1980 05-19ITEM:
AGENDA
Meridian City Council
May 19, 1980
Minutes of previous meeting were approved as read.
1. Veterans of Foreign Wars - May 26th, 11:00 a.m. - Memorial
Day Services.
2. First Church of Christ Concept Plan - Approved.
3. Sanitary Service Ordinance #370 - Approved.
4. Auditor Statement and Acceptance - Ernst & Whinney - Approved
Audit for fiscal year 10-1-78 to 9-30-79.
5. J -U -B Addendum #3- Approved
Motion that the city engineer be instructed to submit the time
request extension of reimbursement for formal approval of the
State of Idaho and the EPA and that if all the reimbursable
request is eligible. Approved.
Motion that Gary Smith be retained as city engineer onthe payroll.
Approved.
6. Department Reports- None.
7. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives - Boise Southwest
Community.
Meridian Citv Hall
Agenda
1
Agenda
2
Agenda
3
19. 1980
Meeting called to order by president of council, Richard Williams at 7:43 p.m.
Councilmen present: Grant Kingsford, Bill Brewer, Rick Orton Jr.
Others attending: Roger Sherwin, M. C. Tadlock, Grant Adams, Wyeth Nelson
Schweers, Floyd F. Reichert, James Kidd, Steve Hiatt,
Elwood Remison, Bob Minter, Roger Welker, Bruce Stuart,
Earl Ward, Ray Sotero, Sumner M. Johnson, Donna Day,
Steve Gratton, Gary Smith, Sheldon Gerber.
Minutes of previous meeting,approved as read.
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Veterans M. C. Tadlock, WWI, Grant Adams, VFW Post 1,000, Wyeth N. Schweers,
Officer of the Day, Floyd F. Reichert, American Legion Post 113 and James Kidd,
Post 113.
Schweers was spokesman for the Veterans. He addressed the council and introduced
commanders present. Schweers read an impressive article "I am your Flag" to
commemorate Memorial Day. He extended an invitation to attend services at the
Meridian Cemetary for our fallen comrades.
Williams proclaimed May 26th,11:00 a.m. for Memorial Day services.
First Church of Christ Concept Plan
Mike Anderson presented the concept plan of the church to be adjacent to the
east of Stucker's Bethaven Subdivision, W. Cherry Lane.
There were no objections from department heads. Letter of fire chief on file
with these minutes.
Engineer Smith stated that there will be a street from Bethaven that could exit
out from church property, water is available from Cherry Lane, and sewer line
comes down and enters line coming out of Bethaven.
Drainage pond was discussed and Anderson stated the dry pond was to be moved
over to the west in Bethaven.
Councilman Orton abstained from any action.
The Motion was made by Kingsford and seconded by Brewer that the First Church
of Christ Concept Plan be approved on W. Cherry Lane, Stucker Annexation.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, abstain.
Sanitary Service Ordinance
President of council Richard Williams read Ordinance #370 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED SANITARY SERVICE SYSTEM OF THE
REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BY THE
DELETION THEREFROM OF TWICE PER WEEK COLLECTION DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS; BY
AMENDING SECTION 7-307 CHANGING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POUNDS THAT MAY BE PUT IN
EACH CONTAINER FROM 100 POUNDS TO 80 POUNDS; BY ADDING A NEW SECTION GIVING THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN THE POWER TO ADOPT RULES AND REGULATIONS BY
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO SANITARY SERVICE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SETTING
OF FEES FOR COLLECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES.
The Motion was made by Kingsford and seconded by Orton that the rules and provisions
of 50-9002 and all rules and provisions requiring that ordinances be read on three
different days, be dispensed with and that Ordinance Number 370, as read, be passed
and approved.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, yea.
There was discussion concerning apartment dwellings, trailer courts and vacancies
during vacation.
0 0
Meridian City Hall •2•
19. 1980
The Motion was made by Kingsford and seconded by Brewer that sanitary service
for apartments, multi -family, trailer courts, all units�be charged upon the
same basis as single family, as long as there is water connection, and that
the sanitary service commissioners - the Board of Adjustment—consist of the
sanitary service contractor, city treasurer and the sewer commissioner.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, yea.
Agenda
4 The Motion was made by Orton and seconded by Brewer that the city audit for
the fiscal year October 1, 1978 to September 30, 1979 by Ernst & Whinney be
accepted.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, yea.
Agenda
5 J -U -B Addendum #3
Sumner Johnson, J -U -B Engineers Inc., was present to explain Addendum #3,
Agreement for Engineering Services. Johnson described tabulation adjusted
by the ratio of the Department of Labor National Average Cost of Living.
(Addendum #3, Agreement on file with these minutes)
There was discussion concerning the engineering work during phases, extension
of contract.
Williams stated that the plant is not finalized out, the EPA, Corporation of
Engineers and state went through the plant and there are some corrections to be
made. He personally felt no funds should be released to DVY Construction until
the plant is finalized out by EPA and Corporation of Engineers. EPA is holding
back approximately $250,000.00 until the plant is finalized and the audit is closed.
The city has no obligation to sub -contractors.
Crookston reminded the council that EPA has 10% holding, the city does not have
this holding and has paid out more. If something goes wrong and EPA does not come
through, the city is out that much more.
There was much discussion.
The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Kingsford that Addendum #3, J -U -B
Engineering Agreement, be approved in the amount of $38,906.74.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, yea.
The Motion was made by Orton and seconded by Kingsford that the city engineer
be instructed to submit the time request extension of reimbursement for formal
approval of the State of Idaho and Environmental Protection Agency and that if
all the reimbursable request is eligible.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, yea.
Williams stated that after that submittal information is received, then the council
and J -U -B Engineers must ascertain the finalizing out DVY.
The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Kingsford that Gary Smith be
retained as city engineer on the payroll.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, yea.
The Motion was made by Brewer and seconded by Kingsford to transfer funds to
the construction account in the amount of $38,906.74.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, yea.
