Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDiscussion re: Water, Wastewater and Reclaimed Water "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER Ocoee S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT Cr 4%• o CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS "j� a DANNY HOWELL �� o 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON (.. OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON yl E4, N:AN � (407) 905-3100 NANCY J. PARKER OF 000V CITY MANAGER JIM GLEASON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 7, 2002 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners Jim Gleason, City Manager FROM: James W. Shira, P.E., City Engineer/Utilities Director SUBJECT: Wastewater System Map Today in the City of Ocoee, we have approximately 9,650 water customers, and approximately 5,900 wastewater customers. A bit of mathematics indicates that there are then approximately 3,750 customers who have water but are not connected to our sewer system. On the map entitled Ocoee Wastewater System, the areas containing these 3,750 customers are shown in dark purple. As you can see, they vary greatly in size, and are scattered about. The combined size of these small areas is approximately 1,020 acres. These customers use septic tanks and drainfields to dispose of wastewater, and they include single-family residences, small commercial buildings and professional offices. Many of these customers are in areas that were built before Prima Vista Utilities constructed its wastewater collection and treatment system. This is particularly evident in the older part of town around City Hall. Some other areas, such as Sawmill and Forest Oaks subdivisions were so far distant from the system as it existed at that time, that it was deemed cost-prohibitive to construct a connection to the sewer system. We obviously would like to connect all of these customers to the sanitary sewer system and in order to do so, we need to determine two things: 1. How much will it cost? 2. How will we pay for it? PoWF Resources Protect Ocoee's Water . "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER Ocoee S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT O� � .n, •�� CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS ICIDANNY HOWELL Z., 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON �.� OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON yrE,p -a�� (407) 905-3100 NANCY J. PARKER Of G000 CITY MANAGER JIM GLEASON In order to estimate the cost of a new system, many variables must be taken into account. Among these are the degree of congestion of the proposed route, whether there are other agencies who must give permission to use a particular route, the distance from existing sewer lines, how many potential connections are in a given area, and how far spread apart the various sub-areas are. At the planning level, because the exact nature of most of these variables is still unknown, many of these variables have to be lumped together as an assumed "cost factor" and that factor is then applied across an area or sub-area. Sometimes there are too many variables to make even a reasonable estimate of costs, and in those instances, it's best to look at similar projects throughout the country to get an idea of what the construction costs are on a per-unit basis. This is what I've done, and I've done that for two different options. 1. Standard gravity collection system and lift stations 2. Vacuum collection and pumping systems Standard Gravity Collection System and Lift Stations: I have local information to use here, based on the costs that contractors have incurred to build collection systems and lift stations in local subdivisions. However, the differences between a putting a sewer system in a new subdivision and putting a sewer system into an already-established neighborhood, are very significant differences. Also, the fact that these 3,750 customers are not all in one geographic area increases the total costs considerably. The result of these factors is that putting gravity sewer facilities in an already- established neighborhood costs 3 to 4 times as much per connection, as it costs in a new subdivision. For comparison purposes, the cost per lot for sanitary sewer system and lift station improvements in the Willows on the Lake subdivision was $2,511.00, the cost per lot in Windsor Landing was $2,390.00, and the cost per lot in Orchard Park was $1,414.00. The average cost per lot using these three examples is approximately $2,100.00. Interestingly, the two larger projects paid more per lot than the smallest project did. For this analysis, I've used a conservative approach by estimating costs at four times the average cost for new subdivisions. Based on that approach, I estimate that to PoWI Protect Ocoee's Water Resources "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER Ocoee S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT Cr � pi-ge CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS it it 4.ii — DANNY HOWELL �, 0 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON ��• OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON y�4, N> (407) 905-3100 NANCY J. PARKER Of G001) CITY MANAGER JIM GLEASON