to construct lift stations that serve their property alone.
1 Development east of I-25 will require the new WWTP be larger than for the west side
alone, which greatly increases the cost. Other significant cost increases for building a
1 WWTP east of 1-25 are due to the longer and larger diameter pipelines that are required.
If the Town desires to construct a new WWTP to treat flow from the east and west sides
1 of 1-25, or chooses to pump wastewater to the St. Vrain Sanitation District to
accommodate the east and west, a plan will have to be implemented to raise the needed
dollars to fund these alternatives. Possible ways to raise the dollars needed are as
1 follows:
1. Reduce upgrades to the existing plant: this is a risky plan since the existing plant
1 is already having effluent violations each year, and improvements recommended
in this study have already been reduced from previous recommendations.
2. Have land owners or developers pre-purchase taps: with the current situation, it
1 does not appear that the land owners or developers east of I-25 are currently
considering this. An option to increase land owner and developer participation
would be to change the Town's policy so that the Town can provide wastewater
1 service to properties that do not annex to the Town.
3. Find a source for borrowing more than 60% of the total construction cost: must
determine if this is possible.
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 20
1
4. Raise Tap Fees to $8,000 or more, depending on the alternative: this could
backfire if raising tap fees too much causes development to slow below the
Iprojected number of taps.
5. Generate revenue from existing customers: this can be.done in two ways, as
described in a. and b. below.
1 a. Transfer a portion of each month's operating revenue from existing
customers into a Capital Improvement Fund, which is then used to help
fund the existing customers' portion of the new WWTP. In reality, this
practice should be in place already, but it is not. The Town completed a
Wastewater Rate Study in late 2004, and this practice is among the
1 recommendations in the study. Since the Town has not historically saved •
money from operating revenue in a Capital Improvement Fund, this option
would not provide a large sum of money to work with between now and
1 2009, anyway.
b. Require a lump sum payment (assessment) from existing customers: this
would generate revenue that should have been previously generated if the
wastewater rates were appropriately set to provide a balance in a Capital
Improvement Fund. This could create a bad relationship between the
Town leadership and the public, but it has been successfully done in small
communities similar to Mead.
6. Pursue grants: must apply and wait to see if grants are received. However, the
Town must be realistic—there are no grants to pay for infrastructure for new
development, which should pay for itself. Some grant money may be possible
only for correcting existing deficiencies.
7. Sell more taps by approving more development than currently projected: there is
1 no guarantee this will happen, since development is market-driven and is subject
to annexation election variables.
In lieu of pursuing the above options for providing wastewater service east of 1-25, the
Town could place the complete financial risk of development on land owners instead of
the Town by building a WWTP on the west side of I-25 as in Alternatives 5 and 7.
1 The cash flow for the alternatives that would provide service east of I-25 can be found in
Appendices B and C. The tap-on fee model on the alternatives indicates the dollar
1 amount each alternative is short under current tap fees, and how many taps developers
would have to pre-purchase for the Town to build one of these alternatives.
I. Permitting & Environmental Requirements
Locating the outfall sewer along North Creek will require obtaining a 404 permit for
1 construction in wetlands. Other construction permits that will be required include a
construction dewatering permit, groundwater permit and an erosion control permit. Costs
for obtaining these permits is in the range of$20,000, not including the necessary
environmental studies. It is assumed that all of these permits will be granted.
1
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 21
1
An environmental assessment (EA) will be required to review the direct and secondary
impacts of the proposed project at the construction site, as well as throughout the utility
1 planning area. These studies generally cost in the range of$20,000 to $30,000.
A new discharge permit for the new mechanical treatment plant will also have to be
1 obtained, unless an alternative to pump wastewater to the SVSD is chosen. If the Town's
wastewater is pumped to SVSD, the Town will not have a permit requirement for a
WWTP.
J., Outfall Sewer and WWTP Pre-design Study
1 Location of the outfall sewer and the preferred treatment plant location will need to be
refined in the near future. Aerial mapping of the outfall and treatment plant corridor will
be helpful in this endeavor. Since the Town already has aerial mapping from I-25 to
WCR 13, only the area between County Roads 13 and 17 will be needed. Selection of
the final outfall sewer location will need to be determined utilizing this map and after
1 neighborhood meetings have been completed to obtain consensus from adjacent property
owners on the final alignment.
1 In addition, identifying the alignment for the outfall sewer will allow the Town to acquire
the necessary rights-of-way or easements as each development project is presented to the
Town for consideration, unless such rights-of-way or easements are acquired prior to
development.
The pre-design study will include a specific layout and sizing of the proposed treatment
plant. Phasing of future expansions will also need to be accomplished. This study will
also include submitting the site application and obtaining preliminary effluent limits for
the selected treatment plant site. The Colorado Ammonia Model (CAM) will need to be
1 utilized to determine the ammonia limits. The CAM is typically run by the State and •
takes approximately three to four months to complete. The cost of running this model
will be in the $5,000 range. It would be prudent for the Town to have a selected site prior
to running the model in order to limit the number of times the CAM needs to be
performed.
Cost of the pre-design study is expected to be in the range of$65,000 to $80,000. This
study is budgeted for in the Town's 2005 budget. The attached schedule in Appendix E
shows the pre-design effort, site application, environmental studies, and reviews by the
1 various entities will require approximately 19 months to complete, at which point
construction drawings can be started. This schedule can be streamlined if necessary.
However, the Town should plan on a minimum of one year for these activities to occur.
1 Should an environmental issue be identified, this schedule would need to be extended.
Several years would be involved if significant engineering, environmental, or legal
expenses become required to obtain site approval.
1
1
Town of Mead.Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 22
!- K. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions from information presented herein are as follows:
.1 • The existing WWTP serves approximately 1400 people utilizing approximately
560 taps (as of February 2005), and the average flow to the existing WWTP is
Cestimated to be 112,000 gpd.
• The existing WWTP site has the capability, with $300,000 plus in improvements,
C of serving 1000 taps or a population of 3,200 people. The service capacity for the
existing treatment plant is very limited and would not practically include much
wastewater from land east of I-25.
l • The current permitted treatment plant capacity is 140,000 gpd. This capacity is
expected to be reached by 2007 with 5 percent growth, or 2008 with 3 percent
growth. New flow monitoring is to be installed in the near future to verify current
flow recordings, which seem to be low for the population being served.
• The existing treatment plant will need to achieve ammonia removal, if still in use
by 2009. This may not be achievable. This study thus assumes that the Town has
no desire to retain the existing treatment facilities and that a new WWTP will
need to be constructed by November 1, 2009.
• The total cost for improving the existing WWTP to treat 180,000 gpd will be in
C the range of$330,000, and does not include the cost for ammonia removal. The
improvements noted will require a site application to obtain the appropriate
approvals from the State. The need for a site application should be evaluated after
the WWTP flows are verified. The possibility exists that flows will not exceed
the current permit limits and this would save the town significant dollars.
L
r-
• The 20-year plan presented herein assumes a 3 percent annual growth for treatment of wastewater west of 1-25 only, and 5 percent growth for treatment of
wastewater west and east of 1-25. A lower growth is expected west of 1-25 due to
r a significant portion of the area being large-lot development with septic tanks.
• The 3 percent annual growth will result in a 2030 sewered population of 3,896
and will result in an average day treatment capacity of 0.39 mgd. The 5 percent
annual growth will result in a 2030 population of 7,717 and will result in an
average day treatment capacity of 0.77 mgd.
• Improvements east of I-25 will require land owner upfront monetary or
infrastructure contributions for the Town to provide wastewater service,
Jregardless of which WWTP alternative location is chosen.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 23
r
• The preliminary financial analysis in this report identifies that the Town is in a
fairly solid financial condition under its current tap-on fee schedule when
r considering development in areas that would result in expanding the existing
WWTP where tap-on fees would finance the expansion. However, development
r east of 1-25 will result in the need to obtain financial contributions from land
owners in this area.
rRecommendations for implementing this plan are as follows:
r • Engage in discussions with the SVSD regarding Plant Investment Fees to
determine the actual cost to connect the existing Town sewer taps. The current
$5,525 plant investment fee and line extension fee does not make this alternative
economically feasible when compared to the Town constructing its own WWTP.
• Additionally, a Master Meter Agreement will be required to determine the
1 specifics for connecting to the SVSD. Issues such as monthly service fee cost
increases, wastewater strength charges, and reservation of future treatment plant
capacity will need to be determined.
r • Engage in discussions with land owners east of I-25 to determine their schedule
r
for wastewater treatment needs and negotiate cost participation in the form of pre-
tap sales. A financial commitment must be made in the form of pre-tap sales in
1 order for the Town to reduce the financial risk in providing service to this area.
• Choose the best alternative between Alternative 4 (new lift station to serve both
the east and west sides of I-25) and Alternative 4A (new WWTP at WCR 17) if
possible, otherwise choose Alternative 5 (New WWTP on west side of 1-25,
development east of 1-25 to pump to WWTP).
• Conduct and document public meetings, and complete the Environmental
Assessment. This can and should be completed before the final site selection is
completed.
• After conducting public meeting, submit this study along with Environmental
Assessment to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and
the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association for review and
comment.
s • Planning for the 2005 budget has included incorporating, as a minimum, some of
the recommended improvements for the existing WWTP. Additional lagoon
wastewater testing for BOD should be conducted to monitor the performance of
the lagoons. This additional testing may allow postponing most if not all of the
improvements.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 24
rs
r
• Submit the above documents to the CDPHE, along with grant and loan
r applications. The process for grant and loan funding has been started as indicated
by the letter attached in Appendix D.
