HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Engineer ReportSPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION
OR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
AND
APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR LIFT
STATION AND INTERCEPTORS
SEPTEMBER, 1999
Spring Valley Sanitation District
2929 County Road 114
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6399
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
SGM
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
September 27, 1999
Mr. Mark Bean, Planning Director
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Street, Room 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
P.O. Box 2308
Silverthorne CO 80498
RE: Spring Valley Sanitation District ("District")
Submittal of Site Applications
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit to you for review, on behalf of Spring Valley
Sanitation District, Site Applications for the following facilities:
1. Modification/Expansion of an Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility.
2. Construction of the Valley Lift Station.
3. Construction of the Lower Bench Lift Station.
Also being transmitted is an Engineering Report in support of the District's Site Applications.
The Engineering Report is applicable to all three of the applications.
The District notes that the applications and associated Engineering Report with respect to the
wastewater treatment facility addresses the applicable requirements as set forth in C.R.S. 25-
8-702 and 5 C.C.R. 1002-22.5 and 1002-22.6, which concern the modification or expansion
of an existing domestic wastewater treatment plant.
Please feel free to contact either this office or Gregory Hall at Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.,
the District's legal counsel, directly if you have any questions or if additional submittal
materials are required for your review.
September 27, 1999
Mark Bean and NCCOG
Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Dean W.Gordon, P.E.
President
DWG:Iec/1503a08.3
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Greg Boecker, Chairman, Spring Valley Sanitation District
Lee Leavenworth, Esq., Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
Lawrence Green, Esq.
Ann J. Castle, Esq.
John R. Schenk, Esq.
Glenn D. Chadwick, Esq.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF:
LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
APPLICANT: Spring Valley Sanitation District PHONE: 970/ 945-6399
ADDRESS: 2929 County Road 114
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Consulting Engineer:
Address:
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Phone: 970/ 945-1004
118 West 6th Street, Suite 200
City, State, Zip:
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
A. Summary of information regarding lift station/interceptor sewer:
1. Proposed Location (Legal Description): NW 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 33
Township: 6S Range: 88W County: Garfield
2. Type and capacity of facility proposed: Major Processes Used Valley Lift Station
wet well/dry well type
Hydraulic: 300,300 gal/day Organic: 601 lbs. BODS/day
Present PE: -0- Design PE: 3003" % Domestic: 100 % Industrial: -0-
3. Location of Facility:
Attach a map of the area which includes the following:
1 -mile radius: habitable buildings, topography, and neighboring land uses.
See Figure 6.1(b), Engineering Report
4. Will a State or Federal grant/loan be sought to finance any portion of this project? No
5. Present zoning of site area?
AARD (2 acres/unit)
Zoning within a 1 -mile radius of site? AARD, PUD
6. What entity has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? Spring Valley Sanitation District
WQCD-3c (Revised 2/99)
L:Uc\forms\1503a01-liftsta-3c.1. 1
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
7. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed?
Colorado Community College - See Exhibit 9.2, Engineering Report
(Please attach copies of the document creating authority for the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site.)
8. Estimated project cost: $ 150,000.
Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility?
Spring Valley Sanitation District
Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain or other natural hazard area? NO
If so, what precautions are being taken?
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural
Resources or other agency?
(Agency Name)
If so, what is that designation?
10. Please include any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed
decision on your application for site approval. Valley Lift Station to be developed in conjunction
with the expansion of the existing Spring Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility,
which is subject to a concurrent "Application for Site Approval for Modification/Expansion of an Existing
Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant".
1 1 . The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will generate the following additional
load: Peak Hydraulic (MGD): 1 .35 (4.5 peaking factor) P.E. to be served: 3003
12. Describe emergency system in case of lift station and/or power failure. Automatic dialers to
responsible operating personnel.
WQCD-3c (Revised 2/99)
L:tc\forms\1503a01-liftsta-3c.1. 2
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
1 3. Name and address of wastewater treatment plant providing treatment: Spring Valley Sanitation District
2929 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
14. The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will increase the loading of the
treatment plant to 100 % of hydraulic and 100 % organic capacity and Spring Valley
(Name of Treatment Agency)
Sanitation District
(Date)
agrees to treat this wastewater? ® Yes ❑ No
;81 , CC-esAci.k 1.6,5C)
(Signature and Title)
B. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency,
send the agency a copy of this application for the agency's review and recommendation.
C. Recommendation of governmental authorities:
2.
The application shall be forwarded to the planning agency of the city, town, or county in whose
jurisdiction(s) the lift station and/or interceptor sewer is to be located. The applicant shall obtain, from the
appropriate planning agency (agencies), a statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with the local
comprehensive plan(s) as they relate to water quality (subject to the provisions of 22.3(6)).
The application shall be forwarded to the water quality planning agency (agencies) for the area in which the
facilities are to be constructed and for the area to be served by those facilities. The applicant shall obtain,
from the appropriate planning agency (agencies), a statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with any
adopted water quality management plan(s).
If you have any further comments or questions, please call (303)692-3500.
Date
Recommend Recommend Signature of
Approval Disapproval Representative
Local Planning Agency
Water Quality Planning Agency
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Works ", and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering
report, as
described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed.
DATE
WQCD-3c (Revised 2/99)
Signature of Applicant Typed Name
L:Vc\fortis\1503a01-liftsta-3c.1. 3
ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPLICATION
In accordance with C.R.S. 1981, 25-8-702 (2)(a), (b), and (c), and the "Regulations for Site
Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works", the Water Quality Control Division must
determine that each site location is consistent with the long range , comprehensive planning for the
area in which it is to be located, that the plant on the proposed site will be managed to minimize
the potential adverse impacts on water quality, and must encourage the consolidation of
wastewater treatment works whenever feasible.
In making this determination, the Division requires each applicant for a site approval for a domestic
wastewater treatment works to supply an engineering report describing the project and showing
the applicant's capabilities to manage and operate the facility over the life of the project to
determine the potential adverse impacts on water quality. The report shall be considered the
culmination of the planning process and as a minimum shall address the following:
Name and address of the applicant;
A map identifying the site of the proposed facilities, topography of the area, and
neighboring land uses;
Service area including existing and projected population, and flow/loading
projections;
Identification of the treatment entity responsible for receiving and treating the
wastewater;
Legal arrangements showing control of site for the project life or showing the ability
of the entity to acquire the site and use it for the project life. Approval by the
Division of an application for site approval shall not be deemed to be a determination
that the proposed treatment works is or is not necessary, that the proposed site is or
is not the best or only site upon which to locate such a treatment works, or that
location of a treatment works on the site is or is not a reasonable public use
justifying condemnation of the site. Approval by the Division shall only be deemed
to be a determination that the site application meets the requirement of this
regulation 22 (5 CCR 1002-22).
Confirmation, in writing, from the wastewater treatment entity that it:
Will treat the wastewater;
Is not presently receiving wastes in excess of its design capacity as defined in its site
approval and/or discharge permit, or is under construction, or will be in a
phased construction of new or expanded facilities, and will have necessary
capacity completed and operational prior to the discharge from the new
interceptor or from the new or expanded lift station;
Is not presently in violation of any effluent parameters of its discharge permit or
operating under a Notice of Violation and;or Cease and Desist Order from the
Division resulting from discharge permit violations.
Evidence that the lift station and/or interceptor sewer will be operated and
maintained by a responsible person if the applicant is not the treatment entity; and
WQCD-3c (Revised 2/99)
L:Vc formsl1503a01-liftsta-3c.1. 4
Implementation plan and schedule, including estimated construction time and
estirrated start-up date.
Depending on the p-oposed project, some of the above items may not be applicable to address. In
such cases, simply ndicate the non -applicability of those.
WQCD-3c (Revised 2/99)
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF:
AN EXISTING DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
APPLICANT: Spring Valley Sanitation District PHONE: 970/ 945-6399
ADDRESS: 2929 County Road 114
CITY, STATE, ZIP: Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Consulting Engineer: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Phone: 970/ 945-1004
Address: 118 West 6' Street, Suite 200
City, State, Zip: Glenwood Springs , Colorado 81601
A. Summary of information regarding existing wastewater treatment plant:
1. Existing Location (Legal Description): NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 9
Township: 7S Range: 88W County: Garfield
2. Type and capacity of treatment facility proposed: Processes Used Activated sludge (oxidation ditch),
ammonia removal, disinfection.
Hydraulic: 449,450 gal/day
Present PE: 520 Design PE: 4995
Organic:
999 lbs. BODS/day
% Domestic: 100 % Industrial: -0-
3. Location of Facility:
Attach a map of the area which includes the following:
* (a) 5 -mile radius: all sewage treatment plants, lift stations, and domestic water supply intakes.
** (b) 1 -mile radius: habitable buildings, location of public and private potable water wells, and an
approximate indication of the topography.
See Figure 6. 1(a), Engineering Report. * * See Figure 6. 1(b), Engineering Report
4. Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse X
Subsurface disposal Land Application Evaporation
Other (list):
State water quality classification of receiving watercourse(s) Use protected, Aquatic Life - Cold Class 2 ,
Recreation - Class 2.
Proposed Effluent Limitations developed in conjunction with the Water Quality Control Division: *
BODS 30 mg/I SS 30 mg/I Fecal Coliform 200, /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine 0.5 mg/I Ammonia 27 mg/I Other
*Proposed by Applicant. See Table 4. 1, Engineering Report.
5. Will a State or Federal grant/loan be sought to finance any portion of this project?
6. Present zoning of site area? AARD (2 acres/uoit)
No
Zoning within a 1 -mile radius of site? AARD; PUD
7. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake?
Name of Supply: 30 miles, Town of Silt
Address of Supply: Box 70, Silt, Colorado 81652
WQCD-3b (Revised 2/99)
L:Ic\forms11503a01 U iftsta.3b
1 of 4
8.
9.
10.
1 1 .
12.
1 3.
B.
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of diversion?
Name of User: Atkinson Canal, c/o Glenwood Land Company
Address of User: 525 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Who has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? Spring Valley Sanitation District
Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? Colorado Mountain College.
See Exhibit 9.2, Engineering Report
(Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site.)
Estimated project cost: $3.0 million
Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility?
Spring Valley Sanitation District
Names and addresses of all municipalities and water and/or sanitation districts within 5 miles downstream of
proposed wastewater treatment facility site. None
(Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary)
Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain or other natural hazard area? No
If so, what precautions are being taken?
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural
Resources or other agency?
(Agency Name)
If so, what is that designation?
Please identify any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed
decision on your application for site approval. See Engineering Report
(Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary)
If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency,
send the agency a copy of this application for the agency's review and recommendation.
WQCD-3b (Revised 2/99) L:Ic\forms\1503a01'Jiftsta.3b
2 of 4
ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPLICATION
In accordance with C.R.S. 1981, 25-8-702 (2)(a), (b), and (c), and the "Regulations for Site
Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works", the Water Quality Control Division must
determine that each site location is consistent with the long range , comprehensive planning for the
area in which it is to be located, that the plant on the proposed site will be managed to minimize
the potential adverse impacts on water quality, and must encourage the consolidation of
wastewater treatment works whenever feasible.
In making this determination, the Division requires each applicant for a site approval for a domestic
wastewater treatment works to supply an engineering report which documents the need for the
modifications and construction, consistency with local wastewater facility plans and any approved
water quality management plans. The report shall be considered the culmination of the planning
process and as a minimum shall address the following:
Changes to the existing service area, population and loading projections;
Proposed additional or modified effluent limitations, as developed in coordination with the
Division;
Analysis of the performance of the existing treatment works;
Analysis of alternative means to treat additional loading or accomplish necessary process
modifications, in accordance with 22.3(1)(c), including any consolidation alternatives
recommended in the approved water quality management plan, if the plan recommends no
consolidation, that option does not need to be considered;
Changes in the financial system which will result from the proposed modification or
expansion, including changes to the fee structure;
Implementation plan and schedule, including estimated construction time and estimated date
on which the modified or expanded plant will be in operation.
Depending on the proposed project, some of the above items may not be applicable to address. In
such cases, simply indicate the non -applicability of those.
WQCD-3b (Revised 2/99)
L:Iclforms \ 1503x01 \liftsta.3b
4 of 4
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
C. Recommendation of governmental authorities:
Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities consistent
with the comprehensive plan and any other plans, policies, and/or regulations for the area, including the 201
Facility Plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? If you have any further
comments or questions, please call (303)692-3500.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Recommend Recommend Signature of
Date Approval Disapproval Comment Representative
Management Agency
City or Town (If site is inside boundary)
County (If site is outside municipal boundary)
Local Health Authority
Water Quality Planning Agency
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Works ". An engineering report, as described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed.
DATE 1 _ `-" /
gnature of Applicant
WQCD-3b (Revised 2/99)
(-3 Greg S. Rnerker
q)«_e,_k- , 5 u5 (h
L:Ic'Jorms\1503a01 Uiftsta.3b
Typed Name President, SVSD
3 of 4
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF:
LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
APPLICANT: Spring Valley Sanitation District PHONE: 970/ 945-6399
ADDRESS: 2929 County Road 114
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
Consulting Engineer:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Phone: 970/ 945-1004
118 West 6th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
A. Summary of information regarding lift station/interceptor sewer:
1. Proposed Location (Legal Description): NW 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 7
Township: 7S Range: 88W County: Garfield
2. Type and capacity of facility proposed: Major Processes Used Lower Bench Lift Station,
wet well/dry well type
Hydraulic: 28,000 gal/day Organic: 56 lbs. BODS/day
Present PE: -0- Design PE: 280 % Domestic: 100 % Industrial: -0-
3. Location of Facility:
Attach a map of the area which includes the following:
1 -mile radius: habitable buildings, topography, and neighboring land uses.
See Figure 6.1(b), Engineering Report
4. Will a State or Federal grant/loan be sought to finance any portion of this project? No
5. Present zoning of site area?
PUD
Zoning within a 1 -mile radius of site? AARD, PUD, Industrial, Commercial
6. What entity has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? Spring Valley Sanitation District
WQCD-3c (Revised 2/99)
L:Uc\forms\1503a01-liftm:z-3c.2 1
APPLICATION
7.
8.
9.
10.
1 1 .
1 2.
FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed?
2
Colorado Community College - See Exhibit 9.2, Engineering Report
(Please attach copies of the document creating authority for the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site.)
Estimated project cost: $125,000.
Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility?
Spring Valley Sanitation District
Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain or other natural hazard area? NO
If so, what precautions are being taken?
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural
Resources or other agency?
(Agency Name)
If so, what is that designation?
Please include any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed
decision on your application for site approval. Lower Bench Lift Station to be developed in conjunction
with the expansion of the existing Spring Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility,
which is subject to a concurrent "Application for Site Approval for Modification/Expansion of an Existing
Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant".
The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will generate the following additional
load: Peak Hydraulic (MGD): 0.14 (4.5 peaking factor) P.E. to be served: 280
Describe emergency system in case of lift station and/or power failure.
Automatic dialers to responsible operating personnel.
WQCD-3c (Revised 2/99) L:tc\forms\1503a01-liftsta-3c.2
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
1 3. Name and address of wastewater treatment plant providing treatment: Spring Valley Sanitation District
2929 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
14. The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will increase the loading of the
treatment plant to 100 % of hydraulic and 100 % organic capacity and Spring Valley
(Name of Treatment Agency)
Sanitation District agrees to treat this wastewater? ® Yes 0 No
9 - - 9 ci -)
(Date)
(Signature and Title)
B. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency,
send the agency a copy of this application for the agency's review and recommendation.
C. Recommendation of governmental authorities:
2.
The application shall be forwarded to the planning agency of the city, town, or county in whose
jurisdiction(s) the lift station and/or interceptor sewer is to be located. The applicant shall obtain, from the
appropriate planning agency (agencies), a statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with the local
comprehensive plan(s) as they relate to water quality (subject to the provisions of 22.3(6)).
The application shall be forwarded to the water quality planning agency (agencies) for the area in which the
facilities are to be constructed and for the area to be served by those facilities. The applicant shall obtain,
from the appropriate planning agency (agencies), a statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with any
adopted water quality management plan(s).
If you have any further comments or questions, please call (303)692-3500.
Date
Recommend Recommend Signature of
Approval Disapproval Representative
Local Planning Agency
Water Quality Planning Agency
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Works ", and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering report, as
described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed.
DATE
WQCD-3c (Revised 2/99)
Signature of Applicant Typed Name
L:Uc forms11503a01-liftsta-3c.2 3
14
•
•
RECEIVED SEP 2 8 1999
GAREIEi_.F.) COUNTY
PLANK c"; ';HTMENT
•109 8TH ST. - SUITE 303
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL
SERVICE AREA
POPULATION AND LOADING PROJECTIONS
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FACILITIES
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO TREAT
ADDITIONAL LOADING
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH
NECESSARY PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
FLOOD PLAIN, NATURAL HAZARDS, AND SOILS
TESTING ANALYSIS
LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS SHOWING CONTROL OF SITE
FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULES
LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
LIST OF EXHIBITS, FIGURES AND TABLES
Page
• Chapter 1. APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 NEED FOR EXPANSION/MODIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION 3
1.3 AMENDED SERVICE PLAN APPROVAL BY GARFIELD COUNTY 4
Chapter 2. SERVICE AREA 6
2.1 EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SERVICE AREA 6
2.2 MODIFICATIONS TO PRIOR SERVICE AREA 6
2.3 OTHER SANITATION DISTRICT SERVICE AREAS IN SPRING VALLEY 8
Chapter 3. POPULATION AND LOADING PROJECTIONS 9
3.1 PRIOR SERVICE AREA EQR 9
3.2 FLOW TO THE EXISTING WWTF 9
3.3 EXPANDED SERVICE AREA EQRs 10
3.4 PROPOSED CAPACITY OF THE EXPANDED WWTF 12
Chapter 4. PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 13
4.1 PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 13
4.2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED OUTFALL POINTS AND RE -USE OF
TREATED EFFLUENT 14
Chapter S. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FACILITIES 15
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WWTF 15
5.2 PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING WWTF 15
Chapter 6. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO TREAT ADDITIONAL
• LOADING 17
Chapter 7. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH
NECESSARY PROCESS MODIFICATIONS 19
7.1 EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES 19
7.2 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 20
Chapter 8. FLOOD PLAIN, NATURAL HAZARDS, AND SOILS TESTING
ANALYSIS 22
8.1 FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS 22
8.2 NATURAL HAZARDS 22
8.3 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SOILS CONDITIONS 22
Chapter 9. LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS SHOWING CONTROL OF SITE 23
Chapter 10. FINANCIAL SYSTEMS 24
10.1 DISTRICT BUDGET 24
10.2 ASSESSED VALUATION 24
10.3 CAPITAL FUNDING 24
10.4 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 26
Chapter 11. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULES 28
Chapter 12. LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS 29
12.1 LIFT STATIONS GENERAL 29
12.2 INTERCEPTOR SEWERS 31
12.3 LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS SHOWING CONTROL OF SITE OR
•
RIGHT-OF-WAY 31
• CHAPTER 1. APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL
1.1 INTRODUCTION.
The purpose of this engineering report is to support and supplement the
"Application for Site Approval For Modification or Expansion of an Existing Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Plant" and "Application and Certification Procedures For Lift
Stations and Interceptors" (collectively, the "Site Application") submitted to the
Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment ("CDPHE") by the Spring
Valley Sanitation District (the "District"). As such, this engineering report addresses
the applicable requirements set forth in C.R.S. § 25-8-702 and 5 C.C.R. 1002-22.5 and
1002-22.6. The District is seeking approval of the Site Application to modify and
expand its wastewater treatment facilities in the Spring Valley area in Garfield County,
through construction of a tertiarytreatment facilitywith a capacity of upto 499,450
g P Y
gallons per day ("gpd"), and thereby implement the District's Amended Service Plan
which was approved by the Garfield County Board of Commissioners on April 26, 1999
(the "Amended Service Plan"). The Amended Service Plan is available for review upon
request and the Garfield County resolution approving it is attached hereto as Exhibit
1.1.
•
The District is an existing sanitation district organized in 1979 under Colorado's
Special District Act, C.R.S. § 32-1-101, et seq. The District provides wastewater
treatment and collection services within the current District boundary as shown in Figure
1.1, which includes an area of approximately 350 acres located in the Los Amigos Ranch
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-1-
•
PUD. The District also provides wastewater collection and treatment services to
contract users within the District's service area contiguous to the District's boundaries
("Contract Users"). The District has remained the sole provider of central sewer
service in the Spring Valley area for nearly twenty years.
In order to provide wastewater treatment service to District and Contract Users,
the District presently operates an aerated lagoon wastewater treatment facility (the
"Existing WWTF") located on land leased on a long-term basis from the Colorado
Mountain Junior College District ("Colorado Mountain College") on Colorado Mountain
College's Spring Valley Campus. A copy of the existing Lease and Agreement between
the District and Colorado Mountain College is attached as Exhibit 9.1 (Chapter 9). The
District discharges effluent at the plant site through an exfiltration pond. The plant was
constructed in the late 1960s and has provided uninterrupted service since that time.
The Existing WWTF received its current site approval in 1979 to a 0.052 MGD plant
from the State of Colorado under Site Application No. 3278. The District received
further site approval for construction of a lift station on the Colorado Mountain College
campus in February, 1992 (Site Application No. 4015), and for construction of a
replacement percolation pond in May, 1994 (Site Application No. 3278). Upon the
State's determination that exfiltrating wastewater treatment facilities require a discharge
permit, the District submitted a discharge permit application in 1998, which is currently
under review by CDPHE. CDPHE has held the District's discharge permit approval in
abeyance pending review of this Site Application.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-2-
•
1.2 NEED FOR EXPANSION/MODIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION.
In 1996, the District examined the feasibility of secondary treatment plant
expansion to satisfy its obligation to provide wastewater treatment service to users
within the District's service area. The District applied for and received site approval
in 1997 for the secondary treatment plant expansion (Site Application No. 4300):
However, upon the recommendation of its engineers, the District determined that
secondary treatment may not consistently meet certain parameters of existing and
anticipated future state discharge permit standards. The District determined that ar
upgrade of its existing facilities to tertiary technology is the best means to provide
reliable wastewater service for its service area and to protect the environment. The
District's determination was reinforced by (1) CDPHE's public statements that aerated
lagoon systems, like the Existing WWTF, are viewed as obsolete in the Roaring Fork
Valley; and (2) the likelihood that the District will be subject to more stringent
discharge standards in the future. Therefore, the District allowed its 1997 site
application for secondary treatment to expire and has proceeded with this site application
for tertiary treatment.
The District seeks to modify and expand its current facilities to meet its obligation
to serve existing users and to provide regional wastewater treatment service to new users
in the Spring Valley area. A group of existing users within the District's service area
and potential future users within the District's Expanded Service Area, as defined in
Chapter 2 below, have approached the District requesting expanded sewer service. The
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-3-
•
•
•
District is obligated to serve users within its service area who request additional service,
and the District believes establishing regional service by accommodating service
requests by other landowners in the Spring Valley Area is not only economical, but
consistent with the CDPHE's goal of consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities.
1.3 AMENDED SERVICE PLAN APPROVAL BY GARFIELD COUNTY.
To accommodate the needs of existing and additional users of the District's
wastewater treatment services, the District prepared and Garfield County approved the
District's Amended Service Plan which provides for regional wastewater treatment
service to the Spring Valley Area. The Amended Service Plan provides a mechanism
by which the District may work with the Spring Valley community to provide
comprehensive, high-level wastewater treatment on a regional basis, while allowing the
community to realize financial savings resulting from economies of scale associated with
a regional plant. The Amended Service Plan contemplates comprehensive service to the
entire Spring Valley Area and avoids the undesirable proliferation of smaller wastewater
treatment facilities. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-201, et seq., the Amended Service Plan
was approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County on April 26,
1999 following public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board. (See
Exhibit 1.1).
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-4-
To implement the Amended Service Plan, the District is seeking approval of the
Site Application for expansion and modification of its current system through
construction of tertiary level treatment facilities. As discussed in more detail below, the
District proposes to construct the tertiary treatment facilities at the existing District
facility site with funds committed in a comprehensive Pre -Inclusion and Wastewater
Treatment Plant Development Agreement (the "Plant Development Agreement"),
executed by various parties seeking modified or expanded wastewater treatment services
in the Spring Valley Area. In addition to the District, the parties committing funds
under the terms of the Plant Development Agreement include Spring Valley
Development, Inc.; Berkeley Family Limited Partnership; Colorado Mountain College;
and Los Amigos Ranch Partnership (collectively referred to hereafter as the "Funding
Landowners").
F:A1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-5-
• CHAPTER 2. SERVICE AREA
2.1 EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SERVICE AREA.
The existing District boundaries are depicted in Figure 1.1. The District's
existing boundaries include a portion of property contained within the Los Amigos
Ranch PUD, totaling approximately 350 acres.
•
•
The District's service area prior to approval of the Amended Service Plan ("Prior
Service Area"), also depicted in Figure 1.1, included property encompassing a total of
approximately 1500 acres. The acreage within the District's Prior Service Area
included property owned by William and Pamela Gibson ("Auburn Ridge Apartments"),
Colorado Mountain College, Hayden Rader, Los Amigos Ranch Partnership, and
Colorado Pinon Pines, Ltd. ("Pinon Pines Apartments"). The total number of EQRs to
be served at buildout before expansion of the District's treatment facilities was
approximately 189.5. Using the assumption of 3.5 persons per EQR, this equates to a
population equivalent ("PE") of 663. All of the Prior Service Area is included within
the Expanded Service Area, as defined below, which was approved by Garfield County
in the Amended Service Plan.
2.2 MODIFICATIONS TO PRIOR SERVICE AREA.
The District's expanded service area approved in the District's Amended Service
Plan ("Expanded Service Area") is shown in Figure 2.1, and includes a total of
approximately 12,500 acres. Pursuant to the Plant Development Agreement, the
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-6-
properties within the Expanded Service Area will be included within the District's
•
boundaries prior to initiation of wastewater treatment service. The Expanded Service
Area includes all or a portion of the following properties: (1) the Spring Valley Ranch
PUD ("Chenoa"); (2) the Auburn Ridge Apartments; (3) the Colorado Mountain College
Spring Valley campus; (4) the Hayden Rader property; (5) the Lake Springs Ranch
PUD; (6) the Los Amigos Ranch PUD; (7) the Pinon Pines Apartments; (8) private
property of approximately 850 acres located to the east of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD;
and (9) private property of approximately 2,400 acres located to the north of the Los
Amigos Ranch PUD.
•
Pursuant to its approved Amended Service Plan, the District will provide
comprehensive wastewater treatment service to those properties in the Spring Valley
Area which may reasonably require District service in the foreseeable future. The
Amended Service Plan establishes the District as the regional provider for the Spring
Valley Area and conforms to CDPHE's policy of wastewater treatment facility
consolidation.
Rather than construct and operate multiple wastewater treatment facilities under
different management entities, the District and the landowners whose property will be
included within the expanded District boundaries have agreed to consolidate into the
existing district and to be served by one wastewater treatment facility. This
consolidation effort, associated regional planning, and broad-based cooperation among
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-7-
•
•
•
the various parties is consistent with CDPHE's encouragement of local, long-range
planning; minimization of potential adverse impacts on water quality; and the
"consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities whenever feasible." C.R.S. § 25-8-
702; 5 CCR 1002-22, §22.3.
2.3 OTHER SANITATION DISTRICT SERVICE AREAS IN SPRING VALLEY.
The proposed Landis Sanitation District included property which is now within
the District's Expanded Service Area. The Landis Sanitation District was proposed in
1983 to provide service to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD, and a service plan was
approved by Garfield County in the early 1980s; however, Garfield County District
Court approval of the formation of the district was never obtained. The District's
Expanded Service Area encompasses the approved service area for the Landis Sanitation
District, thereby eliminating the need for the Landis District and eliminating the
potential for two wastewater treatment facilities and two districts. Upon the approval
of this Site Application, any rights associated with prior approval of the Landis
Sanitation District Service Plan would be moot.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-8-
• CHAPTER 3. POPULATION AND LOADING PROJECTIONS
3.1 PRIOR SERVICE AREA EQRs.
Table 3.1 shows the number of EQRs currently served by the Existing WWTF,
including those served pursuant to out -of -district service contracts with Colorado
Mountain College, Pinon Pines Apartments and Auburn Ridge Apartments. The
Existing WWTF has capacity to serve approximately 189.5, which includes but is not
limited to commitments for 49 associated with the Los Amigos Ranch PUD, 51 with
Colorado Mountain College, 29.5 with the Auburn Ridge Apartments, and 46 with the
Pinon Pines Apartments.
