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

Oakland County

Water and Wastewater Master Plan

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis

Prepared for:

Oakland County Drain Commissioner One Public Works Drive Waterford, MI 48328

Prepared by:

URS Corporation Farmington Hills, MI 248-553-9449 Contact: Jan Hauser, P.E.

In Association With:

TetraTech MPS

Plante & Moran, PLLC Southfield, MI

Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.

URS Project No. 13647263

Final Report – September 2007

Table of Contents

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures........................................................................................................................................... viii

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. ix

Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... x

1.0 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope.................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Summary of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 3

1.3.1 Summary of Water Alternatives................................................................................ 4

1.3.2 Summary of Wastewater Alternatives ...................................................................... 5

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

2.0 Water Alternatives Development................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Alternative 1 – No Change .................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Alternative 2 – Develop/Improve Community Well System ................................................. 11

2.3 Alternative 2a – Develop/Improve Community Well System with Softening ........................ 12

2.4 Alternative 3 – New Service from DWSD ............................................................................ 13

2.4.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 13

2.4.2 Projected Cost of Service....................................................................................... 20

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

Table of Contents

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report ii

2.5.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 23


2.6 Alternative 5 – Genesee County to Supply Finished Water................................................. 36

2.6.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 39


2.7 Alternative 6 – Storage Analysis (DWSD Existing Customers) ........................................... 46

2.8 Warren – St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative ........................................................... 48

3.0 Discussion of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives - Alternatives 4 and 5................. 51

3.1 Comparison of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives ............................................... 51

3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives.......... 52

4.0 Wastewater Alternatives Development....................................................................................... 53

4.1 Alternative 1 – No Change .................................................................................................. 53

4.1.1 Clinton-Oakland SDS (COSDS) ............................................................................. 53

4.1.2 Huron-Rouge SDS (HRSDS) ................................................................................. 57

4.1.3 Evergreen-Farmington SDS (EFSDS).................................................................... 57

4.1.4 George W. Kuhn SDS (GWKSDS)......................................................................... 59

4.1.5 Commerce-White Lake SDS (CWLSDS)................................................................ 61

4.1.6 Walled Lake/Novi SDS (WLNSDS) ........................................................................ 63

4.1.7 Pontiac WWTP....................................................................................................... 64

4.1.8 Milford Village WWTP ............................................................................................ 66

4.1.9 South Lyon WWTP................................................................................................. 67

4.1.10 Wixom WWTP........................................................................................................ 68

4.1.11 Lyon Township WWTP........................................................................................... 69

4.1.12 Holly Village WWTP............................................................................................... 71

Table of Contents

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report iii

4.1.13 Highland Township WWTP .................................................................................... 72

4.2 Alternative 2 – Construction of Relief Sewers ..................................................................... 73

4.2.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 73

4.2.2 Description ............................................................................................................. 73

4.3 Alternative 3 – Diversion of 8 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP ..................................... 74

4.3.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 74

4.3.2 Description ............................................................................................................. 74

4.4 Alternative 4 – Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP.................................... 77

4.4.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 77

4.4.2 Description ............................................................................................................. 77

4.5 Alternative 5 - Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP .................................... 79

4.5.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 79

4.5.2 Description ............................................................................................................. 79

4.6 Alternative 6 – Construction of a New WWTP on the Clinton River .................................... 81

4.6.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 81

4.6.2 Description ............................................................................................................. 81

4.7 Alternative 7 – Conveyance to COSDS............................................................................... 83

4.7.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 83

4.7.2 Description ............................................................................................................. 84

4.7.3 Oakland Township ................................................................................................. 84

4.7.4 Springfield .............................................................................................................. 84

4.7.5 White Lake ............................................................................................................. 84

4.8 Alternative 8 – Service from Genesee County Kearsley Creek Interceptor (KCI) Main Arm

Only..................................................................................................................................... 85

4.9 Alternative 9 – Service from Genesee County KCI Main Arm and West Arm...................... 86

Table of Contents

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report iv

4.10 Alternative 10 – Treatment by Another City/Village/Township (CVT) .................................. 87

4.10.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 87

4.10.2 Brandon Served by the Village of Ortonville........................................................... 88

4.10.3 Lyon Township Served by South Lyon WWTP....................................................... 88

4.10.4 Milford Township Served by Wixom WWTP........................................................... 89

4.10.5 Rose Township Served by Holly Village WWTP .................................................... 89

4.11 Alternative 11 – New/Expansion-of Local Treatment .......................................................... 90

4.11.1 Eligible CVTs.......................................................................................................... 90

4.11.2 Groveland Township .............................................................................................. 90

4.11.3 Holly Township....................................................................................................... 91

4.11.4 Oakland Township ................................................................................................. 91

4.11.5 Ortonville Township................................................................................................ 92

4.11.6 Lyon Township WWTP........................................................................................... 92

4.11.7 White Lake Township............................................................................................. 93

4.12 Alternative 12 – Divert Flow From GWKSDS to an Expanded Warren WWTP ................... 93

5.0 Project Delivery Methods............................................................................................................. 96

5.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 96

5.2 Design-Bid-Build ................................................................................................................. 97

5.3 Design-Build........................................................................................................................ 97

5.4 Design/Build/Operate - Design/Build/Operate/Transfer....................................................... 98

List of Tables

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report v

List of Tables

Table 1-1 General Basis for Alternative Costs.......................................................................................7

Table 2-1 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 2 - Develop/Improve Community Well

System .....................................................................................................................................12

Table 2-2 Potential New DWSD Water Customers from Oakland County by Year 2050 ..........................15

Table 2-3 Decade One (2000-2010) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County................16

Table 2-4 Decade Two (2010-2020) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County................17

Table 2-5 Decade Three (2020-2030) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County .............18

Table 2-6 Decade Four (2030-2040) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County ...............19

Table 2-7 Decade Five (2040-2050) DWSD Water System Improvements in Oakland County................19

Table 2-8 Estimated Total Project Cost (2005) for Potential New DWSD Water Customers.....................22

Table 2-9 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee County Raw Water Under

Alternative 4 ..............................................................................................................................24

Table 2-10 Reservoir Costs (2005) to Store the Raw Water Supply from Genesee County .....................28

Table 2-11 Treatment & Transmission Main Cost (2005) for Raw Water Supply.....................................29

Table 2-12 Finished Water Storage Costs (2005) for the Raw Water Alternative ....................................30

Table 2-13 Distribution of Total Project Costs (2005) by Community for Facilities Constructed

within Oakland County ...............................................................................................................31

Table 2-14 Distribution of Total Project Costs (2005) by Community for Raw Water Alternative...............32

Table 2-15 Estimated O & M Costs for Facilities in Oakland County (2005 dollars).................................34

Table 2-16 Estimated O & M Costs (2005) for Facilities Constructed by Genesee County &

Attributed to Oakland County CVTs .............................................................................................35

Table 2-17 Estimated Total O & M Costs for Obtaining Genesee County Raw Water .............................35

List of Tables

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report vi

Table 2-18 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee Finished Water ..................................39

Table 2-19 Finished Water Transmission Main Costs (2005 dollars) .....................................................41

Table 2-20 Finished Water Storage / Pumping Costs (2005) ................................................................42

Table 2-21 Allocation of Finished Water Costs by Community for Facilities Constructed in

Oakland County.........................................................................................................................42

Table 2-22 Allocation of Total Project Cost (2005) by Community for Genesee County Finished

Water Alternative .......................................................................................................................43

Table 2-23 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee Finished Water ..................................44

Table 2-24 Estimated O & M Costs (2005) Attributed to Oakland County Communities for Facilities

Constructed by Genesee County.................................................................................................45

Table 2-25 Total Estimated O & M Costs (2005) for Finished Water Alternative .....................................45

Table 2-26 DWSD Customer – Ground Storage / Pumping Estimates ...................................................47

Table 2-27 Communities in Warren-St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative.......................................50

Table 3-1 Summary of Raw/Finished Water Supply Alternatives from Genesee County..........................51

Table 4-1 CVTs in the COSDS ..........................................................................................................54

Table 4-2 CVTs in the EFSDS ...........................................................................................................58

Table 4-3 CVTs in the GWKSDS .......................................................................................................60

Table 4-4 Capital Cost Summary for Clinton-Oakland Interceptor Relief Sewers ....................................74

Table 4-5 Alternative 3: Capital Cost Summary for 8 MGD Pontiac Diversion ........................................77

Table 4-6 Alternative 4: Treatment Cost Summary for COSDS .............................................................78

Table 4-7 Alternative 4: Capital Cost Summary for 20 MGD Pontiac Diversion.......................................79

Table 4-8 Alternative 5: Capital Cost Summary for 22 MGD Pontiac Diversion.......................................81

Table 4-9 Alternative 6: Capital Cost Summary for New WWTP along the Clinton River ........................83

Table 4-10 O & M Cost Summary for New WWTP along the Clinton River ............................................83

Table 4-11 GCDC Service (KCI Main Arm Only) .................................................................................86

List of Tables

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report vii

Table 4-12 GCDC Service (Both KCI Main and West Arms) .................................................................87

Table 4-13 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 10 – Treatment by Another

City/Village/Township .................................................................................................................88

Table 4-14 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 11 – New/Expansion of Local

Treatment .................................................................................................................................90

Table 4-15 Capital Cost Summary for 14 MGD Warren WWTP Expansion ............................................95

Table 4-16 O & M Cost Summary for 14 MGD Warren WWTP Expansion .............................................95

Table 5-1 Summary of Delivery Method Advantages and Disadvantages ..............................................96

List of Figures

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report viii

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Comparison of Water Alternatives Including Private Well System ..........................................10

Figure 2-2 DWSD Expanded Water System........................................................................................14

Figure 2-3 Genesee County Raw Water Supply Alternative Schematic .................................................25

Figure 2-4 Genesee County Raw Water Supply Alternative Geographic Map ........................................26

Figure 2-5 Genesee County Finished Water Supply Alternative Schematic............................................37

Figure 2-6 Genesee County Finished Water Supply Alternative Geographic Map...................................38

Figure 2-7 Warren – St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative ............................................................49

Figure 4-1 COSDS Relief Sewers ......................................................................................................56

Figure 4-2 Comparison of Commerce-White Lake WWTP Capacities and Contracts ...............................62

Figure 4-3 Walled Lake/Novi WWTP Capacities and Contracts ............................................................64

Figure 4-4 Pontiac WWTP.................................................................................................................66

Figure 4-5 Milford Village WWTP .......................................................................................................67

Figure 4-6 South Lyon WWTP ...........................................................................................................68

Figure 4-7 Wixom WWTP .................................................................................................................69

Figure 4-8 Lyon Township WWTP .....................................................................................................70

Figure 4-9 Holly Village WWTP .........................................................................................................71

Figure 4-10 8 MGD and 20 MGD Diversion to Pontiac WWTP..............................................................75

Figure 4-11 22 MGD Diversion to Pontiac WWTP ...............................................................................80

Appendices

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report ix

Appendices

Appendix A DWSD Growth Pays for Growth Policy

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report x


ADD Average Daily Demand (Water)

ADDF Average Daily Design Flow (Wastewater Treatment)

ADF Average Daily Flow (Wastewater Treatment)

ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow

AWWA American Water Works Association

BCC Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern

CBOD5 Five-day Carbonaceous Biological Oxygen Demand

CIP Capital Improvement Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFS or cfs Cubic Feet per Second

COSDS Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CVTs Cities, Villages, and Townships

CWA Clean Water Act

DBP Disinfection Byproducts

DWSD Detroit Water and Sewerage Department

EFSDS Evergreen-Farmington Sewage Disposal System

ENR Engineering News Record

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERP Emergency Response Plan

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

Ft. or ft. Foot

GCDC Genesee County Drain Commissioner’s Office

GLI Great Lakes Initiative

GPCD Gallons Per Capita per Day

GPD or gpd Gallons per Day

GPM Gallons per Minute

GWKSDS George W. Kuhn Sewage Disposal System


Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report xi

HGL Hydraulic Grade Line

HPZ DWSD High Pressure Zone

HRSDS Huron Rouge Sewage Disposal System

I/I Inflow and Infiltration

IPP Industrial Pretreatment Program

IPZ DWSD Intermediate Pressure Zone

LPZ DWSD Low Pressure Zone

Mcf or mcf Thousand Cubic Feet

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MDD Maximum Day Demand

MDDF Maximum Daily ADDF (Wastewater Treatment)

MDF Maximum Daily Flow (Wastewater Treatment)

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

µg/1 Micrograms per liter

MG Million Gallons

MGD Million Gallons Per Day

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

OCDC Oakland County Drain Commissioner’s Office

O & M Operations & Maintenance

PDWF Peak Dry Weather Flow

PHD Peak Hour Demand

PHDF Peak Hourly Design Flow (Wastewater Treatment)

PHF Peak Hourly Flow (Wastewater Treatment)

PSI Pounds per Square Inch

PWS Public Water System

PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow

RDF Regional Development Forecast from SEMCOG

RTB Retention Treatment Basin

RTF Retention Treatment Facility

SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Council of Governments


Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report xii

SEMCOG RDF SEMCOG Regional Development Forecast

SIU Significant Industrial User

SOCWA Southeast Oakland County Water Authority

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow

TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TWP Township

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WLA Waste Load Allocation

WQS Water Quality Standards

WTP Water Treatment Plant

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Summary

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis Report 1

1.0 Summary

1.1 Introduction

The Oakland County Drain Commissioner’s Office (OCDC) oversees over 500 storm drains, 15

municipal sanitary sewers, 14 municipal water systems, and 92 sewage pumping facilities. A

majority of the 61 cities, villages and townships (CVTs) within Oakland County also own water

and wastewater systems, either individually operated or under contract with OCDC. Historically,

most of these communities have acted independently and evaluated water and wastewater

alternatives based upon their specific community boundaries. To provide a “big picture” look at

the various water and wastewater systems throughout the County on a regional basis, OCDC

contracted with the URS Team of consultants to prepare a Water and Wastewater Master Plan

(Master Plan) to evaluate alternatives that address Oakland County’s (the County) current and

future water and wastewater needs. The objective of the Master Plan is not to recommend

specific courses of action, but rather to provide alternatives for the CVTs to consider based on

costs and feasibility. The completed Master Plan is intended to be used as a tool by the 61 CVTs

within the County, to encourage communication and cooperation. By encouraging a holistic

approach to infrastructure planning, the CVT’s needs can be addressed while simultaneously

obtaining the best value for all the stakeholders and the best solution for environmental

sustainability.

Each phase of the planning project correlates to a volume of the Master Plan and the titles of the

volumes give good insight into the project approach:

Volume 1 – Executive Summary

Volume 2 – Existing Facilities

Volume 3 – Needs Assessment

Volume 4 – Alternatives Analysis

Volume 5 – Financial Analysis

Volume 1 – The Executive Summary provides a summary of the state of the County’s water and

wastewater infrastructure in light of current and projected needs. It highlights important county-

Summary


wide conclusions and opportunities. Appendix A provides a summary of the facilities, the needs

and the alternatives for each CVT.

Volume 2 – The Existing Facilities Report includes an inventory of existing water and

wastewater systems in the County. The asset’s capacities are analyzed, but independent

condition assessments were not performed. Descriptions of existing assets were obtained from

community interviews and published reports. Population projections, build-out analyses, and

environmental considerations are also included in Volume 2.

Volume 3 – The Needs Assessment Report identifies the gaps between what currently exists, and

the projected needs based on population projections in 2035 and local master planning. Needs

were identified based on individual community’s ability to meet the following general

assessment criteria:

Water – Quantity (Supply), Quality (Regulatory and Aesthetic), and Storage

Wastewater – Collection (Capacity and Contracts), Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Capacity and Regulatory Compliance

Assessment of private systems is out of the scope of this Master Plan.

Volume 4 – The Alternatives Analysis Report (this document) presents alternatives developed

through a four-step process involving: 1) working sessions with the project team, 2) client input

and review, 3) initial alternative development, and 4) coordination with a municipal advisory

committee for stakeholder input. Alternatives are either formulated as part of the project or

adopted from on-going regional alternatives. Alternatives accommodate the existing and future

needs for the water and wastewater systems in each community. The planning period for this

Master Plan is through 2035.

Volume 5 – The Financial Model Report contains a financial model to predict water and

wastewater rates and costs for each CVT for the identified alternatives. This financial model

considers current costs and obligations, and the capital and Operations & Maintenance (O & M)

costs associated with the alternatives. It also provides forecasts of water and wastewater

commodity charges through the planning period. This tool allows each community to see the

relative impact of the various alternatives on their future utility rates. Costs generated by the

financial model are summarized in Appendix A of this Executive Summary as a cumulative cost.

Summary


1.2 Scope

The scope of services for this phase of the Master Plan includes the following items.

1. Develop alternatives to fill gaps between current services and projected needs as

identified in Volume 3 – The Needs Assessment Report.

2. Alternatives consider the following topics:

a. Compare the continued use of private on-site water and/or wastewater systems

with publicly owned utility systems.

b. Compare the continued operation of community systems with larger

regionalized systems.

c. Compare greater reliance on DWSD, with reduced reliance on DWSD, and

alternate water/wastewater system providers for existing DWSD customers.

3. Evaluate alternative delivery methods, such as design-build, which may be available

to the project owner for project implementation.

1.3 Summary of Alternatives

The process used to identify the preliminary alternatives considered and presented herein

includes four-steps, namely 1) working sessions with the project team, 2) client input and review,

3) initial alternative development, and 4) coordination with a municipal advisory committee for

stakeholder input. The brainstorming session consisted of key personnel from URS, Tetra Tech

MPS, Plante & Moran, and ECT discussing the following items:

• Existing and projected needs of each community and respective water/wastewater

systems

• Presentation of past or current regional water/wastewater studies, such as the DWSD

master plans, Genesee County Water Supply Study, Warren-St. Clair Shores Water

Feasibility Study, etc.

• Development of potential alternatives list to meet the needs identified

After the initial list was developed, a presentation was made to the OCDC to obtain client

feedback. Consequently, the alternatives were further developed for presentation in this report.

Summary


1.3.1 Summary of Water Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Change: This alternative assumes the community will continue in its present

direction. For example, it is assumed that communities that had improvement projects under

construction would complete those projects. Growth is assumed to occur on private wells unless

water service in the community is 100% public.