provide a gravity sanitary sewer system for these 3,750 customers will cost approximately$8,400jer customer, for a total of$31.5 million. (This comes to about $31,000 per acre) Vacuum Collection and Pumping Systems: A few of these systems have been installed in the central Florida area, and I was able to get information on one that was installed in Sanford serving approximately 2,000 customers, and another system that was installed in Englewood serving approximately 1,700 customers. I've attached a short article about each of these projects for your review. The company that provided the equipment for these installations is called AirVac, and they have an office in Tampa. As you can see from the Englewood article, they experienced costs of approximately $4,000 per connection. Since the Englewood project was designed to put a sanitary sewer system in an already-developed area, the project is similar to what we would be looking for. I spoke to a representative of the AirVac company to see what sort of costs they are using as first-blush estimates today. Mr. David Elias told me that he would recommend estimating nearly$6,000 per connection, which when multiplied by our 3,750 customers would result in a total project cost of approximately$225 million. (about $22,000 per acre) He cautioned that vacuum systems are most effective with around 200 connections at minimum, which means that some of our smaller neighborhoods may not be suitable for this type of system. We may find however, that a system of this sort would be ideal for the downtown area and the nearby residential areas. To serve this older part of town with a vacuum system, assuming around 300 business and residential connections, would cost approximately $1.8 million, compared to approximately $2.5 million for a gravity system. The vacuum technology will have a somewhat higher annual operating and maintenance cost than a gravity system, and these increased costs would need to factored into a future detailed costs analysis prior to making a decision. Paying for these improvements is the next challenge. The most common way to fund the initial cost of a project of this magnitude is through the issuance of bonds. POW!, Protect Ocoee's Water Resources "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER nOcoee S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT ,_ 5� CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS till a DANNY HOWELL Cs 0 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON r.� \k/ .f, OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON 4- .r As �/ .> (407) 905-3100 NANCY J. PARKER OF GOOD CITY MANAGER JIM GLEASON The repayment of the bonds can be either by special assessment charges against those who are benefited (the 3,750 new customers) or by a charge against all utility customers. In 1997, the City issued $10,150,000 in bonds for expansion of the utility system, primarily aimed at water system improvements. The annual principal payments on that issue ranged over the first ten years, from $120,000 to $230,000. Let's assume for now that a $23 million or $32 million bond issue would have payments in proportion to the 1997 bonds. If so, the annual principal payments during the first ten years for a $23 million bond would range from $271,000 to $521,000. Assuming we wanted to recoup this cost from the group that is being benefited, the 3,750 new customers, we would need to get from each new customer, annual revenue equal to $72 to $140 over the first ten years. This equates to a monthly charge to those customers ranging over the first ten years of $6.00 to $12.00. This is in addition to the rates that all other utility customers are paying. In other words, in the first year, using our current rates, if a new customer used 12,000 gallons of water, they would pay a wastewater bill of $37.53 as opposed to the $31.53 paid by others. In the tenth year, the new customer would be paying $43.53 compared to $31.53 for others (assuming no other rate changes). Annual principal payments on a $32 million bond would range from $378,000 to $725,000. For the $32 million bond, new customer's additional monthly costs would range over the first ten years from $8.50 to $16.00 resulting in total wastewater bills of $40.00 to $47.50. Obviously, these are all very rough numbers, and do not take any interest costs into account, nor any costs of bond issuance. The final costs would be more likely to be higher, not lower. The other area shown on the Ocoee Wastewater System map in light purple, which we are calling the Northwest Study Area, will be described in more detail in the public presentation. This area is approximately 1,400 acres in size. We estimate that installation of gravity sanitary sewer facilities in the Northwest Study Area will cost approximately $6 to 8 million if it is done now, prior to development of the area. If this PoWI � Protect Ocoee's Water Resources `': - "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER Ocoee S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT �i CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS Vii► a DANNY HOWELL �, 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON C.,y `�� OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON l44 ``� (407) 905-3100 NANCY J. PARKER OF GOOD CITY MANAGER JIM GLEASON area is allowed to develop without a well-planned sanitary sewer system, the cost to go back at some later date and retrofit the entire area could easily exceed $40 million. Again, the issue is two-fold: 1. How to pay for the initial construction, and 2. How to recoup that cost. As discussed above, issuance of bonds or obtaining a loan are two of the most common methods of funding the construction, with the repayment of that debt born by either the benefited customers or the utility ratepayers as a group. Once the City determines that it wants to proceed with construction of a sanitary sewer system in one or more of the areas identified, further detailed analysis can be performed to see what options are most feasible for the area chosen. An estimate of costs can then be performed with the assistance of suppliers and contractors to provide a much closer idea of our expected costs for the project. At that point, we would need to begin discussions with banks and bond firms to see how we could best fund the construction, and we would also need to examine our rate structure to determine what rate increases are needed in order to repay the new debt. PoWI Protect Ocoee's Water Resources j 1-- Englewood, Florida - 30111111, , Conditions in Englewood Best Suited for Vacuum Collection �` System, Engineers Found } - By DAVE HODGES—The Florida Specifier—September 1997 The Englewood Water District in Southwest Florida will begin installing the second major phase of its vacuum collection system in October, a plan that already has proven itself cheaper to build and easier to operate than gravity or low-pressure sewer designs. The recently complete first phase enabled about 1,700 customers to switch to vacuum collection from their old septic tanks. District Administrator Jim Elder said vacuum collection proved to be about 25% less in capital costs compared to gravity sewer, and so far it's costing less to operate and maintain. "I know the field personnel are extremely happy with it," he added. When all nine phases are done within the planned five years, Englewood will have one of the largest vacuum sewer systems in the world. Spanning a service area of 44 square miles, the Englewood Water District has customers in both Sarasota and Charlotte counties. The coastal community of Englewood is characterized by many small lots, some originally platted in the late 1800s. The water table is high and rights-of-way in more developed parts of town offer limited space. A gravity sewer system was first envisioned and a design was prepared for the older, downtown section of the city. It became increasingly evident, however, that gravity collection would necessitate disruption of the streets, deep excavations, numerous manholes, and then expensive rebuilding of the infrastructure.At that point, district officials decided to take a serious look at vacuum collection, which they noted had been endorsed by the EPA in its 1991 manual, Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems. The consulting firm Giffels-Webster Engineers Inc. was hired to examine the alternatives. They performed an analysis based on the engineering elements of the systems and their various costs. That showed the district would be able to put in a larger vacuum system at a lower unit cost than it could using gravity or low-pressure designs, said Jonathan Cole, PE, project engineer.The district decided to call for bids on both the gravity and vacuum specifications. Vacuum collection came back at a lower construction cost. Next, the engineers factored in the expense for operations and maintenance. For vacuum, "the savings was around $600 per equivalent residential connection," Cole said. The district decided to proceed with the first segment of its installation plan, which totaled 392 customer connections. Lines were buried in the grassy swales at the edge of the streets at a depth of 2.5 to 3 feet. Cuts to cross the street were minimized. The work was finished on time. "Not only that,we finished the construction at a cost less than the original contractor's bid,"Cole said. While the original estimate was based on the number of units times the cost per unit,the engineers found that they were able to modify the installation in the field and save money by adjusting the layout. Cole explained that Englewood was able to vary the number of homes per valve pit, for example. In the end, the original estimate of$4,000 per equivalent residential connection turned out to be $3,792. Aside from an odor problem encountered early and solved with a biofilter approach, vacuum collection has worked well. Cole said the operators like it because they deal with valve pits instead of manholes and lift stations. There is less maintenance to do, and leaks are easy to find and fix. The sewage is oxygenated enroute and its moves faster, 18 feet per second, compared to 2 feet per second in a gravity line. There is less accumulation of hydrogen sulfide gas. Both Cole and Elder acknowledged the field assistance of supplier AIRVAC Vacuum Sewer Systems. The installation contractor was Forsberg Construction Co. of Punta Gorda, which had not done