Oakland County Drain Commission, Water and Wastewater Master Plan - Volume 4 - Alternatives Analysis - September, 2007

Oakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis
Prepared for: Oakland County Drain Commissioner One Public Works Drive Waterford, MI 48328 Prepared by: URS Corporation Farmington Hills, MI 248-553-9449 Contact: Jan Hauser, P.E.
In Association With:
TetraTech MPS
Plante & Moran, PLLC Southfield, MI
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
URS Project No. 13647263 Final Report September 2007
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures........................................................................................................................................... viii Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. ix Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... x 1.0 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Scope.................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 2.0 Summary of Water Alternatives................................................................................ 4 Summary of Wastewater Alternatives ...................................................................... 5
Basis of Alternative Costs ..................................................................................................... 7
Water Alternatives Development................................................................................................... 9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Alternative 1 No Change .................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 2 Develop/Improve Community Well System ................................................. 11 Alternative 2a Develop/Improve Community Well System with Softening ........................ 12 Alternative 3 New Service from DWSD ............................................................................ 13 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 13 Projected Cost of Service....................................................................................... 20
Alternative 4 Genesee County to Supply Raw Water....................................................... 22
Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report
Table of Contents 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 23 Projected Cost of Service....................................................................................... 27
Alternative 5 Genesee County to Supply Finished Water................................................. 36 2.6.1 2.6.2 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 39 Projected Cost of Service....................................................................................... 39
2.7 2.8 3.0
Alternative 6 Storage Analysis (DWSD Existing Customers) ........................................... 46 Warren St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative ........................................................... 48
Discussion of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives - Alternatives 4 and 5................. 51 3.1 3.2 Comparison of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives ............................................... 51 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives.......... 52
4.0
Wastewater Alternatives Development....................................................................................... 53 4.1 Alternative 1 No Change .................................................................................................. 53 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.6 4.1.7 4.1.8 4.1.9 Clinton-Oakland SDS (COSDS) ............................................................................. 53 Huron-Rouge SDS (HRSDS) ................................................................................. 57 Evergreen-Farmington SDS (EFSDS).................................................................... 57 George W. Kuhn SDS (GWKSDS)......................................................................... 59 Commerce-White Lake SDS (CWLSDS)................................................................ 61 Walled Lake/Novi SDS (WLNSDS) ........................................................................ 63 Pontiac WWTP....................................................................................................... 64 Milford Village WWTP ............................................................................................ 66 South Lyon WWTP................................................................................................. 67
4.1.10 Wixom WWTP........................................................................................................ 68 4.1.11 Lyon Township WWTP........................................................................................... 69 4.1.12 Holly Village WWTP ............................................................................................... 71 Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report ii
Table of Contents 4.1.13 Highland Township WWTP .................................................................................... 72 4.2 Alternative 2 Construction of Relief Sewers ..................................................................... 73 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 73 Description ............................................................................................................. 73
Alternative 3 Diversion of 8 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP ..................................... 74 4.3.1 4.3.2 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 74 Description ............................................................................................................. 74
4.4
Alternative 4 Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP.................................... 77 4.4.1 4.4.2 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 77 Description ............................................................................................................. 77
4.5
Alternative 5 - Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP .................................... 79 4.5.1 4.5.2 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 79 Description ............................................................................................................. 79
4.6
Alternative 6 Construction of a New WWTP on the Clinton River .................................... 81 4.6.1 4.6.2 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 81 Description ............................................................................................................. 81
4.7
Alternative 7 Conveyance to COSDS............................................................................... 83 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 4.7.5 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 83 Description ............................................................................................................. 84 Oakland Township ................................................................................................. 84 Springfield .............................................................................................................. 84 White Lake ............................................................................................................. 84
4.8
Alternative 8 Service from Genesee County Kearsley Creek Interceptor (KCI) Main Arm Only..................................................................................................................................... 85
4.9
Alternative 9 Service from Genesee County KCI Main Arm and West Arm...................... 86 Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report iii
Table of Contents 4.10 Alternative 10 Treatment by Another City/Village/Township (CVT) .................................. 87 4.10.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 87 4.10.2 Brandon Served by the Village of Ortonville........................................................... 88 4.10.3 Lyon Township Served by South Lyon WWTP....................................................... 88 4.10.4 Milford Township Served by Wixom WWTP........................................................... 89 4.10.5 Rose Township Served by Holly Village WWTP .................................................... 89 4.11 Alternative 11 New/Expansion-of Local Treatment .......................................................... 90 4.11.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 90 4.11.2 Groveland Township .............................................................................................. 90 4.11.3 Holly Township....................................................................................................... 91 4.11.4 Oakland Township ................................................................................................. 91 4.11.5 Ortonville Township................................................................................................ 92 4.11.6 Lyon Township WWTP........................................................................................... 92 4.11.7 White Lake Township............................................................................................. 93 4.12 5.0 Alternative 12 Divert Flow From GWKSDS to an Expanded Warren WWTP ................... 93
Project Delivery Methods............................................................................................................. 96 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 General ............................................................................................................................... 96 Design-Bid-Build ................................................................................................................. 97 Design-Build........................................................................................................................ 97 Design/Build/Operate - Design/Build/Operate/Transfer....................................................... 98
iv
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 1-1 General Basis for Alternative Costs .......................................................................................7 Table 2-1 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 2 - Develop/Improve Community Well System .....................................................................................................................................12 Table 2-2 Potential New DWSD Water Customers from Oakland County by Year 2050 ..........................15 Table 2-3 Decade One (2000-2010) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County ................16 Table 2-4 Decade Two (2010-2020) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County ................17 Table 2-5 Decade Three (2020-2030) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County .............18 Table 2-6 Decade Four (2030-2040) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County ...............19 Table 2-7 Decade Five (2040-2050) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County ................19 Table 2-8 Estimated Total Project Cost (2005) for Potential New DWSD Water Customers.....................22 Table 2-9 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee County Raw Water Under Alternative 4 ..............................................................................................................................24 Table 2-10 Reservoir Costs (2005) to Store the Raw Water Supply from Genesee County .....................28 Table 2-11 Treatment & Transmission Main Cost (2005) for Raw Water Supply .....................................29 Table 2-12 Finished Water Storage Costs (2005) for the Raw Water Alternative ....................................30 Table 2-13 Distribution of Total Project Costs (2005) by Community for Facilities Constructed within Oakland County ...............................................................................................................31 Table 2-14 Distribution of Total Project Costs (2005) by Community for Raw Water Alternative ...............32 Table 2-15 Estimated O & M Costs for Facilities in Oakland County (2005 dollars).................................34 Table 2-16 Estimated O & M Costs (2005) for Facilities Constructed by Genesee County & Attributed to Oakland County CVTs .............................................................................................35 Table 2-17 Estimated Total O & M Costs for Obtaining Genesee County Raw Water .............................35
List of Tables Table 2-18 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee Finished Water ..................................39 Table 2-19 Finished Water Transmission Main Costs (2005 dollars) .....................................................41 Table 2-20 Finished Water Storage / Pumping Costs (2005) ................................................................42 Table 2-21 Allocation of Finished Water Costs by Community for Facilities Constructed in Oakland County .........................................................................................................................42 Table 2-22 Allocation of Total Project Cost (2005) by Community for Genesee County Finished Water Alternative .......................................................................................................................43 Table 2-23 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee Finished Water ..................................44 Table 2-24 Estimated O & M Costs (2005) Attributed to Oakland County Communities for Facilities Constructed by Genesee County.................................................................................................45 Table 2-25 Total Estimated O & M Costs (2005) for Finished Water Alternative .....................................45 Table 2-26 DWSD Customer Ground Storage / Pumping Estimates ...................................................47 Table 2-27 Communities in Warren-St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative .......................................50 Table 3-1 Summary of Raw/Finished Water Supply Alternatives from Genesee County ..........................51 Table 4-1 CVTs in the COSDS ..........................................................................................................54 Table 4-2 CVTs in the EFSDS ...........................................................................................................58 Table 4-3 CVTs in the GWKSDS .......................................................................................................60 Table 4-4 Capital Cost Summary for Clinton-Oakland Interceptor Relief Sewers ....................................74 Table 4-5 Alternative 3: Capital Cost Summary for 8 MGD Pontiac Diversion ........................................77 Table 4-6 Alternative 4: Treatment Cost Summary for COSDS .............................................................78 Table 4-7 Alternative 4: Capital Cost Summary for 20 MGD Pontiac Diversion .......................................79 Table 4-8 Alternative 5: Capital Cost Summary for 22 MGD Pontiac Diversion .......................................81 Table 4-9 Alternative 6: Capital Cost Summary for New WWTP along the Clinton River ........................83 Table 4-10 O & M Cost Summary for New WWTP along the Clinton River ............................................83 Table 4-11 GCDC Service (KCI Main Arm Only) .................................................................................86 Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report vi
List of Tables Table 4-12 GCDC Service (Both KCI Main and West Arms) .................................................................87 Table 4-13 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 10 Treatment by Another
City/Village/Township .................................................................................................................88 Table 4-14 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 11 New/Expansion of Local
Treatment .................................................................................................................................90 Table 4-15 Capital Cost Summary for 14 MGD Warren WWTP Expansion ............................................95 Table 4-16 O & M Cost Summary for 14 MGD Warren WWTP Expansion .............................................95 Table 5-1 Summary of Delivery Method Advantages and Disadvantages ..............................................96
vii
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Comparison of Water Alternatives Including Private Well System ..........................................10 Figure 2-2 DWSD Expanded Water System........................................................................................14 Figure 2-3 Genesee County Raw Water Supply Alternative Schematic .................................................25 Figure 2-4 Genesee County Raw Water Supply Alternative Geographic Map ........................................26 Figure 2-5 Genesee County Finished Water Supply Alternative Schematic............................................37 Figure 2-6 Genesee County Finished Water Supply Alternative Geographic Map...................................38 Figure 2-7 Warren St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative ............................................................49 Figure 4-1 COSDS Relief Sewers ......................................................................................................56 Figure 4-2 Comparison of Commerce-White Lake WWTP Capacities and Contracts ...............................62 Figure 4-3 Walled Lake/Novi WWTP Capacities and Contracts ............................................................64 Figure 4-4 Pontiac WWTP.................................................................................................................66 Figure 4-5 Milford Village WWTP .......................................................................................................67 Figure 4-6 South Lyon WWTP ...........................................................................................................68 Figure 4-7 Wixom WWTP .................................................................................................................69 Figure 4-8 Lyon Township WWTP .....................................................................................................70 Figure 4-9 Holly Village WWTP .........................................................................................................71 Figure 4-10 8 MGD and 20 MGD Diversion to Pontiac WWTP ..............................................................75 Figure 4-11 22 MGD Diversion to Pontiac WWTP ...............................................................................80
viii
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A
DWSD Growth Pays for Growth Policy
ix
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADD ADDF ADF ADWF AWWA BCC CBOD5 CIP CFR CFS or cfs COSDS CSO CVTs CWA DBP DWSD EFSDS ENR EPA ERP FEMA Ft. or ft. GCDC GLI GPCD GPD or gpd GPM GWKSDS
Average Daily Demand (Water) Average Daily Design Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Average Daily Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Average Dry Weather Flow American Water Works Association Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern Five-day Carbonaceous Biological Oxygen Demand Capital Improvement Plan Code of Federal Regulations Cubic Feet per Second Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System Combined Sewer Overflow Cities, Villages, and Townships Clean Water Act Disinfection Byproducts Detroit Water and Sewerage Department Evergreen-Farmington Sewage Disposal System Engineering News Record Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response Plan Federal Emergency Management Agency Foot Genesee County Drain Commissioners Office Great Lakes Initiative Gallons Per Capita per Day Gallons per Day Gallons per Minute George W. Kuhn Sewage Disposal System
Acronyms and Abbreviations HGL HPZ HRSDS I/I IPP IPZ LPZ Mcf or mcf MCL MDD MDDF MDF MDEQ g/1 MG MGD NPDES NTU OCDC O&M PDWF PHD PHDF PHF PSI PWS PWWF RDF RTB RTF SEMCOG Hydraulic Grade Line DWSD High Pressure Zone Huron Rouge Sewage Disposal System Inflow and Infiltration Industrial Pretreatment Program DWSD Intermediate Pressure Zone DWSD Low Pressure Zone Thousand Cubic Feet Maximum Contaminant Level Maximum Day Demand Maximum Daily ADDF (Wastewater Treatment) Maximum Daily Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Micrograms per liter Million Gallons Million Gallons Per Day National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Nephelometric Turbidity Unit Oakland County Drain Commissioners Office Operations & Maintenance Peak Dry Weather Flow Peak Hour Demand Peak Hourly Design Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Peak Hourly Flow (Wastewater Treatment) Pounds per Square Inch Public Water System Peak Wet Weather Flow Regional Development Forecast from SEMCOG Retention Treatment Basin Retention Treatment Facility Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
xi
Acronyms and Abbreviations SEMCOG RDF SEMCOG Regional Development Forecast SIU SOCWA SSO TAZ TMDL TWP USEPA WLA WQS WTP WWTP Significant Industrial User Southeast Oakland County Water Authority Sanitary Sewer Overflow Traffic Analysis Zone Total Maximum Daily Load Township United States Environmental Protection Agency Waste Load Allocation Water Quality Standards Water Treatment Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant
xii
Summary
1.0
Summary
1.1
Introduction
The Oakland County Drain Commissioners Office (OCDC) oversees over 500 storm drains, 15 municipal sanitary sewers, 14 municipal water systems, and 92 sewage pumping facilities. A majority of the 61 cities, villages and townships (CVTs) within Oakland County also own water and wastewater systems, either individually operated or under contract with OCDC. Historically, most of these communities have acted independently and evaluated water and wastewater alternatives based upon their specific community boundaries. To provide a big picture look at the various water and wastewater systems throughout the County on a regional basis, OCDC contracted with the URS Team of consultants to prepare a Water and Wastewater Master Plan (Master Plan) to evaluate alternatives that address Oakland Countys (the County) current and future water and wastewater needs. The objective of the Master Plan is not to recommend specific courses of action, but rather to provide alternatives for the CVTs to consider based on costs and feasibility. The completed Master Plan is intended to be used as a tool by the 61 CVTs within the County, to encourage communication and cooperation. By encouraging a holistic approach to infrastructure planning, the CVTs needs can be addressed while simultaneously obtaining the best value for all the stakeholders and the best solution for environmental sustainability. Each phase of the planning project correlates to a volume of the Master Plan and the titles of the volumes give good insight into the project approach: Volume 1 Executive Summary Volume 2 Existing Facilities Volume 3 Needs Assessment Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Volume 5 Financial Analysis Volume 1 The Executive Summary provides a summary of the state of the Countys water and wastewater infrastructure in light of current and projected needs. It highlights important countyVolume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 1
Summary wide conclusions and opportunities. Appendix A provides a summary of the facilities, the needs and the alternatives for each CVT. Volume 2 The Existing Facilities Report includes an inventory of existing water and wastewater systems in the County. The assets capacities are analyzed, but independent
condition assessments were not performed. Descriptions of existing assets were obtained from community interviews and published reports. Population projections, build-out analyses, and environmental considerations are also included in Volume 2. Volume 3 The Needs Assessment Report identifies the gaps between what currently exists, and the projected needs based on population projections in 2035 and local master planning. Needs were identified based on individual communitys ability to meet the following general assessment criteria: Water Quantity (Supply), Quality (Regulatory and Aesthetic), and Storage Wastewater Collection (Capacity and Contracts), Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Capacity and Regulatory Compliance Assessment of private systems is out of the scope of this Master Plan. Volume 4 The Alternatives Analysis Report (this document) presents alternatives developed through a four-step process involving: 1) working sessions with the project team, 2) client input and review, 3) initial alternative development, and 4) coordination with a municipal advisory committee for stakeholder input. Alternatives are either formulated as part of the project or adopted from on-going regional alternatives. Alternatives accommodate the existing and future needs for the water and wastewater systems in each community. The planning period for this Master Plan is through 2035. Volume 5 The Financial Model Report contains a financial model to predict water and wastewater rates and costs for each CVT for the identified alternatives. This financial model considers current costs and obligations, and the capital and Operations & Maintenance (O & M) costs associated with the alternatives. It also provides forecasts of water and wastewater commodity charges through the planning period. This tool allows each community to see the relative impact of the various alternatives on their future utility rates. Costs generated by the financial model are summarized in Appendix A of this Executive Summary as a cumulative cost.
Summary 1.2 Scope
The scope of services for this phase of the Master Plan includes the following items. 1. Develop alternatives to fill gaps between current services and projected needs as identified in Volume 3 The Needs Assessment Report. 2. Alternatives consider the following topics: a. Compare the continued use of private on-site water and/or wastewater systems with publicly owned utility systems. b. Compare the continued operation of community systems with larger regionalized systems. c. Compare greater reliance on DWSD, with reduced reliance on DWSD, and alternate water/wastewater system providers for existing DWSD customers. 3. Evaluate alternative delivery methods, such as design-build, which may be available to the project owner for project implementation. 1.3 Summary of Alternatives
The process used to identify the preliminary alternatives considered and presented herein includes four-steps, namely 1) working sessions with the project team, 2) client input and review, 3) initial alternative development, and 4) coordination with a municipal advisory committee for stakeholder input. The brainstorming session consisted of key personnel from URS, Tetra Tech MPS, Plante & Moran, and ECT discussing the following items: Existing and projected needs of each community and respective water/wastewater systems Presentation of past or current regional water/wastewater studies, such as the DWSD master plans, Genesee County Water Supply Study, Warren-St. Clair Shores Water Feasibility Study, etc. Development of potential alternatives list to meet the needs identified
After the initial list was developed, a presentation was made to the OCDC to obtain client feedback. Consequently, the alternatives were further developed for presentation in this report.
Summary 1.3.1 Summary of Water Alternatives Alternative 1 No Change: This alternative assumes the community will continue in its present direction. For example, it is assumed that communities that had improvement projects under construction would complete those projects. Growth is assumed to occur on private wells unless water service in the community is 100% public. Alternative 2 Develop/Improve Community Well System:
This alternative involves new
community well systems or upgrades and expansion of existing community well systems. The analysis determines the number of new wells, the improvements to treatment, and the amount of storage that is necessary to meet projected needs. This alternative addresses the quantity, regulatory quality and water storage needs, but does not address the water aesthetic quality criteria. Alternative 2a Develop/Improve Community Well System with Softening: This alternative is identical to Alternative 2 except that the capital and operations & maintenance (O & M) costs related to softening are estimated and added such that the water quality would be comparable to that of DWSD. This alternative addresses the water quantity, water regulatory quality
requirements, and the water aesthetic quality criteria. Alternative 3 New Service from DWSD: This alternative involves extending DWSD water
service to the community. This alternative addresses both the regulatory and the aesthetic needs, but not the water storage need. Alternative 4 Genesee County to Supply Raw Water: This alternative involves a new water pumping station in Genesee County sourced from Lake Huron. The raw water transmission lines would transport raw water to Oakland County. Oakland County would be responsible for storing, treating, and distributing the water. The project costs assume all 11 potential
communities participate in this alternative. This alternative addresses both the regulatory and the aesthetic needs, but not the local water storage need. Alternative 5 Genesee County to Supply Finished Water: This alternative involves a new water treatment plant in Genesee County sourced from Lake Huron. The finished water
transmission lines would extend to 13 communities in Oakland County. Project costs assume all
Summary 13 potential communities participate in this alternative. This alternative addresses both the regulatory and the aesthetic needs, but not the local water storage need. Alternative 6 Storage Analysis (DWSD Existing Customers): DWSD customer communities are evaluated for ground storage and re-pumping to offset peak hour demands and provide fire and emergency reserve. 1.3.2 Summary of Wastewater Alternatives Alternative 1 No Change: This alternative assumes the community will continue in its present
direction. For example, it is assumed that communities that have improvement projects under construction will complete those projects. Growth is assumed to occur on private septic systems unless sewer service in the community is 100% public. Alternative 2 - Construction of Relief Sewers: The size and location of the relief sewers requires further study and system modeling, however financial considerations were prepared based on the recommendations of the 1991 Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System (COSDS) Interceptor Relief Study. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS. Alternative 3 - Diversion of 8 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: The existing Pontiac
WWTP has an average daily excess capacity of approximately 8 MGD. This alternative involves intercepting flow in the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor and diverting 8 MGD to Pontiac through approximately 12,000 L.F. of 48-inch diameter gravity sewer line within the existing Grand Trunk Western Railroad property. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS. Alternative 4 - Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: Similar to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 diverts flow from the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor to the Pontiac WWTP. However in Alternative 4, a new parallel WWTP is proposed next to Pontiacs Auburn WWTP. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS. Alternative 5 - Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: Similar to Alternatives 3 and 4, Alternative 5 diverts flow from the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor to the Pontiac WWTP. Alternative 5 utilizes a new parallel WWTP proposed next to Pontiacs Auburn WWTP. Alternative 5 expands the proposed new parallel WWTP to accommodate flow from White Lake. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS.
Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 5
Summary Alternative 6 - Construction of a New WWTP on the Clinton River: This alternative proposes a new WWTP located in Macomb County near the Ford Motor Company Proving Grounds. Land acquisition costs for this alternative were not included in the financial considerations. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS. Alternative 7 Conveyance to COSDS:
The Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System
(COSDS) could be extended to reach Brandon, Ortonville, Springfield, White Lake and additional portions of Oakland Township. Alternative 8 Service from Genesee County Kearsley Creek Interceptor (KCI) Main Arm Only: The construction of the Northeast Relief Sewer (NERS) (currently under construction) and the KCI Main Arm would allow Genesee County to serve Brandon and Ortonville, as well as other Genesee County communities. Alternative 9 Service from Genesee County KCI Main Arm and West Arm: The construction
of the Northeast Relief Sewer (NERS) (currently under construction), the KCI Main Arm, and the KCI West Arm would allow Genesee County to serve Brandon, Ortonville, Holly Township, and Groveland Township, as well as other Genesee County communities. Alternative 10 Treatment by Another City/Village/Township (CVT): A few communities would benefit from the opportunity to purchase wastewater treatment from neighboring communities. This alternative examines the technical feasibility of new service only and does not consider either communitys policy on the topic. The costs associated with accepting the neighboring communitys additional flow are analyzed. Alternative 11 New/Expansion-of Local Treatment: The community may choose to expand an existing plant or construct a new local wastewater treatment plant. This alternative assumes Michigan Department of Environmental Qualitys (MDEQ) approval. Alternative 12 Divert Flow From GWKSDS to an Expanded Warren WWTP: This alternative
was explored in detail in the DWSD Wastewater Master Plans technical memorandum entitled Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment. In it a 14 MGD WWTP would be constructed near the existing Warren WWTP to treat flow from the GWKSDS. A more detailed study is required to estimate specific costs allocated to each participating community. For this reason,
Summary Alternative 12 is not included in Volume 5 - Financial Model and no financial considerations are included in Appendix A. 1.4 Basis of Alternative Costs
Each of the alternatives involving new infrastructure requires an estimate of the additional capital cost and operation & maintenance cost to implement the alternative. The basis for each unit cost is presented in Table 1-1 below. Table 1-1 General Basis for Alternative Costs
Component Basis for Capital Cost1
Well Supply Public Well Supply Treatment
Assume 700 GPM well houses at $600,000 each Assume $1,200 per GPM of water processed to meet regulatory standards Assume an additional $1.875 Million per MGD capital costs and $500 per MG O & M costs for softening Assume every well customer will replace the well in the 30 year planning period. Assume $8,000 per well in capital costs and $330 per year in O & M costs
Private Well Supply Treatment
Water
Transmission Mains
Used unit prices in 2003 DWSD Water Master Plan, Task C. Used new station construction formula presented in DWSDs Comprehensive Water Master Plan (DWSD Contract No. CS1278) Cost ($1,000/MGD) = 238.34-(0.1496 * Capacity(MGD))
Booster Stations
1-2 MG - $0.70 per gallon Ground Storage Reservoirs 2-3 MG - $0.60 per gallon 3-4 MG - $0.45 per gallon Elevated Storage Tanks <1.0 MG - $3.00 per gallon >1.0 MG - $2.00 per gallon Based on estimates provided in DWSD Wastewater Master Plan or in past engineering estimate completed for a specific alternative and adjusted to May 2005 dollars.
Wastewater
Interceptor Sewers
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Based on estimates provided by local consulting firms on past or planned WWTP construction
Notes: 1. All costs are presented in May 2005 dollars.
Summary Any references to historical construction costs in past engineering studies were adjusted to the May 2005 baseline using the Engineering News and Records Construction Cost Index. Land acquisition costs are not included in this report. However, as part of the financial model development, an analysis of the estimated acquisition costs based on acreage needs is included. These costs are reflected in the financial model output presented as Volume 5 Financial Analysis.
Water Alternatives Development
2.0
The goal of the water alternatives is to give local communities the information necessary to make decisions about the relative wholesale costs associated with the different water supply alternatives. The costs presented herein reflect only the capital and O & M costs associated with supplying the water to the community. The costs do not include local improvements necessary to convey the water supplied. 2.1 Alternative 1 No Change
Alternative 1 is independently evaluated for each community because each community is in a different state of planning, analysis, design, and construction of their water infrastructure. The URS project team endeavored to present the most up-to-date information available, however availability of information combined with the inevitable need to document findings, results in a snapshot-in-time deliverable. With few exceptions, the information included herein was current as of the Spring of 2007. In general, this alternative assumes the community will continue to pursue its current direction. For example, it is assumed that communities that had improvement projects under construction would complete those projects. The beginning of construction was sufficient evidence of the communitys commitment to the improvement, regardless of project schedules and delays. Similarly, some communities communicated strong commitments to plans and designs. For these communities, Alternative 1 may have assumed completion of those improvements. These assumptions may have affected the other alternatives. For example, if it was assumed that the community would finish a 2 MG storage tank, yet the needs analysis determined the need for 4 MG of storage, the improvement alternative would only recommend an additional 2 MG. Alternative 1 assumes growth occurs on private wells unless water service in the community is 100% public. It is important to note that since this Master Plan includes a financial analysis on public water alternatives, it leaves the impression that remaining on private well systems, i.e. No Change, is always the most cost effective alternative. This may not be the case. To further explore this topic, a financial comparison was made for Brandon Township (selected as a test case) between maintaining individual residential well systems and constructing a public Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 9
Water Alternatives Development groundwater system. The financial methodology employed throughout the study was applied to the individual residential well systems and the cumulative costs were compared with the cumulative costs for a community water supply. comparison. Figure 2-1 Comparison of Water Alternatives Including Private Well System
90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0
Figure 2-1 depicts the results of the
Total Amount To Be Bonded ($M) Total Cumulative Cost ($M)
Cost ($)
50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Alt. 1: No Change
Alt. 2: Develop/Improve Community Well 10.3 31.5
Alt. 2a: Develop/Improve Community Well 11.6 39.2
Alt. 3: New Service from DWSD 16.5 82.0
Alt. 5: Genesee County to Supply Finished Water 18.8 57.0
Total Amount To Be Bonded ($M) Total Cumulative Cost ($M)
17.6 56.0
Alternative
In an effort to provide an accurate comparison a number of assumptions were made about the individual well systems. Those assumptions include: A residential well system has a useful service life of 20 years and all households would need to install or replace their well system once during the study period. Each system has a point of use treatment system for iron removal and softening. Capital costs over the 30 year planning period included $6,500 for the well system and $1,500 for the treatment system.
10
Water Alternatives Development Capital costs were bonded over 20 years using the same interest rate assumptions as the community water supply. The entire capital costs were bonded in year one (2005). This is the most economically advantageous method. Annual operations and maintenance costs included $150 for salt, $100 for filters, and $80 for electricity. The service population used was the same for all the scenarios and included a 2005 service population of 3,975 and a 2035 service population of 5,509. Each household was assumed to have 2.5 people resulting in 1,590 households in 2005 and 2,203 households in 2035. The conclusion is that individual private well systems may cost more on an individual basis than developing a public water system. Furthermore, public well systems may offer water quality and water reliability advantages. For example, in a power outage public water users often retain their water supply where individuals relying on a private, electrically pumped well will not. Also, nearby fire hydrants can reduce a home owners insurance premiums. Many factors ultimately impact the cost of a public system such as local conditions, population densities, etc. and therefore a detailed analysis should always be conducted prior to decision making. 2.2 Alternative 2 Develop/Improve Community Well System
Like Alternative 1 No Change, Alternative 2 is unique for every community to which it applies. It includes communities that may benefit from a new community well systems or upgrades and expansion of existing community well systems. It does not include the local distribution system improvements necessary provide a complete project. Table 2-1 lists the communities included in Alternative 2. For an understanding of how this alternative compares to other water alternatives for each of these communities see Appendix A of Volume 1 Executive Summary.
11
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-1 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 2 - Develop/Improve Community Well System
No.
Community Highland Twp.
2 5 6
Holly Village Lyon Twp. Milford Village
7 8
Oakland Twp. Oxford Twp.
9 10 11
Oxford Village Rochester South Lyon
12 13
Waterford Twp. White Lake Twp.
The quantity (supply) and treatment (regulatory quality) needs identified in Volume 3- Needs Assessment Report of this Master Plan are met with this alternative. Well supply and treatment costs are developed for comparison to other water supply alternatives. 2.3 Alternative 2a Develop/Improve Community Well System with Softening
Community well systems utilize ground water rather than surface water, for the water source. Groundwater in many parts of Oakland County is characterized as hard, i.e. having high levels of calcium and magnesium. Groundwater that has been softened is aesthetically comparable to DWSDs water supply. Alternative 2a utilizes the data developed for each of the Alternative 2 communities then adds the capital and O & M costs associated with softening. This allows for a closer comparison of well supply water to DWSDs surface supplied water. Independence Township has a well system that meets projected demands. However, since Independence Township does not soften its water, Alternative 2a is prepared. The cost assumptions for water softening resulted in additional capital costs of about $1.88 per MGD and additional O & M costs of approximately $500 per million gallons. Appendix A of
12
Water Alternatives Development Volume 1 Executive Summary includes the cost of Alternative 2a with the other water alternatives for each of the applicable communities. 2.4 Alternative 3 New Service from DWSD
2.4.1 Eligible CVTs Communities eligible for new service from DWSD by the year 2035 were identified in the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) Comprehensive Water Master Plan (CWMP) published in June 2004. The study area for the CWMP consisted of nine counties in Southeast Michigan, including Oakland County. There are a total of 246 communities within the DWSD study area. Currently, DWSD sells potable water to 126 customers. These include 78 individual communities and 9 water authorities (that serve an additional 48 communities). Currently, 37 of Oakland Countys 61 CVTs receive water from DWSD. Recommended improvements are summarized by decade through the year 2050 in Section 6 of the CWMP Summary Report. Figure 2-2 illustrates the improvements for the five decades within Oakland County. Table 2-2 presents a summary of the projected new DWSD customers from Oakland County throughout the 2050 planning period. Tables 2-3 through 2-7 summarize the recommended improvements by decade within Oakland County, which was adapted from the DWSD CWMP Summary Report.
13
Flushing Twp Flushing Mt Morris Twp Genesee Twp Richfield Twp Oregon Twp Mayfield Twp Arcadia Twp Goodland Twp Lynn Twp Brockway Twp Greenwood Twp Grant Twp Burtchville Twp
Lapeer Flint Clayton Twp Flint Twp Burton Flint Twp Davison Elba Twp Lapeer Twp Attica Twp Imlay City Imlay Twp Mussey Twp Emmett Twp Kenockee Twp
Lake Huron WTP

