the corporation of the city of london 2014 wastewater ...€¦ · city of london (“client”) ......

Prepared by:

AECOM

250 York Street, Suite 410

London ON, N6A 6K2

Project Number:

60275661

Date:

June, 2014

The Corporation of the City of London

2014 Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update and Development Charge Background Study

AECOM The Corporation of the City of London 2014 Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update and Development Charge Background Study

2014-06-03 Sanitary Dc Report

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the City of London (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports;

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified;

has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;

must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;

was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and

in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

Prepared by:

AECOM

410 – 250 York Street, Citi Plaza 519 673 0510 tel

London, ON, Canada N6A 6K2 519 673 5975 fax

www.aecom.com

Project Number:

60275661

Date:

June, 2014

The Corporation of the City of London

2014 Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update and Development Charge Background Study Executive Summary

AECOM The Corporation of the City of London 2014 Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update and Development Charge Background Study Executive Summary

Table of Contents


Distribution List

page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Update Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Sanitary System (2013) ......................................................................................................... 1

2. Future Growth .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Works Determination ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Required Trunk Sewer Works ............................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Pumping Station/Forcemain Works ..................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Required Wastewater Treatment Plant Works .................................................................................... 4 2.5 Intensification ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.5.1 Growth Needs Sewers on Arterial Roads ............................................................................... 5 2.5.2 Nodal Development ................................................................................................................ 5

3. Development Charge Implications .............................................................................................. 5

List of Figures

Figure EX1 Existing Sewershed / Sub-Sewershed Areas

Figure EX2 Population/ICI Forecast Summary

Figure EX3 Sanitary Sewer Works within Urban Growth Boundary Over 300mm for Growth Period

List of Tables

Table EX1 COSTING OF RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER WORKS SUMMARY FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)

Table EX2 GROWTH SPLITS FOR RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER WORKS SUMMARY FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)

Table EX3 UNIT COST TABLE FOR PIPES, CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION WORK Table EX4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT/ MAJOR PUMPING STATION COST COMPONENTS (2014 TO

2033)

Table EX5: TOTAL GROWTH SANITARY COSTS FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)


AECOM: 2012-01-06

© 2009-2012 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.


The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in

accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications

contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation

of similar reports;

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified;

has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;

must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;

was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and

in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the

assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no

obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have

occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical

conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been

prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other

representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the

Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or

construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the

knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic

conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and

employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or

implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no

responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or

opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental

reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied

upon only by Client.

Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to

the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or

decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those

parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss

or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject

to the terms hereof.


2014-06-03 Sanitary Dc Exec Summary 1

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

AECOM was retained to undertake the Wastewater Servicing Development Charge (DC) Update 2014 for the City’s

Sanitary Sewerage Collection System, Pumping Station (PS) and Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) facilities to

support the Development Charge 2014 By-Law amendment. The City of London last completed a Sanitary

Sewerage Servicing Plan Update in 2008 to support the 2009 Development Charges Update. Given that

Development Charges are to be updated in 2014, the City of London initiated this sanitary and wastewater servicing

DC Update. The intent was to reconfirm and/or identify new growth-related works for the City’s sanitary sewerage

systems on a 5 year incremental basis over a 20 year period (2014 to 2033), to support Development Charges for

future residential, institutional, commercial and industrial development.

1.1 Update Objectives

The objectives of the project were as follows:

Update the 2008 City of London Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Plan to address 20 year growth, keeping in mind

ultimate +50 year requirements per the information provided by the City.

Confirm existing wastewater system operating conditions, related regulatory requirements and service level

needs, and reconfirm/identify any new growth related requirements.

Identify up-to-date costs (2014), for the trunk sewer upsizing, replacement or new works required, including

pumping station/forcemain and WTPs. Identify growth/non-growth components and allocate growth components

to residential, institutional, commercial and industrial land uses for Development Charge determination.

Address peer review comments from the previous DC background work; incorporate outputs from more recently

completed works and/or community plans; ensure consistency with the City’s Water, Stormwater Drainage/SWM

and Transportation DC Updates (2014), and support/assist in development of the City’s Growth Management

Implementation Strategy (GMIS); and remove redundancies where appropriate.

Reconfirm WTP requirements based on regulatory, optimization, industrial pre-treatment, and future capacity

needs to accommodate growth on a 5 year incremental basis over the 20 year growth period.

Consult with the City of London’s Environmental & Engineering Services Department, the Finance Department

and Development Industry personnel at key stages of the project to reduce potential cost and time implications,

and obtain agreement with the results of the work to develop the City’s GMIS.

This DC Update created works based on growth needs for the 20 year period used for DC application purposes and

will assist in developing the City’s GMIS. Redundancies were removed where applicable amongst various water,

sanitary and road related works. The intent was to ensure funding for future growth related works, or portions

thereof; confirm optimal and timely servicing for Southwest London (and the Southside sewershed); define any

applicable sewer oversizing requirements for sanitary sewerage servicing; and optimize industrial servicing potential

in the City.

1.2 Existing Sanitary System (2013)

The City of London’s sanitary sewerage system consists of over 1,230 km of sanitary sewers (284 km of trunk

sewers, 300 mm or greater in diameter), and 35 pumping stations with over 45 km of forcemain. These sewers,

pumping stations and forcemains collect and convey sewage to the City’s five major WTPs serving the Adelaide,

Greenway, Oxford, Pottersburg and Vauxhall sewersheds. One minor WTP facility (Southland) serves a small

portion of Lambeth. The total average sewage flow currently directed to the City’s WTP’s (2013) was 217 Million



Litres/Day (MLD) of the 266 MLD total capacity. Figure EX 1 shows the sewersheds tributary to each of the City’s

WTPs along with the related trunk sewers and pumping stations.

For WTPs, current regulatory effluent and operational requirements are outlined in the latest Environmental

Compliance Approvals (ECA), formerly referred to as Certificate of Approvals (CofA), as defined by the Ministry of

Environment (MOE) for each of the City’s WTPs. The City records the volume of a plant or pumping station bypass

as part of the conditions in the ECA.

The City currently disposes of sludge via incineration. The ash residuals are treated in a new geotube facility

located at the Greenway WTP. Facility upgrades involving incineration optimization/expansion and other operational

improvements may be required over the growth period. There are also additional future treatment requirements

based on industry trends and forthcoming legislation which were considered as part of this study. At this point in

time, tertiary treatment costs have not been included as part of future works given our understanding of shorter term

regulatory requirements; however, the next DC update in 5 years may need to include additional costs to meet any

new federal and/or provincial regulatory requirements.

2. Future Growth

The City of London developed future population growth information for the period from 2014 through 2033 in 5-year

increments (2014, 2019, 2024, 2029, 2034). These growth projections, which were verified by Altus, were provided

by the City to AECOM in March 2013. This information, plus later updates, formed the basis for the planning work

completed for all services. This included reducing industrial areas to an amount consistent with the City’s Industrial

Development Strategy and the Altus forecast to 2033, as was done previously, and confirming those portions of the

City to be serviced over the 20 year planning period as part of GMIS development. This information was used to

define the works required for each population projection and area, and related oversizing (if applicable), for each

service being assessed. Figure EX 2 illustrates the projected pollution and industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI)

area breakdown for the growth period.

Prior to forecasting the sewage flows, AECOM reviewed several years of water usage data across several sectors to

confirm the City of London sewage generation design parameters. While the ICI sewage generation rates

adequately reflected the design parameters, residential water consumption was lower than the current design

standards. As such, AECOM recommends that the residential water consumption design parameter be reduced

from 270 Litres/capita/day (L/c/d) to 255 L/c/d. This reduction in per capita water use translates to a reduction in per

capita sewage flow from 250 L/c/d to 230 L/c/d. These values were utilized in the sewage flow forecasts.

Sewage flows were forecasted from the population and ICI information in the Altus report using the current City of

London design criteria and a residential per capita sewage flow of 230 L/c/d. Sizing of the necessary works was

completed using these flows.

2.1 Works Determination

Hydraulic modeling was used to identify existing sewerage system constraints for future growth accommodation, and

to identify upsizing requirements. The modeling approach involved trunk sanitary sewers 300 mm in diameter or

greater for trunk sewer design and Development Charge determination purposes. Aggregating sewer lengths of

similar size and slope reduced the number of maintenance hole (MH) nodes. Sufficient nodes were left in place to

assess drainage areas less than 30 hectares in size for local servicing purposes.

The model was used to determine future sewage flows from which future trunk sewer, pumping station and

forcemain works were identified (Figure EX 3). Notwithstanding the 2033 capacity requirements and/or constraints

identified, further sewage flow contributions for the Urban Growth Boundary and for Build Out to 675,000 people

were confirmed to ensure the trunk sewer works identified could be extended into the future growth areas, and that

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+ Wonderland PS

Crestwood PS

Westfield PS

Talbot Village PS

Sunninghill PS

Bostwick PS

Pitcarnie PS Sunningdale PS

Westmount PS

Byron PS

Medway PS

Gore Rd PS

Sanford PS

Adelaide PS

Hyde Park PS

Hunt Club PSRiverBend PS

Clarke Rd RS

Brookdale PS

East Park PS

Berkshire PS

Southwinds PS

Springbank PS

Manor Park PS

Northridge PS

Pond Mills PS

Broughdale PS

Summercrest PS

Victoria St PS

Trafalgar Rd PS

Paardberg Cr PS

Huron Street PS

Hazeldon Park PS

Chelsea Green PS

Chelsea Heights PS

OXFORD WTP

VAUXHALL WTP

GREENWAY WTP

ADELAIDE WTP

SOUTHLAND WTP

POTTERSBURG WTP

HWY 401 E

HWY 401 W

DINGMAN DR

CLA

RK

E R

D

DUNDAS ST

HWY 402 E

MANNING DR

AIR

POR

T RD

HWY 402 W

SCOTLAND DR

BRADLEY AVE

OXFORD ST E

HAMILTON RD

CO

LON

EL T

ALB

OT

RD

WES

TDEL

BR

NE

HURON ST

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

AD

ELA

IDE

ST N

GORE RD

EXETER RD

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

OXFORD ST W

HYD

E PA

RK

RD

WESTMINSTER DR

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

S

COMMISSIONERS RD W

PACK RD

WEL

LIN

GTO

N R

D S

COMMISSIONERS RD E

WILTON GROVE RD

CHEAPSIDE ST

GLANWORTH DR

SOUTHDALE RD W

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

N

WHARNCLIFFE RD S

SARNIA RD

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

N

WEL

LIN

GTO

N R

D

SUNNINGDALE RD E

KING ST

WH

ITE

OA

K R

D

SUNNINGDALE RD W

FANSHAWE PARK RD E

YORK ST

FANSHAWE PARK RD W

SOUTHDALE RD E

CR

UM

LIN

SD

RD

QUEENS AVE

CO

LBO

RN

E ST

KILALLY RD

LONGWOODS RD

SPRINGBANK DR

DECKER DR

WO

OD

HU

LL R

D

RIVER RD

ROBIN'S HILL RD

SOUTHMINSTER BRNE

VISCOUNT RD

GAINSBOROUGH RD

HORTON ST E

PON

D M

ILLS

RD

WAVELL ST

HARRY WHITE DR

SEC

ON

D S

T

RID

OU

T ST

S

EGER

TON

ST

BR

AD

ISH

RD

MU

RR

AY R

D

BYRON BASELINE RD

BRYDGES ST

ELVIAGE DR

ERN

EST

AVE

BO

STW

ICK

RD

GIDEON DR

SHARON RD

FLORENCE ST

TALB

OT

ST

WINDERMERE RD

WEL

LIN

GTO

N S

T

ADELAIDE ST S

CENTRAL AVE

WEBBER BRNE

JAC

KSO

N R

D

TRAFALGAR ST

BRADY DR

QU

EBEC

ST

OLD

VIC

TOR

IA R

D

THOMPSON RD

REC

TORY

ST

CO

OK

RD

TEMPO

RD

MAIN ST

WH

AR

NC

LIFF

E R

D N

UPP

ER Q

UEE

N S

T

LITTLEWOOD DR

BESS

EMER

RD

PLAT

T'S

LAN

E

NIX

ON

AVE

BASE LINE RD E

CA

RFR

AE

CR

ES

WH

ITE

OA

K R

D

AD

ELAID

E ST S

HURON ST

OLD

VIC

TOR

IA R

D

PON

D M

ILLS

RD

WESTMINSTER DR

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

N

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S GLANWORTH DR

OLD

VIC

TOR

IA R

D

2014 Wastewater Servicing Master Plan

Update and Development Charge Background Study

Figure EX1Existing Sewersheds/Sub-Sewersheds Areas

Scale: As Shown

Date: March 2014

PN: 60275661

Datum: NAD 83 UTM 17N

¹

0 2 4 6 81Kilometres

Legend

$+ Wastewater Treatment Plants

!( Existing Pumping Station

Existing Sanitary Sewers - 250mm and Over

Major Roads

City Boundary

Railway

Adelaide

Greenway

Medway

Oxford

Pottersburg

Vauxhall

Wonderland

MANNING DR

SCOTLAND DRHWY 401

EXETER RD

PACK RD

GLANWORTH DR

GORE RD

WESTMINSTER DR

CLA

RK

E R

D

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

S

OXFORD ST E

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

WHARNCLIFFE RD SW

HIT

E O

AK

RD W

ELLI

NG

TON

RD

S

WO

OD

HU

LL R

D

SUNNINGDALE RD E

WILTON GROVE RD

SUNNINGDALE RD W

KILALLY RD

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

DECKER DR

RIVERSIDE DR

WES

TER

N R

D

COMMISSIONERS RD E

LONGWOODS RD

BO

STW

ICK

RD

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

N

OXFORD ST W

SOUTHDALE RD W

JAC

KSO

N R

D

TRAFALGAR ST

BRADY DR

ELVIAGE DR

SOUTHDALE RD E

GAINSBOROUGH RD

FANSHAWE PARK RD EFANSHAWE PARK RD W

AD

ELAID

E ST SA

DELA

IDE ST N

COMMISSIONERS RD W

WINDERMERE RD

HAMILTON RD

DINGMAN DR

TRAFALGAR ST

HYD

E PA

RK

RD

WH

ITE

OA

K R

D

DUNDAS ST

HWY 402

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

BRADLEY AVE

OLD

VIC

TOR

IA R

D

WESTMINSTER DR

TRAFALGAR STCLA

RK

E R

D

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

S

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

HURON ST

AIR

POR

T RD

WES

TDEL

BR

NE



Figure EX2

Population/ICI ForecastSummary

Scale: As Shown Datum: NAD83 UTM 17N

Date: March 2014 PN: 60275661


EXISTING POPULATION (2011)People: 366,165

Industrial: 2163 haCommercial: 1505 haInstitutional: 995 ha

PROJECTED 2034 POPULATIONWITHIN GMIS BOUNDARY

(including existing population)

People: 454,660


LegendCity of London Limits

GMIS Boundary

Major Roads

Existing Built Out City 2011(16,279 ha)

Urban Growth BoundaryPROJECTED POPULATION (2014)

People: 377,529


NET CHANGE BETWEEN 2014 AND2034 WITHIN GMIS BOUNDARY

People: 77,131


$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

d

d

d d d

d

d

dd

d

d

d

dd

d

KL2A

KL1B

RB

2RB

1B

SS14B

SS13C

SS12B

PBS4

,,

HP7

A

SS15CSS15B SS15A

SS3A

SS13B

Southland PS

Colonel Talbot PS


Medway PS

Broughdale PS

Adelaide PS

Huron St PS

Northridge PS

Sanford PS

Paardberg PS

Clarke Rd PS

Victoria St PS

Brookdale PSBerkshire PS

Sunninghill PS

Manor Park PS

Hazeldon Park PS

Springbank PS

Byron PS

Hunt Club PS

Hyde Park PSRiverBend PS

Summercrest PS

Crestwood PS

Westfield PS

Talbot Village PS

Southwinds PS

Westmount PS

Bostwick PS

Chelsea Green PS

Chelsea Heights PS

Pond Mills PS

East Park PS

Gore Rd PS

Trafalgar Rd PS

Wonderland PS

SS14A

OXFORD WTP

VAUXHALL WTP

GREENWAY WTP

ADELAIDE WTP

SOUTHLAND WTP

POTTERSBURG WTP



Figure EX3Sanitary Sewer Workswithin Urban Growth Boundary300mm and OverScale: As Shown

Date: March 2014

PN: 60275661


¹


Legend

d 300mm Intensification Growth Need Sewer

!( Existing Pumping Stations

!( New Pumping Stations


Sewer TypeCSRF

Over Sizing


City Boundary

Major Roads

Railway


Urban Growth Boundary

*Note 300mm Intensification GrowthNeed Sewers are limited to the extentsof the Transportation DC projects.



pumping stations and forcemains were large enough to handle the future flows. The required capacity in the sewers

was confirmed by determining sewage flows for each existing sewershed or subsewershed area in the entire City as

well as utilizing the growth information provided from 2014 through 2033 related to residential and ICI growth.

Sewer segments and maintenance hole nodes were then added based on past planning, or the latest community

plan information (e.g. sewer sizes, routes, profiles, etc.), to ensure that these works could accommodate the growth

anticipated within each sewershed and subsewershed area. Trunk sewers were extended on a straight-line basis

where planning details were unknown, with elevations taken from Ontario Base Mapping topographical information

for subsewershed areas down to 30 hectares in size. This servicing assumption resulted in the further subdivision of

subsewershed areas within the model.

Based on the model results and City input, trunk sewers and pumping stations/forcemains were added or upsized to

service future growth and/or new growth areas. The sanitary sewer system analysis was completed for each

sewershed as follows:

Hydraulic modeling and analysis confirmed Build Out (675,000 people) sewage flows and required works to

satisfy the design constraints input to the model;

Analysis was completed for the sewage flows determined to service the Urban Growth Boundary areas. The

required works were identified to satisfy the design constraints for those trunk sewer and/or forcemain

components needed to extend beyond these boundaries for Build Out purposes. Pipe sizing for the Build Out

condition was used with lengths reduced to service only the UGB.

Modeling of the sewers needed to service areas down to 30 hectares within the GMIS was completed to

identify all of the sewer system related works needed to fully service the GMIS.

The final modeling analysis utilized the projected growth information to reduce trunk sewer lengths to service

growth within those areas for DC purposes.

The works needed in 5 year increments were then interpolated from the various modeling outputs. With this

information, the works needed through 2033 and for Build Out purposes were identified on a phased basis

and shown on mapping.

Where growth could not be accommodated by existing trunk sewers or pumping stations/forcemains, alternate

solutions via storage, upsizing, alternate conveyance, etc., means were considered using modeling software for

non-surcharge conditions.

2.2 Required Trunk Sewer Works

Table EX 1 and Table EX 2 outlines the major trunk sewer works required to service the population and ICI growth

through 2033 within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. Details are shown in Figure EX 3. The table shows:

The location (WTP sewershed area, growth area, trunk sewer ID), and applicable details for each trunk sewer

component (average depth, diameter and length);

Estimated cost information (pipe, construction and restoration cost for a subtotal, plus 15% for engineering and

20% for contingency, minus previous funding for a total cost):

Non-Growth/Growth related components;

Related Res/ICI growth components; and

Implementation year.

Sewer unit costs are based on an updated 2014 cost table (Table EX 3). The cost table is based on pipe size and

depth, with the total cost of purchasing and installing sewer pipe being broken down into three components: pipe

cost, construction cost and restoration cost. Updated pipe costs are based on the 2014 Concast circular concrete

DC IDCity

Project Number

PCP Sewershed (1)

GrowthArea

Trunk Sewer ID

(2)Note

Average Depth

Diameter LengthPipe & Const

Cost (3)Rest. (4)

Total Unit Cost

(m) (mm) (m) $/m $/m $/mDC14-WW00001 ES2493 OXFORD Hyde Park HP7A 2014 (8),(9) 5.0 600 957 2,000,000$ DC14-WW00002 ES5253 OXFORD River Bend RB1B 2014 10.0 750 540 2,195 710 2,905 1,568,700 235,305 313,740 2,117,745$ DC14-WW00003 ES5247 WONDERLAND Wonderland SS14A 2015 (12) 5 - 7.5 1200 826 1,859 2,248 4,107 3,394,267 509,140 678,853 4,582,260$ DC14-WW00004 ES5260 WONDERLAND Lambeth SS3A 2015 (12) 5 - 7.5 825 - 900 1559 1,442 2,331 3,773 5,881,870 882,281 1,176,374 7,940,525$ DC14-WW00005 WONDERLAND Lambeth SS15A 2016 (12) 7.5 825 1448 1,415 0 1,415 2,048,637 307,296 409,727 2,765,660$ DC14-WW00006 WONDERLAND North Talbot SS15C 2017 (12) 5 - 7.5 750 - 825 825 1,276 2,339 3,615 2,982,040 447,306 596,408 4,025,754$ DC14-WW00007 ES5256 WONDERLAND Longwoods SS12B 2016 4.7 375 1500 700 1,987 2,688 4,031,400 604,710 806,280 5,442,390$ DC14-WW00008 ES5252 ADELAIDE Killaly KL1B 2017 3.9 525 750 722 462 1,184 887,850 133,178 177,570 1,198,598$

DC14-WW00009 ES5255WONDERLAND

Wonderland/ Bostwisk E

SS13B 2018 (12) 5.0 675 1562 1,020 510 1,530 2,389,860 358,479 477,972 3,226,311$

DC14-WW00010 WONDERLAND North Talbot SS15B 2025 (12) 7.5 825 505 1,415 2,610 4,025 2,033,833 305,075 406,767 2,745,674$ DC14-WW00011 WONDERLAND Bostwick W SS14B 2030 (12) 5 - 7.5 450 - 975 2656 1,025 2,547 3,572 9,487,085 1,423,063 1,897,417 12,807,565$

$34,705,541 $5,205,831 $6,941,108 $48,852,481

DC IDCity

Project Number

PCP Sewershed (1)

GrowthArea

Trunk Sewer ID

(2)

Implementation Timeframe

NoteAverage Depth

Diameter Length

(m) (mm) (m)ES5254 ADELAIDE Killaly KL2A 5-10 (10) 3.9 300-375 1550

OXFORD River Bend RB2 0-5 (10) 4.0 375 1200POTTERSBURG Old Victoria PBS4 0-5 (10) 6.0 300-375 850WONDERLAND Bostwick East SS13C 5-10 (10) 6.2 375 220CONTINGENCY City Wide 0-20

DC14-WW02001

(1) See Figure EX1

(2) See Figure EX3

(3) Costs are in 2014 dollars

(4) Restoration includes Landscape, Rural, Urban, and Ecosystem where applicable.