Agenda --
6 Department reports: There were none.
Agenda
7 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives
Bob Minter, Ada Planning Association, presented maps and alternatives selected for
further consideration on collecting sever in the Boise Southwest Community. All
material on file with these minutes.
0 0
Meridian City Hall .3. May 19, 1980
Minter made a closing statement that the final report is being submitted to
EPA, has been submitted to the EPA consultant doing the Ada County Environmental
Imact Statement who is analyzing the area - wide impacts of their final three
(3� alternatives, including the "no project".
Minter stated that they (APA) cannot make an alternative selection until after a
public hearing which will be after October 1, 1980 because of the time frame.
During the four month wait, they will be doing phase II of their rural element
of wastewater management policy.
Sheldon Gerber, APA, stated that the Ada County Commissioners ask that the City
of Meridian voice their concerns at the public work shops and public hearings.
The Motion was made by Kingsford and seconded by Brewer that the meeting be
adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Motion Carried: Kingsford, yea, Brewer, yea, Orton, yea.
r i ent council
Cit Clerk
AMBROSE,
FnGERALD,
CROOKSTON
6 McLAM
Attm eye uW
Couneslwe
P.O. Bow 427
Mwt81en, 14
&3542
TetepNone8184481
•
ORDINANCE. NO. /
11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED SANITARY
SERVICE SYSTEM OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BY THE DELETION THEREFROM
OF TWICE PER WEEK COLLECTION DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS; BY
AMENDING SECTION 7-307 CHANGING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POUNDS
THAT MAY BE PUT IN EACH CONTAINER FROM 100 POUNDS TO 80 POUNDS;
BY ADDING A NEW SECTION GIVING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MERIDIAN THE POWER TO ADOPT RULES AND REGULATIONS BY RESO-
LUTION PERTAINING TO SANITARY SERVICE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO THE SETTING OF FEES FOR COLLECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR
PENALTIES.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of
said City to amend Title 7, Chapter 3, by amending the same by
deletion therefrom of twice per week collection during the summer
months; by changing the maximum number of pounds that may be
put in each container from 100 pounds to 80 pounds; by adding a
new section giving the City Council the power to adopt rules and
regulations by resolution pertaining to sanitary service including
but not limited to the setting of fees for collection; and by
providing for penalties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO,
Section 1. That Section 7-308 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
7-308 COLLECTION PERIOD: Collections shall collect rubbish
and garbage from each customer of such collector at
least once each week, or as provided by the rules and regulations
of the Council as allowed in Section 7-308A.
Section 2. That Section 7-308A is hereby enacted to read as
follows:
7-308A RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: The
City Council of the City of Pleridian is hereby
granted the authority to adopt rules and regulations pertaining to
the Sanitary Service System, including but not limited to the
setting of fees and rates and the City Council is hereby authorized
to appoint a Board of Adjustment consisting of the Sanitary Service
t
t
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD,
CROOKSTON
& McLAM
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Boz 427
Meridien, Idaho
S3M2
Telephone 81 I
E
System Commissioners, the Sanitary Service System Contractor and
the City Treasurer; the Board of Adjustment shall have the duty
to propose rules and regulations and in certain situations adjust
rates, service and fees as necessary.
Section 3. That Section 7-307 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
7-307 REFUSE CONTAINERS: It shall be the duty of
every owner or occupant of any place where garbagei
or rubbish is created or accumulated to at all times keep or
cause to be kept portable appurtenances consisting of metal
or other approved type of container for the deposit therein of
rubbish and garbage, and except as otherwise provided, to deposit
or cause to be deposited all rubbish and garbage therein. All
garbage shall, before deposit in such can, be wrapped in paper or
other material so as to prevent the escape of liquids therefrom.
All such containers shall be watertight, not easily corrodible,
rodent, and flyproof, and shall be equipped with handles and a
close fitting lid. Such containers shall not be less than twenty
(20) gallons capacity or more than thirty-two(32) gallons capacity,
and limited to eighty pounds (80#) in weight. The containers shall)
not be less than twenty-eight (28) gauge metal or the equivalent,
and be hot -dipped after fabrication to insure non -leaking cans or
a can that is guaranteed by the manufacturer, and also labelled,
to be leakproof regardless of manufacturing processes. Suchlid
shall not be removed except when necessary to place garbage and
rubbish in such container or to take the same therefrom. Whenever
garbage or rubbish is placed therein or taken therefrom such lid
shall be replaced by the person placing or taking therefrom such
garbage or rubbish. Such containers shall be kept in sanitary
condition, with the inside and outside thereof washed at such times'
as to keep the same free and clean of all accumulating grease and
decomposing material and so that no odor nuisance shall exist.
All garbage or refuse cans shall be kept in a place accessible to
the collector provided that in the case of isolated dwellings or
places of business or where reasonable access cannot be had by a
truck, the cans may be kept in such places as may be agreed by the
owner and collector, or at such place as may be designated by the
inspector; provided further, that whereas there is no alley
entrance, such cans shall be placed on the street curb on collectioT(
day.
Section 4. That Section 717A is hereby enacted to read as
follows:
717A: - PENALTIES: The violation of any of the
provisions of this chapter or the rules and
regulations adopted hereunder shall be a misdemeanor punishable
by fine and/or imprisonment of up to $300.00 and/or 3 months in
jail.
Section 5. WHEREAS, there is an emergency therefor, which
emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in
force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publica-
tion as required by law.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD,
CROOKSTON
BMUAM
Attomeya and
Counaal0M
P.O. Box 427 j
MMldlan, Idaho
89842
Talephona8881461
0 0
PASSED this lay of May, 1980 by the City Council and
approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada Coun+l-y, Idaho.
APPROVED:
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) ss.
