Appendix E

Public Hearing Information

1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 1

2

In the Matter of: 3

Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System 4

State Revolving Fund Project Plan 5

Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner

6

/

7

PUBLIC HEARING 8

9

1 Public Works Drive, Waterford, Michigan

Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 7:00 p.m. 10

11

APPEARANCES: GREGORY P. KACVINSKY, PE 12

Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment

13

PHIL SANZICA, PE

Water Resource Commission 14

TIM PRINCE, PE 15

Water Resource Commission

16

17

RECORDED BY: Rachel Sunde, CER 6538

Certified Electronic Recorder 18

Network Reporting Corporation

Firm Registration Number 8151 19

1-800-632-2720

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

PAGE 2

3

Opening statement by Mr. Sanzica . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Presentation by Mr. Kacvinsky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4

Closing statement by Mr. Sanzica . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

Waterford, Michigan 1

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - 7:02 p.m. 2

MR. SANZICA: Good evening. My name is Philip 3

Sanzica, I'm a chief engineer with the Oakland County Water 4

Resources Commissioner's Office. Tonight is the hearing for 5

the Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal System SRF Project plan. 6

It was published in the Oakland Press on May 20th, 2012. 7

And this is the time and place listed, 7:00 p.m. on June 8

20th, 2012 at the Water Resources Commissioner's Office 9

Public Works Drive, Building 95 West, Waterford, Michigan. 10

Tonight Orchard, Hiltz, & McCliment will be presenting the 11

project plan. Greg Kacvinsky of OHM, project manager, will 12

be presenting the project plan. Also in attendance is Tim 13

Prince who is also a chief engineer with the Water Resources 14

Commissioner's Office. And for the record, there is no 15

public here at the meeting. So we will be proposing -- we 16

will be dictating the presentation as Greg states it. So 17

therefore why don't we hand it over to Greg and we'll 18

continue on. 19

MR. KACVINSKY: Thank you, Phil. My name is Greg 20

Kacvinsky, I'm with OHM. We're the consulting engineer who 21

prepared the SRF project plan. And I'll be presenting 22

tonight as required by the Michigan Department of 23

Environmental Quality a public hearing and the presentation 24

of the proposes projects for the Clinton-Oakland Sewage 25

4

Disposal System. This meeting was public noticed more than 1

30 days ago as required by the MDEQ. And this meeting is a 2

required component of the SRF application process. All 3

comments received in writing or by the public at the public 4

hearing will be addressed either at this meeting or within 5

the project plan document. 6

At this meeting we'll cover the regulatory history 7

that led to this project plan, discuss the project plan 8

summary, and how the costs for the recommended projects will 9

be apportioned to the users in Clinton-Oakland Sewage 10

Disposal system. The benefits of the projects, and the 11

proposed schedule for design and construction of the 12

recommended projects. This project or this project plan 13

came about through correspondence between the WRC and the 14

MDEQ starting in 2006 as a result of a sanitary sewer 15

overflow in 2004. Between 2006 and 2009 the WRC and the 16

MDEQ discussed the need for a district compliance agreement 17

to address hydraulic insufficiency in the interceptor. In 18

2009 the WRC signed a district compliance agreement with the 19

MDEQ. And that district compliance agreement set into 20

motion several projects, several tasks that led to this 21

project plan. 22

It started with the master plan in 2010 that was 23

completed in January 2010 for the Clinton-Oakland system. 24

That master plan identified several hydraulic upgrades to 25

5

the system that would help increase hydraulic capacities and 1

decrease potential for sanitary sewer overflows. There were 2

two bottlenecks identified in the system and the projects 3

we're going to discuss tonight will directly address those 4

bottlenecks. 5

The proposed action plan that was developed by 6

MDEQ and the WRC was agreed upon in 2010. Several of those 7

tasks have been completed. The tasks that remain to be 8

completed are developing this SRF project plan, which is 9

what's being covered tonight. And then design and 10

implementation of the projects to address the 11

Clinton-Oakland system. The master plan in 2010 for the 12

Clinton-Oakland system identified several bottlenecks along 13