Fort Gratiot Twp Clyde Twp
Davison Twp
Lapeer Co.
Swartz Creek
Genesee Co.
Grand Blanc Hadley Twp Metamora Twp Dryden Twp Almont Twp Berlin Twp Riley Twp Wales Twp Kimball Twp
Port Huron Port Huron Twp
Gaines Twp
Mundy Twp Grand Blanc Twp
Atlas Twp
Memphis Memphis
St. Clair Co.

Columbus Twp St Clair Twp
Argentine Twp Linden
Fenton Twp
Holly Township
Fenton
Holly Village
Ortonville Village Oxford Township 2010 2010 Brandon Township Groveland Township 2010 Oxford Village 2010
Lake Orion Village
Leonard Village Addison Township Bruce Twp Armada Twp Richmond Twp
St Clair Richmond Richmond
Deerfield Twp
Tyrone Twp
Rose Township
Springfield Township 2040
Independence Township 2010

Orion Township
St. Clair Rive r
Marysville
Oakland Township 2010
Washington Twp
Ray Twp
Lenox Twp
Casco Twp
China Twp East China Twp
Legend
Existing
Water Treatment Plant Ground Reservoir
Clarkston 2010
Marine City Lake Angelus
Oceola Twp
Hartland Twp
Waterford Township 2020 Highland Township 2040 White Lake Township Oakland Co. 2020 Milford Village 2030 Milford Township 2040
Auburn Hills Pontiac
Rochester 2010
Rochester Hills Shelby Twp
Ira Twp Macomb Twp
Macomb Co.
New Baltimore Chesterfield Twp
Cottrellville Twp
Clay Twp Utica Algonac Clay Twp Mt Clemens Harrison Twp Clinton Twp
Livingston Co.
Commerce Township
Sylvan Lake Keego Harbor Orchard Lake Bloomfield Hills Bloomfield Township Troy
Booster Station Transmission Mains
Genoa Twp
Brighton Twp
Sterling Heights
Proposed
2010 Improvement 2020 Improvement
Brighton Wixom
West Bloomfield Township Walled Lake
Birmingham Clawson Beverly Hills Southfield Township Bingham Farms Village Royal Oak Madison Heights Berkley Lathrup Village Southfield Huntington Woods Royal Oak Township Hazel Park Oak Park Ferndale Royal Oak Township Warren
Fraser
Roseville St Clair Shores Center Line Eastpointe Lake Twp
Hamburg Twp
Green Oak Twp
Lyon Township 2010 South Lyon 2010
2030 Improvement
Lake St. Clair
Novi Novi Township Northville Northville Northville Twp
Farmington Hills Farmington
2040 Improvement 2050 Improvement Current (2005) DWSD Service Area in Oakland County Potential Future Customers NOTE: DWSD FACILITIES DIGITIZED FROM JUNE 2004 WATER MASTER PLAN
Northeast WTP
Livonia Redford Twp Detroit Highland Park Hamtramck
Harper WoodsGrosse Pointe Twp Grosse Pointe Woods Grosse Pointe Farms
Webster Twp
Northfield Twp
Salem Twp Plymouth Twp Plymouth
Grosse Pointe Grosse Pointe Park
J:\13647263\Water\Altern.Rpt\Fig2-1.mxd
Ann Arbor Twp Garden City Westland Scio Twp Ann Arbor Superior Twp Canton Twp Inkster Wayne Dearborn Heights
Dearborn
Melvindale River Rouge Lincoln Park Ecorse
et ro
Washtenaw Co.
it R
Wayne Co.
iv e
Springwells WTP
Water Works Park II WTP
Allen Park Ypsilanti Van Buren Twp Lodi Twp Pittsfield Twp Ypsilanti Twp Belleville Saline Saline Twp York Twp Augusta Twp Sumpter Twp Huron Twp Brownstown Twp Riverview Grosse Ile Twp Trenton Romulus Taylor Southgate
Figure 2-2 DWSD Expanded Water System

Oakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan 0 4 8 16 Miles
Southeast WTP
Wyandotte
14
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-2 Potential New DWSD Water Customers from Oakland County by Year 2050
No.
Community
Year Added to DWSD System
2035 MDD (MGD)
1 2
Brandon Twp. (includes Village of Ortonville) Franklin Village
2010 2010
2.5 1.1
3&4 5 6
Independence Twp. and Clarkston Lyon Twp. Oakland Twp.
2010 2010 2010
7.8 18.2 15.3
7 8
Oxford Village Oxford Twp.
2010 2010
1.6 10.2
9 10
South Lyon Wolverine Lake Village
2010 2010
3.8 1.2
11 12 13
Rochester Waterford Twp. White Lake Twp.
2010 2020 2020
2.4 26.8 15.5
14 15
Milford Village Highland Twp.
2030 2040
1.8 7.4
16 17
Milford Twp. Springfield Twp.
2040 2040
3.0 3.0
*Projected maximum day demand per the Oakland County Master Plan Source: 2003 DWSD Comprehensive Water Master Plan
15
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-3 Decade One (2000-2010) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County
Facility or Pipe Route
Location
Description
High ground storage tank west of Newburgh booster station Romeo booster pumping station and ground storage tank 31 Mile Rd new pipeline
8 Mile Rd, west of Sheldon
New 10 MG high ground storage tank (incl. 4 MG new emergency storage) and associated piping (2000 ft of 36 pipe). New booster station with line pumping only (84.4 MGD at 300 ft; ultimate capacity of 172.8 MGD); 20 MG new emergency storage tank. Approx 19 miles of 72 to 84 pipe
Village of Romeo From Romeo to Independence Twp.
Orion pipe loop 14 Mile Rd extension
From Independence Twp. to Orion Twp. Wixom to South Lyon
Approx 7 miles of 54 to 60 pipe Approx 2 miles of 72 pipe
8 Mile Rd parallel main 24 Mile Rd parallel main
West Service Center (WSC) to Newburgh Station Chesterfield Twp. to Rochester
Approx 5 miles of 60 pipe Approx 13 miles of 36 to 42 to 48 pipe Approx 0.4 miles of 60 pipe
Newburgh station to Parallel main downstream of Newburgh Rd, along Newburgh station 8 Mile Rd.
14 Mile Rd parallel main Parallel Adams Rd main
Between Franklin and Haggerty stations Downstream of Adams Rd station
Approx 5 miles of 36 pipe Approx 1 mile of 30 pipe
Source: 2003 DWSD Comprehensive Water Master Plan
16
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-4 Decade Two (2010-2020) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County
Location
Description
High ground storage tank north of Orion station Haggerty pipe loop
Brown east of Baldwin, Orion Twp. Pontiac to north of Haggerty station
New 20 MG high ground storage tank and associated piping (approx 8 miles of 36, 42 and 48 pipe) Approx 16 miles of 54, 60 and 84 pipe Approx 1 mile of 42 pipe
Parallel main downstream 14 Mile Rd, from Haggerty of Haggerty station station to Welch Rd.
WSC station upgrades Ground storage tank at Newburgh pump station
West Service Center Newburgh pump station
Replace intermediate line pumps (60 MGD at 185 ft) New 20 MG ground reservoir for emergency storage
High ground storage, southwest of Adams booster station 24 Mile Rd extension
Adams booster station Rochester pump station to Auburn Hills
New 10 MG high ground tank for emergency storage and associated piping (2.1 miles of 30 pipe) Approx 6 miles of 72 pipe
17
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-5 Decade Three (2020-2030) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County
Location
Description
Parallel main 14 Mile Rd, from Welch downstream of Haggerty Rd to Beck Rd station North service center capacity upgrades Franklin station upgrades North service center (NSC) Franklin station
Approx 4 miles of 42 pipe

Additional 110 MGD pumping capacity for line pumps (350 MGD at 370 ft)
Additional 30 MGD line pumping (120 MGD at 250 ft)
Parallel Orion Twp. main
Giddings Rd, from Walton Blvd to Green Rd Pontiac Trail, from west of Wixom to I-96 to Kensington Rd to Buno Rd
Transmission main to supply Brighton
Approx 12 miles of 42, 48 and 54 pipe
Haggerty station upgrades Parallel main downstream of Newburgh pump station
Haggerty station 8 Mile Rd, from Haggerty Rd to Meadowbrook Rd
Additional 24 MGD line pumping (66 MGD at 200 ft) Approx 1 mile of 30 pipe
18
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-6 Decade Four (2030-2040) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County
Location
Description
Springfield pipe loop Oakland pump station and ground storage High ground storage west of Springfield
Independence Twp. to Wixom Oakland Twp. Springfield Twp.
Approx 28 miles of 42 to 60 to 72 pipe New station with line pumps (78MGD at 260 ft ultimate capacity). New 20 MG ground reservoir for emergency storage. New 10 MG high ground tank for emergency storage
Table 2-7 Decade Five (2040-2050) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County
Location Springfield Twp. to Genesee County
Description Approx 12 miles of 36 pipe
Second feed to Flint
North service center upgrades Newburgh station upgrades
NSC Newburgh station
Additional 50 MGD line pumping (400 MGD at 370 ft) Additional 12 MGD pumping capacity (64 MGD at 200 ft)
Oakland station upgrades Franklin station upgrades
Oakland station Franklin station
Additional 126 MGD pumping capacity (204 MGD at 260 ft) Additional 61.2 MGD line pumping capacity (151.2 MGD at 250 ft)
Parallel main downstream of Franklin station
Inkster Rd, from Franklin station to Maple Rd
Approx 1 mile of 24 pipe
Squirrel Rd from Walton Blvd Parallel main to South Blvd; Walton Blvd downstream of Adams from Squirrel Rd to Avon Rd station Twp. Parallel main downstream of Newburgh booster station 8 Mile Rd, from Meadowbrook Rd to Sheldon Rd.
Approx 3 miles of 24 to 30 pipe
Brighton-Ann Arbor Pipe Loop
From Milford Twp. to Brighton Twp. and from Green Oak Twp. to Ann Arbor.
Approx 22 miles of 48 to 72 pipe
19
Water Alternatives Development The DWSD CWMP also identified new customers projected to be added by 2010 and their expected maximum day demand (MDD). The CWMP notes that if Lyon Twp. and South Lyon do not join the DWSD system, the 14 Mile Rd extension (Map Key No. 5) will not be needed by 2010. Similarly, if Oxford and Oxford Twp. do not join the DWSD system, the Orion pipe loop will not be needed, but a ground storage tank and reservoir pumps would be required at the Orion pumping station to supply existing customers during peak periods. 2.4.2 Projected Cost of Service The CWMP identified new infrastructure and infrastructure improvements for each decade. Based on DWSD System Expansion Policy1, the new customers will be expected to pay for new infrastructure that will be built to serve them. If the new infrastructure serves more than one potential new customer, the cost for the new infrastructure will be divided proportionally. The following assumptions were made in calculating projected costs for the above Oakland County communities listed in Table 1-1: Only those infrastructure costs that are associated with the new customer will be paid for by the new customer. If new infrastructure is shared by more than one community, the infrastructure costs will be divided among the corresponding communities based on their year 2035 MDD flows. The DWSD CWMP transmission system improvements by decade included new transmission mains, new ground storage, new high ground storage, new booster stations, new emergency storage, new looped transmission mains, and new parallel mains. Customer costs for this Master Plan will include the new transmission mains, new ground or high ground storage, and new booster stations. The costs for emergency storage are not included in the estimate since it was assumed that the new customers would not be responsible for this capital investment. Also, costs for new looped transmission mains and new parallel mains will not be charged to new
DWSD system expansion policy provided in Appendix A.
20
Water Alternatives Development customers. However, in some cases, partial cost for new parallel mains may be attributed to new customers. The basis for capital costs were developed in the DWSD CWMPs Task C Water Supply and Service Management Plan report. The DWSD CWMP costs were
escalated from Year 2003 (January 2003) dollars to current (May 2005) dollars using the following Construction Cost Indices (CCI): CCI (01/2003) = 6580.5 CCI (05/2005) = 7398.0 May 2005 Cost = Year 2003 Cost * (7398.0/6580.5) = Year 2003 Cost * 1.1242 Table 2-8 below outlines the total project cost for each of the communities listed as potential DWSD customers in the DWSD CWMP.
21
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-8 Estimated Total Project Cost (2005) for Potential New DWSD Water Customers
Community
Year Added to DWSD System1
Total Project Cost ($ Million) 22.3
Brandon Twp. (incl. Village of Ortonville)
2010
Independence Twp. and Clarkston Oakland Twp.
2010 2010
41.2 74.8
Oxford Village Oxford Twp. Rochester
2010 2010 2010
11.2 53.3 6.5
Franklin Village Wolverine Lake Village
2010 2010
3.0 5.2
Lyon Twp. South Lyon
2010 2010
20.6 5.2
Waterford Township White Lake Township Milford Village
2020 2020 2030
111.0 71.6 10.3
Highland Twp. Milford Twp.
2040 2040
66.4 30.0
Springfield Twp.
Notes: 1. Data obtained from CWMP
2040
28.4
2.5
Alternative 4 Genesee County to Supply Raw Water
Genesee County currently has a water supply agreement with the City of Flint to purchase DWSD water through September 2010. As a result of water reliability concerns, recent and projected future rate increases from DWSD, the County was evaluating a number of water supply alternatives. The Genesee County Drain Commissioner, Jeffrey Wright, commissioned a Preliminary Engineering Feasibility Study, which looked at numerous alternatives to provide water service to the existing County Agency customers, as well as expanding water service to other areas outside their existing service area. The two-volume report is titled Preliminary Report Long-Term Water Supply for Genesee County - Second Draft, dated January 2006. The Genesee County report evaluated three base alternatives as follows:
22
Water Alternatives Development Alternative I No Change, maintain existing mode of operation, Alternative II Purchase water directly from DWSD, Alternative III Develop a new Lake Huron Water Supply. Numerous scenarios (a total of over twenty) were evaluated for the three base alternatives. The planning period for the study runs through the year 2050. Scenarios 1 through 15 looked only at supplying water to Genesee County customers and potential customers within their existing service area (Group 1). Scenarios 16 through 20 evaluated extending water service into other areas delineated as Groups 2, 3, 4 and 5. The breakdown for the Groupings is as follows: Group 1 Genesee County Agency existing and potential customers Group 2 City of Flint Group 3 Lapeer County Group 4 Northern Oakland County Group 5 Southern Oakland County/Macomb County Scenarios involving Group 4 are of the most interest for the Oakland County Master Plan Study as they relate to providing water service from Genesee County to several northern Oakland County communities. The raw water supply option to get water to northern Oakland County communities is defined as Scenario 16 in the Genesee County Report. Refer to Figure 2-3 for a schematic of the layout (Genesee County portion) for Scenario 16. Figure 2-4 illustrates the approximate location of the transmission mains, reservoirs, treatment plant, and storage tanks planned for this alternative. 2.5.1 Eligible CVTs Table 2-9 lists the potential communities that could receive raw water from Genesee County in Scenario 16.
23
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-9 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee County Raw Water Under Alternative 4
Community
2035 ADD (MGD)
2035 MDD (MGD)
Cost Share
Highland Township Independence Township & Clarkston
2.6 4.1
7.4 7.8
7.5% 7.9%
Oakland Township Oxford Township Oxford Village
5.5 3.7 0.7
15.3 10.2 1.6
15.5% 10.3% 1.6%
Waterford Township White Lake Township
11.6 4.8
26.8 15.5
27.1% 15.7%
Springfield Township (Partial) Lake Orion Village
1.2 0.5
3.0 0.6
3.0% 0.6%
Orion Township Totals
8.3 43.0
10.6 98.8
10.7% 100.0%
Note: 1. Brandon Township and the Village of Ortonville are excluded from the Raw Water Alternative due to their proximity to the proposed improvements.
24
J:\13647263\Water\Altern.rpt\Fig2-3.mxd
Figure 2-3 Genesee County Raw Water Supply Alternative

Oakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan
SOURCE - PRELIMINARY REPORT: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY FOR GENESEE COUNTY - SECOND DRAFT (JAN 2006)
25
26
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-9 also shows the projected Average Daily Demand (ADD) and Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for the respective communities along with their respective percentage of the total demand. This percentage will be used to distribute costs to each community for Alternative 4 Genesee County to Supply Raw Water. 2.5.2 Projected Cost of Service The report does not make any specific recommendations, but it does present cost data for each of the scenarios considered. Costs for each of the Genesee County alternatives are comprised of those costs associated with the Genesee County Facilities required to get the water to Oakland County and those costs attributed to facilities required to be constructed within Oakland County for storage/treatment (as applicable) and transmission to the various communities. Also, an estimated cost for operation and maintenance of the facilities is presented. Oakland Countys share of the capital cost expended by Genesee County for Alternative 4 would be approximately $458,197,000 in 2007 dollars (Source: Preliminary Report, Long-Term Water Supply for Genesee County, Volume 2- Existing Facilities Report Appendices, Second Draft, January 2006, Appendix N, Table 4, pg. 8). This equates to about $432 million in 2005 dollars. For this alternative, Genesee County would supply Oakland County with untreated water from Lake Huron. The raw water would be delivered to two raw water storage reservoirs, with a total capacity of 700 million gallons. A potential location for the reservoirs would be on the east side of the County. The reservoirs have an estimated capital cost of $188.1 million in 2005 dollars (see Table 2-10). Treatment of the Raw Water would be provided by a 99 MGD treatment plant located adjacent to the reservoirs. Treated water would then be distributed and stored throughout Oakland County, serving a total of 10 communities.
27
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-10 Reservoir Costs (2005) to Store the Raw Water Supply from Genesee County
Item
Description
Unit
Quantity
Total Unit Cost
Total Cost
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Earthwork CY 3,500,000 Slope Protection: Type "C" Rock CY 190,300 Slope Protection: Stone Bedding CY 190,300 Slope Protection: Geotextile Filter SY 375,000 Seeding and Mulching at Reservoir SY 657,145 Valves and Related Processes LS 1 Concrete Headwalls Each 16 Reservoir Inlet Structure Each 2 Reservoir Outlet Structure Each 2 Toe and Blanket Drains LS 1 Reservoir Levee Roadway LS 1 84" Water Line to Reservoirs LF 47,600 Miscellaneous Site Construction LS 1 Property Acquisition Acre 175 LS 2 100 MGD Pump Station Raw Water Storage Construction Sub-total Construction Contingencies Engineering, Legal, etc. 30% 20%
$ 3.00 $ 40 $ 40 $ 3.00 $ 2.50 $ 300,000 $ 5,000 $ 250,000 $ 40,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 200,000 $ 854 $ 5,000,000 $ 20,000 $ 22,328,000
$ 10,500,000 $ 7,612,000 $ 7,612,000 $ 1,125,000 $ 1,643,000 $ 300,000 $ 80,000 $ 500,000 $ 80,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 200,000 $ 40,670,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 44,656,000 $ 125,378,000 $ $ 37,613,000 25,076,000
Estimated project costs for treatment and transmission mains are approximately $426.4 million. Finished water storage and booster station costs are estimated at $102.6 million (see Tables 2-11 and 2-12). Table 2-13 presents the total project cost ($717.0 million) divided among the communities on a water demand basis for facilities required to store the raw water, treat it, and distribute it to the above noted Oakland County Communities.
28
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-11 Treatment & Transmission Main Cost (2005) for Raw Water Supply
Total Unit Cost
$ 141 $ 393 $ 197 $ 491 $ 242 $ 604 $ 333 $ 831 $ 517 $ 1,293 $ 604 $ 1,510 $ 755 $ 1,188 $ 2.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Item
Description
Unit
Quantity
Total Cost
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
LF 10,718 18" Transmission Main LF 1,300 18" Road / waterway crossings LF 18,294 24" Transmission Main LF 500 24" Road / waterway crossings LF 13,855 30" Transmission Main LF 600 30" Road / waterway crossings LF 29,149 42" Transmission Main LF 400 42" Road / waterway crossings LF 71,056 54" Transmission Main LF 1,500 54" Road / waterway crossings LF 20,095 60" Transmission Main LF 1,400 60" Road / waterway crossings 72" Transmission Main LF 17,778 LF 200 72" Road / waterway crossings Gallon/Day 99,000,000 Water Treatment Facility Treatment/Transmission Construction Sub-Total Construction Contingencies Engineering, Legal, etc. 30% 20%
1,506,188 511,524 3,599,168 245,645 3,348,892 362,226 9,699,979 332,324 36,746,334 1,939,305 12,131,590 2,113,776 13,430,977 237,516 198,000,000 284,205,000 85,262,000 56,841,000 426,308,000
Treatment/Transmission Total Project Cost
29
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-12 Finished Water Storage Costs (2005) for the Raw Water Alternative
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Description Unit Quantity
Total Unit Cost