(5) Engineering Costs 15% based on Total Construction Costs

(6) Contingencies 20% based on Total Construction Costs

(7) From City of London GMIS

(8) From the City of London Wastewater Capital Budget, based on completed EA's, ongoing EA's or latest design information.

(9) Works to be timed with the works identified with the Transportation DC Update

(10) Based on the Pipe Size Credit Amount Table and trunk sewer diameter and lengths

(11) Includes Pipe Costs, trenching labour and equipment, bedding, backfill, compaction, dewatering, maintenance holes, engineering (15%) and contingency (20%). Based on 5m average construction depth(12) Costs/sewer attributes presented based on DRAFT preliminary recommended alternative from the Southwest Area Sanitary Servicing Master Plan; costs subject to change depending on final outcome of study

Sanitary Trunk Sewers Required for the GMIS Boundary

TABLE EX1CITY OF LONDON

SANITARY SERVICING DC UPDATE 2014COSTING OF RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER WORKS SUMMARY FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)

(Revised June 3, 2014)

Implementation Year (7)

Sewer Characteristics Estimated Construction Cost (3)

Total Const. Cost

Engineering (15%)

(5)

Contingency (20%)

(6) Total Cost (11)

$16,500$1,500,000$1,786,500

Pipes to be Over SizedSewer Characteristics

Over Size Cost

$116,250$90,000$63,750

% $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $

DC14-WW00001 ES2493 OXFORD Hyde Park HP7A 2014 (5),(6) 2,000,000$ 1,326,000$ -$ 15% 101,100$ 85% 572,900$ 100.0% 572,900$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00002 ES5253 OXFORD River Bend RB1B 2014 2,117,745$ 1,712,966$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 404,779$ 100.0% 404,779$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00003 ES5247 WONDERLAND Wonderland SS14A 2015 (9) 4,582,260$ -$ 139,350$ 5% 217,956$ 95% 4,224,954$ 88.9% 3,756,715$ 2.8% 116,506$ 7.9% 334,743$ 0.4% 16,990$ DC14-WW00004 ES5260 WONDERLAND Lambeth SS3A 2015 (9) 7,940,525$ 350,000$ 172,300$ 4% 296,729$ 96% 7,121,496$ 100.0% 7,121,496$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00005 WONDERLAND Lambeth SS15A 2016 (9) 2,765,660$ -$ 254,089$ 0% -$ 100% 2,511,571$ 100.0% 2,511,571$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00006 WONDERLAND North Talbot SS15C 2017 (9) 4,025,754$ -$ 99,725$ 0% -$ 100% 3,926,029$ 100.0% 3,926,029$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00007 ES5256 WONDERLAND Longwoods SS12B 2016 5,442,390$ -$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 5,442,390$ 90.1% 4,904,091$ 3.7% 202,050$ 5.9% 320,245$ 0.3% 16,004$ DC14-WW00008 ES5252 ADELAIDE Killaly KL1B 2017 1,198,598$ -$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 1,198,598$ 100.0% 1,198,598$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$

DC14-WW00009 ES5255 WONDERLANDWonderland/ Bostwisk E

SS13B 2018 (9) 3,226,311$ -$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 3,226,311$ 93.1% 3,004,092$ 0.0% -$ 5.2% 168,908$ 1.7% 53,311$

DC14-WW00010 WONDERLAND North Talbot SS15B 2025 (9) 2,745,674$ -$ 88,680$ 0% -$ 100% 2,656,994$ 100.0% 2,656,994$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00011 WONDERLAND Bostwick W SS14B 2030 (9) 12,807,565$ -$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 12,807,565$ 82.2% 10,526,322$ 0.0% -$ 13.5% 1,723,695$ 4.4% 557,548$

48,852,481$ 3,388,966 754,144 1% 615,785$ 99% 44,093,585$ 92.0% 40,583,586$ 0.7% 318,556$ 5.8% 2,547,590$ 1.5% 643,854$

(1) See Figure EX1

(2) See Figure EX3





(7) Based on existing (2003/2008/2014) and future areas serviced as per modeling outputs. Res/ICI components based on same for future areas to be serviced from 2014-2033


Sanitary Trunk Sewers Required for the GMIS Boundary

TABLE 3-2CITY OF LONDON

2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYGROWTH SPLITS FOR RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER WORKS SUMMARY FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)


Growth

DC IDCity

Project Number

PCP Sewershed (1)

GrowthArea

Trunk Sewer ID

(2)


Note Total Cost From Table EX1 (3, 8)

Previous Funding

Post Period Benefit

Non-Growth Residential (7) Institutional (7) Commercial (7) Industrial (7)

PIPE COSTSBased on 2014 Concast circular concrete pipe price list, includes pipe and gaskets. 250 mm pipe cost was extrapolated based on other 2014 pipe prices

DiameterDepth 250 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100

2.5 65 75 90 95 105 140 215 280 325 390 430 495 620 755 925 1,110 1,340 1,555 1,7805.0 65 75 90 95 105 140 215 280 325 390 515 595 745 910 970 1,165 1,410 1,635 1,8707.5 65 75 90 95 120 160 245 320 415 450 515 595 745 910 1,110 1,330 1,610 1,865 2,140

10.0 65 75 90 95 120 160 245 320 415 450 605 690 865 1,060 1,295 1,550 1,875 2,175 2,49512.5 65 75 90 120 120 190 245 320 415 450 605 690 865 1,060 1,295 1,550 1,875 2,175 2,495

CONSTRUCTION COSTS - Open Cut - Pipe Cost NOT IncludedBased on tender costs as provided by the City over the past 5 years and indexed to 2014Includes trenching labour and equipment, bedding, backfill, compaction, dewatering, and maintenance holes.

DiameterDepth 250 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100

2.5 405 420 430 455 480 520 535 575 610 640 675 700 735 770 800 835 860 905 9355.0 605 620 635 670 725 770 805 850 930 935 935 935 970 1,005 1,175 1,230 1,300 1,360 1,4607.5 710 725 735 795 825 910 945 1,000 1,000 1,080 1,125 1,160 1,255 1,355 1,460 1,555 1,665 1,785 1,890

10.0 1,010 1,075 1,135 1,295 1,435 1,585 1,720 1,875 1,940 2,055 2,085 2,110 2,215 2,315 2,420 2,545 2,675 2,785 2,88012.5 2,090 2,100 2,110 2,150 2,205 2,225 2,285 2,345 2,340 2,360 2,380 2,415 2,445 2,485 2,555 2,675 2,875 3,085 3,320

CONSTRUCTION COSTS - Tunneling - Pipe Cost NOT IncludedBased on 20-year (Stantec) and 50-year (Stantec) study values, indexed to 2014 using tender costs as provided by the CityIncludes tunnel shafts @ 150 m spacing for maintenance holes, liners, dewatering, and restoration.

DiameterDepth 250 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100

5.0 3,990 4,755 5,025 5,490 5,895 6,295 6,630 6,900 7,170 7,435 7,705 7,970 8,240 8,505 8,770 9,040 9,305 9,580 9,85010.0 4,035 4,890 5,160 5,625 5,825 6,495 6,770 7,100 7,435 7,770 8,035 8,305 8,570 8,840 9,105 9,380 9,645 9,915 10,18015.0 4,180 5,025 5,360 5,760 6,095 6,700 7,035 7,370 7,705 8,105 8,370 8,640 8,905 9,175 9,445 9,715 9,980 10,250 10,51520.0 4,320 5,160 5,490 5,895 6,360 6,900 7,300 7,705 8,035 8,440 8,705 9,040 9,240 9,515 9,780 10,050 10,315 10,585 10,85025.0 4,465 5,290 5,625 6,095 6,630 7,100 7,570 7,970 8,370 8,770 9,040 9,305 9,580 9,850 10,115 10,380 10,650 10,915 11,18530.0 4,570 5,425 5,760 6,295 6,835 7,370 7,835 8,240 8,640 9,040 9,445 9,715 9,980 10,250 10,515 10,785 11,050 11,320 11,585

RESTORATION COSTSTaken from 20-year (LSSSS) plan (2003), and updated as per 2014 tender and transportation costs for rural and urban restoration.Open - no restoration; Landscape- minor/boulevard (no roadway restoration); Rural - cross section as per transportation cost table; Urban - cross section as per transportation cost table; Ecosystem - applies to areas adjacent to or within environmentally significant areas

ConditionDepth2.5 0 400 1,600 1,770 840 5.0 0 510 2,040 2,210 1,070 7.5 0 600 2,450 2,610 1,270 10.0 0 710 2,920 3,080 1,480 12.5 0 810 3,400 3,540 1,680

TABLE EX 3CITY OF LONDON

SANITARY SERVICING DC UPDATE 2014UNIT COST TABLE FOR PIPES, CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION WORK

Open Landscape Rural Urban Ecosystem




pipe price list. Updated construction costs were based on tender costs as provided by the City over the past 5 years

and indexed to 2014. Updated tunneling costs were based on 2009 indexed to 2014. Restoration costs were

updated as per tender costs for rural and urban restoration and indexed to 2014. Redundancies with other

transportation, storm drainage or water works were removed where applicable. Once the per meter cost was

established, engineering at 15% and contingency at 20% were added to the unit rate costs.

2.3 Pumping Station/Forcemain Works

In addition to the trunk sewer works, a number of pumping station/forcemain works are required to service future

growth through 2033 within the GMIS and Urban Growth Boundaries, and for Build Out to a population of 675,000

people. Table EX 4 outlines the existing pumping station upgrades or new pumping stations shown in Figure EX 3.

Within the study period, current and future sewage flows within the Southside WTP sewershed are to be conveyed

via the Wonderland PS and forcemain to the Greenway WTP. The objective is to optimize capacity within existing

forcemains, pumping stations and WTP’s prior to investing significant capital costs in a new Southside WTP which

will be required beyond the 20 year period.

2.4 Required Wastewater Treatment Plant Works

WTP expansions and new implementations will be needed to handle future sewage flows, plus future more stringent

effluent requirements. Given the size of the WTP facilities involved and the fact that sewage flows are conveyed to

these facilities under varying conditions, expansion needs were driven by the following:

Average daily existing and future sewage flow (i.e. not peaked);

Allowing for an I&I allowance of 8,640 L/ha/day per the standard design parameter;

Optimizing expansion needs to the 2033 sewage flow requirements with minimal oversizing;

Balancing sewage flows, wherever possible, among the WTP’s to maximize the utilization of available

sewage treatment capacity and minimize the need for added expansions until absolutely necessary.

Table EX 4 summarizes the expansion needs for each of the City’s WTP facilities. It shows the following information

for each:

Rated capacity;

Operational ceiling (5% reduction as per previous DC outputs);

Current (2013) running average sewage flows;

Available capacity (operational ceiling minus current flows);

Expansion requirements to (2033 sewage flows minus the 5% operational ceiling);

Total available capacity (available capacity plus expansion requirement); and

Estimated net cost information as per report details.

An update of the City’s Biosolids Master Plan has also been allowed for and included as part of the studies/other

component ($400,000). Non-growth components were removed as appropriate.

Costs were updated to 2013 including engineering at 15% and contingency at 20%. Other items shown on Table

EX 4 are prorated costs, growth/non-growth and Res/ICI allocations for Development Charge purposes. The

Southside WTP is not required until just beyond the planning period.

2.5 Intensification

As part of the 2013 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the City of London reviewed the manner in which it grows

and the planning policies to support growth. Changes were made to the Official Plan (OP) Growth policies. The OP

RATED NET AVAILABLE CURRENT AVAILABLE EXPANSION TO

AVG FLOW CAPACITY AVG FLOWS 2033 (-5% OC) (2)

(MLD) (MLD) (1) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) RES Indust. Comm. Instit. RES Indust. Comm. Instit.

ES2685 152.3 134.2 126.1 8.1 16.8 24.1 $46,166,750 $26,680,000 $5,014,105 $14,472,645 12.5% $1,803,298 $12,669,347 79.0% 9.4% 5.6% 6.0% $10,012,858 $1,190,851 $708,847 $756,792

ES2492 20.9 19.9 19.5 0.3 2.2 2.5 $6,000,000 $0 $5,656,000 $344,000 50% $172,000 $172,000 90.8% 0.0% 1.1% 8.1% $156,134 $0 $1,854 $14,011

ES5231 36.4 34.5 26.8 7.7 8.6 16.4 $10,900,000 $0 $9,859,000 $1,041,000 0% $0 $1,041,000 81.5% 6.6% 2.0% 9.9% $848,158 $69,139 $20,706 $102,997

ES5014 17.3 16.4 7.7 8.7 0.0 8.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0

ES5142 39.1 37.1 29.1 8.0 0.0 8.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0

ES5240 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0

265.9 242.2 209.3 32.9 27.6 59.7 $63,066,750 $26,680,000 $20,529,105 $15,857,645 12% $1,975,298 $13,882,347 79.4% 9.1% 5.3% 6.3% $11,017,151 $1,259,989 $731,407 $873,800

RATED OPERATION CURRENT AVAILABLE EXPANSION TO

CEILING FLOWS 2033 (-5% OC) (2)

(MLD) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) RES Indust. Comm. Instit. RES Indust. Comm. Instit.

ES2466 8.5 8.0 4.5 3.5 2.8 6.2 $198,450 $0 $0 $198,450 0% $0 $198,450 94.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% $186,543 $0 $11,907 $0

ES5132 9.1 8.6 4.7 3.9 8.6 12.6 $1,653,000 $200,000 $0 $1,453,000 0% $0 $1,453,000 18.0% 80.0% 2.0% 0.0% $261,540 $1,162,400 $29,060 $0

21.6 20.5 0.0 0.0 20.5 21.6 $6,100,000 $0 $0 $6,100,000 0% $0 $6,100,000 96.1% 1.0% 2.7% 0.2% $5,862,100 $61,000 $164,700 $12,200

TBD $15,000,000 $0 $9,336,000 $5,664,000 0% $0 $5,664,000 96.1% 1.0% 2.7% 0.2% $5,443,104 $56,640 $152,928 $11,328

44.1 41.9 35.9 6.0 4.1 10.1 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 0% $0 $500,000 96.1% 1.0% 2.7% 0.2% $480,500 $5,000 $13,500 $1,000

48.4 46.0 35.9 10.1 37.8 47.8 $2,500,000 $0 $1,867,000 $633,000 0% $0 $633,000 96.1% 1.0% 2.7% 0.2% $608,313 $6,330 $17,091 $1,266

131.6 125.0 81.0 23.4 73.8 98.3 $25,951,450 $200,000 $11,203,000 $14,548,450 $0 $14,548,450 88.3% 8.9% 2.7% 0.2% $12,842,100 $1,291,370 $389,186 $25,794

$89,018,200 $26,880,000 $31,732,105 $30,406,095 $1,975,298 $28,430,797 83.9% 9.0% 3.9% 3.2% $23,859,251 $2,551,359 $1,120,593 $899,594

(1) Reflects Operational allowance of 5% required

(2) Full expansion required within the 2014 to 2033 timeframe

(3) Costs in 2014 dollars

(4) Expansion capacity prorated to 2033 growth needs. City to address debt servicing and financing between the expansion and prorated cost differences.

(5) Res/ICI components as per modeling outputs and/or City of London Wastewater Capital Plan. (Average day flow for WTP Growth. Peak Flows for PS's). Greenway and Southside combined given flow switching between facilities.

(6) Total cost times applicable Residential / ICI component for prorated MLD required.

(7) Estimated cost assumes pump upgrades only and all flow from Wonderland PS is conveyed to Greenway WTP. Upgrade in 2024 assumes optimization of Wonderland PS has been completed.

(8) 4.5 MLD could be added to the rated capacity at the Adelaide WTP to reflect recent work recently completed. Rating still to be applied for/confirmed. 6.8 MLD of Adelaide can accommodate the remaining Medway PS currently conveyed to Greenway. This would allow 6.8 MLD of growth at Greenway.

* TERTIARY COSTS NOT INCLUDED

OTHER FACILITIES TOTALS

GRAND TOTALS

WONDERLAND PS OPTIMIZATION (7)

2014

WONDERLAND PS UPGRADE (7)

2024

SOUTHWEST CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS

2024

NEW COLONEL TALBOT PS

2017

POST PERIOD BENEFIT (4)

NET COSTNON

GROWTH % (6)

NON GROWTH $

GROWTH $

GROWTH

%(5) ESTIMATED COST (6)

HYDE PARK PS UPGRADE

2014

EAST PARK PS UPGRADE

2016

SOUTHSIDE >2033

YEAR 2033(Average Day)

TOTAL AVAILABLE

ESTIMATED COST(3)

PREVIOUS FUNDING

WTP TOTALS

OTHER FACILITIESPROJECT

INITIATION YEAR

CITY PROJECT NUMBER

CAPACITY/FLOW INFORMATION

ADELAIDE (8) 2025

OXFORD >2033

POTTERSBURG >2033

CITY PROJECT NUMBER

CAPACITY/FLOW INFORMATIONYEAR 2033

(Average Day)

TOTAL AVAILABLE

ESTIMATED COST(3)

PREVIOUS FUNDING


NET COSTNON

GROWTH% (6)

NON GROWTH$

GROWTH$

GROWTH


GREENWAY (8) 2012

VAUXHALL 2023

WTP FACILITYPROJECT

INITIATION YEAR


SANITARY SERVICING DC UPDATE 2014WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT/ MAJOR PUMPING STATION COST COMPONENTS (2014 TO 2033)


*

*

*

*

*

*



now seeks to support 40% intensification within the existing built up areas of the City. From a sanitary servicing

prospective, two programs will be created to support this growth.

2.5.1 Growth Needs Sewers on Arterial Roads

There are several areas of the City that do not have fronting municipal sanitary sewers and are serviced by private

septic systems (e.g. Lambeth, Hyde Park, Fanshawe/Highbury, etc.). Many of these properties are fronting arterial

roads which are scheduled for widening as part of the TMP in the next 20 years. Recognizing that the properties

abutting the arterial road are likely to redevelop and intensify, the most cost effective time to reconstruct municipal

sanitary servicing for growth is during the time of the road widening. The construction of these sewers will be

coordinated with the timing of the arterial road projects, thereby eliminating the restoration costs and optimizing the

development potential of the area. These sewers are noted on Figure EX3 as lightning bolt symbols.

Should a developer wish to proceed with a sewer extension in advance of the arterial road project, the developer

shall be responsible for all design and construction costs associated with the sanitary sewer pipe and road

restoration.

Historically, only a minor proportion of the existing homes and small businesses that are currently serviced by private

septic systems will connect to the municipal sewer system if it is available since their current needs are met by

private systems. Therefore, the growth share for sewers on arterial roads are allocated a 90% cost as they are

intended to provide servicing for intensification/redevelopment projects which will contribute to DCs.

2.5.2 Nodal Development

The City of London has identified several nodes for significant intensification activity during the 2013 TMP. These

nodes may transform to densely populated areas. To date, one node has been studied in depth as to its build out

needs. The South Street and Wellington Street Storm/ Sanitary and Water Servicing Strategy Report (AECOM,

June 2013) lists servicing needs for the former London Health Science Centre South Street Campus and the

surrounding catchment areas, encompassing approximately 132 ha of land. It is expected that the hospital re-

development will be a catalyst for growth within the surrounding area.

This information is currently the best available for servicing a node in the built up area of the City of London. The

City’s growth allocation predicts 3798 residential units over the 20 year period within intensification nodes city-wide.

The current estimate for residential units within the South Street Area Lands is 1459 units. Using the South Street

lands as a basis for nodal development city wide a value of 2.6 times (3798 divided by1459) has been used to

determine the costs related to servicing nodal development city-wide over the 20 year period.

3. Development Charge Implications

The impetus for completing the Wastewater Servicing DC Update was the need to identify those works required to

satisfy future sanitary sewage flow contributions driven by growth over a 20 year period from 2014 through 2033

consistent with the GMIS Boundary. These works were also sized to address future requirements based on the

Urban Growth Boundary and/or Build Out information developed previously. Growth/Non-Growth determination and

Res/ICI allocations are shown in Table EX 2 and Table EX 4. From this, the following was completed to identify

Development Charge requirements:

For sewers, projected sewage flow information for Build Out and UGB was used for sizing. The lengths of pipe

required were determined utilizing the 2033 growth information for DC related works within the GMIS service



area. For DC purposes, the needs were matched with the growth projection forecasts in 5 year increments. All

works are within the GMIS Boundary as shown by Figure EX 3. For DC calculation purposes only those trunk

sewers greater than 250mm in diameter, were included for calculation purposes (See Table EX 1). Smaller

service areas, less than 250mm in diameter were considered local to be provided by development proponents.

