Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 4H
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE MEMORANDUM June 13, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Shana Yelverton, City Manager Subject: Ordinance No. 1034: Waste Water System Master Plan Action Requested: Consider 1" reading approval of the proposed Southlake 2030 Waste Water System Master Plan. Background Information: The Southlake 2030 Plan is the city's guide to determine the community's goals, aspirations and resource allocations. The Southlake 2030 Plan consists of multiple elements; the Water, Waste Water, Storm Water Plan is one of these elements. The Southlake 2030 Water, Waste Water, Storm Water Committee has recommended that each element of this plan be adopted separately. The Planning and Zoning Commission has already made a recommendation on the water plan element and will be considering the Storm Water Plan element at its July meeting. The City of Southlake contracted with Neel- Schaffer /Cheatham & Associates to develop the Water, Waste Water and Storm Water Plan. These Plans will assist the City of Southlake by identifying and prioritizing infrastructure that will require improvements. To develop the plan, the consultant utilized existing documents such as previous plans, system maps and construction documents. Neel - Schaffer /Cheatham & Associates also met with Southlake officials and staff and performed limited site visits to verify data and better understand the priorities of the City of Southlake. Existing population and growth data from the North Central Texas Council of Government (NCTCOG) was also used, along with data from previous engineering studies, reports and designs performed for the City. The CIP projects presented in this Master Plan are categorized into tiers: short term — projects needed to alleviate deficiencies related to existing users and planned developments; long term — projects needed primarily to serve expected near term growth; and septic — projects required to serve areas with existing septic systems. Financial Considerations: Adopting the plan in FY 2012, provides staff and Council the ability to use the plan as a guide for funding recommendations for FY 2013. Strategic Link: The Waste Water System Master Plan relates to corporate objectives B5 — Improve performance of delivery and operational processes and F2 — Invest provide and maintain high quality public assets. Citizen Input/ Board Review: All meetings of the Southlake 2030 Water, Waste Water, Storm Water Committee are open to the public. The committee held two (2) public meetings (March 1 9 th and April 24 th 2012) to discuss, review, and develop waste water system recommendations. In addition, a SPIN meeting was held May 21, 2012 for the Waste Water System Master Plan. The SPIN summary report is included as Attachment "C. A public hearing was held for this item at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 7, 2012. A public hearing is currently scheduled for the City Council meeting on August 7, 2012. Planning & Zoning Commission: June 7, 2012; Recommended Approval (6 -0) as presented. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: Recommend modifications to the proposed Waste Water System Master Plan or move forward with the Waste Water System Master Plan as presented. Attachments: (A) Ordinance 1034 (B) Southlake 2030 Waste Water System Master Plan (C) SPIN Meeting Summary Report ORDINANCE NO. 1034 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE WASTE WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. WHEREAS, a Home Rule Charter of the City of Southlake, Texas, was approved by the voters in a duly called Charter election on April 4, 1987; and, WHEREAS, the Home Rule Charter, Chapter XI requires an update to the City's comprehensive plan elements every four years, WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the Waste Water System Master Plan is an element of the Southlake 2030 Plan, the City's Comprehensive Master Plan, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Waste Water System Master Plan complies with the Southlake 2030 Vision, Goals, & Objectives, WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the Waste Water System Master Plan has been formulated with adequate public input, WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the recommendations in the Waste Water System Master Plan herein reflect the community's desires for the future development of the City, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the public's health, safety and welfare to establish waste water facility requirements for city residents and businesses, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. All of the findings in the preamble are found to be true and correct and the City Council hereby incorporates said findings into the body of this ordinance as if copied in its entirety. Section 2. The statements in `Exhibit 1' are hereby adopted as the Waste Water System Master Plan of the Southlake 2030 Plan. Section 3. The different elements of the Comprehensive Master Plan, as adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time, shall be kept on file in the office of the City Secretary of the City of Southlake, along with a copy of the ordinance and minute order of the Council so adopting or approving the same. Any existing element of the Comprehensive Master Plan which has been heretofore adopted by the City Council shall remain in full force until amended by the City Council as provided herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed. Section 5. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. Section 6. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative provisions of this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than the production thereof. Section 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE WASTEWATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 2012 A Study of EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEMS LIFT STATIONS FUTURE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ( - Tr'Y or SOUTHLAKE PREPARED BY: ICI NEEL- SCHAFFER Solutions you can build upon Cheatham & Associates consulting engineers - planners - surveyors TBPE Firm 2697 2233 AVENUE J, SUITE 107 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76006 (817) 548 -0696 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOPIC PAGE SystemEvaluation ........................................................................... ..............................1 Backgroundand History .................................................................. ..............................2 Recommendations............................................................................ ..............................4 Appendix: Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Southlake 2030 Wastewater Matrix The City of Southlake contracted with Neel- Schaffer /Cheatham & Associates to develop Master Plan Updates which are being used in the development of the Southlake 2030 Plan — Water, Wastewater and Stormwater. These Master Plans will assist the City of Southlake by identifying and prioritizing infrastructure that will require improvements. We utilized existing documents such as previous plans, system maps and construction documents as a basis for the Wastewater System Master Plan Update. Neel- Schaffer /Cheatham & Associates also met with Southlake officials and staff and performed limited site visits to verify data and better understand the priorities of the City of Southlake. Existing population and growth data from the North Central Texas Council of Government (NCTCOG) was also used, along with data from previous engineering studies, reports and designs performed for the City. In 2009, a city wide modeling analysis was performed by Freese and Nichols and the RJN Group. The results of this study are presented in the Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic modeling Analysis report that is in the appendix. As documented in this study, the analysis included flow modeling, model development, wastewater flows, model calibration, system capacity analysis, and a wastewater capital improvements plan (CIP) analysis. We have completed a review of the study and we concur with the established criteria presented and the CIP recommendations. The CIP projects presented in this Master Plan are categorized into phases: short term —projects needed to alleviate deficiencies related to existing users and planned developments; long term — projects needed primarily to serve expected near term growth; and septic — projects required to serve areas with existing septic systems. 1 The City of Southlake originally began to develop without a sanitary sewer system. The minimum lot size was one acre, and the method of sewer disposal was septic tanks. There were numerous developments which relied upon septic tanks for the sewage treatment. Prior to development, each area was analyzed by percolation of the soil to confirm that the septic tank and lateral lines would be adequate for residential development. In 1986, the Trinity River Authority (TRA) constructed an outfall line along Big Bear Creek. The City of Southlake participated in the construction cost with enough capacity for the southern portion of the City which naturally drains to Big Bear Creek. However, there was no capacity in the Big Bear Line for the northern half of the City, which flows toward Grapevine Lake (Denton Creek). In 1987, Cheatham & Associates prepared a wastewater design report which outlined the major outfall lines along existing creeks both toward the TRA Big Bear Line, and toward Grapevine Lake. The basic topography of Southlake's sanitary sewer service area is almost evenly distributed between the Denton Creek Watershed (6,500 acres + / -) on the north, and the Big Bear Creek Watershed (5,500 acres + / -) on the south. The north and south basins are divided into sub - basins. The south basins are identified as S -1 through S -11 and the north basins are identified as NO1/WLO1, N -12, N -12A, and N -13 through N -19. Figure A shows the locations of these 21 basins within the City of Southlake. With contributions from developers, the southern half of the City began to develop as more of the major outfall lines were constructed. This continued for several years until in 1991, the city participated with Westlake and Trophy Club to construct a sewer lift station and force main to pump sewer to the TRA treatment plant in Roanoke. This system allowed the northern half of the City to begin to develop with sewer collection systems, which were connected to a series of lift stations. These lift stations pump the wastewater to the TRA lift station on the northwest side of the City. The City continued to develop with residential and commercial growth once a sewer system was made available_ Many of the older subdivisions were retrofitted with sewer systems over the next twenty years. Today there are areas remaining within the City which are not served by a