[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
06- Aoi -7 iix 6 7 Appen, TOWN OF URBANNA VIRGINIA KASTER PLAN FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT 9065 FINAL REPORT AUGUST 2 lp 1991 w LIM R. STUART ROYER ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS w RICHMOND. VIRGINIA TOWN OF URBANNA VIRGINIA MASTER PLAN FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT 9065 FINAL REPORT AUGUST 21, 1991 PREPARED BY: R. STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS .8227 HERMITAGE ROAD RICHMOND, VA 23228 (804) 264-3915 THISIVASTER PLAN FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES WAS @UNDED, IN PART, BY THE VIRGINIA COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT'S COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THROUGH a- GRANT # NA 90AA-H-CZ796 OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND rl- ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF -972 AS AMENDED. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose and Scope 3 Study Area Description 4 CURRENT SITUATION 5 Existing Land use 5 soils 6 Water Facilities 7 Wastewater Facilities 9 FUTURE SITUATION- 12 General 12 Forecast of Water Use 12 Forecast of Wastewater Use 14 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 16 Source of Water 16 Storage 16 Distribution System 16 ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS 19 General 19 Discharge Limits 19 Future Plant Sites 20 Existing Plant Modifications 21 Alternative Future Treatment Systems 25 1. Activated Sludge Treatment 26 2. Constructed Wetlands 26 3. Aquatic Pond 27 WASTEWATER TRANSPORT AND COLLECTION 28 General 28 Gravity Sewer System 28 Vacuum Sewer System 29 RECOMMENDED FIRST STAGE 31 WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 31 FINANCING 34 General 34 Existing Situation 34 First Stage Improvements 36 IMPLEMENTATION 38 Planning considerations 38 First Phase Water and Sewer Improvements 39 APPENDIX Water Improvements A-1,2 Sample Estimate of Revenue, Expense and Debt Retirement B-1 Assumptions for Revenue, Expenses and Debt Retirement B-2 PLATESAP TABLES AND MAPS1 LIST OF PLATES 1. Study Area and Vicinity Fol. P.4 2. Location of Soil Classified as Severe/or Drain Fields. Fol. P.6 3. Possible Future Wastewater Treatment Plant Sites Fol. P.20 LIST OF TABLES 1. Existing Land Use Fol. P.5 2. Water Connection Data Page 7 3. Equiva 'lent Connections to Town of Urbanna Water System Page 8 4. Estimated Development Density within Town and Water Use Page 9 5. Sewer Customers and Equivalent Connections Page 10 6. Future Ldnd`Uso@ * Fol. P.12 7. Estimated of Water Use at Build out Fol. P.12 8. Projected Water Use Fol. P.13 9. Estimate of Equivalent SFU Water Connections at Build out Fol. P.14 10. Estimate of Water Storage Fol. P.14 -11. Projected Sewer Use Fol. P.16 12. Estimated Cost of Future 1. Out of Town Water Improvements Page 17 13.. Recommended Water Improvements Page IS 14. Estimated Cost BNR Modification of Existing Plant to Treat 100,000 GPD at Higher Limits Page 23 15. Estimated Cost Aquatic Pond Modification to Treat 100,000 GPD at Higher Limits Page 23 16. Estimated Cost Constructed Wetlands Modification of Existing Plant to Treat 100,000 GPD at Higher Limits Page 24 17. Estimated Cost to Construct New Aquatic Pond Treatment and Abandon Present Plant Page 24 18. Estimated Annual operating Expenses for First Stage Improvements' Fol. P.25 19. Estimated Cost 250,000 GPD Activated Sludge BNR Treatment Plant Page 26 21. Recommended Water Improvements Page 32 22. Recommended Initial Improvements Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 33 23. Monthly Water and Sewer Service Charges- Page 35 MAPS (Enclosed in pockets) 1. Study Area Map 2. Future Water System 3. Future Gravity Sewer Plan 4. Future Vacuum Sewer System shown 1Fol. indicates that Plate or Tal@ie is following the page SUMMARY The Town of Urbanna prepared a comprehensive plan showing areas of possible future growth around the corporate limits. This information has been used to evaluate the present and future needs of the utility systems serving the Town as well as the surrounding area. Within the present Town'there is approximately 23 percent of the area which is available for future development. As land becomes less availabl'e,.ddvdlopment is forced to move outside of Town and the ability of the utility system to expand to meet the needs of growth is questionable. The soils in the area around Urbanna. are not good f or the construction of septic tank drain fields and. therefore new development will be limited if municipal services are not provided. The Town-owned water facilities should be sufficient to serve the Town and the surrounding area as long as adequate storage is provided. The existing network of water mains inside of Town should be upgraded to provide a minimum of 6 diameter pipe loops. This will greatly improve pressure in the system and allow water for fire protection which is not now available. The water main upgrade within Town is estimated to cost around $143,000. Wastewater is collected and treated in a Town-owned system. The treatment plant is permitted for an average daily flow of ioo,ooo gallons. During periods of peak use the average daily, f low equals the design and the facility experiences some short-term hydraulic problems. If these deficiencies are corrected the present plant should be adequate to treat the wastewater generated within the present corporate limits for perhaps another 15 years. However, the Town cannot expand the system much beyond its present sewer service area before the present plant will be required to expand. The estimated cost of improvements to the present treatment plant is around $286,000. This will provide a surge tank to handle peak flows, correct hydraulic problems, and if necessary lower nitrogen and phosphorous levels in the effluent. The recommended water and sewer improvements can be financed through the monthly service charge for water and sewer service if the present rate is increased. An average single family unit in Town would have to have a combined water and sewer bill of $28.00 and a similar out of Town water customer's bill should be $21.00 with the rate increased 2% annually to keep up with inflation. Consideration for future expansion of either the water or sewer systems should be undertaken only after joint planning for the area between the Town and County is completed. This planning should consider the affect of growth on the utility systems as well as other needs of the entire area. 2 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Town of Urbanna recognizing the need to investigate. its present and future utility needs commissioned the preparation of a Water and Sewer Master Plan Study. This study is to investigate the present utility system to determine its adequacy to meet the present needs of the Town and those customers outside of Town using the f acility. If deficiencies are found improvements will be recommended and estimated costs will be presented for the work. In addition toAhvestigating the present system the study will ,,.include a discussion of long range needs and show possible projections of water and sewer facility needs based on assumptions of growth. Recommendations are presented for action by the Town and in some cases the County to formulate plans which will help assure a community growth which can be accommodated without undue stress to the financial resources available or to the environment. The data upon which the report is based has been provided for the most part by the Town in an ef fort to hold down the cost. The mapping was taken from the recently prepared Comprehensive Plan. Data on utility customers, water consumption,and revenue were compiled by the Town. And a variety of reports and other data were furnished which helped greatly in compiling the report. There are decisions which must be made which will influence the final report. Therefore, this first draft is presented for review 3 bv Council. Once Council has reviewed the document and provided input a final report will be presented with recommendations for first phase improvements as well as a course of. action for financing. