Loading...
4697 Amending the Community Resources Element of the Comp PlanORDINANCE NO. 2022-4697 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA AMENDING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES ELEMENT OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE "COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT", FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTIONS 163.3177 AND 163.3184; TO BRING THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTO COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 163.3177(6)(c); BY AMENDING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE POLICIES PROMOTING ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER QUALITY AND CONSERVATION MEASURES; PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS PROVISION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AS WELL AS THE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS the City of Sanford (the "City") exercises the authority granted it pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, Sections 163.3161 through 163.3248, inclusive, known as the "Community Planning Act"; and WHEREAS, Section 163.3167, Florida Statutes, requires the City to maintain a comprehensive plan to guide its future development and growth; and WHEREAS, Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, requires the City to include policies in its Comprehensive Plan promoting adequate infrastructure, water qualify, and conservation measures; and WHEREAS, The City is required to provide a work plan, covering at least a 10-year planning period, for building public, private, and regional water supply facilities, including development of alternative water supplies, which are necessary to serve existing and new development within the City's service area; the work plan must be updated, at a minimum, every 5 years, within 18 months after the governing board of a water management district approves an updated regional water supply plan [Florida Statutes, §163.3177 (6)(c)(3)]. WHEREAS, as a result of St. John's River Water Management District adopting an updated regional water supply plan, City staff developed a new Water Facilities Work Plan dated April 2022 which is consistent with Florida Statutes and the regional water supply plan, which includes an analysis of the capabilities of the existing water system, a comparison of existing water demand and future needs and provides projections of a minimum 20-year program for further development of the City's total water system; and WHEREAS, a copy of the City's Water Facilities Work Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "B;" and WHEREAS, City Staff has provided, in strike through and underline format, amended policy language to the water supply portion of the Public Facilities & Community Resources Element to achieve the following objectives: • Formally adopt and incorporate the City's Water Facilities Work Plan and future updates of said plan into the Comprehensive Plan. • Meet the statutory requirements of §163.3177(6)(c) and §373.709 of Florida Statutes to provide necessary updates to the Public Facilities & Community Resources Element and meet the requirement to provide data and analysis to support the Element. • To replace the data and analysis in the Public Facilities & Community Resources portion of Volume II of the City's Comprehensive Plan without amending Volume II. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2022-4697 amends the City's Comprehensive Plan by amending certain portions of Volume I, Section III: Public Facilities & Community Resources, Chapter 2; Infrastructure, Pages III-19 through III-24 of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City considered this item at a public hearing held on May 5, 2022, and voted to recommend approval of the proposed text of the Amended Comprehensive Plan, finding the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Code; and Ordinance No. 2022-XXX Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that Ordinance No. 2022-4697 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, following due public notice, the first of two required public hearings on the "Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, Florida " was held by the City Commission on May 23, 2022, at which time the City Commission authorized said document to be transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), sitting as the State Land Planning Agency, for required review; and WHEREAS, following due public notice, the second of two required public hearings on the "Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, Florida " was heard by the City Commission on July 11, 2022 in accordance with statutory requirements. BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Legislative Findings and Intent. (a). The City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of Florida law in processing and advertising this Ordinance. (b). This Ordinance is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford. (c). The exhibits to this Ordinance are incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein verbatim. (d). The foregoing recitals (whereas clauses) are hereby adopted as the legislative findings of the City Commission of the City of Sanford and incorporated into this Ordinance as if set forth in haec verbs. SECTION 2. Amendment to City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan. (a). The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford is hereby revised and amended by adopting amendments to the Public Facilities & Community Resources Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by incorporating into the Comprehensive Plan the City's Water Facilities Work Plan dated April 2022 attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Ordinance No. 2022-XXX Page 3 of 7 (b). All Exhibits to this Ordinance are incorporated into the text and substance of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein verbatim. (c) In this Ordinance new text is indicated by underlining and deleted text by strikethFo unh. SECTION 3. Implementing Administrative Actions. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to implement the provisions of this Ordinance and to take any and all necessary administrative actions to bring into effect the provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, the promulgation and adoption of rules and forms. SECTION 4. Ratification Of Prior Actions. The prior actions of the City Commission and its agencies in enacting and causing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, as well as the implementation thereof, are hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance proves to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall not be held to impair the validity or effect of any other action or part of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. Conflicts. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 7. Codification/Instructions to Code Codifier. It is the intention of the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, and it is hereby ordained, that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the codified version of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and/or the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sanford, Florida. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan as set forth herein shall not become effective, in accordance with Section 163.3187 (5)(c), Florida Statutes, until 31 days after the enactment of this Ordinance. If challenged within 30 days after enactment, this amendment set forth in this Ordinance shall not become effective until the State Land Planning Agency or the Administration Commission, respectively, issues a final order Ordinance No. 2022-XXX Page 4 of 7 determining that the subject amendment is in compliance with controlling State law. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2022. Attest: City Commission f the City of Sanford, Florida ,ieminole County, �Iogida) 4�ft AIV) Traci Houchin, MMC, FCRM �,` ,,#odruff City Clerk �cg�, 4 � �Nl4or Approved as to form and Legality: �� �� William L. Colbert, Esquire City Attorney L\City of Sanford - General\Comp Plan Amendment\Ordinance 2022-XXX - Comp Plan Amendment-dwh 042522.docx Ordinance No. 2022-XXX Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES Ordinance No. 2022-XXX Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT "B" Water Facilities Work Plan dated April 2022 Ordinance No. 2022-XXX Page 7of7 EXHIBIT "A' III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES CHAPTER 2. INFRASTRUCTURE INTRODUCTION Statutory Basis Florida Statutes, Section 163.3177(6)(c) provides that a local governments provide an element related to addressing infrastructure needs in their Comprehensive Plan, specifically related to Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Stormwater and Aquifer Recharge. The policies contained within this element shall ensure the adequate provision of such infrastructure, including methods to address current and anticipated deficiencies in the system and meet present and future demand. The element is also expected to address the protection of natural resources, specifically related to the protection of water supply through its policies and coordination with the Water Supply Plan. Section 2. Infrastructure shall serve to implement the above regulatory requirements, with Goals 2 through 6 serving as each Sub -Element noted above. Sustainable Vision Significant components of the Infrastructure Element are intrinsically linked with the concept of resource protection, particularly with regard to Potable Water and Aquifer Recharge. Both sub - elements are intended to work together to ensure the protection of water supply and water quality. These policies are intended to work in concert with the Water Supply Plan, and the SJRWMD and FDEP to ensure the protection of this valuable resource. Supporting Documents Section 2. Infrastructure is supported by the Public Facilities and Community Resources Section of Volume II, and the Sanford Water Facilities Work Plan and subsequent amendments. adopted by reference which provides for the inventory of existing infrastructure for each sub - element and analysis of future needs, based on projected population and growth for the ten year planning period, which accommodates projections through 2030. The Water Facilities Work Plan and subsequent amendments to said Plan shall augment. update or replace the data and analysis in the Public Facilities and Community Resources Section of Volume 11. The Infrastructure Map series is also included in Section VI of this document for reference. • III - 18 III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES GOALS. OBJECTIVES &. POLICIES GOAL INF 1: PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES. ENSURE AVAILABILITY AND PROVISION OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDING POTABLE WATER, SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, STORMWATER DRAINAGE, AND AQUIFER RECHARGE IN A MANNER WHICH PROTECTS INVESTMENTS IN EXISTING FACILITIES, CONTINUES TO SERVE EXISTING RESIDENTS AND SUPPORTS ORDERLY, COMPACT GROWTH. Infrastructure Supply &- Demand OBJECTIVE INF 1.1: Ensure Available Public Facilities, Maximize Use of Existing Public Facilities, and Prevent Urban Sprawl. The City shall require that proposed land uses be adequately served by public facilities, including water, wastewater, storm water management, solid waste disposal and hazardous waste management. The subdivision and site plan review processes shall provide a unified system for maximizing use of existing public facilities and for coordinating the efficient location, timing, phasing, and scale of public and private development. Policy INF 1.1.1: Enforce General Performance Standards. The City of Sanford shall maintain Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that include performance standards requiring that public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of new development. The City shall enforce performance standards ensuring that the location, scale, timing and design of development shall be coordinated with public facilities and services in order to prevent the proliferation of urban sprawl and achieve cost effective land development patterns. Urban sprawl shall be further addressed through performance standards that: • Direct future development only to those areas where provision of public facilities necessary to meet levels of service (LOS) standards are available concurrent with the impacts of the development; • Maximize use of existing central potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater facilities by requiring that all new development hook up to the City's existing central systems; • Require all new development connect to irrigation quality reclaimed water lines for irrigation purposes. If not within the required reclaimed water connection distances as listed in the "Utilities Standards and Specifications and Design Standards for Water Conservation" (referred to as the Utilities Manual), new development shall utilize the lowest quality available water for irrigation purposes; Avoid expensive development at very low densities surrounding the City's urban core area; Promote planned mixed use development within the strategically located Westside Industry & Commerce area, the 1-4 interchange, the Waterfront/Downtown Business District, and Airport Industry and Commerce area; Conserve wetlands, natural drainage corridors, and other environmentally sensitive areas; Prevent extended strip commercial development within the areas designated planned mixed use development by mandating access and curb cut controls together with required dedication of III - 19 III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES cross easements to restrict and/or to facilitate well planned access, internal circulation, shared parking, and egress; and • Provide density and intensity thresholds that promote infill. Policy INF 1.1.2: Maintain Public Facility Concurrency Requirements. A concurrency management system (CMS) shall be maintained and enforced as part of the LDRs for potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, and solid waste. Policy INF 1.1.3: Eliminate Existing Public Facility Deficiencies Prior to Development Approval. The City shall issue no development orderfor new development which would result in an increase in demand on deficient facilities prior to completion of improvements designed to eliminate the deficiencies. The City shall include an adequate facilities requirement. The adequate facilities requirement shall mandate that future applications for development shall include a written evaluation of the impact of the anticipated development on the levels of services for the water and wastewater systems, solid waste system, drainage, recreation, and the traffic circulation system. Prior to issuing a site plan or building permit (whichever is first applicable), the City shall render a finding that the applicant has provided written assurance that the proposed development shall be served with each of the above cited facilities with a LOS at least equal to that LOS stipulated in this Plan. The developers application shall include written assurances that any required improvements shall be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development (i.e., by the time a certificate of occupancy is granted by the City). OBJECTIVE INF 9.2: Meet Projected Public Facility Demands. The City shall plan for projected public facility demands for the short and long-term planning horizons. Policy INF 1.2.1: Coordinate with Capital Improvement Element. All public facility projects shall be undertaken in accordance with the schedule provided in the Capital Improvements Element. Policy INF1.2.2: Update Demand and Supply Information System. The City of Sanford shall develop procedures for updating facility demand and capacity information and shall prepare annual summaries of capacity and demand information for respective facilities and/or service areas as part of the concurrency management program. Policy INF 1.2.3: Evaluate Capital Improvement Schedule. Projects proposed for inclusion in the five-year schedule of capital improvement needs will be annually evaluated and ranked by the City Commission. The evaluation and rank will be based on the following priority level guidelines: a. "Level 1"-whether the oroiect: • Protects public health, safety, and environmentally sensitive natural resources. • Fulfills the City's legal commitment to provide facilities and services. Preserves or achieves full use of existing facilities and assigning highest priority to those projects required for purposes of correcting existing system deficiencies. b. "Level 2" -whether the project accomplishes the following: III - 20 III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES • Increases efficiency of existing facilities. C Prevents or reduces future improvement costs. • Provides service to developed areas lacking full service or promotes in -fill development. c. "Level 3" -whether the project: • Represents a logical extension of facilities and services in a manner consistent with Future Land Use Element goals, objectives and policies (GOPs), including the Future Land Use Map. Policy INF 1.2.4: Assign Priority for Correcting Existing Deficiencies. The City shall assign highest priority to projects required to correct existing deficiencies and shall promote urban infill. Policy INF 1.2.5: Utilize Criteria for Public Facility Planning and Management Efficiency. In scheduling the location, timing and staging of public facility improvements, the City Commission shall use the following criteria: a. Minimize disruption of services; b. Prevent duplication of labor; and C. Maintain LOS for all respective facilities. Policy INF 1.2.6: Schedule Planned Capital Improvements. The City Commission shall ensure that projects required to meet projected demands for public shall be in the Capital Improvements Element of this plan in accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3177(3), F.S. Policy INF 1.2.7: Coordination with Neighborhood Master Planning. Improvements to infrastructure determined necessary by adopted neighborhood master plans shall be adopted into the schedule of improvements provided in the Capital Improvements Plan. Policy INF 1.2.8: Obtain Permits for Public Facility. Projects. All required Federal, State, and County permits shall be obtained before the City undertakes or authorizes contractors to undertake construction and/or operation of facilities. III -21 III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES GOAL INF 2: PROVIDE SAFE POTABLE WATER. THE CITY OF SANFORD SHALL ENSURE THAT A SAFE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY WITH SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO SERVE THE CITY IS AVAILABLE. OBJECTIVE INF 2.1: Maintain Potable Water System. The City shall provide an adequate LOS for potable water to meet both existing and future needs by enforcing the standards set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations established by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). In addition, the safety, protection, and delivery of potable water shall be supported through the implementation of water conservation practices and regulations. Potable Water Supply & Demand Policy INF 2.1.1: Coordinate Future Land Use and Potable Water System Needs. The City shall require decisions concerning the potable water system needs, plans and the location and timing of improvements to be consistent with land use and conservation resource management policies and with the City's Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (WSFWP) as stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan and with the SJRWMD's Regional Water Supply Plan. The City shall require the following policies governing potable water services: a. Require all major development to utilize central services provided by the City. b. Discourage individual systems based on generally unfavorable geologic conditions and soils limitations for individual wells. c. Ensure that facility expansions are designed in a manner that is consistent with land use densities and intensities reflected on the Future Land Use Concept map of the Future Land Use Plan. d. Prohibit the establishment of new private central potable water. e. Ensure adequate funding through the City's Utility Fund by a system of customer service fees, development or impact fees, bonds, bond anticipation notes, Federal and State grants, utility taxes, developer contributions, special assessment districts and other appropriate revenue sources. f. Continue primary administrative responsibilities for the provision of potable water facilities by the Utilities Department and the Department of Engineering and Planning. g. Determine whether there will be adequate potable water capacity to serve the new development no later than the anticipated date of certificate of occupancy issuance or its functional equivalent, prior to approval of a building permit. Maintain the WSFWP Water Supply Facilities Work Plan for a minimum planning period of ten (10) years. The WSFWP addresses issues that pertain to water supply facilities and required needs to serve current and future development within the City's water service area. The City shall review and update the WSFWP at least every five years. Changes to the first five years of the WSFWP shall be included in the annual Capital Improvements Plan update to ensure to consistency between the Potable Water Element and the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). Furthermore, the WSFWP shall be updated within 18 months of any applicable updates to the SJRWMD's Regional Water III - 22 III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES Supply Plan. The WSFWP and subsequent amendments to said plan shall be adopted by the City Commission and incorporated by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. Policy INF 2.1.2: Maintain Potable Water LOS Standard. On a system wide basis, the City shall provide a LOS of at least 144 gallons a day per person. Policy INF 2.1.3: Comply with LOS Standards for Potable Water. All improvements for replacement, expansion or increase in capacity of facilities shall be compatible with the adopted LOS standards for the facilities. Issuance of development orders or permits shall be conditioned upon demonstrated compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local permit requirements for potable water, irrigation quality water, wastewater, drainage, and solid waste facilities. All improvements for replacement, expansion or increase in capacity of facilities shall be compatible with the adopted LOS standards for the facilities as follows: • At least 144 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) of potable water Flow demand shall be established from existing records using the best available data. • Fire flows in single family residential areas shall provide 600 gallons per minute (gpm) at a 20 psi pressure; fire flow for non-residential areas shall provide 1,200 gpm at a 20 psi residual pressure. • Issuance of development orders or permits shall be conditioned upon demonstrated compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local permit requirements for potable water, wastewater, drainage, irrigation quality water and solid waste facilities. OBJECTIVE INF 2.2: Reconcile Existing Potable Water System Deficiencies. The City shall provide capacity to meet water demand for the next twenty years. The City shall address projected water needs improvement program. Policy INF 2.2.1: Initiate Area Wide Planning for Potable Water Systems. The City shall work with appropriate County and State public agencies monitor private wells for contamination from septic tank leakage, the potential for future problems surrounding the withdrawal of potable water resources, and to develop and implement alternative water projects. Also, the City shall work with the SJRWMD to initiate a SJRWMD program or other appropriate areawide approach designed to analyze existing or potential future problems surrounding existing practices of withdrawing potable water resources. Any needed areawide improvements shall be investigated on an areawide basis. The City will work with the SJRWMD and Seminole County to develop alternative water supply sources such as surface water augmentation, brackish groundwater treatment and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system. III - 23 III PUBLIC FACILITIES & COMMUNITY RESOURCES Water Supply Plan OBJECTIVE INF 2.3: Adhere to Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. The City Commission has adoptsed the 10-year WSFWP and subsequent amendments to said Plan 294 :7 and has irinr\rPrlrate d the wmrL Irby reference into the Comprehensive Plan. Policy INF 2.3.1: Coordinate with Appropriate Agencies. The WSFWP will be consistent with the standards and regulations established by the SJRWMD, FDEP, State and other jurisdiction agencies. Policy INF 2.3.2: Coordinate Potable Water Facilities Upgrades. The Water Supply Facilities will be used to prioritize and coordinate the development of future upgrades to existing water facilities and identify alternative water sources in order to meet projected demand. The City shall seek a variety of funding sources to address water supply demand. Water Conservation OBJECTIVE INF 2.4: Conserve Potable Water. The City shall conserve potable water supply by continuing to implement reclaimed water projects and distribute the reclaimed water as a source for non -potable water irrigation. Other conservation measure include requiring the use of water saving fixtures in new construction and mandating use of xeriscape for purposes of reducing demands for irrigation. The City shall also assist in implementing the SJRWMD's emergency water conservation programs. Policy INF 2.4.1: Conserve Potable Water Supply. The following strategies shall be implemented to conserve the City's potable water supply: Potable water supplies may not be used to meet irrigation needs for new developments in the City's utility service area and new potable irrigation meters shall be prohibited. The Cities of Sanford and Lake Mary and Seminole County reached an agreement to reduce groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer by expanding reclaimed water use in lieu of potable water for irrigation. All new development within the City's service area shall utilize a dual distribution system so that irrigation needs are met by using the lowest quality available water. All new developments within the distance listed in the Utilities Manual shall connect to the City's reclaimed water system, where in proximity to an existing connection point, as outlined in the City's "Utilities Standards and Specifications and Design Standards for Water Conservation." Development that are not required to connect to the existing reclaimed water system shall be required to install irrigation lines connected to an alternative water supply system utilizing the lowest quality available water such as capable of connecting to the City's reclaimed water lines when reclaimed water becomes available in the future. All developments shall be required to install an irrigation system. The City's water utility shall continue to use conservation measures that include the use of reclaimed water, improving and accelerating leak detection surveys and repair programs, installing and calibrating meters and stabilizing and equalizing system III - 24 0 1rr, u��ii �u CITY OF ' - SkNFORD WS _ RM X FLORIDA Item No. 1• rC CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 22.178 JULY 1 1, 2022 AGENDA To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission PREPARED BY: Eileen Hinson, AICP - Director of Planning SUBMITTED BY: Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM, City Mana I SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 4697; Comprehensive Plan Amidment — P is Facilities and Community Resources Element and City's Water Fac' sties Work Plan STRATEGIC PRIORITIES: ❑ Unify Downtown & the Waterfront ❑ Promote the City's Distinct Culture ® Update Regulatory Framework ❑ Redevelop and Revitalize Disadvantaged Communities SYNOPSIS: The attached Ordinance was heard by the City Commission on May 23, 2022 and transmitted to Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) for review and comment. FDEO has responded with no comments. The Ordinance is to amend the Public Facilities & Community Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford in accordance with the requirements of Florida's Community Planning Act as amended, requiring every city include policies in their Comprehensive Plan promoting adequate infrastructure, water quality and conservation measures. The City's Water Facilities Work Plan, dated April 2022, is provided as an exhibit to supporting the proposed enactment of Ordinance No. 4697. The Water Facilities Work Plan includes an analysis of the capabilities of the existing water system, a comparison of existing water demand and future needs, and provides projections of a minimum 20-year program for further development of the City's total water system. Recommendations for improvements (capital projects) and projections for handling the increased growth within the service area are incorporated in the work plan. FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT: No additional staffing is anticipated if the Comprehensive Plan text amendment is approved. BACKGROUND: Florida's Community Planning Act, Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes requires the City to provide policies in the Comprehensive Plan addressing future water supply needs within the City's service area. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes the required policies in the Public Facilities & Community Resources Element (Volume 1). Data and analysis are provided in Volume 2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, describing the water supply needs of the City, providing an inventory of existing water facilities, and identifying any problems and needed solutions to correct existing facility deficiencies. Consistent with the Florida Statutes, the analysis addresses coordinating the extension of, or increasing in the capacity of, water facilities to meet future needs while maximizing the use of existing facilities and discouraging urban sprawl. Additionally, policies in the Public Facilities & Community Resources Element encourage conservation of potable water resources and protection of the functions of natural groundwater recharge areas and natural drainage features. The Florida Statutes require that within 18 months of approval of a regional supply plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan be reviewed and any required adjustments made based on the updated regional water supply plan. The City has identified alternative water supply projects, traditional water supply projects as well as conservation and reuse measures necessary to meet the water needs identified in the regional water supply plan within the City's service area. The City is required to provide a work plan, covering at least a 10-year planning period, for building public, private, and regional water supply facilities, including development of alternative water supplies, which are necessary to serve existing and new development within the City's service area. The work plan must be updated, at a minimum, every five years, within 18 months after the governing board of a water management district approves an updated regional water supply plan (§ 163.3177 (6)(c)(3) F.S.). St. John's River Water Management District has adopted an updated regional water supply plan, as a result staff developed a new Water Facilities Work Plan consistent with Florida Statutes and the regional water supply plan. This amendment is necessary to incorporate the City's Water Facilities Work Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is providing, in strike through and underline format, amended policy language to the water supply portion of the Public Facilities & Community Resources Element to achieve the following objectives: • Formally adopt and incorporate the City's Water Facilities Work Plan and future updates of said plan into the Comprehensive Plan. • Meet the statutory requirements of §163.3177(6)(c) and §373.709 of Florida Statutes to provide necessary updates to the Public Facilities & Community Resources Element, and meet the requirement to provide data and analysis to support the Element. • The intent is to replace the data and analysis in the Public Facilities & Community Resources portion of Volume H of the City's Comprehensive Plan without amending Volume II. The proposed ordinance was considered by the City Commission on May 23, 2022. At first reading for the purpose of transmitting the document to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) for compliance review in accordance with the controlling state law. After the hearing on first reading of Ordinance No. 4697 by the City Commission, Ordinance No. 4697 was transmitted to the FDEO for compliance review by the Office of Intergovernmental Programs (OIP). FDEO OIP reviewed the amendment package under the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The FDEO conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important State resources and facilities, Specifically: air and water pollution, wetlands and other surface water of the State; federal and State-owned lands and interests in lands, including State parks, greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; and water and wastewater treatment found no provision that, if adopted, would result in adverse impacts to important State resources subject to the FDEO's jurisdiction. FDEO has on objection to the City enacting Ordinance No. 4697. The statutory process now requires the City Commission consider the enactment of Ordinance No. 4697 upon second reading at an adoption hearing. LEGAL REVIEW: The Assistant City Attorney has reviewed this item and drafted Ordinance No. 4697. The City Commission approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 4697, on May 23, 2022. The City Clerk published notice of the 2nd Public Hearing in the Sanford Herald on July 6, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission enact Ordinance No. 4697 amending the Public Facilities and Community Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Additional comments or recommendations may be presented by staff at the meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to enact Ordinance 4697." Attachments: (0. Communication from FDEO. (2). Ordinance No. 4697 enacting an amendment to the Public Facilities and Community Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan Ron DeSands GOVERNOR The Honorable Art Woodruff Mayor, City of Sanford 300 North Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Dear Mayor Woodruff: D 4.) FLORIDA DEPARTMENTa' ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY June 24, 2022 Dane Eagle SECRETARY The Department of Economic Opportunity ("Department") has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the City of Sanford (Amendment No. 22-01ESR) received on May 26, 2022. The review was completed under the expedited state review process. We have no comment on the proposed amendment. The City should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed the procedures for adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment. In addition, the City is reminded that: • Section 163.3184(3)(b), F.S., authorizes other reviewing agencies to provide comments directly to the City. If the City receives reviewing agency comments and they are not resolved, these comments could form the basis for a challenge to the amendment after adoption. • The second public hearing, which shall be a hearing on whether to adopt one or more comprehensive plan amendments, must be held within 180 days of your receipt of agency comments or the amendment shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by agreement with notice to the Department and any affected party that provided comment on the amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3)(c)1., F.S. • The adopted amendment must be rendered to the Department. Under Section 163.3184(3)(c)2. and 4., F.S., the amendment effective date is 31 days after the Department notifies the City that the amendment package is complete or, if challenged, until it is found to be in compliance by the Department or the Administration Commission. Florida Department of Economic Opportunity I Caldwell Building 1 107 E. Madison Street I Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 245.7105 j www.FloddaJobs.org I www.Twitter.com/FLDEO I www.Facebook.com/FLDEO An equal opportunity employer/program. Auxiliary aids and service are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. All voice telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persons using TTY/TTD equipment via the Florida Relay Service at 711. The Honorable Art Woodruff June 24, 2022 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact Paul Lim, Planning Analyst, by telephone at (850) 717-8511 or by email at Paul.Lim@deo.myflorida.com. Sincerely, Kelly Corvin, CPM, Regional Planning Administrator Bureau of Community Planning and Growth KDC/pl Enclosure(s): Procedures for Adoption cc: Eileen Hinson, AICP, Planning Director, City of Sanford Tara McCue, AICP, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council EXHIBIT "B" Water Facilities Work Plan dated April 2022 Ordinance No. 2022-XXX Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT "B" CffY OF SAMFOu �D 11 1J /t t7 ly FACUT M WORK PLAN 500 West Fulton Street Sanford, Florida 32771 (407) 322 — 6841 CPH Project No. S06202 Date: April 2022 Engineer -COA 3215 Lan&wapc Arehilecl-LC00002YS Archilecl-AA26000026 Sumeyur-LB71d3 Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 City of Sanford Water Supply System 1-1 1.2 Background of the Work Plan 1-1 1.3 Overview of Regional Water Supply Plans 1-3 1.4 Consideration of District Water Supply Plan 1-3 1.5 Economic Impact Statement 1-4 1.6 Evaluation and Appraisal Report Review 1-5 1.7 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1-5 CHAPTER 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-1 2.1 Detailed Description of the Planning Area 2-1 2.1.1 Service Area 2-1 2.1.2 Other Providers in the Area 2-1 2.1.3 Climate 2-1 2.1.4 Topography and Drainage 2-1 2.1.5 Geology and Soils 2-1 2.1.6 Physiographic Provinces 2-4 2.1.7 Surface and Ground Water Hydrology 2-4 2.1.8 Ecology 2-4 2.1.9 Air Quality 2-7 2.1.10 Archaeological and Historical Sites 2-8 2.1.11 Floodplain and Flood Insurance 2-11 2.2 Organization Content 2-11 2.3 Land Use and Development 2-11 2.4 Water Sources, Uses, and Quality 2-13 2.4.1 Water Sources and Uses 2-13 2.4.2 Water Quality 2-13 2.4.3 Source Water Protection 2-16 2.5 Description of Existing Water System 2-16 2.5.1 Water Supply 2-16 2.5.2 Water Treatment 2-18 2.5.3 Water Storage 2-18 1 Contents 2.5.4 High Service Pumping 2-19 2.5.5 Distribution System 2-21 2.5.6 Performance of Existing Water System 2-24 2.5.7 Operation and Maintenance Program 2-24 2.6 Historical Water Usage 2-24 2.6.1 Definition of Water Demands 2-24 2.6.2 Historical Water Usage 2-25 2.7 Reclaimed Water System 2-29 CHAPTER 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNING AREA 3-1 3.1 Future Land Use 3-1 3.2 Population Projections for a Twenty Year Planning Period 3-1 3.3 Forecast of Water Usage 3-3 3.3.1 Design Flow Requirements for a Twenty Year Planning Period 3-3 3.3.2 CUP allocation and Water Demand 3-4 3.3.3 Fire Flow requirement for a Twenty -Year Planning Period 3-8 3.3.4 Raw Water Supply and Water Treatment Requirements for a Twenty Year Planning Period 3-8 3.3.5 High Service Pumping Requirements during Planning Period 3-9 3.3.6 Finished Water Storage Requirements during a Twenty -Five Year Planning Period 3-10 3.3.7 Distribution System Requirements during the Planning Period 3-11 CHAPTER 4.0 WATER FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS 4-1 4.1 Water Treatment Plant No.1 Improvement 4-1 4.2 High Service Pumping Improvements 4-1 4.3 Distribution System Improvements 4-1 4.4 Environmental Effects/impacts 4-2 CHAPTER 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 5-1 5.1 Implementation Schedule of the Facility Improvements 5-1 5.2 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan 5-1 5.3 Summary of the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 5-1 CHAPTER 6.0 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY 6-1 6.1 Alternative Water Supply Project Options 6-1 6.1.1 Surface Water Supply 6-1 Contents 6.1.2 Brackish Groundwater Supply 6.2 Reclaimed Water as an Alternative Water Supply for Irrigation 6.3 Tri-party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 6.4 Reclaimed Water System Interconnections 6.4.1 Reclaimed Water Distribution System Expansions 6.5 Aquifer Storage and Recovery System 6.6 Surface Water Augmentation for Drinking Use 6.8 Conclusion CHAPTER 7.0 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN CHAPTER 8.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES REFERENCES APPENDIX A CURRENT CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT #162 APPENDIX B CITY OF SANFORD REGULATIONS ON PROTECTION OF AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS AND WELLFIELD 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-4 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-9 APPENDIX C TRI-PARTY RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM EXPANSION AND OPTIMIZATION STUDY C-1 APPENDIX D CITY OF SANFORD UTILITIES STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL Im D-1 LIST OF TABLES DESCRIPTION Table 1-1 Economic Impact Statement Table 1-2 Existing Wellfield Allocations in the CUP Contents PAGE NO. Table 2-1 Recent Land Use for The City of Sanford (Acres) Table 2-2 Open Space Requirements for Proposed Land Use Table 2-3 Summary of Existing Ground Water Sources Table 2-4 Inventory of Existing Water Treatment Plant Capacities Table 2-5 Inventory of Existing Water Storage Facilities Table 2-6 Inventory of Existing High Service Pumping Facilities Table 2-7 Peak Distribution System Flow Capacity Table 2-8 Historical Water Usage Table 2-9 Historical Water Production at Main and Auxiliary Plants Table 2-10 Existing Reclaimed Water Sites Table 2-11 Potential Reclaimed Water Sites Table 2-12 Current Available Reclaimed Flows Table 3-1 2020 BEBR Population Projection Table 3-2 Population Projection for City of Sanford Service Area Table 3-3 Projected Water Use Table 3-4 Design Flow Requirements Table 3-5 Well Allocations Table 3-6 Comparison of Projected Water Demand, Facility capacity, and Conditions Table 3-7 Projected Fire Flows Table 3-8 Well and Water Treatment Requirements Table 3-9 Peak Hourly & 75% Fire Flow High Service Pumping Requirements Table 3-10 Water Treatment Storage Requirements Table 4-1 Distribution System Improvements 1-1 1-5 2-12 2-13 2-16 2-18 2-19 2-20 2-24 2-26 2-26 2-35 2-38 2-41 3-1 3-3 3-4 3-4 3-5 Permitted 3-6 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 4-2 Table 5-1 City of Sanford Water and Wastewater 2021 Financial Forecast Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan 5-2 Table 7-1 Reclaim Water Connection Distances Table 7-2 City of Sanford Water Conservation Rate Structure iv 7-2 7-5 Contents LIST OF FIGURES DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. Figure 1-1 Water Service Area 1-2 Figure 2-1 Sanford Soil Types 2-2 Figure 2-2 Drainage Boundaries and Wetlands 2-6 Figure 2-3 Vegetative Communities 2-9 Figure 2-4 Residential Historic Resources 2-10 Figure 2-5 Bodies of Water in Planning Area 2-15 Figure 2-6 Main Water Treatment Plant Site Layout 2-22 Figure 2-7 Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant Layout 2-23 Figure 2-8 Reclamation Water Service Area 2-31 Figure 2-9 Existing Reclaimed Water Sites and Distribution 2-32 Figure 2-10 Current and Potential Water Irrigation Sites 2-33 Figure 2-11 Augmentation System 2-34 Figure 2-12 Beneficial Recharge Area 2-42 Figure 3-1 City of Sanford Future Land Use Map 3-2 Figure 3-2 Predicted Water Demands and CUP Allocations 3-7 Figure 6-1 System Interconnections to Volusia County, Winter Springs and Altamonte Springs 6-5 Figure 6-2 System Interconnection to Oviedo 6-6 Figure 6-3 System interconnection to Volusia County 6-7 V Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan) is to analyze the capabilities of the existing water system, compare those capabilities to current and future needs and to project a minimum 20-year program for further development of the City's total water system. The annual average daily water demand is projected to increase from 7.005 MGD in 2021 to 10.374 MGD in 2040. The Work Plan includes evaluations of the capacities, current improvements, and preliminary plans of future additions. The plan also includes recommendations for improvements (capital projects) and projections for handling the increased growth within the service area. The City's ongoing planning efforts have been based on seeking economical and environmentally sound solutions for water supply and utilizing available alternative water sources. The main components of the Work Plan revolve around the following basic areas: ■ Development and optimization of groundwater supplies ■ Expansion of reclaimed water systems ■ Water conservation program including conservation rate structures ■ Utilization of the St. Johns River 7.30 MGD Augmentation System to meet irrigation demands ■ Development of a recharge program to reduce impacts due to groundwater withdrawals The City proposes the following strategy to meet water demands: 1. Maximize the use of groundwater supplies to meet potable demands. 2. Develop alternative water supply (AWS) sources. 3. Utilize to the maximum extent economically feasible, reclaimed/surface water augmentation from the St. Johns River to meet irrigation demands. 4. Continue the groundwater recharge program in conjunction with Seminole County and City of Lake Mary to offset any impacts caused by groundwater withdrawals. 5. Continue testing the aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system at the Aux Plant. 5. Continue the implementation of water conservation initiatives. Evaluate effectiveness of measures and adjust if necessary. 6. Review and modify land development regulations to affect reduction in potable water use patterns. 7. Continue to require future development to provide utilities for lower quality water for irrigation. 8. Continue to optimize the reclaimed water reuse and disposal within the Tri-Party (City of Sanford, Seminole County, and City of Lake Mary) service area. 9. Cooperate with the District and Seminole County to work on reclaimed water and alternative water supply programs, including Yankee Lake Regional Surface Water Facility, Surface Water Treatment Plant in Site 10, Lake Monroe Surface Water Augmentation System, in order to reduce burden on customer base. 10. Continue to seek partnership with Seminole County and Volusia County and other Cities such as Cities of Lake Mary, Altamonte Springs, Winter Springs and Oviedo to optimize the reclaimed water reuse and disposal. 11. If based on all of the above, the water supplies are not adequate to meet potable water demands; the City will consider utilization of brackish water supplies using reverse osmosis process in the vicinity of the Orlando/Sanford Airport. The City has an active and ongoing plan to meet water demands in the City Service Area and to assist regionally in meeting water needs. The City has successfully worked with the City of Lake ES-1 Executive Sunzmcr� y Mary and Seminole County through the Tri-Party agreement. The reuse/surface water system also has capacity for further expansion regionally to Winter Springs, Altamonte Springs, Oviedo, and Volusia County with the goal of maximizing the use of reclaimed water of all parties. The City will also cooperate with the District to deal with the upcoming issues of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and the Waste Load Allocations (WLA) to the St. Johns River. The Legislature requires that the local governments update the Work Plan within 18 months of the district adopting or updating a Regional Water Supply Plan. The 2020 Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) Regional Water Supply Plan was approved in November 2020. This requires that the City adopt the updated Work Plan and related comprehensive plan amendments by May 2022. ES-2 Chapter 1.0 CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 City of Sanford Water Supply System The City of Sanford owns and operates two water treatment plants (WTPs) to serve the customers within the service area shown on Figure 1-1. WTP No.1 is rated at 10.8 MGD and WTP No.2 is rated at 4.6 MGD under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) public water system (PWS) # 3590205. The WTPs treat ground water from the Floridan Aquifer from four wellfields permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) in the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) No. 162. Table 1-1 summarizes the wellfields and the permitted allocations. 1.2 Background of the Work Plan In 2002, the legislature expanded the local government comprehensive plan (Plan) requirements to strengthen coordination of water supply planning and local land use planning. This was done in response to concerns that the use of groundwater may have reached the potential limits in many areas of the State and that alternative water supplies must be identified, quantified and developed. In addition, implementation of local water conservation strategies and optimization of reclaimed water reuse programs are necessary to reduce the reliance of ground water for potable and irrigation uses. The most significant requirement is completion of a 10-year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan) by all counties and cities within a "priority water resource caution area". These are areas where existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water and conservation efforts may not be adequate to 1) supply water for all existing legal uses and reasonably anticipated future needs and 2) sustain the water resources and related natural systems. The local government's Work Plan must project water demand for at least a 10-year period. The Work Plan will demonstrate that the current and planned water supply facilities and source(s) of water will meet the projected demand. The Work Plan must be adopted as part of the Potable Water Element. The Capital Improvement Element must also be amended to include projects listed in the first five years of the ten-year Work Plan as well as the text of other Plan Elements as appropriate. The Work Plan must be approved by the Department of Economic Opportunity (DOE) and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). Sanford has prepared the original Work Plan in 2007 to meet the criteria set forth by the Legislature. The Legislature also requires that the local governments update the Work Plan within 18 months of the District adopting or updating a Regional Water Supply Plan. The Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) — Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) was approved in 2020. Therefor the City has to adopt the updated Work Plan and related comprehensive plan amendments by May 2022. This updated Work Plan was prepared to coordinate with the adopted CFWI Regional Water Supply Plan and addresses supply and demand for the City of Sanford through the year 2040, ff IL -k! EL LU < < W LU 0 > LL 0 LL ry >-Z w _j < Z co EL ca D LL U) 0 LLI c-, W LLJt d r L) Z CZ). LLI CM Cl C14 Z PARK ORIPARKAVE' 0 ,o o LL < co Ir NO a as c J A-1 0 2 < 6i w C:o 2 > C,4 LU in 0 CL 4VI3,18 < z Lr 2 D 0 C/) LLI 0z LL 0 z C) y z C) < 0 <D 1 (n R g N U y z C) 00 U) i ul R U) 'o 'o w w IX < 0 F- 2 , ') > 'CIA-19 3E)NV80 CD 5' U) w 2 0 uj CL m 0 W < C) -E U U Lo Q to C) Z) 0 U(b) E j- I I I Chapter 1.0 which is a 20-year planning period. 