Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities

Home \| Maps \| Images \| Schedule \| FAQ \| Contact Us

PAC Minutes 03-12

Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 5:00 p.m.
Cary Town Hall, Administration Conference Room #22010
316 N. Academy Street, Cary, North Carolina

Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Committee members attending were Cary Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, Holly Springs Mayor Dick Sears, Morrisville Mayor Jan Faulkner, Apex Town Manager Bruce Raeford, Cary Town Manager Bill Coleman and Morrisville Town Manager John Whitson. Committee members absent were Holly Springs Town Manager Carl Dean. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

A. Approval of Minutes of the Policy Advisory Committee held on December 4, 2007.
Mayor Faulkner moved to approve the minutes, Mayor Sears provided the second and the committee unanimously approved the motion.

B. Items for Discussion
1. West Cary Force Main – Consideration of Preferred Alignment (PAC08-20)
Mayor Weinbrecht moved to approve the Cross Country Route as the current preferred alignment for the West Cary Force Main Project. Mayor Faulkner provided the second, and the committee unanimously approved the motion.

2. West Cary Force Main – Consideration of Dual Force Main Construction (PAC08-21)
Mayor Weinbrecht moved to approve the dual force main option for the West Cary Force Main Project. Mayor Sears provided the second, and the committee unanimously approved the motion.

3. Dual Force Main Construction for Beaver Creek Force Main (PAC08-22)
Mayor Sears moved to approve inclusion of dual force mains as a bid alternate for the Beaver Creek Force Main. Mayor Faulkner provided the second, and the committee unanimously approved the motion.

4. Project Budget – Status Update (PAC08-23)
Mayor Sears moved to approve the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Facilities Budget Update and Proposed FY09 Operating Budget subject to approval of the budget update by the Holly Springs Town Council. Mayor Weinbrecht provided the second, and the committee unanimously approved the motion. [approved by the Holly Springs Town Council on March 19, 2008]

5. Progress Energy NCUC Application (PAC08-24)
Mayor Faulkner moved to support Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. application to the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity to construct approximately 15 miles of new 230-kV transmission line in Wake County by sending a letter to the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Mayor Sears provided the second, and the committee unanimously approved the motion.

C. Other Business
1. Future meeting time: Partners agreed to move meeting time to 5 p.m. Future meeting schedule to be discussed at the next PAC meeting.

D. Closed Session N/A

E. Next Meeting : April 30, 2008 5 p.m.

WESTERN WAKE PARTNERS

Report to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC08-20)

Date: March 12, 2008
To: Western Wake Partners
From: Tim Bailey, P.E., Director of Engineering, Town of Cary
Prepared by: Jamie Revels, P.E., Senior Engineer, Town of Cary
Subject: West Cary Force Main – Consideration of Preferred Alignment

Background
The West Cary Force Main project was created to provide pipeline conveyance of raw wastewater from the West Cary Pump Station to the proposed Beaver Creek Regional Pumping Station. The West Cary Force Main, (WCFM), is one of the vital links in the proposed Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities pipeline conveyance system. Other projects included within the Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities include the Beaver Creek Pump Station, Beaver Creek Force Main, West Reedy Branch Interceptor, Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility, Effluent Pumping Station and Effluent Pipeline. In total, the Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities include approximately $300M in capital improvements to provide long term wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities to Western Wake County.

Routing and Alignment
The engineering firm, Hazen and Sawyer, has been investigating potential route and alignment options for the West Cary Force Main, (WCFM). Due to significant increases in elevation, from the West Cary Pump to the West Reedy Branch Interceptor, gravity flow conveyance is not possible and pressurized sewer pipelines must be constructed. Unlike a gravity sewer trunk line, a pressurized sewer pipeline cannot be connected directly to branch sewer mains to provide local sewer service. However, through the process of constructing regional facilities, such as the West Cary Force Main, the base infrastructure will be provided to facilitate the extension of local sewer systems to serve residential and commercial purposes.

In reviewing potential route and alignment locations for the West Cary Force Main, two primary alternatives were selected that met the initial scoping requirements of providing a direct route with good constructability features, while minimizing property owner and environmental impacts. Several other routing options were eliminated due to extensive homeowner impacts and long span wetland crossings. The two routes under consideration are the Wimberly Road Alternate Route and the Cross Country Route. Both routes extend from the West Cary Pump Station to the transition point at the West Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer.

Wimberly Road Alternate Route
The Wimberly Road Alternate Route, (WR Alternate), a combination of road corridor and cross country routing, was created to address several conflicts with the previous Wimberly Road Route, which followed exclusively along established roadway corridors of Green Level West and Wimberly Road to the West Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer. The transition to gravity sewer at the West Reedy Branch Interceptor is identified by Figure 2-1.

The original Wimberly Road Route passed through the Wimberly/Green Level West intersection and was in conflict with existing residential homes, wells, businesses and future road improvements. As a result, the Alternate Wimberly Road Route was created to completely eliminate all potential conflicts in the vicinity of the Wimberly & Green Level West intersection.

The WR Alternate route begins at the West Cary Pump Station as shown on Figure 2-1 and advances west adjacent to Green Level West Road for approximately 1,900-ft before turning south to follow a cross country corridor. The pipeline then turns west to avoid potential wetland impacts and continues cross country to Wimberly Road, thereby removing the entire Wimberly/Green Level West intersection from the pipeline corridor. The WR Alternate Route follows Wimberly Road south to the lower end of the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant property, where it transitions to the West Reedy Branch Interceptor.

The WR Alternate extends for approximately 14,500-lf or 2.75 miles. The WR Alternate has an estimated construction cost of $10,334,800, which includes construction of both 36-inch and 24-inch diameter force mains.

Cross Country Route
The Cross Country Route, CCR, follows the WR Alternate route along Green Level West Road and then continues cross country until the WR Alternate route diverges to Wimberly Road. The CCR continues cross country and goes around the USACE property to the east and then follows property lines south to the intersection of Wimberly Road at the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant, as shown on Figure 2-1. From there, the CCR and the WR Alternate converge and take the same route to the transition point with the West Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer.

Since the CCR follows a more direct route, the overall length is shorter at 13,300-lf or 2.52-miles. The Cross Country Route has an estimated construction cost of $10,349,800, including construction of parallel 36-inch and 24-inch diameter force mains.

Route Comparison and Recommendation
Since the projected construction costs are quite similar, non-cost related factors were evaluated to determine the preferred pipeline route. Some of the non-cost related factors that were considered are as follows:

Avoid conflicts with the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant
A benefit of the Cross Country route over the WR Alternate is that the CCR doesn’t conflict with existing and planned Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant water transmission pipelines and future pipeline corridors already established along Wimberly Road. Concurrent with proposed construction of the West Cary Force Main, there are also plans to construct a 12-inch water transmission main along Wimberly Road and Green Level West Road to reinforce the western service areas of Cary and Morrisville. While the Phase 1, 36-inch diameter, wastewater force main could be routed on one side of Wimberly Road and the 12-inch diameter water transmission line on the other, it would be difficult to construct both 36-inch and 24-inch wastewater force mains on one side of Wimberly Road, while also avoiding power poles and other utility lines. The CCR avoids this conflict altogether by reserving the Wimberly Road corridor for water transmission mains while the wastewater force mains are safely routed offroad in a separate corridor. For maintenance purposes, keeping the water and wastewater corridors separate would serve to prevent any field misidentification of major trunk infrastructure.