• A pre-design study and submittal of a site application should be considered in
2005 after negotiations have been concluded with the east I-25 landowners. This
study would tie down the routing of the outfall sewer, perform geotechnical
investigations of sewer line route and WWTP site and prepare preliminary design
and costing for the new WWTP. The cost of this study would be in the range of
$60,000 to $75,000, depending on which site is chosen.•
a
'
� 4
7
Town of Mead,Colorado
1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 25
r
r _
r
r
r
r
r
r
r - APPENDIX A
r
r
r
S
r ,
r ........ Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Page 1 of 1 ENR Construction Cost Index I
Client Name: Town of Mead I • I Date Index
rIProjectName: Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Initial i _1/1/2006 10,000.00
!Project Number 434-01 I ;_Current j' 1/1/2006 10,000.00
I Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost $ Cost$
1 Estimated Capital Costs of Site Work and !
r 2 Equipment for Mechanical WWTP at 1-25 B North Creek
3 _
4 Preliminary Treatment ! 1 ea. ; 171,116.001_ 171,116
r 5 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air 1_._ ea. 1,016,493.00 1,016,493
6 Final Clarification ' 1 ea. ! 704,822.00 704,822
7 UV Disinfection and Facilities �- 1 ea. 296,526.00 296,526
r 8 jSludge Thickening 1 ea. 76,138.00 76,138
9 Aerobic Sludge Digestion 1 ( ea. 472,960.00 472,960
10 Sludge Dewatering 1 j ea. 856,107.00 856,107
r 11 ,Miscellaneous Structures 1 ea. ! 243,817.00 243,817
12 3V Sanitary Sewer Piping (installed, inch manholes) 5,000 LF 90.00 450,000
13 Land Acquisition I 5 I acres 13,000.00 65,000
r14 i 0
15 0
r - 16 0
17 0
18 I 0
r 19 0
20 0 •
21 0
I 22 Engineering Fees 10% const. total 4,352,979.00 435,298
23 0
24 0
rSubtotal from page 2 0
Subtotal (Sum of lines 2 thru 22) $4,788,277
Construction Contingency 20.0 % $957,655
Design Status (Check One) Opinion of Probable Cost $5,745,900
0 Conceptual Design
in
Preliminary Design JACOBSON HELGOTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Final Design
_ Project Manager: Date:
The Engineer, using his or her professional judgement, has developed this stated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
based upon the design status identified above. Development of this Opinion has included consideration of tlesign input
level;however,the circumstances under which the work is expected to be undertaken,the cost and availability of materials,
an labor and services, probable bidder response and the economic conditions at the time of bid solicitation are beyond the
j control of the Engineer and will impact actual bid costs. Should bidding be delayed,these costs should be reviewed and,if
I necessary,adjusted to a more applicable Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
a
1
1
r
r Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Page 1 of 1
_____—_ ENR Construction Cost Index]
r Client Name: Town of Mead — Date Index
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study_ Initial 1/1/2006 f 10,000.00
Project Number. 434-01 Current 1/1/2006 10,000.00 j
rItem Quantity Unit I Unit Cost$ I Cost $ _
1 Estimated Capital Costs cf Site Work and
r 2 Equipment for Mechanical WWTP Above Lake Thomas ( t
3 _
4 Preliminary Treatment I 1 ea. 171,116.00! 171,116
r5 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/ Diffused Air 1 ea. 1,016,493.00i 1,016,463
6 Final Clarification 1 ea. 704,822.001 704,822
7 UV Disinfection and Facilities 1 ea. 296,526.001 296,526
8 Sludge Thickening 1 ea. 76,138.00 76,138
9 Aerobic Sludge Digestion 1 ea. 472,960.001 472,960
r 10 Sludge Dewatering 1 ea. 856,107.001 856,107
11 Miscellaneous Structures I 1 ea. 243,817.001 243,817
12 30'Sanitary Sewer Piping (installed, incl manholes) 10,000 LF 90.00; 900,000
r 13 Land Acquisition 5 acres 13,000.001 65,000
14 0
15 i 0 •
r 16 0
17 0
18 I I 0 •
r 19 _ 0
20 0
r21
22 Engineering Fees 10% const. total 4,802,979.00 480,298
237 0
r _ 0
Subtotal from page 2 0
Subtotal (Sum of lines 2 thru 22) $5,283,277
rConstruction Contingency 20.0 % $1,056,655
Design Status (Check One) Opinion of Probable Cost $6,339,900
r v Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design JACOBSON HELGOTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Final Design
rProject Manager: Date:
The Engineer, using his or her professional judgement, has developed this stated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
based upon the design status identified above. Development of this Opinion has included consideration of design input
level;however,the circumstances under which the work is expected to be undertaken,the cost and availability of materials,
r labor and services, probable bidder response and the economic conditions at the time of bid solicitation are beyond the
control of the Engineer and will impact actual bid costs. Should bidding be delayed,these costs should be reviewed and,if
---necessary,adjusted to a more applicable Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
r .
r
r
r _ Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Page 1 of 1
—_. ENR Construction Cost Index 1
• r Client Name: Town of Mead Date Index
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study I Initial 1 1/1/2006 I 10,000.00 I
r 'Project Number 434-01 I Current i 1/1/2006 I 10,000.00 I
I Item Quantity! Unit Unit Cost $ I Cost $ _
1 Estimated Capital Costs of Site Work and
2 Equipment for Mechanical WWTP Below Lake Thomas
g -- — ----.—)
—
4 Preliminary + T
as
Treatment 1 I ea. 171,116.001 171,116
5 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air 1 ea. 1,016,493.001 1,016,493
6 Final Clarification _ 1 ea. 704,822.00 704,822
.. 7 i UV Disinfection and Facilities I 1 ea. 296,526.00 296,526
8 (Sludge Thickening 1 ea. • 76,138.00 I 76,138 '
9 Aerobic Sludge Digestion 1 ea. 472,960.00 472,960
• a 10 Sludge Dewatering i 1 ea. 856,107.00 856,107
11 Miscellaneous Structures 1 ea. 243,817.00 243,817
12 30'Sanitary Sewer Piping (installed, inch manholes), 20,000 LF 90.00; 1,800,000
7 13 Land Acquisition 5 { acres 13,000.00 65,000
14 I 0
15 0
a1'^ 16 0
1 17
0
al18 I 0
19 0
20 0
1 21 0
22 Engineering Fees 10% const. total 5,702,979.00 570,298
23 0
1 24 0
!Subtotal from page 2 0
Subtotal (Sum of lines 2 thru 22) $6,273,277
1 - Construction Contingency 20.0 % $1,254,655
Design Status (Check One) Opinion of Probable Cost $7,527,900
1 Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design JACOBSON HELGOTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Final Design
1 Project Manager. Date:
The Engineer, using his or her professional judgement, has developed this slated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
based upon the design status identified above. Development of this Opinion has included consideration of design input
1 level; however,the circumstances under which the work is expected to be undertaken, the cost and availability of materials,
labor and services, probable bidder response and the economic conditions at the time of bid solicitation are beyond the
control of the Engineer and will impact actual bid costs. Should bidding be delayed,these costs should be reviewed and,if
ecessary,adjusted to a more applicable Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
1
1
a .
I
al _ Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Page 1 of 1
___ I_ENR Construction Cost Index
all , Client Name: Town of Mead — I Date • Index
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment FeasibiliyStudy ! I_ Initial 1/1/2006 10,000.00
(Project Number 434-01 _ _ I I Current 1/1/2006 10,000.00
Item Quantity Unit I Unit Cost $ Cost $ _
1 !Estimated Capital Costs for Gravity Sewer, Force I
aal 2 'Main and Lift Station to Deliver Water to SVSD I ..._ j _-__ . _
3i i
___r___—__
al 4 ;30'Sanitary Sewer Piping from Town(installed,inct MHs) 27,000 ! LF I 90.00r 2,430,000
5 I18" Force Main (installed) i 7,000 j - LF 54.00( 378,000
- 6 30'Sanitary Sewer Piping to SVSD(installed,include MHs)i 10,500 LF _ 90.001 945,000
1 7 Lift Station - 1 ea. 11,810,073.00 1,810,073
e o
9 I 0
al 10
0
�2 _ I 0
r-
1 3 . I 0
141 I I 0
15 I I 0
a1-....‘ 16 II 0' 170
Al 18
19 0
i I 0
20 I
0
1 21 0 •
22 Engineering Fees 10% const. total 5,563,073.00 556,307
23 J • 0
1 24 0
Subtotal from page 2 0
1 Subtotal (Sum of lines 2 thru 22) $6,119,380
Construction Contingency 20.0 % $1,223,876
Design Status (Check One) Opinion of Probable Cost $7,343,300
1 .0 Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design JACOBSON HELGOTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Final Design
1 Project Manager. Date:
The Engineer, using his or her professional judgement, has developed this stated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
based upon the design status identified above. Development of this Opinion has included consideration of design Input
1 level: however, the circumstances under which the work is expected to be undertaken, the cost and availability of materials,
labor and services, probable bidder response and the economic conditions at the time of bid solicitation are beyond the
control of the Engineer and will impact actual bid costs. Should bidding be delayed, these costs should be reviewed and, if
•ecessary,adjusted to a more applicable Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
I .
1
r
r .__
r Alternative 4: SVSD WWTP E & W •
•
Construct a pump station to serve the west and east sides of I-25,and pump wastewater to the SVSD
r WWTP
I
_ Item I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost$ I Cost$
I Interceptor Sewers,Pump Station,&Force Main to serve west side of 1-25
r 2 10"Interceptor Sewer 2000 LF 30 $60,000
3 15"Interceptor Sewer from Town to Lift Station 15000 LF 45 $675,000
4 SVSD Plant Investment Fee 600 EA $5,525 $3,315,000 .
r 5 Lift Station East of CR 17 1 EA $905,037 $905,037
6 10"Force Main 8,000 LF $30 $240,000
7 Lift Station East ofCR 13.5 1 EA $1,810,073 $1,810,073
C 8 18"Force Main 6,000 LF $54 $324,000
9 30"Gravity Sewer 10,800 LF $90 $972,000
10 SUBTOTAL, $8,301,110
11
r 12 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $8,301,110
13 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $8,301,110 $1,660,222
14 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% const.Total $8,301,110 $1,245,166 '
r 15 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL i. $11,206,498
16
17
7 - 18 Interceptor Sewers,Pump Stations,&Force Mains to serve newly developed land east of I-25
19 8"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 9,000 LF 32 $288,000
20 10"Interceptor Sewer 15,675 LF 30 $470,250
21 10"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 10,500 LF 40 $420,000
r 22 15"Interceptor Sewer 27,475 LF 45 $1,236,375
23 18"Interceptor Sewer 7,540 LF 54 $407,160
24 SUBTOTAL $2,821,785
' a 25
26 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER SUBTOTAL $2,821,785
27 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $2,821,785 $564,357
28 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% const.Total $2,821,785 $423,268
En
- 29 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER TOTAL $3,809,410
30
31 TOTAL $15,015,908
NE
I NOTES:
1. The Town will fund and construct the WWTP and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater customers.
1 2. The interceptor sewers,pump stations,and force mains which serve only new development will be fully funded and
constructed by the development project. These costs are not included in the Town's cash flow analysis for constructing a new
WWTP and associated outfall sewer.
1 3. Developers participation in costs for shared infrastructure will be through tap sales. Prepurchase of taps will be required
as shown in the Capital Improvement Program cash flow tables in Appendices B and C.
