FINAL
Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Hall County Public Works and Utilities
February 2020
Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Background and Study Areas ...... 1-1 1.2 Plan Objectives ...... 1-3 1.3 Report Outline ...... 1-3 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... 2-1 2.1 Existing System and Facilities ...... 2-1 2.2 Sewer Basins ...... 2-3 2.3 Demographics ...... 2-5 2.4 Land Use...... 2-8 2.5 Hydrology ...... 2-13 2.6 Water Quality ...... 2-13 2.7 Policy Considerations ...... 2-14 2.7.1 Water Use ...... 2-14 2.7.2 Water Reuse ...... 2-14 2.7.3 Interbasin Transfer ...... 2-14 2.7.4 Increased Biological Loading ...... 2-15 2.7.5 Nutrient Standards for Lake Lanier ...... 2-15 2.7.6 Climate Resiliency ...... 2-15 2.8 Planning Considerations...... 2-16 2.8.1 Reliability & Flexibility ...... 2-16 2.8.2 Ease of Implementation/Constructability ...... 2-17 2.8.3 Easement Considerations ...... 2-17 2.8.4 Biosolids Considerations ...... 2-17 3. WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS ...... 3-1 3.1 Planning Assumptions and Methodology ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Per Capita Wastewater Generation...... 3-1 3.1.2 Per Acre Wastewater Generation Rates...... 3-2 3.1.3 Inflow and Infiltration ...... 3-3 3.1.4 Peaking Factor ...... 3-3 3.1.5 Septic to Sewer Conversion ...... 3-3 3.2 Wastewater Forecasts ...... 3-3 3.2.1 North Hall Build-Out Wastewater Flows ...... 3-3 3.2.2 South Hall Build-Out Wastewater Flows...... 3-8
February 2020 Table of Contents i Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
4. NORTH HALL STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...... 4-1 4.1 Review of the 2011 Recommended Alternative ...... 4-1 4.2 Description of the Preferred Development Scenario...... 4-2 4.2.1 Collection ...... 4-4 4.2.2 Treatment ...... 4-6 4.3 Capital Improvement Plan ...... 4-8 5. SOUTH HALL STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Description of Development Scenario ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Collection ...... 5-3 5.1.2 Treatment ...... 5-5 5.2 Capital Improvement Plan ...... 5-8 6. NORTH AND SOUTH HALL COUNTY STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM COST SUMMARY ...... 6-1 6.1 Unit Cost Development ...... 6-1 6.2 North Hall Projected Costs ...... 6-2 6.3 South Hall Projected Costs ...... 6-6 6.4 North and South Hall Projected Costs Summary ...... 6-12 6.5 Capital Improvement Plan Summary and Maps ...... 6-14 6.5.1 Phase I Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps ...... 6-17 6.5.2 Phase II Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps ...... 6-19 6.5.3 Phase III Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps...... 6-22 6.5.4 Phase IV Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps ...... 6-25 7. Financial Management System Study ...... 7-1 7.1 Identified Alternatives...... 7-1 7.2 Revenue Requirements and Projections ...... 7-1 7.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Expenses – Assumptions ...... 7-1 7.2.2 General Assumptions ...... 7-2 7.2.3 Existing Wastewater User Rates and Connection Fees ...... 7-2 7.2.4 Customer Base – Existing Service Area ...... 7-3 7.2.5 Customer Base – Expanded Service Area ...... 7-4 7.2.6 Revenue Requirements – O&M Debt Service and Capital ...... 7-8 7.2.7 Capital Improvement Plan - Base Case...... 7-9 7.2.8 Capital Improvement Plan– Master Plan with Expanded Service Area ...... 7-10
ii Table of Contents February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
7.2.9 Debt Service Payments – Master Plan with Expanded Service Area ...... ….7-16 7.2.10 Wastewater Revenue Projections ...... 7-18 7.3 Summary of Wastewater Revenue and Expenditures ...... 7-20 7.4 Sensitivity Analysis ...... 7-24 7.4.1 Sensitivity Analysis Summary...... 7-29 7.5 Summary ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Tables Table 2-1: Population and Employment Projections and Annual Average Growth Rates...... 2-7 Table 2-2: ARC Population and Employment Projections – North Hall Drainage Basins ...... 2-8 Table 2-3: ARC Population and Employment Projections – South Hall Drainage Basins ...... 2-8 Table 2-4: Comparison of Current and Potential Future Land Use in North Hall Study Area ...... 2-11 Table 2-5: Comparison of Current and Future Land Use in South Hall Study Area ...... 2-12 Table 2-6: North Hall 303(d) Listed Streams ...... 2-13 Table 2-7: South Hall 303(d) Listed Streams ...... 2-13 Table 3-1: Wastewater Generation Rates based on District Water Demands for Hall County ...... 3-2 Table 3-2: Per Acre Wastewater Generation Rates Categorized by Land Use Type ...... 3-2 Table 3-3: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows – North Hall Service Areas ...... 3-4 Table 3-4: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows by Type – North Hall Service Area ...... 3-5 Table 3-5: Projected 2030 and 2040 Wastewater Flows – North Hall Study Area ...... 3-6 Table 3-6: Build-Out Flows for Pipe Segments – Proposed North Hall Collection System ...... 3-6 Table 3-7: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows – South Hall Service Areas ...... 3-8 Table 3-8: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows by Type – South Hall Service Area ...... 3-8 Table 3-9: Projected 2030 and 2040 Wastewater Flows – South Hall Study Area ...... 3-9 Table 3-10: Build-Out Flows for Pipe Segments – Proposed South Hall Collection System ...... 3-11 Table 4-1: County-Led Gravity Sewer and Force Main...... 4-4 Table 4-2: Developer-Led Gravity Sewer and Force Main ...... 4-4 Table 4-3: Minimum Slopes and Full Pipe Flows ...... 4-8 Table 4-4: Summary of Pipe Size and Length – North Hall ...... 4-10 Table 4-5: Pump Station Future Sizing ...... 4-10 Table 4-6: Force Main Future Sizing ...... 4-10 Table 4-7: Treatment Facility Future Sizing (MMF-mgd)...... 4-11 Table 5-1: County-Led Gravity Sewer and Force Main...... 5-3 Table 5-2: Developer-Led Gravity Sewer and Force Main ...... 5-3 Table 5-3: Treatment Alternative 1 ...... 5-6 Table 5-4: Cost Estimate for Treatment Alternative 1 ...... 5-6 Table 5-5: Treatment Alternative 2 ...... 5-7 Table 5-6: Cost Estimate for Treatment Alternative 2 ...... 5-7 Table 5-7: Minimum Slopes and Full Pipe Flows ...... 5-10 Table 5-8: Gravity Sewer Sizing for the Preferred Development Scenario ...... 5-10 Table 5-9: Pump Station Future Sizing ...... 5-11 Table 5-10: Force Main Future Sizing ...... 5-12 Table 5-11: Treatment Facility Future Expansion (MMF-mgd) ...... 5-12 Table 6-1: Unit Costs for Wastewater System Components ...... 6-1 Table 6-2: Estimated Capital Costs for the Entire System – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-2 Table 6-3: Estimated Timeframe for Initiation of Sewer Service – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-2 Table 6-4: Budget Overview for Phased Development – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-2
February 2020 Table of Contents iii Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 6-5: 10-Year O&M Costs of New Capital Improvement Plan – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-3 Table 6-6: 20-Year O&M Costs of New Capital Improvement Plan – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-3 Table 6-7: Total 10-Year Capital and O&M Costs – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-3 Table 6-8: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-3 Table 6-9: Recommended Phase II Plan (2025 – 2030) for Preferred Development Scenario: Planned Development – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-4 Table 6-10: Recommended Phase III Plan (2030 – 2035) for Preferred Development Scenario: Planned Development – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-4 Table 6-11: Recommended Phase IV Plan (2035 – 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario: Planned Development – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-5 Table 6-12: Remaining Build-Out Plan (After 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – North Hall Study Area ...... 6-5 Table 6-13: Estimated Capital Costs for the Entire System – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-6 Table 6-14: Estimated Timeframe for Initiation of Sewer Service – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-6 Table 6-15: Budget Overview for Phased Development – South Hall Study Area...... 6-7 Table 6-16: 10-Year O&M Costs of New Capital Improvement Plan – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-7 Table 6-17: 20-Year O&M Costs of New Capital Improvement Plan – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-7 Table 6-18: Total 10-Year Capital and O&M costs – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-8 Table 6-19: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-8 Table 6-20: Recommended Phase I Capital Improvement Plan (2020 – 2025) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-9 Table 6-21: Recommended Phase II Plan (2025 – 2030) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-9 Table 6-22: Recommended Phase III Plan (2030 – 2035) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-10 Table 6-23: Recommended Phase IV Plan (2035 – 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-10 Table 6-24: Remaining Build-Out Plan (After 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area ...... 6-11 Table 6-25: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs – North and South Hall Study Areas ...... 6-12 Table 6-26: Recommended Phase I Plan (2020 – 2025) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas ...... 6-12 Table 6-27: Recommended Phase II Plan (2025 – 2030) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas ...... 6-13 Table 6-28: Recommended Phase III Plan (2030 – 2035) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas...... 6-13 Table 6-29: Recommended Phase IV Plan (2035 – 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas...... 6-14 Table 6-30: Recommended Phase I Plan (2020 – 2025) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas ...... 6-18 Table 6-31: Recommended Phase II Plan (2025 – 2030) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas ...... 6-21 Table 6-32: Recommended Phase III Plan (2030 – 2035) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas...... 6-24 Table 6-33: Recommended Phase IV Plan (2035 – 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas...... 6-27 Table 7-1: Inflation Assumptions ...... 7-1 Table 7-2: Existing Rates, Fees and Charges - Monthly Wastewater User Charges ...... 7-2 Table 7-3: Existing Connection Fees ...... 7-2 Table 7-4: Existing Service Area - Existing & Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts1 ...... 7-3
iv Table of Contents February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-5: Existing Service Area - Existing & Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer ERCs ...... 7-4 Table 7-6: Existing Service Area - Existing & Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer CCF ...... 7-4 Table 7-7: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts ...... 7-5 Table 7-8: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts ...... 7-5 Table 7-9: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts ...... 7-6 Table 7-10: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer ERCs ...... 7-6 Table 7-11: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer CCF, 1,000 Gallons and MGD ...... 7-7 Table 7-12: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer CCF, 1,000 Gallons and MGD ...... 7-7 Table 7-13: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer CCF, 1,000 Gallons and MGD ...... 7-8 Table 7-14: Existing Wastewater System - Actual, Budgeted and Projected Operating Expenses ...... 7-8 Table 7-15: Expanded Wastewater System - Projected Operating Expenses ...... 7-9 Table 7-16: Existing Debt Service ...... 7-9 Table 7-17: Existing Capital Improvement Projects ...... 7-10 Table 7-18: Existing Service Area - New Debt Service...... 7-10 Table 7-19: Base Case & Alternative #1 - Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects ...... 7-11 Table 7-20: Alternative #2- Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects ...... 7-13 Table 7-21: Alternative #3- Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects ...... 7-15 Table 7-22: Debt Service Payments - Base Case & Alternative #1; Alternative #2; Alternative #3 ...... 7-17 Table 7-23: Base Case - Estimated Wastewater Revenues at Existing Rates ...... 7-18 Table 7-24: Alternative #1 - Estimated Wastewater Revenues at Projected Rates ...... 7-18 Table 7-25: Alternative #2 - Estimated Wastewater Revenues at Projected Rates ...... 7-19 Table 7-26: Alternative #3 - Estimated Wastewater Revenues at Projected Rates ...... 7-20 Table 7-27: Projected Wastewater Connection Revenues at Existing Rates ...... 7-20 Table 7-28: Base Case - Projected Financial Pro-Forma - Prior to Rate Increases ...... 7-21 Table 7-29: Alternative #1 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates ...... 7-21 Table 7-30: Alternative #2 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates ...... 7-22 Table 7-31: Alternative #3 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates ...... 7-22 Table 7-32: Base Case - Projected Cash Flow with Existing Rates ...... 7-23 Table 7-33: Alternative #1 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates ...... 7-23 Table 7-34: Alternative #2 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates ...... 7-24 Table 7-35: Alternative #3 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates ...... 7-24 Table 7-36: Expansion Service Areas - Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts with Decreases ...... 7-25 Table 7-37: Expansion Service Areas - Projected Wastewater Customer Base - ERCs with Decreases ...... 7-25 Table 7-38: Expansion Service Areas - Projected Wastewater Customer Base - CCF with Decreases ...... 7-26 Table 7-39: Projected Wastewater Revenues with 50 Percent Customer Decrease ...... 7-26 Table 7-40: Projected Wastewater Revenues with 25 Percent Customer Decrease ...... 7-27
February 2020 Table of Contents v Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-41: Alternative #3 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates with 50 Percent Customer Decrease ...... 7-28 Table 7-42: Alternative #3 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates with 25 Percent Customer Decrease ...... 7-28 Table 7-43: Alternative #3 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates with 50 Percent Customer Decrease ...... 7-29 Table 7-44: Alternative #3 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates with 25 Percent Customer Decrease ...... 7-29 List of Figures Figure 1-1: North Hall and South Hall Sewer Districts ...... 1-1 Figure 1-2: North Hall and South Hall Study Areas ...... 1-2 Figure 2-1: Existing North Hall Collection System ...... 2-1 Figure 2-2: Existing South Hall Collection System ...... 2-2 Figure 2-3: North Hall Study Area Drainage Basins ...... 2-4 Figure 2-4: South Hall Study Area Drainage Basins ...... 2-5 Figure 2-5: Hall County Population Projections ...... 2-6 Figure 2-6: North Hall Study Area Current (2020) and Future (Build-Out) Land Use ...... 2-10 Figure 2-7: South Hall Study Area Current (2020) and Future (Build-Out) Land Use ...... 2-12 Figure 3-1: Wastewater System Schematic...... 3-1 Figure 3-2: Estimated Percentage of Area by Land Use Type for Existing and Build-Out Conditions in North Hall Study Area ...... 3-5 Figure 3-3: Pipe Segments in the Proposed North Hall Collection System ...... 3-7 Figure 3-4: Estimated Percentage of Area by Land Use Type for Existing and Build-Out Conditions in South Hall Study Area ...... 3-9 Figure 3-5: Pipe Segments in the Proposed South Hall Collection System ...... 3-10 Figure 4-1: Proposed Infrastructure ...... 4-3 Figure 4-2: North Hall Sewer System Master Plan – Preferred Development Scenario ...... 4-9 Figure 5-1: Proposed Infrastructure – South Hall Study Area ...... 5-2 Figure 5-2: South Hall Sewer System Master Plan – Preferred Development Scenario ...... 5-8 Figure 5-3: Proposed Routes for 2035 Spout Springs WRF Effluent Discharge Force Main ...... 5-9 Figure 6-1: Projects in the North Hall Study Area ...... 6-15 Figure 6-2: Projects in the South Hall Study Area ...... 6-16 Figure 6-3: Proposed Phase I Projects in the South Hall Study Area ...... 6-17 Figure 6-4: Proposed Phase II Projects in the North Hall Study Area ...... 6-19 Figure 6-5: Proposed Phase II Projects in the South Hall Study Area ...... 6-20 Figure 6-6: Proposed Phase III Projects in the North Hall Study Area ...... 6-22 Figure 6-7: Proposed Phase III Projects in the South Hall Study Area ...... 6-23 Figure 6-8: Proposed Phase IV Projects in the North Hall Study Area ...... 6-25 Figure 6-9: Proposed Phase IV Projects in the South Hall Study Area ...... 6-26
List of Appendices
Appendix A: House Bill 489 Sewer Service Districts Appendix B: ARC Projections and Tap Projections Methodology Appendix C: Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map Appendix D: Easement Considerations for Study Areas Appendix E: Stakeholder Participation Appendix F: Flow Calculations
vi Table of Contents February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Appendix G: Unit Cost Calculations Appendix H: O&M Cost Calculations
February 2020 Table of Contents vii Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Acronyms and Abbreviations ACF Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint ADF Annual Average Daily Flow ARC Atlanta Regional Commission CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CCF Centum Cubic Feet CIP Capital Improvement Plan Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DIP Ductile Iron Pipe District Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPD Environmental Protection Division ERC Equivalent Residential Connections FLPA Forest Land Protection Act ft feet ft/s feet per second FM Force Main FY Financial Year GEFA Georgia Environmental Finance Authority gpcd gallons per capita per day gpd gallons per day gped gallons per employee per day GS Gravity Sewer H.B. House Bill HUC Hydrologic Unit Code I/I Inflow and Infiltration in inches kWh kilowatt-hour mgd million gallons per day MMF Maximum Monthly Flow NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M Operations and Maintenance OPB Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget OSSMS On-Site Sewage Management System PER Preliminary Engineering Report PHF Peak Hourly Flow PS Pump Station PVC Polyvinyl Chloride SPLOST Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax SRF State Revolving Fund
viii Table of Contents February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
SSWRF Spout Springs Water Reclamation Facility TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TM Technical Memorandum TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant WRF Water Reclamation Facility WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
February 2020 Table of Contents ix
This page is intentionally left blank.
Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Executive Summary The Hall County Department of Public Works and Utilities has been planning for the expansion of the sewer system in the North and South Hall sewer districts to meet the long-term vision of the County. Over the next 20 years (2020 to 2040), a portion of the North Hall sewer district and all of the South Hall sewer district is expected to have growing demand for sewer service. The study areas (Figure ES-1) for this Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study (Master Plan Update) constitute approximately 49,000 acres in the North Hall sewer district, and the entire 22,000 acres in the South Hall sewer district. The goal of this Master Plan Update is to estimate future wastewater flows for the study areas and develop a capital improvement plan (CIP) with an implementation timeframe through 2040. In addition, this Master Plan Update also includes a financial analysis that evaluates funding sources and impacts to rates of the proposed capital improvement plan. Figure ES-1: North Hall and South Hall Study Areas Existing Conditions The North Hall study area is located within the Upper Oconee River and the Upper Chattahoochee River watersheds, while the South Hall study area is located in the Upper Oconee River watershed. The North Hall study area is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a recently completed collection system, which serves the industrial and commercial developments along Highway 365. With the success of the Gateway Industrial Center, these areas are expected to develop further. Wastewater from this area currently discharges into the City of Gainesville’s collection system. In addition, Hall County has an existing capacity allocation of 0.1 million gallons per day (mgd) on a maximum monthly flow (MMF) basis from the City of Lula’s Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) through an intergovernmental agreement. The South Hall study area is moderately developed with a mix of existing sewer system and on-site sewage management systems (OSSMSs). The existing collection system serves mostly residential areas and schools. Hall County’s Spout Springs Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) has an existing capacity of 0.75 MMF-mgd. Most of the wastewater from the South Hall study area is sent to the Spout Springs WRF for treatment, except for residential flows from the Deaton Creek drainage basin and commercial flows along Winder Highway, which are sent to the City of Gainesville’s collection system.
February 2020 Executive Summary | ES-1 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Wastewater Flow Projections Population and employment data for the study areas were estimated based on 2015 Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) projections available on a Traffic Analysis Zone level. The ARC forecasts indicate that from 2020 to 2040 the population will increase approximately 46 percent (percent) (from 9,665 to 14,074) and the employment will increase approximately 29 percent (from 1,738 to 2,248) in the North Hall study area. Correspondingly, the South Hall study area population is estimated to increase approximately 40 percent (from 29,011 to 40,411) and the employment will increase nearly 60 percent (from 2,096 to 3,340). For sizing of gravity sewers, the build-out wastewater flows are projected based on the future land use of the proposed service areas. The build-out flows are estimated based on the wastewater generation rates per acre for the specific land use types (retail commercial/industrial, public/institutional, mixed used transitional, and low density residential) based on land use trends projected by Hall County’s Comprehensive Plan and input received from the County’s planning department and stakeholders. The potential changes to the land use in the North Hall study area correspond to the development of approximately 7,100 acres of suburban residential land use and 2,100 acres of commercial and industrial land use from 2020 to build-out. For the South Hall study area, the potential land use changes correspond to approximately 5,800 acres of suburban residential development and 1,100 acres for commercial and industrial developments from 2020 to build-out. Other assumptions used to estimate the wastewater flows include an inflow and infiltration factor of 20 percent, an MMF to annual average daily flow (ADF) peaking factor of 1.25 for preliminary sizing of treatment facilities, and a peak hour flow (PHF) to ADF peaking factor of 2.5 for sizing of the collection system components. A 20 percent OSSMS to sewer conversion was assumed for residents in the Hagen Creek and Mud Creek drainage basins in the North Hall study area for the 20-year planning period. For the South Hall study area, a 20 percent OSSMS to sewer conversion was assumed for all basins except the Mitchell Creek drainage basin, for which a 100 percent conversion was assumed. The additional flows from OSSMS to sewer conversion were estimated using 2.5 residents per household using the residential wastewater generation rate of 56 gallons per capita per day, consistent with the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) estimate for Hall County. Table ES-1 summarizes the projected wastewater flows in the North and South Hall study areas. The wastewater flows were also calculated for each drainage basin. By 2040, the wastewater flow is projected to reach 2.28 mgd in North Hall study area and 2.45 mgd in South Hall study area. Build- out flows are also shown in Table ES-1. Table ES-1: Estimated Wastewater Flows for North and South Hall Study Areas
Estimated Annual Average Daily Wastewater Flows (ADF-mgd) Study Area 2020 2030 2040 Build-Out
North Hall 0.04 1.28 2.28 6.07
South Hall 0.38 1.91 2.45 4.73
February 2020 Executive Summary | ES-2 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Capital Improvement Plan Development To size the proposed collection system components, build-out flows were estimated for gravity sewer segments based on assumed collection areas. Sizing of the treatment plants and capacity expansion were based on projected change in wastewater flows from 2020 to 2030, 2040, and build-out conditions. The need for capacity expansion beyond 2040 should be evaluated in the next update of the Master Plan. Hall County will continue to use the hybrid/planned development infrastructure approach selected in the 2011 North Hall Sewer System Master Plan with core areas designated for County-led infrastructure development and outskirts of the study areas designated for developer-led infrastructure. Private developers are anticipated to build some of the infrastructure, but the systems in these areas will ultimately be dedicated to the County for long-term operation and maintenance (O&M). The existing sewer infrastructure for the 365 basin is complete with minimal planned expansion. Sewer service by 2040 is planned to first be initiated in the Hagen Creek basin, followed by the Cane Creek, Mud Creek, and Garner Creek basins, and then the Pleasant Hill basin (Figure ES- 2). Sewer service in other basins is planned to be initiated beyond 2040. The Glades Reservoir project located in the Lower Flat Creek basin is on hold pending further review. The flows from the Hagen Creek drainage basin will be discharged to the Lula WRF (which will require an expansion to increase capacity allocation to Hall County to 1.8 MMF-mgd by 2040). Flows from the Cane Creek and Chattahoochee River basin will flow down to the 365 basin. Flows from the 365 basin are expected to be pumped to the City of Gainesville system initially; once the 365 basin is fully developed, the North Oconee WRF (which would be built by Hall County) would be a treatment option for these flows. The treated effluent from the new North Oconee WRF will need to be discharged to Lake Lanier or its tributaries based on current District requirement. The Mud Creek, Pleasant Hill, John Creek, and Garner Creek basins will continue to be served by OSSMSs initially but will eventually discharge flows to the proposed Lower Flat Creek WRF (to be built by a private developer). For Lower Flat Creek, Dog Creek, Upper East Fork Little River drainage basins in the east side of North Hall study area, the sewer system infrastructure will be entirely developer-built. For the South Hall study area, a hybrid/planned approach alternative similar to the North Hall system also is planned. The collection system in the Mitchell Creek basin is currently being designed, and the flows will be discharged to the Spout Springs WRF. A County-built force main in the Cooper Creek basin is being constructed currently. This force main will be connected to the Road Atlanta Pump Station, which will be developer-built. Sewer service by 2040 is planned to first be initiated in the Mitchell Creek basin, followed by the Caney Creek and Deaton Creek basins, the Cooper Creek basin, and then the Lott Creek basin. For treatment of flows, Hall County chose the alternative where the Spout Springs WRF capacity is increased to accommodate flows from the majority of the basins in the South Hall study area with the exception of Caney Fork Creek and Lott Creek basins. The flows from the Lott Creek basin will flow to the Caney Fork Creek basin, and the combined flow will go to the City of Gainesville’s system. This will entail an increase in the Spouts Springs WRF capacity from 0.75 MMF-mgd in 2020 to 2.00 MMF-mgd in 2030 and 2.60 MMF-mgd in 2040. Allocated capacity at Gainesville will not need to be increased from the current 1 MMF-mgd for the 20-year planning period. Developer-driven projects will include a part of the collection system in the Deaton Creek, Mulberry Creek, Cooper Creek, and Caney Fork Creek basins. Ultimately, flows from the Spouts Springs WRF will be returned to Lake Lanier as required by the District plan.
February 2020 Executive Summary | ES-3 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Capital improvement projects are defined for 5-year periods from 2020 to 2040 and for build-out conditions. Figure ES-2 and Figure ES-3 present the proposed projects in the North Hall and South Hall study areas, respectively. Section 6 of this report contains a complete list of proposed project descriptions, estimated costs, and implementation timeframes.
Figure ES-2: Proposed Projects in the North Hall Study Area
February 2020 Executive Summary | ES-4 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure ES-3: Proposed Projects in the South Hall Study Area
Cost Estimates The total estimated capital and O&M costs for the projects planned for 2020-2040 are approximately $60 million for the North Hall study area and $78 million for the South Hall study area. Table ES-2, Table ES-3, and Table ES-4 summarize the proposed capital and O&M costs for North Hall, South Hall, and the combined study areas for the 5-year period through 2040. For the next five years (2020-2025), there is not planned projects in the North Hall study area. Table ES-2: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs (in 2019 Dollars) – North Hall Study Area
Phase Implementation Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Cost I 2020 – 2025 ------II 2025 – 2030 $5,062,900 $756,800 $5,819,700 III 2030 – 2035 $29,293,800 $5,421,800 $34,715,600 IV 2035 – 2040 $11,446,000 $7,969,100 $19,415,100 Total $45,802,700 $14,147,700 $59,950,400
February 2020 Executive Summary | ES-5 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table ES-3: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs (in 2019 Dollars) – South Hall Study Area Phase Implementation Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Cost I 2020 - 2025 $7,236,300 $238,800 $7,475,100 II 2025 - 2030 $26,294,400 $2,717,100 $29,011,500 III 2030 - 2035 $16,664,400 $4,755,400 $21,419,800 IV 2035- 2040 $10,955,500 $9,308,500 $20,264,000 Total $61,150,600 $17,019,800 $78,170,400
Table ES-4: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs (in 2019 Dollars) – North and South Hall Study Areas
Phase Implementation Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Cost I 2020 - 2025 $7,236,300 $238,800 $7,475,100 II 2025 - 2030 $31,357,300 $3,473,900 $34,831,200 III 2030 - 2035 $45,958,200 $10,177,200 $56,135,400 IV 2035 - 2040 $22,401,500 $17,277,600 $39,679,100 Total $106,953,300 $31,167,500 $138,120,800
Rate Study In conjunction with the Master Plan Update, a rate study was conducted to analyze the impact of the proposed capital project on user fee rates. The analysis used a variety of funding sources with the three alternatives considered as follows:
• Alternative #1 – Cash Reserves, Revenue Bonds and flat fee rate increases • Alternative #2 – Cash Reserves and rate increases • Alternative #3 – Cash Reserves, Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) and SRF Loans
The analysis indicates that the type of funding sources have minimal impact on the user fee rate, with projected minimal rate increases for each alternative for the 20-year planning period. Rate increases if needed were considered every 3 years (with 3-year averaging) for FY2021 – 2023 and FY2024 – 2026; then every 5 years (with 5-year averaging). Table ES-5 summarizes the results of this analysis.
February 2020 Executive Summary | ES-6 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table ES-5: Existing and Projected Rates – Alternatives #1, #2, and #3
Existing Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Alternative #1 Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.21 $10.21 $10.21 $10.21 $10.21 $10.21 Charge per CCF $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Alternative #2 Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.00 $12.34 $12.34 $12.34 $12.34 $12.34 Charge per CCF $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Alternative #3 Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.00 $10.43 $10.43 $10.43 $10.43 $10.43 Charge per CCF $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 The reason for the minimal impact on user fee rates is the assumption that growth (new customers) will occur in the new service areas as scheduled. While this may indeed occur, it also is important to understand the impact should the growth not occur as projected. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impacts of slower customer growth. The combination of funding from Alternative #3 was used for this analysis. Two scenarios were analyzed: a 50 percent reduction in customer growth and a 25 percent reduction in customer growth. It was also assumed that the user fee rate increase would be capped at 5 percent for the 25 percent reduction alternative and the rate increases as needed for the 50 percent reduction alternative. Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) revenue was used to make up the difference needed to provide adequate project funding for the 50 percent reduction alternative. Table ES-6 presents the results of this analysis. For both scenarios, a small and steady increase will be needed and the rates are projected to remain constant from 2027 to 2040 for the 50 percent reduction alternative and remain constant from 2037 through 2040 for the 25 percent reduction alternative. Table ES-6: Existing and Projected Rates – Alternative 3 with 25 percent and 50 percent Reductions in Customer Growth
Existing Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Alternative #3 with 50 percent Customer Reduction and 3-5 year increases Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.50 $11.66 $12.60 $12.60 $12.60 $12.60 Charge per CCF - Residential $7.39 $8.56 $9.24 $10.48 $10.48 $10.48 $10.48 Alternative #3 with 25 percent Customer Reduction and 3-5 year increases Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.50 $11.03 $11.58 $12.16 $12.76 $12.76 Charge per CCF - Residential $7.39 $7.76 $8.15 $8.56 $8.99 $9.44 $9.44 Alternative #3 with 25 percent customer growth reduction is the preferred alternative. Table ES-7 presents the cash flow analysis for the scenario with 25 percent customer growth reduction, respectively.
February 2020 Executive Summary | ES-7 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table ES-7: Alternative #3 – Projected Cash Flow and Rates with 25 percent Reduction in Customer Growth
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Cash Flow - Operations Beginning Oper Fund Balance $10,666,710 $12,084,008 $10,771,195 $12,596,179 $16,103,743 $15,485,621 $41,758,568 Gross Revenue Net Income(Loss) 2,963,939 3,176,283 5,275,898 7,693,744 10,301,793 13,735,421 17,105,891 Less: Revenue Bond Debt Service (1,370,080) (1,624,980) (2,274,303) (2,614,605) (573,866) (573,866) (573,866) Less: GEFA Debt Service (2,103,322) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,331,541) (1,656,227) (228,220) (228,220) Less: SRF Debt Service - - (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) Less: Capital from Rates (176,560) (65,000) (75,000) - - - - Less: Capital from Reserves - (3,219,150) - - (1,847,550) (13,069,800) - Less: SPLOST Capital (non debt) (1,350,498) (7,016,640) (150,438) - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for GEFA 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for Capital 1,350,498 7,016,640 150,438 - - - - First Year Cash Differential ------Operating Cash Flow - Ending Balance $12,084,008 $10,351,160 $12,820,154 $14,466,141 $21,450,258 $14,471,520 $57,184,737 Conclusion
• This Master Plan Update presents a proposed capital improvement plan based on the updated population, employment projections and land development trends for the 20-year planning period through 2040. A total of $138 million (in 2019 dollars) of planned sewer system investment in the County’s North and South Hall sewer districts is defined in 5-year implementation increments based on a hybrid/planned development infrastructure approach to provide the County flexibility to meet its growing demand. • Minimum rate increase is anticipated if growth (i.e. new customers) occurs as projected based on the financial analysis conducted in this Master Plan. However, two additional scenarios were analyzed to provide options using other funding sources to offset the projected annual debt service amount should growth occur at a slower pace. Alternative #3 with 25 percent customer growth reduction is the preferred alternative. • The County will need to evaluate short-term and long-term biosolids disposal options in the near future. The financial analysis includes provisions for increase in operation expense, assuming that the County will need to haul the biosolids to a facility outside of Hall County for disposal. It is recommended that the County conduct a biosolids master plan, including a market analysis, to evaluate economic feasibility of beneficial reuse options (conversion of biosolids to fertilizer or compost). • The Master Plan and Rate Study should be reevaluated in the next 3 to 5 years to align with actual demands for the construction of critical infrastructure.
February 2020 Executive Summary | ES-8 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
1. INTRODUCTION
Hall County, Georgia, covers an area of 394 square miles and has a 2017 population of approximately 200,0001. The County is one of the more rapidly growing areas in the Metropolitan Atlanta Region. Since the completion of the last North Hall County Sewer System Master Plan in 2011, and the South Hall County Sewer District Unit Rate and Connection Fee Methodology Report in 2008, Hall County has completed many planned projects and has expanded its sewer service in both North and South Hall County. In addition, updated projections are available from the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) as the County and the region recovered from the Great Recession of the late 2000s to a growing economy again. This Sewer System Master Plan and Rate Study (Master Plan) addresses the planning, funding, and delivery of the wastewater collection systems in the North and South Hall study areas for meeting Hall County’s service goals for the planning horizon of 2020 to 2040. A well-planned sewer system will position the County for economic prosperity and will provide protection of local water quality.
1.1 Background and Study Areas Sewer service is provided by multiple municipalities in Hall County. House Bill (H.B.) 489 divides Hall County into sewer service districts among the various municipalities in the County. Some areas are served by a single municipality while others by a combination of municipalities. Hall County Public Utilities has its own service area; it also shares sewer service districts with the cities of Gainesville and Gillsville through intergovernmental agreements. These shared areas are not included in this study. Hall County Public Utilities’ sewer service area consists of two independent areas: North Hall and South Hall Sewer Service Districts (Figure 1-1)
Figure 1-1: North Hall and South Hall Sewer Districts
1 Source: United States Census Bureau
February 2020 Section 1 | 1-1 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Based on discussions with Hall County staff, the study areas for this Master Plan include a portion of the North Hall Sewer Service District and all of the South Hall Sewer Service District. All H.B. 489 sewer service districts are presented in Appendix A. Figure 1-2 shows the study areas for this Master Plan.
Figure 1-2: North Hall and South Hall Study Areas
1-2 | Section 1 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
The North Hall study area consists of about 49,000 acres, extending from Cleveland Highway in the west to Joe Chandler Road in the east with Highway 365 running through the middle in the northeastern direction. With the completion of the Highway 365 sewer extension up to State Route 52 (in March 2018), Hall County currently provides sewer service to the proposed Gateway Industrial Center and surrounding area along Highway 365.
The South Hall study area consists of about 22,000 acres corresponding with the South Hall Sewer District. Major roads in this study area include Friendship Road and Winder Highway. Most of the current service area is in the south side and west side of the South Hall Sewer District. The expansion of the collection and pump station system along State Route 347 (Friendship Road) is currently under design.
1.2 Plan Objectives The goals of this Master Plan are to:
1. Determine and update the future sewer service needs in the North Hall and South Hall study areas; and 2. Determine the appropriate timing for planned capital improvement projects based on anticipated need. This Master Plan and Rate Study takes into account both the technical and financial realities for the County’s sewer service plan for the 20-year planning period. To attain the goals described above, the following objectives were set:
1. Research and address potential land use changes; 2. Develop updated wastewater flow forecasts; 3. Determine the needs for wastewater collection and treatment; 4. Determine associated costs to secure funding, grants, and determine the needs for wastewater collection and treatment; and 5. Determine potential rate adjustment to support the community’s vision for future growth. 1.3 Report Outline This Master Plan contains the following sections:
• Section 1 – Introduction identifies the goals and objectives of the master plan. • Section 2 – Existing and Future Conditions describes the existing and future conditions of the study areas including the existing collection systems, sewer basins, population and employment, land use, and water quality issues. The future land use and the policy considerations for planning have also been included. • Section 3 – Wastewater Flow Projections estimates the future wastewater flows based on planning assumptions, policy considerations, and future land use of the study areas. • Section 4 – North Hall Study Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Alternatives and Capital Improvement Plan updates the wastewater collection and treatment alternative
February 2020 Section 1 | 1-3 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
and components for the North Hall study area based on the updated flow projections and available development timing. It also provides capital improvement projects and planning level construction cost estimates, and phasing for the proposed projects. • Section 5 – South Hall Study Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Planned Improvements updates the wastewater collection and treatment alternative and components for the South Hall study area based on the updated flow projections and available development timing. It also provides capital improvement projects and planning level construction cost estimates, and phasing for the proposed projects. • Section 6 – North and South Hall County Study Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Cost Summary provides a summary of capital improvement projects for both the North and South Hall study areas. • Section 7 – North and South Hall County Study Area Financial Management System provides possibilities of funding sources, revenues and expenses of proposed capital improvements, multi-year operating financial pro-forma, and potential rates to be established for this Service Area.
1-4 | Section 1 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of existing collection systems, sewer basins, population and employment, land use, and water quality. The future land use and the policy considerations for planning have also been included.
2.1 Existing System and Facilities The North Hall study area is predominately undeveloped. The wastewater collection system (Figure 2-1) currently has 36,570 feet of gravity mains, 6 pump stations, and 37,100 feet of force mains all along the Highway 365 corridor and White Sulphur Road serving a variety of industries and commercial customers. Wastewater from this area flows to the Gateway Master pump station and is discharged into the City of Gainesville’s collection system.
