Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9D - Infiltration/Inflow Control Prj. r/ STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: 9D GREG ILKKA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MATCHING LOAN FOR AN INFILTRATION / INFLOW CONTROL PROJECT TO ESTABLISH A SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM. DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this Agenda item is to consider approval of Resolution 98-XX authorizing submittal of a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services matching loan application for an infiltration I inflow control project to establish a sump pump inspection program for the City of Prior Lake. BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Council is concerned about the quantity of inflow and infiltration (III) that enters the Metropolitan Disposal System for treatment at their regional wastewater treatment plants. III is clear water that gets into the waste treatment system in numerous ways. Private sump pumps that are cross connected to a homes sanitary sewer service is one way. This clear water does not require treatment, it is mostly groundwater or stormwater runnoff. Reduction of III is important to free up existing capacity within the system and postpone costly expansion of the facilities. Moreover, taxpayers pay unnecessarily high sewer bills to pay for added flow created by III. The Metropolitan Council is concerned enough that they have budgeted $500,000 in 1998 to be used as grants and loans to communities that undertake projects that reduce the amount of III to the metro system. 162~~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E:vIPLOYER The communities of Savage, Farmington, and Plymouth have recently undertaken successful and cost effective Sump Pump Inspection programs. Final results of the Savage and Plymouth programs are not in yet, but Farmington has avoided over $1 million in wastewater treatment costs since 1993 on an investment of $90,000. DISCUSSION: Attached is the MCES solicitation for their matching loan/grant to fund projects to reduce infiltration and inflow (1/1) of clear water into the Metropolitan Disposal System (MOS). As outlined, MCES will loan a community 50% of the cost, up to $40,000, for projects that reduce the amount of clear water that gets into the MOS. Further, if the 1/1 project is annually certified as being effective, for a period of five years after completion, annual repayment of the loan will be forgiven. Three out of the five years the MCES will accept a licensed professional engineer's certification that the project has performed as intended. For the third and fifth year, the MCES will require that some type of physical documentation accompany the certification. Metered flow records have been acceptable documentation in the past. Reduction of III is important as it postpones costly facility upgrades that are needed to expand capacity. By freeing up the existing capacity that III is using, MCES rate increases can be postponed until the upgrades and expansions are truly needed. The City's system benefits by reducing the number of hours the pumps in our 29 lift stations run, thereby extending the life of the pumps and reducing our daily electrical expenses. In anticipation of this solicitation, and being aware that the communities of Savage, Farmington, and Plymouth have recently undertaken successful and cost effective Sump Pump Inspection programs, Howard R. Green Company was asked to prepare a proposal for the City of Prior Lake and to determine the potential benefits to the City. The proposed sump pump inspection program would include three components: ordinance review and recommended revisions if needed, communication / education, and the actual physical inspections with documentation. First, Howard R. Green Company would review Title 9 of the City Code and recommend any revisions they felt were SUMP. DOC needed. Title 9 (9-5-15) currently prohibits the discharge of "any roof, storm, surface, or ground water of any type or kind" into the municipal sewer system. Title 9 (9-5-18) further provides for entry upon private property "for the purpose of inspection, observation, measurement, sampling and testing" in connection with the operation of the sewer system. The communication and education would combine public information meetings, local access cable, printed brochures and newsletters, press releases, and paid advertising to communicate with residents and business owners the benefits of the program to the community. During this phase methods of correcting cross connected systems will also be illustrated and communicated to residents. The physical inspections would begin sometime after the communication/education phase. The inspection entails entering each home, determining if there is a sump pump or pumps and inspecting the pump(s) for a proper discharge connection. Initially inspectors would go door to door in an effort to inspect as many homes as possible without making appointments. After that they would leave door hangers