Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-10 (Special) Meeting MinutesCOUNCIL CHAMBElS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, CO~ORAIX> March 10, 1980 SPECIAL MEETING: The City Councils of the Cities of Englewood and Little- ton, Arapahoe County, met in special session on March 10, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. Englewood Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Englewood Council Member Thomas Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: City of Littleton COuncfl Memliers-Yrujillo, Emley, President Pro Tem Harper, President Collins. Absent: Council Members Parson, Taylor, Staritzky. C~ of Englewood Cciunci"'l-Memberi-iligday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw, Mayor Oti1. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City of Littleton City Manager Gale Christy Cit1_2~ Englewood City Manager MCCown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Public Works Waggoner I Director of Wastewater Treatment Bro>kshire Direct>r of Utilities Fonda Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on the 201 Facilities Plan for the expan- sion of the Bi-City Waatewater Treatment Plant. Mayor Otis stated March 10, 1980 Page 2 the plant was constructed and owned bf both cities; therefore, a joint public heariag must be held. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY ~VED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE 201 FACILITIES PLAN. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Trujillo, Emley, Harper, Collins, Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Members !arsons, Taylor, Staritzky. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis asked Mr. Jim Abbott, of Henningson, Durham, and Richardson, Inc. the engineers fo~ the plant, to make his pre- sentation. Council Member Taylor entered the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Jim Abbott appeared before Council and introduced Robert Williama, of Culp, Weaner, Culp, who helped prepare the plan. Mr. Abbott provided background concerning the basic parameters for planning, conatructlon and financing for an area- wide master wastewater management plan. Mr. Abbott pointed out the areas currently served by the Bi-City plant. Mr. Abbott stated the three general topics which the plan addressed were: 1. Expansion of the existing joint use plant. 2. Alllnonia removal in the effluent. 3. Chlorine removal in th? effluent. Mr. Abbott stated the discharge standards which the plant will have to meet in future years were unknown. These standards were set by the atate; and the atate waa going through a process of reclassifying atreama. Once a stream was reclassi- fied, then discharge atandarda can be aet. 'ftlerefore, the engi- neers had to study several different 1lternativea in order to be prepared to meet whatever efflu!nt 1tandarda were set. March 10, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Abbott stated the three concept• for planning were secondary treatment, partial nitrification, and full nitrification. The planning period covered 1980 to 2001 with expectation of the plant in operation in 1985 or a 16 year atafing period was in line with EPA guidelines. Taken into cona~derat on was the estimated population projection for the service area established by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Currently, the plant provides service to 175,000 people; by the year 2000, the popula- tion should range from 300,000 to 320,000 people. Translated into wastewater flow, it would be from the current 20 mgd to 33 1/2 mgd or 67t. Mr. Abbott stated the alteruative wastewater manage- ment plans studied were: 1. 2. 3. 4. Expansion of the exiating joint use plant from 20 mgd to 33 1/2 mgd and diacharge the effluent into the Platte River. 'ftle plant would be expanded to accomo- date the stream atandarda ••it by the State. Coat -$62 million. Land application concept wherein the existing waste- water plant would utilize 20 mgd capacity and any excess over the 20 would be pumped out to some site where it would be applied to the land through an ir- rigation acheme. Five thouriand (5,000) acres would be necessary to perform thi• alternative. Cost -$125 million Spreading basin• which was a form of land application. The concept of rapid tributation through sand beds where pollutants are remove•l from the water. The exist- ing plant would be enlarged to 33 1/2. The effluent pumped back down the river and applied to the spread- ing basins, through the sand, collected and discharg- ed down through the river. Cost -$65 million Land application concept wh•:rein the plant would utilize the High Line Canal to convc:y the water out to