The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 11/28 & 30/2001 SBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 200t Nai~ies Daily News NapLes, FL 34102 Aff;dmvit of Publication NapLes Dai:y Ne~ BOARO C CHRIS PO ~0× 41301~ N~[LES FL 3~1~I-3016 5~3~2502 NOI'iCF OF PU~!~IC MEE State of Florida County ef Co!l;~r ~f~ ~:~e undersigned au%ho!ity, per~o~i~tly appeared A~qela Brymnt, who on oath says ~hat sh~ serves as A~sist~n,, Secretary of ~he Naples Daily ~ews, e daily i'=~ws~'~aper pubtishe~ at Naples in Collier Coui'lty,. Florida: 'that the attache~ copy of edvert(~ing was publimhed in ~aid new~paper on d~tes listed. Affian~ fc, d',er say~ that the ~$id Naples Cmily N6~ i~ e newspaper published at Naples, in said Cc!liar fmunty, FiJridax and that the said newspaper he~ Leretofore bee)~ continuously rublishe~ i~ ~mid Sotlier Countyx Florida, uach ~ay and has haan enter.~d as s)cond c!ass mail mat*)r ~t th~ ~$t of Tics ih N~ples, in said Co~kier c¢,i~ty, Florida, for a p6riod of I year next prec~iF~g the first publication of the attached ~e~y of ~dvert~$eme~t; and m~fianl ~urth~r ~ays ti'~at she has neithe~ paid nor promised ~:~7 person, firm or corporation any di~co, lnt~ re,ate, co~)mi~$ion or refund ~r t~e purpose of ~,ecur'qg thi~ aOvcr~iseme~t ~or ?q~L!SHEI,~ O'~:, 11/'25 NOTICE OF PUBLIC: ,q,~r. ETING . BOARD OF COUNTY CONU~,Rr~IONER$ co .uE COUNTY, N~lce Is her~v glven ~ ~ Collier CoH~ ~rd of Coun~ Com~s ~ ~n~ co~ex, .~1 b~ Trail. N~I~, F~ ~ ~ ~ ~u~ - I1~ C~ ~e ~ve s~ ~ a~ · avall~le ~ ~ pre~ a~ may. . ~. _. Public In~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e W. H~ Turner eu~m~. . Any ~ ~ ~cl~ ~ ~1 a ~ B~rd ~11 n~ a' r~a ~ ~ ~ ~n- I~ ~er~, ~ ~qr~e ~V ~ ~ e~? v~m r~a ~ ~e ~ I~ ~ rec~d InClu~s ~ ~Y ana evl~ which ~e a~l Is ~ be ~. BO~D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS C~L~ ~UN~, FLORDA J DWIGHT E. ~ C~RK I BY:/S/~ur~. ~ ! Novem~25 __ No. 1~7 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA November 28, 2001 9:00 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO 1 November 28, 2001 THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA ITEMS A. Presentation of the 2001 Collier County Water Master Plan Update, Project 70070. B. Presentation of the 2001 Collier County Wastewater Master Plan Update, Project 73066. Item #2C Moved to Item #2E Moved from Item #2E: C. Review Proposed Water and Sewer Impact Fees. D. Review Proposed Water and Wastewater Rates. Item #2E Moved to Item #2C: Moved from Item #2C: E. Review Proposed Reuse (Treated Wastewater) Rates. F. Budget Reconsideration. Remainder of Agenda continued to 11/30/01 ~ 1:00 P.M. G. Impact Fee Analysis. H. PUD-Idea on Workforce Housing (Commissioner Fiala) I. Indigent Health Care Idea (Commissioner Fiala) J. Road System-Where to go from here (Commissioner Fiala) K. Legislative representation (Commissioner Coletta) from Collier County to lobby 2 November 28, 2001 Tallahassee L. Public Information (Commissioner Carter) M. Regular Agenda vs. Consent Agenda (Commissioner Carter) N. Staff Direction (latitude to investigate all possibilities and bring back multiple suggestions vs. narrow focus) (Commissioner Carter) O. Interdepartmental Teams including Legal Representation (Commissioner Carter) Prioritizing Board Member's Requests (Commissioner Carter) PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774- 8383. 3 November 28, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:00 A.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a special meeting in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F) at the Collier County Government Complex, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, to conduct the business of Collier County at the above stated time and date. Copies of the agenda for said meeting will be made available to the press and may be obtained at the Public Information Office, located on the First Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By:/s/Maureen Kenyon Deputy Clerk Maureen K. Kenyon From: Sent: To: Subject: Mary Brock Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:06 AM Maureen K. Kenyon; Ellie J. Hoffman 11/28 Legal Ad November 28 BCC.doc (but I doubt Yell if I've forgotten anything .... I'll type up an agenda and have the printer work his magic with it. Thank you both for all your help...MJ :) <<November 28 BCC.doc>> O.K .... this may be the last time I pester you today it!) Here is the legal ad for the SPECIAL 11/28 BCC Meeting. :) November 20, 2001 Ms. Pam Perrell Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: NOVEMBER 28, 2001 BCC SPECIAL MEETING Dear Pam: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Sunday, November 25, 2001, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk P.O./Account # 200213 Teri Michaels To: Subject: paperrell@naplesnews.com NOV.28 BCC SPECIAL Thanks Pc~m ..... NOV.28 BCC SPEC[AL. DOC November 28 BCC special.doc Teri Michaels From: Sent: To: Subject: System Administrator [postmaster@naplesnews.com] Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:31 AM Teri Michaels Delivered: NOV.28 BCC SPECIAL NOV.28 BCC SPECIAL <<NOV. 28 Bec SPECIAL>> Your message To: ' paperrell~naplesnews.com' Subject: NOV.28 BCC SPECIAL Sent: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:35:00 -0500 was delivered to the following recipient(s): Perrell, Pamela on Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:31:00 -0500 Collier County, Florida 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update Final Report GREELEY ANO HANSEN LLP September 2001 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update Final Report Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Wastewater Service Areas ...................................................................................... 4 1.3 Existing Facilities ................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 General ............................................................................................................ 5 1.3.2 North County Water Reclamation Facility ..................................................... 5 1.3.3 Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility ........................................................ 5 1.3.4 South County Water Reclamation Facility ..................................................... 6 1.3.5 Effluent Disposal Facilities ............................................................................. 6 1.3.6 Biosolids Handling ......................................................................................... 6 1.4 Population and Flow Projections ............................................................................ 7 1.4.1 Existing Service Area ..................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Future Service Areas ....................................................................................... 7 1.4.3 Range of Total Potential Service Area Populations ........................................ 7 1.4.4 Wastewater Flow Projections ......................................................................... 8 1.5 Alternative Wastewater Service Plans .................................................................... 8 1.5.1 Development of Alternative Projects .............................................................. 8 1.5.2 Summary of Other Wastewater Issues ............................................................ 9 1.5.2.1 Package Wastewater Treatment Plants ........................................................... 9 1.5.2.2 Service to Existing Areas Served by Septic Tanks ......................................... 9 1.5.2.3 Effluent Disposal Issues ................................................................................ 10 1.5.2.4 Biosolids Management .................................................................................. 10 1.5.2.5 Force Mains and Pumping Stations .............................................................. 10 1.5.2.6 Timing Issues ................................................................................................ 10 1.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 11 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 General .......................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 201 Facilities Plan ......................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Post-Facility Plan Actions ............................................................................ 12 2.2 Scope of Study ...................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1 General .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Planning Area ................................................................................................ 13 2.2.3 Scope of Services .......................................................................................... 14 2.3 Other Reports ........................................................................................................ 14 Wastewater Service Areas ........................................................................................ 16 3.1 Existing Service Area ........................................................................................... 16 3.2 Proposed Land Use Changes ................................................................................ 16 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 2 of 61 4 3.3 Proposed Future Service Area .............................................................................. 17 Existing Facilities ..................................................................................................... 18 4.1 General .................................................................................................................. 18 4.2 North County Water Reclamation Facility ........................................................... 18 4.3 Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility .............................................................. 20 4.4 South County Water Reclamation Facility ........................................................... 20 4.5 Wastewater Collection and Transmission System ................................................ 22 4.6 Effluent Disposal Facilities ................................................................................... 22 4.6.1 North Service Area ....................................................................................... 22 4.6.2 South Service Area ....................................................................................... 23 4.6.3 Reclaimed Water Irrigation System .............................................................. 24 4.7 Biosolids Handling ............................................................................................... 24 4.7.1 GeneralBiosolids Considerations ................................................................. 24 4.7.2 Regulations Affecting Biosolids Management ............................................. 25 4.7.3 Current Biosolids Handling Practices ........................................................... 25 Population and Flow Projections .............................................................................. 27 5.1 Earlier Population and Flow Projections .............................................................. 27 5.2 2000 Census Information ...................................................................................... 28 5.3 Population Projections .......................................................................................... 29 5.3.1 General .......................................................................................................... 29 5.3.2 Existing Service Areas .................................................................................. 30 5.3.3 Future Service Areas ..................................................................................... 31 5.3.4 Total Potential Service Area Population Projections .................................... 32 5.4 Per Capita Wastewater Flow ................................................................................. 34 5.5 Wastewater Flow Projections ............................................................................... 35 Alternative Wastewater Service Plans ...................................................................... 36 6.1 Development of Alternative Projects .................................................................... 36 6.1.1 General .......................................................................................................... 36 6.1.2 Four-Plant Alternative .................................................................................. 37 6.1.3 Five-Plant Alternative ................................................................................... 38 6.2 Summary and Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................... 38 6.3 Summary of Other Wastewater Issues .................................................................. 39 6.3.1 Package Wastewater Treatment Plants ......................................................... 39 6.3.2 Service to Existing Areas Served by Septic Tanks ....................................... 40 6.3.3 Effluent Disposal Issues ................................................................................ 40 6.3.3.1 Reclaimed Water Plan ................................................................................... 41 6.3.3.2 Deep Well Injection ...................................................................................... 43 6.3.4 Biosolids Management .................................................................................. 44 6.3.4.1 Summary of Short-Term Biosolids Management Report ............................. 44 6.3.4.2 Identification of Long-Term Biosolids Management Alternatives ............... 45 6.3.4.3 Comparison of Long-Term Biosolids Management Alternatives ................. 46 6.3.5 Force Mains and Pumping Stations .............................................................. 50 6.3.6 Timing Issues ................................................................................................ 53 Five-Year Capital Improvement Projects for Wastewater ........................................ 56 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................. 57 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 3 of 61 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction To face the challenges of growth, Collier County needs to have a vision for wastewater facilities to serve the citizens of the County in an environmentally and fiscally sound manner. This 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update is provided to establish the vision for wastewater and reclaimed ~vater facilities. In addition, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Consent Order dated April 10, 2001 requires that an update to the existing master plan be prepared. The goal of this Wastewater Master Plan Update is to provide a guide for wastewater facility planning for the next 20 years. A number of facility improvements have been implemented since the previous master planning effort. In addition, the Consent Order requires several other improvements to the system to enhance capacity and reliability. The planning area is generally the western one-quarter of Collier County, excluding Marco Island and the City of Naples. The planning area includes the existing North and South County Service Areas and various fringe areas east of the existing service areas. In preparation of this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update, the results of several other reports have been incorporated into this document. These reports address specific issues regarding the treatment facilities, biosolids, and reclaimed water. This study is an overview of these past and ongoing reports and serves as a framework for future planning. 1.2 Wastewater Service Areas Collier County is responsible for wastewater service within the service area boundary, which has been established by State statute and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Wastewater in the North Service Area is treated at the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF). During the tourist season, some flows in the North Service Area are treated at the Pelican Bay WRF. Wastewater in the South Service Area is treated at the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF). 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 4 of 61 For purposes of this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update, it is assumed that four areas under consideration for development in the Rural Fringe Areas, to the east of the existing service area, could potentially become part of the wastewater service area for Collier County. 1.3 Existing Facilities 1.3.1 General Wastewater service in the North and South Service Areas are provided by a network of pumping stations, transmission pipelines, and water reclamation facilities. Several are master lift stations, receiving flows from several smaller, upstream stations. Many parts of the system are manifolded, in that several pumping stations feed into a common force main. There are a total of approximately 640 lift stations serving the North and South Service Areas. 1.3.2 North County Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater treatment in the North County Service Area is served by the NCWRF located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road just south of Immokalee Road. Irrigation by reclaimed water is the primary means of effluent disposal. The present permitted capacity of the NCWRF is 8.5 mgd Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) and 11.05 Maximum Month Daily Flow (MMDF). A plant expansion is now underway that will increase the capacity of the plant to 13.5 mgd AADF, which is 17.55 mgd MMDF. The April 10, 2001 Consent Order requires that the County provide a 10- mgd AADF expansion of the plant by January 1, 2005, making the total plant capacity 23.5 mgd AADF and 30.6 mgd MMDF. The preliminary design of the plant expansion is currently underway. 1.3.3 Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility The Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility (PBWRF) serves only the Pelican Bay area of the North Service Area. The plant has a capacity of 1.0 mgd AADF. The County operates the PBWRF only on a seasonal basis during times of the year when tourists are present. During other times flow is diverted from this plant to the NCWRF. The County has a permit to operate the PBWRF through 2005. It is recommended that as soon as the second expansion of the NCWRF is complete, the PBWRF be decommissioned. Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 5 of 61 09/28/2001 '1.3.4 South County Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater treatment in the South County Service Area is served by the SCWRF. The plant Irrigation by reclaimed water is the primary means of effluent disposal. The present permitted capacity of the SCWRF is 8.0 mgd AADF and 9.2 mgd MMDF. A plant expansion design has been completed that will increase the capacity of the plant to 16.0 mgd MMDF. 1.3.5 Effluent Disposal Facilities The primary method of effluent disposal from the treatment facilities is distribution for use as irrigation to residential and golf course customers. All plants in the North and South Service Areas feed into a network of pipelines serving the County's reclaimed water customers. The North and South reclaimed water systems are not interconnected. If effluent from the NCWRF does not meet reclaimed water quality, means are available to use the deep injection wells at the North Water Treatment Plant. A recent study concluded that two deep injection wells (DIW's) should be constructed on the site of the NCWRF. The SCWRF currently has one DIW, which serves as a method of disposing of excess reclaimed water during wet weather conditions. The existing reclaimed water irrigation systems serve 29 users. The County currently has a waiting list of 74 potential users that have requested reclaimed water for irrigation. '1.3.6 Biosolids Handling Biosolids (or sludge) is the residual product remaining from the treatment of wastewater. The solids consist of various inert components and of biological solids created during the activated sludge process. Biosolids can be treated in a variety of ways that affect the manner in which the material can be used or disposed. State and Federal regulations affect the disposal options for biosolids. Currently all plants operated by Collier County do not treat biosolids other than dewatering of the liquid biosolids to turn it into a solid form. The County currently hauls biosolids to the Okeechobee landfill for disposal. A study is underway of short-term biosolids options. Options available include composting and lime treatment. A privately operated composting facility southeast of Immokalee may provide a long-term solution to biosolids management for the County, once permitting and contractual issues are addressed. Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 6 of 61 09/28/2001 t'2B 1.4 Population and Flow Projections 1.4.1 Existing Service Area The timing of this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update has the advantage of the recent completion of the 2000 Census. Earlier studies in the 1990's had to rely on projections from the 1990 Census. The result of the current study is that it is apparent that the estimates of population based on the projections in the 1990's were low. Thus, the populations tributary to and the resulting flow to each WRF has increased at a more rapid pace than earlier anticipated. The permanent population of Collier County increased 65 percent in the 1990's to its 2000 population of 251,377. This represents the April 1 estimate of County population. The adjusted 2000 County-wide population for October 1, 2000 (which is used for County planning) is 259,545. It is estimated that the sewered population in the North and South Service Areas was about 125,000 in October 1, 2000. In addition, there are areas within the County's service area served by on-site septic tanks or by private wastewater treatment facilities. The State's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) is a source of population projections. It is concluded in this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update that the "High" and "Average" projections by BEBR represent a reasonable range of future populations. However, it is also shown that carrying out the High growth rate for 30 years results in a population well above the County's estimate of the buildout population. Thus, population growth may be able to increase along the High growth pattern in the near term, but this cannot be sustained in the long term. 1.4.2 Future Service Areas Future service areas include all of the area within the planning area not included in the existing service areas. These areas include the Orange Tree Area, Areas A, B, C and D in the Rural Fringe area, the Golden Gate City service area and potentially other partially developed areas in the rural fringe (Golden Gate Estates) adjacent to Areas A, B, C, and D. The future ultimate population in total for these areas is estimated to be between 65,000 to 132,000. 1.4.3 Range of Total Potential Service Area Populations Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth estimates of sewered population have been developed to establish a range of expected service. Ultimately, the populations cannot exceed the estimated buildout populations of the urban areas. The range of future service populations are estimated to be as follows: Master Plan Report09280 l.doc Page 7 of 61 09/28/2001 Estimated Total Sewered and Unsewered Populations Within the County Service Area (SA) Condition I 2000 I 2005 I 2010 I 2015 I 20:0 I 2025 I 2030 Conservative Growth Within 166,000 222,000 262,000 302,000 342,000 383,000 423,000 Existing SA Future 4,000 5,000 17,000 30,000 42,000 54,000 66,000 Extension of SA Total 170,000 227,000 279,000 332,000 384,000 437,000 489,000 Conservative Growth Moderate Growth Within 166,000 198,000 236,000 278,000 324,000 372,000 423,000 Existing SA Future 4,000 4,000 10,000 16,000 21,000 27,000 33,000 Extension of SA Total 170,000 202,000 246,000 294,000 345,000 399,000 456,000 Moderate Growth This represents the projected total populations within the service areas, without regard to sewer service. Several areas could remain on septic tank service or remain customers of private utility operators. By comparison, the County Planning Section buildout population estimate for the existing service area is 394,000. The estimate of 423,000 for 2030 is just slightly higher than the buildout estimate and indicates that under either growth scenarios, the County would essentially be built out by 2030. It is recommended that the Conservative Growth estimates be used for planning of wastewater infrastructure. 1.4.4 Wastewater Flow Projections Wastewater flows are estimated based on estimates of per capita rates of flow. Wastewater treatment plants in Collier County are permitted and sized based on the maximum month rate of flow. 1.5 Alternative Wastewater Service Plans 1.5.1 Development of Alternative Projects Wastewater service in Collier County will need to be provided in the future in the following areas: Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 8 of 61 09/28/2001 New developments within the North and South Service Areas of sufficient density to require sewer service. (This will most likely be virtually all new development.) New developments within the Potential Service Areas. The Orange Tree area. (The County currently has an agreement to take over service of the Orange Tree area in 2011 .) Golden Gate City - this plant has a design capacity of 0.95 mgd and is owned and operated by the Florida Government Utilities Association (FGUA). Even without service extension beyond the existing service area boundaries, the capacity of the existing treatment facilities and the potential of the existing plant sites to provide additional capacity will not be sufficient in the future. Additional plant sites will be necessary. Alternatives are developed for four or five ultimate wastewater treatment plants to serve County customers.. The Five-Plant Alternative is recommended based on the following: With reclaimed water irrigation being the primary means of effluent management in the future, it is beneficial to have the treatment facilities strategically located near potential customers. The Five-Plant Alternative makes better use of existing infrastructure that directs wastewater in the South Service Area to the SCWRF. The Five-Plant Alternative results in shorter runs of force mains, which is beneficial in terms of odor potential. The Five-Plant Alternative allows more flexibility in serving future customers. The Five-Plant alternative is shown on Figure 1-1. 1.5.2 Summary of Other Wastewater Issues 1.5.2.1 Package Wastewater Treatment Plants It is recommended that the County continue to decommission the remaining package plants and treat the wastewater at the more reliable County facilities. 1.5.2.2 Service to Existing Areas Served by Septic Tanks It is recommended that the County conduct a study of unsewered areas to determine priorities of service and to develop a master plan for these areas. The study should consider environmental issues, cost of service, types of collection systems, and citizen interest in sewer service. The study should also address whether a stronger government 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 9 of 61 SEI~tlCE CI*TY OF NAPLES S~'RVIC~ AREA OCX.DEN OA'I~ C~TY SER~AC~ AREA WAST[WA'~R [-~ AREAS SERVED AREA GOCDE)4 GA'IE ESTAI~S POTENTIAL COUNTY GENERAL DIREC*~ON OF WAS~'WATER FLOW OTHER 'IREA'TMEHT ~RVI~ ARE.~ B0tJN0&RY '~O1~11 ON N' IIIIII I~INOARY FOR POTENtIAl. COLLIER COUNTY OO~'~RId~JT 2OOI WAS1EWA'IER MASTER Pr. N4 UPDATE SERVICE AREA ;OUTH AREA FIVE-PLANT ALTERNATIVE INIILBY ANO HANIIN LLIB fiGURE: 1-1 l'2B role could be used to enhance on-site treatment strategies. Such strategies may include public education, better management practices, and changes to regulations. .1.5.2.3 Effluent Disposal Issues It is recommended that the County continue to use irrigation with reclaimed water as the primary means of effluent management and to use deep well injection as the backup. The Wastewater Resource Planning Report (Camp, Dresser & McKee, September 2001) is currently being developed. Based on discussions and evaluations with the reclaimed water consultant, the County has decided to pursue an alternative with an estimated cost of about $20.0 million (without deep well injection). This alternative enhances service to existing customers by providing supplemental supplies of irrigation water and storage. 1.5.2.4 Biosolids Management The County is developing a strategy for biosolids management that may involve composting through a contract operator. It is recommended that the County continue to pursue this option and develop a long-term agreement with the operator. If such an agreement cannot be reached, it is recommended that the County purchase property for a long-term biosolids program and to develop a request for proposals to solicit a private vendor to process and to market the biosolids product. 