requesting the homeowner call a special sump pump inspection number to schedule an appointment. Each inspection is documented and provided to the City in a database. The inspector will discuss with those homeowners who are discharging into the sanitary sewer methods of correcting cross connected systems including where to appropriately discharge the sump pumps in both summer and winter. The inspector will then encourage the homeowner to call for re-inspection once their system is in compliance. After 30 days Howard R. Green staff will follow- up to schedule a re-inspection if the homeowner does not call first. Howard R. Green Company has experienced inspectors who understand the importance of courtesy and respect to the homeowner. Included with this report is the "Benefit and Potential Savings" section of Howard R. Green Company's proposal. The recommended program consists of two phases with the first phase budgeted for $80,050 (50% MCES Loan to Grant). This fee includes the following services: Communication/Education Components SUMP.DOC 1,950 Residential Inspections 55 Non-Residential Inspections 255 Re-inspections Documentation This first phase would concentrate on the low lying areas and particularly the development surrounding the lakes. As shown in the proposal, the avoided costs in wastewater treatment are conservatively estimated at $31 ,200/year from Phase 1. This figure is derived from the estimate of 24 MG(million gallons) per year of clear water from the sump pumps addressed in Phase 1, times the City's treatment cost of approximately $1300/MG. At this rate phase 1 project payback would be just over 2-1/2 years. If a phase 2 were pursued at roughly the same cost, and sump pump discharges were eliminated throughout the entire City it is estimated that we could avoid treatment costs up to $54,163 per year by the elimination of an additional 17 MG per year. The potential exists for even greater cost avoidance based on our 1993 and 1997 experiences. When wastewater flows from those wet years are compared to an adjusted (for population growth) drought year (1988), it is estimated that in 1993 sump pumps contributed up to $94,250 in wastewater treatment costs, and in 1997, up to $83,460. This cost avoidance to the City would be real. Sewer and water billings to residents are based on water usage measured at the water meter. We have no way of knowing how much is going out the sanitary sewer, it is not metered at the home. However, the total flow out of the City is metered by the MCES. The City is billed by the MCES for the flow that exits the City based on their meter. Everyone on City services is paying for the treatment of clear water pumped into the sanitary sewer system by cross connected sump pumps. ISSUES: This project is not in the C.I.P. and was not budgeted in the 1998 budget. This is due to the fact that at their preparation deadlines no one knew the MCES would be offering the program again. The solicitation is dated December 1997. It has only been offered once previously, in 1996. However, the City Sewer and Water fund, an enterprise fund, is proposed to be used for this project. This enterprise fund is allocated for the operational costs of the Sewer/Water SUMP.DOC FINANCIAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: SUMPDOC departments and normally reserved for large capital municipal expenses. The Sewer and Water fund balance on January 1, 1998 was $1,721,728. If the first phase is completed before spring as proposed we would realize maximum savings in the first year. If it is a wet year it could potentially pay for itself in the same year. Some residents may perceive a sump pump inspection program as an invasion of privacy. Although there will be those who will consider this another "Big Brother is Watching" government program, it has been Howard R. Green's experience in the Cities they have done that these people have been such a minor percentage it is not an issue. In Savage they had difficulty with 5 homeowners out of 5000 inspections and in Plymouth they had less than 20 out of 18,000. This is most likely due to the public education and communication efforts. One option that might avoid making these homeowners angry would be to have them select a licensed plumber to do the inspection. The vast majority of people are willing to take steps needed to reduce City, and therefore their own costs. This proposal should not be viewed by the City Council as "take it or leave it". The Council could direct that the first year of the program be reduced in scope. This would extend the total timeline for project completion, would reduce the grant amount from MCES, but would also reduce our first year costs from the Sewer and Water fund. The 1997 budget for wastewater treatment was $751,010 based ., projected flows. Staff anticipates, because 1997 was a particularly wet year, 1/1 costs will drive the final billing in excess of the budget. The final figures will not be available until April. The 1998 budget is $792,515 based on projected flows of 570 million gallons. Howard R. Green Company proposes to perform Phase I of this program for a fee of $80,050, contingent upon MCES approval of our loan application. The MCES loan would pay 50% of the proposed fee. The matching funds would come from the Sewer and Water Fund. The balance in the Sewer and Water Fund as of January 1,1998 was $1,721,728. The alternatives are as follows: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: SUMP.DOC 1. Approve Resolution 98-XX authorizing submittal of a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services matching loan application for an infiltration / inflow control project to establish a sump pump inspection program and authorizing Howard R. Green Company to implement the program. 