For pumping stations and WTP’s, projected sewage flow information was used to determine future work

requirements. This was then compared to the rated capacities to be provided based on engineering needs and

prorated to 2033, with costs reduced accordingly. Therefore oversizing was not applied leaving the City to

finance the required works initially, with interest recovery during the 2014 through 2033 planning period, and

debt being carried beyond. This approach was applied for all facility related components.

Growth/Non-Growth splits for sanitary were determined as follows:

o Growth forecasts (Res/ICI), across the City’s transportation planning zones

o The transportation zones were sub-divided by sewershed and sub-sewershed areas and tied to existing or

new trunk sewer maintenance nodes in the sanitary sewer model.

o For new works added as part of this DC update, existing flows were determined based on 2013 flow

information within the GMIS Boundary, and then Non-Growth/Growth and Res/ICI splits were determined

based on the growth information provided as contained within those sewershed/sub-sewershed areas

linked to a particular project within the GMIS Boundary. The percentage was determined based on

applying design criteria for residential and ICI sewage flows.

o For pumping station and WTP works, the sewage flows to be met through 2033 as determined by the

growth information within the GMIS Boundary by a given facility were allocated to residential and ICI

demands in each service area.

For Development Charge calculations, growth related costs for the City’s sanitary trunk sewer, pumping station

and forcemain, WTP expansion and new facility, and other (Biosolids, etc.), components are all part of the City’s

sanitary sewerage system and can all be recovered under the DC Act. Implementation of the GMIS resulted in a

more affordable plan as a basis for Development Charge determination purposes.

Table EX 5 summarizes the total costs, non-growth costs, and 2033 growth costs, complete with Res/ICI allocations

for the City’s sanitary sewerage system. This information will form the basis for Development Charge calculations.

Non-Growth Cost

Growth Cost

Residential Cost

Industrial Cost

Commercial Cost

Institutional Cost

$ $ $ $ $ $Sanitary Sewers (Table EX1 & EX2) 48,852,481$ 3,388,966$ 754,144$ 44,709,371$ 615,785$ 44,093,585$ 40,583,586$ 643,854$ 2,547,590$ 318,556$ Oversizing Costs (Table EX1) 1,786,500$ -$ -$ 1,786,500$ ‐$ 1,786,500$ 1,475,649$ ‐$ 178,650$ 132,201$ Infill and Intensification - Sanitary Servicing of Nodes 4,862,299$ 486,230$ -$ 4,376,069$ 653,456$ 3,722,613$ 3,074,878$ ‐$ 372,261$ 275,473$ Coordinated Works with Transportation Projects 3,279,439$ -$ 1,050,216$ 2,229,223$ 222,922$ 2,006,300$ 1,657,204$ ‐$ 200,630$ 148,466$ Industrial Servicing Works 23,750,000$ -$ 5,123,900$ 18,626,100$ ‐$ 18,626,100$ ‐$ 18,626,100$ ‐$ ‐$ Other/PS Facilities (Table EX4) 25,951,450$ 200,000$ 11,203,000$ 14,548,450$ ‐$ 14,548,450$ 12,842,100$ 1,291,370$ 389,186$ 25,794$ WTP Facilities (Table EX4) 63,066,750$ 26,680,000$ 20,529,105$ 15,857,645$ 1,975,298$ 13,882,347$ 11,017,151$ 1,259,989$ 731,407$ 873,800$

171,548,919$ 30,755,196$ 38,660,365$ 102,133,358$ 3,467,462$ 98,665,896$ 70,650,568$ 21,821,313$ 4,419,725$ 1,774,290$

Studies - Biosolids Master Plan 400,000$ -$ 300,000$ 100,000$ 83,100$ 16,900$ 12,472$ 1,724$ 1,335$ 1,369$ Studies - Future Development Charges Study 2019 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ 250,000$ 184,500$ 25,500$ 19,750$ 20,250$ Studies - Future Development Charges Study 2024 250,000$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

900,000$ -$ 550,000$ 350,000$ 83,100$ 266,900$ 196,972$ 27,224$ 21,085$ 21,619$

172,448,919$ 30,755,196$ 39,210,365$ 102,483,358$ 3,550,562$ 98,932,796$ 70,847,540$ 21,848,537$ 4,440,810$ 1,795,909$

Notes:1 Costs are in 2014 dollars as tendered/indexed or as per City/GMIS provided information.

Total Sanitary Costs for GMIS Boundary


2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYTOTAL GROWTH SANITARY COSTS FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)


ItemComponent Total

CostPrevious Funding

Or GrantsPost Period

Benefit

Component Cost Allocated to 20 Year

Planning Horizon

Works Totals

Studies/Other Total



Table of Contents


Distribution List

Executive Summary

page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Update Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Sanitary System (2013) ......................................................................................................... 1

Cross Connections and Storm Relief Sewers ........................................................................ 2 1.2.1

Pumping Stations and Forcemains ......................................................................................... 2 1.2.2

Wastewater Treatment Plants (WTPs) ................................................................................... 4 1.2.3

Adelaide WTP ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.4

Greenway WTP ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.5

Oxford WTP ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.2.6

Pottersburg WTP .................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.7

Vauxhall WTP ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.8

Southland WTP ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.9

1.3 Level of Service ................................................................................................................................... 6 Sewer Design Criteria ............................................................................................................. 6 1.3.1

Current / Future Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................ 8 1.3.2

1.4 Relevant Non-Growth Studies Completed or Being Undertaken ........................................................ 9 Pollution Prevention and Control Plan .................................................................................... 9 1.4.1

Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization ........................................................................... 10 1.4.2

Potential Bottlenecks Analysis (from Previous DC Study) ................................................... 10 1.4.3

2. Future Growth ............................................................................................................................ 11

2.1 Works Determination ......................................................................................................................... 11

3. Future Work ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Trunk Sewer Related Works .............................................................................................................. 12 Existing Trunk Sewer Upgrades ........................................................................................... 13 3.1.1

Southwest Area Sanitary Servicing (SASS) ......................................................................... 13 3.1.2

Industrial Needs .................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.3

3.2 Pumping Station/Forcemain Works ................................................................................................... 14 Wonderland Road Pump Station .......................................................................................... 14 3.2.1

Colonel Talbot Pump Station ................................................................................................ 14 3.2.2

Southland Pump Station ....................................................................................................... 14 3.2.3

3.3 Required Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) Works ....................................................................... 15 Adelaide Wastewater Treatment plant ................................................................................. 15 3.3.1

Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant............................................................................... 16 3.3.2

Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................................................................. 17 3.3.3

Southland Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................................... 17 3.3.4

Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant .................................................................................... 17 3.3.5

Pottersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................................ 17 3.3.6

3.4 Future Works for Build Out ................................................................................................................ 17 Pottersburg Sewershed ........................................................................................................ 17 3.4.1

Southside Sewershed ........................................................................................................... 18 3.4.2

3.4.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant .............................................................................. 18



3.4.2.2 Build Out Sewers and Pumping Stations ........................................................... 18 Oxford Sewershed ................................................................................................................ 18 3.4.3

3.5 Growth/Non-Growth Determination ................................................................................................... 18 3.6 Residential/Institutional/Commercial/Industrial (Res/ICI) Allocations ................................................ 19 3.7 Sewer Oversizing Subsidy ................................................................................................................. 19 3.8 CRSF Trunk Sewers vs. Oversizing .................................................................................................. 20 3.9 Intensification ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Growth Need Sewers............................................................................................................ 21 3.9.1

Nodal Development .............................................................................................................. 21 3.9.2

Benefit to Existing (Non-Growth Allocations) for Intensification ........................................... 21 3.9.3

Intensification Local Service Cost ......................................................................................... 22 3.9.4

4. Consultation Process ................................................................................................................ 22

5. Development Charge Implications ............................................................................................ 22

6. Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................ 23

6.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 23 6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 24

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Existing Sewershed / Subsewershed Areas

Figure 1-2 Adelaide WTP Layout

Figure 1-3 Greenway WTP Layout

Figure 1-4 Oxford WTP Layout

Figure 1-5 Pottersburg WTP Layout

Figure 1-6 Vauxhall WTP Layout

Figure 3-1 Sanitary Sewer Works with Urban Growth Boundary Over 300mm

Figure 3-2 Sanitary Sewer Works to Build Out Over 300mm

Figure 3-3 Proposed Greenway WTP Expansion

Figure 3-4 Potential Intensification Nodes

List of Tables

Table 1-1 City of London Operated Sanitary Pumping Stations

Table 1-2 Rated Capacity (From ECAs) of City of London Wastewater Treatment Plants

Table 1-3 Trunk Sewer Design Standards

Table 1-4 Proposed Future Effluent Criteria

Table 2-1 GROWTH FLOW PROJECTIONS TO 2033 BASED ON AN I&I RATE OF 8640L/Day/HA (2014-2033) Table 3-1 COSTING OF RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER WORKS SUMMARY FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY

(2014-2033) Table 3-2 GROWTH SPLITS FOR RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER WORKS SUMMARY FOR THE GMIS

BOUNDARY (2014-2033) Table 3-3 UNIT COST TABLE FOR PIPES, CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION WORK Table 3-4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT/ MAJOR PUMPING STATION COST COMPONENTS (2014 TO

2033)

Table 3-5 DETAILED ESTIMATE OF THE GREENWAY WTP EXPANSION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

CALCULATION

Table 3-6 Oversizing Cost Schedule from a 5m Buried, 250mm dia. pipe



Table 3-7 DISTRIBUTED COST OF SERVICING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH STREET AND

WELLINGTON STREET

Table 3-8 GROWTH SEWERS FOR RESIDENTIAL/ICI ON ARTERIAL ROADS

Table 5-1 TOTAL GROWTH SANITARY COSTS FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)

Appendices

Appendix A Historical Sewage Flow Charts and Data

Appendix B Local Servicing Policy


2014-06-03 Sanitary Dc Report 1

1. Introduction

AECOM was retained to undertake the 2014 Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update and Development Charge

Background Study (DC) for the City of London Sanitary Sewerage Collection System, Pumping Station (PS) and

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) facilities to support the DC 2014 By-Law Amendment. The City of London last

completed a Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Plan Update in 2008 to support the 2009 DC Update. The intent is to

reconfirm and/or identify new growth-related works for the City’s sanitary sewerage systems on a 5 year incremental

basis over a 20 year period (2014 through 2033), to support DC for future residential, institutional, commercial and

industrial development.

1.1 Update Objectives

The objectives of the project were as follows:

Update the City of London Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Plan Update 2008 to address 20 year growth per the

information provided by the City with consideration of the ultimate requirements over 50 years.

Confirm existing wastewater system operating conditions, related regulatory requirements and service level

needs and reconfirm/identify any new growth related requirements.

Identify up-to-date costs (2014), for the trunk sewer upsizing, replacement of new works required, including

pumping station/forcemain and WTPs. Identify any benefit to existing (growth/non-growth) components and

allocate growth components to residential, institutional, commercial and industrial land uses for DC

determination.

Address peer review comments from the previous DC background work; incorporate outputs from more recently

completed works, environmental assessments, and/or community plans; ensure consistency with the City’s

Water and Transportation DC Updates (2014), and support/assist in development of the City’s Growth

Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS); and remove redundancies in restoration costs where

appropriate.

Reconfirm WTP requirements based on regulatory, optimization, industrial pre-treatment, and future capacity

needs to accommodate growth on a 5 year incremental basis over the 20 year growth period.

Consultation with the City of London’s Environmental & Engineering Services Department, the Finance

Department and DC personnel at key stages of the project to reduce potential cost and time implications, and

obtain agreement with the results of the work to develop the City’s GMIS.

This DC Update determined works based on growth needs for the 20 year period used for DC application purposes

and will assist in developing the City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS). Redundancies for

road restoration costs were removed where applicable among various water, sanitary, storm and road related works.

The intent was to ensure funding for future growth related works, or portions thereof; confirm optimal and timely

servicing for Southwest London (and the Southside sewershed); and optimize industrial servicing potential in the

City.

1.2 Existing Sanitary System (2013)

The City of London’s sanitary sewerage system consists of over 1,230 km of sanitary sewers (284 km of trunk

sewers, 300 mm or greater in diameter), and 35 pumping stations with over 45 km of forcemain. These sewers,

pumping stations and forcemains collect and convey sewage to the City’s five major WTPs serving the Adelaide,

Greenway, Oxford, Pottersburg and Vauxhall sewersheds. One minor WTP facility (Southland) serves a small

portion of Lambeth. The total average sewage flow directed to the City’s WTPs (2013) was 217 million litres per day

(MLD) of the 266 MLD total capacity. Figure 1-1 shows the sewersheds tributary to each of the City’s WTP’s along

with the related trunk sewers and pumping stations.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+ Wonderland PS

Crestwood PS

Westfield PS

Talbot Village PS

Sunninghill PS

Bostwick PS


Westmount PS

Byron PS

Medway PS

Gore Rd PS

Sanford PS

Adelaide PS

Hyde Park PS

Hunt Club PSRiverBend PS

Clarke Rd RS

Brookdale PS

East Park PS

Berkshire PS

Southwinds PS

Springbank PS

Manor Park PS

Northridge PS

Pond Mills PS

Broughdale PS

Summercrest PS

Victoria St PS

Trafalgar Rd PS

Paardberg Cr PS

Huron Street PS

Hazeldon Park PS

Chelsea Green PS

Chelsea Heights PS

OXFORD WTP

VAUXHALL WTP

GREENWAY WTP

ADELAIDE WTP

SOUTHLAND WTP

POTTERSBURG WTP

HWY 401 E

HWY 401 W

DINGMAN DR

CLA

RK

E R

D

DUNDAS ST

HWY 402 E

MANNING DR

AIR

POR

T RD

HWY 402 W

SCOTLAND DR

BRADLEY AVE

OXFORD ST E

HAMILTON RD

CO

LON

EL T

ALB

OT

RD

WES

TDEL

BR

NE

HURON ST

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

AD

ELA

IDE

ST N

GORE RD

EXETER RD

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

OXFORD ST W

HYD

E PA

RK

RD

WESTMINSTER DR

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

S

COMMISSIONERS RD W

PACK RD

WEL

LIN

GTO

N R

D S

COMMISSIONERS RD E

WILTON GROVE RD

CHEAPSIDE ST

GLANWORTH DR

SOUTHDALE RD W

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

N

WHARNCLIFFE RD S

SARNIA RD

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

N

WEL

LIN

GTO

N R

D

SUNNINGDALE RD E

KING ST

WH

ITE

OA

K R

D

SUNNINGDALE RD W

FANSHAWE PARK RD E

YORK ST

FANSHAWE PARK RD W

SOUTHDALE RD E

CR

UM

LIN

SD

RD

QUEENS AVE

CO

LBO

RN

E ST

KILALLY RD

LONGWOODS RD

SPRINGBANK DR

DECKER DR

WO

OD

HU

LL R

D

RIVER RD

ROBIN'S HILL RD

SOUTHMINSTER BRNE

VISCOUNT RD

GAINSBOROUGH RD

HORTON ST E

PON

D M

ILLS

RD

WAVELL ST

HARRY WHITE DR

SEC

ON

D S

T

RID

OU

T ST

S

EGER

TON

ST

BR

AD

ISH

RD

MU

RR

AY R

D

BYRON BASELINE RD

BRYDGES ST

ELVIAGE DR

ERN

EST

AVE

BO

STW

ICK

RD

GIDEON DR

SHARON RD

FLORENCE ST

TALB

OT

ST

WINDERMERE RD

WEL

LIN

GTO

N S

T

ADELAIDE ST S

CENTRAL AVE

WEBBER BRNE

JAC

KSO

N R

D

TRAFALGAR ST

BRADY DR

QU

EBEC

ST

OLD

VIC

TOR

IA R

D

THOMPSON RD

REC

TORY

ST

CO

OK

RD

TEMPO

RD

MAIN ST

WH

AR

NC

LIFF

E R

D N

UPP

ER Q

UEE

N S

T

LITTLEWOOD DR

BESS

EMER

RD

PLAT

T'S

LAN

E

NIX

ON

AVE

BASE LINE RD E

CA

RFR

AE

CR

ES

WH

ITE

OA

K R

D

AD

ELAID

E ST S

HURON ST

OLD

VIC

TOR

IA R

D

PON

D M

ILLS

RD

WESTMINSTER DR

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

N

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S GLANWORTH DR

OLD

VIC

TOR

IA R

D



Figure 1-1Existing Sewersheds/Sub-Sewersheds Areas

Scale: As Shown

Date: March 2014

PN: 60275661


¹


Legend


!( Existing Pumping Station


Major Roads

City Boundary

Railway

Adelaide

Greenway

Medway

Oxford

Pottersburg

Vauxhall

Wonderland



Cross Connections and Storm Relief Sewers 1.2.1

The City’s sanitary sewer system has approximately 257 overflows and cross-connections between sanitary and

combined or sanitary and storm sewers throughout the City. Approximately 60 are related to the City’s trunk sewer

network located primarily in the Greenway (core area and north), and Vauxhall sewershed areas. Generally

speaking, a number of sanitary sewer overflow connections and interconnections between separate trunk sewers

and storm sewers exist in the core area. Significant basement flooding has prompted numerous mitigation activities

in several older parts of the City.

Between the mid-1950s and mid 1960s numerous storm and relief sewers (SRS) were constructed throughout the

existing City. The main purpose for these SRS was to relieve adjacent sanitary sewer systems that were found to be

surcharging, and reduce or eliminate basement flooding in the tributary areas. Since then, numerous storm

connections have also been made to these systems. The City is currently confirming overflow volume and

frequency through flow monitoring and benthic sampling analysis through the undertaking of the Pollution Prevention

and Control Plan.

Pumping Stations and Forcemains 1.2.2

The City’s sanitary sewerage collection system includes 35 sanitary pumping stations which transmit sewage flows

via forcemains into the City’s sanitary sewer system. Most pumping stations have single forcemains for discharge

with backup power or storage for alternative conveyance under emergency or maintenance conditions.

The pumping stations are generally in good mechanical and electrical condition, due to general upkeep and

continuous maintenance and parts replacement by the City. No stations require significant upgrading at this time

due to condition as identified by City personnel.

Table 1-1 provides a listing of all the active sanitary pumping stations in the City along with their locations and

capacities.

Table 1-1: City of London Operated Sanitary Pumping Stations

Pumping Station Location

Forcemain

Diameter

(mm)

Firm

Capacity

(L/s)(1)

No. of

Pumps

Potential Peak

Flow Capacity

(L/s)(2)

ADELAIDE WTP

Adelaide PS 1201 Adelaide St. North 1500 2365 4 3630

Huron St. Huron/William 150 18 2 30

Sanford Sanford/Huron 250 82.6 2 130

Northridge 55 Benson Cr 150 25 2 25

GREENWAY WTP

Berkshire 201 Wonderland 600 600 3 600

Bostwick 1545 Wharncliffe Road

South 250 74 2 148

Brookdale Brookdale/Springbank 150 18 2 30

Broughdale 37 Towerline 250 38 2 69.5

Chelsea Green 11 Adelaide 150 60 2 81.7

Crestwood 999 Gabor Street 125 11 2 11

Manor Park Tecumseh/Winston 100 6 2 12

Pond Mills Pond Mills/Deveron 350 130 2* 198



Pumping Station Location

Forcemain

Diameter

(mm)

Firm

Capacity

(L/s)(1)

No. of

Pumps

Potential Peak

Flow Capacity

(L/s)(2)

Sunninghill Clearview/MacKellar 250 50 3 75

Victoria Victoria/Parkway 100 3 1 3

Westmount 310 Southdale 350 182 3 182

Wonderland PS(3)

Dingman and Wonderland 750 527 4* 665

ADELAIDE WTP / GREENWAY WTP

Medway 1422 Corely Dr. 400/600/ 450 715 4 1015

Pitcarnie 58 Pitcarnie Cres 100 7 2 10

Sunningdale 2011 Quarrier Rd 150 16 2 16

OXFORD WTP

Hyde Park 164 Cheltenham Rd 300 98 2 98/180

Byron 1322 Old Bridge Rd 600/200 284 4* 400

Hazeldon Park 32 ½ Hampton Cres 250 15 2 36

Hunt Club 104 Fitzwilliam 250 95 3 135

Southwinds 3936 Graham Place 150 13 4 14.5

Talbot Village 6664 Pack Road 200 43 2 57

Summercrest 135 Optimist Park 200 21 2 33

Springbank

- West

- East

929 Springbank Drive N/A N/A N/A N/A

Westfield

Part of 78 Concession

East of North Branch of

Talbot Road

200 28 2 56

Riverbend – Main 2120 Kains Rd 350 160 2* 238

POTTERSBURG WTP

Clarke Clarke/Parkhurst 450 298 4 298

Trafalgar Airport Rd/Trafalgar 400 150 3* 200

Gore Road Gore/Marconi 100 19 2 19

East Park Hamilton Rd. 350x2 105 2 210

VAUXHALL WTP

Chelsea Heights 54 Price St. 450 306 4 306

Paardeberg Paardeberg/Flanders 200 25 2 42

Notes:

1) Firm Capacity – Capacity with largest pump out of service, per City of London Wastewater Treatment Operations – Sewage

Pumping Stations Status Report, 2013

2) Maximum pumping capability based on number of pumps allowed for per City of London Wastewater Treatment Operations –

Sewage Pumping Stations Status Report, 2013

3) Firm capacity with 2 pumps operating. Peak flow based on 4 pumps operating (spare for 4 more, total 8)

* Station has space allocation to add one/two more pump(s)



Wastewater Treatment Plants (WTPs) 1.2.3

The City currently has five major wastewater treatment plants and one small Southland facility. All of the plants are

conventional activated sludge secondary treatment plants with seasonal ultraviolet disinfection, except for the Oxford

WTP (membrane facility) and the small Southland facility which includes tertiary treatment. Biosolids from each of

the satellite plants is hauled to the Greenway WTP for dewatering and incineration. The following table lists the

wastewater treatment plants, rated capacity and operational capacity.

