The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About900965.tiff GALETON, COLORADO SERVICE PLAN WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT PREPARED FOR GALETON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT P. 0. BOX 33i GALETON. COLORADO 80622 PRESIDENT: WILLIAM W. WARREN SECRETARY: GLENN HILL By: URBAN ENGINEERING, LTD. CONSULTING ENGINEERS tObtin6 Aveuxt•-• P. O. Box 5146 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Project Number: 1701 January 8, 1990 900965 GALETON, COLORADO SERVICE PLAN TABLE of CONTENTS SECTION SUBJECT PAGE I SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS I-1 II GENERAL INFORMATION A. Purpose of Plan II-1 B. Service Area II-1 C. Population Estimates II-1 D. Land Use and Zoning II-2 E. Economic Considerations II-4 III EXISTING FACILITIES A. Wastewater System Along WCR 74 III-1 B. Remainder of Town III-1 - C. Water Supply System III-1 IV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Weld County Regulations IV-1 B. Existing Compliance With Regulations IV-1 C. State Health Department Regulations IV-1 V WASTEWATER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS A. Sewage Flows V-1 B. Sewage Composition V-"2 C. Wasteload Projections V-2 VI ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT OPTIONS A. General VI-1 B. Collection Systems VI-1 C. Treatment Systems VI-1 1. Stabilization Ponds VI-2 2. Aerated Sewage Lagoons VI-3 3. Activated Sludge Systems VI-3 D. Alternate Sewage Collection VI-4 SECTION SUBJECT PAGE VII COST CONSIDERATIONS - A. General VII-1 B. Collection System VII-1 C. Treatment System VII-1 D. Cost Estimates VII-3 VIII RECOMMENDED PLAN FOR FINANCING A. Tap Fees VIII-1 B. Grants and Loans VIII-2 1. Farmers Home Administration VIII-2 2. Colorado Division of Local Affairs VIII-2 C. Service Fees VIII-2 IX DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND VALUATION IX-1 X CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions X-1 B. Recommendations X-1 MAPS EXHIBIT II-1 Locations Map 11-5 I1-2 Existing Buildings and Lots 11-6 III-1 Existing Sewer Facility III-3 VI-1 Collection System Map VI-5 APPENDIX A DISTRICT BOUNDARY X-2 ADDENDUM NUMBER I 5 Pages EXHIBIT A 2 Pages EXHIBIT B 2 Pages EXHIBIT C 1 Page ADDENDUM NUMBER II 1 Page ADDENDUM NUMBER III, REVISED 1-8-90 9 Pages SECTION I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION A. SUMMARY The Galeton community is in need of improved wastewater collection and treat- ment facilities in order to grow and to improve the sanitation of the area for the adults and children living in the area. An existing sewage collection and treatment system serving aportion of the town is inadequate and in violation of Weld County, and State of Colorado regulations. It needs to be replaced. The Triangle Cross Ranch on the North side of the community has intentions of adding new residential houses and will need an adequate wastewater treatment system. The Farmers Home Administration office which deals with housing loans has refused to loan money for new homes in Galeton. This report shows that the least expensive alternate for improving the sanitation environment in the community is to construct a new wastewater collection system and a stabilization lagoon system for treatment of the wastewater. This can be financed by a loan and grant from the Farmers Home Administration in addition to tap fees to be assessed to all the users. A grant from the Weld County Hous- ing Authority will assist low income residents in affording the Tap Fee and the cost of their service line. B. CONCLUSION The Galeton Civic Association should proceed with formation of the Galeton Water and Sanitation District. Then the newly formed District should: 1. Contract for the services of the Attorney and the Engineer, 2. Apply for State approval for constructing the proposed collection and treatment system, 3. Obtain a grant and loan from Farmers Home Administration, 4. Investigate other funding that may be available, 5. Authorize design of a wastewater collection and treatment system, 6. Take bids for the system, 7. Contract for construction of the system, 8. Assess Service Fees and begin repayment of the loan. I-1 SECTION II GENERAL INFORMATION A. PURPOSE OF PLAN The community of Galeton has reached a point in its life where improvements in the public facilities need to be made in order for the community to survive. A good source of water has been available for a number of years. The density of the housing somewhat controls the ability to make improvements to the roads, lawns, shrubs, and other aesthetic and health features in town. Individual sewage systems (septic tanks and leach fields) need large areas and ample sep- aration between them and the houses in order to prevent hazardous conditions. The community first needs a sewage collection and treatment system before it can address the other aspects of community improvement. A significant number of the residents realize this fact and have formed the Galeton Civic Association in order to start the process of community improvement. They wish to form the Galeton Water and Sanitation District first so as to have a viable government body to address the problem. Colorado statues providing for such action require that the County Planning Commission, the County Commissioners, and the State Courts be fully informed as to the need for and viability of a quasi-municipal organization prior to authorizing its formation. State and Federal funding authorities also need this information prior to granting and loaning funds to the community for con- structing the necessary improvements. This Service Plan addresses those informational needs by presenting data on the population, facility needs and requirements, economics, existing develop- ments, and a plan for improving the community. B. SERVICE AREA The area now known as Galeton was subdivided in 1909 as the town of ZITA. An area of 61 acres on the south side of Weld County Road 74 in Sections 5 - 6 - 64 and 6 - 6 - 64 was included in the initial subdivision and the First Addition to ItTA. This subdivided area is partially developed into homes and businesses. In addi- tion, an area North of WCR 74 and West of Weld County Road 51 has been split into 10 parcels of land that are developed into commercial and residential sites. This area is shown on the maps at the end of this section, Exhibit II-1 and Ex- hibit II-2. The proposed boundaries of the District are also shown on these maps. A recent development in Galeton is the Triangle Cross Ranch, Inc. North of the development discussed above. This organization provides a home environment for individuals that need a semi sheltered home. The Board of Directors is plann- ing to construct additional homes in the area and will need wastewater treatment. C. POPULATION ESTIMATES The population of Galeton has fluctuated up and down over the years as businesses have come and gone. The Union Pacific Railway served the area with tracks and facilities adjacent to Main Street but has long since discontinued service and removed the railroad tracks. A record of these population changes is not avail- able because the community has never incorporated as a town and is split by U.S. Census Districts. At present there are 44 housing units in Galeton that could be serviced by a sew- age collection and treatment system. In addition there is a grade school with 177 students and 21 teachers and full time employees, two churches, a Lions Club II-1 building, a grocery store, a service station and several other facilities that may need sewer service. A recent survey made by the Weld County Housing Authority showed the following: Number of houses surveyed 28 Number of people 85 Average per household 3.0 Using this average occupancy per house results in a population of 132 at present. The store, churches, and service station are each the equivalent of z person for wastewater contribution during a week. The school in Galeton has 177 students, 21 faculty and service personnel and several bus drivers. It serves students from kindergarten through the fourth grade and has a gymnasium with showers and a cafeteria. Using Weld County Health -- Department criteria, the school is equivalent to 50 people (5000 gallons per day). A new septic tank and leach field system have recently been constructed at the school so it might not be added to the system until sometime after the system is in operation. The subdivided area of Galeton that is suitable and available for residential development, 6 square blocks, would accommodate an additional 30 to 35 homes and additional 6 to 10 businesses. The Triangle Cross Ranch will probably add 5 to 10 homes in the area north of WCR 74. Since water is available, it is reasonable to plan for doubling the present wastewater load if the additional capacity can be provided with only a small, 1570±, increase in the cost of the treatment facility. D. LAND USE AND ZONING The entire community of Galeton and the surrounding area is zoned Agricultural. Farming is a predominant use of the land adjoining the community. New homes and businesses in the proposed service area are permittted after the owner obtains a building permit from the County Building Department. It is expected that some new homes will be built on vacant lots and that new businesses may start up on the vacant land previously occupied by the Union Pacific. The zoning does not include a land use catagory for a wastewater treatment faci- lity, either lagoons or mechanical plants. This use can be permitted only after approval of a "Use By Special Review". An application for the land use must be submitted to the Weld County Planning Commission for consideration at the same time that a State Health Department application for Site Approval is submitted. The two applications will follow similar paths to the Weld County Board of Commissioners for approval. Then the Site Approval application will go to the State Health Department. The criteria for approval of a Wastewater Treatment site is as follows: 2.2.5 CRITERIA FOR DIVISION OR COMMISSION DECISION MAKING (1) The Division shall review the site application and report, and in making its determination as to whether or not to approve or deny, shall consider a number of factors including: (a) Designation of the legally responsible entity and the legal description of the location; • II-2 (b) The existing domestic wastewater treatment facilities -- and feasibility or cost effectiveness of treating wastes in an areawide facility as it relates to long-range planning. (c) Relationship to and potential effect of proposed faci- - lity on any water supply intake; (d) In accordance with the policy declared in 2.2.3 (2)(7) the ability of the applicant to manage the site to minimize the potential adverse impacts on water quality; (e) Location of proposed project to any flood plain; (f) Impact on public health, welfare, and safety; (g) Proper notice; (h) Review and comment of all required local government agencies and all planning agencies including recommendations for approval or disapproval with any conditions which should be a part of the Division approval; (i) Long—range comprehensive planning for the area as it affects water quality; and (j) The policies set forth in 2.2.3. (2) The Division will act expeditiously on all complete applications which have been submitted. The Division will ask for review and comments from other agencies; however, the Division will make the final decision regarding approval or disapproval of the application (3) If the application is denied, the Division will specify which items were not satisfied by the application and what measures the applicant may take, if any, to satisfy requirements. (4) All site approvals become effective on the date of approval by the Division and will expire one year from the date of approval. Any project not commencing construction on or before that date must reapply or request a time extension. If there are no sig- nificant changes from the original application, this can be accomplished by a letter request. IT-3 E. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS Galeton is a community with a large percentage of low to moderate income families so the monthly fee per household for operation, maintenance, and loan repay- ment must be kept as low as possible. The census data for the area includes the farming community north, east and south of Galeton so it includes many non- urban families. However, this data shows that more than half of the house- holds have an annual income of less than $17,500. 1980 census data shows the following: North of WCR 74 South of WCR 74 -- Median Annual Income $9,886 $14,943 Mean Annual Income $20,121 $16,456 _ A recent survey of Galeton for which 28 of the 40± households responded shows that 14 of the 28 families have a gross annual income below $15,000. The monthly cost for sewer service should not exceed $20.00 in order for it to be affordable by these low to moderate income families. Grants-in-aid must be obtained to cover at least half of the cost of sewer lines and the treatment system. Grant money for a portion of the cost may be available through the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. The money would come from the Energy Impact Fund or from the Community Development Block Grant Funds. An application for a grant has been prepared, and it is a request for funds to improve the homes for low and moderate income families as well as pay for the service line construction and the plant investment fee. The Farmers Home Administration is the primary Federal agency that assists in rural projects such as this one. An application for a loan and a grant has been submittted to FmHA. The community fits the criteria for loan and grant funds and may be able to receive primary funding from that source. The monthly sewer fees will include interest, loan repayment, operation, and maintenance costs. Attempts should be made to keep the O. and M. costs as low as possible by designing around facilities without mechanical and electrical - - equipment. II-4 N------/\ 1 aen �rce / v �, A / -- _ .. , II - 4807 4BC6 _ _ .. S yf�e 4897- \ �� . .. <e<9 4 .. _. , �� / - . I -----•�� A , \� (_.�./ i n. / 1 I II i/ I r, ` I / / I —� I () f I 5 i I —+ --- — —� 32 V�I� 36 , -_z 31, j - J : I. ° j " = 2000' I J �� I •0 V\ •-P"OPOSED /,. �1 ,„:„ c�° DI TRIth i1 / o _,� � _ A , �� BO DARX I. �`. yATON - S 0718•• .. °✓ 478_ 4779 • 4794 6• \ _2 -Galeton'✓+r • , I TtN , ic ( ',,,.I tt \�\ �— . �� _ _ 1' I \ / o V; A �I WASTEWATER, TREATMENT 6 -- - ,.d:LQQ-- _ >99�__SITE ai5l_ _ - _ - - /- -' 2 -J T I v \ I00� N - I ,.�H '� I \ .. I • �,J I �Tr d SITE ..\ •n u . J u I • 791 I • )<9••4727 V !• \,� ' e'.I I i �F I- „_ �_ i (l' V � I PNeB•(6y , i I �) L// 1 _ N _ �l / �Q / / 47/9 ^ / / \ Al �I /� R6SW R64W / C :oi ---�<7]9—I—I. -- ------ GALEfON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT II-1 II-5 L"] -_ TRIANGLE CROSS ri RANCH . '. j R ila z {El `,1 - WCR74 - 1st ST © la ag lit! A © I O N E ]l pN pp ug III a 1 B RI 1 i o d ' 'WELL 5 © 2 ❑N N o W W w o _IIv/I F > a cn n FII )4 3rd . ST c E0 �, W o > H z < H F-i` S a w ip I 4th ST i II H HOUSE C CHURCH IN SCHOOL MH MOBILE HOME S { a G GROCERY D DUPLEX V R REPAIR SHOP & GAS 3 /". 