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The area of Middlesex County around the Town has experienced growth primarily as a result of the Town's willingness to extend water service beyond its corporate limits. The pressure for growth outside of Town has - continued to the present and the Town recognizes that its system may not be capable of serving the needs of the area. The area studied in this plan includes the six study areas delineated in the Town's Comprehensive Plan plus a seventh area across Urbanna Creek referred to as the Rosegill Project. The Town has extended water service into study areas 1 and 4 and has decided against additional water service outside of Town until the recommendations of this report are released. Plate I illustrates the study area and vicinity of Middlesex County. The various study areas are shown on Map No. 1 in the rear of the report. 4 610 1 REVIS 602 REMLIK PINE 603 TREE TOWN OF Ao BANNA (p WARNER COUNTY 17 JONES STORE CHRIS CHURCH IS SALUDA COOKS LO )_ ST 3 STORMONT CORNER 3-3 HILL G4 01(j. 17 629 3 E) To HARMONY VILLAGE COO, HEALYS 3 LEGEND 33 TOWN OF URBANNA 629 STUDY AREA TOWN OF URBANNA, VIRGINIA MASTER PLAN FOR WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES STUDY AREA AND -VICINITY MAP PLATE I CURRENT SITUATION EXISTING LAND USE The predominant land use within the study area is residential with the largest concentration located within the Town of Urbanna. Table 1 illustrates the breakdown of major use categories in the study area. Within the Town only 23% of the land is available for new development while the remainder of the study area has 75% of the land undeveloped. In any utility study it is necessary to estimate present as well as future projections of usage. While population data is useful the more important data are connections. The number of connections served by a community when related to equivalent single f amily usage will indicate the equivalent population served. For planning purposes, this is more useful than pure census population data since many communities serve facilities which include a population not reflected in the census. Another example of utility users not indicated by census data are retail, commercial and industrial establishments. TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USE ACRES IN STUDY AREAS STUDY AREAS LAND USE CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOWN TOTAL Residential 87.02 22.86 18.05 55.42 19.27 40.18 2.2 143.93 388.93 Commercial 4.95 -0- -0- -0- 38.31 4.40 -0- 16.48 64.14 Industrial 2.94 -0- -0- 0.44 -0- 3.85 -0- 2.31 9.54 Public Service 13.99 -0- 0.73 -0- -0- -0- -0- 11.71 26.43 Open Uses 78.61 105.48 150.47 104.82 219.10 146.25 151.97 52.04 1008.74 Wetlands -0- -0- -0- 1.47 -0- -0- -0- 1.69 3.16 Total 187.5 128.3 169.3 162.1 276.7 194.7 154.2 228.2 1500.9 The land uses and their respective areas were derived from maps furnished by the Town. The areas were determined by planimeter. Therefore, no attempt is made in this study to determine population within the study areas. However, preliminary 1990 census data indicate the Town to have a population of 528 in 349 housing units, 80 of which are vacant. This would seem to indicate about 2 persons per occupied unit. It is assumed that the surrounding study areas will have approximately the same number of persons per dwelling. Within the study at6a'there are a significant number of housing units which are occupied seasonally. However, when planning for water and sewer utilities all units must be able to be served. SOILS Soils within the study area are for the most part unsuitable for development of septic tank drain fields as shown in the Soil Survey of Middlesex County. While the survey is generalized and detailed analysis for a specific site may show that the soil would support such facilities the maps are an excellent guide to the suitability of soils for drain fields. Knowing this it is safe to assume that no extensive development can occur without centralized sewer facilities. Plate 2 illustrates the location of soils rated as severe for use with septic tank drain fields as well as areas where land has failed percolation tests. 6 WATER FACILITIES The average annual water use f or a residential unit in Town is about 144 gallons per day (GPD) while that for an out,of Town unit is 137 GPD. Therefore the per capita consumption is around 70 gallons.per person per day. This is slightly higher than similar data from other communities and may be an indication of leaks in the individual house service lines. At present the Town has approximately 511 water connections and 374 sewer connections as shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 WATER CONNECTION DATA In Out of Water Connections Town -Town Total Residential 321 124 445 Business 62 4 66 Total 383 128 511 The Town water service is from two deep wells and storage is in one 5000 gallon pressure tank and a 250,000 gallon elevated storage tank. The wells are designated as No. 3 and No. 4. Well No. 3 is reported to have a yield of 430 GPM, with pump capacity of 450 GPM. The capacity of Well No. 4, is 175 GPM which is the rated pump capacity. Therefore the well supply should be able to furnish about 605 GPM or 870,000 gallons per day. Based on a peak of 2.5 and a design of 100 gallons per person per day the 7 09 supply should be adequate for an equivalent population of 3,480 persons. However, the permitted capacity is only 1000 equivalent connections due to constraints in the' water distribution system. An inquiry was made of the Health Department to determine the restriction of 1000 equivalent connections. There did not appear to be an explanation for the restriction, however it is possible that with the small line sizes which result in pressure drops, the Health Department felt it should restrict the number of connections. Using water records of the Town, the connections were converted into equivalent single family units (SFU) to estimate the equivalent connected load on the system. Table 3 shows the estimate of the equivalent connected load as SFU. TABLE 3 EQUIVALENT CONNECTIONS TO TOWN OF URBANNA WATER SYSTEMS ERU ERU User In Out of ERU Classification Town Town Total Residential 321 118 439 Business 159 8 167 Total 480 126 606 The State Guidelines suggest a storage volume of 200 gallons per equivalent single family unit (ERU). Therefore with approximately 8 606 ERU the required volume of storage is about 121,000 gallons and the 250,000 gallons of storage is more than required. In an ef f ort to develop water data f or use as a planning tool current records were analyzed to estimate consumption in relation to land use. Table 4 presents the estimated population density of developed land in the Town of Urbanna, together with calculated water use associated with each category of land use at the present time. This estimate correlates well with the actual water