Strand Associates, Inc.

Salt River Regional Wastewater Study

60% Progress Report

Salt River Regional Wastewater Workgroup

Presentation Agenda

Scope of Project to 30%

Review Alternatives Selected
Public Comments
Scope of Project to 60%
Impact of Future Regulations
Capital Cost Opinion of Each Alternative
Funding Options
Next Steps

Scope of Project to 30%

Compile information from Workgroup

Organize and lead individual meetings with Workgroup
participants to review information

Summarize current population and population projections in

2020, 2030, and 2040

Analyze flows to Workgroups treatment plants and project

future flows

Prepare a draft 30% progress report summarizing these

results

Work with group to identify 3 alternatives for further

investigation

Regionalization Alternative 1 Existing Plan

23 Package Plants &
8 Regional Plants

Regionalization Alternative 2 Six Regional WWTPs

Regionalization Alternative 3 Two Regional WWTPs

Public Comments - Bullitt Co. Meeting (9/25/14)

Future mandates/regulations be included in the alternatives

evaluation

Is this study looking into stormwater? No

Dont ignore I&I in planning and future operations

HB26 allows for voluntary participation and equal representation

for participating agencies

Public Comments - Jefferson Co. Meeting (9/30/14)

Concern about level of public involvement- suggested additional

meetings and more open forum

Concerns that scope is too narrow and should consider all

impacts to the watershed like tree clearing, storm water, etc.

Concern that study will be used to open watershed to

development

Question over the population and flow numbers from Jefferson

County we addressed populations used, flow numbers
remained the same

Consider small local solutions to address needs

Consider contaminants of emerging concern

Public Comments - Oldham Co. Meeting (10/16/14)

Questions about how the new OCEA Hite Creek plant affects
alternatives

Confirmation that the long-term goal of this effort is to improve

water quality

Request to integrate future regulations

Correction regarding missing package plants

Concern raised over inadequate advertisement of meeting

Concern that while fewer facilities may improve efficiency, dont

discount that fewer facilities mean more risk of failure

Remove Crestwood from MSD Hite Creek Planning Area

Scope of Project to 60%

Evaluate impact of future regulations

Develop cost opinions for the selected alternatives including
life cycle analysis

Review potential funding sources

Conduct outreach to public

Recommend alternative based on environmental, social, and

cost-effectiveness

Conduct outreach to elected officials

Deliver report

Impact of Future Regulations

Discussion with KDOW and professional judgment used to

forecast future permit limits

More stringent limits are coming for all dischargers

Nutrient limits will be included for future permits

TMDLs will drive limits

Impact of Future Regulations (Existing Plants)

Future
Capacity
1.0

Potential
BOD
10

Potential
TSS
30

Potential
Ammonia
2/5

Potential
Total P
NA

Potential
Nitrogen
NA

OCEA/Ohio
River

1.0

30

30

20/20

NA

NA

OCEA/New
Plant

1.25

10

30

2/5

NA

MSD/Hite
Creek

9.0

10

30

2/5

NA

MSD/Floyds
Fork

9.75

30

1/3

0.5

NA

MSD/Cedar
Creek

10.25

10

30

4/10

NA

BCSD/Pioneer
Village

1.0

15

30

4/10

NA

NA

Mt. Washington

3.5

25

30

4/10

NA

NA

Owner/WWTP
OCEA/KSR

7.5
25
30
4/10
NA
Shepherdsville
Capacity in mgd, Limits in mg/L, Ammonia limits presented as summer/winter

NA

Impact of Future Regulations (Regional Plants)

Mt. Washington

Future
Capacity
7.0

Shepherdsville

7.5

25

30

4/10

NA

NA

MSD/OCEA/Hite
Creek

12

10

30

2/5

0.5

NA

Salt River
Commission

20

25

30

4/10

NA

NA

Salt River
Commission

40

10

30

2/5

NA

Owner/WWTP

Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential

BOD
TSS
Ammonia Total P Nitrogen
25
30
4/10
NA
NA

Capacity in mgd
Limits in mg/L
Ammonia limits presented as summer/winter

Future Regulatory Unknowns

Regulatory revisions for Nutrient standards

TMDLs

Pollutants of Emerging Concern

Flow Projection in 2040

Alternative Regions

Projected ADF
in 2040
(mgd)

Projected PDF
in 2040
(mgd)

One

Existing 12 Regions

Two

Ohio River Area

12.0

22.8

Salt River Area

20.3

49.9

Floyds Fork Area

10.1

20.7

Cedar Creek Area

9.1

19.0

Ohio River Area

11.3

23.0

Salt River Area

40.2

67.0

Three

Previously reported in 30%

Alternative 1 Preliminary Cost Opinion of Capital

Improvements

Workgroup Member

Capital Cost
of Planned
Improvements*

BCSD

$11,500,000

MSD

$51,350,000

Mt. Washington
OCEA
Shepherdsville
Total

$0
$18,100,000
$6,950,000
$87,900,000

*Costs opinions taken from existing planning documents

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 Preliminary Cost Opinion of Capital

Improvements

Improvements

Capital
Improvement
Costs

Gravity Sewer

$24,800,000

Force Main

$36,750,000

Pump Stations

$17,700,000

MSD Hite Creek WQTC Expansion

$20,400,000

MSD Floyds Fork WQTC Expansion

$16,500,000

MSD Cedar Creek WQTC Expansion

$11,700,000

Mt. Washington WWTP Expansion

$8,200,000

Shepherdsville WWTP Expansion

$6,950,000

New BCSD WWTP

$13,500,000

Contingency (35%)

$55,500,000

Total

$212,000,000

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 Preliminary Cost Opinion of Capital

Improvements
Improvements
Gravity Sewer
Force Main

Capital Cost
$49,700,000
$155,750,000

Pump Stations

$33,100,000

MSD Hite Creek WQTC Expansion

$20,400,000

Salt River Regional WWTP

$164,500,000

Contingency (35%)

$148,200,000

Total

$571,650,000

Funding Source Awareness Maximizes Grant/Loan

Opportunities

Eligibility is Key to Funding Sources

State:

KDOW
KIA
SRF
Legislation

Federal:
RD
CDBG
EPA
EDA

Organizations:
KACO
KLC
KRWA

Private:
Bank Loans
Market Companies

Bonds:
Tax Exempt
Private Activity
TIF

The Mechanics of Federal Funding Opportunities

Add
Match

Local or
Other Funds

SRF is Emerging as a Competitive Funding Source

Project profile

Terms:

Project application

20 yr (30 yr possible)

Regional points

0.75, 1.75 or 2.75%

Principal forgiveness

KIA Board Approval

KDOW Rankings
Intended Use Plan
Invitation

SRF Mechanism Involves Bonds

Next Steps

Complete present worth evaluation and consider nonmonetary factors

Recommend alternative

One community outreach meeting to review 60% findings

Present findings to local and state officials in one meeting at

KIPDAs office
Prepare a 90% report incorporating comments from the
Workgroup and public
Provide a digital copy of deliverable to each member of the
Workgroup