1.5.2.5 Force Mains and Pumping Stations The network of pumping stations and force mains were modeled for present and future conditions. Based on this analysis a number of additional force mains and pumping stations are recommended to better serve existing customers and to serve additional customers. Several existing pumping stations will also need to be improved to handle additional flow. 1.5.2.6 Timing Issues The County has been experiencing tremendous growth over the last several years. This 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update covers the period from 2001 through 2021. Within this report, years have been shown as projections of when certain populations or wastewater flows may be obtained. Regarding timing, it is not so much the dates that are important, but rather milestones. When certain events occur, the County will need to react with a facility consistent with the strategy presented in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. For example, certain pipelines are proposed to interconnect systems. The timing for such a pipeline may be triggered by a road construction project as much as by a need for the pipeline to meet an immediate collection or transmission system demand. Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 10 of 61 09/28/2001 Timing of treatment facilities to serve the rural fringe area will be triggered by development. Plants in the rural fringe area will need to be constructed only as required to serve new development. . Based on a Conservative Growth scenario wastewater flows at existing and potential future regional water reclamation facilities are as follows: Estimate of Maximum Month Wastewater Flows (mgd) Condition/Plant 2001 2011 2021 Conservative Grosvth Estimate North County WRF 12.7 21.3 29.5 South County WRF 9.1 13.5 16.0 Northeast WRF 0 2.0 4.6 East Central WRF 0 3.3 6.7 Southeast WRF 0 0.6 3.5 1.6 Conclusions The vision for management of wastewater in Collier County is established in this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. Elements of the recommended plan include: 3 4 Wastewater Treatment a. Expand the NCWRF to 30.6 mgd MMDF b. Expand the SCWRF to 16.0 mgd MMDF c. Construct additional plants in the Rural Fringe, as dictated by development d. Add two deep injection wells at the NCWRF e. Add one deep injection well at the SCWRF Wastewater Collection and Transmission a. Provide a North - South interconnection b. Increase master lift stations and force mains system capacity Biosolids a. Pursue contract with local compost facility operator Reclaimed Water a. Add reclaimed water and supplemental xvater irrigation capacity b. Interconnect the North and South reclaimed water systems General a. Develop a on-site treatment plan to determine whether to extend service to areas served by septic tanks or if other on-site treatment enhancement programs should be implemented b. Update the wastewater master plan at least every five years Master Plan Report092801.doc Pagell of 61 09/28/2001 2 Introduction 2.1 Background 2.1.1 General The Board of County Comnfissioners approved the engineering services contract on May 8, 2001 to prepare the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. The main goal of the master plan is to develop a County-wide plan that will guide implementation of the wastewater utility system for the next 20 years. The completion schedule of the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update must comply with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Consent Order dated April 10, 2001. A requirement of the Consent Order is that the Master Plan Update is to be delivered to FDEP no later than October 1, 2001. 2.1.2 201 Facilities Plan The initial 201 Facilities Plan was completed for Collier County in 1978. Updates to the initial plan were completed in 1986, 1996 and 1997. A 20-year County-wide implementation plan was recommended in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update. 2.1.3 Post-Facility Plan Actions The implementation plan in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update was comprised of a four- phase implementation schedule. Each phase included recommendations for wastewater treatment, wastewater transmission and effluent disposal facilities. All of the major components of the Phase 1 (1998-2002) facilities have been implemented or are being implemented by the County, including: Expansion of the NCWRF to 13.5 mgd AADF. Construction of Master Pump Station 1.02. Construction of a 30-inch force main along Immokalee Road from US 41 to the NCWRF. Improvements to 13 pumping stations. Removal of several package plants. Construction of a 20-inch reclaimed water main on Vanderbilt Beach Road. Construction of 16-inch reclaimed water mains along 1-75, Pine Ridge Road, Livingston Road, Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Some of the Phase 2 projects identified in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update, including the expansion of the SCWRF, have also been initiated by the County. Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 12 of 61 09/28/2001 Service Areas. The interconnection will improve reliability by allowing the capability of transferring wastewater between service areas and maximizing total system treatment capacity. In early 2001, the North County wastewater service area experienced high wastewater flows, which exceeded the permitted capacity of the NCWRF. Thereafter, FDEP issued a consent order, which requires the County to "update the wastewater master plan including an analysis of currently allocated flows, existing flows and future wastewater flows". The consent order also requires the County to complete construction of the following facilities: The current NCWRF expansion to 13.5 mgd (AADF) by December 1, 2001. An additional 10 mgd (AADF) expansion of the NCWRF by January 1, 2005. Reclaimed water interconnection between the north and south service areas by December 1, 2001. Flow equalization tank at the NCWRF by November 1, 2002. The County has interconnected the north and south reclaimed water systems. The current expansion of the NCWRF is scheduled for completion prior to December 2001. Design of the 10-mgd AADF expansion of the NCWRF and the flow equalization tank at the NCWRF is underway. The expansion of the SCWRF has been bid and will begin soon. 2.2 Scope of Study 2.2.1 General The 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update is an update of the July 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update. The three major goals of this update are to: Develop a strategic county-wide plan that will guide implementation of a cost- effective, reliable, integrated wastewater system that meets the needs of the County through 2021. Provide documentation to support State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan applications to fund construction of proposed wastewater projects. Provide an updated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) schedule to support the wastewater rate and impact fee studies. 2.2.2 Planning Area The planning area and service area is shown on Figure 2-1. This area is generally the western one-quarter of Collier County, excluding Marco Island and the City of Naples. The planning area is bounded on the north by Lee County, on the west and south by the Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 13 of 61 09/28/2001 $CN_E IN FE~-T I~gND CITY OF NAPLES SERVICE AREA G(X.DEN OA'r~ CITY SERVIC~ AREA WASTEWA'I[R AREAS SERVED ORANGE '1~ AREA ESTATES PACKAG[PLANT TREATMENT EXISTING COUNTY V~tF NORTH COUNTY SOUTH COUNTY PEECAN BAY OIHER TREATMENT -X" PLANTS SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY PLANNING AREA mme m ! 1 ~ERVIC!E AREA I SERvmc[ AREA PACKA~g TI~ATM.~NT PZANTS ..... S-3 NAPLES DRIVE-IN N-2 RRST BAPTIST C.,~I~;~Z. ' S-At TALL OAKS N-4 SANDY RIDGE LABOR CAMP SOURCES: 1. BASE MAP AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FROM CAMP, DRESSER, &: McKEE 2. AREAS SEV~RED FROM COLLIER COUNTY UTIUTIES COLUER COUNTY GOVERMENT 2001 WASTEWA'rER MASII[R PLAN UPDATE WASTEWATER PLANNING AREA mMmmm, mY AND HANIIN m. Lmm SEPTEMBER 2001 FIGURE 2-1 R 27 E Gulf of Mexico and on the east by the boundary line shown on Figure 2-1. The planning area includes the existing North and South County Services Areas and fringe areas east of the existing service areas. 2.2.3 Scope of Services Initial planning services comprise collection and review of existing data, development of population and flow forecasts within the planning area and development of base maps. The update of the wastewater master plan comprises development of regional wastewater treatment plant capacities, an analysis of the transmission system, development of effluent management strategies and schedules and budgets for implementation of the recommended plan through 2021. Regional treatment plant capacity forecasts are based on2 Projected wastewater flows and growth patterns. Effluent disposal and reuse issues. Economic analysis of operation, maintenance and capital costs. Site specific issues at existing plants. Fate of existing non-regional treatment plants. The evaluation of the wastewater transmission system, comprising transmission force mains and master pumping stations, includes updating the existing hydraulic model to include recently constructed facilities and input of flow forecasts to determine the required facilities and capacities. Development of effluent management strategies comprises recommendations for reuse, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) and deep well injection. Evaluations of effluent disposal include reclaimed water needs, reclaimed water transmission system, supplemental water issues, storage requirements, and disposal needs. Five-year and 20-year implementation plans and costs are included in the scope of services and include planning, engineering and construction components. 2.3 Other Reports Since the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update, the County has authorized preparation of several other reports which relate to this master plan update. These include: Wastewater Resource Planning Report, dated September 2001, Camp, Dresser and McKee. Wastewater Master Plan Revision, dated June 2001, Camp, Dresser and McKee. Short-Term Sludge Management Study (ongoing), Hartman and Associates. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 14 of 61 Impact Fee Study (ongoing), Public Resource Management Group. Water, Wastewater and Reuse Rate Study (ongoing) Public Resource Management Group. Extended Area of Study for NCWRF Effluent Disposal (ongoing), Water Resource Solutions. Design Report for the North County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 5- mgd Expansion, January 1997, Hazen and Sawyer and Hole, Montes & Associates. South Collier County Regional Water Reclamation Facility Expansion to 16 mgd - Design Report, June 2001, Hole Montes, Inc. 2001 Water Master Plan Update (ongoing), Greeley and Hansen LLP. Rural Fringe Area Assessment Strategies, June 2001, RWA, Inc. 2001 Demographic and Economic Profile, April 2001, Collier County. To the extent that results of these studies are known, they are incorporated with this master plan update. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 15 of 61 3 Wastewater Service Areas · 3.1 Existing Service Area The existing wastewater service area is shown on Figure 3-1 and is comprised of the North County Service Area and South County Service Area. Wastewater flows in the North Service Area are treated at the NCWRF. During the tourist season, some flows in the North Service Area are treated at the Pelican Bay WRF. Wastewater flows in the South Service Area are treated at the SCWRF. The service area boundaries have not changed since the July 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update. The North Service Area is approximately 78 square miles. This area is bounded on the north by Lee County, on the south by Golden Gate Parkway, on the on the west by the City of Naples Service Area and the Gulf of Mexico, and on the east by the Urban Planning Boundary. The limits to the South Service Area has a practical limit in the southern area, which is bounded by conservation areas. The South Service Area within the practical limit shown on Figure 3-1 is approximately 58 square miles. This area is bounded on the north by Golden Gate Parkway, on the south by the Marco Island Service Area and conservation areas, on the west by the City of Naples Service Area, and on the east by the Urban Planning Boundary. 3.2 Proposed Land Use Changes The State of Florida imposed a Final Order to Collier County in 1999, which mandates revisions to the County's Growth Management Plan. The Final Order requires that the revisions become effective prior to June 22, 2002 and allows the County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Assessment (Assessment). The Assessment is ongoing. It is anticipated that the amendment to the Growth Management Plan will be completed for Board adoption by early 2002. The Assessment consists of two geographic areas, comprising the Rural Fringe Area and Eastern Lands Area. Four areas within the Rural Fringe Area have been identified for potential future development. These areas are shown on Figure 3-1 as Areas A, B, C and D. Guidelines for future development in these areas are currently being prepared for inclusion in the amendment to the Growth Management Plan. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 16 of 61 R /.gGEND CITY OF NAPLES S~R VICE AREA GOLDEN GAI~: CITY .~:R~CE AREA WA$'~WA~R AREAS SE~V[D C~ANOE TREE AREA E:STATES PLANTPACKAGE TREATMENT EXISTING COUNTY ~F NORTH COUNTY SOU TI'I COUNTY PEUCAN BAY OTHER TREATMENT PLANTS SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY PRACTICAL UMIT OF SOUTH SERVICE AREA ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS '2B R ;~7 E i /-NORTHi ........ i ....... ~ 1/' SERVIC!E - ' · I i AREA - : ..... _~lllllll]llllllllllllllll ,_-. . . -" = ...... C2 .= · · · · · · · I I I I I i SOUTH AREA SOURCES: 1. BASE MAP AND TRANSMISSION SYS"I[M FROM CDId 2. AREAS SE:WE:RED FROM COLLIER COUNTY UTIU~ES COU.JER COUNTY GOVERIdENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SEWER SERVICE AREAS ffllllll, lY AND HANIIN 1.1.11 SEPTEMBER 2001 FIGURE 3-1 R 27 E 3.3 Proposed Future Service Area For purposes of this master plan update, it is assumed that the four areas under consideration for development in the Rural Fringe Areas could potentially become part of the wastewater service area for Collier County. Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 17 of 61 09/28/2001 4 4.1 Existing Facilities General Wastewater service in the North and South Service Areas are provided by a network of pumping stations, transmission pipelines, and water reclamation facilities. Figure 4-1 shows the North Service Area. The NCWRF receives most of the flow from the North Service Area. The PBWRF is operated only during tourist season, when wastewater flows are at their highest. Many pumping stations are located throughout the service area. Several are master lift stations, receiving flows from several smaller, upstream stations. Many parts of the system are manifolded, in that several pumping stations feed into a common force main. There are a total of 329 lift stations serving the North Service Area. Figure 4-2 shows the South Service Area. All wastewater in the South Service Area is treated at the SCWRF. All wastewater is pumped to the SCWRF from master lift stations. There are a total of 311 lift stations that serve the South Service Area. This section summarizes the County infrastructure and operations for wastewater transmission and treatment. 4.2 North County Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater treatment in the North County Service Area is served by the NCWRF located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road just south of Immokalee Road. The plant in general is an advanced secondary facility that produces effluent consistent with requirements for reclaimed water. Irrigation by reclaimed water is the primary means of effluent disposal. The present permitted capacity of the NCWRF is 8.5 mgd AADF. The plant is subject to much higher flows on a seasonal basis. Maximum monthly flows historically have been about 30 percent higher than the annual average flow. The FDEP has advised that future permitted flows will be based on maximum month conditions. On this basis, the maximum month daily flow (MMDF) is 11.05 mgd. A plant expansion is now underway that will increase the capacity of the plant to 13.5 mgd AADF, which is 17.55 mgd MMDF. This means that the plant will need to be capable of producing effluent of reclaimed water quality during conditions associated with the maximum month. The design peak hourly design flow for the expanded plant will be 27.0 mgd, a peaking factor of 2.0, based on the preliminary design report. Previous studies have identified 28.5 mgd AADF as the build-out capacity for the plant site, which is 37.05 mgd MMDF. The April 10, 2001 Consent Order requires that the County provide a 10-mgd AADF expansion of the plant by January 1, 2005, making the 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 18 of 61 nL~: F'IGUR[4--1 1:1 0g/20{01 1~.:15 o 0 z c 0 Z 0 T Z [] Z i i m m 'm qmmmmmmmmmm total plant capacity 23.5 mgd AADF and 30.6 mgd MMDF. The preliminary design of the plant expansion is currently underway. In addition to the plant expansion project, the County is pursuing an additional project at . the NCWRF to increase plant reliability to handle higher peak hourly flows. Two 1.5 million-gallon equalization tanks are being designed that will be sufficient for the expansion of the plant to 30.6 mgd. A third 1.5 million gallon tank may be required to accommodate the plant ultimate capacity of 3 7.05 MMDF. The design characteristics of the influent wastewater being used in the design of the 13.5- mgd AADF (I 7.55 mgd MMDF) facility are as follows: Paradentfleruent Wastewater Quali Desi~t~ c,~_~t~ ........ e~ .... ss~ll tralJlon~ ~ mg/L ~otm Nitrogen The permit at the NCWRF limits the effluent disposal from the plant to two options, irrigation and deep well injection at the North WTP. Limitations on effluent water quality from the NCWRF is as fo/lows: Effluent Limitations, mg/L ~ Irriga~ 2o N~trate 5 ~ No Limit ~ No Limit The NCWRF has several ponds located on site to assist ponds, use, and capacities are as follows: ~eep Well Inje~ 20 ~ 0.5 with effluent handling. The Effluent Storage Ponds ---7/.7Z; .... Lined Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 19 of 61 09/28/2001 Thus, the plant has 13.5 MG of reject water storage and 24. I MG of reclaimed Water storage. Biosolids are currently dewatered and trucked out of the County for disposal. A lime pasteurization process was installed at the NCWRF, but is not used due to operational problems. Until recently the dewatered biosolids were landfilled at the Naples Landfill within the County. Odor Complaints from neighbors of the landfill/ed to the decision to cease landfilling of biosolids in Collier County, although biosolids Were not directly /inked to the Source of the odor. Biosolids are dewatered using belt filter presses. The Sludge Dewatering Building is being expanded as part of the modifications to increase p/ant Capacity to 13.5 mgd. 4.3 Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility The Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility (PBWRF) serves only the Pelican Bay area of the North Service Area. The plant has a capacity of 1.0 mgd AADF. The process used is extended aeration and the reclaimed water produced is Used locally for irrigation. The County operates the PB WRF only on a seasonal basis during times of the year when tourists are present. During Other times flow is diverted from this plant to the NCWRF. The County has a permit to operate the PBWRF through 2005. It is recommended that as Soon as the second expansion of the NCWRF is Complete, the PBWRF be decommissioned. By not operating the plant, the County will free up resources that could be used elsewhere. A decommissioning study is also ~nSeak°efftoh;efxaiC_!!itiesat.the PBWRF. The rec°mmendedtodeterminethe best ~rmg eqmpment, permitting study would determine Uses the County may determination of facilities to be demolished, whether there are facilities that could be sold or auctioned, and other similar matters. Additional reclaimed Water StOrage may be one Of the uses available for the tanks at the pliaSitles regarding future Use of th esite, 4.4 South County Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater treatment in the South County Service Area is served by the SCWRF. The plant in general is an advanced secondary facility that produces effluent consistent with requirements for reclaimed Water. Irrigation by reclaimed Water is the primary means of effluent disposal. The present permitted capacity of the SCWRF is 8.0 mgd AADF and 9.2 mgd MMDF. The FDEP has advised that future permitted flows will be based on maximum month conditions. A plant expansion design is now underway that will increase the capacity of the plant to 16.0 mgd MMDF as the permitted capacity. The 16.0 mgd MMDF capacity will mean Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 20 of 61 09/28/2001 't that it will be capable of handling 12.3 mgd of Collier County's annual average flows (16.0 / 1.3). The plant will need to be capable of producing effluent of reclaimed Water quality during conditions associated with the maximum month. The design peak hourly design flow for the expanded plant will be 34.0 mgd, a peaking factor of 2.83. An - equalization tank is planned for the expanded plant. A report prepared by Hole Montes, Inc. entitled "Expansion to 16 MGD - Design Report" (June 2001) states that the 16 mgd MMDF capacity is the build-out capacity of the plant site. Thus, the expansion construction planned to COmmence this fall will take the plant to its design maximum. This same report concludes that there is significant infiltration and inflow (I/I) in areas of the South Service Area and recommends an I/I analysis be conducted. The County has an ongoing I/I program in the South Service Area. The design characteristics of the influent wastewater being used in the design of the 16.0- mgd MMDF facility are as follows: Influent Wastewater Quality at MMDF Condit~ . Total Suspended Solids ~dS~ The permit at the SCWRF limits the effluent disposal from the plant to two options, irrigation and deep well injection at the plant site. Limitations on effluent water quality from the SCWRF is as follows: Effiuent Limitations. mg/L Irrigation Deen w,~, r_: .... ~ 20 ~on Turbidity ~--~-~ Nltrat~ No Limit No Limit 6.0 o 8.5 ~ ~ · . The SCWRF has a deep injection well on site with a capacity of 18.1 mgd on a maximum daily rate. There is also an on-site reclaimed water storage tank with a volume of 6.6 million gallons. The plant also has an on-site reclaimed water storage and percolation pond with a volume of 4.4 million gallons. The County owns several ponds away from the plant site with a total volume of 101.4 million gallons. Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 21 of 61 09/28/2001 The SCWRF has a 330,000-gallon waste activated sludge holding tank and one additional tank of equal volume is under design. Biosolids are currently dewatered and trucked out of the County for disposal. Until recently the dewatered biosolids were landfilled at the Naples Landfill within the County. As described for the NCWRF, the biosolids from the SCWRF are now trucked out of the County for disposal. Biosolids are dewatered using belt filter presses. Additional biosolids dewatering equipment is being included as part of the modifications to increase plant capacity to 16.0 mgd MMDF. 4.5 Wastewater Collection and Transmission System There are approximately 329 wastewater pumping stations in the North Service Area, of which 80 pump directly to the NCWRF. The master pump stations and major transmission lines in the North Service Area are shown on Figure 4-1. Major projects that have been completed since the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update include: · Master Pump Station 1.02, located near the intersection of US 41 and Wiggin's Pass Road; · A 20-inch force main on US 41 from the Cocohatchee Bridge to Immokalee Road (replaced existing 16-inch and 12-inch force mains); · A 16-inch force main on Livingston Road north from Immokalee Road; and · A parallel 30-inch force main along Immokalee Road from US 41 to the NCWRF (construction of this force main is nearly Complete and is expected to be placed in service in October 200 I) The South Service Area includes approximately 311 wastewater pumping stations, of which 6 pump directly to the SCWRF and are considered master lift stations. The master lift stations and major transmission lines in the South Service Area are shown on Figure 4-2. 4.6 Effluent Disposal Facilities 4.6.1 North Service Area The North Service Area is served by the NCWRF, which, as stated in section 4.2, has a design capacity of 8.5 mgd AADF. During the tourist season, the PBWRF, with a capacity of 1.0 mgd, is also utilized. Figure 4-3 shows the extent of the existing reclaimed water system in the North Service Area. The primary method of effluent dis os irri at/on . P al from th · . _ g · Both plants feed into a netw,,-T, -,- · e t.wo plants ~s distribution water customers. The --;o,: .... ,,,,, utpipehnes serv',,- -.- ,-, . . for use for e.-,om~g reclaimed water num~ ~,o.;~}n_.g ~.~ ~ou~nty's reclaimed ~- ~. o...~,, includes nye pumps each Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 22 of 61 09/28/200 FILE: 7 0 T 49 S T 48 S TIt~l !11~L BJ.,S. 4,1) ~0 r T 49 S T 48 S ~mg Z I] Z III Z having a design capacity of 3100 gpm at 208 feet of total dynamic head. The County currently has agreements to provide reclaimed water to 18 sites in the North Service Area. These locations are listed in Table 4-1. Of the customers currently receiving reclaimed water, four users have their own inline pumps to enhance system pressure. Pelican Bay relies on the County to provide adequate system pressure and has eight private pump stations drawing from storage. Currently, the Pelican Bay area must be pressurized at all times to provide fire service. The Pelican Bay customer is also unique in that they primarily use groundwater for irrigation from the Pelican Bay wellfield and use reclaimed water to supplement demands. During wet weather conditions, the demand for reclaimed water declines considerably. Storage is required to ensure there is adequate reclaimed water during periods of high demand as well as a means of holding the reclaimed until it can be used. The total storage available in the North County Service Area is approximately 43.9 MG, of which 19.8 MG is provided by customers. The NcWRF has a total storage capacity of 24.1 MG. However, 10.1 MG of this storage is provided in unlined ponds, which do not furnish effective dry season storage due to percolation. The PBWRF currently has a reclaimed water storage capacity of 3.5 MG. Currently there is a total of 18.1 MG of reclaimed water storage available in lined ponds or tanks in the North County. The storage in the North Service Area is detailed in Table 4-2. If effluent from the NcWRF does not meet reclaimed water quality, means are available to use the deep injection wells at the North Water Treatment Plant. A recent study (Extended Area of study for Evahtation of Alternative Sites for Disposal of Reject Reclaimed I/Vater by Deep Well Injection, Water Resource Solutions, July 2001) concluded that two deep injection wells (DIW' s) should be constructed on the site of the NcWRF. Each injection well will have a capacity of up to 18.6 mgd on a peak flow basis. In addition, the NcWRF has existing reject water storage ponds that have a volume of 13.5 mgd. :i 4.6.2 South Service Area The scWRF has a design capacity of 8.0 mgd AADF and a total storage capacity of 105 MG available in one onsite and three offsite unlined storage ponds. However, this storage is not readily available to meet peak seasonal reclaimed water demands. The reclaimed water pumping station includes four pumps, each with a design capacity of 4500 gpm at 1140 feet total dynamic head. Figure 4-4 shows the reclaimed water system serving the South Service Area. The scWRF currently serves 11 customers, which are listed in Table 4-3. Eight of the . · . O of additional storage. Including this storage ons~te storage promdmg 7._8_8 M tv Service are is approximately users have ~ -,-,-~ ~toraoe ~n the South Coun_ the total volume oI avattaut~ ~ t, 113 MO. Table 4-4 shows the storage available at customer sites. Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 23 of 61 09/28/2001 r2B TABLE 4-1 COLLIER cOUNTY GOVERNEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE NORTH SERVICE AREA IRRIGABLE ACREAGE / POTENTIAL DEMAND Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Customer ~,ston ~,udubon ~'-~turn n Woods ~'ay Colony (Pelican marsh)* lermuda Green Calusa Bay Charleston Square ~olliers Reserve ~m_~perial ~alm River Bay** ,lican Marsh District ~etican marsh Golf Course* Croix mt 21'** Veteran's park ,ards Golf Course rds Residential TOTALS Acres 15 2O3 6O 130 15 2O 15 7O 260 75 674 34O 28O 15 95 10 285 393 '~,318,900 __......