Table 1-2: Rated Capacity (From ECAs) of City of London Wastewater Treatment Plants

Wastewater Treatment Plant Rated Average Capacity (MLD) Operational Capacity (MLD)

Greenway 152.3 134.2

Vauxhall 20.9 19.9

Pottersburg 39.1 37.2

Adelaide 36.4 34.6

Oxford 17.3 16.4

Southland 0.4 0.27

TOTAL 266.4 242.6

A detailed description of each of the wastewater treatment plants is as follows:

Adelaide WTP 1.2.4

The Adelaide WTP is located in the north central portion of the City. Plant effluent is discharged to the north branch

of the Thames River. The Adelaide WTP is an activated sludge plant with a current rated capacity of 36.4 MLD. It

also serves a defined area in the Hamlet of Arva by agreement with the Township of Middlesex Centre that currently

has a reserved maximum capacity of 175 m3/day.

The Adelaide WTP consists of two sections, No.1 rated for 6.8 MLD and No.2 rated for 29.6 MLD. The old plant

No.1 is not normally in service. All flow is treated in Section No. 2. Figure 1-2 provides a site layout of the plant.

Sewage flows received by Adelaide WTP are primarily residential in nature, which reach the plant via gravity sewers

from the north and east. The flows are lifted by the pump station that allows the total plant flow to pass through

treatment without additional pumping. Plant effluent must meet compliance limits for BOD5, suspended solids,

phosphorus, E.coli and ammonia. The Adelaide WTP meets these compliance limits and operates in an economical

manner.

Sludge consisting of co-settled primary and waste activated sludge (WAS) is stored in WAS holding tanks, blended

sludge is thickened and stored in thickened WAS holding tanks underground. The sludge is trucked to the

Greenway WTP for dewatering and incineration. Odour control consists of covered primary clarifiers as well as

packed bed chemical scrubbers for the sewage pumping station, a sludge truck loading station, inlet building, waste

activated sludge (WAS) thickening building, WAS holding tanks and thickened waste activated sludge

(TWAS)holding tanks.

Greenway WTP 1.2.5

The Greenway WTP is the City of London’s largest wastewater treatment facility, with a rated capacity of 152.3 MLD.

The WTP is located in the west central portion of the City and was originally constructed more than 60 years ago.

Adelaide PCP

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Jan-86 Jan-91 Jan-96 Jan-01 Jan-06 Jan-11

FL

OW

(M

IGP

D)

Total FlowCurrent Rated CapacityOperating Capacity36 per. Mov. Avg. (Total Flow)Linear (Total Flow)



The WTP is a conventional activated sludge plant that consists of three individual treatment trains downstream of the

headworks, referred to as Section 1, Section 2 and Section 3. Figure 1-3 provides a site layout of the plant.

The sewage flows received by Greenway WTP are a combination of residential and industrial wastewater. Flows

reach the plant via a number of sewer systems, and a forcemain from the Berkshire Pumping Station. Three gravity

sewers enter the plant with one sewer at a low level requiring lift pumping. The Greenway WTP generally produces

effluent complying with the requirements of its current Ministry of Environment (MOE) Environmental Compliance

Approval (ECA). The plant is required to meet compliance limits for BOD5, suspended solids, phosphorus,

ammonia, E. coli and dissolved oxygen.

Sludge produced at all the other treatment facilities in the City is handled at the Greenway WTP. Sludge is mixed,

retained in holding tanks and dewatered using centrifuge presses. The imported sludge is thickened at the sending

WTP facilities before being trucked to Greenway. After incineration ash from the incinerator is captured in geotubes

located at the southwest corner of the site.

Oxford WTP 1.2.6

The Oxford WTP is located in the west end of the City. Plant effluent is discharged to the main branch of the

Thames River. The Oxford WTP is a membrane plant with a current rated capacity of 17.3 MLD. Figure 1-4

provides a site layout of the plant.

Sewage flows received by the Oxford WTP are primarily residential wastewater which reach the plant via gravity

sewers, and a forcemain from the Byron Pumping Station. Thickened sludge is hauled to the Greenway WTP for

dewatering and incineration. The plant produces an extremely high quality effluent.

Pottersburg WTP 1.2.7

The Pottersburg WTP is located in the southeast area of the City. Plant effluent is discharged to the south branch of

the Thames River, just downstream of its confluence with Pottersburg Creek. The Pottersburg WTP is an activated

sludge plant with a current rated capacity of 39.1 MLD. Figure 1-5 provides a site layout of the plant.

The Pottersburg WTP consists of three treatment trains, downstream of the common headworks. The sewage flows

received at the Pottersburg WTP are a combination of residential and industrial wastewater. Flows reach the plant

via a gravity sewer system and a forcemain from the East Park Pumping Station. Sewage flows travel through

treatment without additional pumping. The Pottersburg WTP generally produces acceptable effluent and operates in

an economic manner. Plant effluent must meet compliance limits for BOD5, suspended solids, phosphorus,

ammonia, E. coli and dissolved oxygen.

Biosolids consisting of primary sludge and thickened waste activated sludge are stored in holding tanks. The

biosolids are trucked to the Greenway WTP for dewatering and incineration.

Vauxhall WTP 1.2.8

The Vauxhall WTP is located in the east central area of the City. Plant effluent is discharged to the south branch of

the Thames River. The Vauxhall WTP is an activated sludge plant with a current rated capacity of 20.9 MLD.

Figure 1-6 provides a site layout of the plant.

The Vauxhall WTP services an older area of the City of London with significant industrial contributions. The plant

consists of two treatment trains. Sludge handling improvements were included as part of past works to improve

facility operations and reduce the volume of sludge being hauled to the Greenway WTP.



Figure 1-3Greenway WTP Layout

Scale: As Shown

Date: February 2014 PN: 60275661



Sewage flows received at the Vauxhall WTP are a combination of residential, commercial and industrial waste.

Flows reach the plant via a gravity sewer system and an onsite pumping station (Chelsea Heights).

The Vauxhall WTP generally produces acceptable effluent and operates in an economical manner. Plant effluent

must meet compliance limits for BOD5, suspended solids, phosphorus, ammonia, E. coli and dissolved oxygen.

Biosolids consisting of primary sludge and thickened waste activated sludge are stored in holding tanks. The

biosolids are trucked to the Greenway WTP for dewatering and incineration. The waste activated sludge from the

activated sludge process is thickened by gravity belt thickeners. Odour control includes a packed bed chemical

scrubber for the sludge thickening building and the truck loading station.

Southland WTP 1.2.9

The Southland WTP has a rated capacity of 0.4 MLD; however, the operational capacity is limited to 0.27 MLD to

satisfy applicable effluent criteria. It currently serves approximately 180 residential units, one commercial enterprise,

and one retirement home. No further expansions of this facility are being considered. It is scheduled to be

decommissioned and replaced by a pumping station, forcemain and trunk sewer, subject to finalizing the Schedule B

Environmental Assessment which is currently in the review period.

1.3 Level of Service

AECOM reviewed the current design standards and resulting level of service for the City of London. The level of

service has been consistent with previous DC studies, applicable MOE guidelines / requirements as well as other

applicable legislation and regulations.

Sewer Design Criteria 1.3.1

The various design and/or planning criteria is shown as follows:

Trunk Sewer Design: The trunk sewer design standards shown in Table 1-3 below are based on the City of

London’s previously developed standard, past London Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Studies (LSSSS) and MOE

Guidelines.

Table 1-3: Trunk Sewer Design Standards

Velocity (min./max.) gravity (m/s)

pressure (m/s)

Maintenance Hole Losses Head loss Equation

Diameter (minimum) gravity (mm)

pressure (mm)

Manning’s Equation 0.013 (<1650 mm)

0.011 (>1650 mm)

Minimum Cover to Obvert (m) 2.4 m

Maintenance Hole Spacing (m) 99 (Measured Horizontally)

110 (Measured Vertically)

90< 450 mm 150 > 450 mm

All are consistent with past work and the City’s standards.

Vauxhall PCP

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

Jan-86 Jan-91 Jan-96 Jan-01 Jan-06 Jan-11

FL

OW

(M

IGP

D)

Total FlowCurrent Rated CapacityOperating Capacity36 per. Mov. Avg. (Total Flow)Linear (Total Flow)



Residential – 230 L/capita/day: MOE criteria ranges from 225 to 450 liters per capita per day. Past City of

London criteria has averaged from 250 to 340 L/capita/day. Significant work has been done to study water

usage in the City of London. In general, water usage is decreasing as people are becoming more efficient

with their water usage (i.e. installation of low flush toilets, ceasing washing cars, reducing lawn watering,

etc.). To recognize this, AECOM reviewed several years of water usage data across several sectors and

have developed a current trend that justifies the reduction in the residential water consumption design

parameter from 270 Litres/capita/day to 255 L/ capita/day. The reduction in per capita water use translates

to a reduction in per capita sewage flow from 250 L/ capita/day to 230 L/ capita/day. This trend may reverse

in the future and as such, future DC updates should review all water usage and sewage flows across all

sectors for shifts in trending.

Commercial – 6,600 L/ha/day: MOE criteria is applied by floor area of the building. The 2009 City of

London criteria was ranged from 6,600 L/ha/day. The commercial land use servicing planning criteria was

chosen based on average winter day water consumption information for commercial and industrial land uses

(accounting for water losses), compiled as part of the City of London’s water billing database for the period,

consistent with the ICI criteria used previously. Average winter day water consumption was used because it

is assumed that most commercial flows will be returned to the City’s sewerage system. This figure also

reflects impacts of the new plumbing code and water conservation applied in existing businesses.

Institutional – 13,600 L/ha/day: MOE criteria is applied by bed or student. Past City of London criteria has

ranged from 13,275 to 35,000 L/ha/day. The institutional land use servicing planning criteria was chosen

based on average winter day water consumption information for all institutional uses (accounting for water

losses), compiled as part of the City of London’s water billing database for the period and is consistent with

the ICI criteria used previously. Average winter day water consumption was used because it is assumed

that most institutional flows will be returned to the City’s sewerage system. This figure also reflects impacts

of the new plumbing code and water conservation applied in existing institutions.

Industrial – 15,000 L/ha/d: MOE guidelines states that industrial flows “vary greatly with the extent of area

development, the types of industries present, the provision of in-plant effluent treatment and recycle/re-use

or rate of flow controls, the presence of cooling waters in the discharge and other factors.” Past City of

London criteria has ranged from 15,000 to 50,000 L/ha/day. The industrial land use servicing planning

criteria was chosen based on average winter day water consumption information for all industrial uses

(accounting for water losses), compiled as part of the City of London’s water billing database and is

consistent with the ICI criteria used previously. Average winter day water consumption was used because it

is assumed that most industrial flows will be returned to the City’s sewerage system. This figure also reflects

impacts of the new plumbing code and water conservation in existing industries.

The City initially identified an industrial add-in for existing industry expansion in the core of the City of 2

MLD.

Inflow and Infiltration – 8,640 L/ha/day: Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) represents sewer flows in excess of

water usage flows under dry and/or wet weather conditions. Infiltration includes groundwater and surface

water entry through leaking joints and/or other structural defects on a continuous (base), or rainfall induced

basis. Inflow also occurs as a result of roof leader, basement and/or foundation connections, and/or other

illegal or faulty connections. Based on the many inflow and infiltration studies completed in the City, it is

apparent that I&I varies across the City of London. An analysis of WTP wet weather flows, City of London

rainfall information, MOE F-5-5 criteria and other available flow, record, monitoring or surcharge information

was completed to establish the average I&I values that should be used for conveyance and treatment

systems for future growth servicing purposes. A range of values were identified for I&I in each WTP

sewershed area (4,300 to 44,000 L/ha/day). While older sewer infrastructure typically has higher I&I,

current monitoring is indicating that I&I flows may be higher than 8,640 litres/ha/day in new growth areas.

This is still be being reviewed and the City is continually trying to work cooperatively with the development

and home building industries to keep I&I rates low. Notwithstanding this, should I&I in growth areas



continue to increase, the City would need to further implement works to handle the I&I (ie. increased pipe

sizes, storage facilities, etc.)

Based on all of the aforementioned assessments, the MOE design standard of 8,640 L/ha/day for new

collection systems, pumping stations/forcemains and for WTP design, which is at the low end of the

acceptable range, is appropriate for project purposes.

Peaking Factor: The capacity provided by sanitary sewers and pumping stations must allow for peak rates of

sewage flows. The standard “Harmon’s Formula” was used to determine peak flow rates for trunk sewer and

pumping station design. Once a pump station is in operation, peaking factors may be adjusted in accordance with

actual monitored flows at the pump stations. This is particularly relevant in larger drainage areas with mixed land

uses. In areas with industrial land use contributions, the standard value of 80% of the Harmon peaking factor is

used. This value is more reasonable in industrial areas where flow fluctuations are less severe.

Sewage Capacity Sizing Criteria:

230 L/cap/day for Residential Land Areas (255 L/cap/day in 2009 DC update);

6,600 L/ha/day for Commercial Land Areas (6,600 L/ha/day in 2009 DC update);

13,600 L/ha/day for Institutional Land Areas (13,600 L/ha/day in 2009 DC update);

15,000 L/ha/day for Industrial Land Areas (15,000 L/ha/day in 2009 DC update);

8,640 L/ha/day I&I for growth related trunk sewers/pumping stations (8,640 L/ha/day in 2009 DC update); and

Standard City/MOE design criteria for all remaining items.

We further recommend the 230 L/cap/day be used as the City’s design standard rather than 250 L/cap/day.

The ICI criteria should remain per current City standards and be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The ICI figures

recommended for planning purposes are an average across the City only for net area application. Therefore, there

will be a number of instances where actual flows will be lower and/or higher, particularly for heavy water users,

hence the addition of an industrial add-in to address as discussed later in this report.

Current / Future Regulatory Requirements 1.3.2

Current regulatory effluent and operational requirements are outlined in the latest Environmental Compliance

Approvals for each of the City’s WTPs and pumping stations. The recording of plant or pumping station bypasses,

their duration and severity are also MOE requirements.

Table 1-4 provides the present and anticipated effluent criteria for the wastewater treatment plants. This criteria

forms the basis for treatment requirements when upgrading / expanding WTPs.

Table 1-4 Proposed Future Effluent Criteria

PARAMETER PRESENT HORIZON FROM PRESENT

20 YEARS2 50 YEARS

2

BOD5 (mg/L) 10/15 10/15 5

SS (mg/L) 10/15 10/15 5

P (mg/L) 1.0 0.5/0.75 0.2-0.3



PARAMETER PRESENT HORIZON FROM PRESENT

20 YEARS2 50 YEARS

2

NH3 (0.1 unionized mg/L) 1.5/4.0

2-3 Summer

5-8 Winter

2-3 Summer

5-8 Winter

NO3 (mg/L) No Criteria Possible Criteria by IJC3 Denitrification

Cl2 Residual (mg/L) 0.5 Off Cl2 -

D0 (mg/L) (no mechanical post

aeration) 3-5 4-5 4-5

E. Coli (per 100 ml) 200 MOEE

100 Health Unit

100 100

Toxicity Concentration Other Than

Cl2/NH3 N/A

Yes

96 Hr. LC50

Yes

96 Hr. LC50

Denitrification No

Possible if IJC3

Nitrate Concern Yes

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS PRESENT 20 50

By-Passing F-5-54 Virtual Elimination

Covering of Tanks (for odour control) None Possible Yes

Sludge Disposal Incineration Incineration Incineration and Beneficial Uses

Noise N/A ECA’s with Permissible Noise Level(s)

ECA’s with Permissible Noise

Level(s)

1. Monthly average 2 samples/month (composite)

2. MOE has indicated that future effluent quality will be based on allowable loadings to the receiving stream (Thames River)

following assimilation capacity study.

3. IJC – International Joint Commission

4. F-5-5 (Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private Combined and Partially Separated Sewer Systems) is a

supporting document for the Guideline F-5 (Levels of Treatment for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging

to Surface Waters).

1.4 Relevant Non-Growth Studies Completed or Being Undertaken

Pollution Prevention and Control Plan 1.4.1

A Pollution Prevention and Control Plan will provide the City, Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) and community with a long term plan for managing conveyance system sewer overflows and bypasses in London. The project will include investigations, development of sewer system models, mitigation strategies, and documentation to identify the problem areas and opportunities for reducing the discharge of untreated sewage into the Thames River. The plan will guide future investments to reduce overflow impacts. Phase I of the Pollution Prevention and Control Plan included initiation of the project and master plan, background review of data and documentation, review of benthic studies and water quality data, inventory of sewer overflows, bypasses, and discharge points, determination of flow monitoring requirements and a preliminary ranking of sewer overflow and bypass discharge points. Five technical memos were prepared along with a Phase I summary report. Phase II will continue the master plan process: characterization of the Thames River, including benthic and water quality sampling and testing at strategically located sites; hydrologic and hydraulic modelling of the different sewer sheds to determine sewer overflow frequencies and volumes; and, the development of a long and short list of sewer overflow and bypass control measures. This phase will take two and a half years to complete. This schedule is required to allow sufficient time to complete twelve hydraulic sewer modelling and flow monitoring assignments.



Individual hydraulic sewer modelling assignments will be awarded to multiple consultants through a separate two stage procurement process in 2014. A separate report will be brought forward to Council to award these modelling assignments. A future Phase III of this project will include refinement of the prioritization of the sewer overflow and bypass discharge points, alternative selection criteria and evaluation of preferred sewer overflow and bypass control measures.

The PPCP Study is being managed by a Technical Steering Committee which includes membership from the City,

MOE, UTRCA, and the consultant team. Regular meetings provide direction for the development of all phases of the

project.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization 1.4.2

This report will develop for Council a recommended approach to reducing long term capital costs for wastewater

treatment plant expansions and effectively plan to meet more stringent effluent criteria. The goal is to find latent

capacity at existing facilities and coordinate expansions with life cycle replacements over the next twenty years,

giving consideration to the location of future expansions and technological upgrades. The future challenges of more

stringent effluent criteria, Combined Sewer Overflow treatment and evaluating possible impacts of climate change

will also be recognized. Operational savings are possible through reduced energy consumption coupled with

increased efficiency and recovery in both growth and lifecycle project designs, and by deferring capital expansions.

The plan will embrace new technologies, and involve technical staff with outside expertise within a phased process

that recognizes successful pilot projects that are in progress and envisions the benefits of automation and innovation

into the future. This approach will leverage the work of London’s International Water Centre of Excellence, the City’s

academic and business partners, and adding the implementation of new technologies to the City’s leadership in

research role.

A preliminary capacity/optimization study for Adelaide, Oxford, Pottersburg and Vauxhall plants was undertaken in

2013. This study reviewed possible optimization of the existing processes. The next step will focus on the wet

weather flows at these plants and the potential average daily flow capacity available by reducing the peaking factors.

Potential Bottlenecks Analysis (from Previous DC Study) 1.4.3

During the last 2009 DC update, the InfoSewer model was run based on calibration to 2003 flow information (and/or

earlier where needed and applicable), under 2003 day conditions, and tributary population/ICI information under dry

weather conditions. The intent was to identify if any constraints or bottlenecks to service growth into the future

existed within the key trunk sewers and pumping stations/forcemains in the model. The results indicated that no

constraints or bottlenecks exist for current dry weather conditions. Adding the standard I/I allowance of 8,640

L/ha/day, as per the design criteria outlined, showed some sewer segments over capacity. When allowing for I&I by

sewershed with I&I values 2.5 to 5 times the design standard (19,000-44,000 L/ha.day), constraints were identified

within the following trunk sewers and/or pumping stations/forcemains.

Numerous pipe segments within the core and immediate north and south areas of the City tributary to the Greenway WTP surcharge.

Portions of the sewer on Western Road could experience problems during a large rain event if all flows currently directed to the Medway pumping station are directed to the Greenway WTP. Portions of the sewer on Windermere Road could experience problems during a large rain event if all flows currently directed to



Medway pumping station are directed to the Adelaide WTP. Conveyance problems can be averted by splitting the flows at Medway pumping station between the Greenway WTP and the Adelaide WTP.

Portions of the Westminster trunk sewers in South London surcharge. Minimal growth is expected in these areas and the City implemented storage/attenuation measures to mitigate I&I in this area.

Portions of the Egerton trunk sewer are surcharging. The City completed Phases 3 and Phase 4 of the Burbrook Trunk Sewer. Once Phases 1/2 and 3/4 are connected this should mitigate the impacts created by minor growth in the Vauxhall sewershed area.

One segment of the Cheapside St. sewer was found to be over capacity under existing conditions. This segment is a 400 mm sewer downstream of a 600 mm sewer. This sewer will only cause minimal backwater effects under high flows but should be replaced upon development of the upstream area.

Generally speaking, the City’s trunk sanitary sewers (450 mm in diameter or greater), and the key pumping

stations/forcemains related thereto, have sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth presuming the

standard I/I allowance is applied. This however is not a conservative value. If the maximum daily average I&I

allowance, by sewershed is to be allowed for, growth relative to the trunk sewers and/or pumping

stations/forcemains identified above, would have to be curtailed until mitigated via upsizing, diversion, storage or re-

routing (i.e. eliminating I&I at the source by disconnecting weeping tiles).