Immediately adjacent to the CAWTP along Wimberly Road, there are two finished water transmission mains of 30 and 42 inches in diameter that supply potable water to Cary, Apex and Morrisville. While neither proposed routing of the WCFM completely avoids conflicts with the finished water transmission mains, the CCR minimizes those conflicts by crossing the water transmission mains with a perpendicular crossing. The construction of a perpendicular pipeline crossing can be closely controlled and the risk of damage is much less than with a longitudinal parallel alignment as proposed under the WR Alternate. In summary, the Cross Country Route serves to minimize any potential and future conflicts with the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant and its finished water transmission mains.

Avoid conflicts with the American Tobacco Trail
While the WR Alternate route crosses the American Tobacco Trail, (ATT) in two separate locations, the CCR completely avoids the ATT, (see Figure 2-1). Therefore, the CCR completely avoids any potential impacts to the ATT created by construction, utility relocations or construction traffic. Conversely, construction of the Wimberly Road Alternate Route would likely close the ATT at least twice and could potentially disrupt operations until the trail could be permanently restored.

Minimize conflicts with the Cardinal and Colonial Gas Lines
Both Colonial and Cardinal Pipeline Companies have major parallel transmission lines in the immediate vicinity of Wimberly Road and the American Tobacco Trail, see Figure 2-1a. The Colonial Pipeline conveys gasoline, home heating oil and other refined petroleum products, while the Cardinal Pipeline conveys natural gas. Since the parallel gas lines diverge and follow different routes at the intersection with Wimberly Road, the utility corridor along Wimberly Road would become overly crowded with the addition of two additional large diameter wastewater force mains and the subsequent addition of a 12-inch water transmission main in the same general vicinity. This same area where the gas lines intersect with Wimberly Road is also in very close proximity to the American Tobacco Trail, the US Army Corps of Engineers property and the White Oak Creek crossing. As a result of the numerous conflicts involving the gas line crossing, the Corps property and the ATT; construction of large diameter wastewater force mains would most likely require horizontal direction drilling to avoid all the conflicts. While 24-inch HDD construction is possible, HDD applications for 36-inch and larger pipelines are specialty construction projects and would require the application of HDD technology that is not completely proven and accepted in the trenchless technology industry.

The Cross Country route would allow a single perpendicular crossing of both gas lines outside the Corps property, and after the lines have converged to share one easement. The principle advantage of crossing these gas lines outside the Corps property is that the crossing can be isolated and kept separate from other conflicts, i.e. the American Tobacco Trail and the Corps property. As an additional benefit, since the pipelines are in the same easement, one perpendicular crossing could be extended to cross both gas lines without a duplicate staging of any special construction provisions, such as monitoring by gas company officials, required to cross the gas lines. Conversely, the WR Alternate requires two separate crossings of the gas lines, thereby requiring separate staging and setup arrangements for each crossing.

Figure 2-1a: Cardinal and Colonial Gas Line Locations

Minimize conflicts with US Army Corps of Engineers Property
The US Army Corps of Engineers property is identified in Figure 2-2. As noted from Figure 2-2, the Corps property surrounds the confluence of White Oak Creek and Clark Branch. The property owned by the Corps represents an environmentally sensitive area and the Corps has expressed a desire to avoid direct construction impacts to their property.

The WR Alternate route, as observed from Figure 2-2, crosses the Corps property at an area along Wimberly Road that extends for approximately 1,200-ft. Due to the length and magnitude of the pipeline crossing, the Corps has expressed a preference toward horizontal directional drilling to cross their property. As stated earlier, horizontal directional drilling for large diameter pipelines, greater than 24-inches in diameter, is highly specialized. Additionally, the corresponding HDD staging areas would require an extensive construction easement along the roadway corridor of Wimberly Road for a 1,200-ft crossing. Given the proximity of this crossing to the American Tobacco Trail, it would likely create further construction conflicts with the ATT’s routine operations schedule.

In contrast, the Cross Country Route avoids the Corps property by advancing around the Corps property altogether. There are four advantages to this approach: (1) shortening the pipeline route by 1,200 linear feet, (2) impacts to fewer property owners, (3) no direct impacts to Corps property, and (4) an increased likelihood of utilizing traditional open cut excavation as opposed to HDD construction methods (which is contingent upon wetland delineations and subsequent discussions with the Corps). A desktop review of National Wetland Inventory mapping indicates there are slightly greater wetland impacts associated with the Cross Country route; however preliminary field determinations have shown that wetland impacts are comparable with the Wimberly Road Alternate Route. The Corps has reviewed both potential routes and found wetland impacts to be similar.

Avoid conflicts with Power Lines
An additional benefit of the Cross Country Route is the avoidance of conflicts associated with power lines along Wimberly Road. The power lines along Wimberly Road periodically change from one side of Wimberly to the other, thereby making it impossible to construct a large pipeline project without power line relocation conflicts. The Cross Country route avoids these conflicts altogether since there are no power line conflicts along the Cross Country part of the route.

Constructability
Construction related factors are also quite important in the selection of pipeline routing. As described earlier, the Cross Country Route avoids conflicts with several key obstructions that would detrimentally affect constructability, such as Wimberly Road traffic, conflicts with the American Tobacco Trail, conflicts with the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant transmission pipelines (current and future) and the Corps property. The Cross Country Route also provides the best opportunity to minimize or eliminate altogether HDD pipe installation, which would most likely be required along the Wimberly Road Alternate pipeline corridor. Depending upon the outcome of field delineations of wetland impacts along the Cross Country route, HDD pipe installation may be required by the Corps through wetland areas, however, this remains unresolved at this time and mitigation options will be pursued. Presently, the engineering design team is continuing to refine the routing of the Cross Country option to avoid and minimize environmental impacts that would otherwise require HDD construction.

Fiscal Impacts
The current cost projections for the Wimberly Road Alternate and the Cross Country routes are not significantly different when considering construction of parallel wastewater conveyance pipelines that would provide both Phase 1 and Phase 2 capacity, (see Table 1). Conversely, the cost analysis favors the Wimberly Road route when assessing Phase 1 pipeline construction only. While the merits of single verses dual pipeline construction will be provided in a separate report, dual pipeline construction will be considered for the fiscal impact analysis of pipeline routing, since both pipelines are anticipated for construction within the next 15 – 20 years.

Although the Cross Country Route is 1,200-lf shorter in length than the Wimberly Road Alternate, the cost is slightly higher. This is due to the magnitude and span of HDD pipe construction, which was assumed in the cost projections as a worst case scenario. In the current cost projections, HDD pipe installation was assumed to cross the entire wetland area outside the Corps property. Recent field investigations have shown that wetland impacts will likely decrease from what is currently shown on the National Wetland Inventory maps when the final wetland delineations are completed. The reduction or elimination of HDD pipe installation from the Cross Country Route will substantially reduce the cost for this alternative.