Figure 2-1: Existing North Hall Collection System
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-1 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
The upstream portion of the existing North Hall collection system begins at the Highway 52 intersection where flow is pumped from 365 pump station #5 via a force main that discharges into a gravity main that flows into 365 pump station #4. From here, the wastewater flow is pumped to a gravity main which discharges into the Gateway Master pump station. There are three existing pump stations (365 pump stations #1, #2, and #3) serving the southern portion of Highway 365 area near the intersection with White Sulphur Road. These flows are also pumped into the Gateway Master pump station which then pumps all the flows through a 10-inch force main into a 12-inch gravity main in the City of Gainesville’s collection system near the intersection of White Sulphur and Howard Roads.
The South Hall study area is moderately developed with a mix of existing sewer service and on-site sewage management systems (OSSMSs), such as septic tanks. The South Hall wastewater collection system (Figure 2-2) includes approximately 255,000 feet of gravity mains, 16 pump stations, approximately 78,400 feet of force mains, and 16,460 feet of reuse mains serving residential neighborhoods and a few commercial areas. Most of the wastewater flows from the residential areas flow into the Spout Springs Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), while flows from the Deaton Creek neighborhood and commercial areas in the north are pumped into the City of Gainesville’s collection system.
Figure 2-2: Existing South Hall Collection System
2-2 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
The South Hall study area collection system serves a few commercial areas and three large residential neighborhoods named Sterling on the Lake, Reunion, and Village at Deaton Creek. The Sterling on the Lake system consists of gravity mains and 9 pump stations that eventually discharge into the Spout Springs WRF. A system of gravity mains and the Union Circle pump station near the Spout Springs WRF serve the Cherokee Bluff High School, Cherokee Bluff Middle School, and Spout Springs Elementary School. The Village at Deaton Creek neighborhood is served by a network of gravity mains that discharge into the Mulberry Creek pump station. The Reunion neighborhood gravity system flows into the Reunion pump station before pumping and discharging into the Spout Springs WRF. The County also serves the area near the intersection of Winder Highway and Union Church Road with gravity sewer and the Winder Highway No. 1 pump station, which all discharge into the Crystal Farms pump station. The Crystal Farms pump station also receives flow from a short run of gravity mains before pumping into a 36-inch main in the City of Gainesville’s collection system via an existing manhole near the intersection of Mabry Road and Mountain View Road. The County also has a 13,210 linear foot 12-inch gravity sewer in the Mulberry River sewershed. The sewer drains into the Mulberry Creek pump station, where it is pumped and discharged into the Crystal Farms pump station. In addition, the County is currently designing the Road Atlanta pump station and force main system, which will discharge into the Mulberry Creek pump station via connection to an existing gravity sewer manhole at Howington Road and SR-53. This system is planned to be online by September 2019.
The Lula Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), operated and owned by the City of Lula, is the only existing wastewater treatment facility located within the North Hall study area. Hall County has 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) of allocated capacity at the WPCP via an intergovernmental agreement (dated June 16, 2006 and expires on June 14, 2056). The Lula WPCP, which came online in 2011, has an initial planned capacity of 0.375 million gallons per day (mgd) based on maximum monthly flow (MMF-mgd) and a planned 2035 capacity of 1.8 MMF-mgd.
In South Hall, the only existing wastewater treatment facility is the Spout Springs WRF. The Spout Springs WRF discharges to Lollis Creek in the Oconee River Basin under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. GA0050214. Under the current permit, discharge from the Spout Springs WRF is limited to a maximum monthly average daily flow of 0.75 mgd, and a maximum weekly average daily flow of 0.94 mgd. In 2018, the permit was updated to allow future incremental expansion of this facility to a permitted discharge capacity of 1.0 mgd and ultimately to 1.6 mgd, subject to future Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) construction approvals. The daily flow at the Spout Springs WRF averaged 0.27 mgd for the period of 2015 to 2018. The County also has 1.0 mgd of capacity at the City of Gainesville’s treatment facilities via an intergovernmental agreement (dated May 14, 2015 and expires on May 14, 2065).
2.2 Sewer Basins The North Hall study area consists of twelve sewer basins (Figure 2-3) ranging from approximately 770 to 6,450 acres. The South Hall study area has been divided into ten sewer basins (Figure 2-4), ranging from approximately 570 to 5,400 acres. The sewer needs described for the study areas are evaluated by sewer basin.
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-3 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 2-3: North Hall Study Area Drainage Basins
2-4 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 2-4: South Hall Study Area Drainage Basins
2.3 Demographics Hall County has grown steadily since the 1980s. With a population growth rate of over 32% between 2000 and 2008, Hall County was identified as one of the 100 fastest growing counties in the United States (U.S. Census Population Division, March 19, 2009). Since the global recession, which started around 2008-2009, the population increase has slowed to about 11% between 2010 and 2017 (U.S. Census Population Division, July 1, 2017); however, the economy has since made a full recovery, and population and employment are on the upswing again. Hall County’s population growth can be attributed in part to the County’s historical role as the business center of northeast Georgia, its existing transportation infrastructure, proximity to metro Atlanta, and the attraction of Lake Lanier. Population within the North and South Hall study area is expected to grow significantly as the land uses change in the future.
Population and employment forecasts were developed by analyzing historical population data and available projections for the evaluation of future land development potential. The ARC and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) updated their populations projections for the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) from 2015 through 2050 for regional
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-5 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update planning purposes. Other sources of population projections included the 2015 Gainesville-Hall Regional Transportation Plan, the 2016 Glades Reservoir Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the 2017 Hall County Comprehensive Plan. Figure 2-5 presents the comparison of the available sets of population projections.
Figure 2-5: Hall County Population Projections
The ARC estimated that Hall County population will experience an annual growth rate of 1.99% for the 25-year period, with population increasing from 202,134 in 2015 to 330,425 in 2040. The OPB projections were more conservative indicating the County population will increase from 194,153 to 280,791 in 2040, an equivalent of 1.49% annual growth rate over the 35-year period. The Comprehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan has a projected 2040 population very similar to the Glades Reservoir EIS estimate; however, the former applied a linear growth rate, while the Glades Reservoir EIS showed an exponential increase towards the end of the planning horizon. The ARC population projections scaled down to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that were available in 2017. An overall county-based update to the projections was provided in 2018, but there were no significant changes compared to the 2015 projections. Because only the ARC data provides a breakdown of the projections to the TAZ level, they were considered for further analysis to help identify areas of future growth.
It should be noted that the projections from the 2011 North Hall Sewer System Master Plan are much higher than what is currently projected. This difference can be attributed to the strong
2-6 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update economic growth at the time of the projections before the start of the Great Recession in 2008. Table 2-1 compares the ARC-based employment and population projections considered in this master plan with the projections used in the 2011 North Hall Sewer System Master Plan. Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 summarize the population and employment projections for the North and South Hall study areas by drainage basin, respectively. Overall, the projections show that the North Hall study area will remain mostly residential; light commercial development is mostly limited to four basins: 365, Cedar Creek, Hagan Creek, and Upper East Fork Little River basins. By contrast, in the South Hall study area, the residential population density is projected to be higher; commercial development and employment are projected in most basins, except for Lott Creek basin, which will remain mostly residential for the 2040 planning horizon. ARC released a set of draft projections in October 2019. For Hall County, the 2050 draft projections are shown to be lower than the previous projections adopted by the District’s Water Resource Management Plan (June, 2017). After discussion with Hall County, it was decided that the previous projections would be retained for this Master Plan and a project-trigger based approach would be adopted for subsequent master plans. This is discussed further in Appendix B.
Table 2-1: Population and Employment Projections and Annual Average Growth Rates
Study Area Projection/Growth Rate Category 2015 2020 2030 2040 North Hall Population Projections 8,472 9,665 11,652 14,074 study area - Population Growth Rate 3% 2% 2% 2015 ARC population and Employment Projections 1,560 1,738 2,007 2,248 employment projections Employment Growth Rate 2% 1% 1% North Hall Population Projections 18,260 22,377 29,098 - study area - Population Growth Rate 4% 3% 2011 North Hall Sewer Employment Projections 10,757 13,125 16,696 - System Master Plan Employment Growth Rate 4% 2% South Hall Population Projections 24,189 29,011 36,229 40,411 study area - Population Growth Rate 4% 2% 1% 2015 ARC population and Employment Projections 2,096 2,357 2,850 3,340 employment projections Employment Growth Rate 2% 2% 2%
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-7 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 2-2: ARC Population and Employment Projections – North Hall Drainage Basins
Population Projections Employment Projections Drainage Basin Name 2015 2020 2030 2040 2015 2020 2030 2040 365 2,103 2,236 2,448 2,909 190 206 251 302 Buffington Mill Creek 369 394 558 589 22 24 26 28 Cane Creek 208 218 246 320 90 97 106 114 Cedar Creek 870 963 1,170 1,214 194 216 259 279 Chattahoochee River 392 411 539 705 58 66 100 141 Dog Creek 27 33 45 54 1 1 1 1 Garner Creek 314 409 501 622 18 23 27 34 Hagan Creek 799 858 951 1,277 195 217 257 283 John Creek 729 843 1,044 1,291 56 68 78 93 Lower East Fork Little River 237 283 347 365 25 29 31 34 Lower Flat Creek 400 523 677 953 23 30 35 45 Mud Creek 251 292 396 601 29 30 30 33 Pleasant Hill 141 164 227 333 5 5 5 5 Upper East Fork Little River 1,212 1,467 1,811 1,902 605 669 738 785 Upper Flat Creek 419 572 692 940 49 57 60 69 Total North Hall Study Area 8,471 9,666 11,652 14,075 1,560 1,738 2,004 2,246
Table 2-3: ARC Population and Employment Projections – South Hall Drainage Basins
Population Projections Employment Projections Drainage Basin Name 2015 2020 2030 2040 2015 2020 2030 2040 Caney Fork Creek 4,495 5,449 6,589 7,091 151 175 203 228 Cooper Creek 843 1,113 1,347 1,500 247 274 300 326 Deaton Creek 3,151 3,946 4,871 5,317 505 574 606 785 Lollis Creek 3,514 4,214 5,306 6,064 282 321 382 426 Lott Creek 731 901 1,061 1,152 46 51 58 68 Mitchell Creek 1,780 2,076 2,698 3,320 55 60 63 72 Mulberry Creek 6,724 7,785 9,993 11,089 159 184 448 579 Mulberry River 631 846 1,077 1,203 148 164 180 194 Reunion 1,123 1,222 1,359 1,401 89 102 117 134 Sherwood Creek 1,197 1,458 1,927 2,274 416 451 493 528 Total South Hall Study Area 24,189 29,010 36,228 40,411 2,098 2,356 2,850 3,340 2.4 Land Use Wastewater flows in a community are influenced by the density and type of land uses. Sewer service is typically provided to those areas designated as urban land uses, which generally include commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential areas with lot sizes less than about one acre.
2-8 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Residential land uses with lot sizes greater than one acre are often served by OSSMSs, such as septic tanks, and therefore would not contribute flows into the sanitary sewer system.
Both the current and future land use projections are based on the most recent land use and zoning map provided by Hall County and the 2018 Hall County Comprehensive Plan. Although both the current and future land use data were provided by Hall County, based on the Comprehensive Plan, there were some differences in the land use categories over time. The Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map is included in Appendix C.
To facilitate the comparison of land use over time, the land use categories were consolidated into the categories described below:
• Agriculture: This category is for land dedicated to agriculture, farming (fields, lots, pastures, farmsteads, specialty farms, livestock production, etc.), or other similar rural uses. • Commercial: This category is for land dedicated to non-industrial business uses, including retail sales, office, service, and entertainment facilities, organized into general categories of intensities. Commercial uses may be located as a single use in one building or grouped together in a shopping center or office building. • Conservation: This category is for land dedicated to active or passive recreational uses. These areas may be either publicly or privately owned and may include playgrounds, public parks, nature preserves, wildlife management areas, national forests, golf courses, recreation centers or similar uses. This category also includes forested lands. This land use type can be potentially rezoned in the future. • Industrial: This category is for land dedicated to manufacturing facilities, processing plants, factories, warehousing and wholesale trade facilities, mining or mineral extraction activities, or other similar uses. • Institutional/Public: This category includes certain state, federal or local government uses, and institutional land uses. Government uses include city halls and government building complexes, police and fire stations, libraries, prisons, post offices, and schools. Examples of institutional land use include colleges, churches, cemeteries, and hospitals. • Mixed Use Transitional: This category includes a blending of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. • Residential: The predominant use of land within the residential category is for single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Residential land for this purpose is classified under low to medium density with the number of single residential units per acre varying from 2 to 4. • Forest Land Protection Act (FLPA): This category includes properties primarily used for good faith subsistence or commercial production of trees, timber, or other wood products. The property may also be certified as environmentally sensitive by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources or is kept in accordance with a recognized sustainable forestry certification program. • Other: This category includes smaller land uses that in general do not have associated sewer flows, such as transportation, utilities, and communication.
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-9 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
In the North Hall study area, most of the land is currently designated for agricultural or conservation uses, with a low level of development and limited sewer service. As part of this project, the Master Plan team and the Director of Public Utilities met with several of the large land owners (from October 2018 to December 2018) to obtain their input for potential future build-out plans for the purpose of sewer system master planning. The future land use from the Comprehensive Plan was modified to reflect the input received from these interviews. Figure 2-6 shows the current land use and the potential future build-out conditions. Table 2-4 provides a comparison between the current and the future build-out land use by category for the North Hall study area. The 2020 land use is adopted from the 2016 land use provided by the County. The build-out scenario assumes that some of the land currently designated for agriculture and conservation uses may potentially be rezoned in the future to residential or commercial use. Small increases are also anticipated for the commercial and industrial land use categories, with the expected inclusion of commercial areas around the Highway 365 to the sewer service area in build-out conditions. Overall, these potential changes correspond to the development of approximately 7,100 acres of suburban land use and 2,100 acres of commercial and industrial land use from 2020 to build-out.
Figure 2-6: North Hall Study Area Current (2020) and Future (Build-Out) Land Use
2-10 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 2-4: Comparison of Current and Potential Future Land Use in North Hall Study Area
Land Use Current % (2020) Future % (Build-Out) Category Residential 19 50 Commercial 4 4 Industrial 1 2 Agricultural 21 8 Conservation Use 40 23 FLPA 10 8 Exempt 5 4 Mixed Use Transitional 0 0 Utility 0 0 Total 100 100
The current land use in the South Hall study area is primarily residential with large areas of conservation use and spotty agricultural use. The 2018 Hall County Comprehensive Plan indicates the majority of land use in the future for this area will be residential with some commercial development along the major thoroughfares such as Friendship Road and Spout Springs Road. It also indicates that an activity center will be developed around the Road Atlanta property. This activity center will consist of mixed use and commercial development and is reflected in the future land use map (Figure 2-7). The 2020 land use was based on the 2016 land use with updated recent zoning information.
Table 2-5 shows a comparison between the current and the future build-out land use by category for the South Hall study area. The comparison shows a decrease in conservation land use and a conversion of almost all agricultural land to residential and commercial uses. The reduction in industrial land is due to the changes in the zoning of some industrial land near Road Atlanta, to commercial and residential land. Overall, all these changes correspond to the development of approximately 5,800 acres of suburban land use and 1,100 acres of commercial and industrial land use from 2020 to build-out.
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-11 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 2-7: South Hall Study Area Current (2020) and Future (Build-Out) Land Use
Table 2-5: Comparison of Current and Future Land Use in South Hall Study Area
Land Use Category Current % (2020) Future % (Build-Out) Residential 50 73 Commercial 7 7 Industrial 5 3 Agricultural 10 0 Conservation Use 23 6 FLPA 0 0 Exempt 6 6 Mixed Use Transitional 0 5 Utility 0 0 Total 100 100
2-12 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
2.5 Hydrology The North Hall study area is located within the Upper Oconee River (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 03070101) and the Upper Chattahoochee River (HUC 03130001) watersheds.
The South Hall study area is located within the Upper Oconee River (HUC 03070101) watershed. There is an existing wastewater discharge into Lollis Creek with no other wastewater discharges anticipated within the study area and timeframe.
Minimizing interbasin transfer would be an important consideration, as Hall County’s raw water is obtained from Lake Lanier in the Chattahoochee River Basin.
2.6 Water Quality Surface waters that do not meet the State of Georgia’s designated water quality guidelines for the water use are listed on the Federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list. Six streams within the North Hall study area are included on the 2016 303(d) list; Table 2-6 includes details of the 303(d) listings. The draft 2018 list has been released for comments, but no changes are anticipated because the same streams are on the list.
Table 2-6: North Hall 303(d) Listed Streams
Stream Segment Listing Category Pollution Source Headwaters to Buffington North Oconee River Biota (Macroinvertebrates) Non-point Source Pollution Mill Creek Headwaters near Clermont Urban Runoff, Non-Point Flat Creek Biota (Fish) to Lake Lanier Source Pollution Mossy Creek to Lake Chattahoochee River Fecal Coliform Non-point Source Pollution Lanier Downstream Highway 52 East Fork Little River Fecal Coliform Non-point Source Pollution to Lake Lanier Headwaters to Little Mud Mud Creek Biota (Fish), Fecal Coliform Non-point Source Pollution Creek Little Mud Creek Headwaters to Mud Creek Fecal Coliform Non-Point Source Pollution
One stream within the South Hall study area is included in the 2016 303(d) list (Table 2-7). The draft 2018 list has been released for comments, but no changes are anticipated since the same streams are listed.
Table 2-7: South Hall 303(d) Listed Streams
Stream Segment Listing Category Pollution Source Biota Mulberry Creek to Little Mulberry River (Macroinvertebrates), Non-point Source Pollution Mulberry River Fecal Coliform
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-13 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
2.7 Policy Considerations Hall County must consider water resources policies established by regional, state, and federal authorities when planning their future wastewater infrastructure. Several of the known issues for the study areas are defined below.
2.7.1 Water Use Lake Lanier is Hall County’s primary water supply, and the City of Gainesville is the County’s primary drinking water provider. As a member of the District, Hall County is required to implement the recommendations adopted by the District listed in the Water Resource Management Plan (June 2017) and in its future updates. The good news is that Hall County’s long-term water supply need is stable as the State of Georgia has been granted its water supply request by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) based on the most recent adoption of the Corps’ Water Control Manuals for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin on March 30, 2017; however, there are still outstanding lawsuits with the State of Florida, and continuous monitoring of the outcome of the litigation is required. Working with the City of Gainesville to continue promoting water conservation and reducing non-revenue water is essential in protecting the County’s water supply future.
2.7.2 Water Reuse Similar to water use and conservation, Hall County is required to consider and comply with the District’s reuse policy as adopted in the 2017 District Plan. Generally, the District discourages non- potable reuse when its application increases net water use; however, the District recognizes a number of best practices for non-potable reuse that can help extend the life of water supplies (see non-potable reuse policy in Section 2 of the 2017 District Plan). The District also requires that local wastewater providers consider the need for returns of highly treated wastewater to local water bodies within the basin of origin as well as opportunities to enhance available water supplies through indirect potable reuse and the generation of “made inflows” to federal reservoirs. Returning highly treated wastewater to Lake Lanier (and their watersheds) is encouraged, where feasible, to support long-term sustainable water use from these basins.
The County currently has a limited reuse system with reuse mains from the Spout Springs WRF, which provides irrigation water to the Sterling on the Lake development as well as Cherokee Bluff High School along Spout Springs Road. This master plan assumes that there will be limited or no expansion of the reuse system, unless the use complies with the District policy.
2.7.3 Interbasin Transfer The 2017 District Plan encourages maximizing returns to the Chattahoochee Basin and minimizing interbasin transfers where possible. This master plan assumes that increase in reuse quantity will be insignificant and if any, will continue to follow the District guidelines. The 2017 District Plan also specifies that provisions will be made by 2035 by Hall County to return the flow currently discharging to Lollis Creek in the Oconee Basin to Lake Lanier. In addition, if a North Hall wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is planned, the new facility must be in conformance with H.B. 489, and discharge
2-14 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update should comply with one of the three options stated in Appendix B of the 2017 District Plan; however, the schedule/timeline shown in the District Plan is a general guideline based on the flow projections at the time, and it can be revised based on the County’s updated flow projections.
2.7.4 Increased Biological Loading One of the potential impacts of decreased water use from conservation efforts and improvements in the plumbing code is increased solids and biological loadings to wastewater treatment facilities. As residential density increases in the South Hall Sewer District, the County should continue to monitor the solids and biological loadings and treatment efficiencies at the Spout Springs WRF. Increased biological loading could also occur in new and under-used systems that are planned for higher future use.
2.7.5 Nutrient Standards for Lake Lanier Reclaimed water discharged to Lake Lanier must be treated significantly to reduce the amount of phosphorus in the discharge to maintain the limit of phosphorus in the Lake. In addition, Lake Lanier has a pending total maximum daily load (TMDL) for chlorophyll a. As the amount of reclaimed water discharges increase, the amount of treatment and the treatment cost is anticipated to increase to maintain water quality.
2.7.6 Climate Resiliency In 2017, the District adopted the Water Resource Management Plan, which includes an action item that requires local wastewater providers to include a Climate Resiliency section in their wastewater master plans. The District requires that “wastewater providers discuss infrastructure potentially vulnerable to extreme weather events and identify adaptive strategies for mitigating impacts” (INTEGRATED-4: LOCAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLANS, Water Resource Management Plan, June 2017).
The District published a study, Utility Climate Resiliency Study (December 2015), which evaluates the impact of the region’s climate on water resources and infrastructure. The goal of the study was to identify and characterize potential climate variability impacts so appropriate adaptation measures can be considered during the District water management planning effort in 2016 and beyond.
This planning effort considered the uncertainty of the future climate and how this could impact the District’s utility members. Historically, the Metro North Georgia region has experienced years of drought followed by years of extreme rainfall. Although there is a significant amount of variability across potential future climate scenarios, scientists generally agree that the climate impact of increased storm intensity and higher flows on watersheds display an increased probability of flooding in the region.
The Utility Climate Resiliency Study states that the increase in quantity and intensity of 24-hour storms has the largest impact on wastewater collection and treatment in the region. Storms of this magnitude cause increased inflow and infiltration (I/I) in collection systems, which can lead to
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-15 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update overflows in the sewers or at the plant. Older sewer lines that are especially sensitive to I/I should be upgraded in an effort to protect the system from future climate uncertainty.
Flooding is a potential issue for remote pump stations and wastewater treatment plants. These facilities are often located in areas of low elevations and near bodies of water. This increases the likelihood of flooding during storm events. Some of the actions that Hall County should perform to increase its reliability and resiliency of existing and future wastewater infrastructure to extreme climate and flooding include: • Review existing flood elevations near critical pump stations; • Pay special attention to the elevations of equipment that is sensitive to submersion, such as electrical switchgears and pump motors as wastewater infrastructure is added to existing systems; • Install only watertight manhole lids and covers where appropriate; • Continue monitoring of wastewater flows versus system capacity and continued I/I reduction improvements; • Provide backup power provisions for pump stations and the treatment plant to ensure reliable operation during power loss events, which often occur in relation to major storm events; and • Consider installing bypass pumping at small pump stations for reliability. 2.8 Planning Considerations
2.8.1 Reliability & Flexibility Reliability for wastewater treatment systems indicates the ability of the systems to treat wastewater in compliance with discharge permits without danger to human health or the environment. The WRFs should be designed based on best practices and sized to treat the projected 2040 quantity and quality of anticipated wastewater. The development of wastewater collection and treatment alternatives in this Master Plan considers limiting the number of pump stations to reduce liability. Pump stations are mechanical operations that require continuous power supply and routine maintenance to operate as designed, but as with any mechanical device, pump stations wear out over time. To increase reliability, it is recommended the County phase in diesel powered backup pump systems as a replacement for the back-up generators that are currently utilized at all 21 pump stations. These back-up diesel pumps should become the standard for all future pump stations including those constructed by developers. Flexibility for wastewater treatment systems indicates the ability of the systems to adapt to changes in flows, quality, or new discharge requirements. As the flows are anticipated to increase substantially through build-out, flexibility is an important consideration for Hall County. Hall County should consider the design of the future WRFs to incorporate ease of expansion and flexibility for meeting increasing demands.
2-16 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
2.8.2 Ease of Implementation/Constructability The selection of sites for new facilities considers ease of implementation and constructability. The goal is to minimize pumping over ridge lines where possible to avoid constructability issues with grouping of sewer drainage basins and service area for these WRFs. Hall County would need to secure easements for the gravity sewer, pump stations, and force mains associated with the system alternatives.
2.8.3 Easement Considerations As with any gravity sewer project, acquiring easements is time consuming and can extend the duration of any project further than expected. Hall County can work on securing easements for planned projects after design is complete or nearly complete to secure the County’s right to install the necessary infrastructure before the property is developed or the land values increase significantly. The potential number of easements for the proposed projects are presented in Appendix D.
2.8.4 Biosolids Considerations The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines “sewage sludge” as the solids separated during the treatment of municipal wastewater. Although the terms are often used interchangeably, “biosolids” refers to treated sewage sludge that meets the EPA pollutant and pathogen requirements for land application and surface disposal. The treatment and disposal of biosolids from the Spout Springs Water Reclamation Facility (SSWRF) is not part of the scope of this Sewer Master Plan; however, potential change in future disposal options is anticipated to result in additional operation expenses for Hall County. Estimated future operation expenses based on assumed short-term disposal option was included in the financial planning of this Sewer Master Plan. This section provides a brief overview of the assumptions incorporated in the financial analysis, and future planning consideration for long-term biosolids disposal alternatives.
Biosolids from the SSWRF are currently hauled to and disposed at the local Hall County landfill. The County’s SSWRF produces about 46.4 tons of sludge per month on average which equates to roughly four loads a month. The Hall County landfill has given indication that they may not be able to continue accepting wastewater sludge in the future. The County staff recently identified two other potential landfills that could accept their sludge at its current condition to address this issue for the near-term. The first is a facility in East Point which is 70 miles from Gainesville and charges a tipping fee of $83 per ton. The other facility is in Lamar County which is 110 miles from Gainesville and charges a tipping fee of $50 per ton. Assuming the County’s hauling vehicle averages 5.5 miles per gallon and fuel price is an average of $3 per gallon, the estimated fuel cost is approximately $77 per roundtrip to the East Point facility and $120 per roundtrip to the Lamar County facility. The County’s overhead cost of capital and employee time is about $300 per load. With the addition of tipping fees and overhead costs, the total disposal cost is approximately $460 per load at the East Point facility and $470 per load at the Lamar County facility, respectively. To be conservative, this Master Plan assumed all future sludge starting in 2020 will be hauled to Lamar County. The disposal cost has been included in the O&M portion of the budget.
February 2020 Section 2 | 2-17 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
In addition to short-term disposal options, Hall County needs to evaluate its long-term biosolids disposal alternatives as regulations become more stringent and disposal cost continues to rise. The first step is to conduct a solid waste master plan, including an evaluation of the overall framework for biosolids, management policy and an end use market study. Biosolids can be recycled and applied as fertilizer or compost to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. It is important to conduct an end use market study prior to selecting the technologies or treatment processes required to convert sludge into potentially usable product. A market analysis can determine what biosolids product markets exist or could be developed locally. The biosolids master plan should include a review of current and potential federal, state and local regulations to identify regulatory drivers, and potential future benefits and barriers for beneficial reuse, distribution, and/or landfill disposal.
The County would develop a short-term option evaluation which includes actions that can be implemented to provide additional flexibility and outlet capacity while a longer-term biosolids management solution can be planned, designed and implemented. Different technologies are available for producing high quality biosolids, including thermal drying, aerobic/anaerobic digestion, or chemical stabilization. The goal of the biosolids master plan will be to find the most cost effective and sustainable way to produce a biosolids product with reliable outlets/markets. Having flexibility for the future is important so the system can adapt to unforeseen changes to regulations and the local market.
2-18 | Section 2 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
3. WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
This section discusses the planning assumptions, methodology, and the projected build-out wastewater flows for the North Hall and South Hall study areas.
3.1 Planning Assumptions and Methodology Wastewater flow consists of dry-weather flows and I/I. Dry-weather flow is the flow generated from sewer users (based on indoor water use) and is directly related to population density and the type of commercial and industrial activities in the service area. Inflow is surface water that enters the system through manhole covers, catch basins, roof drains, and other stormwater sources connected to the sanitary sewer system. Infiltration is groundwater that enters the system through leaking joints, structural defects in pipes, and manholes.
Figure 3-1 illustrates how wastewater flows are conveyed from the customer to the treatment facility. Many factors or assumptions affect the projections for future wastewater flows, including wastewater return ratio, I/I entering the collection system, future conversion of existing population served by septic tank to the sewer system, and peaking factors important for sizing collection and treatment systems.
Figure 3-1: Wastewater System Schematic
Two methodologies were considered initially for estimating wastewater flow generated from users:
• Projections based on future population/employment: using per capita/employee wastewater generation rate multiplied by population and employment projections prepared by local and regional agencies, and • Projections based on future land use: using per acre wastewater generation rate for specific land-use multiplied by acreage for build-out wastewater flow. For residential areas, a build- out density is assumed for various types of residential land use.
3.1.1 Per Capita Wastewater Generation Current per capita wastewater generation rate was estimated based on recent Monthly Operating Reports (MORs) from Hall County’s Spout Springs WRF. Daily effluent flows from the Spout Springs WRF from January 2015 to September 2018 averaged 0.27 mgd and ranged from 0.20 to 0.37 mgd. The average wastewater generation rate was calculated to be 48 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) based on the number of accounts served by the Spout Springs WRF. This was slightly less
February 2020 Section 3 | 3-1 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update than the per capita and per employee rates estimated in the District’s 2017 Water Resource Management Plan for Hall County (Table 3-1).
Table 3-1: Wastewater Generation Rates based on District Water Demands for Hall County
Wastewater Indoor Water Demand Inflow and Source1 Return Ratio Generation Rates (gpcd or gped) Infiltration2 (gpcd or gped) Single Family 56 85% 20% 60 Residential Baseline Commercial Baseline 69 85% 20% 73 Notes: 1. Source: Water Resource Management Plan, Metro North Georgia Water Planning District (June 2017) 2. I/I is assumed to be 20% of total flow.
3.1.2 Per Acre Wastewater Generation Rates Table 3-2 summarizes the per acre wastewater generation rates by land use category. These rates were applied to the proposed service areas and multiplied by the I/I factor to calculate the build-out wastewater flows. The flow factor for suburban low-density residential category is based on a build- out density of 2 units per acre, and this assumption was used for both North and South Hall study areas based on discussions with the Public Works and Planning and Development Departments of Hall County. This is consistent with the 2016 Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the Mitchell Creek drainage basin in South Hall County.
Table 3-2: Per Acre Wastewater Generation Rates Categorized by Land Use Type
Land Use Category Wastewater Flow Factor1 (gallon/day/acre) Retail Commercial 650 Parks/Recreation/ Conservation 0 Institutional/Public 650 Mixed-Use Transitional 750 Suburban Low-Density Residential2 280 Transportation/Utilities/Communication 0 Notes: 1. The wastewater flow factors for all the above land use categories except the suburban low-density residential land use are from the Friendship Road Sewer Extension Corridor PER, Jan 2016. 2. The Suburban Low-Density Residential flow factor is based on 2 units per acre and 2.5 residents per household.
After discussions with Hall County, the land-use based approach was selected to estimate the build-out wastewater flows based on anticipated development trends. The updated ARC population and employment projections through 2040, as well as potential development timing obtained from Hall County planning department, key stakeholders, and land owners, were used to consider phasing of the sewer system infrastructure for the 20-year planning horizon.
3-2 | Section 3 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
3.1.3 Inflow and Infiltration An I/I factor of 20% (of the total flow) is used for this study, and this assumption is consistent with the 2011 North Hall Sewer System Master Plan and the District Plan.
3.1.4 Peaking Factor Two peaking factors are important for this Master Plan: maximum month (MMF to Annual Average Daily Flow [ADF]) and peak hour (Peak Hourly Flow [PHF] to ADF) factors. MMF is used for preliminary sizing of treatment facilities, while PHF is used for sizing of the gravity sewers, force mains, and pump stations. A maximum month factor of 1.25 is used, consistent with the 2017 District Plan. The actual MMF to ADF peaking factor for the Spout Springs WRF (for the period of January 2015 to September 2018) was calculated as 1.22; however, the more conservative District Plan max month factor was adopted for planning purposes. A peak hour factor of 2.5 is used for this Master Plan, consistent with the factor used in 2016 Friendship Road Sewer Extension PER.
3.1.5 Septic to Sewer Conversion Based on discussions with Hall County, it is assumed that 20% of the existing OSSMS customers will be converted to public sewer by 2040 for all basins in the South Hall study area except for the Mitchell Creek Drainage Basin. The flows from the OSSMS conversion is estimated based on 2.5 residents per household using the District residential wastewater generation rate (with I/I). It is assumed that all houses currently on septic tanks in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin will be served by 2030, consistent with the assumptions used in the 2016 Friendship Road Sewer Extension PER.
For the North Hall study area, the build-out flow assumes all new customers will connect to public sewer. For the build-out flows, it is assumed that 20% of the existing OSSMS customers in Hagan and Mud Creek basins will be converted to public sewer; no conversion of existing OSSMS customers from other basins in North Hall will occur in the 20-year planning period due to its relatively remote location.
3.2 Wastewater Forecasts The build-out wastewater flows were estimated for both the North Hall and South Hall study areas. The proposed future sewer service areas were identified based on inputs from Hall County staff on areas zoned for future development, the 2018 Hall County Comprehensive Plan, the 2017 Hall County Strategic Plan, and additional land use data provided by the County. Property owners with large acreage (200 acres or more) were also interviewed one-on-one for potential future developments (Appendix E).
3.2.1 North Hall Build-Out Wastewater Flows Table 3-3 summarizes the projected build-out wastewater flows for North Hall by drainage basin. Table 3-4 shows the build-out wastewater flows for the study area by land use type.
February 2020 Section 3 | 3-3 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
The wastewater generated by the current (2020) service area in North Hall is about 0.24 ADF-mgd, with the 365 drainage basin contributing all the flow. This flow is primarily from the commercial and industrial units served. The build-out wastewater flow is estimated to reach approximately 6.1 ADF- mgd in the North Hall study area, with the 365 drainage basin and the Hagen Creek drainage basin contributing the most. The bulk of these flows can be attributed to the anticipated increase in low- density residential, commercial, and industrial developments requiring sewer service, which varies from 0% to 37% of the total study area. Figure 3-2 presents the estimated percentages of area with sewer service by land use type for existing and build-out conditions. The 2030 and 2040 projected flows are summarized in Table 3-5. The projected flows for each drainage basin were generally based on the ARC population and employment data and updated based on current understanding of development plans in the study area. The projected 2040 flows are used to size pumping and treatment facilities.
Table 3-3: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows – North Hall Service Areas
Build-Out Wastewater Flows Drainage Basin
ADF- mgd MMF-mgd PHF-mgd
365 0.741 0.926 1.852 Cane Creek 0.678 0.848 1.696 Chattahoochee River 0.057 0.071 0.142 Dog Creek 0.084 0.105 0.210 Garner Creek 0.396 0.495 0.989 Hagan Creek 0.951 1.188 2.377 John Creek 0.817 1.021 2.042 Lower East Fork Little River 0.238 0.297 0.594 Lower Flat Creek 0.329 0.411 0.822 Mud Creek 0.701 0.877 1.754 Pleasant Hill 0.582 0.727 1.454 Upper East Fork Little River 0.496 0.621 1.241 Total 6.069 7.586 15.173 Note: Timing of the development will need to be updated in 3-5 years.
3-4 | Section 3 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 3-4: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows by Type – North Hall Service Area
Build-Out Wastewater Flows (ADF-mgd) North Hall Drainage Basin Septic to Commercial/ Institutional/ Name Residential Sewer Total Industrial Public Conversion 365 0.195 0.546 0.000 0.000 0.741 Cane Creek 0.276 0.402 0.000 0.000 0.678 Chattahoochee River 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 Dog Creek 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.084 Garner Creek 0.396 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.396 Hagan Creek 0.543 0.398 0.009 0.001 0.951 John Creek 0.817 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.817 Lower East Fork Little River 0.238 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.238 Lower Flat Creek 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.329 Mud Creek 0.700 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.701 Pleasant Hill 0.582 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.582 Upper East Fork Little River 0.496 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.496 Total 4.711 1.346 0.009 0.003 6.069
Figure 3-2: Estimated Percentage of Area by Land Use Type for Existing and Build-Out Conditions in North Hall Study Area
February 2020 Section 3 | 3-5 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 3-5: Projected 2030 and 2040 Wastewater Flows – North Hall Study Area
Wastewater Flow Projections (ADF-mgd) Drainage Basin 2030 2040 365 0.367 0.686 Cane Creek 0.213 0.418 Chattahoochee River 0.033 0.044 Dog Creek 0.002 0.003 Garner Creek 0.077 0.153 Hagan Creek 0.245 0.459 John Creek 0.056 0.069 Lower East Fork Little River 0.019 0.020 Lower Flat Creek 0.035 0.049 Mud Creek 0.077 0.152 Pleasant Hill 0.011 0.075 Upper East Fork Little River 0.141 0.149 Total (ADF-mgd) 1.281 2.280 Total (MMF-mgd) 1.601 2.850
Wastewater flows were also calculated by the sub-basins served by segments of the proposed collection system. Figure 3-3 presents the labeled segments and Table 3-6 presents the projected build-out flows to each segment in the North Hall study area.
