The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-08-2004 WorkshopJeffersonville City Council Workshop Meeting Memorandum - September 8, 2004 - Mayor's Conference Room 5:15 1).m. Meeting called to order by: City Council President Phil McCauley Attendees: Councilpersons Connie Sellers. Phil McCauley, Barbara Wilson, and Keith Fetz. Also present were Mayor Rob Waiz, City Attorney Les Merkley, and Deputy Clerk Treasurer Barbara Hollis. Agenda Item 1. Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan, Sewer Improvements and Funding Representatives of Strand Associates, Jacobi Toombs, and Lanz, and Crowe Chizek and Company LLC, gave presentations and answered questions. Mayor Waiz stated the presentation was made to the Council so they would feel comfortable prior to the public heating on the proposed rate increase. Councilperson Sellers lel~ the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Action: None taken There being no other items of discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Phil McCauley, Council P~esident Attest: Peggy Wild~r,~r~lerk Treasurer · Presentation Outline I. Introduction Il. Project Overview iii. Regulatory Need and Process (iDEM) tv. Impact of CSOs on the Environment V. Plan Development VI. Recommended Plan VII. Implementation Schedule Introduction · Glossary of Terms CSO - Combined Sewer Overflow CSS - Combined Sewer System EPA - US Environmental Protection Agency LTCP - Long-Term Controi Plan SRCER - Stream Reach Characterization Evaluation Report NPDES ~ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CWA - Clean Water Act IDEM - Indiana Department of Environmental Management Wvc'rp - Wastewatar Treatment Plarfl · What is CSO? Why do I care? These overflow events pose a threat to: 1) Water Quality 2} Aquatic Life 3) Human Health 4} Properties ~, · Jeffersonville Wastewater System · Jeffersonville Wastewater System · The first sewers were constructed in the 1800s. · The sewers discharged to the Ohio River until the first WWTp was placed into sen/ice in the 1950s. · In 1992, a new Jeffersonville WWTP was placed into sen/ice and is designed to treat: · 5.2 mgd - average daily flow · 22.8 mgd - peak flow (3 hours) · 16 mgd - sustained peak flow (24 hours) · Approximately 15% of Jeffersonville's sewer system is combined. · The CSS area is approximately 1350 acres and serves the central or downtown portion of the city. · There are 16 combined sewer overflow points. · 10 discharge directly to the Ohio River ,6 discharge into Ohio River tributaries or drainage ditches · Jeffersonville CSS · Jeffersonville CSO Discharges · CSO WEIRS AND OUTFALLS Project Overview · LTCP Purpose Satisf~ requirement of NPDES permit Consider long-term solution to abatement of CSO impacts Comply with Clean Water Act (protect designated uses) · Prioritize solutions based on local issues · Involve the public in the process LTCP - 9 Elements 1 ) CharactaHzation, monitaHng, and modeling 2) Public participation 3) C0ns[deration of sensitive areas 4) Evaluation of altamatives 5) Cost/performance considerations 6) Operational plan 7) Maximization of treatment et the VVWTP 8) Implementation schedule 9) Post-construction compliance monitoring program · LTCP Process to Date ORSANCO Wet Weather WQ Evaluation began in 1997 (Jeffersonville is a 'partner') · Efforts began in 2001 with SRCER Work on LTCP began in eaHy 2003 Partial report submitted Apdl 30, 2004 Final report (addendum to partial report) is due September 15, 2004. · LTCP Public Process Monthly updates to Sewer Board Formed Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) · 17 invitees, 9 active particJpants · 9 meetings held since May 2003 · Cross-section of community and affected public Public