Agenda 09/27/2016 Item #16A 9 16.A.9
09/27/2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for a joint stormwater
and sanitary sewer project between Goodlette-Frank Road and US-41 and direct the County
Manager to prepare and issue a Request for Proposals for the engineering design and post design
services for the joint project. (Project No. 60142)
OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board of County Commissioners (Board) approval of an interlocal agreement
with the City of Naples (City) for the design and construction of a joint stormwater and sanitary sewer
project located between Goodlette-Frank Road and US-41, and also authorizing the preparation and
issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP)for the engineering design and post design services.
CONSIDERATIONS: The area bounded by US-41 to the west, Pine Ridge Road to the north,
Goodlette-Frank Road to the east and Golden Gate Parkway to the south [hereinafter referred to as the
West G-F Road area], has a long and varied history of periodic street and yard flooding, with limited
amounts of structure flooding. This area is within the City's sewer and water service area, and some
streets are currently unsewered with owners utilizing septic systems.
On 4-12-16, the Board approved an Executive Summary (Agenda Item 16.A.15) directing the County
Manager to prepare an interlocal agreement with the City for the joint stormwater and sanitary sewer
project. The attached interlocal agreement is submitted for the Board's approval and the chairman's
signature. Also attached is a copy of the "Master Sewer Plan for the City's Unsewered Service Areas"
(MSP) prepared for the City by Johnson Engineering, Inc., in 2006, and the appropriate accompanying
maps for the area of the project. The interlocal agreement is also being submitted to the Naples City
Council for their approval and signature. Upon approvals and signatures of both entities, the interlocal
agreement will then be recorded in the Official Records of Collier County.
The next step in advancing the project is to prepare and issue an RFP for the engineering design and post
design of the project components in accordance with the Florida Consultant's Competitive Negotiation
Act (CCNA) per Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. This Executive Summary also functions as the
request for the Board to direct the County Manager to prepare and issue the RFP, utilizing the County's
Procurement Services Division. Upon review of the received proposals by a selection committee
comprised of both County and City staff, and the development of a shortlisted ranking of the received
proposals, the ranked shortlist will be presented to the Board for authorization to enter into contract
negotiations, starting with the top ranked firm in accordance with the CCNA.
The Interlocal Agreement is scheduled to be considered by the Naples City Council on October 19, 2016.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact other than minor recording fees for the approval of the
interlocal agreement.
It is important for the Board to understand the potential fiscal impacts of costs for undertaking the design,
permitting and construction of the proposed project. Based upon information in the MSP, the City would
utilize their authority to place an assessment in the order of$17,000 to $23,000 on each served property
or unit owner within the project area for the sanitary sewer portion of the project. Funding for the
stormwater portion of the project would be included in the annual capital budget for the Stormwater
Management Section in Fund 325. During the design portion of the project, and prior to any construction,
a detailed construction cost estimate will be developed and presented to the Board and City.
Staff is of the opinion that the development of this joint project to address both stormwater and sewer
Packet Pg. 504 I
16.A.9
09/27/2016
service issues will increase the potential for grant funding to help offset the costs. Staff intends to pursue
available grant funding for the project and consider requesting legislative appropriations. These are future
issues that will be brought to the Board as the project design is nearing completion and the County
Manager requests direction to release the project for construction bids or approve grant funding.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The authorization of an interlocal agreement to develop a
comprehensive solution to a multi-faceted problem is in accordance with the intent of the Growth
Management Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved for form and legality and requires a majority vote
for Board approval. -JAB
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for the joint
stormwater and sanitary sewer project located between Goodlette-Frank Road and US-41, and authorize
the chairman to sign the document; and to direct the County Manager to prepare and issue an RFP for the
engineering design and post design services required for the joint project and bring back to the Board a
ranking of the shortlisted firms that respond to the RFP.
PREPARED BY: Robert Wiley, Principal Project Manager, Stormwater Management Section, Capital
Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division, Growth Management Department.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1.West G-F Road Area Interlocal Agreement (8-22-16 CAO Initialed) (PDF)
2.Master Sewer Plan for the City's Unsewered Service Areas 2006 (PDF)
3.Prelim Sanitary Sewer Layout Area 4 (PDF)
4. Prelim Sanitary Sewer Layout Area 5 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 505 I
16.A.9
09/27/2016
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.A.9
Item Summary: Recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for
a joint stormwater and sanitary sewer project between Goodlette-Frank Road and US-41 and direct the
County Manager to prepare and issue a Request for Proposals for the engineering design and post design
services for the joint project. (Project No. 60142)
Meeting Date: 09/27/2016
Prepared by:
Title: Project Manager,Principal—Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management
Name: Robert Wiley
08/23/2016 5:38 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director- IF, CPP&PM—Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program
Management
Name: Amy Patterson
08/23/2016 5:38 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees,and Program Management Gerald Kurtz Level 1 Add Division ReviewerCompleted
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 08/31/2016 8:11 AM
Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees,and Program Management Amy Patterson Level 1 Add Division ReviewerCompleted
County Attorney's Office Jennifer Belpedio Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 09/02/2016 11:44 AM
Growth Management Department David Wilkison Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 09/02/2016 3:15 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 09/02/2016 4:37 PM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 09/06/2016 8:39 AM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Level 3 OMB 1st Reviewer 1-4 Completed 09/13/2016 3:11 PM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 09/18/2016 8:29 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 09/27/2016 9:00 AM
I Packet Pa_ 5(1F
I6.A.9.a
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
PROJECT: West Goodlette-Frank Road Area Joint Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer improvements
co
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2016, by
and between Collier County a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the"COUNTY") and the City
of Naples, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation (the "CITY"). o
WITNESSETH
a,
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has identified a need to undertake the design and construction of
roadside stormwater improvements on various streets located south of Pine Ridge Road between a
Goodlette-Frank Road and US-41, hereinafter referred to as"AREA", to address recurring street and yard
flooding, and
0
WHEREAS, the CITY in 2006 developed a "Master Sewer Plan for the City's Unsewered Service
Areas", hereinafter referred to as"MSP", and
WHEREAS, the various streets within the AREA and identified as needing roadside stormwater co
improvements are within the boundaries of the CITY's MSP, and
WHEREAS, the CITY owns certain potable water and wastewater utility systems (Utility) within,
adjacent to, and in the vicinity of the road easements andlor rights-of-way of the streets identified as
needing stormwater improvements, and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY are both aware of septic system problems experienced by co
local residents during periods of intense or extended rainfall that resulted in temporary street and yard C41
flooding within the AREA, and
co
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have determined and mutually agree that it is economically aci
advantageous and in the best interest of the public to enter into this Agreement to undertake a joint project
(PROJECT) to construct roadside stormwater improvements and public wastewater collection system a)
facilities, and
V
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY are both in agreement that the COUNTY will manage the
Project's design, permitting and construction phases, and a'
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY are both in agreement that the COUNTY will be responsible
for funding the stormwater improvement cost portions of the Project and the CITY will be responsible for
funding the utility cost portions of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, and the mutual covenants, terms, th
and provisions contained herein, the COUNTY and CITY agree as follows:
a)
SECTION I: COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1.0 The COUN"I"Y will serve as project manager for the design, permitting and construction phases of E
the PROJECT. The COUNTY's assigned staff project manager shall be under the supervision of
the COUNTY's contract manager as identified in Section 3.4 below.
Packet Pg. 50 )
'
16.A.9.a
1.1 The COUNTY shall maintain open communication with the CITY's assigned project manager and
provide periodic progress reports and documentation about the PROJECT as requested by the
CITY.
E
1.2 The COUNTY shall provide and perform comprehensive Utility-related design, construction and
construction administrative services to the CITY for the Utility portions of the PROJECT. rendered c»
jointly and concurrently with the COUNTY's design, construction and construction administrative
services for the stormwater portions of the PROJECT.
TB
1.3 The following specific services, duties and responsibi]ities will he the obligation of the COUNTY J�
regarding the design coordination, construction, and contract administration of the Utility work on its
behalf of the CITY. ":
co
A. The COUNTY's and [ITY'oousignud project managers shall maintain open communication o
with eachother and provide periodic progress reports and documentation about the PROJECT ur
as requested by the COUNTY and CITY. Throughout the design, permitting and 0
construction phases of the PROJECT, both project managers shuU mutually schedule periodic In
progress meetings as deemed necessary.
el
R. The COUY�T}' shall prepare and release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for design engineering ��
services, in accordance with the COUNTY purchasing policies, that complies with the ~
Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) as required by Section 287.055, Florida ii
cu
Statutes. Preparation of the scope of work for the RFP will be a joint effort between Ta
�
(�0Dl�Tyand ClT\/ wherein the main focus nfthe COlINTY`sooni�bu(ionn/iUaddress the �
stormwater and roadway design issues, and the main focus ofthe C{T9`xCookibohon will
address the Utility design issues. Upon review of all proposals received from interested *z
consulting engineering firms, the COUNTY shall present the recommendations of the RFP to
Selection Committee (described in Section 3.5 below)to the Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) for ranking approval and authorization to enter into negotiations with the top ranked `y
co
firm. Upon successful contract scope and cost negotiation with an engineering consulting ~~
firm, the BCC will vote whether to enter into design contract for the PROJECTBefore such
vole the City may determine whether it wishes to proceed further with the PROJECT. If not,
it shall notify the COUNTY, in which case the CITY will be responsible only for its portion
of cost to that point. <
To
D. During the design portion of the PROJECT the COUNTY is responsible for providing
requested information to the consultant and timely reviews of draft plan sets. The Tr)
�
COUNTY's review will focus on the design of the stonnn/u1crond roadway portions of the
ca
PROJECT, with only cursory review (primarily dealing with conflicts) provided for the E
Utility portions of the PROJECT, The COUNTY will rely upon the CITY to provide the <
COUNTY with timely detailed reviews and comments for the Utility portions of the ca
o
PROJECT. ce
4
a
E The COUNTY will be responsible for conducting the public hid and award the construction
isi
contract. Before such vote the City may determine whether it wishes to proceed further with a)
the PROJECT. If not, it shall notify the COUNTY, in which case the CITY will be '~
responsible only for its portion of cost to that point.
E
F. Funding for the construction of the stormwater and roadway portions of the designed and
al
permitted PROJECT will be provided by the COUNTY. #
16.A.9.a
G. The COUNTY is responsible to acquire all land rights (road rights-of-way and drainage
easements) needed to successfully construct the stormwater and roadway portions of the
PROJECT. These land rights shall be obtained prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed letter
to the construction contractor(s),
a)
a)
H. Payments to contracted firms for completed and accepted work, including design and
permitting, will follow the procedures identified in the COUNTY's contract documents. The
CITY will make payments directly to the Utility contractor for the Utility portion of the
construction. d
I. The COUNTY shall conduct a formal preconstruction conference prior to commencing with coi
the PROJECT. The COUNTY will provide the CITY notice of the preconstruction
conference at least five (5) working days prior to the conference. The CITY's assignedcc
project manager will attend this conference, and other CITY representatives may attend at the
CITY's discretion. A copy of the minutes of said conference shall be submitted to the u.
CITY's project manager. e7
fl1
.1. The Utility work shall be coordinated with the CITY's project manager with respect to
keeping the CITY advised of technical, cost,and schedule impacts upon the Utility work.
co
K. The COUNTY shall confer with the CITY's project manager as deemed necessary by the
COUNTY in order to coordinate work stages between the Utility, stormwater, and roadway
improvements from a public interest view point.
F-7
L. Periodic Utility field measurements and quantity calculations shall be made by the COUNTY
of Utility work accomplished on an as-needed basis for processing of monthly progress
payments to the COUNTY's contractor. The CITY's project manager shall verify and ce
approve these measurements and calculations in writing prior to the COUNTY's issuance of
monthly progress payments to the contractor. co
M. The COUNTY shall administer design changes, clarifications, supplements and other contract a)
amendments that may be necessary during the design and construction of the Utility a)
improvements. These contract directives to the consultant and contractor may be in the form
of plans, memoranda, reports, change orders, and supplemental agreements and shall be
subject to written approval by the CITY's project manager andior contract authority.
