REPORT ON RECLAIMED WATER COST AND USAGE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT on
RECLAIMED WATER
COST AND USAGE
LL
o
>-
t-
u
McKIM & CREED, P .A.
1365 HAMLET AVENUE
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
October 2004
L-
I
I
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT
on
RECLAIMED WATER
COST AND USAGE
prepared for
CITY of CLEARWATER
October 2004
Prepared by:
McKim & Creed, P.A.
1365 Hamlet Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
Ph: (727) 442-7196
Fax: (727) 461-3827
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Paae
EXEC UTI VE SUMMAR Y .............................................................................................................. iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....... .......... .......... ................ ........ ..... ................ ............. ............. ............ 1
] .1 Purpose ................. ............ ...... .................... .......... ............ ............... .................. ......... ............. ]
] .2 Background . ....................................... ............. ........ ............. .............. .................. .......... ........ 1
1 .3 Objectives ............. ........... ....................... .......... ............... ........................ ........................... .... 2
2.0 RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM UPDATE .............................................................................4
2.1 General....... .......... ................ ........ ................................ ....... ....... ........ ............................... ...... 4
2. ,. 1 Reclaimed Water Flows .......................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Reclaimed Water Infrastructure ............................................................................ 7
2.2 Historic Rnancial and Usage Data ................................................................................... ] 0
2.2. 1 Ann ual Reven ues ... .......... ........ ......................... ......................... ............................ ] 0
2.2.2 Ann ual O&M Costs. ..... ....... ........................... ............... ... ...... ..... ........ .......... .......... 1 0
2.2.3 User Rates.. .................... ............. .............................................................. ................ 11
2.2.4 Current System Financing ..................................................................................... ] 5
2.2.5 Potable and Ground Water Offset Verification ............................................... ] 6
2.3 Usage and Rnancial Projections ...................................................................................... ] 8
2.3. 1 Capital Costs ........................................................................................................... 18
2.3.2 Reclaimed Water Use Projections ....................................................................... ] 9
2.3.3 Revenue Projections with Current Rates .......................................................... 23
2.3.4 System 0 & M ....... ........... ........ .................... ............... ....... ....... ............. .................. 24
2.3.5 Impact of Me tering........ ............... .............. ....... ......... ........................................... 27
2.3.6 Meter Capital Cost ............ ............ .................... ....................... ............................. 29
2.3.7 Meter O&M Costs ...................................................................................................31
2.3.8 Revenue Projections with Altemative Rates ..................................................... 33
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................36
3. 1 Conclusions ...... ...... ...... ........... ......... ....... ...... ..... ...................................... ............................. 36
3.2 Recommendations............... ..... ........ .......... ........ ............................................... ... .............. 37
Repod on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADDendix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Paae
Appendix A Projected Reclaimed Capital Costs Timeline .................................................................. A-]
Appendix B Projected Reclaimed Revenue and Timeline...................................................................B-l
Appendix C Projected O&M Cost Data .................................................................................................. C-l
Appendix D Additional Supporting Data. ..................................................................................... .... .....0-]
Appendix E Comparison Rates and ........................................................................................................ E-l
Appendix F B & A Report: FAMS Model Results ..................................................................................... F-1
Appendix G B & A Report: Reclaimed Water Consumption Estimates ............................................G-]
Fiaure
Rgure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
Rgure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Figure 2-7
Rgure 2-8
Figure 2-9
Figure 2-10
Table
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 2-6
Table 2-7
Table 2-8
Table 2-9
Table 2-10
Table 2-]]
LIST OF FIGURES
Paae
Projected Reclaimed Water Supply ...................................................................................... 5
Wastewater Treatment APC Facility Location Maps ......................................................... 6
Reclaimed Water System Map...... ........ .... .... ................. ...... ........ .................... ...................... 8
Reclaimed Water System Map .... ...... ........ ..... ............................... ...... ......... .......................... 9
Projected Reclaimed Water Demand W /0 Metering .....................................................20
Projected Reclaimed Water Revenue ................................................................................ 23
Projected 0 & M Cost and Staffing W /0 Metering .......................................................... 27
Adjusted Demand Projection with Metering .....................................................................29
Projected 0 & M Cost and Staffing with Meters ............................................................... 33
Funding Sources for Reclaimed Water Program FY 2005 - 2007.....................................34
LIST OF TABLES
Paae
Constructed Reclaimed Water Pipe by Size ........................................................................ 7
Reclaimed Water Revenue Per Rscal Year ....................................................................... 10
1998 Reclaimed Water Rates......... ....... .... .......... .......... ........... ........ .............. .......... ....... ...... 1 2
Current (2003) Reclaimed Water Rates .............................................................................. 14
Offset Efficiency.. ................ .... ......... ........ ...... ...... ............... .................... ................................. 1 7
Re-Evaluated Project Costs ............................... .................................. ............................ ...... ] 9
2002 Average Reclaimed Water Flows and Rates for Residential Customers in
Pinellas, Pasco, and Hillsborough County's........................................................................ 22
Projected Reclaimed Water O&M/FTE Requirements ..................................................... 25
System 0 &M Cost Comparison.................... .......... ...... .......... .................. .................. .......... 26
Projected Capital Costs ..... ......... .... .......... ............... .......... .......... ......... ........................ ......... 30
Projected 0 & M Costs (Meter Shop) ..................................................................................32
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
Odober 2004
Page i;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Clearwater has implemented an urban reclaimed water system currently serving
areas on Clearwater Beach, golf courses and numerous City parks. The City of Clearwater's
current reclaimed water system serves over ] ,420 residential customers and approximately 200
commercial and open space accounts. The City is continuing to expand the system with
projects currently underway in western and eastern areas of the City. The City is in the process of
reviewing its current revenue sources for water, sewer, and reclaimed water systems to support
capital improvements and annual operations. This report will provide updated information in the
following areas as input to the evaluation and planning efforts:
. Capital Costs for continued Reclaimed Water System Expansion
. Reclaimed Water Demand Projec;tions
. Operational Cost Projections for Reclaimed Water
. Updated Offset Estimations for completed projects
. Impact that metering reclaimed water will have on system finances and water resources
. Review of Outsourcing of meter maintenance
With the initiation of the urban reclaimed water system beginning in 1998, revenues from
reclaimed water sales were compiled for the period from Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 to FY 2003.
Revenue for FY 1998 was $152,535, up from the prior annual revenues of approximately $70,000.
Revenue from reclaimed water sales has grown with the increasing customer base to an income
in FY 02/03 of $383,534. Reclaimed water usage has increased from approximately 710,000
gallons per day prior to 1998 to approximately ].9 million gallons per day in 2003.
The FY 03/04 operating budget for reclaimed water was $3] 2,840, but should be adjusted to
approximately $505,000 to account for Water Distribution staff assigned to reclaimed water
system operation. Continued expansion of the reclaimed system has resulted in a
commensurate increase in the FY 04/05 budget request to $794,000. A review of FY 02/03
reclaimed water revenue and FY 02/03 operating costs illustrates that the current user rates for
reclaimed water cover less than 80% of system operating cost, with no excess revenue to offset
capital investment in infrastructure construction. With increased operating costs and no increase
in reclaimed water rates, the percentage of operating cost recovery will decline below the 80%
mark. The funding of the balance of annual operations costs and infrastructure construction has
thus included Water and Sewer Revenue and grant funding the City has obtained from the
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992 -0 ll2
October 2004
Page ;;;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Southwest Florida Water Management District. The following figure summarizes the historic
contributions of capital to the reclaimed water program.
Funding Sources for Reclaimed Water Program
5.69%
.% SWFWMD Grants .% City Water & Sewer Funds 0% RCW Rev
The projections of capital expenditures for continued expansion of the reclaimed water system
has been updated based on current construction costs and methodologies as well as
anticipated site conditions in the prioritized areas to receive reclaimed water. The total costs are
expected to exceed $100,000,000 from 2004 to completion of the North Belcher service area or
2021. The City is considering the implementation of metering of reclaimed water systems in the
future. This would increase capital costs by approximately $9,000,000; There are other impacts to
management of the system should metering be implemented. These impacts include:
. Usage reductions of as much as 52% of total demand may be experienced.
. 0 & M Cost increases of up to 25% without metering
. Potential for increasing revenues based on metered rates and more aggressive revenue
generation, however, this will be limited by market rates for reclaimed water. The City
already exceeds most area community's rates for reclaimed water.
. Increased access to reclaimed water by City residents by reducing over-use by segments
of customers
. Increased capital expenditure, as much as $35 M, to extend service to larger customer
base
The continued expansion of the reclaimed water system will have negative financial impacts on
potable water revenue. As reclaimed water usage supplants potable water consumption, the
City's revenue base for potable water decreases. This trend has been evident in recent years as
expected.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0JJ2
October 2004
Pageiv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City has completed a utility revenue sufficiency analysis with the assistance of Burton and
Associates. The projections of project capital costs, updated operation and maintenance costs,
usage projection, as well as cost projections related to metering are factored in to the rate
evaluation to confirm the rate implications for the Water and Sewer financing. The results
indicate that the water and sewer rate will need to be increased at 0 rate of 7% per year from
2005 through 2014 to meet program objectives and to maintain debt service coverage
requirements for outstanding bond covenants with no increase in reclaimed water rates.
It is recommended that the City consider implementation of metering of reclaimed water
customers. Metering of reclaimed water offers the following advantages:
. Improved resource management to enable reclaimed water to be provided to more
customers in the future
. Higher grant funding potential for eligible projects through SWFWMD
. Achieve higher efficiency of reclaimed water use
. Allow rate adjustment to achieve a more equitable cost allocation
The City should also consider an incremental rate increase for reclaimed water since reclaimed
water rates have not been adjusted since 1998. Water and Sewer Rates have seen significant
rate increases driven by the need to support continued operational needs while the reclaimed
water rate has remained at the ] 998 level. Should the City decide to implement metering of
reclaimed water with an increase in reclaimed water usage rates, the proposed water and
sewer rate increase could be reduced from the proposed 7% per year increase down to
approximately 6% per year. The initial increase can be implemented in 2005 or can be designed
to coincide with metering the reclaimed system in FY 2007.
A meter retrofit project will need to be initiated to install meters for previously installed reclaimed
water services. The current residential customer flat rate should not be changed until meters are
in place, then a conversion to a comparable metered rate can be initiated. The initial increase
in user rates for reclaimed water should be designed to recoup the additional cost of meter
maintenance.
Repod on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0Jl2
October 2004
Page v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The City of Clearwater operates a reclaimed water system serving residential, commercial and
open space customers in portions of the City. The City continues to expand the system based
on the 2000 Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update prepared by McKim & Creed, which was
published in 200] after Commission approval. With a number of projects completed since 1996
and several additional projects currently under design and construction, the Public Utilities staff
desires to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the reclaimed water program from both a financial
aspect and from the perspective of utilization of reclaimed water resources. This report provides
a review of reclaimed water consumption history, the offset of drinking water and groundwater
resources actualized by the previous reclaimed water projects implemented, and the revenue
generation history of reclaimed water. This report also provides updated projections of revenue
derived from reclaimed water sales, projections of future potable water offset, and projected
cost for future reclaimed water projects planned. The updated information developed as part of
this report will provide valuable information to the City of Clearwater Public Utilities staff in the
continued planning and implementation of reclaimed water facilities. The report will also
provide assist in evaluating the feasibility of metering the reclaimed water system in the future.
1.2 Background
The City of Clearwater began limited utilization of treated effluent for irrigation in the 1980s from
the Northeast Advanced Pollution Control Facility (APCF), providing reclaimed water to the
Countryside Golf Course, the City soccer complex on McMullen Booth Road, and the Chi Chi
ROdriquez Driving Range area. In 1994, the City began serving reclaimed water to Clearwater
Country Club and to Phillip Jones Field from the Marshall Street APCF. Beginning in 1998, the City
initiated the expansion of its reclaimed water system to residential and commercial customers
by extending reclaimed water transmission and distribution piping from the Marshall Street APCF
to the Island Estates community, Jack Russell Stadium, and Coachman Park. The City has since
completed expansion of the reclaimed water system to serve the North and South areas of
Clearwater Beach and has recently completed new storage and pumping facilities at their
Northeast APCF to allow for service to new areas in the eastern portion of the City. The City of
Clearwater's current reclaimed water system serves 1,420 residential customers and
approximately 200 commercial and open space accounts. Residential accounts will increase to
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
over 2,000 with the addition of the Harbor Oaks service area that is completed and in the
process of customer sign-up and connection.
The Drew street and Union street Reclaimed Water System is currently under construction. It
includes transmission and distribution piping to serve recreational, institutional, commercial and
residential customers located along Drew Street from McMullen Booth Road to Old Coachman
Road and along Union Street near McMullen Booth Road including the Elysium neighborhood.
Pipeline construction will be completed by December of 2004, with reclaimed water availability
occurring sometime in late 2006 upon completion of booster pumping facilities.
In addition to construction of the Drew-Union Project design is currently underway for the Seville
area and for a portion of Old Clearwater Harbor area, specifically along Sunset Drive; and also
the Del Oro Groves residential area.
1.3 Objectives
The City reviewed the Capital Improvements Plan for utilities and its current revenue sources for
water, wastewater, and reclaimed water systems to support capital improvements and annual
operations. Up-to-date and accurate capital and operational cost projections needed to
continue operation and expansion of the reclaimed water system and updated projections of
revenues from reclaimed water sales were essential elements in reviewing Capital Improvements
Plan and revenue sufficiency. This report will provide updated information in the following areas:
. Capital Costs for continued Reclaimed Water System Expansion
. Reclaimed Water Demand Projections
. Operational Cost Projections for Reclaimed Water
. Updated Offset Estimations for completed projects
. Impact that metering reclaimed water will have on
o Usage
o Revenues
o Operational Costs
. Review of Outsourcing of meter maintenance (Water and Reclaimed Water)*
The updated financial and usage information will allow the City to review its current reclaimed
water rates along with Water and Sewer rates to determine the sufficiency of the current
funding sources for City water, sewer and reclaimed water capital and operational needs. The
data and projections provided herein are incorporated in the 2004 Water and Wastewater
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
Odober 2004
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revenue Sufficiency Analysis Draft Report prepared by Burton & Associates dated July 20, 2004
under separate contract for the City of Clearwater.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM UPDATE
2.1 General
2.1.1 Reclaimed Wafer Flows
The City of Clearwater operates three advanced wastewater treatment facilities that
supply reclaimed. water meeting State water quality requirements for Public Access
Reuse. These are known as 1) the Marshall Street APCF, 2) the Northeast APCF and 3) the
East APCF. The location of these facilities is shown on Figure 2-2. The average daily flow
from these three facilities is approximately 15 million gallons per day (mgd). The
breakdown of the total flow by treatment plant is summarized as follows:
Marshall Street APCF
Northeast APCF
East APCF
5.78 mgd
6.35 mgd
2.58 mgd
The annual average reclaimed water demand for customers of the City reclaimed water
system was 2.01 mgd based on data obtained for the Fiscal Year (FY) 02 time frame. The
peak monthly flows were approximately ].5 times the annual average flow, or 3 mgd,
and occurred during the month of May. The City, thus, has ample reclaimed water
supply to continue development of the reclaimed water system in the City for the next
several years. The demand for reclaimed water is planned to increase as new areas are
added to the reclaimed water system. The City also has entered into an agreement with
Pinellas County to provide the County up to 3.0 mgd of reclaimed water. The 3.0 mgd
usage is expected to begin in 2006 with the agreement currently expiring in 20] 2.
The projection of future reclaimed water supply from the three treatment plants is
illustrated in Rgure 2-1. The projected flows presented are based on the projections
serving as the basis for planning in the current Water Pollution Control Master Plan being
prepared by the City. This projection considers population projections from various
sources, historical trends for wastewater flows to the three facilities and seasonal
changes in flows. The average annual flow utilized for the Master Plan includes a .87%
annual increase over the planning horizon. For consideration of reclaimed water system
planning, we have factored the Annual Average flows to derive the seasonal low month
flows to compare to the maximum monthly flows. Thus Figure 2-1 depicts the yearly trend
of flows for the month with the lowest flows to the system.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
Odober 2004
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 2-1
Projected Reclaimed Water Supply
16
12
o
<-'
:E
~
[f 8
- ~ --........ ... -- ............. - ... .
. - . - - - - - . - . . ._.~..:. .:.. 'I-. -1--
----------
4
---------
---------------
o
2005
2017
2019
2007
2009
2011
2013
FY
2015
- TOTAL PROJECTED RCW Flow -
'EAST APCF
. . MARSHALL ST. APCF
- -NEAPCF
Section 2.3 of this report presents the projections for reclaimed water demand under two
scenarios, one assuming the reclaimed water system continues without metering
residential customers and one assuming all customers are metered. The projection of
demands during the yearly maximum month is compared to the supply projections to
determine the capability to sustain reliable service of reclaimed water as the system is
expanded.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. J.2 Reclaimed Wafer Infrastructure
The City of Clearwater has constructed over $29 million of reclaimed water pipelines,
pumping and storage facilities over the last six years, with over $] 4.5 million in grant
funding provided by the Southwest Rorida Water Management District. Currently, the
City maintains a 5 million gallon (MG) ground storage tank located at the Marshall Street
APC Facility and has just completed a second 5 MG ground storage tank located at the
Northeast APC Facility. Pumping facilities are also the constructed at these two facilities
to meet the current and future demands for reclaimed water for the next 10 years.
Transmission and distribution pipelines have been constructed in various areas within the
City over the last 10 years. The total linear footage of pipeline constructed is summarized
as follows:
Table 2-1
Constructed Reclaimed Water Pipe by Size
"""".' "f' ",0
~$ii.""<~~
. .' . . . . ., ' ,\:,trJ:". ".":
2" 453
4" 15,458
6" 11,373
8" 7,375
]0" 113
]2" 9,187
16" 6,768
20" 3,505
24" 297
30" 10,992
Total 65,521
Rgure 2-2 and Rgure 2-3 provide maps of the City of Clearwater, depicting the location
of existing pipelines that constructed and operational for reclaimed water delivery.
Repod on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
?;:
.~
~
WOO{ Legend
_aimed Unes
.
IXAIIETER
~ -2'
o. D -..
3 -B"
J:: ..........,11'
0
-'0"
-'2'
-'B"
PlAzA I -,..
LEXINGTON: -20"
-.."
ORANGE -30"
RJCHuot
-...
'IIm_.._.
c
MLM ST ARBELIA. 'ST u:
BERMUDAST ~W ~
IDLEWlLO DR ....
WOODlAWN TERR ~ ~
~ ".,AAM oR
.ow
c g~ STATE ST
~ ~:: , ~lSONRD
~ ~ ~ suNsET POINT RO
8. - ~ ~ SPRING IN
~ u: ~ .THAMES L.N
~ 0 JOEUN
~ ~ ~ OTTENST
~: r: )-
;;::~ II! SANDY"" ~
<(' MARYLf/:D r
w "
o a x
~ cr (/)
ClAfREDR z ~ FAJRMONT S
~ i!
~ WOODBINE
OVERlEA 81
..
z
'"
~
"
"
"
"'ISCUS ST
w ~
'"
~
~ ~ :i
~ -& ~
~-3,,::
~X~
~ ~
o
LAURA Sf
JACKSON RD
w
'"
Z
o
GROVEST ~ ~ ~
LAURAST!!i U-: ~
CLEVELAND ST ~ Yl ~
~ PARKST ~ ~ ~w "
-< ,PIERCE ST if( .... ffi
~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FRANKUNST ~
~?( 4: ex: 9> 3
~ffi ti~ ~ ~OOUlDST ~
x ~ ~ 5T ~ BROWNEll S1 3 COURT ST
< t: i UI w ROGERSST
C' ~ TURNERST ~ CP
f ~t-\ES1 8 -t
o lrl Ii
2 JASMINE WAY
MAGNOLlAOR.
JONES ST
w
'"
o w
8"3 ~
-~~, ~
~~ ~
w
PIE CEST ffi
PARK ST
ROGERS S1
lURNER Sf
PINE ST
II:lLEVIEW BLVD
WIlDWOOD WAY
WOOOU\WN AVE
'!?
~
'"
w
-~ ~,~
Z c(:..c
~_Z,,?(
~,g:~
.~ i:~
5: QUEEN ST
AlMA. S1
BELteVUE BlW
W
I&l W ~
~ ~ ~ z' ~
~ i ~:E-~
5l ill ~
if
'"
....
:J
ff
~
SATSUMA ST
ORANGE ST
L1MEST
,TEMPLE ST
CrrRus ST
LEMON ST
SEABREEZE ST
NURSERY RD
ROSE ST
REGAl...RD
WNST
~3
"~
~lU ~~
:Jon<\,#
a:
..
w
>
-"
'"
Z
"
HOWARD ST:~
to1l8ll004
l!I9Z..o112
CITY OF CLEARWATER - REPORT ON REClAfMED WATER cosr AND USAGE
FlQllre:2..J
I
f- ITL . V if L 'NO"'"U-m
I~~t= ~~~ ~ I
I-~ 'y ~~; w= h
I
I IT ~ ~I UJ/77~
r- ~ .L0-ILo ~ "
\- ~ -ill.