Alternative 2 – Develop/Improve Community Well System: This alternative involves new

community well systems or upgrades and expansion of existing community well systems. The

analysis determines the number of new wells, the improvements to treatment, and the amount of

storage that is necessary to meet projected needs. This alternative addresses the quantity,

regulatory quality and water storage needs, but does not address the water aesthetic quality

criteria.

Alternative 2a – Develop/Improve Community Well System with Softening: This alternative is

identical to Alternative 2 except that the capital and operations & maintenance (O & M) costs

related to softening are estimated and added such that the water quality would be comparable to

that of DWSD. This alternative addresses the water quantity, water regulatory quality

requirements, and the water aesthetic quality criteria.

Alternative 3 – New Service from DWSD: This alternative involves extending DWSD water

service to the community. This alternative addresses both the regulatory and the aesthetic needs,

but not the water storage need.

Alternative 4 – Genesee County to Supply Raw Water: This alternative involves a new water

pumping station in Genesee County sourced from Lake Huron. The raw water transmission lines

would transport raw water to Oakland County. Oakland County would be responsible for

storing, treating, and distributing the water. The project costs assume all 11 potential

communities participate in this alternative. This alternative addresses both the regulatory and the

aesthetic needs, but not the local water storage need.

Alternative 5 – Genesee County to Supply Finished Water: This alternative involves a new

water treatment plant in Genesee County sourced from Lake Huron. The finished water

transmission lines would extend to 13 communities in Oakland County. Project costs assume all

Summary


13 potential communities participate in this alternative. This alternative addresses both the

regulatory and the aesthetic needs, but not the local water storage need.

Alternative 6 – Storage Analysis (DWSD Existing Customers): DWSD customer communities

are evaluated for ground storage and re-pumping to offset peak hour demands and provide fire

and emergency reserve.

1.3.2 Summary of Wastewater Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Change: This alternative assumes the community will continue in its present

direction. For example, it is assumed that communities that have improvement projects under

construction will complete those projects. Growth is assumed to occur on private septic systems

unless sewer service in the community is 100% public.

Alternative 2 - Construction of Relief Sewers: The size and location of the relief sewers requires

further study and system modeling, however financial considerations were prepared based on the

recommendations of the 1991 Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System (COSDS) Interceptor

Relief Study. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS.

Alternative 3 - Diversion of 8 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: The existing Pontiac

WWTP has an average daily excess capacity of approximately 8 MGD. This alternative involves

intercepting flow in the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor and diverting 8 MGD to Pontiac through

approximately 12,000 L.F. of 48-inch diameter gravity sewer line within the existing Grand

Trunk Western Railroad property. This alternative would address the collection capacity needs

of the COSDS.

Alternative 4 - Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: Similar to Alternative 3,

Alternative 4 diverts flow from the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor to the Pontiac WWTP.

However in Alternative 4, a new parallel WWTP is proposed next to Pontiac’s Auburn WWTP.

This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS.

Alternative 5 - Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP: Similar to Alternatives 3

and 4, Alternative 5 diverts flow from the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor to the Pontiac WWTP.

Alternative 5 utilizes a new parallel WWTP proposed next to Pontiac’s Auburn WWTP.

Alternative 5 expands the proposed new parallel WWTP to accommodate flow from White Lake.

This alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS.

Summary


Alternative 6 - Construction of a New WWTP on the Clinton River: This alternative proposes a

new WWTP located in Macomb County near the Ford Motor Company Proving Grounds. Land

acquisition costs for this alternative were not included in the financial considerations. This

alternative would address the collection capacity needs of the COSDS.

Alternative 7 – Conveyance to COSDS: The Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System

(COSDS) could be extended to reach Brandon, Ortonville, Springfield, White Lake and

additional portions of Oakland Township.

Alternative 8 – Service from Genesee County Kearsley Creek Interceptor (KCI) Main Arm Only:

The construction of the Northeast Relief Sewer (NERS) (currently under construction) and the

KCI Main Arm would allow Genesee County to serve Brandon and Ortonville, as well as other

Genesee County communities.

Alternative 9 – Service from Genesee County KCI Main Arm and West Arm: The construction

of the Northeast Relief Sewer (NERS) (currently under construction), the KCI Main Arm, and

the KCI West Arm would allow Genesee County to serve Brandon, Ortonville, Holly Township,

and Groveland Township, as well as other Genesee County communities.

Alternative 10 – Treatment by Another City/Village/Township (CVT): A few communities

would benefit from the opportunity to purchase wastewater treatment from neighboring

communities. This alternative examines the technical feasibility of new service only and does

not consider either community’s policy on the topic. The costs associated with accepting the

neighboring community’s additional flow are analyzed.

Alternative 11 – New/Expansion-of Local Treatment: The community may choose to expand an

existing plant or construct a new local wastewater treatment plant. This alternative assumes

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) approval.

Alternative 12 – Divert Flow From GWKSDS to an Expanded Warren WWTP: This alternative

was explored in detail in the DWSD Wastewater Master Plan’s technical memorandum entitled

“Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment”. In it a 14 MGD WWTP would be constructed

near the existing Warren WWTP to treat flow from the GWKSDS. A more detailed study is

required to estimate specific costs allocated to each participating community. For this reason,

Summary


Alternative 12 is not included in Volume 5 - Financial Model and no financial considerations are

included in Appendix A.

1.4 Basis of Alternative Costs

Each of the alternatives involving new infrastructure requires an estimate of the additional

capital cost and operation & maintenance cost to implement the alternative. The basis for each

unit cost is presented in Table 1-1 below.

Table 1-1 General Basis for Alternative Costs

Component Basis for Capital Cost1

Well Supply Assume 700 GPM well houses at $600,000 each

Public Well Supply Treatment

Assume $1,200 per GPM of water processed to meet regulatory standards

Assume an additional $1.875 Million per MGD capital costs and $500 per MG O & M costs for softening

Private Well Supply Treatment

Assume every well customer will replace the well in the 30 year planning period. Assume $8,000 per well in capital costs and $330 per year in O & M costs

Transmission Mains Used unit prices in 2003 DWSD Water Master Plan, Task C.

Booster Stations

Used new station construction formula presented in DWSD’s Comprehensive Water Master Plan (DWSD Contract No. CS-1278)

Cost ($1,000/MGD) = 238.34-(0.1496 * Capacity(MGD))

Ground Storage Reservoirs

1-2 MG - $0.70 per gallon



Wate

r

Elevated Storage Tanks <1.0 MG - $3.00 per gallon

>1.0 MG - $2.00 per gallon

Interceptor Sewers Based on estimates provided in DWSD Wastewater Master Plan or in past engineering estimate completed for a specific alternative and adjusted to May 2005 dollars.

Waste

wate

r

Wastewater Treatment Plants

Based on estimates provided by local consulting firms on past or planned WWTP construction

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

Summary


Any references to historical construction costs in past engineering studies were adjusted to the

May 2005 baseline using the Engineering News and Record’s Construction Cost Index. Land

acquisition costs are not included in this report. However, as part of the financial model

development, an analysis of the estimated acquisition costs based on acreage needs is included.

These costs are reflected in the financial model output presented as Volume 5 – Financial

Analysis.

Water Alternatives Development


2.0 Water Alternatives Development

The goal of the water alternatives is to give local communities the information necessary to make

decisions about the relative wholesale costs associated with the different water supply

alternatives. The costs presented herein reflect only the capital and O & M costs associated with

supplying the water to the community. The costs do not include local improvements necessary to

convey the water supplied.

2.1 Alternative 1 – No Change

Alternative 1 is independently evaluated for each community because each community is in a

different state of planning, analysis, design, and construction of their water infrastructure. The

URS project team endeavored to present the most up-to-date information available, however

availability of information combined with the inevitable need to document findings, results in a

snapshot-in-time deliverable. With few exceptions, the information included herein was current

as of the Spring of 2007.

In general, this alternative assumes the community will continue to pursue its current direction.

For example, it is assumed that communities that had improvement projects under construction

would complete those projects. The beginning of construction was sufficient evidence of the

community’s commitment to the improvement, regardless of project schedules and delays.

Similarly, some communities communicated strong commitments to plans and designs. For

these communities, Alternative 1 may have assumed completion of those improvements. These

assumptions may have affected the other alternatives. For example, if it was assumed that the

community would finish a 2 MG storage tank, yet the needs analysis determined the need for 4

MG of storage, the improvement alternative would only recommend an additional 2 MG.

Alternative 1 assumes growth occurs on private wells unless water service in the community is

100% public. It is important to note that since this Master Plan includes a financial analysis on

public water alternatives, it leaves the impression that remaining on private well systems, i.e. No

Change, is always the most cost effective alternative. This may not be the case.

To further explore this topic, a financial comparison was made for Brandon Township (selected

as a test case) between maintaining individual residential well systems and constructing a public



groundwater system. The financial methodology employed throughout the study was applied to

the individual residential well systems and the cumulative costs were compared with the

cumulative costs for a community water supply. Figure 2-1 depicts the results of the

comparison.

Figure 2-1 Comparison of Water Alternatives Including Private Well System

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Alternative

Co

st

($)

Total Amount To Be Bonded ($M)

Total Cumulative Cost ($M)

Total Amount To Be Bonded ($M) 17.6 10.3 11.6 16.5 18.8

Total Cumulative Cost ($M) 56.0 31.5 39.2 82.0 57.0

Alt. 1: No Change

Alt. 2:

Develop/Improve Community Well

Alt. 2a:

Develop/Improve Community Well

Alt. 3: New Service

from DWSD

Alt. 5: Genesee

County to Supply Finished Water

In an effort to provide an accurate comparison a number of assumptions were made about the

individual well systems. Those assumptions include:

• A residential well system has a useful service life of 20 years and all households would

need to install or replace their well system once during the study period.

• Each system has a point of use treatment system for iron removal and softening.

• Capital costs over the 30 year planning period included $6,500 for the well system and

$1,500 for the treatment system.



• Capital costs were bonded over 20 years using the same interest rate assumptions as the

community water supply.

• The entire capital costs were bonded in year one (2005). This is the most economically

advantageous method.

• Annual operations and maintenance costs included $150 for salt, $100 for filters, and $80

for electricity.

The service population used was the same for all the scenarios and included a 2005 service

population of 3,975 and a 2035 service population of 5,509. Each household was assumed to

have 2.5 people resulting in 1,590 households in 2005 and 2,203 households in 2035.

The conclusion is that individual private well systems may cost more on an individual basis than

developing a public water system. Furthermore, public well systems may offer water quality and

water reliability advantages. For example, in a power outage public water users often retain their

water supply where individuals relying on a private, electrically pumped well will not. Also,

nearby fire hydrants can reduce a home owner’s insurance premiums. Many factors ultimately

impact the cost of a public system such as local conditions, population densities, etc. and

therefore a detailed analysis should always be conducted prior to decision making.

2.2 Alternative 2 – Develop/Improve Community Well System

Like Alternative 1 – No Change, Alternative 2 is unique for every community to which it

applies. It includes communities that may benefit from a new community well systems or

upgrades and expansion of existing community well systems. It does not include the local

distribution system improvements necessary provide a complete project. Table 2-1 lists the

communities included in Alternative 2. For an understanding of how this alternative compares to

other water alternatives for each of these communities see Appendix A of Volume 1 – Executive

Summary.



Table 2-1 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 2 - Develop/Improve

Community Well System

No. Community

1 Highland Twp.

2 Holly Village

5 Lyon Twp.

6 Milford Village

7 Oakland Twp.

8 Oxford Twp.

9 Oxford Village

10 Rochester

11 South Lyon

12 Waterford Twp.

13 White Lake Twp.

The quantity (supply) and treatment (regulatory quality) needs identified in Volume 3- Needs

Assessment Report of this Master Plan are met with this alternative. Well supply and treatment

costs are developed for comparison to other water supply alternatives.

2.3 Alternative 2a – Develop/Improve Community Well System with Softening

Community well systems utilize ground water rather than surface water, for the water source.

Groundwater in many parts of Oakland County is characterized as hard, i.e. having high levels of

calcium and magnesium. Groundwater that has been softened is aesthetically comparable to

DWSD’s water supply. Alternative 2a utilizes the data developed for each of the Alternative 2

communities then adds the capital and O & M costs associated with softening. This allows for a

closer comparison of well supply water to DWSD’s surface supplied water. Independence

Township has a well system that meets projected demands. However, since Independence

Township does not soften its water, Alternative 2a is prepared.

The cost assumptions for water softening resulted in additional capital costs of about $1.88 per

MGD and additional O & M costs of approximately $500 per million gallons. Appendix A of



Volume 1 – Executive Summary includes the cost of Alternative 2a with the other water

alternatives for each of the applicable communities.

2.4 Alternative 3 – New Service from DWSD

2.4.1 Eligible CVTs

Communities eligible for new service from DWSD by the year 2035 were identified in the

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) “Comprehensive Water Master Plan”

(CWMP) published in June 2004. The study area for the CWMP consisted of nine counties in

Southeast Michigan, including Oakland County. There are a total of 246 communities within the

DWSD study area. Currently, DWSD sells potable water to 126 customers. These include 78

individual communities and 9 water authorities (that serve an additional 48 communities).

Currently, 37 of Oakland County’s 61 CVT’s receive water from DWSD.

Recommended improvements are summarized by decade through the year 2050 in Section 6 of

the CWMP Summary Report. Figure 2-2 illustrates the improvements for the five decades

within Oakland County.

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the projected new DWSD customers from Oakland County

throughout the 2050 planning period. Tables 2-3 through 2-7 summarize the recommended

improvements by decade within Oakland County, which was adapted from the DWSD CWMP

Summary Report.

Lake St. Clair

St.

Cla

irR

iver

Detro

it Rive

r

Auburn Hills

Berkley

Beverly HillsBingham Farms Village

Birmingham

Bloomfield HillsBloomfield Township

Clawson

Commerce Township

Farmington

Farmington Hills

Ferndale

Groveland Township

Hazel Park

Holly Township

Holly Village

Huntington Woods

Keego Harbor

Lake Angelus

Lake Orion Village

Lathrup Village

Leonard Village

Madison Heights

Northville

Novi

Novi Township Oak Park

Orchard Lake

Orion Township

Pontiac

Rochester Hills

Rose Township

Royal Oak

Royal Oak Township

Royal Oak TownshipSouthfield

Southfield Township

Sylvan Lake

Troy

Walled LakeWest Bloomfield Township

Wixom

Lyon Township2010

Lyon Township2010

Oxford Township2010

Oxford Township2010

Milford Township2040

Milford Township2040

Oakland Township2010

Oakland Township2010

Highland Township2040

Highland Township2040

Brandon Township2010

Brandon Township2010

Springfield Township2040

Springfield Township2040

Waterford Township2020

Waterford Township2020

White Lake Township2020

White Lake Township2020

Independence Township2010

Independence Township2010

Rochester2010

Rochester2010

South Lyon2010

South Lyon2010

Milford Village2030

Milford Village2030

Oxford Village2010

Oxford Village2010

Ortonville Village2010

Ortonville Village2010

Clarkston2010

Clarkston2010

Oakland Co.

St. Clair Co.

Wayne Co.

Macomb Co.

Lapeer Co.

Genesee Co.

Washtenaw Co.

Livingston Co.

Detroit

Flint

Livonia

Warren

Ray Twp

Romulus

Riley Twp

Taylor

Atlas Twp

Elba Twp

Clay Twp

Lenox Twp

Burton

Imlay Twp

Berlin Twp

Bruce Twp

Attica TwpClyde Twp

Wales Twp

Casco Twp

St Clair Twp

China Twp

Almont TwpMundy Twp

Tyrone Twp

Salem Twp

Kimball TwpHadley Twp

Shelby Twp

Dryden Twp

Canton Twp

Armada Twp

Mussey Twp

Ann Arbor

Emmett Twp

Hartland Twp

Davison Twp

Macomb Twp

Lapeer Twp

Superior Twp Dearborn

Brighton Twp

Northfield Twp

Fenton Twp Richmond Twp Columbus Twp

Kenockee Twp

Van Buren Twp

Clinton Twp

Ypsilanti Twp

Metamora Twp

Green Oak Twp

Sterling Heights

Flint Twp

Ira Twp

Washington Twp

Westland

Grand Blanc Twp

Pittsfield Twp

Lynn Twp

Chesterfield Twp

Lodi Twp

Scio Twp

Richfield Twp Oregon Twp

Cottrellville Twp

Arcadia Twp

Oceola Twp

Genoa Twp

Plymouth Twp

Mayfield Twp

Gaines Twp

Webster Twp

Clayton Twp

Northville Twp

Ann Arbor Twp

Deerfield Twp

Grant TwpGoodland Twp

Harrison Twp

Hamburg Twp

Roseville

Argentine Twp

Brockway TwpMt Morris Twp Genesee Twp

Fort Gratiot Twp

Fenton

Lapeer

Inkster

Greenwood Twp

Redford Twp

Wayne

Port Huron Twp

Port Huron

York Twp Huron Twp

Marysville

St Clair Shores

Allen Park

Saline

Southgate

Dearborn Heights

Wyandotte

Fraser

Augusta Twp Sumpter Twp

EcorseYpsilanti

East China Twp

Garden City

Clay Twp

Eastpointe

Lincoln Park

St Clair

Burtchville TwpFlushing

Brighton

Brownstown Twp Riverview

Linden

Flushing Twp

Utica

Mt Clemens

New Baltimore

Swartz Creek

Grand Blanc

Flint Twp

Marine City

Richmond

River RougeMelvindale

Imlay City

Davison

Plymouth

Saline TwpGrosse Ile Twp

Algonac

Highland ParkHamtramck

Harper Woods

Center Line

Grosse Pointe Woods

Belleville

Grosse Pointe Farms

Northville

Grosse Pointe Park

Trenton

Grosse Pointe

MemphisMemphis

Grosse Pointe Twp

Richmond

Lake Twp

Southeast WTPSoutheast WTP

Northeast WTPNortheast WTP

Lake Huron WTPLake Huron WTP

Springwells WTPSpringwells WTPWater Works Park II WTPWater Works Park II WTP

Addison Township

0 8 164 Miles

LegendExisting

Water Treatment Plant

Ground Reservoir

Booster Station

Transmission Mains

Proposed

2010 Improvement

2020 Improvement

2030 Improvement

2040 Improvement

2050 Improvement

Current (2005) DWSD Service Area in Oakland County

Potential Future Customers

Figure 2-2DWSD Expanded Water System

Oakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan

NOTE:DWSD FACILITIES DIGITIZED FROMJUNE 2004 WATER MASTER PLAN

J:\1

364

7263

\Wa

ter\

Alte

rn.R

pt\F

ig2

-1.m

xd

14



Table 2-2 Potential New DWSD Water Customers from Oakland County by Year 2050

*Projected maximum day demand per the Oakland County Master Plan Source: 2003 DWSD Comprehensive Water Master Plan

No. Community Year Added to DWSD System

2035 MDD (MGD)

1 Brandon Twp. (includes

Village of Ortonville) 2010 2.5

2 Franklin Village 2010 1.1

3 & 4 Independence Twp. and

Clarkston 2010 7.8

5 Lyon Twp. 2010 18.2

6 Oakland Twp. 2010 15.3

7 Oxford Village 2010 1.6

8 Oxford Twp. 2010 10.2

9 South Lyon 2010 3.8

10 Wolverine Lake Village 2010 1.2

11 Rochester 2010 2.4

12 Waterford Twp. 2020 26.8

13 White Lake Twp. 2020 15.5

14 Milford Village 2030 1.8

15 Highland Twp. 2040 7.4

16 Milford Twp. 2040 3.0

17 Springfield Twp. 2040 3.0



Table 2-3 Decade One (2000-2010) DWSD Water System Improvements in

Oakland County

Source: 2003 DWSD Comprehensive Water Master Plan

Facility or Pipe Route Location Description

High ground storage tank west of Newburgh booster

station

8 Mile Rd, west of Sheldon

New 10 MG high ground storage tank (incl. 4 MG new emergency storage) and associated piping (2000 ft of 36” pipe).