Table 3-6: Build-Out Flows for Pipe Segments – Proposed North Hall Collection System
Segment Flow Segment Flow Aggregate Flow Aggregate Flow Basin Segment (ADF-mgd) (PHF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) (PHF-mgd) A1 0.48 1.20 0.82 2.06 Hagen Creek A2 0.34 0.86 0.34 0.86 B1 0.02 0.04 0.23 0.58 Mud Creek B2 0.18 0.44 0.21 0.54 B3 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.09 C1 1.13 2.83 1.57 3.93 Pleasant Hill C2 0.19 0.47 0.44 1.09 C3 0.25 0.63 0.25 0.63 365 D1 0.74 1.85 0.74 1.85
3-6 | Section 3 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 3-3: Pipe Segments in the Proposed North Hall Collection System
February 2020 Section 3 | 3-7 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
3.2.2 South Hall Build-Out Wastewater Flows Table 3-7 presents the build-out wastewater flows for South Hall by drainage basins. Table 3-8 presents the projected wastewater flows by land use type. The wastewater generated by South Hall’s current (2020) service area is approximately 0.38 ADF-mgd, with the Lollis Creek, Mulberry Creek, and Deaton Creek drainage basins contributing the most. While most of this flow is from low-density residential units, the flows in Mulberry Creek drainage basin are from the Cherokee Bluff High School and the Spout Springs Elementary School. Out of this, approximately 0.29 ADF-mgd goes to Spout Springs WRF. The total build-out wastewater flow in the South Hall study area is estimated to reach 4.7 ADF-mgd, with the Deaton Creek drainage basin and the Cooper Creek drainage basin contributing the most. The bulk of this flow increase can be attributed to the anticipated increase in low to medium density residential development requiring sewer service from 5% to 33% of the total study area. Small increases in commercial, institutional, and mixed-use transitional developments are also predicted to contribute to the flows. Figure 3-4 presents the estimated percentages of area with sewer service by land use type for existing and build-out conditions.
Table 3-7: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows – South Hall Service Areas
Build-Out Wastewater Flow Drainage Basin ADF- mgd MMF-mgd PHF-mgd Caney Fork Creek 0.634 0.792 1.585 Cooper Creek 0.843 1.054 2.108 Deaton Creek 0.872 1.090 2.179 Lollis Creek 0.295 0.369 0.738 Lott Creek 0.136 0.171 0.341 Mitchell Creek 0.751 0.939 1.878 Mulberry Creek 0.340 0.424 0.849 Mulberry River 0.683 0.854 1.707 Reunion 0.119 0.149 0.298 Sherwood Creek 0.056 0.070 0.140 Total 4.729 5.912 11.823
Table 3-8: Projected Build-Out Wastewater Flows by Type – South Hall Service Area
Build-Out Wastewater Flows (ADF-mgd) Drainage Basin Commercial/ Institutional/ Mixed Use Septic to Sewer Residential Total Industrial Public Transitional Conversion Caney Fork Creek 0.475 0.048 0.057 0.000 0.053 0.634 Cooper Creek 0.087 0.385 0.000 0.368 0.004 0.843 Deaton Creek 0.662 0.019 0.082 0.093 0.015 0.872 Lollis Creek 0.269 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.295 Lott Creek 0.126 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.009 0.136 Mitchell Creek 0.441 0.157 0.043 0.111 0.000 0.751 Mulberry Creek 0.156 0.009 0.164 0.000 0.011 0.340 Mulberry River 0.035 0.280 0.021 0.343 0.004 0.683 Reunion 0.092 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.119
3-8 | Section 3 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Build-Out Wastewater Flows (ADF-mgd) Drainage Basin Commercial/ Institutional/ Mixed Use Septic to Sewer Residential Total Industrial Public Transitional Conversion Sherwood Creek 0.032 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 Total 2.374 0.949 0.394 0.915 0.097 4.729
Figure 3-4: Estimated Percentage of Area by Land Use Type for Existing and Build-Out Conditions in South Hall Study Area
Table 3-9 summarizes the 2030 and 2040 projected flows. The projected flows for each drainage basin were generally based on the ARC population and employment data and updated based on current understanding of the residential and commercial/industrial development plans in the study area. The projected 2040 flows are used to size pumping and treatment facilities.
Table 3-9: Projected 2030 and 2040 Wastewater Flows – South Hall Study Area
Wastewater Flow Projections (ADF-mgd) Drainage Basin 2030 2040 Caney Fork Creek 0.346 0.389 Cooper Creek 0.190 0.322 Deaton Creek 0.278 0.313 Lollis Creek 0.255 0.291 Lott Creek 0.051 0.055 Mitchell Creek 0.221 0.317 Mulberry Creek 0.273 0.308 Mulberry River 0.177 0.308 Reunion 0.089 0.095 Sherwood Creek 0.035 0.051 Total (ADF-gpd) 1.914 2.448 Total (MMF-gpd) 2.392 3.060
February 2020 Section 3 | 3-9 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 3-5 presents the labeled segments and Table 3-10 presents the projected build-out flows to each segment in the South Hall study area. The segments have been designated as County-built or developer-built based on discussion with Hall County. While the flows are presented in this section, the proposed infrastructure and actual sizing of components are described in Section 4 and Section 5 for the North Hall and South Hall study areas, respectively.
Figure 3-5: Pipe Segments in the Proposed South Hall Collection System
Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin (I1, I2, I3, I4, FM-1S, PS-1S) are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin (FM-7S, PS-7S) are contained in the County’s current CIP.
3-10 | Section 3 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 3-10: Build-Out Flows for Pipe Segments – Proposed South Hall Collection System
Segment Flow Segment Flow Aggregate Flow Aggregate Flow Basin Segment (ADF-mgd) (PHF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) (PHF-mgd) I1 0.05 0.13 0.51 1.27 I2 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.14 Mitchell Creek1 I3 0.10 0.25 0.40 1.00 I4 0.12 0.30 0.12 0.30 G1 0.04 0.10 0.76 1.90 G2 0.15 0.38 0.51 1.27 Deaton Creek G3 0.35 0.88 0.35 0.88 G4 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 F1 0.00 0.00 0.87 2.18 F2 0.08 0.21 0.08 0.21 F3 0.12 0.31 0.27 0.67 Cooper Creek F4 0.21 0.53 0.52 1.30 F5 0.14 0.36 0.14 0.36 F6 0.28 0.69 0.28 0.69 F7 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.08 E1 0.10 0.24 1.00 2.50 E2 0.08 0.19 0.62 1.56 E3 0.06 0.14 0.28 0.70 Caney Fork Creek E4 0.22 0.55 0.22 0.55 E5 0.33 0.82 0.33 0.82 E6 0.22 0.56 0.22 0.56 E7 0.00 0.01 - - H1 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.08 H2 0.15 0.37 0.22 0.55 Lott Creek H3 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.08 H4 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.10
Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (a part of the current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019.
February 2020 Section 3 | 3-11 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
4. NORTH HALL STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
This section provides an update of the collection and treatment system alternatives developed in the 2011 North Hall Master Plan based on the updated wastewater flow projections.
4.1 Review of the 2011 Recommended Alternative In the 2011 North Hall Master Plan, a list of potentially feasible alternatives was developed based on the projected build-out flows for wastewater service and treatment. Each alternative considered both the near-term needs for wastewater treatment capacity and future growth potential, so that the system can be expanded to meet needs as they develop.
The County considered a list of alternatives within four main categories that reflect different philosophies for wastewater service development. The four categories include:
A. County-led infrastructure approach – under this approach the County builds the main infrastructure and development follows the infrastructure. B. Development-led infrastructure approach – under this approach the development community builds infrastructure following the County’s standards. Developers could choose to build with septic systems, decentralized systems, or a centralized treatment system. C. Hybrid/planned development infrastructure approach – under this approach the County plans out when and where sewer service will be extended. The development of infrastructure may be shared by the County and private developers with the County eventually owning the infrastructure. D. Do nothing – this is a hands-off approach in which the development community develops as they would prefer, while obeying current regulations and permit conditions. After screening and detailed evaluation, the County selected a hybrid/planned development infrastructure approach, where the construction of the infrastructure will be shared between the County and private developers:
• The County will build the main infrastructure in selected areas/basins, and • The development community will build infrastructure following the County’s standards in designated development-led areas. Developers could choose to build with septic systems, decentralized systems, or a centralized treatment system. This development scenario was selected for the following reasons:
• It provides the lowest cost option for Hall County. • It provides wastewater service within the North Hall study area while also presenting the County with the tools to provide sewer service to a larger area with developer participation.
February 2020 Section 4 | 4-1 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
• It provides adequate capacity to meet the proposed sewer needs through new treatment facilities and the planned expansion of the Lula treatment facility. • It is compatible with the 2009 District Plan; it includes construction of a new North Oconee WRF with planned indirect potable reuse water to the North Oconee River to augment the Cedar Creek Reservoir. This discharge would supplement a future potable water supply, which is in accordance with the initiatives discussed in the State Water Plan. Based on discussions with Hall County, all of the advantages stated above still apply for this Master Plan except for the discharge conditions for the new North Oconee WRF. The 2017 District Plan includes different discharge options for a new North Hall WRF that requires additional evaluation. These options are discussed further below.
Given the evolving nature of planned developments and potential change in timing within the study area, the Sewer Master Plan should be updated within the next 3 to 5 years with development trends and information to confirm planned demands prior to the construction of critical aspects of the system and/or expansion to existing facilities.
4.2 Description of the Preferred Development Scenario Under the preferred development scenario, Hall County would provide a plan for the location of the wastewater system infrastructure; however, the construction of the infrastructure will be shared between the County and private developers. Although private developers may build some of the infrastructure in this development scenario, the system would eventually be dedicated back to the County for long-term maintenance. Because of the topography of the service area, this development scenario includes both decentralized (generally west of Hwy 365) and centralized systems (generally along and east of Hwy 365).
The proposed infrastructure components in Figure 4-1 include:
• over 40 miles of gravity and force mains, • seven new pump stations, • three new WRFs, and • purchase of additional capacity at Lula WPCP.
4-2 | Section 4 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 4-1: Proposed Infrastructure
February 2020 Section 4 | 4-3 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
4.2.1 Collection With the preferred development scenario, the County will be responsible for approximately 55,170 feet of proposed sewer interceptors, 33,550 feet of proposed force main, and three out of the seven proposed pump stations on Figure 4-1. The developers will be responsible for the remainder of the interceptors (approximately 107,240 feet), force mains (approximately 26,340 feet), and four pump stations. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 summarize the County-led and developer-led gravity mains and force mains, respectively.
Table 4-1: County-Led Gravity Sewer and Force Main
Basin County or Developer Gravity Main Length (ft) Force Main Length (ft) 365 County 1,550 --- Hagen Creek County 11,240 --- Mud Creek County 17,050 14,940 Pleasant Hill County 25,330 --- Cane Creek County --- 4,050 Garner Creek County --- 14,560 Total 55,170 33,550
Table 4-2: Developer-Led Gravity Sewer and Force Main
Basin County or Developer Gravity Main Length (ft) Force Main Length (ft) Mud Creek Developer 21,100 --- Hagen Creek Developer 1,300 --- Cane Creek Developer 16,300 --- Garner Creek Developer 11,500 --- Lower Flat Creek Developer 24,540 15,720 Upper East Fork Little River Developer 24,300 --- Dog Creek Developer 8,200 7,180 Chattahoochee River Developer --- 3,440
Total 107,240 26,340
Because of the rolling topography in North Hall County, at least seven pump stations will be required to pump wastewater from the sewer drainage basins to the three proposed treatment facilities. The treatment facilities and the decentralized systems will be located to maximize gravity flow to the extent practicable. Packaged pump station systems, such as Flygt submersible lift stations, can be used for the smaller service areas. The packaged pump stations are less expensive and can be quickly constructed to serve the County’s short-term needs. The stations will be designed so that they can be replaced with larger capacity submersible pump stations as flows exceed the capacity for the existing stations. Hall County should consider standardizing the pump station types and manufacturers to simplify maintenance needs and reduce costs. One opportunity for cost savings is reducing the number of parts that must be maintained in inventory.
4-4 | Section 4 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Decentralized, or satellite, facilities may be used in these sewersheds to provide interim service. Depending on the location of these facilities, the treatment system may be converted to a lift station in the future when and if a centralized collection and treatment system is appropriate.
The following provides a basin by basin description of the proposed projects:
• 365-Basin: The existing sewer infrastructure along the Highway 365 corridor is complete with minimal planned expansion. In the 365-basin just south of Highway 365, a developer has recently received approval for a 520-acre, 2.6-million-square-foot industrial park project known as Gateway Village located at 3240 Chiplan Road. This parcel is located at the most downstream end of the 365 basin and would also be near the proposed North Oconee WRF. This development is expected to break ground within 2020 and would have its own gravity system which will discharge into the existing Gateway Master pump station. The County will not build the 365-interceptor along this property until further development is foreseen along the 365-basin. The North Oconee WRF is not expected to be needed until the 365-basin is fully developed due to the existing master pump station and ample capacity in the City of Gainesville’s collection system. • Cane Creek: The Cane Creek project includes 3 miles of gravity sewer mains, which will be developer driven. The County will build a pump station and force main system to carry the flows to the 365-basin, where they will eventually flow into the proposed North Oconee WRF. • Hagen Creek: The Hagen Creek project includes developing over 2 miles of gravity sewer mains in the Hagen Creek basin. These gravity mains will discharge into the Lula WRF. This project will need to coincide with the expansion of Hall County’s capacity at the Lula WRF to handle the build-out flows. • Mud Creek: This basin is currently planned for primarily low-density residential development and therefore will primarily be served by OSSMSs in the short term. For the long term, it will be served by more than 3 miles of gravity sewers, force mains, and one pump station with a standby generator in the Mud Creek basin. The basin also includes 4 miles of developer-led gravity sewers off the main interceptor. The pump station will pump the flows to the Garner Creek pump station, where it will eventually discharge into a proposed WRF in the Lower Flat Creek basin. • Pleasant Hill and John Creek: These basins are currently planned for primarily low-density residential development and therefore will primarily be served by OSSMSs in the short term. For the long term, they will be served by 4.5 miles of County-built gravity mains and 2.5 miles of developer-built gravity mains in the Pleasant Hill basin. Flows from these basins will discharge into the proposed Mud Creek pump station before pumping to the proposed Garner Creek pump station and reaching the final discharge point at the proposed Lower Flat Creek WRF. • Garner Creek: This basin is currently planned for primarily low-density residential development and therefore will primarily be served by OSSMSs in the short term. For the long term, it will be served by a 2-mile developer-built gravity main that will discharge into the County-built Garner Creek pump station. This station will also receive flows from the Mud Creek and Pleasant Hill basins and will discharge into the proposed Lower Flat Creek WRF.
February 2020 Section 4 | 4-5 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
• Lower Flat Creek: This basin will be driven by developer-built infrastructure. The Glades Reservoir project located in this basin is currently on hold pending further review. The previous master plan included a WRF to serve the development around the reservoir but that has been put hold, and now a new WRF is planned in the northern end of Lower Flat Creek in order to serve the developer led gravity mains. The southwest portion of this basin is also anticipated to get developed, and these flows will be pumped to the proposed Lower Flat Creek WRF in the north. • Dog Creek: This basin will be driven by developer-built infrastructure. The basin will drain into a pump station that will pump the flows to the proposed Lower Flat Creek WRF. • Upper East Fork Little River: This basin in the western part of the study area will also be developer-led, including all gravity mains and a new WRF at the downstream end of the basin. • Chattahoochee River: This basin includes a developer-led gravity and pump station system in the southern end of the basin. This is planned to pump into the Gateway Master pump station in the 365-basin. • Cedar Creek, Buffington Mill, and Upper Flat Creek: Hall County does not plan on providing sewer infrastructure in these basins within the 20-year period.
4.2.2 Treatment Wastewater treatment for the preferred development scenario would be provided at four facilities. One facility will be constructed by Hall County, one already exists (Lula WPCP), and two are designated as developer-built facilities. The three new WRFs would be designed to maximize returns to drinking water supply sources in the Chattahoochee River Basin and also to minimize interbasin transfers. The discharge of these new facilities will need to comply with H.B. 489 and District policies and requirements. The conceptual plan for the three treatment facilities are described below. North Oconee WRF Hall County would construct one WRF in the Oconee River Basin adjacent to the North Oconee River. The North Oconee WRF would serve the 365 and Cane Creek sewer drainage basins. Previously in the 2011 Master Plan, it was planned for the North Oconee WRF to return reclaimed water to the Cedar Creek Reservoir, which would augment the yield available for the planned City of Gainesville Water Treatment Plant (WTP). However, the plan for a new WTP at Cedar Creek Reservoir is delayed and the 2017 District Plan requires several discharge options to be considered. Previously, a wasteload allocation was granted by the Georgia EPD in 2012 in the Oconee basin, and a design for this facility was partially completed in 2013 as part of a Design-Build Request for Proposal (RFP) package. The wasteload allocation has expired since then, and the discharge options must be evaluated prior to construction of this WRF. The proposed North Oconee WRF will be required to discharge into a tributary that drains into Lake Lanier or to Lake Lanier directly to minimize interbasin transfer based on the 2017 District Plan requirement.
The 2017 District Plan included 19 MMF-mgd of 2050 treatment capacity between the Spout Springs WRF and a new North Hall WRF. It indicated 0.5 MMF-mgd for a North Hall WWTP by 2025. Appendix B of the District Plan states that the new North Hall WRF must be in conformance of H.B.
4-6 | Section 4 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
489 negotiations and local wastewater master plans. The discharge may be to 1) Flat Creek in North Hall above Lake Lanier, 2) the City of Gainesville Flat Creek WRF, or 3) other options that are defined by coordinated planning by Hall County, City of Gainesville, Flowery Branch, and Lula. Lower Flat Creek WRF A second WRF is planned for the study area, to be constructed by a private developer. The Lower Flat Creek WRF would be built in the Chattahoochee River Basin to serve the Lower Flat Creek sewer drainage basin by the developer of the planned projects within the basin. This WRF will also serve the northern basins of Mud Creek, Pleasant Hill Creek, and Garner Creek.
As the WRF would be constructed by the developer, it would likely be operated by the developer until the construction costs are recouped through user charges. Similarly, the County and developer could negotiate a transfer when the newly developed property is substantially occupied for the County to assume maintenance and billing responsibilities with an appropriate financial arrangement that ensures that both the developer’s initial investment and the County’s maintenance costs are covered by the user fees.
The proposed WRF would be built to Hall County standards using similar membrane bioreactor technology designed for the North Oconee WRF. As long-term maintenance will be the County’s responsibility, the County should specify the treatment processes and any specific equipment to be used that would facilitate long-term maintenance of both WRFs and reduce the number of parts required in County inventory for maintenance needs.
The WRFs would initially be sized to meet the projected 2040 demands. The need for capacity expansion beyond 2040 should be evaluated in the next update of the Master Plan.
Upper East Fork Little River WRF A third WRF is planned for the study area, and it is also planned to be constructed by a private developer. The WRF would be built in the Chattahoochee River Basin to serve the Upper East Fork Little River sewer drainage basin by the developer of the planned projects within the basin. The standards and handover of the WRF should be structured similarly to the Lower Flat Creek WRF, as previously discussed.
Satellite facilities may be constructed in the northern or western sewer drainage basins as part of individual developments or groups of developments, however they are not considered a part of Hall County’s required infrastructure in the preferred development scenario. If built, they will be constructed to Hall County standards, and then ownership and operation may be turned over to the County for long-term maintenance and/or connected to the County’s centralized system. As developers approach the County with interest to construct these facilities, Hall County may assist in locating these facilities in appropriate areas to maximize the value of the infrastructure within the County’s long-term plan.
February 2020 Section 4 | 4-7 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Capacity from Lula WPCP This is an existing facility owned by the City of Lula. Hall County has 0.1 mgd of reserved capacity with no current contributing flows from the County’s service area. This WPCP will serve the Hagen Creek basin and will need to be upgraded when development in that basin begins. Hall County will also need to update its service agreement with Lula to increase its share to approximately 0.60 mgd by 2030, which will require upsizing the current facility as well.
4.3 Capital Improvement Plan The capital improvement plan addresses areas with current deficient levels of services within the North Hall study area. The previously described projects have been divided into separate line items for gravity sewers, force mains, pump stations, and treatment facilities. Figure 4-2 shows each labeled segment. The service areas around the segments were used to identify the future segmented flows with detailed results shown in Appendix F. The following assumptions are used for sizing of the sewer infrastructure:
• Gravity mains are sized based on a 2.5 peak factor applied to the build-out ADF at the minimum slope requirements (Table 4-3) with a Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) value of 0.013. • SDR 26 PVC is the preferred pipe material at depths of up to 14 feet. • DIP is required for depths greater than 14 feet, pipe with diameter 16-inch and larger, or for railroad and right-of-way crossings. • Pump stations are sized based on a 2.5 peak factor applied to the 2040 ADF. • Force mains were assumed to maintain a maximum velocity at or near 5 ft/s for the 2040 peak flows used to size the pump stations.
Table 4-3: Minimum Slopes and Full Pipe Flows
Size Slope Full Pipe Flows (mgd) (in) 8 0.0040 0.49 10 0.0028 0.75 12 0.0022 1.08 16 0.0014 1.86 18 0.0012 2.36 20 0.0010 2.85 24 0.0008 4.15 30 0.00058 6.40 36 0.00046 9.27 42 0.00037 12.54
4-8 | Section 4 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 4-2: North Hall Sewer System Master Plan – Preferred Development Scenario
Preliminary pipe sizes and lengths are shown for the project components in Table 4-4 based on the previously mentioned segmented flows.
February 2020 Section 4 | 4-9 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 4-4: Summary of Pipe Size and Length – North Hall
Length Pipe Diameter Basin Segment (ft) (in) Hagen Creek A1 7,840 18 Hagen Creek A2 3,400 12 Mud Creek B1 1,440 18 Mud Creek B2 12,020 18 Mud Creek B3 3,600 8 Pleasant Hill C1 20,130 24 Pleasant Hill C2 2,450 16 Pleasant Hill C3 2,750 10 365 D1 1,550 15 Notes: 1. Pipe sizes selected based on full @ build-out flows. 2. Pipe sizes based on an approximated flow for each of the receiving drainage basins. A more detailed analysis shall be performed for each pipe segment on future studies. 3. Pipe flow was calculated using Manning's Equation and a roughness coefficient, n, of 0.013. 4. Minimum pipe slope per Georgia Department of Natural Resources Table 4-5, Table 4-6, and Table 4-7 show the proposed sizing of the three County-built pump stations, corresponding force mains, and future size of treatment facilities. It is recommended the pump stations are sized to handle the peak flows shown, but the County may elect to install smaller pumps at the onset of development and then upgrade the pumps as the basin matures and flows begin to reach peak capacity.
Table 4-5: Pump Station Future Sizing
2030 2040 Build-Out To PS # Basin Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Basin/Station (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 1N Cane Creek 365 Basin 0.53 1.04 1.70 Garner Lower Flat 2N 0.55 1.12 6.24 Creek Creek WRF 3N Mud Creek Garner Creek 0.36 0.74 5.25
Table 4-6: Force Main Future Sizing
Length Pipe Diameter FM # Basin To Basin/Station (feet) (inches) 1N Cane Creek 365 Basin 4,050 8 Garner Lower Flat Creek 2N 14,560 8 Creek WRF 3N Mud Creek Garner Creek 14,940 8
4-10 | Section 4 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 4-7: Treatment Facility Future Sizing (MMF-mgd)
2030 2040 Build- Treatment 2030 2040 Current Required Required Out Served Basins Facility Flow Flow Capacity Additional Additional Required Capacity Capacity Capacity North Oconee 365/Cane Creek 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 1.38 1.77 Gainesville 365/Cane Creek 0.73 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lula 1 Hagen Creek 0.31 0.57 0.10 0.21 0.47 1.19
Garner Creek, Mud Lower Flat Creek, Pleasant 0.28 0.56 0 0.28 0.56 3.12 Creek 2 Hill, John Creek Notes: 1. The capacity requirement shown is for flow from Hall County only. It does not include flows from Lula’s immediate service are a. Hall County currently only owns 100,000 gpd of capacity of the 0.375-mgd Lula WRF. 2. Developer-built facility.
To plan for adequate treatment capacity through 2040, it is recommended to:
• Construct the North Oconee WRF at an initial capacity of 1.4 MMF-mgd with an ability to expand to the build-out capacity of 1.8 MMF-mgd in the future; and
• Update the service agreement with the City of Lula to increase Hall County’s allocation from 0.1 MMF-mgd to 0.57 MMF-mgd at Lula WPCP for service through 2040. The Lula WPCP will serve the initial development at Hagen Creek basin. Service needs beyond 2040 should be evaluated in the next update of the Master Plan.
February 2020 Section 4 | 4-11 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
5. SOUTH HALL STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 Description of Development Scenario Using a hybrid/planned approach similar to the North Hall system described in Section 4, Hall County will provide a plan for the location of the wastewater system infrastructure in South Hall, and the construction of the infrastructure will be shared between the County and private developers. It is anticipated that private developers will build some of the infrastructure, but the system will ultimately be dedicated back to the County for long-term operation and maintenance. The improvements described in this Section are limited to the service area and drainage basins shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-4 of this report.
The proposed infrastructure components in Figure 5-1 include:
• over 35 miles of gravity and force mains, • eight new pump stations, and • upgrades at the Spout Springs WRF.
February 2020 Section 5 | 5-1 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 5-1: Proposed Infrastructure – South Hall Study Area
Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin (I1, I2, I3, I4, FM-1S, PS-1S) are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin (FM-7S, PS-7S) are contained in the County’s current CIP.
5-2 | Section 5 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
5.1.1 Collection Under the proposed development scenario, the County will lead the development of approximately 20 miles of the proposed sewer interceptors, 8 miles of proposed force mains, and five out of the eight new pump stations (Figure 5-1). The majority of the collection system infrastructure in South Hall will be constructed by the County with the exception of portions of Deaton Creek, Caney Fork Creek, and the northern portion of Mulberry Creek basins. The County will designate the collection system in these three areas as developer-led infrastructure.
Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 summarize the anticipated County-led and developer-led collection systems, respectively, including both gravity sewers and force mains in each sewer basin.
Table 5-1: County-Led Gravity Sewer and Force Main
Basin County or Developer Gravity Sewer Length (ft) Force Main Length (ft)
Mitchell Creek1 County 17,420 9,700 Lollis Creek N/A --- 45,160 Mulberry Creek N/A ------Deaton Creek County 13,050 3,480 Caney Fork Creek County 45,530 16,510 Lott Creek County 10,810 7,060 Cooper Creek County 22,460 7,730 Mulberry River2 N/A --- 9,000 Reunion N/A ------Sherwood Creek N/A ------Total 109,270 98,640 Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin are contained in the County’s current CIP.
Table 5-2: Developer-Led Gravity Sewer and Force Main
Basin County or Developer Gravity Sewer Length (ft) Force Main Length (ft)
Mitchell Creek1 N/A ------Lollis Creek N/A ------Mulberry Creek Developer 9,440 13,800 Deaton Creek Developer 10,510 --- Caney Fork Creek Developer --- 3,540 Lott Creek N/A ------Cooper Creek N/A ------Mulberry River2 N/A ------Reunion N/A ------Sherwood Creek N/A ------Total 19,950 17,340
February 2020 Section 5 | 5-3 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin are contained in the County’s current CIP. Eight new pump stations are expected to be constructed to pump wastewater from six of the ten sewer basins in the South Hall study area to either the County’s Spout Springs WRF or the City of Gainesville’s collection system.
It is anticipated that these new stations will be designed to facilitate future replacement with larger capacity submersible pump stations as flows increase over time. Hall County should consider standardizing the pump station types and manufacturers to facilitate maintenance and reduce related costs (e.g., by reducing the number of parts that must be maintained in inventory). Additionally, the County may wish to consider the use of packaged pump station systems in smaller service areas, as these systems are relatively inexpensive and can be quickly constructed to serve the County’s short-term needs.
The following provides a description of the proposed projects by basin: • Mitchell Creek: The design of the Friendship Road sewer extension project is approximately 50% complete; when constructed this project will add approximately 3.3 miles of new gravity sewers, one pump station, and 1.8 miles of new force main, with flows discharged to the existing Spout Springs WRF. Construction of this project is planned to start in the third quarter of 2020. • Lott Creek: One new County-built pump station is to be located on JJ Lott Road. The flow from this pump station will be pumped via a force main that will follow JJ Lott Road to Ellison Farm Road and proceed north along Ellison Farm Road to another new pump station in the Caney Fork Creek basin, north of White Horse Drive and south of Tanner’s Mill Road. Two miles of new County-built gravity sewers are to be constructed in the Lott Creek basin, discharging into the referenced new pump station in the Caney Fork Creek basin. • Caney Fork Creek: Two new pump stations and associated force mains are proposed for this basin, along with 8.4 miles of County-built gravity sewers. One new County-built pump station will be constructed to receive flow from the 8.4 miles of gravity sewer and the Lott Creek basin pump station. The other will be a developer-built pump station that is to be located just south of LJ Martin Drive near Chestnut Mountain. Both pump stations will discharge into the existing Crystal Farms pump station. • Mulberry Creek: A new developer-built pump station and associated force main will be constructed in the northern portion of this basin, between Union Church Road and JM Turk Road. The station will serve approximately 9,400 feet of gravity sewer and discharge into the existing Spout Springs High School pump station. • Deaton Creek: Nearly 10,000 feet of proposed County-built gravity sewer will discharge flows into an existing 18-inch gravity sewer which runs through the Village at Deaton Creek neighborhood and discharges into the Mulberry Creek pump station. On the northern side of Deaton Creek, a new County-built pump station and associated 0.7-mile force main are to be located just south of the cul-de-sac on Blooming Way, receiving flow from 3,500 feet of County-built proposed gravity mains.
5-4 | Section 5 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
• Cooper Creek: A new County-built pump station and force main is proposed to serve over 4 miles of gravity mains in this basin. The pump station is to be constructed on Howington Drive, just south of the Road Atlanta facility. This pump station will discharge to the existing Mulberry Creek pump station via 1.3 miles of new County-built force main. The County is also currently designing the force main for a developer-built pump station near the Road Atlanta site. Construction of this force main is expected to be complete in 2019. • Mulberry River: A new force main (approximately 9,400 feet long) will be built between Mulberry Creek pump station and Reunion Creek pump station to reverse the flows from discharging into the City of Gainesville system. Upgrades will be made to the Mulberry Creek pump station and Reunion pump station to pump through the new force main.
5.1.2 Treatment Wastewater treatment in South Hall County will continue to be provided at the County’s Spout Springs WRF and the City of Gainesville’s Flat Creek wastewater treatment plant. The existing conditions for the treatment facilities and capacity allocation are described below.
• Spout Springs WRF: The Spout Springs WRF is permitted to expand from its current maximum flow of 0.75 MMF-mgd to 1.0 MMF-mgd and 1.6 MMF-mgd, subject to construction permit approvals. This WRF serves the Lollis Creek, Mulberry Creek, and Reunion Creek basins, which have a combined current flow of 0.34 ADF-mgd. In addition, this WRF will serve the Michell Creek basin. The 2017 District Plan notes that the Spout Springs WRF, which currently discharges to Lollis Creek, will need to discharge to Lake Lanier (or the Chattahoochee River Basin) by 2035, before the end of the planning period for this report. A proposed effluent discharge force main (conceptual) from the Spout Springs WRF to Lake Lanier is included in the capital improvement plan as a placeholder. The routing will require further studies and permitting to ensure all regulatory requirements are met. • Gainesville Flat Creek Facility: Hall County currently has 1.0 MMF-mgd capacity allocation at the Flat Creek WRF via the intergovernmental agreement with the City of Gainesville. This limit is inclusive of all flows from the North and South Hall collection systems. The County is currently discharging an MMF flow of approximately 0.15 mgd from the Deaton Creek and Mulberry River basins in the South Hall study area based on County billing data with Gainesville. The County is also discharging approximately 0.03 MMF-mgd from the North Hall collection system. Combined, the County currently discharges a total of 0.18 MMF-mgd to Gainesville’s system. This translates to a current available capacity of approximately 0.81 MMF-mgd in the Gainesville system.
Two treatment alternatives were developed to provide continued service for the South Hall study area until 2040 and beyond.
Alternative 1 The first alternative maintains the status quo in which all the currently served basins will remain served by the same facility. The Spout Springs WRF will receive additional flow from the Mitchell Creek and Sherwood Creek basins, while the City of Gainesville will receive additional flow from the
February 2020 Section 5 | 5-5 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Caney Fork Creek, Lott Creek, and Cooper Creek basins. The available capacity from City of Gainesville’s system is assumed to be shared with the North Hall system until the North Oconee WRF is built before 2040. Table 5-3 shows the current flows, projected flows through 2040, and projected build-out flows for the Spout Springs WRF and Gainesville service areas.
Table 5-3: Treatment Alternative 1
Projected Flows WRF Capacity Treatment (MMF-mgd) (MMF-mgd) Served Basins Facility 2030 2040 Potential 2030 2040 Current Planned Planned Build-Out Mitchell Creek /Sherwood Spout Springs Creek /Lollis Creek/ 1.09 1.33 0.75 1.10 1.60 2.00 WRF Mulberry Creek /Reunion Creek Deaton Creek /Caney Fork Gainesville Creek / Lott Creek /Cooper 1.30 1.73 1.0 1.50 2.0 4.00 Creek /Mulberry River Notes: Treatment Alternative 1 future flows are for the Sprout Springs WRF and the City of Gainesville’s Flat Creek WRF. Projected flows for build- out conditions should be re-evaluated in 5 to 10 years based on updated development conditions.
In Alternative 1, the County will need to increase the Spout Springs WRF capacity to 1.10 MMF-mgd by 2030 and to 1.6 MMF-mgd by 2040. In addition, the County will need to purchase an additional 1.0 MMF-mgd of capacity in Gainesville’s Flat Creek WRF and increase its total capacity allocation to 2.0 MMF-mgd. Table 5-4 shows the estimated costs for the expansion of the treatment facility and capacity allocation.
Table 5-4: Cost Estimate for Treatment Alternative 1
Treatment Facility 2030 Cost1,2 2040 Cost1,2 Total Cost1,2 Spout Springs WRF Expansion $4,725,000 $3,074,000 $7,799,000 Gainesville - Additional Capacity $13,500,000 $0 $13,500,000 Total $18,225,000 $3,074,000 $21,299,000 Notes: 1. Cost basis is from 2015 CDM Smith TM. 2. Gainesville IGA states next 1.0 mgd capacity will cost $13.5M.
The cost for expanding to 1.0 mgd by 2030 and 1.6 mgd by 2040 has been estimated by CDM Smith as part of the 2015 Mulberry Creek PS, Reunion PS, Force Main, and Spout Springs WWTP Improvements Technical Memorandum (TM). The cost for the City of Gainesville capacity is derived from the latest Intergovernmental Agreement, which indicates Hall County must pay $13,500,000 for every 1.0 mgd of additional capacity requested.
Alternative 2 In this alternative, the Spout Springs WRF will continue to serve the Lollis Creek, Mulberry Creek, and Reunion basins and eventually the Mitchell Creek and Sherwood basins as well. The County has previously studied installing a force main from the Mulberry Creek pump station to the Reunion pump station. This force main will allow the County to pump flows from the Deaton Creek and
5-6 | Section 5 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Mulberry River basins and eventually the Cooper Creek basins back to the Spout Springs WRF. Under this assumption, only the Caney Fork Creek and Lott Creek basins will be served by the City of Gainesville’s collection system. Table 5-5 shows the current flows, projected flows through 2040, and projected build-out flows for the Spout Springs WRF and Gainesville service areas.
Table 5-5: Treatment Alternative 2
Projected Flows WRF Capacity Treatment (MMF-mgd) (MMF-mgd) Served Basins Facility 2030 2040 Potential 2030 2040 Current Planned Planned Build-Out Mitchell Creek /Sherwood Creek / Lollis Creek / Spout Springs Mulberry Creek 1.91 2.51 0.75 2.00 2.60 5.00 WRF /Reunion Creek/ Deaton Creek /Mulberry River /Cooper Caney Fork Creek 1.00 1.00 1.00 Gainesville 0.50 0.55 1.00 /Lott Creek (no change) (no change) (no change) Notes: Treatment Alternative 2 is the preferred development scenario for treatment of future flows for the Spout Springs WRF and the City of Gainesville’s Flat Creek WRF.
In Alternative 2, the County will increase the Spout Springs WRF capacity to 2.0 mgd by 2030 and to 2.6 mgd by 2040. Assuming all the North Hall flows will be treated by the County’s new North Oconee WRF, the County will not need to purchase additional capacity from Gainesville even at build- out conditions. For the expansion of the Spout Springs WRF, Hall County can consider scaling up the facility upgrade and expansion from 0.75 mgd to 1.5 mgd, and then to 2.25 mgd and finally to 3 mgd by 2040. This would allow for adding in multiple units of treatment process train, simplifying the design and build process, and bringing in redundancy. Table 5-6 shows the estimated costs for the expansion of the treatment facility.