0
The above notwithstanding, upon notification to CITY, the CITY herein authorizes the
COUNTY to prepare, execute, and implement minor change orders for contract amendments
necessitated by actual field conditions at the Utility project site so as not to delay the
contractor's performance and so as to meet the intent of the approved design for the Utility
improvements. Said change orders shall be issued by the COUNTY in compliance with o
current County Purchasing Policy and Administrative procedures, either using existing
contract unit prices or negotiated unit prices for work adjustments within the physical limit of
the Utility work as shown in the construction plans. In no event shall the value of the total
change orders exceed the Utility allowance to be included in the BID approved by both the
COUNTY and CITY. Additional or extra work which exceeds the above chance order
authority by COUNTY shall be submitted for prior review, approval and execution by the
CITY. E
0
N. Upon completion of all Utility work, including work authorized under change orders and
supplemental agreements, the CITY and COUNTY shall conduct a joint final inspection of
I Packet Pg. 509
16.A.9.a
the Utility work with the CITY's and COU-N"IY's project managers and/or inspectors and/or
record engineer prior to COUNTY's issuing final payment to the contractor.
c
a>
O. COUNTY shall submit a final Certificate of Completion letter to the CITY along with an E
appropriate number of plans detailing the Utility as constructed by the COUNTY's contractor ai
("As-built record drawings"); and one-year warranty for utilitywork completed. The final `a)
Certification of Completion shall be submitted by the COUNTY's engineer of record to the
Ts
FDEI' and other local and state agencies that govern the Utility improvements. o
m
P. All contracts entered into by the COUNTY for the design and/or construction of the Utility
-‘9):-,
facilities shall require the party contracting with the COUNTY to hold harmless, indemnify
ctim
and defend the CITY and COUNTY and its consultants, agents, officers and employees from Q
any and all claims, losses, penalties, fees, or any expense, damage, or liability incurred by any
of them, whether for personal injury, property damage, direct or consequential damages, or �o
economic loss arising directly or indirectly on account of or in connection with the work done ur
by the COUNTY's consultant or contractor pertaining to the design and construction of the (D
Utility, stormwater and/or roadway or by any person, firm or corporation to whom any ami
portion of the Utility, stormwater or roadway work is subcontracted by the COUNTY's
consultant or contractor. M
Lo
oor
Q. COUNTY shall take ownership and properly dispose of all removed materials.
is-
a)
�a
w
SECTION II: CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY .�
0
2.0 The CITY shall provide and perform project support duties as defined below to ensure that Q
U
COUNTY is able to furnish design, construction and contract administration services to the mutual co
satisfaction of the CITY and COUNTY, and other governing agencies that have jurisdictional N
N
control over the Utility improvements. 00
2.1 The specific project support duties and responsibilities enumerated below shall be the obligation of
the CITY. E
22
css
A. The CITY's Utilities Department Director will serve as the CITY's assigned contract Q
authority to be the point of contact for the COUNTY's contract manager as identified in To
Section 3.4 below. The CITY's Utility Department Director shall designate in writing an o
assigned CITY project manager to work with the COUNTY's assigned project manager in c
typical day to day coordination of PROJECT design, permitting and construction. The -
CITY's Utility Department Director shall assign in writing a Utility project coordinator (if T.
that person is someone different from the assigned project manager) for the purpose of Q
a
coordinating, resolving, and communicating construction issues at the field level with v
COUNTY's project manager. The CITY's project manager and/or project coordinator shall cc
attend periodic construction progress meetings with and between the COUNTY and "'
contractor, subcontractors and utility companies with direct or indirect interest in the
provisions of the Interlocal Agreement. a>
u
B. The COUNTY's and CITY's assigned project managers shall maintain open communication aei
with each other and provide periodic progress reports and documentation about the E
PROJECT as requested by the COUNTY and CITY. Throughout the design, permitting and o
construction phases of the PROJECT, both project managers shall mutually schedule periodic Q
progress meetings as deemed necessary. The COUNTY shall provide the CITY written
I Packet Pg. 510 I
16.A.9.a
notice of all regularly scheduled progress meetings at least five (5) working days prior to the
meeting.
c
C. The CITY shall provide COUNTY with the specific Utility-related detailed information E
needed for inclusion in preparation of the scope of services for the Request for Proposals
(RFP)for the PROJECT design phase consultant selection process as identified in Section 3.5 - Q
below. -
c)
0
D. The CITY shall obtain all necessary land rights (rights-of-way, utility easements, temporary ar
construction easements, etc.) required for the construction, operation and maintenance of the =
Utility facilities portion of the PROJECT. The land rights shall be obtained, recorded, and ca
made available to the COUNTY prior to the COUNTY's release of the construction bid Q
request, o
ce
E. Funding for the design and permitting of the Utility portions of the PROJECT shall be u_
provided by the CITY to the COUNTY. Reimbursement of COUNTY-incurred costs for the (6
design and permitting of Utility portions of the PROJECT will be made by the CITY to the 11)
COUNTY within thirty (30) days of the Notice to Proceed letter to the construction
contractor. If for some reason the PROJECT is terminated and does not proceed through 01
completion of design, or permitting, or does not enter into construction, the CITY will 000
provide the reimbursement to the COUNTY within ninety (90) days of the date of
termination. d
Ts
F. At the time of construction contract bid preparation, those Utility items identified for which c
the CITY is financially responsible shall be subject to the CITY's review and approval by the 0
CITY's assigned project manager. The COUNTY will include the Utility work in the v
PROJECT bid to arrive at the price for the CITY's actual construction Utility work. Prior to co
the COUNTY's issuance of the Notice to Proceed letter to the construction contractor the
CITY shall provide a Purchase Order to the successful contractor for the CITY's portion of o
the construction of the Utility improvements. Funding for additional approved cost increases
for Utility construction work (e.g. quantity changes, change orders, etc.) will be provided by E
the CITY. 0
a)
L
a)
G. The CITY shall review the design documents, approve the Utility design, inspect the work as <L
necessary, and review and approve the "As-built record drawings" which will represent and 6
depict the Utility as constructed by the COUNTY's contractor. 0
CT)
c
H. During the design portion of the PROJECT the CITY is responsible for providing requested cc
information to the consultant and timely reviews of draft plan sets. The CITY's review will d
focus on the design of the Utility portions of the PROJECT, with only cursory review Q
(primarily dealing with conflicts) provided for the stonnwater and roadway portions of the 0
PROJECT. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with timely detailed reviews and ce
comments for the Utility portions of the PROJECT, so that the COUNTY can submit the C7
C1TY's comments to the design consultant.
0
I The CITY is responsible for the development and implementation of a public relations
program for the PROJECT to address needed public support for the PROJECT. The CITY a 0i
will coordinate with the COUNTY the scheduling of any public meetings, workshops, E
information distribution, etc. deemed viable and necessary to inform the affected public about o
the planned stormwatcr and sewer facilities and the expectations they can have regarding Q
fiscal, physical, and timing impacts related to the PROJECT. The CITY shall provide the
I Packet Pg. 511 I>
16.A.9.a
COUNTY written notice of all public relations public meetings, workshops and information
distribution efforts at least five (5) working days prior to the meetings, workshops, or
information distribution.
a)
E
J Monthly Utility field measurements and quantity calculations shall be made by the engineer 0
a)
of record of Utility work accomplished for processing of monthly progress payments to the 't5)
<
COUNTY's contractor. The CITY's project manager shall verify and approve these
measurements and calculations in writing prior to the C1TY's issuance of monthly progress a
o
payments to the contractor.
c
K Upon completion of all Utility work, including work authorized under change orders and co
a)
supplemental agreements, the CITY and COUNTY shall conduct a joint final inspection of
the Utility work with the CITY's and COUNTY's project managers and/or inspectors and/or -a
engineer of record prior to CITY's issuing final payment to the contractor. o
re
u_
SECTION III: MUTUAL COVENANTS .
0
a)
3.0 The location of the PROJECT is within Area 4 and Area 5 of the "City of Naples Master Sewer
Plan for the City's Unsewered Service Areas" prepared by Johnson Engineering in September el
2006. The specific streets under consideration for the PROJECT may include some or all of the In
CO
following streets:
• Hollygate Lane
co
• Frank Whiteman Blvd. ra
...7.
• Cooper Drive —
c
• Illinois Drive 0
' <
• Wisconsin Drive o
• 10th Street North - co
• 12th Street North
• 14al Street North rl'
co
• Ohio Drive '5
• High Point Circle a)
E
• Ridge Street a)
2
• Rosemary Lanecs)
<
• Rosemary Court To
0
0
3,1 The CITY shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, skills, sequences 7:
W
.i.
or procedures of construction relating to Roadway or Stormwater improvements. The above c
responsibilities during construction shall remain with the COUNTY'S contractor and/or the ca
E.D.
contractor's subcontractors subject to the conditions and responsibilities set forth in this Interlocal <
Agreement. -as
a
o
cc
3.2 The CITY shall be responsible for providing review services and guidance to the COUNTY to u..
ensure that design and construction of the Utility components of the PROJECT comply with or 0
exceed the CITY's Utility design and construction minimum standards. 46.1
a)
3.3 The CITY shall not be responsible to the COUNTY should the COUNTY fail to comply with the .;..;
c
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Safety and Health Standards (29 C.F.R. a)
E
1926) as authorized by the U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA; said responsibilities to be that of the c
a
COUNTY's contractor and/or the contractor's subcontractor. 2,
..k.'
I Packet Pg. 512 k
1 6.A.9.a
3,4 The COUNTY's Capital Project, Impact Fees and Program Management Division Director, either
directly with the CITY's Utilities Department Director or through a duly authorized project
manager assigned to the PROJECT, shall act as the COUNTY's contract manager under this d
Interlocal Agreement. As the COUNTY's contract manager under this Interlocal Agreement, the E
Capital Project, Impact Fees and Program Management Division Director shall also have the T.
authority with prior written approval of the CITY to extend the limits and/or scope of Utility Q
construction work; subject to the COUNTY's Purchasing Policy and approval as required by the �a
Collier County Board of Commissioners. o
0
m
3.5 The COUNTY and CITY agree that this is a joint project that will follow the Request for Proposal c
(RFP) process for selecting the design consultant, and the public bidding process for selecting the as
construction contractor(s). As such, the COUNTY will provide two (2) staff members with Q
stormwater design/construction experience and one (l) staff member with utility a
design/construction experience to serve on an RFP selection committee and a bid review o
II
committee. The CITY will provide one (1) staff member with stormwater design/construction u.
experience and two (2) staff members with utility design/construction experience to serve on an �7
RFP selection committee and a bid review committee.
a)
3.6 During the construction phase of the PROJECT, construction engineering inspection services will n,
be provided by a CITY staff, COUNTY staff, consultant firm, and/or any combination thereof. 000
Periodic on-site inspections and construction reviews will be conducted by the COUNTY or its
designee or the CITY to assess the contractor's compliance with the construction plans and contract
a:DS
documents.
w
c
3.7 The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with four (4) sets of the approved construction plans and ç
contract documents for the PROJECT prior to commencement of construction activities by the L
COUNTY's contractor. ca
SECTION IV: AGREEMENT TERMS N
co
wm
4.0 This Interlocal Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from the date first above written and ai
shall terminate upon the completion of all services and responsibilities mutually performed by the a)
COUNTY and by the CITY to the written satisfaction of each to the other. It is understood that the a�
actual termination date herein may occur on or about the date of final approval and acceptance of Q
all Roadway, Stormwater and Utility improvements by the COUNTY and subject to construction
contract warranty provisions. This date is contemplated to be subsequent to the actual date of final °
17
approval and acceptance of the Utility improvements by the CITY and following payment by the °'
CITY to the COUNTY.
ca
L
4.1 Within the COUNTY public easements and/or rights-of-way of the AREA impacted by this Project, -a
the Roadway and Stormwater improvements shall be maintained by the COUNTY or its assigns, o
and the Utilities improvements shall be maintained by the CITY or its assigns. ct
u.