4. This cost estimate does not include the Plant Investment Fees that the SVSD will charge to the newly developed
1 properties,which are estimated at$5,525 per wastewater tap.
1
1
r
r .........
Alternative 4A: CR 17 WWTP
•
r '
Construct a 1.0 mgd WWTP to serve the west and east sides of 1-25 by gravity flow
rItem Quantity Unit Unit Cost$ Cost$ •
1 1.0 mgd WWTP
r 2 Preliminary Treatment I EA $171,116 $171,116
3 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air 1 EA $1,016,493 $1,016,493
4 Final Clarification 1 EA $704,822 $704,822
5 UV Disinfection and Facilities I EA $296,526 $296,526
r 6 Sludge Thickening 1 EA $76,138 $76,138
7 Aerobic Sludge Digestion 1 EA $472,960 $472,960
8 sludge Dewatering 1 EA $856,107 $856,107
9 Miscellaneous Structures 1 EA $243,817 $243,817
C 10 Land Acquisition 5 ACRES $13,000 $65,000
11 SUBTOTAL $3,902,979
12
r 13 Interceptor Sewers to serve west side of I-25
14 10"Interceptor Sewer 2,000 LF 30 $60,000
15 15"Interceptor Sewer 12,000 LF 45 $540,000 ,
• 16 24"Interceptor Sewer 3,000 72 $216,000 •
I 17 30"Interceptor Sewer 8,100 LF $90 $729,000
18 SUBTOTAL $1,545,000
19
20 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $5,447,979
r 21 Contingencies of 20% 20%const Total $5,447,979 $1,089,596
22 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15%cons[.Total $5,447,979 $817,197
23 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $7,354,772
r 24 ,
25
26 Interceptor Sewers to serve newly developed land east of 1-25
27 8"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 9,000 LF 32 $288,000
F. 28 10"Interceptor Sewer 15,675 LF 30 $470,250
29 10"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 10,500 LF 40 $420,000
30 15"Interceptor Sewer 27,475 LF 45 $1,236,375
r
_ 31 18"Interceptor Sewer 7,540 LF 54 $407,160
32 SUBTOTAL $2,821,785
I 33
34 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER SUBTOTAL $2,821,785
7 35 Contingencies of 20% 20% const Total $2,821,785 $564,357
36 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% I5%cons[.Total $2,821,785 $423,268
37 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER TOTAL $3,809,410
38
mi
39 TOTAL $11,164,181
NOTES: •
s
I I. The Town will fund and construct the WWTP and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater customers.
2. The interceptor sewers,pump stations,and force mains which serve only new development will be fully funded and
constructed by the development project. These costs are not included in the Town's cash flow analysis for constructing a new
a WWTP and associated outfall sewer.
3. Developers participation in costs for shared infrastructure will be through tap sales. Prepurchase of taps will be required as
shown in the Capital Improvement Program cash flow tables in Appendices B and C.
si
r
r _
Alternative 5: West 1-25 WWTP&East 1-25 Force Main to West
•
r Construct a 1.0 mgd WWTP to serve the west and east sides of 1-25,and pump wastewater from the
east side of 1-25 to the West 1-25 WWTP
,r I Item I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost S I Cost$
1 1.0 mgd WWTP
r 2 Preliminary Treatment I EA $171,116 $171,116
3 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air 1 EA $1,016,493 $1,016,493
4 Final Clarification 1 EA $704,822 $704,822
5 UV Disinfection and Facilities I EA ' $296,526 $296,526 ,
C. 6 Sludge Thickening I •EA $76,138 $76,138
7 Aerobic Sludge Digestion 1 EA $472,960 $472,960
8 Sludge Dewatering 1 EA $856,107 $856,107
9 Miscellaneous Structures 1 EA $243,817 $243,817
10 Land Acquisition 5 ACRES $13,000 $65,000
11 SUBTOTAL $3,902,979
12
13 Interceptor Sewers to serve west side of 1-25
r 14 10"Interceptor Sewer 2000 LF 30 $60,000
L 15 15"Interceptor Sewer 4000 LF 45 $180,000
16 SUBTOTAL $240,000
r 17
18 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $4,142,979
19 Contingencies of 20% 20%const.Total $4,142,979 $828,596
20 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15%const.Total $4,142,979 $621,447
r ^ 21 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $5,593,022
22
23 _
24 Interceptor Sewers,Pump Stations,&Force Mains to serve newly developed land east of 1-25
C
25 8"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 11,540 LF 32 $369,280
26 10"Interceptor Sewer 18,225 LF 30 $546,750
27 10"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 8,200 LF 40 $328,000
28 15"Interceptor Sewer 27,475 LF 45 $1,236,375
29 18"Interceptor Sewer 7,540 LF 54 $407,160
30 18"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 4,960 LF 72 $357,120
3I Lift Station East of CR 13.5 1 EA $1,810,073 $1,810,073
r 32 18"Force Main 15700 LF $54 $847,800
33 Lift Station East of CR 17 1 EA $905,037 $905,037
34 10"Force Main 8000 LF $30 $240,000
35 SUBTOTAL $7,047,595
E 36
37 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER SUBTOTAL $7,047,595
38 Contingencies of 20% 20%const.Total $7,047,595 $1,409,519
39 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15%const.Total $7,047,595 $1,057,139
I 40 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER TOTAL $9,514,253
41
42 TOTAL $15,107,274
CNOTES:
I. The Town will fund and construct the WWTP and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater customers.
C 2. The interceptor sewers,pump stations,and force mains which serve only new development will be fully funded and
constructed by the development project. These costs are not included in the Town's cash flow analysis for constructing a new
WWTP and associated outfall sewer.
3. Developers participation in costs for shared infrastructure will be through tap sales. Prepurchase of taps will be required as
F. shown in the Capital Improvement Program cash flow tables in Appendices B and C.
r
, .
r ^
Alternative 6: SVSD WWTP West Only
, .
I Construct a pump •
. station to serve the west side of I-25,and pump wastewater to the SVSD WWTP,
r assuming 0.5 mgd
I Item I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost S _ Cost$
I Interceptor Sewers,Pump Station,&Force Main to serve west side of 1-25
I 210"Interceptor Sewer 2000 LF 30 $60,000
3 15"Interceptor Sewer from Town to Lift Station 15000 LF 45 $675,000
4 Lift Station 1 EA $905,037 $905,037
5 10"Force Main 6,000 LF $30 $180,000
6 IS'Interceptor Sewer to SVSD 10,800 LF $75 $810,000
7 SVSD Plant Investment Fee 600 EA $5,525 $3,315,000
8 SUBTOTAL $5,945,037
9
10 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $5,945,037
11 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $5,945,037 $1,189,007
C 12 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% const.Total $5,945,037 $891,755
13 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $8,025,799
I NOTES:
1. The Town will fund and construct the pump station and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater
customers.
C , 2. This alternative cost estimate is used to demonstrate the cost difference between serving the west side of 1-25 only versus
..„
serving east and west of 1-25 with the pump to SVSD WWTP scenario.
r . ,
I .
r
r
1,
r
r .........
r
Alternative 7: West 1-25 WWTP&East 1-25 Force Main to SVSD
Construct a 0.5 mgd WWTP to serve the west side of 1-25,and pump wastewater from the east side
of 1-25 to the SVSD WWTP
,r I Item I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost S I Cost$
1 0.5 mgd WWTP
2 Preliminary Treatment 1 EA $102,670 $102,670
r 3 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air I EA $609,896 $609,896
4 Final Clarification 1 EA $422,893 $422,893
5 UV Disinfection and Facilities 1 EA $177,916 $177,916
6 Sludge Thickening 1 ' EA $45,683 $45,683 '
r 7 Aerobic Sludge Digestion I EA $236,480 $236,480
8 Sludge Dewatering I EA $428,054 $428,054
9 Miscellaneous Structures I EA $146,290 $146,290
10 Land Acquisition 5 ACRES $13,000 $65,000
r 11 SUBTOTAL $2,234,881
12
13 Interceptor Sewers to serve west side of I-25
14 10"Interceptor Sewer 2000 LF 30 $60,000
r 15 15"Interceptor Sewer 4000 LF 45 $180,000
I6 SUBTOTAL $240,000
17 '
r 18 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $2,474,881
19 Contingencies of 20% 20%const.Total $2,474,881 $494,976
20 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% const.Total $2,474,881 $371,232
21 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $3,341,089
r r 22
23
24 Interceptor Sewers,Pump Stations,&Force Mains to serve newly developed land east of 1-25
25 8"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 9,000 LF 32 $288,000
r 26 10"Interceptor Sewer 18,225 LF 30 $546,750
27 10"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 10,500 LF 40 $420,000
28 15"Interceptor Sewer 27,475 LF 45 $1,236,375 •
29 18"Interceptor Sewer 7,540 LF 54 $407,160
30 Lift Station East of CR 13.5 I EA $1,810,073 $1,810,073
31 18"Force Main 6,000 LF $54 $324,000
32 Lift Station East of CR 17 I EA $905,037 $905,037
33 10"Force Main 8,000 LF $30 $240,000
l 34 30"Gravity Sewer 10,800 LF $90 $972,000
35 SUBTOTAL $7,149,395
36
37 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER SUBTOTAL $7,149,395
as
38 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $7,149,395 $1,429,879
39 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% cons'.Total $7,149,395 $1,072,409
40 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER TOTAL $9,651,683
41
al 42 TOTAL $12,992,772
NOTES:
1 1. The Town will fund and construct the WWTP and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater customers.
2. The interceptor sewers,pump stations,and force mains which serve only new development will be fully funded and
constructed by the development project. These costs are not included in the Town's cash flow analysis for constructing a
a new WWTP and associated outfall sewer.
11'1 3. Developers participation in costs for shared infrastructure will be through tap sales. Prepurchase of will be required
as shown in the Capital Improvement Program cash flow tables in Appendices B and C.
4. This cost estimate does not include the Plant Investment Fees that the SVSD will charge to the newly developed
1 properties,which are estimated at$5,525 per wastewater tap.