County of Ada, )
I, LaWANA L. NIEMANN, City Clerk of the City of Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled
"AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED SANITARY
SERVICE SYSTEM OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINMICES OF THE CITY 0
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BY THE DELETION THEREFROM OF TWICE
PER WEEK COLLECTIONS DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS: BY AMENDING SECTION
7-307 CHANGING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POUNDS THAT MAY BE PUT IN EACH
CONTAINER FROM 100 POUNDS TO 80 POUNDS; BY ADDING A NEW SECTION
GIVING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN THE POWER TO ADOPT
RULES AND REGULATIONS BY RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO SANITARY SERVICE
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SET_ING OF FEES FOR COLLECTIONS:
AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES," passed as Ordinance No.,�� by the
City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the 73? day of
May, 1980, as the same appears in o ficee
y Clerk of thety'of Meridian
Ada County, Idaho
STATE OF IDAHO,
ss.
County of Ada,
On this (q day of May, 1980, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared LaWANA L.
NIEMANN, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that
she executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above
written.
( SEAL)
Notary Public fo Idaho
Residing at _Meridian, Idaho
• HUE OF TREASURE VALLFY •
A Good Place to Live
May 15, 1980
Mayor and Council
City of Meridian
Re: First Church of Christ Preliminary Plat
COUNCILMEN
RICHARD C. WILLIAMS
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
BILL BREWER
RICHARD F. ORTON, JR.
DONALD L SHARP
Chalrman Zoning S Planning
The Meridian Fire Dept, Will. require tt:at the 3ast road to be at least
a minimum of 40' oxide. The west road - a minimtum of 321 wide. Two fire
hydrants to be installed - one in front and one in back, spoted by fire
dept,. All building to be done tc all City codes. "It
Roj" LI 6tielker
Fi e Chief
Ow ���
CITY OF MERIDIAN
LAWANA L. NEMANIN`City Clerk.
A, M. KIEBERT, Treeeurer
728 Meridian Street
ROGER SHERWIN, Chief of Police
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
JOHN O. FITZGERALD, Attorney
83842
ROO ER WELKER, Fire Chief
Phone 888-4433
EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt.
JOSEPH L. GLAISYER
Mayor
May 15, 1980
Mayor and Council
City of Meridian
Re: First Church of Christ Preliminary Plat
COUNCILMEN
RICHARD C. WILLIAMS
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
BILL BREWER
RICHARD F. ORTON, JR.
DONALD L SHARP
Chalrman Zoning S Planning
The Meridian Fire Dept, Will. require tt:at the 3ast road to be at least
a minimum of 40' oxide. The west road - a minimtum of 321 wide. Two fire
hydrants to be installed - one in front and one in back, spoted by fire
dept,. All building to be done tc all City codes. "It
Roj" LI 6tielker
Fi e Chief
Ow ���
T
ADDENDUM NO. 3
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
APRIL, 1980
This Addendum No. 3 dated this day of 1980, is
hereby r:_tached to and made part of the Agreement for Engineering Services
between the City of Meridian, Idaho and J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc., Nampa, Idaho as
entered into on July 8, 1976.
1. In accordance with Section 3, the lump sum amounts, as shown in
Schedule 2 - Tabulation of Engineering Service and Payment Schedule, shall be
adjusted by the ratio of the Department of Labor National Average Cost of
Living Index if authorization by the OWNER was not prior to February 1, 1977
for Section 2-E. Authorization for Section 2-E and all other subsequent
payment items was October 3, 1977.
The adjustment for Section 2-E: "Services During Con-
struction Phase"
Cost of Living Ratio = 184.0 (September) 1.038961
177.1 (February)
Total Cost for Engineering
Services = $197,925.70 x 1.038961 = $205,637.08
Additional Costs for Engineering
Services (Section 2-E) = $205,637.08 - $197,925.70 =
The adjustment for Section 2-F: "Services During the
Operation Phase"
Total Cost for Engineering
Services = $20,100.72 x 1.038961 = $ 20,883.86
Additional Cost for Engineering
Services (Section 2-F) = $20,883.86 - $20,100.72 =
The ad9ustment for Section 2-G: "Services During Follow -Up
and Contractor Warranty
Phase"
Total Cost for Engineering
Services = $3,323.60 x 1.038961 = $ 3,453.15
Additional Cost for Engineering
Services (Section 2-G) = $3,453.15 - $3,323.66 =
Total Additional Costs for Engineering
Services (Sections 2-E, 2-F and 2-G) _
$ 7,711.38
$ 783.14
$ 129.49
$ 8,624.01
E
►.J
2. In accordance with Section 2-H, Paragraph 9, the OWNER hereby ratifies
previous authorization to continue to provide on-site resident inspection and
construction field staking after the construction contract time had been
exceeded or extended for construction of the Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Project, said services were complete for a cost of $30,282.73.
It is hereby mutually agreed that the above services have been or are
hereby authorized in accordance with terms of current engineering agreement
and are to be time provided by the ENGINEER and paid for by the OWNER in
accordance with the terms of the said current engineering agreement dated
July 8, 1976.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed
by the duly authorized officials this addendum this day of
, 1980.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
By
Type Name LaWana L. Niemann
OWNER: CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO
By
Type Name Joseph L. Glaisyer
Title Mavor
Title City Clerk Date
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Type Name Arlin Broske
Title Secretary -Treasurer
ENGINEER: J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc.
By
Type Name Sumner M. Johnson
Title President
Date
E
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE NO.
Introduction 1
Interceptor Sewer System 4
Treatment at West Boise Plant 6
Southwest Treatment and Land Disposal B
Community Lagoons and Land Disposal 10
"No Project" 12
Interim Wastewater Management Alternatives 14
Wastewater Management Systems Outside 20 -Year Service Area 16
9 0
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL
The intent of this introduction is to provide the reader with background on
the status of the Southwest Community Wastewater Management Study. It defines
the progress of the Study from its initial beginnings, to the present stage of
completion. The Southwest Community study area is shown on the following map.
The Study was authorized by the Ada Planning Association Board in order to
evaluate the impacts of recent intense development of the Southwest Community
area. The study area population rose to approximately 14,000 people in 1979
from a population of 2,000 in 1970. Individual septic tank/drainfield systems
provided wastewater treatment for nearly all of the development. This was a
cause for concern from the standpoint of groundwater protection, since some
monitoring wells experienced an increase in nitrate levels in recent years.