0
4.2 "1 he COUNTY or the CITY may terminate this Interlocal Agreement prior to the completion of the 715
Utility work upon thirty (30) days prior written notice each to the other. In the event of such a)
termination by either party, the COUNTY shall be entitled to receive due compensation for the
value of services rendered, construction performed, and termination costs as actually incurred. aa)
E
s
0
4
a
4
(bp.
I Packet Pg. 513 I
I 6.A.9.a
SECTION V: INSURANCE
5.0 The COUNTY and the CITY shall maintain insurance in at least the minimum amounts and types a)
as required by Florida Statutes.
cu
6")
5.1 The COUNTY and the CITY agree that both parties are partially self-insured. Each shall provide to
the other evidence of insurance in excess of the self-insured retention.
0
5.2 Nothing in this Interlocal Agreement shall operate as a waiver of the sovereign immunity afforded
to the parties as provided in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes
SECTION VI: MISCELLANEOUS
as
6.0 This Interlocal Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of
Florida. In the event any litigation is instituted by way of construction or enforcement of this
Interlocal Agreement, the party prevailing in said litigation shall be entitled to collect and recover
from the opposite party all court costs and other expenses excluding attorney's fees. Venue is in
Collier County, Florida.
co
6.1 It is understood that this Interlocal Agreement must be executed by both parties prior to the
COUNTY and the CITY commencing with the work, services, duties, and responsibilities described
heretofore.
6.2 This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by written agreement of both the COUNTY and
the CITY through authorized representatives.
(JD
6.3 The County shall record this Agreement at is sole cost in the Public Records of Collier County.
c4f
SECTION VII: DISPUTE RESOLUTION cc)
7.1 The parties recognize that they are entities subject to dispute resolution procedures set out in
Chapter 164, Florida Statutes.
ta)
7.2 In the event of a dispute between the parties concerning this Interlocal Agreement, the COUNTY
Tic
and the CITY agree to attempt to resolve the dispute as expeditiously and inexpensively as feasible.
Specifically, their respective staffs will meet within ten (10) days of provision of notice of the
dispute and attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute. They may jointly agree to a mediator to a
expedite and effectuate a resolution. If they are unable to agree upon a mediator, within ten (10)
days thereafter, they shall jointly request the Chief Judge of the 20th Judicial Circuit to appoint a
mediator qualified in construction law to mediate the dispute in accordance with the court's pre-suit
mediation procedures. The mediation shall occur within ten (10) days after the mediator is
appointed. If the dispute cannot be resolved at this level, the Chapter 164 remedies shall be u..
available. Each party shall pay equally in the cost of the mediation. th
4E;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Interlocal Agreement to be
executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written.
U
:47
4./457\
I Packet Pg. 514
16.A.9.a
AS TO THE COUNTY:
E
a)
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA `Eo'
71.
0
By: By:
Deputy Clerk Donna Fiala, Chairman
f.12
0
Approved as to form
and legality:
cu
N4+ 4°
)r)
Jennifer A. Belpedio cipfr 00
Assistant County Attorney
ra
AS TO THE CITY OF NAPLES:
0
ATTEST: CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA
By: By: 00
Patricia L. Rambosk, City Clerk Bill Barnett,Mayor
E
a)
a)
cr)
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
0
70:
co
Robert Pritt
City Attorney
0
th
4-.
a)
E
I Packet Pg. 515
CITY OF NAPLES
MASTER SEWER PLAN
FOR THE CITY'S
UNSEWERED SERVICE
AREAS
ENGINEERING
2158 JOHNSON STREET
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA
(239)334-0046
SEPTEMBER 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY......................................................................................... E-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................
1
2.0 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM............................................................2
3.0 AREAS INVESTIGATED........................................................................................
3
3.1 Descriptions of Areas 1-7....................................................................................
4
w 3.2 Description of Procedures....................................................................................
5
3.3 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Layouts........................................................................
6
4.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM .........................
10
4.1 Predicted Influent Flow.....................................................................................
10
4.2 Infiltration (I/I) Analysis....................................................................................
1 1
4.3 Capacity Analysis Report Conclusion................................................................
13
5.0 FINAL PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER ......................................................
14
5.1 Final Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Study Summary .............................................
15
5.2 Pump Station Design Criteria.............................................................................
18
6.0 PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ..............................................
34
7.0 COST BREAKDOWN...........................................................................................
41
H
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendices
APPENDIX A- Preliminary Layouts for Sanitary Sewer ............................................. A-1
APPENDIX B- Proposed Scenarios for Preliminary Layouts ...................................... B-1
APPENDIX C- Influent Flow to Wastewater Treatment Plant .................................... C-1
APPENDIX D- Daily Precipitation............................................................................ D-1
APPENDIX E- Water Bills........................................................................................ E-1
APPENDIX F- Individual Manholes...........................................................................F-1
APPENDIX G- Individual Manhole Costs.................................................................. G-1
ii
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Naples has contracted Johnson Engineering, Inc. to develop a sanitary sewer master
plan for the City of Naples Unsewered Service Area located: (1) between Goodlette-Frank Road
and U.S. 41, north of Ridge Street and south of Pine Ridge Road (See Appendix B, Final
Scenario Preliminary Layout, Areas 1-6), and (2) east of Goodlette-Frank Road, north of
Bembury Drive, and south of 14`h Avenue North, (See Appendix B, Final Scenario Preliminary
Layout Area 7).
A preliminary study of the existing wastewater collection and transmission systems was
conducted. This study identified components of the system that could be used or require
modifications. With this information, multiple scenarios were developed for each of the seven
areas. The City of Naples chose one of these scenarios for each area, which became the basis for
further analysis.
An Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) was formulated for each corresponding area of study. The
prices were based on similar Southwest Florida projects performed in 2006. These costs are
reported in 2006 dollars.
•Area 1:
$ 1,781,660
•Area 2:
$ 6,749,232
•Area 3:
$ 5,092,936
•Area 4:
$ 3,544,108
•Area 5:
$ 1,985,755
•Area 6:
$ 671,754
-Area 7:
$ 1,035,403
For the purpose of further cost analysis, a systematic approach was developed to achieve an
associated cost for each manhole. The cost represents the dollar amount necessary to put the
identified manhole in service (i.e. cost of the manhole and associated infrastructure downstream).
This approach provides the ability to calculate the cost for a sub -division of a proposed sanitary
sewer layout (e.g. cost can be broken down into a street by street basis).
SEPTEMBER 2006
E-1 ENGINEERING
0 H N S (-) I
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
2.0 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
A preliminary investigation of the existing gravity sewer and lift station systems was conducted.
Verification of existing wastewater facilities was preformed using the City of Naples as -built
plans (Sections B9 through BH) which were provided by the City of Naples Wastewater
Department. As -built information was used to identify existing components of the system that
could be used to provide future sanitary sewer services.
Project Phase 1 has seven publicly owned existing lift stations (See Appendix B) as follows:
• Lift Station 018000 - An 8 inch gravity sewer main provides sanitary sewer
-� service for the area located between U.S. 41 and Goodlette-Frank Road, south of
Creech Road, and north of 26th Avenue North. The lift station pumps wastewater
through a 6 inch force main that manifolds into a 16 inch force main on U.S. 41.
• Lift Station 073000 — An 8 inch gravity sewer main provides sanitary sewer
service for the private area located within High Point circle. The lift station pumps
wastewater east through a 2 inch force main that conveys wastewater to an 8 inch
gravity sewer main. The gravity sewer main is then routed to lift station 072001.
• Lift Station 072001- An 8 inch gravity sewer main provides sanitary sewer
service for a majority of the commercial lots located between 10th Street North
and U.S. 41, south of Ohio Drive, and north of Ridge Road. Three private lift
stations manifold into a 4inch force main. The force main routes into a gravity
sewer main at the intersection of 10th Street North and Ohio Drive, which conveys
into lift station 072001.
SEPTEMBER 2006 2 ImIllam
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
• Lift Station 076000- An 8 inch gravity sewer main provides sanitary sewer
services for the area located between U.S. 41 and Goodlette-Frank Road, south of
Morning Side Drive, and north of Solana Road. The 10 inch force main is routed
from the north on Goodlette Frank Road into the lift station. The lift station
pumps wastewater through a 16 inch force main that manifolds into a 16 inch
force main on Goodlette-Frank Road.
• Lift Station 021000 — An 8 inch gravity sewer main provides sanitary sewer
service for a majority of the commercial lots located to the east of U.S. 41,
between North Alhambra Circle and South Alhambra Circle. The lift station
pumps wastewater east through a 6 inch force main that manifolds into a 10 inch
force main on Goodlette- Frank Road.
• Lift Station 077000- An 8 inch gravity sewer main provides sanitary sewer
services for the residential lots located on Woodridge Avenue, Westlake
Boulevard, Lakeshore Drive, Lakeshore Place, Lakeshore Court, and Dorando
Drive. The lift station pumps wastewater through a 4 inch force main that
manifolds into a 10 inch force main on Goodlette-Frank Road.
�` • Lift Station 078000- An 8 inch gravity sewer main provides sanitary sewer
service for the commercial lots located between U.S. 41 and Castello Drive. The
lift station pumps wastewater east though a 4 inch force main, which conveys into
an 8 inch gravity sewer main. The gravity sewer main then conveys wastewater
into lift station 077000.
The area also has four private lift stations that serve a majority of the commercial lots located on
the western side of the area.
Project Phase 2 located east of Goodlette-Frank, north of Bembury Drive, and south of 14`h
Avenue North does not contain any existing lift stations. A 4 inch force main exists on 15th
Street North, and manifolds into a 6 inch force main on 1P Avenue North. The 6 inch force
main manifolds into a 20 inch force main located on Goodlette-Frank Road.
3.0 AREAS INVESTIGATED
Prior to the June 21, 2006 meeting, areas already sewered were identified. The remaining
unsewered areas, for the entire project, were sub -divided into seven areas of study. The areas
were defined by the following criteria:
.� • The potential for existing lift stations to serve unsewered lots.
• The potential to service with new lift station and minimize depth to under 14-16 feet.
• Project Phase 1 was divided into Unsewered Areas 1-6
• Project Phase 2 consists of one area, Unsewered Area 7.
SEPTEMBER 2006 3
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
3.1 Description of Project Phases 1 and 2 (Areas 1-7)
Figure 3.0: Unsewered Project Phase 1, Areas 1-6
Unsewered Area 1 is located in the northern section I ; of the the project boundary, south of Pine Ridge Road. +
residential lots are located on Milano Drive, Lastrada
AR»3A 1
Lane, Pompei Lane, Cortina Court, and Napoli Drive _
north of Woodridge Avenue.
Unsewered Area 2 is located in northern section of
the project area, three blocks south of Unsewered
Area 1. The area contains residential and commercial
lots located between North Alhambra Circle and
Morningside Drive.
Unsewered Area 3 is located in the middle of the
-- project area. The area contains residential and ;
commercial lots located between Solana Road and
_41
Hemingway Place.
Unsewered Area 4 is located directly south of
Unsewered Area 3. The area contains residential and
commercial lots located between Hollygate Lane and
Wisconsin Drive.
Unsewered Area 5 is located south of Unsewered
Area 4. The area contains residential and commercial
lots located between Ridge Street and Creech Road
Unsewered Area 6 is located directly south of
Unsewered Area 5. The area contains residential lots
located on Rordon Street.
SEPTEMBER 2006
4
MR ff
AREA S
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
Figure 3.1: Unsewered Project Phase 2, Area 7
Unsewered Area 7 is located
southeast of the Project Area 1.
The area is located east of
Goodlette-Frank, north of '
Bembury Drive, and south of 10
Avenue North. The area contains
residential lots.