Table 5-6: Cost Estimate for Treatment Alternative 2
Treatment Facility 2030 Cost1 2040 Cost2 Total Cost Spout Springs WRF $16,875,000 $9,450,000 $26,325,000 Expansion Gainesville - No Additional $0 $0 $0 Capacity Total $16,875,000 $9,450,000 $26,325,000 Notes: 1. Cost basis is from 2015 Tetra Tech TM. 2. Cost basis is $5/gpd for WRF expansion plus engineering and contingency of 35%.
Based on the comparison, Alternative 2 is recommended as it provides the County with the most operational flexibility and control of future expansion.
February 2020 Section 5 | 5-7 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
5.2 Capital Improvement Plan The capital improvement plan addresses areas with currently deficient levels of services within the South Hall study area. The previously described projects have been split up into separate line items for gravity sewers, force mains, pump stations, and treatment facilities. Figure 5-2 shows the service areas for each separately labeled segment. This delineation was also used to come up with the future segmented flows with detailed results shown in Appendix F.
Figure 5-2: South Hall Sewer System Master Plan – Preferred Development Scenario
Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin (I1, I2, I3, I4, FM-1S, PS-1S) are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin (FM-7S, PS-7S) are contained in the County’s current CIP.
5-8 | Section 5 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 5-3 shows two potential routes for discharging the Spout Springs WRF effluent into the Chattahoochee basin. The shorter route (Force Main [FM] – 8SA) discharges into a tributary of Lake Lanier, while the longer route (FM – 8SB) discharges directly into Lake Lanier. The available waste load and feasibility of discharging to the tributary will need to be evaluated further in the future. Because the tributary base flow may be too low to receive the effluent discharge, the longer route is used for all capital improvement plan estimate purposes. More detailed studies and coordination with Georgia EPD will be required to determine the optimal discharge point for the effluent.
Figure 5-3: Proposed Routes for 2035 Spout Springs WRF Effluent Discharge Force Main
The following assumptions are used for sizing of the sewer infrastructure:
• Gravity mains are sized based on a 2.5 peak factor applied to the build-out ADF at the minimum slope requirements (Table 5-7) with a Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) value of 0.013. • SDR 26 PVC is the preferred pipe material at depths of up to 14 feet. • DIP is required for depths greater than 14 feet, pipe with diameter 16-inch and larger, or for railroad and right-of-way crossings. • Pump stations are sized based on a 2.5 peak factor applied to the 2040 ADF.
February 2020 Section 5 | 5-9 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
• Force mains were assumed to maintain a maximum velocity at or near 5 ft/s for the 2040 peak flows used to size the pump stations.
Table 5-7: Minimum Slopes and Full Pipe Flows
Full Pipe Flows Size (in) Slope (mgd) 8 0.0040 0.49 10 0.0028 0.75 12 0.0022 1.08 16 0.0014 1.86 18 0.0012 2.36 20 0.0010 2.85 24 0.0008 4.15 30 0.00058 6.40 36 0.00046 9.27 42 0.00037 12.54 Notes: 1. Minimum pipe slope per Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Guidelines for Sewage Collection Systems, Rev. Nov 2010) Table 5-8 shows the preliminary pipe sizes and lengths for the project components based on the segmented flows.
Table 5-8: Gravity Sewer Sizing for the Preferred Development Scenario
Basin Segment Proposed Size (in) Length (ft)
Mitchell Creek1 I1 15 4210 I2 8 2640
I3 15 5810 I4 8 4770 G1 16 1800 Deaton Creek G2 12 3640 G3 10 4120
G4 8 3500 F1 18 610 Cooper Creek F2 8 1560
F3 10 4910
F4 16 6080
F5 8 3780
F6 10 2450 F7 8 3080 E1 16 5880 Caney Fork Creek E2 12 4590
E3 8 5120
5-10 | Section 5 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Basin Segment Proposed Size (in) Length (ft)
E4 8 7380
E5 8 11140
E6 8 10370 E7 8 1050 H1 8 1040 Lott Creek H2 8 5180 H3 8 1800
H4 8 2790 Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. Pipe sizes selected based on full pipe at build-out flows. 3. Pipe sizes based on an approximated flow for each of the receiving drainage basins. A more detailed analysis shall be performed for each pipe segment prior to final design.
Table 5-9, Table 5-10, and Table 5-11 show the proposed sizing of the five County-built pump stations and corresponding force mains, plus the County-built force main for the developer-built pump station at Road Atlanta in the Cooper Creek basin. For this capital improvement plan, the pump stations and force mains are sized to handle the 2040 peak flows shown, but the County may elect to install smaller pumps at the onset of development and then upgrade the pumps as the basin matures and flows begin to approach build-out peak capacity.
Table 5-9: Pump Station Future Sizing
2030 Peak Flow 2040 Peak Flow Build-Out Peak Flow PS # Basin To Basin/Station (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Mitchell Lollis Creek/Spout 1S 0.55 0.79 1.87 Creek1 Springs WRF Caney Fork Caney Fork 2S 0.86 1.112 1.932 Creek Cr/Crystal Farms PS Caney Fork 3S Lott Creek 0.00 0.14 0.34 Creek/PS-2S 4S Cooper Creek Mulberry Creek PS 0.00 0.81 2.11 Caney Fork 5S Deaton Creek 0.06 0.03 0.06 Cr/Crystal Farms PS Mulberry Reunion/Spout 7S ------River3 Springs WRF Lake Lanier Effluent 8S Lollis Creek 1.55 2.60 4.95 Discharge
Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. Includes projected peak flow from future PS-3S. 3. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin are contained in the County’s current CIP.
February 2020 Section 5 | 5-11 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 5-10: Force Main Future Sizing
FM# Basin To Basin/Station Length (feet) Pipe Dia. (Inches)
Mitchell Lollis Creek/Spout 1S 9,710 10 Creek1 Springs WRF Caney Fork Caney Fork 2S 16,520 8 Creek Cr/Crystal Farms PS Caney Fork 3S Lott Creek 7,060 4 Creek/PS-2S 4S Cooper Creek Mulberry Creek PS 2,640 8 Caney Fork 5S Deaton Creek 3,485 4 Cr/Crystal Farms PS Cooper Creek/PS-4S 6S Cooper Creek 5,090 6 & Mulberry Creek PS Mulberry Reunion/Spout 7S 9,000 10 River2 Springs WRF Lake Lanier Effluent 8SB Lollis Creek 45,155 10 Discharge Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin are contained in the County’s current CIP.
Table 5-11: Treatment Facility Future Expansion (MMF-mgd)
Treatment Current 2030 2040 Potential Served Basins Facility Planned Planned Build- Out Mitchell Creek, Lollis Creek, Mulberry Creek, Spout Springs Reunion Creek, 0.75 2.00 2.60 5.0 WRF Sherwood Creek, Mulberry River, Deaton Creek, Cooper Creek Gainesville Flat Creek WRF Caney Fork Creek, Lott 1.0 (No Additional 1.0 (No Additional 1.0 (No Additional 1.0 Capacity Creek Capacity) Capacity) Capacity) Allocation
5-12 | Section 5 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
6. NORTH AND SOUTH HALL COUNTY STUDY AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM COST SUMMARY
6.1 Unit Cost Development An assessment of the planning level capital costs as well as the long-term O&M costs is essential. Estimated planning level costs for implementing the preferred development scenario includes both capital as well as O&M costs over the next 10 and 20 years.
The planning cost estimates for the capital improvement plan include the following major components: • Wastewater treatment facilities – expansions and new construction • Collection system – new construction of gravity sewers, pumping stations, and force mains to convey flow to the facilities The cost estimates for each of these components was based on the review and analysis of recent bid tabulations and PERs for Hall County and AECOM experience on similar projects in the North Georgia area. Energy, chemical, and maintenance costs are the major components of O&M costs and were also based on similarly sized facilities operating in the region. The unit costs used for determining infrastructure costs for this Master Plan are shown in Table 6-1 below. Details of how these prices were calculated can be found in Appendix G.
Table 6-1: Unit Costs for Wastewater System Components
Infrastructure Item Cost Range Selected Unit Costs Gravity Sewers $8.72 to $14.28/In-Dia./L.F. $12.00/In-Dia./L.F. Force Mains $8.72 to $14.28/In-Dia./L.F. $11.00/In-Dia./L.F. Pump Stations1 $0.85 to $1.89 per gallon/day $1.50 per gallon/day Water Reclamation Facilities – Upgrade2 $10 /gallon $10 per gallon treatment capacity Water Reclamation Facilities – New1 $10 /gallon $10 per gallon treatment capacity 25% to 35% of the Project Engineering and Contingencies Add 35% construction cost Notes: 1. This unit cost does not include the County’s planned replacement of back-up generators with diesel powered back-up pumps at all 21 pump station facilities. The estimated total cost for this replacement is $1 million.
2. The unit cost used for WRF construction cost estimation is based on unit cost for the recommended updates for the Spout Springs WRF from Mulberry Creek PS, Reunion PS, Force Main, and Spout Springs WWTP PER (Nov 2015). The unit cost provided for 2015 ($11.99/gpd) includes contingency and engineering cost. The 2019 unit cost was estimated by assuming 3% inflation rate per year from 2015. In addition, 35% of the total unit cost from the 2015 (for contingency and engineering) was removed to estimate unit construction costs. The cost of upgrading a WRF is similar to the construction cost of a new WRF in this case, because the upgrades include construction of major treatment facilities.
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-1 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
6.2 North Hall Projected Costs The total capital costs for the entire capital improvement plan in North Hall is shown in Table 6-2 below.
Table 6-2: Estimated Capital Costs for the Entire System – North Hall Study Area
Collection Engineering / Basin Treatment Subtotal Total System1 Contingencies 365 $279,000 $13,794,000 $14,073,000 $4,925,600 $18,998,600 Cane Creek $1,923,700 --- $1,923,700 $673,300 $2,597,000 Hagen Creek $2,183,100 $4,738,100 $6,921,200 $2,422,500 $9,343,700 Mud Creek $5,678,400 --- $5,678,400 $1,987,500 $7,665,900 Pleasant Hill $6,597,900 --- $6,597,900 $2,309,300 $8,907,200 Garner Creek $2,965,400 --- $2,965,400 $1,037,900 $4,003,300 Total $19,627,500 $18,532,100 $38,159,600 $13,356,100 $51,515,700 Notes: 1. Includes gravity mains, force mains, and pump stations. Information obtained at meetings held during this study with large property owners and other stakeholders is used to phase projects within the study area. Most property owners were not able to provide a time table for when they thought development would occur on the large tracts in the short term. Table 6-3 indicates the potential schedule for the start of development in the basins to be served.
Table 6-3: Estimated Timeframe for Initiation of Sewer Service – North Hall Study Area
Basin Initiation of Development ------2020 - 2025 Hagen Creek 2025 - 2030 Cane Creek, Mud Creek, Garner Creek 2030 - 2035 Pleasant Hill 2035 - 2040
Based on the above development projections, a phased plan for the implementation of the preferred development scenario was developed. A budget overview for the phased development scenario implementation is provided in Table 6-4.
Table 6-4: Budget Overview for Phased Development – North Hall Study Area Phase Implementation Phased Cost I 2020 - 2025 ------II 2025 - 2030 $5,062,900 III 2030 - 2035 $29,293,800 IV 2035 - 2040 $11,446,000 Total $45,803,100
6-2 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
To account for annual O&M costs, the present worth value for O&M was calculated over the next 10 (through 2030) and 20 years (through 2040), as shown in Table 6-5 and Table 6-6. Details of how these values were calculated can be found in Appendix H. Table 6-5: 10-Year O&M Costs of New Capital Improvement Plan – North Hall Study Area GM O&M FM O&M PS O&M WRF O&M 10 Year Present Basin ($/year)1 ($/year)1 ($/year)2,3,4 ($/year)5 Value O&M Cost6 Hagen Creek $5,100 $0 $0 $134,100 $756,800 Total $5,100 $0 $0 $134,100 $756,800
Table 6-6: 20-Year O&M Costs of New Capital Improvement Plan – North Hall Study Area
GM O&M FM O&M PS O&M WRF O&M 20 Year Present Basin ($/year)1 ($/year)1 ($/year)2,3,4 ($/year)5 Value O&M Cost6 365 $900 $0 $0 $689,700 $8,133,100 Cane Creek $0 $900 $44,500 $0 $534,000 Hagen Creek $5,100 $0 $0 $421,000 $4,221,800 Mud Creek $1,000 $3,300 $34,000 $0 $449,100 Pleasant Hill $17,400 $0 $0 $0 $94,600 Garner Creek $0 $3,300 $57,600 $0 $715,100 Total $24,400 $7,500 $136,100 $1,110,700 $14,147,700 Notes for Table 6-5 and Table 6-6: 1. Pipeline O&M costs are assumed to be 0.3%/year of construction cost. 2. P = Pump Power Required. Calculations based on 75% pump efficiency. 3. Pm = Motor Input Power. Calculations based on 90% motor efficiency. 4. Power cost is based on a rate of 6 cents/kWH/day. 5. Treatment Operation and Maintenance calculations based on $500,000/mgd per year. 6. Present Value assumed with 3% inflation per year. Estimated planning level costs shown in Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 for implementing the Preferred Development Scenario includes both capital as well as O&M costs over the next 10 and 20 years.
Table 6-7: Total 10-Year Capital and O&M Costs – North Hall Study Area
Phase Implementation Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Cost I 2020 - 2025 ------II 2025 - 2030 $5,062,900 $756,800 $5,819,700 Total $5,062,900 $756,800 $5,819,700
Table 6-8: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs – North Hall Study Area
Phase Implementation Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Cost I 2020 – 2025 ------II 2025 – 2030 $5,062,900 $756,800 $5,819,700 III 2030 – 2035 $29,293,800 $5,421,800 $34,715,600 IV 2035 – 2040 $11,446,000 $7,969,100 $19,415,100 Total $45,802,700 $14,147,700 $59,950,400
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-3 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
The costs provided in this master plan are planning level costs for capital improvement plan funding and budgeting purposes. These planning level costs do not replace the more detailed engineering cost estimates developed during the design phase. Planning level cost estimates are based on the following general assumptions:
• Upgrades to existing treatment facilities will be sited on existing property owned by the County, other utilities, or within public right-of-way. • Capital costs include construction and engineering; a contingency is also included. • All future wastewater plants meet tertiary treatment water quality limits and include the potential for reuse application. • The locations for the force mains and gravity sewers are based on desktop evaluations of topography and the shortest anticipated routes. • All costs are presented in 2019 dollars. Inflation was incorporated into the analysis as part of the discount rate. The life-cycle cost determination was based on an inflation rate of 3% and spanned the period from 2020 to 2040 (20 years).
A full phased plan detailing the schedule for project component implementation through 2030 is presented in Table 6-9, Table 6-10, Table 6-11 and Table 6-12. Phase I (2020 – 2025) does not include any North Hall projects. The projects listed in Table 6-12 should be reevaluated in 5 to 20 years when this Master Plan is updated. The priorities in each phase were based on planning horizon, construction sequencing, and anticipated development timing. Development timing is based on input received from stakeholders (Appendix E)
Table 6-9: Recommended Phase II Plan (2025 – 2030) for Preferred Development Scenario: Planned Development – North Hall Study Area
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Lula WRF Hagen 1 2.1N (additional WRF ------$2,056,800 $2,776,700 Creek capacity) Hagen 2 2.2N A1 GS 18 7840 $1,693,500 $2,286,200 Creek Total $5,062,900
Table 6-10: Recommended Phase III Plan (2030 – 2035) for Preferred Development Scenario: Planned Development – North Hall Study Area
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Cane 1 3.1N PS-1N PS ------$1,567,000 $2,115,400 Creek Cane 2 3.2N FM-1N FM 8 19,170 $356,700 $481,500 Creek Garner 3 3.6N PS-2N PS ------$1,684,300 $2,273,700 Creek3
6-4 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Garner 4 3.7N FM-2N FM 8 14,560 $1,281,200 $1,729,500 Creek3 Mud 5 3.4N PS-3N PS ------$1,112,300 $1,501,600 Creek3 Mud 6 3.5N FM-3N FM 8 14,940 $1,314,600 $1,774,700 Creek3 Mud 7 3.3N B1 GS 18 1,440 $310,200 $418,800 Creek3 8 3.8N 365 D1 GS 15 1,550 $279,000 $376,700
9 3.9N 365 New WRF WRF $13,794,000 $18,621,900
Total $29,293,800
Table 6-11: Recommended Phase IV Plan (2035 – 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario: Planned Development – North Hall Study Area
Project Typ Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 ID e (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Pleasant 1 4.1N C1 GS 24 20,130 $5,797,200 $7,826,200 Hill Hagen Lula WRF WR 2 4.2N ------$2,681,300 $3,619,800 Creek expansion F Total $11,446,000
Table 6-12: Remaining Build-Out Plan (After 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – North Hall Study Area
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Hagen 1 5.1N A2 GS 12 3,400 $489,600 $661,000 Creek Mud 2 5.2N B2 GS 18 12,020 $2,595,700 $3,504,200 Creek3 Mud 3 5.3N B3 GS 8 3,600 $345,600 $466,600 Creek3 Pleasant 4 5.4N C2 GS 16 2,450 $470,400 $635,100 Hill Pleasant 5 5.5N C3 GS 10 2,750 $330,240 $445,900 Hill Total $5,712,800
Notes for Table 6-9, Table 6-10, Table 6-11and Table 6-12: 1. Additional details provided in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-4. 2. Total project costs include 35% for engineering and contingency. All costs are in 2019 dollars. 3. Phasing recommendations are for when projects should be started. Lower Flat Creek WRF must be operational prior to Mud Creek and Garner Creek projects coming online. 4. The projects have been prioritized based on engineering judgement and the priority order may change with development trends. 5. Projects in the North and South Hall study areas are assigned priorities independently of the other study area.
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-5 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
FM = Force Main GS = Gravity Sewer PS = Pump Station WRF = Water Reclamation Facility 6.3 South Hall Projected Costs
Capital costs incurred by the County for construction of the gravity sewers and pump stations may be reduced or defrayed by developer participation. Table 6-13 summarizes the total estimated capital costs for the proposed capital improvement plan in South Hall.
Table 6-13: Estimated Capital Costs for the Entire System – South Hall Study Area
Collection Engineering / Basin Treatment2 Subtotal Total Cost System1 Contingencies3
Mitchell Creek4 $4,769,300 --- $4,769,300 $1,669,300 $6,438,600 Deaton Creek $1,897,600 --- $1,897,600 $664,200 $2,561,800 Caney Fork Creek $8,274,100 --- $8,274,100 $2,896,000 $11,170,100 Lott Creek $1,556,000 --- $1,556,000 $544,600 $2,100,600 Cooper Creek $5,020,100 --- $5,020,100 $1,757,100 $6,777,200 Mulberry River5 ------Lollis Creek $8,867,200 $19,500,000 $28,367,200 $9,928,600 $38,295,800 Total $30,384,300 $19,500,000 $49,884,300 $17,459,800 $67,344,100 Notes: 1. Includes pump stations, force mains, and gravity mains. 2. Based on unit costs from Tetra Tech’s 2015 Mulberry Creek PS, Reunion PS, Force Main, and Spout Springs WWTP Improvements Final PER. 3. Engineering/Contingencies assumed to be 35% of total cost. 4. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 5. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin are contained in the County’s current CIP. Adjustments have been made to the funding sources due to an increase in the estimated costs to the current estimate of $4.2 million. The original estimate of $2.6 million will continue to be funded by SPLOST VII revenue, with the balance to be funded by revenue bonds. Information obtained at meetings held during this study with large property owners and other stakeholders was used to phase projects within the study area. Most property owners were able to provide a time table for when they thought development would occur on the large tracts. Table 6-14 indicates the schedule provided by large property owners for the start of development in the basins to be served. Table 6-14: Estimated Timeframe for Initiation of Sewer Service – South Hall Study Area
Basin(s) Initiation of Development Mitchell Creek1 2020 - 2025 Caney Fork Creek & Deaton Creek 2025 - 2030 Cooper Creek 2030 - 2035 Lott Creek 2035 - 2040 Notes: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019.
6-6 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Based on the above development projections, a phased plan for the implementation of the preferred development scenario was developed. A budget overview for a phased development scenario implementation is provided in Table 6-15.
Table 6-15: Budget Overview for Phased Development – South Hall Study Area
Phase Implementation Total Project Cost
I 2020 - 2025 $7,236,300 II 2025 - 2030 $26,294,400 III 2030 - 2035 $16,664,400 IV 2035 - 2040 $10,955,500 Total $61,150,600
To account for annual O&M costs, the present worth value for O&M was calculated over the next 10 (through 2030) and 20 years (through 2040), as shown in Table 6-16 and Table 6-17. Details of how these values were calculated can be found in Appendix H.
Table 6-16: 10-Year O&M Costs of New Capital Improvement Plan – South Hall Study Area
10 Year Present GM O&M FM O&M PS O&M WRF O&M Basin Value O&M ($/year)1 ($/year)1 ($/year)2,3,4 ($/year)5 Cost6
Mitchell Creek7 $7,600 $2,700 $32,300 $0 $499,700 Caney Fork $9,000 $3,700 $58,300 $0 $385,400 Creek Cooper Creek $6,200 $2,100 $30,200 $0 $17,500 Deaton Creek $2,600 $0 $0 $0 $13,800 Mulberry River8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Lollis Creek $0 $0 $0 $1,062,500 $2,039,500 Total $25,400 $8,500 $120,800 $1,062,500 $2,955,900
Table 6-17: 20-Year O&M Costs of New Capital Improvement Plan – South Hall Study Area
20 Year Present GM O&M FM O&M PS O&M WRF O&M Basin Value O&M ($/year)1 ($/year)1 ($/year)2,3,4 ($/year)5 Cost6 Mitchell Creek7 $7,600 $2,700 $32,300 $0 $1,173,000 Caney Fork $9,000 $3,700 $58,300 $0 $1,355,500 Creek Lott Creek $1,800 $800 $6,000 $0 $46,400 Cooper Creek $6,200 $2,100 $30,200 $0 $475,500 Deaton Creek $2,600 $0 $0 $0 $48,400 Mulberry River8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Lollis Creek $0 $0 $0 $1,062,500 $13,921,000 Total $27,200 $9,300 $126,800 $1,062,500 $17,019,800
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-7 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Notes for Table 6-16 and Table 6-17: 1. Pipeline O&M costs are assumed to be 0.3%/year of construction cost. 2. P = Pump Power Required. Calculations based on 75% pump efficiency. 3. Pm = Motor Input Power. Calculations based on 90% motor efficiency. 4. Power cost is based on a rate of 6 cents/kWH/day. 5. Treatment Operation and Maintenance calculations based on $500,000/mgd per year. 6. Present Value assumed with 3% inflation per year. 7. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 8. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin are contained in the County’s current CIP
Estimated planning level costs shown in Table 6-18 and Table 6-19 for implementing the preferred development scenario includes both capital and O&M costs over the next 10 and 20 years.
Table 6-18: Total 10-Year Capital and O&M costs – South Hall Study Area
Phase Implementation Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Cost I 2020 - 2025 $7,236,300 $238,800 $7,475,100 II 2025 - 2030 $26,294,400 $2,717,100 $29,011,500 Total $33,530,700 $2,955,900 $36,486,600
Table 6-19: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs – South Hall Study Area
Phase Implementation Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Cost I 2020 - 2025 $7,236,300 $238,800 $7,475,100 II 2025 - 2030 $26,294,400 $2,717,100 $29,011,500 III 2030 - 2035 $16,664,400 $4,755,400 $21,419,800 IV 2035 - 2040 $10,955,500 $9,308,500 $20,264,000 Total $61,150,600 $17,019,800 $78,170,400
The costs provided in this master plan are planning level costs for capital improvement plan funding and budgeting purposes. These planning level costs do not replace the more detailed engineering cost estimates developed during the design phase. Planning level cost estimates are based on the following general assumptions:
• Upgrades to existing treatment facilities will be sited on existing property owned by the County, other utilities, or within public right-of-way. • Capital costs include construction and engineering; a contingency is also included. • All future wastewater plants meet tertiary treatment water quality limits and include the potential for reuse application. • The locations for the force mains and gravity sewers are based on desktop evaluations of topography and the shortest anticipated routes. • All costs are presented in 2019 dollars. Inflation was incorporated into the analysis as part of the discount rate.
6-8 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
The life-cycle cost determination was based on an inflation rate of 3% and spanned the period from 2020 to 2040 (20 years).
A full phased plan detailing the schedule for project component implementation through 2030 is presented in Table 6-20, Table 6-21, Table 6-22, Table 6-23, and Table 6-24. The projects listed in Table 6-24 need to be reevaluated in 5 to 20 years when this Master Plan is updated. The priorities in each phase were based on planning horizon, construction sequencing, and anticipated development timing. Development timing is based on input received from stakeholders (Appendix E).
Table 6-20: Recommended Phase I Capital Improvement Plan (2020 – 2025) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Cooper 1 1.1S FM-6S FM 6 5,090 $591,100 $798,000 Creek Mitchell 2 1.6S PS-1S PS ------$1,187,900 $1,603,600 Creek3 Mitchell 3 1.7S FM-1S FM 10 9,700 $1,067,500 $1,441,100 Creek3 Mitchell 4 1.2S I1 GS 15 4,210 $757,300 $1,022,400 Creek3 Mitchell 5 1.3S I2 GS 8 2,640 $341,900 Creek3 $253,300.00 Mitchell 6 1.4S I3 GS 15 5,800 $1,045,700 $1,411,600 Creek3 Mitchell 7 1.5S I4 GS 8 4,770 $457,600 $617,700 Creek3 Mulberry 8 1.8S PS-7S PS ------River4 Mulberry 9 1.9S FM-7S FM 10 9,000 ------River4 Total $7,236,300
Table 6-21: Recommended Phase II Plan (2025 – 2030) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Caney 1 2.5S Fork PS-2S PS ------$1,664,900 $2,247,500 Creek Caney 2 2.6S Fork FM-2S FM 8 16,510 $1,453,300 $1,961,900 Creek Caney 3 2.1S Fork E1 GS 16 5,880 $1,128,800 $1,523,900 Creek Caney 4 2.2S Fork E2 GS 12 4,590 $660,900 $892,200 Creek
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-9 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Caney 5 2.3S Fork E3 GS 8 5,120 $491,700 $663,700 Creek Caney 6 2.4S Fork E4 GS 8 7,380 $708,800 $956,900 Creek Deaton 7 2.7S G1 GS 16 1,800 $345,600 $466,600 Creek Deaton 8 2.8S G2 GS 12 3,635 $523,500 $706,700 Creek Spout Lollis Springs WRF 9 2.9S WRF ------$12,500,000 $16,875,000 Creek Capacity Expansion Total $26,294,400
Table 6-22: Recommended Phase III Plan (2030 – 2035) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Cooper 1 3.5S PS-4S PS ------$1,207,600 $1,630,200 Creek Cooper 2 3.6S FM-4S FM 8 2,630 $231,800 $313,000 Creek Cooper 3 3.1S F1 GS 18 610 $132,000 $178,200 Creek Cooper 4 3.2S F2 GS 8 1,560 $149,500 $201,800 Creek Cooper 5 3.3S F3 GS 10 4,910 $589,500 $795,800 Creek Cooper 6 3.4S F4 GS 16 6,080 $1,166,400 $1,574,700 Creek Lollis 7 3.7S PS-8S PS ------$3,900,000 $5,265,000 Creek Lollis 8 3.8S FM-8SB FM 10 45,160 $4,967,200 $6,705,700 Creek Total $16,664,400
Table 6-23: Recommended Phase IV Plan (2035 – 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area
Priority Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Lott 1 4.3S PS-3S PS ------$207,400 $280,000 Creek Lott 2 4.4S FM-3S FM 8 7,060 $310,500 $419,200 Creek
6-10 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Priority Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Lott 3 4.1S H1 GS 8 1,040 $99,800 $134,700 Creek Lott 4 4.2S H2 GS 8 5,180 $497,500 $671,600 Creek Spout Lollis Springs WRF 5 4.5S WRF ------$7,000,000 $9,450,000 Creek Capacity Expansion Total $10,955,500
Table 6-24: Remaining Build-Out Plan (After 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – South Hall Study Area
Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Priority Basin Description1 Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)2 Deaton 1 5.6S PS-5S PS ------$45,000 $45,000 Creek Deaton 2 5.7S FM-5S FM 6 3,480 $153,300 $153,300 Creek Deaton 3 5.5S G4 GS 15 3,500 $335,600 $335,600 Creek Cooper 4 5.8S F5 GS 10 3,780 $362,900 $362,900 Creek Cooper 5 5.9S F6 GS 12 2,450 $293,900 $293,900 Creek Cooper 6 5.10S F7 GS 10 3,080 $295,400 $295,400 Creek Lott 7 5.11S H3 GS 8 1,800 $172,500 $172,500 Creek Lott 8 5.12S H4 GS 8 2,800 $268,300 $268,300 Creek Deaton 9 5.4S G3 GS 8 4,120 $494,600 $494,600 Creek Caney 10 5.1S Fork E5 GS 6 11,140 $1,069,500 $1,069,500 Creek Caney 11 5.2S Fork E6 GS 8 10,370 $995,400 $995,400 Creek Caney 12 5.3S Fork E7 GS 15 1,050 $101,100 $101,100 Creek Total $6,192,900
Notes for Table 6-20, Table 6-21, Table 6-22, Table 6-23, and Table 6-24:
1. Additional Details provided in Figure 5-2 and Table 5-8. 2. Total project costs include 35% for engineering and contingency. All costs are in 2019 dollars. 3. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019.
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-11 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
4. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin are contained in the County’s current CIP. Adjustments have been made to the funding sources due to an increase in the estimated costs to the current estimate of $4.2 million. The original estimate of $2.6 million continues to be funded by SPLOST VII revenue, with the balance to be funded by revenue bonds. Phasing recommendations are for when projects should be started. FM = Force Main GS = Gravity Sewer PS = Pump Station WRF = Water Reclamation Facility
6.4 North and South Hall Projected Costs Summary Estimated planning level costs shown in Table 6-25 include both capital and O&M costs over the next 20 years.
Table 6-25: Total 20-Year Capital and O&M Costs – North and South Hall Study Areas
Phase Implementation Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Cost I 2020 - 2025 $7,236,300 $238,800 $7,475,100 II 2025 - 2030 $31,357,300 $3,473,900 $34,831,200 III 2030 - 2035 $45,958,200 $10,177,200 $56,135,400 IV 2035 - 2040 $22,401,500 $17,277,600 $39,679,100 Total $106,953,300 $31,167,500 $138,120,800
A full phased plan detailing the schedule for project component implementation through 2030 is presented in Table 6-26, Table 6-27, Table 6-28 and Table 6-29. The projects listed need to be reevaluated in 5 to 20 years when this Master Plan is updated.
Table 6-26: Recommended Phase I Plan (2020 – 2025) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas Project Study Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Basin Description Type ID Area (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)1 1.1S South Hall Cooper Creek FM-6S FM 6 5,090 $591,100 $798,000 1.2S South Hall Mitchell Creek2 I1 GS 15 4,207 $757,300 $1,022,400 1.3S South Hall Mitchell Creek2 I2 GS 8 2,638 $253,300 $341,900 1.4S South Hall Mitchell Creek2 I3 GS 15 5,809 $1,045,700 $1,411,600 1.5S South Hall Mitchell Creek2 I4 GS 8 4,766 $457,600 $617,700 1.6S South Hall Mitchell Creek2 PS-1S PS ------$1,187,900 $1,603,600 1.7S South Hall Mitchell Creek2 FM-1S FM 10 9,704 $1,067,500 $1,441,100 1.8S South Hall Mulberry River3 PS-7S PS ------1.9S South Hall Mulberry River3 FM-7S FM 10 9,000 ------
Total $7,236,300
6-12 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 6-27: Recommended Phase II Plan (2025 – 2030) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas Project Study Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Basin Description Type ID Area (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)1 Lula WRF 2.1N North Hall Hagen Creek (additional WRF ------$2,056,800 $2,776,700 capacity)
2.2N North Hall Hagen Creek A1 GS 18 7840 $1,693,500 $2,286,200 2.1S South Hall Caney Fork Creek E1 GS 16 5,879 $1,128,800 $1,523,900 2.2S South Hall Caney Fork Creek E2 GS 12 4,589 $660,900 $892,200 2.3S South Hall Caney Fork Creek E3 GS 8 5,121 $491,700 $663,700 2.4S South Hall Caney Fork Creek E4 GS 8 7,383 $708,800 $956,900 2.5S South Hall Caney Fork Creek PS-2S PS ------$1,664,900 $2,247,500 2.6S South Hall Caney Fork Creek FM-2S FM 8 16,514 $1,453,300 $1,961,900 2.7S South Hall Deaton Creek G1 GS 16 1,800 $345,600 $466,600 2.8S South Hall Deaton Creek G2 GS 12 3,635 $523,500 $706,700 Spout Springs 2.9S South Hall Lollis Creek WRF WRF ------$12,500,000 $16,875,000 Capacity Expansion Total $31,357,300
Table 6-28: Recommended Phase III Plan (2030 – 2035) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas Project Study Area Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Basin Description Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)1 3.1N North Hall Cane Creek PS-1N PS ------$1,567,000 $2,115,400 3.2N North Hall Cane Creek FM-1N FM 8 19,166 $356,700 $481,500 3.3N North Hall Mud Creek B1 GS 18 1,436 $310,200 $418,800 3.4N North Hall Mud Creek PS-3N PS ------$1,112,300 $1,501,600 3.5N North Hall Mud Creek FM-3N FM 8 14,938 $1,314,600 $1,774,700 3.6N North Hall Garner Creek PS-2N PS ------$1,684,300 $2,273,700 3.7N North Hall Garner Creek FM-2N FM 8 14,558 $1,281,200 $1,729,500 3.8N North Hall 365 D1 GS 15 1,550 $279,000 $376,700 3.9N North Hall 365 New WRF WRF $13,794,000 $18,621,900 3.1S South Hall Cooper Creek F1 GS 18 611 $132,000 $178,200 3.2S South Hall Cooper Creek F2 GS 8 1,557 $149,500 $201,800 3.3S South Hall Cooper Creek F3 GS 10 4,912 $589,500 $795,800 3.4S South Hall Cooper Creek F4 GS 16 6,075 $1,166,400 $1,574,700 3.5S South Hall Cooper Creek PS-4S PS ------$1,207,600 $1,630,200 3.6S South Hall Cooper Creek FM-4S FM 8 2,634 $231,800 $313,000
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-13 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Project Study Area Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Basin Description Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)1 3.7S South Hall Lollis Creek PS-8S PS ------$3,900,000 $5,265,000 3.8S South Hall Lollis Creek FM-8SB FM 10 45,156 $4,967,200 $6,705,700 Total $45,958,200
Table 6-29: Recommended Phase IV Plan (2035 – 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas Project Diameter Length Estimated Total Project Study Area Basin Description Type ID (in) (L.F.) Costs ($) Cost ($)1 4.1N North Hall Pleasant Hill C1 GS 24 20,129 $5,797,200 $7,826,200 Lula WRF 4.2N North Hall Hagen Creek WRF ------$2,681,300 $3,619,800 expansion 4.1S South Hall Lott Creek H1 GS 8 1,039 $99,800 $134,700 4.2S South Hall Lott Creek H2 GS 8 5,182 $497,500 $671,600
4.3S South Hall Lott Creek PS-3S PS ------$207,400 $280,000
4.4S South Hall Lott Creek FM-3S FM 8 7,056 $310,500 $419,200 Spout Springs 4.5S South Hall Lollis Creek WRF Capacity WRF ------$7,000,000 $9,450,000 Expansion Total $22,401,500
Notes for Table 6-26, Table 6-27, Table 6-28, and Table 6-29:
1. Total project costs include 35% for engineering and contingency. All costs are in 2019 dollars. 2. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 3. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin are contained in the County’s current CIP. Adjustments have been made to the funding sources due to an increase in the estimated costs to the current estimate of $4.2 million. The original estimate of $2.6 million continues to be funded by SPLOST VII revenue, with the balance to be funded by revenue bonds. 4. The projects have been prioritized based on engineering judgement and the priority order may change with development trends. 5. Projects in the North and South Hall study areas are assigned priorities independently of the other study area. Phasing recommendations are for when projects should be started. FM = Force Main GS = Gravity Sewer PS = Pump Station WRF = Water Reclamation Facility
6.5 Capital Improvement Plan Summary and Maps This section serves as a summary and quick reference of the capital improvement plan for both North Hall and South Hall study areas.
6-14 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 6-1: Projects in the North Hall Study Area
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-15 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 6-2: Projects in the South Hall Study Area
Note: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin (I1, I2, I3, I4, FM-1S, PS-1S) are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin (FM-7S, PS-7S) are contained in the County’s current CIP.
6-16 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
6.5.1 Phase I Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps No projects in the North Hall Study are proposed as part of phase I.