1
r
r ,
r
r
r
r
r
r
r APPENDIX B
r
r
1
1
1
1
I
I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
ALTERNATIVE 4
Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study
ALTERNATIVE 4
6%Annual Growth Assumption
New Lift Station to SVSD in 2009 Servicing East 8 West Sides of 1-25
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 • 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Population 1,335 1,452 1,574 1,703 1,838 1,980 2,129 2.285 2,450 2,622 2,803 2,994 3.193 3403 3,623 3854 4.097 4,352 4,619 4.900 5195 5,505 5,830 6,172 6,530 6,907 7,302 7,717
NNyTP Flow,mod 010 011 012 0.13 0.14 015 016 0.23 024 0.26 0.28 030 0.32 0.34 026 039 0.41 0.44 046 0.49 0.52 0.55 058 0.62 0.65 0.69 0.73 0.77
Taps/Year 86 80 49 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 76- 80 84 88 89 93 98 103 108 113 119 125 131 138 145 152 160
CAPITAL COSTS
Existing WWTP Improvements $ 42870 $265,800
New 1.0 mad Lift Station $2,241,300 $2,241,300 $6.723,899
Total Treatment Plant Costs $ 42,870 $285,800 $ - $2241300 $2,241,300 S 6,723,899
LOAN INFORMATION
Loan Amount for New W WTP(60%of total) $6,723,899
Debt Service Principal B Interest 1494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494 744.47 $494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494,744.47 5494,744.47 $494,744.47 1494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494 744.47 $494 744.47 $494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494,744.47 $494 744.47 $364.48 $0.00 0
Outstanding Loan Principal - $6,498,110 36263,290 $6,019,077 $5,765,096 $5,500,955 $5,500955 15226,249 $4,940,554 $4,643,432 $4334,425 54013058 $3,678,835 $3,331,244 $2,969,750 $2,593,795 $2202,803 $1,796,170 $1,373,272 $933,459 $476,053 $350 $0 $0
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES '
-
56,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2004) $430,000 $480,000 $294201 $308,911 $324,357 $340,575 $357,603 $375,483 $394,258 $413,971 $434,669 $456,403 $479,223 $503,184 $528,343 $533,423 $560,094 $588,099 $617,504 $648,379 $680,798 $714,838 $750,580 $788,109 $827,514 $868,890 $912,335 $957,951
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 901,646 1,228,590 -663781 3,651,373 -3,136,640 -3,318,633 -3,485,493 -3,635,97] 3,768,771 -3,882,489 -3,975,660 -4,048,734 -4,094,071 -4,137,273 -4,154,689 -4144408 4,104,538 4,032,992 3,927,598 -3,786,057 -3,605942 -3,384,697 -3,119,621 -2.313.487 -1,447,422 -518,419
•
•
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430,000 $480,000 $343,235 $360,398 $378,416 $397,337 $417,204 $438,064 $459,957 $482,966 $507114 $532470 $559,093 $587,048 $616,400 $622,327 $653,443 1686,116 $720,421 $756 442 $794,265 $833978 $87567] $919,460- $965434 $1,013,705 $1,064,390 51,117.610
I
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 950,680 1,330,090 -506,192 3,868,876 -2,855,186 -2.968.970 -3,063,127 -3,136,168 3,186.522 -3,212,527 -3,212.429 3,184,374 -3,126,406 -3,061,352 -2,963,880 -2,831766 -2,662.745, -2.454,302 -2,203,868 -1,908,712 -1,565,954 -1,172.557 -725.319 273.515 1,343,376 2,487,853
$8,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2006) $430,000 $480,000 $343,235 $411,882 $432,476 $454,099 $476804 $500,645 $525677 $551,961 $579,559 $608,537 $638,964 $670,912 1704,457 $711,231 $746,792 $784,132 $823,339 $864,506 $907,731 $953,117 $1,000,773 $1,050,812 $1,103,353 $1,158520 $1,216,446 $1,277,269
I Cash Flow $430,000 875.730 950,680 1,381,575 -399,618 4,034,344 -2,626,806 -2873,44 .2.695,980 -2,692,683 -2,661,723 -2.601,165 -2,508,969 -2,382,981 -2,220,928 -2.048,860 -1,837/90 -1,585,158 -1,288,267 -944,271 -550.170 -102.800 401.173 965,264 1593,177 2.783.196 4.055.306 5.413,681
$18,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2006) 3430,000 $480,000 $343,235 5928734 $9]3,0]0 $1,021,724 51,072,810 $1,128,150 $1,182,773 $1,201,912 $1,304,007 $1,389,200 f1,43],fifi8 $1,509,551 $1,585,029 51.600,270 $1,680,283 $1,764,297 $1,852,512 $1,945,138 $2,042,395 $2,144,514 $2,251,740 $2,364,327 $2,482,513 $2,606,670 $2,737,004 52,873,850
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 950680 1,896,427 666126 5.689,027 -343026 281,820 975.485 1742,161 2.586267 3.512.456 4,525,628- 5,630,948 6.833,851 8,076,053 9423,113 10,881,128 12,456,518 14,156.042 15.986,813 17,956,319 20,072.441 22,343.472 24,778,140 27,880,009 31,174613 34,671,960
Notes'
1. For new plant,Wit bonwving to 16,723,899 Reflects borrowing 60%of total conaauclbn cwt of $11,206,499
2. Annual debt service(based on borrowing 60%for 20 years)z $494,744.47 '"
3. With Tap Fees at$7,000 it 2006,east aide developers to contribute dollar shortage of $2,601,436 357 Taps g$7,000 each.
4. If Tap Fees are raised to$18,000 in 2006,no developer contribution is required. •
5. Tap Fees were raised from$3,000 10$5,000 on 1/27/2003, $6,000 on 1/1/2004.and to$7,000 on 2112005.
6. Cash Flow equals the Previous Year Account Balance•3%Interest,+Current Year Tap Fees..Construction Costs.•Loan Arras, -Debt Service
Assumptions:
1. 2%Interest on savings
2. 4%Interest on borrowed money
3. 3.5%inflation
4. 15%Engineering for design and construction phase services
5 40%of project cost to be cash financed •
1
•
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
' . ALTERNATIVE 4A
•
Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study '
ALTERNATIVE 4A
6%Annual Growth Assumption
New W WTP in 2009 East of County Road 17 ,
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021, 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Population 1335 1,452 1574 1,703 1,838 1980 2,129 2,265 2,450 2,622 2,803 2,994 3,193 3,403 3,623 3,854 4,097 . 4,352 4,619 4,900 5.195 5,505 5.830 6,172 6530 6,907 7,302 7,717
WW1P Ram.mgd 010 0.11 012 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.23 0.24 0.26 ' 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.39 041 044 0.46 049 052 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.65 0.69 0.73 0/7
Taps/Year 86 80 49 51 54 57 80 63 66 69 ' 72 76 80 84 88 89 93 98 103 108 113 119 125 131 138 145 152 160
CAPITAL COSTS
Eaistinq WVVTP Improvements $ 42,870 $ 285.800
New 1.0 mqd VN✓1P East of CR 17 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $1470,954 $1470,954 $4,412,863
I Total Treatment Plant Costs $ 42.870 $ 335,800 $ 50000 $1,470,954 $1,470,954 $4,412,863
LOAN INFORMATION ,
Loan Amount for New W V TP(60%of Wall $4,412,863
Debt Service Principal B Interest •
D $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,69846 $324,698.48 $324698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,69846 $324,69846 $324,698.46 $324,69846 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $32469646 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $239.20 $0.00 $0.00
Outstanding Loan Principal $4,264.679 $4 110,568 $3,950,292 $3,783,605 '$3,610,251 53810,251 $3,429,963 $3242,463 $3,047,463 $2,844,663 $2,633,751 $2,414,402 $2,186280 $1,949,033 $1 702,296 £1,445889 $1,178,818 $901,272 $612,625 $312,431 $230 $0 • $0
4
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES • _
$6,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2004) $430,000 $480,000 $294,201 $308,911 $324,357 $340,575 $357,603 $375,483 $394,258 $413,971 $434,669 $456403 $479,223 $503,164 $528,343 $533,423 $560,094 $588,099 $617,504 $648,379 $680,798 $714,838 $750,580 $788,109 $827,514 $868,890 $912,335 $957,951
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 851,646 1,127,590 3,544 2,961,400 -1,359,330 -1,335,732 -1,292,887 -1,229,473 -1,144,092 -1,035,269 -901,450 -740,994 -552,170 -354,488 -126,182 134,695 430,194 762479 1,133,828 1,546,644 2,003.459 2,506,939 3,05%893 3,989,742 4,981,872 8,039,461
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430000 $480000 $343,235 $360,396 $378,416 $397,337 $417,204 $438064 $459,967 5482,966 $507,114 $532,470 $559,093 $587,048 $616,400 $622,327 $653,443 $666,116 $720,421 $756,442 $794,265 $833,978 $875,677 $919,460 $965,434 $1,013,705 $1,064,390 $1,117,610
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 900,680 1,229,090 161,133 3,178,903 -1,077,876 -986.068 -870,521 -729,664 -561,842 365,308 -138,219 121366 415,495 721433 1,064,607 1,447,316 1,871,985 2,341,169 2,857,558 3,423,989 4.043,447 4,719,078 5,454.194 6,576.744 7,772,670 9.045.733
$8,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2006) $430,000 $480,000 $343,235 $411,882 $432,476 $454,099 $476,804 $500,645 $525,677 $551,951 $579,559 $808,537 $638,964 $670,912, $704,457 $711,231 $746,792 $784,132 $823,339 $864,506 $907,731 $953,117 $1,000,773 $1,050,812 $1,103,353 $1,158,520 $1216,446 $1,277,269
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 900.680 1,280,575 267708 3,344,371 -849,498 590,542 -503,374 -286,180 -37,043 246,055 585,241 922,759 1,320,973 1,733,925 2,190,697 2,693,945 3,246,464 3.851,200 4,511,257 5,229,901 6,010.574 6,856.899 7.772,691 9,066,426 10.484,600 11,971,561
512,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2008) $430000 $460000 $343,235 $617,822 $648,713 $681,149 $715,207 $750,967 $788,515 $827,941 $869,338 $912,805 $958,445$1,006,368 $1,056,666 $1,066,846 $1,120,189 $1,176,198 $1,235,008 $1,296,758 $1,361,596 $1,429,676 $1,501,160 $1,576,218 $1,655,029 91,737,790 $1,824,669 $1,915,903
Cash Flow $430,000 875.730 900,680 1.486,518 694,005 4,006,245 5,015 491,563 965,212 1,487,758 2,062,153 2.891.503 3,379,080 4,128,330 4,942,885 5,783,890 6,695,058 7,680,459 8,744,378 9,891,325 11,126,050 12,453,546 13,879,081 15,408,182 17,046,876 19,125,151 21,332.323 23.674.872
Notes:
1. For new plant,limit borrowing to $4,412,563 Reflects borrowig 60%of total construction cost of $7,354,772 -
2. Aural debt service(based on borrowing 60%for 20 years)= $324,698.46
3. With Tap Fees at$7,000 n 2006,east side developers to conmdpe doer manage of $1,077,876 154 Taps a$7,000 caat.
4 8 Tap Fees are raised to$12,000 hi 2006.no developer contribution is required.