1
3.2 Description of Procedures
-- Various preliminary sanitary sewer layouts were developed for each unsewered area. Each
scenario was created by using a number of procedures. For each of the procedures, a 14.3 foot
natural ground elevation was used based on an average of ground elevations from the As -built
-- plans. For all scenarios, 8 inch gravity sewer mains were used with at least 4 foot of cover.
Depth of cut was governed by existing lift station inverts, if the existing lift station was expected
to be utilized.
Procedure 1: For areas with existing lift stations, the invert depth was used to calculate
the maximum length of sewer main that could be installed without a wet well invert
modification. Various gravity sewer main configurations were examined to maximize the
number of lots which could be served.
Procedure 2: If existing lift stations were not of sufficient depth to serve the gravity
sewer main routed from the unsewered area, a new lift station was proposed to serve the
respective area of study.
Procedure 3: In order to minimize the depth of the gravity sewer main, a location was
determined which subdivided the critical path into two equal sections. At the identified
location, a lift station depth was calculated. The purpose for this procedure was to
minimize cost and maximize efficiency.
Procedure 4: As a variation of Procedure 3, if conditions existed such as a lift station
fell between two lots, the location interfered with existing structures on the lots, or there
was a conflict with the availability of right of way, then the lift station was placed in an
SEPTEMBER 2006 5
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
alternative location. The alternative location took into account these factors. The purpose
for this scenario was to identify a lift station location and eliminate direct conflicts.
Procedure 5: As an alternative to replacing an existing lift station with a deeper one, a
scenario was created in which a second lift station was added. The purpose for this
procedure was to see how cost varied between the two choices and to minimize the depth
of the gravity sewer main.
3.3 Proposed Sanitaty Sewer Layouts
This section describes the procedures preformed on each of the seven unsewered areas. As seen
in Figure 3.3, a preliminary cost and benefit chart of the sewer collection system for each area
and scenario was developed. The various costs were used for the comparative purposes only and
do not include road restoration, force main, manholes, and maintenance of traffic (MOT).
Unsewered Area 1
Scenario 1 makes use of Procedure 3, in which an optimal location for the installation of a new
lift station was determined. This provided a minimal cost for the area; however, the location
may not be plausible as it falls between two developed lots. (See Appendix A, Sheet 1)
Scenario 2 makes use of Procedure 4. In this scenario, a secondary location for the lift station
was determined. This location necessitated an increase in depth of the longest 8 inch gravity
sewer main and increased depth of the lift station. This scenario was recommended because the
lift station was placed in a location which appeared to not interfere with existing developed lots.
r` (See Appendix A, Sheet 2)
Unsewered Area 2
In Scenario 1, Procedure 1 makes use of lift station 021000. It was determined from the City of
Naples as -built plans to be of sufficient depth to lay out the gravity sewer main in order to serve
the entire area. (See Appendix A. Sheet 1)
Unsewered Area 3
In Scenario 1, Procedure 5 makes use of lift station 076000. The addition of a second lift station
is located at 12`" Street North and Michigan Avenue. In this scenario an easement is required
- between Michigan Avenue and Cypress Woods Drive. This scenario was determined to be the
least expensive, but an easement would be required. (See Appendix A, Sheet 1)
In Scenario 2, Procedure 2 was used, which identified lift station 076000 as the only lift station
available to serve the area. The gravity sewer main was laid out and a depth for the lift station
was calculated. This scenario was an alternative to the construction of multiple lift stations. (See
Appendix A, Sheet 2)
SEPTEMBER 2006 6 Imlogwil
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
In Scenario 3, Procedure 5 makes use of lift station 076000. The addition of a second lift station
is located at Hemingway Place and 14`" Street North. This scenario provides an alternative
location for the secondary lift station in Scenarios 1 and 4. (See Appendix A, Sheet 3)
In Scenario 4, Procedure 5 makes use of lift station 076000. The addition of a second lift station
is located at 120' Street North and Michigan Avenue. This scenario does not require an easement
between Michigan Avenue and Cypress Woods Drive. This layout was designed so that a cost
comparison could be made to determine the benefit of securing an easement. (See Appendix A,
Sheet 4)
Unsewered Area 4
Scenario 1 makes use of Procedure 3, in which the optimal location of a new lift station was
determined, and the gravity sewer main was laid out. (See Appendix A, Sheet 1)
Unsewered Area 5
Scenario 1 makes use of Procedure 3, in which the optimal location of a new lift station was
determined and gravity sewer main was laid out. (See Appendix A, Sheet 1)
In Scenario 2, Procedure 1 makes use of lift station 072001. It was determined from the City of
Naples as -built plans to not be of sufficient depth to lay out the gravity sewer main in order to
serve the entire area. In this scenario, the lift station needed to be deepened, and an easement
would be required between Highpoint Circle South and Ridge Street. (See Appendix A, Sheet 2)
�- Unsewered Area 6
Scenario 1 makes use of procedure 2. In this scenario a gravity sewer main was laid out and
connected into an existing gravity sewer main. The existing gravity sewer main would need to
be deepened and the lift station would need to be deepened. (See Appendix A, Sheet 1)
Unsewered Area 7
Scenario 1 makes use of Procedure 3, in which the optimal location of a new lift station was
T- determined and gravity sewer main was laid out. (See Appendix A, Sheet 4)
Scenario 2 makes use of Procedure 3, and a secondary location for the lift station was
determined. This location necessitated an increase in the depth of the longest 8 inch gravity
sewer and increased depth of the lift station. This scenario was recommended because the
location of the lift station was located in northeastern portion of the U.S. Post Office lot, an area
plausible for construction. (See Appendix A, Sheet 4)
Scenario 3 makes use of Procedure 3, in order to present another alternative location to the lifts
station. This location necessitated an increase in the depth of the longest 8 inch gravity sewer and
increased the depth of the lift station. This scenario was conducted in the event that the lift
station locations were not available in scenarios 1 and 2. (See Appendix A, Sheet 3)
SEPTEMBER 2006 7
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
A preliminary cost of the sewer collection system for each area and associated scenario was
developed for comparative purposes. The costs were used for the comparative purposes only, as
they do not include road restoration, force main, manholes, and MOT.
After the June 21, 2006 meeting, scenarios were chosen by the City of Naples for final
preliminary design. The preliminary layouts took into account force mains, gravity sewers, lift
stations size and depth and the chosen scenarios for final preliminary design are:
• Area 1- Scenario 1
• Area 2- Scenario 1
• Area 3- Scenario 3
• Area 4- Scenario 1
• Area 5- Scenario 2
• Area 6- Scenario 1
• Area 7- Scenario 2
SEPTEMBER 2006 8
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
s.s: overview t-nart or unsewerea Area z!)cenanos
CITY OF NAPLES
MASTER SEWER PLAN
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
ost for sewer system does not include mobilization, force main, and road restoration these cost were used for comparative purposes.
SEPTEMBER 2006 9
ENGINEERING
Opinion of
Probable Cost
Total
Cost
Optimized
Lift Station
location
plausible
Applicability of lift
station location Is
unknown
Less lift
stations to
maintain
New lift
station
required
Lift Station
must be
deepened
Easement
required
Area 1
Scenario 1
$555,700
V,
>�
Scenario 2
$575,700
Area 2
Scenario 1
$2,081,600
Area 3
Scenario 1
$1,494,350
J
sf
Scenario 2
$1,730,400
d
d
d
Scenario 3
$1,790,450
Y
Scenario 4
$1,738,550
d
Area 4
Scenario 1
$1,136,690
sf
Area 5
Scenario 1
$537,400
Scenario 2
$723,050
[1(
Area 6
Scenario 1
$134,620
Y
Y
Area 7
Scenario 1
$344,300
i(
d
Scenario 2
$373,550
d
Scenario 3
$438,600
d
d
ost for sewer system does not include mobilization, force main, and road restoration these cost were used for comparative purposes.
SEPTEMBER 2006 9
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
4.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
This section describes the approaches taken to find the amount of wastewater flow,
inflow/infiltration (III), and wastewater plant capacity for the seven unsewered areas. The
predicted wastewater flow for the unsewered areas provides data which was used for preliminary
sizing of force mains, gravity sewer mains, and lift stations.
4.1 Predicted Wastewater Flow
Wastewater production was calculated by the number of single-family housing units and the
water -billing information from all remaining lots (e.g. commercial and multi -family housing
groups). Figure 4.0 depicts the amount of flow conveying to each lift station from each
unsewered area. Certain lots are already part of the current system, but with the utilization of
existing infrastructure influent flow is taken into account.
DATA
Single -Family Housing Units Residential housing information was provided by the City
of Naples.
Water Bills The City of Naples' Finance Department provided current water billing
information for multi -family and non-residential lots located in the unsewered areas. (See
Appendix E)
DATA ANALYSIS
Existing and potential single family units were identified for each unsewered area. A predicted
daily wastewater flow of 250 gallons per day was assigned to each lot. From the water billing
information, average wastewater flow was predicted for multi -family housing groups and non-
residential lots conveying to the respective unsewered area. Using the provided information for
the residential and non-residential lots, an average daily flow was calculated for each respective
unsewered area. A peaking factor was assigned to each area in compliance with the Ten State
Standards. (See Figure 4.0)
L':...,.o A A. Vr A;nft A inA—f T71mv fnr the CPVPn i 1ncPWPr0f1 Arra,.
Family
Area 1
Single
Lots
104
Housing
Groups and
Cornmericial Lots
0
Average Daily
Flow (gpm)
18
Peak
Factor
1 4.10 1
Peak Flow
(gpm)
74
Area 2
455
14
87
3.76
327
Area 3a
155
46
54
4.03
216
Area 3b
131
) 0
23
4.06
92
Area 4 1
248
0
43
3.92
169
Area 5
73
36
51
3.88 1
196
Area 6
140
8
44
4.05
177
Area 7
50
0
9
4.22
37
SEPTEMBER 2006 10
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
4.2 Infiltration (I/I) Analvsis
Infiltration to the effluent inflow is noticed when effluent inflow quantities are plotted with
precipitation values (See Figure 4.1). Infiltration is common for aging sewer infrastructure,
especially in systems that have clay or ductile iron pipes (DIP). Infiltration is the result of the
pipe material breaking down and allowing groundwater to flow into the system as the water table
rises or improperly secured manhole covers that all storm water to flow through the unsealed
seem of the cover. Precipitation values are the best form of data available to predict storm water
runoff available and to raise the water table that would provide infiltration into the system.
Figure 4.1 Precipitation and Effluent Flow over Time
7
m 6
r
c 5
4
oa 3
a 2
CL
1
0 -- -
11/9/2004 2/17/2005 5/28/2005 9/5/2005 12/14/2005 3/24/2006
Date
----r 16
14 0
12
c
10
8 S
3 m
6 o a
U.
4 c
m
2
w
0
7/2/2006
An infiltration and inflow (I/I) analysis was performed to determine influence of daily influent
flow and daily precipitation on the current and proposed lift stations. Influent flow to the
wastewater treatment plant and daily precipitation in Naples were statistically analyzed to
determine if a correlation exist that would identify the flow volume that is introduced by 1/1.
The infiltration analysis was designed to account for precipitation as the basis of infiltration and
inflow and determine the total changes in the total flow as a result.
DATA
Influent Flow Ken Kemlage (Supervisor, City of Naples WWTP) provided daily influent
data for plant operation from January 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006. (See Appendix Q.
Daily Precipitation Daily precipitation data was obtained from the South Florida Water
61L Management District's (SFWMD) website database. The collection site used in the
analysis is Station 16633 NAPLES _R, which is located southeast of the unsewered
area(s), north of the airport. The data provided by SFWMD provided total daily amounts
of precipitation from January 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006. (See Appendix D)
SEPTEMBER 200611 NI
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
DATA ANALYSIS
Linear regression modeling was used to determine a correlation between daily rainfall and daily
influent flow to the wastewater treatment plant. The daily rainfall data and the daily influent
flow were linked by date, to provide a corresponding influent inflow to the rainfall data. The
rainfall date was set as the domain, since it was expected to influence the infiltration, resulting in
the infiltration being the range data. A model to predict the influence of infiltration from
precipitation would be created from statistically significant correlations. A series of regressions
were used to determine a relationship between the precipitation and the influent flow. A possible
_ correlation is determined with statistical significance that is represented by a R -squared greater
than 0.82.