1.3 Overview of Regional Water Supply Plans Per Chapter 373, Florida Statutes regional water management districts are responsible to address the need to allocate water to meet all reasonable -beneficial uses and protect water resources. It is particularly encouraged for counties and municipalities to create regional water supply authorities to coordinate activities for local water resources. In anticipation of the rapid population growth and increasing water demands facing the state and the potential threats to both the economy and natural resources, the Legislature amended the Florida Water Resources Act (Chapter 373, F.S.) in 1997. The amendments required the five Water Management Districts to initiate regional water supply planning in all areas of the state where reasonable anticipated sources of water were deemed inadequate. Four of the Districts were required to complete regional water supply plans (RWSP): Northwest Florida, Southwest Florida, St. Johns River, and South Florida. In November 2015, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) created the Central Florida Water Initiative. A RWSP includes a projection of water demands and an identification of potential sources of water to meet these demands. The RWSP looks forward in time for 20 years and is intended to provide the framework for future water supply decisions in the areas where it has been determined that traditional sources of water are not adequate to provide for future needs while sustaining the water resources and related natural systems. Within these areas existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water and conservation efforts may not be adequate to (1) supply water for all existing legal users and reasonably anticipated future needs and (2) to sustain the water resources and related natural systems. The RWSP identifies potential water supply source options for water supply development, including traditional and alternative sources that will exceed the needs projected by the district. The RWSP also estimates the associated costs for developing these sources. Sources include (1) new ground water wellfields, (2) increased use of reclaimed water, (3) storage reservoirs, (4) surface water withdrawals, (5) aquifer storage and recovery, (6) reverse osmosis/desalination and (7) conservation. The water source options identified in the RWSP represent a "menu" of possible options for water supply development from which local governments, government -owned and privately -owned utilities, self -suppliers and others may choose. The options are provided as reasonable concepts that water users in the region can pursue in their water supply planning. Water users may want to select a water supply option as presented in the plan or combine elements of different options that better suit their water supply needs. Additionally, the plan provides information to assist water users in developing funding strategies for construction of water supply development projects. The goal of the RWSP is to identify sufficient sources of water within the planning region to meet projected water demands. Prior to developing any water supply option, it will be necessary to obtain all applicable permits from various governmental agencies. Following a decision to pursue any option identified in the RWSP, it will be necessary for the interested party(ies) to conduct more detailed engineering, hydrologic, economic and biological assessments to provide the necessary technical support for developing the option. Each RWSP is updated every five years. 1.4 Consideration of District Water Supply Plan The 2020 CFWI RWSP is an update to the 2015 CFWI RWSP Volumes I and II. Similar to the 1-3 Chapter 1.0 2015 RWSP, the 2020 CFWI RWSP concludes that traditional resources will not suffice the projected water demand and population through 2040. The 2020 CFWI RWSP identifies water conservational efforts, water supply and water resource development project options, and recognizes prevention or recovery strategies for targeted minimum flows and minimum water level (MFL) water bodies. Overall, 2020 RWSP builds on top of the 2015 RWSP, and identifies programs and projects that will provide adequate and sustainable water supplies to meet the future demand and projected population growth. The 2020 CFWI RWSP looks at six (6) categories of water, and projects the demand through 2040. Due to the increasing population projection through 2040, groundwater resources will not be enough to meet future demands. Within the six (6) categories, the total water demand is projected to increase 36%; the groundwater resources will be short by 95 MGD. The CFWI RWSP identifies 85 potential water resource projects options, which include 11 brackish groundwater sources, 48 reclaimed water sources, 17 surface water sources, 2 stormwater sources, and 7 management strategies. In addition to water resource project options, the 2020 RWSP provides 21 water conservation projection options that can be utilized to decrease the overall water demand from fresh groundwater reserves. All these are project options identified by the 2020 CFWI RWSP to provide alternatives to the growing water demand in Central Florida. In summary of the 2020 CFWI RWSP, the identified programs and project options are available to ensure that current water demands and future water demands will be met. In order to provide adequate supply, the Districts need to integrate these sustainable approaches which include implementation and expansion of water conservation measures, development of alternative water sources, optimization of groundwater withdrawals, etc. In addition to implementing sustainable water resource programs, there will need to be an effort from the Districts to prepare and address the potential impacts of climate change, specifically the potential increase in flooding events. A guide for local governments in preparing water supply comprehensive plan amendments and water supply facilities work plans, revised July 2012, Florida Department of Community Affairs (Division of Community Planning) was referenced and followed in preparing the updated version of the City's 2021 Work Plan. The City has communicated with the SJRWMD with regards to the relevant aspects of the RWSP. The District has adopted the Tri-Party Optimization Study as part of the RWSP and the City has participated in ASR feasibility study jointly with the District. In addition, the District's RWSP was a main consideration in compiling the Work Plan. Relevant items of discussion were demand projections, appropriate water sources to meet projected water demand, reuse strategies, and use of water conservation strategies. These will be discussed in detail in this Work Plan. 1.5 Economic Impact Statement Table 1-2 contains an Economic Impact Statement. 1-4 Chapter-1.0 TABLE 1- 2 ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT Describe Proiect/Proposal The purpose of this amendment is to comply with Year 2002 legislation to amend the local comprehensive plans to include a ten-year water supply plan as part of the Potable Water Element and make other amendments as required/needed. The goal is to ensure that long-term planning for needed water supplies and facilities match current planning activities and development approvals. Describe the Direct Economic Impact of the Proiect/Proposal upon the Operation of the City There is no direct economic impact as a result of this amendment beyond normal facility planning for future growth. These amendments simply extend the City's normal five-year planning period for water facilities to a ten-year period. Describe the Direct Economic Impact of the Project/Proposal upon the Property Owners/Tax Pavers/Citizens who are expected to be affected Use of alternative water supplies will result in an increase in the cost of water and/or wastewater services. The City increased the rate on Nov 1 s', 2006 by 5% for water and 11 % for wastewater services, plus an annual adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Identify Any Potential Indirect Economic Impacts, Positive or Negative, Which Might Occur as a Result of the Adoption of the Ordinance The extended planning horizon and potential for coordination with local and regional water supplies and users is expected to have a neutral -to -positive economic impact. Citation None. 1.6 Evaluation and Appraisal Report Review The City has addressed the corollary requirements for the Conservation and Intergovernmental Elements within the Support Document to the Water Plan by including an assessment of "current, as well as projected water needs and sources for at least a 10-year period, considering the appropriate regional water supply plan". Additionally, the City will consider the need to revise the Work Plan during the preparation of the next Evaluation and Appraisal Report. 1.7 Comprehensive Plan Amendments The Water Supply Facilities Work Plan will support the Potable Water Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Potable Water Element and Capital Improvements Element will be amended to include any changes made to the Work Plan every five years. Additionally, the Capital Improvements, Conservation, Intergovernmental and Potable Water Elements have been amended to include policies required by the 2002 Legislation to insure the annual update of the Work Plan as necessary, the update of the Capital Improvements Element to maintain the internal consistency of the Comprehensive Plan and to ensure that the District's Regional Plan is considered with each revision. Listed below is a summary of the new Plan amendment and Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) requirements. Each summary describes the reason for the proposed amendments to the Plan. 1-5 Chapter 1.0 Those local governments required to adopt a water supply work plan must comply with the following statutory requirements for water supply and facility planning: 1. Coordinate appropriate aspects of their comprehensive plan with the appropriate water management district's regional water supply plan. [Section 163.3177(4)(a), F.S.] 2. Revise the Potable Water Sub -Element to adopt a water supply facility work plan covering at least a 10-year planning period to meet existing and projected demand. The work plan should address those water supply facilities for which the local government has responsibility and include the facilities needed to develop alternative water supplies. The work plan should also identify conservation and reuse measures to meet future needs. [Section 163.3177(6)(c), F.S.] Revise the Conservation Element to assess current and projected water needs and sources for at least a 10-year planning period. The analysis must consider the existing levels of water conservation, use, and protection and the applicable policies of the water management district, and the district's approved regional water supply plan. In the absence of an approved regional water supply plan, the analysis must consider the district's approved water management plan. [Section 163.3177(6)(d)3, F.S.] 4. Revise the Capital Improvements Element to identify capital improvements projects to be implemented in the first 5 years of the work plan for which the local government is responsible, including both publicly and privately funded water supply projects necessary to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards; and adopt a 5-year schedule of capital improvements to include those projects as either funded or unfunded, and if unfunded, given a level of priority for funding. [163.3177(3)(a)4, F.S.] 5. Revise the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to adopt principles and guidelines to be used to coordinate the comprehensive plan with the regional water supply authority (if applicable) and with the applicable regional water supply plan. [163.3177(6)(h)1, F.S.] During the Evaluation and Appraisal review, determine if comprehensive plan amendments are necessary to reflect statutory changes related to water supply and facilities planning since the last update to the comprehensive plan. If necessary, transmit the amendments to incorporate the statutory changes as appropriate. [Section 163.3191(1) and (2), F.S.] M Chapter- 2.0 CHAPTER 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Detailed Description of the Planning Area 2.1.1 Service Area The planning area for this report is the current water system service area. The City of Sanford is located in north Seminole County, South of the St. Johns River at Lake Monroe. The City is served by a number or arterial highways, including Interstate 4, US 17 & 92, and the Greenway. The water service area extends beyond the Sanford City limits and is shown on Figure IA.There are approximately 27,939 service connections; 1,209 or 4.33% of the service connections are out of the city's jurisdictional limits. 2.1.2 Other Providers in the Area Parts of the City of Sanford's city limits are served by other providers such as a community south of E Lake Mary Blvd and northeast of SR. 417 which is served by Seminole County Utilities. West of W Airport Blvd., a portion is served by Utilities Inc. On the east side of the city on SR 46 from SR 15 towards Volusia County, another portion is served by Midway Canaan Utilities. 2.1.3 Climate The Sanford climate is classified as subtropical and mild. The average maximum temperature for the City is 82.4°F and the average minimum temperature is 60.5 OF. Temperature data has been based on National Weather Service records. The average rainfall for the City of Sanford is 51.18 inches. The maximum recorded rainfall occurring in a 24-hour period is 12-inches. Under normal conditions, the majority of the rainfall occurs between June and October. The prevailing wind direction is to the south with an average velocity of 8.6 mph. 2.1.4 Topography and Drainage Ground elevations within the service area vary from approximately 70-feet to 5-feet above sea level. Surface drainage flows to land -locked lakes or to the St. Johns River water basin. 2.1.5 Geology and Soils Soil types within the water service area are identified in Figure 2-1. Soil types within the water system service area have been obtained from the Soil Survey of Seminole County, Florida prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Soil Conservation Service, issued March 1990. 2-1 W C A Z Q J a F- ^ J lC< LL O C J Q (n as N J � 0 N O O LL r w - U) G U N LL N U. CD O T � O u) u) N N •c N N N C N Q Z 0 U • N v N U O O L N L N N M.= D O U. 'p O N 2 a ru p t0 • r..� '4 W V. (U ut N 'ciN pp 8 10 N cL O O X 8.w IL N C U C J o N w O L T N (fl L 2 L N N •O Y O E N N L C N C C t= H _ O C ,fl L N N d O C N` d N 1 E N r- 16 � O >. N m. N 'O N d C a O N O U fU N N O N a .a � 11 N N u i S Z d C. a mu D_ o (n U N O f- N N O N D `o m w cmN C a O G N Ucu N cA UI N Ul N L N C y C Y C -�• C N C C C y w L ty E c0 O O T. C lD 2 (0 m U O (0 E E o G1 UI Ci c/c .O mo m moo d c fl. [1 U) m -o a— o ._. ¢� Y o ... L ¢� Y y ❑ n_ O C C Q� m (n N E V rn to E vi EY C N— E U and ano (D y H v -O C m ru C D_ C m0 m mu m cu 'O Ncu v� �i ._ • 5 N Ui E C co N O d (b _5.. N W 1 ,b ui v y d m C `m v `m m lT 8 O 0] C C L 9 m > tp O L C m `m ,p Y N O N 'o N O Q Q In Q us m Q 9 N C 4 9 m co N N C N C m C m N m= m m C C 9 y E @ U W N lL ME] Q®©0©Gl0®..®®® Chapter 2.0 A description of the primary soil types listed in the Soil Survey of Seminole County that are within the Water System Service Area is provided below. MINERAL SOILS ON RIDGES IN THE UPLANDS Urban Land-Astatula Apopka: Nearly level to strongly sloping areas of Urban land, excessively drained soils that are sandy throughout, and well drained sandy soils that have a loamy subsoil at a depth of about 40-inches or more; on the uplands. Urban Land-Tavares-Millhopper: Nearly level to sloping areas of Urban land and moderately well drained soils that are sandy throughout or have a loamy subsoil at a depth of about 40-inches or more; on the uplands. MINERAL SOILS ON THE FLATWOOD AND IN SLOUGHS AND DEPRESSIONS Myakka-Eaugllie-Urban Land: Nearly level, poorly drained soils that are sandy throughout or have a loamy subsoil at a depth of 40-inches or more and areas of Urban land; on the flatwoods. St. Johns-Malabar-Wabasso: Nearly level, poorly drained soils that are sandy throughout or have loamy subsoil at a depth of 30-inches or more; on the flatwoods and in sloughs. MINERAL AND ORGANIC SOILS ON THE FLOOD PLAINS AND IN DEPRESSIONS AND SWAMPS Nittaw-Felda-Floridana: nearly level, very poorly drained and poorly drained mineral soils; some are mucky and have clay subsoils at a depth of about 10-inches or more and some are sandy to a depth of 20 to 40-inches and have a loamy subsoil; on the flood plains and in the depressions. Brig hton-Samsula-San ibel: Nearly level, very poorly drained organic and mineral soils; some are mucky throughout, some are mucky and have a sandy layer at a depth of about 30-inches or more, and some are sandy throughout; in depressions and swamps. Pompano-Nittaw-Basinger: Nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained mineral soils; some are sandy throughout, and some are mucky and have a clayey subsoil at a depth of about 10-inches or more; on the flood plains. 2-3 Chanter 2.0 Urban Land-Astatula Apopka is the principal soil type within the service area. A small amount of Nittaw-Felda-Floridana, Brighton-Samsula-Sanibel and Pompano-Nittaw-Basinger soil types are located along the south side of Lake Monroe. Nittaw-Felda-Floridana soil type is located along the west side of Lake Jesup. 2.1.6 Physiographic Provinces The majority of the service area is developed to serve commercial and residential needs. Several small agricultural areas also exist within the service area. The service area varies in ground elevation from a maximum elevation of 70 feet above sea level to a minimum elevation of 5 feet above sea level. The lower elevations occur near Lake Monroe. Different vegetative communities and wetlands exist within the service area. 2.1.7 Surface and Ground Water Hydrology Lakes within the service area are connected lakes and land -locked lakes. Lake Monroe is a connected lake. It is part of the St. Johns River and is a broad area of the river's channel. The St. Johns River originates 100 miles south of Lake Monroe, flows through Lake Monroe and northerly 100 miles to Jacksonville and the Atlantic Ocean. Six tributaries drain into Lake Jesup and Lake Jesup drains into the St. Johns River and the St. Johns drains into Lake Monroe. Land -locked lakes are water bodies that developed in sinkhole depressions. Available ground water sources in the service area consist of the Surficial and Floridan Aquifers. 2.1.8 Ecology 2.1.8.1 General Description of Planning Area Composition The planning area is comprised of urban and open areas. The four well fields, two water treatment plants and the booster pumping station are above the 100-year flood elevation. 2.1.8.2 Wetlands Drainage boundaries and wetlands within the service area are shown in Figure 2-2. Wetlands include forested wetlands, shrub wetlands, herbaceous wetlands, and aquatic wetlands. Forested Wetlands: Complies with the forest crown closure requirements and are the results of natural seeding. Cypress, Bayhead, Hardwood Swamp, and Hydric Hammock are types of forested wetlands. Shrub Wetlands: Includes shrub swamp, shrub bog, and transitional shrub categories. Shrub wetlands are located throughout the central southern sections of the service and are intermixed with herbaceous and forested wetlands. Herbaceous Wetlands: Includes lake shore emergent, water lilies, deep marsh, and shallow marsh. Herbaceous wetlands are generally located in the central and eastern portion of the service area. 2-4 Chapter 2.0 Aquatic Wetlands: Are defined as wetlands with a water table significantly above the ground surface during all seasonal climatic conditions. 2-5 w D t-0 �1) Ul SrN3AV S:— cD ci-2 CD a GZ� a_ U) 0 ; z < LLI z < CO LU of cc) LU z < Chanter 2.0 The existing wetlands are to be protected and preserved from physical and hydrologic alterations. Wetland buffers shall be provided adjacent to all existing wetlands in accordance with the City and County regulations. 2.1.8.3 Environmentally -Sensitive Lands Environmentally sensitive lands are determined by local criteria which further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Conservation Element described in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands have been designated as environmentally sensitive lands and development is not permitted in these areas. The City of Sanford also requires the implementation of protective measures that preserve native plant and animal species. Environmentally sensitive areas within the City of Sanford are designated by their relation to the functions of wetland preservation, surface water management, storage functions of the floodplain, protection of wildlife and wildlife habitats, and promotion of water quality. The city also protects the natural function of soils by the protection against erosion and development in areas with hydric soils. Areas which are crucial to groundwater recharge are protected against development that may be detrimental to the City of Sanford's potable water supply. 2.1.8.4 Listed Plant and Animal Species Various animal and plant species occur in the City of Sanford. These species were discussed in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan. There are various vegetative communities within the city of Sanford. These communities are classified according to the vegetation, soils, and wildlife that occur within each habitat. Schedule M-Environ mentally Sensitive Lands details the preservation of wildlife habitat and protection of upland vegetative communities. These communities are identified in Figure 2-3. Upland Vegetative Communities that exist within the City of Sanford are comprised of pine flatwoods and cabbage palm hammocks. Pine flatwoods contain long -leaf pine and slash pine. The understory of these areas is typically saw palmetto, wiregrass, wax myrtle, fetter bush, and gall berry. Hammock communities contain broad-leaved evergreen trees, live -oak trees, and mixed hardwoods. The wetland communities are comprised of forested wetlands, shrub wetlands, herbaceous wetlands, and aquatic wetlands. The wetland communities have been previously discussed. The proposed improvements will not have adverse effects on endangered species or species of concern. The improvements to the chlorination facilities will be at the existing Main and Auxiliary Plants, which are located in heavily developed areas. 2.1.9 Air Quality The Department of Environmental Protection rates the air quality in the Sanford area as generally good. However, the air quality varies depending on the season and the wind direction. Most of the air pollution in the Sanford area emanates from automobile emissions. The prevailing wind direction is to the south with an average velocity of 8.6 mph. The City of Sanford has one Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) air quality monitor. The monitor is located on top of the courthouse and records data for suspended particulates and ozone. As of June 1998, no violations of federal air quality standards have been 2-7 Chapter 2.0 recorded. 2.1.10 Archaeological and Historical Sites The City of Sanford contains one of the few recognized historic commercial districts in Florida. The Sanford Commercial District is listed on the National Register of Historical Places. Since the City's founding in 1877, the downtown waterfront area has been the center for commercial and governmental activity. The city has implemented a First Street Streetscape Program to help maintain the area's historical character. The comprehensive plan for the City of Sanford identifies that there shall be no loss of historic resources on city -owned property and historic resources on private property shall be protected, preserved, and/or re -used in a manner sensitive to the historic quality of the site. The City of Sanford completed a detailed inventory of historic buildings and residences. These sites are identified in Figure 2-4. 2-8 film 16, Fra 1 M W mom 00 92 Lake 1�onroe Q� :FORT ARKB LLON ARK 46il'rU �� L 0� ❑Ci alp F iL—ill E PAW NTENNI L PARK PARK s j• _ Ci7QQ3 QC9� ° ORGEll ---jo IUHYOPARKET-. - F-AEU -i i c PARK p _ 15 © 600 © _ .. .- _- 7D p-, �'`YA]�.b� 46 Grr19�� RED BUILDING FOOTPRINT BARBER = DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT PARK GTJ 0 RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT _ PUBLIC PARKS NjhScale: 1 "= 550' INVENTORY OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RESIDENCES Dale: 101612017 (// \� FIGURE Photo Date: na SANFORD 2022 WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN 2-4 Project No. N CITY OF SANFORD Biologist:- GIS: RCO SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA Chapter 2.0 2.1.11 Floodplain and Flood Insurance The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Sanford prescribes that the City shall incorporate floodplain protection measures that protect the value and function of the floodplain from encroachment by development. The measures include the reduction of land use density within the floodplain, and the prohibition of septic tanks, hazardous materials, or waste in the floodplain. These measures are taken to protect and maintain the flood -carrying and flood storage capacity of the floodplain. The City is required to maintain consistency with program policies of the Federal Insurance Administration. The city will monitor new cost-effective programs for minimizing flood damage. 2.2 Organization Content The City of Sanford was incorporated as a City in 1877. The City is headed by a commission -elected mayor. As of August 2021, the organizational content of the City Commission is described as follows: Mayor: District 1 Commissioner: District 2 Commissioner: District 3 Commissioner: District 4 Commissioner: City Manager: Art Woodruff Sheena Britton Kerry S. Wiggins, Sr. Patrick Austin Patty Mahany Norton N. Bonaparte Jr. Development within the City of Sanford must comply with local, state, and federal regulations. The City and Seminole County government have adopted a joint resolution for governmental issues related to planning activities in the unincorporated areas, county transportation, participation in the acquisition of Lake Monroe utilities, and road improvement projects. 2.3 Land Use and Development Current land uses are presented in Table 2-1. The land uses for the City of Sanford are presented in acres. Single family residential development accounts for 23.24% of all residential development within the City. The commercial land development comprises 944.01 acres. 2-11 Chapter 2.0 e Recent Landl.-Use4de EXISTING LAND USE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL CATEGORIES Single Family Residential 2,894.03 23.24% Multi -Family Residential 625.77 5.03% Medium High Residential 98.46 0.79% Commercial 944.01 7.58% Office 130.39 1.05% Industrial 636.49 5.11 % Institutional 199.08 1.6% Public Schools 437.5 3.51% Public Facility 2,078.77 16.69% Public Service 413.77 3.32% Recreational 229.02 1.84% Conservation 1,265.51 10.16% Agricultural 554.54 4.45% vacant 1,944.85 15.62% TOTAL 12,452.19 100.0% Source: City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan, November 2009 It is assumed that the City of Sanford will continue to develop based on the following characteristics: • steady population growth ■ accessibility to Orlando and nearby employment centers ■ highway linkage to 1-4, and state roads 17 and 92 ■ substantial vacant land available for development The land use goals for the City of Sanford have been developed to ensure that the best management practices and principles are used to conserve natural resources, promote orderly land use transition, and minimize threats to health, safety, and welfare. In April of 1992, the City of Sanford amended land development regulations to ensure that future land uses will be compatible with the future land use map. Future land uses must comply with other applicable laws, ordinances, and administrative rules concerning land and water resource management. The land development regulations ensure that commercial development is comprised of a wide range of business uses. The location and distribution of commercial development is determined by impact on transportation facilities, need of commercial activity, and relationship to surrounding land uses and natural systems. Industrial and residential development follows similar regulations. For land development, the City of Sanford has prescribed a minimum open space requirement. The minimum requirements are described in Table 2-2. According to the Section 163.3180(2)(a), F.S., the local government must consult with the applicable water supplier to determine whether there will be adequate water supplies to server the new development no later than the anticipated date of certificate of occupancy issuance or its functional equivalent, prior to approval of a building permit. 2-12 Chapter 2.0 2.4 Water Sources, Uses, and Quality 2.4.1 Water Sources and Uses 2.4.1.1 Major Bodies of Water in Planning Area A number of small individual lakes exist within the planning area. Closed basins drain to these individual lakes. Two major lakes, Lake Jesup and Lake Monroe are part of the St. Johns River basin. The St. Johns River flows north to Jacksonville and the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 2-5 shows major bodies of water within the service area. Water Sources for Potable Use There are three main hydrogeologic units underlying the Seminole County area: the surficial aquifer system, the intermediate confining unit, and the Floridan aquifer system. The ground water source for potable water for the City of Sanford is the Floridan aquifer. This aquifer system is one of the most productive aquifer systems in the United States. It underlies all of Florida and parts of Georgia and South Carolina for a total approximate area of 100,000 square miles. Water Sources for Irrigation The sources of irrigation water include the surface water from St. Johns River, Lake Monroe, brackish water, and ground water from the surficial aquifer. In addition, the City of Sanford is operating a successful reclaimed water system which uses the reclaimed water for irrigation to the maximum degree. 2.4.2 Water Quality The water quality in the Floridan aquifer varies depending on its location. Water in the Upper Floridan aquifer is generally of acceptable quality for domestic use in the Northern and western portions of SJRWMD (SJRWMD, DWSP 2006). There are three water types in the Upper Floridan aquifer: calcium bicarbonate type, calcium bicarbonate and sodium chloride type (CDM, 2003). The calcium bicarbonate and sodium chlorite water types are the most important in Sanford. The former type has low concentration of sodium, chloride, and dissolved solids; and the latter type results from the mixing of freshwater and sea water. The St. Johns River and Lake Monroe are the primary surface water resources of the study area. Normally the St. Johns River flows through Lake Monroe and northerly to Jacksonville and the Atlantic Ocean. Water quality may vary seasonally, especially during the summer months when nutrient and suspended solids levels are high. Algae blooms frequently occur under these conditions. The water quality of the treatment system is tested as prescribed by the water quality standard of 2-13 Chapter 2.0 the Florida Administrative Code under section 62-550. The results of the City's 2021 annual water quality analysis are included in the Appendix A. These values are an average of the well and finished water quality. The most recent analysis indicates that no maximum contaminant levels for primary and secondary water quality standards have been violated. The primary and secondary water quality parameters are tested every three years, with the exception of nitrate, nitrite, total nitrate and nitrite, and dichloroethylene, which are tested annually. Total trihalomethanes are tested quarterly. The results of a recent analysis of individual well water quality are included in Appendix A. Samples were taken from each of the wellfields. The individual wells sampled include: Twin Lakes Well #2, Oregon Avenue Well #1, Golf Course Well #5, and Hidden Lakes Well #11. Analysis of the well water samples indicates that each of the parameters can be treated to drinking water standards using the existing water supply system. 2-14 a LO Vr N a U- O U v m o iQ ti R a� w 4D!!O uwawe� U Q Ci ? _ ai - -UJ Q z Q mCKa _ J z w F • z Jmc Q j z a cn O ✓� z z �LL O w Q) U FLL N a a _gix.Mile Gree k �' O of J I _ � Lf)'^ r,.-i0 'O r� � vJ 1, N (�— co _ `- �� N� g _� W I b cc - O f C� iv1 U l N Q ��' -J I . �-- v Q . �,. a J _ o Cl O w to J J �J 0.1W' a ) Jk. Z . JLS . �.'\ O�GG Z W U. -- v �, —c p D, CD �' c O n col _ t: Z O . -o -- Imo. N U) y - .. 3 ca AN .o 0 0 �t!'IM31ft`�—cc � � CD m p a a` m --- C O -- m O N fu V) a U am . fB 77 c c (1) U CO U U Chu>>ter 2.0 2.4.3 Source Water Protection The City of Sanford has developed comprehensive standards to protect water resources. Surface water management systems have been designed to control stormwater runoff. The City requires agriculture activities to use best management principles and practices to reduce pesticide and fertilizer run-off. Water quality is protected by the regulation of wastewater treatment systems. New residential developments within the City of Sanford wastewater collection and disposal system are required to connect to the public wastewater system. In areas not served by the public wastewater system, the on -site treatment and disposal systems must be approved by the Seminole County. Areas outside the Sanford City limits, but within the service area must also comply with the city wastewater collection and treatment requirements. The Floridan and Surficial Aquifer recharge areas are protected under City policy. The City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) establishes the requirements for the protection of the aquifer recharge areas and wellfields. The Section 5.0 Protection of Aquifer Recharge Areas and Section 6.0 Wellfield Protection in the LDRs are attached in Appendix B. A map of the wellfield protection areas is also attached in Appendix B . Mining activities, resource extraction, junkyards, and outdoor storage of hazardous materials and wastes is prohibited in areas that serve to recharge the aquifers. The ground water supply used for the City of Sanford is not under the direct influence of surface water. 2.5 Description of Existing Water System The City of Sanford owns and operates two water treatment plants (WTPs) to serve the customers within the service area shown on Figure 1-1. WTP No.1 is rated at 10.8 MGD and WTP No.2 is rated at 4.6 MGD. They are operated under the FDEP PWS permit # 3590205. 2.5.1 Water Supply The WTPs treat ground water from the Floridan Aquifer from four wellfields permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) in the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) No. 162. An inventory of the existing wells tabulating the year installed, well diameter, well pump capacity, well depth, casing depth and the pump motor horsepower is presented in Table 2-3. Figure 1-1 shows service area for the City's potable water system. Figure 1-1 also shows the locations of all active potable water wells. Private wells are mainly used for irrigation. •gxistj• • • a Total Pump Existing or Date Type of Wellfield Well or Casing Casing or Facility Pump Dia. Depth Depth Capacity Proposed Drilled Use Number (in) (ft.) (ft) (GPM) (Date) Name 1 8 199 1956 CAP PROD Wellfield 1 2 12 80 CAP PROD (Hidden 3 8 84 CAP PROD Lake) 4 8 226 1956 CAP PROD 2-16 Chapter° 2.0 Wellfield or Facility Name Well or Pump Number Casing Dia. (in) Casing Depth {ft.) Total Depth (ft) Pump Capacity (GPM) Date Drilled Existing or Proposed (Date) Type of Use 5 12 95 CAP PROD 6 6 191 CAP PROD 7 12 162 325 CAP PROD 7R 24 55 410 2,000 2013 EXIS PROD 8 12 350 375 1961 CAP PROD 8R 24 55 500 1,500 2014 EXIS PROD 9 (AAC0032) 12 UNK 303 700 1984 EXIS PROD 10 AAC0035 12 122 382 700 1984 EXIS PROD 11 AAC0033 8 140 328 350 1984 CAP PROD 12 AAC0034 18 32 300 700 1984 EXIS PROD ASR AAK1440) 10 530 630 700 2007 EXIS PROD 1 (AAH7788) 6 356 545 700 1961 EXIS PROD 2 (AAH7789) 8 392 540 700 1961 EXIS PROD Wellfield 2 3 (AAC0025) 8 437 525 700 1964 EXIS PROD (Golf 4 (AAC0024) 8 402 536 300 1964 EXIS PROD Course) 5 (AAC0022) 8 402 550 700 1975 EXIS PROD 6 (AAC0023) 8 437 565 700 1975 EXIS PROD 7 8 350 425 700 1981 CAP PROD 1 (AAC0026) 12 400 700 1,500 1985 EXIS PROD Wellfield 3 2 (AAC0030) 12 350 607 1,000 1985 EXIS PROD (Oregon 3 (AAC0027) 12 350 578 1,000 1985 EXIS PROD Ave.) 4 (AAC0029) 12 350 650 1,000 1985 EXIS PROD 5 (AAC0028) 12 350 575 1,000 1985 EXIS PROD 1 Wellfield 4 2 (AAC0031) 12 147 535 1,500 1989 EXIS PROD (Twin Lakes) 3 (AAG0690) 26 39 500 1,000 2002 EXIS PROD 4 2,000 PROPOSED PROD Source: August 2019 Sanitary Survey Report 2-1 7 Chapter 2.0 2.5.2 Water Treatment The Main and Auxiliary water treatment plants provide treatment for the Sanford potable water supply. Raw water is pumped from Wellfield Nos. 2 (Golf Course), 3 (Oregon Ave.), and 4 (Twin Lakes) to the Main Water Treatment Plant for treatment. Treatment at the Main WTP consists of aeration, chlorination, fluoridation, and polyphosphate as corrosion inhibitor/chemical stabilization. Raw water is pre -chlorinated and injected with polyphosphate before storage and aeration for the removal of gases. The finished water is injected again with sodium hypochlorite and hydrofluorosilic acid before entering the high service pumps and distributed into the potable water system. Raw water from Wellfield No. 1 (Hidden Lake undergoes treatment at the Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant. The process consists of ozone treatment for the removal of hydrogen sulfide followed by granular activated carbon treatment for the removal of total organic carbon, and pre -chlorination before storage into the ground storage tanks. The finished water is then pumped into the distribution system by high service pumps after injection of polyphosphate and hydrofluorosilic acid, and post -chlorination. The site layouts for the Main and Auxiliary Plants are shown in Figures 2-6 and Figure 2-7 respectively. A tabulation of the well capacity, on -site ground storage capacity and high service pumping capacity of each of the water treatment plants is provided in Table 2-4. 2-4 Plant Location Inventory of Existing, Well Capacity,Service, Watpr Treatment Well Capacity, CapacitiesTable High High Service, Ground GPM MGD GPM MGD Storage, gal Auxiliary 6,650 9.58 4,000 5.76 1,500,000 Main 11,800 16.99 10,500 15.12 1,500,000 Total 18,450 26.57 14,500 20.88 3,000,000 Largest Pump Out 16,450 23.69 11,500 16.56 of Service Source: August 2019 Sanitary Survey Report 2.5.3 Water Storage Both the Sanford Main WTP and Auxiliary WTP pump have a ground storage capacity of 1,500,000 gallons on site. At the Sanford Main WTP, the two ground storage tanks are rated at a capacity of 750,000 gallons each. There is additional 250,000 gallons available as elevated water storage in the distribution system. The Sanford Auxiliary WTP provides 1,500,000 gallons of ground storage, one rated at 500,000 gallons and the other at 1,000,000 gallons. An elevated storage tank located on Mellonville Ave provides an additional 250,000 gallons for storage in the distribution system. A booster station on French Avenue rated at 1,000,000 gallons provides additional storage to the City's potable water system. A tabulation of the ground storage tanks and the elevated storage tanks is provided in Table 2-5. 2-18 Chapler 2. 0 Location Table 2-5 Inventory of Existing Water Storage Ground Storage Storage Tank Material Capacity (GAL) Ali Elevated Storage Capacity (GAL) ) Overflow Elevation (ft) Tank Ht. To Overflow (ft) Main Plant 750,000 Concrete N/A N/A N/A 750,000 Concrete N/A N/A N/A Auxiliary Plant 500,000 Concrete N/A N/A N/A 1,000,000 Concrete N/A N/A N/A Mellonville Ave. N/A Steel 250,000 164 135 French Ave. & 131h St. 1,000,000 Concrete N/A N/A N/A Silver Lake Court N/A Steel 250,000 186 144 Total 4,000,000 500,000 Source: August 2019 Sanitary Survey Report 2.5.4 High Service Pumping A tabulation of the existing high service pumping units is provided in Table 2-6. 2-19 Chapter 2.0 inventory of Existin High Service Year No. Of Location Installed Pumps Pumping Facilities Pump Capacity Motor Size AuxiliaPowery (GPM) (HP) kW Main Plant 1964 1 3,000 200 600 1964 1 3,000 200 600 1964 1 3,000 200 600 1990 1 1,500 100 600 Total 10,500 Auxiliary Plant 1984 1 2,500 150 2005 1 1,500 100 2012 5 1,100* 20 Total 4,000 Total High Service Pumping Capacity 14,500 *The 1,106 GPM pumps located in the Auxiliary plant serve as booster pumps, a backwash pump, and a standby booster bump, and is not included in the pumping capacity calculation. The existing 300 KW diesel generator at the Auxiliary Plant and the 600 KW diesel generator at the Main Plant currently provide sufficient back-up power for each of the plants. A 275 kW diesel generator with auto startup was installed in 2012 at the Auxiliary plant to provide additional power to the ozone, GAC, lift station and associated pumps. The Main plant has a 1,000 gallon underground storage tank (UST) equipped with double -wall protection, a spill bucket, and monitoring well. This tank complies with the current regulations for USTs. The Auxiliary Plant has a 500 gallon above ground storage tank. The above ground tank has a containment area and also complies with the current regulations for above ground tanks. The French Ave. & 13th Street Plant has a double wall above grade storage tank beneath the generator. 2-20 Chapter 2.0 2.5.5 Distribution System Figure 1-1 presents the water distribution system within the service area of the City. Finished water is stored in the ground storage tanks at each of the water treatment plants, a 1,000,000 gallon ground storage tank at French Avenue and 13th Street, and two separate elevated storage tanks. Finished water is pumped to the distribution system from each of the water treatment plants and from the 1,000,000 gallon ground storage tank at French Avenue and 13th Street. Finished water will also flow directly to the distribution system from any of the two elevated storage tanks. The peak distribution system flow that can be delivered from each of the water storage tanks (ground and elevated) is tabulated in Table 2-7. 2-21 W 1S H1SZ 'M a e I I oW ea e SNz Ky m 6 � I 67 W 0 I o I � H m x =PEo5F =¢a I R z 1 1 I I ' I i I I a =ate ' I I ' 1 I Wso I 1 92 ag 1 F i W _QW :7 4 N x_ U. 3 Q Q J Z 0 CD Wa ON ca W rI I e, a3 W L N LL � - 3 � a \ o WZ �g `CD 3a .. W M aF <F. c 6y OaY N N a ' s $ b9 � 66G�i e t h w � k Yo c 6� B i ee .� ChgEt 2.0 Peak Distribution System- Flow 0. Ground High Service Pumping Elevated Elevated Max Dist. System Location Storage Capacity* Storage Storage** Flow (GAL) (GPM) (MGD) (GAL) (GPM) (GPM) Main Plant 1,500,000 7,500 10.80 N/A N/A 7,500 Auxiliary Plant 1,500,000 4,000 5.76 N/A N/A 1,000 French Avenue & 1,000,000 4,600 6.62 N/A N/A 1,600 13th Street Mellonville Ave & NA NA NA 250,000 312 312 13th Street East Lake Mary Blvd. NA NA NA 250,000 312 312 Total 4,000,000 16,100 23.18 500,000 624 10,724 * Total high service pumping capacity is based on the largest pumping unit at the Main Plant being out of service and both high service pumps at the Auxiliary plant and the French Avenue Plant operating ** Elevated storage flow capacity is based on the elevated tank being 75% full and 75% of the tank total volume being delivered to the distribution system over a ten hour period. 2.5.6 Performance of Existing Water System The existing water system provides 26.57 MGD with all wells in service. The existing storage capacity is 4.0 MG ground storage and 0.5 MG elevated storage. The high service pumps provide 23.18 MGD with the largest pumping unit out of service at the Main Plant. The current system provides sufficient water supply to meet the current demands of the service area. As the population increases, improvements will be necessary to meet future demands. 2.5.7 Operation and Maintenance Program The City periodically review the water supply capacity to adjust for population growth and water demands. The Main plant is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Periodic visits are made to the Auxiliary plant and Booster plant. Existing and proposed equipment will be maintained by the plant staff. Replacement parts and service for the equipment are available through local suppliers. 2.6 Historical Water Usage 2.6.1 Definition of Water Demands Water demands are expressed as an average day demand, maximum day demand, peak hour demand, and fire flow demand. Average Day Demand: The average day demand is the total water consumed during a calendar year divided by 365 days. Flow rates vary daily and seasonally. The City's historical monthly water reports were used to determine the total amount of water consumed per year. Maximum Day Demand: The maximum day demand is the maximum amount of water delivered during a 24-hour period. The City staff records the maximum daily flow each month. Historical monthly water reports were used to determine the maximum day 2-24 Chapter 2.0 demand. The ratio of the maximum daily demand divided by the average daily demand is known as the "maximum day demand factor." Peak Hour Demand: The peak hour demand is the maximum flow that must be supplied during the hour of greatest water use. The "peak hour demand factor" is the ratio of the peak hour demand to the average day demand. Peak hour demand rates are not normally recorded. Based on the available data and published guidelines, a "peak hour demand factor" of 2.5 will be used for design. Fire Flow: Fire flow is the flow rate of water required to fight a major fire. The required fire flow capacity depends on many factors such as population, type of facility being protected, type of construction, value of improvements, and the level of protection desired. The National Board of Fire Underwriters and the American Insurance Association have adopted a formula that relates the recommended fire flow to the entire city service population. The formula for the recommended fire flow is calculated by: Recommended Fire Flow (GPM) _ [1020*(P)0.5]*[1-0.01*(P)0.5 where P is Population in Thousands. Experience in Central Florida has shown that the recommended total service area fire flows computed by the National Board of Fire Underwriters are rarely available. For design purposes, fire flow is taken as 75% of the computed service area fire flow. For example, seventy-five percent of the computed recommended total service area fire flow for a service area population of 64,718 is 5,659 GPM. 2.6.2 Historical Water Usage The water usage of the service area based on monthly operation reports (MOR) submitted to the FDEP is tabulated in Table 2-8 for the years of 2010 through 2021. The maximum day demand factor was determined by the ratio of the average monthly maximum day demand to the average monthly average day demand. Historical water usage data from the Main Water Plant and the Auxiliary Water Plant from 2013 to 2021 is tabulated in Table 2-9. Data is taken from the water treatment plants monthly flow reports for historical water production. 2-25 Chapter• 3.0 Year Annual Population Usage (MG) Table 2-8 Historical Water .- Per Average Day Usage Demand Capita (MGD) GPDC Maximum Maximum Day Day Demand (MGD) Demand Factor 2010 58,939 2,507.5 116.6 6.870 9.434 1.37 2011 58,222 2,344.8 110.3 6.424 9.485 1.48 2012 57,638 2,214.1 105.2 6.066 9.207 1.52 2013 58,229 2,198.2 103.4 6.022 8.045 1.34 2014 59,309 2,339.7 108.1 6.410 11.533 1.80 2015 60,156 2,367.2 107.8 6.486 9.363 1.44 2016 60,943 2,331.0 104.8 6.386 8.846 1.39 2017 61,289 2,310.3 103.3 6.329 8.576 1.35 2018 62,064 2,314.9 102.2 6.342 9.191 1.45 2019 63,298 2,337.5 101.2 6.404 8.588 1.34 2020 64,927 2,408.5 101.6 6.599 8.496 1.29 2021 Ay 67,054 2,556.7 104.5 7.005 9.201 1.31 Table 2-9 Historical Water 2-26 Chapter 2. D Table BMW Historical Water Productilon,at ater Treatment Plant Main and Auxiliary Plants Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant Average 7YeaTr7MonthlyFlow Daily Flow MGD) Monthly Flow MG Daily Flow (MGD)(MGD) Daily Flow 182. a,: 5.881 Plant OOS for construction 0.000 Apr-14 183.445 6.115 Plant OOS for construction 0.000 May-14 203.041 6.550 Plant OOS for construction 0.000 Jun-14 190.926 6.364 Plant OOS for construction 0.000 Jul-14 152.173 4.909 49.925 2.774 Aug-14 119.204 3.845 95.836 3.195 Sep-14 126.715 4.224 66.398 2.213 Oct-14 134.034 4.324 53.138 1.714 Nov-14 118.996 3.967 66.563 2.219 Dec-14 127.476 4.112 82.981 2.677 Jan-15 118.747 3.831 414.841 1.233 Feb-15 103.334 3.691 81.606 2.633 Mar-15 114.580 3.696 73.882 2.639 Apr-15 107.630 3.588 80.286 2.590 May-15 140.894 4.545 79.633 2.654 Jun-15 130.656 4.355 82.053 2.647 Jul-15 123.919 3.997 79.097 1.398 Aug-15 134.630 4.343 85.712 2.765 Sep-15 116.110 3.870 76.646 2.472 Oct-15 126.456 4.079 67.638 Nov-15 116.038 3.868 91.975 2.967 Dec-15 111.957 3.612 83.751 Jan-16 110.023 3.549 87.225 2.814 Feb-16 103.199 3.559 80.086 2.354 Mar-16 114.375 3.690 83.281 2.686 Apr-16 1 111.841 3.728 82.752 1.634 May-16 124.103 4.003 82.753 2.669 Jun-16 116.612 3.887 80.760 2.692 Jul-16 129.169 4.167 83.959 2.708 Aug-16 131.284 4.235 83.413 2.691 Sep-16 110.109 3.670 80.192 2.673 Oct-16 121.282 3.912 75.588 2.483 Nov-16 117.842 3.928 79.472 2.649 Dec-16 113.150 3.650 80.724 2.604 2-27 Chapter 2.0 Historical Water .d -uctio.n Main Water Treatment Plant at Main and Auxiliary Plant's Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant Average Year Monthly Flow MG Daily Flow MGD) Monthly Flow MG Daily Flow (MGD) Daily Flow (MGD) Jan-17 108.396 3.497 79.391 2.561 Feb-17 102.150 3.648 72.133 2.576 Mar-17 125.442 4.047 79.058 2.550 Apr-17 132.843 4.428 79.135 2.638 May-17 135.638 4.375 78.068 2.518 Jun-17 114.909 3.830 70.678 2.356 Jul-17 122.080 3.938 75.941 2.450 Aug-17 117.740 3.798 73.161 2.360 Sep-17 115.599 3.853 65.439 2.181 Oct-17 116.974 3.773 71.455 2.305 Nov-17 116.253 3.875 69.086 2.303 Dec-17 Jan-18 114.970 115.221 3.709 Average 3.717 73.897 71.092 2.384 2.293 6.329 Feb-18 114.665 4.095 64.411 2.300 Mar-18 132.411 4.271 69.940 2.256 Apr-18 120.689 4.023 69.322 2.311 May-18 126.216 4.071 67.679 2.183 Jun-18 121.165 4.039 69.594 2.320 Jul-18 119.686 3.861 74.916 2.417 Aug-18 198.263 4.138 72.481 2.338 Sep-18 130.220 4.341 65.109 2.170 Oct-18 131.110 4.229 70.371 2.270 Nov-18 117.478 3.916 70.395 2.347 Dec-18 117.469 3.789 74.771 2.412 Jan-19 119.832 3.866 69.382 2.238 Feb-19 113.081 4.039 63.633 2.273 Mar-19 125.314 4.042 69.558 2.244 Apr-19 121.412 4.047 66.952 2.232 May-19 138.071 4.454 71.072 2.293 Jun-19 130.317 4.344 65.310 2.184 Jul-19 128.966 4.160 68.632 2.214 Aug-19 127.026 4.098 71.205 2.297 Sep-19 129.576 4.319 67.768 2.259 Oct-19 134.572 4.341 70.977 2.290 Nov-19 123.593 4.120 69.878 2.329 Dec-19 119.855 3.866 71.342 2.301 2-28 Chapter 2.0 Table 2-9 Historical -Water Prodjuction-at-Main and Auxiliary Plants Main Water Treatment Plant Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant Average Year Monthly Flow MG Daily Flow MGD) Monthly Flow MG Daily Flow (MGD) Daily Flow (MGD) 71.313 2.300 Jan-20 122.828 3.962 Feb-20 111.755 3.854 66.965 2.309 Mar-20 137.289 4.429 70.309 2.268 Apr-20 125.300 4.177 70.147 2.338 May-20 143.077 4.615 68.378 2.206 Jun-20 137.589 4.586 65.322 2.177 Jul-20 140.034 4.517 69.822 2.252 Aug-20 140.005 4.516 70.394 2.271 Sep-20 132.462 4.415 67.701 2.257 Oct-20 136.346 4.398 71.600 2.340 Nov-20 123.357 4.112 71.678 2.389 Dec-20 Jan-21 128.324 133.695 4.139 4.313 73.945 72.968 2.385 2.354 Feb-21 116.054 4.145 63.598 2.271 Mar-21 132.037 4.259 83.023 2.678 Apr-21 134.121 4.471 82.296 2.743 May-21 147.952 4.773 84.079 2.712 Jun-21 137.232 4.574 82.840 2.761 Jul-21 132.456 4.273 82.270 2.654 Aug-21 135.185 4.361 81.869 2.641 Sep-21 132.450 4.415 81.733 2.725 Oct-21 134.984 4.354 85.624 2.762 Nov-21 123.342 4.111 84.167 2.806 Dec-21 127.559 4.115 86.315 2.784 2.7 Reclaimed Water System Wastewater is provided advanced secondary treatment at the Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility and the plant effluent is used for irrigation of areas with public access. Reclaimed water is used for plant service water at the North Water Reclamation Facility, irrigation of parks, irrigation of landscaped areas along roads and highways, Seminole Community College, and residential areas. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation and other uses significantly reduce the daily consumption of potable water. From a historical analysis, the per capita usage of water has decreased. The construction of the Sanford Water Reclamation Facility and the Sanford South Water Resource Center (SSRC) has had a direct effect on the potable water consumption. Future expansion of the system may further reduce potable water consumption. A reclaimed water interconnection constructed in 2015 between Volusia County Utilities and Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility added an additional 1.5 MGD to the reuse system. Figure 2-8 shows 2-29 Chapter• 0 reclaimed water service area and Figure 2-9 presents the reclaimed water sites. Table 2-10 lists existing reclaimed water sites and Table 2-11 lists potential reclaimed water sites. Figure 2-10 shows extent of the distribution system. Currently, the City has Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility (SNWRF) with a capacity of 7.3 MGD and the surface water augmentation system with a capacity of 7.3 MGD. The Surface Water Augmentation System was developed and placed into service in spring of 2002. A pilot -testing program was performed to determine the treatment necessary to utilize the St. Johns River as an irrigation source. The most cost effective treatment at the time was determined to be direct filtration utilizing dynasand deep bed filters preceded by polymer and alum addition for coagulation and color reduction. The augmentation system was constructed at the Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility as shown on Figure 2-11. This system has been updated to include an Actiflo system which utilizes microsand as a seed for floc formation. Water is withdrawn from Lake Monroe via the existing outfall pipe previously used to discharge effluent to the lake. The water is filtered and blended with the reclaimed water produced at the Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility. The 3.0 MGD Sanford South Water Resource Center was completed and will be placed into operation in early 2007. Table 2-12 summarizes the current available reclaimed/augmentation flows including the reclaimed water capacity from the Seminole County. Seminole County is expanding their reuse system to include residential irrigation and as such, needs additional and more reliable supplies. The Cities of Lake Mary and Sanford will also benefit by increased and more reliable sources of reclaimed and augmentation water supplies, decreasing the use of groundwater sources and conserving it for drinking water supply. In addition, expansion of recharge basins will reduce the impacts of groundwater withdrawals for the Tri-Party. Figure 2-12 shows the identified potential recharge sites. Reclaimed distribution lines are installed throughout the Regional Service Area and all new developments are required to utilize reclaimed/augmentation water for irrigation thus conserving our groundwater supplies for potable use. The most significant irrigation demands along the 1-4 Corridor are in an area that provides the maximum recharge benefit to each party's well field, providing further benefits to the program. To encourage the use of the reclaimed water, the 2020 CFWI RWSP identifies different types of projects that would increase the availability of the reclaimed water distribution system. The projects are listed in Table D-1 of the 2020 Final CFWI RWSP, Solutions Strategies Volume IIA. The projects would expand the extent of the reclaimed water distribution system, increase plant capacity, and encourage regional interconnections among other criteria. Reclaimed Water Treatment Upgrades The City is planning on adding a 10 MG ground storage tank at the SNWRF, along with new transfer and distribution pump stations. This project will provide additional reclaimed water storage for the City of Sanford to utilize reclaimed water, compensating for the additional water demand. 2-30 cn v 1 .US z r J J f � a g t m u DR PX AVE �1 C o j No 83 o Od I W 00 UI N Ll. Z Q G J IL w Y U) co F J U tY w LL O LL Q (L Q a cn a LL D O w w ~ U QN cr N —� N U� wo tj�N O 1 ] >O 1: o O?si v �I Z V 4 s� ao o ,• m i `7V Cc O o Q N O y (n a � t U_ � •L � � � m "- o 41 U t0 .00 P O - - U) 0 C C L Y of c0 j C C 1 ( U) cn F- a � 'QA"IB 0 0 d 30NeaO R d - - - - - - - - U U> U y CV co d- CO co N N Cl) -I ❑ I P J. w c Q �� O c ir ILI L4 — ol -IT 71 cc Ir El -7777 tt ga Ti Chapter 2.0 No. -oSite 7S�ite! IrrigatioSize (Acres) Disposal Capacity (MGD) 1 Bel -Air Palm Way 0.8 0.0032 2 Sanford City Hall 1.5 0.0035 3 Bel -Air Rose Way 1.0 0.0039 4 9th St. & Oak Ave. Park 2.2 0.0051 5 Centennial Park 2.2 0.0051 6 Elm Avenue Park 2.2 0.0051 7 Jaycee Park 2.2 0.0051 8 Southside Elementary School 2.2 0.0051 9 Ft. Mellon - Civic Center 2.5 0.0058 10 Memorial Park 2.5 0.0060 11 Big Inch - Goldsboro 3.0 0.0070 12 Big Inch - Spaghetti Bowl 3.0 0.0070 13 Ft. Mellon - Lake Carolina 3.7 0.0086 14 Coastline Park 4.2 0.0098 15 Big Inch #2 4.3 0.0100 16 School Board Offices 5.0 0.0110 17 Speer Park 1.5 0.0116 18 Goldsboro Elementary School 20.2 0.0124 19 Bay Avenue Park 2.4 0.0140 20 Pinecrest Elementary School 10.3 0.0145 21 Chase Park 6.8 0.0158 22 McKibben Park 7.0 0.0163 23 Nursery 6.4 0.0174 24 Northstar Business Park 23.6 0.0183 25 Stadium 8.0 0.0186 26 Ft. Mellon Playground 8.7 0.0201 27 Ft. Mellon Ballfield 9.9 0.0230 28 Pinehurst Park 10.0 0.0233 29 Crooms School of Choice 15.5 0.0251 30 Lake Gem Park 3.6 0.0279 31 Starke Park 5.0 0.0291 32 County Services (Five Points) 83.6 0.0294 33 Groveview 6.1 0.0355 34 Sanford North WRF 15.4 0.0358 35 Groveview Add'I Park 6.9 0.0535 36 Mayfair Neighborhood 85.7 0.0543 37 Hovnanian Park 11.0 0.0256 38 Sanford Middle School 11.9 0.0585 2-35 Chapter 2.0 Site No. ExistingIR Res Irrigation Site Size (Acres) Disposal Capacity (MGD) 39 Sanford Central Park 78.3 0.0608 40 Neighborhood: Country Club, Mayfair Circle 56.1 0.0782 41 Seminole High & Lakeview Middle Schools 60.2 0.0826 42 Cemetery 27.3 0.1059 43 Neighborhood: Santa Barbara Area 174.3 0.1260 44 Beardall Ave. Groves 68.9 0.1282 45 Seminole Community College 146.2 0.1365 46 Oaklawn Cemetery 19.7 0.1376 47 Sepielli Property 32.1 0.1523 48 OF Agricultural Research Station 89.3 0.1767 49 Neighborhood: Pinecrest, Sanora 142.7 0.2250 50 Neighborhood: Hidden Lake Area 318.0 0.2436 51 Neighborhood: East of Sanford Ave. 214.7 0.2832 52 Neighborhood: Groveview 178.2 0.2995 53 Chase Groves 150.0 0.3000 54 Neighborhood. West of Sanford Ave. 230.5 0.3040 55 Mayfair Golf Course 120.0 0.3500 56 Airport, Industrial Areas 194.8 0.4560 57 Neighborhood: Idyllwilde, Mayfair, Kaywood 293.5 0.6308 58 Mall & Surrounding Areas 200.0 1.0000 59 Site 10 2200.0 2.8300 60 ACI PD 5.0 0.0200 61 Bentley Elementary 6.8 0.0180 62 Andres Flower Farm 14.0 0.0060 63 Calabria Cove Subdivision 6.4 0.0100 64 Charleston Club Apartments 5.0 0.0180 65 Chief Williams Park 0.9 0.0040 66 Cultural Arts Building 0.2 0.0100 67 Dakotas Subdivision 4.8 0.0070 68 Gateway PD 31.3 0.1250 69 Hamilton Elementary School 6.0 0.0300 70 Hood Avenue Parking Lot 3.1 0.0124 71 Hoops Farm 9.0 0.0600 72 Mangoustine Medical Office 0.2 0.0010 73 Mid -Florida IMPC 50.0 0.2000 74 Pamala Oaks Subdivision 4.9 0.0200 75 Russells Tree Farm 30.0 0.0120 2-3 6 Chapter 2.0 Site No. ,•, Irrigation Site Size (Acres) Disposal Capacity (MGD) 76 Sharp Car Store 0.3 0.0030 77 Sterling Woods Subdivision 62.0 0.1200 78 Stratford Apartments 7.4 0.0450 79 Watson Farm 165.0 0.0500 80 Wiklow Elementary 16.1 0.0640 81 Wyndham Place Apartments 4.6 0.0260 89 Courtesy Acura 2.1 0.0080 90 Courtesy Honda 3.0 0.0120 102 Sam's Club 4.7 0.0180 109 Timacuan Golf Course 75.0 0.3500 111 Soccer Fields 1.8 0.0070 113 E. Lake Mary Blvd. 10.0 0.0388 114 Golf View 15.0 0.0582 115 Timacuan Medians & Common Areas 15.0 0.0582 116 Baseball Fields 22.0 0.0853 117 Rinehart Rd. Medians 29.0 0.1125 118 Rinehart Rd. Industrial 63.3 0.7000 120 Primera 35.0 0.2410 121 Lake Emma Businesses 102.0 0.4030 122 Northpoint -- 0.2460 123 Lake Mary Commerce -- 0.0800 124 Skyline Dr. -- 0.0540 125 Technology Park -- 0.1180 126 Residential Common Irr. -- 0.1580 127 Sylvan Lake Park -- 0.0760 128 International Parkway Area Businesses -- 0.2220 Total 12.6956 2-37 Chapter 2.0 Site No. 62-1 Irrigation Site Size (Acres) Disposal Capacity (MGD) 82 Ainsworth Farm 10.00 0.0090 83 Anntac Farm 35.00 0.0350 84 Bergman Farm 300.00 0.2960 85 Brewer Site 0.35 0.0010 86 Dale farm 33.00 0.2000 87 Byer's Farm 14.00 0.0140 88 Cameron City 235.00 0.7380 91 Crown Colony Subdivision 6.93 0.0210 92 Duncan Farm 12.00 0.0200 93 Herbst Farm 5.00 0.0050 94 Kirtley Warehouse 0.66 0.0030 95 Merriweather 29.00 0.0200 96 Northgate PD 24.70 0.0988 97 Pell Farm 27.00 0.0220 98 Persaud Farm 30.00 0.0300 99 Heathrow Golf Course / Community 154.00 0.7500 100 Retreat at Twin Lakes Apartments 9.00 0.0520 101 Rosier's Farm 3.50 0.0140 103 Sanford Fire Station 0.75 0.0300 104 Sanford Police Station 2.15 0.0086 105 Sanford South WRC 5.00 0.0120 106 Seminole Landscaping 5.00 0.0200 107 Seminole Trace Apartments 12.68 0.0400 108 Siemens Property 215.00 1.0000 112 Public Works Complex 3.80 0.0147 119 Paulucci Property 66.00 0.2560 130 Heathrow Woods Subdivision -- 0.1995 131 Bristol Park Subdivision -- 0.0511 132 Chestnut Hill Subdivision -- 0.0384 133 East Camden Subdivision -- 0.0371 134 Magnolia Plantation Subdivision -- 0.2000 135 Lake Markham Preserve -- 0.0750 136 Lake Forest Future Phases -- 0.0568 137 Alaqua Lakes Subdivision -- 0.4505 138 Alaqua Subdivision -- 0.1665 139 Stonebridge Subdivision -- 0.0802 140 Breckenridge Heights Subdivision -- 0.0532 141 Wembley Park Subdivision -- 0.0593 2-3 8 Chaptef- 2.0 Site No. Wall t-UR-9-1. Irrigation Site Size (Acres) Disposal Capacity (MGD) 142 Wyntree Subdivision -- 0.0593 143 Lakeside Subdivision -- 0.0600 144 Cherry Ridge -- 0.1079 145 Burlington Oaks -- 0.0525 146 Kentford Gardens -- 0.0353 147 Heron Ridge -- 0.1094 148 Parcel No. 0720305120A000000 1.38 0.0019 149 Parcel No. 1320295NQOB000020 2.33 0.0032 150 Parcel No. 06203030000210000 10.31 0.0140 151 Parcel No. 06203030001200000 8.88 0.0121 152 Parcel No. 062030300007C0000 0.28 0.0004 153 Parcel No. 062030300002A0000 30.32 0.0412 154 Parcel No. 1920305JW00000040 1.52 0.0021 155 Parcel No. 25192930000900000 9.00 0.0122 156 Parcel No. 25192930000600000 2.95 0.0040 157 Parcel No. 301930300002N0000 2.06 0.0028 158 Parcel No. 301930300021 B0000 8.90 0.0121 159 Parcel No. 192030300004B0000 4.36 0.0059 160 Parcel No. 24202950700000020 8.98 0.0122 161 Parcel No. 18203030001200000 13.43 0.0182 162 Parcel No. 30193030000200000 5.31 0.0072 163 Parcel No. 19203051400000000 1.27 0.0017 164 Parcel No. 06203030000700000 3.20 0.0043 165 Parcel No. 242029300001 D0000 7.77 0.0106 166 Parcel No. 30193050800000000 9.32 0.0127 167 Parcel No. 062030300011 B0000 0.62 0.0008 168 Parcel No. 06203030000800000 1.58 0.0021 169 Parcel No. 06203050100000030 1.10 0.0015 170 Parcel No. 062030300011 A0000 0.62 0.0008 171 Parcel No. 012029300006A0000 10.43 0.0142 172 Parcel No. 31193030002000000 76.77 0.1042 173 Parcel No. 301930300002B0000 16.93 0.0230 174 Parcel No. 0620305UD00000010 47.67 0.0647 175 Parcel No. 291930300015F0000 33.00 0.0448 176 Parcel No. 311930300019G0000 3.05 0.0041 177 Parcel No. 311930300019D0000 1.87 0.0025 178 Parcel No. 182030300012A0000 5.20 0.0071 179 Parcel No. 13202930000800000 2.68 0.0036 2-39 Chaete 2.0 Site No. P!otOAt1gI,IRepI611mod Irrigation Site Water Sites, Size (Acres) Disposal Capacity (MGD) 180 Parcel No. 13202950800000020 5.76 0.0078 181 Parcel No. 13202950300000000 0.81 0.0011 182 Parcel No. 31193030000800000 23.32 0.0317 183 Parcel No. 182030300012B0000 3.10 0.0042 184 Parcel No. 1320295NQOB000030 9.75 0.0132 185 Parcel No. 35192930002700000 11.11 0.0151 186 Parcel No. 06203030001300000 12.24 0.0166 187 Parcel No. 311930300009AOOOO 9.64 0.0131 188 Parcel No. 29193030002800000 27.00 0.0367 189 Parcel No. 29193030002900000 15.81 0.0215 190 Parcel No. 311930300008AOOOO 2.28 0.0031 191 Parcel No. 311930300009CO000 2.28 0.0031 192 Parcel No. 311930300003B0000 20.26 0.0275 193 Parcel No. 31193030000300000 17.32 0.0235 194 Parcel No. 31193030000200000 30.25 0.0411 195 Parcel No. 321930300005B0000 15.64 0.0212 196 Parcel No. 25192930002900000 10.54 0.0143 197 Parcel No. 2319293ABO03B0000 9.99 0.0136 198 Parcel No. 0120295010000001 C 10.64 0.0144 199 Parcel No. 01202950100000020 12.37 0.0168 200 Parcel No. 26192930000800000 16.18 0.0220 201 Parcel No. 35192930000500000 28.19 0.0383 202 Parcel No. 30193030000100000 37.90 0.0515 203 Parcel No. 132029300005B0000 52.79 0.0717 204 Parcel No. 13202930000200000 99.25 0.1348 205 Parcel No. 27192930000100000 34.03 0.0462 206 Parcel No. 27192930000900000 16.49 0.0224 207 Parcel No. 271929300024AOOOO 27.77 0.0377 208 Parcel No. 27192930000200000 20.00 0.0272 209 Parcel No. 341929300003CO000 18.08 0.0245 210 Parcel No. 251929300028AOOOQ 20.81 0.0283 211 Parcel No. 34192930000200000 40.53 0.0550 212 Parcel No. 311930300019EOOOO 1.86 0.0025 213 Parcel No. 261929300002GO000 9.72 0.0132 214 Parcel No. 30193030004100000 34.25 0.0465 215 Parcel No. 20193030000400000 44.11 0.0599 216 Parcel No. 1920305HL00000080 1.36 0.0018 217 Parcel No. 242029300009AOOOO 2.34 0.0032 2-40 Chapter 2.0 Table 2-11 Potential Reclaimed Water Sites Site No. Irrigation Site Size (Acres) Disposal Capacity (MGD) 218 Parcel No. 29193030001500000 700000000 52.30 0.0710 219 Parcel No. 2019303000010)000 52.00 52.00 0.0706 0.0706 220 220 Parcel No. 3419293000100 Parcel No. 34192930001000000 40.00 0.0543 221 Parcel No. 33192930000200000 30.00 0.0407 Total 1 7.3172 Table Current Available Reclaimed Flows Capacity (MGD) Current AADF (MGD) Current Reclaimed Flow Sanford North WRF 7.3 5.2 4.4 Sanford South WRC 3.0 1.7 1.4 Sanford Augmentation System 7.3 0 0 Northwest Regional WWTP 2.5 1.6 0.3 Greenwood Lakes WWTP 3.5 2.2 1.5 Total 23.6 10.7 7.6 2-41 Chapter 3.0 CHAPTER 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNING AREA 3.1 Future Land Use Future land use within the City of Sanford must meet criteria specified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Comprehensive Plan states that future land use must incorporate best management practices and principles for resources conservation, and minimize threats to health, safety, and welfare. The City of Sanford encompasses a total of 11,456 acres, with approximately 3,100 acres still available for development. Lands which are suitable for development in the City include vacant and agricultural lands. Wetlands are protected from development and are generally conserved. Approximately 1100 acres of land have been designated as resource protection lands and will remained basically unchanged. The water system service area land use is similar to the land use within the Sanford City limits. The future land use map is shown in Figure 3-1. 3.2 Population Projections for a Twenty Year Planning Period The City of Sanford serves customers within the City's jurisdiction and outside the City's limits. The total service population for the planning period was estimated based on an incremental increase rate using available numbers from recent publications. Data was compiled from the U.S. 2020 Census and the 2021 University Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research Population Studies Program According to the 2020 Census, the City of Sanford population is 61,051, which is 12.97 percent of the total 470,856 population in the Seminole County. The April 2020 BEBR projected population of Seminole County is listed in Table 3-1. for the low, medium and high growth rate. The projections with high growth rate are used for the City of Sanford population projections and this projection is consistent with the City's recent development trend. It is estimated that there will be more than 2,500 units built within the next five to ten years, mostly on the north east and south east side of the City. The City's Future Land Use Map as of April 2020 is presented in Figure 3-1. 1 t BR Category Table P■ pulation Proilectlop. 2025 2030 2035 2040 Seminole, BEBR Low 471,200 480,600 487,500 491,400 Seminole, BEBR Medium 505,100 528,500 548,400 565,100 Seminole, BEBR High 537,900 578,400 614,700 648,100 Sanford (12.99% of Seminole (BEBR High) 69,900 75,163 79,880 84,220 It is estimated that the total service area population will be 75,163 in 2030 and 84,220 in 2040. Table 3-2 shows the population projections and the increase rate used for the projection. 3-1 Ln NJ- JAW6 n5l, OTT km KIN 01:1 LI NOV I ANIE =FY-_Tr7"Tll! Chapter 3.0 'table 3-2 Population Projection for City.of Sanford Service Area Service Population Service Population Total Service Year Inside City Limits Outside of City limits Population Increase Rate o 2021 62,045 2,902 64,947 - 2022 64,009 2,993 67,002 3.16% 2023 65,972 3,085 69,058 3.07% 2024 67,936 3,177 71,113 2.98% 2025 69,900 3,269 73,169 2.89% 2026 70,952 3,318 74,271 1.51 % 2027 72,005 3,367 75,372 1.48% 2028 73,058 3,417 76,474 1.46% 2029 74,110 3,466 77,576 1.44% 2030 75,163 3,515 78,678 1.42% 2031 76,106 3,559 79,665 1.26% 2032 77,050 3,603 80,653 1.24% 2033 77,993 3,647 81,640 1.22% 2034 78,936 3,692 82,628 1.21 % 2035 79,880 3,736 83,616 1.20% 2036 80,748 3,776 84,524 1.09% 2037 81,616 3,817 85,433 1.08% 2038 82,484 3,857 86,342 1.06% 2039 83,352 3,898 87,250 1.05% 2040 84,220 3,939 88,159 1.04% 3.3 Forecast of Water Usage 3.3.1 Design Flow Requirements for a Twenty Year Planning Period Projected average day and maximum day demands for 2021 to 2040 are shown in Table 3-2. The flows were calculated using the historical per capita usage of 98 gpd for the existing population and a per capita usage of 144 gpd for the projected population growth which is the City's level of service (LOS) in the comprehensive plan, for the future service population. Table 3-3 identifies the projections of the potable water demands from 2021 to 2026, which is the expiration year of the current CUP. Table 3-4 compares the projected demand, facility capacity, and permit conditions. It shows that the City's existing facility can provide enough capacity to meet the water demand. Figure 3-2 shows the difference between the CUP allocation and the City's projection. CUP allows the City to withdraw 9.58 MGD ground water through 2010 to 2026. The projected demand for the year 2026 is 8.347 MGD which will not exceed the maximum allocated amount. Discussions with the District regarding potential water supply sources, the amounts of water available, coordination with other water suppliers and support funding for capital projects will be ongoing throughout the amendment process. Discussions will continue year-to-year as improved water supply information becomes available, projects are updated and technologies to produce and conserve water are improved. In addition, the City is taking efforts to find alternative water sources (to be discussed in Chapter 6.0). Chapter 3.0 Table 3-3 o Year Total Projected Service Projected Water Demand CUP Population AADF, MGD AADF, MGD 2021 64,947 7.005 9.58 2022 67,002 7.301 9.58 2023 69,058 7.597 9.58 2024 71,113 7.893 9.58 2025 73,169 8.189 9.58 2026 1 74,271 8.347 9.58 The historical average day demand divided by the historical maximum day demand for every month yielded an average maximum day demand factor of 1.42 from 2010 to 2021. The maximum daily demand factor used in the report is 1.50, to conservatively project the future maximum daily demand. A peaking factor of 2.50 is used to calculate the peak hour flow. Year GPD Table 3-4 jected,Flow Requirements MGD Permitted PlantCapacity, MGDplant Capacity, AADF, MGD 2021 7,004,606 7.005 15.4 10.27 2025 8,188,593 8.189 15.4 10.27 2026 8,347,254 8.347 15.4 10.27 2028 8,664,577 8.665 15.4 10.27 2030 8,981,900 8.982 15.4 10.27 2035 9,692,938 9.693 15.4 10.27 2038 10,085,479 10.085 15.4 10.27 2040 10, 347,172 10.347 15.4 10.27 3.3.2 CUP allocation and Water Demand The City's 20 Year Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) has been approved (Permit No. 162) by SJRWMD for the period until Feb. 8, 2026. The Permit sets the maximum annual combined ground water withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer System for household, commercial/industrial, water utility, and unaccounted loss, must not exceed 3,496.7 million gallons (9.58 MGD average) in 2017 through 2026. The CUP outlines the individual maximum ground water withdrawals from the individual wellfields. Table 3-5 presents the maximum annual ground water withdrawals per wellfield. The combined groundwater withdrawals for all of the welifields should not exceed the allocated 9.58 MGD average. 3-4 Chapter 3.0 Hidden Lakes H L7 R-G HLBR-H HI-9-1 HL12-L 4.6 MGD TL1-U Twin Lakes TL2-V 2.4 MGD TL3-T GC1-M GC2-N Golf Course GC3-0 2.4 MGD GC4-P GC5-Q GC6-R 3-5 U O N r O O (fl � � N - C r 03 O ce) (Oco a) O �1 0 Q a) 6) Il- O O O N O 0 �= M 't co Co cl c C N D o (O O U O E a) a, Q U U O _co 0 N f6 U � co O CDO N CD N COO �. co 00 O O c6 CD IL (D (D (O a) CO a > _ Q O N c C L " CD,� 0o CDO 6) CDca r 0 U L 4— -a m E N 00 00 0 3 R CD 00 O I— n OY N N u N a) 0 — ca O v O o O cu = Y ca CD t` to r O U a a) R Cq CO � > N� O O m CCT = 0 �. O ca = N N r co t� O O O f�- N � f6 ca +r � N c- CO ._. r; 0- .Q .6 7 O O N CL Q a) (D C O c� mO 00 ^— O O CD i C .+ N .+ c6 U d `— v co OD m CD CD V N a0 co m 00 a) cC C �6 cr N N Y O 4- (o o O 70 f2 O (.Q O Ci) ^' O O 0) C) m {1 N N O '7 Co O M O L6 O � O C9 U') L7 i� O N II ca �- N T .ti+ - .'_ :_ _ m =- O f6 U Y u 'Q'nn- V 'U V U U ccy_ O E 7 r� y w L CZ Q= (n } RS R w yaQ+c..�� Z O =� > CD Q p CZ f4 U L C (� C CD p Q U ti u) CD n. a) otoz 6£OZ L£OZ o c� 2 S£OZ E -£oz a� a� m 'rZ X U � 0 0£OZ V N 8ZOZ Cj C O LZOZ MO O Q SZOZ D U £ZOZ 6ZOZ N O co (0 "t N O Q OW c 0 cu U 0 Q a D U c c� U) C cu E fSf 'a _U N a N i M L LL Chapter 3.0 3.3.3 Fire Flow requirement for a Twenty -Year Planning Period The recommended service fire flow requirements were calculated from the formula below: Recommended Fire Flow (in GPM) = [1020*(P)0-5] * [1-0.01*(P)0.5] Where P is the population in thousands. The service area design values for fire flow are taken as 75% of the recommended values. Table 3-7 displays the projected design fire flows for the service area. :Projeoted Fire Flows' Year Fire Flow (GPM) 2021 5,668 2025 5,984 2028 6,105 2030 6,184 2035 6,356 2038 6,448 2040 6,508 'Fire flows calculated at 75% of the recommended service area fire flow 3.3.4 Raw Water Supply and Water Treatment Requirements for a Twenty Year Planning Period The well capacity must sufficiently meet the demands for the maximum daily flow. For design considerations, the projected well requirements have been calculated with the largest well off-line at each wellfield as discussed in Section 4.5.2. Well capacities have been calculated to be 18,450 GPM or 26.57 MGD with all wells in service and 16,450 GPM or 23.69 MGD with the largest well off-line. The well capacity requirements are projected in Table 3-8. Additional well capacity is not needed until 2045. The existing water treatment system is sufficient to meet future requirements until 2038. Planning on providing additional treatment capacity should start in 2036. Table 3-8 illustrates the existing capacities of the current water treatment facilities combined and compares them to the projected water flows through the year 2040. The water quality from the wells is generally good. The existing aeration and chlorination treatment process at the Main Water Treatment Plant and the ozone and granular activated carbon treatment at the Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant followed by the addition of polyphosphate and fluosilic acid is sufficient. 3-8 Chaptei- 3. 0 -:.tilm Required Max Well Additional Permitted Treatment Required Additional Year Daily Flow Capacity Well Pumping Plant Capacity Treatment Capacity (GPM) (GPM) Capacity (GPM) (GPM) GPM 2025 7,296 18,450 0 10,200 0 2028 8,530 18,450 0 10,200 0 2030 9,026 18,450 0 10,200 0 2035 9,356 18,450 1 0 10,200 0 2038 10,097 18,450 0 10,200 0 2040 10,506 18,450 0 10,200 0 ' Requirement with all wells in service 3.3.5 High Service Pumping Requirements during Planning Period High service pumps are used to pressurize the system and pump water from the ground storage tanks to elevated storage tanks and customers. The pumps must be capable of pumping peak hourly flow demand. Therefore, the high service pumping requirements for the service area are determined from the peak hourly demand. The peak hourly demand is obtained by multiplying the average daily demand by the peak hourly demand factor. A peak hour demand factor of 2.5 will be used for design. The high service pumping requirements for the peak hourly flow and 75% fire flow are listed in Table 3-9. The peak hourly and 75% fire flow is to be met with all pumps online at each of the plants. Currently, the high service pumping capacity is 19,100 GPM with all pumps online at each plant. With the largest pump out of service at the Main Plant, the total capacity of the high service pumps is 16,100 GPM. By 2025, four new high service pumps will be installed at the Main Plant. The new high service pumping capacity with all pumps on-line would be 20,600 GPM. The high service pumping capacity with the largest pump offline will be 17,600 GPM. As shown in Table 3-9, the high service pumping requirements for the peak hourly and 75% fire flow for the year 2025 are projected to be 14,216 GPM and 5,984 GPM, which will not exceed capacity with all pumps in service from all water treatment plants. It is recommended that additional pumping capacity according to Table 3-9 be installed to meet future demand after 2028. 3-9 Chapter 3.0 Peak Hourly 4 75%firofl9w, High. Service_Pumping� Requirements Average High Service Additional Additional Hig h Daily Peak Hourly a 75 /o Fire Pumping High Service Service Year Flow Flow (GPM) Flow (GPM) Requirements Pumping Requirements Pumping Requirements** (GPM) (GPM) *(GPM) GPM 2021 1 4,864 12,161 5,668 17,829 1,729 0 2025 5,687 14,216 5,984 20,200 2,600 0 2028 6,017 15,043 6,105 21,148 3,548 548 2030 6,237 15,594 6,184 21,777 4,177 1,177 2035 6,731 16,828 6,356 23,184 5,584 2,584 2038 7,004 17,510 6,448 23,957 6,357 3,357 2040 7,186 17,964 6,508 24,472 6,872 3,872 *Compared to the high service pumping capacity with the largest out of service **Compared to the high service pumping capacity with the largest in service 3.3.6 Finished Water Storage Requirements during a Twenty -Five Year Planning Period The storage capacity for treatment is calculated based on four consecutive hour's usage at peak hourly flow and four hours 75% recommended fire flow. The peak hourly flow is determined by multiplying the average daily flow by 2.5. To account for the possibility that the water storage tanks are not completely full at the onset of a peak flow demand, and to prevent running out of water in an unusually high demand period, a 25% reserve buffer is recommended. The criteria for peak flow storage should provide storage for the difference between the peak flow demand and the well capacity for the duration of the fire flow, with a buffer of 25%. Water treatment storage requirements are listed in Table 3-10. As indicated in Table 3-10, additional storage will not be needed for the planning period through 2040. 3-10 Chapter 3.0 Table 3-10 Water Treatment Storage Peak o Average (5)Treated (6)Additional Hourly 75 /o Detention Daily Water Storage Year Flow Recommended Time emand Storage Requirement (MGD) Fire flow (MGD) (HRS) (MGD ) Requirement (MG) MG 2021 17.51 8.16 4 7.005 3.11 0.00 2025 20.47 8.62 4 8.189 3.48 0.00 2028 21.66 8.79 4 8.665 3.63 0.00 2030 22.45 8.90 4 8.982 3.73 0.00 2035 24.23 9.15 4 9.693 3.95 0.00 2038 25.21 9.28 4 10.085 4.07 0.00 2040 25.87 9.37 4 10.347 4.15 0.00 (5) = i(1) +(2)-(4)] `(3)/24 (6) = (5)'1.25-4.5 3.3.7 Distribution System Requirements during the Planning Period The distribution system will require improvements and additions to provide water to the service area. The proposed distribution system improvements will be discussed in Section 4.0. CHAPTER 4.0 WATER FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 Water Treatment Plant No.1 Improvement Improvements to Water Treatment Plant No. 2 that incorporated the use of Ozone and GAC for disinfection by-product reduction in the city-wide distribution system was completed in 2014. With water quality improvements associated with the upgrades to WaterTreatment Plant No. 2, the city refocused the needs for improvements to Water Treatment Plant No. 1. Given the age of the facility the following items were identified as needing replacement for increasing the plant reliability and water quality: o High Service Pumps o Pump piping, valves and mechanical controls o Pump instrumentation and electrical Controls o Chemical Storage and Injection Equipment o Stand-by Power 4.2 High Service Pumping Improvements The existing high service pumping capacity for the service area is 19,100 GPM or 27.50 MGD with all pumps in service. The high service pump capacity with the largest pump at each pumping station removed from service is 11,300 GPM or 16.27 MGD. The projected high service pumping requirements will require the installation of additional pumps to meet the future demands through the twenty-year planning period. The criteria for the high service pumping upgrades are based on providing for the peak hourly flow and fire demand with all pumps in service. Replacement of existing high service pumping facilities is in construction at the Main Water Treatment Plant. The four new high service pumps will each have a capacity of 3,000 GPM. The new high service pumps are to be implemented by 2022. 4.3 Distribution System Improvements To plan for growth and to reduce maintenance of the existing water distribution system, the City is replacing, upgrading, and extending various portions of the water distribution system. The proposed distribution system improvements are listed in Table 4-1. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of these improvements. 4-1 Chnpter l.0 Item e D e • mjme�Eqye Line Description t Length Diameter(feet) (inches) F. From 17-92 to Sanford Ave on Lake Mary Blvd. 7,750 16 I. CR 46A Upsala Road to West of 1-4 Various Various J. CR 46A Phase III Various Various 1 From 26th St. South along Sanford Ave. To Wylly Ave. then east on Wylly to serve development on north side of Sanford Airport 2,400 12 2 From Ridgewood Ave. To Live Oak Blvd. along Ridgewood Ave. 2,700 8 3 From CR 46A to Ridgewood Lane along Ridgewood Ave. 1,300 12 4 1 From SR. 46 along US. 17-92 to Park at Ravello Apts. (French Ave.) 300 12 5 From Rosalia Drive to Celery Ave. along Mellonville Ave. 1,600 12 6 From Wylly Ave. to the north side of the Sanford Airport. 7,600 12 9 From Hidden Lakes subdivision to Groveview subdivision 3,500 12 10 Extension of 12" main from SR 46 north to the Old Lake Monroe Post Office along Upsala Road 6,400 12 4.4 Environmental Effects/Impacts The environmental effects and impacts will be minimal and will occur only during the construction phase of the projects. The above -mentioned alternatives are designed to reduce environmental impacts. 4-2 Chapter- CHAPTER 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 5.1 Implementation Schedule of the Facility Improvements The City of Sanford has experienced considerable population growth over the past decade and this growth trend is expected to continue. The proximity of the Orlando metropolitan area and accessibility to the nearby interstate system will facilitate this growth. The City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan ensures that wastewater and potable water facilities will be available to meet existing and projected demands. The population projections, projected water demands, and proposed improvements are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the water system improvements recommended in this report are justified and will be necessary to meet the future demands. The identified improvements will be implemented in phases throughout the 20 year design period. 5.2 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The proposed improvements will be in accordance with the objectives in the City of Sanford's Comprehensive Plan. It is the City's objective to conserve potable water supplies and water conservation measures will be considered in construction or improvement of the City's utilities. The City has disallowed the use of potable water supplies for irrigation purposes in areas where the City has made reclaimed water available. 5.3 Summary of the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) The guidelines for preparing the Work Plan require that the water supply capital facilities projects be included in the City Capital Improvements Projects (CIP). Accordingly, the current utilities CIP was reviewed and modifications were made to the 5-year plan to include facilities necessary to satisfy the Work Plan. Table 5-1 identifies the City's overall utility Capital Improvement Plan with project description as well as funding source, total project cost and starting year. 5-1 Table 5-1 City of Sanford Water and Wastewater 2021 Financial Forecast Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan Lae Funding Adjusted Fiscal Year Eadme September 30. 5-Year No. 0..mphmr Somrc 301-1 Adtmtiumts 2021 2M 2023 2024 2025 Total Ulilites AtbrdalUration . \Paler t Equipment and Hardware IV Rates S20,000 SO SZO,000 S20,600 S21,21S 52I,S55 522,510 S106,153 _ Vetucin WRites 30.000 0 30.000 0 23.000 0 25.000 MOOO 3 Subtotal- Utilities Admirdstration-Water S50,000 50 S50.ODO S20,600 S46,21S 521,655 547,510 S166,1S3 Utilities Administration - Wastewater 4 Equipment and Hard,=e SRates 520.000 50 520.000 S20,600 S21.216 521,S55 S22,510 S106,153 5 Vchid" SRates U 0 U 30.000 0 25.000 0 55.000 6 Subtotal- Utilities Administration - Wastewater S20,000 S0 S20,0DO 550,600 $2I21S S46.555 S22510 S161,1S3 Water Treatment Plants, RaBOeld, and Rater Quality• 7 Cmusmupll-L%0 Prnuil himutarnla WRates 535,000 SO S35,D00 S35000 S35,000 S35,00o S35,000 $175,DW S Annhary•and\Lam\\TP Improyerseals RRates 50,0W 0 50,0o0 51,500 53.045 54.636 56,275 265,456 9 Vehicle Replacement WRates 30.OM 0 30.ODO 30.000 30.OW 30.000 30,000 150,000 10 Equipment Replacement - R'ofer Plants WRates S0,000 0 SO.000 82A00 84,872 S7,41S 90.041 424.731 11 Main RTP huprosements New IV -Debt 3 3.312.755 0 3312.755 6.147,343 0 0 0 9.460.100 12 \tarn t\TP - Fun" Treatment W Rana 0 n 0 0 SU,000 100.000 100.000 250 000 13 Well Water Rehab(OnpomFj %Rites 130,ODO 0 130.000 150.000 154.500 159.135 163,909 737.34.3 14 Eln:+lsd Bale:Taal. -\Lresteuaurr Coulmct WRarrs 42,000 0 42,ODO 45,000 46.350 47,741 49.173 230,_'64 15 Futu.•e WTPPlanninF and Supply Aaiun NSDC 316,711 0 316,711 413.703 0 0 0 730,414 16 Funme\VTP Planning and Supply Aralpis Grants 453.20 0 4S3.259 631.297 0 0 0 1,114,5S6 17 Design and Comtsmuou of \VTP'*o. 3 at the SSRRC \ew W-Debi t 0 0 0 0 255.000 1.116.250 1.116.250 2,517,500 1S Desigimid ComtmcticaofRTP,*o.3atthe SS\VRC Grants 0 0 0 0 0 1,116.250 1.116.250 2232.500 19 ApchnciI%'eU11cld huproytmeuts New \V•fa:ln 1 0 0 0 0 173,000 500,000 50D,000 1.175 000 20 PiNlme V.11fseld ]mprmvnienis Gams 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 500.000 1.000,000 21 Mdden L*es New Well I;Cty W-Debl3 250.000 0 250t100 Sn0,000 0 o a 1,050,D00 _ Senuin•luuMmm=15- Water Treatment Plants NRiles 0 0 0 100.000 0 0 0 100,000 23 A:'a•I\IauSOPsSaf'ly Pl."Mmuk,F Efliaatcp'E,ne, Mnn Plan/Elc NRdes 50.nW 0 SOCM 200.000 100100 30000 AOW 450000 24 Subtotal - \Pater Treatment Plants and WeBDeld S4,779,755 SO S4,779,755 SS,6S6,245 S1,013,767 S3.796.430 $3,506,595 S22.OS3,095 Sanford worth Water Reclamation Facility (S\l\RF) 25 Sanford Noah Water Reclamauca racdity lmpMvmems SRates $220.000 SO S220,000 S226,600 5233,39S S240,400 S247,612 S1,16S,010 26 Diw Filtration S•,acm C RN Disnbutiou Ls p Ptoration S\aem RR 1'10365 0 1.210.365 2.000.35, 0 0 0 3.210.750 27 RIV Dntnbmmu I m:q, P:—ulrraunn, Fnnlily Innumu S\stnu, S:ui RR 0 0 0 0 250.000) 150.000 0 400.000 _'S Vehicle Replacement S Rates 60.000 0 60.000 70,000 60.000 60.000 60,000 310.000 29 Equipment Replacement S Rates 103.000 0 103,000 106,090 109,273 112,551 115,927 546.S41 30 Avct`.Lin'SOP'sLSafdy Pl.nVu-1: , EfGncrn•ylF.,wr\Lars P1nuTtc SRntcs 200.00o 0 2D0,000 300,003 200,OW IWOOO 100,000 900,D00 31 Completion ofBro•Alyds Project IVIV590150 452.540 a 452.540 0 0 O 0 452,140 32 Cempletiou ofB\R Project \\11V590150 532,3OS 0 532.50S 0 0 0 0 532,50S 33 \cur Acclaimed Rater DNnbulrms Pmnp Slauon RR 275.000 0 273.000 1.000.000 0 0 0 1.274.000 34 2fen•P.eetvmed Water Dianbution Pomp Sntiou Grants 177.610 0 177.610 537,ODO 0 O 0 1.014,610 35 Flow Equalimlion Basin, FEE Pump Station, M1S WetWell Modifications RR 0 0 0 0 7'-5,000 0 0 723.000 36 Flom• Egsul-tiou Basin. M Pump Staticu. MLS Wet \YellModifications Op Res 0 0 0 0 0 2.400.000 0 2,400.000 37 Electrical Sy::mn Irnpmsvrnents/Upyndes RR 100000 0 103.030 500,000 600.000 703000 600000 2.500.000 3S New Transfer Pump Station RR J70.OD0 U 170,000 1,025,000 0 0 0 1,195,000 39 New TramferPmip Station Gant., 130.930 0 130.930 S00,000 0 0 0 930.930 40 ?:ae 10 \IG R eclmmed Water Ground Stompo Tank RR 1.121000 0 1.125.000 1,175,000 0 0 0 ',300,000 •1I \err 10 MG Rretaimed \\',ter Grmmd Sluage Tank Grua' 905.953 U 905.983 736,841 0 0 0 1,6 2.S'-•1 42 Control Vahv at River RR ISOODO 0 150.000 0 0 0 0 150.000 Lane F=Lne Ad3mled Fiscal Year Eudme September 30. 5-Year No. Dewnplion S.1-e 2021 MI'd-tments 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total 43 Frout Entrance Wall, Gate and Laudw pimg RR 300,000 0 300.000 550.000 0 0 0 S50,000 44 \hll Creek Stabilization RR 25.000 0 23.000 150,000 0 0 0 175,DOo 45 Aniflo Upppdc S Rates 175.000 0 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 46 Blower BldaModuficaitous- AL-intaki Stnxnue SRates 1,050,000 0 1.050.000 0 0 0 0 1.050.000 47 Operations Relxation- Upstair. ofTlucL-ener Bldg RA 250,000 0 250.000 40Q000 0 0 0 640,000 4S Mrlal Blde on Parcel South of SSNRF- htfrastnscture RR 0 0 0 U 75,000 300.000 0 375,000 •19 Block Nall it South Futrauce to S?AVRF RR 125,000 0 125,OO o 0 0 0 0 V 5,000 So Security Sy:tem L-ppmdos RR 0 0 0 130.000 0 0 n 150,OM 51 Bndm Stud\'- Clote Front Euhancr- Xra• Bndce at \WI Creek S Rites 15,000 0 15.000 100.000 750,000 150,000 1,015,000 52 'New Volute MuckeuwF Sy�teui SRites 0 U 0 0 100,000 900.000 0 1,0W,D00 53 Canrretc Raadway:- Sanford Nall WRF RR. 700.000 0 700000 0 0 0 0 700.000 54 Subtotal - Sanrord \ortll \Valer Reclammtlou Facility' SS,452,936 SO SS.452.936 S10,026,916 52,452,671 $5.712.931 S1,273,539 S27,919,013 5-2 Sanford South Water Resource Center (SSR•RC) 35 Inpmeements'Efispment SRites 550.000 SO 550000 551,500 S53,0-15 SS4.636 556,275 5265,-156 56 Vehicles and Equspasent S Rites 40.000 0 40,000 40.000 40.000 40,000 40.000 200.000 57 Srcunn• SSstcai lippnd.. SRites 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 2W,CDo 5S Slinipe Holdsnp Tank -No 2. Erpupment lisuldinp, Blowers. Pumps S SDC 173.000 0 173.000 0 1.750.000 450,O00 0 2.375.000 59 27re den:roe SS;ttmiilon er.Pi:mp: for Sludpe lloldlpg Tank No. l SRites 100,000 0 I00.000 0 1.000,000 0 0 I.iW,OW 60 A-: ,lan5OPm5afrn•PIs.'Rutvk f-• L-fTstiencyTnser MUn PL dPtc SRMes 130.000 0 1500OO 230,000 250.(W 100.O00 100.000 550.000 61 UP Connrol Paneland Fm--th Reclaimed Rater Pimip 5Rates SS•Wo 0 S5.000 90.000 0 0 0 175,000 62 2nd\lerb Bd--mi. RA$tau. Odor Drruo, Concrete Rrssair, Dnm RR 0 0 0 0 600,WD 150020 0 M.000 63 Ansenibic and Anoxic Selector; Reaention Basins-AR'I SSDC 0 0 0 0 45O.O00 750,O00 0 1.200.000 61 Acxrobic and Asiatic Sel el.r.; Rrauatieu Basins - AWr (Split Fsudsna) Gnus 0 0 0 0 150.000 550.000 0 S00,000 65 Influmi Flora•\Teter BSP-iss RR 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 5D.000 66 D%)Y. Bsuldinp Coaverso:i (Sicrape; Offices. etc.) RR 0 0 0 0 0 175,WD 200.000 375.000 67 Thickrntd 51sa1pe Iliul n? Ve!sicle (Tncw, as:d Tinier) S SDC 75.O00 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 75.000 6S Tbicltntd Slcdge Ilaulnp Ve;ucle (Treace and Tntlr) (Split Fsmdm)J S Rates 75.000 0 73.000 0 0 0 0 76.000 69 GavGr Bldp Reprin.\hedtfiratious and ReemSysaation RR 0 0 0 0 160.O00 200.000 350,000 640,000 70 Denatering Saes• Press SSDC 0 0 0 0 70.000 250.000 0 350.000 71 Dz-atenag Serer Press(Split Fsmdmg) SRites 0 0 0 0 70,OW 250,000 0 350,000 Reclaimed Rater Grand Stone Tank,(5\IG) SSDC 0 0 0 0 0 125000 IsSOOW 1,475,000 73 MILS Control Panel Replacesuent- Arc Flash Equipment Rplc. RR 200,000 0 2W.000 600.O00 0 0 0 SW.OW 7.1 Thickened Sl4ioe Pmupmg SrA-s SSDC 55000 0 S5OW 0 0 0 0 85,0W 75 Thickenrd ShAioc Psmipirp Srtens (Split flmdino) S Rites S5.000 0 S5.000 0 0 0 0 $5.O00 76 Plimuapfor St:oad B:RTre.innent Tnsnand Associated lnfrasmaure SRites 0 0 0 0 0 4W.OW 2.000.000 2.400.WO 77 Subtotal -SWRC SI:W,OW SO SI-Ion.tx)0 S1,231.�W SI.r0015 53 i5.1136 54.596.273 515.215;156 Un 5ntions - Repairs and Ingimvrisunh 75 Lift Sutton Rehibilitalionm•Replacefum RR 5700,000 SO 5-W.000 5750.000 5750,DOo 5730.OW 57So.000 S3a00.000 79 Rrauanc of Lift StiCcn- Srulbsa nos flow !a SSRRC SSDC i00,000 0 :W.000 2?D•oW YSo,o0o _'50.000 2_0,O00 1,5W,000 50 FM:s:nr Gxsures as IS, - tied to SC ADA RP. 50.000 0 SO,OW 50.000 50.000 $0.030 50.000 230,000 51 Vacusurs Sivon Rehabilitation RR 0 0 0 450,000 250.000 0 0 700,000 S-' Subtotal - LIB Stations- Rrpairs and lsupra'enrenls 51,250,000 SO s1,2?0,000 51,?00,000 51.3W.000 S1A50,000 51.050,000 56.150.000 AMIR7A-UI 31e1er Renting Program S3 AL'Ionaied MlelerReadine(1MIR) Progrins RR 550.000 SO $50.000 550,OW S".000 S50,O00 550.000 5250.0W S4 NIu:uciml%V.ver Worms-A.\IRMeter. WSDC 250.000 0 250,000 ::Koo0 250.000 250.O00 250,000 1.250.000 S5 Critical Wa:r Valve Replaren::fir. RR i00,O0() 0 300000 :60,000 300,000 300,000 0 1.200,000 Line Frtd:a^ Adjusted Fiscal Year Fndine Seotembtr 30. 5-Year No Deseriphan Snare 2021 Ashu:tinents 2021 2022 2023 M-1 20'-5 Total 56 :revs• Wa:r Sr.1m Flow.Meters - 5RF Debi Semee ::ell• W-Debt 3 1.000,000 0 1.000.O00 -.150,000 4,150,000 0 0 9.3 W.DOO 57 line Rr,.enal, Replacnnent, E[Mn5io. RR 500.000 0 500.000 515.O00 530,4$0 545,364 562,754 2,654,565 SS Frstspasrst WR+In IOD.000 0 IW OW 103OW I06.nri I0.273 112,551 330.914 S9 Velueles WRiln 50.000 0 50,00 50.O00 50,000 50.OW 50.000 250.000 90 Lake\lan•Blrd to Aupon Blvd-Neu•Waler\lain NV Rates 0 0 0 600.000 0 0 0 600.000 91 17S92 P-elocalioa Project -CEI WRat- 15,000 0 1.1,000 0 0 0 0 15.000 92 S Sunmtrilai me R'Mt Eslrmlon (N Asgsart to \hllot1v71le A%v RR 275.000 0 27?O00 0 0 0 0 275 0W Line Bindma Adjusted Fiscal Year Erkne September 30. 5-Year N. A-srinticn Saran• MI Adm-dis-1, :o'I 20'2 2023 202» 2023 TwA 93 SR 46 WMI Rnloxni-I (P.k.k.e. to \lellennlle Ave) New W-Debt s 2_0.000 0 _^-0000 2.200.000 1,550.W0 0 0 3.970,000 94 Pmttat G.isir ,. alcnc WMl, - tied to U.'s C SCADA RR 50,O00 0 30.000 11O.000 50.000 50.000 50O00 250,000 95 lid and 17-92 Hµtant iu:gmirineutl-:nc Loopinp. '•s'RAI. IW0o0 0 100O00 200000 0 0 0 300.000 96 Newlifla•Bidding - 1303 S. Fmuch Ase(50". oftotal cost) WRvts 250.000 0 250.000 ISo,OW 0 0 0 400,000 07 \ixib Street Rater Ixa, Loop- (12sads) RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Ito 0oo 610,004) 9S Norh Street R'a:r Let Leopma(I]-uich)(Split Fuadnp) WSDC 0 0 0 0 1-10.000 630.000 0 500.000 99 Subtotal -Rater Dlstrihution 53,160.000 So Si,1611100 SSfiIS000 57:06.5.10 51955O37 51.715,305 S22,6S5.-IS2 Severer Collection 100 Mhse. Serer -Luce and Fotet=in P.ebabltntion RR S:W.oW 50 5500.000 5700,000 5700,000 5700,CW S700.000 53.300,000 101 F.gsupnsent SP-11, 100.000 0 I00)10(1 10i,000 ICd, 090 IW.275 112.3?l 530.914 102 '.-actor Tyr.c4 itneivang Statten it SSRRC SRate, 200.O00 0 200,000 »W,OW 0 0 0 600,OW 303 Vehicles SRites 75.O00 0 75.000 75,000 75.000 75,000 75,000 375,C00 101 Cellectleu Sphw ASWt\Lisuam=1 SRites 0 0 0 125,000 ISO.OW 0 0 275,O00 WS New Utility Billing- 1303 S. Frencls Avv (50°o oftotal cost) Spates 250,000 0 250.000 150,000 0 0 0 400,000 106 &:rd.i1110 SR»15 FNI- lasso Eris ansian SSDC 100.000 0 1W-o0o szo.a00 0 0 0 920,OW 107 LikrMarVBlvd ta.Vrport Bhd - Ness* Forcesnvn SRites 0 0 0 475,OW 0 0 0 475,00C) 10.1; Ncu• Dump TmcL•'1-actor Trucl: P3 -130.000 0 450 No 130.000 0 475000 0 1.075000 109 Subtotal- Sewer Collection $1.675.000 SO $1O75,000 S2o9S,O00 SI.031.090 51359,275 5557.551 57,950,914 Recuf reed/Alttruadve Water System 110 New Site lO Stcrape Poud(30-IW\IG) G..ri:: SO SO S0 So SO sIOWOW S1.0W.000 S2,o00.000 III ::tu•S:te 10 Reclaimed Water- Pussamg Station RR SO SO SO SO SO S200.000 51,300.000 SI,SW.CW 112 Site lO Miamtmapre and Culren Rghceiuen: RP. 50(06D 0 50 OGO 595.000 ?20,000 410.000 0 1573,000 111 Mist. RW Disclivpe Lnie Repair RR 100.000 0 IW.OW l03.0W 1051.090 109.273 112.551 330,914 114 Mlisc Reclaimed liar ENt's RR 50,000 0 A000 51.500 53.045 54,636 46.275 265;156 115 Cost SL•are\Lirch-WRR'\ID RR 50,000 0 MOOD 50,000 50.000 50.000 50.000 230,000 116 Rs* Nnitd R'MM It prop - Ohio A%v AIrllannll+Are /Airport Wet End RR 0 0 0 0 2511,000 1.I W.000 low coo 2,350,000 117 RecL mined Water System Asset MManieemen: RR 0 0 0 25.000 125.000 150.000 0 300.0e0 115 Subtotal-Rrlatmnl Rater System 5:50000 So 529),Wo SS2.1,500 51,101.135 53O73904 53,51S,SM SS,771,370 125 TOTAL CAPITALIMiPROy-E\IE\"IS 520.837,691 SO 520.837.691 533956361 518.S0g.654 520.601.V6 516918.414 SI11.122.696 5-.i Chapter 5.0 Lme Fuadiue Adjusted Fiscal Year Eadine September 30. 5-Year NO. Description Se. 2021 Adiuumems 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total FUNDING SOURCE SLNMARY 126 OperatinsResen'es Op Res SD SO SD SO 50 S2ADD.OD0 50 S2,400.000 127 Water FWe Resrnue W hates 952.000 0 952,000 !.SI7.500 756.075 745.O5S 734.459 5.OSS.092 129 lVa,,tewaterRateRevenue SRatea 3.053,ODD 0 3.053.O0D 2.712.790 2.565.0-4 326S.715 3.079.575 14.652,404 IN Renewals SReplacementFood RR 7.535.365 0 7•533,365 11.3S9.SS5 6,134.50 6.670.273 6.471.5S0 35.501.6SS 130 R•aterSystem DeeelapnentCharge,. (Impact Fees) R-SDC 566.711 0 566.711 663.703 420.000 SSO.000 250.OD0 2.7SO.414 131 Se-.' System De:el yarn: Chimers (Impact Fees) S SDC 935.0D0 0 935.O00 1.070.000 ' 51-0.000 I.S55.000 2.100.000 SASO.000 132 GrantFuadme Grants 1.697.512 0 1.697.512 3.005.135 2.10.000 3,166250 2.616.250 10.735.450 134 Proposed 2021S.RFLeaaIssue -Water \e�W-Debt1 0 0 0 0 460.000 1.616,350 1.616250 3.692S00 135 Proposed 2021 SRF Loan Issue - Sea -ex New S-Debt 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 AaailableDebtIssue - Water \ew•lt--Debt'_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 AyadableDeb* Issue -Sewer \ew•S-Debt2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 Proposed 2021 SRF Laau ls:ue Rater 11) \-sa' %V.Debt 3 4.7S2.755 0 3, 752.755 13.297.345 5.700.000 0 0 23.750.100 141 ;sailable Debt Issue - Water New IV -Debt 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 As7ilableDebtIssue -Sewer New S-Debt4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 SRF Loan IVU90150 [2) R'R•590150 955.04S 0 955.045 0 0 0 0 965,045 144 Other rundmeSources Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 TOTALFLNDL\GSOLRCES 520.837.691 SO S20.937.691 533956361 S13.SUS.6S4 S20.601.546 51691&414 SIII.M,696 Footnotes: 11) Based on dsscusvoas pith the Crew sod its Consulting Enrioeer, the Cir. will be recei:inr. apptmimate!y 52.9 million in p•incipal forgiveness associated with Ibis tom 76e:nised bo roninr unaun s are sbawab low•. Detcristion Amount Projects Identi5ed Aboae 523.750.100 Principal Forgiveness (2900.0001 \et Prineipil Financed 52O,SS0.100 [2) Based on the loan averment for the SRF Loan -11- •590150 dated Isdr25.2016 and subsequent amendments; 510.197,123 is disbs able fo. con.• trucuou activities as su»aari--ed bdon: Purpose Amount Projects Identified iu Aboav Table (Excludme Current Disbursements) 5935.043 Pre:ioush•Eapen:ed 7 Drsb¢sed Ftmds as of S/?Ol9 S_244.S95 Other Related Project Costs. Comiueenctes aad?llowances 967.150 Principal Arnoua:Borrowed(Escludiag Capitalised latest) 510.197.123 5-4 Chapter- 6.0 CHAPTER 6.0 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY Alternative water sources must be identified in order to meet the projected demand, reduce the demand on groundwater, and encourage alternative sources of raw water supply. This Chapter discusses the City's ongoing alternative water supply plan. 6.1 Alternative Water Supply Project Options The 2015 CFWI Regional Water Supply Plan lists City of Sanford's alternative water supply options. These alternative water supply projects can be found in Table F-1 of the 2015 CFWI RWSP Volume IIA, Appendix D. All of these projects are within Seminole County's jurisdiction and are regulated by the St. John's River Water Management District. 