irrigation sites. The plant would be expanded, a pumping station I built that would pump the effluent out to the canal and conveyed to irrigatora. Thia alternative would require that during the winter months either a storage reservoir would be built becauae there would be no demand for ir- rifation need• or have a dur.l atream claaaification so a easer degree of treat .. nt. could d11cbarged to the Platte River yet put the effluent out into the High Line Canal during the &U111Der months. Cost -$92 million I March 10, 1980 Page 4 5. Expansion of the existing plant to a capacity of 33 1/2 mgd and attempt to locate a nearby site wherein urban irrigation could be utilized and industrial re-use. Water could be pumped out a~d applied to irrigate parks, golf course, public ·~reenbel ta and possibly the Public Service power pl~nt. Any remaining water would be treated at the plant and discharged to the river. Thia alternative would accomplish a land ap- plication concept yet should not delay expansion of the plant. Cost -$ 63 million Mr. Abbott recoaaended adopcion of Alternative 15 to be submitted to the State and Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Abbott stated other considerations were political jurisdictions and implementation within the timeframe. Mr. Abbott reiterated the t :·1ree levels of treatment were secondary treatment, partial nitrification and full nitri- fication with secondary beinf the least costly and full nitri- fication being the moat coat y. The three alternatives to fund the enlargement were: 1. Aasume no federal funds wil :. be utilized. 2. Assume federal funds will utilized with receipt of a grant for design following the conclusion and acceptance of the plan and a grant i111Dediately to construct the plant. 3. Assume federal funds will b! utilized but receipt of a grant delayed. Mr. Abbott elaborated on Alternative 13. He stated the the cities were not on the current priority list to receive fede- ral funds to design the plant right away. Mr. Abbott exhibited costs of expansion at mid-point of construction which would be mid-1983 assuming the engineers could go ahead with the design. Construction of plant to add 13 1/2 mgd: For secondary treatment $ 21.1 million For partial nitrificat ~on $ 31.5 million For full nitrification $ 37.J million Engineering, legal, administration coats and interest during construction for total project coats: For secondary treatmen .: $ 32 million Murch 10, 1980 l'uuc 5 For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ 35.9 million $ 42 million The local share, assuming 751 federal grant received, would be: For secondary treatment For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ 8 million $ 8.9 million $ 10.6 million Annual costs for local share with 7~ interest For secondary treatmer.t For partial nitrification For full nitrification Costa for monthly user would be: For secondary treatment For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ $ 755,000 848,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 0.70 month/tap $ 0.75 month/tap $ 1.10 month/tap Mr. Abbott asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, came forward. Mr. Giaeburt asked Mr. Abbott to explain the three different types of treatment. Mr. Abbott stated the discharge was cleanest under the full nitrification treatment because it was a more sophisticated treatment system. Mr. Giseburt asked why it was necessary to go ahead with the plan at this particular time considering the old treat- ment plant has been opened and the present state of the econo- my. Mr. Abbott stated it would take five years to get the expansion on the line. During the five year period, there should be considerable growth in the service area and the old plant should be able to accomodate the growth. The new plant waa built initially on a 50-50 basis with the same amount of capacity. One city was near capacity and the other one was tonaiderably under capacity but the 50-50 split still existed. I March 10, 1980 Page 6 Mr. Giseburt asked if it w£s possible to receive 751 funding from the federal government since full funding ia not available. Also, if the cities decide to fund the project with- out federal funds, would this idea place the cities in a better position to conduct the construction of the plant without the dictates of the federal government. Mr. Abbott stated federal funds were very difficult to get. Should the cities fund the project, the process would be expedited with less inflation experienced. The cities would have more control over what to build as long as the discharge standards were being met. Council Member Staritsky, Littleton, entered the meet- ing at 8:10 p.m. Kent Teal, Manager of the Southgate Sanitation District, appeared before Council. Mr. Teal stated the district facility would pay 311 of what Mr. Abbott denoted as the local share. Mr. Teal stated he repreaented the large1t number of users who will fund the local ahare that have contr1cts with the City of Englewood. Mr. Teal stated Alternative IS waa a )sophisticated method that had not been tried in Colorado nor in the Denver metropolitan area and the borrowing of water rights had not been incorporated in the 201 proposal. Mr. Teal atated Alternative. 