HomeMy WebLinkAboutcocc_resolution_no_2019-02_20190319 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE
CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF CAPE
CANAVERAL, FLORIDA WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER
FACILITIES PLAN; AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE PLAN
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS,SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Cape Canaveral has consulted with Mead & Hunt, Inc. in the
preparation of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities Plan,
dated February 2019 (Plan); and
WHEREAS,the City has determined that the projects recommended in the Plan are in the
best interests of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the City of Cape Canaveral seeking funding from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) under its State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Program to fund improvements for the benefit of its citizens, the City of Cape Canaveral desires
to formally adopt the recommendations in the Plan, inclusive of the Capital Financing Plan
contained therein; and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral finds this Resolution to be in
the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cape
Canaveral, Florida:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals contained in the preamble to this Resolution are
incorporated by reference herein.
Section 2. Adoption of the City of Cape Canaveral,Florida Wastewater and Stormwater
Facilities Plan. The City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral hereby approves and adopts the
Plan, prepared by Mead & Hunt, Inc., dated February 2019 ("Plan"), and said Plan is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. The Plan is available for public
inspection during regular business hours at Cape Canaveral City Hall.
Section 3. Authorization to Submit the Plan to FDEP. The City Council of the City of Cape
Canaveral hereby expressly authorizes City staff to submit the Plan to the FDEP.
Section 4. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions
in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 5. Severability. If any section,subsection,sentence,clause,phrase,word,or portion
of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
City of Cape Canaveral
Resolution No.2019-02
Page 1 of 2
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereto.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
• ADOPTED in a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida,this
19th day of March, 2019.
, Bob Hoog,Mayor
_
ATTEST:"
Name For - Against
Daniel LeFever, Mike Brown Second
Deputy City Clerk
Bob Hoog _X___
Wes Morrison Motion
Approved as to legal form and
sufficiency For the City of Cape Rocky Randels x
Canaveral only by:
Angela Raymond x
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
City of Cape Canaveral
Resolution No.2019-02
Page 2 of 2
Resolution No. 2019-02
Exhibit "A"
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER
FACILITIES PLAN
(City Seal)
CITY OF
CAPE CANAVERAL
Prepared By:
Mead
&Hunt
4401 Eastport Parkway
Port Orange, Fl. 32127
February 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION 7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 Purpose 7
1.3 Demographics 7
1.4 Section Contents 9
2.0 SERVICE AREA IMPACTS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS 10
2.1 Climate 10
2.2 Topography, Hydrology and Hydrogeology 10
2.3 Plant and Animal Communities 11
2.4 Wetlands and Floodplain 13
2.5 Archeological and Historical Sites 15
2.6 Historical Population 17
2.7 Service Area 17
2.7.1 Land Use 17
2.7.2 Population and Flows 20
3.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEM 22
3.1 Wastewater System 22
3.2 Wastewater Treatment System 25
3.2.1 Preliminary Treatment 25
3.2.2 Secondary Treatment 25
3.2.3 Intermediate Lift Station 26
3.2.4 Secondary Clarifiers 26
3.2.5 RAW/WAS Pumps 26
3.2.6 Tertiary Filtration 26
3.2.7 Disinfection 27
3.2.8 Effluent Wetwell 27
3.2.9 De-chlorination 27
3.2.10 Effluent Pump Station, Reclaimed, and Reject Water Storage Tank 27
3.2.11 Sludge Holding Tank 27
3.2.12 Belt Filter Press 27
3.2.13 Goals and Objectives 28
i
3.3 Stormwater System 28
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 29
4.1 General 29
4.2 Intermediate Lift Station Improvements 31
4.2.1 Alternative 1— No Action 31
4.2.2 Alternative 2— Install Engine Driven Bypass Pump 31
4.2.3 Alternative 3— Improve Backup Controls System and Redundancy 32
4.2.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 32
4.3 Influent Structure and Screen Improvements 33
4.3.1 Alternative 1— No Action 33
4.3.2 Alternative 2— Replace with Drum Screen 33
4.3.3 Alternative 3— Replace with Stair Screen 34
4.3.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 34
4.4 Tertiary Filter Improvements 35
4.4.1 Alternative 1— No Action 35
4.4.2 Alternative 2—Replace Sand Filters with Disk Filters 36
4.4.3 Alternative 3—Rehabilitate Existing Sand Media Filters 36
4.4.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 37
4.5 Lift Station No. 3 Improvements 37
4.5.1 Alternative 1— No Action 38
4.5.2 Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station No. 3 38
4.5.3 Alternative 3— Remove and Replace Existing Lift Station No. 3 38
4.5.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 39
4.6 Lift Station No. 5 Improvements 39
4.6.1 Alternative 1— No Action 39
4.6.2 Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station 40
4.6.3 Alternative 3—Construct New Lift Station 40
4.6.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 41
4.7 Lift Station No. 8 Improvements 41
4.7.1 Alternative 1— No Action 42
4.7.2 Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station No. 8 42
4.7.3 Alternative 3—Total Replacement 43
4.7.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 44
4.8 WRF SCADA System Improvements 44
4.8.1 Alternative 1— No Action 44
4.8.2 Alternative 2— Replace Entire System with New Software and Controls 44
4.8.3 Alternative 3— Replace Portion and Upgrade Remainder of System 45
ii
ii
4.8.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 45
4.9 Construct Pump and SO2 Buildings 46
4.9.1 Alternative 1— No Action 48
4.9.2 Alternative 2—Construct Concrete Block Site Built Buildings 48
4.9.3 Alternative 3—Construct Prefabricated Aluminum Structures 48
4.9.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 49
4.10 Lift Station No. 7 Force Main 49
4.10.1 Alternative 1— No Action 49
4.10.2 Alternative 2— Replace Force Main with In-Situ Method 49
4.10.3 Alternative 3— Replace Main with Open-Cut or Trenchless Method 50
4.10.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 50
4.11 Center Street Stormwater Treatment 51
4.11.1 Alternative 1— No Action 51
4.11.2 Alternative 2—Construct Wet Detention Pond 51
4.11.3 Alternative 3—Construct Underground Storage with Exfiltration 52
4.1.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis 52
4.12 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation 53
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLANNING 54
5.1 Implementation Schedule 54
5.2 Permitting Compliance 54
5.3 Public Participation (SECTION NEEDS REVISIONS AFTER COUNCIL MEETING ON
2/19/18) 55
5.4 Capital Finance Plan (SECTION NEEDS REVISIONS AFTER COUNCIL MEETING ON
2/19/18) 55
APPENDICES 56
iii
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mead & Hunt Inc. was contracted by the City of Cape Canaveral (City) to prepare a Wastewater
Facilities Plan (Plan) meeting the requirements for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program.
The Plan includes necessary information required by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) in support of the SRF loan application.
The focus of this Plan is to upgrade aging wastewater collection and treatment system
components to maintain and improve the existing wastewater system's ability for treatment and
conveyance.
Existing Conditions
The City is located in northeast Brevard County along the Atlantic coast. The City encompasses
an area of approximately 1.9 square miles; 93% of the available land within the City is already
developed.
The wastewater service area encompasses the entire incorporated limits.The wastewater system
consists of a gravity collection system, lift stations, force mains, and a Water Reclamation Facility
(WRF). The permitted average daily flow (ADF) capacity of the WRF is 1.8 million gallons per day
(MGD). Originally, the WRF was constructed in the late 1960s; since this time, there have been
multiple upgrades to the wastewater system. This plant was upgraded in 1995 to allow for the
current 1.8 MGD loading and included a 5-stage nutrient removal process upgrade. This allows
the City to discharge effluent as public access reclaimed water and discharge into the Banana
River. Other improvements in 2005 changed the disinfection used to sodium hypochlorite and
increased reclaimed water availability. In 2016,sludge belt press improvements and an additional
reclaimed water storage tank were constructed to add redundancy,storage and reduce discharge
into the Banana River. In 2018, an emergency oxidation ditch bypass was constructed in the
existing equalization tank. Currently, the Canaveral City Park exfiltration system is starting
construction to allow excess reclaimed water to be discharged into the underground stormwater
chambers to reduce the need to discharge excess reclaimed water to the Banana River.
Selected Improvements
Nine improvement projects are proposed. Three alternatives for each project were evaluated in
the Plan. These include a 'Do Nothing' alternative along with two improvement alternatives. The
alternatives were evaluated based on estimated project cost,operation and maintenance factors
and reliability.The recommended improvements are as follow:
1. Intermediate Lift Station Improvements —The lift station located at the WRF transfers
treatment flow from the anoxic and reaeration basins to the clarifiers. This operation is
crucial for the treatment process. The lift system has been subject to failure in the past
during/after power outages or interruptions. There is insufficient controls and redundant
emergency operation facilities to provide consistent operation. The recommended
Mead&Hunt
Page 4
improvements include the addition of improved controls and redundancy facilities. The
estimated cost of these improvements is $398,250.
2. Influent Screen Improvements — The influent screens are the primary feature of the
pretreatment process at the WRF. The existing screens pass excessive solids and require
somewhat continual maintenance. This is very labor intensive and costly. The
recommended improvements are to replace the existing screen with newer technology
drum type screens. These screens have a proven ability to operate more efficiently and
effectively. The estimated cost of these improvements is $371,250.
3. Tertiary Filter Improvements — The City's existing tertiary sand type filters require
substantial yearly maintenance and frequent rehabilitations. The recommended
improvements are to replace the sand filters with newer technology disk type filters. The
maintenance costs of this type of filter are substantially less than the sand type filters.
The estimated cost of these improvements is $1,147,500.
4. Lift Station No. 3 Improvements—This lift station is located along Central Boulevard and
the existing equipment is beyond its useful age due to operation and corrosion.
Replacement of the lift station facilities within the existing lift station site is
recommended. The estimated cost of these improvements is $357,750.
5. Lift Station No. 5 Replacement— Lift Station No. 5 is located within Treasure Island Club
Condominiums. It has aging equipment and needs rehabilitation. The City and the
Condominium owners desire to relocate the lift station away from the complex. The
estimated cost of these improvements is $553,000.
6. Lift Station No. 8 Improvements — This lift station is located on Thurm Boulevard at
Manatee Bay Drive. The station's existing equipment is beyond its useful age due to
operation and corrosion. Rehabilitation of the lift station facilities within the existing lift
station site is recommended. The estimated cost of these improvements is $425,250.
7. WRF Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Improvements — The
WRF's current SCADA system is obsolete and does not provide control of certain
treatment processes such as chlorine feed, sulfur dioxide feed and other processes. The
recommended improvements involve replacing the whole SCADA system with a new
system. The improvements would allow the WRF technicians additional and consistent
control of the plant processes and possibly allow manned plant operation to be reduced
from 16 hours/day operation to 8 hours/day at some time in the future based on FDEP
approval. The estimated cost of these improvements is $1,080,000.
8. Construct Pump and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Buildings — This project involves the
construction of buildings for various pumps within the WRF and to replace the existing
SO2 building. The buildings will extend the life of this equipment which is currently subject
to environmental degradation. The estimated cost of these improvements is $1,377,000.
Mead&Hunt Page 5
9. Lift Station #7 Force Main —This force main which serves Lift Station No. 7 exists along
Thurm Boulevard from Central Boulevard to the WRF. The pipe is at the end of its useful
life and has been subject to frequent breaks. The estimated cost of these improvements
is $378,000.