Romeo booster pumping station and ground storage

tank Village of Romeo

New booster station with line pumping only (84.4 MGD at 300 ft; ultimate

capacity of 172.8 MGD); 20 MG new emergency storage tank.

31 Mile Rd new pipeline From Romeo to

Independence Twp. Approx 19 miles of 72” to 84” pipe

Orion pipe loop From Independence Twp. to Orion Twp.

Approx 7 miles of 54” to 60” pipe

14 Mile Rd extension Wixom to South Lyon Approx 2 miles of 72” pipe

8 Mile Rd parallel main West Service Center (WSC) to Newburgh

Station Approx 5 miles of 60” pipe

24 Mile Rd parallel main Chesterfield Twp. to

Rochester Approx 13 miles of 36” to 42” to 48” pipe

Parallel main downstream of Newburgh station

Newburgh station to Newburgh Rd, along

8 Mile Rd. Approx 0.4 miles of 60” pipe

14 Mile Rd parallel main Between Franklin and

Haggerty stations Approx 5 miles of 36” pipe

Parallel Adams Rd main Downstream of

Adams Rd station Approx 1 mile of 30” pipe



Table 2-4 Decade Two (2010-2020) DWSD Water System Improvements in

Oakland County


High ground storage tank north of Orion station

Brown east of Baldwin, Orion Twp.

New 20 MG high ground storage tank and associated piping (approx 8 miles of

36”, 42” and 48” pipe)

Haggerty pipe loop Pontiac to north of Haggerty station

Approx 16 miles of 54”, 60” and 84” pipe

Parallel main downstream of Haggerty station

14 Mile Rd, from Haggerty station to Welch Rd.

Approx 1 mile of 42” pipe

WSC station upgrades West Service Center Replace intermediate line pumps (60

MGD at 185 ft)

Ground storage tank at Newburgh pump station

Newburgh pump station New 20 MG ground reservoir for

emergency storage

High ground storage, southwest of Adams

booster station Adams booster station

New 10 MG high ground tank for emergency storage and associated

piping (2.1 miles of 30” pipe)

24 Mile Rd extension Rochester pump station to

Auburn Hills Approx 6 miles of 72” pipe



Table 2-5 Decade Three (2020-2030) DWSD Water System Improvements in

Oakland County


Parallel main downstream of Haggerty

station

14 Mile Rd, from Welch Rd to Beck Rd

Approx 4 miles of 42” pipe

North service center capacity upgrades

North service center (NSC)

Additional 110 MGD pumping capacity for line pumps (350 MGD at 370 ft)

Franklin station upgrades

Franklin station Additional 30 MGD line pumping (120

MGD at 250 ft)

Parallel Orion Twp. main Giddings Rd, from

Walton Blvd to Green Rd


Transmission main to supply Brighton

Pontiac Trail, from west of Wixom to I-96 to

Kensington Rd to Buno Rd

Approx 12 miles of 42”, 48” and 54” pipe

Haggerty station upgrades

Haggerty station Additional 24 MGD line pumping (66 MGD

at 200 ft)

Parallel main downstream of

Newburgh pump station

8 Mile Rd, from Haggerty Rd to

Meadowbrook Rd Approx 1 mile of 30” pipe



Table 2-6 Decade Four (2030-2040) DWSD Water System Improvements in

Oakland County

Table 2-7 Decade Five (2040-2050) DWSD Water System Improvements in

Oakland County


Springfield pipe loop Independence Twp. to Wixom

Approx 28 miles of 42” to 60” to 72” pipe

Oakland pump station and ground storage

Oakland Twp. New station with line pumps (78MGD at 260 ft

ultimate capacity). New 20 MG ground reservoir for emergency storage.

High ground storage west of Springfield

Springfield Twp. New 10 MG high ground tank for emergency

storage

Facility or Pipe Route

Location Description

Second feed to Flint Springfield Twp. to Genesee

County Approx 12 miles of 36” pipe

North service center upgrades

NSC Additional 50 MGD line pumping

(400 MGD at 370 ft)

Newburgh station upgrades

Newburgh station Additional 12 MGD pumping capacity (64 MGD at 200 ft)

Oakland station upgrades

Oakland station Additional 126 MGD pumping capacity (204 MGD at 260 ft)

Franklin station upgrades

Franklin station Additional 61.2 MGD line pumping

capacity (151.2 MGD at 250 ft)

Parallel main downstream of Franklin station

Inkster Rd, from Franklin station to Maple Rd

Approx 1 mile of 24” pipe

Parallel main downstream of Adams

Rd station

Squirrel Rd from Walton Blvd to South Blvd; Walton Blvd from Squirrel Rd to Avon

Twp.


Parallel main downstream of

Newburgh booster station

8 Mile Rd, from Meadowbrook Rd to Sheldon

Rd. Approx 3 miles of 24” to 30” pipe

Brighton-Ann Arbor Pipe Loop

From Milford Twp. to Brighton Twp. and from Green Oak

Twp. to Ann Arbor. Approx 22 miles of 48” to 72” pipe



The DWSD CWMP also identified new customers projected to be added by 2010 and their

expected maximum day demand (MDD). The CWMP notes that if Lyon Twp. and South Lyon

do not join the DWSD system, the 14 Mile Rd extension (Map Key No. 5) will not be needed by

2010. Similarly, if Oxford and Oxford Twp. do not join the DWSD system, the Orion pipe loop

will not be needed, but a ground storage tank and reservoir pumps would be required at the Orion

pumping station to supply existing customers during peak periods.

2.4.2 Projected Cost of Service

The CWMP identified new infrastructure and infrastructure improvements for each decade.

Based on DWSD System Expansion Policy1, the new customers will be expected to pay for new

infrastructure that will be built to serve them. If the new infrastructure serves more than one

potential new customer, the cost for the new infrastructure will be divided proportionally.

The following assumptions were made in calculating projected costs for the above Oakland

County communities listed in Table 1-1:

• Only those infrastructure costs that are associated with the new customer will be paid

for by the new customer.

• If new infrastructure is shared by more than one community, the infrastructure costs

will be divided among the corresponding communities based on their year 2035 MDD

flows.

• The DWSD CWMP transmission system improvements by decade included new

transmission mains, new ground storage, new high ground storage, new booster

stations, new emergency storage, new looped transmission mains, and new parallel

mains. Customer costs for this Master Plan will include the new transmission mains,

new ground or high ground storage, and new booster stations. The costs for

emergency storage are not included in the estimate since it was assumed that the new

customers would not be responsible for this capital investment. Also, costs for new

looped transmission mains and new parallel mains will not be charged to new

1 DWSD system expansion policy provided in Appendix A.



customers. However, in some cases, partial cost for new parallel mains may be

attributed to new customers.

• The basis for capital costs were developed in the DWSD CWMP’s Task C – “Water

Supply and Service Management Plan” report. The DWSD CWMP costs were

escalated from Year 2003 (January 2003) dollars to current (May 2005) dollars using

the following Construction Cost Indices (CCI):

CCI (01/2003) = 6580.5

CCI (05/2005) = 7398.0

May 2005 Cost = Year 2003 Cost * (7398.0/6580.5) = Year 2003 Cost * 1.1242

Table 2-8 below outlines the total project cost for each of the communities listed as potential

DWSD customers in the DWSD CWMP.



Table 2-8 Estimated Total Project Cost (2005) for Potential New DWSD Water Customers

Notes: 1. Data obtained from CWMP

2.5 Alternative 4 – Genesee County to Supply Raw Water

Genesee County currently has a water supply agreement with the City of Flint to purchase

DWSD water through September 2010. As a result of water reliability concerns, recent and

projected future rate increases from DWSD, the County was evaluating a number of water

supply alternatives.

The Genesee County Drain Commissioner, Jeffrey Wright, commissioned a Preliminary

Engineering Feasibility Study, which looked at numerous alternatives to provide water service to

the existing County Agency customers, as well as expanding water service to other areas outside

their existing service area. The two-volume report is titled “Preliminary Report Long-Term

Water Supply for Genesee County - Second Draft”, dated January 2006. The Genesee County

report evaluated three base alternatives as follows:

Community Year Added to DWSD

System1 Total Project

Cost ($ Million)

Brandon Twp. (incl. Village of Ortonville) 2010 22.3

Independence Twp. and Clarkston 2010 41.2

Oakland Twp. 2010 74.8

Oxford Village 2010 11.2

Oxford Twp. 2010 53.3

Rochester 2010 6.5

Franklin Village 2010 3.0

Wolverine Lake Village 2010 5.2

Lyon Twp. 2010 20.6

South Lyon 2010 5.2

Waterford Township 2020 111.0

White Lake Township 2020 71.6

Milford Village 2030 10.3

Highland Twp. 2040 66.4

Milford Twp. 2040 30.0

Springfield Twp. 2040 28.4



Alternative I – No Change, maintain existing mode of operation,

Alternative II – Purchase water directly from DWSD,

Alternative III – Develop a new Lake Huron Water Supply.

Numerous scenarios (a total of over twenty) were evaluated for the three base alternatives. The

planning period for the study runs through the year 2050.

Scenarios 1 through 15 looked only at supplying water to Genesee County customers and

potential customers within their existing service area (Group 1). Scenarios 16 through 20

evaluated extending water service into other areas delineated as Groups 2, 3, 4 and 5. The

breakdown for the Groupings is as follows:

Group 1 – Genesee County Agency existing and potential customers

Group 2 – City of Flint

Group 3 – Lapeer County

Group 4 – Northern Oakland County

Group 5 – Southern Oakland County/Macomb County

Scenarios involving Group 4 are of the most interest for the Oakland County Master Plan Study

as they relate to providing water service from Genesee County to several northern Oakland

County communities. The raw water supply option to get water to northern Oakland County

communities is defined as Scenario 16 in the Genesee County Report. Refer to Figure 2-3 for a

schematic of the layout (Genesee County portion) for Scenario 16. Figure 2-4 illustrates the

approximate location of the transmission mains, reservoirs, treatment plant, and storage tanks

planned for this alternative.

2.5.1 Eligible CVTs

Table 2-9 lists the potential communities that could receive raw water from Genesee County in

Scenario 16.



Table 2-9 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee County Raw Water Under

Alternative 4

Note: 1. Brandon Township and the Village of Ortonville are excluded from the Raw Water

Alternative due to their proximity to the proposed improvements.

Community 2035 ADD

(MGD) 2035 MDD

(MGD) Cost Share

Highland Township 2.6 7.4 7.5%

Independence Township &

Clarkston 4.1 7.8 7.9%

Oakland Township 5.5 15.3 15.5%

Oxford Township 3.7 10.2 10.3%

Oxford Village 0.7 1.6 1.6%

Waterford Township 11.6 26.8 27.1%

White Lake Township 4.8 15.5 15.7%

Springfield Township (Partial) 1.2 3.0 3.0%

Lake Orion Village 0.5 0.6 0.6%

Orion Township 8.3 10.6 10.7%

Totals 43.0 98.8 100.0%

Figure 2-3Genesee County Raw Water

Supply AlternativeOakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan

J:\13647263\Water\Altern.rpt\Fig2-3.mxd

SOURCE - PRELIMINARY REPORT: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY FOR GENESEE COUNTY - SECOND DRAFT (JAN 2006)

25



Table 2-9 also shows the projected Average Daily Demand (ADD) and Maximum Daily Demand

(MDD) for the respective communities along with their respective percentage of the total

demand. This percentage will be used to distribute costs to each community for Alternative 4 –

Genesee County to Supply Raw Water.


The report does not make any specific recommendations, but it does present cost data for each of

the scenarios considered. Costs for each of the Genesee County alternatives are comprised of

those costs associated with the Genesee County Facilities required to get the water to Oakland

County and those costs attributed to facilities required to be constructed within Oakland County

for storage/treatment (as applicable) and transmission to the various communities. Also, an

estimated cost for operation and maintenance of the facilities is presented.

Oakland County’s share of the capital cost expended by Genesee County for Alternative 4 would

be approximately $458,197,000 in 2007 dollars (Source: Preliminary Report, Long-Term Water

Supply for Genesee County, Volume 2- Existing Facilities Report – Appendices, Second Draft,

January 2006, Appendix N, Table 4, pg. 8). This equates to about $432 million in 2005 dollars.

For this alternative, Genesee County would supply Oakland County with untreated water from

Lake Huron. The raw water would be delivered to two raw water storage reservoirs, with a total

capacity of 700 million gallons. A potential location for the reservoirs would be on the east side

of the County.

The reservoirs have an estimated capital cost of $188.1 million in 2005 dollars (see Table 2-10).

Treatment of the Raw Water would be provided by a 99 MGD treatment plant located adjacent to

the reservoirs. Treated water would then be distributed and stored throughout Oakland County,

serving a total of 10 communities.



Table 2-10 Reservoir Costs (2005) to Store the Raw Water Supply from Genesee County

Estimated project costs for treatment and transmission mains are approximately $426.4 million.

Finished water storage and booster station costs are estimated at $102.6 million (see Tables 2-11

and 2-12).

Table 2-13 presents the total project cost ($717.0 million) divided among the communities on a

water demand basis for facilities required to store the raw water, treat it, and distribute it to the

above noted Oakland County Communities.

Item Description Unit Quantity Total Unit

Cost Total Cost

1 Earthwork CY 3,500,000 3.00$ 10,500,000$

2 Slope Protection: Type "C" Rock CY 190,300 40$ 7,612,000$

3 Slope Protection: Stone Bedding CY 190,300 40$ 7,612,000$

4 Slope Protection: Geotextile Filter SY 375,000 3.00$ 1,125,000$

5 Seeding and Mulching at Reservoir SY 657,145 2.50$ 1,643,000$

6 Valves and Related Processes LS 1 300,000$ 300,000$

7 Concrete Headwalls Each 16 5,000$ 80,000$

8 Reservoir Inlet Structure Each 2 250,000$ 500,000$

9 Reservoir Outlet Structure Each 2 40,000$ 80,000$

10 Toe and Blanket Drains LS 1 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$

11 Reservoir Levee Roadway LS 1 200,000$ 200,000$

12 84" Water Line to Reservoirs LF 47,600 854$ 40,670,000$

13 Miscellaneous Site Construction LS 1 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$

14 Property Acquisition Acre 175 20,000$ 3,500,000$

15 100 MGD Pump Station LS 2 22,328,000$ 44,656,000$

125,378,000$

Construction Contingencies 30% 37,613,000$

Engineering, Legal, etc. 20% 25,076,000$

Raw Water Storage Construction Sub-total



Table 2-11 Treatment & Transmission Main Cost (2005) for Raw Water Supply

Item Description Unit Quantity Total

Unit Cost Total Cost

1 18" Transmission Main LF 10,718 141$ 1,506,188$

2 18" Road / waterway crossings LF 1,300 393$ 511,524$


4 24" Road / waterway crossings LF 500 491$ 245,645$






10 54" Road / waterway crossings LF 1,500 1,293$ 1,939,305$


12 60" Road / waterway crossings LF 1,400 1,510$ 2,113,776$


14 72" Road / waterway crossings LF 200 1,188$ 237,516$ 15 Water Treatment Facility Gallon/Day 99,000,000 2.00$ 198,000,000$

284,205,000$

30% 85,262,000$

20% 56,841,000$

426,308,000$ Treatment/Transmission Total Project Cost

Treatment/Transmission Construction Sub-Total

Construction Contingencies

Engineering, Legal, etc.



Table 2-12 Finished Water Storage Costs (2005) for the Raw Water Alternative


Cost Total Cost

1 1-MG Ground Storage Tank gal 1,000,000 0.70$ 700,000$

2 3-MG Ground Storage Tank gal 3,000,000 0.60$ 1,800,000$

3 Five 5-MG Ground Storage Tanks gal 25,000,000 0.45$ 11,250,000$

4 11-MG Storage Tank gal 11,000,000 0.40$ 4,400,000$

5 2 MGD Booster Station LS 1 533,000$ 533,000$

6 6 MGD Booster Station LS 1 1,590,000$ 1,590,000$





68,383,000$

Construction Contingencies 30% 20,515,000$

Engineering, Legal, etc. 20% 13,677,000$

102,575,000$ Raw Water Storage Total Project Costs

Raw Water Storage Construction Sub-total



Table 2-13 Distribution of Total Project Costs (2005) by Community for Facilities

Constructed within Oakland County

Community 2035 MDD

(MGD) Cost Share Total Project Cost

Highland Township 7.4 7.5% $53,500,000

Independence Township 7.8 7.9% $56,877,000

Oakland Township 15.3 15.5% $111,060,000

Oxford Township 10.2 10.3% $74,152,000

Oxford Village 1.6 1.6% $11,665,000

Waterford Township 26.8 27.1% $194,311,000

White Lake Township 15.5 15.7% $112,757,000

Springfield Township (Partial) 3.0 3.0% $21,516,000

Lake Orion Village 0.6 0.6% $4,411,000

Orion Township 10.6 10.7% $76,752,000

Totals 98.8 100% $717,001,000

The Total Project Costs required for each Oakland County CVT that can be attributed to getting

raw water from Genesee County, treat it and convey to each of their respective communities in

Oakland County are presented in Table 2-14. This cost does not include the cost of local

distribution system improvements that may be necessary to distribute water from the County

transmission main to customers.



