Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-10 (Special) Meeting Agenda-• • • City Council Meeting -Special~ March 10, 1980 0 ) - • • • • • CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 10 , 1980 RESOLUTION I 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ORDINANCE I 4, 5 , 6, 7, 8 • 0 0 • I . - • • • • • • City of Englewood ' ./ / /J V// , I / ·; / .... 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, Colorado I0110 STATE OF COLOllADO COWITY OF AllAl'AHOE ) ) .. ) Phone (303) 761-1140 I, Janice L. Watkins, -the Deputy City Clerk aad recordiug aecretary for tbe City Council for tbe City of Englewood, Colorado, and hereby cert:lfy that tbe attached transcript is a true and accurate account to the beat of my knowledge of the proceediugs of tbe Special City Council Heet- in& held jointly by the Ci.ties of Littleton and Eag1evood on March 10, 1980. Subscribed and sworn to before i:ie thb ;;t...;-a./) day • 1980. ab~/.''~~??VAJ' My co..tasioo. e.Jq>ires ~; /{ t'/f + SW. • • I • - - • • • • • VERMTIM ACC OUNT OF MARCH 10, 1980 , Cll'Y COUNCIL SPECIAL Mt:l::'l'ING Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Otis Will the clerk call the roll, please. (Mayor of the Council) Watkins Councilaan Trujillo. (Deputy City Clerk of Council) Trujillo Here. (Council Heaber) Watkins Parsons. Watkins Taylor. Watkins Staritzky. Watkins Ealey F.aley Here. (Council Heaber) Watkins President Coll:loa. Collins Here. (Council Member) Watkins Harper (Council Member) Watkins Jia Higday (Council Heaber) Watkins John lleal (Council "-!>er) Watkins Tom Fitzpatrick (Council "-!>er) President Pro Tea Karper. Here. Council.llan Kigday. Pres1mt. Neal. Here. Fitzpatrick. Here. • I • • ·In - - • Page 2 Watkins Betty K. leena (Council Mellber) Watkins Joe lilo (Council tt.ber) Watkins Beverly lradahav (Mayor Pro T-) Watkins Otis Watkins Mayor Otis lligday lradahav Otis Watkins Trujillo Watkins Ealey Watkins Collins Watkins Harper Watkins • • • I Keena. Here. Bilo. Bera. Mayor Pro T-Bradshaw. Bara. Mayor Otis. Here. Eleven praaent. three absent. your Honor. I declare there is a quorua. Your Honor. I .. ke a motion to open the public hearing. Second. Pleaae vote. Uh. call the roll. please. CouDcilaaD Trujillo. Aye. Parsona, Taylor. Starit&ky. Ealey • Here. yea. President Collins. Here. yes. President Pro Tea Harper. Yea. Higday I • • - • • !'age J Higday Watkins Neal Watkins Fitzpatrick Watkins Keena Watkins Bilo Watkins Bradshaw Watkins Otis Watkins Otis Collins Otis I • • • Yea. Neal. Yea. Fitzpatrick. Yea. Keena. Yes. Bilo. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw Yea. Mayor Otia. Yea Eleven ayea, DO naya, three absent. Motion carried. Tbe purpose of this hearing is to conaider the 201 Facility Plan for the •expausion of the Bi-City Waat-ter Treatllellt Plant. The treatment plant 1a conatructed and ~ by both the City of Littleton and Engl.-ct, and thua we are holding a joint public hearing on thia -tter. The engineering fira of Henningson, Durham, and licbardaon, Inc. is represented by Mr. Jia Abbott, vbo will aake a pre- sentation on the 201 Facility Plan. Upon the comple- tion of the presentation we will open the hearings up for c~ts and questions froa the audience, and from Council of both c~ities. Uh, who is tbia gentl-n? Taylor. Would the records show that, uh, Councilman Taylor has, froa Littleton, is now present. Kr. Abbott, uh, ve'll be ready for your presentation now • • I • • - Pa g e 4 Abbott • • • • • • ' Thank you, Mayor Otis. I'd like to, like to also introduce with me this evening Rob Williams, who is with the firm of Culp, Wes- ner, Culp who has also worked with us on the preparation of this plan. I've, I've got some presentation boards here, I'• hopeful that they're situated so everybody can see. AB indicated earlier, we'd like to 1l8ke a brief presentation on the background of the law governing the preparation of these plans. Details on the plans the118elves and then Rob and I will be available for discus- sion at your convenience. Initially I'd like to give you just a little bit of background on the 201 Facilities planning process. The, uh, federal government law PL92 500 which was passed in 1972 set down the basic paraaetera for doing wastewater management plan- ning and coutruction, and along with that progr--nt a 75% federal participation in funding auch studies and projects, and therefore, the planning to date baa been along with 75% federal participation. I-initially in an area like the metro Denver area, there baa to be what ia called a 208 plan which is a general area- wide ... ter plan relating to -•tewater -nagement. That plan waa prepared by the Denver llegional Council of Governments, and in, in July of 1977 it waa completed and is called the Clean Water Plan. Aa a part of those areawide ... ter plau, which incorporate the entire Denver Metropolita~ area, they identify certain waste- -ter .. nagement areas wherein they broke the total metropolitan area down into ... 11er areas and designated management agencies. Littleton/Englewood -• designated aa the management agency for generally the south -southern portion of the metropolitan area, and that .. nageaent area ia outlined by this heavy black line, and to give you acme idea where of of we are, uh, thia ia Inter- state 25, which generally runs north and south, this is the Chat- field Lake area, City of Littleton right in here, the City of Engle- wood, of course the a>untaiu along thia aide. Now that ia the designated service area for Littleton/Englewood. The area that's outlined in blue and ia designated by thia blue circle ia the City of Littleton service area and that's governed by the city liaits and all the sanitation diatricta that the city baa service con- tracts with. The yellow area ia the City of Englewood service area, and again they have aoma service contracts for certain aani- tation diatricta. The existing wastewater treatment plant is located ri&ht here on the Platte River generally at the northern end of the, of this drainage basin. A couple of other quick cOlmenta, uh, area 4 here ia what's called the Bear Creek Drainage Basin. That area ia generally served by the Denver Metropolitan Wastewater Sewage Disposal District. It'a only ahovn here because, uh, from an engineering standpoint, that district, that area could be served by the wastewater plant. It is cun:entl,y is not served by it, and I don't think it'a anticipated that it will be, but it is technically feasible. Area 5 is juat the Chatfield Lake area. Area 3 being the southern portions of Denver where we currently do not serve. So thats the, the service area that we'll be talking about tonight, and thia same background .. p will be used throughout on several of our other boards. Now during the • I • - • • Page 5 Abbott (cont'd) • • • preparation of this plan which addressee three general topics. One, it addressee expansion of the existing joint use plant. Secondly, it addressee, uh, 8JllDOnia and chlorine removal in the effluent. And those are the three major topics that were studied during preparation of the 201 Plan. A couple of other general comments, and then I'll get into some details of the plan itself. Uh, one thing that,eh, that has to be known in the preparation of these plane is what discharge standards the plant baa to -et, and theae are set by the City. In this case, we diacharge to the South Platte River and currently the, the atreaa claaaification for the South Platte is up in the air, or it ian't firal.y eatabliahed. And, therefore, we don't know what discharae atandard• the plant will have to meet in future yeara, becauae the atate i• going through a process of reclassify- ing atrem1a and once a atreaa is classified, then they aet the diacharge atandarda that the plants have to meet. So from that standpoint then we bad to atudy several different alternatives. Hopefully, so that we would be able to be covered no aatter what the, uh, effluent liaite are established by the state, because our plan is going to be done before the state sets these dis- charge standards. The, uh, very briefly then, what we've done is we've done our planning for secondary treatment, which is what the plant currently is providing. We've done some planning in regard to partial nitrification, and full nitrification, and these are different levels of a more advanced trea~nt than secondary. By nitrification I aean the reaoval of 1U1110nia from the effluent to the South Platte River. So wf!ve done our planning for three different levels. One of the very first things that, that we have to get into in the planning is to establish the population in the service area. And, therefore, some fairly definitive population eHtimatee projections have to be made for the service area. Now when you're doing these 201 Plane, uh, financed by the federal gover1111ent, you have to utilize the population that is established by the regional planning authority, and in this case is the Regional Council of Governaent. So they have made population projections and they update those on an annual basis. Thia curve then represents the projected population for the Littleton/Englewood aervice area. Currently in 1980 the plant is providing wastewater treataent to a population of approxi- mately 175,000 people. We project by the year 2000 that the pop- ulation will range anywhere from 300 to 325,000 people. Uh, the planning period that we have looked at in this project is from 1980 through the year 2001, or, uh, that's a period of 21 years and, and that assumes that if we had a new plant dooe and on the line by 1985 it would be a 16 year ataging period, and that is in line with the federal EPA guideline•. Once you eatabliah the population then, you have to translate that to actual -•te- water flows. And we do that through historical "-led&• of how much sewage is contributed by each perBOD, by each bua1-aa, each comaercial cetablialment. The population .uh, the vaat-ter flow then is represented by thi• yellow line, llDd that relatea back to the population curve, •borin& that in, ub, 1979 -were treating in the neighborhood of 17 to 19 aillion aalloaa per • I • - • • • Page 6 Abbott (cont'd) • • • day, project that on out to the year 2001 and it will be just over 32 million gallons per day of wastewater to be treated. Below the yellow line then we have broken it down into the contribution by the City of Englewood service area and the City of Littleton service area. And these two flows added together, then, equal this flow. So we're talking, we currently have a plant that treats 20 million gallons per day of flow, and we're proposing in the expan- sion that the plant be enlarged from 20 to 33 1/2 11gd or an enlarging of approxiJlately 67% or 13 1/2 million gallons per day. Once we established the flow, the wastewater flows then for the service area we bad to consider different alternative waatewater 111UU1geaent plans for the base. Now we considered quite a llWlber of these, visited with the two city staffs and then narrowed them down to a more reasonable number to study in detail and coat out, try to come up with a recoimended plan. There's five of them that we studied in detail, and I'd like to quickly go through those with you, just to, to discuss what was studied and then discuss in a little more detail the recoaaended pl4n. The first alternative that was studied in detail was nothing more than expanding the existing joint use plant which is located here at the northern end of the service area. Uh, it would be to expand that plant from a .flow of 20 million gallons per day to 33 1/2 and ·then diachar.ge of the effl~ent to the South Platte River. The plant would have to be expanded to a capability comparable to the stream standards that were established by the state. So, that was alternative one that was studied in detail. Alternative two was a land application, uh, concept wherein the existing wastewater plant, which is located here again, would be to utilize the existing 20 million gallons per day capacity and any excess over that 20 would be pUllped up to SOiie site where it would be applied to the land. And, this would be an alternative use of the wastewater. What we would have to do depending on the level of treataent required by the State,but anything over 20 would be pumped out here and the discharge of 20 from the old plant would · •also be pumped out here. We would have to use the system of lagoons to provide preliminary treatment to that waste that didn't go through this plant, and then it would be a1>plied to 'the land through an irrigation scheme. Now, I don't, uh, nobody should feel that this is the elUlct site that we considered. We just located it here to &ive you ao11e idea of the ..aunt of land that would be required. And it would be in the nei&hborhood of 5,000 acres would be necessary to utilize the land applica- tion aspect of the wastewater true-it plant. And then there of course would be the pump stations and force .. in to· aet the wastewater out here. So that vaa one of the alterna- tives considered • • I • - • • • Abbo tt (cond' t) • • • ; Th e third alternative t ha t was c onsidered is called spreading basins. Again its a fora of land application wherein we utilize a concept of rapid tribulation in filtration through sand pits and its, the water is treated and uh, remove pollutants in that -nner. In this aspect -again would have to, we would enlarge the existing plant to 33 l/2 •11gd, and then we would take as much effluent aa we could, pump it back down along the river, and apply it to these, these little yellow basins represent spreading baains. \Wherein the wastewater would be applied to these, would flow down through the sand re110Ving the pollutants,then the discharge would be collected and be discharged back to the river, let it, rather than let it go on down into the water table. So that, that was, uh, alternative three that was studied in detail. The fourth alternative that we studied was again a land applica- tion scheme wherein we would utilize the Highline Canal to do, uh, get the water, convey it out to irrigation sites. And in this aspect, again the joint uae plant would have to be expanded, and then a pumping station built that would pump the effluent out to the Highline Canal, aod then, by conveying it down the Highline Canal we could distribute it to irrigators. Now, this alternative would require that during the winter 110ntha we would either have to build a storage reservoir because there wouldn't be any demand for irrigation needs or we'd have to have a dual streaa classifi- cation so that in the winter months -could have a leaser degree of treatment and discharge the water to the South Platte. While during the •~r W>ntha when a stricter discharge was .. i;equired, J we could put it out into the Highline Canal, aod put it on the land through an irrigation scheme which would provide a 910re advanced level of treat-nt. So that waa the fourth alternative study. And finally, the fifth alternative we studied waa very similar to the first scheme wherein the existing joint uae plant would be expanded to a capacity of 33 1/2 11gd, and than, there would be an att .. pt .. de to locate potential sites in the general area wherein we'd utilize urban irrigation aod industrial reus.e. And under this scheme as much water aa we could locate takers for, we could pump out and apply it to irrigate parks, golf courses, uh, public greenbelt areas and then locate any poten, potential indus- trial users. In this case, uh, the 110at obvious one would be the Public Service Coapany'a power plant. Now, if, if this, and and I'm, let ae say at this point, that this ia the rec01111e11ded plan. This is what we've determined to be the 110at coat effective, and the 1BOst reasonable to :liapll!llellt, and assist you in the grant process. Its our hope that we could pursue this, locate some potential users, and if, and then, though if we, depending on how much site we could locate to utilize the effluent, the rest of it would be treated at the plant and discharged to ~he river. So, it, we would be atte81pting to accomplish a land application aspect yet it should not dia, delay upanaion of the plant. So those are the five alternatives that were selected. Nuaber five is the one that we are rec:-.inding in the plan to be implemented, and we are propoaina that the two cities adopt that plan, and it be aubaitted to the state, and the Environmental Protection Agency for their approval. I'd like to visit just briefly with you on the coat, aod than I'd like to anaver any question • I • - • • • Page 8 Abbott (cont'd) • • • r you -y have. In the plAnning procua its required that you do a present worth analysis of the alternatives, excuse ae, this ia how they, on the economic considerations, this ia bow they base it, baaed on the present worth analysis. We graphed here on the vertical scale the present worth of the project& in aillion of dollars and across the bottOlll the five alternatives that I've just discussed with you. Alternative ooe which -• enlarg-t of the existing plant and discharge ia represented here. Present worth of that alternative ia about 62 aillion dollars. Alternative two was the irri&ation project wherein the effluent was pumped out to -· uh, outlying site for irrigation purposes, baa a present worth of about 125 aillion dollars. That's so high because of the land coat, and power costs to get the wastewater out to the site. Gale Christy Jill, that tbat's with capital and operating costs? (City Mgr. Littleton) Abbott Yea. Alternative three is the spreading basin alternative wherein, the, the infiltration tribulation aspect vaa used along the South Platte 11.iver. The present worth analysis of that is about 65 aillion dollars. Alternative four which vaa agriculturaLreuae utilizing the Bighline Canal, present worth of about 92 1/2 million dollara. And finally alter- native five which is the urban irrigation industrial reuse concept,whicb is very similar to alternative one,haa a present worth of about ninety, uh, 63 million dollars, very close to alternative one. So that they do, uh, in the regulations, uh, require us to go through a present worth analysis. Nov, econo- aica are not the only thing that is, uh, followed in trying to recomaend a plan, and, uh, certainly ia one of the -jor ones, but there are other considerations, uh, political jurisdictions, iaplementation, whether or not it can r-lly be iapl-ted within the time frame needed. And finally we tried to •~ize acme of the coats for you to give you acme idea of the range of dollars we're talking about. Nov, ""•• try to recall that I discussed with you that we bad studies three different concepts; secondary trea~t, partial nitrification, and full nitrifica- tion. The change being that as we go successively across the board, your re, your uh, you have a higher degree of treatment which is more costly to build and ia 11e>re costly to operate. So, going this way, its higher and higher coats. Nov, we also studied three different alternatives to fund this enlargement . The first one would be assuaing that no federal funds are going to be utilized. I think this is a very real, uh, potential aspect, because, uh, in view of the recmt federal govermaent conversations about balancing the budget, I think that we could see •-reduced 11e>niu available for this progr-. Secondly, there ia 11e>re people after the money in the state of Colorado than there are funds, ao there is a priority liat utablisbed by the State Health Departllent that dolu out these dollars on a need basis, and there is , uh, quite, uh, elaborate criteria they go through to establish thue priority points • • • I • - • • l:'a 9 Abbott (cont'd} • • • ' Secondly, we studied the aspect of utilizing federal funds and we have assumed that we get a federal grant for design right at the conclusion and acceptance of this plan. In other words, ve 90Ve in a very orderly fashion to complete the plan, to get ·a grant right away to design it, and get a grant right away to construct it. And, that's what these figures represent. Nov the third alternative we looked at was the use of a federal 1rant, but a more, uh, not as opti- mistic a schedule as this one, because we know that we currently are not on a priority list to get federal funds to design it right away, and ve know there'll be some delay there unless we're able to change that priority system. And that's an even more costly solution because of inflation. Nov, these nuabera represent what we think it will cost to build the expansion at the aid-point of construction, and you're looking at about fou:r years frc:a the time .you begin"the design until the plants on the line, so we're looking at about aid 1983 with these numbers assUlling that we move right into a design. So, quickly going through these for you. Construction of the plant itself for secondary treat- ment we've estimated it will coat 27.7 million dollars to add 13 1/2 aillion gallons per day treatment for the plant for secondary treatment. If we go to partial nitrification, a little more advanced treatment alternative, we're looking at 31 1/2 million dollars. And for full nitrification, we've estimated 37.3 million dollars. Point out that all these numbers are in millions. Uh, you add engineering costs, legal coats, administration and interest during construction and you come up with total project coats of 31 point, uh, 32 million dollars, 35.9 and 42 1/2 million dollars. So, you can see we're talking about a lot of bucks to, uh, enlarge those wastewater plants to comply with city standards. Nov, I, we've tried to, I don't have a board here on this, but we'll quickly, the local share here then, asallllling that we get 75% grant, would be 8 million dollars under secondary treatment, 8.9 million dollars under partial nitrification, and 10.6 million under full nitrification, and those costs, of course then, would be further split by the fact that there's two cities involved in the proiect. Annual costs per local then. Uh, these are based on about 7% interest, we've also done for 8 1/4%, raises 'em about 10%, so we're looking then at an annual cost of 755 thousand dollars in this case, 848 thousand and about a million dollars under the full nitrification aspect. Then, these numbers would in, would re-, relate to this construction. Nov we've also prepared some, some, uh, custa per tap on per month basis • We estimate that to construct a plant would, with the use of federal funds, existing tap fee structures would be sufficient to meet that obligation. The monthly user charges would, would go up some degree when the plant vent on the line and under this, uh, alternative we eatillate that the, • I • - • • • Page 1 0 Abbott (.cont'd) Oliver Giaeburt Otia Watkins Otis Giseburt Abbott Giseburt Abbott Giaeburt • • • the uh, 110nthly uaer car, charge will go up about seventy cents per llOnth per tap, an average of that throughout the sixteen year life of the plant. If we utilize thia alter- native the llOllthly uaer charge would go up an av, an average of about seventy five cents, and finally under this alter- native it would go up about a dollar ten cents per 110nth and that would incorporate the, uh, op and m process at the plant. Uh, at this point, uh, it concludes our formal presentation, and I'd like to anawer any questions, c~enta, that we might have. Yea air. Uh, number one, Uh Uh.should he come up? Yea. Uh, would you, would you come up and give your name and address please? You ltnov better than t hat. Oliver