6.1.1 Surface Water Supply The St. John's River is an alternative source of water that has been previously or currently used as a source of alternative water supply. There are a few other projects that are under consideration that uses St. John's River as a source. Project number 135 (listed in Table F-1, CFWI RWSP VIIA) would draw its water from the St. John's River. The facility would be located near SR 46. It would include water treatment, concentrate management facilities, point -of -connection ground storage, and a potable water transmission system. A portion of the water would be used for reuse augmentation. It would increase the potable water capacity by 55 MGD and cost $548.26 million in capital cost. The Sanford Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well would also draw water from St. John's River to store for potable water use. It would add an additional 1.0 MGD and cost $4.17 million in capital cost. Another surface water source project is project number 136 (Table F-1, CFWI RWSP VIIA), the Sanford South Water Treatment Plant on Lake Monroe. It would increase the capacity by 4.0 MGD and cost $17 million. 6.1.2 Brackish Groundwater Supply In 2019, an alternative water supply (AWS) study was conducted by Connect Consulting, Inc (CCI) for the City to determine groundwater quality and availability in the vicinity of the Sanford South Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Sanford International Airport. In 2020, CCI conducted a water quality sample to determine the quality of the brackish water at Well 16027. The water was identified as a slightly saline brackish body of water, and can be utilized for potable uses with proper treatment. Using brackish water as an alternative water supply, it will require reverse osmosis (RO) treatment to reach drinking water quality standards. In the RO process, a semi -permeable membrane is utilized to remove ions and molecules out of the water. This planning and permitting of a brackish groundwater water treatment plant near the Sanford South WRF south of the airport is under consideration proceeding this year. 6-1 Chapter 6.0 6.2 Reclaimed Water as an Alternative Water Supply for Irrigation The City prepared a 201 Facilities Plan Addendum (Wastewater Facilities Plan) in 1998 addressing wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the planning period through the Year 2020. The primary method of effluent disposal identified in the Plan was public access spray irrigation. The Plan was adopted by the City Commission under Resolution 1799 and FDEP issued a Florida Categorical Exclusion Notification in 1999. The City has been extensively implementing the reclaimed water irrigation system since then. 6.3 Tri-party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study The City of Sanford, City of Lake Mary and Seminole County entered a Tri-Party Agreement regarding use of reclaimed water and surface water augmentation from the St. Johns River. The Tri-Party Agreement resulted in the supply of an additional 1.113 billion gallons/year of reclaimed water/surface water through the City of Sanford treatment facility to the City of Lake Mary and Seminole County to meet irrigation demands in the 1-4 Corridor and to reduce groundwater withdrawals. Therefore, this program not only addresses the City's needs, but has developed into a regional program which includes the City of Lake Mary and Seminole County. The City, in conjunction with the City of Lake Mary, Seminole County, and the District has developed a plan to further expand the current reuse /augmentation system. Appendix C contains a copy of the Tri-party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study, which is incorporated as part of the City's water supply plan and adopted as part of the 2000 District Water Supply Plan. The Study optimized the use of the supply of reclaimed water and surface water augmentation and plan for system expansion. The following items were addressed: ■ Considered each entity's current plans or needs for reclaimed water ■ Obtained and evaluated all current Master Plans ■ Evaluated available resources including ■ Identified additional cost-effective uses of reclaimed/augmentation supplies based on current Master Plans, potential users and available supplies ■ Evaluated potential recharge basins The Study identified fifteen locations for recharge basins to offset groundwater withdrawals. These recharge basins including, but not limited to: - Stormwater ponds at various car dealerships such as Courtesy Honda, Courtesy Acura, Courtesy Chrysler -Jeep, and the Sam's Club on Rinehart Road - Stormwater ponds at Woodbridge Lakes and Williston - Stormwater ponds within HIBC - Stormwater ponds within Heathrow subdivision - Stormwater pond within Timacuan subdivision - Greenwood Lakes WWTP rapid infiltration basin Coordinated with SJRWMD Staff for modeling of the reclaimed irrigation sites and recharge basins to determine capacities and the benefits, on a regional basis, of recharge on available groundwater supplies Evaluated the augmentation treatment system to determine improvements needed to allow the augmentation system to operate at times when the Sanford North WRF effluent does not meet reclaimed water standards Evaluated the storage facilities and the reclaimed water distribution pump station at the 6-2 Chapter• 6.0 Sanford North WRF ■ Evaluated the impacts of the increased use of water from the St. Johns River for reuse and recharge on groundwater quality ■ Evaluated the system expansion to serve Winter Springs, Sanlando Utilities and Altamonte Springs The Study was completed in December 2004. The City coordinated with the District for adoption of this Study as part of the 2000 District Water Supply Plan to allow the recommended system improvements to be eligible for funding through Stag Grants, Florida Forever Special appropriations, and other District coordinated funding sources. Some projects identified in the study have been implemented. These projects include: Augmentation facility sludge management at SNWRF The modifications of sludge management are under construction to effectively collect, pump, and treat the solids generated from the coagulation, flocculation and settling operations. The modifications include an addition of a sludge pumping station, piping, valving and electrical/controls/instrumentation/SCADA improvements. Sodium hypochlorite system improvements at SNWRF Improvements of the sodium hypochlorite system have been finished. The improvements include addition of a new "skid -mounted" pumping module, piping and valving improvements as well as electrical, controls, instrumentation and SCADA modifications. The new pump skid is able to feed sodium hypochlorite at various application points. Mill Creek pump station and storage pond Mill Creek is a major drainage facility running through the City of Sanford to Lake Monroe. A nineteen acre pond serves as a retention/detention pond for Mill Creek which flows through this pond. Another remaining 26 acre pond is an isolated pond that provides no stormwater function. A hydraulic analysis indicated that the reclaimed system was limited in delivery pressures and flows to Seminole County College and the Rinehart Road due the elevation changes from the SNWRF to these delivery points. By installing a re -pump station at the Mill Creek pond and utilizing the pond for storage, the delivery capacity of the system and the reliability of the system will be significantly increased. In addition, significant storage capacity will be provided. This storage will increase the abilities to meet peak dry season demands and provide a significant increase in system reliability. The improvements at Mill Creek were completed in 2008. . Timacuan Golf Course reclaimed water storage pond A reclaimed water storage pond has been constructed in the Timacuan Golf Course. The pond serves dual purpose. The main purpose of the pond is reclaimed water storage. The City is allowed to provide reclaimed water during daytime, off peak hours to fill the pond. The golf course irrigation system will draw water during the evening, higher peak hours. A second benefit of the pond is aquifer recharge. The pond is located within an area of high recharge potential. Therefore, the pond is unlined to facilitate recharge of the surficial aquifer system, a beneficial use of reclaimed water. Green Lakes Storage Tank An additional 1.75 million gallon reuse tank along with other treatment modifications was constructed and permitted at Greenwood Lakes Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2008. 6-3 Chapter 6.0 SNWRF Surface Water Augmentation System The Surface Water Augmentation System was developed and placed into service in spring of 2002. The City is permitted to withdraw 7.3 MGD surface water from the St. Johns River as an irrigation source. An Actiflo system was added to the system in 2008 for better treatment of the surface water. 6.4 Reclaimed Water System Interconnections In the tri-party study, an evaluation of system expansion to serve Winter Springs and Altamonte Springs was conducted. The delivery and transferring of reclaimed water to Winter Springs and Altamonte Springs can be accomplished by constructing storage tanks, high service pumps, and interconnecting piping at appropriate locations as shown on Figure 6-1. It is estimated that approximately 2.6 MGD and 1.5 MGD of reclaimed water can be delivered to the Winter Springs and Altamonte Springs, respectively, according to hydraulic calculations. In addition, supply of reclaimed water can be accomplished by installing a pipe from the City of Sanford Site 10 on the east side of Lake Jesup to the City of Oviedo, as shown on Figure 6-2. The delivery capacity and the long term estimated demand for the City of Oviedo is 3.0 MGD. Interconnecting the Sanford reclaimed water system with Volusia County has been completed. The initial reclaimed water demand of Volusia County is estimated to be 0.6 MGD with an ultimate demand of 1.2 MGD. The City is also in a position to not only be a regional supplier of reclaimed and surface water augmentation from the St. Johns River, but the augmentation system can serve as preliminary treatment for a potable surface water plant and reject water could be blended with the combined reclaimed/surface water augmentation supply of 14.6 MGD for disposal. If necessary in the future, this potable surface water plant could supply water to meet the City's and other regional water demands. 6-4 ¢ a S e 181OHVdV)1V ul O J `] 3 u OAlB -rIIH 3NIcI =' t F{- Q41 O G Qy u OU NVHH000 S 2J0 VA01430 •> 19 HSIWA 15 u VB W .O q V Qi w o is 3N015 is 3N01 = Y d iS 30 Va0 4 Lu L I i5 SVSNVN 15 S�SNVN _ I ¢ O 1S rill islVNVO it MO W'Ut'H3 3AV7 A 4 Z k -��, I- LMNO3 I ?O i N 3AV NOHgWVO � a � Y 3AVllValAV39� rn w dY Hp,hRP •'t • E: w 3Av SUIS 7.. S t 5 3Ab ONINdS 2 ei5� a 3Av olHo • Z k s, r.. Chapter 6.0 6.4.1 Reclaimed Water Distribution System Expansions Five projects were identified from the 2015 CFWI RWSP to expand the City's reclaimed water distribution system or increase the capacity for reclaimed water. Project number 112, orthe Lake Mary Reclaimed Water System Retrofit, would resize the existing reclaimed water system in subdivisions to expand the service area within Lake Mary. The project is estimated to cost $5.03 million. Interconnections are encouraged by the CFWI. Four of these projects require coordination with separate regional suppliers. Project number 109 would increase capacity 3.0 MGD by installing reclaimed water line from Site 10 on the east side of Lake Jesup to Oviedo affecting the Cities of Oviedo and Sanford. Another strategic reclaimed line installation would expand the line from the SSWRC to an existing 16" reclaimed water line creating an interconnection to airport for irrigation. The Reclaimed Water Orlando -Sanford International Airport Interconnection, or project number 111, is estimated to cost $7.7 million and provide an additional 1.5 MGD. Project number 113 would create an interconnection between the cities of Sanford and Winter Springs through the incorporation of reclaimed water pipe from SCC on US 17-92 to SR 419 to a 2.0 MG ground storage tank in Winter Springs. The cost of the project is estimated to be $5.17 million and would increase the capacity of the current reuse system by 1.7 MGD. An interconnection with Altamonte Springs and Sanlando Utilities (project number 114) would involve the construction of a 16" pipe along Lake Emma road and south to EE Williams Blvd. to discharge to a proposed ground storage tank in Sanlando Utilities Service area. Currently, the City of Altamonte Springs receives its reclaimed water from the Sanlando system. The project is designed to increase the capacity to 2.0 MGD and cost $4.7 million. 6.5 Aquifer Storage and Recovery System Further regional efforts include the aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project located at the City's Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant site and other sites. Sponsored by the District, a desktop assessment of ASR was performed by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. in 2003 (CDM, 2003) for the City of Sanford. Eight locations were initially evaluated as potential sites for an ASR system. The assessment indicated that ASR in the City of Sanford is technically feasible. Among the eight locations, Auxiliary WTP was ranked the most attractive option, followed by the Sanford Airport site and the Sanford WRF site. The opportunities of utilizing ASR to offset potable water demands may have substantial benefit in a regional system. Funded by the District, an ASR well has been constructed at the City's Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant site. FDEP Underground Injection Control Permitting and SJWRMD Consumptive Use Permitting are being renewed for the ASR and the City is moving forward with raw and mixed raw/finished water test cycles. Construction of a cross connection control pump station was completed in 2017 enabling the City to test raw water as injectate. 6.6 Surface Water Augmentation for Drinking Use The current water supply for the service area comes from the Floridan Aquifer. This water is of 6-8 Chaptef• 6.0 good quality and requires a minimal amount of treatment to meet the drinking water standards. Feasible water supply alternatives are surface water from nearby Lake Monroe and use of brackish water. The District started the Surface Water Instream Monitoring and Treatability Studies Project (SJRWMD, DWSP2005). A pilot plant was erected at Lake Monroe in Sanford as part of this project. CH2M HILL completed the project and a major conclusion was that the St. John's River is a viable surface water source that could be used for potable drinking water. Membrane may be added to treat 2.0 MGD of the augmentation water to drinking water standards. The City is also considering a Surface Water Treatment Plant on Site 10. In addition, the City will work with Seminole County to develop other alternative water supply facility including Seminole County Yankee Lake Regional Surface Water Facility. 6.8 Conclusion The City has an active and ongoing plan to meet water demands in the City Service Area and to assist regionally in meeting water needs. The current CUP permit allows adequate groundwater supply to meet potable demands in the City Service Area through the Year 2026. The City therefore has adequate water supply for a ten year planning period. Sanford has been operating a very successful and large reclaimed water system since 1990. The City's reclaimed water system at the Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility is currently permitted 7.3 MGD AADF. The City's extensive reclaimed water system and surface water augmentation system from the St. Johns River, combined with regional reclaimed water supplies, provide reuse/surface water to meet irrigation demands in the City Service Area and supplement supplies to the City of Lake Mary and Seminole County. In addition, the reuse/surface water system has capacity for further expansion regionally to Winter Springs, Altamonte Springs, Oviedo, and Volusia County with the goal of maximizing the use of reclaimed water of all parties and supplementing as necessary with surface water from the St. Johns River as discussed in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study. The reclaimed/surface water system also provides a resource for development and implementation of a groundwater recharge program to offset impacts caused by groundwater withdrawals in order to meet potable water demands. The City has taken a proactive approach to water supply within the City Service Area and regionally and this plan continues with the many ongoing programs in the City to address water supply issues, both locally and regionally. 6-9 Chapter 7.0 CHAPTER 7.0 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN It is the City's objective to conserve potable water supplies. Water conservation measures will be considered in construction or improvement of the City's utilities. The following efforts have been made for the purpose of water conservation. The Cities of Sanford and Lake Mary and Seminole County reached an agreement to reduce groundwater withdrawals from Floridan Aquifer by expanding reclaimed water use in lieu of potable water for irrigation. A Tri-Party Reclaimed Water and Surface Water Augmentation System Expansion and Optimization Study have been completed (Appendix C). The City will utilize the St. Johns River 7.3 MGD Augmentation System to meet irrigation demands • The City is developing a recharge program to reduce impacts due to groundwater withdrawals. Areas which are crucial to groundwater recharge are protected against development that may be detrimental to the City of Sanford's potable water supply. Figure 4-13 shows the identified potential recharge sites. • The City has disallowed the use of potable water supplies for irrigation purposes in areas where the City has made reclaimed water available. • The City will coordinate with the District and FDEP to deal with the upcoming TMDL and WLA issue in order to protect surface water of St. Johns River. • The City's "Utilities Standards and Specifications Manual" (Utilities Manual) (Appendix D) has been approved as the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The Utilities Manual describes the detailed standards and specifications and design standards for water conservation during the design and construction of potable water, wastewater, and reclaimed water facilities that are to be constructed within, dedicated to, owned by, maintained by, or operated by the City. o The Utilities Manual requires that a fully automatic reclaimed water irrigation system shall serve all landscaped and sodded areas of the development, including all adjacent rights -of -way and alleys. Connection distances and minimum line sizes are shown in Table 7-1. 7-1 Chapter 7.0 Table 7-1 N Reclaim VVclter Connecition Distances Type and Quantity of Development Distance from Existing Reclaimed Min. line size Water Line (Linear feet 1. Single family residences (individually owned 100 2-inch 2. Single-family residential developments 2 -10 houses 400 2-inch 11-35 houses 1,400 4-inch 36-120 houses 2,000 6-inch 121 or more houses 50 ft. each additional house 8-inch 3. Multi -family or Town home developments 1-100 units 1,500 4-inch Greater than 100 units 50 ft. each additional unit 6-inch 4. Commercial or Industrial developments 4,999 or less Sq. ft. 900 2-inch 5,000 - 25,000 Sq. ft. 1,250 4-inch 25,001 - 60,000 Sq. ft. 1,500 6-inch Greater than 60,000 Sq. ft. 200 ft. each additional 100,000 sq. ft. 8-inch o The City requires that all new developments within the City's service area utilize dual distribution system so that irrigation needs are met by using the available lowest quality water. Developments that are not required to connect to existing reclaimed water lines shall be connected to an alternative water supply system utilizing the available lowest quality water such as a shallow well, a brackish well, surface water or storm water. These irrigation lines shall be capable of connecting to the City's reclaimed water lines when reclaimed water becomes available in the future. All planned landscaping shall require an irrigation system. Each home and business shall have an individual reclaim/alternative irrigation meter. o The Ufilifies Manual requires all developers to submit water budget plans prepared by a certified landscape architect or certified contractor that account for all water usage on a site. The plan must include the water requirements for each landscaped or turfed area. i. For residential developments, the water budget plan must demonstrate that water requirements for landscaping do not exceed the equivalent residential connection (ERC) of 300 gallons per day. The plan must also include an assurance that the water budget plans are available to every prospective home buyer. For commercial, industrial and multifamily developments, the developer must demonstrate compliance with the City's take -back reuse program for future growth and development. This program requires new developments that connect to the City's wastewater system to "take -back" the same amount of highly treated effluent as generated by the developments. Effluent from the developments will receive tertiary treatment, which can be 7-2 Chapter 7.0 used for non -potable water purposes such as irrigation and fire protection. iii. All developments, whether on the City's reclaimed water system or on an alternative water system, shall submit an irrigation plan on a form supplied by the Utilities department. iv. The Utilities Manual provides landscape techniques for conserving water. At least twenty percent (20%) of all landscape material obtained from off -site sources for use on any site shall have a soil moisture range of `dry'. No more than forty percent (40%) of all plant material shall have a high water demand. Plants shall be grouped according to their water needs and soil conditions. If plant placement is done correctly as follows, once plants are established, little to no supplemental irrigation will be necessary. ■ Natural zone: In this area, place plants that have adapted to the wet and dry extremes of Florida's climate so that regular watering (once plants are established) won't be necessary, except during prolonged drought. ■ Drought -tolerant zone: In this area, place plants that can survive extended periods of time without rain or supplemental irrigation. ■ Oasis zone: In this area, place plants that may require some watering. The City's water utility will continue to use conservation measures such as use of reclaimed water for irrigation, improving and accelerating leak detection surveys and repair programs, installing and calibrating meters and stabilizing and equalizing system pressures, water conservation blocks, and fixture exchanges. The programs for technological procedural, and/or programmatic improvements to the production facility, transmission lines, and distribution system to decrease water consumption include: o Multi -year well metering program o Water line replacement Capital Projects Program o Regular calibration of water facility master meters o Meter testing, repair and replacement programs The City's employee awareness and customer education program concerning water conservation includes: o Brochure mail outs o City Hall Brochure rack o Bill Backer messages 8 times a year o Speakers bureau o Florida Friendly/ drought tolerant demonstration projects o Toilet rebate o Automatic meter reading/ data logging o Water Wise Education Events . All new or renovated buildings are required to install water conserving plumbing fixtures that 7-3 Chapter 7.0 are at a minimum consistent with the requirements of the State Water Conservation Act (Section 553.14, F.S.). The City has adopted a conservation rate structure for multi -family units that are different from the rate for single-family units. The rate structure for single family, multi -family, and commercial water and wastewater usage is as follows: 7-4 Chapter 7.0 Table 7-2 City of Sanford Water Conservation Rate Structure Single Family Water Usage Wastewater Usage Rates per 1,000 Gallons Rates per 1,000 Gallons Residential SINGLE FAMILY Effective October 1, 2017 Residential SINGLE FAMILY Effective October 1, 2017 0-2,000 minimum charge) $2.22 0-2,000 minimum charge) S4.90 2 001-6 000 $2.22 2 001-12 000 $5.74 6,001-12000 52.92 Above 12,000 -- 12,001-24,000 $3.78 Above 24,000 $5.58 IRRIGATION Effective October 1, 2017 Residential Multi -Family and Commercial Effective October 1, 2017 0-6 000 S2.92 per 1,000 gallons $5.74 6,001-18,000 $3.78 Above 18,000 $5.58 Multi -Family Water Usage Usage within each block (rates per 1,000 gallons/month) Effective October i 2017 # Units Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 0-4 16 36 72 72.1+ 5-10 40 90 180 180.1+ 11-20 80 180 360 360.1+ 21-50 200 450 900 900.1+ 51-100 400 900 1,800 1 800.1+ 101-200 800 1,800 3,600 3 600.1+ 200+ 1,840 4,140 8, 280 8, 280.1+ Rate $2.22 $2.92 $3.78 $5.58 Commercial Water Usage Effective October 1, 2017 UPPER LIMIT 1,000 gallons Meter Size Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 3/4" 6 12 24 24+ 1" 15 30 60 60+ 1-1/2" 30 60 120 120+ 2" 48 96 192 192+ 3" 90 180 360 360+ 4" 150 300 600 600+ 6" 300 600 1,200 1 200+ 8" 480 960 1,920 1,920+ 10" 690 1,380 2,760 2 760+ Rate $2.22 $2.92 $3.78 $5.58 As a result of the city's effort, the City has achieved virtual total reuse and conserves (approximately) 5 MGD of ground water through its water reclamation program at a host of sites, including a City -owned citrus/hayfield, parks, golf courses, and commercial, residential and government owned properties. Additionally, the City is continuing to require new developments to install dual distribution systems to utilize reclaimed/surface water to meet irrigation demands and conserve groundwater supplies for future potable demands. The City's active water conservation program including the water conserving rate structure for both the potable system and the reclaimed/surface water system has resulted in reduction of per capita consumption. The City has developed procedures and time frames for implementation, and for periodic assessment and revision of the Water Conservation Plan. 7-5 Chget 8.0 CHAPTER 8.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The following comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies (GOPs) have been reviewed for consistency with the Work Plan. New GOPs to be adopted and existing GOPS to be revised are identified below. The following GOPs have been adopted in the Work Plan and have been reviewed to see if updates are revisions are needed: Coordination of land uses and future land use changes with the availability of water supplies and water supply facilities; 2. Revision of potable water level of service standards for residential and non-residential users; Provision for the protection of water quality in the traditional and new alternative water supply sources; 4. Revision of priorities for the replacement of facilities, correction of existing water supply and facility deficiencies, and provision for future water supply and facility needs; 5. Provision for conserving potable water resources, including the implementation of reuse programs and potable water conservation strategies and techniques; Provisions for improved or additional coordination between a water supply provider and the recipient local government concerning the sharing and updating of information to meet ongoing water supply needs; 7. Coordination between local governments and the water supply provider in the implementation of alternative water supply projects, establishment of level of service standards and resource allocations, changes in service areas, and potential for annexation; 8. Coordination of land uses with available and projected fiscal resources and a financially feasible schedule of capital improvements for water supply and facility projects; Additional revenue sources to fund water supply and facility projects; 10. Coordination with the respective regional water supply plan; 11. Update the Work Plan within 18 months following the approval of a regional water supply plan; and 12. Concurrency requiring water supplies at the building permit stage. 7-1 REFERENCES [CDM] Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 2003. Desktop Assessment of Aquifer Storage and Recovery for City of Sanford, Florida. [CFWI], Central Florida Water Initiative 2015. Regional Water Supply Plan: 2035 Water Resources Protection and Water Supply Strategies. Florida Department of Economic Opportunity -Division of Community Development Bureau of Community Planning July 2012. A Guide to the Data and Analysis to Support Comprehensive Plan Amendments. University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research June 30 2017. Population Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for Florida and its Counties, 2020-2045, With Estimates for 2016. R-1 APPENDIX A CURRENT CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT #162 A-1 St. ohns River r: Water Management District Ann B. 5hortelle, Ph.D.. Executive Director 4049 Reid Street • P.O. Box 1429 • Palatka, FL 32178-1429 • (386) 329-4500 On the Internet at www.sirvrmd.com. December 15, 2016 City of Sanford PO Box 1788 Sanford, FL 32772-1788 SUBJECT: Consumptive Use Permit Number 162-11 City of Sanford Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed is your permit authorized by the St. Johns River Water Management District on December 13, 2016. Please be advised that the period of time within which a third party may request an administrative hearing on this permit may not have expired by the date of issuance. A potential petitioner has twenty-six (26) days from the date on which the actual notice is deposited in the mail, or twenty-one (21) days from publication of this notice when actual notice is not provided, within which to file a petition for an administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Receipt of such a petition by the District may result in this permit becoming null and void. The enclosed permit is a legal document and should be kept with your other important records. Please read the permit and conditions carefully since the referenced conditions may require submittal of additional information. Where possible, please submit all information required to comply with permit conditions, electronically, at www.sjrwmd.com/permitting via the District's e- Permitting portal. If you have any questions concerning the conditions of your permit, please contact Lee Kissick in the Maitland Service Center at (407) 659-4850 or James Hollingshead in the Maitland Service Center at (407) 659-4846 or Michael McGovern in the Maitland Service Center at (407) 659-4855. Sincerely, Margaret Daniels, Office Director Office of Business and Administrative Services Agent: Sarah Whitaker SMW GeoSciences Ste 1009a 668 N Orlando Ave Maitland, FL 32751-4460 GOVERNING EIOARD John A. Miklos, CHAIRMAN Fred N. Roberts Jr.. VICE CHAIRMAN Chuck Drake, SECRETARY Ron Howse, TREASURER ORLANDO OCALA ORLANDO COCOA Douglas C. Bournique John P. Browning, Jr. Douglas Burnett Maryam H. Ghyabi Carla Yetter VERO BEACH EAST PALATKA ST.AUGUST INE ORMOND BEACH FERNANDINA BEACH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 PERMIT NO: 162-11 PROJECT NAME: City of Sanford DATE ISSUED: December 15, 2016 A PERMIT AUTHORIZING: The District authorizes the use, as limited by the attached conditions, of 3,496.7 million gallons per year (mgy) (9.58 mgd average day) of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer for household, commercial/industrial, water utility and unaccounted for water use. LOCATION: Site: City of Sanford Public Supply Seminole County Site: Golf Course Seminole County Site: Hidden Lakes Seminole County Site: Oregon Avenue Seminole County Site: Twin Lakes Seminole County SECTI ON(S): 32 4,11 ISSUED TO: City of Sanford PO Box 1788 Sanford, FL 32772-1788 TOWNSHIP(S): RANGE(S): 19S 30E 20S 30E The permittee agrees to hold and save the St. Johns River Water Management District and its successors harmless from any and all damages, claims, or liabilities which may arise from permit issuance. Said application, including all plans and specifications attached thereto, is by reference made a part hereof. This permit does not convey to the permittee any property rights nor any rights or privileges other than those specified herein, nor relieve the permittee from complying with any law, regulation or requirement affecting the rights of other bodies or agencies. This permit may be revoked, modified or transferred at any time pursuant to the appropriate provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes and 40C-1, Florida Administrative Code. PERMIT IS CONDITIONED UPON: See conditions on attached "Exhibit A", dated December 15, 2016 AUTHORIZED BY: St. Johns River Water Management District Division of Regulatory Services By: Ann Shortelle Executive Director "EXHIBIT A" CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMIT NUMBER 162-11 City of Sanford DATE ISSUED December 15, 2016 1. With advance notice to the permittee, District staff with proper identification shall have permission to enter, inspect, observe, collect samples, and take measurements of permitted facilities to determine compliance with the permit conditions and permitted plans and specifications. The permittee shall either accompany District staff onto the property or make provision for access onto the property. 2. Nothing in this permit should be construed to limit the authority of the St. Johns River Water Management District to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S. In the event of a declared water shortage, the permittee must adhere to the water shortage restrictions, as specified by the District. The permittee is advised that during a water shortage, reports shall be submitted as required by District rule or order. 3. Prior to the construction, modification or abandonment of a well, the permittee must obtain a water well permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District or the appropriate local government pursuant to Chapter 40C-3, F.A.C. Construction, modification, or abandonment of a well will require modification of the consumptive use permit when such construction, modification, or abandonment is other than that specified and described on the consumptive use permit application form. 4. The permittee's consumptive use of water as authorized by this permit shall not interfere with legal uses of water existing at the time of permit application. If interference occurs, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the interference, unless the interference associated with the permittee's consumptive use of water is mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District -approved plan. 5. The permittee's consumptive use of water as authorized by this permit shall not have significant adverse hydrologic impacts to off -site land uses existing at the time of permit application. If significant adverse hydrologic impacts occur, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the adverse impacts, unless the impacts associated with the permittee's consumptive use of water are mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District -approved plan. 6. The permittee shall notify the District in writing within 30 days of any sale, transfer, or conveyance of ownership or any other loss of permitted legal control of the Project and/or related facilities from which the permitted consumptive use is made. Where permittee's control of the land subject to the permit was demonstrated though a lease, the permittee must either submit documentation showing that it continues to have legal control or transfer control of the permitted system/project to the new landowner or new lessee. All transfers of ownership are subject to the requirements of Rule 40C-1.612, F.A.C. Alternatively, the permittee may surrender the consumptive use permit to the District, thereby relinquishing the right to conduct any activities under the permit. 7. A District -issued identification tag shall be prominently displayed at each withdrawal site by permanently affixing such tag to the pump, headgate, valve, or other withdrawal facility as provided by Rule 40C-2.401, F.A.C. The permittee shall notify the District in the event that a replacement tag is needed. 8. The permittee's consumptive use of water as authorized by this permit shall not adversely impact wetlands, lakes, rivers, or springs. If adverse impacts occur, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the adverse impacts, unless the impacts associated with the permittee's consumptive use of water are mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District -approved plan. 9. The permittee's consumptive use of water as authorized by this permit shall not reduce a flow or level below any minimum flow or level established by the District or the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to Section 373.042 and 373.0421, F.S. If the permittee's use of water causes or contributes to such a reduction, then the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, unless the permittee implements all provisions applicable to the permittee's use in a District -approved recovery or prevention strategy. 10. The permittee's consumptive use of water as authorized by the permit shall not cause or contribute to significant saline water intrusion. If significant saline water intrusion occurs, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the saline water intrusion, unless the saline water intrusion associated with the permittee's consumptive use of water is mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District -approved plan. 11. The permittee's consumptive use of water as authorized by the permit shall not cause or contribute to flood damage. If the permittee's consumptive use causes or contributes to flood damage, the District shall revoke the permit, in whole or in part, to curtail or abate the flood damage, unless the flood damage associated with the permittee's consumptive use of water is mitigated by the permittee pursuant to a District -approved plan. 12. All consumptive uses authorized by this permit shall be implemented as conditioned by this permit, including any documents incorporated by reference in a permit condition. The District may revoke this permit, in whole or in part, or take enforcement action, pursuant to Section 373.136 or 373.243, F.S., unless a permit modification has been obtained to address the noncompliance. The permittee shall immediately notify the District in writing of any previously submitted information that is later discovered to be inaccurate. 13. This permit does not convey to the permittee any property rights or privileges other than those specified herein, nor relieve the permittee from complying with any applicable local government, state, or federal law, rule, or ordinance. 14. A permittee may seek modification of any term of an unexpired permit. The permittee is advised that Section 373.239, F.S., and Rule 40C-2.331, F.A.C., are applicable to permit modifications. 15. If the permittee does not serve a new projected demand located within the service area upon which the annual allocation was calculated, the annual allocation will be subject to modification. 16. The permittee must ensure that all service connections are metered. 17. All submittals made to demonstrate compliance with this permit must have the CUP number 162 plainly labeled on the submittal. 18. This permit will expire on February 8, 2026. 19. The maximum annual combined ground water withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer System for all uses must not exceed 3,496.7 million gallons (9.58 mgd average day). 20. The maximum annual ground water withdrawals from the Oregon Avenue well field {Well Nos. OR1-W (15312), OR2-X (15313), OR3-Y (15314), OR4-Z (33073) and OR5- AA (15290)} must not exceed 1,958.2 million gallons (5.4 mgd average). The combined ground water withdrawals from the Oregon Avenue, Hidden Lakes, Golf Course and Twin Lakes well fields must not exceed the total annual allocation. 21. The maximum annual ground water withdrawals from the Hidden Lakes wellfield {HL7R- G Station ID (420529), HL8R-H (Station ID 437029), HL9-1 (Station ID 15298) and HL12- L (Station ID 15301)}, must not exceed 1,679.0 million gallons (4.6 mgd average). The combined ground water withdrawals from the Oregon Avenue, Hidden Lakes, Golf Course and Twin Lakes well fields must not exceed the total annual allocation. 22. The maximum annual ground water withdrawals from the Twin Lakes wellfield {TL1-U (Station ID 15310), TL2-V (Station ID 15311) and TL3-T (Station ID 15309}, must not exceed 874.2 million gallons (2.4 mgd average). The combined ground water withdrawals from the Oregon Avenue, Hidden Lakes, Golf Course and Twin Lakes well fields must not exceed the total annual allocation. 23. The maximum annual ground water withdrawals from the Golf Course wellfield GC1-M (Station ID 5302), GC2-N (Station ID 15303), GC3-0 (Station ID 15304), GC4-P (Station ID 15305), GC5-Q (Station ID 15306), GC6-R (Station ID 15307), must not exceed 874.2 million gallons ( 2.4 mgd average). The combined ground water withdrawals from the Oregon Avenue, Hidden Lakes, Golf Course and Twin Lakes well fields must not exceed the total annual allocation. 24. Well Nos. OR1-W (Station ID 15312), OR2-X (Station ID 15313), OR3-Y (Station ID 15314), OR4-Z (Station ID 33073), OR5-AA (Station ID 15290), GC1-M (Station ID 15302), GC2-N (Station ID 15303), GC3-O (Station ID 15304), GC4-P (Station ID 15305), GC5-Q (Station ID 15306), GC6-R (Station ID 15307), HL9-I (Station ID 15298), HL12-L (Station ID 15301), HL7R-G (Station ID 420529), HL8R-H (Station ID 437029), TL1-U (Station ID 15310), TL2-V (Station ID 15311) and TL3-T (Station ID 15309), as listed on the application, must be equipped with an in -line totalizing flow meter prior to their use. These meters must maintain 95% accuracy, be verifiable and be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. 25. Total withdrawals from wells OR1-W (Station ID 15312), OR2-X (Station ID 15313), OR3- Y (Station ID 15314), OR4-Z (Station ID 33073), OR5-AA (Station ID 15290), GC1-M (Station ID 15302), GC2-N (Station ID 15303), GC3-0 (Station ID 15304), GC4-P (Station ID 15305), GC5-Q (Station ID 15306), GC6-R (Station ID 15307), HL9-1 (Station ID 15298), HL12-L (Station ID 15301), HL7R-G (Station ID 420529), HL8R-H (Station ID 437029), TL1-U (Station ID 15310), TL2-V (Station ID 15311) and TL3-T (Station ID 15309), must be recorded continuously, totaled monthly, and reported to the District at least every six months from the initiation of the monitoring using Form EN-50. The reporting dates each year will be as follows for the duration of the permit: Reporting Period Report Due Date January - June July 31 July - December January 31 26. The Permittee must maintain all flow meters and alternative methods for measuring flow. In case of failure or breakdown of any meter, the District must be notified in writing within 5 days of its discovery. A defective meter must be repaired or replaced within 30 days of its discovery. 27. The permittee must have all flowmeters checked for accuracy at least once every 10 years within 30 days of the anniversary date of permit issuance, and recalibrated if the difference between the actual flow and the meter reading is greater than 5%. District Form No. EN-51 must be submitted to the District within 10 days of the inspection/calibration. o Next submittal due 9/19/2021 28. The permittee must implement the conservation plan approved by the District in accordance with the schedule contained therein. 29. The permittee must have groundwater samples collected and analyzed for the permit duration from production wells OR1-W (Station ID 15312), GC5-Q (Station ID 15306) and TL1-U (Station ID 15310), and monitoring wells LUFA MW FS1 (Station ID 105448) and LFA MW DPI (Station ID 105447) on a quarterly basis for limited parameter chemical analyses. The permittee must continue to have groundwater samples collected and analyzed from production well HLBR-H (Station ID 437029) on a quarterly basis for major ion chemical analyses. Sample Collection All groundwater samples must be collected in accordance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Standard Operating Procedure FS 2200 for groundwater sampling (DEP-SOP-001/01), DEP Quality Assurance Rule, 62-160, F.A.C. Wells must be purged in accordance with the appropriate procedure in FS 2200, as necessary to evacuate water from the well column and induce groundwater representative of the hydrogeologic formation into the well prior to sampling. Purged water must be sampled and analyzed in the field for the following parameters: Water Temperature (oC) pH (SU) Specific Conductance (umhos/cm or uS/cm) Turbidity (NTU) Calibrated instruments equipped with probe sensors are acceptable for field measurements during well purging and water quality sampling procedures. Purging and sampling must be documented using the Groundwater Sampling Log form referenced in FS 2200 or equivalent. Water samples must be preserved in accordance with the selected laboratory analytical method, stored on ice immediately after collection and remain on ice until received and processed by the laboratory. Laboratory Analyses Water samples must be analyzed in the laboratory for limited parameters and the major ion suite according to the sampling schedule required above. Limited Parameter Chemical Analyses Limited parameter laboratory chemical analyses shall include the following: Chloride (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) Specific Conductance (umhos/cm or uS/cm) If the District determines that results for limited parameter analyses indicate that changes in groundwater geochemistry at any of the permitted wells may be trending towards a chloride concentration or geochemical type of groundwater significantly different from background levels and indicating potential saline water intrusion, the District will notify the permittee within 90 days that major ion analyses will be required for the identified well(s) on quarterly basis. Major Ion Chemical Analyses A major ion suite shall include the following laboratory chemical analyses: Calcium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Total iron (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Bicarbonate Alkalinity (as mg/L CaCO3) Carbonate Alkalinity (as mg/L CaCO3) Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) Specific Conductance (umhos/cm or uS/cm) Quality Assurance The permittee must provide documentation that field instruments were properly calibrated prior to obtaining field measurements during purging and sampling. All water quality analyses must be performed by a laboratory certified by the Florida Department of Health (DOH) Environmental Laboratory Certification Program (ELCP) and the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). All laboratory analyses must be performed using methods for which the laboratory has DOH certification. All laboratory analyses must be completed within EPA holding times. If data is lost or a laboratory error occurs and the EPA holding time for an analysis has expired, the permittee must have the well re -sampled within 15 days of notification from the laboratory that a loss or laboratory error has occurred. The resample shall be collected according to the procedures described above, and analyzed for the field parameters and the major ion suite listed above. Laboratory analyses utilizing selective ion electrodes and field screening test kits (e.g., Hach and LaMotte) are not acceptable due to the inadequate sensitivity of these methods. The major ion analyses must be checked for anion -cation balance (equivalent concentration in meq/L), and must not exceed 5% difference. If the ion balance exceeds 5% difference, the permittee must review the data and include in the report submitted to the District, a discussion of the cause or explanation of the imbalance. The permittee may also be required to have the sample re -analyzed if it is within acceptable holding times or have the well re -sampled. The resample shall be collected according to the procedures described above, and analyzed for the four field parameters and the major ion suite. Report A report must be submitted to the District no later than the last day of the month after the month of the sampling (for example, the report for samples collected in May must be submitted to the District no later than June 30). The report must include the following: Table summarizing results for field measurements and laboratory chemical analyses Groundwater sampling log Field instrument calibration verification Chain of custody form Laboratory analytical report (if outsourced) All data must be submitted to the District in a District -approved electronic format readable by the District's computerized database. If, at any time during the term of the permit, the District determines that significant saline water intrusion is occurring or will occur as a result of the withdrawals authorized by the permit, the District shall revoke the permit in whole or in part to prevent or abate the impact caused by the saline water intrusion, unless the permittee avoids or mitigates the impact under a District -approved plan. The plan must contain a schedule for implementation of corrective action, which may include modification of the well construction, well rehabilitation, reduction in well withdrawal rates or other measures identified by the permittee to abate the impact. The permittee must implement the District - approved plan pursuant to the schedule set forth in the plan. 30. The permittee must conduct a detailed water audit every three years and submit it to the District by February 15th 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023 and 2025. All water uses given in the audit must be for the previous calendar year and documentation provided on how the amounts were metered or determined. If the water audit shows that the system losses and unaccounted for water utility uses exceed 10%, a leak detection and repair program must be implemented. 31. All City operated irrigation systems must be equipped with rain sensor(s) and/or soil moisture monitoring device(s). The rain sensors(s) and/or controller(s) must be maintained and operational, pursuant to the manufacturer's specifications for permit duration. 32. Leaking or inoperative well casings, valves, or controls must be repaired or replaced as required to eliminate the leak or make the system fully operational. 