10. Center Street Stormwater Treatment— This project involves the construction of wet
detention pond for the Center Street drainage basin area. The estimated cost of these
improvements is $587,250, but only the estimated land acquisition cost of$200,000 will
be sought from the SRF program at this time.
The total cost of all ten recommended improvements is estimated at $6,675,250.
Capital Financing Plan
To finance the proposed wastewater system projects, the City proposes to use SRF loan funding
and other available funding sources to minimize effects on rate-payers. A Capital Financing Plan
has been prepared to pay off the debt from the SRF loan, using the revenues from the wastewater
utility system. The Capital Financing Plan was prepared by the City's SRF consultant as a separate
effort from this Facilities Plan preparation.
Mead&Hunt Page 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The City of Cape Canaveral (City) is located in the northeast area of Brevard County along the
Atlantic coast. The City encompasses an area of approximately 1.9 square miles with
approximately 93%of the available land within the City already developed. See attached Location
Map, Figure 1-1.
The wastewater service area encompasses the entire incorporated limits of the City. The
wastewater system consists of a collection of gravity pipes, lift stations, force mains, and a water
reclamation facility (WRF). The permitted average daily flow (ADF) of the WRF is 1.8 million
gallons per day (MGD). Location of the WRF is also shown in the Location Map, Figure 1-1.
This wastewater system was mostly originally constructed in the late 1960's. The collection
system primarily operates as a cascading lift station system, with wastewater flowing by gravity
to a pump station where it is pumped/lifted to another gravity collection system until it reaches
the WRF. Since the original construction, the WRF has had multiple upgrades. In 1995, the WRF
was upgraded and expanded to increase the ADF to 1.8 MGD. In 2005, the facility was upgraded
with additional reclaimed water pumps, piping and valving for reject effluent storage and a
sodium hypochlorite storage and feed system to replace the use of gaseous chlorine for
disinfection. In 2016, 2.5 million gallons of additional reclaimed water storage was added with a
second belt filter press. The most recent upgrade occurred in 2018 with the construction of an
emergency oxidation ditch bypass.
1.2 Purpose
Mead & Hunt contracted with the City to prepare a Wastewater Facilities Plan (Plan). The Plan
meets requirements of Chapter 62-503, FAC, for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program.
This Pan describes the City's existing wastewater system and recommends specific improvements
to existing facilities. With redundancy already in place for much of the wastewater system,
replacement or rehabilitation of the aging components was the focus.
1.3 Demographics
Cape Canaveral is an urban community with an estimated current population of 10,413,
projected in the 2010 Census. The median age is approximately 46 years of age. The per capita
income is reported at$37,081 compared to the Florida and U.S. average of$27,598 and $29,829
respectively.
Mead&Hunt Page 7
Existing City Limits WW Service Area WRF
Location Map
Figure 1 - 1
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
1.4 Section Contents
This report is intended to provide the necessary information for the planning documentation
found in Chapter 62-503, FAC, required for the SRF loan program. The report is divided into 5
section and includes additional information presented in the appendices.
Section 1—Section 1 is an overview of the Plan, including information about the service area and
specific projects.
Section 2 — Section 2 provides background information including: environmental concerns,
archaeological and historical sites, socio-economic impacts, and projected population growth
and wastewater flows.
Section 3 — Section 3 describes the existing wastewater system. This includes wastewater
treatment, transmission, collection and effluent disposal along with flow, usage, and
improvement goals.
Section 4—Section 4 describes the proposed projects and the alternatives.These projects include
Lift Station Rehabs (Intermediate Lift Station, Lift Station Nos. 3 and 8), Lift Station relocation (LS
No. 5), Influent screening Replacement, Tertiary Filters, WRF Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) System Improvements, Force Main replacement, and construction of pump
and SO2 Buildings. For each project, the alternatives included a discussion of cost estimates and
comparative analysis.
Section 5 — Section 5 describes the implementation and financial plan for the wastewater and
reclaimed improvements and the selected alternative. Information is also provided for the
implementation schedule, permitting compliance, public participation,the impact to rate payers,
and the financial plan.
Mead&Hunt Page 9
2.0 SERVICE AREA IMPACTS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
2.1 Climate
The rainfall conditions in Cape Canaveral are moderately heavy. The months with the most rain
occur during the summer (June through September) while the months with the least rain occur
during April and late Fall (November and December). The annual average total participation is
52.5 inches.
2.2 Topography, Hydrology and Hydrogeology
Cape Canaveral is primarily located within the Eastern Valley and Atlantic Coastal Ridge
physiographic areas with little local relief and dune like ridges and swales parallel to the Atlantic
Ocean. Cape Canaveral itself is on the Barrier Islands physiographic region, separated from
Brevard County mainland by the Indian River Lagoon (including Banana River) and is bordered on
the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Elevations range from 0 ft to 13 ft NAVD 88 within City limits.
The Cape Canaveral area is mainly comprised of soils of the Canaveral soil series, of urban land
series, and of Palm Beach sand series.The associated series are nearly level or gently sloping and
moderately well drained to excessively drained soils. Soil investigation performed by Ardaman &
Associates, Inc., in 2013 at the City's WRF, showed that the ground water table is within 3 to 4
feet below the ground surface for most of the months and on seasonal highs, the water table
would raise about 1/2 foot above the normal ground water 1 to 4 months of the year.
Per this investigation, soils at the WRF consist of fine sand, clays, and coquina of varying densities
from approximately 0 to 125 ft below grade. At the south end of Cape Canaveral, the City is a
part of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, which consists of sand ridges and swales. The rest of Cape
Canaveral is a part of the Eastern Valley which accounts for lowlands with marsh and wetlands
sporadically found within the City.
The geologic formation of the Cape Canaveral area consists of the first layer of sand, coquina,
and clay. The next formation is the Upper Miocene deposits. Underlain by the Hawthorn
Formation. Underlying that, is the Ocala Group which consists of the Crystal River Formation,the
Williston Formation, and the Inglis Formation. Below the Ocala group lies the Avon Park
Formation. The initial geologic layer to the Hawthorn Formation includes soils which are low in
permeability and serve as a confining unit for the Floridan Aquifer. Below the Hawthorn to the
Avon Park Formations is the Floridian Aquifer.
In the first geologic layer, the layer consists of sand, coquina, and clay or marl, which has an
approximate thickness of 0 to 110 ft. The Upper Miocene deposits consist of shell marl, green
clay, fine sand, and silty shell. This deposit has the approximately thickness of 20 to 90 feet. The
Hawthorn Formation consists of sandy marl, streaks of greenish clay, phosphatic radiolarian clay,
black/brown phosphorite, and thinner deposits of sandy limestone. This formation is the
confining unit for the Floridan Aquifer. The Ocala Group of formations (Crystal River, Williston,
and Inglis) are formed of white coarse limestone which contains coquina to fossiliferous
fragments depending on the increasing depth. The Ocala Group formations of Crystal River,
Williston and Inglis have an approximate thickness of 0 to 100 ft, 10 to 50 ft, and 70 ft or more,
Mead&Hunt Page 10
respectively. The deepest formation is the Avon Park Formation, which is described as chalky
limestone. (Water Resources of Brevard County, Florida, Report of Investigations No. 28)
According to the U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources of Brevard County, Florida
Investigations No. 28, the Atlantic Coastal Ridge forms the thickest part of the surficial (non-
artesian) aquifer.The surficial aquifer thins eastward and westward from the crest of the Atlantic
Coastal Ridge. Sandy ridges that form a substantial portion of the barrier islands are sources of
surficial water for residents and commercial establishments. In Brevard County, the water table
of the surficial aquifer ranges in depth from 0 to 22 ft below land surface but occurs generally at
depths of less than 10 ft.The top of the Floridan Aquifer is approximately 75 ft below sea level in
the northwestern part of Brevard County and more than 300 ft below sea level in the
southeastern part (Soil Survey of Brevard County Florida).
2.3 Plant and Animal Communities
A list of endangered, threatened, and other species of concern was compiled from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC)
and are shown in Table 2-1.The status for plants and animal communities listed can be identified
as:
• Endangered = E
• Threatened = T
• Candidate = C
• Threatened (FFWCC) = ST
Mead&Hunt Page 11
Table 2-1
State and Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species
Common Name Scientific Name Status
(State) (Federal)
Birds:
Audubon's Crested Caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T T
Everglade Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabils plumbeus E E
Florida Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T T
Wood Stork Mycteria americana T T
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa T T
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T T
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E E
Mammals:
Southeastern Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris T T
West Indian (Florida) Manatee Trichechus manatus T T
Reptiles:
Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake Nerodia clarkia taeniata T T
Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T
Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus ST C
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas T E
Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretomchelys imbricate E E
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E
Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta T T
American Crocodile Crocodylus acutus T T
Plants:
Carter's Warea Warea carteri E E
Lewton's Polygala Polygala lewtonii E E
American Chaffsead Schwalbea americana E E
The FFWCC maintains a listing of Bald Eagle nest locations within Florida and the City currently
does not have any nests within the city limits.
There are no impacts to the plant and animal wildlife expected from the proposed improvements.
The proposed work for the collection and transmission of the wastewater system will be
completed within State and City-maintained road rights-of-way and already developed land.
Improvements for the wastewater treatment system will be conducted on existing sites already
developed.
Mead&Hunt Page 12
2.4 Wetlands and Floodplain
In the City of Cape Canaveral, there are only a few wetland bodies identified by the National
Wetland Inventory (NWI). Not accounting for the areas that the NWI states as river lines or
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater (Banana River/Atlantic Ocean), the wetlands that are within
Cape Canaveral are Palustrine, which are non-flowing wetlands that are small, shallow in depth,
and contain vegetation including emergent plants within shallow ponds, marches, swamps, and
sloughs. Along the beachside and some areas along the Banana River, there are wetlands that
are Palustrine, which are wetlands adjacent to Deepwater tidal areas, which allow ocean/river
water to access the wetland.
There are no impacts to wetlands expected from the proposed improvements. The proposed
work for the collection and transmission of the wastewater system will be completed within State
and City-maintained road rights-of-way and already developed land. Improvements for the
wastewater treatment system will be conducted on existing sites already developed without
wetlands present.
As shown in the Flood Zone Map, Figure 2-1, Cape Canaveral is located primarily within Zone X.
Along the Atlantic Ocean and Banana River shorelines, the portions of Cape Canaveral are within
Zone AE, which represents areas that are subject to inundation by 100-year flooding for which
base flood elevations (BFE) have been determined. A small area along the east side of the City
adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean is also within Zone AO, which is an area inundated by 100-year
flooding (flood depths from 1 to 3 ft) for which average depths have been determined. The
existing WRF site is located within Zone X according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map.
(Panel 12009C0363G -July 2018)
Mead&Hunt Page 13
GEORGE J KING BLVD
SHOREwOOD DR
TROPIC BEACH DR
CHALLENBER,RD
ATLAN rrS RD
ZONE AE
EAPAR4{ lRF
ZONE AE
SEAGRAP
HIBI
CHERIE COWiBLN'
3JRM•BLVD
WASHINGTON AVE'
CHLIRCH'L
COLUMBIA DR
DINT RD
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE
PEW'1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1% annual chance flood (100 -year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a
1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is the
area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard include
Zones A, AE, AH, AC, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water -surface elevation of
the 1% annual chance flood.
ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
ZONE AO
ZONE AR
ZONE A99
ZONE V
ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations
determined.
Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths
determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined.
Special Flood Hazard Area formerly protected from the 1% annual chance flood by
a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR indicates that
the former flood control system is being restored to provide protection from the
1% annual chance or greater flood.
Areas to be protected from 1% annual chance flood event by a Federal flood
protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined.
Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations
determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of
encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in
flood heights.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 0.2f' annual chance flood; areas of 1°/° annual chance flood with average
depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and
areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0-2% annual chance floodplain.
ZONE 0 Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
ARRdON
RIVERSIDE DR
ARNO AVE r-
!HITCHING POST RD
RITCHIE AVE
PIERCE AVE.
I. K AVE,
ZONE VE
ZONE VE
GR NT AVE
ZONE VE
ZONE AE
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN
FLOOD MAP
1000703-181434.01
07/18/2018
FEMA FLOOD MAP
ZONE VE
Mead
Hunt
FIGURE 2-1
2.5 Archeological and Historical Sites
There are no known historical sites for the planning area based on the Historic American Buildings
Survey (HABS) and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) collections from the National
Park Service (NPS).The Director of the Division of Historical Resources is also the State of Florida's
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) serving as liaison with the NPS. Multiple structures to
the south of the City of Cape Canaveral have been Identified by SHPO.
Based on the data available from the Office of Cultural and Historical Programs (OCHP), five (5)
structures were identified as historical or archaeological sites within the existing Cape Canaveral
City Limits. Table 2-2 provides a listing of the identified structures. This plan and the proposed
projects will have no impact on the archaeological and historical sites identified by the State.The
Florida Master Site File produced by the Division of Historical Resources lists nine (9)
archeological sites within the planning area. These sites are shown in Figure 2-2. Table 2-3 also
provides a listing of the archeological sites within the existing Cape Canaveral City limits.
Table 2-2
SHPO Structures within Cape Canaveral City Limits
Site Name Address Year Structure Use
Built
Alma Beecher House 122 Oak Lane 1935 Private Residence
260 Cape Shores Circle 260 Cape Shores Circle 1949 Private Residence
290 Cape Shores Circle 290 Cape Shores Circle 1948 Private Residence
6315 North Atlantic Boulevard 6315 N Atlantic Avenue 1947 Private Residence
6419 North Atlantic Avenue 6419 N Atlantic Avenue 1949 Office Building
Table 2-3
DHR Archeological Sites within Cape Canaveral City Limits
Site Name Location Site ID Culture
AR Fuller Mound A Cape Canaveral BR00090 SJ2, SPN1
AR Fuller Mound A Cape Canaveral BR00091 MAL1
AR Fuller Mound A Cape Canaveral BR00092 MAL1., 5J2
AR Fuller Mound A Cape Canaveral BR00093 MAL2
AR Fuller Mound A Cape Canaveral BR00094 PREH
AR Fuller Mound A Cape Canaveral BR00095 UNSP
AR Carter Midden Cape Canaveral BR00096 PREH, SJ
AR Cabo Verde Cape Canaveral BR01936 SJ
AR Odyssey Street Remains Cape Canaveral BR02085 PREH
Mead&Hunt Page 15
00 0
500
ArNitlISAT
BANANA11
RIVER 1
47`
CAPEW FiEgC6R
0
1 inch = 500 feet
Tpw
500
Legend
c Existing City Limits
DHR Archeological Sites
NI BR00090
BR00091
BR00092
BR00093
BR00094
BR00095
BR00096
BR01936
BR02085
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN
FLOOD MAP
1000703-181434.01
07/18/2018
1ATLANTIC
OCEAN
DHR MASTER SITE FILE INVENTORY
Mead
&Hunt
FIGURE 2-2
2.6 Historical Population
The City's population was 8,829 in 2000 and increased to 9,912 in 2010 when the City's census
data was compared. This population increase of over 1,000 over this period is a 1.2 percent
average annual growth rate. Table 2-4 below displays the historical population from the 2017 US
Census Bureau estimates from 2010 to 2017. Given that the population estimate has a .66
percent average annual growth rate, the larger 1.2% growth rate will be used as it will give a
more conservative estimate for population growth.
Table 2-4
Cape Canaveral Historical Population Data
Year Population Population Increase Annual Growth Rate (%)
2010 9,946 - -
2011 9,910 -36 -0.36%
2012 9,951 41 .41%
2013 9,970 19 .19%
2014 10,022 52 .52%
2015 10,173 151 1.5%
2016 10,310 137 1.3%
2017 10,413 103 1.0%
Average*: .66%
2.7 Service Area
2.7.1 Land Use
The City's Wastewater Service area lies within the City's incorporated limit. Using the City's
Future Land Use Map, Table 2-5 identifies land use categories of the City's wastewater service
area. The City of Cape Canaveral's Future Land Use Map prepared by Miller Legg & Associates is
shown in figure 2-3.
Mead&Hunt Page 17
Legend
Future Land Use
MI Ct Commercial
C2 Co merraa!
-Caw Conservation
-Ml industrial
PJB REC Public'Recreation
Rf Rest/Sento!
R2 Residential
—R3 Residential
Street Legend
A Clara Elizabeth Lane
B Maple Court
D Palm Way
D Croton Court
E Oleander Court
F Coquina Lane
O Ca melte Court
H Jasmine Court
I Honeysuckle Way
J Intrepid Way
K Aquarius Way
L Tranquility Way
M Shuttle Way
II Falcon Way
O Coconut Street
City of Cape Canaveral
Future Land Use Map
Map Prepared by
Miller Legg&Aasoclates,Inc.
July 01, 2008
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN
FLOOD MAP FUTURE LAND USE MAP Mead&Hunt
1000703-181434.01 FIGURE 2-3
07/18/2018
Table 2-5
City of Cape Canaveral Future Land Use
Land Use Category Acres %
Residential 736 54
Commercial 404 30
Industrial 130 10
Conservation 42 3
Public/Recreation 47 3
Total 1359 100
Of the different categories, the largest area is dedicated to residential land use (54.2%), followed
by commercial land use (29.8%), industrial (9.5%), public/recreation (3.4%), and conservation
(3.1%).
The residential land use category is divided into three (3) sub categories: R-1 low density
residential (6.6%), R-2 median density residential (22.8%), and R-3 high density residential
(24.7%)
Mead&Hunt Page 19
2.7.2 Population and Flows
The source for population projection is the U.S. Census Bureau which has a record of the most
recent censuses, in 2000 and 2010. Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau also provides projected
future populations including 2010 to 2017. Using the average annual growth rate of 1.2%,
projected populations from 2018 to 2025 were estimated.
To calculate the Average Flow per Capita, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's
(FDEP's) Monthly Protection Discharge Monitoring Reports were reviewed. The Annual Average
Daily Flow (AADF) values average per year on each of the December monthly reports were
reviewed. Using these AADF values and the previous population estimates in Table 2-4, an
average historical flow per capita was found to be 113 gallons per day (GPD). These values are
shown in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6
Historical Average Flow per Capita
Annual Average Daily Flow Average Flow per
Year Population (capita)
(MGD) Capita (Gal/Day)
2010 1.087 9,946 109
2011 1.071 9,910 108
2012 1.096 9,951 110
2013 1.054 9,970 106
2014 1.127 10,022 112
2015 1.173 10,173 115
2016 1.226 10,310 119
2017 1.309 10,413 126
Average 113
Minimum 106
Maximum 126
Using the 113 GPD, projected AADF was calculated by the historical and proposed average flow
per capita and population. AADF values are shown in Table 2-7.
Mead&Hunt Page 20
Table 2-7
Historical and Projected Average Daily Flows
Year Population Average Flow Per Capita Annual Average Daily Flow
(GPD) (MGD)
2010 9,912 110 1.087
2011 9,910 108 1.071
2012 9,951 110 1.096
2013 9,970 106 1.054
2014 10,022 112 1.127
2015 10,173 115 1.173
2016 10,310 119 1.226
2017 10,413 126 1.309
2018 10,537 113 1.191
2019 10,663 113 1.205
2020 10,790 113 1.219
2021 10,919 113 1.234
2022 11,050 113 1.249
2023 11,182 113 1.264
2024 11,316 113 1.279
2025 11,451 113 1.294
2026 11,588 113 1.309
2027 11,727 113 1.325
2028 11,867 113 1.341
2029 12,009 113 1.357
2030 12,153 113 1.373
2031 12,298 113 1.390
2032 12,445 113 1.406
2033 12,594 113 1.423
2034 12,745 113 1.440
2035 12,897 113 1.457
2036 13,051 113 1.475
2037 13,207 113 1.492
The projected flows in 2037 are estimated to be 1.492 MGD, which is approximately 82% of the
permitted capacity of 1.8 MGD. The estimated AADF in 2034 equates to 80% of the current
permitted capacity.
Mead&Hunt Page 21
3.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEM
3.1 Wastewater System
The City of Cape Canaveral constructed its original WRF in the 1960's. On July 2, 1990, the Florida
Legislature enacted Chapter 90-262 FAC, establishing objectives, including a requirement that all
municipal and private wastewater treatment facilities cease discharges to the Indian River
Lagoon system. With the legislation and future legislation in mind, the WRF had multiple
upgrades. In 1995, the WRF was upgraded with the permitted ADF of 1.8 MGD to a 5-stage
biological nutrient removal (BNR) process which provided an effluent that met FDEP criteria for
public access reuse of reclaimed water.
The WRF is a biological nutrient removal type activated sludge wastewater facility that provides
advanced wastewater treatment. The 5-stage system (Bardenpho) consists of two anaerobic
basins,two pre-anoxic basins,an oxidation ditch type carrousel aeration basin with an emergency
oxidation ditch bypass, two post-anoxic basin and two reaeration basins. Additionally, there are
two secondary clarifiers, three tertiary upflow sand filters ('Dyna Sand'), two chlorine contact
chambers, a 0.4 million-gallon (MG) flow equalization tank (used for substandard effluent
storage), a 1.4 MG dual purpose reject/reclaimed water storage tank, a 1.0 MG reclaimed water
storage tank and anther 2.5 MG reclaimed water storage tank. Other connected processes are
two in-plant pump stations, chemical feed facilities, a reclaimed pump station, a belt filter
process and other associated pumps. An aerial of the WRF is shown in Figure 3-1 and a process
flow diagram is shown in Figure 3-2.
The collection system consists of approximately 18.75 miles of gravity sewer, 330 manholes, 13
lift stations and force main piping of varying size located throughout the service area. The lift
stations throughout the City pump raw wastewater toward the main lift stations, which discharge
into the pretreatment structure through two force mains that combine into one manifolded 16-
inch ductile iron pipe.
Mead&Hunt Page 22
EXISTING
OUTFALL
LOCATION
O FICE
1i
GEN!
FUEL
OPS
INTERMEDIATE
PUMPING
STATION
SECOND
ANOXIC
EFFLUENT
PUMP
STATION
R
PUMPS
2.5 MG
RECLAIMED
WATER
EFFLUENT
HOLDING
PRETREAT
STR.