meeting held October 20, 2003 Council workshops planned Public Hearing set for September 13, 2004 Regulatory Need and Process · ORSANCO Study Area Impact of CSOs on the Environment · ORSANCO Study Observations · Bacterial Pollutants - Problem · Oxygen Consuming Pollutants - Not a Problem · Solids Pollutants - Nora Problem · LTCP Process to Date ORSANCO Wet Weather WQ Evaruation began in 1997 (Jeffemonvilre is a 'partner') Efforts began in 2001 with SRCER · Work on LTCP began in early 2003 Partial report submitted April 30, 2004 Finar report (addendum to partial report) is due September 15, 2004. · LTCP Public Process Monthly updates to Sewer Board Formed Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) · 17 invitees, 9 active pa~ticipante · 9 meetings held since May 2003 · Cross-section of community and affected public Public meeting held October 20, 2003 Council workshops planned Public Hearing set for September 13, 2004 Regulatory Need and Process · ORSANCO Study Area Impact of CSOs on the Environment · ORSANCO Study Observations · Bacterial Pollutants - Problem · Oxygen Consuming Pollutants - Nora Problem · Solids Pollutants - Not a Problem [] Review of ORSANCO Draft Report on WQ Concluded pollutant of concern is bacteria. Jeffersonville CSOs contribute · <1% of river gow · 3% - 12% of E.coli loading · MSD CSOs contribute about 4X Jeff CSOs for E.coli loading. · Most bacterial pollutant loading is from tributaries. [] ORSANCO WQ Model Predictions [] Demonstration of ORSANCO Water Quality Model $in~31e Sample Maximum Bacter~si WQ ~Recreational Season); dayS~ear). [] ORSANCO WQ Model Predictions (cont.) 100% Control of Jeffersonville CSOs has: No impact on WQ along the Indiana side of the Ohio River below the Falls of the Ohio (20 to 20 days/year). Little impact on WQ siong the Indiana side Of the Ohio River downstream of Mill Creek (25 to 20 days~ear)+ Lisle impact on WQ along the Indiana side of the Ohio River downst mare of Silver Creek (58 TO 56 days~year). CSO controJ ~[~ld reduce the peak in-stream concentrations. ,e The reduction in WQ exceedence resulting from complete elimination of Jeffersonville CSOs is Iow. Plan Development [] Alternatives Considered "No Action" (required) Separation (required) Treatment · WW~rF along the River · WWTF at the W1NTp · Storage ~ 8 Alternatives considered in detail · Systematic Approach to CSO Control 1 ) Protect Sensitive Areas - Eliminate/Relocate or Treat {CAC [dent~ied None). 2) Protect Priority Areas (Separate Blanchel Terrace Basin and Grout Arctic Springs PS Overflow}. 3) Nine Minimum Controls Compliance (Add SoIid$ and Floatable Controls to Outfalls). 4) Reguratory Direction - Achieve Bacteriar WQS (Flow Reduction, Storage or Treatment). · Alternative Evaluation - Present Worth/Performance Curve Annual Days with Untreated Overt]ow · Knee-of-the-Curve Results Most · Going Beyond the Knee-of-the-Curve Ultimate goal is to achieve Water Quality Standards. suspens on (SEA 431 ). Hardship) · LTCP Development Included CAC process, · ORSANCO WQ model suggests elimination of CSOs alone will not achieve WQS in Ohio River due to NPS pollution. ORSANCO model tells us that more benefit can be achieved by controlling river CSOs than 10th Street CSO. · S-E matrix indicates Mid-range. · Four phased approach is recommended. · Summary of Four Phased Recommended Plan ·Phase 1 - Previous Projects Phase 2 - Early Action Items Phase 3 - Long-Term Cost-Effective CSO Controls · Phase 4 - Going Beyond Cost-Effective CSO Controls (if required) Recommended Plan [] Phase I - Previous Projects (cont.) Prolect Year Benefit [] Phase I - Previous Projects Proiect Year Benefit [] Recommended LTCP Phase 2 (Years 0-5) Address the 'no-brainers'; Protect