sewer system. This Wastewater Master Plan identifies these developments and estimated costs to provide sewer service to these remaining areas. The short term category identifies 3 projects in the N -12, N- 12A, and N -13 sewer basins. The pipe improvements will be 10 -inch, 12 -inch, and 15 -inch diameters and will be gravity sewer collection systems. The estimated cost of these projects is approximately $2,131,000. The long term category identifies 3 projects in the N -12, N- 12A, and N -18 sewer basins. The pipe improvements will be 8 -inch and 10 -inch diameters and will also be a gravity sewer collection system. The estimated cost of these projects is approximately $858,000. The septic system replacement category identifies 22 projects, which consist of 21 gravity sewer projects and 1 lift station and force main proj ect. We have provided further analysis on the Septic category to determine the projects that will serve areas with existing septic systems as well as future development areas. Based on our analysis, we have identified seven projects areas that will allow for septic system replacement and support future development: 1. Future Torian Lane area — North of Dove and West of Kimball; 2. Highland and Kimball intersection area — acre + tracts; 3. Sam School Road (Solona) —Dove to SH114 (Support new home construction); 4. West of North White Chapel and North of Bob Jones Road - along T.W. King (including existing agricultural land); 5. North end White Chapel along Bob Jones Road (acre + tracts for development); 6. Proposed Oakwood Estates Lift Station and force main along east end of Bob Jones Rd.; and 7. Proposed gravity sewer lines along the east end of Bob Jones Rd. and adjacent streets. The estimated cost for these seven projects is approximately $4,043,000. These projects were identified in the previous study as projects 9, 10, 18, 25, 26, 27 and 28. The remaining projects identified in the septic system replacement category are projects that will primarily convert existing septic systems to gravity collection systems and will support limited or no future development. The estimated cost for these projects is approximately $6,026,000. Projects to serve existing septic users will be scheduled partially based on commitments of septic users in each area il to connect to the sewer system. For prioritization with the Southlake 2030 Plan, we have categorized the phases as Tier 1 (Short Term), Tier 2 (Long Term), and Tier 3 (Septic System Replacement). The following table provides a summary of the CIP recommendations: Phase Cost 2030 Plan Short Term $2,131,000 Tier 1 (1 -3 years) Long Term $858,000 Tier 2 (4 -6 years) Septic / Development $4,043,000 Tier 3 (7 -18 years) Septic Only $6,026,000 Tier 3 (7 -18 years) Grand Total $13,058,000 Figure B shows the sewer basin locations of the Tier 1 projects. Figure C shows the sewer basin locations of the Tier 2 projects. 5 w I V I O N O N MILES 0 1 N -13 N -18 S -11 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE III_ NEEL- SCHAFFER _ Salu do nx y u can build upon ^_ n l n. CHEATHAM &r ASSOCIATES CINSULTINGENGINEERS N -14 N -15 SEWER BASINS FIGURE A Dove a Lift Station I" F.M. TRA Cap. 0 6 MGD N Lift Station 00 Mete N -18 00 27 Line 8,. 00 cq I .. co 'o ` �� 8 ,. LL m ;G co Loch Meadows 12" Ir Lift Station Fir� Capacity - 0.4 MOD fl Mat., N•119 27 ) 15" Line --esasi . n M -18 14 \ ^i/ � 4 ^ry O too F M. N -13 10" --101 19" F.M. 14 -M. Lonesome Dove Lift Station Fi rm Capacity 6 MGDJ N A Meter N-12 18" Line N O �i. -� 1 g .. e•• co 10 .• 10 •. Basin N-1 rj r r co UR so. 6 18" F.M. Motor N-1 2A 8 1 0" Line Basin N-1 6 7 Basin N-14 61 FEET SOU CITY OF THLAKE 0 2,000 NEEL—SCHAFFER ^ = Salutionx you can build upon TIER I PROJECTS CHEATHAM & ASSOCIATES CONSULTINGENGINEER S (1 2 & 3) FIGURE B (GRAPHICS PROVIDED BY RJNGROUP WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT, FIGURE 4, SEPT. 2009) ,e N 1 � 1 B " 8 " �f Loch Meadows tz^ 12" LiR Station \\ Flan Capacity = 0.4 MG9 Meter N -19 15" Line �m, �E+a N` -18 1 Q Q. Rim ` LM9 R l co 12 S1" m V N 18 -- - 18" F.M. 14" F.M. 8" r 2 ' o /ryl� a .. 17 �' O g" co O N 8" 8" r I �e H s^ a•• m 8 .. 8 .. 8 .. 8" 8" 10" m Fn E3asin N -19 8" Basin N -1 1 °" m I 11 O ao un sl"m� WI ml Basin 8 8" g 15" 10" Line � � I l94 � a�4 W. E �I ml 20) ®„ X m FEET CITY OF SOU THLAKE 0 2,000 III_ NEEL— SCHAFFER ^ = 5"lutionx you can build upon TIER 2 PROJECTS ln. CHEATHAM Sr ASSOCIATES (4 5 & 6) C(1NSULTIAG EnGINEERS FIGURE C (GRAPHICS PROVIDED BY RJNGROUP WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT, FIGURE 4, SEPT. 2009) EXHIBIT 4 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE BUILDOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN LEGEND — unae on — creuary sear ants lake, — snonTamar -Ford Mme, s„¢e — rreemGC r aeumm un sreue., sa —s.Mk eia Mea.i,e art smao� aeaei — auImNFOrt<mNn � NonMWeleaLifiSYaaens ° � 27 — M�arsewa� -- -vumn 5 ad a Mroa Fardmam SOUTHLAKE rreno ne�— e.— rm © Gruperine Reservoir Sewer Basins 48 ra_,rr, n• -1, s-m s -n - S -02 N -12 S -03 N -12A S -04 N -13 S -OS N -14 S -06 N -15 I N41 S -07 N -16 ✓ S -06 N -17 k _ S09 I N -18 s10 N -19 j I § 13 ° c m ° } � z,���e a .. m s .. m u m n y J� � d�1 asrn N -13 u � �8 M78 Ul TT e �5) N -19 _ Basin N -.1 s O — - - - 1 - 1 e ar � B� N 76 r •. — ` � O �� \ I ql- 8 �� I z � 7 Bas'n N -.t2 � I B-in N -14 11 • e e.. x r va�a e^ X08 .� �� - F 1 r p u p 1 1 1 20 I Ha�sin 5 -03 T 16 Lj 191 (�4) e� \_ T ���— i ., 01 j� � , 1 ° X 23 N �, s� 22 ; - 4 Y� 5 Q L W H Q W N 0 M O N W Y Q J F D O N y +� C E O t CL m CL y M M M M 0 0 0 0 O > 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y C O L O L O L O L O L O L J ~ z C C C C C C > a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 U_ U_ LU W LU W LU W LU W LU W LU W Y W W W W W W C J a1 L a1 L a1 L a1 L a1 L a1 L 41 U U U U U U 7 7 7 7 7 7 L M + + + + + + N f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 C C C C C C U 4 L c � C C O L L L 4 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 C O M M M Q E L L L L L L U O� >i •++ � .� 'a p l6 U a1 00 1n U +�+ EO a) X C p a) N X r - I Q o to 00 > w e ns E w c m L O ° Q a+ f0 C •++ t O r-I p r-I C '- W '++ 1n W h0 C •++ - to N W a1 C N 2 O� U N 2 O� b.0 n1 r-I U •a) > .� a) C r-I a) O C C10 a1 L c0 > a1 h0 ' 1 Z al U CO = a) ++ •� a1 ++ O O •� " .' CO Z .; CO .X • C E - a L U C (/I L OO U L f0 O •c_ O - Q O > N u ?�. C C _ Y a1 C _ O — U U C L $ - E J o0 a1 a1 Z "✓7 L O i--I O L -' C o0 a1 L N "✓7 L a1 C _ a a1 U _ a "a O L a = a) U > >i en aj X $ a1 U L U U in Z O a1 a�-0 Z _� 3 E Z O a1 a p a1 .S .S .E c .E c :3 N t b.0 ++ 0 0 O O F ++ 0 p }' C O `� C L M O C L O M C L O C c O C W O L O C N C O ++ O L O C a) c +� Vl a1 N a1 U U Ln ns z N t N z N t-0 Q M m-0 Q L L Q .L O al 7 ` t C C 7 a) U 7 a1 U D Y +t+ N� O Q z O O (n N 00 `� O *' N> c O m N> c N (C6 N > N ++ r1 . w .c �o '� w . c oo c a, o cn t c v v > c v L } c b.0 c } b.0 � b.0 } do . do v -0 ns C U a) n Z — a) +; Z U f0 N Q. c ns U c Q- c • C U Q- c • C c �1 U •� v v v L }1 :3 U .� v L C O U •� a) L C l-I {A to co .� x co .x {n .� co x co .x {n co .� x L L {n L L W {n U z a) .— U v b.0 - v U v aO - 0 v a1 V) = > > 4-- > cn L C CO 2 U cn . c� 2 O � m z i�-I r r^-I r-I k � � LLI F- R Ln � 0 0 N � « x F- D 0 Ln 2 t 2 .2 E m 7 0 \ ) § E 2 E @ e \ \ } , / § » 2 % § = 0 �� 7 0 / z o u \ \ ƒ f { { /'/ u 0 £ t / / E f f / / e E / 2 2 E $ \ o 2 / > 2 ƒ © u ƒ E 2 \ .\ ® tjo 2 \ / 0 / t C: E � j w E / ) ) % §Mƒ /•� Es \ ) ƒ 3 ® / $ .E m E3 2 / k { / •/ E / \ 0 \ \ % ) . { M e -r- \ ƒ -r- \ ®/ { Lu �� @ \ _ 2 \ x m £ LU 0 / t R / / s 7 0 •_ u e k / 0 ) 3 \ / # \/ f Ez24E f 0 = 4� \2� 0 \�� = 0 0 �•� -0 _ _ 4, e > m e= .\ e 2 ) E ° { .\ e 2 •- ? < B 3 0 .� -0 ƒ § E } 1 f / 0 / �� ƒ ( E /\ 0 -0 / E - m < - / ƒ -\ E t c @ .° / }H Eu u ) ) / E -0 gc \ ®e%C2 ° ) ° 11 ° 2 0 m 0 % & � � �� 2 �� < ■ _ �� � a E § d @ & / z • § S ■ $ -1 o 0 CL u 2 § > »_ £ 2 L $ 00 d m 0 / / o 0 © o 2 E CL e 7 2 '/ 0 .g 2\ 0 d 2 L a / $ & 2 \ / © a _ u E / § / u e 2�_�L" \\ ._ $ k § a $ & d / \ \ \ t .2 E 7 0 ) § E 2 E @ ) } , / § » 2 % § = �� 7 / z o u ) ƒ f /'/ u 0 £ t / / E f f e E / 2 2 E $ \ o / > ƒ © u ƒ E 2 .\ ® tjo 2 / 0 / t C: E � j w E / ) % §Mƒ /•� Es \ ƒ 3 ® / $ .E m E3 2 / k { / •/ E / & 2 5 2 0 q \ % ) . { M e -r- \ ƒ -r- \ ®/ { Lu �� @ _ 2 x m £ LU 0 / t R / / s 7 0 •_ u e k / 0 ) 3 \ / # \/ Ez24E 0 = 4� \2� 0 \�� = 0 0 �•� -0 _ _ 4, e > m e= \ e 2 ) E ° { E 2 •- ? < B 3 0 .� -0 ƒ § E } 1 C: § 0 / �� ƒ /\ \� -0 / E 'w y ; \ < - E0 u��£'E4 -\ E t c /' / }H Eu ) ) ƒ % \ M E -0 gc ®e%C2 ° ) ° 11 ° 2 0 � � �� � �� < ■ c �� � a E § d @ & / z • § S ■ $ -1 o 0 CL u 2 § > 2 I $ A � W rN .0 a bA Ste" ^C U' O y O N e � +l N H k 0) O z E 0 ar CL a u X W O N L O s s 0 3 3 C 0 +� � a) a) M a) p to p > s a) Q s -a 'A LO —_ s L tw L ' O +' O C > `- +, +- >, O O Q) 'a p C a) O �n C CL p C Q ±' C N C N CL L p N a) C: C N a) a) > a) O h0 CL 4 ' 3 O ' CL a) +, f6 �' i L CL O C CL +� O O • 'n +� 'a OU O +' a) a) > CL O +' +� a� Q - E C 'a > m +, O O s L Ln Ln • L N • N Ln a) O p CL O +� O a 3 N N a) vUi N 'p u m E w Ln s o E a) L a) — U o -0 U > CL a) a O s � m ao > N to to — to to 0 >' to d 0 to +- Q) 0 C u C: -le y+1 .� c 3 I `� s nz a) a tw C N �,° E c c �,, a) , -0 U O� *' s a; Ln 9 E a) a) O a) 4.,0 U ,n I = 4- > w •� a) u L a) s I o �s E o a Q) +� a) c c > +� c u o U h0 vi U c Q +6 > c N C c s N •� a) U N - p > C f6 ` O O C L O L ' f6 O C i••I a) U . • U I a) •� - 0 � ) -a a) .> CL vi f6 N VI - p O C ® (6 +, L L N +� CL � C a) _ iii CL N a) a) (6 L +� x i ' M M p L f� E U a) ,c O vi nz a) ao c� s O v +' o W a) c`o •v + 0 s O U v a) > } E � +, p Q) > 'a +� i••I `~ CA O S O '� f6 L C C U O 7 C C Z U o z i i6 +� tw E a) a) c� —_ a) S •> 6 nU•I � •U CL E L .� p to +' p / U L O a CL Q- O_ a) Q) L U 'C w VI O E N ^� L L W C CL 'CA CL c nz m Ln u CL ° m a) W 4- M � `" 4- O O n5 n5 O O cI N o6 of —1 +1 s VI a) m U O a+ Ln L CA 41 a + 0 `� - 0 a) a) E c o a) 'a E > '� C N E CAA : L C M N Ln C a) CA C C O CL U >, Ln a) L U C C a) vi +, 4- O 'O CL p u a) Q N O f6 �n O C + Z- a) L +' p +' a) ° s C L VI U a) (6 +' h0 > O U a) > > +� +� N C >` N a) +: C a) a) 43 Q) — C +� O a) o S +� 4-J w N E U +, a) VI f6 E — -0 a) +, O a M N ,} O N L) C N ,� >, O a) X C W-0 t p-+ - a O C: 7 N U W •E E +, 4 � O L m O ' N X U +� t6 O p s O I f6 E a) O s C a) to E c: N V5 C •- - O t6 N +, tw p o X a) L N n3 0 'U a O „� C C U U C N +, 0 O L a) -0 C U a) N � O s •• 5 -2 'N '3 Q 'O U U � '� > M O C L N s '� to N '> O N CL V) L i , C o -p = C U L O U s 0 3 AY p CL VI 0 °' CL a) C I N p o Ln a) N M — I o L y -0 a..r E �' o C X aL, E A� o a) ;�, N o 3 �� .' tog•o= Q) a N o *' ®'o ? o t' `� �, c v a / C �✓ • O I••1 b o y r ay , L a) N V) 1'F••••• E �•d E E �� Ln � h Q O U p S C6 ( W > �y • CCA C C •U > a) + Qa a) � a) .