The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutF-252IT [ LERHOS F I L E n O. SUBJE[T: STATE OF CALIFORNIA . pA......e. rxoxo w.ux A. .......... ...��... o..... m IA. ..LIP RMArW uxR. ..R... "..,A.�...x REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD bg6l8g .. .wr. CENTRAL COASTAL REGION 1108 GARDEN STREET JAN 1880 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAU ORNIA O RffCffIVED January 6, 1960 N�� DLO. CAL, 9�S2LZF 12. Public Law 660, 84th Congress Sewage Treatment Construction @ants The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public law 660, 84th Congress) authorizes an appropriation of 50 million dollars per year for grants to municipalities for construction or remodeling of sewage treatment works. If $0 million dollars is appropriated, Califorrda Es allotment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961 will be approximately two million dollars. Construction grants are limited to 30% of the cost of the appli- cant's sewerage project. In advising you of these federal grants, we wish to emphasize that they are intended to supplement local expenditure only in cases of extreme financial or voter pollution need. It should be clearly understood that federal aid will not be available to all communities and with respect to any one project, federal funds are limited in amount under provisions of the bill. If you are planning construction of sewage treatment facilities during the 1960-61 FT and if you desire to apply for a gran application forms and supporting information may be obtained by writing to the address shown above. Completed applications must be filed with this Office not later than March 31, 1960, in order to be considered for a grant during the 1960-61 Fiscal Year. Should you have any questions regarding the construction grant program or the procedures to be followed, please contact this Office. This general letter is being sent to all incorporated cities, sanitary districts, county health departments and boards of supervisors within the Central Coastal Region. Very truly yours, RAYIMD WALSH ITN/mis Executive Officer. CITY C n�s�on snn wu on:.o or. ,o.os� 1++.. DUARTAUM OF runr: wars Honorable Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo lentlemen, )BISPO ..�.o„�.. z..Tc aOla IIcwn¢ Cau.ai fpril 6, 1959 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act will allocate approximately 2 million dollars to California during the 1959 - 1960 fiscal year, to be used to supplement sewage treatment facilities improvement or local communities. These construction grants are limited to 30% of the cost of any one project and are applicable only to construction which will proceed during the 1959 - 1960 fiscal year. In past years there have been five times as many applications for money than there was money available in California, there.^ore any city obtaining a grant will have to show a clear need. Since San Luis Obispo has which need not be enlarged for plated no projects this coming in applying for Federal aid. DkR/lb n excellent sewage treatment facility several years and since we have contem- fiscal year, I can see little advantage Respectfully submitted, DAVID F. ROMERO City Engineer MEMORANDUM P 252 • I T0..__aty?6=1Mt__ DATE.. "23S. 1f59_.______.____.. FROM. --..—City Qearb SUBJECT Selew_=VSAV. . 0"Wtr arm* Public Ir 660. 84th Congress Shin was referred to you by the Council at their regular mating of March 16, 1959 4-20-59 - No Federal Aid needed with respect to any one projects federal funds are limited in amount under provisions of the bill. If you are planning construction of swage treatment facilities during the 1959-60 FY and if you desire to apply for a grant, applicaticnn forms and supporting information may be obtained by writing to the address shown above* Completed applications must be filed with this Office not later than May 31, 1959, in order to be considered for a grant during the 1959-W FY. Should you have any questions regarding the construction grant program or the procedures to be followed, please contact this Office. This general letter is being sent to all incorporated cities, sanitary districts, county health departments and boards of supervisors within the Central Coastal Region. Very truly yours, RAMID WAI.SH EWcutive Officer. WT/mis REPORT ON COST OF SIOGE 7REA714ENT in computing the cost of sewage treatment it is necessary to take into account a nunber of factors, the most important of which are listed below: 1, The amount of money (at the current interest rate) lost annually by having constructed the plant initially. A. Sirs we have no records of the initial construction costa of the sower plant it was necessary to follow a method suggested on gages 13, 11 and figure; 2 B of the 1954 "'dater and Sewage 3y:tens^ report of Adamson and Jenks. This method utilizes a curve showing average "actual contract construction prices for plants built ?.n recent years, in California central and south coastal region", and arrives at a plant construction cost based on a population increase. 