2. Future Growth

The City of London developed future population growth information for the period from 2014 through 2033 in 5-year

increments (2014, 2019, 2024, 2029, 2034). These growth projections, which were verified by Altus, were provided

by the City to AECOM in March 2013. This information, plus later updates, formed the basis for the planning work

completed for all services. This included reducing industrial areas to an amount consistent with the City’s Industrial

Development Strategy and the Altus forecast through 2033, as was done previously, and confirming those portions

of the City to be serviced over the 20 year planning period as part of GMIS development. This information was used

to define the works required for each population projection and area, and related oversizing (if applicable), for each

service being assessed.

Table 2-1 shows the sewage flow forecasts developed from the population and ICI information provided by the City,

using the design criteria summarized at the bottom of the table. The table shows calculated sewage flows due to

growth by sewershed, by facility, and in total from 2014 through 2033. In addition, an industrial demand add-in

equivalent to 2 MLD over the 20 year growth period, primarily in the core area of the City, was added as provided by

the City. Allowances were also made for future flows from septage/leachate and biosolids management sources.

Growth requirements were determined based on the City’s population/ICI projections, and the service area

information confirmed via the City’s GMIS development process, for the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

2.1 Works Determination

Hydraulic modeling software, InfoSewer, was used to identify existing sewerage system constraints for future growth

accommodation, and to identify upsizing/alternate solutions. The modeling approach involved trunk sanitary sewers

300 mm in diameter or greater for trunk sewer design and DC determination purposes. Aggregating sewer lengths

of similar size and slope reduced the number of maintenance hole nodes. Sufficient nodes were left in place to

assess drainage areas less than 30 hectares in size for local servicing purposes.

Sewer segments, maintenance hole nodes and profiles were added to the model based on past planning, or the

latest environmental assessment or community plan information (e.g. sewer sizes, routes, profiles, etc.) to ensure

Comments

(1) Flow rate in Million Litres per Day (MLD).

(2) Based on latest 36 month plant flow trend analysis projected for July 1 2013 provided by City of London March 2013 developed to use as a starting point for take up of existing plant capacity.

(3) Plant flow is dependent on rainfall, 2012 total rainfall was lower than average

(4) Brackets indicate that flows are to be diverted to another PCP.

(5) An allowance has been made for existing industrial to expand capacity by 2MLD over a 20 year period

(6) Inflow/Infiltration estimated at 8640L/s

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

ADELAIDE DESIGN 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 36.37 44.97 44.97 44.97 44.97 44.97

OP CEILING/NET AVAILABLE CAPACITY 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 42.72 42.72 42.72 42.72 42.72

36 Mo. Average (2) 25.50

Adelaide Growth 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33

Growth Projection 25.84 26.18 26.52 26.85 27.19 27.63 28.07 28.50 28.94 29.38 29.78 30.18 30.58 30.99 31.39 31.72 32.06 32.39 32.73 33.06

Switch via Medway PS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 2.27

Total at Adelaide 25.84 26.18 26.52 26.85 27.19 27.63 28.07 28.50 28.94 29.38 29.78 30.18 30.58 30.99 31.39 31.72 32.06 32.39 35.00 35.33

GREENWAY DESIGN 152.29 152.29 152.29 152.29 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00

ACTUAL (11 MLD deficit in Section 3) 141.29 141.29 141.29 141.29 141.29 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00

OP CEILING / NET AVAILABLE CAPACITY 134.23 134.23 134.23 134.23 134.23 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50 161.50

Greenway 36 Mo. Average (2) 126.10

Wonderland PS 36 Mo. Average (2) 35.89

36 Mo. Average Less Wonderland PS 90.21

Greenway Growth 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

Medway Growth 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Growth Projection (Less Dingman/Wonderland PS Flows) 90.86 91.51 92.16 92.81 93.47 94.04 94.62 95.20 95.78 96.36 96.78 97.19 97.61 98.03 98.45 98.83 99.20 99.57 99.95 100.32

Switch via Medway PS (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.27) (2.27)

Net at Greenway 90.86 91.51 92.16 92.81 93.47 94.04 94.62 95.20 95.78 96.36 96.78 97.19 97.61 98.03 98.45 98.83 99.20 99.57 97.68 98.05

Switch via Dingman/Wonderland PS 37.76 38.31 38.86 39.68 40.23 40.85 41.46 42.07 42.69 43.30 43.96 44.63 45.30 45.96 46.63 49.14 51.66 54.18 56.69 59.21

Total At Greenway 128.62 129.82 131.03 132.50 133.70 134.89 136.08 137.27 138.46 139.65 140.74 141.83 142.91 144.00 145.08 147.97 150.86 153.75 154.37 157.26

OXFORD DESIGN 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27 17.27


36 Mo. Average (2) 9.40

Oxford Growth 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23

SW/Talbot growth 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total at Oxford 9.78 10.16 10.54 10.92 11.30 11.41 11.51 11.61 11.71 11.81 11.96 12.10 12.24 12.38 12.52 12.75 12.97 13.20 13.42 13.65

POTTERSBURG DESIGN 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10 39.10


36 Mo. Average (2) 26.30

Pottersburg Growth 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

Total at Pottersburg 26.54 26.78 27.03 27.27 27.51 27.88 28.24 28.60 28.97 29.33 29.60 29.87 30.15 30.42 30.69 30.85 31.01 31.16 31.32 31.48

VAUXHALL DESIGN 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 23.11 23.11 23.11 23.11 23.11 23.11 23.11

OP CEILING 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 19.86 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95

36 Mo. Average (2) 18.60

Vauxhall Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

Total at Vauxhaul 18.60 18.61 18.61 18.62 18.62 18.69 18.75 18.82 18.88 18.95 19.07 19.20 19.33 19.46 19.59 19.67 19.75 19.83 19.91 19.98

WONDERLAND PS DESIGN 44.06 44.06 44.06 48.38 48.38 48.38 48.38 48.38 48.38 48.38 48.38 48.38 48.38 48.38 88.12 88.12 88.12 88.12 88.12 88.12 88.12


36 Mo. Average (2) 35.89Bostwick Growth 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20Brockley Industrial Growth 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Central Longwoods Growth 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Dingeman Industrial Growth 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

Lambeth Growth 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

North Lambeth Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90North Longwoods Growth 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

North Talbot Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

South Longwoods Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

Wellington/401 Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Wonderland Boulevard Growth 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Sub-Total Growth 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39Growth Projection 36.31 36.73 37.16 37.58 38.00 38.48 38.97 39.45 39.93 40.41 40.95 41.49 42.02 42.56 43.10 45.48 47.87 50.26 52.64 55.03Hauled Liquid Waste 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.71

Industrial Add-In Allowance (5) 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00

Bostwick PS 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20Lambeth (Existing) (Southland) 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

Total at Wonderland PS 37.76 38.31 38.86 39.68 40.23 40.85 41.46 42.07 42.69 43.30 43.96 44.63 45.30 45.96 46.63 49.14 51.66 54.18 56.69 59.21

Sewage Loading Rates Residential Conversion Factor

Residential 230 (L/person/day) 230 (L/person/day) Residential Population in 2001 = 320,713 (people)

Industrial 15000 (L/ha/day) 1.5 (L/sqm/day) Residential Landuse in 2001 = 7803 (ha)

Commercial 6600 (L/ha/day) 0.66 (L/sqm/day) Conversion Factor 41.10 (people/ha)

Institutional 13600 (L/ha/day) 1.36 (L/sqm/day)

Inflow/Infiltration (6) 8640 (L/ha/day) 0.864 (L/sqm/day)

Conversion Factor for Residential Population to Ha to estimate I/I 41.10 (People/ha) 0.00411 (People/sqm)

CITY OF LONDON2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDY

GROWTH FLOW PROJECTIONS TO 2033 BASED ON AN I&I RATE OF 8640L/Day/HA (2014-2033)(Revised June 3, 2014)

2013Existing

Average Seweage Flows (1)

TABLE 2-1

Construction/OPS

EA/Land/Design



that these works could accommodate the growth anticipated within each sewershed and subsewershed area. Trunk

sewers were extended on a straight-line basis where planning details were unknown, with elevations taken from

Ontario Base Mapping topographical information for subsewershed areas down to 30 hectares in size. This

servicing assumption resulted in the further subdivision of subsewershed areas within the model using InfoSewer’s

Automated Spatial Demand Allocation (ASDA) program.

Based on the model results, trunk sewers and pumping stations/forcemains were added or upsized to service future

growth areas. The sanitary sewer system analysis was completed for each sewershed as follows:

Modeling and analysis was reconfirmed to address sewage flows and the required works to service Build Out

(675,000 population);

Modeling and analysis was then completed for the sewage flows determined to service the Industrial reduced

and UGB areas. The required works were identified to satisfy the design constraints for those trunk sewer

and/or forcemain components needed to extend beyond these boundaries for Build Out purposes. Pipe

sizing for the Build Out condition was used with lengths reduced to service only the GMIS area;

Modeling of the sewers needed to service areas down to 30 hectares within the UGB was then completed to

identify all of the sewer system related works needed to fully service the lands within the UGB.

The final modeling analysis utilized the projected 2014 and 2033 growth information to reduce trunk sewer

lengths to service growth within those areas identified within the UGB Boundary for DC purposes.

Where growth could not be accommodated by existing trunk sewers or pumping stations/forcemains, alternate

solutions via storage, upsizing, alternate conveyance, etc., means were considered for non-surcharge conditions.

3. Future Work

Based on the modeling analysis outlined in Section 2, the following trunk sewer, pumping station/forcemain and

WTP related works were identified to improve existing systems and/or future growth servicing purposes through

2033. Section 3 discusses the determination of growth/non-growth and residential / industrial / commercial /

institutional (Res/ICI) splits as well as pipe oversizing and intensification.

3.1 Trunk Sewer Related Works

The trunk sewer related works required to service the population and ICI information provided by the City through

2033 within the City’s UGB were determined based on the sewage flows calculated, and modeling outputs. This

utilized the design I&I allowance of 8,640 L/ha/day.

Tables 3-1 and 3-2 identify future trunk sewer requirements to service the UGB through 2033 and shows the

following:

The location (WTP sewershed area tributary to, growth area, trunk sewer ID), and applicable details (average depth, diameter and length), for each trunk sewer component;

Estimated cost information (pipe, construction and restoration cost for a subtotal, plus 35% for engineering and contingencies, minus previous funding for a total cost):

Non-Growth/Growth related components;

DC IDCity

Project Number

PCP Sewershed (1)

GrowthArea

Trunk Sewer ID

(2)Note

Average Depth

Diameter LengthPipe & Const

Cost (3)Rest. (4)

Total Unit Cost

(m) (mm) (m) $/m $/m $/mDC14-WW00001 ES2493 OXFORD Hyde Park HP7A 2014 (8),(9) 5.0 600 957 2,000,000$ DC14-WW00002 ES5253 OXFORD River Bend RB1B 2014 10.0 750 540 2,195 710 2,905 1,568,700 235,305 313,740 2,117,745$ DC14-WW00003 ES5247 WONDERLAND Wonderland SS14A 2015 (12) 5 - 7.5 1200 826 1,859 2,248 4,107 3,394,267 509,140 678,853 4,582,260$ DC14-WW00004 ES5260 WONDERLAND Lambeth SS3A 2015 (12) 5 - 7.5 825 - 900 1559 1,442 2,331 3,773 5,881,870 882,281 1,176,374 7,940,525$ DC14-WW00005 WONDERLAND Lambeth SS15A 2016 (12) 7.5 825 1448 1,415 0 1,415 2,048,637 307,296 409,727 2,765,660$ DC14-WW00006 WONDERLAND North Talbot SS15C 2017 (12) 5 - 7.5 750 - 825 825 1,276 2,339 3,615 2,982,040 447,306 596,408 4,025,754$ DC14-WW00007 ES5256 WONDERLAND Longwoods SS12B 2016 4.7 375 1500 700 1,987 2,688 4,031,400 604,710 806,280 5,442,390$ DC14-WW00008 ES5252 ADELAIDE Killaly KL1B 2017 3.9 525 750 722 462 1,184 887,850 133,178 177,570 1,198,598$

DC14-WW00009 ES5255WONDERLAND

Wonderland/ Bostwisk E

SS13B 2018 (12) 5.0 675 1562 1,020 510 1,530 2,389,860 358,479 477,972 3,226,311$

DC14-WW00010 WONDERLAND North Talbot SS15B 2025 (12) 7.5 825 505 1,415 2,610 4,025 2,033,833 305,075 406,767 2,745,674$ DC14-WW00011 WONDERLAND Bostwick W SS14B 2030 (12) 5 - 7.5 450 - 975 2656 1,025 2,547 3,572 9,487,085 1,423,063 1,897,417 12,807,565$

$34,705,541 $5,205,831 $6,941,108 $48,852,481

DC IDCity

Project Number

PCP Sewershed (1)

GrowthArea

Trunk Sewer ID

(2)

Implementation Timeframe

NoteAverage Depth

Diameter Length

(m) (mm) (m)ES5254 ADELAIDE Killaly KL2A 5-10 (10) 3.9 300-375 1550

OXFORD River Bend RB2 0-5 (10) 4.0 375 1200POTTERSBURG Old Victoria PBS4 0-5 (10) 6.0 300-375 850WONDERLAND Bostwick East SS13C 5-10 (10) 6.2 375 220CONTINGENCY City Wide 0-20

DC14-WW02001

(1) See Figure EX1

(2) See Figure EX3


(4) Restoration includes Landscape, Rural, Urban, and Ecosystem where applicable.

(5) Engineering Costs 15% based on Total Construction Costs

(6) Contingencies 20% based on Total Construction Costs




(10) Based on the Pipe Size Credit Amount Table and trunk sewer diameter and lengths


Total Const. Cost

Engineering (15%)

(5)

Contingency (20%)

(6) Total Cost (11)


2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYCOSTING OF RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER WORKS SUMMARY FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)


Sanitary Trunk Sewers Required for the GMIS BoundaryEstimated Construction Cost (3)Sewer Characteristics


$1,500,000$1,786,500

Pipes to be Over SizedSewer Characteristics

Oversizing Cost

$116,250$90,000$63,750$16,500

% $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $

DC14-WW00001 ES2493 OXFORD Hyde Park HP7A 2014 (5),(6) 2,000,000$ 1,326,000$ -$ 15% 101,100$ 85% 572,900$ 100.0% 572,900$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00002 ES5253 OXFORD River Bend RB1B 2014 2,117,745$ 1,712,966$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 404,779$ 100.0% 404,779$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00003 ES5247 WONDERLAND Wonderland SS14A 2015 (9) 4,582,260$ -$ 139,350$ 5% 217,956$ 95% 4,224,954$ 88.9% 3,756,715$ 2.8% 116,506$ 7.9% 334,743$ 0.4% 16,990$ DC14-WW00004 ES5260 WONDERLAND Lambeth SS3A 2015 (9) 7,940,525$ 350,000$ 172,300$ 4% 296,729$ 96% 7,121,496$ 100.0% 7,121,496$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00005 WONDERLAND Lambeth SS15A 2016 (9) 2,765,660$ -$ 254,089$ 0% -$ 100% 2,511,571$ 100.0% 2,511,571$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00006 WONDERLAND North Talbot SS15C 2017 (9) 4,025,754$ -$ 99,725$ 0% -$ 100% 3,926,029$ 100.0% 3,926,029$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00007 ES5256 WONDERLAND Longwoods SS12B 2016 5,442,390$ -$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 5,442,390$ 90.1% 4,904,091$ 3.7% 202,050$ 5.9% 320,245$ 0.3% 16,004$ DC14-WW00008 ES5252 ADELAIDE Killaly KL1B 2017 1,198,598$ -$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 1,198,598$ 100.0% 1,198,598$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$

DC14-WW00009 ES5255 WONDERLANDWonderland/ Bostwisk E

SS13B 2018 (9) 3,226,311$ -$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 3,226,311$ 93.1% 3,004,092$ 0.0% -$ 5.2% 168,908$ 1.7% 53,311$

DC14-WW00010 WONDERLAND North Talbot SS15B 2025 (9) 2,745,674$ -$ 88,680$ 0% -$ 100% 2,656,994$ 100.0% 2,656,994$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ DC14-WW00011 WONDERLAND Bostwick W SS14B 2030 (9) 12,807,565$ -$ -$ 0% -$ 100% 12,807,565$ 82.2% 10,526,322$ 0.0% -$ 13.5% 1,723,695$ 4.4% 557,548$

48,852,481$ 3,388,966 754,144 1% 615,785$ 99% 44,093,585$ 92.0% 40,583,586$ 0.7% 318,556$ 5.8% 2,547,590$ 1.5% 643,854$

(1) See Figure EX1

(2) See Figure EX3





(7) Based on existing (2003/2008/2014) and future areas serviced as per modeling outputs. Res/ICI components based on same for future areas to be serviced from 2014-2033



2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYGROWTH SPLITS FOR RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER WORKS SUMMARY FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)

Commercial (7) Industrial (7)Residential (7) Institutional (7)Implementation

Year (4)

Non-Growth GrowthSanitary Trunk Sewers Required for the GMIS Boundary

Note Total Cost From Table EX1 (3, 8)

Previous Funding


Post Period Benefit

DC IDCity

Project Number

PCP Sewershed (1)

GrowthArea

Trunk Sewer ID

(2)

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

d

d

d d d

d

d

dd

d

d

d

dd

d

KL2A

KL1B

RB

2RB

1B

SS14B

SS13C

SS12B

PBS4

,,

HP7

A

SS15CSS15B SS15A

SS3A

SS13B

Southland PS

Colonel Talbot PS


Medway PS

Broughdale PS

Adelaide PS

Huron St PS

Northridge PS

Sanford PS

Paardberg PS

Clarke Rd PS

Victoria St PS


Sunninghill PS

Manor Park PS

Hazeldon Park PS

Springbank PS

Byron PS

Hunt Club PS


Summercrest PS

Crestwood PS

Westfield PS

Talbot Village PS

Southwinds PS

Westmount PS

Bostwick PS

Chelsea Green PS

Chelsea Heights PS

Pond Mills PS

East Park PS

Gore Rd PS

Trafalgar Rd PS

Wonderland PS

SS14A

OXFORD WTP

VAUXHALL WTP

GREENWAY WTP

ADELAIDE WTP

SOUTHLAND WTP

POTTERSBURG WTP



Figure 3-1Sanitary Sewer Workswithin Urban Growth Boundary300mm and OverScale: As Shown

Date: March 2014

PN: 60275661


¹


Legend





Sewer TypeCSRF

Over Sizing


City Boundary

Major Roads

Railway




$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

d

d

d d d

d

d

dd

d

d

d

dd

d

!(

!(

!(

!(

$+

KL2A

KL1B

RB

2RB

1B

SS

14B

SS13C

SS12B

PBS4

HP

7A

SS

15CS

S15B S

S15A

SS3A

SS13B

Southland PS

Colonel Talbot PS


Medway PS

Broughdale PS

Adelaide PS

Huron St PS

Northridge PS

Sanford PS

Paardberg PS

Clarke Rd PS

Victoria St PS


Sunninghill PS

Manor Park PS

Hazeldon Park PS

Springbank PS

Byron PS

Hunt Club PS


Summercrest PS

Crestwood PS

Westfield PS

Talbot Village PS

Southwinds PS

Westmount PS

Bostwick PS

Chelsea Green PS

Chelsea Heights PS

Pond Mills PS

East Park PS

Gore Rd PS

Trafalgar Rd PS

Wonderland PS

SS

14A

SS1A SS2

Southside WTP

Future Sharon PS

Future Dodd PSFuture Kettle PS

Future Pottersburg PS

HP

6

ST5

KL7

KL6

CH3

CH4CH

2

PB

N3

PB

N3

PBN2

PB

N1A

PB

N1B

PB

S3A

PBS7

PB

S7

PB

S6

SS17

RB

3

SS

18S

S24

SS18SS6

SS7

SS10

SS8

SS8

SS8

SS

8

SS

9

OXFORD WTP

VAUXHALL WTP

GREENWAY WTP

ADELAIDE WTP

SOUTHLAND WTP

POTTERSBURG WTP



Figure 3-2Sanitary Sewer Worksto Build Out

Scale: As Shown

Date: March 2014

PN: 60275661


¹


Legend



!( Beyond 2033 Pumping Station



$+ Beyond 2033 Wastewater Treatment Plant

Sewer Type

CSRF

Over Sizing

Future Build Out Sanitary Sewers

Build Out Forcemain


City Boundary

Major Roads

Railway






Related Res/ICI growth components; and

Implementation year.

Figure 3-1 shows the works identified in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Alphanumeric identification codes have been

assigned to each of the required trunk sewers shown in Figure 3-1 for correlation to Tables 3-1 and 3-2.

Sewer unit costs are based on an updated 2014 cost table; Table 3-3. The cost table is based on pipe size and

depth, with the total cost of purchasing and installing sewer pipe being broken down into three components: pipe

cost, construction cost and restoration cost. Updated pipe costs are based on the 2014 Concast circular concrete

pipe price list. Updated construction costs were based on recent tender costs as provided by the City over the past

5 years and indexed to 2014. Updated tunneling costs were based on 2009 costs indexed to 2014. Restoration costs

were updated tender costs for rural and urban restoration and indexed to 2014. Redundancies with other

transportation, storm drainage, or water works were removed where applicable. To these costs, engineering at 15%,

contingency at 20% were added.

For each sewer that was sized to convey flows from future developments not identified for the 20 year growth period,

a post period benefit was provided.

Existing Trunk Sewer Upgrades 3.1.1

No existing trunk sewer upgrades or replacement works have been identified in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 or Figure 3-1.

