Discussion 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.