use data from Town redords and is used to project future consumption. TABLE 4 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WITHIN TOWN AND WATER USE General Land Population Estimated Total Use Category Per Acre Water Use in Town Residential Low Density 3.4 36,800 gal/day Medium Density 6.0 10,400 gal/day Business/commercial 10.0 21,000 gal/day Total 68,200 gal/day In addition to the 68,200 GPD water'used within Town out of town customers consume an average of 18,000 GPD for a total present use of about 86,000 GPD. WASTEWATER FACILITIES The Town of Urbanna owns and operates its wastewater system. The system consists of a contact stabilization type treatment plant, 9 several pump stations and a system of gravity sewers which receive flow from the individual customers. The plant presently receives an estimated average annual daily flow of 52,000 GPD. This is less than the average daily water consumption since out of town customers are not connected to the treatment plant and some of the in Town water is not returned to the treatment plant. The sewer system serves 374 customers in Town. No out of town sewer service is provided at the present time. The presentcu4tomers are equivalent to 471 single family units. Table 5 presents a breakdown of present customers and their equivalent connected load to the treatment plant. TABLE 5 TOWN OF URBANNA SEWER CUSTOMERS AND EQUIVALENT CONNECTIONS Type Customer Number ERU Residential 312 312 Business 62 159 Total 374 471 With a permitted capacity of 100,000 GPD the plant has capacity to handle waste from Town customers for several years. In fact it will be shown in the discussion of the future situation the plant is estimated to be adequate for the Town until 2005 based on projected flows. 10 Peak flows, primarily during the Oyster Fest, present short term overloading of the wastewater plant. In November of 1990, the maximum daily flow was reported at 100,000 GPD. The,two and four consecutive daily total flows during November of 1990 were 200, 000 and 380,000 gallons respectively. Therefore, three day sustained flow was about 100,000 GPD and the daily peaks can be expected to exceed 200,000 GPD which is the design maximum flow rate to the present plant. Because of the high peak flow rates it is suggested that the Town install a flow equalization tank at the plant. Such a unit will prevent@lshock loads from reaching the facility. Discussions with the plant operator indicate that hydraulic overloading of weirs occurs before the flow through the plant reaches the 100,000 GPD rate. This should not occur. 'the plant should be able to pass 200,000 GPD flow without overflowing. This does not mean the plant can successfully treat more than its 100,000 GPD rated capacity. Several Suggestions for possible causes are: 1. Partially blocked pipes 2. Improper weir setting 3. Inadequate pipe size 4. Pumping rate to plant is too high It is suggested that an investigation of the plant be performed to determine what is causing the facility to overload and to correct the problem. FUTURE SITUATION GENERAL The Town of Urbanna has prepared a comprehensive plan which envisions development surrounding the present corporate limits. If this development occurs it will place increasing demands on the Town water,and wastewater systems. This section will investigate the impact of the future development on these systems. The comprehehsiVe Plan shows the study area to be developed with the generalized land uses as shown in Table 6. FORECAST OF WATER USE While the Town land use plan does not address the rate of development it illustrates current trends for growth to occur around centers which have public utilities. This trend is evidenced in the Town where the presence of a water system has led to growth outside of the present corporate limits. Using the land development densities of the present Town, and assuming future development will be similar, the total water use when full development occurs can be estimated. Table 7 shows the estimated water use at the time of full development and is based on 70 gallon per capita per day. 12 TABLE 6 FUTURE LAND USE ACRES IN STUDY AREAS STUDY AREAS IjAND USE CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOWN TOTAL Residential 150.07 79.24 100.52 49.77 227.28 99.82 88.15 146.10 940.95 Commercial 17.80 -0- -0- 26.35 -0- 7.34 12.99 28.22 92.70 Waterfront -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 14.53 8.22 22.75 Industrial -0- -0- -0- 40.92 -0- 3.16 -0- -0- 44.08 Public Service -0- -0- -0- 4.48 -0- 3.49 16.52 8.62 33.11 Open Land 19.63 49.10 68.74 40.58 49.4 80.88 21.99 .37 367.32 Total Used 167.87 79.24 100.52 121.52 227.28 113.81 132.19 191.16 1133.59 Total 187.5 128.34 169.26 162.10 276.68 194.69 154.18 228.16 1500.91 TABLE 7 ESTIMATE OF WATER USE AT BUILD OUT STUDY AREAS LAND USE CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOWN TOTAL Residential Low Density 35,717 18,859 23,924 8,430 32,056 13,092 13,050 3,380 148,507 Medium Density -0- -0- -0- 6,027 38,888 18,820 8,677 55,398 127,810 High Density -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 8,862 -0- 8,862 Commercial 12,460 -0- -0- 18,445 -0- 5,138 9,093 19,754 64,890 Light Industrial -0- -0- -0- 9,739 -0- 752 -0- -0- 10,491 Waterfront -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 10,171 5,754 15,925 Total 48,177 18,859 23,924 42,641 70,944 37,803 49,853 84,286 376,485 The following Table 8 is an esti mated projection of water use in each study area and the Town. The table assumes that water and sewer services will be made available in all study areas. If sewer service is not available growth would not be as rapid and therefore water demands would be reduced. However, the data shows several facts.* 1. If the Town served all of its present water customers with sewer thd average plant flow would be approximately 86, 000 GPD today. 2. if the Town allows no additional connections outside of Town but continues to grow within the present corporate limits the sewerage flow is estimated to be around 94,000 GPD in year 2015. 3. The two wells should have adequate capacity to serve the future needs of the area. 4. If service is provided to the Town plus the present study areas receiving water (areas 1 and 4) the estimated flow to the wastewater plant will be about 98,000 GPD in 1995. Therefore as soon as a decision is made to serve these areas the Town will be required to plan for a plant expansion. The State's suggested storage volume is 200 gallons per equivalent single family unit. Table 9 shows the estimated ERU at build out 13 TABLE 8 PROJECTED WATER USE1 YEAR STUDY AREA 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2-015 BUILD OUT 1 6000 12508 19017 25525 32033 38541 48177 2 -0- 3220 4772 6325 7877 9430 18859 3 -0- 4060 4839 5619 6398 7177 23924 4 12000 15570 19139 22709 26279 29849 42641 5 -0- 8680 10290 11901 13511 15121 37803 6 -0- 8680 10290 11901 13511 15121 37803 7 -0- -0- 3739 7478 11217 14956 49853 TOWN 68000 69571 71143 72714 74286 75857 84286 TOTAL 86000 122289 148318 174346 200374 226403 376485 iTable based on 70 GPD of the study area. Table 10 shows the estimated volume of storage in five year increments. Therefore, it is seen that the Town's present water storage is adequate for its present service area which includes the Town and Study areas 1 and 4. The estimated storage required for present service area in year 2015 is 206,067 gallons which is less than the 250,000 gallons available. on the other hand, if all study areas are to be served, new storage capacity will be required around Year 2005, or at such time as development reaches 1250 equivalent residential connections. FORECAST OF WASTEWATER USE Actual quantities of wastewater delivered to a plant depend on water use and the amount returned to the sewer as well as infiltration and inflow. As shown previously, the present flow per connection to the wastewater treatment plant is less than the water used per connection. However, for design and planning 100 g.p.c.d. should be used. Table 11 shows an estimate of projected wastewater flows. The table is based on the assumption that All units are connected to the system and that in year 2015 each study area has developed to the point shown. Growth is assumed as a straight line between 1990 and 2015 for areas 1, 4 and the Town. Areas 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, are assumed to be served in 1995 and grow in a straight line from 1995 to 2015. 