--.---- 1,086,200 58,200 -. 368,500 38,800 1,1 05,600 1,524,500 2,955 11,463,000 ~ Based on 1.0 - inches/week acre irrigation rate *.Customers currently using groundwater as primary source and reclaimed water only as back-up ** Includes Beachwalk *** Customer has agreement with the County but has not commenced receiving reclaimed water Source: Camp Dresser & McKee TABLE 4-2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE NORTH SERVICE AREA RECLAIMED WATER USERS DATA Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Storage Pumping System Customer Type Type MG Aston :~esidential Not Online Audobon Golf/Residential Unlined Pond 2.1 Private Pump Station Autumn Woods Residential Lined Pond 0.5 Private Pump Station Bermuda Green ~,esidential Private Pump Station Calusa Bay Residential Inline Booster Charleston Square ~,esidential Inline Booster Colliers Reserve Golf Unlined Pond 7.8 Private Pump Station Imperial Golf Unlined Pond 1.5 Private Pump Station Palm River Golf Lined Pond 0.7 Private Pump Station Pelican Bay Golf/Residential Unlined Pond 4.4 System Pressure ~elican Bay Park Park System Pressure =elican Marsh Lined Pond 2.8 Private Pump Station Pelican Marsh District Residential Pelican Marsh Golf District Golf Bay Colony Golf St. Croix Residential Not Online Veteran's Park Park Inline Booster Vineyards Park Park Private Pump Station Vineyards Utility Inline Booster Vineyards Residential Residential V nevards Golf Course Golf 2 Private Pump Stations TOTAL STORAGE 19.8 MG Source: Camp Dresser & McKee Reclaimed Water Tables.xls 09/20/2001 --ILE: FIGURE4-4 1:1 09/21/01 09:49 GH-E C) ._. m '"'~ · BAYSHORE D¢¢. BARN ROAD ~-E-FRANK .R. 850 ~ IT1 TABLE 4-3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SOUTH SERVICE AREA IRRIGABLE ACREAGE/POTENTIAL DEMAND Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Potential Annual Average Customer Acres Demand~ (gpd) Countryside/PCP Venture 70 271,500 Foxfire Community Association of Collier Co., Inc. 228 884,400 Glades Country Club Apartments Association, Inc. 198 768,100 Hibiscus Golf Club 144 558,600 Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. 195 756,400 Lakewood Country Club Of Naples, Inc. 45 174,600 Lely Development District (Golf Course) 289 1,121,100 Lely Community Development District 230 892,200 Riviera Golf Club of Naples, Ltd. 70 271,500 Royal Palm Country Club 83 322,000 Windstar 150 581,900 TOTALS 1,702 6,602,000 Based on 1.0 - inches/week acre irrigation rate Source: Camp Dresser & McKee TABLE 4-4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SOUTH SERVICE AREA RECLAIMED WATER USERS DATA Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Customer Type Storage Pumping System Type MG Countryside/PCP Venture Golf Covered Tank 0.92 Private Pump Station Foxfire Community Association of Collier Co., Inc. Golf/Residential Covered Tank 1.1 Private Pump Station Glades Country Club Apartments Association, Inc. Golf/Residential Covered Tank 2.0 System Pressure Hibiscus Golf Club Golf Unlined Pond 0.6 Private Pump Station Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. Residential ** System Pressure Lakewood Country Club Of Naples, Inc. Golf ** System Pressure Lely Development District (Golf Course) Golf Lined Pond 1.0 Private Pump Station Lely Community Development District Residential Private Pump Station Riviera Golf Club of Naples, Ltd. 'Golf Lined Pond 0.1 Private Pump Station Royal Palm Country Club Golf Covered Tank 1.36 System Pressure* Windstar Golf Lined Pond 0.8 Private Pump Station TOTAL STORAGE 7.88 MG * Designated storage tank and pump at plant for Royal Palm ** Using Glades covered tank Source: Camp Dresser & McKee Reclaimed Water Tables.xls 09120/2001 The SCWRF has one DIW with a permitted capacity of 18 mgd, which serves as a method of disposing of excess reclaimed water during wet weather conditions. 4.6.3 Reclaimed Water Irrigation System The existing reclaimed water irrigation systems described above serve 29 sites. The County currently has a waiting list of 74 potential users that have requested reclaimed water for irrigation. The 2001 Demographic and Economic Profile (Collier County, April 2001) shows that there are several golf courses planned for the County, totaling 342 golf holes. This is a 30 percent increase over existing golfing capacity. Golf courses could continue to be a significant user of future reclaimed water. Table 4-5 shows a list of existing and planned golf courses in Collier County. These golf courses are also identified on Figures 4-3 and 4-4, where they lie within the area shown. A study is ongoing regarding the County's reclaimed water future. The Wastewater Resource Planning Report (Camp, Dresser & McKee, Final, September 2001) compares alternatives for use of reclaimed water. At question is whether the County should develop a system having a goal of disposing reclaimed water, largely to existing customers, or whether the County should supplement the reclaimed water system with non-potable water sources to expand irrigation capabilities and the number of irrigation customers. Figure 4-5 shows all of the existing reclaimed water system and also shows the approximate area of limited water resources due to the potential for saltwater intrusion. Irrigation in these areas may be limited by the difficulty in obtaining a consumptive use permit for groundwater withdrawals. These areas have a higher potential for high total dissolved solids, which results in poor quality irrigation water. These areas should be given higher priority for reclaimed water irrigation service, since there are fewer options available. 4.7 Biosolids Handling 4.7.1 General Biosolids Considerations Biosolids (or sludge) is the residual product remaining from the treatment of wastewater. The solids consist of various inert components and of biological solids created during the activated sludge process. Biosolids can be treated in a variety of ways that affect the manner in which the material can be used or disposed. Biosolids are removed from the wastewater in liquid form as waste activated sludge (WAS). Typically, the WAS is less than one percent solids and is handled as a liquid. The consistency of this material is similar to water. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report09280 l.doc Page 24 of 61 mi-O(/) FILE: FIGURE4-5 Z [] 1:1 09/21/01 09:54 GH-E --t0 '-Dm --I--I mm O;;0 Am O m O ROAD PINE 27 2 ', 2 [C~R. 8.58) 1,% 21 ,~ 2 2? : SOUiTH 24 ~: 19 2 1 SERVICE AREA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ':':':':':':i: ..... ...... :': :'!i:':':': ':':~ :.:.:.:.:.:.Z.:.-!~ ....... v...v.-p-.-. ........ ; ......................... ...~......~...:.:.:.:::.:.:.:.:::.~:::.:-.~, ~ .:~.C.:.:.:.: .... ~:~ .......... ~"v""iv'"' "~ .......... , .................. i' ........... ~; ........... ~' ........... i' '.', '.'.: g' .',',','.U .' ,'.' .'2~'.'.'. ', i' edt 4.7.2 Regulations Affecting Biosolids Management Biosolids are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under a variety of regulations, including 40 CFR Part 503. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulations affecting biosolids management include F.A.C Chapter 62-640. The FDEP regulations, for the most part, follow the USEPA regulations. Treated biosolids are classified in Florida as Class A, AA, and B. Class A and AA biosolids meet the highest level of pathogen reduction and have metal concentrations less than those shown in Table 4-6. Class AA is the highest quality and is required to have lower metals concentrations than Class A biosolids. Class B biosolids must meet less restrictive pathogen reduction criteria and have metal concentrations less than those shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-6 also shows that Collier County biosolids could meet Class AA criteria, the highest standard, if a process were employed that could meet Class A/AA requirements for pathogens reduction and vector (insect and rodent) attraction. The limits on metals shown are applied to the product. Some products have the advantage that metal concentrations are diluted by additives such as lime or wood chips during processing. Where several plants are producing the bioso[ids, the concentration limits can apply to a blended product. A plan for effective blending needs to be established as part of the permitting requirements. Table 4-7 summarizes the requirements and restrictions on biosolids application to agricultural lands in Florida. Class AA has the least site restrictions and lowest record keeping requirements. Currently all plants operated by Collier County do not treat biosolids other than dewatering- The designer of the NcwRF expansion is considering including aerobic digestion that would be capable of producing a Class B biosolids product. 4.7.3 Current Biosolids Handling Practices Biosolids from the NcwRF and ScWRF are handled similarly. For several years, biosolids from both plants were dewatered and hauled by truck to the Naples Landfill for operated, roblems with the spreadability of the disposal. The NcWRF has a lime pasteurization process that is not presently but produced a Class A/AA biosolids product, o~ this facility at the NcWRF. Without the product and odor problems lead to the closure lime pasteurization process, facilities are not available at either the NcWRF or scWRF for the treatment of biosolids to minimum Class B standards for land application. available are · . · · uires a large outlay of capital, is expensive to Without attaining Class A or B quality, the only biosolids disposal methods landfill'ng or incineration. I. nc~neraU~.n_, re_qcu~ .... ~ss~ons and, thus, was not seriously 1 , ~' .... xtenslve pertaining tm ,,-~ em operate, anct reqmr~ ~ ' ' ' 19/28/2001 Master plan Report092801-doc Page 25 of 61 TABLE 4-6 COLLIER coUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Classification of Biosolids Based on Metal Concentrations Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Metal ~ ~ County Average~------ Parameter A · l.Based on analyses ofbiosolids from the NCWK to 4/16/01. '[ABLE 4-7 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT pUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Florida Restrictions on Agricultural Land Application of Biosolids Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 es Site Restrictions Record Keeping Heat Drying or other crops, disposal site. Thermophilic Digestion 3. Apply at less than agrinomic rates. 4. Application zones and rates. 5. Annual summary at application site. Alkaline Processes Composting Heat Drying Thermophilic Digestion Aerobic Digestion Anaerobic Digestion Lime Stabilization B 1. Can be used on public access 1. Analyze for pathogen and vector attraction. areas. 2. No restrictions on harvesting of food 2. Analyze for nutrients and metals 3. Agricultural Use plan for or other crops, disposal site. 3. Apply at less than agrinomic rates. 1. Plant nurseries - no p~ants sold 1. Analyze for pathogen and within 12 mos. of application, vector attraction. 2. Roads - restricted public access 2. Analyze for nutrients and metals. 3. Agricultural Use Plan for only. disposal site. 3. Food crops that touch soil - Application zones and rates. harvest only after 14 mos. After 4. Annual summary at application 5. application, site. 4. Food crops below surface - harvest only after 20 - 38 mos. After application. 5. Food crops (,general) - Harvest only after 30 days after application, No animal grazing 6. Grazing - within 30 days of application. 7.Sod - harvest only after 12 mos. After application. 8, No use on public access areas. 9. A~han agrinomic rates. considered for biosolids management. Biosolids disposal at the landfill appeared to have caused odor problems. The result was that the County found an alternative to local landfilling and currently haul dewatered biosolids to the Okeechobee landfill for disposal. . Hartman and Associates has been conducting a study of short-term biosolids operations for the County. The goal of their study is to evaluate alternatives for biosolids disposal over the next five years. This study is ongoing as this Master Plan report is being prepared. Hartman reviewed the operating data for the two existing County plants (excluding the Pelican Bay WRF) and determined the average biosolids production in 2000 was as follows: ~Plant Dewatered Biosolids 2001 Biosolids Production Production (wet tons/day/regal) 09/28/2001 Master Plan Keport092801.doc Page 26 of 61 $ Population and Flow Projections 5.1 Earlier Population and Flow Projections Population projections in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update were based on the 1990 Census with projection data provided by the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. Projections were developed using data from Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ' s) and Planning Communities. The County is comprised of 12 Planning Communities 'and 289 TAZ' s. Population per dwelling unit (ppdu) factors were developed for each TAZ within the North and South Service Areas, which were multiplied by the total number of dwelling units within each Planning Community. Projections were made using the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) data and build-out data developed bY the County. The per capita wastewater flows (Level of Service Stanadards, or LOSS) established in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update were 145 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) AADF in the North Service Area and 120 gcpd AADF in the South Service Area. Data provided in the Wastewater Master Plan Revision, June 2001, supported the per capita flows in both service areas. Populations, total wastewater flows and per capita flows as reported in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update and the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Revision are summarized in the tables below: Year -- 1992 - 1997 Average North Service Area Resident Population in the Sewered Area 31,926 ~ -- 34,441 -- 51,369 Annual Average Flow to the VqRF (mgd)~ 3.08 4.93 6.0----V-------- ~---'------ 149 -~--~-~-'-------- 133 ~ 138 - 140 132 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 27 of 61 South Service Area Year Resident Annual Average Per Capita AADF Population in the Flow to the WRF (gpcd) Sewered Area (mgd) 1991 39,075 3.62 93 1992 40,392 3.27 81 1993 41,625 3.81 92 1994 42,659 3.38 79 1995 43,826 3.24 74 1996 45,645 3.59 79 1997 48,033 5.25 109 1998 50,312 5.32 106 1999 52,884 6.58 124 93 Average Per capita flows are significantly higher in the North Service Area. South Service Area per capita wastewater flows are in the range of typical per capita flows for other counties and cities in southwest Florida. 5.2 2000 Census Information The 2000 Census Bureau county-wide data were released in May 2001. The reported county-wide permanent population for 2000 was 251,377, which includes areas outside the planning and service areas. It is important to note that US Census Bureau estimates are essentially as of April 1 for each census year. The 1990 Census county-wide permanent population of 152,099, or an increase of about 65 percent. The Census Bureau also released 2000 Collier County population data by Census Tract and Census Block. Census Blocks are the smallest unit areas of populations provided by the Census Bureau. Collier County also experiences relatively high seasonal increases in population. The County Comprehensive Planning Section has established a factor of 1.33 to account for the expected increase in County population during fall and winter seasons. County wastewater infrastructure must be sized in ways that will account for these seasonal conditions. TAZ boundaries, as recognized by the Census Bureau, were changed prior to the 2000 Census. The current TAZ boundaries are, therefore, different than those currently being used by the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. In addition, the Planning Section has not yet developed the 2000 Census-based ppdu data by TAZ as was used for the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update. To develop 2000 populations in the planning area, Census Block population data were disaggregated by TAZ, using the new TAZ boundaries. The TAZ boundary map and 2000 populations by TAZ for the North and South Service Areas are shown on Figure 5-1 Master Plan Report092801.doc 09/28/2001 Page 28 of 61 R 25 G CJTY O~ NAPLES SERVICE AREA OCX.DEN GA~: CJTY SERVICE ARIA ORANC-~ 1REE AREA GO.DEN GATE ESTATES EXIS~NO COUNTY ~WRF NORTH COUNTY SOUIH COUNTY PL~JCAN BAY OTHER I~EA~ENT pLA~'~ TRAFRC ANALYSJS SERVICE: AREA BOUNDARY PLANNING AREA COLLIER COUNTY OOVERMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE R 27 E I I I I I I N 0 RTH ~ERVlCiE AREA , 195 183 -i -L'. 157 ! 140 182 166 197 WASTEWATER PLANNING AREA WITH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES IIqlILIY ANti HANIIN LLII SEPTEMBER 2001 FIGURE 5-1 R 27 1.2B and Table 5-1, respectively. Note that Table 5-1 is reporting the US Census populations by TAZ for April 1, 2000. Maps to show the areas in the North and South Service Areas that currently have sewer service were provided by the County. The areas that currently have County sewer service are shown on Figure 3-1. The 2000 sewered populations for the North and South Service Areas are 58,424 and 61,390, respectively, for April 1, 2000. The County Comprehensive Planning Section (CCPS) released population forecasts for the North and South Service Area se~vered population in September 2001. These estimates have as their bases the population estimates prepared by Greeley and Hansen LLP as part of the development of the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. The (CCPS) started with the April 1, 2000 estimates for the North and South Service Area reported above and adjusted them to October 1, 2000 using Certificate of Occupancy information. Thus, the (CCPS) estimates of the 2000 (October 1) permanent sewered populations are 61,964 and 64,829, respectively for the North and South Service Areas. 5.3 Population Projections 5.3.i General Sources of information utilized to develop population projections comprised historical population growth, BEBR and CCPS forecasts, historical construction permit data and build-out population data prepared by CCPS. October 1 adjustments are made to the Census data and to all forecasts to have a consistent frame of reference with CCPS forecasts of sewer district populations. County-wide population growth and the various BEBR forecast growth rates are shown on Figure 5-2. Four different growth scenario forecasts are developed by BEBR, consisting of the medium, high, average and 5-year floating. The BEBR medium population forecast curve corresponds to the county-wide historical (1990-2000) growth extended. The BEBR average population growth curve is, by definition, the average of the BEBR high and medium curves. The BEBR 5-year floating curve follows the BEBR high curve for the first five years and follows the slope of the BEBR medium curve thereafter. The BEBR forecasts population growth to 2030. The resulting 2021 and 2030 county-wide populations for the various BEBR curves are summarized below: Count r-Wide October 1 Permanent Population Forecasts Year BEBR Medium BEBR High BEBR Average BEBR 5-Year Floating 2021 456,000 701,000 579,000 532,000 2030 550,000 961,000 754,000 641,000 By comparison, the 1997 Collier County Urban Buildout Study, prepared by the County Comprehensive Planning Section, estimates a buildout permanent population of 465,645. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 29 of 61 TABLE 5-1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE NORTH WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) 2000 POPULATIONS Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 TAZ 2000 CENSUS No. DATA 1 668 2 1,115 3 1,153 4 825 5 423 6 353 7 44 8 1,129 10 406 11 85 12 0 13 785 14 680 15 1,976 16 536 17 2,184 19 446 20 5 21 7 22 360 23 117 24 815 25 336 26 527 27 223 28 3,127 29 647 30 1,534 31 126 32 70 33 1,220 34 5,533 35 31 36 1,387 37 1,252 TAZ 2000 CENSUS No. DATA 38 865 39 101 41 297 42 168 43 604 44 1,661 45 392 46 1,705 47 562 48 4 50 938 51 0 52 238 53 4,444 56 2913 57 940 58 1043 59 715 63 1242 65 2,101 66 2927 68 1595 77 745 78 12 87 988 88 367 95 476 106 219 105 0 180 0 181 37 CO's 2000 0 North Sewered Population 58,424 Total l~orth Service Area Population 92,642 Note: All populati6ns shown are based on April 1,2000. PopChartsO92601.xls I of 2 TABLE 5-'1 (Cont.) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SOUTH WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) 2000 POPULATIONS Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 TAZ 2000 CENSUS No. DATA 112 1,626 115 0 116 2,199 117 2,951 118 718 119 293 120 840 121 61 122 168 124 0 126 916 127 1,329 128 1,443 129 894 130 2,261 131 103 135 1,443 136 4,537 137 2,349 138 792 139 35 140 677 143 1904 144 4637 145 2,278 146 1,675 147 1,957 TAZ 2000 CENSUS No. DATA 148 276 150 782 151 3,520 152 5,186 153 818 154 364 155 581 157 474 158 901 159 1,671 160 290 161 0 162 1,312 163 1,596 164 120 166 23 167 162 187 1626 188 292 189 0 190 3,309 CO's 2000 0 South Sewered Population 61,390 Total South Service Area Population 64,129 Total North and South Sewered 119,814 Population Total North and South Service Area Population 156,771 PopChartsO92601.xls 2 of 2 N~Ol&VqfldOd 0 Z .< All but the BEBR medium population projection exceed the County's estimated buildout population by 2021 and all of the BEBR forecast curves exceed the County's estimated buildout population in 2030. This is discussed further below as specific sewer service populations are developed. 5.3.2 Existing Service Areas The county-wide BEBR population forecast curves were also applied to the North and South Service Areas. The North Service Area historical (1990-2000) and BEBR forecast population curves are shown on Figure 5-3 for the area now sewered. Populations for areas not currently sewered, such as Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates within the service area, are not included. The South Service Area historical and BEBR forecast population curves are shown on Figure 5-4 for the area now sewered in the South. The historical rate of population growth from 1990 to 2000 projected to 2030 in the South Service Area is slightly higher than the BEBR medium curve. The historical rate of population growth from 1990 to 2000 projected to 2030 in the North Service Area closely follows the BEBR average population growth curve. Population growth from 1990 to 2000 in the North Service Area was significantly higher than both the growth in the South Service Area and county-wide growth. Data from construction permits in Collier County since January 1998 was also evaluated as a secondary method of estimated population growth. A typical one-month summary of the permit data is shown in Table 5-2. These data are for May 2001 and show the number of construction perrnits for water and sewer customers by water meter size. A inch water meter is required for a single-family residence, which is equivalent to one equivalent residential connection (ERC). Each ERC is assumed to include an average of 2.3 people. The number of ERC's (and population) is assigned to each permit based on the water meter size. For example, a permit requiring a 4-inch water meter is assigned 25 ERC's (57.5 people). The number of new permitted ERC's is a representative measure of population growth. The number of permitted ERC's was converted to population for each month, since January 1998 and the resulting population increases for the last 3 ½ years were used to forecast future population growth under this method. Using the total number of ERC's to forecast growth results in a high rate of population increase, since not all of the new ERC's reflect permanent population residences. The total new permitted ERC's are more reflective of the high seasonal population. The ERC's shown in Table 5-2 represent the maximum number of ERC's for the various meter sizes. Two population growth forecast projections were developed using the permit data as shown on Figure 5-5. The "high permit" population growth curve was developed using the total permitted ERC's and maximum number of ERC's per meter size. The "low permit" curve was developed based on a reduced number of ERC's (32 percent less) reflective of a permanent population number and using the minimum number of ERC's per meter size. The low and high permit population projection curves were superimposed Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 30 of 61 09/28/2001 ~Ol&V~IfldOd Z < Z z<~ m Z ~'2B i~IOIJ~V~lfldOd ~OI~V~dOd Z < on the BEBR population projection curves for the total wastewater service area, as shown on Figure 5-6. This figure represents population forecasts within the areas currently sewered only. The "high permit" population projections are close to the BEBR high population projection curve and the "Iow permit" population projections are between the BEBR medium and BEBR average population projections. Based on this analysis, and the fact that populations in Collier County have increased faster than previous projections have predicted, a range of population projections using the BEBR average and BEBR high curves is recommended. Population projections for the North and South Service Areas in 5-year increments based on the BEBR average projections are shown in Table 5-3. Population projections for the North and South Service Areas in 5-year increments based on the BEBR high projections are shown in Table 5-4. Note that the BEBR high projections result in populations in later years that exceed the estimated County buildout populations. The approach suggested for dealing with the high range estimates is discussed in Section 5.3.4. 5.3.3 Future Service Areas Future service areas include all of the area within the planning area not included in the existing service areas. These areas include the Orange Tree Area, Areas A, B, C and D in the rural fringe area, the Golden Gate City service area and potentially other partially developed areas in the rural fringe (Golden Gate Estates) adjacent to Areas A, B, C, and D. Note that the exact boundaries of Areas A, B, C, and D have not yet been finalized and accepted and could vary from those shown on Figure 3-1. Golden Gate City is almost at its buildout condition. The future population of Golden Gate City is assumed to remain about the same; however, only about one quarter to one third of Golden Gate City currently has sewers. Conservatively, for the purposes of developing potential wastewater flows, Areas A, B, C, and D are assumed to ultimately developed at one dwelling unit per acre. Similarly, the Orange Tree Area is assumed to have an ultimate development of two units per acre. The Golden Gate Estates area, outside of the existing service areas, is assumed to have an ultimate development of one unit per 2.25 acres based on existing zoning for this area. The resulting potential future populations in the future service areas are shown in Table 5-5. The populations shown in Table 5-5 represent what may be considered the highest population that could reasonably be assumed for these areas. Actual populations may be less, once zoning issues are addressed. Issues regarding development of the rural fringe are just now being considered and being proposed for these areas. The populations in Table 5-5 will be used as a conservative target high for the area for planning purposes. Planning wastewater treatment and transmission facilities for these populations will allow the County to meet any reasonable outcome for the rural fringe. Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 31 of 61 09/28/2001 ~OI.IV~IfldOd © Z Z TABLE 5-5 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILTIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Rural Fringe Areas: Population and Wastewater Flow Projections Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 LOW RANGE HIGH RANGE WW FLOW WW FLOW ESTIMATED POPULATION 0) POPULATION (0 RURAL FRINGE AREA LAND ACRES (MGD)(2) (MGD)(2} AREA A (Al AND A2)~ 6,827 7,851 0.94 15,702 1.88, ORANGE TREE 4 2,560 5,888 0.71 12,800 1.54 AREA B (B1, B2, AND B3)a 8,759 10,073 1.21 20,146 2.42 AREA C (C1 AND C2)~ 14,720 16,928 2.03 33,856 4.06 AREA D (D1 AND D2)3 11,620 13,363 1.60 26,726 3.21 Subtotal 44,486 54,103 6.49 109,230 13.11 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA BETWEEN ORANGE TREE AND 22,554 11,528 1.38 23,055 2.77 AREA Cs Total 67,040 65,631 7.88 132,285 15.87 Notes: 1. Population Estimates based on 2.3 PPDU. 2. Wastewater flows calculated using 120 GPCD. 3. Based on 0.5 DU per acre for the low and 1.0 DU per acre, high. 4. Based on 2.15 DU per acre (5 persons per acre). 