Figure 6-3: Proposed Phase I Projects in the South Hall Study Area
Note: 1. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin (I1, I2, I3, I4, FM-1S, PS-1S) are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project (in the County’s current CIP), which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 2. The projects in the Mulberry River drainage basin (FM-7S, PS-7S) are contained in the County’s current CIP.
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-17 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 6-30: Recommended Phase I Plan (2020 – 2025) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas
Project Study Total Project Basin Description Label ID Area Cost ($)1 South Cooper 1.1S New 6-inch force main to serve the Road Atlanta PS. FM-6S $798,000 Hall Creek Installation of 15-inch gravity main before discharging South Mitchell 1.2S into the Mitchell Creek PS as part of the Friendship Rd I1 $1,022,400 Hall Creek2 sewer extension project. Installation of 8-inch gravity main to serve the Swansey South Mitchell 1.3S Rd area as part of the Friendship Rd sewer extension I2 $341,900 Hall Creek2 project. South Mitchell Installation of 15-inch gravity main as part of the 1.4S I3 $1,411,600 Hall Creek2 Friendship Rd sewer extension. Installation of 8-inch gravity main serving the upstream South Mitchell 1.5S portion of the Mitchell Creek basin as part of the I4 $617,700 Hall Creek2 Friendship Rd sewer extension. New pump station and force main system to serve the PS- 1.6S/1 South Mitchell Friendship Rd Sewer extension and pump to Spout 1S/FM- $3,044,700 .7S Hall Creek2 Springs WRF. 1S New force main between Mulberry Creek PS and Reunion PS- 1.8S/1 South Mulberry PS to reverse the flows from discharging into Gainesville 7S/FM- --- .9S Hall River3 and upgrades for the Mulberry Creek PS and Reunion PS 7S to pump through the new force main. Total $7,236,300
6-18 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
6.5.2 Phase II Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps Figure 6-4: Proposed Phase II Projects in the North Hall Study Area
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-19 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 6-5: Proposed Phase II Projects in the South Hall Study Area
6-20 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 6-31: Recommended Phase II Plan (2025 – 2030) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas
Study Total Project Project ID Basin Description Label Area Cost ($)1 Purchase of additional capacity from Lula WRF North Hagen 2.1N Lula to meet 2030 flows of 0.31 (additional $2,776,700 Hall Creek MMF-mgd. capacity) North Hagen Installation of 18-inch gravity main 2.2N A1 $2,286,200 Hall Creek just upstream of the Lula WPCP. Installation of 12-inch gravity main South Caney Fork 2.1S before discharging into the Caney E1 $1,523,900 Hall Creek Creek PS. Installation of 8-inch gravity main South Caney Fork serving the northeast area of the 2.2S E2 $892,200 Hall Creek Caney Fork basin before discharging into the 12-inch gravity main. Installation of 10-inch gravity main South Caney Fork serving the southwest area of the 2.3S E3 $663,700 Hall Creek Caney Fork basin before discharging into the 12-inch gravity main. Installation of 8-inch gravity main South Caney Fork 2.4S serving the upstream southwest area E4 $956,900 Hall Creek of the Caney Fork basin. New pump station and force main South Caney Fork 2.5S/2.6S system to serve the Caney Fork basin PS-2S/FM-2S $4,209,400 Hall Creek and pump to the Crystal Farms PS. Installation of 16-inch gravity main north of Union Church Rd and South Deaton 2.7S connecting to the existing 18-inch G1 $466,600 Hall Creek gravity main running through the Village at Deaton Creek. Installation of 12-inch gravity main north of Union Church Rd and South Deaton connecting to the proposed 16-inch 2.8S G2 $706,700 Hall Creek gravity main before discharging into the existing main running through the Village at Deaton Creek Expansion of the Spout Springs WRF Spout Springs South Lollis 2.9S to the 2030 capacity of 1.9 MMF- WRF Capacity $16,875,000 Hall Creek mgd. Expansion Total $31,357,300
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-21 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
6.5.3 Phase III Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps Figure 6-6: Proposed Phase III Projects in the North Hall Study Area
6-22 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 6-7: Proposed Phase III Projects in the South Hall Study Area
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-23 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 6-32: Recommended Phase III Plan (2030 – 2035) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas
Study Total Project Project ID Basin Description Label Area Cost ($)1 New pump station and force main North Cane system to serve the developer led 3.1N/3.2N PS-1N/FM-1N $2,596,900 Hall Creek gravity mains in Cane Creek and pump to the 365 collection system. North Mud Installation of 18-inch gravity main just 3.3N B1 $418,800 Hall Creek upstream of the Mud Creek PS. New pump station and force main North Mud system to serve the Mud Creek and 3.4N/3.5N PS-3N/FM-3N $3,276,300 Hall Creek Pleasant Hill basins and pump to the Garner Creek PS. New pump station and force main system to serve the Garner Creek basin North Garner 3.6N/3.7N and the Mud Creek PS and pump to PS-2N/FM-2N $4,003,200 Hall Creek the developer led Lower Flat Creek WRF. Installation of 15-inch gravity main to North 3.8N 365 abandon the Gateway Master PS and D1 $376,700 Hall discharge into the North Oconee WRF. New North Oconee WRF to serve the North 3.9N 365 365 and Cane Creek basin up to the New WRF $18,621,900 Hall 2040 capacity of 1.77 MMF-mgd. Installation of short run of 12-inch South Cooper 3.1S gravity main just upstream of the F1 $178,200 Hall Creek Cooper Creek PS. Installation of 8-inch gravity main to South Cooper 3.2S serve the south side of Cooper Creek F2 $201,800 Hall Creek up to the County line. South Cooper Installation of 10-inch to serve the area 3.3S F3 $795,800 Hall Creek just west of the Road Atlanta property. South Cooper Installation of 10-inch to serve Road 3.4S F4 $1,574,700 Hall Creek Atlanta and the surrounding area. New pump station and force main South Cooper system to serve the Cooper Creek 3.5S/3.6S PS-4S/FM-4S $1,943,200 Hall Creek basin and pump to the Mulberry Creek PS. New pump station and force main system to pump the Spout Springs South Lollis WRF effluent into Lake Lanier as PS-8S/FM- 3.7S $11,970,700 Hall Creek required by the Metropolitan North 8SB Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD) plan. Total $45,958,200
6-24 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
6.5.4 Phase IV Capital Improvement Projects Summary and Maps Figure 6-8: Proposed Phase IV Projects in the North Hall Study Area
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-25 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Figure 6-9: Proposed Phase IV Projects in the South Hall Study Area
6-26 | Section 6 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 6-33: Recommended Phase IV Plan (2035 – 2040) for Preferred Development Scenario – North and South Hall Study Areas
Study Total Project Project ID Basin Description Label Area Cost ($)1 Installation of 24-inch gravity main North Pleasant 4.1N serving the south side of Pleasant Hill C1 $7,826,200 Hall Hill and John Creek. Purchase of additional capacity from North Hagen Lula WRF 4.2N Lula to meet 2040 flows of 0.57 $3,619,800 Hall Creek expansion MMF-mgd. Installation of 8-inch gravity main South Lott 4.1S south of the Lott Creek PS up to the H1 $134,700 Hall Creek County line. Installation of 8-inch gravity main South Lott serving the majority of Lott Creek 4.2S H2 $671,600 Hall Creek basin and discharging to the Lott Creek PS. New pump station and force main South Lott 4.3S/4.4S system to serve the Lott Creek basin PS-3S/FM-3S $699,200 Hall Creek and pump to the Caney Creek PS. Spouts Expansion of the Spout Springs WRF South Lollis Springs WRF 4.5S to the 2040 capacity of 2.5 MMF- $9,450,000 Hall Creek Capacity mgd. Expansion Total $22,401,500
Notes for Table 6-30, Table 6-31, Table 6-32 and Table 6-33:
1. Total project costs include 35% for engineering and contingency. All costs are in 2019 dollars. 2. The projects in the Mitchell Creek drainage basin are part of the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension Project, which is in the design stage as of December 2019. 3. The Mulberry PS is contained in the County’s current CIP. Adjustments have been made to the funding sources due to an increase in the estimated costs to the current estimate of $4.2 million. The original estimate of $2.6 million continues to be funded by SPLOST VII revenue, with the balance to be funded by revenue bonds. Phasing recommendations are for when projects should be started. FM = Force Main GS = Gravity Sewer PS = Pump Station WRF = Water Reclamation Facility
February 2020 Section 6 | 6-27 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
7. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STUDY
Financial feasibility is a critical component for the implementation of the capital improvement plan. In conjunction with the Master Plan, a rate study was conducted to analyze the impact of the proposed capital project on user fee rates. This section evaluates a variety of potential funding sources, alternatives, and recommendations for rates or special assessment fees for the planned projects in the proposed service areas.
7.1 Identified Alternatives Four alternatives have been considered: the Base Case and three additional alternatives are described below: • Alternative #1 – Revenue Bonds for capital improvement projects and flat fee rate increases. • Alternative #2 – Combination of Cash Reserves for capital improvement plan, and flat fee rate increases. • Alternative #3 – Combination of Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) and SRF Loans, Cash Reserves for capital improvement projects, and no rate increases.
For Alternatives #1 through #3, average increases for the following periods were considered: Years 2020–2022; Years 2023–2025; Years 2026-2030; Years 2031-2035; and Years 2036-2040. The calculated rates for each period were compared to the current rates and adjusted such that the recommended rates are not less than the current rate nor less than any period’s averaged rates.
7.2 Revenue Requirements and Projections
7.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Expenses – Assumptions Revenue needs for the wastewater system of the County are determined using the cash basis, including O&M expenses, debt service payments and capital expenses funded from rates. The wastewater system costs are based on the actual operating expenses from the Financial Year (FY) 2017 and 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) and the FY 2019 budget. There were various inflation assumptions within the FY 2019 budget and these are presented in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Inflation Assumptions
Cost Escalation Factors 2020-2040 Labor Costs 3.00% Utilities 3.00% Other O&M 3.00% Treatment 3.00%
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-1 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
7.2.2 General Assumptions The following basic assumptions were common to each of the alternatives evaluated. • Customer projections were based upon increasing the accounts in FY2018 by a 0.05% growth factor for subsequent years starting in FY2019 in the existing service area.
• The residential usage of 6 centum cubic feet (CCF)/month was used for billable usage for the new service areas.
• ERC = Equivalent Residential Connection, with the factors based on meter equivalencies from AWWA Manual M6.
• The treated flow was based on the billable usage quantity increased by a factor of 1.7, which equates to the planning level use.
• Capital projects were inflated at the rate of 3% a year from FY2019.
• All future Master Plan capital projects and major equipment purchases were assumed to be funded from Revenue Bonds both for the Base Case and Base Case with rate increases.
• Master Plan capital projects for the other alternatives will be described separately. 7.2.3 Existing Wastewater User Rates and Connection Fees Table 7-2 presents the Monthly Wastewater User Charges, and Table 7-3 presents the Existing Connection Fees Table 7-2: Existing Rates, Fees and Charges - Monthly Wastewater User Charges
Description Value Monthly Wastewater User Charge: Capacity Fee - Residential $10.00 Customer Service Fee $2.00 Capacity Charge by Meter Size: 3/4" (1 ERC) $10.00 1" (2.5 ERCs) $25.00 1-1/2" (5 ERCs) $50.00 2" (8 ERCs) $80.00 3" (16 ERCs) $160.00 4" (25 ERCs) $250.00 6" (50 ERCs) $500.00 8" (80 ERCs) $800.00 Usage Fee - per CCF $7.39 Tapping Fee $800.00 Table 7-3: Existing Connection Fees
Size of Water Meter (in.) Hydraulic Equivalency Ratio Sewer Connection Fee 3% Administration Fee 3/4 1.0 $8,400.00 $252.00 1 2.5 $21,000.00 $630.00 1-1/2 5.0 $42,000.00 $1,260.00 2 8.0 $67,200.00 $2,016.00
7-2 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Size of Water Meter (in.) Hydraulic Equivalency Ratio Sewer Connection Fee 3% Administration Fee 3 16.0 $134,400.00 $4,032.00 4 25.0 $210,000.00 $6,300.00 6 50.0 $420,000.00 $12,600.00 8 80.0 $672,000.00 $20,160.00
7.2.4 Customer Base – Existing Service Area The customer data analyzed consists of the number of customers billed and the billable gallons of wastewater. The billable usage was expressed both in CCF and gallons, with CCF used for billing purposes. In addition, for the commercial customers, the base charge is based on meter size. The number of connections per meter size were therefore formulated in terms of equivalent residential connections (ERCs). Table 7-4 summarizes the customer base accounts for the existing service area for the Spout Springs WRF (which includes parts of Lollis Creek, Mulberry Creek, and Reunion Creek drainage basins) for FY 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2032, 2037 and FY2040 based on an analysis of the data. Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 summarizes the customer base ERCs and the customer base usage in terms of CCF and gallons, respectively for the existing service area of the Spout Springs WRF for FY2018, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2032, 2037 and 2040 based on an analysis of the data. The customer (tap) projections were developed based on • local development plans and permit applications submitted to the planning department, • initial timing and sewershed locations based on the 2015 ARC projections and adjusted based on discussions with individual stakeholders and developers/builders of existing developments, and • expansion of customers during the 20-year planning period depending on regional development patterns and timing. Table 7-4: Existing Service Area - Existing & Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts1
Actual Projected Projected Description 2017 2018 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Residential: Existing Service Area 2,755 2,756 2,759 2,760 2,765 2,769 2,776 2,783 2,787 Subtotal Residential 2,755 2,756 2,759 2,760 2,765 2,769 2,776 2,783 2,787 Commercial Existing Service Area 3/4" Meters ------1" Meters 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1/2" Meters 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2" Meters 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3" Meters 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4" Meters 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Subtotal Commercial 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Total Wastewater Customer Accounts 2,771 2,771 2,774 2,775 2,780 2,784 2,791 2,798 2,802
Notes 1. Beginning is based on actual customer data in FY2017 and FY2018, with projection of residential customers increased by 0.05% annually from FY2018.
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-3 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-5: Existing Service Area - Existing & Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer ERCs
Existing Projected Description 2018 2019 2022 2025 2030 2035 2038 2039 2040 Residential: Existing Service Area 2,756 2,758 2,762 2,766 2,773 2,780 2,784 2,785 2,787 Subtotal Residential 2,756 2,758 2,762 2,766 2,773 2,780 2,784 2,785 2,787 Commercial Existing Service Area 3/4" Meters ------1" Meters 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 1 1/2" Meters 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2" Meters 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 3" Meters 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 4" Meters 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Subtotal Commercial 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 Total Wastewater Customer ERC's 2,874 2,875 2,879 2,883 2,890 2,897 2,901 2,903 2,904
Table 7-6: Existing Service Area - Existing & Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer CCF
Existing Projected Description 2018 2019 2022 2025 2030 2035 2038 2039 2040 Residential: Existing Service Area 197,259 197,358 197,654 197,950 198,446 198,942 199,241 199,341 199,440 Subtotal Residential 197,259 197,358 197,654 197,950 198,446 198,942 199,241 199,341 199,440 Commercial Existing Service Area 12,277 21,972 21,968 21,968 21,968 21,968 21,968 21,968 21,968 Subtotal Commercial 12,277 21,972 21,968 21,968 21,968 21,968 21,968 21,968 21,968 Total Wastewater Customer CCF 209,536 219,330 219,622 219,918 220,414 220,910 221,209 221,308 221,408 Cumulative Total in CCF 209,536 219,330 219,622 219,918 220,414 220,910 221,209 221,308 221,408 Cumulative Annual Total in 1,000 gallons 156,743 164,070 164,288 164,510 164,881 165,252 165,476 165,550 165,625 Cumulative Total in MGD 0.429 0.450 0.450 0.451 0.452 0.453 0.453 0.454 0.454 7.2.5 Customer Base – Expanded Service Area The Master Plan envisions an expansion of the customer base as it relates to the capital projects being installed. Table 7-7, Error! Reference source not found. and Table 7-9 present the customer account projections and the cumulative customer accounts for the new service areas for FY 2020, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2032, 2037 and 2040 based on an analysis of the best available data arranged by WRF. The customer (tap) projections were developed based on • local development plans and permit applications submitted to the planning department, • initial timing and sewershed locations based on the 2015 ARC projections and adjusted based on discussions with individual stakeholders and developers/builders of existing developments, and • expansion of customers during the 20-year planning period depending on regional development patterns and timing.
7-4 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-7: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Spout Springs WRF Residential (Dwelling Units): Lollis Creek 193 211 150 150 20 - - Reunion 50 - 25 - - - - Mitchell Creek - - 36 60 60 60 60 Sherwood Creek - - 25 25 25 25 25 Mulberry Creek - - - 50 150 - - Subtotal Residential 243 211 236 285 255 85 85 Commercial (Accounts): Lollis Creek 2 2 2 - - - - Reunion ------Mitchell Creek - 5 7 7 8 7 10 Sherwood Creek - 2 2 - - - - Mulberry Creek ------Subtotal Commercial 2 9 11 7 8 7 10 Total Wastewater Customer Accounts 245 220 247 292 263 92 95 Cumulative Wastewater Customer Accounts 441 661 1,358 2,188 3,770 4,448 4,727
Table 7-8: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Flat Creek WRF - South Service Area Residential (Dwelling Units): Deaton Creek - - 50 100 125 150 125 Mulberry River - - 50 67 100 - - Cooper Creek - - - - - 75 100 Caney Fork Creek 12 33 75 100 150 150 150 Lott Creek - - - - - 50 150 Subtotal Residential 12 33 175 267 375 425 525 Commercial (Accounts): Deaton Creek - - 3 3 5 3 1 Mulberry River ------Cooper Creek - 1 - 1 5 7 7 Caney Fork Creek - - 1 5 2 - - Lott Creek ------Subtotal Commercial 0 1 4 9 12 10 8 Total Wastewater Customer Accounts 12 34 179 276 387 435 533 Cumulative Wastewater Customer Accounts 14 48 426 1,080 2,743 4,722 6,222 Flat Creek WRF - North Service Area Residential (Dwelling Units): 365 - - - 53 67 100 125 Cane Creek - - - - 50 100 100 Chattahoochee River - - 12 12 12 12 9 Subtotal Residential - - 12 65 129 212 234 Commercial (Accounts): 365 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 Cane Creek ------Subtotal Commercial 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 Total Wastewater Customer Accounts 5 5 17 70 134 217 244 Cumulative Wastewater Customer Accounts 7 12 63 247 717 1,648 2,326
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-5 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-9: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Lula WRF Residential (Dwelling Units): Hagen Creek - - 25 50 75 100 100 Mud Creek - - - - 25 75 150 Pleasant Hill - - - - - 75 128 Subtotal Residential - - 25 50 100 250 378 Commercial (Accounts): Hagen Creek - 2 3 3 3 - - Mud Creek ------Pleasant Hill ------Subtotal Commercial - 2 3 3 3 - - Total Wastewater Customer Accounts - 2 28 53 103 250 378 Cumulative Wastewater Customer Accounts - 2 36 200 545 1,429 2,457 Table 7-10 summarizes the projected and cumulative customer base ERCs for FY2020, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2032, 2037 and FY2040 based on an analysis of the data arranged by WRF. Table 7-10: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer ERCs
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Spout Springs WRF Residential (Dwelling Units) 243 211 236 285 255 85 85 Commercial (ERCs) 5 23 28 18 20 18 25 Flat Creek WRF - South Service Area Residential (Dwelling Units) 12 33 175 267 375 425 525 Commercial (ERCs) - 3 10 23 30 25 20 Flat Creek WRF - North Service Area Residential (Dwelling Units) - - 12 65 129 212 234 Commercial (ERCs) 40 40 40 40 40 40 80 Lula WRF Residential (Dwelling Units) - - 25 50 100 250 378 Commercial (ERCs) 0 16 24 24 24 0 0 Total ERCs 300 325 550 771 973 1,055 1,347 Cumulative Wastewater Customer ERCs 517 842 2,235 4,375 8,920 13,834 17,533
Table 7-11, Table 7-12, and Table 7-13 summarize the projected and cumulative customer base usage in terms of CCF and gallons for FY2020, 2021, 2024, 2027, 2032, 2037 and 2040 based on an analysis of the data arranged by WRF.
7-6 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-11: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer CCF, 1,000 Gallons and MGD
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Spout Springs WRF Residential (CCF): Lollis Creek 13,894 15,190 10,799 10,799 1,440 - - Reunion 3,600 - 1,800 - - - - Mitchell Creek - - 2,592 4,320 4,320 4,320 4,320 Sherwood Creek - - 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 Mulberry Creek - - - 3,600 10,799 - - Subtotal Residential - Annual 17,494 15,190 16,990 20,518 18,358 6,119 6,119 Commercial (Accounts): Lollis Creek 1,269 1,269 1,269 - - - - Reunion ------Mitchell Creek - 3,171 4,440 4,440 5,074 4,440 6,343 Sherwood Creek - 1,269 1,269 - - - - Mulberry Creek ------Subtotal Commercial - Annual 1,269 5,708 6,977 4,440 5,074 4,440 6,343 Total Annual Wastewater CCF 18,763 20,899 23,967 24,958 23,432 10,559 12,462 Cumulative Total in CCF 32,873 53,772 122,506 196,878 334,386 405,688 439,268 Cumulative Annual Total in 1,000 gallons 24,589 40,222 91,637 147,270 250,128 303,464 328,584 Cumulative Total in MGD 0.0674 0.1102 0.2511 0.4035 0.6853 0.8314 0.9002 Table 7-12: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer CCF, 1,000 Gallons and MGD
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Flat Creek WRF - South Service Area Residential (Dwelling Units): Deaton Creek - - 3,600 7,199 8,999 10,799 8,999 Mulberry River - - 3,600 4,823 7,199 - - Cooper Creek - - - - - 5,399 7,199 Caney Fork Creek 864 2,376 5,399 7,199 10,799 10,799 10,799 Lott Creek - - - - - 3,600 10,799 Subtotal Residential 864 2,376 12,599 19,222 26,997 30,597 37,796 Commercial (Accounts): Deaton Creek - - 1,903 1,903 3,171 1,903 634 Mulberry River ------Cooper Creek - 634 - 634 3,171 4,440 4,440 Caney Fork Creek - - 634 3,171 1,269 - - Lott Creek ------Subtotal Commercial 0 634 2,537 5,708 7,611 6,343 5,074 Total Wastewater Customer CCF 864 3,010 15,136 24,930 34,608 36,939 42,870 Cumulative Total in CCF 2,132 5,142 37,978 96,869 243,581 416,417 538,462 Cumulative Annual Total in 1,000 gallons 1,595 3,847 28,409 72,460 182,204 311,489 402,780 Cumulative Total in MGD 0.004 0.011 0.078 0.199 0.499 0.853 1.104 Flat Creek WRF - North Service Area Residential (Dwelling Units): 365 - - - 3,816 4,823 7,199 8,999 Cane Creek - - - - 3,600 7,199 7,199 Chattahoochee River - - 864 864 864 864 648 Subtotal Residential - - 864 4,679 9,287 15,262 16,846 Commercial (Accounts): 365 15,857 15,857 15,857 15,857 15,857 15,857 31,714 Cane Creek ------Subtotal Commercial 15,857 15,857 15,857 15,857 15,857 15,857 31,714 Total Wastewater Customer CCF 15,857 15,857 16,721 20,536 25,144 31,119 48,560 Cumulative Total in CCF 22,200 38,056 88,219 163,453 290,270 450,276 561,074 Cumulative Annual Total in 1,000 gallons 16,608 28,470 65,996 122,278 217,147 336,841 419,724 Cumulative Total in MGD 0.046 0.078 0.181 0.335 0.595 0.923 1.150
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-7 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-13: New Service Areas – Annually Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer CCF, 1,000 Gallons and MGD
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Lula WRF Residential (Dwelling Units): Hagen Creek - - 1,800 3,600 5,399 7,199 7,199 Mud Creek - - - - 1,800 5,399 10,799 Pleasant Hill - - - - - 5,399 9,215 Subtotal Residential - - 1,800 3,600 7,199 17,998 27,213 Commercial (Accounts): Hagen Creek - 6,343 9,514 9,514 9,514 - - Mud Creek ------Pleasant Hill ------Subtotal Commercial - 6,343 9,514 9,514 9,514 - - Total Wastewater Customer CCF - 6,343 11,314 13,114 16,713 17,998 27,213 Cumulative Total in CCF - 6,343 36,685 91,883 178,708 282,640 356,648 Cumulative Annual Total in 1,000 gallons - 4,745 27,444 68,736 133,688 211,433 266,791 Cumulative Total in MGD - 0.013 0.075 0.188 0.366 0.579 0.731 7.2.6 Revenue Requirements – O&M Debt Service and Capital Table 7-14 presents the budgeted O&M expenses for FY2019 for the existing wastewater system. Projected expenses are made for FY2020- 2040 based on an increase of the budgeted FY2019 expenses times the inflation assumptions. Table 7-14: Existing Wastewater System - Actual, Budgeted and Projected Operating Expenses
Description Budgeted Projected 2019 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 BUDGETED FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEM Variable Operating Expenses: (1) Utilities $199,700 $205,691 $211,862 $231,507 $252,974 $282,042 $311,397 $330,457 Services: Wastewater Treatment 280,000 288,400 297,052 324,597 354,696 411,189 476,681 520,882 Operating Services 514,000 529,420 545,303 595,867 651,120 754,826 875,051 956,191 Sludge Hauling/Disposal - - 85,591 122,796 168,787 269,842 357,408 413,495 Subtotal Variable Operating Expenses $993,700 $1,023,511 $1,139,808 $1,274,766 $1,427,577 $1,717,900 $2,020,537 $2,221,026 Fixed Operating Expenses (2) $520,664 $548,932 $565,400 $617,828 $675,117 $773,484 $883,972 $957,928 Total Annual Operating Expenses $1,514,364 $1,572,443 $1,705,208 $1,892,594 $2,102,694 $2,491,383 $2,904,509 $3,178,955 Administration (2) $30,327 $31,237 $32,174 $35,157 $38,417 $44,536 $51,630 $56,417 Total Administration Costs $30,327 $31,237 $32,174 $35,157 $38,417 $44,536 $51,630 $56,417 Notes: 1. Inflated at annual rate of 3%, Due to low level of growth projected for the existing service area, customer growth is not factored. 2. Inflated at an annual rate of 3%. 3. See Section 2.8.4 for sludge disposal assumptions.
In addition to the existing wastewater system, there are incremental O&M expenses associated with the expansion of the service area. Table 7-15 presents the O&M costs that are associated with the expanded service area.
7-8 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-15: Expanded Wastewater System - Projected Operating Expenses
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Pipe Maintenance (1) $0 $0 $11,836 $22,029 $48,117 $111,412 $116,701 Treatment (2) 95,056 180,324 601,315 1,377,834 3,259,986 3,999,637 5,593,113 Chemicals (2) 20,231 34,084 84,858 149,004 293,437 412,628 488,195 Electric (2) 58,340 20,796 133,323 313,872 717,999 1,054,593 1,247,393 PS Maintenance (3) - - 27,724 30,295 164,002 312,781 340,682 Totals $173,627 $235,204 $859,057 $1,893,035 $4,483,542 $5,891,050 $7,786,084 Notes: 1. Pipe Maintenance cost equals the capital cost times 0.3%. The initial year is not inflated from the O&M costs in Sections 4 and 5; however, the subsequent years are inflated by 3%. 2. Variable costs are increased by 3% for inflation plus growth identified below: Growth in system flow includes Total Billed Usage for residential and commercial customers for projecting variable costs. 3. Pump Station (PS) cost equals the construction costs times 20% times $0.03 and increased annually by 3% for inflation.
Table 7-16 presents the existing debt service payments. There are revenue bonds and Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) loans currently outstanding. There are also Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) revenues that offset a portion of the existing debt service. Table 7-16: Existing Debt Service
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Revenue Bond Debt Payments: Series 2016 Refunding Revenue Bonds $1,370,080 $1,440,877 $1,700,437 $2,040,739 $0 $0 $0 2010 Dev Authority Glades ------2012 GEFA - Mulberry Creek Phase II 1,428,007 1,428,007 1,428,007 1,428,007 1,428,007 - - 2012 GEFA - Mulberry Creek Phase I 675,315 675,314 675,314 675,314 - - - Subtotal Existing Revenue Bond Debt Payments $3,473,402 $3,544,198 $3,803,758 $4,144,060 $1,428,007 $0 $0 Less: Transfer from SPLOST ($2,103,321) ($2,103,321) ($2,103,321) Net Debt Service from User Charges (1) $1,370,081 $1,440,877 $1,700,437 $4,144,060 $1,428,007 $0 $0 7.2.7 Capital Improvement Plan - Base Case The following tables present the capital improvement plan for the base case and the corresponding debt service. Table 7-17 presents the existing capital improvement plan. The assumption for all alternatives was that a portion of the existing plan was to be funded by revenue bonds. Table 7-18 presents the debt service payments for the existing capital improvement plan. This debt service payment applies to all the alternatives.
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-9 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-17: Existing Capital Improvement Projects
Actual Budgeted Projected Description 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Funded by Wastewater Rates Pump Station Rehab $0 $60,000 $60,000 $65,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $75,000 Skid Steer - 79,000 ------Sewer Upsizing Landcaster - 350,000 ------Pumper Truck - 46,700 Trailer - 7,760 F550 Truck - 62,100 Subtotal - Funding by Wastewater Rates $0 $489,000 $176,560 $65,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $75,000 Funded by SPLOST VI Sewer Master Plan $0 $200,000 $64,993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Miscellaneous Sewer Projects 660,232 566,386 - - - - - Design and Engineering - Other Projects - 43,609 42,439 - - - - - Subtotal - Funding by SPLOST VI $0 $903,841 $673,818 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funded by SPLOST VII & VIII Road Atlanta Gravity Sewer $0 $622,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SR 347 Friendship Rd Sewer - Design 86,155 245,446 277,634 - - - - - SR 347 Friendship Rd Sewer - Construction (VIII) 5,262,387 4,812,386 Mulberry Cr. PS/FM/Gravity - Debt 2,103,321 2,109,314 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 Spout Spring Rd Sewer Project 159,082 115,000 138,102 - - - - - Hwy 365 Sewer 1,829,383 21,500 ------Spout Springs WRF Dewatering 500 1,740,289 260,944 - - - - - Mulberry Cr. Back Pump & PS Rehab - - - 700,000 1,900,000 - - - Other Various Sewer Imp Projects - 5,779 - 1,054,253 714,793 714,793 150,438 150,438 White Sulphur Rd. Sewer 808,581 101,721 ------Subtotal - Funding by SPLOST VII & VIII $4,987,022 $4,961,139 $2,780,001 $9,119,961 $9,530,500 $2,818,114 $2,253,759 $2,253,759 Funded by Revenue Bonds Union Church Rd. Sewer ------4,500,000 - Mulberry Cr. Back Pump & PS Rehab 1,606,000 Spout Springs Rd Phase 1 Sewer Utility Reloc - - 612,630 - - - - Subtotal - Funding by Revenue Bonds $0 $0 $0 $612,630 $1,606,000 $0 $4,500,000 $0 Total Annual CIP $4,987,022 $6,353,980 $3,630,379 $9,797,591 $11,206,500 $2,888,114 $6,828,759 $2,328,759
Note: Data provided by County Staff.
Table 7-18 presents the debt service for the revenue bond that provides for the existing service area’s capital improvement plan. The debt service assumptions are as follows: ▪ Terms – 20-years ▪ Interest – 4.5% ▪ Cost of Issuance – 1.4% Table 7-18: Existing Service Area - New Debt Service
Projected . Description 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Debt Service - Revenue Bonds - All Alternatives Revenue Bond Debt Payments - Existing Service Area: Series 2021 Revenue Bonds $184,103 $573,866 $573,866 $573,866 $573,866 $573,866
7.2.8 Capital Improvement Plan– Master Plan with Expanded Service Area In addition to the base case there are three alternatives being presented, with different funding sources. Alternative #1 – the capital improvement plan for the Master Plan projects are presented in Table 7-19 with the assumption that the major capital projects are funded by revenue bonds.
7-10 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-19: Base Case & Alternative #1 - Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects
Projected Projected Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Funded by Revenue Bonds - North County Hagen Creek - GS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,143,100 $1,143,100 $0 $0 Mud Creek - GS ------Mud Creek - PS ------Mud Creek - FM ------Lula WRF ------4,300,000 - - - Garner Creek - PS ------Garner Creek - FM ------Cane Creek - PS ------Cane Creek - FM ------365 - GS ------Oconee WRF ------Pleasant Hill - GS ------Subtotal - North County Revenue Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,443,100 $1,143,100 $0 $0 Funded by Cash - South County Friendship Rd. GS $0 $0 $1,696,800 $1,696,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Friendship Rd. PS - - 801,800 801,800 ------Friendship Rd. FM - - 720,550 720,550 ------Cooper Creek FM-6S 798,000 ------Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp Subtotal - South County Cash $798,000 $0 $3,219,150 $3,219,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funded by Revenue Bonds - South County Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp - - - 600,000 5,800,000 750,000 6,150,000 - - - Caney Fork Creek GS ------2,018,350 Caney Fork Creek PS ------1,123,750 Caney Fork Creek FM ------980,950 Deaton Creek GS ------586,650 586,650 - - Cooper Creek GS ------Cooper Creek PS ------Cooper Creek FM ------Lollis Creek FM ------Lollis Creek PS Lott Creek GS ------Lott Creek PS ------Lott Creek FM ------Subtotal - South County Revenue Bonds $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $5,800,000 $750,000 $6,736,650 $586,650 $0 $4,123,050 Total Annual CIP $798,000 $0 $3,219,150 $3,819,150 $5,800,000 $750,000 $12,179,750 $1,729,750 $0 $4,123,050
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-11 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-19: Base Case & Alternative #1 - Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects (continued)
Projected . Description 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Funded by Revenue Bonds - North County Hagen Creek - GS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mud Creek - GS - - 209,400 209,400 - - - - - Mud Creek - PS - - 750,800 750,800 - - - - - Mud Creek - FM - - 887,350 887,350 - - - - - Lula WRF - 2,776,700 ------3,619,800 Garner Creek - PS - - - - - 1,136,850 1,136,850 - - Garner Creek - FM - - - - - 864,750 864,750 - - Cane Creek - PS - 1,057,700 1,057,700 ------Cane Creek - FM - 240,750 240,750 ------365 - GS - - - - - 188,350 188,350 - - Oconee WRF - - - - 3,724,380 11,173,140 3,724,380 - - Pleasant Hill - GS - - - - - 3,913,100 3,913,100 - - Subtotal - North County Revenue Bonds $0 $4,075,150 $3,146,000 $1,847,550 $3,724,380 $17,276,190 $9,827,430 $0 $3,619,800 Funded by Cash - South County Friendship Rd. GS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Friendship Rd. PS ------Friendship Rd. FM ------Cooper Creek FM-6S ------Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp 9,450,000 Subtotal - South County Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,450,000 Funded by Revenue Bonds - South County Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp 6,300,000 ------Caney Fork Creek GS 2,018,350 ------Caney Fork Creek PS 1,123,750 ------Caney Fork Creek FM 980,950 ------Deaton Creek GS ------Cooper Creek GS - - - - 1,375,250 1,375,250 - - - Cooper Creek PS - - - - 815,100 815,100 - - - Cooper Creek FM - - - - 156,500 156,500 - - - Lollis Creek FM - - - - 2,632,500 2,632,500 - - - Lollis Creek PS 3,352,850 3,352,850 Lott Creek GS - - - - 403,150 403,150 - Lott Creek PS - - - - 140,000 140,000 - Lott Creek FM ------209,600 209,600 - Subtotal - South County Revenue Bonds $10,423,050 $0 $0 $0 $8,332,200 $8,332,200 $752,750 $752,750 $0 Total Annual CIP $10,423,050 $4,075,150 $3,146,000 $1,847,550 $12,056,580 $25,608,390 $10,580,180 $752,750 $13,069,800
7-12 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Alternative #2 – the capital improvement plan for the Master Plan projects are presented in Table 7- 20, with the capital projects funded by cash reserves or short-term loans.