11 was the alternative of choice, demand and economy. In responae to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Teal gave the boundariea of the diatrict and stated it covered approximately a 20 aquare mile area. In reaponae to Council Memter Neal's question, Mr. Teal stated Alternative fl waa beat ~ecauae the Platte River had the ability to cleanae itself and even with the potential time delay waa the preference of the Southgate District Board. Mr. Teal stated with the type of landacaping, and number of golf courses and greenbelts, the diacharge would have to be frozen, cut up and stored for the winter period. Council Member Neal asked ~.r. Teal if there was a choice of pursuing grant• through EPA and the federal govern- ment which took additional time veraua independently or pri- vately financing the plant, which would the diatrict prefer. Council Member Neal alao aaked Mr. Teal if the aanitation dis- trict would p&y the additional tap fee• ao the cities could privately fund the plant. Mr. Teal atated the Southgate Diatrict and South Arap- pahoe District had requeated an ... ndment to the 208 plan. The Murch 10, 1980 Page 7 districts would like to develop their own treatment facility between the area of Clarkaon -Orchard and Broadway. Mr. Teal atated the district would be willing to pay I the additional tap fee to help finance the cities independently fund the plant expanaion. Mr. Abbott atated the City of Aurora had a plan into effect that used waatavater treatment effluent on golf courses as did the Air Force Academy. Mr. Abbott agreed there were some water rights implication• to be worked out. The pursuit of Al- ternative 15 would enhance the citie1' poaition for a grant and if it did not go through, the engineers did not think it would delay the citie• reverting to Alternative 11 because they were ao similar. Preaident Jamee Collins asked Mr. Abbott how the fund- ing would be determined. Mr. Abbott atated if the cities selected the option to utilize federal grants, it would place the funding at a level where the tap feea were now. The capital construction costs would all come from tap feea and the federal grant. If there was no federal grant, capital construction costs would come from pre- viously collected tap fees. Preaident Colline spoke on the time involved to go through an EPA grant request, the inflation costs incurred due delays and tighter EPA refulations. Mr. Collins queried whether or not EPA ahould be fund ng the project. He pointed out that the grant deciaion would not be known for a few years. Mr. Collins asked the Councils to conaider the c~~bersome process. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Abbott for com- parative figure• aa to what the coats would be with 75t federal funding and without any federal funds. Mr. Abbott reaponded that with secondary treatment, construction coat• would be $27.7 million with the federal grant; $22.5 million without federal funding. Mr. Abbott stated the $5 million difference would be due to delays in the program. Council Member Neal aaked what kind of rate structure would be required to fund the project. Mr. Abbott atated the eatin.ated tap fee would be $300 if federal fund• were uaed and $1,000 per tap without federal funds. He stated the amount• related to new construction only; but there would alao have to be an increase over what was charged now for maintenance of the exiating plant and that would be an additional $400. I March 10, 1980 Page 8 Council Member Fitzpatrick stated a more realistic increaae would be to charge $2,600 or $2,700 for a tap fee. Mr. Abbott stated there wo~ld be an incremental in- crease of $600 -$700 over the existing tap fee of $800 for the entire service area. Preaident Colline aaked Mr. Teal how the district viewed the increaae in tap fees. Mr. Teal stated the diatri't would cooperate in pay- ing the increaae in tap feea. Mr. Abbott atated approximately 38,000 taps would be aerved by the additional capacity. City Manager McCown stated the current tap fee was $800 and baaed upon analysis of long-term funding of the sewer fund, that ahould be aufficient funda to pay for the expansion plant baaed upon EPA funding and the reactivation of the old plant. Mr. Mccown stated if EPA funding were used and 12 1/2~ were funded by each Enflewood and Littleton, then of the $27.7 million the cities wou d be reaponsil·le for $3. 