I y ~
h = ~ 1-[0 ~~ J~ u-- "
I g -L/ t::B - ~ H I ~~ V '~Tl ~tl::t ~ ~
~ -- ~ ~r-+1 llJ 8;) 4 t:: -;.J-;e t _ D[I ~ "'
I I ~ r- I~~ t~ q!:::Ir l: I ~__
E- _ ~ '--=L -c H ~ J.U '~ "-J
I -------.. --=-l~ -,.- I _LL1 -LW Jrt
~I-tt: I~ J - -~ .~
I\\-r- d= (:~ ..~ . -~ "I'd! ~
= rK I~- - I It=.... (- --~
- ~ _ SUNSET pbm I ~ I f=l- ~-
1- ~ LJ / ~m Itt ~
. Ifn i I' r}.- lY ~ tj c P-7' -, _/y
I~~l~ I c R >::-' ~~t::.W.,
V ~ugc~ ~
E"l1Il Y1J '\ ~
-Lc~ LL:: ....-' __71
Uil~
-. - - .;::: '---' r
\
rr
/
0'''''' ~..~ ~
III I \ -riJJ~ ~ill tJ =- ~
I 00 = ~A~T
II~ Me
~.-- i- FAC ,ITY ~ =--
~~~
~~&CREED ~ Clearwater
~==-F,,",(7Z1)~t-Ul7 .;~
I
RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM MAP
CITY OF aEARWATER - REPORT ON REaAJMED WATER COST AND USAGE
..(". I
f'j::.J /'
"Q I 1-.
:::I:__
/
\
legend
Reclaimed Unes
-T-.08M1Il!$
-4'-2.02-' ,N
-6-2.15 Miles
-rr-.73Mites
-12"-1.64 Miles
- -16"-.70Miles
-Y-.62MDes
-24--.05Mi1e&
- JIT-.42 Mles
-4a--.09M~es
_Existing
-,Proposed
"'"
"""" O9ll2-11112
FigU"e: 2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2 Historic Financial and Usage Data
2.2.1 Annual Revenues
The Clearwater Customer Service Department has provided historic information for
revenues collected from the sale of reclaimed water. The data presented in this report
covers the timeframe from 1998 to 2003. This timeframe represents the period following
completion of the Island Estates Reclaimed Water System up to present, which
represented the first residential and commercial reclaimed water customers added to
the system. The revenues shown include the availability charges and the flat rate usage
charges for residential and small commercial customers, as well as the revenues
generated from the metered multi-family, large commercial and open space customers.
As shown in Table 2-2 below, the annual revenues from the sale of reclaimed water in FY
02/03 was $383,534.DO.
Table 2-2
Reclaimed Water Revenue Per Fiscal Year
98/99
99/DO
DO/O]
01 /02
02/03
80,769
122,548
] 24,484
]21,922
1] 9,927
2.2.2 Annual O&M Costs
The City of Clearwater manages the operation of its reclaimed water system within the
management structure of the Water Division of Public utilities. The Water Superintendent
oversees the staff that coordinates the operation of the systems. The Water Division staff
includes a Reclaimed Water Coordinator whose responsibilities include interfacing with
the reclaimed water customers, coordinating public involvement and education for
continued system development and is the primary contact point with regulatory and
funding agencies. Personnel within the Water Division and Utilities Maintenance Division
perform reclaimed water system operation and maintenance. These personnel, in some
cases, also operate and maintain the water and wastewater systems. The operating
budget for the Reclaimed Water System in FY 02/03 was $300,290. The current allocation
of personnel for reclaimed water operations is four full time equivalent (FTE) staff,
however, the City utilizes four FTEs from the Water Distribution staff to support reclaimed
Repod on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water system operation and maintenance. This would equate to a budget of 8 FTEs and
an annual budget of $483,875. The FY 03/04 operating budget for reclaimed water is
$312,840, but would be approximately $505,000 to account for the additional personnel
assigned reclaimed water system operational activities. The current budget request for FY
04/05 includes 9.5 FTE's and $794,000. It is interesting to note that the FY 02/03 revenue
from reclaimed water sales was significantly less than the FY 02/03 adjusted operating
cost. illustrating that capital cost recovery from reclaimed water revenues is non-existent
at the current rates. In fact. Operation and Maintenance expenses are not even fully
recovered.
The City adjusted the budgets for Water Distribution and Reclaimed Water programs to
allocate the proper personnel costs as required for the work being performed. Proper
allocation will allow for accurate tracking of actual system operational costs even
though Water Revenues partially fund reclaimed water system operation. As the
reclaimed water system expands, the operational requirements will increase. The City
annual budget for reclaimed water system operation has been adjusted for future years
to reflect the increase in system size and complexity. Within the next two years, the City
will be operating two additional booster pump stations in addition to the expanding high
service pump station located at the Marshall street facility. WPC Division staff currently
operates the existing effluent pumping system located at the Northeast APC Facility. This
pumping facility will begin serving reclaimed water to system customers upon
completion of the Drew-Union Reclaimed Water System currently under construction. The
number of system customers is expected to increase from approximately 1,923 to over
7,500 over the next five years or through the completion of the Enterprise Project Service
Area. Section 2.3.4 outlines future reclaimed water staffing and operational cost
projections.
2.2.3 User Rates
Prior to the initiation of the expansion of the reclaimed water system in ]996, the City's
Reclaimed Water policy for expanding service to residential and commercial areas was
predicated on a petition-based approach. However, no expansion of the reclaimed
water system occurred under the ordinance of that time. With increasing regulatory
pressures to utilize treated effluent for beneficial purpose. the City of Clearwater initiated
expansion of the reclaimed water system to serve residential and commercial customers
in 1996. The first area targeted to receive reclaimed water was the Island Estates
community on Clearwater Beach. This area was identified due to:
Repod on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page J J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
] ) High use of potable water for lawn irrigation,
2) A successful petition drive by area residents expressing their desire for reclaimed
water, and
3) Lack of significant alternative irrigation sources.
The reclaimed water rate structure and individual monthly rates enacted by the City
were based on the proposed development of the Island Estates Reclaimed Water
System. The initial cost of development of the Island Estates Reclaimed Water System, in
terms of monthly user charges required to recoup capital and 0 & M costs, was
computed to be approximately $38 per residential account based on a 3O-year capital
recovery period and annual cost of capital rate of 5%. This monthly charge was
considered prohibitive compared to the potable water rates at the time; therefore, the
City developed a rate structure for reclaimed water that was designed to recoup
operation and maintenance costs of the system and a portion of the capital costs of the
initial system. The remaining capital funding was derived from the City Sewer Enterprise
fund and from a grant obtained from the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
The resulting rates are shown below.
Table 2-3
1998 Reclaimed Water Rates
Availability Each Service Connection
Only Provided
1. Single family, duplex or triplex (per domestic
water account; however, if a duplex or triplex
has separate domestic water accounts for $14.70/month $18.00/month
each dwelfing unit, then the appropriate
change shall be divided equally among each
account)
$4.72/dwelling/month
2. Multi-family $3.89/month (Not to exceed
$70.25/month)
3. Commercial/industrial $18.00/month
(Metered)
4. Open Space (per acre of "pervious area," as
defined in Section 32.352)
Mainland $13.77/month
Island Estates, Memorial Causeway &
Clearwater Beach $39.89/month $70.25/month
These rates shall be reviewed annually and revised as necessary to recover the capital outlay,
operating, administrative, billing and maintenance costs of the reclaimed water system in a fair
and equitable manner.
While this rate methodology may have provided a rational approach to funding the
initial project. it was not based on funding requirements for citywide reclaimed water
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
system development. In 1998, the City authorized McKim & Creed to update the
Reclaimed Water Master Plan. As part of the reclaimed water master plan, McKim &
Creed was tasked to review and recommend revisions to the reclaimed water rates
based on citywide implementation. To assist in this portion of the project. Burton &
Associates joined the McKim & Creed team to address the reclaimed water rates and
review the impacts to water and sewer revenues and expenses with the proposed
expansion of the reclaimed water system. The re-evaluation of reclaimed water rates
considered the following:
· Current rates for area reclaimed water systems including Pinellas County
. Capital costs for system development
. Costs for potable water
. Allocation of cost contributions from Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds
. Expected grant funding levels.
The reclaimed water rates were revised by ordinance in 1998 as a result of the evaluations
conducted. The rates were actually lowered from the prior rates to achieve the following:
. An attractive rate schedule that was reduced below prior rates for most customer
classifications.
. Rates that covered initial estimated operational costs and a portion of capital costs
with the balance of capital costs funded through SWFWMD grants and water and
sewer funds.
. An availability charge that is more reasonable but still encourages the use of
reclaimed water in place of potable water for irrigation.
. A portion of the capital costs bome by all City residents to reflect the benefit to the
total water system of potable water usage which is offset by reclaimed water.
Minor adjustments have been incorporated into the rate schedule since those adopted
in 1998 to improve the structure and applicability, however, the rate structures have
never recouped the capital costs. The following table illustrates the current rate structure
adopted by the City.
Report on Reclaimed water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-4
Current (2003) Reclaimed Water Rates
Single family, duplex or triplex (per domestic water account;
however. if a duplex or triplex has separate billing domestic water
accounts for each dwelling unit, then the appropriate charge
shall be divided equally among each account.) (Flat rate)
Multifamily - more than 3 dwelling units (metered)
$9.00
$6.00
$15.00
$9.00
.30/1000
gallons
$9.00+
use
'- -.- ,"." -.-..,- ,.-.' ,'. ,.'." .....',.-.c.."
. -' - - - -. -'. '. -. -
C.........~ol~.... ......i..CJ........I/J.......f'!d......U...Sm. '9.T/
"-', -, . .
a. Less than or equal to 2 acres of pervious area (flat rate)
$9.00 $6.00 $15.00
$9.00 .30/1000 $9.00+
gallons use
.30/1000 $13.77
gallons
b. More than 2 acres of pervious area or Non-irrigation uses
(metered)
Open space (per acre of "pervious area:' as defined in section
32.352) (flat rate) Non irrigation use - metered, includes air
conditioning gallons System coolant water
*Reclaimed water service to accounts outside the City limits shall be subject to a surcharge equal to 25
percent of the monthly charges.
Based on the current rates. typical residential customers now pay $15.00 per month for
unlimited use of reclaimed water. While this is a competitive rate, the actual cost for
reclaimed water service is much greater than reflected by the rate for usage. For
purposes of determining actual costs for reclaimed water system construction and
operation and presenting this cost in terms of monthly user charges for typical residential
customers, we have reviewed actual construction costs for the three areas currently in
operation: Island Estates, North Clearwater Beach and South Clearwater Beach. The cost
of infrastructure to serve these areas was determined by accounting for all piping system
costs installed west of Coachman Park and computing a pro-rata share of storage,
pumping and transmission infrastructure based on facility capacity and percentage of
utilization for the three areas served. For purposes of computing an actual monthly cost,
capital cost recovery is computed for a 3O-year term at 5% interest charge. The monthly
charge required to match the allocated monthly operating expenses and to recover
capital expenditures for the project costs associated with these three service areas
would be approximately $45.00. significantly higher than the current $15.00 per month
charge as shown in Appendix D. The current rate only covers a third of the true system
costs.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0 JJ 2
October 2004
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The negative impact on the water and sewer rates resulting from reclaimed water system
expansion had been identified in the earlier rate evaluations conducted by Burton &
Associate as outlined in the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update dated October 1998.
The City instituted an increase in water and sewer rates to address its capital needs
driven partly by reclaimed water system expansion as well as water and sewer project
funding needs. The analysis further indicated that there would be a loss in revenues from
potable water as the reclaimed water system was expanded. The expectation was that
the reclaimed water revenues combined with the proposed water and sewer rate
increases would compensate for this reduction. However, actual water and sewer
revenues have dropped significantly in recent years due to conservation and higher
than average rainfall. The recently completed Revenue Sufficiency Analysis was
conducted to include consideration for weather related affects to water usage as well
as impacts related to increased unit pricing of water and reclaimed water in the
estimation of future revenue generation for the City's Utilities.
2.2.4 Current System Financing
Construction and operation of an urban reclaimed water system is an expensive
endeavor due to the requirement to construct entirely new infrastructure in previously
developed areas. The financing of the system construction and operation are typically
funded by allocation of revenues from Water and/or Wastewater Funds combined with
user charges. The rationale for funding reclaimed water system costs from Water and
Sewer funds is based on the overall benefits derived from reclaimed water systems that
aid operation of wastewater disposal and from reduced demand for potable water
facilities. These benefits extend beyond the individual customer of the reclaimed water
system to the community as a whole.
The City of Clearwater lies in the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) and the Pinellas-Anclote Basin. The SWFWMD assist communities in the District
with funding of reclaimed water system infrastructure. The City of Clearwater has
participated in the Cooperative Funding program since 1998 and has received over
$] 4.5 Million in SWFWMD and Pinellas-Anclote Basin funding for reclaimed water project
construction. The Water Management District does not fund any operation costs
associated with reclaimed water facilities. The Cooperative Funding program is a
competitive grant program that will fund up to 50% of reclaimed water system
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0 lJ 2
Ocfober2004
Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
construction costs for successful applicants. Thus the City is required to fund at least 50%
of the construction costs for projects that receive grants from SWFWMD. The City has
historically funded its share of reclaimed water system construction costs from the Water
and Sewer Enterprise Fund. with the operational costs mostly funded through Reclaimed
Water user charges.
2.2.5 Potable and Ground Wafer Offset Verification
The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD or District) requires minimum
reductions in potable water and groundwater consumption as a result of reclaimed
water project implementation to qualify for funding of the projects from SWFWMD. The
City of Clearwater has been successful in obtaining District funding for portions of its
reclaimed water infrastructure construction since 1996. The funding criterion. referred to
as "Potable Water Offset", is required by the District to ensure the maximum benefit is
achieved for the dollars invested in the development of reclaimed water systems.
During the project pre-planning stage. estimations are developed for offset. The offset
values are utilized in the development of cost-benefit ratios for comparison of project
effectiveness. The offset was calculated for the City's completed projects (Island Estates,
North Beach. and South Beach) to determine the actual offset achieved in these
communities for comparison to the target value contained in the respective
Cooperative Funding Agreements. The offset was determined by comparing 1998
potable consumption data (pre-reclaimed water) to 2002 potable consumption data
(post-reclaimed water) to quantify the potable quality water usage reductions resulting
from reclaimed water implementation. Residential reclaimed water consumption for
Island Estates. North Beach and South Beach was computed by deducting estimates of
flow for the open space areas and metered commercial consumption from the total
reclaimed water pumping metered at the Marshall Street APCF as follows:
Marshal/Street Pumpage - Open Space Consumption - Metered Commercial Consumption
#ofResidential Accountsfor Island Estates, NorthBeach, and South Beach
The difference in flow was then allocated to the three predominantly residential areas
based on a percentage of reclaimed water accounts for each area.
The prior withdrawal of groundwater from local irrigation wells is also being reduced by
utilization of reclaimed water; however irrigation reduction from shallow wells is no longer
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J '2
October 2004
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
considered in the guidelines for determination of offset quantities as required under more
recent District Cooperative Funding Agreements for reclaimed water grants. Thus, the
total potable reduction (offset) is derived from metered lawn and domestic data without
regard for the reduction in shallow well pumpage in these areas. This data is then
compared to the reclaimed water usage to derive the efficiency of reclaimed water
offset. Table 2-5 outlines the current offset calculations for three of the City's existing
residential reclaimed water service areas. It should be noted that the allocation of flows
using this methodology may provide inaccurate individual offset estimations since the
residential usage in these areas is not metered. The total offset shown, however, is more
accurate than the allocated offset estimates.
Table 2-5
Offset Efficiency
~~-~~~~~i
I~ ~ ~~, ~ - ~ - ,~ I
',. ~ ", ~ '
I: ~ >>> ~ _ > ~__~~_~~_>:
Pre-RCW Potable Cons
Post-RCW Potable Cons
Offset Difference Potable Cons
RCW Cons er Service Area
Offset Efficienc
SWFWMD Re 'd Offset Efficienc
626,488
320,400
306,088
551.094
0.56
0.25
746,486
550,923
195,562
123,499
1.58
0.25
671.528
499,496
] 72,032
414,799
0.41
0.25
* RCW consumption based on pumpage and metered commercial data
Each project's Cooperative Funding Agreement with SWFWMD provides a three-year
time frame, starting with the completion of the reclaimed water project to achieve the
minimum reuse system efficiency specified in each Agreement. It is assumed that a
reclaimed project area will have acquired the majority of the customer connections
within this period. District guidelines have allowed groundwater offset volumes to be
included in the efficiency calculations shown in Table 2.5 above, however, recent
modifications to the funding criteria prohibit inclusion of these contributions as part of
offset determination. Although these projects were implemented prior to the changes,
they exceed the efficiency requirements even without considering groundwater impacts
and have been removed from the calculation.
As shown in Table 2-5, the Island Estates Reclaimed Water System project has achieved
an offset efficiency of over 56% compared to the target of 25%. The percentage of
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0"2
October 2004
Page 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
customers connected to the system has exceeded 90% for this area. The North Beach
area has an offset efficiency of 4] % that also exceeds the Agreement target. The South
Beach Reclaimed Water System offset efficiency calculation shows an offset efficiency
exceeding ] 00% even though the project area has been in operation less than three
years. The ] 00% efficiency calculation is the result of a significant reduction in potable
water consumption in this area when compared to the utilization of reclaimed water.
Part of this nuance can be explained by the variation in climatic conditions between the
two years being compared, with ] 998 being a relatively dry period with higher irrigation
demands and 2002 being a relatively wet period with lower demands for irrigation. Water
conservation also has played a part in this area of the system.
2.3 Usage and Financial Projections
2.3. J Capital Costs
The 2000 Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update outlined projections of capital costs for
the continued expansion of the reclaimed water system infrastructure. The City has
continued to implement reclaimed water projects as outlined in the Master Plan Update
based on the prioritization of the service areas. Owing to continued increases in
construction costs due to increases in complexity of implementing new utilities in highly
urbanized areas, the City requested that McKim & Creed review and update the capital
cost projects for continued implantation of the reclaimed water infrastructure. This
information was used in the recent Burton and Associates FY 2004 Revenue Sufficiency
Analysis. The following table provides the results of the re-evaluation of costs for the
specific projects.
The cost adjustments generally have been made to account for:
1. Increased cost of construction in congested right-or-ways.
2. Minimization of impacts to trees and landscaping.
3. Minimization of impacts to roadways.
4. Cost of material increases.
5. Cost of easement/land acquisition.
Repod on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0JJ2
October 2004
Page 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-6
Re-~valuated Project Costs
Project Cost Summary
Year Design Construction Project
Total
Proiect Complete $ $ $
Keene Rd. ]A & lB 2004 0 360,548 360,548
N. Greenwood Enhancement 2004 60,900 2,090,001 2,150,901
MemorialBridge fJPA) 2004 94.000 ]33.900 227.900
Harbor Oaks 2004 351.000 2,097.226 2.448.226
Drew and Union 2005 826,840 4,489,859 5,316,699
Seville/Sunset Dr. 2005 379,700 2,020,300 2.400.000
Reclaimed Water Aquifer fASR) 2007 100.000 2,000,000 2,100,000
Del Oro Groves 2007 437.600 5.932,800 6,370.400
Momingside 2008 3] 6, ] 60 4.035,840 4,352.000
7.5 MG Storage at Air Park 2009 214,080 2.46] ,920 2,676,000
Skycrest 2009 450,840 5,184200 5,635,040
Coachman Ridge 2009 214.800 2.470,200 2,685,000
Enterprise 2010 318,560 3,663.440 3.982,000
East Drew Street 2011 ] 74.080 2,00 1.920 2,176,000
Countryside South 20]3 816.625 3,808,739 4,625,364
Lake Park 2014 624.500 4,371,500 4,996,000
5 MG StoraQe @ NE APCF 20]3 264,500 1 ,851 ,500 2,1 ] 6,000
South Betty Lane 2015 1.983.200 7,932,800 9.916,000
Countryside North 2016 939,625 6,577,375 7,517,000
North Greenwood 20]7 845,500 5.918,500 6,764,000
North Hercules 20]8 587.125 4,109,875 4,697,000
Country Club Estates 20]9 8]4,375 5.700,625 6,515,000
Clearwater High 2020 929,875 6,509,125 7.439.000
Glen Oaks 2021 1 ,036,500 7,255,500 8,292.000
North Belcher 2022 632,375 4.426,625 5,059.000
*The timing of these capital expenditures is illustrated in Appendix A.
2.3.2 Reclaimed Water Use Projections
The current reclaimed water consumption is approximately 2.0 mgd. As noted in Section
1.2. construction is progressing on several projects that will increase the customer base
and the subsequent demand for reclaimed water. With the service areas Island Estates,
North Beach and South Beach online for several years, we have reviewed the actual
consumption values on a per account basis for review and revision of projections of
demand for new areas to be constructed. Figure 2-6 shows these projections based on
revised application rate assumptions as described below.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 2-5
Projected Reclaimed Water Demand W/O Metering
22
20
18 -'
-'
-'
-' -'
16 - -'
-'
-'
-
0'14 -
-
~ -' .. -
-' .. -
:e 12 -' ..
- -
'0 -
C -
0 10 ..
E -
-
., -' -'
0 8 -'
..