� C C o w o� y c ° O =-- v a � s 3� c� o_ CL ' c o : i••I i 'to m p U v � V to A - r U O L W L +� hA /( +, x s L Q to VI W a) 42 V L c-I N M LfI l0 I� CITY OF SOUTHLAKE r AA WASTEWATER COLLECTION / L�La LklxLaF # {.;� . + �aaxst a s.ee./ JESSICA L. BROWN i beg'' ,L6$4uik1•Y,Li£L8 ��� SYSTEM 0 L 90098 £ �� HYDRAULIC MODELING ANALYSIS f REESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED E NGIWEERING FIRM F -2144 September 2009 u l-%j Prepared for: Jessica Brown, P.E. RJ N r P 1 t in- RICHARD WEATHERLY j /st �Ne Rx3-FY. T.eyay�atHt St/ -4 � % 100211 z'� Prepared by 000 n °. ff�EhlS�a Freese and Nichols, Inc. 4055 International Plaza, Suite 200 �} Fort Worth, Texas 76109 (817) 735 -7300 FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS.o'REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F - 214 4 Freese Ad Nichols RJN08430 Richard Weatherly, P.E. �. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF MODELING ANALYSIS ........................... 1 -1 1.1 Purpose of Hydraulic Modeling Analysis ................................... ............................... 1 -1 1.2 Existing Wastewater Collection System ..................................... ............................... 1 -2 1.3 Wastewater Collection System Analysis .................................... ............................... 1 -2 1.4 Summary of Recommended Improvements for Planning Periods ............................. 1 -3 2.0 FLOW MONITORING .................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 2 .1 Background .................................................................................... ............................2 -1 3.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Network Development ................................................................ ............................... 3 -1 3 .2 Lift Stations ................................................................................. ............................... 3 -2 4.0 WASTEWATER FLOWS ................................................................... ............................4 -1 4.1 Population and Commercial Acreage Projections and Distribution .......................... 4 -1 4.2 Existing Wastewater Flows ......................................................... ............................... 4 -1 4.3 Projected Wastewater Flows ....................................................... ............................... 4 -5 5.0 MODEL CALIBRATION ................................................................ ............................... 5 -1 5 .1 Introduction ................................................................................. ............................... 5 -1 5.2 Dry Weather Calibration ............................................................. ............................... 5 -1 5.3 Wet Weather Calibration ............................................................ ............................... 5 -2 6.0 SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS ................................................. ............................... 6 -1 6.1 Regulatory Framework and Evaluation Criteria ......................... ............................... 6 -1 6.2 Existing Capacity Analysis ......................................................... ............................... 6 -2 6.3 Buildout Capacity Analysis ........................................................ ............................... 6 -4 7.0 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ANALYSIS ............................. 7 -1 i TABLE OF TABLES Table 1.1 Total Capital Improvement Costs ............................................ ............................1 -4 Table 1.2 Capital Improvement Plan List ................................................ ............................1 -5 Table 4.1 Existing Wastewater Flows ................................................... ............................... 4 -6 Table 4.2 Projected Wastewater Flows .................................................... ............................4 -7 Table 7.1 Buildout Capital Improvement Plan ..................................... ............................... 7 -2 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Diagram of Lift Station Wet Well and Pumps ...................... ............................... 3 -2 Figure 3.2 Existing Wastewater System ................................................. ............................... 3 -4 Figure 4.1 Total Population by Basin ..................................................... ............................... 4 -2 Figure 4.2 Served Population by Basin ..................................................... ............................4 -3 Figure 4.3 Commercial Acres by Basin ................................................. ............................... 4 -4 Figure5.1 RTK Hydrograph .................................................................. ............................... 5 -2 Figure 6.1 Existing System Capacity Analysis ...................................... ............................... 6 -3 Figure 6.2 Buildout Capacity Analysis .................................................. ............................... 6 -5 Figure 7.1 Buildout Capital Improvement Plan ..................................... ............................... 7 -3 Appendix A Dry Weather Calibration Results Appendix B Wet Weather Calibration Results ii SOMMAn Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis a ll C j�? 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF MODELING ANALYSIS 1.1 Purpose of Hydraulic Modeling Analysis This report presents the analysis approach, findings and results of the Wastewater Hydraulic Modeling Analysis performed by Freese and Nichols, Inc. as a sub consultant to the RJN Group for the City of Southlake Wastewater Collection System Assessment — Phase I study. The purpose of the project was to develop a hydraulic wastewater model, develop population and wastewater flow projections, and determine collection system improvements necessary to continue providing high quality service to existing customers and ensure adequate facilities are in place to serve future development. These recommended improvements are set forth in a Capital Improvements Plan with current day costing included. As part of the Wastewater System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis, Freese and Nichols developed a hydraulic model to be used as a tool for evaluating the wastewater collection system. The City of Southlake selected the InfoWorks CS hydraulic modeling software, which combines a relational database with geographic analysis to provide a single environment that integrates asset planning with hydraulic modeling. The software makes use of engineering equations and mathematical algorithms to determine the flows and velocities that would occur in a collection system under a specified set of conditions. The City of Southlake's wastewater system was evaluated using the InfoWorks CS model developed for the project. Flow monitoring was conducted by RJN for 60 days and utilized for model calibration. The model included 10" and larger pipes, as well as some select 8" pipes and was run using the selected 5 -year, 1 -hour storm event, with the selected hydraulic grade line (HGL) design criteria of not -to- exceed three feet below manhole rim. The project team used the identified capacity constraints indicated by the model to develop a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). 1 -1 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis t freea� .w Nlahnlc ° ' .. 1.2 1.3 Existing Wastewater Collection System The City of Southlake's wastewater collection system includes over 184 miles of wastewater pipe ranging in size from 2 -inch to 27 -inch diameter, 2,922 manholes, and 12 lift stations. The City of Southlake's existing wastewater collection system is divided into 20 flow meter basins. Each basin conveys flow downstream ultimately discharging into the Trinity River Authority (TRA) regional collection system at eight different outfall locations, including the TRA Kirkwood Lift Station. Basins located in the northern basins convey flow into the Kirkwood Lift Station and are pumped ultimately to the TRA Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System (DCRWS). The southern basins convey flow by gravity into the Central Region Wastewater System (CRWS). The City of Southlake currently serves flow from two (2) wholesale customers, including the City of Westlake and the City of Keller. The City of Southlake also sends flow by gravity into the City of Grapevine and City of Keller wastewater systems. Wastewater Collection System Analysis Hydraulic models for the existing and buildout conditions were created and analyzed to estimate where system improvements are needed. The basis for the recommended wastewater system improvements are an increase in population and development within the City, correcting existing system deficiencies, and converting existing septic users onto the City's wastewater system. To analyze the capacity of Southlake's wastewater collection system, a 5 -year, 1 -hour design storm event was selected and applied to the existing collection system for 10" and larger lines, as well as key 8" lines. The model was then evaluated under the design storm conditions for the buildout planning period to determine locations of future capacity inadequacies, system surcharging and potential sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The hydraulic models were used to evaluate existing and proposed pipe sizes and lift station capacities. Regulatory requirements, defined by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the selected design criteria served as the basis for 1 -2 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Fresso ..d Michels identifying system deficiencies and sizing the recommended improvements. A list of specific projects for each planning period has been developed and is discussed in detail in Section 7 of this memorandum. 1.4 Summary of Recommended Improvements for Planning Periods The proposed wastewater collection system capital improvement plan provides recommended projects along with the costs for the buildout time period. The CIP is broken down into three categories: projects needed to alleviate existing deficiencies, projects needed to serve future growth, and projects are required to serve areas with current septic users. FNI recommends several wastewater collection system improvements for the buildout planning period to serve areas of new growth and to increase capacity in the existing system. Where existing facilities need to be upgraded, the recommended improvements are sized to carry projected buildout flows. New facilities in undeveloped areas are also sized to carry projected buildout flows. TCEQ Chapter 217 regulations state that new lines and facilities must be designed to prevent a surcharge in any pipe at the expected peak flow. Therefore, all improvements recommended in this study are designed to prevent surcharging. Replacement lines are recommended rather than parallel lines where model results indicate existing lines have inadequate capacity for existing or projected flows. This is because typically the required additional utility easements are often not available and increased long -term maintenance costs due to an additional line. Figure 7.1 in Section 7 of this report displays the locations of the major capital improvement projects identified for the buildout planning period. Table 7.1 in Section 7 of this report also contains a detailed cost breakdown for each project that corresponds directly with Figure 7.1. The purpose of each proposed improvement is also discussed in Table 7.1. The construction costs in this study are relative to 2009 construction costs and should be reevaluated each fiscal year. The total investments for the three categories in the CIP are shown in Table 1.1 and are summarized by project in Table 1.2. 