200' W WAREHOUSE GALETON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO EXISTING BUILDINGS AND LOTS II-6 EXHIBIT II-2 SECTION III EXISTING FACILITIES A. WASTEWATER SYSTEM ALONG WCR 74 A community wastewater system has been serving some of the residents in Gale- ton. Six homes along the north side of First Street, five homes near Pleasant Hill Avenue, the two churches, the Fire House, the grocery store, and the ser- vice station have a sewage collection system that flows eastward in First Street to a leach field east of Main Street and west of Willow Creek. The leach field is not functioning properly and the septic tank effluent is now flowing in an open ditch to Willow Creek. It flows southward in Willow Creek which crosses WCR 51 a half mile south of Galeton. Willow Creek runs into Lone Tree Creek about 2.3 miles southwest of Galeton, and Lone Tree Creek enters the South Platte River seven miles south of Galeton. The cooperative system was started in 1929 and has been enlarged and repaired several time since then. The system does not comply with Weld County and State Department of Health standards in several catagories: 1. The sewer collection lines are all 4 inch diameter, the standard and requirements specify that 8 inch should be used. 2. The septic tank is 3000 gallons (2-1500 gallon tanks) the proper size for about 36 people (12 equivalent homes x 3 x 150%) is a capacity of 5200 gallons. 3. The leach field consists of 590 lineal feet of pipe. For a flow of 5200 gallons per day, this would require a percolation rate of - less than one minute per inch. However, the percolation rate at the Triangle Cross Ranch north of WCR 74 is 22.5 minutes per inch. The percolation rate at the leach field location near Willow Creek is probably more nearly 20 to 30 minutes per inch, and the leach field is only about 5 to 10 percent as large as it should be. This inadequacy in leaching capacity is probably a major factor causing • the failure of the system. Some corrective measures or entire re- placement of the collection and treatment system will be necessary to cure the problem. B. REMAINDER OF TOWN The other homes in Galeton utilize septic tank and leach field systems for treating and disposing of household wastewater. Percolation rates in the community are probably 10 to 30 minutes per inch. A leach line system with 2 feet wide trenchs should have a total length of trench equal to 165 feet minimum to 250 feet or more for a two bedroom house. A system of these sizes would certainly occupy most of the available rear lot and/or front lot for most of the homes. Most of the systems were probably installed prior to these formalized regulations and are probably inadequate. At least three of the homes are on 25 foot wide lots which certainly are in- adequate in size to accommodate a septic tank and leach field complying with Weld County Regulations for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. It is a sit- uation that can best be solved by the installation of a community wide sewage collection and treatment system. C. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Galeton residents joined together years ago to provide a potable water system for the town. They own a water well, pressure tank, and distribution lines III-1 that serves 18 homes. Several homeowners have their own well for household water. The other homes in Galeton receive water from North Weld County Water District which supplys adequately treated water from Horsetooth Lake via a filter plant near Fort Collins. The Galeton water system does not provide chlorination or other treatment of the water, but it is tested for bacteria and is safe to use. One resident has a replaceable water filter on his supply line which becomes plugged after a _ months use. This may be caused by organic growths in the well or in the lines or by fine particles of sand and clay that enter the well with the water. An analysis of the residue on a filter of this type would show what the contamin- ation is, and then steps could be taken to aleviate the problem. The water supply system for Galeton appears to be adequate and will not re- quire immediate work. Efforts should be made first to cure the wastewater prob- lem. III-2 ED TRIANGLE CROSS H - RANCH r- 2 - 1500 GAL. In SEPTIC TANKS N WCR74 1 I - 1st T ' a I n u 1 O `� ® 0 1 EIH al N d ❑ 4.. � EXISTING SEWER- 7nd ST — WELL © O a - o ❑ N ❑ © 0 y w Li wz oWu � > B < y 4 © N n n I 3rd ST --__ O. ❑ , ' .� • ❑ ..7. H. _ z; ❑ H N<< c a� W, _ OS a a 4 h C CHURCH iii H HOUSE S SCHOOL " MI{ MOBILE HOME - G GROCERY /"-, 2O01 3 R REPAIR SHOP & GAS W WAREHOUSE G WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT WELD COUNTY COLORADO EXISTING SEWER FACILITY EXHIBIT III-I III-3 ALTERNATE SEWER SERVICE - Galeton is relatively remote from any other community or subdivision. As shown on Exhibit II-4, the Town of Eaton is 7 miles west of Galeton. The Town of Gill is also 7 miles away. Both Lucerne and Barnesville are 9 miles from Galeton. It is not economically feasible to transport sewage wastes to any of these communities. There are no sewage treatment facilities less than 7 miles from Galeton. There is also no subdivision or group of homes within a 7 mile radius. For this reason, the Service Plan does not address the pos- sibility of cooperating with any other entity. OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS As mentioned in the Service Plan, Galeton residents can and do receive domestic water from North Weld County Water District, P.O. Box 56, Lucerne, CO 80645. The Water District includes Galeton and assesses a 5 mill tax -" on property within the proposed Galeton Water and Sanitation District. Other Districts that levy a tax on residents of Galeton are: 1. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 1250 N. Wilson Avenue Loveland, Colorado 80537 2. West Greeley Soil Conservation District 4302 W 9th Street Road Greeley, Colorado 80634 3. Galeton Fire Protection District Galeton, Colorado 80622 4. Weld County Library District 2227 23rd Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 5. Aims Community College "- 5401 W 20th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 6. School District RE-2, Eaton 36 Cottonwood Eaton, Colorado 80615 These Districts may have concerns about the formation of another taxing dis- trict because it may affect their taxing ability. They are to be notified about the hearings for the formation of the Galeton Water and Sanitation Dis- trict. AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN The Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments updated the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan in 1985. Since that time the LWRCOG has been dis- solved and the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association has been created to promote regional water quality planning and coordination in Lari- mer and Weld Counties. The Association has adopted the planning principles set forth in the 1985 update by LWRCOG. -2- SECTION IV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. WELD COUNTY REGULATIONS Since Galeton is not an incorporated community under Colorado State Laws, the development regulations are those adopted by the Weld County Commissioners. These are: 1. Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations that covers septic systems, evapotranspiration systems, alternate designs, and effluent discharged directly to waters of the State. 2. Uniform Building Code that covers primarily construction of homes, commercial buildings, and industrial buildings. 3. Other planning and zoning regulations that regulate the type of busi- ness and construction,. B. STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS Items of water supply and wastewater disposal are covered by Colorado Depart- ment of Health regulations as follows: 1. Regulations Establishing Basic Standards and an Antidegradation Standard. 2. Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System. 3. Regulations for Effluent Limitations. 4. Design Criteria for Wastewater Treatment Works. 5. Regulations for Site Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treat- ment Works. 6. Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems. Other State regulations cover additional aspects of the health maintenance aspects, but the above regulations and standards embody the bulk of the items which will be covered in the work proposed for Galeton. C. EXISTING COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS A number of non-compliance items have been discussed in previous sections of this report. The non-compliance includes not only the discharge of septic tank effluent into Willow Creek, but also the possible non-compliance of a large number of individual septic tank/leach field systems in the community. The situations present in the community with regard to the wastewater disposal systems present a hazard to all the residents of Galeton. The danger to child- ren is especially high because of their inquisitive nature and their lack of knowledge and experience with wastewater. The bacteria, viruses, and cysts that are present in residential wastewater are not destroyed in non-complying wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Numerous illnesses of community residents are directly attributable to non-compliance with health standards. The elimination of these community hazards is a very important project for Galeton to undertake. IV-1 SECTION V COMMUNITY WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS A. SEWAGE FLOWS The existing sewage collection system in Galeton serves a variety of uses as _ well as the eleven homes. No attempts have been made to measure the quantity of flow in this system. It is doubtful that a flow measurement would be of value for designing a sewage treatment system capacity. The household use varies hourly, daily, and seasonally so much that an effort to measure a long term flow rate would unnecessarily delay the project. Measurements of flow in many other communities have been used to establish design criteria that is rea- sonable for establishing design flow rates. State Health Department criteria specifies the use of 100 gallons per person per day. Weld County criteria specifies 75 gallons per person per day. Weld County Regulations also specify the use of 3.5 persons per single family dwelling unit or two persons per bedroom . The housing survey of 28 homes in Galeton showed an average of 3.0 persons per house. Using Weld County criteria results in a flow rate of 262 gallons per day per dwelling unit. Using existing population and Colorado State Health Department criteria results in a flow rate of 300 gallons per day per dwelling unit. For purposes of this Service Plan, the higher flow rate of 300 gallons per day per housing unit will be used. Other daily flow rates from Weld County or En- vironmental Protection Agency criteria will be used as follows: 1. Grocery Store 300 gallons per day 2. Service station/garage 250 gallons per day 3. Church 100 gallons per day (700 gal/week) 4. Fire Station 50 gallons per day (350 gal/week) 5. Lions Clubhouse 50 gallons per day (350 gal/week) - 6. Triangle Cross Homes 200 gallons per bedroom per day 7. School 25 gallons per day per person The present (1988) design flow for a sewage collection system serving units is as follows: 44 Dwelling Units @ 300 gpd = 13,200 1 Grocery Store @ 300 gpd = 300 2 Service Station &/or Garage @ 250 gpd = 500 2 Churchs @ 100 gpd = 200 1 Fire Station @ 50 gpd = 50 1 Lions Club @ 50 gpd = 50 1 Triangle Cross (5 Br.) @ 1000 gpd = 1,000 TOTAL 15,300 gpd V-1 If the school becomes a part of the system, the present design load to add to the system is: 198 Students and adults @ 25 gpd = 4,950 gpd - This wastewater flow represents an addition of 1/3 to the treatment load. Many of the residents have expresssed the belief that the schools leach field will fail in the near future. This is based only on their experience with other leach fields in the area, and not on any design data or calculations. Additional loading for the system in the future could be as much as: 35 Dwellings Units @ 300 gpd = 10,500 gpd 6 Businesses @ 100 gpd = 600 gpd 10 Triangle Cross Homes @ 1000 gpd = 10,000 gpd TOTAL 21,100 gpd When all these homes and businesses are built and all the wastewater is piped to a treatment unit, the total flow will be: 15,300 + 4,950 + 21, 100 = 41,350 gallons per day B. SEWAGE COMPOSITION It is anticipated that there will be no industrial sewage contributors in Galeton. The primarily residential sewage will contain less than 0.20 pounds of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) per 100 gallons of wastewater. However, this value will be used for design purposes so as to provide for future increases to that wastewater content. The BOD will be primarily from kitchen and bathroom wastes and will not contain toxic chemicals in any sreat concentrations. The wastewater should be treatable by ordinary treatment methods. The entire collection system will be newly installed so the infiltration/exfil- tration should be minimal. Therefore dilution of the wastewater will not occur and the design strength will be 250 parts per million (milligrams per liter) of biodegradable organics. The wastewater will be easily treatable in a small mechanical treatment plant, or in a naturally or a mechanically aerated lagoon treatment system. C. WASTELOAD PROJECTIONS Galeton has remained relatively constant in population during the past decade. There are several rental units in the community and there have been several mobile homes that have been moved into the area and then moved out, but the net changes in population have not been great. The wastewater will all be from residential uses and will have design parameters as follows: (based on an 80% initial hookup and 3% per year growth) V-2 YEAR FLOW RATE, GPD BOD LOAD, Lbs/day 1989 12,000 25.0 1990 14,000 29.2 1995 16,100 36.4 2000 18,500 38.5 2005 21,300 44.4 2010 24,500 51.0 The Triangle Cross Ranch anticipates building two or more housing units during the next few years. The wastewater load from these units alone would more than make up this entire growth projection to the year 2000. Also additional homes in or near town may elect to hook up to the system as the price for maintenance of individual systems increases. The total 21 year projected growth in wastewater flow could be the result of the following additions to the system: 9 Triangle Cross Ranch Homes 9000 gpd 10 Homes 3000 gpd 2 Businesses 500 gpd TOTAL 12,500 gpd It is recommended that a design loading equal to the year 2010 be used for de- sign of the wastewater treatment system for Galeton. the following estimated costs are for a 25,000 gallon per day wastewater treat- ment plant. This size of system is far too large to consider a septic tank/ leach field treatment system. The design flow fits into the capabilities of the units in the tabulation. V-3 SECTION VI WASTEWATER SYSTEM OPTIONS A. GENERAL Whenever the density of housing in a localized area becomes