,
,
6 ,
,
4
2
0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Fiscal Year (FY)
These projections are based on the estimated residential and commercial accounts
connected to the system by fiscal year and current reclaimed water customer demands
as determined from a compilation of reclaimed water pumping records for the
treatment plants and allocations of flows to the various metered and un-metered
customers. The demand for future year projections year was determined as follows:
Cumulative # Accounts per Fiscal Year * Estimated Demand per Account
The projection of demand follows the implementation of projects as outlined in the
timeline schedule for project construction and priority shown in Table A-l in Appendix A.
The average residential demand per account for future projections was determined by
reviewing historic reclaimed water flow data and current account totals for the three
beach service areas. The historic flow data indicates an estimate of 783 gallons per day
per account for the areas on Clearwater Beach served by the reclaimed water system.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The time frame represented by the data set corresponds to higher than normal rainfall.
The National Weather Service reports indicated the rainfall for this region, reported at
Tampa International Airport, for 2002 was over 62" as compared to the prior 3O-year
average of 45"; a 37% increase. It is reasonable to expect irrigation usage during the high
rainfall period, but not equivalent to the 37% higher rainfall. In addition to considering the
impact of rainfall during the period reviewed, it is also noted that the customer base still
may increase as new users are added in the areas currently served; especially should the
City change the policy for exemptions for residents with existing irrigation wells. For these
reasons, the projections for future reclaimed water demand utilize the per account
estimate from historic data and include an additional 25% demand factor to account for
data from the rainy period and that connection percentages may increase with time.
Historic rainfall data obtained from the District's Hydrologic Data website indicates that
the maximum deviation from average rainfall for the most recent 100years of data is 30%
for the Clearwater rainfall station. Therefore, an increase of 25% or 980 gallons per day
(gpd) is a conservative estimate for future projections. This consumption rate is compared
to other local reclaimed water systems as shown in Table 2-7.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0JJ2
October 2004
Page 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-7
2002 Average Reclaimed Water Flows and Rates for Residential Customers in
Plnellas, Pasco, and Hillsborough Counties
Pasco Co. *
Aloha Utilities *
St. Petersburg
Pinellas Park *
Pinellas Co. S.
Pinellas Co. N.
Dunedin *
Largo
Clearwater
Oldsmar *
Tarpon Springs *
Hillsborough Co. N.
Hillsborough Co. S.
Tampa *
Plant City *
*Average of (7) Metered Systems (*)
Average of (8) Flat Rate Systems
:;:<i'Y~as:I'Et '. ..,
'~:(9P~."".Jesicf~QI
,..., ;"'i,:@$Joroer .'."
467 (1)
497
927
508 (2)
1164 (3)
548 (4)
802 (5)
1524
1047
305 (6)
516
870 (7)
870 (7)
567 (8)
365 (9)
508
927
$6.38/month
$0.29/] 000 gal
$ ] 0.36/month
$0.25/1 000 gal
$9.00/month
$9.DO/month
$0.50/]000 gal
$10.00/month
$15.00/month
$0.95/1000 gal
$0.95/1 000 gal
$7.5O/month
$7.5O/month
$] .79/1000 gal
$0.05/]000 gal
$0.68/1000 gal
$9.34 /month
1 Pasco Co. limited residential reclaimed water irrigation to one/two days per week via planned
interruptions in 2002.
2 2002 Utilization via District phone survey 2003 (City of Pine lias Park)
3 Includes St. Pete Beach System and Pinellas Co. Utilities beach community customers.
4 Pinellas Co. Utilities limited North system residential reclaimed water irrigation via planned
interruptions in 2002.
5 2002 Utilization revised from 2002 FDEP reported amount (City of Dunedin)
6 Lower than anticipated reclaimed water usage attributed to upwards of 92" of rain in 2002 (City
of Oldsmar).
7 Utilization via Hillsborough Co. 2000 Reuse Report (Hillsborough Co.) 2002 Revision Pending
8 Utilizdtion estimated for City of Tampa Star I and Star II projects (City of Tampa).
9 Residential customers are in a manufactured home community with very small turf areas (City of
Plant City).
Information obtained via 2002 Reuse Inventory (FDEP) unless otherwise specified.
SWFWMD-ANDRADE 9/19/2003
NOTE A:
The gpd/account in some cases appears to include large recreation/institution space
irrigation such as golf courses and parks while others are for Residential Users only.
Computations shown in Section 2.2.5 of this report show that Clearwater's Residential
usage is estimated at 783 gpd per account.
Note B:
Details of local reclaimed rates and charges is included in Appendix E.
Report on Reclaimed water Cost and Usage
0992-0"2
Odober 2004
Page 22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The above reported data reveals that the City's Reclaimed System demand is higher
than the average for local reclaimed water systems that currently operate under flat rate
structures. Metering would likely reduce average consumption as illustrated by the data
from similar systems which meter reclaimed water. The impact of metering is evident
when comparing the average for un-metered systems at 927 gpd per account to
metered systems averaging 508 gpd per account.
The demand for reclaimed water nearly doubles when rates are based on a flat charge
per month and not consumption. This data also demonstrates potential revenue benefits
from metering. The local metered reclaimed customer spends on average a $1.31 more
than the average non-metered customer but consumes nearly half the quantity.
2.3.3 Revenue Projections With Current Rates
The continued expansion of the reclaimed water system infrastructure and the expansion
of the customer base will result in increased revenues from the sale of reclaimed water.
Based on the projected timescale of project implementation, we have estimated the
trend in revenue growth based on the current rate structure. The following figure presents
this projection.
Figure 2-6
Projected Reclaimed Water Revenue
2,500,000
2,000,000
ti<j:
-; 1 ,500,000
::>
c
(()
~ 1,000,000
0:::
500,000
o
2003
2005
2007
2009
Fiscal Year (FYI
2011
2013
2015
Assumptions:
1. City maintains current rate schedule
2. Current "open space" customers with long-term usage agreements will continue
to contribute at the current rates.
3. City maintains exemptions for irrigation wells.
4. City agreement for bulk reclaimed water sales to Pinellas County will begin in
2006 and continue through 2012. Should the City and County agree to extend the
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
agreement, the revenue projection would need to be amended to reflect the
terms of any amendment.
A detail of reclaimed revenue projections per project and fiscal year is provided in
Appendix B.
2.3.4 System 0 & M
The City of Clearwater has increased its operations budget to account for ever-
increasing expenses of operating and maintaining the reclaimed water system. The
adjusted FY 03/04 projection of expenses for Reclaimed Water Operations is $505,000.00,
an approximate ]2.6% increase from the prior year adjusted budget. The City's adjusted
operating budget accounts for 8 FTEs in FY 03/04 including the 4 FTEs budgeted under the
Water Distribution budget, maintaining the same staffing levels from the prior 2 years.
However, with an increasing customer base and increased operational costs for
reclaimed water system operation, the City will face increases in its annual operations
budget. Currently, the budget request for FY 04/05 is $794,000 and includes 9.5 FTE's.
Staffing increases are projected based on the growth of the system and the increased
workload for operation and maintenance and operational expenses are projected on
the basis of projected increases in system flow in accordance with the reclaimed water
demand projections.
The following summarizes these factors:
· Overhead data obtained from the existing budget that includes salaries,
benefits, supplies, and equipment costs
· Electricity use based on projected flows
· Chemical treatment costs for sodium hypochlorite dosage based on flow
projections
· Historical personnel and parts/materials requirements for the Meter Shop
and Customer Service department
A summary of operation and maintenance projections including FTE requirements is
provided in Table 2-8 below.
Repod on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0ll2
October 2004
Page 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-8
Projected Reclaimed Water
O&M Costs/FTE Requirements
TQtCil O&A8 Co......
,. - . -'--.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
9.5 $ 794,288
10.0 $ 922,492
11.0 $ 1,003,481
12.0 $ 1,069,391
13.0 1,156,623
14.0 $ 1,234,595
15.0 $ 1,310.801
16.0 $ 1,380,363
18.0 $ 1,524,011
19.0 $ 1,608,557
20.0 $ 1,692,537
A detail of the individual costs associated with operation and maintenance of the
Reclaimed Water System is provided in Appendix D.
The annual operating expense for the reclaimed water system currently translates to
approximately $34O/account. As a comparison, the City's Water Distribution operating
budget for FY 03/04 is $7.8 million and includes a staffing level of 40 FTEs. The Water
Distribution operation is similar to the Reclaimed Water System in operational complexity,
with the exception that the potable water system includes metering maintenance. The
$7.8 million budgeted includes fund transfers and internal services transfers equating to
approximately $3.5 million of the total. We will assume that these charges will not be
replicated in the charges to the Reclaimed Water operating fund. Therefore, the per
account equivalent operation & maintenance cost from the Water Distribution system,
excluding metering operation and maintenance costs and the referenced fund transfers,
would be $3.945 million/33,OOO accounts, or approximately $120 per year. To compare
the operation and maintenance data developed based on the current City budget. we
researched several adjacent communities to determine representative costs and system
size. Unfortunately, several communities contacted have budgeted reclaimed water
expenses and operational costs within an overall budget for water system and lor sewer
system, therefore operation and maintenance cost comparative data was not available.
Table 2-8 outlines similar costs for the Cities of Oldsmar, Largo and Pinellas Park.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0JJ2
October 2004
Page 25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-'
System Annual 0 & M Cost Comparison
~"J~~.I.......~~~....\~~i.,~L;;
., . >$;i .
225
252
113*
340
120
Oldsmar Reclaimed System 600 135,068
Largo Reclaimed System 3,439 867,900
Pinel/as Park Reclaimed System 5,600 630,000
Clearwater Reclaimed System ] ,4 ] 9 $483,875**
Clearwater Potable System 33,000 3,945,000
* Pinellas Park does not operate its own RCW pumping facility
** 0 & M cost adjusted to include re-allocation of personnel
Generally, larger number of reclaimed water accounts in the system result in lower 0 & M
costs. This is evident with the City's potable data where there is significant economy of
scale compared to the new reclaimed water system. However, a number of other
factors account for the diversity in the data provided in Table 2-8. Each of the systems
presented here are unique in the size and make-up of the customer bases. For example,
the City of Pinel/as Park does not operate any reclaimed water supply facilities and relies
on Pinel/as County for delivery of reclaimed water to the City distribution system, has a
justifiably lower 0 & M costs when compared to those systems that operate and
maintain storage and pumping facilities. Compared to Largo, the City of Clearwater's
current 0 & M costs as a function of current customer base is much higher due to the
greater efforts for system start-up and economies of scale not yet achieved. It is also
unclear whether the budget from the City of Largo captures aI/ labor costs for system
operation as does the City of Clearwater budget. As the system develops to
approximately 3440 customers, the projection of 0 & M cost on a per account basis
reduces to approximately $323 per account compared to Largo's $252.
A similar computation can be made to reflect changes in staffing requirements over
time. At the current staffing level of 8 FTEs and the current accounts totaling
approximately ] ,420 residential, commercial and open space customers, the staff to
account ratio is .0056 FTE/Acct. Comparing this to the City's Water Distribution operations,
the ratio is approximately .0012 FTE/Acct. The City of Pinellas Park operates their
reclaimed system at a ratio of .00] 1 FTE/AccL however, their system is approximately
three times as large as the Clearwater system and as such, resembles the City's water
system figure. Figure 2-8 shows the projections of 0 & M cost and staffing levels assuming
Repod on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the project development follows the planned schedule with the respective increase in
customer accounts.
Figure 2-7
Projected 0 & M Cost and Staffing W /0 Metering
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
ii> $2,500,000
i $2,000,000
o
o $1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$-
2005
30
25 .:!
c
.,
20'0
>
3-
15 tr 1&.1
1&.It:
-
10 .,
E
a=
5 -
;:)
Y-
o
2007
2009 2011 2013 2015
FY
-+- O&M Costs ___ FTE's
2017
2019
The annual system Operation and Maintenance costs has also been translated to a per
linear feet of installed pipe basis. This cost is projected to be $14.00 per installed foot of
pipe based on the FY 04/05 budget request. This corresponds to the higher initial staffing
and operational costs expected with newer systems serving a smaller customer base. The
projection of 0 & M costs per linear foot is expected to decrease with system expansion.
2.3.5 Impact of Metering
The City of Clearwater has, to this point, developed its reclaimed water system based on
a flat rate schedule basis with no metering of individual residential customers. The City
does meter multi-family complexes, large commercial customers and open space
reclaimed water customers in all of its current service areas. Each of the residential
services installed without meters was designed to accommodate installation of meters if
and when the City elects to change its management and rate strategy. In some cases,
modifications to the service configuration will be required to account for current City
standard installation for meters.
This report will address issues related to implementation of metering reclaimed water
within the City. The impacts will include:
. Capital cost increases
· Operation and maintenance increases
· Modifications to reclaimed water usage
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page 27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
· Rate/revenue revisions
Advantages to implementing metering include:
· More accurate usage data from which to monitor and manage reclaimed water
resources.
. Possible conservation of resources.
· Potential revenue enhancement if structured carefully.
McKim & Creed has reviewed past lawn and potable water usage to better understand
the potential impacts metering reclaimed water will have on usage trends. Reclaimed
water usage for the City of Clearwater's system has increased from approximately 0.71
mgd in 1998 to approximately 2.0 mgd in 2003. During this time, consumption of potable
water has also dropped. North Beach for example, consumed over ] 63,000 gpd (370
gpd/account) prior to 1998 for irrigation alone. After implementation of reclaimed
service in this area, lawn account consumption decreased by 140,000 gpd or 86% and
domestic water consumption decreased more than 6%. This equates to a total potable
water savings of ] 72,000 gpd for the North Beach community alone. Although records
are limited without reclaimed water meters for residential segments of the customer
base, we have calculated the average residential reclaimed water usage using
reclaimed water pumpoge data and metered commercial account records. The
estimated residential reclaimed water consumption per account for the three beach
communities is approximately 780 gpd/account as shown previously in section 2.2.5.
Thus, if you assume metered reclaimed water usage would be approximated by lawn
metered water consumption prior to implementing reclaimed water, the potential
reduction in demand for reclaimed water decreased by approximately 50%. As shown in
Table 2-7, the metered usage of reclaimed water for other Tampa Bay region reclaimed
water utilities is approximately 54% lower than the area's average un-metered residential
customer consumption. The data provided likely is influenced by open space irrigation in
some system while others are more strictly reflecting residential consumption. This
reduction can be quite substantial depending on watering habits in the remaining areas
to be served by the City's reclaimed water system. The reduction in per account usage
with the implementation of metering will also extend the timeframe for seasonal storage
development by almost 5 years as shown in Figure 2-8. As mentioned previously in
Section 2.1.1, un-metered peak monthly demand is expected to exceed average
annual supply in year 20] L or at an average annual demand of 10 mgd. By
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0JJ2
Odober 2004
Page 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
implementing metering, the additional time before seasonal storage is required for
continued system expansion will allow four additional projects to connect to the system.
Figure 2-8
Adjusted Demand Projection With Metering
30
25
. - -
.... -:
Demand equals Supply
20
----
0'
C)
~15
~
o
Ii:
- -
",
-- ....... ",
-- .......
10
--
",
-'"
.
.
, -
,'/
5
o
If)
o
o
N
.....
o
o
N
0-
o
o
N
(")
o
N
If)
o
N
.....
o
N
0-
o
N
-
o
N
FY
-Minimum Month RCW Supply - - - Peale: Unmetered Demand
- 'Peale: Metered Demand . . . . . . Project CIB Breale:point
The City is currently in discussions with Pinellas County to potentially modify the present
agreement that will supply the County with 3 mgd of reclaimed water beginning in year
2006 and terminating in 2012. The projected City reclaimed water demands in
conjunction with the County allocation are shown if Figure 2-8. A seasonal peak factor of
1.55 is also applied to demonstrate seasonal impacts on supply.
2.3.6 Meter Capital Cost
The City of Clearwater requested that we review the impact that metering of the
reclaimed water system will have on capital cost projections of future projects. Based on
our review of the costs for meter materials and installation, a unit cost of $] 50 has been
determined for new meters installed along with new construction. The cost of retrofitting
of existing services with new meters is expected to cost $300. The projection of capital
costs presented in Section 2.3.] would be altered by the additional cost of metering. For
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
estimating purposes, we have assumed that reclaimed water metering would be
initiated in the FY 07 time frame. The existing systems constructed at that time would
require meter retrofits, and as such a significant capital cost allocation is included in the
capital costs for FY 07. Subsequent projects would include meters installed as a part of
the project costs at the time of project construction. The impact of metering on capital
cost projections is illustrated in Table 2-10 and is shown in timeline fashion in Appendix A.
Table 2-10
Project Capital Costs
FY Project Meter Project
Complete Total Cost Total with
without Meters
Meters
Project $ $ $
Keene Rd. 1A & ]B 2004 360,548 0 360,548
N. Greenwood Enhmnt. 2004 2,150,90] 0 2,150,901
Memorial Bridge UP Al 2004 227,900 0 227,900
Harbor Oaks 2004 2,448,226 0 2,448,226
Drew and Union 2005 5,3] 6,699 0 5,316,699
Seville/Sunset Dr. 2005 2,400,000 0 2,400,000
Meter Retrofit 2006 0 1,337,400 1,337,400
East APCF PumD Station 2007 1,] 33, 1 00 0 1,] 33, ] 00
Del Oro Groves 2007 6,370,400 0 6,370,400
(ASRI 2008 6,050,000 0 6,050,000
Morningside 2008 4,352,000 0 4,352,000
7.5 MG Storage at Air Park 2009 2,676,000 0 2,676,000
Skycrest 2009 5,635,040 ] 82,700 5,817,740
Coachman Ridae 2009 2,685,000 86,700 2,771 ,700
Enterprise 20]0 3,982,000 222,450 4,204,450
East Drew Street 2011 2, ] 76,000 ] 63,500 2,339,500
Countryside South 2013 4,625,364 ] 52,250 4,777,614
Lake Park 20]4 4,996,000 ]09,950 5,105,950
5 MG Storage @ NE APCF 20]3 2,1 ] 6,000 0 2,116,000
South Betty Lane 20]5 9,9]6,000 248,700 ]0,] 64,700
Countryside North 20]6 7,5]7,000 205,350 7,722,350
North Greenwood 2017 6,764,000 201,750 6,965,750
North Hercules 2018 4,697,000 180,150 4,877,150
Country Club Estates 20]9 6,5]5,000 76,200 6,59] ,200
Clearwater High 2020 7,439,000 ] ] 2,200 7,551,200
Glen Oaks 202] 8,292,000 ] ] 6,400 8,408,400
North Belcher 2022 5,059,000 1 ] 4,600 5, ] 73,600
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
It is anticipated that SWFWMD will stipulate individual metering of reclaimed water
customers for future projects for which they provide grant funding in the next several
years. More stringent guidelines for District Funding qualification may make
implementation of metering necessary by requiring more efficient reclaimed water use.
The current application for funding for the Momingside area project does not include
metering, however, this could become a contract provision. For purposes of estimating a
timeline for metering, we have assumed that projects funded in FY 07 may require
metering. We have therefore included metering costs for retrofitting following the
Morningside project in Table 2-9 and include meter cost for each subsequent projects
beginning with the Skycrest area.
As shown in Figure 2-9, the utilization of reclaimed water under a metering scenario will
reduce overall consumption. This reduction is expected to range from 30 to 50% of per
account demands experienced in the City. This would allow the City to extend service to
a larger customer base to achieve higher utilization of the available supply of reclaimed
water. The negative result of this will be increased capital expenditures to install the
additional transmission and distribution piping to serve a larger customer base. The
additional capital expenditure may be as much as $35 M over the course of the
reclaimed water program implementation.
2.3.7 Meter O&M Costs
The expansion of the reclaimed water system will require that the City increase its staffing
levels and budget for operation and maintenance of the system as outlined in previous
sections of this report. In addition, metering of reclaimed water will add additional
burden on the operation and maintenance of the system. Most City/County Utilities in this
area maintain meters with in-house forces and include both reclaimed water meter
maintenance along with the potable meter maintenance where both utility systems are
maintained. We have projected the costs associated with implementation of metering
based on the City of Clearwater's current costs for maintaining the meter maintenance
function as an in-house operation. Since potable meters and reclaimed meters are
identical, costs for materials and labor could be directly correlated.
The data applied in this analysis was obtained from the Meter Shop's FY 01/02 records.
This information was reduced to a cost per meter equivalency that includes both
materials and labor costs. The materials costs are based on the City's budget for parts
and materials, while the labor rate was calculated using the average Meter Shop salary
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
Odober 2004
Page 31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and total maintenance hours. This was then related to the total meters in operation, not
just the meters repaired, in order to provide a correlation to future meters that would be
maintained in the reclaimed water system. The calculation procedure is shown as follows:
[(1.4*Ave wage/hour)*(# Hours of Labor/Year)]/ (#Units in System)
A factor of 1.4 was applied to the hour1y wage to account for salary-based employee
benefits. The combined costs attributed to materials and labor was determined to be
approximately $ ] 2 dollars per system meter as shown in Table 2-10.