In addition to the groundwater protection issue, providing other adequate
public services in the Southwest Community was also in question.
As a result, the Board of Ada County Commissioners passed a moratorium in 1978
on additional platting in the Southwest Community. Prior to termination of
the moratorium, the Commissioners adopted the Southwest Interim Development
District Ordinance (SWIDD) in February, 1979, as a guide for additional South-
west development. The ordinance is currently scheduled to terminate in
August, 1980. SWIDD was intended to provide for growth management until a
Comprehensive Plan is adopted for the Southwest Community. This Southwest
Community Wastewater Management Study will become an element of the overall
Southwest Community Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT
In order to adequately evaluate wastewater management alternatives and impacts
of those alternatives, a series of Study tasks were completed to provide
background data for the evaluations. The most important of those tasks were:
• Determination of wastewater effluent limitations for the potential
discharge of treated wastewater to available receiving streams in
the Southwest area (Five Mile Creek, Eight Mile Creek, New York
Canal and other canals).
• Review of effluent limitations for existing wastewater treatment
facilities (Meridian and Boise) to determine the feasibility of
existing wastewater treatment plants providing treatment for the
Southwest.
• Defining the "current situation" with respect to existing land use;
population levels; existing individual, community and central waste-
water treatment facilities in the Southwest; and environmental
(soils, climatology, surface water and groundwater, air quality,
etc.) and socio-economic (other public services and facilities
needs, community attitudes, etc.) conditions.
1
9 0
• Determination of existing wastewater loadings in total for the
Southwest and on a per -capita basis.
The above tasks laid the groundwork for defining the "future conditions" with
respect to alternative land use and wastewater management planning.
PRE-SCREENING OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Initially, a total of 39 wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives were
considered in development of the Southwest Community Wastewater Management
Plan. The alternatives were evaluated at both a 2 unit/acre and a 4 unit/acre
infill density within the study area. Through a process of pre-screening
using a "preliminary cut matrix," the full range of alternatives was reduced
to ten, which after preliminary analysis, appeared to be the most financially
and technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and implementable waste-
water management options for the study area.
Upon selection of the ten alternatives for further consideration, a public
workshop was held in the Southwest to gain input on alternatives and future
density levels from area residents. Options for major trunk and interceptor
sewer lines were also discussed at the public workshop.
DENSITY DECISION
The option of a high density level infill (4 units/acre) was selected by the
Board of Ada County Commissioners as the basis for future land use and waste-
water management planning. In general, the density decision and initial
service area adopted for the study effort provided for the following:
• Infill at a 4 unit/acre level in a 1120 -year service area" which is
generally north of Amity Road
• Infill at a density level of 1 unit/5 acres in the area which is
generally south of Amity Road during the 20 -year planning period.
• A year 2000 population of approximately 22,700 within the "20 -year
service area;" and a total Southwest Community study area population
of approximately 29,400 at year 2000.
A map showing the details of the above infill density decision and proposed
land use plan is presented on Figure 8 (following page 12) of this summary.
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES SELECTION
Based upon the pre-screening analysis, evaluation of the ten alternatives, and
public input; the following alternatives were selected for detailed evalua-
tion:
• Central wastewater collection system and treatment at the West Boise
Treatment Plant
• Central wastewater collection and treatment at a Southwest Community
wastewater treatment plant with land disposal of effluent
2
• Wastewater collection and treatment at community lagoons with land
disposal of effluent at separate sites or a common site
• A "no -project" option
As part of the evaluation of alternatives, an environmental assessment was
prepared for each of the four major wastewater management options. Addition-
ally, interim wastewater management options to serve the 20 -year service area
prior to the implementation of the selected alternative were addressed, as
well as wastewater management alternatives for areas outside the 20 -year
service area (both new and existing residential development).
INTERCEPTOR SEWER PLANNING
Three alternatives for alignments of interceptor sewers were evaluated includ-
ing a "Cloverdale system" a "Five -Mile system" and an "Eight -Mile Creek sys-
tem."
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DECISION
With input provided at public workshops and meetings with affected agencies
and public bodies, one wastewater management plan and one interceptor sewer
system alternative will be selected for the Southwest Community. This waste-
water management plan will become part of the overall Southwest Community Com-
prehensive Plan.
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The complete detailed evaluation of alternatives including the four wastewater
management alternatives cited above, environmental assessments, interim waste-
water management alternatives, wastewater management systems outside the
20 -year service area, and interceptor sewer alternatives is available from the
Ada Planning Association, 650 Main Street, Boise (phone 344-7600, extension
286).
This report is a summary of the above detailed evaluation. A table showing
anticipated per lot costs for the various alternatives is at the end of this
summary.
.r3
INTERCEPTOR SEWER SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
The interceptor sewer system was planned for an ultimate Southwest study area
population of approximately 73,000 and complete development of industrial and
commercial property within the study area. The Owyhee Sewer District was also
anticipated to be connected to the interceptor system, although not within the
next 20 years. The system was sized to accommodate connection of all existing
Southwest Community residents.
ALTERNATIVE INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENTS
Three alternative interceptor routes were evaluated on a preliminary basis for
the major interceptor line serving the southwestern two-thirds of the study
area: a "Cloverdale Road" route, a "Five Mile Road" route, and an "Eight dile
Creek" route. The "Eight Mile Creek," route is shown on Figure 2. A number
of disadvantages are associated with the "Cloverdale Road" and "Five Mile
Road" routes. These are summarized below:
Cloverdale Road Route
• Potential development pressures west of Cloverdale Road because of a
major trunk sewer availability
• Higher costs due to street surface restoration
• Higher costs because nearly all of the "Eight Mile Creek" system
would have to be constructed anyway, although line sizes would be
smaller in some cases.