a vacuum collection system before. Flexibility of installation was a plus, Elder said, especially in the positioning of the vacuum pipes. "You can go up or down," he added. "If you need to go under or over something, you can." The entire first phase of the system was placed in service in June. The vacuum level is monitored continually at the vacuum station, with telemetry to the district's headquarters, so any problems are detected quickly and are typically corrected within 45 minutes. The only source of electric power required is at the vacuum station. The vacuum valves throughout the system are pneumatically operated. In comparison, a low-pressure system would have required a pump and electrical connection at each home. A gravity sewer would have required multiple lift stations. Since the collection lines are "tight" by nature, infiltration and inflow are non-existent, which reduces pumping and treatment costs.With no manholes, there is no risk of sewer gases collecting, nor is there a confined space hazard for personnel. Vacuum checks of new lines are done daily as each segment is added, so system integrity is verified up front, Elder explained. In its design work, Giffels-Webster came up with criteria that indicate when vacuum systems are most feasible. The firm still recommends gravity sewers for new subdivisions and open areas. Low-pressure collection systems are good if the job has large lots and long runs of pipe. Cole said, "If you have a dense area with a lot of conflicts with existing utilities, lots of roads, and 700 up to 1,800 connections, then a vacuum system is the way to go." The next phase is expected to start in mid-October and will be funded in part by money from the federal Rural Economic Development Corp., Elder said. Sanford, Florida - Sanford is a city of 35,000 located 15 miles north of Orlando and adjacent to Lake Monroe. Part of the city was served by a combined sewer system, built in the early 1900's, which would bypass untreated sanitary sewage into Lake Monroe during periods of heavy rainfall. Other complicating factors included predominantly brick _ ._, -- streets in the downtown area, the location of the combined • r ' "" sewer system in narrow alleyways behind houses, the >:ilarge number of utilities present both in alleyways and in streets, and inadequate hydraulic gradient. Vacuum sewers could be routed easily through alleys and around underground obstacles, giving them an immediate advantage over gravity systems,which lack such flexibility. A study comparing vacuum to gravity was completed. The analysis showed vacuum to be only half the price of gravity. The project was constructed at a cost less than expected, making the actual savings 60%. Why vacuum?: 1) Restricted construction conditions 2) Minimize excavation and hence dewatering 3) Eliminate the need for many lift stations 4) Minimize utility conflicts 5) Minimize surface restoration. Description: The Sanford system was built in 1990 and contains more than 400 AIRVAC vacuum interface valves serving approximately 2,000 residential and commercial connections. The system was designed to handle a peak flow of 700 GPM. �osNB AN, 4'4'9 St. Johns R t,9%.~4,-•0 Water Management District 1fq'VA0EME,41 Kirby B Green III,Executive Director • John R.Wehle,Assistant Executive Director David Dewey,Altamonte Springs Service Center Director � 975 Keller Road • Altamonte Springs, FL 32714-1618 • (407) 65)-V E Q E U�1 V LS January 22, 2002 j it i JAN 2 3 2002 Jim Shira U City of Ocoee 150 North Lake Shore Drive • Ocoee, FL 32761 RE: Notice of Violation for Consumptive Use Permit 3216 Dear Mr. Shira: Thank you for meeting with Nancy Christman and me last week regarding the City of Ocoee's Consumptive Use Permit. As we discussed, the City has been out of compliance with Condition 16 of the permit since 1998. While the City has implemented an aggressive water conservation campaign that has seen water consumption overall decrease, the yearly allocations have still been substantially exceeded. Because this permit is out of compliance, the District is requesting that within the next thirty days, the City of Ocoee submit a plan outlining the immediate steps the City will undertake to ensure that the allocation for 2002 is not exceeded. On an enclosure, I have listed some items that other permittees have adopted in order to reduce water consumption. You may wish to consider including some of these items in your plan. From our discussion, we understand that the City is currently making connections to reclaimed water. Please also provide a proposed timeline, for 2002, of the number of connections and an estimate of the gallons of potable water potentially saved, for each month. Based on the plan submitted, the District may still proceed with further enforcement action to achieve compliance with the permitted conditions. If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (407) 659-4848. Sincerely, Shannon L. Department of Resource Management Cc: PDS —CI Dwight Jenkins James Hollingshead Nancy Christman GOVERNING BOARD William Kerr,CHAIRMAN Ometrias D.Long,VICE CHAIRMAN Jeff K.Jennings,SECRETARY Duane OtlenStroer,TREASURER MELBOURNE BEACH APOPKA MAITLAND JACKSONVILLE Ann T.Moore Michael Branch Catherine A.Walker Clay Albright David G.Graham BUNNELL FERNANDINA BEACH ALTAMONTE SPRINGS EAST LAKE WEIR JACKSONVILLE Water Conservation Corrective Action Plan Ideas 1. Adopt a water conservation rate structure. 