Giaeburt, 3171 South High, Englewood. Uh, first of all, uh a lot of ua are unfamiliar with uh a lot of things that are going on. I understand that there's been hearings and everything. Uh, what is partial nitrification, full nitrification, and a secondary treataent plant? What is the difference besides the 110niea, uh, expended to, uh, make these ayateas work. Well, very briefly, and I'll expand on it if you'd like, but very briefly, the eff, the discharge froa the plant is cleaner under full nitrification than it ia under secondary treatment. We, we're re110ving 110re pollutants than ve are under secondary And hov is this acc011plished? Ita accomplished by a more aophiaticated treataent system, and that last 10% of pollutants is much harder to re110Ve than the initial 90%. The second question, uh, vhy is the necessity to, uh, go ahead with this, this plan at this particular tiae, uh, after ve have already vent ahead and opened up the old Englewood plant, which wi ll take care of five, five aillion gallons, isn't that right, and uh, right at the present tiae, with the inflation the vay it is , the interest rates the vay it is, uh, vhy do you feel that its necessary that ve continue with this new plant in addition to, uh, putting the old plant into operation? • I • - Pag e 11 Abbott Giaeburt Abbott Giseburt Abbott Giaeburt • Abbott • Giseburt • • • • Fo r several reasons, I feel that, that it's going to take about five years lead tiiae in order to get this expandion on the line. During that five year period there's going to be considerable additional growth in the service area so that at the conclusion of five years the fact that we opened the old Englewood plant, that will get us through that time period, but at the end of that five years that'll probably be at capacity too. And, it takes this amount of tiae because of the regulations involved with the grant process. O.K. One other reason that I think is pertinent, and that is when you initially built the plant you built it on a f if ty-f if ty basis, and in,along with that went 10 aillion gallons of capacity to one city, ten to the other. We're at the point now where one city is right at their capacity, the other one is considerably under, but if there's still that provision that its a fifty- fifty split. Alright, uh, what, what about the possibility of, uh, the, uh, government funding this 75% as they did with the first plan. From ay understanding, the funding isn't, uh, available right away, and uh, it aay be years before it 'a available. Ia that correct? I think that is a true statement, that it ian'~ available right now, and I have no way of knowing how long it might be before ·it is available. Uh, now, now we're talking about, uh, financing it through the cities themselves rather than using the 75% froa the United States govermaent. Uh, does that put ua in a better position to, uh, not have to, uh, uh, listen to the dictates of the United States governaent as far as the construction of the plant goes. Yes sir, it does, it speeds the process up considerably so that you experience less inflation and inflation on 25 aillion dollars is considerable in a couple of years period. So, it speeds the process up considerably, and you have aore to say about what you build as long as you aeet the discharge standards, uh, set by the state. That's pretty much the, the regulations you have to meet • O.K., and, uh, there's one other question. I won't talr.e any more of your tiae. Uh, I would like to know bow you -re chosen to, to engineer this particular project, since you engineered the first project, and we had so mueh ·trouble with it • • I • - Page 1 2 Abbott Oliver Abbott Olive r Otis Kent Teal Otis Teal • • • • • • Well, our firm along with several others, and I don't know how many others, but numerous fiI'lllB were invited to solicit their credentials, and the two cities went through a joint review process, there were interviews, and our fira was s elected baaed on this competitive review to,to do the expansion. What guarantee does this city and the city of Littleton going to have that we don't face these problems once again if we do get in the conatruction? Well, I think the guarantee you have is that the integrity of our f ira and the fact that your working probl ... experienced earlier, we've stuck by them and they're straightened out now, and the plant's perforaing to standards, and, uh, we've, uh, hopefully got a better organization to approach it this t:l.ae based on the exper ience we had the last t:Lae . Thank you. Thank you Oliver. Uh, clerk, would you let the records show that Counci1-n Staritaky is present now. Any other questions or COlaents froa Mr. Abbott. Yea, your Honor. Would you please come to the podiua? Hr. Mayor, members of the joint council, ay naae is Teal, Kent Teal, I -manager of the Southgate Sanita- tion District, a facility that will pay 31% of what Hr. Abbott has denominated as local's share. The City of Englewood will pay leas than 30% of that local share. I would like to ask Mr. Abbott, well let ae preface my question. I have had experience as a consulting engineer and I can deal with the thought that the client prepares the answer and asks the engineer to write the question . Having read the 201 proposal prepared by H.D.R., I can understand that perhaps the City's had an answer and needed a question, but it seems to me that H.D.R. was unable to prepare the question. Alternative five, as recommended by H.D.R.,ia a sophisticated aethod,an exotic method, one that not, has not been tried in Colorado. One that has certainly not been tried in the Denver metropolitan area, save the extent that's being done by the cities to the north on their borrowing of water, water rights if you will, from agricultural area. But that has not yet been • I • - • • Page 13 Teal (cont'd) Otis lligday Otis Higday Teal lllgday Teal . Higday Teal • • • iapl-nted, and that borrovin& of rights is not been incorporated in the 201 proposal as prepared by Mr. Abbott and hia fira. It se-to ae that alternative one ia the alternative of choice, of demand, and of economy. They say I represent the largest nwaber of users who will fund the local share that have contracts with the City of Englewood. As a -tter of fact, this ia the second largest number of uaera that have contract• that will fund local share with either city. South-st Metro, which baa a contract with Mr. Christy and the City of Littleton, will fund a slightly larger share. I really don't understand the concern with the spreading baaina, the golf courses, the parka, the greenbelts. I'• out there and I aee those areas all day, all winter long. We would have had to freeze it and stack it these past four to five aontha. It would not have worked. I plead with you, direct your engineering consultant, your public works depart11ent proceed with the alternative of choice of present deaand and of econOll)', alternative one. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. ·real. Your honor, may I? Yea. Mr. Teal, will you define Southgate boundaries. Generally, I can, air. They run froa Berry on the north Holly on the vest aa far south aa Orchard. We then go veat aa far aa University, along Orchard we revert back to Holly at about Caley, south to Arapahoe load, and we continue south alona Holly to two and a half miles into Douglas County. We then go eaat back to I 2S, and run north to Berry, which ia the half mile point south of Belleview. How much of that area is in Greenwood Village? Oh, the area that ia in Greeavood Village, Mr. Tousignaut is here and he can colloborate ay, uh, mileage, or square mileage or taps, if you will. Just a ballpark figure, I don't care, that ia, half of it? Oh, no, surely not, uh, the area froa Berry to Orchard, I 2S to Holly, which ia, what ia that roughly, uh, Jia, you've looked at -P•• that'• about 2 1/2 square ailea, isn't it • • I • - Page 14 Ab bo tt Teal Neal Teal Neal Teal Neal • Teal • • • • I think rouahly, yea. Yeh, 2 1/2 square ailea out of 20 square miles. Slightly over 10%. Uh, Mr. Teal, ina-ch as, uh, I believe, alternative five, and Mr. Abbott, you probably want to address this, alter- native five in ay understanding gives us·· a higher priority ratia& than alternative one. Uh, given, a, a choice bet-en bavia& the plant operational six aontha to a year earlier llllder alternative five than under alternative one, which -1.d you choose, uh, in that instance. Aa I -tioned earlier in ay raaru, Mr. Couac:il .. n, I ba9e Md a -'>er of years experience u a ~ltiaa -.•-.-1D th• design and rate aapec:t of utiliti•, _. vlda that •ix to twelve month delay, 1D all "-aty, I -t •till NY to you, that the f•liaa of tM Soutbaate --··••tratlon and the board for wb• it works, i• that altanaative one with the present kDOWD ability of tba South Platte liver to cleanae itself, --vltla tba poten- tial time delay, ia the preferential alteraati-. lecauae -laave looked at the landscape, -... tM ..-.r of 10U cour.... We •-the nuaber of ar-"lt•, and -._ that -•re 101.aa to have to cut it up with ice aava and •tacit it for three to four aontha. Aleo, I -id, I would like to ult you adclit1-lly, if, uh, if there -r• an alternative, uh, uh, ia purauia&, uh, alterna- tive in purauia& aranu throuah, uh, 1.P.A. and the federal gov•r-t. If that would take additional ti.a veraea, uh, independently, or privately financing it through the city's own funds, or s-er treatment funds, uh, which would you prefer in that instance if there were ':tvo, three · Let me answer you rather ambiguously, sir. Let, let me ana, ans, follow up on this. Would you, would the Southgate Sanitation District be willing to pay the additional tap fees to fund this. Yes sir. We have requ£sted of the Arapahoe County COlllllis- sioners ~hat an -ndaent of the 208 Plan be reques, be Ulade on behalf of Southgate and South Arapahoe Sanitation District, our sister district, who is not nearly so large as us but with vbca we work very closely, with the thought in aind that the two districts develop their own treataent facility within the area of Clarkaon and Orchard, between that point and Broadway. We have requested that the 208 plan be aodified. Ia that .-what of an answer to your question • • I • - Pa ge 15 Neal Teal Otia Abbott Teal • Abbott Teal Otis • Collins • • • • No, uh, more directly, II)' question waa, would you be willing within the context of current plan to pay the additional tap fees nec .. aary to private financing, you would then. -Tbanka, thank you. Yea, air. I believe Mr. Abbott, uh, vented to respond. I'd like to just -ke a couple of c-t•, uh, in response to your comment that there ia no proven system wherein we are using thia. I beliave that the City of Aurora does have the plan in effect wherein they're using, uh, waste- water treat11ent plant effluent on a golf course in the city. I believe the Air Poree Academy also baa a plant, ao it ian't totally without precedent. I will adait that there are a lot of water right• iaplicationa to be worked out, but I think it can be done. Secondly, uh, we feel that the pursuit of alternative five would enhance the cities' position for a grant, and if it doesn't pan out ve don't feel that it'• going to delay us falling back to alternative one, becauae they're ao aiailar, and ao we're proceeding with alternative five in an effort to enhance the grant position and get thia all to happen sooner, and if -point through there ita deterained that no one van ta the water or it ian' t going to help our grant position -can fall back to alternative one and we will not have loat any tiae at all. So, we're not going into this with our eyea closed. We, we've looked at that aspect of thing• and diacuaaed it 11&ny t:laea. I appreciate that, Jia, that's precisely what I wanted you to say to this aaaellbled group, but indeed and in fact, alternative five was being pursued on the esoteric level, and that you were including alternative one as the final hard nut level that ve would go to. We're lookin' at both of th-and they go band in hand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Teal. Any, anyone elae for co1111ents or questions? Anyone froa the Council? Anything? Yeh, We can't let this die this quickly, can ve? Get all theae people together you need to -ke it last at least a little longer • • I • - ( Pag e 16 Collins Abbott Collins Abbott Collins Abbott Collins • • • • .. • J ... a, can you tell ua bow you, what kind of figures you ~ up with, uh, u far as funding goes. What ever alternative -go with, the funding is going to come froa the uaera. Can you tell us how that, in your opinion, hov that, thoae rate• should shake out? Doe• it come all from nev growth? Doea it come 90% froa nev growth, or whether you're talking about the 25% funding or the 100% funding. Hov are you going to receive the 111>nies to pay for this plant? Well, Mayor Colline, 1•11 not aure I can tell you exactly what percentage would coae froa either one, but it, and I might ask Rob to comment OD thia, but generally I would say that if -select the option to utilize federal · · · grants, -would, -would be at a level which is approximately the tap feea that we have right now. I don't want to know the figurea just yet. Hy, ay question is what theory are you using? la it all goin' coae froa tap feeaf Presume that it's 10 ailliOD dollars, or pres\1118 that it 40 ailliOD dollara. Well, the, the capital construction costs would 1111 :c:ome from tap fees, and the federal grant. If there waa no federal grant it would all coae froa previously collected tap fees and tap feea OD new future cODatructiOD that would be served. So, so, however, whatever figure we coae up with, ten or forty aillion dollars that we have to fund, it comes fr0111 tap fees. Yes, sir. If there, uh, as we move along in our consideration, I would urge the Councils to consider a philosophical question. The whole grant prograa, the E.P.A. grant program, which as you know is, is, uh, bedraggled with all kinds of, uh, strings, and conditions, additional costs due to delays, additional costs due to E.P.A. regulations, and is designed to help those plants that are now serving a certain area and are polluting the streams, was never a grant program which was never designed to, to build plants 75% fund plants for new growth, which is what this plant is for, purely and siaply new growth. You know, I, I uk you to at least give aoae I • • ·In - • • • Pa ge 17 Collins (con't) Fitzpatrick Abbott Fitzpatrick Otis Abbott Fitzpatrick Neal ( • • • thought to the philosophical question of whether E.P.A. ought to be fuuding this. And whether it's worth the haasel. We could, uh, fool around with this for several years and then end up with no E.P.A. funding. Uh, if we do end up with the E.P.A. funding at that time, our costs have gone up 20% per year. Uh, we are then burdened with tighter replations vbich E.P.A. people have indicated to -will cause a 2SZ increase in coats just because of the regulationa the .contractors have to meet. And we're playing games with, uh, re-uae and, uh, and uh, irrigation really just to fit into the !.P.A. priority, l,lh, system and that'• an increased coat. Uh, can I, I just ask you to keep those thing• in in aind, uh, I guess you can somewhat notice that I, I've -.de up 9J own aind on that but uh, the uh, I think the process -y have uh becoae so cumbersome, uh, that its not worth getting into an7110re. I have a couple of other questiona that I'd like to come back to. Uh, I'd like to addr-• this to Mr. Abbott. Maybe be could, for those who are here for the hearing, give some figures in c011pariaon aa to what the coat would be with 7S:Z funding and without it, aa to what the difference in figures would be for the expansion of the pl.ant. Well, if, if we talk about secondary treatment only, and under this alternative we eatiaated the construction would cost 27.7 aillion dollars utilizing the federal grant that we got right a-y. -feel that if we -t without federal funding, we'd be looking at 22.7 aillion dollars. We think it'd be S aillion dollars leas. That'• priaarily a~tributed to delays in the progr&111, for reviews, for this, for that, and acme other re, requireaents that are incorporated, but there'd be a five aillion dollar difference in this construc- tion right there. So what you're saying is five aillion dollars for paper work. And delays. Well, not totally, but a good percent, yea. Thank you. Hr. Abbott, how.docs that translate into our present tap fee structure, in teras of, what kind of a rate would we need to be charging now if we -re going to fund that entirely ourselves • • I - - ( Page 1 8 Abbott Neal Abbott Neal Abbott Fitzpatrick ·Abbott Christy .Al>bott Christy • Fitzpatrick Collins • • • • Well, if you're talking about tap fees for capital construction we've estimated that if you decide to build a secondary treatment pl.ant without the benefit of federal funds it would be on the order of, uh, three ti.ea the tap fee. We've reco, estillated $300 to use federal funds, about $1000 per tap without federal funds. That would be on n-cont1truction, that doesn't relate to existing atructurea, only the n-construction. But llob pointed out there would have to be an increase over what we have nov, Wh, what would that be. Be about $400 110re than you're paying right now. In other vorda, if ve had a tap fee of approxillately $1200 veraea a current $800 then you think we could build that plant ouraelv ... Baaed on the population projection if they continued at that pace, yea. Oh, one qu ... uh, given the figur .. you have quoted, Mr. Abbott, to incr-th• tap f-OD our -to cooatruct the plant a $1000, our preaeat rate of tap f ... that ia for reaid-ce ia $800. If -add a tboua&Dd to that that'• $1800. l think tbat 0 iaD't it 110re, 110re realistic that we would have to up tboee tap f-to -•wr• betveen $2400 and $2600. la, or -l vrona in.,. -ry aa the -•ting we had before. We think that there'd be a incr-tal iDc:r-of six to seven hundred dollars over the exiatiD& tap fee of eight hundred. ls that, excuse -. is that spread throughout entire drainage baain which would include Littleton, Englewood, and all the cal, all the service areas • It repreaenta an average, yes. An average that of 600, 700 dollar increase per tap . Per tap, for the entire area. May l explore that, to, though l hate to belabor that point, but I atill think thoee figurea are vrona. You're talkina about, uh, eight uha, about 20 llillion that comea throuah E.P.A. funds. You're talking about 13000 taps, are you not? no, 13 llillion gallons which tranalatea into, ua, • I • • - - ( ::>a:;e l!I Christy Collins Teal Mccown Abbott Collins Teal Collins Teal • Collins Teal Abbott • • • • How uny taps? How 111111y taps? How mar.y additional taps are we goin' be serving with this 13 llillion gallons? Roughly. 18.000 per How .. ny taps per 13 million gallons? One ..ent O.K. Hr. Teal. how does your district feel about. perhaps. doubling the, the uh, the amount of the taps. How do you think the people within your district feel about thatl Well, with those with wboll I have spoken. and when I spoke earlier about the ...endment 208 plan to perait. to develop of our own plant. '!'bat wo"1d require a tap fee of $1200 on today's dollars. Our praaant tap fee. uh, because of a raquirellllllt to expand a portion of our ayat .. right aow baa recently bean raiaed $415. So we're talking about an $800 incr..... I guess that sounds to -like. uh. a 6 to $700 incr..... It'• u-with us. We're lookin' at an ·900 to do it on our own, and -cont.-plate no federal funds. Then, let -uk. lat M ask in a slightly different -Y· Do you think tap f ... are a aipificant factor to a developer? I would have said :yea sir' about thr-or four months ago. But I've been reading the financial page just aa you have, and I can no longer say 'yea'• I -t say 'I don't know'. I don't believe ao. I have rec. I have experienced no d:launition in d-od• for taps with the increase in leas than a year'• ts.a frm $300 to over 400. There bu been no d:launition. We doubled ours and sold more that -k than -had in the last year. Thank you Mr. Teal. Thank you. In &118Wer to your earlier qu .. tion. I believe we're looking at about 38.ooo tap• to be served by the additional capacity • • I I • • - ( Page 20 Otis Andy Mccown Abbott Mccown Abbott • Teal • • • • • Mr. Mccown, did you have a comment? Yes, just again, so that, on the tap fee, and I know our staff had SOiie discussion with HDR about the tap fees earlier. But I guess the point that we, we're having a hard ti.lie understanding, Jia, we currently have a tap fee of $800 in the city of Englewood, both inside and out, and baaed upon the analysis that we've done long term funding of our sewer fund, we feel like that is sufficient funds to pay for the expansion of the plant based upon E.P.A. funding, and the reactivation of our old plant will get us by for the next five years. Fine. O.K., now my figures show that if you take that 27 million dollar figure there, and these are average, rough averages, and if we had E.P.A. funding and both Littleton and Englewood funded 12 1/2% of the plant, then we would be responsible for roughly 3.7 million of that plant. O.K.,and with our $800 tap fee based upon those population projectiona we could pay for that. If we had to fund the whole thing, an tha, that'• equal funding, assuming that we went that -y, uh, knock off five million because of no E.P.A. regulations, you're down to 22 llillion, and that still translatea into ll 1/2 or ll million each, which is a considerable amount over 3.7 with E.P.A. funding. And if we can't, if we can only fund 3.7 with $800 tap fee I don't see bow we can -rely double it and fund ll million. It looks like to me like we're talking about a four time increase in our tap fee. I guess, Andy, I'd have to spend a few minutes and look at that in detail before I can expl, you know explain it one way or the other. Mr. Mayor, -y I speak to Andy just a minute on that point? Andy, we've gone into a great nuaber of our own calculations on this full funding line, and we've developed, utilizing information froa Kr. Fonda on your existing plant, utilizing Mr. Abbott's figures in the 201 file, legally that you can built with build ·with today's dollars a 20 •illion gallon plant for $1200 a · tap. How. lets us suppose that you have a great deaf of foundation and basics for that plant in. We feel that a 20 aillion gallon addition to your existing plant can be handled for a $1000 on today's dollar. How, I have done my own calculations, and our engineering fira bas verified those calculations, not only for Southgate, but also for South Arapahoe and for Southwest Metro. So we have looked at this • I • - - • • • Page 21 Teal (cont'd) McCown Teal McCown Teal Teal Ponds Teal McCovn Fonda Teal McCown Teal Otis Colline Abbott ( • • • very thoroughly and believe, that utilize, if we could utilize the existing plant, and work up froa there the tap fee without any federal funding whatsoever would approach a .axiaa of $1000, excue -· $12,000, with some, $1000, excuse -· Starting with new plants without the basics that you have in place, we have to add $200 per tap to put in those basics. Does that include still paying off the bonds on the currant plant? Yee. Por our portion of it. However, we're responsible for No No Does uone of tha t go into No I don't think so, the o and• pays off the present bonding The o and • pays off the pr .. ent bonding Mo, no, the capital The capital We're participating in that. Yes, but vbile we're paying for this we're also s~ill paying the old plant _... · ·, thats 200,000. But we tried to include the whole thing Thank you • Asly other c~ts or questions froa anybody? O.lt . Gentlemen, turning away froa dollars and hi&h finance for the -t. Uh, can you talk a little bit 810re about the population figurea! Do you qree with th• population figurea? You noted that you -r• forced to ue the DICOG figures. I think, Mayor Collins, aenerally -don't get iato : statistics or have not done an indepth study that -could contradict the figures. I think that city staff would have a better, would be closer to that than we would f roa &JqH1rienc• they • I • - • • • Page 22 Abbott (cont'd) Collins Abbott Collins Teal O.tis . Gale Chris.ty • • • ( they've experienced in toe area. I think that there is some attempt by the agencies to keep, keep the growth down to some degree without saying it's a growth control posture but, but I say it is conservative to what you're currently experiencing, and I think history has shown that we've grown faster than what we've planned for, that's obvious by the fact that we're into an expansion of the facility. The, so, that your opinion is that the population figures are at leaat conaervatively low? That'• what you meant, I believe so. conservatively low as opposed to being high. May I speak to that point? DRCOG bas recently, uh, sub- aitted to a nuaber of us the, the uh, expansion of DRCOG into Douglas County. They indicated in that report popu- lation figures for· the Southgate area alone which they have carefully defined. In 1985 they will be what in fact they are today. The population we have today is what DRCOG is forecasting for 85. Mr. Cbriaty, did you, uh Yea, Mayor, a couple of points I would like to -ke regard- ing the population, uh, statiatica. First of all, our staff was somewhat concerned about the low level of, of, population which was projected by DacOG. We do believe it's on the low side. However, uh, because we anticipate that water usage per capita will be going down in the next five to ten years as a result of Denver Water Board, and I presuae Englewood's efforts to conserve water, uh, we believe that those numbers -y well fit. Uh, as you know the s-age gener, generated per capita 1a somewhat dependent on the U10unt of water used per capita. So we think that, at our staff level, that that factor taken into consideration takes soae of the pressure off that 13 1/2, uh, 33 1/2 million mgd uh figure. The second thing I would point out to you in, insofar as Littleton is concerned. Uh, as you are aware the Highlands Ranch baa also filed site application for a n-sewage treataent plant to be built on Marcey Draw in Douglas County. Uh, its our understanding that the plans, which have been, which have been evolving for that treataent plant will call for, uh, land application, rather • I • - • • • l'age 23 Christy (cont'd) Otis Betty Keena Abbott Keena Fitzpatrick Abbott ( • • • ( than the dumping of the sewage into the Platte lliver. And if Mission Viejo is successful in getting approval to build their own sewage treataent plant, that does take again 9098 of the pressure off, at least our por- tion of the drainage basin, to treat sevqe f roa the Highlands Ranch. So I think with that factor and the decrease in water uaage factor, uh, we feel that the population fi&ure bagina to -ke a little more sense, although I think we'd all feel a little happier if it were hi&her. Councilaan Keena. 