$ 0.70 $ $ 0.60 $ $ 0.45 $ $ 0.40 $ $ 533,000 $ $ 1,590,000 $ $ 2,650,000 $ $ 5,260,000 $ $ 11,538,000 $ $ 18,101,760 $ $ $
Total Cost 700,000 1,800,000 11,250,000 4,400,000 533,000 1,590,000 7,950,000 10,520,000 11,538,000 18,102,000 68,383,000 20,515,000
1-MG Ground Storage Tank gal 1,000,000 3-MG Ground Storage Tank gal 3,000,000 Five 5-MG Ground Storage Tanks gal 25,000,000 11-MG Storage Tank gal 11,000,000 2 MGD Booster Station LS 1 6 MGD Booster Station LS 1 10 MGD Booster Station LS 3 20 MGD Booster Station LS 2 50 MGD Booster Station LS 1 80 MGD Booster Station LS 1 Raw Water Storage Construction Sub-total Construction Contingencies 30% Engineering, Legal, etc. 20% Raw Water Storage Total Project Costs
$ 13,677,000 $ 102,575,000
30
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-13 Distribution of Total Project Costs (2005) by Community for Facilities Constructed within Oakland County
Community
2035 MDD (MGD)
Cost Share 7.5%
Total Project Cost $53,500,000
Highland Township
7.4
Independence Township Oakland Township
7.8 15.3
7.9% 15.5%
$56,877,000 $111,060,000
Oxford Township Oxford Village Waterford Township
10.2 1.6 26.8
10.3% 1.6% 27.1%
$74,152,000 $11,665,000 $194,311,000
White Lake Township Springfield Township (Partial)
15.5 3.0
15.7% 3.0%
$112,757,000 $21,516,000
Lake Orion Village Orion Township
0.6 10.6
0.6% 10.7%
$4,411,000 $76,752,000
Totals
98.8
100%
$717,001,000
The Total Project Costs required for each Oakland County CVT that can be attributed to getting raw water from Genesee County, treat it and convey to each of their respective communities in Oakland County are presented in Table 2-14. This cost does not include the cost of local distribution system improvements that may be necessary to distribute water from the County transmission main to customers.
31
Table 2-14 Distribution of Total Project Costs (2005) by Community for Raw Water Alternative
Community
2035 MDD (MGD)
Cost Share
Facilities Constructed in Oakland County
Proportional Share of Genesee Co. Facilities
Total Project Costs for GCDC Raw Water
Highland Township Independence Township Oakland Township
7.4
7.5%
$53,500,000
$32,215,000
$85,715,000
7.8
7.9%
$56,877,000
$34,249,000
$91,126,000
15.3
15.5%
$111,060,000
$66,875,000
$177,935,000
Oxford Township Oxford Village
10.2 1.6
10.3% 1.6%
$74,152,000 $11,665,000
$44,650,000 $7,024,000
$118,802,000 $18,689,000
Waterford Township White Lake Township Springfield Township (Partial)
26.8
27.1%
$194,311,000
$117,004,000
$311,315,000
15.5
15.7%
$112,757,000
$67,896,000
$180,653,000
3.0
3.0%
$21,516,000
$13,110,000
$34,626,000
0.6 10.6
0.6% 10.7%
$4,411,000 $76,752,000
$2,656,000 $46,216,000
$7,067,000 $122,968,000
Totals
99
100%
$717,001,000
$431,895,000
$1,148,896,000
32
Water Alternatives Development Preliminary transmission main sizes and alignments are selected throughout Oakland County for the purposes of estimating the capital cost to treat and convey a Lake Huron water supply to the communities in the alternative service area. The unit prices tabulated in the DWSD Comprehensive Water Master Plan are used for the proposed transmission main construction costs. The unit prices are also adjusted using the Engineering News Record (ENR) CCI to arrive at May 2005 construction costs. Treatment plant capital costs are estimated at $2.00 per gallon and based on the Maximum Daily Demand (MDD). Capital costs presented in the Genesee County report are shown in 2007 dollars. These costs were deflated to 2005 dollars assuming an inflation rate of 3% per year for 2006 and 2007. Operation and Maintenance costs are estimated for both the Genesee County Facilities and the Oakland County Facilities. O & M costs for the Oakland County treatment facilities are based on $2.90 per 1000 cubic feet of water treated on an Average Daily Demand (ADD) basis. Transmission/Storage O & M costs are based on $1.00 per 1000 cubic feet of ADD. Costs for the Genesee County facilities are estimated based on data presented in the Genesee County Long-Term Water Supply Report for Scenario 16. estimated O & M costs for the proposed improvements. Tables 2-15 through 2-17 present the
33
Table 2-15 Estimated O & M Costs for Facilities in Oakland County (2005 dollars)
O & M Cost Source
Avg. O & M Cost/mcf
Annual O & M Cost/mcf $3,250,000
Treatment Plant O & M @ ADD=23 MGD
$2.90
Transmission Mains O & M (ADD=23 MGD) Total Amount of O & M Costs
$1.00
$1,122,000 $4,372,000
Community
Proportional Share
Share of O & M Costs
Highland Township
7.5%
$326,000
7.9% 15.5%
$347,000 $677,000
10.3% 1.6% 27.1%
$452,000 $71,000 $1,184,000
15.7% 3.0%
$687,000 $133,000
Lake Orion Village Orion Township Totals
0.6% 10.7% 100%
$27,000 $468,000 $4,372,000
34
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-16 Estimated O & M Costs (2005) for Facilities Constructed by Genesee County & Attributed to Oakland County CVTs
Community
Proportional Share
Share of O & M Costs $179,000
Highland Township
7.5%
7.9% 15.5%
$190,000 $372,000
10.3% 1.6% 27.1%
$248,000 $39,000 $650,000
15.7% 3.0%
$377,000 $73,000
0.6% 10.7%
$15,000 $257,000
Totals
100%
$2,400,000
Table 2-17 Estimated Total O & M Costs for Obtaining Genesee County Raw Water
Community
Total O & M Costs
Highland Township Independence Township
$326,000 $347,000
$179,000 $190,000
$505,000 $537,000
Oakland Township Oxford Township
$677,000 $452,000
$372,000 $248,000
$1,049,000 $700,000
Oxford Village Waterford Township White Lake Township
$71,000 $1,184,000 $687,000
$39,000 $650,000 $377,000
$110,000 $1,834,000 $1,064,000
$133,000 $27,000
$73,000 $15,000
$206,000 $42,000
$468,000 $4,372,000
$257,000 $2,400,000
$725,000 $6,772,000
35
Water Alternatives Development 2.6 Alternative 5 Genesee County to Supply Finished Water
Scenario 19 in Genesee Countys Preliminary Report Long-Term Water Supply for Genesee County - Second Draft, dated January 2006, represents the alternative that would provide finished water to northern Oakland County. Refer to Figure 2-5 for a schematic layout of the facilities to be constructed by Genesee County in order to provide finished water to Oakland County communities. Figure 2-6 illustrates the approximate geographic location of transmission mains and storage tanks.
36
J:\13647263\Water\Altern.rpt\Fig2-5.mxd
Figure 2-5 Genesee County Finished Water Supply Alternative

SOURCE - PRELIMINARY REPORT: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY FOR GENESEE COUNTY - SECOND DRAFT (JAN 2006)
37
38
Water Alternatives Development 2.6.1 Eligible CVTs In Alternative 4 Genesee County to Supply Finished Water, a total of 13 communities in Oakland County would potentially be supplied finished water from Genesee County. Brandon Township and Village of Ortonville are included in this alternative where they were excluded in the raw water option due to their geographic location and proximity to the point of connection with Genesee County. The Oakland County communities identified as potential customers and their corresponding water demands are provided in Table 2-18 below. Table 2-18 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee Finished Water
Community
2035 ADD (MGD)
2035 MDD (MGD)
Cost Share
Highland Township
2.6
7.4
7.3%
Independence Township Oakland Township Oxford Township
4.1 5.5 3.7
7.8 15.3 10.2
7.7% 15.1% 10.1%
Oxford Village Brandon Township
0.7 0.7
1.6 1.8
1.6% 1.8%
Ortonville Village Waterford Township
0.3 11.6
0.7 26.8
0.7% 26.4%
White Lake Township Springfield Township (Partial) Lake Orion Village
4.8 1.2 0.5
15.5 3.0 0.6
15.3% 2.9% 0.6%
8.3 44
10.6 101.3
10.4% 100%
2.6.2 Projected Cost of Service Costs for the Genesee County facilities are estimated based on data presented in the Genesee County Long-Term Water Supply Report for Scenario 19. The same assumptions and estimates used to calculate costs in Alternative 3 Genesee County to Supply Raw Water are utilized in Alterative 4 Genesee County to Supply Finished Water.
39
Water Alternatives Development Oakland Countys proportional share of capital costs for this alternative is about $810 million in 2005 dollars (source: Preliminary Report, Long-Term Water Supply for Genesee County). The treated water would be metered and fed directly into a 72 transmission main on the north side of the county along highway M-15. The finished water transmission main costs are estimated at $142.2 million (Table 2-19) and the storage costs are estimated at $103.6 million (Table 2-20). Table 2-21 presents the total project cost ($245.8 million) for facilities to be constructed in Oakland County, allocated to the communities on a water demand basis. It should be noted that these costs do not include the costs of local distribution improvements that may be necessary to distribute water from the county transmission main to customers. Table 2-22 shows a breakdown of Total Project Cost, ($1,055 million), which includes facilities to be constructed in Oakland County and Oakland Countys share of the cost for facilities constructed by Genesee County. Costs are allocated by Community for the Finished Water Alternative.
40
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-19 Finished Water Transmission Main Costs (2005 dollars)
Item
Description
Unit
Quantity
Total Unit Cost
Total Cost $770,941
18" Transmission Main
LF
5,486
$141
2 3 4
18" Road/ waterway crossings 24" Transmission Main 24" Road/ waterway crossings
LF LF LF
1,600 21,823 400
$393 $197 $491
$629,568 $4,293,465 $196,516
5 6
36" Transmission Main 36" Road/ waterway crossings
LF LF
8,134 200
$287 $717
$2,331,846 $143,452
7 8
42" Transmission Main 42" Road/ waterway crossings
LF LF
54,805 800
$333 $831
$18,237,585 $664,648
9 10 11
48" Transmission Main 48" Road/ waterway crossings 54" Transmission Main
LF LF LF
45,307 800 47,555
$509 $1,133 $517
$23,076,846 $906,576 $24,592,883
12 13
54" Road/ waterway crossings 72" Transmission Main
LF LF
2,000 21,932
$1,150 $755
$1,150,000 $16,569,254
14
72" Road/ waterway crossings Transmission Main Construction Sub-Total Construction Contingencies
LF
600
$1,888
$1,132,548 $94,696,128
30%
$28,408,838
Engineering, Legal, etc. Transmission Main Total Project Cost
20%
$18,939,226 $142,044,192
41
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-20 Finished Water Storage / Pumping Costs (2005)
Item Description Unit Quantity Total Unit Cost Total Cost
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Two 1-MG Ground Storage Tanks 3-MG Ground Storage Tank Five 5-MG Ground Storage Tanks 11-MG Storage Tank 2 MGD Booster Station 6 MGD Booster Station 10 MGD Booster Station 20 MGD Booster Station 50 MGD Booster Station 80 MGD Booster Station
gal gal gal gal LS LS LS LS LS LS
2,000,000 3,000,000 25,000,000 11,000,000 1 1 3 2 1 1
$ 0.70 $ $ 0.60 $ $ 0.45 $ $ 0.40 $ $ 533,000.00 $ $ 1,590,000 $ $ 2,650,000 $ $ 5,260,000 $ $ 11,538,000 $ $ 18,101,760 $
$ $ $ $
1,400,000 1,800,000 11,250,000 4,400,000 533,000 1,590,000 7,950,000 10,520,000 11,538,000 18,102,000
69,083,000 20,725,000 13,817,000 103,625,000
Storage/Pumping Construction Sub-total

Construction Contingencies 30%
Engineering, Legal, etc. 20% Storage/Pumping Total Project Costs
Table 2-21 Allocation of Finished Water Costs by Community for Facilities Constructed in Oakland County
Community
2035 MDD (MGD)
Percent of Total
Project Share Costs
7.4 7.8
7.3% 7.7%
$17,881,000 $19,009,000
15.3 10.2
15.1% 10.1%
$37,119,000 $24,783,000
Oxford Village Brandon Township
1.6 1.8
1.6% 1.8%
$3,899,000 $4,366,000
Ortonville Village Waterford Township White Lake Township
0.7 26.8 15.5
0.7% 26.4% 15.3%
$1,698,000 $64,943,000 $37,685,000
3.0 0.6
3.0% 0.6%
$7,277,000 $1,474,000
10.6 101
10.4% 100%
$25,652,000 $245,786,000
42
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-22 Allocation of Total Project Cost (2005) by Community for Genesee County Finished Water Alternative
2035 MDD (MGD)
Community
Cost Share
Facilities Constructed in Oakland County (Trans/Stor/Pump)
Proportional Share of Genesee Co. Facilities
Total Project Costs for GCDC Finished Water
Highland Township
7.4
7.3%
$17,881,000
$58,864,000
$76,745,000
7.8 15.3
7.7% 15.1%
$19,009,000 $37,119,000
$62,579,000 $122,194,000
$81,588,000 $159,313,000
Oxford Township Oxford Village Brandon Township
10.2 1.6 1.8
10.1% 1.6% 1.8%
$24,783,000 $3,899,000 $4,366,000
$81,586,000 $12,834,000 $14,373,000
$106,369,000 $16,733,000 $18,739,000
0.7 26.8
0.7% 26.4%
$1,698,000 $64,943,000
$5,589,000 $213,791,000
$7,287,000 $278,734,000
15.5 3.0
15.3% 3.0%
$37,685,000 $7,277,000
$124,061,000 $23,954,000
$161,746,000 $31,231,000
Lake Orion Village Orion Township Totals
0.6 10.6 101
0.6% 10.4% 100%
$1,474,000 $25,652,000 $245,786,000
$4,853,000 $84,447,000 $809,125,000
$6,327,000 $110,099,000 $1,054,911,000
Tables 2-23 through 2-25 present the estimated O & M costs for the proposed improvements broken down by community by Oakland County/Genesee County projects.
43
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-23 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee Finished Water
Community
Avg. O & M Cost/Mcf
Annual O & M Cost/Mcf
Treatment Plant O & M Transmission Mains O & M (ADD=23 MGD) $1.00 $1,122,000
Total Amount of O & M Costs Community
$1,122,000
Proportional Share
7.3% 7.7%
$82,000 $87,000
15.1% 10.1%
$169,000 $113,000
Oxford Village Brandon Township Ortonville Village
1.6% 1.8% 0.7%
$18,000 $20,000 $8,000
Waterford Township White Lake Township
26.4% 15.3%
$296,000 $172,000
Springfield Township (Partial) Lake Orion Village Orion Township
3.0% 0.6% 10.4%
$33,000 $7,000 $117,000
Totals
100%
$1,122,000
44
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-24 Estimated O & M Costs (2005) Attributed to Oakland County Communities for Facilities Constructed by Genesee County
Community
Proportional Share
Highland Township Independence Township Oakland Township
7.3% 7.7% 15.1%
$172,000 $183,000 $357,000
10.1% 1.6%
$239,000 $38,000
Brandon Township Ortonville Village Waterford Township
1.8% 0.7% 26.4%
$42,000 $16,000 $625,000
15.3% 3.0%
$363,000 $70,000
0.6% 10.4%
$14,000 $247,000
Totals
100%
$2,366,000
Table 2-25 Total Estimated O & M Costs (2005) for Finished Water Alternative
Community
O & M for Oakland Co Facilities
O & M for Genesee Co Facilities
Highland Township
$82,000
$172,000
$254,000
$87,000 $169,000
$183,000 $357,000
$270,000 $526,000
Oxford Township Oxford Village Brandon Township
$113,000 $18,000 $20,000
$239,000 $38,000 $42,000
$62,000 $56,000 $62,000
$8,000 $296,000
$16,000 $625,000
$24,000 $921,000
White Lake Township Springfield Township (Partial) Lake Orion Village
$172,000 $33,000 $7,000
$363,000 $70,000 $14,000
$535,000 $103,000 $21,000
$117,000 $1,122,000
$247,000 $2,366,000
$364,000 $3,198,000
45
Water Alternatives Development 2.7 Alternative 6 Storage Analysis (DWSD Existing Customers)
Most of the Oakland County communities served by DWSD water do not store water within their local system. These communities rely on DWSD storage and pumping to provide the level of service necessary to serve their customers. A number of communities initiated studies over the last few years to evaluate in the feasibility of adding storage to accomplish several objectives. Objectives included the following: Reduce or eliminate the peak hour surcharge, which is built into the DWSD rate policy Provide additional pressure stability in the water distribution system to compensate for variations at the DWSD master meters Provide storage for areas in the local distribution system where maximum day and peak hour demands reduce pressure below desirable levels regardless of the DWSD supply pressures Provide emergency storage within the community in the event of a loss of service from DWSD As part of this Master Plan, the URS project team evaluated 1) the storage need to offset the peak hour demands and provide fire reserve, 2) the costs for ground storage and re-pumping, and 3) the additional operation and maintenance expense of adding these facilities. Also, an assessment was performed of the projected rates for each community with and without peak hour surcharge to determine whether the added expense of storage can be recovered in the adjusted rate. The rate calculations and cost-effective analyses are provided in Volume 5 Financial Analysis. The storage need is calculated assuming that each community would store the difference between the max day and peak hour demands for a three hour period and provide a fire reserve of 0.72 MG, which is 3,000 GPM for four hours. The booster station cost estimate is based on meeting the peak hour demand of the community. A summary of the storage and sizes are presented in Table 2-26 below.
46
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-26 DWSD Customer Ground Storage / Pumping Estimates
Storage Volume (MG)
Base Const. Mark-up 50% ($M)
Additional O&M ($M/yr)
Total Capital Cost ($M)
Booster Station Cost ($M)
Land Acquisition Cost ($M)
Community
Auburn Hills
2.0
1.4
4.4
5.8
2.9
0.75
9.45
0.06
Bloomfield Hills Bloomfield Twp.
1.0 2.0
0.7 1.4
2.4 10.4
3.1 11.8
1.6 5.9
0.75 0.75
5.45 18.45
0.03 0.12
Commerce Twp. Farmington Hills Hazel Park
2.5 4.5 1.0
1.5 2.0 0.7
7.49 19.27 1.07
9.0 21.3 1.7
4.5 10.6 0.9
0.75 1.5 0.75
14.25 33.4 3.35
0.09 0.21 0.02
Keego Harbor Lake Orion Village
1.0 1.0
0.7 0.7
1.0 1.0
1.7 1.7
0.9 0.85
0.75 0.75
3.4 3.3
0.02 0.02
Madison Heights Novi Orchard Lake
1.5 3.0 1.0
1.1 1.8 0.7
3.4 10.65 1.0
4.5 12.5 1.7
2.25 6.25 0.85
0.75 1.5 0.75
7.5 20.2 3.3
0.04 0.12 0.02
Orion Twp. Rochester
2.0 1.0
1.4 0.7
4.48 1.0
5.9 1.7
2.95 0.85
0.75 0.75
9.6 3.3
0.06 0.02
Rochester Hills Sylvan Lake
3.5 1.0
2.1 0.7
12.38 1.0
14.5 1.7
7.25 0.85
1.5 0.75
23.2 3.3
0.14 0.02
Troy Walled Lake West Bloomfield Twp.
4.0 1.0 3.0
2.4 0.7 1.8
16.3 1.0 11.31
18.7 1.7 13.1
9.4 0.85 6.6
1.5 0.75 1.5
29.6 3.3 21.2
0.2 0.02 0.13
Totals
Notes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
36
22.5
219.1
132.1
66.25
17.25
215.55
1.34
Pontiac, Ferndale, SOCWA, Oak Park, Farmington, and Wixom are not included in the analysis since they presently have storage facilities. Based on the DWSD rate data, only Wixom and SOCWA have peak hour factors of 1.0. Costs are presented in 2005 dollars; ($M) is millions. Base Construction Mark-up includes 20% for engineering, legal, etc. and 30% in construction contingencies. Land Acquisition Costs assumed to be $250,000 per acre O&M costs assumed to be 1% of capital costs
Total Cumulative Cost ($M)1
Total Amount To Be Bonded ($M)
Tank Cost ($M)1
144.9
91.0 382.3
313.0 526.3 35.2
19.0 29.6
102.5 566.4 23.6
336.3 78.4
477.4 14.9
595.6 41.0 562.8
4340.2
47
2.8
Warren St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative
In December 2004, phase 1 of a water system study to determine the feasibility of constructing a new water system to serve a number of communities in Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne Counties. The communities within the study area are depicted in Figure 2-6 and listed in Table 2-27. Three primary water alternatives were developed as part of the Phase 1 study. The baseline alternative included the construction of a new WTP on Lake St. Clair and infrastructure to provide a maximum day capacity of 292 MGD to the entire planning area. The estimated project cost for that alternative was $1.425 billion. The second alternative evaluated a smaller service area (exclusion of Oakland County). The design maximum day demand for this alternative was 73 MGD with a total project cost of $363 million. A comparison of this alternative to the baseline alternative clearly demonstrates the significant cost increase when attempting to provide a new supply to the service area communities within Oakland County. The third alternative used existing available capacities (19 MGD total) from the Highland Park, Mount Clemens, and Grosse Pointe Farms WTPs. This reduced the size of a new WTP from 73 MGD to 54 MGD, resulting in a project cost of $310 million. The projected costs of a new water supply with any of the above scenarios exceeded the anticipated future DWSD wholesale water costs using the projected rate increases in the DWSD CWMP. It was concluded by the projects steering committee that further study of the above alternatives was not warranted. As such, this alternative was not included in Volume 5 The Financial Analysis and is only briefly explained in Volume 1 The Executive Summary.
48
Figure 2-7
49
Water Alternatives Development Table 2-27 Communities in Warren-St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative
Oakland County
Macomb County
Wayne County
Bloomfield Township Bloomfield Hills Franklin Village
Center Line Eastpointe Fraser
Grosse Pointe Shores Grosse Point Township Grosse Point Woods
Madison Heights Oak Park
Grosse Pointe Shores Lake Township
Harper Woods
Pontiac SOCWA (All 10 CVTs) Southfield Township
Roseville St. Clair Shores Warren
Troy Hazel Park
Ferndale Royal Oak Township
50
Discussion of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives - Alternatives 4 and 5
3.0
Discussion of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives Alternatives 4 and 5
Each CVTs water infrastructure needs and alternatives are unique. For that reason, Appendix A of Volume 1 Executive Summary, presents water alternatives by CVT. This section presents a discussion of the Genesee County water supply alternatives. 3.1 Comparison of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives
Table 3-1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the Raw Water versus Finished Water alternatives. It can be seen that the capital investment is approximately the same $1.1 billion, however, the annual O & M cost for the Finished Water alternative is about half that of the Raw Water alternative. It should be noted that the costs developed in this report are based on all communities participating in the project. Should one or more of the communities choose not to participate, then the share of the project costs for the remaining communities will increase proportionally. Table 3-1 Summary of Raw/Finished Water Supply Alternatives from Genesee County
Capital Costs (2005) Raw Water Alternative
Finished Water Alternative
OAKLAND COUNTY FACILITIES: Raw Water Reservoir $188,067,000
Treatment (99 MGD) Transmission Mains Finished Water Storage
$297,000,000 $129,366,000 $102,575,000 $142,160,000 $103,625,000
Sub-Total GENESEE COUNTY FACILITIES:
$717,008,000 $431,895,000
$245,785,000 $809,125,000
Total Capital Costs
$1,148,903,000
$1,054,910,000
O & M COSTS (2005) OAKLAND COUNTY FACILITIES: $4,372,000 $1,120,000
GENESEE COUNTY FACILITIES: Total O & M Costs
$2,400,000 $6,772,000
$2,370,000 $3,490,000
51
Discussion of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives - Alternatives 4 and 5 3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives Some of the advantages and disadvantages to a Lake Huron (via Genesee County) water supply are listed below: Advantages Surface water supply typically requires less treatment (no softening) than a groundwater supply. Regional facilities generally allow smaller communities to take advantage of economies of scale where smaller facilities usually have a higher per unit cost, which depends greatly on population density and amount of transmission mains necessary to get the finished water to the customer. There may be a potential for lower end-user costs compared to projected DWSD rates. Disadvantages Regional facilities usually require a significant customer base to be a cost effective alternative. Many of the northern Oakland County communities local land use plans require low-density (5-10 acre lots) development, which makes distribution costs significantly higher. DWSD already has significant water infrastructure in the Oakland County. Genesee Countys present implementation schedule requires community
commitments in 2006, design in 2007, and construction beginning in 2010. This fasttrack schedule may not give some communities time to make informed economic decisions.
52
Wastewater Alternatives Development
4.0
Reviews are provided for each of the sanitary systems. Alternatives for flow exchange and treatment optimization are developed where feasible to meet projected needs. Note that any surcharging of the system is unacceptable by current design standards. 4.1 Alternative 1 No Change
Unlike the water No Change alternative, which is unique to the circumstances of each individual CVT, the wastewater No Change alternative can be organized by the Sewage Disposal System (SDS) or Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). However, within a SDS the impacts of the No Change alternative may vary by community. These impacts are explored in Appendix A of Volume 1 The Executive Summary. The URS project team endeavored to present the most up-to-date information available. Availability of information combined with the inevitable need to document findings, results in a snapshot-in-time deliverable. With few exceptions, the information included herein was current as of the Spring of 2007. 4.1.1 Clinton-Oakland SDS (COSDS) 4.1.1.1 Member CVTs Table 4-1 lists the CVTs in the COSDS with their Purchased Capacity and their Maximum Assignment Capacity (MAC) when applicable.
53
Wastewater Alternatives Development Table 4-1 CVTs in the COSDS