Table 1: Capital Cost Projections for Pipeline Construction
Pipeline Construction Options Wimberly Road Alternate Cross Country Option
Phase 1, Single 36-inch Pipeline $7,542,800.00 $8,132,800.00
Combined 36-inch and 24-inch Parallel Pipeline Construction $10,334,800.00 $10,349,800.00
Note: Costs provided in 2008 Dollars.

Requested Action:
Staff recommends concurrence by the PAC with the choice of the Cross Country Route as the current preferred alignment.

WESTERN WAKE PARTNERS

Report to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC08-21)

Rationale for Dual Force Main Construction
In order to accurately forecast long term facility needs, the Western Wake Partners, including Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs researched and developed the proposed wastewater facilities required to serve Western Wake County based on long range flow projections. The long term wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities were evaluated based on flow projections and divided into two separate construction phases. Phase 1 infrastructure included those pipelines, pump stations and treatment facilities required to serve Western Wake County through 2020. Phase 2 facilities would provide sufficient capacity to serve Western Wake County through 2030 or buildout of the contributory service area. The primary benefit of this approach is minimizing capital costs required to establish the system in the near term, while delaying long term upgrades and improvements until required for future demand.

The phasing plan for the West Cary Force Main project includes the initial, Phase 1, construction of a 36-inch diameter pipeline to provide sufficient wastewater flow conveyance capacity for projected flows through 2020, which are estimated at approximately 12 million gallons per day, (MGD), on a maximum month basis. The Phase 2 plans for WCFM would require construction of a second parallel pipeline, 24-inches in diameter, to provide sufficient capacity through 2030. The maximum monthly flow projection for 2030 is 17 MGD, which coincides with buildout of the service areas contributing to the conveyance capacity of the West Cary Force Main. The West Cary Pump Station has its own phasing plan separate from the scope of this report, which includes installing additional pumps to meet future capacity needs.

Presently, there are 2 routing alternatives under consideration for the location of the West Cary Force Main. The West Cary Force Main, Alternate Route #1, the majority of which parallels Wimberly Road, is approximately 14,500 linear feet or 2.75 miles in length. The West Cary Force Main, Alternate Route #2, is a cross country route that minimizes the length of pipeline and extends for approximately 13,300 linear feet or 2.52 miles in length. Further information on preferred pipeline routing will be presented to the Policy Advisory Committee in a separate report. A map demonstrating the two pipeline alignment options has been included in Figure 2-2.

Capital Costs
The capital cost projections for each of the pipelines including separate phase 1 and phase 2 construction costs compared with combined construction costs of constructing both pipelines during initial construction are presented below in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the cost to construct the pipelines in separate phases is $240K to $340K higher than constructing both pipelines at the same time.

Table 1: West Cary Force Main, Capital Construction and Easement Costs for Separate Phase Construction and Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 Dual Pipeline Construction
Phase 1 Construction Phase 2 Construction Separate Phases Combined Construction
36-inch Pipeline 24-inch Pipeline Both Pipelines Both Pipelines
2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($)
Option #1, Wimberly Road Alternate Route $7,906,000.00 $3,033,000.00 $10,939,000.00 $10,698,000.00
Option #2, Cross Country Route $8,503,000.00 $2,559,000.00 $11,062,000.00 $10,720,000.00

Table 2 shows the capital cost difference between constructing the Phase 1, 36-inch pipeline only, as compared to constructing both 36-inch and 24-inch pipelines in one construction project. The capital cost difference between combined construction and separate phase construction is $2.8 and $2.2 million for the Wimberly Road Alternate and Cross Country Options, respectively.

Table 2: West Cary Force Main, Capital Cost Difference between Phase 1 Single Pipeline Construction and Initial Phase Dual Pipeline Construction
Phase 1 Construction Combined Construction Capital Cost
36-inch Pipeline Both Pipelines Difference
2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($)
Wimberly Road Alternate Route $7,906,000.00 $10,698,000.00 $2,792,000.00
Cross Country Route $8,503,000.00 $10,720,000.00 $2,217,000.00

The initial phase dual pipeline costs are essentially the same (~$10.7 million), with the greater length of the Wimberly Road Alternate route offseting the greater HDD costs associated with the Cross Country route. Preliminary field delineations of wetlands have yielded encouraging results that actual wetlands along the Cross Country Route are much less than anticipated by National Wetland Inventory maps. This reduction in wetland estimates may contribute to the decrease or elimination of HDD pipe installation altogether along the Cross Country Route, which will substantially reduce the capital cost in comparison with the Wimberly Road Alternate route.

Benefits of Constructing Both Pipelines
Table 2 shows the initial capital cost increase of constructing both pipelines will range from $2.2M to $2.8M depending upon which route is selected. The capital cost increase required for initial phase dual force main construction represents a 30% increase over single pipeline construction of the WCFM and approximately a 1% increase in the entire Western Wake Infrastructure Budget of $300M.

There are several benefits associated with constructing both pipelines during Phase 1 that are not solely related to cost. The benefits of dual pipeline construction can be best summarized by examining long term system operations and maintenance capability in addition to community impacts.

Redundant Capacity: The construction of both 36-inch and 24-inch WCFM pipelines during Phase 1 construction will provide redundant capacity to maintain operations during emergency conditions. An example of such an emergency condition would include damage incurred to one pipeline that requires removing it from service until repairs can be made, while the secondary pipeline continues to maintain the operation of the greater utility system. This type of emergency would most likely be created by a natural disaster that dislodges a portion of the pipeline or through unintended construction damage by private contractors, who are unaware of the pipes existence, either excavating or blasting adjacent to the pipeline. In the past, this type of emergency situation has been addressed by bypass pumping and piping until an emergency repair can be completed. However, given the size and scale of the West Cary Pump Station and the associated flow rates, bypass pumping and piping along the pipeline in case of emergency is not a feasible option. The large pipelines and flow rates exceed the general capacity of most readily available bypass piping. Additionally, repair materials for the larger pipelines can require lead times of several days just to obtain the parts, pipes and fittings to complete the repair. Therefore, the construction of redundant pipeline capacity would be vitally important in the event of pipeline emergencies. This is especially apparent given the consideration that the wastewater conveyed through these pipelines is untreated wastewater that would be detrimental to water quality in local streams in the event of a spill. In conclusion, the only effective means to manage pipeline emergencies under these circumstances is by building some measure of redundant capacity into the system.

Minimize Impacts to Residents: The initial phasing plan would include constructing the Phase 1 pipeline by 2011 and constructing the second pipeline as a separate project by 2020 to keep pace with flow projections. Since the Phase 2 pipeline would follow the same routing as the Phase 1 pipeline, the same property owners would be impacted twice within a span of 10-years. Although the plan includes securing all easements for both pipelines in the initial acquisition period, the property owners would be subjected to two instances of construction disturbance including noise, traffic, and other construction related factors. In order to minimize community impacts, the construction of both pipelines is recommended during the initial phase of construction to assure property owners are only impacted once with construction related disturbances.