priority areas and achieve compliance with Nine Minimum Controls 12 Projecta at cost of $ 6.2M · Eliminate seven C$Os (six w~l remain) · Divert separate sanitaq/soumes from CSS (3 pump stations) · Install S&F cont,01, flow metering, sampling (5 locations) Collect barfer overflow date for Hydraulic model tune-up and verify final sizes for River CSO control · Purchase Land for River CSO Control (Phase 3A) · Revise CSOP (Year 5) · Revise LTCP Include UAA (Year $) ~ [] Phase 2 - Elements Common to All Alternatives · Separate and E]imthate CSO 006 (River Pointo) and 007 (Clark St,). · Eliminate CSO 012 (Penn St.). · Separate and Eliminate CSO 014 (Blenehel Terrace). · Rerouto Arctic Springs PS Discharge from CSS to Ewing Lane PS+ · Eliminate CSO 015 (Arctic Springs). Reroute Ewthg Lane PS Discha~e from CSS to Mill Creek PS. · Reroute Louise PS Discharge from eSS to Mill Creek PS. · Reconstcuct Mill Creek PS and Eliminate CSO 004. lib Phase 2 - Elements Common to All Alternatives (cont.) · Eliminata CSO 003 (Spring Street Pump Station). · Implement Phase II Tenth Street Sewer Separatfon Project, · Implement Solids and Ffoatabte Control for Remathing CSOs. · Evaluata Potential for fo-Lthe Storage wit~ Model, · Inflow Reduction (reditect sump pumps, redirect downspouts, and install rain barrels on downspouts). · Install Ffow Meter and Sampling Equipment on Remaining CSOs, Telemeter data to WWTP SCADA System. · Additional CAC Ideas (Porous Concrete, Roof Gardens, Laundry Magnets, etc.). · Phase 2 - Elements Common to All Alternatives · Recommended LTCP - Phase 3A (Years 6-10) · Address River CSOs (based on site selection, model update, & LTCP update). Preliminary Select[on · Alternative R4 (Limited New CSO PS and New Storage/W~NTF along Ohio River) · TO be confirmed in LTCP Update at Year 5 Purchase Land for TSPS CSO facility (Phase 3B) Revise CSOP (Year 10) · Revise LTCP Include UAA (Year Total Anticipated Cost $16.15 M (in 2004 · Phase 3A - River CSO Abatement Concept R4 (Limited New CSO FSS and New Storagef~VWTF} · Phase 3B - TSPS CSO Abatement Concept T3 (Upgrade TSPS and New Storage/~VTF at WWTP) · Recommended LTCP - Phase 3B (Years 11-15) · Address TSPS CSOs (based on site selec~on, model update, & LTCP update) Preliminary Selection · Alternative T3 (Upgrade TSPS and New Stor~ge/'v'~NTF at WWTP) · To be confirmed in LTCP Update at Year 10 · Revise CSOP (Year 15) · Revise LTCP Include UAA (Year 15) Total Anticipated Cost $7.65 M (i~ 2004 da~rar$) · LTCP - Phase 4 (Years 16-20) If Required Compare wastewatar costs to hardship. Invest in additional CSO controi or watershed efforts to reduce bacterial pollution (BMPs), if necessary. · Revise CSOP (Year20). · Revise LTCP (Year 20). [] LTCP - Anticipated Impact on Users CSO LTCP Typical User Monthl Sewer Cost Phase Sewer Rate U) as % of MHr 1 (Existing) $17.50 0.6% 2 $23.60 0.8% 3 $43,50 ¢2) 1.4% 4 $62,00 ??(2) 2% ?? [] LTCP - Interim and Post Construction Compliance Monitoring · Col~ct & Analyze CSO oveffbw sarn~es (BocT) Collect CSO overflow volume · Collect rainfall dala · COI~¢r~ & Analyze rive r ard I~ufaR/s a-nples in wet wealher (BacT) · Tabulateda~acr~d~to SWMMand ORSANCO WQ Model [] Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) Will be reaui~'ed since WQS can not be met under Implementation Schedule See Enclosed Spreadsheet [] Steps to Obtaining Local Endorsement · Mayar needs fo ecdorse pitch wilh ~stcrdard statement'. · Sewer Board needs fo c~ree with plc~, City CotJr~dl should ur~derslaFd plc~ oqd [rnp~s, endorse funding by rare increase. · Citizen Advisow ConTnifiee needs to endorse plon Key Dates in Schedule August 26 - City Council work session with iDEM Presentation - CAC encouraged to attend. September 8 - City