2. Have a water conservation enforcement officer. Assign personnel to enforce the water conservation rules currently in effect. Have personnel look for violations during peak hours (usually in the night-time). Assess monetary penalties for each violation. 3. Provide rain shut off sensors free or at cost to those residents utilizing an automatic sprinkler system. 4. Provide technical assistance to install rain shut off sensors or to reset timers for those residents utilizing an automatic sprinkler system. 5. Adopt an ordinance that requires the installation of rain shut off sensors for in- ground sprinkler systems that were installed prior to the adoption of Chapter 373.62,F.S. (May 1, 1991) and those installed after May 1, 1991 that do not have the required sensor. (The goal of this ordinance is to ensure that every in-ground sprinkler system be fitted for the rain shut off sensor) 6. Adopt a provision in the building code that includes an inspection,prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy,for a rain sensor device as required by Chapter 373.62,F.S., for in-ground sprinklers installed as part of new home construction. A Certificate of Occupancy must not be granted if the rain shut off sensor is not installed on automatic sprinkler systems. 7. If a permit is required for installation of in-ground sprinkler systems on existing homes, the permit must include a provision to inspect for the required rain shut off sensor. The final inspection must not be approved if the rain sensor is not installed. This provision would apply to permits pulled from the City building department to install in-ground sprinklers at existing homes. 8. Review landscape ordinances and subdivision regulations to ensure that the requirements do not have the effect of using large amounts of water. For example, some deed restrictions require the installation of St. Augustine turf. Shira, Jim From: Gleason, James Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 2:37 PM To: Commission Cc: Shira, Jim Subject: FW: Noncompliance Letter from SJRWMD Mayor and Commission: Our intent is discuss this issue at the City Commission Meeting February 18, 2002. We will discuss the current status of the City Reuse Plan and future planed phasing in addition to the ramification of the Notice of Violation for Consumptive Use Permit 3216. The Engineering Department will provide the background information and potential policy options that will need to be addressed to resolve this issue. I will have a copy of the letter from St. Johns sent to each of you. Jim Gleason -----Original Message From: Shira,Jim Sent: Tuesday,January 29,2002 2:28 PM To: Gleason,James Subject: Noncompliance Letter from SJRWMD I received a Noncompliance Letter from FDEP regarding our current Consumptive Use Permit. A copy of the letter is being sent to you via interoffice mail along with a copy of their suggested corrective actions. As noted, the City has exceeded its C.U.P. allocation of water for several years now. This is what first prompted the beginning of the POWR program, and while that program has helped, we are still in violation. The District Governing Board has directed District staff to begin strict review of all C.U.P. holders, and to require all C.U.P. holders to come into compliance with permit requirements. As you can see on their list, the preferred method of obtaining compliance with water withdrawal rates is through the adoption of water conservation rate structures. These are the structures commonly called inclining block rates. We have 30 days to respond to the District with a plan for bringing our consumption into compliance with our C.U.P. This is a major issue, and one that I don't think the District will be inclined to ignore any longer. Please make sure all of the elected officials are aware that this noncompliance notice has been received, and that they are aware of the severity of this problem. 1 "c—A TER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER Ocoee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS _ cgirDANNY HOWELL a 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258RUSTY JOHNSON y1 �� (407)905-3100 NANCY J PARKER f( Of j00� G CITY MANAGER JIM GLEASON February 15, 2002 Ms. Shannon Joyce, P.G. St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Re: Notice of Violation for Consumptive Use Permit 3216 Dear Ms. Joyce: This is written in response to your letter of January 22, 2002 notifying the City of Ocoee of non-compliance with our Consumptive Use Permit. The City of Ocoee is aware that since 1998, as you stated in your letter, our annual total water consumption has exceeded the C.U.P. allocated amount. We have been, and continue to be very concerned about this and we have worked diligently to find ways to reduce our overall consumption. As you noted, we have made significant strides toward that goal with the programs and practices we have placed into effect. As we discussed during our meeting in your office, I believe that