great enough to preclude the proper land area for septic tanks and leach fields, an alternate system must be developed. The existence of tight, clayey soils which easily -- become plugged with wastewater solids hastens the need for a community wide sewage collection system. The community of Galeton has reached the saturation point for individual systems and further growth will be delayed until an ade- quate collection and treatment system is provided. In the meantime, existing single family septic tank/leach field systems will continue to fail as solids accumulate in the leaching areas. The lack of adequate septic tank cleaning frequency and the increase in organic materials from garbage disposers in homes hastens the failure rate. Continued restrictions on the disposal of septic tank sludges has increased the cost of adequate, once-a-year, cleaning to about $250.00. For this annual cost, a community-wide collection and treatment sys- tem could be financed if partial funding with grant funds can be obtained. B. COLLECTION SYSTEM Galeton is built upon a slight rise of ground west of Willow Creek. The general slope is to the south with the Eastern portion of town draining to the East and the South Western portion of town sloping westerly. A sewage collection sys- tem with main sewers oriented north-south in the alleys could adequately serve the entire town by gravity. The residents and businesses along Weld Co. Road 74 (First Street) could be served by a main line running east-west along the north side of the road. This arrangement of sewer lines is shown on the COL- LECTION SYSTEM MAP. Other arrangements of the sewer lines have been considered such as running sewer lines in the east-west streets, or in the north-south streets , but these use more pipe and cost more. Materials for the sewer lines are PVC Plastic Pipe, Clay Tile, Concrete, and Asbestos Cement Pipe. PVC Plastic is the pipe of choice today because of its durability, low cost, ease of installation, ease of tapping, water tightness, and long life. The State Health Department requires a minimum size of 8 inches to allow for ease in maintenance and cleaning. Sewer manholes are constructed of concrete, PVC, or Fiberglass. Any of these are adequate but the usual material of choice is precast concrete because of its durability, rigidity, ease of construction, and long life. The manhole base can be either precast or cast-in-place at the contractors option. All joints in the manholes should be sealed with mastic, and all joints in the pipe should be sealed with a rubber gasket. A rubber "0" Ring should be used at the joint between the pipe and the manhole. These pre- cautions reduce the infiltration of groundwater and, hence, reduce the size of the treatment systems required for the community. C. TREATMENT SYSTEMS The selection of the optimum process for an individual community should not be based exclusively on the economics of the individual processes capable of satisfying discharge requirements. Many of the technical and social factors VI-1 should be considered in evaluation of viable alternatives. Community charac- teristics such as growth rate, land cost and availability, proximity of treat- ment facilities to residential or commercial areas, available operator capa- bilities, and treatment facility aesthetics effects (visual and odor) on the community all have a bearing on the treatment facilities best suited for a - given community. There are a great number of alternative treatment processes capable of satis- fying BOD and suspended solids (SS) discharge requirements. The alternatives discussed in the following sections are those which have been found suitable for small communities. . Processes requiring extremely sophisticated operator capabilities generally unavailable in small communities such as continuous _ operator monitoring, etc. , are not considered in this report. There are two major treatment plant classifications: biological and physical/ chemical. Both types of processes have the same objective--removal of dissolved and particulate organic material. Biological treatment processes, some of which have been used since the turn of the century, depend on microorganisms to con- vert putrescible substances to less noxious chemical forms which are compatible with the environment. Controlled biological processes are those such as acti- vated sludge or biofilter in which the biological growth conditions are arti- fically controlled; stabilization ponds or aerated lagoons are considered un- controlled biological processes. Physical/chemical treatment consists of the addition of various chemicals to aggregate and to aid settling particulate matter and to oxidize organic substances. Depending on the particular effluent quality goals, physical/chemical plants may employ multimedia filtration, acti- vated carbon absorption, ozonation or any one of several other processes. While there are several small physical/chemical package plants currently on the mar- ket, none will be considered in view of their stringent operational require- ments. C. 1 STABILIZATION PONDS When stored in shallow ponds, domestic wastewater may be effectively stabilized by natural biological processes involving symbiosis between bacteria and algae. Bacteria degrade the wastewater and produce carbon dioxide; algae utilize the carbon dioxide and produce oxygen which is required by the bacteria. This symbiotic relationship requires the presence of a healthy growth of algae which occurs when pond depths are less than 6 to 10 feet. The algae which supply oxygen for the biodegradation of the wastewater do not completely settle and are present as suspended solids in the pond effluent. In consideration of the fact that algae are inherently different from wastewater solids in composi- tion, the Environmental Protection Agency has recently recommended that the suspended solids effluent requirement for lagoons be made more lenient. The EPA has recommended that each state set the maximum allowable suspended solids concentration for lagoon systems under their jurisdiction. This level has been set by Colorado as being 105 parts per million in place of the usual 30ppm for _ other treatment systems. A stabilization pond is basically a shallow pond (3 to 5 feet deep) in which the wastewater is stored for 30 to 120 days. In some cold climate areas where _ freezing of the receiving streams occurs, it has been the practice to provide pond storage of all wastewater through the winter until the spring thaw when adequate dilution water is available in the receiving stream. The maximum BOD loading per unit volume of pond is limited by the amount of available oxygen VI-2 produced by the algae and supplied by surface reaeration. Both of these sources _ of oxygen are directly related to the surface area of a lagoon since algae growth in deep ponds is limited by light availability. A stabilization pond is considered an uncontrolled biological treatment pro— cess since the amount of active biomass in the system cannot be adjusted or regulated. In cold climates where lagoon water approaches freezing, maximum BOD loading rates are approximately 15 to 20 pounds BOD per acre per day. This is equivalent to approximately 100 people per acre of water surface. Operation and maintenance requirements for stabilization ponds are the lowest for any secondary treatment process. It is this 0 & M factor combined with low capital costs that causes the wide use of stabilization ponds by small com- munities. Stabilization ponds do, however, have several disadvantages includ- ing: 1) large land requirements; 2) odor problems two or three time a year when temperature inversions occur and cause the ponds to "turn over" bringing up septic odorous liquid from the lower depths; and 3) the effluent is loaded with algae and may be unsuitable for certain reuse. A significant advantage of stabilization pond systems is that sludge remains in the pond and sludge hand- ling and disposal problems are minimized. The power and chemical requirements are also minimal. C. 2 AERATED SEWAGE LAGOON Increased BOD loading rates and therefore smaller land requirements are pos- sible in a pond system if a supplemental supply of oxygen can be provided. Such systems commonly referred to as aerated lagoons, aerated ponds, aerated oxidation ponds, etc. , are generally provided with supplemental oxygen by either _ mechanical surface aerators or a diffused aeration system. Supplemental oxy- gen can increase maximum BOD loading rates into the range of 100 to 200 pounds BOD per acre per day depending on the temperature of the lagoon water. Even with the supplemental oxygen supply, aerated lagoons, like stabilization ponds, are considered uncontrolled biological processes. Aerated lagoons have several advantages over stabilization ponds, including: 1) much smaller land requirements due to the greater maximum BOD loading rate, 2) lower probability of odor problems since supplemental oxygen is supplied and the pond liquid is completely mixed, and 3) production of better quality effluent during the winter months when an ice layer may develop. Aerated lagoons do have greater 0 & M requirements than stabilization ponds due to the energy requirements and maintenance associated with the aeration equipment. Aerated lagoon effluents, like those of stabilization ponds, contain large amounts of algae which cause the effluents to exceed the suspended solids discharge re- quirement of 30 ppm for mechanical treatment plant effluents. C. 3 ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEMS Activated sludge is the name given to a process that utilizes aerobic bacteria for changing organic wastes, ie. plant and animal matter, in the sewage to re- latively inert materials such as carbon dioxide, water, cellulose, and other compounds. Various modifications utilizing different types of equipment and varying amounts of power are being used. VI-3 Extended aeration is a modified activated sludge process suitable for use by _ small communities. Basically raw wastewater is aerated for 24 hours in a tank containing a high concentration of activated sludge microorganisms which break down the waste substances. The mixture of water and sludge is then sent to a clarifier or settling tank where the activated sludge organisms are separated from the liquid. The settled sludge is returned to the aeration tank and the clear wastewater is discharged. Depending on the discharge quality require- ments, disinfection of the final outflow may be required. The major mechanical equipment required for an extended aeration plant are aerators (diffused or mechanical) and sludge return pumps. External separate sludge digestion facilities are not required since digestion occurs while the sludge is in the aeration circuit (internal digestion) . A relatively small aerated sludge holding tank enabling uniform wasting of sludge from the aeration circuit is required. Depending on local conditions, sludge is generally pumped to sludge drying beds for dewatering and subsequent trucking to sanitary land- fills, disposed of by land treatment, or trucked as a liquid to an appropriate disposal site. The sludge is very stable biologically and creates few odor problems. However, an extended aeration plant does require a relatively highly trained oerator. The oxidation ditch is a modification of the extended aeration-activated sludge process which utilizes a closed loop channel as an aeration chamber. The pro- cess was originally intended to be a low cost system requiring non-sophisticated construction methods and mechanical equipment. The process flow scheme con- sists of aeration of raw wastewater in the loop channel followed by the sedi- mentation of the activated sludge in a clarifier. The activated sludge (act- ive microorganisms) is returned from the clarifier back to the aeration tank. Brush aerators are used to supply oxygen and to retain solids in suspension in the aeration channel. Internal sludge digestion occurs and eliminates the requirement for external sludge digestion facilities in lightly loaded plants. Sludge can be dis- posed of by methods such as land treatment, liquid sanitary landfill, or by drying on sludge drying beds and trucking to a sanitary landfill or to agri- cultural fields. The biological stability of the oxidation ditch process results in one of the - lowest operation and maintenance requirements of any of the controlled biolog- ical treatment processes. This is a significant advantage for small communities where highly trained operators might not be readily available. D. ALTERNATE SEWAGE COLLECTION An alternate sewage collection system that has been considered uses septic tanks on each individual lot and small size sewer lines to the lagoons that carry only the effluent. This system costs slightly less initially, but the annual or semi-annual cost of pumping out the septic tanks, $150.00, null- ifies any initial cost savings. This pumping fee will ammortize an initial expenditure of $2065 (30 year loan at 6%) if it is done annually in accord- ance with Weld County regulations. This will more than pay for the difference in pipe sizing of 4" for one and 8" pipe for a conventional system. Since this alternate sewage collection system requires considerably more attention and management time at little or no cost advantage, it is not recommended for use at Galeton. VI-4 I a • ri Ri Q © 2 E G R [H] — wcR7��vis s ass s astlase S — — 1st ST y 171 ❑ v N 0 ❑ H n -- l uE y ❑ © _-© OO o _ r� a G 9nd ST © Lui © ------- �— -® - "�— — "O © E W H .h. W W w 21 r? i w w w a > E-, 4cn n H O „ — S C I 3rd ST 0 (] .O G CD P� \ H� 3 0 Gv. H _. z E\��,� 6 H U CL Z IM H d .-1 C i cD p, a _ ,d.._. s pC).. ..S I d 4th ST PROPOSED SEWER LINES H HOUSE CHURCH isij -- MOBILE HOME SCHOOL N GROCERY ��JJJ DUPLEX /.1:200' 3 h REPAIR SHOP & GAS W WAREHOUSE GALETON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT WELD COUNTY COLORADO COLLECTION SYSTEM MAP VI-5 EXHIBIT VI-1 SECTION VII COST CONSIDERATIONS A. GENERAL Any cost comparison must include the cost of land, constructed items on the site, mechanical and electrical equipment, and instrumentation reduced to an annual cost for loan repayments and interest. In addition, the annual cost of repairs, operating labor, electricity, and maintenance of equipment must be estimated. The total of these costs can then be compared as an annual or monthly cost to each customer. B. COLLECTION SYSTEM The two alternates for wastewater collection systems that can be studied are a conventional system in accordance with State Health Department Criteria and an alternate system of septic tanks at each service and a small collection line that carries only the liquid portion of the sewage. The solids collected in the septic tanks would be emptied every year. Service to 50 homes and busi- nesses will be used as a basis for costs. Item Description Quantity Cost Conventional Alternate System System — 1. 8" Sewer Collection Line 5100' 13.00 66,3000 2. 