Future Development: After the Phase1 pipeline is constructed and the Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities become operational, it is likely that development may infill around some of the pipeline corridors. Since the pipeline will be located in another jurisdiction outside of the Town of Cary, options to control access to the pipeline for future construction will be limited. Even though easements would be obtained for both pipelines during Phase 1 of the project, infill development could pose major problems for construction of a second pipeline 10-years removed from the first major construction initiative. As an example, other utility lines will be installed that may conflict with the construction of a secondary pipeline, 10-years later. As a means to limit future utility conflicts, assure access to the construction corridor, and minimize any effects from infill development, it is recommended that both pipelines be constructed during Phase 1.

Environmental Impacts: Throughout construction, measures are implemented to prevent soil erosion and other adverse impacts to the environment such as damage to trees outside the immediate construction work zone. Following construction, contractors are required to restore the site by grading to a natural contour similar to what existed prior to construction and to establish permanent vegetation throughout easement areas before removing temporary erosion control measures. The implementation of two separate pipeline construction projects would create two distinct phases in which the ground surface would be denuded to require new vegetation. In order to minimize environmental impacts, it is recommended that both pipelines be constructed during Phase 1. This would allow permanent vegetation to emerge undisturbed following construction except routine mowing of the maintenance corridor.

Avoid Damage to Existing Pipeline: A secondary consequence of postponing construction of the Phase 2 pipeline is that construction will occur immediately adjacent to the Phase 1 pipeline at a time when the pipeline is in operation. Through undertaking construction immediately adjacent to the existing pipeline, any mishaps or excavation in the wrong location could impact and damage the existing pipeline. Since the Phase 2 pipeline will not be operational, there will be no redundant capacity to account for emergencies. In order to assure long term safe operation of the pipelines, it is advisable to construct both pipelines during Phase 1, when neither of the pipelines is required for operational purposes.

Efficient and Flexible Pump Management: The ability to utilize both force mains will also benefit life cycle operations management of the West Cary Pump Station. The optimization of pumping and power requirements is a balance of minimizing the total pumping head required for flow conveyance against maintaining ideal flow velocities in the range of 2.5 ft/s to 4 ft/s. For example, during low flow conditions, the flexibility offered by utilizing the smaller diameter pipeline will allow flow velocities to be optimized and achieved by operating smaller pumps, which require less power. Conversely, using smaller pumps with a larger pipeline under low flow conditions could potentially lower pipeline velocity below 2 ft/s and allow the solids in the wastewater to settle, which contributes to the development of chronic odor and other imbalances in the treatment process. As a result, the flexibility gained from utilizing the smaller diameter pipeline during low flow conditions, while using the larger diameter pipeline or both pipelines during peak flow events assures system operators the ability to effectively manage a wide range of flow events. By maintaining flow velocity within the ideal range, pumping costs can be managed to prevent using excess power, while at the same time assuring that wastewater solids are kept in suspension as they are conveyed to the treatment process. In conclusion, the installation of both pipelines during Phase 1 will provide added flexibility in managing life cycle efficiency of pumping and power requirements at the pump station.

In general, construction of both pipelines during Phase 1 provides redundant capacity for emergency service conditions, minimizes long term impacts to adjoining property owners, minimizes impacts and utility conflicts created by infill development, reduces environmental impacts, avoids the prospect of damaging the existing pipeline during construction of the second pipeline, and provides for efficient and flexible pump management.

Fiscal Impact
The West Cary Force Main project only serves the Towns of Morrisville and Cary. Therefore, only Morrisville and Cary are partners in the construction, engineering, permitting and land acquisition costs required for the WCFM project. Since permitting, land acquisition and engineering for both pipelines would all occur during Phase 1, the most noticeable fiscal impact is the increase in construction pricing for the redundant Phase 2 pipeline. Cost increases for Cary and Morrisville that would be attributable to constructing both force mains during Phase 1 are shown below in Table 3. As noted from Table 3, the capital cost for Cary ranges from $1.9M to $2.4M, while the cost increase for Morrisville ranges from $270K to $340K, depending upon which route is selected.

Table 3: Capital Cost Increase for Cary and Morrisville of Constructing Dual Force Mains
Phase 1 Construction Combined Construction Capital Cost
36-inch Pipeline Both Pipelines Increase
2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($)
Wimberly Road Alternate Route $7,906,000.00 $10,698,000.00 $2,792,000.00
Cary Share, 87.8% $6,941,468.00 $9,392,844.00 $2,451,376.00
Morrisville Share, 12.2% $964,532.00 $1,305,156.00 $340,624.00
Cross Country Route $8,503,000.00 $10,720,000.00 $2,217,000.00
Cary Share, 87.8% $7,465,634.00 $9,412,160.00 $1,946,526.00
Morrisville Share, 12.2% $1,037,366.00 $1,307,840.00 $270,474.00

Cary Town Council Update
The Cary Town Council considered dual pipeline construction for the West Cary Force Main at its January 10, 2008 meeting. After reviewing this topic, Council unanimously approved of constructing dual force mains during initial construction phasing. Council also recommended submitting this topic for additional consideration by the Western Wake Policy Advisory Committee. In the interim, future year 2009 budget updates have been revised to include dual pipeline construction for the West Cary Force Main.

Requested Action
Staff recommends PAC approval of the dual force main option for the West Cary Force Main Project.

WESTERN WAKE PARTNERS

Report to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC08-22)

Date: March 12, 2008
To: Western Wake Partners
From: Tim Bailey, P.E., Director of Engineering, Town of Cary
Prepared by: Jamie Revels, P.E., Senior Engineer, Town of Cary
Subject: Dual Force Main Construction for Beaver Creek Force Main

Background:
The Beaver Creek Force Main project was created to provide pipeline conveyance of raw wastewater from the Beaver Creek Pump Station to the proposed Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility in Apex. The Beaver Creek Force Main, (BCFM), is one of the vital links in the proposed Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities pipeline conveyance system. Other projects included within the Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities include the West Cary Pump Station, West Cary Force Main, West Reedy Branch Interceptor, Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility, Effluent Pumping Station and Effluent Pipeline. In total, the Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities include approximately $300M in capital improvements to provide long term wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities to Western Wake County.

In order to accurately forecast long term facility needs, the Western Wake Partners, including Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs researched and developed the proposed wastewater facilities required to serve Western Wake County. The long term wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities were evaluated based on flow projections and divided into two separate construction phases. Phase 1 infrastructure included those pipelines, pump stations and treatment facilities required to serve Western Wake County through 2020. Phase 2 facilities would provide sufficient capacity to serve Western Wake County through 2030 or build out of the contributory service area. The benefit of this approach is minimizing capital costs required to establish the system in the near term, while delaying long term upgrades and improvements until required for future demand.

The phasing plan for the Beaver Creek Force Main project includes initial, Phase 1, construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline to provide sufficient wastewater flow conveyance capacity for projected flows through 2020, which are estimated at approximately 15 million gallons per day, (MGD), on a maximum month basis. The phase 2 plans for BCFM would require construction of a second parallel pipeline, 36-inches in diameter, to provide sufficient capacity through 2030. The maximum monthly flow projection for 2030 is 24 MGD, which coincides with buildout of the service areas for the Beaver Creek Pump Station and Force Main. The Beaver Creek Pump Station has its own phasing plan separate from the scope of this report, which includes installing additional pumps to meet future capacity needs.