2. Amend and approve Resolution 98-XX authorizing submittal of a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services matching loan application for an infiltration I inflow control project to establish a sump pump inspection program and authorizing Howard R. Green Company to implement the program. 3. Table this Agenda item for a specific reason. 4. Deny this Agenda item for a specific reason. Alternative No. 1 or NO.2. The deadline for application submission is February 11, 1998. If the Council wishes to gather further information before implementing a sump pump inspection program it should approve submittal of the application now and revisit the other issues. Submittal of the application does not obligate the City to accept the loan. Motion and seco to adopt Resolution 98-XX. RESOLUTION 98-XX A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MATCHING LOAN FOR AN INFILTRATION I INFLOW CONTROL PROJECT TO ESTABLISH A SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, infiltration and inflow of clear water into the Prior Lake sanitary sewer system by way of cross connected sump pumps costs the City thousands of dollars of unnecessary treatment costs each year, and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services division is offering matching loans to implement projects that will reduce infiltration and inflow into the metropolitan disposal system, and WHEREAS, the City of Prior Lake can significantly reduce wastewater treatment costs by reducing infiltration and inflow into the sanitary sewer system by establishing a sump pump inspection program. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, the City Engineer is hereby authorized to sign and submit the application to the Metropolitan Environmental Services for a matching loan for a project to control infiltration and inflow into the City's sanitary sewer system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, actual receipt of loan funds by the City is conditioned upon the City Council's final approval of the 1/1 reduction program's scope and funding source. Passed and adopted this 2nd day of February, 1998. YES NO Mader Mader Kedrowski Kedrowski Petersen Petersen Schenck Schenck Vacant Vacant {Seal} City Manager City of Prior Lake SUMP.DOC METROPOLITAN COUNCil.. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DESCRIPTION OF OFFER OF MATCHING LOAN AND GRANT MONIES TO COM1illNITIES FOR INFIL TRATION/INFLOW CONTROL PROGRAMS DECEMBER 1997 L DESCRIPTION The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) is offering a limited number ofloans up to $40,000 to communities served by the MCES for community-sponsored projects to reduce excessive infiltration and inflow (IiI) from entering the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). Each loan will require that a matching dollar expenditure on the project be made from the recipient community. The first distribution of the loan money will occur upon start up of the "ect and Wlli~t con"';~ -~ &:"0/ -L".l.e ._._1 1___ --~.._... T1..e ~e-";-;-~ <:/'\01' ~t'''k", 1~"_ -~..... proj ~...L Vi JV /0 Vi LU LVLa..l IV<1U <UUUUUL. 1. 11 1 iHauuu5.JV / U Vi LU'" lvau iHVUo,;;,Y will be given to the community upon satisfactory completion of the project and 30 days after receipt of documentation of reimbursable project expenses of not less than 200% of the loan amount. The loan eligible work must be completed within 18 months after the date of the agreement. After the completion of the work by the community, the community must provide annual documentation for a period of five years following completion of the III project, certifYing that the III has not returned to the system. For each year that documentation is provided that shows the project to be effective in the reduction of IlL repayment of the loan for that year (based on a fixed. short term interest rate) will be forgiven. The designated interest rate for any loan repayments will be based on one percent above the Five y ear (or closest month to )Treasury Bond market rate at closing on March 19. 