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT
HOLDING
FERMENTATION
ANOXIC BASINS
FILTRATION
STORAGE
T e
SUBSTANDARD
EFFLUENT
HOLDING 0.4 MG
YF44haiaii
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
WASTEWATER FACILTIES PLAN
1000703-1.81434.01
087142018
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AERIAL
Mead
ilunt
FIGURE 3-1
--EFB-J
ALUM
FACILITIES SYP
AL
CHLORINATION
AL FILTE R A FACILITIES
CS
L-1— SE POST N
RATIO
im—m. L SLOWER
SPLITTER CLARIFIERA EFA-1
REAERATION SOX
(EXISTING CLARIFIER) BLOWER CHLORINATION
U CCC A DE-CHLORINATION
(FACILITIES FE+ FACILITIES
BPF INF-1 OXIDATION f MLSS VCS
-
FERMENTATION FIRST ANOXIC DITCH
SECOND ANOXIC REAERATION i r
eito
FLW-1 BASIN A BASIN A BASIN A BASIN A _ RAS WAS
BYP FALTER CHLORINATION WXT E'l,.
I I MLSS MLSS _ FACILITIES OF MECHANICAL MANUAL GRIT FLOW IR IR
BAR SCREEN BAR RACK REMOVAL SPLITTER Cpl-SATE
IR (EXISTING CLARIFIER) —
` REUSE EFD-1
PUMPS MESS SE CCC B
INF / / Y FIE
/ / FERMENTATION FIRST ANOXIC CLARIFIER
t — — BASIN B BASIN B SECOND ANOXIC
REAERATION rt INTERRMED ATE A L,. TRANSFER
BASIN B BASIN B PUMP STATION PUMPS Sa
--- FRILTER C SAMPLE
—I.\ /
_ LOCATION
SCREENINGS GRIT T ` CHLORINE
DISPOSAL REMOVAL -Ir IR — RESIDUAL ANALYSER0
TURIN DIAbETER
SAMPLE TO THE
oRAS I SAMPLE LOCATION BANANA RIVER
_
LOCATION
OF RAS WAS ,---- . —
FLOW 0 PUMPS , PUMPS
1 R
LE2 EQUALIZATION C C ffi g
cc C) V N r P 5 USE
CI
FE A rill
RECLAIMED WATER TO THE
~ PUMPS
z
Cw,.UAV ERAL COCOA BREACH
Z) SLU DOSE CHLORINATION
o E HAULER DRYING BEDS FACDLITIIES
t I i i i
W G
V r DRN i f i I
►I 8
. _
SRY +CF Y r
GM
SLUDGE
r r HAULER DEWATERING 13
DRN
I
SLUDGE DIIGESTERISLUD GE DIGESTER SUBSTANDARD EFFLUENT EFFLUENT
CRN PUMPS HOLDING BLOWERS EFFLUENT REUSE PUMP STATION
I-IOLDING STORAGE
ON-SITE ON-SI`S POLYMER
LEA LS 3 FACLITIES
V
LEGEND
AL ALUM FEED UNE [NF NFLUENT SLS SECONDARYEFFLUENT
3PF BIOLOGICAL PROCESS FEED _R NTERNAL RECYCLE SO2 SULFUR DKDX_DE
:M FLTER BACKWASH WATER MLSS IM DCED LIQUOR SUSPENDED SOL_DS SR SUPERNATANT RETURN
SYP BYPASS OF OVERFLOW SSE SUBSTAN DARE EFFLUENT
i CS CHLORNE SPLS POLYMER DEED WAS WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
g
LL DRN DRAN Q ACTWATED SLUDGE49 FLOW MET
O
,,,,
c711
EFF EFFLUENT RET RETURN
MOTOR[ISED o
c,..4 FE FILTER EFFLUENT EFA-1 EFFLUENT TRANSFER WETWELL
iii
a EFB-1 AFTER FILTRATION AND PRIOR TO CHLORINATION INF-1 INFLUENT SAMPLING LOCATION
FLW-1
Q INFLUENT FLOW METER
U
EFD-1 RIVER BANK MANHOLE ON DISCHARGE OUTFALL PIPE
TTo- ell, EFFLUENT FLOW METER IN LINE TO RIVER OUTFALL
Q
r
0
a
0
a G TOTAL FLOW TO PUBLIC ACCESS IRRIGATION
z
W
gI
w
❑
J
SY AAt CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
i
;t
,,
WASTEWATER FACILTIES PLAN
Mea d
ii_o PROCESS FLOW DIARAM SIIunt
Q M,
-
FIGURE 3-2
CITY of
1000703-181434.01
CAPE CANAVERAL
FO° 08/14/2018
3.2 Wastewater Treatment System
Wastewater is pumped to the WRF from several master lift stations though two force mains.
These two force mains are combined into one manifold 16-inch ductile iron pipe outside the
plant, which discharges into the preliminary treatment facilities.
3.2.1 Preliminary Treatment
The influent enters the pretreatment (headworks)through a mechanical bar screen on top of the
headworks. This screen collects the debris which falls into a dumpster below and taken to a
landfill for disposal. A manual bar screen is also provided downstream of the mechanical bar
screen. A mechanical vortex type grit removal system to remove sand and grit from the influent
is also present.
The mechanical bar screen requires cleaning, twice per day. The screens do not experience
excessive clogging or buildup of debris against the screen. There are two bypasses with one as
the passive overflow upstream of the screen and the other is the removal of the mechanical
screen, which will allow the influent to pass through the manual screen. The mechanical screen
is in an overall good condition.
3.2.2 Secondary Treatment
The second phase of the treatment is through a 5-stage biological nutrient removal process
(Bardenpho). This process utilizes fermentation, pre-anoxic mixing, aeration, post-anoxic mixing
and reaeration.
After the preliminary treatment, the raw wastewater flows to fermentation basins. The
fermentation basins are comprised of four sub-basins, each with submersible mixers and baffle
walls. The submersible mixers provide adequate agitation to keep the fermentation basin
contents completely mixed without the introduction of air into the basin. The fermentation basin
was designed for an average hydraulic detention time of 1.87 hours at 1.8 MGD. Return activated
sludge from the clarifier is also pumped into the basins. Under anaerobic conditions, the
polyphosphate accumulating organism (PAO) converts the polyphosphates in the wastewater
and converts the return activated sludge to soluble orthophosphates.
The second stage of the secondary treatment process is the pre-anoxic basin. The basins are
divided into two separate basins in series, each containing a 7.5 submersible mixer. The pre-
anoxic basins receive mixed liquor recycle flow from the aeration basin via internal recycle (IR)
pipes (24-inch ductile iron). At the ends of the basins, 30-inch ductile iron pipe coveys the mixed
liquor to the next stage. Under anoxic conditions, the micro-organisms reduce the nitrates from
the mixed liquor recycle to nitrogen gas which escapes to the atmosphere and carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen (CBOD5) is also reduced.
The third stage is the aeration basin in a closed-loop carrousel configuration. Most of the 5-day
CBOD5 demand is satisfied with the help of the biomass in the mixed liquor and oxygen added by
aerators. In the aeration process, organic and ammonia nitrogen is oxidized to nitrates. The
biomass of the mixed liquor will also uptake the soluble orthophosphates for subsequent removal
in the clarifier. Under aerobic conditions, the PAOs convert the soluble orthophosphates into
their intracellular polyphosphate to store energy by performing a luxury uptake, reducing the
Mead&Hunt Page 25
soluble phosphate concentration. There are two 75-HP motor driven aerators that deliver air to
the basin. At the end of this stage, the flow is either recycled back to the pre-anoxic basin or is
discharged to the next process. There appeared to be no visible dead spots in the third stage.
The fourth stage is the post-anoxic mixing. The flow enters the anoxic basins, which have three
mixers each.The mixers agitate the contents of the basin enough to be completely mixed without
the introduction of air. The remaining nitrates in the wastewater are reduced to nitrogen gas in
this basin, which escapes the process. These basins appear to be in an overall good condition.
The last stage of this 5-stage process is the reaeration basin. There is an air diffusor system to
reaerate the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) prior to discharge to the secondary clarifiers.
Alum is added to enhance phosphorus removal. With the reaeration process, the process tends
to minimize the possibility of denitrification in the clarifier which can lead to a problem with
"rising sludge".
3.2.3 Intermediate Lift Station
Following the secondary treatment, the mixed liquor flows to the Intermediate Lift Station. The
lift station consists of a wet well with five submersible sewage pumps. Flow from the secondary
treatment flows to the lift station to be pumped upstream to the clarifiers. The two lead pumps
have variable frequency drives(VFDs)while the remaining fixed speed pumps serve as lag pumps.
In the past few years there have been at least six instances of substantial spills at the WRF due
to the malfunction of the Intermediate Lift Station. The malfunctions typically occurred after a
power failure, which lends to the root cause of the malfunctions to be the pump control system
which may not effectively be able to start the pumps back up after the power has been restored
or switched to the backup generator.
3.2.4 Secondary Clarifiers
The mixed liquor is pumped from the Intermediate Lift Station to the secondary clarifiers. The
MLSS settles to the bottom of the clarifiers. The clarified effluent flows over weirs at the edge of
the clarifier. The settled solids are moved to the center and flow to the Return Activated Sludge
and Waste Activated Sludge (RAW/WAS) pump station.There does not appear to be any problem
with rising sludge, high sludge blanket or straggler flocs in the clarifiers.
3.2.5 RAW/WAS Pumps
The three RAS pumps are used to return the activated sludge back to the Fermentation Basin.
The two WAS pumps convey wasted sludge to the sludge holding tank.The WAS pumps are rated
at 160 gallons per minute (GPM) at 24 total dynamic head (TDH). The RAS and WAS pumps were
in good condition and had minimal signs of corrosion.
3.2.6 Tertiary Filtration
Filtration of the flow from the clarifiers occurs by a continuous backwash type sand filter. These
are three 10-foot by 15-foot deep beds. The process occurs with the influent entering the sand
beds from below, flowing though the sand bed which will remove particles not removed in the
clarifiers and will flow over weirs to the effluent flume. The filtered effluent will then flow to the
chlorine contact chambers. A small quantity of sand escapes the sand filter during the backwash
cycle. During a typical year, a truck load of replacement sand is required due to sand being lost
Mead&Hunt Page 26
during backwash operations. Additionally, airlift pumps will also become damaged from filter
media abrasion and need a rebuild once every three years.
3.2.7 Disinfection
The filtered effluent from the tertiary filtration will then flow to the disinfection process. The
disinfection process consists of a dual train chlorine contact chamber with a sodium hypochlorite
feed system. The feed system includes two polyethylene tanks and diaphragm metering pumps.
3.2.8 Effluent Wetwell
The disinfected effluent will then flow into the effluent wetwell. The wet well contains post-
aeration diffusers which are connected to blowers located in the instrumentation building. The
post-aeration process increases the dissolved oxygen in the effluent to an acceptable level for
discharge into the Banana River.
3.2.9 De-chlorination
If the effluent is to be discharged to the Banana River, de-chlorination is required. An 18-inch
ductile iron pipe connects the effluent wet well to the Banana River, and de-chlorination is
achieved directly in the discharge pipe through a sulfur dioxide feed line. There are two 2,000-
gallon storage tanks for the sodium hypochlorite solution. The overall de-chlorination system is
in good condition, though there is minor corrosion of some components.