•
•
3.2 FLOW TO THE EXISTING WWTF.
The measurement facility for inflow into the Existing WWTF consists of a 3"
Parshall flume that is read manually once per week. A flow measuring facility also
exists on the wastewater collection line which serves both Colorado Mountain College
and the Pinon Pines Apartments. This facility consists of a 3" cut throat flume with a
continuous reading sonic flow meter. The flow measuring facility has had operational
problems off and on since its construction, and the readings are not thought to be
reliable for design purposes, but sufficient to provide an estimate of approximate flows
from Colorado Mountain College and the Pinon Pines Apartments. The District has also
collected available water use records from the Red Canyon Water Company which
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-9-
provides domestic water to the Los Amigos Ranch PUD and Auburn Ridge Apartments,
and the Colorado Mountain College well field system which provides domestic water to
Colorado Mountain College and the Pinon Pines Apartments.
Based on available data, it is estimated that current wastewater flows to the
Existing WWTF average approximately 40,000 gpd (77% capacity) and it is estimated
that the unit flows are between 255 and 270 gpd/EQR. As noted above, the plant has
a site approval for 52,000 gpd and, according to the District Engineer, can operate at
this capacity. The sewer lines within the District are relatively new and no high
groundwater tables are known to exist within the Prior Service Area. Infiltration and
inflow into the wastewater collection system has not been observed and is not deemed
to be a problem.
3.3 EXPANDED SERVICE AREA EQRs.
Table 3.2 summarizes the estimated EQRs to be serviced in the Expanded Service
Area. The ultimate buildout of the Expanded Service Area is estimated to be 1427
EQRs. The anticipated EQRs for the projects with land use applications pending were
based upon input from the developers. Other property owners, including Colorado
Mountain College, provided input on the proposed number of EQRs desired for their
respective properties.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-10-
•
In addition to those properties with pending land use applications, the Expanded
Service Area includes several properties not requesting or indicating a desire for central
wastewater treatment service at this time. All of these properties are in Garfield
County's ARRD zone district, which allows densities of not less than of two acres per
dwelling unit. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan recommends a density of 6 to
10 acres per dwelling unit for these properties. However, based upon information
accumulated by the District, a density approximation of 25 acres per dwelling unit has
been used for these properties. The District's calculations reflect the intent of certain
landowners to develop such property into 35 -acre parcels and the existence of private
inholdings with densities much lower than those permitted under zoning regulations and
proposed in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The resultant 133 EQRs shown
in Table 3.2 under the heading "Unallocated" represents this portion of the Expanded
Service Area.
The methodology for including properties within the Expanded Service Area is
as follows:
1. Those properties which are currently developed and are being served by
the Existing WWTF.
2. Those properties, located within a geographically and topographically
appropriate service area for the District, with land use applications that
require central wastewater treatment facilities.
3. Those properties without land use applications that are adjacent to, or in
the vicinity of, the properties identified above and which could be
reasonably serviced by wastewater collection systems extended from those
properties.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-11-
A
•
4. The exterior boundary of the Expanded Service Area was generally limited
by topographic restraints, properties that are currently zoned for and/or
divided into 35 -acre tracts, and areas that could not be reasonably served
by extension of wastewater collection facilities.
3.4 PROPOSED CAPACITY OF THE EXPANDED WWTF.
Based upon the projected number of EQRs at buildout of 1427, 3.5 persons per
EQR and 100 gallons per capita per day (per CDPHE policy), the buildout capacity of
the new tertiary wastewater treatment facility (the "Expanded WWTF") proposed by the
District is estimated to be 499,450 gpd. The design average daily flow to the facility will
be based on a peaking factor of 2.0 for a total of 998,900 gpd, and design peak hour
flow for wastewater collection systems will be based on a 4.5 peaking factor adjusted
for pumping characteristics from the proposed lift stations.
Construction of the Expanded WWTF will not be phased but, rather, will occur
in its entirety upon receipt of site approval and approval of final plans and specifications
by CDPHE. Table 3.3 summarizes the project buildout rate by year for the Expanded
Service Area. The District and the Funding Landowners have determined that one phase
will better match the projected unit phasing schedule proposed for the larger properties
and will be more economical than phased construction. The plant will have multiple
aeration basins, clarifiers, RAS and WAS pumps, blowers, digesters, etc., so that active
treatment capacity will coincide more closely with influent flows over the life of the
facility. Building the plant in one phase will eliminate the need for future residents of
the District to fund future expansion of the plant.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-12-
•
CHAPTER 4. PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
4.1 PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.
The Spring Valley drainage, which includes the proposed discharge point(s) for
the Expanded WWTF, has been classified at the August 9, 1999 public rule-making
hearing by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (the "Commission"), based
upon conclusions reached in a site-specific Use Attainability Analysis prepared for the
District by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. ("Wright Water"), and recommendations by
the Colorado Water Quality Control Division ("Division") and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). The Spring Valley drainage is now
classified as a use -protected Aquatic Life -Cold Class 2 and Recreation Class 2 stream
not subject to the anti -degradation standards of the Colorado Code of Regulations.
Based upon the site specific data presented at the hearing, the Commission also adopted
site-specific stream standards for the Spring Valley drainage of 0.1 mg/1 for un -ionized
ammonia (chronic) and 200/100 ml for fecal coliform bacteria. A stipulation proposing
these standards and reclassification of the Spring Valley drainage, entered into between
the District and the Division, and attached as Exhibit 4.1, was approved by the
Commission at the hearing.
Although the Division has not provided proposed effluent limitations applicable
to discharges to the re-classified Spring Valley drainage, the District believes that the
effluent limitations identified in Table 4.1 below would be appropriate and would result
in compliance with the applicable stream standards. The District has estimated the
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-13-
•
effluent limitation for total ammonia based upon results reached by Wright Water, in a
report which has been delivered to CDPHE with a request for preliminary effluent
discharge standards. A copy of the request containing the ammonia analysis is attached
as Exhibit 4.2.
4.2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED OUTFALL POINTS AND RE -USE OF
TREATED EFFLUENT.
Treated effluent from the Expanded WWTF may be re -used by landowners in the
District; however, such re -use is not proposed to be part of the treatment process and
is beyond the scope of this Site Application. The District proposes to discharge effluent
to one or more discharge points in the Spring Valley drainage from the WWTF outfall
• line, as identified in Figure 6.1(a) (Chapter 6). It is estimated that approximately
twenty-five percent (25%) of the effluent will return to the Spring Valley aquifer by
infiltration from the discharge point(s) along the Spring Valley Drainage basin. A more
comprehensive discussion of the aquifer recharge potential is contained in a
memorandum from Wright Water to the District, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.3.
Discharges to the Spring Valley Drainage will recharge the aquifer and will
consequently minimize adverse impacts to the Spring Valley environment.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-14-
CHAPTER 5. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FACILITIES
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WWTF.
The Existing WWTF is depicted in Figure 5.1. It is located on land owned by
Colorado Mountain College pursuant to the District's long-term lease for the property
identified in Exhibit 9.1 (Chapter 9). The current facility consists of the following:
1. Influent Parshall flume.
2 Pond 1 - Aerated lagoon cell.
3. Pond 2 - Non-aerated cell.
4. Pond 3 - Percolation pond.
The treatment process is classified as a one -cell facultative aerated lagoon with
discharge via percolation or exfiltration. Design calculations are attached in Exhibit
5.1. The current Site Application for the Existing WWTF indicates an approved flow
capacity of 52,000 gpd, consistent with the design calculations and the District's
Engineer's opinion of actual capacity.
5.2 PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING WWTF.
The existing WWTF has provided satisfactory service to the District since its
construction approximately 30 years ago. Because the facility has never been issued a
Discharge Permit, and therefore, there are no formal reporting requirements to
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-15-
regulatory agencies for the facility, there is no structured testing program in place at the
facility.
The facility is visited once per week by operations personnel. The condition of
all facilities is visually inspected and the condition and appearance of each of the ponds
is visually noted. The length of time the aerator operates is adjusted as needed in order
to maintain aerobic conditions throughout the system. The existing aeration facilities
are sufficient to maintain aerobic conditions in the system. The District has never
received a complaint concerning the operation of the WWTF.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-16-
• CHAPTER 6. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO TREAT
ADDITIONAL LOADING
The District has examined the feasibility of utilizing alternative means to treat the
additional loading which will result from the expansion of the District's existing
facilities. The District's analysis was thoroughly reviewed and discussed during the
Garfield County approval process, which ultimately approved the District's Amended
Service Plan and established the District as the regional wastewater treatment provider
in the Spring Valley area. The District believes that the County's comprehensive review
of and decision regarding this issue was appropriate given the CDPHE policy
encouraging consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities where feasible.
The existing Water Quality Management Plan for Region 11, completed in 1984
and attached hereto as Exhibit 6.1, required the Spring Valley area to analyze the best
means of sewage treatment and disposal, given the scope of proposed development in
the area. The Water Quality Management Plan also recommended a delay in facility
siting until an analysis of the Spring Valley populations and consolidation of facilities
and treatment requirements for the Spring Valley area was completed, including
participation by the then -existing Lake [sic, Spring] Valley Sanitation District and the
then -proposed Landis Sanitation District. The District completed such an analysis as
part of its Amended Service Plan and the County's approval process, which concluded
that the Spring Valley Sanitation District should be the regional wastewater treatment
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-17-
•
provider for the Spring Valley area. The County further concluded that consolidation
with the nearest alternative wastewater treatment provider, the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District, is inappropriate, based upon an economic analysis and the Roaring
Fork Water and Sanitation District's unwillingness to serve the Spring Valley area. The
decision by the Garfield County Commissioners to approve the District's Amended
Service Plan essentially represents approval of a water quality management plan for the
Spring Valley area, which requires the District to serve the Spring Valley area, and
concludes that consolidation with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is not
appropriate.
Figure 6.1(a) attached hereto indicates the location of the existing and proposed
WWTF, the proposed lift stations and proposed interceptor sewers, and a detailed layout
of the properties within the Expanded Service Area. It should be noted that no domestic
water supply intakes exist within a five (5) mile radius of the existing and proposed
WWTF.
Figure 6.1(b) attached hereto is a map of the area within a one (1) mile radius of
the existing and proposed site of the WWTF. The map shows habitable buildings,
location of public and private potable water wells, and an indication of topography.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-18-
• CHAPTER 7. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH
NECESSARY PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
•
7.1 EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES.
This section discusses the viable treatment process alternatives considered by the
District. It is assumed that any effluent discharged to the Spring Valley drainage will
require tertiary level treatment to achieve ammonia, chlorine and fecal coliform
limitations. Several activated sludge processes have been considered by the District,
along with several proprietary treatment processes. The following processes have been
evaluated as part of this process:
1. Extended aeration activated sludge.
2. Conventional oxidation ditch activated sludge.
3. Several proprietary processes similar to oxidation ditch, including:
• EIMCO CARROUSEL
• US FILTER ORBAL SIM -PRE PROCESS
4. The Aero -mod treatment process.
5. Sequencing batch reactors.
Preliminary design calculation and material proposals have been received from
• the proprietary process manufacturers.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-19-
•
7.2 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE.
The District has identified oxidation ditch technology (or a proprietary oxidation
ditch alternative) as the preferred treatment process. The oxidation ditch technology has
a proven record of achieving stringent BOD, TSS and ammonia limitations. In
discussions with other operators that use this process, including those for the Cities of
Montrose, Gunnison, and Telluride, all felt that the process was easy to maintain with
minimal operator input.
Other processes within the plant will include flow measurement, screening, grit
removal, secondary clarification, aerobic digesters and sludge thickening. Disinfection
will be through chlorination and dechlorination or through ultraviolet technology so that
coliform counts and low chlorine residual limitations can be met. Treated effluent will
be directed to either a clearwell or to one of the existing treatment facility ponds. The
treated effluent will then be pumped to the Spring Valley floor where the effluent will
be discharged to the Spring Valley drainage.
While the District has identified the oxidation ditch technology as the preferred
treatment process, the District is continuing an evaluation of the Aero -mod process.
This process allows for a smaller treatment plant footprint and potentially greater ability
to treat a flow rate more cost effectively over a wide range of values throughout the life
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-20-
•
•
•
of this facility. Because use of the Aero -mod process is relatively new in Colorado, the
CDPHE is still evaluating this process for general acceptability in the state. Final
consideration of the Aero -mod process as the process of choice will be dependent on the
process resulting in a lower present worth life cycle cost due to both capital costs and
O&M costs, how the process compares from a technical operational standpoint with the
oxidation ditch technology, and whether CDPHE is in a position to provide timely
approval of the process.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-21-
• CHAPTER 8. FLOOD PLAIN, NATURAL HAZARDS, AND SOILS
TESTING ANALYSIS
8.1 FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS.
The District site is not located within any floodplain boundaries. The site is not
near any major tributaries subject to flooding.
8.2 NATURAL HAZARDS.
The District site is not subject to any natural hazards, including rockfall,
avalanche hazard, landslide hazard, flooding, sinkholes or other geotechnical hazards.
8.3 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SOILS CONDITIONS.
There have been two subsurface soil investigations conducted by the District in
the last three years. These investigations were conducted in support of the District's
prior Site Application submitted in 1996 and the 1998 Application for Discharge Permit
for the Existing WWTF. Micro Geophysics Corporation (MGC) conducted electrical
resistivity and self potential surveys at the existing treatment site in June, 1997.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 8.1 is a letter dated July 31, 1997, from Resource
Engineering, Inc. summarizing those analyses. Hepworth-Pawlak, Inc. conducted a
subsoil study for the District for the purpose of providing design support information
for additional percolation ponds at the existing site, attached hereto as Exhibit 8.2. Both
of these reports indicate that soils conditions at the proposed District site present no
geological or geotechnical restraints to the construction of the Expanded WWTF.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-22-
CHAPTER 9. LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS SHOWING CONTROL OF SITE
Attached to this section as Exhibits 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 are the legal description of
the site, the District's lease and agreement with Colorado Mountain College, and the Bill
of Sale transferring the facilities to the District from Colorado Mountain College. The
fifty-year Lease Agreement with Colorado Mountain College expires on February 26,
2030, and the District has a unilateral option to extend the lease for an additional term
of fifty years. The Lease Agreement encompasses a total of 9.85 acres for operation of
the treatment plant and associated facilities. Although the Lease provides for the right
to lease additional lands up to a maximum of twenty-five (25) acres in the same general
location, the District's Engineer believes that the existing lease site is adequate for
construction of the new facility.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-23-
• CHAPTER 10. FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
10.1 DISTRICT BUDGET.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 10.1 is the District budget for 1999. The District
budget assumes that the Existing WWTF will be on line and operational for the entire
budget year, that there will be plant expansion fees and resulting capital outlays for the
construction cost of the new tertiary facility, and that the tap fee revenues come from
currently developed lots and are not directly associated with plant expansion revenue.
10.2 ASSESSED VALUATION.
Referencing the 1999 budget sheet, the current certified gross assessed evaluation
of the District is $652,580. This assessed valuation may be lower than expected due to
the fact that Colorado Mountain College, the Auburn Ridge Apartments, and the Pinon
Pines Apartments are not within the District boundaries. The District has set the 1999
mill levy at 2.61 mills, which will generate a total mill levy revenue of $1,704.00 from
existing properties located within the District boundaries. As previously identified, this
represents a small portion of the existing Los Amigos Ranch PUD.
10.3 CAPITAL FUNDING.
The District has estimated the capital construction cost of the Expanded WWTF
and associated lift stations and interceptor sewers will be $4,120,437. A summary of
the capital construction costs associated with plant construction and construction of the
lift stations and interceptor sewers is attached as Table 10.1(a) to 10.1(d) .
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-24-
Neither the District's assessed valuation nor its ability to generate mill levy
revenues is adequate to finance the capital cost of the Expanded WWTF. Recognizing
that, the District and the Funding Landowners have agreed in the Plant Development
Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 10.2, that the Funding Landowners will advance
and finance the capital costs of the Expanded WWTF and all associated facilities.
The Funding Landowners' capital contributions will provide plant capacity for
133 unallocated taps in addition to the existing identified wastewater treatment needs.
As such, the Funding Landowners will be providing up -front capital for completion of
a regional wastewater treatment facility capable of serving the needs of the Spring
Valley Area for the reasonably foreseeable future. Pursuant to the Plant Development
Agreement, the Funding Landowners will be entitled to cost recovery for plant
expansion costs, but the District has no liability to the Funding Landowners in this
regard except to rebate a portion of the tap fees collected by the District, when and as
collected.
The District has undertaken a comprehensive examination of projected future
wastewater treatment needs in the Spring Valley Area and the District believes
construction of the planned excess plant capacity (i.e., 133 unallocated EQRs) will
provide for regional service for the reasonably foreseeable future. However, given the
uncertain nature of land use and development over the long term, the District will
expand its facilities beyond the facilities proposed in this Site Application to meet future
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-25-
•
needs as necessary. The cost of any additional expansion will be paid by the owners of
any properties requesting additional wastewater treatment service.
The District currently has no debt but is exploring a low interest revenue loan
from the Colorado Water and Power Resources Development Authority to fund the
portion of the cost of expansion attributable to existing customers of the District. This
loan would be repaid from a reasonable surcharge on the monthly user fees. If not
available, the Funding Landowners have agreed to provide similar financing.
10.4 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS.
The District may utilize any or all of the following revenue sources to meet
operational and maintenance costs associated with the Expanded WWTF: (1) monthly
user service fees, including standby fees; (2) reasonable mill levy assessments; (3) tap
fee proceeds designated for operational expenditures, including a reserve and
replacement fund to be collected by the District upon the sale of each tap; and (4) an
operational surcharge provided for in the Plant Development Agreement whereby the
Funding Landowners will fund any shortfall the District experiences for operation and
maintenance of the plant prior to efficient operational capacity. The District has
prepared a financial projection that includes an estimate of operational and maintenance
costs and revenues attached hereto as Tables 10.2 to 10.4.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-26-
•
The District will maintain its present financial viability by the methods and
procedures identified above. In addition, the District has the statutory authority to
assess fees, rates, tolls, penalties, and other charges to supplement revenues necessary
for operation and maintenance of the District's facilities.
F:11999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-27-
•
•
•
CHAPTER 11. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULES
Attached as Exhibit 11.1 is an implementation schedule for obtaining the various
permits required, and design, construction and startup of the Expanded WWTF. It is
anticipated that construction of the Expanded WWTF will commence in July 2000, with
plant completion in May 2001.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-28-
•
•
CHAPTER 12. LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
12.1 LIFT STATIONS GENERAL.
The site for the Expanded WWTF requires two collection system lift stations and
one finished effluent pump station, all of which will be built and owned by the District.
The Valley lift station will be located as shown in Figure 6.1(a) (Chapter 6). This lift
station will serve areas within Chenoa, the Lake Springs Ranch PUD and surrounding
properties that will not be able to gravity flow to the Expanded WWTF. The Lower
Bench lift station will serve the lower area of the Los Amigos Ranch PUD,, known as the
Lower Bench, and will be located as shown in Figure 6.1(a). The effluent pump station
will pump effluent from the WWTF to the surface water discharge point in the Spring
Valley drainage. The Valley and Lower Bench lift stations and the effluent pump station
will be built and financed in conjunction with and as part of construction of the WWTF
and are included in the District's Site Application.
The final plans have not been completed for the Chenoa and Lake Springs Ranch
developments; therefore, the siting of homes and exact location of internal collection
lines has not been finalized. The final location of the Valley lift station, and the exact
number of units it will serve, therefore have not been determined to date. For purposes
of Preliminary Design, it has been assumed that the lift station will serve the entire Lake
Springs Ranch and Chenoa developments, as well as 100 EQRs of unallocated taps.
Based on these assumptions, the lift station will have three 40 Hp pumps located in a
wetwell/drywell type pump station. The discharge force main is anticipated to be 8"
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-29-
size. Preliminary design calculations for the Valley lift station are attached as Exhibit
12.1.
The final plans for the Lower Bench lift statio service area have not been
finalized. The exact location of the pump station will be dependent on the final design
of the service area. While the exact number of EQRs for the service area is not know
at this time, it is anticipated that the approximate number will be 80 EQRs. The pump
station will consist of two 30 Hp pumps located in a wetwell/drywell facility. Because
of the relatively high head for the pump station, it is anticipated that positive
displacement pumps will be used within the pump station. Preliminary design
calculations for the Lower Bench lift station are attached as Exhibit 12.1.
The effluent pump station will be an integral part of the expanded WWTF. It will
pump only treated effluent from the treatment plant site to the discharge point. For
purposes of the Site Application, the effluent pump station is considered part of the
effluent disposal system and will not be submitted as a separate lift station. For
reference, the effluent pump station will need to be capable of pumping the entire treated
capacity of the expanded WWTF. Based on the capacity of 499,450 gpd, the effluent
pump station will consist of three 150 Hp pumps. It is anticipated that the effluent pump
station will be located integral with the WWTF itself. Preliminary design calculations
for the effluent pump station are attached as Exhibit 12.1.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-30-
•
•
•
12.2 INTERCEPTOR SEWERS.
Within the District's existing boundaries and the Prior Service Area, interceptor
sewers service the existing development. The interceptor sewer associated with the
Lower Bench area of the Los Amigos Ranch PUD will be the force main from the lift
station to service that area. Likewise, the interceptor sewer associated with the Chenoa
development and the Lake Springs Ranch PUD areas will be the force main of the Valley
lift station. It is anticipated that a portion of the interceptor sewer for the Valley lift
station system may be able to be installed as a gravity sewer line. In that case, there
will be a gravity interceptor sewer associated with that facility.
12.3 LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS SHOWING CONTROL OF SITE OR RIGHT-OF-
WAY.
The District has secured control of the sites and rights-of-way necessary for the
lift stations and interceptors under the terms and conditions of the Plant Development
Agreement, attached as Exhibit 10.2 above (Chapter 10) . The parties to the Plant
Development Agreement have agreed to dedicate all necessary easements for
construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of all facilities associated
with the Expanded WWTF, including easements for collection lines, outfall lines, lift
stations, and drainage. The specific obligations of the parties to the Plant Development
Agreement concerning such easements are more fully described in paragraph 11
(Easements) of Exhibit 10.2.
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application-Final.wpd
September 28, 1999
-31-
Exhibit 1.1
• Exhibit 4.1
•
Exhibit 4.2
Exhibit 4.3
Exhibit 5.1
Exhibit 6.1
Exhibit 8.1
Exhibit 8.2
Exhibit 9.1
Exhibit 9.2
LIST OF EXIIIBITS
Resolution No. , Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, Colorado.
Stipulation Between Spring Valley Sanitation District, Spring Valley Development,
Inc., and Colorado Water Quality Control
Division
Daviddated
Akesugust 9, 1999.
dated September 21,
Schmueser Gordon Meyer correspondence to
1999, including Ammonia Discharge Limit Memorandum from WWE dated
September 7, 1999.
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. correspondence to Lee Leavenworth, Esq. dated
March 24, 1999.
Spring Valley Sanitation District Design Calculations -Existing Facility
Water Quality Management Plan for Region 11.
Resource Engineering correspondence to Michael J. Liuzzi, P.E., dated July 31,
1997, including attachments.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. correspondence to Spring Valley Sanitation
District, dated August 29, 1997, including attachments.
Sanitary Sewage Lagoon Parcel Description
Lease and Agreement between ColoradoMountain Junior College and Spring Valley
Sanitation District, dated February 26, 19
Exhibit 9.3 Bill of Sale from Colorado Mountain Junior tCollege,
ated Certification 25,
Tax 800vies.
Exhibit 10.1 Spring Valley Sanitation District 1999 Bug g
Exhibit 10.2 Pre -Inclusion and Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement.
Exhibit 11.1 Spring Valley Sanitation District Schedule of Permits and Tasks.
Exhibit 12.1 Lift Station/Pump Station Design Calculations.
LIST OF FIGURES
Existing Service Area, Spring Valley Sanitation District, dated December 8, 1998.
Expanded Service Area, Spring Valley Sanitation District, dated December 8, 1998.
Site Plan Existing Facilities, dated April 24, 1992.
(a) District Site, Spring Valley Sanitation District, dated August 17, 1999.
(b) Spring Valley Sanitation District, One Mile Radius, dated September 27, 1999.
Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1
Figure 5.1
Figure 6.1
Table 3.1
Table 3.1
Table 3.3
Table 4.1
Table 10.1
Table 10.2
• Table 10.3
Table 10.4
LIST OF TABLES
Spring Valley Sanitation District Existing Service Area (EQR basis).
Spring Valley Sanitation District Expanded Service Area (EQR basis).
Spring Valley Sanitation District Projected Land Use Buildout.
Assumed Effluent Limitations.
(a) Wastewater Treatment Facility - Oxidation Ditch.
(b) Lift Station Estimate (District Site).
(c) Lift Station Estimate (District Site).
(d) Lift Station Estimate (Lower Bench) .
Spring Valley Sanitation District Annual Operation and Maintenance Base Cost
Summary.
Spring Valley Sanitation District Capital, and Operation and Maintenance Cost
Summary.
Spring Valley Sanitation District Revenue Summary.
•
•
•
EXHIBIT 1.1
RESOLUTION NO.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
A RESOLUTION OF THE GARFIELD AMENDED BOARD
OF
COMMISSIONERS APPROVING AN
CE
PLAN FOR THE SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Spring Valley Sanitation District ("District" or "Ploraonarfield County, Coo r")("Bhas ")for
made
application to the Board of County Commissioners ServicePlan purl ant to the p ovisions of C.R.S. §32-1-
approval of the District's Amended
201, et seq., as amended; and
WHEREAS, the District's Amended Service Plan was reviewed of tde Amenthe ded Garfield Pla P an
Commission on March 24, 1999, which recommended approval
to the Board with the condition that the District add certain languageand LLCmnded by
Ga field
d
County's special counsel, Blake Jordan, Sherman and Howard,
February 23, 1999; and
WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Board on April 26,1999 was of general dulytionwuhlished the
in the Glenwood Post and the Rifle Telegram, and written oice was given to the Petitioners,
County, on April 6, 1999 as required by ,h
the division of local government, and to the governing body ofin the next e eeacn a nicipear ality
and
special
h hal
district which has levied an hreedvalorem
fhhe proposed special district boundaries; and
boundaries within a radius of(3) miles
WHEREAS, prior to the hearing, the District submitted to the Board information
supplemental to the District's Amended Service Plan, and the original
Ameinal nded
S Amended isServicePlan
and the supplemental information are hereinafter collectively
the Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the material constituting the Final Amended Service is referencei s that
and Material
Described
Described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
y
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing to consider the District's
Fina al A ended
Service Plan at a special meeting, with public notices required by law, on April
whh
was attended by the following:
John Martin, Commissioner Chairman
Larry McCown, Commissioner
Walt Stowe, Commissioner
Don DeFord, County Attorney
F: \ 1999\Documents\S V SD -Reno. wpd
Resolution No.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 2 of 9
Mildred Alsdorf, Clerk of the Board
Ed Green, County Administrator; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the recommendations of the Planning Staff and
the Planning Commission, the District's Final Amended Service Plan, and all other testimony
and evidence presented at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the District's Final Amended Service Plan should be
approved subject to the condition recommended by Blake T. Jordan, Esq. set forth in Exhibit
B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Garfield County, Colorado:
1. That the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado does
hereby determine that all of the requirements of C.R.S. §32-1-201, et seq., as
amended, relating to the filing of an amended service plan for the Spring Valley
Sanitation District have been fulfilled and that notice of the hearing was given in
the time and manner required by law.
2. That the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado does
hereby find and determine that:
a. there is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the
area to be serviced by the District;
b. the existing service in the area to be served by the District is inadequate
for present and projected needs;
c. the District is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to
the area within its proposed boundaries;
d. the area to be included in the District has and will have the financial
ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis;
e. adequate service will not be available to the area through Garfield County
or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including
existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable
basis;
F: \ 1999\Documents \SV SD -Reno. wpd
•
Resolution No.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 3 of 9
f. the facility and service standards of the District are compatible with the
facility and service standards of Garfield County, and each municipality
which is an interested party under C.R.S. §32-1-204(1);
the District's proposal is in substantial compliance with the Master Plan
adopted pursuant to §30-28-106, C.R.S.;
h. the District's proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county,
regional, or state long-range water quality management plan for the area;
and
g.
i, the approval of the District's Amended Service Plan will be in the best
interest of the area proposed to be served.