1998. Interest for any loan repayments will computed from the date of project completion. The MCES will accept as documentation that the project has performed as intended, a certificate from an Engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota, for the first, second and fourth year after project completion. For the third and fifth year. the MCES will require that some type of physical documentation accompany the certification. The MCES is also offering a limited number of grants up to $10,000 to communities served by the MCES for community sponsored studies to identify, locate, quantify and develop an action plan to eliminate excessive III sources from entering the MDS. Each Grant will require that a matching donar expenditure toward the study be made from the recipient community. The grant eligible work must be completed 18 months after the agreement has been signed. The first distribution of the grant money will occur upon start up of the study and will consist of 50010 of the total grant amount. The remaining 50% of the grant will be given to the community upon satisfactory completion of the study. . Page 1 The total amount allocated for loans and grants is a minimum of $500,000. There are currently no funds allocated for continuation of these offers once the $500,000 has been committed. If the number of applications received through the initial offer is insufficient to encumber $500,000, the MCES reserves the right to offer to raise the $40,000 loan and $10,000 grant ceilings to the initial qualifYing applicants. The $500,000 will be allocated into two separate funds in which communities can apply for monies for qualifying projects or studies. Of the $500,000, $100,000 will be made available for matching dollar grants up to $10,000 for studies and reports aimed at identifying, locating and proposing solutions to existing III problems within the community. Those applicants who receive a grant will be required to submit to the MCES a final report summarizing the findings of the study and outlining the action plan to address identified sources of III. The balance of the $500,000, or $400,000, will be reserved for matching dollar loans up to $40,000 for projects aimed at eliminating sources of III from the MDS. Each community can submit applications for a maximum of two project loans and a maximum of 1 grant study. All communities that are billed for their wastewater directly by the MCES are eligible to apply. Local and regional agencies such as the Metropolitan Airports Commission, University of Minnesota and the State Fairground may apply for either a loan or a grant but must do so by applying through the local government in which sanitary sewer service is provided. Applications will be reviewed by MCES staff who will make a recommendation to the members of the Metropolitan Council on the priority of the community's proposed project(s) or study. The application procedure and the staffs criteria for priority ranking for III Control Projects are outlined herein. The Metropolitan Council will review the staffs recommendations and establish the final list ofloan and grant recipients through official member action. Recipient communities will be required to enter into an agreement, with the Council, authorized by resolution of their City Councilor Township Board. (The word "City" used hereafter includes eligible Townships.) The City's requirements, under the agreement, will include that the City provide assurances that the funds are applied to the stated purpose, that the project is cost- effective, that costs be accurately accounted, and that a written report be submitted to the MCES upon completion of the work. The agreement will also provide the MCES the right to audit City records pertaining to the loan and grant funds and matching local share. Each community that receives a loan will be required on the anniversary date of the project completion to provide to the MCES a certification stating that the project has continued to be successful in reducing III from the system. For each year that the project can be certified as perfonning in its intended purpose of III reduction, repayment of the loan funds will be forgiven. In the event that during the first five-year period after the completion of the project, the community cannot certify that the project has continued its intended purpose of III reduction, then the community has to either; 1. inunediately (within 3 months upon discovery) initiate a follow-up project ~sing community funds to repair the original project or, 1. repay a portion of the loan Page 2 distribution plus interest. until either the original project is repaired and the III eliminated, or continue to repay the loan distnbution amount plus interest annually until the end of the 5 year period after the original project completion date. Exact terms ofloan repayment schedules and amounts will be included in each individual agreement between the MCES and loan recipient The goal of this loan offer is to assist communities to implement III control improvements which provide a metropolitan benefit in addition to a local benefit. Because the funds are limited for this loan offer, the MCES places a greater priority on physical improvements over desk-top studies. Studies to identify, quantify and locate sources of III can receive monetary assistance under the grant