The initial regression analysis was performed on the entire data plot that was collected from the
influent flow and the precipitation data (See Figure 4.2). The data that was collected from the
sources was not manipulated or changed. The initial regression analysis of all the raw data
produced an R -squared of 0. 13, which determined that the data in a raw state does not correlate
and could not produce a model that would predict infiltration.
Figure 4.2 Correlation of Raw Data for January 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006
16
614 --
€ 12 •
0 10 •• t if:8 4 y = 0.5622x + 7.466&¢ 2
RZ = 0.1311
c
0 -
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Precipitation (inches)
Raw data was filtered by daily rainfall quantities. Data points with zero inches of precipitation
were omitted from the set. The regression analysis of data that had rainfall occurring produced
an R -squared of 0.18. The regression determined that although the data was better than in the
raw state, it still does not correlate and could not produce a model that would predict
infiltration.
A seasonal rainfall approach was taken with the data that had occurred with precipitation. The
data was divided into sets according to season (March 18, 2005 to May 31, 2005; June 1, 2005 to
August 1, 2005; and October 7, 2005 to March 3, 2005). Fall and winter seasons were grouped
because the dry season does not provide significant precipitation that must occur for influent
infiltration to occur.
SEPTEMBER 2006 12
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
As expected, the dry season provided the least correlation with an R -squared value of 0.04. The
best correlation of the analysis was for the months of March to May with an R -squared value of
0.43. The March to May data set does not correlate strong enough to support a model to predict
infiltration flows.
Filtering of the raw precipitation and wastewater flow data could not yield a strong correlation to
provide a model to predict infiltration and inflow into the sewer system. Additional data would
be needed to predict infiltration and inflow. Site specific data to the areas with infiltration and
inflow problems would yield in stronger data conditioning that could lead to finding a direct
correlation.
Although, an infiltration and inflow model could not be determined, investigation of the existing
lift stations and force mains in the unsewered service area shows that the force main system is
capable of handling the additional sewage flow from the unsewered service area. The
wastewater transmission main along Goodlette-Frank Road also has sufficient size and capacity
to serve the unsewered service area at this time. The data shows that existing areas with
significant infiltration and inflow problems do not significantly impact the wastewater
transmission main along Goodlette-Frank Road, and thus, infiltration and inflow can be ignored
for all practical purposes. This is an agreement with the City of Naples' personnel whom
confirmed that infiltration and inflow problems are not noticeable in the Goodlette-Frank Road
wastewater transmission main.
4.3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS REPORT CONCLUSION
From the City of Naples Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility Capacity Analysis
Report, the treatment facility has a design capacity of 10.0 MGD (MMADF). Projections
suggest that capacity will not be reached until approximately 2012.
-- From the daily influent data for plant operations from January 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006,
provided by Ken Kemlage (Supervisor, City of Naples WWTP), a 2005 MMADF was found to
be 9.5 MGD (See Figure 4.9). An estimated 0.33 MGD of wastewater flow will be added when
-- the proposed sanitary sewer system is complete. It is anticipated that the projected wastewater
flow from the unsewered areas will not adversely impact the wastewater treatment facility.
SEPTEMBER 2006 13
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
Figure 4.9: City of Naples Wastewater Treatment Facility Average Monthly Flow
City of Naples Wastewater Treatment
Facility Influent Flow
12
10
0
0_ 8
3
0 6
c
4
0
c
K
M
oy C41) , o`" oy o`" ooy oy oy ti py o
co`O
Date (Months)
5.0 FINAL PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER
— Based upon the scenarios which were chosen by the City of Naples, AutoCAD drawings were
created which took into account the proposed and existing sewer infrastructure located in
Unsewered Areas 1-7. Manhole, force main, and gravity sewer mains were laid out in more
detail to establish depth of cut for installation. All 8 inch gravity sewer mains have a slope of
0.4% in compliance with Ten State Standards. In circumstances where a 10 inch gravity sewer
main was needed, a 0.28% slope was applied. Appropriate force main size was determined in
accordance with engineering standards, and based on the predicted influent flow (See previous
Section 3.1).
A manhole and lift station numbering system was created to identify proposed infrastructure.
Each manhole and lift station is identified by three numbers, with the first number corresponding
to the associated unsewered area (See Appendix F). Existing lift stations, which will be utilized
for the proposed sanitary sewer infrastructure, have been assigned a new identification number
for the purpose of uniformity (See figure 5.0).
SEPTEMBER 2006 I4
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
Figure 5.0: Lift Station Identification Change
5.1 Final Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Stud Summa
This section describes the required conditions for each of the seven unsewered areas.
Reasonable judgment was used in estimating all quantities; however, quantities may vary
slightly, pending final design. See Appendix B for the Final Preliminary Layout. described
below for all areas.
Unsewered Area 1
Throughout the area, gravity sewer main is proposed to be constructed and directed to the
proposed lift station located on the southwest corner of Lastrada Lane and Napoli Drive. The
following infrastructure is proposed:
• A total of 5,329± linear feet of 8 inch gravity sewer main with a 0.4%
grade will be directed to proposed lift station 100.
• A total of 843± linear feet of 4 inch force main exits the lift station and
ties into the existing 10 inch force main located on Goodlette-Frank
Road.
• The proposed lift station 100 needs to be constructed to a total depth of
16.5 feet.
Unsewered Area 2
Throughout the area, gravity sewer main is proposed to be constructed and directed to the
existing lift station located on the eastern corner of Capri Drive and Granada Boulevard. The
following infrastructure is proposed:
• A total of 22,534 t linear feet of 8 inch gravity sewer main with a
0.4% grade will be directed to master manhole 222.
• A total of 32± linear feet of 10 inch gravity sewer main with a 0.28%
grade will be routed from the master manhole 222 to the existing lift
station.
SEPTEMBER 2006 15
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
• The existing 6 inch force main, which manifolds into a 16 inch force
main on U.S. 41, does not need to be resized.
• Proposed manholes (MH 229, MH 230, and MH 231) tie into an
existing 8 inch gravity sewer main located on Granada Boulevard.
The depth of the existing gravity sewer main controls the proposed
manhole depth.
Unsewered Area 3
Throughout the area, gravity sewer main proposed to be constructed and directed to the existing
lift station 300 (old number 076000), and to a proposed lift station located in the eastern right of
way at the intersection of 14th Street North and Hemingway Place. The following infrastructure
is proposed:
• A total of 10,7551 linear feet of 8 inch gravity sewer main with a 0.4% grade
will be directed to lift station 300.
• A total of 5,447± linear feet of 8 inch gravity sewer main with a 0.4% grade
will be directed to the proposed lift station located in the eastern right of way
at the intersection of 14th Street North and Hemingway Place.
• A total of 215± linear feet of 4 inch force main exits the proposed lift station
and ties into the 16 inch force main located on Cypress Wood Drive.
• The proposed lift station 301 needs to be constructed to a total depth of 21
feet.
If an easement could be obtained through lot Folio Number 29730440005 or lot Folio Number
29730400003, then scenario 2 would provide an estimated $136,631 decrease in cost, excluding
the cost of the easement. (See Appendix A, Option 3b)
Unsewered Area 4
Throughout the area, gravity sewer main is proposed to be constructed and directed to the
proposed lift station located in the eastern right-of-way on Cooper Drive. The following
infrastructure is proposed:
• A total of 11,222± linear feet of 8 inch gravity sewer main with a 0.4% grade
will be directed to proposed lift station 400.
• A total of 2,081± linear feet of 6 inch force main routes from the lift station
and manifolds into the 16 inch force main located on Goodlette-Frank Road.
• Proposed lift station 400 needs to be constructed to a total depth of 19.0 feet.
SEPTEMBER 2006 16
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
Unsewered Area 5
Throughout the area, gravity sewer main is proposed to be constructed and directed to the
existing lift station 500 (old number 072000). The following infrastructure is proposed:
• A total of 5,812± linear feet of 8 inch gravity sewer main with a 0.4% grade
will be directed to existing lift station 500.
• Lift Station 500 needs to be deepened to a total depth of 21.5 feet.
• An easement is required through lot folio number 71020801001.
• The existing 2 inch force main routed from lift station 073000, located on
Highpoint Circle South, is proposed to discharge into the proposed sanitary
sewer manhole 502.
Unsewered Area 6
Throughout the area, gravity sewer main is proposed to be constructed and directed to the
" existing lift station 018000. The following infrastructure is proposed:
• A total of 2,330± linear feet of 8 inch gravity sewer main with a 0.4% grade
will be directed to lift station 600 (old number 018000).
• Existing gravity sewer main must be deepened from manhole 606 to lift
station 600, located along 12`" Street North.
• Lift station 600 needs to be deepened.
Unsewered Area 7
Throughout the area, gravity sewer main proposed to be constructed and directed to the proposed
lift station on the northeast corner of 13`" Avenue North and Bembury Drive. The following
infrastructure is proposed:
• A total of 3,402± linear feet of 8 inch gravity sewer main with a 0.4% grade
will be directed to proposed lift station 700.
• A total of 70± linear feet of 2 inch force main conveys wastewater to the
existing 6 inch force main located on 13'h Avenue North.
• Proposed lift station 100 needs to be constructed to a total depth of 17.5 feet.
• A grinder pump is required due to the low flow conditions.
SEPTEMBER 2006 17
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
5.2 Pump Station Desien Criteria
For each of the proposed lift stations and/or existing lift station improvements, pumps were sized
from predicted influent flow (See Section 4.1). Pump type and performance curves are provided
on the following pages.
AREA 1 PUMP STATION DESIGN
Single Pump Operation
Station. Lift Station 100
FLOW CALCULATIONS
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 77 gpm at 74 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 18
ENGINEERING
Loading Type
Units ADF
Single -Family
104 26.000
GPD
Multi -Family
Housing
Groups and
Commericial
Lots
0 0
GPD
Total
26,000
GPD
Average Daily Flow (ADF)
26,000
GPD
Q81g = Average Flow*
18
GPM
Peak Factor
4.1
Peak Flow, QdP = Average Flow
* Peak Factor
74
GPM
Pump Type
CP3127
FLYGT
Pump Horsepower
10.0
HP
Pump Voltage
230
Volts
Pump Phase
3
Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 77 gpm at 74 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 18
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
POWER FACTOR
EFFICIENCY
[hp]
O
a 4
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
PRODUCT TYPE
PERFORMANCE CURVE CP3127.181 HT
PROJECT
CURVE NO
ISSUE
INNIMMEMMISMIMMIME00
MWMMMMMMMMMMMWM
63-484-00-3702
1
717 -LOAD
34 -LOAD IaLOAD
RATED
MEN MEM
0
IMPELLER DIAMETER
F
"'
10
hp
217 nvn
089
83.5%
0.87 0.81
85.0% 84.5 %
STS
CURRENT...
128
A
MOTOR 0 STATOR
REV
—
RATED
CURRENT
RATED
25
a
21-12-4AL 12Y11
11
INLETJOUTLET
FRED. I PHASES VOLTAGE
IPOLES
/ 4 Inch
TO.MMOM.OF
1735
rpm
60 Hz 3 230 V
4
IMP. THROU,%j
INERTIA
0.11
l Qm2
GFARTYPE RATIO
3.0 inch
BLADES
1
-- —
r
EFF.
50
40
-30
�2D
r,a
'0
0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 800 gpfT,]
NPSHre- NPSH3%+min operational margin
Performance with clear water and ambierd temp 40'C
SEPTEMBER 2006
19
FLOW
wzjj,j:r:�- I HI B Curve
ENGINEERING
NMMMMMMMW::C:::�:,
INNIMMEMMISMIMMIME00
MWMMMMMMMMMMMWM
I
MENEOMMOMMENMEME
MMOMMEM ME MMMMMMMummom,
INVIM MEN .` •
MEN MEM
0
F
�
.11MMEMG
r
EFF.