3. That the Final Amended Service Plan for the Spring Valley Sanitation Tarer Esq
ict is
hereby approved, subject to the condition recommendedbyBlake
q.
set forth in Exhibit B.
4. That a certified copy of this Resolution be filed in the records of Garfield County
and submitted to the Petitioner for the purpose of filing in the District Court of
Garfield County.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of
1999.
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
ATTEST: By:
Mildred Alsdorf, Clerk to the Board
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing resolution was adopted by the
following vote:
John Martin, Chairman
John Martin - nay
Larry McCowen - aye
Walt Stowe - aye
F: \ 1999\Documents\S V SD -Re so. wpd
•
Resolution No.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 4 of 9
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD )
I, , Deputy County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners, Garfield County, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true, correct, and complete copy of a Resolution adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado at a special meeting held on April 26, 1999.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said
County at Glenwood Springs, this day of
1999.
F: \ 1999\Documents \SV SD -Reno. wpd
Deputy County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners,
Garfield County, Colorado
•
Resolution No.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 5 of 9
Exhibit A
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
FINAL AMENDED SERVICE PLAN
1. Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan dated February, 1999 and
prepared by Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
2. Letter to Don DeFord from Loyal E. Leavenworth,
, Amended atedarch Service Plan.11, 1999
regarding supplemental information for theDistrict's
3. Letter to Mr. Bob Szrot, P.E., County Engineer from Mr. Dean Gordon, P.E., dated
March 9, 1999, responding to County Engineer Staff Memo.
arch 11,
4. Letter to Lee Leavenworth, Esq. from Dean
Amended Serdvoce PPlan, inn, P.E., cted luding ding the following
9,
• regarding additional information to the Am
enclosures:
A. Spring Valley Sanitation District Connection to Roaring Fork Sanitation District,
Opinion of Probable Cost, dated March, 1999.
B. Spring Valley Sanitation District Valley Lift Station/Force Main, Opinion of
Probable Cost, dated March, 1999.
C. Spring Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility Oxydation Ditch
cost estimate, dated February 22, 1999.
D. Spring Valley Sanitation District Site Plan, Existing Facilities, and Proposed
Tertiary Plant, dated March 10, 1999.
5. Letter to Mr. Dean W. Gordon, P.E. from Lynn Kimble, P.E., dated February 4, 1999,
regarding preliminary effluent limits for Spring Valley Sanitation District.
6. Letter to Mark Bean from Gregory J. Hall, Esq., dated March 16, 1999, regarding letter
to Leavenworth and Tester, P.C. from Larry Green on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water
and Sanitation District, including the following enclosures:
A. Letter to Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq. from Lawrence R. Green Esq., dated
February 25, 1999, on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District.
F: \ 1999\ Documents \S V SD-Reso. wpd
•
•
Resolution No.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 6 of 9
B. Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Regular Meeting Minutes, October 28,
1998.
7. Letter to Commission Members from Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq., dated March 24,
1999, regarding the Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan, including
the following enclosures:
A. Wastewater Management Study - Lower Roaring Fork Planning Area prepared
by WestWater Engineering, dated April 23, 1993.
B. Portions of Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District Service Plan. including
Service Areas, prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Delaney &
Balcomb, P.C., Hanifen-Imhoff, Inc., dated November, 1993.
C. Letter to Loyal E. Leavenworth Esq. from Lawrence R.
., dated
February 25, 1999, on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water& Sant ion
Drict.
D. Letter to Don DeFord Esq. from James S. Lochhead Esq., dated March 18,
1999, on behalf of Sanders Ranch Holding, LLC.
E. Portions of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Regulations
for the Site Application Process, 5 C.C.R. 1002-22.
F. Feasibility Study - Sanitary Sewer Connection to Aspen Glen Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant prepared for Colorado Mountain College by Meurer
& Associates, dated October, 1995.
G. Memo to Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District Board from Louis Meyer, P.E.,
dated March 16, 1998, regarding Ultimate Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
for Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District.
H. Memo to Lee Leavenworth from Ron Liston, dated March 24, 1999 regarding
Comp Plan summary for Cattle Creek to County Line including Coulter Creek.
I. Letter to Lee Leavenworth, Esq. from Michael J. Erion, P.E., dated March 24,
1999, regarding water re -use in the Spring Valley Area.
J. Spring Valley Sanitation District Connection to Roaring Fork Sanitation District -
Cost Comparison and Treatment Facility Location Options.
F: \ 1999\Documents\S V SD-Reso. wpd
•
•
•
Resolution No.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 7 of 9
8. Letter to Mark Bean from Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq., dated March 24, 1999,
providing supplemental information to District's Amended Service Plan, including the
following enclosures:
A. Aspen Springs Ranch, Inc. Petition for Inclusion.
B. Miriam M. Berkeley and Michael E. Berkeley Petition for Inclusion.
C. Berkeley Family Limited Partnership Petition for Inclusion.
D. Colorado Mountain Junior College District Petition for Inclusion.
E. Auburn Ridge Apartments Petition for Inclusion.
F. Colorado Pinon Pines, Ltd., Petition for Inclusion.
G. Letter to Greg Boecker from Robert H. Spuhler, dated March 10, 1999,
regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant Funding Commitment.
F: \ 1999\Documents \S V S D -Reno. wpd
•
•
•
Resolution No.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 8 of 9
Exhibit B
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
The District may authorize, issue, sell, and deliver such bonds, notes, contracts,
reimbursement agreements, or other obligations evidencing or securing a borrowing
(collectively, "Bonds") as are permitted by law; provided that, without the prior written consent
of the County, the following limitations shall apply:
1. All Bonds, regardless of whether the District has promised to impose an ad
valorem mill levy for their payment, shall be exempt from registration under the
Colorado Municipal Bond Supervision Act, or shall be registered under such Act.
2. The principal amount of any issue of bonds for the payment of which the District
promises to impose an ad valorem property tax ("General Obligation Bonds"),
together with any other outstanding issue of General Obligation Bonds of the
District, may not at the time of issuance exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the District, as certified by the
assessor, except that the foregoing shall not apply to any of the following issues:
(a) an issue of General Obligation Bonds for the payment of which the
District has covenanted to impose a maximum mill levy of not more than
50 mills (a mill being equal to 1/10 of 1 cent) per annum; provided that,
such General Obligation Bonds may also provide that in the event the
method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the date of
approval of this Service Plan by any change in law, change in method of
calculation, or change in the percentage of actual valuation used to
determine assessed valuation, the 50 mill levy limitation herein provided
may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes, such increases or
decreases to be determined by the Board in good faith (such determination
to be binding and final) so that to the extent possible, the actual tax
revenues generated by the mill levy, as adjusted, are neither diminished
nor enhanced as a result of such changes;
(b) an issue of General Obligation Bonds that is rated in one of the four
highest rating categories by one or more nationally recognized
organizations which regularly rate such obligations;
F: \ 1999\Documents \S V SD-Reso. wpd
•
•
•
Resolution No.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 9 of 9
(c) an issue of General Obligation Bonds secured as to the payment of the
principal and interest by an irrevocable and unconditional letter of credit,
line of credit, or other credit enhancement issued by a depository
institution qualified as defined in section 11-59-110(1)(e), C.R.S.;
(d) an issue of General Obligation Bonds insured as to payment of the
principal and interest by a policy of insurance issued by an insurance
company qualified as defined in section 11-59-110(1)(f), C.R.S.;
(e) an issue of General Obligation Bonds not involving a public offering made
exclusively to "accredited investors" as defined under Regulation D
promulgated by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission;
an issue of General Obligation Bonds made pursuant to an order of a court
of competent jurisdiction;
an issue of General Obligation Bonds issued to the Colorado Water
Resources and Power Development Authority which evidences a loan
from said authority to the District; or
(h) an issue of General Obligation Bonds which are originally issued in
denominations of not less than $500,000 each, in integral multiples above
$500,000 of not less than $1,000 each.
F: \1999\Documents\SVSD-Reso. wpd
EXHIBIT 4.1
BEFORE THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
• STATE OF COLORADO
•
STIPULATION BETWEEN SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT, SPRING
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL
DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND
NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE
RIVER (Regulation NO. 33) (5 C.C.R, 1002-33)
WHEREAS, the Spring Valley Sanitation District ("District") has submitted a proposal to
the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission ("Commission") for stream reclassification for
a portion of Landis Creek, Spring Valley and Red Canyon (collectively "Spring Valley
Drainage"); and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division ("Division"), as staff to the
Commission, has provided written comments in it Pre -Hearing Statement and Rebuttal Statement
concerning the District's proposed stream reclassification; and
WHEREAS, Spring Valley Development, Inc. ("SVD) obtained party status in support of
the District; and
WHEREAS, the District has completed a Use Attainability Analysis for the Spring
Valley Drainage ("UAA") to determine the appropriate site-specific stream classification of the
Spring Valley Drainage and has gathered additional factual data to provide the Commission with
site-specific information necessary to determine the appropriate classification for the Spring
Valley Drainage; and
WHEREAS, the District, SVD and the Division have reviewed the information contained
in the UAA and the additional factual data, discussed the parameters of an appropriate stream
classification and have reached agreement concerning the appropriate classification of the Spring
Valley Drainage; and
WHEREAS, in order to assist in expedient resolution of the District's proposal before the
Commission, the District, SVD, and the Division have agreed to formalize such agreement in this
Stipulation before the Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, the District, SVD and the Division hereby stipulate as follows:
• 1. The Spring Valley Drainage is currently included in the segment 3 of the Roaring Fork
River sub -basin in Regulation No. 33, which is described as "Mainstem of the Roaring
•
BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
Stipulation Between Spring Valley Sanitation District
and the Colorado Water Quality Control Division
Page 2 of 3
Fork River, including all tributaries, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs from a point
immediately below the confluence with Hunter Creek, to the confluence with the
Colorado River except for those tributaries included in Segment 1 and specific listings in
Segments 4 through 10)." Under the current classification and standards for segment 3,
the Spring Valley Drainage is classified as aquatic life class 1, cold water, recreation class
1, water supply and agriculture. The Spring Valley Drainage is currently subject to a
chronic unionized ammonia standard of 0.02 mg/L and a 2,000/100 ml fecal coliform
standard.
2. The existing aquatic life class 1 classification was established with no site-specific
information about the Spring Valley Drainage, and does not reflect the actual uses of the
Spring Valley Drainage. The UAA and additional data provided by the District
demonstrates that natural conditions prevent the attainment of the class 1 use, and the
current classification is inappropriate and is more stringent than is necessary to protect
the aquatic life in the Spring Valley Drainage. See Regulation 31.6(2)(b)(ii) and C.R.S.
25-8-207.
3. Based upon the data contained in the UAA and the additional information provided by
the District, all of which has been submitted in the record before the Commission, the
• District, SVD and the Division agree that a portion of the Spring Valley Drainage to be
identified as segment 3a should be classified as aquatic life class 2, cold water, and
recreation class 2. Such reclassification should designate a new stream segment 3a as
follows: "Mainstem of Red Canyon and all tributaries, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs
from the source to the confluence with the Roaring Fork River, except for Landis Creek
from its source to the Hopkins Ditch Diversion."
4. The District, SVD and the Division agree that Landis Creek above the Hopkins Ditch
point of diversion should remain classified as aquatic life class 1 and recreation class 1 as
part of stream segment 3. The description of segment 3 should be modified to read:
mainstem of the Roaring Fork River, including all tributaries, wetlands, lakes and
reservoirs form a point immediately below the confluence with Hunter Creek, to the
confluence with the Colorado River except for those tributaries included in Segment 1
and specific listings in segments 3a, 4 through 10.
5. The District, SVD and the Division agree that segment 3a should include modification of
two site-specific standards as follows:
a. 0.1 mg/L for unionized ammonia (chronic); and
b 200/100 ml for fecal coliform bacteria.
6. The District, SVD and the Division agree that upon reclassification of the Spring Valley
Drainage as aquatic life class 2, cold water, and recreation class 2, the Commission
•
•
•
BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
Stipulation Between Spring Valley Sanitation District
and the Colorado Water Quality Control Division
Page 3 of 3
should designate segment 3a as "use protected" under the provisions of Regulation
31.8(2)(b)(i).
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of August, 1999.
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Attorneys for Spring Valley Sanitation District
By
Loya . L av worth, Esq., #
Gre _ory J ' all, Esq., #27317
101 d Avenue
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Phone:(970)945-2261
Fax: (970)945-7336
By
COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL
DIVISION
avid Holm, Director
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
Attorneys for Spring Valley Development, Inc.
�.I
stophe L. Thorne, Esq., #20003
555 - 17`h Street, Suite 3200
P.O. Box 8749
Denver, CO 80201
Phone: (303)295-8000
Fax: (303)295-8261
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
SGM
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
September 21, 1999
EXHIBIT 4.2
Mr. David Akers
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1 530
RE: Proposed Spring Valley Sanitation District.
Dear Mr. Akers:
The Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) is planning to submit a Site Application for a new
wastewater treatment facility in the Spring Valley drainage in the very near future. The plant will
have a capacity of 0.499 mgd.
The proposed plant will be designed to meet applicable effluent limits. The Spring Valley drainage
at the discharge point was recently made into Segment 3a of the Roaring Fork River basin and
classified for class 2, cold water aquatic life and class 2 recreation at the Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission hearing on August 9, 1999. Use protection was also granted so the anti -
degradation standards do not apply' site-specific of form standard was also adopted monia standard of 0.1 for Segment 3a
/L un -ionized
ammonia (chronic) and a 200/100m1 for fecal
at this hearing.
We request that the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) determine preliminary
effluent limits for the SVSD facility. It is our understanding that it is appropriate to use
temperature and pH data representative of the effluent to calculate the discharge limits, since
there is little or no flow in the drainage below the discharge point during most of the year. Our
consulting engineers, Wright Water Engineers, have, to assist in preliminary design, undertaken
an analysis of potential ammonia limits, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. They
would be happy to discuss their work with you.
Sincerely,
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
Dean Go
cc: Dave - .n, Wright Water Engineers
Greg Boecker, SVSD
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
Lynn Kimball, CDOPHE, Permits and Enforcement Section
DWG:lg 1503.Akerslet
•
•
VW -if
MEMORANDUM
To: Greg Boecker
Spring Valley Sanitation District
From: Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
Dave B. Mehan and Jane Clary
Date: September 7, 1999
Re: Recalculation of Total Ammonia Discharge Limits for
Spring Valley Sanitation District
Based on the outcome of the August 9, 1999 hearing before the Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission (CWQCC), we have recalculated potential ammonia discharge limits for the
proposed Spring Valley wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Ammonia limits were calculated
on a monthly basis using the following assumptions:
L Instream un -ionized ammonia standard is 0.1 mg/L (chronic) with no anti -degradation review
as a result of use protection established for Segment 3a.
2. Temperature and flow values for both instream flows and WWTP effluent are identical to
those used by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (CWQCD) in their April 26,
1999 Colorado Ammonia Model (CAM) run.
3. Instream pH values used are identical to those used in the CWQCD April 26, 1999 CAM run.
4. The effluent pH values used are based on representative pH data from several high altitude
WWTPs, including the Copper Mountain Consolidated, Blue River and Irwin Lodge
facilities. The pH values for these facilities were obtained from discharge monitoring report
(DMR) data provided by the CWQCD. The maximum pH value reported on the DMR was
used in developing a monthly average for each WWTP. Monthly averages for each WWTP
were then averaged to obtain an overall monthly pH value for use in the ammonia
calculations. The pH data are shown in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, the monthly pH values used ranged from 6.6 to 7.25. We anticipate
you will be able to control pH values in a range of 6.5 to 7.0 through chemical addition as
needed; therefore, these values are reasonable for use in calculating ammonia limits.
Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2490 W. 26'" Avenue, Ste. 100A, Denver, CO 80211
Tel. 303/480-1700; Fax. 303/480-1020, e-mail:krwright@wrightwater.com
•
•
Memorandum to Greg Boecker
September 7, 1999
Page 2
Table 2 contains the ammonia discharge limits, based on the above assumptions. As this table
shows, the monthly total ammonia limits for the WWTP discharge range from 27 to 76 mg/L.
These limits do not account for ammonia degradation, which is included in the CWQCD's CAM
run. Use of the CWQCD's model assumptions would result in less stringent ammonia discharge
limits; therefore, the aforementioned monthly limits are conservative.
Feel free to call us with any questions or comments.
cc: Lee Leavenworth, Leavenworth and Tester
Dean Gordon, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Attachments
C:\991-056\000ard\ammonia2.doc
Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2490 W. 26'" Avenue, Ste. 100A, Denver, CO 80211
Tel. 303/480-1700; Fax. 303/480-1020, e-mail:krwright@wrightwater.com
Table 1
Calculation of Representative Monthly Effluent pH Values Based on
Maximum pH Reported in DMRs for Blue River, Copper Mountain and Irwin Lodge
Blue River WWTP Outfall 0016 Blue River WWTP Outfall 001 C Overall Average
Year 1 Year for Blue River
Blue River WWTP Outfall 001A
1 r t
Month
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
Average
1
6.57
6.6
6.8
6.66
2
6.59
6.7
6.8
6.70
3
4
5
6.6
6.60
6
6.6
6.60
7
8
6.47
6.8
6.5
6.59
9
6.41
6.6
6.6
6.54
10
6.48
6.58
6.6
6.55
11
6.52
6.6
6.7
12 6.58 6.6 6.7
6.61
6.63
1996
1997
1998
1999
Average
6.62
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.67
6.63
6.60
6.57 6.6
6.59
6.66 6.7 6.7
6.69
1996 1997
1998
1999
Average
6.67
6.67
Average
6.66
6.70
6.67
6.63
6.62
6.60
6.69
6.59
6.54
6.55
6.61
6.63
r Mountain Consolidated Outfall 001A
Month
Year
1999
1996
1997
1998
Average
1
7.5
7.4
6.9
7.27
2
7
6.8
6.9
6.90
3
7
6.9
7.4
7.10
4
7
7
6.5
6.83
5
7.3
6.9
6.6
6.93
6
7
7.3
6.8
7.03
7
7
7.3
7
7.10
8
6.8
7.1
7
6.97
9
7.2
7
6.7
6.97
10
7
7
7.1
7.03
11
7
7.2
7
7.07
12
7
7.1
7.1
7.07
Irwin Lodge WWTP (1998/99)
Month
pH
1
6.9
2
7.5
3
7.97
4
5
6
6.2
7
8
7
9
7.2
10
11
12
6.8
Average Monthly pH Values for Use at Spring Valley
Based on the Average of Max pH Values Reported at these WWTPs
6.94
7.03
7.25
6.73
6.78
6.61
6.89
6.85
6.90
6.79
6.84
6.83
jkc d:\991-999\056jkc\ Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
SPRING-1.xls pH Estimates 08/24/1999 10:55 AM Des. by: jkc
•
10
0
�a
E
0
E
a
0
0
0
u
0
.m.
m R
e 3
m
F- N
10
0 03
0
0
c
C
N
O
C
O
m
m
0
•
Y
a
LL
as c
E � o
m . a
r "
c c
0. C
o
a
0
0
0
0
O
CO
0'
co
N
0
O
co
T
0)
O
m
0
0
O
on
at
01
0
0
O
0
z
0
0
0
0
ai
N
0
N
F,s
:i
rn
O
0
0CO
00
O
v
0
0
l"I
Of
0
0
0
rn
0
O
of
0
H
0
0
O
CO
ai
0
CI
N
m
0
N
O
03
ai
ti
rn
CI
O
O03
N
(0
ai
CO
N
rn
0
O
0
m
0)
0
CO
0
O
0
O
co
0,
sr
O
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
0
sr
r
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
o_
0
0
O
m
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
CO
0
O
0
sr
r
O
0
0
O
CO
0
O
O
0,
O
0
0
0
CO
0
0,
O
0
0
0
0
0
m
0
0
M
O
O
O
0
0
0,
O
O
0
O
0
n0
0)
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
CO
2
5
0
0
N
8
Supporting Information
0
E
4-
V
U
0
4
0
E
1-
O
LL
4
0
m
m
TA
U
E
/-
2 0
n
O
Ta:
U
a
E
1-
2
0.
U
r
0
a
4,
0
n
0
0
03
m
N
x
0_
0
x
0.
CO
0
0 O
0
O
LL
n
0
0
CO
0
0
n
0
0
2
0
0
0
n
0
al
0
0-
N
0
O
n
0
m
0
N
0
O
00a!
m co m
0,
m
0
0
O
0
O
n
0
m
eo
ai
0
0
r
c--
0 0
m
m
0
m
sr
O
0
n
O
ai
0
0
07.
m
0
m
0
O.
to
(0
0
0
m
!"7.
0
0
0
r
0
70.
m
m
0
sr
r
0
0
on
0
07
O
an
m
0
0 r n 0 0 n a 0 0
m m m m m m m m m
111'11'1'1,1111,1'1,
w a 1 c
a 0 = m
O U a
U a 0 Y u
v t n c
00 0 0
N 0 O' 0
DO m m u
C V 9 N > L
cmi c o n o S° c a 3
�°EEOm
Ha m 9 0 'g E y
o m° E 3 c m 9 m A
v E E 4' c
;21;;;
2 mv°mD mm A V
ce
1251<0 2 2 0 0 0
L° m m F- 90
1°6°.',% LLa N
> 0
n m 0 u
0f
NN0) E 3 adC2
N b N .
=o
2 3 U U
N l'1 Q
w a 1 c
a 0 = m
O U a
U a 0 Y u
v t n c
00 0 0
N 0 O' 0
DO m m u
C V 9 N > L
cmi c o n o S° c a 3
�°EEOm
Ha m 9 0 'g E y
o m° E 3 c m 9 m A
v E E 4' c
;21;;;
2 mv°mD mm A V
ce
1251<0 2 2 0 0 0
L° m m F- 90
1°6°.',% LLa N
> 0
n m 0 u
0f
NN0) E 3 adC2
N b N .
=o
2 3 U U
N l'1 Q
1%WA
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
818 Colorado Ave.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81602
(970) 945-7755 TEL
(9701 945-9210 FAX
(303) 893-1608 DENVER DIRECT LINE
EXHIBIT 4.3
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Spring Valley Sanitation District
Service Plan Amendment
Dear Lee:
March 24, 1999
At the request of our client, Aspen Springs Ranch, Inc., this letter outlines a significant water
resources issue related to the proposed Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) Service Plan
Amendment. The issue for the Spring Valley basin is preserving and re -using water resources
within the basin versus exporting water from the basin in the form of wastewater to be treated
at the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District treatment plant located adjacent to the Roaring
Fork River.
It is our understanding that the currently proposed development projections for the Spring Valley
area would require a 0.55 million gallons per day (mgd) wastewater treatment facility and the
current Garfield Comprehensive Plan projections for ultimate buildout would require a 1.5 mgd
facility.
The export of water and savings of in -basin water is summarized in the table below. The values
expressed are in acre-feet and show the impacts and savings under both the proposed anticipated
density (the 0.55 mgd plant) and the existing comprehensive plan density (1.5 mgd plant). The
savings is related to water re -used for irrigation during the summer and a portion of the winter
discharge that would recharge the Spring Valley aquifer.
DENVER (303) 480-1 700
DURANGO (970) 259-741 1
BOULDER - (303) 473-9500
Exported Water
Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District Option
Water Savings from In -Basin
Discharge
Spring Valley Sanitation
District Option
0.55 mgd
1.5 mgd
0.55 mgd
1.5 mgd
Annual Basis AF
616 AF
1,680 AF
370 AF
1,008 AF
Over a 20 -Year Period
12,320 AF
33,600 AF
7,400 AF
20,160 AF
Over a 50 -Year Period
30,800 AF
84,000 AF
18,500 AF
50,400 AF
DENVER (303) 480-1 700
DURANGO (970) 259-741 1
BOULDER - (303) 473-9500
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
• March 24, 1999
Page 2
•
The effluent from the Spring Valley Sanitation District facility will be re -used for irrigation of
golf courses and open space at the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. and/or other developments in
the Spring Valley area such as the Kendall Ranch, Lake Springs Ranch, and Los Amigos Ranch.
The 0.55 mgd facility will irrigate approximately 150 acres and the 1.5 mgd facility could
irrigate approximately 420 acres based on a sprinkler system application of 2 acre-feet per acre.
The Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. alone proposes approximately 400 acres of golf course and
open space irrigation and it is the developer's intent to re -use effluent from the SVSD.
Additionally, it is conservatively estimated that 20 percent of the winter effluent discharge would
infiltrate and recharge the Spring Valley aquifer and 80 percent would flow down Red Canyon
to the Roaring Fork River.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
By:
MJE/dlf
931-004.010
Michael J. Eon, P.E.
Water Res rces Engineer
cc: Anne Castle, Esq., Holland & Hart, L.L.P.
Chris Thorne, Esq., Holland & Hart, L.L.P.
Bill Sargis, Aspen Springs Ranch
James DeFrancia, Lowe Enterprises Community Development Corporation
Charles Fancher, Jr., Fancher Management Group, Inc.
•
•
o
EXHIBIT 5.1
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
DESIGN CALCULATIONS - EXISTING FACILITY
A. Equations/Assumptions
1. kt = k20 O T-20
k20 = BOD removal rate @ 20°C, 0.5 day -1
0 = Temp. Coefficient, 1.05
2. C sw = (B) (Css) (P) = 02 Conc. in Wastewater
B = Saturation Conc. of 02 in wastewater
Saturation Conc. of 02 in clean water = 0.90
Css = 02 saturation of tap water at wastewater temperature
P = Barometric Pressure @ site = 23.38 = 0.78
Sea Level Pressure 29.92
3. R = a x Csw-C1 X 1.025T-2°
Cs
R = Correction Factor = FTR
CWTR
FTR = Field Transfer Rate, # 02/Hp-hr
CWTR = Clear Water Transfer Rate, # 02/Hp-hr
a = 0.90
Csw = See above in (2)
CI = 02 Conc. to be maintained in wastewater = 2 mg/I
Cs = 02 Conc. @ std. conditions, 9.17 mg/I
T = Wastewater Temp., °C
1 503a08.EQA
DWG- 12/98
1
•
•
•
4. Lc=Lo 1
1 + kT t
Le = Effluent BOD, mg/I
Lo = Influent BOD, mg/I
kT = BOD removal rate @ Wastewater Temp., day -1
t = Detention Time, days
Solving for t: t = Lo/Le -1
kt
5. # 02/hr = BODr x 8.34 x Q x 02 x CWTR x 1
#BOD FTR 24
# 02/hr = Pound 02 Required per hr @ Standard Conditions
BODr = BOD removed, mg/I
Q = Flow Rate, mgd
#02/#BOD = 02 required per unit BOD removed
CWTR/FTR = 1 /R = 1 /Correction Factor
6. Hp = # 02/hr = # 02/hr = Hp
CWTR # 02/Hp-hr
7. Other Assumptions
(a) Tw = Estimated Winter Temperature = 40°F = 4.4°C (t of Wastewater)
Ts = Estimated Summer Temperature = 60°F = 15.5°C
(b) Influent BOD = 225 mg/I
(c) Effluent BOD = 30 mg/I
(d) CWTR = 3.0 #02/Hp-hr
(e) #021# BOD = 1 .25
(f) Single -cell aerated lagoon
(g) Mixing Horsepower = 6-10 Hp/MG
1 503a08.E QA
DWG- 12/98
2
•
•
•
Calculations
kT + k20 OT -20
2. Csw = (b) (css) (P)
Winter Summer
k4.4=0.5x1.05
4.4-20 k 15.5 = 0.5 x 1.0515.5-2
= 0.23 d-1 = 0.40 d-1
Csw = (0.9)(12.98)(0.78) Csw = (0.9)(10.4)(0.78)
= 9.1 1 mg/I = 7.30 mg/I
3. R = < x Csw - 01 x 1 .025 T-20
R = .9 x 9.11-2.0 x 1 0254.4-20 R = .9 x 7.30 - 2.0
9.17 9.17
= 0.475 = 0.465
1/R=2.10 1/R=2.15
4. Pond Volume
Sideslope = 3:1
Dimensions at water surface elevation of 6664' : 173 x 155
Total depth: 1 2'
V = (173)(36)(155-36) x 12' x 7.48 gal/cf
V = 137 x 119 x 12 x 7.48
V = 1.46 MG
1 503a08.EQA
DWG- 12/98
3
•
•
•
5. Design Flow
Winter Summer
t = Lo 1 t = Lo - 1
Le Le
kt kt
= 225 -1 = 225 -1
30 30
0.23 0.40
t = 28 days t = 16.25 days
Q=v/t Q=v/t
= 1 .46 MG/28 days = 1.46 MG/16.25 days
Q = 0.052 MGD Q = 0.090 MGD
6. Biological Oxygen Requirements
# 02/hr = BOD, x 8.34 x Q X #02_ X CWTR x 1
#BOD FTR 24
Winter
# 02/hr = (195)(8.34)(.052)(1.25)(2.10)(1/24)
= 9.24
Summer
# 02/hr = (206.6)(8.34)(0.052)(1.25)(2.15)(1/24)
= 10.03
7. Hp Required for Mixing = 6 to 10 Hp.MG
Minimum Hp = 1.46 x 6 = 8.8 Hp
1 503a08.EQA
DWG- 12/98
4
8. Hp Required for Oxygen Transfer
• Winter Summer
Hp = 9.24 =3+Hp Hp=10.03= 3.5 Hp
3 3
•
•
9. Hp Required
Existing 7.5 hp aerator sufficient; aerator will be 15% under designed for complete
oxygen dispersion. Because unit is 250% over designed for treatment, it is not
expected that the quality of treatment will diminish. The corners of the lagoon may
not maintain the design 2.0 mg/I dissolved oxygen from the aerator but, due to the
shallow depth along the sides, wave action will offset the effects of the aerator.