14 - TABLE 9 ESTIMATE OF EQUIVALENT SFU WATER CONNECTIONS AT BUILD OUT STUDY AREAS LAND USE CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 7 TOWN TOTAL Residential Low Density 255 135 171 60 229 94 93 24 1,061 Medium Density -0- -0- -0- 43 278 134 62 396 913 High Density -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 63 -0- 63 Commercial 89 -0- -0- 132 -0- 37 65 141 464 Light Industry -0- -0- -0- 70 -0- 5 -0- -0- 75 Waterfront -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 73 41 114 Total 344 135 171 305 507 270 356 602 2,689 TABLE 10 ESTIMATE OF WATER STORAGE REQUIREMENTS MILLION GALLONS YEAR STUDY AREA 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 BUILD OUT 1 8000 17412 26824 36235 45647 55059 68824 2 -0- 23 3385 6747 10109 13-471 29642 3 29 2585 5141 7697 10253 34177 4 17200 22288 27376 32465 37553 42641 60916 5 -0- 6 2 12715 25368 38021 50674 101349 6 -0- 62 5447 10832 16217 21602 54004 7 -0- -0- 5341 10683 16024 21365 71218 TOWN 96000 98473 100947 103420 105894 108367 120408 TOTAL STORAGE 121200 138349 184620 230891 277162 323432 537836 TABLE 11 PROJECTED SEWER USE UNITS DEVELOPED STUDY AREA 1990 IN 1995 1995 2000 2005 2010 IN 2015 2015 BUILD OUT I 1 6000 15812 25624 35435 45247 .80 55059 68824 2 -0- 23 3220 5783 8345 10908 .50 13471 26942 3 -0- 29 4060 5608 7157 8705 .30 10253 34177 4 12000 18128 24256 30385 36513 .70 42641 60916 5 -0- 62 8680 19179 29677 40176 .50 50674 101349 6 -0- 62 8680 11910 15141 18371 .40 21602 54004 7 -0- -0- -0- 5341 10683 16024 .30 21365 71218 ,-TOWN 68000 76073 84147 92220 100294 .90 108367 120408 TOTAL 86000 134653 181848 229043 276238 323432 537836 Based on 100 g.p.c.d. Based on the projection shown in Table 11, the Town. treatment plant with capacity f or 100, 000 GPD should be suf f icient f or,Town service for another 15 years. However, as discharge criteria change there may be a need to make modifications from time to time. if additional service areas are added, the time before new facilities are required is decreased. In fact, if the Town were to consider providing sewer service to Study Areas 1 and 4, the present water service areas, the estimated f low in year 1995 is 110, 013 GPD. This would rdquire,new facilities or modification of the present plant to begin in the near future to design the necessary upgrade to handle the increased flow. 15 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SOURCE OF WATER No additional wells are proposed in this study since estimates show the present wells with capacity for over 600 GPM should provide water for the projected needs of the area. STORAGE There is no immediate need. for additional storage. If growth should continte 'there "will be a need for more storage in the future. The Water Facilities map in the rear of the report shows a suggested location for a future tank. The volume of the future tank should be determined in the future, based on the Towns projected service area at that time. But, based on current projections with service to the Town and all seven study areas an additional 100,000 gallons would be necessary before year 2015. An additional 300,000 gallons of storage would be needed to serve the entire study area when it is fully developed. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Map No. 2, in the rear of this report shows a suggested modification and expansion of the present system to serve the entire service area. This system would be expected to provide at minimum 800 GPM for fire protection with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. This will require upgrading some water distribution lines within the present Town. 16 If f ire protection is not desired, then individual well systems should be considered in each of the study areas not presently served by the Town. Each area should be easily, capable of developing a well to supply the domestic needs of their respective areas. The table in the Appendix shows the present day estimated cost of the facilities illustrated on Map No. 3. Those costs separated into total study areas are shown in Table 12 below. TABLE 12 ESTIMATED COST OF FUTURE OUT OF TOWN WATER IMPROVEMENTS ESTIMATED STUDY AREA TOTAL COST 1 105,150 2 235,225 3 131,550 4 103,775 5 332,795 6 427,615 7 194,250 The cost of installing water lines for future development should be borne by the developer. In addition the Town should require lines to be sized as shown on the Water Master Plan. Table 13 shows suggested improvements within Town which will improve service.to the present as well as future customers. 17 TABLE 13 RECOMMENDED WATER IMPROVEMENTS TOWN OF URBANNA LENGTH SIZE ESTIMATED, LOCATION (FT.) (IN.) COST Virginia St. 500 10 $ 21000 Howard St. 600 6 18000 Rappahannock Ave. 550 6 165000 Rappahannock Ave. 500 6 15000 Cross St. 350 6 10500 Cross St. 400 6 12000 Maiston Ave. 600 6 18000 Subtotal $111000 Engineering 11100 Inspection 10000 contingencies 11000 Total $143100 18 ALTERNATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS GENERAL As has been previously shown the present wastewater treatment plant is estimated to have capacity for service to the Town until approximately year 2005. This is based on estimates of growth and density of land use similar to that of the current Town. For planning purposes the evaluation of future treatment systems will be based on a plant with capacity of 250,000 GPD which is the size necessary to treat the projected flow from the Town and Study Areas 1 and 4. DISCHARGE LIMITS As the Town flow approaches the design quantity of 100,000 GPD it will be necessary to evaluate the next stage of expansion and the discharge limits which will be required. For the purpose of this report the following limits will be assumed for any new treatment plant or modified plant discharge. CHARACTERISTIC LIMITS BODS 25 mg/L Average Mo. Suspended Solids 25 mg/L Average Mo. TKN 4 mg/L Average Mo. Phosphorous 4. mg/L Average Mo. 19 The present plant has a limit of 30 mg/L for both BOD and suspended solids.' There is no limit on TKN at this time; however, it is suggested that for planning purposes the Town should investigate modification of existing plant to include both nitrogen and phosphorous removal. PUTURE PLANT SITES The site suggested for consideration for future expansion or relocation of the 'plant is shown on Plate 3. This site is suggested for the following reasons: 1. There is sufficient land to construct a 250,000 GPD plant with room for expansion. 2. The discharge location in Urbanna Creek will allow good dispersal of effluent into the channel. 3. The buffer strip required by State Design Guidelines can be obtained with minimum adverse impact to existing or potential development. 