This is based on the premise that I&I is maintained throughout the City’s sanitary sewerage system to the design

standard of 8,640 L/ha/day as outlined in Section 2.1. In the event actual I&I is utilized to determine available trunk

sewer capacity for future growth accommodation purposes, this would need to be re-evaluated and it is anticipated

some existing trunk sewers would need to be replaced.

Southwest Area Sanitary Servicing (SASS) 3.1.2

It is expected that over the next 20 years significant growth will occur in the southwest area of the City of London.

The majority of the residential development in the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) area will be concentrated in the

Wharncliffe Road –Wonderland Road - Southdale Road area and along the Colonel Talbot Road corridor. The

Southwest Area Sanitary Servicing Study (SASS) (Stantec, 2014) was adopted by City Council in February 2014.

The recommendations from the SASS study have been included in the DC update including the alignments of trunk

sanitary sewers and the decommissioning of the Southland WTP to be replaced as a pump station. Essentially,

major trunk sewers will be routed in a manner that ends at the Wonderland Pump Station following existing road

alignments.

A benefit to existing (BTE) is envisioned with the decommissioning of Southland WTP and conversion to a pump

station. Existing flows from the existing subdivision will be directed northerly into pipe SS3A and SS14A.

The trunk sewer part of the SASS will have low BTE as much of the proposed tributary area has not yet been

developed. A post period benefit was considered for most of the trunk system as it was designed to take flows

outside the UGB.

Some of the flows from the North Talbot and North Lambeth neighbourhoods will be directed to the proposed

Colonel Talbot PS. Flows from the Colonel Talbot PS will be pumped to Oxford WTP or conveyed via gravity sewer

to the Wonderland PS. The specific location and details regarding the Colonel Talbot PS will be determined by a

future EA study.

PIPE COSTSBased on 2014 Concast circular concrete pipe price list, includes pipe and gaskets. 250 mm pipe cost was extrapolated based on other 2014 pipe prices

DiameterDepth 250 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100

2.5 65 75 90 95 105 140 215 280 325 390 430 495 620 755 925 1,110 1,340 1,555 1,7805.0 65 75 90 95 105 140 215 280 325 390 515 595 745 910 970 1,165 1,410 1,635 1,8707.5 65 75 90 95 120 160 245 320 415 450 515 595 745 910 1,110 1,330 1,610 1,865 2,140

10.0 65 75 90 95 120 160 245 320 415 450 605 690 865 1,060 1,295 1,550 1,875 2,175 2,49512.5 65 75 90 120 120 190 245 320 415 450 605 690 865 1,060 1,295 1,550 1,875 2,175 2,495

CONSTRUCTION COSTS - Open Cut - Pipe Cost NOT IncludedBased on tender costs as provided by the City over the past 5 years and indexed to 2014Includes trenching labour and equipment, bedding, backfill, compaction, dewatering, and maintenance holes.

DiameterDepth 250 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100

2.5 405 420 430 455 480 520 535 575 610 640 675 700 735 770 800 835 860 905 9355.0 605 620 635 670 725 770 805 850 930 935 935 935 970 1,005 1,175 1,230 1,300 1,360 1,4607.5 710 725 735 795 825 910 945 1,000 1,000 1,080 1,125 1,160 1,255 1,355 1,460 1,555 1,665 1,785 1,890

10.0 1,010 1,075 1,135 1,295 1,435 1,585 1,720 1,875 1,940 2,055 2,085 2,110 2,215 2,315 2,420 2,545 2,675 2,785 2,88012.5 2,090 2,100 2,110 2,150 2,205 2,225 2,285 2,345 2,340 2,360 2,380 2,415 2,445 2,485 2,555 2,675 2,875 3,085 3,320

CONSTRUCTION COSTS - Tunneling - Pipe Cost NOT IncludedBased on 20-year (Stantec) and 50-year (Stantec) study values, indexed to 2014 using tender costs as provided by the CityIncludes tunnel shafts @ 150 m spacing for maintenance holes, liners, dewatering, and restoration.

DiameterDepth 250 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100

5.0 3,990 4,755 5,025 5,490 5,895 6,295 6,630 6,900 7,170 7,435 7,705 7,970 8,240 8,505 8,770 9,040 9,305 9,580 9,85010.0 4,035 4,890 5,160 5,625 5,825 6,495 6,770 7,100 7,435 7,770 8,035 8,305 8,570 8,840 9,105 9,380 9,645 9,915 10,18015.0 4,180 5,025 5,360 5,760 6,095 6,700 7,035 7,370 7,705 8,105 8,370 8,640 8,905 9,175 9,445 9,715 9,980 10,250 10,51520.0 4,320 5,160 5,490 5,895 6,360 6,900 7,300 7,705 8,035 8,440 8,705 9,040 9,240 9,515 9,780 10,050 10,315 10,585 10,85025.0 4,465 5,290 5,625 6,095 6,630 7,100 7,570 7,970 8,370 8,770 9,040 9,305 9,580 9,850 10,115 10,380 10,650 10,915 11,18530.0 4,570 5,425 5,760 6,295 6,835 7,370 7,835 8,240 8,640 9,040 9,445 9,715 9,980 10,250 10,515 10,785 11,050 11,320 11,585

RESTORATION COSTSTaken from 20-year (LSSSS) plan (2003), and updated as per 2014 tender and transportation costs for rural and urban restoration.Open - no restoration; Landscape- minor/boulevard (no roadway restoration); Rural - cross section as per transportation cost table; Urban - cross section as per transportation cost table; Ecosystem - applies to areas adjacent to or within environmentally significant areas

ConditionDepth2.5 0 400 1,600 1,770 840 5.0 0 510 2,040 2,210 1,070 7.5 0 600 2,450 2,610 1,270 10.0 0 710 2,920 3,080 1,480 12.5 0 810 3,400 3,540 1,680


2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYUNIT COST TABLE FOR PIPES, CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION WORK

Open Landscape Rural Urban Ecosystem


AEC

2014-

It isbeeas acc LosantheTh

3.2

In agropu

ThantThschpu39inte

As ThCla

ThSSconSc Thacc

COM

-06-03 Sanitary Dc Report

s expected then modeled athey will be a

count for any

ngterm fundinnitary, water ae City to servie funding allo

2 Pum

addition to theowth through mping station

is pumping faticipated growis will be donheduled for 20mping station.7 MLD. Theention of futu

part of the ime location andass Environm

e Southland WS14A connectnstructed at thedule B Cla

e decommisscessed as all

t

Indu3.1.3

hat industrial nand sized in aaddressed on

DC industria

ng needs havand stormwatce new indus

ocated to indu

mping Stati

e trunk sewer2033 within t

ns required wh

Won3.2.1

acility is currewth in SWAP e in two stage021, will be to

n by approximse upgrades re expansion

Colo3.2.2

mplementationd capacity req

mental Assess

Sou3.2.3

WTP facility wing the Lambhe location ofss Environme

sioning and thnon-growth c

The

ustrial Needs

needs will be all areas of the

a case-by-cal recoverable

ve also been eter managem

strial parks. Acustrial can be

ion/Forcem

r works, a numhe GMIS andhile Figure 3-

nderland Ro

ntly rated at 4beginning in es. The first, o add larger a

mately 4.3 MLDshould be rel.

onel Talbot P

n of SASS, a quirements of

sment. This h

thland Pump

will be decombeth area to thf the WTP to ental Assessm

he constructiocosts.

e Corporation of th

s

approximatele City. Howevase basis. A costs incurre

estimated to sent infrastrucctual works afound within

ain Works

mber of pumpd UGB. Table-1 identifies th

ad Pump St

44.1 MLD and2015-18, the scheduled fo

additional pumD while the seatively inexpe

Pump Statio

new pumpingf the pumping

has been inco

p Station

missioned fohe Wonderlanconvey the floment, which is

on of the repla

e City of London

ly 2 MLD in thver, specific s$1,000,000 in

ed.

support the Incture. This funand timing will

the DC tables

ping station/foe 3-4 outlineshe locations o

tation

d has a 36 mocapacity of th

or 2015, will bmps. The firstecond upgradensive as the

n

g station will bg station will borporated into

llowing 2015 nd PS. A newows to the nes currently in

acement pum

2014 Deve

he DC planninsewers have nn upsizing con

ndustrial Landnding is a conl be determines.

orcemain wor the existing p

of the pumpin

onth average he pumping s

be to install a t upgrade willde will increas existing facil

be constructebe assessed dthe cost iden

with the comw pumping staewly constructthe review pe

ping station a

Wastewater Servelopment Charge B

ng period. Indnot been idenntingency has

d Developmenntingency amoed subject to

rks are requirepumping stat

ng stations.

flow of 35.9Mstation will neethird pump anl increase these the capaciity was const

ed to pump floduring a Sche

ntified in Tabl

pletion of trunation and forcted sewers, seriod.

and forcemain

vicing Master Planackground Study

dustrial needntified for thess been alloca

nt Strategy (ILount within ththe finalizing

ed to service ion upgrades

MLD. With thed to be incrend the seconde capacity of tty by approxitructed with th

ows to the Oxedule ‘B’ Mune 3-4.

nk sewers SScemain will besubject to fina

n to SS3A hav

n Update and

14

s have se needs ated to

LDS) for e DC for the ILDS.

future s or new

e eased. d, the mately he

xford WTP. nicipal

S3A and e alizing the

ve been

4

RATED NET AVAILABLE CURRENT AVAILABLE EXPANSION TO

AVG FLOW CAPACITY AVG FLOWS 2033 (-5% OC) (2)

(MLD) (MLD) (1) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) RES Indust. Comm. Instit. RES Indust. Comm. Instit.

ES2685 152.3 134.2 126.1 8.1 16.8 24.1 $46,166,750 $26,680,000 $5,014,105 $14,472,645 12.5% $1,803,298 $12,669,347 79.0% 9.4% 5.6% 6.0% $10,012,858 $1,190,851 $708,847 $756,792

ES2492 20.9 19.9 19.5 0.3 2.2 2.5 $6,000,000 $0 $5,656,000 $344,000 50% $172,000 $172,000 90.8% 0.0% 1.1% 8.1% $156,134 $0 $1,854 $14,011

ES5231 36.4 34.5 26.8 7.7 8.6 16.4 $10,900,000 $0 $9,859,000 $1,041,000 0% $0 $1,041,000 81.5% 6.6% 2.0% 9.9% $848,158 $69,139 $20,706 $102,997

ES5014 17.3 16.4 7.7 8.7 0.0 8.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0

ES5142 39.1 37.1 29.1 8.0 0.0 8.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0

ES5240 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0

265.9 242.2 209.3 32.9 27.6 59.7 $63,066,750 $26,680,000 $20,529,105 $15,857,645 12% $1,975,298 $13,882,347 79.4% 9.1% 5.3% 6.3% $11,017,151 $1,259,989 $731,407 $873,800

RATED OPERATION CURRENT AVAILABLE EXPANSION TO

CEILING FLOWS 2033 (-5% OC) (2)

(MLD) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) RES Indust. Comm. Instit. RES Indust. Comm. Instit.

ES2466 8.5 8.0 4.5 3.5 2.8 6.2 $198,450 $0 $0 $198,450 0% $0 $198,450 94.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% $186,543 $0 $11,907 $0

ES5132 9.1 8.6 4.7 3.9 8.6 12.6 $1,653,000 $200,000 $0 $1,453,000 0% $0 $1,453,000 18.0% 80.0% 2.0% 0.0% $261,540 $1,162,400 $29,060 $0

21.6 20.5 0.0 0.0 20.5 21.6 $6,100,000 $0 $0 $6,100,000 0% $0 $6,100,000 96.1% 1.0% 2.7% 0.2% $5,862,100 $61,000 $164,700 $12,200

TBD $15,000,000 $0 $9,336,000 $5,664,000 0% $0 $5,664,000 96.1% 1.0% 2.7% 0.2% $5,443,104 $56,640 $152,928 $11,328

44.1 41.9 35.9 6.0 4.1 10.1 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 0% $0 $500,000 96.1% 1.0% 2.7% 0.2% $480,500 $5,000 $13,500 $1,000

48.4 46.0 35.9 10.1 37.8 47.8 $2,500,000 $0 $1,867,000 $633,000 0% $0 $633,000 96.1% 1.0% 2.7% 0.2% $608,313 $6,330 $17,091 $1,266

131.6 125.0 81.0 23.4 73.8 98.3 $25,951,450 $200,000 $11,203,000 $14,548,450 $0 $14,548,450 88.3% 8.9% 2.7% 0.2% $12,842,100 $1,291,370 $389,186 $25,794

$89,018,200 $26,880,000 $31,732,105 $30,406,095 $1,975,298 $28,430,797 83.9% 9.0% 3.9% 3.2% $23,859,251 $2,551,359 $1,120,593 $899,594

(1) Reflects Operational allowance of 5% required

(2) Full expansion required within the 2014 to 2033 timeframe

(3) Costs in 2014 dollars

(4) Expansion capacity prorated to 2033 growth needs. City to address debt servicing and financing between the expansion and prorated cost differences.

(5) Res/ICI components as per modeling outputs and/or City of London Wastewater Capital Plan. (Average day flow for WTP Growth. Peak Flows for PS's). Greenway and Southside combined given flow switching between facilities.

(6) Total cost times applicable Residential / ICI component for prorated MLD required.

(7) Estimated cost assumes pump upgrades only and all flow from Wonderland PS is conveyed to Greenway WTP. Upgrade in 2024 assumes optimization of Wonderland PS has been completed.

(8) 4.5 MLD could be added to the rated capacity at the Adelaide WTP to reflect recent work recently completed. Rating still to be applied for/confirmed. 6.8 MLD of Adelaide can accommodate the remaining Medway PS currently conveyed to Greenway. This would allow 6.8 MLD of growth at Greenway.

* TERTIARY COSTS NOT INCLUDED

OTHER FACILITIES TOTALS

GRAND TOTALS

HYDE PARK PS UPGRADE

2014

WONDERLAND PS UPGRADE (7)

2024

NEW COLONEL TALBOT PS

2017

WONDERLAND PS OPTIMIZATION (7)

2014

EAST PARK PS UPGRADE

2016

SOUTHWEST CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS

2024

CITY PROJECT NUMBER


(Average Day)

TOTAL AVAILABLE

ESTIMATED COST(3)

PREVIOUS FUNDING

NON GROWTH $

GROWTH $

GROWTH

%(5) ESTIMATED COST (6)POST PERIOD BENEFIT (4)

NET COSTNON

GROWTH % (6)

NON GROWTH

% (6)

WTP TOTALS

OTHER FACILITIESPROJECT

INITIATION YEAR

GREENWAY (8) 2012

OXFORD >2033

POTTERSBURG >2033

VAUXHALL 2023

SOUTHSIDE >2033

ADELAIDE (8) 2025


2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT/ MAJOR PUMPING STATION COST COMPONENTS (2014 TO 2033)


WTP FACILITYPROJECT

INITIATION YEAR

CITY PROJECT NUMBER


NON GROWTH$

GROWTH$

GROWTH


(Average Day)

TOTAL AVAILABLE

ESTIMATED COST(3)

PREVIOUS FUNDING


NET COST

*

*

*

*

*

*



3.3 Required Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) Works

WTP expansions and improvements will be needed to handle future sewage flows, plus future more stringent

effluent requirements. Given the size of the WTP facilities involved and the fact that sewage flows are conveyed to

these facilities under varying conditions, expansion needs were driven by the following:

Average existing and future sewage flows (i.e. not peaked);

An I&I allowance of 8,640 L/ha/day per the standard design parameter;

Expansion needs being closely matched to the 2033 sewage flow requirements with minimal oversizing;

Sewage flows being balanced, wherever possible, among the WTP’s to maximize the utilization of available

sewage treatment capacity and minimize the need for added expansions unless absolutely necessary.

Table 2-1 summarizes the expansion needs for each of the City’s WTP facilities. It shows the following information

for each:

Rated capacity;

Operational ceiling (5% less than rated capacity per previous DC outputs);

Current (2013) average sewage flows;

Available capacity (operational ceiling minus current flows);

Expansion requirements through 2033 (minus the 5% operational ceiling); and

Total available capacity (available capacity plus expansion requirement).

Based on Table 2-1, planned expansions based on preliminary design and/or environmental assessment outputs

include:

Greenway WTP (18 MLD) expansion based on conveyance/storage attenuation outputs for interim servicing of the southwest portion of the City currently underway.

Adelaide WTP (8.6 MLD) expansion, forecasted in 2025.

Vauxhaull WTP (2.2 MLD) expansion, forecasted in 2023.

No expansions relative to the Pottersburg WTP or Oxford WTP are contemplated in the near future given both were

recently expanded. The Southside WTP is not required until beyond the planning period.

An update of the City’s Biosolids Master Plan has also been allowed for and included as part of the studies/other

component ($400,000).

Costs were updated to 2014 including engineering at 15% and contingency at 20%. Other items shown on Table 3-

4 are prorated costs, growth/non-growth and Residential/ICI allocations for DC purposes.

Adelaide Wastewater Treatment plant 3.3.1

Based on Table 3-4, an 8.6 MLD upgrade at this site is required to begin in 2025 and be completed in 2028. A Class

EA Schedule ‘C’ will be required for this upgrade and has been incorporated into the construction cost. Future

Growth benefits any capacity that will be accrued after the DC period is credited back through a post period benefit

(PPB).

The calculation of the PPB is below:



This resulted in a post period benefit of 90.5%, allowing 9.5% of the expansion to be claimed in this period.

Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant 3.3.2

Growth in the City’s southwest quadrant has been made possible through the introduction of the Wonderland Pump

Station along with several improvements to remove bottlenecks along the Gordon Ave trunk sanitary sewer. Infill and

intensification growth throughout the City directs growth flows to Greenway WTP. Table 2-1 shows the need to start

an expansion in 2014. This work is currently in preliminary design and will be completed in 2017.

Table 2-1 also shows that the Greenway WTP has an operating capacity 11 MLD lower than the typical 95% of the

rated capacity. This 11 MLD deficit accounts for the insufficient secondary clarification in Section 3 as the clarifiers

are undersized. With the Greenway WTP expansion, additional secondary clarification capacity will be added to

address this issue.

Current preliminary design for the upgrade at the site is planned to produce an 18 MLD expansion. Specifically,

Section 3 will be expanded from approximately 93 MLD to 100 MLD, Section 2 will be optimized and re-rated from

approximately 34 MLD to 40 MLD and Section 1 will be re-rated from approximately 25 MLD to 30 MLD. Figure 3-3

provides a site plan overview of the expansion upgrade.

This plant upgrade requires the moving of several on-line processes and will introduce wet weather pre-treatment to

overflows. Table 3-5 provides a list of the required works as well as the previous funding, post period benefit, non-

growth / growth allocations and the Res / ICI allocations.

To determine the post period benefit (PPB) for the Greenway WTP expansion the headworks was considered part of

the incoming sewer so it was calculated separately than the other works. This post period benefit (PPB)

acknowledges any capacity that will be accrued after the DC period and was credited back to the DC per the

following calculation:

This resulted in a post period benefit of 48.6% for the Greenway WTP’s headworks and 15.5% for all other upgrades

associated with the Greenway WTP expansion. This results in an overall PPB of 26%.

WTP PPB = 1 -

(2033 Projected Flows – Existing Operating Capacity)

(Operational Capacity After Expansion – Operational Capacity Before Expansion)

Adelaide WTP PPB = 1 -

(35.33 MLD – 34.55 MLD)

(42.72 MLD – 34.55 MLD)

WTP PPB = 1 -



Greenway WTP PPB = 1 –

(no Headworks)

(157.26 MLD – 134.23 MLD)

(161.50 MLD – 134.23 MLD)

Greenway WTP PPB = 1 –

(Headworks Only)

(157.26 MLD – 134.23 MLD)

(179 MLD – 134.23 MLD)



Figure 3-3Proposed Greenway WTPExpansion

Scale: As Shown

Date: February 2014

PN: 60275661


!(!(

!(

SECTION 3

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

RAS

WAS

Expansion Component Preliminary Estimate Estimating

Allowance (25%): Engineering (8.5%): Rationale Previous Funding

New Headworks 10,500,000$ 2,625,000$ 1,115,625$ Required to get additional flow to the plant. 8,229,730$ 49% $2,918,849 0% -$ 100% $3,092,046 79.0% 2,443,711$ 5.6% 172,999$ 6.0% 184,700$ 9.4% 290,636$

S3 Secondary Clarifiers 12,200,000$ 3,050,000$ 1,296,250$ If no growth, existing S3 capacity shortfall (11 MLD) could be addressed through re‐rating of S1 (5 MLD) and S2 (6 MLD). S3 would be de‐rated. Growth triggers need for revised strategy for S3 (due to hydraulic & space constraints). New clarifiers, RAS PS, channels, aeration mods, etc. required.

9,562,162$ 16% $1,085,901 0% -$

100% $5,898,186

79.0% 4,661,464$ 5.6% 330,002$ 6.0% 352,323$ 9.4% 554,398$

S3 RAS PS 3,600,000$ 900,000$ 382,500$ See above. New RAS PS required due to new strategy for S3. If no growth, pumping station is not required. 2,821,622$ 16% $320,430 0% -$

100% $1,740,448

79.0% 1,375,514$ 5.6% 97,378$ 6.0% 103,964$ 9.4% 163,593$

S3 WAS Holding Tank 1,100,000$ 275,000$ 116,875$ Required to provide space for new S3 clarifiers. Cost impacts reduced through reuse of existing infrastructure. Storage also mitigates growth impact on solids handling facilities.