Table 7-20: Alternative #2- Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects
Projected Projected Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Funded by Cash - North County Hagen Creek - GS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1,143,100 1,143,100 $0 $0 Mud Creek - GS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mud Creek - PS ------Mud Creek - FM ------Lula WRF ------Garner Creek - PS ------Garner Creek - FM - - - - - 4,300,000 - - - Cane Creek - PS ------Cane Creek - FM ------365 - GS ------Pleasant Hill - GS Subtotal - North County Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,443,100 $1,143,100 $0 $0 Funded by Cash - South Co. Oconee WRF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Friendship Rd. GS - - 1,696,800 1,696,800 ------Friendship Rd. PS - - 801,800 801,800 ------Friendship Rd. FM - - 720,550 720,550 ------Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp 600,000 5,800,000 750,000 6,150,000 Caney Fork Creek GS ------2,018,350 Caney Fork Creek PS - - - - 1,123,750 Caney Fork Creek FM ------980,950 Cooper Creek FM-6S 798,000 Deaton Creek GS ------586,650 586,650 - Cooper Creek GS ------Cooper Creek PS ------Cooper Creek FM ------Lollis Creek PS ------Lollis Creek FM Lott Creek GS ------Lott Creek PS ------Lott Creek FM ------Subtotal - South County Cash $798,000 $0 $3,219,150 $3,819,150 $5,800,000 $750,000 $6,736,650 $586,650 $0 $4,123,050 Total Annual CIP $798,000 $0 $3,219,150 $3,819,150 $5,800,000 $750,000 $12,179,750 $1,729,750 $0 $4,123,050
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-13 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-20: Alternative #2- Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects (continued)
Projected Description 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Funded by Cash - North County Hagen Creek - GS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mud Creek - GS $0 $0 209,400 209,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mud Creek - PS - - 750,800 750,800 - - - - - Mud Creek - FM - - 887,350 887,350 - - - - - Lula WRF - 2,776,700 - - - - 3,619,800 Garner Creek - PS - - - 1,136,850 1,136,850 - - Garner Creek - FM - - - - 864,750 864,750 - Cane Creek - PS - 1,057,880 1,057,880 - - - - Cane Creek - FM - 240,570 240,570 - - - - 365 - GS - - - 188,350 188,350 - - Pleasant Hill - GS 3,913,100 3,913,100 Subtotal - North County Cash $0 $4,075,150 $3,146,000 $1,847,550 $0 $6,103,050 $6,103,050 $0 $3,619,800 Funded by Cash - South Co. Oconee WRF $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,724,380 $11,173,140 $3,724,380 $0 $0 Friendship Rd. GS ------Friendship Rd. PS ------Friendship Rd. FM ------Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp 6,300,000 9,450,000 Caney Fork Creek GS 2,018,350 ------Caney Fork Creek PS 1,123,750 ------Caney Fork Creek FM 980,950 ------Cooper Creek FM-6S Deaton Creek GS ------Cooper Creek GS - - - - 1,375,250 1,375,250 - - - Cooper Creek PS - - - - 815,100 815,100 - - - Cooper Creek FM - - - - 156,500 156,500 - - - Lollis Creek PS - - - - 2,632,500 2,632,500 - - - Lollis Creek FM 3,352,850 3,352,850 Lott Creek GS - - - - - 403,150 403,150 - Lott Creek PS - - - - 140,000 140,000 - Lott Creek FM - - - - 209,600 209,600 - Subtotal - South County Cash $10,423,050 $0 $0 $0 $12,056,580 $19,505,340 $4,477,130 $752,750 $9,450,000 Total Annual CIP $10,423,050 $4,075,150 $3,146,000 $1,847,550 $12,056,580 $25,608,390 $10,580,180 $752,750 $13,069,800
7-14 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Alternative #3 – the capital improvement plan for the Master Plan projects are presented in Table 7-20 with the capital projects funded by GEFA and SRF Loans, and cash reserves.
Table 7-21: Alternative #3- Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects
Projected Projected Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Funded by - North County GEFA Loans Hagen Creek - GS ------1,143,100 1,143,100 - - Subtotal - North County GEFA Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,143,100 $1,143,100 $0 $0 Funded by Cash - North County Mud Creek - GS ------Mud Creek - PS ------Mud Creek - FM ------Lula WRF ------4,300,000 - - - Garner Creek - PS ------Garner Creek - FM ------Cane Creek - PS ------Cane Creek - FM ------365 - GS ------Oconee WRF ------Pleasant Hill - GS ------Subtotal - North County Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,300,000 $0 $0 $0 Funded by - GEFA Loans Deaton Creek GS ------586,650 586,650 - - Subtotal - South County GEFA Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $586,650 $586,650 $0 $0 Funded by - South County SRF Loans Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp - - - 600,000 5,800,000 750,000 6,150,000 - - - Subtotal - South County SRF Loans $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $5,800,000 $750,000 $6,150,000 $0 $0 $0 Funded by Cash - South County Cooper Creek FM-6S 798,000 ------Friendship Rd. GS - - 1,696,800 1,696,800 ------Friendship Rd. PS - - 801,800 801,800 ------Friendship Rd. FM - - 720,550 720,550 ------Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp Caney Fork Creek GS ------2,018,350 Caney Fork Creek PS ------1,123,750 Caney Fork Creek FM ------980,950 Mulberry River PS ------Mulberry River FM ------Cooper Creek GS ------Cooper Creek PS ------Cooper Creek FM ------Lollis Creek PS ------Lollis Creek FM ------Lott Creek GS ------Lott Creek PS ------Lott Creek FM ------Subtotal - South County SRF Loans $798,000 $0 $3,219,150 $3,219,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,123,050 Total Annual CIP $798,000 $0 $3,219,150 $3,819,150 $5,800,000 $750,000 $12,179,750 $1,729,750 $0 $4,123,050
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-15 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-21: Alternative #3- Expanded Service Area Capital Improvement Projects (continued)
Projected Description 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Funded by - North County GEFA Loans Hagen Creek - GS ------Subtotal - North County GEFA Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funded by Cash - North County Mud Creek - GS - - 209,400 209,400 - - - - - Mud Creek - PS - - 750,800 750,800 - - - - - Mud Creek - FM - - 887,350 887,350 - - - - - Lula WRF - 2,776,700 ------3,619,800 Garner Creek - PS - - - - - 1,136,850 1,136,850 - - Garner Creek - FM - - - - - 864,750 864,750 - - Cane Creek - PS - 1,057,700 1,057,700 ------Cane Creek - FM - 240,750 240,750 ------365 - GS - - - - - 188,350 188,350 - - Oconee WRF - - - - 3,724,380 11,173,140 3,724,380 - - Pleasant Hill - GS - - - - - 3,913,100 3,913,100 - - Subtotal - North County Cash $0 $4,075,150 $3,146,000 $1,847,550 $3,724,380 $17,276,190 $9,827,430 $0 $3,619,800 Funded by - GEFA Loans Deaton Creek GS ------Subtotal - South County GEFA Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funded by - South County SRF Loans Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp ------Subtotal - South County SRF Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funded by Cash - South County Cooper Creek FM-6S ------Friendship Rd. GS ------Friendship Rd. PS ------Friendship Rd. FM ------Spout Springs WRF Upgrade & Exp 6,300,000 9,450,000 Caney Fork Creek GS 2,018,350 ------Caney Fork Creek PS 1,123,750 ------Caney Fork Creek FM 980,950 ------Mulberry River PS ------Mulberry River FM ------Cooper Creek GS - - - - 1,375,250 1,375,250 - - - Cooper Creek PS - - - - 815,100 815,100 - - - Cooper Creek FM - - - - 156,500 156,500 - - - Lollis Creek PS - - - - 2,632,500 2,632,500 - - - Lollis Creek FM - - - - 3,352,850 3,352,850 - - - Lott Creek GS - - - - 403,150 403,150 - Lott Creek PS ------140,000 140,000 - Lott Creek FM ------209,600 209,600 - Subtotal - South County SRF Loans $10,423,050 $0 $0 $0 $8,332,200 $8,332,200 $752,750 $752,750 $9,450,000 Total Annual CIP $10,423,050 $4,075,150 $3,146,000 $1,847,550 $12,056,580 $25,608,390 $10,580,180 $752,750 $13,069,800
7.2.9 Debt Service Payments – Master Plan with Expanded Service Area In addition to the base case there are three alternatives considered, with different funding sources. The debt service payments that correspond to these alternatives for the capital improvement plan from the Master Plan projects are presented in Table 7-22.
7-16 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-22: Debt Service Payments - Base Case & Alternative #1; Alternative #2; Alternative #3
Projected Projected Description 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Debt Payments - Expanded Service Area: Base Case & Alternative#1 North County Series 2025 Revenue Bonds - - - 546,525 546,525 546,525 546,525 546,525 546,525 Series 2030 Revenue Bonds - - 752,524 Series 2033 Revenue Bonds Series 2037 Revenue Bonds South County Series 2022 Revenue Bonds 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 Series 2028Revenue Bonds ------1,207,040 1,207,040 1,207,040 Series 2033 Revenue Bonds ------Total Base Case & Alternative #1 - Revenue Bonds 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,747,524 1,747,524 1,747,524 2,954,565 2,954,565 3,707,089 Debt Payments - Expanded Service Area: Alternative#2 North County Series 2033 SRFLoan ------Total Alternative #2 - SRF Loan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Debt Payments - Expanded Service Area: Alternative#3 North County Series 2025 GEFA Loan - - 147,903 147,903 147,903 147,903 147,903 147,903 South County Series 2022 SRF Loan 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 Series 2024 SRF Loan 455,315 455,315 455,315 455,315 455,315 455,315 455,315 Series 2025 GEFA Loan 80,317 80,317 80,317 80,317 80,317 80,317 Series 2029 SRF Loan Series 2034 SRF Loan Total Alternative #3 - GEFA & SRF Loans $422,321 $422,321 $877,635 $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855
Table 7-22: Debt Service Payments - Base Case & Alternative #1; Alternative #2; Alternative #3 (continued)
Projected Description 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037-2040 Debt Payments - Expanded Service Area: Base Case & Alternative#1 North County Series 2025 Revenue Bonds 546,525 546,525 546,525 546,525 546,525 546,525 546,525 Series 2030 Revenue Bonds 752,524 752,524 752,524 752,524 752,524 752,524 752,524 Series 2033 Revenue Bonds 2,558,118 2,558,118 2,558,118 2,558,118 2,558,118 Series 2037 Revenue Bonds 300,372 South County Series 2022 Revenue Bonds 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 1,200,999 Series 2028Revenue Bonds 1,207,040 1,207,040 1,207,040 1,207,040 1,207,040 1,207,040 1,207,040 Series 2033 Revenue Bonds - - 1,507,744 1,507,744 1,507,744 1,507,744 1,507,744 Total Base Case & Alternative #1 - Revenue Bonds 3,707,089 3,707,089 7,772,951 7,772,951 7,772,951 7,772,951 8,073,323 Debt Payments - Expanded Service Area: Alternative#2 North County Series 2033 SRFLoan ------Total Alternative #2 - SRF Loan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Debt Payments - Expanded Service Area: Alternative#3 North County Series 2025 GEFA Loan 147,903 147,903 147,903 147,903 147,903 147,903 147,903 South County Series 2022 SRF Loan 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 422,321 Series 2024 SRF Loan 455,315 455,315 455,315 455,315 455,315 455,315 455,315 Series 2025 GEFA Loan 80,317 80,317 80,317 80,317 80,317 80,317 80,317 Series 2029 SRF Loan Series 2034 SRF Loan - - - - Total Alternative #3 - GEFA & SRF Loans $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855 $1,105,855
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-17 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
7.2.10 Wastewater Revenue Projections Table 7-23 presents the projected user fee revenue with the existing rates. Table 7-23: Base Case - Estimated Wastewater Revenues at Existing Rates
Projected Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Charge per CCF - Residential $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Charge per CCF - Commercial $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Sewer Service Charges (1) $2,451,511 $2,832,147 $4,347,461 $6,555,724 $10,784,820 $15,133,691 $18,096,012 Administrative Fee (2) 77,664 83,961 112,765 160,768 268,935 398,053 497,585 Other Connection Charges (3) 209,600 208,800 376,800 552,800 709,600 795,200 1,000,000 Other Revenue (4) 60,976 62,805 68,629 74,993 86,937 100,784 110,129 Total Operating Revenue $2,799,751 $3,187,713 $4,905,655 $7,344,285 $11,850,292 $16,427,728 $19,703,727 Notes: 1. Equals the number of ERCs from Tables 7-5 and 7-10 multiplied by $10 per month and annualized plus the cumulative CCF from Tables 7-6, 7-11, 7-12, and 7-13 multiplied by $7.39. 2. Equals the number of accounts from Tables 7-4, 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9 multiplied by $2.00 per month and annualized. 3. Equals the number of new connections from Tables 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9 multiplied by $800. 4. Equals reclaimed water revenue from FY2019 increased by 3 percent annually.
Table 7-24 presents the projected user fee revenue with the rates required, given revenue bond financing for the Master Plan projects and new SPLOST revenue for existing GEFA payments through FY2025. The user fee rates have been projected based on 3-year averaging through 2027 and 5- year averaging thereafter. The annual rates that were calculated moved up and down over the planning period, with the recommendation that rates be increased every 3-5 years based on the average of the calculated rates. The initial years of the Master Plan capital improvement plan increases the cash needs, while the revenue need decreases in future years as the projected customer base increases. The revenue projections were based on the highest calculated rates for each 3 or 5 year period, with those rates used rather than decreasing the rates in the later years. Table 7-24: Alternative #1 - Estimated Wastewater Revenues at Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.21 $10.21 $10.21 $10.21 $10.21 $10.21 Charge per CCF - Residential $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Charge per CCF - Commercial $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Sewer Service Charges (1) $2,451,511 $2,841,719 $4,360,628 $6,574,409 $10,815,219 $15,176,753 $18,148,602 Administrative Fee (2) 77,664 83,961 112,765 160,768 268,935 398,053 497,585 Other Connection Charges (3) 209,600 208,800 376,800 552,800 709,600 795,200 1,000,000 Other Revenue (4) 60,976 62,805 68,629 74,993 86,937 100,784 110,129 Total Operating Revenue $2,799,751 $3,197,286 $4,918,822 $7,362,970 $11,880,691 $16,470,791 $19,756,317 Notes: 1. The implementation dates for the Rate Resolutions are as follows: a. FY 2021 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2021 b. FY 2024 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2024 c. FY 2027 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2027 d. FY 2032 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2032 e. FY 2037 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2037
7-18 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
2. Equals the number of ERCs from Tables 7-5 and 7-10, multiplied by rates above and annualized plus the cumulative CCF from Tables 7-6, 7-11, 7-12 and 7-13 multiplied by rates above.. 3. Equals the number of accounts from Tables 7-4, 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9 multiplied by $2.00 per month and annualized. 4. Equals the number of new connections from Tables 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9 multiplied by $800. 5. Equals reclaimed water revenue from FY2019 increased by 3 percent annually.
Table 7-25 presents the projected user fee revenue with the rates required, given cash financing and for the Master Plan projects. The user fee rates have been projected based on 3 and 5-year averaging. The annual rates that were calculated moved up and down over the planning period, with the recommendation that rates be increased every 3-5 years based on the average of the calculated rates. The initial years of the Master Plan capital improvement plan increases the cash needs, while the revenue need decreases in future years as the projected customer base increases; with the rate increases lowered through the use of periodic short-term loans. The revenue projections were based on the highest calculated rates for each 3 or 5 year period, with those rates used rather than decreasing the rates in the later years. Table 7-25: Alternative #2 - Estimated Wastewater Revenues at Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.00 $12.34 $12.34 $12.34 $12.34 $12.34 Charge per CCF - Residential $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Charge per CCF - Commercial $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Sewer Service Charges (1) $2,451,511 $2,832,147 $4,491,082 $6,759,545 $11,116,414 $15,603,416 $18,669,671 Administrative Fee (2) 77,664 83,961 112,765 160,768 268,935 398,053 497,585 Other Connection Charges (3) 209,600 208,800 376,800 552,800 709,600 795,200 1,000,000 Other Revenue (4) 60,976 62,805 68,629 74,993 86,937 100,784 110,129 Total Operating Revenue $2,799,751 $3,187,713 $5,049,276 $7,548,106 $12,181,886 $16,897,453 $20,277,386 Notes: 1. The implementation dates for the Rate Resolutions are as follows: a. FY 2021 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2021 b. FY 2024 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2024 c. FY 2027 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2027 d. FY 2032 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2032 e. FY 2037 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2037 2. Equals the number of ERCs from Tables 7-5 and 7-10, multiplied by rates above and annualized plus the cumulative CCF from Tables 7-6, 7-11, 7-12 and 7-13 multiplied by rates above. 3. Equals the number of accounts from Tables 7-4, 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9 multiplied by $2.00 per month and annualized.. 4. Equals the number of new connections from Tables 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9 multiplied by $800. 5. Equals reclaimed water revenue from FY2019 increased by 3 percent annually.
Table 7-26 presents the projected user fee revenue with the rates required, given SRF and GEFA loans for the Master Plan projects. The user fee rates have been projected based on 3 and 5-year averaging. The annual rates that were calculated moved up and down over the planning period, with the recommendation that rates be increased every 3-5 years based on the average of the calculated rates. The initial years of the Master Plan capital improvement plan increases the cash needs, while the revenue need decreases in future years as the projected customer base increases. The revenue projections were based on the highest calculated rates for each 3 or 5 year period, with those rates used rather than decreasing the rates in the later years.
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-19 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-26: Alternative #3 - Estimated Wastewater Revenues at Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee $10.00 $10.00 $10.43 $10.43 $10.43 $10.43 $10.43 Charge per CCF - Residential $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 $7.39 Sewer Service Charges (1) $2,451,511 $2,832,147 $4,373,743 $6,593,022 $10,845,500 $15,219,648 $18,200,989 Administrative Fee (2) 77,664 83,961 112,765 160,768 268,935 398,053 497,585 Other Connection Charges (3) 209,600 208,800 376,800 552,800 709,600 795,200 1,000,000 Other Revenue (4) 60,976 62,805 68,629 74,993 86,937 100,784 110,129 Total Operating Revenue $2,799,751 $3,187,713 $4,931,937 $7,381,583 $11,910,972 $16,513,686 $19,808,703 Notes: 1. The implementation dates for the Rate Resolutions are as follows: a. FY 2021 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2021 b. FY 2024 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2024 c. FY 2027 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2027 d. FY 2032 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2032 e. FY 2037 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2037 2. Equals the number of ERCs from Tables 7-5 and 7-10, multiplied by rates above and annualized plus the cumulative CCF from Tables 7-6, 7-11, 7-12 and 7-13 multiplied by rates above. 3. Equals the number of accounts from Tables 7-4, 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9 multiplied by $2.00 per month and annualized.. 4. Equals the number of new connections from Tables 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9 multiplied by $800. 5. Equals reclaimed water revenue from FY2019 increased by 3 percent annually.
Table 7-27 presents the connection fee revenue calculations for the new service areas. Although there was a separate interlocal agreement with Lula, there has been no implementation of that agreement and the existing County rates were used. The commercial customers within the new service areas were assumed to use either 1” or 2” meters, depending on whether they were in the North or South service areas. Table 7-27: Projected Wastewater Connection Revenues at Existing Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Connection Fees Spout Springs Reunion - Residential $8,400 $420,000 $0 $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sterling on the Lake-Res $8,400 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 - - - Other Spout Springs-Res $8,400 571,200 722,400 722,400 1,344,000 2,142,000 714,000 714,000 Spout Springs-Com 1" Meter/tap 42,000 189,000 231,000 147,000 168,000 147,000 210,000 Flat Creek S - Res $8,400 100,800 277,200 1,470,000 2,242,800 3,150,000 3,570,000 4,410,000 Flat Creek S - Com 1" Meter/tap - 21,000 84,000 189,000 252,000 210,000 168,000 Flat Creek N - Res $8,400 - - 100,800 546,000 1,083,600 1,780,800 1,965,600 Flat Creek N - Com 2" Meter/tap 336,000 336,000 336,000 336,000 336,000 336,000 672,000 Lula - Res $8,400 - 210,000 420,000 840,000 2,100,000 3,175,200 Lula - Com 2" Meter/tap 134,400 201,600 201,600 201,600 - - Total Connection Fees $2,520,000 $2,730,000 $4,615,800 $6,476,400 $8,173,200 $8,857,800 $11,314,800
7.3 Summary of Wastewater Revenue and Expenditures
7-20 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-28 presents the revenue prior to the rate increases. Although there are positive cash flows, this is due to the connection fee revenue. Table 7-28: Base Case - Projected Financial Pro-Forma - Prior to Rate Increases
Budgeted Description 2019 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Total Annual Operating Revenues (1) $2,534,424 $3,187,713 $4,905,655 $7,344,285 $11,850,292 $16,427,728 $19,703,727
Total Annual Operating Expenses - Existing (2) 1,544,691 1,737,382 1,927,752 2,141,111 2,535,920 2,956,139 3,235,372 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Expansion (3) 65,471 235,204 859,057 1,893,035 4,483,542 5,891,050 7,786,084 Net Operating Revenues $924,262 $1,215,127 $2,118,846 $3,310,138 $4,830,831 $7,580,539 $8,682,271 Total Annual Net Debt Service - Existing (4) 1,903,519 1,440,877 1,700,437 4,144,060 1,428,007 - - Total Annual New Debt Service - (5) - 184,103 1,774,865 2,321,391 4,280,955 8,647,189 8,647,189 Net Operating Revenues After D/S (6) ($979,258) ($409,853) ($1,356,456) ($3,155,312) ($878,131) ($1,066,650) $35,081 Debt Serice Coverage 1.59 2.51 1.98 1.55 2.37 2.00 2.44 Interest Revenue 81,283 127,692 132,238 234,234 528,912 868,632 1,065,061 Connection Charges (7) $2,013,960 $2,730,000 $4,615,800 $6,476,400 $8,173,200 $8,857,800 $11,314,800 Total Capital Expenditures - from Rates (8) 489,000 65,000 75,000 - - - - Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $626,985 $2,382,839 $3,316,582 $3,555,322 $7,823,981 $8,659,782 $12,414,942
Notes: 1. Taken from Table 7-23. 2. Taken from Table 7-14. 3. Taken from Table 7-15. 4. Taken from Table 7-16. 5. Taken from Tables 7-18 and 7-22. 6. Equals Net Operating Revenues minus Total Annual Net Debt Service. 7. Taken from Table 7-27. 8. Taken from Table 7-14
Table 7-29 presents the results of the analysis with the projected rates. The rate increases projected are minimal due to the increase in the customer base.
Table 7-29: Alternative #1 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Total Annual Operating Revenues (1) $2,799,751 $3,197,286 $4,918,822 $7,362,970 $11,880,691 $16,470,791 $19,756,317 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Existing (2) 1,603,680 1,737,382 1,927,752 2,141,111 2,535,920 2,956,139 3,235,372 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Expansion (3) 173,627 235,204 859,057 1,893,035 4,483,542 5,891,050 7,786,084 Net Operating Revenues $1,022,444 $1,224,700 $2,132,013 $3,328,824 $4,861,230 $7,623,602 $8,734,861 Total Annual Net Debt Service - Existing (4) 1,370,081 1,440,877 1,700,437 4,144,060 1,428,007 - - Total Annual Net Debt Service - Expansion (5) - 184,103 1,774,865 2,321,391 4,280,955 8,647,189 8,647,189 Net Operating Revenues After D/S (6) ($347,638) ($400,280) ($1,343,289) ($3,136,627) ($847,732) ($1,023,588) $87,672 Debt Service Coverage 2.66 2.51 1.98 1.55 2.38 2.01 2.44 Interest Revenue 106,667 127,692 132,560 235,019 530,916 872,542 1,070,483 Connection Charges (7) $2,520,000 $2,730,000 $4,615,800 $6,476,400 $8,173,200 $8,857,800 $11,314,800 Total Capital Expenditures - from Rates (8) 176,560 65,000 75,000 - - - - Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $2,102,470 $2,392,412 $3,330,071 $3,574,792 $7,856,384 $8,706,754 $12,472,955
Notes: 1. Taken from Table 7-24. 2. Taken from Table 7-14. 3. Taken from Table 7-15. 4. Taken from Table 7-16. 5. Taken from Tables 7-18 and 7-22.
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-21 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
6. Equals Net Operating Revenues minus Total Annual Net Debt Service. 7. Taken from Table 7-27. 8. Taken from Table 7-17
The Base Case and Alternative #1 were based on the use of revenue bonds to finance the Master Plan projects. Table 7-30 presents the revenues from the rates calculated in conjunction with cash financed capital improvement plan projects - Alternative #2. Table 7-30: Alternative #2 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Total Annual Operating Revenues (1) $2,799,751 $3,187,713 $5,049,276 $7,548,106 $12,181,886 $16,897,453 $20,277,386 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Existing (2) 1,603,680 1,737,382 1,927,752 2,141,111 2,535,920 2,956,139 3,235,372 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Expansion (3) 173,627 235,204 859,057 1,893,035 4,483,542 5,891,050 7,786,084 Net Operating Revenues $1,022,444 $1,215,127 $2,262,467 $3,513,960 $5,162,425 $8,050,264 $9,255,930 Total Annual Net Debt Service - Existing (4) 1,370,081 1,440,877 1,700,437 4,144,060 1,428,007 - - Total Annual Net Debt Service - Expansion (5) - 184,103 573,866 573,866 573,866 573,866 573,866 Net Operating Revenues After D/S (6) ($347,638) ($409,853) ($11,835) ($1,203,966) $3,160,552 $7,476,398 $8,682,064 Debt Service Coverage 2.66 2.51 3.06 2.14 6.83 30.36 37.45 Interest Revenue $106,667 $127,692 $92,318 $97,456 $329,872 $514,232 $922,840 Connection Charges (7) $2,520,000 $2,730,000 $4,615,800 $6,476,400 $8,173,200 $8,857,800 $11,314,800 Total Capital Expenditures - from Rates (8) 176,560 65,000 75,000 - - - - Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $2,102,470 $2,382,839 $4,621,282 $5,369,890 $11,663,623 $16,848,431 $20,919,704
Notes: 1. Taken from Table 7-25. 2. Taken from Table 7-14. 3. Taken from Table 7-15. 4. Taken from Table 7-16. 5. Taken from Tables 7-18 and 7-22. 6. Equals Net Operating Revenues minus Total Annual Net Debt Service. 7. Taken from Table 7-27. 8. Taken from Table 7-17
In addition to the above alternatives, Alternative #3 assumes that SRF and GEFA financing was used for the major Master Plan capital projects. Table 7-31 presents the pro-forma from the rates calculated in conjunction with this alternative. Table 7-31: Alternative #3 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Total Annual Operating Revenues (1) $2,799,751 $3,187,713 $4,931,937 $7,381,583 $11,910,972 $16,513,686 $19,808,703 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Existing (2) 1,603,680 1,737,382 1,927,752 2,141,111 2,535,920 2,956,139 3,235,372 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Expansion (3) 173,627 235,204 859,057 1,893,035 4,483,542 5,891,050 7,786,084 Net Operating Revenues $1,022,444 $1,215,127 $2,145,128 $3,347,437 $4,891,511 $7,666,497 $8,787,247 Total Annual Net Debt Service - Existing (4) 1,370,081 1,440,877 1,700,437 4,144,060 1,428,007 - - Total Annual Net Debt Service - Expansion (5) - 184,103 1,451,501 1,679,721 1,679,721 1,679,721 1,679,721 Net Operating Revenues After D/S (6) ($347,638) ($409,853) ($1,006,810) ($2,476,344) $1,783,782 $5,986,775 $7,107,526 Debt Service Coverage 2.66 2.51 2.19 1.73 4.33 10.16 12.51 Interest Revenue $106,667 $127,692 $147,889 $224,029 $395,984 $548,855 $912,574 Connection Charges (7) 2,520,000 2,730,000 4,615,800 6,476,400 8,173,200 8,857,800 11,314,800 Total Capital Expenditures - from Rates (8) 176,560 65,000 75,000 - - - - Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $2,102,470 $2,382,839 $3,681,879 $4,224,085 $10,352,967 $15,393,431 $19,334,900
7-22 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Notes: 1. Taken from Table 7-26. 2. Taken from Table 7-14. 3. Taken from Table 7-15. 4. Taken from Table 7-16. 5. Taken from Tables 7-18 and 7-22. 6. Equals Net Operating Revenues minus Total Annual Net Debt Service. 7. Taken from Table 7-27.
It is also important to present the cash flow, given the financing of substantial capital projects from cash. Table 7-32 presents the Base Case. Table 7-32: Base Case - Projected Cash Flow with Existing Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Cash Flow - Operations Beginning Oper Fund Balance $10,666,710 $12,769,180 $13,223,764 $23,423,366 $52,891,212 $86,863,239 $106,506,067 Gross Revenue Net Income(Loss) 3,649,111 4,072,819 6,866,884 10,020,772 13,532,943 17,306,972 21,062,131 Less: Revenue Bond Debt Service (1,370,080) (1,624,980) (3,475,302) (4,362,129) (4,280,955) (8,647,189) (8,647,189) Less: GEFA Debt Service (2,103,322) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (1,428,007) - - Less: SRF Debt Service ------Less: Capital from Rates (176,560) (65,000) (75,000) - - - - Less: Capital from Reserves - (3,219,150) - - - (9,450,000) - Less: SPLOST Capital (non debt) (1,350,498) (7,016,640) (150,438) - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for GEFA 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for Capital 1,350,498 7,016,640 150,438 - - - - Operating Cash Flow - Ending Balance $12,769,180 $11,932,869 $16,540,346 $26,978,688 $60,715,193 $86,073,022 $118,921,009
Table 7-33 presents the Alternative #1 cash flow. Table 7-33: Alternative #1 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Cash Flow - Operations Beginning Oper Fund Balance $10,666,710 $12,769,180 $13,256,010 $23,501,865 $53,091,620 $87,254,175 $107,048,323 Gross Revenue Net Income(Loss) 3,649,111 4,082,392 6,880,373 10,040,242 13,565,346 17,353,943 21,120,144 Less: Revenue Bond Debt Service (1,370,080) (1,624,980) (3,475,302) (4,362,129) (4,280,955) (8,647,189) (8,647,189) Less: GEFA Debt Service (2,103,322) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (1,428,007) - - Less: SRF Debt Service ------Less: Capital from Rates (176,560) (65,000) (75,000) - - - - Less: Capital from Reserves - (3,219,150) - - - (9,450,000) - Less: SPLOST Capital (non debt) (1,350,498) (7,016,640) (150,438) - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for GEFA 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for Capital 1,350,498 7,016,640 150,438 - - - - Operating Cash Flow - Ending Balance $12,769,180 $11,942,441 $16,586,081 $27,076,658 $60,948,004 $86,510,929 $119,521,278
Table 7-34 presents the Alternative #2 cash flow.
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-23 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-34: Alternative #2 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Cash Flow - Operations Beginning Oper Fund Balance $10,666,710 $12,769,180 $9,231,773 $9,745,578 $32,987,154 $51,423,241 $92,284,009 Gross Revenue Net Income(Loss) 3,649,111 4,072,819 6,970,585 10,087,815 13,665,496 17,422,297 21,493,570 Less: Revenue Bond Debt Service (1,370,080) (1,624,980) (2,274,303) (2,614,605) (573,866) (573,866) (573,866) Less: GEFA Debt Service (2,103,322) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (1,428,007) - - Less: SRF Debt Service ------Less: Short Term Interest ------Less: Capital from Rates (176,560) (65,000) (75,000) - - - - Less: Capital from Reserves - (3,219,150) (750,000) - (1,847,550) (13,069,800) - Less: SPLOST Capital (non debt) (1,350,498) (7,016,640) (150,438) - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for GEFA 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for Capital 1,350,498 7,016,640 150,438 - - - - Operating Cash Flow - Ending Balance $12,769,180 $11,932,869 $13,103,055 $15,115,468 $42,803,227 $55,201,871 $113,203,713
Table 7-35 presents the Alternative #3 cash flow. Table 7-35: Alternative #3 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Cash Flow - Operations Beginning Oper Fund Balance $10,666,710 $12,769,180 $14,788,908 $22,402,931 $39,598,435 $54,885,544 $91,257,389 Gross Revenue Net Income(Loss) 3,649,111 4,072,819 6,908,817 10,047,866 13,460,695 17,073,152 21,014,621 Less: Revenue Bond Debt Service (1,370,080) (1,624,980) (2,274,303) (2,614,605) (573,866) (573,866) (573,866) Less: GEFA Debt Service (2,103,322) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,331,541) (1,656,227) (228,220) (228,220) Less: SRF Debt Service - - (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) Less: Capital from Rates (176,560) (65,000) (75,000) - - - - Less: Capital from Reserves - (3,219,150) - - (1,847,550) (13,069,800) - Less: SPLOST Capital (non debt) (1,350,498) (7,016,640) (150,438) - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for GEFA 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for Capital 1,350,498 7,016,640 150,438 - - - - Operating Cash Flow - Ending Balance $12,769,180 $11,932,869 $18,470,788 $26,627,016 $48,103,852 $57,209,175 $110,592,289
Although the above analysis results in minimal increases in the user fee rates, these results are based on significant increases in the customer base. Should these increases not occur, the results could be significantly different. The following section analyzes the alternatives with changes in the projected customer base.
7.4 Sensitivity Analysis After initial discussions with Hall County, it was determined that sensitivity analysis will provide scenarios if projected customer base does not increase as anticipated. Two scenarios of customer base changes were evaluated: • Expanded Customer Base – reduced by 50 percent • Expanded Customer Base – reduced by 25 percent Alternative #3 was used as a representative of the project financing. Table 7-36 presents the calculation used to decrease the customer accounts by either 50 percent or 25 percent. There are minimal projected increases for the existing service area.
7-24 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-36: Expansion Service Areas - Projected Wastewater Customer Base - Customer Accounts with Decreases
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Spout Springs WRF Cumulative Wastewater Customer Accounts 441 661 1,358 2,188 3,770 4,448 4,727 Flat Creek WRF - South Service Area Cumulative Wastewater Customer Accounts 14 48 426 1,080 2,743 4,722 6,222 Flat Creek WRF - North Service Area Cumulative Wastewater Customer Accounts 7 12 63 247 717 1,648 2,326 Lula WRF - - - 50 150 - - Cumulative Wastewater Customer Accounts - 2 36 200 545 1,429 2,457 Total Wastewater Customer Accounts 462 723 1,883 3,765 7,925 12,247 15,732 With 50 Percent Customer Decrease 231 362 942 1,883 3,963 6,124 7,866 With 25 Percent Customer Decrease 347 542 1,412 2,824 5,944 9,185 11,799 Existing Service Area 2,774 2,775 2,780 2,784 2,791 2,798 2,802
Table 7-37 presents the calculation used to decrease the customer ERC’s by either 50 percent or 25 percent. There are minimal projected increases for the existing service area Table 7-37: Expansion Service Areas - Projected Wastewater Customer Base - ERCs with Decreases
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Spout Springs WRF Cumulative Wastewater Customer ERCs 248 234 264 303 275 103 110 Flat Creek WRF - South Service Area Cumulative Wastewater Customer ERCs 12 36 185 290 405 450 545 Flat Creek WRF - North Service Area Cumulative Wastewater Customer ERCs 40 40 52 105 169 252 314 Lula WRF Cumulative Wastewater Customer ERCs - 16 49 74 124 250 378 Annual ERCs 300 325 550 771 973 1,055 1,347 Cumulative ERCs 517 842 2,235 4,375 8,920 13,834 17,533 With 50 Percent Customer Decrease 259 421 1,117 2,188 4,460 6,917 8,766 With 25 Percent Customer Decrease 388 632 1,676 3,281 6,690 10,376 13,149 Existing Service Area 2,877 2,878 2,882 2,886 2,893 2,900 2,904
Table 7-38 presents the calculation used to decrease the customer CCF’s by either 50 percent or 25 percent. There are minimal projected increases for the existing service area.
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-25 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-38: Expansion Service Areas - Projected Wastewater Customer Base - CCF with Decreases
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Spout Springs WRF Cumulative Total in CCF 32,873 53,772 122,506 196,878 334,386 405,688 439,268 Flat Creek WRF - South Service Area Cumulative Total in CCF 2,132 5,142 37,978 96,869 243,581 416,417 538,462 Flat Creek WRF - North Service Area Cumulative Total in CCF 22,200 38,056 88,219 163,453 290,270 450,276 561,074 Lula WRF Cumulative Total in CCF - 6,343 36,685 91,883 178,708 282,640 356,648 Cumulative CCF 57,205 103,313 285,387 549,083 1,046,945 1,555,021 1,895,453 With 50 Percent Customer Decrease 28,603 51,657 142,694 274,541 523,473 777,511 947,727 With 25 Percent Customer Decrease 42,904 77,485 214,041 411,812 785,209 1,166,266 1,421,590 Existing Service Area 219,424 219,523 219,819 220,116 220,612 221,109 221,408
Table 7-39 presents the user fee rates and resulting revenue calculated, given a 50 percent decrease in the customer base. The administrative fee, other connection charge and connection fee revenue were also affected by the 50 percent decrease, with these revenues adjusted accordingly.
The rates were based on using various rate increase percentages in FY202. It is this rate that was then used to calculate the revenue for years FY2021 through 2023. The rates were then increased by various percent’s in FY2024 and used in FY2024 through 2026. The rates in FY2027 were increased by the average rate calculated for FY2027 through 2031.
Table 7-39: Projected Wastewater Revenues with 50 Percent Customer Decrease
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee (1) $10.00 $10.50 $11.66 $12.60 $12.60 $12.60 $12.60 Charge per CCF - Residential (1) $7.39 $8.56 $9.24 $10.48 $10.48 $10.48 $10.48 Charge per CCF - Commercial (1) $7.39 $8.56 $9.24 $10.48 $10.48 $10.48 $10.48 Sewer Service Charges (2) $2,451,511 $2,736,959 $3,909,359 $5,950,554 $8,908,803 $11,948,540 $14,015,502 Administrative Fee (3) 72,120 75,285 89,737 113,788 167,955 232,597 282,413 Other Connection Charges (4) 104,800 104,400 188,400 276,400 354,800 397,600 500,000 Other Revenue (5) 60,976 62,805 68,629 74,993 86,937 100,784 110,129 Total Operating Revenue $2,689,407 $2,979,450 $4,256,125 $6,415,735 $9,518,495 $12,679,522 $14,908,045 Connection Charges $1,260,000 $1,365,000 $2,307,900 $3,238,200 $4,086,600 $4,428,900 $5,657,400 Notes: 1. The implementation dates for the Rate Resolutions are as follows: a. FY 2021 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2021 b. FY 2024 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2024 c. FY 2027 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2027 d. FY 2032 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2032 e. FY 2037 – Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2037 2. Equals the number of ERCs from Tables 7-5 and 7-37, multiplied by rates above and annualized plus the cumulative CCF from Tables 7-6 and 7-38 multiplied by rates above. 3. Equals the number of accounts from Tables 7-4 and 7-36 multiplied by $2.00 per month and annualized.