1 -3 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis ran Q-11P M r ow SOLM� Table 1.1 Total Capital Improvement Costs Phase Cost Short Term $2 Long Term $857,760 Septic $10,069,370 Grand Total $13,057,650 1 -4 Table 1.2 Wastewater Collection System Capital Improvement Plan Proj. No. Project Description Cost E `m 1 15 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -12 and N-1 2a. $ 1,299,650 2 15 -inch & 10 -inch Sanitary Sewer line In Basin N -13 along Emerald Circle. $ 381,700 0 U) 3 12 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -13 South of Burney Ln. $ 449,170 E m 4 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -18 along White Chapel Blvd. $ 378,480 a� 5 10 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in West Basin N -12. $ 342,720 c � 6 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer Line in Basin N -12A South of HWY 114. $ 136,560 7 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer lines in Basin N -12A along Wildwood, Lakewood and Bentwood $ 344,880 8 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer lines in Basin N-1 2A along Dove Creek and Highland $ 522,820 9 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -14 North of Dove Rd $ 448,630 10 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -14 North of Hwy 114. $ 562,330 11 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -19 along Shady Oaks Dr. $ 299,450 12 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -13 along Burney Ln. $ 996,980 13 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -18 Northeast of White Chapel Blvd. $ 670,660 14 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -18 North of Dove Rd and West of Rid ecrest Dr. $ 348,640 15 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -16 West of Morgan Rd. $ 742,970 16 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin S -10 along Pearson $ 354,010 17 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -16 along Dove Rd and Peytonville. $ 352,670 18 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -19 North of and along Dove Rd. $ 574,700 19 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin S -06 along White Chapel $ 399,440 20 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin S -06 along Shady Oaks $ 97,850 21 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin S -11 along Florence and Lodestar Rd $ 360,470 22 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in southwest corner of Basin S -01 along Brumlow Ave. $ 214,780 23 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin S -01 $ 171,230 24 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin S -01 along Crooked Ln. $ 149,730 25 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Northwest Basin N -17. $ 470,140 26 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -17 northeast of White Chapel Blvd and Bob Jones Rd $ 855,330 27 Proposed Oakwood Estates Lift Station and Force Main in Basin N -17. $ 462,340 28 8 -inch Sanita Sewer line in Northeast Basin N -17 Gran $ 669,320 13 , 0 57,650 I'l AYE Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis irs' ri nL�, s"'THL Pro*".r Nlehols - .. 2.0 FLOW MONITORING 2.1 Background RJN conducted the flow monitoring for the City of Southlake Wastewater Collection System Assessment — Phase I study. Twenty temporary flow monitors and five rainfall gauges were installed from April 10, 2008 through June 12, 2008. The wastewater flow and rainfall data were used to calibrate the hydraulic model of the collection system, develop parameters for future wastewater flow projections, and evaluate wet weather infiltration/inflow (I /1). More information about the flow monitoring used for calibration can be found in the flow monitoring section of the RJN report. 2 -1 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis N ri n`f rc-t sMT�+�AxE Fracas. Michels - "" .. 3.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT The primary task of the Hydraulic Modeling Analysis was the development of a hydraulic model of the wastewater collection system. The hydraulic model was used as a tool for evaluating capacity within the wastewater collection system and to develop system improvements required to ensure the system is adequately sized to meet future buildout conditions predicted for the City. This section describes the hydraulic model building process utilized for this study. The City of Southlake selected the InfoWorks CS software by Wallingford Software, Ltd. for development and analysis of the wastewater system. InfoWorks CS utilizes a fully dynamic hydraulic engine capable of accurately simulating gradually varied, unsteady flow and free surface reverse flow (backwater flow) conditions in wastewater and stormwater networks of closed and open channel conveyance structures. The modeling software combines the latest industry standard relational database capabilities with a geographic information system type interface to provide a single environment that integrates asset planning with hydraulic modeling. The City of Southlake collection system model developed as part of the project consists of all pipes 10 -inch and larger in diameter plus key 8 -inch diameter pipes. The model includes approximately 1,320 pipe segments and 388,700 linear feet of the total 971,550 linear feet of collection system. The model also includes six out of the City's twelve lift stations. Figure 3.2 displays the City of Southlake's modeled network along with the City's entire existing system network. 3.1 Network Development The model network was created from the City's geographic information system (GIS) database of the existing wastewater collection system. All manholes were imported to the model using the unique identifier created by the City to ensure the hydraulic model accurately matches the GIS. All pipes were imported to the model and the Asset ID field in the model was populated with the unique identifier created by the City to maintain a link between the model and the GIS. Pipe attributes imported to the model included Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis fnacc ...r Mlaholc , . r--e r.+w� ,av«a.wr diameter, material, and upstream and downstream invert elevations. Additional physical network data was gathered from as -built records and AutoCAD drawings. Field inspection and surveying data was collected by the project consultant team and City staff to fill in missing critical data not available in GIS or other sources. After the field verification process, any remaining missing information was completed by estimation, using the modeling software's data inference tools. The working model network was again extensively reviewed by examining profiles of each collection system branch to identify and then address any anomalies or questionable conditions. The final working model network validated and showed no errors in the input data that would affect the hydraulic simulation and capacity analysis. 3.2 Lift Stations There were six lift stations throughout the city that showed to be significant enough to include in the wastewater model: Gateway, Shady Lane, Lonesome Dove, Dove Estates, Loch Meadows, and Crown Ridge. Each component of the lift station addressed within the model database is demonstrated in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 Diagram of Lift Station Wet Well and Pumps Forcemain Inflow pi 1 Switch on Pumps 1 &2 Lift Station Switch on Wet Well Pump 1 Switch off level P1 I I P2 Pumps Wallingford Software — Info Works CS— Help File First, the wet well dimensions were entered in the model on a storage node with the data obtained from as -built records and City lift station summary reports. Each active pump was entered into the model database with the required information representing unique flow characteristics for each respective pump. The wet well switch -on / switch -off levels were entered to control the operation of the pumps during model runs. Additionally, the 3 -2 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis EN ri ngrmlp E iteeu ..a Mitholc .... ^.,t^';sw•a.� force main connection was added with a pressure solution pipe. Available runtime data, physical data and serial numbers were provided by the City. Head discharge curves were obtained from the pump manufacture for the pumps in the lift stations. These head discharge curves were generated based on available run -time data and physical data provided by the City. Minor adjustments were made to the head discharge curves during model calibration to ensure the stations were performing as observed during the temporary flow monitoring. 3 -3 y + Grrtpoitae Re wrruit nMa. 1 x '! F zo e^ ♦ L , 1 3e � L � u rr�r• f - f k s'' 7 1 � S ,z • 2 ° t u iah, g 4 M 6 i 4 •^ ! b ' d; ebf � d t t b s • I r FIGURE 3.2 Sub - Basins CITY OF SOUTHLAKE e, „ EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM k N+= LEGEND S N+ Fb Meter LataGOns — G—ill Sewer Lines -- CM Limi!s t Rain G.t Location ---- Force Mains Lakes os h-u N ® Motleled Lift S.—. MaEel Sewer Lines Sireane U6 N-rs x Nm Modeled LM S.-. M l Farce Mains • Model MaM,wes SOUTHLAKE N -n {� -t SCnIE I.N FEE' irMrrlliebela ' v Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis z ` 4.0 WASTEWATER FLOWS 4.1 Population and Commercial Acreage Projections and Distribution The City of Southlake's 2009 population was determined using NCTCOG 2009 estimated projections. The City of Southlake 2009 commercial acres were determined using the land use maps provided by the City planning department. The 2009 population and commercial acres for the City of Southlake were estimated to be 26,650 people and 1,167 acres, respectively. The NCTCOG 2009 population provided the initial basis for the population distribution. Modifications were necessary to distinguish between the population that is served by the City of Southlake's wastewater collection system and the population that is currently served by individual septic systems. The City's GIS department provided a map of existing sewer account locations. This map along with the City's meter billing data was used to determine that the 2009 served population is 19,928. Figure 4.1 shows the existing and buildout NCTCOG population distribution by flow meter basin. Figure 4.2 shows the existing and buildout served population distribution by flow meter basin. Figure 4.3 shows the existing and buildout commercial acres by flow meter basin. 