4. Urbanna Creek with the marinas is unlikely to ever be re- classified for commercial oyster harvesting. And, the upgraded Town discharge would only help the present water quality. 20 5. A proposal to move the discharge to the river or a new tidal estuary would possibly result in significantly more opposition both local and state than that of a relocation on Urbanna Creek. Several other sites were considered; however, when the permitting problems and difficulties of constructing a suitable outfall and discharge were evaluated they were not felt to be as good. Another factor was possible environmental concern. Urbanna Creek presently hosts several 'marinas in addition to the Town wastewater discharge. To move the Town discharge would do very little to improve water quality in the creek and depending on which other site was considered could pose a threat to a site which is presently free of point source pollution. EXISTING PLANT MODIFICATIONS As stated previously the present plant should have capacity for treating wastewater from the Town for approximately 15 years if the present deficiencies are corrected. A surge tank should be constructed ahead of the plant to hold peak flows. This will allow more efficient treatment of the wastewater. In addition the hydraulics of the facility should be studied to determine the cause of hydraulic overloading and to prepare plans for corrective action. When a surge tank is installed there is a chance that the State will take the opportunity to require either nitrogen or phosphorous 21 limits - Theref ore f or the purpose of this study cost estimates f or nitrogen and phosphorous removal will be included with improvements recommended for the first stage work. The present plant can be converted to biologically remove nitrogen and phosphorous fairly easily by adding some pipes, adjusting baffles and possibly installing a small pump. This could be done on the present plant site and the reliability of the Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) technology is well documented. The nutrients may also be reduced to some degree by utilizing one of several natural systems presently being used in other locations in the State. Aquatic ponds and constructed wetlands may be options. Each of these will require additional land and the plant effluent will have to be pumped to the facility. The suggested site for construction of either aquatic ponds or a wetland is the site which has been recommended for future expansion as shown on Plate 2. In either case the plant discharge would be relocated from the present point . to the new site of final treatment. The estimated cost of the three alternatives for first phase improvements to be considered for planning are shown in Tables 14, 15, and 16. 22 TABLE 14 ESTIMATED COST BNR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PLANT TO TREAT 100,000 GPD AT HIGHER LIMITS UNIT ESTIMATED COST Two New Surge Tanks $150,000 (50,000 gallons each) Analysis and Correction of Existing Hydraulic Problem 20,000 Modification to BNR 50,000 Estimated construction $220,000 Engineering 22,000 Inspection 22,000 contingencies 22,000 Total, Estimated Cost $286,000 TABLE 15 ESTIMATED COST AQUATIC POND MODIFICATION TO TREAT 100,000 GPD AT HIGHER LIMITS UNIT ESTIMATED COST New Surge Tank $ 150,000 Pump Station 90,000 Force Main 207,000 Analysis and Modification of Existing Hydraulic Problem 20,000 Pond 120,000 Harvesting Equipment 35,000 Construction Cost $617,000 Land 6 Acres @ $3000 18,000 contingency 62,000 Engineering 62,000 Inspection 30,000 Estimated Total Cost $789,000 23 - TABLE 16 ESTIMATED COST CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PLANT TO-TREAT 100,000 GPD AT HIGHER LIMITS UNIT ESTIMATED COST New Surge Tank $150,000 Pump Station 90,000 Force Main 207,000 Analysis and Modification of Existing Hydraulic Problem 20,000 Wetland Construction 80,000 Construction Cost $547,000 Land 6 Acres @ $3000 18,000 'eContingency 55,000 Engineering 55,000 Inspection 30,000 Estimated Total Cost $705,000 Another consideration for the existing plant would be to abandon the facility and rebuild a new low operation cost facility. Such a plant could consist of a aquatic lagoon. Table 17 shows an estimate of the facilities and cost to provide a new natural system to replace the present contact stabilization plant. TABLE 17 ESTIMATED COST TO CONSTRUCT NEW AQUATIC POND TREATMENT AND ABANDON PRESENT PLANT UNIT ESTIMATED COST Pump Station $125,000 Force Main 207j000 Pond Construction 173,500 Harvesting Equipment 35,000 Construction Cost $540,500 Land 10 Acres @ $3000 30,000 Contingency 54,000 Engineering 54,000 inspection 30,000 Estimated Total Cost $708,500 24 Operating costs for the four preceding alternatives are estimated as shown in Table 18. From the above discussion it is seen that the conversion of the present plant for removal of nutrients is the more economical course of action to follow when planning the first stage improvements. However, if during the process of planning for the future growth of the area the decision is made to serve areas outside of Town and the present plant is unable to handle the proposed flow the Town should consider constructing an aquatic pond facility at the proposed new site. The increased operating cost is only.slightly higher than that to modify the present plant. If this is done the Town should also consider purchasing the land necessary to expand the first-stage facility to the anticipated future size. ALTERNATIVE FUTURE TREATMENT SYSTEMS Before the present plant reaches its design capacity the Town must consider the type, size and location'of a new facility. The size and location have been discussed. The type of treatment should be selected to provide the most economical treatment to meet the criteria. established for discharge. Three (3) systems will be presented herein for consideration as types of treatment. These will be activated sludge, constructed wetlands and aquatic ponds. 25 TABLE 18 ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES FOR FIRST STAGE IMPROVEMENTS UPGRADED PLANT EXISTING PLANT EXISTING PLANT NEW SURGE WITH BNR AND WITH SURGE AND WITH SURGE AND TANK AND SEWAGE TANKS AQUATIC POND WETLAND AQUATIC POND General Salaries 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Salaries: Administrative 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 Operators 59,000 59,000 59,000 48,000 Maintenance & Repairs 18,000 18,000 18,000, 6,000 Laboratory 4,900 4,900 4,900 4.900 Utilities 14,000 16,000 16,000 5,000 Other: Depreciation 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 Existing Debt Service 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 Now Debt Service (2) 31,400 $6,000 77,400 77,800 Miscellaneous 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 TotalExpenses $265,900 $223,500 $314,300 $280,700 (1) Costs are based on 1991 figures and are not asculated for time. (2) Debt service for new capital improvements is calculated as capital recovery of estimated cost using 7% interest for 15 year loan. Capital recovery factory 0.10979. ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT The present plant would have to be expanded substantially to treat 250,000 GPD and due to land requirements would probably not be cost effective compared to constructing a new facility. Units which will be necessary to construct and their estimated cost are presented below in Table 19. TABLE 19 ESTIMATED COST 250,000 GPD ACTIVATED SLUDGE BNR TREATMENT PLANT ESTIMATED UNIT COST 1. Raw Sewage Pump Station 0.5 MGD Capacity $ 130,000 2. Force Main 810 207,000 3. Surge Tank (Use Existing STP Conversion) 40,000 4. BNR Plant 1,200,000 250,000 GPD 5. Disinfection 60,000 6. Control Building and Lab 100,000 7. Land 10 Acres @ 3,000/Acre 30,000 8. Outfall Line and Discharge 50,000 Estimated Construction $1,807,000 Engineering 130,000 Inspection 50r000 contingencies 180,000 Estimated Total Cost $2,177,000 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS These systems generally remove about 80% of the Biological oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and nitrogen. Therefore if such a system is expected to achieve the limits stated earlier the pretreatment unit must deliver an effluent of 30 mg/L BOD and 26 - SS. An activated sludge type plant would achieve such limits. However, when properly designed and operated, the assumed limits could also be met without the wetlands. Therefore at this point in time there does not appear to be an advantage in considering a future facility which will polish flow through the use of a constructed wetland. AQUATIC POND Construction of an aquatic pond in the future to replace the present plant could meet the assumed discharge limits. Table 20 shows the estimated cost of such a system. TABLE 20 ESTIMATED COST 250,000 GPD AQUATIC POND TREATMENT PLANT UNIT ESTIMTED COST 1. Raw Sewage Pump Station $ 130,000 2. Force Main 207,000 3. Surge Tank (Use Existing STP 40,000 Conversion) 4. Pond - 6 Acres 397,500 5. Disinfection 60,000 6. Laboratory/Office 75,000 7. Land - 20 Acres @ 3000 60,000 8. Outfall Line and Discharge 50,000 Estimated Construction $1,019,500 Engineering 75,000 Contingency 102,000 Inspection 30,000 Estimated Total Cost $1,226,500 DISCUSSION At such time as the Town of Urbanna considers the need to upgrade and relocate the present plant the use of an aquatic pond should be investigated as a cost effective solution. 27 - 01 WASTEWATER TRANSPORT AND COLLECTION GENERAL Due to the topography of the study area gravity collection of wastewater will have to be accomplished in small areas and pumped to the treatment plant for disposal. Such a system will be quite expensive to develop and operate due to the number of pump stations which are necessary to allow full development of the area. A second method of' providing sewer service would be through installation of a vacuum collection system. These systems do not require gravity and therefore minimize the number of pump stations. Since the waste is flowing under negative pressure line sizes are reduced from that of a gravity system. The following discussion will present data on two types of systems to serve the study area. GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM Map No. 3 in the rear of this report illustrates one scheme of installing gravity sewers and pump stations to serve the area. The potential total present day cost for this system is about $3,944,000. If a decision is made to expand the system the general plan shown on this map should be used as a master plan when establishing sizes for future lines and pump stations. VACUUM SEWER SYSTEM 28 Map No. 4 in the rear of this report shows a general plan f or serving the area with a vacuum system. While the exact lines sizes and pump capacities and location may vary somewhat from that shown the layout, the estimated costs are thought to be sufficiently close to provide an indication of long-term economies of developing a vacuum system. The estimated present day cost for developing the vacuum system as shown is about $2,304,000. In addition valve pits are necessary to collect wa�te"fr6m individual customers. While the location of valve pits is dependent upon several factors in general it is estimated that two will serve an acre of developed land and cost about $1,850 each. Therefore, with roughly 1,000 acres of land outside of Town which would be developed according to the comprehensive plan the cost of valve pits would be Around $370,000. Combining these costs gives approximately $2,674,000 for the cost of developing vacuum collection facilities to serve the entire study area. DISCUSSIOR Based on the estimates of construction cost it would appear that the vacuum system will cost less to install than the conventional gravity system. However, the gravity system will also require around 17 pump stations to serve the area outside of the town. The vacuum system will require only two. Two valve pits per acre will have to be maintained for the vacuum system. 29 It is estimated that the overall cost of installing and operating a vacuum system will be less than that of a conventional gravity system. Therefore, if the Town decides to extend service to out of Town areas the use of a vacuum system should be considered. 30 RECOMMENDED FIRST STAGE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Until such time as specific plans are made for development outside of Town and the policy for extending services outside the Town no recommendation will be made for out of Town improvements. The improvements recommended in Town are to improve service to customers on the water system and protect the wastewater plant from peak loads thdreby improving the quality of treatment and extending the life of the unit. Tables 21 and 22 present a list of improvements for the water system and wastewater treatment plant. The estimated total cost of recommended improvements is $367,100. It is recommended that the cost of improvements be funded through water and sewer service charges and connection fees. The financing of these costs is discussed further in the section on Financing. 31 TABLE 21 RECOMMENDED WATER IMPROVEMENTS TOWN OF URBANNA LENGTH SIZE ESTIMATED LOCATION (FT.) (IN.) COST Virginia St. Soo 10 $ 21000 Howard St. 600 6 18000 Rappahannock Ave. 550 6 165000 Rappahannock Ave. 500 6 15000 Cross St. 350 6 10500 Cross St. 400 6 12000 Maiston Ave. 600 6 18000 Subtotal $111000 Engineering 11100 Inspection 10000 contingencies 11000 Total $143100 32 TABLE 22 RECOMMENDED INITIAL IMPROVEMENTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 1. New Surge Tanks $150,000 2. Hydraulic Modification to Existing Plant 20 000 Construction Cost $170,000 Engineering 17,000 Inspection 20,000 contingencies 17,000 Total Estimated Cost $224,000 33 FINANCING GENERAL At the present time the funds available to communities in the form of grants is limited. From time to time the Community Block Development Grant program has grants for qualifying projects, and the Chesapeake Bay Initiative program has small grants. Several programs have loan funds available. These include Farmers Home Administration and the Revolving Loan program. However, for purposes of this report funding will be estimated without any grant assistance. This will,present a worst case scenario and if grants can be obtained the customer costs may be reduced. EXISTING SITUATION Customers receiving water and sewer service from the Town currently pay the monthly service charge shown in Table 23., An analysis of the revenue received by the Town indicates that the average Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) in Town is billed $9.41 per month each, water and sewer service, or a total of $18.82 per month. An ERU outside of Town is billed $17.38 for water service. Looking at the rate schedule the minimum residential water bill is $7.50 for 3000 gallons plus a $2.30 surcharge for debt service, for a total of $9.80. The reason that the average bill per equivalent residential unit is less lies in the fact that customers using over 3000 gallons per month are paying less per 1000 gallons than one which uses less than 3000 gallons per month. 