3.2.10 Effluent Pump Station, Reclaimed, and Reject Water Storage Tank
Effluent not discharged to the Banana River is transferred to the three reclaimed water ground
storage tanks. The pumps have a capacity of 750 GPM at 29 TDH and the three tanks store 2.5
million gallons (MG), 1.0 MG, and 1.4 MG respectively. The transfer pumps were found in good
condition with some corrosion around the base of the pump.The 1.4 MG tank can serve as either
effluent storage and reject storage.
3.2.11 Sludge Holding Tank
At the bottom of the clarifiers, waste sludge is pumped by the WAS pumps to a 170,000-gallon
sludge holding tank. A telescopic valve is used to decant the solids in the sludge holding tank and
the decanted supernatant is recycled back to the on-site lift stations and pumped to the
headworks.
3.2.12 Belt Filter Press
Decanted sludge from the sludge holding tank is pumped by two rotary lobe sludge pumps to the
belt filter presses for dewatering of the biosolids. The sludge is conditioned with a polymer
solution to increase flocculation and allowed to thicken.The sludge is then introduced to the belt
filter press gravity section to remove most of the water and is compressed between the belts of
the belt filter press. After the removal of a substantial percentage of water, it becomes a sludge
cake, which is hauled off-site to the Brevard County landfill. The removed water is returned to
the lift stations at the headworks.
Mead&Hunt Page 27
3.2.13 Goals and Objectives
In the preceding discussion of the WRF, it should be noted that all the critical treatment
components have sufficient redundancy to reduce impact of maintenance. The oxidation ditch
has just been renovated to provide the needed redundancy and the aeration basin is currently
being renovated. With multiple components, there is time to maintain each component or, if a
failure occurs, there are redundant systems which would operate while the failed component is
repaired.
Most of the structures are greater than 50 years old and most of the equipment is greater 30
years old.As such,the need for structural rehabilitation and equipment replacement is driven by
useful life expectancy and technology.The City has developed a program to replace deteriorated
equipment, improve process reliability and plant performance. This Facilities plan sets forth
project descriptions and cost estimates to accomplish these goals and objectives.
Additional focus was also upon eliminating the need to discharge excess reclaimed water from
the WRT to the Banana River. Canaveral City Park is currently renovating the existing stormwater
exfiltration system to allow for excess reclaimed water to be discharged to the exfiltration
system.
3.3 Stormwater System
Most of the City of Cape Canaveral stormwater system was constructed from the late 1950's
through the 1960's.The stormwater system is comprised of approximately 380 storm drains with
six miles of stormwater pipe that discharge to six outfall structures. The system carries
stormwater discharge from the majority of the 1.9 square miles of drainage area from the Atlantic
River to the Banana River routed through 54 inch or larger culverts, and some overland flow to
the Atlantic River. The stormwater is discharged to the Banana River at Holman Road, Center
Street, International Drive, Central Boulevard, Canaveral Drainage Canal, and the WRF. Minor
flow into the Banana River also occurs though non-point and sheet flow from City and private
lands along the Banana River. The City's drainage system has been able to minimize flooding
within the City, but pollutants contained within the stormwater have mostly been discharged
directly into the Banana River.
In the 1970's and 1980's, both the Clean Water Act and St Johns River Water Management District
(SJRWMD) began addressing water quality issues. The Clean Water Act helped reduce industrial
and wastewater discharges while SJRWMD began requiring developments to retain a portion of
their stormwater runoff on-site. With the issues with the Indian River Lagoon,there is more focus
upon the stormwater pollutant loading that occurs from stormwater.
The City's goal is to improve the water quality of the stormwater discharge into the Banana River.
Improvements to this discharge will help with loading goals that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has enacted with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program
(NPDES),which is administered by FDEP through the development of a Basin Action Management
Plan (BMAP) for the Banana River.
Mead&Hunt Page 28
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
4.1 General
Alternatives have been evaluated for each of the previously described projects. An assessment
of each and recommendations are included herein. Figure 4-1 displays the map of proposed
projects
Mead&Hunt Page 29
Scallop or
, ,
fll Cileri ,tve‘..,-.;;0
t)
...
'I. ,a
CsE
5 S 0
.C6et Dr 71,3
V. Q,
Atlant, Rd ?; : •• •• ••••■••••;
=
m ,---
port
Canaveral challenci., ,,,,I, "...
5 h °Ler A0
Q:edDe r
Fir,Re an P°. -a r It Ln
Z
Clarittopher Columbus Dr
e'Ye Cu-
‚0
-
-o vn,pc) Q'
.,••• • • ...C.iiiii i 11.6.40.0.atiiirst.... i• ....• • =vit. ••,!ii • ••• • r 7
• -"d. "le try -)1, as.* it..
'0
.$ Or I
t, :
•
Solana') :
I
Oil
iI
U'
ti
2111•11.5.11111•11•1111110•11‘..••••••• 1101•11•11111W.11110•1111
N....1M • II N. ,
1 MP,
• -2
0 S.
BANANA'''.,, ,
.s:,
.• 7 Cr
. Ocean w aodS 131016
II:
ari
i rci
• 4
II: una Ln
, Cifc‘ Cenutral Blvd
417 , Blvd NN 4, i
R I VE R iri ,.,
1b i
.
,t.: Surf Dr
•
i
Joe Pl
1
InpaActr„
:3 NBI:(1444 Kings 1-n
1., ivs4 C rwi.lti n: S l s
,:-.. Chan die 7,5
ce
: ,t1...11i
cheo.
\•
1 Manatee Bay
u4"......1"...krmaa•maaa
Iwa•www•,..,_
....6. Lang P°tgd c't:
, <
,Z bzcnria.. Park
::,. Adams v; fi
it columbia ril\:'
,,,,\ 4
la C',41,:inaer,,,,,,,,101:::1,150:30vaneckAle In j
1 Arcno:
acAn,avare,eer,at H'''irIT1:sliale:ormAA0vvireee A,
i
i
LEG E N D ..., Just amer Carver St N d
a R
l pOlk Ave
I
A WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PROJECTS Fierce
(INTERMEDIATE LIFT STATION, INFLUENT SCREENS,
I
: 1:1. Ave
I
TERTIARY FILTERS, SCADA SYSTEM, PUMP AND SO2 BUILDINGS) : t., - r SI, .„ i , iluicnt:oni:nA: e i
: ).,._.,LF.,
A LIFT STATION #3 I 1 Johnson A'''
iit . 11 2.........L. 1."..."
0 S ab al Av ::_t:Iii 74:et a5nAt-77::
10%1
A LIFT STATION #5 1 n
taL Garfield Ave
11 ••
LIFT STATION #8
4 3es Cir
AveAT Oita A
: ve
4
1
CENTER STREET STORMWATER TREATMENT
)( f iMcKinley Ave
% ri: WilTc:::: ngA Ave
e: :
e
.................. 6 : or 1 uonwg, .AA, c.,.,::
Hendry Ave
eade Ave
7.„..7.i. Puistph, 0
calitorni a Ave
AnOlorage Ave
0 al; Li1
Seaport
Beach Park Ln
Harbor Di
Coral Ci
1
I
AFORCE MAIN #7
Jack Or
Kent Dr
Fa
0.125 0.25
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
0.5
0.75
•Miles
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN
1000703-181434.01
JANUARY 2019
PROPOSED PROJECTS MAP
Mead
hunt
FIGURE 4-1
4.2 Intermediate Lift Station Improvements
When the Intermediate Lift Station (Station) operates, the operators do not have confirmation
to verify that the Station is activated via the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system. During power outages or interruptions, the Station is subject to deactivation, causing
conveyance to stop and the station to fill and potentially overflow.The Station is a critical part of
the WRF hydraulic profile and flow.
Pictured Above -View of Intermediate Lift Station facing north.
The location of the Station is shown in Figure 3-1. The Station exists within City WRF property;
therefore, no extra land is needed for the improvements. The existing Station includes five
pumps,two equipped with VFDs.This improvement goal will be to add redundancy and reliability
within the system, so the Station operates consistently when needed and the operations staff
can confirm such from the operations center.
Three alternatives are identified:
Alternative 1- No Action
Alternative 2- Install Engine Driven Bypass Pump
Alternative 3- Upgrade Existing Controls and Electrical System
4.2.1 Alternative 1- No Action
With no action or improvements to the Station, the system will continue to malfunction during
power outages and interruptions. With no confirmation the Station activates via the SCADA
system, the operators must rely on physical inspections of the Station to verify operations. This
verification is costly and ineffective. Cleanup of overflows and potential environmental damage
should be avoided.
4.2.2 Alternative 2- Install Engine Driven Bypass Pump
This alternative will involve the installation of a new diesel engine driven bypass pump, not
connected to the existing control system for the existing pumps.The bypass pump would operate
if the existing pumps do not start and upon reaching a high level within the wetwell. The cost of
Mead&Hunt Page 31
this project is high as the single bypass pump capacity must be comparable to the current firm
capacity of the existing five pumps. The estimated cost for this alternative is $560,250.
Table 4-1
Intermediate Lift Station Improvements -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Engine Driven Bypass Pump
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 Engine Driven Bypass Pump 1 EA $350,000 $350,000
2 Piping, Fittings, Valves 1 LS $35,000 $35,000
3 Installation 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Subtotal $415,000
Contingency @ 20% $83,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $62,250
Total Estimated Project Cost $560,250
4.2.3 Alternative 3— Improve Backup Controls System and Redundancy
This alternative involves upgrading the existing pump control system to have backup controls and
additional redundancy. Currently,the primary control panel controls the lead VFD pumps and the
three lag fixed speed pumps. When the system restarts after/during a power outage or
interruption, the control system is subject to failure so not to start the pumps. To alleviate this
problem, the three lag pumps will be connected to a new backup control panel and backup
generator.This system will convert the three lag pumps into a backup system that will start when
the power is lost to the main pumps or the high-level floats are triggered. These VFD controlled
pumps will be powered by the existing facility generator or a new backup generator if the existing
generator is found to be insufficient. This project is estimated to cost $398,250.
Table 4-2
Intermediate Lift Station Improvements -Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Install VFDs and Backup System
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 VFD 3 EA $25,000 $75,000
2 Backup Generator 1 EA $100,000 $100,000
3 Backup Control Panel 1 EA $60,000 $60,000
4 Electrical/Installation 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Subtotal $295,000
Contingency @ 20% $59,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $44,250
Total Estimated Project Cost $398,250
4.2.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
With Alternative 1 the system remains the same. This alternative also does not add redundancy
or reliability to the Station. The potential for process upsets and wastewater overflows are not
reduced.
Mead&Hunt Page 32
Alternative 2 would provide redundancy with the installation of an engine driven bypass for the
Station. This has a considerable cost due to the need for the large capacity bypass pump. This
replacement would lower the possibility of the lift station failing and needing
maintenance/inspections, though it would not correct the existing problem with the lift station
controls.
Alternative 3 replaces a portion of the existing control system and provides further redundancy
with the emergency operation capability for the three lag pumps. This alternative has the lower
cost and does not involve substantially more equipment for future maintenance. Alternative 3 is
recommended.