Community
Purchase Capacity (MGD)
Maximum Assignment Capacity (MGD) 9.69
Auburn Hills
5.95
Independence Twp & Clarkston Lake Angelus
5.69 -
6.79 -
Lake Orion Village Oakland Township Orion Township
1.19 3.63 5.71
4.35 2.07
Rochester Hills Waterford Township
10.69 24.21
24.24 29.08
West Bloomfield Township
3.31
5.82
4.1.1.2 Background The needs of the COSDS are related to the contractual discharge capacities of the individual member communities and overall system conveyance of future flows. Previous studies (Clinton Oakland Sewage Disposal System Interceptor Relief Study, 1991; Clinton Oakland SDS System Analysis Report, 1994; and DWSD Wastewater Master Plan, 2003) stated that the design capacities of certain sections of the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor are not capable of conveying the allowable purchased capacity flows under open channel flow conditions. As a result,
surcharging is expected in these sections when flows approach purchased capacity. The 1996 Clinton-Oakland SDS Management Agreement established higher thresholds for community discharges into the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor. These increased discharge thresholds, called maximum assignment capacities, allow the respective communities to collectively discharge an additional 29 MGD into the system. This is 55% more flow in the COSDS than was allowed prior to the 1996 agreement. The COSDS was modeled as part of the 1991 COSDS Interceptor Relief Study. This study identified approximately 8 miles of the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor (Figure 4-1) that needed Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 54
Wastewater Alternatives Development relief sewers based on possible surcharging in the pipes during various design storm events. This study also identified sections of the interceptor where ADDF is less than the sum of the purchased capacities. These sections could act as bottlenecks in the system and cause
surcharging when peak flows approach purchased capacity. The 2035 flow projections discussed in Volume 3 - The Needs Assessment Report of this Master Plan indicate that seven of the COSDS communities would exceed purchased capacity during peak flows, resulting in possible surcharging of the system. The additional 29 MGD of flow that can be contractually discharged into the system as per the 1996 COSDS Management Agreement potentially exacerbates the problem. Also, the addition of any new flows from outside the current COSDS service boundary would increase the need for system improvements. 4.1.1.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative This alternative means taking no action beyond what is currently being done. This includes: Continued monitoring of the system, Flow management, and I/I reduction efforts by OCDC and the systems member communities.
The potential results of No Change are as follows: Most communities will approach or exceed purchased capacity during projected 2035 peak flows. Auburn Hills and West Bloomfield Township will approach or exceed their maximum assignment capacity during 2035 peak hour flows. Certain sections of the Clinton-Oakland interceptor will continue to surcharge when peak flows approach purchased capacity. The COSDS appears to have more than enough in-system storage to attenuate peak flows such that the COSDS discharge at the County line will be within the contractual limits of the agreement with DWSD. See Appendix A of Volume 1 Executive Summary for a community-by-community of analysis of wastewater alternatives.
55
Lapeer Co. St. Clair Co. Genesee Co. Leonard Village Ortonville Village
Groveland Township
Brandon Township
Oxford Township
Addison Township
Oxford Village Livingston Co.
Oakland Co.
Macomb Co.
Lake Orion Village Washtenaw Co. Wayne Co.
Springfield Township
Independence Township
Orion Township
PAINT
Oakland Township
RE EK
Clarkston
IN TE RC
TOR EP
RG
NT C
K AR REE
ST
RM KA EE CR ON Y
Lake Angelus
CL I
Legend
Sections of Interceptor Requiring Parallel Relief* Metered Connection with DWSD (Oakland Arm)
Rochester
ON NT
White Lake Township
Waterford Township
OA Auburn Hills PT KL CE A ND INTER
R TO MSU-OINTERCEP Rochester Hills
OCDC Interceptor Sewer Force Main Pump Station

* Per the 1991 Relief Study
OR
Pontiac Elizabeth Lake Pump Station
I NTE
RCEPTOR
Sylvan Lake Keego Harbor
Metered Connection with DWSD (Avon Arm)
CLI NTO N- O AK
ND LA
Commerce Township
Orchard Lake Bloomfield Township Bloomfield Hills Troy
Wolverine Lake Village Walled Lake
West Bloomfield Township Birmingham
Figure 4 -1 Clinton - Oakland SDS Limits of Proposed Relief Sewer Construction

Clawson
8 Miles
56
Wastewater Alternatives Development 4.1.2 Huron-Rouge SDS (HRSDS) 4.1.2.1 Member CVTs The HRSDS is made up of only one member community (City of Novi) actually discharging flow to the system. Two other CVTs (Northville and Novi Twp.) lie within the HRSDS service boundary, but do not discharge into the system. The City of Northville discharges to the interceptor in Wayne County and Novi Township is not sewered. 4.1.2.2 Background The needs of the HRSDS are related to the contracted discharge capacity allotted to the City of Novi. The original 1962 agreement between Oakland County and Wayne County set the
discharge limit at 2.58 MGD (4 CFS), but the current agreement is for 13.24 MGD. The City of Novi currently discharges 4.36 MGD average daily flow with a future average daily flow of 7.77 MGD. 4.1.2.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The result of doing nothing is that Novi will continue to exceed contract discharge capacity during peak flows. However there seems to be no mechanism in the contract documents to enforce this discharge capacity and there has not been a problem to date. As such, the only identified need for the HRSDS (City of Novi) is to reconcile the original contract with the actual current discharge. 4.1.3 Evergreen-Farmington SDS (EFSDS) 4.1.3.1 Member CVTs Table 4-2 lists the CVTs in the EFSDS with their Town Outlet Capacity (TOC).
57
Wastewater Alternatives Development Table 4-2 CVTs in the EFSDS

Community
Town Outlet Capacity (MGD)
Auburn Hills Beverly Hills Village Bingham Farms Village
1.11 5.62 0.70
Birmingham Bloomfield Hills
4.51 2.57
Bloomfield Township Farmington Farmington Hills
13.63 0.87 30.29
Franklin Village Keego Harbor
0.95 1.13
Lathrup Village Orchard Lake
2.17 0.89
Southfield Troy West Bloomfield Township
38.97 5.51 17.71
4.1.3.2 Background As discussed in the Volume 3 The Needs Assessment Report, the Oakland County Drain Commissioner (OCDC) and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), entered into a second Amended Consent Order (ACO) in December 7, 2004. The ACO outlined several projects that the County is committed to complete. OCDC also has a plan to demonstrate that Clean Water Act goals can be met through a program with substantially lower costs than required by the conventional MDEQ approach. The program evaluates all aspects of SSO treatment, infiltration/inflow (I/I) reduction, and system capacity expansion. As part of the demonstration approach that OCDC is pursuing and the second ACO between OCDC and MDEQ, OCDC recently completed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analysis to enable OCDC and the Communities to better understand the operation of the system, identify the critical
58
Wastewater Alternatives Development constraints of the system, and determine how to optimize the operation of the system. Thus, the development of alternatives is deferred to that Contract and is not repeated herein. Other improvements that are outlined in the ACO include: 1. A connection from the Farmington interceptor (at the Walnut #1 Pumping Station) to the Evergreen interceptor allows the transfer of up to 14 CFS of wet weather sanitary flow. As part of this project, the County modified the regulators that control flow from the Acacia Park, Bloomfield Village, and Birmingham Retention Treatment Basins (RTB) during wet weather to the Evergreen interceptor and replace this available capacity amounting to 14 CFS in the Evergreen interceptor with excess separate sanitary flow. 2. Removal of four siphons crossing the Edwards Drain in West Bloomfield Township, and replacement of the sanitary sewer conveyance system. The County is considering a wet weather connection from the Evergreen Farmington interceptor system to the Bloomfield Village RTB (subject to Part 41 permit review). As part of this project, storm sewer relief will be provided to offset the increase in wet weather sanitary flow to the RTB. 4.1.3.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The impact of the No Change Alternative varies by community. See Appendix A of Volume 1 Executive Summary for a community-by-community of analysis of wastewater alternatives. 4.1.4 George W. Kuhn SDS (GWKSDS) 4.1.4.1 Member CVTs Table 4-3 lists the CVTs in the GWKSDS.
59
Wastewater Alternatives Development Table 4-3 CVTs in the GWKSDS

Community
Community Madison Heights
Berkley
Beverly Hills Village Birmingham Clawson
Oak Park Pleasant Ridge Royal Oak
Ferndale Hazel Park
Royal Oak Township Southfield
Huntington Woods
Troy
4.1.4.2 Background The George W. Kuhn (GWK) Sanitary Disposal System (SDS) is a combined sanitary and storm water system. The average daily flow during dry weather is approximately 46 MGD. However, peak flows can be 100 times larger than the average daily dry weather flow. The GWKSDS can send up to 170 MGD (260 CFS) to DWSD under the current contract. The GWK retention treatment facility (RTF) is designed to control the combined sewer overflows for the 10 year, 1 hour storm, in accordance with MDEQ requirements, assuming an outlet capacity of 260 CFS to DWSD. Due to the large difference between the average peak flows and the contract flow limitations, approximately 10 to 12 overflows occur each year. A requirement of the NPDES permit re-issued in 1998 was to make improvements to the GWK RTF. These improvements included the construction of new storage, screening, and disinfection downstream from the existing inlet structure. The new structure adds 30.7 million gallons of storage, increasing the storage volume upstream of the RTF from 32 million gallons to 64.9 million gallons. The total system storage increased from 94 million gallons to 122 million gallons. The construction of a new dewatering pumping station with a force main discharging to the Twelve Mile Road Interceptor allows the contractual limit of 260 CFS to be achieved early in a storm event and maximize the amount of flow that can be stored and treated. The population in the GWKSDS is projected to decrease in the future. The area is built out, allowing for few growth opportunities.
60
Wastewater Alternatives Development Alternate treatment strategies for the wastewater generated in the Twelve Towns area were investigated. A report prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. (HRC) in 1999 investigated the possibility of constructing a new 45 MGD WWTP that would discharge to the Red Run Drain. Piping modifications would be needed to direct the flow to the new WWTP. The cost for the WWTP, pump stations, and force main would be approximately $711 million in 1999 dollars. The WWTP would discharge in the vicinity of the GWK RTF. The Red Run Drain in this area has the potential of having relatively low flows during the summer, which can lead to more restrictive permit limits. This option is not proposed to be pursued due to the high cost, probable restrictive permit limits, and limited need for additional capacity. 4.1.4.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The total system storage capacity is 121.8 million gallons. Up to 170 MGD continues to be treated at the DWSD WWTP. Due to the decreasing population, capacity in this area is not a problem except during wet weather. See Appendix A of Volume 1 Executive Summary for a community-by-community of analysis of wastewater alternatives. 4.1.5 Commerce-White Lake SDS (CWLSDS) 4.1.5.1 Member CVTs Commerce-White Lake WWTP currently service portions of Commerce Township, White Lake, the City of Novi, and the Village of Wolverine Lake. 4.1.5.2 Background The Commerce-White Lake WWTP is owned by Commerce Township. It is made up of two wastewater treatment plants, the East and the North plants. Currently, the North plant is designed to treat an average daily flow of 2.0 MGD, and the East plant 1.0 MGD. The East plant is currently not in service, and would need repairs before being brought back into service. There are currently no plans to return the East plant to service. Commerce Township has contracted with an engineering firm to design an expansion to the North plant, but the size of this expansion has not been formalized. The Village of Wolverine Lake has an agreement with Commerce Township for a capacity of 0.535 MGD. White Lake has an agreement with Commerce Township to be served by the lesser Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 61
Wastewater Alternatives Development of 3.64 MGD or 11,546 REUs, for treating the wastewater from the densest areas of the Township in the southern half of the Township. White Lakes contribution to the 1.5 MGD treated in the WWTP during 2005, was approximately 0.38 MGD. In 1991, Novi exchanged 2,000 REUs (about 0.67 MGD) in the Walled Lake-Novi WWTP for 2,000 units from Commerce. Total WWTP flow in 2004 was 1.5 MGD, of which approximately 0.9 MGD was contributed by Commerce Township. Figure 4-2 summarizes the flows and contracts for the Commerce-White Lake WWTP. As can be seen in Figure 4-2, the current capacity of the Commerce-White Lake WWTP is less than the sum of its service contracts (2.0 MGD < 4.85 MGD). In 2035 the projected Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) for Commerce and its contract communities (6.97 MGD) is less than ultimate plant capacity of 8.5 MGD as determined by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The current plans to expand the North WWTP range from 5 MGD to 8.5 MGD
depending on the expected input flow from neighboring communities, specifically White Lake Township. Figure 4-2 Comparison of Commerce-White Lake WWTP Capacities and Contracts
9 8 7 6 0.54 5 4 3 2 1 0.9 0
2005 Flows/Contracts 2005 ADWF 2005 ADDF Design Capacity Projected 2035 Flow (Based on Actual) Projected 2035 Flows/Contracts Ultimate Capacity
2035 Projected Flow Ultimate Capacity
2005 Design Capacity 2005 Actual Flow Wolverine Lake Contract Capacity
0.54 0.67
Flow and Contracts (MGD)
Novi Contract Capacity White Lake Contract Capacity
0.67
Commerce Flow
3.64
8.5
3.64
1.5
2.0
1.7
2.12
Year and Year Capacity
Note: 1. Temporary transfer of 270 REUs from the Commerce WWTP to Walled Lake-Novi WWTP (February 2006) for Wolverine Lake not shown.
62
Wastewater Alternatives Development 4.1.5.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative This alternative assumes Commerce will carry out its plans to expand the North WWTP. The expanded capacity is yet to be determined. It is premature to discuss cost of services since it depends on the size of the expansion. An expanded WWTP could serve the needs of Commerce Twp., and satisfy the service contracts with White Lake Twp., the City of Novi, and Wolverine Lake Village. 4.1.6 Walled Lake/Novi SDS (WLNSDS) 4.1.6.1 Member CVTs The Walled Lake-Novi WWTP serves Walled Lake and portions of the City of Novi, Commerce, and (temporarily) Wolverine Lake. It has an interchange agreement with Commerce to receive flow from the Commerce-White Lake WWTP. 4.1.6.2 Background The Walled Lake-Novi WWTP is owned and operated by OCDC. Both Walled Lake and Novi originally had an agreement with OCDC for approximately 0.95 MGD each of the Walled Lake/Novi WWTP. In 1991 this agreement was amended to provide 1.32 MGD for Walled Lake and 1.21 MGD to Novi. Also in 1991, Novi exchanged 2,000 units in the Commerce-White Lake WWTP for 2,000 units in the Walled Lake-Novi WWTP. Figure 4-3 summarizes the contracts and capacities of the Walled Lake-Novi WWTP.
63
Wastewater Alternatives Development Figure 4-3 Walled Lake/Novi WWTP Capacities and Contracts
12
10
0.01 0.01
0.69
1.01
8
0.65
3.37 9.10
3.58
4
0.58
0.09
0.003
0.26
0.39
0.003
0.23
1.21 1.45 4.05 3.50 1.65
PHF Design Capacity
1.42 1.28
1.38
4.30
0
Contracts Estimated 2005 Estimated 2005 ADDF Design ADWF PHF Capacity Projected 2035 Projected 2035 ADWF PHF