5. Based on 0.44 DU per acre (1 DU per each 2.25 acres). PopChartsO92601.xls 5.3.4 Total Potential Service Area Population Projections r2B It is recommended to consider a range of estimates of future population on which to base estimates of wastewater flow. It is not possible to estimate future populations with any great degree of accuracy given the number of variables involved, including land use trends, economics, and environmental factors. Table 5-6 shows the development of the Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth estimates of future population. The Conservative Growth scenario in the early years is based on the High BEBR estimates of population growth and CCPS estimates of the sewered population. However, as discussed above, it is not possible for the High BEBR growth trend to continue indefinitely, as area buildout populations would be exceeded. Thus, the Conservative Growth estimate assumes that the BEBR High estimate continues for 10 years and then reduces to the BEBR Average by 2030. The procedure used as the bases for total areas populations is as follows: Conservative Growth Total Population Estimate 1. Sewered and Unsewered Areas in the North and South SA. Use the BEBR High estimate through 2010. Use the BEBR Average estimate for 2030. Assume a straight-line growth from 2010 through 2030. This approach allows the 2030 population to be about at the estimated buildout population. 2. Golden Gate Estates. Assume the ultimate population occurs in 2030 and straight-line growth from 2000 through 2030. 3. Orange Tree. Assume that the High estimate from Table 5-5 occurs in 2030. Assume straight-line growth from 2000 through 2030. 4. Areas A - D. Assume that the High estimate from Table 5-5 occurs in 2050. Assume straight-line growth from 2006 through 2050. It is unlikely that significant growth could occur in Areas A - D for the next five years due to the time it would take to provide infrastructure to those areas. 5. Golden Gate City. Use the same population throughout, since the area is essentially at its ultimate population. Moderate Growth Total Population Estimate 1. Sewered and Unsewered Areas in the North and South SA. Use the BEBR Average estimate throughout. 2. Golden Gate Estates. Assume the ultimate population occurs in 2030 and straight-line growth from 2000 through 2030. 3. Orange Tree. Assume that the Low estimate from Table 5-5 occurs in 2030. Assume straight-line growth from 2000 through 2030. 4. Areas A - D.. Assume that the low estimate from Table 5-5 occurs in 2050. Assume straight-line growth from 2006 through 2050. 5. Golden Gate City.. Use the same population throughout, since the area is essentially at its ultimate population. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 32 of 61 TABLE 5-6 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Range of Wastewater Permanent Population Projections for October 1 Each Year Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 YEAR AREA 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 TOTAL POPULATIONS BY AREA Conservative Growth Estimate Sewered North 61,964 88,253 102,862 120,387 137,912 155,438 172,963 Unsewered North: Other 5,268 9,926' 13,042 16,820 20,599 24,377 28,156 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 9,913 10,114 10,316 10,517 10,718 10,919 11,120, Golden Gate City 20,951 20,95 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 Orange Tree 3,618 5,148 6,679 8,209 9,739 11,270 12,800 Se~vered South 64,829 88,942 109,668 127,687 145,705 163,724 181,742 Unsewered South 2,893 3,969 4,893 5,697 6,501 7,305 8,109 ~rea A 0 0 1,745 3,489 5,234 6,979 8,723 ~rea B 0 0 2,238 4,477 6,715 8,954' 11,192 Area C 0 0 3,762 7,524 11,285 15,047 18,809: a~rea D 0 0 2,970 5,939 8,909 11,878 14,848 Total High Growth Estimate 169,436 227,303 279,125 331,697 384,269 436,841 489,413 Moderate Growth Estimate Sewered North 61,964 76,219 92,637 110,664 130,329 151,197 172,963 Unsewered North: Other 5,268 7,193 10,720 14,612 18,877 23,414 28,156 Unsewercd: Golden Gate Estates 9,913 10,114 10,316 10,517 10,718 10,919 11,120 Golden Gate City 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,95 20,95 20,95l Orange Tree 3,618 3,996 4,375 4,753 5,131 5,510 5,888 Sewered South 64,829 80,088 97,339 116,281 136,944 158,871 181,742 .Unsewered South 2,893 3,574 4,343 5,189 6,110 7,089 8,109 Area A 0 0 872 1,745 2,617. 3,489 4,362 Area B 0 0 1,119 2,238 3,358 4,477 5,596 Area C 0 0 1,881 3,762 5,643 7,524 9,404' ~.rea D 0 0 1,485 2,970 4,454 5,939 7,424 Total Average Growth Estimate 169,436 202,136 246,037 293,681 345,131 399,379 455,715 09~7/2001 FlowCharts092601 .xls The range of service area populations from Table 5-6 based on the above criteria are as follows: Estimated Total Sewered and Unsewered Populations Within the County Service Area (SA) ConditionI 2ooo I 2oo5 I 2oxo I 2o s I 2°2° I 2°25 I 2°3° Conservative Growth Within i66,000 222,000 262,000 302,000 342,000 383,000 423,000 Existing SA Future 4,000 5,000 17,000 30,000 42,000 54,000 66,000 Extension of SA Total 170,000 227,000 279,000 332,000 384,000 437,000 489,000 Conservati t ve Growth Moderate Growth Within 166,000 198,000 236,000 278,000 324,000 372,000 423,000 Existing SA Future 4,000 4,000 10,000 16,000 21,000 27,000 33,000 Extension of SA Total 170,000 202,000 246,000 294,000 345,000 399,000 456,000 Moderate Growth This represents the projected total populations within the service areas, without regard to sewer service. Several areas could remain on septic tank service or remain customers of private utility operators. These estimates of population are used in Section 6.3.6 to develop wastewater flows for specific alternatives. The population of 423,000 shown for 2030 is slightly more than the buildout population estimate prepared by the CCPS for the existing service area of about 394,000. (This is the full buildout population estimate for the County of about 465,000 less the estimated buildout populations of the Cities of Naples and Marco Island.) It is recommended that the Conservative Growth approach be used for planning purposes to allow the County to be ahead of all likely growth scenarios. The County should also periodically review service area populations to determine if the Conservative Growth approach is being maintained. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 33 of 61 5.4 Per Capita Wastewater Flow ~As discussed in Section 5.1, per capita wastewater flows of 145 and 120 gpcd AADF have been used in previous studies for the North Service Area and South Service Area, respectively. The actual sewered populations and flows for 2000 are as follows: 2000 Per Capita Wastewater Flow Service 2000 Census (April 1) AADF Per Capita Area Permanent Population in (mgd) AADF _ the Sewered Areas (gpcd) North 58,424 8.54 146 :~ South 61,390 6.19 101 It is recommended that 145 gpcd AADF be used for the North Service Area as previously used in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update. It is also recommended to use 100 gpcd AADF for the SOuth Service Area. This is less than the 120 gpcd AADF used in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update. The average per capita flow in the South Service Area for the last ten years was 93 gpcd, based on the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update and the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Revision. However, it is likely that these reports underestimated the sewered population in the South Service Area by using lower projections for each year than were actually tributary to the plant. For instance, the projected 1999 population projection was 52,884 (as shown in Section 5.1) and the 2000 Census (April 1) population for the area was 61,390. The 2000 data shown above are based on actual populations in the service area, whereas previous year's data is based on population projections from the 1990 Census. The Section 5.1 table showing per capita flows is reproduced as follows using 1991 projection and 2000 Census data and assuming a straight-line increase over the 1 O-year period: South Service Area Year Permanent April 1 Annual Average Per Capita AADF Population in the Flow to the WRF (gpcd) Sewered Area (mgd) 1991 39,075 3.62 93 1992 41,554 3.27 79 1993 44,034 3.81 87 1994 46,513 3.38 73 1995 48,993 3.24 66 1996 51,472 3.59 70 1997 53,952 5.25 97 1998 56,431 5.32 94 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 34 of 61 Year Permanent April I Annual Average Per Capita AADF Population in the Flow to the WRF (gpcd) Sewered Area (mgd) 1999 58,911 6.$8 112 2000 61,390 6.19 101 87 Average Thus, the 100 gpcd AADF for the South Service Area appears adequately conservative and is used herein to estimate wastewater flows in the South Service Area. 5.5 Wastewater Flow Projections Wastewater flow projections for the Collier County existing and future service areas are shown in Section 6 for alternative wastewater plans. When considering flow projections as they relate to planning for wastewater facilities, peak rates of flow need to be considered. FDEP is requiring that the treatment plant expansions and new permits for Collier County plants be designed for MMDF. In the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update, a factor of 1.3 times the AADF was used for the MMDF. Historical flow records at the NCWRF and SCWRF over the last seven years support the continued use of the 1.3 factor for MMDF. Figure 5-7 shows the historical maximum month factors for the NCWRF and SCWRF. The data show that the ratio averages a little over 1.2 for the period of 1994 - 2000. However, there were years at both plants where the ratio exceeded 1.3. Therefore, a ratio of 1.3 is recommended for planning purposes. Design of wastewater transmission facilities requires the use of peak hour flow rates. The accepted method for calculation of peak hour flow rates is by using the following formula: Peak hour factor = 18 + (p,}m., where p = population in thousands 4 + (p)m Peak hour flow is determined by multiplying the above peak hour factor by AADF. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 35 of 61 NCWRF: Ratio of Maximum Month to Annual Average Flow FIGURE 5-7 North MM to AA Factor --North MM to AA Average 1.20 1.6 1.5 1.2 1. SCWRF: Ratio of Maximum Month to Annual Average Flow '= South MMtoAAFactor -South MM to AA Average 1.23 0.9 Year GREELEY AND HANSEN LLP COLLIER COUNTY 2001 WASTEATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2001 R ~5 E I~GEND CITY OF NAPLES SERVICE: AREA GOLDEN GAlE Cl'i~r SE:R VICE AREA WAS~[WA'TER AREAS SER'VED AR£A C1~E24 GATE PAC~A(~ I~EAIMENT PLANT EXISTING COUNTY ~F NORTH COUNTY SOU'IH COUNTY PEMCAN BAY OmER IREA'I~IEN T .~R~ AREA BOUNDARY FUTURE SErViCE AREA ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS / NORTHEAST SERVICE B3 L..-..-.-J SERVlCrE AREA =..-a · C2 ' "' i '~/FUTURE , EAST .CENTRAL SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA ,, '~_ ~ . ~m ' ' ~, .. -' '- SOURCES: 1. BASle MAP AND IRANSMISS~ON SYS'TEM FROM {:OM 2. AREAS SEWE:RED FROM COLLIER COUNTY UTIU'I1ES COLLIER COUNTY GOVERMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SEWER SERVICE AREAS IIIIIILIY ANO HANIIN I.l. lI SEPTEMBER 2001 FIGURE 6-1 ,& could be beneficial, space may be needed for additional processes or support facilities, or other events could occur making the space at the NCWRF useful. Therefore, it is recommended that planning for the NCWRF consider only the maximum of 30.6 mgd (MMDF). The basis for flow estimation are developed in Section 5 for the sewered areas of the North and South Service Areas. Based on the existing service areas, the estimated future flows and plant capacities are compared as follows: Corn ~arison of Capacities to 2030 Estimated Wastewater Flows Service Area Ultimate Capacity - 2030 MMDF - MMDF (mgd) Conservative Growth~ (mgd) North 30.6 43.3 ~ South 16.0 24.6 1) Based on BEBR projections. 2) North Service Area including Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates based on October 1 population estimates. Based on the above comparison, it is apparent that additional capacity will be required for the North and South Service Areas. If service is also provided to additional areas, such as Golden Gate City or the rural fringe area, the need for additional capacity becomes even more apparent. 6.1.2 Four-Plant Alternative The Four-Plant Alternative is shown on Figure 6-2. The figure shows the location of the four potential regional wastewater treatment facilities and approximate service area boundaries. The boundaries are based on the limit of capacity of the existing two facilities, NCWRF and SCWRF. It is recommended that interconnections be made such that flow could be transferred between facilities and, thus, the boundaries between the service areas would not be fixed. Under this alternative most of the existing North Service Area would continue to be served by the NCWRF. The wastewater from the potential future Southeast Service Area (Area D) would be pumped north to the SCWRF. Part of the existing area tributary to the SCWRF would need to be re-routed to the future East Central treatment facility serving Area D to avoid exceeding the SCWRF capacity. Flows in the Northeast Service Area (Areas A and B and Orange Tree) would be treated at a future Northeast WRF. A variation of the Four-Plant Alternative would be to locate the fourth plant in Area D instead of Area C. This may be an appropriate variation if the size of Area C were to be reduced. Under this option, flows from Area C and Golden Gate City (if Golden Gate 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 37 of 61 R 2S Z,g~ND C~TY OF NAPLES SERVICE AREA GO~DF..N GATE ~ ~M~ ~EA WAS~WA~ A~AS ~R~D AREA ~ GA~ ESTA~S PO~N~ C~N~ RE~ ~F ~AL DIREC~ O~ ~ND~Y ADDI~ D~M~T ~EAS ~AL B~ND~Y F~ EA~ ~F COI. UER COUNTY GO~ENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER I~ UPDATE R ~S R ~6 E R E7 E NTIAL II \ pOTENTIAL EAST ~ENTRAL ~ i~' S~'RWO,[ .,,Ri.,, ;oUTH '~ ~ AREA TIAL-': SOUTSEAST i FOUR-PLANT R ;16 E ALTERNATIVE I ilIIIILIY AND HANIIN LLIB SEPIEMBE~ 2001 FIGURE 6-2 City becomes part of the County service area) would be directed to the existing SCWRF and all flow south of the SCWRF would be directed to the plant serving the new Southeast Service Area. 6.1.3 Five-Plant Alternative The Five-Plant Alternative is shown on Figure 6-3. The figure shows the location of the four potential regional wastewater treatment facilities and approximate service area boundaries. The boundaries are again based on the limit of capacity of the existing two facilities, NCWRF and SCWRF. As with the Four-Plant Alternative, it is recommended that interconnections be made such that flow could be transferred between facilities and, thus, the boundaries between the service areas would not be fixed. Under this alternative most of the existing North Service Area would continue to be served by the NCWRF. Flows in the Northeast Service Area (Areas A and B and Orange Tree) would be treated at a future Northeast WRF. The wastewater from the potential future Southeast Service Area (Area D) would be served by a new Southeast WRF. The SCWRF would continue to serve the South Service Area, except that some of the flow would need to be re-routed to a future East Central WRF serving Area D to avoid exceeding the SCWRF capacity. 6.2 Summary and Comparison of Alternatives Figures 6-2 and 6-3 show the Four-Plant and the Five-Plant Alternatives that would ultimately serve the overall wastewater treatment needs of the County. The ultimate flows that could be treated at the plants proposed are as follows: Comparison of Ultimate Flows and Ca Plant North South Northeast East Central -~outheast TOTALS 5-Plant MMDF 30.6 16.0 12.1 10.3 84.6 Alternative Capacity 30.6 16.0 15.6 12.1 10.3 84.6 ~acities, mgd 4-Plant &lternative Capacity 30.6 16.0 15.6 22.4 30.6 84.6 Note that the flows and capacities of the Northeast, East Central, and Southeast facilities are probably conservative and are based on the information presented in Section 5.3.3. These may be considered target values for planning. Property obtained for these facilities should be of sufficient size to allow treatment plants of at least these capacities. o9/28/2oo 1 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 38 of 61 CITY OF NAPLES ~E:R VICE: AREA S[R~C~ AREA WAS~:WA~:R AREAS ORANGE: AREA GC~.DEN GAI~ ESTA~S PO~N~AL C~N~ RE~ ~F ~AL DIREC~ ~ WAS~WA~R O~ ~EA~ENT P~N~ SER~ AR~ B~ND~Y ADDI~ DE~L~M~T ~EAS ~AL ~CE B~ND~Y EA~ ~F PO~AL L~A~ NEW ~F COLLIER COUNTY OO~ERMDIT 2001 WAS'I~"WAI~R MAS'I~R PLAN UPDA'I~ R POTENTIAL NORTHEAST SER¥1CE ~ A1 SERVICiE iPLAN' SITE : POTENTIAL ~ ...... EAST- .CENTRAL ! SERyICE AREA AREA lEAST ,. FIVE-PLANT ALTERNATIVF R ~6 E J IIIIIIl. lY AND HANIIN I.I.P SEP1EMB~ 2001 ROURE 6-3 , Cost estimates for the above alternatives have not been prepared. It is unlikely that cost alone would be a deciding factor in the selection of an alternative in this case. It is also unlikely that either of the alternatives have a significant advantage in terms of cost. For · conceptual studies, it is our approach-to consider that alternatives with life cycle costs within about 10 percent of each other are essentially equal. It is our opinion that the estimated life cycle cost of the two alternatives will be within 10 percent. Other considerations appear to favor the Five-Plant Alternative as follows: With reclaimed water irrigation being the primary means of effluent management in the future, it is beneficial to have the treatment facilities strategically located near potential customers. The South and Southeast Service Areas would be better served with reclaimed water under the Five- Plant Alternative. The Five-Plant Alternative makes better use of existing infrastructure that directs wastewater in the South Service Area to the SCWRF. The Five-Plant Alternative results in shorter runs of force mains, which is beneficial in terms of odor potential. Wastewater traveling in long force mains will generate higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide when discharged at the treatment facility. The Five-Plant Alternative allows more flexibility in serving future customers. At this time, it is unknown what area of the rural fringe may develop first. Having potential plants in each of the three major fringe areas allows the County to react to growth in each area independently. For the above reasons, the Five-Plant Alternative is recommended for the County's ultimate wastewater treatment needs. However, should the nature of any of the rural fringe areas change, the concept of ultimately having five treatment facilities may need to be re-explored. At the time of the preparation of this wastewater master plan update, there was a proposal to reduce the size of Area C. If this reduction should cut the ultimate population of this area in half, the Five-Plant Alternative is still recommended for the reasons stated above. Should Area C be eliminated altogether as an area of future development, the Four-Plant alternative should be implemented, with new plants in the Northeast and Southeast. 6.3 Summary of Other Wastewater Issues 6.3.'1 Package Wastewater Treatment Plants The County has been taking over package treatment facilities over the last several years. At this time, there are only four remaining package plants remaining. Each is near 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 39 of 61 existing wastewater transmission facilities. Once capacity is available at the NCWRF and SCWRF, it is recommended that the County continue to decommission the remaining package plants and treat the wastewater at the more reliable County facilities. ~6.3.2 Service to Existing Areas Served by Septic Tanks Collier County is generally low-lying with high groundwater levels and is in general not an ideal location for septic tanks. However, many septic tanks serve residents of Collier County where sewer service was not available at the time of construction of individual homes. Sometimes septic tanks are the only means available to serve the wastewater treatment needs for the individual. Areas with low housing densities, such as Golden Gate Estates, may be particularly costly to serve with sewers. Such areas would have fewer homes per length of sewer. The future population of the areas currently unsewered are estimated within this 2001 Master Plan Update. It may not be cost effective to serve all of these areas and, without some sort of driver (such as concerns over environmental damage or regulations prohibiting septic tanks), there may be no will to provide service to many areas. On the other hand, providing service to additional areas provides the County with additional customers, which can lower overall rates for all customers. It is recommended that the County conduct a study of unsewered areas to determine priorities of service and to develop a master plan for these areas. The study should consider environmental issues, cost of service, types of collection systems, and citizen interest in sewer service. The study should also address whether a stronger government role could be used to enhance on-site treatment strategies. Such strategies may include public education, better management practices, and changes to regulations. 6.3.3 Effluent Disposal Issues It is recommended that the County continue to use irrigation with reclaimed water as the primary means of effluent management and to use deep well injection as the backup. The County already has much of the infrastructure in place for this option in the North and South Service Areas and there is great potential for irrigation within the County. Table 4- 5 shows that there are a total of 945 golf holes currently in the County, excluding the municipalities of Naples and Marco Island. The County is serving 378 golf holes with reclaimed water irrigation or about 40 percent. There are also an additional 315 golf holes planned in the County, but not yet built. There is great potential for the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of golf courses. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 40 of 61 ? 6.3.3.1 Reclaimed Water Plan -The Wastewater Resource Planning Report (Camp, Dresser & McKee, September 2001, Final) is currently being developed. The purpose of the report was to analyze alternatives for reclaimed water irrigation. The consultant was tasked with determining how better service could be provided to reclaimed water customers and to consider if supplemental sources of irrigation were available other than the development of additional groundwater sources. Two basic alternatives are considered in the report. One alternative would provide reclaimed water only to existing customers, but with improved service by adding supplemental water, and the other alternative would add customers and a larger amount of supplemental water for irrigation. The range in initial cost is from about $4.3 million to $25.8 million, not including the cost of deep well injection. However, the project cost is not directly comparable, since the projects vary in level of service provided to County customers. An August 8,2001 supplement to the Wastewater Resource Planning Report addresses financial issues in regard to reclaimed water irrigation. Although, not making recommendations, it appears that unit costs per volume of reclaimed water for irrigation are similar among the alternatives. Based on discussions and evaluations with the reclaimed water consultant, the County has decided to pursue an alternative with an estimated cost of between $15.7 million and $20.0 million (without deep well injection). This alternative has the following features: Construction of the Immokalee Road Wellfield and associated pipeline to provide supplemental water to the North Service Area. Modifications to the Highlands storage ponds to provide a pump station to allow the use of stored reclaimed water. Interconnection pipelines between the north and south service areas. One booster pumping station. Reclaimed water or surface water aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) to store 500 million gallons. Surface water withdrawal and treatment facilities for up to about 11.6 mgd. The recommended plan will provide an annual average irrigation demand of 1-inch/week, while also meeting peak seasonal demands. Although the plan would provide reclaimed water to existing customers, it is expandable in the future to serve additional customers and to provide additional sources of irrigation supply. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 41 of 61 In accordance with the Wastewater Resource Planning Report, it is recommended that the County provide reclaimed water only to large customers as a bulk provider, with the customer providing the operating pressure. It is recommended that the County adopt the following criteria for reclaimed water irrigation customers: Allotments to be based on the quantity of irrigable acres and a unit irrigation rate of one inch per week. Potential customers with reduced groundwater availability (see Figure 4-5) to be given priority over other customers. New users to be located adjacent to existing transmission mains or pay for extensions. New customers to provide a minimum of one days storage in a lined pond. In the potential additional service areas, new reclaimed water customers will need to be located as part of the development of new water reclamation facilities. The estimated demand for reclaimed water from existing County customers is 21.25 mgd on an annual average basis, according to the V~astewater Resource Planning Report (CDM, May 2001). This demand is satisfied from reclaimed water, the Pelican Bay Wellfield, and private wells. Irrigation of other areas not served by the County is largely accomplished by private wells or by use of potable water. The 2001 Water Master Plan Update (Greeley and Hansen LLP, October 2001) is in production at this time, but will conclude that the future per capita water demand for the County is about 205 gpcd. Section 5 shows that the County-wide average wastewater production is about 120 gpcd. A number of factors can account for the difference in the water and wastewater flows, but the bulk of the difference is likely to be irrigation demand. Based on the range of population projections (see Table 6-3), the estimated irrigation demand for potable water will be as follows: Estimated Potable Water Irrigation Demands Item 2001 2011 2021 Population (Appendix B) 138,000 255,000 378,000 Irrigation Demand (mgd)~ 11.7 21.7 32.1 1. Based on 85 gpcd. The above estimates are based on no changes in customer irrigation demand patterns and that billing structures do not affect demand. In addition, it is based on no other sources of water becoming available to offset potable demand. Another large irrigation customer are golf courses. Table 4-5 shows that there are currently 945 golf holes within the County service area and that only 378 are served with reclaimed water. This means that 567 golf holes are using groundwater as the source of Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 42 of 61 09/28/2001 irrigation supply. In addition, Table 4-5 shows that another 315 golf holes are planned at golf courses approved, but not yet built. This means that, in the short term, there will be 882 golf holes as potential additional users of irrigation water. Typically, an 18-hole golf course requires 0.3 to 0.5 mgd of irrigation water. For the current service area permanent (October 1) population of about 166,000 (see Appendix B) there are about 52.5 golf courses (945/18). This is a population per golf course of about 3,000 persons per course. Assuming that the population per golf course remains constant and an average demand per golf course of 0.4 mgd, the following golf course irrigation demand is estimated: Estimate Golf Course Irrigation Demand Item I 2001 I 2011 I 2021 Population In Service Area (Sewered and Unsewered; Appendix B) I 181,000 290,000 395,000 Number of Golf Courses I 60 96 132 Golf Course Irrigation Demand (med) I 24 38 53 The estimated irrigation demands based on potable water and golf courses do not represent all irrigation demand. There are existing County residents that irrigate from private wells and from the County's reclaimed water system. However, satisfying the irrigation demand of those who would irrigate with potable water and of golf courses, would have a huge impact on water resources. The total potential demand from these types of users are as follows: Estimated Potable Water and Golf Course Irrigation Demand (mgd) Item 2001 2011 2021 Irrigation Demand 36 The implications of the above irrigation demand and the capacity of the water supply sources will be addressed in the 2001 Water Master Plan Update, which is being prepared. 