4.3 Influent Structure and Screen Improvements
The existing mechanical bar screen has exceeded its useful life (20 years) and requires
replacement. This project is required to replace and update the pretreatment structure.
Pictured Above—View of the Pretreatment structure facing south.
For the pretreatment and screening, there are three alternatives identified:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2— Replace with Drum Screen
Alternative 3— Replace with Stair Screen
4.3.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With no action or improvements to the pretreatment and the screen, the system will continue
to deteriorate. With no improvements, the pretreatment structure would malfunction more
often, having a higher maintenance cost.
4.3.2 Alternative 2— Replace with Drum Screen
This alternative replaces the existing pretreatment screen with a drum screen. Replacing the
existing screen with a drum screen will cost an estimated $371,250. This will also reduce future
Mead&Hunt Page 33
maintenance costs due to reduced rags and inorganic materials bypassing the headworks and
causing equipment issues further into the treatment process. This drum screen can remove
particles greater than 3 millimeters.
Table 4-3
Influent Screen Improvements -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Replace with Drum Screen
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 Demolition 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
2 New Equipment (Parkson) 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
3 Installation 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
4 Walkways and Railings 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
5 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Subtotal $275,000
Contingency @ 20% $55,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @15% $41,250
Total Estimated Project Cost $371,250
4.3.3 Alternative 3— Replace with Stair Screen
This alternative will replace the existing pretreatment screen with a stair screen. Replacing the
existing screen with a stair screen will cost an estimated $405,000. This will also reduce future
maintenance costs. This stair screen can remove particles greater than 3 millimeters.
Table 4-4
Influent Screen Improvements -Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Replace with Stair Screen
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 Demolition 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
2 New Equipment (Vulcan) 1 LS $150,000 $150,000
3 Installation 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
4 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Subtotal $300,000
Contingency @ 20% $60,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $45,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $405,000
4.3.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
With Alternative 1 the system remains the same. This alternative does not improve the aging
system and will cause treatment process failures and/or upsets in the future.
Alternative 2 would replace the existing bar screen with a drum screen. The maintenance costs
for this alternative would be less than Alternative 1 and would provide improved efficiencies and
less potential for process failures.
Mead&Hunt Page 34
Alternative 3 is to replace the existing bar screen with a stair screen. The benefits with this
alternative are approximately equivalent to Alternative 2, but with a higher capital cost.
Alternative 2 is recommended.
4.4 Tertiary Filter Improvements
Replacement of the existing Tertiary Filters is proposed.This project consists of replacing existing
sand media, 'Dyna Sand' filters with cloth media disk filters. The filters were rehabilitated
approximately 6 to 7 years ago. Since the rehabilitation, the filter still requires excessive
maintenance. During filter backwashes, sand migrates though the air lift system and clogs the
draft tubes. Additionally, the filters gradually lose sand requiring annual replenishment of
additional sand. This project proposes to improve the existing filter to replace existing, old
equipment with new, better technology.
Pictured Above —View of'Dyna Sand' filters along the Deck
To mitigate the pretreatment and tertiary treatment, there are three alternatives identified:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2—Replace Tertiary with Disk Filters
Alternative 3—Rehab Existing Dyna Sand
4.4.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With no action or improvements to the tertiary filter, the system will continue to malfunction.
Yearly addition of sand would also be required. The tertiary filter also requires significant
maintenance.
Mead&Hunt Page 35
4.4.2 Alternative 2—Replace Sand Filters with Disk Filters
This alternative will replace the sand filters with the cloth media disk type filters. The disk filters
have limited to no maintenance costs and have a useful life of 20 years. The cost is estimated at
$1,147,500.
Table 4-5
Tertiary Filter Improvements -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Replace with Disk Filter
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 Demolition 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
2 New Equipment (Parkson) 1 LS $450,000 $450,000
3 Installation 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
4 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Subtotal $850,000
Contingency @ 20% $170,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $127,500
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,147,500
4.4.3 Alternative 3—Rehabilitate Existing Sand Media Filters
This alternative will rehabilitate the existing'Dyna Sand'filters, including replacement of controls
and equipment. The sand would need to be replenished every year for a minimal cost and the
filter draft tubes would require rehabilitation every 6 or 7 years, at an estimated cost of$300,000
per each draft tube rehabilitation. Assuming a 20-year life, three (3) draft tube rehabilitations
would be required. The estimated cost for a 20-year useful life is $1,845,000.
Table 4-6
Tertiary Filter Improvements -Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Rehabilitate Sand Filters
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 Rehab Filter By Manufacturer 1 LS $650,000 $650,000
Electrical, Instrumentation, and
2 Controls 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Subtotal $700,000
Contingency @ 20% $140,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $105,000
Total Estimated Project (initial) Cost $945,000
Including 3
Rehabilitations = $1,845,000
Mead I HUflt Page 36
4.4.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
With Alternative 1 the system remains the same, no major changes occurring. This alternative
also does not improve the aging system and will cause treatment process problems.
Alternative 2 replaces the sand filters with cloth media disk type filters. This alternative will
greatly improve the filter process and reduce the expensive rehabilitation required by the sand
type filters. Thus, the overall project life cost would be decreased.
Alternative 3 would have a lower initial cost but would have a higher lifetime cost.With an overall
lower lifetime cost, Alternative 2 was selected.
4.5 Lift Station No. 3 Improvements
Lift Station No. 3 is an existing wastewater lift station located along Central Boulevard, near the
intersection with Oak Manor Drive. The existing facilities have reached their useful life due to
deterioration and corrosion due to salt air environment and wastewater gases. The facilities have
been subject to increased maintenance and operational issues including problems with the
pumps seating with the discharge piping. A recent force main replacement project replaced the
downstream receiving force main to just downstream of the existing valve vault. No substantial
future changes in receiving flows are projected due to the lift station's service area currently
being mostly built out. Some redevelopment within the service area is expected, but impact on
flow volumes should be minimal.
.
Pictured Above —View of Lift Station No. 3 on Central Blvd.
Three alternatives have been identified for improvements to this lift station:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station
Alternative 3— Remove and Replace existing Lift Station.
Mead I HUflt Page 37
4.5.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With the No Action alternative, no improvements will be made to the facilities. Due to this,
maintenance costs are expected to increase the likelihood of a potential failure. A failure of this
lift station could cause a wastewater overflow into the adjacent main drainage canal. This could
cause considerable environmental damage. The increased maintenance costs and potential
environmental damage/cleanup costs cannot be accurately estimated at this time.
4.5.2 Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station No. 3
This alternative involves the rehabilitation of the existing facilities in the current location
including the replacement of the mechanical and electrical equipment. Other existing facilities
will be rehabilitated in-place, including protective linings and replacement covers and other
appurtenances. These improvements should extend the lift station's useful life for at least 20
years, less potential pump and electrical equipment renewal and replacement that would be
needed before. The improvements would reduce required maintenance and reduce the
likelihood of potential failure and overflow. The project cost for this alternative is $357,750 as
detailed in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7
Lift Station No.3 Improvements -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 Demolition/By-Pass Pumping 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
2 Mechanical/Pumps 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
3 Lining and Appurtenances 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
4 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
5 Restoration and Site Work 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Subtotal $265,000
Contingency @ 20% $53,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $39,750
Total Estimated Project Cost $357,750
4.5.3 Alternative 3— Remove and Replace Existing Lift Station No. 3
This alternative involves the complete removal and replacement of the existing facilities in an
alternate location. A suitable alternative location is not known to be available at this time. These
new improvements would have an estimated useful life of at least 25 years less potential pump
and electrical equipment renewal and replacement that would be needed. The improvements
would reduce required maintenance and reduce the likelihood of potential failure and overflow.
An alternate location more distant from the adjacent canal would also reduce the likelihood of
environmental impact by an overflow. The project cost for this alternative is$641,250 as detailed
in Table 4-8.
Mead I HUflt Page 38
Table 4-8
Lift Station No. 3 Improvements -Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Remove and Replace Existing Lift Station
Item # Description QTY Unit Unit Price Total
1 Site Acquisition 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
2 Demolition 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
3 New Wetwell 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
4 Gravity Sewer 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
5 Mechanical/Pumps 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
6 Force Main Connection/Extension 1 LS $70,000 $70,000
7 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
8 Restoration and Site Work 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Subtotal $475,000
Contingency @ 20% $95,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $71,250
Total Estimated Project Cost $641,250
4.5.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
Alternative 1 is not recommended due to the condition of the facilities and the potential for
overflow and environmental impact. Alternative 2 provides upgraded facilities at a lower overall
project cost with no need to seek an alternative site. Acquisition of an alternate site can be costly
and time consuming. Alternative 3 has a higher project cost with only a slightly longer life
expectancy. Therefore, Alternative 2 was chosen.
4.6 Lift Station No. 5 Improvements
Lift Station No. 5 is an existing wastewater lift station located within the Treasure Island Club
Condominiums. The approximate location is shown in Figure 4-1. The existing facilities have
reached their useful life due to deterioration due to use and corrosion due to salt air environment
and wastewater gases.The facilities have been subject to increased maintenance and operational
issues. Additionally, the City and the condominium owners would like to relocate the lift station
away from the front of the condominium buildings. A suitable location is available on
condominium owned property approximately 150 feet south. No substantial future changes in
receiving flows are projected due the lift station's service area currently being mostly built out.
Three alternatives have been identified for improvements to this station:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station
Alternative 3—Construct New Lift Station
4.6.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With the no action alternative, no improvements will be made to the facilities. Due to this,
maintenance costs are expected to increase the likelihood of a potential failure. A failure of this
lift station could cause a wastewater overflow into the adjacent condominium structures. This
Mead I HUflt Page 39
could cause considerable damage and expense. The increased maintenance costs and potential
environmental damage/cleanup costs cannot be accurately estimated at this time.
4.6.2 Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station
This alternative involves the rehabilitation of the existing facilities in the current location
including the replacement of the mechanical and electrical equipment. Other existing facilities
will be rehabilitated in-place, including protective linings and replacement covers and other
appurtenances. These improvements should extend the lift station's useful life for at least 20
years, less potential pump and electrical equipment renewal and replacement that would be
needed. The improvements would reduce required maintenance and reduce the likelihood of
potential failure and overflow. The project cost for this alternative is $438,750 as detailed in
Table 4-9.
Table 4-9
Lift Station No. 5 Improvements -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station
Item # Description QTY Unit Unit Price Total
1 Demolition/By-Pass Pumping 1 LS $55,000 $55,000
2 Mechanical/Pumps 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
3 Lining and Appurtenances 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
4 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
5 Restoration and Site Work 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Subtotal $325,000
Contingency @ 20% $65,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $48,750
Total Estimated Project Cost $438,750
4.6.3 Alternative 3—Construct New Lift Station
This alternative involves the complete removal and replacement of the existing facilities in an
alternate location 150 feet south. These new improvements would have an estimated useful life
of at least 25 years less potential pump and electrical equipment renewal and replacement that
would be needed. The improvements would reduce required maintenance and reduce the
likelihood of potential failure and overflow. The project cost for this alternative is $553,000 as
detailed in Table 4-8. The Engineering, CA and Inspection portion of the cost was estimated at
20% due to the site acquisition and private property potential issues.