33. The permittee shall implement the reuse of reclaimed water to the maximum extent when technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. The goal of this reuse by the permittee shall be to maximize the direct use of all available reclaimed water to meet irrigation needs in place of a higher quality water source (e.g. groundwater supply) and to provide beneficial aquifer recharge with reclaimed water that cannot feasibly be reused for irrigation. In implementing the reuse of reclaimed water to meet irrigation demands, the permittee must select and implement feasible measures which may include, but not be limited to, the following: • adopting a reclaimed water reuse line ordinance for new development; • requiring that all new residential developments, as well as, commercial and other development within the limits identified in the County's reclaimed water program ordinance use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation; • retrofitting existing residential and commercial development to use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation; • selling reclaimed water to other users, such as golf courses, for their use in meeting landscape irrigations needs that will offset the use of groundwater; • establishing conservation efforts directed toward efficient irrigation with reclaimed water (individual metering, rate structures, pressure reduction, etc.) The permittee shall submit a copy of the annual reuse report required to be submitted to FDEP, plus supplemental information as required, to the District by February 28th of each year that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this permit condition during the previous calendar year. The report and supplemental information shall include the following: • Description of the activities that have occurred during the previous year to implement the reuse of reclaimed water; • Description of the status of all the permittee's reuse projects; • Quantity of reclaimed water flows generated by the permittee, quantity of reclaimed water provided to customers or other entities for use in meeting irrigation demands, acreage irrigated with reclaimed water, and quantity of reclaimed water used to recharge the aquifer. 34. The permittee shall proceed, either in cooperation with other local governments and water users participating in the ongoing county -wide water supply planning effort in Seminole County, or on its own, to develop alternative water supplies that will be needed in addition to those allocated under this permit to meet water supply demands of the permittee in the future. The permittee shall provide an annual status report for District approval by January 30 of each year. The report shall document all activities taken to develop alternative water supplies by the permittee (either as a participant in the county water supply planning process or on its own initiative), including but not limited to planning, design, permitting, financing, and project schedule(s). 35. The permittee must implement a plan to monitor the hydrologic conditions of Sylvan Lake. The permittee may implement these monitoring elements or actions cooperatively with other CUP permittees that have the similar requirements on their permits. As part of the 10-year compliance reporting requirement, the permittee must demonstrate that the Sylvan Lake system continues to meet the minimum levels as established under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-8.031(2). The permittee shall implement the following pursuant to the schedules set herein unless otherwise agreed to by the District: a) By June 1, 2006, the permittee must begin, and continue for the duration of the permit, the following data collection: • Weekly stage data from Sylvan Lake referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (permittee must ensure that lake levels are read under all conditions (e.g. extremely low lake levels) - Upper Floridian Aquifer continuous water level recordings in the immediate vicinity of Sylvan Lake b) The permittee must submit and obtain District approval of an annual status report documenting the additional data collection listed above. By March 31, the permittee must submit an annual status report and continue for the permit duration. Submittal of this annual status report must commence by June 1, 2006 and continue for the permit duration. Water level data must be submitted in tabular electronic and graphical format. 36. The Central Florida Water Initiative had documented existing water resource environmental impacts within its boundaries. This Initiative remains underway and is, in part, crafting long-term water supply solutions for the region. As a component of immediate, interim measures the permittee is encouraged to participate in the District's on -going, heightened water conservation public education program. Given the permittee's use class, opportunities may include such activities as participation in water conservation public service announcements, demonstrations of irrigation efficiency at community gardens, posting water conservation information or links on the permittee's website. Please contact the District's Office of Communication at (386) 329-4500 to discuss opportunities participation in this important District effort. 37. This project is located in the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) area, an area with on- going impacts to water resources which are being addressed by the CFWI. If the District determines that adverse impacts to water resources or existing legal users are occurring or are projected to occur because of the Permittee's authorized withdrawals over the permit duration, the District, upon reasonable notice to the permittee and including a statement of facts upon which the District based its determination, may modify quantities permitted or other conditions of the permit, as appropriate, to address the impact, but only after an opportunity for the permittee to resolve or mitigate the impact or to request a hearing. Such modification, if any, will consider such factors as the permittee's relative contribution to the water resource impact being addressed due to groundwater withdrawals, the timing of this permit issuance compared to presently existing legal use of water, and other considerations identified by the CFWI Solutions Planning and Regulatory Teams. Modifications may include mitigation of impacts and/or reconsideration of allocations or requirements to timely implement required actions that are consistent with the long-term, regional water supply solutions as implemented by rules. Such actions may include the development of alternative water supplies, the implementation of water resource and/or water supply development projects, the application of impact offsets or substitution credits, operating plans, heightened water conservation or other appropriate actions. Nothing in this condition is intended to abrogate the rights of the Governing Board or of any other person under Section 373.233, Fla. Stat. 38. 1) The permittee must continue to conduct hydrologic and photo monitoring at each of the eight stations listed below (these stations are identical to those established by previous permits and otherwise are described by Tablel of the Wetland Monitoring Plan that was submitted on September 06, 2016): (a) Forested wetland bisected by Lake Mary Road, (Sec 17, T 20 S, R 30 E; Station ID 243972); (b) Forested wetland in Lake Forest development, (Sec. 19 & 30, T. 19 S., R. 30 E; Station I D 243984); (c) Lake Myrtle, (Sec. 24 & 25, T. 20 S., R. 29 E., and Sec. 30, T. 20 S., R. 30 E; Station ID 243971); (d) Forested wetland at Alaqua Lakes development (Sec. 11 & 14, T. 20 S., R. 29 E; Station ID 244007); (e) Yankee Lake (Sec. 22,23 & 26, T. 19 S., R. 29 E; Station ID 243983); (f) Forested wetland located south of SR 417 and north of Vilhen Rd. (Sec. 39, T. 19 S., R. 30 E; Station ID 243982); (g) Unnamed Lake, located west of Timacuan Blvd. (Sec. 8, T. 20 S., R. 30 E; Station ID 243973); (h) Lake Sten (Sec. 31 & 39, T. 19 S., R. 30 E; Station ID 243981). II) The permittee must maintain staff gauges and water table wells (hereafter referred to as monitoring devices) in each of the above -listed wetland sites. The monitoring devices and specific locations must be preserved as approved in writing by the District previously. Any future monitoring wells must be installed by a licensed water well contractor (as required in 373.336 (1)(b), F.S.), and be surveyed to NGVD (1929) to an accuracy of +/- 0.01 foot. The permittee must submit station location and descriptor data electronically as spreadsheets in a District approved format. Station descriptor information must include: latitude/longitude, brief text site description, date of installation, type of instrument, installation entity, maintenance entity, and access instructions. III) If another agency or utility is monitoring the same water body, then the same monitoring equipment/data can, upon written approval by SJRWMD, be used with the owner's consent. Data collection at all 8 sites must be daily at midday. Water level monitoring must be initiated within 6 months of issuance of this permit. IV) At each wetland monitoring site, an elevation profile along a transect 150 feet in length must be surveyed such that 50 feet of the adjacent upland is included. If the adjacent upland consists of placed fill, then the transect may be limited to 120 feet in length, such that 20 feet of the adjacent upland is included. The location of each transect must be reviewed and approved by the District prior to survey. Soil elevations must be recorded at 5-foot intervals and wherever there is a change in soil profile and/or change in plant community to an accuracy of +/- 0.1 foot. Other environmental features such as current water level, cypress buttress inflection points, lower extent of lichen lines, upper extent of moss collars, watermarks, and palmetto lines must be surveyed, if present. A general description of the vegetation present at each vegetation zone must include the dominant species in each stratum and the presence of nuisance/weedy/exotic species. A full soil description must be made in the top 24 inches of soil at each of the transect elevations described above. If the soil survey depicts the soils as open water, then the soil description will occur out to a water depth of 3 feet, and depth to sediment surface, and depth of organic substrate will be recorded for the remaining intervals. The data collection described in this paragraph is a one-time event. Well completion reports for the piezometers will also be included in this report. The vegetation and soil survey must be submitted within 6 months of permit issuance. V) Permanent photo stations must be monumented and panoramic photographs must be taken in September for each of the wetland monitoring sites, starting in 2005 and annually thereafter. These stations must be reviewed and approved by the District prior to monumenting. VI) The water level (weekly) must be recorded by the permittee for each monitoring site. Monitoring data must be submitted electronically as spreadsheets every 6 months that stores the information in a District approved computer accessible format. Permittee must contact the District for specific details on how to submit the computer accessible information. Specifically, data collected January through June must be submitted on or before July 31st of each year and data collected July through December must be submitted on or before January 3151 of each year. By March 31 the permittee must submit an annual report summarizing the monitoring efforts. This report will include the panoramic photographs, and graphs summarizing the monitoring data. 39. The proposed hydrologic and vegetative wetland/surface water monitoring plan shall be implemented as described in the Wetland Monitoring Plan received by the District on September 02, 2016. 40. The permittee must conduct monitoring of wetlands and/or surface waters for each of the areas listed below, including monitoring surficial, intermediate and/or Floridan aquifer groundwater levels associated with each wetland and/or surface water monitoring site, as needed: 1. Monitoring Site: Lake Ada,-81.282789,28.769140 41. Groundwater level data associated with the wetland and/or surface water monitoring must be collected for each of the sites listed in the following table and submitted electronically every six months to the District utilizing the Water Level Data -Wetland Monitoring Template, for the wetland monitoring site(s), and the Water Level Data -Groundwater Template, for the Floridan and/or intermediate aquifer monitoring site(s). These templates are available through the District's e-Permitting website. Alternative submittal formats must be approved by the District. Data collected January through June must be submitted on or before July 3151 of each year. Data collected July through December must be submitted on or before January 315t of each year. Groundwater level monitoring must be initiated at all monitoring locations by June 30, 2018. Data collection must include water levels (weekly without data loggers, daily with data loggers) from wetland surficial, intermediate and Floridan aquifer monitoring wells. Data must be reported as elevation relative to North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988. Wetland Monitoring Sites (Station wetland/surface Station ID water) Source Location Name Lake Ada 1 Upper Floridan F-81.282789,28.769140 460858 Aquifer Groundwater Monitoring Sites Station ID Station (wetland/surface water) Source Location Name 460859 Lake Ada Surficial aquifer -81.282789,28.769140 42. Surficial aquifer monitoring wells for wetland monitoring site station ID 460859 named: Lake Ada must be located in uplands near the upland/wetland interface. The surficial aquifer monitoring well design and specific locations must be approved in writing by the District prior to well construction. Surficial aquifer monitoring well depths must be at least 15 feet below the seasonal high water elevation unless prohibited by subsurface geologic conditions. The monitoring wells must be installed by or under the supervision of a licensed water well contractor. 43. Within 60 days of completion of each monitoring well installation, a Well Completion Report as well as a survey certified by a professional surveyor registered in the state of Florida shall be submitted for each monitoring well that includes: a) Horizontal position in latitude/longitude (degree minute second (DMS) coordinates) (YY°YY'YY.YYYY" N, XX°XX'XX.XXXX" W) relative to North American Datum (NAD) of 1983; b) Top of casing (TOC) vertical elevation to an accuracy of +/- 0.01 foot relative to the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988; c) Land surface elevation to an accuracy of +/- 0.01 foot relative to the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988; d) Top of screen depth (feet below land surface); e) Bottom of screen depth (feet below land surface); f) Depth to groundwater (feet below land surface); g) Total depth of well (feet below land surface); h) Mapped well location; and, i) Lithologic description of subsurface soil profiles and underlying sediments. 44. By August 31, 2018, the permittee must submit to the District a detailed baseline monitoring report of the wetland hydrology and overall conditions, for Lake Ada, for the period from date of permit issuance to June 30, 2018. The baseline wetland monitoring report shall be submitted to the District utilizing the CUP Wetland Monitoring Template available through the District's e-Permitting website. If the CUP Wetland Monitoring Template is not available, the baseline report shall be submitted utilizing a District -approved electronic format. The permittee must coordinate with District staff in order to establish and verify the following information: 1. A survey, certified by a professional surveyor registered in the state of Florida, of location and elevation of limits of wetlands and/or surface waters as verified by District staff, pursuant to 62-340, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) at multiple points (typically a minimum 3 points) around perimeter of the wetlands to be monitored. 2. Complete description of vegetation (including cover percentage for canopy, subcanopy, and groundcover species), hydrologic indicators and hydric soil indicators of each delineated point. 3. Complete soil profile description at each surface water/wetland delineated point (Reference: "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States"; USDA, NRCS). 4. Identification and delineation of the landward extent of where a hydric soil indicator occurs at the soil surface, if it is not at the wetland boundary point. A complete soil profile description shall be provided. Certified survey of location and elevation shall be submitted. 5. Identification and delineation landward extent of where a muck soil indicator (if present) occurs at the soil surface, if it is not at the wetland boundary point. A complete soil profile description shall be provided. Certified survey of location and elevation shall be submitted. 6. Identification of ordinary high water elevation (typically minimum of 3 data points) at each wetland boundary point. Certified survey of location and elevation for each data point shall be provided. 7. Photo documentation of items a. through f. above, including photographs of the surrounding area at each cardinal direction (e.g. north, east, south and west). 8. If the permittee elects to collect site -specific rainfall data, weekly rainfall data collected for monitoring period. 45. A hydrological and vegetative wetland/surface water monitoring report must be submitted to the District every five years subsequent to the baseline monitoring event. The five-year reports shall be submitted no later than August 3151 of the submittal year and include the information, as described in the baseline monitoring report. The five-year reports shall be submitted to the District utilizing the CUP Wetland Monitoring Template through the District's e-Permitting website. If the CUP Wetland Monitoring Template is not available, the five-year reports must be submitted utilizing a District -approved format. The five-year hydrological and vegetative wetland monitoring reports must include graphs summarizing the water level data, collected rainfall data (when collected by the permittee) and wellfield pumpage data. The elevation of the surveyed upland/wetland, hydric soil at surface and/or muck soil at surface boundary locations must be indicated on the graphs. In addition, the report must include a brief analysis and discussion of trends and wetland health as well as any observed changes occurring at the location of the boundary data points that are identified in the baseline monitoring report. A double mass analysis and/or a time series analysis of rainfall, well levels, and elevations of data collection points must be included for each well and monitoring location. 46. By September 30, 2018, and every five years thereafter, the permittee must meet with District staff to confirm the approach and specifics of the wetland monitoring plan for the next five-year period. By February 28, 2019, and every five years thereafter, the permittee must provide any proposed changes to the wetland/surface water monitoring plan to the District for review and written approval. Any re-evaluation of the wetland/surface water monitoring plan shall be completed using the most recently collected wetland, surface water and groundwater data for comparative purposes. A District -approved model to re-evaluate impacts of predicted drawdown within the surficial aquifer in the area of the wellfield to substantiate the need for any modifications of the monitoring plan may be required as part of any re-evaluation of the wetland/surface water monitoring plan. 47. If the permittee is unable to obtain or maintain legal access to any of the monitoring sites referenced above, the permittee must notify the District in writing within 15 days of concluding that access to any specific site is not possible. Within 45 days of this notification, the permittee must submit an alternative site to modify the monitoring network. Within six months of District approval of the monitoring network modification, the permittee must implement the approved change(s). 48. The permittee shall collect and report Upper Floridan aquifer elevations from the St. Johns River Water Management District's future DMIT monitoring well cluster ("Church Property"; Attachment 2 of the Wetland Monitoring Plan received by the District on September 02, 2016) located generally at:-81.271955, 28.771368 N. APPENDIX B CITY OF SANFORD REGULATIONS ON PROTECTION OF AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS AND WELLFIELD B-1 Sanford, Florida - Code of Ordinances (June 2017) SCHEDULE M — ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS SECTION 5.0. - PROTECTION OF AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to protect the functions of groundwater aquifer recharge areas within the city and ensure that the city's aquifer is protected from the downward drift of pollutants. B. Applicability. The regulations set forth herein shall apply to the most effective natural groundwater recharge areas (12 or more inches per year) as depicted on the water resources map of the 2001 City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan. C. Design and performance criteria. Uses and activities in the most effective natural groundwater recharge areas shall conform to the following design and performance criteria: 1. Prohibited uses. The following uses and activities are prohibited in areas identified as most effective recharge areas: mining; resource extraction including but not limited to excavation of sand and peat; junkyards; outdoor storage of hazardous materials and waste. 2. Conservation of open space. To the greatest extent practical, all native vegetation located in the required buffers of a proposed development shall be maintained in its natural state and protected from disruption during site construction. Where practical, grass parking areas and smaller parking stalls shall be permitted where it can be demonstrated by the applicant to adequately serve the needs of the on -site use and result in greater recharge than under these land development regulation requirements. 3. Preservation of natural conditions. All development located in an area of most effective recharge shall preserve pre -development soil types, grade elevations, drainage rates and water levels. SECTION 6.0. - WELLFIELD PROTECTION. A. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to protect potable water from contamination by establishing primary and secondary protection zones around municipal potable water wells and prohibiting certain land uses and activities within the zones which have the potential to contaminate groundwater. B. Applicability. The land development regulations set forth herein shall apply to all development proposed in areas surrounding a wellfield within primary and secondary protection zones. C. Establishment of wellfield protection zones. 1. Primary protection zone. Primary protection zones shall include all land within a 200-foot radius of any existing or planned public wellhead (a water system owned by a public entity or operated under a franchise agreement approved by the city). 2. Secondary protection zone. Secondary protection zones shall include all land within any public wellhead. D. Mapping. Wellfield protection zone maps shall be available for review in the department of engineering and planning. Such maps will designate and graphically represent the primary and secondary wellfield protection zones and may be amended from time to time as updated information becomes available. E. Restrictions within the zones. Prohibited land uses and activities within the protection zones are as follows: Sanford, Florida - Code of Ordinances (June 2017) Primary protection zone. The following land use activities shall be prohibited within the primary protection zone: sanitary landfills, animal feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, petroleum and pesticide storage facilities, incinerators, and all other activities that store, handle, or generate hazardous materials or wastes. Above -ground or below -ground pipes which store or transfer pollutants or other contaminants as well as open drainage cuts below the seasonal high water table shall also be prohibited within the primary protection zone. All other active uses are prohibited that could be foreseen to result in any environmental degradation to the public water supply. 2. Seconulary protection zone. The following land use activities are prohibited within the secondary protection zone: sanitary landfills, junkyards, solid waste disposal other than brush and stump, animal feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, petroleum and pesticide storage facilities, incinerators, and all other activities that store, handle, or generate hazardous materials or wastes. Above -ground or below -ground pipes which store or transfer pollutants or other contaminants as well as open drainage cuts below the seasonal high water table are prohibited within the secondary protection zone. F. Wellfield protection zone review process. The city shall review all site plans, master plans, and subdivision plans for consistency to the terms and requirements of this section and no application or plan shall be approved unless full compliance is demonstrated. Permits issued in violation of this section confirm no right or privilege on the grantee. Sanford, Florida - Code of Ordinances (June 2017) m APPENDIX C TRI-PARTY RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM EXPANSION AND OPTIMIZATION STUDY C-1 SEMINO-LE COUNTY FLORIDAs NATURAL CHOICE � \� / 1. .�l� _ •_ CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 West Fulton Street Sanford, Florida 32771 SJRVVTgD Contract No. SG354AA CPH Job No. S0662.00 NORTH SEMINOLE REGIONAL RECLAIMED WATER AND SURFACE WATER AUGMENTATION SYSTEM EXPANSION AND OPTIMIZATION STUDY Professional Engineer The information contained in this report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The report was prepared in accordance with sound engineering principles. David A. Gierach, P.E. (FL Rea. No. 38642) CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 West Fulton Street Sanford, FL 32771 (407) 322-6841 t TABLE OF CONTENTS AND LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.1 General................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Objectives................................................................................................2 2.0 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System.......................................................3 2.1 Service Area.........................................................................................................3 2.2 Reclaimed Water Distribution System..................................................................3 2.3 Reclaimed Water Pumping and Storage..............................................................5 2.3.1 Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility.............................................5 2.3.2 Greenwood Lakes Wastewater Treatment Plant....................................7 2.3.3 Yankee Lake Water Reclamation Facility..............................................8 2.3.4 Mayfair Golf Course...............................................................................8 2.3.5 Site 10...................................................................................................9 2.3.6 Sanford South Water Resource Center.................................................9 2.3.7 Summary of Reclaimed Water Storage...............................................10 2.4 Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility ............................. Paae N ...............1111 .0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLIES AND USES.............1 3.1 Reclaimed Water Availability..............................................................................1 3.1.1 Current Permitted Capacities....................................................................1 3.1.1.1 City of Sanford..................................................................................1 3.1.1.2 Seminole County's Northwest Service Area ...................................... 1 3.1.1.3 Seminole County's Northeast Service Area......................................1 3.1.1.4 Summary of Wastewater Facility Permitted Capacities .....................1 3.1.1.5 Summary of Permitted Disposal Capacities......................................1 3.1.2 Projected Reclaimed Water Flows............................................................1 3.2 Augmentation Water Availability.........................................................................1 3.3 Summary of Reclaimed / Augmentation Water Availability ................................. 1 3.4 Current and Future Reclaimed Water Irrigation Site Capacities ......................... 2 3.5 Reclaimed Water Resource Budgeting.............................................................. c POTENTIAL RECHARGE BASINS ................................. 4.1 General................................................................ 4.2 Identification of Potential Recharge Basins .......... 4.3 Methodology........................................................ 4.3.1 Dry Ponds .............................................. ........................................ 37 ........................................ 37 ........................................ 37 ..... 4111 4.4 Conclusion.......................................................................... DESKTOP EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY ............................... 5.1 General................................................................................................... 5.2 Conclusion.............................................................................................. GROUNDWATER MODELING ............................... 6.1 General ...................................................... 6.2 Methodology .............................................. 6.3 Results....................................................... ................................................. 47 ................................................. 47 ................................................. 47I ................................................. 4J 7.0 SYSTEM OPERATION SCHEDULE............................................................................. 7 7.1 General..............................................................................................................7 7.2 Operation Schedule........................................................................................... 7 7.3 Conclusion......................................................................................................... 75, 8.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING OF RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM .................................... 78 8.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 78 8.2 Hydraulic Standards........................................................................................... 78 8.3 Methodology...................................................................................................... 79 8.4 Results and Recommendations......................................................................... 81 .0 RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.............................................................8 9.1 Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility......................................................... 8 9.1.1 Existing Treatment Scheme................................................................. 8 9.1.2 "New" Augmentation System CCC and Transfer Pump Station ........... 8 9.1.3 Augmentation System Pretreatment Modifications .............................. 85 N 9.1.4 Augmentation Facility Sludge Management ......................................... 9.1.5 Wet -Weather Discharge System Improvements .................................. 87 9.1.6 Sodium Hypochlorite System Improvements ....................................... 88 9.1.7 Reclaimed Water Storage................................................................... 88 9.1.8 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ................................................ 88 9.2 Mill Creek...........................................................................................................91 9.3 Timacuan Golf Course....................................................................................... 95 9.4 Greenwood Lakes..............................................................................................99 9.5 Distribution System Improvements...................................................................101 9.5.1 East Lake Mary Blvd Reclaimed Water Main.....................................101 9.5.2 Reclaimed Water Main from Sanford South WRC to Victoria St ........ 101 9.5.3 New Reclaimed Water Main from U.S. 17-92 to SR 46 .....................102 9.5.4 Timacuan Reclaimed Water Main Upgrade.......................................103 9.5.5 Seminole County Reclaimed Water Transmission Projects ............... 10 9.6 Modifications to Recharge Basins....................................................................105 9.7 Summary of Recommended Projects...............................................................107 0.0 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND FUNDING SOURCES........................................110 10.1 Project Prioritization.......................................................................................110 10.2 Funding Sources............................................................................................111 10.2.1 Florida Forever Special Appropriations............................................112 10.2.2 State and Tribal Assistance Grants.................................................112 10.2.3 District Funding................................................................................112 IDescriation 10.2.3.1 Alternative Water Supply Funding Program ............................112 10.2.3.2 Ad Valorem Taxes..................................................................112 10.2.4 State Revolving Loans............................................................112 10.2.4.1 Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund...................................113 10.2.4.2 Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund.......................113 11.0 POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF TRI-PARTY SERVICE AREA...................................11 11.1 General..........................................................................................................11 11.2 Altamonte Springs.......................................................................................... 11 11.3 Winter Springs............................................................................................... 115 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility Reclaimed Water DistributionPumps................................................................................... I Table 2-2 Greenwood Lakes Reclaimed Water Distribution Pumps.........................7 Table 2-3 Yankee Lake Water Reclamation Facility Reclaimed Water\ DistributionPumps...................................................................................8 Table 2-4 Mayfair Golf Course Reclaimed Water Distribution Pumps ...................... 9 Table 2-5 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area: Current Available Reclaimed Water Storage......................................................................10 Table 2-6 Lake Monroe Pumps..............................................................................1 Table 3-1 Permitted Capacities of the Wastewater Facilities.................................16 Table 3-2 Current Permitted Reuse /Effluent Disposal Capacities for each Wastewater Treatment Facility ...............................................................17 Table 3-3 Reclaimed Water Flow Projections........................................................18 Table 3-4 Augmentation Water Allocations from Lake Monroe..............................19 Table 3-5 Tri-Party Service Area Reclaimed/Augmentation Water Availability....... 20 Table 3-6 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System: Current Permitted Reclaimed Water Customers and Capacities.......................................................... 21 Table 3-7 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System: Potential Reclaimed Water Customers and Capacities.....................................................................26 Table 3-8 Tri-Party Reclaimed water System: Reclaimed Water Irrigation DemandEstimates.................................................................................31 Table 3-9 Reclaimed Water Resource Budgeting for Each Tri-Party Member ....... 35 Table 3-10 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area: Total Reclaimed Water ResourceBudgeting.............................................................................. 36 Table 4-1 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area: Potential Recharge Basins... 38 Table 4-2 Annual Reclaimed Water Storage Capacities of the Potential RechargeBasins....................................................................................42 st of Ta Table 5-1 Sanford North WRF Reclaimed Water Quality Test Results .................. 44 Table 5-2 Lake Monroe Water Quality Test Results ............................................... 4E Table 5-3 50:50 Blend Results............................................................................... 4E Table 6-1 Summary of ECF Model Simulations...................................................... 4E Table 6-2 Tri-Party Projected 2020 Average Ground Water Withdrawal Rates(MGD).......................................................................................... 4E Table 8-1 Hydraulic Standards for the Reclaimed Water System ........................... 7� Table 8-2 Scenarios Used in Hydraulic Analysis .................................................... 8C Table 8-3 Alternatives Considered for Increasing Flow and Pressure at the Rinehart Road Interconnect...................................................................81 Table 8-4 Results of Hydraulic Analysis for Mill Creek Pond..................................82 Table 9-1 Sanford North WRF Augmentation/ Reclaimed Water System Improvements — Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ........................ 8� Table 9-2 Pressure and Flow at Mayfair Golf Course and SCC Resulting From the Implementation of Mill Creek Pump Station ............................ 91 Table 9-3 Reclaimed water storage Pond Filtration and Pumping System Opinion of Probable Construction Cost..................................................92 Table 9-4 Timacuan Golf Course Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Opinion of Probable Construction Cost..................................................96 Table 9-5 Greenwood Lakes Reclaimed Water System Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Cost .................................................. 99 Table 9-6 New East Lake Mary Boulevard Reclaimed Water Main Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ................................................ 101 Table 9-7 Reclaimed Water Main from Sanford South WRC to Victoria St Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ................................................ 102 Table 9-8 New Reclaimed Water Main from U.S. 17-92 to SR 46 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ................................................ 102 Table 9-9 New 16" Reclaimed Water Main — Rinehart Rd to Timacuan Golf Course — Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ......................... 103 of Tables P Table 9-10 Seminole County Reclaimed Water Transmission Projects from The Mater Plan Update........................................................................ 10 Table 9-11 Modification to Recharge Basins — Opinion of Probable Construction Cost................................................................................10 Table 9-12 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area: Summary of Recommended Projects and Project Costs .......................................... 10 Table 10-1 Project Prioritization............................................................................11 Table 11-1 Expansion of Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area ToAltamonte Springs..........................................................................11 Table 11-2 Expansion of Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area to WinterSprings.....................................................................................11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 North Seminole Regional Reclaimed Water Service Area ........................ Figure 2-2 Existing Reclaimed Water Distribution System........................................6 Figure 2-3 Sanford Reclaimed Water Augmentation System: Flow Diagram ......... 12 Figure 2-4 Sanford Reclaimed Water Augmentation System: Existing Site Plan.... 13 Figure 3-1 Current and Potential Reclaimed Water Irrigation Sites ......................... 32 Figure 4-1 Potential Recharge Basins..................................................................... 39 Figure 6-1 ECF Model Grid Cells With Reclaimed Water Applied To Simulations............................................................................................ 50 Figure 6-2 Run 1 - Water Level Changes in Layer 1 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 51 Figure 6-3 Run 1 - Water Level Changes in Layer 2 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 52 Figure 6-4 Run 1 - Water Level Changes in Layer 3 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 53 Figure 6-5 Run 1 - Water Level Changes in Layer 4 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 5 Figure 6-6 Run 2 - Water Level Changes in Layer 1 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 55 Figure 6-7 Run 2 — Water Level Changes in Layer 2 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 56 Figure 6-8 Run 2 — Water Level Changes in Layer 3 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 57 Figure 6-9 Run 2 — Water Level Changes in Layer 4 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 58 Figure 6-10 Run 3 — Water Level Changes in Layer 1 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 59 of Fiaures Figure 6-11 Run 3 — Water Level Changes in Layer 2 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 60 Figure 6-12 Run 3 — Water Level Changes in Layer 3 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 61 Figure 6-13 Run 3 — Water Level Changes in Layer 4 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 62 Figure 6-14 Run 4 — Water Level Changes in Layer 1 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 63 Figure 6-15 Run 4 — Water Level Changes in Layer 2 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 6 Figure 6-16 Run 4 — Water Level Changes in Layer 3 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 65 Figure 6-17 Run 4 — Water Level Changes in Layer 4 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 66 Figure 6-18 Run 5 — Water Level Changes in Layer 1 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 67 Figure 6-19 Run 5 — Water Level Changes in Layer 2 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 68 Figure 6-20 Run 5 - Water Level Changes in Layer 3 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 69 Figure 6-21 Run 5 — Water Level Changes in Layer 4 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 70 Figure 6-22 Run 6 — Water Level Changes in Layer 1 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 71 Figure 6-23 Run 6 — Water Level Changes in Layer 2 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 72 Figure 6-24 Run 6 — Water Level Changes in Layer 3 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions.............................................................................................. 73 Figure 6-25 Run 6 — Water Level Changes in Layer 4 Relative to Average 1995 Conditions............................................................................................ 73a (List of Fiaures Paae N Figure 7-1 Daytime Operation Scheme................................................................... 76 Figure 7-2 Nighttime Operation Scheme.................................................................77 Figure 8-1 Hydraulic Area of Influence.................................................................... 83 Figure 9-1 Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility Improvements ...................... 90 Figure 9-2 Mill Creek Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Filtration and Pumping System: Site Location............................................................ 93 Figure 9-3 Mill Creek Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Filtration and PumpingSystem.................................................................................... 9 Figure 9-4 Proposed Reconfiguration of Existing Stormwater Ponds AtTimacuan........................................................................................... 97 Figure 9-5 Timacuan Golf Course Reclaimed Water Storage Pond ........................ 98 Figure 9-6 Greenwood Lakes Reclaimed Water System Improvements ...............100 LIST OF APPENDICES ndix A - Potential Recharge Basin Dry Season Reclaimed Water Storage Capacity Calculations Jix B - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Recommended Improvements Table B-1 Sanford North WRF Augmentation / Reclaimed Water System Improvements — Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ...................... B-1 Table B-2 Mill Creek Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Filtration and Pumping System — Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ................................ Table B-3 Timacuan Golf Course Reclaimed Water Storage Pond — Opinion Of Probable Construction Cost............................................................ Table B-4 Greenwood Lakes Reclaimed Water System Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ................................................ B- Table B-6 New East Lake Mary Blvd Reclaimed Water Main — Opinion Of Probable Construction Cost............................................................ B- Table B-6 New 16" Reclaimed Water Main Sanford South WRC to Victoria St Opinion of Probable Construction Cost...............................................B-1 Table B-7 New 20" Reclaimed Water Main Riverview Ave (U.S. 17-92 to SR 46) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost...................................B-1 Table B-8 New 16: Reclaimed Water Main Rinehart Rd to Timacuan Golf Course — Opinion of Probable Construction Cost................................B-1 pendix C - Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Distribution System Map Figure C-1 Proposed Reclaimed Water Distribution System Improvements .......... C-1II Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study is a joint effort, between the City of Sanford, the City of Lake Mary, and Seminole County (Tri-Party), for the purpose of optimizing the existing reclaimed / augmentation water system. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) funded fifty percent of the cost of the study under a contract between the City of Sanford and the SJRWMD (Contract No. SG354AA). The remaining fifty percent of the cost was equally shared by the Tri-Party members. CPH Engineers was commissioned by the Tri-Party members to conduct the study. The existing reclaimed and augmentation water system was evaluated to optimize the use of reclaimed water within the regional system. The development of the regional reclaimed water plan began with the collection of data pertaining to the current wastewater plant capacities, available reclaimed water, and reclaimed / augmentation water usage from each Tri-Parry member. Section 3 presents the current and projected future public access irrigation sites and usages within the Tri-Party Service Area. There are currently 102 permitted reclaimed water irrigation sites in the Tri-Party area, having an aggregate reuse capacity of 12.72 MGD. Based on the data collected, CPH performed future reclaimed water flow and demand projections through the year 2015. There were 117 potential future reclaimed water irrigation sites identified in the Tri-Party area, having an aggregate reuse capacity of 7.30 MGD. The combined total reuse capacity, including the current and future sites, is estimated at approximately 20 MGD. CPH performed the hydraulic modeling using the Haestad Methods WaterCAD to identify the necessary improvements for optimizing and expanding the reclaimed / augmentation water system. As presented in Section 9 of this report, various system improvements were identified to increase the reclaimed /augmentation water system capacity. Improvements to the Sanford North WRF Augmentation System identified will significantly increase the reliability of supplying surface water from Lake Monroe to supplement the reclaimed water supply during the dry season. Other improvements to the reclaimed water distribution system include conversion of potable water irrigation systems to reclaimed water irrigation systems in some existing communities and provision of additional reclaimed water storage and re -pump facilities to increase the flows and pressures in the system. Section 10 addresses the prioritization and funding sources of the identified improvement projects. As part of the study, the SJRWMD conducted several ground water hydraulic simulations for the purpose of determining the potential benefit of ground water recharge resulting from the proposed recharge basins identified in Section 4 of this report and the expanded reclaimed water irrigation system discussed in Section 3. Ground water simulation runs which incorporated only recharge from the 8 dry ponds result in minimum rebound of the surficial aquifer levels except near the immediate vicinity of the 8 dry ponds (see Figure 6-2 & 6-6 of Section 6 Groundwater Modeling). Ground water simulation runs which took into account both recharges from the 8 dry ponds and the 219 current and future reclaimed water irrigation sites showed an appreciable rebound of Surficial Aquifer System (see Figure 6-10, 6-14, 6-18 & 6-22 December 3, 2004 Executive Summary Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study ii of Section 6). The result of these preliminary ground water simulation runs indicate that the proposed expansion of the reclaimed water irrigation system, in conjunction with the operation of the recharge basins, will offset and may serve to mitigate potential environmental impacts on wetlands within the Tri-Party service area due to the projected increase in withdrawal of ground water for potable water supply. The SJRWMD staff conducted the above groundwater simulations using the East-Central Florida (EFC) Regional Ground Water Flow Model, which was developed to cover a much larger area and uses a larger model grid for regional modeling purpose. It is suggested that a more sophisticated model, which takes into account the local conditions, be developed and operated to obtain a more accurate ground water modeling result prior to finalizing the design phase of the study. This study also analyzes the long term feasibility on a conceptual basis of providing reclaimed water to Altamonte Springs and Winter Springs from the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area and vice versa. The delivery and transferring of reclaimed water among the Tri-Party Service Area, Altamonte Springs and Winter Springs can be accomplished by constructing storage tanks, high service pumps, and interconnecting piping at appropriate locations. According to the hydraulic calculations, it is estimated that approximately 1.5 MGD and 1.9 MGD of reclaimed water can be delivered to Altamonte Springs and Winter Springs, respectively, from the Tri-Party Service Area during the night time hours. The Tri-Party members will work together to share the costs for engineering and construction of the major improvement projects identified. The Tri-Party members will also seek partial funding through various programs, such as Florida Forever, State and Tribal Assistance Grants, SJRWMD alternative water supply funding, and State Revolving Fund loans. December 3, 2004 Executive Summary Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General The Cities of Sanford and Lake Mary, and Seminole County (Tri-Parry) have a history of working together to make reclaimed water available to more users. The initial agreement entitled "Joint Participation Agreement Between City of Sanford, City of Lake Mary and Seminole County Providing for Potable Water and Reclaimed Water Distribution Infrastructure for the Rinehart Road and Heathrow Areas", referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement, was made and entered into by the three parties in December 1996. This agreement was established to implement the construction and improvements of potable water and reclaimed water distribution infrastructure for the Rinehart Road and Heathrow areas. The agreement provided for a delivery of approximately 0.75 MGD of reclaimed water from the City of Sanford reuse system to the Seminole County Northwest Service Area through the County's master meter. The agreement also provided for approximately 0.15 MGD of reclaimed water from the City of Sanford reuse system to the City of Lake Mary through the Rinehart Road corridor. The Tri-Party members amended their agreement in October 2001 to avoid potential adverse impacts that could result from continued withdrawals of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer. Certain areas in the Tri-Party area, such as the Rinehart Road corridor and the Colonial Center - Heathrow (CC-H) site (formerly known as Heathrow International Business Center HIBC), exhibit high water demands for irrigation. The Tri- Party members amended their agreement to reduce groundwater withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer by expanding the reclaimed water use for irrigation. The amended agreement provided for a maximum flow of 2.75 MGD from the City of Sanford to Seminole County and a maximum flow of 1.2 MGD from the City of Sanford to the City of Lake Mary. The additional capacity was made available by implementing an augmentation facility at the Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility, which utilizes surface water from the St. Johns River to supplement the reclaimed water supply. The Tri-Party agreement has provided an additional 1,113 million gallons per year of reclaimed water and surface water through the City of Sanford treatment facility to the City of Lake Mary and Seminole County to meet irrigation demands and reduce groundwater withdrawals. Under the existing agreement, the City of Sanford has constructed additional components to the surface -water augmentation facility to increase the capacity from a maximum day rate of 3.65 MGD to 7.30 MGD. The combined available supply of reclaimed water and surface water from the City of Sanford alone is 14.6 MGD. December 3, 2004 Introduction Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 1.2 The regional plan presented in this report will further integrate the Tri-Party reuse systems. This report presents system improvements to optimize the use of available lower quality reclaimed water and surface water for irrigation and for ground water recharge and to reduce the amount of potable water used for these purposes. Seminole County is expanding its reclaimed water system to include residential irrigation. The County needs additional and more reliable sources of reclaimed and augmentation water supplies. The cities of Lake Mary and Sanford also will benefit by increased and more reliable sources of reclaimed and augmentation water supplies, decreasing the use of groundwater sources and conserving it for drinking water supply. Project Objectives This report presents the results of a study to optimize the use of reclaimed water and surface water supplies. The study evaluated an expansion of the reclaimed water and surface water augmentation system to maximize the use of these this alternative water supplies. The specific objectives of this study are as follows: ■ To identify and describe specific new project components that can effectively expand the use of reclaimed water and surface water by members of the Tri- Party agreement. ■ To identify and describe the necessary project components such as recharge basins and storage ponds that are needed to increase the reliability of reclaimed water supplies for members of the Tri-Party agreement. ■ To identify and describe the environmental benefits associated with the proposed project components such as enhanced recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. ■ To develop a plan that will enable Tri-Party members to obtain additional funding from other sources for project implementation. December 3, 2004 Introduction Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 3 SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM 2.1 Service Area and Reclaimed Water Sources The Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area includes the City of Sanford, the City of Lake Mary, Seminole County's Northeast Service Area, Seminole County's Northwest Service Area and the unincorporated portions of Seminole County as presented in Figure 2-1. The reclaimed water service area is currently being served by one City of Sanford -owned wastewater treatment facility and two County -owned wastewater treatment facilities. The City of Sanford wastewater treatment facility is the Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility (SNWRF). Due to increasing wastewater flows, a second wastewater treatment facility, the Sanford South Water Resource Center (SSWRC), will soon be under construction for the City of Sanford. The County wastewater treatment facilities are Greenwood Lakes Wastewater Treatment Plant (GLWWTP) and Yankee Lake Water Reclamation Facility (YLWRF). In addition, the area is served by a 7.3 MGD surface water augmentation system, located at SNWRF. This augmentation system treats water from Lake Monroe and supplements the Tri- Party reclaimed water supply. The reclaimed water sub -areas within the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area have been defined by the service areas specified in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) domestic wastewater facility permit for each facility. 2.2 Reclaimed Water Distribution System The reclaimed water distribution system consists of over seventy-five (75) miles of distribution piping throughout the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. Reclaimed water is delivered from the wastewater treatment facilities to various public access spray irrigation sites and two restricted access irrigation sites. Spray irrigation is currently practiced in areas open to "public access" such as Mayfair Golf Course, parks, Seminole Community College, Timacuan Golf Course, school properties, residential neighborhoods, commercial/industrial establishments, and agricultural properties. Seminole County has enacted an ordinance amending the County's Land Development Code. The ordinance requires new developments located where reclaimed water service is available to connect to the reclaimed water system. The ordinance considers reclaimed water service to be "available" to a site if a reclaimed water main lies within 1,250 feet of the site and if service to the site is accessible through existing easements and rights -of -way. New subdivisions in which reclaimed water is not currently available are required to install dry lines for future connection to a reclaimed water system if reclaimed water will be made available to the site within ten year. The Cities of Lake December 3, 2004 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System LL 0 0 O O Z Z 7 7 � O C: Y D U O U (n J N N O O T T E E FU Q C N O U N N cn O d C_ f6 (� � aa s O (p z Tri Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 7 Sanford Reclaimed Pump No. Table 2-1 North Water Reclamation Water Distribution Capacity (gpm) Facility Pumps ji TDH (ft) 2.3.2 Greenwood Lakes Wastewater Treatment Plant The GLWWTP reclaimed water storage site is located approximately two miles northwest of the wastewater treatment facility. The reclaimed water produced at the wastewater treatment facility is pumped to the site, which contains a ground storage tank and rapid infiltration basins (RIBS). If the reclaimed water meets regulatory standards for public access reuse, it is delivered to a 1.75 million - gallon ground storage tank. If the reclaimed water does not meet public access reuse standards, it is discharged into the RIBS. The reclaimed water is pumped out of the storage tank and into the distribution system via four constant speed vertical turbine pumps. The capacity and TDH for each pump is presented in Table 2-2. December 3, 2004 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 8 2.3.3 Yankee Lake Water Reclamation Facility A 2.0 million -gallon reclaimed water ground storage tank is located on -site at the YLWRF. If reclaimed water produced by the facility meets regulatory standards for public access reuse, it is directed to the reclaimed water ground storage tank. The tank provides storage of the reclaimed water, which is used for on -site reuse and for the Tri-Party spray irrigation system. if reclaimed water does not meet regulatory requirements for public access reuse or if the reclaimed water storage tank is full, then the reclaimed water is discharged into the RIBs located on the YLWRF site, into a flow -through receiving wetlands system, or onto an on -site spray field. The reclaimed water is pumped out of the storage tank and into the distribution system via four constant speed vertical turbine pumps. The capacity and TDH for each pump is presented in Table 2-3. Yankee Reclaimed Pump No. Table 2-3 Lake Water Reclamation Facility Water Distribution Pumps Capacity (gpmt TDH (ft) 2.3.4 Mayfair Golf Course Reclaimed water storage at the Mayfair Golf Course consists of a lined pond and a pre -stressed concrete ground storage tank currently under construction. The lined pond has been incorporated into the landscape of the golf course. The reclaimed water is pumped into the pond during the daytime. The reclaimed water is pumped out of the pond and used to irrigate the golf course during the peak evening hours. Usable storage volume for irrigation at the golf course is 0.50 million gallons. A 1.5 million -gallon concrete ground storage tank is under construction at the Sanford Main Water Treatment Plant (SMWTP) located on the Mayfair Golf Course property. Reclaimed water will be pumped into the ground storage tank December 3, 2004 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System Tri Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 9 during the daytime hours. During the evening hours, reclaimed water will be pumped out of the ground storage tank and used for the Tri-Party spray irrigation system. Construction of the reclaimed water ground storage tank at the SMWTP is expected to be completed in January 2005. The reclaimed water will be pumped out of the storage tank and into the distribution system via three horizontal split -case high service pumps. The capacity and TDH for each pump is presented in Table 2-4. Table 2-4 Mayfair Golf Course Reclaimed Water Distribution Pumps Pump No. `'' TDH (ft) 2.3.5 Site 10 Reclaimed water storage at Site 10 consists of two unlined effluent holding ponds located near the north end of the site. Usable volume for irrigation at Site 10 is 33.3 million gallons between the low and high water levels. The reclaimed water is pumped out of the ponds and used to irrigate the citrus groves and the hayfields located at Site 10. The site 10 storage system is owned and operated by the City of Sanford. 2.3.6 Sanford South Water Resource Center Reclaimed water storage at the SSW RC will consist of one 3.0 million -gallon pre- stressed ground storage tank to be constructed in Phase I of the Project. An additional 5.0 million -gallon reclaimed water ground storage tank will be constructed in Phase II of the Project. After high level disinfection, the treated effluent from the SSWRC will flow from the common effluent channel of the chlorine contact chamber into the transfer pump station wet well. The flow will then be pumped to a vault station, where it will be monitored for pH, turbidity and chlorine residual. If the reclaimed water meets regulatory standards for public access reuse, it will be pumped into the reclaimed water ground storage tanks. The reclaimed water will then be used for on -site reuse and for the Tri-Party December 3, 2004 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System 2.3.5 Site 10 Reclaimed water storage at Site 10 consists of two unlined effluent holding ponds located near the north end of the site. Usable volume for irrigation at Site 10 is 33.3 million gallons between the low and high water levels. The reclaimed water is pumped out of the ponds and used to irrigate the citrus groves and the hayfields located at Site 10. The site 10 storage system is owned and operated by the City of Sanford. 2.3.6 Sanford South Water Resource Center Reclaimed water storage at the SSW RC will consist of one 3.0 million -gallon pre- stressed ground storage tank to be constructed in Phase I of the Project. An additional 5.0 million -gallon reclaimed water ground storage tank will be constructed in Phase II of the Project. After high level disinfection, the treated effluent from the SSWRC will flow from the common effluent channel of the chlorine contact chamber into the transfer pump station wet well. The flow will then be pumped to a vault station, where it will be monitored for pH, turbidity and chlorine residual. If the reclaimed water meets regulatory standards for public access reuse, it will be pumped into the reclaimed water ground storage tanks. The reclaimed water will then be used for on -site reuse and for the Tri-Party December 3, 2004 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 10 spray irrigation system. If the reclaimed water does not meet regulatory standards for public access irrigation, it will be directed to the reject storage tanks. The "substandard" water will then be recycled back through the facility. Phase I of the SSWRC is expected to be in operation in 2006 and Phase II is expected to be in operation in 2011. The reclaimed water will be pumped out of the storage tanks and into the distribution system via six constant speed vertical turbine pumps currently under design. 2.3.7 Summary of Reclaimed Water Storage The total current storage capacity in the Tri-party Reclaimed Water Service Area is 45.1 million -gallons (MG). However, the reclaimed water that is pumped into the lined pond at Mayfair Golf Course and the two unlined ponds at Site 10 are only used for irrigation at the respective locations and cannot be re -pumped into the distribution system. Therefore, the total available storage capacity for the distribution system is 11.25 MG. Table 2-5 presents a summary of the current reclaimed water storage capacity. litTable Tri-Party Current it wocation 2-5 Reclaimed Water Service Available Reclaimed Water Area: Storage Fotal Capacity SNWRF Ground Storage Tanks 3.0 GLWWTP Ground Storage Tank 1.75 YLWRF Ground Storage Tank 2.0 Mayfair Golf Course* Lined Pond 0.50 Mayfair Golf Course Ground Storage Tank 1.50 Site 10** Unlined Ponds 33.3 SSWRC Ground Storage Tanks 3.0 Notes: December 3, 2004 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System Tri Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 11 'Mayfair Golf Course lined pond is only storage for reclaimed water used for irrigation of Mayfair Golf Course and reclaimed water cannot be re -pumped into the distribution system. 'Site 10 is only storage for reclaimed water used for irrigation of citrus groves and hayfields at Site 10 and cannot be re -pumped into the distribution system. 2.4 Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility The City of Sanford has received a St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) (Permit No. 50965) to withdraw water from Lake Monroe to supplement their reclaimed water supply and reduce groundwater withdrawals in Seminole County. The U S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) granted funds to the City of Sanford for a program to supplement Sanford's reclaimed water supply. The City of Sanford performed a pilot -testing program to determine the most cost effective treatment necessary to utilize water from Lake Monroe as an irrigation source. Sanford used the USEPA Phase I grant funds to partially fund the construction of an augmentation system at the SNWRF. The matching funds were provided by the Tri-Party members. Phase I of the augmentation system allowed the City to withdraw up to 3.65 MGD from Lake Monroe and treat the water to reclaimed standards outlined in Chapter 62-610 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The facility consists of the following components: ■ Lake water pumping system and flow metering system. ■ Filtration system and chemical feed building, including two rotary screw air compressors, dehumidifying systems, a receiver tank and chemical feed systems for polymer and alum. ■ Filtration structure, consisting of a flow splitter box, two cells of deep bed (84") Dynasand filters each containing five filter modules and associated equipment and appurtenances. ■ Electrical, Instrumentation and SCADA systems. A flow diagram for the augmentation system at the SNWRF is presented in Figure 2-3 and a site plan is shown in Figure 2-4. The operation of the system consists of water being pumped from Lake Monroe through Manhole "J" via a diesel pumping system. The capacity and TDH for each pump is presented in Table 2-6. December3, 2004 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System N T- i;O LU (n w N U� >, a Oa O U � Q J O F- J O 0z o Ir a z�0� LJ Z�}-`fir >- LU U) ❑ F LL M. ❑ c ¢ ❑ ❑ z W :2 z O� m W F CC ZW Z W ow IQ P: ai3 WLLa0 c� zz ❑(1)2ELU F HO U-<I.h W W F N Q Z O W Z p U)W ZO U d I W ❑ I 'r I � LU I ? U W ce I o~2 Z I U U U I _ I c9 ZWtn I �0ce W ❑ LU I co E I I F U W I �o0- c Owl CLLLCL �W LU0Y _a _ z I (L I aaL�u O F LU � cl I oLLW u t >j I ui-i Qa i U 2i0wa L� I o� LU QLLJ U- a I a 0W2E ZD p H O W I r �aU) W °za I O�cn LLo> m F U O m z Ci LU F- z 7 a00 'SizF wma U) R CL J F W ❑CL w 1, W, w co Gi O 1 � 1 0 Mill Creek (Cloud Branch) CD_..— u = 7 §� 1 1 O c8 1 I n 1 \ \ 0) 41 1 \' X W I CC 1 � C 1 i � W � S A ea J <<o O 1 _ „ L ai co i oo u L o K 1 �•- o ..,�= _ I Ica � c6 CD co 1 � zasuan °rtustra = ' LL. 3 -a 1 U U O aaatir,+ riNo� ^ U) O a — II II ' oow F c9 0 2 I - ►— InrCDiD vi€== Q) m�R ! I) d=aca ' LL I Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization StudV 14 reclaimed water directly to the Tri-Party reclaimed water system. I . Alum and polymer are then added to the lake water and coagulation and flocculation are accomplished. The flow is then conveyed to the filtration system common influent channel where it is directed into the Dynasand filters. The final product is monitored for pH and turbidity and is then blended with the reclaimed water produced by the SNWRF and directed to the chlorine contact chamber for high level disinfection. Phase I of the surface water augmentation system was developed and placed in service in the fall of 2001. Phase II of the Sanford Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility is `operational' and allows the City to withdraw up to 7.3 MGD from Lake Monroe and treat the water to reclaimed standards. The following additions to the reclaimed water augmentation facility were implemented: in Three cells of deep bed (84") Dynasand filters each containing five filter modules. H One rotary screw air compressor. Phase II of the surface water augmentation system was developed and placed in service in the spring of 2002. The augmentation system cost was $2,949,445 for a capacity of 7.3 MGD or $0.41/gallon capital cost. The cost to produce the water is $0.26/1000 gallons. The wastewater facility permitted capacity is 7.3 MGD and the augmentation system permitted maximum daily capacity is 7.3 MGD with an annual total of 600 million gallons per year (MGY). Therefore, the total maximum available reclaimed/augmentation capacity is 14.6 MGD. December 3, 2004 Description of Existing Reclaimed Water System Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study SECTION 3 CURRENT AND PROJECTED RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLIES AND USES 3.1 Reclaimed Water Availability 15 As previously described, the City of Sanford, Seminole County and the City of Lake Mary (Tri-Party) have implemented a large scale system for the beneficial reuse of effluent from the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area's wastewater treatment facilities. Reclaimed water is currently available from one City of Sanford -owned wastewater treatment facility and two County -owned wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the City of Sanford has a second wastewater treatment facility under construction as a result of increasing wastewater flows in the area. 3.1.1 Current Permitted Capacities 3.1.1.1 City of Sanford The SNWRF currently serves the City of Sanford's residential, commercial, light industrial and agricultural areas. Effluent disposal is accomplished through large scale public access and restricted access spray irrigation of reclaimed water. However, during periods of wet weather, when facility influent flows exceed irrigation demands, the City is permitted through the FDEP (Permit No. FL0020141-01) to discharge 1.0 MGD average annual daily flow to the St. Johns River. The current permitted capacity of the SNWRF is 7.30 MGD, average annual daily flow (AADF). 3.1.1.2 Seminole County's Northwest Service Area The YLWRF currently serves Seminole County's Northwest Service Area and part of the City of Lake Mary. Effluent disposal is accomplished through public access spray irrigation of reclaimed water. However, during periods of wet weather or when the facility effluent does not meet reclaimed water public access reuse standards, the facility is permitted through FDEP (Permit No. FL0042625) for effluent disposal through discharge into RIBs, discharge into a flow -through receiving wetlands system that ultimately discharges into the St. Johns River, or discharge onto a sprayfield. The RIBs consist of five basins, which have a permitted December 3, 2004 Current and Projectedec aime ater upp yes an ses Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 16 capacity of 0.35 MGD, the permitted capacity of the receiving wetlands is 2.5 MGD, and the permitted capacity of the sprayfield is 0.36 MGD. The current permitted capacity of the YLWRF is 2.50 MGD, AADF. Seminole County's Northwest and Northeast Service Areas are interconnected and, thus, both facilities supply reclaimed water to both service areas. 3.1.1.3 Seminole County's Northeast Service Area Seminole County's Northeast Service Area is currently served by the GLWWTP. Effluent disposal is accomplished through public access spray irrigation of reclaimed water. However, during periods of wet weather or when the facility effluent does not meet reclaimed water public access reuse standards, the facility is permitted through FDEP (Permit No. FLA011086) for effluent disposal through discharge into RIBs. There are nine RIBs located off -site, which have a combined permitted capacity of 1.8 MGD. The current permitted capacity of the GLWWTP is 3.5 MGD, AADF. Seminole County's Northwest and Northeast Service Areas are interconnected and, thus, both facilities supply reclaimed water to both service areas. 3.1.1.4 Summary of Wastewater Facility Permitted Capacities Table 3-1 presents a summary of the permitted capacities of the wastewater facilities in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. Table 3-1 i Permitted Capacities of the Wastewater Facility Name Facilities i Permitted Capacity, AADF 1NGD1_ i Sanford Lake WRF 2.50 GreenwoodYankee Lakes WWTP 3.50 Vecember3, 2004 Current and ProjectedReclaimed ater u pp yes an ses Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 3.1.1.5 Summary of Permitted Disposal Capacities 17 Table 3-2 presents a summary of the permitted reuse/effluent disposal methods and- capacities. Table 3-2 Permitted Reuse / Effluent Disposal Capacities for each Wastewater Treatment Facility Disposali[Current rFacility Name Permitted Location Capacity (MGD,l Sanford North WRF Public Access Irrigation 4.30 Sanford North WRF Site 10 2.84 Sanford North WRF St. Johns River 1.0 Yankee Lake WRF Public Access Irrigation 3.71 Yankee Lake WRF Receiving Wetlands 2.50 System Yankee Lake WRF RIBs 0.36 Yankee Lake WRF Sprayfield 0.35 Greenwood Lakes Public Access Irrigation 1.70 WWTP Greenwood Lakes RIBs 1.80 WWTP 3.1.2 Projected Reclaimed Water Flows Projected reclaimed water flows for the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area are summarized in Table 3-3. The City of Lake Mary does not produce reclaimed water as the wastewater produced by the city is currently being treated by the county's YLWRF and GLWWTP. December 3, 2004 Current and ProjectedReclaimed ater upp ies an ses Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 18 - - - Reclaimed• Table Projections IF--- --7 Sanford North WRF* 7.11 2,595 5.50 2,008 6.45 2,354 6.33 2,310 Sanford South WRC 0 0 2.00 730 4.00 1,460 5.00 1,825 City of Lake Mary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greenwood Lakes WWTP** 2.20 803 2.59 945 2.75 1,004 2.83 1,033 Yankee Lake WRF* 1.60 584 2.15 785 3.02 1,102 3.4z 1.246 JF Notes: ' Flows to SNWRF decrease from 2033 to 2005 due to the addition of SSV9RC. Some will be redirected from SNIAIRF to SSWRC 'Based on data pro%ided by Seminole County 3.2 Augmentation Water Availability The City of Sanford is currently permitted by the SJRWMD to withdraw surface water from Lake Monroe to supplement the reclaimed water supply or for ground water recharge. The allocated withdrawals, according to the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) (Permit No. 50965) issued by the SJRWMD, are presented in Table 3-4. Vecember3, 2004 Currentand ProjectedReclaimed ater Supplies an Fes Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 19 Augmentation Maximum City Water Annual Voliu�& fti 3-4 of Sanford Allocations from Lake Monroe -:MaxitnDail.�.Elo 3.3 Summary of Reclaimed 1 Augmentation Water Availability The total current (2004) reclaimed / augmentation water availability for the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area is 20.6 MGD. A summary of the current reclaimed / augmentation water availability is presented in Table 3-5. December 3, 2004 Current and ProjectedReclaimed ater Supplies and Uses Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 20 Table -PartyArea • I Augmentation Source• Water Availa . U.. 1 Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility 7.3 Sanford South Water Resource Center Under Construction Yankee Lake Water Reclamation Facility 2.5 Greenwood Lakes Wastewater Treatment Plant 3.5 Sanford Augmentation System 7.3 3.4 Current and Future Reclaimed Water Irrigation Site Capacities Based on information collected from each of the Tri-Party members, the currently permitted reclaimed water spray irrigation sites (public and restricted access) and their capacities are summarized in Table 3-6. The aggregate disposal capacity of the current reclaimed water customers in the Tri-Party Service Area is 12.72 MGD. As the wastewater demand increases due to growth in the service area, the reclaimed water distribution system will have to be expanded and additional irrigation sites brought on-line to meet the increased reclaimed water flows. Potential future reclaimed water sites and their disposal capacities are presented in Table 3-7. The potential reclaimed water sites have an aggregate disposal capacity of 7.30 MGD. The total reclaimed water disposal capacity (current and future) is 20.02 MGD. A map detailing the current and potential future reclaimed water irrigation sites is shown in Figure 3-1. A summary of the reclaimed water irrigation demands for each Tr -Party member are presented in Table 3-8. Based on the different soil types in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area, different peaking factors were chosen for each Tri-Party member. Because Seminole County and the City of Lake Mary are higher in elevation and dryer than the City of Sanford, a peaking factor of 2.0 was assumed for Lake Mary and Seminole County, while a peaking factor of 1.5 was assumed for Sanford to account for the greater demand experienced during the dry months of the year. The dry season typically occurs between February and May. Vecember3, 2004 Current and ProjectedReclaimed ater Supplies an ses Tri•Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 21 • - • Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System: Permitted Reclaimed Water Customersand Capacities Acreage is al Capaciti Irrigation • 1 Bel -Air Palm Way 0.8 0.0032 2 Sanford City Hall 1.5 0.0035 3 Bel -Air Rose Way 1.0 0.0039 4 9th St. & Oak Ave. Park 2.2 0.0051 5 Centennial Park 2.2 0.0051 6 Elm Avenue Park 2.2 0.0051 7 Jaycee Park 2.2 0.0051 6 Southside Elementary School 2.2 0.0051 9 Ft. Mellon - Civic Center 2R7 0.0058 10 Memorial Park 2.5 O.00"c0 11 Big Inch - Goldsboro 3.0 0.0070 12 Big Inch - Spaghetti Bowl 3.0 0.0070 13 Ft. Mellon - Lake Carolina 3.71 0.0036 14 Coastline Park 4.2 0.0093 15 Big Inch #2 4.3 0.0100 16 School Board Offices 5.0 0.0110 17 Speer Park 1.5 0.0116 18 Goldsboro Elementary School 20.2 0.0124 19 Bay Avenue Park 2.4 0.0140 20 Pineeresl Elementary School 10.3 0.0145 21 Chase Park 6.8 0.0158 22 McKibben Park 7.0 0.0163 23 Nursery 6.4 0.0174 24 Northstar Business Park 23.6 0.0183 25 Stadium 8.0 0.0186 December 3, 2004 Current and ProjectedReclaimed ater Supplies and -Us -es Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 22 26 Ft. Mellon Playground 8.65 0,0201 27 Ft. Mellon Ballfield 9.88 0.0230 28 Pinchurst Park 10.0 0.0233 29 Creams School of Choice 15.5 0.0251 30 Lake Gem Park 3.6 0.0279 31 Starke Park 5.0 0.0291 32 County Services (Five Points) 83.6 0.0294 33 Groveview 6.1 0.0355 34 Sanford North WRF 15.4 0.0358 35 Groveview Add'I Park 6.9 0.0535 36 Mayfair Neighborhood 85.7 0.0543 37 Hovnanian Park 11.0 0.0256 38 Sanford Middle School 11.9 0.0565 39 Sanford Central Park 78.3 0.0608 40 Neighborhood: Country Club, Mayfair Circle 56.1 0.0782 41 Seminole High & Lakeview Middle Schools 60.2 0.0826 42 Cemelary 27.3 0.1059 43 Neighborhood: Santa Barbara Area 174.3 0.1260 44 Beardall Ave. Groves 68.9 0.1282 45 Seminole Community College 146.2 0.1365 46 Oakiawn Cemetary 10.7 0.1376 47 Sepielli Property 32.1 0.1523 48 OF Agricultural Research Station 89.3 0,1767 49 Neighborhood: Pinecrest, Sanom 142.7 0.2250 50 Neighborhood: Hidden Lake Area 318 0.2436 December 3, 2004 Current and ProjectedReclaimed ater Supplies an ses CL F m ell Ir 411 _L1jj M I1 Xj ii 7j 7, 1-1 I - lg�'� . !� .., �; . "g 464 - ik, .... .•. . . . . . . . . . Vk I T7 N, U -c—L, 77 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 33 3.5 Reclaimed Water Resource Budgeting A priority setting for the reclaimed water produced within the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area was developed, which will maximize the benefits seen by each party. Utilizing this priority setting will optimize the use of reclaimed water and surface water for irrigation and for recharge of the Florida aquifer in the vicinity of the well fields and. reduce the amount of potable water used for these purposes. The reclaimed water produced by the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area will be utilized according to the following priority: • First Priority: Public access irrigation. • Second Priority: Groundwater recharge by the RIBs located at GLWWTP and by the identified recharge basins discussed in Section 4. • Third Priority: Groundwater recharge by the RIBs located at YLWRF. • Fourth Priority: Spray field irrigation at Site 10 and YLWRF. • Fifth Priority: Surface water discharge. Public access irrigation was given highest priority because utilizing reclaimed water in lieu of potable water for this purpose will minimize the adverse impacts resulting from groundwater withdrawal. Groundwater recharge by RIBs is next priority. However, due to the close proxomity of the RIBs at Greenwood Lakes and the identified potential recharge basins to the well fields, these were given higher priority than the RIBS at YLWRF, as these RIBs are located on the periphery of the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area and will provide minimal groundwater recharge benefits near the well fields. Therefore, the RIBs at Greenwood Lakes and the identified potential recharge basins are second priority and the RIBs at YLWRF are third priority. Spray field irrigation is given fourth priority because the two sprayfields in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area, located at Site 10 and YLWRF, are on the periphery of the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area and will provide little recharge benefit to the well fields. Surface water discharge is given lowest priority, as this method of reclaimed water disposal provides no benefit to the Tri-Party members. Based on the above priority and the demand for irrigation, a water resource budgeting is shown in Table 3-9. This table depicts an individual water budget for each Tri-Party member. Table 3-10 presents an overall water resource budget for the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. As shown on Table 3-10, for year 2003 there was approximately 1,248 MGY excess reclaimed water available for reuse and disposal after December3, 2004 Current and Projected Reclaimed Water Supplies and Uses Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 34 public access irrigation. Therefore, supplemental water from Lake Monroe was not necessary. In fact, there was approximately 400 MG discharged to Lake Monroe in 2003. From year 2005 and 2010, the Lake Monroe water will be sufficient to supplement the dry season demands. It will be possible to pump additional lake water for recharge of the RIBs and the recharge basins identified in Section 4. For year 2015, there will be a projected reclaimed water deficit of 216 MGY during the four month dry season. However, on an annual basis, there will be an excess of 1,015 MG of reclaimed water after public access irrigation. Part of this excess water can be stored in the proposed Mill Creek reclaimed water storage pond, as described in Section 9. The estimated storage capacity for the Mill Creek pond is in excess of 250 MG. This water can be pumped out of the pond to supplement the dry season demand. December 3, 2004 Current and Projected Reclaimed Water Supplies and Uses qm i 7 , I 1 0 �oIs ci b -16 o Trl-party Reclaimed Water Svstem Expansion and Optimization Study 36 (1) Average Daily Row, MGD 10.91 12.24 16.22 17.58 (2) Annual Volume. MGY 3,982 4.468 5,920 6.417 (3) ADD, MGD 7.49 8.67 11.76 L14.8 (4) DSO. MGD 12.09 14.27 19.9 25.5 (5) ATD. MGY 2.734 3.165 4.292 5.402 (6) @ ADD, MGD 3.42 3.57 4.46 2.78 (7) @DSD, MGD -1.18 -2.03 -3.68 -7.92 (8) @ ATD, MGY (Annual Surplus) 1,248 1,303 1,628 1,015 (9) 1.248 1.303 1.628 1.015 (10) Supplemental Water Needed for DSD irrigation, MGY' 142 244 442 950 (11) Lake Monroe Water Allocations Based on CUP, MGY 600 600 600 734 (12) Available Augmentation Water for Recharge, MGY 458 356 158 -216 (13) Total Available Water for Recharge, MGY 1,707 1,659 1,786 798 Assuming 120 day dry season demand from February to May Calculations: (6) _ (1) - (3) (7) _ (1) - (4) (8) _ (2) - (5) (10) _ (7) x 120 (12) _ (11) - (10) (13) _ (9) + (12) December 3, 2004 Current and Projected Reclaimed water Supplies and Uses Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 37 SECTION 4. POTENTIAL RECHARGE BASINS 4.1 General The potential development of recharge basins in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area was evaluated to mitigate the impacts of groundwater withdrawals used for potable water supply at the Greenwood Lakes Water Treatment Plant, Heathrow Water Treatment Plant, Lake Mary Water Treatment Plant, Sanford Main Water Treatment Plant, Sanford Auxiliary Water Treatment Plant, and Markham Water Treatment Plant. The purpose of the recharge basins is to use reclaimed water for enhanced recharge of the Floridan Aquifer. The benefits associated with the implementation of the recharge basins identified in this section are analyzed in Section 6. 4.2 Identification of Potential Recharge Basins In order to determine potential recharge basins in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area, the areas that likely facilitate good pond recovery, provide maximum benefit to offset impacts caused by groundwater withdrawal, and are in close proximity to existing reclaimed water mains were identified. The two main factors that impact pond recovery are soil conditions and the water table. If the soils are well -draining, leading to recovery of the stormwater volume very quickly, and if the water table is low, a pond will exhibit good recovery (the stormwater volume in the pond as a result of runoff after a storm will dissipate quickly). The areas in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area that have well -draining soils and are close to existing distribution facilities are the Rinehart Road corridor, Colonial Center - Heathrow (CC-H) site and the Heathrow Golf Course. These areas are also in the vicinity of each of the Tri-Party member's wellfields, providing the maximum benefit to offset impacts caused by groundwater withdrawals. There is an existing reclaimed water main along Rinehart Road, making reclaimed water readily available for groundwater recharge; therefore, a number of ponds along this road were considered potential recharge basins. In addition, a number of ponds located in the CC-H area and the Heathrow Golf Course area were considered potential recharge basins since there is an existing reclaimed water main on International Parkway and, according to the Seminole County Master Plan Update dated August 2003, a reclaimed water main will be constructed along Heathrow Boulevard from SR 46 to Lake Mary Boulevard in 2005, making reclaimed water available for groundwater recharge in these areas. December 3, 2004 Potential Recharge Basins Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 38 A total of fifteen ponds have been identified as potential recharge basins in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. These ponds are located in areas where ground water is being pumped to supply drinking water for the Tri-Party Service Area. All of the selected ponds have been in place and monitored for several years, making it easier to recognize how they function seasonally. Table 4-1 presents the identified ponds and surface areas, and Figure 4-1 presents the locations of the fifteen identified ponds. Table 4-1 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area: Potential 11��Pond No. Location Surface Area (acres') - , - - - - ] e - 1-1 Sam's Club 1.9 2-1 Courtesy Acura 0.6 2-2 Courtesy Honda 0.9 2-3 Courtesy Chrysler -Jeep 1.7 3-1 Woodbridge South 2.0 4-1 Timacuan Golf Course 1.9 5-1 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 12 9.6 5-2 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 9A 3.7 5-3 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 913 13.4 6-1 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 1 9.5 6-2 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 2 5.4 6-3 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 3 3.0 7-1 Williston Park North Pond 1.2 7-2 Williston Park South Pond 1.7 8-1 Greenwood Lakes RIB'S 19.1 December 3, 2004 Potential Recharge Basins - \\\74T»T Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 40 4.3 Methodology The reclaimed water annual storage capacity of the Greenwood Lakes RIBs was determined utilizing the permitted capacity, which is 1.80 MGD. Four of the ponds, Woodbridge South, Timacuan Golf Course, Williston Park North, and Williston Park South, are known to recover extremely quickly; therefore, the storage capacity for these ponds is based on an application rate of 1 gallon per day per square foot of surface area (gpd/ft2), which is based on historical data. The FDEP permits ponds for an application rate of 2.0 gpd/ftz and it is assumed that half will be utilized by storm water recharge. The reclaimed water storage capacity for the remaining ponds varied, depending on whether the pond is a dry pond or a wet pond. All of the assumptions that have been made in determining the annual storage capacity for each pond are extremely conservative. 4.3.1 Dry Ponds Dry ponds, also called "retention ponds", are designed to intercept a volume of stormwater runoff and retain the water below the control elevation for percolation into the soils, serving as water quality treatment and attenuation of runoff from' the developed site. Dry ponds are designed to recover the volume below the control elevation within 72 hours of the design 25-year, 24-hour storm event (8.6 inches of rain in 24 hours). Note that there is typically excess storage below the pond control elevation since the design storm (8.6 inches of rain in 24 hours) generates significantly more runoff than the more typical wet season storm event (for example, the mean annual storm event generates 4.4" of rain in 24 hours). in order to determine an approximate available volume for reclaimed water storage for percolation within the pond, the runoff volume was calculated using the site area, the curve number, rainfall amount, and using the formula found in the Soil Conservation Services (SCS) Manual TR-55 for determining runoff. To estimate runoff from storm rainfall, SCS uses the runoff Curve Number (CN) method. The CN is the value determined by SCS and is based on soil conditions and ground cover. A composite curve number (CCN) for an entire basin can be calculated using the CN for each different cover type and soil for a particular sub- area in the basin multiplied by the sub -area. Then, by adding up all the contributing sub area values (CN x sub -area) in a drainage basin and dividing by the total basin area, a CCN can be determined. The CCN for each area was calculated assuming 80% of the area is impervious and 20% of the area is pervious. This is conservative since most of the typical sites in the study area are developed at approximately 70% impervious. The runoff volume from a site to a pond was determined based on a monthly rainfall amount of 4.25" (Seminole County's annual average rainfall amount is 51" per year, or 4.25" per month). The excess volume available in a pond per month was then calculated by taking the pond volume below the control elevation (based on construction plans) and December 3, 2004 Potential Recharge Basins Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 41 subtracting the runoff volume (from 4.25" of rainfall) in order to determine the available volume. Typically, based on rainfall records, there are 5 months per year where the monthly rainfall amount is less than 4.25 inches. Therefore, the total volume available within a pond on a yearly basis for reclaimed water storage is five times the calculated available monthly storage volume. Table 4-2 presents the identified potential reclaimed water ponds and their respective annual reclaimed water storage capacities. More detailed calculations for the recharge basins is provided in Appendix A. 4.3.2 Wet Ponds Wet ponds, also called "detention ponds", are basins that have a permanent pool of water throughout the year. They are constructed to temporarily detain storm runoff during and after storms. Wet ponds treat and filter incoming stormwater runoff through settling and through nutrient uptake by plants and other aquatic organisms. The annual reclaimed water storage capacity in the wet ponds was calculated using assumptions made based on local knowledge of the Heathrow Golf Course and CC-H sites. Even though the ponds analyzed are wet, the soils are well draining, leading to lateral seepage through the side banks, particularly during the dry season. Usually, these wet ponds located in well draining soils may drop in stage approximately 12 inches below the control elevation during the dry season. Therefore, the total volume available within the analyzed wet ponds on a yearly basis for reclaimed water storage has been calculated by multiplying the volume available 12 inches below the control elevation times 3.5. The factor of 3.5 relates to the approximation that 3.5 months per year on average is how long the pond elevation will be below the control elevation. This was determined by analyzing the monthly lake stage data available from Seminole County for a number of lakes in proximity to the Heathrow area and determining, over the approximate 10 year period of record, how many months per year a lake stage is below the reported "normal' lake elevation. Using these assumptions, the annual reclaimed water storage capacities for each wet pond was determined. These capacities are presented in Table 4-2. December3, 2004 Potential Recharge Basins Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 42 Table nnual Reclaimed Water Storage Capacities of the Potential Recharge • • • • • p • • • • • • lala,ity 1-1 Sam's Club Dry 4.04 2-1 Courtesy Acura Dry 1.20 2-2 Courtesy Honda Dry 2.37 2-3 Courtesy Chrysler -Jeep Dry 13.05 3-1 Woodbridge South Dry 31.00 4-1 Timacuan Golf Course Wet 29.52 5-1 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 12 Wet 10.52 5-2 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 9A Wet 4.18 5-3 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 913 Wet 10.78 6-1 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 1 Wet 11.00 6-2 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 2 Wet 6.10 6-3 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 3 Wet 3.35 7-1 Williston Park North Pond Dry 19.72 7-2 Williston Park South Pond Dry 27.35 8-1 Greenwood Lakes RIBs Dry 653.35 _ ... , 27.53 December 3, 2004 Potential Recharge Basins Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 43 4.4 Conclusion The total annual storage and disposal capacity of the above identified ponds is 827.53 MGY. Approximately 80% of this total recharge capacity is attributable to Greenwood Lakes RI Bs. As indicated in Table 3-10 of section 3, it appears that the available water for recharge based on the current CUP is projected to be greater than the estimated storage and recharge capacity through year 2010 but less than the estimated storage and recharge capacity in year 2015. Therefore, the permit will require modification to increase the permitted capacity. The system capacity is 7.3 MGD or 2,664 MGY; however, the annual permitted capacity is 734 MGY in 2015. Please note that the estimations of the annual storage capacities of the potential recharge basins were made to analyze the benefits of implementing these projects and are very conservative estimations. During operation, the ponds will have increased capacities, especially during the dry seasons. The methodology used to analyze potential storage capacities can only utilize average annual flow. December 3, 2004 Potential Recharge Basins Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 44 SECTION 5 DESKTOP EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY 5.1 General The reclaimed/surface water quality meets all of the primary and secondary drinking water standards with the exception of total dissolved solids (TDS). However, since TDS is a secondary parameter, it is of less concern than the primary parameters. Table 5-1 presents the water quality test results for the reclaimed water from SNWRF and table 5- 2 contains the water quality test results for the surface water. Table 5-3 illustrates a 50:50 blend of the supplies and the resulting quality. Sanford Parameter Table 5-1 North WRF Reclaimed Water Water Quality Test Results Analysis Result, mglL -Standard, mg1L - pH .: Bariumr r • Nitrate (as N) Sodium Chloride •• Iron Sulfate .. Total Dissolved Solids JD December 3, 2004 Desktop Evaluation of Groundwater Quality Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 45 Table 5-2 Lake Monroe Water ZerQuality Test Results J& J16 i Parameter Analysis Result, mg/LJW tandard, mgl • � .. i 0� ..158.� - . .285 0. •0 � Mill . _ -. ne iremad 753 Barium 0.0216 1.0 Nitrate (as N) 3.195 10 Sodium 109.9 160 Chloride 192.05 250 Iron 0.195 0.3 Sulfate 67.25 250 I[ Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 600.5 500 December 3, 2004 Desktop Evaluation of Groundwater Quality Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 46 In addition to the blended water meeting primary/secondary drinking water standards, further dilution occurs due to rainfall. Based on the average irrigation application rate of 1" per week and average rainfall of 51" per year, a further 50:50 blending of the reclaimed/surface water occurs. According to the recharge basin calculations presented in Appendix A, the total runoff from the basins is approximately 210.6 million gallons per year and the estimated recharge is 827.51 million gallons per year resulting in an approximate 4:1 blend ratio of reclaimed water storage to stormwater storage. 5.2 Conclusion The use of reclaimed/surface water for irrigation and recharge should have a limited impact on groundwater quality based on the quality of the water meeting primary/secondary drinking water standards prior to application and based on the significant dilution due to rainfall and runoff. December 3, 2004 Desktop Evaluation of Groundwater Quality Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 47 SECTION 6 GROUNDWATER MODELING 6.1 General The SJRWMD performed the ground water modeling for this study, as outlined in the Contract. The ground water modeling characterizes the hydrologic and potential water supply benefits, on a regional basis, of recharge associated with the potential recharge ponds identified in Section 4 of this report and increased reuse as identified in Section 3. 