Council work session on rates- CAC encouraged to attend. · September13 - Public meeting oint for master plan and rate increase) - CAC er'ccuroGed fo otter-cl. · September 15- submit to IDEM. City of Jeffersonville, Indiana Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan FIG URE 10.02-1A RECOMMENDED PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PHASR 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION COSTS; 2000 2006 2007 Remove CSOs #003, #012, and #015 from the NPDES Permit $ Implement an Inflow Reduction Program i $ 30@00( Separate, Eliminate, and Remove CSOs #006 and #007 from the NPDES Permg $ 1,20@00( Separate, Eliminate, and Remove CSO #014 (Blanchel Terrace) from the NPDES Permit $ 500,00( ~econstruct/Expand MiD Creek Pump Station (per MaSter Plan) $ 1,80@00[ ~eroate the Ewing Lane Pump Station Sanitary Discharge from the CSS $ ~eroute the Louise Street Pump Station Sanitary Discharge from the CSS $ 63,03( ~eroute the Arctic Springs Pump station Sanitary Discharge from the C~S $ 54~00{ mptament the Tenth Street Phase 2 Stormwater Separation Project $ 900,00{ ~ehabigtate Tenth Street CSS Interceptor $ 500,00{ :taconstruct Regulator Weirs of Remaining CSOS $ 200,00( nstall Flow Meter and Sampling Equipment on Remaining CS;Os $ 115,00{ I mplement Solids and Roatables Control on Remaining CSOs $ 525,00{ =tasearch, Select, and Procure Site for River CSO Detention and/or Treatement Facility $ 1~000,00{ ~oliect Additional Row Data for model tune-up and Revise LTCP and CSOP $ 150,C0{ Research River CSO Conveyance Options and Implement River CSO Control $ 15,000,00{ F~esearch~ Select, and Procure Site for TSPS CSO Detention and/or Treatemect Facility $ 1,0C0~00{ Collect Additional Flow Data for model tune-up and Revise LTCP and CSOP $ 150,000 Implement TS;PS CSO Control $ 7,500,0~0 Collect Additional Row Data for model tune-up and Revise LTCP and CSOP $ 1 Expand CSO control and/or Implement Watershed Control to Economic Hardship (ff necessary) $ TBD TOTAL COSTS $31,767~000 $10,000 $2,460,000 $2,260,000 Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.® S:\@PEH\901--950\944\006\WRD\LTCP Final Report\Figure 10.02-IA,doc Section, ,,, 10A- Recommended Plan and Implementati~ PHASE 3A PHASE 3B PHASE 4 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 I I COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS The Long Term Control Plan ProceSs CSO COMMUNITIES ¢CS0 Background ~'History of CSO issues ¢'Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) Combined SeWer Overflows Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) I A Combined Sewer System (CSS)' isa wastewater collection ~stem that conveys sanitary wastewaters (domestic, commercial, and indUstrial) and Storm water through a single pipe system to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). A CSO is the discharge from a CS$ at a point prior to the POT~/V. ~ Combined Sewer System Separate Sewer System Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) 2 CSO Pollutants and Effects Untreated Human Waste Untreated Industrial Waste Toxic Materials; Oil, Pesticides, and Pathogens Floating Debris. History of cSOs ~, ~Sewer Systems built before the 20th Century ~Changes in the Sewer Systems alter the 20th Century How CSOs have been Previously Addressed ~'9 Minimum ContreIs CSO LTCP GOAL · Eliminate Impacts from Combined Sewer Overflows to Waters Of the State of Indiana · CSO di~scharges must meet Water Quality Standards Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) 3 LTCP Requirements · Identify Sensitive · Characterize, Areas Monitor, and Model · Public Participation · Evaluate Process AlternaUves · Post-Construction · Haximize Treatment Monitoring at POTW · Implementation * Cost/Performance Schedule Considerations · Operational Plan Revisions SENSiTZVE AREAS · First priodty for elimination, relocation, or treatment · Sensitive Areas are: -Swimming areas -Drinking Water sources - Endangered species -Outstanding State Resource Waters PUBL?C PART?C?PATI'ON · Public Involvement · Citizen Advisory Committee · Public Heetings & Headngs · Public Education · Community Notification program Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) 4 MONITORiNG/MODELING · impermeable surfaces · Rainfall Records · Combined Sewer System "' Characterization · CSO Out-fall Monitoring · Model wet weather resP°fiSe and ~ impact EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ApProaches · Presumption Approach - 4-6 overflows/yr or - 85% capture s~em-wide or - Elimination of the mass of pollutants and - Treatment if necessary to meet WQS~ protect designated uses and protect human health, · Demonstration Approach - Show that designed projects will meet WQS - 4 pronged demonstration EVALUATION OF ALTERNAT][VES · Develop control alternatives · Analyze alternatives : :: · Analyze effectiveness of alternatives Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) 5 MAXIMIZE TREATMENT AT THE PO~ · Operate to maximize flows and meet limits · Establish peak design flow COST/PERFORMANCE ANALYSTS ~ · Sensitive Areas first priority for LTCP implementaUon · Demonstrates relationships among alternatives · Select most cost effective control alternatives · Establish "Knee-of-the-Curve" point COST/PERFO~NCE CURVE · Minimum CSO Reduction Point · Affordable beyond k-o-t-c, then may use Watershed ApprOach to ~x. water quality, min. cost (Pending review by USEPA) · Affordable before k-o-t-c achieved, then develop LTCP implementation accordingly Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) 6 POST-CONSTRUCTTON COHPLZAHCE HON~TOR~NG · Measures effectiveness of controls · Conducted duflng Implementation Schedule · Revise Operational Plan as necessary · Assures WQ Standards are being achieved Considerations for Utilization of Small Community Considerations * Population under 75,000 * Case by case basis * Items considered * Written request & receipt of approval Questions and Comments Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) 7 0 JEFFERSONVILLE MUNICIPAL SEWAGE WORKS Jeffersonville, Indiana Notes to Rate Analysis and Summary of Significant Assumptions Historical financial information for the test year ending March 31, 2004 was provided by the City of Jeffersonville Clerk Treasurer's Office. Drainage Customer Sales, Drainage Forfeited Discounts, Drainage Expenses, and the annual debt service on the Sewage Works Revenue Bonds, Series 2003 (to be paid by Drainage Revenues) have been excluded from this analysis. (2) Sewer Customer Sales for 2005 and beyond are adjusted by the estimated customer growth rate as provided by Jacobi, Toombs and Lanz and the estimated revenues from the projected rate increases. The projected rate increases are assumed to go into effect on January 1 of each year. (3) Sewer Forfeited Discounts for 2005 and beyond are increased to maintain the percentage of forfeited discounts to total operating revenue that occurred in the test year. (a) The test year amount for Total Operating Expenses includes Sewer Maintenance, Plant, Customer Accounts, Administrative and General, and Undisbtibuted Expenses. Operating Expenses exclude Drainage Expenses. The amount shown for Operating Expenses for 2005 and beyond was calculated by applying a three percent (3%) inflation rate to the previous year amount. (5) Estimated Interest Income for 2005 and beyond was calculated by taking the previous end of year cash balance and applying an earnings rate of three