7-26 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
4. Equals the number of new connections from Table 7-36 multiplied by $800. 5. Equals reclaimed water revenue from FY2019 increased by 3 percent annually.
Table 7-40 presents the user fee rates and resulting revenue calculated, given a 25 percent decrease in the customer base. The administrative fee, other connection charge and connection fee revenue were also affected by the 25 percent decrease, with these revenues adjusted accordingly.
The rates were increased 5 percent in FY2021, FY2024, FY2027, FY2032 and FY2037. Table 7-40: Projected Wastewater Revenues with 25 Percent Customer Decrease
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Flat Fee & Charge per CCF Percent Increase 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Customer Service (Admin Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Flat Fee (1) $10.00 $10.50 $11.03 $11.58 $12.16 $12.76 $12.76 Charge per CCF - Residential $7.39 $7.76 $8.15 $8.56 $8.99 $9.44 $9.44 Charge per CCF - Commercial $7.39 $7.76 $8.15 $8.56 $8.99 $9.44 $9.44 Sewer Service Charges (2) $2,451,511 $2,681,500 $4,040,009 $6,116,112 $10,189,591 $14,766,263 $17,964,299 Administrative Fee (3) 74,892 79,623 101,251 137,278 218,445 315,325 389,999 Other Connection Charges (4) 157,200 156,600 282,600 414,600 532,200 596,400 750,000 Other Revenue (5) 60,976 62,805 68,629 74,993 86,937 100,784 110,129 Total Operating Revenue $2,744,579 $2,980,529 $4,492,489 $6,742,983 $11,027,172 $15,778,773 $19,214,428 Connection Charges $1,890,000 $2,047,500 $3,461,850 $4,857,300 $6,129,900 $6,643,350 $8,486,100 Notes: 1. The implementation dates for the Rate Resolutions are as follows: a. FY 2021 - Rate Resolution December 2020 for rate increase January 2021 b. FY 2024 - Rate Resolution December 2023 for rate increase January 2024 c. FY 2027 - Rate Resolution December 2026 for rate increase January 2027 d. FY 2032 - Rate Resolution December 2031 for rate increase January 2032 e. FY 2037 - Rate Resolution December 2036 for rate increase January 2037 2. Equals the number of ERCs from Tables 7-5 and 7-37, multiplied by rates above and annualized plus the cumulative CCF from Tables 7-6 and 7-38 multiplied by rates above. 3. Equals the number of accounts from Tables 7-4 and 7-36 multiplied by $2.00 per month and annualized. 4. Equals the number of new connections from Table 7-36 multiplied by $800. 5. Equals reclaimed water revenue from FY2019 increased by 3 percent annually.
Table 7-41 presents the pro-forma results, given a 50 percent decrease in the customer base. Significant amounts of SPLOST revenue were used to prevent large increases in the calculated user fee rates. Alternative #3 was used as a representative of the project financing.
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-27 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-41: Alternative #3 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates with 50 Percent Customer Decrease
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Total Annual Operating Revenues (1) $2,689,407 $2,979,450 $4,256,125 $6,415,735 $9,518,495 $12,679,522 $14,908,045 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Existing (2) 1,603,680 1,737,382 1,927,752 2,141,111 2,535,920 2,956,139 3,235,372 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Expansion (3) 173,627 235,204 859,057 1,893,035 4,483,542 5,891,050 7,786,084 Net Operating Revenues $912,100 $1,006,864 $1,469,316 $2,381,588 $2,499,034 $3,832,333 $3,886,589 Total Annual Net Debt Service - Existing (4) $3,473,402 $3,544,198 $3,803,758 $4,144,060 $1,428,007 $0 $0 Total Annual Net Debt Service - Expansion (5) - 184,103 1,451,501 1,679,721 1,679,721 4,617,541 4,617,541 Less: SPLOST (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) - - - - Net Operating Revenues After D/S (6) ($457,982) ($618,116) ($1,682,622) ($3,442,193) ($608,694) ($785,208) ($730,952) Debt Service Coverage 1.66 1.53 1.22 0.97 2.16 1.84 2.13 Interest Revenue 106,667 113,988 72,345 55,295 140,029 228,493 312,023 Connection Charges (7) 1,260,000 1,365,000 2,307,900 3,238,200 4,086,600 4,428,900 5,657,400 Total Capital Expenditures - from Rates (8) 176,560 65,000 75,000 - - - - Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $732,126 $795,872 $622,623 ($148,697) $3,617,935 $3,872,185 $5,238,470
Table 7-42 presents the pro-forma results, given a 25 percent decrease in the customer base. SPLOST revenue was used periodically to prevent large increases in the calculated user fee rates. Alternative #3 was used as a representative of the project financing. Table 7-42: Alternative #3 - Projected Financial Pro-Forma with Projected Rates with 25 Percent Customer Decrease
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Total Annual Operating Revenues (1) $2,744,579 $2,980,529 $4,492,489 $6,742,983 $11,027,172 $15,778,773 $19,214,428 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Existing (2) 1,603,680 1,737,382 1,927,752 2,141,111 2,535,920 2,956,139 3,235,372 Total Annual Operating Expenses - Expansion (3) 173,627 235,204 859,057 1,893,035 4,483,542 5,891,050 7,786,084 Net Operating Revenues $967,272 $1,007,942 $1,705,680 $2,708,837 $4,007,711 $6,931,584 $8,192,972 Total Annual Net Debt Service - Existing (4) 3,473,402 3,544,198 3,803,758 4,144,060 1,428,007 - - Total Annual Net Debt Service - Expansion (5) - 184,103 1,451,501 1,679,721 1,679,721 1,679,721 1,679,721 Less: SPLOST (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) - - - - Net Operating Revenues After D/S (6) ($402,810) ($617,037) ($1,446,258) ($3,114,944) $899,983 $5,251,862 $6,513,250 Debt Service Coverage 2.16 1.95 1.67 1.32 3.31 8.18 10.18 Interest Revenue $106,667 $120,840 $108,368 $127,607 $164,182 $160,487 $426,819 Connection Charges (7) 1,890,000 2,047,500 3,461,850 4,857,300 6,129,900 6,643,350 8,486,100 Total Capital Expenditures - from Rates (8) 176,560 65,000 75,000 - - - - Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $1,417,298 $1,486,303 $2,048,960 $1,869,963 $7,194,065 $12,055,699 $15,426,169
Notes for Table 7-41 and Table 7-42: 1. Taken from Table 7-39. 2. Taken from Table 7-14. 3. Taken from Table 7-15. 4. Taken from Table 7-16. 5. Taken from Tables 7-18 and 7-22. 6. Equals Net Operating Revenues minus Total Annual Net Debt Service. 7. Taken from Table 7-27. 8. Taken from Table 7-17.
7-28 | Section 7 February 2020 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update
Table 7-43 presents the cash flow results, given a 50 percent decrease in the customer base. Significant amounts of SPLOST revenue were used to prevent large increases in the calculated user fee rates. Alternative #3 was used as a representative of the project financing. Table 7-43: Alternative #3 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates with 50 Percent Customer Decrease
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Cash Flow - Operations Beginning Oper Fund Balance $10,666,710 $11,398,836 $7,234,480 $5,529,536 $14,002,900 $22,849,286 $31,202,278 Gross Revenue Net Income(Loss) 2,278,767 2,485,852 3,849,561 5,675,084 6,725,663 8,489,725 9,856,011 Less: Revenue Bond Debt Service (1,370,080) (1,624,980) (2,274,303) (2,614,605) (573,866) (573,866) (573,866) Less: GEFA Debt Service (2,103,322) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,331,541) (1,656,227) (228,220) (228,220) Less: SRF Debt Service - - (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) Less: Capital from Rates (176,560) (65,000) (75,000) - - - - Less: Capital from Reserves - (3,219,150) - - (1,847,550) (13,069,800) - Less: SPLOST Capital (non debt) (1,350,498) (7,016,640) (150,438) - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for GEFA 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for Capital 1,350,498 7,138,671 150,438 - - - - First Year Cash Differential ------Operating Cash Flow - Ending Balance $11,398,836 $9,097,589 $7,857,102 $5,380,838 $15,773,284 $16,589,490 $39,378,568
Table 7-44 presents the cash flow results, given a 25 percent decrease in the customer base. Alternative #3 was used as a representative of the project financing. Table 7-44: Alternative #3 - Projected Cash Flow with Projected Rates with 25 Percent Customer Decrease
Projected Description 2020 2021 2024 2027 2032 2037 2040 Cash Flow - Operations Beginning Oper Fund Balance $10,666,710 $12,084,008 $10,771,195 $12,596,179 $16,103,743 $15,485,621 $41,758,568 Gross Revenue Net Income(Loss) 2,963,939 3,176,283 5,275,898 7,693,744 10,301,793 13,735,421 17,105,891 Less: Revenue Bond Debt Service (1,370,080) (1,624,980) (2,274,303) (2,614,605) (573,866) (573,866) (573,866) Less: GEFA Debt Service (2,103,322) (2,103,321) (2,103,321) (2,331,541) (1,656,227) (228,220) (228,220) Less: SRF Debt Service - - (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) (877,635) Less: Capital from Rates (176,560) (65,000) (75,000) - - - - Less: Capital from Reserves - (3,219,150) - - (1,847,550) (13,069,800) - Less: SPLOST Capital (non debt) (1,350,498) (7,016,640) (150,438) - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for GEFA 2,103,321 2,103,321 2,103,321 - - - - Plus: SPLOST Transfer for Capital 1,350,498 7,016,640 150,438 - - - - First Year Cash Differential ------Operating Cash Flow - Ending Balance $12,084,008 $10,351,160 $12,820,154 $14,466,141 $21,450,258 $14,471,520 $57,184,737 7.4.1 Sensitivity Analysis Summary Through the use of SPLOST revenue in the 50 percent customer decrease alternative, major rate increases were limited. The above analysis indicates that even with 50 percent or 25 percent decreases in the customer growth, the user fee rate increases should be manageable with alternative funding (such as SPLOST revenue). In addition, should the customer base increase at a
February 2020 Section 7 | 7-29 Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study: 2020 Update slower pace than the projected, Hall County can defer the implementation of the capital projects accordingly. 7.5 Conclusion This Master Plan presents a proposed capital improvement plan based on the updated population, employment projections and land development trends for the 20-year planning period through 2040. A total of $138 million (in 2019 dollars) of planned sewer system investment in the County’s North and South Hall sewer districts is defined in 5-year implementation increments based on a hybrid/planned development infrastructure approach to provide the County flexibility to meet its growing demand.
A financial analysis was conducted to evaluate the impacts of the proposed capital improvement projects on user fee rate as part of the Master Plan. Minimum rate increase is anticipated if growth (i.e. new customers) occurs as projected; however, two additional scenarios were analyzed to provide options using other funding sources to offset the projected annual debt service amount should growth occur at a slower pace. The analysis indicates that even with 50 percent or 25 percent decreases in the customer growth, the user fee rate increases should be manageable with alternative funding. Alternative #3 with 25 percent customer growth decrease is the preferred alternative.
The County will need to evaluate short-term and long-term biosolids disposal options in the near future. The financial analysis includes provisions for increase in operation expense, assuming that the County will need to haul the biosolids to a facility outside of Hall County for disposal. It is recommended the County conduct a solid waste master plan, including an end use market study for biosolids.
This Master Plan and Rate Study should be reevaluated in the next 3 to 5 years to align with actual demands for the construction of critical infrastructure.
7-30 | Section 7 February 2020 APPENDIX A: HOUSE BILL 489 SEWER SERVICE DISTRICTS Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
A-1 APPENDIX B: ARC PROJECTIONS AND TAP PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY AECOM 404 965 9600 tel One Midtown Plaza 404 965 9605 fax 1360 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 500 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.aecom.com Draft Memorandum
Srikanth Yamala, Zach Propes – Hall County Government To
ARC Projections and Tap Projections Methodology Subject (Hall County Sewer Master Plan: 2019 Update)
FFrom Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla, Vasudha Bhogineni – AECOM
Date November 15, 2019
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize how the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) projections were utilized and how the methodology for tap projections was developed to conduct the financial analysis for the Hall County Sewer Master Plan: 2019 Update. 1. How were the ARC 2040 Projections used in the Sewer Master Plan? A. Wastewater flows were projected for two purposes:
• Gravity sewers were sized for build-out flows based on land use projections. Build-out conditions are anticipated to occur beyond the 2040 planning horizon of this Sewer Master Plan. • Pump station and water reclamation facilities (WRF) capacities were sized for projected 2030 and 2040 flows based on population and employment projections (prepared by ARC in 2015) for the Water Resource Management Plan adopted by the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District (District) in June 2017. • The projected 2030 and 2040 flows were used to determine phasing of capacity expansion for pump stations and WRFs, when applicable
This is explained on Page 3-2, 3-4, 3-9, 4-7, and 4-8 of the draft report with the excerpts shown below.
• Page 3-2 – General
B-1 Draft Memorandum ARC Projections and Tap Projections Methodology November 15, 2019
• Page 3-4 – North Hall
• Page 3-9 – South Hall
• Page 4-7 – WRF Sizing
• Page 4-8 – Pump Station Sizing
• Page 4-8 – Gravity Main Sizing
2. Comparison of Recent (2019) ARC Projections with Previous (2015) ARC Projections Used for the Sewer Master Plan and Recommendations ARC released a set of draft population projections in October 2019 as a “Regional Snapshot”. Updated “draft” 2050 population projections for Hall County are shown to be lower than the previous projections adopted by the District’s Water Resource Management Plan (District Plan, June 2017). The projections used in the District Plan were also prepared by ARC in 2015 for the purpose of water planning and are available by traffic analysis zone (TAZ), the smallest unit available for planning. In addition, both population and employment projections are available for TAZ, allowing the use of residential and commercial per capita wastewater generation rates for estimating wastewater flows. The TAZ-based projections allow us to aggregate population and employment data for the service area in the two sewer districts for Hall County. The 2019 ARC projections are released as “draft” and only available by county level (no further breakdown in smaller planning unit). In addition, only population projections are currently available. It is unclear whether further adjustments will be made to these draft
B-2 Draft Memorandum ARC Projections and Tap Projections Methodology November 15, 2019
projections and ARC stated that it is working on the projections in smaller planning units and these projections will be available sometime in 2020. Our recommendation for the Sewer Master Plan is to: 1. Continue to use the population and employment projections adopted in the 2017 District Plan (with 2015 ARC projections), 2. Monitor flows in existing pump stations and at the Sprout Spring WRF, and development trends; adjust project implementation timing as needed, and 3. Adopt project triggers based on flow and adjust implementation timing based on triggers. This is an approach that provides flexibility in implementation in light of constant shifts in population projections during different economic cycles. Note: Comparison of the 2015 and 2019 projections is presented on the following page.
3. How were the Tap Projections Developed and Coordinated with the ARC Projections? The tap (customer) projections were developed based on the following:
• Local development plans and permit applications as submitted to the Hall County Planning and Development Department.
• Initial timing and sewershed locations based on the 2015 ARC projections, adjusted based on discussions with individual stakeholders and their plans, as well as, developers/builders of existing developments.
• Expansion of customers (taps) during the 20-year planning horizon based on understanding of regional development patterns and timing. The tap projections are used mainly for financial analysis and are slightly conservative for this purpose. The 2040 tap projections are equivalent to approximately 80 percent of the 2015 ARC projected population for the sewersheds to be served.
B-3 Draft Memorandum ARC Projections and Tap Projections Methodology November 15, 2019
B-4
APPENDIX C: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MAP
Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
C-1
APPENDIX D: EASEMENT CONSIDERATION FOR STUDY AREAS DRAFT Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
The potential number of easements required for all proposed projects within each basin were analyzed and the results are shown in tables below. Acquisition of easements or ROW is recommended for planned projects after design is complete or nearly complete to secure the County’s legal right to install the necessary infrastructure before the property is developed or the land values increase significantly. 1.1 North Hall
Table 1: Easement Considerations for the Proposed North Hall Infrastructure
Basin Approximate # of Easements Needed Cane Creek Pump Station/Force 13 Main Hagen Creek Gravity Sewer 3 Mud Creek Gravity Sewer/ Pump 26 Station/ Force Main Pleasant Hill Gravity Sewer 10 Garner Creek Pump Station/ Force 3 Main
1.2 South Hall Table 2: Easement Considerations for the Proposed South Hall County-Built Infrastructure
Basin Approximate # of Easements Needed Mitchell Creek 20 Lollis Creek --- Mulberry Creek --- Deaton Creek 9 Caney Fork Creek 170 Lott Creek 42 Cooper Creek 6 Mulberry River --- Reunion --- Sherwood Creek ---
D-1 APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
· Hall County Sewer Master Plan Stakeholder Participation Technical Memo E-1
· Large Lot Property Owners – Parcel Information and Interviews E-2
· Internal Stakeholders Meetings E-4
· Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan E-5
MEMORANDUM To: Srikanth Yamala From: Brian K. Rochester Date: October 29, 2019 Re: Hall County Sewer Master Plan Stakeholder Participation
This memo is intended to summarize the process used for stakeholder participation in the update to Hall County’s Sewer Master Plan. Rochester and Associates was tasked with leading this portion of the master plan update as part of the AECOM team.
Rochester staff worked with former Public Works and Utilities Director, Mr. Ken Rearden, to select the screening criteria used for compiling a list of potential stakeholders for interview. It was agreed that Rochester would compile a list of property owners, within the boundaries of the Master Plan, of parcels of land 200 acres and larger. Hall County’s GIS database was used for this exercise. This produced the attached list of 46 parcels. This list was then reviewed with Mr. Rearden and agreed that seven parcel owners would be interviewed. The seven property owners interviewed are highlighted in yellow on the attached list. It was also agreed that developers of existing projects would be contacted to request their anticipated buildout schedule for use in estimating timing of future taps. These two parcels are highlighted in blue.
Property owners were asked how they anticipated their property being developed and a timeframe for when they thought development would commence. This information was then used in the preparation of the sewer tap projections for the various basins within the sewer districts.
A summary of each interview is contained within the attached list.
E-1 Large Lot Property Owners - Parcel Information Parcel ID Parcel Address Parcel City Parcel Zip Code Calculated Acreage Deed Acreage Owner Mailing Address 15014 000019 4428 MANGUM MILL ROAD GAINESVILLE 30507 233 237 CHAPMAN, SAMUEL ROLAND TRUSTEE, GAINESVILLE GA 30503 10119 000001 4654 SHIRLEY ROAD GAINESVILLE 30506 246 239 SHIRLEY III, SUTTON LEWIS CLARKESVILLE GA 30523 10052 000043 0 LEDAN EXTENSION GAINESVILLE 30506 270 271 HOLTZCLAW, SHIRLEY G PEACHTREE CORNERS GA 30071 15029 000031 3509 TANNERS MILL CIRCLE GAINESVILLE 30507 308 309 ROBSON, MILTON JONESBORO GA 30236 15016 000030A 2955 GILLSVILLE HIGHWAY GAINESVILLE 30507 347 348 PACIFIC CREST MANAGEMENT LLC, GAINESVILLE GA 30507 10168 000003 5000 NORTH BROWNING BRIDGE ROAD GAINESVILLE 30506 1,029 1,036 GEORGIA STATE OF GAINESVILLE GA 30506 11106 000017 5786 KANADAY ROAD MURRAYVILLE 30564 202 203 YOUNG, AUDREY DUNCAN CUMMING GA 30040 11111 000001 6275 YELLOW CREEK ROAD MURRAYVILLE 30564 436 436 CITYGREEN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, GAINESVILLE GA 30507 15026 000006 3700 MCEVER LAKE ROAD PENDERGRASS 30567 278 286 GRIFFIN BROTHERS FARMS LLC, DULUTH GA 30096 15014 000053 3515 ROY PARKS ROAD TALMO 30575 285 278 MILLER, JEFF W ATLANTA GA 30334 09009 000001 0 PEA RIDGE ROAD ALTO 30510 400 399 FOURTH GENERATION PROPERTIES, LLC MURRAYVILLE GA 30564 15039A000007 5401 OLD WINDER HIGHWAY BRASELTON 30517 274 279 LEE, KOOK-JA NEW CITY NY 10956 15039A000013 5601 OLD WINDER HIGHWAY BRASELTON 30517 491 487 CRYSTAL FARMS INC MAYSVILLE GA 30558 15028B000011A 5300 WINDER HIGHWAY BRASELTON 30517 681 682 ROAD ATLANTA, LLC, GAINESVILLE GA 30506 15048 000021 4195 FRIENDSHIP ROAD BUFORD 30519 373 374 VULCAN LANDS INC, DULUTH GA 30096 11005 000002A 6161 ELMER TRUELOVE ROAD CLERMONT 30527 214 214 TRUELOVE, PATRICIA ANN CHESTNUT MTN GA 30502 12131 000001 8805 SKITTS MOUNTAIN ROAD CLERMONT 30527 340 348 HEWETT FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LP BRASELTON GA 30517 12086 000001 6616 CLEVELAND HIGHWAY CLERMONT 30527 356 355 WHITMIRE, BOBBY R BIRMINGHAM AL 35238 09015 000003 0 PEA RIDGE ROAD CORNELIA 30531 232 232 CHATTAHOOCHEE 272 PARTNERS LLC, CLERMONT GA 30527 09012 000001 0 PEA RIDGE ROAD CORNELIA 30531 263 269 WILBANKS FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC GAINESVILLE GA 30503 09040 000001 8231 PEA RIDGE ROAD CORNELIA 30531 911 911 NORTH GEORGIA CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC, JONESBORO GA 30236 11103 000003 6340 RUFUS BRYANT ROAD DAHLONEGA 30533 425 426 HOTHEM FAMILY PROPERTIES LP GAINESVILLE GA 30506 15038 000025 4948 OLIVER ROAD FLOWERY BRANCH 30542 216 214 COOPER, JOHN SAMUEL FLOWERY BRANCH GA 30542 15047 000885 0 BIG SKY DRIVE FLOWERY BRANCH 30542 236 253 NNP-LOOPER LAKE LLC, CHARLOTTE NC 28277 15042 000002 5500 UNION CHURCH ROAD FLOWERY BRANCH 30542 242 243 EAGLE RANCH FOUNDATION INC CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN GA 30502 10045 000021 3350 DUCKETT MILL ROAD GAINESVILLE 30506 200 200 DIAMOND ISLAND, LLC, ATLANTA GA 30345 15017 000012 3425 JOE CHANDLER ROAD GAINESVILLE 30507 219 222 BROCK, RANDALL LAMAR GAINESVILLE GA 30507 15019 000158 0 CORNELIA HIGHWAY GAINESVILLE 30507 288 287 GAINESVILLE AND HALL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT GAINESVILLE GA 30501 15019 000001 3240 CHIPLAN ROAD GAINESVILLE 30507 475 476 HALL TLP & G, LLLP, ATLANTA GA 30319 15017 000031 5520 TIMBERIDGE ROAD GAINESVILLE 30507 512 536 HALL COUNTY GAINESVILLE GA 30503 15009 000029 4096 LAZY FALLS ROAD GILLSVILLE 30543 221 221 C. J. WALKER JR. FAMILY FARM LLC, GAINESVILLE GA 30506 15010 000006 4107 GILLSVILLE HIGHWAY GILLSVILLE 30543 241 190 GRIFFIN, FRANK ROYCE JR GILLSVILLE GA 30543 15010 000035 3737 HOLLY SPRINGS ROAD GILLSVILLE 30543 257 255 PECKERWOOD FARMS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P GILLSVILLE GA 30543 15009 000026 4335 LIPSCOMB ROAD GILLSVILLE 30543 311 304 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, BRUNSWICK GA 31525 15041D000005 5609 GRAND REUNION DRIVE HOSCHTON 30548 208 210 REUNION LLC, HOSCHTON GA 30548 12125 000006 0 PERSIMMON TREE ROAD LULA 30554 203 201 WALCO FARMS L L C, GAINESVILLE GA 30503 09081 000001 6295 ATHENS STREET LULA 30554 208 208 CBD INVESTMENTS LLC, ATLANTA GA 30346 09061 000001 7365 BELTON BRIDGE ROAD LULA 30554 232 232 TYE FAMILY LLC ATLANTA GA 30342 12100 000002 0 GLADE FARM ROAD LULA 30554 733 733 HALL COUNTY GAINESVILLE GA 30501 12127 000003 8450 BELTON BRIDGE ROAD LULA 30554 767 759 BEAVER DAM POND, LLC, ATLANTA GA 30342 12100 000004 0 CORNELIA HIGHWAY LULA 30554 990 992 GLADE FARM, LLC, THOMSON GA 30824 09074 000001 4515 CORNELIA HIGHWAY LULA 30554 1,604 1,604 HAGEN CREEK PROPERTIES L L C ATHENS GA 30606 12100 000001 5502 GLADE FARM ROAD LULA 30554 4,647 4,630 GLADE FARM, LLC, THOMSON GA 30824 11018 000001 5403 WILL WHEELER ROAD MURRAYVILLE 30564 225 214 TRUELOVE, LIZZIE J MURRAYVILLE GA 30564 11112 000004 6266 YELLOW CREEK ROAD MURRAYVILLE 30564 254 254 YOUNG, ASHLEY BROOKE FAIRVIEW NC 28730 11055 000001 6926 JAKE KEMP ROAD MURRAYVILLE 30564 282 286 JAKE KEMP PROPERTIES LLC, GAINESVILLE GA 30503
KEY: Stakeholders interviewed Existing developments interviewed for development patterns
E-2 Large Lot Property Owners - Comments from Interviews Parcel ID Owner Comments 15014 000019 CHAPMAN, SAMUEL ROLAND TRUSTEE, 10119 000001 SHIRLEY III, SUTTON LEWIS 10052 000043 HOLTZCLAW, SHIRLEY G Spoke to Brent Hoffman. Brent is working on a date and time with Milton Robson schedule. Meeting Date: 10-17-2018: In Attendance: Milton Robson, Brent Hoffman, Ken Rearden, and Brian Rochester. Meeting Summary: Property is currently on the market for sale. Most of the interest in the bulk of the property is for development as a residential subdivision. A major factor with most buyers is the availability of sewer to serve the property. Brent indicated that they would like to have sewer available to the property in 9-12 months. Ken stated that their timeframe would not work with the County’s current Capital Improvement Plan. Then the discussion turned to the possibility of a developer funded sewer line extension to connect with existing sewer located along State Route 53. Ken stated that there are other projects within unincorporated Hall County that are in the process or anticipate extending sewer service to their project at the developer’s expense. The property owner indicated that he would seek 15029 000031 ROBSON, MILTON counsel in pursuing this option. Ken to meet with GPUD to discuss servicing this basin. 15016 000030A PACIFIC CREST MANAGEMENT LLC, Registered Agent: Chang Ho Park (770) 497-0980 10168 000003 GEORGIA STATE OF Don Carter State Park. 11106 000017 YOUNG, AUDREY DUNCAN 11111 000001 CITYGREEN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, Registered Agent: Bagwell & Associates PC Registered Agent: William Griffin, III 791 John Morris Road, Maysville, GA 30558; Call Date: September 26,2019: On the Call: Bill Griffin and Brian Rochester. Call Summary: The owner is interested in ultimately developing the property. He anticipates that it 15026 000006 GRIFFIN BROTHERS FARMS LLC, will be primarily residential. However, he does not think the market is ready for this project at the current time. 15014 000053 MILLER, JEFF W 09009 000001 FOURTH GENERATION PROPERTIES, LLC Dub Bagwell Property 15039A000007 LEE, KOOK-JA Property Adjoins Crystal Farms. Existing sanitary sewer through property. 15039A000013 CRYSTAL FARMS INC Rezoning of the project "Reveille" was approved on June 25, 2019. The project will consist of a total of 1570 residential units, 175 room hotel, and over 500,000 sf of non-residential uses. It is anticipated that the project will breakground in 2020. 15028B000011A ROAD ATLANTA, LLC, Road Atlanta Race Track. Sewer Extension currently under design. 15048 000021 VULCAN LANDS INC, Vulcan Quarry 11005 000002A TRUELOVE, PATRICIA ANN 12131 000001 HEWETT FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LP 12086 000001 WHITMIRE, BOBBY R 09015 000003 CHATTAHOOCHEE 272 PARTNERS LLC, 09012 000001 WILBANKS FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC 09040 000001 NORTH GEORGIA CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC, Contact: David Harris -attorney (770) 478-8000 11103 000003 HOTHEM FAMILY PROPERTIES LP 15038 000025 COOPER, JOHN SAMUEL 15047 000885 NNP-LOOPER LAKE LLC, Sterling on the Lake (Active) remaining development tracts. Sewer Tap projections per interview of developer. 15042 000002 EAGLE RANCH FOUNDATION INC Eagle Ranch 10045 000021 DIAMOND ISLAND, LLC, Ken to follow up with planning department to determine status of development. Meet with developer to discuss plant capacity and needs for the basin. Proposed development - Portofino at Lake Lanier 15017 000012 BROCK, RANDALL LAMAR Adjoins Cedar Creek Reservoir 15019 000158 GAINESVILLE AND HALL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT Gateway Industrial Centre 15019 000001 HALL TLP & G, LLLP, Gateway Village - Proposed Industrial Development. 15017 000031 HALL COUNTY Cedar Creek Reservoir 15009 000029 C. J. WALKER JR. FAMILY FARM LLC, 15010 000006 GRIFFIN, FRANK ROYCE JR 15010 000035 PECKERWOOD FARMS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P 15009 000026 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 15041D000005 REUNION LLC, Reunion Development (Active). Sewer Tap projections per interview of developer. 12125 000006 WALCO FARMS L L C, Jim Walters Farm 09081 000001 CBD INVESTMENTS LLC, Proposed Industrial Development 09061 000001 TYE FAMILY LLC 12100 000002 HALL COUNTY Glades Reservoir 12127 000003 BEAVER DAM POND, LLC, 12100 000004 GLADE FARM, LLC, Cain Creek Proposed Development. Contact: James Alfriend (706) 595-2210. See Comments on parcel 12100 000001 Carl is out of town the week of 10-15 and would like to meet the week of 10-22. Hagen Creek Proposed Development. Contact: Carl Nichols (706) 540-1460 Meeting Date: 11-27-2018: In Attendance: Carl Nichols and Brian Rochester. Meeting Summary: The owners are interested in developing the property when the timing is right in the market. The owners are watching the development of industrial parks within the State Route 365 corridor. They are also looking at what effects the Inland Port might have on the corridor. The master plan for the property would need to amend the zoning to increase the amount of industrial allowed within the development. They are interested in looking at a potential public private partnership on a 09074 000001 HAGEN CREEK PROPERTIES L L C portion of the property. They do not anticipate development of the retail uses being developed in the foreseeable future. Brian has attempted to contact Jim at both his email and cell phone number. They are no longer valid. Glade Farm Proposed Development. Contact: James Alfriend (706) 595-2210 Call Date: November 2018: On the Call: James Alfriend and Brian Rochester. Call Summary: The owners are interested in ultimately developing their property. However, they do not anticipate market demand for a master planned community of this magnitude any time in the near future. They plan to continue using their property as 12100 000001 GLADE FARM, LLC, an agricultural use for many years. 11018 000001 TRUELOVE, LIZZIE J 11112 000004 YOUNG, ASHLEY BROOKE 11055 000001 JAKE KEMP PROPERTIES LLC,
KEY: Stakeholders interviewed Existing developments interviewed for development patterns
E-3 Internal Stakeholders Meetings
Internal or External Meeting Topic Attendees Date Time Stakeholders
Ken Rearden, Jarrod Black, Sarah McQuade, Brian Rochester, Taylor Samples, Lee Phillips, Tai Yi Su, Kick-off Lee Smith Internal 8/31/2019 4:00 PM
External Stakeholder Planning Ken Rearden, Brian Rochester, Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla Internal 9/27/2018 3:00 PM Study Area and Flow Projections Ken Rearden, Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla, Vasudha Bhogineni Internal 12/10/2018 11:00 AM
Projections and Sizing Criteria Ken Rearden, Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla, Vasudha Bhogineni Internal 2/8/2019 2:00 PM Study Area and Development Densities Ken Rearden, Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla, Vasudha Bhogineni Internal 2/15/2019 2:30 PM
Unit Price Development Ken Rearden, Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla, Vasudha Bhogineni Internal 2/22/2019 10:30 AM
CIP Review and Progress Call Ken Rearden, Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla, Vasudha Bhogineni Internal 3/4/2019 2:00 PM
Review CIP and Land Use Ken Rearden, Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla, Vasudha Bhogineni Internal 3/11/2019 1:00 PM
Rate Study Assumptions Ken Rearden, Tai Yi Su, Moubin Al-Malla, Vasudha Bhogineni Internal 3/20/2019 3:30 PM
Rate Study Results Ken Rearden, Zachary Propes, Brian Rochester, Diane Kemp, Tai Yi Su, Lee Smith, Moubin Al-Malla Internal 4/25/2019 9:30 AM
Rate Study Results Ken Rearden, Zachary Propes, Brian Rochester, Diane Kemp, Tai Yi Su, Lee Smith, Moubin Al-Malla Internal 5/11/2019 2:00 PM
Review Report Comments Ken Rearden, Tai Yi Su Internal 6/19/2019 9:00 AM
Update Meeting Zachary Propes, Srikanth Yamala, Tai Yi Su, Ben Williams, Moubin Al-Malla Internal 8/28/2019 10:30 PM Revised Presentation and Zachary Propes, Srikanth Yamala, Tai Yi Su, Ben Williams, Moubin Al-Malla, Brian Rochester, Vasudha Biosolids Bhogineni Internal 9/18/2019 3:30 PM
Presentation Prep Zachary Propes, Srikanth Yamala, Brian Rochester, Tai Yi Su, Diane Kemp, Moubin Al-Malla Internal 10/16/2019 2:00 PM
Presentation Prep Zachary Propes, Srikanth Yamala, Brian Rochester, Tai Yi Su, Diane Kemp, Moubin Al-Malla Internal 10/24/2019 2:30 PM Jock Connell, Zachary Propes, Lisa Johnsa, Marty Nix, Srikanth Yamala, Diane Kemp, Tai Yi Su, Brian Board Presentation Rochester, Moubin Al-Malla Internal 10/29/2019 10:00 AM
E-4
Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan
Prepared by AECOM
January 2019
E-5 Hall County Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan January 2019
Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... E-7 1.1 Background and Study Area ...... E-7 1.2 Goals and Objectives ...... E-7
2.0 Stakeholder Coordination ...... E-8 2.1 Stakeholders ...... E-8 2.2 Stakeholders Meetings ...... E-8 Internal Stakeholders ...... E-8 External Stakeholders ...... E-8
3.0 Processing and Managing Public and Stakeholder Comments ...... E-11 3.1 Verbal Comments ...... E-11 3.2 Written Comments ...... E-11 3.3 Comment Compilation and Analysis ...... E-11
Appendix A, Public Involvement Contacts and Key Stakeholders ...... E-12
List of Tables Table 1. Stakeholder Meetings ...... E-9
E-6 Hall County Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan January 2019
1.0 Introduction
This Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan (Plan) provides the structure for conducting stakeholder and public participation activities related to the development of the Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study (Master Plan). The Master Plan involves a high level of collaboration between Hall County and its stakeholders. This Plan includes the following sections:
1. Introduction: This section discusses project background, description, and the goals and objectives for public involvement. 2. Stakeholder Coordination: This section discusses the coordination of input between the various internal and external stakeholders through workshops and meetings. 3. Public Involvement Activities: This section discusses the approach towards involving the general public stakeholders in the planning process. 4. Processing and Managing Public and Stakeholder Comments: This section describes the process to be used to track and respond to public comments
1.1 Background and Study Area Considering its current high growth rate, Hall County intends to revisit the previous master plans for the North Hall and South Hall County Sewer Districts to prepare for anticipated growth. The updated Master Plan is a combined 20-year action plan for both districts to improve planning of the collection system, funding for new collection system capital improvement projects, and system expansion in future service areas. A significant number of sewer improvement projects have been undertaken following the completion of the North Hall County Sewer System Master Plan (2011), and South Hall County Sewer District Unit Rate and Connection Fee Methodology Report (2008). New population and employment projections through 2050 have been developed by the Atlanta Regional Commission and will be used as a basis for future capital improvement projects to achieve the long-range vision of its various stakeholders.
The study area for the Master Plan includes approximately 46,000 acres in the North Hall County and approximately 22,000 acres in South Hall County. This incorporates the entire sewer district defined for Hall County per the House Bill 489, adopted by the Georgia State Legislature.
1.2 Goals and Objectives The objectives of this Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan are to:
• Engage a diverse group of stakeholders, including Hall County employees and property owners/developers, during the development of the Master Plan and incorporate their input in the planning process.
• Update the public and include public input in the Master Plan.