5. Tap Fees were raised from$3,000 to$5,000 on 1127/2003, $6,000 on 17112004.and to$7,000 on 2/112005
6. Cash Flow equals Vie Previous Year Account Balance•3%Merest.•Current Year Tap Fees,-Construction Costs,•Loan Amount, -Debt Service
Assumptions:
1. 2%Interest on sayi gs
2. 4%Interest on borrowed money
3. 3.5%nflabon
1 4. 15%Engineering for design and construction phase services
5. 40%of protect cost to be cash financed.
I .
•
•
Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study ,
•
ALTERNATIVE 5
555 Annual Growth Assumption
• New WWTP In 2009 on West Side of I-25,Pumping East I
•
Year 2003 2004 2005 20I 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 ' 2028 2029 2030
Population 1,335 1,452 1,574 1,P 5,195 5,505 5,830 6,172 6,530 6,907 7,302 7,717
W '1P Flow,mge 0.10 0.11 0.12 0. 052 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.65 0.69 0.]7 0.77
•
Taps/year 86 80 49 113 119 125 131 138 145 152 • 160
CAPITAL COSTS _
Existing W '1P Improvements $ 42,870 $ 285800 •
New 10mgd WWIPWest of 1-25 $ 50.000 $ 50.0CTotal Treatment Plant Costs $ 42,870 $ 335,800 $ 50,u4 '
LOAN INFORMATION
Loan Amount for New WWTP(60%of total)
Debt Service Prindpalb Interest 920.72 $246 920.72 $246,920.72 $246 920.72 $246 920.72 $181.91 $0.00 $0.00
Outstanding Loan Principal _ •
)99,391 $896,446 $685,383 $465,878 $237,592 $175 $0 $0 •
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES
1
$6,000 Tap Fee(began 2004) $430000 6480,000 $294,201 $308,.480.798 5714 838 1750,580 5788,109 $827,514 $868,890 $912,335 5957.951 ,
Cash Flow 5430,000 875730 851,646 1,127.4.13,572 4,051,761 4.636,456 5.270,373 5,956,374 6,944,210 7,995,429 9,113,289
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430,000 $460,000 $343,235 $360!94,265 $833,978 $875,677 $919,460 $965,434 $1,013,705 $1,064,390 $1,117,610
' Cash Flow 5430.000 875,730 900,680 1,229,037,303 5.929,106 6,676,444 7,482,512 8.350,675 9,531,212 10786,227 12,119,561
$8,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2006) $430000 $480,000 $343,235 5411,897,731 $953,117 $1,030,773 $1,050,812 $1,103,353 $1 158,520 $1,216,446 $1,277,269
Cash Flow 1,430.003 875,730 900,680' 1.260,'491,001 7.735,018 8,643.571 9.620,333 10.669.172 12.040,893 13.498.168 15,045,389 '
Notes:
1. For new plant,lord borrowing to $3,355,813 Reflects borrowing 60%of total cc
2. Annual debt service(based on borrowing 60%for 20 years). $246,920.
3. With Tap Fees at$7,000 in 2006.east side developers to contribute dolar shortage of
4. If Tap Fees are raised to$8,000 in 2006,no developer contribution6 is required.
5. Tap Fees were raised from$3,000 to$5,000 on 1/27/2003.03, 56.000 on 1/1/2004,and to: •
6. Cash Flow equals ma Previous Year Account Balance•3%Interest•Current Year Tap ..•
Assumptions:
1. 2%Interest on savings
2. 4%Interest on borrowed money
3. 3 5%inflation
4. 15%Engineering for design and construction pease services
5. 40%of project cost to be cash finance
APPENDIX C
•
•
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
ALTERNATIVE 6 '
Town of Mead ,
Wastewater Facilities Study
•
ALTERNATIVE 6 - '
3%Annual Growth Assumption
New Lift Station to SVSD in 2009 on Servicing Only West Side of 1-25 ,
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 ' 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Sewered Population 1.204 1,270 1.338 1408 1.481 1555 1.632 1,711 1,792 1,876 1,962 2,051 2,142 2,23/ 2,334 2,434 2,537 2,643 2.752_ 2.865 2,981 3,100 3,223 3.350 3.480 3,615 3,753 3,896
NNJTP Flow,mod 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.19 '020 0.21 0 21 022 023 0.24 0 25 0.26 0.26 0.29 . 030 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35 . 0.36 0.38 0.39
Taps/Year 86 B0 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 .35 38 37 38, 39 38 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 52, 53 55
CAPITAL COSTS _. _
Existing WWTP Improvements $ 42.8]0 $285,800
New 0 5 mgd Lift Station $1,605.160 ,S 1,605,160 $4.815,480
Total Treatment Plant Coss $ 42,8]0 $285.800 $ $1,605,160 5 1605160, $4 815480 —
—
I
LOAN INFORMATION . -
- ,
Loan Amount for New WWI?(60%of total) $4,815.480
Debt Service Principal 8 Interest $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,32299 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,32299 $354,322.99 $354 322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354.322.99 $354 322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $261.03 $0.00 $0.00
Outstanding Loan Principal $4,653,776 $4,485,604 $4 310,705 $4,128.810 $3,939,640 $3,939,640 $3,742,902 $3,538,295 $3,325,504 $3 104,201 $2,874,046 $2 634,685 $2,385,750 $2,126,657 $1,857,608 $1,577,589 II 286,370 $983 502 $688,519 $340.937 $251 $0 $0
I 1 I
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES • _ i -
$6,000 Tap Fee(began 2004) $430,000 $480,000 $163,451 $168,354 $173,405 $178,607 $183,965 $189,484 $195,169 $201,024, $207,055 $213,266 $219,664 $226,254 $233,042 $230,801 $237,725 $244,857 $252,203 $259,769 $267,562 $275,589 $283,856 $292,372 $301,143 $310,177 $319,483 $329,067
Cash Flow 5430.000 875,730 770,896 954,668 -457,993 2.567,451 -2,367,037 -2,579,217 -2,789,955 -2,999,053 -3,206,302 -3,411,485 4614,374 3,814,730 -4,012,305 -4216,073 .4,416,993 -4,614,799 -4,809,215 -4,999,954 5,188,714 -5,369,183 -5,547,033 5,719,925 -5,887,503 -5,695.337 -5.489,761 -5,270,489
I 57,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430,000 $480,000 $190,693 $196,413 $202,306 $208375 $214,626 $221,065 $227,697 $234528 $241,564 $248,811 $256,275 $263,961 $271,882 $269,288 $277,346 5285,666 $294,236 $303,063 $312,155 $321,520 $331,166 $341,101 $351,334 $361,874 $372,730 $383,912
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 798,138 1,010,514 372.130 2.684,799 -2,216,681 -2394,272 -2.568.784 -2,739.954_ -2,907,513 -3.071,175 -3,230,647 -3,385,619- -3,535,772 4691,543 -3,842,351 -3,987,854 -4.127,698 -4,261,511 -4,388,909 4,509,491 -4,622,838 4,728,517 -4,826,077 4,560,966 -4,279475 -3,981153
$8,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2006) $430000 $480,000 5190,693 $224,473 $231,207 $238,143 $245,287 $252,646 $260225 $268,032 $276,071 $284355 $292,886 $301,672 $310723 $307,735 $316,967 $326,476 $336270 $346,358 $356,749 $367,451 $378,475 $389,829 $401,524 $413,570 $425,977 $438,756
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 798,138 1,038,573 311,609 2,773,239 -2,095,812 -2,239,405 -2,378,291 -2,512,148 -2,640,641 -2,763,421 -2,880,127 -2,990,380 3,093,788 -3,202,252 -3,303,654 -3,397,574 -3,483.578 -3,561,214 -3,630,0:3 -3,689,484 3,739,122 -3,778,398 3,806,765 -3,469,592 -3,113.007 -2,736,510
522,500 Tap Fee(beginning 2006) $430,000 $480,000 $190,693 $631,329 $650,269 $669,777 $689,870 $710,566 $731,883 $753,840 $776,455 $799,749 $823,741 $848,453 $873,907_ $865,504 $891,469 $918,213 $945,760` $974133 $1003356 $1,033,457 $1064,461 $1,096,395 $1,129,287 $1,163,165 $1198,060 $1,234,002
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 798,138 1445,430 519.447 4,055,610 -343,210 6,169 383,853 791,047 1,229,000 1,699,005 2,202,404 2.740,583 3,314,976 3,892,459 4,507,455 5,161,494 5,856,161 6,593093 7,373,989 8,200,803 9,074,753 9,998,320 10,973,250 12355,619 13,800,791 15,310,809
Notes'
1. For new plant,ISM(bonoxirg to $4,$15,416 Reflects barpwvq 60%of total construction cost of $8,025,799
2. Annual debt service(based on borrowing 60%for 20 years)= $354,322.99
3. With Tap Fees at$7,000 in 2006,more funding musl be found to construct this alternative. $2,634,745 376 Taps®$7,000 each.
4. If Tap Fees are raised to$22,500 in 2006, they all generate enough cash to pay for 40%of the cost and borrow the remaining 60%. The Tap Fees wIDalso cover the debt service required for 20 years.and proiride additional funds for future improvement.