862,162$ 16% $97,909 0% -$

100% $531,804

79.0% 420,296$ 5.6% 29,754$ 6.0% 31,767$ 9.4% 49,987$

CEPT & Split Flow Treatment 3,400,000$ 850,000$ 361,250$ Growth impact is flow based, (i.e. 18 MLD / 170 MLD)2,664,865$ 16% $302,628 89% 1,469,712$

11% $174,04579.0% 137,551$ 5.6% 9,738$ 6.0% 10,396$ 9.4% 16,359$

Sludge Off‐Loading Facility 800,000$ 200,000$ 85,000$ New facility is required to facilitate construction of new S3 works.

627,027$ 16% $71,207 0% -$ 100% $386,766

79.0% 305,670$ 5.6% 21,639$ 6.0% 23,103$ 9.4% 36,354$

Diffuser System Upgrades ‐ Sections 2 & 3

1,800,000$ 450,000$ 191,250$ New strategy for S3 requires aeration modifications (6 single pass vs 3 dual pass). This requires new aeration grid in S3. S2 aeration grid would require replacement if no‐growth occurred in order to re‐rate S2. (35% assumed to be associated with S2 upgrades)

1,410,811$ 16% $160,215 35% 304,578$

65% $565,646

79.0% 447,042$ 5.6% 31,648$ 6.0% 33,788$ 9.4% 53,168$

Construction Access Road to Geotubes

300,000$ 75,000$ 31,875$ New access road is required as existing access will be blocked due to new S3 infrastructure. 235,135$ 16% $26,702 0% -$

100% $145,037

79.0% 114,626$ 5.6% 8,115$ 6.0% 8,664$ 9.4% 13,633$

Relocation of Ash Line 200,000$ 50,000$ 21,250$ Existing ash line must be relocated to accommodate new S3 infrastructure. 156,757$ 16% $17,802 0% -$

100% $96,692

79.0% 76,417$ 5.6% 5,410$ 6.0% 5,776$ 9.4% 9,088$

Works Associated with Ash Pumping Station

60,000$ 15,000$ 6,375$ Existing ash PS must be relocated to accommodate new S3 infrastructure.

47,027$ 16% $5,340 0% -$ 100% $29,007

79.0% 22,925$ 5.6% 1,623$ 6.0% 1,733$ 9.4% 2,727$

South Access House ‐ Arch Upgrades 60,000$ 15,000$ 6,375$ Life cycle upgrade requirements. Non‐growth related.47,027$ 16% $5,340 100% 29,007$

0% $079.0% -$ 5.6% -$ 6.0% -$ 9.4% -$

Removal of Existing Buildings near Section 3 Aeration Tanks

20,000$ 5,000$ 2,125$ Existing buildings must be removed to facilitate construction of new S3 infrastructure. 15,676$ 16% $1,780 0% -$

100% $9,66979.0% 7,642$ 5.6% 541$ 6.0% 578$ 9.4% 909$

Subtotal 34,040,000$ 8,510,000$ 3,616,750$ 26,680,000$ 26% 5,014,105$ 12% 1,803,298$ 88% 12,669,347$ 79% 10,012,858$ 6% 708,847$ 6% 756,792$ 9% 1,190,851$ Estimating Allowance (25%): 8,510,000$ Total Project Cost: Total Growth Cost (2014 DC):Engineering (8.5%): 3,616,750$

Total 46,166,750$ (Oct. 28th, 2013 Presentation = $46.1M)

Industrial

$46,166,750 $12,669,347

Post Period Benefit Non‐Growth $ Growth $ Residential Commercial Institutional


2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYDETAILED ESTIMATE OF THE GREENWAY WTP EXPANSION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CALCULATION




Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant 3.3.3

The current 2013 operating average sewage flow is 18.6 MLD. Growth is slowly expected to increase flows in the

service area with a 2.2 MLD upgrade required to be started in 2023 and completed in 2026. A Class EA Schedule

‘C’ will be required for this upgrade and has been incorporated into the construction cost. Future Growth benefits

any capacity that will be accrued after the DC period is credited back through a PPB.

This resulted in a post period benefit of 94.3%, allowing 5.7% of the expansion to be claimed in this period.

Southland Wastewater Treatment Plant 3.3.4

As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, this facility will be decommissioned after 2015 with the completion of trunk sewers

connecting to the Wonderland PS. The Southside WTP will be replaced by a pumping station and forcemain to

service a portion of the Lambeth area (non-growth).

Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant 3.3.5

No growth related upgrades are required in the DC planning period.

Pottersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant 3.3.6

No growth related upgrades are required in the DC planning period.

3.4 Future Works for Build Out

Pottersburg Sewershed 3.4.1

For Build-out servicing, the Airport South trunk sewers would be extended further to the south (PBS5B, 375 mm

dia.), with added trunk sewer extensions to the east from the Hamilton Road/Commissioners Road intersection

(PBS3A, 450 to 525 mm dia.). Extension of the existing trunk sewer along the north side of the south branch of the

Thames River, and north along Airport Road and then Crumlin Road will also be required for Build out servicing

purposes extending right up to London Airport and then around its east side. The first extension would allow the

Gore Road and Trafalgar Pumping Stations to be decommissioned (PBN1A, 750 to 825 mm dia. and PBN2, 450 and

525 mm dia.). This would service industrial areas north of the south branch of the Thames River up to about

Dundas Street, with connections to the west (PBN1B, 375 mm dia.) From here, the trunk sewer would continue to

be extended towards London Airport (PBN3, 375 to 525 mm dia.), to service areas north of Dundas Street, and

south and east of the Airport in the future.

WTP PPB = 1 -



Vauxhall WTP PPB = 1 -

(19.98 MLD – 19.86 MLD)

(21.95 MLD – 19.86 MLD)



To the south, further extensions from the Summerside area to the south and east are required for Build out area

servicing (PBS6, 600 mm dia.). This is to service primarily residential area, with some commercial/industrial area

south towards Hwy 401.

A temporary pumping station and forcemain, and related trunk sewers (PBS7, 300 mm dia.) to service the remaining

industrial area north of the 401, south of Commissioners Road between the Summerside and Airport Road South

areas is shown on Figure 3-2. The pumping station and forcemain would temporarily outlet to the Summerside

trunk sewer and be serviced by the Pottersburg WTP. In the future, the pumping station could be removed and be

serviced by the future Southside WTP. This would facilitate development along the north side of the 401 in

southeast London.

Southside Sewershed 3.4.2

3.4.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant

Given the efficiencies gained in having these areas serviced via existing and/or future pumping stations/forcemains

and trunk sewers in the interim for treatment at the Greenway WTP, and later transferred to new trunk sewers,

pumping stations and/or forcemains serviced by the Southside WTP, a preferred alternative has been identified by

the Southwest Area Sanitary Servicing Master Plan (Stantec, 2014).

The Southside WTP will be triggered when it is no longer financially viable to convey flows northerly from the

southwest via pump station and trunk sewer improvements. Based on this reasoning, Southside WTP is not

anticipated to be required from a treatment perspective within the DC study period.

3.4.2.2 Build Out Sewers and Pumping Stations

For future Build-out purposes, south of the proposed Wonderland PS, trunk sewer installations south of Dingman

Creek will have to be implemented to service the Hwy 402/401 corridor areas within the Build Out area (SS18, 1050-

1500 mm. dia. and SS24, 450 mm dia). Trunk sewer SS18 would be extended in the future to service the W12A

landfill and the proposed hauled liquid waste facility planned for the site. The same sewer would also receive all

sewage flows from the future Kettle Creek Pumping Station and sewershed area. In the long term, well beyond the

Build out area, servicing arrangements for the Kettle, Dodd and Sharon sewershed areas, shown by Figure 3-2 will

be implemented.

Oxford Sewershed 3.4.3

For Build-out purposes the Hyde Park trunk sewer along the CN Rail spur line will be extended to the north to

service northwest London (HP6, 525 mm dia.). Trunk sewer HP8 (450 mm dia.) would be connected to this trunk

sewer to service the area west of Hyde Park between Sarnia and Gainsborough Roads.

To the west, trunk sewers RB2/RB1 will continue to be installed south and west of the Riverbend Sanitary Pumping

Station to service the RiverBend area. In the long term, trunk sewer RB3 will be installed to service west London,

north of Dingman Creek.

3.5 Growth/Non-Growth Determination

The proportion of Growth/Non-Growth components and Residential and ICI were generally determined as follows:



Res/ICI percentages based on sewage flows at nodes were identified by land use type at each maintenance hole and/or sewer node via sewer models;

Subsewershed polygons representing the area from which sewage flow contributions are to be accommodated by the proposed works were identified by maintenance hole node;

Sewage flows for each of the above areas and land use types were aggregated, and the proportion of Growth/Non-Growth and Res/ICI growth was calculated for the UGB;

To determine Growth/Non-Growth components for any given work, the following procedures were followed:

For new pipe works driven by growth needs, non-growth components were primarily 0% (unless existing areas were to be serviced, then the percentage would reflect this), and growth components were 100%. This was applied for DC related sewer works through 2033.

For facility related components, expansion requirements were driven by engineering reports of a pre-design nature where available (i.e. Greenway WTP, Adelaide WTP and Vauxhaul WTP). Growth/Non-Growth allocations were then determined by confirming flows to each facility, and future flow requirements through 2033. The servicing of existing areas represented the non-growth component only, with the remaining future sewage flows representing the growth component.

Growth oversizing for trunk sewer works were addressed by calculating the post period benefit the installed capacity to be provided to the future flow capacity to be serviced through 2033.

Growth oversizing for facilities were addressed by pro-rating the installed capacity to be provided to the future flow requirement through 2033.

3.6 Residential/Institutional/Commercial/Industrial (Res/ICI) Allocations

Residential/Institutional/Commercial/Industrial allocations for growth components were identified as follows.

For the trunk sewer works needed to serve various portions of the City, sewer reach IDs and their service areas were aggregated. The related sewage flows determined for Res/ICI land uses in each area for the UGB were used for allocation purposes.

For facility related works, the sewage flows forecasted through 2033 within the UGB by a given facility, segregated by residential and ICI demands in each service area from modeled outputs were identified.

3.7 Sewer Oversizing Subsidy

Oversizing was considered but the majority of DC related trunk sewer works aligned with sewage flow needs to 2033

(i.e. a pipe size differential would only exist if flow substantially increased within the UGB and/or Build-Out needs).

Table 3-6 provides an Oversizing Cost schedule for a 250mm dia. pipe. The schedule assumes a 250mm dia. pipe,

buried at a depth of 5m, is being upsized.

Table 3-6: Oversizing Cost Schedule for a 5m deep, open cut 250mm dia. pipe

Upsize Dia. (mm) Rebate

250 0

300 25

375 55

450 95



Upsize Dia. (mm) Rebate

525 160

600 240

675 350

750 460

825 585

900 655

975 780

1050 860

1200 1045

1350 1245

1500 1475

1650 1725

1800 2040

1950 2325

2100 2660

3.8 CRSF Trunk Sewers vs. Oversizing

In the past, the City of London has worked with development partners to design, build and finance a variety of

sanitary infrastructure projects. The recent discussions (2010) at the OMB about the pressure experienced by the

UWRF and potentially long payout periods resulted in a rationalization of future Sanitary infrastructure design, build

and finance.

CRSF trunk sewers are strategic sewers which serve large areas, cross significant roads, parks, or abut natural

areas can be best managed by the City and are funded in whole by CSRF with appropriate adjustments for Benefit

to Existing and Post Period Benefit. These sewers do not include private drain connections (PDCs) for individual

residential properties. These strategic projects are tracked in the GMIS and City budgeting process. Proponent

developers interested in developing business plans may refer to these public processes.

Other sewers that are built with a localized focus within site plans and subdivisions, but are oversized to serve

adjacent or future development needs are best timed, managed, designed and built through the proponent developer

at a time that maximizes usage of the infrastructure and decreases cost. The oversizing component of these works

will be eligible for reimbursement as per the relevant rules as directed in the DC bylaw tables. These sewers

generally include PDCs.

3.9 Intensification

As part of the 2030 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the City of London reviewed the manner in which it grows

and the planning policies which support growth. Changes are being considered to the Official Plan growth policies

through the ReThink process. The new policies establish targets to support 40% infill and intensification within the

existing built up areas of the City. From a sanitary servicing perspective, two programs will be created to support

infill and intensification. The growth / non-growth splits will be determined based on the final servicing solution.



Growth Need Sewers 3.9.1

There are several areas of the City that do not have fronting municipal sanitary sewers and are serviced by private

septic systems (e.g. Lambeth, Hyde Park, Fanshawe/Highbury, etc.). Many of these properties are fronting arterial

roads which are scheduled for widening as part of the TMP in the next 20 years. Recognizing that the properties

abutting the arterial road are likely to redevelop and intensify, the most cost effective time to reconstruct municipal

sanitary servicing for growth is during the time of the road widening. Therefore, the construction of these sewers will

be coordinated with the timing of the arterial road projects, thereby eliminating the restoration costs and optimizing

the development potential of the area. These sewers are noted on Figure 3-1 as lightning bolt symbols.

The sanitary sewers identified in Table 3-8 are scheduled in coordination with the arterial road projects identified in the “Roads” section of the Development Charges Background Study and subsequently approved in the City’s Capital Budget. These sanitary sewers will only proceed subject to the successful design and tendering of the arterial road project. Should a developer wish to proceed with a sewer extension in advance of the arterial road project, the developer shall be responsible for all design and construction costs associated with the sanitary sewer pipe and road restoration.

Historically, only a minor proportion of the existing homes and small businesses that are currently serviced by private

septic systems will connect to the municipal sewer system if it is available since their current needs are met by

private systems. Therefore, the growth share for sewers on arterial roads has been allocated at 90% as they are

intended to provide servicing for intensification/redevelopment projects which will contribute to DCs.

Nodal Development 3.9.2

The City of London has identified several nodes for significant intensification activity during the 2013 TMP. These

nodes may transform to densely populated areas. These nodes are shown in Figure 3-4.

To date, one node has been studied in depth as to its build out needs. The South Street and Wellington Street

Storm/ Sanitary and Water Servicing Strategy Report (AECOM, June 2013) lists servicing needs for the former

London Health Science Centre South Street Campus between Southdale Road and Horton Road and the

surrounding catchment areas, encompassing approximately 132 ha of land. It is expected that the hospital re-

development will be a catalyst for growth within the surrounding area. The estimated preliminary costs of servicing

the site are shown in Table 3-7.

The information collected on this node is currently the best available for servicing of a node in the built up area of the

City of London. The City’s growth allocation predicts 3798 residential units over the 20 year period within

intensification nodes city-wide. The current estimate for residential units within the South Street Area Lands is 1459

units. Using the South Street lands as a basis for nodal development city wide a value of 2.6 times (3798 divided by

1459) has been used to determine the costs related to servicing nodal development city-wide over the 20 year

period. The growth/non-growth/local cost allocations for the South Street lands has been presented in Table 3-7.

Benefit to Existing (Non-Growth Allocations) for Intensification 3.9.3

Theoretically, pre-existing development at nodal locations is expected to redevelop in a more dense built form,

requiring larger services than those that exist today. In many cases, the existing infrastructure that is adequate for

existing conditions will be inadequate for the new higher density.

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

HWY 401

DUNDAS ST

OXFORD ST E

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

AD

ELA

IDE

ST N

HAMILTON RD

OXFORD ST W

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

N

COMMISSIONERS RD

SUNNINGDALE RD E

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

S

WO

ND

ERLA

ND

RD

N

HIG

HB

URY

AVE

S

SUNNINGDALE RD W

HORTON ST E

AD

ELA

IDE

ST S



Figure 3-4

Potential Intensification Nodes

Scale: As Shown Datum: NAD83 UTM17N

Date: March 2014 PN: 60275642

0 3 6 9 121.5Kilometres

Hyde Park Power Centre

Masonville Mall

University of Western Ontario

Oakridge Mall

Westmount Shopping Centre

White Oaks Mall

South Street Campus

Downtown

Mc Cormick Lands Argyle Mall

Fanshawe College

LPH LandsLegend

Water

Rail Line

City of London Limits

!( Intensification Node

¹


Priority (Project No.)

Street Street From Street ToProposed

Storm Sewer (mm)

Existing Storm Sewer

(mm)Age

Replacement Cost

Unused Life Credit

Non-Growth CostProposed Sanitary

Sewer (mm)

Existing Sanitary/Combi

ned Sewer (mm)

Age Replacement

Cost Unused Life

CreditNon-Growth Cost

Proposed Watermain

(mm)

Existing Watermain

(mm)Age

Replacement Cost

Unused Life Credit

Non-Growth Cost Local Service Cost Approximate

Length of project (m)

Estimated Unit Price for

costing($/m)

EstimatedCosts

($)

Growth Costs($)

A1 Nelson Adelaide Colborne 600 300 1924 $ 48,750 $ - $ 48,750 250 250 1909 $ 42,250 $ - $ 42,250 250 100 1905 $ 29,250 $ - $ 29,250 $ 182,000 $ 650 $ 2,800 $ 1,820,000 $ 1,517,750

A1 Maitland Nelson Philip N/a 1200 1980 $ - $ - $ - 250 250 1915 $ 5,850 $ - $ 5,850 300 150 1887 $ 4,950 $ - $ 4,950 $ 27,000 $ 90 $ 3,000 $ 270,000 $ 232,200

$ 48,750 $ 48,100 $ 34,200 $ 209,000 $ 2,090,000 $ 1,749,950

A2 Simcoe Wellington Colborne 825 0 0 $ - $ - $ - 300 450 1898 $ 46,550 $ - $ 46,550 200 300 1912 $ 49,000 $ - $ 49,000 $ 127,400 $ 490 $ 2,600 $ 1,274,000 $ 1,051,050

A2 Simcoe Clarence Wellington 450 375 1965 $ 18,000 $ 11,025 $ 6,975 200 300 1881 $ 15,000 $ - $ 15,000 200 200 1975 $ 14,000 $ 6,825 $ 7,175 $ 52,000 $ 200 $ 2,600 $ 520,000 $ 438,850

A2 Henry Simcoe Horton 450 0 0 $ - $ - $ - 200 200 1912 $ 7,150 $ - $ 7,150 150 100 1900 $ 5,850 $ - $ 5,850 $ 32,500 $ 130 $ 2,500 $ 325,000 $ 279,500

$ 6,975 $ 68,700 $ 62,025 $ 211,900 $ 2,119,000 $ 1,769,400

1 Colborne Thames River Nelson 1350 900 1914 $ 27,300 $ - $ 27,300 250 0 0 $ - $ - $ - 250 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ 35,000 $ 70 $ 5,000 $ 350,000 $ 287,700

1 Colborne Nelson South 1350 900 1914 $ 58,500 $ - $ 58,500 250 250 1914 $ 9,750 $ - $ 9,750 250 250 1917 $ 12,000 $ - $ 12,000 $ 67,500 $ 150 $ 4,500 $ 675,000 $ 527,250

$ 85,800 $ 9,750 $ 12,000 $ 102,500 $ 1,025,000 $ 814,950

2 South Colborne Waterloo 675 0 0 $ - $ - $ - 600 450 1897 $ 23,750 $ - $ 23,750 300 300 1953 $ 25,000 $ 19,063 $ 5,938 $ 87,500 $ 250 $ 3,500 $ 875,000 $ 757,813

2 Waterloo South Hill 375 0 0 $ - $ - $ - 600 450 1897 $ 13,300 $ - $ 13,300 250 200 1900 $ 9,800 $ - $ 9,800 $ 49,000 $ 140 $ 3,500 $ 490,000 $ 417,900

2 Hill Waterloo Wellington 750 0 0 $ - $ - $ - 600 450 1897 $ 22,800 $ - $ 22,800 200 100 1890 $ 10,800 $ - $ 10,800 $ 84,000 $ 240 $ 3,500 $ 840,000 $ 722,400

$ - $ 59,850 $ 26,538 $ 220,500 $ 2,205,000 $ 1,898,113

3 South Waterloo Wellington 825 825 1997 $ 76,375 $ 16,230 $ 60,145 375 300 1885 $ 17,625 $ - $ 17,625 300 300 1953 $ 23,500 $ 17,919 $ 5,581 $ 70,500 $ 235 $ 3,000 $ 705,000 $ 551,148

3 Colborne South Hill 1200 900 1914 $ 58,500 $ - $ 58,500 300 300 1900 $ 11,250 $ - $ 11,250 250 150 1900 $ 8,250 $ - $ 8,250 $ 52,500 $ 150 $ 3,500 $ 525,000 $ 394,500

3 Colborne Hill Grey 1200 900 1914 $ 58,500 $ - $ 58,500 250 250 1900 $ 9,750 $ - $ 9,750 250 150 1900 $ 8,250 $ - $ 8,250 $ 45,000 $ 150 $ 3,000 $ 450,000 $ 328,500

$ 177,145 $ 38,625 $ 22,081 $ 168,000 $ 1,680,000 $ 1,274,148

4 Waterloo Hill Grey 450 0 0 $ - 250 250 1900 $ 9,425 $ - $ 9,425 250 200 1900 $ 10,150 $ - $ 10,150 $ 43,500 $ 145 $ 3,000 $ 435,000 $ 371,925

4 Waterloo Grey Simcoe 450 0 0 $ - 250 250 1899 $ 9,425 $ - $ 9,425 250 200 1993 $ 10,150 $ 2,664 $ 7,486 $ 43,500 $ 145 $ 3,000 $ 435,000 $ 374,589

4 Waterloo Simcoe Horton 375 0 0 $ - 250 200 1911 $ 7,150 $ - $ 7,150 200 200 1993 $ 9,100 $ 2,389 $ 6,711 $ 39,000 $ 130 $ 3,000 $ 390,000 $ 337,139

$ - $ 26,000 $ 24,347 $ 126,000 $ 1,260,000 $ 1,083,653

5 Maitland Nelson South 1200 1200 1980 $ - 250 250 1980 $ - 250 150 1887 $ 7,975 $ - $ 7,975 $ 21,750 $ 145 $ 1,500 $ 217,500 $ 187,775

5 Maitland South Hill 900 900 1980 $ - 300 250 1980 $ - 250 150 1890 $ 7,700 $ - $ 7,700 $ 21,000 $ 140 $ 1,500 $ 210,000 $ 181,300

5 Maitland Hill Grey 900 900 1980 $ - 300 300 1911 $ - 250 150 1890 $ 7,975 $ - $ 7,975 $ 21,750 $ 145 $ 1,500 $ 217,500 $ 187,775

5 South Maitland Colborne N/A 600 1994 $ - N/A 675 1994 $ - 300 300 1957 $ 24,000 $ 17,100 $ 6,900 $ 36,000 $ 240 $ 1,500 $ 360,000 $ 317,100

$ - $ - $ 30,550 $ 100,500 $ 1,005,000 $ 873,950

GRAND TOTAL $ 318,700.00 $ 251,000 $ 211,700 $ 1,138,400 $ 11,384,000 $ 9,464,200

Storm Sewer Servicing Sanitary Sewer Servicing Water Sewer Servicing

DISTRIBUTED COST OF SERVICING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH STREET AND WELLINGTON STREET

CITY OF LONDONTABLE 3-7

2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDY

Cost estimate: $607 /mAssumptions: 300mm diameter pipe, 3.5m deep; no restoration (timing with arterial road project

2014 DC Update Unit Cost Rates

Transp. Project Number

SAN ID Road Name Limits Improvement City IDTMP

Recommended Year

Sanitary Servicing NeedsDiameter

estimate (mm)Estimated length (m)

Cost estimateEngineering

(15%)Contingency

(20%)Total

11a LB1 Hyde Park Road Oxford to CPR2 to 4 through

lanesTS1477-1 2014

Growth sanitary sewer between CPR and CNR Tracks.