Table 2-11
Projected 0 & M Costs
(Meter Shop)
'TQt<l1
*Based on FY 0 1/02 Meter Maintenance Data
In addition to the meter maintenance costs that the City would face, the incremental
cost of meter reading, billing and collections would also need to be considered. The
current cost per account, based on the FY 03/04 Operating Budget for Customer Service
translates to a cost of approximately $67 per account per year. However, given that the
addition of reading, billing and collection for reclaimed water accounts would replace
lawn metering in many cases, and meter readers are already making stops at the
majority of the accounts that would be new reclaimed water customers for potable
and/or lawn meter reading, and given that existing customers of the reclaimed water
system are being billed currently, the incremental cost for reading meters, billings and
collection for a reclaimed water system metering program would be a fraction of the
current cost per account. For budgeting purposes, we will assume the incremental cost
to be based on labor costs only for the addition of ] FTE per 5,000 accounts added to the
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
system, or a labor cost of $60,000 per 5,000 accounts. This incremental meter reading cost
together with the per unit meter maintenance cost increases the annual system
operation and maintenance cost as shown on Rgure 2-9.
$4,500,000
$4.000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
-
e $2500,000
'1ii
o $2,000,000
U
$1,500,000
$1,000.000
$500,000
$0
Figure 2-9
Projected 0 & M Cost and Staffing With Meters
30
-
ILl
25 Ii:
-
lit
2O~
.,
C
15 ~
::>>
tr
WILl
.,
E
5 i=
'3
....
o
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
FY
~ O&M Costs ___ FTE's
The additional metered 0 & M costs combined with capitol costs for retrofitting the
existing reclaimed communities and meter installation for future reclaimed projects totals
more than $8.8 million in 2004 dollars. Annualized costs for metering through year 2020
equate to over $670,000. This information is provided in detail in Appendix C.
2.3.8 Revenue Projections with Alternative Rates
The City of Clearwater's current rate schedule is based on a flat rate schedule for
residential customers with usage charges for larger customer classifications. As outlined in
this report, the current rate falls far short of funding the reclaimed water system
development and ongoing operational expenses. The chart in Figure 2-10 illustrates the
percentage of program funding projected for the next several years at the current flat
rate or equivalent metered rate of $] 5.00 per residential customer.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page 33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 2-10
Funding Sources for Reclaimed Water Program
FY 2005-2007
13.50%
. % SWFWMD . % City 0 % O&M
A flat rate of more than $40 per month per account would be required to support full
funding of reclaimed system implementation and operation assuming the continued
funding of 50% of project costs provided by SWFWMD. This is more than twice the current
rate for reclaimed water service and almost four times the average per account billing
amount of $] 0.40 in those systems currently metering reclaimed water as shown in Table
2-7. The option for increasing the current rate to this degree to reduce reliance on Water
and Sewer funding does not appear reasonable.
Burton & Associates completed the 2004 Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency
Analysis for the City of Clearwater. The City has established its Capital Improvement
Program for Utilities and its proposed operational budgets for FY 05 through FY ] O. The
Revenue Sufficiency Analysis evaluated revenue requirements to support the financing
needs for the City's programs. Scenarios for un-metered reclaimed water and metered
reclaimed water customers were conducted to determine the impact on the proposed
water and sewer rates for a five-year period. The results of the analysis indicate that the
proposed 7% per year rate increase for water and sewer meets the needs of the City
based on un-metered reclaimed water. Given that metering is a likely requirement for
continued grant funding and overall effective management of the system, a rate
scenario was computed by Burton & Associates to factor in the increased capital and
operational costs along with the proposed grand funding increases for metered systems.
This scenario also assumed a rate increase that would be coupled with the
implementation of a metered rate schedule. This rate increase equates to 23% of the
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water and sewer rates. or a monthly charge of approximately $24. At this rate for
reclaimed water, the water and sewer rates increases could be reduced from 7% per
year to 6% per year beginning in 2007 while maintaining appropriate revenue levels
relating to project expenditures. The results of the financial analysis conducted by Burton
and Associates for metered and un-metered scenarios are included in Appendix F.
Report on Redaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0 II 2
October 2004
Page 35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Conclusions
This report provides updated financial cost projections for continued growth and development
of the City of Clearwater's Reclaimed Water System based on the assumption that the program
continues in accordance with the Master Plan and the timeline revisions illustrated on the Table
A-] in Appendix A. The timeline has been coordinated with the City's recent capital
improvement planning efforts for public utilities. The updated financial projections include
capital cost expenditures (with and without metering), revenues expected from reclaimed
water sales based on the current rate schedule, and estimations of reclaimed water operations
and maintenance expenditures (with and without metering). The report also reviews the
projected reclaimed water usage based on actual usage for the three-residential/commercial
service areas, Island Estates, North Beach, and South Beach, which have been operating over
the past several years. The actual reclaimed water consumption for these areas has been used
to adjust predictions of reclaimed water demand for the continued expansion of the system.
The following conclusions are provided based on the evaluations conducted as part of this
report:
. Capital costs for future projects have been updated to reflect increases in construction
costs, and increases in construction constraints and requirements, as well as
incorporating updated ASR cost projections based on feasibility study results.
. 0 & M cost projections are provided based on continued system expansion. These
projections outline an approximate 15% average growth in operational cost per year, but
with earlier years even higher. It appears that Clearwater's staffing costs are higher than
comparable systems: however, more detailed budget evaluations of the comparable
systems would be necessary in order to confirm similar cost accounting. It is expected
that the early year costs are higher on a per account basis since significant effort is
required for customer connections, and storage and pumping facility operational costs
are allocated on a lower customer base in the earlier years of the program.
. Revenue projections presented in Section 2.3.3 are based on estimations of customer
sign-ups and current flat rate charge for residential customers. Should the City implement
metering, a charge in excess of $1. ] 511 000 gallons will be required to match current flat
rate charge. The rate to recoup the City's share of capital costs and 100% of the system
operational costs would be in excess of $40 per month at the flat rate, or over $2.30/]000
gallons at a comparable metered rate.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. The "real" cost of reclaimed water construction for the Island Estates, North Beach and
South Beach projects, presented as an equivalent per month charge basis is
approximately $45 per month per account, compared to the $15.00 per month flat rate
currently charged to residential users. The current rate recoups only approximately 80% of
the actual system annual operation and maintenance costs.
. The City has achieved the required offset efficiency for Island Estates, North Beach and
South Beach as outlined in each of the Cooperative Funding Agreements with SWFWMD
for these projects. Future projects have higher efficiency requirements. The reduction in
potable water usage achieved in South Beach is significantly more than antidpated,
with the comparison of pre-reclaimed water to post reclaimed water usage reduced by
over ]95,000 gpd.
. The City can expect to face metering requirements in the future if the City continues to
pursue Cooperative Funding of reclaimed water capital expenditures. It is anticipated
that thiswill occur with the applications to be submitted for FY 07 Cooperative Funding.
3.2 Recommendations
As previously stated, this evaluation and reporting effort is intended to provide the City of
Clearwater with updated information to use in its continued management and planning for
reclaimed water system expansion. The City is reviewing and updating the Utility Rate Study
to determine revenue sufficiency and needed rate adjustments required to support program
objectives.
. Incorporate updated Capital Costs in rate calculation and revenue sufficiency
evaluation. The City should continue to pursue reclaimed water system grant funding
from SWFWMDand other agencies to offset the significant capital requirements for
implementation of a program of this magnitude.
. The City should incorporate an operation and maintenance budget with a yearly
escalation in accordance with Section 2.3.6 in its revenue sufficiency evaluations due to
the fact that a growing system will have increased costs over time. This section factors in
the cost of meter maintenance and the increased cost of meter reading billings as well.
Standard "cost-of-Iiving" adjustments will not be sufficient to account for actual
expenditures.
. With the expectation that metering of residential reclaimed water will be required for
continued funding in 2007, the City should begin the development of a rate structure for
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0JJ2
October 2004
Page 37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
metered consumption and should develop a transition strategy to convert existing flat
rate customers to metered customers over the next few years.
. The City should plan for the financial and operational impacts of metering reclaimed
water. The increased capital costs and the increased operation and maintenance costs
is being included in the Annual Operating budget for out-year forecasts and is
incorporated in the review of the revenue sufficiency being concurrently prepared by
Burton & Associates. The future reclaimed water rates should consider recouping the cost
of meter maintenance.
. Apply for SWFWMD funding for a meter retrofit program that will offset a portion of the
capital expense of this one-time cost. This may add slightly to the implementation
schedule since the previous implementation timeline has not included metering.
. The City has held reclaimed water rates constant for over 6 years while costs have
increased for construction, operation and maintenance of the system and while
reclaimed water has gained in economic value as a beneficial resource. The City should
consider a reasonable increase to represent the increased costs while reducing the cost
burden on increasing water and sewer rates.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page 38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
Projected Reclaimed Capital Costs Timeline
E
J!
~ 1-
'" :-
.! !!
~ 1
1 ~ it ""
.~ J
1j'5
.:! ~
f_
! ~
2'[ :-
u a.
'0
~ ~
u
~
!S
~
l?;
...,
p
..,
p
...
p
s. ....~..:~
.llf;ll'
'M"~'
"0
III
'e-
lL
r;
!'l
~
'"
....
:-
...,
,~
!
....~.Ii
l~~
"$
,j ~
'" '"
~ ~
4) '>
III III
'" '"
o
<5
~ ~
III III
1J II>
'& e
c: .Q
'E '"
~ ~
.:~~ ..
,~l?II
.~"",;;;,~
Ij.....
.N':~
~~
~ .~
i~
,110
.....I....~
li.ti$
~....
'" ~.
III
~ ~ g
E ." ~ ! .2 i!
~.t:2L. V)C
~Oe-OCl.!llL
~g~a&~.s
~UwwU..,.9
Z
III ~
~ !
t 5
III 0
'" u
~ j
~ l:! ~
,,~u
z z u
i6
.c
.c .:! 0
~8J!
i i =€
u G ~
u
(])
~ 3
~
~
~
..
I!
..
ti
:'!
=
~
..
~
..
~
.:
~
~.
..
~
~
..
~
"
:l
~
~
~
~
~
.;
'"
~
II
..
a ~
u ~
,;
~
;
ri
~
g
n
'i
~
~
~
ri
~
~
Ii
~
~.
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
t-." tl l()
H
!
~
~
~
.
..
~
~
"
~
!
.,;
~ !l
! ~
~ ~
~ ~
..' ..
~
~
~
~
III
~ -0 0
o c ~
u .r ~
oil 'E u
II 2 Gi
o I.!l z
~
~
ri
a
~
ri
3
~
'"
~
3
n
D
~
D
..
n
~
'"
~
~
..
!
~
ri
~
~
ri
..
"
~
..
11
i
..
~
~
;::
ri
'"
..
~
..
~
!
~~a
o .. .
8. 5 ~
2
,g
~~~
,2 ~ g
.;
Ii
C
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
:.0 ci
c:....
~ :!. ~
2 e ~
~ lit ~
.. ..
f!
!
~
~
i
~
of
:
~
~
~
~
..
it
"
-0
c: e
~i
<:'"
2~
u
~ ~
.. ..
~ ~
..
.. ..
~ S
~
~
~
"
~ ~
~ ?l
- ..
"
;l; ~
" ..
Pi 0
;; .
..
2 ~
~ ,..,
5
~ "
.:i!
~ S
..
~ ~
~ [;;.
.. "
."
.. "
III ..~
Ii
. ~
..
~ *
~t
..
.. ..
... "
.. ..
!i 5
.. "
~ s
ci an
- "
..
-' ..,.:
" ..
" ;
~ M
" ..
.. ..
'"
.. ..
.. ..
::l :
~. ~
'M
.. ..
; :;!
.. ..
tIi .0
. ..
..
.. ..
~
a
~
'IJ
;;
8
~
;;
~
~
8
..
!
~
a
c
,g ~
..Q a
o
~ ~
~ ~
(]) '"
~
Ol
C 8
:g g
()
.E
.:!! ~
lS n
u ~
;g
~
~
l!
!
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~- ;€
"-0 -1l ~
~ ~ t~ u J! e
~-:::!;v_lIli
a; iIi _ iIi l.t E '" II
- - 0 - ,.g.jt :l:-
~~~~.f1u~
~ 2.
e;
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ;:::
8 g
~ :
~ ~
~ Q
~ ~
~ ~
~ g
~ ~
~ ~
g ~
~ ~
~ i
~ ~
~ ~
- 8
g -
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
l: ~
II ~
~ 2
~
~
of
~
fi
i
,,'
~
~
.:
~
~
'"
~
~
Ie
~
iJ
~
'"
~
5
1lI
:3
;
~
o
ri
I
I
~
..
"
~
~
~
~
i
i
:i
~
~
i
~
~
..
II
..
s
~
!
~
1I
~
..
..
..
~
..
~
:l
~
~
!!
~
..
~
~
.;
~
~
~
~
..
~
i
ri
-.r_
o.
oOC
~&
].e
J!
u
o
~
~
..
..
~
~
~.
~
a
~
!
~
~
8.
"
::l
'0
c:
"
~
~
..
'"
o
u
.!!
~
'0
III
.E
..!i
u
..
'"
c:'"
0::
't:o
o .
a.:;:!
.....
"'0
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Projected Reclaimed Revenue and Timeline
~ <> ~ 0 0 '" ~ ~ ~ ~, ... , ~ l 1;1 ~ ~ ~ l ~ ., '" ~ '" E
'" :;; :'" &', ~ ~ 8
(:j <> <> '"
~ ~ ~ '" ~ '" ;;; ~ ",' i. '" ., i :;i ~ 51 '" .~ '" 2 '" ~ .,; "'
A '" ., 0- M N .. "- '" - :;; '"
- - - '" - - - '" - - '" .-, :: '"
('.i '"
[.1 t- ~ '" '" ::l ~ ~ '" ~ .. ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~, ~ ~ '" ... ... ~ ~ '" ii5
~ "- ;;:: <) ..: ..
~ ., <> <> '" ... ~ '" e, "
.,; ::i :Ii ,,; gi ~ ;;; '" ..: ;;\ ~' ~. :i g s! 51 0 ~ R! '" 0- ~ ~' '"
~ 0- ;!. "- "
- '" '" -- ~ '"
- ... '"
~ ... '" 0 '" '" ~ 2' ~ ~ ... '" '" '" ~ '" ~ t ~ ~, ~ '" &l ., 0- <> "-
:;: 61 '" "- '0 ;;:: l< :j! ~ t;: i:J ~
~ a- '"
'" ~ :Ii 0 g; '" ;:.; ~ ~ i1? .,; ;:1; ~ ::l 5~ ~ '" '" ~ ..: ... "' ~
~ '" a- N ::>: ~ .. .e
'" - .- .- '" ..'
... '"
~ t- ~ '" '" ::l ~ ~ 3. ... ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ $ 5l ~ i ., '" "' '-' ~
:;; t.:.: ..; &{ "'
~ ". <> 0' '" '" '" '"
"; ::i :li .,; ~ ~ :; ~ ~ ~ ::! ~ :i :;l 9 ~ ..; ~ ~ g " ~ ";
'" '" .. 0- N e. ~ ';)
.., d
~ <> ~ '" '" ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ... '" "- "- ~ ~ ~, $ ~ ~ ~ "- ., v ...
'" :;; .., "- ~ ~ &~ &1
'" '"
R <ri ~ :li ,; g; ;:i ;) '" '" ~ ~ ~ :'}; ~ ~ 0 '" '" ~ '" ~ 5:
~ 0- :! 'n '" ?' "
'" (..j oi
~ i!: '" '" ., ~ ~ '" '" ~ ... "J "- '" 2 !8 ~ ~ ~ ~ :; .. <:>
~ ~ t, ;;:: '"
"' ., <> <> '" ." '" ., '" .,. ..
i:i U')' ::i :!j' .,; ~ '" ;;; :~ ~ ~ '" ~ :); ~ S 5l '" .., ~~ ~ ,,'
~~ '" <> '" " .~ N ?' t.t
c.,j ("1
~ 11: ~ <> '" ~ ~ N '" ~ ~ ~ "- "- B ~ ~ $ ~ ~ "- 0 e_
"- '" q '" ;;:: ~ ~ -:.
~ '" .~ :ll ,; ~ '" ;;; '" '" ~ '" ~. 'l f;i :2 g '" '" 0- 0-
~ '" '" ;!. <> ~, (.j ~ (, 1';
<, "
~ i!: N <> <> ~ ~. ;:! '" ~ ... ~ "- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "- <> "-
f<1 a "- ~ '0 '"
'" ~ 0- 0- '" - "', '" '" '"
~ @ III ..; <> '" ;;; '" ~ ~ ~ 'l Zl 2 g '" ~. .,;
.- N '" 0., .- .- - ~I N ~
" "
?l 0- R '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ "- "- ~ l ~ ~ "- " "-
In ... :;: - ~ '" "- ~ c; c;
~ ~. ~ ~. .,; gi '" ;;; ~' ~ t ~ i1 'l M s! ~ <> 0..
'" ~ '" ~
'"
- -
~ <> ~ '" '" '" ~. ~ ~ ~ ;!. ~ "- ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;j '" '"
'" '" ;;:: "
.. .::;, 0- N <> - ~ '" '" ,-,
k ",' :li <) 0- ;g ;;; ,,' ..' '" ~ M ~ '" ~
~ '" N .! ~ '" '" '"
'" '0
.- "
~ g; g '" 0 ~ ~ ~ ::j! ~. .. ~ "- ~ 2 ~ '" '" ~
'" ~. o.
"' 0- 0- 0, '" ~' .. q
~ ~ 3 ~. ",' g, ;z ;;; ,:;' '" ~' ~ !!? ~ "
0- ~
41
;, .' ..'
c ~ <> N '" <:) ~ ~ '" ~ '4 ~ <'i " " i g '" g
" " '" '" g
~ '" 0- N <> <:) .- " <>- ", c-
D v; ::l :li ,; gi .,; .,; ';i J ::! ~ " ..; W
GI .,. .. '" <> "-
~',I .- <0 ..
ox
<<i ~ o. ~ " 0 "' ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ fl ~ ~
" "' ;:..
~ <> "- ..
~ .,; ri ffl ..; g; ..; ;;, .,; .-: ~ .,; ~ :); ~ ~~ "
~~ ~ .. <> ... .,. ~
"i 6 ~ t:l '" 0 ~ ~ ~ 3 3 ... ~ .... ~ " 3 "
s '" ~ ~ " ~:l fl
g "' ~ -6 ~ .,; ;;; ~ '" :;! ~ f\ ~ C)
'0 f,'! .. v -,
"2 A ~. ~ <, '" "' ~ ~ ~ 3 ;:t 0' ,- 8 '"
:J? '" t:: ..
ox ~ ... '" "' ':) "'
'0 !:l g <i gi ;(j ~ '" i!'i ~ ~ ~ i/;
" ~ ;;; ;!
Jl ..
v ~ <> N '" <> '" g '" '" 3 ... <) 8 ~
~ '" ~ '" ~ "' "
41 " .. T
'0' ~. ~ ill '" to <) ;;; ~' ~ T " 2
'"
... - <, ...
a.. ~ '" ~ '" '" '" ~ N ~ ~ ~ 8 ~
~ '" ~
.,.
",' ~ ifl -0 ~ .,; ;;; ~' '0 n ."
~, '" ;:. - on
- ,,,
~ g; N 0 0 '" ~ ~ :r ~ 8 d
~ g '"
0- 0- q '" '"
",' ~ III '" g, ~ ;;; ;q 9
~ "
.. '"
fl 0- ~ '" 0 tg ~ N ~ [~
'" h ,-,
... 0- <>
~ ~ ~i ~ .,; g; <; "
'" "' "' "
0 '" << <, " "' ~ <>
~ \I ~ g ~ '" '"
'"
Irl ~ ~ -6 .,. <~ g
~~ >-~
Fl k '" '" " ;..:; ~
~ .... <> 11 "
"' B :ll '" "
S' ,>
., "
~ ~ g: g 8
'"
"' ~ ;ll "
~ "
1<l g: ~ ~
~ q' '"
.,; ~ ~ e.
S' 0-
0'
~ ~ '" Ss
~ '"
OJ
.,; ~ '" "
N ,.., ~,
0 ~ ~
8: \I
~ fl .,.
"'
"
fl ~
~ ...
~!). '"
N
~ g ~
...
:l' .,; ",'
S! S!