Mead I HUflt Page 40
Table 4-10
Construct New Lift Station -Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Construct New Lift Station
Item # Description QTY Unit Unit Price Total
1 Demolition 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
2 New Wetwell 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
3 Gravity Sewer 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
4 Mechanical/Pumps 1 LS $160,000 $160,000
5 Force Main Connection/Extension 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
6 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
7 Restoration and Site Work 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Subtotal $395,000
Contingency @ 20% $79,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 20% $79,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $553,000
4.6.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
Alternative 1 is not recommended due to the condition of the facilities and the potential for
overflow and environmental and residential impact. Alternative 2 provides upgraded facilities at
a lower overall project cost but without achieving the goals of the condominium owners and the
City for the station relocation. A failure of this lift station near the condominium could cause a
wastewater overflow into the adjacent condominium structures. This could cause considerable
damage and expense. The increased maintenance costs and potential environmental
damage/cleanup costs cannot be accurately estimated at this time. Alternative 3 has a higher
initial project cost with a slightly longer life expectancy and relocates the station as desired by
the stakeholders. Therefore, Alternative 3 was chosen.
4.7 Lift Station No. 8 Improvements
Lift Station No. 8 is an existing wastewater lift station located near the intersection of Thurm
Boulevard and Manatee Bay Drive. The existing facilities have reached their useful life due to
deterioration and corrosion due to salt air environment and wastewater gases.The facilities have
been subject to increased maintenance and operational issues. No substantial future changes in
receiving flows are projected due the lift station's service area currently being mostly built out.
Some redevelopment within the service area is expected, but impact on flow volumes should be
minimal.
Mead I HUflt Page 41
Pictured Above—View of Lift Station No. 8 on Thurm Boulevard
Three alternatives have been identified for improvements to this station:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station
Alternative 3—Total Lift Station Replacement
4.7.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With the no action alternative, no improvements will be made to the facilities. Due to this,
maintenance costs are expected to increase the likelihood of a potential failure. A failure of this
lift station could cause a wastewater overflow into the adjacent residential properties.This could
cause considerable damage and expense. The increased maintenance costs and potential
environmental damage/cleanup costs cannot be accurately estimated at this time.
4.7.2 Alternative 2— Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station No. 8
This alternative involves the rehabilitation of the existing facilities in the current location
including the replacement of the mechanical and electrical equipment. Other existing facilities
will be rehabilitated in-place, including protective linings and replacement covers and other
appurtenances. These improvements should extend the lift station's useful life for at least 20
years, less potential pump and electrical equipment renewal and replacement that would be
needed. The improvements would reduce required maintenance and reduce the likelihood of
potential failure and overflow. The project cost for this alternative is $425,250 as detailed in
Table 4-11.
Mead I HUflt Page 42
Table 4-11
Lift Station No.8 Improvements -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Rehabilitate Existing Lift Station
Item # Description QTY Unit Unit Price Total
1 Demolition/By-Pass Pumping 1 LS $45,000 $45,000
2 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
2 Mechanical/Pumps 1 LS $140,000 $140,000
3 Lining and Appurtenances 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
4 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
5 Restoration and Site Work 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Subtotal $315,000
Contingency @ 20% $63,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $47,250
Total Estimated Project Cost $425,250
4.7.3 Alternative 3-Total Replacement
This alternative involves the complete removal and replacement of the existing facilities in an
alternate location. A suitable alternative location is not known to be available at this time. These
new improvements would have an estimated useful life of at least 25 years less potential pump
and electrical equipment renewal and replacement that would be needed. The improvements
would reduce required maintenance and reduce the likelihood of potential failure and overflow.
The project cost for this alternative is $553,500 as detailed in Table 4-2
Table 4-12
Lift Station No. 8 Improvements -Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Remove and Replace Existing Lift Station
Item # Description QTY Unit Unit Price Total
1 Site Acquisition 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
2 Demolition 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
3 New Wetwell 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
4 Gravity Sewer 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
5 Mechanical/Pumps 1 LS $140,000 $140,000
6 Force Main Connection/Extension 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
4 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
5 Restoration and Site Work 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Subtotal $410,000
Contingency @ 20% $82,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $61,500
Total Estimated Project Cost $553,500
Mead I HUflt Page 43
4.7.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
Alternative 1 is not recommended due to the condition of the facilities and the potential for
overflow and environmental impact. Alternative 2 provides upgraded facilities at a lower overall
project cost with no need to seek an alternative site. Acquisition of an alternate site can be costly
and time consuming. Alternative 3 has a higher project cost with only a slightly longer life
expectancy. Therefore, Alternative 2 was chosen.
4.8 WRF SCADA System Improvements
The wastewater treatment plant's SCADA system acquires data and information related to
treatment plant operations and allows for automatic and remote control of some of the plant
operations. Currently there are no monitoring or control abilities for the chlorine feed, sulfur
dioxide feed and other portions of the process. The monitoring and control of these portions of
the system are required to be done manually by plant operators during their rounds and/or upon
substantial changes in flow. Also, there are portions of the system that do not have adequate
data collection and automatic controls which have caused upsets and overflows in the treatment
system. Currently, the treatment plant operates on a 16 hours day schedule.
To improve the SCADA system, three alternatives were identified:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2— Replace Entire System with New Software and Controls
Alternative 3— Replace Portion and Upgrade Remainder of System
4.8.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With the no action alternative, there would be no changes to the SCADA system. No operational
improvements would be realized, and the current operating protocol would go unchanged.
4.8.2 Alternative 2— Replace Entire System with New Software and Controls
Alternative 2 involves upgrading the entire system to a VTSCADA human-machine interface (HMI)
software platform, including the SCADA equipment at all the lift stations. Most hardware
components would need to be replaced. The replacement of the entire system would allow the
various equipment to be communicated upon a common platform and provide operational and
maintenance efficiencies. The estimated cost for the new system would be $1,080,000.
Table 4-13
WRF SCADA System Improvements -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Replace Entire System with New Software and Controls
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 VTSCADA System Conversion 1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Subtotal $800,000
Contingency @ 20% $160,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $120,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,080,000
Mead I HUflt Page 44
4.8.3 Alternative 3— Replace Portion and Upgrade Remainder of System
Alternative 3 is a partial replacement/upgrade to VTSCADA HMI. The treatment plant portion of
the SCADA system would be completely replaced while the SCADA equipment at the lift stations
would remain and only be upgraded. The lift stations currently utilize Data Flow Systems (DFS)
SCADA HMI system. VTSCADA and DFS can be programmed to communicate and operate
together, thus avoiding the SCADA replacement throughout the collection system. Having two
separate software systems would increase the operating and maintenance cost slightly over the
life of the equipment. The estimated cost is $418,500.
Table 4-14
WRF SCADA System Improvements -Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Replace Portion and Upgrade Remainder of System
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 VTSCADA System Conversion at WRF 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
2 Upgrade DFS System 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Subtotal $310,000
Contingency @ 20% $62,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $46,500
Total Estimated Project Cost $418,500
4.8.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
With Alternative 1 the system remains the same, no changes occurring.This alternative does not
increase the capability and reliability of the SCADA system and does not reduce the operational
and maintenance costs. This alternative also does not reduce the likelihood of treatment upsets
and overflows.
Alternative 2 is a complete overhaul of the entire SCADA system, thus increasing the overall
useful life of the system components. This alternative has the highest cost and the highest
amount of additional learning and training that would be required. Having the system be fully
replaced would allow for the system to be unified and have an overall increase in the capability
and control of the system.
Alternative 3 replaces the plant's SCADA system while maintaining the existing lift station SCADA
system. The current lift station operates utilizing the DFS system. Although the proposed
VTSCADA and DFS can communicate and operate together, having two separate software
systems would increase the operating and maintenance cost. Alternative 2 was chosen due to
the increase in capability and control of the system and the lower operating and maintenance
cost.
Mead I HUflt Page 45
4.9 Construct Pump and SO2 Buildings
Due to the salt water environment the WRF equipment, especially that which is not enclosed
within buildings, is subject to extensive corrosion. Currently a number of pumps and the SO2
feed equipment are exposed to the environment due to the lack of adequate enclosures.
Therefore, buildings to enclose this equipment and to protect the equipment from the
environmental elements are proposed. Figure 4-2 displays the proposed building locations.
For the proposed buildings, there are three alternatives identified:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2—Construct Concrete Block Site Built Buildings
Alternative 3—Construct Prefabricated Aluminum Structures
Mead I HUflt Page 46
7.---1, Fr —. fl. - - _ . ,s, ,-
_. ,,, ., A I.t:0,,..i.
,ig. ' '-- , . LEGEND
- •
3• Ar_ ' PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION
I. • , r
-
9F
1 P.. .44. .
14- '-'" , -
.. ii• 11.11Mmt. . .
REUSE PUMPS 0
- -Mitt
N
..•._ .. hi,:.-/ i 1 'opp,opoopir.,--"*... -• A • -- , .y - 4Ple* 1
4 F
. lig
K.
Y
1* • -N y ' ,; : WAS/RAS PUMPS ` ➢
• ',A. Al' 6
4.1
111.
1l _ IR PUMPS
01.11_ ,
ldr17-Ar'16-
4 . _ ..•.
_. .
.— -
r
- Ir. -. . 41 bup
i -. al 0.1, I
- , .. ..- ,
.-I, . . - .- - ., /1“...iii
.: ..,. 0,....4.....P''' ^. „,.... 4, 4 ii.,.cw:1/4. ,
lar .
i 1
YN • .Mme•..
11411.1111147 11 E;, -
' 4 ' ' , 1 ,
1
• .11,E 1.
• 4.pr
__' .- _ _ SO2 ,
...
,,. ... ..
. I . .t. 1 il
0
w I 1FIN Illit I , ,
..
r
, „ rritil , ,
- irk_# _, ,
J1017.1i1 'A.- d_ ,, ,
tlibL. . _ -tr. -.1.11E11 ", -' 0. ,
. 4 0$11:1)1:,-- r . .,-,%. . i,
i 'MI ,•1 71 1 5 g ,.. . . I-
r
Ito I ' •
,, - di . , liitt,a.®
eft . . 1 ' ' '.,... .
- , €-ap• an v- ' -s,
. 1 , i-. . \
- - 'at ig - ,_ - , , -
+r
-
- — . 141 11:1 I IC WO ' ''._,ii, ..-K . , -..„ c
- Ok , . ..id'4 - -niia VI • _ =
if ...
—. t
• •
•
.. .1.,.. t it .*._ - - i fir : i
QcE 4 'ds CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
4 WASTEWATER FACILTIES PLAN Mead
: Lic,
,‘,41/4
11 1 Proposed Pump and SO2Building Locations
Ilunt
,...,..„...- ..;,,:= ._.::_ta
_.-: ` " ' FIGURE 4-2
C Y of 1000703-181434.01
CAPE CANAVERAL 08/14/2018
4.9.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With the no action alternative, there would be no changes to the existing components. The
exposed equipment will continue to degrade due to exposure and increase the frequency of
operational issues, maintenance and equipment replacement.