34 - 0P TABLE 23 MONTHLY WATER AND SEWER SERVICE CHARGES TOWN OUT OF TOWN Water Charge 0-3000 Gallons 7.50 11.25 Over 3000 Gallons 1.63/1000 Gallons 2.45/100 gallons Sewer 100% of Water -- Total Sewer connection fees are $1250 and water connection fees are $750 plus all costs of materials and labor. In addition to the water and sewer service charges the Town collects a surcharge for debt service. CATEGORY OF USE IN TOWN OUT OF TOWN 0 - 5000 gallons 2.30 3.45 5001 - 15000 gallons 3.30 4.95 15001 - 50000 gallons 6.00 9.00 over 50,000 gallons 7.50 12.00 The water and sewer budget for 1091-92 shows $234,486 as expenses for the year. Included in this is a $54,300 line item for depreciation. If the Town uses the utility as an enterprise fund the revenue should cover expenses. With an annual water sale of 35 approximately 31,778,000 gallons the cost of water assuming 50% for water and 50% for sewer is about $3.69 for 1000 gallons. Therefore, for 3000 gallons the average minimum monthly charge for water only should be about $11.07 and the charge per 1000 gallons for all over 3000 should be $3.69. If the depreciation is not funded the average minimum monthly charge for 3000 gallons would be $8.56 with a $2.84 per 1000 gallons for all Us6@over 3000 gallons. With the assumption that half of the cost is for wastewater the sewer charges should equal those of water. There are many ways that the fee structure can, be tailored to produce the revenue required and the example above is only one of the many. However, it is apparent from the proposed budget that revenue will not cover expenses if depreciation is to be funded. It is recommended that the Town consider funding depreciation in the rate structure. FIRST STAGE IMPROVEMENTS There are many combinations of water and sewer rate structures which will generate sufficient revenue to pay for the suggested initial improvementsi one system to finance a $367,000 loan would be to raise rates in Town to produce an average monthly water and sewer bill of $28.00, and that outside of Town for an average water 36 bill of $21.00 and increase the rate annually 2%. This would pay for the loan in 15 years assuming a 7% interest loan. The full description of assumptions for the loan and the estimated revenue, expenses, and debt retirement schedule are shown in the Appendix. of course, if a lesser interest rate is available or if grant funds can be applied the rates can be reduced accordingly. 37 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The town of Urbanna should consider what steps are necessary to provide water and sewer service to customers inside of the Town. These considerations should include requirements for developers. And, it is felt that the Town should coordinate with the County and discuss the long term growth impacts of the area. This should include no growth considerations in the event that the Town decides not to continte extending service into the County. At the present time growth outside of Town is somewhat limited due to soil conditions and the fact that septic tank drain fields cannot be constructed in many areas and therefore constr uction is limited to those areas where such fields can be used. The following points are suggested for consideration of Town Council. 1. All water line extensions should be 6 inch minimum where a fire hydrant could be connected. 2. No water lines smaller than 4 inches should be allowed. 3. Developers should be required to provide loops in water system where possible. 38 - tr APPENDIX PAGE NO. Water Improvements A-1,2 Sample Estimate of Revenue, Expense and B-1 Debt Retirement for $224,000 Project Cost Sample Estimate of Revenue, Expense and B-2 Debt Retirement for $286,000 Project Cost 40 ESTIMATED FUTURE WATER IMPROVEMENTS LENGTH SIZE COST (FT.) (IN.) AREA 1 Laurel Drive 200 6 6000 Laurel Drive 350 6 10500 Easement 150 6 4500 Meadow Lane 1250 6 3750 Laurel Drive 350 6 10500 Route 1010 250 6 7500 SUBTOTAL $ 76500 ENGINEERING 7650 INSPECTION 10000 CONTINGENCY 11000 TOTAL $105150 LENGTH SIZE COST (FT.) (IN.) AREA 2 Route 1011 1050 8 36750 Route 1011 850 8 29750 Route 1011 550 8 19250 Easement 300 6 9000 Easement 350 6 10500 Route 1011 1100 8 38500 Route 1011 1700 6 51000 SUBTOTAL $194750 ENGINEERING 19475 INSPECTION 10000 CONTINGENCY 11000 TOTAL $235225 LENGTH SIZE COST (FT.) (IN.) ($) AREA 3 Route 602 350 10 14700 Route 615 900 6 27000 Route 615 1400 10 58800 SUBTOTAL $100500 ENGINEERING 10050 INSPECTION 10000 CONTINGENCY 11000 TOTAL $131550 LENGTH SIZE COST (FT.) (IN.) ($) AREA 4 Easement 2150 8 75250 SUBTOTAL $ 75250 ENGINEERING 7525 INSPECTION 10000 CONTINGENCY 11000 TOTAL $103775 A-1 LENGTH SIZE COST (FT.) (IN.) AREA 5 Route 602 1250 10 52500 Easement to Tank 450 12 20250 Route 684 1100 10 46200 Easement 1300 8 45500 Route 684 1800 8 63000 Route 684 1600 8 56000 SUB TOTAL $283450 ENGINEERING 28345 INSPECTION 10000 CONTINGENCY 11000 TOTAL $332795 LENGTH SIZE COST .(FT.) (IN.) M AREA 6 Route 602 2300 10 96600 Route 680 950 10 39900 Easement 2300 8 80500 Route 680 2000 8 70000 Route 680 1600 6 48000 Road 55 6 1650 Road 1100 6 33000 SUBTOTAL $369650 ENGINEERING 36965 INSPECTION 10000 CONTINGENCY 11000 TOTAL $427615 LENGTH SIZE COST (FT.) (IN.) M AREA 7 Virginia St. 300 8 10500 Prince George St. 300 8 10500 Easement 500 8 17500 Watling St. 500 8 17500 Watling St. 500 8 17500 Route 227 2400 8 84000 Bridge Crossing 1000 8 40000 SUBTOTAL $157500 ENGINEERING 15750 INSPECTION 10000 CONTINGENCY 11000 TOTAL $194250 408 aNAS TOWN OF U MASTER P AND SEIA p"mxM SITES IN FUTURE TREA -Z PR 0 R. STUART RO n CONSULTING EV RICHN 1A *04,v, A SWAM TOWN OF URE MASTER PLA AND SEWE SOIL 'A .. . . . .. .. . PREPA R.STUART ROYER CONSULTING ENGIN RICHIVION X BAR" 01 ........... 4t z @Zj IL IL % SALUDA SAMPLE ESTIMATE OF REVENUE, EXPENSE ANO DEBT RETIREMENT FOR $286,000 PROJECT COST LOCATION ................ TOWN Or URSAXNA NOANCREASE FIRST YEAR.. 0 ALTERNATIVE 0 .......... I ANNUAL GROWTH % ........ 0.53 PROJECT go . ............ "65 WATER CCNNEClION FEE .... 750.03 FIRST YEAR .............. i"S SEWER CONNECTION FEE .... 1,250.03 NUMBER TEARS ............ 15.00 IN TOWN GRANT (in %) 0.00 MON WATER RILL .......... 14.03 LOAN INTEREST X ........ 7.50 I=. SEWER BILL ......... 14.D3 TOTAL PROJECT COST ...... 236,000.00 OUT OF TOWN CAPITAL AVAILABLE GRANT. Oloo NOM'WATER BILL .......... 21.03 TOWN.. 0.00 " ' SEWER BILL ......... 21.0' LOAN REQUIRED ........... 256,000.00 ANNUAL RATE INCREASE M 2 RET. INC. YR ............ 5.00 ANNUAL 0& M ............ 162,000.02 IN TOWN 0 & M GROWTH % ......... 2.DO NO. ERU WATER CONNECTIONS. 480 TRANSFER TO GEN. FUND 0.00 No. EW SEWER CONNECTIONS. 471 DECREASE PER YEAR (%) 0 OUT OF TOM CONSTR. TIME (YRS.) ..... 1 NO. ERU WATER CONNECTIONS. 126 809D RETIREMENT (YRS.).. is NO. ERU SEWER CONNECTIONS. 