" V .5 ~ ,~ ,J 0
u Z ,~
n u to Ii :;; ",
8 ~ ~ ~ " ~
it '" v, ill ~ ~ t u ;r. .t. ~ !2 > ~ ~ .~
g ,C i !~ 'E '" ~ .l: ~ l t' c u ~ 6~
~ " <? ,~ u ~ i f, ,~ Q -8 ~ -" (l '" ;J; ;'
Jl ~ ~ 8 ... " s ~ i "
~ 0 '" U ~ 8 0 L r; ~w ;;
w '" .~ >- 0 I. ~ ~ t: ?~
:i :l; :is ~ ~ ,6 0 d :i 0 " (j ~Ci"
'" ,,' " ); .., " '0 U 'w Z U z
...-
0'
0'"
'" "
a; '"
~2
u
o
"
'"
~
'"
'C
c:
C
(;
U
a;
~
'C
"
E
~
~
'"
a::
-a9
2-:
"'0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
Projected O&M Costs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FY FTE/OH Electrical Chemical Unmetered Total Total Metered Total Metered
Cost per Cost FTE's Unmetered Unmetered FTE's Escalated @
Year Escalated @ 3.5%
S 3.5%
2005 $ 794,288 $ - $ - 9.5 $ 794,288 $ 795.000 9.5 $795,000
2006 $ 820.434 $ 100,086 $ 1,971 10 $ 922.492 $ 955,000 10 $955,000
2007 $ 872.728 $ 128,227 $ 2,526 11 $ 1,003.481 $ 1.075,000 14 .'Ii 1.222.300
2008 $ 925,021 $ 141.581 $ 2,789 12 $ 1.069,391 $ 1.186,000 12 $1,350,600
2009 $ 977,315 $ 175,844 $ 3.464 13 $ 1,156,623 $ 1,328,000 15 $1,548,300
20]0 $ 1 ,029,608 $ 201,028 $ 3,960 14 $ 1,234,595 $ 1.467,000 16 $l,719.600
2011 $ 1,081,901 $ 224.478 $ 4.422 15 $ 1,310,801 $ 1,612,000 16 $1,916,700
2012 $l,l34,195 $ 241.413 $ 4,755 16 $ 1.380,363 $ l,757,000 16 'li2,090,100
2013 $ 1,238,782 $ 279,720 $ 5,510 18 .'Ii 1,524,011 $ 2,007,000 19 $2.4 13.400
20]4 $ 1,291,075 $ 31 L349 $ 6,133 19 $ 1,608,557 $ 2, 193,000 19 $2,649.200
20]5 $ 1.343,369 $ 342.424 $ 6,745 20 $ 1,692.537 $ 2,388,000 21 $2.896.300
20]6 $ 1.447,955 $ 370,1 72 $ 7.292 22 $ 1,825.419 $ 2,666.000 24 $3.27l,700
20]7 $ 1.447,955 $ 381 ,890 $ 7.522 22 $ 1,837,368 $ 2,777.000 22 $3.4 18,600
2018 $ 1,500.249 $ 399,190 .'Ii 7,863 23 $ 1.907,302 $ 2,983,000 24 $3,694,000
2019 $ 1,552,542 $ 417,156 $ 8,217 24 $ 1,977,915 $ 3.202,000 24 'li3,961,900
2020 $ 1,552,542 $ 434.789 $ 8,564 24 $ 1.995,896 $ 3,344,000 25 $4,180.400
O&M
$4,000.000 30
$3.500,000 25 I
$3,000,000
$2,500,000 20 j
;;)
...... &~
~ $2,000.000 15
ILl......
$1.500.000 10 ~
$1,000.000
$500.000 5 i
$- 0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
FY
-+- O&M Costs _ FTE's
$4,500,000 30
$4,000,000 25 ~
$3,500,000 ......
...
$3.000.000 20 '!
.,
;;) $2,500,000 I
......
~ 15
$2,000,000
$1,500,000 10 ~
$1,000,000 5
$500.000 ~
IL.
$0 0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
FY
-+-O&M Costs _FTE's
I
I
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0Jl2
October 2004
Page C- J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pump Efficiency
Motor Efficiency
Pressure
Cost er kwh
Pro'ected Electrical Costs
..........Fy>l. Projected Total Unmetered Demand
..... ... .
IC . .....!~j :~"~~kd!::Fq~:~.!! ~~jii~r!~~ii~~~~'
..............<.............<.>........ .... ..<>... ...... ............. ... <....<
I> .......1........<><<...< I.. .. .. .>. ..i.>.. ...... .......
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
3.75
2,604
Ll05,100 $ 88,408
1 ,352,643 $ 108,211
1,602,837 $ 128,227
1,769,764 I $ 141,581
1
2,198,053 $ 175,844
2,512,845 I 201 ,028
2,805,976 I : 224,478
3,017,666 $ 241,413
3,496,496 $ 279,720
3,891,863 $ 311,349
4,280,298 $ 342,424
4,627,146
370,172
1............1..
.,j/j I ,890
......
4.59
3,188
4,773,625
4,989,879
$ ..<399,190
$ . .....417,156
5.44
3,777
5,214,449
5,434,861
$ 434.789
6.01
4,170
*Demands do not include sale to Pinellas County
7.46
5,180
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
8.53
5,922
9.52
6,612
10.24
7,111
11.86
8,239
13.21
9,171
14.52
10,087
15.70
10,904
16.20
11,249
16.93
11,759
17.69
12,288
18.44
12,807
Flow @ Adj.
980
gpd/acct
MGD
2.67
3.30
3.59
3.96
4.92
5.63
6.28
6.76
7.83
8.72
9.59
10.36
10.69
11.18
11.68
12.17
Projected Total Metered Demand
I.
Power ... Electrh:al
I kwh C~~[per
I". ~ear
..... $ .....
ij T ;,!.
...
$.. ....51.,144
...... ......................
$ ~~;..
.....1...
1,057,873 $ 841fl$3Q
...... .........1.1..11....
$ ...
80 psi
0.08
Flow@Adj.
980
gpd/acct
< ......9~rn
......11.1>....
1,507
1,946
2,493
2.752
3,419
3,908
4,364
4,693
5.438
6,053
6,657
7,197
0.8 %
0.9 %
I
639,298
825.713
1,168,044
1,450.715
1,658.478
1,851,944
1,991,660
2,307,687
2,568,629
2,824,997
3,053,917
· $ 11 6,057
.<
$
..$
1$2;678 .......
.....
148,156 ..
....
<..12 ...<.... ~~~
.<11)
...$......1184>615
.... ....
$ 205,490
$ 226,000
7,424 3,150,593 $ 252,047
$ 244,313
7,761 3,293,320 $ 263,~66
8,110
8,453
3,441 ,536
3,587,008
October 2004
Page C-2
..
$
$
.<<..1... .... ......
-"- "- ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chemical Costs- NaOCI
Maximum Dose 4 mg/L
0.01512 g/gal
Density 10 .48 Ibs/gal
4,754 g/gal
Cost $ 0.40 $/gal
$ 0.00008 $/g
Dose Cost $ 0.0000013 $/Qal
FY Unmetered Metered
Flow@ Chemical Flow @ Adj. Chemical
Adj. 980 $ 980 $
gpd/acct gpd/acct
MGD MGD
2005 3.75 $ 1,741 2.67 $ 1,240
2006 4.59 $ 2,132 3.30 $ 1,532
2007 5.44 $ 2,526 3.59 $ 1,667
2008 6.01 $ 2.789 3.96 $ 1,841
2009 7.46 $ 3,464 4.92 $ 2,286
2010 8.53 $ 3,960 5.63 $ 2,613
2011 9.52 $ 4,422 6.28 $ 2,918
2012 10.24 $ 4,755 6.76 $ 3,139
2013 11.86 $ 5,510 7.83 $ 3,637
2014 13.21 $ 6,133 8.72 $ 4,048
2015 14.52 $ 6.745 9.59 $ 4,452
20]6 15.70 $ 7,292 10.36 $ 4,812
2017 16.20 $ 7,522 10.69 $ 4,965
2018 16.93 $ 7,863 11.18 $ 5,190
2019 17.69 $ 8,217 1 ].68 $ 5,423
2020 18.44 $ 8,564 12.17 $ 5,652
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page C-3
I
I ~ ;!
~ Cl
~
I '!. ....
~ ili" a
~. ....
i ! I i III
lofl ~~ Ii Q
I Ii I i I ;1
w $It ~i
:I f I"'
8 of i ~ 0: 0" t:!
~ I ~ s! ::g ~ ~~
I fJi2' , 11$ ~III . , 5 t~~t~~~,~~tt~~~~ S
i!i~ I
.,.- ';"
I I- ~ . ! . . . . . .!I! II;! II . . . I'~.!!! !!'S,lliI!
il
w II!I! .~gN'!i!!i iii .ill.31.:t~.~.:B"'~ i
I ~i . .
.. ,.. IllS ~ -" ..
It) ~~i
E! ~ ~.,.
I I ! 81 !llg.! . . ~ ~5t j;!!Hl~~"~~ ~~~ij~ OU
II C'l GI
;:; :::rl ~ f")___ lQ..... .., Cii 0)
.Q 0
oG..
!I! -
u
I li: I I &J.8tl!.~ . . ~ I ~5t ~~~!l~!HI ~iHI ~~ ! 0
l-
e;: BS .. R..;:rl i '# ......: ....-..: :Q"; .. ...; Ii
a::
~ ill N
I '0
~ . !.! I! . . ."IS",.! 0 . . i. lij~ -~~... ~ .~~ ! ....
w s! .~ ;:.",
8 ~... $I. ,.. c:'" ~ (0/ '"" '"" eO
::)
a:J
I ~ N~ ~3R!!.. .!!;III~!!'" i ~ il\I--::1 ~ 8~~ ~
-< . . . . ~::l . .~.
Z E!~ ..:..: g
~ 05~
I [Ii
If II!I! . . . ~ 5111:1111... I ~~ !11M ~ :'!~ to Q\Q =
~~ .~ '-yt ...
j;j - :Ii
~u
I <
-l ~ I!!J:; 1315 !lR.~a&i!!. . . l3 !I1.iji!.~~fU ~fiI!! (I
I! it ..
III .., of .".: ";':2 ... ~
I ~
~ I I!" IIIII~IIII .. L I ~I ~. d~. GI
i I 0)
0
I i1ig ~ illi.~~~~ VI
.. ::I
I;;IIIII;~IIII!II i ..J 'tJ
~ ,~t ~~..Lltii c:
! 0
I ~~~~_Ii~~il~i~~~ -
~ VI
I 0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~!Bn!~ IHI ~ IHI u
r: .!
Q Q*Q****t~*.~.*jtt.~ ~~aaa~~~~a~~~~~~
w ~
Ii
I ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! lil~ii~~~~lil~~! 'tJ
&:l GI
II:: .5
~ _AljjAAlllllilllll_ __~~~~~~~~~~S~~~ 0
U
GI
I Q::
~~.~~$~t..~$$$~~~.~ ijijij5ijijij~ijijij5~ijij~ c:C'l
0::
1::0
o .
Q.C'l
I GI:
Q::O
I
I to ~
~
~ N
in
t- ....
I ~ Ii> a
I!i, ....
i I ~ z
en ~B ;i ;1
I ~ I I I S1~ i i
:IE ~ I",
:IE .. , I ~! ~ ., '" ~,
8 ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~~
I r5 ii"1 .~ 11$~llf ~ , ~~~~~~~'~~i!ii!i~~~~ 5
iE~ ..
'1--
I iiI- ! . . . . . ,B! II DI! - · . '"~.!!! ~~'!911l!
~
~i 'I!!! !c:g;;!5!i Ei . . .a.il.:;l;I,;&.:ll"'~ i
I ~ ri
~ i~~
~ ~ ~a"
o .
il I ! IIIUll,,! . , ~ ~lil 6~a~~!:!~ lj!!H! ij~ ou
I C'l Q)
;;..::" ~ 1")--- l(joi'" ..; lii 0)
.Q 0
~ OIL
-
U
~ I! 1iI1! . l"! . . ~ I ~lil ~~~~~.~~ ~lJl~ij1il ! 0
I ~ I~ ;;..:::C'l M 'Ii ,.............. p,j....'" ,.; iH
l:I::
0 ail N
U. ....
0
I tu ~~ ~!!I! . . , !'I 1I1!.I- , . ~ st~.ij~~~.~ ~.. 9 ....
8 '" - - . ~ .
..
:::l
a:s
I ~ ",Oi! a 3 RI !! - . - ! Q III!!! - . . i ~ !l!~~m ~ 8ij~ I
cc . . . .' .~ j:j . .' ~
z !~ l<iI ~
Ii ..
::::i =~
I LIJ
&: II!I! - . 'ililll=il!1 · . . ~ ~;! Sli ~ '!!!:< .. 0'" ..
..J '" ~ ." 1ft
;;~ . ~ ....
~ l'i .: :Ii
It)
c
I ..J ~ I!!S ra Ie! R.~!lil!' . . ~ st.~i.~~~! ~:;!~ Q
I~ ii ...
.n~ <'i l:l
~
I .. .J
I I I." 11111~lill i ~(.~ ~~i~~ei~IB~ ~ Q)
0)
0
I III hI~!lhH~~i~i i :S
~lmhU~dn!1i1 ~ ~
c:
I i~~~~o~~iig~~~~~ ~ 0
~ -
'"
0 0
I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~IBUI ~ 11HI u
I: ....
In riririririiiiiiiiiiii..~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~13~~~ !!
~ 1IIIIIIIIIIalllll::! 8~1!8i8~~~ii 8~~ ~
~ ~ i ~~~~ 1~!S!8 ~
I Q)
E
i Itllllllllllllllll- -~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~ '6
li
Q)
5&555&&&$$$&i&$i$i5 ij~ij5ij5ij55ijijij~5ijij ac
I c:C'l
0::
1::0
o .
a.C'l
Q)~
I aco
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
o
n.
GI
o
I
c: ~
o <Il
=ti ~
.. '5
c: If
GI <Il
j ~
f!
.. 3;
.! ~
GI ::.!
~
1
~
"
GI
E
'0
1:
IIC
j
1;
o
o
~
..
o
a
c:
:2
"
"
c(
~61~",
JU~;
"!"
_::.!S1
.2.a~'"
s.oli:
.~
11&;3'"
II.
o
5,
~
..
::!
11]89>
U
<Il
"
'~
'" ~
Gi ~
~!
'S
u
;;
Go
f
,~
;;J
If
41
'"
Ii:
41
"
'~
Jl
3;
f-
o
is
u
~ 2
'" ,2 ~
"6 " c ...
"0 ~ ,- ,Q
"" 0 ~
u '"
>-
Ii..
~~~~ft~~ i~~
lai$~~i ...~~
~ ~
~ ~
~~~~!~
l:! ~ ~ ! ~ ~
....
~
a
lL
~
w
Ii:
-
..
"
'i
41
>
Q-o
2: -
~.<:' .~
(j ~ i
~~~
SH:
~ ~ ~ ~
~ i ~ ~
~ ~ ~
f;i ! ~
::; ~ ~ l.:l !f! ~ ll>
~~fi!;~;
m ~
~ ~
~ ~
i ~
... '"
::s III
.0 l!i
c;. N
s~Sl~~i~a;~"'~8 ~~
~~~~~~;t~~~~co ~:3
... ..
1!l Ii
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:i~;;::~,o:!i~;o
~ ii i i
~ ~ ~ .
_O_Neooo_ooe 00
~ ~
LL-S!IU
oJ!li:
.~ ~ g
g.i -S
'"
~ ~ ~ ~
l::: ~ : ..:
~
~-o
o.
ou
C'l CIl
.. 01
CIl I)
.Qa..
.E
u
o
000-0000000000
.!w
~Ii:
:: Q
If "
~~
ui -ij'
" Ii: S
4i ~ g
u:~w
','. t:
-0"--0000-00000
_00_0000_00000
ui't
t~:g
C . If
~,&~
O(,.,....C)OOOOOOO 000
~~i~~~..~~iai R~
i.13~l::~::!a!~ 9!
~-
;;~~~~~~~~:c; o:~
~~~~gg~~~~~N ..::i
Go
'0
Of .,.
..
>
~
Gi~
""8 E LL
.' 0 III
o ~ "
>- 8 .~
'"
<,<;:l:ll~:g~..~~
~ '" c:> .. ... ..
0-. 2' ~. :!' -0' 1'..: g ~
<'t ..... 0. ~
~ :7i ~ l::::
~ ~ ~ ~
~. ~
;;; l:f
.. 0() ..
~ l!l co
,..; to ('I:j
CIl
01
I)
."
::;)
'tI
c:
I)
-
."
o
U
..
.11!
I)
~
'tI
CIl
E
'0
U
CIl
lIl:
c:C'l
0::
't;o
o .
Q.C'l
CIl:
lIl:O
C'lIIO_O_O_OONO_ 0-
a; ...
E "
~ .~
8'"
o
"
0(
o
iii
u:
0000.-000000 .....00
-OOOOOOOO-OO()O
-0-000-00-000-
~ ~ ~ R ~ l ~ ~
ari ~. p....: aj 0..' d ~ ("I)
fIl S ~
.... ...0 -G
~ ~ ~
o C'f M :! '" '0 .....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.. .. ~
~ ~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u~
-2l.()
Oocv:i
00-:;;
I- u 0
U]u
"0
"0
I-
z
,j::
zc2(9
OW
Za.
o
~
;::
(l)
(l)
~
I-
a.
w
o
-
-
~
o
J:
-
i
....JU)
<t:w
zo
0::-
w~
I-w
~U)
en
c:
o
+=
u
.~
o
....
a..
~
oa
o
Z
0::-
wI-
Ic2(9
I-w
Oa.
o
<c1DBJ
Zuo...o:::
~>t;;t1J
0:::0:::0>-
~~u
.....
QJ .....
0.0
w QJ
1->-
LL
c (;
.Q QJ
ti >-
=t:I= QJ .~ Ul
c V> U
C .~
o QJ
U V)
>-
LL
co 0'> co I'- ~ ~ (") (") 0'> (") <t t:: 0 (") N 0 (") 0'> 0'>
CO <t CO CO 0'> I.C'J (") ~ (") 0 I.C'J (() N 0'> I.C'J (() 0 0'>
N ~ CO I.C'J <t_ CO_ O'> O_ N_ (() 0'> 0'> 0'> (") 0 0_ I'- 0 0
.,j c>> .,j .0 ~ N c>> (") ~ c>> .,j <'i r--: (() <'i Ci N <t- cO
0'> <t (") N N N N <t (") I.C'J 0'> ~ CO <t ~ CO I'- I'-
I'- CO 0'> 0_ ~ N.. (")- <t_ ~ 1'-_ CO_ ~ ~ (") I.C'J (() I'- 0'> 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N- N N N <'i
(I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I)
CO <t CO ~ L.t") CO ;:; L.t") N L.t") 0.. L.t") L.t") 0.. N N '" 0.. 0..
CO (") N N 0 0.. CO ...... '" L.t") L.t") "l" "l" "l" (") N N
N "l" ...... 0 (") "? 0:. ~ ...... q (") 0.. 0.. N L.t") L.t") CO ~ ~
..f c5 c--J 11") r--: 0.. ~ ..f cO ~ <<l " " g c--J c--J ..f " "
0.. N ...... N ...... N CO (") (") 0.. <t "l" "l" L.t") L.t") 0 L.t") L.t")
...... CO CO 0.. 0.. q q -: N, N, ~ ~ ~ "1. "1. "1. "? "? "?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
bIT b'! bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT b'! <>'l <>'l b9 bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
(") (") (") (") ("') (") (") (") (") (") (") (") ("') ("') ("') ("') (") (") (")
..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f ..f
bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT b'! b'l bIT <>'l b'l bIT <>'l b'l bIT bIT bIT
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
bIT bIT b'l bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT <>'l bIT bIT
CO 0 "l" CO N '" 0 "l" N '" 0 CO CO N '" '" 0 "l" <t
~ 0.. ...... '" "l" (") ~ CO '" L.t") 0 CO CO ...... L.t") L.t")
"l" N ...... (") 0.. L.t") ~ ...... CO <t 0 N N CO (") (") 0.. L.t") L.t")
<<l ..f 11") " cO c5 c--J <<l -0 cO c5 <<l <<l ..f -0 -0 " 0: 0:
CO CO CO CO CO 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N
bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT b'l b'l <>'l b'! bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT
0.. (") 0.. L.t") ~ CO "l" 0 ("') 0.. L.t") CO CO "l" 0 0 ...... (") (")
'" 0.. CO ...... L.t") "l" (") 0 CO ...... <t "l" (") N N 0 0.. 0..
0 0 CO ...... '" L.t") "l" ("') ~ 0.. cq '" '" L.t") "l" "l" ~ ~ ~
c--J <<l ..f -0 cO c5 c--J ..f cO 0: ~ 11") 11") " 0: 0: ~ <<l <<l
N N N N N (") (") ("') ("') (") "l" "l" "l" "l" "l" "l" L.t") L.t") L.t")
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
bIT <>'l bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT bIT <>'l <>'l b9 bIT <>'l bIT bIT b'! bIT bIT
0 N L.t") CO ~ "l" CO ~ ...... 0 (") 0 0 (") '" '" 0.. N N
N (") L.t") ...... 0 N "l" ...... ~ "l" '" ~ ~ (") L.t") L.t") ...... 0 0
CO N 0 CO ...... L.t") ("') -: CO '" "l" ~ ~ 0.. "': "': L.t") "l" "l"
<<l cO r--: 11") ..f <<l c--J - cO r--: -0 ..f ..f c--J ~ ~ c5 0: 0::
'" CO ("') CO ("') CO ("') CO ...... N ...... ...... ...... N ...... ...... N '" '"
"l" "l" L.t") L.t") '" '" ...... ...... CO 0.. 0.. q q - -: -: N, "! "!
- ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
b'l b'l b'l bIT <>'l b'l b'l <>'l b'! b'l bIT b'! b'l b'l <>'l <>'l b'l bIT bIT
"1. 0 q 0 0 q q 0 0 q 0 0 0 q q 0 0 0 q
0 ~ c--J <<l "l" L.t") ..0 cO 0.. 0 c--J c--J (") <t ..t ..r; ..0 '"
0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N
"l" N 0 CO ~ ~ '" 0.. ...... '" ~ N 0.. CO '" 0.. (") CO N
L.t") (") L.t") N - 0 ~ "l" 0 ...... N N N ...... L.t") '" '" 0
(") (") L.t") ~ '" ...... ...... "l" ~ "l" CO 0 L.t") N 0 CO L.t") ~ ......