Table 2-14 Distribution of Total Project Costs (2005) by Community for Raw Water

Alternative

Community 2035 MDD

(MGD)

Cost Share

Facilities Constructed in

Oakland County

Proportional Share of Genesee

Co. Facilities

Total Project Costs for GCDC

Raw Water

Highland Township

7.4 7.5% $53,500,000 $32,215,000 $85,715,000

Independence Township

7.8 7.9% $56,877,000 $34,249,000 $91,126,000

Oakland Township

15.3 15.5% $111,060,000 $66,875,000 $177,935,000

Oxford Township

10.2 10.3% $74,152,000 $44,650,000 $118,802,000

Oxford Village 1.6 1.6% $11,665,000 $7,024,000 $18,689,000

Waterford Township

26.8 27.1% $194,311,000 $117,004,000 $311,315,000

White Lake Township

15.5 15.7% $112,757,000 $67,896,000 $180,653,000

Springfield Township (Partial)

3.0 3.0% $21,516,000 $13,110,000 $34,626,000

Lake Orion Village

0.6 0.6% $4,411,000 $2,656,000 $7,067,000

Orion Township 10.6 10.7% $76,752,000 $46,216,000 $122,968,000

Totals 99 100% $717,001,000 $431,895,000 $1,148,896,000



Preliminary transmission main sizes and alignments are selected throughout Oakland County for

the purposes of estimating the capital cost to treat and convey a Lake Huron water supply to the

communities in the alternative service area. The unit prices tabulated in the DWSD

Comprehensive Water Master Plan are used for the proposed transmission main construction

costs. The unit prices are also adjusted using the Engineering News Record (ENR) CCI to arrive

at May 2005 construction costs.

Treatment plant capital costs are estimated at $2.00 per gallon and based on the Maximum Daily

Demand (MDD).

Capital costs presented in the Genesee County report are shown in 2007 dollars. These costs

were deflated to 2005 dollars assuming an inflation rate of 3% per year for 2006 and 2007.

Operation and Maintenance costs are estimated for both the Genesee County Facilities and the

Oakland County Facilities. O & M costs for the Oakland County treatment facilities are based

on $2.90 per 1000 cubic feet of water treated on an Average Daily Demand (ADD) basis.

Transmission/Storage O & M costs are based on $1.00 per 1000 cubic feet of ADD. Costs for

the Genesee County facilities are estimated based on data presented in the Genesee County

Long-Term Water Supply Report for Scenario 16. Tables 2-15 through 2-17 present the

estimated O & M costs for the proposed improvements.



Table 2-15 Estimated O & M Costs for Facilities in Oakland County (2005 dollars)

O & M Cost Source Avg. O & M Cost/mcf

Annual O & M Cost/mcf

Treatment Plant O & M @ ADD=23 MGD $2.90 $3,250,000

Transmission Mains O & M (ADD=23 MGD) $1.00 $1,122,000

Total Amount of O & M Costs $4,372,000

Community Proportional Share Share of O & M

Costs

Highland Township 7.5% $326,000

Independence Township 7.9% $347,000

Oakland Township 15.5% $677,000

Oxford Township 10.3% $452,000

Oxford Village 1.6% $71,000

Waterford Township 27.1% $1,184,000

White Lake Township 15.7% $687,000

Springfield Township (Partial) 3.0% $133,000

Lake Orion Village 0.6% $27,000

Orion Township 10.7% $468,000

Totals 100% $4,372,000



Table 2-16 Estimated O & M Costs (2005) for Facilities Constructed by Genesee County &

Attributed to Oakland County CVTs

Community Proportional

Share Share of O & M

Costs






Waterford Township 27.1% $650,000





Totals 100% $2,400,000

Table 2-17 Estimated Total O & M Costs for Obtaining Genesee County Raw Water

Community Share of O & M

Costs Share of O & M

Costs Total O & M Costs

Highland Township $326,000 $179,000 $505,000

Independence Township $347,000 $190,000 $537,000

Oakland Township $677,000 $372,000 $1,049,000

Oxford Township $452,000 $248,000 $700,000

Oxford Village $71,000 $39,000 $110,000

Waterford Township $1,184,000 $650,000 $1,834,000

White Lake Township $687,000 $377,000 $1,064,000

Springfield Township (Partial) $133,000 $73,000 $206,000

Lake Orion Village $27,000 $15,000 $42,000

Orion Township $468,000 $257,000 $725,000

Totals $4,372,000 $2,400,000 $6,772,000



2.6 Alternative 5 – Genesee County to Supply Finished Water

Scenario 19 in Genesee County’s “Preliminary Report Long-Term Water Supply for Genesee

County - Second Draft”, dated January 2006, represents the alternative that would provide

finished water to northern Oakland County. Refer to Figure 2-5 for a schematic layout of the

facilities to be constructed by Genesee County in order to provide finished water to Oakland

County communities. Figure 2-6 illustrates the approximate geographic location of transmission

mains and storage tanks.

Figure 2-5Genesee County Finished Water

Supply AlternativeOakland County Water and Wastewater Master Plan

J:\13647263\Water\Altern.rpt\Fig2-5.mxd

SOURCE - PRELIMINARY REPORT: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY FOR GENESEE COUNTY - SECOND DRAFT (JAN 2006)

37



2.6.1 Eligible CVTs

In Alternative 4 – Genesee County to Supply Finished Water, a total of 13 communities in

Oakland County would potentially be supplied finished water from Genesee County. Brandon

Township and Village of Ortonville are included in this alternative where they were excluded in

the raw water option due to their geographic location and proximity to the point of connection

with Genesee County. The Oakland County communities identified as potential customers and

their corresponding water demands are provided in Table 2-18 below.

Table 2-18 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee Finished Water

Community 2035 ADD

(MGD) 2035 MDD

(MGD) Cost Share

Highland Township 2.6 7.4 7.3%

Independence Township 4.1 7.8 7.7%

Oakland Township 5.5 15.3 15.1%

Oxford Township 3.7 10.2 10.1%

Oxford Village 0.7 1.6 1.6%

Brandon Township 0.7 1.8 1.8%

Ortonville Village 0.3 0.7 0.7%

Waterford Township 11.6 26.8 26.4%

White Lake Township 4.8 15.5 15.3%

Springfield Township (Partial) 1.2 3.0 2.9%

Lake Orion Village 0.5 0.6 0.6%

Orion Township 8.3 10.6 10.4%

Totals 44 101.3 100%


Costs for the Genesee County facilities are estimated based on data presented in the Genesee

County Long-Term Water Supply Report for Scenario 19. The same assumptions and estimates

used to calculate costs in Alternative 3 – Genesee County to Supply Raw Water are utilized in

Alterative 4 – Genesee County to Supply Finished Water.



Oakland County’s proportional share of capital costs for this alternative is about $810 million in

2005 dollars (source: Preliminary Report, Long-Term Water Supply for Genesee County). The

treated water would be metered and fed directly into a 72” transmission main on the north side of

the county along highway M-15. The finished water transmission main costs are estimated at

$142.2 million (Table 2-19) and the storage costs are estimated at $103.6 million (Table 2-20).

Table 2-21 presents the total project cost ($245.8 million) for facilities to be constructed in

Oakland County, allocated to the communities on a water demand basis. It should be noted that

these costs do not include the costs of local distribution improvements that may be necessary to

distribute water from the county transmission main to customers.

Table 2-22 shows a breakdown of Total Project Cost, ($1,055 million), which includes facilities

to be constructed in Oakland County and Oakland County’s share of the cost for facilities

constructed by Genesee County. Costs are allocated by Community for the Finished Water

Alternative.



Table 2-19 Finished Water Transmission Main Costs (2005 dollars)


Cost Total Cost

1 18" Transmission Main LF 5,486 $141 $770,941

2 18" Road/ waterway crossings LF 1,600 $393 $629,568

3 24" Transmission Main LF 21,823 $197 $4,293,465

4 24" Road/ waterway crossings LF 400 $491 $196,516






10 48" Road/ waterway crossings LF 800 $1,133 $906,576


12 54" Road/ waterway crossings LF 2,000 $1,150 $1,150,000


14 72" Road/ waterway crossings LF 600 $1,888 $1,132,548

Transmission Main

Construction Sub-Total $94,696,128

Construction Contingencies 30% $28,408,838

Engineering, Legal, etc. 20% $18,939,226

Transmission Main Total

Project Cost $142,044,192



Table 2-20 Finished Water Storage / Pumping Costs (2005)


Cost Total Cost

1 Two 1-MG Ground Storage Tanks gal 2,000,000 $ 0.70 $ 1,400,000 2 3-MG Ground Storage Tank gal 3,000,000 $ 0.60 $ 1,800,000 3 Five 5-MG Ground Storage Tanks gal 25,000,000 $ 0.45 $ 11,250,000 4 11-MG Storage Tank gal 11,000,000 $ 0.40 $ 4,400,000 5 2 MGD Booster Station LS 1 $ 533,000.00 $ 533,000 6 6 MGD Booster Station LS 1 $ 1,590,000 $ 1,590,000 7 10 MGD Booster Station LS 3 $ 2,650,000 $ 7,950,000 8 20 MGD Booster Station LS 2 $ 5,260,000 $ 10,520,000 9 50 MGD Booster Station LS 1 $ 11,538,000 $ 11,538,000

10 80 MGD Booster Station LS 1 $ 18,101,760 $ 18,102,000

$ 69,083,000

Construction Contingencies 30% $ 20,725,000

Engineering, Legal, etc. 20% $ 13,817,000

$ 103,625,000 Storage/Pumping Total Project Costs

Storage/Pumping Construction Sub-total

Table 2-21 Allocation of Finished Water Costs by Community

for Facilities Constructed in Oakland County

Community 2035 MDD

(MGD) Percent of

Total Project Share

Costs

Highland Township 7.4 7.3% $17,881,000

Independence Township 7.8 7.7% $19,009,000

Oakland Township 15.3 15.1% $37,119,000

Oxford Township 10.2 10.1% $24,783,000

Oxford Village 1.6 1.6% $3,899,000

Brandon Township 1.8 1.8% $4,366,000

Ortonville Village 0.7 0.7% $1,698,000

Waterford Township 26.8 26.4% $64,943,000

White Lake Township 15.5 15.3% $37,685,000


3.0 3.0% $7,277,000

Lake Orion Village 0.6 0.6% $1,474,000

Orion Township 10.6 10.4% $25,652,000

Totals 101 100% $245,786,000



Table 2-22 Allocation of Total Project Cost (2005) by Community for Genesee County

Finished Water Alternative

Tables 2-23 through 2-25 present the estimated O & M costs for the proposed improvements

broken down by community by Oakland County/Genesee County projects.

Community

2035 MDD

(MGD)

Cost Share

Facilities Constructed in

Oakland County (Trans/Stor/Pump)

Proportional Share of Genesee

Co. Facilities

Total Project Costs for GCDC Finished Water

Highland Township

7.4 7.3% $17,881,000 $58,864,000 $76,745,000


7.8 7.7% $19,009,000 $62,579,000 $81,588,000

Oakland Township

15.3 15.1% $37,119,000 $122,194,000 $159,313,000

Oxford Township 10.2 10.1% $24,783,000 $81,586,000 $106,369,000

Oxford Village 1.6 1.6% $3,899,000 $12,834,000 $16,733,000

Brandon Township

1.8 1.8% $4,366,000 $14,373,000 $18,739,000

Ortonville Village 0.7 0.7% $1,698,000 $5,589,000 $7,287,000

Waterford Township

26.8 26.4% $64,943,000 $213,791,000 $278,734,000

White Lake Township

15.5 15.3% $37,685,000 $124,061,000 $161,746,000


3.0 3.0% $7,277,000 $23,954,000 $31,231,000

Lake Orion Village

0.6 0.6% $1,474,000 $4,853,000 $6,327,000

Orion Township 10.6 10.4% $25,652,000 $84,447,000 $110,099,000

Totals 101 100% $245,786,000 $809,125,000 $1,054,911,000



Table 2-23 Potential Oakland County CVTs to Receive Genesee Finished Water

Community Avg. O & M Cost/Mcf Annual O & M

Cost/Mcf

Treatment Plant O & M

Transmission Mains O & M (ADD=23 MGD) $1.00 $1,122,000

Total Amount of O & M Costs $1,122,000

Community Proportional Share Share of O & M

Costs






Brandon Township 1.8% $20,000

Ortonville Village 0.7% $8,000






Totals 100% $1,122,000



Table 2-24 Estimated O & M Costs (2005) Attributed to Oakland County Communities for

Facilities Constructed by Genesee County

Community Proportional Share Share of O & M Costs






Brandon Township 1.8% $42,000

Ortonville Village 0.7% $16,000






Totals 100% $2,366,000

Table 2-25 Total Estimated O & M Costs (2005) for Finished Water Alternative

Community O & M for Oakland

Co Facilities O & M for Genesee

Co Facilities Share of O &

M Costs

Highland Township $82,000 $172,000 $254,000

Independence Township $87,000 $183,000 $270,000

Oakland Township $169,000 $357,000 $526,000

Oxford Township $113,000 $239,000 $62,000

Oxford Village $18,000 $38,000 $56,000

Brandon Township $20,000 $42,000 $62,000

Ortonville Village $8,000 $16,000 $24,000

Waterford Township $296,000 $625,000 $921,000

White Lake Township $172,000 $363,000 $535,000


$33,000 $70,000 $103,000

Lake Orion Village $7,000 $14,000 $21,000

Orion Township $117,000 $247,000 $364,000

Totals $1,122,000 $2,366,000 $3,198,000



2.7 Alternative 6 – Storage Analysis (DWSD Existing Customers)

Most of the Oakland County communities served by DWSD water do not store water within their

local system. These communities rely on DWSD storage and pumping to provide the level of

service necessary to serve their customers. A number of communities initiated studies over the

last few years to evaluate in the feasibility of adding storage to accomplish several objectives.

Objectives included the following:

• Reduce or eliminate the peak hour surcharge, which is built into the DWSD rate

policy

• Provide additional pressure stability in the water distribution system to compensate

for variations at the DWSD master meters

• Provide storage for areas in the local distribution system where maximum day and

peak hour demands reduce pressure below desirable levels regardless of the DWSD

supply pressures

• Provide emergency storage within the community in the event of a loss of service

from DWSD

As part of this Master Plan, the URS project team evaluated 1) the storage need to offset the peak

hour demands and provide fire reserve, 2) the costs for ground storage and re-pumping, and 3)

the additional operation and maintenance expense of adding these facilities. Also, an assessment

was performed of the projected rates for each community with and without peak hour surcharge

to determine whether the added expense of storage can be recovered in the adjusted rate. The rate

calculations and cost-effective analyses are provided in Volume 5 – Financial Analysis.

The storage need is calculated assuming that each community would store the difference

between the max day and peak hour demands for a three hour period and provide a fire reserve of

0.72 MG, which is 3,000 GPM for four hours. The booster station cost estimate is based on

meeting the peak hour demand of the community. A summary of the storage and sizes are

presented in Table 2-26 below.



Table 2-26 DWSD Customer – Ground Storage / Pumping Estimates

Community

Sto

rag

e

Vo

lum

e (

MG

)

Tan

k C

ost

($M

)1

Bo

oste

r S

tati

on

Co

st

($

M)

To

tal C

ap

ital

Co

st

($M

)

Base C

on

st.

M

ark

- up

50%

($

M)

Lan

d

Acq

uis

itio

n

Co

st

($M

)

To

tal

Am

ou

nt

To

B

e B

on

ded

($

M)

Ad

dit

ion

al

O&

M ($

M/y

r)

To

tal

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Co

st

($M

)1

Auburn Hills 2.0 1.4 4.4 5.8 2.9 0.75 9.45 0.06 144.9

Bloomfield Hills 1.0 0.7 2.4 3.1 1.6 0.75 5.45 0.03 91.0

Bloomfield Twp. 2.0 1.4 10.4 11.8 5.9 0.75 18.45 0.12 382.3

Commerce Twp. 2.5 1.5 7.49 9.0 4.5 0.75 14.25 0.09 313.0

Farmington Hills 4.5 2.0 19.27 21.3 10.6 1.5 33.4 0.21 526.3

Hazel Park 1.0 0.7 1.07 1.7 0.9 0.75 3.35 0.02 35.2

Keego Harbor 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.9 0.75 3.4 0.02 19.0

Lake Orion Village 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.85 0.75 3.3 0.02 29.6

Madison Heights 1.5 1.1 3.4 4.5 2.25 0.75 7.5 0.04 102.5

Novi 3.0 1.8 10.65 12.5 6.25 1.5 20.2 0.12 566.4

Orchard Lake 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.85 0.75 3.3 0.02 23.6

Orion Twp. 2.0 1.4 4.48 5.9 2.95 0.75 9.6 0.06 336.3

Rochester 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.85 0.75 3.3 0.02 78.4

Rochester Hills 3.5 2.1 12.38 14.5 7.25 1.5 23.2 0.14 477.4

Sylvan Lake 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.85 0.75 3.3 0.02 14.9

Troy 4.0 2.4 16.3 18.7 9.4 1.5 29.6 0.2 595.6

Walled Lake 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.85 0.75 3.3 0.02 41.0

West Bloomfield Twp. 3.0 1.8 11.31 13.1 6.6 1.5 21.2 0.13 562.8

Totals 36 22.5 219.1 132.1 66.25 17.25 215.55 1.34 4340.2

Notes:

1. Pontiac, Ferndale, SOCWA, Oak Park, Farmington, and Wixom are not included in the analysis since they presently have storage facilities. Based on the DWSD rate data, only Wixom and SOCWA have peak hour factors of 1.0.