7 million of the plant. If the cities had to fund tht whole project,. of the $22.5 million the cities would be responsible for '11 million each which was a conaiderable amount over '3 million. If the cities can only fund $3.7 million with a $800 tap fee, he did not think the fee could be doubled to fund $11 million. Mr. Mccown stated the fee should probably be increased four times. Mr. Teal stated based upon his calculations, a 20 mgd plant could be built with $1,200 per tap fee. Since there was an existing plant, a 20 mgd expansion could be completed at $1,000 per tap fee. City Manager McCown asked if Mr. Teal's calculations included paying off the bonds. Mr. Teal answered he waa not certain. President Collins asked Mr. Abbott if HDR agreed with the projected population figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated an in-de1 ·th population study had not been made; therefore, he had no data .to contradict the figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott atated he thought the figures were con- aervatively low and hiatory ha• shown the area has grown faster than what was planned. Mr. Teal atated DRCOG had ··.asued a report on the ex- panaion of growth in Douglaa County. DRCOG indicated in the March 10, 1980 Pago 9 report, for Southgate area alone, tQe population to be the same in 1985 a• it wa• at the preaent ti••· City Manager Chriaty atated his staff had studied I DRCOG'a population prediction and concluded it to be on the low aide. Hawver, hi• ataff anticipated water usage per capita to decline which may prove the predicted numbers to be correct. Mr. Christy added the Highland• Ranch has filed site application for a new sewage plant to be built in Douglas County. The plana called for the land application concept. If Mission Viejo received approval, the Bi-City plant would not have to treat the aevage from the ranch. Council Member Keena atated Douglaa County returned the report on the population f igurea to DICOG and asked DRCOG to re-examine the prediction. Council Member Fitzpatrick aaked aince funds would be needed im1ediately to put out bonda and interest rate paid; and how aoon would the citiea be able realize the refund to pay off the bond• to uae up 38,000 tapa. Mr. Abbott atated the 38,000 taps would be used up in 16 years beginning in 1985. The plant waa planned for a staging period from 1985 to 2001. In 1996, plane would start again for another expanaion. Council Member Bradshaw aakad Mr. Abbott to define the current atatua of the stream classification. Mr. Abbott stated the Water Quality Control Co11111ission has set up several hearings. The hearing for the South Platte River has been scheduled for July. The Coamission would probably not take a formal position until either the end of 1980 or spring of 1981. March 10, 1980 Page 10 John Oaborn, Board Member of the Ken Caryl Ranch Water Sanitation Diatrict, appeared before Council. Mr. Osborn asked what waa the atatua of activating the old treatment plant. Mr. Abbott atated HDR and the City of Englewood have applied for a diacharge permit with the State Health Depart- ment. In the interim, plans and specifications were being worked up to bid the project. The target date to start operation was Auguat, 1981. Mr. Oaborn aupported Mr. Teal's coDDents to further investigate local funding. Mr. Osborn stated the estimated use of 38,000 tape waa conaarvative. Thf timing of getting the pro- ject completed waa important and the delays in waiting for EPA funding ware aignificant. Mr. Oaborn atated EPA has already begun to place rigid reatrictiona on local jurisdictions. Mr. Osborn auggeated obtaining formal written coDDenta from parti- cipating water sanitation diatricts regarding acceptance of local fUnding and the coata that loc•l funding brought with it. Mr. Oaborn atated there waa a growin& feeling amongst builders to pay a larger tap fee if the plant ·could be built by a certain data and not have to undergo dalaya frOll the federal government. Council Member Keena aakod Mr. Abbott how the increase of mgd waa aelected. Mr. Abbott stated the incrEaae was decided from ex- amining federal guidelines aa to how the plant could be expanded. If the citiea locally fund the expanaion, then the mgd amount could be either decreased or increased depending on what they wanted to do. Ma. Keena stated if a decision was made to locally fund the project, could a similar analysis be done