the main interceptor line. One main upstream bottleneck and 14

one downstream bottleneck within the service area. 15

A hydraulic analysis completed as part of that 16

master plan confirmed that several reaches of the 17

Clinton-Oakland interceptor sewer did not have sufficient 18

hydraulic capacity to handle wet weather floss. And so this 19

is a profile, the hydraulic profile of a portion of the 20

system that was identified as having a bottleneck where 21

there is potential for an SSO. The following slides 22

summarize the 2012 SRF project plan that was prepared in 23

draft form and discussed tonight. 24

There are two recommended projects, one is on the 25

6

upstream side of the system, the upstream of the system. 1

Which would take flows pumped from the Elizabeth Lake pump 2

station into a 5.5 million gallon storage retention tank 3

near the or at the Road Commission of Oakland County 4

facility. The other proposed project, the downstream end of 5

the system or towards the downstream end of the system, is a 6

diversion to the Pontiac Wastewater Treatment Plant at Perry 7

Street in the City of Pontiac. 8

In evaluating upstream projects, we looked at 9

several alternatives to -- several different locations for 10

storage facility. And including diverting, instead of 11

storing the wastewater in a tank, diverting a portion of the 12

flow to the Pontiac wastewater treatment plant from 13

Elizabeth Lake Pump Station. The most cost efficient 14

project was identified as a 5.5 million gallon storage tank 15

at the Road Commission of Oakland County property. The 16

reason that project was less expensive than the others is 17

there wasn't the larger land acquisition costs associated 18

with purchase of private property. Putting the tank on 19

public property is more cost efficient. And because it's 20

going on a site that does not require multi use, the tank 21

can be above ground, we can reduce the construction cost of 22

the tank by putting it above and ground instead of below 23

ground. 24

This figure illustrates the proposed forced main 25

7

extension from Elizabeth Lake Pump Station to the proposed 1

Road Commission of Oakland County site where the 5.5 million 2

gallon tank would be located. Figure two shows the location 3

of the tank. A 250 foot diameter above ground tank. Water 4

would be pumped in, the wastewater that is, would be pumped 5

in. And the tank would discharge after the storm when the 6

interceptor -- the flows in the interceptor were low enough 7

to accept flows. To summarize the upstream project, the 5.5 8

million gallon tank will accept up to 13 cfs flow, wet 9

weather flow diverted from Elizabeth Lake Pump Station. 10

Would require 6,700 feet of force main extension from the 11

existing force main to the proposed site, proposed storage 12

tank site. And as I mentioned before, use of public 13

property reduces land acquisition costs. And the above 14

ground tank will reduce excavation and structural costs. 15

We also evaluated the downstream projects to 16

address the downstream hydraulic bottlenecks. Of all the 17

projects that we evaluated, the Perry Street diversion 18

project was the least expensive. We also evaluated storage 19

options and gravity flow options from Perry Street to the 20

Pontiac Wastewater Treatment Plant. This figure illustrates 21

the location and configuration of the diversion from Perry 22

Street to the Pontiac Wastewater Treatment Plant. Consists 23

of approximately two miles of a 36 inch gravity sewer at the 24

upstream end of pump station that diverts water from the 25

8

interceptor. And that sanitary sewer would flow to the 1

Pontiac Wastewater Treatment Plant. 30 percent of the total 2

Clinton-Oakland service area flows would be diverted to the 3

wastewater treatment plant, which is the contractual maximum 4

diversion from DWSD system. And the flow rates would range 5

from 14 cfs during dry weather to up to 47 cfs for future 6

wet weather flows. 7

The following two figures illustrate the proposed 8

pump station location and sanitary sewer. Starting at 9

Galloway Lake Park in the City of Pontiac adjacent to the 10

Clinton-Oakland interceptor. The proposed sanitary sewer 11

would flow south through a railroad right-of-way along the 12

west side of the Silverdome to the existing Auburn plant 13

City of Pontiac Wastewater Treatment. The details on the 14

downstream project, dry weather flow will be approximately 15

14 cfs. The flow rate during wet weather that will be 16

diverted will be up to 47 cfs. And the pump station would 17

be designed to handle that range of flow rates. The 18

diversion will reduce the flows in the interceptor thereby 19