part of the discrepancy can be attributed to actual population growth as opposed to the growth that was projected at the time of the C.U.P. application process. The attached graph and Table 2 show that actual population growth has consistently exceeded the growth that was projected when the C.U.P. application was prepared. Tables 1 and 2 show that our actual 2001 population of 25,993 exceeded the projected 2001 population of 23,586 by 2,407. At the C.U.P.'s 2001 allocated 155 gallons per day per capita, this equates to an annual water consumption of 136.2 million gallons. Therefore, the 2001 C.U.P. allocated amount of 1.334 billion gallons should instead, have been 1.471 billion gallons. If this adjustment for actual population growth were made, the amount by which we exceeded our 2001 allocation would be reduced from the reported 635.9 million gallons to 499.7 million gallons. I believe that an examination of the graph shows that this growth trend has been consistent during the period from 1996 to now, and we have no reason to believe this trend will change significantly from now until the expiration of our current C.U.P. in 2006. Therefore, I respectfully submit that a modification of our current C.U.P. to take these revised population and consumption figures into account may be in order. Pea • Shannon Joyce, P.G. February 15, 2002 Page 2 As you are aware, the City of Ocoee has implemented a water conservation program emphasizing public education on water supply issues. This program, dubbed the POWR (Protect Ocoee's Water Resources) Program, has been very successful so far. The best measure of this program's success can be seen in the dramatic reduction in consumption from 2000 to 2001. Our annual total water consumption for 2000 was 2.31 billion gallons. For 2001, the annual total water consumption dropped to 1.97 billion gallons. This is a 14.7% decrease, despite a 6.6% increase in population during that same period. I think this clearly shows the positive effect the POWR program has had so far, and the City fully intends to enhance the program through further public education and demonstration projects in the future. The City has also been actively enforcing the current water use restrictions mandated by the District in March 2001. We have implemented a tiered warning/fine structure, and have consistently imposed and collected fines against repeat violators of the water use restrictions. We have used utility department and code enforcement personnel as well as police officers to look for and report violations during all hours of the day and night. As effective as these programs are, we are very aware that they are only part of a complete water conservation program. Over the past two years, we have constructed a complete reclaimed water storage, pumping and distribution system that allows us to provide reclaimed water to homes and businesses along Clarke Road from the West Oaks Mall, north to Clarcona-Ocoee Road. We are already supplying reclaimed water to the West Oaks Mall, the Summerville at Ocoee assisted living facility on Clarke Road, the Silver Crossings shopping center and the City's Beech Recreation Center and soccer fields on A.D. Mims Road. In addition to these sites, we are providing reclaimed water to 33 residential lots in the Villages of West Oaks subdivision, and before the end of March, we will have hooked up another 150 residential lots in the Prairie Lakes and Remington Oaks subdivisions. Based on irrigation meter records, we anticipate that these will account for a 200,000 to 250,000 gallon per day redaimed water demand. There are several additional residential and commercial projects along Clarke Road that will be completed and/or brought on-line during 2002 including the Willows on the Lake subdivision, the Olympia PUD commercial center, Spring Lake elementary school, the Cambridge Village subdivision, and several subdivision entrance areas. These will result in an additional reclaimed water demand of approximately 150,000 to 200,000 gallons per day. Probcticii iYW'ir''`^ 4 Shannon Joyce, P.G. February 15, 2002 Page 3 We also are developing a plan to provide reclaimed water to approximately 874 lots in the Forest Brooke and West Groves subdivisions in the northwest part of the city. Home construction in these subdivisions should begin in mid 2003. In the southern part of the City, we have installed a sixteen-inch diameter reclaimed water main along Maguire Road from Moore Road north to Professional Parkway. We are in negotiations for the purchase of a reclaimed water storage and pumping facility site just north of the Maguire/Moore intersection and have begun design of the pumping facilities. All of this is based on an existing Interlocal_Agreement between the City of Ocoee and the City of Orlando and Orange County. The purpose of the Interlocal Agreement is to allow the City of Ocoee to withdraw reclaimed water from the Consery II system for use by businesses and residences along Maguire Road. In that area, we have several developments ready to receive reclaimed water, including the 300 home Brookestone subdivision, the 447 unit Key Isle apartment complex and the 200 home Windsor Landing subdivision. We anticipate