1 503a08.EQA
DWG- 12/98
5
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
• PLAN FOR EXHIBIT ,
REGION 11
Garfield,Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco Counties,
Colorado
•
Moffat
Rio Blanco
Garfield
Mesa
COLORADO
REC I\1 ED
gFP 1 6 •GS
WQCD-Droctcr's 0
Prepared by:
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
In cooperation with
Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado
•
' LP L i
Point Sources in Garfield County
Municipal Point Sources
Municipally owned wastewater facilities are in generally good condition in
Garfield County. During the late 1970s and through the early 1980s concern
for projected growth emanating from the energy industry led to expansion or
construction of new wastewater facilities in most municipalities. As a result
most wastewater facilities are fairly new and in good operating condition.
The following municipalities have completed construction for new facilities in
the past five years: Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Silt, Rifle, and Rifle
South Metropolitan District. The Town of Parachute receives treatment through
the Battlement Mesa Incorporated facility which has also been constructed in
the past five years. Adequate capacity for treatment of future growth exists
in all of these facilities.
The most critical municipal point source needs in Garfield County relate to
planning needs for the Spring Valley area. This area, to the southeast of
Glenwood Springs, has several proposed developments and sanitation districts.
The Lake Valley Sanitation District and the Landis Sanitation District should
work in conjunction with Garfield County, and other local developers to
determine the scope of development concerns, and the best means of sewage
treatment and disposal in the Spring Valley area. This planning effort should
analyze populations, consolidation of facilities and treatment requirements
for the Spring Valley area. This plan recommends that facility siting efforts
should be delayed, and any site approvals withheld until such an analysis and
study is completed.
Non -municipal Point Sources in Garfield County
Currently non -municipal point sources do not present a threat to water quality
in Garfield County. The Battlement Mesa Incorporated facility, which serves
the Town of Parachute, as well as the Battlement Mesa development, is
currently operating a lagoon treatment facility rather than the activated
sludge treatment facility constructed in 1982. This system is much less
complicated and less expensive to operate than the mechanical facility. The
H Lazy F Mobile Home Park facility has experienced some problems in the past;
improved operations have solved these problems. This facility is also located
in the bottom of the drainage that both the Colorado Mountain College facility
and proposed Spring Valley developments are located within. Inclusion. of this
facility in any study efforts for the Spring Valley area would be wise.
kRRR■
u••..•
....R E S O U R G E
•R•R•E N G I N E E R I N G I N C.
•
Mr. Michael J. Liuzzi, PE
WQCD-GW-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222 - 1530
RE: Spring Valley Sanitation District
Dear Mr. Luizzi:
July 31, 1997
EXHIBIT 8.1
The Spring Valley Sanitation District (District) recently commissioned a geophysical
investigation of the District's exfiltration pond site. The purpose of the investigation
was to characterize the location and direction of ground water flow at the site in order
to develop a ground water monitoring program for the ponds. This letter transmits a
copy of the report prepared by Microgeophysics Corporation (MGC), summarizes their
findings, and presents suggested locations for ground water monitoring wells based on
the findings. The District requests your input on the proposed monitoring well plan prior
to committing to construction of the monitoring wells.
In summary the geophysical investigation provided excellent data of the sub -surface
conditions enabling a good characterization of the the ground water conditions at the
site. The site and ground water characteristics determined from the investigation are:
• 1) The valley fill (alluvial / colluvial) deposits are uniformly deposited in a "crescent"
shape across the site (north to south) and extend to a depth of 50' to 75' in the
center of the swale (approximately where the ponds are). The valley fill deposits
are underlain by basalt. The contact between the basalt and the underlying
Eagle Valley Evaporite formation was not determined.
2) The ground water flow is relatively uniform across the site rather than flowing
in a defined channel or channels.
3) There is a ground water mound centered beneath Pond # 1 and Pond #2.
4) There is ground water flow toward Pond #1 and Pond #2 from the direction of
the Colorado Mountain College campus to the north. This flow component
coincides with the small surface drainage that enters the site from the north.
This ground water flow is from up gradient and, therefore, not influenced by
exfiltration from the lagoons.
These finding are presented on a generalized ground water piezometric head map
developed in consultation with Phil Series, Senior Geophyscist with MGC. The map is
enclosed as Figure 1. The extent of the relative piezometric contours shown on Figure
1 is limited to the area covered by the geophysical investigation, however, the
geophysical results, together with knowledge of the regional topography and recharge
areas can be used to estimate the regional ground water characteristics.
It is our opinion that the regional ground water gradient is generally consistent with the
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue ! Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 ■ (970) 945-6777 ■ Fax (970) 945-1137
•
•
•
Mr. Michael J. Liuzzi, PE July 31, 1997
Page No. 2
surface topography. Ground water flows from Northeast to Southwest generally
consistent with the topography of District's pond site. The exfiltration ponds create a
localized anomoly in this regional flow as does recharge from the CMC campus area.
Based on the geophysical data and these observations ground water monitoring well
locations have been selected.
Monitoring Well Program
Monitoring well locations have been selected that will monitor the impact of the
exfiltration ponds on the ground water. Two wells are proposed: an up -gradient well
and a down -gradient well. The up -gradient well is proposed north of the exfiltration
ponds, in the area where ground water flow was identified moving toward the lagoons.
The down gradient well will be located west of the lagoons, near the bottom of the
swale, at the boundary of the area controlled by the SVSD. The actual location of the
well is expected to be further west than shown on attached Figure 1 to allow room for
the proposed pond Nos. 4 and 5. The proposed monitoring well design is attached as
Figure 2.
We are looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
John M. Currier, PE
Water Resources Engineer
JMC/jmc
File 640-1.0 fae8401MGCttansmit
cc: Greg Boecker, SVSD
Dean Gordon, SGM
RESOURCE
■mmm■ F N G i N E E A i N G N C
\ \
\
0LJ
1— 1—
wo
o
Z 0
0
c 0
0
JULY, 1997
0
0
0
z
co
0
1.1.1 u
Et
Ow
uz1
LI 6
rvZ
LL
0
ce
L°>
0
oz
NJOW
La ct
0_
(i)
mu' z
1-0,30
'w
LL4
ZazIM
0 0M
P300
<0 U.,
Ru.1-0
< z
CC
<
< • (..) Cr
,75 0
l7)
0.
I- 41,, •
M - r
l4.1 La (f)
Ctua -x41 zot67 oci
0
25tv 651 22c
z ›-
0 Ct01--
0 -Le 51,
tcr. 0
•Lu
0.20. -Ce
N3u-, I
Li0^CC
0-Z65.-0
ta 0 !Ai z
CC
0
2
1.'
8'
20'
VARIABLE
20'
20'
HINGED LOCKING CAP
VENTED PVC CAP
BENTONITE SEAL
V
7" OSTEEL
SURFACE CASING
8'f
BENTONITE SEAL
EXTEND 20' BELOW
BOTTOM OF SURFACE
CASING.
4"0 THREADED,
FLUSH JOINT PVC.
COLORADO SILICA SAND
(SIZE 10-20)
#20 SLOT FACTORY PERF.
PVC SCREEN. EXTEND 20'
ABOVE AND BELOW WATER
TABLE.
FIGURE 2
MO\ITOI\G WELL
SPRING VALLEY
SANITATION DISTRICT
JOB NO. 640-1.0 l JULY, 1997
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING . INC
J
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-8454
Phone 970 945-7988
• August 29, 1997
Spring Valley Sanitation District
Attn: Greg Boecker
2929 County Road 114
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
'' -' ;' _' ' EXHIBIT 8.2
Job No. 197 215
Subject: Subsoil Study for Proposed Percolation Ponds, Spring Valley Sanitation
District, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Boecker:
As requested by Dean Gordon, we performed additional subsurface exploration and
laboratory testing for design of the proposed ponds. The study was conducted in
accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services with Spring
Valley Sanitation District dated April 2, 1997. We previously performed percolation
testing at the subject site and presented our findings in a report dated April 21, 1997,
Job No. 197 215. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed
construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report.
Proposed Construction: Two ponds, each about 150 feet by 150 feet in plan size and
about 60 feet apart, are proposed immediately to the west of the existing plant facilities,
see Fig. 1. The new ponds will be for disposal of effluent by percolation, similar to
existing Ponds 2 and 3. Cut and fill sections will be used to create a maximum pond
depth of about 8 feet, similar to the existing ponds. We understand that the current
treatment capacity is believed to be on the order of 30,000 gallons per day and that
percolation pond 2 is relatively ineffective.
If site development plans change significantly from those described above, we should
be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report.
Site Conditions: The proposed pond site consists of gently rolling terrain with an
overall slope down to the south. Vegetation consists of sagebrush, grass and weeds.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
drilling 3 exploratory borings (Borings 5, 6 and 7) at the approximate locations shown
on Fig. 1. Six backhoe pits had previously been dug for the percolation testing. The
logs of the borings and the pits are presented on Figs. 2 and 3. Borings 1-4 were drilled
for moisture content adjacent to Pond 2 with the results presented in our report dated
April 15, 1997, Job No. 197 215. The subsoils for the current study were sampled by
driving a spoon sampler at selected intervals into the native soils as described on Figs.
2 and 4.
The subsoils encountered, below about 1 to 2 feet of topsoil, consist of very stiff plastic
clay to depths of about 5 to 11 feet where calcareous clay and basalt gravel was
•
Spring Valley Sanitation District
August 29, 1997
Page 2
encountered. The subsoils graded to more basalt fragments in a sandy clay and silt
matrix at depths of about 9 to 19 feet that extended to the maximum depths drilled of 16
to 24 feet. The subsoils were typically slightly moist and no free water was
encountered.
Laboratory testing performed on samples taken from the borings include natural
moisture content and density, liquid and plastic limits, finer than sand size gradation
(minus No. 200 sieve), pH and total soluble salts. The results of permeability tests
performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples indicate the upper clays are
relatively impervious (1.5x10.8 cm/sec) and the calcareous subsoils are semi -pervious
(2.7x10-5 and 9.1 to 10' cm/sec). Chemical test results indicate the subsoils are basic
and have moderate soluble salt contents. The laboratory test results are summarized in
Table I and in the appendix.
The percolation rates from the previous testing, presented in Table II, generally indicate
the upper clays have rates between 40 to 120 minutes per inch and the underlying
calcareous soils have rates between 10 to 20 minutes per inch. These rates are
generally consistent with the permeability test results.
Conclusions and Recommendations: The upper clay soils encountered to depths
between about 5 to 11 feet are relatively impervious and ponds based in these soils
would be expected to have relatively low exfiltration rates. The ineffectiveness of
percolation pond 2 could be due to these clay soils. The calcareous subsoils should
have much higher exfiltration rates compared to the upper clays. Based on the
permeability test results of 2.7x10-5cm/sec for the calcareous soils and a pond depth of
8 feet, we estimate an exfiltration rate of 1 gallon per day per square foot of pond
bottom for the long term steady state condition. For a pond size of 150 feet by 150
feet, this rate would result in a capacity of about 20,000 gallons per day. The actual
rate will likely vary depending on the pond depth, configuration and subsoil conditions.
The calculated rate is for the measured soil properties and other affects such as
chemical changes of the soil properties and septic conditions have not been considered.
We expect that acidic effluent could increase the permeability of the alkaline subsoils
and that periodic draining and cleaning will remove slimes.
Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings and pits
located as indicated on Fig. 1 and to the depths shown on Figs. 2 and 3, the proposed
type of construction, and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation
and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and
H P GEOTECH
•
Spring Valley Sanitation District
August 29, 1997
Page 3
pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation
is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from
those described in this report, we should be notified at once so re-evaluation of the
recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes.
We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As
the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and testing of
structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
• HEPWORTH - PAWL
Steven L. Pawlak, P.
•
Reviewed By:
Daniel E, Hardin, P.E.
SLP/kw/ro
attachments
cc: Schmueser Gordon Meyer - Attn: Dean Gordon
H -P GEOTECH
6670
1
1
►
1
I
11
•
\
\
\
•\
•
•
•
6670
PIT 5
•
BORING 7
( PIT 6
\
PIT 4 \ LEGEND:
• 1 • EXPLORATORY BORING
1
61 BORING 6 6680 0 EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLED
I FOR MOISTURE CONTENT
PIT 3 1 EVALUATION 4/14/97
NOT TO SCALE
® 1 1 ® EXPLORATORY PIT FOR
PIT 1 1 1 PERCOLATION TESTING 4/14/97
BORING 5
• ; i 6690
• PIT 2 I 1
\ \
1 \
1 \
POND 3 1 \
I \
1
EXISTING
PERCOLATION
POND
•
•
•
0 BORING 3
•
1
i ►
POND 2 I 1
BORING 4 O
.BORING 21
O
1 EXISTING ( I
\ 1 PERCOLATION
\ 1 L...
\\BORING 1\O \
\ 1 1
\ 1 POND 1 \
\ 1
1 EXISTING
\ AERATED
\ LAGOON
\ \ CELL
EXISTING
\ \ FENCE
6670
►
1
1
1
1
\
•
•
\
\ 1
\ I
\ 1
1
6690
1
6680
197 215
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
AND EXPLORATORY PITS
Fig. 1
w
L
c
0
a�
w
6670
6665
6660
6655
6650
6645
6640
6635
BORING 5
ELEV. = 6662.7'
18/12
WC=20.1
DD=103
— 200=92
LL=37
PI=22
PH=7.5
TSS=0.39
28/12
WC=20. 0
D0=102
- 200=91
LL=42
PI=28
K=1.5E-8
44/12
WC= 21.2
DD=100
— 200=64
LL=52
PI=26
K=2.7E-5
54/12
BORING 6 BORING 7
ELEV. = 6668.5 ELEV. = 6663.7'
19/12
25/5.10/0
WC=15.0
00=109
K=9.1E-7
38/3.10/0
40/6,25/2
WC=4.8
DD=101
PI=NP
PH=7.95
TSS=0.31
50/6
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 4.
25/12
WC=9.5
DD=90
—200=94
LL=33
PI=18
20/0
50/12
WC=10.4
DD=88
LL= 40
PI=16
PH=7.9
TSS=0.42
6670
6665
6660
6655
6650
6645
6640
6635
Elevation — Feet
197 215
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
Depth — Feet
Depth — Feet
0
5
PIT 1 PIT 2 PIT 3
ELEV. = 6667.4' ELEV. = 6662.8' ELEV. = 6663.5'
P=16
P=40
P=120
P=120
/
/
P=48
0
5
10 10
0
5
10
PIT 4
ELEV. = 6667.1'
P=40
P=10
PIT 5
PIT 6
ELEV. = 6664.1' ELEV. = 6669.5'
P=10
P=20
P=40
P=80
0
5
10
15 15
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 4.
Depth — Feet
197 215
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
LEGEND:
18/12
T
kl OTES:
TOPSOIL; organic silty clay, roots, brown.
CLAY (CL); slightly sandy, very stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown, slightly calcareous, medium plastic
CLAY AND GRAVEL (CL—GC); basalt fragments, medium dense, slightly moist, white/tan,
highly calcareous, medium to high plasticity.
GRAVEL (GC); sandy clay and silt matrix, basalt fragments, medium dense, slightly moist, white/tan,
highly calcareous, low plasticity.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8—inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D — 1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 18 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
Practical rig refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were
made to advance the boring.
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on April 25, 1997 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Exploratory pits were excavated on April 14, 1997 with a backhoe.
3. Locations of exploratory borings and pits were provided by Schmuser Gordon Meyer Inc.
4. Elevations of exploratory borings and pits were provided by Schmuser Gordon Meyer Inc.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be gradual_
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve.
—200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
LL = Liquid Limit ( % )
PI = Plasticity Index ( % )
NP = Nonplastic
K = Permeability ( cm/sec )
TSS = Total Soluble Salts ( % )
pH = Soil Acidity/Alkalinity
P = Average Percolation Rate ( min/in. )
197 215
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND AND NOTES
r
0
z
m
0
<
LL
o
F- c
<
0
0)
uJ
I
u
PH TOTAL
Soluble
Salts
(%)
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
1 Slightly Sandy Clay
>-
a)
C>
>-
=
>
CB
O
.`
CC
O
cp
U
>
m
U
>>
+,
u)
O
N
CO
0
m
U
Q
CI:a
>
+-
v;
0
N
I—
cG
O
io
U
Slightly Sandy Clay
Calcarious Gravelly Silty
Clay
M
O
0)
(3)
I<
l<
co
O
x
Ln
c—
to
O
x
r
N
O
x
O
00
N
(
N
0
0
CO
p_
C C
0
C
CO
r—
,--
N
N
0)
33
0
V'
F- U' p
z _Z O W
U <n N >N
a z)
at
0)
,--
co
0)
}
> ,---
O
o z a
w —
z o
CO
O
L—
N
O
r-
Cr)0
LOL
O
G)
co
c0
a
z
Lu F,
cc z
to Z 3'
O
g U
O
N
O
N
N
r—
0)
'
O
SAMPLE LOCATION
BORING DEPTH
(feet)
L')
O
•
•
•
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO.197 215
Sheet 1 of 4
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(FT -IN)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P -la
6'-7"
10
refill
151/2
111/4
31/4
16
11%
101/4
1 '/z
101/4
91/4
1
91/4
81/4
1
173/4
161/2
11/4
16'/z
151/4
1 '/4
151/4
141/2
1/4
141/2
131/2
1
131/2
121/4
1/4
121/4
121/4
/z
121/4
111/4
/z
111/4
11
=/4
P -lb
7'-5"
10
refill
9
8
1
40
8
71/2
/z
71/2
71/4
14
7'/4
7
/4
7
61/4
A
61/4
61/2
1/4
61/2
61/4
IA
101/4
91/4
/z
91/4
91/2
'/4
9'/2
91/4
/4
914
9
/4
9
81/4
14
•
•
•
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO.197 215
Sheet
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(FT -IN)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P -2a
2'-1 1 "
30
8'/2
8'/4
/4
8'/4
8
'/4
8
7%
%4
120
7'/4
7'/2
14
P -2b
4'-7"
30
8'/4
8
/4
120
8
7 '/4
1/4
734
7 1/2
1/4
71/2
71/4
1/4
P-3
4'-1"
30
10'/4
9
11/4
48
9
8 1/4
3/4
8 1/4
7 1/2
3/4
7'/2
7
1/2
P -4a
4'-6"
10
20
10
11
10
1
40
10
9'/2
/2
9'/2
9
/2
9
8'/4
%4
8'/4
8'h
/4
8 1/2
8 1/4
'/4
8'/4
8
/4
8
7'/2
/2
7'/2
7'/4
/4
7 1/4
7
'/4
7
6%
/4
•
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 197 215
Sheet 3 of 4
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(FT -IN)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P -4b
7'-0"
10
refill
refill
refill
71/2
5
21/2
81/2
51/4
31/4
5'/4
4'1
1
81/2
51/4
21/4
51/4
5
34
5
4
1
10
61h
31/2
61/2
5
11/2
10
P -5a
5'-10"
10
refill
refill
refill
10'/4
61/2
33/4
10
111/2
91/4
21/4
91/4
7
21/4
7
51/4
11/4
11
9
2
9
73/4
11/4
7%
6
11/4
8
61/4
11/4
63/4
51/2
11/4
54
4'/z
1
4'/
3'h
1
P -5b
10'-6"
10
101/4
81/4
2
20
refill
101/4
91/4
1
91/4
81/2
3/4
81/2
8
/z
refill
101/4
93/4
I
93/4
9'/4
IA
8refill /4
8'/4
y2
81/4
71/4
%z
71/4
71/4
/z
7'/
6'/.
A
•
•
•
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 11
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 197 215
Sheet 4 of 4
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(FT -1N)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P -6a
5'-0"
10
refill
refill
5
3%
11/4
3%
3'/Z
/
53/4
41/2
=/
4'h
41/4
/,
4'/
4
yn
4
31/2
72
3'/z
31/4
A
40
5
41/2
y�
41/2
41/4
y,
4'/<
4
/
4
3%
/<
P -6b
7'-2"
20
refill
refill
5'/2
4'/2
1
80
61/4
53/4
1
5'/
5
/
5
4'/2
/2
61/4
5%
/2
5%
5'/2
/4
•
•
•
Appendix
Advanced Terra Testing
TRIAXIAL PERMEABILITY TESTS
PERMEABILITY TEST - BACK PRESSURE SATURATED - FLOW PUMP METHOD
ASTM D 5084
•LIENT Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech JOB NO. 2158-19
BORING NO. 5 SAMPLED
DEPTH 10.0' TEST STARTED 5-5-97 CAL
SAMPLE NO. TEST FINISHED 5-8-97 CAL
SOIL DESCR. 197215 CELL NUMBER 3P
TEST TYPE TX/Pbp SATURATED TEST Yes
CONF. PRES. PSF 720
MOISTURE/DENSITY
DATA
Wt. Soil + Moisture
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan
Wt. Lost Moisture
Wt. of Pan Only
Wt. of Dry Soil
Moisture Content %
Wet Density PCF
Dry Density PCF
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
BEFORE AFTER
TEST TEST
306.4 311.9
314.9 320.3
266.9 266.9
48.0 53.5
8.4 8.4
258.5 258.5
18.6 20.7
132.0 133.6
111.4 110.7
.Init. Diameter (in) 1.930 (cm) 4.902
Init. Area (sq in) 2.926 (sq cm) 18.876
Init. Height (in) 3.022 (cm) 7.676
Vol. Bef. Consol. (cu ft) 0.00512
Vol. After Consol. (cu ft) 0.00515
Porosity % 36.68
FLOW PUMP CALCULATIONS
Pump Setting (gear number) 12
Percentage of Pump setting 100
Q (cc/s) 6.78E-06
Height 3.019
Diameter 1.937
Pressure (psi) 2.540
Area after consol. (cm*cm) 19.004
Gradient 23.289
Permeability k (cm/s) 1.5E-08
Back Pressure (psi) 48.0
Cell Pressure (psi) 53.0
Ave. Effective Stress (psi) 3.730
Data entry by: NAA Date: 05/13/97
Checked by: Date: 513-57
FileName:HEP05215
ADVANCED TERRA TESTING, INC.
PERMEABILITY TEST - BACK PRESSURE SATURATED - FLOW PUMP METHOD
ASTM D 5084
•LIENT Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
TEST TYPE
CONF. PRES. PSF
MOISTURE/DENSITY
DATA
5
15.0'
197215
TX/Pbp
720
Wt. Soil + Moisture
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan
Wt. Lost Moisture
Wt. of Pan Only
Wt. of Dry Soil
Moisture Content %
Wet Density PCF
Dry Density PCF
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
BEFORE AFTER
TEST TEST
261.0 277.7
269.3 286.0
219.1 219.1
50.2 66.9
8.3 8.3
210.9 210.9
23.8 31.7
111.8 126.3
90.3 95.9
Init. Diameter (in) 1.930
•Init. Area (sq in) 2.926
Init. Height (in) 3.040
Vol. Bef. Consol. (cu ft) 0.00515
Vol. After Consol. (cu ft) 0.00485
Porosity % 48.71
(cm)
(sq cm)
(cm)
FLOW PUMP CALCULATIONS
Pump Setting (gear number)
Percentage of Pump setting
Q (cc/s)
Height
Diameter
Pressure (psi)
Area after consol. (cm*cm)
Gradient •
Permeability k (cm/s)
Back Pressure (psi)
Cell Pressure (psi)
Ave. Effective Stress (psi)
7
100
3.41E-04
3.012
1.882
0.078
17.940
0.717
2.7E-05
78.0
83.0
4.961
Data entry by: NAA Date: 05/13/97
Checked by: 5_ Date: 5-13^4117
FileName:HEP02155
JOB NO. 2158-19
SAMPLED
TEST STARTED
TEST FINISHED
CELL NUMBER
SATURATED TEST
4.902
18.876
7.722
5-5-97 CAL
5-11-97 CAL
9S
Yes
ADVANCED TERRA TESTING, INC.
PERMEABILITY TEST - BACK PRESSURE SATURATED - FLOW PUMP METHOD
ASTM D 5084
"LENT Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
TEST TYPE
CONF. PRES. PSF
MOISTURE/DENSITY
DATA
6
5.0'
197215
TX/Pbp
720
Wt. Soil + Moisture
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan
Wt. Lost Moisture
Wt. of Pan Only
Wt. of Dry Soil
Moisture Content %
Wet Density PCF
Dry Density PCF
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
•Init. Diameter (in)
snit. Area (sq in)
Init. Height (in)
Vol. Bef. Consol. (cu ft)
Vol. After Consol. (cu ft)
Porosity %
BEFORE AFTER
TEST TEST
294.0 322.8
302.2 330.9
263.8 263.8
38.4 67.1
8.1 8.1
255.7 255.7
15.0 26.2
125.3 133.1
108.9 105.4
JOB NO. 2158-19
SAMPLED
TEST STARTED
TEST FINISHED
CELL NUMBER
SATURATED TEST
1.933 (cm) 4.910
2.935 (sq cm) 18.934
3.047 (cm) 7.739
0.00517
0.00535
44.32
FLOW PUMP CALCULATIONS
Pump Setting (gear number)
Percentage of Pump setting
Q (cc/s)
Height
Diameter
Pressure
(psi)
Area after consol. (cm*cm)
Gradient
Permeability k (cm/s)
Back Pressure (psi)
Cell Pressure (psi)
Ave. Effective Stress
(psi)
9
100
6.81E-05
3.044
1.966
0.420
19.581
3.819
9.1E-07
88.0
93.0
4.790
Data entry by: NAA Date: 05/13/97
Checked by:_ Date: rj
FileName:HEP02156
5-5-97 CAL
5-12-97 CAL
4P
Yes
ADVANCED TERRA TESTING, INC.
•
•
•
KKBNA
i
•
4 1,w fw.i«.
I .NJ Vy M� J� �L: is•
r.
l••
I •
EXHIBIT 9.1
. ••
el)JK 545 Pr iEj.:;49
SANITARY SEt: Ar,L LAGOON
PARCCL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of lane) situated in part of Government
Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Section 9. Township 7 South,
Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian In
the County of (Thrficld, State of Colorado. Said parcel
being bounded by a fence line a:; constructed and in
place. Said parcel being more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section
9 (being also the Northeast Corner of Section 8 in
said Township and Range) a stone corner found in place
and properly marked; thence S. 54.20'05'• P. 1537.27 feet
to a point in said fence line, the True roint of
Beginning; thence the following seven course, along
said fence line;
1)
i;
.1)
4)
5)
6)
7)
to
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
the True
r.5' -- `-=
S. 07.33'25' E
S. 73.00'5n" W
S. 89'47'19" t•:
N. 00.10'31" 1:
N. 65.01'59" e
Point of Beni
?2°.'2-
. G4 t feet;
• 305.89 feet;
• 569..11 feet;
. 537.92 feet
• 259.94 feet;
• 337.02 feet;
nnino.
