Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Paradise Sewer Project DRAFT Feasibility Report ADJOURNED TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2017
Presentation Agenda Request for Public Review & Comments Feasibility Study Scope & Purpose Draft Report Findings and Recommendations Project Schedule
Draft Released February 23, 2017
Public Review & Comments Request stakeholder’s written comments to
ensure all feedback can be adequately addressed in the final report ◦ Hand deliver or mail to 5555 Skyway (Town Hall) ◦ Email to [email protected]
Public Drop-In Workshop scheduled for March 22, 2017 between 4:00 – 7:00 PM Public Comment Period closes March 31, 2017
Feasibility Study Scope & Purpose Develop project options to address the sewer
service needs and select the best fit solution for the Town of Paradise Evaluate “complete project” options that
provide for collection, treatment, and permitted disposal
Feasibility Study Scope & Purpose Incorporate past studies, new approaches, and
develop a viable funding plan Engage all agency stakeholders, technical
resources, and property owners for input and concurrence on the best fit solution
Report Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 - Background and Problem Statement Chapter 2 - No Project Alternative and Socio-
Economic Study Chapter 3 - Public Involvement and Outreach Chapter 4 - Service Area Chapter 5 - Wastewater Generation and Collection Chapter 6 - Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated Chapter 7 - Alternatives Summary
Report Table of Contents Chapter 8 - Scoring Criteria
Chapter 9 - Alternative Analysis
Chapter 10 - Overall Scoring Outcome
Chapter 11 - Project Funding Options and Rate Evaluation
Chapter 12 - Report Recommendations
Chapter 13 - Project Implementation - Next Steps
Background & Problem Statement 7th official study into the same issue over the
last 35 years “The need for a centralized wastewater
treatment solution in Paradise may be the single most studied, unfunded capital project in Butte County.”
Downtown Septic Health Overview
Background & Problem Statement “Professional studies from industry experts in every decade since 1980 have been completed and all essentially come to the same conclusion: The Town of Paradise is running out of time.”
No Project Alternative & Socio-Economic Study Objectives: ◦ Understand the impact of the “No Project” Option ◦ Quantify realistic expectations and benefits of public
infrastructure investment
Status Quo According to a 1992 Town of Paradise report,
the 1980s showed significant commercial growth for the nearby cities of Chico and Oroville, with growth in sales tax revenues per capita of 37 percent and 45 percent, respectively.
Paradise, meanwhile, saw only an 8 percent increase in sales tax revenues per capita in the same time period
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
POPU
LATI
ON
YEAR
Population Growth Comparison Chico Population Paradise Population
Economics & Benefits of Public Investments A community decision to upgrade to a sewer
system will recognize these benefits: 1. Cleaner water, avoiding bacteria and
disease-causing pathogens in creeks 2. Safer drinking water in areas where leach
fields could threaten groundwater that is also used in private wells
Economics & Benefits of Public Investments A community decision to upgrade to a sewer
system will recognize these benefits:
3. A more attractive community for businesses looking to locate in a small town and not operate their own wastewater treatment system
4. Increased home values, as buyers want to avoid upgrading or maintaining a private septic system
Regional Benefits Additional 55 jobs in associated infrastructure Additional 161 total jobs in region Additional $12M in additional regional sales Estimated long term regional impact of an
additional $68M in private and public investment Increase in the property tax base Estimated increase in property values of 5 to 13%
Public Involvement & Outreach Program
Website Launch
Public Workshops
Technical Coordination
Project Stakeholder
Group
Regular Council Updates
www.paradisesewer.com
June 2016 Workshop
Technical Engagement
…including other private companies, vendors and experts
Project Stakeholder Group
What is a Complete Project?
Collection Treatment Dispersal
Proposed Service Area Primarily Skyway, Pearson and Clark Road
Wastewater Generation & Collection Flow per Single Family EDU = 230 gallons per
EDU per day Flow per Multi-Family EDU = 110 gallons per
EDU per day Non Residential Land Use = 600 gallons per
acre per day
Wastewater Generation & Collection ◦Average Dry Weather Flow
◦0.98 MGD
◦Peak Wet Weather Flow
◦1.86 MGD
Collection System Analysis GRAVITY FLOW SYSTEM
Easily implemented in flat terrain
Requires more manholes
Requires more right of way
Requires many lift stations
High cost for deep excavations
NOT RECOMMENDED
LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM
Appropriate for mountainous terrain
Less manholes
Fewer lift stations
Lower cost of construction
Requires a STEP/STEG tank onsite
RECOMMENDED
Collection System Cost Low pressure pumped system $47.4 million
This cost is the same for all alternatives
considered in the study Remaining cost discussions vary between
treatment and dispersal alternatives
Alternatives Considered and Eliminated Cluster Systems Wetland Treatment In-Situ Treatment Vermifiltration
Project Options Evaluated A.Localized Wastewater Treatment Plant with
effluent land application B. Localized Wastewater Treatment Plant with
surface water discharge location C.Regional connection to the City of Chico
Water Pollution Control Plant D.Wastewater Treatment with beneficial reuse E. No Project
Evaluation Criteria: Cost Measurement = 20-year Net Present Value
(NPV). Includes all capital costs, ROW, and cost to implement project to start-up as well as estimation of annual operations and maintenance and overhead of an operating system of collection and treatment. Weighting = 40%
Evaluation Criteria: Environmental Impact Measurement = a rated score for impacts to
environmental resources such as threatened or endangered species, wetlands, trees, air quality, water quality. Weighting = 15%
Evaluation Criteria: Secondary Benefit Rated score for the alternative’s apparent
benefits to economic growth, environmental water (stream flows), long-term water sustainability, temporary water storage for fire-fighting, re-use for irrigation, re-use for fodder crops. Option’s position for additional grant money from other sources. Weighting = 15%
Evaluation Criteria: Interagency Agreements Rated score for the alternative’s apparent
benefits to Rated score for timeline and complexity due to Regional Memorandum of Understanding for sewer connection, Inter-agency agreement for recycled water use. Weighting = 5%
Evaluation Criteria: Public Impacts Rated score for Aesthetics, Sound, Odor,
Traffic, number of ROW/Easement negotiations. Construction schedule/speed. Weighting = 10%
Evaluation Criteria: Operational Issues Rated score for complexity of Wastewater
Treatment Process, number of lift stations, number of Septic Tank Effluent/Grinder Pumps (STEP), Number of discharge/anti-degradation studies, etc.