2. Costs are presented in 2005 dollars; ($M) is millions. 3. Base Construction Mark-up includes 20% for engineering, legal, etc. and 30% in construction contingencies. 4. Land Acquisition Costs assumed to be $250,000 per acre 5. O&M costs assumed to be 1% of capital costs



2.8 Warren – St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative

In December 2004, phase 1 of a water system study to determine the feasibility of constructing a

new water system to serve a number of communities in Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne Counties.

The communities within the study area are depicted in Figure 2-6 and listed in Table 2-27.

Three primary water alternatives were developed as part of the Phase 1 study. The baseline

alternative included the construction of a new WTP on Lake St. Clair and infrastructure to

provide a maximum day capacity of 292 MGD to the entire planning area. The estimated project

cost for that alternative was $1.425 billion.

The second alternative evaluated a smaller service area (exclusion of Oakland County). The

design maximum day demand for this alternative was 73 MGD with a total project cost of $363

million. A comparison of this alternative to the baseline alternative clearly demonstrates the

significant cost increase when attempting to provide a new supply to the service area

communities within Oakland County.

The third alternative used existing available capacities (19 MGD total) from the Highland Park,

Mount Clemens, and Grosse Pointe Farms WTPs. This reduced the size of a new WTP from 73

MGD to 54 MGD, resulting in a project cost of $310 million.

The projected costs of a new water supply with any of the above scenarios exceeded the

anticipated future DWSD wholesale water costs using the projected rate increases in the DWSD

CWMP. It was concluded by the project’s steering committee that further study of the above

alternatives was not warranted. As such, this alternative was not included in Volume 5 – The

Financial Analysis and is only briefly explained in Volume 1 – The Executive Summary.

Figure 2-7

49



Table 2-27 Communities in Warren-St. Clair Shores Water Supply Alternative

Oakland County Macomb County Wayne County

Bloomfield Township Center Line Grosse Pointe Shores

Bloomfield Hills Eastpointe Grosse Point Township

Franklin Village Fraser Grosse Point Woods

Madison Heights Grosse Pointe Shores Harper Woods

Oak Park Lake Township

Pontiac Roseville

SOCWA (All 10 CVTs) St. Clair Shores

Southfield Township Warren

Troy

Hazel Park

Ferndale

Royal Oak Township

Discussion of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives - Alternatives 4 and 5


3.0 Discussion of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives -

Alternatives 4 and 5

Each CVT’s water infrastructure needs and alternatives are unique. For that reason, Appendix A

of Volume 1 – Executive Summary, presents water alternatives by CVT. This section presents a

discussion of the Genesee County water supply alternatives.

3.1 Comparison of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives

Table 3-1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the Raw Water versus Finished Water

alternatives. It can be seen that the capital investment is approximately the same $1.1 billion,

however, the annual O & M cost for the Finished Water alternative is about half that of the Raw

Water alternative.

It should be noted that the costs developed in this report are based on all communities

participating in the project. Should one or more of the communities choose not to participate,

then the share of the project costs for the remaining communities will increase proportionally.

Table 3-1 Summary of Raw/Finished Water Supply Alternatives from Genesee County

Capital Costs (2005) Raw Water Alternative

Finished Water Alternative

OAKLAND COUNTY FACILITIES:

Raw Water Reservoir $188,067,000

Treatment (99 MGD) $297,000,000

Transmission Mains $129,366,000 $142,160,000

Finished Water Storage $102,575,000 $103,625,000

Sub-Total $717,008,000 $245,785,000

GENESEE COUNTY FACILITIES: $431,895,000 $809,125,000

Total Capital Costs $1,148,903,000 $1,054,910,000

O & M COSTS (2005)

OAKLAND COUNTY FACILITIES: $4,372,000 $1,120,000

GENESEE COUNTY FACILITIES: $2,400,000 $2,370,000

Total O & M Costs $6,772,000 $3,490,000

Discussion of Genesee County Water Supply Alternatives - Alternatives 4 and 5


3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Genesee County Water Supply

Alternatives

Some of the advantages and disadvantages to a Lake Huron (via Genesee County) water supply

are listed below:

Advantages

• Surface water supply typically requires less treatment (no softening) than a

groundwater supply.

• Regional facilities generally allow smaller communities to take advantage of

economies of scale where smaller facilities usually have a higher per unit cost, which

depends greatly on population density and amount of transmission mains necessary to

get the finished water to the customer.

• There may be a potential for lower end-user costs compared to projected DWSD

rates.

Disadvantages

• Regional facilities usually require a significant customer base to be a cost effective

alternative. Many of the northern Oakland County communities’ local land use plans

require low-density (5-10 acre lots) development, which makes distribution costs

significantly higher.

• DWSD already has significant water infrastructure in the Oakland County.

• Genesee County’s present implementation schedule requires community

commitments in 2006, design in 2007, and construction beginning in 2010. This fast-

track schedule may not give some communities time to make informed economic

decisions.

Wastewater Alternatives Development


4.0 Wastewater Alternatives Development

Reviews are provided for each of the sanitary systems. Alternatives for flow exchange and

treatment optimization are developed where feasible to meet projected needs. Note that any

surcharging of the system is unacceptable by current design standards.

4.1 Alternative 1 – No Change

Unlike the water “No Change” alternative, which is unique to the circumstances of each

individual CVT, the wastewater “No Change” alternative can be organized by the Sewage

Disposal System (SDS) or Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). However, within a SDS the

impacts of the “No Change” alternative may vary by community. These impacts are explored in

Appendix A of Volume 1 – The Executive Summary.

The URS project team endeavored to present the most up-to-date information available.

Availability of information combined with the inevitable need to document findings, results in a

snapshot-in-time deliverable. With few exceptions, the information included herein was current

as of the Spring of 2007.

4.1.1 Clinton-Oakland SDS (COSDS)

4.1.1.1 Member CVTs

Table 4-1 lists the CVTs in the COSDS with their Purchased Capacity and their Maximum

Assignment Capacity (MAC) when applicable.



Table 4-1 CVTs in the COSDS

4.1.1.2 Background

The needs of the COSDS are related to the contractual discharge capacities of the individual

member communities and overall system conveyance of future flows. Previous studies (Clinton

Oakland Sewage Disposal System Interceptor Relief Study, 1991; Clinton Oakland SDS System

Analysis Report, 1994; and DWSD Wastewater Master Plan, 2003) stated that the design

capacities of certain sections of the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor are not capable of conveying the

allowable purchased capacity flows under open channel flow conditions. As a result,

surcharging is expected in these sections when flows approach purchased capacity. The 1996

Clinton-Oakland SDS Management Agreement established higher thresholds for community

discharges into the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor. These increased discharge thresholds, called

maximum assignment capacities, allow the respective communities to collectively discharge an

additional 29 MGD into the system. This is 55% more flow in the COSDS than was allowed

prior to the 1996 agreement.

The COSDS was modeled as part of the 1991 COSDS Interceptor Relief Study. This study

identified approximately 8 miles of the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor (Figure 4-1) that needed

Community Purchase

Capacity (MGD) Maximum Assignment

Capacity (MGD)

Auburn Hills 5.95 9.69

Independence Twp & Clarkston

5.69 6.79

Lake Angelus - -

Lake Orion Village 1.19 -

Oakland Township 3.63 -

Orion Township 5.71 -

Oxford Township 4.35 -

Oxford Village 2.07 -

Rochester Hills 10.69 24.24

Waterford Township 24.21 29.08

West Bloomfield Township 3.31 5.82



relief sewers based on possible surcharging in the pipes during various design storm events. This

study also identified sections of the interceptor where ADDF is less than the sum of the

purchased capacities. These sections could act as bottlenecks in the system and cause

surcharging when peak flows approach purchased capacity. The 2035 flow projections discussed

in Volume 3 - The Needs Assessment Report of this Master Plan indicate that seven of the

COSDS communities would exceed purchased capacity during peak flows, resulting in possible

surcharging of the system. The additional 29 MGD of flow that can be contractually discharged

into the system as per the 1996 COSDS Management Agreement potentially exacerbates the

problem. Also, the addition of any new flows from outside the current COSDS service boundary

would increase the need for system improvements.

4.1.1.3 Impact of the No Change Alternative

This alternative means taking no action beyond what is currently being done. This includes:

• Continued monitoring of the system,

• Flow management, and

• I/I reduction efforts by OCDC and the system’s member communities.

The potential results of “No Change” are as follows:

• Most communities will approach or exceed purchased capacity during projected 2035

peak flows.

• Auburn Hills and West Bloomfield Township will approach or exceed their

maximum assignment capacity during 2035 peak hour flows.

• Certain sections of the Clinton-Oakland interceptor will continue to surcharge when

peak flows approach purchased capacity.

• The COSDS appears to have more than enough in-system storage to attenuate peak

flows such that the COSDS discharge at the County line will be within the contractual

limits of the agreement with DWSD.

See Appendix A of Volume 1 – Executive Summary for a community-by-community of analysis

of wastewater alternatives.

Metered Connectionwith DWSD (Oakland Arm)

Metered Connectionwith DWSD (Avon Arm)

CLINTON

-OAKLANDINTERCEPTOR

CLIN

TON

-OAK

LANDINTE

RCEPTOR

MSU-OINTERCEPTOR

PAINTCREEKINTERCEPTOR

SARGENTCREEKA

R

M

STON

YCREEK

ARM

Elizabeth Lake Pump Station

Troy

Pontiac

Orion Township

Rochester Hills

Oxford Township Addison Township

Oakland Township

Brandon Township

Waterford Township


Auburn Hills

Bloomfield Township

West Bloomfield Township

Groveland Township

Springfield Township

White Lake Township

Commerce Township

Rochester

Bloomfield Hills

Orchard Lake

Birmingham

Lake Angelus

Oxford Village

Walled Lake

Wolverine Lake Village

Lake Orion Village

Sylvan Lake

Leonard Village

Ortonville Village

Clarkston

Keego Harbor

Clawson

0 4 82 Miles

Legend

Sections of Interceptor Requiring Parallel Relief*

OCDC Interceptor Sewer

Force Main

Pump Station

Figure 4-1Clinton - Oakland SDS

Limits of Proposed Relief Sewer Construction


Oakland Co.

Wayne Co.

Macomb Co.

Lapeer Co.Genesee Co.

Livingston Co.

Washtenaw Co.

St. Clair Co.

J:\1

364

7263

\Wa

ter\

Alte

rn.R

pt\F

ig3

-1.m

xd

* Per the 1991 Relief Study

56



4.1.2 Huron-Rouge SDS (HRSDS)

4.1.2.1 Member CVTs

The HRSDS is made up of only one member community (City of Novi) actually discharging

flow to the system. Two other CVTs (Northville and Novi Twp.) lie within the HRSDS service

boundary, but do not discharge into the system. The City of Northville discharges to the

interceptor in Wayne County and Novi Township is not sewered.

4.1.2.2 Background

The needs of the HRSDS are related to the contracted discharge capacity allotted to the City of

Novi. The original 1962 agreement between Oakland County and Wayne County set the

discharge limit at 2.58 MGD (4 CFS), but the current agreement is for 13.24 MGD. The City of

Novi currently discharges 4.36 MGD average daily flow with a future average daily flow of 7.77

MGD.


The result of doing nothing is that Novi will continue to exceed contract discharge capacity

during peak flows. However there seems to be no mechanism in the contract documents to

enforce this discharge capacity and there has not been a problem to date. As such, the only

identified need for the HRSDS (City of Novi) is to reconcile the original contract with the actual

current discharge.

4.1.3 Evergreen-Farmington SDS (EFSDS)

4.1.3.1 Member CVTs

Table 4-2 lists the CVTs in the EFSDS with their Town Outlet Capacity (TOC).



Table 4-2 CVTs in the EFSDS

4.1.3.2 Background

As discussed in the Volume 3 – The Needs Assessment Report, the Oakland County Drain

Commissioner (OCDC) and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ),

entered into a second Amended Consent Order (ACO) in December 7, 2004. The ACO outlined

several projects that the County is committed to complete. OCDC also has a plan to demonstrate

that Clean Water Act goals can be met through a program with substantially lower costs than

required by the conventional MDEQ approach. The program evaluates all aspects of SSO

treatment, infiltration/inflow (I/I) reduction, and system capacity expansion. As part of the

demonstration approach that OCDC is pursuing and the second ACO between OCDC and

MDEQ, OCDC recently completed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analysis to enable OCDC

and the Communities to better understand the operation of the system, identify the critical

Community Town Outlet Capacity

(MGD)

Auburn Hills 1.11

Beverly Hills Village 5.62

Bingham Farms Village 0.70

Birmingham 4.51

Bloomfield Hills 2.57

Bloomfield Township 13.63

Farmington 0.87

Farmington Hills 30.29

Franklin Village 0.95

Keego Harbor 1.13

Lathrup Village 2.17

Orchard Lake 0.89

Southfield 38.97

Troy 5.51

West Bloomfield Township 17.71



constraints of the system, and determine how to optimize the operation of the system. Thus, the

development of alternatives is deferred to that Contract and is not repeated herein.

Other improvements that are outlined in the ACO include:

1. A connection from the Farmington interceptor (at the Walnut #1 Pumping Station) to

the Evergreen interceptor allows the transfer of up to 14 CFS of wet weather sanitary

flow. As part of this project, the County modified the regulators that control flow

from the Acacia Park, Bloomfield Village, and Birmingham Retention Treatment

Basins (RTB) during wet weather to the Evergreen interceptor and replace this

available capacity amounting to 14 CFS in the Evergreen interceptor with excess

separate sanitary flow.

2. Removal of four siphons crossing the Edwards Drain in West Bloomfield Township,

and replacement of the sanitary sewer conveyance system.

The County is considering a wet weather connection from the Evergreen Farmington interceptor

system to the Bloomfield Village RTB (subject to Part 41 permit review). As part of this project,

storm sewer relief will be provided to offset the increase in wet weather sanitary flow to the

RTB.


The impact of the No Change Alternative varies by community. See Appendix A of Volume 1 –

Executive Summary for a community-by-community of analysis of wastewater alternatives.

4.1.4 George W. Kuhn SDS (GWKSDS)

4.1.4.1 Member CVTs

Table 4-3 lists the CVTs in the GWKSDS.



Table 4-3 CVTs in the GWKSDS

4.1.4.2 Background

The George W. Kuhn (GWK) Sanitary Disposal System (SDS) is a combined sanitary and storm

water system. The average daily flow during dry weather is approximately 46 MGD. However,

peak flows can be 100 times larger than the average daily dry weather flow. The GWKSDS can

send up to 170 MGD (260 CFS) to DWSD under the current contract. The GWK retention

treatment facility (RTF) is designed to control the combined sewer overflows for the 10 year, 1

hour storm, in accordance with MDEQ requirements, assuming an outlet capacity of 260 CFS to

DWSD. Due to the large difference between the average peak flows and the contract flow

limitations, approximately 10 to 12 overflows occur each year.

A requirement of the NPDES permit re-issued in 1998 was to make improvements to the GWK

RTF. These improvements included the construction of new storage, screening, and disinfection

downstream from the existing inlet structure. The new structure adds 30.7 million gallons of

storage, increasing the storage volume upstream of the RTF from 32 million gallons to 64.9

million gallons. The total system storage increased from 94 million gallons to 122 million

gallons. The construction of a new dewatering pumping station with a force main discharging to

the Twelve Mile Road Interceptor allows the contractual limit of 260 CFS to be achieved early in

a storm event and maximize the amount of flow that can be stored and treated.

The population in the GWKSDS is projected to decrease in the future. The area is built out,

allowing for few growth opportunities.

Community Community

Berkley Madison Heights

Beverly Hills Village Oak Park

Birmingham Pleasant Ridge

Clawson Royal Oak

Ferndale Royal Oak Township

Hazel Park Southfield

Huntington Woods Troy



Alternate treatment strategies for the wastewater generated in the Twelve Towns area were

investigated. A report prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. (HRC) in 1999 investigated the

possibility of constructing a new 45 MGD WWTP that would discharge to the Red Run Drain.

Piping modifications would be needed to direct the flow to the new WWTP. The cost for the

WWTP, pump stations, and force main would be approximately $711 million in 1999 dollars.

The WWTP would discharge in the vicinity of the GWK RTF. The Red Run Drain in this area

has the potential of having relatively low flows during the summer, which can lead to more

restrictive permit limits. This option is not proposed to be pursued due to the high cost, probable

restrictive permit limits, and limited need for additional capacity.


The total system storage capacity is 121.8 million gallons. Up to 170 MGD continues to be

treated at the DWSD WWTP. Due to the decreasing population, capacity in this area is not a

problem except during wet weather. See Appendix A of Volume 1 – Executive Summary for a

community-by-community of analysis of wastewater alternatives.

4.1.5 Commerce-White Lake SDS (CWLSDS)

4.1.5.1 Member CVTs

Commerce-White Lake WWTP currently service portions of Commerce Township, White Lake,

the City of Novi, and the Village of Wolverine Lake.

4.1.5.2 Background

The Commerce-White Lake WWTP is owned by Commerce Township. It is made up of two

wastewater treatment plants, the “East” and the “North” plants. Currently, the North plant is

designed to treat an average daily flow of 2.0 MGD, and the East plant 1.0 MGD. The East plant

is currently not in service, and would need repairs before being brought back into service. There

are currently no plans to return the East plant to service. Commerce Township has contracted

with an engineering firm to design an expansion to the North plant, but the size of this expansion

has not been formalized.

The Village of Wolverine Lake has an agreement with Commerce Township for a capacity of

0.535 MGD. White Lake has an agreement with Commerce Township to be served by the lesser



of 3.64 MGD or 11,546 REUs, for treating the wastewater from the densest areas of the

Township in the southern half of the Township. White Lake’s contribution to the 1.5 MGD

treated in the WWTP during 2005, was approximately 0.38 MGD. In 1991, Novi exchanged

2,000 REUs (about 0.67 MGD) in the Walled Lake-Novi WWTP for 2,000 units from

Commerce. Total WWTP flow in 2004 was 1.5 MGD, of which approximately 0.9 MGD was

contributed by Commerce Township. Figure 4-2 summarizes the flows and contracts for the

Commerce-White Lake WWTP.