under the existing contract with HDR. Mr. Abbott atated aome additional study would be needed to determine which funding would be the moat economical. He stated the study could be performed within a month's time. Mr. Abbott waa unable to an1wer whether or not the study could be performed under the existing contract. In response to Council Member Hifday'a question, City Manager Mccown atated Englewood would pay or the coat to re- activate the old treatment plant. Council Member Trijullo aaked the councils to consider expanding the capacity to 40 mgd in anticipation that the growth will extend beyond predictions. March 10, 1980 Page 11 Mr. Abbott atated if the citiea decide to expand the plant without federal funda, the state health department still had control and influence over writins diacharge permits. This may call for a more advanced treatmea .. t acheme which would be more expenaive to do. City Manager Chriaty stated if further study was de- cided upon then he and Mr. Mccown would provide also further analyaia of tap fees. Council Member Emley aaked Mr. Abbott what kind of timeframe would be required in order to decide whether or not to locally fund or federally fund the plant. Mr. Abbott reco11111ended that the decision be made with- in a one month period. Council Member Keena asked that staff call the Douglas County planner to confirm the population predicted for Mission Viejo. Council Member Staritaky spoke on the quality of the effluent and maintaining it at an acceptable standard regardless of coat. Ma. Staritsky stated the cities were responsible for controlling growth in a manner that l ·.eepa the quality of life in Colorado at a balanced level. Mr. Abbott stated whether the treatment was at a sec- ondary level or a higher level, the impact would not effect the overall quality of the river appreciably. Mr. Abbott stated the reason was that nothing was beinr done about controlling other non-point source pollution of the river. City Manager Christy stated nitrification protected only a amall degree of fish life. Hr. Christy asked Mr. Abbott if the water rights issue involved in Alternative IS would be E time-consuming factor. Mr. Williama stated it was his understanding from the state engineer that because the facilities and water were exist- ing that by exchanging with effluent rather than sharing ground waters, there was no water rights problem. Mr. Abbott stated if the a~nctiona that EPA had placed on the front range area are enforced, it would have a significant effect on the program in trying to get a grant. March 1.0, 1980 Pan~ 12 In reaponae to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Abbott atated the citiea would have t~ comply with the stan- dard• aet by the atate regardless whe ·:her federal funds or local fund• were uaed. Council Member Higday asked Mr. Abbott if Alternative 15 waa choaen and the plant waa enlarfed to 40 mgd, could pro- blema with the BOD be reduced by keep ng the discharge into the Platte River down to what it woul~ be if the plant were expanded to 13 mgd by uaing more land application. Mr. Abbott confirmed Mr. Higday'• coDlllents. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott if the state would order either partial nitrification or full nitrification, would it be at that point the individial citizens would incur a substantial increase because the op ·!ration became more ex- pensive. Mr. Abbott confirmed Ma. Keena'• coDlllents. There were no further coDlllents. PRESIDENT COLLINS MOVED TO 1!LOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALSO THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED ALONG WITH HDR TO EXPLORE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE PI.ART EXPANSION BETWEEN THE FIGURES OF 13.5 MGD AND 20 MGD THAT WILL ALSO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF THE RIVER; THAT STAFF ALSO EXPLORE LOCAL FUNDING ALTEBRATIVE IN K>RE DEPTH COM- ING UP WITH THE SPECIFICS OF THE TAP FEES IN DISCUSSING THESE TAP FEES AND COSTS WITH DEVELOPERS IN OUR CONTRACTING DISTRICTS; THAT STAFf RECO ... END ·ro us A SCHKDULE OF EVENTS ·ro OCCUR IN THE FUTURE AND THAT WE LOOK TOWARD MEETING AGAIN SOMETIME BETWEEN THE NEXT MONTH AND A HALF AND THREE )l)RTHS AS A JOINT COUNCIL. Council Member Taylor seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members ·~ruj illo, Emley, Taylor, Staritsky, Harpe~, Collins, Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member P1rsons. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER TRWILLO K>VED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Council Member Higday seconded the mo:ion. March 10, 1980 Page 13 Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 9:15 p.m.