Five Mile Road Route
• Higher costs because of street surface restoration and the addition
of at least four pumping stations
• As with the "Cloverdale Road" alternative, much of the "Eight Mile
Creek" system would have to be built in addition to the "Five Mile"
system in order to serve much of the Southwest
Conversely, the "Eight Mile Creek" alternative has significant advantages over
the other systems:
• The only sewerlines in Cloverdale Road are small collection lines
which would be sized and constructed at a depth to only serve small
areas east of Cloverdale Road.
• Lowest construction costs because of the elimination of street
restoration on major arterials.
• Best "serviceability" because all trunk lines are located along the
lowest points in drainage areas. Consequently the interceptor
system can in some locations serve a dual role of a collection and
interceptor sewer.
4
�
�
!
§
®Lu
77
!
/
\
§%
mm
-%
�k
>E)f
k
}
\§§
[
§)
! a
( / /
a §
\
!
§)
\\
2
\�
D
w \
�}
_
, =
u�
)
a
0 0
Lower overall cost of interceptor system because of fewer large
lines required to serve the Southwest.
INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM COSTS
The estimated total project cost (February, 1980 dollars) for the Eight Mile
Creek interceptor system is $10.6 million. This cost includes all the inter-
ceptors shown and the pumping stations. In order to determine a cost per
residential lot, it was necessary to make an assumption as to the financial
contribution from industrial/commercial land uses. Interceptor sizing was
determined without the industrial wastewater contribution and the cost differ-
ential established. This difference was approximately $0.7 million, leaving
$9.9 million for the remainder of the system needed to serve residential
development. Based on the ultimate study area population of 73,000 people
(24,333 lots), the interceptor system cost is an average of $407 per residen-
tial lot.
COLLECTION SYSTEM COSTS
In addition to interceptor sewer system costs, there would be sewer service
and collection line costs. The $407 per lot interceptor sewer costs would be
in addition to the costs for collection lines. The costs shown below indicate
realistic maximum costs to be anticipated for sewer service and collection
lines and could be significantly less in many cases.
EXISTING NEW
DENSITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
One unit/acre $5,365 $4,130
Two units/acre $3,770 $2,850
Four units/acre $1,825 $1,395
0 0
TREATMENT AT WEST BOISE PLANT
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Central wastewater collection would be provided within the Southwest Com-
munity, with the wastewater piped to the West Boise Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Expansion of the plant would be provided by Boise City and financed by
the Southwest.
WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION
• Transport Southwest wastewater via interceptor sewer system to
northwest corner of study area at Overland and Cloverdale Roads
• Future construction of seven miles of 30 to 42 -inch diameter trans-
mission line from Overland and Cloverdale to the West Boise Plant
(sized for ultimate Southwest population of 73,000 and 14.5 million
gallons per day [mgd] peak wastewater flow)
• Alternatives for transporting wastewater from Overland and Clover-
dale to north of Interstate 80-N:
- gravity line west of study area
- pumping station and force main north from study area
(initially sized for 20 -year peak wastewater flows of 6.0
mgd)
• See following Figure 3 for wastewater transmission alternative
rates.
• On an interim basis, discharge wastewater to existing and proposed
West Boise interceptors as shown on Figure 3.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
• Boise City currently conducting a study to determine expansion
requirements, timing and costs of providing Southwest Community
wastewater treatment at the West Boise Plant
COSTS
WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION
• Gravity alternative - $6.8 million capital costs plus $18,000 per
year operation and maintenance (0&M) costs
• Pumping station/force main alternative - $6.7 million capital costs
plus $37,000 per year 00 costs
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
• Costs based on 20 -year average and peak design flows of 3.3 and 6.0
mgd, respectively
• Cost based on preliminary determination of 20 -year West Boise Plant
expansion requirements attributed to the Southwest wastewater
flows - $2.8 million capital costs plus $160,000 per year 0&M costs
• Costs based on existing Boise City connection fee policy - $1.7
million capital costs plus $434,000 per year 0&M and replacement
costs
R1
0
0
0 0
• Costs could be less after completion of current Boise City study of
West Boise Plant expansion requirements because more accurate South-
west 20 -year average design flow of 2.5 mgd is being utilized
TOTAL TREATMENT AND TRANSMISSION
• Capital - $9.6 million; ($6.8 million gravity transmission plus $2.8
million treatment)
• 0&M and replacement - $452,000 per year; ($18,000 gravity trans-
mission plus $434,000 treatment)
PER RESIDENTIAL LOT
After deduction of the industrial/commercial share of the costs, the per lot
costs are as follows:
Treatment and Transmission - $596
Operation and Maintenance - $39/year
Transmission line costs were apportioned to ultimate study area population of
73,000.
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Institutional alternatives available for implementing the West Boise option
are:
• Annexation to Boise City
• Development of a Southwest Community Sewer District and contract
with Boise City for wastewater treatment
• Combination of sewer district formation and annexation
• County sponsored program
IMPACTS
The major impacts associated with the West Boise Treatment Plant alternative
are:
• Positive groundwater quality protection in the Southwest Community
area and down -gradient areas.
• Potential for a decline in the shallow groundwater table with the
conversion from agricultural to residential development.
• Construction of a major wastewater transmission facility through a
populated area outside the Southwest study area.
7
0 0
SOUTHWEST TREATMENT AND LAND DISPOSAL
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Central wastewater collection would be provided within the Southwest Commun-
ity, with wastewater treatment provided by a Southwest owned treatment facil-
ity. Wastewater disposal would be via land disposal. Alternative treatment
plant and land disposal sites are as shown on the following Figure 4.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
• Alternative types of wastewater treatment facilities evaluated in-
clude primary treatment, an oxidation ditch activated sludge plant
and an aerated lagoon facility
• Alternatives were evaluated with average and peak wastewater flows
of 3.3 and 6.0 mgd, respectively
WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION
• Depending on the location of the treatment plant, wastewater trans-
mission could consist of any of the following alternatives as shown
on Figure 4:
- pumping of raw wastewater from Cloverdale and Overland to
a treatment plant and land disposal site southeast of
study area
- pumping of treated wastewater effluent from a treatment
plant site at Overland and Cloverdale to a land disposal
site southeast of the study area
- pumping of raw wastewater from Cloverdale and Overland to
a treatment plant site at a central location within the
study area, and pumping of treated wastewater effluent
from the plant to a land disposal site southeast of the
study site
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
Wastewater disposal would be via irrigation of farmland southeast of the study
area with wastewater and nutrients applied being matched with crop uptake
rates. Alternatives considered for land disposal included:
• Sale of effluent to local farmers for irrigation of their own crop-
land
• Southwest purchase of farmland and development and operation of
irrigation system and farming enterprise
• Disposal on publicly owned lands
WASTEWATER STORAGE
Wastewater storage would be provided during the non -irrigation season with
wastewater to be utilized during the following irrigation season.