4" Sewer Collection Line 5100' 6.00 30,600 3. Septic Tanks, 1000 gal. 30 1000.00 30,000 4. Sanitary Manholes 15 1500.00 22,500 22,500 5. Paved Road Crossings 2 2000.00 4,000 4,000 6. Outfall Sewer, 8" 1500' 13.00 19,500 7. Outfall Sewer, 6" 1500' 12.00 18,000 8. Sanitary Manholes 6 1500.00 9,000 9. Reserve for cleaning septic tanks ,. 75,000 TOTAL $ 121 ,300 $ 180,100 A $75,000 C.D. at 10% interest will earn $7500 per year to pay for clean- ing the 50 septic tanks at $150.00 each. Although a sewage collection system utilizing septic tanks and small collection lines might be less costly to install at the present time, the annual charge _ for cleaning the tanks must be provided for in the financing. This annual cost whether paid by the District or by monthly fees added to each customer's bill, still costs the Galeton residents the same and must be taken into account in the initial cost comparisons. It is apparent that a conventional sewage collection system is lower in cost than the alternate. C. TREATMENT SYSTEM A wastewater treatment system for Galeton will need to be designed for a growth rate far greater than larger communities. The area has vacant land already sub- divided which will accommodate almost double the present population. The com- munity has a good school system, a good water system, adequate access to more metropolitan areas for jobs and shopping, and with the addition of a good waste- -. water collection and treatment system, more families will opt for the rural at- mosphere. VII-1 Estimated costs of three wastewater treatment systems are shown in the follow- ing table. Each of the systems is capable of accepting the added wasteload as Galeton grows. Either of the lagoon systems could be built for about the same cost but the Stabilization Pond system has a much lower operating cost. This _ system is recommended for construction by the Galeton Water and Sanitation Dis- trict. GALETON SEWERAGE COSTS ITEM STABILIZATION AERATED ACTIVATED POND LAGOON SLUDGE LAND * 5 Acres 2 Acres 1 Acre & $20,000 $8,000 $4,000 SOIL TESTS $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $2,000 SITE WORK $ 37,600 $16,000 $10,000 PIPING & MECHANICAL $21,000 $42,000 $130,000 EQUIPMENT CHLORINATION $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $10,000 PROCESS & (10' x 20') (30' x 60' ) CONTROL -0- $6,000 $45,000 BUILDING EMERGENCY GENERATOR Not Required $5,000 $15,000 CAPITAL COST $ 84,600 $ 80,000 $ 216,000 * Land costs are based on a price of $4,000 per acre. VII-2 D. COST ESTIMATE In addition to the construction costs shown in the above paragraphs, there will be legal and publication costs for formation of the District, engineering costs for the planning, design, and resident inspection of the system, incidental costs for establishing an office and secretary, and fees for recording deeds, for county road cuts, for insurance, for bonds for officers, for postage, and other incidentals. All of these costs are included in the following cost estimate. After the District is formed, the residents of Galeton inside the boundaries will all be members and will be expected to start using the facilities. The elected board of directors will set policies as to when residents must abandon their existing facilities. These rules will have a bearing on the finances of the District. For purposes of this report, it is assumed that 40 of the existing 50 buildings will be connected to the new wastewater system. GALETON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT COST ESTIMATE FOR SEWERAGE SYSTEM Item Description Cost 1. Sewer Collection System $ 121,300 2. Stabilization Lagoons 84,600 3. Land, 5 acres 20,000 4. Service taps 8, 100 5. Engineering, Legal, Administration , etc. 36,000 TOTAL $ 270,000 This amount will need to be financed by tap fees, a loan, and grants. An alternate to the construction of a whole new system for the 16 users of the system along WCR 74 is to try to improve their existing treatment system. Of first importance after obtaining County and State permits would be construction of an adequate leach field. It is estimated that a leaching area of 10,000 square feetis required. This will cost $2.50 per square foot or $25,000 for construc- tion and about $5,000 for permits and design. Unit cost per tap is $1,875.00 without provision for additional users. The proposed entirely new system cap- able of serving 80 taps has a unit cost of $3,375.00 per tap. It is doubtful, however, that either the County or the State would permit this upgrading with- out upgrading the sewage collection line and septic tank capacity. These costs per user would be approximately equal to that of the proposed community-wide system. VII-3 SECTION VIII PLAN FOR FINANCING A. TAP FEES A portion of the money for financing any system is normally a down payment, here called a tap fee. The tap fee will be set by the Board of Directors of the Galeton Water and Sanitation District. The usual practice is to set the tap fee lower than average at the start of the project and then increase it after the project is in operation. This encourages residents to join in the initial stages which decreases the unit cost of construction by increasing the number of repetitive tasks. A comparison of tap fees in Northern Colorado was made and studied by the mem- - bers of the Galeton Civic Association. After discussion of the fees shown on the Tap Fees list the members selected a tap fee of $750.00 for the initial signup of customers. This is slightly lower than the average shown on the list. The funds for construction generated by this tap fee for construction for 40 initial taps will be: $750 x 40 = $ 30,000 SEWERAGE SYSTEM TAP FEES AND RATES March, 1988 COMMUNITY TAP FEE OR PLANT MONTHLY INVESTMENT FEE USE FEE 1. Eaton $ 900 $ 6.00 2. Ault 750 6.50 3. Pierce 1000 12.00 4. Windsor 950 9.10 5. Kersey 1050 11.00 6. Evans 375 3.25 7. Milliken 2200 16.50 8. Lyons 3000 12.00 9. Berthoud 1250 --- 10. Fort Collins 1600 11.26 11. Greeley 1365 12.71 12. Platteville 2000 9.75 Most communities also have a fee or make a charge for the construction cost of the main line tap and the service line to the lot line. This cost amounts to $150 to $250 and is assessed to the home owner in addition to the tap fee. The Board of Directors can determine whether this charge should be made. VIII-1 B. GRANTS AND LOANS 1. Amount Needed. The total construction financing as stated above is $270,000. Tap fees of $30,000 will reduce this amount to $240,000. In addition, an amount equal to one years interest will need to be set aside so it is available to pay the first years interest on the loan. The money will be earning interest during the construction period when no income is being generated so the funds to pay the interest need to be set aside. The interest rate will probably be 7.1259. The interest for one year on a 509 loan will be: $120,000 x 0.07125 = $ 8,550.00 The total amount from grant and loans will be $248,550.00. 2. Farmers Home Administration. Money for projects such as this are available from the U.S. Farmers Home Administration and may be available from the Colorado Division of Local Affairs if and when the Legislature establishes a funding program for this purpose. A "Preapplication for Federal Assistance" was submitted in December, 1987 and is being considered by the District and State office of FmHA. If grant and loan funds are each $124,275 and the loan repayment schedule is for 30 years, at 7.1259, the annual repayment will be $10,140.92. This amount will need to be collected in monthly fees from the initial 40 cust- omers at the rate of $21.13 each per month. 3. Colorado Division of Local Affairs. Application for a grant for faci- lity construction was made through the Weld County Housing Authority. In- stead of a direct grant, for which money might not be available, and, if so, would require additional cost, contracting restrictions, and adminis- tration, the Weld County Housing Authority has proposed a housing grant which would reimburse qualifying residents for a portion of the cost of the Tap Fee, the service line to the house, and any other fees assessed to the home owner. In addition, the Housing Authority grant would help _ reimburse home owners for home improvement costs such as construction, painting, roofing, etc. to bring some of the houses up to Federal and State Standards. This assistance will not be available to some of the res- idents whose income is higher than the grant regulations allow. C. SERVICE FEES After construction is completed the District will collect monthly fees to repay the loan and provide for the expenses of administration and maintenance of the facilities. A proposed fee schedule for 40 customers is as follows: Loan Repayment ( $10,140.92 12 _ 40) $ 21 .13 Administration 1 .00 Operation & Maintenance 1.00 - TOTAL $ 23.13 When additional customers are added to the system, the tap fees will be used for installing the new tap from the main sewer line to the lot line and the excess can be put into a fund for retiring the loan or for adding new main lines VIII-2 to the collection system or for other uses. After 10 additional customers are added, the monthly fee can be as follows: Loan repayment ($10,140.92 12 - 50) $ 16.90 Administration 1.00 Operation and Maintenance 1.00 TOTAL $ 18.90 These initial monthly payments are considerably higher than any shown on the list of Sewerage System Rates. This is typical for a new system serving a small community. The monthly fee does reduce quite rapidly as new taps are added. Some modifications to the average rate are usual for the different classes of users. The Board of Directors should set one rate for residential users and a different one for businesses, for churches, for dormitories, and for other users based both on the value to the user and the wastewater contribution from the user. When the users increase to an equivalent of 80 residential customers, the aver- age monthly fee will be: Loan repayment ($10,140.92 a 12 = 80) $ 10.56 Administration .75 Operation and Maintenance .75 TOTAL $ 12.06 This is less than the average monthly cost of $12.50 for the annual pumping of a septic tank ($150 t 12) . From the above examples, it can be seen how im- portant it is financially to have everyone in the community as a customer. A possible alternate to a uniform loan repayment schedule is one that uses reduced payments during the first 10 years and then increases during the next 20 years. For instance a 40 year repayment schedule for the first 10 years _ would require annual payments of $9,457.34 and $19.70 per customer for 40 users. An "interest only" payment for the first 5 years would reduce the annual pay- ment to $8,859.77 or $18.46 per tap average for 40 taps. These types of loan repayment options will be discussed with FmHA after a Board of Directors is organized following the election to form the Galeton Water and Sanitation District. _ If no grants are available for the wastewater collection and treatment faci- lities, the $240,000 cost will need to be financed by a loan from the Farmers Home Administration or from the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. If as used above, the interest rate is 7.125%, the annual repayment amounts on a 40 year loan will be $18,264.03. The monthly payment schedule will be as follows: _ VIII-3 MONTHLY SERVICE FEE PER CUSTOMER Number Loan Administration Maintenance Total of Customers Repayment 40 $ 38.05 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 40.05 50 30.44 1.00 1.00 32.44 60 25.37 1.00 1.00 27.37 70 21.74 0.75 0.75 23.24 80 20.43 0.75 0.75 21.93 VIII-4 SECTION IX DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND VALUATION The proposed water and sanitation district will include all of the land shown on the map following this section. Included in the district will be all of the land within the original Plat of the Town of ZITA, the First Addition to the Town of ZITA, plus the commercial and residential development in Section 31 and 32,T6N,R64W of the 6th P.M. in Weld County,Colorado, and a parcel of land on Main Street south of Block 9, Town of ZITA. The District boundary is more particularly described in Appendix A and shown on the map therewith. The 1987 assessed valuation of the proposed District is in excess of $300,000. An exact value can be obtained from a real estate broker or a title company if it is required. IX-1 SECTION X CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS -_ A. CONCLUSIONS The community of Galeton needs to upgrade the sewage treatment capabilities of the residents and replace the existing collection system, the septic tanks, and the leach fields with a complete sewage collection system and a treatment system located south of the community. This action will improve the sanitary conditions and provide for residential and commercial growth. -- If loans and grants as discussed in this report are available, an adequate system can be built to serve all potential sewage system users. The sewerage system can be financed by the existing residents, but it will be more affordable when additional homes are built in Galeton and when additional group residences are built at the Triangle Cross Ranch. The monthly cost to each residence in Galeton will not exceed $23.00 in the early years after the project construction and will reduce to more affordable costs as additional taps are added to the system. B. RECOMMENDATIONS The steering committee which formed as the Galeton Civic Association should proceed with efforts to obtain a loan and grant from Farmers Home Administration and a grant in-aid for housing improvements from the Weld County Housing Author- ity. The steering committee should also proceed with the formation of the Gale- ton Water and Sanitation District by submitting this report and a petition for formation of the District to the Weld County Planning Commission, the Weld County Board of Commissioners, and the District Court. After the District election provides for formation of the Galeton Water and Sanitation District, the new Board of Directors should finalize the loan and grants and proceed with the design and construction of a wastewater collection and treatment system that will serve all residents of the community. The existing collection system should be partially abandoned and replaced with facilities that meet State Health Department criteria. The existing septic tank/leach field systems at existing houses should be abandoned and removed or disabled where necessary. • X-1 CALETON WATER and SANITATION DISTRICT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 5 and the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, all in Township 6 North, Range 64 West of the 6th Principal Meridian and in the Southeast Quarter of the South— east Quarter of Section 31 and the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, all in Township 7 North, Range 64 West of the 6th Principal Meridian with portions of land in said Sections 5 and 6 lying within the platted - boundaries of the Town of Zito, now known as Galeton, all in Weld County, Colo- rado; with all reference to recordings being those filed with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder; said tract of land being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Section 5 which