solving the hydraulic bottleneck at that location. 20

In addition to the upstream and downstream 21

projects, we also evaluated a single project that would 22

address the upstream and downstream hydraulic bottlenecks 23

together. And that is a diversion from the Elizabeth Lake 24

Pump Station to the City of Pontiac Wastewater Treatment 25

9

plant diverting all flows that reach Elizabeth Lake Pump 1

Station. Doing so would alleviate the hydraulic pressures 2

downstream and solve the hydraulic issues identified in the 3

2010 master plan. 4

The main concerns with that is that it would 5

require five miles of force main. It would also require 6

significant upgrades and capital improvements to the 7

Elizabeth Lake Pump Station. And also removing all flows 8

from the system at that point would mean that we'd have a 9

significant length of the interceptor that would have little 10

to no flow that would cause maintenance problems and odor 11

problems. And when we evaluated the cost for this single 12

project alternative it was not cost effective. Comparing 13

the cost of the single project alternative to the sum of the 14

two recommended projects, the total cost was slightly higher 15

for the single project alternative. Therefore we came to 16

the conclusion that the combination of the upstream storage 17

and downstream diversion would be more cost effective and 18

are recommended. 19

The key project schedule started with the draft of 20

the SRF Project Plan that was submitted for public review 21

approximately one month ago. We have a public hearing as 22

required you the MDEQ tonight. We will take any comments 23

received and submit the final project plan including a 24

transcript of tonight's meeting to the MDEQ before the end 25

10

of June 2012. The Perry Street diversion, the downstream 1

project will be designed starting this fall. And 2

anticipated construction start date in fall of 2013. The 3

upstream proposed project, the SRT, storage retention tank, 4

at the Road Commission for Oakland County site would likely 5

not be designed and constructed until the 2014-1016 range. 6

And that is because there are some continued improvements 7

going on in the communities upstream of that tank that need 8

to be evaluated before the tank can be sized, we can 9

finalize the size for that tank. 10

The combination of the two proposed projects will 11

require an increase in user fees. Because these two 12

projects benefit all communities tributary to the 13

Clinton-Oakland interceptor, we are considering these 14

projects to be common to all in that all communities benefit 15

from reducing the hydraulic restriction on the interceptor. 16

The cost of the two recommended projects together will raise 17

the average annual residential user fee by approximately 18

$38.97 a year. And that's based on a 3-person household. 19

And that is based on jut the capital improvement cost to 20

construct those two improvements. And operations and 21

maintenance costs of those facilities as well. 22

The key benefits of these projects is that it does 23

address the hydraulic bottlenecks identified in the 2010 24

master plan. And helps reduce the frequency of SSO's. It 25

11

results in compliance with the MDEQ's and WRC's district 1

compliance agreement. And allows the WRC to maintain the 2

schedule on that district compliance agreement. It improves 3

overall system reliability. And there's also a side benefit 4

of reduced -- potential for reduced overall costs because 5

flows are being diverted to the City of Pontiac Wastewater 6

Treatment Plant treating the wastewater closer to home and 7

thereby having an overall economic benefit to the community 8

and all of the users within the Clinton-Oakland system. 9

We are ahead of schedule on developing an SRF 10

project plan, one year ahead of schedule. That's primarily 11

because the WRC was able to work with the City of Pontiac to 12

finalize an agreement to divert wastewater to the City of 13

Pontiac Wastewater Treatment Plant. So these efforts have 14

begun a little bit ahead of schedule. However, it is 15

anticipated that the upstream project, the 5.5 million 16

gallon SRT would be designed and constructed on schedule. 17

Are there any questions or comments? 18

MR. SANZICA: This is Philip Sanzica again, from 19

the Water Resources Commissioner's Office. This concludes 20

our public hearing. We will be submitting the project plan 21

to the State MDEQ before the July 1st deadline. So I'd like 22

to thank Greg for his fine job and we'll conclude the 23

hearing at this time. Thank you. 24

25

12

(Meeting concluded at 7:18 p.m.) 1

2

-0-0-0- 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25