portion of this program offer. Communities that already have an understanding of where problems exist and how they can be corrected will be in a better position to justify their proposal for the loan offered under this program. The MCES also intends that the administration of these loan agreements be streamlined to coincide in nature with the limited loan amount and the infrequent offering ofloan and grant monies. Loan and Grant money will not be made availabie for projects or studies that have been started prior to the date of the agreement, or as pre-authorized by the MCES. Projects pertaining to the separation of sewers (Storm vs. Sanitary) will not be eligible for either the loan or grant monies. The intent of this loan/grant offer is to help communities initiate projects which are not funded by other outside sources. n. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR FUNDING PRIORITIES (LOANS) Proposed projects will be evaluated by MCES staffwho will make a recommendation on the priority classification of the project. MCES staffwill prepare a recommended priority list for consideration by the members of the Metropolitan Council. Projects targeted to produce a metropolitan benefit will receive higher priority than those where a metropolitan benefit is unlikely. Removal of III which previously resulted in sewage bypasses would be an example of a project with metropolitan benefit, in that loading to the conveyance and treatment facilities would be lessened and a potential public health hazard would be eliminated. A project to increase the capacity of the local system for the above example would not however be considered an example of a metropolitan benefit. If a project is submitted that cites an elimination of historic bypasses, the application must include a copy of a "MPCA Report Form(s)" which documents the bypass(es). Another example of metropolitan benefit is a project designed to reduce high peak flow rates, resulting from III. If a community received a specific III goal as part of the December 1996 Systems Statement, or if the 1992 "Systemwide InfiltrationlInflow Evaluation" by the former MWCC identified your community as having high peak flow rates then that community's proposed loan project may have a metropolitan benefit. Since the aforementioned report did not include information regarding estimated Rain Derived III (RDI/I) or Groundwater Infiltration (GWI) for the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul or South St. Paul, applications from these communities will need to include documentation of their RDI/I and Page 3 GWL Other communities may also submit their own information demonstrating high peak flow ,. rates and groundwater infiltration rates for specific project areas. Priority ranking will first be given for those communities having an identified III Goal, then secondly to those communities which were characterized in the "Systemwide InfiltrationlInflow Evaluation" report as having high wet weather peak flow ratios. Priority ranking will also be given to those communities which were characterized as having both potentially excessive rain dependent III (RDIII) and groundwater infiltration (GWI). Attached is Exhibit A, containing a listing of all communities served by the MDS, ranked by wet weather peak ratios with those having identified III goals given priority over those communities having no identified goals. Also attached is Exhibit B which identifies those communities having potentially excessive RDII and GWI in the 1992 Systemwide III Study. Priority ranking will also be given for those communities located within the service areas of the Blue Lake, Metropolitan, and Stillwater wastewater treatment facilities. These treatment facilities were identified in the "System'.vide Infiltration/!pflow Evaluation" study, as benefiting most from III removal. Loan recipients will need to demonstrate that they already have an understanding of the source of the III and how it can be effectively reduced. Peak rates of inflow have a greater impact on metropolitan wastewater facilities than the long term effect from average rates of groundwater infiltration. Therefore, projects designed to immediately reduce peak rates of inflow will receive higher priority than those designed to eliminate the average rate of groundwater infiltration. Loan applicants will need to estimate the annualized volume ofIlI targeted for removal by the project, and will need to provide the basis of the estimate. After completion of the project, the Community will be responsible for certifying that the project his maintained its intended purpose ofI/I reduction. As part of the loan application, the Community is requested to propose the method for certifying the project. The method of certification will be reviewed, negotiated and included in the agreement. Two such methods of certification would be to document the condition of the project-by means of televised inspections or by visual inspections. The certification shall be signed by an Engineer registered in the state of Minnesota