11.aa there been any projection .. de by the federal govenaeat aa to when the 1980 census data will be out? So that one can look at their population and see how far off we ai&ht be. I don't have a date, no. I, I've beard, Councilaan, that November we should have aoae preliainary figures. Nov, uh, it's so early in the plaDDing stages that, uh, that could be a little Eight 110ntha ago they were saying June, now we'll probably be delayed again. Uh, the other thing I wou.ld like to caution Council on the DB.COG fi&ur••· Tboee were sent back, and requested in fact by Douglas County to be sent back. They did not want DllCOG to approve th• because they were, they felt, inaccurate. And so that plan went back to Douglas County and will not be subaitted to DllCOG for official approval for SOiie time yet. O.K. I aight like to add after we've all been calculating up here. Here $700, I understand that 38,000 taps would be, uh, 26.6 million, uh, close to that effect, but in the meantime the money that we would need now would have to be put out in bonds, the interest rate paid and then how soon would we u, utilize to realize the refund back to pay off the bonds to use up 38,000 tapa. There's aOll8th1ng elae to consider. Are, your right. If our projections, if they're correct and based on the population we wou.ld esaentially uae up that capacity, those 38,000 tap• 1n 16 years beginning in 1985. So we, the plant ia planned for a •taaiD& period froa 1985 to the year 2001. MeaoiD& that in about 1996 we would have to begin the procesa for another ezpanaion to the plant. • • I • - ( Page 24 Fitzpatrick Abbott Collins Christy Collins Beverly Bradshaw Abbott • Bradshaw Abbott Bradshaw • Abbott • • • • ( Thank you. Welc011e. to belabour that financing point just a hair longer. After we've come up with the, uh, allocated coats per tap, the financing coat that ta. -tioned needs to be added which eaaentially doubles the tap fee. If you're going to pay both the capital coat and the coat of 110ney, the intereata coats, out of tap feu for a 16 year period of present tap fee rates, you can juat double it. And that'• about 8% right now. at prueot interut ratea. Teh, that'• 20 years at 8% now -•re at, uh , 10% and 16 years, uh, -ybe worse. Mr. Abbott, while we're talking about coats. On the s~ry of estimated coats up there, pending on the ·:type of treatlleDt that'• required by the Water Quality Cont Control eo..iasioo can ll&lte a considerable difference in how llUCh th• plant will cost. Do you know the current statua on our streaa claaaification? the, -I UDderatand it, the Water Quality Control eo..ia- aion baa adopted a schedule of hearings of different water atr-1o the state. the South Platte liver is scheduled for this July. During the -th of July they would hold a formal public hearings on the upper, the •iddle and the lower atretchu of the South Platte lliver, and then there would be -period of time for the c-1.saion to consider the c-ts and utabliah a position, and baaed on experi- ence I would be aurpriaed if there was a f oraal position before the end of this year. o.~. thank you. Very possibly, it would extend into the spring of 1981. then what is your recomaen, you know, what baseball figures should we use, because there is conaiderable :amount ·of difference • Wall, it's it's our rec.-ndation that, that if ve uh -ke the deciaion to proceed with duip of the expanaioo, that ve proceed on the secondary trutaent aapect of things . We aet the planning up so that if then the state took a position that no you've got to .. et a more atrin&ent diacbar&•• then juat by addiag additional facilitiu :to, the aecoadary treataent • I - • • • Pa ge 25 Abbott (cont'd) Otis lllJ.ey Abbott lllJ.ey Abbott John Osborn Otis Abbott • • • ve colll.d .. et those requirements of the Health Depart- .. nt. It would not 11ean thatwe'd have to go back and start all over and come up with a new plan. We have tried to to plan an orderly step process here so that depending upon what the State tells us we have to meet we're able to accomdodate th-. It wouldn't all necces- aarily be ra.dy at the same time, but we would at least have a schedule to correspond with the State and say here's our schedule of compliance and we're proceeding and and hopefully they would not, uh, you know, enforce it until the facilities vere on line . Any other camlellts or questions? If they require us to, uh, uh, go to ·something greater than secondary treatment. What is, what about the old plant, or the existing plant is it going to coat an additional five llillion to bring it up to that standard also, or is that taking into account Bi-City's plant? Yes. It would not coat an additional amount of 111>ney. No, we ill the plannina ve have incorporated that alra.dy and the coat eatiaatea reflect, including in the existing facilities aal the -facilities, to .. et whatever standards the project by the state. My name is John Osborn. I represent the Ken caryl Ranch Water&Sanitation District. I sit on that Board of Directors. Uh, I would aak a question along the ._, uh, vein as the laat question regarding the Englewood activate, the activa- tion of the old Englewood plant. And, • curious to know the status of that activation at the present tiae. I think there -• a perllit that -. to be obtaJ.n-s before that construction could start. I'• curious aa to where that is. can you tell us wh e re that is, Andy? Mr . Abbott? I can c~t on that. We have applied, by we, I say we I mean the City of Englewood with us worldng on it have applied to the State H-lth Departaent for a discharae perait, and that would mean to re-activate the old discharge parllit • That's normally a six -th procaa for th-to, uh iaaua a final parllit. That is unda~y by the Stats Health Dapartaent. In the aaantiae we're worldna on the plans and • t I • - • • • Pa ge 26 Abbott (cont'd} Osborn Abbott Osborn Abbott Osborn • • • specifications to bid the project, so that hopefully when ve're ready to begin bidding construction the discharge perait vill have arrived and they're kind of going along hand in hand. But the effort is under vay and the target date for having that plant ready to use is August of 81. That's a year from this August. When vould you expect that perait to be obtained from the Health Departmen t? Well, if they -t their schedule of six 111>ntha, l vould say •-t:lJle in Ma y or June of this year. So it's only recently been applied for? Well, it vaa applied for, in fact, in last fall vben the City aade the decision to re-activate the plant. All right, O.K. thank you. The other question, uh a couple of cOllllelltB, uh, froa the prospective of our district. Uh, l pea• l would, uh, support to a certain degree Mr. Teal'• cQllllellta about, uh, uh, uh, further, uh, investigation of, uh, local funding of the pl-t and, and probably, uh, share Mayor Collins' feeling• about, uh, uh, the local funding approach. Uh, I think t:lJle is, is rather critical and and to hear an eat:laate that ve vill use up 38,000 sever tapa, uh, in the 16 years, uh is is, probably on, uh, l think could be on, uh, the conservative side. l think our recent experiences is shoving that it is probably running slightly higher than that. Uh, l think that there a certain 11110Unt of, uh, decline in the, the housing -rket today, but there's incredible pentup demand in this city, -d l think the city is going to continue to grov ao l think that, uh, the time, tiae is rather import-t, uh, and l think the the delays in in waiting for the !.P.A. funding are are significant. I'd also like to call to your attention, the uh •-of the stiuplations that have been, uh, spoken to or referenced that E.P.A. is putting on their grants theae daya, and and if you have not read the the eleven points that they they've placed on the, uh,. approval of E.P.A. funds on the Sand Creek Project, uh, I suggest that you review them because they, uh, they're kind of a a list of horrors. They're, uh, asking for incredible thing• froa the local jurisdictions, and l think that its juat, uh, a continuation of uh uh uh an accepted intrusion of the federal goveTIIMllt into our affairs if we uae their 111>ney to build the p1-t. I think that, uh, it would be viae at at this stage vith vith • I • - - • • • Pa e 27 Osborn (cont'd) • • • a lot of the coats known to, uh, obtain some, some rather formal, uh, uh, c~ts froa participating water and sanitation districts as regards their, uh, uha, uhm, acceptance of of local funding and and the cost that local funding brings, uh, with it, uh. I've, I also work for a d.,,elopaent company. I've, I speak daily with with reaidential builders from of all sizes and I think there's a ver, there'• a graving, uh, ob, feeling 8JIOD8St tboae builders tbat, ub, they would just as soon pay, uh a laraer tap fee if the;• they knew with same, uh, uh, certainty tbat the plant -aoing to be built by by a date certain, and and we were not left to the, uh, to the whims of the, uh, of the federal govenment as to whether the grant -going to be accepted. I, I think there' a a certain -t of, uh, risk in in going with alternative five, in in the bopea that it's going to place, uh, uh, higher priority on on the grant. Uh, I, I'• not ao sure that that that uh that risk is worth the waiting and and worth the a-.it of -ey because really the the districts are not going to pay for the plant and and the citiea are not going to pay for the plant, the people that are going to be paying for the pant, plant, are the conauaera vho are going to buy houses, who are going to put up shopping centers, who are going to put up office buildings, who are really going to pay for tba tap. And, I think that, uh, the the thousand dollars additional or the fifteen hundreds additional, uh, uh, for same reason, uh, i-i-i, ay experience is shown that those kinds of tap fee increase uh, somehow they, they're accepted and they'·re -.anaged by the cona~r, and and and that deaire to own housing or that desire to put up an office building is is is greater than, uh, the fact that your going to have to pay a thousand dollars or fifteen hundred dollars 110re for a tap. I think tha, tha, factoring in the coat of financing is probably going to be closer to two thousand or twenty five hundred, but a water tap fee costs that much aoney. I -n, they, they kind of go band in hand, and and since 1973, uh, I think it waa 73 when the water board, uh, instituted the ayste1111 development charge before that there,in certain areas of the city there was no water tap fee and and now the water tap fee is twenty three hundred. So we've gone froa 0 to 2300 in in seven years, and it hasn't br?ught the the,the sky hasn't hasn't fallen so uh uh I,· I think that -'re rmming into same aoae uh situation where there's --uh iapor- tant decisions have to be aade, and I'd like to see the • I • • - • • Page 28 Oaborn (cont'd) Keena Abbott Keena Abbott • • • 1 councils re, uh adopt --aileatone dates that some of tbeae accamplia~ta have to uh, uh, have to be finalized because I I I'• r-lly cooceraed about the Water Quality Control C-taaion. You know I, aix aix -tba qo or a year qo they aaid uh apring of 1980 and and and aov uh it aounda to ae like it'a the apriq of 81. And, you !mow that opens up a whole notber av-of of pursuits that I thinlt you all need to be aaking, uh, I ce1tainly --taking the time to to to speak directly aJld personally vitb uh uh people in the state le&ialature, vbo are are repr-tativea to to aalr. th-, you Ir.DOV, vbat ia the bold up, you knov I I talked to -the other day and they told ae that the Water Quality Control ec-iaaion -consider- ing adopting atr-atandarcla, uh, aoutb of lovlea, uh, that would perait trout fishing and avimaing. Uh, you Ir.now, I ita ita incradible and the delaya are rather aubataotial, and I tbinlr. aome preaaure neecla to be brought to bear on that c-1aaion to to you Ir.Dov, studies have been exhau.tive. I think the studies are are C011Plete, and they need to .. 1r.e a decision. That ~aion can't make a decision. That's all I've got to aay. Thank you. I'll anaver any queationa if you'd like. A question for Mr. Abbott. The preaent expansion state- mcnt in here is 13 llillion gallons per dny capacity. waa that aelected baaed on certain econoaies to skill nod effi- ciencies or was that selected predClllinantly because of state or federal regulations? It vaa selected predClllinantly because of federal regula- tions on bow we can plan for these expanaions, but I should point out that if you, the two cities, elected to build this expansion without the .,_fit of federal grant, then you could decide to either build 110re that 13 1/2 11gd or leas and build eapanaiona aore often. lut the 13 1/2 is baaed solely on suidelinea of the Plannill& process. o.r;. la there normally aa there ia frequently in in a construction project of tbia aiM, a poiDt vbere you do state aa a consultant that there are 110re ecoooaiea and 110re efficiencies at a c:ap9City aa oppoeed to let•a aay 13 llilliOD, and baa tbat at all ~ diacuaaed . Yea, --feel fr-miperieDce that we can diacuaa ~ aiea of ISCal.e depeadiD& upoa bow bi& you want to build the • I • - • • • Page 29 Abbott (cont'd) Abbott Christy Abbott Keena Abbott Collins Bradshaw Higday McCovn Hiaday McCovn • • • plant. I thillk -have discussed th-to some degree in there, but its still boils down to what the federal guidelines vill allow you to construct for in teraa of future growth. O.K. If --re to to decide to go for local funding, O.lt. • do it ourselves, oh, can that kiDd of analysis be cloae under the md.stiag contract or are we then openiag up a whole nother investigation? I'd say aenerally if -wanted to really study it in depth as to whether or not -wanted to to do that and try to decide what -ld be the 110st economical -y to 10. I feel that there -1d be sc.e additional study, but I don't -any six -th iDdepth analysis. I thillk -bave fiaur .. readily available to us to sit down with your staffs and and you and discuss it and make SOiie sense out of it in a reasonably short period of time. I think it boils down then to econo- aics of bigger plant verses aaaller, and how often we do it and how fast we think growth rate is going to occur. Perhaps within a 110ntb, Jia? I would think with concentrated effort, yea. Under the aaae existing contract? I guess We ve aigbt ask whether be wants to do the rest of the work or not. Good idea, Jia. Your honor, I'd like to ask some queationa that would clear up another -tt, aspect of this -tter and I' 11 direct it to Andy, and then I'll, your perfectly welcome to pass the buck. Uh, originally Littleton and Englewood entered into a contract where they built a bi-city sa-ge treatment plant, and that plant has a capacity of so -ny taps. How -ny taps was Englewood alloted? We were allotted 28,000. How many _. Littleton allotted? 28,000. I - Page 30 McCown Higday McCown Fonda McCown Higday McCown Hi&day McCown Higday McCown Higday • McCown Big day Otis Trujillo • • • • All r:l&ht. half, ill other word• it'• a fifty-fifty deal? The pr-t old l!Gglewood -r trea~t plant ia being re-activitated or it will be upon receipt of that perait. llov ~ tapa ia l!Ggl~ of that, ori&i.Dal allocation for the old plant? excuse ... for the new plant? 28,000 tapa. Bow -y tap• have ve allocated 7 Currently to date? Yea. Do you ~ the la•t figurea? How -y tap• have we iaaued? We've iaaued about 34,000, we have about 30-31 on lilae. About 34,000. So we're not over our a, a, original agreement with vlth Littleton. Right? We're not ~ tbe total. uh, tap allocation vben you take ilato ~ideratlon the reactivation of the, ab, old, aouth portloo of Engl--4'• old plant. Tbat'• tlbat I'• driviq at. So, ve are, ao ve don't go over tbat aad cut ilato what Littleton baa been allotted. Ve are goila' reactivate our old plant. That la correct. At wboae expenae? At l!GglaK>Od's expense. Not at Littleton '•? That's correct. O.lt. Any other ~ts or queationa? Your Honor? The, uh, concern that I have ia with the popu- lation figure aad the capacity that ve are l.ooldD& at - la 13 alllion ilacreue, 13.5. I tbink tbat if w stick to that figure when that plant c-. on line we're still going be needing Littleton'• old plant .8Jld it'• probably going be on line till the year 2000. I, I don't aee why we don't • I • • - • • • Page 31 Tnajillo {cont'd) IH.gcl&y Trujillo Bilo Trujillo McCown Higday Higday Trujillo Baley • • • l look forward to a ~ioD of at least 20 aillioo. I tbi.Dlt tbe origiaal pl&Da -re to iocreue fraa 20, 40 aad to 60 aillioD pl.Iona if need be and I c&n' t unders taDd tbe tbe 1oc:al fUDdiag -far -gettiag the plaDt moving, but I shir, cerUinly like to see a plaDt that -ld be ai&able _.gb to take r.are of tbe population figure, uh, in tbe future 1lldcb I believe it'• -y below :Lu tbe estimate of mooc:. So I -U lib Council& to coaaider an an incr--in ai&e ao that -can &•t thia plaDt off line ooe of tbe.e day• or 1ag1--. aoia& to probably .. in- tain1.a& tbe olAl pl&Dt for a loo& t1ae. That'• that'• one of rq com:eraa. Your Honor, I'd lib to &alt Couaci1-D Trujillo if I under- atood Ilia ri&bt. .,_, )iOU tbi.Dlt that -oucht to go with .. ybe 40 i-instud of the 20? Or 11ame fiaure .. ybe lar&•r tb&D thatT ID other word& tb vbeD -enlarge the plant, enlarge it, uh, conaiderably larger tb&D -'re presently pl.&DDing under thia plaD. Well, tbe figure that I'a tal.lt.ing about, we're, we have a 20 aillioll pllon plaDt -· i.Dcr--it to 40 aillioo inatead of 33. Yeh, I thiDlt the original plall called for it to go to 33 poiDt .-tbiag, aad tbaD tbe 40 --·t it after vbat 2005 or -tbiag -n't itT I'• not quite aure. It vaa 20, 40, 60, aa originally plaoDecl. la the 11De of r.-oniD& behind that, Joe, to to save money 1D tbe long run, becauae -"-ve' re goiag to have to enl.ar&e it apiD say around 2000? Go &bud. I peas vbat I'• thioldn& is that thia plaDt -·t take care of the populatioD that I for-, aad it' a tiae that tbe plaDt ~ OD line tbe old la&lwood pl&Dt is 101.a& to have to at.ay on line for a long tiae. I don't ... it caaiag off once they put it on. Unl.ea• -ha•• an ezpanaioD of at leaat 20 aillion aallona. Ara you really aayiag, Joe, that by 1985 you tbi.Dlt the 33 ia going to be uaecl, uh, up ao therefore -'re going to be neediag to retain aaotber facility to vit tbe old Eogle- wood plallt and atart m110tber one ia, 1-diately. Ia that vbat you're auaaeatiag? • I • - Page 32 Trujillo Otis Abbott Christy Abbott Collins Abbott Oollins • Christy • Abbott • • • • We' 11 be here tallr.ing the ..-e way we' re doing now. Mr. Abbott Kells points out something that I think is pertinent at this point. BY• if we decide to, uh, build a plant eJql&Uion without the benefit of the federal grant. The State Beal.th Depar~t atill baa some control and influ- ence aver that in that in writing a discharge permit. they can lillit the number of pounda of IOI> and suspended solid• that you can discharge to the ri•er on a daily basis. If they took that approach then you aigbt have to, if you wanted to build a larger plant, tbell you llight have to go to this .ore advanced treatment scbeme in order to remove 110re of the pollutant• and still -t that pound of BOD and suspended solids in the discharge permit so they still have, uh, .