Novi Novi Contract Design Capacity Commerce-White-Lake SDS Wolverine Lake
Walled Lake Walled Lake Contract Additional Flow from New Sewers in Walled Lake Commerce-White-Lake SDS Contract Wolverine Lake Contract
Note: 1. For the majority of this Master Plan 2005 is considered current, however for Walled Lake-Novi WWTP flows 2007 data was available and used.
4.1.6.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The No Change Alternative is a viable alternative for the WLNSDS and its member communities. Based on REUs the plant is nearly at capacity (approximately 86% of the plants REUs are connected). However, flows at the plant are not near capacity. This suggests that per capita flow may be less than the 337 gallon-per-day-per-REU currently used. Furthermore, a stress test may reveal that the plant can process flow rates greater than its design. The City of Novi may negotiate for the option to divert flow to the HRSDS and thereby make capacity available in the Walled Lake-Novi WWTP. 4.1.7 Pontiac WWTP 4.1.7.1 Member CVTs Currently, the Pontiac WWTP serves the City of Pontiac and Sylvan Lake.
64
Wastewater Alternatives Development 4.1.7.2 Background Pontiac has two wastewater treatment plants, the Auburn Plant and the East Boulevard Plant. Recent evaluations by others of these plants resulted in the recommendation to route current dry weather flow from the East Plant to the Auburn Plant and use the East Plant only for wet weather flow equalization. It was recommended that the excess flow receive primary treatment and be stored in equalization tanks until it can be returned to the Auburn Plant for full treatment. Flows exceeding the capacity of the equalization tank would be discharged to the Clinton River. As of this writing, however, the recommended conversion has not been implemented. The reported design capacities for the existing Auburn WWTP are as follows: Average Daily Design Flow (ADDF): Peak Hour Flow (PHF): 16.9 MGD 20.5 MGD
The reported design capacities for the existing East Boulevard WWTP are as follows: Average Daily Design Flow (ADDF): Peak Hour Flow (PHF): 4.7 MGD 9.5 MGD
The population projections estimate that there will be an increase of approximately 10% in Pontiacs population through 2035. Applying this percentage to the current combined average daily flow of 9.4 MGD, it is expected that the average daily flow will increase by approximately 0.9 MGD to 10.3 MGD. Using a peaking factor of 2.1 (from Ten States Standards Figure 1, ratio of peak hourly/average daily flow) will project the total future combined peak hour flow to be approximately 21.6 MGD. The projected 2035 combined average daily flow and the peak hour flow can be accommodated by the existing Auburn plant. Figure 4-4 graphically depicts the flows and capacities of the Pontiac WWTP.
65
Wastewater Alternatives Development Figure 4-4 Pontiac WWTP

35 30 25
11.3
4.7
9.5
8.4
Flows (MGD)
20 15 10
12.2
16.9 18.7
11.3
20.5
10.30 21.6
5 0
9.4
2005 ADWF
2005 ADDF Design Capacity
2005 PHF
2005 PHF Design Capacity
2035 ADWF
2035 PHF

Auburn WWTP East Blvd. WWTP
2005 Combined Actual ADWF
2005 Estimated Combined PHF
2035 Estmated Combined ADWF
2035 Estimated Combined PHF
Excess Capacity
4.1.7.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The No Change alternative is a viable option for the City of Pontiac, as there is adequate spare capacity. 4.1.8 Milford Village WWTP 4.1.8.1 Member CVTs The Milford Village WWTP serves the Village of Milford and Camp Dearborn. 4.1.8.2 Background The Milford Village WWTP is designed for an average daily wastewater flow of 1.04 MGD. The current average daily flow is approximately 0.7 MGD, expected to increase to 0.8 MGD over the study period. Figure 4-5 graphically depicts the flows and capacities of the Milford WWTP.
66
Wastewater Alternatives Development Figure 4-5 Milford Village WWTP

1.2
2005 Design Capacity

1
2005 Actual Flow Camp Dearborn Contract
Milford Village
0.8 0.075 0.075 0.6 1.04 0.4 0.625 0.2 0.7 0.68
0
2005 Flows/Contracts 2005 ADWF 2005 ADDF Design Capacity Projected 2035 Flows/Contracts
4.1.8.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The anticipated future average daily flow is expected to be below the design average daily flow. The No Change alternative therefore, is a feasible option for Milford Village. 4.1.9 South Lyon WWTP 4.1.9.1 Member CVTs The South Lyon WWTP serves the City of South Lyon. 4.1.9.2 Background The newly upgraded plants capacity exceeds current and projected demands. graphically depicts the excess capacity. Figure 4-6
67
Wastewater Alternatives Development Figure 4-6 South Lyon WWTP

8 7 6
Flows (MGD)
5 4
4.2
6.9
3.9
3 2 1
1.0
1.5
2.5
1.4
2.7 1.1
ADDF Design Capacity 2005 PHF PHF Design Capacity 2035 ADWF
3.0
0
2005 ADWF 2035 PHF

South Lyon WWTP Capacity
2005 Estimated ADF
2005 Estimated PHF
2035 Estimated ADF
2035 Estimated PHF
Excess Capacity
4.1.9.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The No Change alternative is a viable option for the City of South Lyon, as there is adequate spare capacity. 4.1.10 Wixom WWTP 4.1.10.1 Member CVTs The Wixom WWTP serves the City of Wixom and recently contracted with Milford for 1.0 MGD of treatment capacity. 4.1.10.2 Background The current Wixom WWTP capacity is 4 MGD. Plans for expansion have been put on hold until the effects of the loss of the Ford plants flow can be understood. Ford contributed
approximately 0.35 MGD to the ADWF. The 2005 Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is 2.2
68
Wastewater Alternatives Development MGD (including Ford); this leaves an excess capacity of approximately 1.8 MGD. Figure 4-7 summarizes the current and projected dry weather flows for the Wixom WWTP. Figure 4-7 Wixom WWTP
5.0 4.5
1.0
4.0 3.5
Flows (MGD)
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

ADDF Design Capacity
1.8
4.0
3.7
2.2

2005 Estimated ADF
2005 ADWF
Estimated 2035 ADWF
Wixom WWTP Capacity
2035 Estimated ADF
Milford Contract
Excess Capacity
4.1.10.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The City of Wixom is committed to expand their plant if it is necessary. The No Change alternative for the Wixom WWTP, means holding to that commitment. The recent
decommissioning of the local Ford plant, has brought the need for expansion into question. 4.1.11 Lyon Township WWTP 4.1.11.1 Member CVTs The Lyon Twp. WWTP serves Lyon Twp.
69
Wastewater Alternatives Development 4.1.11.2 Background The preliminary Sanitary Sewer System and Future Expansion Plans issued August 26, 2004 shows an aggressive plan to sewer the Township. It anticipates an expansion of the existing groundwater discharge plant to an intermediate average daily flow capacity of 2.0 MGD, and an ultimate average daily flow capacity capable of treating the projected build out ADWF of 4.24 MGD. The original design capacity was 1.0 MGD, while the plant is currently permitted for 3.0 MGD. MDEQ re-rated the two 0.5 MGD biological treatment units to a total design capacity of 0.75 MGD. Figure 4-8 summarizes the flows and capacities for the Lyon Township WWTP. Figure 4-8 Lyon Township WWTP
4.5 4 3.5 3
Flows (MGD)
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.49

0.26
2005 ADWF ADDF Design Capacity 2035 ADWF
4.24
0.75

Lyon Twp. WWTP Capacity
2005 Estimated ADF
2035 Estimated ADF
Excess Capacity
4.1.11.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The No Change alternative assumes continued use existing WWTP without any upgrades and all growth will utilize on-site private septic. Lyon Township determined that this is neither the likely nor the intended option. The Township is aggressively adding sewers and the community
70
Wastewater Alternatives Development is actively pursuing upgrades to the WWTP. This alternative does not address any of the Townships needs. 4.1.12 Holly Village WWTP 4.1.12.1 Member CVTs The Holly Village WWTP serves Holly Village and the Pulte development in Holly Township. The development is known as the Silverman property. 4.1.12.2 Background The WWTP was recently upgraded and expanded to 1.8 MGD. Figure 4-9 summarizes the flows and capacities Holly Village WWTP. Figure 4-9 Holly Village WWTP
2 1.8 1.6
0.32
0.14
0.32
1.4
Flows (MGD)
1.2 1
1.80
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

2005 ADF ADDF Design Capacity
1.35
1.49
2035 ADF

Holly Village WWTP Capacity
2005 Estimated ADF
2035 Estimated ADF
Holly Twp. Contract
Excess Capacity
71
Wastewater Alternatives Development 4.1.12.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative The No Change alternative is a feasible option for Holly Village, since the projected average daily flow is equal to the plant capacity. Holly Village may want to consider another upgrade when the plant reaches 80% capacity. 4.1.13 Highland Township WWTP 4.1.13.1 Member CVTs The Highland Township WWTP will serve portions of Highland Township. 4.1.13.2 Background The recently completed Sewer master plan indicates an aggressive plan to sewer the most densely populated areas of the Township, and treat the sewage in a new groundwater discharge plant located in the north-west corner of the Township. The WWTP is associated with and 850acre proposed residential development known as the Levy property. The Township negotiated with developers to connect to their water and wastewater systems. Two resolutions will build approximately four miles of sanitary sewer along Milford Road as Special Assessment Districts (SADs). Highland Township has a Sewer master plan that aggressively sewer the densely populated areas of the Township. Highland is pursuing the construction of a local 2.18 MGD groundwater discharge WWTP with an estimated cost of $17.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $1.26 million. 4.1.13.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative This alternative assumes Highland will carry out its plans to construct a WWTP and continue to progress with the installation of sewage infrastructure. The proposed 2.18 MGD (average daily flow) groundwater water discharge wastewater treatment plant is estimated to cost $17.4 million (engineers estimate escalated to May 2005 dollars). The annual operating cost, assuming 100% tie-in at startup of the plant, is estimated at $1.26 million or $11.90/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 28.5 acres of land will be required. Portions of the Township will still remain on individual systems.
72
Wastewater Alternatives Development 4.2 Alternative 2 Construction of Relief Sewers
4.2.1 Eligible CVTs This alternative affects the COSDS and its member communities. 4.2.2 Description This alternative proposes construction of relief sewers for the COSDS with continued discharge to DWSD, see Figure 4-1. For the purposes of developing this alternative, this Master Plan acknowledges that there were improvements in flow management and reductions in extraneous flow since 1991, but there are segments of the system that will continue to surcharge when peak flows approach purchased capacity. The question as to how much surcharging will occur should be further studied. It is beyond the scope of this Master Plan to examine such a complex system as the COSDS in sufficient detail to contradict the findings of previous studies and/or establish the requirement for new relief sewers. Therefore, this Master Plan will defer to the findings of the modeling effort undertaken in the 1991 study as a worst case scenario. The 1991 reports findings included the following: 1. The recommended construction of relief sewers to convey peak wet weather flows out of the system without surcharging the interceptor, or; 2. The construction of local storage structures to detain peak flows and release them at a lower rate. Table 4-4 shows the total project costs for the construction of relief sewers as detailed in the 1991 study. The construction of local storage basins in place of relief sewers was not a feasible alternative due to the high cost. Construction costs for local storage at or near the major COSDS connections were estimated to be $23 million in 1991 dollars. Including project contingencies, this is over $50 million in total project costs in 2005 dollars.
73
Wastewater Alternatives Development Table 4-4 Capital Cost Summary for Clinton-Oakland Interceptor Relief Sewers
"Refined" Parallel Pipe Size (inches)
Length (ft)
Unit Cost* (1991 Dollars/ ft)
Total cost* (1991 Dollars)
12
20522
$87
$1,785,400
18 42
20028 929
$115 $140
$2,303,200 $130,100 $4,218,700
Construction Subtotal(1991Dollars)=
Construction Subtotal(2005Dollars)= 20%Eng.,Legal,Admin.=
$6,500,000 $1,300,000
30%ConstructionContingencies= Total Capital Cost(2005Dollars)=
$1,950,000 $9,750,000
4.3
Alternative 3 Diversion of 8 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP
4.3.1 Eligible CVTs This alternative affects the COSDS and its member communities. 4.3.2 Description This alternative involves intercepting flow in the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor at a location near Perry Street and diverting 8 MGD to the Pontiac WWTP through approximately 12,000 L.F. of 48-inch diameter gravity sewer line within the existing Grand Trunk Western Railroad (GTWRR) property. This conveyance system was examined in detail in the technical
memorandum entitled Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment that is part of the DWSD Wastewater Master Plan (2003). The area tributary to the point of diversion is illustrated in Figure 4-10. The 2005 and 2035 average daily flows (ADF) at the point of interception are 15 MGD and 20 MGD, respectively.
74
Leonard Village Ortonville Village Genesee Co. Holly Township Groveland Township Brandon Township Oxford Township Addison Township St. Clair Co. Lapeer Co.
Oxford Village Oakland Co. Livingston Co. Holly Village Macomb Co.
Lake Orion Village Wayne Co.
Washtenaw Co.
Rose Township
Orion Township
Oakland Township
Clarkston
Lake Angelus Rochester Auburn Hills Highland Township White Lake Township Waterford Township Pontiac Rochester Hills
Legend
Expanded Pontiac WWTP Service Area Area Remaining in COSDS with DWSD Discharge Pontiac WWTP Interceptor to Pontiac WWTP - Proposed Elizabeth Lake Pump Station Existing Interceptor Sewer Existing Force Main
Milford Village Commerce Township Milford Township Orchard Lake Bloomfield Township Bloomfield Hills Troy
Wolverine Lake Village Wixom Walled Lake
Figure 4-10 Diversion of 8 MGD and 20 MGD of Flow to Pontiac WWTP