The general criteria are summarized below. Higher priority rankings will be assigned for projects cl1aracterized by items from the top of this list. Lower priority rankings will be associated with items from the bottom of the list. Proposed Project Ranking Criteria for Loans (Descending Order of Priority) Estimated total ofI/I reduction as result of project is either greater than 30 MGY, between 15 MGYand 30 MGY, or between 5 MGYand 15 MGY Page 4 Benefits Metropolitan Area and Facilities a. Immediate Savings c. Pollution Abatement b. Long Term Savings Targets Immediate Reduction of Peak Rates of Inflow Project is located within either the Blue Lake, Metro or Stillwater WWTP service area Community has an identified III goal as part of the December 1996 Systems Statement Community has been identified as having potentially excessive RDI/I and GWI Community is identified as having potentially excessive RDI/I only 'T'~--e.~ .Le R"'-~""':-- _J:'1___ .-- -"--~-e :_~1.__.:__ L<1.11=' 1;) UI ....uU'"'UVll VI. lUll1=' LClUl a.VCla.1=' lUJ..llUa.LlUll III. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR FUNDING PRIORITIES (GRANTS) Proposed studies will be evaluated by MCES staffwho will make a recommendation on the priority classification of the study. MCES staffwill prepare a recommended priority list for consideration by the members of the Metropolitan Council. At a minimum, applications for a grant shall contain the following: L Description and scope of the study. 2. Time schedule for completion (identify key steps and intermediate dates.) 3. Objectives of study. 4. Who will be responsible for preparing the report (city staffvs. consultant). If contracted will project be competitively bid? 5. Map of study area and wastewater collection system in the vicinity of the study area. 6. List of anticipated benefits to Metropolitan System ifwork proposed by study is carried out. 7. Estimate of potential III removed ifproject initiated(MGY) 8. Cost Effectiveness of proposed project. 9. Identifies any historic sanitary sewer bypasses. As a minimum for consideration for a grant, studies need to result in projects targeted to produce a metropolitan benefit. Applications for grants which are received by communities which have either received IJI goals as part of their December 1996 System Statements or have been identified in the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's study "Systemwide Infiltration/Inflow Evaluation" dated Apri11992, as having high "Wet Whether Peak Ratios" will receive a higher priority ranking than those t Page 5 communities which did not have specific III goals or were identified with lower "Wet Weather Peak. Ratios. A combined listing of communities with identified III goals and "Wet Weather Peak Ratios" as given in the 1992 "Systemwide InfiltrationlInflow Evaluation" report is attached., as Exhibit A Exhibits A and B are for informational purposes only. Since peak flow conditions are the main cause for most capital improvements to the MDS, studies aimed at identifying projects to reduce these types flows will be given a higher priority. IV. APPLICATION PROCEDURE To apply for a loan, a grant, or both, the Application Form(s) must be completed and signed by the City Administrator or equivalent staff authorized to submit the application by a resolution of the City Council. Attach a copy of the official minutes and/or resolution authorizing the submittal of the Loan/Grant Application to the application form. A copy of the official resolution authorizing the submittal of the applicaticn(s) will be req11ired before the agreement can be executed and the first disbursement made. Attach supplemental information to describe the III problem, the details of the proposed project, and how the project(s) meets the priority criteria of the loan or grant offer and other pertinent information as requested on the application form. Applications must be post-marked no later than February 10, 1998. V. EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS After the submittal deadline, copies of the loan and grant applications will be made and distributed to a panel consisting of between 3 to 5 members of Metropolitan Council staff. Each member will independently review and evaluate every loan and grant application using the criteria outlined herein. Each panel member will assign a point value to the application. Upon completion of the application evaluation, the point values will be averaged and all the applications will be ranked in descending order. Once the final ranking is accepted by the panel, a list of the recipient loan and grant applicants with the highest rankings will be given to the Metropolitan Council for final approval. After the Council has approved the rankings and the list of recipients, loan and grant offers will be made and negotiations for the agreements will commence. VI. OFFERS Offers will be made approximately in the fourth week in March, 1998. A written offer will be sent to each qualifying community that will contain the loan or grant agreement language. Actual