lies 313 feet, more or less, East of the Northwest corner of said section; Thence South along the Fast line of the alley in Blocks 3, 4, and 9 and its extensions as shown on the Plat of the Town of Zita, now known as Galeton, a distance of 925 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 9 - of the Plat of the Town of Zita. Thence West 20 feet , more or less, to the Northeast corner of a parcel of land _ described in Book 1187, Reception #2132823; Thence'Southerly 423.7 feet along the East line of said parcel, to the South east corner of said parcel; Thence Westerly 298.2 feet, more or less, along the South line of said parcel and Westerly extension thereof to the East line of said Section 6; - Thence North along said section line 108.7 feet, more or less, to the South line of Fourth Street of the First Addition to the Town of Zita as extended Easterly; Thence Westerly along the said South line of Fourth Street extended a distance of 1015.5 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of the First Addition to the Town of Zita; Thence North 40 feet along the West line of said First Addition to the Town of Zita to the Southeast Corner of a parcel of land described as "School Dist- rict 103" and as exempted in Recorded Exemption No. 0801-6-1-RE 156 as recorded in Book 730, Reception No. 1652350; Thence West 250 feet along the South line of said parcel; Thence North 290 feet along the West line of said parcel; Thence East 250 feet along the North tine of said School District 103 parcel to the West line of said First Addition to the Town of lite; Thence North 564.3 feet along the said West line to the Southeast corner of Galeton Park as described in deed recorded in Book 925, Paige 433; Thence, along the South line of Galetn, Park, West 140 feet; Thence along the West line of Galeton Park and as extended, Northerly 337.1 feet to the North line of said Section 6; Thence Easterly along said section line 145.9 feet, more or less, to the West _ line of a parcel of land in said Section 31 , described in Book 1602, Page 504; Thence North 170 feet along the West line of said parcel; Thence East 200 feet along the North line of said parcel and as extended Easterly; Thence North 200 feet; 'thence East 304 feet, more or less, to the West line of Lot A, Recorded Exemp- tion No. 0711-31-4 RE 802, Recorded in Book 1118, Reception No. 2059448; Thence North along the West line of said Lot A, 200 feet; Thence East 508.4 feet, more orless, to a point on the East line of said Section 31 , which point lies. 570 feet, more or less, North of the Southeast corner of said Section 31 ; Thence entering Section 32, East 361 .2 feet; Thence Southeast 685 feet , more or less, to a point on the South line of 'said Section 32, said point being the Southeast corner of that tract of land described in Book 1067, Reception #2007712; and which lies East 741 .2 feet from the Southwest corner of said Section 32; Thence West 428.2 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 58 Acres, more or less. • SURVEYOR' S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached legal description was prepared from existing recorded plats and legal descriptions, using the dimensions shown therein. An actual and accurate boundary survey was not completed to verify the actual bearings and distances along said outer boundary or the total area included. I hereby certify that the boundary, and with the references shown, is adequate to identify the properties encompassed within the GAtETON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT. ,;:•- Jam /A 7 :�� v� rire t � ' Gerald B. McRae, Professional Engineer and • � ¢�.'u r 5 i u 4 �I'fir" " Land Surveyor, Colorado Reg. No. 6616 , !mr rt i ).+ ;fly` �;r ADDENDUM N0. 1 TO GALETON, COLORADO SERVICE PLAN FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT GENERAL The form and content of a service plan is prescribed by CRS, Section 32-1-202. Several items requested by the statutes were considered but not completely covered by discussion material in the Service Plan. The following discussions are pertinent to the Plan. Questions about these items were raised by the Weld County Attorney's office, see attached Addendum 1 Exhibit A. TAX REVENUES The Galeton Water and Sanitation District, when formed, will have the power to levy an ad valorum tax on property within the District. The tax monies collected could be used to pay off any debts that the District incurs for construction. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others require that operation and maintenance expenses be supported by user fees. The assessed value of the property within the proposed district is about $275,000. Two parcels, one in Section 31-7-64 and one in Section 32-7-64 will need to be split off from the large farms of which they are a part so _ that only the houses and outbuildings are assessed. Without these two par- cels, the assessed value is $256,480. If the Board of Directors of the proposed district decides to assess a ten mill levy on the property in the District, the amount raised would be $2,750. This income could be applied to the annual loan repayment of $10,140.92 (See sheet VIII-2) and would reduce the monthly charge for customers from $23.13 per month to $17.40 per month. Only 20 percent of the assessed value of the proposed District is commercial and industrial property. The taxes on this non-residential property amount to $550.00 per year and could reduce resi- dential sewerage costs by $13.75 per year per household ($1.14 per month) . The reduction in cost for each residence would be less than one dollar per month when 50 customers are receiving sewer service. The net result of assessing a property tax levy on the lands and improve- ments within the District would be to shift a small part of the monthly cost of service from User Fees to Property Tax. Some users annual cost would be increased, and some users annual cost would decrease. The churches, fire district, Lions Club and other exempt organizations would see a decrease in the annual cost of sewer service. The method of collecting funds from Galeton residents and property owners will be decided by the Board of Directors after they are elected. Their decision will affect the amount charged to each separate individual, but it will not change the average cost of sewer service per customer. The Ser- vice Plan addresses only the cost of service and not the apportionment of this cost to user fees or taxes. -1- ALTERNATE SEWER SERVICE Galeton is relatively remote from any other community or subdivision. As shown on Exhibit II-4, the Town of Eaton is 7 miles west of Galeton. The Town of Gill is also 7 miles away. Both Lucerne and Barnesville are 9 miles from Galeton. It is not economically feasible to transport sewage wastes to any of these communities. There are no sewage treatment facilities less than 7 miles from Galeton. There is also no subdivision or group of homes within a 7 mile radius. For this reason, the Service Plan does not address the pos- sibility of cooperating with any other entity. OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS As mentioned in the Service Plan, Galeton residents can and do receive domestic water from North Weld County Water District, P.O. Box 56, Lucerne, CO 80645. The Water District includes Galeton and assesses a 5 mill tax on property within the proposed Galeton Water and Sanitation District. Other Districts that levy a tax on residents of Galeton are: 1. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 1250 N. Wilson Avenue Loveland, Colorado 80537 2. West Greeley Soil Conservation District 4302 W 9th Street Road Greeley, Colorado 80634 3. Galeton Fire Protection District Galeton, Colorado 80622 4. Weld County Library District 2227 23rd Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 5. Aims Community College • 5401 W 20th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 6. School District RE-2, Eaton 36 Cottonwood Eaton, Colorado 80615 These Districts may have concerns about the formation of another taxing dis- trict because it may affect their taxing ability. They are to be notified about the hearings for the formation of the Galeton Water and Sanitation Dis- trict. AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN The Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments updated the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan in 1985. Since that time the LWRCOG has been dis- solved and the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association has been created to promote regional water quality planning and coordination in Lari- mer and Weld Counties. The Association has adopted the planning principles set forth in the 1985 update by LWRCOG. -2- On page III-12 of this Plan is a list of Recommended Management Agencies and page III-13 is a list of Recommended Operations Agencies. Galeton is not men- tioned on either of these lists nor is the area specifically mentioned or con- sidered in any of the information and recommendations of the Plan. However, on page III-5, the water quality management problems pertinent to areas such as Galeton are enumerated as follows: 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 Water Quality Management Problems Some problems which adversely affect water quality can be attributed to activities which are controllable through institutional solutions. If such problems occur, the responsible wastewater management agency in the area can be effective in seeing that the proper actions are taken to reduce the pollution source to an acceptable level ,. that being where no violations of water quality standards occur or no significant degradation _ in existing ambient quality or beneficial uses results. Activities which can lead to water degradation and which can be amenable to institutional control may involve point or non-point sources of pollutants. Such activities include: * The use of individual septic tank/leaching systems for disposal of _ household sewage. These systems are used primarily in rural areas with no central sewage collection facilities. Problems can result from improper design and/or construction, poor soil conditions, or a high ground water table. * The proliferation of small package-type sewage treatment plants in an area. These small plants may present significant operational and • maintenance problems with which the owner usually does not have the resources to cope. * Ownership of sewage treatment plants by home-owners ' associations. Financial obligations to provide for proper 0 & M and replacement of facilities are difficult to insure, and the responsibility for the discharge is difficult to assign. * The disposal of solid and liquid wastes to land in areas where acceptable conditions may not be present. This problem may involve solid waste refuse landfill sites, septage pumping disposal ponds, brine waste disposal sites, or sludge and septage land disposal locations. -- * Urban stormwater runoff from more densely developed areas. Stormwater discharged from city streets, paved areas, industrial sites, and other III-5 -3- locations can have a significant impact if efforts are not made to limit pollutants which can be transported by the runoff. * Erosion and sedimentation from areas where the natural soil and vegetative cover conditions have been disturbed. A significant impact may be caused from sediment discharges resulting from construction, _ logging, agriculture, road building, and other activities. 0 0 0 0 0 Also on page III-7, the Plan suggests that the solution to these problems for -- the Galeton area will require a management agency and an operating agency. 0 0 0 0 0 As was indicated above, a management agency should have land use authority to be effective in solving water quality problems associated with development. The concerns for water quality related to septic tank use, proliferation of small treatment plants, urban runoff, erosion and sedimentation, and other activities can be approached through various forms of land use controls. The objective of the regional planning effort and cooperation among adjacent or overlapping entities is to prevent environmental degradation through the development of agreements between the appropriate agencies that will deal with the causes of the problems. An operating agency must be able to design, construct, operate, and maintain waste treatment works and to finance these operations through _ the raising of sufficient revenues. A management agency must have the authority to carry out appropriate portions of the areawide plan in addition to those required capabilities of an operating agency. The regional planning agency has to be a single representative entity, including elected officials from local governments, which is capable of developing an effective areawide waste treatment management plan and implementation procedures. All should have the capacity to enter into agreements with each other to provide the best cooperative approach to water quality management. --- o 0 0 0 0 The community of Galeton has most of the above "problems" and the Weld County Board of Commissioners will serve as the management agency. The creation of the Galeton Water and Sanitation District will provide an oper- ating agency, the missing link for curing some of the problems. This Service Plan does comply wiht the AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN in that it recommends creating an agency that can effectively deal with the -- local problems. At present there is no such agency. Discussions between Elmo Peterson of Urban Engineering and Dave Du Bois of NFRWQPA have been held several times during the formation of the Service Plan. These discussions have led to the submittal of the attached Addendum No. 1 , Exhibit B to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. The Prehearing -4- Statement may result in the addition of Galeton to the EPA Priority List for funding purposes. A State hearing on the funding list will be held in August and another one will be held early next year. Galeton is currently No. 7 on the Colorado Revolving Fund Priority List and may be placed high on the list for EPA grants of up to 559 of the treatment system costs. This NFRWQPA statement lists the Galeton project and is an additional in- dication that the Service Plan complies with the AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN. ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES The Service Plan deals heavily with funding the project with a Farmers Home Administration loan and grant. As indicated above, other sources of funds may be available. A grant from EPA could amount to 559 of eligible facili- ties, primarily the treatment system. This could be about $50,000 includ- ing construction, design, and associated costs. The District would still need to finance $230,000 by other loans, grants, and fees if the costs remain the same. However, past experience indicates that the -requirements imposed by EPA for labor rates, equal opportunity reporting, and other associated regulations and reports will discourage several local contractors from bid- ding on the construction of the proposed sewer lines and treatment plant. It has been determined that the EPA regulations will increase costs by 109 to 209, in this case $20,000 to $40,000. The increased cost will effectively negate the advantages of receiving a $50,000 grant. Another State program for funding the system may be the Colorado Revolving Loan Fund. Although both the Federal and State governments have created the fund, no money has as yet been allocated. Attached is a copy of an article from the July, 1988 Civil Engineering magazine that explains the dilema. Even if bonds can be sold to create a revolving fund, the interest rate may be too high to be affordable unless that State subsidizes the int- erest. This subsidy would come out of State taxes, some of which are col- lected from residents of Galeton, so this is a "Catch 22" situation. This same situation of higher construction bids occurs when grant funds are obtained from Community Development Block Grants. As stated above, primary emphasis has been given to obtaining loan and grant funds from Farmers Home Administration. If these efforts fail because of lack of funds or low priorities, other means of funding will be investigated. Of first order, however, is the creation of the District so that official re- quests and decisions can be made by a legally constituted Board of Directors. -5- - I mtm®Rnn ®unt � °4PN, • • -Wilk rc P7anning Department Dee June 21, 198B COLORADO From Lee D. Morrison , Assistant County Attorney Subject Comments on Galeton Civil Association Special District Service Plan These comments should be considered in the nature of a review of the form of the plan and not comments regarding the merits of the - plan. The form of the plan is basically determined by C.R.S . , Section 32-1-202 , with additional information required by Sections 203 and 204 . In particular, C. R.S . , Section 32-1-202 (2) , lists those items which must be in the service plan and a copy of that portion of the statute is attached. (2) (3) require specific information regarding tax revenue. It appears , although I did not see that it was explicitly stated, that there is no plan to derive income from taxation in this district but rather to use only grants , loans , and service charges. There probably should be some discussion one way or the other regarding the use of taxes to raise revenues . There needs to be discussion of the availability, or lack thereof, of other community wastewater treatment systems . While Section 3 describes an existing system, I have not been able to locate information on the possibility of service from other special . districts or municipalities. Further , there needs to be a list provided of any existing municipality or special district, with address , which has levied an ad valorem tax within the previous tax year and which has boundaries within a radius of three miles of the proposed special district boundary or a statement that no such entities exist . The addresses are to be provided for the purpose of notice prior to the service plan hearings . It should also be noted that the Petitioners should have already compiled a list of property owners within the proposed district so that not more than thirty days nor less than twenty days prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing, the Petitioners are able to send post card notification to the property owners . The application also seems somewhat lacking in relation to a discussion of how this proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and how it is consistent with the 208 Water Quality Management Plan for the Larimer-weld area . It is possible for additional information to be submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting which could act as a supplement to the service plan and could be included in the decision by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners . It should be noted, if other referral entities needed that information, that • ADDENDUM #1, EXHIBIT A Planning Department. Page 2 June 21 , 1988 it would to schedulingasoy that bfurther hreferrals ave the ucould supplement made submitted be in advance of the hearings . e D. rrison As istant County ttorney LDM: ss - o q e 5-W JUN 2 2 1988 Weld Cu. Planning Commission ADDENDUM #1, EXHIBIT A BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION PREHEARING STATEMENT FOR RULEMAKING HEARING CONCERNING: ( 1 ) ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROJECT PRIORITY LIST FOR FEDERAL FUNDS ( FY-89 ) , 5 . 13 .0; AND ( 2 ) APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED REVOLVING FUND INTENDED USE PLAN FOR FY-89 , 5 . 15 . 0 , INCLUDING (Al ADOPTION OF THE REVOLVING FUND PRIORITY LIST FOR FY-89 , AND ( B) ADOPTION OF FY-89 ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE REVOLVING FUND ELIGIBILITY LIST. NORTH FRONT RANGE WATER QUALITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION TESTIMONY The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (NFRWOPA ) hereby submits the following comments as a prehearing statement for the noticed rulemaking hearing scheduled for August 2 , 1988 at 1 : 00 p.m. : 1 . The NFRWOPA is very concerned that small communities throughout Colorado which have significant needs related to wastewater treatment and water quality protection cannot afford on their own to provide the facilities necessary to meet those treatment needs . They are, in many cases, in severe financial hardship situations _ and must receive some state and federal aid if they are to be able to comply with the pertinent regulations. 2 . The establishment of priorities for grants and loans should give strong consideration to these small communities and their financial needs. Having a large population should not be considered a factor in assigning priority points. 3. Many small communities will not have the financial capability to repay a loan for an entire project, even considering the low interest rate. Some provision should be made to allocate as many grant funds as possible to assist these financially strapped and low income areas . EXHIBITS Examples of the financial needs and projected effects on rate-payers for two projects in Region 2 are included in Exhibit 1 to this prehearing statement. WITNESSES The NFRWOPA will potentially call as witnesses David DuBois and one representative of a small community. These witnesses would summarize the testimony on needs of small communities. ADDENDUM #l, EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT 1 Examoles of Financial Need for Small Communities An analysis was done on two proiects which are needed by small commun- ities in Region 2 to determine the per monthly cost per household for the required sewerage service . The two proiects are those proposed for the community of Galeton in Weld County and the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision in Larimer County . The Galeton proiect would provide sewers and wastewater treatment for 40 existing houses initially at an estimated cost of about $270 , 000 . Capacity could be provided for about 30 additional lots which may be built upon in the future. The Mt. -- Range Shadows project would provide sewer rehabilitation and connection to the South Fort Collins Sanitation District, abandoning an existing unacceptable treatment plant. There are 299 lots and 254 houses in the subdivision. The cost is estimated at $2, 244, 000 with a $281 ,000 energy impact arant approved , leaving a balance of $1 , 963 ,000 . Four scenarios for financing these projects were examined. The numbers used for percent interest charged for loans ( 3% and 7%) were picked to show an approximate range of costs. Other interest rates could be substituted and the results adjusted accordingly. The four financing - scenarios are: 1 . Financing the entire project with borrowed funds such as bonds at a market rate of interest ( 7% used) . 2 . Obtaining a loan from the Revolving Fund for the eligible portions of the projects at a low interest rate (3% used) and financing the non-eligible remainder at 7%. * 3. Obtaining a 55% grant for the eligible costs and financing the remainder at 7%. 4. Obtaining a 55% grant for eligible costs , a 3% loan for the remaining 45% of eligible costs, and borrowing the non-eligible portion at 7%. *Non-eliaible costs included tap fees and plant investment fees. Proiected Monthly Household Charges** Scenario Mt. Range Shadows Galeton 1 . No assistance. $65 $55 2 . 3% loan for eligible costs. 54 42 3. 55% grant & 7% loan . 42 29 4. 55% grant & 3% loan w/non- 37 23 eligible costs @ 7%. **Includes 0 & M monthly charges of $12 .00 for Mt. Range Shadows and $2.00 for Galeton. - ADDENDUM #1, EXHIBIT B -,. -7.- ,.. wp „?r4. .,:n ,.,.. . WASHINGTOI . . , non-point source pollution control cash payments be made and that clean CLEAN WATEl grants and the clean lakes program, water goals be met more quickly by al- At press time, the Senate had not lowing states to earn interest on the CLOUDSyet acted, but several Senators, includ• cash and use it as collateral to sell ing Environmental Protection Sub- bonds. The previously mentioned ex- Despite the overwhelming enactment committee Chairman, George Mitchell ception for certain states should ame- last year of Public Law 100-4, the na• (D-ME), characterized the administra- liorate part of this problem. States can tion's clean water program remains tion's proposed cuts in the grants pro• use the money in their SRFs for: mired in budgetary politics. The law gram as "reneging on a commitment." • Loans. Municipalities can borrow authorizes $18 billion over nine years, money at or below market interest rates for fiscal years 1986.94, to fund the SRFs with a 20-year repayment deadline. construction of local sewage treatment Earlier this year, the EPA released fi• • Loan Guarantees. SRFs guarantee _ systems, while gradually phasing out nal guidelines to assist states in estab- that a loan will be repaid, pledging the the subsidy program. Of the total, lishing SRFs, the first step in transfer- resources of the fund. Reduction of risk $9.6 billion is to be used by the states ring financial responsibility for sewage lowers the interest charge and overall as grants to local communities, and plant construction from the federal cost of the bond to the community. $8.4 billion is to be placed in state re- government to the state and local level. • Bond Insurance. Insures bondhold• volving loan funds(SRFs) and issued as The final guidance document, which ers of repayment, reducing the interest low-interest loans to communities. outlines how stares are to set up revolt'- charge and overall cost of the bond to States must provide a 20% match to ing loan funds for construction project the community. qualify for federal money. Loan repay financing, was criticized by state and • Refinancing Existing Obligations. ments from communities could then municipal officials who contend that Allows replacement of existing munici- be used to make new loans, thus pro- EPA is making the transition more dif• pal bonds at reduced interest costs if viding a self-sustaining source of ficult and more expensive by not giv- the debt was incurred before March 7, money for states to finance local con- ing states direct cash payment to set up 1985. Refinanced projects must comply struction after the flow of federal the loan funds. with requirements of the Water Qual- money stops. State and local officials, who were icy Act. The administration's fiscal 1989 bud- hoping that the federal seed money for • Local Debt Insurance. May guaran- get request of only $1.5 billion for the the loans would come in a series of tee local debt obligations where such construction grants program received a quarterly cash payments, will instead action would improve credit market ac- chilly response on Capitol Hill. Mem- receive Letters of Credit (LOC) whereby cess or reduce interest rates. bens of Congress, particularly in an cash becomes available only as project Beginning in fiscal 1989, states that election year, like to bring federal dot" expenses are actually incurred. Under have been certified by the EPA to estab- tars home to the district, while also ap- the plan, states will receive LOCs over a lish SRFs, may use grants as seed money pearing to be for the environment. 12 to 36 month period. States can then for them. Texas, Georgia and Tenney- _ _ However, budgetary concerns will draw cash from the LOCs to pay for up- see were the first states to receive the likely limit congressional support for grading or building sewage treatment necessary EPA certification. construction grants to $2 billion, in- plants. But, states may not draw on The Internal Revenue Service (iR5) stead of the authorized level of$2.4 federal funds "solely for the purpose of recently announced that state and lo- billion. earning interest." With the LOC, fed- cal bonds sold to finance sewage treat- In the congressional budget process, eral officials hope to save $2-3 billion ment plants through SRFs will be ex• the Environmental Protection Agen• over the life of the program. Note that empt from federal taxes. Last year, cy's (EPA) construction grants program states with "particularly aggressive le- when EPA announced that SRFs would is part of the huge $60 billion HUD-In- veraging proposals" may receive a be capitalized with a federal LOC, nu- dependent Agencies appropriation bill. "more accelerated cash draw" under merous officials expressed concerns re- This bill also appropriates money for the payment plan. Eligibility will be garding the tax exempt status of bonds the U.S. space program, veterans' af- determined on a case•by-case basis. The issued with LOCs. The IRS ruling is seen fairs, the National Science Founda- guidance adds that "a state seeking an as easing the transition from a feder- tion, (NSF) and housing programs. The exception must first demonstrate to EPA ally funded EPA sewage construction administration requested a 30% in- that there are projects ready to proceed program to one funded primarily by crease for NASA and a 20% hike for in the immediate future with sufficient SRFs. NSF, which wouldn't leave appropria- costs to justify the proposed leveraging Copies of the Initial Guidance — State tions subcommittees much room to and that the absence of cash on an ac- Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund add funds for other programs. The celerated basis will substantially delay are available from Richard Kuhlman, House Appropriations Committee these projects." U.S. EPA, Office of Municipal Control, compromised and allocated $2 billion State and local officials fear that the Planning and Analysis Division (WH• to construction grants, while curtailing LOCs will ultimately result in reduced 546), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, increases for NASA and NSF. The dollars and delayed construction. These D.C. 20460, (202) 382.7256.