As can be seen in Figure 4-2, the current capacity of the Commerce-White Lake WWTP is less

than the sum of its service contracts (2.0 MGD < 4.85 MGD). In 2035 the projected Average

Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) for Commerce and its contract communities (6.97 MGD) is less

than ultimate plant capacity of 8.5 MGD as determined by the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit. The current plans to expand the North WWTP range from 5 MGD to 8.5 MGD

depending on the expected input flow from neighboring communities, specifically White Lake

Township.

Figure 4-2 Comparison of Commerce-White Lake WWTP Capacities and Contracts

0.9

2.12

3.64

3.64

0.67

0.67

0.54

0.54

1.52.0

8.5

1.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2005

Flows/Contracts

2005 ADWF 2005 ADDF Design

Capacity

Projected 2035

Flow (Based on

Actual)

Projected 2035

Flows/Contracts

Ultimate Capacity

Year and Year Capacity

Flo

w a

nd

Co

ntr

acts

(M

GD

)

2035 Projected Flow

Ultimate Capacity

2005 Design Capacity

2005 Actual Flow

Wolverine Lake Contract Capacity

Novi Contract Capacity

White Lake Contract Capacity

Commerce Flow

Note: 1. Temporary transfer of 270 REUs from the Commerce WWTP to Walled Lake-Novi WWTP (February 2006) for Wolverine Lake not shown.




This alternative assumes Commerce will carry out its plans to expand the North WWTP. The

expanded capacity is yet to be determined. It is premature to discuss cost of services since it

depends on the size of the expansion. An expanded WWTP could serve the needs of Commerce

Twp., and satisfy the service contracts with White Lake Twp., the City of Novi, and Wolverine

Lake Village.

4.1.6 Walled Lake/Novi SDS (WLNSDS)

4.1.6.1 Member CVTs

The Walled Lake-Novi WWTP serves Walled Lake and portions of the City of Novi, Commerce,

and (temporarily) Wolverine Lake. It has an interchange agreement with Commerce to receive

flow from the Commerce-White Lake WWTP.

4.1.6.2 Background

The Walled Lake-Novi WWTP is owned and operated by OCDC. Both Walled Lake and Novi

originally had an agreement with OCDC for approximately 0.95 MGD each of the Walled

Lake/Novi WWTP. In 1991 this agreement was amended to provide 1.32 MGD for Walled Lake

and 1.21 MGD to Novi. Also in 1991, Novi exchanged 2,000 units in the Commerce-White

Lake WWTP for 2,000 units in the Walled Lake-Novi WWTP. Figure 4-3 summarizes the

contracts and capacities of the Walled Lake-Novi WWTP.



Figure 4-3 Walled Lake/Novi WWTP Capacities and Contracts

4.05

1.65

4.301.21

3.37

1.38

3.58

1.28

1.423.50

9.10

1.01

0.58

1.45

0.390.23

0.65

0.26

0.69

0.003

0.01

0.003

0.01

0.09

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Contracts Estimated 2005

ADWF

Estimated 2005

PHF

ADDF Design

Capacity

PHF Design

Capacity

Projected 2035

ADWF

Projected 2035

PHF


Flo

w a

nd

Co

ntr

acts

(M

GD

)

Novi Walled LakeNovi Contract Walled Lake ContractDesign Capacity Additional Flow from New Sewers in Walled LakeCommerce-White-Lake SDS Commerce-White-Lake SDS ContractWolverine Lake Wolverine Lake Contract

Note: 1. For the majority of this Master Plan 2005 is considered “current’, however for Walled Lake-Novi WWTP flows 2007 data was available and used.


The No Change Alternative is a viable alternative for the WLNSDS and its member

communities. Based on REUs the plant is nearly at capacity (approximately 86% of the plant’s

REUs are connected). However, flows at the plant are not near capacity. This suggests that per

capita flow may be less than the 337 gallon-per-day-per-REU currently used. Furthermore, a

stress test may reveal that the plant can process flow rates greater than its design.

The City of Novi may negotiate for the option to divert flow to the HRSDS and thereby make

capacity available in the Walled Lake-Novi WWTP.

4.1.7 Pontiac WWTP

4.1.7.1 Member CVTs

Currently, the Pontiac WWTP serves the City of Pontiac and Sylvan Lake.



4.1.7.2 Background

Pontiac has two wastewater treatment plants, the Auburn Plant and the East Boulevard Plant.

Recent evaluations by others of these plants resulted in the recommendation to route current dry

weather flow from the East Plant to the Auburn Plant and use the East Plant only for wet weather

flow equalization.

It was recommended that the excess flow receive primary treatment and be stored in equalization

tanks until it can be returned to the Auburn Plant for full treatment. Flows exceeding the

capacity of the equalization tank would be discharged to the Clinton River. As of this writing,

however, the recommended conversion has not been implemented.

The reported design capacities for the existing Auburn WWTP are as follows:

Average Daily Design Flow (ADDF): 16.9 MGD

Peak Hour Flow (PHF): 20.5 MGD

The reported design capacities for the existing East Boulevard WWTP are as follows:

Average Daily Design Flow (ADDF): 4.7 MGD

Peak Hour Flow (PHF): 9.5 MGD

The population projections estimate that there will be an increase of approximately 10% in

Pontiac’s population through 2035. Applying this percentage to the current combined average

daily flow of 9.4 MGD, it is expected that the average daily flow will increase by approximately

0.9 MGD to 10.3 MGD.

Using a peaking factor of 2.1 (from Ten States Standards Figure 1, ratio of peak hourly/average

daily flow) will project the total future combined peak hour flow to be approximately 21.6 MGD.

The projected 2035 combined average daily flow and the peak hour flow can be accommodated

by the existing Auburn plant. Figure 4-4 graphically depicts the flows and capacities of the

Pontiac WWTP.



Figure 4-4 Pontiac WWTP

16.9

4.7

9.5

9.4

18.7

10.30

21.6

12.2

11.3

11.3

8.4

20.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2005 ADWF 2005 ADDF

Design Capacity

2005 PHF 2005 PHF Design

Capacity

2035 ADWF 2035 PHF


Flo

ws

(M

GD

)

Auburn WWTP East Blvd. WWTP 2005 Combined Actual ADWF

2005 Estimated Combined PHF 2035 Estmated Combined ADWF 2035 Estimated Combined PHF

Excess Capacity


The “No Change” alternative is a viable option for the City of Pontiac, as there is adequate spare

capacity.

4.1.8 Milford Village WWTP

4.1.8.1 Member CVTs

The Milford Village WWTP serves the Village of Milford and Camp Dearborn.

4.1.8.2 Background

The Milford Village WWTP is designed for an average daily wastewater flow of 1.04 MGD. The

current average daily flow is approximately 0.7 MGD, expected to increase to 0.8 MGD over the

study period. Figure 4-5 graphically depicts the flows and capacities of the Milford WWTP.



Figure 4-5 Milford Village WWTP

0.6250.68

0.075

0.075

0.7

1.04

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2005 Flows/Contracts 2005 ADWF 2005 ADDF Design

Capacity

Projected 2035

Flows/Contracts


Flo

w a

nd

Co

ntr

ac

ts (

MG

D)

2005 Design Capacity

2005 Actual Flow

Camp Dearborn Contract

Milford Village


The anticipated future average daily flow is expected to be below the design average daily flow.

The “No Change” alternative therefore, is a feasible option for Milford Village.

4.1.9 South Lyon WWTP

4.1.9.1 Member CVTs

The South Lyon WWTP serves the City of South Lyon.

4.1.9.2 Background

The newly upgraded plant’s capacity exceeds current and projected demands. Figure 4-6

graphically depicts the excess capacity.



Figure 4-6 South Lyon WWTP

2.5

1.0

2.7

1.1

3.01.5

4.2

1.4

3.9

6.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2005 ADWF ADDF Design

Capacity

2005 PHF PHF Design

Capacity

2035 ADWF 2035 PHF


Flo

ws

(M

GD

)

South Lyon WWTP Capacity 2005 Estimated ADF 2005 Estimated PHF

2035 Estimated ADF 2035 Estimated PHF Excess Capacity


The “No Change” alternative is a viable option for the City of South Lyon, as there is adequate

spare capacity.

4.1.10 Wixom WWTP

4.1.10.1 Member CVTs

The Wixom WWTP serves the City of Wixom and recently contracted with Milford for 1.0

MGD of treatment capacity.

4.1.10.2 Background

The current Wixom WWTP capacity is 4 MGD. Plans for expansion have been put on hold until

the effects of the loss of the Ford plant’s flow can be understood. Ford contributed

approximately 0.35 MGD to the ADWF. The 2005 Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is 2.2



MGD (including Ford); this leaves an excess capacity of approximately 1.8 MGD. Figure 4-7

summarizes the current and projected dry weather flows for the Wixom WWTP.

Figure 4-7 Wixom WWTP

4.0

2.2

1.0

3.7

1.8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

ADDF Design Capacity 2005 ADWF Estimated 2035 ADWFYear and Year Capacity

Flo

ws (

MG

D)

Wixom WWTP Capacity 2005 Estimated ADF 2035 Estimated ADF

Milford Contract Excess Capacity


The City of Wixom is committed to expand their plant if it is necessary. The “No Change”

alternative for the Wixom WWTP, means holding to that commitment. The recent

decommissioning of the local Ford plant, has brought the need for expansion into question.

4.1.11 Lyon Township WWTP


The Lyon Twp. WWTP serves Lyon Twp.



4.1.11.2 Background

The preliminary Sanitary Sewer System and Future Expansion Plans issued August 26, 2004

shows an aggressive plan to sewer the Township. It anticipates an expansion of the existing

groundwater discharge plant to an intermediate average daily flow capacity of 2.0 MGD, and an

ultimate average daily flow capacity capable of treating the projected build out ADWF of 4.24

MGD. The original design capacity was 1.0 MGD, while the plant is currently permitted for 3.0

MGD. MDEQ re-rated the two 0.5 MGD biological treatment units to a total design capacity of

0.75 MGD. Figure 4-8 summarizes the flows and capacities for the Lyon Township WWTP.

Figure 4-8 Lyon Township WWTP

0.75

0.26

4.24

0.49

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2005 ADWF ADDF Design Capacity 2035 ADWF


Flo

ws (

MG

D)

Lyon Twp. WWTP Capacity 2005 Estimated ADF 2035 Estimated ADF Excess Capacity


The “No Change” alternative assumes continued use existing WWTP without any upgrades and

all growth will utilize on-site private septic. Lyon Township determined that this is neither the

likely nor the intended option. The Township is aggressively adding sewers and the community



is actively pursuing upgrades to the WWTP. This alternative does not address any of the

Township’s needs.

4.1.12 Holly Village WWTP


The Holly Village WWTP serves Holly Village and the Pulte development in Holly Township.

The development is known as the Silverman property.

4.1.12.2 Background

The WWTP was recently upgraded and expanded to 1.8 MGD. Figure 4-9 summarizes the flows

and capacities Holly Village WWTP.

Figure 4-9 Holly Village WWTP

1.80

0.32

0.320.14

1.351.49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2005 ADF ADDF Design Capacity 2035 ADF


Flo

ws (

MG

D)

Holly Village WWTP Capacity 2005 Estimated ADF 2035 Estimated ADF

Holly Twp. Contract Excess Capacity




The “No Change” alternative is a feasible option for Holly Village, since the projected average

daily flow is equal to the plant capacity. Holly Village may want to consider another upgrade

when the plant reaches 80% capacity.

4.1.13 Highland Township WWTP


The Highland Township WWTP will serve portions of Highland Township.

4.1.13.2 Background

The recently completed Sewer master plan indicates an aggressive plan to sewer the most

densely populated areas of the Township, and treat the sewage in a new groundwater discharge

plant located in the north-west corner of the Township. The WWTP is associated with and 850-

acre proposed residential development known as the Levy property. The Township negotiated

with developers to connect to their water and wastewater systems. Two resolutions will build

approximately four miles of sanitary sewer along Milford Road as Special Assessment Districts

(SADs). Highland Township has a Sewer master plan that aggressively sewer the densely

populated areas of the Township. Highland is pursuing the construction of a local 2.18 MGD

groundwater discharge WWTP with an estimated cost of $17.4 million. Annual operating costs

are estimated at $1.26 million.


This alternative assumes Highland will carry out its plans to construct a WWTP and continue to

progress with the installation of sewage infrastructure. The proposed 2.18 MGD (average daily

flow) groundwater water discharge wastewater treatment plant is estimated to cost $17.4 million

(engineer’s estimate escalated to May 2005 dollars). The annual operating cost, assuming 100%

tie-in at startup of the plant, is estimated at $1.26 million or $11.90/Mcf. It is estimated that

approximately 28.5 acres of land will be required. Portions of the Township will still remain on

individual systems.



4.2 Alternative 2 – Construction of Relief Sewers

4.2.1 Eligible CVTs

This alternative affects the COSDS and its member communities.

4.2.2 Description

This alternative proposes construction of relief sewers for the COSDS with continued discharge

to DWSD, see Figure 4-1. For the purposes of developing this alternative, this Master Plan

acknowledges that there were improvements in flow management and reductions in extraneous

flow since 1991, but there are segments of the system that will continue to surcharge when peak

flows approach purchased capacity. The question as to how much surcharging will occur should

be further studied. It is beyond the scope of this Master Plan to examine such a complex system

as the COSDS in sufficient detail to contradict the findings of previous studies and/or establish

the requirement for new relief sewers. Therefore, this Master Plan will defer to the findings of

the modeling effort undertaken in the 1991 study as a “worst case” scenario. The 1991 report’s

findings included the following:

1. The recommended construction of relief sewers to convey peak wet weather flows out

of the system without surcharging the interceptor, or;

2. The construction of local storage structures to detain peak flows and release them at a

lower rate.

Table 4-4 shows the total project costs for the construction of relief sewers as detailed in the

1991 study. The construction of local storage basins in place of relief sewers was not a feasible

alternative due to the high cost. Construction costs for local storage at or near the major COSDS

connections were estimated to be $23 million in 1991 dollars. Including project contingencies,

this is over $50 million in total project costs in 2005 dollars.



Table 4-4 Capital Cost Summary for Clinton-Oakland Interceptor Relief Sewers

"Refined" Parallel Pipe Size (inches)

Length (ft) Unit Cost*

(1991 Dollars/ ft) Total cost*

(1991 Dollars)

12 20522 $87 $1,785,400

18 20028 $115 $2,303,200

42 929 $140 $130,100

Construction Subtotal(1991Dollars)= $4,218,700

Construction Subtotal(2005Dollars)= $6,500,000

20%Eng.,Legal,Admin.= $1,300,000

30%ConstructionContingencies= $1,950,000

Total Capital Cost(2005Dollars)= $9,750,000

4.3 Alternative 3 – Diversion of 8 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP

4.3.1 Eligible CVTs


4.3.2 Description

This alternative involves intercepting flow in the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor at a location near

Perry Street and diverting 8 MGD to the Pontiac WWTP through approximately 12,000 L.F. of

48-inch diameter gravity sewer line within the existing Grand Trunk Western Railroad

(GTWRR) property. This conveyance system was examined in detail in the technical

memorandum entitled “Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment” that is part of the DWSD

Wastewater Master Plan (2003). The area tributary to the point of diversion is illustrated in

Figure 4-10. The 2005 and 2035 average daily flows (ADF) at the point of interception are 15

MGD and 20 MGD, respectively.

Troy

Pontiac

Orion Township

Rochester Hills


Oakland Township

Brandon Township


Waterford Township

Groveland Township

White Lake Township


Auburn Hills

Commerce TownshipBloomfield Township


Rose Township

Holly Township

Milford Township

Highland Township

Wixom

Rochester

Bloomfield Hills

Orchard Lake

Birmingham

Milford Village

Lake Angelus

Walled Lake

Oxford Village

Holly Village


Lake Orion Village

Sylvan Lake

Leonard Village

Ortonville Village

Clawson

Clarkston

Keego Harbor

0 4 82 Miles

LegendExpanded Pontiac WWTP Service Area

Area Remaining in COSDS with DWSD Discharge

Pontiac WWTP

Interceptor to Pontiac WWTP - Proposed


Existing Interceptor Sewer

Existing Force Main

Oakland Co.

St. Clair Co.

Wayne Co.

Lapeer Co.

Genesee Co.

Washtenaw Co.

Macomb Co.Livingston Co.

Figure 4-10

Diversion of 8 MGD and 20 MGD of Flow

to Pontiac WWTP


J:\1

364

7263

\Wa

ter\

Alte

rn.R

pt\F

ig3

-2.m

xd

75



As discussed in Volume 2- Existing Facilities Report of this Master Plan, the existing treatment

facilities owned by the City of Pontiac include the East Boulevard and Auburn WWTPs. These

two plants are collectively referred to as the Pontiac WWTP since they operate under a single

NPDES permit. Expansion of the Pontiac WWTP was only considered at the Auburn Plant

because of the land available at this site.

The combined plants have a reported ADDF of 21.6 MGD average daily flow and a maximum

flow of 30.0 MGD. The City of Pontiac has pursued continuing I/I reduction efforts, and the

reported average daily flow was 9.4 MGD and peak hour flow was 18.7 MGD. Based on these

values, there appears to be some available capacity in the Pontiac WWTP. However it is beyond

the scope of this Master Plan to conduct the detailed analysis required to determine exactly how

much capacity is available based on influent loadings and effluent permit limits. Therefore this

Master Plan will conservatively assume that the available Pontiac WWTP capacity is 8 MGD.

Additional detailed study and a plant stress test are recommended to determine the exact capacity

that is available and under what conditions.

Any flows in excess of 8 MGD would be discharged to DSWD via the Clinton-Oakland

Interceptor so there would be no need for additional flow equalization at the Pontiac WWTP site.

This arrangement would require the construction of a flow splitting interconnect structure at the

point of diversion. The COSDS would remain intact as a single SDS with two discharge points.

A portion of the COSDS flow would be treated at the Pontiac WWTP site at a certain treatment

cost per unit, and the remainder of the flow would be treated by DSWD at another treatment cost

per unit.