50
40
-30
�2D
r,a
'0
0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 800 gpfT,]
NPSHre- NPSH3%+min operational margin
Performance with clear water and ambierd temp 40'C
SEPTEMBER 2006
19
FLOW
wzjj,j:r:�- I HI B Curve
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA 2 PUMP STATION DESIGN
Single Pump Operation
Station: Lift Station 200
FLOW CALCULATIONS
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 517 gpm at 86 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 20
ENGINEERING
Loading Type
Units ADF
Single -Family
455 113,750
GPD
Multi -Family
Housing
Groups and
Commericial
Lots
10 11,327
GPD
Total
125,077
GPD
Average Daily Flow (ADF)
125,077
GPD
Qavg = Average Flow`
87
GPM
Peak Factor
3.8
Peak Flow, QdP = Average Flow
* Peak Factor
327
GPM
Pump Type
CP3152- VFD
FLYGT
Pump Horsepower
2.4
HP
Pump Voltage
230
Volts
Pump Phase
3
Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 517 gpm at 86 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 20
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
C)
OD
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AM W PERFORMANCE CURVE
PRODUCT 'TYPE
CP3152.181 HT
DATE
PROJECT
CURVENO ISSUE
2006-08-04
( I
40
63-454-00-5350 4
111 -LOAD 314 -LOAD V2 -LOAD RAPD ED
20
hp
IMPELLER DIAMETER
POWER FACTOR
0.84 079 0.69 STARTING
0
275 TTN11
EFFICIENCY
L870% 870% 86.0% CURRENT
285
A
MOTOR 6 STATOR REV
MOTOR DATA
�CUTRRENT.,,
51
A
25-154AA 12Y/+• Ill
COMMENTS
INLETTOUTLET SPTED
1%50
FREQ. PHASES VOLTAGE POLES
EED___..
4 6 inch TOT,MOM.OF60
Hz 3 1 230V 4
IMP,THR000HLET INERTIA
0 24
kgrii2
OEARTYPE RATIO
3.0 inch BLADES
1
!
[hp]
20
16
d12
a
DUTY -POINT FLOWNSOcmI HEAD1111 POWER (hp) EFF 1%1lel O t
B.E P. JIM 812 227 ( 198) 580 (88.8) 121 NPSHre
so
03020 40--
30-
20
10
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 [USgprllj
N FLOW
NPSHre r NPSH3%+ mm operational margin
Performance with clear water and ambient temp 40 C E WX HI 6 Curve
SEPTEMBER 2006 21
ENGINEERING
C)
OD
W
40
20
N
N
0
0
so
03020 40--
30-
20
10
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 [USgprllj
N FLOW
NPSHre r NPSH3%+ mm operational margin
Performance with clear water and ambient temp 40 C E WX HI 6 Curve
SEPTEMBER 2006 21
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA 3a PUMP STATION DESIGN
Single Pump Operation
Station Lift Station 300
FLOW CALCULATIONS
Loading Type Units ADF
Single -Family 155 38.750 GPD
Multi -Family
Housing
Groups and
Commericial
Lots 46 38,465 GPD
Total 77,215 GPD
Average Daily Flow (ADF)
77,215
GPD
Qa„9 = Average Flow*
54
GPM
Peak Factor
4.0
Peak Flow, QdP = Average Flow * Peak Factor
216
GPM
Pump Type
CP3152
FLYGT
Pump Horsepower
20.0
HP
Pump Voltage
230
Volts
Pump Phase
3
Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 273 gpm at 71 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006
2`7
ENGINEERING
n
L1
CITY OF NAPLES
0
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
�� PRODUCT ITYPE
.q—r MC0Cr1011AAAlr`C e`I ID\/C rDIA 1r.7 1121 RAT
SEPTEMBER 2006 23 lmnz�Effi
ENGINEERING
DATE
PROJECT
CURVENO
ISSUE
2006-08-04 1
63-434-00-53M
14
111 -LOAD 314 -LOAD 1.: LOAD RAPO ED
POWER FACTOR 0.84 0.79 0.69 STARTING
EFFICIENCY 87.0% 87.0 % 86.0 % CURRENT
MOTOR DATA CUTED RENT
ZO
2855
51
hp IMPELLER DIAMETER
263 nim
A MOTOR 0 STATOR
A 25-154AA 12Y11
REV
11
COMMENTS
INLETIOUTLET RATED
-/ 61nch TO .MDOMOF 1750
IMP THROUGHLET INERTIA .. 0.22
OF
3.9 inch BLADES 1
FRED. PHASES VOLTAGE
' 60 Hz 3 230 V
kym2 GEARTYPE RATIO
—
POLES
4
[hp)
18
I
i
O s
14
d12
LL
it;
10
<
� n
DUTY-POWT
SEP
FLOftsyvnl HEAD[ft] POWER 1hp] EFF. 1%] NPsHNn
943 411 ISS I ISQ 52.3 (599)
14.2 NPSHrgre
O s
80
40
w
70
35
T-
EFF.
00
1%]
I
Q50
25--50
W
4020
40
15--30
30
-10--20
20
10
- 5-10
x
0
-0
0 0 200 400 600 800
1000
1200 1400 [USgprn]
FLOW
NPSHre - NPSH3%+ min operatiorml margin
Performance with clear water and ambient temp 40 C
;4
TH I B Curve
1
SEPTEMBER 2006 23 lmnz�Effi
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
AREA 3b PUMP STATION DESIGN
Single Pump Operation
Station, Lift Station 301
FLOW CALCULATIONS
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 99 gpm at 71 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006
24
ENGINEERING
Loading Type
Units ADF
Single -Family
131 32,750
GPD
Multi -Family
Housing
Groups and
Commericial
Lots
0 0
GPD
Total
32,750
GPD
Average Daily Flow (ADF)
32,750
GPD
Qa„9 = Average Flow*
23
GPM
Peak Factor
4.1
Peak Flow, QdP = Average Flow
* Peak Factor
92
GPM
Pump Type
CP3127
FLYGT
Pump Horsepower
10.0
HP
Pump Voltage
230
Volts
Pump Phase
3
Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 99 gpm at 71 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006
24
ENGINEERING
L
CITY OF NAPLES
co
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
PERFORMANCE CURVE
CP3127.181
HT
GATE PROJECT
CURVE NO
ISSUE
2006-08-04 I
63-484-00-3702
1
111 -LOAD 3i4 -LOAD l2 -LOAD
POWER FACTOR 0.89 0.87 0.81
J EFFICIENCY 83,5% 86.0% 84.5%
LIMOTOR DATA —
RAPOTED WFR... 10 h
STARTING P
CURRENT 128 A
RATED
CURRENT... 25 A
MPELLERDIAMEfER
217 mm
MOTOR 0 STATOR REV
21-12-4AL 12Y�� 11
FRED,
60 Hz
PHASES
3
VOLTAGE
230 V
POLES
4
COMMENTS INLET/OUTLEr
4 inch
IMP. THROUGHLETINERTIA
3.0 inch
RATED
SPEED..1735 '
— 0.11 kg-,eGEARTYPE
BLADES 1
RATIO
—
[hp]
�g
i
o.
e
O
12
w
4
Ll
I I
I
W
DUTY -POINT FLOW.U9orm] HEAD[DI POWER Pip] EFF. Ix1 1
B.E.P. 417 444 e.29 ( 7.00 50.4 (SQ4) 11D NPSHre
O t
[�
I
[ft'
40-
76.
35
r
EFF.
00
i
30
[%1
igp
Of
--25--50
=
I
40
_
20-40
30
15-30
NP Hre= 6 ft -
20 -10-20
10
5
10
— i
fl
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 800 [USgprn[
FLOW
NPSHre - NPSH3'31, + min operaboml margin H I B Curve
FL T
Performance with clear water and amblent temp 40 C
SEPTEMBER 2006 25
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
r Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA 4 PUMP STATION DESIGN
Single Pump Operation
Station: Lift Station 400
FLOW CALCULATIONS
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 170 gpm at 75 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 26
ENGINEERING
Loading Type
Units ADF
Single -Family
248 62,000
GPD
Multi -Family
Housing
Groups and
Commericial
Lots
0 0
GPD
Total
62,000
GPD
Average Daily Flow (ADF)
62,000
GPD
Qa„9 = Average Flow*
43
GPM
Peak Factor
3.9
Peak Flow, QdP = Average Flow
* Peak Factor
169
GPM
Pump Type
CP3127
FLYGT
Pump Horsepower
10.0
HP
Pump Voltage
230
Volts
Pump Phase
3
Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 170 gpm at 75 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 26
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
1 Donm I
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
TYPE
E
�} 0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 800 9Pm
r,
FLOW
^ NPSHre - NPSH3%+ mm operational margin Ffdf T H I B Curve
Performance with clear water and ambient temp 40 C
SEPTEMBER 2006 27
ES
ENGINEERING
PERFORMANCE
•
11. 1: 1
1.1 YA1
1
1
1
■■
■��������.�
■■moi
: .
1 :
:����■�■■
■■
■■■■
'
-■NEEM■■■■oil
■■■■■
E■■■■■■■■■
■N■N■
..■■■■■■■■C■.■.
■■■N.■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■.-.■■■■■■■..■
■■■..■■■■■■■■
. ,
■■■
■■�■■■B.■■■■.■.
,
■■■■■■�i■■■■■�
■■■■■■C■■■■■`..
_-..-_•REM—
.
■■■■.■.
,
:1
NEW M MEN
MW
No
0
,i■■■■■■■■
■■■■■.
,
�} 0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 800 9Pm
r,
FLOW
^ NPSHre - NPSH3%+ mm operational margin Ffdf T H I B Curve
Performance with clear water and ambient temp 40 C
SEPTEMBER 2006 27
ES
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
AREA 5 PUMP STATION DESIGN
Single Pump Operation
Stations Lift Station 500
FLOW CALCULATIONS
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
Pump Type
Pump Horsepower
Pump Voltage
Pump Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (Q jP)
SEPTEMBER 2006
199 gpm at 72 TDH
28
CP 3085 w/ 436
Loading Type
Units ADF
HP
230
Single -Family
73 18,250
GPD
Multi -Family
Housing
Groups and
Commericial
Lots
36 54,564
GPD
Total
72,814
GPD
Average Daily Flow (ADF)
72.814
GPD
Qa„9 = Average Flow*
51
GPM
Peak Factor
3.9
Peak Flow, QdP = Average Flow
* Peak Factor
196
GPM
Pump Type
Pump Horsepower
Pump Voltage
Pump Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (Q jP)
SEPTEMBER 2006
199 gpm at 72 TDH
28
CP 3085 w/ 436
FLYGT
2.4
HP
230
Volts
3
Phase
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
7
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's U nsewered
Service Areas
SEPTEMBER 2006 29
ENGINEERING
PERFORMANCE CURVE
PRODUCT
CP3127.181
rnre
HT
DATE
PROJECT
CURVENO
ISSUE
2006-08-04
I
63-483-00-3702
1
1/1 -LOAD 34 -LOAD 1R -LOAD RATED 10
h a
IMPELLER DIAMETER
POWER FACTOR
0.89 0.87 0.81 STARTING
128
226 rT1R1
EFFICIENCY
$3.5% 85.0% 84.5 % CURRENT ,,,
RATED
A
MOTOR R STATOR
REV
MOTOR DATA
CURRENT ,., 25
A
21-12-4AL 12YII
11
COMMENTS
NLETIOUTLET RATED
1735
FRED. I PHASES I VOLTAGE
POLES
SPEED ,,,.,
4 inch TOT.MOM.OF
rpm
60Hzj 3 230 V
4
IWTHR000HLET - 0.12
k9m2 �RTYPE RATIO
FU OAF
3.0 inch BLADES 1
— —
[hp)
10
04.