—Casey House panel concurred with the ad- officials argue that Congress intended Dinges, legislative affairs manager, ASCE, ministration's proposal to zero-fund Washington, D.C. 106 CIVIL ENGINEERING JULY 1988 ADDENDUM #1, EXHIBIT C ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO GALETON, COLORADO SERVICE PLAN FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT GENERAL This service plan for the proposed Galeton Water and Sanitation District addresses only the presently proposed facilities for sewer lines and a sewage treatment facility to serve the community. _ Prior to any indebtedness being incurred for water facilities or the use of any District funds for maintenance, operation or construction of water facilities , a comprehensive water facilities service plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners for comments and approval. ADDENDUM N0. III REVISED 1 -8-90 INDEX PARAGRAPH PAGE A. Purpose of This Addendum 1 B. Service Area 1 C. Population Estimates 1 D. Sewage Flows 1 E. Waste Stabilization Lagoons 3 Location 3 Lagoon Sizes 3 Lagoon Construction 4 Aerated Pond System S F. Land Costs 7 - G. Construction Cost 7 Estimates of Cost 8-9 H. Loans and Grants 10 I. Budget 11 J. Recommendation 12 SERVICE PLAN FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT GALETON, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ADDENDUM No. 3 November, 1989 A. PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM This addendum presents refined calculations and engineering decisions about population growth, location of facilities, size of facilities, and costs. The information and decisions are the result of numerous discussions with area residents, Galeton Water and Sanitation District Board Members, Weld County Officials and staff, and other State and local staff members. The Service Plan was prepared in 1987 and needs to be updated for 1990 con- struction. It is anticipated that funding of the project will be finalized early in 1990 so that plans and specifications can be prepared and construc- tion contracts awarded during the year. The District Board has established a tap fee of $750.00 and is starting to collect this money from prospective users. B. SERVICE AREA The service area has been defined by the Weld County Commissioners when they created the Galeton Water and Sanitation District on June 22, 1989. The boundaries are the same as those proposed in the Service Plan. C. POPULATION ESTIMATES Several discussions about community growth have resulted in the conclusion that the population growth in Galeton will be much slower than projected in the Service Plan. The 3 percent growth rate per year should be revised downward to reflect the addition of only one new home every five years. There will also be one new living unit at the Triangle Cross Ranch every five years. There are 44 dwelling units in Galeton and it is anticipated that all of these will become users of the system. The Triangle Cross Ranch has two living units which will probably not be served immediately but may be added sometime in the future when their septic tank/leach field systems start mal— functioning. The anticipated 1990 users of the system are as shown on page V-1 of the Service Plan. D. SEWAGE FLOWS The Service Plan estimate of 1988 design sewage flow is still applicable. The estimate of future flows are revised as follows: (Triangle Cross Home of 5 residents are estimated at 500 gpd.) Present (1990) Design Flow 15,300 gpd Year 1995, Additions 1 Residence 300 1 Triangle Cross 500 —1— Year 2000, Additions 1 Residence 300 gpd 1 Triangle Cross 500 Year 2005, Additions 1 Residence 300 1 Triangle Cross 500 Year 2010, Additions 1 Residence 300 _ 1 Triangle Cross 500 Total year 2010 Sewage Flow 18,500 gpd The above sewage flow estimates are based on the Colorado Health Departments suggested 100 gallons per day per person flow. Actual water use records for Galeton residents were obtained from North Weld County Water District. The water use records for November, December, January, and February are tabulated below. The water use for these months should not include any garden and lawn watering and would be representative of sewage flows. Residence Daily Use, Gal. Residence Daily Use, Gal. 1 155 15 300 '2 435 16 260 3 155 17 110 4 260 18 175 5 660 19 170 6 100 20 150 7 100 21 125 8 220 22 275 9 85 23 160 10 45 24 220 11 80 25 290 12 300 26 95 13 70 27 75 14 240 Total 5,010 Average 185 gallons per day per house. The two churches used 300 gpd, each. The garage used 155 gpd. The grocery store used 90 gpd. The two Triangle Cross water taps used 420 gpd total. The Galeton School used 1400 gpd. (Equivalent to 8 homes. ) All of the above actual water use values are lower than the values used in the Service Plan by about 389. If the stabilization lagoons are designed based on the State Department of Health recommendations, the facility could probably accommodate a 389 growth in addition to that projected above. The excess capacity could accommodate an additional 12 homes to be built bet- ween now and the year 2010. Alternately, the lagoons could accommodate adding the school to the system (8 equivalent homes) plus 4 homes in addi- tion to the 4 included above. In consideration of the information about actual water use and the revised projected growth figures, it is recommended that wastewater stabilization lagoon sizes be revised downward to 18,500 gallons per day instead of the 25,000 gallons per day recommended on page V-3 of the Service Plan. — -2- E. WASTEWATER STABILIZATION LAGOONS The lagoons will be sized in accordance with "DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WASTE- WATER TREATMENT WORKS" as published by the Water Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. The pertinent information is contained in Chapter 4, Section 7 of the manual. Location The Service Plan contains a Location Map, EXHIBIT II-1 , that shows two alter- nate locations in the south half of Section 5 or Section 6. Both of these sites are partially in the designated flood plain. The obtaining of permits for construction in the flood plain would take much more design and investi- gation than normal and construction costs for rip rap bank protection would add to the total cost of the facilities. In addition, neither of the land- owners are willing to negotiate for the sale of the land to the district. Other sites in Section 5 and 6 have been investigated and the choices have been narrowed down to a site in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6. This site is owned by Western Sugar Company. The site will be purchased by the District. It is shown on the accompanying map EXHIBIT A3-1. Lagoon Sizes One of the design criteria for stabilizing lagoons is the requirement for a volume equal to 180 days of design flow. Total Volume = 180 days x 18,500 gpd _ 3,330,000 gallon,000 feet This volume should be divided into a primary lagoon, a secondary lagoon, and a polishing pond. The primary lagoon should be designed for not less than 0.5 pounds of BOD per day per 1000 square feet of surface area. The secondary lagoon should be designed for not less than 1 .0 pounds of BOD per day per 1000 square feet of surface area so that it could handle the entire flow if the primary pond is out of operation. From page V-3 of the Service Plan: At 18,500 gpd, BOD Load = 38.5 lbs per day Primary lagoon area = 1000 sq. ft. x 38.5 x 2 = 77,000 sq. ft. i x 77,000 = 38,500 sq. ft. Secondary lagoon area = z The pond depth should not be more than 5 feet. The polishing pond should have a detention time of not more than 36 hours nor less than 12 hours during the design life of the facility (20 years) . The total lagoon volume can be reduced by the amount of net evaporation during the 180 days. In Weld County this value is 20 inches. The average annual evaporation from pond surfaces is 55 inches and average rainfall at Galeton is 15 inches. This evaporation amounts to a volume of: 20" x (77,000 +38,500) + 12 = 192,500 cubic feet The net volume to be accommodated in the lagoons is: 444,000 cu. ft. - 192,500 cu. ft. = 251,500 cubic feet -3- • With the above criteria the three lagoons can be sized as follows: Polishing pond at maximum flow: 12 hours x 18,500 gpd. = 9,250 min. Polishing pond at minimum flow: (Actual present water use) 36 hours x 15,300 gpd x 62% = 14,230 gallons max. USE a design volume of 12,000 gallons Select a 5 foot depth to minimize algea growth and side slopes of 1 vertical to 3 horizontal. Then: Average area = (12,000 gal + 7.5 gal/cu. ft.) + 5' = 320 sq. ft. or 18' x 18' Pond bottom = 18' - 2 x 2.5' x 3 = 3' x 3' = 9 sq. ft. Pond surface = 18' + 2 x 2.5' x 3 = 33' x 33' = 1090 sq. ft. • Use 2 feet of freeboard above the water surface. Top of embankment = 33' + 2' x 3 x 2 = 45' x 45' Polishing pond volume = 18' x 18' x 5' = 1 ,620 cu. ft. = 12,150 gal. Primary lagoon at 3' depth and 77,000 square foot surface area with length to width ratio of 2: i Lagoon surface width = (77,000 + 2)2 = 200 feet Lagoon surface length = 400 feet _ Lagoon bottom size = 170' x 370' Lagoon volume = 185' x 385' x 3.0' = 213,000 cu. ft. = 1 ,602,500 gallons Secondary lagoon volume is the remainder of Total volume required minus Polishing Pond minus Primary Lagoon. 251,500 cubic feet - 1620 - 213,000 = 36,880 cu. ft. minimum Surface size for 38,500 sq. ft. = 140' x 280' Volume at 3' depth = 131 ' x 271' x 3' = 106,500 cu. ft. With this volume for the secondary lagoon, the total detention time will exceed the required 180 days for the three lagoons. The embankment between lagoons and around the outside will have a top width of 10 feet and all bank slopes should be 1:3. For creating the embankments, material will be excavated from the inside of the lagoons. A 3 foot free- board will be provided to prevent overtopping by wind driven waves. This would also provide several months of emergency storage capacity in event the outlet or a liquid transfer line gets plugged. A 2 ft. depth of excavation will provide sufficient material for the 4 ft. high lagoon embankments. The lagoon surface will average 1 foot above the surrounding terrain. The proposed site for the lagoons has a ground slope of 1 foot per 100 feet, sloping from North to South. Liquid transfer from lagoon to lagoon will be by gravity. Lagoon Construction The soils at the site are sandy silt with very little clay. The silts are apparently wind deposited and are very fine. Infiltration rates are very slow. The infiltration tests show rates of 15 to 30 minutes per inch of water infiltration in test holes. The porosity of the lagoon bottoms will need to be reduced by the addition of bentonite to the soil at a rate of 10 pounds per square yard or the addition of a clay liner in the lagoons. — —4— For this clay liner, the lagoons would be over excavated one foot deep and filled with the clay material. Clayey material is located on the surface - near Mason Reservoir two miles Northeast of the lagoon site. The liner should be 8" to 10" deep. The bentonite and clay application rates are in accordance with Soil Conservation Service Engineering Standard and Speci- fications No. Colo-521-C. The cost of a 9 inch clay liner will be about $15.00 per cubic yard in place. This will include payment for the material, excavation, transportation, plac- ing, and compaction. For the 9 inch layer on the 120,000 square feet the cost will be: 0.75 ft x 120,000 sq. ft. x 1/27 x $15.00 = $ 50,000 The alternate sealing method involves incorporating bentonite into the bottom and wetted side slopes at the rate of 1 pound/square foot. The bentonite will cost $4.50 per 50 pound bag. It will take 2 days to incorporate the benton- ite into the top 4" to 6" of the soil. . The crew will consist of 4 laborers, a disk and tractor, a water truck, a flat bed truck, a fork lift, a rubber tired roller, and a grader. This equipment with operators and a supervisor will cost $500.00 per hour. The cost of this method of sealing the lagoons will be: Bentonite, 120,000 pounds @ 7.0.09 = $ 10,800 Equipment and Labor, 16 hrs $500.00 = 8,000 $ 18,800 The bentonite method of sealing the lagoons will be the least costly. The slope of the ground at the lagoon site is 0.9 feet per 100 feet, from North to South. The site is nearly level from East to West. The excavation _ and embankment will be balanced so that no import or export of material will be required. Aerated Pond System The naturally aerated lagoon system discussed above requires an area of 250' wide by 850' long. This system will require most of the beet dump site. The Board of Directors of the Sanitation District have decided that it would be bad for the economy of Galeton to request that the beet dump be moved. Toward that end of preserving the beet dump location, an alternate lagoon system has been designed. Aerating the primary lagoon with a surface aer- ator will reduce the land requirement by a factor of 5 or more. This amount of area could be removed from the beet dump site without seriously affect- ing the beet storage function. Three calculation sheets are included at the end of this report which de- fine the size and arrangement of an aerated primary pond and a combined secondary and polishing pond. The two functions of secondary stabilization and final settling will be separated by a plastic or rubber curtain wall. The bottom edge at the curtain wall will be weighted and rest on the bottom of the pond. Floats attached to the top edge of the curtain will keep it near the surface. An anchoring cable will be attached to the top edge and will be anchored at each side of the lagoon. -5- Aerated Pond Sizes The pond sizes as determined in the calculations are as follows: Primary Pond Design Flow = 18,500 gpd Normal Depth of water at center = 10.0 feet Pond Bottom Size = 42' x 46' 8 foot high side slopes = 1:3 Freeboard above water surface = 2.0 feet Pond Volume at normal depth = 43,500 cu. ft. Detention time at design flow = 17.6 days Secondary Pond and Settling Pond Minimum depth at inlet end = 4.0 feet Maximum depth at outlet end = 8.0 feet Pond size at water surface = 50' x 94' Freeboard = 2 feet Side slopes = 1:3 Pond volume = 150,000 gal Pond detention time = 8 days (5 days secondary treatment, and 3 days final settling) Aerator Size = 3 horsepower Air supplied = 5.25 lbs. 02 per hour Effective mixing = 37 ft. diameter at 10 ft, dept Effective 02 dispersion = 85 ft. dia. at 10 ft. depth 02 required for BOD = 50 lbs. 02 per day (10 hrs. ' Operate 12 hrs; 2 hrs ON, 2 hrs OFF Lagoon construction would be the same as previously discussed for naturally aerated lagoons. Both ponds would be lined with bentonite. The total area of surface to be sealed is 17,400 sq. ft. and the cost will be: Bentonite, 17400 lbs. x $0.09 = $ 1,570.00 Equipment and Labor, 8 hours @ $ 500.00 = 4,000.00 Contingency 430.00 $ 6,000.00 -6- F. LAND COSTS - Negotiations with Western Sugar Company have resulted in a tentative agree- ment for Western Sugar to relocate the sugar beet storage to a site about 5 miles south of Galeton. The conditions requested by Western Sugar are -- that the Galeton Water and Sanitation District obtain for Western Sugar Co. a 10 acre site with dimensions of 1100 feet long by 400 feet wide. The parcel should be oriented North-South. In addition the Western Sugar Co. request that the District pay for moving the weighing scale, the beet piler and for preparing the site to store beets. Telephone and electricity will be needed at the site. The site should be relatively level with good drainage. An estimated cost for complying with these request is as follows: Land 10 acres @ $1500/acre = $ 15,000.00 Site Preparation 10 acres @ 0.33/sq yd = 7,000.00 Move piler 1 Lump Sum 1 ,500.00 Move scales 1 Lump Sum 1 ,500.00 Telephone and Electric No Cost Total Cost $ 25,000.00 -- Alternate Arrangement Western Sugar Company has tentatively agreed to transfer 0.76 acres of the Galeton Beet Pile area to Galeton Water and Sanitation District in exchange for the cost of earthwork required in preparing the entire site for use in piling sugar beets. An abandoned railroad embankment on the east half of the property will be spread over the west half so that the available pile ground will be increased from 150 feet wide to 300 feet wide. The quantity of dirt to be moved is 6000 cubic yards. This land leveling is expected to cost $6,000.00. The sewer line through this beet pile ground will be constructed of cast iron pipe to prevent collapse when heavy equipment is used for handling beets. The sewer line will be be relatively shallow. G. CONSTRUCTION COST The U.S.G.S. maps of the area of Galeton do not adequately define the ele— vation of the ground at critical points in Galeton. Elevations of street intersections and street and alley intersections were obtained in order to define the location of sewer lines. The sewer line layout and a plan of the -- sewage lagoons is included in this Addendum. These plans were used to develop quantities to use for the cost estimate shown on the next page. Plans and sections of the lagoons were developed so quantities of earthwork could be estimated. The prices used in the estimate are based on recent bids for similar work. They have been adjusted for projected increases that may occur between now and Summer 1990. Galeton Water and Sanitation District Estimate of Costs November, 1989 ITEM UNITS AND UNIT COST COST 1 . 