The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About11.11.82 VB Public Hearing MinutesVILLAGE Off' PLAINFIELD Step 1 -- Facility Plan for Wastewater Treatment Systems Project C-172552 Public Hearing DATE: November 11, 1982 PRESENT WERE: Representing the Village: Mayor Selfridge, D. Lambert, L. Robinson, G. Ansley, J. King, C. Smith, J. West, E. Gordon, A. Singh A. Hothan, 1409 N. Naperville/Plainfield Road; J. Robinson, 806 North Division; W. McElwaine, 30 Oswego Ct., Oswego; G. R. Kreis, Shorewood; B. McCormick, 5 N. Pratt Lane The hearing was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Eugene Gordon was requested to distribute the Plan Fact Sheets to everyone in atten- dance and read its contents. (see Exhibit "A".) The Mayor entertained questions from the audience. B. McCormick stated: The assessment rate will be made up at $3.43 per $1,000. My house increased by $5,000 valuation. r don't know how much my assessment will increase in the future. So how much will I have to pay in the end? A. Sinc~,Project Engineer, responded: Costs are based on $1,000 assessed valuation. . I don't know what the future will bring. These costs are based on $1,000 valuation. J. King questioned. the cost of water today. A. Singh responded: $.64 per 100 c.f. with recommended charge to be $.80 toda,T. G. R. Kreis, representing Kerr Glass, stated his additional cost would be approximately $1,000~/month under this plan. C. Smith questioned the projected 11,200 new persons coming into the area. G. Ansley suggested a smaller population should be planned for. J. King stated by the year 2000 we are to have a zero population growth. E. Gordon responded these figures go beyond the current Village limits. L. Robinson commented: Someone previously provided for us, we should also provide for future generations. B. McCormick questioned if he would be able to afford living in the Village and in Illinois if these fees and taxes continue to increase. G. Ansley stated: It is up to the people to decide which way to go and how to finance this project. It is up to the voters to accept or reject the project. A. Hothan remarked: I understand your operation and maintenance costs, does it in- elude replacement costs as well? A. Singh: No! Did the Board consider a modular method of construction? C. Smith stated there is not much difference in the overall cost. VILLAGE OF PLATNF~ELD November 11, 1982 Facility Plan for Wastewater Treatment Systems Public Hearing Page two. G. Ansley stated the original system was designed for 10,000 people, conservatively 7,500 people, and can't understand why the present system won't handle the current population. A. Singh stated that the infiltration/inflows account for most of the flows thus reducing the capacity of the plant. J. King questioned the cost figures on page 2, phase 1 & 2; are there additional costs that we don't know about yet? A. Singh responded: These .costs include everything except the cost of collectors and service lines to houses from the street» J. King stated: This is then just a partial cost. C. Smith questioned if homes with their own septic and wells would be required to hook-on to the Village system. It was. responded that it depended upon the developer, the land and soil conditions of the area in question. The Mayor asked if there were any additional questions and/or comments. No one responded. Hearing was adjourned at 8:30 p:m»> C~ James E. West, Deputy Village Clerk r: ~~ ~ FACT SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING PLAINFIELD FACILITX PLAN PROJECT C172552 The Village of Plainfield, in its capacity as the designated management agency far the Construction Grants Program, initiated Step 1 Facility Planning in October, 1979. The Facility Flan Area is bounded by 127th Street to the Narth, Caton Farm Road to the South, I-55 to the East, and Shiner Road to the West, encompassing an area of approximately 23 square miles. These boundaries were established by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency upon the recommendation of the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC), a regional playing agency which has jurisdic- tion fox the Z08 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan. Briefly, the results of the Step 1 investigations are as follows: PRESENT CONDITIONS Average Dry Weather Flaw - 0.673 M® Average Wet Weather Flow = 1.258 MGD Average Daily Flow (12 months) - 0.950 MGD Existing Plant Capacity = 0.750 M® Based on a 5 year rainstorm during wet conditions, the flows are: Base Flow -- 0.600 MGD Infiltration - 1.150 MGD Inflow = 1.200 MGD TOTAL FLOW - 2.95 M® AFTER recommended