award of the loan or grant will be contingent upon City Council action authorizing the agreement between the MCES and City. a:\prvPesc\dm:C096.IIoc Page 6 t Iii , ! Howard R,'Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS [ Benefits and Potential Savings From Sump Pump Inspection Program The main focus of a Sump Pump Inspection Program is to eliminate the discharge of clear water from the sump pumps into the sanitary sewer system. These extraneous flows typically occur during wet weather conditions, and they have a major impact on a community's peak wet weather flows to the sanitary sewer system. :.... Elimination of the sump pump discharges will reduce the City's wet weather flows. This will also help the City meet the III reduction goals that they receive from MCES. Reducing the peak wet weather flows provides savings to all by: ,( " i: < ~ ~ · Reducing the need for extra capacity in sanitary sewers and wastewater treatment facilities. · Reducing the costs associated with conveying the wastewater in lift stations and the need to upgrade lift stations. · Reducing the potential for sewer backups into residential basements and/or the need for sewer bypassing. The City of Prior Lake has the potential to receive short-term and long- term financial benefits from the Sump Pump Inspection Program. The following illustrates the potential savings and/or avoided costs which can benefit the City: Population Estimated number of households 13,129 (1990) 4,800 Based on Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recommended assumptions, it is estimated that the City of Prior Lake would have these approximate results (in reality, because of the many low lying areas in Prior Lake, we believe that even more clear water would be found): Estimated Sump Pump Installations: Single Pumps 7% of total 336 Multiple Pumps 1.5% of total --1.l. Estimated Number of Locations 497 Estimated Number of Sump Pumps 480 r Howard R. Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS Benefits and Potential Savings From Sump Pump Inspection Program The estimated clear water discharge is as follows: 336 sump pumps x 1,400 gpd x 62 days/year 29.1 million gallons/year n multiple sump pumps x 2,800 gpd x 62 days/year = 12.5 MG/year i I i I I i I I I I i I r t Total Estimated Clear Water Discharge From Sump Pumps 41.6 MG/year This is a significant flow related to sump pump discharges. Currently, MCES charges for wastewater treatment equals approximately $1,300/million gallons. At this rate, the City of Prior Lake has the ability to avoid MCES wastewater treatment costs of up to $54, 163/year by eliminating sump pump discharges throughout the entire City. To further understand the potential benefits of a Sump Pump Inspection Program in the City of Prior Lake, a review of the City's historical wastewater flows was conducted. This review concentrated on the dry weather flows from the drought of 1988 to help establish baseline flows, as well as the wet weather periods that occurred in 1993 (the year of a Federal Disaster Declaration in the metropolitan area) and 1997, which had a large snow melt and heavy summer rains in July and August. This data is shown in Graphs 1 and 2. Adjustments were made to the baseline flow of 1988 to allow for growth that has occurred in Prior Lake. :, 'I " These graphs illustrate an estimate ofI/I in the City of Prior Lake. The estimated quantity of Prior Lake's III is: 1993 n.5 MG of III which represents up to $94,250 in wastewater treatment costs 1997 64.2 MG of III which represents up to $83,460 in wastewater treatment costs Note: Estimated cost is based on $1,300/MG which is typical. The MCES rates may vary from this rate. The analysis of these two years appears to indicate Prior Lake's III is slightly higher than that of a typical community. A review of the MCES' Howard R. Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS Benefits and Potential Savings From Sump Pump Inspection Program 1992 system-wide III evaluation report (included in the Appendix) indicates that Prior Lake was ranked 40th (above Farm ington - 51, Plymouth - 42, and Savage - 68). This appears to corroborate the previous analysis which indicates Prior Lake's III from sump pump discharges would exceed the typical 7% of homes having sump pumps. A review of the topography of the Prior Lake area indicates numerous water bodies and Prior Lake/Spring Lake. Much of the early development occurred surrounding these water bodies. This also supports the concept of multiple sump pumps in the vicinity of the older housing near the lakes that are affected by variations in water levels. This gives the City of Prior Lake the opportunity to consider a phased approach to sump pump discharge elimination. The first phase of this program could be targeted to the development surrounding the lakes. This should provide the City with a cost-effective and efficient program from the beginning. l . ~ i , i! Most communities see a two to three year payback through lower costs for wastewater treatment by conducting a Sump Pump Inspection