4.9.2 Alternative 2—Construct Concrete Block Site Built Buildings
Alternative 2 proposes to construct buildings to enclose the pump and SO2 equipment. The
buildings would require the construction of substantial foundations to support the buildings. This
foundation construction would require a certain amount of pipe and/or conduit relocation that
may be in conflict with the proposed foundations. The concrete block buildings and foundations
would have a long useful life due to the type and durability of construction. The estimated cost
of this alternative is $1,377,000.
Table 4-15
Construct Pump and 502 Buildings -Alternative 2 Cost Estimate
Construct Concrete Block Site Built Buildings
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 CMU Buildings 3400 SF $300 $1,020,000
Subtotal $1,020,000
Contingency @ 20% $204,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $153,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,377,000
4.9.3 Alternative 3—Construct Prefabricated Aluminum Structures
Alternative 3 proposes enclosures for the pumps and SO2 buildings utilizing prefabricated
aluminum structures. These types of structures have lesser foundation requirements and can be
erected quicker than site built structures. The life expectancy of these buildings is less than other
types of construction. The estimated cost of this alternative is $918,000.
Table 4-16
Construct Pump and SO2 Buildings -Alternative 3 Cost Estimate
Construct Prefabricated Aluminum Structures
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 Aluminum Buildings 3400 SF $200 $680,000
Subtotal $680,000
Contingency @ 20% $136,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $102,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $918,000
Mead I HUflt Page 48
4.9.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
Alternative 1 was the no action alternative. Without improvements, the system will gradually
deteriorate.
Alternative 2 proposes buildings built with CMU. The initial cost of CMU is higher than the No
Action alternative, although lifetime of the components would be increased.
Alternative 3 has proposed buildings that would be built with aluminum and wall paneling. This
alternative has the same benefits as Alternative 2, but with a lower life expectancy and cost.
Alternative 2 is selected for the longer useful life of the buildings.
4.10 Lift Station No. 7 Force Main
The force main conveying flow from Lift Station No. 7 is located along Thurm Boulevard from
West Central Boulevard to the WRF. This force main is approximately 30 years old and is at the
end of its useful life. The force main has been subject to higher than normal frequency of breaks
and the material condition was found questionable during past tie-in and repair operations.
To mitigate this problem, there are three alternatives identified:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2— Replace Main with In-Situ Method
Alternative 3— Replace Main with Open-Cut or Trenchless Method
4.10.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With the no action alternative,there would be no improvements made to the existing force main.
The likelihood of future pipe failures and potential for wastewater discharges into the adjacent
Banana River would increase.
4.10.2 Alternative 2— Replace Force Main with In-Situ Method
In Alternative 2, the force main would be replaced in-situ by the pipe bursting method. The
existing pipe would be deactivated and utilized as a corridor/conduit to pull a new pipe in its
place. The existing pipe would be "bursted" with a cutting head to make room for the new pipe.
The new pipe would most likely be a fused HDPE pipe. Connections would have to be made at
either end and at any branch connections. By-pass pumping would have to be utilized for the
duration of the pipe installation and activation.
Mead I HUflt Page 49
Table 4-17
Force Main No. 7 Replacement -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Replace Force Main with In-Situ Method
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 Pipe Burst 12" 1200 LF $250 $300,000
2 Tie-ins 2 EA $10,000 $20,000
3 Bypass Pumping 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
4 12" Valves 2 EA $10,000 $20,000
Subtotal $420,000
Contingency @ 20% $84,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $63,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $567,000
4.10.3 Alternative 3— Replace Main with Open-Cut or Trenchless Method
Alternative 3 would involve the installation of a new 12" diameter force main along the same
alignment. Installation would be by typical open-cut and/or trenchless method. The existing
force main would remain in service until the new force main is completely installed and ready for
activation. By-pass pumping would be minimized or eliminated with this alternative. Tie-ins at
both ends and at any branches would be required.The existing force main would be deactivated
and abandoned in place.
Table 4-18
Force Main No. 7 Replacement -Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Replace Force Main with Open-Cut or Trenchless Method
Item # Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1 New 12" Pipe 1200 LF $200 $240,000
2 12" Valves 2 EA $10,000 $20,000
3 Tie-Ins 2 EA $10,000 $20,000
Subtotal $280,000
Contingency @ 20% $56,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $42,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $378,000
4.10.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Without improvements,the force main will continue to
be subject to breaks and potential environmental impacts due to wastewater discharge.
Alternative 2 proposes to replace the force main with in-situ or pipe bursting methods. The cost
of this alternative is the highest. The method does have some risk due to the nature of the
method and will involve considerable by-pass pumping.
Mead I HUflt Page 50
Alternative 3 proposes to replace the force main with a new force main adjacent to the existing
force main. This alternative has a lower cost than Alternative 2 and involves less by-pass
pumping. Alternatives 2 and 3 both provide a new force main with equivalent life expectancies.
Alternative 3 is selected.
4.11 Center Street Stormwater Treatment
Center Drainage Basin contains 154 acres of commercial and residential development. The
stormwater discharges though a 54-inch pipe with a single existing baffle box that only remove a
small amount of pollutants.
To improve stormwater quality, there are three alternatives identified:
Alternative 1— No Action
Alternative 2—Construct Wet Detention Pond
Alternative 3—Construct Underground Stormwater storage
4.11.1 Alternative 1— No Action
With the no action alternative, no improvements will be made to the stormwater system. Due
to this, no improvements to stormwater quality will be realized.
4.11.2 Alternative 2—Construct Wet Detention Pond
This alternative involves the construction of an offline wet detention pond to divert the existing
stormwater to, for additional treatment. The wet detention pond would be constructed on land
to be acquired along Center St, near Sevilla Ct. This site would require land acquisition,
excavation, grading, and will provide approximately an acre-foot of treatment volume. The
estimated cost is$587,250.
Table 4-19
Center Street Stormwater Treatment -Alternative 2 Cost Comparison
Construct Wet Detention Pond
Item # Description QTY Unit Unit Price Total
1 Site Acquisition 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
3 Demolition & Excavation 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
4 Stormwater Connection/Extension 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
5 Control Structures 1 LS $45,000 $45,000
6 Restoration and Site Work 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Subtotal $435,000
Contingency @ 20% $87,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $65,250
Total Estimated Project Cost $587,250
Mead I HUflt Page 51
4.11.3 Alternative 3—Construct Underground Storage with Exfiltration
This alternative involves the construction of underground storage for additional treatment. This
underground storage will be constructed within the right of way of Center Street along with the
existing stormwater discharge pipe.
To have a comparable treatment volume to alternative 2, a considerable length of underground
storage would be required to be installed along the right of way. Excavation, demolition and
maintenance of traffic will be required along affected roadway.The estimated cost is$1,012,500.
Table 4-20
Center Street Stormwater Treatment-Alternative 3 Cost Comparison
Construct Underground Stora;e with Exfiltration
Item # Description QTY Unit Unit Price Total
1 Demolition & Excavation 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
3 Underground Storage System 1 LS $450,000 $450,000
4 Stormwater Connection/Extension 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
5 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
6 Restoration and Site Work 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Subtotal $750,000
Contingency @ 20% $150,000
Engineering, CA and Inspection @ 15% $112,500
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,012,500
4.1.4 Comparative & Cost Analysis
With Alternative 1, the system remains the same. This alternative does not improve the
stormwater quality, which will constantly deliver pollutant loaded stormwater to the Banana
River.
Alternative 2 would construct a wet detention pond to treat the stormwater. With this option,
the stormwater would get stormwater treatment, lowering the overall pollutant loading of the
stormwater to the Banana River. The downsides of this alternative are that there is a moderate
cost due to the land acquisition and construction of the detention pond.
Alternative 3 would construct an underground storage system with exfiltration.The underground
storage would be constructed within the existing stormwater system's right of way. This method
would give similar treatment to alternative 2 but would allow the land to be utilized and
developed, not only used for stormwater treatment. Additionally, as this is within the City's right
of way, there would be no land acquisition required. The downsides of this alternative are the
high costs. Although there is no land acquisition, the construction within the right of ways of
existing stormwater pipe increases the price through the excavation, maintenance of traffic, and
site restoration that would occur. In addition, to get a comparable treatment volume within the
right of way, a large section of the right of way will be excavated. As Alternative 3 has similar
treatment volume but with a higher cost, Alternative 2 was chosen. For this chosen alternative,
Mead I HUflt Page 52
only the land acquisition will be factored within this facilities plan, so the estimate for this project
is $200,000.
4.12 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
None of the recommended improvement alternatives involve any estimated environmental
impacts for the construction of the improvements. Therefore, no mitigation for such would be
required. The construction activities will be governed by local jurisdictional, State and Federal
requirements for construction activity erosion and sediment control. The construction contracts
will require the contractors to have a plan in place for the control of erosion and sediments. The
contracts will also require plans for the prevention of wastewater discharge and the proper
disposal of all wastewater and system contents.
Mead I HUflt Page 53
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLANNING
5.1 Implementation Schedule
At this time the City intends to pursue the projects individually or in multiple groups. Therefore,
the following estimated implementation schedule was developed to represent the span between
the earliest individual project start and the latest individual project completion. It is expected all
projects will be completed prior to September 2021
The estimated timeline of implementation is provided in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 Project Implementation Schedule
Activity Estimated Dates
Start Design on First Project 3/19
Start Design on Remainder of Projects Various dates in 2019
Finish Design on Last Project 3/20
Permitting of All Projects, Complete 5/20
Bidding of First Project 7/19
Construction Start, First Project 9/19
Construction End, Last Project 9/21
5.2 Permitting Compliance
The wastewater system improvements will be designed, constructed, and operated in
accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations.The following list identifies the anticipated
permits and approvals required for the City wastewater system improvements, construction, and
operation.
State of Florida
• Domestic Wastewater Facilities Permit Application — FDEP
• Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System Permit Application — FDEP
City of Cape Canaveral
• Building Permit(s)
The City will acquire these permits prior to bidding the construction contracts.
Additional permitting may be required for the construction based on the contractor's means and
methods. These may include a NPDES Construction Activities Permit from FDEP and/or a
Mead I HUflt Page 54
Dewatering Permit from St. Johns River Water Management District. The construction
contract(s) will require the contractor(s) to acquire these permits.
5.3 Public Participation (SECTION NEEDS REVISIONS AFTER COUNCIL MEETING
ON 2/19/18)
A public hearing will be held with the City Council on February 19, 2019. A notice of the public
hearing was published per the City noticing requirements in the local paper prior to the meeting.
A copy of the notice is provided in Appendix_.A summary of the comments received at the public
hearing is also provided in Appendix_. This planning document was adopted by the City at the _
Council meeting by Resolution _. A copy of the Resolution is provided in the Appendix.
5.4 Capital Finance Plan (SECTION NEEDS REVISIONS AFTER COUNCIL MEETING
ON 2/19/18)
The City is responsible for financing its wastewater system improvements and plans to use SRF
loan funding and any other available outside funding sources to minimize the financial impact of
the overall combined projects on the rate-payers. The pledged revenues supporting this debt
issue will be the gross revenues derived yearly from the wastewater and stormwater utilities. A
copy of the Capital Financing Plan worksheet (Form WW-2b) for an SRF loan to help finance the
plan is provided in the Appendix. The City has sufficient funds to repay this SRF Loan with no
additional rate adjustments other than those already in place.
Mead I HUflt Page 55
APPENDICES
Mead I lunt Page 56