Clawson
8 Miles
75
Wastewater Alternatives Development As discussed in Volume 2- Existing Facilities Report of this Master Plan, the existing treatment facilities owned by the City of Pontiac include the East Boulevard and Auburn WWTPs. These two plants are collectively referred to as the Pontiac WWTP since they operate under a single NPDES permit. Expansion of the Pontiac WWTP was only considered at the Auburn Plant because of the land available at this site. The combined plants have a reported ADDF of 21.6 MGD average daily flow and a maximum flow of 30.0 MGD. The City of Pontiac has pursued continuing I/I reduction efforts, and the reported average daily flow was 9.4 MGD and peak hour flow was 18.7 MGD. Based on these values, there appears to be some available capacity in the Pontiac WWTP. However it is beyond the scope of this Master Plan to conduct the detailed analysis required to determine exactly how much capacity is available based on influent loadings and effluent permit limits. Therefore this Master Plan will conservatively assume that the available Pontiac WWTP capacity is 8 MGD. Additional detailed study and a plant stress test are recommended to determine the exact capacity that is available and under what conditions. Any flows in excess of 8 MGD would be discharged to DSWD via the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor so there would be no need for additional flow equalization at the Pontiac WWTP site. This arrangement would require the construction of a flow splitting interconnect structure at the point of diversion. The COSDS would remain intact as a single SDS with two discharge points. A portion of the COSDS flow would be treated at the Pontiac WWTP site at a certain treatment cost per unit, and the remainder of the flow would be treated by DSWD at another treatment cost per unit. The COSDS communities would pay a single blended rate for wastewater treatment. The estimated cost of treatment at the Pontiac WWTP was determined from analysis of the City of Pontiac Sewer Rate Study (1996). Review of this study indicates that it would cost the City of Pontiac about $16.40 (2.20/1,000 gallon) per thousand cubic feet (2005 dollars) for wastewater treatment from a wholesale customer. The final wholesale user rate charged by the City of Pontiac for treatment of COSDS flows would need to be negotiated. The current DWSD wholesale user rate is $11.01 per thousand cubic feet (2005 dollars). The installation of relief sewers, as discussed in Alternative 2 above, may still be required for this alternative to address the interceptor capacity upstream from the point of diversion to Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 76
Wastewater Alternatives Development Pontiac (see Figure 4-1). The cost of installing interceptor relief sewers upstream from the point of diversion is detailed in Table 4-5. An updated system model and analysis should be completed to determine the future conveyance requirements for this portion of the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor. Table 4-5 Alternative 3: Capital Cost Summary for 8 MGD Pontiac Diversion
Item
Cost $4,900,000
Relief Sewers
Conveyance System Construction Construction Subtotal 20% Eng., Legal, Admin.
$27,400,000 $32,300,000 $6,500,000
30% Construction Contingencies Total Capital Cost (2005 Dollars)
$9,700,000 $48,500,000
4.4
Alternative 4 Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP
4.4.1 Eligible CVTs This alternative affects the COSDS and its member communities. 4.4.2 Description This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 above in all respects except that the proposed flowsplitting interconnect structure at the point of diversion would divert a maximum 20 MGD to the Pontiac WWTP site. 20 MGD of flow is significant because it represents the year 2035 average daily flow for the entire service area. In this alternative 8 MGD would be treated at the existing Pontiac WWTP facilities at an estimated treatment cost of $16.40 per thousand cubic feet (2005 dollars), and the remaining 12 MGD would be treated at a new parallel WWTP that would be constructed at the site of the existing Pontiac WWTP. The cost of treatment at this new WWTP is estimated to be $12.42 per thousand cubic feet (2005 dollars). All peak wet weather flows in excess of this 12 MGD would be discharged via the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor to DWSD at a treatment cost of $11.01 per thousand cubic feet (2005 dollars). Table 4-6 summarizes the costs per thousand cubic feet for each of the 3 sources
77
Wastewater Alternatives Development of treatment. The COSDS communities would pay a single blended rate for wastewater treatment. Table 4-6 Alternative 4: Treatment Cost Summary for COSDS
Source of Treatment
2035 ADF from COSDS (MGD)
Treatment Cost per Mcf
Ex. City of Pontiac WWTP New Parallel WWTP
$16.40
12
$12.42
DWSD
15
$11.01
The DWSD Wastewater Master Plan (2003) examined expansion of the Pontiac WWTP in the technical memorandum entitled Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment. The approach in the technical memorandum was to divert as much flow as possible (100%) out of the COSDS for treatment at a new WWTP constructed near the site of the existing Pontiac WWTP. In
comparison, this Master Plan will examine an alternative whereby the existing facilities at the Pontiac WWTP are maximized to treat the average daily flow diverted out of the COSDS and the peak wet weather flows are discharged to DWSD. Interceptor relief in the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor would still be constructed upstream from the point of diversion (contingent upon further study). Table 4-7 summarizes the capital costs for Alternative 4.
78
Wastewater Alternatives Development Table 4-7 Alternative 4: Capital Cost Summary for 20 MGD Pontiac Diversion
Item
Alternative 4 Cost
Relief Sewers Upstream of Pontiac Conveyance System Construction WWTP Construction
$4,900,000 $27,400,000 $50,500,000
Construction Subtotal 20% Eng., Legal, Admin.
$82,800,000 $16,600,000
$24,800,000 $124,200,000
4.5
Alternative 5 - Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP
4.5.1 Eligible CVTs This alternative affects the COSDS , its member communities, and White Lake Township. 4.5.2 Description This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 above in all respects except that the proposed flow splitting interconnect structure at the point of diversion would divert a maximum 22 MGD average daily flow to the Pontiac WWTP site. This alternative assumes the addition of 2 MGD of flow from White Lake Township into the COSDS. The area tributary to the point of diversion is illustrated in Figure 4-11. Of the total 22 MGD of average daily flow, 8 MGD would be treated at the existing Pontiac WWTP facilities. A new WWTP constructed near the site of the existing Pontiac WWTP would treat the remaining 14 MGD of average daily flow. All peak wet weather flows would be discharged to DWSD via the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor.
79
Leonard Village Ortonville Village Genesee Co. Holly Township Groveland Township Brandon Township Oxford Township Addison Township St. Clair Co. Lapeer Co.
Oxford Village Oakland Co. Livingston Co. Holly Village Macomb Co.
Lake Orion Village Wayne Co.
Washtenaw Co.
Rose Township
Orion Township
Oakland Township
Clarkston
Lake Angelus Rochester Auburn Hills Highland Township White Lake Township Waterford Township Pontiac Rochester Hills
Legend
Expanded Pontiac WWTP Service Area Area Remaining in COSDS with DWSD Discharge Pontiac WWTP Interceptor to Pontiac WWTP - Proposed Elizabeth Lake Pump Station Existing Interceptor Sewer Existing Force Main
Milford Village Commerce Township Milford Township Orchard Lake Bloomfield Township Bloomfield Hills Troy
Wolverine Lake Village Wixom Walled Lake
Figure 4 -11 Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to Pontiac WWTP