Program. The community benefits with continued reduction of costs by enforcing the sump pump codes beyond the initial payback period. Many times, future rate increases are delayed. Some communities that rank high in peak wet weather flow ratios, such as Farmington (see ranking in the MCES packet in the Appendix) have received paybacks within one year or less. Today, Farmington's $90,000 investment in a Sump Pump Program has resulted in over $1.0 million in avoided wastewater treatment plant costs to the MCES since 1993. Farmington received a wet weather peak ratio of 1.87 in the MCES study, compared to Prior Lake's peak wet weather ratio of2.09. Prior Lake's ratio compares to Plymouth's ratio of2.06, and we would anticipate similar results. Savage's peak wet weather ratio was 1.62. , I' ! I It is possible for a community to consider a phased program of sump pump inspections to be more specific in targeting its III reduction efforts. This is what is being proposed in this initial phase for the City of Prior Lake. The community staff have the experience and knowledge to pinpoint the best areas to be inspected initially. This will be most effective in reducing III flows for the lowest cost. This proposal is intended to set up the initial phase for the City of Prior Lake within an $80,000 budget. This $80,000 budget would consist of ~ i. I I I Howard R. Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS Benefits and Potential Savings From Sump Pump Inspection Program $40,000 funding through the MCES 1998 III Grant and Loan Program, and $40,000 in funding through the City's wastewater operations budget. This will allow the community to target the areas where most sump pumps are suspected. It should allow the community to receive its maximum efficiency in the initial phase. The following is an estimate of VI reduction that could occur in Phase I of Prior Lake's Sump Pump Inspection Program. 2,005 Initial Inspections Phase I: Anticipated Results in Phase I: Anticipate Locating 50% of Single sump pumps = 168 x 1,400 gpcd x 62 = 14.6 MG/yr. Anticipate Locating 75% of Multiple sump pumps = 54 x 2,800 gpcd x 62 = 9.4 MG/yr. 24.0 MG/yr. x $1.300/MG [1 Estimated Avoided Costs in Wastewater Treatment with Phase I Sump Pump Discharge Relocation $31 ,200/Y ear I ) : ~ I I r I , I I 1 It appears that the City of Prior Lake would receive a complete payback for the $80,000 Phase I program within three years. Estimated Payback = $80.000 = 2.56 years $31,200 The City's payback on its $40,000 investment would be recovered in an estimated 112 years: i; ! ~ r j Estimated City Payback with Phase I: $40.000 = 1.28 years $31,200 I, i i f. ! i I I ! I i I I J'i II i I ~ ,I 1:1 ii I~ HoNard R. Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS Benefits and Potential Savings From Sump Pump Inspection Program The estimated paybacks shown above are based on a conservative approach, which assumes that 7% of the homes will have single sump pumps and 1 Y2 % of the homes will have multiple sump pumps. :... Note that the City appears to have potential for larger savings in avoided wastewater treatment costs when the data from 1993 and 1997 are considered. The following estimates of savings due to avoided wastewater treatment costs assume that all III shown on the graphs is related to sump pump discharges: Potential Avoided One Year Costs/Savings in 1993 = $94,250 Potential Avoided One Year Costs/Savings in 1997 = $83,460 The combined potential savings from 1993 and 1997 ($177,710) alone would have been sufficient savings through avoided costs to fund a complete City-wide program. This indicates that the City has the potential to benefit quickly from a City-wide inspection program. Typically, the City will experience five wet years out of any 10-year period (decade). The sooner the City implements this type of Sump Pump Inspection Program, the quicker it will benefit from reduced wastewater treatment costs by avoiding the increases in wet weather flows. The City will also benefit from reduced backups in the sewer system and basements, reduced costs associated with pumping this III through lift stations, etc. II II II III "0 Q) roco -- roC') ~co 2co '-" co 20) UO) "00) UO) <(~ <(~ <(~ t + + () Q) 0 > 0 Z -- () 0 en a. ~ Q) en 0 u.. M en ~ en 0> (1) :J ~ ~ <( 0 (1) ..... CJ)oo ~ ~oo :J CO en -, .s::: .....~ .... l:: .- Cl 0 c: CO c: Q) ~ CJ) .;: c :J (1) CO -, c. ..::r:: E CO ...J 0 >> ro ~ U ~ 0 .;: 0- L- a. <( L- ro ~ .c Q) LL C ro -, l{) 0 l{) 0 l{) 0 l{) 0 LO LO ~ ~ C') ('i) N N ~ 0_ .s::: ::e> .... l:: .E~ 0 ~ u. - II II III II II II II II I I ~ " ~ ~ I ;ojc- tJ) ;: 0 - r-... LL 0') s- O') Q) ~ 3: 0 Q) - Wco ~~ ca~ - ,- C) t: ca t: W 'i: ca CD Co ~ E ca ..J 0 s- O 0 'i: a. :1 " Q) C\J co (;) co '. C\J " 2 co .2, co 2 0) Uo) "0) Uo) <( ..-. <(..- <(..- + + + ~ . I I l () Q) 0 > 0 z ...... () 0 a.. Q) CI) Ol :J <( >. :J -, J:: .... c: 0 Q) ~ C :::J -, >. eo ~ L- a.. <( 'L- eo 2 .0 Q) IJ.. C eo -, 0 l!) 0 l!) 0 l!) 0 l!) 0 (0 l!) l!) ~ ~ ('f) ('f) N N >. J:: U) _ .... :=c:> c:O~ o u:- ~ ~ 1 I I :f I; I' Ii If [I i I