being able to deliver reclaimed water to these areas in late 2003. The attached Table 1 indicates the projected population, C.U.P. allocation, and actual withdrawal for 1996 through 2001, with projected populations, actual C.U.P. allocations and projected withdrawals for 2002 through 2006. Based on the figures in Table 1, you can see that the City has reduced its total withdrawal by 14.6% from 2000 to 2001. The amount by which we exceeded our allocation dropped by 37.1% for that same period. The attached Table 2 indicates actual population, adjusted allocation and actual withdrawal for 1996 through 2001, with projected population, adjusted allocation and projected withdrawal for 2002 through 2006. Table 2 also indicates our expected reclaimed water consumption for 2002 through 2006 and the resulting adjusted anticipated potable water withdrawal for those years. Table 2 is based on the above-mentioned adjustments to the annual allocation figures, and an annual reduction in actual withdrawal of 7% from 2001 to 2002 and 6% from 2002 to 2003. Based on these figures, we will cut the amount by which we exceed our allocation from 499.7 million gallons to 238.5 million gallons, a reduction of 52.3% in only one year. The table also shows that Ocoee will come into compliance with the allocation amounts during 2003. The City of Ocoee is committed to ensuring the long-term viability of our groundwater resources. We hope that the District will recognize the positive steps we have taken and will work with us as we continue to advance toward our common goal. Shannon Joyce, P.G. February 15, 2002 Page 4 If you have any questions on the information I've presented please call me at 407-905-3100 ext. 9-1505 or email me at jshira@ici.ocoee.fl.us. Sincerely, CITY OF OCOEE James W. Shira, P.E. City Engineer/Utilities Director JWS/jbw Enclosures C: Jim Gleason, City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners David A. Wheeler, P.E., Assistant City Engineer Robert Holland, Utilities Superintendent Dwight Jenkins James Hollingshead Nancy Christman •w iiretectacisrs City of Ocoee 1 '''---4,Af- .F' AAS, ms.µ+F"..t La„y t. { -< yr —11— Projected Population in 31 ;000 ' ' µ tore; 0 0 i ® Z CUP Application ti JN 29;000 yc ; �4 b" ,I . l✓a C,.:4;4'..', , � a` - - Actual Population (BEBER/ 44 ,; .,, ° 0941Census) (2) —.425:•-000 _/'j N • o i 000 . . . : 1 '� a. 7. l I -- n. Annual Withdrawal Allowed'' ;00P By CUP (MG/Yr) I.. ° ;00.0 . _ . 1 '%OQ.� . �� . :�� 1 �,. ":1 ..11(:i' -6- Annual Withdrawal • ',: ;y 1 i xL 1 ..-0 • .c0 ti CO a) CI;;:it,,,. . , ..-N-�i ,t4(., Should Have Been (MG/Yr) X r7,”.;rnx,Wit:,.' .,u . :`:. Table 1 C.U.P. Application Data Permit Projected Projected Annual Actual Overage Year Population Per Capita Withdrawal Withdrawal (MG/Yr) in CUP Daily Allowed 96-01 Application Consumption By CUP (Projected (1) (MG/Yr) 02-06) 1996 18,886 177 1,220.1 1,548.7 328.6 1997 19,754 172 1,240.2 1,614.7 374.5 1998 20,621 168 1,264.5 1,809.3 544.8 1999 21,489 164 1,286.3 1,872.3 586.0 2000 22,357 159 1,297.5 2,308.1 1,010.6 2001 23,586 155 1,334.4 1,970.3 635.9 2002 24,635 150 1,348.8 1,871.8 523.0 2003 25612 150 1,402.3 1,834.4 432.1 2004 26679 150 1,460.7 1,797.7 337.0 2005 27782 150 1,521.1 1,761.7 240.6 2006 28867 150 1,580.5 1,726.5 146.0 (1) Anticipated per capita daily consumption Permitted withdrawal/Projected Population for 1992-2001 Projected population X 150 gal per capita per day for 2002-2006 Table 2 Historic Use Data Permit Actual Per Capita Annual Actual Reclaimed Revised Revised Year Population Daily Allocation Withdrawal Water Withdrawal Overage (BEBER/ Consumption Should Have 96-01 02-06 02-06 Census) Been (Projected (2) (4) (MG/Yr) 02-06) (MG/Yr) (MG/Yr) (MG/Yr) 1996 ,4*. 19,261 177 1,244.3 1,548.7 304.4 1997 ,ti 0';473 172 1 ,285.3 1,614.7 329.3 1998 ';;;: :::-1--, 41,055 168 1,327.8 1,809.3 481.5 1999 :-t. 164 1,361.5 1,872.3 510.7 2000 .7, . ;'_ .4.9, 159 1,415.5 2,308.1 892.5 2001 '1:1,.:;1-!e r'49:519'9 . 155 1,470.6 1,970.3 499.7 2002 27,193 150 1,488.9 :::::: :1,832:4 105.0 1,727.4 238.5 2003 28,393 150 1,554.5 :::::::::::17:22:5 175.0 1,547.5 -7.1 2004 29,593 150 1,620.2 ::: Tim McDaniel UTILITJ SENICE co.,mc. Florida Representative P.O. Box 354725 - —'Palm Coast, FL 32164 Phone: (386)437-5320 01.4 I��Ii`! (800)223-3695 _;1 Voice Matt: 306 0)i 1:�� Fax: (386)437-5376 'v.--;•- E-mail:tmcdaniel@utlIItyservice.com 1110 010.0'4 _ www.utilityservice.com 1 CITY OF OCOEE 500,000 GALLON SPHEROID I I I I Prepared By: Tim McDaniel September 4, 2001 I I I I IOn September 5, 2001, I visited the City of Ocoee to look at the 500,000 gallon Spheroid owned by the City to help determine the condition of the tank.Tank i Industry Consultants had previously inspected the tank in 1999. Complete sandblasting procedures, lead removal, containment, repairs, and total renovation would cost between $225,000.00 and $250,000.00. At that time the tank I would be in new condition and could be put under a preventative Maintenance Program. That is the key to steel storage vessels. I had looked at this tank seven years ago and said something needed to be done at 1 that time if the tank was to be keep. If you were to do a study for forty to fifty years into the