percent (3%). Prepared by RATE ANALYSIS Crowe Chizek and Company LLC September 8, 2004 INDIANAPOLIS SANITATION LIQUID WASTE FUND Indianapolis, Indiana Notes to Rate Analysis and Summary of Significant Assumptions (6) The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funded from cash on hand is calculated assuming that the cash balance for the combination of the Operating Fund and Cumulative Improvement Fund at the end of each year is to be equal to or greater than $1 Million starting in the year 2009. (7) Proposed Bonds Debt Service assumes all debt issued for the funding of the CIP for Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) and Sanitary Project items will be issued for a twenty year term with equal annual principal and interest payments at a rate of seven percent (7%). The bond issue size includes 3.5% of estixnated costs of issuance. The cost of issuance includes the funding of a debt service reserve surety bond. The calculation assumes the proposed bonds are issued at the beginning of the year and 'the first principal payment occurs in the first year of issuance. (8) Coverage is calculated by adding Interest Income and Tap Fees to Net Operating Income and dividing this total by the summation of the 1998 Bonds Debt Service, the 1999 Bonds (SRF Loan) Debt Service, the 2004 Bonds Debt Service and the Proposed Bonds Debt Service. (9) The Capital Improvement Program and Number of Customers were provided by Jacobi, Toombs and Lanz. Prepared by RATE ANALYSIS Crowe Chizek and Company LLC September 8, 2004 JEFFERSONVILLE 20-YEAR SEWER MASTER PLAN EXPAND DOWNTOWN WWTP ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 JULY 26, 2004 TIME ITEM ESTIMATED COST ADD ANOXIC ZONES TO DOWNTOWN WWTP, MISCELLANEOUS $ 2,313,000 UPGRADES, UV DISINFECTION (DWF CAP, FROM 5,2 TO 6.0 MGD), · ~.EHAB/EXPAND RIVERPORT 1 PUMP STATION FROM 550 GPM $ 300,000 NOW TO 950 GPM. ;. CONSTRUCT 'rENT~ ~TREET NORTH POMP STAT~ON"~'G~M~ SUBTOTAL $ 4,016,250 · INSTALL NEW 19,500' of 18" FORCE MAiN FROM RIVERPORT 1 $ 1,600,000 PUMP STATION ALONG MIDDLE ROAD, REHAS/EXPAND MILLCREEK PUMP STATION TO FROM 2,100 GPM TO $ 1,800,000 7,500 GPM, iNSTALL 1,800' OF 36" iNFLUENT SEWER. BY CONSTRUCT REGIONAL LENTZIER CREEK PUMP STATION (1,250 GPM), $ 1,750,000 YEAR 5,400' of 30" INTERCEPTOR AND 6,000' of 15" FORCE MAIN, CONNECT TO NEW 18" FORCE MAIN FROM RIVERPORT 1. 2 100,250 · DIVERT UTICA I PUMP STATION FORCE MAIN TO LENTZIER $ CREEK PUMP STATION. SUBTOTAL $ 5,250,250 BY · EXPAND DOWNTOWN WWTP FROM 6.0 TO 90 MGD ( 50% EXP.) $ 13,000,000 YEAR $ 400,000 CONSTRUCT AREA 6 SEWERS BY o EXPAND PLEASANT RUN PUMP STATION FROM 940 GPM TO $ 4,350,000 1,600 GPM, INSTALL 40,400' OF 24" FORCE MAiN TO DISCHARGE TO YEAR DOWNTOWN WWTP. · EXPAND MILLCREEK PUMP STATION FROM 7,500 GPM $ 1,455,000 TO 10,600 GPM. INSTALL 7600* OF pARALLEL 24" FORCE MAIN. EXPAND RIVERPORT 1 PUMP STATION FROM 950 TO 1,600 GPM. $ 300,000 EXPAND LENTZIER CREEK PUMP STATION FROM 1,250 TO 2,400 GPM. $ 300,000 BY o EXPAND PLEASANT RUN PUMP STATION FROM 1,800 GPM TO $ 300,000 3,400 GPM. YEAR 100,000 · EXPANDTENTHSTREETNORTHPUMPSTATIONTOFROM700TOI'500GPI $ . iNSTALL 6,000' OF PARALLEL 27" INTERCEPTOR TO ACCOMMODATE $ FLOW FROM RIVERPORT 1 AND LENTZiER CREEK PUMP STATIONS · iNSTALL 6,000' OF PARALLEL 24" iNTERCEPTOR ALONG TENTH $ 800,000 · EXPAND DOWNTOWN WWTP TO 12,0 MGD ( 100% EXPANSION) $ 6,500,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE $ 39,583,500 Estimated cost includes 35% for c(3r~tingencies and professional services, in 2003 doltars. JEFFERSONVILLE 20-YEAR SEWER MASTER PLAN CONSTRUCT NEW NORTH VWVTP ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 JULY 26, 2004 TIME ITEM ESTIMATED COST ADD ANOXiC ZONES TO DOWNTOWN WWTP, MISCELLANEOUS $ 2,313,000 UPGRADES, UV DISINFECTION ( DWF CAP. FROM 5.2 TO 6.0 MGD). · REHAB/EXPAND RIVERPORT 1 PUMP STATION FROM 550 GPM $ 300,000 TO 950 GPM, CONSTRUCT ~ ~{ ~:~,~'~,~: ,~,'~ ~;~,:;;:',~ FORCE MA N ..... ~,,~,~,~ ~ .... ~BTOTAL · CONSTRUCT NEW 2.5 ~GD NORTH WWTP. $ 9,500,000 · REHAB/EXPAND MILLCREEK PUMP STATION FROB 2,100 GPM TO $ 1,800,000 BY 5,000 GPM, iNSTALL 1,800' OF 36" [NFLUENT SEWER. YEAR · CONSTRUCT REGIONAL LENTZIER CREEK PUMP STATION (1,250 GPM), $ 2,225,000 5,400' OF 30" INTERCEPTOR AND 12,000' OF 18" FOROE MAIN. 2 DISCHARGE TO NEW NORTH WWTP. · DIVERT UTICA [ PUMP STATION 6-iNCH FORCE MAIN TO LENTZlER $ 100,250 CREEK PUMP STATION. BY iNSTALL NEW 7,500' of 12" FORCE MAIN FROM RIVERPORT 1 $ 400,000 P.S. AND CONNECTTO NEW LENTZlER CREEK PUMP STATION Y~R FORCE MAIN 5 · CONSTRUCT AREA 6 SEWERS $ 400,000 · EXPAND pL~SANT RUN PUMP STATION FROM g40 GPM TO $ 2,300,000 BY . 1,800 GPM, INSTALL 3,300' OF 12", 8,800' OF 18", AND 12,700' OF 24" FORCE MAINS TO DISCHARGE TO NORTH WWTP. Y~R $ 175,000 INSTALL NEW 2,500' OF 14" FORCE VA N, CONNECT TO NEW 24 10 FORCE MAIN FROM PLEASANT RUN TO DIVERT LITER'S PUMP STATION FLOW TO NORTH WWTP · EXPAND RIVERPORT 1 PUMP STATION FROB 950 TO 1,800 GPM. $ 300,000 · EXPAND LENTZJER CREEK PUMP STATION FROM 1,250 TO 2,400 GPM. $ 300,000 BY $ 300,000 · EXPAND PL~SANT RUN PUMP STATION FROM 1,800 GPM TO Y~R 3,400 GPM. 20 · EXPAND TENTH STREET NORTH PUMP STATION FROM 700 TO $ 100,000 1,500 GPM. · EXPAND NORTH WWTP TO 5 MGD (20-YEAR CAPACI~), $ 8,000,000 $ 29,918,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE Estimated cost includes 35% for contingencies and profes$iona[ secvlces, in 2003 dollars. sewer,alt1 .xls/SEWER.ALT2 -phased 0 0 City of jeffersonville Master Plan Decision Factors for Evaluating Alternatives -----~ernative I - --------~ternative 2 - Decision factor E~_~_~pand Downtown WWTP _~ Build North WWTP Moneta_~ Factors Total Present ~ort~ Costs ~ ~ Non-Monetary_Factors Disruption to Citizens Environmental Justice Odors Reliability of treatment Reliability of pumping Expandability of WWTP Impact on treatment/LTCP Effluent Limits Obtain site for Constructability CSO WWTP Less construction in urbanized a'reas construction ~ Street, Middle Road and railroad · Less favorable More likely an issue due to long FMs and more population reliable since only one WWTP to ke~ ;s reliable since double and triple pumping required build out the existing site favorable since existing land at WWTP would not be available for CSO treatment/stora e_~g~__..~ Vlore stringent due to Anti- degradation and discharge to Fails of Ohio :_asier since WWTP site is owned ~ -larder since existing WWTP site and developed urban_~ 'cads '-~ore favorable ~ likely to be an issue, rural setting and shorter forcemains Less reliable since two More reliable since less double and triple pumping ~ired _________--- :~oom remains at existing and ~bte new North site ...... Mere favorable since existing land at WWTP would be available for CSO t reatment/sto ra?g~___~ ~ stringent due to new discharge to Ohio River Harder since new site must be ~_urchased ~ Easier since new site and generally rural lands S:\@ PEH~901-950\944\015\W rd~Master PIan Decsison Factors.doc\071204 July 26, 2004 AVERAGE MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL SEWER BILLS FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES BASED ON APPROXIMATE USAGE OF 700 CFT/MO (5,200 GAL/MO) 1998 2004 $17.43 $17.15 jeffersonville $32.69 $18.34 New Albany $18.20 $15.45 Clarksville $30.00 $28.50 Sellersburg $25.15 $24.00 Chade~own TAP-IN FEES 2004 CITY OUT OF CITY $1,500 $1,000 jeffersonville $2,505 $1,155 New Albany N/A $1,950 Clarksville $3,900 $3,200 Sellersburg $1,600 $1,600 Charlestown