6.3.3.2 Deep Well Injection It is recommended, above, that deep injection wells be the secondary means of effluent management. Deep injection wells would be used only when reclaimed water did not meet standards or, in wet weather, when storage is full and customer demand for reclaimed water is low. Presently, the NCWRF is permitted to send 6.3 mgd to the North County Water Treatment Plant deep injection wells for alternate wet weather disposal of public access quality reclaimed water. The NCWRF is being expanded to increase wastewater Master Plan Report092801 .doc 09/28/2001 Page 43 of 61 treatment capacity from 17.55 mgd MMDF. Additional wet-weather disposal capacity is needed to keep pace with the on-going facility expansion. Likewise, the need to continue reliance on the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant's injection wells for alternate reclaimed water disposal will be eliminated. It is recommended that the design be based on the recommendations in the report titled, NCWRF Extended Area of Study for Evaluation of Alternative Sites for Disposal of Reclaimed Water by Deep Well Injection (August 2001, Greeley and Hansen LLP/Water Resources Solutions, Inc.). Four deep injection sites were evaluated in the report and it was determined that the best location is the NCWRF based on ease of operation and cost effectiveness. Other locations were essentially double the construction cost. Locating the proposed injection well at the NCWRF will also improve the ability to maintain regulatory compliance. Water quality standards for public-access reclaimed water are strictly enforced. Effluent quality is continuously monitored for compliance. Whenever effluent quality approaches, or goes outside acceptable parameters for reclaimed water, the effluent needs to be immediately diverted to designated on-site storage ponds, which can hold up to 12.5 million gallons. The proposed injection well improves reliability by providing an alternate means of effluent disposal in the event that the designated storage ponds are full. The scope of work for the injection well facility at the NCWRF consists of two main project elements which are the deep injection well and the injection pump station. The design will consist of a deep injection well capable of handling 17.55-mgd MMDF capacity and an injection pump station with capability to add a future second deep injection well consistent with the planned plant expansion to 30.6 mgd in 2005. Thus, the project at the NCWRF will consist of two phases. Phase 1 would include one 18.6-mgd injection well and all pumping facilities. Phase 2 would include the second well. Both injection wells will need to be on line when the plant expansion to 30.6 mgd (MMDF) is completed in 2005. The SCWRF has one existing 18-mgd injection well. An additional injection well of equal capacity is required at the SCWRF to accommodate future flows and to provide an added level of reliability. It is recommended that all new plants to serve the potential service areas in the rural fringe also include DIW's as a backup to reclaimed water irrigation. 6.3.4 Biosolids Management 6.3.4.1 Summary of Short-Term Biosolids Management Report Hartman and Associates is preparing a short-term biosolids management report for the County concurrently with the preparation of this Master Plan Report. The goal of the 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 44 of 61 study is to recommend strategies for biosolids management for the next five years. Early conclusions of the study are that there are essentially two options available in the short- term as follows: Composting: Compost the dewatered biosolids from the NCWRF and the SCWRF at a private facility now composting horticultural waste near Immokalee. Biosolids would be composted along with the horticultural waste. Alkaline Stabilization: One of the most simple alkaline stabilization systems available is manufactured by Bioset, Inc. The system has the advantage of compact space and modular design that could allow the system to be set up on a temporary basis or as a trailer-mounted arrangement. N-Viro, Inc. is another manufacturer of a similar process and is also a possible biosolids vendor. As of the writing of this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update, a conclusion had not been reached concerning the short-term approach to biosolids. However, the composting option appears to be promising, since the owners of the facility have a ready local market for the compost and the site is well isolated. The owners of the facility have expressed a desire for a long-term contract. Thus, if implemented, composting with the horticultural waste would be a long-term term biosolids disposal option. 6.3.4.2 Identification of Long-Term Biosolids Management Alternatives Neither the NCWRF or SCWRF has space available for stabilization facilities for biosolids, such as aerobic digestion. Dewatering at each site is currently available and is required for cost-effective transportation of the biosolids to a remote site for further processing or for disposal. The range in quantity of biosolids estimated by 2021 is as follows: Estimated 2021 Biosolids Quantities Wastewater Flow - Annual Average Maximum Month mgd MMDF Biosolids Quantity - Biosolids Quantity Facility dry tons per Day - dry tons per day NCWRF 29.5 22.7 29.5 SCWRF 16.0 12.3 16.0 Proposed Regional 14.8 11.4 14.8 WRF's TOTALS 46.4 60.3 Note: Based on unit solids production provided by facility designers. The above is equivalent to about 296 to 385 wet tons per day at 16 percent solids. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 45 of 61 The ultimate processes for the disposal of biosolids available to the County include incineration, landfilling, or land application in some form. Incineration has a number of disadvantages that make it unlikely as a disposal option in Collier County. Landfilling is a viable option, but costs of disposal by landfilling have recently increased significantly. These factors tend to push the decision on biosolids handling to those involving land application. The direction of biosolids management toward land application is further supported by a survey of other major biosolids handling facilities in south and southwest Florida. Table 6-1 shows the results of the survey of 12 domestic wastewater plant operators in the region. Each one is disposing of biosolids in the Class B or Class A/AA form. Treatment systems for unstabilized, dewatered biosolids are limited. The lack of stabilization processes at the existing plants limit the opportunities available for further processing. Processes such as heat drying to produce a marketable Class A/AA product need to have stabilized biosolids to prevent odors when the final product is used as a fertilizer. The designer of the NCWRF expansion to 30.6 mgd (MMDF) is looking into including aerobic digestion at the plant. They have estimated that a 5.0-MG tank would be required. Most likely the location for tankage would need to be in place of Reject Pond 1 or lA. Once the plant is equipped with on-site deep injection wells, these pond locations could become available. Similar space does not appear to be available at the SCWRF. Since space is not available at the SCWRF, it is recommended that the County consider only options for biosolids handling that will accommodate biosolids that are not stabilized. The benefits of having only biosolids from the NCWRF stabilized would appear to be minimal. Therefore, the County should pursue only those biosolids options that can accommodate non-stabilized biosolids. The potential alternative long-term biosolids management alternatives are shown on Figure 6-4. Each alternative involves a process that would develop a fertilizer product for marketing and distribution. It is the marketability of the product that is the most crucial aspect of selecting a biosolids project. There are many examples of projects that were constructed only to find that the market for the product was not available or that the project could not compete in the market economically. The process must be selected in such a way as to provide the greatest success in the marketplace. 6.3.4.3 Comparison of Long-Term Biosolids Management Alternatives It is noted above, in Section 6.3.4.1, that composting at a local facility appears to be an attractive alternative for the long term. The County is pursuing this option with a local operator. This is the recommended first option in that it can be implemented relatively 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 46 of 61 co o c~ fl. 0 ~ 'T' ~2B FIGURE 6-4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Conceptual Diagrams of Potential Long-Term Biosollds Management Alternatives Greeley and Hanson LLP September 2001 Legend: A-Air; BL - Biosolids (Liquid); BS - Biosolids (Solid); C - Chemicals; H - Heat; O - Overflow; WC-Wood Chips; YW - Yard Waste. Alternative Number 1: Aerobic Digestion or Storage - Dewatering - Hauling - Alkaline Stabilization - Marketing and Distribution o BS O c / l ....~. BS Alternative Number 2: Aerobic Digestion or Storage - Dewatering - Hauling - Composting - Marketing and Distribution c-~' BS o Alternative Number 3: Aerobic Digestion or Storage - Dewatering - Hauling - Composting with Yard Waste - Marketing and Distribution o A ~ ~- .... ~. ..... - .......... ~' t'~ .... , o vw ' T ~' ~ A Alternative Number 4: Aerobic Digestion or Storage - Dewatering - Hauling - Alkaline Stab. - Curing with Yard Waste - Market and Distr. o ABL -"~ BL ~ ~ ..... --~- B ___[-~" BS&._.~/~ [--~" 0 YW ~ Air flrURE 6-4.xls 08/29/2001 quickly and with a minimal expenditure of capital. However, if arrangements cannot be made with the local operator. The County will need to consider other long-term options. This section addresses long-term options for the County. ~Alternative biosolids management can be selected and implemented in a variety of fashions depending on what organization takes responsibility for various aspects of the project. Project elements that can vary in responsibility include process selection, design, construction, ownership, and operation. Four alternative schemes for project delivery could be as follows: Alternative Project Delivery Methods Responsibility Process Design Construction Ownership Operation Selection Alternative 1 - Conventional County x x x x x Alterative 2 - Build and Operate County x x x x Alternative 3 - Design/Build/Own/Operate County Alternative 4 - Design/Build County x x x Advantages and disadvantages to each of the above delivery methods are as follows: Alternative 1 - Conventional. Under this approach, the County would select a process alternative among those shown on Figure 6-4. The County would hire a consultant to design the facilities and bid the construction project to contractors. The contractor would turn over the completed facility to the County for operation and product distribution. The advantage to this approach is that it provides the County with the greatest degree of control over the project. The disadvantage is that it places the County in the position of having to become a marketer of a product in competition with other industries and other government entities. Process selection by the County becomes crucial to the long-term success of the project. Alternative 2 - Build and Operate. Under this approach, the County would select a process and hire a consultant to design the facility. The project would be bid to construction contractors. Probably in a separate bid, a facility operator would be selected, but the County would retain ownership. The facility operator would run the facility and market the Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 47 of 61 09/28/2001 product. This alternative has similar advantages of control, but sheds the responsibility for operation to a private company. This places the potential operator at a disadvantage in operating a facility for which they had no part in the design or selection of the process. An operating contractor may not be willing to accept that risk. Alternative 3 - Design/Build/Own/Operate. Under this approach, the County would select a vendor to provide a frill service project. The vendor would select the process and then, design, construct, and operate the facility. The vendor would charge a tipping fee to the County and to other users of the facility. This alternative takes some of the control for selection of the process away from the County, but has a major advantage in that the vendor takes responsibility for biosolids disposal. The vendor is allowed to select a process that takes advantage of other resources he may have for product distribution in Florida for that product. Alternative 3 also has the advantage of broadening the competition among more vendors than alternatives where the process is pre-selected before bidding. Under this approach it would be important to develop contingency plans if the vendor were to renege on his responsibilities. Contract provisions could be included to set responsibilities and perhaps establish a bond to help pay for costs associated with the County taking over the facility or using alternate means of biosolids management. Alternative 4 - Design/Build. This approach allows the County to select the process, but hires a consultant/contractor to design and build the facility. The County would take responsibility for product distribution. This alternative is quite similar to Alternative 1, with similar advantages and disadvantages. Of the above project delivery options, Alternative 3 appears to offer the greatest level of flexibility and reliability while offering the greatest potential for overall lower project costs. Alternative 3 also does not increase the County's debt burden, since the project is funded by the vendor. Alternative 3 allows the vendor to be creative in developing a project that makes the best use of the resource and allows the vendor to obtain biosolids from other sources to decrease the unit cost of biosolids management. If the County cannot reach agreement with the local composting operator, it is recommended that the County pursue Alternative 3 and solicit proposals for a private company to provide biosolids management services. This would provide the County with the services of a company that is in the biosolids business to produce and to market the product. The request for proposals (RFP) could be structured in any of a variety of ways. The County may restrict the type of processes to be used, but should do so to a minimal extent. One of the advantages of Alternative 3 is that it allows the bidders to be creative and to offer solutions that are in the best common interest of the County and the vendor. Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 48 of 61 09/28/2001 In a recent solicitation of interest for a similar biosolids management project in Florida, the following types of vendors expressed interest: · Alkaline stabilization · Heat drying · Plasma furnace · Composting If implemented, it is recommended that an RFP for biosolids management include the following: 1. The form of the proposal would be of the Design/Build/Own/Operate (D/B/O/O) type. 2. The Contractor would be told that the County would haul biosolids from each plant to the processing site. 3. The Contractor would be required to produce a Class AA biosolids product or provide a means of disposal that did not rely on land application. The County would provide the space at a site selected by the County. It is recommended that the County conduct a land acquisition study to purchase approximately 65 acres of land for a processing facility. The site should be well buffered and, to the extent possible, adjacent to lands that cannot be developed. The 65 acre site would provide about 10 acres for the biosolids processing and a buffer of 500 feet on each side. The site should also be near major roads to allow traffic in and out of the site. 5. The Contractor would be responsible for all disposal and marketing. 6. The Contractor would be allowed, and even encouraged, to solicit biosolids from other producers, even if outside of Collier County. 7. The Contractor would be required to have a lower rate for biosolids from plants owned and operated by Collier County as compensation for providing the site. 8. The bidders would be allowed to offer a separate proposal to include yard waste. Since the Contractor is taking all responsibility for disposal and marketing, the technology to employ would be left open and would be at the discretion to the Contractor. 10. The Contractor would be responsible to address odor control requirements to the satisfaction of the County. This will include strict definition on what constitutes nuisance odors in a measurable fashion. The Contractor will be required to furnish standby equipment for critical components and will be required to submit monthly operating reports demonstrating that regular maintenance is being performed on equipment and that odor thresholds are being maintained. Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 49 of 61 09/28/2001 11. 12. 13. 14. The length of the contract would be established as at least 10 years, with allowance for annual increases in costs based on an established index, such as the Consumer Price Index. A performance bond would be required to financially insure that the County would be protected by default of the Contractor. Information would be solicited to assure that the bidders are financially solvent and able to enter into long-term contracts. The proposal process would be conducted in two steps. The first step would be a pre-qualification step for the vendors and the final step would be economic and technical proposals from the pre-qualified vendors. 6.3.5 Force Mains and Pumping Stations The County's existing hydraulic model of the force main system has been used to evaluate the effects of the changes proposed. The modeling software used was KYPIPE2000. The model was updated to reflect current (2001) conditions. Populations and commercial areas within the existing sewered areas were disaggregated to determine the flow to each existing major pumping station in the North and South Service Areas. This was done as an update to the Wastewater Master Plan Revision (CDM. June 2001). Appendix A presents details of how wastewater flow was estimated for each pumping station. In general, wastewater flow to each pumping station was estimated as residential and non-residential components for each TAZ shown on Figure 5-1. The portion of each TAZ tributary to each pumping station was determined using maps and recent aerial photographs. The aerial photographs were also used to determine the percent buildout for each TAZ. The bases for determining the flOWS to each pumping station is as follows: Annual average flow projections were determined based on Moderate Growth population estimates described in Section 5. For the purposes of hydraulic modeling, a specific projection must be chosen; a range of flows cannot be used. The moderate population projection was shown to be reasonably conservative. However, in the early years the populations and flows could be somewhat higher, as described below in Section 6.3.6. If the population growth occurs closer to the Conservative Growth population projection, the timing of some of the pumping station revisions and new force mains may need to be moved up. Section 5 showed that the overall annual average unit flow rates are 145 gpcd for the North Service Area and 100 gpcd in the South. This is based a unit rate applied to the permanent population and includes the commercial and industrial flows. It is simply the annual average plant flow divided by the Census-derived permanent population. An analysis was done of the amount of commercial and industrial area in the North Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 50 of 61 09/28/2001 and South Service Areas and it was determined that the residential-only wastewater flow is about 125 gpcd in the North and 80 gpcd in the South. This is used in Appendix A to determine residential populations in all years. Non-residential (commercial and industrial) flows were based on 500 gallons per acre per day. Non-residential flows were converted to an equivalent population at 125 gpcd for the North and 80 gpcd for the South for each TAZ. The purpose of this was to use population equivalence as a means of projecting the increase in commercial and industrial areas. The population equivalence defining the non-residential areas is assumed to grow at the same rate as the permanent population. A peaking factor was applied to the average flow to determine peak hourly flow used for modeling. The peaking factor was determined based on the equation Shown in Section 5.5. The hydraulic model was employed for the 2006 and the 2021 conditions for the North and the South Service Areas. For the hydraulic analysis of the wastewater transmission system, design factors for the pump stations and transmission mains were selected. For pump stations, the following performance details for each qualifying (usually 10 hp and larger) station were input into the model: Pump capability information: Manufacturer, number of pumps, horsepower rating, impeller size and performance curves Pump discharge main size and elevations Pump station wet well size and invert elevation Smaller pump stations not included in the model were assigned as inflows into the system. Several factors used in determining adequate pump station capacity were assumed, based on discussions with County staff and previous model development: Pump "off" elevation 2-ft above wet well invert elevation Minor losses calculated using Cameron Hydraulic Data for typical wastewater pumping station piping configuration. Transmission main performance was analyzed in the model using the Hazen-Williams equation. This equation is commonly utilized to estimate head loss in pipes, taking into account pipe size, length, fluid velocity and piping material. Piping material was assigned a roughness coefficient, referred to as the "C" factor, as follows: Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 51 of 61 09/28/2001 Pipe Diameter(inches) "C" Factor 4- 16 115 20-48 125 These factors are commonly used values in the design of wastewater transmission mains. This combination of design factors was used to assess the capability of the County wastewater collection system under several conditions. The transmission systems of the North and South Service Areas are organized differently. The system in the North Service Area includes numerous smaller pumping stations discharging into manifolded force mains. The system typically generates high transmission main velocities and requires high-head pumps for the smaller stations. For the North Service Area, a high-head hydraulic analysis was performed assuming all pumps (except standby pumps) operating with a low water level in the wet well. High head model runs were evaluated to determine if pump stations could pump 60 percent of the peak flows with all pumps running. Stations not meeting these criteria are recommended for improvement. The South Service Area is organized such that smaller pumps stations discharge into larger Master Lift Stations. These Master Lift Stations typically discharge into manifolds going to other Master Lift Stations, so transmission main velocities are generally less than in the North Service Area, resulting in lower-head pumps in the smaller stations. In addition to the high-head condition described for the North Service Area, a low-head hydraulic analysis was performed for the South Service Area. The low-head condition was analyzed assuming a single operating pump in the manifold. The low-head condition was evaluated to determine if pumps operating alone would exceed pump mn-out conditions. A Iow-head model run was not necessary for the North Service Area due to the large number of pumps included in the manifold and the Iow probability that one pump would be operating alone. In addition to pump stations, transmission main velocities were analyzed. The general criteria established for evaluation was as follows: · Minimum velocity of 2.0 feet per second to prevent solids from accumulating in the pipes. · Maximum velocities of 9 feet per second to avoid scour and large head loss conditions which result in high operating costs. Transmission mains evaluated to be outside these parameters were recommended for improvement. The recommended improvements resulting from application of the hydraulic model are reported for the North Service Area in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. Improvements necessary prior to 2006 are shown in Table 6-2 and are included in the five-year CIP reported in Section Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 52 of 61 09/28/2001 TABLE 6-2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEEP, JNG DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Pump Station and Pipeline Improvements North Service Area by 2006 Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 I CURREN'I' Current Pump Proposed Pump or Pump Station I.D. Number I Location Serves HP Capacity (GPM) Improvement CmTently a duplex - 1.01.12 109th & 8th Street Naples Park in TAZ 34 29 1100 improve to triplex with same HP motor Install new duplex pump Will get flow fi'om: Emerald Lakes;Monterey;Ivlaker Lake ~tatioa with Flygt Model 1.04.00 New Ivlaster Pump Station Villas&The Crossings In TAZ 65 No. 3300 642 77 HP pumps Currently a dnplex - 1.07.00 Quail Creek Master Station Quail Creek, Northbrooke Plaza area and Quail West 7.5 1000 improve to triplex with new l,O00 GPM 35 HP motors 1.07.02 11698 Quail Village Way Quail Village l0 387 Upgrade pnmps to 47 HP 1.08.00 Vineyards Boulevard The Vineyards in TAZ 59 20 200 Currently a triplex, upgrade pumps to 47 HP I. [3.00 1390 Nottingham Drive Victoria Park in TAZ 46 7.5 282 Upgrade pumps to 47 HP 1.27.00 Walkerbuilt Road Beachway in TAZ 25 9.4 400 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 HP 1.28.00 Shores Avenue Shores Drive Subdivision 9.4 493 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 HP 1.33.00 Euclid & Wickliffe Willoughby Acres 9.4 150 Upgrade pumps to 29 HP 1,34.00 Pan-Am & Venetian Way Gulf Harbor 10 176 Upgrade pmnps to 20 HP 1.40.00 1510 Rail Head Blvd. (OffUS 41) North Collier Industrial Center 10 247 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 1.46.00 Timberwood Timberwood Subdivision 10 264 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 ~HP Will get flow from: Gadaletta(202), Arbor Lakes 1.49.00 Sterling Oaks S. of Guard House Club(437);Meadow Brook Estates(616) and Sterling l0 211 Upgrade pumps to 47 HP Oaks(1700) I Project Description Location Proposed Improvement Existing 12" line along Immokalee Road will need to be Additional flow from new [mmokalee Road from existing upgraded to an equivalent of a 20" line. This can be done by ' ;rowth area along [mmokalee MPS 1.07,00 to CR 951 either upgrading the 12" to a 20" or placing a parrallel I6" line Road along Immokalee Road. Approximately 1,656 LF from Upgrade existing 4" diameter force main to a 6" diameter Upgrade existing 4" MPS 1.45.00 to Airport-Pulling force main from MPS 1.45.00 to Airport-Pulling Road Road (Approximately 1,656 LF) TABLE 6-3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Pump Station and Pipeline Improvements North Service Area by 2021 Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Pump Station I.D. Location Serves CURRENT Current Pump Proposed Pump Number HP Capacity (GPM) or Improvement 1.01.19 Upgrade pump to The Anchorage (Vanderbilt Road) The Anchorage Condos 5(VFD) 300 20 HP 1.01.21 Upgrade pump to Wiggins Pass Marina at Co. Park Wiggins Pass Marina 5 140 7.5 HP 1.03.00 Piper Boulevard Palm River 40 1760 Upgrade pumps to 77 HP 1.12.00 Imperial Entrance Imperial 20 200 Upgrade pumps to 47 HP 1.13.04 9942 Boca Avenue North Boca Palms 10 229 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP Upgrade pump 1.19.00 Audubon Boulevard & Whitney Audubon East 20 783 t¥om 432 to 454 Lane impellers 1.30.00 South Winds Estates Immokalee Road & Vet's Park (All Commercial) 5 140 Upgrade pump to 20 HP 1.31.00 Green Tree Center Greentree Plaza (Commercial) 7.5 317 Upgrade pump to 20 HP 1.32.00 10271 Regent Circle Regent Park 10 159 Upgrade pumps to 148 HP 1.34.01 Wiggins Pass Road Wiggins Bay Club 7.5 14[ Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 1.48.00 Carillon Place East Pine Ridge and Airport Road Area 23 493 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 HP Upgrade pumps 1.51.00 Bent Tree Lane ~Stonebridge 20 783 from 432 to 454 impellers 1.56.00 9259 The Lane Quail Woods 10 220 ~Upgrade pumps to 47 HP 1.70.00 2311 Heritage Greens Drive Heritage Greens 20 346 Upgrade pumps to 47 HP Project Location Proposed Improvement Description Upgrade Install a 12" forcemain from MPS 1.80.00 east Vanderbilt Road From MPS 1.80.00 to MPS 1.90.00 do~vn Vanderbilt Road to MPS 1.90.00. Pipeline Upgrade 6" From MPS 1.56.00 to Immokalee Upgrade 6" forcemain from MPS 1.56.00 to forcemain Road Immokalee Road to an 8" forcemain Install new 20" Install approximately 11,000' of 20" forcemain on force main Livingston Road Livingston Road between Vanderbilt Road to MPS 1.03.00 Upgrade 6" From 1.07.02 to lmmokalee Road Upgrade 6" forcemain from 1.07.02 to Immokalee ~'orcemain Road to an 8" forcemain. 7. Improvements necessary after 2006 and before 2021, the end of the planning period, are shown in Table 6-3 for the North Service Area. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 are equivalent tables for the South Service Area. The pumping system configuration and force main interconnections modeled are shown on Figure 6-5 (in pocket). Also included on Figure 6-5 are the recommended system improvements that are necessary to improve system hydraulics and to assure sufficient capacity is available. A pipeline connecting the North and South Service Areas is also shown on Figure 6-5 together ~vith the proposed transfer pumping stations. This recommended pipeline will increase system reliability by allowing flow to be transferred between the boundaries of the North and South Service Area. This will allow the County to transfer flow away from either plant to where capacity may be available. Construction costs have been estimated for the pumping station and pipeline projects. Table 6-6 shows the estimated costs for the North Service Area and Table 6-7 for the South Service area. 6.3.6 Timing Issues The point at which new facilities will be required is difficult to determine with certainty. The County has been experiencing tremendous growth over the last several years. This 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update covers the period from 2001 through 2021. Within this report, years have been shown as projections of when certain populations or wastewater flows may be obtained. Regarding timing, it is not so much the dates that are important, but rather milestones. When certain events occur, the County will need to react with a facility out of the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. For example, certain pipelines are proposed to interconnect systems. The timing for such a pipeline may be triggered by a road construction project as much as by a need for the pipeline to meet an immediate collection or transmission system demand. Timing of treatment facilities to serve the rural fringe area will be triggered by development. Plants in the rural fringe area will need to be constructed only as required to serve new development. Recommendations are made in Section 5 to use the Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth population projections to provide the range of wastewater flow projections for the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. It is necessary to develop Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth wastewater flow projections in total and disaggregated to the five wastewater treatment plants proposed. Table 5-6 shows the recommended range of population estimates for the total of the potential County service areas. Appendix B shows the development of the Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth estimates of population and wastewater flow. Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 53 of 61 09/28/2001 TABLE 6-4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 200i WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Pump Station and Pipeline Improvements South Service Area by 2006 Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Pump Station I.D. Location Serves CURRENT Cur[ent Pump Proposed Pump Number HP Capacity (GPM) Capacity (GPM) 3.02.46 4459 CR 951 The Club Estates 10 200 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 3.04.02 Naples Landing off Bayshore Pumps into 3.04.10 - Moorehead Manor MHP? 2.3 122 Upgrade pumps to 3 HP 3.04.03 Near 2960 Lunar Guiltbrd Acres 5(VFD) 154 Upgrade pumps to 5 HP 3.04.06 Cottage Grove and Bayshore Cottage Grove Ave. & Karen Drive 10 600 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 3.06.01 Thomasson Drive & Normandy Future high growth area from Collier DRI 5.0 298 Upgrade pumps to 30 HP Upgrade pumps 3.08.00 Shadowlawn & Francis Avenue Naples Gardens (Spillage occurs during heavy rains) 35 709 handle increased flows 3.09.09 Progress & Industrial Naples Production Park - pumps to 3.09.00 20 352 Upgrade pumps to 29 HP 3.10.05 NE Cape Sable & Cape Kennedy Naples Mobile Estates MHP 7.5 264 Upgrade pumps to Drive 10 HP 3.10.10 Briarwood Blvd. & Skelly Road Briarwood 4.0 355 Upgrade pumps to 10 HP 3.13.10 iDevonshire & Appleby Berkshire Lakes 5 187 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 HP 5670 Collier Blvd. (951 S. of US Convert from a Rookery Bay Silver Lakes Creative Lane 35 2863 duplex to a quad 3.18.00 41) I station Project Location Proposed Improvement Description 12" Forcemain Upgrade existing 12" line to a 16" line along Palm Palm Drive, Lakewood Blvd. Drive to Lakewood Blvd. under Davis Boulevard to Serving MPS Under Davis Blvd. To MPS MPS 3.09.00 to help reduce head pressure from 3.08.00, 3.09.00 3.09.00 MPS 3.08.00 to MPS 3.05.00 and replace the and 3.05.00 deteriorated 12" D.I.P. under Davis Blvd. TABLE 6-5 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Pump Station and Pipeline Improvements South Service Area by 2021 $2B Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Pump Station I.D. Location Serves CURREN'[ Current Pump Proposed Pump Number HP Capacity (GPM) Capacity (GPM) 3.03.02 !3164 Areca Enchanting Acres MHP 2.3 140 Upgrade pumps to 3 HP 3.04.00 Thomasson and Alladin High growth area of Collier DRI 85-IC 4,000 Units 14.8 450 Upgrade pumps to 30 liP 7610 Davis Blvd. (County New developments near Naples Heritage Golf & New MPS to be 3.14.00 owned property) CC Triplex with 47 HF motors Convert from an Championship Drive off Isle of Pelican Lake (Possible high growth area north of existing duplex 3.16.00 Capri Marco Shores) 35 2520 station to a triplex with new 20 HP ~tlmps Currently serves Silver Lakes. However, currently 3.18.01 Silver Lakes RV Park takes flow from 3.18.02 which is in a possible high 10 352 Upgrade pumps to growth area. 47 HP 3.18.03 14020 US 41 E. Creative Lane (Rookery Bay) 20 826 Upgrade pumps to 47 HP 3.21.00 Green Acres Drive Lely Resort Area 14.8 494 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP Project Location Proposed Improvement Description 24" forcemain on Davis Boulevard from 3.14.00 to Extend existing 24" main on Davis Boulevard out Davis Boulevard 3.12.00 to new MPS 3.14.00 TABLE 6-7 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Estimated Capital Costs for Improvements to Existing Pump Stations South Service Area Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Pump Station I.D. Estimated Contingency Engineering & Administration Estimated Total Number Capital Cost (2) (30%) (20%) Cost 3.02.46 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 3.04.02 $17,080 $5,124 $3,416 $25,600 3.04.03 $19,320 $5,796 $3,864 $29,000 3.04.06 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 3.06.01 $46,200 $13,860 $9,240 $69,300 3.09.09 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 3.10.05 $22,400 $6,720 $4,480 $33,600 3.10.10 $22,400 $6,720 $4,480 $33,600 3.08.00 $76,664 $22,999 $15,333 $115,000 3.13.10 $27,160 $8,148 $5,432 $40,700 3.18.00 $61,320 $18,396 $12,264 $92,000 TOTAL COST FOR 2006 IMPROVEMENTS $608,000 Pump Station I.D. Estimated Contingency Engineering & Estimated Total Administration Number Capital Cost (2) (30%) (20%) Cost 3.03.02 $17,080 $5,124 $3,416 $25,600 3.04.00 $46,200 $13,860 $9,240 $69,300 3.16.00 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 3.18.01 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 3.18.03 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 3.21.00 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 tOTAL COST FOR 2021 IMPROVEMENTS $338,000 (1) All costs are in September 2001 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index = 6400) (2) Estimated capital costs include mechanical and electrical installation of pumps and controls. TABLE 6-6 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Estimated Capital Costs for Improvements to Existing Pump Stations North Service Area Greeley and Hansen LLP September 200 l Pump Station I.D. ! Estimated Contingency Engineering & Administration Estimated Total Number Capital Cost(2) (30%) (20%) Cost 1.01.12 $76,664 $22,999 $15,333 $ I 15,000 1.07.00 $76,664 $22,999 $15,333 $ I 15,000 1.07.02 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 1.08.00 $76,664 $22,999 $15,333 $115,000 1.13.00 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 1.27.00 $27,860 $8,358 $5,572 $41,800 1.28.00 $27,860 $8,358 $5,572 $41,800 1.33.00 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 1.34.00 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.40.00 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.46.00 $27,860 $8,358 $5,572 $41,800 1.49.00 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 TOTAL COST FOR 2006 IMPROVEMENTS $860,000 Pump Station I.D. Estimated Contingency Engineering & Estimated Total Administration Number Capital Cost (2) (30%) (200/0) Cost 1.01.19 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.01.21 $13,300 $3,990 $2,660 $20,000 1.03.00 $91,000 $27,300 $18,200 $136,500 1.12.00 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 1.13.04 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.19.00 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.30.00 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.31.00 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.32.00 $27,860 $8,358 $5,572 $41,800 1.34.01 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.48.00 $27,860 $8,358 $5,572 $41,800 1.51.00 $32,060 $9,618 $6,412 $48,100 1.56.00 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 1.70.00 $48,930 $14,679 $9,786 $73,400 TOTAL COST FOR 2021IMPROVEMENTS $797,000 (1) All costs are in September 2001 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index = 6400) (2) Estimated capital costs include mechanical and electrical installation of pumps and controls. The future sewered population is based on the above totals and some basic assumptions regarding future areas served. For the Conservative Growth Sewered Population Estimate the basic assumption is that the total population in all of the potential service areas is served by 2030. For the Moderate Growth Sewered Population Estimate the ..basic assumption is that service is not provided to areas now unsewered, including Golden Gate Estates. It is also assumed for the Moderate Growth estimate that Golden Gate City remains independent of the County. The remaining bases for the sewered populations in Appendix B are as follows: Conservative Growth Sewered Population Estimate 1. Sewered Areas - North and South. Use total population for these areas. 2. Unsewered Areas - North and South. Assume none of this population served until 2006. Assume areas frilly served by 2030. 3. Golden Gate Estates. Assume none of this population served until 2006. Assume areas fully served by 2030. 4. Orange Tree. Assume population served by 2005 and fully served thereafter. 5. Areas A - D. Assume growth occurs and service provided by 2006. Once growth occurs in this area, service must be provided immediately. 6. Golden Gate City. Assume County takes over by 2010 and that the entire area is sewered by 2020. Moderate Growth Sewered Population Estimate 1. Sewered Areas - North and South. Use total population for these areas. 2. Unsewered Areas - North and South. Assume this population is never served. 3. Golden Gate Estates. Assume this population is never served. 4. Orange Tree. Assume this population is served in 2010. The County has an obligation to provide service by 2011. 5. Areas A - D. Assume growth occurs and service provided by 2006. Once growth occurs in this area, service must be provided immediately. 6. Golden Gate City. Assume no service provided to this area. CCPS developed estimates of water and sewer district populations in late August 2001. These estimates were incorporated into the population projections developed in Section 5 and in Appendix B (Table B-l), herein. CCPS used the population disaggregation developed by Greeley and Hansen LLP as the starting point for their estimates. Appendix B (Table B-2) compares the CCPS October estimates of sewered population range.. The previous estimates from the 201 Facilities Plan (1997) are also shown for comparison. Figure 6-6 shows that the range of October population projections developed in this report for the sewered areas encompasses the CCPS estimates and indicates that the range of populations presented are consistent with other planning documents. For the purposes of this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update, October populations are used to develop flow rates in given years. Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 54 of 61 09/28/2001 ~OI~LV~I~ldOd ~ Flow is allocated to each treatment facility based on the service area map for the Five- Plant Alternative. Appendix B (Table B-3) shows the estimate by year of the Conservative and Moderate Growth Estimates of wastewater for the five plants. Figures 6-7 through 6-11 show the estimated wastewater flow range by year for each proposed plant using the Conservative Growth approach. The figures compare the expected wastewater flow with the recommended capacities. The capacities indicated need to be matched with the expected flows on a periodic basis to make sure that the population increases and the associated wastewater flows are matching targeted values. The flows and capacities required for the NCWRF are shown on Figure 6-7. The 13.0 mgd MMDF (10 mgd AADF) increase in capacity required by the current Consent Order will apparently allow the plant to treat all expected ~vastewater flows throughout the planning period. An expansion of 6.5 mgd MMDF (5.0 mgd AADF) would allow the plant to handle all expected flows through about 2015; however, this was not considered due to the provisions of the Consent Order. Figure 6-12 combines all facilities for the total County service area, assuming that the district boundaries are expanded into the Rural Fringe Area as shown on Figure 6-3. The plant capacities shown are to accommodate the recommended Conservative Growth Estimate. Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 55 of 61 09/28/2001 ((ID~) SA~Oq~I H~t£V~A~J~SVA~ HJ~NOIA~ ~fllAIIXV~ © Z D I ((IDI~) SA~O~I~I H3~LVA~3~LSVA~ Hll~Oi~ IAIf'IIAIIXVIAI ((IDI~) SA~O~I~I ~I~IJ~VAk~IJ~SVAk H.LN~OIAI I~flI~IXVIA~ ((1~)!~) SA~Oq~I ~I3J~VA~LSVA~ HIN~OI~ I~II~IXVI~ ((IDI~I) ~SAkO~l~l H~A,LVfiA~J,LSVA~ H~LMOIAI BlflBIIXVI~ n I (ODIn) SA~O"Izl H~IIVA~ISVA~ HIMOIAI IAIfllAIIXVIAI 7 . Five-Year Capital Improvement Projects for Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects (CIP's) have been developed by the County and Greeley and Hansen necessary to implement the recommended wastewater and reclaimed water program. The projects allow the County to maintain the existing infrastructure and respond to future growth. Table 7-1 lists the wastewater and reclaimed water CIP projects and provides a description of each. Table 7-2 lists the projects, the estimated costs, and the fiscal year when the project costs will be incurred by the County. Table 7-2 also shows the functional category for each project, whether it is for wastewater treatment, wastewater transmission, wastewater collection, or reclaimed water. Table 7-2 also divides the projects into those that serve to maintain the existing infrastructure or improve customer service and those that are for growth. A few projects are listed without an associated cost. For these projects, costs are anticipated to occur after fiscal year 2006. Figure 7-1 shows the locations of the proposed five-year CIP projects. Table 7-3 shows proposed 20-Year CIP projects consistent with the recommendations in Section 6 for the Five-Plant Alternative. 09/28/2001 Master Plan Report092801 .doc Page 56 of 61 TABLE 7-1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC ULTIL1TIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY 2002 - 2006 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS WASTEWATER AND RECLAIMED WATER Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 Fund/Type Project No. Project Name Description (A) WASTEWATER PROJECTS Existing Wastewater 413 Projects Completimr of expansion of the existing NCWRF form 8.5 to 13.5 MGD. Add 2 new clarifiers, one new aeratioo basin, one new effluent filter, a new clrlorine contact bldg. & tank, a new blower bldg. 413/GD 73031 NCWRF 5 MGD Expansion Disinfection facility, sludge &watering expansion, sludge thickener, odor control, RDP retirement & sludge pumping station. 413/GD 73066 Wastewater Master Plan Updates Update of wastewater master plan eve~ five years. 413/GD 73074 Livingston Road FM PRR to VBR FM from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Road Emergency sewer connections to City of Naples and pipeline and booster pumps to mtercomrect 413/GD 73076 North/South Sewer Interconnections north and south server 413/GD 73077 NCWRF Flow Equalization Add 4 MG Flow Equalization Tank 413/GD 73079 Master Pumping Station-North I lmmokalee Road/951 413/GD 73128 SCWRF Flow Equilization Add flow equilization tank to SCWRF. 413/GD 73925 MPS 1.04 Orange Blossom ~Goodlette Upgrades to existing lift stations and pumping stations as needed to keep pace with growth. Specific 413/GD 73945 Pumping Station Improvements lift stations identified for upgrades based on system hydraulic model in current update to master plan. Desiga and install two deep injection wells and dual zone monitoring wells and new pmnps, as 413/GD 73948 NCWRF Deep Injection Well recommended for Phase 2 in the Tech Memo: Extended Area of Study for Evaluatioo of Ahemntive Sites for Disposal of Reclaimed Water (Angust 200 l). This project is a continuation of CIE 916 SCWRF Expansion originally envisioned under Project 73916. A portion of the improvements planned under this project were budgeted in FY00 under 413/GD 73949 SCWRF Expansion 2001 Fund 413 - Project 73916. All eng. Study was performed in FYO0 under Project 73916 which identified improvements needed to increase plant capacity and reliability. Study, design and construction ora 10 mgd AADF (13.0 mgd lvlMDF) expansion of the WRF. 413/GD 73950 NCWRF 30.6 MMADF Expansion Final capacity to be 30.6 mgd MMDF. 413/GD 73xx6 Master Pumping Station-North 2 MPS to Serve Area B. 413/GD 73xx9 SCWRF Injection Well 2 Design and install second deep injection well at the SCWRF to provide additional capacity. New Wastewater 413 Projects Prepare study of long-term biosolids alternatives, determine location for biosolids processing 413/GD WW4 Land Acquistion for Biosolids Facility facility, purchase property, and implement plan. Land Acquistion of Property at Orange Tree tbr NE Purchase 147 ac site at Orange Tree for site of WRF and WTP. 413/GD WW6 WRF 413/GD WW7 Land Acquisition Study for East Central WRF Stndy of possible sites for location of up to 12.1 mgd (mmdf) WRF in Area C. 413/GD WW8 East Central WRF Land Acquisition Pnrclmse 50 ac site at in East Central area for site of WRF. 413/GD WW9 Land Acquisition Study for Southeast WRF Stndy of possible sites for location of lap to t0.5 mgd (mmdf) WRF in Area D. 413/GD WW10 Southeast WRF Land Acquisition Purcbase 50 ac site at io East Central area for site of WRY'. Stndy, design and construction of a new 2.0 mgd WRF (expandable to 12 mgd) on the Orange Tree 413/GD WW 1 ! Northeast WRF property to replace the existing Orange Tree plant and serve potential new custmners iu Areas A and B. Study, design and eonslruction of a new 2.0 mgd WRF (expandable to 12 mgd) in Area C to serve 413/GD WW12 East Central WRY potential new costomers. Study, design and construction ora new 2.0 mgd WRF (expandable to 10.5 mgd) in Area D to serve 413/GD WW [ 3 Southeast WRY potential new customers. [Defer until after 2010.] If the County acquires 0m Golden Gate City utilility, costs will be incurred to decmmnission the 413/GD WW 15 Service to Golden Gate City plant and direct flows to a County facility. Study, Design and construction ora 16-inch force main from proposed master primping station near 413/GD WW 16 lmmokalee Road East Force Main - Phases I and 2 hnmokalee Road and CR951 to proposed Orange Tree WRF. This force main to be constructed with hnmokalee Road widening scheduled to start in FY'03. Study, design and construction ora new 16-inch force main from Master Pumping Station 3.05 to 413/GD WWI 8 Upgrade Existing 12" Force Main Master Pump Station 3.09 (opgrading existing 12" force main). Collier VWV CIP Descriptions.xls Page 1 of 3 09/28/2001 TABLE 7-1 . Fund/Type Project No. Project Name Description (A) Study, design yard consm~ction of a new 6-inch force main from Master Pmnping Station 145.00 to 413/GD WW 19 Upgrade Existing 4" Force Main Airport-Pulling Road (upgrading existing 4" force main). Study, design and construction of new 16" force main parallel to existing 12" lmmokalee Road 413/GD WW20 New 16" Immokalee Road Force Main Force Main from Master Pump Station 107.00 to CR 951. Existing Wastewater 414 Projects 414/R,R&E 70027 Clean Water Act Risk Mgt Study Cleau Water Act Risk Manage~neut Study for Wastewater. Goodlette-Frank Road Four Laning hnprovements (Jct. Pine Ridge Road to Jct. Vauderbilt Beach 414/R,R&E 73028 Goodlette Rd FM Road) Relocate 12,500 LF of 16" FM and 4,400 LF of 24" FM as pan of road wideuing project 60134 Creating a set of system maps for the water and wastewater depm~:meuts to be utilized for location o all facilities. The maps will be utilized in emergency situations and as a reference for local 414/R.,R&E 73032 Sewer System Mapping engineers requesting infom~ation au our wastexvater system. Additionally, the maps will be utilized by the PWED Section iu planning for fitture expansion of our system to keep up with auticipated growth. 414/R,R&E 73045 FDOT Joint Prjts Contingency fnnd for the relocatioo of sewer mains from various FDOT projects. Relocate sewer mains for FDOT consn'uction project. Poor record drawings and nnforseeu conditions delayed contractor & required additional work by additional crews. Additional inspector 414/R,R&E 73048 Relocate WM/FM US41 is required for additional crews. The portion of the Connty deposit that was previously refl~nded by FDOT will be redeposited to cover the additional work. 414/R,R&E 73050 Sewer Line Rehab Design and bid ~'enchless sewer rehabilitation for wastewater collections deparnnent. 414/R,R&E 73051 Pump/Lift Stations Rehab Prepare maz~ole and lift station rehabilitation annual contract bid documetus. Ranlesnake Hammock Rd. to Davis Blvd., Relocate sewer mains for road widening project. Road 414/R,R&E 73054 Cnty Barn Sewer Line Relocate project currently scheduled for FY 2006. Replace sus-standard wastewater collection systenr serving 4 streets off of Pon-au-Prince Road 414/R,R&E 73060 Port Au Prince Sewer pendiug identification of a fnnding source. Multi-year program to investigate and ilnplemeut odor and corrosion control improvements 414/R,R&E 73064 OdoffCorrosion control throughout the wastewater collection system. 414/R,R&E 73065 CCDOT Utility Relocates Relocation of utilities as may be needed given accelerated County road construction schedules. Addition of equipment at tbe NCWRF to accept septage from local haulers. Equipment will include 414/R,R&E 73067 NCWRF Septage receiving Station screens, grinders, odor control and automated record keeping. 414/R,R&E 73069 SCWRF Maintenance Building Expansion of the maitueuance building located at fl~e South County Water Reclamatiou Facility. Study and implement electrical upgrades to imrpove euergy efficiency at rite treatment plants and 414/R,R&E 73071 Energy Efficiency Enhancements larger pumping stations. Relocate sewer collectioo crews and equipment depot to a larger facility to accommodate growfl~. 414/R,R&E: 73072 New County Barn Proceeds ftom the sale of the existing facility at 6027 Shirley Street will be realized and will help offset the cost to relocate to a larger facility 414/R,R&E 73078 Henderson Creek Sewer Improvements To provide sewer service conuections to properties (M&E and B&I) South of Henderson Creek Rd. 414?R,R&E 73127 Sludge Master Plan and Short-Term Improvements Study of short-tern biosolids options, design of short-renu improvements aud cousm~ctiou. Work includes replacemaeut of Parkson screen, Flyght BFP Feed pumps, instrumeutat;ion for motor 414/R,R&E 73916 South Cnty Rog WWTP operated valves. Add telemetry to 530 of 650 remote lift stations and 13 master lift stations over five years staniug 414/R,R&E 73922 Telemetry FY02. luvestigation of existing 30" FM. This FM ',vas recently supplemented with a second 30" FM. 414/R,R&E 73943 30" Immokalee Road FM Work iucludes investigaion of older 30~ FM and design and construction of repairs. The ptupose of this project is the updating of the billing system software currently utilized by the Dept. of Revenue for Water and WW accounts. The current software does not have report writing 414/R,R&E 73944 Billing System or generation capabilities. Additionallly, the software is outdated for the number of customers that Collier County has and will continue to gain. This project is a continuation of CIE 916 SCWRF Expansion originally envisioned nnder Project 73916. A portion of the improvemeuts planned under this project were budgeted ia FY00 uuder 414/R,R&E 73949 SCWR~ Expansion 2001 Fund 413 - Project 73916. An eng. Study was performed in FYO0 uuder Project 73916 which identified improvements needed to increase plant capacity and reliability. This project will allow the Connty to take over service to wastewater customers in the County now 414/R,R&E 73xx7 Take Package Plants Off-Line (4) served by package treatment plants. 414/R,R&E 74011 South Rog Storage Ponds Rehabilitaion of storage ponds at SCWRF. 414/R,R&E TBA City Permanent Inter-connect Forcemain inter-connect with City of Naples 414/R,R&E TBA BSU Inter-connect Forcemain inter-connect with Bonita Springs Utilities 414/R,R&E TBA Special Assessment Software Software package to assist with special assessments. New Wastewater 414 Projects Provide sewer system l&l analysis and field investigation as recommended iu the South Collier 414/R,R&E WW2 South County I&I Analysis County Regional WRF Design Report (June 2001). Goal is to reduce wet weather flows to the SCWRF. 414/R,R&E ' WW3 Asset Management Assistance Provide assistance ia management of the Couuty's utility assets. Collier V',NV CIP Descriptions.xls Page 2 of 3 09/2812001 TABLE 7-1 . ,* Fund/Type Project No. Project Name Description (A) ~ ~ Study, design and decotmnissioning of Pelican Bay WRF. 414/R,R&E WWI4 Decommssioning of Pelican Bay WRF ~ -~ Study, Design and construction for replacement force maius and pumping station improvements to 414/R,R&E WW 17 Rookery Bay Transmission System eliminate Henderson Creek force main crossing aud direct llow to Master PS 3. lg ~ -~ RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS Existing Reclaimed Water 413 Projects Install back presssure sustaining valves at all reclainred water meter asseorblies to create pressure on 413/GD 74020 Back Pressure Sustaining Valves demand system. Study, design nod construction of system to extract surface water for meetiug peak in'igatiou 413/GD 74021 Golden Gate Canal Supplemental Water System demands. Update effluent management portion of countywide wastewater master plan every two years as 413/GD 74029 Effluent Mgt Master Plan Update recommended ia the Countywide WW master plan (a.k.a. 201 Facilities Plan Update) as adopted by the BCC July 22, 97. Design, permit and construct orie ASR test well iuitially, then constnlct up to seveu ASR wells for the puq~ose of injecting surplus reclaimed water during offpeaks and retrieviug same daring peak 413/GD 74030 ASR Reclaimed Water Wells demand times for sales to reuse customers. Also iucludes mouitor wells piping pumps and telemetry. Consm~ct 20" reclaimed water main along Vanderbilt Beach Road frorn Airport Road to Village 413/GD ~4034 Vanderbilt Bch Reclaim WM 20" Walk Circle to iucrease flows to tbe N/S interconnect, the iujection wells and customers east of 1-75. Construct 16" reclaimed water main along Radio Road and Sauta Barbara Blvd. From Foxfire to 413/GD 74035 Radio Rd/Santa Barbara Blvd. 16" Reclamed WM Countryside to increase flows to N/S iuterconnect. A possible alternate route is aloog the FPL easement betweeu Davis Blvd. & Radio Rd. Construct 20" reclaimed water main along Radio Road from Briarwood to Foxfire as part of N/S iutercoanect. No contractor bas yet beet's selected as the desiga ',vas just completed and a 413/GD 74036 Radio Rd 20" Rcl WM construction easetnent is required. The project will only be constructed uext year in FY01 aud $209,000 budgeted in FY00 is being moved to FY01. In addition, another $42000 is requested because of increase in material cost. New Reclaimed Water 413 Projects Study, design, and constructioa of booster ps recommended in Water Resource Planning Report, 413/GD RW 1 ~eclaimed Water Booster PS - North SA Augnst 2001. Study, design, and consm~ction of reclaimed water line recommended in Water Resource Plamfing 413/GD RW2 Interconnect to South SA - 20" Reclaimed WM Report, Angust 2001. Study, design, and construction of reclaimed water line recommended in Water Resource Planning 413/GD RW3 Interconnect to North SA - 20" Reclaimed WM Report, August 2001. ~ Existing Reclaimed Water 413 Projects -~ Located on US 41 east trail across frmn Hitching Post. Close out 1995 settlement agreemeut and construction agreement. Initiate 1999 settlement agreement to provide extended warrauties on the 414/R,R&E 74011 South Reg Storage Ponds success of the created wetlands and exotic vegetafiou erradication. 20" reclaimed water maiu from the Vineyards to Livingston Rd. and 8" main fi'om Liviogston Rd. to 414/R,R&E 74013 PR Rd Reclaim WM r~/s (2) Baron Collier High School. Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. to Davis Blvd., Relocate reclaimed water mains for raod widening 414/R,R&E 74019 Cnty Barn Rd Eft Line Relocate project. Road project currently scheduled for FY06. 