6.2 Methodology Staff from the SJRWMD conducted a series of 6 steady-state simulations using the SJRWMD East-Central Florida (ECF) Regional Ground Water Flow Model. The purpose of the simulations was to evaluate the potential regional -scale impacts upon water levels in the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS) and the overlying Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) due to projected average 2020 ground water withdrawals within the Tri- Party service areas. Details concerning the conceptualization, construction, and calibration of the ECF model can be found in McGurk and Presley (2002). Recharge to the ECF model includes input from rainfall as well as irrigation sources, such as landscape irrigation from either potable supplies or reclaimed water. Climatic conditions were assumed to remain identical to those input for the average 1995 calibration, therefore the rainfall input was kept the same for all simulations. Reclaimed irrigation and rapid infiltration basin (rib) flows were, however, altered sequentially for each simulation as described in the table below. Projected flows to the dry ponds plus the Greenwood Lakes ribs listed in Table 4-2 were provided to SJRWMD staff and incorporated into the recharge calculations for simulations 1, 2, 5, and 6. Flows projected for the wet ponds in Table 4-2 (except for the Greenwood ribs) were not included in the analysis because surface water bodies are not conceptualized as part of the ECF regional ground water model. Projected flows to the reclaimed irrigation customers listed in Tables 3-5 and 3-6 were provided to SJRWMD staff and incorporated into the recharge calculation for simulations 3, 4, 5, and 6. Figure 6-1 illustrates the spatial distribution of projected reclaimed water flows assigned to ECF model grid cells. Ground water withdrawals by users other than the Tri-Party members were also varied (either 1995 ADF or 2020 ADF) in order to compare the difference in impacts between cumulative (all users at 2020 withdrawal rates) and non -cumulative simulations (Tri-Party members only at 2020 withdrawal rates). December 3, 2004 Groundwater Modeling Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 48 # Tri-Party Dry Tri-Party Reclaimed Tri-Party GW All Other Users Ponds / RIBs Irrigation Withdrawals GW Withdrawal (1995 = est. avg. 1995 flows; 2020 = projected future flows provided to SJRWMD staff) The projected 2020 average daily ground water flows (ADF) for the Tri-Party members totaled 32.01 MGD. Projected withdrawal rates were assigned to specific well fields as listed in Table 6-2. Rates were distributed evenly among the wells attributed to each wellfield. Seminole County NE Service Area - Country Club 3 1.76 Seminole County NE Service Area - Greenwood Lakes 5 1.77 Seminole County NW Service Area - Markham 4 8.75 Seminole County NW Service Area - Heathrow 5 1.15 Seminole County NW Service Area - Monroe 2 0.75 Seminole County NW Service Area - Hanover 2 0.58 December 3, 2004 Groundwater Modeling Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 49 Table4W RV • 4-arty Projected 2020 Average Ground Water Withdrawal SMIA&MIjImm of Wells 2=1 Seminole County Total: 21 14.76 Sanford Oregon Avenue 5 5.00 Sanford Hidden Lakes 12 1.67 Sanford Golf Course 7 2.23 Sanford Twin Lakes 3 2.23 Sanford Total: 27 11.13 Lake Mary Lake Mary Total: 6 6.12 For each simulation, the resulting water levels for each model layer were subtracted from the corresponding water levels that result from the 1995 baseline calibration simulation. Model layer 1 represents the SAS; model layer 2 represents the Upper Floridan aquifer — Upper Zone; model layer 3 represents the Upper Floridan Aquifer — Lower Zone; and model layer 4 represents the Lower Floridan Aquifer. All of the Tri- Party members' wells are completed within model layer 2, model layer 3, or both model layers 2 and 3. 6.3 Results Figures 6-2 through 6-25 depict the resulting spatial distributions of drawdown (average water -level decrease) or rebound (average water -level increase) relative to 1995 conditions for each model layer. Reference: McGurk, Brian E., and Paula Presley, 2002. Simulation of the Effects of Groundwater Withdrawals on the Floridan Aquifer System in East-Central Florida: Model Expansion and Revision, St. Johns River Water Management District Technical Publication SJ2002-3, Palatka, FI 196p. December 3, 2004 Groundwater Modeling AM 0 CL N C N O-It C CA to C o ca �• oii W L L d 'v1 R 3 N �= R N G1 C - ti CE E E 2 E Ul _ q o MA 3 L E,U ulm S i o LL i 4k- L1J w U I � � w rn -- -r � 4 _ f LL 74 'i lK '•�� � '`i., - , ! � �� �, �J Z is . i W r� �n , •,* Z ~ LaIr LLI w � 41 3: or O Ol — N o a s, ALei r _ N ON m N d N 0 v 45 r, p O lL V u u �? p O O 3 t4 a' `m 'O aK n. L- m J _ •t v �,, �+ o+ '� 3 •N �'! vi - e m �i 6n'i. �i 8'! u7 u o Q(P o 0 o Q • ,L IL d ¢ F= Op �. ` p o ry n d L/ U A O1 H ry m Z 'Q c V O O— N Cn to A i n" pN-aC . 'u �t9 �;1� a 001 E0 G i7 7 f WN—N..N .:E ... 3 C � O O �I O �t O 6 OD o W a J � o w 0° � w � Z Q .Z v O Y7 OOCr L� w W Ql ^ 3 2 z, uL z O co 0 47 � O Ow` ~ 0 0 I c: J Q a fl f o N Q O Y $% W a 0 - z 0 52 N y } o ,n O N L �• ` f 1 w .II W ONm F' N r may'' p ti� — m r c •a a m n C n O ° o O a-li c Cf ry 3 ci ti O 3LL V da v o cv m u F mar- Uo K o = o L.i'a.rs— N>m C C4UM 3 0 9 a � O o co o � C` w J � O CL L•1 0 o Q r r K _ (d Z p C,9 6 co p O � p 0 J 0 pp 8 ka I! 4 it 53 IS In c9 O M B o s su R roGi J L d Qt -Q o m U ..��•• _ O -0 €. C s Vi S; 4,,'r' S o n 4 Ci N on n o N "6 i•J' fJ N f�• 1\ I F 0 O 1 j ® 1� O °Cl) C Q �l � ✓� �I Cj a rn � N J o LL o d C V a f aQa � W p Q +� w` o U V W J 0 A W w � Qo 0 0 54 � © « !ƒ■ Lo • `••\ rm \\{ - &�| t - - ]\:=:' =a\ §22�t § �7 ` ��� °�d§§[/\ t 2 6—o k04)- / o � / o / e � ■ � S / dF _\ ° co & : � ■ 4 o o q J t". eo 7 ! ■ © ` % _ \ \ _ � �w � � � � ® • o � \ 09 § ■ : § o 0 / © 0 0 0 j` o ~y ° @ Q 0 4 / � 0 m ors t,ZE �Cfl Cfl + V 3 N El O O N '0 _ _S c _ n C T — a) ui O ra R u 5 O av ^ Q N r "�`= o � tL n R C Oo 0 0o O G w C �� o r � %� d J •' Q'o 4'1 O O L1 emsa"..�©IIm O 3 V Q C �" d U W a t? o 3 a N U 7 m m- N •- O �• v o d ry a n > a d 0 O _ a U m 0L.< C. d 3 3 C of o O d _ V�r1, e i of t� co V I� U: rr� Z Q z m Q 2 a q W a � a c O 6 s a k G J C. J Q J C m C I n W O .� u, U Z v O SG � ��£, t �'•o k� � \ fci 2kgl222277 § ici I7�!!!§§§ = _ . \/t iE ©�§§/\\\ c ; 3 ) /�Q� \ � F 0 o / - / t 00 2 , 0 2 � / o \ <\ e ( ® o § . QP w ° om a CO 0 ° } o \ §cc m ° G � -- � ■ / o � 57 00 R S` R Ol L R Ol i N a s i - �.--T - Y LO �S pp C L, 2 L] V 7 I C T t'f fV G G y C o o h l7 v Uf • 1� i > d D N Y ao:aa c 0 Ai fi c a = op ;b t1 ® ( J 40 10 w o 7 \ i. �ll q J lb w O I W V C � ro O oac 1p c {"{� () � J O Q 4 l z w a � G o a a 4 o ` �- 4l L G f r 58 m (6 O y ~ T m yC. 0.2 0 y R C c �j N W� O w n �_ LA _> ID R N R D O - ` _N u_ C 4� m— n m v N n c O R '6 V �+ �= O LL '� i m 07 a� cQ'i, �+. o 0 0q a' oS ti n 'c G o a W O®��MOD' ua o ~ o - LL v� aao- o ir a y C N c " O �f 0 40 U U 0 00 V{ � Q w m� u t w 8 G � o � o o > v _ _ t 03 0aa g� W a y w d � 0 0 w 0 � o c 0 � o 0 0 0 dRI 9� 0 9 0 N� r 30 p `o N N G E N ♦� co N o 0 0 o N G la Ql W w o 'II m .tee o 0 0 0 0 0 C o N N` 0 - m W t4 - W G v E J u u 'c l'i v t7 ri .- c C c ._ 2 9 w o ci _. O (ni O Y m m U .Z`.= o lL s C o omi cni c� rn o m o z; r o 0 0 0 n cis U W a' w__ o ��O QoFq •�®���1�� O i j a Ol 'Q a 3 O g 0 0 0 Q °- � o q a g � a � O 8 c o w o J N O O u \4T\ a z o F ° W d1 ° ° Q. C3 J i1 W � 0 O ME 04 �ot0Cq § c§\§ .5:\ _ -/\ � � �9 2� \ \ 2§\� � �\ �. @� a;������,,]@.�,� ~ /\/�\\°/U2)\\/� n iT } £ m � k � \�)7 ) \ o ° y o o/ 2 - » , � d Cbb co \ 6 s / e , . \ ) lei a _ ° \ o os $ o? e = 0 r o Qo 0 u \ ° I %k, C3 \ G Q ® -- \ . G & 0 0 §| :2, 5«§§ 3 ) 2 [{8 ) {\§k\ !M§3\Cs §) )J)) g+[ \ §(§\�§)k�A§3\///\�; 2 _ § ,; - !@;l;/.°.# } -)7\ . . .. �x- ./ , ; ( % o § c co | ° ° $ a ° _ \ \ I�p § _ & o$ S o } 0 0 x , 2 q o � o y ~ J \ \ e©. % e — \ ° 2 0 0 62 v 30 3 V Ll N N 0Np•i0_ y N M ti O 2 ZE 5 T = a y28 C O Ln N N O) C cn f y G9 O ry QI y _ _ a. a p o p p y S •- W C> lt') a a m N N d �' •-`� CJ l9 C LL v LLf m u m 0 o J u t c fn" Fn' g'i 3 u o c^ a` v a K U o�i a r� cilIjjlI n Gn m �+ o Z v° c' �v o o R N m �+ T,�. 3 �i ai °—�' 0 m Qa an rn�v L 3 0 u Q J Eli � F o U 2 O ur cs L1 O p 1 V t lu U � r Q U O_ j� a N n L" u � C8 S CJ O O r O 0 O Q m O ��- O ., 19� IV4 W 0 P(( C 4 I O � o 63 C �tO�o c T CQalmt' N Y C m O t! N g m = ii N m N 0 �S O Im f6 — m N m 5 =1 r r 3 v •L, v `o �. ' 3` mm O c n N 0��'°-' t o.`. m3i .mV£e m ii ca V c ri 40j Mo� 000�EiV> 1NO l N. 3 ctio 0 CIDi G¢ 0E4 ) = �§Qf )ff& 2 _ _ _ �" 5�2 £�\[ \7 §f\§) k \ \)!� , :-e S m � J\p§ ; k/I/� ___ �22k\�\M/\k\�d§`A§g/~ �s�eTf» LQ \d �r G / 6 & { &_jy \��0 _ �m //} - k CTI o � 0 ® o g �2 y: ( o / o � s � � ° \ ' o e% I § � o 0 _ Q o © 0 0 0 65 �-•- O N LJ p� n p p p p � p 0 l` CJ W 4 p A '`e m O O 4 O$ O _ ul n�'- vr m a ppN z-� o LL CL q a W U ^ O n m----;; .Q O o ato im— i�L LILi. LL a a) 0 o 0 a tJ G ✓0 N C 0 W Q W ?CTU V { w o G � u `cp p o uw ag o O rj i� w C ri wD p � W W � O O O �7 O O N m ti - i, a CyQO � n Q N C Q cc N -0 z r a c a n x L ^ 1 c j` lSci Q R q u G S S O O L c p Lt�` V L O G LL W V _ _u - m tr m N O I 47 O N Al C t(1 A Ln u ` ' G m �i �; �i �+ ', m o o o"- 0 0 0 0 o r � -_ <`; r2r Gn (.J G O Q m lV - O Z 4 C V O O N (`] N •\ to �C)m O LL cC����� a r 3 O 0 S 0 O> F © C O � 4 Z ^ 0 J N Q I G7 V 0 { Iz- ro Ll O Q h u r k c � o a 4 ob riz- w 6 0 OCR 6 03 � © a � a 0 a o e � o w m ` o `\ OO 8 oa e v e 0 G7 <. O N U M W u'� rn— m IL a u C ti O c N O C Q n W J a T a h — �, o ..� V C cr E. o d .- n rf a �-s ODo i tL c = 0 n Cn3 �^_..._-� @il O O O O � O J c O Qa� C N Q o LU c m G L' W V 0 O � kJ W 0 e C s' O "u f 7 W y 40 O L7 O O � W O L�R w a c� z � 0 a N 30 3 O coq m N V 0 N d = C, O ` i a l9 N T C N C N NO m C m II s ° CL m cl a ti m C a p p p p= c p ° O T= G l.L R m a �. C VI �t f7 N 7 c L O N Rl C 4l l� ° c u- o O Q- W ai. �j . S'i o ° (/l U Z V N m M N— ED VI Q. o n m Cl N O 3 c 0 0 •- a. w a ` 00 iT o > v a f'p•A� O 46 © w tiff ry `w u LU N. Q O O O O 8� � a 9 Q O 0 G9 cv li l Z L Ifl m O m m C W L= D' u- rn _3 Ol = m — T aUi.- C O a LL U t t of o r vi a o o o o a' w Gi et o E v 0 � > a'� = W n o CD _ c v d ` O 00 ®L.�.. 0 rs Q 1- N v- 1 LL Y >rL� C', C C � 7 O m i0 3 � m N N N 0 C'I GO 1` ItVV72 _ r `" n F o L o a 2 ° 15m S �a—� a 3 s c `mr N C v _ N ONN n p Oi O y rIV S= i o p .. yW„ L MCI a y U U C o �— O LL 3 r c— v = rn O O J m— m o. m U= m N c '0 g o N ri vi n R c o' {ttjit 19 LL i a movv p - O O i 0 o Q Z m o j I1 0 �� 2 OG1 6 8 f Q � O w w c II N } L N uID QD L7 L o 8 = z w o m e n � O 8 fl w 0 ham., � W S a w f O CL ° o 71 r t - — O � N Y pNo N C 6 N C E N 1 q C N y N O g 0 CU iDCrY� a r 3Y o6L ZC= o —y = N =� 0 '��= m t2 ao m oin Y 3 CV a C ,- A 111 J = u Yl RI N^ O 'e - 'z �i ((TT pp� e�)) 'v'S = Ti '� t�! M< v R F 0 c ^ Vl V Q O,1 m N �l O Z V c CV O O F. N O M A `C i �o`Yov w N o n O .0 EEE,D �' o a:3 3 C O 7 O �✓' O Q I O Q t O 0 i O DID C9 O O co w o z o c p z y W f C U } O O z l� o a a r ia I J � � O O 0 19% 8 0 o 72 N 3o a L M R o C dam' ca •i _ i` N C N N C NN m N O R 0N _ - 'C v w c N L totamc z C> to 3i R `=CJ R u v N o %r o `mv c7 - N r, T r m > D _ n A R N S N U 3 w �i v n N C Z V C o O C o N o 0 0 o ' h n o ` cq ������ i-- R NaN0 t0 cl 3 = R 7 0 I © r! © r a J F a ¢ o Z 00 D d c a � © I N U c w J K lb t o q 2 � w � k `c O W rs 0 Ix w �, a 0 4 w m w \ N 4 �\ OO l 8� 1 0� O I 7 m M y ? S L u — � M a� aCciN N C N c M g — u Sj CD ai a0. O iD'�u a d 3` t0 m N oi`Q _ Q1 W L R F Q1 V R r p i Np 'Cd ;,E�CO ,E• LL c of a �a m� o .d. ." m m w .. m 3 N a C M p Wci "� n t a m m T-Z 3 LS <'! u Q u > @ — l3 gq .z m LL W cq N a O �a L: IJ Ll LJ r .�. C ❑ /� O D 0 - 49 0 d Z U QM O O O ❑0 Z M Q � p N w v S lJ S o - � c o z 4 F W ` m k i 4 G _ t OG 00O.0 a; o W 2 a q? $3 are V W CO 4 00 0 Q 0 73 73 a v 30 3 O w 0 ^ V+ M O pNp 2mR sOA V:OzM u aLLn t` �Oms U 2 rb3Gp n p p. ppn.l mm mp[. pp4y°l NOo TUO p wm . . Oc o 0 0a n IoV M0V0N0 to� Cma oU0O0 3L oanipR (`l R 04 O � � � C.i Li � 1 •m.. 'i 0 a v ti 0 © V 0CK Q O C qcoo O 1L U Q Q Q W o p _ L4 uNl{� It C 00 C W W a z C e GD w � O J O ® 8 O ¢3 o 0 0 I 0 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 74 SECTION 7 SYSTEM OPERATION SCHEDULE 7.1 General The three wastewater facilities in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area currently receive a total of approximately 10.91 million gallons per day average annual daily flow of wastewater that is reclaimed for irrigation uses. As evidenced in the water resource budget presented in Table 3-10, during most of the year there is sufficient reclaimed water to meet the irrigation demands of the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. However, there are times of the year, particularly during the months of March, April, and May, when the demand exceeds the supply. Without operational intervention, there would be a reclaimed water shortfall and the reclaimed water demand during the peak periods would not be met. In order to redistribute the effects of this shortfall, a system operation schedule for use of the available reclaimed water supplies in the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area was developed. By utilizing the proposed operation schedule to regulate the use of the reclaimed water, adequate reclaimed water will be available and delivered when needed during the peak reclaimed water demand periods. 7.2 Operation Schedule During normal operation, the operating schedule for the reclaimed water system shall be as follows: ■ Reclaimed water storage tanks are to be filled during the day ■ Reclaimed water storage ponds are to be filled during the day. ■ Recharge basins are to be filled with reclaimed water during the day. ® Reclaimed water is to be pulled out of the storage tanks and used for public access irrigation at night. ® Reclaimed water is to be pulled out of the storage ponds and used for golf course irrigation at night. December 3, 2004 System Operation Schedule Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 75 The filling of the various reclaimed water ground storage tanks, storage ponds, and recharge basins in the system shall begin midmorning after the high demand irrigation period ends. The storage tanks will provide the water and pressure for the public access irrigation system and the storage ponds will provide the water and pressure for golf course irrigation. During the fill cycle, there may be little or no reclaimed water pressure. While it is assumed that during the daytime operation, most of the reclaimed water from the treatment facilities will be pumped to the various storage tanks and ponds, a small portion of reclaimed water may be used for irrigation. After the reclaimed water ground storage tanks are filled, the reclaimed water storage ponds are filled, and any daytime irrigation demands are met, excess reclaimed water shall be discharged into the recharge basins identified in Section 4 to help replenish the Floridan aquifer. Figure 7-1 depicts the major storage facilities and respective capacities as well as the projected flow direction for the daytime operation scheme. During the nighttime, reclaimed water will be pumped out of the reclaimed water storage tanks and used to irrigate various parks, school properties, residential neighborhoods, commercial establishments, agricultural properties, and other common areas. Because golf courses typically exhibit high irrigation demands, separate reclaimed water storage ponds will be utilized for the storage of the needed irrigation water for the golf courses. The reclaimed water will be pumped out of the reclaimed water storage ponds and used for irrigation of the golf courses during the nighttime. Thus, the high demand exhibited by the golf courses will not affect the public access irrigation system during high peak periods. Reclaimed water from the treatment plants will also be pumped directly to the distribution system for irrigation. During periods when the supply exceeds the demand, reclaimed water will also be discharged into the storage tanks and ponds during nighttime operation. Figure 7-2 represents the nighttime operation scheme. 7.3 Conclusion The above outlined operating schedule was utilized for the hydraulic analysis described in Section 8. By utilizing said schedule to regulate the use of the reclaimed water, the irrigation demands can be met during the high peak demand periods. In addition, the proposed schedule will provide for the most efficient use of the reclaimed water. Therefore, during periods of low demand, the reclaimed water can be utilized to enhance the surficial aquifer system. December 3, 2004 System Operation Schedule J = J W O a¢� �z ai nz ��Q Y E p O O N EZ— ��. C t� Q to Lv O o a7 Uj m Ln Z O O N U` — .4+ LL. coQ Z O n co LLJ cca U Df W�- =O 0Q0 F- Z n 0 co a<u, ~�ZQ 2iooa W :DU) O co0Oa z ¢F-a_0 f6 N 0 cn C O �d O U O•—�-� c� L L o a7 u N rL (D .m a a) Z3)� p 0 "noE OL a� m aL N L Y �� .® T F- U O Lrncn 0 no cc n I C� oc C CO \2 CD LO O Y m RZ C aL 400- O Y N iF'F' i cr C L LLr co C U. ow ®LL0w � § < \/2 / §� �E E0U) o a-2m< om 5 r>o J / � 3 o m = >m s e . cD 2§f/± Cf\Z\} 5 0 0U 02 m 1- ° §\� R$ eR ±»32i / o J ® 0 U. ® (DR 2m=/© CDs2222 4M<U) 0R\ ® G °S§z/ _ / j§�{e w0-=u f iL0�o-g= °0/}\a - w/Of o� �zWWW ( <I— /§\/Aj @ - (D 2E (D R _0 /o7eo< ( \)§\\/ z coea_CL0 '0 �anC) c \ / \ ` k 0 72 � � q � 0 § .\\ c \ / 3 7 kas \ \�co kk$/ - \ Q o r //\aCD §) ? o ® � O \,\5, r 603c o = E / \ ?\A § § o = k \: � /: (D � }}} 0 0 § _ & > _`}!!f ! J»%; m c/LL §/&w ) e # » 3 )( @ R R : � � i! � Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study SECTION 8 HYDRAULIC MODELING OF RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM 8.1 Introduction 78 This section presents the overall methodology utilized in developing a hydraulic analysis of the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. An accurate hydraulic analysis is essential in evaluating the viability of the reclaimed water network. Hydraulic modeling software can be used to take a 'snapshot' of the model, holding all parameters in a steady state, or results of an analysis can be garnered from a simulation performed over an extended period. By conducting a hydraulic analysis, pressures and flow through pipes, valves and pumps in the network can be determined. Control over these elements can be extended by assigning different status or settings to them, or by allowing changes to be made automatically on a time basis or as a reaction to system hydraulics. The objective of this hydraulic analysis is to develop recommendations for improvements to the reclaimed water pumping and distribution system in order to increase the capacity of the system and meet the projected 2015 irrigation demands of the service area. The hydraulic standards used and the methodology employed in evaluating the reclaimed water distribution system will be discussed. In addition, all of the scenarios and alternatives considered will be addressed and results for each alternative will be presented. 8.2 Hydraulic Standards In order to evaluate the reclaimed water system, hydraulic standards were developed based on review of previous water/reclaimed water transmission projects in the area. These standards were utilized to hydraulically analyze the existing reclaimed water distribution system and identify system improvement needs to optimize the use of available reclaimed water and surface water for irrigation. Table 8-1 represents the hydraulic standards used to assess the reclaimed water system. December 3, 2004 Hydraulic Modeling of Reclaimed Water System Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 79 Table Hydraulic•. • for '• Water System Maximum Velocity: 5 fps Minimum Pressure: 40 psi Maximum Pressure: 90 psi Maximum Headloss for Pipe Diameter < 16": 10' / 1000, Maximum Headloss for Pipe Diameter z 16": T / 1000' Hazen -Williams Friction Coefficient (C) for PVC: 120 Hazen -Williams Friction Coefficient (C) for Ductile Iron: 100 City of Sanford Dry Season Peaking Factor: 1.5 Seminole County Dry Season Peaking Factor: 2•0 City of Lake Mary Dry Season Peaking Factor: 2.0 8.3 Methodology The projected reclaimed water irrigation demands, which were presented in Section 3 of this report, were determined based on data provided by the City of Sanford, Seminole County and the City of Lake Mary. Based on these projected demands, feasible reclaimed water management alternatives were evaluated and hydraulic modeling was performed to determine the most appropriate improvements needed to meet the projected 2015 irrigation demands. Haestad Method's WaterCAD hydraulic modeling software was utilized to simulate the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area distribution system. WaterCAD is a hydraulic modeling and analysis tool that can be laid out using either Haestad by itself, in conjunction with AutoCAD, or developed as a GIS model. For this analysis, the reclaimed water network was layed out using Haestad by itself, dragging and dropping elements onto the screen. To ensure that an accurate, scaled model was produced, a drawing exchange file (DXF) map of Seminole County was imported into the model and used as a background for the development. Once the existing network was laid out, the scenario management tool was utilized with the assistance of development wizards to see how the system reacts to different December 3, 2004 Hydraulic Modeling of Reclaimed Water System Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 8o conditions. An unlimited number of system conditions can be described in an `inheritance tree' with actions that have paths designated by 'parent' and 'children' activities. Any changes to the scenario cascades through the tree. Table 8-2 represents the four scenarios evaluated for the hydraulic analysis. Scenarios Table 8-2 Used in Hydraulic Analysis A Average daily daytime flow B Average daily nighttime flow C Dry season daytime flow D Dry season nighttime flow Once the base scenarios were developed, several alternatives were analyzed under each scenario within the distribution system to determine the necessary improvements in the distribution piping in order to increase the capacity of the system and meet future irrigation needs. The Seminole Community College (SCC) area frequently exhibits low pressure, as this area is located at a significantly higher elevation than the source (SNWRF). In addition, the flows to the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area are limited due to the elevation difference. The SNWRF is located near Lake Monroe at an elevation of 10 feet. SCC and Mayfair Golf Course are at elevations 55 feet and 50 feet, respectively. Due to these elevation differences, the static pressure loss is over 17 psi. Therefore, before the water leaves the SNWRF, the pressure is already below 73 psi for delivery to these areas. In addition, flows to SCC are restricted due to the existing 14" pipe that conveys the flow from Mill Creek pond to SCC. Several alternatives were evaluated to address these issues. Various line improvements were evaluated such as a new line from U.S. 17-92 on the lake front through to SR 46 and to SR 46A along the new Airport Blvd. Minimal improvements to pressure or flows resulted and the cost of the line would be significant. Another alternative considered was making the Mill Creek borrow pit into a reclaimed water storage pond and installing a re -pump station to repressurize the distribution system. The Mill Creek pond is located at an elevation 41 feet, resulting in a gain of 13.5 psi over pumping from SNWRF. In addition, the volume of the Mill Creek pond is over 250 million gallons, providing significant storage potential and significantly improving the reliability of the December 3, 2004 Hydraulic Modeling of Reclaimed Water System Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 8.4 81 reclaimed/surface water system. As many as 10-20 days of supply could be delivered to the reclaimed system if any or all of the wastewater plants were not producing reclaimed water due to operational problems. By implementing a re -pump station at a proposed Mill Creek pond, the system can be re- pressurized, increasing the pressure at SCC and increasing the flows which could be delivered to the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. In addition to implementing the Mill Creek pond pump station, three alternatives for increasing the flows and pressures at the Rinehart Road corridor were evaluated. The first alternative is to pump from the Mill Creek pump station into the existing 14" line to Mayfair Golf Course and ultimately to the Rinehart Road corridor. The second alternative is to construct a 20" line to run parallel to the existing 14" line from Mill Creek to Mayfair Golf Course. The third alternative is to construct a reclaimed water storage and re -pump facility at Mayfair Golf Course as well as the storage and re -pump facility at Mill Creek pond and utilize the existing 14" line to convey the flow from Mill Creek pond re -pump facility to Mayfair Golf Course re -pump facility. Table 8-3 presents the three alternatives that were assessed. Table 8-3 Alternatives Considered for Increasing Flow and Pressure 0 at the Rinehart Road Interconnect Iternative Mill Creek Pump Mayfair Pump Transmission Main Station St - ..t. No - o Yes Existing 14" Results and Recommendations After reviewing the results for the distribution line alternatives considered, the most viable options were identified. The recommended improvements in the distribution piping and project costs are detailed in Section 9. The flows and pressures that can be delivered to Mayfair Golf Course, the Rinehart Road corridor, and SCC were assessed under each alternative. The results are presented in Table 874. December 3, 2004 Hydraulic Modeling of Reclaimed Water System Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 82 After reviewing the results of the hydraulic analysis and a cost estimate for each alternative, it was determined that alternative three is the most feasible option for re - pressurizing the distribution system. This alternative includes the construction of a new re -pump station at Mill Creek pond, a new re -pump station at Mayfair Golf Course and utilizing the existing 14" transmission line between Mill Creek pond and Mayfair Golf Corse. The current system can deliver 1,893 gpm to the Rinehart Road corridor and 1,176 gpm to SCC. As shown in Table 8-4, by implementing the re -pump stations at Mill Creek pond and at Mayfair Golf Course, the system will be capable of delivering 1,584 gpm @ 50 psi to SCC, 3,123 gpm @ 25 psi to Mayfair re -pump station, and 5,251 gpm @ 70 psi to the Rinehart Road interconnect to Seminole County. The system capacity can be further improved by installing a new 16" line through Timacuan. With the re -pump station at Mill Creek pond, the re -pump station at Mayfair Golf Course, and the 16" line through Timacuan, the system is hydraulically capable of delivering 3,123 gpm to Mayfair re -pump station, 1,584 gpm to SCC and 7,285 gpm to the Rinehart Road corridor. This will increase the hydraulic capacity of the system by over 11 MGD. When multiple pressure sources (treatment facilities in this case) exist in a hydraulic model, the pressures decrease as the flow travels further away from the source. Somewhere in between the pressure sources, there is a common point at which the pressures meet. The common points define the hydraulic area of influence for each plant. The overall hydraulic area of influence for each facility is based on system pressures in the network and is a function of flows and pipe sizes. In WaterCAD, the influence areas can be identified by examining the pressure contours in the network. Figure 8-1 represents the hydraulic area of influence for SNWRF, SSWRC, GLWWTP and YLWRF under the 2015 irrigation demand condition. December 3, 2004 Hydraulic Modeling of Reclaimed Water System Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 84 SECTION 9 RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility 9.1.1 Existing Treatment Scheme The SNWRF is classified as a Type I facility that utilizes the activated sludge process to treat the incoming wastewater and meet all Class I reliability criteria. Currently, the operation of the SNWRF consists of the raw influent being directed from the collection system through a grit removal system, a coarse bar rack (3- inch), a mechanically cleaned barscreen ('/-inch) and into the master pump station wet well. The flow is then pumped to a flow splitter box, which divides the flow equally into two aeration basins. Each basin consists of two compartments and the flow is split between the two compartments by a series of gates. The flow leaving the aeration basins is then directed to another flow splitter box, which splits the flow between three secondary clarifiers. Following clarification, tertiary filtration is accomplished through the use of three traveling bridge dual media filter units. From the tertiary filters, the treated wastewater is blended with the augmentation water effluent from the Dynasand filters and conveyed to the chlorine contact chamber for high-level disinfection. After disinfection, the combined SNWRF effluent and augmentation water flows to the transfer pump station on the west side of the site where turbidity and chlorine residual are analyzed continuously and automatically. If the reclaimed water meets regulatory standards for public access reuse, it is pumped to the reclaimed water ground storage tanks, where it can then be pumped into the reclaimed water distribution system. However, in the event of a facility upset resulting in the reclaimed water not meeting public access reuse requirements, the combined flow is directed into the lined detention ponds, where it can be recycled through the facility. 9.1.2 "New" Augmentation System CCC and Transfer Pump Station To increase the reliability of Sanford's reclaimed water system, it is recommended that the augmentation system be modified such that it is completely "independent" of the SNWRF reclaimed water system (produced from wastewater stream). This would allow augmentation water to be produced if the reclaimed water from the SNWRF is out of compliance and vice versa. To do so, an "independent" chlorine contact chamber and transfer pump station for the augmentation system will be constructed, which will provide high-level December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 85 disinfection of the augmentation water treated from Lake Monroe. A cast -in - place concrete chlorine contact chamber and transfer pump station for the augmentation system will be constructed adjacent to the existing Dynasand filters, with a concrete "open channel" connecting the two structures. The effluent from the Dynasand filters will flow into said open channel and then be directed to the "new" structure. Two chlorine contact chamber basins will be constructed to meet the requirements of Chapter 62-610, F.A.C., Ten State Standards and Class I Reliability criteria. The disinfected effluent from the "new" augmentation system chlorine contact chamber will flow by gravity over contracted weirs and fall into an "integral" transfer pump station wetwell. A system of vertical turbine pumps will convey the effluent, via a 24" DIP pipeline, to the existing reclaimed water ground storage tanks. Additional improvements associated with this element would include piping and valving modifications and electrical, controls, instrumentation and SCADA improvements. 9.1.3 Augmentation System Pretreatment Modifications A pretreatment module is proposed to be added upstream of the current reclaimed water augmentation facility in an effort to: ■ Provide a more efficient and reliable treatment of the river water from Lake Monroe. ■ Produce less reject water in the production of the irrigable commodity. ■ To concentrate and thicken the sludge produced in the treatment system. The current augmentation system utilizes the addition of a coagulant and polymer to the river water in the pipeline immediately upstream of the treatment module (flow splitter box and filters) to destabilize colloidal matter in the river water. The coagulated water is then directed to the tertiary filtration modules where the solids are removed by the automatic, continuous backwashing filters. Due to the nature and chemical characteristics of the river water a large solids loading is produced by the chemical coagulation process thereby requiring a high backwash rate to keep the sand filters clean and operational. This produces a large quantity of reject water that must be sent back to the facility's primary treatment system and thus reduces the volume of augmented water produced. Although the sludge stream has a heavy solids load, the large volume of water (due to the high backwashing rate required) in the reject stream creates a very low concentration of solids, and thus, a large volume to dispose of. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 86 There are two potential options available to meet the system goals with respect to reducing the solids loading on the augmentation system filtration modules: ■ Modification of one of the existing secondary clarifiers to settle the coagulated solids from Lake Monroe. ■ Installation of an inclined plate settling system with "integral" flocculation tank. Secondary Clarifier No. 3 is located immediately south of the Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility and could be modified to accept the flow of coagulated water, settle a portion of the solids, and then convey water back to the augmentation system filtration modules for further treatment. Although this is an option, it has distinct disadvantages, including the following: ■ Significant piping, valving and automatic controls modifications would have to be installed on existing 30" DIP. The capital cost associated with these modifications is significant. One of the three SNWRF secondary clarifiers would not be "off-line" with respect to the treatment of wastewater and thereby the operating capacity and efficiency of the wastewater treatment train is significantly reduced and does not meet the Class I Reliability criteria. Sludge generated from the settling of Lake Monroe solids would then be recycled back to the biological treatment system at the SNWRF, including all of the settled algae and other microbial organisms, and this would cause a significant problem with the facility's ability to treat the incoming wastewater. Therefore, the secondary clarifier option was eliminated for any further evaluation. The second option available to optimize the augmentation system is the installation of a pretreatment module to remove a portion of the solids loading from the lake water. This system would include the addition of a flocculation tank (short detention time) followed by an "integral" inclined plate settling system using plate packs. This system would be added immediately upstream of the augmentation facility filtration modules and downstream of the chemical addition (coagulant and polymer). The advantages of the inclined plate settling system are as follows: ■ Compact design and small footprint. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 87 ■ Reduces short-circuiting and erratic flow patterns caused by wind and fluid -temperature changes. The system has very few parts to wear, replace or adjust. Field erection costs are minimized since the system arrives at the site ready for installation. Therefore, the addition of this pretreatment component will greatly reduce the solids loading on the filter modules, increase the amount of reclaimed water produced (due to a decrease in the required filter backwashing rate), produce a more concentrated sludge stream and increase the efficiency and reliability of the augmentation system. The pretreatment system would be installed in two phases with each phase having the capacity to treat 50% of the augmentation flow. Additional improvements associated with this element would include piping and valving modifications and electrical, controls, instrumentation and SCADA improvements. 9.1.4 Augmentation Facility Sludge Management Sludge management modifications to effectively collect, pump and treat the solids generated from the coagulation, flocculation and settling operations are required. The improvements include the addition of a sludge pumping station located adjacent to the proposed inclined plate settling system, piping, valving and electrical/controls/instrumentation/SCADA improvements. The pumping system would be designed to convey the settled lake water solids to either the existing gravity belt thickeners or aerobic digestion system for further processing and final disposal. 9.1.5 Wet -Weather Discharge System Improvements Wet weather discharges are currently pumped from one of the existing ground storage tanks to the St. Johns River via a 3.5 mile long transmission line. The effluent being pumped to the Seasonal Discharge System may not meet reclaimed water standards. In that event, the ground storage tank must be isolated and disinfected prior to being brought back on-line. This scenario can potentially keep one of the ground storage tanks "off-line" for up to three days. Therefore, in order to resolve this problem and permit the ground storage tanks to be "dedicated" to the reclaimed water system only, two new pumps are proposed for installation at the existing Effluent Transfer Pump Station. The two new pumps would be able to convey up to 12 MGD to the wet -weather discharge December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 88 system from the Transfer Pump Station wetwell. This would eliminate the need for the flow to pass through the reclaimed water ground storage tanks. Electrical interlocks would keep the reclaimed water and wet weather water pumps isolated. Additional improvements associated with this element would include piping and valving modifications as well as electrical, controls, instrumentation and SCADA improvements. 9.1.6 Sodium Hypochlorite System Improvements The existing sodium hypochlorite disinfection system will have to be modified due to the addition of a "new" augmentation system chlorine contact chamber. To provide sodium hypochlorite to the CCC will require the addition of a new "skid - mounted" pumping module, piping and valving improvements as well as electrical, controls, instrumentation and SCADA modifications. The new pumping skid will be dedicated to the augmentation system CCC and will be able to feed at various application points. 9.1.7 Reclaimed Water Storage As evidenced by the water budget provided in Section 3, additional reclaimed water storage within the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area is necessary. Therefore, a new 3.0 million -gallon reclaimed water ground storage tank is proposed at the SNWRF. Additional improvements associated with this element would include piping, valving, and pumps. 9.1.8 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost The proposed improvements at the SNWRF will significantly increase the reliability of the Sanford reclaimed water system through the development and integration of two independent treatment trains supplying "public -access" reclaimed water to the existing SNWRF ground storage tanks. With the implementation of the proposed improvements, reclaimed water from one train source can still be delivered to the reclaimed water distribution system to meet irrigation demands if the water being produced by the other treatment train is out of compliance (turbidity or chlorine residual). The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the SNWRF improvements is presented in Table 9-1 and a detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix B. A site plan showing the proposed improvements at the SNWRF is presented in Figure 9-1. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 89 Table 9-1 - _ - Sanford North WRF Augmentation / Reclaimed Water System Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Cost to MR .- Opinion of FF01133131e' Cons-r coon Cost $4,041,225 Note: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements W W� 5W 2 aZ o L U Q LL a F=U- U �- N Z HZ Z OZ ):�3:� i �IIUV OZ � � IL W W~00 O Q W m CO) l., O?J� mZw?LL O¢O~ 000Q *r :a cc cc Q ZN 00 gum W�QQ 0LLNU a.Za° ¢ ?O U® a�a�cc -rys ;HBO Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 99 9.2 Mill Creek Mill Creek is a major drainage facility running through the City of Sanford to Lake Monroe. Several years ago several borrow pits were constructed to provide fill for the extension of the Greenway through the City of Sanford. Figure 9-2 shows the ponds as constructed. The 19 acre pond serves as a retention/detention pond for Mill Creek which flows through this pond. The pond provided flood relief and reduction in pollutant loadings to the St. Johns River. The remaining 26 acre pond to the south is an isolated pond that provides no stormwater function. The pond volume is in excess of 250 million gallons. As discussed in Section 8, the hydraulic analysis of the reclaimed system was limited in delivery pressures and flows to SCC and the Rinehart Road interconnect to Seminole County due to the elevation changes from the SNWRF to these delivery points. By installing a re -pump station at the Mill Creek pond and utilizing the pond for storage, the delivery capacity of the system is significantly increased and the reliability of the overall system is significantly increased. The flows and pressures which can be delivered to SCC and Mayfair re -pump station after the implementation of the Mill Creek pump station is presented in Table 9-2. In addition, significant system storage would be provided. This storage would increase the abilities to meet peak dry season demands and provide a significant increase in system reliability. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the Mill Creek reclaimed water storage pond filtration and pumping system is presented in Table 9-3 and a detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix B. A conceptual drawing is provided in Figure 9-3. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 92 1w Table 9-3 Mill Creek L,Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Filtration and Pumping SystemOpinion of Probable�ruction Coson Co�� .- Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $1,731,038 Note: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 95 9.3 Timacuan Golf Course The recommended improvements at the Timacuan Golf Course include the construction of a reclaimed water storage pond. The pond will serve a dual purpose. The main purpose of the pond will be reclaimed water storage. The City of Sanford will be allowed to provide reclaimed water during daytime, off peak hours to fill the reclaimed water pond. The golf course irrigation system will draw water during -the evening, higher peak hours and will re -pump the water to irrigate the golf course. A secondary benefit of the reclaimed water storage pond will be aquifer recharge. The reclaimed water storage pond is located within an area of high recharge potential. Therefore, it is proposed to be unlined to facilitate recharge of the surficial aquifer system, a beneficial use of reclaimed water. The irrigation will be accomplished by pumping water from the pond via an existing submersible vertical turbine pump station located on the golf course. This pump station can use water from the reclaimed water storage pond or the adjacent stormwater pond as a source of water for irrigation. Each pond will be independent and butterfly valves will allow the regulation of the source of water to the pump station. The unlined reclaimed water storage pond will have a capacity of 2.3 million gallons. In order to construct the proposed reclaimed water storage pond, it is proposed that the existing, on -site stormwater pond be modified into two independent ponds. The stormwater pond will be reconfigured to maintain or exceed the existing stormwater stage/storage volume relationship. The reclaimed water storage pond will be filled from the existing City of Sanford reclaimed water distribution system through Manhole 1 with a pressure reducing sustaining valve. The distribution system will supply water to the pond until it reaches elevation 42 in the storage pond. The project should allow for much better operation of the Tri-Party reclaimed water system by meeting the golf course irrigation demands during off peak hours and allowing more reclaimed water for the Tri-Party reclaimed water irrigation system during peak hours. Moreover, the pond will serve to recharge the Floridan Aquifer. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the Timacuan Golf Course reclaimed water storage pond is presented in Table 9-4 and a detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix B. The proposed reconfiguration of the existing stormwater pond is presented in Figure 9-4 and the Timacuan Golf Course reclaimed water storage pond site plan is presented in Figure 9-5. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 96 Table • Timacuan Golf Course Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Construction Cost $272,298 Design (10%) $27,230 CEI (10%) $27,230 Contingency (15%) $40,845 Note: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. December 3, 2004 Recommended System improvements &l THE ® F MOHEGAN BOULEVARD ® r, ® l REMOVE 14U OF EXISTING 24' RCP AND ENDWALL LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION 35.E Q SITE ,� "fir. --•�; .�. PROPOSED SILT FENCE PER FOOT INDEX#102 0 LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION SITE A EXISTING 24' RCP TO REMAIN IN SERVICE UP TO MH•3 VW;I EXISTING RETENTION POND OP.-34'-24" D.I. PIPE 1 PROP. 24" BFV z�3 EXIST. 30' CMP TO BE REMOVED •� 1 i PROP. 24' BFV PROP 24' MITERED END SECTION PER /MODIFIED FOOT INDEX #272, SEE SHEET 5 FOR DETAILS, INV. EL 31.25 —PROP. 2- CONDUIT FOR FLOAT CONTROL PROP. FLOATING TURBIDITY SCREEN PER FOOT INDEX #103. \ EXIST. 12' RE -USE WATER MAIN m .. Post Office Box 2808 FIGURE 500 West FUlton Street Sanford, Florida Telephone: (407) 322-6841 age Pond Fax: (407) 330-0639 9m5 www.cphenginears.com Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 9.4 Greenwood Lakes 99 Seminole County intends to expand their reclaimed water system to provide residential public access reclaimed water. The demands will occur primarily at night, dictating the need for additional system storage. In addition, the increased storage will maximize the use of reclaimed water from GLWWTP. Currently, if the tank is full, reclaimed water must be sent to the percolation ponds. The Greenwood Lakes storage is also interconnected with the regional system so augmentation water can be delivered to the tank during the day and utilized to meet nighttime irrigation demands. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the Greenwood Lakes reclaimed water improvements is presented in Table 9-5 and a detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix B. A conceptual drawing of the Greenwood Lakes reclaimed water system improvements is presented in Figure 9-6. Table 9-5 Greenwood Lakes Reclaimed Water System Improvements Opinion of Probable Construction Cost i Cost l Construction Cost • ,a .- 0% of ;Contingency .:.., Note: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements o �c Y / 5`r J I L` I 4 � ❑ i I,p9i t� 1 E � c M _ c _ _ / I I — r h o I T -N _ u cn _ o � �z ar. � y' `�^Qo �, 4 0 3 r `. m J— ,Y S_. b c i Q Vi N 1 ` co `L7 Ea II l I N gLn a Gi U ® fj ------------- tofa y m J � E I � f L ¢ t o m a I N aCa I rrLn � I V � I � I i _--------I I I I I I 49 ai I h i t�jc �H i W I i r9 ----------------------------------------------------------L--------------------- i IL Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 9.5 Distribution System Improvements 101 Several distribution system improvements are recommended for the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. The recommended improvements are shown on a map located in a pocket in Appendix C. 9.5.1 East Lake Mary Blvd Reclaimed Water Main The reclaimed water discharge line from the new SSWRC is proposed to extend from SSWRC, following the new East Lake Mary Blvd. extension, and tie into the existing reclaimed water main on S.R.46. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the reclaimed water main along East Lake Mary Blvd is provided in Table 9-6. A detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix B. Table . Nftst Lake Mary Blvd Reclaimed Water Main 0 C pinion of Probable Construction 4---A Cost Construction Cost $897,119 Design (10%) $89,712 CEI (10%) $89,712 Contingency (15%) $134,568 Note: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. 9.5.2 Reclaimed Water Main from Sanford South WRC to Victoria St A reclaimed water main is proposed in the Orlando Sanford International Airport area, which will extending west from the SSWRC reclaimed water discharge line and tie into the existing reclaimed water main on Victoria Street, located northwest of the airport, just outside airport property. The installation of this reclaimed water main will close the loop around the airport and provide more reliable reclaimed water s ervice to that area. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the December3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study M reclaimed water main from SSWRC to Victoria St is provided in Table 9-7. A detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix B. Table 9-7 Reclaimed Water Main from Sanford South WRC to Victoria St Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Description Cost . .LA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $2,449,229 Note: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. 9.5.3 New Reclaimed Water Main from U.S. 17-92 to SR 46 The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the new reclaimed water main from U.S. 17-92 to SR 46 is provided in Table 9-8. A detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix B. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 103 "Table 9-8 New Reclaimed Water Main from U.S. 17-92 to SR 46 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost description ffmvm�monstructi sCnst� Note: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. 9.5.4 Timacuan Reclaimed Water Main Upgrade This is the highest priority distribution system improvement. This line provides two major loops to serve the Rinehart Road corridor from the Mayfair re -pump station: the 20" line going up CR 46A and the 16" loop through Timacuan. With the installation of this line, the system would have the capability of delivering a flow of 5,400 gpm at 40 psi to the Rinehart Road corridor. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the new 16" reclaimed water main at Timacuan Golf Course is provided in Table 9-9. A detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix B. Table 9-9 New 16" Reclaimed Water Main mehart Rd to Timacuan Golf Course Opinion of Probable Construction Cost December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 104 I�contingency (15%) S108,755 �I Note: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. 