The following goals are established to address the objectives set:
• Identify internal and external stakeholders and prepare a list for Hall County to review.
• Prepare draft plans for workshops/meetings to engage the stakeholders and public, including meeting locations, dates and times, meeting materials, roles and responsibilities (of the Hall County and AECOM Team).
• Identify communication mechanisms for communication with stakeholders.
E-7 Hall County Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan January 2019
2.0 Stakeholder Coordination
This section discusses the approach towards involving stakeholders in the planning process.
2.1 Stakeholders The internal stakeholders within Hall County include:
• Public Works and Utilities Department, • Planning and Development Department, including its GIS and Long Range Planning Divisions, • Financial Services Department, and the • County Commission and Administration
The general public stakeholders include property owners and developers who currently own large properties or are planning to develop properties in the Hall County Sewer Districts, and other interested groups. A preliminary list of owners of land lots greater than 200 acres in area and a map showing the locations of the properties is presented in Appendix A.
2.2 Stakeholders Meetings The stakeholder meetings include internal stakeholder meetings/workshops with Hall County staff only, and external stakeholder meetings with select property owners and Hall County staff.
Internal Stakeholders The internal stakeholder workshops will focus on discussing project progress and areas where Hall County staff’s input are required. These meetings/workshops will provide opportunities for collaboration between Hall County staff and the Master Plan team.
The agenda and handouts for these workshops will be provided a week before to facilitate active participation and discussion during the workshop. Meeting summaries will be provided within a week after the workshop is conducted.
External Stakeholders The external stakeholder meetings will have two formats. Initially, staff from Rochester Associates Inc. (RAI) will leverage their contacts to meet individually with identified property owners and developers along with the Director of Public Works and Utilities to discuss the types of potential development and time frame for each project. This one-on-one approach will establish a level of comfort for the developer to share their plans with the County and the Master Plan team. The result of these individual meetings will be an updated land use plan that will reflect potential future developments.
Following the one-on-one stakeholder meetings and completion of the Draft Master Plan Report, the AECOM team will plan a town hall style public meeting. The goal of this meeting is to share the draft master plan update with the public, including the large property owners and developers previously met and to receive inputs. AECOM will draft a meeting notice for review by Hall County. Upon approval, the meeting notice will be sent at least one month in advance of the meeting to Katie Crumly (Hall County Spokesperson) who will then distribute the notice to the Hall County website, social media, and local newspapers. The stakeholder meetings are listed in Table 1.
E-8 Hall County Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan January 2019
Table 1. Stakeholder Meetings
Meeting Participants Goal Location Date/s Internal Stakeholder Progress Meetings/Workshops Hall County Public Project To discuss scope, Works and Utilities Management schedule, milestones, st August 31 , Kick-Off Meeting Team Key Task deliverables and protocols 2875 Browns 2018 Leaders, Hall for the Sewer Master Bridge Road, County Staff Plan. Gainesville, GA 30504
Coordination Hall County Public Build consensus for vision Workshop/Progress Works and Utilities (based on stakeholder Meeting 1 – Key AECOM meetings), provide Team Members, 2875 Browns TBD progress updates, present Future Land Use Hall County Staff Bridge Road, new data/findings, discuss Vision and Gainesville, GA future direction Development 30504
Coordination Obtain input and gain Hall County Public Workshop/Progress consensus on forecasts, Works and Utilities Meeting 2 – Key AECOM obtain input on Wastewater Flow Team Members, alternatives, provide 2875 Browns TBD Forecasts and Hall County Staff progress updates, present Bridge Road, Alternatives new data/findings, discuss Gainesville, GA Identification future direction 30504
Hall County Public Hands-on collaboration for Coordination Works and Utilities ranking and prioritizing Workshop/Progress Key AECOM recommended projects, Meeting 3 – Team Members, 2875 Browns TBD provide progress updates, Hall County Staff Bridge Road, present new data/findings, Project Prioritization Gainesville, GA discuss future direction 30504
Coordination Present recommended Hall County Public Workshop/Progress alternatives and obtain Works and Utilities Meeting 4 – Key AECOM feedback; gain consensus Preliminary Findings of Team Members, on path forward, provide 2875 Browns TBD Sewer System Hall County Staff progress updates, present Bridge Road, Analysis and Proposed new data/findings, discuss Gainesville, GA CIP future direction 30504
Present draft rate Hall County Public Coordination study results, discuss Works and Utilities Workshop/Progress Key AECOM funding sources and Meeting 5 – Team Members, mechanism, provide 2875 Browns TBD Preliminary Results of Hall County Staff progress updates, present Bridge Road, Financial Analysis new data/findings, discuss Gainesville, GA future direction 30504
E-9 Hall County Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan January 2019
Meeting Participants Goal Location Date/s External Stakeholder Meetings RAI Staff, Director of One on One External Public Works Determine potential Stakeholder Varies TBD and Utilities, future developments Meetings Select Property and timing Owners
North Hall, YMCA Hall County Staff, TBD Town Hall Style (tentative) large land lot External Stakeholder & Present to public the owners, Key Public Meeting – Draft draft master plan South Hall, Local AECOM Team Master Plan Church or the TBD Members, Public recommendations Venue (tentative)
* Time frames for these meetings may change based on Hall County and stakeholder comments and the time required for preparing the Master Plan.
E-10 Hall County Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan January 2019
3.0 Processing and Managing Public and Stakeholder Comments
This section discusses how comments received in meetings, workshops and public events will be handled.
3.1 Verbal Comments During the stakeholder and public meetings, participants will be able to submit their comments verbally. Verbal comments from each meeting will be recorded by the AECOM Master Plan team and included in an electronic database (in spreadsheet format). Comments will be categorized based on topics (such as land use, project schedule, priority, cost, etc.) in the database. Where comments apply to several topic categories, they will be categorized under each subject, ensuring that the full comments are captured and addressed under all appropriate categories.
3.2 Written Comments AECOM will create a comment card to allow the stakeholders and public to provide written comments. Written comments and documents submitted to Hall County at the public and stakeholder meetings will be compiled for entry into the comment database. Submissions will be scanned and stored electronically. Comments will then be entered into the database and categorized by topic.
3.3 Comment Compilation and Analysis All stakeholder, public and Hall County comments received during the public and stakeholder meetings/workshops will be tracked. Comments will be entered into an electronic database and tracked by:
• Name of the author or speaker; • Affiliation of the author or speaker; • Date of the comment; • Topic(s) of the comment; and • Method by which the comments were submitted (verbally, written, or email). Reports will be generated by topic category, listing each individual comment. AECOM will review the reports to eliminate duplications and to identify any data entry errors. Comments received during the Draft Master Plan review period will be distributed to the appropriate AECOM technical staff for review. AECOM will prepare a brief response for Hall County review, including responses to comments indicating where modifications are to be made or why no action is needed in response to a comment. Approved responses will be incorporated in the Final Master Plan.
E-11 Hall County Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan January 2019
Appendix A, Public Involvement Contacts and Key Stakeholders
Property Owners The property owners of land lots greater than 200 acres are listed below. Figure 1 shows the locations of these land lots.
• Beaver Dam Pond, LLC • Hothem Family Properties LP • Brock, Randall Lamar • Jake Kemp Properties LLC • C. J. Walker Jr. Family Farm LLC • Lee, Kook-Ja • CBD Investments LLC • Miller, Jeff W • Chapman, Samuel Roland Trustee • NNP-Looper Lake LLC, • Chattahoochee 272 Partners LLC • North Georgia Capital Investments LLC • Citygreen Investment Holdings, LLC • Pacific Crest Management LLC • Cooper, John Samuel • Peckerwood Farms Family Partnership, • Crystal Farms Inc. LP • Diamond Island, LLC • Reunion LLC • Eagle Ranch Foundation Inc. • Road Atlanta, LLC • Fourth Generation Properties, LLC • Robson, Milton • Gainesville and Hall County Development • Shirley III, Sutton Lewis • Georgia, State Of • Truelove, Lizzie J • Glade Farm, LLC • Truelove, Patricia Ann • Glade Farm, LLC • Tye Family LLC • Griffin Brothers Farms LLC • Vulcan Lands Inc. • Griffin, Frank Royce Jr • Walco Farms LLC • Hagen Creek Properties LLC • Weyerhaeuser Company • Hall County • Whitmire, Bobby R • Hall County • Wilbanks Family Properties, LLC • Hall TLP & G, LLP • Young, Ashley Brooke • Hewett Family Partnership LP • Young, Audrey Duncan • Holtzclaw, Shirley G
Newspaper Publications for Public Notices The newspapers in which public announcements will be published may include the following or others as necessary:
• Gainesville Times • AccessNorthGeorgia.com • Atlanta Journal Constitution
E-12 E-13 APPENDIX F: FLOW CALCULATIONS Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
1.1 Build-out Flow Calculations by Drainage Basins
1.1.1 Areas by Land Use Type (Acres) Table 1: North Hall Drainage Basins Mixed Use Basin Residential Commercial Industrial Exempt Transitional
365 655 492 299 0 0
Cane Creek 927 583 0 0 0
Chattahoochee Creek 190 0 0 0 0
Dog Creek 282 0 0 0 0
Garner Creek 1330 0 0 0 0
Hagan Creek 1826 540 36 13 0
John Creek 2746 0 0 0 0
Lower East Fork Little River 799 0 0 0 0
Lower Flat Creek 1105 0 0 0 0
Mud Creek 2352 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Creek 1956 0 0 0 0
Upper East Fork Little River 1669 0 0 0 0
Table 2: South Hall Drainage Basins Mixed Use Basin Residential Commercial Industrial Exempt Transitional
Caney Fork Creek 1358 59 0 70 0
Cooper Creek 247 473 0 0 392
Deaton Creek 1892 18 5 102 99
Lollis Creek 769 0 0 32 0
Lott Creek 359 0 0 2 0
Mitchell Creek 1260 151 42 52 118
Mulberry Creek 446 11 0 202 0
Mulberry River 100 345 0 26 366
Reunion Creek 261 34 0 0 0
Sherwood Creek 91 30 0 0 0
F-1 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
1.1.2 Existing (2020) and Build-out Flows for North and South Hall Drainage Basins Table 3: North Hall Drainage Basins
Existing Flows (2020) Build-out Flows3 Additional Flows from North Hall Drainage Commercial/ Institutional/ Mixed Use Annual Max Month Peak Hour Commercial/ Institutional/ Mixed Use Annual Max Month Peak Hour Residential1 Residential1 Septic to Basin Name Industrial Public (ADF- Transitional Average Total Total Total Industrial Public (ADF- Transitional Average Total Total Total (ADF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) Sewer (ADF-mgd) mgd) (ADF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) (MMF-mgd) (PHF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) mgd) (ADF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) (MMF-mgd) (PHF-mgd) Conversion2 (ADF-mgd) 365 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.050 0.100 0.195 0.546 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.741 0.926 1.852 Buffington Mill 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cane Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.276 0.402 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.678 0.848 1.696 Cedar Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Chattahoochee River 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.071 0.142 Dog Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.105 0.210 Garner Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.396 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.396 0.495 0.989 Hagan Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.543 0.398 0.009 0.000 0.001 0.951 1.188 2.377 John Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.817 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.817 1.021 2.042 Lower East Fork Little River 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.238 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.238 0.297 0.594 Lower Flat Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.329 0.411 0.822 Mud Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.701 0.877 1.754 Pleasant Hill 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.582 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.582 0.727 1.454 Upper East Fork Little River 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.496 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.496 0.621 1.241 Upper Flat Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.050 0.101 4.711 1.346 0.009 0.000 0.002 6.069 7.586 15.173 1. For residential parcels in North Hall Study Area 2 single residential units are assumed per acre, per Hall County's recommendation 2. For the North Hall Study Area, 20% of existing septic tanks was assumed to convert to sewer by 2040. 3. 15% of the proposed build-out area is subtracted to account for community spaces, utility space, roads, sidewalks, etc. Table 4: South Hall Drainage Basins
Existing Flows (2020) Build-out Flows Additional Annual Flows from Annual South Hall Drainage Commercial/ Institutional/ Mixed Use Max Month Peak Hour Commercial/ Institutional/ Mixed Use Max Month Peak Hour Residential1 Average Residential1 Septic to Average Basin Name Industrial Public (ADF- Transitional Total Total Industrial Public (ADF- Transitional Total Total (ADF-mgd) Total (ADF-mgd) Sewer Total (ADF-mgd) mgd) (ADF-mgd) (MMF-mgd) (PHF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) mgd) (ADF-mgd) (MMF-mgd) (PHF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) Conversion2 (ADF-mgd) (ADF-mgd) Caney Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.048 0.057 0.000 0.053 0.634 0.792 1.585 Cooper Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.087 0.385 0.000 0.368 0.004 0.843 1.054 2.108 Deaton Creek 0.074 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.088 0.110 0.220 0.662 0.019 0.082 0.093 0.015 0.872 1.090 2.179 Lollis Creek 0.179 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.185 0.231 0.461 0.269 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.295 0.369 0.738 Lott Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.126 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.009 0.136 0.171 0.341 Mitchell Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.441 0.157 0.043 0.111 0.000 0.751 0.939 1.878 Mulberry Creek 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.010 0.019 0.156 0.009 0.164 0.000 0.011 0.340 0.424 0.849 Mulberry River 0.002 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.007 0.008 0.017 0.035 0.280 0.021 0.343 0.004 0.683 0.854 1.707 Reunion 0.089 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.091 0.113 0.226 0.092 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.119 0.149 0.298 Sherwood Creek 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.070 0.140 TOTAL 0.343 0.016 0.019 0.000 0.378 0.473 0.946 2.374 0.949 0.394 0.915 0.097 4.729 5.912 11.823 1. For residential parcels in the study area, 2 single residential units are assumed per acre. 2. For the South Hall Study Area, except for Mitchell Creek Drainage Basin, 20% of existing septic tanks was assumed to convert to sewer by 2040. 100% of the parcels in Mitchell Creek Drainage Basin were assumed to be serviced in 2040 by sewer per the Friendship Road PER.
F-2 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
1.1.3 Areas by Land Use Type (Acres) Table 5: North Hall Pipe Segments Mixed Use Residential Commercial Industrial Exempt Basin Segment Transitional (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Hagen A1 838 256 0 0 0 Creek A2 933 2 36 0 0
B1 51 0 0 0 0
Mud Creek B2 524 0 0 0 0
B3 110 0 0 0 0
C1 3372 0 0 0 0
Pleasant Hill C2 554 0 0 0 0
C3 748 0 0 0 0
365 D1 655 492 299 0 0
Note:
1. Flows for segment D1 in the 365 basin are the total build-out flows for the basin.
2. Build-out flows for the pipe segments are provided in Section 3.
Table 6: South Hall Pipe Segments
Mixed Use Residential Commercial Industrial Exempt Basin Segment Transitional (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
I1 ------
Mitchell I2 ------Creek I3 ------
I4 ------
G1 60 0 0 0 0
Deaton G2 227 0 0 0 0 Creek G3 428 0 0 82 0
G4 32 0 0 0 0
Cooper F1 ------Creek F2 123 0 0 0 0
F-3 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Mixed Use Residential Commercial Industrial Exempt Basin Segment Transitional (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
F3 0 81 0 0 66
F4 60 71 0 0 129
F5 15 82 0 0 77
F6 45 176 0 0 116
F7 0 39 0 0 0
E1 138 0 0 0 0
E2 105 0 0 0 0
E3 77 0 0 0 0 Caney Fork E4 275 21 0 21 0 Creek E5 462 0 0 0 0
E6 294 0 0 9 0
E7 0 1 0 0 0
H1 45 0 0 0 0
H2 212 0 0 1 0 Lott Creek H3 42 0 0 0 0
H4 56 0 0 0 0
Note:
1. Flows for Mitchell Creek Drainage Basin are taken directly from the Friendship Road Corridor Sewer Extension PER, Jan 2016
2. Flows for segment F1 in the Cooper Creek Drainage Basin are the cumulative flows of the segments F2, F3 and F4
3. Build-out flows for the pipe segments are provided in Section 3.
F-4 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Summary of 2030 and 2040 Projections The 2030 and 2040 wastewater flow projections were based on the ARC Population and Employment Projections for the North and South Hall study areas, except where noted in the following tables.
1.1.4 North Hall Study Area Table 7: ARC Population and Employment Projections Population Employment Drainage Basin 2020 2030 2040 2020 2030 2040
365 2,236 2,448 2,909 206 251 302
Buffington Mill Creek 394 558 589 24 26 28
Cane Creek 218 246 320 97 106 114
Cedar Creek 963 1,170 1,214 216 259 279
Chattahoochee River 411 539 705 66 100 141
Dog Creek 33 45 54 1 1 1
Garner Creek 409 501 622 23 27 34
Hagan Creek 858 951 1,277 217 257 283
John Creek 843 1,044 1,291 68 78 93
Lower East Fork Little R. 283 347 365 29 31 34
Lower Flat Creek 523 677 953 30 35 45
Mud Creek 292 396 601 30 30 33
Pleasant Hill 164 227 333 5 5 5
Upper East Fork Little R. 1,467 1,811 1,902 669 738 785
Upper Flat Creek 572 692 940 57 60 69
Total 9,665 11,652 14,074 1,738 2,007 2,248
F-5 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Table 8: Wastewater Flow Parameters % Population or WW Gen Rate 2040 Employment served in (gpcd) 2040
Residential 60 80%
Employment 73 100%
Note: This rate includes I/I.
Table 9: Wastewater Flow Projections (ADF-gpd)
Residential Commercial/Industrial Total Drainage Basin 2030 2040 2030 2040 2030 2040 365 117,500 139,647 250,000 546,029 367,500 685,675
Cane Creek 11,819 15,372 201,236 402,471 213,055 417,844
Chattahoochee 25,868 33,846 7,328 10,271 33,197 44,117 River
Dog Creek 2,173 2,574 98 108 2,271 2,682
Garner Creek 75,000 150,000 2,007 2,518 77,007 152,518
Hagan Creek 45,660 61,279 198,883 397,765 244,543 459,044
John Creek 50,123 61,987 5,710 6,788 55,833 68,775
Lower East Fork 16,644 17,500 2,295 2,508 18,938 20,008 Little R.
Lower Flat Creek 32,493 45,729 2,563 3,306 35,056 49,035
Mud Creek 75,000 150,000 2,210 2,432 77,210 152,432
Pleasant Hill 10,910 75,000 369 400 11,279 75,400
Upper East Fork 86,918 91,289 53,865 57,303 140,783 148,592 Little R.
Total (ADF-gpd) 550,109 844,223 726,563 1,431,899 1,276,672 2,276,122
Total (MMF-gpd) 687,636 1,055,279 908,204 1,789,874 1,595,840 2,845,152
Notes: 1. 365, Cane and Hagan basins' 2040 commercial/industrial flow were updated based on land use based projections. An allowance was assumed based on the estimated build-out flows. 2030 flows for these basins are assumed to be half of the 2040 residential flows.
2. The 2040 residential flows for the Garner Creek, Mud Creek and Pleasant Hill basins are based an assumption of 100 taps, 100 taps and 500 taps respectively. The 2030 residential flows for Garner Creek and Mud Creek basins are assumed to be half of the 2040 residential flows.
F-6 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
1.1.5 South Hall Study Area Table 10: ARC Population and Employment Projections
Population Projections Employment Projections Drainage Basin Name 2020 2030 2040 2020 2030 2040 Caney Fork Creek 5,449 6,589 7,091 175 203 228
Cooper Creek 1,113 1,347 1,500 274 300 326
Deaton Creek 3,946 4,871 5,317 574 606 785
Lollis Creek 4,214 5,306 6,064 321 382 426
Lott Creek 901 1,061 1,152 51 58 68
Mitchell Creek 2,076 2,698 3,320 60 63 72
Mulberry Creek 7,785 9,993 11,089 184 448 579
Mulberry River 846 1,077 1,203 164 180 194
Reunion 1,222 1,359 1,401 102 117 134
Sherwood Creek 1,458 1,927 2,274 451 493 528
Total 29,011 36,229 40,411 2,357 2,850 3,340
Table 11: Wastewater Flow Parameters
WW Gen % Population or Employment 2040 Rate* served in 2040 (gpcd)
Residential 60 80%
Employment 73 100%
Note: This rate includes I/I.
F-7 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Table 12: Wastewater Flow Projections (ADF-gpd)
Residential Commercial/Industrial Total Drainage Basin 2030 2040 2030 2040 2030 2040
Caney Fork Creek 316,270 340,358 29,588 48,292 345,859 388,650
Cooper Creek 64,665 72,010 125,000 250,000 189,665 322,010
Deaton Creek 233,825 255,234 44,234 57,269 278,058 312,504
Lollis Creek 254,683 291,083 - - 254,683 291,083
Lott Creek 50,923 55,300 - - 50,923 55,300
Mitchell Creek 129,522 159,366 91,623 157,382 221,145 316,748
Mulberry Creek 239,834 266,136 32,704 42,236 272,538 308,371
Mulberry River 51,706 57,741 125,000 250,000 176,706 307,741
Reunion 65,247 67,242 23,821 27,435 89,068 94,677
Sherwood Creek 23,126 27,283 12,000 24,000 35,126 51,283
Total (ADF-gpd) 1,429,800 1,591,754 483,970 856,613 1,913,770 2,448,367
Total (MMF-gpd) 1,787,250 1,989,692 604,963 1,070,767 2,392,213 3,060,459
Notes: 1. Commercial/Industrial flows were updated based on land use-based projections for Caney Fork Creek, Cooper Creek, Mitchell Creek, Reunion Creek, Sherwood Creek and Mulberry River basins. An allowance was assumed based on the estimated build-out flows.
2. Residential flows for Mulberry Creek and Sherwood Creek basins were adjusted to assume lower percentage of the population served by sewer (25% sewered for Sherwood Creek and 50% sewered for Mulberry Creek).
F-8
APPENDIX G: UNIT COST CALCULATIONS
AECOM 404 965 9600 tel
One Midtown Plaza 404 965 9605 fax
1360 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 500
Memorandum Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.aecom.com To Ken Rearden
Hall County Wastewater Master Plan
Subject Estimation of Construction Costs for
Wastewater System Infrastructure
FFrom Moubin Al-Malla, AECOM
Date June 5, 2019
This Technical Memorandum (TM) presents an analysis of wastewater projects bid, within the last five years, by Hall County and an analysis of cost estimates from various Preliminary Engineering Reports (PERs) for Hall County. The bid tabulations from the two projects within Hall County and three PERs form the basis for unit costs for pipelines, pump stations, force mains and upgrade of treatment facilities. Unit costs for new treatment facilities were based on best professional judgement of costs associated with treatment facilities constructed within the region. These unit costs will be applied to the projects outlined for North and South Hall. The unit costs are based on bid tabulations and PERs for the following wastewater collection system infrastructure (i.e., pump stations, force mains and gravity sewers) projects (1 to 5) for Hall County: 1. SR 365 and White Sulfur Road Sewer Extensions Bid Schedule (02/28/2017) 2. SR 365 PS No. 4 and No. 5 Bid Schedule (7/25/2017) 3. Spout Springs Sewer Improvements Feasibility Study (11/01/2015) 4. Friendship Rd Corridor Sewer Extension PER (01/01/2016) 5. GA State Highway 365 Corridor Sewer Design PER (02/01/2016) 6. Mulberry Creek PS, Reunion PS, Force Main, and Spout Springs WWTP PER (11/01/2015) To reflect current (2019) construction costs, bid costs were updated using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) annual average cost index for the year the project was bid and the annual average cost index for the current year. To update bid costs, the following formula was used: Updated Cost = (Bid Construction Cost) X [(Average Annual CCI for Current Year)/(Average Annual CCI for Year Project was Bid)] The updated total project costs were used to create unit costs for the major infrastructure components. Pipeline unit costs were compared on a unit price basis by calculating in dollar per inch-diameter per linear foot value ($/In-Dia./L.F.), while pump station costs were calculated in dollar per gallon per day of pumping capacity ($/gallon/day). The resulting unit costs are presented below.
G-1 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
• Pipelines: The analysis of pipeline unit costs focused on projects involving more than a mile of pipeline work (i.e., substantial pipeline projects), as most appropriate for the master plan. The pipeline unit costs for Hall County range from $8.72 to $14.28/In-Dia./L.F., with an average cost of $11.58/In-Dia./L.F. for these projects. While it appeared that there was only a nominal unit cost difference between gravity sewers and force mains, gravity sewers are typically more expensive than force mains for the same diameter pipe. The unit costs presented in Table 1 show a slightly higher unit cost for gravity sewers. The cost of pipeline projects can vary substantially based on the number of roadway and stream crossings, depth of cut, amount of roadway resurfacing, and other factors. These unit costs are planning level costs and engineering cost estimates would be needed based on the site conditions prior to bidding any future projects. • Pump Stations: The unit cost analysis focused on comparable projects of pump stations with a range of capacity between 0.29 and 1.25 MGD. Pump station costs in Hall County vary from $0.85 to $1.89 per gallon per day (current dollars) with an average cost of $1.40 per gallon per day. Costs are generally higher for high-head series pump stations. Pump station costs are also sensitive to site-specific conditions such as depth of station, amount of rock excavation, length of access road, and other variables. These unit costs are planning level costs and engineering cost estimates would be needed based on the site conditions prior to bidding any future projects. • Water Reclamation Facilities: Water reclamation facility costs vary based on whether the project is an upgrade to an existing facility, a new full treatment plant, or a satellite treatment plant with no solids processing. The unit costs were developed for each type of project to provide more robust planning level costs. The unit cost used for WRF construction cost estimation is based on unit cost for the recommended updates for the Spout Springs WRF from Mulberry Creek PS, Reunion PS, Force Main, and Spout Springs WWTP PER (Nov 2015). The unit cost provided for 2015 ($11.99/gpd) includes contingency and engineering cost. The 2019 unit cost was estimated by assuming 3% inflation rate per year from 2015. In addition, 35% of the total unit cost from the 2015 cost (for contingency and engineering) was removed to estimate unit construction costs. The cost of upgrading a WRF is similar to the construction cost of a new WRF in this case, because the upgrades include construction of major treatment facilities. Costs of treatment plants in the North Metro area vary greatly due to the wide variety of treatment options (secondary with filtration; membrane bioreactor (MBR) with ultraviolet (UV), post secondary membranes). New plants are generally MBR facilities, because of their small footprint, and ease of permitting. To upgrade an existing secondary treatment plant to meet Urban Water Reuse standards (adding nitrogen reduction, filtration, advanced disinfection), the costs can range between $4/gallon for minor plant modifications to $6/gallon for a major plant overhaul. A new water reclamation facility using MBR typically costs $10 – $14/gallon treated. All treatment projects are sensitive to the size of the facility, with the unit cost increasing as the project size decreases. The higher end of these cost ranges reflect a 1 mgd facility.
G-2 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Recommendations for Master Plan Cost Estimates Based on the review and analysis of recent bid tabulations and PERs from Hall County and experience on other similar type projects, the AECOM team recommends using the unit costs in Table 2 to determine collection and treatment system infrastructure costs for the Hall County Sewer System Master Plan. Table 1: Unit Costs for Wastewater System Components Infrastructure Item Cost Range Selected Unit Costs
Gravity Sewers $8.72 to $14.28/In-Dia./L.F. $12.00/In-Dia./L.F.
Force Mains $8.72 to $14.28/In-Dia./L.F. $11.00/In-Dia./L.F.
Pump Stations $0.85 to $1.89 per gallon/day $1.50 per gallon/day
Water Reclamation Facilities - Upgrade $10 /gallon $10 per gallon treatment capacity
Water Reclamation Facilities – New $10 – $14 /gallon $10 per gallon treatment capacity
Project Engineering and Contingencies Add 35%
Infrastructure Sizing Our recommendations for sizing the collection and treatment system infrastructure to evaluate master plan alternatives are presented in Table 3. The annual average flows include 20% I/I and are peaked with a factor of 2.5. The pipe size chosen must be able to handle the average flow at half full and the peak flow at full pipe. Table 2: Guidelines for Sizing Wastewater Infrastructure for Planning Purposes Infrastructure Item Sizing Criteria
Gravity Sewers Average flow at ½ full and peak flow at full pipe
Force Mains 5 fps @ 2040 Flow
Pump Stations 2040 flow with future expansion to build-out
Wastewater Reclamation Facilities 2040 flow with expansion for build-out
G-3 APPENDIX H: O&M COST CALCULATIONS Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
1.1 North Hall Study Area O&M Calculations Table 1: Gravity Mains
Basin Segment Proposed Size (in) Length (ft) Construction Cost O&M (per year)
365 D1 15 1550 $ 279,000 $ 837
A1 18 7840 $ 1,693,440 $ 5,080 Hagen Creek A2 12 3400 $ 489,600 $ 1,469
B1 18 1436 $ 310,176 $ 931
Mud Creek B2 18 12017 $ 2,595,672 $ 7,787
B3 8 3600 $ 345,600 $ 1,037
C1 24 20129 $ 5,797,152 $ 17,391
Pleasant Hill C2 16 2450 $ 470,400 $ 1,411
C3 10 2752 $ 330,240 $ 991
Note: Gravity Sewer O&M costs are assumed to be 0.3%/year of construction cost. Table 2: Force Mains PS Proposed Min Max Static 2040 Flow Velocity Construction FM# Basin Length TDH O&M Cost (per year) Name Size (in) EL. (ft) EL. (ft) Head (MGD) (fps) Cost
Cane 1N PS #2 4,053 8 1,070 1,248 178 1.04 4.6 233 $ 356,664 $ 892 Creek
Mud 3N PS #4 14,938 8 1,065 1,268 203 0.74 3.3 311 $ 1,314,544 $ 3,286 Creek
PS #5 Garner 2N (2040) 14,558 8 1,088 1,306 218 1.12 5.0 446 $ 1,281,104 $ 3,203 Creek initial
Note:
1. Forcemain O&M costs are assumed to be 0.25%/year of construction cost.
2. TDH = Total Dynamic Head, EL. = Elevation
H-1 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Table 3: Pump Stations
2040 2040 Operating Operating Power Maintenance Velocity TDH P1 Pm2 Power Cost3 PS 4 Basin Avg Flow Peak Flow Flow Hours Consumed Cost # (ft/s) (ft) (kW) (kW) (per year) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (hr/d) (kWh/d) (per year)
1N Cane Creek 0.418 1.045 1.045 4.6 233.5 42.7 47.4 9.6 455 $ 9,967 $ 34,472
3N Mud Creek 0.297 0.742 0.742 3.3 311.4 40.4 44.9 9.6 431 $ 9,438 $ 24,470
Garner 2N 0.449 1.123 1.123 5.0 445.7 87.5 97.3 9.6 934 $ 20,451 $ 37,053 Creek
Note:
1. P=Pump Power Required. Calculations based on 75% pump efficiency.
2. Pm=Motor Input Power. Calculations based on 90% motor efficiency.
3. Power cost is based on a rate of 6 cents/kWH/day
4. Assume 30% of the construction cost is the total mechanical and electrical cost; 25% of the civil structural construction cost is considered for civil structural maintenance; 4% of this total is the cost of maintenance per year. Table 4: Treatment Plants 2020-2040 2020-2030 2020-2030 2020-2040 O&M Required Required Capacity O&M Cost1 Cost1 Plant ID Basin Capacity
(MGD) (per year) (MGD) (per year)
North 365/Cane Creek 0.00 $ - 1.38 $ 689,699 Oconee WRF
Lula (additional Hagen Creek 0.27 $ 134,063 0.57 $ 286,902 capacity)
Note: Treatment Operation and Maintenance calculations based on $500,000/MGD per year.
H-2 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
1.2 South Hall Study Area O&M Calculations Table 5: Gravity Mains
Basin Segment Proposed Size (in) Length (ft) Construction Cost ($) O&M (per year)
I1 15 4207 $ 757,260 $ 2,272
Mitchell I2 8 2638 $ 253,248 $ 760
I3 15 5809 $ 1,045,620 $ 3,137
I4 8 4766 $ 457,536 $ 1,373
G1 16 1800 $ 345,600 $ 1,037
G2 12 3635 $ 523,440 $ 1,570 Deaton G3 10 4121 $ 494,520 $ 1,484
G4 8 3495 $ 335,520 $ 1,007
F1 18 611 $ 131,976 $ 396
F2 8 1557 $ 149,472 $ 448
F3 10 4912 $ 589,440 $ 1,768 Cooper Creek F4 16 6075 $ 1,166,400 $ 3,499
F5 8 3780 $ 362,880 $ 1,089
F6 10 2449 $ 293,880 $ 882
F7 8 3077 $ 295,392 $ 886
E1 16 5879 $ 1,128,768 $ 3,386
E2 12 4589 $ 660,816 $ 1,982
Caney Fork E3 8 5121 $ 491,616 $ 1,475
E4 8 7383 $ 708,768 $ 2,126
E5 8 11140 $ 1,069,440 $ 3,208
H-3 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Basin Segment Proposed Size (in) Length (ft) Construction Cost ($) O&M (per year)
E6 8 10368 $ 995,328 $ 2,986
E7 8 1053 $ 101,088 $ 303
H1 8 1039 $ 99,744 $ 299
H2 8 5182 $ 497,472 $ 1,492 Lott Creek H3 8 1796 $ 172,416 $ 517
H4 8 2794 $ 268,224 $ 805
Note: Gravity Sewer O&M costs are assumed to be 0.3%/year of construction cost.
Table 6: Force Mains
Proposed Max Static 2040 Flow Velocity Construction Cost O&M Cost (per FM# Basin Length Min EL. (ft) TDH Size (in) EL. (ft) Head (MGD) (fps) ($) year)1
Mitchell FM-1S 9,704 10 867 1,028 161 0.79 2.2 187.83 $ 1,067,440 $ 2,669 Creek
Caney FM-2S 16,514 8 845 1,137 292 0.97 4.3 490 $ 1,453,232 $ 3,633 Creek
FM-3S Lott Creek 7,056 4 842 1,020 178 0.14 2.5 244.97 $ 310,464 $ 776
Cooper FM-4S 2,634 8 806 894 88 0.81 3.6 110.26 $ 231,792 $ 579 Creek
Deaton FM-5S 3,484 4 970 1,134 164 0.03 0.5 165.96 $ 153,296 $ 383 Creek
Cooper FM-6S2 5,090 6 $ 591,085 $ 1,478 Creek
Mulberry FM-7S2 9,000 10 $ 1,707,000 $ 4,268 River
Lollis FM-8S 45,156 10 925 1,279 354 2.60 7.4 1,480.07 $ 4,967,160 $ 12,418 Creek
H-4 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
Note:
1. Forcemain O&M costs are assumed to be 0.25%/year of construction cost.
2. The Construction costs are taken directly from the CDM Smith estimate.
3. TDH = Total Dynamic Head, EL. = Elevation
Table 7: Pump Stations 2040 2040 Operating Operating Power Power Maintenance Avg Peak Velocity TDH P1 Pm2 PS Flow Hours Consumed Cost3 Cost4 Basin Flow Flow # (ft/s) (ft) (kW) (kW) (MGD) (hr/d) (kWh/d) ($/year) ($/year) (MGD) (MGD)
Mitchell 1S 0.317 0.792 0.792 2.2 187.8 26.0 28.9 9.6 278 $6,079 $26,132 Creek
Caney 2S 0.389 0.972 0.972 4.9 544.8 92.6 102.9 9.6 988 $21,633 $36,626 Creek
Lott 3S 0.055 0.138 0.138 2.5 245.0 5.9 6.6 9.6 63 $1,384 $4,562 Creek
Cooper 4S 0.322 0.805 0.805 3.6 110.3 15.5 17.3 9.6 166 $3,628 $26,566 Creek
Deaton 5S 0.010 0.030 0.030 0.5 166.0 0.9 1.0 8.0 8 $170 $990 Creek
Cooper 6S5 Creek
Mulberry 7S6 River
Lollis 8S 1.040 2.600 2.600 7.4 1480.1 673.3 748.1 9.6 7,182 $157,276 $85,800 Creek
Note:
H-5 Hall County Sewer System Master Plan Update and Rate Study
1. P=Pump Power Required. Calculations based on 75% pump efficiency.
2. Pm=Motor Input Power. Calculations based on 90% motor efficiency.
3. Power cost is based on a rate of 6 cents/kWH/day
4. Assume 30% of the construction cost is the total mechanical and electrical cost; 25% of the civil structural construction cost is considered for civil structural maintenance; 4% of this total is the cost of maintenance per year. 5. This will be developer built, so there will be no cost to Hall County. 6. This construction incorporates a capacity expansion of an existing pump station. O&M Cost is assumed to be incorporated in the O&M costs for the original pump station.
Table 8: Wastewater Treatment Plants 2030 Flow Current 2040 Treatment 2040 Flow Build Out Flows Served Basins (MMAD- Capacity Required 2030 Cost1,2 2040 Cost1,2 Facility (MMAD-MGD) (MMAD-MGD) MGD) (MMAD-MGD) Capacity
Spout Springs Mitchell/ Lollis/ WRF Reunion/ Deaton/ 2.00 2.60 0.75 1.85 4.95 $16,875,000 $9,450,000 (expansion) Cooper/ Mulberry
Gainesville (additional Caney Fork/Lott 0.50 0.55 1.0 -0.45 0.96 $0 $0 capacity)3
Note: Treatment Operation and Maintenance calculations based on $500,000/MGD per year
H-6