M
v
L
f
0
b n'
6 6
6 ~~
X;
� F4
�O
2 W
115
I ti
b
rWr
�A
�
W W
JN
p�g W
�
m
N
N
W
i
H
y i
J F
Otl )1)013M11
q l
b n'
6 6
6 ~~
X;
� F4
�O
2 W
115
�
I ti
FI
W
rWr
�A
�
W W
p�g W
�
�
q
W�
W
i
�
m
�
W W
Wj
6
W
Otl )1)013M11
E
mF
n�WW
COSTS
Capital, land and 0&M costs were developed for the alternative transmission,
treatment and disposal systems as shown on Figure 4. From the standpoint of
costs, the alternative of a transmission line from a raw wastewater pumping
station at Overland and Cloverdale to a treatment plant (oxidation ditch) at
Cloverdale and Amity, with pumping of treated wastewater effluent to a land
disposal site southeast of the study area was selected as the best system.
The capital costs were the lowest of the alternatives and 0&M costs were at
the mid-range of costs of the alternatives evaluated. Total capital and land
costs were estimated at $18.44 million with annual 0&M costs of $399,000 for
the alternative.
PER RESIDENTIAL LOT COSTS
After deduction of the industrial/commercial share of total costs, the per lot
costs (based on the 20 -year service area population of 22,700) are as follows:
Treatment and Transmission - $1632
Operation and Maintenance - $35/year
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
The most feasible arrangement for the Southwest to provide its own wastewater
treatment facilities is through formation of a sewer district. At least three
options are available for an operation and maintenance program for this al-
ternative:
• A new Southwest operating entity with its own staff and equipment
• Boise City operation and maintenance; through annexation or service
contract agreement
• 0&M services contract with a private firm
IMPACTS
The major impacts associated with the Southwest Treatment and Land Disposal
alternative are:
• Positive groundwater quality protection in the Southwest Community
area and down -gradient areas
• Potential for a decline in the shallow groundwater table with the
conversion from agricultural to residential development
• Utilization of wastewater as a resource (as irrigation water for
crops and for its nutrient content; phosphorus, potassium and nitro-
gen)
E
0 0
COMMUNITY LAGOONS AND LAND DISPOSAL
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
This alternative consists of community aerated lagoons with separate land
disposal sites or a common land disposal site for irrigation of cropland with
the treated wastewater effluent.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Three basic options were evaluated:
• Development of an overall community lagoon system with separate land
disposal sites for ultimate development of the Southwest. This plan
is shown on Figure 5. Only that part of the system needed to serve
the 20 -year service area and wastewater flows would be developed to
the year 2000.
• Development of a community lagoon system with separate land disposal
sites for he 20 -year service area and wastewater flows only, and
independent of future systems for the remainder of the Southwest.
• Development of an overall community lagoon system with a common land
disposal site for ultimate development of the Southwest. Only that
part of the system needed to serve the 20 -year service area and
wastewater flows would be developed to the year 2000.
WASTEWATER INTERCEPTORS AND TRANSMISSION
A separate interceptor system was developed for each community lagoon site.
Treated wastewater effluent transmission lines to the land disposal sites were
also planned.
COSTS
Costs were developed only for the most feasible and apparent least costly
alternative, i.e., the first phase of the ultimate community lagoon and sep-
arate land disposal site system for the 20 -year service area (Figure 5).
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND LAND DISPOSAL
Total capital and land cost for the alternative is approximately $13.7
million. Utilization of effluent by local farmers was assumed, so no costs
for development of an irrigation system/farming operation were inclueded.
INTERCEPTORS
The total interceptor sewer system cost (including raw wastewater pumping
stations) for ultimate development is $9.5 million.
10
0
0
_z
3
3
00
2
2
2
N
N
3
O
O
W
W
W
u
u
a
2
Q
Q
Q
V
N
N
�a
R
O
W
V
N
2
2
=
N
=
a
>
>
3
3
a w
a
n
z
w
rc
F
2
f
O
N
W
3
ti
Z
W
Y
N
2
N
V
3
O
O
O
O
W O
W
w
a
a
o
a
LL a
z
ilf
�
O
F
N
�
2
0
0 0
PER RESIDENTIAL LOT COSTS
After deduction of the industrial/commercial share of the total costs, the per
lot costs are as follows:
Treatment and Transmission - $1,410
Operation and Maintenance - $29
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives available include:
• Formation of a new Southwest Community Sewer District which would
include the Owyhee Sewer District
• Formation of a new Southwest Community Sewer District that would
operate independent of the existing Owyhee Sewer District
• Expansion of the Owyhee Sewer District to include the entire South-
west. Community
• Annexation to Boise City with Boise operation and maintenance
• Contract with Boise City for operation and maintenance of system
IMPACTS
The major impacts associated with the Community Lagoon and Land Disposal
Alternative are:
• Positive groundwater quality protection in the Southwest Community
area and down -gradient areas unless nutrient and effluent irrigation
loading is higher than crop nutrient uptake and consumptive .aater
use
• Potential for a decline in the shallow groundwater table wits the
conversion from agricultural to residential development
• Utilization of wastewater as a resouce
• Potential localized odor problems near the lagoons and land disposal
areas
• Potential negative public reaction to the construction of lagoon/
land disposal sites within or adjacent to predominantly residential
areas
• Utilization of potential future school and other public use sites
for lagoons or land disposal
11
9 0
"NO -PROJECT"
CONCEPT
The no -project alternative does not constitute a "no -growth" situation for the
Southwest. Rather it would allow for continued development under current land
use and wastewater management policies and regulations for the area. At this
time, those control measures consist of the Southwest Interim Development Dis-
trict (SWIDD). The Southwest Community Comprehensive Plan is also scheduled
for adoption by August, 1980. The Southwest Plan will be an amendment to the
Ada County Comprehensive Plan.
SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed Southwest Community Comprehensive Plan land use map is shown on
Figure 8. The plan provides for the following:
• Areas designated as "residential" on the Southwest. Land Use Map
shall not exceed a gross desnisty of one dwelling unit per five
acres when developed with individual wastewater treatment systems;
shall not exceed a gross density of two dwelling units per acre when
developed with community wastewater treatment systems; and shall not
exceed a gross density of four dwelling units per acre when con-
nected to a municipal wastewater treatment and collection system.
• Areas designated as "rural residential/urban reserve" on the South-
west Land Use Map shall not exceed a gross density of one dwelling
unit per five acres and may be developed with individual wastewater
treatment system. While a gross density of one dwelling unit per
five acres shall not be exceeded during the 20 -year planninq period
in the areas designated as "rural residential/ urban reserve," this
Plan does recognize that a higher density may become feasible beyond
the year 2000.
SOUTHWEST INTERIM DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The Southwest Interim Development District (SWIDD) was established to provide
an interim land use policy and wastewater management controls for the South-
west, prior to completion and adoption of the Southwest Community Wastewater
Management Plan and incorporation into the Southwest Community Comprehensive
Plan. SWIDD provides for the implementation of the Planned Development proce-
cures within the Southwest, as referenced above, and as required for any
additional development within the Southwest.
The following is a summary of SWIDD regulations with respect to land use and
wastewater management for new development under SWIDD's Planned Development
overlay zone concept for the Southwest. The regulations supersede any under-
lying zoning regulations.
• New residential developments with only on-site sanitary sewer and
water supply services (individual well and septic tank facilities or
its equivalent) shall not exceed a gross density of one unit per
five acres. Dry -line sewers shall be provided, so that such devel-
opments can possibly be serviced in the future by community or
central sanitary sewer systems.
12
K W
W z
zZ
2 W
Z W U }
p U
O R J Z Z W J` J
Q H N o o $ d w & a d
J N O S O O U F Fw W
W Q W S V 2 S 4) z> 0
fn N W J w W V
z Q _Z N W Z F -
Q Q U Z N 6 Z N~ S 2 Z F JJw J W W Q
2 j N O y o m > O Q Q U' _
2 2 N Q K m Z V' F
a 1 uO w m m w a e 3 R, ¢ W O >
z O 0
. o Ir
i o
x O
a U
• New residental developments which make use of either a community or
public sanitary sewer or water supply system shall not exceed a den-
sity of one unit per two acres. Dry -line sewers shall be provided
where appropriate, so that such developments can be possibly ser-
viced in the future by community or central sanitary sewer systems.
• New residential developments which make use of both community or
public sanitary and water supply systems shall not exceed a density
of four units per acre, except as otherwise allowed within thhis
district.
• The Performance Standards for Planned Developments, as adopted by
the Ada County Zoning Commission, shall serve as developmental
guidelines for the Southwest Interim Development District.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
The wastewater management alternatives for the no -project alternative in con-
junction with the proposed Southwest Community Comprehensive Plan and SWIDD
are defined above. A number of alternatives are available for community
wastewater treatment system, including community septic tank and soil absorp-
tion systems, community lagoon systems, and community package plants with land
disposal of effluent.
PER LOT COSTS
Individual septic tank/drainfield system - $1700
Community type systems
Project and per lot costs vary sign-
nificantly with the type of waste-
water management system proposed,
its location and size.
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
A maintenance district(s) would have to be formed for maintenance of the
individual wastewater treatment systesm if this was desirable. However, at a
density of one dwelling unit per five acres, the need for a formal maintenance
district is questionable.
A homeowner's association(s) or maintenance district(s) would be needed for
operation and maintenance of community type systems. An alternative would be
for the wastewater treatment system to remain under the ownership and opera-
tion of the developer or another third party.
IMPACTS
Major impacts to groundwater quality, air resources, etc., are difficult to
assess because of the wide range of wastewater management alternatives avail-
able. One of the most significant differences between the "no -project" al-
ternative and the other alternatives is the 20 -year population projection.
The year 2000 population for the other alternatives is 29,400 while the "no -
project" alternative is 22,400. This will result in less of an impact on
infrastructure requirements (transportation, schools, fire and police pro-
tection, etc.).
13
0
INTERIM WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
E
It is presupposed that pressure to develop in the Southwest study area will
continue and that central or community wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities will require a number of years to plan, design and construct. It
is necessary, therefore, to formulate an interim environmentally acceptable
solution(s) to providing wastewater service that can be integrated into the
selected long term management concept.
The proposed 20 -year service area currently has over 4,300 residences on
either individual or community wastewater systems. Under the interim solu-
tions discussed, all existing development would remain on the system presently
in use. However, some areas may require the formation of a district for
maintenance purposes. Existing community systems presently providing adequate
wastewater service (i.e. Owyhee Sewer District) would be expected to expand to
their design limits but the service area would eventually be absorbed into the
Southwest system when service becomes available. This would not be until
after the year 2000, however.
Potential interim system are summarized below. Only those systems or methods
that provide for acceptable levels of treatment and complete disposal are
discussed.
COMMUNITY SEPTIC TANK AND SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEMS
Under this alternative, groups of houses (and commercial establishments) would
be connected via a collection system to a large septic tank(s) and drainfield
on a reserved parcel of land. The system would be regularly maintained by a
private septage hauling and septic tank maintenance firm on a service agree-
ment with the homeowners participating in the system. The collection system
would be laid out in such a manner that it could be connected at a single
point to a major trunk sewer or lateral when areawide service becomes avail-
able. The landowner could then develop the land reserved for wastewater
management to the allowable infill density when a central sewer system is
available.