Weighting = 10%
Evaluation Criteria: Right of Way Rated score based on the purchase of
property, right-of-way, or easements. (adds cost to the project but also adds complexity due to the timeline required for bid and construction)
Weighting = 5%
Evaluation Criteria Summary
Criteria Weighting Cost 40
Environmental Impact 15 Secondary Benefit Options 15 Interagency Agreements 5
Public Impacts 10 Operational Issues 10
Right of way 5 TOTAL 100
Net Present Cost of Options
Evaluation Summary Criteria Option
Cost Regional Chico Environmental Impact Regional Chico
Secondary Benefit Options Local Plant w/ Reuse Interagency Agreements Local Plant w/ Surface Discharge
Public Impacts Regional Chico Operational Issues Regional Chico
Right of way Local Plant w/ Surface Discharge
Scoring Outcome Option A (Local Plant & Land Application) = 48
Option B (Local Plant & Surface Discharge) = 57
Option C (Regional Chico WPCP Connection) = 67
Option D (Local Plant with Beneficial Reuse) = 50.5
Total Project Cost
Description Cost Private Connections $18,656,000 Collection System $28,817,000 Regional Pipeline $35,957,000
TOTAL $83,430,000
Funding Parameters Grants
Private Loans for Connections
SRF Loan
Property Tax Assessments
Grants Current funding climate for new wastewater
treatment projects is bleak $8M (10% of project cost) refundable SRF loan
Pre-2000’s funding climate offered grants up
to 75% of project costs
Loans & Assessments Private Loan for Property Connections ◦ 10 year term at 1% interest
SRF Loan ◦ 40% of remaining project cost ◦ 30 year term at 2% interest
Property Tax Assessment ◦ 60% of remaining project cost ◦ 20 year term at 3.5% interest
Regional Project Funding $8,000,000
$20,607,000
$49,363,000 $67,782,000
GrantsPrivate LoansSRF LoanProperty Assessment
Assessment Range
Potential Average Rate Structure
• Only if private loan is used for connection
• $117 per month
Private Connection Loan
• $131 per month residential • $197 per month non-residential Service Charges
• $1,406 per year residential • $3,894 per year multi-family • $2,289 per year non-residential
Property Tax Assessment
Average Annual Residential Cost Private Loan (if needed) 10 years = $1,404 Monthly Rates = $1,572 Property Tax Assessment 30 years = $1,406 TOTAL = $4,382
Project Funding Picture Recognize that the proposed rates, loans and
grants amount to a project that is financially too burdensome for the community to support an economically driven benefit Sought to determine a funding subsidy or
grant from State or Federal levels which is not currently advertised or available to ensure a project can be advanced
Revised Regional Project Funding
$40,000,000
$20,607,000 $21,540,000
$29,578,000
Grants**Private LoansSRF LoanProperty Assessment
Revised Assessment Range
Potential Average Rate Structure
• Only if private loan is used for connection
• $117 per month
Private Connection Loan
• $90 per month residential • $134 per month non-residential Service Charges
• $614 per year residential • $1,699 per year multi-family • $999 per year non-residential
Property Tax Assessment
Revised Average Annual Residential Cost Private Loan (if needed) 10 years = $1,404 Monthly Rates = $1,080 Property Tax Assessment 30 years = $614__ TOTAL = $3,098
Report Recommendations Recommended Option is Regional Sewer
Connection to the City of Chico Rate Impact is too high with only $8M grant
available and not viable Secure additional State and Federal grant
funding on the scale of $40M or more Proceed with City of Chico coordination
efforts to advance the recommended alternative
Next Steps
Schedule Public Workshop for Q&A March 22, 2017 ◦ Town Hall (5555 Skyway) ◦ 4PM – 7PM
Public Comment Period Closes on March 31 Final Report to Town Council for consideration
on May 9
Public Review Comments & Questions Submit comments in Writing by March 31
Comments cards provided
http://paradisesewer.com/
E-mail: [email protected]