4.2 Existing Wastewater Flows The existing wastewater flows were determined by the results of the flow monitoring data. The average dry weather flow measured during the flow monitoring period was 2.802 MGD. This includes 0.09 MGD of City of Keller wastewater flow that is conveyed through Southlake's collection system. The 2009 residential average day wastewater flow for the City of Southlake is 2.04 MGD. The residential flows were developed from the hydraulic model by adjusting the per capita flow in the model to match observed flow volumes. Dry weather calibration of the 2009 flow monitoring data resulted in an average residential flow of 103 gpcd for the City of Southlake. The 2009 average day commercial wastewater flow is 0.71 MGD. 4 -1 Basin N -17 1048 1048 Basin N011WL01 243 727 - Basin N -13 1365 1570 Basin N -18 .. 962 _ 1787 - Basin N -19 - 915 957 Basin N -16 Basin N -12 2686 - 485 2767 914 Basin N -12A 1371 - Basin N -14 1787 1296 1706 1 .... Basin 5.08 1711 1745 Basin S-03 Basin N -15 192 Basin S -11 - 2005 192 1152 2354 1207 Basin 6-0B 2937 2957 Basin S -10 Basin S -07 857 835 869 835 Basin S-OS 1038 Basin S-02 2495 2495 Basin 5 -0 1 Basin S -09 808 1078 1426 - 965 965 808 1426 FIGURE 4.1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE NCTCOG POPULATION BY SEWER BASIN LEGEND N Sewer Basins takes Basin Name 2009 Population Buildout Population = Ciy Limits SOUTHLAKE ���� ® o + soo 3.000 12 SCALE fN FEET Basin N -17 388 1048 Basin N01/WL01 31 727 - Basin N -13 831 1570 Basin N -18 535 1787 Basin N -19 467 957 Basin N -16 Basin N -12 1134 236 2767 914 Basin N -12A i 1133 Basin N -14 s 1787 211 1706 Basin S -08 1745 1745 Basin N -15 Basin S -03 78 Basin S -11 1809 192 693 2354 1207 Basin S -06 2871 2957 Basin S -10 Basin S -07 649 835 869 835 Basin S -02 Basin S -OS 1038 Basin S -04 2446 Basin S -01 2495 Basin S-09 808 1038 1425 596 965 808 9426 FIGURE 4.2 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE SERVED POPULATION BY SEWER BASIN LEGEND Q Sewer Basins lakes N Basin Nara Screams 2669 Served Population f -1 �ib'��mits B uildouf Served Population —I SOUTHLAKE r °® SCALE IN FEET Basin N -17 22.82Ac. 27.26 Ac. Basin N01M 01 24.45 Ac. - ` 149.43Ac. - Basin N -13 35.47Ac. 39.55 Ac. Basin N -18 26.83 Ac. 242.91 Ac. . Basin N -19 - 3.45 Ac. 86.23 Ac. Basin N -16 Basin N -12 0 Ac. 42.67 Ac. 5.33Ac 245.78Ac. Basin N -12A 68.78Ac Basin N -14 185.97Ac. 219.17Ac 664.03 Ac. Basin S-0S 45.27Ac. 45.27Ac. Basin N -15 Basin S -03 103.11 Ac. Basin 5 -11 77.01 Ac. 171.44Ac. 57.65 A., 117.22 Ac. 91.79Ac. Basin S -0 6 58.12 Ac. 77.51 Ac Basin S -10 Basin S -07 59.7 Ac. 24.23 Ac. 121.5,4c. 24.23 Ac. Basin S-05 . Basin S -02 77.28 Ac. Basin S -0 1 Basin S -0 9 4.85 Ac. in 5,40. 20.74 Ac. 128 11 Ac 219.77 Ac. OA 21.88 Ac. 20.74 Ac. 549.99Ac. FIGURE 4.3 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE COMMERCIAL ACRES BY SEWER BASIN LEGEND O sewareasms 1- N t Bash Nam a Streartw 2009 Commercial Acres O City L-. Builtlout Commercial Acres SOUTHLAKE �� o i,soo aooc SCALE IN FEET Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis �- Frssas. Nichols The wet weather flows were determined using the InfoWorks CS modeling software. FNI applied the 5 -year 1 -hour design storm to the model in order to determine the peak wet weather flow through each basin in the City. The 2009 peak wet weather flow under design storm conditions was determined to be 22.17 MGD according to the hydraulic model. 4.3 Projected Wastewater Flows Average day wastewater flows for the buildout planning period were developed using existing average daily flow rates as the base flow. Flow projections for future development were added to the 2009 existing flows to determine the projected future average daily flow. TCEQ recommends a minimum of 100 gallons per capita day (gpcd) for municipal base flow. Based on the flow measured during the flow monitoring period, FNI recommends 110 gpcd for calculating flows for future residential growth in the City of Southlake. Future average daily wastewater loads were calculated by applying the recommended 110 gpcd to any new population added between the 2009 and buildout planning periods. The projected buildout residential average day dry weather flow is 3.09 MGD. Based on the flow monitoring results, FNI recommends using 650 gallons per acre per day (gpad) for future commercial growth. To project future commercial wastewater flows, future average daily wastewater flows were calculated by applying 650 gpad to the growth in commercial acres for the buildout planning period. The projected commercial average day dry weather flow at buildout is 1.81 MGD. The infiltration and inflow totals determined by the model during calibration were held constant for the buildout planning period. The flow entering basin S -11 from the City of Keller increased from 0.09 MGD in 2009 to 0.14 in the buildout period due to growth. The total wastewater system flows are the combination of the residential and commercial loads, infiltration and inflow and City of Keller flow. The projected total average day wastewater flow and peak wet weather flow for buildout are 4.9 MGD and 19.75 MGD, respectively. A summary of wastewater flows for the City of Southlake for existing and buildout conditions can be found in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. 4 -5 C . m Y 3 �p O T = LL d CO R .Q O Y w � U N X W 3 d d O3: L L in to n w r v co o n M r v co r v .n v v N v M 1� In N O N O N O M r N M OR r r cD n eo N N a a 0 L m d m ° _ y p O (O oD f0 m O v v d' d' O a 0 0 N a ® x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e Oo a 0 d L mo a v � N Ir W N o o M M m N m m M M M (O M r �- m w W v M co � M M N N o r M O co M N m m 0 3 0 O 0 0 0 ®O O O G qLL LL Q d L � O m v � ? L � m LL O M M M M CO M r r M n M c0 O N 7 N C- w m Y) M V r v O O O C OG M � p d � a It QLo U O N O > y > Q O �- 0 V M 0 0 c0 0) O 0 0 a0 0 0 N 0 O 0 N 0 0 ez� O O O O O O O O O O O N ° o p LL N N 0 V _ an d ° o A O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N o N 0 N 0 M N r o 0 v 0 O W o M n E N E pg 00000000000 e 0 0000000000 0 o > U Q Y e0 7i C O i •� LL �Ti d W M M n O m r O n O m M co O v O (O (O E O 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 U U a o o -° N£ u ® n n r r N o co �!) v N �n V o o co <O M J V1 M v W (0 M N N N E a N O N ^ o U 0 3 A p H R CD OI > O M O 0 0 P 0 N 0 O 0 O 0 0 C O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N N O � LL R .0 a c C ro .., d d N O O Lo N N O N O O O� N O .- N N M O L N `�.' Q c � E o O t0 O N v 0 v� M DD in n v m N � fA 's m a co C o n m M r o v v m ci m M P c� ap m M coo m V m Q O 0 y N v N OD N o ID 'o a N - W N n - M u7 v - m E O a. 3 0 `o N y N N C v L O V N 0 `o U 10 h U ~ ~ m 0 0 0 0 (O 0 r 0 OD 0 O) 0 O r N Q N � M � v � 0 , GO r � QD P L rn t P A 0 cn U) to U) U) U) W x c% to N O N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 Z 2 O if C LL m 3 Y p N t i y O �p w O y R U W V (D O L a 3 � o NW Prm 0MrnoNromr n coo rvW ^,n U0 W Cl O) N W 7 c0 of M m (0) T P M N a d L d A a d A d d y y 0 V O m m m W m c0 �- m N M m 0 Lo 0 0 V c+l d o f N 0 M 0 M N 0 0 N N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O r V O r< 0 0 V? 0 0 T 0 0 O? O O O O V N m a o — T _ O1 NOO Nm O)�� mo) P m NOm OcOm MN Y� a Q) � M M M m c0 N N 17! Q) R m v 47 W Iq M c0 M P V M A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q V O 0 0 0 0 0 O O m d a 3 0 LL � d L V q ry LL O M mm r W M 0 7 co O m m c0 M V r 0 m d O) M M W P r N P c0 W N f� Q Q) W t0 In N 0 0 0 M 3 C fV M A Q Y A d a d a � c0 Ol M P m P O O W W N rf O) OI N M O O) N O 10 O N O M N O N r M O N M ^ m M N N m M M N Y1 O) O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N V d — Q o r J O d m �d m M O O W O W W O O m m O N N W O N O) W N 00000000 ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m E E R O U 2 _ c� a A a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `m E�� 0 m 0 m 0 0 �c 0 0 0 0 �c�O 0 Q mc C A c�0 c C c c c�o�� t�O c c Y U z U ° A U •O d` P m ifl N N N N O W co 0'D N W � W� W C m p Q ll? fmV U 0 T 0 � O d � O) C s � 0 0 m O W O N W P O O W P M Ol W N N m m a O m > 'p (D Q O 2 . 0 M 0 N . 0 0 O . 0 . N 0 O 0 0 0 cD 0000000000 . . . . O M O 0 rth 0 L m J 3 ay w j R N r c0 O N c0 V1 0 0 W O 9 N m O) W N r W® m W O W r 0 r W 0 r Co U c y N N d W N m C p U N n E 0 N 7 C O O O A W ti ) Lo m m r N c0 W P OI r a W 0 c0 0 r N W m r V m m r r V r E O) N M a O P �� O N Q) O ^a P r c0 r 0 O r d V O G O N N r N� w W � N N Oi N m O CL O — `o MA N d N a O Y A U C L N c U H O m 0 0 0000000 �.- O p 3 (n u) v) (n u) u) v) co c) u) u) mZZZZZ2 ZZ2ZH o LL SCUTHLAU Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis U1 ir...., M t'.. Fr's+mux �**errvyrz GLaneryeyp 5.0 MODEL CALIBRATION 5.1 Introduction Once the model was constructed and the flows distributed, the appropriate model parameters were adjusted in order for the model to match the flow monitoring results at each meter location. The adjusted model parameters include dry weather flow distribution and pumps in operation at each lift station. 5.2 Dry Weather Calibration The first step in model calibration is selecting a dry- weather period from the flow monitoring data. A dry- weather flow period is defined as a period in which no effect from RDII was observed. May 5, 2008, was selected for dry weather model calibration. Observed flow on this date was representative of flow unaffected by rainfall on preceding days. During dry weather model calibration, the representative per capita flow rates and hourly multipliers (within the Wastewater Generator) were adjusted to match the observed dry weather flow data for each of the respective twenty (20) flow meter basins. After per capita flow rates were adjusted to match observed flow volumes, the diurnal patterns by which the per capita flows are distributed throughout the day, were adjusted to match the peaks and troughs of the observed flow data. Iterations were performed until the model results closely represented the observed dry weather flow data at each flow meter site. The resulting dry weather calibration graphs are included in Appendix A. The calibrated dry weather flow is utilized during wet weather calibration representing the dry weather component of the observed flow hydrograph. Applying the calibrated dry weather flow allows the modeler to graphically identify the magnitude of I/I responses during wet weather calibration. In addition, per capita rates and diurnal flow patterns determined during the dry weather model calibration are also used for the design storm hydraulic capacity analysis. 