300 300 $182,100 $27,315 $41,883 $251,298

12 (1a) LB2 Sunningdale RoadStage 1 - Phase 1 -

Wonderland/Sunningdale Intersection

2 to 4 through lanes

TS1496 2014Westerly growth sanitary sewer

coordinated with roundabout project.300 300 $182,100 $27,315 $41,883 $251,298

39 LB3 Hyde Park Road CPR to Fanshawe Park Road2 to 4 through

lanesTS1477-2 2015

Two growth sewers required: 220m S of Gainsborough, and 375m N of

Gainsborough300 590 $358,130 $53,720 $82,370 $494,219

6a LB4 Fanshawe Park RoadAdelaide Street to Highbury

Avenue

2 to 4 through lanes with centre

turn laneTS1475 2016

Growth sanitary sewer required for infill/intensification.

300 170 $103,190 $15,479 $23,734 $142,402

12 (1b) LB5 Sunningdale RoadStage 1 - Phase 2 -

Richmond/Sunningdale Intersection2 to 4 through

lanesTS1496 2019

Growth sanitary sewer possible; subject to outlet constructed through

subdivision to the southwest.300 550 $333,850 $50,078 $76,786 $460,713

12 (2a) LB6 Sunningdale RoadStage 2 - Phase 1 - Adelaide to

Bluebell2 to 4 through

lanesTS1496 2020 Growth sanitary sewer possible. 300 250 $151,750 $22,763 $34,903 $209,415

17a LB7 Boler Road / Sanatorium Road Phase 1 - Oxford to Riverside2 to 4 through

lanesTS1350 2027

Growth servicing required due to redevelopment of existing homes;

may be low pressure system or northerly extension from

Riverside/Boler (cover?)to service CPRI lands (currently partially

connected to Oxford PCP)

300 365 $221,555 $33,233 $50,958 $305,746

16b LB8 Sarnia RoadPhase 2 - Hyde Park to

Oakcrossing Gate2 to 4 through

lanesTS1349 2027 Growth sanitary sewer extension. 300 545 $330,815 $49,622 $76,087 $456,525

25 LB9 Hamilton Road Highbury to River Run Terrace2 to 4 through

lanes2029

Growth sanitary sewer for properties on north side of Hamilton Rd.

300 470 $285,290 $42,794 $65,617 $393,700

30 LB10 Commissioners Road WestWonderland Road to Cranbrook

Road

2 to 4 through lanes with centre

turn lane2030

Minimal length of growth sewer requried.

300 75 $45,525 $6,829 $10,471 $62,825

31 LB11 Commissioners Road WestCranbrook Road to Springbank

DriveNew 5LUA 2030

Possibility of growth sewer if development interests warrant

installation.300 300 $182,100 $27,315 $41,883 $251,298

Growth/intensification sewers on arterial roads

$2,376,405 $356,461 $546,573 $3,279,439


2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYGROWTH SEWERS FOR RESIDENTIAL/ICI ON ARTERIAL ROADS



A benefit to existing (BTE) or non-growth share has been calculated using the pipe cost of the replacement required

discounted for any residual life. This approach assumes a life expectancy of 80 years for buried infrastructure.

( )

Intensification Local Service Cost 3.9.4

An approximated value of 10% has been used as the local share of the intensification infrastructure. The actual local

cost will be determined at the time of the initiating development and would be calculated on a flow proportional basis.

4. Consultation Process

Similar to the 2008 DC study process, the 2014 DC study process was based on a comprehensive and cooperative

approach between the municipal staff which represented the City of London and the London Development Institute

(LDI) which represented the London development community. Starting in early 2012, several meetings have taken

place to discuss policies and issues related growth within the City of London. In particular with the wastewater

servicing component of the DC, the Technical Committee met on several occasions to discuss many items

presented in this report. This content included but is not limited to:

Population forecasts

Sewage flow forecast

Proposed sanitary sewers to be installed

Proposed sanitary pumping station and wastewater treatment plant facility upgrades

Estimated construction costs

Oversizing policies

Intensification

Minutes from these meetings are included in within a separate document.

5. Development Charge Implications

The impetus for completing the Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update and DC Background Study was to identify

works required to satisfy future sanitary sewage flow contributions driven by growth over a 20 year period from 2014

through 2033 consistent with the GMIS Boundary. These works were also sized to address future requirements

based on the UGB and/or Build Out information. Growth/Non-growth determination and Res/ICI allocations are

shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-4. From this, the following was completed to identify DC requirements:

For sewers, projected sewage flow information for Build Out and UGB was used for sizing. The lengths of pipe

required were determined utilizing the 2033 growth information for DC related works within the GMIS service

area. For DC purposes, the needs were matched with the growth projection forecasts in 5 year increments. All

sewer works are within the UGB as shown by Figure 3-1. For DC calculation purposes, only those trunk sewers

250 mm in diameter or greater, were included for calculation purposes. Smaller service areas, less than 250

mm in diameter were considered local to be provided by development proponents. Although oversizing may be

applicable, pipe size differential would represent the only added cost since installation and restoration would be

the same regardless of size. A credit calculation has been developed by the City for application on an

installation basis to compensate developers for Post Period benefits.

Non-Growth Cost

Growth Cost

Residential Cost

Industrial Cost

Commercial Cost

Institutional Cost

$ $ $ $ $ $Sanitary Sewers (Table 3-1 & Table 3-2) 48,852,481$ 3,388,966$ 754,144$ 44,709,371$ 615,785$ 44,093,585$ 40,583,586$ 643,854$ 2,547,590$ 318,556$ Oversizing Costs (Table 3-1) 1,786,500$ -$ -$ 1,786,500$ -$ 1,786,500$ 1,475,649$ -$ 178,650$ 132,201$ Infill and Intensification - Sanitary Servicing of Nodes 4,862,299$ 486,230$ -$ 4,376,069$ 653,456$ 3,722,613$ 3,074,878$ -$ 372,261$ 275,473$ Coordinated Works with Transportation Projects (Table 3-8) 3,279,439$ -$ 1,050,216$ 2,229,223$ 222,922$ 2,006,300$ 1,657,204$ -$ 200,630$ 148,466$ Industrial Servicing Works 23,750,000$ -$ 5,123,900$ 18,626,100$ -$ 18,626,100$ -$ 18,626,100$ -$ -$ Other/PS Facilities (Table 3-4) 25,951,450$ 200,000$ 11,203,000$ 14,548,450$ -$ 14,548,450$ 12,842,100$ 1,291,370$ 389,186$ 25,794$ WTP Facilities (Table 3-4) 63,066,750$ 26,680,000$ 20,529,105$ 15,857,645$ 1,975,298$ 13,882,347$ 11,017,151$ 1,259,989$ 731,407$ 873,800$

171,548,919$ 30,755,196$ 38,660,365$ 102,133,358$ 3,467,462$ 98,665,896$ 70,650,568$ 21,821,313$ 4,419,725$ 1,774,290$

Studies - Biosolids Master Plan 400,000$ -$ 300,000$ 100,000$ 83,100$ 16,900$ 12,472$ 1,724$ 1,335$ 1,369$ Studies - Future Development Charges Study 2019 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ 250,000$ 184,500$ 25,500$ 19,750$ 20,250$ Studies - Future Development Charges Study 2024 250,000$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

900,000$ -$ 550,000$ 350,000$ 83,100$ 266,900$ 196,972$ 27,224$ 21,085$ 21,619$

172,448,919$ 30,755,196$ 39,210,365$ 102,483,358$ 3,550,562$ 98,932,796$ 70,847,540$ 21,848,537$ 4,440,810$ 1,795,909$

Notes:1 Costs are in 2014 dollars as tendered/indexed or as per City/GMIS provided information.

Total Sanitary Costs for GMIS Boundary


2014 WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDYTOTAL GROWTH SANITARY COSTS FOR THE GMIS BOUNDARY (2014-2033)


Previous Funding Or Grants

Works Totals

Studies/Other Total

ItemComponent Total

CostPost Period

Benefit

Component Cost Allocated to 20 Year

Planning Horizon



For pumping stations and WTP’s, projected sewage flow information through 2033 was used to determine future

work requirements. This was then compared to the rated capacities to be provided based on engineering needs

and a post period benefit calculated appropriately.

Growth/Non-Growth splits for sanitary were determined as follows:

o Allocated growth forecast (Res/ICI), across the City’s transportation planning zones (i.e. Transportation

Zone Model).

o Subdivided the transportation zones by sewershed and subsewershed areas and tied to existing or new

trunk sewer maintenance hole nodes in the sanitary sewer model.

o For works identified in the previous DC (2008 Master Plan), existing sewage flows were based on 2013

model outputs on a node by node basis and aggregated by project description to determine the Non-

Growth component. The remaining Growth/Non-Growth and Res/ICI splits were determined based on

the growth information provided as contained within those sewershed/subsewershed areas linked to a

particular project within the GMIS Boundary. The percentage was determined based on applying design

criteria for Residential/ICI sewage flows.

o For new works added as part of this DC update, existing flows were determined based on 2013 flow

information within the GMIS Boundary, and then Non-Growth/Growth and Residential/ICI splits were

determined as above based on the growth information provided by Altus.

o For pumping station and WTP works, the sewage flows to be met through 2033 as determined by the

growth information within the UGB by a given facility were segregated by Res/ICI demands in each

service area.

For DC calculations, growth related costs for the City’s sanitary trunk sewer, pumping station, forcemain,

WTP expansions, and other new facilities (e.g. biosolid management, etc.), components are all part of the

City’s sanitary sewerage system and can all be recovered under the DC Act. Implementation of the GMIS

resulted in a more affordable plan as a basis for DC determination purposes.

Land acquisition costs, where applicable, have been included within the projects to allow for the purchase of

land for sanitary projects that the City cannot obtain through the planning act.

The information presented in this report, including the total costs; non-growth costs; and 2033 growth costs,

complete with Residential/ICI allocations for the City’s sanitary sewerage system will form the basis for DC

calculations.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions have been reached and recommendations made as a result of the work completed for the

2014 Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Update and Development Charge Background Study.

6.1 Conclusions

The conclusions reached as a result of our work are as follows:

A number of sanitary sewage system related works have been completed over the last 5-year period since

the previous Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Plan Update 2008 was completed for the City of London.

Service levels and design criteria have been maintained as per the Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Plan Update

2008. Amendments were made for more recent regulatory requirements (Nutrient Act, Sustainable Water

and Sewer Systems Act, Public Sector Accounting Board, etc.), and incorporating the City’s 20-year



Wastewater Plan to account for future growth costs. The cost of upgrading existing systems to meet these

requirements were removed as appropriate.

For work determination purposes, sanitary sewer greater than 250 mm (10” in diameter), were included

consistent with past Development Charges and Design Policy (service areas greater than 30 ha).

Average day sewage flows remain consistent or just below 2008 levels. This resulted in opportunities to

further delay wastewater treatment plant expansion needs into the future.

All future works are based on the population projections provided by the City of London from 2014 through

2033. This included residential and commercial/industrial/institutional growth information.

In addition to growth requirements, an industrial add-in equivalent to 2.0 MLD was included as per the

previous Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Plan Update (4.5 MLD/1 MIGD previously).

Servicing needs in 5 year increments from 2014 through 2033 were determined, along with full Build-out of

the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. Any further definition was provided as a result of the City’s GMIS outputs

where applicable.

Based on tender costs to 2012 and indexing, all costs are in 2014 dollars.

All works for the next 20 year period take into account future Build-out requirements with post period benefits

identified. Facilities were phased to the extent possible or prorated to minimize this.

Inflow & Infiltration allowances consistent with the Sanitary Sewer Servicing Plan Update 2008 were used

(i.e., dry weather flow plus an I&I allowance as per City design standard of 8640 L/ha/day), as the basis for

confirming available capacity to accommodate future growth. The City of London continues to address I&I

reduction via investigation, study and/or mitigation measure implementation.

Minor pump station upgrades are required at only a few of the City’s facilities which already allow for this.

Future wastewater treatment plant works were prorated consistent with the previous DC Update to meet 20

year growth needs and limit capacity additions.

The works identified are to service the GMIS boundary as established by the City of London. Growth/Non-

Growth and Res/ICI splits are based on model outputs for sewer and/or pumping station components based

on existing (2008) percentages for works carried over from the previous Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Plan

Update 2008. For new works new percentages were identified based on 2014 sewage flows for existing

conditions, and Growth/Non-Growth and Res/ICI determination.

All required works were co-ordinated with Water Servicing, Transportation and Stormwater

Management/Servicing, and are consistent with the City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy

(GMIS). Redundancies were removed where applicable.

Consultation with the City of London’s Environmental and Engineering Services Department, Finance

Department, Development Industry and the London Development Institute was undertaken through project

completion.

6.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations are made as a result of the work completed for the 2014 Wastewater Servicing

Master Plan Update and Development Charge Background Study.



The sewer works noted herein be implemented within the timeframes noted and utilized for Development

Charge Determination/Allocation purposes.

The facility works outlined herein be implemented within the timeframes noted and utilized for Development

Charge Determination/allocation purposes.

The 2014 estimated costs herein be used as a basis for Growth/Non-Growth determination and

Residential/Institutional/Commercial/Industrial allocation within the 20 year growth period, and beyond for

oversizing (post period benefit), purposes.

The City of London should prepare a Biosolids Master Plan Update to confirm a Biosolids Management

approach over the next 20 plus years in advance of the next DC Update.

Appendix A

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mon

thly Average

of D

aily Flows (M

LD)

Date

Adelaide WTP Flows

Monthly Average Flows

Rated Capacity

Operational Capacity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Mon

thly Average

of D

aily Flows (M

LD)

Date

Greenway WTP Flows


Rated Capacity


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Mon

thly Average

of D

aily Flows (M

LD)

Date

Oxford WTP Flows


Rated Capacity


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mon

thly Average

of D

aily Flows (M

LD)

Date

Pottersburg WTP Flows


Rated Capacity


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mon

thly Average

of D

aily Flows (M

LD)

Date

Vauxhall WTP Flows


Rated Capacity


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Mon

thly Average

of D

aily Flows (M

LD)

Date

Southland WTP Flows


Rated Capacity


Appendix B

CITY OF LONDON 2014 LOCAL SERVICE POLICIES

GENERAL

G-1. Claimability Any item listed as claimable, subsidizable, or eligible for funding from a development charge reserve fund must also be provided for in the approved DC rates. To the extent that specific cost sharable works and projects cannot be identified as to location or timing, there should be a contingency provided for in the estimates that is incorporated into the rates.

It is important that the City continue to monitor between DC Background Studies, the accuracy of the estimates and assumptions used to establish the rates. To the extent that substantial variations are identified, Council should be advised and will need to consider whether to increase or decrease the rates in accordance with the monitoring observations.

G-2. DC Fund reimbursements for Exempted Development The City currently exempts Industrial development, and certain specified forms of Institutional development from the payment of development charges. These exemptions support economic development and not-for-profit development initiatives.

With respect to any non-statutory exemptions the City approves in its DC policy, the City will pay for these exemptions through non-DC supported contributions to the respective DC reserve funds. This meets the legislative requirement that exemptions or reductions to charges otherwise payable not be recovered from other, non-exempt forms of development (DCA s.5(6)3.)

G-3. Non-Growth Works that Benefit the Existing Population Where minor works funded in part from the CSRF are subject to this policy and also include a non-growth component in the DC Background Study, funding of that portion of the works must wait until the City has approved sufficient funds in its Council approved capital budgets, or Council makes provision for a Reserve Fund designated for use in funding the non-growth share of DC funded works, to pay for that non-growth portion of the works. The non-growth portion of the funding shall be identified in the City’s Capital Works Budget and approved by Council.

G-4. Use of Contingencies Works listed as eligible in the Development Charges Background Study, or with the approval of the City Engineer, in consultation with the Director, Development Finance, drawn from a contingency and/or an alternative to a work listed in the Background Study may be funded from the CSRF. The claimability of such a work would be subject to inclusion in the development agreement (for works less than $50,000 subject to approved funding in the Capital Budget) or subject to execution of a Municipal Servicing and Financing agreement prior to commencement of the work. The works funded from the CSRF under this paragraph would be subject to rules similar to those described for minor CSRF eligible works contained in this section with respect to eligibility, tender and claim completeness and submission. G-5. Exceptions The Development Charge By-law allows for exceptions to projects listed in the DC Background Study for works listed as eligible in the Development Charges Background Study, or with the approval of the City Engineer, in consultation with the Director, Development Finance, drawn from a contingency and/or substituted for a work listed in the Background Study may be claimable.

Development Finance March 28, 2014 City of London

WASTEWATER

SS-1. Regional Trunk Sewers (CSRF- Sanitary Sewerage) All sewers required to service future development with a diameter greater than 450mm are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Sanitary Sewerage. All sewers of any diameter required to service future development and that are identified as a strategic need by the City Engineer are considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Sanitary Sewerage. In order to be eligible for a claim as a Regional Trunk Sewer, the sewer must have no Private Drain Connections to individual residential units otherwise the “Sewer Oversizing” policy applies. SS-2. Sewer Oversizing (CSRF - Minor Sanitary Sewers) Sanitary Sewers, which are not Regional Trunk Sewers, with all of the following attributes are eligible for a subsidy from the CSRF - Minor Sanitary Sewers:

• The sewer services external developable areas, and • The sewer is greater than 250mm in diameter.

The oversized portion (>250mm) is eligible for a subsidy payable based on an average oversizing cost and is stated in terms of a $/m of pipe constructed. The oversizing subsidy amounts are to be reflected in an appendix of the DC Bylaw. The oversizing subsidy amounts cover the cost per metre of all associated eligible costs including engineering, manholes, restoration, etc. SS-3. Pumping Stations (CSRF- Sanitary Sewerage) The upgrading or construction of new regional pumping stations are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Sanitary Sewerage. These projects must also be identified in the Development Charges Background Study. A figure showing the location of all of these pumping stations is provided in the Sanitary Master Servicing Study. SS-4. Temporary Pumping Stations (Developer Cost) The cost of any temporary pumping stations or forcemains is borne by the developer. Approval of temporary works is at the discretion of the City Engineer. Where a temporary facility precedes the construction of a permanent facility, the developer that requires the temporary facility will be required to also assist in making provision for the permanent facility (e.g. provide land for permanent facility) as a condition of approval for the temporary facility. In order for a temporary work to proceed there must first be provisions for the permanent work within the current Development Charge Background Study. SS-5. Wastewater Treatment Upgrades (CSRF- Sanitary Sewerage) All wastewater treatment upgrades considered to satisfy a regional benefit to growth and are to be identified as separate projects in the DC Background Study and are eligible for a claim from the CSRF- Sanitary Sewerage. SS-6. Temporary Sanitary Sewerage Systems (Developer Cost) Costs of all sanitary sewage systems that are temporary or are not defined in the DC Background Charge Study shall be borne by the Developer. Approval of temporary works is at the discretion of the City Engineer. Where a temporary facility precedes the construction of a permanent facility, the developer that requires the temporary facility will be required to also assist in making provision for

City of London March 28, 2014 Development Finance

the permanent facility (e.g. secure land for permanent facility) as a condition of approval for the temporary facility. In order for a temporary work to proceed there must first be provisions for the permanent work within the current Development Charge Background Study. SS-7. Local Service Costs (Developer Cost) Any pipe or portion of a larger pipe that is less than or equal to 250mm in diameter are referred to as local works, and undertaken at the Developer’s expense.

City of London March 28, 2014 Development Finance

the corporation of the city of london 2014 wastewater ...€¦ · city of london (“client”) ......

Documents