5. Tap Fees were raised from$3,000 10$5,000 on 1/27/2003, $6,000 on 1/1/2004,and to$7,000 on 2/1/2005.
6. Cash Flow equals the Previous Year Account Balance+3%Interest,•Current Year Tap Fees.-Casbuction Costs,•Loan Amount, -Debt Service
Assumptions:
1. 2%Interest on savings
2. 4%Interest on borrowed money
3 3.5%inflation
I 4 15%Engineering for design and construction phase services
5. 40%of project cost to be cash financed'
•
•
) •
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
( ALTERNATIVE 7 •
Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study ,
•
ALTERNATIVE 7
3%Annual Growth Assumption for West of I-26
New WWTP in 2009 West of I-25 for West Flow,East Flow to SVSD
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2026 2026 2027 2026 2029 2030
Sewered Population 1,204 1.270 1338 1,408 •1.481 1.555 1,632 1711 1,792 1,876 1.962 2,051 2142 2,237 2334 2,434 2,537 2.643 2.752 2865 2,981 3.100 3,223 3,350 3480 3615 3,753 3,896
WWTP Flow,mod 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 012 012 0.17 0.18 0.19 . 020 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 025 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.39
Taps7Year 66 BO 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 , 35 36 37 38 39 38 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 52 53 55
CAPITAL COSTS -
Existing W WTP Improvements $ 42.870 $285.800 •
New 0.5 mqd W WTP West of 1-25 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 668.218 $ 668,218 $2.004,653
Total Treatment Plant Costs S 42870 $335,800 $ 50.000 $ 868,218 $ 668,216 $2,004,653 -
LOAN INFORMATION
Loan Amount for New N/v1TP(60%of tolal) $2,004,653 -
•
Debt Service Prnopal6Interest $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147 502.39 $147,502.39 $147 502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502 39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147 502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $108.66 $0.00 $0.00
Outstanding Loan Principal $1,937,337 $1,867,328 $1,794,519 $1 718,797 $1,840,047 $1,640,047 $1,558,146 $1,472,970 $1,384,386 51,292,259 $1,196,447 $1,096,803 $993,172 $885,397 3773,310 $656,740 $535,508 $409425 $278,300 $141,930 $104 $0 $0
Y
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES
I $6.000 Tap Fee(beginning 2004) $430,000 $480,000 $163451 $168,354 $173405 $178,607 $183,965 $189,484 $195 169 $201,024 $207,055 $213,266 $219,664 1226,254 $233,042 $230801 $237725 $244,857 $252,203 $259,769 $267,562 $275,589 $283,856 1292,372 $301,143 $310,177 $319,483 $329,067
Cash Flow $430,000 875.730 720,896 853,668 375,929 1,750,988 -182,183 -143.844 -99,055 -47,514 11,088 77,073, 150,777 232,544 322,735 412,488 510,960 618,534 735,605 • 862,563 999,894 1,147,979 1,307,292 1,478,307 1,661,514 2,004813 2,364,392 2,740,747
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430,000 $480.000 $190,693 $196413 $202.306 $208,375 $214,626 $221,065 $227,697 $234,528 $241,584 $248,811 $256,275 $263,963 $271,682 $269,268 $277,346, $285,666 $294,236 $303,063 $312,155_ $321,520 $331,166 $341,101 $351,334 $361,874 $372,730 $383,912
Cash Floe $430,000 875,730 748,138 909,514 461,792 1,868,336 -31,826 41,100 122.117 211,581 309,878 417,383 ' 534.504 661.655 799,268 937019 1,085,603 1.245.479 1,417,122 1,601,026 1,797,699 2,007,671 2,231,487 2.469,715 2,722,941 3,139,165 3,574.678 4,030,083
•
Notes:
1. For new plant.Ymil borrowing to $2,004,653 Reflects borrpwq 60%of tow mnseucicn cost of $3,141,019
2. Annual debt service(based on burrowing 60%for 20 years)= $147,502.39
3. With Tap Fees at$7,000 412006,east side developers to contribute doter shortage of $0 0 Taps 95$7,000 each.
4. Tap Fees were raised from$3,000 to$5,000 on 1/2712003. $6,000 on 1/1/2004,and to$7,000 on 2/1/2005.
5. Cash Flow equals the Previous Year Account Belence•3%Interest,•Current Year Tap Fees,-Construction Costs,•Loan Amount. -Debt Service
Assumptions: .
1. 2%Interest on savings
2. 4%Interest on borrowed money
3. 3.5%inflation
4. 15%Engineering for design and const ucton phase services
5. 40%of pr0lect cost to be Cash financed.
L
--
17
L
L
L
L
L
L APPENDIX E
L:
L
L
L
L
La
L.,..I L_) 1_) L_I (__J l_I l _=1 I --I I I t-I ri f� r! ri railrn r-i r--) rf
S TOWN C MEAD
NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SCHEDULE
2005 2006 2007 2008
ID Task Name Duration ', Start D J F M A M J J A S O N 'D J F M A M J J A S O N;D J F M A M T J J A S O N D J F M A_ M J
1 -AWMruaron to Proceed 0 days Mon 1/10/05 . 7/70
2 'Finale Site Selection 0 days Mon 1/17/05. ♦f1/77
3 Finalize Wastewater Study 7 days Mon 1/17/05
4 Environmental Study 8 Report 97 days Tue 2/1/05
5 Request Plant Effluent Limits 44 days Mon 3/7/05
6 Loan Application 24 days Mon 5/16/05 O
7 GeotecMical Report 22 days Fri 3/18/05
8 Prepare Engineering Report 64 days- Fri 3/18/05
9 Prepare Site Application 65 days Thu 3/17/05
10 Submit to Review Entities 44 days Tue 6/21/05
__._.._!
17 CDPHE Review 89 days Sat&20/05
12 Site Approval - 0days Wed 12/21/05 ♦ 12121
13 Prepare Construction Documents 183 days Wed 12/21/05- I h. ..
--4---:State Plan Review 60 days Mon 9/4/06' I "6
15 Revise Construction Documents 30 days Mon 11/27/06. _
16 Bid Project- 60 days Mon 1/8/07
—1-F—H Award Contract 30 days Mon 4/2/07 L18 Construction - 280 days? Mon5/14/07 - ________________________
Page 1
A
A
z
w
a
C CDPHE-W0CD Fax:3037820390 May 31 2002 14:39 P. 03 C STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens,Governor
lane E.Norton,Executive Director 'CO
I Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado fi
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division r.
Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
r Phone(303)692-2000
L TDD Line(303)691-7700 Denver,Colorado 60230fi92a a Ian
Located in Glendale,Colorado (303)692.3090 Colorado Department
ho gated in Glendale,
o.us of Public Health
and Environment
I I also spoke briefly with Tom Schaffer, District Engineer for Weld County(970) 248-7152. Feel free
C to contact him with any technical or facility planning questions that you have. I let him know that you
may be contacting him. As per your suggestion, he would like a copy of the N Front Range
Planning report, which you have completed. Please fax or mail that information, at your earliest
C convenience,to Tom at: Fax (970)240-7198 and WQCD-B2,4300 Cherry Creek Drive South,
Denver, CO 80246-1530.
For future reference: Donna Davis is the Work Program Leader for the Financial Assistance Program.
1L She will be the main permanent contact throughout the funding process. She will be the person who
will coordinate with you, the Town of Mead, and other ftmding sources, in order to prepare a funding
r package for the project. If you have any questions regarding specific projects, what types of funding
they are eligible for and what the funding process entails, or any grant questions please don't hesitate to
call Donna(303)692-3562 or me.
[ I am assisting Donna, until August, when a permanent assistant will be hired. Until that time, I will see
that your project data is in order and that all possible eligible projects get on the 2003 Eligibility Lists,
[ Donna Davis and a Project Administrator will help you with the rest of the process. I currently am
gathering what grant and loan information I think will be useful to you. I will put that in the mail or
fax it to you, at the beginning of next week, the first week of June. In the meantime,I will fax what
information I have readily available., Following is a copy of an informational letter describing briefly
r, the loan and grant options, a copy of the waste water and drinking water needs survey form for your
records (I have filled one out for Mead—and that is the information that you will be verifying for me),
r a summary of the Drinking Water Revolving Fund, and an outline of the requirements for the Drinking
Water Planning Document.
. J
Sincerely,
arigs
Margaret Pauls
I
1
L Writ-WWI.0 t ax:JU.,r'tt7US9U May 31 LUUL 14;4U F'. U4
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
lane E.Norton, Executive Director oc.
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado ��
4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division «i CO 'R
Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
I Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928
TDD Line(303) 00 (303)692.3090
Located in Glendale,Colorado Colorado Department
hrtpl/www.cdphe.state.coms •
of Public Health
Environment
I MEMORANDUM
TO; Local Officials and Interested Persons
FROM: Donna Davis-Bodnar
r
RE: Water and Sewer Needs in Colorado
DATE: March 1,2002
r The Colorado Department of Public Health and Env'ironment's Water Quality Control Division(WQCD)has the roll of
assessing the drinking water and water quality needs in Colorado. Do you know of a community that will need grant
and/or loan funds for water,wastewater,stotmwater and/or non point source projects? The WQCD offers the following
funding sources:
• The Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund provides low interest loans to governmental entities for the
construction of wastewater, stonnwater and non-point source projects.
F, . W
. • The Domestic Wastewater Treatment(DW T)Grant Program provides financial assistance to
governmental agencies and counties on behalf of unincorporated areas for planning, design and
rconstruction of eligible DWWT projects serving a population of not more than 5,000 persons. Funding is
dependent upon appropriations from the state legislature.
• The Drinking Water Revolving Fund provides low interest loans to governmental agencies for the
r construction of water projects for public health and compliance purposes. Ineligible projects include:
o Dams,water rights or reservoirs
o Projects needed primarily for growth or fire protection
rThe Drinking Water Grant Program provides financial assistance to governmental and not-for-profit public
water system for consolidation,planning,design and/or construction of water treatment systems serving a
population of 5,000 or less. Again,funding is dependent upon appropriations from the state legislature.
r ,
To be eligible for funding,the project must be identified on the eligibility list developed by the WQCD. To check
whether your community's needs are currently identified,you may view the current eligibility lists for the four funding
programs on the Internet at the Department.of Public Health and Environment's regulation index page at:
htm://www.cdphe.state.co.ustopiwateroualitvrea.aso
If you know about an eligible project that is not currently identified on the lists please contact the WQCD. A thorough
and accurate identification of local water and wastewater system needs may also improve the share of funds that
•
Colorado receives from the EPA in future years to capitalize its Revolving Funds. While we make significant effort to
. keep the lists current, if you find that some of the information is not accurate or complete,or if you would like to be
removed from the mailing list,please contact us at the address above,or call Donna Davis-Bodnar at(303)692-3562 or
1 ' Debbie Stetson at(303)692-3554,by March 31,2002.
As always, we are interested in hearing your opinion of the lists. Is this information useful to you in the performance of
your job? Are you aware of how it helps local governments in the state? Do you have knowledge of projects that
- should be on the lists?' We would very much like to hear your comments or questions. Thank you for your participation
in this process.
1 -
C
I
I
I
C
L
I
I
E APPENDIX E
C
C .
J '
J
J
J
r
r ^
r
r
7
1. .