Presently, there is one preferred routing alternative under consideration for the location of the Beaver Creek Force Main. The preferred routing for the Beaver Creek Force Main was previously reviewed by the Policy Advisory Committee in report PAC07-16 on June 26, 2007 and by the Cary Town Council in report EN08-017 on August 9, 2007. The preferred BCFM route, the majority of which is adjacent to an existing Progress Energy overhead transmission line, is approximately 25,650 linear feet or 4.86 miles in length. A map demonstrating the preferred BCFM pipeline location has been included in Figure 2.1, located at the end of this report.

Capital Costs
The capital cost projections for the preferred BCFM pipeline route including separate Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction compared with combined construction costs of constructing both pipelines during initial construction are presented below in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the cost difference to construct the pipelines in separate phases is $1.1M higher than constructing both pipelines at the same time.

Table 1: Beaver Creek Force Main, Capital Construction and Easement Costs for Separate Phase Construction and Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 Dual Pipeline Construction
Phase 1 Construction Phase 2 Construction Separate Phases Combined Construction
42-inch Pipeline 36-inch Pipeline Both Pipelines Both Pipelines
2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($)
Beaver Creek FM, Progress Energy Corridor $17,106,000.00 $9,455,000.00 $26,561,000.00 $25,413,000.00

Table 2 shows the capital cost difference between constructing the Phase 1, 42-inch pipeline only, as compared to constructing both 42-inch and 36-inch pipelines in one construction project.

Table 2: Capital Costs of Phase 1 Options for the Beaver Creek Force Main
Phase 1 Construction Combined Construction Capital Cost
42-inch Pipeline Both Pipelines Difference
2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($)
Beaver Creek FM, Progress Energy Corridor $17,106,000.00 $25,413,000.00 $8,307,000.00

Benefits of Constructing Both Pipelines
As shown in Table 2, the capital cost increase of constructing dual pipelines during initial phase construction is estimated at $8.3M for the preferred route. The capital cost increase required for initial phase dual pipeline construction represents a 50% increase in the Phase 1 capital cost of the BCFM single pipeline option.

Redundant Capacity: The construction of both 42-inch and 36-inch BCFM pipelines during Phase 1 construction will provide redundant capacity to maintain operations during emergency conditions. An example of such an emergency condition would include damage incurred to one pipeline that requires removing it from service until repairs can be made, while the secondary pipeline continues to maintain the operation of the greater utility system. This type of emergency would most likely be created by a natural disaster that dislodges a portion of the pipeline or through unintended construction damage by private contractors, who are unaware of the pipes existence, either excavating or blasting adjacent to the pipeline. In the past, this type of emergency situation has been addressed by bypass pumping and piping until an emergency repair can be completed. However, given the size and scale of the Beaver Creek Pump Station and the associated flow rates; bypass pumping and piping along the pipeline in case of emergency is not a feasible option. The large pipelines and flow rates exceed the general capacity of most readily available bypass piping. Additionally, repair materials for the larger pipelines can require lead times of several days just to obtain the parts, pipes and fittings to complete the repair. Therefore, the construction of redundant pipeline capacity would be vitally important in the event of pipeline emergencies. This is especially apparent given the consideration that the wastewater conveyed through these pipelines is untreated wastewater that would be detrimental to water quality in local streams in the event of a spill. In conclusion, the only effective means to manage pipeline emergencies under these circumstances is by building some measure of redundant capacity into the system.

Efficient and Flexible Pump Management: The ability to utilize both force mains will also benefit life cycle operations management of the Beaver Creek Pump Station. The optimization of pumping and power requirements is a balance of minimizing the total pumping head required for flow conveyance against maintaining ideal flow velocities in the range of 2.5 ft/s to 4 ft/s. For example, during low flow conditions, the flexibility offered by utilizing the smaller diameter pipeline will allow flow velocities to be optimized and achieved by operating smaller pumps, which require less power. Conversely, using smaller pumps with a larger pipeline under low flow conditions could potentially lower pipeline velocity below 2 ft/s and allow the solids in the wastewater to settle, which contributes to the development of chronic odor and other imbalances in the treatment process. As a result, the flexibility gained from utilizing the smaller diameter pipeline during low flow conditions, while using the larger diameter pipeline or both pipelines during peak flow events assures system operators the ability to effectively manage a wide range of flow events. By maintaining flow velocity within the ideal range, pumping costs can be managed to prevent using excess power, while at the same time assuring that wastewater solids are kept in suspension as they are conveyed to the treatment process. In conclusion, the installation of both pipelines during Phase 1 will provide added flexibility in managing life cycle efficiency of pumping and power requirements at the pump station.

Fiscal Impact
The Beaver Creek Force Main project serves the Towns of Apex, Morrisville and Cary. Therefore, only Apex, Morrisville and Cary are partners in the construction, engineering, permitting and land acquisition costs required for the BCFM project. Since permitting, land acquisition and engineering would all occur during phase 1, the most noticeable fiscal impact is the increase in construction cost for the redundant phase 2 pipeline. Cost increases for Apex, Cary and Morrisville that would be attributable to constructing both force mains during Phase 1 are shown below in Table 3. As noted from Table 3, the capital cost increase for Cary is $5.7M to construct both pipelines during Phase 1 construction.

Table 3: Capital Cost Increase for Apex, Cary and Morrisville of Constructing Dual Force Mains
Phase 1 Construction Combined Construction Capital Cost
36-inch Pipeline Both Pipelines Increase
2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($) 2008 Cost ($)
Preferred Pipeline Route $17,106,000.00 $25,413,000.00 $8,307,000.00
Apex Share, 21.3% $3,643,578.00 $5,412,969.00 $1,769,391.00
Cary Share, 69.0% $11,803,140.00 $17,534,970.00 $5,731,830.00
Morrisville Share, 9.7% $1,659,282.00 $2,465,061.00 $805,779.00

Cary Town Council Update
The Cary Town Council considered dual pipeline construction for the Beaver Creek Force Main at its January 10, 2008 meeting. After reviewing this topic, Council unanimously approved of constructing dual force mains during initial construction phasing. Council also recommended submitting this topic for additional consideration by the Western Wake Policy Advisory Committee and the Western Wake Partners. In the interim, future year 2009 budget updates have been revised to include dual pipeline construction for the Beaver Creek Force Main.

Requested Action:
Staff recommends PAC approval of the dual force main option for the Beaver Creek Force Main Project. Staff further recommends consideration of this topic by the Western Wake Partners for their concurrence.

Figure 2.1: Beaver Creek Force Main, Preferred Pipeline Route

WESTERN WAKE PARTNERS

Report to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC08-23)

Date: March 12, 2008
To: Policy Advisory Committee
From: Steve Brown, P.E. – Town of Cary, Director of Public Works and Utilities
Prepared By: Leila Goodwin, P.E. – Town of Cary, Water Resources Manage
Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Facilities Budget Update and Proposed FY09 Operating Budget

Background
Section 3.3 of the “Design, Construction, Ownership, Management and Operation Agreement” dated August 22, 2005 (“Implementation Agreement”), specifies that:

“The Lead Agency shall prepare the Annual Budget for each Fiscal Year and as expeditiously as possible shall provide each of the Project Partners with the Annual Budget. The Lead Agency shall endeavor to prepare and provide to each Project Partner by each March 15 a preliminary Annual Budget for the ensuing Fiscal Year. To the extent possible, the Lead Agency shall prepare the Annual Budget so that it will be possible to determine from such budget the Current Expenses for the Wastewater Management Facilities that will be allocable to each Project Partner during the Fiscal Year.”