<<l ..f 11") -0 " cO 0: c5 c--J <<l ..f -0 -0 " cO cO 0: c5 c5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N
L{) -.0 "- CO 0- 0 ~ C'l C") "'<t L{) -.0 "- CO 0- 0 ~ C'l C")
0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C'l C'l C'l C'l
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l C'l
-.:t.....
8u
C'l <II
Qj 01
.Q 0
,20...
U
o
<II
01
o
'"
:;)
'0
c:
o
-
'"
o
U
..
~
o
~
'0
<II
E
'6
U
<II
Ill::
c:C'l
o :::
to
o '
Q.~
<110-
Ill:: 0
I
.
O/M Costs er LF
Total LF to Date RCW S stem FY 03
aiM FY 03
Cost er LF FY 03
45,137
483,875
$10.72
-
-
Projects Online
FY 05 FY06 FY07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10
Harbor Coachma
Drew Oaks Seville Del Oro MorninQside Skvcrest n Enterorise E. Drew
LF
3,000 6,000 7,900 3,520 7000 3,300 4,000 7,500 1000
6,675 4,800 1,600 2,800 9300 2,500 2,]00 4,500 6,500
24,550 11,080 8,000 6,490 2000 5,650 3,000 10,210 16,500
10,620 40,300 5,350 23,520 4670 20,640 7,000 37,250 -
- 17,500 6,000 10,190 16880 8,940 25,335 16,140 -
- - 1,300 - 7320 - 10,980 - -
44,845 79,680 30,150 46,520 47,170 41,030 52,415 75,600 24,000
Total LF Per Year ] 54,675 46,520 47,170 - 93,445 75,600 24,000
Cumulative Svstem Total 199,812 246,332 293,502 - 386,947 462,547 486,547
OIM Cost With Meters 1,126,528 1,429,595 1,790,985 1,956,254 2,361,952 2,643,312
$ $ $ $ $
Cost per LF 5.64 5.80 6.10 - 5.06 $ 5.11 5.43
Accts Per Year 3,354 4,332 5,550 - 6,128 7,611 8,701
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Info from 2000 MP Update files and does not include
LF from projects without connections
-
$1 2.00 .----..----..---- .--.---- 10,000
$10.00 8,000
.0
~ $8.00 u
- - 6,000 ~
+- $6.00
CI') --
0 4,000 0
U $4.00 ------- 0
2,000 z
$2.00 _._---_._--.._-~,--,_._.,._-
$- --r -.----- 0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-
-
-
-
-+- 0 & M Cost Per Linear Foot --- Accts. Per Year
-
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
- 0992-0J J2
October 2004
Page C-8
flt:Ilnnr' nn 1I'O,...',....n"'I.8,., 11II,..._r r _... __.... ....___
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Retrofit
FY Retrofit Costs Escalated Costs Present Worth 2004 (3%)
@3.5%
2006 $ 1,337.400 $1 .432.700 $1,248,500
Meter Installation
FY Meter $ Escalated Escalated Add'l Escalated Meter Present Worth 3.5%
Meter $ Metering O&M Install/ Add'IO&M
2007 $ 182.700 $202,600 $ 147,300 $ 330,000 $ 297.700
2008 $ 86.700 $99,500 $ 164,600 $ 251 ,300 $ 226.700
2009 $ 222.450 $264,300 $ 220,300 $ 442.750 $ 399.400
2010 $ 1 63,500 $201 ,000 $ 252,600 $ 416,100 $ 375,300
2011 $ 152,250 $193,800 $ 304.700 $ 456,950 $ 41 2,200
2012 $ 109,950 $144,800 $ 333,100 $ 443,050 $ 399.700
2013 $ 248.700 $339,000 $ 406.400 $ 655,100 $ 590,900
2014 $ 205,350 $289.700 $ 456.200 $ 661,550 $ 596.700
20]5 $ 201.750 $294,600 $ 508,300 $ 710,050 $ 640,500
2016 $ 180,150 $272,300 $ 605.700 $ 785,850 $ 708,800
2017 $ 76.200 $119,200 $ 641,600 $ 717,800 $ 647,500
2018 $ 11 2.200 $181,700 $ 711,000 $ 823,200 $ 742,500
2019 $ 116.400 $195,100 $ 759,900 $ 876,300 $ 790.400
2020 $ 114,600 $ ] 98,800 $ 836.400 $ 951,000 $ 857,800
Total Present Worth(2004l $ 7,686,100
Total Present Worth with Retrofit $ 8,892.400
Annualized Cost for 19 Years @ 3.5% $ 678.490
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page C-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix D
Additional Supporting Data
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------t------------- --7 --- ------- -Ii ~-~- ---:: -_~.:-:::: T=. ::. ..,=.T---=~:'I~,J
~ 1 ~ J ~ ' 1 :. ~, r 't'! 'I t}) I ~ ~,~ J f \' ,.~!
. , I,
r ' i ij
_ __ _~__'_~~_____._____________________ '__ _~__'''___(~:~._.~.~_'__ L,-_.~lj
Pre-RCW Potable Cons (gpdl
Post-RCW Potable Cons (gpd)
Difference Potable Cons (gpdl
Number of Accts.
Potable Offset gpd/acct
Potable Offset Efficiency
Number of Irrigation Wells
GW Offset gpd/ Account*
GW Offset Efficiency
otal Offset (gpd/acct)
otal Offset Efficiency
~WFWMD Req'd Offset Efficiency
626.488
320.400
306,088
639
479
0.55
21
15
0.01
494
0.56
0.25
671,528
499.496
] 72,032
598
288
0.41
16
12
0.01
300
0.42
0.25
746.486
550,923
195,562
182
1,075
1.54
33
82
0.08
1, ]56
1.66
0.25
*GW Consumption based on 450 gpd per direction from SWFWMD
Residential Demand d
Residential/Small commercial Accounts
Island Estates Demand
North Beach Demand
outh Beach Demand
d/acct
d/acct
d/acct
Offset Efficiency Per Project
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
Total Offset Efficiency
. Island Estates
. North Beach
o South Beach
Required
..
Offset
Efficiency
l.I ] 2,345
]419
783
878
71
698
...............................................................................
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage October 2004
0992-0112 Page D-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
IS onc onsump' Ion an evenue
Lawn Water Consumption & Revenue
Island Estates North Beach South Beach
Gallons m~d $ Gallons m~d $ Gallons m~d $
101,588,872 0.28 443,139 59,512,376 0.16 266,470 50,902,148 0.14 226,488
44,488,048 0.12 ] 99,845 68,338,776 0.19 306,248 56,212,948 0.15 252,446
9,332,048 0.03 46,623 68,228,820 0.19 310.7 58 67,800,964 0.19 305,345
3,061,677 0.01 ]7,206 32,639,728 0.09 163,635 55,125,356 0.15 267,509
2,009,876 0.01 12,536 12,478,137 0.03 74,099 17.767,992 0.05 100,143
1,550,604 0.00 11.212 8,358,152 0.02 55,095 11,408,826 0.03 73,894
Domestic Water Consumption & Revenue
Gallons MGD $ Gallons mqd $ Gallons mgd $
127,079,216 0.35 378,541 185,595,256 0.51 537,018 221,565,080 0.61 645,522
127,567,660 0.35 384,731 184,485,972 0.51 573.7 49 227,569,276 0.62 677,126
129,609,700 0.36 395,865 197,771.200 0.54 601,624 232,522,532 0.64 721,846
128.7 68,200 0.35 419,309 185,666,316 0.5] 602,804 229,093,729 0.63 761,876
120,069,708 0.33 431 ,702 170,603,926 0.47 600,246 206,125,612 0.56 752,607
115,395,456 0.32 460,006 173,957,872 0.48 673,590 189,678,100 0.52 755,543
Total Water Consumption & Revenue
Gallons mgd $ Gallons mgd $ Gallons mgd $
228,668,088 0.63 821 ,680 245,107,632 0.67 803,488 272,467,228 0.75 872,010
172,055.708 0.47 584,576 252,824,7 48 0.69 879,997 283.782,224 0.78 677,126
138,941.748 0.38 442,487 266,000,020 0.73 912,382 300,323,496 0.82 721 ,846
131,829,877 0.36 436,515 218,306,044 0.60 766,439 284,219,085 0.78 761,876
] 22,079,584 0.33 444,238 183,082,063 0.50 674,345 223,893,604 0.61 752,607
116,946,060 0.32 471,217 182,316,024 0.50 728,684 201,086,926 0.55 755,543
Reclaimed Water Consumption & Revenue *
Gallons mgd $** Gallons mgd $** Gallons mgd $**
0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
0 0.00 80,7 69 0 0.00 269 0 0.00 695
0 0.00 122,548 0 0.00 499 0 0.00 330
0 0.00 124,484 0 0.00 67,385 0 0.00 2,875
49,392,000 0.14 121.922 17,078,000 0.05 127,663 ] 8,212,304 0.05 4 l,l38
40,861,000 0.11 1 ]9,927 17,273,000 0.05 131.298 31.732,000 0.09 45,392
City of Clearwater Reclaimed Water Project Areas
H' t . C r d R
*Reclaimed Water Consumption based on metered accounts (commercial) only
**Reclaimed Water Revenue includes metered and f1atrate (commercial and residential)
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 0-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
Lawn Water Consumption
0' 0.30
e>
~ 0.25
c 0.20
0 0.15
~
Q. 0.10
E
:> 0.05
In
c 0.00
0
U 2 3 4 5 6
FY
0.70
c
.Q 0.60
-+- -
g- 8 0.50
a ~ 0.40
c -
8 0.30
0.20
~ Island Estates -- North Beach -+- South Beach
Domestic Water Consumption
2
3
4
5
6
FY
~ Island Estates - North Beach --.- South Beach
Island Estates
North Beach
South Beach
y=-O.006+0.3642
y=-O.o088x+O.5321
y=-O.O 1 78x+O.6580
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0 J J 2
October 2004
Page 0-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Residential and Commercial Consumption
Island Estates, North Beach, South Beach
Total IE NB SB
FY 02 Consumption Commercial* Commercial* Commercial* Residential Consumption
for IE, NB, SB
MONTH GALLONS (gal/mo/acct)
Oct-Ol 33,725,300 3,518,000 1,737,000 158,576 28,311,724 22,7 40
Nov-Ol 34,662,000 3,833,000 ] ,680,000 539,308 28,609,692 22,980
Dec-Ol 34,966,000 4,538,000 1,423,000 861,696 28,143,304 22,605
Jan-02 24,504,000 4,167,000 1,219,000 1,298,528 17,819,472 14,313
Feb-02 25,342,000 3,526,000 1,057,000 1,390,532 19,368,468 15,557
Mar-02 29,124,000 3,607,000 1,237,000 1,629,144 22,650,856 18,193
Apr-02 40,100,000 3,786,000 1,156,000 1,504,228 33,653,772 27,031
May-02 46,110,000 4,122,000 1,470,000 1,7 63,784 38,754,216 3 1,1 28
Jun-02 44,173,000 6,093,000 1,836,000 3,206,676 33,037,324 26,536
Jul-02 30,155,000 4,632,000 1,554,000 1,949.288 22,019,712 17,687
Aug-02 33,296,000 3,649,000 1,316,000 1,976,964 26,354,036 21,168
Sep-02 25,827,000 3,921,000 ] ,393,000 1,933,580 18,579,420 14,923
Total FY 02 401,984,300 49,392,000 17,078,000 18.212,304 317,301,996 254,861
gpd/acct 1, 10 1 ,327 3,147 821 674 715 21,238
*Metered Commercial Consumption provided by the City
Service Residential Residential Commercial
Area Accounts Commercial consum tion Consum tion Total d d/acct
596 43 426,081 135,321 561 ,402 879
541 57 386,762 38,434 425,196 71]
108 74 77.209 49,897 127,106 698
783
1,113,704
Report on Rectaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page 0-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Total Metered Commercial Consumption per Service
Area
-;;;- 8.000.000
C
Q
(5 6.000.000
0>
c
.Q 4.000.000
a.
E
::> 2.000.000
on
C
o
U
---- .
~ .
.
r'-
.
;..;
-
o
Sep-Ol
Noy-OJ
Dee-OJ
Feb-02 Apr-02
Month
May-02
Jul-02
Sep-02
-+-IE Metered Commercial" ~NB Metered Commercial'
SB Metered Commercial'
Residential Consumption per Acct per Month
40,000
C
0 30,000
:.= Vi
Q. c
E 0 20,000
::> 0
VI 0>
C 10,000
0 -
U 0
Sep-Ol Noy-Ol Dec-O 1 Feb-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jul-02
S ep-02
-+- Residential Consumption per Month
Month
___ Residential Average Consumption
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0 r r 2
October 2004
Page 0-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Projected Reclaimed Water Demand
# Connections in RCW Metered RCW
FY Service/Year Demand Demand MGD
MGD
2005 3,354 3.75 2.67
2006 4,332 4.59 3.30
2007 5,550 5.44 3.59
2008 6,128 6.01 3.96
2009 7,611 7.46 4.92
2010 8.701 8.53 5.63
2011 9.716 9.52 6.29
2012 1 0.449 10.24 6.76
2013 12,107 11.86 7.83
2014 13.476 13.21 8.72
2015 14,821 14.52 9.59
2016 16,022 15.70 10.37
2017 16,529 16.20 10.69
2018 17,278 16.93 11.18
2019 18,056 17.69 11.68
2020 18,819 18.44 12.18
2021 19,563 19.17 12.66
2022 20,168 19.76 13.05
2023 20.702 20.29 13.39
Non-Metered
Consumption gpd/acct 783
Drought Factor 0.25
Adjusted Consumption gpd/acct 980
Metered
Consumption gpd/acct 647
Reduction due to metering* 0.33
* Average consumption for area metered customers is approximately 1/3 less than
the current consumption in the City's system.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0 J J 2
October 2004
Page 0-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.2-
Q.
I Q.
::>
~
lJ
C
0
E
())
I Cl
Q)
"5
$:
lJ
())
I E
'0
U
())
""
lJ
())
I u
())
-e-
"-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<<> ~
-.0
:::!; 0
- -
lJ
())
Q)
ID
~
'"
c:
" .~
0 ;;
" E
=0 .2-
Q.
'" "
c: :>
<> "
~ c:
<>
~ ~
:>
c: "
<> "
u '"
"<I" IL) 0
<0 N ~
..... d
lJ
II)
Q)
ID
~
C.
:=J
"
0
"
=0
Q.
" '"
c:
0 .2
" Q.
=0
Q. E
'" (; :>
c: " l!
<> <>
~ ~ u
"
E :::: "
:> '" S
l! :>
<> <> if
u Ci <(
ii .... ~ ~ 1Il ::J ~ 8- .... ... '" ill ~ ~ ~ '" l
<Xl 0 '" '"
:! ~ ~ ~ .,; .; .; ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,..; ~ ,..;
:;ep. B; .... '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;S ~ ~ ~ III '" l(!
159i ~ :l "1
~ :! :! :! ,..; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...... - -
..
.. ~ ~ ~ ... ~ I:: .... ! ~ !!: ~ ~ ~ ~
Ifil !E :I ~ ;0 "
I <d <d <d ... ,..; ... ,..; ,..;
i
:I: ! ! ... 8 ~ ... 8l ... l3 llJ ~ , ::! $ ~
i ~ ;:; C'f
,..; ..; ... ... ..; ..; ..; ..; ..; ..; ..;
I!I
! ~ : ... B; ~ ~ ... ~ !2 ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" ~
'" N .. .. .. .. .. .. Pi Pi Pi Pi .. Pi .. ..
fg iB ~ ll> '" ;!: l!l '" Sf ~ '" ::l ~
~lsi i"i "1 0: '" ;0 '" .,
.; ~ ,..; '" ::: '" '" cD ~ cD ~ ~ cD 2: 0: 0:
!
'ij' "i J 0 '" .... .... '" ., '" '"
8 l~~ $ :; :a <Xl CD a; 8- 0: ~ Sl '" '" '" '" '" g
,0 ,0 ,0 '" ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ., ,0 ,0 ,0 '"
J~
i ~ I~g ~ ~ '" l:l l!! :a Q CD .... ~ .... &l 8; ., lil ~
'" '" ...
- i z =< 0: 2 2 2 2 2 ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ~ N N
t- ot
~ 11g
1 ~ '" '" ., ~ :il ., '" g .... .... 1': .... ~ '" ~
'" '" ., CD '" 0 ...
w :z N Pi .; Pi .; Pi .; Pi -of -of -of -of .... -of -of -of
lig CD iB J::: ... ., ., '" ~ ~ l l:l f<3 ~ f;j 0: <>
"1 CD '" 0
~ :i ., ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" cD
~ ~ lio !;l ~ ~ ... ~ III III ~ ~ ~ 8l ., ~ ~ lI! ...
,2 ~ !~ ~ '" ~ ~
N ... cD '" .,; cD '" 2
IJ
~~ l<l g '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" III ~ S; ., Ql ~ il! ....
'" '" ... '"
! N Pi Pi '" -of '" ,0 '" CD 0: 2 2 ;:: ~
~u lio Ie ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6t C!j ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ III ::f
!~ <Xl
cD cD ... 2 ;:: ~ !2 !2 .; ,..; ~
- - -
I ~~ Ie S; ::f <> '" l:l '" ~ ., i"i '" R 1': '" III l
... '" <Xl '" '"
.; -of '" ,0 '" cD 0: 2 ;:: ~ :! ~ ,0 ,0 ,..; cD
I)i~~ ., ., ., ... 8- ~ ., ~ ~ i;j i;j i;j !(j !(j !(j
'" '" '" '" '"
.,; Pi .; Pi -of '" ,0 ,0 '" -of ... -of ... ... -of .;
i ~ 0 ., ::: ., ... 8- ~ ., ~ ~ !(j !(j !(j !<l i;j !<l
j ~ ~ '" '" '" ...
.,; .,; .,; .,; - N '" '" '" -of ... -of ... -of -of '"
IHH :a :a :a ~ ... ... .... ~ ~ g g g 8 8 8 il!:
CD '" '"
.,; .; .; -of .; ,0 '" cD .; '" '" '" '" '" ,..; ,..;
j ~ :a :a '" Ii;! ... ... ... ~ ~ g 8 8 8 8 0 ;!:
CD '" ... ... 0
.,; .,; .,; - N .; -of '" '" '" '" '" '" .... '" '"
~ R ~ R ~ ~ ~ ., III ~ 1Il 1Il 1Il 1Il 1Il 1Il 8
CD CD ~ .... ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;::
",' ... ..; .; .; .....
JI) ... ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 .... l(! .... ., '" .,
'" 0 '" 0 '" 0 0
N '" .; .; .; .; .; .; ... .. ... .; ,0 ,0 '" '"
i j 8- ll> '" '" s; '" s; '" ~ ~ &l .... ~ : ~ ~
'" '" '" '"
N .; ... .. .. ... .. ... ., ., .... cD '" 0: 2 2
~ ! III i III i i i III l!l l!l 61 Iii ~ ~ CD CD
... 0: 0:
p) ... .." ..... .." .." .." -d -d ,..; cD '" o' ~ <>
-I I ~ '" ~ ~ '" ~ .... ~ &i g !!i ~ ., '"
J! ~ l3 ;0 R " 2 '" :g ~
,2 p) .." .; :ci ,..; cD .... ~ " !:! .." -d -d ,..; ~
- - -
~ ~ ., .... ~ ~ 0 '" '" ... '" ., .... CD '" ~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1':
~"
go
C'I GI
"'01
GI a
.Qa..
~
u
o
GI
01
a
:S
'tJ
c
a
-
<II
o
U
...
J!!
~
'tJ
GI
E
"6
U
GI
Ill:
cC'l
0::
to
o I
o..C'I
GI:
Ill: 0
~ ...
0 .!!:!
c: a. " a ~ co C") It) a ~ ~ q -0 ~
c: 51 ~ ~ 0- ~ 0- 0- 0-
~ 0 '3 0 - - ci ci - - - - ci ci
lI> :E
VI
VI ... <<') g) ~ - ~ co ~ g) ~ <<') ~ (')
"U "6 .!!'! ~ ...... "
c ci ci - - - 0 ci 0 0 0
0 c a.
~ E 0 +:
.. '3
~~ 0
ot.l :E
.c
....
c c .c ... ~ >- 0> Q. 13 > u
0 0 0 c '3 ~ 0 lb
:E 0 lb :E :E :;) IJ) 0 z 0
.... u. .... .... OV')
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :
I
C!! ~ g:; :1! ~ '"
~ " ~ " ~ ~
~ ~ ; ; ~ ; ; ; !
I
~ ~ M o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !
<Xi <Xi 0.: C'i '" .. ."
I
o
~
::E
I..Ll
o
...,
>-
-J
ll..
ll..
:::>
Vl
~
o
~
VI
.,; ~ M
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ d ci M . ~ ~ ~ ~ <Xi
I
I
~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ <Xi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d d ~ ~ C'i
I
~ ~ ": ~ !
.-.
I
I
0 : '" ~ go. l::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13
;:; C"f
'" ~ M ;! ~ <Xi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ q ".f ~ &l ~ Cl! ~ Sl ~ ~ ~ ~ ;.