The COSDS communities would pay a single “blended” rate for wastewater treatment. The

estimated cost of treatment at the Pontiac WWTP was determined from analysis of the “City of

Pontiac Sewer Rate Study (1996)”. Review of this study indicates that it would cost the City of

Pontiac about $16.40 (2.20/1,000 gallon) per thousand cubic feet (2005 dollars) for wastewater

treatment from a wholesale customer. The final wholesale user rate charged by the City of

Pontiac for treatment of COSDS flows would need to be negotiated. The current DWSD

wholesale user rate is $11.01 per thousand cubic feet (2005 dollars).

The installation of relief sewers, as discussed in Alternative 2 above, may still be required for

this alternative to address the interceptor capacity upstream from the point of diversion to



Pontiac (see Figure 4-1). The cost of installing interceptor relief sewers upstream from the point

of diversion is detailed in Table 4-5. An updated system model and analysis should be completed

to determine the future conveyance requirements for this portion of the Clinton-Oakland

Interceptor.

Table 4-5 Alternative 3: Capital Cost Summary for 8 MGD Pontiac Diversion

Item Cost

Relief Sewers $4,900,000

Conveyance System Construction $27,400,000

Construction Subtotal $32,300,000

20% Eng., Legal, Admin. $6,500,000

30% Construction Contingencies $9,700,000

Total Capital Cost (2005 Dollars) $48,500,000

4.4 Alternative 4 – Diversion of 20 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP

4.4.1 Eligible CVTs


4.4.2 Description

This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 above in all respects except that the proposed flow-

splitting interconnect structure at the point of diversion would divert a maximum 20 MGD to the

Pontiac WWTP site. 20 MGD of flow is significant because it represents the year 2035 average

daily flow for the entire service area. In this alternative 8 MGD would be treated at the existing

Pontiac WWTP facilities at an estimated treatment cost of $16.40 per thousand cubic feet (2005

dollars), and the remaining 12 MGD would be treated at a new parallel WWTP that would be

constructed at the site of the existing Pontiac WWTP.

The cost of treatment at this new WWTP is estimated to be $12.42 per thousand cubic feet (2005

dollars). All peak wet weather flows in excess of this 12 MGD would be discharged via the

Clinton-Oakland Interceptor to DWSD at a treatment cost of $11.01 per thousand cubic feet

(2005 dollars). Table 4-6 summarizes the costs per thousand cubic feet for each of the 3 sources



of treatment. The COSDS communities would pay a single “blended” rate for wastewater

treatment.

Table 4-6 Alternative 4: Treatment Cost Summary for COSDS

Source of Treatment

2035 ADF from COSDS (MGD)

Treatment Cost per Mcf

Ex. City of Pontiac WWTP

8 $16.40

New Parallel WWTP

12 $12.42

DWSD 15 $11.01

The DWSD Wastewater Master Plan (2003) examined expansion of the Pontiac WWTP in the

technical memorandum entitled “Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment”. The approach in

the technical memorandum was to divert as much flow as possible (100%) out of the COSDS for

treatment at a new WWTP constructed near the site of the existing Pontiac WWTP. In

comparison, this Master Plan will examine an alternative whereby the existing facilities at the

Pontiac WWTP are maximized to treat the average daily flow diverted out of the COSDS and the

peak wet weather flows are discharged to DWSD.

Interceptor relief in the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor would still be constructed upstream from the

point of diversion (contingent upon further study). Table 4-7 summarizes the capital costs for

Alternative 4.




4.5 Alternative 5 - Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to the Pontiac WWTP

4.5.1 Eligible CVTs

This alternative affects the COSDS , its member communities, and White Lake Township.

4.5.2 Description

This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 above in all respects except that the

proposed flow splitting interconnect structure at the point of diversion would divert a maximum

22 MGD average daily flow to the Pontiac WWTP site. This alternative assumes the addition of

2 MGD of flow from White Lake Township into the COSDS. The area tributary to the point of

diversion is illustrated in Figure 4-11. Of the total 22 MGD of average daily flow, 8 MGD would

be treated at the existing Pontiac WWTP facilities. A new WWTP constructed near the site of

the existing Pontiac WWTP would treat the remaining 14 MGD of average daily flow. All peak

wet weather flows would be discharged to DWSD via the Clinton-Oakland Interceptor.

Item Alternative 4

Cost

Relief Sewers Upstream of Pontiac $4,900,000

Conveyance System Construction $27,400,000

WWTP Construction $50,500,000

Construction Subtotal $82,800,000

20% Eng., Legal, Admin. $16,600,000

30% Construction Contingencies $24,800,000


Troy

Pontiac

Orion Township

Rochester Hills


Oakland Township

Brandon Township


Waterford Township

Groveland Township

White Lake Township


Auburn Hills

Commerce TownshipBloomfield Township


Rose Township

Holly Township

Milford Township

Highland Township

Wixom

Rochester

Bloomfield Hills

Orchard Lake

Birmingham

Milford Village

Lake Angelus

Walled Lake

Oxford Village

Holly Village


Lake Orion Village

Sylvan Lake

Leonard Village

Ortonville Village

Clawson

Clarkston

Keego Harbor

0 4 82 Miles

LegendExpanded Pontiac WWTP Service Area

Area Remaining in COSDS with DWSD Discharge

Pontiac WWTP

Interceptor to Pontiac WWTP - Proposed


Existing Interceptor Sewer

Existing Force Main

Oakland Co.

St. Clair Co.

Wayne Co.

Lapeer Co.

Genesee Co.

Washtenaw Co.

Macomb Co.Livingston Co.

Figure 4-11

Diversion of 22 MGD of Flow to

Pontiac WWTP


J:\1

364

7263

\Wa

ter\

Alte

rn.R

pt\F

ig3

-3.m

xd

80



Interceptor relief would still be constructed upstream from the point of diversion. However, the

relief sewers would need to be sized larger (compared to those in Alternatives 3 and 4) to

accommodate the additional flow from White Lake Township. This Master Plan will assume

that the increase in construction cost for the larger relief sewers as compared to those in

Alternative(s) 3 (and 4) will be proportional to the increase in flow (20% more flow). Table 4-8

summarizes the capital costs for Alternative 5.


Item Alternative 5

Cost

Relief Sewers $ 5,900,000

Conveyance System Construction $ 27,400,000

WWTP Construction $ 55,300,000

Construction Subtotal $ 88,600,000

20% Eng., Legal, Admin. $ 17,700,000

30% Construction Contingencies $ 26,600,000


4.6 Alternative 6 – Construction of a New WWTP on the Clinton River

4.6.1 Eligible CVTs


4.6.2 Description

Alternative 6 involves the construction of a new WWTP on the Clinton River that would accept

all flow diverted from the Clinton Oakland Interceptor.

Three possible locations for WWTPs that would discharge to the Clinton River were examined in

the technical memorandum entitled “Technical Feasibility of Satellite Treatment” which is part

of the DWSD Wastewater Master Plan (2003). These alternatives were developed for flows

anticipated through 2050. The most cost effective alternative (on a dollars per gallon) basis was

shown to be construction of a new WWTP on the Clinton River in Macomb County. The

proposed location for the WWTP would be east of Mound Road and north of 22 Mile Road at the



Ford Motor Company (FOMOCO) Proving Grounds. One advantage of this site is that it is

located along the existing interceptor, so conveyance costs would be minimized. It should be

noted that FOMOCO has not been contacted concerning this option. If this option is pursued in

the future, Oakland County will need to discuss this alternative with FOMOCO. Note that land

acquisition costs associated with this alternative were not developed and could be significant.

The cost would be completely dependent upon negotiations between the parties involved.

The treatment plant size for this option was reduced from that in the DWSD WWMP using a

linear regression to predict the ADDF that would be required in 2035. The resulting annual

average ADDF was 52.8 MGD. The costs were reduced based on the decreased ADDF and

updated to a May 2005 basis using published ENR values. In addition, conveyance costs were

developed, as they were assumed to be negligible in the DWSD WWMP. The resulting costs

anticipated for Oakland County are summarized in Table 4-9.

The proposed service area includes all of the COSDS and a portion of Macomb County. Based

on the projected 2035 service area population, the new WWTP would treat an average daily flow

of 52.8 MGD and a maximum day flow of 102 MGD from this service area. The system would

be designed such that flow in the interceptor that exceeds the maximum ADDF would travel past

the new plant and be treated at the existing DWSD WWTP. A new 96-inch gravity sewer would

be constructed to carry the flow from the Interceptor to the WWTP. A 96-inch gravity effluent

pipe would discharge the treated flow to the Clinton River. The cost of the WWTP is

approximately $274.9 million, as shown in Table 4-9. Operation and Maintenance costs are

shown in Table 4-10.



Table 4-9 Alternative 6: Capital Cost Summary for New WWTP along the Clinton River

Cost Categories Cost ($ Million)

WWTP $148.4

Conveyance $10.7

Total Capital and Conveyance Cost $159.1

Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees (20%) $31.8

Contingencies 30%) $47.7

Total Capital Cost (April 2002 Dollars) $238.6

Total Capital Cost (May 2005 Dollars) $274.9

Table 4-10 O & M Cost Summary for New WWTP along the Clinton River

Annual O & M Costs Cost ($ Million)

In April 2002 Dollars $22.5

In May 2005 Dollars $25.9

Treatment at the new plant would consist of screening, grit removal, primary settling, aeration,

final settling, filtration, and ultraviolet disinfection. Solids would be treated, dewatered, and

disposed of in a landfill.

4.7 Alternative 7 – Conveyance to COSDS

4.7.1 Eligible CVTs

This alternative affects the COSDS, its existing member communities, and the following

additional communities:

• Oakland Township (additional portions)

• Springfield Township

• White Lake Township



4.7.2 Description

Alternative 7 expands the COSDS to new, previously unsewered areas, but requires there be

available capacity in the COSDS interceptors. Alternative 2 through Alternative 6 provide

methods of generating capacity in the COSDS.

4.7.3 Oakland Township

The southwest portion of Oakland Twp. is in the COSDS. The remainder of the Township is

outside of the COSDS service area boundary. The future land use for much of this area (from

the Oakland County Composite Master Plan) is single-family homes on lots smaller than one

acre. This alternative assumes that additional capacity becomes available in the COSDS and that

the contract can be modified to include this portion of Oakland Township. If these two criteria

are met, then conveyance into the COSDS could be achieved through construction of a pump

station on Snell Rd. near the bridge over the West Branch Stony Creek. Wastewater would be

pumped via 4,900 LF of force main and 6,900 LF of gravity sewer. The total estimated project

cost for this alternative is $7.4 Million.

4.7.4 Springfield

The Township would like to see sewers only in selected areas. The most densely developed areas

in the Township are along Dixie Highway and I-75. This area represents an estimated 0.75

MGD of wastewater.

4.7.5 White Lake

White Lake could convey wastewater flow through a new gravity interceptor sewer to the

COSDS. It is assumed that the future average daily wastewater flow from White Lake Township

will be 3.5 MGD and the peak flow would be 9.7 MGD. Assuming a new gravity line installed

at minimum recommended slope, the interceptor would need to be 42-inches in diameter. This

new line would intercept the wastewater flow from White Lake Township in the vicinity of

meter 6600 near the intersection of Glade St. and Cooley Lake Road. The interceptor would

follow Cooley Lake Road up to Cass Elizabeth Rd. and tie into the 54-inch diameter Clinton-

Oakland Interceptor. The estimated capital cost for construction of the 22,500-foot long, 42-inch

diameter White Lake Interceptor is $28.9 Million.



4.8 Alternative 8 – Service from Genesee County Kearsley Creek Interceptor

(KCI) Main Arm Only

Since the 1970s, the Genesee County Drain Commissioner’s wastewater master plan has

included the northwest portion of Oakland County in the regional service area. Service to this

portion of Oakland County is contingent upon the construction of two new interceptor sewers.

The first is called the Northeast Relief Sewer (NERS), which is currently under construction and

the second interceptor is the Kearsley Creek Interceptor (KCI), which has yet to been designed.

The KCI could potentially have two arms, a Main Arm to serve Village of Ortonville and

Brandon Township (described in this alternative) and a West Arm to serve the I-75/Dixie

Highway corridor in Holly and Groveland Townships (described in Alternative 9).

The construction costs for the KCI Main Arm are detailed in a 2001 Sewer System Analysis

Update of Genesee County Sewage Disposal System #1 ARTP Service Area. The total

estimated capital cost for the recommended route of the Main Arm is $25.8 Million.

The proposed Main Arm varies in size from 24-inch diameter at the county line to 36-inch

diameter at the discharge to the NERS. It is mostly gravity with one section of 20-inch diameter

force main. The 2004 Village of Ortonville Wastewater Facilities Feasibility Study examined

participation in constructing the KCI Main Arm. The cost of constructing the Main Arm was

proposed to be shared by four Genesee County CVTs and two Oakland County CVTs. The total

combined units from all of these communities were 14,800 REUs. The Village of Ortonville was

estimated to have 1,000 REUs and Brandon Township to have 1,600 REUs. If no other

communities participated, then the full burden of the capital cost would be supported by only

these 2,600 REUs in Village of Ortonville and Brandon Twp.

If all other communities participated (14,800 REUs), and each community contributed in

proportion to their number of REUs, then the Village of Ortonville/Brandon Twp. portion would

be approximately $4.53 million. Table 4-11 summarizes the costs associated with the KCI Main

Arm alternative.



Table 4-11 GCDC Service (KCI Main Arm Only)

Community REUs Portion of

GCDC Cap. Cost ($M)

Local Cap. Cost ($M)

Total Cost ($M)

Brandon Twp. 1,600 2.79 5.85 8.63

Village of Ortonville 1,000 1.74 3.65 5.39

Genesee Co. CVTs 12,200 21.25 - -

Total 25.78 - -

The projected cost of service for wastewater treatment by GCDC is currently $12 per REU per

month. Assuming an REU is equivalent to 315 gallons per day (which is the GCDC design

standard), then the volumetric cost of service for the GCDC treatment option is $9.50/Mcf.

4.9 Alternative 9 – Service from Genesee County KCI Main Arm and West Arm

This alternative includes the construction of the KCI West Arm in addition to the Main Arm.

Holly Twp. and Groveland Twp. could contribute an additional 3,100 REUs (2,800 and 300

REUs respectively) from the I-75 corridor. It is assumed that the West Arm would be gravity

sewer, and that it would not be any smaller than 24-inch diameter to accommodate any additional

future flows.

The total estimated capital cost associated with construction of the West Arm is $4.7 million. In

addition to the cost of the West Arm, it is assumed that Holly and Groveland Townships would

also have to fund some proportional share of the KCI Main Arm. The estimated Holly/Groveland

proportional share of the construction cost of the Main Arm (based on number of REUs) could

be an additional $3.5 million. So the total capital cost to Holly and Groveland Townships would

be a combined $17.71 million for this scenario. Table 4-12 summarizes the costs associated with

the KCI Main and West Arm alternative.



Table 4-12 GCDC Service (Both KCI Main and West Arms)

Community REUs Portion of

GCDC Cap. Cost ($M)

Local Cap. Cost ($M)

Total Cost ($M)

Brandon Twp. 1,600 1.80 5.85 7.65

Village of Ortonville 1,000 1.13 3.65 4.78

Holly Twp. 2,800 7.41 - 7.41

Groveland Twp. 300 0.80 9.50 10.30

Genesee Co. CVTs 17,200 27.82 - -

Total 38.96 - -

The projected cost of service for Alternative 9 is the same as that for Alternative 8, i.e.

$12 per REU per month.

4.10 Alternative 10 – Treatment by Another City/Village/Township (CVT)

4.10.1 Eligible CVTs

In order to meet the wastewater treatment needs identified in Volume 3 – The Needs

Assessment, several communities may want to consider agreements with neighboring

communities’ WWTPs. Table 4-13 identifies the Oakland County CVTs for which Alternative

10 is viable.



Table 4-13 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 10 – Treatment by Another

City/Village/Township

No. Community

1 Brandon Township

2 Lyon Township

3 Milford Township

4 Rose Township

4.10.2 Brandon Served by the Village of Ortonville

Brandon Township indicated it would like the Bald Eagle Lake and Lake Louise areas as well as

the M-15 corridor to be sewered. This is consistent with the composite master land use plan

located in Appendix A of the Volume 3- Needs Assessment Report. These areas will have the

highest population density in the Township. It is estimated that this area would produce

approximately 0.5 MGD of average daily wastewater flow. This Ortonville could account for

this flow in its expansion plans (see Section 4.11.5). Adding the flow from Brandon Township

would increase the proposed capacity to 0.82 MGD.

Based on 0.5 MGD being contributed by Brandon Township, it is estimated that the expanded or

larger plant would cost approximately $11.1 million. Assuming that Brandon Township and

Village of Ortonville build the plant together, Brandon’s share would be $ 7.4 million. Brandon

Township’s share of the estimated annual operating costs of $0.74 million or $18.5/Mcf would

be approximately $0.44 million or $18.2/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 6.7 acres of

land will be required.

4.10.3 Lyon Township Served by South Lyon WWTP

Since the Lyon Township has worked towards expanding its own groundwater discharge plant,

South Lyon has not planned on serving the Township. However, pending the outcome of that

Lyon Township’s expansion efforts, the possibility of expanding the South Lyon plant to treat

wastewater from the Township could be considered.

Expanding the South Lyon plant by 3.24 MGD from 2.5 MGD to 5.74 MGD is estimated to cost

approximately $17.5 million. Based on completing construction in 2015, the estimated annual



operating cost at startup (with 25% hook-up of Lyon Twp. residents) is approximately $1.48

million or $9.18/MCF. In 2035 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately

$1.78 million or $6.34/MCF. It is estimated that approximately 8.7 acres will be required for

expanding the surface water discharge plant.

4.10.4 Milford Township Served by Wixom WWTP

The Township started a study in 1999 to provide sanitary service to the southerly four sections of

the Township. A draft report was issued in March 2000. Three alternatives were investigated: 1)

New Groundwater Discharge Plant, 2) Discharge to Wixom WWTP , and 3) New Surface Water

Discharge WWTP. Due to the large area required for the GWDP, and the need for low

phosphorous levels in alternative 3, the Township chose alternative 2.

The Township now has an agreement with the City of Wixom to treat up to 1.0 MGD of

wastewater from the proposed development corridor in the southeast corner of the Township.