8 inch PVC Sewer 5600 Ln Ft @ $ 15.00 = 84,000.00 2. Std. Manholes, 8'-10' 14 Ea @ 1200.00 = 16,800.00 3. M.H. at Lagoons 3 Ea @ 1500.00 = 4,500.00 4. C.I. Lagoon Piping 440 Ln Ft @ 18.00 = 8,000.00 5. 6" Sewer Outfall 670 Ln Ft @ 15.00 = 10,050.00 6. Outfall Manhole 1 Lump Sum 2500.00 = 2,500.00 7. Paved Road Crossings 3 Each @ 4000.00 = 12,000.00 8. Service Lines 44 Each @ 150.00 = 6,600.00 9. Primary Lagoon Const. 4100 Cu Yd @ 6.00 = 24,600.00 10. Secondary Lagoon Const. 3000 Cu Yd @ 6.00 = 18,000.00 11. Final Lagoon Const. 300 Cu Yd @ 6.00 = 1 ,800.00 12. Bentonite Sealing (Page 5) 18,800.00 13. Fencing, Barbed Wire 2400 Ln Ft @ 5.00 = 12,000.00 14. Signs 12 Each @ 100.00 1 ,200.00 220,850.00 Contingency 109 22, 150.00 243,000.00 Legal, Engineering and Administration 57,000.00 300,000.00 Land Cost 25,000.00 Total cost to District $ 325,000.00 —8— Galeton Water and Sanitation District Estimate of Costs Utilizing an Aerated Lagoon System January, 1990 , ITEM UNITS AND UNIT COST COST 1. 8 inch PVC Sewer 4200 Ln Ft @ $15.00 = $ 63,000 2. Std. Manholes, 8' - 10' 14 each @ 1,200.00 = 16,800 3. 8 inch C.I.P. Sewer 1400 Ln Ft @ 19.00 = 26,600 4. M.H. at Lagoons 3 Each @ 1,500.00 - 4,500 5. C.I. Lagoon Piping 440 Ln Ft @ 18.00 - 8,000 6. 6" Sewer Outfall 670 Ln Ft @ 15.00 = 10,050 7. Outfall Manhole 1 Each @ 2,500.00 = 2,500 8. Service Lines 44 Each @ 150.00 = 6,600 9. Paved Road Crossings 3 Each @ 4,000.00 = 12,000 10. Primary Lagoon Const. 1,500 Cu Yd @ 6.00 = 9,000 11. Sec./Final Lagoon 800 Cu Yd @ 6.00 = 4,800 12. Bentonite Sealing 17,400 Sq Ft @ 0.34 = 6,000 13. Curtain Wall 380 Sq Ft @ 10.00 = 3,800 14. Fencing, Barbed Wire 750 Ln Ft @ 5.00 = 3,750 15. Signs 8 Each @ 100.00 - 800 16. Grass Seeding 1 Acre @ 500.00 — 500 17. Chemical Treatment 1 Lump Sum @ 6,000.00 = 6,000 18. Aerator and Electrical 1 Lump Sum 10,000 $194,700 109 Contingency 19,500 214,200 Land Cost 6,000 Legal 11 ,000 Surveying and Engineering for District Formation 2,100 Engineering Design, 10.29 20,400 Surveying and Mapping, Land Acquisition 4,000 Soils Report 3,000 Resident Inspection and Administration 15,000 Stake Sanitary Sewer Line (50.35 per foot) 2,600 Administration and Contingency 5,000 TOTAL S283,300 -9- H. LOANS AND GRANTS The Board of Directors of the District have begun to accept requests for sewer line taps and have been collecting tap fees. There will be about 45 taps sold initially. It is the conclusion of the Board that a monthly ser- vice fee of $12.00 to $16.00 would be as much as most resident families could afford. Loan repayments, O&M costs, and funding for a reserve fund would all need to come out of the service fees. The discussion of Service Fees on Pages V111-2, -3, and -4 in the Service Plan are still applicable. The total cost to be financed is $325,000 less the total tap fees of $33,750 to be collected from 45 users. The monthly cost of loan repayment including $3.00 for Administration plus O&M is as follows: 1. Full loan: $291,250.00 at 7.5% for 40 years = $1,916.66 per month Loan Repayment: 1916.66 o- 45 users = $45.60 Adm + 0&M = 3.00 MONTHLY PAYMENT $48.60 2. Half Grant/Half Loan at 7.59 for 40 years Loan Repayment: 45.60 + 2 = $22.80 Adm. + 0&M 3.00 MONTHLY PAYMENT $25.80 3. 75% Grant/259 Loan at 7.59 for 40 years Loan Repayment: 45.60 x 259 — 11 .40 Adm. + O&M — 3.00 MONTHLY PAYMENT $14.40 A monthly service fee of this amount, $14.40 , would be much more affordable for low to moderate income families in Galeton. It would also be low enough that families might choose to live in Galeton. This fee would still be higher than any of the surrounding weld County towns except Milliken. The monthly user fees for Weld County communities are shown on page VIII-1 of the Service Plan. Possible combinations of loans and grants are as follows: 1. Farmers Home Loan of 25% _ $ 72,810 Farmers Home Grant of 759 = 218,440 2. Farmers Home Loan of 25% = 72,810 Farmers Home Grant of 23% 72,810 Impact Assistance Grant of 50% = 145,630 Another source for loan money would be the State Water Pollution Control _ Revolving Fund. This fund and other sources of Grant Funds will be investi- gated during the next few months. -10- If the Aerated Pond Lagoon System is selected for construction, the total loan and grant is reduced to $275,800. A 259 loan will be $68,950 and the 759 grants will amount to $206,850.00. I. BUDGET The Galeton W & S District was formed too late in 1989 to assess a tax on the property within the District. The Board of Directors of the District have decided to request a 5 mil levy be placed on all property within the District. This issue will be put before the voters in the spring of 1990 at the same time that the election for members of the Board of Directors is held. The 5 mil levy on an anticipated $200,000 assessed value will bring in $1 ,000.00 per year which can be used for debt retirement. If this tax is continued, it will be used for debt retirement for the next 20-30 years. 1990 Budget INCOME Tap Fees, Net, Collected in 1989 $ 17,900.00 Taxes (First taxes generated will be in 1991) 0.00 Tap Fees, Paid in 1990 (49 x 809 x 750 - 19,900) 9,500.00 Loans 66,450.00 Grants 199,350.00 $ 293,200.00 EXPENDITURES Facility Construction 214,200.00 Land Cost 6,000.00 Operation and Maintenance ($80.00 per mo. x 5) 400.00 Legal 11 ,000.00 Engineering and Surveying 29,100.00 Soils Report 3,000.00 Resident Inspection and Administration 15,000.00 Administration and Contingency 5,000.00 Interest on loan (z year at 109) 3,500.00 Escrowed interest (1 year at 89) 6,000.00 $ 293,200.00 After construction of the sewer lines and sewage treatment facility , the Board will need to set a monthly service fee, establish a monthly billing and collection procedure, pay monthly utility bills, hire an operator to check the operation of the aerator and chlorinator and to take samples of wastewater. These samples will be tested and Health Department forms fille_ out monthly by a certified sewer plant operator from a neighboring communit . —11— The 1991 Budget is based on data from similar sewer plants at Lake Knolls sub— division (32 homes), and Johnsons Corner (32 equivalent taps) . 1991 Operating Budget EXPENSES Colo. Dept. of Health, Annual Fee $ 370.00 Electricity 600.00 Operator 600.00 Chlorine 300.00 Laboratory Tests and Reports 1 ,800.00 Administration, Billings, Audit, etc 2,000.00 Legal 300.00 Repairs and Maintenance 400.00 Debt Repayment and Interest 5,850.00 (Based on a loan of $66,450 at 89 for 30 years) Reserve Account 4,930.00 $ 17,150.00 INCOME Users Fees, 44 taps @ $20.00 8,800.00 Taxes, 5 mil on $200,000 value 1 ,000.00 Tap Fees (20% x 49 x $7.50) 7,350.00 $ 17,150.00 _ J. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors apply to the Farmers Home Administration and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs for a loan of one fourth of the project cost and a combination of grants amounting to three fourths of the project cost. The monthly user fee in the Dis- trict would be about $20.00 per month for loan repayment, interest, and 0&M costs. This monthly fee would be affordable for most of the residents. Only a few of them would need to request hardship assistance from some agency in order to pay their monthly utility bills for water, sewer, gas and electricity. -12- URBAN ENGINEERING, Ltd. 6-"T.9<J,-. /ca Tn vc PROJECT NO. / / C( Greeley, Colorado CLIENT PROJECT Atha jec( 5424—'6' 5' E 4. 7 oet, S Consulting Engineers y MADE BVEOp DATE /-2-11'.1 CHECKED BY DATE SHEET_L0P 3 U.E. Ltd PP / MARY /P/ON D / / / 1._— Ocri of. Ne-c 1 ih rer,i i�v/eS / IU loo �S clo y c(!alfe4-. 7-, ow' /f of al i-,--7 is' clay c eTe_•" -I,O(., 4 .7 c7' e„$ i 9 n �/o w/ of f �U vlr noNcl _j/ a („. „, e = 2.7 '7, _Co Otd /. _ .37,oOO t.*� 7:1 fete , �rea_. 3 7,00 a ..- x j" - . 14,425 57,N, ,4..6, f / _5,de Sloe 5 3 : I f 7-i, .� 7O w (cie i- e., r 1-4 -- 6 6 prin„,a„.„ Po .,,/ ; Z " ,i� ee- oa .-e , io'toto( e✓eFr .6G x 7O' Ave— � , of lA/.-/ er . . 940. x 54 Uvr TopoR,a., k • ii a.' h 106 Eniba,rKtne- ' -9 A;74 ab ave Surrounc/:nq irocie, - Lrra-KE pre h, ar/y pond /O deep a c en e / / / (ii-re ctGr• aTor ir1 cell of f or-,c+ . .5E[, orl7-. A P y PO D l Try. ,5"e/c7,,5"e/c7, ,. dale sii ,o ,- 1 -S over- aye e ePilh -- Volu r e : 5 X /350071,c/ 1 77.5 = 1273 30 -i-7- ! Try SO' Wide � lop r 5 we ep , 1: F SidE s .'0ge _ m.flo..: : Zeit wide _ / A _ 10 ,7 TT = 3 lSc4r L. i Y.GG O .- ition l' � oat-Ft, _Si �/' p tt To g — \(el. r (3rs1- r96ojx? xS 's = 5640+ . zo, _.. Di-4- ©VAi Po " el -CO ' wrele o,' lop i a deep ,f e,-,d Fnc/ Vol. - 5690 x % - 7G0Gm.Ci- _ 170 o au:- Lys-- f I, =(/'2,3�3O-2700):(35tx5) = _55. -le---L --->i -'ofe. l Lem-if"' _ SS f 2 5 , _ 8O, URBAN ENGINEERING, LTD. JOB &a I e ' � h Consulting Engineers �j P.O. BOX 5'5146 SHEET N0. � OF / GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 CALCULATED BY El Peie n en" DATE /2'41-ei (303) 353-9669 CHECKED BY / DATE /1 �J -BentArea`f;AN Fend .�esiriw Aerail. an i c7�firc...,en"s -- pi ih ; r.,., aeIna Ti 0 P --- I. 25 #02Jn 8 O Use_ (A 51% S0O r-cluc�J0 , ! O% C/ /� �/o / y q I .� =.,[ 0, .g. v.. WAST6(r aT� v ( a Xt1 Bn 4-,...$47e, /en 4e.> N ei ;.y. "iCci lv a,s,,,/v eat ON yq a/n /eve = 2. ms7 /.C in fond P ro v i cl a n/ /..J5 day cr e-le n-b !o ., O, „ e S ;7 ki -il c, c.J / Design 7'l o (. _/ ii coo yep / Desiin (300j = 250 ,7/ i = l8. 5 #6005/947 Poke/ s;•z e ., /S,/a1 Kt isoo9nA07, .. 7 27 _Cooral/la`� z77, soo = 7. 5" = 3 7, C2 or G46rc ieal` rry cu. trage dep ��, , 5 ') Averie s,.de =`�37coo-isc a6 -4. 17-7 Pon ci // // / l �I �{'Q- R �' a � � Jet s 1fof i�,? '�o /U c�ef++,` RI' - � nTar ice/ e .5/0 e -5 = 7: 3 �✓ Y-Of a' ' r /. Are.. @ Lot/ — Osiff i Zn(. A-re4 e Sd = IBS° st,C+, Area @ 0E deer = 781! it f+ 10'2 i 4 n,"' /O/mMe 18 so X Z X Z ' ! GSO { S/o e- ° + 4 G 6[ v i i x k = 3 ,c`tD s=3 (!°de 3 1 r 'Deo- u s 4 A5°YE tr0'-- Ammer /0-Zo y s_ trey¢ w ; A/ La It QC • , t7P sLiq e. In �71/4.2 /j- o go, 4/ he7 07Fr r I - � j voIu.m E wi /l s'ri /( 66: 4c/e9 un is,o 77- ir- L. G , Flo., ; I"Hen, G.4'DI i ✓ {'i, I too •^r;7/I'l p.,-aq: v.C ra � a ( = 2. 4400 gent / f r 4�/ l : Oz 4- va ^ 5 *2r raTFi = . . 8'7 ,c,_/ /-/p /4,. 1 Ui0. , of canti8ie ni : X = 37 -�. y��1 I / r —z� p 2l / iO. Or V2 G`7rSp2 r5iuti - (� J� �, � [ Z.. W �c�i"(� at pond RAW 204-1 LNEP31 isGam.Mm 01471 URBAN ENGINEERING, LTD. JOB Ga l P 4 gi kip Consulting Engineers SHEET N0 O OF 2 P.O. Box 5146 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 CALCULATED BY E a Pale rson-. pgrE !2--4/-sr (303) 353-9869 pgrE_ CHECKED BY �l 701,1c4 7 / ^✓� SCALE s/+`ll ail Oh Yo HG'S eS/711" ,' aid QZ Trrans4er -Role. /. 7S -lL+p4, / // .E� e_cl v e a2 suy, it ea! _ /• 7Sx 3 /; s `s #O2 1/4,„ /.(o...r Dz R r<;✓ n f`i 3B 5 Argov x /. 25 07- zeBop 7 33 !�+✓s OZ s'-I I I,cid ,j L.7 - O-14,- ¢ra T;o W / er l r m. az °I erala 2 3.1419 aera_l° r a,[ /� 4en,..r on- and l ho•,.r eP . _ .1 i, e -�7 Sy 0_... _ +re a'rrvi el., 7L fon elsd el $e� (; N4 ron cl. SC�i! � �inq/ f OH� / / / /`/ I 1 :�3j / Se/0 s Cf elenl, ©n R7- r✓l cF -- ✓n N✓n - /ow . /r0✓, c7 E- 1/o l,4me _ (is, ar oo_74 Vial x 3 - 55; so 07.4 = ztfoo 4,,., .1'7`. rY ?'creep Qo nd 10 di'a. . O` �Ot4-oT , W$. = to't vitt ,52. d,a. J !r3,, N a v., a re a = -rr X 10_,--2-i: = 78's9.-R, Wafer 5,...-}yare•t = "fT x g ` � I -Chi. 3 1 7 Ito -F -, 2�0�2� x7 " L I 7 USe 7deep 9Oth r , Cori h ;ne. -Sec ondor� 4 SeTflin6 Pone-1O Use iota lent fl, .Sp '^" e- as Pr:m ri -.=ar� ron [ li ' 9U5 ` (Jse- SO wide o ` Werter 5.. Tac. e- i 4/deer PO 8' clQep - Bono.... w;c11.4 @ 41 deep _ -CO '- !z `-t2 ` = 26 ' toff*.^ w%e11-4 @ 8'dee, p = so ` - 2i _zit, = 2 ' Tm+a, area. @ fiL ' deer = T1 24_ ± 63 x Zee = 2, 300 si. P. 3Gosp �' y(/a-{e✓ �u v�c.c e- d r E 4 = -CT � fL p K SD = l S V _(5360 -ra3o� xy.)(z30� x41) � 14ig20ck.ff.= ISojo„,74. o �.rn fl ` 1 2 2 _. Deie.4i Omr I';v., e. fa�lai = s doy -s - Use Sdars ro r Sac. oncror1 7re47ni emit SY 3 cla S -ro,- 5e ttc.- -- TG-la De+en IL; bn TritE = an'ow,f 4- )5dct15 = d 23ayS ,a mass- X f m Km Taw....•. Wf 2' -rrcebmard , tet e». y4., kn.e4- ; s /De: K 62, i ICOL4l0H/Nc/l¢_G On.Yaer • URBAN ENGINEERING, Ltd. D a l e+ O f1 170 1 CLIENT PROJECT NO. Greeley, Colorado LaQo01i�- PROJECT .11 e r a f e d S P A^� a 4 e Consulting Engineers a I oP - MADE BYE6P DATE/ 9A-7CHECKED BY DATE_SHEET�_ U.E. - --- - -- — Ltd - ---- —_ .-- — -- ---------- -C l'I FOR ' NATION( ION( — T -7-__S0.,ai ai I 1171c .��Qfs w/ a Dos- rty_S .f_iton- -- QAte= /B, So o 1,4 _ 1 .fIj , `` _5- -- - 7e / 8, _5'o o mei X '`� = 79,0 00 ertM_�..-ffOw - .5"2 y/v_is 4,_ troy-x.--1_nf� � °�v_ .-- - n r-n ,,,, _0 - O — 5_c�Q-n2 _tar iong/ feriae/5 ----------- C2' - - -- - -- - - _Ffflukent _to_Creek _ --- - _TLA4oQR_ ` _ _ _ anthill 1 ablei • - �m - -- -- o3in9 Sir.him - - -- ---- - e . - f 8 5009/ - - -- -te a Lit _ she _:JO In;ri "- r44$-- ,3&S_3 a/ =__52 ff -__ __ --. — —.. - 3 ff - - - ' - Ose Ch_lorirzafcon-3asin 4x to .x 2-3 '_54 --- - -- 405_yad . -- - _osr_n_y _j,/ohor___FShair( p_y_triaw, ics- Model_c413--- Llo7prn C71_,C.Aor? e. --_1oo'pm - __.1.. ,dra N(GSQWrL 15?rtn C7cle l'- _13tion-_—= 1-95 yaLbox '-? b--PI3 -- _ 3 Lox Size-- = /3"_Jz x 'f x G ' ` 2 � _ -- Gh l orlrzafor : Si_ze for_ /"10 p prrz ave. raj e - - Hello