'Cresent population 17,300 1941 population 99 7,000, 7, 00o increas3 B. I Nava chosen a 5 year period for the contract agreement since the city and Cal Poly both are undergoing rapid and somcwhat +n:predictable girowl;h and costs are difficult to project mn.s than a few years into the future. 1961 pepulatim 21,000 (Figure 2, Water & Smer Systems) Present pop-alstion .1.77�3�00. increase 7,600 S 700' Population increase for basin of plant expansion , Cost for complete sewage treatment plant for 11,300 pop. - ti19.5olcapita (Fig 2E Cost for plant irprovement (1941-1961) - S .50 x 11,300 - W20,350. Thio figure is based on 1954 costs and does riot take ±nto consideration costs for land acquisition, legal sad engineering fees. At a 4% interest reset (.04) x (220,350) - •3 81814. 2. lnnual cost of plant operation. 1952 - 1953 :,24,060. 1953 - 1954 23,563. 1954 - 1955 25,375. 1955 - 1956 7 Averrge annual cost 1952 - 1956 - 99,728/)t - 524,932. ,vvrrge annual cost of capital expenditures 1952-1956 - 6,778/4 - .1269.h. Annual operating cost (1954) �. Arnval cost of replacement of large items which have a shorter life than the over all installation. The distributor area on the biofilters are the only large items which v+ not covered by capital ezpenditurea. By einkine fuel calculation for 15 year life J�.04) ($11,,000_) v150. -r-- 4. Annual cost to replace the plant at the and of its usefltl life. BY sinking fund calculation for 30 year life .•220 3 0) $3 929 otal annral cost of sewage treatment based on 1954 costa: a 8,814. 26,626. 150. DiRw O. The e,greement will be based on a 1956 - 1961 period or 1958 as the median year. Since construction costs in the Western United States are increasing on the average of 37a%/Year (1947-1956) (Daily Construction Service) and since planet operation costs :have averaged about 34% increase per year we can we a 31p average a.mual cost increase (1+.035)4 x $39,519. - "5048. This figure represents the probably average cost of sewage treatment for 1958, the median yeer. The plant has treated the following quantities of sewage aims 1952: 1952 - 584,937,726 gallons 1953 - 515,616,603 " 1954 - 502,672,070 " 1955 - 498,050,682 " 1956 - 527.2Q5,086 " 1628,482,167 gallons or an everefe of 525,696,433 gallons per year. There is no sigrdficant trend. Average cost per million gallons of sewage treated: 24- Z66.2627 -2- e.ri.�;'.. Acccrving to ,'lonth1 stao-nt, `lsa' ray eerage is sa foije to to to tc JamAr. 1957 - 11;,395,500 P'ebrmr y 1956 - 11,542,000 '"rich 195E - 12,477,500 April 1956 - 11,652,000 '�sy 3956 - 12,356,600 June 1956 - 11,781,000 July 1956 - 5,499,40D August 19% - 5, 013,700 Septaaber 1956 - 14,328, 000 October 1956 - 1.5,211,700 November 1956 - 1h,673,000 Dsemsber 1956 - 14,904,800 ONUAL: 144,365,200 li �4 '�t6K 100 27,38317; of oewage treated is contributed by Cal Poly, 527,�r1%S'R using the 100 gallons per capita per day of the previous agreement. However, I do not feel that. the ICO gallon per capita per day basis is realistic since a large number of students attend day classes only and do net contribute a full per capita share. Perha:is a rate of 2/3 the domeotic rato of 84 gallons per capita per day plea about 6 jp1lors per capita per day infiltration (Adenson - Jen'rs report) vc:.ld be a truer reflection of conditions. Using 60 n+ilona per capita per day, Ctl Poly contributes 16,430% of the newego treated. Using these i'S.gurc-s, the average c+csthly Cal Poly cost for sewage treotn,nt would be $621. as opposed to the $r. they have ourrently been paying. In adeition, since Cal Pol- is net taxed alon'; with the general public they sl.ould pay a proportiunata share of the coat of enlarging sewage transmission lines which served them. The lime listed below are lines c<vgacted this pest sunnier or those for w'-rich plans ere slready available for insrodiete future construction. Future flOva are base,) on the "dater and Sewage Systcal" report of Adsomon end Jenks (1954)• Line t(iY r1CLIO Cal )*17 ntaL' - �l by Future .ota % 11 1 Cont. Coat Cal Poly Coot. dal.out & Ctiorro Peach & Nipomo 0.640 3.590 1'.827 $18,965, (eatj $ 3,381. (eat) Pasch & Hipomo Marsh & Hi yera 0.640 3.3" 19.139 47,472 9,o86. Marsh & Iligoera South & flMra 0.640 8.424 7 597 28,655. (eat) 2,177. (eat) Bout1. C i;ir�uora Tenor. & Hiruara 0.640 8.555 7-481 • b�= 780, 815.h2h. -3- n',r In cc mluaio-4$ ni t 1 POL"t out that for 25 yeas Cal Poly ham bad an exceptiwwl m'rrrr ix in e�aego treatn rt, The City hga pinr„ to treat Cal Poky eeuaae for a veryY1ntaifid s goodly arid I ball n of the has ,.one for ar. apportim,,W, of costs baseda mire .�eallatio� ev a the tine analysis. Rsape¢tflxlly 64witted, DAVID F. jrtmW City alginmw DNP/Zb