5 -1 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analvsis, r� _ �. iroaae ...r Nichols ••,.". --- u 5.3 Wet Weather Calibration Following dry weather calibration, wet weather calibration is conducted to predict RDII influenced flow responses in the model to closely match responses identified in the observed flow data. The model is calibrated by matching the observed flow, depth and velocity for each respective flow meter basin. To achieve this, a relationship between the rain event and the infiltration and inflow (I /I) of water into the wastewater system must be established. This was done by developing a series of hydrographs that define this relationship that characterize three factors: the fraction of rainfall that enters the system (R), the time to peak (T) and the ratio of the time of recession (K) to T. This EPA approved "RTK" method was utilized to develop the relationship. The RTK method is based on fitting three unit hydrographs to an RDII hydrograph derived from flow meter data. A unit hydrograph is defined as the flow response that results from a single unit of rainfall during a single unit of time. Each of the three unit hydrographs represents a different type of infiltration and inflow (I /I). The first represents the fraction of rainfall from inflow typically experienced at the beginning of the storm, the second is a combination of inflow and infiltration that seeps into the system as the ground becomes saturated, and the third is meant to represent only the flow that is entering the system due to infiltration. Figure 5.1 graphically represents a RTK hydrograph. Figure 5.1 RTK Hydrograph c 5 -2 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis sotarHr 4xE. Fr ". Nichols Collected rainfall data was examined along with flow meter data to select the rainfall event of significant magnitude and peak intensity to conduct wet weather calibration. This project's scope included calibrating the model to two rain events, if available. However, there was only one recorded rain event adequate for calibration. Therefore, the date selected for wet weather calibration was April 23, 2008. The hydraulic model was calibrated and then validated with an extended duration simulation analysis utilizing two days of observed flow monitoring. The resulting wet weather calibration graphs comparing flow monitoring versus model results is included in Appendix B. 5 -3 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis r1 =-1 iroase ..w Niehobs � ^<„ w•.a:<,yn c� <v w 6.0 SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Modeling analysis helps identify needed system capacity improvements associated with problem areas within the sewer system. This hydraulic analysis includes the evaluation of dry and wet weather conditions for the existing and buildout wastewater systems. 6.1 Regulatory Framework and Evaluation Criteria The regulatory framework for separate sanitary sewer systems is intended for sewer system design and operations so as to contain wastewater flows within the system, including under wet weather conditions. The evaluation criteria used in the model to identify existing sanitary sewer lines requiring upsizing is expressed in terms of a hydraulic grade line, as follows: • Hydraulic Grade Line: The hydraulic grade line was not to exceed more than three (3) feet below the manhole rim elevation. Proposed line sizes were also based on utilizing the smallest line size to effectively limit surcharging. Evaluation criteria for the new and replacement lines were also developed in accordance with minimum design criteria set forth by TCEQ for gravity sewer lines, lift stations, and force mains. TCEQ Chapter 217 regulations state that new lines and facilities must be designed to prevent a surcharge in any pipe at the expected peak flow. Therefore, all improvements recommended in this study are designed to prevent surcharging based on the projected flows. • Gravity Sewer Lines: Gravity sewer lines shall be sized to maintain a minimum velocity of 2 feet/second and a maximum velocity of 8 feet/second. Slopes for new lines in undeveloped areas are based on the minimum slope requirement set forth by the TCEQ. • Lift Stations: Lift Stations shall be sized to provide capacity to meet the peak design storm flow with the largest pump out of service (firm capacity). • Force Mains: Force mains shall be sized to convey the lift station pumping capacity at a minimum velocity of 2 ft per second with one pump 6 -1 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis ra 0 12 1 n- Fn . N{ehois . operating, a maximum velocity of 8 ft/second at firm capacity, and a maximum working pressure of 100 psi. 6.2 Existing Capacity Analysis For analyzing existing system capacity in the model, the selected 5 -year 1 -hour design storm event was applied to the existing collection system. The model was evaluated to determine locations of capacity deficiencies, system surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Figure 6.1 illustrates this evaluation graphically. The color coding utilized in the figure identifies the surcharge state for each modeled manhole. Red highlights locations where there is an overflow, orange highlights manholes surcharging from 0 to 3 feet below the surface, yellow highlights manholes surcharging to levels less than 3 feet below ground surface, and black identifies no surcharging. The model demonstrated that the existing system contains relatively few locations of excessive system surcharging under design storm conditions. There are some locations that demonstrated a number of pipe segments with excessive surcharging under design storm conditions. These surcharged conditions are believed to be partially due to capacity restrictions in the collection system. This is substantiated by the observed flow monitoring data of extended depths during wet weather at these locations. All of the lift stations had adequate firm capacity to meet the peak design storm flow. Other than these locations, analysis of existing capacity for Southlake's wastewater system indicates that the system maintains adequate capacity to convey wet weather flows. 6 -1 Wastewater Collection System Hydraulic Modeling Analysis W a ll rin , -o n 6.3 Buildout Capacity Analysis To analyze the capacity of Southlake's wastewater system, a selected 5 -year, 1 -hour storm event was applied to the existing collection system with buildout flows. The model was evaluated under the design storm conditions for the buildout planning period to determine locations of future capacity inadequacies, system surcharging and potential SSOs. Figure 6.2 shows line segments where model results indicate that the design criteria were not met for the buildout planning period. The results of the buildout analysis show the areas with excessive surcharging and SSOs to be generally the same as the existing analysis. Each of the existing lift stations had adequate firm capacity to meet the buildout peak design storm flow. The buildout planning period includes increases from growth in residential and nonresidential flows throughout the city as well as the conversion of all septic users on to the City collection system. :1! a m low FIGURE 6.1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 2009 MODEL RESULTS 5-YEAR 1 -HOUR DESIGN CRITERIA LEGEND Face MH RIaI MH • N. Samh.g uw. S.IwI F Streams SOUTHLAKE R N-19 - - - N- 14 N-1 2A -10 16, , �Wwl � M q N 0 '500 3,000 SCME IN FEET 1 ) 6 R t h E e r • a. - r.a. Lannon Den Ic F. N � 6 6 ' d F °, a5laBOn 6 d Z d $gpp $$F r `4 7 ysy X3':2 6 E _ $ l�iR 3tNOn 1 6 6 rt FIGURE 6.2 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE BUILDOUT MODEL RESULTS sf 5 -YEAR 1 -HOUR DESIGN CRITERIA LEGEND • I)VB1¶OW -MaM Sewer LNas ® Swchaye Leval a 3' » MafN Face Meiee fran MH Pom Sum�xgeC MH � � �� �•� No Smliegeaas N 0 TM Lift Slalion Streams � MaEeletl liN Sb,ions Q CHY LMlils SCUTHLAKE ra SCAL® Wastewater Collection Svstem Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Co o n ri n u- SCUTHLAKE Fr "..d UkhMs 7.0 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Once the wastewater model was developed to represent existing and future loading conditions, the future capital improvement projects were analyzed and phased into the planning timeframe in which they become hydraulically necessary. The goal of the capital improvements is to address existing deficiencies in the system, as well as meet future loading on the wastewater collection system. Figure 7.1 illustrates the proposed capital improvement projects. Table 7.1 provides a detailed cost breakdown for each project and corresponds directly with Figure 7.1. All project costs shown in this report are based on construction costs representing 2009 conditions and should be adjusted in the future to reflect current construction environment. FNI recommends several wastewater collection system improvements for the Buildout planning period. Where existing facilities need to be upgraded, the recommended improvements are sized to carry projected buildout flows with no surcharging. New facilities in undeveloped areas are also sized to carry projected buildout flows with no surcharging in the affected collection system area. The profiles showing the hydraulic grade line (HGL) of each of the three projects that need upsizing are shown in Appendix C. These profiles are for the: • Existing pipe under 2009 storm of record peak flows • Existing pipe with 2009 design storm peak flows • Existing pipe with buildout design storm peak flows a Recommended pipe size with buildout design storm peak flows Replacement lines are recommended rather than parallel lines where model results indicate existing lines have inadequate capacity for existing or projected flows. This is due to the fact that required additional utility easements are often not available; parallel lines do not address aged, deteriorated existing infrastructure; and long -term maintenance costs increase due to an additional line. 7 -1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE BUR.DOUT CAPITAL POPROVEMENT PLAN LL CFNn — M smw�ws — cmime eaw wr mm sourHLAKE M m GlarevirtE Reservoir Construction Project Number Project Description 15 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -12 and N-1 2a. Detailed Description Project 1 replaces the existing 12 -inch, 10 -inch, and 8 -inch interceptor lines with a 15 -inch line and a 10 -inch line in Basin N -12 and N -12a along Dove Creek South of Hwy 114. Purpose The model results indicate that there are capacity issues in Basins N -12 and N-1 2A. The interceptor is operating at or near capacity. The proposed 15" sewer line will provide capacity to handle future growth in these basins. DESCRIPTION i ITEM Q UANTITY 1 15' Pie 5800 LF $90.00 522,000 2 10" Pie 1500 LF $60.00 90,000 3 48" Diameter Manhole 17 EA $5,000.00 85,000 4 20" Boring and Casing 900 LF $300.00 270,000 LF $300.00 30,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20`ro SUBTOTAL: ENGISUR`✓EY 12% SUBTOTAL: $967,000 $193,400 $1,160,400 $139,250 $1,299,650 Construction Pro Number Project Description 15 -inch & 10 -inch Sanitary Sewer line In Basin N -13 along Emerald Circle. Detailed Description Project 3 replaces existing 6 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Southeast Basin N -13 and North Basin N -14 East of Carroll Ave along Emerald Cir with a 10 -inch sewer line. Purpose The model indicates that there is not enough capacity in the existing 6 -inch lines to convey future projected flows due to growth in basin N -13. The proposed 10 -inch and 15 -inch lines will provide enough capacity to convey future flow. DESCRIPTION ITEM 1 15' Pie 1500 LF $90.00 135,000 2 10" Pie 1400 LF $60.00 84,000 3 48" Diameter Manhole 7 EA $5,000.00 35,000 4 20" Bodrig and Casing 100 LF $300.00 30,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGtSURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $284,000 $56,800 $340,800 $40,900 $381,700 12 -'inch Sanitary Seaver line in Basin N -13 South of Burney Ln. Detailed Description Project 2 replaces existing 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line from Dove Estates Force Main to the Lonesome Dove Lift Station with 12 -inch and 15 -inch sewer lines. Purpose Project 4 extends service for future devolopment West along Keystone Dr then South along White Chapel Blvd. The model indicates that the existing 8 -inch sewer line is does not have sufficient capacity to convey projected future flows. The proposed 12 -inch and 15 -inch sewer line replacement provides more capacity and will allow unrestricted flow downstream. Q UANTITY ITEM DESCRIPTION The proposed 8 -inch sewer line will provide service to proposed mixed -use areas along SH 114 in basin N -18. 