414/K,R&'-----'--~ - 74021 Golden Gate Canal Supplemental Water System Initiation of plan to obtain supplemental irrigation water from tile canal. 414/R,R&E 74023 Pelican Bay Irrg Fire Conversion of Pelican Bay Fire protection system from reclaimed water to potable water. Goodlene-Frank Road Four Laning Improvements (Jet. Piae Ridge Road to Jct. Vanderbilt Beach 414/R,R&E 74028 Goodlette Rd Reclaim WM - Relocate Road) Relocate 4,400 LF of 20" effluent main as part of road widening project 60134. Repairs to reclaimed water storage tank includes repairs to wall cracks, construction joints and 414/R,R&E 74031 Rehab SCWRF Reclaimed Wtr Stg Tank expansion joints. Add telemetry to 31 reclaimed water user sites aud 7 raw water well sites. Tbern are 19 sites in 414/R,R&E 74033 Reclamed Water Telemetry North Service Area, 7 raw water wells, and 12 sites in the South Service area. -414/R,R&E 7403~ Pelican Bay Wells Add two new wells with vault, electrical instn,mentation and coutrols. Funds are to identify sources and implemetu a supplemental water supply to angment reclaimed 414/R,R&E 74125 Supplemental Irrigation Water water used for irrigation. Includes lmmokalee Rd Wellfield and Reclaimed Water Line. ~ ~~ Relocate irrigation tnain for US41 widening from old41 to County Line 414/R,R&E ~ US41 Irrigation Relocate - - Software 414/R R&"--'-'--'--'--ff' ~ ~ 09/28/2001 Page 3 of 3 Collier WW CIP Descriptions.xls 8 8 R ;~7 E 73079~' 74125 73074 174021 74036 7306g CIP PROJECT LOCA'nON 734.82 CIP PROJECT NUMBERS AND (SEE TABLES 7-1 WW18 AND 7-2) COLUER COUNTY GOVERMENT 2001 WAS'Il[WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE WASTEWATER AND RECLAIMED WATER CIP PROJECTS sEP~.~E. 20. FIGURE 7-1 I " ~' ~ I . i!~7 E I 8 Summary and Recommendations Collier County faces the challenges of providing wastewater services for a rapidly increasing number of customers. Population growth within the County from 1990 to 2000 was about 65 percent. The increase percentage within the County's sewer service area was even greater. The County needs to develop a clear vision to meet the needs of future customers. The County is responsible to provide wastewater service within the sewer and water service district, which is established by statute. However, additional areas of potential future growth have been identified outside of the present service area boundaries. These areas have been referred to as the "Rural Fringe". The County is seeking reasoned, orderly, and environmentally sound development of these areas. This 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update includes an exploration of how service could be provided to these areas in the future, if development were to occur. Population projections have been made using the 2000 Census as a base for all estimates. Analyses have shown that the County has grown more in the period between 1990 and 2000 than had been predicted in the mid-1990's, when the last master plan update was completed. The vision developed in this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update looked out as far as the buildout of the present and proposed urban area and suggests a five-plant alternative to serve the ultimate wastewater treatment needs of the area. The five plants would include the two existing wastewater treatment facilities that the County owns and operates and three additional plants located in the Rural Fringe. This concept is shown on Figure 6-3. By looking out to the ultimate configuration of the County infrastructure, intermediate goals can be developed consistent with the ultimate plan. The reach of this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update is 20 years. Thus, plans have been developed that will allow the County to meet its service need until 2021. A five- year and 20-year Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) have been suggested consistent with the plan. Recommendations of this 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update are summarized as follows: Wastewater Treatment a. Expand the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) to 30.6 mgd Maximum Month b. Expand the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) to 16.0 mgd Maximum Month c. Provide flow equalization at the NCWRF and SCWRF Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 57 of 61 09/28/2001 2 4 do go Add two deep injection wells at the NCWRF to provide a means of effluent disposal for excess or reject effluent water Add one deep injection well at the SCWRF to provide increased effluent disposal capacity Identify and purchase property in the Rural Fringe for additional treatment facilities Construct additional plants in the Rural Fringe, as dictated by development Continue to take existing package treatment plants off line Wastewater Collection and Transmission a. Provide an interconnection between the North and the South Service Areas b. Provide master lift stations and force mains to improve hydraulic capacity of system c. Increase capacity of several lift stations to meet service needs d. Continue infiltration and inflow program to reduce wet weather flows e. Interconnect existing service areas with proposed service areas to allow transfer of flows between basins and enhance reliability Biosolids a. Pursue contract with local compost facility operator to accept all of the County's dewatered biosolids (if specific agreement is not reached, pursue a private vendor through a request for proposals) Reclaimed Water a. Implement recommendations of g/astewater Resource Planning Report to: 1) Improve service to existing customers 2) Provide sources of irrigation water to supplement reclaimed water, including groundwater and surface water 3) Add additional customers as sufficient irrigation water is available 4) Pursue Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) for storage of irrigation water b. Interconnect the North and South Service Area reclaimed water system to enhance reliability c. Continue to implement plan to transfer fire flow service to the potable water system in the Pelican Bay area to improve reclaimed water system operability General a. Develop an on-site treatment plan to determine whether to extend service to areas served by septic tanks or if other on-site treatment enhancement programs should be implemented Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 58 of 61 09/28/2001 Prepare a decommissioning study for the Pelican Bay WRF and remove the plant from service, once capacity is available at the NCWRF Update the wastewater master plan at least every five years Master Plan Report092801.doc Page 59 of 61 09/28/2001 Appendix A Estimated Wastewater Flow per Pumping Station 09/28/2001 TABLE A-I COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBI,IC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOW (~ALCULATIONS GREELEY AND HANSEN SEPTERMBER 211111 North Service Area (including new service areas) Commercial Industrial Total area [ Population Population Population TAZ~ Area (SF) Area (SF) In acres Remarks : 1.01 0 C 0.0 0 C 0 0 0 0 :'2'01 869,504 (] 20.0 9.981 13,31,4 22,656 80 107 181 : : 3 0! 416,230 C 9.6 4,778 6,372 10,845 3B 51 87 : 40I 519,631 C 11.9 5.965 7,957 13,54(] 48 64 108 ~; = 5.01 90,205 99,065 4.3 2,173 2,89E 4,932 17 23 39 : $.01 0 1.755,334 40.3 19,141 25,53,4 43,45(] 153 204 348 Currently at 95% buildout 7.0 0 5,829.99~ 133.8 43,497 58,02E 98,739 348 464 790 Currently at 65% Buitdout 8,0 704,767 £ 16.2 8,090 10,792 18,363 65 86 147 :; '9.0 0 C 0.0 0 0 (] 0 0 0 i : I0~0: 900,271 C 20.7 10,334 13,785 23,457 83 110 188 1t.0i 0 C 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.0 0 C 0.0 0 0 C 0 0 0 t3.0; 1,379,701 £ 31.7 15,837 21,126 35,95C 127 169 288 14.0 1,881,158 C 43.2 21,593 28,805 49,015 173 230 392 1,331,209 4.574,175 135.6 27,114 36.170 61,54~] 217 289 492 Currently at 40% Buildoul :i6,0 0 0.0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 :i 310,718 7.1 3,567 4,758 8,096 29 38 65 ;;;: o o.o o o c (] o o 0.0 0 0 C 0 0 0 .: t9,0 0 0.0 0 0 C 0 0 0 ' 20.0 0 O.0 0 0 C (] 0 0 21;0 0 0.0 0 0 C 0 0 0 :; ; ::;22.0 0 0.0 0 0 C (] 0 0 :; 2,~0l 0 C 0.0 0 C (] (] 0 0 24.( 1,301,351 C 29.9 14,937 19,927 33,908 119 159 271 2~LOi 1,633,281 C 37.5 18,747 25,009' 42,557 150 200 340 26.0 526,206 C 12.1 6,040 8,057 13.711 46 64 110 : 27.0 156,609 C 3.6 1,798 2,398 4,081 14 19 33 :; 455,015 C 10.4 5,223 6,967 11,856 42 56 95 2~;0 1,621,948 37.2 18,617 24,836 42,262 149 199 338 = 30;0 1.724,999 39.6 19,800 26,414 44,947 158 211 360 449,608 10.3 5,161 6.884 11,715 41 55 94 32~0 0 0.0 0 O C (] 0 0 '; 33;0 569,125 O! 13.1 6,533 8,715 14,825 52 70 119 : 34.0 1,758,179 O: 40.4 20.181 26.922 45,811! 161 215 366 ::35;0 2,117,212 1,680,296 87.2 43,589 56,148 98.948: 349 465 792 $6,0 1,326,928 0 30.5 15,231 20,318 34,574 122 163 277 37,0 1,850,010 0 42.5 21,235 28,328 48,204 17C 227 386 38.0 2,401,901 0 55.1 27,570 36,778 62,584 221 294 501 1,316,154 182,171 34.4 17,198 22,943 39,040 136 184 312 40.0 0 0 0.o 0 0 0 C O 0 4t~0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 C 0 0 280,011 0 6.4 3,214 4,288 7,296 26 34 58 :: 48.0 755,883 0 17.4 8,676 11,574 19,695 69 93 158 :,44.0 1,513,520 0 34.7 17,373 23,175 39,436 139 185 315 48.0 276,133 0 6.3 3,170 4,228 7,195 25 34 58 4~.0 3,969,9.34 3,975,408 182.4 91,200 121,661 207,024 730 973 1,656 ~47.0 777,425 0 17.8 8,924 11,904 20,257 71 95 162 48;0 (] 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 C 0 49,0 (] 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 C C SO,O 685,413 0 15.7 7,867 10.495 17,859 63 84 143 C 0 0.(] 0 0 0 0 C C ;!, , 5~0 605,118 0 13.g 6,946 9.266 15,767 56 74 126 1,985,302 0 45.6 22,788 30,399 51,729 182 24`. 414 789,162 0 18.1 9,058 12,084 20,562 72 97 164 , i~ 5~.0 C 0 O.C 0 0 0 0 C 1,376,095 0 31.6 15,795 21,071 35,856 126 16E 287 $?.(3 1,268,357 0 29.1 14,55§ 19.421 33,048 116 15E 264 56,0 Oj 0 0.01 (] 0 0 0 C (] f19.O C 0 o.oJ 0 0 0 0 C 0 59.1 C 0 0.0l 0 0 0 0 6 O 60.0 C 0 0.0! O 0 0 0 C (] C 0 0,0] 0 0 0 0 O] (] 62.0 C 0 0.0 O 0 0 0 0 C kS.I} 2,384,47.' 0 54.7 27,37(] 36,512 62,130 219 292 497 63.1 C 0 0.0 a 0 0 0 0 C 64,0 477.27; 0 11.0 5,47i~ 7,308 12,436 44 58 99J 68~ 10,827,837 17,456,445 649.3 259,727 346,476 589,581 2,078 2,772 4,717~ Currently at 80% buildou6 1,174.23~ 0 27.0 13,478 17,980 30,596 108 144 245! , 1.358,857 0 31.2 15,598 20,807 35,406 125 166 283~ 00.~ 1,926,701 0 44.2 22,115 29,502 50,202 177 236 402; $$.1 0 0 0.0 C 0 0 0 0 01 0~.(3 0 0 0.0 C 0 0 0 0 O: ; 70.1] 0 0 0,0 C 0 0 0 0 0 71,C 0 0 0,0 C 0 0 0 0 O: 73.C 0 0 0.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 : : ,~.74;C 0 0 0,0 C 0 0 0 0 O: 79.C 0 0 0.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 75.~ 0 0 0.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 , 7~.10 0 0 0,0 C 0 0 0 0 0: 1,237,667 0 28.4 141206 18,951 32,249 114 152 258: 79,~ 485,488 11.1 5,57`. 7,434 12,650 45 59 101: 79.1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 OJ 80.~ 429,501 0 9.9 4,93C 6,577 11,191 39 53 901 ~: i'iS'Lc o o o.o el o o o o mi., o o o.o el o o o o c 66.0] 0 0 0.00J 0 0 0 0 C 07.0! 4,533,705 104.1 52,04C 69,421 118,130 416 555 945 ~ 0 o 0.0 C 0 0 0 o~ ~8;0 6111665 (] 15,4 7,71C 10,285 17,501 62 821 14C ~9.0 0 (] 0.O C 0 0 0 O ; 870,252 (] 20.0 9,98.c 13,325 22,675 80 107 181 91.0 2,310,892 O 53.1 26,525 35,385 60,213 212 282 482 :95.0 0 (] 0.0 0 0 0 0 C 0 96.0 0 C 0.0 0 0 0 0 C 0 97..0 1,892,754 (] 38.9 19,430 25.920 44,106 155 207 353 98.0 1,385,726 0 31.8 15,906 21,219 36,106 127 176 289 99.0 658,295 0 15.1 7,556 10.080 17,153 60 -- 81 137 172,839 0 4.0 1,984 2,647 4.504 16 21' 36 :~ 103.0 0 O 0.0 C 0 0 0 C 0 ,t'0.$.0 833,320 O 19.1 9,565 12,760 21,713 77 102 174 106.0 0 (] 0.0 Oi 0 0 0 6 0 107',0 0 O 0.0 0 0 0 0 C 0 lSO.O 0 O 0.0 Ol 0 0 0 C 0 : 181.0 0 O 0.00j 0 0 0 C 0 19t.0 1,874,957 0 43.0 21,5221 28,710 48,854 172 23C 391 t91.2 0 O 0.0 6 0 0 0 C O '!' i 191.3 0 d 0.0 C 0 0 0 O 198.0 0 (] 0.0 C 0 0 0 C 0 ' 200.0 0 0 0.0 6 0 0 0 C 0 Total 1,772 816 2,588 1.164.202 1,553,045 2,642.738 NonResidential flow calc I of 2 9/2 l/(ll TABLE A-1 (Cont.) South Service Area (includin~ new service areas) ITotal area Commercial Industrial 2000 Wastewater Flow 2006 Wastewater Flow 21121 Wastewater Flow 2000 Equivalent 2006 Equivalent 2021 Equivalent TAZtt Area (SF) Area (SF)[ In acres ] (gpd) (gpd) lgpd) Population Population Population Remarks 112.0 275,612 4,895,799118.7 59,36C 78,948 134,153 742 987 1,677 1t0`0 3,093,465 21,488,959 564.3 282,167 282,167 282,167 3,527 3,527 3,527 CurrenU~/at 100% buildout 't16.8 731,123 2,683,971 78.4 39,20(; 52,136 88,592 490 652 1,107 1t7,{~ 1,101,524 0 25.3 12,644 16,816 28,575 158 210 357 ; ;: tl 6~0 0 0 0.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 116.8 0 0 0.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 ' , 120.0 752,231 0 17.3 8,634 11,484 19,514 108 144 244 · :t21;0 1,040,960 0 23.9 11,94~ 15,892 27,004 149 199 338 123,0 3,272,051 737,874 92.1 6~904 34,521 46,028 86 432 575 CurrenU¥ al 15% Buildout 123;0 1,818,488 10,573,795 422.2 21,111 158,336 211,114 264 L979 2,639 CurrenU¥ at 10% Buildoul : ; 1~,0 2,277,701 2,003,784 98.3 7,37-~ 36,858 49,145 92 461 614 Currenllyat 15% Buddoul ~ 1~.13 2,349,163 0 53.9 26,965 35,863 60,940 337 448 762 127.0 3,292,929 2,051,859 122.7 61,35(2 81,595 138,650 767 1,020 1,733 t2~0 0 0 0.0 C O 0 0 0 0 ~29.0 342,623 0 7.9 3,932 5,231 8,688 49 65 111 2,014,027 0 46.2 23,116 30,747 52,246 289 384 653 151,0 2,575,992 1,404,710 91.4 45,692 60,771 103,264 571 760 1,291 ;, 607,655 0 13.9 6,97~ 9,277 15,763 87 116 197 'J35i0 4,634,701 0 106.4 53,19E 70,755 120,230 665 884 1,503 4,145,597 0 95.2 47,585 63,288 107,542 595 791 1,344 1ST JO 458,840 0 10.5 5,267 7,005 11,903 66 88 149 t~1.0 691,277 0 15.9 7,936 10,553 17,933 99 132 224 ; 13,:0 0 0 0.0 C a o o o o t40.0 2,204,632 0 50.6 25,306 33,657 57,191 316 421 715 141.0 0 0 0.0 C O 0 0 0 0 ~142.0 0 0 0.0 C O 0 0 0 0 ; 1'~3.0 757,193 17.4 6,691 11,560 19,643 109 144 246 144.0 5,206,009 0 119.5 59,757 79,476 135,050 747 993 1,688 t45.0 937,617 0 21.5 10,76;= 14,314 24,323 135 179 304 14~0 47,422 0 1.1 544 724 1,230 7 9 15 147;0 0 0 0.0 C [3 0 0 0 0 1~,0 429,078 0 9.9 4,925 6,550 11,131 62 82 139 0 0 0.0 C O 0 0 0 0 150.0 6,572,952 0 150.~ 75,447 100,345 170,510 943 1,254 2,131 18;1.0 854,074 0 19.6 9,803 13,039 22,156 123 163 277 :::! t52;'0 1,530,90{~ 0 35.1 17,572 23,371 39,714 220 292 496 1~;0 466,887 0 10.7 5,35~c 7,128 12,112 67 89 151 154.0 2,355,702 0 54.1 27,04C 35,963 61,110 33'8 450 764 i :,16600 2,344,356 0 53.8 26,91(; 35,790 60,615 336 447 760 7,274,733 0 167.0 83,502 111,058 188,716 1,044 1,388 2,359 · t{~?*0 2,329,649 0 53.5 26,741 35,565 60,434 334 445 755 · ~ 1fi7~3 0 0 0.0 C {3 0 0 0 0 '1~!.0 3,722,710 0 85.5 42,731 56,832 96.572 534 710 1,207 1~;~ 1,277,126 0 29.3 14,65c. 19,497 33,130 183 244 414 : I~,0 634,608 0 14.6 7,284 9,688 16,463 91 121 206 161.0 0 0 0.0 C C 0 0 0 0 1614 0 0 0.0 C G 0 0 0 0 ' 1~-,8 1,101,757 O 25.3 12,64~ 16,82C 28,581 158 210 357 163~8 737,214 0 16.9 8,46; 11,255 19,124 106 141 239 ;;: 1634 0 0 0.0 C C O 0 0 0 i: t~.8 0 0 0.0 C (] 0 0 0 0 165;0 0 0 0,0 C C 0 0 0 0 16E 661,024 105,809 17.6 8,802 11,707 19,893 110 146 249 ;; 16'ii 895,540 20.6 10,27c. 13,672 23,231 128 171 290 16,E 1,106,250 25.4 12,698! 16.888 28,697 159 211 359 16~ 0.0 Oj C 0 0 0 0 174 0.0 Oi C 0 0 0 0 187.~ ? '~ 0.0 O' C 0 0 0 0 "i 11e0`o ? '~ o.o oJ c o o o o 1894 0 0 0.0 O{ C 0 0 0 0 1~1,3 0 0 0.0 0~ ~ C 0 0 0 0 190`~ 693,763 0 15.9 7,963J 10,591 17,997 100 132 225 t~0 0 0 0.0 oJ C 0 0 0 0 i~i: le?;t o o o.o o: c o o o o Total 1,828 1,193 3,020 1,239,244 1,737,730 2,671,473 Total 2000 Non-Residential Flow for the North and South Service Areas (in gpd) = Total 2006 Non-Residential Flow for the North and South Service Areas (in gpd) = Total 2021 Non-Residential Flow for the North and South Service Areas (in gpd) = Z,403,44h 3,290,775 5~14,211 NonResidential flow calc 2 of 2 Z Z 0 0 0 Appendix B Population and Wastewater Flow Projections 09/28/2001 TABLE B-1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Range of Wastewater Flow Projections Based on October 1 Permanent Populations for Each Year Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 YEAR AREA 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 TOTAL POPULATIONS BY AREA Conservative Growth Estimate (From Table 5-6) Sewered North 61,964 88,253 102,862 120,387 137,912 155,438 172,963 Unsewered North: Other 5,268 9,926 13,042 16,820 20,599 24,377: 28,156 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 9,913 10,114 10,316 10,517 10,718 10,919 11,120 Golden Gate City 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 Orange Tree 3,618 5,148 6,679 8,209 9,739 11,270 12,800 Sewered South 64,829 88,942 109,668 127,687 145,705 163,724 181,742 Unsewered South 2,893 3,969 4,893 5,697 6,501 7,305 8,109 Area A 0 0 1,745 3,489 5,234 6,979 8,723 Area B 0 0 2,238 4,477 6,715 8,954 11,192 Area C 0 0 3,762 7,524 11,285 l 5,047 18,8091 Area D 0 0 2,970 5,939 8,909 11,878 14,848 Total Conservative Growth Estimate 169,436 227,303 279,125 331,697 384,269 436,841 489,413 vloderate Growth Estimate (From Table 5-6) Sewered North 61,964 76,219 92,637 110,664 130,329 151,197 172,963 Unsewered North: Other 5,268 7,193 10,720 14,612 18,877 23,414 28,156 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 9,913 10,114 10,316 10,517 10,718 10,919 11,120 Golden Gate City 20,951 20,951 20,95 20,95 l 20,951 20,951 20,95 Orange Tree 3,618 3,996 4,375 4,753 5,13 5,510 5,888 Sewered South 64,829 80,088 97,339 116,281 136,944 158,871 181,742 Unsewered South 2,893 3,574 4,343 5,189 6,110 7,089 8,109 Area A 0' 0 872 1,745 2,617 3,489 4,362 AreaB 0 0 1,119 2,238 3,358 4,477 5,596 Area C 0 0 1,881 3,762 5,643 7,524 9,404 Area D 0 0 1,485 2,970 4,454 5,939 7,424 Total Average Growth Estimate 169,436 202,136 246,037 293,681 345,131 399,379 455,715 SEWERED POPULATIONS BY AREA Conservative Growth Estimate Sexvered North 61,964 88,253 102,862 120,387 137,912 155,438 172,963 Unsewered North: Other 0 0 5,631 11,262 16,893 22,524~ 28,156 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 0 0 2,224 4,448 6,672 8,896 11,120 Golden Gate City 0 0 4,190 8,380 12,571 16,761 20,951 Orange Tree 0[ 5,148 6,679 8,209 9,739 11,270 12,800 Sewered South 64,829 88,942 109,668 127,687 145,705 163,724 181,742 FlowCharts092601.xls - Table 6-2 I of 4 09/27/2001 Unse~vered South 0 0 1,622 3,244 4,866 6,488 8,109 Area A 0 0 1,745 3,489 5,234 6,979 8,723 AreaB 0 0 2,238 4,477i 6,715 8,954 11,192 Area C 0 0 3,762 7,524 11,285 15,047 18,809 Area D 0 0 2,970 5,939 8,909 11,878 14,848 Total Conservative Growth Estimate 126,793 182,343 243,591 305,046 366,502 427,957 489,413 Moderate Growth Estimate Sewered North 61,964 76,219 92,637 110,664 130,329 151,197 172,963 Unsewered North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 0 0 0 0 0i 0 0 Golden Gate City 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 Orange Tree 0 0 4,3751 4,753 5,131 5,510 5,888 Sewered South 64,829 80,088 97,339 116,281 136,944 158,871 181,742 Unsewered South 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Area A 0 0 872 1,745 2,617 3,489 4,362 Area B 0 0 1,I 19 2,238 3,358 4,477 5,596 Area C 0 0 1,881 3,762 5,643 7,524 9,404 Area D 0 0 1,485 2,970 4,454 5,939 7,424 Total Moderate Growth Estimate 126,793 156,307i 199,708 242,413 288,475 337,006, 387,379 SEWERED WASTEWATER FLOW BY AREA Unit Flow (gpcd) Conservative Growth Estimate Average Annual Flows ~ mgd Sewered North 145 8.98 12.80 14.9l 17.46 20.00 22.54 25.08 Unsewered North: Other 145 0.00 0.00 0.82 1.63 2.45 3.27 4.08 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 145 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.64 0.97 1.29 1.61 Golden Gate City 120 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.01 1.51 2.01 2.51 Orange Tree 120 0.00 0.62 0.80 0.99 1.17 1.35 1.54i Sewered South 100 6.48 8.89 10.97i 12.77 14.57 16.37 18.17 Unse~vered South 100 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.32 0.49 0.65 0.81 Area A 120' 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.42 0.63 0.84 1.05 Area B 120 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.54 0.81 1.07 1.34 Area C 120 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.90 1.35 1.81 2.26 %rea D 120 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.71 1.07 1.43 1.78 Total Conservative Growth Estimate 15.47 22.31 29.77 37.39 45.01 52.62 60.24 ~loderate Growth Estimate Average Annual Flows - mgd Sewered North 145 8.98 11.05 13.43 16.05 18.90 21.92 25.08 Unsewered North 145 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 145 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden Gate City 120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Orange Tree 120 0.00' 0.00 0.52 0.57 0.62 0.66 0.71 Sexvered South 100 6.48 8.01 9.73 11.63 13.69 15.89 18.17 Unsewered South 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00' Area A 120 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.21 0.31 0.42 0.52 Area B 120 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.27 0.40 0.54 0.67 Area C 120 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.45 0.68 0.90 1.13 Area D 120 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.36 0.53 0.71 0.89 Total Moderate Growth Estimate 15.47 19.06 24.33 29.53 35.14 41.041 47.17 SEWERED WASTEWATER FLOW BY AREA Unit Flow (gpcd) FlowCharts092601.xls - Table 6-2 2 of 4 09/27/2001 lligh Growth Estimate Maximum Month Flows - mgd Se,voted North 189 11.68 16.64! 19.39 22.69 26.00 29.30 32.60 Unsewcred North: Other 189 0.00 0.00 1.06 2.121 3.18 4.25! 5.31 Unsewcred: Golden Gate Estates 189 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.84 1.26 1.68 2.10 Golden Gate City 156 0.00 0.00 0.65 1.31 1.96 2.61 3.27 Orange Tree - 156 0.00 0.80 1.04 1.28 1.52 1.76 2.00 Sewered South 130 8.43 11.56 14.26 16.60 18.94 21.28 23.63 Unscwered South 130 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.42 0.63 0.84 1.05 Area A 156 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.54 0.82 1.09 1.36 Area B 156 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.70 1.05 1.40 1.751 AreaC 156 0.00 0.00 0.59' 1.17 1.76! 2.35 2.93 Area D 156 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.93 1.39 1.85 2.32 Total Conservative Growth Estimate 20.11 29.00 38.70 48.61 58.51 68.41 78.31 Moderate Growth Estimate Maximum Month Flows - mgd Sewered North 189 11.68 14.37 17.46 20.86 24.57 28.50 32.60 Unsewered North 189 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 189 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden Gate City 156 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Orange Tree 156 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.74 0.80 0.86 0.92 Sewered South 130 8.43 10.41 12.65 15.12 17.80 20.65 23.63 Unsewered South 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area A 156 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.27 0.41 0.54 0.68 Area B 156 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.35 0.521 0.70 0.87 Area C 156~ 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.59 0.88 1.17 1.47 Area D 156 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.46 0.69 0.93 1.16 Total Moderate Growth Estimate 20.11 24.78 31.63 38.39 45.68 53.36 61.33 SEWERED WASTEWATER FLOW BY WRF Conservative Growth Estimate Maximum Month Flows - mgd NCWRF Sewered North 11.68 16.64 19.39 22.69 26.00 26.35 25.29 Unsewered North: Other 0.00 0.00 1.06 2.12 3.18 4.25 5.31 Total NCWRF 11.68 16.64 20.45 24.82 29.18 30.60 30.60 Northeast WRF Sewered North 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.95 7.3 I. Unsewered North: Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.44 0.59 0,74 Orange Tree 0.00 0.80 1.04 1.28 1.52 1.76 2.00 Area A 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.54 0.82 1.09 1.36 Area B 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.70 1.05 1.40 1.75 Total Northeast WRF 0.00 0.80 1.81 2.82 3.83 7.79' 13.15 East Central WRF Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.59 0.79 0.99 Golden Gate City 0.00 0.00 0.65 1.31 1.96 2.61 3.27 Sewered and Unsewered South 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.76 2.02 2.29 2.55 Area C 0.00 0.00 0.59 1.17 1.76 2.35 2.93 Total East Central WRF 0.00 0.00 2.93 4.64 6.34 8.04 9.74 Southeast WRF Sewered and Unsewered South 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 3.84 6.13 Area D 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.93 1.39 1.85 2.32 FlowCharts092601.xls - Table 6-2 3 of 4 09/27/2001 Total Southeast WRF 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.93 2.94 5.69 8.45 SCWRF Sexvered and Unsewered South 8.43 11.56 12.97 15.26 16.00 16.00 16.00 Total SCWRF SEWERED WASTEWATER FLO~V BY %VRF ~vloderate Growth Estimate Maximum Month Flows - mgd NCWRF Sewered North 11.68 14,37 17.46 20.86 24.57 28.50 30.60 Unse~vered North: Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NCWRF 11.68 14.37 17.46 20.86 24.57 28.50 30.60 Northeast WRF Sewered North 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Unsewered North: Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Orange Tree 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.28 1.52 !.76 2.00 Area A 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.27 0.41 0.54 0.68 Area B 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.35 0.52 0.70 0.87 Total Northeast WRF 0.00 0.00 1.35 1.90 2.45 3.00 5.55 East Central WRF Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden Gate City 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Sewered and Unsewered South 0.00 0.00 1.31 1.56 1.84 2.14 2.44 Area C 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.59 0.88 1.17 1.47 Total East Central WRF 0.00 0.00 1.60 2.15 2.72 3.31 3.91 Southeast WRF ~Sewered and Unsewered South 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 5.18 Area D 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.46 0.69 0.93 I. 16 Total Southeast WRF 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.46 0.69 3.45 6.34 SCWRF Sewered and Unsewered South 8.43 10.41 11.35 13.55 15.96 16.00 16.00 Total SCWRF FlowCharts092601.xls - Table 6-2 4 of 4 09/27/2001 TABLE B-2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Permanent Population Estimates for October 1 for Areas with Sewer Service Greeley and Hansen LLP September 2001 YEAR Source or Condition 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Conservative (October) 126,793 137,903 149,013 160,123 171,233 182,343 193,453 204,563 Moderate (October) 126,793 135,647 141,550 147,453 153,356 156,307 169,327 178,007 County Planning (October) 126,793 137,133 147,215 157,987 169,497 178,194 183,786 189,554 201 Facilities Plan (1997) 110,855 114,292 117,730 121,167 124,605 128,042 lource or Condition 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2onservative(October) 215,674 243,591 254,701 265,811 276,921 288,031 305,046 186,687 199,708 212,519 221,060 229,601 238,142 242,413 207,693 213,663 219,797 226,098 232,573 Moderate (October) County Planning (October) 195,502 2009 226,784 195,367 201,635 No estimate after 2005. 201 Facilities Plan (1997) Source or Condition 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2023 Conservative (October) Moderate (October) County Planning (October) 201 Facilities Plan (1997) 316,156 256,231 327,266 265,444 338,376 274,656 349,486 283,869 366,502 288,475 377,612 303,035 2022 388,722 312,741 No estimate after 2014. 399,832 322,447 Source or Condition 2024 ] 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Conservative (October) 410,942 427,957 439,068 450,178 461,288 472,398 489,413 Moderate (October) 332,153 337,006 352,118 362,193 372,267 382,342 387,379 County Planning (October) 201 Facilities Plan (1997) FlowChartsO92601.xls 09/27/2001 ~2B ((IDIAI) SAkO~I~I ~I~LV~A~LLSVA~ HJ~NIOI~ IA~flI~IXVIAI ~2B I I ((IDIAI) A~_O~ld It';J~LVA~';A~L~3VA~ H~LMOIA! I~EIINIXVI~ Z < ((IDIAI) ~AO~Id H~LLV~A~LSVA~ H~LgOIAI IA~flI~IXVI~I \ I (((IDIA~) AXOrI~l ~I~I£VAX~IJ~SVAk HJ~NOIAI IA~IIAIIXVIN 0 ~ o~ i]ll ~D ((I~)IAI) A~Oqd H~t,LVA~tlSVAA H&NIOIAI IAIfllAIIXVIAI c~ ('--,1 oo 33" X 46" EXISTING WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS DRAWING BY GREELEY AND HANSEN LLP, DATED SEPTEMBER, 2001, ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 2B MAP OF: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2001 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE- EXISTING WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON MICROFILM IN THE CLERK TO THE BOARD MINUTES & RECORDS DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 r~ r~ ~ r- 0 C~ ~mmmmmmmmm ' 2B '~ POPULATION 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ~2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 MAXIMUM MONTH WASTEWATg.M FLOWS (MGD) L,O ! I2B ~ MAXIMUM MONTH WAS~IEWAIER FLOWS (MGD) MAXIMUM MONTH WASTEWATER FLOWS (MGD) I ' ~:z~: Om © ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND (MGD) / PROPOSED CAPACITY (MGD) 2°°11 ~ ! ~o.