APPENDIX F
1
-1
1
1
1
Lam. L_1 - L 1 L.J - L._J -J --U ' L_J [ 1 1 _I r 1 [ m ; rn r--) r"l �-._. n r t
JOLORADO- DEPARTMENT C .I. HEALTH AND ENVIRONME. IT
Site Application Review Process
New and Expansion Ui€I0(C y jj•is,/),
comp/oleo( y weeks E q M rl 'hs { NFR WW1
_
Identify Need for - Analyze Complete
ewlAdditiona Request to Alternatives for Application Form, :2-
WastewaterSubmit to Review
YES—D.YES— Permits Unit for - Meeting Needs& — Engineering ► )1
CapaulylProcess Capacity? PEL's Complying with Report and EntitiesM.�n�
Developmentt
PEL's Checklist 1..-
NO t
y Mori 7AS NO I New WWTP?
- I_
! YES
i
Prepare Position Paper,
Management - 1.Completeness Review
Review of Staff ApprovaUDenial Letter& Complete or
Assign Site Application f YES Adequate? 2.Technical Review 4 Post Site
Recommendation 3.Planning Review
Number
♦ 1
NO I
l
Identity Applicant
Deficiencies-May ► Responds to
Return Application Deficiencies
Concur With
Staff? NO—
YES
7
These reviews are essentially
Approval/Denial
letter Issued ►( t o Appeal Proces) independent.
c
r -
C
C
r
APPENDIX G
J
1
7
7
1'
E
_ i` •..' 1 AI's' ..; ' --- =
—FJ� .
T.
.
•
V
t y
k • I,
ruNv 5r�norj ,--..
.
s 
/
_ MP's nal5ti .-� � j ` � -..,�,
.".•V
� I t," "\�
.- ._ -- Ll �- _ ea -•-� '• !I .(Ili _ r
--------1
� ��'. �1 O0SnN 1I( \j:�` I r...j 1.-,57,2-`--.-----
4'
1- —+ dSp1AR P
Ii ‘b�- ♦ }} " PJMP STAfON M r
_
1 „ nom
n: 1 _
i ~
� 1
Y m ,
s >✓r f
I -
r 4rfi"9�p,
Ij ., ".) 'f' i n aA�+� I F fuu. 2---,./-_f �'V
LEGEND TOWN OF MEAD
�� SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
S
PUMP STATION EXISTING 208 SERVICE AREA,
WWTP'S & PUMP STATIONS
4-.4 ' SEPTEMBER 10, 2004
E6000 3000 0 6000 ,]•R ENGINEERING
�■
1 A Subsidiary o/W.slnan
r SCALE: 1" = 6000' 2620 East Prospect Paid Sde tE0•Fad Calm C0 80525
970-$91-59551•Fax 9A-491-9984•x»ww4 9can
r
c _
c
r
r,
r
r
r
r . .
r �
L APPENDIX H
r
c .
f
- I 1 1 1 - r�,-7 -16•""_l -1-1- '.' _,1 '1 _l -1 -1 �' �1 ) 1 1
NOTES: 10 Va. _
1. ALL PIPES SHOWN `�_ -�.-. 72- MN zbs
ARE PVC UNLESS __
OTHERWISE NOTED. `8 �'
211' ``
I 1B•
y0 rC /
��
E GRIT TR0UGHW/PARSHALL FUME - a _ e, 2
c
g
a ! • aq _.
e SPUTTER BOX �-�
v 2 SURFACE - -
s (Worts 4 (TYP) \ —T�
a Fqp FU" mµ00) � /5 — '8' y CELL * /
o
RAFFLE
I
J
7c i Nr457 BAFFLE 171 71
r 13
N
0
_-`,- CELL 3
SD2 j
S
• • })�B0_ !• GATE VALVE
'�.. NOT py ,:' -�L
w LAGOON INFORMATION N +EgrvtD `
VOLUME' DETENTION" µ . �PLuo
CELL (GAL) TIME (DAYS) a GATE vas -
E (rep CF 10)
CL2/LAB BLDG DISOIARGE W
E FERMENTATION PIT 156,000 _ 1.1 C0N1R0L
• CELL 1 465,000 3.3 BYPASS Lilt CHLORINE INJECTION UH
3 CELL 2 609,000 4.4 CHLORINE CONTACT CHAMBERS MUMSTANDPIPE
E. YP CELL 3 558.000 4.0 (4 T •4,000 GAL EA) AW0 ruR
I TOTAL BASIN 2 1,788,000 12.8 TOWN OF MEAD
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
z° BASIN 1 3,122,000 EXISTING WWTP SITE PLAN
o � - SEPTEMBER 10, 2004
BASIN 3 195,000 'T
*VOLUME BASED ON MAX DEPTH OF 6.7'. 80 40 0 80 J'R ENGINEERING
**DETENTION TIME BASED ON 140,000 GPD. AWn ilia Company
iN STATE STANDARD FOR DETENTION TIME IN
x AERATED LAGOONS IS 12-30 DAYS. SCALE: 1'' = 80' 2620 East Rasped Ra(SAa Eo•Fat Cain CO 80626
970-491-9183-Fax 970-49I-9984•Wn qa wigwn
rl-VRv°W vv..I rwvw lr lm l INS IrcT /tint/ 5R71 09/0. 1:03: Nile,
7oerrrlrNn--lmmae --
\ •
.------<•PVC.RANT EFFLUENT LINE
a \\ � C PY[EFFLUENT LINE TO LAKE THOMAS
• \e\�\\ \ CONTROL BUILDING IA006eLLONNWOC1& ITE
\ (SEE PLA.I/SELT10N) CONTACT BASIN
\M.ORSNE 5 DRA6E 6 FEED
(---�\\ I I -I I I P PYUIFE
�.� ---�� /2-b'P.VG.CAPPED(GATE VALVES)
•
/ I \�\\�a.;•.\ '\ a As-i(
I-Y STEEL:./TOFF
J \ \\ •• r vaY LINE FORCE MAIN
EFFLUENT k \ �\ --....S, \�-" / / / V\
•
..“---..'•• /
DUREJ F \ 1 1 i i �- (r
SETTLING
STF)[TUPE II' CELL ��\ I Ii I I ' I` •••• r •, / / Y•• _._ APPROx PoRGi MAW
r POLY PIA
\\ POND 'f I , III / � •, • / ��-----...r.•h` -----
II /
w OEPfN•4-
-_ �!LOCATION
w\\\\ •4\\� I NATION \ \ /�I�}•�✓/ // //Y
/// fir__ PPUMP ANEL-ONTROL
\\\ CELL f I(// ,II /� —� �'�
FLOATING \� e�-•:.-„.., - / .I%/�.'/ ../..--/"..---.
/ .A / /� OVERFLOWPVC'''..."--
PUM➢
I BAFFLES �/L� \
\�\\\\\ \\ ^ / ////�// /�/f�/ �� \ - / ••,, STATION
)I .y\\ //// �j/'✓-� /,�_i/ �/' INFLUENT
FRAMLO SUBMERSIBLE \\\\ ///•t Z a /
(APIRO#MATAERATOR 0.1)O �— 4\`
/� _— / i
// ,...---:".. -11'.
,. _/
FLOATING e^R��(—s /'� ,. , / •• �/
AERATOR LOC*T ' ( / /://:,--/ .4_•/
/ ��—'/ //— // w••. /
APPROxi ATE /
I
C /,•/• a.,a f r\
I C / / �_
t N X N O INLETS ucmRE ( // L/ / �/•.-6XiTINC.
—TB M.ELEVATION+5i 00.0
M2 /
it?
€ 7J z (/) K .,.I K L/ '// // ��� HWSE
W ^ h7 -- m (,) > / ,
• 3 2 N' A �
ly• M -. =J
8 r& rn
(J) 60 30 0 60
z (� ,
C1 0 SCALE: 1" = 60'
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX I
I
C
C
I
! ;
.,- _
ey W.
-1.LnYla n
I ..� er,
I i. 0.b p — _ i i 1 ..u.
a
o•
. r -... -.: ID
w.
I
1 4000 2000 0 4000
0.0
RUMP STA 'I _
4, 1.., ,, n i\ ..« - -� _, ''---®-t - _ __. X` — •. rt- .M -.e.p. '�«.,if .a - SCALE: 1'e = 4000'
1' STATION iit: , - c.'
II ._I 41 H. ,r 11
_ r 1 %7' A. a
- 1 _ z 1 - �J -,t ALTERNATIVE 1ylYIP
1
LocAflaN z 1
m pd
) - h ' w� LEGEND
_n
t t o -�-�_' - .A f/ - Y� TSez _ � CY�....rn��-- .:41
(
`_` i'Pf .` / .. a . �'�� ��7 STAT�N�I! '� 1 t4CAflW ✓ t , TION �A k I!
ly, _/.. �,\ _,13"°'-IL
AAw1FM.,,SERVICE AREA . iI ,..�F i , _I SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA
f 1 `�a a \.2--,- �� AL1ERNATrvEWCP $ I — — PROPOSED ADDED SERVICE AREA
o
- ' .1 ' TICN TA ..f1A i - I..
- - • i —� I 4 II
I FORCE MAIN
;`
j ti
` ♦-"""��'y ` ;. A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
. ' ALTERNATIVE rnnE(�' ?M I.
y- ,... ) ) , . _ AL7 T�E WWII; IA -`„�/ `^" %� 'It PUMP STATION ii. ,.� "naf � �/ o � .G .._ POTENTIAL LIFT STATION
/c _ lf'I., :'''' ui
1 .-_._ . .. Y �1y . ��.� � �"y ....
D
�� ( y4,/;- ..l I !1 TOWN OF 4-,,-.-‘,.,:ice- , l -.. �/ I 1
—� ? s' w L L. WASTEWATER FACILITIES ACILITIES STUDY
�� � .a.J Ca �, �'I'- PROPOSED WWTP ALTERNATIVE
ATI SERVICE AREAS
IF I , 1 ' ,: : 'I' - . . / sLAL7i�lAflvE Au 71a erei i . ' �J_TM i LOCATIONS & SE C
I �, � 1- FEBRUARY 4, 2005
I`
> EERI
H - ' w a - C� lit ENGINEERING
MA'. R
II A 9uMl of Makin
2620 Fa4 Raped Rgq Ode SD.Fal Carp CO 80525
L 970-491-9808.Far 9A-49F916/•wilmo gengcmn
■
a
I
I% wQYb
o O el. �. ,
DC/454,/ 6 reliseNck Sall' 41q, a
: 1 ' wnh. s AD
Ill h
Ili
F y r way../ O 0
—_ • uzz
o f ,_
N. & I a10.
, li .: O ` 4000 2000 0 4000
• 1, i I
�� C NORTH CREEK ~ — •
I~.. Tif1 s; SCALE: 1" = 4000'
V
PUMP STATION 44
L
_
_._ •<. LEGEND
FEATHER RIDG �:
R SEWER SERVICE
" SANITARY W VI
TMP
' STAON -" {� I � A
T i`� I PROPOS DLLI
''� ADDED
�.-. ..•. ..L �.°"r __x .� >" ej SERVICE AREA4 ;:�� I I WASTEWATER TREATMENT
N 1 .l I ..\ Y k - I .ro-w ara,.: ' _ ' WCR 13.5— !