Discussion
The Project Partners entered into two agreements specifying tasks to be undertaken by the Lead Agency, how costs for those tasks will be allocated, and anticipated budgets:

1) The Interlocal Agreement for Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Land Acquisition and Preliminary Work, as amended (“Preliminary Work Agreement”), addressed purchase of land for the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and pump stations; permitting; and organizational, institutional and financial development. For budget discussion purposes, land costs will be included in facility design and construction costs.
2) The Agreement For Design, Construction, Ownership, Management And Operation Of Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities, as amended (Implementation Agreement), addressed design and construction of the facilities, and defined Fixed Current Expenses, which includes project management expenses before facility startup.

Report PAC07-10 presented several potential cost allocations for implementation of the Apex/Site 14 Water and Sewer Extension Policy and although Option 1 was selected by the Policy Advisory Committee at that time and is used in this update for discussion purposes, the Policy Advisory Committee subsequently agreed to revisit the cost allocations for this item. The Lead Agency proposes bringing this item back to the Policy Advisory Committee in the summer of 2008, when we expect to have a better idea of how the EIS process is going relative to site selection.

Table 1 presents the cost shares for various components of the facilities.

Preliminary Work
The Preliminary Work included two items: permitting; and organizational, institutional and financial development. Table 2 shows a summary of the updated preliminary work budget, including additional funding that is needed for permitting, due to the transition from the NCDENR SEPA process to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers NEPA process for developing an Environmental Impact Statement. A portion of the permitting cost has been reimbursed from a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan, for which repayment has already begun.

Although the organizational, institutional and financial development is largely unspent at this time, it is anticipated that more work remains to be done to finalize the service agreements between the Lead Agency and each partner. Therefore, there are no recommended changes in the organizational, institutional and financial development budget.

Land Acquisition, Design and Construction
Costs have been updated based on the ongoing design of the facilities and increased knowledge of pipeline routes and potential easement costs.

Summary of Capital Costs
Table 3 presents the updated cost estimates for land acquisition and facilities. Table 4 presents a comparison of updated costs with the previously budgeted costs, by Partner. Note that:
• several project components have been added (Beaver Creek Gravity Sewer, Beaver Creek Trunk Sewer and Tunnel, Holly Springs Effluent Line on WRF Site, Value Engineering);
• decisions were made to increase the capacity of the Effluent Pipeline and Outfall to meet 2030 needs and to use parallel pipelines for several of the raw wastewater conveyance lines; and
• most costs are now on 2009 dollars (instead of 2008).

Project Management
As has been discussed previously, there are operating expenses before startup of the facilities which are being billed to the Project Partners by the Lead Agency as Fixed Current Expenses. To date these include salary costs for a project manager, contract costs for land acquisition services, and the cost for the annual audit.

FY09 and Future Year Cash Flow Estimates
Table 5 presents an estimate of the timing of cash flow for the project, for each Project Partner. The cash flow estimates incorporate the use and repayment of two SRF loans: about $4 million for planning and permitting (including some design) and $60 million for WRF construction. Table 6 shows the proposed FY09 Operating Budget broken down into permitting, capital, and project management costs.

Requested Action: The Technical Advisory Committee requests that the Policy Advisory Committee accept the recommended FY09 Operating Budget.

Table 1
Cost Share Allocations for Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Project Component Apex Cary Holly Springs Morrisville
Prelminary Work and Land Acquisition Agreement
Preliminary Work (Permitting) 26.9% 44.3% 22.5% 6.3%
Organizational, Financial, Institutional 26.9% 44.3% 22.5% 6.3%
West Cary PS Land 0% 87.5% 0% 12.5%
Beaver Creek PS Land 34.7% 57.2% 0% 8.1%
Western Wake WRF Land 34.7% 57.2% 0% 8.1%
Effluent Pump Station Land 26.9% 44.3% 22.5% 6.3%
Design, Construction, Ownership, Management And Operation Agreement
West Cary PS 0% 87.8% 0% 12.2%
West Cary Force Main 0% 87.8% 0% 12.2%
West Cary Force Main Land 0% 87.5% 0% 12.5%
West Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer 9.3% 78.7% 0% 12.0%
West Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer Land 10.6% 78.2% 0% 11.2%
Beaver Creek Gravity Sewer 100.0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Beaver Creek Gravity Sewer Land 100.0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Beaver Creek Trunk Sewer and Tunnel 50.0% 43.8% 0.00% 6.2%
Beaver Creek Trunk Sewer and Tunnel Land 50.0% 43.8% 0.00% 6.2%
Beaver Creek PS 21.3% 69.0% 0% 9.7%
Beaver Creek Force Main 21.3% 69.0% 0% 9.7%
Beaver Creek Force Main Land 34.7% 57.2% 0% 8.1%
Western Wake WRF 34.1% 57.7% 0% 8.2%
Effluent PS, Pipeline and Outfall Design 25.6% 43.4% 24.8% 6.2%
Effluent Pump Station 25.6% 43.4% 24.8% 6.2%
Effluent Pipeline and Outfall 26.9% 44.3% 22.5% 6.3%
Effluent Pipeline and Outfall Land 26.9% 44.3% 22.5% 6.3%
Holly Springs Effluent Line on WRF Site 0% 0% 100.0% 0%
Operating Budget
Project Management(Fixed Current Expenses) 26.7% 59.6% 5.3% 8.4%
Additional Items
SCADA 25.6% 43.4% 24.8% 6.2%
Value Engineering 25.6% 43.4% 24.8% 6.2%
Apex/Site 14 W/S Extension Policy (Option 1) 26.9% 44.3% 22.5% 6.3%

Table 2
Updated Budget for Preliminary Work

Permitting (Cary Project SW 1109)
Costs presented in February 2007 (PAC07-08) $ 2,500,000

Additional permitting costs to date $ 210,330
CDM/CH2M Hill (preparing EIS with USACE direction)
Brown and Caldwell (Partners’ EIS Consultant)
Poyner and Spruill (legal review)

Additional budget to complete current tasks $ 2,259,000
Recommended Contingency $ 200,000
Total costs for budget planning purposes $ 5,169,330

Amount spent that was reimbursed by SRF loan $ 1,430,214.00

Total of SRF loan payments (11/01/2007 – 05/01/2027) $ 1,771,842.43
Total estimated costs not funded by SRF Loan $ 3,739,116.00
Total payments for budget planning purposes $ 5,510,958.43

Amount paid by Partners through 03/03/09 (including loan pmt) $ 628,117.67
Estimated additional FY08 payments $ 647,778.83
Remaining Budget Amount for FY09 and later $ 4,235,061.93

Organizational, Institutional, Financial (Cary Project SW1113) $ 600,000
(Amount spent through 3/3/08) $ 67,320