O 6
a
I
LL
4
W
W W
W f
O
DUTY -POINT
FLOMsp, my HEADiai POWER lhpl EFF. N NPO"PI
O #
REP.
480 50.0 113 1 451 512 (640) 13.0
NPSHre
8D
80
W
70
7o
r
EFF.
BD
I
60
[`76[
Qy0
5°
W
40a
40
70
—
re=
3D
.30--60
—
—
50
20
20-40
30
I
10
10
20
I
10
0 0
100 200 ' 300 400 500 600
700 800 [US9am[
FLOW
NPSHre.NPSH3%+min
operational margin
THI
B Curve
Performance VVM Clear water and ambient tei
SEPTEMBER 2006 29
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA 6 PUMP STATION DESIGN
Single Pump Operation
Station- Lift Station 600
FLOW CALCULATIONS
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 187 gpm at 73 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 30
ENGINEERING
Loading Type
Units ADF
Single -Family
140 35,000
GPD
Multi -Family
Housing
Groups and
Commericial
Lots
8 27,998
GPD
Total
62,998
GPD
Average Daily Flow (ADF)
62,998
GPD
Qav9 = Average Flow*
44
GPM
Peak Factor
4.0
Peak Flow, QdP = Average Flow
* Peak Factor
177
GPM
Pump Type
CP3127
FLYGT
Pump Horsepower
10.0
HP
Pump Voltage
230
Volts
Pump Phase
3
Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 187 gpm at 73 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 30
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
PRODUCT TYPE
w o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Boo gprn
FLOW
lir
NPSHre-NPSH3%+min operallonal margin gy HI 6 Curve
Performance with clear water and ambient temp 40 "C
SEPTEMBER 2006 31
ENGINEERING
•
2006-0"4 1463
-483 -OD -3702
1
• 1
1 1 1
1
IMPELLER DIWETER
228 nim1
MOTORX STATOR
i 21-12-4AL 12Y/1
REV
11
'r
1
-N■■■■■■■
NOON
■�■■■■■■■■■■■
NOON
�ONOOONONON■O
MONO O
■\1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■
■
INNI■■■■
MEMMC■■■■C■C■,
■■■■..■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■.M.■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■...■■■■■■■.
IMMMMMMMMwoMNMMMw
■■■■■■.■■■•.■■
.■
■■MINE
MENNEN
M
1
:
1
INEW
�:■:
1
1
1
■.■
.....
,
C■
Cmom
i■■■■.■
■
1
1
w o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Boo gprn
FLOW
lir
NPSHre-NPSH3%+min operallonal margin gy HI 6 Curve
Performance with clear water and ambient temp 40 "C
SEPTEMBER 2006 31
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
AREA 7 PUMP STATION DESIGN
Single Pump Operation
Station: Lift Station 700
FLOW CALCULATIONS
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
Loading Type Units ADF
Single -Family 50 12,500 GPD
Multi -Family
Housing
Groups and
Commericial
Lots 0 0 GPD
Total 12,500 GPD
Average Daily Flow (ADF)
12,500
GPD
Qa„g = Average Flow*
9
GPM
Peak Factor
4.2
Peak Flow, QdP = Average Flow * Peak Factor
37
GPM
Pump Type
MP3102
FLYGT
Pump Horsepower
6.0
HP
Pump Voltage
230
Volts
Pump Phase
3
Phase
Pump Curve
Design Pumping
Rate (QdP) 73 gpm at 37 TDH
SEPTEMBER 2006 32
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
0
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
PRODUCT :TYPE
N 020 40 00 80 1W 1 1
FLOW
J
LL HI B Curve
Performance with clear water and amblerk temp 40 IC
SEPTEMBER 2006 33
ENGINEERING
PERFOR111ARGE GIRTE
CURVE NO
63 -212 -OD -5210
I [ I ) / • 1STARTING
RATED
RATED
SPEED
TOTAIWOF
3455
rprn
18-10-2AL 12CURR,
®,.
INERTII
OWN
r
�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
n
:1
G■�.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
..���...........
■■■■■■■`.■■
■■■■■
:1
■�■■■■■■■
■
M■■G■■■■
■■
■■■■■i►
■■■■■
■
■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■
i
■
■■■■■■■■�ONE
■■■
.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1
'
■■■■■.-M
�■..■MULMEM
■
'MEMO
g
Poo-�■■■■■■
■■■■■i`�'■rm
No
N 020 40 00 80 1W 1 1
FLOW
J
LL HI B Curve
Performance with clear water and amblerk temp 40 IC
SEPTEMBER 2006 33
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
6.0 PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
The Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost for the unsewered areas is presented on the following
pages. The opinion is based upon costs for similar construction within Southwest Florida at the
time this Master Unsewered Report was prepared. These costs represent the estimated cost for
each individual area only, and do not represent a lump sum for entire project. Depending on
bidding criteria, cost should be adjusted accordingly.
Material to be used for the construction of the wastewater system will be in accordance with the
City of Naples current rules and regulations
Reasonable and professional judgment was exercised in the development of this opinion.
However, since Johnson Engineering has no control over the cost of labor and materials, or over
the competitive bidding procedures, the accuracy of this opinion cannot be guaranteed.
Figure 6.1: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost for Area 1
AREA
Item
1 - Sanitary Sewer Collection &
Item Description
Transmission
�:
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
1-1
Mobilization
1
LS
$70,701
$70,701
1-2
Maintenance of Traffic
5,332
LF
$6
$31,992
1-3
Gravity Sewer Main
_
a
8" PVC Gravity Main (0'-6' Cut)I
2,109
LF
$51
$107,559
b
8" PVC Gravity Main (6'-8' Cut)I
1,732
LF
$74
$128,168
c
8" PVC Gravity Main (8'-10' CO
1,254
LF
$82
$102,828
d
8" PVC Gravity Main (10'-12' Gut)
234
LF
$106
$24,804
1-4
Sewer Force Main 4" DR25 PVC +
843
EA
$25
$21,075
1-5
Sanitary Sewer Manholes
a
Manhole (0'-6' Cut)
9
EA
$5,130
$46,170
b
Manhole (6-8' Cut)
7
EA
$6,000
$42,000
c
Manhole (8'-10' Cut)
2
EA
$7,250
$14,500
d
Manhole (10'-12' Cut)
2
EA
$8,710
$17,420
1-6
Add Lift Station (16.5' Deep)
1
EA
$208,000
$208,000
1-7
Connect to Existing Force Main
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
1-8
Road Restoration
a
Paved Road Restoration
5,332
LF
$91
$485,212
b
General Site Restoration I
5,332
LF
$34
$181,288
1-9
Contingency 20%
1
• -
LS 1
r
$296,943
•
$296,943
$1,781,660
SEPTEMBER 2006 34
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
Figure 6.2: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost for Area 2
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA
NO.
2 - Sanitary Sewer Collection &
item Description
Transmission
at';Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
2-1
Mobilization I
1
LS
$267,827
$267,827
2-2
Maintenance of Traffic
22,375
LF
$6
$134,250
2-3
Gravity Sewer Main
a
8" PVC Gravity Main (0'-6' Cut)
9,978
LF
$51
$508,878
b
8" PVC Gravity Main (6'-8' Cut) I
5,500
LF
$74
$407,000
c
8" PVC Gravity Main (8'-10' Cut)
3,040
LF
$82
$249,280
d
8" PVC Gravity Main (10'-12' Cut)
1,935
LF
$106
$205,110
e
8" PVC Gravity Main (12'-14' Cut)
630
LF
$144
$90,720
f
8" PVC Gravity Main (14'-16' Cut)
450
LF
$184
$82,800
g
8" PVC Gravity Main (16'-18' Cut)
450
LF
$215
$96,750
h
8" PVC Gravity Main (18'-20' Cut)
425
LF
$240
$102,000
i
8" PVC Gravity Main (20'-22' Cut)
126
LF
$265
$33,390
i
10" PVC Gravity Main (20'-22' Cut)
32
LF
$265
$8,480
2-4
Sanitary Sewer Manholes
a
Manhole (0'-6' Cut) I
47
IFA
$5,130
$241,110
b
Manhole (6-8' Cut)
16
EA
$6,000
$96,000
C
Manhole (8'-10' Cut)
8
EA
$7,250
$58,000
d
Manhole (10'-12' Cut)
9
EA
$8,710
$78,390
e
Manhole (12'-14' Cut)
1
EA
$9,750
$9,750
f
Manhole (14'-16' Cut) I
2
EA
$10,750
$21,500
g
Manhole (16'-18' Cut)
4
EA
$13,250
$53,000
h
Manhole (18'-20' Cut)
3
EA
$15,250
$45,750
i
Manhole (20'-22' Cut)
2
EA
$17,250
$34,500
2-5
Connect to Existing Force Main
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
2-6
Road Restoration
a
Paved Road Restoration
22,375
LF
$91
$2,036,125
b
General Site Restoration
22,375
LF
$34
$760,750
2-7
Contingency 20%
1
• -EA 2
LS 1
- SUB-TOTAL$6,749,232
$1,124,872
$1,124,872
SEPTEMBER 2006 35
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
Figure 6.3: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost for Area 3
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA
Item
No.
3 - Sanitary Sewer Collection &
Item Description
Transmission
Est. Qty.
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
3-1
Mobilization
1
LS
$202,101
$202,101
3-2
Maintenance of Traffic
16,150
LF
$6
$96,900
3-3
Gravity Sewer Main
a
8" PVC Gravity Main (0'-6' Cut)
6,600
LF
$51
$336,600
b
8" PVC Gravity Main (6'-8' Cut)
3,901
LF
$74
$288,674
c
8" PVC Gravity Main (8'-10' Cut)
2,045
LF
$82
$167,690
d
8" PVC Gravity Main (10'-12' Cut)
1,400
LF
$106
$148,400
e
8" PVC Gravity Main (12'-14' Cut)
1,215
LF
$144
$174,960
f
8" PVC Gravity Main (14'-16' Cut)
739
LF
$184
$135,976
g
8" PVC Gravity Main (16'-18' Cut)
302
LF
$215
$64,930
3-4
Sewer Force Main 4" DR25 PVC
215
LF
$25
$5,375
3-5
Sanitary Sewer Manholes
a
Manhole (0'-6' Cut)
30
EA
$5,130
$153,900
b
Manhole (6'-8' Cut)
11
EA
$6,000
$66,000
c
Manhole (8'-10' Cut)
8
EA
$7,250
$58,000
d
Manhole (10'-12' Cut)
4
EA
$8,710
$34,840
e
Manhole (12'-14' Cut)
2
EA
$9,750
$19,500
f
Manhole (14'-16' Cut)
3
EA
$10,750
$32,250
g
Manhole (16'-18' Cut)
2
EA
$13,250
$26,500
3-6
Add Lift Station (21.5' Deep)
1
EA
$208,000
$208,000
3-7
Connect to Existing Gravity Sewer Main
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
3-8
Road Restoration
a
Paved Road Restoration
16,150
LF
$91
$1,469,650
b
General Site Restoration
16,202
LF
$34
$550,868
3-9
Contingency 20%
1
• -
LS
$848,823
•
$848,823
$5,092,936
SEPTEMBER 2006 36
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
Figure 6.4: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost for Area 4
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREACollection
item
No.
Item Description
Est. Qty.