Said parcel containing 9.85 acres, more or less.
Bearings for this description were based on a hearing.
of S. 88.54'23" E. between the Northwest Corner of
Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 00 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian and the North Quarter Corner
of said Section 5.
May 15, 1979
KXTINA/SCARROW AND WALKER, INC.
1001 (rand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
•
•
•
EXHIBIT 9.2
WecoroJ6 ,: r14R 1 2 1960
�P.CQpLI!):i :v .21'1
.r. -.. ......ter-
..ldr,s3.11� cf Recordie:.
LEASE AND AGREEMENT
BUGK 543 Pe,;E:=.
THIS LEASE AND AGREEMENT, Made and
26th entered into this
day of February, 1980, by and between COLORADO MOUNTAIN
JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT, hereinafter "Lessor," and SPRING VALLEY
SANITATION DISTRICT, hereinafter "Lessee."
WITNESSETH:
That in consideration of the sum of One Dollar
annum ($1.001 per
paid in advance on the anniversary date of this Lease and
Agreement by Lessee to Lessor,
the receipt of the first annual
payment of which is hereby acknowledged,
and of the covenants
hereinafter contained by Lessee to be kept and performed, Lessor
does lease, let, and demise unto Lessee, for the
Purposes
hereinafter
set forth, that certain land in the County of
Garfield, State of Colorado,
described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, containing nine and
eighty-five hundredths9,
( 85) acres, more or less; with the sole
and exclusive right to
g operate a sewage treatment facility on
the leased land during the term hereinafter
right to construct provided and the
remove , maintain, operate, use, repair, replace, and
pipelines, telephone
lines , telegraph, power, and other utility
tanks, ponds, machinery, appliances, buildings, and other
structures useful, necessary, or proper for carrying on its
operations on the Leased land,
together with rights-of-way for
passage over, upon, and across,
ingress and egress to and from
the leased land
for any or all of the above-mentioned purposes
along present access roads to said tract of land or access roads
which may hereafter be constructed and utilized, all as mutually
agreed upon by the parties hereto in exact location, and further
a certain sewage trunk
line corridor easement described more
fully in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
•
•
•
BUOY( 545 NA' l_ +_O
Together with such additional land, up to a maximum of
twenty-five (25) acres, generally located westerly of, but not
necessarily adjacent to, the heretofore particularly described
land, as is reasonably required in the future for the winter
storage of effluent, for infiltration areas, and for land
treatment, all as shown by final design plans for such
improvements as have been or may be approved by the Colorado
State Departmenn of Health.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the ).eased land for the term of fifty
(50) years from and after the date hereof, and upon
written notice from the Lessee delivered to the Lessor at least
180 days prior to expiration of the initial term for an
additional term of fifty (50) years at the sole option of the
Lessee and under the same terms and conditions as provided for
in this Agreement for the first fifty (50) year term.
In consideration of the premises, the parties hereby
respectively covenant and agree as follows:
Treatment Services
The parties incorporate into this Lease and Agreement by
reference Paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of "Section 2. Conveyance to
District" set forth in the Sewage Treatment Services Agreement,
dated July 2, 1979, and recorded on July 11, 1979, in Book 531
at Page 325 as Reception No. 295618, Garfield County Records;
and Lessee hereby agrees to perform the terms and conditions set
forth in said paragraphs and that the same are hereby made
expressly a part of this Lease and Agreement.
Future Expansion of Lessee's Facilities
a. The parties incorporate into this Lease and Agreement
by reference Paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d)(ii)(A) of "Section 2.
Conveyance to District" set forth in the Sewage Treatment
Services Agreement, dated July 2, 1979, and recorded on July 11,
-2-
•
•
•
bU1ix 543 PeTI'c_1 )
1979, in Book 531 at Page 325 as Reception No. 295618, Garfield
County Records; and Lessee hereby agrees to perform the
terms
and conditions set forth in said paragraphsand that the same are
hereby made expressly a part of this Lease and Agreement.
b. At such time as any of the additional land heretofore
described is needed and will actually be used for winter storage
of effluent, for infiltration areas, and for land treatment
Lessee will prJvide, at its sole expense, a survey of the
property to be used, which shall then become the subject of an
addendum to this Lease. Lessor and Lessee mutually agree to
reasonably negotiate the precise additional acreage to be used
for the purposes described in
this paragraph subject to the
overall acreage and use limitations as heretofore described.
c. All improvements constructed by Lessee upon the demised
land, including buildings, roads, pipelines, utility lines,
ponds, and any other structrues
or facilities
useful, necessary,
or proper for carrying on its sewage treatment operations on the
demised land shall remain the property of the Lessee during the
term of and subsequent to termination of this Lease, except upon
termination of the lease for Lessee's default as hereinafter
provided.
Operation of Treatment Facilities
a. The parties incorporate into this Lease
by reference Paragraph 2(d)(ii)(B) of "Section 2.
and Agreement
Conveyance to
District" set forth in the Sewage Treatment Service's Agreement,
dated July 2, 1979, and recorded on July 11, 1979, in
Book 531
at Page 325, at Reception No. 295618, Garfield County Records;
and the Lessee hereby agrees to perform the terms and conditions
set forth in said paragraph and that the same are hereby made
expressly a part of this Lease and Agreement.
-3-
BU(Ji( 545 Per,E 1_:;;t)
•b. Lessee agrees to maintain at its. own expense any and
all sewage treatment facilities located upon the demised
premises in a state of good repair, subject to and in compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, and sound engineering practice, and allowing for
ordinary wear and tear. Lessee agrees to fully and promptly pay
for all water, gas, heat, light, power, telephone service, and
other public utilities
of every kind furnished to the premises
throughout the term hereof, and all other costs and expenses of
every kind whatsoever of or in connection with the use,
operation, and maintenance of the premises and all activities
conducted thereon, and Lessor shall have no responsibility of
any kind for any thereof, except as otherwise specifically
provided for in this lease.
District Assumption of Agreement
• The parties incorporate into this Lease and Agreement by
this reference Section 5 of the Sewage Treatment Services
Agreement, dated July 2, 1979, and recorded on July 11, 1979, in
Book 531 at Page 325 as Reception No. 295618, Garfield County
Records; and Lessee hereby assumes and agrees to all of the
obligations of the District and Los Amigos to the College and
provided for in said Agreement.
•
Waste and Nuisance
During the term of this lease, Lessee shall comply with all
applicable laws affecting the demised premises, the breach of
which might result in any penalty on Lessor or forfeiture of
Lessor's title to the demised premises. During the term hereof,
Lessee shall not commit or suffer to be committed, any waste on
the demised premises, nor shall Lessee maintain, commit, or
permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance on the
demised premises.
-4-
•
•
Indemnification of Lessor
Lessor shall not be liable for any loss, injury, death, or
damage to persons or property which at any time may be suffered
or sustained by Lessee or by any person whosoever may at any
time be using or occupying or visiting the demised premises or
be in, on, or about the same, whether such loss, injury, death,
or damage shall be caused by or in any way result from or arise
out of any act, omission, or negligence of Lessee or of any
occupant, subtenant, visitor, or user of any portion of the
premises, or shall result from or be caused by any other matter
or thing whether of the same kind as or of a different kind than
the matters or things above set forth, and Lessee shall
indemnify Lessor against all claims, liability, loss, or damage
whatsoever on account of any such loss, injury, death, or
damage. Lessee hereby waives all claims against Lessor for
damages to the building and improvements that are now on or
hereafter placed or built on the premises and to the property of
Lessee in, on, or about the premises, and for injuries to
persons or property in or about the premises, from any cause
arising at any time. The two preceding sentences shall not apply
to loss, injury, death, or damage arising by reason of the
negligence or misconduct of Lessor, its agents, employees, or
students.
film 545 PMr,E 1.:�j
Insurance
a. Insurance coverage of premises. Lessee shall, at all
times during the term of this lease and at Lessee's sole
expense, keep all improvements which are now or hereafter a part
of the premises insured against loss or damage by fire and the
extended coverage hazards for one hundred percent (100%) of the
full replacement value of such improvements, with loss payable
to Lessor and Lessee as their interests may appear. Any loss
adjustment shall require the written consent of both Lessor and
Lessee.
b. Personal injury liability insurance. Lessee shall
• maintain in effect throughout the term of this lease personal
injury liability insurance covering the premises and its
appurtenances and the sidewalks fronting thereon in the amount
of not less than Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars
($500,000.00) for injury or death of any one person, and One
Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for injury or death
of any number df persons in one occurrence and property damage
liability insurance of not less than One Hundred Thousand and
No/100 Dollars ($100,000.00). Such insurance shall specifically
insure Lessee against all liability assumed by it hereunder, as
well as Liability imposed by law, and shall insure both Lessor
and Lessee but shall be so endorsed as to create the same
liablity on the part of the insurer as though separate policies
had been written for Lessor and Lessee.
c. Lessor's right to pay premiums on behalf of Lessee.
Lessee shall pay all of the premiums of policies of insurance
• referred to in this section and shall deliver such policies, or
certificates thereof, to Lessor, and in the event of the failure
of Lessee, either to effect such insurance in the names herein
called for or to pay the premiums therefor or deliver such
policies, or certificates thereof, to Lessor, Lessor shall be
entitled but shall have no obligation, to effect such insurance
and pay the premiums therefor, which premiums shall be repayable
to Lessor with the next installment of rental, and failure to
repay the same shall carry with it the same consequence as
failure to pay any installment of rental. Each insurer mentioned
in this section shall agree, by endorsement on the policy or
policies issued by it, or by independent instrument furnished to
Lessor, that it will give to Lessor thirty (30) days' written
notice before the policy or policies in question shall be
altered or canceled.
•
-6-
f'1
r.,< 545 pMME
d. Definition of full replacement value. The term "full
411
replacement value" of improvements as used herein shall mean the
actual replacement cost thereof from time Co time less
exclusions provided in the normal fire insurance policy. In the
event either party believes that the full replacement value
(that is to say, the then -replacement cost less exclusions) has
increased or decreased, it shall have the right, but, except as
provided below, only at intervals of not less than three (3)
years, to have such full replacement value redetermined by the
fire insurance company which is then carrying the largest amount
of fire insurance carried on the demised premises (hereinafter
referred to as "impartial appraiser"). The party desiring to
have the full replacement value so redetermined by such
impartial appraiser shall forthwith on submission of such
determination to such impartial appraiser give written notice
thereof to the other party hereto. The determination of such
impartial appraiser shall be final and binding on the parties
hereto, and Lessee shall forthwith increase (or decrease) the
amount of the insurance carried pursuant to this section as the
case may be to the amount so determined by the impartial;
appraiser. Such determination shall be binding until superseded
by agreement between the parties hereto or by a subsequent
redetermination by an impartial appraiser. Lessee shall pay all
costs, if any, of the impartial appraiser. If during any such
fifty (50) year period Lessee shall have made improvements to
the premises, Lessor may have such full replacement value
redetermined at any time after such improvements are made,
regardless of when the full replacement value was last
determined.
e. Adjustment of coverage. In the event that either party
shall at any time deem the limits of the personal injury or
property damage public liability insurance then _carried to be
either excessive or insufficient, the parties shall endeavor to
-7-
•
•
Box 545 PATE1'4-!4
agree on the proper and reasonable limits for such insurance
then to be carried, and such insurance shall thereafter be
carried with the limits thus agreed on until further change
pursuant to the provisions of this section; but, if the parties
shall be unable to agree thereon, the proper and reasonable
limits for such insurance then to be carried shall be determined
by an impartial third person selected by the parties, and the
decision of such impartial third person as to the proper and
reasonable limits for such insurance then to be carried shall be
binding on the parties, and such insurance shall be carried with
the limits as thus determined until such limits shall again be
changed pursuant to the provisions of this section. The expenses
of such determination shall be borne equally by the parties.
f. Blanket isurance policies. Nothwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in this section, Lessee's obligations to
carry the insurance provided for herein may be brought within
the coverage of a so-called blanket policy or policies of
insurance carried and maintained by Lessee; provided, however,
that the coverage afforded Lessor will not be reduced or
diminished or otherwise be different from that which would exist
under a separate policy meeting all other requirements of this
lease by reason of the use of such blanket policy of insurance,
and provided further that the requirements of the foregoing
Paragraph (e) of this section are otherwise satisfied.
g. Cost of insurance deemed additional rental. The cost of
insurance required to be carried by Lessee in this section shall
be deemed to be additional rental hereunder.
Defaults - Lessor's Remedies
Lessee shall be deemed to be in default under this Lease
and to have breached this Lease, automatically and without the
necessity of Lessor making any declaration of same, upon the
occurrence of any one of the following:
-8-
•
(71198 545 Py;E 1..- 3
1. Failure to pay rent when due;
2. Failure to provide or maintain insurance; or
3. Failure to keep and perform any other term,
covenant, promise, or condition contained in this Lease.
Lessor shall not be deemed to have acquiesced in or waived any
default of Lessee unless such default shall have existed for a
period of 120 days from (a) the date it occurred; or (b) the
date Lessor first actually knew of such default, whichever date
is later. In no event shall any such acquiescence or waiver, if
established, be construed or interpreted as an acquiescence in
or waiver of a subsequent default of a similar or dissimilar
kind.
Upon any default, Lessor shall have the right to terminate
this Lease, without any obligation or liability to Lessee, by
giving Lessee written notice at least forty-five (45) days in
advance of such termination date. The notice shall contain the
event constituting the default, the reason for the termination,
and the date of the termination, and shall notify Lessee that if
the default is not cured to the satisfaction of Lessor by the
termination date, then this Lease is deemed fully canceled and
terminated as of the termination date. Lessor may, in its
discretion, extend the termination date upon written request of
Lessee delivered to Lessor before the termination date if Lessor
determines and finds that: (1) there are compelling reasons to
grant Lessee an extension of the termination date in order to
enable Lessee to attempt to cure the default; and (2) that
Lessee is diligently pursuing efforts to cure the default as
quickly as possible.
Upon any such termination of the Lease, Lessee shall
immediately remove itself and all of its personal property from
the demised premises and shall immediately surrender possession
of the demised premises to Lessor without any further notice,
demand, process, suit, or action of Lessor being necessary or
- 9-
•
•
r-
iiip t 45 Per,c:1.:,-',ii
required. All costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred by
Lessor in connection with any default of Lessee, or with the
termination of this Lease, or in interpreting, enforcing, or
threatening to enforce the provisions hereof against Lessee,
shall be paid for by Lessee and recovered from Lessee, in
addition to all of Lessor's other remedies and claims. Such
surrender of possession by Lessee shall include forfeiture and
surrender to Lessor of all buildings, roads, pipelines, utility
lines, ponds, and other structures, facilities, and improvements
in good, workmanlike, and operable condition, made, constructed,
or placed by Lessee upon any portion of the demised premises and
useful, necessary, or proper for carrying on the sewage
treatment operations on the demised premises, the purpose of
this sentence being to enable Lessor to continue to operate the
sewage treatment facilities for Lessor's own benefit upon any
such termination of this Lease.
• In the event a default and surrender of the premises
hereunder occurs, Lessor agrees to negotiate with the existing
customers of the District for the purpose of entering into an
agreement, if such could be mutually arrived at, for the
continuation of service to existing users; provided, however,
this sentence shall not be construed to obligate Lessor to enter
into any such agreement.
Notice
Whenever notice is permitted or required in this Lease, it
shall be deemed given: (1) when personally delivered to an
authorized agent or representative of such party; or (2) when
deposited in the U. S. mails, first class, postage prepaid,
addressed if to Lessor:
Colorado Mountain Junior College District
c/o F. Dean Lillie, President
P. 0. Box 1367
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
-10-
•
•
and addressed if to Lessee:
BOOK 54.E NGE-1:4;'
Spring Valley Sanitation District
Board of Directors
P. 0. Box 2055
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Assignment
This lease shall not be assignable without the express
written consent of the parties, and shall inure to the benefit
of, and be binding upon, the parties, their successors in
interest, and assigns.
Execution Authority
By signing this Lease and Agreement, the parties acknow-
ledge and represent to one another that all procedures necessary
to validly contract and execute this Agremeent have been
performed and that the persons signing for each have been been
duly authorized so to do.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease....
and Agreement, in duplicate originals, on the day and year first
above written.
ATTEST:
/./'/
--I-
Dean K. Moe a't
District S�ret
ary
,, .
df` jdU I j;i�. •
COLORADO MOUNTAIN „1
•
COLLEGE D STRICT _ r.
F. Dean Lillie .'A�eIi�aiit•
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
By tt✓Y..(-7`' Vv, C ,7,,i4-.
Robert W. Chatmas, Chairman
-11-
•
•
•
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Garfield
BorY 545 P' -:E.1. 7
Ar4hThe foregoinginstrument was acknowledged before me this
day of February, 1980, by F. DEAN LILLIE, as President of
Clado Mountain Junior College District.
••..Witness my hand and official Seal.
My Codmission expires:
�<<R)•
oY I I C+\�G . o
C or �.o`
•
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of Garfield )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
26th day of February, 1980, by ROBERT W. CHATMAS, Chairman,
Spring Valley Sanitation District, and attested by DEAN K.
MOFFATT, District Secretary, Spring Valley Sanitation District.
Witness my hand and official Seal.
My Commission expires:
MAS 22,1483
Notar�uc /\
n
BILL OF SALE
8u71( 545 ? Cc:L; S]_
DELitiF '-r ,r 2 a fopQ
•t.i KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT COLORADO MOUNTAIN
•
JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT, a junior college district organized
under the Colorado statutes, party of the first part, for Ten
and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable
consideration to it in hand paid at or before the ensealing or
delivery of these presents by SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT,
4';.i a Colorado sanitation district
party of the second part, the
receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has bargained and sold,
and by these presents does grant and convey unto the said party
of the second part, its successors, or assigns, the following
property, goods, and chattels, to -wit:
The aerated Lagoons and any other
facilities appurtenant Co and used for the
transmission, treatment, and disposal of sewage
located on the property more particularly
described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said party of the
second part, its successors, or assigns, forever. And the said
party of the first part, for itself, its successors, or assigns,
covenants and agrees to and with the said party of the second•
part, its successors, and assigns, to WARRANT and DEFEND the
sale of said property, goods, and chattels hereby made unto the
said parry of the second part, its successors, and assigns
against all and every person or persons whomsoever, subject to
easements and rights-of-way for utilities and drainage, and
subject to reservations and restrictions of record.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has caused
its name to be hereunto subscribed by its Chairman, and its Seal
to be hereunto affixed, attested by the Secretary, this 25th
February,
�
day of ummaxx1980.
C0:L;L GEr
Lxatuckxxxxxa;xkac NxRaaxoxxxxx
xxxwmaalgxammxxxma
(SEAL)
COLORADO MOUNTAI
By
4RX1J4 G(xx. )411)3X, A.11 1(1E9(,.
F. Dean Lillie, PresiciLnt"'••
EXHIBIT 9.3
•
•
•
bw)K 545 ..r'
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Garfield )
The foregofi,en anscrument was acknowledged before me this
25th day of xi ;(tkt y •, 1980, by }4A NXXXXXxxxlX;a`t;cxrC7oQ?i;;tmx=
s radaifg0xX($XlIMUSxXxX$KBXHXXdxxlimxxxxxxNxx&Ia1PxxxAmg
xamigme€Y.gx F. Dean Lillie, President, Colorado :fountain College.
Witness my hand and notarial Seal.'
MY . mComission expires:
•
i•`1`".
July 28, 1981
-2-
•
•
•
aim 543 PifEi.: i3
EXHIBIT "A"
KKBNA
t •
r,
i•
SANITARY SEWAGE LAGOON
PARCEL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land situated in part of Government
Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Section 9, Township 7 South,
Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian in
the County of Garfield, State of Colorado. Said parcel
being bounded by a fence line as constructed and in
place. Said parcel being more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section
9 (being also the Northeast Corner of Section 8 in
, said Township and Range) a stone corner found in place
and properly marked; thence S. 54'29'05" E. 1537.27 feet
to a point in said fence line, the True Point of
Beginning; thence the following seven courses along
said fence line;
1) thence N. 65'01'59" E. 325.97 feet;
2) thence S. 81'10'33" E. 445.42 feet;
3) thence S. 07'33'25" E. 305.89 feet;
4) thence S. 73'00'58" W. 569.11 feet;
5) thence S. 89'47'19" W. 537.93 feet
6) thence N. 00'10'31" E. 259.94 feet;
7) thence N. 65'01'59" E. 337.02 feet;
to the True Point of Beginning.
Said parcel containing 9.85 acres, more or less.
Bearings for this description were based on a bearing
of S. 88'54'23" E. between the Northwest Corner of
Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian and the North Quarter Corner
of said Section 5.
May 15, 1979
KKBNA/SCARROW AND WALKER, INC.
1001 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
EXHIBIT 10.1
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
1999 BUDGET
1997 1998 1999
Actual proiected Budget
BEGINNING BALANCE
S 32.058 17.889 25.77$
REVENUES
Sewer charges
Property tax 10,440 18,300 20,000
Specific ownership tax 248 1,615 1,704
Interest 65 205 235
Refunds 607 950 900
Tap fees 268 130 200
Plant expansion fees 16,000 50,800 42,800
EQR Purchase 40,000 40,000 1,000,000
25.925
Total Revenues
67,628 137,925 11 065, 839
Total Available Resources
--5-.9_,Z23.5 ;55,814 1.091.617
EXPENDITURES
4I/ant operation
Engineering 10,526 2,500 6,000
Electric 28,318 1,000 2,000
Repairs and maintenance 2,525 2,550 2,600
-
Office rent and supplies 9,615 1,650
651 615 650
Directors fees
Insurance 1,762 3,750 3,000
Legal 2,268 2,247 3,000
Accounting 7,956 12,500 4,000
Treasurers fees 1,077 3,000 3,000
Capital outlay: 32 34
Engineering
Legal 7,891 18,000 60,000
Construction 1,354 24,000 20,000
2,264 1,642 920,000
System development
15, 00 48,400 40.800
Total
Emergency reserve
3.200
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$ 8 797 134, 036 1,069,§84
81,797 130,036 1,066,484
ENDING BALANCE
Unrestricted
$ 12.611225, 778 ZS�9�3.
MILL LEVY
ASSESSED VALUATION
.9 MILLS
$ 273,970
5.32 MILLS 2.61 MILLS
5 303,290 $ 652,580
TO: County Commissioners of
CERTIFICATION OF TAX LEVIES
GARFIELD
• BOARD OF DIRECTORS of
(governing board)
hereby certifies the following mill levies to be
$652,580
County, Colorado. The
the SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
(unit of government)
extended upon the GROSS assessed valuation of
. Submitted this date:
December 3, 1998
PURPOSE
1 • Genera! oLEVY RE VEINE
PcraB expenses (This includes 2.61
fire pension) mills $ 1, 704
2. (MINUS) Temporary property tax credit/
Temporary mill levy rate reduction (_—)mills $(
39-1-111.5, C.R.S.
SUBTO'T'AL
2_61 mills 5 1.704
3. General obligation bonds and interest*
mills $
4. Contractual obligations approved at election
__ mills S
5. Capital expenditures (levied throw public hearing
pursuant to 29-1-301(1.2), CRS.) for (counties and mins $—
municipalities only), 29-1-302(1.5),
C.R.S. for (special
districts may) or approved at eiecticia
6. Refunds/Abatements
7. Other (specify)
TOTAL
Contact person: GREG BOECRER
Daytime phone: ( 970 ) 945-6399
mills S
mills $
mills $
mills $
2.61 mills S 1,704
Title ?Signed: •.rte _ ��. .
C e 5
*SPECIAL CTS must certify separate mill levies and revenues to the Board of County
Commissioners, one each for funding requirements of each debt (32-1-1603, C.R.S.) Space is provided
on the back of this form. Totals should be recorded above on line 3.
NOTE: Certification must be carried to three decimal places only. If your boundaries extend into more than
one county, please list all counties here:
Send a completed copy of this form to the Division of Local Government, Room 521, 1313 Sherman Street,
Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-2156.
4401' E
FORM DLC 70 (Rev 1/98)
•
•
•
EXHIBIT 10.2
PRE -INCLUSION AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS PRE -INCLUSION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into this
day of , 1999, by and between SPRING VALLEY SANITATION
DISTRICT, a Colorado special district, (the "District"); SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT,
INC., a Colorado corporation, ("SVD"); BERKELEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Colorado limited partnership, ("Berkeley"); COLORADO MOUNTAIN JUNIOR COLLEGE
DISTRICT, a statutory junior college district ("CMC"); LOS AMIGOS RANCH
PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general partnership, ("LARP"); COLORADO PINON PINES,
LTD., a Colorado limited partnership ("Pinon Pines"); and WILLIAM AND PAMELA
GIBSON ("Auburn Ridge"). SVD, Berkeley, CMC, LARP, Pinon Pines, and Auburn Ridge
are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Landowners." SVD, Berkeley, CMC, and LARP are
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Funding Landowners."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the District is a Colorado special district formed and organized in 1980 and
functioning pursuant to the authority of Colo. Rev. Stat.
wastewater treatment service to an area in Garfield County, Colorado;
and 1, ett seq., providing
WHEREAS, the Landowners are respectively the fee and equitable owners of one
hundred percent (100 %) of certain real property located in the Spring Valley area of Garfield
County, Colorado, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Service Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Landowners desire that the Service Property be included in the District
and that the District provide wastewater treatment service to the Service Property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District (the "Board") has determined that it
is in the best interests of the District to expand the District boundaries to include the Service
Property and to provide central wastewater treatment service to the Service Property by
constructing, managing, and operating a new wastewater treatment plant; and
WHEREAS, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§32-1-401, et seq., provide requirements and procedures
for inclusions of property into the District, and specifically Colo. Rev. Stat. §32-1-402(1)(c)
provides that agreements may be entered into "between a board and the owners of property
sought to be included in a special district with respect to fees, charges, terms and conditions on
which such property may be included"; and
F: \ 1999\A greements\S VS D-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-1-
•
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §32-1-401(1)(a), the Landowners filed Petitions
for Inclusion with the District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §32-1-401(1)(b), the District held duly noticed
public hearings on March 29, 1999, and April 22, 1999, at which hearings the inclusion of the
Service Property was approved by the Board of Directors for the District pursuant to Colo. Rev.
Stat. §32-1-401(1)(c)(I), subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement between the
parties; and
WHEREAS, the District adopted an amendment to its 1979 Service Plan for the purpose
of incorporating the Service Property into its service area and providing for the construction of
a new wastewater treatment plant, which Amended Service Plan was approved by the Garfield
County Board of Commissioners on April 26, 1999; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the Funding Landowners each executed Initial Funding Agreements
with the District providing for the funding of a portion of the estimated costs of site application
approval from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ("CDPHE") for the
proposed new wastewater treatment plant, an amendment to the existing District Service Plan,
and agreements for inclusion in the District of property owned by the Landowners; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §§32-1-1001(1)(d) and (j -m), and 31-35-
• 402(1)(e) and (0, the District has the authority to obtain reimbursement of its costs in providing
services to District customers, including, but not limited to, sewer connections, inclusions in the
District, and planning and review of line extensions; and
WHEREAS, the Landowners are willing to provide funds, pursuant to the terms and
conditions set forth herein, for the construction by the District of a new tertiary wastewater
treatment plant and associated sewage and treated effluent collection and conveyance facilities
(the "Plant"), a depiction of which is contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, in consideration of the District's inclusion of the Service Property within the District,
the District's provision of wastewater treatment service to the Service Property, and the
reimbursement of the Funding Landowners' construction cost contributions, including interest
accrued thereon as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the District and the Landowners desire to set forth the terms and conditions
pursuant to which the Service Property will be included within the District; the Plant will be
funded, designed, constructed, and operated; and construction cost reimbursements to the
Funding Landowners shall occur.
•
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the
parties and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties, on behalf of themselves, their successors, assigns or
transferees, agree as follows:
F: \ 1999\Agreements \SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-2-
•
1. Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this Pre -Inclusion and Wastewater
Treatment Plant Development Agreement is to provide for the inclusion of the Service Property
within the District, the construction and initial operation of the Plant to provide wastewater
treatment service for the property within the District's service area, as amended from time to
time, and to provide for reimbursement of construction costs contributed by the Funding
Landowners.
2. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
3. Termination of Initial Funding Agreements. Upon execution of this Agreement,
the Initial Funding Agreements entered into by the District and each of the Funding Landowners
shall terminate and all initial funding amounts required by the District under the Initial Funding
Agreements shall be immediately due and payable upon execution of this Agreement. The
parties agree that under the terms of the Initial Funding Agreements, each Funding Landowner
is responsible for payment to the District of $50,000, and payment of such sums is a condition
precedent to execution of this Agreement. The District acknowledges receipt of the following
sums from the Funding Landowners prior to the execution of this Agreement. Upon execution
of this Agreement, the Funding Landowners shall be responsible for funding the Plant Project
Cost, as defined in paragraph 18, below. The parties further agree that the Funding Landowners
shall have no right or claim for reimbursement or credit for funds contributed under the Initial
Funding Agreements, except as provided in paragraph 23, below, absent a breach of this
Agreement by the District.
4. Incorporation of District Rules and Regulations. The Rules and Regulations of
the District in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement, and any subsequent amendments
thereto, are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. If no District Rules and
Regulations are in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement, this Agreement shall
incorporate those Rules and Regulations approved by the Board following execution of this
Agreement, and any subsequent amendments to those Rules and Regulations; provided,
however, the District Rules and Regulations incorporated into this Agreement, and any
subsequent amendments thereto, shall not operate to defeat or materially alter the parties'
express rights and obligations under this Agreement. From the effective date of inclusion of the
Service Property as established by an Order of the Garfield County District Court, the Service
Property shall be subject to all lawful taxes, fees, rates, tolls and charges now in effect or which
may later be lawfully levied or collected by the District, except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement. Further, all connections to the Plant and all lines for wastewater treatment service
on the Service Property shall be made in accordance with the District's Rules and Regulations
and technical specifications, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
5. Warranties and Representations. The Landowners make the following
representations and warranties to the District:
A. Each Landowner is the fee owner of its respective portion of the Service Property
and has good and marketable title to its portion of the Service Property, subject
F: \ 1999\Agreements \SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-3-
1
to any mortgage, covenants, deeds of trust, restrictions, reservations, or
easements now or hereafter affecting its portion of the Service Property;
B. Each Landowner has the full right, power and authority to enter into and perform
this Agreement;
C. To the best of each Landowner's knowledge, neither the execution of this
Agreement, nor the fulfillment or compliance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, will conflict with, or result in, a breach of any terms, conditions-,
or provisions of, or constitute a default under, or result in the imposition of any
prohibited lien, charge, or encumbrance of any nature against its respective
portion of the Service Property under any other agreement, instrument, indenture,
deed of trust, mortgage, judgment, order, or decree of any court to which such
Landowner is party to or by which such Landowner or its portion of the Service
Property are bound; provided, however, that a Landowner may obtain a waiver
of any such terms or conditions, or a consent to its entry into this Agreement, and
remain in full compliance with this representation;
D. Each Landowner shall provide all easements necessary for the construction of the
Plant, pursuant to paragraph 11 of this Agreement; and
E. Each Funding Landowner can and will provide funds, pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, for the design, construction, monitoring, final
testing and initial operation of the Plant.
6. Inclusion of Property. Provided each Landowner has satisfied all conditions
precedent to inclusion identified herein, the District shall take all steps necessary to finalize the
inclusion of the Service Property into the District pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §§32-1-401 et
seq., including, but not limited to, obtaining an Order of Inclusion from the Garfield County
District Court, and filing and recording such Order with the Garfield County Clerk and
Recorder, the Garfield County Assessor, and the Division of Local Government of the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs. The Order of Inclusion shall not be tendered to the District Court,
and the inclusion of the Service Property shall not be effective, unless and until each of the
following conditions are satisfied:
A. Receipt by the District of all necessary approvals for Plant construction from state
and local government entities, including but not limited to final approval of a site
application by CDPHE for the Plant. Approval by governmental entities of the
necessary permits, or other regulatory approvals, shall be satisfactory to meet this
condition if such approval is made without conditions or with conditions approved
in writing by the District. If any necessary approval as contemplated in this
paragraph is received with conditions, the District shall have the right, after
consultation with the Landowners, to refuse to accept such conditions and may
declare such approval unsatisfactory for purposes of meeting this condition. In
the event that any condition precedent herein listed is not satisfied by April 30,
F: \ 1999\Agreements\S VSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-4-
•
2000, any Landowner may withdraw its request for inclusion in the District and
withdraw from this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 27 below.
B. Receipt by the District of an acceptable financial guarantee from each of the
Funding Landowners for one hundred percent (100%) of its pro rata share of the
construction cost of the Plant, as more particularly described in paragraph 18,
below.
7. Connection to District System. Prior to commencement of Plant construction, and
subject to the District's sole discretion, no Landowner shall have the right to receive additional
service from the District's wastewater treatment system in existence as of the execution of this
Agreement ("Existing Treatment System"); provided, however, it is expressly agreed that the
foregoing limitation shall not be construed to prevent or restrict any Landowner, or the
transferee of any Landowner, from making connection to the Existing Treatment System and
receiving wastewater treatment service therefrom pursuant to a Tap fee credit purchased by such
Landowner from the District prior to the date of execution of this Agreement. The parties
recognize that the District has approved the Colorado Animal Rescue ("CARE") request to
connect its proposed animal shelter, which is to be located on the Service Property, to the
Existing Treatment System prior to commencement of Plant construction, and the parties agree
that CARE shall utilize no more than 1 EQR of capacity. The CARE connection shall not be
deemed a violation of the provisions of this paragraph.
No new wastewater treatment service shall be provided to the Service Property, and no
new connection shall be made to the Plant until the Service Property is included in the District,
the appropriate Landowner's application for service has been approved by the District, the
appropriate Landowner has complied with all connection requirements as established in the
District's Rules and Regulations, any applicable tap fees have been paid, a tap permit has been
issued, and Plant construction is completed. Upon completion of Plant construction, all existing
users of the District's Existing Treatment System shall connect to the Plant. Except as provided
in paragraph 22, below, in the event the District's service lines are constructed within four
hundred (400) feet of an operational individual sewage disposal system ("ISDS") on the Service
Property, the user of the ISDS shall be required to connect to the Plant within one (1) year of
notification from the District to the user that such connection is required.
8. Amended Service Plan. On February 5, 1999, the District submitted to Garfield
County an Amended Service Plan for the expanded wastewater treatment service to be provided
by the District, which was approved by the Garfield County Board of Commissioners on April
26, 1999. The respective obligations of the District and the Funding Landowners concerning
the costs and preparation of the Amended Service Plan are further described in the Initial
Funding Agreements. The parties agree that the District shall be permitted, after consultation
with the Funding Landowners, to make the sole decision regarding the ultimate size and extent
of any revisions to the District boundaries or service area, so long as such revisions do not cause
the Funding Landowners to be obligated to the District for any additional dollar amounts
pursuant to this Agreement, and do not result in the exclusion of the Service Property of any of
the Funding Landowners.
F: \ 1999\Agreements \SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-5-
9. Site Application. Plant Design and Construction Inspection Responsibility. The
• District shall prepare and submit for approval a Site Application to the CDPHE pursuant to
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-702 for the Plant. The parties agree that the Plant shall be designed by
a qualified engineering firm selected at the sole discretion of the District ("District Engineer"),
with input from the Funding Landowner Representative as described in paragraph 17, below.
The Plant shall be located at the site of the Existing Treatment System. The Plant is intended
to be designed as a tertiary treatment plant capable of handling the maximum estimated capacity
needs of the District, currently estimated to be 500,000 gallons per day, and to be constructed
in a single phase; however, the parties agree that the District may determine to construct a
tertiary treatment plant of a capacity less than or greater than 500,000 gallons per day, if
economic or other practical considerations so dictate. The District shall maintain absolute
discretion, after consultation with the Funding Landowners, to design and construct a phased
facility or to change the capacity of the Plant if circumstances so require, so long as the capacity
needs of the Landowners are satisfied. The Site Application also will propose the facilities
required for the transportation of the treated effluent from the Plant to an outfall point located
in the Spring Valley Drainage on the Berkeley or SVD Service Property. The exact location
shall be determined by mutual agreement of the parties, approval of which shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed. The parties agree to cooperate and proceed in good faith to
complete and submit to CDPHE the Site Application as contemplated herein. The District
Engineer shall provide full engineering services, including design services, assistance during
bidding, and construction management, inspection and observation. The District Engineer and
the District shall agree, after consultation with the Funding Landowners, upon a maximum cost
for such services. During the period of construction, such services may include full-time on-site
representation by the District Engineer.
10. Landowner Use of Effluent. The Landowners shall have the right to receive,
without cost therefor, from the District the tertiary treated effluent from the Plant attributable
to the wastewater generated by use on their respective properties. To the extent reasonably
economically possible, the District will treat the effluent to meet State of Colorado standards for
land application of treated effluent. Such effluent will be delivered along the outfall line to the
Spring Valley drainage, and each Landowner shall be responsible for all costs associated with
delivery of its treated effluent from discharge points along the outfall line to its respective place
of use on the Service Area property, including but not limited to the cost of: (1) delivery line
construction and maintenance; and (2) installation, operation and maintenance of any necessary
pumps and meters. The Landowners may use such effluent for agricultural purposes, irrigation
of golf courses, open space, or lawns and gardens within the District's Service Area if
appropriate governmental approvals and/or water rights, if required, for such uses are obtained
by the Landowners at the Landowners' sole expense. Additional treated effluent generated by
the Plant or treated effluent not requested by the Landowners entitled to it shall annually be
offered, without cost therefor, for use pro rata by any of the Landowners who have notified the
District of their desire to use such additional amounts. The Landowners' respective rights to
the use of effluent under this paragraph may be assigned, leased, or conveyed, provided such
assignment, lease or conveyance is only to a successor development interest, a homeowner's
association formed for homeowners within the District's Service Area, an entity formed to
•
•
F: \ 1999\Agreements\S VSD -Development -Agent -Final. wpd
-6-
•
operate golf courses or manage irrigation within the District's Service Area, or to one or more
Landowners.
11. Easements. The Landowners, if requested by the District, shall dedicate for no
additional consideration non-exclusive easements for all facilities, including access and
temporary construction easements, associated with construction, operation, maintenance, repair
and replacement of the Plant, including but not limited to easements for collection lines, outfall
lines, lift stations, drainage, and for delivery of reusable effluent to the Landowners. The
locations of such easements shall be determined by mutual agreement between the District and
each individual Landowner, approval of which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
Such easements shall be for the benefit of the District and other users of the Plant, if necessary.
The Landowners shall dedicate such easements to the District, free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances which would interfere, as determined by the District, with the District's use of
the easements. All easements to be dedicated shall be general utility easements of width
reasonably determined by the District. Further, the Landowners agree to dedicate other
necessary easements for access or completion of work on the Service Property and for future
expansion of District services to the Service Property as may be determined reasonably
necessary by the District. The Landowners shall further dedicate for no additional consideration
additional easements for sewer collection lines and appurtenant facilities as required and
approved by the District across the Landowners' Service Property to serve the Landowners'
Service Property. All such easements shall be determined and dedicated as needed by the
District for Plant construction and for internal collection lines. The parties agree that any
easements dedicated under this paragraph may be relocated upon request to the District by a
Landowner, provided such relocation shall not result in any cost to the District or any user of
the Plant. The District will cooperate with the Landowners in connection with its utilization of
such easements so as to minimize interference with the Landowners' development activities.
12. Easements to be Acquired by Eminent Domain. The District and the Landowners
agree that the District shall exercise its lawful rights to condemn non-exclusive easements across
property not within the Service Area under the following circumstances:
A. The District shall condemn, if necessary, any easements across property not
within the Service Area which are required for Plant construction, including but
not limited to construction of Plant facilities, temporary construction easements,
access easements, and easements for collection lines, outfall lines, lift stations,
and drainage. The cost of such eminent domain proceedings shall be deemed part
of the Plant Project Cost as identified in paragraph 16, below.
B. The District shall condemn, at the request of any Landowner, any easements
across property not within the Service Area which are required to deliver treated
effluent to such Landowner under the provisions of paragraph 10, above. The
cost of such eminent domain proceedings shall be deemed a cost associated with
delivery of the treated effluent from the outfall line to the Landowner's Service
Area Property, which is solely attributable to the requesting Landowner.
F: \ 1999\A greements\SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-7-
•
13. Land Use Review. In any land use approval process, the District agrees to
confirm to Garfield County the availability of wastewater treatment service to the Service
Property consistent with and pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and any other related
agreements.
14. Schedule. The District Engineer and the Funding Landowners have established
a master schedule, which outlines each of the major tasks to be accomplished by each of the
parties and the time contemplated for each activity. A copy of the master schedule is attached
hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. The parties agree that time is of
the essence in this Agreement and the parties agree to cooperate and exercise their best efforts
to comply with the master schedule. So long as the District is proceeding in a workmanlike
manner and using its good faith best efforts, it shall not be liable for failure to comply with the
master schedule; the parties recognize that the master schedule reflects an aggressive time frame
at the request of the Funding Landowners. In addition, the District Engineer shall provide
detailed schedules indicating planned and actual progress for each of the design activities
contemplated. The District shall cause such detailed design schedules to be completed by the
District Engineer and updated monthly as required with actual progress indicated. Copies shall
be provided on a monthly basis by the District Engineer to the Board and the Funding
Landowners.
15. Plant Project Budget. The District Engineer has established a budget for Plant
construction ("Plant Project Budget"). The actual cost of all items contained in the Plant Project
Budget shall be designated the "Plant Project Cost." The Plant Project Budget shall include the
following:
A. All costs incurred or services provided by the District for the Landowners'
benefit associated with the inclusion of the Service Property within the District
boundaries, preparation and approval of the service plan amendment and site
application, preparation of this Agreement, and any other costs addressed in the
Initial Funding Agreements, including but not limited to engineering, legal, filing
or recording fees and related expenses or costs. Such costs shall include all
actual costs incurred by the District and reimbursed by the Funding Landowners
under the Initial Funding Agreements, and $23,000 of the funds expended by
CMC in conjunction with the District's 1996 secondary wastewater treatment
facility expansion, as such contribution has reduced the costs of Plant approval,
design, and construction by that amount.
B. All costs incurred for acquisition of easements or real property necessary for
construction of the Plant, other than those provided pursuant to paragraph 11
above.
C. All costs incurred for payment of development, design, engineering, construction,
construction management, construction observation and inspection, final Plant
testing, and commissioning of the Plant.
F: \ 1999\ Agreements \SVSD-Development-Agmt-Fi nal. wpd
-8-
•
•
•
A copy of the Plant Project Budget is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated
herein by this reference. The District Board shall review and modify, if necessary, the Plant
Project Budget after consultation with the District Engineer and the Funding Landowners
following: (1) CDPHE approval of the Site Application for the Plant ("Site Approval
Deadline"); (2) the possible addition of necessary treatment processes, including but not limited
to required construction of winter storage reservoirs for land application of treated effluent; and
(3) identification of the lowest responsible bidder for construction of the Plant as described in
paragraph 17, below. The District Board may, at any other time, modify the Plant Project
Budget after consultation with the District Engineer and the Funding Landowners. The parties
agree that under the terms of this paragraph, the District Board shall have absolute discretion
to modify the Plant Project Budget, after consultation with the District Engineer and the Funding
Landowners, provided the Construction Cost per EQR, as identified in paragraph 20.B., below,
does not exceed $3,400. In the event the District Board's modification of the Plant Project
Budget results in a Construction Cost per EQR exceeding $3,400, such modification shall
require unanimous approval from the Funding Landowners.
In the event the District Board's modification of the Plant Project Budget results in a
Construction Cost per EQR exceeding $3,400 and the modification does not receive unanimous
approval from the Funding Landowners, the District Board may terminate construction of the
Plant. The parties further agree that if the District Board terminates construction of the Plant
following Funding Landowner denial of a Plant Project Budget modification, the District and
the Funding Landowners shall enter into good faith negotiations to establish a mutually
acceptable Plant Project Budget and complete construction of the Plant. If mutual agreement is
not reached for the completion of Plant construction and the District elects to terminate
construction of the Plant under this paragraph, such termination of construction shall not be
deemed a breach of this Agreement by the District, nor shall the District be liable for any
damages incurred by any or all of the Landowners as a result of the District's actions. The Plant
Project Budget shall be deemed final upon award of the Plant construction bid under paragraph
17 below.
In the event the District and the Funding Landowners establish a mutually acceptable
Plant Project Budget which results in a Construction Cost per EQR exceeding $3,400, the
District shall resume construction of the Plant in a timely manner. If one or more Funding
Landowners elects not to provide its respective funding amount under the terms of the revised
Plant Project Budget, such Funding Landowner(s) shall be designated a Partial Funding
Landowner for purposes of this Agreement. A Partial Funding Landowner shall not be deemed
in breach of this Agreement for failure to pay its pro rata share under the revised Plant Project
Budget. A Partial Funding Landowner shall, however, forfeit the right to utilize any taps for
its Requested EQRs under paragraph 19, Table B, above, until the Partial Funding Landowner
provides payment of its entire funding amount under the terms of the revised Plant Project
Budget to the District, together with interest earned thereon in the amount of twelve percent
(12%) per annum, compounded annually. In the event the Partial Funding Landowner fails to
make payment of the entire funding amount, with interest, to the District within ten (10) years
of commencement of Plant operation, such Partial Funding Landowner shall forfeit all claims
for use of its requested taps and shall waive any right or claim for reimbursement or credit for
F: \ I999\Agreements\S VS D-Development-Agmt-Fina1. wpd
-9-
sums provided to the District under this Agreement or the Initial Funding Agreements. The
Partial Funding Landowner shall be precluded from purchasing unallocated taps from the
District prior to payment of the entire funding amount, with interest; provided, however, such
Partial Funding Landowner may purchase unallocated taps following expiration of the ten (10)
year period identified above. Upon receipt of payment from the Partial Funding Landowner,
the District shall reimburse the appropriate Funding Landowner(s) for their contributions to the
Plant Project Budget in excess of their Funding Amounts, plus interest collected on such sums.
16. Plant Design Process. By November 1, 1999, the Funding Landowners shall
provide the District with a final request for EQR capacity in the Plant, and the District Engineer
shall then prepare a Plant design for review by the Board and the Funding Landowners. Upon
review of the Plant design by the Funding Landowners, any Funding Landowner may present
evidence to the Board of an alternative plant design or cost estimate which will result in a cost
reduction exceeding ten percent (10%). The Board shall consider such evidence prior to
acceptance of the District Engineer's Plant design. The parties agree that any Funding
Landowner may approach the Board with a request for further modification of its EQR request
for capacity in the Plant, and the Board, in its reasonable discretion, may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the Funding Landowner request, provided such request does not result in
any additional cost to the District or the remaining Landowners, or an unreasonable delay in
completion of the Plant construction.
The District Engineer shall design the Plant to comply with any condition of approval of
the Site Application and applicable federal, state and local environmental and design standards
at the most efficient and practicable overall capital construction, operations, and maintenance
cost. The District Engineer shall submit design progress reports to the District and the Funding
Landowners as are customary in the industry at 30% , 65% , and 95 % completion, and shall
include in each progress report an update or review of the expected Plant cost. The Funding
Landowners shall have ten (10) days after receipt of each submittal to provide any comments
or concerns regarding the design of the Plant to the District Engineer and the District Board.
The comments of the Funding Landowners shall be considered by the District but need not be
implemented by the District. In the event a submittal contains a District Engineer conclusion that
the Plant Project Budget will be exceeded, the District Engineer shall utilize his best efforts to
re -design or make such other changes as may be required to cause the estimate of probable
construction costs to be within the Plant Project Budget. The final design documentation shall
be prepared for public bidding and shall include complete construction documents consisting of
drawings and specifications prepared in the form of a project manual.
17. Plant Construction Process. Upon approval by the Board in its sole discretion and
approval by CDPHE of the final plans and specifications of the Plant, the project shall be
publicly bid for immediate construction in accordance with Colorado statutes and shall be
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder as may be determined in the sole discretion of the
Board after consideration of the recommendations of the District Engineer and the Landowners.
Upon receipt of all applicable permits by Garfield County, approval by CDPHE of the
site application and final plans and specifications for the new Plant pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat.
F: \1999\Agreements\SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final.wpd
-10-
•
•
•
§25-8-702, award of the construction contract, and receipt of financial guarantees from the
Funding Landowners as identified in paragraph 18, below, the District shall commence
construction of the Plant. The Plant shall be constructed by the District under the supervision
of the District Engineer. The construction shall be observed by a representative designated by
the Funding Landowners ("Funding Landowner Representative"). Changes to the construction
documents during the course of construction shall be forwarded promptly to the District Board
and the Funding Landowner Representative with the comments of the District Engineer.
18. Payment of Plant Project Costs. The Plant Project Cost shall be the several
responsibility of the Funding Landowners, subject to the cost recovery provisions of paragraph
23 below. By November 1, 1999, each Funding Landowner shall provide the District with an
acceptable financial guarantee for five percent (5 %) of its Funding Amount, as identified in
paragraph 19, Table B, below. Within thirty (30) days following the Site Approval Deadline,
each Funding Landowner shall provide the District with a financial guarantee for an additional
five percent (5 %) of its Funding Amount, as identified in paragraph 19, Table B, below. The
financial guarantees shall be in the form of a reserve fund or a clean irrevocable letter of credit
in a form and from a financial institution acceptable to the District, not limited to a Colorado
financial institution. In the event a Funding Landowner provides a clean irrevocable letter of
credit from a financial institution outside Colorado, the District may, in its sole discretion
require the Funding Landowner to provide either (1) a legal opinion letter verifying that the
state laws of the financial institution do not impair the District's ability to draw on such letter
of credit under the terms of this Agreement; or (2) confirmation by a bank licensed to do
business in the State of Colorado, doing business in the State of Colorado, and acceptable to the
District which is deemed a "Confirmer" as that term is defined in Colo. Rev Stat. §4-5-
102(a)(4), and subject to the obligations contained in Colo. Rev Stat. §4-5-107(a). The Funding
Landowner financial guarantees and monies provided shall be non-refundable and non -creditable
for future service requests in the event of Funding Landowner withdrawal or termination for
breach under paragraph 27, below.
Within twenty (20) days following the District's identification of the lowest responsible
bid for construction of the Plant and prior to awarding the construction contract, each Funding
Landowner shall provide the District with an acceptable financial guarantee for its Funding
Amount, as identified in paragraph 19, Table B, below, less the deposits described above and
any sums contributed under the Funding Landowners' respective Initial Funding Agreements.
CMC's funding amount shall be further reduced by $23,000, as identified in paragraph 15
above. The acceptable financial guarantees shall be in the form of a reserve fund or clean
irrevocable letter of credit in a form and from a financial institution reasonably acceptable to the
District, not limited to a Colorado financial institution. In the event a Funding Landowner
provides a clean irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution outside Colorado, the
District may, in its sole discretion require the Funding Landowner to provide either (1) a legal
opinion letter verifying that the state laws of the financial institution do not impair the District's
ability to draw on such letter of credit under the terms of this Agreement; or (2) confirmation
by a bank licensed to do business in the State of Colorado, doing business in the State of
Colorado, and acceptable to the District which is deemed a "Confirmer" as that term is defined
in Colo. Rev Stat. §4-5-102(a)(4), and subject to the obligations contained in Colo. Rev Stat.
F: \ 1999\Agreements \S VSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-11-
•
§4-5-107(a). The Funding Landowner financial guarantees and monies provided shall be non-
refundable and non -creditable for future service requests in the event of Funding Landowner
withdrawal or termination for breach under paragraph 27, below.
Each Funding Landowner's share of the Plant Project Costs shall be paid monthly within
twenty (20) days of mailing from the District to the Funding Landowners of itemized billings
and the Contractor's summary invoice. Each Funding Landowner shall have the right to reduce
the amount of its respective financial guarantee by actual invoiced amounts paid to the District
under this paragraph, approval of which shall not be unreasonably withheld by the District. If
a Funding Landowner elects to establish a reserve fund for payment of its share of the Plant
Project Costs, the District will draw upon such reserve fund within twenty (20) days of the date
of mailing. In the event amounts billed to the Funding Landowners under this paragraph remain
unpaid twenty (20) days after the date they are billed, the District may declare the appropriate
Funding Landowner in default and assess a five percent (5 %) penalty on such overdue amounts.
Provided that the Funding Landowners comply with their funding obligations pursuant
to this Agreement, the District agrees that the construction of the Plant will be completed without
the imposition of any mechanic's liens on any portion of the Service Property of the complying
Funding Landowners. If a mechanic's lien is imposed on said portion of the Service Property,
the District will remove it, either through payment of the underlying obligation or bonding,
within ten (10) days of receipt of notice of the imposition of such lien.
19. Funding Landowners' Allocation of Plant Project Costs. The Funding
Landowners' allocation of Plant Project Costs shall be determined according to the provisions
of this paragraph, which are expressly contingent upon a maximum Construction Cost per EQR,
as defined in paragraph B below, of $3,400 and a corresponding maximum Funding Landowner
Cost per EQR, as defined in paragraph H below, of $4,000. In the event modifications to the
Plant Project Budget result in a Construction Cost per EQR exceeding $3,400 or a Funding
Landowner Cost per EQR exceeding $4,000, the District Board shall retain the right to modify
the cost obligations identified in Tables A and B below, subject to the approval of the Funding
Landowners. The estimated figures in paragraphs A through I of this paragraph are based upon
the data contained in Tables A and B, are provided by way of example and do not represent a
final calculation of the Funding Landowners' Allocation of Plant Project Costs. The actual
Funding Amounts will be based on the Plant Project Budget, as amended from time to time, and
on the EQR requests made by November 1, 1999.
A. The capacity of the Plant, as measured in gallons per day, shall be divided by 350
to determine the initial EQR capacity available in the Plant ("Plant EQR
Capacity"). The estimated Plant capacity is 500,000 gallons per day, resulting
in an initial Plant EQR Capacity of 1429 EQRs.
B. The Plant Project Budget shall be divided by the Plant EQR Capacity to
determine the Plant construction cost per EQR ("Construction Cost per EQR").
The estimated Plant Project budget, $4,510,000, divided by the estimated Plant
F:\ 1999\Agreements\SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final.wpd
-12-
•
EQR Capacity of 1429 EQRs, results in an estimated Construction Cost per EQR
of $3,156.
C. Existing user contributions for the Plant Project Costs are identified in Table A,
below. Table A identifies the existing in -District and contract users, including
the Los Amigos Ranch lot owners within the District who currently receive or are
entitled to receive District service ("In -District Users"), Auburn Ridge, Pinon
Pines, and 51 of CMC's EQRs. The EQR allocation for such users is identified
in the EQR column of Table A. The Construction Cost per EQR multiplied by
the EQR allocation results in the respective Contribution Amount for each
existing user in Table A. The District Board has determined that the
Construction Cost per EQR for In -District Users identified in Table A shall be
fifty percent (50 %) of the Construction Cost per EQR for other users as
established in paragraph B above. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the
Construction Cost for the In -District Users shall be designated the "In -District
Shortfall." The estimated In -District Shortfall is $77,322 ($3,156/EQR
multiplied by .5 multiplied by 49 EQR = $77,322).
D. The Funding Landowners have preliminarily requested EQR capacity in the Plant
as identified in the Requested EQR column of Table B, below. The fmal request
for EQR capacity shall be made as specified in paragraph 16 above. The Funding
Landowner funding percentage is calculated by dividing the individual Funding
Landowner Requested EQR by the total Funding Landowner Requested EQR
("Funding Percentage"). The Funding Percentage is identified in Table B,
below.
E. The unallocated EQR capacity of the Plant is determined by subtracting the sum
of the Existing User EQRs, as identified in Table A, below, and the Funding
Landowner Requested EQRs, as identified in Table B, below, from the Plant
EQR Capacity ("Unallocated Capacity"). The initial Unallocated Capacity is 164
EQRs (1,429 - (176 + 1,089) = 164 EQRs).