1 12" Pie 3600 LF $72.00 8" Pipe 259,200 2 48" Diameter Manhole 9 EA $5,000.00 2 45,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 100 LF $300.00 50,000 30,000 20" Boring and Casing 100 LF $300.00 30,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGJSURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: ... $334,200 $66,840 $401,040 $48,130 $449,170 Construction P roject Number Project Description 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -18 along White Chapel Blvd. Detailed Descri ion Project 4 extends service for future devolopment West along Keystone Dr then South along White Chapel Blvd. Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer line will provide service to proposed mixed -use areas along SH 114 in basin N -18. I ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 4200 LF $48.00 201,600 2 48" Diameter Manhole 10 EA $5,000.00 50,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 100 LF $300.00 30,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: EN ISURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PROJECT • $281,600 $56,320 $337,920 $40,560 $378,480 r OPINION OF PROBABLE COST UPDATE Construction Project Number j 3 Construction Project Number 5 ., 10 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in West Basin N -12. Detailed Description Project 5 extends service for future devolopment in Western Portion of Basin N -12 North of Hwy 114 and West of Carroll Ave. Purpose Purpose The proposed 10 -inch line will provide service to proposed mixed -use areas along SH 114 in basin N -12. The proposed 8 -inch line will provide service to proposed mixed -use areas along SH 114 and also serve existing septic users in basin N -12A. DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 10" Pipe 3500 LF $60.00 210,000 2 48" Diameter Manhole 9 EA $5,000.00 45,000 20,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGISURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $255,000 $51,000 $306,000 $36,720 $342,720 Construction Project Number I 6 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer Line in Basin N -12A South of Hwy 114. Detailed Description Project 6 extends service for future devolopment in Eastern Portion of Basin N -12A South of Hwy 114. Purpose The proposed 8 -inch line will provide service to proposed mixed -use areas along SH 114 and also serve existing septic users in basin N -12A. DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 1700 LF $48.00 81,600 2 48" Diameter Manhole 4 EA $5,000.00 20,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENG /SURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $101,600 $20,320 $121,920 $14,640 $136,560 Construction ' Number Project Description 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer lines in Basin N-1 2A along Wildwood. Lakewood and Bentwood Detailed Description Project 7 consists of 8 -inch lines along Wildwood, Lakewood and Bentwood Purpose Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to future growth and existing septic users in basin N-1 2A. The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -12A. DESCRIPTI ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNITPRICE TOTAL DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY 1 8" Pipe 4200 LF $48.00 LF 201,600 2 48" Diameter Manhole 11 EA $5,000.00 13 55,000 $5,000.00 65,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGISURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $256,600 $51,320 $307,920 $36,960 $344,880 Construction Pro Numbe Project Description 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer lines in Basin N -12A along Dove Creek and Highland Detailed Description Project 8 consists of 8 -inch lines along Dove Creek and Highland flowing into proposed 15" sewer interceptor Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to future growth and existing septic users in basin N-1 2A. DESCRIPTI ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNITPRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 5500 LF $48.00 264,000 2 48" Diameter Manhole 13 EA $5,000.00 65,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ! EKG!. 12% SUBTOTAL: PROJECT • $389,000 $77,800 $466,800 $56,020 $522,820 LVA NMI UJ\IL!I = I VLVJ. ruv 17 RDA C i Number Project Descri tion i Sewer line in Bas „ n N -14 North of Bove Rct Detailed Description Project 9 consists of 8 -inch lines along Torain and Kimball north of Dove Rd flowing into Royal Oaks subdivision sewer lines and eventually to Lonesome Dove Lift Station Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -14 north of Dove Rd. DESCRIPTI ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 1 8” Pipe 5600 LF $48.00 278,400 268,800 2 48" Diameter Manhole 13 EA $5.000.00 65,000 65,000 0 250 LF $300.00 75,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENG/SURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PROJECT i SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20 "k SUBTOTAL: ENG /SURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $333,800 $66,760 $400,560 $48,070 $448,630 Construction t i - Project Description 1 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer life in Basin N -14 North of Hwy 114. Detailed Description Project 10 connects to existing 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line at Kimball Ave and Patterson Way then North along Kimball Ave and West along Highland St. Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to future growth and existing septic users in basin N -14 along Highland and Kimball Ave. DESCRIPTI ITEM 1 8" Pipe 5800 LF $48.00 278,400 2 48" Diameter Manhole 13 EA $5,000.00 65,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 250 LF $300.00 75,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENG/SURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PROJECT i $418,400 $83.680 $502,080 $60,250 $562,330 —I &W— WA l\W- -0)N —W— C Pr oje ct Num Project Description S a: Y Sewer fine in Basin N -19 along Shady Oaks Dr, Detailed Description Project 11 consists of an 8 -inch line that connects to the existing 10 -inch sewer line in basin N -19 along Shady Oaks Blvd. Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -19. ITEM D ESCRIPTION 1 8" Pipe 3600 LF $48,00 172,800 2 48" Diameter Manhole 10 EA $5,000,00 50,000 0 125,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGISURFY 12% SUBTOTAL: $222,800 $44,560 $267,360 $32,090 $299,450 Constructi P r o jec t N um b er Project Description _- - SGn'ar Sewer line in Basin N -13 along Burney L ^. Detailed Description Project 12 connects to proposed 12 -inch Sanitary Sewer line (project 3) at Day Ct and McCrae Trl continuing North along Milk River then West along Hat Creek Ln. Fur pose The proposed 8 - inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N - 13. ITEM DESCRIPTI 1 8" Pipe 11600 LF $48,00 556,800 2 48" Diameter Manhole 25 EA $5,000.00 125,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGiSURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PR OJECT • $741,800 $148,360 $890,160 $106,820 $996,980 :0 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -18 Northeast of White Chapel Blvd. Detailed Description Project 13 connects to existing 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line at Ridgecrest Dr and Loch Meadow Ct continuing North along Ridgecrest Dr and West along Woodland and Briar Ln. Pur ose Project 14 connects to existing 12 -inch Sanitary Sewer line along Sweet Ln west towards and along White Chapel Blvd. The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -18. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TO ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTfTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TO TAL 1 8" Pipe 8000 LF $48.00 384,000 2 48" Diameter Manhole 17 EA $5,000.00 85,000 3 20" Bori ng and Casing 100 LF $300.00 30,000 35,000 3 20" Bafing and Casing 300 LF $300.00 90,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENG /SURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: .� $499,000 $99,800 $598,800 $71,860 $670,660 Constructi • Numbe Project Description 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin N -18 North of Dove Rd and West of Ridgecrest Dr. Detailed Description Project 14 connects to existing 12 -inch Sanitary Sewer line along Sweet Ln west towards and along White Chapel Blvd. Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -18. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTfTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TO TAL 1 8" Pipe 2800 LF $48.00 134,400 2 48" Diameter Manhole 7 EA $5,000.00 35,000 3 20" Bafing and Casing 300 LF $300.00 90,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGLSURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PR OJECT • $259,400 $51,880 $311,280 $37,360 $34876540 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST UPDATE Construction Project Number 13 Construction Project • Project Description 6 8 -inch Sanitary Seaver lire in Basin S-10 along Pearson Detailed Description Project 15 connects to existing 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line at Sleepy Hollow Trl and Mrgan Rd continuing South along Morgan Rd west to Randol Mill Ave where it splits one line continuing West another North along Randol Mill Purpose Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -16. The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users along Pearson in basin S -10. DESCRIPTI ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pie 8600 LF $48.00 412,800 2 48" Diameter Manhole 19 EA $5,000.00 95,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 150 LF $300.00 45,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGISURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $552,800 $11015W $663,360 $78,610 $742,970 Construction Project Number Project Description 6 8 -inch Sanitary Seaver lire in Basin S-10 along Pearson Detailed Description Project 16 consists of a 8 -inch line along Pearson connecting to 6" lines that lead to the City of Keller outfall Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users along Pearson in basin S -10. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 3300 LF $48.00 158,400 2 48" Diameter Manhole 9 EA $5,000.00 45,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGlSURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PROJECT • $263,400 $52,680 $316,080 $37,930 $354,010 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST UPDATI: 3 along Dave Rd and Peytonviie. Detailed Description Project 17 connects to existing 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line West of Hwy 114 along Dove Rd and Peytonville Rd Purpose Project 18 connects to existing 12 -inch Sanitary Sewer line West of Hwy 114 and continues West Crawford Ct and Sams School Rd. The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -16. Purpose ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE 1 8" Pipe 3800 LF $48.00 182,400 2 48" Diameter Manhole 10 EA $5,000.00 50,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 100 LF $300.00 30,000 3 20" Bori ng and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENSURVEY 12% SU $262,400 $52,480 $314,880 $37,790 $352,670 Construction Pro Num•' Pro ect Descri lion Se line in Basin N -19 North of and along Dove Rd. Detailed Description Project 18 connects to existing 12 -inch Sanitary Sewer line West of Hwy 114 and continues West Crawford Ct and Sams School Rd. then South along Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -19. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 6200 LF $48.00 297,600 2 48" Diameter Manhole 14 EA $5,000.00 70,000 3 20" Bori ng and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGISURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PROJECT • $427,600 $85,520 $513,120 $61,580 $574,700 00 OPMON OF PROBABLE COST UPDATE Construction Project, Number ! 17 isa r rcrva�•i � � ��u r�ss r� r wRw•r� C onstruction Pro Number Pro'ect Descri lion 20 • 8 -irc„ Sanitary Sewer line in Basin S -0 a:ung %,Vhite Chap e' Detailed Description Purpose Project 19 consists of 8 -inch sewer line along White Chapel Blvd connecting to existing 6 -inch and 8 -inch sewer lines Purpose ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TO TAL The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin S -06 along White Chapel Blvd. ITEM DESCRIPTIO 8" Pipe 1100 LF $48.00 1 8" Pipe 52,800 3900 LF $48.00 187,200 2 48" Diameter Manhole 10 EA $5,000.00 50,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: _ CONTINGENCY - 20% SUBTOTAL: I ENGISURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $297,200 $59,440 $356,640 $42,800 $399,440 Construction Project Number Pro ect Description 20 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer line in Basin S -00 along Shady Oaks Detailed Description Project 20 is an 8 -inch sewer line that connects to an existing 6 -inch Sanitary Sewer line at Shady Oaks, just north of Southlake Blvd Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin S -06 along Shady Oaks. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TO TAL 1 8" Pipe 1100 LF $48.00 52,800 2 48" Diameter Manhole 4 EA $5,000,00 20,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGISURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PR OJECT • $72,800 $14,560 $87,360 $10,490 $97,850 Project Descri pt on 8 -inn. Sewer line in Basin S -11 along Florence and Lodestar Rd Detailed Description Project 21 consists of 8" sewer lines along Florence and Lodestar connecting to an existing 10" sewer line in Basin S -11 Purpose The proposed 8 - inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to septic users in the northern portion of basin S - 11. ITEM DESCRIPTIO 1 8" Pipe 3400 LF $48.00 $48.00 163,200 2 48" Diameter Manhole 9 EA $5,000.00 EA 45,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 200 LF $300.00 60,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGTSURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $268,200 $53.640 $321,840 $38,630 $360,470 Constructi • - Numb Project Description �� -I:.P S : - ,i -y Sewer line in southwest corner of Basin S -01 along Brurniow Ave. Detailed Description Project 22 consists of an 8 - inch sewer line along Brumlow that connects to the existing 18 - inch sewer interceptor Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to septic users in the southwest corner of Basin S -01 ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TO TAL 1 8" Pie 2600 LF $48.00 124,800 2 48" Diameter Manhole 7 EA $5,000.00 35,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20 SUBTOTAL: EN"'URVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PR OJECT • $159,800 $31,960 $191,760 $23,020 $214,780 :0 Construction Project Number 23I • ristruction Pro • - Project Description Detailed Description Project 23 consists of an 8 -inch sewer line along Timberline that connects to an existing 8 -inch sewerline along Continental Blvd. Purpose Project 24 is an 8 -inch sewer line along Crooked Ln that connects to an existing 8 -inch sewer line at Kimball Ave. The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to septic users in Basin S -01 along Timberline Ct ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 1300 LF $48.00 1800 62,400 2 48" Diameter Manhole 4 EA $5,000.00 48" Diameter Manhole 20,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 150 LF $300.00 45,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENG /SURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $127,400 $25,480 $152,880 $18,350 $171,230 • ristruction Pro • - Project Description -i : Sanitary itary Sewer line in Sazs n S -01 along Crooked Ln. Detailed Description Project 24 is an 8 -inch sewer line along Crooked Ln that connects to an existing 8 -inch sewer line at Kimball Ave. Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin S -01 along Crooked Ln. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pie 1800 LF $48.00 86,400 2 48" Diameter Manhole 5 EA $5,000.00 25,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENG /SURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: PROJECT • $111,400 $22,280 $133,680 $16,050 $149,730 8 -inch Sanitary Seaver line in Northwest Basin N -17. Detailed Description Project 25 consists of 8 -inch sewer lines along TW King Rd and Bob Jones Rd connecting to the Crown Ridge Lift Station Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to future growth along TW King Rd and to septic users in northwest Basin N -17 along Westpark Circle ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 5100 LF $48.00 244,800 2 48" Diameter Manhole 12 EA $5,040.00 60,000 3 20" Boring and Casing 150 LF $300.00 45,000 SUBTOTAL: $349,800 CONTINGENCY 20% $69,960, SUBTOTAL: $419,760 ENG7SURVEY 12% $50.380 SUBTOTAL: $470,140 PR OJECT • '0 Construction Pro Number • Project Description 8 -ki c l Sanitary Seaver line in Basin N -17 northeast of White Chapel Blvd and Bob Jones Rd Detailed Description Project 26 consists of 8 -inch sewer lines along White Chapel Blvd, Bob Jones Rd, Sam Bass Ridge, Soda Ridge and Saddle Ridge that connect to an existing 8 -inch sewer line at King Ranch and White Chapel Blvd. Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to future growth and existing septic users in basin N -17. ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 8" Pipe 9300 LF 1 $48.00 446,400 2 48" Diameter Manhole 20 EA $5,000.00 100,000 3 217 'Boring and Casing 300 LF $300.00 90,000 SUBTOTAL: $636,400 CONTINGENCY 20% $127,280 SUBTOTAL: $763,680 ENG7SURVEY 12% $91,650 SUBTOTAL: $855,330 MELT. 1 $855.330 Construction P Numbe j Descri tion Proect } Detailed Description Project 27 is the Oakwood Estates Lift Station and Force Main by Lake Grapevine; the 6 -inch force main would run along Bob Jones Rd into the proposed 8" sewer line along Bob Jones Rd (Project 26) Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to septic users in Basin N -17 who are not able to gravity flow to the existing City sewer system DESCRIPTION ITEM • 1 0.1 MGD Lift Station 1 EA $200,000.00 200,000 2 6" Force Main 4000 LF $36.00 144,000 $5,000.00 90,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGISURVEY 12% SUBTOTAL: $344,000 $68,800 $412,800'' $49,540 $462,340 Construction Pro Number Project Description 8 -inch Sa'.Itary Sewer lire in Northeast Basin N Detailed Description Project 28 consists of 8 -inch sewer lines along Brooks Ct, Homestead Dr and E. Bob Jones Rd that flow into the proposed Oakwood Estates Lift Station (Project 27) Purpose The proposed 8 -inch sewer lines will provide sewer service to existing septic users in basin N -17 who are not able to gravity flow to the existing City sewer system. DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY 1 8" Pie 8500 LF $48.00 408,000 2 48" Diameter Manhole 18 EA $5,000.00 90,000 SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY 20% SUBTOTAL: ENGSURVEY 12°! SUBTOTAL: PROJECT • TOTAL CIP $498,000 $99.600 $597,600 $71.720 $669,320 Q1 SOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT CASE NO. PROJECT NAME SPIN DISTRICT: MEETING DATE: MEETING LOCATION: Ordinance No. 1034 Waste Water Master Plan Citywide May 21, 2012; 6:00 PM 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX Training Rooms 3A — 3B TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Nine (9) • SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: Ron Evans, SPIN 10 • CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Derek Cheatham; Neel — Schaffer, Cheatham & Associates • STAFF PRESENT: Bob Price, Director of Public Works and Matt Jones, Planner I STAFF CONTACT: Lorrie Fletcher, Planner I, (817)748 -8069; Ifletcher @ci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Details The Southlake 2030 Water, Waste Water & Storm Water Committee has finished its work on the waste water element of this plan and has made the recommendation that City Council consider approval of the three elements (1: water; 2: waste water and 3: storm water) separately. As such the waste water element has been completed and is ready for formal approval. Adopting the plan in FY 2012 provides staff and City Council the ability to use the plan as a guide for funding recommendations for FY 2013. The analysis included flow modeling, model development, wastewater flows, model calibration, system capacity analysis, and a wastewater capital improvements plan (CIP) analysis. QUESTIONS / CONCERNS Does the proposed plan effect the current construction on FM 1709? o No, the construction will take place to the north of FM 1709 How much of the project will be along Kimball Ave? o None of this project will be along Kimball Ave., however there is sewer being constructed along Kimball Ave. in conjunction with the Kimball Ave. Project • How will lift stations be utilized for future development? o Typically lift stations are developer driven and are associated with development projects SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council.