9.5.5 Seminole County Reclaimed Water Transmission Projects According to the Seminole County Master Plan Update dated August 2003, several reclaimed water transmission projects are proposed between 2005 and 2020 in the Seminole County Northwest Service Area. These projects and project costs are provided in Table 9-10. Table 9-11 Seminole County Reclaimed Water Transmission from the Master Plan Update • Project Projects .. • �•lf-u�t c���. Markham Wood / Timberbrook Dr New Reuse Main $682,168 Alaqua Lakes Blvd New Reuse Main $89,233 Markham Wood Rd New Reuse Main $776,472 Magnolia Plantation New Reuse Main $2,277,954 Heathrow Woods Reuse Main $1,458,335 Heathrow GC $28,185 International Pkwy / South of Lake Mary Blvd $30,452 December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 105 Markham Storage and Repump $184,414 SR 46W / Longwood Markham Rd New Reuse Main $195,140 N Oregon St New Reuse Main $112 433 Longwood Markham / Markham Rd New Reuse Main $590,301 SR 46 / Yankee Lake New Reuse Main $1,006,577 9.6 Modification to Recharge Basins In order to utilize the potential recharge basins identified in Section 4 for reclaimed water storage, modifications to the ponds are necessary. These modifications include piping, valving, and appurtenances. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the modifications to the fifteen potential recharge basins identified in Section 4 is provided in Table 9-11. Table Modification. Recharge Opinion Probable Construction Cost 1-1 Sam's Club $75,000 2-1 Courtesy Acura $60,000 2-2 Courtesy Honda $105,000 2-3 Courtesy Chrysler -Jeep $55,000 3-1 Woodbridge South $50,000 December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 106 Table9-11 Modification toRechargeBasins Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 4-1 Timacuan Golf Course* NA 5-1 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 12 $120,000 5-2 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 9A $55,000 5-3 CC-H (HIBC) Pond 9B $55,000 6-1 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 1 $150,000 6-2 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 2 $75,000 6-3 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 3 $50,000 7-1 Williston Park North Pond $75,000 7-2 Williston Park South Pond $50,000 8-1 Greenwood Lakes RIB'S** NA Design (10%) $92,000 CEI (10%) $92,000 Contingency (15%) $138,000 Notes: Estimation is based on current year (2004) dollars. Cost for necessary modifications to convert Timacuan Golf Course pond into a reclaimed water storage pond is included in the estimate provided in section 9-3. `*Improvements are not necessary for Greenwood Lakes RIBS as the necessary appurtenances are already in place. December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 107 9.7 Summary of Recommended Projects A summary of the recommended improvements is provided in Table 9-12. The total opinion of probable construction cost for the recommended projects is $21,773,096. A map detailing the recommended system improvements is provided in Figure 9-7. Table 9-12 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area: Summary of Recommended Costs �(i r: ���ila- a • - of the following improvements: augmentation Sanford North WRF chlorine contact chamber and associated piping and Augmentation / fittings; augmentation transfer pump station; lamella EAddition Reclaimed Water gravity settling system and associated piping and $4,041,225 System fittings; sodium hypochlorite system modifications and Improvements augmentation system sludge management system components Mill Creek Conveyance and storage of reclaimed water in an existing pond in the Mill Creek drainage basin and 2 Reclaimed Water Storage Pond installation of a pumping station, screening system and $1,731,038 Filtration & Pumping disinfection facilities to recover the stored water and deliver it to the existing reclaimed water distribution System system 3 Timacuan Golf Course Reclaimed Modification of an existing stormwater pond to $367,603 Water Storage Pond construct a new 2.3 MG reclaimed water storage pond Greenwood Lakes New 1.75 MG reclaimed water ground storage tank 4 Reclaimed Water and associated piping and fittings at Greenwood Lakes S1,517,400 System storage and repump facility Improvements 5 Modification to Necessary appurtenances to allow for dischargeJol 11 $1,242,000 Recharge Basins reclaimed / augmentation water into recharge basin ProjectsPipeline East Lake Mary New reclaimed water main alon East Lake Mary Blvd. 9 6 Reclaimed FBd fromSanfordSouth WRC to SR 46 $1,211,111 r Main December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 108 Table9-12 Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area: �or Project Costs Summary of Recommended Projects and Project Costs 6 New Reclaimed New reclaimed water main extending west From Water Main from Sanford South WRC around Sanford International $2,449,229 7 Sanford South WRC Airport and tying into the existing main at the corner of to Victoria St. Victoria St. And Willow Ave. New Reclaimed New reclaimed water main along Riverview Ave from 8 Water Main from the existing 20" reclaimed water main at U.S. 17-92 to $917,707 U.S. 17-92 to SR 46 the existing 16" reclaimed water main on SR 46 9 Timacuan Reclaimed Water Reclaimed water main along Timacuan Blvd from Rinehart Rd to Mohegan Blvd upgrade from 8" to 16" $978,791 Main Upgrade Markham Wood / New reclaimed water main from Lake Mary Blvd to 10 Timberbrook Dr New Timberbrook Dr and from Timberbrook Dr to $682,168 Reuse Main Shadowmoss Cir. Alaqua Lakes Blvd New reclaimed water main along Alaqua Lakes Blvd $89,233 11 New Reuse Main from Lake Mary Blvd to Alaqua Lakes Golf Course Markham Wood Rd New reclaimed water main along Markham Wood Rd $776,472 12 New Reuse Main from Markham Rd to Timberbrook Dr. Magnolia Plantation New reclaimed water main along Shadowmoss Cir $2 277,954 13 New Reuse Main loop New reclaimed water main along Bridgewater Dr from Heathrow Woods Markham Rd to New Gate Loop, new reclaimed water $1,458,335 14 Reuse Main main along New Gate Loop and along Bridgewater Dr inside the subdivision New reclaimed water main along Bristol Park PI from $28 185 15 Heathrow GC Bridgewater Dr to Heathrow Golf Course International Pkwy / New reclaimed water main along International Pkwy 16 South of Lake Mary from Lake Mary Blvd to VIA Oakmonte Loop $30,452 Blvd New reclaimed water main along Markham Rd from Markham Storage Orage Blvd to International Pkwy and new reclaimed $184,414 17 and Repump water main along Orange Blvd to Markham storage and repump facility SR 46W / Longwood New reclaimed water main along SR 46 from Yankee 18 Markham Rd New Lake Rd to Longwood Markham Rd and along $195,140 Reuse Main I Longwood Markham Rd from SR 46 to Lake Ross December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 109 December 3, 2004 Recommended System Improvements Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 110 SECTION 10 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND FUNDING SOURCES 10.1 Project Prioritization All improvement projects identified in Section 9 were prioritized based on the following factors: • Potential for increasing available water sources • Potential for improving system reliability • Potential for providing regional benefit • Potential for ground water recharge • Cost-effectiveness of project implementation • Willingness of parties to proceed • Current project status, e.g. design, permitting and availability of funds, etc. Table 10-1 presents the prioritization of the recommended projects. Table 10-1 Project • roje-c.t. Title Project _Costl-, 1 Timacuan Golf Course Reclaimed Water Storage Pond $367,603 2 Mill Creek Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Filtration & $1,731,038 Pumping System 3 Timacuan Reclaimed Water Main Upgrade $978,791 4 Sanford North WRF Augmentation / Reclaimed Water $4,041,225 System Improvements 5 Greenwood Lakes Reclaimed Water System $1,517,400 Improvements 6 Modifications to Recharge Basins $1,242,000 7 All Other Projects $11,895,039 December 3, 2004 Project Prioritization and Funding Sources Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 111 Priority one, Timacuan Golf Course Reclaimed Water Storage Pond, has been a long term priority for the Tri-Party. This project will allow delivery of reclaimed water to a storage pond in lieu of a direct supply to the golf course booster station. The project will increase the available reclaimed water to the Tri-Party by 2 MGD and provide 30 MGY of recharge, resulting in a cost of $184,000/MGD or $0.184 per gallon. Priority two, Mill Creek Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Filtration and Pumping System, would provide a storage basin with over 250 million gallons of capacity. In addition, re - pumping from this basin significantly increases system reliability and increases the hydraulic capacity of the distribution system, increasing the available reclaimed / augmentation water to the region. The project increases the hydraulic capacity of the reclaimed water system by 1.8 MGD ($890,000/MGD or $0.89/gallon), supplies substantial available storage, which may potentially eliminate wet -weather discharges to the St. Johns River, provides enhanced recharge to the Floridan aquifer, and significantly increases system reliability. Priority three, Timacuan Reclaimed Water Main Upgrade, will increase the delivery capacity of the distribution system from the Mayfair re -pump station to the Rinehart Road corridor by 2.9 MGD ($338,000/MGD or $0.34/gallon) and increase system reliability by providing a looped distribution system. Priority four, Sanford North WRF Augmentation/Reclaimed Water System Improvements, would increase the system reliability, reduce wet -weather discharges to the St. Johns River, and increase available storage by 3.0 million gallons. System reliability is critical to the system operation especially as customer base expands. Priority five, Greenwood Lakes Reclaimed Water System Improvements, will increase available storage by 1.75 million gallons and increase the hydraulic capacity of the distribution system to meet the nighttime irrigation demands as projected. Priority six, Modifications to Recharge Basins, will provide for increased regional recharge of 2.3 MGD ($540,000/MGD or $0.54/gallon). Priority seven includes distribution system upgrades throughout the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. These improvements are required in order to fully utilize the increased reclaimed / augmentation water made available through the higher priority projects and provide the reclaimed use and recharge as identified herein. 10.2 Funding Sources There several funding sources available to the Tri-Party members to cover the costs for engineering and construction of the major improvement projects identified. The Tri-Party members can seek partial funding through various programs, such as Florida Forever, State and Tribal Grants, SJRWMD alternative water supply funding, and State Revolving Fund loans. December 3, 2004 Project Prioritization and Funding Sources Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 10.2.1 Florida Forever Special Appropriations 112 The Florida Forever program can provide funding for storage, land acquisition, and recharge projects. Several of the identified projects can meet the requirements to qualify for funding through this program. 10.2.2 State and Tribal Assistance Grants The SJRWMD applies for State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) for water supply projects. The projects identified in this study could all be eligible for this funding source. 10.2.3 District Funding The Alternative Water Supply Funding Program and ad valorem taxes are two possible funding sources available through the SJRWMD. 10.2.3.1 Alternative Water Supply Funding Program The SJRWMD has an alternative water supply construction cost sharing program that provides assistance for alternative water supply source projects including reuse projects. The funds received through this program may be used only for the payment of capital and infrastructure costs of alternate water supply systems. 10.2.3.2 Ad Valorem Taxes The SJRWMD, through its taxing authority, could provide funds for a regional reclaimed water system project. For the District's tentative fiscal year 2004-2005, 56% of the revenue for the budget came from ad valorem taxes. The district has avoided funding local utility projects in the past. However, due to the regional nature of the projects specified in this study and the critical water shortage within the study area, project specific funding may be possible. The funding would probably be limited to capital and infrastructure costs. 10.2.4 State Revolving Loans The Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund are two available low -interest loans that are available through the FDEP. December 3, 2004 Project Prioritization and Funding Sources Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 113 10.2.4.1 Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund The Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund (SRF) program is administered by the FDEP and provides low -interest (60% of the market rate) loans to local government agencies for water pollution control and activities. Projects which qualify for this loan include wastewater management facilities, reclaimed wastewater reuse facilities, and stormwater management facilities. Federal seed money and matching state funds are appropriated annually to capitalize the SRF. Repayments are returned to the SRF and, combined with the capitalization, are used to make new loans. The funds received from a preconstruction loan from the SRF program can be used to cover the costs for project planning, administrative services, project design, and permitting. In addition, loans and loan amendments can be made to finance construction. To qualify for a Clean Water SRF loan, the construction project must be included in the Master Plan. If the project is not included in the Plan, an engineering report must be submitted to amend the Master Plan. Once the Master Plan has been amended, the project will become eligible for funding from the Clean Water SRF program. 10.2.4.2 Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund The Safe Drinking Water SRF program is administered by the FDEP and provides low -interest (60% of the market rate) loans to local government agencies for drinking water projects. Funds received from the Drinking Water SRF can be used for the installation of dual pipe distribution systems (potable & non -potable). In order to qualify for this loan, reclaimed water must be used for the second pipe, as opposed to raw water, to demonstrate that the primary purpose of the project is to conserve water by using non -potable water for irrigation purposes. Like the Clean Water SRF loan, the proposed project must be in the Master Plan to qualify for the Drinking Water SRF. If necessary, an amendment to include the project in the Master Plan can be instituted, at which time the project would become eligible for funding from the Drinking Water SRF. December 3, 2004 Project Prioritization and Funding Sources Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 114 SECTION 11 POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF TRI-PARTY SERVICE AREA 11.1 General As part of the project, CPH has evaluated the possibility of expanding the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area to include the Altamonte Springs and Winter Springs service areas. The potential service to Altamonte Springs is to be conveyed through the Sanlando system. The Sanlando system does not need additional reclaimed water. The Altamonte Springs system may need additional reclaimed water during the dry season and may have excess reclaimed water to be supplied to Seminole County, the City of Lake Mary, and the City of Sanford. This additional water can be supplemented by augmentation water from Lake Monroe also. In addition, reclaimed/augmentation water can be supplied to the Winter Springs area for irrigation purposes. A hydraulic analysis has been performed to determine the infrastructure required to expand the Tri- Party Reclaimed Water Service Area. 11.2 Altamonte Springs A hydraulic analysis indicates that a 16-inch pipe can be constructed along Lake Emma Road, running southward to EE Williamson Blvd, then west to the Florida Power easement, and discharging into a proposed 1 million -gallon ground storage tank in the Sanlando Utilities Service Area. Reclaimed water will be pumped out of this tank and delivered to the Sanlando system through an existing reclaimed water line owned by Sanlando Utilities in Sable Point subdivision. From this connection point, the reclaimed water is supplied to Altamonte Springs through the Sanlando system. Reclaimed water could also be pumped from Altamonte Springs to Seminole County, the City of Lake Mary, and the City of Sanford. Figure 9-7 presents the location of this interconnect pipeline. The hydraulic model indicates that the system is hydraulically capable of delivering approximately 1,041 gpm to Altamonte Springs at an approximate residual pressure of 70 psi, which is the required pressure at the interconnect mandated by the City of Altamonte Springs. The opinion of probable construction cost for the expansion of the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area to Altamonte Springs by way of the Sanlando Utilities system is presented in Table 11-1. December 3, 2004 Potential Expansion of Tri-Party Service Area Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 115 xpansion of Tri-Party Description Table 11-1 Reclaimed Water Service Area to Altamon Springs Cost $2,683,500 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $3,622,725 11.3 Winter Springs A hydraulic analysis indicates that a 16-inch pipe can be constructed from SCC, southward on U.S. 17-92 to S.R. 419, then southward on S.R. 419 to discharge into a proposed 1 million -gallon ground storage tank located in Winter Springs. Reclaimed water will be pumped out of the tank and delivered to the Winter Springs system through an existing reclaimed water line owned by the City of Winter Springs. The map located in the pocket in Appendix C presents the location of this interconnect pipeline. Since there are existing irrigation demands along the 14" line that runs from the proposed Mill Creek re -pump station to Seminole Community College, two scenarios were hydraulically analyzed for this potential interconnect. The first scenario analyzes how much flow can be delivered to Winter Springs during the peak nighttime hours and the second scenario analyzes how much flow can be delivered to Winter Springs during the off-peak daytime hours. The interconnect system is hydraulically capable of delivering approximately 1,319 gpm to Winter Springs at a residual pressure of 20 psi during the peak nighttime hours. The system is hydraulically capable of delivering 1,816 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi during the off-peak daytime hours. The opinion of probable construction cost for the expansion of the Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Service Area to the Winter Springs area is presented in Table 11-2. December 3, 2004 Potential Expansion of Tri-Party Service Area Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 116 December 3, 2004 Potential Expansion of Tri-Party Service Area POTENTIAL RECHARGE BASIN DRY SEASON RECLAIMED WATER STORAGE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS TRI-PARTY RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE AREA Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-1 SAM'S (:I H R AREA STAGE (AC) 60 1.21 61 1.28 62 1.36 63 1.50 64 1.56 64.3 1.57 65 1.61 65.7 1.65 66 1.67 67 1.73 68 1.79 69 1.86 Drop Structure at 64.3 Runoff Volume Calculation A = 14.73 CN = 87.95 P = 4.25 S = 1.3706 Q = 2.96 In Volume = 3.63 Ac-Ft Dry Ponds INC. VOL (AC -FT) 0.00 1.24 1.32 1.43 1.53 0.47 1.12 1.14 0.50 1.70 1.76 1.82 (Avg. Monthly Rainfall) (Volume Per Month) Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month Total Pond Storage 5.99 AC -FT Less Runoff 3.63 AC -FT Excess / Month 2.36 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 5 Months / Yr 11.82 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 4.04 MG TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0.00 1.24 2.56 3.99 5.52 5.99 7.11 8.25 8.75 10.45 12.22 14.04 December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-2 Courtesy Acura AREA STAGE (AC) INC. VOL (AC -FT) 61.5 0.25 0.00 67 0.59 2.31 Runoff Volume Calculation A = 6.9 CN = 86.20 P = 4.25 (Avg. Monthly Rainfall) S = 1.6009 Q = 2.79 In Volume = 1.61 Ac-Ft (Volume Per Month) Volume Available for Reclaimed Water ! Month Total Pond Storage 2.31 AC -FT Less Runoff 1.61 AC -FT Excess / Month .7 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 5 Months / Yr 3.52 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 1.2 MG �,ourtesy nonua AREA STAGE (AC) INC. VOL (AC -FT) 65 0.49 0.00 71 0.85 4.02 Runoff Volume Calculation A= 11.3 CN = 86.20 P = 4.25 (Avg. Monthly Rainfall) S = 1.6009 Q = 2.79 In Volume = 2.63 Ac-Ft (Volume Per Month) Volume Available for Reclaimed Water 1 Month Total Pond Storage 4.02 AC -FT Less Runoff 2.63 AC -FT Excess / Month 1.39 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 5 Months / Yr 6.95 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 2.37 MG TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0.00 2.31 TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0.00 4.02 December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-3 Courtesy Chrysler Jeep AREA STAGE (AC) INC. VOL (AC -FT) TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 63 0.82 0.00 0.00 71 1.66 9.92 9.92 Runoff Volume Calculation A = 9.8 CN = 86.20 P = 4.25 (Avg. Monthly Rainfall) S = 1.6009 Q = 2.79 In Volume = 2.28 Ac-Ft (Volume Per Month) Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month Total Pond Storage 9.92 AC -FT Less Runoff 2.28 AC -FT Excess / Month 7.64 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 5 Months / Yr 38.2 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 13.05 MG December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-4 WOocion STAGE 45.5 48 50 52 5outn (Kin AREA (AC) 1.17 1.54 1.74 1.95 Runoff Volume Calculation A = 9.64 CN = 62.97 P = 4.25 S = 5.8812 Q = 1.06 In Volume = .85 Ac-Ft Pond INC. VOL (AC -FT) 0.00 3.39 3.28 3.69 (Avg. Monthly Rainfall) (Volume Per Month) Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month Total Pond Storage 10.36 AC -FT Less Runoff .85 AC -FT Excess / Month 9.51 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 5 Months / Yr 47.55 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 16.24 MG TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0.00 3.39 6.67 10.36 December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-5 Williston Park North Pond AREA STAGE (AC) 45.5 0.79 48 0.97 50 1.13 52 1.18 54 1.24 Runoff Volume Calculation A = 8.72 CN = 68.55 P = 4.25 S = 4.5881 Q= 1.4In Volume = 1.02 Ac-Ft Rinehart Pond 3BN INC. VOL (AC -FT) 0.00 2.20 2.10 2.31 2.42 (Avg. Monthly Rainfall) (Volume Per Month) Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month Total Pond Storage 9.03 AC -FT Less Runoff 1.02 AC -FT Excess / Month 8.01 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 5 Months / Yr 40.06 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 13.68 MG TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0.00 2.20 4.30 6.61 9.03 December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-6 YvimsIon rarK JOUIn Nona lKlnenarC Nona zbb AREA STAGE (AC) INC. VOL (AC -FT) 45.5 0.82 0.00 46 0.86 0.42 48 1.01 1.87 50 1.17 2.18 52 1.35 2.52 54 1.52 2.87 56 1.72 3.24 Runoff Volume Calculation A = 21.38 CN = 70.29 P = 4.25 (Avg. Monthly Rainfall) S = 4.2263 Q= 1.52In Volume = 2.71 Ac-Ft (Volume Per Month) Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month Total Pond Storage 13.1 AC -FT Less Runoff 2.71 AC -FT Excess / Month 10.39 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 5 Months / Yr 51.97 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 17.75 MG TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0.00 0.42 2.29 4.47 6.99 9.86 13.10 December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-7 HIRC Pond 12 STAGE AREA (AC) 40 4.60 50 8.00 52 8.64 53 8.96 55 9.60 Weir Elevation = 53 Wet Ponds INC. VOL (AC -FT) 0.00 63.00 16.64 8.80 18.56 Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month 12-In Storage in Pond Below Orifice 8.8 AC -FT Excess / Month 8.8 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 3.5 Months / Yr 30.8 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 10.52 MG 1-IIRt' Pnnri 4A STAGE AREA (AC) 55 2.84 57 3.37 58 3.63 61 3.69 Orifice = 58 Weir Elevation = 59.5 INC. VOL (AC -FT) 0.00 6.21 3.50 10.98 Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month 12-In Storage in Pond Below Orifice 3.5 AC -FT Excess / Month 3.5 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 3.5 Months / Yr 12.24 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 4.18 MG TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0.00 63.00 79.64 88.44 107.00 TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0.00 6.21 9.71 20.69 December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-8 HIBC Pond 9B STAGE AREA (AC) INC. VOL (AC -FT) TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 45 5.50 0.00 0.00 46 5.75 5.63 5.63 47 6.00 5.88 11.50 48 6.25 6.13 17.63 49 6.50 6.38 24.00 50 6.95 6.73 30.73 51 7.39 7.17 37.90 52 7.73 7.56 45.46 53 8.23 7.98 53.44 54 8.75 8.49 61.93 55 9.28 9.02 70.94 56 9.82 9.55 80.49 57 10.37 10.10 90.59 58 10.93 10.65 101.24 59 11.60 11.22 112.45 60 12.08 11.79 124.24 61 12.66 12.37 136.61 62 13.36 13.01 149.62 Orifice = 55 Weir Elevation = 60 Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month 12-In Storage in Pond Below Orifice 9.01 AC -FT Excess / Month 9.01 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 3.5 Months / Yr 31.55 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 10.78 MG Heathrow Golf Course Pond 1 STAGE AREA (AC) INC. VOL (AC -FT) TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0 8.90 0.00 0.00 1 9.50 9.20 9.20 Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month Excess / Month 9.2 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 3.5 Months / Yr 32.2 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 11, MG December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study A-9 Heathrow Golf Course Pond 2 STAGE AREA (AC) INC. VOL (AC -FT) TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0 4.80 0.00 0.00 1 5.40 5.10 5.10 Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month Excess / Month 5.1 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 3.5 Months / Yr 17.85 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 6.1 MG Heathrnw Golf Course Pond 3 STAGE AREA (AC) INC. VOL (AC -FT) TOTAL VOL. (AC -FT) 0 2.60 0.00 0.00 1 3.00 2.80 2.80 Volume Available for Reclaimed Water / Month Excess / Month 2.8 AC -FT Add Reclaimed 3.5 Months / Yr 9.8 AC -FT Total in Million Gallons / Yr 3.35 MG December 3, 2004 Appendix A: Potential Recharge Basin Storage Capacity Calculations OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TRI-PARTY RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE AREA Tri•Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-1 Table Sanford North WRF Augmentation I Reclaimed Water System Improvement Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Mobilization LS $125,000 $125,000 Concrete LS 1 $200,000 $200,000 Gates EA 2 $25,000 $50,000 Grating / Mats LS 1 S100,000 $100,000 Pumping System LS 1 5100,000 $100,000 Valves, Piping, Accessories LS 1 S240,000 $240.000 Meters LS 1 530,000 $30,000 Grout LS 1 $2,500 $2,500 Roadway/Stormwater Modifications LS 1 $50,000 $50,000 Restoration, Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1 $10,000 510,000 Electrical, Controls, Instrumentation & SCADA LS 1 5200,000 $200,000 I"{�x�illi(Icid', JF1l67r-•.`i{ol-.-al,c(a 3 MG Ground Storage Tank and associated appurtenances LS ❑ 5750,000 $750,000 Lamella Gravity Settling System (3.65 MGD) LS 1 $380,000 $380,000 Piping, Fittings, Valves LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 Meters LS 1 525,000 $25,000 Sludge Removal and Piping System LS 1 $45,000 $45,000 Restoration, Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Electrical, Controls, Instrumentation & SCADA LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study 6-2 ,Existip.9 Transfer Pump Station 2ffipjn S stem 1mnroygffWUj$ Core Slab LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Pumps EA 1 S80,000 $80,000 Piping, Valves and Fittings LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 Restoration, Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Electrical, Controls, Instrumentation & SCADA LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 :isi�J �: �� R . •. rl tc,?jR .. 4_i,_Iai I'�l�lcli'f�; =.�rhl-.:_ Pumping Skid with 2 pumps (CCC) LS 1 S25,000 $25,000 Piping, Valves and Fittings LS 1 S5,000 $5,000 Miscellaneous Construction Items LS 1 $3,000 $3,000 Restoration, Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1 $3,000 $3,000 Electrical, Controls, Instrumentation & SCADA LS L 1 $50,000 11$50,000 . I � Thickening System LS 1 $125,000 $125,000 Pumping Station LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 Piping, Fittings and Valves LS 1 $40,000 $40,000 Restoration, Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1 $10,000 IS10,000 Electrical, Controls, Instrumentation & SCADA LS 1 $75,000 S75,000 Subtotal: $2,993,500 Design (10%) Subtotal: -71 $299,350 Subtotal: 11$299,350 Contingency (15%)Subtotal: $449,025 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $4,041,225 December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-3 Table B-2 Mill Creek Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Filtration and Pumping yst6iia, Opinion of Probable Construction Cost prow • �� 7'nli: ,-,� ?tip Mobilization / Demobilization LS $45,250 $45,250 Concrete Containment Structure and Sunshade LS 1 S50,000 $50,000 HDLPE Chemical Storage Tanks EA 2 $5,000 $10,000 Sodium Hypochlorite Pumping Skid EA 1 $25,000 $25,000 Sump Pump EA 1 $2,000 $2,000 Chemical Feed Piping LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Emergency Eyewash and Shower EA 1 $7,500 $7,500 Intake Filters LS 1 S50,000 S50,000 Suction Line LS 1 S75,000 S75,000 Pumping Station EA 1 S300,000 $300,000 Discharge Disc Filtration System LS 1 $80,000 $80,000 Discharge Piping to Interconnect System L LS 1 $350,000 $350,000 Fencing LS 1 S7,500 $7,500 Sitework LS 1 S5,000 $5,000 Restoration LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Landscaping and Irrigation System LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 Electrical, Controls, Instrumentation & SCADA LS $250,000 $250,000 Subtotal: IF $1,282,250 December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study g-4 Aw��- Table B-2 Mill Creek Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Filtration and Pumping System Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Description 411Unit Qty IIIIIJnit Costi1 Total Qst 11 OEM- RNMIM • •110pinion of Probable Construction Cost: $1,731,038 December 3, 2004 Appendix B; Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-5 Timacuan Golf Opinion Table Course Reclaimed Water Storage Pond of Probable Construction Cost LUnit Co Clearing and Stripping LS 1 $9;350 $9,350 Remove 24" RCP LS 1 $925 $925 Excavation and Grading of Ponds CY 23,375 $3 S58,438 24" RCP LF 370 S40 S14,800 24" Endwall EA 1 $1,205 $1,205 Manhole #3 EA 1 $3,300 $3,300 Manhole #2 EA 1 $4,860 $4,860 Manhole #1 EA 1 S8,950 S8,950 24" DIP LF 378 $103 $38,934 24" Butterfly Valves EA 2 $5,490 $10,980 Piping of Reuse Line LS 1 $41,615 S41,615 Electrical Control for Pond Fill LS 1 $8,250 $8,250 Irrigation Repair LS 1 $2,200 $2,200 Lake Turbidity Screen LF 850 S4.50 $3,825 Regrade Fairway SF 150,000 S0.06 $9,000 419 Sod SF 150,000 $0.33 $49,500 Bahia Sod SF 5,300 $0.22 $1,166 Outflow Meter EA 1 $5,000 [:IS5,000 Subtotal: $272,298 Design (10%) Subtotal: $27,230 ICE[ (10%) Subtotal: $27,230 December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-g a' Vare 3 Timacuan Golf Course Reclaimed Water Storage Pond Opinion of Probable Construction Cost U t Total Cost Contingency (1 .. M I[Opinion of Probable December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-7 I Mobilization ! Demobilization, Bonds and Insurance LS = $50,000 $50,000 Offsite Piping to Valve Station LS 1 $35,000 $35,000 Valve Station to Storage Tank LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 Valve Station to Existing Site Fill Line LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 Valve Station to Existing 30" Main LS 1 $50,000 $50,000 New Storage Tank Suction Line LS 1 $60,000 $60,000 New Storage Tank Drain LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 owl 1.75 MG Reclaimed Water Storage Tank LS $620,000 $620,000 iky M. Concrete Slab LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Pipe, Fittings and Valves LS 1 $70,000 $70,000 ARV and Associated Piping LS 1 $3,000 $3,000 Hose Bib Station LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 Electrical, Controls, Instrumentation & SCADA LS = $200,000 5200,000 Subtotal: $1,124,000 Design (10%) Subtotal: $112,400 CEI (10%) Subtotal: $112,400 Contingency (15%)Subtotal: $168,600 December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-g December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B'9 Table New East Lake Mary • Opinion of Probable Construction Mobilization Reclaimed Water Main Cost LS 1 $60,000 $60,000 Seeding & Mulch SY 13,102 $0 $3,931 Sodding SY 244 $2 $440 Bore and Jack (42" Steel Casing) LF 102 $450 $45,900 Fittings TN 18 $5,500 $98,065 Pipe (Furnish and Install) DI (Push On Joint) 8" RWM LF 130 $22 S2,860 Pipe (Furnish and Install) DI or PVC (Push On Joint) 12" RWM LF 47 $27 S1,269 Pipe (Furnish and Install) DI (Push On Joint) 12" RWM LF 720 $29 $20,880 Remove Pipe from Casing at Airport Blvd. LF 261 $15 $3,915 Pipe (Furnish and Install) DI (Push On Joint) 24" RWM EA 10,452 $55 $574,860 Gate Valve (Furnish and Install) DI 8" EA 2 $1,100 $2,200 Gate Valve (Furnish and Install) DI 12" EA 9 $1,500 $13,500 Butterfly Valve (Furnish and Install) DI 24" EA 12 $4,300 S51,600 Tapping Sleeve and Valve (20" x 20") EA 1 $15,000 S15,000 Miscellaneous Water Fixture (2" Blow -Off Assembly) EA 3 $900 $2,700 Subtotal: $897,119 i Design (10%) Subtotal: $89,712 Subtotal: 589,712 Contingency (15%)Subtotal: $134,568 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $1,211,111 December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-10 Mobilization LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 Preconstruction Video LS 1 $2,500 $2,500 Staked Silt Fence / Erosion Control LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 Open Cut 16" RWM LF 20,845 $40 $833,800 Bore and Jack Beardall Ave (30" Steel Casing) LF 70 $350 $24,500 Bore and Jack Marquette Ave (30" Steel Casing) LF 140 $360 $50,400 East Lake Mary Blvd Crossing (16" DI Pipe & Plugs)* LF 140 $50 S7,000 Bore and Jack Airport Runways (30" Steel Casing)** LF 730 $350 $255,500 Bore and Jack Airport Entrance Rd (30" Steel Casing) LF 125 $350 $43,750 Bore and Jack Airport Blvd (30" Steel Casing) LF 50 $350 $17,500 Directional Drill Main Airport Roadways LF 425 $200 $85,000 Remove and Replace Existing Pavement Driveways LF 750 $30 $22,500 Fittings TN 14 $5,500 $76,780 12" Gate Valve EA 6 $2,000 $12,000 16" Butterfly Valve EA 49 $3,000 $147,000 16" x 16" Tapping Sleeve and Valve EA 1 $8,000 $8,000 24" x 16" Tee, Valve and Plug* EA 1 $7,500 $7,500 Sodding (Bahia) SY 41,952 $2 $75,514 Subtotal: $1,814,244 Design (109/6) Subtotal: $181,424 CEI (10%) Subtotal: $181,424 December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-1 1 Table B-6 New 16" Reclaimed Water Main Sanford South WRC to Victoria St Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Description nit QtrUnit Cosal �10pinion of Probable Notes: * Assume East Lake Mary Blvd crossing and stubout for future connection to 16" RW M installed as part of E. Lake Mary Blvd Seg. II Contract ** Assume construction occurs after runways have been extended. If construction occurs before extension, steel casings would still be required, but could be open cut (cost to open cut casings is approx. $175/1-F) December 3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-12 • New I 1 Reclaimed Riverview Ave (U.S. of Probable Water Main 17-92 to SR 46) Construction Cost JA TotalOpinion - Mobilization LS 1 S60,000 $60,000 Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 S20,000 $20,000 Preconstruction Video LS 1 $2,500 $2,500 Staked Sill Fence / Erosion Control LS 1 $6,500 $6,500 Open Cut 20" RWM LF 4,105 $52 $213,460 Bore and Jack 17-92 (36" Steel Casing) LF 75 $500 $37,500 Remove and Replace Existing Asphalt Pavement SY 5,473 $30 $164,199 Fittings TN 14 $6,000 $83,760 8" Gate Valve EA 2 S2,000 $4,000 20" Butterfly Valve EA 14 $4,000 $56,000 16" x 16" Tapping Sleeve and Valve EA 1 j S8,000 $8,000 20" x 20" Tapping Sleeve and Valve EA 1 520,000 $20,000 Sodding (Bahia) SY 2,147 S2 $3,864 Subtotal: $679,783 Design (10%) Subtotal: $67,978 CEI (10%) Subtotal: $67 978 Contingency (15%)Subtotal: $101,967 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $917,707 December3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water System Expansion and Optimization Study B-13 Table F New 16" Reclaimed PW Rinehart .. to Timacuan Opinion of Probable B-8 Wat- Golf Course Construction Cost M Mobilization LS 1 $65,000 $65,000 Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 Preconstruction Video LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 Staked Silt Fence / Erosion Control LS 1 $9,000 S9,000 Open Cut 16" RWM LF 5,890 $40 S235,600 Directional Drill Street / Driveway Crossings LF 430 S200 S86,000 Directional Drill Roundabout LF 230 S200 $46,000 Remove and Replace Existing Asphalt Pavement (Trail) SY 33 S30 S999 Remove and Replace Existing Concrete Sidewalk SY 3,927 S30 $117,810 Fittings TN 5 $5,500 $29,425 16" Butterfly Valve EA 20 S3,000 S60,000 14" x 14" Tapping Sleeve and Valve 1 $8,000 $8,000 16" x 16' Tapping Sleeve and Valve 1 S8,000 $8,000 Sodding (St. Augustine) g 7,199 $4 $25,196 Remove and Replace Existing Landscaping 1 $8,000 $8,000 Subtotal: $725,030 Design (10%) Subtotal: $72,503 CEI (10%) Subtotal: $72,503 Contingency (15%)Subtotal: $108,755 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $978,791 December3, 2004 Appendix B: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Tri-Party Reclaimed Water Distribution System TRI-PARTY RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE AREA CITY OF SANFORD UTILITIES STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL D-1 Sanford, Florida - Code of Ordinances (June 2017) SCHEDULE P - UTILITIES STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS "I SECTION 1.0. - GENERAL. Detailed standards and specifications for the design and construction of potable water, wastewater, and reclaimed water facilities and alternative water supply that are to be constructed within, dedicated to, owned by, maintained by, or operated by the City shall be contained within the Utilities Standards and Specifications Manual, herein referred to as the "Utilities Manual." The Utilities Manual shall be adopted and revised from time to time by a separate City resolution so as to provide the appropriate flexibility in its application in order for the City to be responsive to site specific considerations, changes in technology, and emerging concepts. (Ord. No. 3325, §§ 2, 3, 5-12-1997; Ord. No. 3932, § 1.0, 5-9-2005; Ord. No. 3945, § 3, 7-25-2005) SECTION 2.0. - RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM. In order to protect water resources and ensure that groundwater supplies are adequate to meet potable water demand, all new development shall comply with the following regulations: A. Applicabilittl. In accordance with the most recent edition of the City's Reclaimed Water and Cross Connection Control Policy and with Section 62-610, Part II1, Florida Administrative Code, all new developments shall utilize the City's reclaimed water system for irrigation and other uses that do not require potable water. Reclaimed water facilities and alternative water supply shall be independent of all potable water, raw water supply, wastewater, and storm water systems. Materials used in the installation and construction of reclaimed water systems shall be the same as that used for potable water facilities, with the exception of the color -coding, and shall be as specifically described in the City's Utilities Manual. B. Evaluation. For all new developments, the Utilities Director shall evaluate the need of the development to incorporate the use of reclaimed water. The Director shall review the take -back capacity of the proposed development to determine if connection to the reclaimed water system represents a benefit to the City. The developer's engineer shall place all take -back calculations, based on City approved wastewater flow quantities, on the development plans. Reclaimed water usage shall equal or exceed anticipated wastewater flows. If a required irrigation system will have a negative impact on environmental systems or is inconsistent with the rules of other regulatory jurisdictions, the Utilities Director may approve an alternative irrigation system. C. Mantlatory Connections. Upon completion of the evaluation, the Utilities Director shall have the authority to require the development, including all individual lots and tracts therein, to connect to the reclaimed water system. A fully automatic reclaimed water irrigation system and alternative water supply shall serve all landscaped and sodded areas of the development, including all adjacent rights -of -way and alleys. This requirement shall also apply to each lot and tract of a subdivided development. The developer shall be responsible for all costs necessary to provide on -site distribution and off - site transmission to the development. Connection to the City's reclaim water system is mandatory under the following schedule. Distances shall be measured along public rights -of - way, alleys, easements and railroad rights -of way. Connection distances and minimum line sizes are shown in the table below. The developer shall provide a master irrigation meter for town home and multi -family units. Sanford, Florida - Code of Ordinances (June 2017) Reclaim Water Connection Distances .....Distance from Existing Reclaimed ----------� -------_...--__-.-- Type and Quantity of Development Min. line size Water Line (lmear feet) Single-family residences I i I 1. i � (individually owned) 100 i 2-inch 2.1 I Single-family residential developments 2-10 houses 400 2-inch 11-35 houses 1,400 — — i 4-inch ---! - 3_T 6-120 houses 2,000 — 6-inch 121 or more houses I 50 ft. each additional house 8-inch 3. I Multi -family or town home developments ------- --- -- - - — -- --- 1,500 4-inch -- i 1-100 units T Greater than 100 units I 50 ft. each additional unit I j 6-inch ' 4. ( Commercial or industrial developments 4.999 or less sq. ft. 900 2-inch j ! I 5,000-25,000 sq. ft. i 1,250 I 4-inch 25,001-60,000 sq. ft. 1,500 i 6-inch I Greater than 60,000 sq. ft. 200 ft. each additional 100,000 sq. ft. 1 ! 8-inch Sanford, Florida - Code of Ordinances (June 2017) D. Alternative Water Supply System. (1) If reclaimed water is available within the distances listed above, a new development shall be required to connect to the City's system. Developments that are not required to connect to an existing reclaimed water line and which choose not to connect shall be required to connect to an alternative water supply source for irrigation purposes. (2) The alternative water supply shall be a shallow or brackish well or storm water and all irrigation lines shall be capable of connecting to the City's reclaimed water system. The developer shall be responsible for all costs necessary to provide an alternative water dual distribution and supply system. The City will not provide a separate potable irrigation meter for new or existing developments, including individual residences that are not required to connect to the City's reclaimed water system pursuant of Section 2.0 C. of this Schedule and cannot provide an alternative water source. (3) The City may, if it desires to accept ownership in its sole discretion, own such part or all of any alternative water dual distribution and supply system for residential subdivisions, and other developments of commercial, industrial or other types which which system is located on the property owner's side of the point of service delivery (the onsite irrigation system). As a general rule, the City will obtain ownership and maintenance responsibility only for lines and systems that are not located on private property although the City may obtain the right to spray alternative water on such properties and may, also, impose an obligation upon a property owner to accept such delivery and use of alternative water. When the City determines that it desires to obtain any such rights, appropriate legal instruments of conveyance of such rights as may be desired by the City shall be provided by the developer to the City in a recordable form acceptable to the City and as approved by the City Attorney. Also, as a general rule, the City shall not accept any maintenance obligation for any irrigation system located on private property. Each home shall have an individual reclaim/alternative irrigation meter consistent with City standards. All legal costs and costs of recordation shall be borne by the developer. (4) A customer may apply for a variance from the requirements of Subsections (1) through (3) of this Section. Such application shall be made and acted upon in accordance with the following provisions: (i) A potable water irrigation meter may only be set on a single lot or parcel. (ii) The application shall be in a form established by the Utility Director or designee. (iii) The application shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Utility Director or designee. (iv) The potable water irrigation meter must comply with all applicable land development regulations and City policies including, but not limited to: water budget plans, landscape techniques for conserving water, all pertinent utility specifications (i.e. cross connection controls, etc.), all pertinent conservation technology requirements (i.e. rain sensor, etc,), alternative water source feasibility calculation or analysis, all pertinent utility account requirements, all pertinent permits (including irrigation, electrical, etc.), all pertinent inspections (utility, building, etc.), and payment of all pertinent fees and charges. (v) A potable water irrigation meter size shall be restricted to 1-inch or smaller. The City Commission shall establish an application fee and other appropriate fees by resolution until which time; however, fees shall be established by the City Manager, or designee. Appeals may be perfected in accordance with the provisions of this Code. Sanford, Florida - Code of Ordinances (June 2017) (Ord. No. 3932, S 2.0, 5-9-2005; Ord. No. 3945, § 3, 7-25-2005; Ord. No. 4261, § 1, 1-9-2012) SECTION 3.0. - WATER BUDGET PLANS. All developers shall submit to the Utilities Department water budget plans prepared by a certified landscape architect or certified irrigation contractor that account for all water usage on a site. The plan must include, at a minimum, the water requirements for each landscaped or turfed area and plant location and selection. A copy of the irrigation and landscape plans shall be provided to the City and property owner. The developer shall familiarize the property owner with the proper operation of the irrigation system including the timer. Water management tools including, but not limited to, rain and soil sensors shall be incorporated into the irrigation system design. A. Water Usage. For residential developments, the water budget plan must demonstrate that indoor/ outdoor potable usage does not exceed three hundred (300) gallons per day. Any additional outdoor usage must be addressed through an alternative water supplied irrigation. The plan must also include an assurance that the water budget plans are available to every prospective home buyer. For commercial, industrial and multifamily developments, the water budget plan must demonstrate compliance with the City's take -back reuse program for future growth and development. This program requires new developments that connect to the City's wastewater system to 'take -back' the same amount of highly treated effluent as generated by the developments. Effluent from developments will receive tertiary treatment, which can be used for non -potable water purposes such as irrigation. Projected water usage by fixture and/or component must be provided. B. Genera! Requirements for Irrigation Plaits. All developments, whether on the City's reclaimed water system or on an alternative water system, shall submit an irrigation plan on a form supplied by the utilities department. The plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: 1. An irrigation plan shall be required for each developed parcel, lot or tract and shall be approved by the utilities department. Irrigation plans shall be reviewed in conjunction with engineering plan review or improvement plan review or, in the case of a single residential lot, prior to the issue of a building permit. 2. All new irrigation systems shall have a rain sensor device. 3. The developer shall construct reclaimed water distribution facilities to the proposed development and to each lot and tract within said development. 4. A fully automatic irrigation system, utilizing reclaimed water, or an alternative water system shall be installed on every lot, parcel or tract that is to be developed and shall provide total irrigation coverage for all landscaping, including hedges, trees, and grassed areas. 5. A minimum horizontal separation of three (3) feet, (outside of pipe to outside of pipe) shall be maintained between reclaimed water facilities and alternative water supply and potable water or wastewater mains. 6. All construction requirements and materials shall comply with the latest version of the Utilities Manual. (Ord. No. 3932, § 3.0, 5-9-2005; Ord. No. 3945, § 3, 7-25-2005) Sanford, Florida - Code of Ordinances (June 2017) SECTION 4.0. - LANDSCAPE TECHNIQUES FOR CONSERVING WATER. At least twenty percent (20%) of all landscape material obtained from off -site sources for use on any site shall have a soil moisture range of 'dry', as characterized in the list of plants from St. Johns River Water Management District's publication: Waterwise Florida Landscape which document is incorporated herein by this reference thereto as if fully set forth herein verbatim. No more than forty percent (40%) of all plant material shall have a high water demand, characterized by 'moist' in Waterwise Florida Landscape. Plants shall be grouped according to their water needs and soil conditions. If plant placement is done correctly, once plants are established, little to no supplemental irrigation will be necessary: "Natural zone: In this area, place plants that have adapted to the wet and dry extremes of Florida's climate so that regular watering (once plants are established) won't be necessary, except during prolonged drought. * Drought -tolerant zone: In this area, place plants that can survive extended periods of time without rain or supplemental irrigation. x Oasis zone: In this area, place plants that may require some watering. (Ord. No. 3932, § 4.0, 5-9-2005)