F. Each Funding Landowner shall be responsible for its proportional share of the
cost of the Unallocated Capacity. The cost per EQR of the Unallocated Capacity
is determined by dividing the product of the Unallocated Capacity and the
Construction Cost per EQR by the total Funding Landowner Requested EQRs,
as identified in Table B, below. The estimated cost per EQR of the Unallocated
Capacity ("Unallocated Subsidy") is $475 (164 EQRs multiplied by $3,156/EQR
divided by 1,089 EQRs = $475/EQR).
G. The Funding Landowners shall be responsible for their proportional share of the
In -District Shortfall. The cost per EQR of such obligation shall be calculated by
dividing the In -District Shortfall by the total Funding Landowner Requested
EQRs, as identified in Table B, below. The estimated cost per EQR of the In -
F: \ 1999\Agreements\SVS D-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-13-
District Shortfall ("In -District Subsidy") is $71 ($77,322 divided by 1,089 EQR
• _ $71/EQR).
K. The Funding Landowner Cost per EQR, identified in Table B, below, is the sum
of the Construction Cost per EQR, the Unallocated Subsidy, and the In -District
Subsidy. The estimated Funding Landowner Cost per EQR is $3,702
($3,156/EQR + $475/EQR +$71/EQR = $3,702/EQR).
I. The Funding Landowner's respective Funding Amount, as identified in Table B,
below, is the product of the Funding Landowner Requested EQRs and the
Funding Landowner Cost per EQR.
TABLE A
Existing User
EQR
Construction Cost per EQR
Contribution Amount
In -District Users
49
$1,578
$77,322
Auburn Ridge
30
$3,156
$94,680
CMC
51
$3,156
$160,956
Pinon Pines
46
$3,156
$145,146
Total
176
$478,134
TABLE B
Funding Landowner
Requested
EQR
F
Pel
Spring Valley Development, Inc.
646
Berkeley Family Limited
Partnership
112
1
Colorado Mountain College
61
Los Amigos Ranch Partnership
270
2
Total
1,089
1
ending
tentage
Cost per
EQR (1)
Funding
Amount
;9.3
$3,702
$2,391,492
0.3
$3,702
$414,624
5.6
$3,702
$225,822
4.8
$3,702
$999,540
)0.0
---
$4,031,478
(1) Funding Landowner Cost per EQR calculated as follows:
Construction Cost per EQR (Plant Project Budget divided by 1429 EQRs)
,156
Unallocated Subsidy (164 EQRs multiplied by Construction Cost per EQR divided by 1089 Funding EQRs) $3$475
In -District Subsidy (In -District Shortfall divided by 1089 Funding EORs)
Total $71
$3,702
F: \ 1999\A greements\SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-14-
•
The parties agree that the District shall timely apply for a revenue -based loan from the
Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority ("Water and Power") prior to
commencement of Plant construction to finance the contribution amounts for the In -District
Users, Auburn Ridge, and Pinon Pines under this paragraph. The District agrees it will utilize
its best efforts to secure a revenue -based loan for such contribution amounts from Water and
Power, which will be repaid from District revenues. The District shall impose a Surcharge on
the In -District Users, Auburn Ridge, and Pinon Pines which additional revenue shall be used for
debt service on the loan; provided, however, the District agrees it shall not impose a Surcharge
exceeding ten dollars ($10) per EQR for the In -District Users and twenty dollars ($20) per EQR
for Auburn Ridge and Pinon Pines. In the event the District is unsuccessful in obtaining
financing from Water and Power, the Funding Landowners shall be responsible for providing
such financing on terms and conditions equivalent to those normally provided by Water and
Power. Any payments made by the Funding Landowners for existing user financing under this
paragraph shall be subject to the cost recovery provisions of paragraph 23 below.
The parties agree the data contained in Tables A and B reflect a Plant Project Budget of
$4,510,000 with surface stream discharges into the Spring Valley drainage, including Red
Canyon. Any subsequent modifications to the Plant Project Budget, EQR requests or fmancing
amounts in Tables A and B, above, shall result in an appropriate recalculation of the
Landowners' pro rata payment obligations under this paragraph. In the event modification is
required, the District shall recalculate the data contained in Tables A and B, above, and a copy
of such Tables shall be incorporated into this Agreement. Tables A and B shall be recalculated
after the completion of Plant construction to reflect the actual construction costs.
20. Tap Allocation and Tap Fees. For purposes of this Agreement, a Tap refers to
the right to one EQR, to be defined in the District's Rules and Regulations. Except as provided
in paragraph 22 below, upon inclusion of its Service Property within the District, each Funding
Landowner shall have the right to use, on its Service Property, the number of new Taps
equivalent to its EQR request identified in Paragraph 19, Table B, above. The District shall
establish Tap Fees for each EQR of capacity in the District Plant upon award of the construction
contract under paragraph 17 above; provided, however, the District may establish such Tap Fees
prior to award of the construction contract if necessary for the sale of lots by one or more
Funding Landowners. Tap fees shall be modified as necessary after the completion of Plant
construction and payment of all associated costs to adjust the calculations described below based
on the actual construction costs. The District shall establish a Tap Fee for purchasers of Taps
located on the Service Property ("Service Property Tap Fee") and a Tap Fee for all remaining
purchasers of Taps, including but not limited to purchasers of unallocated plant capacity and
purchasers of taps located on property owned by any entity not a party to this Agreement
("Unallocated Tap Fee"). The Tap Fees shall be calculated as follows:
A. Service Property Tap Fees
1. The Funding Landowner Cost per EQR, as identified in paragraph 19,
Table B, above, shall be the base cost of the Service Property Tap Fee
F: \ 1999\Agreements \S VSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-15-
("Base Cost"), which is subject to the cost recovery provisions of
paragraph 23 below.
2. The Base Cost shall be increased annually at the rate of five percent (5 %)
simple interest of the initial Base Cost.
3. The Base Cost shall be multiplied by .10 to establish a District reserve fee
to fund District operations and reserve ("District Reserve Fee"). The
District Reserve Fee shall not be subject to the cost recovery provisions
of paragraph 23 below.
4. The sum of the Base Cost and the District Reserve Fee shall be the
Service Property Tap Fee.
For purposes of example only, the Year 1 Service Property Tap Fee, based upon
a Plant Project Budget of $4,510,000 with surface stream discharge into Landis
Creek is as follows:
Funding Landowner Cost per EQR $3,702
District Reserve Fee $370
Total Tap Fee $4,072
B. Unallocated Tap Fees
Unallocated Tap Fees shall be established
Board shall establish such Unallocated Tap Fee
times the then -existing Service Property Tap Fee.
(10%) of the Unallocated Tap Fee.
by the District Board; provided, however, the
at no less than 1.5 and at no greater than 2.0
The District Reserve Fee shall be ten percent
21. Landowner Tap Allocation Modifications. Following completion of construction
of the Plant, the Funding Landowners may transfer Tap allocations among themselves pursuant
to the terms and conditions of this paragraph upon thirty (30) days notice to the District Board.
Following completion of construction of the Plant, any Landowner may request the District
modify its Tap allocation requested in Tables A and B of paragraph 19 of this Agreement. In
the event a Landowner requests an increase in Tap allocation, the request shall be granted by
the District Board on a first-come, first-served basis, to the extent unallocated Plant capacity
remains as determined by the District Engineer, provided such Landowner shall be required to
pay the Unallocated Tap Fee identified in paragraph 20.B., above. In the event a Landowner
requests a decrease in Tap allocation, the request shall be granted by the District; provided,
however, the District shall not sell such Taps prior to use of the District's entire Unallocated
Taps, nor shall the District sell such Taps prior to use of any other Landowner's Tap allocation
already returned to the District under the provisions of this paragraph. Any Taps returned to
the District by a Funding Landowner shall be sold at the Unallocated Tap Fee rate. The
Funding Landowner shall receive cost recovery for the full amount collected by the District less
F: \ 1999\Agreements SV S D -Development -A gmt-Final. wpd
-16-
•
the District Reserve Fee, following sale of a returned Tap; provided, however, such cost
recovery is subject to the cost recovery limitations of paragraph 24, below.
22. Spring Valley Development 35 Acre Property Tap Allocation. SVD may request
up to eighty-three (83) additional EQRs over and above the number required for its Service
Property. Such EQRs shall be for the purpose of servicing, if required, 35 acre parcels on
property to be a part of SVD's development in the Spring Valley area as more particularly
described in Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "35 Acre
Property"). If such additional EQRs are requested by SVD and SVD provides funding for
construction of the Plant based on the inclusion of such EQRs in its EQR request in Table B,
the District shall provide wastewater treatment service to the 35 Acre Property. By
acknowledging this obligation to serve the 35 Acre Property, the District is not stating whether
inclusion of the 35 Acre Property into the District will be required or accepted, nor is the
District acknowledging any obligation to accept a dedication of the wastewater collection and
trunk lines in the 35 Acre Property. If the 35 Acre Property is included within the District
boundaries, the District is not required to accept a dedication of the wastewater collection lines
located on the 35 Acre Property; however, if dedication of the collection lines is not accepted
by the District, service charges to the 35 Acre Property shall not exceed those established for
other properties within the District's boundaries. If the 35 Acre Property is not included within
the District boundaries, service charges to the 35 Acre Property shall be no more than 150 % of
the service charges to other users of the Plant. Tap Fees for the 35 Acre Property shall be the
Service Property Tap Fee as described in paragraph 20.A., above. The use of ISDS on the 35
Acre Property shall not be subject to the connection requirement described in paragraph 7,
above.
23. Cost Recovery. The District shall reimburse the Plant Project Cost to the Funding
Landowners by providing a rebate upon collection of Tap Fees by the District according to the
following formulas:
A. Cost Recovery from Service Property Tap Fees
1. The District Reserve Fee shall be retained by the District.
2. The Construction Cost per EQR portion of each Service Property Tap Fee
collected by the District shall be placed in a Construction Fee cost
recovery interest-bearing escrow account, and all such fees and interest
earned thereon shall be reimbursed quarterly to the Funding Landowner
from whose Service Property the Tap is sold.
3. Any remaining Service Property Tap Fee amounts collected by the District
under paragraph 20.A., above, shall be placed in a Subsidy cost recovery
interest-bearing escrow account, and all such fees and interest earned
thereon shall be reimbursed quarterly to the Funding Landowners, based
upon their Funding Percentage identified in Paragraph 19, Table B,
above.
F: \ 1999\Agreements \S VSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-17-
•
B. Cost Recovery from Unallocated Tap Fees
1. The District Reserve Fee shall be retained by the District.
2. The remaining Unallocated Tap Fee amount collected by the District shall
be placed in the Subsidy cost recovery interest-bearing escrow account,
and all such fees and interest earned thereon shall be quarterly reimbursed
to the Funding Landowners, based upon their Funding Percentage
identified in Paragraph 19, Table B, above.
In the event the Funding Landowners are required to provide financing for the In -District
Users, Auburn Ridge, and Pinon Pines under paragraph 19 above, all Surcharge payments as
described in paragraph 19 above received by the District from the In -District Users, Auburn
Ridge, and Pinon Pines shall be placed in the Subsidy cost recovery interest-bearing escrow
account, and all such fees and interest collected thereon shall be quarterly reimbursed to the
Funding Landowners, based upon their Funding Percentage identified in Paragraph 19, Table
B above, and subject to the cost recovery limitations identified in paragraph 24 below.
24. Cost Recovery Limitations. The Funding Landowners agree that cost recovery
under the provisions of this Agreement shall be solely from District revenues, and any Funding
Landowner cost recovery rights shall not be deemed a debt repayment obligation by the District.
Further, the Funding Landowners agree that the District's cost recovery obligation shall not
exceed disbursement of funds placed in the cost recovery escrow accounts; however, the District
may, in its sole discretion, elect to provide cost recovery from alternative funding sources. Each
Funding Landowner's right to cost recovery shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the
following events, whichever is earliest:
A. Recovery of the Funding Landowner's actual costs expended for construction of
the Plant (including any amounts provided to finance the In -District Users,
Auburn Ridge, and Pinon Pines), plus five percent (5 %) interest earned on the
unrecovered sum, compounded annually; or
B. Recovery of the Funding Landowner's actual costs expended for construction of
the Plant (including any amounts provided to finance the In -District Users,
Auburn Ridge, and Pinon Pines), plus interest earned on the unrecovered sum
totaling two hundred percent (200%) of the Funding Landowner's actual costs
expended for construction of the Plant; or
C. The expiration of the twenty-fifth (25`'') full year of Plant operation, such Plant
operation to commence upon the date following completion of Plant construction.
F: \ 1999\Agreements \SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-18-
•
25. Operation of the Plant. The District shall be solely responsible for operation of
the Plant. The Landowners agree that each Funding Landowner shall pay to the District a
quarterly Operational Reserve Fee for each unsold Tap identified in Paragraph 19, Table B,
above, under the terms and conditions herein. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 35 below,
the Operational Reserve Fee shall constitute a perpetual lien on and against each Funding
Landowner's Service Property under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-1-1001(1)(j). The District Board,
in its sole discretion, may modify the Operational Reserve Fee on a quarterly basis, provided
such fee shall not exceed $16.00 per unsold Tap per quarter. The Funding Landowners shall
pay the Operational Reserve Fee to the District in quarterly installments commencing the year
of initial Plant operation. In consideration of the Funding Landowners' agreement to pay the
Operational Reserve Fee, the District agrees to establish and utilize the following minimum
assessments to ensure revenue generation for operations, maintenance, repair and replacement
of the Plant:
A. Service Charges for private Tap owners connected to the District Plant shall be
assessed at a minimum of $24.00 per month; and
B. Service Charges for private Tap owners who have not yet connected to the
District Plant shall be assessed at a minimum of $6.00 per month; and
C. The District's mill levy shall be a minimum of four (4) mils, or the maximum
mill levy rate which the District is permitted to establish under Colorado state
law, whichever rate is lower.
The parties agree that all Operational Reserve Fee amounts collected from the Funding
Landowners shall be used exclusively for any operational and maintenance shortfall or
extraordinary repair or replacement associated with the Plant. The parties further agree that
such obligation is a contractual agreement between the District and the Funding Landowners,
and any Operational Reserve Fee payments shall not be deemed availability of service fees or
standby fees under the provisions of Colo. Rev. Stat § 32-1-1006. The District agrees it shall
maintain an interest-bearing reserve account containing all Operational Reserve Fee amounts,
which will be utilized only upon exhaustion of service fees, standby fees, mill levy revenues,
and District Reserve Fees collected by the District. In the event the Operational Reserve Fee
reserve account exceeds $150,000, the District shall suspend assessment of Operational Reserve
Fees upon the Funding Landowners until such time as the reserve account balance is less than
$150,000. In the event the District does not require a draw from the Operational Reserve Fee
reserve account for any consecutive thirty-six (36) month period, any further Operational
Reserve Fee obligations by the Funding Landowners shall terminate, and the reserve account
funds shall be available for discretionary use by the District.
26. Notification of District Business. From and after the effective date of this
Agreement as provided in paragraph 31 below, the District shall provide to each Funding
Landowner, at the address provided in paragraph 30, below, notice of all District Board of
Directors meetings and copies of all non -privileged materials provided to any member of the
District Board of Directors.
F: \ 1999\Agreements\S VSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-19-
•
27. Withdrawal and Termination. Any Funding Landowner may elect to withdraw
from this Agreement prior to inclusion within the District and fulfillment of the Plant Project
Cost financial guarantee obligations under paragraph 18 above. In the event of withdrawal, such
Funding Landowner shall have no right or claim for reimbursement or credit for costs or
financial guarantees provided to the District pursuant to this Agreement or the Initial Funding
Agreements. Upon such withdrawal, the remaining parties may elect to continue to operate
under the terms and conditions of this Agreement with a readjustment of the pro rata capital
contribution obligations and cost recovery rights of the remaining Landowners.
This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of all parties who have not
previously withdrawn upon ten (10) days notice for any reason; provided, however each
Landowner shall be responsible for its share of all costs incurred.
In the event the parties agree to terminate this Agreement following failure to approve
a mutually acceptable Plant Project Budget under the provisions of paragraph 15, above, such
termination shall not be construed as a breach by the District or the Funding Landowners, and
no party shall incur liability for failure to complete construction of the Plant.
28. Breach by District: Landowners' Remedies. In the event of a breach of any of
the material terms and conditions of this Agreement by the District, the parties agree that the
rights acquired by the Landowners under this Agreement are such that the failure of the District
to perform its obligations hereunder would cause irreparable harm to the Landowners and there
may be no adequate remedy at law. The parties therefore agree that , in addition to any other
equitable or legal remedies, the obligations of the District shall be specifically enforceable in any
court of competent jurisdiction. In the event of litigation concerning this Agreement, any
prevailing Landowner shall be entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees.
29. Breach by Landowners; District's Remedies. In the event of a breach of any
of the material terms and conditions of this Agreement by one or more of the Landowners, the
Board shall be notified immediately, and the District may take such action as the District deems
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, to protect lot purchasers and builders,
and to protect the users of District facilities from hardship. A failure by a Funding Landowner
to pay Plant construction payments as required by paragraph 18 above shall be remedied by the
District through resort to the Funding Landowner's financial guarantee. With respect to all
other material breaches, in addition to all other remedies available at law, the District may:
A. Record with the County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit, approved in writing by
the Board and signed by the Chairman of the Board or any Board member, stating
that the terms and conditions of this Agreement have been breached by the
Landowner or Landowners. At the next regularly scheduled Board meeting, the
Board shall either approve the filing of said affidavit or direct a District
representative to file an affidavit stating that the default has been cured. Upon
the recording of such an affidavit, no further District services or assistance will
be provided in connection with the breaching Landowner's Service Property until
the default has been cured. An affidavit signed by the Chairman of the Board or
F: \ 1999\Agreements\S VSD -Development -Agent -Final. wpd
-20-
• any Board member and approved by the Board stating that the default has been
cured shall remove this restriction;
B. Call the appropriate Funding Landowner's financial guarantee(s) given, in their
entire remaining amounts, for the construction of the Plant;
C. Refuse to initiate the provision of wastewater treatment services to the breaching
Landowner's Service Property;
D. Pursue collection of any amounts due and unpaid, which includes the right to
collect attorneys' fees, filing fees, and lien recording fees incurred in such
collection efforts, in addition to the unpaid amounts due and interest charges.
Unless necessary to protect the immediate health, safety, and welfare of the District
users, the District shall provide the Landowners ten (10) days' written notice of its intent to take
any action under this paragraph during which ten day period the breaching Landowner or
Landowners may cure the breach described in said notice and prevent further action by the
District. The District can extend the deadline for cure at its discretion. Furthermore, unless an
affidavit as described in paragraph A., above, has been recorded with the Garfield County Clerk
and Recorder, any person dealing with Landowners shall be entitled to assume that no default
by Landowners has occurred hereunder unless a notice of default has been served upon the
Landowner or Landowners as described above, in which event such Landowner or Landowners
shall be expressly responsible for informing such third party of the District's claim of default.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit any rights or remedies of the Landowners
in the event of breach by any other Landowner(s).
30. Notices to the Parties. All notices, requests, demands, consents, and other
communications pertaining to this Agreement shall be transmitted in writing and shall be deemed
duly given when received by the parties at their addresses below or any subsequent addresses
provided to the other party in writing.
Spring Valley Development, Inc.:
With copy to:
F: \ 1999\Ag reements\SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-21-
Attn: General Manager
411 East Main Street, Suite 205
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920-9103
Fax: (970) 920-9145
Anne J. Castle, Esq.
Holland & Hart, LLP
555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 295-8400
Fax: (303) 295-8261
and
•
Berkeley Family Limited Partnership:
With copy to:
Colorado Mountain Junior
College District:
With copy to:
Los Amigos Ranch Partnership:
F: \ 1999\A g reements\S V SD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-22-
Atlantic Gulf Communities
Attn: General Counsel
2601 Bayshore Drive
Miami, FL 33133-5461
Phone: (305) 859-4071
Fax: (305) 859-4063
Michael Berkeley, M.D.
3961 County Road 114
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 945-5432
Fax: (970) 945-4120 or 947-0012
John R. Schenk, Esq.
Schenk, Kerst & DeWinter
302 Eighth Street, Suite 310
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 945-2447
Fax: (970) 945-2440
Dr. Robert H. Spuhler, Vice President
P.O. Box 10001
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-8691
Fax: (970) 947-8385
Glenn D. Chadwick, Esq.
Beattie & Chadwick
710 Cooper Avenue, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 945-8659
Fax: (970) 945-8671
Thomas E. Neal, Managing Partner
141 West Jackson Blvd., Room 1720
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 705-1915
Fax: (312) 416-1805
•
With copy to:
Colorado Pinon Pines, Ltd.:
With copy to:
Auburn Ridge:
Notice to District:
With copy to:
F: \ 1999\A greements\S V SD-Development-Agtnt-Final. wpd
-23-
Lawrence R. Green, Esq.
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
818 Colorado Avenue
P. O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-6546
Fax: (970) 945-9769
Mr. Bernard S. Selwyn
Colorado Pinon Pines, Ltd.
5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (323) 650-2511
Fax: (323) 650-0586
John A. Thulson, Esq.
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
818 Colorado Avenue
P. O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-6546
Fax: (970) 945-8902
William and Pamela Gibson
Auburn Ridge Apartments
P.O. Box 376
Basalt, CO 81621-0376
Phone: (970) 927-3846
Fax: (970) 927-1298
Spring Valley Sanitation District
2929 County Road 114
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 945-6399
Fax: (970) 945-6399
Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
P. O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-2261
Fax: (970) 945-7336
•
•
31. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the later of the
date(s) on which this Agreement is executed by the parties. The effective date of inclusion shall
be the date of the Court Order issued pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §32-1-401 formally including
the Service Property in the District.
32. Assignment and Binding Effect. Subject to rights to assign effluent described in
paragraph 10 above, this Agreement may be assigned by a Landowner only with the written
consent of the District and the remaining Landowners; provided, however, that a Landowner
may assign without consent to a successor in interest to all assets of the original Landowner.
In the event any Landowner desires to assign its rights and obligations herein, whether consent
is required or not, it shall so notify the District in writing, together with the proposed assignee's
written agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The District's
obligations under this Agreement may not be assigned without consent of each of the
Landowners. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and
their successors, assigns, heirs, devisees, or transferees.
33. Several Obligations of Landowners. The obligations of the Landowners under
this Agreement shall be several obligations only, not joint and several. Each Funding
Landowner shall be responsible only for its Funding Amount as described in paragraph 19,
Table B, above, and shall have no further obligation to the District or the other Landowners in
the event of a default by any other Funding Landowner.
34. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any covenant or
condition contained in this Agreement is breached by any party and thereafter waived by the
remaining parties, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not
be deemed to waive any other breach hereunder, including a subsequent breach of the same
covenant or condition.
35. Non -Applicability to Lot Purchasers. This Agreement establishes the respective
rights and obligations among the Landowners and the District. It is not applicable to purchasers
of individual lots in the Service Property from the Landowners. Such lot purchasers shall be
subject to the Rules and Regulations of the District and to the provisions of the Special District
Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-1-101, et seq. This Agreement shall not be deemed a cloud, defect,
lien, or encumbrance on the title of any lot created from the Service Property and shall not affect
the marketability of title to such lots.
36. Recordation; Notice to District Users; Covenants. Upon execution, this
Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of Clerk and Recorder, Garfield County, Colorado.
The parties agree and intend that this Agreement, subject to the provisions of paragraph 35
above, shall run with the Service Property and be a burden and covenant on that property.
37. Complete Agreement. This Agreement, together with the Initial Funding
• Agreements and that certain Agreement between the District and CMC dated July , 1999,
attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by this reference, constitute the entire and
complete agreement of the parties on the subject matter herein. No promise or undertaking has
F:11999 \Agreements \ SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final.wpd -24-
•
been made by any party, and no understanding exists with respect to the transactions
contemplated, except as expressly set forth herein. All prior and contemporaneous negotiations
and understandings between the parties are embodied and merged into this Agreement.
38. Enforceability. If any covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement
shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability
of such covenant, term, condition, or provision shall not affect any other provision contained
herein.
39. Captions. The captions in this Agreement are inserted only for convenience and
in no way define, limit or prescribe the scope or intent of this Agreement, or any part thereof.
40. Governing Law. Laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the validity,
performance, and enforcement of this Agreement. Should either party institute legal suit or
action for enforcement of any obligation contained herein, it is agreed that the venue of such suit
or action shall be in Garfield County, Colorado.
41. Warranty of Authority. Each person executing this Agreement represents and
warrants that he or she has been duly authorized by one of the parties to execute this Agreement
and has the authority to bind said parties to the terms and conditions thereof.
42. Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to damages and reasonable
attorney fees and costs. All rights concerning remedies and/or attorneys' fees shall survive any
termination of this Agreement.
43. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by the parties
in written form and executed in the same manner as this Agreement.
44. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterpart
originals, each of which shall constitute an original but all of which shall constitute one and the
same Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year
set forth next to their signatures.
F: \ 1999\Agreements \S VSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
[Signatures on following page]
-25-
•
Date
ATTEST:
Secretary
By
Date By
Date By
Date By
Date By
Date By
Date
Date
F: \ 1999\A greements\S V S D-Development-Agmt-Fi nal. wpd
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION" DISTRICT
Greg Boecker, Chairman
SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Joel K. Goldman, Vice President and Secretary
BERKELEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Michael Berkeley, General Partner
COLORADO MOUNTAIN JUNIOR
COLLEGE DISTRICT
Dr. Robert H. Spuhler, Vice President
LOS AMIGOS RANCH PARTNERSHIP
Thomas E. Neal, Managing Partner
COLORADO PINON PINES, LTD.
Bernard S. Selwyn
William Gibson
Pamela Gibson
-26-
STATE OF COLORADO )
• ) ss.
COUNTY OF )
•
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this day of
1999, by Greg Boecker, as Chairman, of the Spring Valley Sanitation District.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF
Notary Public
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this day of 1999,
by Joel K. Goldman, as Vice President and Secretary for Spring Valley Development, Inc.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
Notary Public
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this day of
1999, by Michael Berkeley, as General Partner, for Berkeley Family Limited Partnership.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
Notary Public
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this day of , 1999, by
Dr. Robert H. Spuhler, Vice President of Colorado Mountain Junior College District.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
. My Commission expires:
F: \ 1999\Agreements\SVSD-Development-Agmt-Final. wpd
-27-
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
• ) ss.
COUNTY OF )
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this day of
1999, by Thomas E. Neal, as Managing Partner, for Los Amigos Ranch Partnership.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this day of
1999, by Bernard S. Selwyn, as , for Colorado Pinon Pines, Ltd.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF
Notary Public
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this day of
1999, by William and Pamela Gibson.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
F: \ 1999\A g reements\S V SD-Development-Agmt-Fina1. wpd
-28-
Notary Public
•
1-
8
Z
0
8
1
1
1
1
•
EXHIBIT 12.1
LIFT STATION/PUMP STATION
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Valley Lift Station
(A) Sizing: Unallocated 100 EQR
Chenoa 646 EQR
LSR 112 EQR
858 EQR
(B) Capacity: ADF = 858 x 350 gpd = 209 gpm
1440
Pumping rate = 4.5 x ADF = 938 gpm
(C) Calculation of TDH:
Static: < 10'
Headloss: Use 8" DIP
8500 If @ 1.5671001= 133'
Add 10% for fitting Toss = 146'
TDH: 1561
(D) Use three (3) pumps, each 1/2 Qp
Hp @ 469 gpm/1 56 TDH
Hp = gpm x TDH x 1 x 1
3 960 Eff, Eff2
=469x156x 1 x 1 = 3H
3960 70% 80%
Use 40 Hp
L: \ I g\DG\ 15 03 a 0 8.1 ifts t ti o n. c a l c.
•
Effluent Pump Station
(A) Sizing: 499,450 gpd
(B) Capacity: ADF = 347 gpm
Pumping rate = 4.5 x ADF = 1 562 gpm
(C) Calculation of TDH:
Static: 6675 to 7048 = 373'
Headloss: Use 12" DIP
13,000 If x 0.556'/100' = 72'
Add 10% for fitting loss = 80'
TDH: 453'
• (D) Use 3 pumps, each @ % Qp
•
L:\ lg\DG\ 1503a 08.1 iftsttion. c alc.
Hp @ 781 gpm/453 TDH
Hp = 781 gpm x 453 TDH x 1 x 1 = 160 Hp.