Table 3 Phase 1 Project Component Costs
Total Updated Project Costs (either actual spent or 2008$)
Facility Engineering Costs Construction Costs Land costs Subtotal Eng & Const Costs (2008$) Total Updated Costs Feb 2007 costs Increase (Decrease)
West Cary PS (peak hourly) $1,217,111 $13,191,000 $318,000 $14,408,111 $14,726,111 $13,227,500 $1,498,611 11%
West Cary Force Main (peak hourly) $743,376 $10,349,800 $509,800 $11,093,176 $11,602,976 $7,950,300 $3,652,676 46%
West Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer (peak hourly) $866,675 $10,178,000 $312,500 $11,044,675 $11,357,175 $9,685,300 $1,671,875 17%
Beaver Creek Gravity Sewer $23,890 $1,718,000 $70,000 $1,741,890 $1,811,890 $1,811,890
Beaver Creek Trunk Sewer and Tunnel $0 $4,609,500 $65,500 $4,609,500 $4,675,000 $4,675,000
Beaver Creek PS (peak hourly) $769,450 $16,686,500 $580,000 $17,455,950 $18,035,950 $18,239,600 ($203,650) -1%
Beaver Creek Force Main (peak hourly) $1,068,287 $24,857,000 $743,700 $25,925,287 $26,668,987 $15,134,200 $11,534,787 76%
subtotal raw ww conveyance $4,688,789 $81,589,800 $2,599,500 $86,278,589 $88,878,089 $64,236,900 $24,641,189 38%
Western Wake WRF (maximum month) $10,826,000 $130,000,000 $7,585,000 $140,826,000 $148,411,000 $142,629,200 $5,781,800 4%
Effluent Pump Station (maximum month) $1,002,560 $8,600,000 $1,235,000 $9,602,560 $10,837,560 $10,459,100 $378,460 4%
Effluent Pipeline and Outfall (maximum month) $1,203,960 $36,480,220 $1,464,900 $37,684,180 $39,149,080 $35,958,200 $3,190,880 9%
Holly Springs Effluent Line on WRF site $73,300 $755,000 $0 $828,300 $828,300 $828,300
subtotal effluent conveyance $2,206,520 $45,080,220 $2,699,900 $47,286,740 $49,986,640 $46,417,300 $3,569,340 8%
SCADA 1 $1,250,007 $0 $0 $1,250,007 $1,250,007 $1,283,300 ($33,293) -3%
Value Engineering 1 $292,000 $0 $0 $292,000 $292,000 $292,000
SUBTOTAL $18,971,316 $256,670,020 $12,884,400 $275,641,336 $288,525,736 $254,566,700 $33,959,036 13%
Water and Sewer Extension Policy 2 $251,596 $2,515,961 $232,443 $2,767,557 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0
TOTAL $19,222,912 $259,185,981 $13,116,843 $278,408,893 $291,525,736 $257,566,700 $33,959,036 13%
1 SCADA costs allocated according to EPS design/construction cost allocation
2 Costs allocated according to preliminary work (permitting) cost allocation

Table 4
Updated Allocation of Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities By Project Partner
Preliminary Work (Permitting, Organizational, Institutional) Apex Cary Holly Springs Morrisville Total
26.9% 44.3% 22.5% 6.3%
Costs in ILA (amended) $704,000 $1,159,300 $588,800 $164,900 $2,617,000
Costs from Feb 2007 update (PAC07-08) $1,065,200 $1,754,300 $891,000 $249,500 $3,960,000
Updated Preliminary Work Costs $1,482,400 $2,441,400 $1,240,000 $347,200 $5,510,958

Increase (Decrease) from Feb 2007 $417,200 $687,100 $349,000 $97,700 $1,550,958
% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39%
Facilites and Land
Costs in ILA $62,363,000 $137,425,000 $12,341,000 $19,386,000 $231,515,000
Costs from Feb 2007 update (PAC07-08) $70,064,200 $151,364,500 $11,770,300 $21,367,700 $254,566,700

Updated Facility Costs (excluding land) $75,263,191 $165,718,767 $12,018,793 $23,528,442 $276,529,193
Updated Land Costs $3,953,467 $7,289,221 $607,478 $1,034,234 $12,884,400
Updated Facility and Land Costs $79,216,658 $173,007,988 $12,626,271 $24,562,676 $289,413,593

Increase (Decrease) from Feb 2007 $9,152,458 $21,643,488 $855,971 $3,194,976 $34,846,893
% 13% 14% 7% 15% 14%
Total Preliminary Work, Facilities and Land Costs
Costs in ILA $63,067,000 $138,584,300 $12,929,800 $19,550,900 $234,132,000
Costs from Feb 2007 update (PAC07-08) $71,129,400 $153,118,800 $12,661,300 $21,617,200 $258,526,700
Updated Costs $80,699,058 $175,449,388 $13,866,271 $24,909,876 $294,924,593

Increase (Decrease) from Feb 2007 $9,569,658 $22,330,588 $1,204,971 $3,292,676 $36,397,893
% 13% 15% 10% 15% 14%
Apex/Site 14 Water and Sewer Extension Policy $ 807,000 $ 1,329,000 $ 675,000 $ 189,000 $ 3,000,000
Total Costs Apex Cary Holly Springs Morrisville Total
Total Costs from Feb 2007 update (PAC07-08) $71,936,400 $154,447,800 $13,336,300 $21,806,200 $261,526,700
Updated Total $81,506,058 $176,778,388 $14,541,271 $25,098,876 $297,924,593

Increase (Decrease) from Feb 2007 $9,569,658 $22,330,588 $1,204,971 $3,292,676 $36,397,893
% 13% 14% 9% 15% 14%

Table 5
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Phase 1 Implementation
Estimated Cash Flow by Fiscal Year for Each Project Partner