~ '" d ci ~ ~ ~ ;! ~ '0 .0 ~ CD
~
0 ~ <'l M '" '" ... ~ ~ go. ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I
I
I
I
~
c
o
E
lI>
o
..
>-
Q.
Q.
~
~
c
8
01\
o
&l
W'l
U
'S
'ti
s:
~
=
2
...
~
~
~
+
110
...
6
~
'0
'"
g
g
~
~
~
t
~
on
('4
~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"tOO
go
t'l QI
~ 0)
.Q 0
00..
-
U
o
QI
0)
o
lit
;:)
"0
c:
o
-
lit
o
U
j
'i
E
'6
U
QI
ClI:
c:t'l
0::
l~
Qlg:
ClI:O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
Appendix E
Comparison Rates and Charges
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECLAIMED WATER RATE CHARGES
City of st. Petersburg
Connection fee: $320.00 for %" pipe
$370.00 for 1" pipe
$530.00 for 1 '12" pipe
Charges: $11.36/month/acre + $6.51 each additional acre
city of Largo
Connection fee: $250 (1/2 price if sign up first 90 days of system availability)
Charges:
Residential:
Inside City Limits $1 O.OO/month inside City Limits
Additional $1 O.OO/month
Outside Sewer
District
$12.50/month Inside City Limits
Additional $12.50/month
Commercial:
Inside City Limits $16.00 minimum ~ 25,000 gallons/month
$0.64/1000 gallons> 25,000 gallons/month
$0.48/1000 gallons Golf Courses
Outside Sewer
District
$20.00 minimum ~ 25,000 gallons/month
$0.80/] 000 gallons> 25,000 gallons/month
$0.60/1000 gallons Golf Courses
Pinel/as County
Connection fee: %" $140.00 for Metered
1 " $185.00 for Metered
1 '12" $385.00 for Metered
2" $425.00 for Metered
~ 1 Acre
~ 1 Acre
~ 1 Acre
~ 1 Acre
$160.00 for Un metered
$235.00 for Unmetered
$510.00 for Unmetered
$600.00 for Unmetered
Charges:
Unmetered:
$16.oo/bi-monthly
Charges:
Metered: $0.29/1,000 gallons ($16.00/bi-monthly minimum)
Additional $4.50/bi-monthl billin char e
City of Oldsmaf
Connection fee: %"
$225.00
Charges: $7.60/month
$0.95/1,000 gallons additionally
$1.20/1,000 allons additionall
0-8,000 gallons
8,001-15,000 gallons
> 15,000 allons
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0172
October 2004
Page E-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Charges:
City of Clearwater
Charges:
Availability:
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial/Industrial
$9.00/month
$9.00/month
$9.00/month
Consumption:
Single Family
Multi Family
$15.00/month
$9.00/3 or less dwellings
+ $0.30/1000 gallons
$15.00/month $ 2 Acres Impervious Area
$13.77 Connection fee
Commercial/Industrial
Open Space:
+$0.30/1000 allons
City of Pinel/as Park
Connection fee: $200-868 for %-2" pipe
No availability charge
Charges: Inside City Limits $8.00/month up to 2,500 gallons
$0.25/1,000 gallons additionally> 25,000 gallons
Outside City Limits $1 O.OO/month up to 2,500 gallons
$0.32/1,000 gallons additionally> 25,000 gallons
City of Dunedin
Connection fee: $0
Application Fee: $ 20.00
Capitol Cost Recovery Fee: $14.18/month (1" connection for 20 years)
Residential: $0.50/] ,000 gallons 0-30,000 gallons/bi-monthly
$0.25/1,000 gallons 30,001-250,000 gallons/bi-monthly
$0.10/1,000 allons > 250,000 allons/bi-monthl
City ofTampa
Connection fee:
$350 for %" connection
Charges:
Residential:
$1 .79/1 ,000 gallons
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
October 2004
Page E-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix F
B & A Report: FAMS Model Results
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
en
Z
o
-
....
u
w
..,
o
~
A.
W
~
Z
w
>
w
~
C
z
<C
z
C)
-
U)
w
C
w
....
<C
~
c
w
~
-
<C
....
U
w
~
. .
~
:tt:
Z
o
-
....
A.
o
lB'e
,
~ Il
(J'l Il
i'1
'~ l6-
-+Ilm
:~
<IN
Yol
"
~
i ~
~t>
~ ~ "
~ ~ ;
~
~ .
r41
---1
!
i
....1
i
1
i
CJli
!
<I
~
a:'
8'1
.+
o
~
~
fIl
(L
,
I~I~
ilIlIl
01
I
I
!
III
z:
g
I
1
I
~.
lIA
::01 ~
';ji
, ..
, .. CI
.,.! ..
i,:! 1;
-:lifl ~
:'I.! !
'u fI
11; ~
I~~
:ll:IUS
, .l!
.j ..
I ~
1
"""!
~
1l
~
~
J:
o
I
LL'
,
'r "--r,'l
tTJl~!Vl~!"!
~
~
~
~
~
~
!
!
....
CI
CI
N
~"O
~.~
.21"
~a:
'#.",<<>~'#.~o~'#.
CD...~NCDMO')N~
coo......mO>UJ..-(I)m
cri..-.... cD ....c ~-~
'II""" _ ..-..-
'#.~",<<>8l",,,,<<>'#.
CDCDT"'"t'-oo..-M..t--'l)
co (D <D. (") 0""''' N
y--""""(")~....-mMm
'I"'"" ,... T'"" T"'"
8l<<>~....'tl"'......'tl
CDII)""C"""CD~OtO
cnm...._co..<o_"""
0._ N..o (T)-r:JJ-N~
..- - 'II""" or- 'II"""
'#....."'...'#.~"'''''#.
mO)Ill"""","lOal.M
CD..-N..,.IllCJ)It)..,.<o
m...-o""':N",",-o..o
~
'tl"'.....8l"''''<<>8l
COII)U).....,....N(S)..-O
CDIt)...........UJID..................
ai'<l'""m~N"""cno:i
~
<Jl......~<Jl.....~'tl
tOl,O..CN..l,O0......
O)ItOO......M..-Ll)I'-M
~""""CD~N-maiN
~ ~
'tl~o~'tl<<>"'~'#-
CDO__Ot...M'V"".......
m...... m CD N r- CD (0'0
(S:J- t-- .r:r~Lj')t-.:N
'" '"
'#-~....",<Jl",0",<Jl
COa>MN_..,.CDN.....
CD,'M ...... ..- ... M ..... 'II"'"" ..
In- U)o~..u:io
.2l
..
a:
~
~~~~~~~~
o)"'O)mO)
CD.... 1t)U) (D
('1).011).(')(1')
~~O
NO,........
","''''
CO;
mmoc>>CJJ
co .... CD <<)CD
M.mU).(I')C'l
T'"" II) - -
N It)''-''-
.."''''
CO;
g~~~~
C"1.ai~(\')(")
N ~NN
CO;
m~:m~
(,,)_~""_MM
N ~.....-
","''''
N
0)"'00)0)
U:HD CO U)(D
M.cO.,..CWlC')
T'"" ..- - -
N 0)..-.....
.."''''
N
~~~~~
M_u:i~_M_C').
N (")......
","''''
",'
C)(O....Q') 0)
(oMo)(O(O
(')...a(O.t'lM
... '1"'"....
N "'.......
~NN
CDN"'CDo)
(oMC(O(O
C").~"":.MM
... ,......
N "'......
",.NN
~~~~~
U)COCDm....
Mq-"'M(O
aJ..IriQ.mN
tn ",..
iN mmCD
m.NM
(O(OtI)CCN
MNCDt'lM
m.....CD.CDN
m Q..
N \t)CDCD
"".NM
~O"'''''''
~M(")CD
(")t:JtCDN
o . .
iN! OCD(I)
N.NM
~
COCDQ,')(OO
~.~~.~~
0) to-...
N ",mm
...."''''
~~~(D...
m.~....~~
en ......
N U)m(IJ
","''''
mccmMaJ
cac (OIt)M
C")_O M """'_0.
... ...r-M
N N........
"''''
N
CJJoomPJ').....
(00 cgm..,.
M.c::i c") "'.It)_
N NON
"'..
N
moommo
(DO (00_
C"). c::i M "'..It1.
N N~~
~ '"
",'
0)000)"'"","
tOO (DtO......
M.c::i M.M.M.
... ...NCO
N N CD, q-
~ "'.
mOOCJ)""",N
(DO (D'r"M
M.O M ""'"~ l.O.
,.... 'r"(")"
iN NPJ')q-
~ "'-
0)000>......0)
<<:10 (0.....0>
~o (") ......M.
~o~
"'..'"
~ <<>.
N
(3)QOO).......
(gQ (OO)U)
(") Q Mm. (9).
... ....w
N NiNO)
~ ....
mooO)OO
(gO ilQlrDO
Me::) M'I"'"".O).
,.... .....NIt1
N NON
~ "'-
~~~~~~
..~'" '" .... .... 8l
CDlDmmto-N....
iN"'; m M ..,..to-.....
(D1<<:I_Nml
M 'r"Nmo
, ~-
~~o~~~
.0
CD '"
'" '"
~~O~~~
"'. '"
.0
'" '"
'" '"
0000<<
r-o r-ZZ
"'",0 .....
CD CD
'" '"
_00_<<
~d ~ZZ
'" '"
'" '"
~ ~
S ~
~ ~ ~~
~ S (DB
'a "0 E~
0) c c: .s c:
CD OJ CD <<t1i)'cn c:
E., E",EE",ooO"Oo
m 0 2! CD
ai) m E O.sOo.Cii m
m::JEo m~~~a.a.
., 'E", ~ ~ C;; 1600'0'0'0
1m mu....::J=' S:"'O::~~~
a:...-gE:;;~OO "'~ilEEE
J~~~O~(D~= m'a~mmm
8~"'~~~E~~ E~~~~~
III u: ::0 0 ~ 0 Q) Cl: ).!! E E 'ii 'ii 'ii J
1ii!1iie~~1i ~mc:a;a;a;
~~~O~8~ a:o~a:a:Cl: ~w ~~~
_.n_'T.-ro-;r;~1-~' U) ""'" 0) ;'-;;~~T~". --o;To_;~T(");'.-~-~U)-i~"~lo,-l-o:
mlm!_ ,_ ... ..... _ _ ..... ..- N N N ('II N Nit"') M!M:M'M (');M!M!M!<"T....:
'#-OOO'#-"'CDO'#-
comtOIt1NNNP,t')...
COCOQID_NM""O
~ I.OcD~".ll"J.cD
'" '"
~
!
!
~
<Jl "',.... '" <Jl ~ ~ ",l/iI
mONMUlI.OCD(")r-
COOOU'lM...aJM(")(')
M 'l;fcs) (")";0)
'" '"
'#-..0..<Jl~",...8l
CD<.Dmtl).........IrDO'J
comM(")It)r-ilQ(9)(J)
N P)cD Ncwi"':
'" '"
~~~~~~~~~
all... ..... ~. U),.... ~
N""" ...N....
~:g~~~~;:g
(J) CD ... CD. ........ (1)_
'tl~
"''''
'" ...
e
Q>
E
il
'"
u
~
""
~
Q;
E
o
0;
"
o
Q)
~~~~~~
oq- 000
. N E9.'
coER- E&co
<Jl....<~"'l/iI
o~Z"":""':O
ON 0"'0
. N ER-M'
(OM E&<.D
l/iI"'<...."'8l
o~Z~~o
0'" oP,t')o
. N fl'tM'
(Q~ 6jtU)
8l"'<"''''<Jl
O~Z~~O
00 OMo
. N fl'tM'
COE:e ~(C
<Jl"<"'''''#-
oC! Z'o.I'; 0
oCD 0"'0
<<:it; E9~u:i
~~~~~~
ot'-- 00)0
cri~ ER-~cD
!
'#-..
O~
0'"
.o~
...
"'''8l
~~o
OCDo
.. '" .
...<<>
!
l/iICD<O"<Jl
o~Z~~O
0"" O<.DO
u:iE; E9~<<i
.21~~~~~~
QJ"""lnQ 1C)"!d'
~~~:; ~~
I"- ~
~ '#--<"''''<Jl
~"O ..~Z"":~..
~-m:~ i~:
.c"",N<Vt flB'N
~...
~
!
l/iI"'....<"'<Jl
...~~Z~"'Id'
~.....to- O)q-
~Mt& ;;~
~~~~~~
om(Q lone
. M t& ... .
o ...0
<Jl00<08l
o~C!ZC!o
omco lColQ
. E9E:e _ .
o ...0
~~~~~
oC>>CO 10
066&& :;
~
tL
~~~f
'I""'.,...N_(D
~~~ui
Na.lN.....
~....rsi
.......
~~~f
M_t'-\..O_N
~~~,...:
mt'--("')'"
cri..-.n
..... ...
~;:~~
"'Id'.0".0
6~~N
...vlt)N
M....."'Id'-
..... ...
~6~~
o.It1I&.1_M
~~ffiM
It)N"""T""
No:-M
..... ...
N::~~
"'Id'.vCD_m
~~~,...:
NOMT""
N-....rri
.........
1O::~f
0.00..
~~~c:i
(DO)coN
....E9N
... ...
:::.~~~
(9).alIN CD
!;t~~c:i
1,C)......(")C'l
....(:&N
... ...
"'<<>"'<Jl
0......00
N.ON"""
-vNU) .
ONNU'l
O""I,C)U)
...... E9...-
... ...
0"''''<Jl
t'--It1N"""
J..n.O.<.D N
...,1t10 "
O.....N"""
U)Mm<.D
.........
\II
.
TU
Iii!
III
.
<I
.
~
~
rJ
~
"''''....8l
C")"~{'l')
N."'",M.M
N co 0 .
(OCI)l,C)co
M...1,C)1t1
.........
CDalIu)~
NalI...{'l')
lO.O (0..'(9)
cnm""" .
N.....V.
N...(Y)'"
.........
0<<><<>
..~'"
"'....0
c:i'M~
000
"'~'"
.........
~)
.
~
o
o
. ~
!',
I~!/
,Ill; .
.&il III CD
S; ~ ~
~: tB ~
~: ~I
'01
Ii: .ct
2.
... ~
'"
o -6
..
.,
IX
~-
a .
aLL..
C'I CII
Gig'
.Qo..
J2
U
o
CII
01
o
...
;:)
'tJ
c:
o
-
...
o
U
...
.!!
o
S::
'tJ
CII
E
'0
U
CII
ek
c:C'I
0::
'ta
o I
Q"C'I
CII:
eka
I ~
o
I ~
>-
I ~
I ~
LLI
I ~
z
-
I ~
.-
I ~ ~
.....
>-<(
I t ~
<(LLI
I 0 ~
Z<C
I ~ U
OLLl
O~
IN C>
>-Z
..... -
.....
I z en
-X
OLLl
LLI
I ~ e
I ~
~
I ffi
.....
LLI
I :e
I
I
I
....
=N:
Z
o
-
.....
A..
o
J,ll
'~'"
.,~r
:J.
~
'OO
.
'C 4:f
1"
," .
~
.
]
~;
~..
.~
~
IF.
1111
III
1111
III
-
.
g
.<",
to
ijij
..
'il I
1L - !
rn .
,.
u
. ~ 'Ii '/. ."
IB' ~ ~~ S S
. 1 U CD co
~ II
~~ :)
jft!
~lbJ
:~
<IN ""1'
. .
-
. .
1';
'1
"t
-i , -'
fI .. f'
~ i ;, ~,
~ it .. ~
::c;: -'-'-.:1
.,. ~ t; i
8 31 . J
~l ' 4-
, ,1l'lI '-
'. ! 1oW~
~~lUt
~ J~,'" ~
.2 f u CI'
~ le16J~
:: '-I D
~ I. G r!J .
~ !.~'~
~ 1Jt1
Etr~iI~~
,~ II [] ,J
"'II' 1IIIlt !I1'"
tL
,~
l
-;]
....,
III
j
~
I
I
.&
0
!. "ltC'l
a,' O'
01&.
C'l CI)
,88>>
oQ"
....
u
0
, I
"'\!:K ,: 1;,;(,,>' :&
ek' ~ '~, ,<ftl, ',',"IQ, 1i ell -
'i'" 0 ~:S i: S"Q lIO ~
o ~i 0 cl' 0 ,>. . It U
... ~, ~ ,',', "14; ~ 0 ~
, :I ti
I
, '.*,:~.3lE
i~, ~Iij ~ ~
"'"" "Iii '1' j " ..
i!jf;"',~',~,'",;,,,t:',',Ci .. "
/lit g~':lS .
"Q",;" ,'J. lli~
'iX,;, "It" ,~
CI)
Q
0
:S
'0
c
0
-
!II lOt
III' 0
!II U
~
.S!
~
'0
CI)
.5
.S!
u
CI)
III:
CC'l
0=
l~
CI):
11I:0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
en
w
en
<(
w
Gl::
U
Z
-
W
I-
<(
Gl::
Gl::
w
3:
w
en
olJ
Gl::
w
I-
<(
3:~
>0
-10
A..N
A.. >
<(II..
I-Z
:::::>>-
&a
..C)
CZ
w -
~t:
-<(
<(I-
-I en
U
w
Gl::
Gl::
w
I-
W
~
I-
o
Z
o
C
. .
N
=M:
Z
o
i=
A..
o
l( *.
I!I
I
"
"'
.~
,0
c,
~ <-
o .
,", .&Jl
5~ ""qJ
1101
Ul
1L
1m
. IE
lB'\l:
1
;f. Ii
IS
~~.
~titr
-oo'im
:~
-
.
I-l ,;
ii
"'-
~ m:" ~
fI ~~I
~ t ,:
iJ ~ ~
6
~ ~ o~
GiV'~ v
!&II~
L"g ,~
~bli1
l~ffi\l!
"', QQl.' i
...... ID
!~!tI~
Gill "
i~rJ
r. r~ .,.~-c
iii (] ,~
~I"l' "'.'" "'"''
'n
OQ
O'
'.
~
~
e
IIIII
Iml
IIUI
l:I
3
t.
i
-!
..
.
u
1;
:J:~
(J
Q ,
"'.
(F.......,;
~1) ,
i;\.w.....
'ii~H(.
~n (
n "
il:~~ >.
:i' .;
dlit'
'II :li
Iii:
iil-i
:i.i'
..i,!'
! ~ 'i "
-~! : ,r~
"
...,
'" 1
I ti
.l,
~
l
::)
ill
.
U1
I!!i
IR
<-
.
. ~-
~
ri
E~
~:;
..
@jj
~ .to
IS 0: 0
(... ~ ,,'
L;r 'J
':0 II /
~i ~ J J
h)
. 5
~: ]
"'1")
O'
0.....
C'lCII
"0.
CII 0
~Q"
.2
U
o
CII
0.
o
:;
"0
c:
o
-
fit
o
U
..
.!!
~
"0
CII
oS
.S!
u
.:
c:C'I
0::
l~
CIIg:
GeO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix G
B & A Report: Reclaimed Water Consumption
Estimates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cft'eft-;,e'eft
00:00
ciQQO
'*
o
o
'*
o
o
COlt) 0 ~~~ ~,*T""
,...CO T"" wci ~ CO It).~
N'
_Y"" -ClO -
0 CO ClO T"" T""
('I) ,...CO It)
~ Y""N
N N
~
0 ~
N N.
N
."..".~ N tit
* ~~~ 'eft'#- '#- ~ 'tft'*'"#.'"#. ~ '#-
0 0
N OlOl cno en 0 It) It).,... T"" N T""
lci ('I)'N N N"': ('I) 0 ~~cOari ('I) cw;
. '. I I I I
It) Y"" T""
(\18 Ol
(\I . ('I)
ctici 0>.
C"')Y"" ~. 8
~ cti
Y"" Ol
~ CO
0 c.9- .0:.
~ T""
~'.~ ('t)
It)
C"') It) ('I)
IN cti ci
0 C"') T"" C"') ~
:0
N (\I 0
cjt (\I ~
as
~ Ol
~
~- ER:T""
0 (C.N N O~T"" "\t-
~'N CO ~ 0 ClO O'
T"" . It) It)lt) O(!)
cDOaS -CO _ NCb
T"" T"" Qiat
,...CO It)
Y""N .QO
~ N oCL.
-
It) ~ u
cti 0
.".~ N
N .".
N..;t'C08'#-COCO 0 It)T""en a~~
~ Ol ('t) C"') It) C"')NN
. .VOlY""""CO" T"" o .,... colt)lt)
-. - - -0 - 0 _ -CO _
T" ~ i8'~ CO T"" It) T"" T""
Ol C"') It)"" It)
N (C NN
T"" (C
m
0 as
a) It)
.".CO (\I
C"') N .".
~ ,,,,,.,(~.:g"')''''''''
. '.~ '" ',. , "\ ,<~ '
,... '. i .r':..:!:.;
""(\If .It)>""'"
cti01 t::J."............:..........., '. .... ..
...., ~ .,>.......
. .'""CO
i;~ll
-
~
-
s
c
~
8
u
a1
...
S Cb
~ at
en 0
...
1:l - ;:)
0) c
E ~ '0
- 8 e
('I) II) 'm 0
- C ~ -
S a1 ...
0 0) 0
c S & u
2 (i._ a1 ..