3960 0.70 0.80
Hp = 1 50 Hp each
•
•
•
Lower Bench Lift Station
(A) Sizing: 80 EQR
(B) Capacity: ADF = 80 X 350 gpd = 19 gpm
1440
Pumping rate = 4.5 x ADF = 88 gpm
Use 100 gpm
(C) Calculation of TDH:
Static: 6755 - 6225 = 530'
Headloss: Use 4" DIP
5500 If @ 0.725'/100' = 40'
Add 10% for fitting loss = 44'
TDH: 574'
(D) Use two (2) pumps, each @ Qp
L:\lg\DG\ 1503a08.Iiftsttion.calc.
Hp @ 100 gpm/574 TDH
Hp = apm x TDH x 1 x 1
3960 Effl Eff2
Hp = 100 X 574 X 1 X 1 = 26 Hp.
3960 70% 80%
Use 30 Hp
)
mo�• �
Cook
naa0CD
o Cr a �'.
oo�0)
toCM, C.I•
O. A 3
N
00
• oNI co coo
VW
O O
n
m
m
33
et33O
z
'ONI 1:13A 3W
0095= ..I :TWOS'
cb
t.
co
1
1
uze3:u.no
•
j
(
•
•
,,••••" „on.,
th
P:1
:131
w
(Th
0
HN .Xg UM Dia
0
01
(D)T-9 a-in5U
"Og
a
tZ
4
(q)I-9 a-01512
c/)
•
TABLE 3.1
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
EXISTING SERVICE AREA - EQR BASIS
AREA
EQR BASIS
CURRENT
Units
EQR
Population
Equivalent
LOS AMIGOS RANCH
Single -Family
1.0 EQR/SF
49
49.0
172
Auburn Ridge, Phase I
Varies
48
29.5
103
COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE
Varies
N/A
51
179
PINYON PINES APARTMENTS
0.3 EQR/bed
200
60.0
210
TOTAL
189.5
664
NOTES: 1. EQR basis from Service Plan for Spring Valley Sanitation District, July, 1979.
2. Population equivalent defined as 3.5 per EQR.
•
tables \1 503a08.3-1
•
TABLE 3.2
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
EXPANDED SERVICE AREA - EQR BASIS
ACREAGE, EQRs and POPULATION EQUIVALENTS (PE)
ANTICIPATED
DENSITY
GARFIELD COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPROVED DENSITY
PROPERTY DESIGNATION
ACREAGE
EQR
PE2
EQR
PE2
A. Existing Usersfi
• Los Amigos Ranch PUD
---
49
172
49
172
• CMC
---
51
179
51
179
• Auburn Ridge
---
29.5
103
29.5
103
210
• Pinon Pines_
46
161
60
Subtotal
350
175.5
614
189.5
664
B. Additional Users Within
Existing District Service Area
• Los Amigos Ranch PUD
---
1194
417
1194
417
- CMC
---
613
214
613
214
- Auburn Ridge II
_
29.5
103
29.54
103
Subtotal
1,437
209.5
733
209.5
733
C. Requests - Expanded Service Area
• Los Amigos Ranch PUD
1,084
151
529
1514
529
• Spring Valley Ranch PUD
5,909
646
2,261
2,7504
9,625
• Lake Springs Ranch PUD
441
112
392
1954
683
7,434
909
3,182
3,096
10,836
D. Unallocated - Expanded
• District Service Area
3,292
133
466
5485
1,922
TOTALS
12,513
1,427
4,995
4,043
14,155
NOTES:
1. Assumption for Amended Service Plan is that one (1) dwelling unit equates to one (1) EQR.
2. One (1) unit equates to 3.5 Population Equivalent (PE).
3. Assumed that CMC Anticipated Density and Approved Density is identical.
4. Approved PUD density.
5. Garfield County Comprehensive Density of 6 acres/dwelling unit.
6. Category A is based upon actual, existing users.
tables/1503x08.3-2
DWG:Iec/:08,3/99 rev: 9/10/99
TABLE 3.3
-
O
N
M
in
c0
ti
N
J
A-
,0
O
N
O
A-
tfl
P
A-
J
A --
-V1
V',
p
CV
N
p
L
s0
A-
N
J
O
-4-
JO
0
N
Ln
O
N
M
co
M
A -
r4 -1
O
N
O
N
I1363
N
O
N
p
.-
J
.-
J
N
P
M
in
A-
�O
N
O
J
'
J
N
Lel
M
A-
O0
N
0
N
N
A-
0,I.--
O
O
N
p
J
N
,0
N
00M
O
O
N
p
1-
J
A-
J
N
J
tiP
O
p
N
p
V1
P
N
CVCV
.43O
O
O
N
0
...}
N
In
O
...1-
P
0
O
N
p
J
N
ti
N
N
A-
J0`
O
O
N
O
J
M
V
N
J
P
O
art
OA-
N
CsJ
M
in
L.0
.-
P
J
N
O
CVO
co
Nc0
O
p
N
CO
V
r-
‘or
0`'
N
.0
-
V1
O
O
N
26 1
Lel
•
P
N
P
0 V
Lel
.
M
O
O
O
0.1 N
Vl
M
'-
J
V1
LnI
I 185.5
a-
CC
W
TOTAL
M
Vl
M
4-
M
N
r,--
O
N
N
-
'0
MI
MI
A-
PROJECT
v
N
U
O
CO
C
�
C
C0
0)
•
x
W
E
L
0
U
L
U
L
N
L
0
U
E
U
CL
<
J
u~
)
a-,
0
_J
C
.-
y,
a N
•-
< x
J LU
0
-0
c
L
-
L
_
Q
Lake S rings
Chenoa
V)
J
<
0
O
/-
W
J
M
f
U
N
cc
"3 >
r> c
06g'
c
(f) O Z
�
_,2
O B a
B d
Z °a
Revised 9/27/99
•
•
TABLE 4.1
ASSUMED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
PARAMETER
DEVIlTT
RATIONALE
Flow, mgd
0.499'
Approved Capacity
BOD5, mg/1
30/45b
State Effluent Regulations
TSS, mg/1
30/45°
State Effluent Regulations
Total Ammonia, mg/1
27*
State Effluent Regulations
(site specific)
Fecal Coliform, no/100 mi
200/100
Fecal Coliform Policy
(site specific)
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/I
0.5`
State Effluent Regulations
pH, s.u. (minimum -maximum)
6.0 - 9.0°
State Effluent Regulations
Oil and Grease, mg/1
1
10`
State Effluent Regulations
Salinity
Report
Salinity Regulations
' = 30 -day average
b = 30 -day average/7-day average
` = Daily Maximum
° = Minimum -Maximum
= Estimated by District consulting engineers for the month of July
= 7 -day mean
F:\1999\Documents\SVSD-Site Application -3. wpd
September 17, 1999
-34-
TABLE 10.1 (a)
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
illkSTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DATION DITCH
500,000 gpd capacity
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER
CALCULATED: LOM
FILE SVSD
Date: sept 19, 1999
NO.
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
1
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
PRETREATMENT BLDG
EXCAVATION
600
CY
$7
$4,200
CONCRETE
125
CY
$400
$50,000
BUILDING
1295
SF
$100
$129,500
FLUME
1
LS
$1,500
$1,500
MISC GRATING
1
LS
$6,000
$6,000
MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
PLANT PIPING
300
LF
$20
$6,000
FLOW MEASUREMENT
1
LS
$4,000
$4,000
GRIT EQUIPMENT
1
LS
$45,000
$45,000
MISC BAFFLES, WEIRS, CHANNEL GATES
1
LS
52,500
$2,500
MISC FITTINGS AND VALVES
1
LS
1500
$1,500
MANUAL BAR SCREEN
1
LS
2500
$2 500
ODOR CONTROL
1
LS
20000
$20,000
TOTAL
$322,700
2
CONTROL BUILDING
EXCAVATION
500
CY
$7
$3,500
CONCRETE
112
CY
$400
$44,800
BUILDING
1200
SF
$100
$120,000
ELECTRIC
1
LS
$100,000
$100,000
AS PUMPS
2
2
EA
EA
$15,000
$15,000
$30,000
$30,000
WAS PUMP
SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMP
1
EA
$25,000
$25,000
RAS,WAS METERS
2
EA
$3,000
$6,000
PIPING, VALVES AND FITTINGS
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
BLOWER FOR DIGESTOR AND GRIT
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
LAB EQUIPMENT
1
LS
$20,000
520,000
TOTAL
$444,300
3
AERATION BASINS 2
EXCAVATION
9,567
CY
$7
$66,967
CONCRETE
1,108
CY
$350
$387,800
FOUR (4) HIGH SPEED AERATORS
1
LS
$165,000
$165,000
TWO (2) 3 HP SUBMERGED TURBINE MIXERS
1
LS
$40,000
$40,000
MISC PIPING WALKWAYS, RAILS ECT
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
ELECTRIC
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
ENCLOSURE (none)
0
SF
$40
$0
TOTAL
$7097767
4
DIGESTOR
EXCAVATION
8072.22
CY
$7
556,506
CONCRETE
200.00
CY
$350
$70,000
DIFUSSERS
2500.00
SF
$8
$20,000
MISC PIPING
1.00
LS
$10,000
$10,000
HATCHES, WEIRS, GRATING ECT
1.00
LS
$4,000
$4 000
BUILDING
0.00
SF
$80
$0
SLUDGE DEWATERING
1.00
LS
$100,000
$100,000
ODOR CONTROL
0.00
LS
520,000
$0
TOTAL
$260,506
s
CLARIFIERS 2
XCAVATION
1395.56
CY
$7
$9769
CONCRETE
200
CY
$500
$100,000
SLUDGE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
2
LS
$50,000
$100,000
ENCLOSURE
2034.72
SF
$50
$101,736
ELECTRIC
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
MISC PIPING/SCUM EQUIP
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
TOTAL
$301,736
6
SITE WORK
YARD PIPING
400
LF
$50
$20,000
SITE GRADING
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
YARD VALVES
8
EA
$500
$4,000
SPLITTER BOX
3
EA
$5,000
$15,000
MANHOLES
5
EA
$1,500
$7,500
DEWATERING
1
LS
$0
$0
GRAVEL SURFACING
500
TONS
$18
$9,000
LANDSCAPING
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
ELECTRIC SERVICE
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
ACCESS ROAD
1
LS
$50000
$50,000
TEMP TOILET
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
CLEAR AND GRUB
1
LS
$7,500
$7,500
TEMP OFFICE
1
LS
$5 000
$5,000
SITE ELECTRIC
200
LF
$15
$3,000
MOB/DEMOB
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
TOTAL
$266,000
7
CHLORINE CONTACT/DECHLORINATION
EXCAVATION
148
CY
$7
$1,037
CONCRETE
50
CY
$400
$20,000
WIERS AND GATES
1
LS
$5,000
$5000
SCUM SKIMMER
1
LS
$10,000
$10000
GRATING
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
RAILS
1
1
1
LS
LS
LS
$2,500
$5,000
$20,000
$2,500
$5,000
$20,000
EFFLUENT METER
GAS CHLORINATION
SULFUR DIOXIDE
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
GATES
2
EA
$2,500
$5,000
MISC PIPING
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
TOTAL
$98,537
PLANT TOTAL
$2,403,545
25% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$ PER GAL PER DAY
$600,886
$3,004,432
6.0088631481481
TABLE 10.1 (b)
SVSD
Or STATION ESTIMATE (District site)
sept 16, 1999
SGM INC
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST (pump sewage from Spring Valley to District site)
NO.
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
1 FORCE MAIN
6100.00
LF
$25
1
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
2
LIFT STATION
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
3
FORCE MAIN
11000
LF
$15
$165,000
4
CLEAN OUTS
44
LF
$250
$11,000
5
POWER
1
LS
$25,000
$25,000
$500
SUBTOTAL
$331,000
•SUBTOTAL
ENGR 7%
$316,850
$23,170
CONTINGENCY 10%
$22,180
CONTINGENCY 10%
$33,100
TOTAL
331,685
TOTAL
$387,270
TABLE 10.1 (c)
SVSD
LIFT STATION ESTIMATE (District site)
sept 16, 1999
SGM INC
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST (pump treated effluent from District site to discharge point)
NO.
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
1 FORCE MAIN
6100.00
LF
$25
1
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
2
LIFT STATION
1
LS
3125,000
$125,000
3
FORCE MAIN
11000
LF
$15
$165,000
4
CLEAN OUTS
44
LF
$250
311,000
$2,178
38 850
7 ASPHALT RESTORATION
10.00
TON
$50
$500
SUBTOTAL
$306,000
•SUBTOTAL
ENGR 7%
$316,850
$21,420
CONTINGENCY 10%
$22,180
CONTINGENCY 10%
$30,600
TOTAL
331,685
TOTAL
$358,020
TABLE 10. 1 (d)
SVSD
LIFT STATION ESTIMATE (LOWER BENCH)
sept 16, 1999
SGM INC
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST (pump sewage from lower Bench to District site)
NO. ITEM/DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL PRICE
1 FORCE MAIN
6100.00
LF
$25
$152,500
2 AIR RELEASE VALVE
1.00
EA
$5,000
$5,000
3 FORCE MAIN CLEANOUTS
9.00
EA
$2,500
322,500
4 LIFT STATION
1.00
LS
3125,000
$125,000
5 CONNECTION TO EXISTING SYS
1.00
EA
$2,500
$2,500
6SEEDING
4.06
ACRE
$2,178
38 850
7 ASPHALT RESTORATION
10.00
TON
$50
$500
•SUBTOTAL
$316,850
ENGR 7%
$22,180
CONTINGENCY 10%
331,685
TOTAL
$370,715
TABLE 10.2
SONG VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BASE COST SUMMARY
BASE COSTS (DO NOT INCLUDE VARIABLE COSTS)
sept 16, 1999
#
ITEM
ANNUAL EXPENSE
[Si
1
chemicals
$1,500
2
lab
$1,500
3
plant maintenance and supplies
$6,000
4
operator labor
$20,000
5
permits
$650
6
bldg power
$2,000
7
process power
$1,500
8
equipment replacement
$1,500
9
professional services
$5,000
10
admin
$6,000
11
biosolids management
$5,000
SAL
$50,650
•
0
U
2
0.50
J
Z
Z
TABLE
s
J
Q
1-
0
a=
U
U
W
m
LL
>-
(f)
-N
LL
F-
OD OD
1-
1-
J
LL
CAPITAL COST
TOTAL CAP
2
0
al
Z
Q
20E
O
N
�"w
69
691
$1 b4, 993
$189,880
N
R N
494949494949
�CV
N N
el<1'�ryry�
N Ni
5228,493
$231,572
$234,651
$237,217
$239,911
$241,835
2 E
7 7
N N
6969
8 E
7 7
N N
6969
c02
7 7
N N
696969
NCO
7 7
N N
69
2222
7 7
N N
7 7
N Cl
6969
Lo
�S
co
6949
rC'
lOn_ I
m
w4
$164,993
$189,880
NCQNf-
N C1.
NCD
N
69696969
N N
a)
N N
$222,336
$225,415
$228,493
$231 ,72
$234,651
$241,835
$242,861
$242,861
$242,861
tcpp
CO ((O
N N
19 69
$242,861
$242,861
$242,861
$242,861
ccpp
00 CO
N N
NN
N
co-
w
co" �
w w
$18,679 k
$22,377
I n r
NNNN
69 69
N yo.
69 69
$27,199
$27,657
$28,114
a0m�
NRR2
69
-1- cQ0�l
69 69
o�o pNp 01p pNp
C�(hc+')2222(h�222
69 w w w
pNp ON
69 w
CCYpY pNp pNp No
69 69 69 69
QQN pNp
69 69
C Vp
69
En.
._..
pp_��
00
Nr
w
�pm
NCO
to N
69696969
crc��occpp
cO
r N
mc0
a) a)
6969
59,827
$9,960
$10,094
$10,227
$10,360
$10,494
$10,627
$10,738
$10,855
$10,939
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
$10,983
8
O
J
(D
2j
0m
696969696969696969
to Rj
s O
-.-N
a) r--
CD �Ccy�)(I�cNpr
co
NNNN
$26,285
$26,742
$27199
$27,657
$28,114
$28,572
$29,029
$29,410
529,811
$30,097
$30,249
$30,249
$30,249
$30,249
$30,249
pp ao ppppp
69 mM
w
0
9
g
w
6
$14,241
$22,978
r-: v-
cv 0
68 69
$44,918
$47,471
$48,628
$49,585
$50,543
$51,500
$52,457
$53,415
$54,372
$55,170
$56,008
$56,606
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
$56,925
SLUDGE 1
$8,294 E
$15,962
$25,754
co a8
A�
69 69
C)
pm
69 69
$54,505
$55,578
$56,651
$57,724
$58,797
$59,870
$60,943
$61,837
$62,776
$63,447
$63,805
$63,805
$63,805
$63,805
$63,805
$63,805
§§§g§m
mO@cOCLOg
69 69 69 69 69
§
69
m
§§§S8888§8D
28828222E2S
$50,650
$50,650
$50,650
$50,650
$50,650
$50,650
§888§88,888888888Q
828 E 69 69 2E 69 2269E 69 69
69 8E 69 8E8
69
69
LIFT STA
LL
151
N
7
g
co-
...).
ZQ
gQ
a0
CD
2
t17 to to
o0000000000000000000000000000
to to In in
t0 In to to to 10
1) In in u)ul to 1n( t7 l() to
to to to to to
In
AVE DAY
FLOW
FMGD1
0.06
0.12 jr
0.20
0.29
0.35
0.39
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
�0
W LL
a
Ca7
---
c�Qc�
i�ii�Si+Smcii�
c�c�5�Q
§
5�5�5�
§ i+Sih"c�ii+S(mi�Sc"hiSi+Sci"§§c,i�S§ih§§
c�QQQS�
5� S�c�Q
d
W
(r00
m to
vN
NR
N o ,- A
,- ,- �.-.-r-.-[-f-
a)mr to a)m()
7 cp op co
N N (V (V cO m
t0)rrrN.rrrrrrrr
w qg0 NNNN NNNN
(7 V V? V�� V�?
� V' V- V- �f r.. V-,c1��T-
NNNN
7 7 V V
V- 1- V'
VT
LLQ
wRRB
r
N
mg ggr
o.- N
Cy CV RR�RRR-RRRRRRRRRRCyR
m v to CD r-- c0 69 R N N
N N N N rN
N m
V t n c O r
N a) O V N m
7 U) N r N a) R N N N
N N CO N N
CI
N
Cr-)
a)
V
69
co
a)
69
CO N
N N
69 69
51,013,000 $1,019,110
cc)
8
v
69
53,004,432 $1,116,005
PRESENT WORTH VALUES
O & M SUMMARY
0
O1
.-
N LD
R LD
H
M
m
un
r-
H
,-
00
LO
N
LD
CO
H
N
m •
M •
01
01
un
H-
0
00
0
N
N
V'
H
O
nn
V'
O1
LD
H
Os
O
LO
lD
LD
01
H
$2,248,217 1
O
(0
N IN
LD
CO
un
N
H
N.
M
O
M
00
N
H
r.
•1
l0
.-
III
.-
M
lA
0
01
01
00
M
d•
M
H
$3,747,9271
00
0
r\
Ni.
l0
O
V'
H
I $4,379,8551
0
N
O
N
0
r`
V'
V/
Ln
co
M-
(0
N
0
r/1
H
O un
in
O •
LO •
CO 0
to
H
I $6,026,9201
un
olUDOrnh.0
-
un
- in
- 0
Ln
01
0
I\
H
0
I.
LD
Vi
d•
o5
H
an
M
00
Ni
a0
M
00
H
Operating
Surplus
(D
01
N
V'
61
5124,337 1
00
V'
VD
01
c-
H
$236,651
$273,852
$274,740
$274,762
$268,744
^
I\
,-
to
n
N
H
O
c-
LD
-
CO
N
H
M
V'
0
00
00
N
H
I $294,477
0
.-
01
0
O
M
lA
M
V
m
I\
O
CO
69
N.
M
01
00
O-
M
H
.-
00
V'
M
H
N.
CO
0
rs
.-
M
H
u1
LD
. -
N
N
M
H
Ln
LD
m
LD
N
M
61
$331,765
$332,845
$333,925
V1
0
-
nn
nn
un
CO
ni
nn
un
VD
nn
on
un In
LO 0
r.
II CO
CO CO
H
un
LD
c -
r`
M
CO
H
$337,165
REVENUES
M
01
f\
Vl
Ln
H
V'
M
01
O
LD
N
H
0
V'
00
,-
l0
M
H
$434,644
$497,732
$513,988
O
N
N
N
In
H
N
N
01
N
N
H
$532,434 1
(0
V'
01
N
V'
Ln
H
W
V1
V
m
Ln
to
H
O
!�
01
M
lD
In
H
N
CO
7
•S
f.
M
H
V
01
01
V'
W
ul
H
u1
O
01
1f1
H
N
Vl
f`
01
Ol
N
H
N
N
Ol
M
O
l0
H
lD
N
O
O
lD
H
LD
N
N
V'
.-
lD
H
lD VD LO
N O 00
LO I. N.
01 O -
.- N N
lD l0 LD
H H H
LD
LD
00
N
N
l0
H
(D
V'
01
M
N
VD
H
LD
N
O
In
N
LD
H
VD LD
N N
O O
In Ln
N N
LD LD
H H
LD
N
O
111
N
0
H
LD
N
O
In
N
LD
H
cr
V"
01
0
n
H
CO
LD
01
01
u1
H
N
u1
01
un
cr
H
V--
00
00
-
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
lA
0
H
0
H
0
H
so I
O
H
O
H
O 0 0
H 69 61
0
H
0
H
0
H
0 0
1A H
0
H
0
H
Service District
Mil Levy Fees Standby Fees Reserve
Fund
0
O
lD
M
H
0
O
N
LD
lD
H
0
O
N
In
00
H
0 0 0
0 O O
N N V'
In Lit N
01 IN V'
H H H
0
O
to
M
H
0
O
lD
Ol
0
O
LO
01
0
O
lD
01
0
O
lD
01
0
O
(0
Q1
cJ
O
LD
(T
0
0
0
01
0
0
O
l0
0
0
V'
l0
0
0
O
1 00'L$
0
H
0$
O$
O$
O$
0
H
0
H
0
H
0
H
O
0
N
H
$7,200 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
N NJ N
f\ is: N.
H H H
0
0
N
n
V1
0
0
N
t\
69
0
0
N
r`
H
0
0
N
f\
H
0
0
N
r`
H
0
0
N
I.
H
0
0
N
I.
lA
0
0
N
N.
H
0
0
N
r`
H
0
0
N
^
H
0
0
N
f\
H
$ 5,400
0
(0
M
H
0000000
0V CO MI
00 -
H-
CD
6,
6, H
0
H
0
H
V
N
V
M
Ln
6
LD
.-
O
V•
N.
H
$137,088 1
O N 00
L0 M 00
M N V'
t` m In
O lD O1
N N M
H H H
0
N
O1
m
.-
M
H
$322,272 I
W
01
N
M
H
L0
01
O
lD
M
M
H
a0
0
O
m
V'
M
H
S349,920
N
(n
l0
LO
Ln
rn
lA
$363,744 1
V
0
U'1
01
LO
M
H
S375,552 1
N
r.
00
01
N.
M
H
l0
t\
M
01
00
M
H
(0
f\
ut
LD
O1
M
H
l0QD QD VD
t\
f\NJ LID -
M
O - - -
V'
H
VD
tr,
CD
VD
01
-
VD LD
I.
CA 01
- O
V'
H
LD
rs
01
O
V
H
O
n
01
O
V'
H
$27,825
0
1./1
M
v1
H
0
0
4440-04V1
L0
00
H
0 0 0
0 0 0
M N 00
N u1 LO
H H H
L$178,500
0
N
W
N
o0
H
0
ul
V'
l0
00
H
0
Vl
O
O
O1
H
0
Ln
LD
M
01
H
0
vl
N
f\
O1
H
0
In
10
O
O
fV
lA
I $204,450
0
to
V'
n
O
N
H
0
O
t0
O
N
H
0
N
a0
N
N
H
0
ul
O
N
H
0
u1
O
N
H
0 0 0 0
vl Cl u1 Cl
O 0 0 0
V' V' V V'
N N N N
H H H H
0
In
0
V'
N
H
0
Ln
0
V'
N
H
I$214,050
S214,050
0
u1
0
V'
-.
N
H
0
111
0
V
N
H
OPERATING COSTS
0 & M Costs Administration Total
Costs
01
V1
M
.-
H
01
u1
LD
M
H
01
LD
In
LD
H
01
O1
I.
01
.-
H
$223,880
$239,248
$248,458
$253,178
V1
N
t\
V1
N
H
m
M
.-
LD
N
H
V'
In
lD
N
H
01
V'
01
lD
N
H
r.
U1
M
r•
N
lA
V1
lD
f\
r`
N
H
N
.-
CO
N
H
.-
01
'
CO
N
H
M
00
(0
00
N
H
lD
00
f\
00
N
H
lD
00
n
00
N
H
lD (0 LD LD
00 00 CO 00
I. Is: N. f\
00 00 CO 00
N N N N
H H H H
LD
CO
f\
00
N
H
LD
00
r.
CO
N
H
LD l0
00 00
r` f\
00 00
N N
H H
1 $287,861
LD
00
f\
00
N
H
0
0
0
O
M
H
0
0
0
-
M
H
0
0
0
N
M
H
0
O
0
m
M
H
$34,000 1
0
O
O
Ln
M
H
$36,000
0
O
O
f\
M
H
0
0
0
00
M
H
0
O
O
01
M
H
$40,000
O
O
O
V'
H
$42,000
0
0
O
m
V'
H
0
0
O
V'
V'
H
0
0
O
N
V'
H
0
0
O
Vl
V'
H
$45,0001
O
O
O
v1
V'
H
S45,000
$45,000
$45,000 1
S45,000
0
0
0
ul
V'
H
0
0
0
V1
V
H
0 0
0 0
0 0
In N
V V.
H H
0
0
0
un
V'
H
0
0
0
un
V.
H
n
01
Ln
(1'1
00
H
N.
01
u1
L/1
O
H
N
01
LD
('(1
M
H
rn
01
CA
•
in
O
00
CO
01
00
H
$204,248 1
00
v1
V'
N
N
H
00
N.
-
L0
N
H
n
1n
N
01
N
H
1 $222,336
Ln
V'
V1
N
N
H
1 5228,493
1 $231,572 l
.-
un
LD
V
M
N
H
t\
.-
N
N.
CO
N
H
.-
01
01N
M
N
H
1 S241,835
1 $242,861
VD
00
V'
N
H
VD
00
N
V'
N
H
LD 0 LD
CO CO 00
N N N
'Cr d' V
N N N
H H H
LD
00
N
V'
N
H
0
00
N
V'
N
H
I$242,861
$242,861
LD
CO
N
V'
N
H
LD
CO
N
V'
N
H
_ Ln
��y
V
W
T
D.
d
C
ro
in
i0 N
7�
C b
Q
ce
0'
u.i
O
O
0
1001
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1001
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
an
1.
O
u1
411
N
20
15
101
v1
0
0
0
0
0
01
V1
N
LD
(n
-
N
••
00
00
LD
O
01
to
V'
N
V
N
V'
N
V-
N
V'
N
`7
N
V
N
1/1
lD
0
rn
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V1
V1
CO
3571
LD
m
In
0
y
00
V'
0
l0
N
-
•
•CV
Ln
--
M
(T
M
M
M
LD
M
M
00
M
V'
0
V
01
.
V'
1 14271
n
N
V'
N.
N
V'
Is. n N.
(V N N
V' V. '
f\
N
.IS
N.
N
V
N.
N
V'
t.
N
V'
n
N
V
r`
N
V
7O
V
n:
Ce E W
CD.
',:13
0
0
NJ
--
O
0
NJ
N
O
0
r4
co
O
0
NJ
V.
O
0
r.1
to
O
0-
N4
-
NJ
r4
CD
CV
CD
NJ
-
NJ
-
--
O
NJ
N
N
0
M
0
V
0
�Ln
0
0
0
r.
0
00
01
0
0 .- N
N N N
0 0 0
M
N
0
V
N
0
Ln
N
0
l0
N
0
N.
N
0
CO
N
0
N
n
D
ry
rn
v
v
D
n
co
rn
0
0
r- N M
N N N
v
N
L„
N
LD
N
r.
N
00
N
rn
N