future,you would find that the steel elevated tanks are actually less expensive to maintain then concrete. In that I time you will have replaced most high service motors, five times, since normal life for the motors is maybe ten years. The concrete tanks will be falling apart at twenty to thirty years. Hence,you may end up building two concrete tanks, replacing I motors five times, and run the electricity on a constant basis. We maintain a steel standpipe tank that was built in 1887. It is still on line and functioning today. Many steel tanks that are on continuing maintenance programs will out last the concrete I tanks well into the future. Replacement of this tank at today's pricing would be approximately $750,000.00. If the tank works on the system for the City, it would be worth renovation. I At this time the tank is in serious DEP violation,and should not be on line. It is open to insects and birds at this point. I did not find any signs of the insects or birds inside the tank though. IIf it is the City's intent to keep this tank,we would certainly give a solid price to renovate the entire tank and place it under our Maintenance Program. This would Uallow the City to spread the cost to a degree over a three year period. There is no one else in the country that can do this. IIf any questions, please call me at 386-437-5320. We look forward to partnering with the City in the future, if it chooses to do so. We also have a division that deals with Site Management, the leasing of tower space for Icelluar activity. This would be a revenue potential for the City in the future and help defray costs of the MP. ISincerely, ITim McDaniel Florida Representative I I I I I ... 'i , \ TANK INDUiTR (( ONSULTANTS EVALUATION OF THE . 500,000 Gallon Steel Elevated Tank z- 4 „ 4 ,. "Jamela Eleyaqd Tank" .. -.-., Ocoee, Florida ...,-,--- ---- .. ..s.:' FOR ' f' ..,..e,-.,-- .if'• '' ''' ,, , : - Hartman and Associateft 1 , I ! , I lk,. :. '.0` • !:- - Orlancto Kr i i : k . - I, • . - .! .,:, ,, -zi,„6,,....,0,-,t,-- ....,7 • ' --- -,H ,. ; il ---- - ; — --A..t. i' ' • :,i,, ....* ii-•..: ,,,,,ir,,,,, : .1 - :-, ,.: _ i p.- 1: : 1 , ' I ; ',. 'il s• ..,.. 7V, • 1 I. •; I ' •: ,' !! i I ' i ' 1 1 Y 1' " .' ! 1 ! • ! ! ; ', ' I .''.' ''‘,`;''' •' I' : fir, •,ri....-11,,,-.,..:,i,...2.:-..-Th ' ' II 'I li ii I. i . it, ,. , lj ,i 1 1.1. June 17 and ; 1999 I IL !, !! 1 — ---- _ P ; 11 0 I, .0 n )1 -,.. . , S 4 ....I..........:- it• ' _, ..`-- ,, PA 99-FL-F679.01 — T M 111 500,000 Gallon Single Pedestal Spheroid, "Jamela Elevated Tank" Page 29 S P City of Ocoee, Florida 99-FL-F679.01 III II The following economic factors include only those work items which the Engineer believes to be the minimum to properly maintain this tank from an operational standpoint. Other items related to safety and risk management should be evaluated by the Owner. IItem Cost Clean&Paint Exterior: SP-6,Complete Clean,Epoxy/Polyur.System $ 120,000 I Containment 90,000 Heavy Metal Abatement&Disposal 60,000 Clean&Paint Interior Dry: SP-6,Complete Clean 2-Coat Epoxy System 40,000 IIHeavy Metal Abatement&Disposal 20,000 Clean&Paint Interior Wet: SP 10,2-Coat Epoxy System 80,000 Miscellaneous Chipping and Grinding 4,000 I Seam Sealing 2,000 Foundation Repair 4,000 Grout Repair 3,000 I Anchor Bolt Repairs and Nut Replacement 8,000 Cathodic Protection System 12,000 Overflow Pipe Modifications 14,000 Platform Safety Railing Modifications 3,000 I Interior Dry Lighting and Electrical Repairs 5,000 Remove Base Cone Ladder Safety Cage 2,000 Replace Interior Container Ladder 5,000 I Interior Container Ladder Safe-Climbing Device 3,000 Inlet/Outlet Pipe Protective Cover 2,000 Clog-Resistant Vent 6,000 I Access Tube-to-Roof Connection Modifications 8,000 Roof Plate Repairs 5,000 Contingency Items 34,000 III ( Total of Engineer's Recommendations $ 530,000 TANK INDUSTRY CONSULTANTS has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment, IIIor over the contractors' methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding, or the market conditions. Opinions of probable cost, as provided for herein, are to be made on the basis of our III experience and qualifications and represent our best judgment as design professionals familiar with the design, maintenance, and construction of concrete and steel plate structures. However, TANK INDUSTRY CONSULTANTS cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or the construction IIcost will not vary from opinions of probable cost prepared for the Owner. Due to the numerous potential scopes of work which exist, the Owner should obtain an updated budget U estimate once the final scope of work has been determined. This would enable the Owner to accurately budget monies for additional mobilization costs and damaged coating rehabilitation costs if the work is done in separate phases. IIEngineering and resident observation costs are not included in the Total of the Engineer's Recommendations because these fees are dependent upon the scope of work to be performed. TANK IINDUSTRY CONSULTANTS performs all facets of the engineering services which would be required for this project. Estimated fees for engineering and resident observation will be furnished upon IIrequest.