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
4-1
Mobilization I
1
LS
$140,639
$140,639
4-2
Maintenance of Traffic
11,193
LF
$6
$67,158
4-3
Gravity Sewer Main
a
8" PVC Gravity Main (0'-6' Cut)
4,259
LF
$51
$217,209
b
8" PVC Gravity Main (6'-8' Cut)
3,430
LF
$74
$253,820
c
8" PVC Gravity Main (8'-10' Cut)
2,140
LF
$82
$175,480
d
8" PVC Gravity Main (10'-12' Cut)
900
LF
$106
$95,400
e
8" PVC Gravity Main (12'-14' Cut)
493
LF
$144
$70,992
4-4
SEWER FORCE MAIN V DR25 PVC
2,429
EA
$40
$97,160
4-5
Sanitary Sewer Manholes
a
Manhole (0'-6' Cut)
20
EA
$5,130
$102,600
b
Manhole (6'-8' Cut)
7
EA
$6,000
$42,000
c
Manhole (8'-10' Cut)
5
EA
$7,250
$36,250
d
Manhole (10'-12' Cut) I
4
EA
$8,710
$34,840
e
Manhole (12'-14' Cut)
1
EA
$9,750
$9,750
4-6
Lift Station (19.0' Deep) l
1
EA
$208,000
$208,000
4-7
Connect To Existing Force Main I
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
4-8
Road Restoration
a
Paved Road Restoration
11,193
LF
$91
$1,018,563
b
General Site Restoration
11,193
LF
$34
$380,562
4-9
Contingency 20%
1
• -
LS
r
$590,685
•
$590,685
$ (Xst 108
SEPTEMBER 2006 37
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
Figure 6.5: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost for Area 5
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA
Item
5 - Sanitary Sewer Collection &
Item Description
Transmission
Est.
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
5-1
Mobilization I
1
LS
$78,800
$78,800
5-2
Maintenance of Traffic j
4,988
LF
$6
$29,928
5-3
Gravity Sewer Main
a
8" PVC Gravity Main (0'-6' Cut)
1,997
LF
$51
$101,847
b
8" PVC Gravity Main (6'-8' Cut),
1,650
LF
$74
$122,100
c
8" PVC Gravity Main (8'-10' Cut)
890
LF
$82
$72,980
d
8" PVC Gravity Main (10'-12' Cut)
450
LF
$106
$47,700
e
8" PVC Gravity Main (12'-14' Cut)
450
LF
$144
$64,800
f
8" PVC Gravity Main (14'-16' Cut)
375
LF
$184
$69,000
5-4
Sanitary Sewer Manholes
a
Manhole (0'-6' Cut)
9
EA
$5,130
$46,170
b
Manhole (6'-8' Cut)
4
EA
$6,000
$24,000
c
Manhole (8'-10' Cut)
2
EA
$7,250
$14,500
d
Manhole (10'-12' Cut)
2
EA
$8,710
$17,420
e
Manhole (12'-14' Cut)
2
EA
$9,750
$19,500
f
Manhole (14'-16' Cut)
2
EA
$10,750
$21,500
5-5
Add Lift Station (21.5' Deep)
1
EA
$208,000
$208,000
5-6
Connect to Existing Sanitary Severer
a
To Existing Gravity Sewer Main
1
LS
$2,510
$2,510
b
To Existing Force Main
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
5-7
a
Road Restoration
Paved Road Restoration
5,641
LF
$91
$513,331
b
General Site Restoration I
5,815
LF
$34
$197,710
5-8
Contingency 20%
1
• -EA 5
LS
- SUB-TOTAL$1,985,755
$330,959
$330,959
SEPTEMBER 2006 38
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
Figure 6.6: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost for Area 6
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA
Itteom
6 - Sanitary Sewer Collection &
Item Description
Transmission
Qty
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
6-1
Mobilization I
1
LS
$26,657
$26,657
6-2
Maintenance of Traffic I
2,290
LF
$6
$13,740
6-3
Gravity Sewer Main
a
8" PVC Gravity Main (0'-6' Cut)
950
LF
$51
$48,450
b
8" PVC Gravity Main (6'-8' Cut),
689
LF
$74
$50,986
c
8" PVC Gravity Main (8'-10' Cut)
426
LF
$82
$34,932
d
8" PVC Gravity Main (I V-12' Cut)
265
LF
$106
$28,090
6-4
a
Sanitary Sewer Manholes
Manhole (0'-6' Cut) I
4
Fro
$5,130
$20,520
b
Manhole (6'-8' Cut) I
1
EA
$6,000
$6,000
c
Manhole (8'-10' Cut)
3
EA
$7,250
$21,750
d
Manhole (10'-12' Cut) I
2
EA
$8,710
$17,420
6-6
Core Bore Wet Well
1
LS
$2,000
$2,000
6-6
Connect to Existing Force Main
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
6-7
Road Restoration
a
Paved Road Restoration
2,290
LF
$91
$208,390
b
General Site Restoration
2,290
LF
$34
$77,860
6-8
Contingency 2ok
1
• -EA 6
LS
- SUB
$111,959
-TOTAL
$111,959
Jill=
SEPTEMBER 2006 39
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
Fionre. 6 7• Preliminnry Onininn of Prnhahle. Cnst fnr Area 7
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
AREA
Item
oItem
No.7-1
7 - Sanitary Sewer Collection
Description
& Transmission
Est.
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
Mobilization
1
LS
$41,087
$41,087.44
7-2
Maintenance of Traffic
3,387
LF
$6
$20,321
7-3
Gravity Sewer Main
a
8" PVC Gravity Main (0'-6' Cut)
1,678
LF
$51
$85,578
b
8" PVC Gravity Main (6'-8' Cut)
925
LF
$74
$68,450
c
8" PVC Gravity Main (8'-10' Cut)
516
LF
$82
$42,304
d
8" PVC Gravity Main (10'-12' Cut)
323
LF
$106
$34,196
7-4
Sewer Force Main 2" DR25 PVC
70
EA
$25
$1,750
7-5
Sanitary Sewer Manholes
a
Manhole (0'-6' Cut)
7
EA
$5,130
$35,910
b
Manhole (6'-8' Cut)
3
EA
$6,000
$18,000
c
Manhole (8'-10' Cut)
1
EA
$7,250
$7,250
d
Manhole (10'-12' Cut)
3
EA
$8,710
$26,130
7-6
Add Lift Station (Grinder)
1
EA
$55,500
$55,500
7-7
Connect to Existing Force Main
1
LS
$3,000
$3,000
7-8
Road Restoration
a
Paved Road Restoration
3,387
LF
$91
$308,208
b
General Site Restoration
3,387
LF
$34
$115,153
7-9
Contingency 20%
1
• -EA 7
LS
- SUB-TOTAL$1,035,403
$172,567
$172,567
SEPTEMBER 2006 40
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
7.0 COST BREAKDOWN
The cost represents the dollar amount necessary to put the identified manhole in service (i.e. cost
of the individual manhole and associated infrastructure downstream). The following procedure
was followed for each unsewered area:
• Numbers were assigned to all proposed manholes for the unsewered area.
• Fixed cost such as lift station, force main and master manhole installation were
identified and assigned to each manhole.
• Variable costs such as gravity sewer main length and the number of manholes leading
to the lift station were calculated, and an assigned to the corresponding manhole.
The individual manhole identification numbers are located in Appendix F, and the corresponding
associated costs are in Appendix G.
Example Calculations
To determine the total cost, the following approach can be taken using individual manhole costs
provided in Appendix G:
Figure 7.0 Area 1 Example to assist in determining Manhole Costs.
Street 1
r = Lift Station
0 = End Manhole
0= Intersecting Manhole
SEPTEMBER 2006 41
ENGINEERING
CITY OF NAPLES
Example to Determine Cost for Various Scenarios
Street 1 (See Figure 7.0 above):
MASTER SEWER PLAN
Of the City's Unsewered
Service Areas
• From MHl 01 = $750,568 (See Appendix G, Area 1). This includes cost for MH 101
through MH 111, sewer mains, laterals, lift station and restoration.
Street 2 (See Figure 7.0 above):
• From MH 108 = $512,903. (See Appendix G, Area 1). This cost includes the cost of
MH108. MH109. MH110, MH111, sewer mains, laterals, lift station and restoration.
ExamDle of Determinine Cost for Entire Area 1
For this scenario the cost for the intersecting manhole (MH 110, MHI I I and MH 116) will need
to be subtracted from the end manholes (MH 101, MH 106, MH 112 and MH 117) to remove the
y redundant lift station cost. To determine the total cost for Area 1, calculate each end manhole
cost up to the intersecting manhole.
a. MH101 to MH110 = $750,568 - $330,747 = $419,821
b. MH 106 to MH110 = $670,661 - $330,747 = $339,914
C. MH112 to MHl 16 = $716,529 - $382,001 = $334,528
d. MHl 17 to MHl 16 = $436,392 - $382,001 = $ 54,391
e. MH120 to MH 116 = $609,921 - $382,001 = $227,920
Total: $1,376,574
Then to remove the redundant lift station cost from the intersecting manholes you must subtract
MHl 1 1 from MHl 10 and MHl 16. This leaves the lift station cost with MH111:
a. MH 110 to MH 1 11 = $330,747 - $307,663 = $23,084
b. MHl 16 to MH1 11 = $382,001 - $307,663 = $74,338
C. MH 111 (Lift Station) = 307 663
Total: $405,085
Hence, the total cost for Area 1 = $1,376,574 + $405,085 = $1,781,659
SEPTEMBER 2006 42
ENGINEERING
` 7)I� � K I � t fix, �� II I• i s.. � �. _ � +�n17c
Add
j .
c ,ey r�-r_
-lI,/1.�
It
i '_��- ii 1 i..'-
�4 _ ai*i• FCS _� �1"�-.'1�' -_ r rt_ _ _ # _
5d __ }
-y- 4� rr+ i _ _
i r _ _ 0 150 300
i # SCALE IN FEET
ML
�iljilt
ll6�-
a
AL
INC
ra �.
� � � -�
Jam:.
WA
�'+[� ---,'� '���'�,r+i� p+'' F' �f3� {-• !Q_=-.-`_ Vit-i'.�`-.-
�{J= t � •� t f
5.�I
i
x da
Mr
Y r�
# .
ro
_ = y ,. l�� 's} � _ - -moi _ •.. ,. �` - � y
tom^ t:
_ x i.i.
rp
i 00
1p IL
Ri
zq
I -Y
LO r ti
Alt
cq
14
E
ap
Ilk
Q,e! --.-s -Tt ,. � � ■. � /'- - � - � F �� --'tea
_
3
C t i _-
LL � T- i+ SO
= s
t
vv. _
_ _ r
00
__
PO
oN ERR ;T �F?7`
WpEk
't • Q } i -- i5[- r r l L
t
4 r \ -im
II
2158 JOHNSON STREET
P.O. BOX 1550
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-1550
PHONE (239) 334-0046
FAX (239) 334-3661
E.B. #642 & L.B. #642
Preliminary Layout
For Area 4
�r
ENGINEERING
DATE
AUGUST 2006
PROJECT NO.
20034268-03
FILE N0.
00-00-00
SCALE
As Shown
SHEET
4 OF7
TIV
f- � �� 4! SIJ ����•,�F-` `.�,i�F w �I
�C4
4
�r
ENGINEERING
2158 JOHNSON STREET
P.O. BOX 1550
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-1550
PHONE (239) 334-0046
FAX (239) 334-3661
E.B. #642 & L.B. #642
Preliminary Layout
For Area 5
µ,,
PROJECT NO.
20034268-03
IP. w -
SCALE
As Shown
SHEET
5 OF 7
0 150
300
}'r ' SCALE IN FEET
31.
�i
JIM
i►"A��,
MENI
-41
.1
1k 01
Mo.
91
00
r_
In -•; ` !'
k l + �1- �► _ i fir-,_ a E _
wt
-00
to
sw
AN_ I FAL
_j - qQ
4w wk
M _ _
•J sl F
�I.a is Fjr T LEGEND
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
EXISTING FORCE MAIN
-
o r -
00
• -PROPOSED MH
rn
s �-
* '.[i 4 �` j I �_a _ _ _a - ■ =PROPOSED LIFT STATION
�r
ENGINEERING
2158 JOHNSON STREET
P.O. BOX 1550
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-1550
PHONE (239) 334-0046
FAX (239) 334-3661
E.B. #642 & L.B. #642
Preliminary Layout
For Area 5
DATE
AUGUST 2006
PROJECT NO.
20034268-03
FILE N0.
00-00-00
SCALE
As Shown
SHEET
5 OF 7