The additional flow may or may not require an expansion of the Wixom WWTP (see Section

4.1.10).

A 1.22 MGD plant expansion is estimated to cost approximately $7.5 million (engineer’s

estimate in May 2005 dollars). Although in Milford’s original study the estimated capital cost

for this option ranged from approximately $2 to $3.3 million, it appears the cost will be closer to

$7.5 million dollars, and possibly higher. Based on completing construction in 2010, the

estimated annual operating costs at startup (with an additional 25% hook-up of Township

residents) are approximately $1.45 million or $9.44/Mcf. In 2035 the annual operating costs are

estimated to be approximately $1.57 million or $8.26/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 4.1

acres will be required for expanding Wixom’s surface water discharge plant.

4.10.5 Rose Township Served by Holly Village WWTP

Rose Township expressed a strong desire to remain rural and expects a modest increase in

population over the years. Presently, there is about 50 new homes built per year, and the

Township expects these to be served by on-site disposal systems. The development immediately

south of Holly Village near Stiff Mill Pond, and the area immediately west of this area may be

candidates for being served by Holly Village. It is estimated that this area may represent

approximately 500 REUs, or approximately 0.16 MGD of wastewater.



The Holly Village WWTP will have 1.35 MGD Average Daily Design Flow (ADDF), however

if any excess capacity exists, it will not be known until it has been running for several months. If

the WWTP accepted wastewater from Rose Township there would be minimal cost of

conveyance due to the proximity of the developments. The annual operating cost will increase

the current cost of approximately $1.0 million to approximately $1.08 million in 2035. Financial

considerations for this alternative were not developed due to the insignificant portion of the

Township that might be served and Rose Township’s desire to remain rural.

4.11 Alternative 11 – New/Expansion-of Local Treatment

4.11.1 Eligible CVTs

In order to meet the wastewater treatment needs identified in Volume 3 – The Needs

Assessment, several communities may want to consider building a new WWTP or expanding an

existing WWTP. Table 4-14 identifies the Oakland County CVTs for which Alternative 11 is

viable.

Table 4-14 Communities that may Benefit from Alternative 11 – New/Expansion of Local

Treatment

No. Community

1 Groveland Township

2 Holly Township

3 Oakland Township

4 Ortonville Village

5 Lyon Township

6 Springfield Township

7 White Lake Township

4.11.2 Groveland Township

Groveland Township does not have a public wastewater system and expects that future growth

will likely be served by on-site disposal systems. The Township recommends the installation of

sewers in the area of the old gravel pits near Grange Hall Road, which represents an estimated

0.1 MGD average daily flow. Should the Township be interested in constructing their own



ground water discharge plant, it is recommended that they hire an engineering firm to prepare

detailed construction and operating costs.

Assuming a plant capacity of 0.1 MGD, and using the cost estimates obtained from many of the

wastewater treatment plant expansions in Oakland County, it is estimated that the cost of a new

groundwater discharge plant will cost approximately $3.6 million. This excludes the cost of

conveyance from theses areas to the plant. Construction is assumed to be completed in 2015.

The estimated annual operating costs at startup (with 25% hook-up) are approximately $0.06

million or $49.2/Mcf. In 2015 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately

$0.13 million or $26.7/Mcf. Approximately 2.0 acres of land will be required.

4.11.3 Holly Township

Several years ago, the Township pursued an interest in providing sewers for the business area in

the northeast part of the Township between Dixie Highway and Interstate 75. This area was

estimated to produce approximately 0.75 MGD of wastewater flow and planned to be connected

to Genesee County for treatment. However, should the Township be interested in constructing

their own ground water discharge plant, it is recommended that they hire an engineering firm to

prepare detailed construction and operating costs. A groundwater discharge treatment plant with

a capacity of 0.75 MGD, is estimated to cost $13.4 million. This excludes the cost of

conveyance to the plant. Construction is assumed to be completed in 2010. The estimated

annual operating costs at startup (with 25% hook-up) are approximately $0.21 million or

$23.0/Mcf. In 2030 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $0.69 million

or $18.9/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 10.9 acres will be required for a groundwater

discharge plant.

The Township has recently secured an agreement with Holly Village for a capacity of 0.315

MGD to serve the new (Pulte) developments immediately west of the Village.

4.11.4 Oakland Township

The Township has indicated that “any growth will be on sewers if there is sewer capacity”. The

Township is expected to grow by 12,131 people between 2005 and 2035. Assuming 75% of this

growth is sewered, and applying the criteria of 2.7 persons per REU, and a wastewater quantity



of 315 gallons per REU, it is estimated that this number of people will produce an average daily

wastewater flow of approximately 1.0 MGD.

Following these assumptions, a plant capacity of 1.0 MGD is required in the year 2035. Since

the average life span of a wastewater treatment plant is 20 years, and construction is assumed to

be completed in 2010, an expansion is required in the year 2030. The capacity of the initial plant

is 0.85 MGD, and the capacity of the expansion is 0.15 MGD.

A groundwater discharge treatment plant with a capacity of 0.85 MGD, is estimated to cost $14.1

million. A groundwater discharge treatment plant with a capacity of 0.15 MGD, is estimated to

cost $4.8 million. Both these estimates exclude the cost of conveyance. The estimated annual

operating costs at startup in year 2010 (with 25% hook-up) are approximately $0.27 million or

$22.1/Mcf. In 2030 the annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $0.76 million

or $18.3/Mcf. The annual operating cost at year 2035 is estimated at approximately $0.84

million or $17.2/Mcf. It is estimated that the initial groundwater discharge plant will require

approximately 12.2 acres, and that the expansion in 2030 will require an additional 2.7 acres.

4.11.5 Ortonville Township

The Village of Ortonville hired an engineering firm to perform a Wastewater Facilities

Feasibility Study. This was completed in April 2004, and recommended the construction of a

low-pressure collection system, and a surface water discharge wastewater treatment plant. The

wastewater treatment plant is sized to accommodate 1,000 REUs (currently there are 855 REUs

within the Village), which corresponds to a capacity of 0.32 MGD at the 315 gallons per capita

per day criteria used in the study.

Their engineer recommended the use of package WWTP with discharge to Kearsley Creek. The

estimated cost for the 0.32 MGD average daily flow WWTP is $3.7 million (engineer’s estimate

escalated to May 2005 dollars). The annual operating cost is estimated to be approximately

$0.33 million or $21.5/Mcf. It is estimated that approximately 5.1 acres of land would be

required.

4.11.6 Lyon Township WWTP

Lyon Township is currently pursuing plans to expand its WWTP. The current capacity of the

WWTP is limited by the biological reactors to 0.75 MGD, however planned upgrades will



improve the plant capacity to an Average Daily Design Flow (ADDF) of 2.0 MGD. This

expansion, if approved by the MDEQ, is scheduled to be completed in 2008. In view of the

projected population increases and planned increases in sewered areas, Lyon Township’s flow

will require another WWTP upgrade in approximately 2018. It is assumed that this upgrade will

be sized to treat the projected 4.24 MGD of flow generated by the build-out population. The

current NPDES permit allows for a discharge of up to 3.0 MGD. It is also assumed that an

updated NPDES permit will be approved for the discharge of at least 4.24 MGD.

The proposed 1.0 MGD expansion of the wastewater treatment plant in 2008 is estimated to cost

$15.0 million. The annual operating cost is expected to increase from $0.70 million or

$20.51/MCF at a flow of 0.7 MGD in 2008 to $1.21 million or $12.41/MCF at a flow of 2.0

MGD in 2018. It is estimated that approximately 14.1 acres will be required for the 2008

expansion of the groundwater discharge plant.

The proposed 2.24 MGD expansion of the wastewater treatment plant in 2018 is estimated to

cost $20.1 million. The annual operating cost is expected to increase from $1.21 million or

$12.1/MCF at a flow of 2.0 MGD in 2018 to $1.61 million or $7.79/MCF at a flow of 4.24 MGD

in 2035. It is estimated that approximately 29.3 acres will be required for the 2018 expansion of

the groundwater discharge plant.

4.11.7 White Lake Township

White Lake is served by the Commerce-White Lake WWTP. Expansion of the Commerce-

White Lake WWTP is discussed in Section 4.1.5 under “Alternative 1 – No Change” because

Commerce Township is committed to expanding the plant. The size of the expansion depends

greatly on White Lake Township’s decision regarding its wastewater treatment alternatives. This

alternative (Alternative 11 – New/Expansion–of Local Treatment) assumes White Lake will

leverage its contract for 3.64 MGD of treatment at the Commerce-White Lake WWTP after the

WWTP expansion. White Lake’s projected 2035 ADWF of 3.5 MGD is less than its contracted

amount (3.64 MGD).

4.12 Alternative 12 – Divert Flow From GWKSDS to an Expanded Warren WWTP

This alternative involves transporting wastewater from the Twelve Towns area and expanding

the Warren WWTP to accommodate the additional flow.



The existing Warren WWTP was constructed in 1959 and later expanded to its current capacity

of 36 MGD. The WWTP effluent is discharged to the Red Run Drain. The WWTP has an

average daily flow of approximately 23.2 MGD. The collection system is separated, but due to

the age of the system, wet weather flows are relatively high due to inflow and infiltration. There

is a 50 million gallon retention basin at the WWTP to retain wet weather flows in excess of the

treatment capacity. On occasion, the basin capacity is exceeded and wastewater discharged is a

blend of treated effluent. For the purposes of this Master Plan, it is assumed that there is no

available capacity available to serve districts outside of the existing service area. There are

approximately 25 acres of land available for expansion of the Warren WWTP southwest of the

existing facility that is south of Big Beaver Creek and north of Red Run Drain.

The DWSD Wastewater Master Plan (2003 technical memorandum entitled “Technical

Feasibility of Satellite Treatment”) contains detailed information on the alternative to expand the

Warren WWTP. In the memorandum, two WWTPs options were considered depending on the

population to be served. The first option was to construct a 14 MGD WWTP and the second was

to investigate a 40 MGD facility. The 40 MGD option includes portions of Macomb County in

the service area. It was decided to focus on serving areas within Oakland County only at this

time. For this reason, the Master Plan only investigates a 14 MGD expansion of the Warren

WWTP.

The DWSD Master Plan evaluated an ADDF of 14 MGD. This area is anticipated to experience

minimal growth between 2000 and 2050, as the current flow in this area is 13.8 MGD. For this

reason, the 14 MGD ADDF from the DWSD Master Plan was retained in this evaluation for

Oakland County. The new WWTP would treat an average daily flow of 14 MGD and a

maximum day flow of 35 MGD. In order to handle peak flows, it assumed that the existing 50

million gallon retention basin at the Warren WWTP would be available to equalize the flow to

the expanded portion of the plant. Wastewater would be taken from the Dequindre Interceptor

that is located west of the Warren WWTP. Bringing the wastewater to the expanded Warren

WWTP would involve installing a 48-inch gravity sewer pipe of approximately 20,000 linear

feet. The sewer pipe would have to be placed in a tunnel.



Treatment at the expanded plant would consist of screening, grit removal, primary settling,

aeration, secondary settling, filtration, and ultraviolet disinfection. Solids would be treated,

dewatered, and disposed of in a landfill.

The capital costs for the Warren WWTP are shown in Table 4-15. The anticipated operation and

maintenance cost is shown in Table 4-16.

Table 4-15 Capital Cost Summary for 14 MGD Warren WWTP Expansion

Cost Categories Cost ($ Million)

WWTP $48.1

Conveyance $43.8

Total Capital and Conveyance Cost $98.2

Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees (20%) $19.6

Contingencies 30%) $29.5

Total Capital Cost (April 2002 Dollars) $147.3

Total Capital Cost (May 2005 Dollars) $169.7

Table 4-16 O & M Cost Summary for 14 MGD Warren WWTP Expansion

Annual O & M Costs Cost ($ Million)

In April 2002 Dollars $6.7

In May 2005 Dollars $7.7

A more detailed study is required to estimate specific costs allocated to each participating

community. For this reason, Alternative 12 is not included in Volume 5 - Financial Model and

no financial considerations are included in Appendix A.

Project Delivery Methods


5.0 Project Delivery Methods

5.1 General

A municipality has several different project delivery options when considering the design and

construction of new public infrastructure. They include the following:

• Conventional Design-Bid-Build

• Design/Build

• Design/Build/Operate & Design/Build/Operate/Transfer

A description of each project delivery method along with the advantages and disadvantages of

each is provided below. Refer to Table 5-1 for a summary of the options.

Table 5-1 Summary of Delivery Method Advantages and Disadvantages

Method Advantages Disadvantages

Desig

n-B

uild

� Single entity responsible for design and construction

� Optimized communication between designer and builder

� Single point of accountability

� Time savings

� Early knowledge of project costs

� Not legal in some jurisdictions

� Relatively new concept.

Desig

n-B

id-B

uil

d

� Traditional, Proven Approach

� Competitive bidding results in lowest cost.

� Building is fully defined.

� Relative ease of assuring quality control

� Agency gets involved with conflicts

� Builder not involved in design process

� May be slower

� Price is not certain until construction bids are received.

Desig

n-B

uild

-O

pera

te

� Single entity responsible for design, construction, & operation

� Optimized communication between designer, builders, & Operators

� Reduced risk of unnoticed issues

� Extremely difficult to price

� Potential to limit competition

� Less direct control over the project

� Owner is required to make quicker decisions



5.2 Design-Bid-Build

The traditional project delivery method is the Design-Bid-Build approach. This approach

separates the design and construction responsibilities by assigning separate contracts to a design

firm and contractor. This method consists of a Design Phase, a Bidding Phase and a Construction

Phase.

During the initial design phase, a design contract would be awarded to an engineer, who is

responsible for preparing a complete design package. In the bidding phase, the owner solicits

bids from contractors based on the bid documents prepared by the design firm. Contractors

submit competitive bids, and the owner awards the construction contract to lowest and best bid.

Typically, the owner secures the services of the design firm to administer the construction

contract with the Contractor.

The Design-Bid-Build approach has many advantages. Because the drawings and specifications

are completed before bids are solicited, there is little uncertainty about the owner expectations

and the contract terms are relatively clear. The bidding process creates a competitive

environment with contractors and presumably provides low cost product. The contract between

the owner and the construction contractor are the detailed working drawings and specifications,

which provides a clear standard to verify the contractors’ materials and workmanship on the

project.

Disadvantages with the traditional approach include the following. In the design-bid-build

process the owner is the guarantor of the engineer’s drawings and specifications, involving the

owner in conflicts and disputes. Another disadvantage is that builder is not involved in the design

phase and therefore cannot input on construction materials or methods. The design-bid-build

approach is normally slower than other approaches such as design-build because the design-bid-

build approach involves a sequential process. The engineer will give the owner a cost estimate

for the project but there is no cost certainty until the construction bids were received.

5.3 Design-Build

In the Design-build method, two usually separate services are combined into one contract. With

the design-build method, owners execute a single contract for both engineering services and



construction. The design-build entity may be a single firm, a group, a joint venture or other

organization assembled for a particular project.

With the design-build method, the designer-builder assumes responsibility for the majority of the

design work and all construction activities. When using the design-build method, owners usually

retain responsibility for financing, operating and maintaining the project. While design-build

methods were more prevalent in private sector work, it is also gaining acceptance among many

public sector owners.

Some of the advantages of the Design-Build method are that a single entity is responsible for the

design and the construction of the project creating better understanding and communication

between the design phase and the construction phase. Because the design and construction

personnel work and communicate as a team, value engineering and construction are used

continuously and more effectively. Since the design and construction are overlapped and because

bidding and redesign periods are eliminated, total design and construction time can be drastically

reduced. The firm that is responsible for the design is simultaneously estimating the construction

cost and can accurately conceptualize the completed project and a firm construction cost can be

guaranteed earlier. Other advantages include a single source of accountability and responsibility

for the project, which serves as motivation for quality and proper project performance.

Some disadvantages of the Design-Build method include that since this method is not the most

popular, there will be some new things to learn such as the process and new front-end

documentation and different insurance/bonding products. There may also be some resistance

from those who are not familiar with the approach. There may also be some barriers in some

states with procurement and licensing.

5.4 Design/Build/Operate - Design/Build/Operate/Transfer

In the Design-Build-Operate method, there is a single entity that is responsible for the design, the

construction, and the operation of the project. This method is increasingly being utilized as the

Design-Build-Operate-Transfers method.

The Design-Build-Operate-Transfer model is the same relationship that combines the design and

construction responsibilities of design-build methods with operations and maintenance

responsibilities. This method also combines the aspect that the contractor will be responsible for



the operation and maintenance of the project for a fixed period. The operators become involved

with the project’s design to ensure that all aspects of operating the system are considered as early

as possible. The contractor guarantees the project’s annual operating cost and provides bonds to

assure the owner that the system will be operated on a fixed price in accordance with all

contractual obligations.

Owners award Design-Build-Operate contracts by a competitive bid. Qualified candidates

respond to the specifications provided in the bid documents and are usually required to provide a

single price for the design, construction and maintenance of the facility for whatever period of

time is specified. Candidates are also required to submit documentation on their qualifications,

thereby allowing owners to compare the costs of the different offers and the ability of the

candidate to meet their specific needs.

The advantage of the Design-Build-Operate-Transfer / Design-Build-Operate approach is that it

combines responsibility for usually different functions—design, construction, and operation—

under a single entity. This allows the private partners to take advantage of a number of

efficiencies. The project design can be customized to the construction equipment and materials

that will be used. In addition, the Design-Build-Operate-Transfer entity is also required to

establish a long-term maintenance program up front, together with estimates of the associated

costs. The team’s detailed knowledge of the project design and the materials used allows it to

develop a custom maintenance plan that foresees and addresses the needs as they occur, thus

reducing the risk that issues will go unnoticed or unattended and then develop into more costly

problems.

As with any approach the Design-Build-Operate-Transfer / Design-Build-Operate approach has

some disadvantages. The disadvantages include the following: potential to limit competition, less

direct control over the project, difficult to price and owner is required to make quicker decisions.

DWSD Growth Pays for Growth Policy

Volume 4 – Alternatives - Appendix A

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

Documents

Transcript of Oakland County Drain Commission, Water and Wastewater Master Plan - Volume 4 - Alternatives Analysis...