COMMUNITY LAGOON SYSTEM -EITHER COMPLETE CONTAINMENT OR WITH LAND DISPOSAL
For larger developments, the use of temporary community lagoons for wastewater
treatment may prove to be the most efficient method of providing interim sewer
service. Due to the land area necessary for a lagoon and the desire to in-
clude a buffer zone separating residential development from the lagoon,
smaller parcels (less than 80 acres total available land), would generally be
inappropriate for this type of system. Two types of lagoon systems may be
considered in the application, a complete containment pond either aerated or
passive; or a lagoon treatment system (aerated or unaerated) followed by land
disposal.
COMMUNITY MECHANICAL PACKAGE PLANTS WITH LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT
"Package plant" is a term normally applied to self-contained mechanical treat-
ment units that are prefabricated and installed by a single manufacturer. The
14
variety of processes and applications that have been devised for these units
are almost endless with new products coming on the market constantly.
Generally, these systems should only be utilized where conditons require
extraordinary application, such as severe weather conditions, very short term
use, very limited land area, or a need to meet extremely high discharge re-
quirements.
Package plants have generally proven to be maintenance an operator intensive.
Their lack of reliability have caused most regulatory agencies to resist their
installation unless no other option is available. For the most part, the more
mechanically intensive units are designed to meet surface water discharge
requirements. Since there are no significant flowing streams in the general
vicinity of the study area, the type of treatment the majority of these units
is expected to provde is unnecessary given the earler options discussed.
COSTS
The costs for the above interim systems vary significantly with the type of
system installed, its location and size. As a result, a typical per lot cost
is difficult to determine for any given project.
15
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OUTSIDE 20 -YEAR SERVICE AREA
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
The existing developments of Fox Ridge and Fox Meadows at the southwest corner
of the study area are outside the 20 -year service area, but some type of
wastewater management system may be advisable for the developments. There is
a total of just over 1,100 lots within the area; 150 of which are one to
two -acre lots and the remaining 950 lots being one-half acre in size. All of
the lots are on individual septic drainfield systems.
SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
The County would require that a septic tank maintenance district be formed to
provide system maintenance. This could be provided at a minimum cost to the
area residents by contracting with a private septic tank pumping and servicing
company to provide a periodic inspection of each individual septic tank.
Current cost estimates for this type of service range from $55 to $65 per 1000
gallon septic tank for pumping and a $25 discharge fee at one of Boise City's
wastewater treatment plants. Assuming septic tanks would require pumping or,
the average of once every two years, the annual cost per household for such a
service would be $40 to $45.
CONNECTION TO CENTRAL OR COMMUNITY SYSTEM
The second alternative would be to connect the area into the selected central
or community wastewater management system for the 20 -year service area of the
Southwest Community. The feasibility of this would be dependent on the al-
ternative selected and the costs to the Fox Ridge and Fox Meadows areas to be
able to get into the system. This system may not be feasible without con-
structing interim facilities not needed in the ultimate Southwest wastewater
management plan. This would add more costs to the project as a whole and tc
the residents of Fox Ridge and Fox Meadows. However if a significant history
of septic tank/drainfield failures was to develop in the area, this option
should be given serious consideration.
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
Within the Rural Residential area as shown in the proposed land use plan
(Figure 8), additional development is restricted to lots of at least five
acres in size. Most existing development within the Rural Residential area is
comprised of farm homes. With the allowable one unit per five -acre Rural
Residential density level and minimal existing development at higher densities
within the Rural Residential area, septic tank/drainfield systems installed to
meet Central District Health requirements should provide adequate wastewater
treatment to prevent measurable groundwater deterioration or health problems.
16
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY - PER RESIDENTIAL LOT
0&M COST SUMMARY - PER RESIDENTIAL LOT PER YEAR
Treatment at West Boise Plant - $41
Southwest Treatment and Land Disposal - $37
Community Lagoon Treatment and Land
Disposal - $32
No -Project - Varies
Note: The above costs exclude commercial/industrial cost contributions from
residential per lot costs. Sewer service and collection line costs in-
dicate realistic maximum costs to be anticipated for sewer service and
collection lines and could be significantly less in many cases.
17
Residential Lot Size
Existing
Future
Alternative
1 Acre
1/2 Acre
1/4 Acre
1 Acre
1/2 Acre
1/4 Acre
Treatment at West Boise
Plant
Sewer Service & Collection
$5,365
$3,770
$1,825
$4,130
$2,850
$1,395
Interceptor
407
407
407
407
407
407
Treatment
596
596
596
596
596
51)6
Total
$6,368
$4,773
$2,828
$5,133
$3,853
$2,398
Southwest Treatment and
Land Disposal
Sewer Service & Collection
$5,365
$3,770
$1,825
$4,130
$2,850
$1,315
Interceptor
407
407
407
407
407
407
Treatment
1,632
1,632
1,632
1,632
1,632
1,6:'2
Total
$7,404
$5,809
$3,864
$6,169
4,889
3,4:.4
Community Lagoon Treatment
and Land Disposal
Sewer Service & Collection
$5,365
$3,770
$1,825
$4,130
$2,850
$1,395
Interceptor
410
410
410
410
410
410
Treatment
1,410
1,410
1,410
1,410
1,410
1,410
Total
$7,185
$5,590
$3,645
5,950
4,670
$3,215
No -Project
Project (and per lot costs) vary significantly with the type of wastewater
management system proposed, its location and size.
0&M COST SUMMARY - PER RESIDENTIAL LOT PER YEAR
Treatment at West Boise Plant - $41
Southwest Treatment and Land Disposal - $37
Community Lagoon Treatment and Land
Disposal - $32
No -Project - Varies
Note: The above costs exclude commercial/industrial cost contributions from
residential per lot costs. Sewer service and collection line costs in-
dicate realistic maximum costs to be anticipated for sewer service and
collection lines and could be significantly less in many cases.
17