-dear-of coatrol over thing• if you elect to go without, uh, benefit of a federal grant. I'• not saying they'd ne('.essarily do that but it is certainly possible. It'• the state tb&t: you're talking about, rather than E.P.A.? That'• ri&ht. The state writes the diacbar&e permits. That -the point I'• deterainin&• d-, aslr.ing you to do some Mditional analysis, in ccmin& up with the .oat coat effec- tive, plant siae. To take those tbinga into consideration. And if and if perhaps in a • in a subsequent, uh, abort analy- sis it will not coet us anJllOre -ey. The, tell ua vb, show .ore betwem 13.5 and 20 aillioa dollars, er gallons, uh, per day what the -t cost effective plant is. I 'a sure we could do that. That vaa yCMar point. Council, I'd like to just add that if, if that is your concensus tonight that we should ask B.D.t.. to do that. And Andy and I are tallr.ing about having a very careful analysis of tap fees done to go band in band with that analysis so that you will know what the additi.o-1 tap fee cost would be both in Littleton and Englewood • Uh, I c-1lt and respoad. I'• sorry that, I, we thought we bad this tap f-thiDI all -rlr.ed out; -•ve studied it carefully, and I'•• guess you just caught us with our • I • - Page 33 F.al.ey Abbott ll'aley Abbott Ealey Abbott • ll'aley • Abbott • • • • puta dOWD tonight aa f~ :as beiDg able to auver specifically. I tbiak tbat -ld be wiae to look at that very caref lll.ly in coojuoction. Were we, -re the tvo council& to clecicle to go with local fUDdiDg, not to go for federal fuodiDg, volll.d there be -y reaaoa to go for the option five versus optiOD -or -W you th-be rec-•DdiD& option one? I tbiDk tbat if you elected to clo thia expaoaioo with your CND dollars, without the ~fit of tbe federal ar-t, ub, it'd be bard to stand here aocl rec~ tbe -re coetl.y solution to you, on tbe other bend frcm frcm •tbetic ataodpoiata you -y -t to pursue tbat ~y because optiOD fi-dw provide a 110re advaacecl treatment to a portion of the -te than option oae doea. o.a:. are -· are -coatiDg ourselves -Y tiae by, ub, goiDg for option five verses option _, I clOD't feel --W be, no air. We colll.d do those thiap band iD hand and ideatify potential users of tbe efflueDt llbile -•re doiDg d•ip beca11se -•re looktna at oiDe -tbs to a year to deai&n a 20 mllioo aau-per day p1-t. At ...._t poiat and t1-do -bave, -W -have to aake that deciaioD, a y-r from -or a year and a half. I thiak it abou1d be made relati-1y aooo so that either your staff or us could pur-these c:ootacta with potential users for irri&atioo aeecla and, and identify potential users rather than wait till the end and then decide to do that because then there -W be a delay or else -'d have to proceed with the upanaiOD and tben if -found potential users add 110re on later. At ...._t poiat and time do we Deed to au.. the deciaioo for local, op, local fUDdiDg ver8U8 a~t fuadiDgT Are - clelayiDg ourselves any by veitiDg to make thia deciaion today? llot today I dOll' t f•l you are, but I f•l tbat if if -'ll all serious about pursuiDg tb1a alteraati-, -abou1d pursue it soon and within the oat tvo to three -tbs try to aake that decision. We bave to finalise the p1-and aubnt it within the next three -U to a 110oth, and then there is a revi-process by tbe qeociu, and I thiak at tha time - aulmit this p1-we are aoiD& to be requutiDg a status of • I) I • - • • • Page 34 Abbott (cont'd) Baley Abbott Baley Abbott Baley Keena Otis Staritsky Collins Staritsky • • • (1 -, our gr&Dt poaition vitb the Water Quality Control ec-is- aion and that -1.d be tbe appropriate tt.e to be making tbia decision on whether to go vitb or without federal funds becauae hopefully -•11 get -· uh, input froa the c-1.s- aion on vbetber or not tbey' 11 be receptive to iaproving our priority position. So in two or tbr-111>ntba you will be coaing back to us with data on vbicb -can make aucb a deciaion you believe? I think if we work -in one -tb. One -tb. that IJOUDda better to -obviously. If ve make, if we're able to make that deciaion in ooe 111>ntb, then we're not del.aying anything in tbe meantille and off we can go as fast as possible. Yes air, to translate, its, ti.lie ia dollars in tbis case aod if -·re looking at 2S aillion, 22 aillion dollars we think, uh, tbe current rate of inflation on, uh, faci- lities of thia type ia, ub, lS to 18 percent a year, that'• a percent and a half a 111>nth. Ea&ctly the problea I'• worried. TbaDlt you. Ub, one thing I -1.d like to aalt the staff to do vbile they're cbecktng tbia, -1.d JOU call Dou&laa County's pl.awr. Yb-they p~ted ~r preU•tury figures to DRCOC they were a'-1.ag 111.uioo Viejo, I believe, at 48,000. ADd if I r..-ber correctly H.D.I.. abowa that area at 16,000. And I -1.d lilte to have -c:ampariaon because Douglas County ia not prea-tly in the pl&ll. If their plan vaa approved and if they're serious about pursuing that kind of figure then that immediately throws our projections out of date • Counci1-n Staritaky . Yes, Mayor Collins opened up the floor for pbiloaopbical. I'• Sorry about that. Can I withdraw it? I, I -1.d lilte to make a couple of points and one is that I -concerned about the quality of the effluent. I hope that the councils don't decide to go with the cheapeat -possible, simply becau.ae it 1a the cheapest - possible. I think -bave a reapouibility to keep the quality of life, and that includes the quality of air and -t•r. high ill Coloredo, not unreasonably high, I'• not interested ill spending ailliona and ailliona and aillioaa • I • - • • • Page 35 Staritalty (cont'd) Abbott Otis <llriaty Abbott Christy • • • ( I of dollars for, uh, an al.moat, uh, unperceptible change, but I do thinlt there are acme real, uh, trade-offs invol- ved here, and I -concerned that that we do -intain a hi&b standard. The other thing that I'• cODcerned about ia, uh, ia growth, in in Colorado. I, I don't see that we have a reapoasibility to provide for absolutely unlimited growth. Uh. I thinlt that the quality of life that we have here 1a goiog to suffer if we continue with that sort of philosophy and I thinlt there's going to ~ a point in time vbell vbeD we're goiog to see if ve can atrilte a balance .-here between no grCJlfth and, uh, just completely unbrid- led growth. And t hat concerns me. May I make a ~nt to your r-rlta • and I'• not trying to argue with you. but on your first c-t about our concern for the effluent quality. I thinlt we support that contention. We diacuaaed in the plan to acme degree. but I thinlt that really. uh. whether we treat to the secondary level or a higher degree out of this plant. ve probably won't effect the overall quality of the South Platte lliver appreciably. and the reason ia that non-point source pollution of the river. vbicb 1a juat your g-ral runoff froa other than vaat-ter plants. nothiog 1a beiog done about that. ao I would caution you to not spend a lot of money in this area Ullleaa there are other _.urea talten along with it, ao that we really do experience an Uiprov~t in the river. Mr. Christy, do you ••• ? On that point, uh, tbanlt you, Jia, 1a it not ao that nitri- fication really does protect to a ..all degree fish life in the river? Yes. so. that's, uh, if we start looltiDg at the llilliona of dollars. 20 million dollars difference is goiog to protect the, it really isn't just, it really, trout life as I have understand it is another species of fish, but it, uh, its a very -11 protective factor for -fiahlif~. li"h, you mentioned to Counci1-n lml.ey, uh, earlier. Jia, that, uh, there .. y not be a loaa of time in purauiog alternate five versus alternate one. My coacern, ay question of you ia, uh, what about the -ter rights issue that is involved in a lter- nate five? Do you not see that as a delay factor? • I • • - - Pa e 36 Wi.lliam& Christy Wi.lliaaa Christy Will1- Willi.as Abbott • Otis McCown • • • • • Uh, .., understand1n& is that frOll the state engineers that becaUBe the facilities are exist, are eJdsting, irrigated with existing -ten that by exchanging with effluent rather than ahallav ground -ters, there vaa no -ter right problea. The existing -ter that i• used to to irrigate tboae golf courses or parka or whatever will r_.in in the basin, and will just be u:cbanged with the effluent. llov, that's an opinion, its not a fact. I mean, its not a It certainly ..U. aense, and the only qu-tion that I have is are, do you expect ve -y have to teat that in court with the Denver Water Board? It -Y come to that. So that could be a deay factor that ve hope doesn't develop, but it could be. It vouldD't del.Ay the plaDt expanaion tbo because thats a separate option. You could atill go ahead with the plaDt apaDBion and develop that separately. lli&ht. I'd 1iU to-"-_. odller 1_.ral nmark before ve close thia and tbat ia tbat i ...-,_'re all .-r• of the recent sanctioaa that tbe a.P.A. la&i_.J ~iatrator ha• placed on grants on tbe fro:at r .... ar-...S if tbat ia in fact enforced and it ataad8 ap, it, it could very, it could have a very aipificallt effect oa our prasr-, depend1n& on whether they illpo8e it oa oaly coaatruction funds or design funds. It -y be a moot question of a kind to get a . grant thi• ,_r. llav, I doa't think they've fully explained that yet , but it ia 8Clllllthin& to be aware of in our planning I think. Mr. KcCavn. Yes, just another question too, Jia, if ve did not go with E.P.A. fundin& and the State Water Quality Control ec-iaaion adopted tbe bigMat atr ... cl.aaaification8 for our stretch of tbe river, vbich in •..ace requir• total nitrificatioa, -1.d -atill haY• to abid• by that deci- sion even thou&h -•re not gettin& B.P.A. fundin&· • I • • - Pag e 37 Abbott Higday Abbott Hi&day Abbott Higday Abbott • Higday • Abbott • • • • ( I think we wou.ld, yea air,unleaa you elected to try to teat it, and I thilllt they anticipate that no matter what decision ia lllllde. Your Honor, I have a question I want to ask. Reference Ms. Staritsky, pbilo, philosophical input I thilllt that probably if we -re to erect a fence around the south- east corner of the state of Colorado to keep the Texans out we wou.ld probably be O.lt. I waa just jolting. I was juat joking. I thought -ybe that lligbt control the growth. Ever t1-I turn around I meet a n-Telr.811. Uh, in all aeriou-aa, vbat is the, what do the letters BOD aeanf You -re talltina in reference to to effluent bein& diac:bar&ed into the Platte, and then I have a queation for that. IOD st&Dda for tbe bio-dMaical oxyaen deaand and ita a -tbod vllereby they --.re strenath of If altu"Date fi•• -tbe al, alternative that we decided llpoll mid -a1-decided to take Counci1-n Trujillo'• .....-tloa ....... -1.arp tbe plant even larger than tbe projected 13 llillJAm pll.oaa, JOU -id that we lli&ht baY• -prolt1-, *• with tbe IOI> then. Unleaa, and correct -if I'• Wl'Ga&o -i ... ual.eaa we could "-P that diacbarae 1ato tbe Platte 4-to vb, what it wou.ld be with a 13 111111-aau-. la that correct? If - CCMlld fillll -thill& el.M to do with it, the land appli- catioo that ia, we CCM&l.d aet around that. Y-, -could. If we CCMlld do -thing else with it. O.lt. They -.iure it, they aeaaure it in ail.i&r ... per liter, or parts per aillioll and then they can trenalate tbat into pounds baaed oo the total flow tbat g-in and they can liait it that way . So if we can cc.. up with a alternative that ia to where we're still within the liaita of of aay what the 13 million gal- lona wou.ld be we coul.d expand our pl.ana longer, and put that stuff .-here el.ae • 'Ihat'• ri&ht. • I • • - - Page 38 Abbott ICeena Otis Collins • Taylor Otis • Watkins Trujillo • • • • ' We've apent moat of the eveniDg diacuaaing the capital cooatruction portion o( this problem. lta, one question I have in ter118 of the nitrification ill its my under- atanding that if the state -U go to either partial or full nitrification 1a it that point tbat the individual citi&ena vith their individual uaera fee vill find a substantial increase becauae the operation becc.es much more mtpeDSive alao in ter118 of ataff, sophistification and so on. So that if ve went to partial or full nitrifi- cation via the water cOllaission ezacted those standards upon ua, we're not then juat talllng cooatruction costs, ve are talllng increase of coats to every user of the system through operations. Yes, we are. o.~. We have -bard and fast decisions to aak.e and I' a sure both city councils vill be working with their staffs on thia and probably get back together on it, and I think ve could probably ait here all night and diacuas this but, uh, uh, you have sc:.ething ••• Yea, I, I think it, I think it aigbt be appropriate, bcRMver, to direct, give the ataff acme direction this ev-ing u to what the conceoaus of the group• are, and uh, I -prepared to aake a motion, uh, if you -ld like to -tertaiD it. I want to .ave that the public bearing be closed, also that ataff be directed a1oaa with B.D.I.. to explore the -t cost effective plant expansion between the figures of 13.5 agd and 20 agd that vill also protect the quality of the river; tha uh ataff alao ezplore local funding , uh, the local funding alternative in more depth coaiog up vith the apecifica of the tap fees and diacuaaing the tap fees and coat• vith the developers in our contracting districts; that ataff reccm=W'd to ua a, a, a acbedule of events to occur in the future and that ve look t-rd meeting again soaetime during the next -th and a half and three months, uh, as a joint council. Second. lbe vote. Would you call the roll? Couocil.aan Trujillo. Aye • • I • • - • • - ( Page 3 9 VatkiDs Par._ Taylor Taylor Aye. Watkta. StariUky. Staritsky Aye. Vatki.Da Baley. Billey Aye. Vatki.Da Preaiclent Collins. Collins Aye . Vatk.ins President Pro-Tem Harper. Harper Aye . Vatki.Da IU.gclay. IU.g4ay Yea. Watki.Da lle&l. lleal Yea. Watki.Da Fit&patrick. Fitzpatrick Yea. Watkins Keena. Keena Aye • • Watk.ins Bilo. Bilo Yea. Vatltina Mayor Pro-T-Bradebaw Bradebav Yea. Watk.ins Kay or Otie. I Otie Aye. • • - - I Page 40 Trujillo Otia • • • • • • 'l'ldrteen ayu, DD nays , and ODe abaeat. Tbe motioa 1a carriecl, thi.a public bearing 1a cio..d. I will entertaiD a motion for adj~t. So -ed. I'll 8eCODd that. Meeting adjournecl. • I - ' • • • • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORAOO 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. order. Englewood Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to 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 Council Members Trujillo, Emley, President Pro Tem Harper, President Collins. Absent : Council Members Parson, Taylor, Staritzky. City of Engle~~od Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw, Mayor Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City of Littleton City Manager Gale Christy fity_Q__f Englewood City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Public Works Waggoner Director of Wastewater Treatment Brookshire Director 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 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mayor Otis stated • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 2 • • • the plant was constructed and owned by both cities; there fore , a joint public hearicg must be he ld . COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED 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 Parsons, Taylor, Staritzky. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis asked Mr. Jim Abbott, of Henningson, Durham, and Richardson, Inc. the engineers for 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 introduc ed Robert Williams, of Culp, Wesner, Culp, who helped prepare th e plan. Mr. Abbott provided background concerning the basic parameters for planning, construction 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 th e plan addressed were: 1. Expansion of the existing joint use plant. 2. Ammonia removal in the effluent • 3. Chlorine removal in the 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 state; and the state was going through a process of reclassifying streams. Once a stream was reclassi- fied, then discharge standards can be set. Therefore, the eng i- neers had to study several different alternatives in order to be prepared to meet whatever effluent standards were set • • I • - • • • • • • March 10, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Abbott stated the three concepts 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 staging period was in line with EPA guidelines. Taken into consideration 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 677.,. Mr. Abbott stated the alternative wastewater manage-ment plans studied were: 1. Expansion of the existing joint use plant from 20 mgd to 33 1/2 mgd and discharge the effluent into the Platte River. The plant would be expanded to accomo- date the stream standards set by the State. Cost -$62 million. 2. 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 scheme. Five thousand (5,000) acres would be necessary to perform this alternative. Cost -$125 million 3. Spreading basins which was a form of land application. The concept of rapid tributation through sand beds 4 • where pollutants are removed 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 wherein the plant would utilize the High Line Canal to convey the water out to irrigation sites. The plant would be expanded, a pumping station built that would pump the effluent out to the canal and conveyed to irrigators. This alternative would require that during the winter months either a storage reservoir would be built because there would be no demand for ir- rigation needs or have a dual stream classification so a lesser degree of treatment could discharged to the Platte River yet put the effluent out into the High Line Canal during the sunnner months. Cost -$92 million • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 4 • • • 5. Expansion of the existing plant to a capacity of 33 1/2 mgd and attempt to locate a nearby site wherein urb an irrigation could be utilized and industrial re-us e . Water could be pumped out and applied to irrigate parks, golf course, public greenbelts and possibly the Public Service power plant. Any remaining water would be treated at the plant and discharged to the river. This alternative would accomplish a land ap- plication concept yet should not delay expansion of the plant. Cost -$ 63 million Mr. Abbott recommended adoption 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 three levels of treatment were secondary treatment, partial nitrification and full nitri- fication with secondary being the least costly and full nitri- fication being the most costly. The three alternatives to fund the enlargement were: 1. Assume no federal funds will 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 immediately to construct the plant. 3. Assume federal funds will be utilized but receipt of a grant delayed. Mr. Abbott elaborated on Alternative 13. He state d 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 For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ 27. 7 million $ 31.5 million $ 37 .3 million Engineering, legal, administration costs and interest during construction for total project costs: For secondary treatment $ 32 million • I • - • ' • • c • March 10, 1980 Page 5 • • • For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ 35.9 million $ 42 million The local share, assuming 75% 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 treatment $ 755,000 For partial nitrification $ 848,000 For full nitrification $ 1,000,000 Costs for monthly user would be : For secondary treatment $ 0.70 month/tap For partial nitrification $ 0.75 month/tap For full nitrification $ 1.10 month/tap Mr. Abbott asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, came forward. Mr. Giseburt 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 was built initially on a 50-50 basis with the same amount of capacity. One city was near capacity and the other one was considerably under capacity but the 50-50 split still existed. • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 6 • • • Mr. Giseburt asked if it was possibl e to recei ve 75 % funding from the federa l government since f ul l funding is not available. Also, if the citie s decide to f und the pro j ect with- out federal funds, would this idea place th e 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 t o 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 discharg e 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 31% of what Mr. Abbott denoted as the local share. Mr. Teal stated he represented the largest number of users who will fund the local share that have contracts with the City of Englewood. Mr. Teal stated Alternative #5 was 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 stated Alternative #1 was the alternative of choice, demand and economy. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Teal gave the boundaries of the district and stated it covered approximately a 20 square mile area. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Teal stated Alternative #1 was best because the Platte River had the ability to cleanse itself and even with the pot e ntial time delay was the preference of the Southgate District Board. Mr. Teal stated with the type of landscaping, and number of golf courses and greenbelts, the discharge would have to be frozen, cut up and stored for the winter period. Council Member Neal asked Mr. Teal if there was a choice of pursuing grants through EPA and the federal govern- ment which took additional time versus independently or pri- vately financing the plant, which would the district prefer. Council Member Neal also asked Mr. Teal if the sanitation dis- trict would pay the additional tap fees so the cities could privately fund the plant. Mr. Teal stated the Southgate District and South Arap- pahoe District had requested an amendment to the 208 plan. The I • • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 7 • • • districts would like to develop their own treatment facility between the area of Clarkson -Orchard and Broadway. Mr. Teal stated the district would be willing to pay the additional tap fee to help finance the cities independently fund the plant expansion. Mr. Abbott stated the City of Aurora had a plan into effect that used wastewater treatment effluent on golf courses as did the Air Force Academy. Mr. Abbott agreed there were some water rights implications to be worked out. The pursuit of Al- ternative 15 would enhance the cities' position for a grant and if it did not go through, the engineers did not think it would delay the cities reverting to Alternative fl because they were so similar. President James Collins asked Mr. Abbott how the fund-ing would be determined. Mr. Abbott stated if the cities selected the option to utilize federal grants, it would place the funding at a level where the tap fees were now. The capital construction costs would all come from tap fees and the federal grant. If there was no federal grant, capital construction costs would come from pre-viously collected tap fees. President Collins spoke on the time involved to go through an EPA grant request, the inflation costs incurred due delays and tighter EPA regulations. Mr. Collins queried whether or not EPA should be funding the project. He pointed out that the grant decision would not be known for a few years. Mr. Collins asked the Councils to consider the Cl.DDbersome process. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Abbott for com- parative figures as to what the costs would be with 757a federal funding and without any federal funds. Mr. Abbott responded that with secondary treatment, construction costs 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 asked what kind of rate structure would be required to fund the project. Mr. Abbott stated the estimated tap fee would be $300 if federal funds were used and $1,000 per tap without federal funds. He stated the amounts related to new construction only; but there would also have to be an increase over what was charged now for maintenance of the existing plant and that would be an additional $400. • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 8 • • • Cou nc il Memb e r Fitzpatrick state d a more realist i c increase would b e to charge $2 ,600 or $2,700 for a tap fee. Mr. Abbott stated there would b e an incremental in- crease of $600 -$700 o v er the existing tap fee of $800 for the entire service area. President Collins asked Mr. Teal how the district viewed the increase in tap fees. Mr. Teal stated the district would cooperate in pay-ing the increase in tap fees. Mr. Abbott stated approximately 38,000 taps would be served by the additional capacity. City Manager Mccown stated the current tap fee was $800 and based upon analysis of long-term funding of the sewer fund, that should be sufficient funds to pay for the expansion plant based upon EPA funding and the reactivation of the old plant. Mr. Mccown stated if EPA funding were used and 12 1/27. were funded by each Englewood and Littleton, then of the $27.7 million the cities would be responsible for $3.7 million of the plant. If the cities had to fund the whole project, of the $22.5 million the cities would be responsible for $11 million each wh i ch was a considerable 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 was not certain • President Collins asked Mr. Abbott if HDR agreed with the projected population figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated an in-depth population study had not been made; therefore, he had no data to contradict the figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated he thought the figures were con- servatively low and history has shown the area has grown faster than what was planned. Mr. Teal stated DRCOG had issued a report on the ex- pansion of growth in Douglas County. DRCOG indicated in the • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 9 • • • report, for Southgate area alone, the population to be the same in 1985 as it was at the present time. City Manager Christy stated his staff had studied DRCOG's population prediction and concluded it to be on the low side. Howver, his staff anticipated water usage per capita to decline which may prove the predicted numbers to be correct. Mr. Christy added the Highlands Ranch has filed site application for a new sewage plant to be built in Douglas County. The plans called for the land application concept. If Mission Viejo received approval, the Bi-City plant would not have to treat the sewage from the ranch. Council Member Keena stated Douglas County returned the report on the population figures to DRCOG and asked DRCOG to re-examine the prediction. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked since funds would be needed immediately to put out bonds and interest rate paid; and how soon would the cities be able realize the refund to pay off the bonds to use up 38,000 taps. Mr. Abbott stated the 38,000 taps would be used up in 16 years beginning in 1985. The plant was planned for a staging period from 1985 to 2001. In 1996, plans would start again for another expansion. Council Member Bradshaw asked Mr. Abbott to define the current status of the stream classification. Mr. Abbott stated the Water Quality Control Commission has set up several hearings. The hearing for the South Platte River has been scheduled for July. The Commission would probably not take a formal position until either the end of 1980 or spring of 1981. Mr. Abbott advised that if a decision was made to pro- ceed with the design of the expansion, then it was reco11111ended to proceed on the secondary treatment aspect. The planning would be set so that if the State took a position requiring more strin- gent discharge, facilities could be added to meet the requirements. The plan, as it was, proposed to correspond with what the State required later. Council Member Emley asked Mr. Abbott what costs would be involved if the State placed stricter requirements on the plant • Mr. Abbott responded those conditions have been incor- porated in the estimated costs of which he spoke earlier • • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 10 • • • John Osborn , Board Memb e r of t he Ken Caryl Ranch Wa t e r Sanitation District, appeared before Council. Mr. Osborn ask ed what was the status of activating the old treatment plant. Mr. Abbott stated HOR and th e City of Englewood have applied for a discharge permit with the State Health Depart- ment. In the interim, plans and specifications were being work ed up to bid the project. The target date to start operation was August, 1981. Mr. Osborn supported Mr. Teal's comments to further investigate local funding. Mr. Osborn stated the estimated use of 38,000 taps was conservative. The timing of getting the pro- ject completed was important and the delays in waiting for EPA funding were significant. Mr. Osborn stated EPA has already begun to place rigid restrictions on local jurisdictions. Mr. Osborn suggested obtaining formal written comments from parti- cipating water sanitation districts regarding acceptance of local funding and the costs that local funding brought with it. Mr. Osborn stated there was a growing feeling amongst builders to pay a larger tap fee if the plant could be built by a certain date and not have to undergo delays from the federal government. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott how the increase of mgd was selected. Mr. Abbott stated the increase was decided from ex- amining federal guidelines as to how the plant could be expanded. If the cities locally fund the expansion, then the mgd amount could be either decreased or increased depending on what they wanted to do. Ms. Keena stated if a decision was made to locally fund the project, could a similar analysis be done under the existing contract with HOR. Mr. Abbott stated some additional study would be needed to determine which funding would be the most economical. He stated the study could be performed within a month's time . Mr. Abbott was unable to answer whether or not the study could be performed under the existing contract. In response to Council Member Higday's question, City Manager Mccown stated Englewood would pay for the cost to re-activate the old treatment plant • Council Member Trijullo asked the councils to consider expanding the capacity to 40 mgd in anticipation that the growth will extend beyond predictions • I • - • • c • March 10, 1980 Page 11 • • • Mr. Abbott stated if the cities decide to expand the plant without federal funds, the state health department still had control and influence over writing discharge permits. This may call for a more advanced treatment scheme which would be more expensive to do. City Manager Christy stated if further study was de- cided upon then he and Mr. Mccown would provide also further analysis of tap fees. Council Member Emley asked 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 recommended 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 Staritsky spoke on the quality of the effluent and maintaining it at an acceptable standard regardless of cost. Ms. Staritsky stated the cities were responsible for controlling growth in a manner that keeps 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 being done about controlling other non-point source pollution of the river. City Manager Christy stated nitrification protected only a small degree of fish life. Mr. Christy asked Mr. Abbott if the water rights issue involved in Alternative #5 would be a time-consuming factor • Mr. Williams 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 sanctions 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. I • • - - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 12 • • • In response to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Abbott stated the cities would have to comply with the stan- dards set by the state regardless whether federal funds or local funds were used. Council Member Higday asked Mr. Abbott if Alternative 15 was chosen and the plant was enlarged to 40 mgd, could pro- blems with the BOD be reduced by keeping the discharge into the Platte River down to what it would be if the plant were expanded to 13 mgd by using more land application. Mr. Abbott confirmed Mr. Higday's comments. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott if the state would order either partial nitrification or full nitrification, would it be at that point the individual citizens would incur a substantial increase because the operation became more ex-pensive. Mr. Abbott confirmed Ms. Keena's comments. There were no further comments. PRESIDENT COLLINS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALSO THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED ALONG WITH HOR TO EXPLORE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE PLANT 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 ALTERNATIVE IN MORE 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 RECOMMEND TO US A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE AND THAT WE LOOK TOWARD MEETING AGAIN SOMETIME BETWEEN THE NEXT MONTH AND A HALF AND THREE MONTHS 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 Trujillo, Emley, Taylor, Staritsky, Harper, Collins, Higday , Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Parsons. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER TRUJILLO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Council Member Higday seconded the motion • - I • • - • • March 10, 1980 Page 13 • • 9:15 p.m. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at D ">°U& :;{7,1 J~'b.J ty City C er~ • I . - • • t • • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 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. order. Englewood Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to 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 Littl~ton Council Members Trujillo, Emley, President Pro Tern Harper, President Collins. Absent : Council Members Parson, Taylor, Staritzky. City of E_~gle~~od Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw, Mayor Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were : City of Littleton City Manager Gale Christy f i ~:L_Q_f Englewood City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Public Works Waggoner Director of Wastewater Treatment Brookshire Director 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 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mayor Otis stated • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 2 • • • the plant was constructed and owned by both ci t ie s ; t h e r e f o r e , a joint public heariQg must b e hel d . COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING -TO CONSIDER THE 201 FACILITIES PLAN. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vot e r e sult e d as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent : Council Members Trujillo, Emley , Ha rp e r, Collins, Higday, Neal, Fitzpatric k, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Members Parsons, Taylor, Staritz ky. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis asked Mr. Jim Abbott, of Henningson, Durh a m, and Richardson, Inc. the engineers for the plant, to make his pr e -sentation. Council Member Taylor entered the meeting at 7 :40 p.m. Mr. Jim Abbott appeared before Council and introduc e d Robert Williams, of Culp, Wesner, Culp, who helped prepar e th e plan. Mr. Abbott provided background concern i ng th e bas i c parameters for planning, construction and financing f or a n ar ea - wide master wastewater management plan. Mr. Abbott po i nted o u t the areas currently served by the Bi-City plan t . Mr. Abbott stated the three general topics which th e plan addressed were: 1. Expansion of the existing joint us e pla nt. 2. Armnonia removal in the eff luent . 3. Chlorine removal i n the 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 state; and the state was going throug h a process of reclassifying streams. Once a stream was reclassi- fied, then discharge standards can be set. Therefore, the engi- neers had to study several different alternatives in order to be prepared to meet whatever effluent standards were set • • I • - l • • • • • • March 10, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Abbott stated the three concepts 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 staging period was in line with EPA guidelines. Taken into consideration 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 67°/ •. Mr. Abbott stated the alternative wastewater manage-ment plans studied were: l. Expansion of the existing joint use plant from 20 mgd to 33 1/2 mgd and discharge the effluent into the Platte River. The plant would be expanded to accomo- date the stream standards set by the State. Cost -$62 million. 2. 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 scheme. Five thousand (5,000) acres would be necessary to perform this alternative. Cost -$125 million 3. Spreading basins which was a form of land application. The concept of rapid tributation through sand beds where pollutants are removed 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- 4 . ed down through the river. Cost -$65 million Land application concept wherein the plant would utilize the High Line Canal to convey the water out to irrigation sites. The plant would be expanded, a pumping station built that would pump the effluent out to the canal and conveyed to irrigators. This alternative would require that during the winter months either a storage reservoir would be built because there would be no demand for ir- rigation needs or have a dual stream classification so a lesser degree of treatment could discharged to the Platte River yet put the effluent out into the High Line Canal during the summer months. Cost -$92 million • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 4 • • • 5. Expansion of the existing plant to a capacity o f 33 1/2 mgd and attempt to locate a nearby site wherein urban irrigation could be utilized and industrial re-use. Water could be pumped out and applied to irrigate parks, golf course, public greenbelts and possibly the Public Service power plant. Any remaining water would be treated at the plant and discharged to the river. This alternative would accomplish a land ap- plication concept yet should not delay expansion of the plant. Cost -$ 63 million Mr. Abbott recommended adoption of Alternative #5 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 three levels of treatment were secondary treatment, partial nitrification and full nitri- fication with secondary being the least costly and full nitri- fication being the most costly. The three alternatives to fund the enlargement were: 1. Assume no federal funds will 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 immediately to construct the plant. 3. Assume federal funds will be utilized but receipt of a grant delayed. Mr. Abbott elaborated on Alternative #3. 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 $ 27.7 million For partial nitrification $ 31.5 million For full nitrification $ 37.3 million Engineering, legal, administration costs and interest during construction for total project costs: For secondary treatment $ 32 million • I • - ({ • • • • • • March 10, 1980 Page 5 For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ 35. 9 million $ 42 million The local share, assuming 75% 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 treatment $ 755,000 For partial nitrification $ 848,000 For full nitrification $ 1,000,000 Costs for monthly user would be: For secondary treatment $ 0.70 month/tap For partial nitrification $ 0.75 month/tap For full nitrification $ 1.10 month/tap Mr. Abbott asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, came forward. Mr. Giseburt 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 was built initially on a 50-50 basis with the same amount of capacity. One city was near capacity and the other one was considerably under capacity but the 50-50 split still existed • • I • - 0 • • March 10, 1 980 Page 6 • • • Mr. Giseburt asked i f it was possibl e to receive 75 % funding from the federal g overnment since full funding is not available. Also, if the citie s decide to fund t he pro ject wi th - out federal funds, would this idea plac e the cities in a bett e r position to conduct the construction of th e plant without the dictates of the federal government. Mr. Abbott stated federal funds were very di ffi cult to get. Should the cities fund the project, the proc es s would be expedited with less inflation experienced. The citi es wou l d have more control over what to build as lon g as the discharge standards were being met. Council Member Staritsky, Littleton, entered th e me et -ing at 8 :10 p.m. Kent Teal , Manager of the Southgate Sanitat i on Di strict, appeared before Council. Mr. Teal stated the district facility would pay 31% of what Mr. Abbott denoted as the local share. Mr. Teal stated he represented the largest number of users who will fund the local share that have contracts with the City of Engl ewood. Mr. Teal stated Alternative #5 was 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 stated Alternative #1 was the alternative of choice, demand and economy. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Teal gave the boundaries of the district and stated it covered approximately a 20 square mile area. In response to Council Member Neal 's question, Mr. Teal stated Alternative #1 was best because the Platt e Rive r had the ability to cleanse itself and even with the potential time delay was the preference of the Southgate District Board. Mr. Teal stated with the type of landscaping, and number of golf courses and greenbelts, the discharge would have to be frozen, cut up and stored for the winter period. Council Member Neal asked Mr . Teal if there was a choice of pursuing grants through EPA and the federal govern- ment which took additional time versus independently or pri- vately financing the plant, which would the district prefer • Council Member Neal also asked Mr. Teal if the sanitation dis- trict would pay the additional tap fees so the cities could privately fund the plant. Mr. Tea l stated the Southgate District and South Arap- pahoe District had requested an amendment to the 208 plan. The • I • - • March 10, 1980 Page 7 • • • districts would like to develop their own treatment facility between the area of Clarkson -Orchard and Broadway. Mr. Teal stated the district would be willing to pay the additional tap fee to help finance the cities independently fund the plant expansion. Mr. Abbott stated the City of Aurora had a plan into effect that used wastewater treatment effluent on golf courses as did the Air Force Academy. Mr. Abbott agreed there were some water rights implications to be worked out. The pursuit of Al- ternative IS would enhance the cities' position for a grant and if it did not go through, the engineers did not think it would delay the cities reverting to Alternative #1 because they were so similar. President James Collins asked Mr. Abbott how the fund- ing would be determined. Mr. Abbott stated if the cities selected the option to utilize federal grants, it would place the funding at a level where the tap fees were now. The capital construction costs would all come from tap fees and the federal grant. If there was no federal grant, capital construction costs would come from pre- viously collected tap fees. President Collins spoke on the time involved to go through an EPA grant request, the inflation costs incurred due delays and tighter EPA regulations. Mr. Collins queried whether or not EPA should be funding the project. He pointed out that the grant decision would not be known for a few years. Mr. Collins asked the Councils to consider the cumbersome process. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Abbott for com- parative figures as to what the costs would be with 75% federal funding and without any federal funds. Mr. Abbott responded that with secondary treatment, construction costs would be $27.7 million with the federal grant; $22.S million without federal funding. Mr. Abbott stated the $5 million difference would be due to delays in the program. Council Member Neal asked what kind of rate structure would be required to fund the project. Mr. Abbott stated the estimated tap fee would be $300 if federal funds were used and $1,000 per tap without federal funds. He stated the amounts related to new construction only; but there would also have to be an increase over what was charged now for maintenance of the existing plant and that would be an additional $400. • I • • - • • March 10, 1980 Page 8 • • • Council Member Fitzpatrick stated a more realistic increase would be to charge $2,600 or $2,700 for a tap fee. Mr. Abbott stated there would be an incremental in- crease of $600 -$700 over the existing tap fee of $800 for the entire service area. President Collins asked Mr. Teal how the district viewed the increase in tap fees. Mr. Teal stated the district would cooperate in pay-ing the increase in tap fees. Mr. Abbott stated approximately 38,000 taps would be served by the additional capacity. City Manager Mccown stated the current tap fee was $800 and based upon analysis of long-term funding of the sewer fund, that should be sufficient funds to pay for the expansion plant based 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 Englewood and Littleton, then of the $27.7 million the cities would be responsible for $3.7 million of the plant. If the cities had to fund the whole project, of the $22.S million the cities would be responsible for $11 million each which was a considerable 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 was not certain. President Collins asked Mr. Abbott if HOR agreed with the projected population figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated an in-depth population study had not been made ; therefore, he had no data to contradict the figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated he thought the figures were con- servatively low and history has shown the area has grown faster than what was planned. Mr. Teal stated DRCOG had issued a report on the ex- pansion of growth in Douglas County. DRCOG indicated in the • I - • • I March 10, 1980 Page 9 • • • report, for Southgate area alone, the population to be the same in 1985 as it was at the present time. City Manager Christy stated his staff had studied DRCOG's population prediction and concluded it to be on the low side. Howver, his staff anticipated water usage per capita to decline which may prove the predicted numbers to be correct. Mr. Christy added the Highlands Ranch has filed site application for a new sewage plant to be built in Douglas County. The plans called for the land application concept. If Mission Viejo received approval, the Bi-City plant would not have to treat the sewage from the ranch. Council Member Keena stated Douglas County returned the report on the population figures to DRCOG and asked DRCOG to re-examine the prediction. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked since funds would be needed immediately to put out bonds and interest rate paid; and how soon would the cities be able realize the refund to pay off the bonds to use up 38,000 taps. Mr. Abbott stated the 38,000 taps would be used up in 16 years beginning in 1985. The plant was planned for a staging period from 1985 to 2001. In 1996, plans would start again for another expansion. Council Member Bradshaw asked Mr. Abbott to define the current status of the stream classification. Mr. Abbott stated the Water Quality Control Commission has set up several hearings. The hearing for the South Platte River has been scheduled for July. The Commission would probably not take a formal position until either the end of 1980 or spring of 1981. Mr. Abbott advised that if a decision was made to pro- ceed with the design of the expansion, then it was recommended to proceed on the secondary treatment aspect. The planning would be set so that if the State took a position requiring more strin- gent discharge, facilities could be added to meet the requirements • . The plan, as it was, proposed to correspond with what the State required later. Council Member Emley asked Mr. Abbott what costs would be involved if the State placed stricter requirements on the plant. (. Mr. Abbott responded those conditions have been incor- porated in the estimated costs of which he spoke earlier. • • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 10 • • • John Osborn, Board Member of the Ken Caryl Ranch Wat e r Sanitation District, appeared before Council. Mr. Osborn asked what was the status of activating the old treatment plant. Mr. Abbott stated HDR and the City of Englewood have applied for a discharge 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 August, 1981. Mr. Osborn supported Mr. Teal's comments to further investigate local funding. Mr. Osborn stated the estimated us e of 38,000 taps was conservative. The timing of getting the pro- ject completed was important and the delays in waiting for EPA funding were significant. Mr. Osborn stated EPA has already begun to place rigid restrictions on local jurisdictions. Mr. Osborn suggested obtaining formal written comments from parti- cipating water sanitation districts regarding acceptance of local funding and the costs that local funding brought with it. Mr. Osborn stated there was a growing feeling amongst builders to pay a larger tap fee if the plant could be built by a certain date and not have to undergo delays from the federal government. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott how the increase of mgd was selected. Mr. Abbott stated the increase was decided from ex- amining federal guidelines as to how the plant could be expanded. If the cities locally fund the expansion, then the mgd amount could be either decreased or increased depending on what they wanted to do. Ms. 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 stated some additional study would be needed to determine which funding would be the most economical. He stated the study could be performed within a month's time • Mr. Abbott was unable to answer whether or not the study could be performed under the existing contract. In response to Council Member Higday's question, City · Manager Mccown stated Englewood would pay for the cost to re-activate the old treatment plant. Council Member Trijullo asked the councils to consider expanding the capacity to 40 mgd in anticipation that the growth will extend beyond predictions. • I • - r. • • March 10, 1980 Page 11 • • • Mr. Abbott stated if the cities decide to expand the plant without federal funds, the state health department still had control and influence over writing discharge permits. This may call for a more advanced treatment scheme which would be more expensive to do. City Manager Christy stated if further study was de- cided upon then he and Mr. Mccown would provide also further analysis of tap fees. Council Member Emley asked 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 reconnnended 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 Staritsky spoke on the quality of the effluent and maintaining it at an acceptable standard regardless of cost. Ms. Staritsky stated the cities were responsible for controlling growth in a manner that keeps 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 being done about controlling other non-point source pollution of the river. City Manager Christy stated nitrification protected only a small degree of fish life. Mr. Christy asked Mr. Abbott if the water rights issue involved in Alternative #5 would be a time-consuming factor. Mr. Williams 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 sanctions 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 . • I • • • • March 10, 1980 Page 12 • • • In response to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Abbott stated the cities would have to comply with the stan- dards set by the state regardless whether federal funds or local funds were used. Council Member Higday asked Mr. Abbott if Alternative 15 was chosen and the plant was enlarged to 40 mgd, could pro- blems with the BOD be reduced by keeping the discharge into the Platte River down to what it would be if the plant were expanded to 13 mgd by using more land application. Mr. Abbott confirmed Mr. Higday's comments. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott if the state would order either partial nitrification or full nitrification, would it be at that point the individual citizens would incur a substantial increase because the operation became more ex-pensive. Mr. Abbott confirmed Ms. Keena's comments. There were no further comments. PRESIDENT COLLINS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALSO THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED ALONG WITH HOR TO EXPLORE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE PLANT 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 ALTERNATIVE IN MORE 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 RECOMMEND TO US A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE AND THAT WE LOOK TOWARD MEETING AGAIN SOMETIME BETWEEN THE NEXT MONTH AND A HALF AND THREE MONTHS 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 Trujillo, Emley, Taylor, Staritsky, Harper, Collins, Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis • None. Council Member Parsons. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER TRUJILLO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Council Member Higday seconded the motion • • I • - - • • March 10, 1980 Page 13 • •• • 9:15 p.m. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at . ~ )~ ">Ue.o.. ~ ?-u ty City C erk • I • - • • • • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 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. order. Englewood Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to 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 Councir-Members Trujillo, Emley, President Pro Tem Harper, President Collins. Absent: Council Members Parson, Taylor, Staritzky. City of E_fl..&le~EOd Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw, Mayor Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were : City of Littleton City Manager Gale Christy fit~ Englewood City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Public Works Waggoner Director of Wastewater Treatment Brookshire Director 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 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mayor Otis stated • I • - • • March 10, 1980 Page 2 • • • the plant was constructed and owned by both cities; therefore, a joint public hearigg must be held. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED 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 Parsons, Taylor, Staritzky. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis asked Mr. Jim Abbott, of Henningson, Durham, and Richardson, Inc. the engineers for 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 Williams, of Culp, Wesner, Culp, who helped prepare the plan. Mr. Abbott provided background concerning the basic parameters for planning, construction 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. Ammonia removal in the effluent. 3. Chlorine removal in the 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 state ; and the state was going through a process of reclassifying streams. Once a stream .was reclassi- fied, then discharge standards can be set. Therefore, the engi- neers had to study several different alternatives in order to be prepared to meet whatever effluent standards were set • I • • - • • • • March 10, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Abbott stated the three concepts 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 staging period was in line with EPA guidelines. Taken into consideration 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 67'7.. Mr. Abbott stated the alternative wastewater manage- ment plans studied were: 1. Expansion of the existing joint use plant from 20 mgd to 33 1/2 mgd and discharge the effluent into the Platte River. The plant would be expanded to accomo- date the stream standards set by the State. Cost -$62 million. 2. 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 scheme. Five thousand (5,000) acres would be necessary to perform this alternative. Cost -$125 million 3. Spreading basins which was a form of land application. 4. The concept of rapid tributation through sand beds where pollutants are removed 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 wherein the plant would utilize the High Line Canal to convey the water out to irrigation sites. The plant would be expanded, a pumping station built that would pump the effluent out to the canal and conveyed to irrigators. This alternative would require that during the winter months either a storage reservoir would be built because there would be no demand for ir- rigation needs or have a dual stream classification so a lesser degree of treatment could discharged to the Platte River yet put the effluent out into the High Line Canal during the summer months. Cost -$92 million • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 4 • • • 5. Expansion of the existing plant to a capacity of 33 1/2 mgd and attempt to locate a nearby site wherein urban irrigation could be utilized and industrial re-use. Water could be pumped out and applied to irrigate parks, golf course, public greenbelts and possibly the Public Service power plant. Any remaining water would be treated at the plant and discharged to the river. This alternative would accomplish a land ap- plication concept yet should not delay expansion of the plant. Cost -$ 63 million Mr. Abbott recommended adoption of Alternative #5 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 three levels of treatment were secondary treatment, partial nitrification and full nitri- fication with secondary being the least costly and full nitri- fication being the most costly. The three alternatives to fund the enlargement were: 1. Assume no federal funds will 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 immediately to construct the plant. 3. Assume federal funds will be utilized but receipt of a grant delayed. Mr. Abbott elaborated on Alternative #3. He stated th e the cities were not on the current priority list to receive fed e - 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 $ 27.7 million For partial nitrification $ 31.5 million For full nitrification $ 37.3 million Engineering, legal, administration costs and interest during construction for total project costs: For secondary treatment $ 32 million • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 5 • • • For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ 35.9 million $ 42 million The local share, assuming 75% federal grant rec e ived, would be : For secondary treatment $ 8 million For partial nitrification $ 8.9 million For full nitrification $ 10.6 million Annual costs for local share with 7% interest For secondary treatment $ 755,000 For partial nitrification $ 848,000 For full nitrification $ 1,000,000 Costs for monthly user would be: For secondary treatment $ 0.70 month/tap For partial nitrification $ 0.75 month/tap For full nitrification $ 1.10 month/tap Mr. Abbott asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, came forward. Mr. Giseburt 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- me nt 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 was built initially on a 50-50 basis with the same amount of capacity. One city was near capacity and the other one was considerably under capacity but the 50-50 split still existed. • I • - 0 • • March 10, 1980 Page 6 • • • Mr. Gis eburt asked if it was possib le to r c ive 75 7. funding from the f ederal government since full f und ing is not available. Also, if the cities decide to f und the pro j ect with- out federal funds, would this idea place the cities in a bett er position to conduct the construction of the plant without the dictates of the federal government. Mr. Abbott stated federal funds were very di f f i cu lt to get. Should the cities fund the project, the process would be expedited with less inflation experienc e d. The cities would have more control over what to build as long as the discharg e 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 317. of what Mr. Abbott denoted as the local share. Mr. Teal stated he represented the largest number of users who will fund the local share that have contracts with the City of Englewood. Mr. Teal stated Alternative IS was 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 stated Alternative #1 was the alternative of choice, demand and economy. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Teal gave the boundaries of the district and stated it covered approximately a 20 square mile area. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Teal stated Alternative #1 was best because the Platte River had the ability to cleanse itself and even with the pot e ntial time delay was the preference of the Southgate District Board. Mr. Teal stated with the type of landscaping, and numb er of golf courses and greenbelts , the discharge would have to be frozen, cut up and stored for the winter period. Council Member Ne al asked Mr. Teal if there was a choice of pursuing grants through EPA and the federal govern- ment which took additional time versus independently or pri- vately financing the plant, which would the district prefer . Council Member Neal also asked Mr. Teal if the sanitation dis- trict would pay the additional tap fees so the cities could privately fund the plant. Mr. Teal stated the So uthgate District and South Arap - pahoe District had requested an amendment to the 208 plan. The • I • - • • ( • March 10, 1980 Page 7 • • • districts would like to develop their own treatment facility between the area of Clarkson -Orchard and Broadway. Mr. Teal stated the district would be willing to pay the additional tap fee to help finance the cities independently fund the plant expansion. Mr. Abbott stated the City of Aurora had a plan into effect that used wastewater treatment effluent on golf courses as did the Air Force Academy. Mr. Abbott agreed there were some water rights implications to be worked out. The pursuit of Al- ternative 15 would enhance the cities' position for a grant and if it did not go through, the engineers did not think it would delay the cities reverting to Alternative 11 because they were so similar. President James Collins asked Mr. Abbott how the fund-ing would be determined. Mr. Abbott stated if the cities selected the option to utilize federal grants, it would place the funding at a level where the tap fees were now. The capital construction costs would all come from tap fees and the federal grant. If there was no federal grant, capital construction costs would come from pre-viously collected tap fees. President Collins spoke on the time involved to go through an EPA grant request, the inflation costs incurred due delays and tighter EPA regulations. Mr. Collins queried whether or not EPA should be funding the project. He pointed out that the grant decision would not be known for a few years. Mr. Collins asked the Councils to consider the cumbersome process. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Abbott for com- parative figures as to what the costs would be with 75% federal funding and without any federal funds. Mr. Abbott responded that with secondary treatment, construction costs 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 asked what kind of rate structure would be required to fund the project. Mr. Abbott stated the estimated tap fee would be $300 if federal funds were used and $1,000 per tap without federal funds. He stated the amounts related to new construction only; but there would also have to be an increase over what was charged now for maintenance of the existing plant and that would be an additional $400. • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 8 • • • Council Member Fitzpatrick stated a more realistic increase would be to charge $2,600 or $2,700 for a tap fee. Mr. Abbott stated there would be an incremental in- crease of $600 -$700 over the existing tap fee of $800 for the entire service area. President Collins asked Mr. Teal how the district viewed the increase in tap fees. Mr. Teal stated the district would cooperate in pay-ing the increase in tap fees. Mr. Abbott stated approximately 38,000 taps would be served by the additional capacity. City Manager Mccown stated the current tap fee was $800 and based upon analysis of long-term funding of the sewer fund, that should be sufficient funds to pay for the expansion plant based upon EPA funding and the reactivation of the old plant. Mr. Mccown stated if EPA funding were used and 12 l/2i were funded by each Englewood and Littleton, then of the $27.7 million the cities would be responsible for $3.7 million of the plant. If the cities had to fund the whole project, of the $22.S million the cities would be responsible for $11 million each which was a considerable 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 was not certain. President Collins asked Mr. Abbott if HOR agreed with the projected population figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated an in-depth population study had not been made; therefore, he had no data to contradict the figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated he thought the figures were con- servatively low and history has shown the area has grown faster than what was planned. Mr. Teal stated DRCOG had issued a report on the ex- pansion of growth in Douglas County. DRCOG indicated in the • I • - ( • • ( • March 10, 1980 Page 9 • • • report, for Southgate area alone, the population to be the same in 1985 as it was at the present time. City Manager Christy stated his staff had studied DRCOG's population prediction and concluded it to be on the low side. Howver, his staff anticipated water usage per capita to decline which may prove the predicted numbers to be correct. Mr. Christy added the Highlands Ranch has filed site application for a new sewage plant to be built in Douglas County. The plans called for the land application concept. If Mission Viejo received approval, the Bi-City plant would not have to treat the sewage from the ranch. Council Member Keena stated Douglas County returned the report on the population figures to DRCOG and asked DRCOG to re-examine the prediction. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked since funds would be needed iUlllediately to put out bonds and interest rate paid; and how soon would the cities be able realize the refund to pay off the .bonds to use up 38,000 taps. Mr. Abbott stated the 38,000 taps would be used up in 16 years beginning in 1985. The plant was planned for a staging period from 1985 to 2001. In 1996, plans would start again for another expansion. Council Member Bradshaw asked Mr. Abbott to define the current status of the stream classification. Mr. Abbott stated the Water Quality Control Commission has set up several hearings. The hearing for the South Platte River has been scheduled for July. The Commission would probably not take a formal position until either the end of 1980 or spring of 1981. Mr. Abbott advised that if a decision was made to pro- ceed with the design of the expansion, then it was recoU111ended to proceed on the secondary treatment aspect. The planning would be set so that if the State took a position requiring more strin- gent discharge, facilities could be added to meet the requirements. The plan, as it was, proposed to correspond with what the State required later . Council Member Emley asked Mr. Abbott what costs would be involved if the State placed stricter requirements on the plant. Mr. Abbott responded those conditions have been incor- porated in the estimated costs of which he spoke earlier • • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 10 • • • John Osborn, Board Member of the Ken Caryl Ranch Water Sanitation District, appeared before Council. Mr. Osborn asked what was the status of activating the old treatment plant. Mr. Abbott stated HOR and the City of Englewood have applied for a discharge 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 August, 1981. Mr. Osborn supported Mr. Teal's comments to further investigate local funding. Mr. Osborn stated the estimated use of 38,000 taps was conservative. The timing of getting the pro- ject completed was important and the delays in waiting for EPA funding were significant. Mr. Osborn stated EPA has already begun to place rigid restrictions on local jurisdictions. Mr. Osborn suggested obtaining formal written comments from parti- cipating water sanitation districts regarding acceptance of local funding and the costs that local funding brought with it. Mr. Osborn stated there was a growing feeling amongst builders to pay a larger tap fee if the plant could be built by a certain date and not have to undergo delays from the federal government. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott how the increase of mgd was selected. Mr. Abbott stated the increase was decided from ex- amining federal guidelines as to how the plant could be expanded. If the cities locally fund the expansion, then the mgd amount could be either decreased or increased depending on what they wanted to do. Ms. Keena stated if a decision was made to locally fund the project, could a similar analysis be done under the existing contract with HOR. Mr. Abbott stated some additional study would be needed to determine which funding would be the most economical. He stated the study could be performed within a month's time. Mr. Abbott was unable to answer whether or not the study could be performed under the existing contract. In response to Council Member Higday's question, City Manager Mccown stated Englewood would pay for the cost to re- activate the old treatment plant. Council Member Trijullo asked the councils to consider expanding the capacity to 40 mgd in anticipation that the growth will extend beyond predictions. • I • ....... ( • • c • March 10, 1980 Page 11 ... -. ·~ . '"'"" ........... "" • • • Mr. Abbott stated if the cities decide to expand the plant without federal funds, the state health department still had control and influence over writing discharge permits. This may call for a more advanced treatment scheme which would be more expensive to do. City Manager Christy stated if further study was de- cided upon then he and Mr. Mccown would provide also further analysis of tap fees. Council Member Emley asked 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 recommended 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 Staritsky spoke on the quality of the effluent and maintaining it at an acceptable standard regardless of cost. Ms. Staritsky stated the cities were responsible for controlling growth in a manner that keeps 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 being done about controlling other non-point source pollution of the river. City Manager Christy stated nitrification protected only a small degree of fish life. Mr. Christy asked Mr. Abbott if the water rights issue involved in Alternative #5 would be a time-consuming factor • Mr. Williams 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 sanctions 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. • .. I • • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 12 • • • In response to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Abbott stated the cities would have to comply with the stan- dards set by the state regardless whether federal funds or local funds were used. Council Member Higday asked Mr. Abbott if Alternative 15 was chosen and the plant was enlarged to 40 mgd, could pro- blems with the BOD be reduced by keeping the discharge into the Platte River down to what it would be if the plant were expanded to 13 mgd by using more land application. Mr. Abbott confirmed Mr. Higday's comments. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott if the state would order either partial nitrification or full nitrification, would it be at that point the individual citizens would incur a substantial increase because the operation became more ex-pensive. Mr. Abbott confirmed Ms. Keena's comments. There were no further comments. PRESIDENT COLLINS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALSO THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED ALONG WITH HDR TO EXPLORE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE PLANT 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 ALTERNATIVE IN MORE 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 RECOMMEND TO US A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE AND THAT WE LOOK TOWARD MEETING AGAIN SOMETIME BETWEEN THE NEXT MONTH AND A HALF AND THREE MONTHS 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 Trujillo, Emley, Taylor, Staritsky, Harper, Collins, Higday , Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo , Bradshaw, Otis • None. Council Member Parsons. The Mayor declared the motion carried • * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER TRUJILLO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. ( Council Member Higday seconded the motion, • I • - ( • • ( • March 10, 1980 Page 13 • • • 9 :15 p.m. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at D -">Ut!L ·-t 7,1 /~')....1 ty City C e~ • I . • - • • • • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 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. order. Englewood Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to 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: ~.!!Y__Qf_bg t le _!:on Council Members Trujillo, Emley, President Pro Tern Harper, President Collins. Absent: Council Members Parson, Taylor, Staritzky. City of _En_gle~~od Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Mayor Pro Tern Bradshaw, Mayor Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: Ci ~~f Littleton City Manager Gale Christy Cit o~ Englewood City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Public Works Waggoner Director of Wastewater Treatment Brookshire Director 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 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mayor Otis stated • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 2 • • • the plant was constructed and owned by both cities; th e re f ore, a joint public hearicg must be held. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED 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 Parsons, Taylor, Staritzky. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis asked Mr. Jim Abbott, of Henningson, Durham, and Richardson, Inc. the engineers for 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 Williams, of Culp, Wesner, Culp, who helped prepare the plan. Mr. Abbott provided background concerning the basic parameters for planning, construction 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. Annnonia removal in the effluent. 3. Chlorine removal in the 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 state; and the state was going through a process of reclassifying streams. Once a stream was reclassi- fied, then discharge standards can be set. Therefore, the engi- neers had to study several different alternatives in order to be prepared to meet whatever effluent standards were set • • I • - • • • • • • March 10, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Abbott stated the three concepts 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 staging period was in line with EPA guidelines. Taken into consideration 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 wastewat er flow, it would be from the current 20 mgd to 33 1/2 mgd or 67%. Mr. Abbott stated the alternative wastewater manage- ment plans studied were: 1. Expansion of the existing joint use plant from 20 mgd to 33 1/2 mgd and discharge the effluent into the Platt e Rive r. The plant would be expanded to accomo- date the str e am standards set by the State. 2. 3. 4. Cost -$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 scheme . Five thousand (5,000) acres would be necessary to perform this alternative. Cost -$125 million Spreading basins which was a form of land application. The concept of rapid tributation through sand beds where pollutants are removed 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- e d down through the river. Cost -$65 million Land application concept wherein the plant would utilize the High Line Canal to convey the water out to irrigation sites. Th e plant would be expanded, a pumping station built that would pump the effluent out to the canal and convey e d to irrigators . This alternative would require th at during the winter months either a storage reservoir would be built because there would be no demand for ir- rigation needs or have a dual stream classification so a lesser degree of treatment could discharged to the Platte River yet put the effluent out into the High Line Canal during the summer months. Cost -$92 million • ' I • - - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 4 • • • 5. Expansion of the existing plant to a capacity of 33 1/2 mgd and attempt to locate a nearby site wherein urban irrigation could be utilized and industrial re-use. Water could be pumped out and applied to irrigate parks, golf course, public greenbelts and possibly the Public Service power plant. Any remaining water would be treated at the plant and discharged to the river. This alternative would accomplish a land ap- plication concept yet should not delay expansion of the plant. Cost -$ 63 million Mr. Abbott recolllillended adoption of Alternative #5 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 three levels of treatment were secondary treatment, partial nitrification and full nitri- fication with secondary being the least costly and full nitri- fication being the most costly. The three alternatives to fund the enlargement were: 1. Assume no federal funds will 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 immediately to construct the plant. 3. Assume federal funds will be utilized but receipt of a grant delayed. Mr. Abbott elaborated on Alternative #3. 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 $ 27.7 million For partial nitrification $ 31.5 million For full nitrification $ 37.3 million Engineering, legal, administration costs and interest during construction for total project costs: For secondary treatment $ 32 million • I • • - • • ( • March 10, 1980 Page 5 • • • For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ 35.9 million $ 42 million The local share, assuming 75% federal grant received, would be: For secondary treatment $ 8 million For partial nitrification $ 8.9 million For full nitrification $ 10.6 million Annual costs for local share with 7% interest For secondary treatment $ 755,000 For partial nitrification $ 848,000 For full nitrification $ 1,000,000 Co ts for monthly user would be: For condary treatment $ 0.70 month/tap For par ial nitrification $ 0.75 month/tap For fu11 nitrificat ion $ 1.10 month/tap Mr. Abbot asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Oliv r Giseb urt, 3171 South High, came forward. Mr. Giseburt asked Mr . Abbott to explain the three different types of treatm nt. 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 was built initially on a 50-50 basis with the same amount of capacity. One city was near capacity and the other one was considerably under capacity but the 50-50 split still existed • • • I • • D - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 6 • • • Mr. Giseburt asked if it was possible to receive 75 % funding from the federal government since f ull funding is not available. Also, if the cities decide to fu nd the proj ect 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 discharg e 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 31% of what Mr. Abbott denoted as the local share. Mr. Teal stated he represented the largest number of users who will fund the local share that have contracts with the City of Englewood. Mr. Teal stated Alternative #5 was 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 stated Alternative #1 was the alternative of choice, demand and economy. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Teal gave the boundaries of the district and stated it covered approximately a 20 square mile area. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Teal stated Alternative #1 was best because the Platte River had the ability to cleanse itself and even with the potential time delay was the preference of the Southgate District Board. Mr. Teal stated with the type of landscaping, and number of golf courses and greenbelts, the discharge would have to be frozen, cut up and stored for the winter period. Council Member Neal asked Mr. Teal if there was a choice of pursuing grants through EPA and the federal govern- ment which took additional time versus independently or pri- vately financing the plant, which would the district prefer. Council Member Neal also asked Mr. Teal if the sanitation dis- trict would pay the additional tap fees so the cities could privately fund the plant. Mr. Teal stated the Southgate District and South Arap- pahoe District had requested an amendment to the 208 plan. The I • • - - • • ( • • • • -----------_______ ,_311 ..... _~----~---~ March 10, 1980 Page 7 ' districts would like to develop their own treatment facility between the area of Clarkson -Orchard and Broadway. Mr. Teal stated the district would be willing to pay the additional tap fee to help finance the cities independently fund the plant expansion. Mr. Abbott stated the City of Aurora had a plan into effect that used wastewater treatment effluent on golf courses as did the Air Force Academy. Mr. Abbott agreed there were some water rights implications to be worked out. The pursuit of Al- ternative #5 would enhance the cities' position for a grant and if it did not go through, the engineers did not think it would delay the cities reve rting to Alternative fl because they were so similar. President James Collins asked Mr. Abbott how the fund- ing would be determined. Mr. Abbott stated if the cities selected the option to utilize federal grants, it would place the funding at a level where the tap fees were now. The capital construction costs would all come from tap fees and the federal grant. If there was no federal grant, capital construction costs would come from pre- viously collected tap fees. President Collins spoke on the time involved to go through an EPA grant request, the inflation costs incurred due delays and tighter EPA regulations. Mr. Collins queried whether or not EPA should be funding the project. He pointed out that the grant decision would not be known for a few years. Mr. Collins asked the Councils to consider the cumbersome process. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Abbott for com- parative figures as to what the costs would be with 75% federal funding and without any federal funds. Mr. Abbott responded that with secondary treatment, construction costs 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 asked what kind of rate structure would be requ ired to fund the project. Mr. Abbott stated the estimated tap fee would be $300 if federal funds were used and $1,000 per tap without federal funds. He stated the amounts related to new construction only; but there would also have to b e an increase over what was charged now f or ma i ntenance of the existing plant and that would be an additional $400. • I • - '. • • • March 10, 1980 Page 8 • • • ......_ --. "'-__.,--~ Council Member Fitzpatrick stated a more realistic increase would be to charge $2,6000 or $2,700 for a tap fee. Mr. Abbott stated there would be an incremental in- crease of $600 -$700 over the existing tap fee of $800 for the entire service area. President Collins asked Mr. Teal how the district viewed the increase in tap fees. Mr. Teal stated the district would cooperate in pay-ing the increase in tap fees. Mr. Abbott stated approximately 38,000 taps would be served by the additional capacity. City Manager Mccown stated the current tap fee was $800 and based upon analysis of long-term funding of the sewer fund, that should be sufficient funds to pay for the expansion plant based 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 Englewood and Littleton, then of the $27.7 million the cities would be responsible for $3.7 million of the plant. If the cities had to fund the whole project, of the $22.5 million the cities would be res~onsible for $11 million each which was a considerable 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 was not certain • President Collins asked Mr. Abbott if HOR agreed with the projected population figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated an in-depth population study had not been made; therefore, he had no data to contradict the figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated he thought the figures were con- servatively low and history has shown the area has grown faster than what was planned. Mr. Teal stated DRCOG had issued a report on the ex- pansion of growth in Douglas County. DRCOG indicated in the • I • - ( • • • March 10, 1980 Page 9 • • • report, for Southgate area alone, the population to be the same in 1985 as it was at the present time. City Manager Christy stated his staff had studied DRCOG's population prediction and concluded it to be on the low side. Howver, his staff anticipated water usage per capita to decline which may prove the predicted numbers to be correct. Mr. Christy added the Highlands Ranch has filed site application for a new sewage plant to be built in Douglas County. The plans called for the land application concept. If Mission Viejo received approval, the Bi-City plant would not have to treat the sewage from the ranch. Council Member Keena stated Douglas County returned the report on the population figures to DRCOG and asked DRCOG to re-examine the prediction. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked since funds would be needed immediately to put out bonds and interest rate paid; and how soon would the cities be able realize the refund to pay off the bonds to use up 38,000 taps. Mr. Abbott stated the 38,000 taps would be used up in 16 years beginning in 1985. The plant was planned for a staging period from 1985 to 2001. In 1996, plans would start again for another expansion. Council Member Bradshaw asked Mr. Abbott to define the current status of the stream classification. Mr. Abbott stated the Water Quality Control Col!lllission has set up several hearings. The hearing for the South Platte River has been scheduled for July. The Commission would probably not take a formal position until either the end of 1980 or spring of 1981. Mr. Abbott advised that if a decision was made to pro- ceed with the design of the expansion, then it was recol!ll'lended to proceed on the secondary treatment aspect. The planning would be set so that if the State took a position requiring more strin- gent discharge, facilities could be added to meet the requirements. The plan, as it was, proposed to correspond with what the State required later. Council Member Emley asked Mr. Abbott what costs would be involved if the State placed stricter requirements on the plant • Mr. Abbott responded those conditions have been incor- porat d in the estima ted costs of which he spoke earlier • • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 10 • • • John Osborn, Board Member of the Ken Caryl Ranch Wat e r Sanitation District, appeared before Council. Mr. Osborn ask e d what was the status of activating the old treatment plant. Mr. Abbott stated HOR and the City of Englewood have applied for a discharge 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 August, 1981. Mr. Osborn supported Mr. Teal's comments to further investigate local funding. Mr. Osborn stated the estimated us e of 38,000 taps was conservative. The timing of getting the pro- ject completed was important and the delays in waiting for EPA funding were significant. Mr. Osborn stated EPA has already begun to place rigid restrictions on local jurisdictions. Mr. Osborn suggested obtaining formal written comments from parti- cipating water sanitation districts regarding acceptance of local funding and the costs that local funding brought with it. Mr. Osborn stated there was a growing feeling amongst builders to pay a larger tap fee if the plant could be built by a certain date and not have to undergo delays from the federal government. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott how the increase of mgd was selected. Mr. Abbott stated the increase was decided from ex- amining federal guidelines as to how the plant could be expanded. If the cities locally fund the expansion, then the mgd amount could be either decreased or increased depending on what they wanted to do. Ms. Keena stated if a decision was made to locally fund the project, could a similar analysis be done under the existing contract with HOR. Mr. Abbott stated some additional study would be needed to determine which funding would be the most economical. He stated the study could be performed within a month's time . Mr. Abbott was unable to answer whether or not the study could be performed under the existing contract. In response to Council Member Higday's question, City Manager Mccown stated Englewood would pay for the cost to re-activate the old treatment plant. Council Member Trijullo asked the councils to consider expanding the capacity to 40 mgd in anticipation that the growth will extend beyond predictions. • I • - (_ • • • March 10, 1980 Page 11 • • • Mr. Abbott stated if the cities decide to expand the plant without federal funds, the state health department still had control and influence over writing discharge permits. This may call for a more advanced treatment scheme which would be more expensive to do. City Manager Christy stated if further study was de- cided upon then he and Mr. Mccown would provide also further analysis of tap fees. Council Member Emley asked 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 reconunended 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 Staritsky spoke on the quality of the effluent and maintaining it at an acceptable standard regardless of cost. Ms. Staritsky stated the cities were responsible for controlling growth in a manner that keeps 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 being done about controlling other non-point source pollution of the river. City Manager Christy stated nitrification protected only a small degree of fish life. Mr. Christy asked Mr. Abbott if the water rights issue involved in Alternative 15 would be a time-consuming factor. Mr. Williams stated it was his understanding from the state engineer that because the facilities and water were exist- ing that by exchan£ing with effluent rather than sharing ground waters, there was no water rights problem. Mr. Abbott stated if the sanctions 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 • • I - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 12 • • • In response to City Manager McCown's question , Mr . Abbott stated the cities would have to comply with the stan- dards set by the state regardless whether federal funds or local funds were used. Council Member Higday asked Mr. Abbott if Alternative 15 was chosen and the plant was enlarged to 40 mgd, could pro- blems with the BOD be reduced by keeping the discharge into the Platte River down to what it would be if the plant were expanded to 13 mgd by using more land application. Mr. Abbott confirmed Mr. Higday's comments. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott if the state would order either partial nitrification or full nitrification, would it be at that point the individual citizens would incur a substantial increase because the operation became more ex-pensive. Mr. Abbott confirmed Ms. Keena's comments. There were no further comments. PRESIDENT COLLINS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALSO THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED ALONG WITH HOR TO EXPLORE THE HOST COST EFFECTIVE PLANT 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 ALTERNATIVE IN HORE 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 RECOMMEND TO US A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE AND THAT WE LOOK TOWARD MEETING AGAIN SOMETIME BETWEEN THE NEXT MONTH AND A HALF AND THREE MONTHS 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 Trujillo, Emley, Taylor, Staritsky, Harper, Collins, Higday , Neal, Fitzpatrick , Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis . None. Council Member Parsons. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER TRUJILLO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Council Member Hi gday seconded the motion • • I • • - - ( • • • March 10, 1980 Page 13 ,. • • • 9:15 p.m • Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at • I . - • • • • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 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. order. Englewood Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to 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: f :~:!J'_Qf_____1_i t tle_!=on Council Members Trujillo, Emley, Fresident Pro Tern Harper, President Collins. Absent: Council Members Parson, Taylor, Staritzky. City of _Englew_o~...Q. Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Mayor Pro Tern Bradshaw, Mayor Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: Ci~f Littleton City Manager Gale Christy fit~f Englewood City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Public Works Waggoner Director of Wastewater Treatment Brookshire Director 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 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mayor Otis stated • I • - • • • • • • March 10, 1980 Page 2 the plant was constructed and owned by both cities ; ther efor e , a joint public hearirag must be held. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED 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 Parsons, Taylor, Staritzky. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis asked Mr. Jim Abbott, of Henningson, Durham, and Richardson, Inc. the engineers for 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 introduce d Robert Williams, of Culp, Wesner, Culp, who helped prepare the plan. Mr. Abbott provided background concerning the basic parameters for planning, construction 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. Ammonia removal in the effluent. 