Clawson
8 Miles
80
Wastewater Alternatives Development Interceptor relief would still be constructed upstream from the point of diversion. However, the relief sewers would need to be sized larger (compared to those in Alternatives 3 and 4) to accommodate the additional flow from White Lake Township. This Master Plan will assume that the increase in construction cost for the larger relief sewers as compared to those in Alternative(s) 3 (and 4) will be proportional to the increase in flow (20% more flow). Table 4-8 summarizes the capital costs for Alternative 5. Table 4-8 Alternative 5: Capital Cost Summary for 22 MGD Pontiac Diversion
Item
Alternative 5 Cost
Relief Sewers Conveyance System Construction WWTP Construction
$ 5,900,000 $ 27,400,000 $ 55,300,000
Construction Subtotal 20% Eng., Legal, Admin.
$ 88,600,000 $ 17,700,000
$ 26,600,000 $132,900,000
4.6
Alternative 6 Construction of a New WWTP on the Clinton River
4.6.1 Eligible CVTs This alternative affects the COSDS and its member communities. 4.6.2 Description Alternative 6 involves the construction of a new WWTP on the Clinton River that would accept all flow diverted from the Clinton Oakland Interceptor. Three possible locations for WWTPs that would discharge to the Clinton River were examined in the technical memorandum entitled Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment which is part of the DWSD Wastewater Master Plan (2003). These alternatives were developed for flows anticipated through 2050. The most cost effective alternative (on a dollars per gallon) basis was shown to be construction of a new WWTP on the Clinton River in Macomb County. The proposed location for the WWTP would be east of Mound Road and north of 22 Mile Road at the
Wastewater Alternatives Development Ford Motor Company (FOMOCO) Proving Grounds. One advantage of this site is that it is located along the existing interceptor, so conveyance costs would be minimized. It should be noted that FOMOCO has not been contacted concerning this option. If this option is pursued in the future, Oakland County will need to discuss this alternative with FOMOCO. Note that land acquisition costs associated with this alternative were not developed and could be significant. The cost would be completely dependent upon negotiations between the parties involved. The treatment plant size for this option was reduced from that in the DWSD WWMP using a linear regression to predict the ADDF that would be required in 2035. The resulting annual average ADDF was 52.8 MGD. The costs were reduced based on the decreased ADDF and updated to a May 2005 basis using published ENR values. In addition, conveyance costs were developed, as they were assumed to be negligible in the DWSD WWMP. The resulting costs anticipated for Oakland County are summarized in Table 4-9. The proposed service area includes all of the COSDS and a portion of Macomb County. Based on the projected 2035 service area population, the new WWTP would treat an average daily flow of 52.8 MGD and a maximum day flow of 102 MGD from this service area. The system would be designed such that flow in the interceptor that exceeds the maximum ADDF would travel past the new plant and be treated at the existing DWSD WWTP. A new 96-inch gravity sewer would be constructed to carry the flow from the Interceptor to the WWTP. A 96-inch gravity effluent pipe would discharge the treated flow to the Clinton River. The cost of the WWTP is approximately $274.9 million, as shown in Table 4-9. Operation and Maintenance costs are shown in Table 4-10.
82
Wastewater Alternatives Development Table 4-9 Alternative 6: Capital Cost Summary for New WWTP along the Clinton River
Cost Categories
Cost ($ Million) $148.4
WWTP
Conveyance Total Capital and Conveyance Cost Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees (20%)
$10.7 $159.1 $31.8
Contingencies 30%) Total Capital Cost (April 2002 Dollars)
$47.7 $238.6
Total Capital Cost (May 2005 Dollars)
$274.9
Table 4-10 O & M Cost Summary for New WWTP along the Clinton River
Annual O & M Costs
In April 2002 Dollars
In May 2005 Dollars
$25.9
Treatment at the new plant would consist of screening, grit removal, primary settling, aeration, final settling, filtration, and ultraviolet disinfection. Solids would be treated, dewatered, and disposed of in a landfill. 4.7 Alternative 7 Conveyance to COSDS
4.7.1 Eligible CVTs This alternative affects the COSDS, its existing member communities, and the following additional communities: Oakland Township (additional portions) Springfield Township White Lake Township
83
Wastewater Alternatives Development 4.7.2 Description Alternative 7 expands the COSDS to new, previously unsewered areas, but requires there be available capacity in the COSDS interceptors. Alternative 2 through Alternative 6 provide methods of generating capacity in the COSDS. 4.7.3 Oakland Township The southwest portion of Oakland Twp. is in the COSDS. The remainder of the Township is outside of the COSDS service area boundary. The future land use for much of this area (from the Oakland County Composite Master Plan) is single-family homes on lots smaller than one acre. This alternative assumes that additional capacity becomes available in the COSDS and that the contract can be modified to include this portion of Oakland Township. If these two criteria are met, then conveyance into the COSDS could be achieved through construction of a pump station on Snell Rd. near the bridge over the West Branch Stony Creek. Wastewater would be pumped via 4,900 LF of force main and 6,900 LF of gravity sewer. The total estimated project cost for this alternative is $7.4 Million. 4.7.4 Springfield The Township would like to see sewers only in selected areas. The most densely developed areas in the Township are along Dixie Highway and I-75. This area represents an estimated 0.75 MGD of wastewater. 4.7.5 White Lake White Lake could convey wastewater flow through a new gravity interceptor sewer to the COSDS. It is assumed that the future average daily wastewater flow from White Lake Township will be 3.5 MGD and the peak flow would be 9.7 MGD. Assuming a new gravity line installed at minimum recommended slope, the interceptor would need to be 42-inches in diameter. This new line would intercept the wastewater flow from White Lake Township in the vicinity of meter 6600 near the intersection of Glade St. and Cooley Lake Road. The interceptor would follow Cooley Lake Road up to Cass Elizabeth Rd. and tie into the 54-inch diameter ClintonOakland Interceptor. The estimated capital cost for construction of the 22,500-foot long, 42-inch diameter White Lake Interceptor is $28.9 Million. Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 84
Wastewater Alternatives Development 4.8 Alternative 8 Service from Genesee County Kearsley Creek Interceptor (KCI) Main Arm Only Since the 1970s, the Genesee County Drain Commissioners wastewater master plan has included the northwest portion of Oakland County in the regional service area. Service to this portion of Oakland County is contingent upon the construction of two new interceptor sewers. The first is called the Northeast Relief Sewer (NERS), which is currently under construction and the second interceptor is the Kearsley Creek Interceptor (KCI), which has yet to been designed. The KCI could potentially have two arms, a Main Arm to serve Village of Ortonville and Brandon Township (described in this alternative) and a West Arm to serve the I-75/Dixie Highway corridor in Holly and Groveland Townships (described in Alternative 9). The construction costs for the KCI Main Arm are detailed in a 2001 Sewer System Analysis Update of Genesee County Sewage Disposal System #1 ARTP Service Area. estimated capital cost for the recommended route of the Main Arm is $25.8 Million. The proposed Main Arm varies in size from 24-inch diameter at the county line to 36-inch diameter at the discharge to the NERS. It is mostly gravity with one section of 20-inch diameter force main. The 2004 Village of Ortonville Wastewater Facilities Feasibility Study examined participation in constructing the KCI Main Arm. The cost of constructing the Main Arm was proposed to be shared by four Genesee County CVTs and two Oakland County CVTs. The total combined units from all of these communities were 14,800 REUs. The Village of Ortonville was estimated to have 1,000 REUs and Brandon Township to have 1,600 REUs. If no other The total
communities participated, then the full burden of the capital cost would be supported by only these 2,600 REUs in Village of Ortonville and Brandon Twp. If all other communities participated (14,800 REUs), and each community contributed in proportion to their number of REUs, then the Village of Ortonville/Brandon Twp. portion would be approximately $4.53 million. Table 4-11 summarizes the costs associated with the KCI Main Arm alternative.
85
Wastewater Alternatives Development Table 4-11 GCDC Service (KCI Main Arm Only)
Community
REUs
Portion of GCDC Cap. Cost ($M)
Local Cap. Cost ($M)
Total Cost ($M)
Brandon Twp. Village of Ortonville
1,600 1,000
2.79 1.74
5.85 3.65
8.63 5.39
Genesee Co. CVTs Total
12,200
21.25 25.78
The projected cost of service for wastewater treatment by GCDC is currently $12 per REU per month. Assuming an REU is equivalent to 315 gallons per day (which is the GCDC design standard), then the volumetric cost of service for the GCDC treatment option is $9.50/Mcf. 4.9 Alternative 9 Service from Genesee County KCI Main Arm and West Arm
This alternative includes the construction of the KCI West Arm in addition to the Main Arm. Holly Twp. and Groveland Twp. could contribute an additional 3,100 REUs (2,800 and 300 REUs respectively) from the I-75 corridor. It is assumed that the West Arm would be gravity sewer, and that it would not be any smaller than 24-inch diameter to accommodate any additional future flows. The total estimated capital cost associated with construction of the West Arm is $4.7 million. In addition to the cost of the West Arm, it is assumed that Holly and Groveland Townships would also have to fund some proportional share of the KCI Main Arm. The estimated Holly/Groveland proportional share of the construction cost of the Main Arm (based on number of REUs) could be an additional $3.5 million. So the total capital cost to Holly and Groveland Townships would be a combined $17.71 million for this scenario. Table 4-12 summarizes the costs associated with the KCI Main and West Arm alternative.
86
Table 4-12 GCDC Service (Both KCI Main and West Arms)
Community
REUs
Portion of GCDC Cap. Cost ($M)
Local Cap. Cost ($M)
Total Cost ($M)
Brandon Twp. Village of Ortonville
1,600 1,000
1.80 1.13
5.85 3.65
7.65 4.78
Holly Twp. Groveland Twp.
2,800 300
7.41 0.80
9.50
7.41 10.30
Genesee Co. CVTs Total
17,200
27.82 38.96
The projected cost of service for Alternative 9 is the same as that for Alternative 8, i.e. $12 per REU per month. 4.10 Alternative 10 Treatment by Another City/Village/Township (CVT)
4.10.1 Eligible CVTs In order to meet the wastewater treatment needs identified in Volume 3 The Needs Assessment, several communities may want to consider agreements with neighboring communities WWTPs. Table 4-13 identifies the Oakland County CVTs for which Alternative 10 is viable.
87
Wastewater Alternatives Development Table 4-13 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 10 Treatment by Another City/Village/Township
No.
Community Brandon Township
2 3 4
Lyon Township Milford Township Rose Township
4.10.2 Brandon Served by the Village of Ortonville Brandon Township indicated it would like the Bald Eagle Lake and Lake Louise areas as well as the M-15 corridor to be sewered. This is consistent with the composite master land use plan located in Appendix A of the Volume 3- Needs Assessment Report. These areas will have the highest population density in the Township. It is estimated that this area would produce
approximately 0.5 MGD of average daily wastewater flow. This Ortonville could account for this flow in its expansion plans (see Section 4.11.5). Adding the flow from Brandon Township would increase the proposed capacity to 0.82 MGD. Based on 0.5 MGD being contributed by Brandon Township, it is estimated that the expanded or larger plant would cost approximately $11.1 million. Assuming that Brandon Township and Village of Ortonville build the plant together, Brandons share would be $ 7.4 million. Brandon Townships share of the estimated annual operating costs of $0.74 million or $18.5/Mcf would be approximately $0.44 million or $18.2/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 6.7 acres of land will be required. 4.10.3 Lyon Township Served by South Lyon WWTP Since the Lyon Township has worked towards expanding its own groundwater discharge plant, South Lyon has not planned on serving the Township. However, pending the outcome of that Lyon Townships expansion efforts, the possibility of expanding the South Lyon plant to treat wastewater from the Township could be considered. Expanding the South Lyon plant by 3.24 MGD from 2.5 MGD to 5.74 MGD is estimated to cost approximately $17.5 million. Based on completing construction in 2015, the estimated annual
Wastewater Alternatives Development operating cost at startup (with 25% hook-up of Lyon Twp. residents) is approximately $1.48 million or $9.18/MCF. In 2035 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $1.78 million or $6.34/MCF. It is estimated that approximately 8.7 acres will be required for expanding the surface water discharge plant. 4.10.4 Milford Township Served by Wixom WWTP The Township started a study in 1999 to provide sanitary service to the southerly four sections of the Township. A draft report was issued in March 2000. Three alternatives were investigated: 1) New Groundwater Discharge Plant, 2) Discharge to Wixom WWTP , and 3) New Surface Water Discharge WWTP. Due to the large area required for the GWDP, and the need for low
phosphorous levels in alternative 3, the Township chose alternative 2. The Township now has an agreement with the City of Wixom to treat up to 1.0 MGD of wastewater from the proposed development corridor in the southeast corner of the Township. The additional flow may or may not require an expansion of the Wixom WWTP (see Section 4.1.10). A 1.22 MGD plant expansion is estimated to cost approximately $7.5 million (engineers estimate in May 2005 dollars). Although in Milfords original study the estimated capital cost for this option ranged from approximately $2 to $3.3 million, it appears the cost will be closer to $7.5 million dollars, and possibly higher. Based on completing construction in 2010, the
estimated annual operating costs at startup (with an additional 25% hook-up of Township residents) are approximately $1.45 million or $9.44/Mcf. In 2035 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $1.57 million or $8.26/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 4.1 acres will be required for expanding Wixoms surface water discharge plant. 4.10.5 Rose Township Served by Holly Village WWTP Rose Township expressed a strong desire to remain rural and expects a modest increase in population over the years. Presently, there is about 50 new homes built per year, and the Township expects these to be served by on-site disposal systems. The development immediately south of Holly Village near Stiff Mill Pond, and the area immediately west of this area may be candidates for being served by Holly Village. It is estimated that this area may represent approximately 500 REUs, or approximately 0.16 MGD of wastewater. Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 89
Wastewater Alternatives Development The Holly Village WWTP will have 1.35 MGD Average Daily Design Flow (ADDF), however if any excess capacity exists, it will not be known until it has been running for several months. If the WWTP accepted wastewater from Rose Township there would be minimal cost of conveyance due to the proximity of the developments. The annual operating cost will increase the current cost of approximately $1.0 million to approximately $1.08 million in 2035. Financial considerations for this alternative were not developed due to the insignificant portion of the Township that might be served and Rose Townships desire to remain rural. 4.11 Alternative 11 New/Expansion-of Local Treatment
4.11.1 Eligible CVTs In order to meet the wastewater treatment needs identified in Volume 3 The Needs Assessment, several communities may want to consider building a new WWTP or expanding an existing WWTP. Table 4-14 identifies the Oakland County CVTs for which Alternative 11 is viable. Table 4-14 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 11 New/Expansion of Local Treatment
No.
Community Groveland Township
2 3 4
Holly Township Oakland Township Ortonville Village
5 6
Lyon Township Springfield Township
White Lake Township
4.11.2 Groveland Township Groveland Township does not have a public wastewater system and expects that future growth will likely be served by on-site disposal systems. The Township recommends the installation of sewers in the area of the old gravel pits near Grange Hall Road, which represents an estimated 0.1 MGD average daily flow. Should the Township be interested in constructing their own
90
Wastewater Alternatives Development ground water discharge plant, it is recommended that they hire an engineering firm to prepare detailed construction and operating costs. Assuming a plant capacity of 0.1 MGD, and using the cost estimates obtained from many of the wastewater treatment plant expansions in Oakland County, it is estimated that the cost of a new groundwater discharge plant will cost approximately $3.6 million. This excludes the cost of conveyance from theses areas to the plant. Construction is assumed to be completed in 2015. The estimated annual operating costs at startup (with 25% hook-up) are approximately $0.06 million or $49.2/Mcf. In 2015 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $0.13 million or $26.7/Mcf. Approximately 2.0 acres of land will be required. 4.11.3 Holly Township Several years ago, the Township pursued an interest in providing sewers for the business area in the northeast part of the Township between Dixie Highway and Interstate 75. This area was estimated to produce approximately 0.75 MGD of wastewater flow and planned to be connected to Genesee County for treatment. However, should the Township be interested in constructing their own ground water discharge plant, it is recommended that they hire an engineering firm to prepare detailed construction and operating costs. A groundwater discharge treatment plant with a capacity of 0.75 MGD, is estimated to cost $13.4 million. This excludes the cost of
conveyance to the plant. Construction is assumed to be completed in 2010. The estimated annual operating costs at startup (with 25% hook-up) are approximately $0.21 million or $23.0/Mcf. In 2030 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $0.69 million or $18.9/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 10.9 acres will be required for a groundwater discharge plant. The Township has recently secured an agreement with Holly Village for a capacity of 0.315 MGD to serve the new (Pulte) developments immediately west of the Village. 4.11.4 Oakland Township The Township has indicated that any growth will be on sewers if there is sewer capacity. The Township is expected to grow by 12,131 people between 2005 and 2035. Assuming 75% of this growth is sewered, and applying the criteria of 2.7 persons per REU, and a wastewater quantity
91
Wastewater Alternatives Development of 315 gallons per REU, it is estimated that this number of people will produce an average daily wastewater flow of approximately 1.0 MGD. Following these assumptions, a plant capacity of 1.0 MGD is required in the year 2035. Since the average life span of a wastewater treatment plant is 20 years, and construction is assumed to be completed in 2010, an expansion is required in the year 2030. The capacity of the initial plant is 0.85 MGD, and the capacity of the expansion is 0.15 MGD. A groundwater discharge treatment plant with a capacity of 0.85 MGD, is estimated to cost $14.1 million. A groundwater discharge treatment plant with a capacity of 0.15 MGD, is estimated to cost $4.8 million. Both these estimates exclude the cost of conveyance. The estimated annual operating costs at startup in year 2010 (with 25% hook-up) are approximately $0.27 million or $22.1/Mcf. In 2030 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $0.76 million or $18.3/Mcf. The annual operating cost at year 2035 is estimated at approximately $0.84 million or $17.2/Mcf. It is estimated that the initial groundwater discharge plant will require approximately 12.2 acres, and that the expansion in 2030 will require an additional 2.7 acres. 4.11.5 Ortonville Township The Village of Ortonville hired an engineering firm to perform a Wastewater Facilities Feasibility Study. This was completed in April 2004, and recommended the construction of a low-pressure collection system, and a surface water discharge wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant is sized to accommodate 1,000 REUs (currently there are 855 REUs within the Village), which corresponds to a capacity of 0.32 MGD at the 315 gallons per capita per day criteria used in the study. Their engineer recommended the use of package WWTP with discharge to Kearsley Creek. The estimated cost for the 0.32 MGD average daily flow WWTP is $3.7 million (engineers estimate escalated to May 2005 dollars). The annual operating cost is estimated to be approximately $0.33 million or $21.5/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 5.1 acres of land would be required. 4.11.6 Lyon Township WWTP Lyon Township is currently pursuing plans to expand its WWTP. The current capacity of the WWTP is limited by the biological reactors to 0.75 MGD, however planned upgrades will Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report 92
Wastewater Alternatives Development improve the plant capacity to an Average Daily Design Flow (ADDF) of 2.0 MGD. This expansion, if approved by the MDEQ, is scheduled to be completed in 2008. In view of the projected population increases and planned increases in sewered areas, Lyon Townships flow will require another WWTP upgrade in approximately 2018. It is assumed that this upgrade will be sized to treat the projected 4.24 MGD of flow generated by the build-out population. The current NPDES permit allows for a discharge of up to 3.0 MGD. It is also assumed that an updated NPDES permit will be approved for the discharge of at least 4.24 MGD. The proposed 1.0 MGD expansion of the wastewater treatment plant in 2008 is estimated to cost $15.0 million. The annual operating cost is expected to increase from $0.70 million or
$20.51/MCF at a flow of 0.7 MGD in 2008 to $1.21 million or $12.41/MCF at a flow of 2.0 MGD in 2018. It is estimated that approximately 14.1 acres will be required for the 2008 expansion of the groundwater discharge plant. The proposed 2.24 MGD expansion of the wastewater treatment plant in 2018 is estimated to cost $20.1 million. The annual operating cost is expected to increase from $1.21 million or $12.1/MCF at a flow of 2.0 MGD in 2018 to $1.61 million or $7.79/MCF at a flow of 4.24 MGD in 2035. It is estimated that approximately 29.3 acres will be required for the 2018 expansion of the groundwater discharge plant. 4.11.7 White Lake Township White Lake is served by the Commerce-White Lake WWTP. Expansion of the CommerceWhite Lake WWTP is discussed in Section 4.1.5 under Alternative 1 No Change because Commerce Township is committed to expanding the plant. The size of the expansion depends greatly on White Lake Townships decision regarding its wastewater treatment alternatives. This alternative (Alternative 11 New/Expansionof Local Treatment) assumes White Lake will leverage its contract for 3.64 MGD of treatment at the Commerce-White Lake WWTP after the WWTP expansion. White Lakes projected 2035 ADWF of 3.5 MGD is less than its contracted amount (3.64 MGD). 4.12 Alternative 12 Divert Flow From GWKSDS to an Expanded Warren WWTP
This alternative involves transporting wastewater from the Twelve Towns area and expanding the Warren WWTP to accommodate the additional flow.
93
Wastewater Alternatives Development The existing Warren WWTP was constructed in 1959 and later expanded to its current capacity of 36 MGD. The WWTP effluent is discharged to the Red Run Drain. The WWTP has an average daily flow of approximately 23.2 MGD. The collection system is separated, but due to the age of the system, wet weather flows are relatively high due to inflow and infiltration. There is a 50 million gallon retention basin at the WWTP to retain wet weather flows in excess of the treatment capacity. On occasion, the basin capacity is exceeded and wastewater discharged is a blend of treated effluent. For the purposes of this Master Plan, it is assumed that there is no available capacity available to serve districts outside of the existing service area. There are approximately 25 acres of land available for expansion of the Warren WWTP southwest of the existing facility that is south of Big Beaver Creek and north of Red Run Drain. The DWSD Wastewater Master Plan (2003 technical memorandum entitled Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment) contains detailed information on the alternative to expand the Warren WWTP. In the memorandum, two WWTPs options were considered depending on the population to be served. The first option was to construct a 14 MGD WWTP and the second was to investigate a 40 MGD facility. The 40 MGD option includes portions of Macomb County in the service area. It was decided to focus on serving areas within Oakland County only at this time. For this reason, the Master Plan only investigates a 14 MGD expansion of the Warren WWTP. The DWSD Master Plan evaluated an ADDF of 14 MGD. This area is anticipated to experience minimal growth between 2000 and 2050, as the current flow in this area is 13.8 MGD. For this reason, the 14 MGD ADDF from the DWSD Master Plan was retained in this evaluation for Oakland County. The new WWTP would treat an average daily flow of 14 MGD and a maximum day flow of 35 MGD. In order to handle peak flows, it assumed that the existing 50 million gallon retention basin at the Warren WWTP would be available to equalize the flow to the expanded portion of the plant. Wastewater would be taken from the Dequindre Interceptor that is located west of the Warren WWTP. Bringing the wastewater to the expanded Warren WWTP would involve installing a 48-inch gravity sewer pipe of approximately 20,000 linear feet. The sewer pipe would have to be placed in a tunnel.
94
Wastewater Alternatives Development Treatment at the expanded plant would consist of screening, grit removal, primary settling, aeration, secondary settling, filtration, and ultraviolet disinfection. Solids would be treated, dewatered, and disposed of in a landfill. The capital costs for the Warren WWTP are shown in Table 4-15. The anticipated operation and maintenance cost is shown in Table 4-16. Table 4-15 Capital Cost Summary for 14 MGD Warren WWTP Expansion
Cost Categories
WWTP
Conveyance Total Capital and Conveyance Cost Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees (20%)
$43.8 $98.2 $19.6
Contingencies 30%) Total Capital Cost (April 2002 Dollars)
$29.5 $147.3
Total Capital Cost (May 2005 Dollars)
$169.7
Table 4-16 O & M Cost Summary for 14 MGD Warren WWTP Expansion
Annual O & M Costs
In April 2002 Dollars
In May 2005 Dollars
$7.7
A more detailed study is required to estimate specific costs allocated to each participating community. For this reason, Alternative 12 is not included in Volume 5 - Financial Model and no financial considerations are included in Appendix A.
95
Project Delivery Methods
5.0
5.1
General
A municipality has several different project delivery options when considering the design and construction of new public infrastructure. They include the following: Conventional Design-Bid-Build Design/Build Design/Build/Operate & Design/Build/Operate/Transfer
A description of each project delivery method along with the advantages and disadvantages of each is provided below. Refer to Table 5-1 for a summary of the options. Table 5-1 Summary of Delivery Method Advantages and Disadvantages
Method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Design-Build
Single entity responsible for design and construction Optimized communication between designer and builder Single point of accountability Time savings Early knowledge of project costs Agency gets involved with conflicts Builder not involved in design process May be slower Price is not certain until construction bids are received. Extremely difficult to price Potential to limit competition Less direct control over the project Owner is required to make quicker decisions Not legal in some jurisdictions Relatively new concept.
Design-Bid-Build
Traditional, Proven Approach Competitive bidding results in lowest cost. Building is fully defined. Relative ease of assuring quality control
Design-BuildOperate
Single entity responsible for design, construction, & operation Optimized communication between designer, builders, & Operators Reduced risk of unnoticed issues
96
5.2
Design-Bid-Build
The traditional project delivery method is the Design-Bid-Build approach. This approach separates the design and construction responsibilities by assigning separate contracts to a design firm and contractor. This method consists of a Design Phase, a Bidding Phase and a Construction Phase. During the initial design phase, a design contract would be awarded to an engineer, who is responsible for preparing a complete design package. In the bidding phase, the owner solicits bids from contractors based on the bid documents prepared by the design firm. Contractors submit competitive bids, and the owner awards the construction contract to lowest and best bid. Typically, the owner secures the services of the design firm to administer the construction contract with the Contractor. The Design-Bid-Build approach has many advantages. Because the drawings and specifications are completed before bids are solicited, there is little uncertainty about the owner expectations and the contract terms are relatively clear. The bidding process creates a competitive environment with contractors and presumably provides low cost product. The contract between the owner and the construction contractor are the detailed working drawings and specifications, which provides a clear standard to verify the contractors materials and workmanship on the project. Disadvantages with the traditional approach include the following. In the design-bid-build process the owner is the guarantor of the engineers drawings and specifications, involving the owner in conflicts and disputes. Another disadvantage is that builder is not involved in the design phase and therefore cannot input on construction materials or methods. The design-bid-build approach is normally slower than other approaches such as design-build because the design-bidbuild approach involves a sequential process. The engineer will give the owner a cost estimate for the project but there is no cost certainty until the construction bids were received. 5.3 Design-Build
In the Design-build method, two usually separate services are combined into one contract. With the design-build method, owners execute a single contract for both engineering services and
97
Project Delivery Methods construction. The design-build entity may be a single firm, a group, a joint venture or other organization assembled for a particular project. With the design-build method, the designer-builder assumes responsibility for the majority of the design work and all construction activities. When using the design-build method, owners usually retain responsibility for financing, operating and maintaining the project. While design-build methods were more prevalent in private sector work, it is also gaining acceptance among many public sector owners. Some of the advantages of the Design-Build method are that a single entity is responsible for the design and the construction of the project creating better understanding and communication between the design phase and the construction phase. Because the design and construction personnel work and communicate as a team, value engineering and construction are used continuously and more effectively. Since the design and construction are overlapped and because bidding and redesign periods are eliminated, total design and construction time can be drastically reduced. The firm that is responsible for the design is simultaneously estimating the construction cost and can accurately conceptualize the completed project and a firm construction cost can be guaranteed earlier. Other advantages include a single source of accountability and responsibility for the project, which serves as motivation for quality and proper project performance. Some disadvantages of the Design-Build method include that since this method is not the most popular, there will be some new things to learn such as the process and new front-end documentation and different insurance/bonding products. There may also be some resistance from those who are not familiar with the approach. There may also be some barriers in some states with procurement and licensing. 5.4 Design/Build/Operate - Design/Build/Operate/Transfer
In the Design-Build-Operate method, there is a single entity that is responsible for the design, the construction, and the operation of the project. This method is increasingly being utilized as the Design-Build-Operate-Transfers method. The Design-Build-Operate-Transfer model is the same relationship that combines the design and construction responsibilities of design-build methods with operations and maintenance responsibilities. This method also combines the aspect that the contractor will be responsible for
98
Project Delivery Methods the operation and maintenance of the project for a fixed period. The operators become involved with the projects design to ensure that all aspects of operating the system are considered as early as possible. The contractor guarantees the projects annual operating cost and provides bonds to assure the owner that the system will be operated on a fixed price in accordance with all contractual obligations. Owners award Design-Build-Operate contracts by a competitive bid. Qualified candidates
respond to the specifications provided in the bid documents and are usually required to provide a single price for the design, construction and maintenance of the facility for whatever period of time is specified. Candidates are also required to submit documentation on their qualifications, thereby allowing owners to compare the costs of the different offers and the ability of the candidate to meet their specific needs. The advantage of the Design-Build-Operate-Transfer / Design-Build-Operate approach is that it combines responsibility for usually different functionsdesign, construction, and operation under a single entity. This allows the private partners to take advantage of a number of efficiencies. The project design can be customized to the construction equipment and materials that will be used. In addition, the Design-Build-Operate-Transfer entity is also required to establish a long-term maintenance program up front, together with estimates of the associated costs. The teams detailed knowledge of the project design and the materials used allows it to develop a custom maintenance plan that foresees and addresses the needs as they occur, thus reducing the risk that issues will go unnoticed or unattended and then develop into more costly problems. As with any approach the Design-Build-Operate-Transfer / Design-Build-Operate approach has some disadvantages. The disadvantages include the following: potential to limit competition, less direct control over the project, difficult to price and owner is required to make quicker decisions.
99
DWSD Growth Pays for Growth Policy Volume 4 Alternatives - Appendix A

Oakland County Drain Commission, Water and Wastewater Master Plan - Volume 4 - Alternatives Analysis - September, 2007

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Oakland County Drain Commission, Water and Wastewater Master Plan - Volume 4 - Alternatives Analysis - September, 2007

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Oakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis

Plante & Moran, PLLC Southfield, MI

Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.

URS Project No. 13647263 Final Report September 2007

Basis of Alternative Costs ..................................................................................................... 7

Alternative 4 Genesee County to Supply Raw Water....................................................... 22

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

2.7 2.8 3.0

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

DWSD Growth Pays for Growth Policy

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Summary 1.2 Scope

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

This alternative involves new

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

The Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Well Supply Public Well Supply Treatment

Private Well Supply Treatment

Wastewater Treatment Plants

Notes: 1. All costs are presented in May 2005 dollars.

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Water Alternatives Development

Water Alternatives Development

Figure 2-1 depicts the results of the

Total Amount To Be Bonded ($M) Total Cumulative Cost ($M)

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Alt. 2: Develop/Improve Community Well 10.3 31.5

Alt. 2a: Develop/Improve Community Well 11.6 39.2

Alt. 3: New Service from DWSD 16.5 82.0

Alt. 5: Genesee County to Supply Finished Water 18.8 57.0

Total Amount To Be Bonded ($M) Total Cumulative Cost ($M)

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Community Highland Twp.

Holly Village Lyon Twp. Milford Village

Oakland Twp. Oxford Twp.

Oxford Village Rochester South Lyon

Waterford Twp. White Lake Twp.

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Volume 4 Alternatives Analysis Report

Lake Huron WTP

Port Huron Port Huron Twp

Mundy Twp Grand Blanc Twp

St. Clair Co.

Argentine Twp Linden

St Clair Richmond Richmond

Springfield Township 2040

Independence Township 2010

St. Clair Rive r

Oakland Township 2010

China Twp East China Twp

Auburn Hills Pontiac