- _~ ~ ~ 2004 - -~- ~ 7: ~ ~o.' '4 [ ~ ~ 2006 ~~ ~ ~ ~oo~ ~5 ~ 2009 ~o~o ~ ~ 2012 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 202l r r = ~ m z ~ > z z ~< z O~ Zm cnZ CF-- m'-~ ZZ mz Z Budget (1000 dollars) v ::3 m IT! '~ ~o :a m o m~ ~ m --I ITl III O~o % IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIII mm Nmm! mmNm mini mmm mmm~ mmml m mintoN! mmmm mmmm mmmm NNNN mmmm NNNNm mmmmm mmmmmm rtl X ~2B ~ 1'2B '2B mm I'D ~ 0 mm mml 2B ~ I'll X "0 m X ~ ff') W~k~EAS, the DISTInCT.has approved and ~dopted the County' Sewer Master plan; and South Wh~%S, said Master' Plan involves proposed c~nstruction of South County Ragio~al Waste~ater Facilities, including wastewater collection, transmission, treatment a~d effluent distribution syst~; and W~, the DI~-r~CT has ~d~ application for Fiscal Year 1987 funding assistance for these · facilities under t=he United States Environmental Protection A~ency/~lorida Department of Envir onm~ntal P~gulat ion (US EPA/~) Cu~struction Grants Program; and W~EREAS, USEPA/FDER funding assistance is partially contingent upon the DISTRICT prc~iding c~rtification, ~ia long-te~m agree=ents, that sites~ are available fo~ spray implementing the delivery system. This A~re~n=nt shall be . ~enew~d ~utcmatically for successive fiv~ (5) year terms at the end of the initial twenty (20) year term unless terminated by either party with 180 days written notice prior to expiration of the twenty {20) year term or any successive five (5) year term provided herein. Section 10 CHA~ES AND RELATED CONMIDERkTIO~S The DISTRICT spinal take fu~l responsibility for the design, construction, permitting, financing of all cc~ts and placing in ' operation the ef~luent delivery system up to t_he ~Drbrf OF DEL/VE~f. The DISTRICT shall bear all cost~ of operation and maintenanc~ of the effluent system up to the POINT OF DEL/VE~f. The DISTRICT shall take full responsibility for all costs of the groundwater ~nitoring plan ~'stipulated by t-he applicable state and/or federal permitting agencies for operation of both the DIS/%RICT and t~ER portions of the effluent irrigation For furm/mhing of the effluent the DISTRICT shall charge and USER shall pay a rate of .~':~2 per thousand gallons of effluent delivered. Said rate per thousand gallon charge shall be in effect for a fi~e (5) year periO~ c~n~in~' at the time · DISTRICT begins 'delivery. It is' anticipated, but not warranted, that said deli~ry will begin in mid -1990. The DISTRICT shall ~ave the authority and right for the sixth (6th) and succeeding years of the twenty (20) year A~reement to charge USER a rate per thousand gallons of effluent not to exceed the cost of production and delivery of sam~. It is anticipated, but not warranted, that said rate shall not exceed the rate then currently being charged by the City of Naples to the city's contract customers. The DISTRICT shall bill the USER bimonthly for the effluent delivered by DISTRICT. The USER shall make payment to the DISTP/CT within thirty (30) days of the date of the bimonthly statement. Section 11 The USER shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if the DISTRICT fails to deliver effluent, Ex~--~t as pr0v'ided in Section 6, under~ the conditions described hereim. The USER shall have the right to sell, transfer or encumber the land in areas irrigated with the effluent and shall not be restricted from so doing by this Agreement, except that notice of any proposed sale or transfer ~3st be given to the DISTP~CT, 15 Table 8-28 Collier County Wastewater Resource Planning Report Existing Operation/Maintenance Costs by Cost Center Fiscal Year 200t IFu"d I CC~°~IS~r I Ob,act IDe=='ption Code J OPERATING REVENUES: 408 COUNTY WATER/SEWER OPERATING 210105 Utilities Administration 487210 Reimburse* Transportation 487300 Reimburse - Solid Waste 487320 Reimburse - Waier Mgr. 487350 Reimburse- Community Dev 210111 Utilities General Overhead 343340 City of Naples - Billing Services 13 343355 Utilities Cutoff Billing 4 359500 Utility Penagy - Past Due AC 4 361120 interest System Dev. Liens 2 369802 Reimburse for CY Exp 12 233312 Sewer System 343510 Sewer Revenue 2 343570 Sludge Treatment Revenue 2 343580 Reuse taigation 253212 Water System 343310 Water Revenue 1 343320 Meter Tapping Charge 1 343330 Water - Other Revenue 1 343354 Service Connection Fee 1 343375 Backflew Device thsta[lation 1 369807 Reimbursement for Meters 1 919010 489900 Negadve 5% of Estimated Revenue TOTAL REVENUES- Fund 408 % of Total Allocation Budget 12 $ 34,300 $ 2 62,700 1 4,500 12 23,600 12.000 100,000 150,000 3,500 23.000 23,410,200 74,000 3 500,000 19296100 630,000 120,000 33000 250,000 500,000 (2,261,300) $ 42,965,600 16,598 $ 15,714 $ 988 62,700 4,500 11,420 11,500 679 5,902 6,098 48,510 50,110 1,380 72,765 75,165 2,070 3,500 11,130 11,208 662 23,410,200 74,000 500,000 19,296100 630,000 120,000 33,000 250,000 500,000 (1,049,996) (1,186,060) (25,289) 19,949,929 $ 22,535,135 $ 480,490 ¢)PERATING BXPBNSFR 408 COUNTY WATEPJSEVVER OPERATING 210120 Wastewater Operations Admin 500000 Personal Services 2 112,700 600000 Operating Expense * Other 2 33,300 700000 Capital Out,ay 2 210125 Water Operations Admin 500000 Personal Services 1 125,400 600000 Operating Expense - Other 1 54,100 700000 Capital Outlay 1 233312 Sewer - NCVVRF 500000 Personal Services 5 1,127,900 634980 Operating Expense - LF Sludge 2 275,000 634999 Operating Expense ~ Contractual 2 130,000 643100 Operating Expense - Electricity 6 380,000 652310 Operabng Expense - ChemiCals 2 371,500 600000 Operating Expense - Other 7 295,300 700000 Capital Outlay 2 117,242 233313 Sewer - Reuse 500000 Personal Services 3 t71,300 634999 Operating Expense - Contractual 3 17,000 643100 Operating Expense - Etactricity 3 190000 600000 Oper,~ting Expense - Other 3 72,300 700000 Capital Outlay 3 10,500 233350 Wastewatar Lab 500000 Personal Services 2 243,200 634999 Operating Expense - Contractual 2 10.000 600000 Operating Expense - Other 7 49,300 700000 Capital OutJay 2 62500 233351 Sewer Collections 500000 Personal Services 5 2,139,300 634999 Qperating Expense - Contractual 2 140,000 643100 Operating Expense- Electricity 2 437,700 125,400 54,100 112,700 33,300 1,089,975 37,925 275,000 130,000 330,237 49,763 371,500 273,555 21,635 117,242 243200 10,000 27,665 62,500 2,121,602 140,000 437,700 171,300 17,000 190,000 72,300 10,500 2%635 17,698 Table 8-28 Collier County Wastewater Resource Planning Report Existing Operation/Maintenance Costs by Cost Center Fiscal Year 2001 A~location I Budget I Code FY2001 Water 652310 Operating Expense - Chemicals 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital Outlay 233352 Sewer - SCWRF 500000 Personal Services 634980 Operating Expense - LE Sludge 634699 Operating Expense - Contractual 643100 Operating Expense - Electricity 652310 Operating Expense - Chemicals 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital Outlay 253211 Water - 951 WTP 500000 Personal Services 634999 Operating Expense - Contractual 643100 Operating Expense- EIectdc~ty 652310 Operating Expense - Chemicals 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital Outlay Water Distribution 500000 Personal Services 634999 Operating Expense - Contractual 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital Outlay Water Operations Maintenance 600000 Operating Expense * Other Water * North Reg. w"rp 500000 Personal Services 634999 Operating Expense - Contractual 643100 OperalJng Expense- Electricity 652310 Operating Expense - ChemiCals 600000 Operating Expense * Other 700000 Capital Outtay Water Lab 500000 Personal Services 634999 Operating Expense - Contractual 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital Ou8ay Utility Biffing 500000 Personal Services 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital Outlay Subtotal % of Total 253212 253215 253221 253250 210151 Subtotal - w/o Admin, Util Bill, Eiec& and Chem. % of Total 210130 Stake & Locate 500000 PersonaJ Services 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 CapitaJ Outtay 210152 Utilities Assessment 500000 Personal Services 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital OuSay 210155 Utilities Engineenng 500000 Personal Services 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital Outlay 210165 Utilities Administration 500000 Personal Services 2 135,000 7 888,300 8 523,777 5 963,400 2 253.000 2 279,150 6 333,600 2 307,500 7 277,700 2 131,150 835,100 835,100 436,400 436,400 784,600 784600 756,900 756,900 183,000 183,000 27,700 27,700 I 2,I87,500 2.187,500 1 316700 316,700 1 248,421 248,421 340 34O 1 861,500 861,800 1 315,400 315,400 I 745,700 745,700 1 456,500 456,500 1 230,600 230,600 1 40,000 40,000 1 227,500 227,500 I 43,000 43,000 Sewer 135,000 866,665 518,777 925475 253,000 279,150 313,377 307,500 256,065 131,150 4 1,058,700 513,575 530,515 14.610 4 813,000 394r366 407.394 11,219 4 69,100 33.520 34,626 954 21,635 5,000 37,925 20,223 21,635 $ 23,009,980 $ 11,532,043 $ 10,734.980 10000% 5012% 46 65% 12 $ 15,844,680 $ 7,667361 $ 7,721,131 100,00% 4839% 48,73% 9 428,300 183,441 244,859 9 166,500 71,312 95,188 9 132,197 56,520 75,577 76,739 6,061 9 720,000 308,376 411,624 9 78,500 33,750 45,050 9 $ 742,957 323% $ 456,188 2 88% 6694 8-36 Table 8-28 Collier County Wastewater Resource Planning Report Existing Operation/Maintenance Costs by Cost Center Fiscal Year 2001 600000 Operating Expense * Other 700000 Capital Outlay 210111 Utilities Finance Admin 500000 Personal Services 634979 Operating Expense - Indirect Costs 649050 Operating Expense - PILOT 600000 Operating Expense - Other 700000 Capital Ouday TOTAL EXPENSES - Fund 408 % of Total NET OPERATING INCOME - Fund 408 CAPITAL S©URCES: 408 COUNTY WATER/SEWER OPERATING 919010 Reserves 489200 Cam/forward - General 489201 Car~, forward - Encumb. 489900 Negalive 5% of Estimated Revenue 989080 Interest Income 361170 ~nterest - SBA 361180 Investment Interest 929020 Transfers 481411 Transfer [rom Water Impact Fee 481589 Transfer from Capital Projects MgL 410 COUNTY WATER/SEWER DEBT SERVICE 210105 New Debt 484100 Loan Proceeds 213811 Count7 W-S Bonds Sedes 1985 363200 Assessments - Principal 363300 Assessments - interest 919010 Reserves 489201 Cam/forward * Encumb, 489280 Carry forward * Ufili6es Debt Svc 489900 Nega6ve 5% of Estimated Revenue 929020 Transfers 481408 Transfer from Water/Sewer Oper. 989080 Interest Income 361170 interest - SBA 361180 Investment Interest 411 WATER iMPACT FEE 273511 Impact Fees 343360 Water System Development Charges 919010 Reserves 489200 Cam/forward - General 489201 Cam/forward - Encumb. 489900 Negative 5% of Esgmated Revenue 929020 Transfers 481408 Transfer from Water/Sewer Oper. 989080 Interest Income 361170 Interest - SSA 361180 Investment Interest 412 COUNTY WATER CAPITAL PROJECTS 91901 O Reserves 489200 Cam/¢orward - General 489201 Carry forward - Encumb. 489900 Negative 5% of Estimated Revenue 929020 Transfem 481408 Transfer from Water/Sewer Ope, 989080 Interest Income 361170 Interest - SBA 361180 Investment Interest AIIoca6on Code Budget 12 104,400 50,520 50,874 3,008 12 1,288 623 628 37 12 450,600 218r049 219,578 12,973 12 1,130,900 547,251 551,089 32,560 12 1,620,800 784,317 789,818 46,665 12 342,200 165,593 166,754 9,852 12 9,888 4,785 4,818 285 $ 28,511,153 $ 14,145,928 $13,510,196 $ 855,929 10000% 4962% 47 39% 3 00% $ 14,454,447 $ 5,804,001 $ 9,024,940 $ (374,539) 12 30,584,100 14,799.878 14.903,668 880,554 12 296,253 143359 144.364 8,529 12 (20.000) (9,678) (9,746) (576) 12 100,000 45,391 48730 2,879 12 300,000 145,172 146,190 8,637 1 714,000 714,000 11 381,000 181,980 176.096 2,924 11 4,000.000 2,016,400 1,951,200 32,400 11a 687,500 637,288 50,332 1ta 624,700 578,972 45,728 11 5,000 2,521 2,439 41 11 11,491,600 5,792,916 5,605,602 93,082 11 (85,600) (43,151) (41,756) (693) 11 9,393,000 4,735,011 4,581,605 76,083 11 100,000 50,410 48,780 810 11 300,000 151,230 146,340 2,430 7,500,000 7,500,000 15,135,760 15,135,700 4,036,668 4,036,668 (405,000) (405,000) 1 10,700,000 10,700,000 1 600,000 600,000 1 7,305,000 7,305r009 1 2,150,292 2,160,292 I (15,500) (15,500) 1 3,355,000 3355,000 I 309,000 309.000 8-37 Table 8-29 Collier County Wastewater Resource Planning Report Existing and Projected Operation/Maintenance Costs Fiscal Years 2001 thru 2006 Description Adjustment Budget Factor FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Sewer Treatment - NCWRF Personal Services I 37,925 40,200 42,757 45,630 48,861 52,496 Operating Expense - Electricity 5 49,763 49,763 54,645 60~448 67,357 75,602 Operating Expense - Other 2 21,635 22,500 23,436 24,449 25,544 26,729 Sewer Reuse Personal Services 1 171,300 248,000 263,773 281,498 301,428 323,855 Operating Expense - Contractua 2 17,000 17,680 16,415 19,211 20,072 21,003 Operating Expense - Electricity 5 190,000 190,000 208,639 230,796 257,176 288,655 Operating Expense - Other 2 72,300 104,990 109,358 114,082 119,193 124,723 Capital Outlay 6 10,500 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500 Wastewater Lab Operating Expense - Other 2 21,635 22,500 23,436 24,449 25,544 26,729 Sewer Collections Personal Services 1 17,696 18,760 19,953 21,294 22,801 24,498 Operating Expense - Other 2 21,635 22,617 23,558 24,576 25,677 26,868 Capital Outlay 6 5~000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Sewer Treatment - SCWRF Personal Services 1 37,925 40,201 42,757 45,631 48~861 52,496 Operating Expense - Electricity 5 20,223 20,223 22,207 24,565 27,373 30,724 Operating Expense - Other 2 21,635 22,500 23,436 24,449 25,544 26,729 Utility Billing Personal Services I 14,610 15,487 16,472 17,579 18,823 20,224 Operating Expense - Other 2 11,219 11,668 12,154 12,679 13,247 13,861 Capital Outlay 6 954 954 954 954 954 954 Utilities Assessment Personal Services 1 Utilities Administration Personal Services I 6,694 7,096 7,547 8,054 8,624 9,266 Operating Expense - Other 2 3,006 3,126 3,256 3,397 3,549 3,714 Capital Outlay 6 37 37 37 37 37 37 Utilites Finance Administration Personal Services 1 12,973 13,752 14,626 15,609 16,714 17,958 Operating Expense - Indirect Co 1 32,560 34,514 36,709 39,176 41,949 45,070 Operating Expense - PILOT 5 46,665 50,865 55,855 61,786 68,848 77,275 Operating Expense - Other 2 9,852 10,246 10,673 11,134 11,633 12,172 Capital Outlay 6 285 285 285 285 285 285 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 855,029 993,463 1,060,437 1,137,266 1,225,595 1,327,423 LESS: MISC. OPERATING REVENUES: Miscellaneous Revenues Negative 5% of Estimated Total Misc. Operating Revenues 6 5,779 5~779 5,779 5,779 5,779 5,779 3 (289) (303) (319) (337) (356) (378) 5,490 5,476 5,460 5,442 5,423 5,402 NET O&M REVENUE REQUIRED 849,539 987,987 1,054,977 1,131,824 1,220,172 1,322,022 8-4O Table I Collier County, Florida Water and Wastewater Rate Study 2B ' Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Bills for Water Service (1) Residential Service for a 5/8" or 3/4" Meter Line 0 2,000 4,000 5,000 7,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 No~ Description Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Collier County I Existing Rates $12.00 $14.88 $17.76 $19.20 $22.08 $26.40 $35.40 2 Proposed Rates 12.00 14.88 17.76 19.20 22.80 28.20 40.20 3 Increase (Decrease) 0.72 1.80 4.80 4 Percentage Increase (Decrease) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.26% 6.82% 13.56% 5 Percentage Total Class Bills Rendered (Cumulative) I 1.95% 26.35% 44.49% 52.56% 64.47% 74.85% 83.87% $44.40 52.20 7.80 17.57% 89.21% Other Florida Utilities: 6 City of Bradentun $7.49 $10.57 $14.37 $16.63 $21.15 $27.93 $39.23 $50.53 7 Brevard County 8.22 8.22 9.83 11.44 14.66 19.49 28.02 36.87 8 Charlotte County (2) 16.88 24.18 31.48 35.13 42.43 53~38 76.18 102.62 9 City o f Clearwater 8.07 8.07 11.34 14.61 21.15 31.58 51.03 70.48 l0 Englcwood Water District 10.00 13.60 17.20 19.00 23.20 35.20 59.20 83.20 I 1 FL Water Services - Lehigh - Lec County 9.76 17.14 24.52 28.21 35.59 46.66 65.11 83.56 12 City of Fort Myers 3.61 8.15 12.69 14.96 20.52 28.86 45.36 79.41 13 Hillsborough County 9.80 14.50 19.20 21.55 26.25 33.50 45.75 64.25 14 Lee County (2) 8.10 12.46 16.82 19.00 23.86 31.90 46.80 64.70 15 Manatee County 5.45 7.49 9.53 10.55 12.66 15.93 21.38 41.78 16 City of Naples 7.26 9.48 11.70 12.81 15.03 18.36 23.91 29.46 17 City of North Port 9.16 14.86 20.56 23.41 29.11 39.16 57.16 75.16 18 Orange County 5.47 7.25 9.33 10.52 12.90 16.47 22.42 32.87 19 Pinellas County 11.25 11.25 11.25 13.50 18.00 24.75 36.00 47.25 20 City of Punta Gorda 11.65 17.09 22.53 25.25 30.69 38.85 54.50 70.15 21 City of Sarasota 7.59 12.35 17.11 19.49 24.25 31.39 43.29 56.93 22 Sarasota County 13.92 17.48 21.04 23.62 28.78 40.06 69.76 110.76 23 City of Tampa 1.50 2.78 5.62 7.22 10.43 15.55 29.05 43~05 24 Other Florida Utilities' Average $8.62 $12.05 $15.90 $18.16 $22.81 $30.50 $45.23 $63.50 (i) Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect residential rates in effect October 200I and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility. (2) Utility is currently involved in a rate study, or is planning one within the next few months. Table 2 Collier County, Florida Water and Wastewater Rate Study Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Bills for Wastewater Service (1) Residential Service for a 5/8' or 3/4" Meter Line 0 2,000 4,000 5,000 7,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 No. Description Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Collier County I Existing Rates $17.00 $20.88 $24.76 $26.70 $30.58 $36.40 $36.40 $36.40 2 Proposed Rates 18.00 22.44 26.88 29.10 33.54 40.20 51.30 51.30 3 Increase (Decrease) 1.00 1.56 2.12 2.40 2.96 3.80 14.90 14.90 4 Percentage Increase (Decrease) 5.88% 7.47% 8.56% 8.99% 9.68% 10.44'/o 40.93% 40.93% 5 Percentage Total Class Bills Rendered (Cumulative) 10.90% 24.78% 43.36% 51.77% 64.22% 74.94% 84.09% 89.45% Other Florida Utilities: 6 City of Bradenton $11.66 $14.32 $18.27 $20.89 $26.13 $33.99 $47.09 $60.19 7 Brevard County 13.43 19.13 24.83 27.68 33.38 41.93 47.63 47.63 8 Charlotte County (2) 21.47 27.45 33.43 36.42 42.40 51.37 51.37 51.37 9 City of Clea~vater 1 I. 10 I 1.10 14.80 18.50 25.90 37.00 55.50 74.00 10 Englewood Water District 17.63 23.23 28.83 31.63 37.23 45.63 45.63 45.63 11 FL Water Services - Lehigh - Lee County 16.62 27.80 38.98 44.57 50.16 50.16 50.16 50.16 12 City of Fott Myers 5.36 15.14 24.92 29.81 40.11 55.56 55.56 55.56 13 Hillsborough County 14.65 22.85 31.05 35.15 43.35 47.45 47.45 47.45 14 Lee County (2) 12.15 19. I9 26.23 29.75 33.27 33.27 33.27 33.27 15 Manatee County 12.50 17.86 23.22 25.90 31.26 39.30 39.84 39.84 16 City of Naples 11.72 15.68 19.64 21.62 25.58 31.52 41.42 51.32 17 City of North Port 21.74 29.94 38.14 42.24 50.44 54.54 54.54 54.54 18 Orange County 13.96 20.30 26.64 29.81 36.15 45.66 58.34 58.34 19 Pinellas County 8.00 14.20 20.40 23.50 29.70 39.00 54.50 57.60 20 City of Punta Gorda 20.70 23.t2 25.54 26.75 29.17 32.80 32.80 32.80 21 City of Sarasota 15.65 25.86 36.06 41.17 51.37 66.68 92.19 120.47 22 Sarasota County 14.34 27.16 39.98 46.39 59.21 78.44 78.44 78.44 23 City of Tampa 2.78 10.21 17.65 21.36 28.80 39.95 58.53 77.11 24 Other Florida Utilities' Average $13.64 $20.25 $27.14 $30.73 $37.42 $45.79 $52.46 $57.54 (1) Unless otherwise noted, araounts shown reflect residential rates in effect October 200l and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility. (2) Utility is currently involved in a rate study, or is planning one within the next few months. Table 3 Collier County, Florida Water and Wastewater Rate Study Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Bills for Water and Wastewater Service (1) Residential Service for a 5/8" or 3/4" Meter Line 0 2,000 4,000 5,000 7,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 No. Description Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Collier County I Existing Rates $29.00 $35.76 $42.52 $45.90 $52.66 $62.80 $71.80 $80.80 2 Proposed Rates 30.00 37.32 44.64 48.30 56.34 68.40 91.50 103.50 3 Increase(Decrease) 1.00 1.56 2.12 2.40 3.68 5.60 19.70 22.70 4 Percentage Increase (Decrease) 3.45% 4.36% 4.99% 5.23% 6.99% 8.92% 27.44% 28.09% Other Florida Utilities: 5 City of Bradenton $19.15 $24.89 $32.64 $37.52 $47.28 $61.92 $86.32 $110.72 6 Brevard Couniy 21.65 27.35 34.66 39.12 48.04 61.42 75.65 84.50 7 Charlotte County (2) 38.35 51.63 64.91 71.55 84.83 104.75 127.55 153.99 8 City&Clearwater 19.17 19.17 26.14 33.11 47.05 68.58 106.53 144.48 9 Englewood Water District 27.63 36.83 46.03 50.63 60.43 80.83 104.83 128.83 l0 FL Water Services - Lehigh ~ Lee County 26.38 44.94 63.50 72.78 85.75 96.82 115.27 133.72 Il City of Fort Myers 8.97 23.29 37.61 44.77 60.63 84.42 100.92 134.97 12 Hillsborough County 24.45 37.35 50.25 56.70 69.60 80.95 93.20 111.70 13 Lee County (2) 20.25 31.65 43.05 48.75 57.13 65:17 80.07 97.97 14 Manatee County 17.95 25.35 32.75 36.45 43.92 55.23 61.22 81.62 15 City of Naples 18.98 25.16 31.34 34.43 40.61 49.88 65.33 80.78 16 City of North Port 30.90 44.80 58.70 65.65 79.55 93.70 111.70 129.70 17 Orange County 19.43 27.55 35.97 40.33 49.05 62.13 80.76 91.21 18 Pinellas County 19.25 25.45 31.65 37.00 47.70 63.75 90.50 I04.85 19 City of Punta Gorda 32.35 40.21 48.07 52.00 59.86 71.65 87.30 102.95 20 City of Sarasota 23.24 38.21 53.17 60.66 75.62 98.07 135.48 177.40 21 Sarasota County 28.26 44.64 61.02 70.01 87.99 118.50 148.20 189.20 22 City of Tampa 4.28 12.99 23.26 28.58 39.23 55.49 87.58 120.16 23 Other Florida Utilities' Average $22.26 $32.30 $43.04 $48.89 $60.24 $76.29 $97.69 $12t.04 (1) Unless otherwise noted, mounts shown reflect residential rates in effect October 2001 and ~e exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility. (2) Utility is currently involved in a rate study, or is planning one Yvithin the next few months. Table 4 Collier County, Florida Water and Wastewater Rate Study Comparison of Typical Monthly Commercial Bills for Water Service (!) Commercial Service for a 2" Meter Line 0 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 No._.~ Description Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Collier County 1 Existing Rates $69.00 $83.40 $105.00 $141.00 $220.20 $643.20 $868.20 $I,093.20 2 Proposed Rates 79.20 93.60 ! 15.20 153.70 243.20 702.60 967.60 1,267.60 3 Increase (Decrease) 10.20 10.20 10.20 12.70 23.00 59.40 99.40 174.40 4 Percentage Increase (Decrease) 14.78% 12.23% 9.71% 9.01% 10.45% 9.24% 11.45% 15.95% 5 Percentage Bills Rendered (Cumulative) 15.30% 28.88% 40.42% 49.68% 66.78% 92.93% 96.69% 98.36% Other Florida Utilities: 6 City of Bradenton $35.58 $56.02 $89.92 $146.42 $259.42 $711.42 $937.42 $1,163.42 7 Brevard County 51.87 51.87 58.31 99.84 188.34 542.34 719.34 896.34 8 Charlotte County (2) 116.03 152.53 207.28 298.53 481.03 1,211.03 1,576.03 1,941.03 9 City o f Clearwater 626.77 626.77 626.77 626.77 626.77 845.86 1,208.20 1,597.20 l0 Englewood Water District 80.00 105.20 177.20 297.20 537.20 1,497.20 1,977.20 2,457.20 I1 FL Water Services - Lehigh - Lee County 78.11 115.01 170.36 262.61 447.11 1,185.11 1,554.11 1,923.11 12 City of Fort Myers 29.71 58.41 109.41 194.41 364.41 1,044.41 1,384.41 1,724.41 10 Hillsborough County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 Lee County (2) 49.30 71.10 103.80 159.30 295.30 1,087.30 1,505.30 1,923.30 14 Manatee County 35.13 46.03 62.38 89.63 144.13 362.I3 471.13 580.13 15 City of Naples 29.05 40.15 56.80 84.55 144.45 410.45 543.45 676.45 16 City of North Port 72.95 101.45 144.20 215.45 384.95 1,104.95 1,464.95 1,824.95 17 Orange County 25.28 35.98 53.83 83.58 143.08 381.08 500.08 619.08 18 Pinellas County 72.75 72.75 72.75 95.25 207.75 657.75 882.75 1.107.75 19 City of Punta Gorda 71.40 98.60 139.40 207.40 351.60 1,032.20 1,417.00 1,810.00 20 City of Sarasota 58.34 81.64 116.59 174.84 294.74 1,024.70 1,429.70 1,834.70 21 Sarasota County 99.87 125.67 164.37 228.87 357.87 873.87 1,131.87 1,389.87 22 City of Tampa (3) 1.50 16.04 40.11 80.21 160.43 777.69 1,157.45 1,574.56 23 Other Florida Utilities' Average $90.21 $109.13 $140.79 $196.76 $316.98 $867.62 $1,168.26 $1,473.15 (1) (2) (3) Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect commercial rates in effect October 2001 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility. Utility is currendy involved in a rate study, or is planning one within the next few months. Assumes a typical medium-sized commercial business. Table 5 Collier County, Florida Water and Wastewater Rate Study 2B Comparison of Typical Monthly Commercial Bills for Wastewater Service (1) Commcrical Service for a 2" Meter Line 0 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 No. Description Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Collier County I Existing Rates $101.00 $120.40 $149.50 $198.00 $295.00 $683.00 $877.00 $1,071.00 2 Proposed Rates 125.10 147.30 180.60 236.10 347.10 791.10 1,013.10 1,235.10 3 Increase (Decrease) 24.10 26.90 31.10 38.10 52.10 108.10 136.10 164.10 4 Percentage Increase (Decrease) 23.86% 22.34% 20.80% 19.24% 17.66% 15.83% 15.52% 15.32% 5 Percentage Bills Rendered (Cumulativc) 5.46% 14.65% 26.64% 37.52% 59.39% 91.88% 96.13% 98.20% Other Florida Utilities: 6 City of Bradenton $55.39 $77.72 $117.02 $182.52 $313.52 $837.52 $1,099.52 $1,361.52 7 Brevard County 13.43 50.88 127.21 254.42 508.83 1,526.50 2,035.33 2,544.17 8 Charlotte County (2) 171.73 201.63 246.48 321.23 470.73 1,068.73 1,367.73 1,666.73 9 City of Clearwater 862.10 862.10 862.10 862.10 862.10 1,110.00 1,480.00 1,850.00 10 Englewood Water District 141.04 169.04 211.04 281.04 421.04 981.04 1,261.04 1,541.04 11 FL Water Services - Lehigh - Lee County 132.93 200.03 300.68 468.43 803.93 2,145.93 2,816.93 3,487.93 12 City of Fort Myers 44.14 99.84 191.34 343.84 648.84 1,868.84 2,478.84 3,088.84 10 Hillsborough County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 Lee County (2) 76.65 111.85 164.65 252.65 428.65 1,132.65 1,484.65 1,836.65 14 Manatee County 85.25 112.05 152.25 219.25 353.25 889.25 1,157.25 1,425.25 15 City of Naples 178.24 198.04 227.74 277.24 376.24 772.24 970.24 1,168.24 16 City of North Port 175.92 216.92 278.42 380.92 585.92 1,405.92 1,815.92 2,225.92 17 Orange County 93.75 125.45 173.00 252.25 410.75 1,044.75 1,361.75 1,678.75 18 Pincllas County 18.25 49.25 95.75 173.25 328.25 948.25 1,258.25 1,568.25 19 City of Punta Gorda 165.60 177.70 195.85 226.10 286.60 528.60 649.60 770.60 20 City of Sarasota 91.59 128.17 183.05 274.50 462.74 1,608.78 2,244.63 2,880.48 21 Sarasota County 103.25 167.35 263.50 423.75 744.25 2,026.25 2,667.25 3,308.25 22 City of Tampa 2.78 39.95 95.69 188.61 374.44 I,I17.75 1,489.41 1,861.07 23 Other Florida Utilities' Average $141.88 $I75.76 $228.57 $316.59 $492.95 $1,236.06 $1,625.78 $2,015.51 (1) Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect commercial rates in effect October 2001 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility. (2) Utility is currently involved in a rate study, or is planning one within the next few months. Table 6 Collier County, Florida Water and Wastewater Rate Study Comparison of Typical Monthly Commercial Bills for Water and Wastewater Service Line No. Description Commercial Service for a 2" Meter '2B 0 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Gallons Collier County Existing Rates 2 Proposed Rates 3 Increase (Decrease) 4 Percentage Increase (Decrease) $170.00 $203.80 $254.50 $339.00 $515.20 $1,326.20 $1,745.20 $2,164.20 204.30 240.90 295.80 389.80 590.30 1,493.70 1,980.70 2,502.70 34.30 37. t0 41.30 50.80 75.10 167.50 235.50 338.50 20.18% 18.20% 16.23% 14.99% 14.58% 12.63% 13.49% 15.64% Other Florida Utilities: 5 City of Bradenton $90.97 $133.74 6 Brevard County 65.30 102.75 7 Charlotte County (2) 287.76 354.16 8 City of Clearwater 1,488.87 1,488.87 9 Englewood Water District 221.04 274.24 10 FL Water Services - Lehigh - Lee County 211.04 315.04 I 1 City of Fort Myers 73.85 158.25 10 Hillsborough County N/A N/A 12 Lee County (2) 125.95 182.95 13 Manatee County 120.38 158.08 14 City of Naples 207.29 238.19 15 City of North Port 248.87 318.37 16 Orange County 119.03 161.43 17 Pinellas County 91.00 122.00 18 City of Punta Gorda 237.00 276.30 19 City of Sarasota 149.93 209.81 20 Sarasota County 203.12 293.02 21 City of Tampa (3) 4.28 55.99 22 Other Florida Utilities' Average (1) $206.94 $328.94 $572.94 $1,548.94 $2,036.94 $2,524.94 185.52 354.26 697A7 2,068.84 2,754.67 3,440.51 453.76 619.76 951.76 2,279.76 2,943.76 3,607.76 1,488.87 1,488.87 1,488.87 1,955.86 2,688.20 3,447.20 388.24 578.24 958.24 2,478.24 3,238.24 3,998.24 471.04 731.04 1,251.04 3,331.04 4,371.04 5,411.04 300.75 538.25 1,013.25 2,913.25 3,863.25 4,813.25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 268.45 411.95 723.95 2,219.95 2,989.95 3,759.95 214.63 308.88 497.38 1,251.38 1,628.38 2,005.38 284.54 361.79 520.69 1,182.69 1,513.69 1,844.69 422.62 59&37 970.87 2,510.87 3,280.87 4,050.87 226.83 335.83 553.83 1,425.83 1,861.83 2,297.83 168.50 268.50 536.00 1,606.00 2,141.00 2,676.00 335.25 433.50 638.20 1,560.80 2,066.60 2,580.60 299.64 449.34 757.48 2,633.48 3,674.33 4,715.18 427.87 652.62 1,102.12 2,900.12 3,799.12 4,698.12 135.80 268.82 534.87 1,895.44 2,646.86 3,435.63 (2) (3) $232.10 $284.89 $369.37 $513.35 $809.92 $2,103.68 $2,794.04 $3,488.66 Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect commercial rates in effect October 2001 and are exclusive o£taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison puq~oses only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates ~d charges offered by each listed utility. Utility is currently involved in a rate study, or is planning one within the next few months. Assumes a typical medium-sized commercial business.