0)....... '0 It) oS!
E _II) g _II)
...0 :l C)~ ~
... &g~~ ~. .C: .!I
S . ..'E ~ '0
J Cb
~ i! 8:...g 8~ .E
~c"i ~
i c.s &J 8 e
j Q)Eca=
E C~"":8 RJ. ':>. .- Cb
"8 i II) 0) (i-.!! III:
:>.. 8 >0) ~. 0) ~ eN
i ii . ~ ~ c.~ ... 0=
a,~ lai -81:)0) 'S~
.,.~ ._ aJ >
;'#-~ Q.N
~ 2...W~. Cb:
'I., a:: <c 11I:0
., -",'r
i
u
:::J
~
a.
..16.-
m _II)
3=8-
'. .:?!iit;(Ci'.ii;i L:1'~
~~ii~~~'l~:, 'iilf,j it
1.1... ~::::.:.!.I.'.J.:.,~l.:iJ.fJ' if
ii1,""" "I'd 'i lial il" 3:
lc!";~ ;:,i'~rii.E ~,81 ~
.1................1.......'.....,.1.:...... :}.'....'~...'.l :I....i.. ;',',-,:.:,,-S ".. '.i
~:.." .i~.'.,~. j!, '~'lIJ..'. -s'.' '.'JUI:>. l! '.~.. .
", I, ;;.1': ,"'1:- CD. . : >.... W
. ' 1(:<;~:;:: m ~. .~. ~ I
rJ)
c
Iii
i &'~~ i
E~,~l =a
t I;,>~s ~
~Q" ~ l! i
.';;:1...0. . .........~. :>'.' ..............,... ...;. i i
,.,;I.:j.~" !, Ifi ~.
g p, ...
OO~ ~(!; ;g~
00
a) cOo Q~ o<.!)
C'l QI
......~ ~lJ)
.ace
.2
u
0
EB-
88i OM 0 M OCO
.....10 10 ..... COO
a) cO 0 ..... CO cct O~
..... .....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Il~t.. " .~
~J~i~ ~,
a'~f'"", ..tn.
I li'aJj'
~i(~>li( ~:
I~;'~ II
'i,~~~ li'tS,
,.... <I.. ~.....!
:,. ':,;, . '. .......'.irF-:. .
I '..'W . ..'.,
;'~ j ',; " ,. .,'
\" '.,
~/<"ji,j,"' '<
-.::t':~'1O
8t2 CQ
- - 0
0>" .'
~"~'
*"
0>
~
CO
EB-
Q'
~:
.9
Q.
,~
j
8
q,
.,...
~
!.
-
....&&
en... '.~. ~'...'~.'
Cl)tU -a, 'fi
_.I::.
J,II, '.0 'm. I.
0:;. b ~ lIf
"Q. '..;: &0.','
,CI):.o _::J
E tU. tU .:
'ca' =ai .::.
"i}c &! '2c'~'
'Q:'
.s
c::
~ ~ s
~ · c::
~ I @
16
E
Q)
o
~
i
.5
tU
i:~
.j!
II
.::!
~&
QI
lJ)
"
...
;:)
"
c
"
-
...
o
U
~
~
"
QI
E
:9
u
QI
CIC
cC'l
0::
l~
QI:
ClCO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Demand Estimate Methodologies:
Burton & Associates versus McKim & Creed
Since the City does not currently meter individual accounts or service areas, present and future reclaimed water demands were
approximated on a per account basis using historical pumpage records and account figures. Burton & Associates and McKim & Creed
applied different methodologies, resulting in a more conservative consumption rate via the B & A method. The differences in data
application are outlined below:
B & A reduced the reclaimed water consumption by - lOO,OOO gpd as an estimate of system losses for revenue
estimation purposes (conservative approach). M & C did not account for losses for estimating future demands since
this produced amount of water would not be available as excess either way.
B & A made a connection rate assumption of85% of total customers. The M & C applied actual account numbers
using reclaimed water as reported by the City. The current system serves a total of l,855 connections (use and
availability) with approximately 1 ,420 or 76% actually consuming reclaimed water. The difference in approach
leads to B & A estimating 1 ,533 customers while the M & C calculation applied l,420.
M & C factored in an adjustment for future demand projections using the historic 2002 data used by both M & C
and B & A since 2002 was reported to be a higher than average rainfall year, which would tend to depress
reclaimed water usage.
The M & C calculation leads to - 23,000 gallons per month while B & A leads to - 1 9,000 gallons per month.
Report on Reclaimed Water Cost and Usage
0992-0112
october 2004
Page G-3
1365 Hamlet Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756
Phone (727) 442-7196
Fax (727) 461-3827
viIww.mc;klmcreed.com
PUt
.
~~le~rwater
u~
Request for 4-Year Rate
Increase
~Water and Sewer ~ I
IR~ l
g..~1JJ - 1~t" -
OriginalS Year Rate
Increases Approved in 2001
W/S Reclaimed
7% J 0%
7% 0%
-------+--
7% 0%
7 % 0 %
7% 0%
Public Utilities
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
. Industrial Pretreatment Program
. Laboratory
. Reclaimed Water
. Wastewater Collection
. Water Pollutipn Control
. W~ter Supply
., Water Distribution
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
. RO Treatment Plant
. 588 Miles of Water Lines
. ~ Storage Tanks. 23M Gallons
. 19 Active Wells
. 5,445 Backflow Preventers
. 12,000 Valves
. 3 Advanced WW Treatment Plants
. 395 Miles of Sewer Lines
. 8,000 Manholes
. 75 Pump Stations
. 25 Miles of Reclaimed Lines
1
c'
Water Demand
Management
. Clearwater Production Increased
from 3 to 4 MGD
. Average Water Purchases of 12
MGD Reduced to 9 MGD
. Savings of Approximately $2M
over 2 Years
2
.
Recognition
. Environmental Advisory Board
Award
. Suncoast Safety Council Award,
. Future of the Region Award .
. AMSA "Silver" Awards ~
. Professional Papers ~ ~
. Featured on US EPA Website for
Sewer Improvements
Water Pollution
Control ).lJ'JJ7/,j
. No Closure of East Plant
. Process Improvements
. Biosolids Processing
. Future Compliance
Considerations
Water Projects
,;',.c'-I. -) '}-
e;-J ::.J -' J -' ) :;
. Rehabilitate Elevat~d Storage
Tanks
. Wellfield Expansion
. Enhance Capacity of RO Plant
. Preliminary Work for New RO
Plant at Reservoir 2
. System Improvements
Future Plans
6 Year CIP Needs
. Miscellaneous Projects
. Water Pollution Control
. Wastewater Collection
. Water
. Reclaimed Water
T9tal 6 Year CIP Needs
$1.8M
$43.7M
$35.4M
$51.2M
$25.1 M
$157.3M
Wastewater Collection
,;'-:J,.c' ,II)"}
-;-J J ::.J r./ J
. Lift Station Rehabilitation
. Overflow Area~~
. Gravity System
Reclaimed Water
,,:' -),.c' -I "}
';-J -' ::.J J -' )
. Continuation of Master Plan
- Morningside
- New Storage Tank & Pumping
Facilities
- Skycrest
- Coachman Ridge
- Enterprise
3
~.
Rate Study
Assumptions
. PILOT at 5.5 %
- FY06 thru FY10
. SWFWMD Grants for Reclaimed
. Local Water Production at 4MGD'
- Increase to 4.5 MGD in FY06
- Increase to 5 MGD in FY07
Rate Options
. #1 - Meter Reclaimed
- Grant Funding for Storage,
Transmission and Distribution
. #2 - No-Metering of Reclaimed
- Grant Funding Limited to Storage
and Transmission Only
~ 7 New FTEs
. 2 New FTEs for Reclaimed System
Expansion through 2009
. 5 Add'l FTEs for Metering of
Reclaimed
- 3 FTEs for ees
- 2 FTEs for PU Field Ops
Rate Study
Assumptions
. Factors Affecting Revenue
- Price Elasticity
- Weather Normalization
- Impact of Expansion of Reclaimed
System
. Absorb County Rate Increases
- 25% of the 7% Rate Increase
~ Rate Increases
Meter Reclaimed
=. -~l=it;o =+- WISIR
5.0%
"-
=_~. 7.0% . 13.0%
.---
FY 07 6.0% 13.0%
=
FY 08 6.0% I 6.0%
FY 09 6.0% 6.0%
-- --
*7 FTE's
fItIeterin9 Reclaimed Water
. Benefits
- Lowers Overall WIS Rate
- System Becomes More Self.
Sufficient
- Additional $4.8M in Grant Funding
- Additional 8900 Potential -
Reclaimed Customers to 2017
. Improved Equity and Demand
Management
4
"
~ Rate Increases
Flat Rate Continued
Monthly Bill Comparison
. 5000 Gallons/Month
W/S W/S/R
_----L----_ ___
FY 05 I 7.0% 5.0%
FY06~ -
7.0%
FY 07 . -r =.
7.0% 7,0%
- -----r------
FY 08 I 7.0% 7,0%
I
FYog+-- 7,0% 7.0%
_._~----
*2 FTE's
r--
:1j"Water ~ Sewer
cfearwater.~~:_~
Pasco Co.' .~ . ___ .--,-
Pinel/as Co. ~... __n_" ,
Hillsborough Co. ~___~__
Tampa ~~-------,-- _ .1
SI. Petersburg ~T -
New Port Richey ~ '!
Tarpon Springs 1- .'- .
$0
$20
$40
$60
Recommendation: Meter
Reclaimed Water Approve
Changes in Fees
i W/S W/S/R
-- -1--_______ _
FY 05~o 5.0%
FY 06 . 7,Oo/~-
FY 07----r-- 6,0% 13,0%
11I--- --------------r
FY 08 .' 6.0% I' 6.0%
FY 09 II 6.0% 6.0%
-.- n
*7 FTE's
Fee Current II; Proposed
!!!!!!!!!!!.---.- _ ___--1--_
Meter Taps 518".6" $210.$4,800 ' $210.$4,800
Backflows $320.$4,7~
Taps $260.$2,365 . $260.$2,250
Flow Test $0 I $50
Fire Line DOC's $0.$3.730 i $680.$3,420
1
Water Main Offset $0 i T&M
--
or & M = Time and Materials
~~crearwater .
-~
u~
pUblic Works
Administration
~~) Public Utilities 0 Ii.
:n~ n:r,\t-
- .\)1
5
"
~{CTe'arwater
-~
u~
. -"
Request for 4-Year Rate
Increase
~Water and Sewer 0 I_
--, ;-~
In-~~ -.." l
14~""';r--;" :1 -_"'1, \~
-- ~ -",--' ~
OriginalS Year Rate
Increases Approved in 2001
I W/S Reclaimed
_~y~ !% __1- 0 o/~- -=
_FY9~__1 ~ % __~ 0 %
FY 03 I 7 % i 0 %
-- Fy64-T~~--
---- -------- -~ --- -------~.---------~-- ------
FY 05 7 % 0 %
1
~.
Public Utilities
. Industrial Pretreatment Program
. Laboratory
. Reclaimed Water
. Wastewater Collection
. Water Pollution Control
. Water Supply
. Water Distribution
Infrastructure
. RO Treatment Plant
. 588 Miles of Water Lines
. 6 Storage Tanks- 23M Gallons
. 19 Active Wells
. 5,445 Backflow Preventers
. 12,000 Valves
Infrastructure
. 3 Advanced WW Treatment Plants
. 395 Miles of Sewer Lines
. 8,000 Manholes
. 75 Pump Stations
. 25 Miles of Reclaimed Lines
2
Water Demand
Management
. Clearwater Production Increased
from 3 to 4 MGD
. Average Water Purchases of 12
MGD Reduced to 9 MGD
. Savings of Approximately $2M
over 2 Years
3
.'
Revenues vs.
Expenditures
--
~evenue P'\ Expenses
(J) $60
t: $50
.0
~ $40
~ $30
$20
$10
$0
- .._--~.~... ..~ I.. _.iii1l..: '.----~.Id~ ....
~'. ~l .M,.
, . ......- ~ ", -I . ':,- I
-... ,-,"" '. .. ~. :' .
- - -' ,-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Est.
4
oJ
Future Plans
6 Year CIP Needs
. Miscellaneous Projects
. Water Pollution Control
. Wastewater Collection
. Water
. Reclaimed Water
Total 6 Year CIP Needs
$1.8M
$43.7M
$35.4M
$51.2M
$25.1 M
$157.3M
Water Pollution
Control ).!J:JJ/J~J
. No Closure of East Plant
. Process Improvements
. Biosolids Processing
. Future Compliance
Considerations
==:> -trt / NrRA-5TR-UiJTtARt
5
Wastewater Collection
.;, -).-' ,; I \. I
-;.J ':YJ r J' P J
. Lift Station Rehabilitation
. Overflow Areas
. Gravity System
Water Projects
'':':''-/ -) ~I
-;.J :J -' J -' J J
. Rehabilitate Elevated Storage -
Tanks
. Wellfield Expansion
. Enhance Capacity of RO Plant
. Preliminary Work for New RO
Plant at Reservoir 2
. System Improvements
Reclaimed Water
',;' -):" -/ ~ I
-;J--,:JJ -' J J
. Continuation of Master Plan -
- Morningside
- New Storage Tank & Pumping
Facilities
- Skycrest
- Coachman Ridge
- Enterprise
6
Rate Study
Assumptions
. PILOT at 5.5 %
- FY06 thru FY10
. SWFWMD Grants for Reclaimed
. Local Water Production at 4MGD-
- Increase to 4.5 MGD in FY06
- Increase to 5 MGD in FY07
Rate Study
Assumptions
. Factors Affecting Revenue
- Price Elasticity
- Weather Normalization
- Impact of Expansion of Reclaimed
System
. Absorb County Rate Increases
- 25% of the 7% Rate Increase
Rate Options
. #1 - Meter Reclaimed
- Grant Funding for Storage,
Transmission and Distribution
. #2 - No-Metering of Reclaimed
- Grant Funding Limited to Storage
and Transmission Only
r'
7
~ Rate Increases
Meter Reclaimed
W/S W/S/R
- ..--~--
__ fY 05 __-L--J-,~%_~__
FY 06 7.0%. 13.0%
~Y 07-- i- 6.00/-;-+~.0%
FY 08 -r 6.0% 6.0%
FY 09 t -6.0% 6.0%
*7 FTE's
~ 7 New FTEs
. 2 New FTEs for Reclaimed System
Expansion through 2009
. 5 Add'l FTEs for Metering of
Reclaimed
- 3 FTEs for CCS
- 2 FTEs for PU Field Ops
Metering Reclaimed Water
. Benefits
- Lowers Overall W/S Rate
- System Becomes More Self"
Sufficient
- Additional $4.8M in Grant Funding
- Additional 8900 Potential
Reclaimed Customers to 2017
. Improved Equity and Demand
Management
8
\
~ Rate Increases
Flat Rate Continued
W/S W/S/R
-----,=y 05 .. J-2'00~_~ _
FY 06 7.0% 7.0%
FY 07--'-7.0% 7.0% -
FY 08 7.0% I 7.0%
FY~ -7:0% ~~%
*2 FTE's
Recommendation: Meter
ReclaImed Water Approve
_---L-W/~ W/S/R
FY 05~.0% 5,0%
- FY 06 ioo/;----J----:t3.0%-
FY of -I 6.00;;- 13.0%
FY 08- - I 6.0'010 - I 6.0% -
-FY 09- I - 6.00/0 t-- 6.0%--
----- - --- -- ---
*7 FTE's
9
Changes in Fees
Fee Current II Proposed
---~- ~ -,------
Meter Taps 5/8".6" 5210-54,800 . 5210.$4,800
Backflows 5320.54,?~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!---~ ~~ -
Taps 5260-52,365 5260-52,250
--------- _._---~-
Flow Test 50 550
-Fi~O ! 5680-53,420
- ~
Water Main Offset i 50 I T&M
*T & M = Time and Materials
10
~
J!!
Q)
::5
i
QJ
......
~ ~ "'-
.E C") U) _ft. 0
:::: -.- -- t:: ::: lito;,
'- <\I 0 - "'-
r:Q ::::SJ!!
.O)QJOQJ
~.t:: ~ a: ~
q:~
"tJ
Q) "'-
.S J!!
~~
t!
"'-
J:!
O)~ U)
.5 C") t::
VJ -.- -- oS!
:::)<\1-
~
@
::::J!!
~lii~
Y>Q)a:
~ 0) ~
e Q)
Q):::C:
~
q:
_ t::
ft. QJ .~
...., 0) 0,......
~ t:: o:s ~
2 ~ ~ 't:
(j-.J __..!::::
-.- "'-
<\I 0
lito;,
::::~
'- --
r:Q~
~ Q)
~ ~ ~
r..;:!
~
q:@
"2 t
~ e e
~~~
.!d
~t
5 ~
~~
~d
t::
o
~
QJ
.0)
t:
..!::::
en
U')
ari
('I)
,...
0-
t::
o
~
QJ
.0)
t:
..!::::
CD
('I)
en
o
C\I
0-
t--
lIII::t
cO
U')
0-
o
o
.
U')
,...
0-
t--
lIII::t
.
('I)
lIII::t
0-
~
o
U')
~
o
t--
co
o
U')
lIII::t
,...
0-
CD
o
.
lIII::t
C\I
C\I
0-
lIII::t
en
.
U')
CD
0-
C\I
lIII::t
.
en
,...
0-
C\I 0
U') ('I)
. .
CD en
lIII::t lIII::t
0- 0-
~ ~
('I) ('I)
,... ,...
~ cfl.
t-- CD
co
t--
.
('I)
U')
,...
0-
co
U')
r--.:
('I)
C\I
0-
C\I
lIII::t
lIII::t
t--
0-
C\I
,...
U')
C\I
0-
,...
o
('I)
CD
,...
0-
.......
U')
.
lIII::t
U')
C\I
0-
C\I
en
.
co
t--
0-
CD
CD
.
CD
C\I
0-
CD
C\I
.
C\I
U')
0-
~
o
CD
~
o
CD
U') CD t-- co en
00000
00000
C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I
> >>>>
LL LL LL LL LL
en
.......
.
C\I
.......
,...
0-
lIII::t
en
.
C\I
t--
C\I
0-
t--
CD
.
('I)
co
0-
t--
C\I
cO
C\I
0-
o
lIII::t
.
U')
U')
0-
~
CD
~
o
CD
tnO)
r::CO ~ r::
'_ (II) CI) Q) .E 0 U) U) CO ...... 'll:I'
== ~'" r:: - M 0 &I) &I) en
'- C'I 0 .Q~';:: ai ~ ,...: ~ N
fXl - .s Q) ca
.tnca ..... tn 0 N M &I) ......
~ ,r:: (!) tf ca 'E N N N N N
3t__ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
q:~
@
Q:::::J2 ...... 'll:I' N N ......
",fXl~ 'll:I' en 'll:I' en U)
CI) Q) CO u; ~ cO M
~ tn ~ &I) U) ...... ...... CO
e Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q):i!:
~
q:
1:1 _ r::
ca 0
Q) .... Q) tn tn ';:: 0 N N U) ......
e J2~r::~& 0 'll:I' '(- U) N
'- U; U;
ca ~ ca 'OS CO 'i:: en U) CO
(j <S:)~J:: '(- '(- N N N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C'I 0
'h
==J2
'-
fXl~ ...... N 0 U) 0
~ & ~ 'll:I' &I) M N 'll:I'
. . N U;
3:eQ) M U) en
'll:I' 'll:I' 'll:I' &I) &I)
Q):i!: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~@
1:1 ~
Q) Q)
~ ,S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0
0 M M 0 0
3:..!1) &I) '(- '(- U) U)
(.) :::s
~O
~~
c5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0
~~ ...... ...... U) U) U)
3:8
I
0, CI) ~
s:: J2 s::
CI> s:: <:) ~ <:)
'OS - ~ c.c c.c C"I c.c u-,
0, ::::)ca ca cv-, c::') co ~ ~
e o,(!) CI> .0, en ""Ci- en cO ""Ci-
~ - ;:: c::') C"I cv-, u-, l"'-
s:: ~ ..Q -== C"I C"I C"I C"I C"I
q: '_ co .e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
::::: ~ ~
iXi -=- ~ ~
C'-I
::::: J2
'-
~ en &! l"'- I"'- ~ ~ u-,
CI>
~ 0, ;: ~ u-, en c.c c.c
cO N cO ~ cO
s: e ~ u-, c.c c.c l"'- I"'-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
q: @
-a ca s::
<:)
CI> ~ CI> o,~ ~ c::') u-, I"'- co c.c
S J2 ~ ca c::') c::') ~ cv-, c.c
'- s:: Oi .0, Lei cO .....: cO en
ca ~ ca .~ co ;::
U c3 ::::;) ~ ..!::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C'-I ~
~
::::: J2
iii &! I"'- C"I I"'- c.c en
~ CI> ;: ~ u-, I"'- C"I en
s: 0, C""i cO en C""i cO
e ~ ~ ~ ~ u-, u-,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
q: @
-a
CI>
.S ~
-
~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 0 0 0 0
~ u-, l"'- I"'- l"'- I"'-
~ c3
s:
~~
d ~
~~
s:c3
~
I"'-
~
I"'-
~
I"'-
~
o
I"'-
~
I"'-