Fiscal Year Apex Cary Holly Through FY08 $ FY09 $ 1,242,800 $ FY10 $ 6,814,600 $ FY11 $ 10,859,900 $ FY12 $ 29,497,700 $ FY13 $ 7,510,100 $ FY14 $ 1,700,000 $ FY15 $ 1,526,000 $ FY16 $ 1,502,200 $ FY17 $ 1,505,200 $ FY18 $ 1,481,400 $ FY19 $ 1,457,600 $ FY20 $ 1,406,800 $ FY21 $ 1,383,000 $ FY22 $ 1,359,200 $ FY23 $ 1,335,300 $ FY24 $ 1,311,500 $ FY25 $ 1,287,700 $ FY26 $ 1,263,800 $ FY27 $ 1,240,000 $ FY28 $ 1,158,400 $ FY29 $ 1,135,800 $ FY30 $ 1,113,300 $ FY31 $ 1,090,700 $ FY32 $ 1,068,200 $ FY33 $ 1,045,600 $ TOTAL $ 84,498,400 Notes:
1. Includes loan 2. Includes O&M 3. O&M costs Springs Morrisville Total Cary + Morrisville
4,315,400 $ 12,360,400 $ 759,800 $ 1,742,200 $ 19,177,800 $ 14,102,600
2,359,100 $ 722,700 $ 335,400 $ 4,660,000 $ 2,694,500
18,525,200 $ 2,929,000 $ 2,630,700 $ 30,899,500 $ 21,155,900
28,448,500 $ 3,779,300 $ 4,039,900 $ 47,127,600 $ 32,488,400
63,168,300 $ 4,920,200 $ 8,972,900 $ 106,559,100 $ 72,141,200
16,064,200 $ 1,265,700 $ 2,282,000 $ 27,122,000 $ 18,346,200
2,887,300 $ 25,000 $ 410,400 $ 5,022,700 $ 3,297,700
2,592,600 $ 24,600 $ 368,500 $ 4,511,700 $ 2,961,100
2,552,100 $ 24,100 $ 362,800 $ 4,441,200 $ 2,914,900
2,555,900 $ 46,200 $ 363,300 $ 4,470,600 $ 2,919,200
2,515,400 $ 45,800 $ 357,600 $ 4,400,200 $ 2,873,000
2,474,900 $ 45,400 $ 351,800 $ 4,329,700 $ 2,826,700
2,390,100 $ 22,500 $ 339,700 $ 4,159,100 $ 2,729,800
2,349,600 $ 22,000 $ 334,000 $ 4,088,600 $ 2,683,600
2,309,100 $ 21,600 $ 328,200 $ 4,018,100 $ 2,637,300
2,268,600 $ 21,200 $ 322,500 $ 3,947,600 $ 2,591,100
2,228,100 $ 20,800 $ 316,700 $ 3,877,100 $ 2,544,800
2,187,600 $ 20,400 $ 311,000 $ 3,806,700 $ 2,498,600
2,147,100 $ 19,900 $ 305,200 $ 3,736,000 $ 2,452,300
2,106,600 $ 19,500 $ 299,400 $ 3,665,500 $ 2,406,000
1,960,100 $ - $ 278,600 $ 3,397,100 $ 2,238,700
1,921,900 $ - $ 273,200 $ 3,330,900 $ 2,195,100
1,883,700 $ - $ 267,700 $ 3,264,700 $ 2,151,400
1,845,600 $ - $ 262,300 $ 3,198,600 $ 2,107,900
1,807,400 $ - $ 256,900 $ 3,132,500 $ 2,064,300
1,769,200 $ - $ 251,500 $ 3,066,300 $ 2,020,700
$ 182,102,000 $14,755,700 $ 25,856,000 $ 307,212,100 $ 207,958,000
payments for Planning and $60M WRF Construction
costs through FY10, up until startup
for FY11 and later are not included

Table 6
Proposed FY09 Operating Budget
Total Cost Spent Thru 3/3/08 1 Estimated Spent Thru Remainder of FY08 2 Proposed FY09 Operating Budget 2

Permitting $5,510,958 $2,032,066 $2,706,111 $2,454,144
Organizational, Institutional, Financial $600,000 $67,320 $67,320 $60,000
West Cary PS $14,726,111 $5,267,878 $5,307,857 $20,786
West Cary Force Main $11,602,976 $193,415 $248,411 $186,106
West Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer $11,357,175 $285,008 $343,175 $130,124
Beaver Creek Gravity Sewer $1,811,890 $2,867 $4,969 $22,051
Beaver Creek Trunk Sewer and Tunnel $4,675,000 $0 $0 $19,650
Beaver Creek PS $18,035,950 $254,513 $886,007 $27,904
Beaver Creek Force Main $26,668,987 $319,397 $394,286 $266,739
Western Wake WRF $148,411,000 $9,908,409 $10,617,827 $494,186
Effluent Pump Station $10,837,560 $1,342,232 $1,408,814 $41,380
Effluent Pipeline and Outfall $39,149,080 $404,386 $484,343 $489,179
Holly Springs Effluent Line on WRF Site $828,300 $0 $7,330 $3,665
SCADA $1,250,007 $174,972 $282,476 $53,752
Value Engineering $292,000 $114,978 $292,000 $0
Apex/Site 14 Water / Sewer Extension Policy $3,000,000 $0 $0 $37,739
SUBTOTAL $298,756,994 $20,367,440 $23,050,926 $4,307,408
Operating Budget
Project Management NA $97,516 $281,000 $196,000
TOTAL $298,756,994 $20,464,956 $23,331,926 $4,503,408
1 Includes a total of $3,958,770 that was reimbursed by SRF loan
2 Includes loan payments beginning in November 2007

WESTERN WAKE PARTNERS

Report to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC08-24)

Date: March 12, 2008
To: Western Wake Partners
From: Stephen J. Brown, P.E., Director of Public Works and Utilities,
Town of Cary
Prepared by: Stephen J. Brown, P.E., Director of Public Works and Utilities,
Town of Cary
Subject: Consideration of Support for Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct Approximately 15 Miles of New 230-kV Transmission Line in Wake County

Background
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. has submitted an application to the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct Approximately 15 Miles of New 230-kV Transmission Line in Wake County. The application is identified by the NCUC as Docket No. E-2, Sub 914. A public hearing on this application is scheduled to be held by the NCUS on Tuesday, April 22 and Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Staff recommends that the Western Wake Partners express support for approval of the application. There are two main reasons for this recommendation:

The reliability of our electric energy supply is of vital importance to the safety and welfare of our citizens. The improvements proposed by Progress Energy will serve to improve that reliability.
The Western Wake Partners have proposed wastewater pipeline projects whose planned routes significantly align with the Progress Energy transmission route. See the attached Figure 1. Through cooperation with Progress Energy we believe that the combined environmental impact of both projects can be minimized for both the construction phases and for long-term maintenance. Combined impacts include sharing stream crossings, utilizing common utility corridor values that minimize tree cutting and addressing danger tree requirements.

A draft letter of support is attached as Figure 2. Figure 1 is intended to accompany this letter.

Fiscal Impacts
There are no direct fiscal impacts of this recommended action. Staff and the pipeline designers are already working with Progress Energy to maximize co-location of facilities.

Requested Action:
Staff recommends that the Policy Advisory Committee express support for Progress Energy’s application to the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct Approximately 15 Miles of New 230-kV Transmission Line in Wake County by sending the attached letter to the North Carolina Utilities Commission prior to the April 11, 2008 deadline for public comment.
Figure 1

Figure 2

April 11, 2008

North Carolina Utilities Commission
4325 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4325

RE: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct Approximately 15 Miles of New 230-kV Transmission Line in Wake County.
Docket No. E-2, Sub 914

Dear Sir:

A public hearing on the above referenced application is scheduled on Tuesday April 22 and Wednesday April 23, 2008. This letter is to express our communities’ strong support for approval of the application.

The reliability of our electric energy supply is of vital importance to the safety and welfare of our citizens. The improvements proposed by Progress Energy will serve to improve that reliability. We have examined the application and associated environmental assessment and find no reason to recommend alternative routes or design.

In addition, the Western Wake Partners have proposed wastewater pipeline projects whose planned routes significantly align with the Progress Energy transmission route (see attachment). Through cooperation with Progress Energy we believe that the combined environmental impact of both projects can be minimized for both the construction phases and for long-term maintenance. Combined impacts could include sharing stream crossings, utilizing common utility corridor values that minimize tree cutting and addressing danger tree requirements.

On behalf of the Western Wake Partners, thank you for the opportunity to express our support for this application. Please contact me if you need further information regarding that support or our proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements.

Best Regards,

Keith H. Weatherly
Mayor
Town of Apex
Western Wake Partners
Policy Advisory Committee Chairman

< Back

Home | About Us | Contact