0 AVG. ANNUAL PEST SERVICE 32,400.15 YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL 1996 5,D00.00 2001 20,100.00 2006 32.100.DO 2011 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1997 5.000.00 2002 20,100.00 2007 32,100.00 2012 0.00 a 0.00 0 0.00 1998 51000.00 200 20,100.00 20M 32,100.00 2013 0.00 0 0. Do 0 0.00 19" 5.0-00.00 2004 20,100.00 2M 32,100.00 2014 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2000 5,000.00 2005 20,100.00 2010 32,100.DD 2015 0.00 0 0.00 O.Go TOTAL 25,000.00 125.500.00 286,000.00 2116,000.00 286,000.00 2116,0301.00 '6 IN TOM IN TOWN 00 OF TOWN MIT OF TOWN TOTAL TOTAL GRAND MET NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS INCREASE OF CONNECTIONS NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS INCREASE OF CONNECTIONS REVENUIE REVENUE TOTAL OPERATING TRANSFER TO OPERATING OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL INTEREST DEBT ANNUAL CUMULATtVf YEAR MAIER SEWER WATER SEWER WATER SEAR WATER SEWER MAIER SEWER REVENUE EXPENSES GENERAL FUND REVENUE LOAN PAYMENT PAYMENT SERVICE SURPlus SURPLUS 1995 480 471 0 0 126 0 11 2:392,00 79:128,00 191,520.00 162,000.00 0.00 29,520.00 256,000.00 0.00 21,450.00 21,450.00 8,070.W 3,07D.DC 19916 482 473 2 2 127 1) a 0 "1 013.04 32 614.11 199.627.15 165,240.00 0.00 34,387.15 ZB6,000.00 5,000.00 21,450.00 26,450.00 7,937.15 16,007-15 1997 485 476 2 2 127 a 1 0 119,913.89 84,650.08 204,50.96 168.5".80 0.00 36,019.16 281,000.00 5,000.00 21,075.00 26.075.00 9,944.16 25,951-V 1998 487 167B a 3 128 0 1 0 122,657.36 87.487.t4 210.374.51 171,915.70 0.00 38,458.51 Z76,OD0.OO S,OOO.D0 20,700.00 25,700-00 12,7513i8l 38,710.13 1 W9 490 480 2 2 129 0 1 0 12S.935.29 88,976.60 214,811.59 175,354.01 0.00 39,457.88 271,000.00 5,000.00 20,325.00 25,325.00 14.13Z.= 52.843-01 2000 492 483 2 2 129 0 1 a t2g,059.54 91,069.73 220, 129.29 178,361.09 O.Q0 41.20.20 266,000.00 5,000.00 19,950.00 24,950.00 16,3ia.zo 69,ibi.r. 2001 4" 485 2 3 130 a A a 13Z,MZ.03 94,067.95 2M.V9.93 182,438.31 0.00 43,891.67 261,000.00 20,100.00 19,575.00 39,675.00 4,216-67 73,3n-M zm 49r 488 z 2 130 0 1 a 155,S".Ti 95.6U.58 31. 167.29 1116,087.08 0.00 45,080.22 240,900.00 20,100-00 15,067.50 38,167-50 6,912.TZ 80,290.60 Z003 500 490 2 3 131 a I a 138,909.61 98,735.06 257,6".66 189,1508.82 0.00 47.835.84 220,800.00 20,100.00 16,560.00 36.660.00 11,17S." gl,"6." 2004 502 493 2 2 132 a I a f42,358.77 100.406.413 242.7fiS.60 193,605.09 0.00 49,160.61 ZW,?W.W 20,100.00 15,052.50 35,152.50 14,008.11 105,476.55 zm so 495 3 3 112 0 1 0 145,894.32 103.639.39 249.Sn.72 19Y,477.10 0.00 52,056.62 180,600.W 20.100.00 13,545.00 33,645.00 tB,411.62 123,SU.17 2006 507 495 3 2 133 0 1 0 149,518.43 105,434.2? 254,952.70 201,426.64 0.00 53,526.06 160,500.00 32,100.00 12,037.50 ". 137.50 9,388.56 133,2n.73 2007 510 SIX) 3 3 134 a 1 0 153.233.31 108.793.02 262.026.n M,455.il 0.00 56,571.16 123,400.00 3Z.100.00 9,630.00 41,730.00 14,541.16 149, 115.85' 2ooa 512 so 3 2 134 a 1 0 157,041.25 110,717.25 267,rA.50 209,564.Zr 0.00 58,194.ZZ 96.3w.w 12.100.00 7.222.50 39,322.50 18,871.72 166,937.61 2009 31S 505 3 3 135 0 1 0 160,944.ST 114,ZCB.60 Zn, 153.17 213,755.56 0.00 61.397.61 64,200.00 32,100.00 4,815.00 36.915.00 24,492.61 191,47U.23 2010 517 Sao 3 2 136 0 1 0 164,945.68 116,268.76 231,214.44 215,030.67 0.00 63,10.77 32.100.00 32,100.00 2,407.50 34,507.50 2B,676.27 Z20,146.49 2011 520 SID 3 3 136 0 1 0 169.047.02 119,SW.46 288.946.48 222,39128 0.00 66,55S.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66,555.19 206,7DI.fig SAMPLE ESTIMATE OF REVENUE, EXPENSE AND LOCATION ................ TOWN OF URSAWNX NO-INCREASE FIRST YEAR.. 0 ALTERNATIVE N .......... I ANNUAL GROWTH % ........ 0.50 DEBT RETIREMENT FOR $224,000 PROJEC7 COST@ PROJECT NO . ............ 9065 WATER CONNECTION FEE .... 750.00 FIRST YEAR .............. 1995 SEWER CONNECTION FEE .... 1,250.00 NUMBER YEARS ............ 15.00 IN TOWN CUNT (in %) 0.00 MON.WATER BILL .......... 13.50 LOAN INTEREST X ........ 7.50 MON . SEWER BILL ......... 13.50 TOTAL PROJECT COST ...... 224,000.00 OUT OF TOWN CAPITAL AVAILABLE GRANT. 0.00 MOM.WATER BILL .......... 20.50 TOWN.. 0.00 MON. SEWER BILL ......... 20.50 LOAN REQUIRED ........... 224,000.00 ANNUAL RATE INCREASE M 2 RET. INC. YR ............ 5.00 ANNUAL 0 & N ............ 162,000.00 IN TOWN 0 & X GROWTH % ......... 2.00 NO. ERU WATER CONNECTIONS. 480 TRANSFER TO GEN. FUND .. 0.00 NO. ERU SEWER CONNECTIONS7 471 DECREASE PER YEAR M ... 0 OUT OF TOWN CONSTR. TIME CYRS.) ..... I NO. ERIJ WATER CONNECTIONS. 126 BOND RETIREMENT (YRS.).. 15 NO. ERU SEWER CONNECTIONS. 0 AVG. ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 25,376.34 YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL 1996 5,000.00 2001 15,000.00 20M 24,800.00 2011 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1997 5,000.00 2002 15,000.00 2007 24,800.00 2012 O.DO 0 0.00 0 0.00 1993 5.000.00 2003 20M 24,800.00 2013 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1999 s.Ow.OO 2004 15.000.00 2009 24,800.00 2014 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2000 5,Ooo.OO 2005 15,000.00 2010 24,800.00 2015 0.00 a 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL 25,000.00 100,000.00 224,000.00 224,000.W Z24,000.00 224,000.00 IN TOWN IN TOWN OUT OF TOWN CUT OF TOWN TOTAL TOTAL GRAND NET HUNIBER OF CONNECTIONS INCREASE OF CONNECTIONS NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS INCREASE Of CONNECTIONS REVENUE REVENUE TOTAL OPERATING TRANSFER TO OPERATING OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL INTEREST DEBT AMMAL CUIRILATIVE YEAR WATER SEWER WATER SEWER WATER SEWER WATER SEWER WATER SEWER REVENUE EVIENSES GENERAL FUND REVENUE LOAN PAYMENT PAYMENT SERVICE SURPLUS SURPLUS 1995 480 4711 0 a 126 08 058.00 DDO.OD 00 23 058.00 224 000.00 a 800.00 16 800.00 6 258.00 6 258.00 1996 4112 473 2 2 127 0 113 M .78 79 717.18 93 002.96 65 240-W 0.00 27 762.96 224 000.00 1: 0 a a I :r,6.00 76:m "0 ""': %0.0-0-0 116 800.00 21 80D.Go 5 962.96 2 220.96 1997 "s 476 2 2 127 0 1 0 116,093.07 81,6110.43 197,M .50 168,5".80 0.00 29,228.70 219,000.00 '-'OO.GO 16,425.00 21,425.00 7,11,03.70 20,024.66 Im 457 478 2 3 128 0 1 0 118,970.64 84,"2.96 203,413.60 1?1.915.70 0.00 31,477.91 214,000.00 5,000.00 16.050.00 21,050.00 10,"7.9t 30,472.56 1999 490 480 2 2 129 1 0 121,920.26 85. n6.00 207,676.27 175,3S4.01 0.00 32,3Z2.26 209,000.00 5,000. 00 Is 675.00 20,675.00 11,647.26 42,119.82 2000 492 483 2 2 129 124:91,3-74 87:1170*13 1,12:814.57 173:861 09 0.00 33;953.48 204,000.00 5.000.00 15:300.00 20,300.00 13,653.48 55,T?3.30 2001 495 4as 2 3 130 11 0. 128 042.92 90 M.74 2 8 831.6S 1112 4W@l 0.00 36,393.34 199.000.00 15,000.00 14,925.00 29,925.00 6,463.34 62,241.64 2002 497 4w 2 2 130 0 1 0 131 219.70 92,261.06 W,480.76 1116.0117.015 0@001 37,393.68 184.000.00 15.000.00 13'soo.00 28'sm.00 5,593.66 70,835.32_ 20113 SOO 490 2 3 131 1 . 134:476.04 95,2B9.16 229,765.20 189,3013.82 0.00 39,956.38 169,000.00 15,000.00 12.675.00 27.675.DD 12,251.38 83,116.70 2004 502 493 2 2 132 0 1 0 137,313.92 96,874." 234,688.36 193.605.00 0.00 41,083.37 154,000.00 I5,ooO.Oo 11,550.00 26,550.00 14,533.37 97,650.06 ZOOS -505 495 3 3 132 0 1 0 141,235.39 100.018.34 241,253.74 197.477.10 0.00 43,776.64 139,000.00 15,DDO.00 10,4n.oo 25,425.00 116,001.71 2006 so? 498 3 2 133 1 742.56 101,M.33 2". 464.89 201.426.64 0.00 45,038.5 121,000.00 24,800.00 9.30111.00 34,100.00 10,9M.25 126,939.96 2007 SID Soo 3 3 134 0 1 "4"8.337.57 104,981.91 253.325.48 205.455.17 0.00 47,870.31 99,2DO.DO 24,800.00 7,"0.00 32,240.00 15,630-31 142,570.27 ZOOS 512 503 3 2 134 0 1 0 152,022.62 106,816.63 255,539.25 209.5".Zr 0.00 19,274.93 74,400.00 21,&10.00 5.580.00 30,3w.w 18,894.9a wms.z 2009 515 505 3 3 135 55,799.98 110,210.08 266.010.06 213.M.56 0.00 52,254.50 49,600.00 24.800.00 3,nO.00 28,520.00 23,734.50 ias,199.75 2010 517 sca 3 2 136 11 1159,671.9S 112,169.88 271,841.83 218,81).67 0.00 53,811.16 24,800.00 21,800.00 1,1560.00 26,660.00 27,51.16 212,350.91 2011 520 sic 3 3 136 0 1 0 163,640.92 115,697.69 279,338.61 M.39n.28 0.00 56,947.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56,947.33 269,298.24 NOAA COAS TAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14112900