3. Chlorine removal in the 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 state; and the state was going through a process of reclassifying streams. Once a stream was reclassi- fied, then discharge standards can be set. Therefore, the engi- neers had to study several different alternatives in order to be prepared to meet whatever effluent standards were set • • - I • • - ( • • • • • • March 10, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Abbot t stated th e three concepts 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 staging period was in line with EPA guidelines. Taken into consideration 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 67'7 •• Mr. Abbott stated the alternative wastewater manage-ment plans studied were: 1. Expansion of the existing joint use plant from 20 rngd to 33 1/2 mgd and discharge the effluent into the Platt e River. The plant would be expanded to accomo- date the stream standards set by the State. Cost -$62 million. 2. 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 scheme. Five thousand (5,000) acres would be necessary to perform this alternative. Cost -$125 million 3. Spreading basins which was a form of land application. The concept of rapid tributation through sand beds 4. where pollutants are removed 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 a ppl ication concept wherein the plant would utilize th e Hi gh Line Canal to convey the water out to irrigation sites. The plant would be expanded, a pumping station built that would pump the effluent out to the canal and c onveyed to irriga tors. This alternative would require that du r ing the winter months either a storage reservoir would be built because there would be no demand for ir- rigation needs or have a dual stream classification so a lesser degree of treatment could discharged to the Platt e River yet put the effluent out into the High Line Canal during the summer months. Cost -$92 million • I • - • • March 10, 1980 Page 4 • • • 5. Expansion of the existing plant to a capacity of 33 1/2 mgd and attempt to locate a nearby site wher ein urban irrigation could be utilized and industrial re-us e . Water could be pumped out and applied to irrigate parks, golf course, public greenbelts and possibly the Public Service power plant. Any remaining water would be treated at the plant and discharged to the river. This alternative would accomplish a land ap- plication concept yet should not delay expansion of the plant. Cost -$ 63 million Mr. Abbott recommended adoption 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 three levels of treatment were secondary treatment, partial nitrification and full nitri- fication with secondary being the least costly and full nitri- fication being the most costly. The three alternatives to fund the enlargement were: 1. Assume no federal funds will 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 immediately to construct the plant. 3. Assume federal funds will be utilized but receipt of a grant delayed. Mr. Abbott elaborated on Alternative #3. 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 $ 27.7 million For partial nitrification $ 31.5 million For full nitrification $ 37.3 million Engineering, legal, administration costs and interest during construction for total project costs: For secondary treatment $ 32 million • I . - • March 10, 1980 Page 5 • • • For partial nitrification For full nitrification $ 35. 9 million $ 42 million The local share, assuming 75% federal grant received, would be: For secondary treatment $ 8 million For partial nitrification $ 8.9 million For full nitrification $ 10.6 million Annual costs for local share with 7% interest For secondary treatment $ 755,000 For partial nitrification $ 848,000 For full nitrification $ 1,000,000 Costs for monthly user would be: For secondary treatment $ 0.70 month/tap For partial nitrification $ 0.75 month/tap For full nitrification $ 1.10 month/tap Mr. Abbott asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Oliver Giseburt, 3171 South High, came forward. Mr. Giseburt 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 was built initially on a 50-50 basis with the same amount of capacity. One city was near capacity and the other one was considerably under capacity but the 50-50 split still existed. • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 6 • • • Mr. Giseburt asked if it was possible to receive 75 % funding from the federal government since full funding is not available. Also, if the cities decide to fund the proj ect 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 317. of what Mr. Abbott denoted as the local share. Mr. Teal stated he represented the largest number of users who will fund the local share that have contracts with the City of Englewood. Mr. Teal stated Alternative #5 was 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 stated Alternative #1 was the alternative of choice, demand and economy. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Teal gave the boundaries of the district and stated it covered approximately a 20 square mile area. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Teal stated Alternative #1 was best because the Platte River had the ability to cleanse itself and even with the potential time delay was the preference of the Southgate District Board. Mr. Teal stated with the type of landscaping, and number of golf courses and greenbelts, the discharge would have to be frozen, cut up and stored for the winter period • Council Member Neal asked Mr. Teal if there was a choice of pursuing grants through EPA and the federal govern- ment which took additional time versus independently or pri- vately financing the plant, which would the district prefer. Council Member Neal also asked Mr. Teal if the sanitation dis- trict would pay the additional tap fees so the cities could privately fund the plant. Mr. Teal stated the Southgate District and South Arap- pahoe District had requested an amendment to the 208 plan. The • I • - • • ( • March 10, 1980 Page 7 • • • districts would like to develop their own treatment facility between the area of Clarkson -Orchard and Broadway. Mr. Teal stated the district would be willing to pay the additional tap fee to help finance the cities independently fund the plant expansion . Mr. Abbott stated the City of Aurora had a plan into effect that used wastewater treatment effluent on golf courses as did the Air Force Academy. Mr. Abbott agreed there were some water rights implications to be worked out. The pursuit of Al- ternative #5 would enhance the cities' position for a grant and if it did not go through, the engineers did not think it would delay the cities r everting to Alternative fl because they were so similar. President James Collins asked Mr. Abbott how the fund- ing would be determined. Mr. Abbott stated i f the cities selected the option to utilize federal grants, it would place the funding at a level where the tap fees were now. The capital construction costs would all come from tap fees and the federal grant. If there was no federal grant, capital construction costs would come from pre- viously collected tap fees. President Collins spoke on the time involved to go through an EPA grant request, the inflation costs incurred due delays and tighter EPA regulations. Mr. Collins queried whether or not EPA should b e funding the project. He pointed out that the grant decision would not be known for a few years. Mr. Collins asked the Councils to consider the cumbersome process. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Abbott for com- parative figures as to what the costs would be with 75% federal funding and without any federal funds. Mr. Abbott responded that with secondary treatment, construction costs would be $27.7 million with the federal grant; $22.5 million without federal funding. Mr. Abbott stated the $5 million dif fe rence would be due to delays in the program. Council Member Neal asked what kind of rate structure would be required to fund the project. Mr. Abbott stated the estimated tap fee would be $300 if federal funds were used and $1,000 per tap without federal funds. He stated the amounts related to new construction only; but there would also have to b e an increase over what was charged now for maintenance of the exi sting plant and that would be an additional $400 • • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 8 • • • Council Member Fitzpatr i ck stat e d a mor e r e alist i c increase would be to charge $2,6000 or $2,700 for a tap f ee . Mr. Abbott stated there would be an incremental in- crease of $600 -$700 over the existing tap fee of $800 for the entire service area. President Collins asked Mr. Teal how the district viewed the increase in tap fees. Mr. Teal stat e d the district would cooperate in pay-ing the increase in tap fees. Mr. Abbott stated approximately 38,000 taps would be served by the additional capacity. City Manager McCown stated the current tap fee was $800 and based upon analysis of long-term funding of the sewer fund, that should be sufficient funds to pay for the expansion plant based 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 Englewood and Littleton, then of the $27.7 million the cities would be responsible for $3.7 million of the plant. If the cities had to fund the whole project, of the $22.S million the cities would be responsible for $11 million each which was a considerable 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 th e fe e 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 i f Mr. Te al's calcula t ions included paying of f th e bonds. Mr. Teal answ e red he was not certain • President Collins asked Mr. Abbott if HOR agreed with the projected popula t ion figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated an in-depth population study had not been made; therefore, he had no data to contradict the figures from DRCOG. Mr. Abbott stated he thought the figures were con- servatively low and history has shown the area has grown faster than what was planned. Mr. Teal stated DRCOG had issued a report on the ex- pansion of growth in Douglas County. DRCOG indicated in the • I • - ( • • ( • March 10, 1980 Page 9 • • • report, for Southgate area alone, the population to be the same in 1985 as it was at the present time. City Manager Christy stated his staff had studied DRCOG's population prediction and concluded it to be on the low side. Howver, his staff anticipated water usage per capita to decline which may prove the predicted numbers to be correct. Mr. Christy added the Highlands Ranch has filed site application for a new sewage plant to be built in Douglas County. The plans called for the land application concept. If Mission Viejo received approval, the Bi-City plant would not have to treat the sewage from the ranch. Council Member Keena stated Douglas County returned the report on the population figures to DRCOG and asked DRCOG to re-examine the prediction. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked since funds would be needed irmnediately to put out bonds and interest rate paid; and how soon would the cities be able realize the refund to pay off the bonds to use up 38,000 taps. Mr. Abbott stated the 38,000 taps would be used up in 16 years beginning in 1985. The plant was planned for a staging period from 1985 to 2001. In 1996, plans would start again for another expansion. Council Member Bradshaw asked Mr. Abbott to define the current status of the stream classification. Mr. Abbott stated the Water Quality Control Commission has set up several hearings. The hearing for the South Platte River has been scheduled for July. The Commission would probably not take a formal position until either the end of 1980 or spring of 1981. Mr. Abbott advised that if a decision was made to pro- ceed with the design o f the expansion, then it was recommended to proceed on the secondary treatment aspect. The planning would be set so that if the State took a position requiring more strin- gent discharge, facilities could be added to meet the requirements. The plan, as it was, proposed to correspond with what the State required later. Council Member Emley asked Mr. Abbott what costs would be involved if the State placed stricter requirements on the plant. Mr. Abbott responded those conditions have been incor- porat ed in the estimated costs of which he spoke earlier • • I • - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 10 • • - John Osborn, Board Member of the Ken Caryl Ranch Water Sanitation District, appeared before Council. Mr. Osborn asked what was the status of activating the old treatment plant. Mr. Abbott stated HDR and the City of Englewood have applied for a discharge 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 August, 1981. Mr. Osborn supported Mr. Teal's colTlllents to further investigate local funding. Mr. Osborn stated the estimated use of 38,000 taps was conservative. The timing of getting the pro- ject completed was important and the delays in waiting for EPA funding were significant. Mr. Osborn stated EPA has already begun to place rigid restrictions on local jurisdictions. Mr. Osborn suggested obtaining formal written comments from parti- cipating water sanitation districts regarding acceptance of local funding and the costs that local funding brought with it. Mr. Osborn stated there was a growing feeling amongst builders to pay a larger tap fee if the plant could be built by a certain date and not have to undergo delays from the federal government. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott how the increase of mgd was selected. Mr. Abbott stated the increase was decided from ex- am1n1ng federal guidelines as to how the plant could be expanded. If the cities locally fund the expansion, then the mgd amount could be either decreased or increased depending on what they wanted to do. Ms. 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 stated some additional study would be needed to determine which funding would be the most economical. He stated the study could be performed within a month's time. Mr. Abbott was unable to answer whether or not the study could be performed under the existing contract. In response to Council Member Higday's question, City Manager Mccown stated Englewood would pay for the cost to re- activate the old treatment plant. Council Member Trijullo asked the councils to consider expanding the capacity to 40 mgd in anticipation that the growth will extend beyond predictions • • I • • - ( • • ( • March 10, 1980 Page 11 I @'] • • • Mr. Abbott stated if the cities decide to expand the plant without federal funds, the state health department still had control and influence over writing discharge permits. This may call for a more advanced treatment scheme which would be more expensive to do. City Manager Christy stated if further study was de- cided upon then he and Mr. Mccown would provide also further analysis of tap fees. Council Member Emley asked 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 recommended 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 Staritsky spoke on the quality of the effluent and maintaining it at an acceptable standard regardless of cost. Ms. Staritsky stated the cities were responsible for controlling growth in a manner that keeps 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 being done about controlling other non-point source pollution of the river. City Manager Christy stated nitrification protected only a small degree of fish life. Mr. Christy asked Mr. Abbott if the water rights issue involved in Alternative 15 would be a time-consuming factor • Mr. Williams 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 sanctions that EPA had placed on the fro nt range area are enforced, it would have a significant effect on the program in trying to get a grant. • I • - - • • • March 10, 1980 Page 12 • • • In response to City Manager McCown's question, Mr. Abbott stated the cities would have to comply with the stan- dards set by the state regardless whether federal funds or local funds were used. Council Member Higday asked Mr. Abbott if Alternative #5 was chosen and the plant was enlarged to 40 mgd, could pro- blems with the BOD be reduced by keeping the discharge into the Platte River down to what it would be if the plant were expanded to 13 mgd by using more land application. Mr. Abbott confirmed Mr. Higday's co11111ents. Council Member Keena asked Mr. Abbott if the state would order either partial nitrification or full nitrification, would it be at that point the individual citizens would incur a substantial increase because the operation became more ex- pensive. Mr. Abbott confirmed Ms. Keena's cormnents. There were no further co11111ents. PRESIDENT COLLINS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALSO THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED ALONG WITH HOR TO EXPLORE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE PLANT EXPANSION BETWEEN THE FIGURES OF 13. 5 MGD AND 20 HGD THAT WILL ALSO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF THE RIVER ; THAT STAFF ALSO EXPLORE LOCAL FUNDING ALTERNATIVE IN HORE 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 RECOtt1END TO US A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE AND THAT WE LOOK TOWARD MEETING AGAIN SOMETIME BETWEEN THE NEXT MONTI{ AND A HALF AND THREE MONTHS 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 Trujillo, Emley, Taylor, Staritsky, Harper, Collins, Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis • None. Council Member Parsons. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER TRUJILLO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Council Member Higday seconded the motion • • I • - - (~ • March 10, 1980 Page 13 • • • 9:15 p.m. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at -1:~& £u 1~'b, ty City C erk ~~-- • I . - - Move d S e con ed • • ' • • • , . ••• RO LL CAL L Hi da Neal A e Na Absent Abstain Fit z a t r i ck Keena 1 0 Brad s haw Otis Y/UJ t?/U;~~I AM v k fr A v 1~[7 v v -- f1 01 ~ v f( v v< v I . • • - • • ROLL CALL A.l:_e Na...t Abaen .. ~· J Moved Second ed J J J · Hi..e.da_,r - Neal ' Fitz~a tric k Keena - _121_.io - l Bradshaw - _J _I_ l ~ l Otis ! . • • I • • • - • • - RO LL CA LL Moved Se conded Aye _ Nav Absent Abstain Hig;day v Heal v Fit z oat rick ~ Keena v R1lo v_ Bradshaw I/ Ot is v-- ~II O ~ • • I • - • • - ROLL CALL Seconded Na Absent Abstain // 0 I a_ ~,,,_, ~,;,, yUkL-;,J- • • I . • • ~~In • - • • - A I ROLL CAL L d s d Move econde Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hig dav Ne al F itzpatri c k Keena B1lo Bradshaw Oti s • • I • • • -- • • w •----> •• RO LL CALL M oved Seconded Ave Nay Absent Abstain Hi!:!day Nea l Fi tzpatrick Keena ~ilo Bradshaw Oti s /J . J.~ /,.... ~WU; r flN. r~,~iu1U °'o 8 ~-"K.. -lUi.La.-~ /YlLa~ ~~ )0u ,.{,uc1<ih_., ~"Uf...J fi~<!~<!r J {. -Xdh-01-v~ ~~~ ~ru,(;4'1 ~~~~ -..A--u:::lLt.~ .!WtAJL~ f1A.Lc2 I -~ • • • I . • • - - • • • • .. • ROL L CALL Moved Seconded A e Na Hi da Neal Fitz a t rick Keena 1 0 Bradshaw Otis ~ .( v ru~ µ_ ,41U..L ~ ~I, qqr; S,,91 9 ;o, t.rJ() • Absent Abstain I . • - • • • • .. • RO LL CA LL Move d Second ed Hi11:dav Neal Fitzpat rick Keena Qi l 0 Br a dsha w Otis V'}l)~P ~~ -~.10 /~~ • . ,,~ /, /0 Ave Nav Absent Abstain l I . • - • • - ROL L CALL Moved Se cond ed Ay e Nay Absent Abstain Hi 11:dav Neal Fitzoa t rick Keena Bi lo Bradshaw Oti s -~ ~v.,u.; ~ ,< t c -~ ~fl.bv a-~/1AA--'~~1A. <['~ ~ ~t. dL~lu.~ .Jab ich-tdl '-'!IF ~ Clu-v zt..J f _,lrV • • 'll,/P~ ~ {!,U>1d.urtt<i M>'f'AL~ ~JJ ~ ~~11 nik-,,flu t_ ,£/u L( _,w0 !n /U-_,l{A_) • I . • - • • • • • ROL L CALL Moved Sec ond d ~t,ll/<.\ e Av e Nav Hi ~d av Absent Abstain Ne al tJ 74 ·. J ..,, ... _I{ l<'i t zoat rick r-v .:- Keena JZ c/u t <1 td Bi i o Bradshaw Oti s f~ ~ ~ &-U11a~ ~h4?1 /ldl . .J~ % ~cl. f ad 61 ~W--~d-. elf{)' AA-' :i:::~ c;._ -,.,_µ. ;bu_;tl .lfi'-' Osm-~ 4f/ ~ ~ alff,1uiu.l:;._ /--ru c}.,L1._,trl ~ /i.-R/)'l,!.<h?.cl, d-_/.,,6t'YU 1»(- d.L d ,rru-l U /Y 2til ?.aftJ/'/2ol ~/.J [Af d ( j J lt _) ~iLd._ ~~~-0..t~ I . • • - • • - - ROLL CALL Moved Second d e Aye Nav Absent Abstain Higday Neal Fitzoat rick Keena Bi lo Bradshaw Otis - • • I . • • - - • • • ROLL CALL Moved Second ed A e Na Absent Abstain Oti s J:rv __ ;1/u1rflaf-a.G__, .,.U>dll /tap µ,b ~~ftlA .. tJ ~ ~ x -t lu ,tap ';f-u/ \31-0 .M) 'f-U-~ ').A7L /I WU~~ /H-0 --rJ/o ;( -.A.lJfU ,ld /,u -~ T~ _µ.JJ ~ t ~ /J'l 1.-'1-f Vu iu /]Uu.J I/~~ -_,.l/>"'-_t;"f' 'Ju .u .~ ;Ou!,,,_, I PTO _ _,,,,LDV vl< t<;J::f • (i;,W'~; 1J; ;:/:ffi"L • ~QHJ _,LA~-_,Cd-<J--<.,,{ ~_X/~/UHU ~rr-7~~ r~ • • I . • ~·In • - • • RO LL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nav Absent Abstain Hi i::dav Neal F itz oatrick Keena Riln Bradshaw Oti s -~ ~,,,,;_,,.,,ud,_, fl"U r ·~ I . • -- • .. • -• ROLL CALL Moved s econded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hi R:dav ---. Neal Fitzoatrick Keena Hilo Bradshaw Otis • • I . • • - • , . I • - RO LL CALL Moved Seco d d n e Ave Nav Absent Abstain Higdav Ne al Fitznatri ck Keena Bi lo Bradshaw Oti s ~~ -/1>~ IJ?llJ ;ruv ~ b.L h>u~ ~ ~' . ~ /W41 t«Af .Jt,tmJ trJA(, /[p _~~kX-·l~&'G' • -------------------------------~~~~~--&: 4 ,v ud ,%° r. ~ ylR-<V~ -M~ kt ~,o_L ~J/.Jll.,U /}lLl~U.J-f I . ~ ~ .fU,,,, /.u_,,,i ,,_,,~~ • • • - • .. I • - ROLL CALL Moved s econded Aye Nay Absent Abstain I Hil!.dav Neal -Fitznatrick Keena ' R"f1o Bradshaw Otis ~ ~/}{__ 0 -~M._ ev..+ il ktvu ~ -~~ '-~<J ~ /j ~~iJ.~>u • • • I . • • • - • • - -,._ --\........._ ROLL CALL Moved Seconded A e Na Absent Abstain Hi da Neal F itz atrick Keena i 0 Bradshaw Otis I . • • • - • i'. • - ROLL CALL Moved Seco d d n e Ave Nav Absent Abstain Higdav Neal Fitzoatrick Keena lH}n Bradshaw Otis • I . • ' I, • - - • • • • i • ROLL CALL Moved Seco d d n e Aye Hill:dav Nay Absent Neal F1tznatr1ck Ke~na c-i 1 0 Bradshaw Otis ~ . -- -/1YlaA~~ ~~-/'~ll <2/J/4.if"- • /Uf-4~ JJ fa~ ju/JI-#~' ~U /t-d. cY1 -~ /f1 Ln1±/L4 • Abstain • I . • - • • - ROLL CALL Moved Se d con ed Ave Nav Absent Abstain Hil1'dav Nea l Fitzoatrick Keena l'l.i, 0 Bradshaw Otis i. I . • • • - • • - --- ROLL CALL Moved s econded Higdav Ave Nav Absent t..-Abstain Neal ~ . Fitzoatri ck L-- ' Keena '--- R1 l r. , __ Bradshaw ~ Otis -- ~ - r ~'tii k di ui r/ /)J'J~ <'Aif ,,.e_cl / 3 /Y) 'j d .,.-L-9 0 /Y) '-1 ~ ~/ -tilcT A vU--<-<J ur/' Ju-~ 0 /1 t:;._ (/ ~ -~4-f ~" ~ -l<:_ t1»1 c p:, Pf, r~ ',,,,_,~ 4-(f.[l; dfax /)/ / -~ I ...-td d"-" ~--/ h-<.) ~ faC...(J7'-_..,1 ~ ~//-{'1 ~ /~'11-"Z-t:1 , - or /71 ~ ~ /1u4<. cl" !/)'J{JI --3 ,/)~ • • I . • • - - • • • • • ROLL CALL ~;ww~oe_.11~ cfJ-jh~ p~· C/; I J/ ~ >Ut.I • ,, I • - - ( • • • • AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL MARCH 10, 1980 7 :30 P.M. Call to order, invocation, pledge of allegiance, and roll call. 1. Public Hearing. (a) Public Hearing with Littleton City Council to consider the 201 Facilities Plan. 2. Adjournment. • I . . - - • • • • Taken from Englewood-Littleton Joint City Council meeting March 10, 1980 concerning Bi-City Treatment Plant. President Collins moved to close the public hearing, also that staff be directed along with HDR to explore the most cost effective plant 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 alternative in more depth coming up with the specifics of the tap fees in discussing these tap fees and costs with developers in our contracting districts; that staff reco11D1end to us a schedule of events to occur in the future and that we look toward meeting again sometime between the next month and a half and three months as a joint council. • I • - • • Q • • I . • •