L - v PLANT
z /
LIF�' STATION 1
- I =""-- I' Y,pp4�') - - a r+d 1e _ ✓sy .4=^r" Ell
EXISTING PUMP STATION
ffi ` 10 FM a r e PROPOSED LIFT STATION
I EXISTING WWTP '1 ALTERNA1 1�E WWTP ,.
.0cknO 7'°— °41I N , / •� I IONISWASFE PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
„ . , ,1 .x�:.: .;'a,.w ern€.., _...- •'^ I
� � is . - '� / . ; ' �a I I-
0 `" o- 1'0" =�1b WCR t7�UF jI
r , PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
{. � '''—••\'
a _•RATIO
g 10ma
II
o t e ,S I PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
.l 18" FM: � ' I CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN
i� -nm. -� �.../ f A ¢
w I I I e�\-a_ /
"^_ I " ' -- DRAINAGE BASIN OF PROPOSED
o INTERCEPTOR SEWER
it
m �: / w
I O — 45y �� µ,y l d` EII O BASIN NUMBER, ,
,,..
pr,a I '� l EXISTING SVSD LINES
g^ 130 g /I_
,,,,.
`• a J - i9 9 - c / _. ), ..
it .1` � n y H ''
~-LELI /�:� ' �I,., .,tr;,H.t,t; ST. VRAIN SANITATION 1 - �' I ° - OF MEAD
�t I,a; ! F. i~DI$TRI T WW1P V —I%
) WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
L �+ r
15 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS , re 3 %f . I_ �, ALTERNATIVE 7
,,,4„-- i ..
,,,,,, ', _ k„,,,, -: ��� " I. 4, 6, d� 7�^ I -, �. I WEST I-25 & SVSD WWTPs
I $ 1 ?)� � . + yt �w FEBRUARY 4, 2005
I wa1 .* is 3b �I v� i- \ J•R ENGINEERING
A Subsidiary of WMbYn
MO Easl Prospect 1be4 9,ie 190•Fo1 Cara CO 80525
970-19-9888.Fax 9A-191-99&•MWwiagmYgmn
W _AM-y....
.'.,
1.
SW'
1
a
6 c .e. s ..icr" a"F,,,.
— F
a Z
,I N NJi�/ • NO
V
I ,
O
70.
- / _ wry. I - '-- ...e w:e .. �R
NORTH CR 4000 2000 0 4000
SEEK .I ' JPUPSTA11ON1 Q `" 7s.. Iu f. = 4000
Im I n FE. THER RID �/ / i t LEGEND
- ,.� plump STATI - N .S+ I _
g J t SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
n''''' �° �v _ - } r AREA
ID 1Cr.--` I 1
1a! = � ! - PROPOSED ADDED
j, • SERVICE AREA
_ r J _4 " 1 1 95" w M,„ >B� 13.5- i t J _ WASTEWATER TREATMENT
h I —� .. 1 j �.. ' r a.' ma;Al
LIFF STATION I� F it.e w- PLANT
me
*ikco
► 18 ��� -10" RI r � /° 0 EXISTING PUMP STATION
I p EXISTING WWiP 4. ALTERNA {CE WW'TP:`Z � + `/
L yy ��yy, 2 PROPOSED LIFT STATION
�� ro 0 -„ r 10,, ' \15" ✓16 L_
' � I ���17 LIFIII iffairaimPROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
, - •)1 ,a __--"A,'7,�0, I' 10 ' •"may I PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
}
' E ' I ergo is1 PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
It { —••� *" t—, f A is- CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN
' b I �'' DRAINAGE BASIN OF PROPOSED
'
I - f 1 INTERCEPTOR SEWER
� �� N SI �I.
a sir ��� =� w BASIN NUMBER
E .. Via- - 4
'I �'s: / $ _ • I MA `, -�. EXISTING SVSD LINES IL
C ..- _.
0
.G
I: I 'e+ ,.t r > S
s. " . 2 �` r O I
I „ 4. i_ /� , ST Vf2AIN SANITATION TOWN OF MEAD
v e. cairtterP < _ 1
_— � "15" ! r" ALTERNATIVE 5ACILITIES STUDY
s ',
L. w": ; � 'I WEST 1-25 WWTP
g.. E > �' 18 11 , - .2 s T ., , i FEBRUARY 4, 2005
f i' I
, I. �\` ! ` r " ��
�i / �': •i J R ENGINEERING
�' r " - 1 ' 1 es�e.lewymw.w�
g
2620 East Prospeci 1ie4 Suk 190•Fat Care,CO 80525
97Q-49)- .Fec 9fi-191-9934•WiWee reerag T1
I
r
ri_____„„
I ,
, _
,_ ,
AN „rt it , _ J:7„,:r , A
jo
111
. _
q
I ` �z }
a
R?.. r fr. -I<ryv"` - '' 1.•�^ vI ` y 5 -- •
` • •N)•z
3 �-,
�• M O „ 4000 2000 0 4000
* i
— SCALE 1 — 4000
;' N TH CREEK 4 t —
1
II �` � � /PUAPSTA11ON � � 1. 1Sa 1 �_,
--,-=
t Qr
�. _L.� • PUMPESTnn °N i -- - � - 7 • .� V y �' LEGEND
- 7 r SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
y I o 1 Yr
5 t AREA
_ ,, � - ' _ _tip
` - , P` ` ff s ` J.,` PROPOSED ADDED
� N - j i _ •r SERVICE AREA
$ _, I 1 " o ! •ua,;. �da Jt !
ALRNA WWTP 1
a� 5* ON 4A 11 . WASTEWATER TREATMENT
_ �i �'-_ .�Y.-, PLANT
! `�� � y 'FJ - 0 EXISTING PUMP STATION
LI,m �� , i - � 1 '-� �. ', r r^
I� _ -- i EXISTING WWTP `. 1 �� 1 2C ' 30" ✓� -f 4, PROPOSED LIFT STATION
'{ a i'a ' ®� PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
=11
LPROPOSED FORCE MAIN
�� # ..
j { wl( al a PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
F- 1 , CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN
i. . .,x.T ,.. �, ,,i � ,. e _ ✓ ?Olf, . '�V •_-
DRAINAGE BASIN OF PROPOSED
l � 8 ; „� I �[ INTERCEPTOR SEWER
` k 4 O I �� � _ ® BASIN NUMBER
.� - - ,*n tea-' _ - _��- •^° �
� � - / e EXISTING SVSD LINES
It
La a r at
7"- I
y 3 !` � / ST. S AIN' SANITATION J1-1:-- -- C 6 : TOWN OF MEAD
•
_ — bISJF3I�LP.: . .-- ! _� WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUD)
, / h,,,,., 15» �+f .' ALTERNATIVE 4A
s
�w�Y �,, , - I o } „ � CR 17 WWTP
L z (���
+`„FLG r Qw i� � f' 1•f 1 ..h, f' :-:(\L;+::I'-1-
/ rI 1 c), I '�� FEBRUARY 4 2005
X SKI 1 ` �a _ w
33
N � ' 'i. ��j- �.. ) �4
\'IA - •'�- lit ENGINEERING
,,yi p: ,I� - - 1 x di „a" .r� __ �J ��
�- ASubWMry of Maln
° 2620 East R¢-0ed Hv4 Sde 190•Fat UK CO 89:5
9A-491-9803•Fac 9'A-49F-9984•wiwgengneargmn
.u.
,O ,. •• ` ,.hew
1
I I
:was " `
cn.ea sn, nn.� pa .
a . et
II z
_
- _-:
w I ‘
y7(
1 I
on `
A
;. O. P 4000 2000 0 4000
I. f • l# t !
HI .` NORTH CREEK
- 1 ;�ys SCALE: 1" = 4000'
I � '
' I $.I' /PUMPSTAT1ON
�. � � � -�,... 1 LEGEND
--- — —�— , '�•� - �� ,,,e � ,-.- , SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
FEATHER RIDGE ' - - `� � •
1, PUMP STATION' 4'4::
c--"—}_ -. ' _ AREA
{
a ,� 5 � _ r ,� a a PROPOSED ADDED
� � 3 �'. ' i y Va{p e � SERVICE AREA
`.. � - T A WASTEWATER TREATMENT
I. 9 - ��!_ nw I --:rs ��.it,:< _ sWC 135 .J PLANT
- INI 3_ ..,__.,_---,_____,,,1„,....;'
��,. =,�i . X 15 _ 1", . .: LI STATION I1 !ro: "° e EXISTING PUMP STATION
It. �� ' .��� A �� _ � � .� �� 10" FM s-� ci .1 _� i" PROPOSED LIFT STATION
EXISTING WW P ` •
"' a1 •,/ soirmireio PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
ors a x
u' ;1623.", X150 WC& 17 UFTi; PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
�9 - -STTIMO MI
, - ea e� SEWER
., I —. t' .: . . PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR
° }- i \ s ,. y CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN
E j
I �� � _ . ( �, �II� DRAINAGE BASIN OF PROPOSED
? _ /72 INTERCEPTOR SEWER
� .
r I d' ® BASIN NUMBER
- - —r-� 1
1 I
EXISTING SVSD LINES
4
8
P
gg lsk SANITATION
AT yyMy�0Np J
e ° JKCT�NATI -.L OCAS I TOWN OF MEAD
,� _ .!;,,y .,. , —y-1 _^., `, »,_. ST AIN/ ANITA ON �''�f�Y `� I �� r___,,_
k L. F.,;. } _ _ WASTEWATER CILITIES STUDY
15 ALTERNATIVE 4
' s
w
4, 6, dF 7 t v SVSD
t• 1 I/ 1$" • i s i. FEBRUARY 4, 2005
�� 75'
e +f A2 2., -", ✓ h /, I
get.. 1D I _ �` , , ' r ,m �J" i �j: \7 - 4 J-R ENGINEERING
_ A Subsidiary*Magda
0 I 2620 East Prospect Red Sine W Ful Odra.CO W525
9711-491- •Fac 970-491-9564•warepagtenegmrn
L
Hello