rehabilitation, the present flows can be reduced to: Base Flaw - 0.600 MGD Nan-Extraneous Infiltration -- 0.880 M® Non-Extraneous Inflow - 0.620 M® TOTAL FLOW _ 2.100 MG17 li FUTURE (Year 2000). The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) projects the Year 2000 Planning Area Population at 17,220. Of this, 15,000 is estimated to be serviced by sewers. Based on this, the following flows can be estimated: Base Flow = 1.80 MGD Non-Extraneous Infiltration = 0.88 MGD Non-Extraneous Inflow = 0.62 MGD TOTAL FLOW = 3.300 M® _2_ To summarize, if we assume no future growth, the existing needs call far a treatment plant to handle 2.10 N1GD capacity. If growth is assumed by a popula- tion of (15,000-3,800) 11,200 new persons, then the treatment capacity should be 3.30 MGD. The assumption of future growth has been used in the facility plan and therefore the cost estimates are based on the future flow of 3.30 MGD. To service the design load needs, various treatment altexnatives such as land applicaticn, Oxidation Ditch, Rotating Biological Cantactars, Trickling Fil- ters, etc. were considered and evaluated based on monetary and environmental con- siderations. The Facility Plan reconur-ends the fallowing: 3) Construction of Interceptors. ll Expansian of the existing treatment plant to 3.30 M® utilizing the Activated Sl>>dge process train. 2) Rehabilitation of the existing sanitary sewers to reduce Infiltration and Inflows. Estimated capital costs, which includes construction costs, contingencies, engineering fees, legal fees, financing and administrative costs, are as follows: PHASE 1. EXPANSION OF TREATMENT PLANT AND REHABILITATION COSTS [MILLION $) Total Cost Federal Share Local Share C Expansion of treatment plant $ 6.939 $ 5.204 $ 1.735 Rehabilitation of sanitary sewers 0.606 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 7.545 PHASE 2. INTERCEPTORS/PUMP STATIONS Total Cost of Interceptors/Pump Stations Grant Eligible Portion Grant Ineligible Portion Federal Share of Cost Local Share of Cost 0.466 0.140 $ 5.670 $ 1.875 $ 4.108 Million $ 4.032 $ 0.076 $ 3.024 Million $ 1.084 Million [7 _3_ LOCAL FINANCING PRASE 1. Amount Financed = $1.875 Million It is expected that the Village wilt finance their share of capital costs by issuing a combination of General Obligation Bonds and Revenue Bonds. Tenta- tive breakdown of $1 million by GO Bands and $0.875 million by Revenue Bonds is suggested; however, the exact breakdown wi11 be determined at a later date by the financial consultant. Assuming ZO year GO Band at 9% interest; the annual cost would be $109,550. This can be recovered through taxes at an assessment rate of $3.43 per $1000 assessed valuation. The yearly tax on a typical $45,000 house assessed at $15, 000 computes to $51.45 per year based on $3Z million assessed valuation for the entire Village. The debt serrrice on Revenue Bond (10%, Z.0 years maturity) is $103,000 and can be retired by revenues generated by user charges. The debt ser- vice for the Revenue Bond is estimated at $O.ZB per 100 CF of water usage. PHASE 2. Amount Financed = $1.084 Million. The local share can be financed by a combination of special assessments, GO Bond, User Charges and contributions from developers seeking Village water and sewer services. The exact vehicle far funding the local share is to be determined by the financial consultant prior to the start of Phase 2. Again, assuming 20 year bonds at 9% interest, the annual debt service is estimated at $118,800. ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS The annual operation and maintenance cost excluding depreciation is estimated at $308,000, and debt service at $103,000 for the Phase 1 revenue bond portion of financing. This gives an annual 0 ~ M cost of $411,000. MONTHLY CHARGES (1984 Assuming the average dry weather domestic, commercial and industrial flaws to the plant at 0.75 MGD, the anticipated user charges for defraying the operation and maintenance costs are as follows: Cost per 100 CF of water used = $1.13 -4- TYPICAL USER C~ BARGE Per (:quarter Per Alanth Average Family Residence (2000 CF/Quat.) ~ 22.60 ~ 7.54 Small Family Residence (1400 CF/goat.) 15.82 5.27 COlviv'ECTION CHARGE The connection charge fax sanitary sewer will reflect costs associated with the cost of the existing plant plus the cast of expansion. The puxpase o£ using the above criteria is to distribute costs in an equitable manner so that the present users are not subsidizing for residents who decide to connect at a later date. These costs will be detailed at the Step 2 stage when better estimates of construction would be available. li